In The Clarion for April 24th nearly the whole of the fifth page is devoted to vilifying the God of Israel, notwithstanding that. He has warned all men. He will not hold them “guiltless who take His Name in vain.” Mr. Blatchford heads his chapter with the great and glorious Name, and says that Jehovah was “the adopted heavenly Father of Christianity.” On reading this one of my sons remarked that he had “never before known a son adopt his own father”! I simply remarked that he did not understand the peculiar nature of infidel logic and “reason.” Mr. Blatchford says that in the universe which Science has revealed to man there are “20 millions of living, moving, radiant suns with all their wonderful revolving planets, &c.” Now this dogmatic assertion is the merest speculation for no planet has ever been discovered by the most powerful to telescope except the seven belonging to our own system. This doubly unfounded statement is another example of infidel credulity where “science” is concerned, especially any so-called “science” which opposes Bible teaching.
The editor then proceeds to blaspheme the Holy Name, which be flippantly and frequently repeats. He says of the great Being claiming this peculiar Name that—“He was fickle, jealous, dishonorable, immoral, vindictive, barbarous, and cruel.” . . . “He was a tribal God . . . . the idol of a savage and ignorant tribe. Himself a savage and ignorant monster.” He rashly indites other and worse blasphemies against the God of Israel. But it is noteworthy how infidels contradict one another. Grant Allen says: – “The purely monotheistic conception of a single supreme God, the creator and upholder of all things, had been reached in all its sublime simplicity by the Jewish teachers centuries before the birth of the man Jesus.” This is true to history; but the blatant blasphemy of The Clarion says that the Jews were “a savage and ignorant tribe.” It is strange how such a people could give even Christians the most sublime conception of One and “The ONLY true God.” It was in later times, as these writers have to confess, that Romanism foisted on to Christianity the Trinitarian ideas of paganism, with a multitude of lesser divinities, saints and mediators.
One objection sceptical writers bring against the God of Israel is that He is too “anthropomorphic,” too much like a man. He can see, and hear, and taste and smell; and walk about a garden in the cool of the day. They seem to want a God, if they have one at all, that can neither hear nor see, nor taste nor smell; one without body, parts or passions: a mere philosophical abstraction, like Euclid’s definition of a point. An atom? No doubt such a god would suit them better than a living, righteous, sin-hating and all-scrutinizing Being or Personage, such as our Lord Jesus described His Father to be. And of Jesus, it is written that He, the Son of God (not the Deity Himself) was “the express image.” of His Father’s Person. The Holy Scriptures reveal only One supreme Deity, the Father of our Lord Jesus, who is the Christ, or Messiah, of Israel.
We are next treated to a long quotation from some apostate Congregational Minister, who is a semi-infidel, and who says that the early Bible conception of God is one we cannot now accept. To this Mr. B., with evident satisfaction, immediately adds: –
“With this I entirely agree. We cannot accept as the God of Creation this savage idol of an obscure tribe. We have renounced Him, and are ashamed of Him, not because of any later divine revelation, but because mankind” (that is, men like Mr. B. !) “have become too en-lightened, too humane, and too, honourable to tolerate Jehovah.”
One cannot help exclaiming here, what “enlightened” men these infidels all are! And how humane and honourable too, as witnessed, for instance, by the facts of the French Revolution!
However, I only wish to deal here with their intelligence and logic as they make their boast of being more enlightened than we Christians, and so much more capable of reasoning. Let them therefore give us a reasonable proof that we are living on a whirling ball, turning us all topsy-turvy every twenty-four hours; and let them allow some competent zetetic to examine that proof for their and our mutual benefit. They ought to be able to silence a poor benighted zetetic, whose “evolution” has, in some way or other, been sadly neglected! Fancy Grant Allen, one of the masters of infidelity, tracing the “Evolution of the Idea of God,” on the part of Israel, to “a stone idol carried about in a box or ark.” Why, that very box, or ark, contained the Ten Commandments, written on stone, the sublime summary of all Moral Law, and these commandments witnessed against this very “enlightened” and modern idea! If we must give up Revelation, and bow down before Evolution and “Reason,” we should like the latter at least to be a little more cogent and convincing. Perhaps it is thought to be sufficient for the class of readers for whom it was originally intended? However, I will give, as briefly as I can, another specimen of “enlightened” reason, which The Clarion trumpets forth with its harsh and hollow sound. Next to the insignificance of the Bible Universe as compared with the modern “scientific conception,” which Nunquam affirms is merely “as a candle to the sun,” this editor delights in setting forth what he considers to be the “injustice” of God. It seems to be a favourite topic with such blatant blasphemers. But before quoting something of that which is written under this head I wish to refer to a previous paragraph in The Clarion of March 6th, page 5, column 4, where we have a short but interesting dissertation upon “earwigs.”