More Contradictions.

Mr. Tyerman delivered the sixth of his course of lectures on the Bible, in the Queen's Theatre, on Sunday evening 31 [unclear: ult] to a large and appreciative audience. In the early part of his lecture, he animadverted on certain unworthy tricks which many orthodox teachers resorted to in their defence of the Bible against the attacks of Freethought for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of their hearers, and rousing an unjust and mischievous prejudice against Freethinkers. He did not say that all who did this were deliberately dishonest and untruthful, but he page 7 believed that some were. Such was the effect of a certain kind of training, of believing a given set of dogmas, of viewing an object firm a single and narrow point of view, of individual and denominational interests and other circumstances on some persons that they got into a habit of unconscious lying, and precised a spaces of uninternational deception in connection with religious and theological matters. Which they would be among the first to detect and reprobate if practised by others in dealing with any scientific, political, or Social question. But while that might be admitted on behalf of a good many of the orthodox, he had every reason to believe that some of them were knowingly and deliberately unjust and misleading, when speaking of their opponents. One common trick was to assert that there was nothing new in the objections of modern Infidelity to the Bible—that they had all been urged, by unbelievers of former generations, and triumphantly answered thousands of times. The simple-minded believer was satisfied with such dust-throwing. His minister was supposed to know all about such things; and as he assured him that he Bible was not in danger, that it had survived even fiercer attacks in the past than those of the present, he was not alarmed for its safety. No doubt many of those objections had been raised in former times. The principal contradictions, and other questionable features of the Bible, were patent to any careful reader of the book; and those who traversed the same field of controversy must necessarily use many of the same materials, and might differ but little from some of their predecessors, except in their mode of treating the subject their deduction of inferences, and their application of principles. All the sceptics, from Spinoza to Bradlaugh, were inevitably led to use many weapons pretty much alike in their battles with a popular and powerful foe; though some of the most fatal evidences against the Bible were solely the result of modern criticism. But it must be remembered that every generation produced hosts of fresh believers in the Bible, and to them even the old objections were new. The most important question, however, was not whether the objections to the Scriptures were new, but whether they were true? Had they been, or could they be, fairly met? Some few might have been removed or weakened, but he maintained that all the principal ones, whether drawn from the contents of the Bible, or furnished by science, had not been, and could not be, successfully answered. Besides, the taunt of want of freshness and originality in the weapons used by modern scepticism, and its modes of attack, came with bad grace from the Christian side. What new truths or original arguments had they advanced? Orthodox teachers had gone on from generation to generation repeating substantially the same things—grinding out the same doleful gospel tunes, with only the variation of an odd note now and then. They had kept on talking about the same original fall, which had never taken place; lamenting the same scepticism, which they were powerless to crush; pointing out the same internal evidences in support of the Bible, which many honest truthseekers utterly failed to discover; insisting on the same external proofs, which needed proving themselves; indulging in the same sickening scenes of blood, with which most right-minded persons were becoming disgusted; expatiating on the same stereotyped moral influences, which were chiefly conspicuous for their absence; exhibiting the same satanic scarecrow, which children were frightened with and sensible people laughed at; and threatening the same blazing hell to intimidate the unbelieving, and promising the same psalm-singing heaven to encourage the drooping spirits of the faithful. He did not page 8 blame them for their monotonous repetition of the same things. They only had a limited sphere to move in. They were bound to one book as an authority, and could not preach a sermon without basing it upon, and supporting it by, that book. But seeing that they kept harping on the same strings from year to year, they should be the last to twit the other side with repeating the objections and arguments of former times. Another reprehensible trick was to assert that those who denied the divine authority of the Bible, did so that they might get rid of its moral restraints, and be able to indulge in all manner of sin without compunction of conscience. "Behold those Infidels!" exclaimed many religious teachers.—"They have rejected the laws of God, and would trample upon the laws of man if they could. Having no belief in future punishment, they give full play to their evil passions. They are dangerous members of the community. If their principles prevailed, they would stamp out liberty, morality, and religion; and would turn our Christian society into a stale of hopeless chaos and reeking corruption. And their abominations are the natural fruit of their Infidelity; therefore touch not the loathsome thing." Of course the trick answered its purpose with many who were still in theological leading strings. They shuddered at the very mention of Infidelity, were prejudiced against unbelievers, pressed their Bible more closely to their hearts, and stood firmly within the pale of the Church, where they were told they were safe. But he had no hesitation in characterising that trick as one of the most gratuitous and foul of the many slanders which the orthodox were guilty of. A belief of the Bible was no more a necessary preventive of immorality, than a disbelief of it was a necessary incentive to it. The obligations of morality did not rest on the authority of any book or Church, but were planted by God in the natural constitution of things. He did not say there were no bad men in the Liberal ranks; but he did affirm that there was nothing in their principles to make them bad, but everything that was necessary to make them good. Nay, he went further and maintained that, judging the tree by its fruit, what was called Infidelity would compare most favourably with Christianity, in its moral influence on its professors. He had found the average Freethinker every whit as truthful, honest, and moral, as the average Christian, and a deal more charitable and humane. A number of believers in the Bible—some of them pillars of the Church, who gave liberally (of other people's money) for its support—had figured conspicuously in the insolvent and other courts since he came to Sydney; how many avowed Spiritualists and Freethinkers had appeared there during that period? It was surely time that Christians, and especially the clergy, ceased from resorting to such petty-fogging tricks and vile slanders in dealing with their opponents, whose disbelief of the Bible was at least as honest and well-grounded as their belief in it, and whose general conduct was quite as honourable as their own, though not gilded with the same professions of sanctity.

Having made these remarks, which circumstances called for, he would proceed to point out other contradictions in the Bible. Of course, Christians denied that any real discrepancies existed; and as for the apparent ones, they could easily be reconciled. The stump orators of Hyde Park could quickly remove all the difficulties he had raised, or might raise, and could make the profoundest mysteries of the Bible as Clear as mud. Those learned and eloquent illuminators of little mobs Could prove, by the soundest logic, that black was white that green was blue, and that yellow was no colour at all. Even greater men than they attempted to to do that, when treating of the contradictions and absurd- page 9 ities of the Bible. No doubt many of the opposing statements of the Bible could be harmonised, by the forcing principle of interpretation; but what would be the result? The attempt to straighten a piece of crooked iron often broke it; and to harmonise the Bible by forcing un-warrantable constructions on difficult passages, was to destroy its boasted inspiration; for that which could only be made believable by such means was manifestly the production of finite and erring man. A few of the authorities on the orthodox side, however, were honest enough to admit that some of those contradictions were absolutely irreconcilable. Mr. Tyerman here read an extract from the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, the learned commentator, in which he admitted that "to attempt to reconcile them in every part is lost labour." But he was surprised that the Doctor did not see that to claim infallible inspiration for the original writers of the Bible, and deny it to copiers, translators, and interpreters was to virtually deny inspiration altogether, or at all events to render it practically worthless. The idea of an infallible revelation, left to be transmitted through fallible and corrupt channels, was an absurdity. If the original books were infallible, there could be no guarantee that the different copies were infallible, nor that any given interpretation was correct. The Catholic Church, with all its errors and abominations, took up the most intelligible and logical position on that point. Given an infallible book, and an infallible custodian and interpreter, was an absolute necessity; or the so-called infallible authority would be made by different parties to teach the most contradictory things : a the Bible was made to do by the various Protestant sects. The following were among the Biblical contradictions that Mr. Tyerman pointed out and commented upon. When Israel and Judah were numbered, in obedience either to a Divine or Satanic command, he did not know which, for one passage stated the former and another the latter, it was found, according to 1 Chronicles, xxi., 5, that "they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew the sword; and Judah was four hundred three score and ten thousand men that drew sword;" but 2 Samuel, xxiv., 9, stated that "there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." That made a difference of three hundred thousand in Israel, and thirty thousand in Judah—total, three hundred and thirty thousand. Could anyone make those figures square? The price which David gave to Oman, king of the Jebusites, for a threshing floor, was stated differently in the two accounts. 1 Chron., xxi., 25, said the price was "six hundred shekels of gold," while 2 Samuel, xxiv., 24, said it was only "fifty shekels of silver." The latter price was only about a hundred and twentieth part of the value of the former, and was silver instead of gold. Was that, or was it not, a real contradiction? He had nothing to do at present with the purposes for which David wanted the threshing floor, or he would point out that building an altar, and offering sacrifice, "that the plague might be stayed," was about as sensible as modern Christians relying on prayer to check the ravages of cholera, instead of attending to sanitary regulations and the laws of physical health. That truthful book also contradicted itself in reporting the number of "horsemen" that David took from Hadadezer, king of Zobab. In 2 Samuel, viii., 4, "seven hundred" were said to have been captured; but 1 Chron., xviii. 4, made it only "seven thousand"—a difference of six thousand three hundred. A Christian might not think much of a little discrepancy like that; but he would find it have considerable weight if he fancied he only owed seven hundred page 10 pounds, and found out that it was seven thousand; or was expecting a legacy of the latter amount, and it turned out to be only the former. 2 Kings, xxiv., 8, made "Jehoiachin" to be "eighteen years old when he began to reign;" but 2 Chron., xxxvi.,9, made him only "eight years old" when he ascended the throne—a difference of ten years. That was only a slight error, some would say; but an infallible record would contain no errors, large or small. A single error, however small, destroyed the claim of infallibility. In 2 Chron., xxii., 2, "Ahaziah" was said to be "forty and two years old" when he began to reign; but 2 Kings, viii., 26—written under the same unerring inspiration—declared that he was only "two and twenty" when he donned the purple; which made him twenty years younger than the other passage did. 2 Chron, xxi., 20, stated that "Jehoram" was "thirty and two years old" when he began to reign, and that "he reigned in Jerusalem eight years;" which would make him forty years old at the time of his death. He was immediately succeeded to the throne by his son, Ahaziah, who, in 2 Chron., xxii., 2, just quoted, was said to be "forty and two years old when he began to reign;" which actually made the son two years older than his father! Christians often praised the Bible as a wonderful book; and truly it was a wonderful book to accomplish such a feat as that. Such were only a few of the contradictions found in the Old Testament. The number could have been much increased, but he must pass on to the New Testament.

It was exceedingly fortunate for the interests of truth that they had a good many of what professed to be independent accounts of the same things in the Bible, for that enabled them to check one narrative by another. And as those supposed independent and infallible reports so frequently flatly contradicted each other, it might reasonably be inferred that those accounts which there were no duplicates of, and hence no means of checking, were equally unreliable. Matthew ii, 14, 15, stated that the parents of Jesus took him into Egypt, to remain there till the death of Herod; while Luke ii, 22, 39, recorded that they took him "to their own city Nazareth which was about as correct as to say that a man had gone to Brisbane, who had gone to Melbourne. John x, 30, and Philippians ii, 6, taught that Christ was one with and equal to God; but John, xiv. 28, and Matthew, xxiv. 36, assigned him a subordinate position, and denied him omniscience, which was one of the attributes of Deity. Matthew, xxviii. 18, and John, iii. 35, credited Christ with almighty power; whereas Matthew, xiii. 58, and Mark, vi. 5, proved that he did not possess it, and that the unbelief of the people battled his purposes. Matthew, xxvii. 44, and Mark. xv. 32, related that both the thieves who were crucified with Jesus reviled him on the cross; while Luke, xxiii. 39, 40, said that only one of them did that, and was rebuked by the other for so-doing. Which statement were they to believe? They could not both be correct. The Gospels also contradicted each other in speaking of the women who first visited Christ's sepulchre. John, xx. 1, said that only one went; Matthew, xxviii. 1, said that two went; and Mark, xvi 1, said that three went. Did the Holy Ghost inspire those three different statements? Mark, xvi. 5, said that one angel was seen in the sepulchre; but John, xx. 11, 12, said that two were seen. In relating Paul's conversion, Acts ix. 7, declared that those who were with him heard the supernatural voice that spoke to him; while Acts xxii. 9, as positively affirmed that "they heard not the voice"—another beautiful instance of unbroken harmony. Romans iii. 20, iv. 4; and Ephesians ii. 8, 9, taught that man was justified by faith and not by works; but James, ii. 21, 24, contradicted page 11 his brother Paul, and inculcated the more rational doctrine that man can be justified by works. John, x. 28, taught the final perseverance of the Saints; but Hebrews vi. 4-6, as distinctly taught that it was possible for them not only to fall from grace, but to everlastingly perish. 1 Corinthians, xv. 52, declared that "the dead shall be raised" at some future time; while Job, vii., 9, positively asserted that those who "go down to the grave shall come up no more." Was Job or Paul inspired? or had an omniscient Deity, who inspired both, forgotten what he had made one say when he moved the other to write? Psalm, civ., 5, and Ecclesiastes, i., 4, assured us that the earth would abide for ever; but 2 Peter, iii., 10, and Revelation, xx., 11, dispelled the pleasing belief by predicting its utter annihilation. Those were a few of the contradictions in which a so-called infallible book abounded. He would ask the Christians before him to say candidly whether they could still maintain, in the face of those glaring discrepancies, that the Bible was in every respect a trustworthy guide? Could they harmonise those differences by any fair means? He wanted no shuffling evasion, no arbitrary twisting and stretching; no perhaps this or probably that; no human improvement upon a supposed Divine and perfect work. If they could not reconcile those contradictions in a clear and satisfactory manner, as he was convinced they could not, let them abandon at once and forever the groundless belief respecting the character and claims of the Bible, by which they had so long been misled. He knew they would have a hard mental struggle to conquer religious habits, to erradicate early impressions, and to bring their minds to believe that what had given them so much comfort, and upon which they had built so many cherished hopes, was only a mixture of truth and error, of good and evil; and was no more the word of God than thousands of other books. But let them be honest to themselves, to their highest sense of truth and right, and fear not the consequences. The object to be obtained was well worth the effort required. The overthrow, in their minds, of the orthodox belief in the Bible would, involve the ruin of many other equally false and pernicious doctrines; and they would be able to hail with joy the New Dispensation that had dawned upon the world, and to accept truth wherever it might be found, and whithersoever it might lead.