1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cf8d753ad9cf970d122d197fb6d14fcd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LaVTHO7C4bHcpyMxx3QYFXOpNTWIyq1HwM7vBzRzV2mvNzLkHwUqpvHxmuUMSKgoQPrlEXgpE7pSM7Dvvzb0At5QcsJWDVbGpaAVLXaTnk0StMqUe%7E0DuXBBAi6T7o-YcDUwlhHnakhgy%7EEEBoIWT11CClK%7E2056PSMvgAs3feMonhVER49JE5QK2fAuYfsTNxHCch6QuTv204Q8-loBF6pn-HpGofVWUVxMTG1Ey8SWCF%7EHwSiY03dX%7EZU5vmqtkXMCChZHkp1FOKXq9Cid%7EId0bEKcihHb5JN5VNkyRCSKWeE8nDvs3IGbdeGphYrqWlxSit7J3n6Nvs6XT2EUXw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b60a065228313d33b6afb7f8dd0d1950
PDF Text
Text
Cr ■$<
THE ORTHODOX SURRENDER.
BY
M.A. Trin. Coll. Cambridge.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
1 8 7 6.
Price Threepence.
��THE ORTHODOX SURRENDER.
Y attention has recently been called to a remarkable
article in the Church Quarterly Review. The
article in question appeared in the number for October
1875—the opening number of the Review—and a notice
of it at this time may seem to come somewhat late.
All that I can say to this is, that it is a pity it has not
been taken in hand before now, and that, too, by some
more competent writer than myself, in the pages of this
series. Failing this, I do not consider that it can ever
be too late to expose such reasoning as I shall imme
diately refer to. I hear further that several influential
publications (amongst them, the Saturday Review)
have contained eulogistic notices of the . article. But
what has principally induced me to take up my pen is
the circumstance, above alluded to, that my attention
has been called to the essay by a letter from a friend, a
man of talent and reasoning powers, and an orthodox
Christian, not perhaps without some twinges of doubt.
It would almost seem that a perusal of it has relieved
his doubts,- and furnished him with an infallible recipe
for holding certain scientific discoveries in company
with the doctrine of plenary Biblical inspiration.
Doubtless many others, similarly circumstanced, have
taken the same rosy view. To me, on the other hand,
it appears to be absolutely suicidal, to contain the most
complete reductio ad absurdum of orthodox belief that
I have met with for many years. The reader will
directly have an opportunity of judging.
M
�4
The Orthodox Surrender.
First, one word as to this Church Quarterly Review,
a serial which contains some very able papers. It is a
publication evidently, and, it is to be presumed,
avowedly inspired by the Anglican or High Church
party in the Establishment. On all points in dispute
between High and Low, we should, of course, not be
entitled to accept its utterances as likely to represent
the sentiments of any other section than that with which
it is identified. But the case is obviously different
where doctrines held in common by High and Low are
defended against a common adversary. In all contro
versies directly affecting the undivided Christian faith,
we should accept the High Churchman as a champion
of orthodoxy. Indeed, considering that all the learning
in the Church has gravitated towards that portion of it,
we should accept him as the best and most efficient
champion to be found. I may take it, then, that the
tone of the article to which I am referring commends
itself to the orthodox generally ; while, as indeed we
have evidence to show, the particular views advocated
are sympathetic to, are held, if not in the exact form
there exhibited, yet in some kindred form by, a number
of persons—Evangelical, High Church, Ritualistic, or
even Roman Catholic. And it is a matter of some sig
nificance that they have been put forth in the opening
number of the new Review. No time is lost in attack
ing the stronghold of the infidel, and the train laid for
the purpose of blowing him up is one to which any
kind of Christian may, if he thinks fit, set his hand.
The article in question, the second in the number, is
entitled “ On Some Aspects of Science in Relation to
Religion.” The first part of it may be roughly de
scribed as an argument to the effect that Evolution, if
shown to be true, is by no means inconsistent with the
idea of a personal God. In this position I for my part
heartily concur, and it is not necessary to dwell on what
does not form the subject of my contention with the
writer. Yet I can’t help saying, by the bye, that it is
�The Orthodox Surrender.
5
a pity he did not end here. “ Prove Evolution (which
you have not done yet and perhaps never will) and even
then you have not disproved a personal Deity. Indeed,
in some minds, you will rather have strengthened the
belief, or, if you please, the hypothesis.” This seems to
me common sense. In other words, Evolution is by
no means fatal to Theism, as Mr J. S. Mill has
admitted. But I suppose it would hardly have suited
an orthodox writer to go no further than this. Having
taken up the ground that Evolution may possibly be
true, yet that religion, as he understands the term, has
nothing to fear from it, he must proceed to show fur
ther that it is not fatal to the plenary inspiration of the
Bible.
This he proceeds to do, more suo, in the second
part of his article, beginning at p. 58. In this he
makes the attempt, not to reconcile—that, it will be
seen directly, would not be the proper word—science
with revelation, but to justify the holding of certain
scientific views in conjunction with certain Scriptural
statements which he himself admits to be at direct
variance with them. Evolution (on the supposition of
its one day possibly becoming part of the armoury of
science) is still the main subject or illustration put
forward ; but the process recommended by the writer,
and indeed he distinctly affirms it, is applicable to
every passage of the Bible which stands in opposition,
not merely to ingenious hypotheses, but to the teach
ings of affirmed and established science. It is appli
cable to the account of the creation of the world
generally, to the circumstantial narrative of the Deluge,
the stopping of the sun by Joshua, and, we may
perhaps add, witchcraft, and the demoniacs of the New
Testament.
I have said that “ reconciling ” is not the proper term
to use with regard to this writer’s process. Indeed, he
expressly repudiates all attempts of the kind. He tells
us, over and over again, that certain passages in the
�6
The Orthodox Surrender.
Bible cannot be reconciled with science. He intimates
that in the present condition of our knowledge, it is
scarcely honest to make the attempt. Take the follow
ing extracts :—
“ It can do nothinglbut harm to attempt a compro
mise by such glosses either of religious or scientific
truth as bring them into apparent harmony, only by
leaving out of view the real points of difficulty.............
If it is not in our power at once to give a satisfactory
solution of the apparent discrepancy, surely the safer,
as well as the more honest course, is to admit the fact.”
(p. 60).
A little further on, he speaks with apparent approval
of “the more certain, but still much disputed point
(z.e., doctrine) of the existence of the human race
through long ages of pre-historic.time” (p. 61).
Further on, he tells us that the result of bygone con
troversies between science and theology has been “ the
full acquiescence of theologians in the scientific conclu
sions arrived at.” And again, “ If we now attempt to
inquire how this good understanding has been brought
about in any particular branch of science—as, for
instance, in geology—we shall see cause to refer it,
mainly if not entirely, to the conviction of the truth of
the scientific position, as established on independent
evidence proper to itself, and very little, if at all, to the
general acceptance of any interpretations of the sacred
writings, which would bring the letter of the Mosaic
account into harmony with such theories of geology as
will commend themselves to the students of that
science (p. 61).
The writer next notices with disapproval such
attempts as those made by Dr Newman, Hugh Miller,
Dr Pusey, and others, to reconcile the language of
Genesis with the teachings of geology, and endorses
with regard to them the words used by Mr Pritchard :
“ Speaking, I trust in a most reverential spirit, and with
that caution and humility which the case demands,
�The Orthodox Surrender.
7
I feel bound to say that no interpretation of the Mosaic
cosmogony, regarded as a description of the actual
order, and actual duration, of the creative steps, has
yet been proposed, which is at all satisfactory to those
who by study and preparation of mind are most cap
able of forming a correct opinion.” (P. 62.)
Now what does all this amount to ? But I prefer to
let the writer speak for himself. The italics are my
own: “ The principle here contended for is that our
acceptance of a scientific theory should be made de
pendent, not on our estimate of attempts to harmonize
such details,” i.e., scientific conclusions with scriptural
statements, “ hut on its own proper evidence.” (P. 62).
Here is a principle against which I have not a word
to say, but how about the unfortunate “ believer ? ”
What is the course recommended to him ? The bible
makes one statement, and science makes another state
ment, and these two (says the writer) cannot by any
exercise of ingenuity be brought into harmony. In
fact, they are contradictory statements; that of science
being such as, we are told, leads to “ a conviction of
its truth.” One would imagine that there is only one
possible answer to this question. “Accept the true
statement and reject the false one.”
The author’s method is this—and the reader who has
ever so small an acquaintance with the ways of theolo
gians will have perhaps divined it, from the preceding
extracts—“ Admit the truth of both ! ” “ If it is not
in our power,”—I have already quoted part of this, but
no matter—“ If it is not in our power to give at once
a satisfactory solution of the apparent discrepancy,
surely the safer as well as the more honest course is to
admit the fact, and refer it to its real cause,” (namely,
that the two statements are contradictory 1 Oh, no !)
“ the imperfection of our knowledge, and the limited
scope of our powers of reasoning ! ” Again, “We may
surely assent to the truth of a scientific statement, when
established on as satisfactory a basis as that kind of
�8
The Orthodox Surrender.
knowledge admits of”—by the bye, what kind of
knowledge rests on a more satisfactory basis ?—“ with
out either being able to show the manner of its accord
ance with the surface meaning of some scriptural state
ment, or discrediting the latter on this account.”
Before going further I should like to try this
remarkable method by applying it to some simple and.
familiar examples. Vague talk of the above description
is often most easily dispersed by bringing the matter to
a crucial test. Let us take what is commonly called,
the creation of the world. The bible tells us that it
was created in six days, days specially indicated as con
taining a morning and an evening a-piece. Science in
forms us that it was the work of many ages. “ How,”
asks the enquirer, “ am I to assimilate these two seem
ingly opposite statements, except on the supposition
that a day means a long period, and morning and even
ing the beginning and close of each such period, or by
accepting some other hypothesis which will bring them
into accord.” “ You can’t assimilate them,” replies the
author. “ All attempts at representing the days as so
many periods of great duration are unsatisfactory and
indeed disingenuous. And every other hypothesis is
equally valueless. Your way out of the difficulty is
much simpler. The scientific statement we admit to be
true. On the other hand, as we know that the bible is
divinely inspired, and consequently infallible in every
part, so the biblical statement must be true. They
must, therefore, be capable of being reconciled in some
way that we cannot dream of. In the meanwhile, your
duty is to believe both! ” “ How on earth am I to do
that ? ” asks the enquirer. 11 Consider the imperfection
of your knowledge,” retorts the writer. “ But the two
statements flatly contradict each other. How can they
both be true ? ” “ Oh, but bear in mind your limited
powers of apprehension ! ” Again, the second chapter
of Genesis tells us that the order of creation was (1)
man ; (2) beasts and fowls; (3) woman. Science informs
�The Orthodox Surrender.
9
us that this is not true. Believe both ! or rather, as the
first chapter gives a different account, believe all three !
The bible informs us that death came into the world as
a punishment for human sin. Science acquaints us with
the fact that death was in the world ages before there
could have been human sin. Believe both : that is to
say, believe that it was a punishment for sin, and not a
punishment for sin. The bible relates in the most ex
plicit terms that the deluge covered the whole earth.
Science informs us that there are portions of the earth
which have never been thus submerged. Believe both:
believe that the whole of the earth was covered by
water, and that only a part of it was covered. Of
course the same system will make short work of all in
ternal contradictions in the bible itself. If in one
place the Deity is spoken of as all-powerful, and in
another is represented as being unable to drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of
iron—believe both ! Believe that he is all-powerful,
and that he is not all-powerful. It is all very well to
ride off on such convenient expressions as “ surface
meanings,” “ apparent discrepancies,” and the like : but
this is what the matter comes to, when fairly looked at.
Of course the method we are considering has one
advantage : it is thorough. It places every statement
in the bible under cover of any assault or criticism from
whatever quarter. “ I will grant you that 2 + 2 == 4,”
says the believer, “but if I find in my bible that
2 + 2 — 5, I shall believe that too. There must be
some way of reconciling the two additions that I don’t
know of.” This is evidently no exaggeration. Either
there was a universal deluge or there was not. Either
the sun was in being before the earth or it was not.
Either death came into the world by sin, or it came in
in some other way. If science has established one
alternative of any of these propositions, then, the other
is as absurd as that 2 + 2 = 5. Credo quia impossibile:
happy believer ! Erom this point of view the writer is
�IO
The Orthodox Surrender.
quite right in asserting that the doctrine of Evolution,
if ever proved to be true, need not frighten the ortho
dox—though his way of putting it sounds strange to
profane ears. “ It is worth while to point out that if
the literal phraseology of the bible is inconsistent with
some of the evolutionary theories, it is so in a much
more formal way with the geological antiquity of the
earth, a point now generally conceded.” “ Yet ” he adds
further on in the usual strain, “ We have come to be
agreed in admitting the truth of both ! ” i.e., we have
had worse difficulties than this of Evolution to swallow,
and have got over the process satisfactorily to ourselves.
But it will be desirable to enquire briefly at what cost
this immunity from attack of the sacred volume has
been purchased. •
Evidently, at the cost of the total surrender of
human reason: that faculty which, as Bishop Butler
has remarked, is the only thing whereby we can judge
of the truth of revelation itself. Here, however, it is
not the truth of revelation, as I understand the term,
which is in question, but the theory of the inspiration,
that is to say, the infallibility, of every verse in the
bible. The function of reason is perfectly clear in this
matter. Whenever the progress of knowledge has
established a proposition plainly contradicting some
biblical statement, we are bound to conclude that that
particular statement is not divinely inspired by the God
of Truth, inasmuch as it is opposed to the truth as he
has permitted it to reach us from another quarter not
open to doubt. This, I say, is the only reasonable
conclusion to be arrived at by one who, like the writer,
admits the contradiction, and admits that it is not to be
salved over by any process possible to human reason.
The writer’s method is simply this: “ First surrender
your reason to the dogma of the infallibility of the
Bible, and then consent to label every misstatement in
it as a mystery.” My answer is that I shall not sur
render that faculty, “ the lamp which God has lit within
�The Orthodox Surrender.
11
me,” to any book or man or body of men whatever. I
believe that to do so would be to sin grievously in the
eyes of my Maker. And what is this particular dogma
to which you call on me thus to surrender it ? Can
you produce any authoritative declaration on the part
of God himself to the effect that every line in the Bible
is infallibly true ? Have you even any plausible argu
ment to offer on the subject, from the Protestant point
of view 1 None whatever, that I have been able to
discover, except a tradition or superstition (not in the
least sanctioned by the Bible itself), with nothing to
be alleged in its favour, except that it has been held
for centuries by certain priest-governed bodies called
churches (not by your own, by the bye, as has been
established, on the strength of your own articles, by the
tribunals you are bound to acknowledge)—a superstition
assailable on many other grounds, and directly negatived
by these very passages. Consider your own position
for a moment. You admit that these passages are not
to be reconciled to our reason. You are too honest to
make the attempt. “ But I carit possibly give up my
dogma of verbal inspiration,” you cry, “ Bother reason ! ”
And when we attempt to argue with you on this
very dogma, you have nothing to offer. It is “ bother
reason 1” again. And this is the triumphant answer of
theology to scepticism in the year eighteen hundred
and seventy-five !
Surely those who can be induced to yield up their
minds to this authoritative method are victims to a
superstition in no degree more respectable than some
of the most abject superstitions of the lowest savages.
They worship a fetish in the shape of so many rags
converted into the leaves of a book, instead of being
dressed up as a doll. Popery in its worst form is only
another and hardly a more mischievous instance of this
prostitution of the faculties to an idol. The object is
different, the process is the same. “ Bother reason ! ”
And talking of superstitions, this remarkable “ method ”
�I2
The Orthodox Surrender.
would be good for bolstering up more than one of
them. Thus, a reasonable objection to some of the
Eastern religions lies in the absurd cosmogonies con
tained in their sacred books. In the Shastras, the
world is represented as having been produced by
Brahm out of an egg. Why should not the Hindoo
continue to believe in Brahm’s egg, as well as in the
teachings of science, consigning the discrepancy between
the two statements to that convenient limbo, “ the
imperfection of our faculties ? ”
As a specimen of the author’s mode of illustrating
and enforcing his method, the following may suffice :—
He has before him, as we have seen, the difficult task
of coaxing the reader into assenting provisionally to
two such propositions as these. “ The sun was made
before the world,” “ The sun was made after the world.’’
This, he says, does not seem such a wonderful feat
“ when we consider the difficulty of reconciling the re
sults of different lines of scientific enquiry.” Here
certainly “ results ” must mean, or ought to mean,
“ established scientific conclusions ; ” it cannot include
unverified hypotheses, because in that case there would
be no necessity imposed on us of reconciling two of
these that should contradict each other, inasmuch as
not only one, but both might be false. Now, here is
the author’s instance, given in a foot-note. “ The im
mense length of time, for instance, required for the
process of Evolution, in the view of some of its pro
pounders, which would exceed the limits of the possible
age of the sun, as estimated by Sir Wm. Thompson, on
physical grounds.” (Page 60.) I.e., some scientific
men have a theory which requires (on the part of only
a section of these) x2 years for the age of the world.
Some other scientific men see reasons for supposing the
world to have lasted only x years. To make this illus
tration worth anything, the possibility ought to be
indicated of our being one day called upon to hold that
the world has lasted only x years, and also that it has
�The Orthodox Surrender.
J3
lasted x2 years. Whereas, who does not see that if
neither of these be established as results, we simply
have to suspend onr judgments: as I have just said,
there is no case for reconciling (in the sense of reconcil
ing what we know to be true with what in the light of
reason is untrue.) And who does not further see that
no such case for “ reconciling ” can ever arise 1 For if
one of the two statements be established, the other is
ipso facto refuted.* Unless indeed (which has not yet
been the case), one scientific conclusion be found to
contradict another as distinctly and unmistakeably as
some of these conclusions have contradicted the text
of scripture. Then, indeed, the author’s illustration
will apply, and we shall find ourselves involved in the
same difficulties as beset the adopters of his method.
But perhaps it would be better to wait, before deciding
on our course, till the occasion shall arise.
Here is another of the author’s illustrations, which is
as bad as—it cannot be worse than—the preceding. He
instances the omnipotence of God and the free will of
man. “We may well be content to admit the truth of
each of these tenets, without being able to see how their
results fit into each other.” Admitting the omnipotence
of God and also the free-will of man, I would respect
fully ask, How do these dogmas contradict each other 1
For this is the point. Would there be any contradic
tion between (suppose) a scientific discovery of the
existence and omnipotence of God, and a biblical state
ment of free-will, or vice versa, between a scientific dis
covery of the freedom of the will and a bible declaration
of the omnipotence of God'? I apprehend that the
supporters of biblical infallibility would reply, with
perfect justice, that there was no contradiction whatever.
For that man being free, his freedom had been conceded
to him by the omnipotence of God. Of course an
* And, of course, everything that depends upon it; e.g., If
Evolution requires x2 years, proof that the world has only existed x
years, puts an end to Evolution.
�14
The Orthodox Surrender.
omnipotent Deity could break in upon this freedom at
any moment that he chose, but for wise reasons of his
own he does not appear so to choose.
I cannot help here ’briefly noticing how this writer’s
method might be worked on behalf of the Roman
Catholic Church. The ground taken up by Protestant
ism at its origin was that certain doctrines and practices
of Roman Catholicism were not to be found in Scripture
(which does not, I think, amount to much)—and also
(which is the point here), that they and others were
repugnant to scripture. But there are no passages in
the bible so plainly contradictory of any Roman
Catholic doctrine or practice, as there are scientific con
clusions flatly opposed to certain passages in the bible.
Indeed, the two former may be reconciled—every dis
passionate person admits that—but now we are told that
the two latter cannot. If then the two latter can be
held in conjunction, why not the two former ? May
not Roman Catholicism be right even where it is in
“ seeming contradiction ” (contradiction, I say, of a
comparatively trifling kind), with some “ surface
statement ” of the bible ? May there not be a way of
reconciling the two even although we cannot discover a
solution satisfactory to ourselves at the moment ? May
it not be our duty to “ believe both ? ” I have not
time or space to dwell further on this point, which I
invite the reader to ponder on. But it certainly seems
to me that this doctrine of certain things being perfectly
reconcileable with “surface meanings” in the bible,
which seem to say the exact contrary, is fatal to the
Protestant position.
To conclude these cursory remarks, this article seems
to me a significant “ sign of the end.” It is like an
army laying down its arms
“ Jam jam efficaci do manus scientiaa, ”
with a despairing cry to a “ Deus ex machina ” to help
them out of their difficulties. It was, I think, Professor
�The Orthodox Surrender.
J5
Agassiz who said that scientific discoveries usually
underwent three phases : Firstly, it was said they
were false; secondly, that they were opposed to the
bible; thirdly, when they had won their way to
acceptance over the carcases of slaughtered prejudices,
that they were quite true and quite in accordance with
the text of the bible. But there is yet another phase
into which they have entered in the minds of some,
viz., that they are true and not to be reconciled with
the text of the bible. This position, hitherto held by
sceptics only, we now see to be frankly admitted in the
11 Church Quarterly Review.” The admission seems to
me a fatal one. Religious beliefs, out of reach of veri
fication, may be held as long as the world lasts. Beliefs
founded on statements, which unfortunately for them
selves have lain in the way of advancing knowledge
and been worsted, may remain as long as a compromise
is admitted to be possible. But when their supporters
are obliged to come forward and acknowledge in all
honesty that no compromise is possible to our faculties
between their beliefs and established truths, and that
reason is to be discarded in favour of a baseless myth
upheld by mere sentiment, the victory is won : the
world will end by accepting the facts, and discarding,
not reason, hut the hazy beliefs and myths which have
crumbled under the facts. Hitherto the theologians, to
use the first Napoleon’s expression with regard to
British troops, have never seemed to know when they
are beaten. After reading this article, I cannot but
judge that some of them have an uneasy suspicion that
they are beaten. Surely to withdraw from the light of
reason into cloudland is to leave the enemy master of
the field. And this appears to me the latest “ Aspect
of Science in relation to Religion.”
TURNBULL ANU SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The orthodox surrender
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A critique of article 'On Some Aspects of Science in Relation to Religion' in Church Quarterly Review. (October 1875). From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT184
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
M.A. Trinity College Cambridge
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The orthodox surrender), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Atheism
Religion
Science
Christianity and Atheism
Conway Tracts
Orthodoxy
Religion and science