What do you think?
Rate this book
Christianity Not Mysterious: Text, Associated Works & Critical Essays
On 18 September 1697, "Christainity not Mysterious" was burned in Dublin by order of Parliament. This edition of the text is now available 300 years later and also includes John Toland's defences of the work and eight critical essays. Toland's work argues that "there is nothing in the Gospels contrary to reason" and that the so-called Christian mysteries are merely the inventions of competing sects. This view threatened the very basis of the supremacy of the Established Church over the other churches in Ireland. Toland was forced to leave Ireland and spent the remainder of his life on the European continent, "Christianity not Mysterious" was rather more successful as well as influential. Toland's defence of reason over revelation in Christian belief went farther than Locke and other previous rationalists had dared, and so provoked a distinguished Irish counter-tradition that included Swift, Berkeley, King, Burke and many others.
339 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1696
85 people want to read
About the author
John Toland
261 books28 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
John^Toland - 17th century theologian, Philosopher & Satirist
John^^Toland - American writer and historian (WWII & Dillinger)
John^^^Toland - Article: "The Man who Reads Minds"
John Toland (30 November 1670 – 11 March 1722) was a rationalist philosopher and freethinker, and occasional satirist, who wrote numerous books and pamphlets on political philosophy and philosophy of religion, which are early expressions of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment. Born in Ireland, he was educated at the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leiden and Oxford and was influenced by the philosophy of John Locke.
He was "Educated from the cradle in the grossest superstition and idolatry," he later wrote in Apology (1697). By age 15, he had rejected Roman Catholicism by "his own reason." He studied at Glasgow College from 1687-1690, aligning himself with Presbyterianism. He earned a Master's Degree in Glasgow in 1690. He then studied at Leyden, Holland. A Dutchman, Benjamin Furley, wrote John Locke that Toland had become "a free-spirited, ingenious man," but "having cast off the yoke of spiritual authority . . . has rendered it somewhat difficult for him to find a way of subsistence in the world." Patrons, including the deistic Lord Shafesbury, helped him. The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (source of quotes) terms Toland "perhaps the first professional freethinker." Toland directed the bulk of his writing, more than 100 works, against established religion while shrewdly qualifying his statements to avoid prosecution. Toland was the first to be called a "freethinker" (by Bishop Berkeley). At Oxford, Toland wrote "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696), in which he credited "cunning priests" with the promotion of irrationality. Toland returned to Ireland for a visit, where his book was castigated from the pulpits and by the Irish House of Commons, which ordered the book burnt and the author arrested. One member of the House even moved "that Mr. Toland himself should be burnt." Toland moved to London. By 1704, Toland, who had translated the pantheistic work of Giordano Bruno, called himself "a Pantheist," and is believed to be the first to use the term. In his "History of the Soul's Immortality," Toland asserted that this doctrine was a self-serving invention by Egyptian priests. He also wrote a Life of Milton (1698) and political tracts. The courts of Holland, Hanover, Vienna and Berlin received Toland; he dedicated his Letters to Serena (1694) to the Queen of Prussia. His pamphlet "Nazarenus" (1718) contained early samples of biblical criticism. "Pantheisticon" (1720) rejected supernaturalism. His essay "Tetradymas" contains bible criticism and a description of the murder of Hypatia.
John^Toland - 17th century theologian, Philosopher & Satirist
John^^Toland - American writer and historian (WWII & Dillinger)
John^^^Toland - Article: "The Man who Reads Minds"
John Toland (30 November 1670 – 11 March 1722) was a rationalist philosopher and freethinker, and occasional satirist, who wrote numerous books and pamphlets on political philosophy and philosophy of religion, which are early expressions of the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment. Born in Ireland, he was educated at the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leiden and Oxford and was influenced by the philosophy of John Locke.
He was "Educated from the cradle in the grossest superstition and idolatry," he later wrote in Apology (1697). By age 15, he had rejected Roman Catholicism by "his own reason." He studied at Glasgow College from 1687-1690, aligning himself with Presbyterianism. He earned a Master's Degree in Glasgow in 1690. He then studied at Leyden, Holland. A Dutchman, Benjamin Furley, wrote John Locke that Toland had become "a free-spirited, ingenious man," but "having cast off the yoke of spiritual authority . . . has rendered it somewhat difficult for him to find a way of subsistence in the world." Patrons, including the deistic Lord Shafesbury, helped him. The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (source of quotes) terms Toland "perhaps the first professional freethinker." Toland directed the bulk of his writing, more than 100 works, against established religion while shrewdly qualifying his statements to avoid prosecution. Toland was the first to be called a "freethinker" (by Bishop Berkeley). At Oxford, Toland wrote "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696), in which he credited "cunning priests" with the promotion of irrationality. Toland returned to Ireland for a visit, where his book was castigated from the pulpits and by the Irish House of Commons, which ordered the book burnt and the author arrested. One member of the House even moved "that Mr. Toland himself should be burnt." Toland moved to London. By 1704, Toland, who had translated the pantheistic work of Giordano Bruno, called himself "a Pantheist," and is believed to be the first to use the term. In his "History of the Soul's Immortality," Toland asserted that this doctrine was a self-serving invention by Egyptian priests. He also wrote a Life of Milton (1698) and political tracts. The courts of Holland, Hanover, Vienna and Berlin received Toland; he dedicated his Letters to Serena (1694) to the Queen of Prussia. His pamphlet "Nazarenus" (1718) contained early samples of biblical criticism. "Pantheisticon" (1720) rejected supernaturalism. His essay "Tetradymas" contains bible criticism and a description of the murder of Hypatia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 3, 2024
ONE OF THE “CLASSICS” OF FREETHOUGHT, DEISM, AND ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALISM
(NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 37-page "scanned" version of the book.)
John Toland (1670-1722) was an Irish rationalist philosopher and freethinker. He wrote in this 1696 book, “first, the true Religion must necessarily be reasonable and intelligible … Next I shew that these requisite conditions are found in Christianity… Thirdly, that the Christian Religion was not formed after such a manner, but was divinely revealed from Heaven.” (Pg. 4)
He says, “we hold that Reason is the only Foundation of all Certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its Manner or Existence, is more exempted from its Disquisitions, than the ordinary Phenomena of Nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the Title of this Discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason, nor above it; and that no Christian Doctrine can be properly called a Mystery.” (Pg. 5)
He points out, “if any Doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to Reason, we have no manner of Idea of it. To say for instance, that [a ray] is white and black at once, to say just nothing; for these Colors are so incompatible in the same Subject, as to exclude all Possibility of a real positive Idea or Conception.” (Pg. 8)
He notes, “the Question is not about the Words [of Scripture] but their Sense, which must be ever worthy of their Author, and therefore … figuratively interpreted, when occasion requires it. Otherwise, under pretense of Faith in the Word of God, the highest and Blasphemies may be deduced from the letter of Scripture; as, that God is subject to Passions, is the Author of Sin, that Christ is a Rock, was actually defiled with our Transgressions, that we are Worms of Sheep… And if a Figure be admitted in these Passages, why not, I pray, in all Expressions of the like Nature, when there appears an equal Necessity for it?... A Man may give his verbal assent to he knows not what, out of Fear, Superstition, Indifference, Interest, and the like Feeble … Motives; but as long as he conceives not what he believes, he cannot sincerely acquiesce in it, and remains deprived of all solid Satisfaction.” (Pg. 9)
He suggests, “As for unintelligible Relations, we can no more believe them from the Revelation of God, than from that of Man; for the conceived Ideas of things are the only Subjects of Believing, Deny, Approving, and every other Act of the Understanding. Therefore all Matters revealed by God or Man, must be equally intelligible and possible… We are then to expect the same degree of Perspicuity from God as from Man.” (Pg. 10)
He summarizes, “first, no Christian Doctrine, no more than any ordinary Piece of Nature, can be refuted [as] Mystery, because we have not an adequate or complete Idea of whatever belongs to it. Secondly, that what is revealed in Religion… must and may be as easily comprehended, and as found as consistent with our common Notions, as what we know of Wood or Stone, of Air, or Water, and the like. And, Thirdly, that when we do as familiarly explain such Doctrines, as what is known of natural things… we may then be as properly said to comprehend the one as the other.” (Pg. 16)
He argues, “certain Matters occasionally revealed by the Apostles, were only Mysterious before that Revelation. The [Jews], who scarce allowed other nations to be Men, thought of nothing less than that the time should ever come wherein those Nations might be reconciled to God, and be mad coheirs and partakers with them of the same Privileges. This was nevertheless resolved upon in the Divine Decree, and to the Jews was a Mystery, but ceases so to continue after the Revelation of it to Paul.” (Pg. 19)
He states, “I should read the Gospel a million of times over before the vulgar notion of MYSTERY could ever enter into my head, or any passage in that book could suggest to me that the Sense of it was above Reason or Enquiry.” (Pg. 23) Later, he adds, “Faith is so far from being an implicit assent to anything above Reason, that this notion directly contradicts the Ends of Religion, the Nature of Man, and the Goodness and Wisdom of God… if by ‘Knowledge’ be meant understanding what is believed, then … Faith is Knowledge.” (Pg. 25)
He asserts, “God is not so prodigal of MIRACLES, as to work any at random. The Order of Nature is not altered, stopped, or forwarded, unless by some weighty Design becoming the Divine Wisdom and Majesty. And indeed, we learn from Scripture and Reason, that no Miracle is ever wrought without some special and important End, which is either appointed by those for whom the Miracle is made, or intended and declared.” (Pg. 26)
Also included in this publication is the short essay, “An Apology for Mr. Toland,” written to a member of the House of Commons in Ireland, before Toland’s book was resolved by the Committee of Religion to be burned.
This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the history and development of English Deism, Freethought, and the Enlightenment in the United Kingdom.
(NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 37-page "scanned" version of the book.)
John Toland (1670-1722) was an Irish rationalist philosopher and freethinker. He wrote in this 1696 book, “first, the true Religion must necessarily be reasonable and intelligible … Next I shew that these requisite conditions are found in Christianity… Thirdly, that the Christian Religion was not formed after such a manner, but was divinely revealed from Heaven.” (Pg. 4)
He says, “we hold that Reason is the only Foundation of all Certitude, and that nothing revealed, whether as to its Manner or Existence, is more exempted from its Disquisitions, than the ordinary Phenomena of Nature. Wherefore, we likewise maintain, according to the Title of this Discourse, that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason, nor above it; and that no Christian Doctrine can be properly called a Mystery.” (Pg. 5)
He points out, “if any Doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to Reason, we have no manner of Idea of it. To say for instance, that [a ray] is white and black at once, to say just nothing; for these Colors are so incompatible in the same Subject, as to exclude all Possibility of a real positive Idea or Conception.” (Pg. 8)
He notes, “the Question is not about the Words [of Scripture] but their Sense, which must be ever worthy of their Author, and therefore … figuratively interpreted, when occasion requires it. Otherwise, under pretense of Faith in the Word of God, the highest and Blasphemies may be deduced from the letter of Scripture; as, that God is subject to Passions, is the Author of Sin, that Christ is a Rock, was actually defiled with our Transgressions, that we are Worms of Sheep… And if a Figure be admitted in these Passages, why not, I pray, in all Expressions of the like Nature, when there appears an equal Necessity for it?... A Man may give his verbal assent to he knows not what, out of Fear, Superstition, Indifference, Interest, and the like Feeble … Motives; but as long as he conceives not what he believes, he cannot sincerely acquiesce in it, and remains deprived of all solid Satisfaction.” (Pg. 9)
He suggests, “As for unintelligible Relations, we can no more believe them from the Revelation of God, than from that of Man; for the conceived Ideas of things are the only Subjects of Believing, Deny, Approving, and every other Act of the Understanding. Therefore all Matters revealed by God or Man, must be equally intelligible and possible… We are then to expect the same degree of Perspicuity from God as from Man.” (Pg. 10)
He summarizes, “first, no Christian Doctrine, no more than any ordinary Piece of Nature, can be refuted [as] Mystery, because we have not an adequate or complete Idea of whatever belongs to it. Secondly, that what is revealed in Religion… must and may be as easily comprehended, and as found as consistent with our common Notions, as what we know of Wood or Stone, of Air, or Water, and the like. And, Thirdly, that when we do as familiarly explain such Doctrines, as what is known of natural things… we may then be as properly said to comprehend the one as the other.” (Pg. 16)
He argues, “certain Matters occasionally revealed by the Apostles, were only Mysterious before that Revelation. The [Jews], who scarce allowed other nations to be Men, thought of nothing less than that the time should ever come wherein those Nations might be reconciled to God, and be mad coheirs and partakers with them of the same Privileges. This was nevertheless resolved upon in the Divine Decree, and to the Jews was a Mystery, but ceases so to continue after the Revelation of it to Paul.” (Pg. 19)
He states, “I should read the Gospel a million of times over before the vulgar notion of MYSTERY could ever enter into my head, or any passage in that book could suggest to me that the Sense of it was above Reason or Enquiry.” (Pg. 23) Later, he adds, “Faith is so far from being an implicit assent to anything above Reason, that this notion directly contradicts the Ends of Religion, the Nature of Man, and the Goodness and Wisdom of God… if by ‘Knowledge’ be meant understanding what is believed, then … Faith is Knowledge.” (Pg. 25)
He asserts, “God is not so prodigal of MIRACLES, as to work any at random. The Order of Nature is not altered, stopped, or forwarded, unless by some weighty Design becoming the Divine Wisdom and Majesty. And indeed, we learn from Scripture and Reason, that no Miracle is ever wrought without some special and important End, which is either appointed by those for whom the Miracle is made, or intended and declared.” (Pg. 26)
Also included in this publication is the short essay, “An Apology for Mr. Toland,” written to a member of the House of Commons in Ireland, before Toland’s book was resolved by the Committee of Religion to be burned.
This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the history and development of English Deism, Freethought, and the Enlightenment in the United Kingdom.
February 11, 2025
Christianity is not mysterious, in a specific sense of the word ‘mystery.’
The author makes clear that ‘mystery’ cannot mean contradiction or any form of incoherence, for a contradictory claim does not have any sense at all. Thus if someone claimed to have a cane with no ends, that would not be a ‘mystery,’ it would be an incoherence that makes no sense. That is a point clearly and well made at the beginning of the book.
The author then insists that the biblical sense of the word ‘mystery’ means something that has not been unveiled yet. It refers to a piece of information that people do not yet have, but once that information is conveyed anyone with common sense could understand it.
Thus, Jesus revealed a more spiritual understanding of the law, that was to do with intentions and purity of heart, rather than explicit actions. That information may come as surprising news, as it did to some of Jesus’ contemporary audience, but there is nothing ‘contrary’ or ‘above’ reason, such that people struggle to understand it, once it is explained to them.
That explanation of ‘mystery’ is fine as far as it goes, but what makes this book problematic is what it doesn’t cover. The classic Christian claim to mystery is with the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the author does not even discuss that doctrine. So, there is an enormous hole at the heart of his argument.
Taking that example of the Trinity, what Christians mean when they call it a mystery is not that it is a contradiction or incoherent claim. What they mean instead is that they have two claims, both of which have a reason to believe (ie God is three and God is one) but Christians do not know how both can be true at the same time.
There is a faint analogy in the way that Science will sometimes have reason to make claims that it cannot yet understand how they fit together (such as Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, or electrons appearing as waves and as particles). Understood in this sense, there is a perfectly coherent and understandable use of the word ‘mystery’ which can be applied in Religion or Science. Yet the author does not even explore those issues, and that is a very serious failing in the book.
Another set of issues raised by this book is what is the role or purpose of the Church and religious authority. If everything in the New Testament can be understood by human reason, then clearly there is no need for a Church to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures. That implication of the book was no doubt one of the reasons why it ended up getting publicly burned.
But, as the author knew only too well in his own era, there were enormous differences of interpretation of the Scriptures, and so there were competing denominations. If there is nothing mysterious, then why can’t the denominations agree? Or to put it another way, isn’t the existence of disputing denominations actually a counter argument to the author’s confidence that the Scriptures can be clearly and easily understood by anyone with reason?
Overall, this is an important statement of a ‘rationalistic’ position, so the book has historical and cultural value. But as an argument for a specific conclusion, there are too many gaps and holes in the argument for it to be a credible presentation of its overall viewpoint.
The author makes clear that ‘mystery’ cannot mean contradiction or any form of incoherence, for a contradictory claim does not have any sense at all. Thus if someone claimed to have a cane with no ends, that would not be a ‘mystery,’ it would be an incoherence that makes no sense. That is a point clearly and well made at the beginning of the book.
The author then insists that the biblical sense of the word ‘mystery’ means something that has not been unveiled yet. It refers to a piece of information that people do not yet have, but once that information is conveyed anyone with common sense could understand it.
Thus, Jesus revealed a more spiritual understanding of the law, that was to do with intentions and purity of heart, rather than explicit actions. That information may come as surprising news, as it did to some of Jesus’ contemporary audience, but there is nothing ‘contrary’ or ‘above’ reason, such that people struggle to understand it, once it is explained to them.
That explanation of ‘mystery’ is fine as far as it goes, but what makes this book problematic is what it doesn’t cover. The classic Christian claim to mystery is with the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the author does not even discuss that doctrine. So, there is an enormous hole at the heart of his argument.
Taking that example of the Trinity, what Christians mean when they call it a mystery is not that it is a contradiction or incoherent claim. What they mean instead is that they have two claims, both of which have a reason to believe (ie God is three and God is one) but Christians do not know how both can be true at the same time.
There is a faint analogy in the way that Science will sometimes have reason to make claims that it cannot yet understand how they fit together (such as Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, or electrons appearing as waves and as particles). Understood in this sense, there is a perfectly coherent and understandable use of the word ‘mystery’ which can be applied in Religion or Science. Yet the author does not even explore those issues, and that is a very serious failing in the book.
Another set of issues raised by this book is what is the role or purpose of the Church and religious authority. If everything in the New Testament can be understood by human reason, then clearly there is no need for a Church to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures. That implication of the book was no doubt one of the reasons why it ended up getting publicly burned.
But, as the author knew only too well in his own era, there were enormous differences of interpretation of the Scriptures, and so there were competing denominations. If there is nothing mysterious, then why can’t the denominations agree? Or to put it another way, isn’t the existence of disputing denominations actually a counter argument to the author’s confidence that the Scriptures can be clearly and easily understood by anyone with reason?
Overall, this is an important statement of a ‘rationalistic’ position, so the book has historical and cultural value. But as an argument for a specific conclusion, there are too many gaps and holes in the argument for it to be a credible presentation of its overall viewpoint.
Want to read
February 10, 2012donegal philopsher
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews