No. 26, VOL. 12.] LONDON, Friday, Dec. 30, 1825. [PRICE 6d.

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE, LONDON.

I'

On

SIR, Manchester, Nov. 24, 1825. THE following is a reply to some observations calling in question the real existence of Jesus Christ, contained in "The Republican," dated Friday, Oct. 14, 1825. I expect that you will either publish in "The Republican," or reject, the whole and every part of this reply. You have long been clamorous for opponents. have thought it my duty to expose the errors and falsehoods of which have been guilty in the paper above alluded to. you this point, therefore, you have an opponent. But from opposing you on this subject I shall not hold myself bound to discuss with you whatever established truth you may choose to impugn. The reason is, I have not time; nor, indeed, can I permit myself at present to be led from this particular subject to the defence of the evidences of Christianity in general. They are before the public, and it is well for every one if he studies them before he renounces human nature's best solace and support. My aim is to destroy your conjectures. This once effected, the evidences of Christianity retain their former power. I am not to prove what is already certain, but to confute groundless suppositions or flimsy argumentation. In perusing this paper you will find yourself charged with error and falsehood. The first is in many cases venial. But whether or not the errors of which you are convicted are of this nature must be left to the decision of our readers. If I am to suppose you a man of learning, many of your errors are most reprehensible;-if not, still you cannot be free from blame, because in some instances the means of correct information were easily accessible. I most deeply regret, that I have been constrained to charge you with falsehood, but I believe that you are guilty; I must call things by their proper names, the claims of truth are paramount. I can scarcely flatter myself that my reply is free from error. It has been written in great haste. Yet I have endeavoured to make it correct, and given you and your readers the opportunity to verify my statements.* Greatly as I detest the principles which have immured you in a dungeon, I still more deplore your unhappy state of mind, "without God, without hope in the world." Wishing you, with all my heart, a *By reference to standard authorities.

Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 135, Fleet Street.

speedy liberation both of mind and body, I proceed to animadvert on your arguments.

You attempt from the circumstance that the two words Jesus Christ are synonymous, to prove that the history of Jesus is a fable. I deny both your premises and conclusion. The words are not synonymous, and it is a pity that you should undertake to write about that of which you manifestly know nothing of your own personal knowledge.

1

The word Jesus is derived from a Hebrew root which signifies to save the word Christ from a Greek root which signifies to anoint. The word from which Jesus is derived does not mean to anoint, nor does the word from which Christ is derived, signify to save. Jesus means the saviour, Christ the anointed. They are not therefore convertible words: they have each a peculiar meaning and cannot be synonymous. So much for your premises. I do not intend any lengthened remarks on the philological puerilities which follow. One specimen of your erudition shall suffice. "The word Joseph (you say) I take to be a variation of the same word" (Jesus). What do you mean by "I take?" Do you mean I suppose? You ought not to have written unless you knew. Supposition is not admissible where certainty can be obtained by investigation. But the absurdity of supposition is still more apparent when it is employed to bewilder and mislead the ignorant in matters of primary importance. Joseph then be it known to you, sir, is derived from a Hebrew word which signifies to add, to increase, and is not, therefore, a variation of the same word Jesus. Now for your conclusion. Because these two words Jesus Christ are synonymous, "therefore such a name had never been adopted by those who understood the meaning of both words. It is a tautology which no people ever adopted in the way of title." How know you this? Where are your arguments? Am I to yield a willing assent to the dictum of Mr. Carlile? Be it so in this matter. Your next words contain your

* See Simonis Lexicon, and Schluisner on the words.

In other parts of the Republican, I have distinctly stated, that Jesus signified Saviour and Christ Anointed, and having so done, I did not think it necessary to be precise in the repetition in No. 15. But I maintain that the words are synonymous, that though one expresses saviour and the other anointed, their applications were and are similar. The Jews referred to a chosen person among them, or to come among them, to a captain or leader, by the word Jesus or Messiah, and the Greeks used the word Christ for the same distinction. The words are, therefore, in fact, in sense, and in common application, the same; as much alike in meaning and reference as the Latin word Dux, and the English word General. Nor does the reference to a similarity of the Christian with the surname in this country, at this time. affect the argument. With us, they are long established names, and were not doubled when first used as a name; for the hero of the New Testament, the words Jesus Christ are claimed as a new name, a name not common with other persons. R. C.

refutation, "Except a few names among ourselves." It is not true then, on your own showing, that "no people," &c. And if some people have, why not the Jews? After this manner of argumentation, you would blot thousands out of existence; you would persuade all the William Williams's, the John Johns, the Thomas Thomson's, that they are only shadows of men, 66 names of heroes of fable.". We shall next be told, that Alexander, that is, the great, the powerful man, was a fabulous personage, because there is a tautology in his name. Cato the censor, that is the wise, the grave, will be transmuted into an airy nothing. Erasmus, Desiderium Erasmus, the first Latin, the second Greek, both synonymous, meaning the beloved: Erasmus will be denied. a local habitation and a name. Nay, this great globe itself, because it is called a sphere, and an orb, the first Greek, the second Latin, both signifying that which is round, shall vanish at your magic touch, and leave not a wreck behind. I had no idea before that Mr. Carlile's love of matter would lead him to so great an extinction of life. But to be serious I am really astonished how any man that has the least pretensions to rationality can imagine that the mere circumstance of a person's having a name composed of two synonymous words can DISPROVE his real existence. The state of the case is simply this. Jesus was the name of our saviour, and Christ a surname descriptive of his office, being equivalent to Messiah: so that Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Christ, means Jesus the Messiah. Thus John, the precursor of Jesus, is called John Baptist, or John the Baptist, from the rite by which he initiated his followers; and Scipio was surnamed Africanus, from the conquest of Carthage; and Carlile, the atheist, from his attempt to undermine all religion.*

* A passage of Dr. Priestley's occurs to my memory, which will serve much more effectually than any thing I can say, to show the absurdity of such proofs as that on which I have now been animadverting.

"As it is in vain to use any argumentation on so plain a subject, I shall endeavour to illustrate M. Volney's (Mr. Carlile's) curious reasoning, by putting a similar case. There exists a sect of Christians called Calvinists. Now a person who was a stranger to them, but knew that the word was derived from the Latin calous, which signifies bald, might imagine they were so called from cutting off their hair. But another person, knowing no more of Latin than M. Volney probably does of Greek, but having a smattering of English might suppose that Calvin was derived from the word calf, and conclude that the Calvinists were so called from their worshipping a calf in imitation of the ancient Egyptians. And there would be just as much of truth or probability in this, as in M. Volney's supposition, that Christianity is an allegorical worship of the sun. Dean Swift's ingenious dissertation to prove the antiquity of the English language, in which he derives Jupiter, from Jew Peter; Archimedes, from Hark ye maids; and Alexander the Great, from all eggs under the grate; is exactly of a-piece with these curious etymologies of M. Volney: but with this difference, that the Dean was in jest; whereas M. Volney is in serious earnest.”

Priestley's Works, by Rutt, vol. xvii. p. 16.

Your next PROOF that the story of Jesus is a fable is derived from your assertion, that "the names of the disciples of Jesus are all Grecian." Here again you confute yourself. You grant that there was one Jewish name among them, Levi, whence these contradictions? Now all are of Grecian origin: Now one is of Hebrew. It is true, you say, that this was a second or adopted name. Still it is a name. Though Richard is your second or adopted name, it does not cease to constitute an essential part of the name of that man who is called Richard Carlile."

3

It will be worth our while to enquire into the truth or falsehood of your assertion. It may be thus expressed when corrected. All the names except one of the disciples of Jesus are of Grecian origin. A disciple, says Johnson, is a scholar. You say then; the names of all the scholars of Jesus, of all who acknowledged him as a master and submitted to his teachings are of Grecian origin. In making your assertion you have laid the appeal to the books of the New Testament. In them we read of the names* Zaccheus, Barnabas, Lazarus, Cleophas, Judas (not Iscariot), Ananias, Sapphira, Tabitha, Mary. These you are informed, are not of Greek but Hebrew origin. But you may have mistaken the meaning of the word disciple, intending the apostles of Jesus. Among these then we find derived from the Hebrew language, the names Simon, James (the same as Jacob), John, Lebbeus. Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (the son of Alpheus).* This it must be confessed has very much the appearance of convicting a man either of gross ignorance or wilful falsehood. After this exposure we are justified in demanding the proof of another of your assertions. "We are told that all his (Jesus's) disciples were Jews." Who has given you this information? What author? We expect from you his name, the title of his work, the page where the information is to be found, or we shall hold that you fabricated this hardy assertion as a basis for your subsequent falsehood. Even if you had succeeded in proving that the names of the disciples of Christ" were all Grecian," you would still be far from having shown that the disciples themselves were Grecian. The Jews for along time previous to the destruction of Jerusalem

2 There is no contradiction in my paragraph. Mr. Beard has taken a sentence without its context. I make an exception to a statement; he takes the statement without the exception and denies it.

R. C.

3 By the word disciple, in the gospel sense, nothing more is understood than the twelve named as his immediate and constant followers. So Mr. Beard may take the benefit of his quibble; for a quibble it is. He, and every one acquainted with the Christian gospels, could not have doubted as to my meaning in using the word disciple. R. C.

Neither the one nor the other. Let Mr. Beard shew either of the names in the canonical books of the Old Testament, the only Hebrew records.

* See Schleusner Lexicon, N. T. on the words.

R. C.

+ Schleusner.

were dispersed abroad throughout the civilized world, and it was a custom with them to exchange their Hebrew for a Grécian name when they left their native country.*

You go on to say, "we have another proof that their first preachers of Christianity were all Grecian." Well, supposing that they were all Grecian, that does not prove "that the story of Jesus was of Grecian origin." The first preachers of Christianity in England were Italians; had therefore the Christian religion its origin in Italy? Nor is this assertion of yours at all more weighty when applied to the establishment of your leading proposition, the non-existence of Jesus Christ. Grant that the disciples were Greeks. Is every thing fabulous that is recommended by Greeks, by men renowned in arts and arms? It is in vain that you refer me to the fables of the heroic age of Grecian history, as a proof of their talents in invention. It is not the heroic ages of which we are talking. You have fixed the time of the fabrication of Christianity about 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem; a period of great intellectual exertion, of great inquiry, a period of "criticism." If you reply that Christianity is related by our books to have taken its rise in a conntry where Greeks were not found. I again deny the assertion and affirm that Greeks and Romans abounded throughout the east. If then you had established your point, proved that the disciples were Grecian, it were sufficient to reply that Jesus selected them in preference to Jews for the propagation of his religion.§ But now as to other matter * Michaelis' Introduction, vol. iii. part 1. p. 202.

+ Priestley's Works, vol. xvii. p. 122.-Rutt's edition. Prideaux's Connection, vol. iii. passim, Joseph. against Apion, b. 1. c. xii. § To shew you how well grounded is your belief that there was never a genuine convert to the Christian religion," how well authorized you are in ascribing to Christianity, a "Grecian origin,” I subjoin a quotation or two from your friend Celsus. By the bye, I am not sure that there is not provided a loop-hole in the word "genuine." But you cannot escape by this passage. The sole question is, were there Jewish converts? Motives we cannot appreciate.

Celsus introduces his Jew, thus addressing the Jewish believers, "What ailed you, fellow-citizens, that ye left the law of your country,and, seduced by him to whom we spake just now, you have deserted us to go to another name and another way of living." Again, "when we had taken and punished him who led you about like brute beasts, you have notwithstanding, forsaken the law of your country. How can you begin upon our sacred books, and afterwards disregard them, when you have no other foundation but our law?"

"The Hebrews," he says, "were originally Egyptians, and owed their rise to a sedition from the rest of that people, so some Jews in the time of Jesus, made a sedition against the body of the people of the Jewish nation, and followed Jesus." Further he calls Jesus "the man of Nazareth,"

5 What proof has Celsus that the Hebrews were originally Egyptians? What proof beyond the books of the Jews that they were resident in Egypt?

R. C.