ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY
IN THE MODERN
WORLD
BEING AN EXPOSITION OF THE QUR’ANIC VIEW
OF
CHRISTIANITY IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN RESEARCH
BY
His Eminence
DR. MUHAMMAD FAZL-UR-RAHMAN ANSARI
Founder President
World Federation of
Islamic Missions
Obtainable from:
THE WORLD FEDERATION
OF
ISLAMIC MISSIONS
ISLAMIC CENTRE,
Block B. North Nazimabad,
KARACHI -33 Pakistan.
5th Impression
2017 Price
Rs:
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION .. ..
.. .. ..
Christian Misrepresentations—Islam versus
Christianity —Qur’anic Contentions regarding Christianity— Christian Testimony—Christianity
and Islam Today
II.
EVIDENCES FOR CHRISTIANITY ..
.. ..
33
Internal Evidence: Old Testament—New Testament— External Evidence:
Historicity of Biblical Jesus— Conclusion.
III. PAGAN FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY .. 53
A Christian Confession—The Cult of Sunworship—
Legends of the Mediterranean Sungods: Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, Bel, Osiris,
Mithra—American and Indian Man-gods: The Legend of Quetzalcoatl, The Krishna
Myth, The Legend of Buddha—Mythical Jesus: A Pagan Christ—Argument from the Babylonian
Legend; Passion Stories of Bel and Jesus: Cult of the Essences— Argument from
Egyptian Mythology : Cult
of Isis
and Osiris—Argument from Mithraism—Argument from Buddhism—Buddha and Jesus—Christian and
Pagan Festivals, Rites and Symbols—Christmas—
Easter and Related Festivals—Feast of St. John— Michaelmas and the Feast
of All Souls—Annunciation of the Virgin—Candlemas—Assumption of the Virgin—
Nativity of the Virgin—Holy Communion—Sabbath— Position of the Altar—Monks and
Nuns—The Cross —The Fish—The Lamb—The
Serpent and the Scorpion —Titles of Jesus—Christian
Apology—Conclusion.
IV. CHRISTIANITY IN THE MODERN WORLD .. .. 113
Superstition and Persecution—Free thought,
Atheism and Agnosticism—Communism—The New German Religion —The Orthodox
Reaction—Methods of the Orthodox—Orthodox Apologetics: The Beginning—Modernism
in the Protestant Church—Quakerism—Modernism in the Catholic Church—Professor
Heiler of Germany: Der Catholizismus—Professor Loisy of France—Doctrine
in the Church of England—The Last Hope of Survival—Divine Revelation and Human
Modification—Non-Christian Theists—Converts to Islam—Conclusion: Islam as the
Future Religion: Professor Gibb’s Plea.
V. A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW OF ISLAM .. .. 199
Universe—Man—Principle of Unity—Notion of
Worship —Principle of Movement—Conclusion.
FOREWORD
Maulana Muhammad Fazl-ur-Rahman Ansari came to us and went. A happier
coming could not be; but a sadder going neither. He came to the Muslim people of
south-eastern Asia as the ambassador of the intellectual
empire of Islam to negotiate for
reinvigorating and reconstructing the Muslim intellectual life, ultimately with
the aim of, to use his own words said in reply to the Welcome Address given to
him in Singapore, “assisting in
raising up a great new edifice of Islamic civilization among peoples which
entered the fold of Islam at a time when the Islamic world had already lost its
initial vitality and was on the way to succumb to the cultural onslaught of the
anti-Islamic Western civilization and could not therefore enjoy the opportunity
of building up enduring and vigorous national Islamic traditions and culture”.
He went away, making all of us sad but nevertheless happy at his promise that he will come back to work
for his great ideal.
Coming from an
institution—the Muslim University of Aligarh—which is the pride of Muslim Asia, he
created an abiding impression in the literary world of these parts. He
volunteered to lead the Islamic movement inaugurated and established by his revered
and renowned father-in-law, Hazrat Maulana Shah Muhammad
Abdul Aleem Siddiqi in 1928 in the form of the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society, and it is with
gratitude that we recall today his noble contribution, especially as the
Honorary Editor of The Genuine Islam.
His thesis on ‘Muslims
and Communism’, which was widely circulated, created a new perspective and
served to clarify the thought of the youth. His revolutionary educational scheme presented a most original and sound
programme for the revival of our lost glory and our Islamic heritage.
His memorable fight for the establishment of Islamic law in the Federated Malay
States and his brilliant reply to the opponents of “The Mohammedan Offences
Bill” earned the gratitude of Muslim Malaya
and elicited high praise from the greatest exponent of British politics
in eastern Asia, to wit, the editor of The Straits Times, who, though,
as a front-rank opponent, he had written a
most scathing editorial against the Bill a few days before, was so
deeply impressed by Maulana Ansari's
exposition that he wrote another editorial, seemingly as an apology,
referring therein to Maulana Ansari as “that subtle and learned logician”.
‘Learned’ and ‘logician’ Maulana Ansari certainly is, to which the
present book bears ample testimony. Ever since the Christians succeeded in
converting a few half-Muslimised backward tribes of Java, they have been
engaged in creating an imposing net-work of missions among the Muslim populations
of eastern and south-eastern Asia. Day-in and day-out they are busy with
vilifying Islam and conspiring against Muslims. Islam, in its
turn, has launched two organizations on its behalf, the Jamiyyat-ul-Mohammediyyeh of Java and the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society of the Malay Peninsula. The noble and great
work that is being accomplished by these organizations in this connection
received new impetus with the entry of Maulana Ansari into the field.
Believing as he does in an active, as contrasted with the present-day passive,
role of Islam, he entered the controversy with Archbishop Wand of Australia and
turned the searchlights on Christianity itself. The results were highly
encouraging. His honesty, sincerity, fair-mindedness and learning, displayed
during the controversy, created a deep impression, and his masterly exposition,
in Trends in Christianity, not only brought about general awakening among
the Muslim youth but also succeeded
in attracting several broad-minded Christians to Islam.
The present book, which is the latest
contribution of the author to the Islam-Christianity problem, forms a Message
of Love from Islam to the Christian world and is being published with the aim
of removing the misconceptions which Christians generally entertain against
Islam and with the hope that all honest and fair-minded Christians will give it
the serious consideration it fully deserves and will undertake an unbiased
inquiry into the merits of Islam and Christianity.
Beit-ul-Ikhwah,
SINGAPORE. M. A. ALSAGOFF.
15th November,
1940.
PREFACE
Islam contends that:
The founders of traditional Christianity have painted Jesus and his
Creed in colours drawn from the pagan paintbox.
The present book is an attempt to evaluate
this contention in the light of modern researches and recent tendencies and to
judge the Christian claims accordingly.
It was the vituperative eloquence of Dr. Samuel M. Zwemer which
first attracted me towards the subject.
The interest thus created was
kept alive by minor Christian controversialists until at last the Rev. Cash (Moslem
World in Revolution), Dr. Wherry (Islam and Christianity in India and
the Far East), and finally Archbishop Wand (Mohammedanism and Christianity—Twentieth Century Trends) pushed me into the open field.
Archbishop Wand’s attempt was particularly fruitful. His essay on
Islam inspired me to write a series of seven essays in the Genuine Islam
in 1938, one of which entitled ‘Trends in Christianity' was published in
book-form by the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society of Singapore and
circulated in the Far East.
The soundness of the argument developed in
that book perturbed my Christian friends. They could not possibly challenge my
contentions except on the seemingly plausible basis that my interpretation of
the conclusions of modern researches
was biased and defective. Such an accusation
has been made on many an occasion and is regarded by the advocates of
Christianity a patent remedy for protecting the faith of the general masses of lay Christians, though its transparent falsity must be obvious to all those who have studied the subject of Christian
origins.
The accusation necessitated that I should
state the argument in detail and prove the soundness of my conclusions by quoting my
authorities at length. This I have accomplished in the present book and in doing so I have taken the greatest care that
I should select only those authorities who may be acceptable to the Christians
themselves. Indeed, a perusal of the book will reveal that an overwhelming
majority of the authorities are professed Christians, including a large number
of reputed Christian divines.
A fairer treatment of Christianity could not have been possible;
and if still it is found that the latest researches disprove the claims of
traditional Christianity—Bernard Shaw
calls it Crosstianity—and prove the standpoint of Islam, would it be too much
to appeal to the Christian world in general
and the reformed Churches in particular to study and compare the merits
of Islam and Christianity with an open mind?
Muslim
University,
Aligarh
(India): FAZL-UR-RAHMAN.
11th Oct. 1940.
By
the same Author:
THE BEACON LIGHT
THE CHRISTIAN WORLD IN REVOLUTION
MUHAMMAD: THE GLORY OF THE AGES
ISLAM IN EUROPE AND AMERICA
MUSLIMS AND COMMUNISM
HUMANITY REBORN
ISLAM
TRENDS IN CHRISTIANITY
OUR FUTURE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME
ETHICS OF THE QURAN
MEANING OF PRAYER
ISLAMIC MORAL AND METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY
COMMUNIST CHALLENGE TO ISLAM
WHAT IS ISLAM
THROUGH SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY TO RELIGION
ISLAM VERSUS MARXISM
PHILOSOPHY OF WORSHIP IN ISLAM
WHICH RELIGION
WOMAN UNDER ISLAM
ISLAM AND SLAVERY
etc. etc. etc.
INTRODUCTION
I have read in Moslem writings such deep and
tender expressions of respect and reverence for Jesus that for the time I almost forgot, I was not reading the words
of a Christian writer. How different it is sad to say, has been the
way in which Christians have spoken and written of Mohammed. Let
us put it down to its true cause, ignorance.
--Rev.
R. Maxwell King
I
INTRODUCTION
CHRISTIAN MISREPRESENTATIONS
O
N January 10th, 1938, the Straits
Times of Singapore
reproduced from the columns of the Brisbane
Courier Mail an essay on
Mohammedanism and Christianity — Twentieth Century
Trends, written by Archbishop Wand of Brisbane (Australia). The essay
opens with the following fascinating words:
“Rapid changes in world events are throwing the nations much closer
together. In the sphere of international politics peoples are compelled to do
what they can to obtain a better understanding of each other's point of view.
It is a pity that so far religious people
have not shown many signs of a desire to follow this example. Yet religion is a
very potent factor in the formulation of social and political ideas, and
complete mutual understanding will never be possible until there is some
intimate knowledge on the part of a wide circle of thinkers of various creeds
into which religion is divided.”
“It is especially necessary that at present
the Christian World should make itself acquainted with the beliefs and practice
of Islam. A very large part of the human race has
embraced this religion……There is not likely to be a stable world-peace until some modus vivendi has been reached.”
It is evident
from this statement that the Archbishop has taken the trouble of writing his
essay with the laudable aim of helping the
Christian and Muslim peoples in ‘obtaining a better understanding of each other’s point of view’ for the sake of achieving ‘stable world-peace' which
does not, however, exist at
present because of the absence of an ‘intimate
knowledge' of each other's beliefs. A very noble attempt indeed! But all noble sentiments are
paralyzed the moment he embarks on the actual
subject and discusses Islam and its Holy Prophet. He treats these
subjects with a bias and inconsistency which is not only incompatible with the
cause of Truth and World-Peace but also unworthy of a religious head of his eminence. On the very face of it, it
is a foul piece of the usual Christian missionary propaganda. The cat comes out
of the bag when he himself removes the cloak and reveals his real purpose by
ending his tall talk with these words: “The observance of Mohammed's religion
was more adapted for the drivers of camels than for the chauffeurs of Ford cars........the doors of Islam are being opened as
never before to a sympathetic
presentation of the Christian faith.”
This leads one to ask: Is it not possible for the Christian scholars to
be honest when they speak on Islamic matters? Can they not further the cause of
Christianity without reviling and blackmailing other religions? Is St. Paul's
principle of speaking lies for the glory of God so honourable and so binding that the advocates of Christianity
cannot do without it?
In his Mohammed
and Mohammedanism (pp. 63—72), Mr.
Bosworth Smith has given a brief account of Christian
misrepresentation and vilification of Islam during the Middle Ages, which gives some idea of the depths of degradation to which
Christian scholarship can sink when it is brought to bear on Islam. That
account is full of such dirt and filth that no Muslim can even read it with
patience.
One can only feel pity at the miserable plight
which had befallen the intellects of those Christian savants. But more pitiable
than that is the fact that matters have not improved much after all the
intellectual advancement and enlightenment of modern West. Besides several others,
Dr. S. M. Zwemer, Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, the Rev. Cash, the
Rev. Dr. Wherry, and lately the Archbishop of Brisbane, have advanced the same
old “charitable” traditions of Christendom.
The present writer remembers to have read not
long ago that Dr. William Ralph Inge, who is one of the most brilliant
Christian theologians, expressed his views on certain points relating to Islam
and, when questioned as to his source of information, named, not the Qur'an or
the Hadith, but the Arabian Nights. None can possibly challenge the authority of such well-informed writers!
Another and
more amusing instance is the one related by
the American Muslim diplomat and missionary, Muhammad Alexander Russell Webb[1]:—“Since my return to my
native country (America) I have been greatly
surprised, not only at the general ignorance prevalent among
so-called learned people regarding the life, character and teachings of the Arabian Prophet, but also at the
self-confident readiness and facility with which some of these same people
express their
opinions of Mohammed and the Islamic system. A few editorial writers have afforded me considerable amusement by showing how little they know
of Mohammed and Moslem history, and how bold and aggressive they could be with
their meager armament of facts. One well-known western editor, after referring
to Mohammed as ‘the famous Greek prophet’, concluded half a column of inanity
with the assertion that, ‘others have tried to introduce Buddhism into America
and failed, as Mr. Webb will fail’.”
Not much
different is the Archbishop of Brisbane’s display
of Islamic scholarship. Without for the present entering into a detailed
discussion of his statements on Islam, the following
discovery may be quoted: “By this time Mohammedanism had spread in a great crescent around the shores of the
Mediterranean. The crescent, by the way, which became the symbol of Mohammedan
rule, was not derived from the new moon, but from the putting together of two tusk-shaped
amulets.” Brilliant research indeed!
The Archbishop
has wasted the whole midnight oil on misrepresenting Islam, but has conveniently
avoided the discussion of trends in
Christianity, the headlines of his essay notwithstanding. The only
reference to Christianity is in connection with his boast that: “the doors of
Islam are being opened as never before to a sympathetic presentation of the Christian faith”. Well, it requires a lot
of courage on the part of any one to try to live in fools’ paradise!
As matters stand, I feel it my duty to supply the deficiency in the
Archbishop's attempt by tracing the Christian trends. The third chapter of this
book has been especially allotted to the
Archbishop's favourite, topic, “Twentieth Century Trends.” This task, however, I have undertaken not
in a spirit
of abuse, which is totally foreign to the conscience of Islam, but in the
capacity of a follower of Jesus, the holy apostle of God and
one of the prophets of Islam (peace and blessings of God be with him for all
time to come!), and my endeavour has been to clear the position of Islam of the
charges levelled against it by the
Archbishop and others of his way of thinking, and to set forth my honest doubts concerning traditional Christianity
in a purely academic spirit.
ISLAM
VERSUS CHRISTIANITY
The Archbishop
says: “He (i.e., the Holy Prophet Muhammad)
had picked up, as well as he could, leading ideas from Jews and
Christians, but he was too ignorant to pass
them on without distortion.”
In view of the aim which the Archbishop has in view i.e., “a
sympathetic (?) presentation of the Christian faith,” the above allegation may
be divided into two parts: (1) the Holy Prophet borrowed “leading ideas” from
the Old Testament and Christianity; (2) the
Holy Prophet was “too ignorant” of the teachings of the Bible and the
intrinsic worth of Christianity.
As to the first, here are a few points of
contrast between the teachings of Christianity and Islam:
|
Christianity |
Islam |
|
1. The conception of the Triune
God. |
1. Pure Monotheism. |
|
|
Islam |
|
2. Jesus was ‘the only begotten son of
God'. 3. Eve was the first
to be deceived in the garden of Eden, and she in her turn was responsible for tempting Adam to eat
the forbidden fruit. Thus the curse of God rests on woman, and she
is ‘the organ of the Devil’, ‘the foundations
of the arms of the Devil, whose
voice is the hissing of the serpent’, ‘the gate of the Devil’, ‘the road of iniquity’, ‘the sting of
the scorpion’,’ a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of hell, the enemy of
peace and of the wild beasts the most
dangerous’, etc., etc., according to
St. Bernard, St. Anthony, St. Bonaventure, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. John
Damascene and others. 4.The sin
of Adam and Eve was not
forgiven. Hence every child is born in sin. |
2. Jesus was nothing
else than human;
he was a divinely- inspired Teacher and a great and holy man. 3. Adam and Eve both were simultaneously deceived. Woman, therefore enjoys equal status with man. (I have discussed in some detail the blessings conferred on woman by Islam as also
the treatment which she received from other religions and cultures, in my
book: Humanity Reborn). 4. The
sin of Adam and Eve was forgiven. Every child is born sinless. Sin is an acquisition and not a heritage. |
|
|
Islam: |
|
5. The
mission of Jesus was to redeem the sins of humanity through his blood. 6. Man can
attain salvation by belief only—by the belief that
Jesus was the only begotten son of God and that he gave his blood for washing the sins of mankind in a mysterious way. 7. We cannot approach God
without the mediation of a priest. 8. Ascetic life is a saintly life, —the lives of Jesus and the saints being
models in this respect—and the state of celibacy is preferable to the married
state for the attainment of spiritual eminence. 9. Conception of Dualism— “Give unto God What is God’s and unto Caesar
what is |
5. The mission of Jesus was to teach the way of leading upright life.
The doctrine of Atonement is untenable. 6. The one essential condition for the attainment of salvation is that we
combine righteous action with right belief. Mere passive belief is meaningless. The Islamic system, which comprehends all
problems of mankind—spiritual, moral, social and political, must be followed in its
entirety. 7. Every man and woman is his or
her own priest or priestess and can approach God without the mediation of anyone. 8. Asceticism
is unnatural. The natural
way of attaining eminence in the Kingdom of God’ is to endeavour persistently
for leading an upright life in the midst of temptations which
challenge man in the social environment. 9. Islam
does not recognize any form of Dualism. Every action, whether ‘religious’
or |
|
|
Islam: |
|
Caesar’s”. 10. The Bible contains “irrational
beliefs, crude science and indecent tales” (Canon
Barnes). As examples of obscenity, I
may refer here only to the stories
of Lot and David—two personages to whom the
Bible attributes saintliness
and immorality at the same time. |
‘secular’, is a truly religious action when performed in the light of God’s
commands. Thus the whole life of a true Muslim from the mosque to the market and from the school to the
battle-field is a religious life. 10. The
Qur’an is essentially rational, scientific and modern in its spirit. With
a view to give instances of practical ethics, it has narrated several stories which
occur in the Bible, but it cleanly leaves out all irrational, obscene and
contradictory portions of those stories. |
This is an off-hand list. But even so it is enough to
show how
far it was possible for the Holy Prophet Muhammad to borrow his knowledge from the Bible for
employing it in the construction of the
system of Islam. “It has been the fashion,” says the orientalist Dr. Emmanuel
Deutsch, “to ascribe whatever is good in
Mohammedanism to Christianity. We
fear this theory is not compatible with the results of honest investigation.
For, of Arabian Christianity at the time of Mohammed, the less said perhaps the
better..........By the side of it........even modern Amharic Christianity, of which we possess such astounding accounts,
appears pure and exalted”.[2]
Coming now to
the second part of the allegation: the best
way to examine the charge of ignorance shall be to refer to those ‘leading
ideas’ of Islam which have a direct bearing on Christianity itself, i.e., the
Qur’anic teachings concerning Jesus, Bible and Christianity. This has been done
in some detail in the following
pages, particularly in the first and second chapters. An introductory sketch of the argument may, however, be presented
here.
According to the teaching of the Qur’an, every country of the world
had its divine messengers, who were, one and all,
human beings, and who were sent to mankind, at different periods of history,
ever since the first beginnings of human life on earth. Belief in all of them is an
article of the Islamic faith. The
religion preached by all those Messengers or Prophets was the
same, namely, Islam (lit. submission to the Will of God), though
it received its perfection of form in the Qur’anic Revelation. Therefore all the divinely-inspired teachers
of mankind arc the prophets of a Muslim, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (God bless
him!) being the last and final one. A Muslim believes in all the revealed
scriptures, though he follows only the Qur’an, firstly, because it claims to
contain the authentic teachings given in all the former scriptures, and,
secondly, because none of the former scriptures exists in its original and pure
form.
Qur’anic Contentions regarding Christianity
This is the background of the Qur’anic contentions regarding
Christianity.
Thus, according
to the Qur’an:
(1) Jesus
was not divine but human. He was one of the great
teachers of mankind and a holy Prophet of God, by Whom
he was appointed to reform the race of Israel. He did not bring any new
law, though Divine Revelation was granted to him:
“He (i.e.,
Jesus) is not but a servant (of God) on whom. We (i.e., God) bestowed
favour and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel”.[3]
“He (i.e,
Jesus) spake: Lo! I am the slave of God. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,
“And hath made me blessed where so ever I may be, and: hath enjoined
upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,
“And hath made me dutiful toward her who bore
me, and
hath not made me arrogant, unblest;
“Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive (along
with the rest of humanity)!
“Such was
Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they
doubt;
“It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself
a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto
it only ‘Be!’ and it comes to exist.
“And lo! God is
my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path”[4].
“And We caused
Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps (i.e., the footsteps of the Jewish Prophets
preceding him), verifying what was (of the Law and the Prophets) before
him in the Torah, and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.”[5]
(2) The
present versions of the Bible are the work of Jewish and Christian priests and
they are not, therefore, Divine; the New Testament is not a faithful record of
the life and teachings of Jesus:
“Are they then
unaware that God knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they
proclaim?
“Among them are
the ignorant who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess.”
“Therefore woe
be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, 'This is
from God', that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for
that their hands have written and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.”[6]
“..........and
they say: It (i.e., the current Bible) is from God, while it is not from God;
and they tell a lie against God whilst they know.”[7]
(3) Traditional Christianity
is of Pagan, and not Divine, origin:
“And the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God. These are the
words of their mouths; they imitate the saying
(or teaching) of the Pagans (lit. those who turned away from the Divine
Light) preceding them ...and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only; there is
no deity but He; far be from His glory what they set up
(with Him).”[8]
“Say (O Muhammad): O People of the Scripture!
Stress not
in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the low desires (i.e., degraded religious
conceptions) of the people (i.e. the Pagans)
who erred of old and led many astray and fell away from the right path
(i.e., the true conception of
religion).”[9]
(4) The condition of Christianity (as also of
other religions) having become corrupt, the All-Wise and
Merciful God granted His Revelation to mankind again in the seventh
century A. C.; this Revelation is the Holy Qur'an and the Messenger who was
entrusted with it is the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may his memory be ever green!):
“Corruption doeth appear on land and sea because of (the evil)
which men's hands have wrought”.[10]
“O People of
the Scripture! Now hath Our Messenger (Muhammad) come unto you expounding unto
you much of that which ye used to hide
in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now hath come unto you light from God and
a plain Scripture, whereby God guideth him
who seeketh His pleasure unto paths of peace. He bringeth them out of
darkness unto light by His decree, and guideth them unto a straight path.”[11]
This, in brief,
is the Qur'anic view of Christianity, and, as will become evident from the
forthcoming discussions, a most rational, well-founded and sound view. That it
should have excited animosity in the hearts of Christian priesthood was only
natural. But most unfortunate for the cause of Truth was the fact that the prolonged political conflict between
the Muslim world and the West gave an extraordinary opportunity to the
Christian clergy to create a lasting hatred of Muslims in the minds of
westerners, and the absolutely baseless
calumnies which were manufactured by a designing priesthood in
connection with Islam and the life of the Holy Prophet added fuel to the fire,
so much so that even to-day, after the
downfall of traditional Christianity and the thorough triumph of
scientific spirit, the most enlightened Europeans and Americans find it
difficult to rise above their inherited prejudices
against Islam. “Even the most eminent of European orientalists”, observes the learned German Muslim
theologian and scholar, Muhammad Asad
Weiss, “have made themselves guilty of an unscientific partiality in
their writings on Islam. In their investigations it almost appears as if Islam
could not be treated as a mere object of scientific research, but as an accused standing before his judges. Some of the
orientalists play the role of a public prosecutor bent on securing conviction; others are like a counsel for the
defence who, being personally convinced that his client is guilty, cannot but half-heartedly plead for ‘mitigating
circumstances’. All in all the technique of the deductions and conclusions
adopted by most of the European orientalists
reminds of the proceedings of the famous Courts of Inquisition set up by
the Catholic Church against its opponents in the Middle Ages: that is to say, they hardly ever investigate historical facts
independently, but start, almost in every case, from a foregone
conclusion dictated by prejudice. They
select the witnesses according to the
conclusion they intend to reach a priori. Where an arbitrary
selection of
witnesses is impossible, they cut parts of the evidence of the available ones
out of the context, or they interpret their
statements in the spirit of an unscientific malevolence, without
attributing any weight to the representation of the case by the other party,
that is, the Muslims themselves.”[12]
However, Europe, though still greatly ignorant
of Islam, has accepted the Qur'anic view of Christianity as a result of her own
intellectual awakening. And this intellectual awakening being the outcome of
Islamic civilisation, the Word of God has been directly fulfilled and the claim
of Islam established:
“Fain would they (i.e., Jews and Christians) put out the light of
God with their mouths, but God disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers
are averse.
“He it is Who hath sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance
and the religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religions,
however much the idolaters may dislike.”[13]
Christian
Testimony
The acceptance
of the Qur’anic view of Christianity by European scholars, including some of
the most eminent Christian divines, is a fact which forms the main theme of this book and will be treated in full in the
following chapters. A glimpse of it
may, however, be obtained from the following references.
Divinity of
Jesus
The Rev. Dr. A. B. Bruce, D.D., in his article on “Jesus” in the
Encyclopedia Biblica, points out that, while in the Gospel of St. Luke Jesus is
called “the Lord” about a dozen times, the earlier Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Mark refer to him simply as “Jesus”—”a fact which seems to indicate
the gradual evolution of the
belief in His divinity.”[14]
“The celebrated
text of three witnesses (John, I. V. 7)”, says John Davenport[15],
“which is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity, has been proved, by
the labours of Newton, Gibbon, Person and others to have been an interpolation; and Calmet himself acknowledges
that this verse is not found in any ancient copy of the Bible. Jesus taught
the belief in One God, but Paul, with the Apostle John, who was a Platonist, despoiled Christ's religion of
all its unity and simplicity, by introducing the incomprehensive Trinity
of Plato or Triad of the East and also by deifying two of God's
attributes, namely, His Holy Spirit or the Agion Pneuma of Plato and His
Divine Intelligence, called by Plato the Logos (Word), and applied under
this form to Jesus (John 1).”
Mission of
Jesus
“At the appearance of Jesus,” observes the same writer, “the Jews
inhabiting Judea were extremely corrupt in their morals, and a criminal
self-love and egotism having been long spread among them, both priests and
people, there was nothing to be found but avarice, rapine, injustice and oppression,
for placing their righteousness in the rigid observance of some ceremonies and formulae of religion, they had entirely
lost its real substance. To restore this seems to have been the “whole aim, drift and design of the mission of
Christ, for to that all his doctrines plainly tend—a consideration sufficient to show that the
Christian religion in its foundation was but the renewing of that of Moses.”[16]
“It is also plain from the books attributed to
the Evangelists
that the apostles had some doubts whether any but the Jews were to be admitted into the benefit of their new dispensation,
though upon a consultation it was determined that the Gentiles should have the
Gospel preached unto them”[17]
Dr. Harnack remarks[18];
“Jesus Christ brought forward no new doctrine.”
According to
Zeller[19]:
“If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah,
the first Christians could have been aware of no other essential difference
from the Jews.”
Authenticity of
the Bible
“The Bible”,
says Sir Richard Gregory, “fails to justify faith in its inerrancy on account of its inconsistency with itself, its variance from current concepts of what should
constitute Christian belief, and from current codes of morality, its failure in its adaptability as regards
statements of fact and the discoveries of science relating to the record of
happenings in the cosmic process, and finally in its inability to
withstand the investigation of textual
criticism, when directed to the claims of authorship upon which the
authenticity of its various parts has been based..........”
“Even in the
early Church, from the days of Origen onwards, there was uneasiness as to the
character of the text and content of the Bible......”
“Origen and
others of the Fathers after him interpreted the inconsistencies and other
weaknesses of the Biblical text as allegory
and metaphor. As a consequence of these condonations and interpretations
of the text there grew up a body of apologetic and exegetic literature based in
part on tradition not embodied in the text, and dealing with both doctrine and
ritual, which came to be in their sphere as authoritative as the original. It was out of these that there grew
the dissensions, which in their turn
have given rise to divisions, leading to the separate existence of the
Greek and Eastern Churches, the uprising of the numerous heretical sects of the
Middle Ages, the Reformation and the creation of the various Protestant
Churches, and finally within the Protestant faith the separate forms of belief
which have brought about, among others, the separation of Nonconformity from
the ritual and doctrine of the Church of
England.”[20]
Condition of
Christianity at the advent of Islam
The corruption of Christianity was complete by the end of the
sixth century. As this fact forms one of the supports in the Qur'anic
argument regarding the prophethood of Muhammad and as our Christian friends
either belittle its importance or avoid it totally in their controversies with
Muslims, it is necessary to view its different aspects in the light of the
findings of western authorities, particularly of the Christian divines.
St. Hilary, the bishop of Potiers in the fourth century A. C. and
one of the Fathers of the Church, who, “from the peculiar hardships of his
situation, was inclined to extenuate rather than to aggravate the errors of the
Oriental clergy”, “unwarily deviating into
the style of a Christian philosopher”, wrote[21]:
“It is a thing
equally deplorable and dangerous that there are as many creeds as opinions
among men, as many doctrines as
inclinations, and as many sources of blasphemy; as there are faults among us; because we make creeds arbitrarily and explain them as arbitrarily. The Homoousion is rejected, and received, and explained away by successive
synods. The partial or total resemblance of the Father and of the Son are a subject of dispute for these unhappy
times. Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we
defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we defended. We
condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or ours in that of others; and reciprocally tearing one
another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other’s ruin.”
The famous
Church historian, Dean Milman, supports the above statement with the following
observations[22]:
“The Bishop of
Constantinople was the passive victim, the
humble slave, or the factious adversary, of the Byzantine Emperor; he rarely
exercised a lofty moral control upon his despotism. The lower clergy, whatever
their more secret beneficent or sanctifying workings on society, had sufficient
power, wealth and rank to tempt ambition or to degrade to intrigue; not enough
to command the public mind for any great salutary purpose, to repress the
inveterate immorality of an effete age,
to reconcile jarring interests, to mould together hostile races, in general
they ruled, when they did rule, by the superstitious fears, rather than by the
reverence and attachment of grateful people. They sank downward into common
ignorance, and yielded to the worst barbarism—a worn-out civilization.
Monasticism withdrew a great number of those who might have been energetic and
useful citizens into barren seclusion and religious indolence; but except when
the monks formed themselves, as they frequently did, into fierce political or
polemic factions, they had little effect on the condition of the society. They
stood aloof from the world—the anchorites in their desert wildernesses, the
monks in their jealousy-barred
convents, and secure, as they supposed, of their own salvation, left the rest of mankind to inevitable
perdition.”
About the
general degeneration, the Rev. Dr. White remarks[23]:
“Divided into numberless parties, on account of distinctions the
most trifling and absurd, contesting with each other
from
perverseness, and persecuting each other with rancour, corrupt in opinion and
degenerate in practice, the Christians of this unhappy period seemed to have
retained little more than the name and external profession of their religion.
Of a Christian Church scarce any vestige
remained. The most profligate principles and
absurd opinions were universally predominant; ignorance amidst the most
favourable opportunities of knowledge, vice amidst the noblest
encouragements to virtue, a pretended zeal for truth, mixed with the wildest
extravagances of error, an implacable spirit of discord about opinions which none could settle, and a general
and a striking similarity in the
commission of crimes, which it was the duty and interest of all to
avoid.
“The images of the saints who had laboured to disseminate, and the bones of the martyrs who had died to confirm, the faith, were
now, by the arts of a designing priesthood, and the ignorance of a
superstitious multitude, held up as proper objects of religious adoration.
“The blind fury
of superstitious zeal extinguished the tenderest sentiments of nature; the
majesty of the laws was trampled on and violated with impunity; the cities of
the East were deluged with blood.”
On an appeal by
Dean Wace and others to the authority of
the First Six Centuries, the
Church Association of England adopted the following resolution:—
“The first six centuries were characterized by fierce controversies as
to the most fundamental verities of the Christian faith by the wholesale introduction of adult
converts, who brought
with them heathen and Jewish habits of thought and who were in many cases of a low type of civilization; and the adulteration of the Gospel was further facilitated by the purely nominal adhesion of
persons anxious to stand well with the first Christian emperors. The period was
of incessant fermentation and of rapid and continuous change.”[24]
These
statements are final in themselves. In the forthcoming discussions, however, I shall endeavour to prove that the first
six centuries of Christian history witnessed the complete paganisation of the
simple faith of Jesus. In case Archbishop Wand finds himself unable to see eye
to eye with me, it will be his duty to prove historically at least three
important points: (1) that the New Testament is an authentic record of the
actions and teachings of Jesus and has not suffered any changes during the last two thousand
years; (2) that the pre-Christian legends of sun-worship cults are
post-Christian fabrications; (3) that the dates of events in the life of Jesus,
which it is impossible not to interpret in the light of the sky-scriptures,
because of their coincidence with the dates of sun-festivals of a similar import, are not
correct; though that would go against
his own position as a Christian. Anyway, the Archbishop shall have to
establish the historical authenticity
of Christianity first. When that is done, the next step would be to judge, in
the light of internal evidence, the respective claims of Islam and Christianity
as divinely-revealed world-faiths.
CHRISTIANITY
AND ISLAM TODAY
The Archbishop says: “The observance of
Mohammad’s
religion was more adapted for the drivers of camels than for the chauffeurs of
Ford cars. The very adoption of western dress has made a difference......This
leads one to think that the doors of
Islam are being opened as never before to a new and sympathetic presentation of
the Christian faith.”
This statement can be met from two sides:
first, by posing the question, How far is Christianity itself accepted by the ‘chauffeurs
of Ford cars’? And, next, by expounding the message
of Islam and showing it to be the only religion suited to the
requirements of enlightened humanity. As regards Islam, it has been discussed
fundamentally, though briefly, in the last chapter of this book. Here I may
throw some light on the comparative strength of Islam and Christianity in the
modern world.
It is an open
secret that Christianity is dying to-day in her own homelands. Being virtually
powerless in meeting the attacks of rational
criticism, historical as well as philosophical, it is losing ground every day in proportion to the power which
the ‘chauffeurs
of Ford cars’ are gaining. “The average European—he
may be a Democrat or a Fascist, a capitalist or a
Bolshevist, a manual worker or an intellectual—knows only one positive ‘religion’,
and that is the worship of material progress, the belief that there is no other
goal in life than to make that very life continually easier and, as the current
expression goes, ‘independent of nature’. The temples of this ‘religion’ are the gigantic factories,
cinemas, chemical laboratories, dancing halls, hydro-electric works; and its
priests are bankers, engineers, film-stars, industrial barons, record-airmen.”
A general misconception prevails in certain quarters that the presence
of powerful Christian missionary organizations in the East is due to the
existence of a rigid hold of Christianity on
western minds. Facts however belie any such assumption. What many a westerner thinks about
Christian missions is evident from the following statement of Paul
Hutchinson on The Ordeal of Western Religion[25]:
“The Missionary no longer stands by himself; he blends into the background formed by western statecraft.
He is seen in Asia and Africa as
an integral part of the imperialistic advance of the western state. Sometimes
he has been the unwilling dupe of the statecraft, as in the case of those missionaries whose deaths have been made the
pretext for territorial demands. The origin of the ‘Shantung issue’
which nearly wrecked the Paris Peace
Conference is a case in point. Sometimes
he has been the conscious agent of western aggression, as in the feverish
attempts of Dr. Peter Parker, honoured as the pioneer medical missionary
in China, to induce the United States to
annex the island of Formosa—all, of course, as a prelude to the Christianization of the Formosans.”
The frank
admission by Dr. E. A. Burroughs, bishop of Ripon,
which Samuel M. Zwemer has quoted in his infamous book: Across the World of
Islam (p. 37), is conclusive:
“Recent events have shown that we are losing
our former sense of imperial mission, the instinct to take up the 'White Man's Burden'......Already we are finding that without the Christian missionary
impulse we shall be hard put to it to staff our Indian Empire----I believe that if
all facts could be assessed it would be found that the empire
is held together ......most of all by the Christian
missionaries in all lands, who are
the most effectual servants of the imperial ideal.”
The state of affairs at home was revealed by the Bishop of
Leicester at the Conference of Evangelical Churchmen held at Oxford in 1935. He
said[26]:
“There are 17,000,000
in this country (i.e., England) who are not
in touch with any Church......There is a kind of spiritual inertia—a spirit of defeatism.... Most congregations
are quite vague as to the purpose of their church in the
parish......I am afraid there are a number of clergy who have no Gospel that
they can preach with assurance.”
In Australia
itself, the Archbishop of Brisbane must have
witnessed the same thing. For, soon after his pronouncements on Islam and
Christianity, the Sunday Times of Singapore, in its issue for May
29th, 1938, reported:
“In Australia’s cities and big towns today, the
spiritual position is utterly pathetic. Only
from 5 to 10 per cent of population go to church” said Mr. J. Edwin Orr, Irish author and
evangelist, on arrival at Adelaide.
The wickedest
city of Australia is Kalgoorlie. There Church
attendance is minute. Bars are open all day on Sundays, and illegal betting
shops flourish. I have seen people staggering drunk there at 9 a.m.
“The local Minister’s fraternal has brought
these matters to the notice of the Government, but nothing has been done.”
Verily, European and American Christianity is meant only for export
and not for home consumption!
The Archbishop has deliberately confused the issue by referring to
the modern western civilization as a Christian civilization, thus exposing himself to the charge of ignorance. It
was Islam, and not Christianity, which brought about the western Renaissance,
and the modern scientific culture, though now more under the pre-Christian
Roman culture as far as its emotional
side is concerned, was born in the Muslim universities of Spain. The Christian
Church, in fact, fought against Science and Progress for centuries and it was
not until it had suffered many defeats in succession and found itself powerless
that it signed the truce. One of the greatest churchmen of our day has
admitted this fact, though with a deep sense of injury and pain:
“The Dark Ages, and even the Middle Ages which
followed them, are to the scientist a melancholy chapter in human history......
“The truth is, I think, that the Reformation not only checked but obscured the scientific progress which
had begun in the century which
preceded it. The Reformation and Counter- Reformation were, from the point of view of secular culture,
a retrogression....It
is useless to ask whether the Catholics or the Protestants were the most guilty of
this set-back to civilization.... Catholics
and Protestants vied with each other in denouncing the new theories. Those
churchmen who airily declare that there
is no longer any conflict between Christianity and science are either very
thoughtless or are willfully shutting their eyes. There is a very serious
conflict, and the challenge was presented not in the age of Darwin, but in the
age of Copernicus and Galileo”.[27]
While Christianity suffers in this way, the case of Islam is
altogether different. During the last one century, the world of Islam has been
passing through a most severe type of political ordeal and has been
continuously exposed, as a result, to all sorts of intellectual, social and
moral evils. But it is a miracle of Islam that while the world-population of Muslims was only 220 millions fifty years ago, it
is estimated at more than 1.5 billion presently. This one fact alone is enough
to prove the inexhaustible inherent vitality of Islam.
To attribute to Islam a reactionary nature because of the present
shortcomings of the Muslim world would mean throwing out a false challenge in
the face of history. The fact cannot be gainsaid that it was Islam and Islam
alone which roused the world from its death-like sleep in the seventh century,
which raised the Arabs as well as the non-Arabs to the highest pinnacle of glory in all realms of human activity— religious, moral, social
and intellectual, and which ultimately brought Europe out of the darkness of
the semi-barbarism of Middle Ages and taught her science and philosophy and inaugurated
the Renaissance.
Again, to conclude from the success which western ideals have gained in
certain Muslim quarters that Islam is a ‘spent force’ would be nothing less
than self-deception and miscalculation of the dynamic forces of Islam. This is recognized
and admitted by all, except the over-zealous and ill-meaning Christian
missionaries, who have to deny it to keep their business going. Let Archbishop
Wand read the clear verdict of a western specialist, Prof. H. A. R. Gibb:
“In introducing our discussion of westernisation the general
statement was made that the Moslem world desires to be westernised. At the outset of this part of our investigation
another general statement, even more categorical and no less fundamental, must
also be made. The Moslem peoples remain deeply attached to the religion of Islam and
intensely convinced of its
superiority. That here and there individual Moslems, especially of the upper
classes, are lukewarm in their faith and neglectful of its observances, or even confess themselves atheists, matters as little as that amongst those who call
themselves Moslems there are groups whose religion is little more than a
compound of primitive superstitions. The vital forces of Islam, as a creed, as
a rule of life, and as an ethical system, remain unimpaired. The critical moment which threatened at the end
of the nineteenth century has been passed......The very fact that Islam is no longer a thing to be taken on
trust, but in this age of stress and disintegration of the old social order, a
thing to be fought for, is itself a powerful stimulus to a new appreciation of its value. Islam has always been
religion-conscious; to-day it is more so than ever........The sense of devotion
to the person of Muhammad and the enthusiasm which it evokes amongst all
classes may well prove to be one of
the most significant features in modern Islam. “They call me an atheist’, said recently
one of the most prominent exponents of western thought in Egypt, apropos
of
certain European works on the early history of Islam, ‘but when I read
what L—writes about Muhammad I
am so filled with indignation that I feel myself a stauncher Moslem than any of
my critics.’ If those who deny the vitality of Islam in Turkey or elsewhere were to try a
similar test, they might perhaps find cause to revise their opinions.”[28]
It is indeed sad that the over-bubbling of the crusading spirit
blinded the Archbishop of Brisbane to the real issue —the issue, namely, of the
disintegration and fast-approaching death of
Christianity in her own independent, powerful and prosperous homelands. It is
self-evident that, given all the political paraphernalia of world-supremacy,
nothing else than the inherent defects and shortcomings of Christianity have
been responsible for its downfall. In fact, it could never have otherwise fallen to its lot to suffer from the present
indifference, nay, hostile opposition, of the very people whose forefathers shed their blood for it for more
than 1,500 years, had it not proved absolutely impotent in satisfying
the demands of sane and rational thought.
Ignorance, it is said, is bliss. But self-imposed ignorance must only lead
to hell in the long run. The following pages will
show how mortally wounded stands Christianity as a ‘real world religion’
and rival of Islam.
CHRISTIANITY
Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and
you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and
that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that we shall not take
each other for lords beside Allah:
O people of the Scripture! Why disbelieve ye in the revelations of
Allah, when ye (yourselves) bear witness (to their truth)?
O people of the Scripture! Why confound ye truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the
truth?
—Al-Qur'an, III:
64,70,71.
II
EVIDENCES FOR CHRISTIANITY
(A) INTERNAL EVIDENCE
F
OR every one who calls himself a Christian, and calls himself so
consistently, the basic dogma of belief is, as it naturally should be, that the
Bible is genuinely, utterly and irrevocably the Word of God and the authentic
testament of Christianity. That this is not a mere assumption but a fact of
history is known to all students of the Christian religion. For instance, the
Blasphemy Act of Protestant England lays down that anyone who denies the
“divine authority” of the “Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” shall
not be allowed to hold any public office and shall, on a second conviction, be
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Similarly, the Vatican Council of 1870,
“speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost”, declared that the Old and
New Testaments “have God for their author and, as such, have been delivered to
the Church”. “The Bible”, said Dr. Bayley in his book entitled Verbal
Inspiration, “cannot be less than
verbally inspired. Every word, every syllable, every letter, is just what it
would have been had God spoken from heaven without any human
intervention. Every scientific
statement is
infallibly correct; all its history and narratives of every kind are without
any inaccuracy”.
This being the case, the only right conclusion that can be deduced is what a writer once stated
in the Church Times (February 10, 1905): “The truth of the message is
intimately connected with the authenticity of the record, and a critical theory
which assails the one assails the other”. In other words, the case for
Christianity stands or falls with proof or disproof of the genuineness of the
Bible. And not only that. The charge of ignorance, so ignorantly brought
against the Holy Prophet Muhammad by Archbishop Wand and many of his
compatriots also stands or falls similarly.
A Muslim may, therefore, ask: Can we honestly regard the Bible as the Word of God? Is the New
Testament a genuine record of the life and
teachings of Jesus? Unfortunately for
Christianity, the reply which the greatest Christian scholars who have
devoted their lives to the textual and historical problems of the Bible during
the last one century is in the
negative. “With the advance in the technique of textual criticism in the course
of the last generation, with a more searching analysis of the matter of the
text, and with the use of the comparative
method in evaluating the tradition embodied in the narrative, it has
become even more patently evident that orthodox opinion in regard to the
authenticity of the Bible cannot be maintained”.[29]*
The subject of Biblical Criticism is so vast that it would be beyond the scope of a small chapter to give even a sketchy outline of the problems and discuss them briefly.
Any attempt
in that
direction would require a separate volume. Apart from this, we are concerned
here mainly with evaluating the conclusions
which the European research scholars have arrived at. The most
appropriate course, therefore, would be to state those conclusions and evaluate
them, and to this procedure I feel the
Archbishop should have no objection.
The sole point where he can differ with me is the
selection of authorities. For there are two categories of
Biblical critics:
(1) Agnostics and others who are
openly hostile to Christianity;
(2) Professional representatives of Christianity. I shall select the second group in order to avoid the least
chance of error, and even among them I shall take only those who, as
theologians and ministers, have been the
pillars of orthodox Churches. If in
spite of all these precautions I am accused of ignorance, inaccuracy of dishonesty, I shall be ready to
discuss the subject on the lines which the Archbishop may himself
propose.
Old Testament
First as to the Old Testament. Canon A. F. Kirkpatrick, D. D.,
who was Master of Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the
University of Cambridge, and Canon of Ely
Cathedral, writes in his standard work: The Divine Library of the Old Testament (a book selected for examination by the
Christian Evidence Society in March, 1907):—
“The books (of
the Old Testament) were constructed out of earlier narratives; some were formed by the collections of poetry or prophecies; some betray marks of
a reviser’s hand; and even books which bear the names of well-known authors in some cases contain matter which must be
attributed to other writers.” As regards the last twenty-seven chapters
of Isaiah,
“I do not see how we can resist the conclusion that these chapters were not
written by Isaiah but by an unknown
prophet towards the close of the Babylonian Exile;... it will inevitably
seem to many students of the Bible that, in assigning the prophecy to a date so
near to the events which it foretells, we
are detracting from its truly predictive character and diminishing its value.”
“The Psalms like the Proverbs, have a long literary
history. They are poems by different authors, and David may be one of them.”
“Modern criticism claims, and claims with justice, that the Hexateuch,
like so many of the other books, is composite in its origin, and has a long
literary history.” “That the Pentateuch was entirely written by Moses is
merely a Jewish tradition, which passed into the Christian Church and was
commonly accepted until modern times. Some of the variants of the Septuagint
from the Hebrew text are due, no doubt, to
errors and interpolations and deliberate alterations; but
after all allowance has been made for these, I do not see how any candid critic
can resist the conclusion that many of them
represent variations existing in the Hebrew text from which the translation
was made.” “It was probably at the very beginning of this period (from the fall
of Jerusalem to the end of the fifth century), towards the close of the first
century A.D., that the final settlement of an authoritative text took
place....How came it that all the
copies containing other readings have disappeared?...
Copies differing from it (i.e., the standard text) would die out or be deliberately destroyed.” “The oldest
Hebrew manuscript in existence, of which the date is known, was
written in 916 A.D.—i.e., separated by more than a thousand years from the
latest of the works included in the canon.”
These conclusions utterly destroy the divine character of the Old
Testament. Dr. Kirkpatrick is conscious of it and, being a clergyman, feels
uneasy about it. He finally offers
the following
fundamental question, but leaves it unanswered: “In what sense, it is asked,
can this legislation, which is now said to be Mosaic in elemental germ and idea
only, and to represent not the inspired
deliverance of a supremely great individual, but the painful efforts of many
generations of law-makers; these histories which have been compiled
from primitive traditions, and chronicles, and annals, and what not; these books of prophecy which are not
the authentic autographs of the prophets, but posthumous collections of
such writings (if any) as they left behind them, eked out by the recollections of their disciples; these
Proverbs and Psalms which have been handed down by tradition and altered
and edited and re-edited; these histories which contain errors of date and
fact, and have been, perhaps, ‘idealised’ by the reflection of the circumstances
and ideas of the writers’ own times upon a distant past; these seeming
narratives which may be allegories; and
these would-be prophecies which may be histories; in what sense can
these be said to be inspired!” in no sense, to be sure!
New Testament
Turning now to
the New Testament, we find its trustworthiness as a historical document
impeached so thoroughly by modern Criticism that it would be difficult to find today a single Christian scholar of note who could
endorse belief in its divine
character. In despair they have to “detach Christianity from mere
narrative and seek to appreciate it as a spiritual reality, which appeals to
the imagination, the emotions, and the soul”. For instance, the celebrated
theologian of Germany, Dr. Adolf Harnack, who was Professor of Church History
in the University of Berlin and a member of the Royal Prussian Academy, thus
sums up his conclusions regarding the New
Testament in his well-known work: What
is Christianity?: “These
(three) Gospels are not, it is true, historical works any more than the Fourth;
they were not written with the simple object
of giving the facts as they were; they were books composed for the work
of evangelisation”.
For our present
purpose it would be best to refer to the Encyclopedia Biblica which is
the most comprehensive and authoritative Christian work on Biblical
problems—higher, textual
and historical. It is authoritative because it is the fruit of the earnest labours of those who, as ministers
and authorised representatives of the Church[30],
are the last persons to “be accused of falsehood or prejudice against
Christianity. In
fact, as
defenders of their faith they must have set out to make the best of a bad
bargain.
The views of these scholars concerning the Old
Testament are essentially the same as those of Dr. Kirkpatrick
cited above. For them, the book of Genesis is a composite narrative
based on older records long since lost; the stories of the Patriarchs like
Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, are legendary; the book of Exodus is a composite
legend; the character of Moses and the origin of the Ten Commandments
is legendary; the book of Deuteronomy is a composite
and considerably modified version of an older work; the Psalms is a
composite book of doubtful character; the book of Job is not a literary unity
but a growth; Jonah is a Jewish midrash written after the Exile; Isaiah
is the work of several authors; the book of Daniel is fabulous in character
and was written during or after the happening of the events which are foretold therein.
As to the New Testament, the following is a very brief summary of
their conclusions[31]:
The view hitherto current that the four Gospels were compiled by Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, and appeared thirty or forty years after the death of
Jesus, can no longer be maintained. The four Gospels were compiled from
earlier materials which have perished. Even if we accept more conservative
opinions which place the earliest Gospel about 65 A.D., that would not, of
course, make any material difference, nor affect the conclusions of criticism
as to their contents. Some of their statements of facts are quite erroneous,
and the data are often in direct contradiction to one another. The evangelists
made it clear that they wrote with a “lack of concern for historical
precision”. The imperfection of Gospel accounts is everywhere manifest. The text must not be taken as a trustworthy guide to his (Jesus)
original meaning. It merely shows us what the evangelists or their predecessors
believed him to mean. The situations in which the words of Jesus are said to
have been spoken cannot be implicitly accepted. Both St. Matthew and St.
Mark seem to have read into the utterances of Jesus details borrowed from
subsequent facts or controversies. The historical value of the
third Gospel is lowered by evidence of the writer’s errors
and misunderstandings. It has been widely assumed that it was
written by the physician Luke, and Luke was a companion of Paul. This view of
its Pauline character, however, can now be maintained only in a very limited
sense. It is clear that the third Gospel and the Acts are by the same
author, but that author was not Luke. In the fourth Gospel we find more ambiguities than in all the other three together. The records of the miracles in the fourth Gospel are all
poetic developments. It is vain to look to the Church fathers for
trustworthy information on the subject of the origin of the Gospels.
The Acts of the Apostles does not come
from a companion of St. Paul. It is the work of several hands.
No statement merits immediate acceptance on the mere ground of its presence in
the book.
According to Professor van Manen, none of the Epistles
attributed to St. Paul were written by him. Others, however, regard the four
generally accepted Epistles as genuine.
The Book of Revelation can no longer be
regarded as a literary unit, but is an admixture of Jewish with Christian
ideas and speculations. Presbyter John, rather than the Apostle, was its
author.
There are only nine passages in the Gospels, says the Rev. Dr. Schmiedel, which “might
be called the foundation-pillars for a truly scientific life of
Jesus”.
It is not possible to know exactly when or where Jesus was born,
when he died or how he ministered.
The Rev. Dr. A. B. Bruce regards the Gospel
account of Jesus as unreliable in many details. For instance,
he shows that: the Temptation is a symbolic
representation of a spiritual experience; the story of the crucifixion
is not pure truth, but truth mixed with
doubtful legend; the night trial, the mocking, the incident of Barabbas, the two thieves, and the preternatural
concomitants of the death are picturesque accessories of doubtful authenticity.[32]
According to Dr. Schmiedel, the Gospel accounts, on which the actuality of the Resurrection depends
for its establishment, “exhibit contradictions of the most glaring
kind.” The silence of St. Paul regarding the details of the story of
Resurrection proves its untrustworthiness.
Such, in brief, is the historical authenticity and divine authority of
the book which the Christian missionaries put forward as the standard of
religious revelation and on the basis of which they judge every other sacred
scripture, particularly the Holy Qur’an. But, if the findings of modern
Biblical Criticism are fundamentally true, and it would be difficult to
challenge them, the Bible cannot be considered reliable even
as an ordinary
human historical document, not to speak of attributing to it divine character. And
this would mean that to substantiate the Christian claims and to refute the
Qur'anic teaching concerning Jesus and Christianity on the strength of Biblical
evidence would be altogether absurd.
A former bishop of Manchester once confessed: “The very foundation
of our Faith, the very basis of our hopes, are taken from us when one line of
that sacred volume, on which we base everything, is declared to be untruthful
and untrustworthy”. But the Archbishop of Brisbane and many others among the
Christian propagandists still declare that the foundations of their faith are
intact. Is it obstinacy or hypocrisy?
(B) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Historicity of Biblical Jesus
Once, during my sojourn in the Far East, I had
a very pleasant discussion with a learned Christian. One of the main problems
which we discussed together was: Are we in a position to believe on historical
grounds that a person like the Jesus of
the Gospels ever existed and that he ever taught the doctrines attributed to
him by the Christian Church? Quite naturally the New Testament was first
brought forward to bear testimony. But
it suffers so miserably in its historical value as a genuine record of the life
and work of Jesus that the attempt had
to be abandoned soon, and my friend could see no way out of the difficulty except by
strengthening the position of the New Testament with the help of the alleged
testimony of the Jewish scholar, Flavius Josephus, and some other non-Christian
writers. The last position which he thus took up was: Though we cannot prove in
the light of scientific criticism that the New Testament is a genuine
historical document, the reference to the main events of the life of Jesus in the writings of the historian Flavius
Josephus establishes
clearly that the basic points in the Christian belief about Jesus are historically well-founded.
This is an argument which I have heard being repeated by many. But
the truth is that it is based on nothing else but ignorance and those modern scholars who have made a scientific
and impartial study of the subject have come to the conclusion that even the
most important testimony, namely that of
Josephus, is an obvious interpolation. The latest and most comprehensive
attempt in this connection is that of the brilliant French scholar, Dr. Paul
Louis Couchoud, whom I shall quote at length in view of the ignorance
which universally prevails. He writes
in his Enigma of Jesus (pp. 17-22):—
“In the sphere of bare fact Jesus occupies an
infinitesimal place. Scientific history does not lay hold on him.
“Forgetting the Christian ages and all that Jesus has come to be in
the hearts of believers, let us close our eyes to his
dazzling image, and seek the original: what he himself was actually,
amidst the realities of his time and country.
“This will involve a precise and strictly limited inquiry. Any
honest and practised historian, whether a believer or an unbeliever, is capable of making this
investigation by ordinary historical methods. He has only to approach it
freely, to treat it frankly, to be concerned with it alone and not with the
consequences which he may foresee will result. Such an enquiry need neither be lengthy nor complicated. It consists in
the examination and careful sifting of a small amount of evidence, some of
which is negative.
“There is one man who might have informed us as to Jesus. He has not done so. This was the Jew,
Flavius Josephus,
a prolix
writer, and well informed as to his compatriots, whom, with equal skill, he
betrayed as soldier and served as author. He is the only historian whose works
have come down to us, who relates in any
detail what happened in Judaea during the last half of the first
century. He did not mention Jesus. The misfortune of such an omission soon came
to be realised, and Christian hands added to the text of Josephus what
Christians desired it to contain.[33]
“It was left to their discretion. When, after the fall of the
Jewish nation, the Jews fell back on their Torah and their Hebrew Mishna, they
abandoned all Jewish literature in the Greek language. It was the Christians
who preserved in their Bible the charming
magic story of Tobias, composed in
Greek by some Alexandrian Jew contemporary with Apollonius of Rhodes,
and that Wisdom of Solomon, which in its attempt to conciliate Moses and Plato
mars both.
“They also
preserved certain circumstantial writings, called
‘apocalypses’—that is to say, revelations as to the
end of the world which was
thought to be approaching, pamphlets modelled on
the book of Daniel, such as ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, the two
books of Enoch, the two apocalypses of Baruch, the fourth Book of Ezra. These
they did not fail to enrich with many a Christian addition. Sometimes the
addition was more important than the original
text. ‘The Ascension of Isaiah’ is a lengthy sequel to a fragment of
Jewish hagiography. The great Apocalypse of John is founded on fragments, still
discernible, of a Jewish apocalypse of the
Age of Nero (See L’ Apocalypse, translation
of the poem, with Introduction, Paris, edition Bossard, 1922). In such hands
Flavius Josephus was not likely to remain intact.
“In two of his works he ought to have, or might have referred to
Jesus. First, in the second book of The Wars of the Jews, which sets
forth in forty-two chapters the notable events that occurred in Judaea between
the death of Herod the Great (Year 4 before our era) and the outbreak of the revolt against Rome (Year 66), and more especially
the friction between Jews and Romans under the rule of the procurators.
“In such a narrative the story of Jesus, as we
believe we
know it, ought to have occupied an important place. We possess the Greek text
of the work, which, according to the author (Vita 65), was copied by the
Emperor Titus himself and published by imperial order. No mention is made of Jesus. But there once existed a Christian
recension, lost to-day and known only through an ancient translation
into archaic Russian. In eight places long
passages concerning Jesus have been added.[34]They
are curious and should be studied side by side
with the apocryphal gospels. They are impregnated with Christian
theology, and have nothing to do with the story of Josephus.
“In books XIX,
XIX and XX of his Ancient History of the Jews, Josephus, according to
then recent information, gives a resume of the history of the Judaea of
Tiberius down
to that of
Nero. Here again one expects a word about Jesus. And one's expectation is too
well fulfilled. This time it is the Christian edition alone we possess.
The third chapter of book XVIII relates the affronts suffered by the Jews under
Tiberius. Here we find a clumsy
interpolation, totally without reference to the context, inserted
between the story of the cruelty suffered by Palestine Jews at the hands of
Pontius Pilate and the exile of the Roman Jews by order of Tiberius. This is
how it occurs. The author is closing his account of cruel suppression of a riot at Jerusalem: —
‘Attacked unarmed by well-equipped assailants many perished on the spot, others fled wounded. Thus
ended the riot.
‘And about that time there came Jesus, a wise
man if he may be called a man. He was a
worker of marvels, a teacher of folk who received the truth willingly, and he
attracted many Jews, many also of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When, on the accusation of those who were the first
among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, those who had loved him from
the beginning continued to do so. He appeared to them on the third day, restored to life. God's prophets
predicted this and ten
thousand other marvels concerning him. Even to-day the sect
named Christians continues to exist.
‘At that time the Jews were struck by another terrible blow.’
“Never was
patch-work sewn with more obvious thread. The narrative's natural sequence
should take it straight on from the
harshly suppressed riot at Jerusalem to the other terrible blow that fell upon the Jews, the banishment to Sardinia of four thousand Jews from Rome. All that refers to Jesus belongs to a
quite different order of ideas.
“It is redolent of the most ardent Christian faith couched in typical Christian phraseology.[35] This Jesus, who can
hardly be called a man, who is the Messiah in the Christian sense, who rose on
the third day according to the scriptures, is the Jesus of faith. And those who
seek truth with all their hearts, who, having loved Jesus in the beginning,
loved him till the end, are the Christians as they saw themselves. Had Flavius
Josephus written this, he would have been a Christian and publicly professed
Christianity. His whole work would have been different from what it is. The
interpolation is ingenious and impudent.
“It was cited in the fourth century by Eusebius of Ceasaria (Ecclesiastical History, i, 110; Demonstratis Evangelica, iii, 5,105). In the third
century Origen conceded that Josephus, though
he does not believe in Jesus as
the Messiah (Contra Celsum. i,
47), sometimes approaches the truth. No earlier apologist appears either to
have read or heard of it. He is referring to another interpolation which we do
not find in our copies. Evidently he did not find in his the passage in which
Josephus is said to confess openly that it is Jesus who was the Messiah, thus
contradicting himself; for elsewhere he says that Vespasian was the Messiah (De
bell. jud. VI, 5, 4).
“In our copies
we again find Jesus called the Messiah indirectly referred to in book XX Chap. 9.
‘Hanan….called a session of the Sandherim, and summoned
before it the brother of Jesus called the
Messiah, named James, and a few others.......’
Here again a Christian annotation is discernible. The expression Jesus
called the Messiah is identical with that which, in the Gospel according to
Matthew, introduces,
Jesus at the
end of what is supposed to be his genealogy (Matt., 1, 16). It is
unthinkable that Josephus should have used
this epithet thus when he has nowhere presented the person to whom this
astonishing title may be applied. The expression
brother of Jesus is merely the
traditional title brother of the Master by which this
James was known to Christians from the time
of Paul (Gal. I, 19; I Cor. IX, 5). By recalling this familiar
apellation the annotator wanted to impress on his Christian readers James'
identity with the man whom Hanan had sentenced.
“Flavius Josephus says nothing of Jesus. Our best chance of
information is lost.”
In addition to the testimony of Josephus
discussed above, the Christian' apologists refer to the writings of Greek and Latin
scholars, i.e., Pliny the Younger's Letter to Emperor Trajan, the Annals
of Tacitus and the Lives of Caesars by Suetonius. Dr. Couchoud has examined this testimony also in
detail and has found it altogether deficient in supplementing our knowledge of
Christian history and doctrines. His concluding words are (p. 28):—
“Pliny the Younger came by chance on the established worship of the Messiah, Tacitus on the most
frequently repeated incident of his legend, Seutonius on the trace of
the early disorders that raged round his imaginary figure. This is all that
Greek and Latin writers have to tell us about Jesus.”
Now as to the Jewish religious literature:—
“In Jewish writings,” says Dr.
Couchoud (pp. 28-30), “in the intricate and
incoherent mass of Rabbinical scriptures,
one might
expect to find some definite tradition as to Jesus. Nothing of the sort. Very
few are the allusions to Jesus. No one shows any first-hand knowledge of him[36].
“The Jesus of the Talmud is nothing more than the distorted Jesus of the Gospels. It is a trivial
caricature clumsily traced over the
Gospel outline. Certain peevish rabbis derided and made a grievance of
what the Jews said about Jesus. Their naive sarcasm and credulous inventions
dealt mainly with the Virgin Birth, the
miracles, and the death sentence....
“As a result of the rabbis’ incredible incapacity for chronology,
this inverted 'Gospel oscillates without any definite date between a hundred
years before our era and a hundred years after. No definite date was attributed
to it until the third century of our era. The most ancient rabbis took care not
to know so much. In the beginning of the dialogue that Justin imagines between
Rabbi Tryphon and himself in the porch at Ephesus, Tryphon simply says: ‘You
follow an empty rumour. You have fashioned a Messiah for yourselves’. (Dial.
VIII, 4). Justin, in reply, begins to prove to
him the existence of Jesus, the Messiah. He makes no appeal to history, but merely to the psalmist
and the prophets, to the ancient holy books”.
CONCLUSION
The genuineness of the claims of Christianity can be established on
the basis of two types of evidence only i.e. (1) Internal, and (2) External.
The internal evidence, that is, the one supplied by the
Gospels, possesses, if at all, very meagre historical value In fact, speaking in the light of the science
of history the Gospel texts can in no way be considered as historical documents.
They are neither the writings of Jesus nor were they written under his command.
Their historical origins are obscure, and human hands have been continuously
engaged in introducing into them alterations and interpolations. They are at
best ‘tendency writings’. As the French theologian Father Alfred Loisy, truly
said: “What is commonly called Gospel history is much less the history of Jesus
than a poem of redemption by Christ.”[37]
As regards external evidence, namely, the one alleged to be found
in the writings of Jewish, Roman and Greek historians,
the detailed
examination by Dr. Couchoud proves it to
be forgery and fraud.
Indeed both sources of evidence are so hopelessly deficient that many a modern scholar has been led to the conclusion that Jesus never existed. This is the view, for instance, of: P.
Wernle (Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu, Halle, 1904); A. Loisy (Jesus et la tradition evangelique, Paris, 1910, and other works); Ch
Guignebert (Le Problems de Jesus, Paris, 1911); J. M. Robertson (The
Historical Jesus, London, 1916); A. Drews (Das Markus—Evangelium als zeugnis gegen die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, Jena,
1921).[38]
Allowing,
however, the widest margin of error and extremist tendencies in such a
conclusion, we cannot still deny two important truths: (1) The Bible is not a
revealed scripture in any sense whatever;
(2) It is absolutely unreliable as a record of the life and teachings of
Jesus[39].
This means that
we should not look for the source of Christianity in the divine revelation
granted to the holy prophet Jesus of
Nazareth, but somewhere else. Where?—The next chapter
shall furnish the reply.
Ill
PAGAN FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY
A CHRISTIAN CONFESSION
A clergyman of the Church of England once confessed in the Church
Times[40]:—
“The study of
folk-lore, of anthropology, of primitive myth and ritual, has made enormous
strides within the last quarter of a
century, and the fruits of that study are now forced, for the first
time, upon the attention of the general public. Presented in outline, the
situation is as follows: We have been accustomed to consider Christianity apart
from all other religions...... That there could be any but the vaguest likeness between them and our own beliefs was
unimaginable. Possibly there was a
belief in the Fatherhood of some supreme being, some vague conception of a future life; while sacrificial
rites, as we knew, were not peculiar to the Jews. But the other doctrines of
our creed we regarded as exclusively our own.
The ideas of a Triune Godhead, of an Incarnate Saviour, of the Virgin Birth, of the Second Advent, of the
Sacraments,
of the
Communion of Saints—these seemed
to be the distinctive possessions of
Christianity; these were marks clearly dividing
it from any form of paganism. So, at least, we imagined. But it proves that we were completely
mistaken. The modern study of primitive religions shows that every one of these beliefs is, or has been, held in
some part or other of the pagan world quite independently of
Christian influence, and that, while
we are bound to speak of these beliefs as, in a sense, distinctively Christian, to
term them exclusively Christian is no longer possible.”
‘To term them exclusively Christian is no
longer possible —these words must have been written with a heavy heart and a trembling
hand. But the clergyman in question should not have stopped at that. It was his duty, and it is the duty
of every Christian, including
Archbishop Wand, to state the ground of
resemblance between Christianity and Paganism.
For my part, I regard it most unfortunate that
the religion which is being preached under the sacred name
of Jesus (God bless him!), whose very mission was to destroy paganism and idolatry, should present to-day such absolute resemblance to the Pagan creeds of his own day. I regard it most unfortunate because a scientific study of the problem convinces me that the resemblance cannot be accounted for except on the basis of
the fact that the Christian Church in its early days borrowed Pagan ideology
and rituals wholesale and threw off the message of Jesus. And in this I am
supported not by one or two but by a large number of those eminent European scholars
who have devoted their whole lives to the
study of Christianity in the light of Comparative Religion, as for instance,
Sir J. G. Frazer (The Golden Bough), J. M. Robertson (Christianity
and Mythology, Pagan Christs, etc.), Dupuis (The Origin of All Religious
Worship), Knight (The
Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology), Edward Carpenter (Pagan and Christian Creeds),
T. W. Doane (The Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions).
I intend to take up this problem and treat it
at some length in this chapter, because it forms one of the
fundamental points of controversy between Islam and
Christianity. The Christian believes that Christianity originated in the divine
revelation granted to Jesus; the Qur'an contends that the message which Jesus
gave to the world has been lost and that
Christianity in its present form is but a survival of the Pagan ideologies of
the Roman Empire. Which of the two contentions is true can be decided only by
an unprejudiced examination of the relevant facts unearthed by
modern research.
THE CULT OF SUN-WORSHIP
Worship of the sun has formed a most popular type of religion for
the backward races of mankind. This grand and majestic luminary appears to a
nascent, half-cultured mind as the Source of Life and the Lord of Light, and
the various phases through which it has to
pass provide him occasions for giving expression to his inborn instincts
of fear and hope and for celebrating festivals accordingly.
The sun begins to decline after the autumnal equinox, and its
decline reaches the last stage at the approach of the winter solstice, after
which it again begins to increase in its light and warmth and ascends the
horizon as if re-born in the underworld.
This progress continues till the vernal equinox approaches, when days
become of equal length with nights, and the
progress seems to be impeded. But the 'crisis' is soon overcome; days
become longer than nights—a final
victory of the 'Lord of Light' over the 'Prince of Darkness'.
Thus among all sun-worshipping communities,
the autumnal equinox became an occasion for the expression of fear
and
grief, more especially fear, because of the belief that their deity had fallen
into the clutches of the demon of darkness.
On the other hand, the winter solstice and the vernal equinox— the corresponding festivals in Christendom are
Christmas and Easter-became the days of
great rejoicings and festivities; the first being the day of the ‘birth’
of the sun-god and the second the day of his ‘triumph’ over the 'Prince of
Darkness.
LEGENDS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SUN-GODS
Sun-worship was, at the time of the appearance
of Jesus, the universally-prevalent religion of the Roman Empire, though the
names given to the sun-god in different countries were different. The
well-known sun-gods, whose worship had been popular in the Mediterranean countries at one time or the other,
are: Attis of Phrygia, Adonis of Syria, Dionysius or Bacchus of Greece, Bel of
Babylon, Osiris and Horus of Egypt, Mithras or Mithra of Persia. Brief sketches
of the legends of these sun-gods will reveal the sources of the Christian
legend.
Attis[41]
He was born of
a virgin named Nana and was regarded as the “Only Begotten Son” and “Saviour”.
He was bled to death on March 24th at the
foot of a pine-tree and his votaries believed that his blood had renewed
the fertility of the earth, and thus brought a new life to humanity. He,
however, rose from the dead, and his resurrection along with his death was
celebrated by
his votaries. Every year on the 24th day of March, they would first fasten his
image to a pine-tree and then lay it in a tomb with wailing and mourning. On
the next day they would find the tomb empty and celebrate the resurrection with great rejoicing. Sacramental
meal and baptism of blood were special features of his Church.
Adonis or Tammuz[42]
He was the virgin-born “Saviour” of Syria. He suffered death for
the redemption of mankind, but rose again in the spring. His resurrection was
commemorated by a great annual festival. The
Old Testament refers to the weeping and wailing of women over his idol (Ezekiel,
viii, 14). The Rev. Sir G. W. Cox[43]
calls him the crucified Tao (divine love personified),
and the Rev. Dr. Parkhust, in his Hebrew Lexicon, remarks: “I find myself obliged to refer Tammuz to
that class of idols which were originally designed to represent the
promised Saviour,[44]
the desire of all nations”.
Dionysius or Bacchus
He was the
“Only Begotten Son” of Jupiter and was born of a virgin named Demeter (or Semele)
on December 25th. He was a Redeemer, Liberator and Saviour. “It is I,” so says Bacchus to mankind, “who guide you; it is
I who protect you, and who save you; I am Alpha and Omega”.[45]
Wine had an
important place in the festivals of his cult. He was slain for redeeming humanity and was called “The Slain One,”
“The Sin-Bearer,” “The Redeemer.” His passion play was celebrated every year representing his death, descent into
hell and resurrection.[46]
Bel or Baal
He was the
sun-god of Babylon and the story of his life is extremely astonishing in so far
as his passion play has a very close
resemblance with the Christian passion story even in details. The Jews
had passed a long time in captivity in Babylon, during the reign of
Nebuchednazzar, and this accounts for the close resemblance. More of it later.
Osiris
He was born on December 29th, of a virgin called by the Egyptians the
“Virgin of the World”. He preached the gospel of gentleness and peace. Wine and
corn were regarded as his celebrated discoveries. He was betrayed by Typhen,
slain and dismembered. He was interred, but came again to life after remaining in hell for two
or three days and three nights. After his death, it was the custom of his
votaries to keep his image in a box and bring out the image at the time of worship with the cries “Osiris is risen!”
“The sufferings
and death of Osiris,” says Rawlinson[47],
“were the great mystery of the Egyptian religion. His being the divine
goodness, and the abstract idea of “good”, his manifestation upon earth (like
an Indian god), his death and
resurrection,
and his office as judge of the dead in a future life, look like the early revelation of a future manifestation of
the deity[48]
converted into a mythological fable.”
“Belief in the god-man in the form of Osiris became the chief element in Egyptian religion, and
remained for thousands of years
the faith of the people through the tangled skein of religious life in Egypt until Osiris
passed into the form of the god-man Jesus Christ.”[49]
Mithras or Mithra[50]
He
was the virgin-born sun-god of the Persians, the perfect prototype of Jesus
Christ and the founder of an international Church in which Christmas and Easter
were two most important festivals. “This divine saviour came into the world as
an infant. His first worshippers were shepherds; and the day of his nativity
was December 25th. His followers
preached a severe and rigid morality, chief among their virtues being
temperance, chastity, renunciation and self-control. They kept the seventh day holy, and the middle day of each
month was a special feast of Mithra, which symbolised his function of Mediator.
They had seven sacraments of which the most important were baptism, confirmation, and Eucharistic supper, at which the
communicants partook of the divine nature of Mithra under the species of bread
and wine.”[51]
AMERICAN AND INDIAN MAN-GODS
It was not in the Mediterranean countries alone that the
closely-resembling legends of sun-gods formed the main back-ground of popular
religion. The physical phenomena connected with the sun being universal, their
mystical interpretation in the form of sun-myths was also universal. This fact
is amply borne out by reference to American and Indian man-gods, who, though
they may not have been worshipped solely as sun-gods, nevertheless bear such a
striking resemblance to the solar deities,
mentioned above that they must be placed in the same category.
The Legend of
Quetzalcoatl
Quetzalcoatl
was the virgin-born “Saviour” of ancient Mexico. A heavenly messenger announced
his supernatural birth to his mother, the virgin
Sochi quetzal, known in Mexican mythology
as the “Queen of Heaven”. Quetzalcoatl laboured for the redemption of humanity
and died “upon the cross” as “an
atonement for the sins of mankind”.[52]
“The temptation of Quetzalcoatl (on a mountain) and the
fast of forty days
......are very curious and mysterious.”[53]“The
Spaniards” were surprised to see the
Mexicans keep the vernal forty days’ fast”[54]
in memory of their saviour’s fast. According to the author of The Golden
Bough, the Mexicans believed in the resurrection of the man-god.
The Christian rite of mystically eating the body of their saviour
“was performed by the Mexicans, not only literally, but in the symbolic way also; and they connected their sacraments
with the symbol of the cross.”
Asceticism and
meekness were the keynotes in the teaching of Quetzalcoatl. “If asceticism be
virtue, they (i.e., the Mexicans) cultivated virtue zealously......nowhere
could men win a higher reputation for
sanctity by living in celibacy. Their
saints were numerous. They had nearly all the formulas of Christian morality, so-called. The priests
themselves mostly lived in celibacy; and they educated children with the
greatest vigilance in their temple-schools and higher colleges. They taught the
people to be peaceful, to bear injuries with meekness, to rely on God’s mercy
and not on their own merits; they taught, like Jesus and the Pagans, that
adultery could be committed by the
eyes and the heart; and, above all, they exhorted men to feed the poor. The
public hospitals were carefully attended to, at a time when Christian countries
had none. They had the practice of confession and absolution, and in the regular exhortation of confessor
there was this formula: Clothe the naked and feed the hungry, whatever privations
it may cost thee; for remember their flesh is like thine, and they are men like
thee; cherish the sick, for they
are the image of God”. “When”, says J. M. Roberston, “we
go to the records of the cultures and creeds of Mexico and Peru, records wonderfully preserved in the teeth of the fanaticism
which would have destroyed them all if it could, we stand clear of the frauds and prejudices
alike of Jew and Christian.”[55]
The Krishna Myth
The author of The
Churches and Modern Thought has given (on pp. 86, 87) a summary of the
Krishna myth based on the researches of
several great scholars of Mythology like Sir J. G. Frazer (The Golden Bough),
J. M. Robertson (Christianity and Mythology; Pagan Christs),
Mons. Guigniant (Religion de I’ Antiquite), Max Muller (Introduction
to the Science of Religion), G. Higgins (Anacalypsis), the Rev. Sir
G. W. Cox (Aryan Mythology), Sir
Monier Williams (Hinduism, Indian
Wisdom, etc.). According to these
researches, “Krishna was a miraculous
incarnation of Vishnu in the womb of Devaki. A chorus of angels exclaimed: ‘In
the delivery of this favoured woman, nature shall have cause
to exult.’ The birth was indicated in the heavens by a star. On the morning of
his birth the spirits of heaven danced and sang, and the clouds emitted low,
pleasing sounds. Though royally descended he was actually born in a cave. The
divine child was recognised and adored by cowherds. He was presented with
gifts of sandalwood and perfumes. The holy Indian prophet, Nared, paid him a
visit, consulted the stars and declared him to be of celestial descent. His
birth was beset by peril, and his foster-father was warned by a heavenly voice
to fly with the child, as the reigning monarch, King Kansa, might
take his life.
The king ordered the massacre in all his states of all the male children born during the night of the birth of Krishna. One of the first miracles performed by Krishna,
when mature, was the curing of a
leper. A lame woman came with a vessel filled with spices and sweet oil and
anointed his head. Krishna was slain. At his death a black circle surrounded
the moon, and the sun was darkened at
noonday. Spirits were to be seen on
all sides. Krishna descended into hell, rose again from the dead, and ascended bodily into
heaven, many persons witnessing his ascent. He is to come again on earth in the
latter days. He will appear as an armed
warrior riding a white horse. At his approach the sun and moon will be
darkened, the earth will tremble and
the stars fall from the firmament. (Compare Rev. vi. 2, 12, 13). He is to judge
the dead at the last day. Krishna is the
creator of all things visible and invisible, and is the beginning, middle and
end of all things. Krishna was transfigured before his beloved disciple,
Arjuna. Krishna was the meekest of beings. He preached sublimely. According to
the purer Vaishnava faith, he was pure and chaste in reality; any amorousness
related of him is to be explained allegorically, as symbolising the longing of
the human soul for the Supreme; just as the amorous ‘Song of Solomon’ is said
to be allegorical, and to mean ‘Christ’s love for His Church.' Krishna even
condescended to wash the feet of the
Brahmins. He is the incarnation of Vishnu,
the second person in the Hindu
Trinity: Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva; and Vishnu in his incarnations is a
saviour, protector, and friend. Krishna said: ‘Let a man, if seeking God by
deep abstraction, abandon his possessions and his hopes, betake himself to some
secluded spot, and fix his heart and thoughts on God alone.’ And, again: ‘Then
be not sorrowful; from all thy
sins I will deliver thee’. Many other such remarkable passages might be adduced
from the Bhagavad-Gita. Justice, humanity, good faith, compassion,
disinterestedness—in fact,
all the virtues—are said to have been taught by Krishna both by precept and example;
but we must remember, as Monier Williams informs us in his Hinduism,
that Krishna, in the ancient epic poems, is simply a great hero, and it is not
until about the fourth century B. C. that he is deified and declared to be an incarnation of Vishnu. In conclusion,
the accounts of Krishna's childhood
agree very closely with the apocryphal accounts of Christ's childhood.”
The Legend of Buddha
The life-story of the mythical Buddha is
nearly the same as that of Krishna. I omit to give it here as it has been given in
full detail in the section on “Buddha and Jesus.”
THE MYTHICAL JESUS: A PAGAN CHRIST
Summarising the foregoing account of the Pagan deities, especially the Mediterranean and Mexican sun-gods,
we find the following fundamental points of resemblance between their
lives and the life of Jesus:—
1.
They were born on or very near
December 25th;
2.
They were born in a cave or
underground chamber;
3.
They were born miraculously of a
Virgin Mother;
4.
They led a life of toil for mankind;
5.
They were called by the names of
Light Bringer, Healer, Mediator, Saviour and Deliverer;
6.
They were vanquished by the Powers
of Darkness;
7.
They descended into Hell or the
underworld;
8.
They rose again from the dead, and
became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly World;
9.
They founded
Communions of Saints and Churches, to which disciples were received by baptism;
10.
Their lives
were commemorated by Eucharistic feasts.
The story,
however, does not end here. Modern scholars have
unearthed a vast mass of evidence which proves beyond
doubt that not
only the life of the Christian Jesus but the whole
superstructure of Christianity as such has been built up on Pagan foundations.
In fact, Christianity, as it has existed since the transformation wrought by
the neo-Platonist Paul, is simply a continuation of pre-Christian Paganism. Its
introduction in the world marked no spiritual revolution but a mere change of
labels brought about under the stress of political complications. Its very
success against the other Pagan Churches was due not to anything new in its
dogma or its promise. It succeeded,
firstly, because its leaders could transform
it into a Pagan cult with certain slight modifications suited to meet the needs of the times, and,
secondly, because they could play with the politics of the Roman Empire with
greater success than their Pagan rivals. The evidence on this score is
unimpeachable. A Liberal Christian,’ Mr. J. A. Farrer writes[56]: “If, then, between the
higher Paganism and higher Christianity there was so little difference, how, it
may be asked, did Catholicism come to assert itself at all, to say nothing of its rapid and easy conquest of the
forces of Philosophy arrayed against
it. The answer, forced upon us by so much as is still extant of its apocalyptic
literature, is: Because it coincided
and co-operated with a long-smouldering political movement against the Roman Empire—a movement which, unhappily for the world too well succeeded, involving, as it did, in the ruin of
Rome, the ruin of civilisation, of order, of peace, of prosperity, and, above
all, of sound and simple theological ideas based on healthy reason and common sense”.
A further elucidation of the Pagan foundations of Christianity may now
be attempted.
ARGUMENTS FROM PAGAN CULTS
Argument from the Babylonian Legend—Passion Stories of
Bel
and Jesus—Cult of the Essenes
It is evident from the foregoing that Jesus delivered his message—which Muslims believe was the simple message of right thinking and pure living—to a world saturated with
the ideas of sun-worshippers. Even among his own community, the Jews, there was
a monastic brotherhood, known as Essenes, who had established themselves not
far away from Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Bishop Lightfoot maintains that they
were sun-worshippers, and, according to the En-cyclopedia Biblica, they
had combined with their Jewish heritage the “Persian and Babylonian
influences”. According to Bunsen, they were responsible for introducing the new
doctrine of Angel Messiah and Atonement into Judaism and Christianity. It seems
that their brotherhood accepted Jesus as the Messiah and thus laid the first
foundations of the paganisation of his simple faith.[57]
The orthodox
Jews—the fishermen of Galilee—who accepted Jesus
without prejudice and tried to follow him in
the true spirit
of his teaching do not seem to have wielded much influence, and their school
ultimately died out. Their sole weakness
probably was that they were too simple-minded and could not therefore
survive the machinations and wire pulling of their rivals. As George Bernard
Shaw remarks: “Jesus could be reproached for having chosen his disciples very unwisely if we could believe that he had any
real choice. There are moments when one is tempted to say that there was
not one Christian among them and that Judas was the only one who showed any
gleams of common sense.”[58]
Modern archaeological researches have brought to light some very
bewildering facts which go to prove that Babylonian
mythology played an important role in the early stages of Christianity.
In 1903-4, the German excavators at Kala Shergat
(the site of ancient Assur) discovered two cuneiform documents. When deciphered, they were found to
contain the narrative of the Passion
Play of Bel. An English journal[59] published its translation along with the story of
the Christian Passion Play. I reproduce it below:
|
The Babylonian Passion Play 1. Bel is taken prisoner. 2. Bel is tried in the House on
the Mount (the Hall of Justice). 3. Bel is smitten (wounded). 4. Bel is led away to the Mount. |
The Christian Passion Play 1. Jesus is taken prisoner. 2. Jesus is tried in the House of the
High Priest and the Hall of Pilate. 3. Jesus is scourged. 4. Jesus is led away
to crucifixion in Golgotha. |
|
5. Together with Bel a male- factor is led
away and put to death. Another, who is also
charged as a
male- factor, is let
go, thus not taken
away with Bel. 6.After
Bel had gone to the Mount, the city breaks out into tumult, and fighting takes place in it. 7. Bel’s clothes are carried away. 8. A woman wipes away the heart’s blood of Bel flowing from a drawn-out weapon (? spear). 9. Bel goes
down into the Mount away from sun and light, disappears from life, and is
held fast in the Mount as in a prison. |
The Christian Passion Play 5. Together with Jesus two malefactors are led away and put to death. Another (Barnabas) is released to the people, and thus not taken away with Jesus. 6. At the
death of Jesus the veil in the temple is rent (Synopt.), the rocks are rent asunder, the graves
are opened and the dead come forth into the holy
city. (Matt.) 7. Jesus’
robe is divided among the soldiers. (Synopt., John Cp. Ps. XXII, 18). 8. The lance-thrust in Jesus’ side and outflow f water
and blood
(John). Mary Magdalene and two other women busy themselves
with the (washing
and) embalming of the
body. (Mark, Luke). 9. Jesus, in
the grave, in the rock tomb (Synopt),
goes down into the realm of the dead (1 Pet. Ill, XII, 40. Acts, II, 24; Rom. X, 17: “descent into hell” dogma). |
|
10.Guards
watch Bel imprisoned in the stronghold of the Mount. 11.A goddess sits with Bel; she
comes to tend him. 12.They seek for Bel where he is
held fast. In particular a weeping woman seeks for him at the “Gate of
Burial”. When he is being carried away, the same lamented: “O, my brother! O,
my brother!” 13.Bel is again brought back to life, to life (as the sun of spring);
he comes again out of the Mount. 14.His chief feast, the Babylonian New Year’s festival in March at the spring equinox, is celebrated also as his triumph
over the powers of darkness.(Cp., the creation hymn: “Once when on high” as the New Year's festival hymn). |
The Christian Passion Play 10.Guards are set over the tomb of Jesus (Matt.) 11.Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sit before the tomb. (Matt., Mark). 12.Women, in particular Mary Magdalene, come to the
tomb to seek Jesus where he is behind the door of the tomb. Mary stands weeping before the empty tomb because they have taken
her Lord away (John). 13. Jesus’ restoration to life his rising from the grave (on a Sunday
morning), 14.His festival approximately at the spring equinox is also celebrated as his triumph over the powers of darkness (Cp., e.g.,
Col II, 15). |
|
|
Argument
from Egyptian Mythology: Cults of Isis and
Osiris
An eminent English Egyptologist has traced the
influence of Egyptian mythology on Christianity. He says’[60]: “The knowledge of the
ancient Egyptian religion which we now possess fully justifies the assertion
that the rapid growth and progress of Christianity in Egypt were due mainly to
the fact that the new religion, which was preached there by St. Mark and his immediate followers, in all its essentials so closely
resembled that which was the outcome of Osiris, Isis and Horus
that popular opposition was entirely disarmed.” “In the apocryphal literature
of the first six centuries which followed the evangelisation of Egypt, several
of the legends about Isis and her sorrowful wanderings were made to centre
round the mother of Christ”. “The Egyptians who embraced Christianity found
that the moral system of the old cult and that of the new religion were so similar, and the
promises of resurrection and immortality in each so alike, that they
transferred their allegiance from Osiris
to Jesus of Nazareth without difficulty. Moreover, Isis and the child Horus
were straightway identified with Mary the virgin and her son.”
Argument from Mithraism
“Mithraism,”
says Robertson[61], “was
in point of range the most nearly universal religion of the Western world in the early centuries of the Christian era. As to
this students are agreed. To the early Fathers, we shall see, Mithraism
was a most serious thorn in the flesh; and the monumental remains of the Roman
period, in almost all parts of the empire, show its extraordinary
extension......There were in antiquity,
we know from
Porphyry, several elaborate treatises setting forth the religion of Mithra; and
every one of these has been destroyed by the care of the Church.... Of course,
we are told that the Mithraic rites and mysteries are borrowed and imitated
from Christianity. The refutation of this notion, as has been pointed out by M. Havet, lies in
the language of those Christian fathers
who spoke of Mithraism. Three of them speak of the Mithraic resemblances to
Christian rites as being the work of devils.
Now, if the Mithraists had simply imitated the historic
Christians, the obvious course for the latter would be simply to say so.........The Mithraic mysteries, then, of
the burial and resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator, the Saviour; burial in a rock-tomb
and resurrection from the tomb; the sacrament of bread and water, the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark—all
these were in practice before the publication of the
Christian Gospel...... Nor was this all. Firmicus informs us that the devil in order to
leave nothing undone for the destruction of souls, had beforehand resorted to
deceptive imitations of the Cross of Christ........Still further does
the parallel hold. It is well-known that,
whereas in the Gospels Jesus is said to have been born in an inn-stable,
early Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr
and Origen, explicitly say he was born in a cave. Now, in the Mithra
myth, Mithra is both rock-born and born in a cave; and the monuments show the
new-born babe adored by shepherds who offer
first-fruits......Now, however, arises
the great question: How came such a cultus to die out of the Roman and
Byzantine Empire after making its way so
far, and holding its ground so long? The answer to that question has never, I
think been fully given, and is for the most
part utterly evaded, though part of it has been suggested often enough.
The truth is Mithraism was not over thrown; it was merely transformed......
Though Mithraism had many attractions,
Christianity had more, having sedulously
copied every
one of its rivals and developed special features of its own......In the Christian legend the God was humanised in the most literal way; and for the multitude
the concrete deity must needs replace the abstract. The Gospels gave a
literal story: The Divine man was a carpenter, and ate and drank with the
poorest of the poor......Gradually the very idea of allegory died out of the
Christian intelligence; and priests as well
as people came to take everything literally and concretely......This was the religion for the Dark Ages...... Byzantines
and barbarians alike were held by literalism, not by the unintelligible: for both alike the symbol had to become a
fetish; and for the Dark Ages the symbol of the cross was much more plausibly
appealing than that of the god slaying the zodiacal bull......A Mithraist could
turn to the Christian worship and find his main rites unimpaired, lightened
only of the burden of initiative austerities, stripped of the old obscure
mysticism, and with all things turned to the literal and the concrete, in
sympathy with the waning of knowledge and philosophy throughout the world.”
Lest the view of Robertson be taken
as biased, I will quote two great Christian theologians, Adolf Harnack and Connyblare. Writing on “Manichaeism” in the Encyclopedia
Britannica, they say: “Towards the close of the third century two great
religions stood opposed to one another in
western Europe, one wholly Iranian, namely Mithraism, the other of Jewish
origin but not without Iranian elements, part and parcel probably of Judaism which
gave it birth, namely Christianity. Mithraism was peculiarly the religion of Roman garrisons and was carried by the
legionaries where-ever they went, and soldiers may have espoused it rather than
the rival faith, because in primitive age Christian discipline denied them the
sacraments on the ground that they were professional shedders of blood.
Although in its austerity and
inculcation of self-restraint, courage and honesty, Mithraism suited the Roman soldiers, its cumbrous mythology and cosmogony at last
weakened its hold on men's minds and it disappeared
in the fourth century before a victorious Catholicism. Yet it did not do
so until another faith equally Iranian in mythology and cosmological belief had
taken its place.”
Argument from Buddhism
Several eminent
Christian scholars have traced the influence of Buddhism on Christianity. One
of them, Mr. S. M. Melamed, has stated
the argument briefly thus[62]:
“A half century ago, Rudolph Seydel, the
great German historian of religion,
published a book in which he clearly demonstrated that all the tales,
miracles, similies and proverbs of the Christian gospel have their counterparts
in the Buddhistic gospel. He compared the original texts and sources of both gospels, and without drawing any conclusions he
demonstrated the remarkable analogies and parallels between the
two......
“It has been
urged that these similarities, analogies and parallels
are merely chance coincidences, which do not prove a direct Buddhist influence upon Christianity.
Yet the fact remains that Buddhistic canons were already known to the Western world before the coming of Jesus. Today
hardly any Indologist of note denies the organic connection between the two redemptive religions. So close is the
connection between
them that even the details of the miracles recorded by Buddhism and
Christianity are the same. Of Buddha, too, it was told that he fed five hundred
men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers and caused the blind to see.
“Long before the death of Clemens of Alexandria, who mentions Buddha by name in 220 B.C., the
Buddhistic doctrines and legends were
known to the scholars of the Western world. In the light of these facts it is
preposterous to assume that the
poets of the New Testament originated their own folk-lore. Long before the
coming of Jesus, Buddhist doctrines had made
heavy inroads in the Western World. Innumerable sects, preaching some form of
Buddhism, made their appearance in
the century preceding the birth of Jesus.
“Rudolph Seydel, a man of the
deepest Christian piety and theological
conservatism, states that it is not permissible to admit an independent origin of the parables, legends, similies and proverbs of Christianity and
Buddhism. Inasmuch as Buddhism precedes Christianity by some five
hundred years, one cannot escape the assumption that the newer
religion was inspired by the older.
The principal canon of Buddhism, called the Pali canon, was fixed eighty years
before Christ. No Christian scholar of note has asserted that the synoptic Gospels influenced Buddhism, but
numerous scholars long ago discovered Buddhistic elements in the Gospel of John and also recognised the
Buddhistic back-ground of Essenism,
by which Jesus was greatly influenced.
The conclusion is inescapable that Palestine, together with many other parts of Asia Minor, was inundated
by Buddhistic propaganda for two
centuries before Christ. The world in which Jesus lived was Buddhistic
territory in the spiritual meaning of
the term, and not Hebraic or Judaic. Hence
Christianity, including the
personality of its founder,
is not an off-shoot of Hebraic
religiosity but of Buddhistic theology. Only this phenomenon explains the
gigantic struggles within the young Christian Church, and the
various schismatic tendencies, sects and controversies in the
first-five hundred years of its existence.”
Buddha and Jesus
In his Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions,
T. W. Doane has shown in detail (on pp. 287-97) that, with the exception of the
death of Jesus on the cross and the doctrine of vicarious atonement, the lives
and doctrines of Buddha and Jesus correspond and coincide with each other
entirely. This correspondence is fully borne out by the following comparison:—
|
1. Buddha was born of the Virgin
Maya, who conceived him without
carnal intercourse. 2. The incarnation of Buddha is recorded to
have been brought about by the descent of the divine power called “Holy Ghost”, upon the Virgin Maya. 3. When
Buddha descended from the regions of the souls and entered the body of the
Virgin Maya, her womb assumed the appearance of clear transparent crystal, in
which Buddha appeared beautiful as a flower. |
1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, who conceived him without
carnal intercourse. 2. The incarnation of Jesus is recorded to have been brought about by the descent of the
divine power called the “Holy Ghost”, upon the Virgin Mary. 3. When Jesus descended from his
heavenly seat, and entered the body of the Virgin Mary her womb assumed
the appearance of clear transparent crystal, in which Jesus appeared
beautiful as a flower |
|
5. The son of the Virgin Maya, on whom, according to the tradition, the “Holy Ghost” had descended,
was said to have been born on Christmas day. 6. Demonstrations
of celestial delight were manifest at the birth of Buddha. The Devas
in heaven and earth sang praises to the “Blessed One”, and said: “Today,
Bodhisatwa is born on earth, to give joy and peace to men and Devas, to shed light in the dark places,
and to give sight to the blind.” 7. Buddha was
visited by men who recognized in this
marvellous infant all the characters of the divinity, and he had
scarcely seen the day before he was hailed God of Gods. |
4. The birth
of Jesus was announced in the heavens by “his star”, which was seen rising on the horizon. It might
properly be called the “Messianic Star.” 5. The son of
the Virgin Mary, on whom, according
to the tradition, the “Holy Ghost “had descended, was said to have been born
on Christmas day. 6. Demonstrations of celestial delight were
manifest at the birth of Jesus. The angels
in heaven and earth sang praises to
the “Blessed One”, saying: “Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.” 7. Jesus was visited by wise men
who recognized in this marvellous infant
all the characters of the divinity, and he had scarcely seen the day
before he was hailed God of Gods. |
|
9. When Buddha
was an infant, just born, he spoke to his mother, and said: “I am the
greatest among men.” 10.
Buddha was a “dangerous child”. His life was threatened by King Bimbasara, who was
advised to destroy the child, as he was liable to overthrow him. 11. When sent
to school, the young Buddha surprised his
master. Without having ever
studied, he completely worsted all his competitors, not only in
writing, but in arithmetic, metaphysics, astrology, geometry, etc. 12. When twelve years old, the child Buddha is presented in the
temple. He explains and asks learned questions; he excels all those who enter into com- |
8. The infant Jesus was presented
with gifts of gold, frank incense and myrrh. 9. When Jesus was an infant
in his cradle, he spoke to his mother, and said: “I am Jesus, the Son of
God.” 10. Jesus was a
“dangerous child”. His life was threatened by King Herod, who attempted to
destroy the child, as he was liable to overthrow him. 11. When sent to school, Jesus
surprised his master, Zaccheus,
who, turning to Joseph, said: “Thou hast brought a boy to me to be taught, who is more learned than any
master.” 12. “And when he was twelve years old, they
brought him to (the temple at) Jerusalem..........While in the temple among
the doctors and elders, and |
|
13. Buddha entered a temple, on which
occasion forthwith all the statues rose and threw themselves at his feet, in act of worship. 14. The
ancestry of Gautama Buddha is traced from
his father, Sodhodana, through
various individuals’ and races, all of royal dignity, to Maha-Sammata, the first monarch of the world.
Several of the names and some of the events are met with in the Puranas of
the Brahmins, but it is not possible
to reconcile one order of statement with the other; and it would appear that
the Buddhist historians have introduced
races and invented names, that they may
invest their venerated Sage with all the honours of heraldry, in addition to the attributes of divinity. |
learned men of Israel, he proposed
several questions of learning and also gave them answers.” 13. “And as
Jesus was going in by the ensigns, who carried the standard, the tops of them
bowed down and worshipped Jesus.” 14. The
ancestry of Jesus is traced from his father, Joseph, through various
individuals, nearly all of whom were of royal dignity, to Adam, the first monarch
of the world. Several of the names, and some of the events, are met
with in the sacred Scriptures of the
Hebrews, but it is not possible to reconcile one order of statement
with the other; and it would appear that Christian historians have invented
and introduced names that they may invest
their venerated Sage with all the
honours of heraldry, in addition to the attributes of divinity. |
|
16. Mara said
unto Buddha: “Go not forth to adopt a religious
life, and in seven days thou shalt become an emperor of the world.” 17. Buddha
would not heed the words of the Evil One, and said to him: “Get thee away from me. ” 18. After Mara
had left Buddha, “the skies rained flowers, and
delicious odours pervaded the air.” 19. Buddha
fasted for a long period. 20. Buddha, the Saviour, was baptized, and at this
recorded water-baptism the Spirit
of God was present; that is, not only the highest God, but also the “Holy Ghost”, through whom the incarnation of Gautama Buddha
is |
15. When
Jesus was about “beginning to preach”, the
devil appeared before him, to tempt him. 16. The devil
said to Jesus: “If thou wilt fall down and worship me, I will give thee all the kingdoms of the world.” 17. Jesus
would not heed the words of the Evil One
and said to him: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” 18. After the devil had left Jesus, “angels came and ministered unto
him.” 19. Jesus fasted forty days and nights. 20.Jesus was
baptized by John in the river
Jordan, at which time the spirit of
God was present; that is, not only
the highest God but also the “Holy Ghost”, through whom the incarnation of Jesus is recorded to have been brought |
|
21. On one
occasion towards the end of his life on
earth, Gautama Buddha is reported
to have been transfigured. When on
a mountain in Ceylon, suddenly a
flame of light descended upon him and encircled the crown of his head with a circle of
light. The mount is called Pandava, or yellow-white colour. It is said that
“the glory of his person shone forth with double power, that his body was ‘glorious
as bright golden image’, that he ‘shone as the brightness of the sun and moon’,
that bystanders expressed their
opinion that he could not be ‘an everyday person,’ or ‘a mortal man’, and
that his body was divided into three parts, from each of which a ray of light issued forth.” |
about by the descent of that
Divine power upon the Virgin Mary. 21. On one
occasion during his career on earth, Jesus is reported to have been transfigured: “Jesus taketh Peter, James
and John his brother, and bringeth them
up into a high mountain apart, and was
transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment as white as the light.” |
|
23.By prayers in the name of Buddha
his followers expect to receive the rewards of paradise. 24.When Buddha died and was
buried, “the coverings of the body unrolled themselves, and the lid of
his coffin was opened by super-natural powers.” 25.Buddha ascended bodily to the celestial regions, when his mission on earth was fulfilled. 26.Buddha is to come upon the earth again in the latter days, his
mission being to restore the world to order and happiness. 27.Buddha is to be the judge of the dead. 28.Buddha is
Alpha and Omega, without
beginning |
22.Jesus performed great miracles for the
good of mankind, and the legends concerning him are full of the greatest
prodigies and wonders. 23.By prayers in the name of
Jesus, his followers expect to
receive the rewards of paradise. 24.When Jesus died and was
buried, the coverings of his body were unrolled from off him and his tomb was opened by super-natural powers. 25.Jesus ascended bodily to the
celestial regions, when his mission on earth was fulfilled. 26.Jesus is to come upon the
earth again in the latter days, his
mission being to restore the world to order and happiness. 27.Jesus is to be the judge of
the dead. 28.Jesus is Alpha and Omega,
without beginning or end, |
|
29.Buddha is
represented as saying: “Let all the sins that were committed in this world
fall on me that the world may be delivered.” 30.Buddha
said: “Hide your good deeds, and confess before the world the sins you have
committed.” 31.Buddha was
described as a super human organ of light, to whom a superhuman organ of darkness, Mara or Naga,
the Evil Serpent, was opposed. 32.Buddha came, not to destroy, but to fulfill, the
law. He delighted in “representing himself as a mere link in a long
chain of enlightened teachers.” 33.One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha,
after a long walk in the country,
meets with Matangi, a |
the Supreme Being, the Eternal One. 29.Jesus is represented as the Saviour of mankind, and all sins that are
committed in this world may fall on him
that the world may be delivered. 30.Jesus
taught men to hide their good deeds, and to confess
before the world the sins they had committed. 31.Jesus was
described as a superhuman organ of light —“the Sun of Righteousness”— opposed by
“the old Serpent”, the Satan hinderer, or adversary. 32.Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” 33.One day Jesus, after a long walk, cometh
to the city of Samaria, and being wearied with the journey, |
|
34. According to Buddha, the motive of all
our actions should be pity or love for our neighbour. 35. During
the early part of his career as a teacher, Buddha went to the city of Benares, and there delivered a
discourse, by which Condanya, and afterwards four others, were induced to
become his disciples. From that period,
whenever he preached, multitudes of men and women embraced his
doctrines. 36.Those who became disciples of Buddha
were |
sat on a
well. While there, a woman of Samaria came to draw water and Jesus said unto her: “Give me to drink.” “Then said the woman unto him: How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” 34. “Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you.” 35. During the early part of his career as a
teacher, Jesus went to the city of Capernaum,
and there delivered a discourse. It was at this time that four
fishermen were induced to become his
disciples. From that period, when
ever he preached, multitudes of men and women
embraced his doc-trines. 36.Those who became disciples of Jesus
were told |
|
37.It is recorded in the “Sacred Canon” of the
Buddhists that the multitudes “required a sign” from Buddha “that they might
believe.” 38. When
Buddha’s time on earth was about coming to
a close, he, “foreseeing the things that would happen in future
times”, said to his disciple Ananda: “Ananda, when I am gone, you must not
think there is no Buddha; the discourses I have delivered, and the precepts I have enjoined, must be my
successors or representatives, and be to you as Buddha.” 39. In the Buddhist Somadeva is to be found the following: “To give away our riches is
considered the most difficult virtue in the world; he who gives
away |
that they must renounce the world, give up all their riches, and
avow poverty. 37.It is recorded in the “Sacred Canon” of
the Christians that the multitudes required a sign from Jesus that they
might believe. 38. When
Jesus’ time on earth was about coming to a close, he told of the things that would
happen in future times, and said unto his disciples: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo I am with you always even
unto the end of the world.” 39. “And behold,
one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I
may have eternal life ?......Jesus said unto
him: If thou wilt |
|
40.Buddha’s
aim was to establish a “Religious
Kingdom,” a “Kingdom of Heaven.” 41.Buddha said: “I now desire
to turn the wheel of the excellent
law. For this purpose am I going to the city of Benares, to give light
to those enshrouded in darkness, and to open |
be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow
me.” “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay for
yourselves treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not
break through nor steal.” 40.“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to
say, Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” 41.Jesus, after his temptation by the devil, began
to establish the dominion of his
religion and he went for this
purpose to the city of Capernaum. “The people which sat in darkness saw |
|
42.Buddha said:
“Though the heavens were to
fall to earth, and the great world be swallowed up and pass away: Though Mount Sumera were to crack to pieces, and
the great ocean be dried up, yet, Ananda, be assured, the words of Buddha are
true.” 43.Buddha
said: “There is no passion more violent than
voluptuousness. Hap-pily there is but one such passion. If there were two, not a man in
the whole universe could follow the truth.” “Beware of fixing your eyes upon
women. If you find yourself in their company, let it be as though you were
not present. If you speak with
them, guard well your hearts.” 44.Buddha
said: “A wise man should avoid married |
great light, and to them which
sat in the region and shadow of
death, light is sprung up.” 42.“The law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ.” “Verily I say unto you…. heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away.” 43. Jesus said: Ye have heard that it was said by
them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart.” 44.“It is
good for a man not to touch
a woman”, |
|
45.Buddhism
is convinced that if a man reaps sorrow, disappointment, pain, he himself,
and no other, must at some time have sown folly, error, sin; and if not in
this life then in some former birth. 46.Buddha knew the thoughts of others: “By
directing his mind to the thoughts of others, he can know the thoughts of
all beings.” 47. In the
Somadeva a story is related of a Buddhist ascetic
whose eye offended him; he, therefore, plucked it out and cast it
away. 48. When
Buddha was about to become an ascetic, and |
“but if they
cannot contain let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” “To
avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.” 45. “And as
Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And, his
disciples asked him saying, Master, who did sin,
this man, or his parents that he was born blind?” 46. Jesus knew the thoughts of others. By
directing his mind to the thoughts of others, he knew the thoughts of all
beings. 47. It is
related in the New Testament that Jesus
said: “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee.” 48. When
Jesus was entering Jerusalem , riding
on |
|
|
an ass, his path was strewn
with palm branches, thrown there by the multitude. |
CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN FESTIVALS,
RITES AND SYMBOLS
“Each of the major festivals of the Christian calendar”, says a
liberal Christian scholar of religion, “carries on the tradition of earlier
Pagan beliefs, which the early Church, with a wisdom which still persists in
Roman Catholic missionary efforts in its relation with primitive peoples, had
adopted and transformed in the service of the Christian faith.”[63]
Christmas
A passing
reference has been made already to the birth-date of Jesus, which is believed
by Christians to be the 25th of December. But there are two well-established
facts in this connection which demand a serious consideration. Firstly,
this date is the date of the Nativity of the Sun in the Julian Calendar. This
and the neighbouring dates are connected with
winter solstice, which is accompanied by what was termed by the votaries
of the sun-worship cults as the ‘birth’ of
the sun. Many a sun-god of the ancient world was born on
this or
neighbouring dates. Secondly, there are no proofs to locate the birth of Jesus on this date,
as admitted even by such a conservative
Christian scholar as Dean Farrar. In
fact, it was not until the year 530 A.C. that Dionysius Exiguous, a Scythian monk, Abbot and astronomer, fixed the date
of the birth of Jesus as December 25th. But he has not informed us on what
authority he did so.[64]The
fact that even today the Greek Church observes Christmas on January 7th and
not on December 25th is significant.
“Christmas”, says
R. Gregory,[65]“is
a Pagan festival, which was adopted for the celebration of the Nativity about
the middle of the fourth century in order to wean converts from Pagan
ceremonials taking place at that season. In Northern Europe it is the midwinter
festival of Yule, which the associations of the Yule log and other customs
would assign to a derivation from
sun-worship; in Southern Europe it is mainly, though not solely, a festival of
the mother-son worship (with a shadowy father, Joseph, in the background, as
seen in the Mangers of the Christmas celebrations of Mediterranean peoples today) which can be traced back through the
ages as the dominant cult of the Mediterranean........
An interesting point arises out of the celebration of Christmas as
popularly observed in Britain. A double strain is to be observed. While as a
whole the feastings and rejoicings of the Yule ceremony predominate, the
Manger, which is the most conspicuous feature of the popular celebration
in Mediterranean countries, also appears
in England with other associated customs. It was once customary for children
to construct a manger, which they carried round soliciting alms. The two forms of celebration belong to
entirely different
systems of belief, and it is evident that in Britain a double strain of
tradition, deriving from north and south, has survived.”
Easter and Related Festivals
The festival of Easter (Anglo-Saxon, Eostre) derived its significance
from the goddess of Light and Spring in the ancient
world. Her festival, which fell after the vernal equinox, i.e.,
at the commencement of the spring season, was celebrated in Ireland and Egypt
by distributing and eating eggs, much in the same way as the Christians
do today in commemoration of the resurrection of him whom they believe to have
brought a new life to humanity by giving his blood. Sir Richard Gregory
remarks: “Use of the position of celestial bodies
to determine the dates of religious festivals is represented by the
celebrations of Passover and Easter. The Passover is celebrated
by the Jews as a spring festival commemorating their exodus from Egypt, and is regarded the festival of freedom. According to Robertson Smith,[66] the Israelites being
a pastoral people, sacrificed the firstlings of their stock in the spring as a
thank-offering and when they settled in Cannaan they found there an
agricultural festival connected with the beginning of the barley harvest, which
coincided in point of date with the
Passover and was accordingly associated with it. This suggests a connection
with the Pascal lamb on the fourteenth of a month and also the feast of
Unleavened Bread on the following day, when
a peace-offering of a sheaf of barley was to be made. The first
Christians observed the Jewish festivals, but in a new spirit, and the
Passover, with a new conception added to it
of Christ as the true Pascal
lamb and the first fruit from the dead,
continued to be observed, and became the Christian Easter......Easter as is
shown by a number of customs and beliefs, is in the main a festival of sun-worship as the sun begins to
regain strength; while Whitsuntide,
a feast around which folk-dancing clusters in a large number of widely
distributed customs, is a ceremonial of carrying out an actor who impersonates
the dead winter and his rejuvenation in the character of the young and vigorous
spring”.[67]
The manner of fixing the date of Easter year by year is itself a proof of its connection with the
sky-scriptures. For, it is necessary
for this purpose to know first the date of the spring equinox and then the date
of the first new moon following it. This procedure reminds us of the
method employed by the priests in ancient Egypt five thousand years ago.
Indeed, not only Easter but all those movable festivals in the ecclesiastical calendar which are fixed
with reference to its date, should be regarded as of Pagan origin. The following is a list of such festivals according to the Nautical
Almanac:
Days before Days after
Easter Easter
|
Septuagesima Sunday |
63 |
Low Sunday |
7 |
|
Quinquagesima
Sunday |
49 |
Rogation
Sunday |
35 |
|
Ash Wednesday |
46 |
Ascension Day |
39 |
|
Quadragesima
Sunday |
42 |
Whit Sunday |
49 |
|
Palm Sunday |
7 |
Trinity
Sunday |
56 |
|
Good Friday |
2 |
Corpus
Christi |
60 |
We must also
bear in mind the fact that during the first three
centuries of the Christian era there were strong differences of opinion
between the western and eastern Churches as to the day on which the Paschal
feast should commence. An agreement could be forced only by Constantine after
the Council of Nice in 325 A.C. Socrates, the Church historian of the fifth
century, has recorded the announcement of the Council in their epistle to the
Church of Alexandria. The announcement speaks for itself:
“We also send you good news concerning the unanimous consent of
all, in reference to the celebration of the most solemn feast of Easter; for
the difference also has been made up by
the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren in the east,
who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the Jews, will in
future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our
manner of celebrating Easter.”
Feast of St. John
John the
Baptist is reported to have remarked in the Gospel attributed to him (III: 30):
“He (i.e., Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease.” Now, the birthday
of John I believed to be June 23rd, after
which the sun begins to decline in its warmth, while, as stated before,
the birthday of Jesus corresponds with the
date after which the sun begins to increase in its power.
“The popular
observances which obtained among the peasant population of the countryside in
connection with Eve and Feast of St. John at midsummer were of a kind to be
attributed for the most part to a survival of sun-worship. Such, for example, are the vigils associated with
Stonehenge
and other stone
circles, and also in part the midsummer bonfires—measures
which increase the power of the sun as the year progresses towards the harvest. But
these bonfires were also effective to drive away evil influences from
the ripening crops, thus carrying on the function of May fires.”[68]
Michaelmas and the Feast of All
Souls
“Michaelmas and
the Feast of all Souls in November have subsumed in the Harvest Festival and
the celebration of the memory of the Blessed Dead both the Pagan feasts of the First Fruits, without which offering
to the gods it was not safe for the
farmer, his household, or his stock to partake of the newly gathered fruits of
the earth, and the November celebration of the Feast of the Dead, with which
the Celtic and Pagan year began. The memory of this Celtic year, beginning in
November, long survived in the custom found in England, certainly down to only
a few years ago, of hiring farm hands, male and female, for the following year at the country fairs held at the beginning of
November.”[69]
Annunciation of the Virgin
The
Annunciation of the Virgin (Angel's Salutation to the
Virgin) is said to have taken place on March 25th, i.e., after
the spring equinox. This has a reference to the sky-scriptures, for if December
25th was to be the date of the Nativity of Jesus, no other date could be fixed
for Annunciation.
Candlemas
The festival of
Candlemas (Purification of the Virgin) takes place on February 2nd.
A similar festival called Juno
Februata (purified) was celebrated in the same month
by the
Pagans of the Roman empire, and the rites included candle processions.
According to
Sir Gregory, “the feast of Candlemas in early February is a fire festival in
which, at the renewal of agricultural operations, the evils of the past dead
season of winter are driven out by the magical powers of fire, while the
Festival of Our Lady in the same month represents the invocation of the
mother-goddess in a ceremonial for the renewal of the powers of fertility in
the coming spring.”[70]
Assumption of the Virgin
The Assumption
of the Virgin is celebrated on August 15th. But this date bears a relation to
the sun-worship cults, since on this very date the Zodiacal sign Virgo—represented sometimes by a woman with a sheaf
of corn in her hand and sometimes by a Virgin Mother with an infant Saviour,
as, for instance, in the figures of the
infant Horus and his Virgin Mother on the margin of the Alexandrian
Calendar—also disappears into the rays of
the Sun, as if ascending into heaven away from the human eye.
Nativity of the Virgin
The Nativity of
the Virgin occurs on September 7th. This,
again, has an astronomical significance, because on this very day Virgo
also reappears on the horizon.
Holy Communion
As already
pointed out, the rite of Holy Communion has been borrowed, like other Christian
festivals, from the
ancient
sun-worship cults, where Eucharistic ceremony was performed to bring the
devotee into a state of unification with the deity by participation in the
supper. According to Elie Reclus[71]:
“In the truly orthodox conception of sacrifice, the consecrated offering, be it
man, woman or virgin, lamb or heifer, cock or dove, represents the deity
himself.”
Sabbath
That Jesus had come 'not to destroy but to fulfill' the Judaic Law
cannot be denied. Now, according to that law, the day of Sabbath is Saturday
and not Sunday, which, as Dies Soli, was the holy day of the sun-god Apollo, the
patron-deity of the Roman Empire during Constantine’s regime. Evidently Sunday
was substituted only to perfect the resemblance between Christianity and
Paganism.
Position of the Altar
The position of the altar in the Christian churches leads us to the
same conclusion. Why must it always face the east, no matter whether a church
is built to the west or east of the sacred territory of Judaea? Obviously
because East is the “rising place’ of the sun, while West is its 'setting
place' and the 'abode of the demon of Darkness' according to Roman mythology.
It should be noted in this connection that this rule was not so strictly
observed during the early days of the Christian Church and that it acquired the
status of law only after Christianity had become the popular religion of the
Roman Empire.
Monks and Nuns
The institution of monks and nuns has been similarly borrowed from Paganism. Buddhism had its monks and
nuns, and, among the sun-worship cults, it was a very important
institution in the cult of Mithra. The Mithraic monks used to have a
distinctive symbol on the head, namely, the tonsure —a bare circular space, formed by shaving off
the hair, and meant to represent the disc of
the sun, their deity. The monks in the Romish Church of Christianity
also observe this rite, and this only proves Christianity to be one of the many
sun-worship cults.
The Cross
Now we come to Christian symbols. The Cross did not originate with
Christianity. It was not included in the early lists of Christian symbols, as,
for instance, the one prepared by St. Clement. It was first of all adopted as a
symbol by Constantine who is alleged to have
seen it in a vision. Among the sun-worshippers it was esteemed as the
symbol of life, and so it is with the Christians.
There is an Egyptian cross in the Municipal
Museum of
Alexandria. Another non-Christian cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of Mithra and
bears a crucified effigy.
The Fish
Fish was used as a Christian symbol before the Cross was adopted,
and this fact again has a reference to the sky-scriptures. For, the Christian
Epiphany falls in the month of February, and in the same month the sun passes
the zodiacal sign Pisces (Fish).
The Lamb
While passing the equator in its ecliptic revolution, the sun makes
the form of a cross. At the time when the popular sun-worship cults of the Roman Empire originated, the point where
the ecliptic crossed the equator was in the region of the constellation Aries
or the He-Lamb. Hence the Lamb became the symbol of the Rising Saviour, the
sun-god. The Christians also in their days
adopted the Lamb as the symbol of their Saviour[72].
The Serpent and the Scorpion
According to the Bible, the Devil came to Eve in the Garden of Eden in the
form of a serpent. Hence the Serpent is the symbol of the adversary of the
forces of life and light. But there is a strange fact that in Christian
paintings the serpent appears with the barbed tail of the Scorpion. The reason
for this should be sought in the sky-scriptures. In the language of the Zodiac,
the sun enters the Scorpion at the autumnal equinox,
after which it begins to decline. Hence the Scorpion has become the
symbol of the ‘Prince of Darkness’, just as Lamb or Ram is the symbol of the ‘God
of Light.’ This explains the barbed tail of the serpent in Christian symbolism.
TITLES OF JESUS
The following are some of the titles commonly used for Jesus in the
Christian Churches:
God's First-Begotten Son;
The Intermediary between God and
man;
The Intercessor with the Father;
The Good Shepherd;
The Image of God;
The Foundation of the Universe;
The Bread of Life;
The Sinless;
The Price of Sin;
The Gift of God to man to ransom his
sins;
The High Priest;
The Second God;
The Interpreter of God to man;
The Giver of the Water of
Everlasting Life;
Seated Next to God;
The Physician and Healer of Souls;
God of the Triune nature and the Son
to take the second place in the Holy Trinity.
It is now
common knowledge that the phraseology of which these titles form part was
introduced into Christianity by St. Paul.
Whether, while formulating this phraseology, he received inspiration
from the Holy Ghost, as the Christians believe,
or from the neo-Platonists, as modern research proves, can best be
decided by referring to the writings of Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of Alexandria and contemporary of
Jesus. His profound influence on Christian thought is admitted by all. For
instance, Dr. Smith says[73]':
“It is impossible not to feel the important office which the mystic
philosophy, of which Philo is the representative, fulfilled in preparing for the apprehension of the highest
Christian truth.” Here are a few
extracts from Philo’s writings which form the source of the
above-mentioned titles of Jesus:
“His Word which is his Interpreter.”[74]
“To his Word he gave this special
gift that He should stand as an Intercessor
between the Creator and the created.”[75]
“We maintain that by the High Priest
is meant the Word Who is free from all
transgression, being of heavenly parentage.”[76]
“The Word of God is the Physician
and Healer of all our evils.”[77]
“The heavenly food......is the
Divine Word.”[78]
“The Image of
God is His Eternal Word.”[79]
“The High Priest is the Divine Word,
hence His head is annointed.”[80]
“The Shepherd of His holy flocks.”[81]
“What man is there of true judgment
who, when he sees the deeds of most men, is
not ready to call out aloud to God, the Great Saviour, that He would be pleased to take off his sin, and, by
appointing a price and ransom for the soul, restore it to its liberty?”[82]
“He, therefore, exhorts every person
who is able to exert himself in the race
which he is to run to bend his course without remission to the Divine
Word above, who is the Fountain Head of all wisdom, that by drinking this
sacred spring, he, instead of death, may
receive the reward of everlasting life.”[83]
“Being the Image of God and the
First-Born of all intelligent creatures, He
is seated immediately next to the One
God without any interval of separation.”[84]
“Even if no one
is as yet worthy to be called a Son of
God, one should nevertheless labour earnestly to be adorned like unto His First
Born Son, the Word.”[85]
CHRISTIAN APOLOGY
The foregoing examination of the life of Jesus, the doctrines of Christianity, and the festivals,
rites and symbolism of the church, is, I
believe, enough to prove that Christianity
is not a religion based on an immutable Divine Revelation but a
survival of the Pagan cults of primitive mankind.
This fact was known even in the early days of
Christianity, when many a Christian Father had to frame apologies to meet the
charge of plagiarism. The author of The Intellectual Development of Europe[86]
has quoted the following accusations of Faustus addressed to St. Augustine:
“You have
substituted your agape for the sacrifices of the Pagans; for their idols your
martyrs, whom you serve with the very same honours. You appease the shades of
the dead with wine and feasts; you celebrate
the solemn festivals of the Gentiles;
their manners, those you have retained without any alteration. Nothing
distinguishes you from the Pagans except that you hold your assemblies apart
from them.”
The early
Fathers tried to reply such allegations by laying
the whole blame on the shoulders of Satan. The following replies of
Justin Martyr and Tertulian are typical. Justin Martyr says:
“It having reached the Devil's ears that the prophets had foretold
the coming of Christ (the Son of God), he set the heathen poets to bring
forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying
his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was
of the same character as the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove......By declaring the
Logos, the first begotten of God, Our Master Jesus, to be born of a virgin
without any human mixture, we (Christians) say no more in this than what you (Pagans) say of those
whom you style the sons of Jove. For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assigned
to Jove.... As to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to
be no more than man, yet the title of the Son of God is very justifiable, upon account of his wisdom,
considering that you (Pagans) have your Mercury in worship under the
title of the Word, a messenger of God.... As to his (Jesus) being born of a
virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that.... if Jupiter could send a
parcel of sons out of virgin mothers, the Father in heaven could do the same at
least in our case.”[87]
He further
says: “The apostles in the commentaries written
by themselves which we call Gospels, have delivered down to us how that Jesus thus commanded them: ‘He
having taken bread, after that he had given thanks, said: Do this in
commemoration
of Me; this is My body; also having taken the cup and returned thanks, He said:
This is My blood, and delivered it unto them alone’; which the wicked devils
have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be done.
For that bread and a cup of water are placed
with certain incantations in the mystic rites of the one who is being
initiated, you either know or can learn.”[88]
Tertulian says:
“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, imitates even the main parts of
the divine mysteries. He also baptises his worshippers in water, and makes them
believe that this purifies them of their
crimes. There Mithra sets his mark on the forehead of his soldiers; he
celebrates the oblation of bread ; he offers
an image of the resurrection, and presents at once the crown and sword; he
limits his chief priest to a single marriage; he even has virgins and his
ascetics (continentes).”[89]
Such apologies, however, could not satisfy the enlightened men and women of this age. Hence modern apologists
had to devise other weapons of defence.
Some thinkers, especially of the seventeenth century, asserted that “the Bible contains a pure, the myths a
distorted, form of an original revelation.”[90]
But to this Professor Max Muller replied: “The theory that there was a
primeval preternatural revelation granted to the fathers of the human race, and
that the grains of truth which catch our eye when exploring the temples of
heathen gods
are the scattered fragments of that sacred heirloom—the seeds that fell by the wayside or upon stony
places—would find but few supporters at present ; no more, in fact, than the theory that there was in the beginning one
complete and perfect primeval
language, broken up in later times into the number-less languages of the
world.”[91]
Another set of thinkers tried to meet the situation by tracing the origin of the Pagan ideas in the Old Testament. But this attempt
also failed. “The opinion that the Pagan religions were mere corruptions of the religion of the
Old Testament once supported by men of high authority and great learning, is now as completely surrendered as the
attempts to explain Greek and Latin as corruptions of Hebrew.”[92]
The Christian apologists of the present day have become convinced,
however, that it is futile to deny the independent origin of the pre-Christian
Pagan ideology. Many of them, like the Modernists, an account of whose activities will be given in the next chapter, have gone even so far as to admit frankly that it was not the devil who in his own devilish way introduced the beliefs and rites of the Christian Church into the Pagan cults, of
which these formed part centuries before the advent of Jesus, but that it was Paul who, in order
to make the way smooth for the Pagans to enter the “Christian”
Church, borrowed their beliefs and rites wholesale and incorporated them in the simple faith of Jesus. The Modernists consequently confine their faith
to a mystic consolation derived from the idea of Christ.
The more conservative section of Christian thinkers seems to be either groping in the dark in utter confusion or else
playing with religion. They cannot deny the Pagan character of Christianity, but they wish to claim for it
uniqueness and originality. They seem to feel that they are not on solid
ground; but still they try to console themselves with some subterfuge. Here are
two such statements coming from eminent divines.
The well-known Bishop Gore faces the critics
of Christianity with these words: “You say that we find in
Christianity the relic of Paganism. On the contrary, we find in Paganism, intermingled
with much that is false, superstitious and horrible, the anticipations of
Christianity”
Canon C. H. Robinson admits the debt of Pagan thought but regards it a
unique merit of Christianity. He says: “If Greek and Roman thought were needed for a full
appreciation of the meaning of the Incarnation, why may we not say the same of
Indian and Chinese thought? Surely we are justified in believing that every country and every
people have something to contribute to Christianity, and that the completion of the Christian revelation (?) awaits
the contribution of each. We believe that there are many important aspects of
the Christian truth which have never been understood, simply because Christianity has not yet been reflected in the experience of those nations of the world which are still heathen.”[93]
CONCLUSION
Seen in the light of facts presented in this
chapter the arguments of Bishop Gore and Canon Robinson come out to be mere face-saving devices. They admit in so many
words that Christianity has Pagan elements. But if these elements are
really later accretions, the arguments collapse automatically. The following
statement, coming from Dean Inge, a much greater Christian scholar than either
Bishop Gore or Canon Robinson, gives the whole case in a nut-shell:
“Christianity, for the historian, is a great
river which had its head-waters in Palestine, but received affluents from all sides.
Its founder appeared to his contemporaries
as 'the Prophet of Nazareth of
Galilee.' He followed and far surpassed John the Baptist, who revived the old
prophetic tradition after a long interval.
The function of the prophets had been to preach moral, including social
reform, to denounce idolatry and oppression,
to warn their countrymen that national vices must lead to national disasters, and to spiritualise and
moralise religion which was always in
danger of becoming external and formal under the domination of the
priests and legists.
“These were the main topics of John the
Baptist’s preaching and Christ took up his message where he left it. There
is no evidence that Christ, during his ministry on earth attempted to
found a new institutional religion. His disciples in Palestine were content to
remain orthodox Jews, who obeyed the Law, and, like many other Jews, expected
the coming of the Messiah who was to deliver their country.
“The greatest of all crises through which Christianity has passed was
its transplantation into the soil of European culture which was the work of St.
Paul's life. The Church then made its choice; it gained Europe and lost Asia.
Compared with this momentous
development even the Reformation was of secondary importance.
“The Reformers believed that they were clearing away a mass of Pagan
accretions from Christianity, and that they were returning to the original
Gospel. They were really doing the first,
but not the second. Latin Christianity was and is a Mediterranean religion.[94]It
is the form which Christianity had to take among the subjects of the Roman
Empire......Christianity was
afterwards corrupted and mixed up with elements which have nothing to do with the original Gospel. Christ knew nothing of Greek philosophy; but the theology of the
Church is built upon the speculations of the Platonists, and on what medieval
schoolmen believed to be the doctrines of Aristotle.”[95]
Sir Richard Gregory supports the Dean with
these words:
“Christian societies have developed along different lines according to
the conceptions of different peoples, and they include survivals of
Paganism........It was a development
of
the native religion under the influence of the new teaching, and not an imposition of, or conversion to,
Christianity itself, which produced these different attitudes of
mind.”[96]
IV
CHRISTIANITY IN
THE MODERN WORLD
SUPERSTITION AND PERSECUTION
w
e might broadly classify the parties in the so-called Christendom
into five groups: (1) Freethinkers, Atheists and Agnostics; (2) Orthodox
Christians; (3) Modernist Christians; (4) Non-Christian Theists; (5) Converts
to the non-Christian religions.
Ever since the conversion[97] of Constantine and the establishment of Christianity as the state-religion of the Byzantine
Empire, two factors have played a most conspicuous part in the history of the
Christian Church, viz., Superstition
and Persecution. It is an undeniable fact that the rise of Christianity
synchronised with the extinction of the last flames of Graeco-Roman
intellectual culture and the subsequent commencement
of that dark and semi-barbaric era of European history in which both
intellectual enlightenment and moral earnestness
were wanting. How wretched Europe’s condition became and remained until
recent times can be read in Milman’s Latin Christianity, Gibbon’s Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, Professor
Lecky’s History of European Morals and Rise and Influence of Rationalism
in Europe, Draper’s Conflict between
Religion and Science, and a
number of other standard books.
That Christianity was directly and mainly responsible for that
mental and moral degeneration of Europe is borne out by the fierce and prolonged war which she waged against the
forces of enlightenment and progress. The following is a typical incident which occured in the early stages
of the conflict: “In the streets of Alexandria, before the eyes of the
civilised world, the noblest woman of antiquity was slaughtered with nameless
horrors by a Christian who bears the title of saint in the annals of
Christendom, and who, in modern times, has
found an apologist. The eloquent pages of Draper furnish a vivid account of the atrocious crime which
will always remain one of the greatest blots on Christianity. A beautiful,
wise, and virtuous woman, whose lecture-room was full to overflowing with the
wealth and fashion of Alexandria, was attacked as she was coming out of her
academy by a mob of zealous professors
of Christianity. Amidst the fearful yelling of these defenders of the faith she
was dragged from her chariot, and in the
public street stripped naked. Paralysed with fear, she was hauled into an adjoining church, and there
killed by the club of a 'saint.' The poor naked corpse was outraged and then
dismembered; but the diabolical crime
was not
completed until they had scraped the flesh from the bones with oyster shells
and cast the remnants into the fire. Christendom honoured with canonisation the
fiend who instigated this terrible and revolting atrocity, and the blood of
martyred Hypatia was avenged only by the sword of Amru (the Muslim conqueror of
Egypt)!”[98]
The Roman Catholic Fathers vied with each other in denouncing
secular learning as Satanic. St. Augustine in his Retraction stigmatised
Plato and Platonists as “impious men.” Pope Gregory, in a letter to
Desiderus, bishop of Nienne, wrote: “After that, we heard a thing that cannot
be repeated without a feeling of shame, namely, that you are teaching grammar
to some......This troubled us greatly.” At another place in the same letter he described even elementary secular
culture as “horrible and execrable.” The Parliament of Paris (1624) prohibited
under pain of punishment any improved chemical research. The Papal Bull issued
in the enlightened nineteenth century (1864)
laid down the law: “If any one says that the Roman Pontiff can and ought
to reconcile himself with progress, liberalism, and modern civilisation, let
him be anathema.”[99]
“The period of Catholic ascendency”, says Professor Lecky, “is on
the whole the most deplorable in the history of mankind.”
But, then, the
Reformed Church was as great a criminal in
this respect as the Catholic. Martin Luther remarked about
Copernicus: “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of
astronomy, but Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth”; and Calvin asked: “Who will venture to place the authority of
Copernicus above that of Holy Scripture?”[100] Melancthon observed:
“Those who set forth such theories must have no sense of decency.” He taught
that demons were working in the entire range of physical phenomena[101]. The Protestant
authorities at Wittenburg strictly forbade the teaching of
the new revelations of the telescope, and the professors had to take oath that they would teach only the old system.
It is evident
that a creed which thrives on ignorance and superstition
can maintain its prestige, nay its very existence, only by employing the
weapon of persecution. Naturally, therefore, the Christian Church
resorted to it as soon as Constantine extended to it the patronage of his state
and reorganised it at the Council of Nice (325 A.C.). “It was at the Council of Nice,” says Devenport[102],
“that Constantine invested the priesthood with that power whence flowed the
most disastrous consequences, as the following summary will show: the massacres and devastations of nine mad crusades of
Christians against unoffending Turks, during nearly two hundred years, in which
many millions of human beings perished; the massacres of the Anabaptists; the
massacres of the Lutherans and papists, from the Rhine to the extremity of
the North; the massacres ordered by Henry VIII and his
daughter Mary; the massacres of St. Bartholomew in France; and forty
years more of other massacres between the time of Francis
I and the entry of Henry IV into Paris; the massacres of the
Inquisition, which are more execrable still as being judicially committed, to
say nothing of the innumerable schisms and twenty years of popes against popes,
bishops against bishops, the poisonings, the assassinations, the cruel rapines, and insolent pretensions of more than a
dozen popes, who far exceeded a Nero or a Caligula in every species of
crime, vice and wickedness; and lastly, to conclude this frightful list, the massacre of twelve millions of
the inhabitants of the new world, executed Crucifix in hand!”
“No wild beasts,” remarked Emperor Julian, “are so hostile to man as Christian sects in general are
to one another.”
A diplomatic secretary of Pope Pius VII declared that “it was of the essence of the Catholic religion to
be intolerant.”[103]
As for Protestantism: “Persecution is the
deadly original sin of the Reformed Church, that which cools every honest man’s
zeal for their cause, in proportion as his reading becomes more expansive.”[104]
“The Christian
Church,” said Rev. Charles Voysey (in
a sermon preached at the Theistic Church, London, October 22nd, 1905), “has
been more cruel and shed more human blood than any other Church or institution
in the world.”
Unfortunately
for Christianity, however, her policy of persecution could not prove successful
for long. The Church could not keep her Pagan heritage of primitive
superstitions immune once the pioneers of scientific learning had made up their minds to fight a decisive war, and this
occurred when the light of learning emanating from the European and
Asiatic universities of Islam had succeeded in finally disturbing the gloom of
Christendom. Inquisition was instituted forthwith and science and philosophy
were persecuted on the widest scale, but
ultimately Christianity had to suffer a crushing defeat.
The French
scientist, Dr. Paul Topinard, has briefly summed up the process of this
scientific revolution thus:[105]
“Christianity, in effect, instead of conquering the Pagan world, was conquered by it, as Huxley has
remarked...... During the Middle Ages science had disappeared from the West. Philosophy, hemmed in between metaphysics
and theology, became scholasticism...Then a concourse of circumstances
occurred which, as fifteen centuries before, was to transform the Western world, although differently, and which
inaugurated modern times, to wit: The return to the West of the knowledge
that had taken refuge among the Arabs; the discovery of printing, which
spread everywhere trustworthy texts; the discovery of the New World, which
quadrupled the surface of the earth to be observed and studied; the awakening
of science, with Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Rondelet, Vesalius, Harvey;......the
conquests of science began to make
themselves felt. There was now less insistence on God and more on the
world, man, morals and the conditions of social life.”
FREETHOUGHT, AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM
The ultimate outcome of the scientific ferment
is widespread
free-thought, agnosticism and atheism, which has assumed gigantic proportions at the present day. “Whichever way
we turn, the same spectacle confronts us. In France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, the
United States, Brazil and Argentina (where the men are practically all
agnostics), free thought is making rapid progress........Retarded by
Christianity itself—or, shall we
say, its
interpreters?—knowledge was
unable to advance; it receded, and the
clock was put back in scientific research. Darkness reigned supreme for
over a thousand years. At last the dawn began to break. What was the result?
The children of light suffered for their temerity; but their ideas were
eventually absorbed and beliefs were
suitably reformed. Thus the Copernican system was gradually accepted,
and so the discoveries which followed. Then,
however, the established beliefs received shock after shock in rapid
succession—shocks from which they do not yet
show any promise of recovering. The
myriads of worlds in the processes of birth and death; the vast antiquity of
the earth; the long history of man and his animal origin; the reign of natural law, and
the consequent discredit of the supernatural; the suspicions aroused by the study of comparative
mythology; the
difficulties of ‘literal inspiration’; the doubt thrown by the Higher Criticism
on many cherished beliefs—these and the like have
shaken the very foundations of our faith, and are the cause of agnosticism among
the vast majority of our leaders of thought and science”.
The stand taken by the freethinkers has been
ably presented by one of their English representatives:—“Whether religion be no more than 'morality touched by emotion’
as Matthew Arnold defines it, or whether all religions are only different ways
of expressing a reality which transcends experience and correct expression, we
cannot, on that account, accept dogmas that are untrue; we cannot pretend that
a supernatural revelation has been vouched to us.....Sir Oliver Lodge believes
in the ultimate intelligibility of the universe, and with this opinion many of
us may agree. Perhaps our present brains will require considerable improvement
before we can grasp the deepest things by their aid, or perhaps they will
suffice as they are, and only a further acquisition of knowledge may be
required. In any case, one sees no reason why,
because we have no acceptable theory of life or of death now, we must
therefore be equally ignorant of many centuries, or even a single century,
hence. On the other hand, it is, of course,
quite possible that these mysteries will remain for ever unexplained. It may transpire that Haeckel's
assumption of a monism in the physical world, and his identification of
vital force with ordinary physical and chemical forces, are incorrect. It may transpire that Professor Le
Conte was wrong in regarding vital force as just so much withdrawn from
the general fund of chemical and physical forces. Radio-activity and the cyanic
theory may not furnish a satisfactory
solution of the problem of the first appearance of life upon this globe. But
one thing, at all
events, our present knowledge seems clearly
to indicate:
the solution of the problem cannot be in accord with the Christian dogmas.” “In defending
the faith the advanced school of the Church
now frankly admit the difficulties of the old belief; and ask us to accept
their new interpretations of Christianity. The older school of theologians, the
school who can bring themselves neither to assert the truth of evolution nor
to give a decided opinion on the verbal inspiration of the Bible, are
unwillingly, very unwillingly, beginning to follow in their wake. The views of
the two schools being in conflict on many vital points, it is impossible that
they can ever be brought into agreement........ The advanced school represent the section which is in close
touch with modern thought, so that
their new interpretations of the Faith constitute the one and only hope of
arresting the advance of agnosticism. On the other hand, the justice of the
objections to these new interpretations
is borne out by the circumstances that many of the older school would no more think
of accepting them than they would of giving up their belief; rather than accept
them they prefer to deny the facts of science. Both sides do violence to their
reason—the enlightened in using subtleties of their intellect for
interpretations which appear transparently false to the orthodox and to the
unbeliever; the obscurantist in denying
established facts. Consider for a moment what all this means. It means that the
modern sceptic has the support of the strictly orthodox when he refutes the
only explanations as yet offered to dispel his doubts. It means that the
validity of the agnostic's objections to these newfangled interpretations is
fully borne out by the common sense of
Christians themselves, and that a denial of the facts of science and of the results of Biblical
research is the only way we can escape from unbelief.”[106]
This trend of
freethought, however, remained vague, undefined,
and mostly negatory, up to the middle of the nineteenth century. But afterwards
it began to crystallise in the form of distinct, positive, and well-organised
sociopolitical creeds, which have rapidly replaced the Christian Church in Western lands. We might cite two typical
ideologies, namely, Communism and the New German Religion. The first represents
a complete and thorough-going reaction against all those values for which
traditional Christianity and the so-called Christian civilisation stand. The
second denotes the direction which the national and racial aspirations of the
advanced European peoples have been taking, namely, the establishment of
national religions to replace out-worn Christianity.
Communism
The attitude of Communism towards religion is sufficiently well-defined to require any elucidation here. The
writings of its greatest exponents are explicit on the point that Communism cannot tolerate a compromise between itself and religion. It regards God
as “the first and the greatest supporter of despotism” and is out to destroy
Theism root and branch. It is not content with maintaining an attitude of
indifference or passive hatred towards religion but enjoins
upon its followers the duty of waging a relentless war upon all
that religion stands for. Lenin, the father of the Russian
Revolution, was of the opinion that: “The imperceptible powers of the bourgeoise created in the human mind an idea of fear which later on developed into the belief in God. Unless this belief in God is erased from the human mind, the curse of bourgeoise cannot possibly be eradicated.”[107] And again: “Religion is
the opium
for the people. Marxism, therefore, regards all present-day religion and
Churches.... as instruments of bourgeoise reaction
which serve as a shield for the exploitation and deception of the working
class. The fight against religion is necessary, and Marxism says: ‘we must
fight religion’... the fight must be
brought into close connection with the concrete tasks and activity of the class-struggle which is
directed to the social roots of religion.”[108]
Is it possible then to deny that the triumph
of Communism in the world’s largest Christian state, i.e.,
Russia, and its acceptance by large groups in other Western
Christian countries means a fatal blow to Christianity? In fact,
the success of Communism is a tape by which we can measure not only the utter helplessness of the Christian
Church in satisfying the modern minds but also its rapid and certain downfall.
The New German Religion[109]
The New German
Religion, which was intended by the Nazis to become the national religion of
revolutionary Germany, provides us with another proof of the fact that
Christianity is now a spent force. The divergence of its
principles from the Christian doctrines and the spirit of revolt which
it enshrines form clear indications of its mission. Its gospel is reproduced below from an article of Professor Ernest Bergmann written for the “Friends of Europe”
publications:—
Thesis 1: The
German has his own religion which, flows
like the living water of his own perception, feeling and thought, and is rooted
in his species. We call it the German religion, or the religion of the German
people, and understand thereby a faith expressing the peculiarity and
integrity of our race.
Thesis 2: The German
religion is the form of faith appropriate to our age, which we Germans would
have today if it had been granted to us to have our
native German religion developed undisturbed to the present time.
Thesis 3: The German
of today requires a healthy and natural religion which makes him brave, pious
and strong in the struggle for People
and Fatherland. Such a religion is
the German religion.
Comments: What is a
Healthy and Natural Religion? It is a religion without the phenomena of disease
and degeneration. To this Christianity does not belong. Christianity
is indeed an unhealthy and unnatural religion which is at an
end. For it arose 2,000 years ago among sick, exhausted and
despairing men who had lost their belief in life, who despised the world and who waited for the return of
Christ and the destruction of the world.
Thesis 4: The German
religion recognises no dogmas, for it is a religion.
Thesis 5: The German religion is not a religion of
revelation in the Christian sense. It rests rather upon a
natural ‘revelation’ of the divine forces in the world and in the human mind.
Thesis 6: The German
religion is a religion of the people. It has nothing to do with atheist
propaganda and the disintegration (Zersetzung) of religion. We who are
genuine followers of the German religion take our stand on the basis of a
positive religion.
Comments: Where Christianity stops, there our
religion begins. Belief in a personal God, in revelation and
salvation is superstition, not religion. The biologically educated
man seeks the solution of his moral and religious
problems in the Cosmos, in the nature and the world of reality, in
blood and soil, people and home, nation and Father-land….Our religion is no longer the international Christ-God
who could not prevent Versailles. Our religion is what grows, living within us,
the great, sacred, glowing desire to wash away 1,000 years of German sorrow and
make good the sins of the Jewish-Christian alien religion against the German
soul.
Thesis 7: The German
religion is not hostile to a Church. It seeks a German Church on the basis of a
religious people.
Thesis 8: God is a moral idea to which we are bound by the eternal creative force of Nature, which
works in the world and man. Belief in an otherworldly God is not of
Indo-Germanic but of Semitic origin. This kind of God-belief is not a condition of true religion and
piety.
Thesis 9: In the lap of the divine living world the knowing Being or Mind
grows. Mind is a natural growth of
the
world of reality. It is not a finished thing at the beginning, but at the end,
at the height of world development.
Thesis 10: To God’s Being belong Will, Understanding (Verstand)
and Personality. These are, however, unique in Man. Hence Man is the place 
(Art) of God in the world.
Thesis 11: Man is not
God. But he is God's birthplace. God exists and grows in Man. If God does not
come in Man, He never comes. Hence the German religion is the religion of high
faith in Man.
Thesis 12: The German religion recognises no dualism or
conflict between body and soul, any more than duality and conflict between God
and the world and God and man. We think of the being, body-soul, as a natural
unity and entity.
Comments: “Crucify thy
Flesh” was the demand of the ascetic Christian ethics of decadence, which
overlooked that at the same time the mind was crucified. For in a sick and
tortured flesh dwells a sick or tortured mind. In the National Socialist State this dualistic Christian anthropology is completely out of date. Whoever seeks to weed out the inferior and
cultivate the gifted and the best of our inheritance, whoever seeks a Social-Aristocracy can be no longer Christian. For Christianity is the religious form of Social Democracy. Both are international, democratic and believing in human equality.
Thesis 13: The living world is the Womb-Mother of the
high human mind. Knowing Being and mind is a birth of the All-Mother. The
mother-child thought is hence the right indication of the God-world secret. We
speak in a modern Nature religion of the Mind-Child God who rests in the All- Mother.
Thesis 14:
The feelings of union, holiness and blessedness are the basic religious feelings. The Christian feelings of sin, guilt and repentance are not religious
feelings at all. They are artificially-engendered complexes in Man.
Thesis 15: The
ethics of the German Religion condemns all belief in inherited sin, as well as
the Jewish-Christian teaching of a fallen world and man. Such a teaching is
not only non-Germanic and non-German, it is immoral and non-religious. Whoever preaches this menaces
the morality of the people.
Thesis 16: Whoever
forgives sin, sanctions sin. The forgiving of sins undermines religious ethics
and destroys the morale of the people.
Thesis 17: At the heart of the German religious ethics
stands concern for the welfare of people and Fatherland, not for the blessedness of the individual. The
German ethics is not one for the salvation of the individual like the Christian
ethics but one for the welfare of the people as a whole.
Comments: The National
Socialist ethics rightly fights individualism and egoism and educates for the
care of the community, the people and the Fatherland, to the absorption of all
our thought......This concern about the salvation of the community is expressed in the
National Socialist ethic: 'Thou art nothing, thy people is everything!' The
Christian ethic is the exact opposite: 'Thou and thy eternal salvation are
everything and thy people is nothing!” For international and pacifist Christian
ethics has never yet recognised the interest of the people........National
Socialist and Christian ethics
are irreconcilable contradictions.
Thesis 18: He who belongs to the German religion is
a slave of God, but lord of the divine within him. German ethics therefore
rejects making Man passive for receiving grace, as non-German.
Thesis 19: In the
German religion there is no escape from life, but only release into life. For it the
statement is valid: Whoever loves man heals him before he is born, not before
he dies. The genuine Saviour turns his care towards prenatal Man.
Thesis 20: The Ethics
of the German religion is a heroic ethics. It rests on three ancient German
virtues: Bravery, chivalry and fidelity, all of which spring out of honour!
Thesis 21: We of the
German Religion demand the introduction of religious instruction in the
schools. Christian instruction can no longer be regarded as adequate or valid,
since Christianity is in our sense (see Theses 1, 2, and 3) no longer a
religion.
Comments: The age of
world-religions draws to a close. A people which has returned to its blood and
soil, which has realised the danger of international Jewry, can no longer
tolerate a religion in its churches which make the scriptures of the Jews the basis of its Gospel. Germania cannot be rebuilt on this inner lie......We must base ourselves on the Holy Scriptures
which are clearly written in German hearts...... Our cry is: Away from Rome and Jerusalem:
Back to our native German Faith in its present-day form.
What is sacred is our home (Heimat),
What is eternal is our people,
What is divine is what we want to be.
Thesis 22: We of the German religion construe the
Divine in images true to life—a manly-heroic and a woman-motherly.
Thesis 23: One of the
two religious forms of the German Religion is the Nordic Light-Hero as the
embodiment of heroic manliness. The Nordic Light-Hero is the image of the high human Mind and of the heroic and
helping Leader, which goes struggling and triumphant ahead as the Moral Ideal
of his people.
Thesis 24: The Mother
with the Child is the truest, most loving, sacred and happiness-bringing of all
the symbols of the world and life. The Mother Figure is the original religious
figure from which indeed the God-Father figure derives its splendour. In the German Church there
must be alongside the manly heroic figure the dear and faithful picture of the
most-blessed Mother, if the Church is to rest on the laws of life of a people's Church.
Thesis 25: The cult-forms of the German religion and of the German People's Church must adapt
themselves to the living laws of thought which underlie them. The life of the family, of the State, and of the whole nation must be reflected in a
natural way in these cult-forms of the Church, if the Church is to be a modern
People’s Church with life flowing through it.
THE ORTHODOX REACTION
As the formidable and devastating
anti-Christian flood rolls ahead, sweeping off Christianity in all countries,
uneasiness, alarm and consternation spreads in Christian ranks. Official
Christianity is throwing in her last reserves in an attempt to turn the tide.
Desperate and exasperated, she is trying every means she can lay her hands
upon, however disparaging they may otherwise be to the genuine spirit and
teaching of the Bible. She is building up a two-fold line of defence and has
divided her forces accordingly into two groups.
One group, consisting of the best brains among the clergy is attempting to rationalise Christianity by weeding out
all that is objectionable, which, though it may temporarily succeed in deceiving people, actually ends in the virtual negation of Christian verities and consequently meets with the reprobation
of the more consistent and less enlightened section of priesthood. According to the representatives of this advanced group,[110]“our belief in Jesus
Christ must be based upon moral
conviction, not upon physical wonder.” And again: “the time is past when Christianity could be
presented as a revelation attested by miracles......We must accept
Christianity, not on the ground of the
miracles, but in spite of them,...... There has been no special intervention of
the Divine Will contrary to the natural order of things.” And yet again,
according to Archdeacon Wilson, “we dare not deny the name of Christian to such
as live in Christ's spirit and do His will, though they know not for certain how God manifested Himself in Christ, and will not profess a certainty they do not
feel......We rest on the broad ground of the vast experience of the world, and
the testimony of our own conscience, that Christ has lifted mankind up, and
shown man what is good; and this we may describe as bringing man to God, and
revealing God to man. This redemption, salvation, we acknowledge as a fact. He
who has faith in Christ, and lets it work its natural result in making him more
like Christ, deserves to be called a Christian.”
The other group, however, regards a radical
change in the Christian doctrines as impious and inconsistent with its alleged
divine character. Its representatives resort therefore to reforming the technique of church-life and
seem to think that by pandering to the tastes of the common masses, by
transforming the churches into cinema halls and social clubs and by making the
whole church-business more business-like they can arrest the progress of the
anti-Christian force.
Methods of the Orthodox
Let us take,
for example, the ‘most Christian’ country, the native land of Dr. S. M. Zwemer,
D.B. Macdonald and Rev. Cash, I mean, the United States of America. The editor of the Boston Herald, while
expressing his nervousness
at the inefficiency of the clergy, appealed to them to study the art of
advertising so as to enable themselves to ‘sell’ Christianity better to the
public. He said:
“We do know that the advertising business is
attracting many able young men, for it is a growing business and increasingly
influential. We hear that everything must be ‘sold’ these days. The President has to ‘sell’ his policies; the colleges have to ‘sell’ their instruction; art has to ‘sell’ its creations; not only do merchants have to sell their
wares, some of the finest and cleanest philanthropic enterprises in the world
are experts in advertising. Why not apply the idea to the sermon? Preachers
must ‘sweat’ blood in the produce of good sermons, then sell them to the
public.”
Needless to say, the appeal met with a hearty
response. The Church took to it with an enthusiasm which few could imagine.
Here is a typical advertisement:
“The following questions will be discussed
Sunday evening by the Rev. William Elliot Hammon, Pastor of
the Way Temple:
“What was the result of your personal
interview with Fatty Arbuckle?
“Tell us what Arbuckle said when you asked him
the secret of his reducing 80 pounds.
“Should girls with big feet be
dentists?”[111]
The Rev. B. G. Hodge of Owensboro succeeded in attracting a large
audience when he advertised in the local Messenger his Sabbath sermon:
“Solomon a six cylinder sport! Could you
handle as many wives and concubines as this 'Old Bird'? Rev.
B. G. Hodge will proceed on this subject Sunday night at
Seattle Memorial. You are welcome”.[112]
The Rev. Griffin went a step further:
“Griffin, Pastor of the Rogers Park Baptist
Church, Hilldale and Greenleaf Avenues, exhibited five types of girls to his
audience. His subject was ‘The kind of girl to marry’. Each one of the young
women stepped into a framework of flowers and tissue-paper lattice-work which
had been arranged in the front of the Church over the baptistry,
while a spotlight was turned on.”[113]
The Rev. Karl A. Blackman, Associate Minister
of Linwood Christian Church, Kansas City, Missouri, reported[114]:—
“I've got to get them some way, and my ways
seem to be right, for they come in thousands to my Happy Sundays.
“At three in the afternoon we let down a screen across the top of the
church and have moving pictures—the best moving pictures we can have for young children.
“Waifs and strays come into the church in hundreds. They make an awful
mess in the church. Two bushel baskets of rubbish, popcorn, peanut husks,
chewing gum, and all sorts of things, are carried away after these children
have been there.
“Then at 5.30 we have another movie picture
show for the whole congregation and we get good pictures too.
Douglas Fairbanks doing his stuff, or something given rise to by
the film.
“And you have to get hold of those young
people with your first sentence, or they would soon leave
the Church, contented with having seen a good film. You've got to shake off the effects of the film right there.
“I snap it right out at them quick, fast, one,
two, three, and so on, have them thinking.
“Then, on the stroke of seven we have another
service that is sent out by a radio. It is the young people's forum. Everybody
is free to get up and say what they like for two minutes. We
start right off the mark, and if President Coolidge was going to speak there and was ten seconds late, well he’d just be
late, that’s all.
“The lights are subdued a little, so that boys
and girls can behave as is natural to boys and girls,
but I keep a fatherly eye on all of them.
“I have a quiet little room with a soft light
and there I receive young people who have troubles to get off their chests and
want advice. Each received alone.
“Some are girls who are a little faded and want to know why it is that
men don't keep running after them like they do other girls, I cheer them up and tell
them to put their clothes on better, or advise them of something that will
bring their personality more to the front.
“Yes, sir, my methods are popular.”
What a wonderful conception of religious life!
what a marvellous remedy for irreligion!!
ORTHODOX APOLOGETICS: THE BEGINNING
To come to the other group now—the group of
interpreters, rationalisers and apologists: The following are a few instances of the new interpretation,
especially with regard to the miraculous element in Christianity:—
In his book on Holy Scripture and Criticism, Bishop Ryle
observes: “Think of the use made of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Apostles in the Acts, or by St. Paul in his Epistles. It is ever the spiritual and moral lesson[115].... In His incidental
references to Moses, He (i.e., Jesus) adopts the language of the Scribes......
He never displayed knowledge of facts which
could not be possessed by those of His own time.... To His intellectual powers
in His humanity there seem to have been assigned the natural barriers of the
time in which He lived.[116]”
According to the Rev. A. B: Bruce[117], “while Christ’s
spiritual intuitions are pure truths valid for all ages, His language
concerning the Father shows limitations of vision; His acts of healing were
real, but it does not follow that they were miraculous.”
Archdeacon Wilson in a paper read at the
Diocesan Conference at Manchester on Oct. 22, 1903, observed: “What do we mean
in our Creed when we say: ‘He came down from heaven’? We explain away ‘down’ we
explain away ‘heaven’ in the sense in which the word was originally used. What
do we mean by ‘descended into Hell’, by “Sitteth on the right-hand of God’?......Spiritual
truths are spiritually discerned, and do not admit of final intellectual
definitions. We can only avert the rejection of theology by
recognising its limitations.”
Dr. Adolph Harnack, the famous German Biblical
scholar, interprets the occurrence of miracles as the
operation of natural law and says[118]: “Miracles, it is true,
do not happen; but of the marvellous
and the inexplicable there is no lack—that the earth in its
course stood still, that a she-ass spoke, that a storm was quieted by a
sword, we do not believe, and we shall never believe[119]; but that the lame
walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard, will not be so summarily dismissed
as an allusion.”
Regarding the Virgin-birth, he says[120]; “The evangelists
themselves never refer to it, nor make Jesus Himself refer to
His antecedents. On the contrary, they tell us that Jesus” mother and
His brethren were completely surprised at His coming forward, and did not know
what to make of it. Paul, too, is silent; so that we can be sure that the
oldest tradition knew nothing of any stories of Jesus' birth.”
The Rev. David Smith interprets the
fundamental miracle of Ascension thus[121]: “When Jesus parted from
the eleven on Olivet, He did not forsake the earth and migrate to a distant
Heaven. He ceased to manifest Himself; but He is here at this hour no otherwise than during those forty
days.”
Bishop Henson regards the Resurrection
as a spiritual fact only, and not a fact of the historical order: “Any candid
Christian reading through the accounts of the New Testament evidences....
cannot escape the inference that the evidence for the quasi-historical statement of the Creed is of a highly complicated, dubious and even contradictory character.... Is an honest belief in the Resurrection really inconsistent
with a reverent agnosticism as to the historical circumstances
out of which in the first instance that belief arose?”[122]
Bishop Carpenter writes: “In John V we
read that the stirring of the waters and the consequent healing virtue was
attributed to the presence of an angel. The modern would speak of the pool as a
medicinal spring. The fact is the same. The mode of description is different.
The ancient knew little of what are called natural causes.”[123]
The Ven. W. M. Sinclair, late Archdeacon of London once conjectured:
“When our Lord said: 'Greater works than these shall ye do’, He was perhaps
thinking of the marvellous discoveries of surgeons and physicians in times of
advanced science.”
The Rev. Samuel Cox is of the opinion that Joshua did not command the
sun and the moon to stand still, but only “besought God that the black clouds
of the storm driving up the pass from the sea might not be allowed to blot out
the sun and bring night prematurely before his victory was
complete.”[124]
Again, as regards the rainbow covenant, “it is not meant that the
rainbow appeared for the first time to Noah after the Flood,[125] but that it was adopted
then as a visible sign of God’s covenant, as water is adopted for a somewhat
similar covenant in the New Testament.”[126]
Bishop Westcott says regarding the fulfillment of prayers[127]: “It would be positively immoral for us now to pray that the tides or
the sun should not rise on a particular day; but, as long as the idea of the
physical law which ruled them was unformed or indistinct, the prayer would have
been reasonable, and (may we not hope?) the fulfillment also.”
Canon J. M. Wilson virtually denies the fundamental Christian dogma of
the Fall of Adam: “Man fell, according to science, when he first became conscious of
the conflict of freedom and
conscience; and each individual man falls as his ancestor
fell. I do not mean to say that there is a particular
moment at which man fell; it is
not so. It is a continuous struggle of good and evil.
I see in this nothing to conflict with a
legitimate interpretation of the story of the Fall in the third chapter
of Genesis. Such a narrative is not illusion, still less a mere fiction;
it is, as all teaching of spiritual truth must be, a temporary and
figurative mode of expression.”[128]
This brief account of the individual
efforts of orthodox apologists gives us the story of the first shocks which
Christianity received from some of its own representatives. The very tone of
the statements makes it transparently clear that they do not harmonise with the
express teachings of the Bible and the traditional Christian belief, and that
they were made to save an awkward situation. Those, therefore, who prized their faith more than expediency, disowned the new interpretation and insisted on the correct Christian view-point in
unambiguous terms. For instance, as regards miracles, Canon Mozley warned in
his Bampton Lectures: “Miracles are the supernatural content of Christianity
must stand or fall together”.
And Dean Farrar observed: “However skillfully the modern ingenuity of
semi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is clear
to every honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be incredible,
Christianity is false.”[129]
There can be no doubt that logically this position is unassailable. But,
as a bishop of London expressed at the beginning of the present century (1904),
“the truth of the matter really is that all over Europe a great conflict is
being fought between the old faith in a supernatural revelation and
a growing disbelief in it”. That disbelief has assumed gigantic
proportions today, with the result that traditional Christianity is virtually
dead except among the most backward and the most ignorant, and has been
replaced by a faith which cannot be called Christianity any longer. This ‘Reformed
Christianity’ is the outcome of the apologists’
window-dressing. How far they will succeed in regaining the lost ground for Christianity, remains to be seen. Those who approach the problem with an
impartial attitude will see that such a drastic recasting and reforming of Christianity which her defenders have undertaken is a proof by itself that Christianity is false. In fact, once the historical and textual criticism of the Bible is accepted, the whole case for Christianity collapses automatically. If the Bible is the Word of God, its historical
authenticity must be unimpeachable and all its teachings must be acceptable. We
must either accept Christianity as a whole or reject it as a whole. That is what every honest
Christian has believed throughout the past two thousand years. That is what the
unsophisticated Christian believes still. But those
professional representatives of Christianity who know
things better and can see the sore-spots of their religion clearly cannot take the same stand. The problem before them seems
to be one of prestige rather than of
faith. They naturally care more for the name than for the content. A brief survey
of their organised efforts may now be given.
MODERNISM IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCH
Among the organised reformist movements, the
activities of the Modern Churchmen of England have
resulted in reforms of basic importance. They started with the
idea of bringing about “a clean sweep of all those factors
whereby Christianity had become heathenised” and regarded this the
sole method of saving Christianity.
The first important event occurred on July 5,
1917, when the revealed nature of the Bible was attacked in the
Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, and it was decided in the very
presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury that the Bible was not the pure Word of God and
that many events mentioned in it were unbelievable. The
speakers went even so far as to assert that if Jesus believed in the
unbelievable legends of the Bible, he must be said to have
shared the wrong beliefs of his contemporaries. They said, for
instance, they could not believe in the story of Jonah's
fish, though according to Matthew XII, 39, 40, Jesus decidedly
believed in it.
It was an extremely important step inasmuch as
it revealed to the general public the mind of the clergy
themselves, who,
it seems, had long ago lost all faith in several teachings of the Bible.
Before that memorable day, every deacon, at the time of his ordination, had to
declare his belief in the Bible as the Word of God, the question put to him
being: “Do you unfeignedly believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments?” The prescribed reply used to be: “I do so believe them.” The Church authorities were
now compelled to change the question by adding
conscience-saving clauses. This is the new form adopted: “Do you unfeignedly
believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as conveying
to us in many parts and in diverse manners the revelation of
God which is fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ?”
“Did Christ found the Church?” was the
question discussed at the Conference of Modern Churchmen held
at Girton College, Cambridge, on August 9, 1917. Professor Percy Gardner
presided, and the following persons participated in the debate: Dean Inge of St. Paul’s, the
Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, the Rev. C. W. Emmet, Bishop Mercer, the Rev. H. A.
Major, the Rev. L. Patterson, the Rev. F. Mann, the Rev. H. Symonds and
Archdeacon Ford.
The Rev. J. R. Wilkinson opened the discussion and Dean Inge read a
paper in which he proved that Jesus was not
the founder, and that, on the contrary, he was a follower of the Mosaic
Dispensation, “a Jew like other Jews, a Rabbi like other Rabbies”. The founder
of the Church, according to the learned
Dean, was St. Paul, who “made a Greek god of a Hebrew Prophet”. This view was endorsed
by all those present, with the single exception of Archdeacon Ford.[130]
Another theological bombshell was thrown on the Church-creed in August,
1921, when Dr. Rashdall, Dean of Carlisle, while discussing the problem of the
divinity and sonship of Jesus before the Modern Churchmen's Congress held at
Cambridge, remarked:
“Jesus did not claim divinity for himself. He may have allowed himself to be called a Messiah, but never in any critically well-attested sayings is there anything which suggests that his conscious relation to God is other than that of a man towards
God. The speeches of the fourth Gospel, where they go beyond the synoptic
conception cannot be regarded as history.
“It follows from this admission that Jesus
was in the fullest sense a man, and that he had not merely a human body but a
human soul, intellect and will.
“It is equally unorthodox to suppose that the
human soul of Jesus pre-existed. There
is simply no basis for such a doctrine unless we say that all human souls exist
before their birth into the world, but that is not the usually accepted
Catholic position.
“The divinity of Christ does not necessarily
imply virgin-birth or any other miracle. The virgin-birth, if it could be historically proved, would be no
demonstration of Christ’s divinity; nor would the disproof of it throw any
doubt on that doctrine.
“The divinity of Christ does not imply
omniscience. There is no more reason for supposing that Jesus of
Nazareth knew more than his contemporaries about the true
scientific explana- tion of mental diseases which current belief
attributed to diabolic
possession than that he knew more about the authorship of the
Pentateauch or the Psalms. It is difficult to deny that he entertained some
expectations about the future which history has not verified.”
The Rev. H. D. A. Major, Principal of Ripon
Hall, Oxford, endorsed the views of the Dean in these words:
“It should be clearly realised that Jesus did not claim in the Gospels to be the Son of God in a
physical sense, such as the narratives of the virgin birth suggest, nor did he
claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense, such as was required by the
Nicene Theology. He claimed to be God's son in a moral sense, in the sense in which
all human beings are sons of God as standing in a filial and moral
relationship to God and capable of acting on those moral principles on which
God acts.”
The intensity of the shock which the truly orthodox Christians received
can be realised from the following comment[131]:
“During the last few days
orthodox Christianity has received the greatest blow it has suffered for many
years. Outside the Church, scores of people, learned and skilled in the ways of
theology, have been attempting to prove that the basis of Christianity was all wrong, and
that modern science had destroyed its very foundation. This time a blow has
come from the inside itself; and three highly placed theologians, all avowed
members of the Church of England in which they live, preach and have their
being have united to use words which laymen take to mean that Christ was not
the son of God, but a Palestine Jew.
“Now what Renan argued in The Life of Jesus, what all scientists
outside the faith have expressed in learned tones, has been suddenly put into a
bomb which, thrown at the Modern Churchmen's Congress at Cambridge not a
week ago, has staggered the Anglican Church so much that the
reverberations of the shock will be felt for years----Dr.
Rashdall, the Dean of Carlisle, Dr. Bethune Baker, Lady Margaret, Professor of
Divinity, the Rev. R. G. Parsons of Rushlowe, have stood by
at an Anglican Conference, and—if their words have been reported rightly—denied the Godhead.....
“Christ was not divine but human, said Dr.
Rashdall. ‘I do not for a moment
suppose that Christ ever thought of himself as God’, said Dr. Bethune Baker. ‘Jesus
was a man, genuinely, utterly, completely, unreservedly human’, said the Rev.
R. G. Parsons, ‘a Palestine Jew who expressed himself through the conditions
and limitations of life and thought peculiar to his own time.'
“These three men are not people whose opinions
can be disregarded even by the most
orthodox of all Christians. They are men of the highest intellectual
attainments, men of brilliant
achievements in the world of theology; all of these men, who as lecturers and
fellows and professors, have instructed scores of Anglican divines before their
ordination and since.”
In a lecture delivered at a meeting of the
Association of University Women Teachers, held at the University College,
London, in 1922, Canon Barnes made certain observations regarding the
educational value of the Bible which, coming from such a high official of the
Church, should prove an eye-opener for
us all. He said:
“In this connection it is most important that the true nature and value
of the Old Testament should be explained to children. It is Jewish literature, and is
valuable for us mainly because it shows how the Jewish prophets were
led to the idea of God, which Jesus accepted and emphasised, and because in its vague expectations of a Messiah foreshadow the advent of Christ. But in the Old Testament are also to be found folk-lore, defective history, half-savage morality, obsolete forms of worship based upon primitive and
erroneous ideas of the nature of God, and crude science. The whole, however, is valuable as showing the growth of a pure monotheism among the Jews—a religious phenomenon as remarkable and inexplicable as the great
intellectual development of the golden age of Greece. It is very difficult to
convey truths like this to children,
and so it seems to me better to postpone the Old Testament part of the
religious teaching to the later stages; otherwise children would learn
stories like that with which the Book of Genesis opened, which they would
afterwards discover to be untrue.”
He further said that he had “come reluctantly to the conclusion that it
is highly dangerous to use, for didactic purposes, such
allegories as the creation of woman, the Daniel stories, and Jonah; it encourages the prevalent belief that religious
people have a low standard of truth.”[132]
The attitude of Modern Churchmen towards the problems arising from the conflict of Christianity and science was ably
presented by Dean Inge in an essay written by him in 1925 for a book
entitled Religion, Science and Reality. He said:
“The discovery that the earth, instead of
being a finite universe like a dish with a dish-cover over
it, is a planet revolving round the sun, which itself is only one of
millions of stars, tore into shreds the Christian map of the
universe.
“Until that time the ordinary man, whether
educated or uneducated, had pictured the sum of things as
a three-storeyed building consisting of: heaven, the abode of
God, the angels and beatified spirits; our earth; and the infernal regions,
where the devil, his angels and lost souls are imprisoned and tormented......Most certainly heaven and
hell were geographical expressions.
“The articles in the Creeds on the descent of
Christ into Hades, and
His ascent into heaven, affirm no less; and it is obvious that
the bodily resurrection of Christ is intimately connected with the bodily
ascension. The new cosmography thus touched the faith of the Creeds very
closely.
“That the Church interpreted these doctrines
literally is shown by the Anglican
Articles of Religion which declare that Christ ascended into heaven with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, and there
sitteth. Transubstantiation was denied on the ground that the body of Christ is
in heaven, and that it is contrary to
the properties of a natural body to be in more than one place at the same time.
“The Copernican astronomy, and all the
knowledge about the heavens which has been built on this
foundation, leave no room for a
geographical heaven.
“Space seems to be infinite, and among all the stars, planets,
satellites and nebulae which are sparsely scattered over its vast empty
distances we can hardly imagine that one
has been chosen as the abode of the Creator and the site of the heavenly
Jerusalem. The belief in a subterranean place of punishment, which has not been
disproved by astronomy, seems to have faded away without making any commotion,
though I am told that the law of the land is still committed to it........
“The older problem, however, is still shirked.
A short time ago I reviewed a book by a writer whom a popular vote would
probably choose as our foremost theologian. I found there a statement that
Christians are no longer expected to believe in a local heaven above our heads.
I welcomed this rejection of a geographical heaven as significant, coming as it did from a pillar of orthodoxy......Another
distinguished theologian, in discussing the ascension of Christ, said that the
words 'into heaven' might be taken symbolically, but that we must believe that the physical body of
Christ was raised to a considerable distance above the ground. I do ask with all possible earnestness: Is this kind of
shuffling any longer tolerable? Is it not essential that the Church should face
this problem, which for four hundred years it has kept at arm's length? Do
Christians accept those verdicts of astronomical science which
seem to be surely established, with those modifications of
traditional theology which they imply, or do they not? To juggle with words
'letting I dare not wait, I would, can satisfy nobody.”
At the Modern
Churchmen Conference held at Oxford on August 26, 1925, the Vicar of Partington
questioned the received interpretation of such Christian verities as the Fall
of Adam, the Original Sin, and the Atonement, and his views
were heartily endorsed by many. Simultaneously Dr. Barnes proved in an
enlightening sermon that most of the Christian rites had been incorporated from
Paganism and that the sacrament was in particular borrowed from the mysteries
of sun-worshippers.
This brief survey of the reforms adopted
between 1915 and 1925 may be concluded with the following enlightening summary given in the editorial article of The Modern Churchman (July, 1927):—
“Modernism has been destructive, not
willingly, but of necessity. It has had, like the prophets of old, to protest
against false teaching by Christian teachers, false teaching which was
destroying the influence of Christianity with thoughtful and sensitive souls.
Modernism in the person of F. D.
Maurice began by protesting against the terrible doctrine of everlasting
torment as presenting an utterly untrue view of God the Father; in Colenso it
protested against the assertion of the scientific accuracy of Genesis as bound
to alienate the scientific world from Christianity; it denied the doctrine of
original sin as due to Adam's transgression and as the cause of physical death; it denied, in
the light of Biblical criticism, the historicity of many Old Testament
and New Testament narratives; it denied the resurrection of the flesh and the
trustworthy character of Jewish apocalyptic picture portraying the future history of humanity on this planet and the end of the world; it denied the penal character of Christ’s
sufferings and that he offered on the Cross a propitiation or satisfaction to
God the Father; it denied our Lord’s omniscience and omnipotence while subject
to the conditions of his incarnate life; it denied his virgin birth and
physical resurrection and ascension; it denied that there was any
specific authority for the monarchical episcopate; it denied that
the
gift of tongues bestowed the power to speak foreign languages; it denied
the evidential value of miracles and that they were capable of attesting a
divine revelation; it denied Biblical
and ecclesiastical infallibility. To-day, traditional Christianity, with
its scheme of salvation, lies shattered; it has lost intellectual authority
with all classes. The Modernists are not to blame for this: the scientists, the
historians, the Biblical critics, the metaphysicians, psychologists, and
anthropologists are most to blame. The Modernists have but accepted their
assertions and repeated them; and this they did not only in the interests of
truth, but also, as they believed, in the interests of Christianity. Not only were they
convinced that no lie is of the truth, but they were also convinced that
Christianity ought frankly to abandon every form of untruth and amputate it
from its teachings, however painful the operation might prove, being well
assured that as Christianity got rid of every form of falsehood and error, so
it would become more influential for good. However, the result of all this
denial is to give the impression that Modernism is destructive. The charge is a
half-truth. This gives the impression that the only Christianity Modernism can
offer is a reduced Christianity—that irreducible minimum which remains after
science and criticism and metaphysics have done their uttermost to eliminate lies and legends. Now the great
task of the Modernist is to substitute for a reduced Christianity a transformed
Christianity.”
This frank and
fearless statement establishes two important facts: (1) that traditional
Christianity, with its fundamentals like the Infallibility of the Bible, the
Sonship and Divinity of Jesus, the Original Sin, the Vicarious Atonement.,
etc., is false and cannot be accepted as giving us the original message of the
holy prophet Jesus; (2) that a transformed Christianity alone can resolve the
present religious crisis in
Christendom.
As regards the first contention, it is in full agreement, in
principle and in fundamental details, with Islam. The only point of dispute, which separates the
Modern Church- men from Islam, arises in the second contention. The Modernists
seem to hold that it would be possible by human effort to build up a transformed
Christianity which will meet the needs of humanity. Islam, on the other hand,
holds that true religion should come from God and not from man, and that,
therefore, the substitution of one man-made religion by another cannot help us at all. It further
holds that once the necessity of Divine
Revelation is admitted, it would be irrational to believe “that the
All-Merciful God, Who’ had revealed His Message to Jesus, should have
allowed humanity to grope in darkness after that Message had
been corrupted by human hands. On this argument the Qur’an builds its claim
that it is in Islam, and Islam alone, that a Christian should seek to get the
required ‘transformed Christianity’—‘transformed’ in the sense of ‘genuine.’ The sooner the advanced
forces of Christendom realise this rational truth, the better for them and for the world of religion at
large.
However, the idea of building up a transformed Christianity has caught the fancy of Christendom today, and this in itself
constitutes a happy sign. It may not by itself succeed in leading the
Modernists to the ultimate truth, but it will certainly continue to take them
away from falsehood and error. At the present moment they are moving fast
towards a revitalised and reformed
Quaker mysticism and hope to find there the original message of Jesus in individual religious experience. So says one of their greatest leaders, the Very Rev. Dr.
Inge: “The strength of Protestantism lies not in theories of inspiration and
special providence; it lies in personal devotion to Christ, and in the duty of
individual judgment, under the guidance of the Spirit of
Truth.
Institutionalism
may be decaying, and there are at present few signs of a revival of it; but personal
religion may even gain by the decline of authority and ecclesiastical
discipline; and it is in personal religion[133]
that the Christian recovers the faith of the original Gospel, and an
unassailable basis for confronting the problems of the future.”[134]“I
am convinced that the Quaker type of belief and practice will be of great and
increasing importance in what remains of the twentieth century......I do not
hesitate to say that in my judgement the Quakers are the truest Christians in
the modern world”[135].
“It is certain that the Gospel of Christ levels all institutional barriers,
whether sacred or secular, by ignoring them. Faith and love are the only
sufficient passports to membership of the “little flock”[136]
QUAKERISM
This leads us to a brief examination of the
teachings of Quakerism. Quakerism was and is a powerful revolt against all that
Biblical Christianity has stood for, excepting the belief in Jesus as a
saviour. It was always condemned by the
Roman Catholics as well as the Protestants in the bitterest terms. One of the
many charges brought against the Quakers was that of denying the historical
Christ and conceiving him as the 'quickening Spirit' in their own souls.
Richard Baxter in his 'Quaker's Catechism' (1657) accused the Quakers of
denying that there is any such person as Jesus Christ who suffered at
Jerusalem. John Bunyan likened them to the Ranters and Familists and said that
they “either deny Christ to be a real man without (= outside) them, blasphemously
fancying him to be only God manifested in their flesh, or else make his human
nature, with the fullness of the Godhead in it, to be but a type of God manifested
in the saints.” These accusations were based on such statements of Quaker
belief as that given by Penn: “That the outward person which suffered was
properly the Son of God, we utterly deny.”
The essence of Quakerism is that the seat of
authority which Catholics find in the Church, and Protestants in the Bible, should
be placed in the enlightened human soul, and
it emphasises that the inner
light is sufficiently real, constant, and available to be a guide for the whole
of a man's life. Thus it rises above all
forms of traditional Christianity. Caroline Stephen, the well-known Quaker
writer, says: “Our fundamental principle of obedience to the light of Christ in
the heart......must, I believe, lead to the effacing of outlines and boundaries
made by human hands......To subordinate, and if need be to sacrifice, whatever is
outward and perishable to the innermost, the central and supreme, is
the very groundwork of our ideal.”[137] Thomas Hodgkin remarks:
“What was spoken unscientifically in the childhood of the world by the unscientific Hebrew sages is no essential part of Christ's message to the world today.”[138] The scientist Silvanus
Thompson observes: “What is a Friend (= Quaker) but one who, illuminated by the
quickening Spirit, has learned to cast off the incrustations which ignorance
and intellectual pride or intellectual folly have during the centuries built up
around the simple code of Christ's teaching.”[139]
Quakerism has the distinct advantage over all other Christian sects
inasmuch as, by throwing off the Infallible Church and the Infallible Bible, it
takes refuge in the world of the
individual and personal religious experience, and thus makes itself immune from
all those attacks of scientific and historical criticism which have shattered
traditional Christianity. And this is the reason why the clever Modernists try
to take shelter in Quakerism. But they forget perhaps that in doing so they do
not arrive at anything stable and unique. For, in the first place, to admit
that the Bible is not a revealed scripture will do away with the Christian
contention that Christianity is a divinely-revealed religion and has therefore
the authority to organise a religious community which should regard the
rest of the world as infidel and heathen and should, consequently, create huge missionary organisations to convert them. Secondly, what Lord Cromer wrongly said regarding Islam, may be
rightly asserted regarding Christianity: “A reformed or transformed
Christianity is Christianity no longer.” Thirdly, even if it could be proved
in some miraculous way that in the new mystical interpretation
of Christianity the original teaching of Jesus has been fully restored, it will
yet be insufficient to meet the
religious needs of humanity. The scope of an individualistic personal mysticism
is too narrow and its authority too arbitrary to give us an enduring basis of a
religious Church. It is the Divine Revelation in the form of a well-attested Message from God
and not the subjective intuition of an erring human individual which can claim a universal authority over mankind. This is a truth which the Bible itself preaches, and all honest Christians would do well if
they stick to it and make it their guiding principle.
MODERNISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Dean Inge says:
“The ‘main facts about the Modernist
controversy are well-known. The group of men whom Pope Pius X called Modernists
are, or were, some of them philosophers and some New Testament critics. In the
latter capacity they tend to accept the extreme destructive position, holding
with Loisy that the historical Jesus was merely an enthusiastic prophet
who went about preaching that the ‘Kingdom of God’—a supernatural cataclysm which would bring the
world-order to an end—was at hand. All the supernatural elements in the Gospel
narrative are either openly rejected or
tacitly set aside. Albert Schweitzer’s one-sided insistence on the so-called eschatological (apocalyptic)
character of Christ’s teaching has
had a strong influence upon the Modernists. The historical Jesus, according
to these critics, founded no Church and instituted no Sacraments; the real founder of Catholicism was St. Paul, who
inaugurated the cult of the Lord
Christ (Kyrios Christos), and thereby gave the new religion a form which was intelligible to the Hellenistic
population of the Roman Empire. The Church grew, like any other orgasnism
by responding
to its environment; it adapted itself to human needs and gave scope for the
unchanging popular religion of the Mediterranean peoples to find expression within
its comprehensive system. Since religion is fundamentally 'irrational', it
can easily survive the loss of its factual basis. The fatal error of Catholic
theology has been the attempt to find a rationalistic foundation for the faith.
“That this treatment of the historical Founder
of Christianity is ‘deeply repulsive to the large majority of believers’ is admitted by Baron von Hugel; but the more
drastic Modernists maintain that it is, or soon will be forced upon us by
honest criticism; and their anti-intellectualist
philosophy helps them to face the crisis with equanimity. Christianity,
as Tyrrell said, is at the cross-roads. The arguments from miracles and prophecy are gone. The 'historical' articles in
the Creeds are, for the Modernists, myth, not fact. The
claims of the Roman Church are buttressed by fraud. And lastly, the official
philosophy, that of St. Thomas Aquinas, is quite out of date, being based on
pre-conceptions which modern philosophy has rejected. Either, then, Catholicism
must be abandoned, or it must justify itself
by a new apologetic. Tyrrell, in a letter which he did not mean to be
published, used the strong phrase, ‘Catholicism must die to live’.
“The Vatican made no terms with
its dangerous defenders. Modernism was pronounced to be ‘a compendium of all the heresies’,
and its theses were anathematised in detail...... members of the school
considered themselves deeply injured by being branded as heretics, and
protested their loyalty and devotion to Catholicism.”[140]
Professor
Heiler of Germany
In spite of the
repressive measures taken by the Vatican, Modernism has marched from triumph to
triumph, with clear eye and confident step. It has captured the strongest
outposts of Catholic orthodoxy, and counts among its representatives many
Catholic theologians of the highest merit, e.g., Alfred Loisy, Le Roy,
Laberthonniere, George Tyrrell, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Soderblom, Baron
Friedrich von Hugel and Professor Friedrich Heiler of Marburg.
The last-named
scholar is regarded in Christendom as the most outstanding among the younger
theologians of Germany, and his famous work,
Der Katholizismus, in which he
outlines a sketch of the whole history of Catholicism from the first century to the present day, is a
comprehensive apology for Modernism. Professor Heiler was lately driven
out of the Roman communion for his Modernist views. “The unflinching
condemnation of Modernism by the Pope made it impossible for Heiler to remain
a Catholic without denying his convictions
and deserting his friends”. He writes with burning indignation against the Pope's ideal of trying to
kill the constructive reformative spirit of Modernism by a coup de
baton.
The following
is a brief summary of the fundamental Modernist teachings as stated by
Professor Heiler in Der Katholizismus:—
“Jesus overcame the traditional religion, though without a formal breach.”“He lays the axe to
traditional Judaism” and “not less tears to pieces all exclusive Christian
Church-manship”. “He is inwardly indifferent to every Church-ideal”.
“Salvation
(in the Gospel) lies alone in faith, hope, and love:
faith in God's mercy, hope in the eternal kingdom, and self-sacrificing love.
These are not bound up with institutional religion;
they make their own way to the kingdom of heaven.”
“Inwardness and
brotherly love break down all the barriers of legal and
ritual Church-religion” “The Gospel is super-ecclesiastical
and unecclesiastical. His judgment on the Jewish Church is valid
also against the Christian Church of the
later centuries.” “The use of the word ecclesia in St. Matthew is
unhistorical; Jesus can never have said this” (Matt, xci, 18).
“The words about binding and loosing have been transferred from another
context.” “Jesus gave no primacy or privileged position to any of His
apostles”. “The commission of primacy to Peter is plainly an interpolation.”
“The Gospel of Christ and the Roman
World-Church are united by no inner
bond; a gulf yawns between them.” “The Catholicising of Christianity begins
immediately after the death of Jesus. The Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic
World-Church; not the man Jesus but the Kyrios Christos and His Spirit
founded the universal Church.”
“The system of
Catholic dogma has its root in the Pauline myth
(=symbolical narrative) of the Son of God.” St. Paul also introduced "the Orphic-Platonic piety”
into Christianity. He “lived in the higher world of the Spirit, the world of
mystical inwardness.” “The whole Christ-drama of salvation passes into this
mystical inner life.” Mystical, rather than the historical aspect of the revelation,
should be the ideal: “though we have known Christ after the flesh, henceforth
we know Him so no more” (2 Cor. 16).
The
fourth evangelist, St. John, who was “neither a missionary nor an ecclesiastic”
but a “mystical theologian”,
and
whose outlook was pervaded by the “native air” of the neo-Platonic “Alexandrian
religious world”, showed a better understanding of Christianity than others. “The
dogma of the Incarnation is the great creation of
this writer”; for the rest, his Gospel of love is the genuine
Gospel of Christ.
The
spirit of the Gospel of Matthew and the Pastoral Epistles is different. “The
Pastoral Epistles are the first document of narrow and stiff Roman Churchmanship”.
The First Gospel is greatly responsible for converting the mystical vision of
the Kingdom of God into a legal ecclesiastical system. “The Apocalypse is the first document of the
Catholic vulgar religion.” “Old Oriental cosmology, Jewish eschatology,
Chaldaean astrology, Assyrian number-symbolism, Hellenistic magic and Sibylline
prophecy, Persian dualism and Christian belief in redemption, are here thrown
together in a chaotic syncretism.”
The
Christian Church was rapidly paganised after the conversion of
Constantine. “The whole ancient piety, with its
magical Beings, its cult of gods and heroes, its fear of demons
and its belief in miracles, clothed itself with a thin Christian dress and so
found entrance into the consecrated precincts of the Church”. “The
expiring heathen temple-liturgies took a new life within the Church, and brought
its rites nearer to the old worship of the temples”. “German
heathensim, Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, and the mysticism of Dionysius
the Areopagite, are the new factors which the medieval Church took into its
bosom”. "The combination of
these heterogeneous elements makes it Catholic, and has enabled it to endure
during all the centuries”. “Catholicism has proclaimed the whole gay congeries
of religions, which it embraces, as genuinely Christian.”
Professor Heiler's view of the life of Jesus as a symbolical narrative—a myth—, his mystical interpretation of the Christian Gospel in general, and his critical
conclusion that institutional Christianity, wherever and in whatever form it
may be found, is a pagan survival, leads him ultimately to base his belief on
''facts of faith”. For him religion is a thoroughly
irrational affair in all its aspects. He endorses heartily the condemnation of rational outlook contained in
the following letter which Pope Gregory IX wrote to the Professors of
the University of Paris in 1223. “Some of you distended like a bladder with the
spirit of vanity, busy themselves in altering the limits laid down by the
fathers with profane innovations......inclining to the teachings of natural
philosophers. Misled by various and strange doctrines, they put the head where
the tail ought to be, and for the queen to serve
the maid-servant. And while they endeavour to buttress the faith by
natural reason more than they ought, do they not render it, in a manner, useless and empty?......teach theological purity without the ferment of worldly
science, not contaminating the word
of God with the figments of philosophers.”
“Tyrrell”, observes a great Protestant Modernist, “was right in saying that the Church of Rome stands
at the crossroads. It is encumbered by an
immense mass of falsified history and
antiquated science, which it cannot repudiate, and which it can no longer
impose upon its adherents, except where its priests still control and stifle
education. The plea that truths of fact and truths of faith are different
things, which do not conflict because
they are on different planes, certainly suggests a way out. It is a way which would lead the Roman Church to disaster;
but perhaps no other solution of the problem is in
sight.”
Professor Loisy
of France
Professor Loisy, formerly Abbe Alfred Loisy, is the most outstanding representative of Modernism in France. Second to none in
the authority derived from learning, he has been ranked for the greater part of
his life as one of the foremost theologians of the Catholic Church. He devoted
nearly thirty years to the problems connected with Biblical criticism and his work in that field is a masterpiece of erudition and scholarship[141].
The research was undertaken in a spirit of defending the orthodox position
against the adversely-disposed Biblical critics, but ended in a total rejection of
orthodoxy. The Vatican subsequently turned him out of the Roman
communion and he became a lay professor.
Loisy's final conclusions regarding Christianity, which he bases on the
textual criticism of the Bible, are both interesting and instructive. He regards the Biblical Jesus as the last of a series
of Jewish Messianic agitators as, for instance, Judas the Galilean and the
prophet Theudas. Somewhere between the years 26 and 36 of the Christian
era, Jesus “began to proclaim the coming of God. After
preaching for a while in Galilee, where he enlisted only a few followers, he came to Jerusalem for Easter, and
there all he succeeded in accomplishing was to get condemned to death on the
cross, like any common agitator, by the
Procurator, Pontius Pilate”[142]
For Loisy, the greater part of the Passion story, on which the superstructure of Christianity has been built, is mythological: “The Gospels do not relate the death of Jesus. They relate the myth of
salvation realised by his death, perpetuated in
a way by the Christian Eucharist, emphatically commemorated and renewed in the Easter Festival. The Christian myth is without doubt
related to the other salvation myths. It is by no mere chance that the resurrection of Christ
on the third day after his death
coincides with the ritual of the Feast of Adonis. The Barabbas incident, the
burial by Joseph of Arimathaca, the discovery of the empty grave, are
apologetic fictions. The incident of the two thieves crucified with Jesus may
well be of the same order. And there is no reason why their invention should
not have been facilitated or suggested in one way or another by mythologies of
surrounding countries”[143]. As regards the
Jesus-legend taken as a whole: “There is no actual consistency in the Gospel story,
save the crucifixion of Jesus, condemned by Pontius Pilate as a Messianic
agitator.”[144]
Loisy
regards the fourth Gospel as devoid of any historical value. It is only
symbolical and presents a mystical vision. “The author never knew Jesus, save
as the liturgical Christ, the object of Christian worship......These fragments of
divine biography create no impression of reality.”[145] He thus sums up
the final results of his Biblical researches: “Direct criticism of the Gospel
legend shows the gradual growth of that naive, incoherent epic, so frankly bold
in its inventions, which we know as the Four
Gospels. In the beginning, a few rather
meagre recollections, arranged in the traditional manner and made to
accord with the style of the Old Testament; and then miracles......of which the best that
can be said is that they are in the
taste of the age, and that they probably
resemble those attributed to Jesus in his
lifetime, or better still, that the
majority, if not all, were understood as concrete symbols of the spiritual work of Jesus—many incidents intended
to relieve the narrative, or more especially to fulfil prophecies, or merely inserted with an apologetic intent;
the whole more or less co-ordinated with the ritual commemorating the Messianic
Epiphany and salvation through Christ.”[146]
DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
There are Christians who still deny that anything is wrong with traditional Christianity. They regard
the Modernist views as representing
the ideas of a few isolated heretics and feel safe in believing that the storm
will pass off. The Christian
missionaries who come to Asia and Africa to convert the heathen, are particularly advocates of this
view. However, either they are sadly mistaken or they conceal facts
deliberately. The present theological unrest is too deep-seated to be regarded
as mere heresy. It has permeated the whole fabric of Christianity and has
shaken it to its foundations. Evidence to this effect can be multiplied ad infinitum.
Take for instance the case of one of the
progressive and comparatively more enlightened orthodox Churches, namely, the
Church of England. I have already stated the apologetics as developed up to the
year 1925. Here I shall attempt to review the position as it exists to-day.
Lest I be accused of distorting the facts deliberately—and such accusation is the first weapon which the Christian
missionaries employ against their critics—, I shall quote a member of the
Church
of England itself: “Crude and cruel conceptions[147] of religion”, he says,
“are still held…..and are believed to be justified by literal interpretations of biblical
texts. Insistence upon the acceptance of such doctrines, even though they
are expressed in the articles of belief and the creeds, is, however, not now regarded as essential for admission to the Church of England: and it is permitted to attach symbolic or metaphorical
meanings to words used by Christ, St. Paul and other Apostles,
and the expositions of early Christian Fathers. The
tendency among the enlightened leaders of the Church of
England is to ask for nothing more than
belief in a Supreme Being who created the” universe, established laws which
rule it, and watches the evolution of man upon the earth......Most modern Churchmen now, however, are disposed to follow the
Bishop of Birmingham when he says that he does not consider the Virgin Birth
essential to the doctrine of Incarnation, which simply teaches that God
revealed Himself in human form in Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian Church never
actually said that Jesus was God; and, as evidence that He was not so thought,
many passages in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke bear witness. The true
view is that the divine life was lived under human conditions by Jesus, and human perfection is manifested supremely by it......What the Incarnation of Christ actually signifies,
or what are the relations between Father, Son and Holy Ghost, were bitterly
discussed in the early days of the Christian Church; and since then scores of
theologians and philosophers have endeavoured to reveal the mystery......A much
nobler idea is that the spirit of love in a divine sense pervades the universe
and is revealed by the response of
humanity—Christian or Pagan—to it......This is the view
which some leading modern Churchmen take of the Christian
doctrine of Incarnation; and it is expressed in Scientific Theory and
Religion by the Bishop of Birmingham in the following words: 'With Rashdall
I postulate that there is a certain community of nature between God and man,
that all human minds are reproductions 'in limited modes' of the Divine Mind,
that in all true human thinking there is a reproduction of the Divine Thought;
and, above all, that in the highest
ideals which the human conscience recognises there is a revelation of the ideal
eternally present in the Divine Mind'. It would appear from this
interpretation that incarnation
means much the same as inspiration when applied to moral or religious
teaching, and that both are of the nature of responses to an influence permanently pervading the universe........All spiritual light may thus be said to come from the 'Father of Light', and all
noble inspiration, whether in Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Mohammad, or any other
guide to godliness, to be derived from the same source.. ......In recent
years it has become increasingly evident that traditional beliefs cannot have a
place in progressive thought apart from scientific knowledge and historical
evidence.”[148]
Nothing, however, makes it more evident than the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Doctrine in the Church of England,
prepared after fifteen years of deliberation, and published in 1938. The Report
represents “an attempt to bring conflicting schools of thought concerning
certain Christian doctrines, which have been the subject of much controversy
within the Church of England itself, into friendly relationships”. It forms a
landmark in the history of Christian
doctrine and
there is no wonder that the less advanced but more consistent Christians regard
it as a “capitulation to the forces of modernism and scientific
materialism”, and have, consequently, raised the question: “whether the
Church of England should include clergymen who adopt these modern views, or accept only those who can
conscientiously subscribe to Articles
of Faith, or repeat Creeds, the meanings of which, in the minds of most
of their flock, are those attached to traditional Christian doctrine?” The
Church has sought to get over this
difficulty by making a distinction between private and public teaching, and thus a clergyman is free
as a student to express his convictions, but bound in his official
capacity to conform to the confession of the Church! How far this face-saving
device will work remains to be seen.
The Report embodies in itself such heretical
teaching that its publication would have been impossible a hundred years ago
and its authors would surely have been burnt at the stake. Among the doctrines on which
definite pronouncements have been made, those of fundamental importance are: the Infallibility of the Bible, the
Virgin Birth, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, the occurrence of Miracles,
the Christian theory of Creation, the
Biblical view of the Evil Spirits.
The authors of
the Report have decided that: (1) The inerrancy or infallibility of the text of
Holy Scripture can no longer be maintained in view of increased
knowledge; (2) The Virgin Birth, the
Resurrection in its physical features, and the Ascension into Heaven, should be
interpreted symbolically; (3) As regards miracles, they believe it to be “more
congruous with the wisdom and majesty of God that He should never vary the regularities of Nature”; (4) Creation may
be regarded as a continuous process, instead of a universe summoned
into existence
at a particular epoch: (5) As to evil spirits, these can be understood
symbolically, and Christ Himself, even when
He spoke of Satan, shared (erroneously!) the current belief of His time
as to the existence of devils.
THE LAST HOPE OF SURVIVAL
Whether the new interpretations of
the articles of faith and dogmas of religion are true or not one fact emerges clearly from the foregoing discussions, namely,
that traditional Christianity—the
Christianity of the Bible, of St. Paul and other Apostles, of the early Fathers
of the Church, of the vast majority of Christians from the earliest times to
the present day—cannot prove its bona-fides and cannot, therefore,
survive the scientific and historical criticism, The Christian leaders are conscious of it, but their inherited emotional
attachment to the Church makes it impossible for them to see straight and solve
the enigma by direct method. They hoodwink
and deceive not only the Christian masses but also the world at large.
They catch hold of one subterfuge, and, when that fails, they manufacture
another. Examples of this have been already noticed. The latest and probably
the best attempt is that in which, while admitting the Pagan antecedents of
Christianity and the untrustworthy character of the Bible, a case is made out
for Christianity by presenting it as the natural development and synthesis of
the ancient mystery cults and philosophical
creeds of Europe, particularly Hellenism, and thus appealing to what
might be termed as the 'national' or 'racial' instinct of the European peoples.
Christianity is thus made to appear as a
purely European religion and is virtually alienated from its Judaic and Semitic
background. The inconsistency of such a course is apparent, but the authors of
this attempt try to overcome this inconsistency
with the force of their rhetoric. The Rev. Dr. W.R. Inge has developed
the theory fully and it will do well to quote him in detail. He says:[149]
“The Christian Church was the last great creative achievement of the classical culture. It is neither Asiatic nor medieval in its
essential character. It is not Asiatic; Christianity is the least Oriental of
all the great religions.[150]
The Semites either shook it off and reverted to a Judaism purged of its
Hellenic elements, or enrolled themselves
with fervour under the banner of
Islam. Christian missions have had no success in any Asiatic country.
Nor is there anything specifically medieval about Catholicism. It preserved the
idea of Roman imperialism, after the secular empire of the West had
disappeared, and they kept the tradition of the secular empire alive......Nor
were the early Christians so anxious as is often supposed to disclaim continuity (with Hellenism). At first, it
is true, their apologetic was directed to proving their continuity with
Judaism; but Judaism ceased to count for much after the destruction of the Holy
City in A.D. 70, and the second-century apologists’ appeal for toleration on
the ground that the best Greek philosophers taught very much the same as what
Christians believe. ‘We teach the same as the Greeks’, says Justin Martyr, ‘though
we alone are hated for what we teach”. ‘Some among us’, says Tertullian, ‘who
are versed in ancient literature, have written books to prove that we have
embraced no tenets for which we have not the support of common and public
literature’. ‘The teachings of Plato’, says Justin again, ‘are not alien to
those of Christ; and the same is true of the
Stoics’. ‘Heracleitus and Socrates lived in
accordance with
the divine Logos’, and should be reckoned as Christians. Clement says that
Plato wrote ‘by inspiration of God'. Augustine, much later, finds that 'only a
few words and phrases' need be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity. The ethics of
contemporary Paganism, as Harnack
shows with special reference to Porphyry, are almost identical with those of the Christians of his day.... There are few other examples in history of so
great a difference between appearance and reality. Outwardly, the
continuity with Judaism seems to be unbroken that with paganism to
be broken. In reality the opposite is
the fact......The truth is that
the Church was half Greek from the first, though, as I shall say presently, the
original Gospel was not. St. Paul was a Jew of the Dispersion, not of Palestine, and the
Christianity to which he was converted was the Christianity of Stephen, not of James the Lord's brother. His later
epistles are steeped in the phraseology of the Greek mysteries. The Epistles to
the Hebrews and the Fourth Gospel are
unintelligible without some knowledge
of Philo, whose theology is more Greek than Jewish. In the conflict about the nature of the future life, it was the Greek eschatology which prevailed over
the Jewish. St. Paul’s famous declaration, ‘We look not at the
things which are seen but at the
things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the
things which are not seen are eternal,' is pure Platonism and quite alien to
Jewish thought. Judaic
Christianity was a local affair, and had a very short life......Christianity at first sought for its credentials in Judaism,
though the Jews saw very quickly that it ‘destroyed the Law'. The belief of the
Reformers was plausible; for they rejected just those parts of Catholicism
which had nothing to do with Palestine, but were taken over from the
old Hellenic or Hellenistic culture. But the residuum was
less Jewish than Teutonic. On one side, indeed, the Reformation was a
return to Hellenism from Romanism... The Reformation was a
revolt against
Latin theocracy and the hereditary paganism of the Mediterranean peoples. It
was not really a return to pre-Hellenic Christianity......Christian Platonism
has nowhere had a more flourishing record
than in Protestant Britain ..........In
conclusion, what has the religion of the Greeks to teach us that we are most in danger of
forgetting? In a word, it is a faith that Truth is our friend, and that
the knowledge of Truth is not beyond our
reach. Faith in honest seeking is at the heart of the Greek view
of life............The choice before us is between a ‘post-rational'
traditionalism, fundamentally skeptical, pragmatistic, and intellectually
dishonest, and a trust in reason which rests really on faith in the divine
Logos, the self-revealing soul of the universe. It is the belief of the present
writer that the unflinching eye and the open mind will bring us again to the feet
of Christ, to whom Greece, with her long tradition of free and fearless
inquiry, became a speedy and willing captive, bringing her manifold treasures
to Him, in the well-grounded confidence that he had 'not come to destroy but to
fulfil......Organised religion is not, in
modern times, one of the strongest forces in human affairs. As compared with patriotism and revolutionary aims, it has shown itself lamentably weak.
The strength of Christianity is (like Platonic mysticism), in
transforming the lives of individuals—of a small
minority, certainly, as Christ clearly
predicted, but a large number in the aggregate. To rescue a little
flock, here and there, from materialism, selfishness and hatred, is the task of
the Church of Christ in all ages alike, and there is no likelihood that it will
ever be otherwise.”
DIVINE REVELATION AND HUMAN MODIFICATION
There
was a time when no Christian could even think of questioning the validity of,
not to say of improving upon, any dogma of his faith. He claimed that
Christianity was a divinely-revealed
religion, and he was, therefore, consistent in holding that it could not
be modified or improved. But when modern criticism smashed Christianity to
pieces, and all hope of winning the battle for the biblical and historical
Christianity was lost, this principle was changed. An honest course would have
been either to hold on to Christianity in spite of all the forces arrayed
against it, or to renounce it
altogether. But that would have perhaps meant a choice between the devil and
the deep sea. The easier course was to change first the connotation of the term ‘divine
revelation’ itself and then to recast and improve the faith. Sir Richard
Gregory supports this newly-adopted course in these words:
“Just as in scientific investigations, hypothesis...........is
subject to modification in the light of increased knowledge, so in matters of
theological doctrine, orthodoxy is not static, but must vary in connotation
with increase of understanding and a clearer
view of the cosmic process. Further, such understanding may bring about
change in forms of belief, without affecting faith in the central doctrine of
Christianity........It
may seem that to hold such a view of the relation of the evolution of
theological dogma to the development of scientific thought is to make the
validity of religious belief dependent upon the finite intelligence of man and
to be incompatible with the tenets of a religion which takes its stand upon
divine revelation. Yet it is possible to regard both the growth of scientific
knowledge and the development of dogma, each in its own respective field, as
two sides, two aspects of the same process—the search for truth, in which the Divine Purpose is
revealed gradually to man pari passu with the preparation of his heart
and intellect to receive it with understanding”.[151]
For all honest Christians, however, such a point of view is fallacious
and dishonest. Thus, for instance, the Very Rev. Dr. Mansell, formerly Dean of
St. Paul's and a much greater theological authority than Sir Gregory, observes:
“Many who would shrink with horror
from the idea of rejecting Christ altogether, will yet speak and act as
if they were at liberty to set up for themselves an eclectic Christianity,
separating the essential from the superfluous portion of Christ's teaching, deciding for themselves how
much is permanent and necessary for all men, and how much is temporary and
designed only for a particular age and people. Yet if Christ is indeed God
manifest in the flesh, it is surely not less impious to attempt to improve His
teachings than to reject it altogether.
Nay, in one respect it is more so, for it is to acknowledge a doctrine as the
revelation from God and, at the
same time, to proclaim that it is inferior to the wisdom of man.” Further
comment is superfluous.
NON-CHRISTIAN THEISTS
Those Westerners who conscientiously forsake
Christianity may be broadly classified into two groups.
One group, which succumbs to atheistic freethought, we have already noticed. The views of the other group, which retains belief in a religious orientation of life, may now be presented. This group may again be
divided into two: (1) Those who try to build up their own systems of belief on a theistic basis; (2) those who embrace Islam or some other non-Christian faith.
Most moderate and balanced among the members
of the first group is Mr. H. G.
Wells, who has very ably presented his point of view in the following
statement:[152]
“And here, perhaps, before I go on to the
question of Conduct is the place to define a relationship to that system of faith and religious observance out of
which I and most of my readers have come. How do these beliefs
on which I base my rule of conduct stand to Christianity?
“They do not stand in any attitude of antagonism. A religious system so
many-faced and so enduring as Christianity must
necessarily be saturated with truth even if it be not wholly true. To assume, as the Atheist and Deist seem to do, that Christianity
is a sort of disease that came upon civilization, an unprofitable and wasting disease, is to
deny that conception
of a
progressive scheme of tightness which we have taken as our basis of belief. As I have already confessed, the scheme of Salvation, the idea of a process of sorrow and
atonement, presents itself to me as adequately true. So far I do not think my
new faith breaks with my old. But it follows as a natural consequence of my
metaphysical preliminaries that I should find the Christian theology
Aristotelian, over-defined and excessively personified. The painted figure of
that bearded ancient upon the Sistine Chapel, or William Blake's wild-haired,
wild-eyed Trinity, convey no nearer sense of God to me than some mother-of-pearl-eyed
painted and carven monster from the worship of the South Islanders. And the Miltonic fable of the offended
creator and the sacrificial son! It cannot span the circle of my idea; it is a little
thing, and none the less little because it is intimate, flesh of my flesh and
spirit of my spirit, like the drawings of my youngest boy. I put it aside as I
would put aside the gay figure of a costumed officiating priest. The passage of
time has made his canonicals too
strange, too unlike my world of common thought and costume. These things
helped, but now they hinder and disturb. I cannot bring myself back to them.
“But the psychological experience and the theology of Christianity
are only a ground-work for its essential feature, which is the conception of a
relationship of the individual believer to a mystical being at once human and
divine, the Risen Christ. This being presents itself to the modern
consciousness as a familiar and beautiful figure, associated with a series of sayings and incidents that
coalesce with a very distinct and rounded-off and complete effect of
personality. After we have cleared off all
the definitions of theology, he remains, mystically suffering for humanity,
mystically asserting that love in pain and sacrifice in service are the
necessary substance of Salvation. Whether he actually existed as a
finite
individual person, in the opening of the Christian era seems to me a question entirely beside the mark. The evidence at this distance is of imperceptible force for or
against. The Christ we know is quite evidently something different from any finite person, a figure, a conception, a
synthesis of emotions, experiences and inspiration sustained by and
sustaining millions of human souls.
“Now it seems to be the common teaching of
almost all Christians that Salvation, that is to say, the consolidation and amplification of one's motives through the
conception of a general scheme or purpose, is to be attained through the
personality of Christ. Christ is made cardinal to the act of Faith. The act of
Faith, they assert, is belief in him.
“We are dealing here, be it remembered, with
beliefs deliberately undertaken and not with questions of fact. The only
matters of fact material here are facts of experience. If
in your experience Salvation is attainable through Christ, then certainly
Christianity is true for you. And if a Christian asserts that my belief is a
false light and that presently I shall 'come to Christ', I cannot disprove his
assertion. I can but disbelieve it. I hesitate even to make the obvious retort.
“I hope I shall offend no susceptibilities
when I assert that this great and very definite personality in the hearts and
imagination of mankind does not and never has attracted me. It is a fact I record about myself without aggression or regret. I do not find myself able to associate him with the emotion of
Salvation.
“I admit the
splendid imaginative appeal in the idea of
a divine-human friend-mediator.
If it were possible to have access by prayer, by meditation, by urgent outcries
of the
soul to such a
being whose feet were in the darkness, who stooped down from the light, who was
at once great and little, limitless in power and virtue and one's very brother;
if it
were possible by sheer will in believing to make and un-make one's way
to such a helper, who would refuse such help? But I do not find such a being in
Christ. To me the Christian Christ seems not so much a humanized God as an
incomprehensibly sinless being, neither God nor man. His sinlessness wears his
incarnation like a fancy dress, all his white self unchanged. He had no petty
weaknesses.
“Now the essential trouble of my life is its
petty weaknesses. If I am to have that love, that sense of
understanding fellowship, which is, I conceive, the peculiar magic and
merit of this idea of a personal Saviour, then I need someone quite other than
this image of virtue, this terrible and incomprehensible Galilean with his
crown of thorns, his blood- stained hands and feet. I cannot love him any more
than I can love a man upon the rack. Even in the face of
torments I do not think I should feel a need for him. I had rather than a
hundred times have Botticelli's armed angel in his Tobit et Florence. (I
hope I do not seem to want to shock in writing these things, but indeed my only
aim is to lay my feelings bare). I know what love for an idealized person can
be. It happens that in my younger days I found a character in the history of
literature who had singular and extraordinary charm for me, of
whom the thought was tender and comforting, who indeed helped
me through shames and humiliations as though he held my hand. This person was
Oliver Goldsmith. His blunders and troubles, his vices and vanities, seized and
still hold my imagination. The slights of Boswell, the contempt of Gibbon and
all his company save Johnson, the exquisite fineness of spirit in his 'Vicar of
Wakefield', and that green suit of his and the doctor's cane and the love
despised, these things together
made him a congenial saint and hero for me so that I thought of him as
others pray. When I think of that youthful feeling for Goldsmith, I know what I
need in a personal Saviour, as a
troglodyte who has seen a candle can imagine the sun. But the Christian Christ
in none of his three characteristic phases, neither as the magic babe (from whom I
am cut off by the wanton and indecent purity of the Virgin
Birth), nor as the white-robed, spotless miracles worker, nor
the fierce unreal torment of the cross, comes close to my soul.
I do not understand the Agony in the Garden; to me it is like a scene from a play in an unknown tongue. The last cry of
despair is the one human touch, discordant with all the rest of the story. One
cry of despair does not suffice. The Christian’s Christ is too fine for me, not incarnate enough,
not flesh enough, not earth enough. He
was never foolish and hot-eared and inarticulate, “never vain, he never forgot
things, nor tangled his miracles.
“I could love him I think more easily if the
dead had not risen and if he had lain
in peace in his sepulcher instead of coming back more enhaloed and whiter than
ever, as a postscript to his own tragedy.
“When I think of the Resurrection I am always
reminded of the 'happy endings' that editors and actor-managers are accustomed
to impose upon essentially tragic novels and plays.
“You see how I
stand in this matter, puzzled and confused by the Christian presentation of Christ. I
know there are many who will answer that what confuses me is the
overlaying of the personality of Jesus by stories and
superstitions and conflicting symbols; they will in effect ask me to
disentangle the Christ I need from the accumulated material, choosing and
rejecting.
Perhaps one may do that. They do,
I know, so present him as a man inspired, and strenuously, inadequately and
erringly presenting a dream of human brotherhood and the immediate Kingdom of
Heaven on earth and so blundering to his failure and death. But that will be a
recovered and restored person they would give me and not the Christ the
Christians worship and declare they love, in whom they find their Salvation.
“When I write ‘declare they love’ I throw
doubt intentionally upon the universal love of Christians for their Saviour. I
have watched men and nations in this matter. I
am struck by the fact that so
many Christians fall back upon more humanized figures, upon the tender figure
of Mary, upon patron saints and such more erring creatures, for the effect of
mediation and sympathy they need.
“You see it comes to this: that I think
Christianity has been true and is for countless people practically true, but
that it is not true now for me, and that for most people it is true only with
qualifications. Every believing Christian is, I am sure, my spiritual brother
but if systematically I called myself a Christian I feel that to most men I
should imply too much and so tell a lie.
“In the same manner, in varying degree, I hold
all religions to be in a measure true. Least comprehensible
to me are the Indian formulae, because they seem to stand not on common
experience but on those intellectual assumptions my metaphysical analysis
destroys. Transmigration of souls without a continuing memory is to my mind utter
foolishness, the imagining of a race of children. The
aggression, discipline and submission of Mohammedanism makes, I think an intellectually limited (?) but fine and honourable religion—for men. Its spirit, if not its
formulae, is abundantly present in our modern
world. Mr. Rudyard Kipling, for example,
manifestly preaches a Mohammedan God, a modernised Allah with a taste for
engineering. I have no doubt that in devotion to a virile, almost natinal
Deity, and to the service of His Empire of stern Law and Order, efficiently
upheld, men have found and will find Salvation.”
CONVERTS TO ISLAM
The rapid deterioration of Christian influence in the West has
brought new opportunities to other religions, and of fundamental importance in
this connection is, the success which Islam has achieved without paid
missionaries and in the teeth of many a serious obstacle. The situation created
by the success of Islam has alarmed the Christian leaders. For instance, the
Rev. S. M. Zwemer writes[153]:
“The old missionary slogan has
met with a counter slogan. Islam is challenging the West to accept Mohammed as the hope of
humanity......Mohammed has discovered America ......In North America there are
scattered groups numbering, it is true, twelve thousand only but active in
their propaganda ...... In South America, i.e., Brazil, Argentine,
Guadeloupe and Guiana, there are over one hundred and ninety thousand
Mohammedans. In France the number of Moslems is increasing; in Paris alone
there are nearly three thousand......In Australia, Moslems number twenty-five thousand and publish their own
magazine......In South Eastern Europe (omitting the scattered groups of Britain
and France as
negligible in number, but not in influence) there are three and a half
million......Statistics are dry and often bewildering; yet it is only by
statistics that we can measure the present expansion of a religion which began in the sixth century with a minority of one man
who claimed to be God’s last messenger......Islam challenges Europe and America...... The conversion of Europeans
and Americans to Islam has become a
stock-in-trade argument against Christianity in Egypt and India”.
This is not the
proper place to narrate even in brief outline the
history of the spread of Islam in the West during the past fifty years of the
disintegration of Christianity.[154]
Only a passing reference is possible.
For instance, The Evening Chronicle of London, in its issue for April 15, 1937,
estimated the conversion of Britishers to Islam at an average of seven or eight persons per week; and as far back as
1907, The Freethinker of London reported:
“About two
thousand English people are said to have become Mohammedans during the last
twenty years. As this statement occurs in a Christian journal, it is likely to
be true. And if it is true, we can be fairly certain that these converts have
not been gained from the lower classes in this country. Bearing in mind, too,
the immense difficulty Christian missionaries
have in gaining converts from the highest classes of Mohammedans we feel fairly
confident that this is a better record of captures than Christian
missions can produce in spite of their extravagant expenditure.”
Professor Louis Massignon makes the following grudging confession
regarding the success of Islam among
the French:
“Moslem feeling (in French North Africa) is
dominated by a very curious
sentiment. It is not merely a hope of enlisting French sympathies, but an
ambition to conquer a place not only for themselves as individuals, but for
Islam, within the mind and soul of metropolitan France. There are a number of
Algerian Moslem writers who possess a perfect mastery of French and seek to
make use of it to carry on a propaganda in France itself......To be noted also
is the fact that some Frenchmen here and there have actually become converted to Islam under the influence of North
African Moslems, but French women
less frequently. It is only in Tunisia, where the spiritual impress of Islam
appears to exercise a peculiar fascination upon them, that we find Frenchwomen
becoming Moslems.”[155]
A general light was thrown on the Islamic revival in Europe by a writer
in the Yorkshire Post,[156] who reported that while in 1901, the population of
Muslims in Europe was less than 2,000,000, it had gone up to 8,500,000 in
thirty years. The chief factor in this increase is the birth
of a new missionary spirit which has enabled the European Muslims
not only to defend their faith
against the conspiracies of Christian leaders but also to launch an offensive
against Christianity itself.
A short list of prominent and early converts, prepared off-hand, will perhaps give a better idea of
the vital influences of Islam, and the Christian missionaries in Muslim lands
will do well to compare it with their lists of 'distinguished' converts. Here
are a few names:
Ibrahim John
Lewis Burckhardt, the famous explorer, and
author of: Travels in Nubia, Travels in Syria and Holy Land, Travels
in Arabia, Notes on Beduins and the Wahabys,. Arabic Proverbs;
Lord Abdur Rahman Stanley of Alderley, some
time British Ambassador to Turkey, and a member of the House of Lords in the British Parliament;
Monsieur Cherfils, the French publicist and
author of Bonaparte et’l Islam;
The Rev. Norman, some time a Methodist
missionary, and subsequently the first Islamic missionary to America;
Dr. Haroun Mustafa Leon (better known as
Sheykhul Islam Abdullah Quilliam) M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt, F.S.P., geologist,
philologist, lawyer, missionary, founder of the first British Islamic mission, the Liverpool
Muslim Institute and the Liverpool Mosque, Secretaire-General of La Society
International de Philologie Sciences et Beaux-Arts, editor of The Philomath, The Crescent, the Islamic World (1893-1908), author of The Etymology of the Manx
Language, Fanatics and Fanaticism, The Faith of Islam, and several other writings on theology, comparative religion, philology
and poetry;
Professor Yahya-en-Nasr John Parkinson F.G.S.,
Poet and scholar, author of The Tales of Muslim Chivalry,
Paradise in sole Paradises Terrestris, Sons of Islam,
The Sword of Banu Hashim, Salahuddin, etc;
Muhammad
Alexander Russell Webb, scholar, journalist and diplomat,
appointed by President Cleveland as United States’ Consul at Manila, founder of
the first Islamic mission
in the United
States, Muslim delegate to the memorable Chicago Parliament of Religions,
editor of The Missouri Republican, The St. Joseph Gazette and The
Moslem World; author of Islam, Islam
in America, Muhammad: the Prophet, etc.;
Major-General Muhammad J. B. B. Dickson of Great
Britain;
General Baron Howen of Russia;
The Rev. J. Maynard of the
U.S.A.;
Al-Haj Abdur Rahman McBryan, hero of The Triumphant Pilgrimage;
Her Highness Princess Khairunnisa Gladys Palmer of Sarawak state
(Borneo);
Van Beetam Mohammad Ali, founder of the first Islamic missionary society in Holland.
Dr. Khalid William Sheldrake, world-tourist, lecturer, and missionary,
founder of The Western Islamic Association, London, editor of The Minaret;
Dr. Khalid Banning, Ph.D.;
Dr. Hamid Hugo Marcus, Ph.D.;
Al-Haj Saeed Kraemer of Germany;
Dr. Said Felix Valyi of Switzerland, editor of La Revue International, author of The Political and Spiritual
Revolutions in Islam;
Al-Haj Ali Ahmad Knud Holmboe of Denmark, scholar, journalist and traveller, author of the famous Desert Encounter;
Abdullah Uno Kuller, the first Muslim missionary to Sweden;
Governor Merwat, the French statesman;
Col. Donald S.Rockwell of the U.S.A., poet and journalist, editor-in-chief of Radio Personalities, author of Beyond the Brim and Bazar of Dreams;
Maulvi William Bashir Pickard, B.A. (Cantab.), orientalists and theologian, author of: The Beauties of Islam;
Habibullah Lovergrove, author of What is Islam?;
General Muhammad Tewfiq Killinger of Hungary;
Lord Headley Al-Farooq of Killarney, Ireland;
Sir Omar Hubert Rankin Bart, of Argyll, Scotland;
Sir Jalaluddin Lauder Brunton;
Sir Abdullah Archibald Hamilton;
Lady Buchanan Hamilton;
Lady Zeinab Evelyn Cobbold, traveller and scholar, author of My
Pilgrimage to Mecca, Travels in Kenya;
Countess Hamida of Schlippenbach (Germany);
Professor Abdullah Arthur Osborne of the Royal Chulalungkorn University
of Bangkok;
Muhammad Sadiq Dudley Wright, scholar of Comparative Religion, author of A Manual of Buddhism, etc.;
The Rev. Dr. David Benjamin, D.D.;
David Upson, editor of several English dailies in India, founder-editor
of The Moslem Outlook:
Hamid Paul M. Dare, some time Asstt. Editor of The Egyptian Gazette, later on
sub-editor of The Times of India
Illustrated Weekly;
Maulana
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall,[157]
translator par excellence of the Qur’an, distinguished orientalist,
novelist and journalist, traveller, Islamic theologian and missionary, Director of Information Bureau at
Hyderabad-Deccan, editor of The
Bombay Chronicle, founder and
editor of The Islamic Culture, author of The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an,
The Cultural Side of Islam, Oriental Encounters, Valley of the
Nile, Said the Fisherman, etc., etc.;
Dr. Ameen Neville J. Whymant, M.A., Ph.D.;
Professor Dr. Abdul Karim Julius Germanus,
Chairman of
the Oriental Faculty at the University of Budapest, sometime Nizam Professor of Islamic Studies at the
Shantiniketan, author of The
Turkish Literature and a Translation and Commentary of the
Qur'an in Hungarian;
Maulana Muhammad Asad Leopold Weiss of Austria, distinguished
Islamic theologian and orientalist, author of Islam at the Cross-Roads,
Translation and Commentary of Sahih
Al-Bukhari (a work of profound
and deep scholarship), editor of The
Islamic Culture, Hyderabad and Arafat, Lahore;
Baron Omar Rolf
Ehrenfels, nobleman and savant of Austria, author of several scholarly books on
Sociology.
CONCLUSION: ISLAM AS THE FUTURE RELIGION
“Though there are many Christians in Europe and England,” observed Dr. Henry Wilson, bishop of
Chelmsford, “it is only in a very limited sense that we can speak of
these as Christian countries. Western civilisation......has rejected
Christianity.”[158]
Will Islam succeed where Christianity has
failed? There are distinct signs that Europe is seeking its way to reply this
question in the affirmative. For instance, Lord Lothian, the well-known British
statesman, in his Convocation Address to the students of the Aligarh Muslim
University, said[159]:
“The day of purely personal
religion, or of merely emotional religion, or of the kind of religion which comforts and
sustains the individual, partly by precepts governing his ethical conduct, and
partly by promising a salvation which will be brought to the test of proof
after death has occurred, that day I believe, has passed away[160].
The modern scientific
man brings
everything, even Truth itself, to the ultimate proof of results. If he is to
follow religion, he demands that religion
should show him how to set about solving the practical problems of this world, and not merely promise him
Nirvana after an immense series of
re-births, or a heaven whose nature is indeterminate and which can only
be reached through the portal of death.
Religion must not only give him, as Sir Mohammad
Iqbal has endeavoured to show (in his Religious Thought in Islam), the
key to the riddle of the universe; it must show him, with scientific accuracy
and results, how to control the new forces which now threaten to destroy rather
than to benefit mankind, and how he is to
overcome unmerited unemployment,
undeserved inequality, oppression, exploitation, war, and other
collective ills, as well as the personal and
family discords which threaten his individual happiness.[161]”
Professor H. A. R. Gibb of the University of
London who combines his intimate knowledge of the West with that of Islam and who is therefore entitled to speak more authoritatively, is more definite and outspoken. His stirring appeal to the
Western world deserves to be inscribed in letters of gold on the portals of
every House of Parliament in Europe and America[162]:—
“Islam cannot deny its own
foundations and live, and in its foundations we have seen that Islam belongs to and is an integral
part of the larger western society. It is the complement and counterbalance to European civilization, nourished at the same springs,
breathing the same air. In the broadest aspect of history, what is now happening between
Europe
and Islam is the reintegration of western civilization, artificially sundered at the Renaissance and now reasserting its unity with
overwhelming force. The student of history, though fearfully conscious of the
pitfalls of analogy, cannot help recalling two earlier (though even then not
the earliest) moments in this secular process of creative interaction between
the two halves of the western world. It was the glory and the greatness of the Roman Empire that it
united them under its imperium and that from that unity were born the
spiritual forces which have governed the course of western history ever since.
Halfway between that age and ours occurred the first great intellectual
adventure of Islam, when it absorbed the heritage of Hellenism and brought it
to a new flowering, the seeds from which contributed to the Renaissance in
Europe.
“The process could not end there. It is going on before our very eyes, on a wider and vaster scale, though the contrast offered by the Islamic world as a whole to the amazing
technical progress of Europe may still blind us to it; and it may
be that the sequel will be the same,
that we must wait upon the Islamic society to restore the balance of western
civilization upset by the one-sided nature of that progress......At all events Islam stands side by side with Europe
in distinction from the true Oriental societies of India and the Far East......
For the fullest development of its own cultural and economic 1ife Islam cannot
do without the cooperation of European society; for the fullest development
of its cultural life, particularly of its spiritual life, Europe cannot
do without the forces and capacities which lie within Islamic society. Only by the restoration of that interaction which they enjoyed under
the Roman Empire can both recover and exert their full powers.
“Within the Western world Islam still maintains the balance between exaggerated opposites. Opposed equally to the
anarchy of
European nationalism and the regimentation of Russian
communism, it has not yet succumbed to that obsession with the economic side of life which is
characteristic of present- day Europe
and present-day Russia alike. Its social ethic has been admirably summed
up by Professor Massignon: ‘Islam has the
merit of standing for a very equalitarian conception of the contribution of each citizen by the tithe to
the resources of the community; it is
hostile to unrestricted exchange, to banking capital, to state loans, to indirect taxes on objects of prime
necessity, but it holds to the rights of the father and the husband, to private property, and to commercial
capital. Here again it occupies an intermediate position between
the doctrines of bourgeois capitalism
and Bolshevist communism’.
“But Islam has
a still further service to render to the cause of humanity. It stands
after all nearer to the real East than Europe does, and it possesses a
magnificent tradition of inter-racial
understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status,
of opportunity, and of endeavour so many and so various races of mankind. The great Moslem communities of Africa, India
and Indonesia, perhaps also the small Moslem communities in China and the still
smaller community in Japan, show that Islam has still the power to reconcile
apparently irreconcilable elements of race
and tradition. If ever the opposition of the great societies
of East and West is to be replaced by cooperation, the mediation of Islam is an
indispensable condition. In its hands lies
very largely the solution of the problem with which Europe is faced in
its relation with the East. If they unite,
the hope of a peaceful issue is immeasurably enhanced. But if Europe, by
rejecting the cooperation of Islam, throws
it into the arms of its rivals, the issue can only be disastrous for
both.”
ISLAM
So set thy purpose for religion as a man by nature upright—the nature (framed) of
Allah, in which He hath created Man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's
creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not.
—Al-Qur'an, XXX:
30.
V
A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW OF ISLAM
UNIVERSE
What is the character of the universe which we inhabit, and how are
we related to it? These are the two fundamental questions which have confronted all religions and philosophies of
the world, and each religious and philosophical system has tried to answer them
in its own way.
Closely connected with these questions is the problem of the nature
of relationship between mind and matter-between the ‘spiritual’, and the
'bodily' aspects of life, and a solution of this problem alone can form the
basis of our world-view and our life-programme.
There are three distinct answers offered to our inquiry in this
connection, namely: (1) by the pre-Islamic religions;
(2) by the post-Islamic empirical thought of the West; (3) by Islam.
(1) The pre-Islamic religions were
deeply impressed by the notion of an acute conflict between man's moral and
physical existence, or in other words, between ‘the biological within’ and ‘the
mathematical without’. This dualistic idea led them ultimately to find a way
for the affirmation of the spiritual self in man in the rejection of the
physical reality as either meaningless or dangerous. Hinduism regarded the
world of matter as maya, namely, illusion, and prescribed a life of renunciation for the spiritual development
of its devotees. Buddhism considered the physical world an obstruction
in the onward march of the soul and pointed to the annihilation of the individual self and the severance of its
emotional links with the material world as the way to achieve nirvana.
Christianity similarly recognised the
antagonism between the physical and
spiritual aspects of life and conceived the world of matter, or to use a
more Christian term, the world of the flesh, as essentially the play-ground of
Satan. Consequently, it standardised perfection in the type of the ascetic
saint.
Such a
despising attitude towards the material aspect of life affects humanity in two ways. Firstly, it shuts the door
to all material progress, not to speak of scientific advancement, because our indulgence in material pursuits
is considered detrimental to the
ideal of spiritual self-realisation. Secondly, it gives rise to a
perpetual conflict within us, because on one side
is the religious call to shun the world, while on the other side exists
the natural urge to enjoy it. Such a state of affairs can only culminate in
creating a continuous feeling of bad conscience and thus defeat the very
purpose of our idealistic attitude.[163]
(2) The
post-Islamic empirical thought of the West adopts
a path which is radically different from the pre-Islamic idealism. It
asserts that the world of matter alone is real and worthy
of our attention and that the realisation of human destiny lies in the
conquest of Nature with the ultimate aim of
achieving the highest amount of physical pleasure. It ignores all
transcendental values and spiritual considerations simply because they do not fall within the scope of
empirical sciences. There is only one criterion of ethics which it recognises
and that is the criterion of practical utility for the enhancement of the
earthly or ‘carnal’ pleasures of man.
Now, the physical world being essentially a battefield of
conflicting appearances, an exclusively materialistic
interpretation of Reality, even though it may be concealed
behind the
otherwise fascinating mask of scientific spirit, is bound to unbalance human
life. This what the West is experiencing today. Nations are running at the
throats of each other and
individuals are
indulging in the pleasures of the flesh in a way
which precludes all possibilities of life's spiritual expression. Peace
and piety both have been thrown away to winds.[164]
(3) What, then, is the message of Islam which stands between the ancient world which stressed the
exclusive validity of the spiritual aspect of life and the modern world
which interprets all reality in terms of matter? Has it any solution to offer to reconcile this sharp antagonism; has
it any teaching to give in the light
of which we may develop all our faculties evenly and work out our
destiny without prejudice against either our natural surroundings and the
physical conditions of our life or our idealistic yearnings, which are
certainly not an illusion but a positive reality and are ingrained in our very
nature?
To start with:
Islam does not consider the Universe as composed of two self-existing and
conflicting entities. It conceives all life as a unity because it proceeds from
the Divine Oneness, and reality, according to it, is neither material nor
mental but “a realm in which thought and thing,
fact and value,
are inseparable, neither having any existence apart
from its correlative ; the real world is a coherent organic unity, spaceless
and timeless, but including all happenings in space and time in their proper
relations to itself.
In addition to this principle of harmony,
Islam emphasises the purposive nature of all existence, whether spiritual or
physical. Thus says God in the Qur’an:
“We have not created the Heavens and the earth and whatever is
between them in sport : We have not created them
but for a serious end : but the greater part of them under-stand not.”
(XLV : 38, 39).
Thus our earthly surroundings are not a meaningless projection of
the play of blind forces—a mere empty
shell with no content. Nay, the tiniest particle
of sand, the smallest drop of water, the frailest rose-leaf is full of
meaning and music and functions under a
definite and well-planned Divine scheme.
MAN
This being the character of the universe, what is the nature of
man? Should we conceive him as a being who is originally born low and who
cannot attain the pinnacle of purity and
perfection except through the tragedy of renouncing the worldly
pleasures or of passing through a continuous ordeal of transmigration? This is
the way Hinduism, Buddhism and some other religions go. Or, should we believe
him to have been born in sin and therefore incapable of working out his destiny except through a mysterious Divine
sacrifice? This is the doctrine of Christianity. To these questions
Islam replies in the negative. It is emphatic in its assertion that man is born
sinless and is the chosen of God, as we read in the Qur’an:
“Of
the goodliest fibre We created man.” (XCV: 4).
“Afterwards
his Lord chose him (Adam) for Himself and was turned towards him and guided
him” (XX: 114).
“And
it is He who hath made you His vicegerents on the earth”. (VI: 165).
Starting his
life with a sinless birth, man is entitled, or we might say, destined, as an
evolutionary being, to scale the loftiest heights of perfection and to surpass
God's all creation, including the angels, in his uniqueness and purity. Thus we
read in the Qur'an:
“It needs not that I swear by the sunset redness and by the night and its gatherings and by the moon when at
her full, that from state to state shall ye be surely carried onward.”
(LXXXIV : 17—20).
PRINCIPLE OF UNITY
What then should be our attitude towards our material environment?
Should it consist in renouncing the world and repressing our physical desires?
No. Islam says nothing of the kind. Instead
of recognising a conflict between the moral and physical existence of man, it emphasises the co-existence of these
two aspects as the natural basis of life. It maintains that our earthly sojourn
is a possible factor in the Divine scheme of creation and a necessary stage in
the evolution of our soul-life. Consequently, it seeks the affirmation of the
spiritual self in man, not in renouncing the world of matter, but in the active
endeavour to master it with a view to discover
a basis for a realistic regulation of life. “The life of the deal
consists not in a total breach with the real which would end to shatter the
organic wholeness of life into painful oppositions, but in the perpetual
endeavour of the ideal to appropriate the real with a view eventually to absorb
it, to convert it into itself and to illuminate its whole being.” It is therefore impossible for Islam to despise our
earthly existence and activities, and here it differs radically with
other religious of the world.
This realistic attitude of Islam may not, however, be identified with
that of the modern West. The latter ignores
our spiritual
existence altogether and regards our earthly career
as an end-in-itself, and that in a way which amounts to worship. Islam,
on the other hand, conceives it not as an end but as a means to a higher
spiritual end.
And what is that higher end? It is submission to the Will of Allah
and seeking His pleasure, as the Qur’an says:
“Say: Verily,
my worship and my sacrifice and my living, and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds, Who hath no
partner.” (VI: 163).
NOTION OF WORSHIP
Viewed in this light, all our worldly actions, including the most
insignificant ones, are transformed into religious acts, the moment we give them a spiritual orientation, namely, the moment we perform them with the consciousness
that we are acting in the light of Allah's commands. In fact, Islam
conceives the whole life of a Muslim as a life of continuous worship, for says
God in the Qur’an:
“I have not created the Jinn and humankind but that they shall
worship Me.” (LI: 56).
Thus the notion of worship in Islam is also radically different
from that of other religions. In Islam there is no such distinction as 'religious'
and 'secular'. Every act of a true Muslim is a religious act because he has to
perform all his works in obedience and
conformity to Divine injunctions and has to dedicate all his faculties,
spiritual or physical, to the cause of God's eternal scheme. Devotion and
submission to God in this sense constitutes the very meaning of our
life in Islam.[165]
This being the
case, it was absolutely necessary that Islam should not confine itself to the
explanation of the metaphysical relations between man and his Creator but should also define exactly the relations between
the individual and the society. And
this Islam has accomplished to its eternal glory by giving us an
exhaustive guidance which does not leave even the most trivial actions of our
life untouched.
PRINCIPLE OF MOVEMENT
The essential nature of the Islamic view of
life must, have become clear from what has been
said above. But it is mostly the principle of 'unity in life' that has
been emphasised so far. There is, however, another fundamental principle also,
namely, 'movement in life', which needs some elucidation. In this connection,
the discussion might be confined to an examination
of Islam's attitude towards the empirical sciences, which is, however, the direct outcome of its
realistic conception of Nature and Man.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad (God bless him!) stands alone in the
religious annals of the world as the advocate of scientific inquiry. The pages of the Qur’an abound with passages which invite our attention to an empirical study
of the natural phenomena and emphasise the conquest of nature by man. In
fact, the Inductive Method of inquiry, which is the basis of modern scientific
and philosophical thought, is one of the most valuable gifts of the Qur'an to
the world. Let me cite here just a few Qur’anic
verses to substantiate this statement. It says:
“Assuredly, in the creation of the Heavens and of the earth; and in the alternation of night and day;
and in the ships
which pass
through the sea with what is useful to man; and in the rain which God sendeth
down from Heaven, giving life to the earth
after its death, and scattering over it all kinds of cattle; and in the
change of winds; and in the clouds that are made to do service between the
Heavens and the earth— are signs for
those who understand.” (II: 159).
“Can they not look up to the clouds, how they
are created; and to the heaven how it is upraised; and to the mountains how
they are rooted?” (LXXVIII: 17).
“And among His signs are the creation of the Heavens and of the
earth, and your variety of tongues and colour. Herein truly are signs for all
men.” (XXX: 21).
“And He it is who hath made subservient to you
whatever is
in the Heavens and on the earth.”
It is no wonder, therefore, that during the
age of Islam’s glory, its followers became the pioneers of civilization and the
inaugurators of the modern scientific era. It might sound strange to those who
are accustomed to hear that Islam obstructs the way to progress and is an enemy
of scientific learning, and that the Muslims are a race of barbarians. The
truth lies just the opposite way, and it can honestly be said that but for Islam there would have been no modern
scientific civilization. Let me quote Briffault, a great non-Muslim authority of the West. He says in his reputed
work, The Making of Humanity:
“Neither Roger Bacon nor his later
name-sake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental
method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and
method to Christian Europe........
Science is the
momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world......(though)
it was not science only which brought Europe back to life. Other and manifold
influences from the civilization of Islam
communicated its first glow to European life.” (p. 202).
“The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in
startling discoveries or revolutionary theories; science owes a great deal more
to Arab culture; it owes its existence. The ancient world was, as we saw,
pre-scientific. The Astronomy and
Mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly
acclimatised in Greek culture; The Greeks systematised, generalised and
theorised, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive
knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation
and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to Greek temperament......What
we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of
experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics
in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced
into the European world by the Arabs.” (p. 190).
A vital point of difference between the spirit of modern West and the spirit of Islam may however be
emphasised again. While the modern
West has employed science mostly for the satisfaction of its craving
after power and pleasure, Islam seeks in the scientific inquiry a means to the
service of humanity and spiritual elevation.
How beautifully has the Qur’an inculcated the latter idea in the
following verse:
“Verily in the creation of the Heavens and of the earth, and in the
succession of night and day, are signs for men of
understanding,
who, standing and sitting and reclining, bear God in mind and reflect on the
creation of the Heavens and of the earth, and say: Oh, our Lord! Thou hast not
created all this in vain; Glory be to Thee.” (111:188).
CONCLUSION
Islam is not merely a faith, a 'religion', a creed. It is a way of
life — a life to be lived. It does not only respond
to man's religious yearnings, but to human life as a whole. It does not only
give us an infallible metaphysics, but also a comprehensive and sublime code of
individual and social ethics, a sound economic system, a just political
ideology, and many other things besides. It is not a solitary star, but a whole
solar system, encompassing the whole and illuminating the whole.
It should be evident, therefore, that the foregoing very brief discussion of a few Islamic verities forms
only an introduction to the study of Islam. It is meant to stimulate thought,
to bring out the fundamental distinction of Islam from non-Islam, and to show
that the notion of religion in Islam is infinitely richer and more sound than
any other to which humanity subscribes.
I am confident that those of my Christian readers who undertake an impartial and detailed study of Islam
will come to the same conclusion
and will join me in saying:
God’s choicest
blessings be on His beloved Prophet Muhammad for the Light and Guidance he
brought to humanity!
INTRODUCING THE AUTHOR
Dr.
Hafiz Muhammad Fazl-ur-Rahman Ansari (1914-1974), whose thesis on Islam and
Christianity has been presented in this book was a scholar, author, journalist
and missionary of international repute. His scholarship bears the stamp of
versatility with Theology, Philosophy and Comparative Religion forming his
central interest. His authorship has already contributed more than a dozen
books, all imbued with sincerity of purpose, depth of insight, logical acumen
and wide knowledge. His journalistic talent has enriched the cause of Islam
inside the Pak-Bharat sub-continent as well as outside. His missionary
endeavours served far-flung human populations in Asia, Africa, Europe and
Americas.
A
pupil of Professor S. Z. Hasan, Dr. Phil. (ErL), D. Phil. (Oxon.) in
Philosophy, of His Eminence Saiyyid Sulaiman Ashraf in Theology and of His
Eminence Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqui Al-Qaderi in Spiritual Discipline and
Missionary Work; he acquired his early education at different institutions,
commencing with the memorisation of the Holy Qur'an, settling down finally at
the famous Aligarh Muslim University (India) for higher education— both western and Islamic. There he won the
highest laurels in the B.A., B.Th. and M.A. (Philosophy) examinations, wrote
his Ph. D. thesis on Moral Philosophy under Prof. S. Z. Hasan, and was hailed
officially as “a new refulgent star on the firmament of Islamic Learning”, “a
scholar of exceptional talent and ability”, “head and shoulders above
others”'—indeed, as “the best product of the Aligarh Muslim University” in view
of his many-sided genius.
As an Islamic theologian, he possessed the rare distinction of
combining Islamic theological scholarship with higher education in Modern
Thought. As a scholar of Philosophy, he represents eastern as well as western
disciplines. As a professor of religion, his learned discourses on Islamic
Metaphysics, Islamic Moral Philosophy, Islamic Political Theory, Islamic
Economics and Comparative Religion have benefitted thousands of young scholars
at the University of Karachi and some of its allied Colleges since 1954. As a
missionary his love for humanity carried him to distant lands. In 1949-1950,
1957, 1960 and 1964 he travelled round the world four times on Islamic
missionary errand.
[1] Islam in America, pp. 8,9.
[2] The Quarterly Review, No. 954, p. 316.
[3] The Holy Qur'an, XLIII:
59. cf. also the verse: “an Apostle to the Children of Israel”. (111:48).
[4] Ibid, XIX :30—36.
[5] The
Holy Quran ,V:46
[6] Ibid, II:77—79
[7] Ibid, III: 77. Refer also to 11:75, IV146, V:12—14, 44—47,
61.
[8] The Holy Quran, IX;
30, 31.
[9] Ibid, V: 77.
[10] Ibid, XXX: 41.
[11] Ibid, V: 15, 16.
[12] Islam at the Cross-roads, pp.
53, 54
[13] The Holy Qur’an, 1X:
32, 33.
[14] A very significant fact in this connection is the confusion which
prevailed in the early Church regarding the nature of the Trinity. The council
of Nice held in 325 A.C. decided that Christ was truly God, coequal and
co-eternal with his Father—-separate
yet one. The council of Constantinople held in 381 A.C. determined that he was
also truly man. The council of Ephesus held in 43! A.C. resolved that the two
natures were indivisibly one. The council of
Chalcedon held in 451 A.C. establish- ed that the two natures were
nevertheless perfectly distinct. Constantine II (581 A.C.) accepted the
doctrine that in Christ the two wills were harmonized. Heraclitus by his decree
of 630 A.C. affirmed that while in Christ
there were two natures there was only one will. The Catholic Church maintained
that there were two wills although they always coincided.
[15] Mohammad and Koran, pp.
74, 75, foot-note.
[16] Mohammad and Koran, p.
139.
[17] Ibid, p. 83.
[18] Dogmengeschichte, and
ed., p. 39.
[19] Vortrage, p. 26.
[20] Religion in Science and Civilization, pp. 82, 83.
[21] Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.
II, p. 411.
[22] Latin Christianity, Vol.
I, Introduction, p. 4.
[23] Sermons, II.
[24] Vivian Phelips: The Churches and Modern Thought, p. 118
[25] The Forum, January, 1933.
[26]The Hindustan Times, May
4, 1935.
[27]Dean W. R. Inge: The Church in the World, pp.
153, et. seq.
[28]Whither Islam ?, pp. 343, 35
[29]*Sir Richard Gregory: Religion in Science and Civilisation, p.
86.
[30] The
names of some of them are!; The Rev. Schmiedel, D.D., of Zurich. The Rev. W. C. Van Manen, D.D., Professor of? Old Christian
Literature and New Testament Exegesis,
Leyden. The Rev. E. A. Abbot, D.D.,
Hulsean Lecturer, Cambridge, Select Preacher, Oxford. The Rev. A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and
New Testament Exegesis, Free
Church College, Glasgow. The Rev. Archibald R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of
Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Edinburgh. The Rev. C. F. Burney, M. A., Lecturer
in Hebrew and Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford. The Rev. George Adam Smith,
M.A., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew
and Old Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. The Very Rev. J. A.
Robinson, D.D., Dean of Westminster. The Rev. Owen
Charles Whitehouse, M.A., Principal and Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Theology in the Countess of Huntingdon's
College, Cheshunt, Herts.The Rev. Charles, M.A., D.D., Professor of
Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin. The
Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ
Church, Oxford. The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford, Canon of Rochester. The Rev. T. Witton Davies,
B.A., Ph. D., Professor of Old Testament Literature, North Wales Baptist
College, Bangor. The Rev. W. H. Bennet,
Litt. D., D.D., Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature, Hackney
College, London, and Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, New College, London.
The Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and New Testament Exegesis,
United Free Church, New College, Edinburgh.
[31]Enc. Bib., art: “Gospels”, Cf: The
Churches and Modern Thought.
[32]Enc. Bib., art: “Jesus”.
[33]The passage about Jesus (Antiquities, XVIII, 63 seq.) is an
obvious interpolation, recognised as such by the most conservative critics. See
M. J. Larange, Le Messianisme chez les Juifs, Paris, 1909, p. 19.
[34]They were published by A. Berendts (Zeugnisse
vom Christentum in Slavischen D. B, J.
des Josephus, Leipzig, 1906, and commented upon, among others, by E.
Schurer (Theol. Literature, 1906, p. 262 seq. and by A. Goethals (Mélanges a’ historie du
Christianisme, Brussels and Paris, 1909—1912).
[35]See the detailed examination in K. Linck, De
antiquissimis veterum quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis, Giessen, 1913, pp. 19—30.
[36]See R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London,
1904, where references are given.
[37]Le Style Rythme du Nouveau Testament; Journal de Psychologie no. 5, p. 439.
[38]Among those who do not go so far as to deny the historicity of Jesus is Renan, author of the famous Vie de
Jesus. But even he admits that “only
with great difficulty can one arrive at so much as one page of history about the actual
personage who was called Jesus”. (La Liberte de Penser,
quoted by P. Larroque: Opinion
des Deistes Rationalistes sur la Vie de Jesus selon M. Renan, p. 24.)
[39] For fuller information, refer to: A. Drews: Die Geschichte der
Synoptischen Tradition, Gottingen, 1911; V. H. Stanton: The
Gospels as
Historical Documents, Cambridge,
1903, 1909, 1911; B. W. Bacon:
The Fourth Gospel in Research and
Debate, London, 1910, and Jesus
and Paul, London, 1921.
[40] Quoted by V. Phelips in The Churches and Modem Thought, pp. 84, 85
[41]Some scholars place him in the category of the vegetation-gods,
but I prefer to regard him as a sun-god.
[42] For details See Sir J. G. Frazer's Adonis
in the Thinkers' Library Series.
[43] Mythology of the Aryan Nations, Vol. II, p. 113.
[44] i.e. Jesus.
[45] Godfrey Higgins: Anacalypsis, Vol. I, p. 322.
[46] Cf: Dupuis: The Origin of all Religious Worship; Knight:
The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology.
[47] Herodotus, Vol. II, p. 260, note 3.
[48] i.e., the alleged incarnation of God in Jesus.
[49] Sir Richard Gregory, Religion in Science
and Civilisation, p. 54.
[50] For
detailed study see Prof. Franz Cumont's Les Mysteres de Mithra.
[51] The Nineteenth Century, Sept. 1905, p. 496.
[52]Lord Kingsborough: Mexican Antiquities, Vol. VI, p. 95.
[53]Lord Kingsborough; Mexican Antiquities, Vol.
VI, pp. 197—200
[54]Bonwick: Egyptian Belief, p. 370.
[55]Pagan
Christs. p, 37.3.
[56]Paganism
and Christianity, p. 91.
[57]
Angel Messiah, p. 158,
[58]The
Adventures of a Black Girl in Her Search for God.p.
72.
[59]The
Quest, London, Jan. 1922.
[60]Sir Wallis Budge: The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol.
I, Preface, p. XV.
[61]Pagan
Christs, Part III.
[62] Spinoza and Buddha: Visions of a Dead God (University of Chicago Publication).
Besides this, there are several other important books having a bearing on the
subject, e.g., Beal: The Romantic History of Buddha and Buddhist
Literature; Max Muller: Introduction to the Science of Religion; For
long: Short Studies of the Science of Comparative Religion; Senart: La Legende du Buddha; R. Seydel; Evangelism
von Jesus and Buddha Legends: Pfliederer: Urchristentum;
Bunsen1: Angel Messiah.
[63] Sir Richard Gregory: Religion in Science
and Civilisation, p. 111.
[64] Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, art. “Christmas”.
[65] Religion in Science and Civilisation, p. 113.
[66] Enyclopaedia:
Britannica, 14th Edition, art: “Passover”.
[67]Religion
in Science and Civilisation, PP. 100, 111.
[68]
Religion in Science and Civilisation, p. 112.
[69]
Ibid.
[70]
Religion in Science and Civilisation, p. in.
[71]
Primitive Folk, IV.
[72] Edward Carpenter :Pagan and Christian Creeds, p. 39.
[73] The Dictionary of the Bible, art:
“Alexandria”.
[74] De Legis Allegor, II.
73
[75] Quis Rerum Divin. Heres, I.
501.
[76] De Profugis., I.
562, 13.
[77] De Legis Allegor I.,
122, 17.
[78] De Deler. Potiori lnfid.,I.
213, 45.
[79] De Confu. Ling., I.
427.
[80] De Somniis. I.
653.
[81] De Agric. I. 308, 27.
[82] De Confu. Ling., I. 418.
[83] De Profugis., I.
560, 31.
[84] Ibid.,561, 16.
[85] De Confu.Ling., l. 427.
[86]
Vol.I.p. 310.
[87]I Apol.,Chap.
22.
[88] I Apol.,Chap. 66.
[89] Quoted by Robertson, Pagan Christs, p.
322.
[90] Encyc. Brit., art: “Mythology”.
[91] The
Science of Religion, p. 40.
[92]
Ibid.
[93]
Studies in the Character of Christ, IV ,p. 102.
[94] The Dean appears to exclude Protestantism,
but it is hard to understand his grounds for it. As institutional religions,
Protestantism; and
Catholicism do not seem to differ much except in the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. In truth, the same
facts which prove Catholicism to be
of Pagan origin, also establish the Pagan character of Protestantism.
[95] Essay on Modernism in Religion.
[96]
Religion in Science and Civilisation, p. 191.
[97]Several scholars are of the opinion that Constantine’s
conversion was of a political nature. It is significant that even after his conversion, he retained the figure of Apollo upon
his seal with the inscription: “To the Invincible Sun, my companion.” As
regards the character of this first
Christian Emperor, Devenport calls him “the second Nero” and remarks
that he “drowned his wife in boiling water; put to death his own son Crispus;
murdered the two husbands of his sisters, Constantia and Anastia; murdered his
father-in-law, Maximilian Hercules; murdered his nephew, the son of his sister
Constantia, a boy only twelve years of age,
together with some others not so nearly related, among whom was Spoater, a pagan priest, who refused to give him
absolution for the murder of his (Constantine’s) father-in-law”. (Muhammad
and Koran, p. 144, footnote).
[98] Amir Ali; Spirit of Islam, Intr. p. liii.
[99] Quoted by Dean W. R. Inge in The Church in the World,
p. 52.
[100]
Dean W.R. Inge: The Church in the World.
[101] Thomas Aquinas, the official philosopher of Catholicism,
also had taught: “It is a dogma of the faith that demons can produce wind,
storm, rain and fire from heaven.”
[102]
Muhammad and Koran, pp. 144, 145.
[103]
Michail: China and Christianity, p. 47.
[104] Hallam: Constitutional History of England, vol.
I. Chap, ii, p. 62.
[105]
Science and Faith, Ch. VIII.
[106] All quotations in this section have been taken from
Vivian Phelip's: The Churches and’ Modern Thought, pp. 21, 22, 264, 265.
[107]
Quoted by Mark Patrick Hammer and Sickle.
[108] The
‘Labour Monthly, December, 1926.
[109] This religion has lately suffered a set-back
because of the defeat of the Nazis in
the second world-war. Its historical value remains unimpaired, however,
and it is this, together with its implications, with which we are concerned
here.
As regards the fortunes of Christianity in Germany, those
who might have been reclaimed from the
New German Religion are far out-numbered
by those who have been recently absorbed by Marxist atheism.
[110]The
Right Rev. W. Boyd Carpenter; An Introduction to the Study of the
Scriptures, p. 132.
[111]
Americana, p. 269.
[112]
Americana, p. 65.
[113]
Ibid., p. 106.
[114] The
Evening News, London, Feb. 19, 1927.
[115]The bishop is wrong. In the Acts as well as in
Paul's Epistles it is ever the historical and predictive portions of the
Jewish Scriptures that are appealed to.
[116]What a damaging confession. And yet Jesus is regarded by
Christians as divine, as the’ Only Begotten Son' of God !!
[117] Encyc. Bib., art
“Jesus”.
[118] What is Christianity’?
chap. “Miraculous Element.”
[119] Though the
Christians have always unanimously believed in them on the authority of the Bible!
[120] What is Christianity!, p.
31.
[121] The
Days of his Flesh.
[122] The
Hibert journal, April, 1904.
[123] An
Introduction to the Study of the Scripture', p. 51.
[124]
Quoted in The Old Testament Difficulties, p. 63.
[125]
Although this alone the Bible emphasises!
[126] The
Old Testament Difficulties, p. 41.
[127]
Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 38, 39.
[128]
Problems of Religion and Science, p. 70.
[129]
Witness of History to Christ, p. 25.
[130] The
Times, London, August 10,1917.
[131] The
Graphic, Aug. 20, 1921
[132] But
if, as this learned clergyman says, the Book of Genesis is unreliable and
untrue, the story of the temptation of Eve by the devil and the subsequent fall of Adam, on which the Christian dogma of the
Original Sin has been built, becomes untrustworthy. This would mean the very
negation of Christianity, because thus the doctrine of Atonement, which rests on the dogma of the Original
Sin, collapses automatically!
[133] Contrast it with
Kalhoff's view (Rise of Christianity): “What the religious person calls Christianity today, a
religion of the individual, a personal healing principle, would have
seemed folly to the early Christians.''
[134] The Church in the World, p.
26.
[135] Ibid., Preface, p.
vii.
[136] Ibid., p. 49.
[137]
Quaker Strongholds, Preface to ed. of 1907.
[138]
Rufus Jones: Later Periods of Quakerism.
[139]
Ibid.
[140] The Church in the World, pp. 28—30.
[141]
Couchoud: The Enigma of Jesus, p. 65.
[142]
A.Loisy:Les Premiers Anne's du Christianisme, 'Rev. d' Hist. et de Litt.
Relig.”, 1920, p. 162.
[143] La
Passion de Marduk, “Rev. d’Hist. et de Litt. Relig.”,1922, P- 297.
[144] Ibid.
[145] Le
quatrieme Evangile, and ed., pp. 56, kj.
[146] De la Methode en histoire des religions, “Rev.
d'Hist. et de Litt. Relig.”, 1922, p. 35.
[147] Some of these conceptions are: Original Sin, Vicarious
Atone-ment, Resurrection of Jesus, anthropomorphic
notion of Sonship, phy-sical character of heaven and hell.
[148] Sir Richard Gregory: Religion in Science and
Civilisation. pp. 211-218.
[149] The
Church in the World, Chaps :“Hellenism in Christianity” and “Science
and Theology”, pp. 109 et seq.
[150]
Elsewhere he says: “As a great historical institution, Christianity can be characterised only as the religion of the
white race”. (Op. cit, p.200).
[151] Religion
in Science and Civilization, pp. 222, 223.
[152] First
and Last Things, pp. 85—91.
[153] Across
the World of Islam, pp. 19, 20, 21
[154] For a detailed information on the subject, see: A New
Muslim World in the Making by the Author.
[155] Whither
Islam?, pp. 85, 86.
[156]
March 16, 1937.
[157] For a detailed appreciation of this great scholar,
see his biography: Our Loyal Enemy by Anne Fremantle.
[158] The
Sunday Tribune, Singapore, Aug. 7, 1938. The Archbishop of Canterbury also
expressed himself similarly on the eclipse of religion in the West. (Dawn, Delhi,
May 28th, 1943).
[159] The
Muslim University Gazette, Feb 1, 1938.
[160]
That was the day of Christianity and other similar religions.
[161]
This is the mission of Islam.
[162] Whither
Islam ?, pp. 376—379.
(Footnote from
p.198)
[163] “If
we mechanically applied, as rules of conduct, Christ's ideals of temper, we are certain, from common sense,
that universal pauperism, lawlessness and
national extinction would follow.” (The Ven. J.M. Wilson, D.D.: What
it is to be a Christian).
Renan, in his famous Life of Jesus, revolts against the
Christian conception of perfection and observes in a rather irreverent tone:
“In these fits of severity Jesus went so far as to abolish all natural ties.
His requirements (for the Kingdom of Heaven) had no longer any bounds.
Despising the healthy limits of man's nature, he demanded that he should exist
only for him, that he should love him alone........The harsh and gloomy feeling
of distaste for the world and excessive self-abnegation which characterises Christian perfection, was originated not by the
refined and cheerful moralist of earlier days, but by a sombre giant
whom a kind of presentiment was drawing more and more out of the pale of
humanity. We should almost say that, in these moments of conflict with the most
legitimate cravings of the heart, Jesus had
forgotten the pleasure of living,
of seeing and feeling.”
[164] The
second world-war bears eloquent testimony to the frustration of Peace, while
the following illustration from the United States of America shows the
devastating effects of the libertarian philosophy on human piety:
1.
Crime costs
about 40,000,000 dollars a day.
2.
Prison
population has nearly doubled since 1927.
3.
The homicide
rate is the largest in the world.
4.
This rate has
doubled in the last thirty years.
5.
American racketeering schemes cost twice as much money every year as it
takes to support the Federal Government.
6.
About 1,500,000
felonies are committed every year.
7.
A major crime
is committed every twenty-four hours.
8.
A murder is
committed every forty minutes.
9.
The surgeon-general of the United States has been obliged to head a campaign against the national peril
of venereal disease.
(The Straits
Times, Singapore, May 5, 1938).
[165] “The highest form of religious ethic is that
in which the aim of conduct is complete and
implicit obedience to what is conceived to be the Will of God......(this
obedience) may become a joyous and spontaneous acceptance of a mode of life,
such as it is conceived would be consonant with the nature of God, subject to
such limitations of the flesh as are ineradicable—the ideal of saintliness. Hence arises the
desire for uprightness as an end-in-itself, either with a view to reward, if
not in this world, in the next, or pursued selfllessly for its own sake. This
concept of religious ethic had led to
the highest idealism in human conduct.” (Sir Richard Gregory: Religion in
Science and Civilisation, p. 63).
Post a Comment