290

NOTE 1. — BISHOPS

The Epistle to the Philippians is addressed to “all the saints,” “with the bishops and ministers.” Upon which Dean Alford remarks, “The simple juxtaposition of the officers with the members of the Church, and indeed their being placed after those members, shows the absence of hierarchical views such as those in the Epistles of the apostolic Fathers.” And again, in his comments on Acts xx. 17, 28 (which records that Paul addressed the elders of the Church in Ephesus as bishops), he refers thus to the perversion of the passage by Irenæus: “So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions.” And he notices the mistranslation of verse 28 in A.V, (“overseers” in lieu of bishops), as concealing “the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous.” This is obvious from Titus i. 5, 7, which enjoins the

291
appointment of “elders in every city... if any man is blameless... for the bishop must be blameless.” And so again in Acts xiv. 23, “And when they had appointed for them elders in every church.”

Some who would despise Dean Alford, and who would regard a layman who discusses such subjects, as being “in the gainsaying of Korah,” will listen perhaps to the most learned of the Latin Fathers. In Jerome's Commentary on Titus they will find all this in the plainest words. He says, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop and... Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters.” And again, “Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.”

Top

NOTE 2. — “DEACONS”

The word deacon occurs in two passages in our English Bible, viz., Phil. i. 1 and I Tim. iii. 8-13. It there represents the Greek word dia;kono~, which occurs eight times in the Gospels and twenty-two times in the Pauline Epistles, and nowhere else. In the Gospels it means servant in the common sense of that word, save only in John xii. 26 (“There shall my servant be”). The Apostle uses it only in the higher sense, save in Rom. xiii. 4. But by an extraordinary vagary of Christian thought, the seven men appointed, as recorded in Acts vi. to take charge of the collections are

292
called deacons; and the word having thus acquired the meaning of a subordinate minister, it was then, with an ecclesiastical bias, introduced into the two passages above indicated. Its use there is not translation but exegesis; for when the New Testament was written the Greek language possessed no word corresponding to it. And “using the office of a deacon” (A.V.) or “serving as a deacon” (R.V.) in verses 10 and 13, is a sheer mistranslation. The verb thus rendered is the kindred term diakonevw, used thirty-six times in the New Testament, and it ought to be rendered “to minister.”

The New Testament knows nothing of “the office of a deacon.” Besides the apostles, there were in the Church “bishops” and “ministers.” The functions of an elder or bishop were not ministry, but rule. If he ruled well he was to be doubly esteemed, and still more esteemed if (in addition to discharging the duties of his office) he “laboured in the word and in teaching” (I Tim. v. 17). The “bishop” was generally appointed by an apostle or his delegate (Titus i. 5). But the practice of appointing “ministers” belongs to post-apostolic times. The call to ministry was altogether of God. They who claimed to have received the call were duly tested; the command was, “Let them first be proved, and then, if they be blameless, let them minister” (I Tim. iii. 10). This survives in the service for “the making of deacons,” which is very ancient. (The service for “ordering of priests” belongs to a later and more corrupt era.) Before the bishop proceeds to

293
ordain the candidate he requires him to declare that he is “truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the ministry.” The call itself is neither of men nor by man.

Top

NOTE 3. — “THE CHURCH”

In controversies of the kind raised by “the Oxford movement” and by the present ritualistic revival, the real question at issue is “the Church.” On the one side there is the Romish view; on the other is that of the Reformers. Which is right? This question is of vital importance. No one, whatever his opinions may be, can fail to be struck by the silence of Scripture respecting that which is the paramount reality in the religion of Christendom. Prominence is given to “the Church which is His body”; but about the Church as an organised society on earth, there is, if we except I Cor. xii. 28 and I Tim. iii. 15, practically nothing in the New Testament, save warnings of its apostasy. Latin theology, however, maintains its position, first, by ignoring all this; secondly, by confounding the Church with the kingdom; and thirdly, by taking words spoken to the apostles in the days of the Lord’s earthly ministry as applicable to “the Church” of Christendom.

John xx. 23 may seem an exception to this. But let the objector answer this question, Whether were the Lord's words addressed to the whole company of the disciples there assembled, or to the apostles as such? If the former, there is an end of the matter from the Romish standpoint;

294
if the latter, then let those who claim to have the powers of apostles in the spiritual sphere, give proof that they possess their powers in the sphere where we can test them.

Since the beginning of the “Oxford movement” to the present hour, no one has seceded to Rome who has not taken that step as the result of deciding the question, Whether is the Church of Rome or the Church of England the Church? It is like one of those silly catch questions which are framed so to fix the attention on a side issue that the real issue involved escapes notice.^[1] Of course we answer, with the Reformers, “Neither the one nor the other.”
[1] Such, ex. gr., as “Would you say 5 and 7 is 13, or are 13.” [“12” is the real point—ed.]

According to them “the Church” is “a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same” (Art. xix.). This is the creed of the Church of England. And if any bigot should set up the plea that by these concluding words the Reformers intended to limit their definition to episcopacy, he is answered by the language of the 55th Canon of the Convocation of 1603, which is as follows:

“Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may; Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially

295
for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland.”

Such is “the Catholic Church” for whose “good estate” prayer is made continually in our churches. In 1603 the only Episcopal Churches outside the kingdom were those which Article xix. expressly excludes; and the Church of Scotland (which is here expressly named) was Presbyterian.

All that Dean Hook has here to urge is that, as the Archbishop who presided at the Convention was (he declares) a bitter and unscrupulous bigot, it is “monstrous to suppose” the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was intended. But the fact remains that there was no Episcopal Church in Scotland. The plain truth is that the Church of England does not teach this anti-Christian figment of Apostolic Succession in an episcopacy. Article xxiii. could never have been framed by men corrupted by such an error. And Hooker, who is so high an authority upon the doctrines of the Church, repudiates it. “Some do infer” (he says) “that no ordination can stand but such only as is made by Bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other Bishops before them till we come to the very apostles,... to this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a Bishop” (Eccles. Pol. vii. 14).

If Rome has paramount claims to the position she assumes, it is as being indisputably the most distinctive and advanced embodiment of the apostasy. When the historic Church adopted the pagan rite of baptism it ceased to have any moral right to be considered the Church of God; and

296
when in a later age it gave up the Lordship and Headship of Christ its fall was complete. For if baptismal regeneration is un-Christian, apostolic succession is anti-Christian.

In “the Christian religion” the Church is everything. In Christianity the Church sinks to its true place as “a congregation of faithful men,” and the great test of faithfulness is that the Lord Jesus Christ is all in all.

Top

NOTE 4. — “THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION”

In the course of official duty I have read many obscene books, but I have seldom read anything more gratuitously filthy than the standard works intended for the guidance of priests in questioning penitents. Compared with Romish treatises, those in use among the Romanisers in the Church of England seem mild. Dr. Pusey's Manual for Confessors (based on Abbé Gaume's work) entirely omits the section relating to the seventh commandment—an acknowledgment that, in his day, Englishmen would not tolerate it. But impurity is an evil plant of rapid growth, and no such reserve was used by “The Society of the Holy Cross” when, in 1866, they issued The Priest in Absolution. Part I. of this work, a tract of 90 pages, was published and sold openly, and reached a second edition in 1869. Part II., a book of 322 pages, was “privately printed for the use of the clergy.” It was dedicated “to the Masters, Vicars, and Brethren of the Society of the Holy Cross,” and its circulation has been chiefly among the conspirators of that

297
Jesuitical organisation. I have been fortunate enough, however, to see a copy of it, and I have made extracts which I intended to set out here. But this purpose I have abandoned, for I have sought to exclude everything from these pages which would render them unfit for general readers. When the late Lord Redesdale brought the book before the House of Lords (June 14, 1877) the extracts he read from it were deemed too indecent even for the secular newspapers, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Tait), who followed Lord Redesdale, declared “that it is a disgrace to the community that such a book should be circulated under the authority of clergymen of the Established Church.”

The history of this shameful book, and of the controversy to which it gave rise, will be found in Chapter IV. of Mr. Walsh’s Secret History of the Oxford Movement—a work which ought to be in the hands of every voter in the country. With his usual coldness he discusses the question as though these “priests” who practise this abominable system were all excellent men, whose only error is doctrinal. But, suffice it to say—for the subject is a delicate one—that while no one party in the Church can taunt another in this respect, those who claim to be priests with authority to forgive sins need expect no quarter when they outrage morality. The scandal is still recent respecting one leading member of the Society of the Holy Cross, whose name figures in Mr. Walsh’s pages; and were I to refer to others it would not betoken Protestant bigotry, but special knowledge.

Top

298

NOTE 5. — DEATH-DATES OF LEADING FATHERS

The death of the Apostle John is believed to have occurred in the year AD 100. The following are the death-dates of the principle “Fathers” mentioned in these pages; some of them are given approximately:—

Top

NOTE 6. — THE “VIRGIN MARY” MYTH

If, in the face of the plain statements of the 19th, 20th, and 25th verses of the first chapter of Matthew, people can deny that the mother of our Lord became Joseph’s wife, it is idle to argue the question. Jerome it was who first formulated the Virgin Mary myth in a systematic way. With reference to the verses above cited, he exposed the fallacy of holding, as Hooker expresses it, “that a thing denied with special circumstance doth import an opposite affirmative when once that circumstance

299
is expired.” Sound logic this, provided “the thing denied” be something against the doing of which there exists a presumption, on account of its being vicious or wrong. And this Jerome's argument assumes, thus begging the whole question. If we deny that a man committed some grossly immoral act on the day when a wife whom he dearly loved lay dying, we do not imply that he committed such acts on other days, but merely give a special reason for rejecting the charge that he did so on the day in question. But if we assert that a man did not eat meat during Lent we do distinctly imply that he did do so at Easter. Some who deplore Mariolatry may perhaps shrink from the thought that Mary became the wife of Joseph. But the question arises, how far that feeling may be due to the very error which God intended to correct by recording so plainly that she, whom all generations call blessed, entered into the marriage relationship. “Let marriage be had in honour among ALL” (Heb. xiii. 4).

Top

NOTE 7. — THE APOSTLE PAUL ON CELIBACY

The Apostle Pauls words in I Cor. vii. 25-40 have been misused in support of pernicious teaching on the subject of celibacy. But as Dr. Chr. Wordsworth writes (Church History, vol. iii. chap. vi.), he “qualifies his commendations of celibacy by grounding them on considerations of the present distress (in I Cor. vii. 26) in which the Christian Church was, in that age of persecution;

300
and he condemns in the strongest terms those who forbid to marry, even as contravening the divine truths which flow from the doctrine of the Incarnation, and as led astray by seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, and declares his will that younger women should marry and bear children (I Tim. v. 14), and that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband (I Cor. vii. 2), and that marriage is honourable in all (Heb. xiii. 4) and 'a great mystery,' being a figure of Christ’s union with His Church (Eph. v. 23-33).”

But the Bishop overlooks the fact that the Apostle never contemplates pledged celibacy. A life pledge not to do that which God sanctions to be done is entirely beyond the scope of his words. And any suggestion of monasticism is absolutely abhorrent to his teaching.

And further, not only are these words of counsel framed with special reference to the persecution then prevailing, but they form no part of the inspired Scriptures. The Apostle prefaces them by the express warning, “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord.” And when at the close of the passage he expresses his judgment that a widow is happier to remain a widow, he adds, “And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” These reservations are of immense importance as indicating the meaning of inspiration, and the supreme authority of inspired Scripture. “The exception proves the rule,” and of the rest of the Epistle the Apostle could write, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him

301
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Nothing can be more explicit than the distinction. In the one case it is, “I command, yet not I, but the Lord;” in the other case it is, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord” (I Cor. vii. 10, 12).

Top

NOTE 8. — “WE HAVE AN ALTAR”

The language of Heb. xiii. 10 is freely used against the truth which it is the main object of the Epistle to establish. Here is the passage: “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.”

The briefest summary of the views of commentators upon the words “We have an altar,” would fill many a page. And it would convey the false impression that the statement is a hopeless enigma; whereas, in fact, its meaning is simple and clear to those who understand the language in which it is written, i.e., the typology of Scripture, “now entirely neglected” (as Hengstenberg so truly says) by theologians. But let us keep in view: (1) That the passage belongs, not to the doctrinal, but to the practical teaching of the Epistle; (2) That so far from its being the promulgation

302
of some deep or mysterious truth, it is merely an incidental appeal to one of the plainest and best known ordinances of the law, and this, as the basis of the practical exhortation of verse 13; and (3) That there is no emphasis on the pronouns “we” and “they:” as a matter of fact they are not expressed in the original at all.

We may therefore at once rule out any explanation which makes the “we” refer to Christians and the “they” to Jews; or which “involves the anachronism of a distinction between clergy and laity, which certainly then had no place” (Alford). The words [Ecomen qusiasthvion are equivalent to “There is an altar.” And as the words were addressed to Hebrews, and no one versed in the teaching of the law would tolerate the thought of eating the great sin-offering, we may rule out also any exposition which rests on a blunder so gross. The priests were to eat of the ordinary sin-offerings, but not of those of which the blood was carried into the holy place (Lev. vi. 30; x. i6, i8). Having regard to (3) we dismiss also of course the exegesis, “We have an altar,” namely, the Cross. Moreover, this also rests upon ignorance of the types; for under the law no victim was ever killed upon the altar, and there was no altar of sin-offering at all. The blood of the sin-offering was put upon the altar of burnt-offering, and in certain specified cases, upon the altar of incense. The use of the word “altar” in the passage is merely an instance of the familiar figure of Metonymy; as when, ex. gr., we say that a man keeps a good table, meaning thereby good food.

303
To conclude: the passage may be thus amplified and explained (though neither amplification nor explanation was needed for those to whom the Epistle was written): We know that in the aspect of His work, which was typified by the great sin-offering, Christ stood absolutely alone and apart from His people. But the Cross does not speak to us merely of the curse of God upon sin: it expresses also the reproach of men, poured out without measure upon Him who was the Sin-bearer. We cannot share the Cross in its aspect towards God; but let us on that very account be eager to share it in its aspect towards the world—“Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.”

It is the Hebrews version of Galatians vi. 14. And, as the tense of the verb makes clear in the original, it is not a call to some heroic act of renunciation, but (like the “Let us draw near” of ch. x. 22) an exhortation to the habit and attitude of life and heart which become those who profess to have been saved by the Cross of Christ.

Space forbids my noticing, important though it be, either the way in which this passage brackets together Ex. xxiv. 8 and xxxiii. 7, and Lev. xvi.; or those other aspects of the great Sacrifice of Calvary in respect of which His people are “partakers of the Altar.” (In the Passover, ex. gr., the people fed upon the lamb whose blood brought them redemption.)

In repudiating the very word “altar” the Reformers gave proof of spiritual intelligence. Just as the only Priest known to Christianity is the

304
Lord Jesus Christ Himself, so the only altar is in the scene of His priestly ministry—the Divine presence in heaven. An altar upon earth must be either Jewish or Pagan. The Church of England knows nothing of it; albeit her paid servants revel in the apostasy betokened by the revival of the name, and the re-introduction of the abomination itself, in violation of the truth of God and of the law of this realm.

Top

NOTE 9. — THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS.

Textual criticism has discredited the genuineness of most of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, but even the three which, in the Syriac version at least, have stood the test (to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans) ought to be rejected by the “higher criticism,” on account of the manner in which the Lord is named in them. It is no longer “the Lord Jesus Christ,” as with Clement and Polycarp, but “Jesus Christ”—a clear indication that they belong to a later age. This conclusion is confirmed by the glaring anachronism of the mention of “bishops, presbyters, and deacons,” instead of “bishops and deacons.” And I venture to add that the Ignatius whom his own and succeeding generations held in such high repute cannot have been the poor creature these Epistles which bear his name represent. Take this for example, “Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the assembly of the Apostles.” This sort of thing clearly belongs

305
to a later age. In view of his actual imprisonment and his approaching martyrdom, such a man as Ignatius would surely have had something worthier to say as a last message to the Churches than the drivel about obeying their bishops, which abounds in the Epistles attributed to him. How different the Apostle Paul's words in Acts xx. 28-32! His forecast of “apostolic succession” was the entering in of “grievous wolves, not sparing the flock.”

Top

NOTE 10. — PREVAILING IRREVERENCE IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S NAMES.

These strictures upon the irreverence with which the Lord is addressed and named, are met by appealing to the practice of writers and preachers of repute. But this answer will not avail with those who are ready to bring everything to the test of Scripture. For my contention is that in this matter our habits are governed, not by Scripture, but by the evil traditions of Christendom. The spiritual Christian is betrayed into speaking of his Lord and Saviour with the familiarity which Christendom uses towards its mythical Jesus. This influence has prevailed from very early times.

Here are the Lord's own words: “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father” (John v. 22, 23). And in view of such words it is strange that any one can justify the prevailing practice. Every knee in the universe shall yet bow “in the name

306
of Jesus”^[2]—the name of His humiliation; and every tongue in the universe shall yet own Him Lord (Phil. ii. 10, 11). It behoves the Christian to give this testimony now and here.
[2] Not at, but in the name.

Two books lie before me, both equally representative, both equally reprehensible in this respect. The one is the late Cardinal Manning's The Love of Jesus to Penitents; the other is a religious novel entitled What Would Jesus Do? I say nothing here of the profanity of using the sacred name in this way as the title of a book, to be bandied about in the publisher's warehouse and the bookseller's shop. I deal with the contents. The Catholic manual names the Lord on every page, but, with rare exceptions, it is always “Jesus”; never once “the Lord Jesus.”^[3] This is characteristic of Roman Catholic books of piety; for while Christianity brings men to God, human religion brings God down to men. Latin theology knows nothing either of grace or of lordship. And the “Jesus” of this American novel is made to dance to every one's piping. It discusses such problems as these: If “Jesus” was a singing woman, would He sing on the stage (undressed of course)? If He was a mechanic with a wife and three children, and lost his employment (through drink, for example), what would He do? The book is deplorably profane, but it fails to shock ordinary readers. Over 1,000,000 copies of it are said to be in circulation.
[3] I find in one place “Our L. J. C.”; and in a very few others, “Our Lord,” or “Our Divine Lord.”

Gossip had it some years ago that in a certain

307
historic home in England, socialism prevailed, and the servants were taught to speak of their noble master by his Christian name. But even in the degradation of such a household the true question for a servant to keep in view would be—not “What would George do?” but “What would he wish me to do?” And so here, the question which each one who seeks to live the Christian life should ever keep before him is, “What would the Lord Jesus Christ have me to do?” The moment the Christian drags his Lord and Master down to his own level, as the author of this novel does, he ceases morally to be a Christian at all.

I have already spoken of the use of the Lord's personal name in the Gospels. When we turn to the Epistles we must remember (1) that the A.V. is not infrequently at fault in this regard; and (2) that in certain instances the text itself may be erroneous. I Thess. iv. 14 is a probable instance of this. “Sleeping in Jesus” has such a hold on the public mind that even the Revisers have retained it, although it is not a correct translation, and it would not be easy to put a doctrinal meaning on the expression. Which leads me to add (3) that there is always a doctrinal significance in the way in which the Lord is named in the inspired Scriptures. See, ex. gr., the passage last cited. The first “Jesus” in verse 14, gives emphasis to the fact that Christ as Man in His humiliation is intended. But in the three following verses we have “the Lord” five times repeated, and “dead in Christ in verse 16—not “dead in Jesus,” which Scripture would never use. See again Rom.

308
viii. 11 in this connection. Ephesians iv. 21 is the only instance in that Epistle where He is called “Jesus”; and the meaning is that in the Lord's life on earth we find the pattern of the practical working out of the truth He teaches, in this connection see also 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11. Again, in Romans we have “the blood of Christ,” never “the blood of Jesus”; whereas in Hebrews it is “the blood of Jesus,” and not “the blood of Christ,” save in chapter ix. 14 (where it refers to the cleansing of the conscience). The significance of this depends on the doctrinal difference between the two Epistles, as explained in Chapter XII., ante.

“Jesus” is the personal name of His humiliation; “Christ” and “Lord” are His official titles. To the Jew, “Christ” meant Messiah: for example, in Acts v. 42 he would read, “They ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Messiah.” For us “Christ” brings in the truth of resurrection, and “Lord” of ascension and glory. The true Christian life is lived out in the power of all that He is (Col. ii. 6).

Space forbids my going Into this subject more fully, and dealing with the differences in this respect between different books of the New Testament, and especially Hebrews, I John, and Revelation. But I trust I have said enough to suggest inquiry. The Christian will find that while in our religious literature there is obviously no guide known in using the names and titles of the Lord, save euphony, and the writer’s reverence (or irreverence) of spirit, there is in their use in Scripture an unexplored mine of deep and important teaching.

Top

309

NOTE 11. — POPULAR HYMNOLOGY.

To criticise our popular hymnology will seem to many to savour of sacrilege. And yet it is strange that people who are accustomed to join in the majestic praise of the Te Deum and the old Psalms can tolerate the poor stuff that abounds in our hymn books. “A good hymn,” says Lord Selborne in the preface of his Book of Praise, “should have simplicity, freshness, and reality of feeling; a consistent elevation of tone, and a rhythm easy and harmonious, but not jingling or trivial. Its language may be homely, but should not be slovenly or mean. Affectation or visible artifice is worse than excess of homeliness: a hymn is easily spoiled by a single falsetto note. Nor will the most exemplary soundness of doctrine atone for doggerel, or redeem from failure a prosaic, didactic style.”

Most of our hymn books, if revised in the light of these weighty words, would lose at once half their contents. But there would still remain a considerable number of hymns which Christians would discard if they knew what it means “to sanctify Christ in their hearts as Lord”—hymns of which the faultless rhythm only makes their influence more pernicious. To illustrate my meaning I take, for instance, the hymn beginning—

“Sweet Saviour, bless us ere we go,”

with the refrain at the end of every verse —

“O gentle Jesu, be our light.”

Who is the Being whom people are taught to

310
address in such terms and in such a manner? One moment's intelligent thought will satisfy any one that He is not our risen and glorified Lord and Saviour. His personal name occurs nearly a thousand times in the New Testament, but never once with an adjective. Not even in the days of His humiliation did His chosen disciples ever once address Him thus. The plain truth is—and it is an awfully solemn truth—that this “sweet, gentle Jesu” is a mere idol. The same tendency in human nature which leads the Catholic to worship a mythical Virgin Mary (the mother of our Lord now sleeps with all the holy dead) declares itself in impersonating this mythical Jesus, an object of sentiment, not of faith. And this tendency is so deep and general that in scores of hymns we find this utterly unchristian, “O Jesus,” when the rhythm of the verse is positively spoiled by it, and would be saved by the use of the Christian mode of address, “Lord Jesus.”

If we want to find this influence at its worst, we must turn to Roman Catholic writers, and nothing perhaps in the language equals in evil F. W. Faber's collection. I appeal to the popularity of this author's hymns as being in itself a sufficient proof of my contention that the Jesus of this religion is an idol. I have the book before me as I write — not the earlier edition, published under the appropriate title, Jesus and Mary (the two myths), but the second (1871) edition of the complete collection. Here is a typical hymn, beginning —

“O Jesus, Jesus! dearest Lord!”

311
Another verse begins —

“What limit is there to thee, love?”

Another ends —

“Ah! dearest Jesus! I have grown
Childish with love of Thee!”

“Childish” truly, though not childlike! Charity would fain accept this plea in extenuation of the writer’s most serious offence. The Apostle wrote, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be anathema”; and that love brings out all that is worthiest and best in the Christian character. But love of this mythical Jesus is one of the strange influences of human religion: hence this profane drivel.

The following is another choice specimen from the same source:—

“Oh, come and mourn with me awhile!
See, Mary calls us to her side;
Oh come and let us mourn with her;
Jesus, our Love, is crucified!

“Come, take thy stand beneath the Cross,
And let the Blood from out that Side
Fall gently on thee drop by drop;
Jesus, our Love, is crucified!”

Here we have the mawkish irreverence of the love song, combined with the revolting materialism of “the religion of the shambles.” But enough; the book as a whole is an outrage upon Christianity.^[4]
[4] In fairness I should add this: Some years ago I sent the late Mr. Kegan Paul a pamphlet of mine, written in the sense of this note, and he assured me that many Catholics deplored such hymns as strongly as I did. He told me that at that moment he was pressing for a revision of the Catholic hymnal, and that he would use my pamphlet to strengthen his appeal.

312
As I am treating of typical hymns, I will give one more:—

“Safe in the arms of Jesus,
Safe on His gentle breast;
There, by His love o'ershaded,
Sweetly my soul shall rest.

Hark! 'tis the voice of angels,
Borne in a song to me,
Over the fields of glory,
Over the jasper sea.”

This hymn, though so greatly superior to those above cited, is reeking with mere sentiment. Here we have the motherly arms and the “gentle breast”; and as for “the voice of angels,” “the fields of glory,” and “the jasper sea,” they savour of “that sweet word Mesopotamia.” Can any one imagine the “beloved disciple” singing such words? But as the hymn is a prime favourite with such multitudes, I am not content to stop at destructive criticism, but venture to offer the following verses as a substitute:—

Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Led by His glorious arm,
God is Himself my refuge,
A present help from harm.

Fears may at times distress me,
Griefs may my soul annoy;
God is my strength and portion,
God my exceeding joy.

Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Led by His glorious arm, etc.

Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Safe in temptation's hour,
Safe in the midst of perils,
Kept by Almighty power,

313
Safe when the tempest rages,
Safe though the night be long;
E'’en when my sky is darkest
God is my strength and song.

Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Led by His glorious arm, etc.

Sure is Jehovah's promise,
Nought can my hope assail;
Here is my soul's sure anchor,
Entered within the veil.

Blest in His love eternal,
What can I want beside!
Safe through the blood that cleanseth,
Safe in the Christ that died.

Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Led by His glorious arm, etc.

*     *     *

The preceding appendix was taken from:
THE BUDDHA OF CHRISTENDOM (revised and republished in 1908 as The Bible or the Church?)
by Sir Robert Anderson.
Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1899.
No copyright. Public domain.

Top