GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR 1

	GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR 1

GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR By Robert Blatchford ("Nunquam")                    To My Son                    ROBERT CORRI BLATCHFORD                    This book is dedicated PREFACE INFIDEL! I put the word in capitals, because it is my new name, and I want to get used to it. INFIDEL! The name has been bestowed on me by several Christian gentlemen as a reproach, but to my ears it has a quaint and not unpleasing sound. Infidel! "The notorious infidel editor of the _Clarion_" is the form used by one True Believer. The words recurred to my mind suddenly, while I was taking my favourite black pipe for a walk along "the pleasant Strand," and I felt a smile glimmer within as I repeated them. Which is worse, to be a Demagogue or an Infidel? I am both. For while many professed Christians contrive to serve both God and Mammon, the depravity of my nature seems to forbid my serving either. It was a mild day in mid-August, not cold for the time of year. I had been laid up for a few days, and my back was unpropitious, and I was tired. But I felt very happy, for so bad a man, since the sunshine was clear and genial, and my pipe went as easily as a dream. Besides, one's fellow-creatures are so amusing: especially in the Strand. I had seen a proud and gorgeously upholstered lady lolling languidly in a motor car, and looking extremely pleased with herself--not without reason; and I had met two successful men of great presence, who reminded me somehow of "Porkin and Snob"; and I had noticed a droll little bundle of a baby, in a fawn-coloured woollen suit, with a belt slipped almost to her knees, and sweet round eyes as purple as pansies, who was hunting a rolling apple amongst "the wild mob's million feet"; and I had seen a worried-looking matron, frantically waving her umbrella to the driver of an omnibus, endanger the silk hat of Porkin and disturb the complacency of Snob; and I felt glad. It was at that moment that there popped into my head the full style and title I had earned. "Notorious Infidel Editor of the _Clarion_!" These be brave words, indeed. For a moment they almost flattered me into the belief that I had become a member of the higher criminal classes: a bold bad man, like Guy Fawkes, or Kruger, or R. B. Cuninghame Graham. "You ought," I said to myself, "to dress the part. You ought to have an S.D.P. sombrero, a slow wise Fabian smile, and the mysterious trousers of a Soho conspirator." But at the instant I caught a sight of my counterfeit presentment in a shop window, and veiled my haughty crest. _That_ a notorious Infidel! Behold a dumpy, comfortable British _paterfamilias_ in a light flannel suit and a faded sun hat. No; it will not do. Not a bit like Mephisto: much more like the Miller of the Dee. Indeed, I am not an irreligious man, really; I am rather a religious man; and this is not an irreligious, but rather a religious, book. Such thoughts should make men humble. After all, may not even John Burns be human; may not Mr. Chamberlain himself have a heart that can feel for another? Gentle reader, that was a wise as well as a charitable man who taught us there is honour among thieves; although, having never been a member of Parliament himself, he must have spoken from hearsay. "For all that, Robert, you're a notorious Infidel." I paused--just opposite the Tivoli--and gazed moodily up and down the Strand. As I have remarked elsewhere, I like the Strand. It is a very human place. But I own that the Strand lacks dignity and beauty, and that amongst its varied odours the odour of sanctity is scarce perceptible. There are no trees in the Strand. The thoroughfare should be wider. The architecture is, for the most part, banal. For a chief street in a Christian capital, the Strand is not eloquent of high national ideals. There are derelict churches in the Strand, and dingy blatant taverns, and strident signs and hoardings; and there are slums hard by. There are thieves in the Strand, and prowling vagrants, and gaunt hawkers, and touts, and gamblers, and loitering failures, with tragic eyes and wilted garments; and prostitutes plying for hire. And east and west, and north and south of the Strand, there is London. Is there a man amongst all London's millions brave enough to tell the naked truth about the vice and crime, the misery and meanness, the hypocrisies and shames of the great, rich, heathen city? Were such a man to arise amongst us and voice the awful truth, what would his reception be? How would he fare at the hands of the Press, and the Public--and the Church? As London is, so is England. This is a Christian country. What would Christ think of Park Lane, and the slums, and the hooligans? What would He think of the Stock Exchange, and the music hall, and the racecourse? What would he think of our national ideals? What would He think of the House of Peers, and the Bench of Bishops, and the Yellow Press? Pausing again, over against Exeter Hall, I mentally apostrophise the Christian British people. "Ladies and Gentlemen," I say, "you are Christian in name, but I discern little of Christ in your ideals, your institutions, or your daily lives. You are a mercenary, self-indulgent, frivolous, boastful, blood-guilty mob of heathen. I like you very much, but that is what you are. And it is you--_you_ who call men 'Infidels.' You ridiculous creatures, what do you mean by it?" If to praise Christ in words, and deny Him in deeds, be Christianity, then London is a Christian city, and England is a Christian nation. For it is very evident that our common English ideals are anti-Christian, and that our commercial, foreign and social affairs are run on anti-Christian lines. Renan says, in his _Life of Jesus_, that "were Jesus to return amongst us He would recognise as His disciples, not those who imagine they can compress Him into a few catechismal phrases, but those who labour to carry on His work." My Christian friends, I am a Socialist, and as such believe in, and work for, universal freedom, and universal brotherhood, and universal peace. And you are Christians, and I am an "Infidel." Well, be it even so. I am an "Infidel," and I now ask leave to tell you why. FOREWORDS It is impossible for me to present the whole of my case in the space at my command; I can only give an outline. Neither can I do it as well as it ought to be done, but only as well as I am able. To make up for my shortcomings, and to fortify my case with fuller evidence, I must refer the reader to books written by men better equipped for the work than I. To do justice to so vast a theme would need a large book where I can only spare a short chapter, and each large book should be written by a specialist. For the reader's own satisfaction, then, and for the sake of justice to my cause, I shall venture to suggest a list of books whose contents will atone for all my failures and omissions. And I am justified, I think, in saying that no reader who has not read the books I recommend, or others of like scope and value, can fairly claim to sit on the jury to try this case. And of these books I shall, first of all, heartily recommend the series of cheap sixpenny reprints now published by the Rationalist Press Association, Johnson's Court, London, E.C.               R.P.A. REPRINTS      Huxley's _Lectures and Essays._      Tyndall's _Lectures and Essays._      Laing's _Human Origins._      Laing's _Modern Science and Modern Thought._      Clodd's _Pioneers of Evolution._      Matthew Arnold's _Literature and Dogma._      Haeckel's _Riddle of the Universe._      Grant Allen's _Evolution of the Idea of God._      Cotter Morrison's _Service of Man._      Herbert Spencer's _Education._ Some Apologists have, I am sorry to say, attempted to disparage those excellent books by alluding to them as "Sixpenny Science" and "Cheap Science." The same method of attack will not be available against most of the books in my next list:      _The Golden Bough_, Frazer.  Macmillan, 36s.      _The Legend of Perseus_, Hartland.  D. Nutt, 25s.      _Christianity and Mythology_, Robertson.  Watts, 8s.      _Pagan Christs_, Robertson.  Watts, 8s.      _Supernatural Religion_, Cassels.  Watts, 6s.      _The Martyrdom of Man_, Winwood Reade.  Kegan Paul, 6s.      _Mutual Aid_, Kropotkin.  Heinemann, 7s. 6d.      _The Story of Creation_, Clodd.  Longmans, 3s. 6d.      _Buddha and Buddhism_, Lillie.  Clark, 3s. 6d.      _Shall We Understand the Bible?_ Williams.  Black, 1s.      _What is Religion?_ Tolstoy.  Free Age Press, 6d.      _What I Believe_, Tolstoy.  Free Age Press, 6d.      _The Life of Christ_, Renan.  Scott, 1s. 6d. I also recommend Herbert Spencer's _Principles of Sociology_ and Lecky's _History of European Morals_. Of pamphlets there are hundreds. Readers will get full information from Watts & Co., 17 Johnson's Court, London, E.C. I can warmly recommend _The Miracles of Christian Belief_ and _The Claims of Christianity_, by Charles Watts, and _Christianity and Progress_, a penny pamphlet, by G. W. Foote (The Freethought Publishing Company). I should also like to mention _An Easy Outline of Evolution_, by Dennis Hird (Watts & Co., 2s. 6d.). This book will be of great help to those who want to scrape acquaintance with the theory of evolution. Finally, let me ask the general reader to put aside all prejudice, and give both sides a fair hearing. Most of the books I have mentioned above are of more actual value to the public of to-day than many standard works which hold world-wide reputations. No man should regard the subject of religion as decided for him until he has read _The Golden Bough_. _The Golden Bough_ is one of those books that _unmake_ history. CONTENTS      PREFACE      FOREWORDS      THE SIN OF UNBELIEF      ONE REASON      WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT BELIEVE      THE OLD TESTAMENT--           Is the Bible the Word of God?           The Evolution of the Bible           The Universe           Jehovah           Bible Heroes           The Book of Books           Our Heavenly Father           Prayer and Praise      THE NEW TESTAMENT--           The Resurrection           Gospel Witnesses           The Time Spirit           Have the Documents been Tampered with?           Christianity Before Christ           Other Evidences      THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION--           What is Christianity?      DETERMINISM--           Can Man Sin against God?      CHRISTIAN APOLOGIES--           Christian Apologies           Christianity and Civilisation           Christianity and Ethics           The Success of Christianity           The Prophecies           The Universality of Religious Belief           Is Christianity the Only Hope?           Spiritual Discernment           Some Other Apologies           Counsels of Despair      CONCLUSION--           The Parting of the Ways GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR THE SIN OF UNBELIEF Huxley quotes with satirical gusto Dr. Wace's declaration as to the word "Infidel." Said Dr. Wace: "The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ." Be it pleasant or unpleasant to be an unbeliever, one thing is quite clear: religious people intend the word Infidel to carry "an unpleasant significance" when they apply to it one. It is in their minds a term of reproach. Because they think it is _wicked_ to deny what they believe. To call a man an Infidel, then, is tacitly to accuse him of a kind of moral turpitude. But a little while ago, to be an Infidel was to be socially taboo. But a little while earlier, to be an Infidel was to be persecuted. But a little earlier still, to be an Infidel was to be an outlaw, subject to the penalty of death. Now, it is evident that to visit the penalty of social ostracism or public contumely upon all who reject the popular religion is to erect an arbitrary barrier against intellectual and spiritual advance, and to put a protective tariff upon orthodoxy to the disadvantage of science and free thought. The root of the idea that it is wicked to reject the popular religion--a wickedness of which Christ and Socrates and Buddha are all represented to have been guilty--thrives in the belief that the Scriptures are the actual words of God, and that to deny the truth of the Scriptures is to deny and to affront God. But the difficulty of the unbeliever lies in the fact that he cannot believe the Scriptures to be the actual words of God. The Infidel, therefore, is not denying God's words, nor disobeying God's commands: he is denying the words and disobeying the commands of _men_. No man who _knew_ that there was a good and wise God would be so foolish as to deny that God. No man would reject the words of God if he knew that God spoke those words. But the doctrine of the divine origin of the Scriptures rests upon the authority of the Church; and the difference between the Infidel and the Christian is that the Infidel rejects and the Christian accepts the authority of the Church. Belief and unbelief are not matters of moral excellence or depravity: they are questions of evidence. The Christian believes the Scriptures because they are the words of God. But he believes they are the words of God because some other man has told him so. Let him probe the matter to the bottom, and he will inevitably find that his authority is human, and not, as he supposes, divine. For you, my Christian friend, have never _seen_ God. You have never heard God's voice. You have received from God no message in spoken or written words. You have no direct divine warrant for the divine authorship of the Scriptures. The authority on which your belief in the divine revelation rests consists entirely of the Scriptures themselves and the statements of the Church. But the Church is composed solely of human beings, and the Scriptures were written and translated and printed solely by human beings. You believe that the Ten Commandments were dictated to Moses by God. But God has not told _you_ so. You only believe the statement of the unknown author of the Pentateuch that God told _him_ so. You do not _know_ who Moses was. You do not _know_ who wrote the Pentateuch. You do not _know_ who edited and translated the Scriptures. Clearly, then, you accept the Scriptures upon the authority of unknown men, and upon no other demonstrable authority whatever. Clearly, then, to doubt the doctrine of the divine revelation of the Scriptures is not to doubt the word of God, but to doubt the words of men. But the Christian seems to suspect the Infidel of rejecting the Christian religion out of sheer wantonness, or from some base or sinister motive. The fact being that the Infidel can only believe those things which his own reason tells him are true. He opposes the popular religion because his reason tells him it is not true, and because his reason tells him insistently that a religion that is not true is not good, but bad. In thus obeying the dictates of his own reason, and in thus advocating what to him seems good and true, the Infidel is acting honourably, and is as well within his right as any Pope or Prelate. That base or mercenary motives should be laid to the charge of the Infidel seems to me as absurd as that base or mercenary motives should be laid to the charge of the Socialist. The answer to such libels stares us in the face. Socialism and Infidelity are not popular, nor profitable, nor respectable. If you wish to lose caste, to miss preferment, to endanger your chances of gaining money and repute, turn Infidel and turn Socialist. Briefly, Infidelity does not pay. It is "not a pleasant thing to be an Infidel." The Christian thinks it his duty to "make it an unpleasant thing" to deny the "true faith." He thinks it his duty to protect God, and to revenge His outraged name upon the Infidel and the Heretic. The Jews thought the same. The Mohammedan thinks the same. How many cruel and sanguinary wars has that presumptuous belief inspired? How many persecutions, outrages, martyrdoms, and massacres have been perpetrated by fanatics who have been "jealous for the Lord?" As I write these lines Christians are murdering Jews in Russia, and Mohammedans are murdering Christians in Macedonia to the glory of God. Is God so weak that He needs foolish men's defence? Is He so feeble that He cannot judge nor avenge? My Christian friend, so jealous for the Lord, did you ever regard your hatred of "Heretics" and "Infidels" in the light of history? The history of civilisation is the history of successions of brave "Heretics" and "Infidels," who have denied false dogmas or brought new truths to light. The righteous men, the "True Believers" of the day, have cursed these heroes and reviled them, have tortured, scourged, or murdered them. And the children of the "True Believers" have adopted the heresies as true, and have glorified the dead Heretics, and then turned round to curse or murder the new Heretic who fain would lead them a little further toward the light. Copernicus, who first solved the mystery of the Solar System, was excommunicated for heresy. But Christians acknowledge now that the earth goes round the sun, and the name of Copernicus is honoured. Bruno, who first declared the stars to be suns, and "led forth Arcturus and his host," was burnt at the stake for heresy. Galileo, the father of telescopic astronomy, was threatened with death for denying the errors of the Church, was put in prison and tortured as a heretic. Christians acknowledge now that Galileo spoke the truth, and his name is honoured. As it has been demonstrated in those cases, it has been demonstrated in thousands of other cases, that the Heretics have been right, and the True Believers have been wrong. Step by step the Church has retreated. Time after time the Church has come to accept the truths, for telling which she persecuted, or murdered, her teachers. But still the True Believers hate the Heretic and regard it as a righteous act to make it "unpleasant" to be an "Infidel." After taking a hundred steps away from old dogmas and towards the truth, the True Believer shudders at the request to take one more. After two thousand years of foolish and wicked persecution of good men, the True Believer remains faithful to the tradition that it "ought to be an unpleasant thing" to expose the errors of the Church. The Christians used to declare that all the millions of men and women outside the Christian Church would "burn for ever in burning Hell." They do not like to be reminded of that folly now. They used to declare that every unbaptised baby would go to Hell and burn for ever in fire and brimstone. They do not like to be reminded of that folly now. They used to believe in witchcraft, and they burned millions--yes, millions--of innocent women as witches. They do not like to hear about witchcraft now. They used to believe the legends of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. They call them allegories now. They used to believe that the world was made in six days. Now they talk mildly about "geological periods." They used to denounce Darwinism as impious and absurd. They have since "cheerfully accepted" the theory of evolution. They used to believe that the sun revolved round the earth, and that he who thought otherwise was an Infidel, and would be damned in the "bottomless pit." But now--! Now they declare that Christ was God, and His mother a virgin; that three persons are one person; that those who trust in Jesus shall go to Heaven, and those who do not trust in Jesus will be "lost." And if anyone denies these statements, they call him Infidel. Are you not aware, friend Christian, that what was Infidelity is now orthodoxy? It is even so. Heresies for which men used to be burned alive are now openly accepted by the Church. There is not a divine living who would not have been burned at the stake three centuries ago for expressing the beliefs he now holds. Yet you call a man Infidel for being a century in advance of you. History has taught you nothing. It has not occurred to you that as the "infidelity" of yesterday has become the enlightened religion of to-day, it is possible that the "infidelity" of to-day may become the enlightened religion of to-morrow. Civilisation is built up of the "heresies" of men who thought freely and spoke bravely. Those men were called "Infidels" when they were alive. But now they are called the benefactors of the world. Infidel! The name has been borne, good Christian, by some of the noblest of our race. I take it from you with a smile. I am an easiful old pagan, and I am not angry with you at all--you funny, little champion of the Most High. ONE REASON I have been asked why I have opposed Christianity. I have several reasons, which shall appear in due course. At present I offer one. I oppose Christianity because _it is not true_. No honest man will ask for any other reason. But it may be asked why I say that Christianity is not true; and that is a very proper question, which I shall do my best to answer. WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT BELIEVE I hope it will not be supposed that I have any personal animus against Christians or Christian ministers, although I am hostile to the Church. Many ministers and many Christian laymen I have known are admirable men. Some I know personally are as able and as good as any men I have met; but I speak of the Churches, not of individuals. I have known Catholic priests and sisters who were worthy and charming, and there are many such; but I do not like the Catholic Church. I have known Tories and Liberals who were real good fellows, and clever fellows, and there are many such; but I do not like the Liberal and Tory parties. I have known clergymen of the Church of England who were real live men, and real English gentlemen, and there are many such; but I do not like the Church. I was not always an Agnostic, or a Rationalist, or an "Infidel," or whatever Christians may choose to call me. I was not perverted by an Infidel book. I had not read one when I wavered first in my allegiance to the orthodoxies. I was set doubting by a religious book written to prove the "Verity of Christ's Resurrection from the Dead." But as a child I was thoughtful, and asked myself questions, as many children do, which the Churches would find it hard to answer to-day. I have not ceased to believe what I was taught as a child because I have grown wicked. I have ceased to believe it because, after twenty years' hard thinking, I _cannot_ believe it. I cannot believe, then, that the Christian religion is true. I cannot believe that the Bible is the word of God. For the word of God would be above criticism and beyond disproof, and the Bible is not above criticism nor beyond disproof. I cannot believe that any religion has been revealed to Man by God. Because a revealed religion would be perfect, but no known religion is perfect; and because history and science show us that the known religions have not been revealed, but have been evolved from other religions. There is no important feature of the Christian religion which can be called original. All the rites, mysteries, and doctrines of Christianity have been borrowed from older faiths. I cannot believe that Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is the Creator of the known universe. The Bible God, Jehovah, is a man-made God, evolved from the idol of an obscure and savage tribe. The Bible shows us this quite plainly. I cannot believe that the Bible and the Testament are historically true. I regard most of the events they record as fables, and most of their characters as myths. I cannot believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, nor Buddha, nor Moses. I believe that these are ideal characters constructed from still more ancient legends and traditions. I cannot believe that the Bible version of the relations of man and God is correct. For that version, and all other religious versions known to me, represents man as sinning against or forsaking God, and God as punishing or pardoning man. But if God made man, then God is responsible for all man's acts and thoughts, and therefore man cannot sin against God. And if man could not sin against God, but could only act as God ordained that he should act, then it is against reason to suppose that God could be angry with man, or could punish man, or see any offence for which to pardon man. I cannot believe that man has ever forsaken God. Because history shows that man has from the earliest times been eagerly and pitifully seeking God, and has served and raised and sacrificed to God with a zeal akin to madness. But God has made no sign. I cannot believe that man was at the first created "perfect," and that he "fell." (How could the perfect fall?) I believe the theory of evolution, which shows not a fall but a gradual rise. I cannot believe that God is a loving "Heavenly Father," taking a tender interest in mankind. Because He has never interfered to prevent the horrible cruelties and injustices of man to man, and because He has permitted evil to rule the world. I cannot reconcile the idea of a tender Heavenly Father with the known horrors of war, slavery, pestilence, and insanity. I cannot discern the hand of a loving Father in the slums, in the earthquake, in the cyclone. I cannot understand the indifference of a loving Father to the law of prey, nor to the terrors and tortures of leprosy, cancer, cholera, and consumption. I cannot believe that God is a personal God, who intervenes in human affairs. I cannot see in science, nor in experience, nor in history any signs of such a God, nor of such intervention. I cannot believe that God hears and answers prayer, because the universe is governed by laws, and there is no reason to suppose that those laws are ever interfered with. Besides, an all-wise God knows what to do better than man can tell Him, and a just God would act justly without requiring to be reminded of His duty by one of His creatures. I cannot believe that miracles ever could or ever did happen. Because the universe is governed by laws, and there is no credible instance on record of those laws being suspended. I cannot believe that God "created" man, as man now is, by word of mouth and in a moment. I accept the theory of evolution, which teaches that man was slowly evolved by natural process from lower forms of life, and that this evolution took millions of years. I cannot believe that Jesus Christ was God, nor that He was the Son of God. There is no solid evidence for the miracle of the Incarnation, and I see no reason for the Incarnation. I cannot believe that Christ died to save man from Hell, nor that He died to save man from sin. Because I do not believe God would condemn the human race to eternal torment for being no better than He had made them, and because I do not see that the death of Christ has saved man from sin. I cannot believe that God would think it necessary to come on earth as a man, and die on the Cross. Because if that was to atone for man's sin, it was needless, as God could have forgiven man without Himself suffering. I cannot believe that God would send His son to die on the Cross. Because He could have forgiven man without subjecting His son to pain. I cannot accept any doctrine of atonement. Because to forgive the guilty because the innocent had suffered would be unjust and unreasonable, and to forgive the guilty because a third person begged for his pardon would be unjust. I cannot believe that a good God would allow sin to enter the world. Because He would hate sin and would have power to destroy or to forbid it. I cannot believe that a good God would create or tolerate a Devil, nor that he would allow the Devil to tempt man. I cannot believe the story of the virgin birth of Christ. Because for a man to be born of a virgin would be a miracle, and I cannot believe in miracles. I cannot believe the story of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Because that would be a miracle, and because there is no solid evidence that it occurred. I cannot believe that faith in the Godhood of Christ is necessary to virtue or to happiness. Because I know that some holding such faith are neither happy nor virtuous, and that some are happy and virtuous who do not hold that faith. The differences between the religious and the scientific theories, or, as I should put it, between superstition and rationalism, are clearly marked and irreconcilable. The supernaturalist stands by "creation"; the rationalist stands by "evolution." It is impossible to reduce these opposite ideas to a common denominator. The creation theory alleges that the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and man, and the animals were "created" by God, instantaneously, by word of mouth, out of nothing. The evolution theory alleges that they were evolved, slowly, by natural processes out of previously existing matter. The supernaturalist alleges that religion was revealed to man by God, and that the form of this revelation is a sacred book. The rationalist alleges that religion was evolved by slow degrees and by human minds, and that all existing forms of religion and all existing "sacred books," instead of being "revelations," are evolutions from religious ideas and forms and legends of prehistoric times. It is impossible to reduce these opposite theories to a common denominator. The Christians, the Hindoos, the Parsees, the Buddhists, and the Mohammedans have each their "Holy Bible" or "sacred book." Each religion claims that its own Bible is the direct revelation of God, and is the only true Bible teaching the only true faith. Each religion regards all the other religions as spurious. The supernaturalists believe in miracles, and each sect claims that the miracles related in its own inspired sacred book prove the truth of that book and of the faith taught therein. No religion accepts the truth of any other religion's miracles. The Hindoo, the Buddhist, the Mohammedan, the Parsee, the Christian each believes that his miracles are the only real miracles. The Protestant denies the miracles of the Roman Catholic. The rationalist denies all miracles alike. "Miracles never happen." The Christian Bible is full of miracles. The Christian Religion is founded on miracles. No rationalist believes in miracles. Therefore no rationalist can accept the Christian Religion. If you discard "Creation" and accept evolution; if you discard "revelation" and accept evolution; if you discard miracles and accept natural law, there is nothing left of the Christian Religion but the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. And when one sees that all religions and all ethics, even the oldest known, have, like all language and all science and all philosophy and all existing species of animals and plants, been slowly evolved from lower and ruder forms; and when one learns that there have been many Christs, and that the evidence of the life of Jesus is very slight, and that all the acts and words of Jesus had been anticipated by other teachers long before the Christian era, then it is borne in upon one's mind that the historic basis of Christianity is very frail. And when one realises that the Christian theology, besides being borrowed from older religions, is manifestly opposed to reason and to facts, then one reaches a state of mind which entitles the orthodox Christian to call one an "Infidel," and to make it "unpleasant" for one to the glory of God. That is the position in which I stand at present, and it is partly to vindicate that position, and to protest against those who feel as I feel being subjected to various kinds of "unpleasantness," that I undertake this Apology. THE OLD TESTAMENT IS THE BIBLE THE WORD OF GOD? The question of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is one of great importance. If the Bible is a divine revelation, if it contains the actual word of God, and nothing but the word of God, then it is folly to doubt any statement it contains. If the Bible is merely the work of men, if it contains only the words of men, then, like all other human work, the Bible is fallible, and must submit to criticism and examination, as all fallible human work must. The Christian Religion stands or falls by the truth of the Bible. If the Bible is the word of God the Bible must be true, and the Christian Religion must be true. But, as I said before, the claim for the divine origin of the Bible has not been made by God, but by men. We have therefore no means of testing the Bible's title to divine revelation other than by criticism and examination of the Bible itself. If the Bible is the word of God--the all-wise and perfect God--the Bible will be perfect. If the Bible is not perfect it cannot be the word of a God who is perfect. The Bible is not perfect. Historically, scientifically, and ethically the Bible is imperfect. If the Bible is the word of God it will present to us the perfect God as He is, and every act of His it records will be perfection. But the Bible does not show us a perfect God, but a very imperfect God, and such of His acts as the Bible records are imperfect. I say, then, with strong conviction, that I do not believe the Bible to be the word of God; that I do not believe it to be inspired of God; that I do not believe it to contain any divine revelation of God to man. Why? Let us consider the claim that the Bible is the word of God. Let us, first of all, consider it from the common-sense point of view, as ordinary men of the world, trying to get at the truth and the reason of a thing. What would one naturally expect in a revelation by God to man?