Theological Essays Part 12

"h.e.l.l, a red gulf of everlasting fire, Where poisons and undying worms prolong Eternal misery to those hapless slaves, Whose life has been a penance for its crimes."

In the sayings attributed to Jesus there is the pa.s.sage which influenced so extraordinarily the famous Origen (Matthew xix, 12). If he understood it aright, its teachings are most terrible. If he understood it wrongly, what of the wisdom of teaching which expresses itself so vaguely? The general intent of Christ's teaching seems to be an inculcation of neglect of this life, in the search for another. "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." (John vi, 27) "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on...

take no thought saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we be clothed?.... But seek ye first the Kingdom of G.o.d and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew vi, 25-33) These texts, if fully observed, would be most disastrous; they would stay all scientific discoveries, prevent all development of man's energies. In the struggle for existence, men are compelled to become acquainted with the conditions which compel happiness or misery. It is only in the practical application of that knowledge, that the wants of society are ascertained, and disease, poverty, hunger, and wretchedness prevented, or at any rate lessened.

Jesus subst.i.tutes "I believe," for "I think," and puts "watch and pray"

instead of "think, then act." Belief is the prominent doctrine which pervades, and governs all Christianity. It is represented that, at the judgment, the world will be reproved "Of sin, because they believe not."

This teaching is most disastrous; man should be incited to active thought: Christian belief would bind him to the teachings of a stagnant past. Fit companion to blind belief is slave-like prayer. Men pray as though G.o.d needed most abject entreaty ere he would grant justice. What does Jesus teach on prayer? "After this manner pray ye-Our Father, which art in heaven." Do you think that G.o.d is the Father of all, when you pray that he will enable you to defeat some others of his children, with whom your nation is at war? And why "which art in Heaven?" Where is your Heaven? You look upward, and if you were at the Antipodes, would look upward still. But that upward would be downward to us. Do you localize Heaven? Why say "which art in Heaven?" Is G.o.d infinite, then he is also in earth. "Hallowed be thy name." "What is G.o.d's name? if you know it not how can you hallow it? how can G.o.d's name be hallowed even if you know it?" "Thy kingdom come." What is G.o.d's kingdom, and will your praying bring it quicker? Is it the Judgment day, and do you who say "Love one another," pray for the more speedy arrival of that day, on which G.o.d may say to your fellow "depart ye cursed into everlasting fire?" "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." How is G.o.d's will done in heaven? If the Devil be a fallen angel, there must have been rebellion even there. "Give us this day our daily bread." Will the prayer get it without work? No. Will work get it without prayer? Yes.

Why pray, then, for bread to G.o.d, who says, "Blessed be ye that hunger... woe unto you that are full?" "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." (Matthew vi, 12) What debts have you to G.o.d? Sins?

Coleridge writes, "A sin is an evil which has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in the compulsion of circ.u.mstances. Circ.u.mstances are compulsory, from the absence of a power to resist or control them: and if the absence likewise be the effect of circ.u.mstances... the evil derives from the circ.u.mstances... and such evil is not sin."6 Do you say that you are independent of all circ.u.mstances, that you can control them, that you have a free will? Buckle replies that the a.s.sertion of a free will "involves two a.s.sumptions, of which the first, though possibly true, has never been proved, and the second is unquestionably false.

These a.s.sumptions are that there is an independent faculty, called consciousness, and that the dictates of that faculty are infallible."7 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Matthew vi, 13) Do you think G.o.d may lead you into temptation? if so, you cannot think him all good; if not all-good he is not G.o.d. If G.o.d, the prayer is blasphemy.

6 "Aids to Reflection," 1843, p. 200.

7 "History of Civilisation," Vol. I, p. 14.

Jesus, according to the general declaration of Christian divines, came to die, and what does he teach by his death? The Rev. F.D. Maurice well said, "That he who kills for a faith must be weak, that he who dies for a faith must be strong." How did Jesus die? Giordano Bruno and Julius Caesar Vanini were burned, charged with heresy. They died calm, heroic, defiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die courted death, that he, as G.o.d, might accept his own atonement, and might pardon man for a sin which the pardoned man had not committed, and in which he had no share.

The death Jesus courted came, and when it came he could not face it, but prayed to himself that he might not die. And at last, when on the cross, if two gospels do him no injustice his last words were a bitter cry of deep despair. "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Rev.

Enoch Mellor writing on the Atonement, says, "I seek not to fathom the profound mystery of these words. To understand their full import would require one to experience the agony of desertion they express." Do the words, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" express an "agony"

caused by a consciousness of "desertion?" if this be not the meaning conveyed by the despairing death-cry then there is in it no meaning whatever. And if those words do express a "bitter agony of desertion"

then they emphatically contradict the teachings of Jesus. "Before Abraham was, I am." "I and my father are one." "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy G.o.d." These were the words of Jesus-words conveying an impression that divinity was claimed by the one who uttered them. If Jesus had indeed been G.o.d, the words "My G.o.d, my G.o.d," would have been a mockery most extreme. G.o.d could not have deemed himself forsaken by himself. The dying Jesus, in that despair, confessed himself either the dupe of some other teaching, a self-deluded enthusiast, or an arch-impostor, who in that bitter cry, with the wide-opening of the flood-gates through which life's stream ran out, confessed aloud that he, at least, was no deity, and deemed himself a G.o.d-forsaken man. The garden scene of agony is fitting prelude to this most terrible act.

Jesus, who is G.o.d, prays to himself: in "agony he prayed most earnestly"

(Luke xxii, 44) He refuses to hear his own prayers, and he, the omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel from heaven, who "strengthened" the great Creator. Was Jesus the Son of G.o.d?

Praying, he said "Father the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." (John xvii, 2) And was he glorified? His death and resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they are alleged to have happened. His doctrines rejected by the only people to whom he preached them. His miracles denied by the only nation amongst whom they are alleged to have been performed; and he himself thus on the cross crying out, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Nor is it true that the teachings of Jesus are generally received. Jesus taught: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

(Mark xvi, 17, 18) How many of those who profess to believe in Jesus would be content to be tested by these signs? Any person claiming that each sign was to be found manifested in her or his case would be regarded as mad. Ill.u.s.trations of faith-healing occasionally arise, but are not always reliable, nor are such cures limited to those who profess faith in Jesus. The gift of speaking with new tongues has been the claim of a very small sect. Serpent charming is more practised amongst Hindus than amongst Christians.

Peace and love are alleged to be the special characteristics of Christianity. Yet the whole history of Christian nations has been blurred by war and hate. Now and for the past thirty years the most civilized amongst Christian nations have been devoting enormous sums and huge ma.s.ses of men to the preparation for war. Torpedoes and explosive sh.e.l.ls, one hundred ton guns and mele-nite, are by Christian rulers accounted better aids than faith in Jesus.

THE TWELVE APOSTLES

ALL good Christians, indeed all Christians-for are there any who are not models of goodness?-will desire that their fellow-creatures who are unbelievers should have the fullest possible information, biographical or otherwise, as as to the twelve persons specially chosen by Jesus to be his immediate followers. The believer, of course, would be equally content with his faith in the absence of all historic vouchers. Indeed a pious wors.h.i.+pper would cling to his creed not only without testimony in its favor, but despite direct testimony against it. It is to those not within the pale of the church that I shall seek to demonstrate the credibility of the history of the twelve apostles. The short biographical sketch here presented is extracted from the first five books of the New Testament, two of which at least are attributed to two of the twelve. It is objected, by heretical men who go as far in their criticisms on the Gospels as Colenso does with the Pentateuch, that not one of the gospels is original or written by any of the apostles; that, on the contrary, they were preceded by numerous writings, since lost or rejected, these in their turn having for their basis the oral tradition which preceded them. It is alleged that the four gospels are utterly anonymous, and that the fourth gospel is subject to strong suspicions of spuriousness. To use on this part of the words of the author of "Supernatural Religion," applied by him to the Acts of the Apostles: "As a general rule, any doc.u.ments so full of miraculous episodes and supernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be characterized as fabulous and incredible, and would not, by any sober-minded reader, be for a moment accepted as historical. There is no other testimony." It would be useless to combat, and I therefore boldly ignore these attacks on the authenticity of the text, and proceed with my history. The names of the twelve are as follows-Simon, surnamed Peter; Andrew, his brother; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Andrew, Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; James, the son of Alphteus; Simon, the Canaanite; Judas Iscariot; and a twelfth, as to whose name there is some uncertainty; it was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in Matthew alone (x, 3) that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned thus-"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." We are told, on this point, by able Biblicists, that the early MSS have not the words "whose surname was Thaddaeus," and that these words have probably been inserted to reconcile the gospel according to Matthew with that attributed to Mark. How good must have been the old fathers who sought to improve upon the Holy Ghost by making clear that which inspiration had left doubtful! In the English version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words "Lebbaeus whose surname was," leaving only the name "Thad-daeus" in Matthew's text. This omission must be correct, being by the authority of an infallible church, and Dr. Newman shows us that when the church p.r.o.nounces all doubt is d.a.m.nable. If Matthew x, 3, and Mark iii, 18, be pa.s.sed as reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the name Thaddaeus, there is yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, corroborated by John xiv, 22, there is a disciple spoken of as "Judas, not Iscariot." "Judas, _the brother_ of James." Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last difficulty by declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if Matthew's Gospel uses Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for the gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. It is to be hoped that the unbelieving reader will not stumble on the threshold of his study because of a little uncertainty as to a name. What is in a name? The Jewish name which we read as Jesus is really Joshua, but the name to which we are most accustomed seems the one we should adhere to.

Simon Peter being the first named amongst the disciples of Jesus, deserves the first place in this notice. The word "Simon" may be rendered, if taken as a Greek name, _flat-nose_ or _ugly_. Some of the ancient Greek and Hebrew names are characteristic of peculiarities in the individual, but no one now knows whether Peter's nose had anything to do with his name. Simon is rather a Hebrew name, but Peter is Greek, signifying a rock or stone. Peter is supposed to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and his second name may express his stony insensibility to all appeals by infidels for admittance to the celestial regions. Lord Byron's "Vision of Judgment" is the highest known authority as to Saint Peter's celestial duties, but this n.o.bleman's poems are only fit for very pious readers. Peter, ere he became a parson, was by trade a fisher, and when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a vessel fis.h.i.+ng with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of Galilee. The calling of Peter and Andrew to the apostles.h.i.+p was sudden, and apparently unexpected. Jesus walking by the sea said to them-"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

(Matthew iv, 18-22) The two brothers did so, and they became Christ's disciples. The successors of Peter have since reversed the apostle's early practice: instead of now casting their nets into the sea, the modern representatives of the disciples of Jesus draw the sees into their nets, and, it is believed, find the result much more profitable.

When Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his brother Andrew; a little further on the two sons of Zebedee were in a s.h.i.+p with their father mending nets. This is the account of Peter's call given in the gospel according to Matthew, and as according to the Church Matthew was inspired by the Holy Ghost, who is identical with G.o.d the Father, who is one with G.o.d the Son, who is Jesus, the account must be free from error.

In the Gospel according to John, which is likewise inspired in the same manner, from the same source, and with similar infallibility, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who, if fis.h.i.+ng, must have been angling on land, telling him "we have found the Messiah," and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said: "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." There is no mention in this gospel narrative of the sons of Zebedee being a little further on, or of any fis.h.i.+ng in the sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land, whether or not near the sea of Galilee does not appear. In the Gospel according to Luke, which is as much inspired as either of the two before-mentioned gospels, and, therefore, equally authentic with each of them, we are told (Luke v, 1-11) that when the call took place Jesus and Peter were both at sea.

Jesus had been preaching to the people, who, pressing upon him, he got into Simon's s.h.i.+p, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered: "Master, we have toiled all night, and taken nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net." No sooner was this done than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon's partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to help, when, at the call of Jesus, they brought their s.h.i.+ps to land, and followed him. From these accounts the unbeliever may learn that when Jesus called Peter either both Jesus and Peter were on the land, or one was on land and the other on the sea, or both of them were at sea. He may also learn that the sons of Zebedee were present at the time, having come to help to get in the great catch, and were called with Peter; or that they were further on, sitting mending nets with their father, and were called afterwards; or that they were neither present nor near at hand. He may also be a.s.sured that Simon was in his s.h.i.+p when Jesus came to call him, and that Jesus was on land when Andrew, Simon's brother, found Simon and brought him to Jesus to be called. The unbeliever must not hesitate because of any apparent incoherence or contradiction in the narrative. The greater the difficulty in believing, the more deserved the reward which only comes to belief. With faith it is easy to harmonise the three narratives above quoted, especially when you know that Jesus had visited Simon's house before the call of Simon, (Luke iv, 38) but did not go to Simon's house until after Simon had been called (Matthew viii, 14). Jesus went to Simon's house and cured his wife's mother of a fever. Robert Taylor,8 commenting on the fever-curing miracle, says-"St. Luke tells us that this fever had taken the woman, not that the woman had taken the fever, and not that the fever was a very bad fever, or a yellow fever, or a scarlet fever, but that it was a great fever-that is, I suppose, a fever six feet high at least; a personal fever, a rational and intelligent fever, that would yield to the power of Jesus's argument, but would never have given way to James's powder. So we are expressly told that Jesus rebuked the fever-that is, he gave it a good scolding; asked it, I dare say, how it could be so unreasonable as to plague the poor old woman so cruelly, and whether it wasn't ashamed of itself; and said, perhaps, _Get out, you naughty wicked fever, you_; and such like objurgatory language, which the fever, not being used to be rebuked in such a manner, and being a very sensible sort of fever, would not stand, but immediately left the old woman in high dudgeon." This Robert Taylor, although a clergyman of the Church of England, has been convicted of blasphemy and imprisoned for writing in such wicked language about the Bible. Simon Peter, as a disciple, performed many miracles, some when in company with Jesus, and more when separately by himself. These miracles, though themselves unvouched by any reliable testimony, and disbelieved by the people amongst whom they were worked, are strong evidence in favor of the apostolic character claimed for Peter.

8 "Devil's Pulpit," vol. i, p. 148.

On one occasion the whole of the disciples were sent away by Jesus in a s.h.i.+p, the Savior remaining behind to pray. About the fourth watch of the night, when the s.h.i.+p was in the midst of the sea, Jesus went unto his disciples, walking on the sea. Though Jesus went unto his disciples, and, as an expeditious way, I suppose, of arriving with them, he would have pa.s.sed by them, but they saw him, and supposing him to be a spirit, cried out. Jesus bid them be of good cheer, to which Peter answered, (Matthew xiv, 23) "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee." Jesus said, "Come," and Peter walked on the water to go to Jesus. But the sea being wet and the wind boisterous, Peter became afraid, and instead of walking on the water began to sink into it, and cried out "Lord save me," and immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught Peter.

Some object that the two gospels according to John and Mark, which both record the feat of water-walking by Jesus, omit all mention of Peter's attempt. Probably the Holy Ghost had good reasons for omitting it. A profane mind might make a jest of an Apostle "half seas over," and ridicule an apostolic gatekeeper who could not keep his head above water.

Peter's partial failure in this instance should drive away all unbelief, as the text will show that it was only for lack of faith that

Peter lost his buoyancy. Simon is called Bar-Jonah, that is, son of Jonah, but I am not aware that he is any relation to the Jonah who lived under water in the belly of a fish three days and three nights.

It was Simon Peter who, having told Jesus he was the Son of G.o.d, was answered "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee." (Matthew xvi, 17) We find a number of disciples shortly before this, and in Peter's presence, telling Jesus that he was the Son of G.o.d, (Matthew xiv, 33) but there is, of course, no real contradiction between the two texts. It was on this occasion that Jesus said to Simon, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of h.e.l.l shall not prevail against it, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Under these extraordinary declarations from the mouth of G.o.d the Son, the Bishops of Rome have claimed, as successors of Peter, the same privileges, and their pretensions have been acceded to by some of the most powerful monarchs of Europe.

Under this claim the Bishops, or Popes of Rome, have at various times issued Papal Bulls, by which they have sought to bind the entire world.

Many of these have been very successful; but in 1302, Philip the Fair, of France, publicly burned the Pope Boniface's Bull after an address in which the States-General had denounced, in words more expressive than polite, the right of the Popes of Rome to Saint Peter's keys on earth.

Some deny that the occupiers of the episcopal seat in the seven-hilled city are really of the Church of Christ, and they point to the b.l.o.o.d.y quarrels which have raged between men, contending for the Papal dignity.

They declare that those Vicars of Christ have more than once resorted to fraud, treachery, and murder, to secure the Papal dignity. They point to Stephen VII, the son of an unmarried priest, who cut off the head of his predecessor's corpse; to Sergius III, convicted of a.s.sa.s.sination; to John X, who was strangled in the bed of his paramor Theodora; to John XI, son of Pope Sergius III, famous only for his drunken debauchery; to John XII, found a.s.sa.s.sinated in the apartments of his mistress; to Benedict IX, who both purchased and sold the Pontificate; to Gregory VII, the pseudo lover of the Countess Matilda, and the author of centuries of war carried on by his successors. And if these suffice not, they point to Alexander Borgia, whose name is but the echo of crime, and whose infamy will be as lasting as history. It is answered: "By the fruit ye shall judge of the tree." It is useless to deny the vine's existence because the grapes are sour. Peter, the favored disciple, it is declared was a rascal, and why not his successors? They have only to repent, and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that re-penteth than over ninety and nine righteous men. Such language is very terrible, and arises from allowing the carnal reason too much freedom.

All true believers will be familiar with the story of Peter's sudden readiness to deny his Lord and teacher in the hour of danger, and will easily draw the right moral from the mysterious lesson here taught; but unbelievers may be a little inclined to agree with the common infidel objections on this point. These objections, therefore, shall be first stated, and then refuted in the most orthodox fas.h.i.+on. It is objected that all the denials were to take place before the c.o.c.k should crow, (Matthew xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38) but that only one denial actually took place before the c.o.c.k crew (Mark xiv, 68). That the first denial by Peter that he knew Jesus, or was one of his disciples, was at the door to the damsel, (John xviii, 17) but was inside while sitting by the fire, (Luke xxii, 57) that the second denial was to a man, and apparently still sitting by the fire (Luke xvii, 58), but was to a maid when he was gone out into the porch. That these denials, or at any rate, the last denial, were all in the presence of Jesus (Luke xvii, 61), who turned and looked at Peter, but that the first denial was at the door, Jesus being inside the palace, the second denial out in the porch, Jesus being still inside (Mark xiv, 69), and the third denial also outside. The refutation of these paltry objections is so simple, that any little child could give it, and none but an infidel would need to hear it, we therefore refrain from penning it. None but a disciple of Paine, or follower of Voltaire, would permit himself to be drawn to the risk of d.a.m.nation on the mere question as to when some c.o.c.k happened to crow, or as to the particular spot on which a recreant apostle denied his master. It is the merest justice to Peter to add that his disloyalty to Jesus was shared by his co-apostles. When Jesus was arrested "all the disciples forsook him and fled" (Matthew xxvi, 56). The true believer may sometimes be puzzled that Peter should so deny Jesus after he, Peter, had seen (Matthew xvii, 3-5) Moses and Elias, who had been dead many centuries, talking with Jesus, and had heard "a voice out of the cloud which said, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."

The unbeliever must not allow himself to be puzzled by this. Two of the twelve apostles, whose names are not given, saw Jesus after he was dead, on the road to Emmaus, but they did not know him; towards evening they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. In broad daylight they did not know him, at evening time they knew him. While they did not know him they could see him, when they did know him they could not see him. Well may true believers declare that the ways of the Lord are wonderful. One of the apostles, Thomas, called Didymus, set the world an example of unbelief. He disbelieved the other disciples when they said to him, "we have seen the Lord," and required to see Jesus, though dead, alive in the flesh, and touch the body of his crucified master. Thomas the apostle had his requirements complied with -he saw, he touched, and he believed. The great merit is to believe without any evidence-"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned." How it was that Thomas the apostle did not know Jesus when he saw him shortly after near the sea of Tiberias, is another of the mysteries of the Holy Christian religion. The acts of the apostles after the death of Jesus deserve treatment in a separate paper; the present essay is issued to aid the members of the Church Congress in their endeavors to stem the rising tide of infidelity.

THE ATONEMENT

"_Quel est donc ce Dieu qui fait mourir Dieu pour apaiser Dieu?_"

THE chief feature of the Christian religion is that Jesus, the Son of G.o.d, "very G.o.d of very G.o.d," sacrificed himself, or was sacrificed by G.o.d the Father, to atone for Adam's transgression, some 4,000 years before, against a divine command. It is declared in the New Testament, in clear and emphatic language, that in consequence of the one man Adam's sin, death entered into the world, and judgment and condemnation came upon all men. It is also declared that "Christ died for the unG.o.dly;" "that he died for our sins," and "was delivered for our offences." On the one hand it is urged that Adam, the sole source of the human family, offended deity, and that the consequence of this offence was the condemnation to death, after a life of sorrow, of the entire race. On the other side of the picture is portrayed the love of G.o.d, who sent his only beloved son to die-and by his death procuring for all eternal life-to save the remnant of humanity from the further vengeance of their all-merciful heavenly father. The religion of Christ finds its source in the forbidden fruit of the yet undiscovered Garden of Eden.

Adam's sin is the corner-stone of Christianity, the keystone of the arch. Without the fall there is no redeemer, for there is no fallen one to be redeemed. It is, then, to the history of Adam that the critical examinant of the Atonement theory should first direct his attention. But to try the doctrine of the Atonement by the aid of science would be fatal to religion. As for the one man Adam,

6,000 years ago the first of the human race, his existence is not only unvouched for by science, but is actually questioned by the timid, and repudiated by the bolder, exponents of modern ethnology. The human race is traced back far beyond the period fixed for Adam's sin. Egypt and India speak for humanity busy with wars, rival dynasties, and religions, long prior to the date given for the garden scene in Eden.

The fall of Adam could not have brought sin upon mankind, and death by sin, if hosts of men and women so lived and died ages before the words "thou shalt surely die" were spoken by G.o.d to man.

Nor could all men inherit Adam's misfortune if it be true that it is not to one but to many centres of origin that we ought to trace back the various races of mankind.

The theologian who finds no evidence of death prior to the offence shared by Adam and Eve is laughed to scorn by the geologist, who points to the innumerable petrifactions in the earth's strata, which with a million tongues declare, more potently than loudest speech, that myriads of myriads of living things ceased their life-struggle incalculable ages before man's era on our world.

Science has so little to offer in support of any religious doctrine, and so much to advance against all purely theologic tenets, that we turn to a point giving the Christian greater vantage ground, and accepting for the moment his scriptures as our guide, we deny that he can maintain the possibility of Adam's sin, and yet consistently affirm the existence of an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good G.o.d. Did Adam sin? We take the Christian's Bible in our hands to answer the question, first defining the word sin. What is sin? Samuel Taylor Coleridge says: "A sin is an evil which has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in the compulsion of circ.u.mstances. Circ.u.mstances are compulsory from the absence of a power to resist or control them, and if this absence be likewise the effect of circ.u.mstances (that is, if it have been neither directly nor indirectly caused by the agent himself) the evil derived from the circ.u.mstance, and therefore such evil is not sin, and the person who suffers it, or is the compelled actor or instrument of its infliction on others, may feel regret, but not remorse. Let us generalise the word circ.u.mstance so as to understand by it all and everything not connected with the will.... Even though it were the warm blood circulating in the chambers of the heart or man's most inmost sensations, we regard them as circ.u.mstantial, extrinsic, or from without.... An act to be sin must be original, and a state or act that has not its origin in the will may be calamity, deformity, or disease, but sin it cannot be. It is not enough that the act appears so voluntary, or that it has the most hateful pa.s.sions or debasing appet.i.te for its proximate cause and accompaniment. All these may be found in a madhouse, where neither law nor humanity permit us to condemn the actor of sin. The reason of law declared the maniac not a free agent, and the verdict followed of course, _not guilty_." Did Adam sin?

The Bible story is that a Deity created one man and one woman; that he placed them in a garden wherein he had also placed a tree, which was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise. That although he had expressly given the fruit of every tree bearing seed for food, he, nevertheless, commanded them not to eat of the fruit of this specially attractive tree under penalty of death.

Supposing Adam to have at once disobeyed this injunction, would it have been sin? The fact that G.o.d had made the tree good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, should have surely been sufficient justification. The G.o.d-created inducement to partake of its fruit was strong and ever operative. The inhibition lost its value as against the enticement. If the All-wise had intended the tree to be avoided, would he have made its allurements so overpowering to the senses? But the case does not rest here. In addition to all the attractions of the tree, and as though there were not enough, there is a subtle serpent gifted with suasive speech, who, either wiser or more truthful than the All-perfect Deity, says that although G.o.d has threatened immediate death as the consequence of disobedience to his command, yet they "shall not die; for G.o.d doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as G.o.ds, knowing good and evil." The tempter is stronger than the tempted, the witchery of the serpent is too great for the spell-bound woman, the decoy tree is too potent in its temptations; overpersuaded herself by the honey-tongued voice of the seducer, she plucks the fruit and gives to her husband also. And for this giving way to a G.o.d-designed temptation their offspring are to suffer G.o.d's eternal, unforgiving wrath! The yet unborn children are to be the victims of G.o.d's vengeance on their parents' weakness-though he had made them weak; had created the tempter sufficiently strong to practise upon this weakness; and had arranged the causes, predisposing man and woman to commit the offence-if indeed it be an offence to pluck the fruit of a tree which gives knowledge to the eater. It is for this fall that Jesus is to atone. He is sacrificed to redeem the world's inhabitants from the penalties for a weakness (for sin it was not) they had no share in. It was not sin; for the man was influenced by circ.u.mstances prearranged by Deity, and which man was powerless to resist or control. But if the man was so influenced by such circ.u.mstances, it was G.o.d who influenced the man-the G.o.d who punished the human race for an action to the commission of which he impelled their progenitor.

Adam did not sin. He ate of the fruit of a tree which G.o.d had made good to be eaten. He was induced to this through the indirect persuasion of a serpent G.o.d had made for the very purpose of persuading him. But even if Adam did sin, and even if he and Eve, his wife, were the first parents of the whole human family, what have we to do with their sin? We, unborn when the act was committed, and without choice as to coming into this world amongst the myriad worlds which roll in the vast expanse of solar and astral systems. Why should Jesus atone for Adam's sin? Adam suffered for his own offence; he, according to the curse, was to eat in sorrow of the fruit of the earth all his life as punishment for his offence.

Atonement, after punishment, is surely a superfluity. Or was the atonement only for those who needed no atonement, having no part in the offence? Did the sacrifice of Jesus serve as atonement for the whole world, and, if yes, for all sin, or for Adam's sin only? If the atonement is for the whole world, does it extend to unbelievers as well as to believers in the efficacy? if it only includes believers, then what has become of those generations who, according to the Bible, for 4,000 years succeeded each other in the world without faith in Christ because without knowledge of his mission? Should not Jesus have come 4,000 years earlier, or, at least, should he not have come when the Ark grounded on Ararat served as monument of G.o.d's merciless vengeance, which had made the whole earth like to a battle field, whereon the omnipotent had crushed the feeble, and had marked his prowess by the innumerable myriads of decaying dead? If it be declared that though the atonement by Jesus only applies to believers in his mission so far as regards human beings born since his coming, yet that it is wider in its retrospective redeeming effect; then the answer is that it is unfair to those born after Jesus to make faith the condition precedent to the saving efficacy of atonement, especially if belief be required from all mankind posterior to the Christian era, whether they have heard of Jesus or not. j.a.panese, Chinese, Indians, Kaffirs, and others have surely a right to complain of this atonement scheme, which ensures them eternal d.a.m.nation by making it requisite to believe in a Gospel of which they have no knowledge. If it be contended that belief will only be required from those to whom the Gospel of Jesus has been preached, and who have had afforded to them the opportunity of its acceptance, then how great a cause of complaint against Christian Missionaries have those peoples who, without such missions, might have escaped d.a.m.nation for unbelief.

The gates of h.e.l.l are opened to them by the earnest propagandist, who professes to show the road to heaven.

But does this atonement serve only to redeem the human family from the curse inflicted by Deity in Eden's garden for Adam's sin, or does it operate as satisfaction for all sin? If the salvation is from the punishment for Adam's sin alone, and if belief and baptism are, as Jesus himself affirms, to be the conditions precedent to any saving efficacy in the much-lauded atonement by the son of G.o.d, then what becomes of a child that only lives a few hours, is never baptised, and never having any mind, consequently never has any belief? Or what becomes of one idiot-born who, throughout his dreary life, never has mental capacity for the acceptance or examination of, or credence in any religious dogmas whatever? Is the idiot saved who cannot believe? Is the infant saved who cannot believe? I, with some mental faculties tolerably developed, cannot believe. Must I be d.a.m.ned? If so, fortunate short-lived babe! lucky idiot! That the atonement should not be effective until the person to be saved has been baptised, that the sprinkling of a few drops of water should quench the flames of h.e.l.l, is a remarkable feature in the Christian's creed:

"One can't but think it somewhat droll, Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul."

How many fierce quarrels have raged on the formula of baptism amongst those loving brothers in Christ who believe he died for them! How strange an idea that, though G.o.d has been crucified to redeem mankind, it yet needs the font of water to wash away the lingering stain of Adam's crime.

One minister of the Church of England, occupying the presidential chair of a well-known training college for Church clergymen in the North of England, seriously declared, in the presence of a large auditory and of several church dignitaries, that the sin of Adam was so potent in its effect, that if a man _had never been born, he would yet have been d.a.m.ned for sin_. That is, he declared that man existed before birth, and that he committed sin before he was born; and if never born, would notwithstanding deserve to suffer eternal torment for that sin.