1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/69a8e8ee0199fd4a1e450565ddb0f348.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Hd8fRQni9AfzMRcLQCOc7SwJcziW2SSmFVq4U6P66UNmEcG7OZ-fA-3tmVHXcQGpZwFVrOWf-ul3S2lmhAPTN634JM5MWtonw9hPD0yukoxISOVRDZOYMjCRUyfFDMh7bWEc%7EYub9XJLmf75HkOdM7U8QnuUgm-gUAiqw7mls8x-OhF7BAgMZn5vQ0-qC05JvorByjkzHllk9miCYf%7E5%7EmIyVUQKg57K7iqm4T5Z69Qz6sDSdjL7-I7LPtpKYIDM2PjFwn1YzM%7EkVpICuszhNqCCUs1vNhgjeKPft0roTOaIEThuuzb1799MqfQSU7RaLMWFL2WnGU%7E8WSgcBWLiwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cb6b0294ff256618e6b9c4b7f78b3d76
PDF Text
Text
ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATION
OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
A
E
LECT
DELIVERED AT THE BRISTOL INSTITUTION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. LITERATURE
AND THE ARTS, Mauch 4th, 1867,
BY
»
W.
F. N. NEWMAN,
Emeritus Professor of Univ. Coll., London; formerly Fellow of
Balliol College, Oxford.
7
U.V
LONDON:
TRUBNER & Co., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW,
BRISTOL :
T, KERSLAKE & Co., PARK STREET.
1867.
i
PRICE SIXPENCE.
♦
♦
�HUMU
�THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSIFICATION
OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
It is rash to give a name to a lecture before it is prepared ;
but I was forced to do so, in order that it might be adver
tised. I now fear that the title may suggest something
erroneous. The popular classification of forms of government
does not profess to be philosophical, but it is not on that
account wrong. I do not wish to supersede it, nor to super
impose any ready-made system on other minds, but only to
stimulate thought and inquiry.
The popular classification, modified from that of the old
Greeks, divides governments into royalties and republics;
subdivides royalty on the one hand into elective and here
ditary, on the other into despotic and constitutional. Re
publics are subdivided into aristocracies and democracies ;
and perhaps aristocracies again into close or oligarchical,
and open or liberal. Some such nomenclature we must use
for conciseness, although we may be thoroughly aware of its
insufficiency. That governments bearing the same name
often differ widely, must be notorious even to those who are
not students of history. A superficial acquaintance with the
newspaper must make us aware that constitutional royalty is
not quite the same in Spain as in England. But to know
that there are differences is one thing, and to know whither
to look for the causes of difference, for the active forces, is
another thing. To give some aid in this research, is my
present object.
�4
Let me begin with Monarchy.
Consider the position of an Arab chieftain. Whether
his descent from a previous chieftain is or is not a decisive
weight in accepting him as chief, yet, as he holds his post for
life, he is really a king; a regulus, as Latins would say, if not
a rex. His functions are, to be judge, and captain in war,
and to guide the movements of the tribe for pasture, and for
occasional agriculture or traffic. A boy or a woman or a
weak man would not suit; hence the succession cannot be
fixed ; the elective principle must have some play. Towards
the foreigner he is supreme, and his decisions are unques
tioned. Even at home his rule might seem arbitrary, no
written limitations or coronation oath being thought of, and
no organs having been invented to check or punish tyranny.
But his people are armed, they are homogeneous, and they
are few. They are known to one another, they have close
mutual sympathies. In such a condition, the tyranny of a
chief against one is keenly resented by all. Old custom gives
them an idea of notorious right. All feel themselves under
the rule of law, and not of caprice; and for military necessity
are willing that the law should be very severe. Thus they
have as full a sense of internal freedom and of manliness as
we can have; and it is seldom that any real tyranny of a
chief can last long, since his whole power depends on the
good will of his tribe.
But let that happen, which has been commoner among
Tartars than Arabs. Let one tribe conquer other tribes; let
the conquering chieftain or his son and grandson become lord
of many tribes, little known to one another, and having but
feeble mutual sympathy. The pride of the monarch is
swollen by the wide extent of his sway. The severities of
war, necessary to constrain submission and retain conquest,
habituate the conquering tribe to commit ruthless deeds
without criticism or scruple. The restraints against injustice
�5
and tyranny are thrown down, as regards a majority of the
subjects. Ere long, when a new generation has grown up
under vassalage, the king finds that he could, if the occasion
arose, arm them against his own tribe ; nor can his power to
do this remain a secret. In this way a real despotism grows
up, even though all the subjects be armed warriors, with no
other home than a camp. Want of homogeneity in the sub’
ject races is here the cardinal point which has elevated the
ruler above law and turned the people into mere vassals.
If this simple case be clearly understood, and duly fixed
in the mind, it will furnish us with an easy key to the action
of institutions far more complicated. In this connection I
may observe, that there is a stone with which Englishmen
often pelt the French. We say, that “they love equality
more than freedom.” I am not about to applaud the theory,
which bids us long for a judicious despot; but I would
suggest, that the phenomenon criticised by us in the French
admits of another interpretation. To define political freedom
is very hard, and therefore it is so hard to combine the efforts
of multitudes for its. attainment; but to suppress privilege
is an idea distinct and intelligible, and the suppression is
sometimes either a useful step towards freedom or an im
portant instalment. Legislators cannot always go right; but
the surest way to take the sting out of bad laws, is to insist
that the mischief shall be universal. When their sting is
felt by the legislators themselves, relief is not far distant.
But let me appeal to a case nearer home than France. When
William the Norman, having stept into the place of King of
England, irritated the English into local revolts and conquered
them in detail by his foreign troops, the Saxons were largely
dispossessed and degraded, and could form no organization
able to throw off their conqueror. The first relief came from
quarrels between Norman princes, who were driven to bid for
Saxon support; but no firm liberty was possible, until the
�*6
Normans felt the King’s power very painfully, and fused their
own cause into that of the Saxons. To make Norman and
Saxon equal before the law was a first necessary step towards
freedom. First, it saved the Saxon from much oppression in
detail; next, it produced a homogeneous nation, all equally
interested to resist encroachments of the King. To aim at
equality as the first object in order of time, was consistent
with esteeming freedom as higher in importance.
From the Norman and Saxon era, let us pass to the
Ottoman empire. The Ottomans were a Turkoman or Tartar
people, who, after conquering the area which we now call
Turkey, took up all Mussulmans into the ruling race, but
gave to Christians toleration only, and refused to them the
right to carry arms. Being exempted from military service,
and not severely taxed by the imperial government, the
Christians might seem to have some advantage over the
Mussulman. All such reasoning proceeds on happy ignorance
of suffering under despotism. Except under ferocious mad
men, such as history teaches us to have sometimes disgraced
thrones and appalled mankind, the chief sufferings come to a
subject people, not from the intended injustice of the supreme
despot, but from the underlings of despotism, or from unequal
law, and still more from the haughtiness of a favoured race.
Where the superior race or order carries arms in daily life,
and the inferior orders are forbidden to carry arms, the whole
country is, as it were, permanently pressed down under an
army of occupation. An armed race, under no military
responsibility, thinks it has a natural right to command, to be
insolent, and if insolently answered, to repay words with
blows; and as the courts of law are sure to be in the exclusive
possession of the ruling race, redress can only in very extreme
cases be attained for the violences of arrogance. The subject
race is hereby perpetually humiliated, perpetually reminded
of its subjugation. To overthrow the privilege of the.superiorj
�order, to introduce practical equality, is in itself of greater
moment than to lessen the imperial despotism: nay, it may
even be strictly beneficial to the subject races to intensify that
despotism, if this be an essential prerequisite for crushing the
privileges of an order. The Sultan’s best intended edicts
have hitherto proved ineffectual, because he cannot enforce
them upon the Ottomans.
This will suffice to indicate how very much more com
plicated are the existing constitutions of the world than our
nomenclature expresses. Where a people is not homogeneous,
but is divided into castes or orders, two or three constitutions
may co-exist. The rule of an old Egyptian king over the
Warrior caste was comparable to that of our Henry II. over
his barons great and small. The relations of the same King
to the priestly or literary caste was perhaps not unlike that
of William III. of England to his Parliament. But the
lower castes were under threefold despotism,—the despotism
of a king, the despotism of an army, and the despotism of
an aristocracy. Only it was softened by the fact of being a
native despotism, and we may-presume that hereditary reli
gious law secured to the lowest people their scanty but wellunderstood rights.
A topic which cannot come forward at all in a very
small state, whatever its organic name, is of the utmost
importance in a large state or rather empire; I mean the
extent to which the management of revenue is centralized.
The empires of the ancient Persians and of the modern
Ottomans, with huge faults, had the merit of often leaving large
local self-government to subject populations, either placing
natives in authority over them, or leaving them to construct
their own organization. To gratify the conquered by respect
ing their manners, laws and innocent habits, is of course
good; but to reserve funds, sacred to the locality, for the
repair of roads and bridges, aqueducts, canals and tanks, is
�even of vital importance. When an Indian community is
annexed to the English dominion, and in consequence its
upper classes are forthwith ejected in mass from high office,
perhaps into beggary, this is hard to endure; but far harder is
it to be deprived of a local treasury, so as to lose all power to
keep up the machinery of their daily food. If, in conse
quence, the canals and roads fall out of repair, and the people
suffer such famine as they could not suffer under a native
tyrant, whose all they are, it matters little to them whether
a Company or a Viceroy and his Council, an Empress or a
Parliament, rule at the distant seat of Government. An
English Parliament, to whom lies the appeal of Indian sub
jects against the British Executive, is not likely to lose a
wink of sleep because a hundred thousand Indians are starved
to death; and, in fact, it only learns of the danger when
remedy is too late. No form of government, no good will, no
energy in the central administration, can compensate for the
frightful blunder of fusing the local revenues of an empire
into one treasury.
Conquest naturally draws after it temporary distinctions
of political right. A conquered people are seldom at once
admitted into posts of power and trust. Even when disaffec
tion is no longer feared, differences of language, of sentiment,
or of moral character, may interpose difficulty, and generally
make men timid as to imparting power. We cannot criticise
a ruling race while its exclusions are strictly temporary; that
is, while it opens a door of access to power, and proposes
equality of right as the early goal. Yet the bolder course has
ere now proved itself the wiser. Admitted equality soon
soothes the pang of defeat, and the vanquished become proud
of belonging to a greater community. Even rude barbarian
leagues have often swelled rapidly into astonishing power by
adopting into absolute equality and cordial citizenship all
whom they conquer, and all the discontented or aspiring who
�9:
will join them. Thus the rude JEtolians of declining Greece
displayed suddenly a strength unsuspected. Thus league
after league of the wild Germans became formidable to the
Roman empire. To the same principle, intensified by a
fanatical impulse, must be ascribed the Mohammedan con
quests of old on the area of Asia and North Africa, in more
recent times over Central Africa. All who join them and
accept the religion are at once themselves accepted as com
rades and equals : this is the magic charm which welds
together heterogeneous natures and wild men.
Transition is certainly apt to be difficult. To aid the
transition from conquest into equality, the process followed
by ancient Rome was notoriously so effectual that one or
other modern nation might have been expected to follow it,
especially England in her Indian empire. The Romans recog
nized several degrees of civil status. The highest, of course,
was the Roman franchise; next to this, the Latin franchise;
below this, the Italian franchise and that of the extra Italian
provincials; then there was the right of the freedmen; and
lowest of all, the wholly disfranchised slaves. There was a
time when it would have been liberal and praiseworthy,
perhaps expedient, to introduce on the area of British India a
legal distinction between British nnd Indian citizenship, if,
simultaneously, select persons or classes of the natives had
been adopted into the British franchise, and a general method
of entrance, with reasonable conditions, had been opened to
personal merit and ostensible loyalty. But the English Par
liament, against the will of the East India Company, preferred
to proclaim in 1833 the principle of legal equality. If this
be real, it is certainly the grander, wiser and nobler method ;
but if it remain a mere name, it does but insult and irritate;
it brands the ruling power with hypocrisy, and would make
the wisest administration impotent to pacify discontent.
If we turn to the greatest monarchy and oldest society in
�10
the world, that of China, there we see a' wholly homogeneous
people, although of several languages, not only without caste,
but without an order of nobility, as nobility is understood by
us. Office alone there gives nobility, and the office is attained
by merit, according to their estimate of merit. My present
business is to point out the great diversity between monarchy
and monarchy, between despotism and despotism. First let
us contrast China with Turkey. In both the monarch will be
called by Europeans a despot; yet in both the despotism is
sharply checked by antique precedent at least as effectually
as under our Plantagenets and Tudors. The monarch may
deal rudely, or perhaps cruelly, with individuals, but cannot
with impunity attack the public. And this is true of all
homogeneous masses, as of France ever since the privileges of
nobility have been overthrown. But while China and Turkey
have so much in common, if we think only of the Sultan’s
rule over Mussulmans; the two powers are seen to be in
tensely different as soon as the relations of Mussulmans to
Christians are comprehended.
Contrast despotic China with despotic Russia, and a
totally new point of diversity appears. In Russia there is a
nobility, possessed of vast masses of land. This is a point of
which hitherto I have purposely said nothing. It is one of
the greatest elements in politics, and is generally regarded as
the foundation of aristocracy; yet so far is it from being in
any opposition to monarchy, that it is very hard for it to
exist except under the shadow of monarchy. It may indeed
continue after monarchy has been destroyed ; as happened in
ancient Greece, in ancient Italy, and in the Southern States
of the great American republic : and when it exists in a
republic, as in early Rome, it may propagate itself by con
quest. Notwithstanding these exceptions, aristocracy based
on great landed estates, in the general history of the world,
has little permanence except in conjunction with a monarchy
�11
which fosters it, and is fostered by it in turn. They cohere
like a double star, and make a system essentially different
from either separately. The difficulty which aristocracy has
of existing without monarchy is in fact denoted by the
modern acceptation of the term republic, which is practically
identified with democracy. Aristocratic republics are so rare,
that we almost forget their possibility.
Land being the element on which our life is passed, as
well as the mine out of which our food is extracted, he who
can controul the land cultivated by others, and the land on
which others dwell, wields a political power; and when the
estate is large, we may call it a regal power : nor, except as
the delegation of a regal power, does it seem possible to find
a legal origin for large estates. Evidently an order of great
proprietors has preoccupied a large fraction both of the royal
power and of the national revenues. In siding with the
people, it will be a most effectual check on the Crown, and
may establish the public liberties, as it did against our
^Plantagenets; or in siding with the Crown against the people,
as more often happens, it will press very heavily on a nation.
Indeed the rights over land claimed and exercised by land
lords are generally greater than those which the purest
despotic power dares to exercise against a homogeneous
people. In Russia, with which I am comparing China, we
find a very paradoxical phenomenon. A monarch able to
follow a policy of his own, is generally disposed to raise up
the commonalty as a balance against a powerful nobility.
But the Russian Czars, without any necessity, under no con
straint from the nobles,—of their own free motion, as far as
I have been able to learn,—by a series of edicts called ukases,
in the course of several centuries, gradually depressed the
cultivators of the soil from freemen into serfs, and from serfs
into slaves. The process was so gradual and stealthy, that
the victims never understood it; and while groaning under
�12
the tyranny of their masters, looked fondly to the Czar as
their only protector, not knowing that the edicts of the Czars
alone had put them under that tyranny. By this strange
process, probably without foreseeing how it would act, the
despotic power of the Russian Emperor became too great for
any thing but assassination to controul: for the nobles could
never dare to arm their dependents against him. The two
elements, territorial nobility and peasant serfdom, in Russia (I
mean in Russia as she was, before our Russian war taught
the Emperor the necessity of a free peasantry) gave to the
monarchy a moral aspect quite different from that of China
or of Turkey.
I proceed to show how Aristocracy changes its mean
ing and its practical workings while retaining its name. No
better illustration can be wished than the old Roman republic
will furnish. On the expulsion of Tarquin the proud, the
patrician aristocracy became supreme, and the plebeians
found themselves without legal organs and wholly defence
less. Being themselves the army of the State, they were not
only formidable, but, when united and resolute, irresistible.
Hence in a series of years they extorted concession after
concession; yet found themselves still oppressed, still miser
able, even when they could by an effort of will controul the
legislation. In 130 years they discovered that the thing
needful was, to secure half of the supreme Executive for
their own order; and from the day that this was attained,
the whole history of Rome changed its course. This first
period of the republic is that of noxious aristocracy, while the
patricians, however often outvoted in the Legislature, kept
the supreme Executive to themselves.—The second period, to
speak roughly and avoid unnecessary detail, is that during
which the Senate was elected by merit. This was the prime,
the only flourishing period of Rome as a nation. It lasted
less than a century and a half. Aristocracy then answered
�13
to its real name. It was not an order basing its power on
land, but it was the “ government of the best.” Sismondi, a
historian of a temperament nowise democratic, declares as a
historical fact, that every aristocracy degenerates from the
day that it becomes hereditary. It is hardly too much to
say, that hereditary aristocracies are saved from contempt and
ruin only by new creations. The Roman aristocracy in its
prime was elective, not hereditary; yet the sons of nobles,
emulating the industry and public spirit of their sires, were
generally elected, and many a great family stood firmly aloft
in successive generations,—quite as many in Rome as in
modern England, if you compare their thousands to our
millions.—But (you may ask) how was this selection of merit
managed? Were the centurions and tribunes of the army
forced to undergo a literary examination, in order to discover
their patriotism, their public spirit, their promptitude, their
justice, their freedom from class-prejudice, or their moral
courage ? Did examiners allot to them 100 marks for skill
in the Oscan language, 150 for the Etruscan literature, and
300 for scanning and interpreting the songs of the Salian
priests ? Not at all. The Romans of that age went to work
in a ruder way; but it proved effectual. A plebeian law,
called the Ovinia tribunicia, was passed, without asking leave
of the Senate, by which the Censors were to elect into the
Senate men out of every rank (of officers), under oath* that
they would pick out the best men they could find. Under
* It is disagreeable to have to confess, that the passage of Festus is
corrupt, from which alone we here derive our knowledge. The important
word jurati (on oath) is obtained only by an emendation of curiati. Although
the correction is conjectural, it carries conviction with it. In the edition of
O. Muller, the words of Festus are
“ Donee Ovinia tribunicia intervenit, qua sanctum est ut censores ex
omni ordine optimum quemque curiati in senatu legerent.” Read, “jurati in
senatum legerent.” The correction jurati was suggested first by Meyer. It
is regarded as certain by Bellermann, and is in harmony with the oath which,
Zonaras says, was imposed on the Censors.
�14
this regulation, the Roman Senate soon contained (as virtue
was then understood) whatever of highest virtue the nation
could furnish. The Senate commanded the absolute confi
dence of the nation; it claimed the most heroic sacrifices,
and was promptly obeyed. Concord (with few exceptions)
and energy reigned through the whole State, and Rome soon
(alas!) became too powerful for all her neighbours. In the
first period, aristocracy certainly rested on hereditary landed
rights or claims, obscurely as we understand them. In the
second period, the aristocracy was one of merit. It was a
distinction for life, open to every deserving citizen. Utterly
diverse as were these two systems, their diversity has no
other titles than Close and Open Aristocracy. Under each
system, the popular assembly was nominally supreme, and
its “ command” was law.
That great and terrible enemy of Rome, the Carthaginian
Hannibal, on the field of Cannae slew not only 40,000 Roman
commoners, 2,500 knights, and more than 90 senators; he
slew also the Roman constitution. At least, it is clear, that
from this era the Censors ceased to interpret their oath as
binding them to choose the best man, but followed a principle
of routine which did not give at all the same results. To
supply the huge gap made by Hannibal in the Senate a
special dictator was created, who had not moral courage or
consciousness of knowledge adequate to his difficult task.
With the high approbation of the public, says Livy, he
elected 177 persons to fill the empty benches, by a mere
mechanical examination of the names in the public books.
Henceforth merit was interpreted to mean, the having held
certain high offices, without any inquiry how they had been
filled. The tumultuous populace, who under very various
influences voted young soldiers into their first civil office,
henceforth virtually elected them into the Senate. The
aristocracy was still elective ; yet from this day it was
�15
morally different. In fact, from this era the aristocracy
tended once more to become practically close. Very few men
of new families were henceforth elected. Nearly all the
senatorial contemporaries of Cicero dated their family great
ness as high as the second Punic war, and it was very hard
for a Marius or even a Cicero to rise, against the efforts of
the new nobility.
At the same time I must not conceal, that soon after the
overthrow of Hannibal a cause of degeneracy set in, so
powerful, that it must probably in every case have over
whelmed all constitutional check. Roman general^ carrying
armies into Asia, assumed a right (“in the public interest,”
of course it was said) of making wars at their own discretion ;
and as the general was sure to enrich himself and his friends
by it, the Romans (as Gibbon satirically puts it) conquered
the world in self-defence. The plebeians at first seldom
relished it; but the spirit which is called patriotism cried
out, “ Now that we are in for the war, we must go through
with it.” In consequence, to borrow Michelet’s emphatic
words, the bones of the Roman plebeians whitened every
shore of the Mediterranean, and the sons of the men whom
they conquered stepped into their places with the name of
citizens, while really clients of a princely oligarchy bloated
with the plunder of prostrate nations. "What shall we call
the Government of Rome in this third era ?
An Aristotle might reply, it is evidently an oligarchy,
the perverted form of aristocracy. Yet the most beggarly of
the citizens had equal votes with the highest and noblest, and
their vote was supreme, whether to pass laws, or to elect
magistrates up to the highest, and by such elections fill the
Senate ; also to declare war or peace, and dispose of the entire
fortunes of the provincials : nay, says Polybius, by Jupiter !
the vote of the common people can lessen the private fortune
of senators. Thus the State was in theory under the rule of
�16
perverted democracy, and in fact was swayed by an imperial
aristocracy verging ever to oligarchy.
If time allowed, and we were able to go into the history
of Venice, an entirely new phase of aristocracy would there
open itself. But I hasten to a very few remarks on
democracy. As conceived of by the ancients, a democracy
could not act except on a small scale. In fact, Aristotle says
that a polity (or organised constitution) cannot have so few as
ten citizens, or so many as a hundred thousand. A democracy
formed in a single city, where the poorest citizens assemble in
folkmote to settle the highest affairs of State, at home and
abroad, is very different from the more complicated organiza
tion which we see in Switzerland, with confederated cantons
and representative government. Much more does it differ
from the massive institutions of the great American republic,
Which is probably the most complicated political mechanism
in the whole world. To secure a voice and a hearing for
every interest, to obtain tranquil deliberation after hearing
and before judgment, is the aim of the highest and best
democracies. If this end be attained, the rights and the
interests of the many are established, and from this the rich,
the learned, the able, are in no danger of suffering. But
when, as in the past has generally happened, the rich and the
able (or, perhaps I ought to say, the crafty) do their utmost
to corrupt democracy, by bribery and by drink, by hired
ruffians and by intrigue; if democracies could not be crushed
by violence, they might be expected to perish by contempt.
Their vices are almost always chargeable on the cabals of
oligarchs.
Time reminds me that I must pass to an important topic
not yet touched on,—a topic essentially affecting every form
of Government, yet not hinted at in their names. I refer to
the existence of great colonies, as parts of an imperial polity.
When colonies are formed over a continuous continental area,
�17
the problem of colonial organization is comparatively easy.
It was pretty well solved by the Romans : it has been far
more completely solved by the United States of America.
The object is, to effect a real adherence and ultimate consoli
dation of every colony with the mother state, who supports
the colony in infancy, imparts rights as fast as they can be
used, and exacts duty as early as it can be fulfilled ; until the
colony, fully grown, is adopted into absolute equality and is
finally incorporated with the mother. When the imperial
institutions are so impartial and so flexible as to fulfil these
conditions, the machinery suffers no strain, and the moral
character of the government remains unchanged. But the
case is widely different when the colonies are separated from
the mother country or from the imperial centre by wide tracts
of sea, and incorporation is difficult or impossible. Such
were the colonies of Tyre and ancient Athens; such also those
of Portugal, of Spain, of Holland and of England. Athens,
with certain exceptions, left her colonies to shift for them
selves from the beginning, neither giving protection nor ex
pecting allegiance. Whatever grave objections may be urged
against this, it at least did not derange or burden the mother
city. But the conduct of modern Europe towards her trans
marine colonies has been in every respect the opposite.
Allegiance over them has been claimed, protection has been
given, and with the protection a jealous exclusionism has
been enforced. In fact, so soon as any country fell into a
colonial position, by the absenteeship of its central executive,
it has been liable to suffer a frightful drain of capital, together
with the crippling of industry and other colonial degradation.
The false political economy of past centuries taught that the
use of extra European colonies was, to swell the mercantile
navy and enhance the mercantile profits of the mother country.
I have read that when the merchants of Cadiz complained to
the Spanish Government that their wines were falling in
�18
j
demand, the Government replied by sending out an order to
Mexico to root up all the vines in that colony. Our own
Lord Chatham, who stood forth as champion of our American
colonies and condemned the attempts of the English Parlia
ment to tax them, declared that he would not consent to the
colonists manufacturing for themselves so much as a horse
shoe nail. To cripple their marine, under the idea that this
would enlarge our own, was a fixed object of policy with
English ministers of every school. Under the blighting
influence of the commercial theories then prevalent, most
European colonies felt bitterly aggrieved. So too Sicily, first
under Spain, then under Naples, not as a conquered province,
but as a royal inheritance, yet suffered under the blight of
absenteeship. Time forbids me to press the still more strik
ing case of Hungary under her Austrian dynasty. I may
barely allude to the colonial position of Ireland, and to the
avowed policy of William the Third’s English Parliament to
cripple the manufactures of Ireland by way of benefit to the
manufactures of England. My sole object in these references
is, to insist that colonies are apt to break up the unity of a
nation exactly as do foreign conquests: and that if our
nomenclature were philosophical and perfect, it would take
cognizance of the change. If it cannot, we must beware of
fine names, as liable to hide fallacies; and remember that
Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Government may
mean one thing to one part of an empire, and a very different
thing to another.
But you may think it full time to ask me, on what more
philosophical principle national constitutions can possibly be
classified. I will sketch certain outlines in reply. The first
class of organised communities is that in which personal will
rules. This is the barbaric stage of crude despotism. It has
nevertheless been perpetuated into civilized regions and ages
by unhappy contingencies; as in despotic France, Spam and
�19
Russia ; on a smaller scale in Italian princedoms ; and worst
of all, in systems of slavery. In contrast to the Rule of
Personal Will is the Rule of Law. When law is righteous, to
be subject to it is our highest benefit, our highest glory ; and
while we suppose it to be righteous, subjection to it nurtures
our manliness, and in many respects trains us virtuously.
But nations which profess subjection to law split here into
two classes. The one class holds the law to be unchangeable,
as having come down from the obscure and distant past.
Such were the old theocracies; such the Turkish rule in
modern days; such also the Chinese institutions, although
not ostensibly religious. If the unchangeable law be ample,
and no great interests uncontemplated by it have arisen, the
nation neither needs nor can admit legislative organs : at most
it has doctors of law, whose duty it is to report traditional
judgments or to interpret a received code. This I hold to be
the second class of states. When the law has been skilfully
adapted to the people (and this is sufficiently proved by their
steady adherence to it from a distant past), it ensures for them
a certain amount of well-being, so long as foreign nations let
them alone, and while they do not try their own hand at con
quest. It is by an instinct of self-defence that China and
Japan have repelled the intrusion of Europeans. The Otto
mans, living by themselves, would have been frugal and
virtuous; but their institutions could not be so modified as to
embrace Christians into equal citizenship. By conquering,
they spoiled their own position. Institutions belonging to
this second class, having an unchangeable law, pay the
penalty of being inflexible. In long time they fall out of
harmony with the changed circumstances of mankind. In
the third class of institutions it is pronounced that law ought
indeed to be righteous and sacred, but is in fact only that
approximation to right which fallible men have attained.
Therefore it must not be unchangeable, but it must be sus-
�20
ceptible of repeal or addition under strictly formal regulations.
This is the reign of Secular, as opposed to Theocratic Law!
We find Theocracies chiefly in Asia.
Through deficiency of historical knowledge, we can
scarcely go higher into antiquity than the free States of
Greece for examples of legislation by deliberations and solemn
voting; yet this very thing seems natural to Europe, and
therefore to man : for it grew up among the rude Italians, the
ruder Gauls, the very barbarous Germans; and we find it in
the Slavonic Bohemians and Sarmatian Magyars. Man, says
Aristotle, is a political animal: and in the rudest tribes we
often find germs of the highest political developments.
We are now apt to think of the theocratic or unchange
able system of law as belonging only to ages long past. Yet
it avails but little to admit in the abstract that law is change
able, if in practice a large and cardinal part of the law is
withdrawn from criticism, and is avowed to be unchangeable,
just because it is very old. If a community has undergone
but little internal change, even its oldest laws may still be
very suitable; but if the condition of the people has largely
changed, then the age of a law is no recommendation. Insti
tutions expedient to guard against the despotism of a warrior
king, while a nobility was struggling for the public liberties
together with its own, may become noxious in a totally new
conjuncture of affairs. Claims over land which are endurable
where land is plentiful and people few, may be unendurable
where people are numerous and land scarce. Exceptional
privileges, established in an era at which some worse dangers
had to be repelled, may be manifestly indefensible when those
dangers are past. A state in which there are privileged
orders, whose privileges are treated as inviolable and as
closed against inquiry and legislation, can hardly be referred
to the third or European class : it rather belongs to the
Asiatic, Chinese or Theocratic class, which attributes a divine
�21
sacredness to its oldest, and perhaps to its most mischievous
institutions.
But, however important the enacting of good law, the
impartial enforcement of law is more vital still. To gain fair
ness and intelligence in the tribunals is perhaps, of all the
items which make up freedom, the hardest. The English
have aimed at it through their jury-system. Yet through
many a dreary page of English history the juries have been
so put under terror and the judges so bent upon conviction,
that the tribunals have been stigmatised as dens of murderers.
Hitherto it would seem, that no human institution equals a
free jury for defending the innocent. It is by no means so
efficient for punishing the guilty. But with some diffidence
I suggest, that we know almost nothing of a constitution,
until we know what are its provisions for the administration
of justice.
At the same time, equality before the tribunals is essential
foi all justice, and it is extremely difficult to attain this
equality for social rights, if there be not full political equality.
On this rock all systems which admit diversities of franchise
are apt to founder. Exclusion of a race, a class, or a sex
from political power appears inevitably to entail an inability
to defend itself from social injustices. This it is which forces
philanthropy to put on the garb of political partizanship, and
claim power for the weaker classes of society, as for the negro
freedmen of the United States, or for intelligent and delicate
Indians of Bengal. This consideration probably decided our
great Reform ministry of 1833 to insist upon the absolute
political equality of Indians to English, excluding the Indians
from only tye two high offices of Governor-General and
Commander-in-Chief.
Again, in the study of a national constitution we do not
know much of its practical working, until we learn what are
�22
i
its laws of land, in what masses land is held by individuals,
and what powers landholders have to legislate landed rights
to themselves. Sometimes to know these things may at once
pour a flood of light over the state of affairs. If we were to
discover that in Japan the great nobility, holding the land in
large masses, had for six centuries wielded decisive uncontroulable power over legislation, while the cultivators had not
even had a voice in the legislative assembly, much less a vote,
we should at once confidently infer that the interests both of
the peasants and of the public had been unscrupulously sacri
ficed. The unseen and unheard are sure to suffer, and the
more gradual the enactments which confiscate their right, the
more subtle and the more permanent is the mischief. It is
not the powerful, but the weak, who most need legislative
protection.
I have already alluded to the vital importance of in
violable local treasuries, so that the moneys gathered for road
tolls or works of irrigation should not be spent in war or
wasted in court-display. This is in fact but one illustration
of a great principle, which my limits forbid me to develop.
An empire ought not to be like a sensitive animal body of
the highest class, which is killed at once by a wound in the
heart or brain. Every part should be ordinarily self-support
ing, with life and strength to spare ; though each is reinforced
by the common life of the system. Such an empire is rather
like an Indian banyan, in which every great branch throws
its own separate stem into the earth ; and there striking root,
draws for itself an independent nourishment, without in
terrupting its vital relations with the parent stock. It has
been said by some, that each part of an empire should exhibit
the central institutions in miniature. If this be impossible,
yet at least every part should have an active political life,
competent for self-support.
�23
But it is time for me to sum up.
Assuming the rule of personal will to be left behind in
the past, the topics to be primarily studied in a national con
stitution, as of far higher importance than any of the current
names, are :—1. The bona fide openness of the institutions to
legislative correction.
2. The apparatus for correcting
defective law. 3. The equality of all persons before the
tribunals. 4. The securities taken for the impartiality of the
tribunals. 5. The laws of land. 6. The extent to which
every locality has a self-sufficiency to sustain its own existence; to suppress violence and maintain its needful supplies.
To tell us how many of these problems are well solved in
a particular constitution, is to give us very valuable know
ledge concerning it; but to tell us that it is a royalty or a
republic, that it is Christian or Pagan, is almost to tell us
nothing at all.
,
At the same time, historical experience hitherto con
verges to the belief that none of these important topics can
be permanently well treated without freedom of speech and
press, free juries, and representative institutions ; and that at
the bottom of all must rest homogeneous political right.
For justice internally, for strength externally, for patriot
ism and national spirit, evidently the shell of a constitution is
of less importance than that common interest which equality
of right gives and exceptional privilege tends to destroy.
France is a powerful country, under whatever government
and cannot be greatly misgoverned, because she is inwardly
homogeneous, and conscious of a single nationality. Russia,
though embarrassed by Poland, imperfectly emancipated
herself, and not clear of difficulties from the Cossack Church,
is tending rapidly to a condition of homogeneity on a still
grander scale. The United States, if they successfully sur
mount the still contested struggle, and establish the coloured
races in absolute equality with the white, will become greater
�24
than Russia and by far the first community in the world.
But, for the fate of empires which are not homogeneous, we
have but to recall such names as Assyria and Babylon, Persia
and Macedonia; in which a dominant race enforced temporary
supremacy over reluctant subjects, whom it never adopted
into equality. Imperial Rome was wiser, though far from
wholly wise, and never really large hearted ; yet she secured
powerful support in every conquered country by her bestowal
of the Roman franchise. Very imperfect as was the liberality,
and terrible the serfdom and slavery, yet even so, she earned
by it an astonishing cohesion in spite of feeble Emperors. In
contrast we have recently seen how Austria,—from the hetero
geneousness of her dominion and the ingenious folly by which
she forfeited affection and all moral claims to allegiance,—
crumbled ^before foreign attack. When an imperial bubble
bursts, many will moralise, more will triumph, a few will
pity; but their pity comes to the fallen with all the force of
insult.
. ' .
‘
• ’ .■■rtfaMT lol ,V •.
,
J 1O
»'•' '
ARROWSMITH PRINTER, QUAY STREET, BRISTOL,
"*•
�
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
On the philosophical classification of national institutions.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London; Bristol
Collation: 24 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: : A lecture delivered at the Bristol Institution for the Advancement of Science, Literature and the Arts, March 4th, 1867. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The title page cites the author as F.N. Newman which has been corrected to a W in ink by (presumably) Conway. Printed by Arrowmsith, Quay Street, Bristol.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co. ; T. Kerslake & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1867
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5211
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (On the philosophical classification of national institutions.), 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
Political Science
Conway Tracts
Political Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1c39e106513215b6c51c614732e046b8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ng-Y8Yg8RN8hcfJXBCl8EoUTdtl7478%7Ek%7EZoYPRj8XXSolj%7ELDuDGVhM8Aj-EeYzmFUBpOGFkaaNCMrVBqb1DhAq69FPnYYJahY5sr%7EDZqhCECbKzlcQRxbMqmsqpo5%7EvyIAcAwQov7o1RjWTGqePSdRcDfLFjVm0aUoAERvFUvdMV3TjhDHA2iiiUKv8WRglKJoVzOLOe8M9rWDiCCQn2nFmPBHkCwsyiGy4LCshdkmDc5nu3VSPDCpJW0vQK9AqOhq9tSZvLKmilIJBGdt%7Ej4XqP1UiAWrdsL6zPfjTrFdSiqZqvUXi%7EdebRsjsVNW7OPZBOd9zODedtpzhvvy9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3b17dc00db7c9754b570b06367f6ff7c
PDF Text
Text
ON THE
CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
A LECTURE
Delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�2 7’7$ «X’7M« K«’ri 7’7$ exan' (Soar,
Sorts •kot> el cri>, Svardiraaros elSevat,
ZeB, err’ avdyicr) (pvcreais elre vovs fiporuv,
irpoffi)v^dn7)v <re. iravra yap, 8t’ a\p6<f>ou
Palvwv Ke\ei0ov, Kara S'iKf)v Tct Ojojt* &yeis.
Euripides (Troades, 884.)
�CAUSES OF ATHEISM.
VERY great phenomenon has a history. Theism
has a history, as well as Atheism, and each is
instructive. But Atheism, being a more limited fact,
may be treated in a narrower space ; and I venture
to Lope, its stimulating causes may be so expounded
as to aid towards some result. This hope induced me
to invite your attention this evening.
I called Atheism a limited fact; yet in an impor
tant sense of the word, and, some may think, the
truest sense, it is painfully common even among pro
fessing Christians. Such is the use of the word by
Paul to the Ephesians, who during their immoral
Pagan state, he says, were “ without God in the
world,” or, (closer to the Greek,) “ Atheists in the
world.” As I understand him, to believe in God is
not merely to assent with the intellect that there is
something in the Universe superior to man, but to
revere that superior existence. He who reveres
nothing, who worships nothing above him, but lives
unconscious of allegiance to God, is in the estimate
of Paul an Atheist. Wherever sensuality or avarice
is widely spread, in whatever form men Eve to self,
there Atheism widely prevails. But if this phraseo
logy be thought too ambiguous, I will modify it, as
follows : He who gives intellectual assent to the being
of a God, yet neither reveres God nor regards man,
is worse than an Atheist. In contrast I will add, He
who finds inteUectual difficulties in the doctrine of a
God, and knows not what to think of it, yet is intel
E
�6
Causes of Atheism,
lectually modest and morally reverential, has the
heart of a Theist, and may eminently deserve esteem.
The short of it is, that Religion is in the heart, not
in the dry mind. Intellectual Belief may be barren,
but Moral Faith is the parent of true virtue, and a
natural companion of those noblest virtues, Reverence
and Love. Yet in this short statement we do not
embrace the whole. A man may be admired for the
power or accuracy of his intellect, but he is not
therefore esteemed or loved: on the other hand, what
ever the deficiencies of his intellect, he deserves
esteem, if he be good. If we love God Himself, it is
for His goodness, not for His power or high intelli
gence ; and the same law of love must be applied to
man. Thus there are two sorts of Theists, and two
sorts of Atheists. One who is intellectually a Theist
may either be reverential or destitute of reverence;
and so may an Atheist. But Reverence is the vital
element of moral and spiritual character. In an
intellectual Theist this element may be dead or stag
nant, and in an intellectual Atheist it may be active.
If we fully possess ourselves with this thought, we
shall come to the discussion of the Theistic argument
with a chastened, calmer, and wiser heart.
It is an old saying, among Pagan Greeks as well
as Hebrews, that “Reverence is Wisdom.” The
wisest of the Greeks, in the midst of their highest
cultivation, were so conscious of the extreme imper
fection of their knowledge, that in their addresses to
God Atheistic doubt seems to blend with Theistic
faith. There is a celebrated passage in Euripides
(Troades, 884,) which I beg to read to you, translated
as I am best able:
“ Oh Thou on whom Earth rideth, who on Earth
Art firmly seated ! Jove! whoe’er Thou art,—
Hard to be guess’d, whether Necessity
In Nature fix’d, or Mind in mortal men;—
Thee I adore: for Thou, by noiseless track
Passing, dost justly all things mortal guide.”
�Causes of Atheism.
7
An anecdote is told among the Greeks, that Hiero,
military ruler of Syracuse, requested the accomplished
poet Simonides, to tell him what was his belief con
cerning God. The poet asked leave to defer his reply
until the next day: but when the next day came, he
asked yet another day to shape his thoughts more
accurately; and after that, a third day. At length
he confessed, that the longer he meditated, the harder
he found it to define a reply. You see the elements
of this doubt in the passage which I have read from
Euripides. The poet begins by identifying God with
the ether in which this earth floats or rides; but adds,
that He hath also firm seat on earth : that is, He is
not merely external to earth, but also resident and
persistent upon it. The poet then, to the current
formula, “ Whosoever Thou art,”—expressive of
wide uncertainty,—annexes : “ Hard to be guessed,
whether Thou art Necessity of Nature, or the Mind
that pervades mortal men.” Thus he embraces,
though doubtfully, in the being of God, first all the
natural forces of the Universe, such as we now call
Gravitation, Cohesion, Electricity, and such like;
next, the Mind by which we think and know and
feel. If he had stopped in saying that God was only
the Necessity of Nature, a blind force, it would have
been Atheism. When he adds the opinion that God
is the Universal Mind, some will say, Is not this
Pantheism ? No : for he regards God as worthy not
only of wonder, but also of adoration; and closes by
emphatically ascribing to Him the Righteous Govern
ment of the human world.
Observe the gradation of doubt and of faith. Con
cerning the physical constitution of God (if the
phrase may be allowed) the Greek poet was reve
rentially doubtful; but concerning His moral govern
ment of the world, concerning the rightfulness of
adoring Him, and virtually concerning His goodness,
he expresses no doubt. And is not this exactly the
�8
Causes of Atheism,
reasonable posture for a finite man, in reverentially
essaying to define some thoughts concerning the
infinite God ? Consider of what kind is our know
ledge of our fellow-men. How little do we know of
their essential being; how late and limping is physical
science in the history of man : yet our moral know
ledge is old and certain. Love, goodness, virtue,
esteem, trust, gratitude,—are very ancient experiences
and confident beliefs : but, what is a Soul physically;
when it begins to exist, and whether it ceases to
exist; are comparatively very obscure speculations.
In all human knowledge, properties are learned first;
the essence of things is learned later, if ever. In
other words, and perhaps more accurately, we appre
hend things on the side in which we are in contact
with them, but we comprehend very few things at all.
Consider again the instructive analogy furnished
by the knowledge which the brutes may have of man.
No one will imagine that an affectionate dog has any
other knowledge of his master than a limited appre
hension. What guess could Sir Isaac Newton’s
favourite spaniel have of the quality, powers, and
range of his master’s mind ? yet he had no doubt
whatever that his master loved him, and deserved to
be loved, though to comprehend his master’s nature
was utterly beyond his capacity. Just so, the cardinal
point of practical Theism lies in an energetic develop
ment of the moral relation of God to Man and Man
to God; and its wisdom lies in great diffidence con
cerning the essential nature and powers of God, whom
with one voice we avow to be incomprehensible.
Since we know not His limits, nor have reason to
assign any, we call Him unlimited, boundless, infinite,
as to Space and as to Time: and again, since we
have no reason to imagine that he changes with Time,
we call him Unchangeable as well as Eternal. There
is nothing of obscure or doubtful metaphysics here.
But as of all things outward and visible our know-
�Causes of Atheism.
9
ledge is very limited and our ignorance is infinite,
how much more must this be true of our acquaintance
with an invisible eternal Spirit ?
After these preliminary remarks, let me proceed to
the historical origin of Atheism. In all the most
intelligent races of men, and those with whose early
mind we have best acquaintance, Atheism does not
grow up with men’s first speculations concerning the
Universe, but develops itself at a later stage; and, as
I believe, prevalently as a reaction from errors into
which Theists fall.
When it is our duty to sit in judgment on the sin
of others, our mental vision is purified, and we be
come fairer, wiser judges, if we begin by inward
confession of our own sin. Just so, if Theists are to
judge truly of Atheists, or aid to convert them,
Theists need to examine their own errors which have
led Atheists astray, or have driven them into reaction.
I hope it is not needful to remind you that Christians
are Theists. To the errors of Christian Theists I
must refer presently; but I first speak of the earlier
developments of Atheism, as known to us.
Ancient Greece is the world in historical miniature,
politically and religiously. We have their infant reli
gion laid before us in the poems of Homer. Though
the Greeks were so very intelligent a race, yet their
early conceptions of Deity scarcely admitted moral
elements. Theism was with them a physical specula
tion only, and rested unduly on the violent phenomena
of nature. In Thunder and Lightning, in Earthquakes
and Storms, they saw the agency of their chief gods.
Yet they did not overlook more tranquil processes,
as vegetation, birth, and the recurrence of Day and
Night; also the more eminent powers of the human
mind. Inferior deities were assigned to these. The
gods were supposed to punish occasionally the greater
sins of mortals, but by no means to conform their
own conduct to any law of morality. The national
�IO
' Causes of Atheism.
religion, having its source in private and various
fancies, was combined and popularized by poets, under
whose treatment its wildness was exaggerated into
folly, caprice, or brutality. Necessarily, the growing
intellect of the nation scorned such a religion.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that any conscious
and systematic Atheism broke out, until a serious at
tempt had been made to defend the wretched and
baseless mythology by mystical interpretation and
other subtle devices. Then the indignation of free
thought led, first to universal Doubt, next to positive
Atheism. The Doubters held that no truth is attain
able on such subjects; the Atheists, that though
there may be Superior Spirits, yet they have nothing
to do with the creating or maintaining of the universe,
and stand in no moral relation whatever to men. The
name of Epicurus was best known in Greece as the
advocate of the latter doctrine; to us the Epicurean
views are most accessible in the poem of his de
voted disciple, the Roman Lucretius; and in him
we see most distinctly that disgust at the coarse, wild,
and mischievous conceptions put forth as Religion
was the animating principle of his Atheism.
What happened then, is sure to happen again in
like circumstances. If the ostensible teachers of reli
gion hold up for men’s homage and reverence a God
whose qualities and dealings shock our moral nature,
it must not be expected that all who reject such a
creed will be able to separate its falsehoods from its
truth. Many will reject it in the mass, and become
Atheists; but by far the largest number of them will
keep their unbelief to themselves. It is notorious
that, as among the priests of ancient Rome contem
porary with Cicero, so in the priests of Spain, Italy,
and France, Atheism has been a common result of
corrupt religion. Protestantism does not offend
common sense (at least in my opinion) so violently as
Romanism; nevertheless, all who heard the scalding
�Causes of Atheism.
11
words of Mr Bradlaugh in this room against the creed
called orthodox in England, will permit me to insist,
that an ingenuous scorn of what he regards as a de
grading portraiture of God gives impulse and motive to
his Atheism. English Protestants are not guiltless in
this matter. They have persecuted the frank and
bold men who avow their disbelief, hereby driving
more timid men into silence and suppression. Chris
tians have certainly taken no pains to instruct
Atheists; but if they had, how could they expect
instruction to be well received, while the public law
treated Atheists as criminals, and gave them fines and
imprisonment for arguments ?
But I return to the point. If the men and system
typical of a national religion present for reverential
homage the portraiture of an unjust, unmerciful,
capricious, or impotent God, the unbelief and scorn
which justly follows will, through human infirmity,
carry not a few into a disbelief of God altogether; in
which case the folly of Theists is largely responsible
for the Atheism. 1 do not wish to go into detail, as
Mr Bradlaugh did, and point at the special errors
which arouse indignation; it suffices to say that there
are opinions concerning God or the gods, which
nothing can prove. It avails not to quote books
called sacred, or to alledge miracles, if the doctrine
itself be such as the human conscience loathes or the
human intellect finds to be contemptible. If sacred
books uphold such things, so much the x»orse for the
books. Books cannot have proof of infallibility so
strong, as is the disproof of a doctrine which mars
and pollutes the divine character. Christians habit
ually confute other religions by this very topic, and
stigmatize as Paganism or Heathenism this very error
of holding unjust, or impure, or self-indulgent, pam
pered gods ; and insist that such a religion is neces
sarily evil to the votary’s mind; hence it destroys its
own claim of reverence.
�12
Causes of Atheism.
Let it also be carefully considered that the great basis
of popular knowledge is, moral truth. All social action,
all national cohesion, all reverence for law, all sanctity
in rule, is founded upon man’s moral conscience;
much more is all rational or worthy religion. “ He
who loves not his brother whom he hath seen, how
shall he love God, whom he hath not seen ? ” He to
whom the words Justice, Righteousness, Mercy, Holi
ness, Goodness, have no positive and consistent mean
ing, can have no reason within him for worship and
reverence. Practical Religion must be based on these
great moral ideas. A creed which violates them
demoralizes men, when it does not drive them into
unbelief. If a national religion be totally corrupt,
widespread Atheism is nothing but the natural death
of a creed which has lost moral vitality. If the
Atheism spring from moral indignation, I believe that
it can only be a temporary winter of the national
soul in preparation for a more fruitful summer. If
a very corrupt national creed,—say, like that of Hindooism,—were swept away by Atheism when other
agencies had failed, we perhaps ought to regard the
Atheism as a beneficial visitation, like a hurricane
which destroys pestilence.
I have tried to set forth one cause which I believe
must always tend to produce Atheism, namely—if
morally offensive features be ascribed to the Most
High in a really national creed; but, coupled with
this, there too often is met a presumptuous familiarity
and dogmatic pretension quite inconsistent with a
reasonable estimate of the human intellect. A Roman
writer said, sarcastically, “This man fancies he knows
accurately what Jupiter said in private to Juno.”
Well, we see the outrageousness of such mythology.
But how less is Milton blameable, who supposed him
self competent to expound the discourses held by God
the Father with his only begotten Son ? Theology
has been garrulous and confident, where modesty or
�Causes of Atheism.
J3
silence alone becomes us. Men who call God incom
prehensible seem to forget this fundamental principle
precisely when it is most needed. One truth surely
is quite open to every intellect,—that the knowledge
of man is limited. We see distinctly what is near,
and perhaps seem to know it; but what is extreme in
remoteness we cannot see at all. In the interval
there is generally a region of half light, half shade ;
what is called penumbra ; where we see a few strong
outlines and all the rest dimly; or, it may be, we
think at one moment that we see, and the next
moment doubt whether we saw aright. These pheno
mena of sight have their close correspondences in the
mind, which in consequence is sure of some things
with the greatest certainty permitted to man, is in
blank ignorance of others, and finds between these
extremes a region of half-knowledge, with a few
certainties pervading it, but in general affording
matter for modest or reverential opinion, not for
light-minded and off-hand decision, nor for scho
lastic dogmatism. If Theists transgress modesty
in dealing with this region of thought, how can they
expect modesty oi’ tenderness from Atheists ?
But I proceed to a second deplorable phenomenon,
equally baneful, namely—the tangle of Metaphysics
in which Theistic advocates have involved their doc
trine. Christianity from the beginning had as its
boast, “Unto the poor the gospel is preached.” A
religion which addresses itself to the human race
must be intelligible to simple minds. If men and
women, if the great mass of a nation, are intended
by God to revere and worship Him, the grounds
of believing in God must be on the level of very
ordinary intellects. Theism, equally with Chris
tianity, cuts away the ground from under its own feet,
if it teaches that difficult questions of Metaphysics
must be settled before we can reasonably believe in
God. We know familiarly how much the conversion
�14
Causes of Alheisn*.
of heathens to Christianity is hindered when two
missionaries teach opposite doctrines, refuting one
another. In such case no one can reprove the
heathen,—every one must say he is blameless,—if he
reply to those who desire to convert him, that one of
them must convert the other before it is worth his
while to attend to them. So, too, candonr demands
from ns the admission that Atheists say nothing
unreasonable, if (being in no other respect presump
tuous or irreverent) they avow that the inconsistencies
of Theistic advocates wholly discourage them from
spending study on so doubtful a subject. Such appears
to me to be the position of George Jacob Holyoake.
In fact, when Mr Bradlaugh in this room claimed
him as an Atheist, I did not think it right to con
tradict, though to me his Atheism is, at any rate, of a
widely different complexion from Mr Bradlaugh’s. I
feel that George Jacob Holyoake is a very modest
man, very reverential, and very anxious to learn from
all whom he sees to be sincerely and earnestly striving
for truth. I believe he distrusts his own power of
judging, where he finds the advocates of Theism
defending their doctrine in modes so obscure and
subtle, and mutually inconsistent. I must attempt to
set before you some of the controverted questions,
even at the risk of getting out of my own depth.
When I see able men devoting their lives to Meta
physics, and coming to opposite conclusions, I cannot
but feel great diffidence in my own power to deal
with such subjects, and am always earnestly desirous
to keep clear of them. In fact, if anything could
make me an Atheist, it would be the jangling of
Theistic metaphysicians.
Let me then state to you some of the controversies,
which are supposed to need decision, before we can
attain a reasonable conviction that there is a God,
and that he deserves and accepts from us reverence,
trust, and adoration.
�Causes of. Atheism,
15
“ Can the human intellect form a positive concep
tion of the Infinite and the Unconditioned ? Can we
investigate the nature and origin of the Uncondi
tioned as a psychological phenomenon ? Does our
consciousness of the Finite involve a consciousness
of the Infinite ? Is our knowledge necessarily
limited to phenomena?
Can we know only the
limited and the conditionally limited, or are we also
capable of construing positively the unconditionally
unlimited ?
Can we conceive either an absolute
whole or an absolute part ? Is our notion of the
Infinite realized by a course of addition or progres
sion, which, starting from the finite, seeks to reach
the infinite ? Can we infer the infinitely great from
the indefinitely great ? Is our notion of the Infinite
a fact or ultimate datum of consciousness ? Can
inductive generalization draw from finite data more
than they contain ? ”
Who can expect such questions to be even under
stood by any who have not made scholastic meta
physics and logic a special study ? As I have, more
or less, been acquainted with them myself for full
forty-five years, I naturally have a positive opinion
on some of the questions, indeed on most of them;
but I should despair of Theism, if I believed it
necessary to a sound belief that the believer should
have discussed them at all. Some of the questions
indeed, about the Unconditioned, and the Uncondi
tionally Unlimited, might seem to have been started,
not by a sincere Theist, but by a crafty Atheist, for
the express purpose of throwing dust into our eyes.
The attempt to establish any practical religion by such
processes of thought, seems to me worse than useless,
being in fact subversive of its avowed object. Not
only scornful and presumptuous minds, but equally the
reverential, the modest, and the philanthropic, are
liable to be deterred from religious inquiry, if invited
�16
Causes of Atheism.
into it through such a road. Justly may a philan
thropic person say,—“ Man needs the service of our
energies : God, if there be a God, needs neither our
aid, nor our worship : surely he cannot desire us to
waste time and effort in questions of metaphysics,
about which opposite professors are in endless con
troversy.”
And now, I might seem to have fulfilled my task,
only that the metaphysicians will say to me, that I
cannot justly disown their controversies, without
showing how Theism can be established indepen
dently of them. To reply folly to such a challenge,
would be to undertake a lecture on Theism. I there
fore reply historically. I say, that Theism never was
established by metaphysicians through metaphysical
teaching; nay, that no appreciable effect on practical
religion has ever been exerted by it. Historically,
the belief in God has always rested on the common
perceptions of common men. The fact relieves me
from the imputation of rashness, when I say, that the
business of Mental Science is here critical and nega
tive only, and that philosophers err in thinking that
Philosophy,—I mean scholastic science,—can be
creative in religion. Its sole duty is to prune away
the errors into which the ill-informed and half
cultivated intellect naturally falls; which duty I
admit and maintain to be a very important one. But
in order to fulfil it at all, philosophy must condescend
to speak in a purely popular dialect, and altogether
abstain from the hideous jargon so dear to meta
physicians. If it be true that their thoughts cannot
be expressed in so copious and powerful tongue as
the popular English, then the popular religion, it
seems, must be unsound, until we learn to think and
talk metaphysically. But if the great bulk of the
human race have hitherto been incapacitated for sound
�Causes of Atheism.
17
religion, I for one cannot have confidence that by
means of scholastic culture a small oligarchy of
mankind becomes the select priesthood of God.
The Natural History of Theism displays many
phases, which might make an instructive volume,
but in every case two stages at least seem inevitable.
In the former, men discover in the great universe the
action of Mind superior to man, and generally believe
in many superior spirits, co-ordinate in rank, though
among these one may be Supreme. The relation of
God or the Gods to man is conceived of, as that of a
Patron to a dependent. The Gods are supposed to
care, certainly for men collectively, probably for some
eminent men specially; and also to punish very
flagrant guilt. Concerning the mental qualities of
the Gods, equally as of their habits, the more sober
nations abstain from thought in this first stage; those
of wilder imagination confidently ascribe to them the
enjoyments and pastime, the passions and vices, of
mortals. This is the earlier or puerile stage of
religion, and implies both deficient information con
cerning the great world, and immature faculties in
the observers. In the second or manly stage of
religion, it is recognised that there is no adequate
ground for supposing more than one God. Spirits
there may be, superior to men; if so, let them be
called angels; but they must be, like us, dependent
on God. On the doctrine of One God naturally
follows the belief of his entire freedom from those
disturbances of mind and clouds of passion to which
man is subject; freedom therefore from caprices of
love and hatred; though men may be very slow in
working out the result that God is no respecter of
persons, and uses no arbitrary favouritism. Because
we cannot even guess at any reason which should mar
his serenity, we attribute to him this perfectly un
ruffled and impartial state of mind. Moreover, as it
is inevitable to believe that whatever high and pure
�i8
Causes of Atheism.
qualities and powers we possess, must be higher and
perfect in Him, therefore, from consciousness of
disinterested Love in ourselves, we attribute dis
interested Love to Him. Naturally we can have no
ideas whatever of a Divine Mind, but such as are
suggested by consciousness of our own minds.
In shaping the second stage of Theism which I
have thus sketched, a more cultivated intellect un
doubtedly played a highly useful part in cutting away
the superfluous fancies of barbaric imagination. But
in European Christendom, at least as long back as
the Mediaeval Schoolmen, a pretentious Science has
struggled to define things which ought to be left
indefinite, and to transmute negatives into positives.
The word Infinite, or Boundless, which meant that
we are wholly incapable of assigning bounds to God,
is pretended to be positive, or is exchanged for
Absolute. The sobriety of declaring that we know
no bounds to God’s power, is thus turned into a
scientific dogma that he is All-powerful; while with
antiquity, when the word was used, it was only a
burst of poetry, not a deliberate assertion concerning
things which tide human mind cannot know. From
the same school came the notion that the belief in
God rose out of speculating on Causation, and dis
covered (or, as an Atheist would say, invented) God
as the First Cause ; thus they carried the mind into
the impenetrable cloudiness of Past Eternity and
Cosmogony, that is, the birth of the Universe. The
Hebrew book of Genesis does, indeed, tell of a
Beginning of Creation, but very little is afterwards
based on it; and the main stream of Hebrew litera
ture is very far from excluding the idea of God’s
continuous perpetual creation. It treats all workings
of the elements, organic and inorganic, as actings of
the Spirit of God ; so that each of us was created by
God in birth, as truly as Adam originally. In the
older view there was no such idea as that God in the
�Causes of Atheism,
*9
beginning created Matter : which is another example
of dogmatizing where man is necessarily ignorant; it
is a later invention of metaphysical science. Again,
the antagonism of God and Matter was a notion im
ported from Oriental metaphysics, and could have no
place in the mind of Hebrew sages, who saw God
permanent in nature, hereby agreeing with the
doctrine of the most enlightened of the Greeks; to
which also, I believe, modern Theists more and more
converge. The notion that God created matter, and
set a machine at work; wound up the spring, and
then withdrew from the scene of action; has been
propagated by persons who meant to be philosophic,
and were not. The result has been mischievous.
For in healthful and practical religion the relation
of man to God is a present abiding fact, and the
central point of knowledge. We come close to Him
now and here; in Him we live and move and have
our being; from Him come all our vital and mental
powers. Our present contact with Him is the main,
the cardinal point; we are not thrown back into the
history, if history it can be called, of a Creation in
very dim distance, for our indirect origin from
Him. We apprehend God in the present, and in the
vastness of what we see; we do not try to compre
hend Him in the regions of invisibility, nor to grasp
Eternity and Infinitude in our knowledge. If He is
the life of our life, He is in the interior of our spirits
and a witness to our consciousness. This is practical
and popular religion, whose central origin and action
is now and here; but metaphysical and scholastic
Theism, which begins at Past Eternity or First
Causation, cannot be expected to give more heat than
moonshine gives.
Now, the question between us and the Atheist is
very simple, and goes into a short compass. In my
opinion it needs no metaphysicians to mediate between
us and him. The question is this: Were ancient
�20
Causes of Atheism.
men wrong in seeing
in the Universe ? For if
they were wrong, we are wrong. I seem to myself to
see Mind at work in the Universe as distinctly as I
see it in my fellow-men. Each is a direct perception,
which cannot he made clearer by argumentation. It
was impossible to argue with that curious sect of
ancient doubters who held that nothing beyond the
existence of Self was certain. If any one assert that
the world is a dream, he may rest assured that we
cannot refute him. Of course I cannot prove that
men’s actions, which seem to me to imply purpose
and mind, do not proceed from blind forces of Nature.
I have no inward consciousness of any mind but my
own. If any one tell me that my ascription of
design to other men has no logical demonstration, and
does not deserve belief, I have to confess that it is
not logically demonstrable, and yet I insist that it does
deserve belief—at least until refuted. He may bring
proof that it is false, if he can; but it is useless to tell
me that I cannot prove it. I do not pretend to prove
that other men have minds; but I seem to myself to
see it. The veracity of our bodily senses is not cer
tain ; they sometimes make mistakes : yet when the
senses of many men concur, we accept the conclusions
and are satisfied, even though there are cases in which
appearances are deceptive. So is it with the mind.
An individual may be rash and blundering. If I, one
man, form judgments which most others, who have
powers and advantages equal to mine, reject, it may
be most reasonable to suspect that my judgments are
unsound. But when we believe that we see a superior
Mind in the Universe, and the rest of mankind with
so great unanimity chime-in that some have defined
Man as “ a religious animal; ” the direct perception
of a Superior Mind is similar in kind to our direct
perception of Mind in other men. No doubt, in the
latter case, from the sameness of our wants and in
stincts, we have far greater facility in tracing the
�Causes of Atheism.
21
course of mind, and are less in danger of mistaking
the direction of design; but this does not interfere
with the assertion that the process of thought is
similar in the two cases.
I repeat, the sole question between us and the
Atheist is—whether there are or are not marks in the
Universe of superior Mind. What are the qualities,
the power, the purposes of the Spirit whom we discern,
and whether there are many such Spirits, are questions
for Theists among themselves, with which the Atheist,
while he keeps to his argument, has nothing to do. I
cannot but think that, if the mist of metaphysics were
blown aside by Theists, simple-hearted working-men
would be less liable to the delusion that they are ad
vancing in wisdom by adopting the Atheistic theory;
and, if they saw Theists willing to follow truth wher
ever truth led, they would have less reason to give
special honour to the courage which contradicts man’s
deep and wide-spread conviction that a G-od above us
exists, blessed for ever, and the source of blessing.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, W.
�
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
On the causes of atheism: a lecture delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 21, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 19 cm
Notes: Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
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
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4856
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 />This work (On the causes of atheism: a lecture delivered at Bristol, on February 7, 1871), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Atheism
Atheism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6333f11bc99c282025542ca3f86a95c8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sPL8p2m7JUIqiFAKgRbV8WqxKkmgN33CefKxPHvg9DrAuMGx6o6GDdbcM4iF6eTjSLZp6lvz62JVHWzjN7-zQk68ECvxmqb5YsTjfZpMPThxlhkb%7EVPTsgcFOU7PHS14sBymCjc396DQ33LE7JUNHh75fSePuZWQGValXvPIICxLkvZNAL5CrKipbYOxEqSb-7-bHjErNuQi7F1EI0BW8S-dl4IAgO-S5WWdfYPPmjsOFjUktzYVt8yMh%7E4U9op6%7ESOGeIlHAJYSVnJmOQndReJPvzBMgAEHSnz6HYaSUh0MK5aNe6a3nvf08OHvcScSY9WBX8lhDTnSp2sGLE-Z%7EA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1f89e52cab993d5a0a981c8f5b140abc
PDF Text
Text
V
-
*****
ENGLISH
r
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS.
A CONTRIBUTION OF THOUGHT
BV
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN,
LATE PROFESSOR IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
LONDON:
TRUBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1865.
*
�Where materials are vast, conciseness may be accepted by the
Reader as a compliment to his intellect, not as a dogmatism.
Whatever the colour of his political creed, let him consent for
h^fr an hour to suspect fallacy in his customary axioms.
judges freely who does not think freshly.
No one
�ENGLISH
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS. '
HERE are times in national history, at which
the urgent business of the classes in power is,
to increase the number of citizens loyal to the con
stitution : then, what seems to be a great democratic
move, may be made simply to avoid civil war. Such
was the crisis of 1832: such might have been that
of 1848. But, in spite of insurrection successful in
Sicily, Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, the English aristo
cracy in the latter year judged stiff and total resist
ance safer than any concession; relied on our hatred
of anarchy ; and by rallying the middle classes round
the standard of legality, quickly dissipated all fear
of Insurgent Reform. That lesson has not been
lost on Conservatives. Our wealth is more massive,
our thriving class reaches lower, in 1865 than in
1848. Education has spoiled political aspirants for
revolutionists. Let Reformers therefore take to
heart, that they have no chance now of succour from
the influences which carried the Reform Act of 1832.
If they are to have any organic changes, great or
small, they must persuade the actual holders of
constitutional power, and not forget the House of
Lords: otherwise, they do but waste their effort. ‘
For the reforms urged in these pages I would
plead with equal simplicity before the House of
Lords or before an assembly of Chartists. The
T
�4
arguments would differ in their relative importance,
but would never need to be dissembled.
The
nuisances which have to be abated, bring evil to
every political order and class of the nation, though
the weakest part of the nation of course suffers most
from them.
Where the object of a great national reform is, to
strengthen one Order by lowering another; to humil
iate the pride of a dynasty or of a peerage; or to en
force some large sacrifice of pecuniary means :—the
nature of the proposed change cannot be disguised.
Undoubtedly much strong language is heard among
us against aristocracy and in favour of democracy,
which, taken to the letter, might seem to imply that
aristocracy, in its legitimate sense, is to be depressed
and stript of honour.
But in fact bureaucracy
and centralization are the real foes, both of them
hostile to the genius of the constitution in former
days, and in no way closely allied to aristocracy as
such. Centralization has come in from Continental
Despotism, from the first French Revolutionists, and
largely from the writings of Bentham, as I under
stand. Bureaucracy has been ever on the increase
through the enormous extent of the empire, and the
immensity of power devolving on the ministry of
the day; while Parliament is too slow in learning
facts to be any adequate check. The House of
Peers, as an Order, has no interest in bureaucracy,
and none in centralization. Hence without a shadow
of paradox, and with perfect straightforwardness, I
maintain, that from a true Conservative point of
view our nation has to retrace many wrong steps
and make many right ones, quickly and boldly.
Not that it is paradoxical to hold, that in certain
cases it is for the true interest and true honour of a
ruling class—just as to a despotic king—to have
new checks put on its power. No man is to be
congratulated that his baser passions can bear
sway over him without restraint; and no party, no
�ministry, no Order of the State, is stronger or more
honourable, when its less wise or less virtuous
members can assume the guidance of it. Whatever
from without bridles them, is a real strength to the
party or Order, and will tend to its permanent
honour.
In a pamphlet already widely disseminated, I
have avowed my conviction, that to extinguish all
future creation of hereditary peers is the first need
ful step of reform. But it is equally my conviction
that this may be so done, and ought to be so done,
as to make us all proud of the House of Lords,
strengthen its efficiency, and in no way impair
practically its hereditary character, which (under
rightful modifications) I know how to value.
The course which Whig-Radical Reform has
hitherto taken has greatly frightened many reason
able Conservatives : I maintain that it ought also to
displease, if not alarm, all sincere and reasonable
Radicals,—because it tends to bring us to the French
goal not to the American goal. With a Central
authority preponderating so enormously over our
Local; a Parliament by the side of which every
Municipality is a pigmy; a Ministry, wielding an
executive so vast, while our Mayors and Lord
Mayors have sunk into pageants;—every step of
change which merely extends the Parliamentary
franchise, is a step towards a system in which it is
decided by universal suffrage once in 7 years, what
oligarchy shall be our despotic rulers. A Reform
in the direction of restoring the essential principles
of the old English Constitution ought not to frighten
Conservatives: a reform to re-establish what through
total change of' circumstances is now unsuitable,
ought not to be desired by Radicals. I cannot but
feel that it is a popular fallacy to say, that because
the original Parliament was elected by universal
suffrage, therefore the same thing is now proper.
Admit for the moment that the fact was as is
�6
asserted: yet the different functions needed from
the modern Parliament demand far wider political
information and intelligence in its electors. The
existing system is confessedly inadequate to the
nation : Tories and Whigs have avowed it, nor am
I defending things as they are. But before we
enter on a course which must become a mere ques
tion of strength, and may convulse us—not by civil
war, but by bitter discontents and impaired patriot
ism—more deeply than any one yet knows; let
thoughtful men of all sides be willing to reconsider
the entire position of things.
§ i. Before judging what reforms we need, we must
consider what grievances exist. I enumerate under
six heads the greatest of our organic evils and
sorest of our dangers.
i. Our wars made immorally. —War is crime on
*
the greatest scale, except when it is a necessary
measure of police for a commensurate object of
justice. No man can be hanged or deprived of his
property without the solemn verdict of men sworn
to uphold the right : yet we bombard cities, depose
princes, take possession of territory, drive families
into beggary, without any previous public hearing
or public deliberation; without any verdict of jus
tice ; at most by the vote of a secret cabinet, not
sworn to prefer the just to the convenient; nay, the
thing may be done at the will of one or two men in
Asia, without orders from England, or by the hot
headedness of a commodore; yet be ratified and
followed up, barely because it would hurt our pride
to disown it. These wars disgrace our ruling classes
*List of Queen Victoria’s wars.—War of Canada,—of Syria,—of Afghan
istan,—of Scinde and Moultan,—two Punjaub wars,—two Caffir wars,—war of
Assam,—war of Burma,—three Chinese wars,—Persian war,—Russian war,—■
war of Japan,—New Zealand wars,—war of Bhootan,—besides wars internal
to India or Ceylon, little wars in West Africa, and in South America. Of all
these wars only one (that of Russia) received previous mature consideration and
had national approval; and only one (the first Punjaub war) was a war of
defence against a foreign invader. Even that invasion was caused by our
aggression and conquest of Scinde.
�7
to the foreigner and bring upon them diplomatic
humiliations. To the poor of this country they are
’ the direst and most incurable of evils, entailing and
riveting upon them all their depression. If there
be a government of God on earth, no nation can
afford to make wars of cupidity or of pride.
This first grievance implies that Parliament is no
adequate check on the Ministry, and that the Min
istry has iro adequate control on its distant subor
dinates, in the matter of extra European war.
2. Our administrative inefficiency.—At the time
of the Crimean mismanagements, there was great
. outcry for administrative reform : it is not needful
here to do more than allude to the monstrous and
frightful facts which so harrowed the mind of Earl
Russell, then in the cabinet as Lord John Russell.
But in that great war, our Admiralty postponed to
build the gunboats wanted for the Baltic in 1854
and 1855 : built in preference great ships which
were not needed, and finally completed the gunboats
by 1856 after peace was made.—In the last four
years, the United States Admiralty, beginning from
nothing in their docks and almost nothing on the
seas, have built fleets adequate to their vast war ;
with 2000 miles of coast to blockade and great
flotillas on the rivers. It has been done for less
cost in gold, than that which our Admiralty has
expended in the same four years of peace: yet at
this moment we hear the outcry, that our ships and
guns are inferior to the American. On such details
I cannot pretend to knowledge; but it is needless
to prove that the incompetence of the Admiralty is a
chronic fact in England. Even the French Admiralty
has commented on it.—Now if the Admiralty is
inefficient, is the War Office or Civil Service likely
to be better, when the Admiralty is precisely the
organ on which it is hereditary with all English
statesmanship to pride itself?
The second grievance implies that Parliament
�8
has no adequate control over Ministerial incapacity
or favouritism.
3. The state of Ireland.—Lord Macaulay declared
Ireland to be the point at which the empire is always
exposed to a vital stab. No one will pretend that
Ireland is flourishing, or is loyal, or that the members
of the London Parliament have confidence in their
own understanding of Irish questions. A population
larger than that of some European kingdoms, inhab
iting a separate island—yet close to us—predomi
nantly of a foreign race, very many of them still
speaking a foreign tongue, differing also in religion;
is not easy to govern wisely, and cannot be perma
nently disaffected without grave mischief to us all.
Thirty thousand soldiers to overawe the Irish, are
a display to the world, that we still hold the island
as a conquest, and cannot trust them as fellow
citizens. The prohibition of volunteer soldiers tells
the same tale. Meanwhile the prime of the labour
ing classes emigrate, and propagate hatred against
us in America.
This grievance has lasted long enough to make
it clear, that the imperial Parliament is an inefficient
organ for Ireland, and that the Irish members are
inefficient or damaging for English legislation. The
Irish Parliament ought to have been reformed, not
destroyed.
4. The state of Established Churches.—Fivesixths of the population of Ireland are Dissenters :
so is a very large fraction of Wales. Half of
England is in Dissent, and no effort has ever been
made to bring back the most numerous body (the
Wesleyans) who on principle approve of a State
Church. Scotland is in a wonderful position through
the destruction of her Parliament. The articles of
Union are expounded to mean, that the Imperial
Parliament is bound forever to support the West
minster Confession of Faith, (which never was the
faith of England) whether Scotland believe it or not.
�9
Two successive vast schisms have rent away
masses of population from the Established Church ;
the latter in our own day, under Dr. Chalmers, who
was a vehement advocate for State Churches.
It is not my part to lay down that State Churches
are right or wrong : but I understand two character
istic boasts of “ Conservatives ” to be,—the House
Of Lords and the State religion. Each of these is in
secular decline under the existing routine, and must
continue to decline, if it be felt to obstruct, not to in
vigorate, national life. In the abstract, I do not
dissemble my own preference for territorial Churches
over Sects ; but the example of the United States
proves that Sectarianism is less hurtful in the ab
sence than in the presence of a Sectarian Church
Establishment. Thus we manage to get at once the
worst evils of both systems.
This topic suggests that the attempt at uniformity
is the wreck of state religion. Indeed, in the case
of Scotland uniformity is sacrificed, but in just the
most mischievous way,—that of enacting an ever
unchangeable creed.
Populations in a different
mental condition demand diversity in teachers and
in religious worship. These need local adjustment
by local assemblies, on which, at most, a veto alone
should be reserved to the central legislature.
5. The state of our Peasantry.—Almost from the
beginning, the peasantry have found the Parliament
to be an unfriendly organ. Under Edward III.
their wages were fixed by law, and they were
punished if they refused to work. For four centuries
and a half they were forbidden to make their own
bargains. Who can imagine that a Parliament of
landlords which thus treated them would not make the
laws of land unfairly favourable to landlords ? Yet
such laws are treated as sacred and unchangeable.
At present,in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England,
we find the actual cultivators of the soil to be worse off
than in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, or
�(atlength) than in Russia; nay, in afar less thriving
and happy condition than in the little island of
Guernsey. In Guernsey and in Belgium land is
scarcer than in England, in America it is far more
abundant; yet in each extreme the peasantry are
better off than with us. We have evidently to
adjust the arrears of six centuries’ oppression. Who
can hope that evils of that antiquity will be cleared
off by the old machinery ?
6. The incompetency of Parliament to do its
duties to India.—The English empire is a vast
machine of three parts. First, the United Kingdom,
with outlying military posts. Secondly, the true
English Colonies, which contribute to us neither
men nor money, yet have to be defended against
dangers real and imaginary. Thirdly, the perilous
splendour of India, where 150 millions are subjected
to the Queen’s direct rule, and thereby to her
Parliament. To these add 30 millions at home, and
you find 180 millions which have to be watched
over by a single supreme legislature. N or only so:
but 50 millions more of Indians, through their
princes, are in subordinate alliance to the Queen.
These princes are liable to be dethroned by the pen
of the Queen’s Secretary. To all such, the appeal
for justice lies to the British Parliament.
It is but the other day, that an Indian prince
appealed against an executive decree which had
deprived him of his royalty and thereby ejected all
his countrymen and kinsmen from high office. His
cause came before Parliament and was voted down
by ministers and placemen. Without assuming that
the vote was unjust, it may be judged monstrous to
eject all natives from high office because their prince
has misbehaved. In any case, Indians will never
become loyal to British rule, if their appeals against
the local executive are heard, not in a court of Law,
by judges sworn to do justice, but by men banded
as partizans, and virtually judges in their own
�11
cause. An eminent Indian officer recently states,
that, though not a shot be fired, 10,000 soldiers
are required yearly, merely to keep up in India the ex
isting force of 75,000 British troops. Grant that sani
tary arrangements may lower this frightful number :
yet how many will be wanted if we make new annexa
tions ? if we absorb more and more native principal
ities ? if we develop Indian wealth and mechanism
while wounding the native sentiment ? All these
agencies are going on at this moment. A general
insurrection may be surely counted on within thirty
years, unless, before that time, we win the loyalty
of Indian patriots. Even the movement of 1857
would have been irresistible, if the insurgents had
actively extended its area at once, or if certain
princes had gone against us. Unless the drain of
men for the Indian army be stopped, the sooner we
avow ourselves to be, like Switzerland and Belgium,
neutral in all European questions, the better for
our good fame. We are ourselves cementing India
into one country. Another insurrection, an insur
rection of collective India,—if successful, would
inflict on England an amount of loss, ruin, and
disgrace, which could not be recovered in a whole
generation;—if unsuccessful, would still multiply our
difficulties tenfold, and make it doubtful whether
expulsion would not have been better for us.
§ 11.
For these six grievances and dangers Reforms
are needed. Of what Reforms do we now hear talk ?
Prominently and solely of Extended Suffrage and
*
the Ballot. Let me grant to a Radical, that each
of these may have its value;—the Ballot for its
mechanical convenience, and as a temporary engine
to save a limited class from intimidation. Yet
unless these are mere steps towards after-reforms,
they will leave Parliament overworked and helpless,
* Since this was in type, Triennial Parliaments have been claimed.
�12
the Bureaucracy as despotic as ever, India disloyal,
the House of Lords as obstructive as ever to all
religious freedom. If after-reforms are intended,
they must be avowed at once, or we shall be once
more told that the settlement is “ final,” and is to
last for a full generation. That Mr. Bright and the
late lamented Mr. Cobden expected changes in the
possession of land, with benefit to our peasants,
from these two measures of reform, I infer from a
celebrated altercation; but the mode in which they
are to operate and the length of time before they
will bring relief, remain extremely obscure. The
artizan class from 1840 to 1846 gave their effort to
sustain the Corn Laws; the peasants also, if they
had the vote, would probably use it against them
selves. To give voting power to ignorant masses,
accustomed to abject obedience, is surely no political
panacea.
The primary weakness of our organization lies in
the enormous over-occupation of the House of
Commons. With great talent, knowledge and ex
perience, in more than 600 men,—by tact to divide
labour and put each man to his special work ;—by
standing Committees and Permanent Chairmen, in
whom the House could confide, and to whom they
could refer for information and counsel; no doubt a
vast deal of work might be done, and without very
long speeches. But no ministry has ever shown a
wish to aid the Legislative body to conduct its work
energetically.
On matters of administration the
ministers must of course take the initiative; but they
will never invent an organization which is to control
them ; which in fact must be devised and maintained
strictly as against them. New principles are wanted.
At present the holders of power and the expectants
of power combine to subject the independence of the
Legislative to the Bureaucracy; and this usurpation
is veiled under the phrase,—prerogative of the
Crown.
Merely to extend the franchise will not
�i3
add to the chance of getting abler members of
Parliament, nor a larger number of men resolved to
fight against any of the grievances enumerated.
The task laid on the Commons House is at present
too overwhelming. Without new machinery which
shall relieve it of the present intolerable load, no
imaginable change in the mode of electing is likely
to cure the evil. One supreme legislature for 230
millions! Englishmen who come out of practical
life and have been deeply immersed in special and
very limited occupations, are to judge on Private
Bills innumerable, and on the affairs of people very
unlike to us and quite unknown to us! In the
United States, for 31 millions of people there are 35
independent local legislatures, each having on an
average less than a million; while the Supreme
Congress is wholly disembarrassed of all local law,
and regulates only a defined number of topics which
concern the entire homogeneous Union. Our colon
ial legislatures legislate only for the home interests
of perhaps half a million, two million, or at most
three million people. It does not require super
human wisdom in legislators to do tolerably well
work thus limited. But it is a truly barbarous
simplicity to put one organ to the frightfully various
work of our Commons House. Entirely new organs
appear to me an obvious and undeniable necessity,
however disagreeable to men of routine.
Nor should it be left out of sight, that in the last
century and a half, while our population has been
growing in numbers and our affairs in complexity;
so far have we been from increasing and developing
our organization, that we have destroyed or spoiled
the organs which existed.
The Parliaments of
Ireland and Scotland have been annihilated (one by
flagrant, the other by suspected, bribery,) and the
power and status of our Municipalities and our
County organization have been gravely lowered.
The old Municipalities and Counties were the
�14
sources from which Parliament derived its own
rights and power : to the new institutions limited
rights have been jealously measured out by Parlia
ment. Every Empire needs to be made up of
Kingdoms or Governments; every such Govern
*
ment, of Provinces or Counties ; and each smaller
unit should have complete political life, with as much
power over itself as can be exercised without
damage to the nation. From these elementary
principles we have gone widely astray, working to
wards a central confusion which always threatens
alternate despotism and anarchy.
To invent new organization is not really difficult.
California thirteen years ago was infamous as a nest
of gamblers and robbers, mixed with gold-diggers ;
but the instant that a sufficient mass of honest men
was poured in, they constructed admirable institu
tions, and have now among other good things
popular colleges which we may envy. The diffi
culty is, to persuade English aristocrats to adopt
anything new, until the old has become quite in
tolerable. Let wretched Ireland be a witness to
that! It means that millions of the nation must
go through martyrdom,—that public calamity and
disgrace must be incurred,—that disaffection must
become dangerous ; before the classes which are at
ease will consent to the creation of any machinery
which they suspect might ultimately undermine
their power. This is no true Conservatism. This
is the way to ruin an aristocratic order. It is not the
able men, the experienced men, who so feel or so rea
son ; it is the meaner members of their party, whom
the leaders will not risk offending, until public calam
ityforces them, or until the nation, gaining a clear idea
of what it wants, speaks so pointedly, that the real
party-leaders come over to it. This I hold to be the
right course for the Radicals, who (it seems) must
be the movers. Let them make it their business to
convince such men as Mr. Gladstone and Lord
�i5
Stanley in the two great parties of the State, that
the things which they claim are reasonable and
right,—and with a view to this, let them impress
the same thing on as many members of Parliament
as they can,—and the necessary reforms will be car
ried, however novel in principle. Those who call
themselves “ practical men”—are apt to snuff out
every proposal that goes beyond routine, by the
reply,—“ There is no use in talking of it; for it is
quite impossible: ” and until a public opinion has
been formed in favour of it, every new thing is of
course impossible. But what our colonies and the
United States do, is not impossible to Englishmen
at home when they resolve upon it.
The inertia of our aristocratic ranks, miscalled
Conservatism, has undoubtedly a marvellous resist
ing force ; and this is the great danger of the country.
When all the world beside is in rapid movement,
and that world is in intimate relations—industrial,
political, social, literary, — with England ; when
moreover our own population is in steady change ;
organic reforms ought to accommodate themselves
easily and quickly,—if possible, spontaneously,—
to the changes of society. This would be true
Conservatism ; for this is vitality. Reform which
comes too late, fails to avert political disease.
The noblest function of high legislation is to guide
and conduct Reform.
Let those who think Inertia to be Conservative,
look with a fresh eye on the outer world. Russia
has cast off her slave system, and is organizing her
Governments into centres of independent political
life. She increases her population three times as
fast as England every year, and loses none
by emigration. In a quarter of a century more she
is likely to have ioo millions, not of disfranchised
men, or discontented subjects, but of real citizens,
under 40 or 50 local Parliaments, combining their
strength in one Empire.—Germany may ere long
�i6
be involved by her Prussian dynasty in a great
civil war, which (even if it do not become a Re
publican contest) can scarcely fail of ending in a
great union of their many local governments : a
Union which may chance even to absorb Holland
and Switzerland by the good will of these little
states. The Germany of the future is resolved to
be a power on the high seas, with at least forty
millions of people, who will cease to emigrate largely
when they are politically better satisfied.—France
will be to us ever a better neighbour, the richer and
the more commercial she becomes: yet so much the
more certainly is she our rival on the seas.—The
Italian fleets, with those of Southern Germany,
will supersede our functions as police of the Medi
terranean, and therefore might seem our valuable
allies: whether our Conservatives will so regard
them, is another question.—But the broad fact is,
that with the increase of good government on the
continent, and still more with the progress of free
institutions, the relative power of England must
sink and does sink: and we can less than ever afford
to have a discontented Ireland, and a peasantry who
are nearly at the bottom of the European scale.
Something yet stronger remains to be urged.
English and Irish peasants must be compared, not
merely to the peasants of Guernsey or of Europe,
but to those of America. There, a nation, among
whom in every moral and social sense our people
find themselves at home,—a nation which, since
the death of George III., has absorbed three
million British emigrants, — has decided on the
overthrow of slavery, and is resolved to people its
vast fertile lands by bestowing them freely on culti
vators. The Slave States will soon attract emigrants
even more than does the far West. America (to
say nothing of Canada) might receive ten million
new citizens in the next ten years with no result to
herself but increased prosperity. An emigrant who
�i7
has manly strength, industry, and temperance,
landing at New York with a few dollars, can in
3 or 4 years lay by enough to stock a farm, receive
public land, and become a freehold cultivator.
Should emigration from our counties once commence
in earnest, the Irish Exodus teaches that it is like a
syphon which sucks the cask dry,—the stream in
front attracting that behind. If English landlords
desire our problem to work itself out on the Irish
pattern ; if they can look complacently on the possi
bility of a constant dwindling of the English popu
lation, with results which need not here be pointed
at, they have only to persevere in their past
routine.
In this connexion there is yet one more topic
which English Whigs and Tories ought not to over
look : (I am unwilling to lay stress on it, yet it is
too important wholly to omit ;)—the danger—as
they will view it—of Republicanism becoming mili
tant in Europe. Their folly has prepared the way.
They abandoned Hungary, with its territorial no
bility, its old precedents, its rights founded on treaty,
when it had no thought of throwing off royalty.
By refusing to acknowledge the belligerency of
Hungary, and to reassume that place of Mediator,
between her and Austria, which (with Holland) we
had held in making the peace of 1710,—we con
nived at Russian invasion, and made Gorgey’s
treason a possibility.
Our first punishment was
our own Russian war, which came in the train. The
next is, that the English aristocracy now is isolated,
and Hungary (irreconcileable to Austria) will become
a Republic on the first opportunity. Hitherto the
French dynasty has failed to attain a constitutional
position, without which it has no mark of perma
nence ; nor is Victor Emmanuel’s throne the stronger
for all the humiliations which the French Emperor
has put upon it. Whether in France or in Ger
many events give the initiative, matters but little. A
c
�i8
civil war may rise in Germany, either from the un5
endurable encroachments of a prince, or by the con
tagion of revolutionary spirit. Whatever the cause
of German commotion, Republicanism would quickly
become an established fact in Hungary ; and once
successful there, would reanimate the struggle else
where. It will not wait to be a second time crushed
by the combination of kings. No one can predict
what is to come ; but no reasonable man will now
deny that events of an ordinary kind may lead to
the establishment of Republics in Hungary, Ger
many, and France. Would not English Conserva
tives and the Crown itself then regret, if by
obstructing all reforms, and initiating nothing likely
to remove the causes of discontent, they had per
petuated a sullen indignation against British Institu
tions ? Even in 1848 Tories rejoiced, that Lord
Grey’s Reform Bill of 1832 had become law.
S.ni.
What steps of Organic Reform do I then desire
to recommend to the attention of the reader ? I must
distinguish between immediate and ultimate measures.
Five measures appear to me of immediate urgent
importance.
1. The establishment of an Imperial Court in
India, to judge all causes between the Queen’s Go
vernment and the Princes ; with power similar to
that which the Queen’s Bench would put forth, if here
the Government were to eject a nobleman from his
estates. The mere inauguration of such a Court
would send a gush of loyalty through Indian hearts,
and would encourage the princes to lessen their
native armies. The establishment of one disputed
title by it (say, the confirmation of the Rajah of My
sore against Lord Canning’s unexpected and harsh
decision, which extinguishes his dynasty with his life,)
would allow us to reduce the Indian army by one
half. Its restitution of a single prince unjustly
�19
rdeposed, with restoration of his jewels and wardrobe,
might bring down the English force to the standard
of 1833. The mark of a “ tyrant ” (according to the
old Greeks) was his defence by a foreign body-guard:
we bear that mark of illegitimate sway at present.
To make India loyal, to save the yearly sacrifice of
health or life to 10,000 young men, now the miserable
victims of our army system, is so urgent an interest,
that I put this topic foremost. Too much import
ance can hardly be given to it. Each soldier is said
to cost us /ioo; hence the pecuniary expense also
is vast. But until we restrain ourselves from ag
gression, all attempts permanently to improve the
state of our millions at home must be fruitless.
Nor only so : but considering that 200 millions of
Indians would be represented in that Supreme
Court, a splendid commencement would be given to
“ Arbitration instead of War,” for which Cobden
contended in Europe.
English judges would be
faithful to their duty ; but, by adding natives of
India to the Court, we should set a potent example
to the whole world, fraught with good will to men,
and likely to bring us blessings from God.
The responsibilities of the English Parliament
would be greatly lightened by this measure ; which
would at least relieve them of their arduous judicial
duties towards the Indian princes.
2. The boon which was solemnly guaranteed to
India by Lord Grey’s Ministry in Parliament, and
by the Parliamentary Charter of 1833, should be at
once bestowed, bona fide. It was promised that to
every office, high or low, except that of Gov. Gen.
and Commander-in-Chief, native Indians should be
admissible on equal terms with British-born sub
jects. “ An exception corroborates the rule concerning
things not excepted. For twenty years this solemn
act was made a dead letter; then in 1853, under
pretence of new liberality, the delusive system of
competitive examinations was established, subjecting
�20
natives to unjust disadvantage, and forcing them to
come to England to be examined. If this system
of trickery be kept up by the old influences which
Lord Grey threatened with extinction if they dared
to resist that important clause in 1833,—all our
other good deeds and good intentions may prove
inadequate to win Indian loyalty. Our task there
is, to rear India into political manhood, train it to
English institutions, and rejoice when it can govern
itself without our aid. If a part of our aristocracy
and middle classes is too narrow-minded to under
stand how noble is such a function, the rest of Great
Britain ought not to remain silent,—to the great and
certain mischief of the empire.
3. The Mutiny Act, which is never passed for
more than one year, should not be re-enacted in its
present barbarous state, but with several important
modifications. Of these, I shall here specify but
one. No soldier or sailor who kills, wounds, or de
stroys, should be exempted from the ordinary
responsibilities of a civilian, except after the Queen
(or her accredited Viceroy) has publicly proclaimed
war. Then, and then only, if a soldier attack the
country against which war has been proclaimed,—
and none another,—should he be able to plead
“ military command ” in his justification. Against
violent and sudden attack civilians and soldiers alike
may make defence with deadly weapons. Admirals
and Consuls will cease to involve us in war of their
own initiation, only when they become unable to
shield the tools of their will from personal responsi
bility.—[I suppose that it is the Mutiny Act which
here needs modification. If there be some other
Act which exempts the soldier from guilt, then it is
that which needs repeal.]
4. Irish Ecclesiasticism has to be reformed with the
least possible delay. The topics are too well known
to dwell on. The Lord Morpeth Bill of 1837 and
Lord Leveson Gower’s of 1825,—both murdered
�21
by the House of Lords,—tell what needs to be done
for Ireland.
5. What I mention fifth, might be executed
first. — The principle of creating Life Peers, re
called by Lord Palmerston in the case of Lord
Wensleydale, should be avowed by the nation,
and enforced by the executive, but with one essential
modification of pre-eminent importance. Let the
" Commons vote a humble address to her Majesty,
representing that the House of Peers needs to be
elevated in honour and called to higher and more
active functions ; and with a view to this implore
her that in future she will create none but Life
Peers, and such Peers as can be trusted by her
faithful Commons to co-operate diligently in the
public service; that therefore also she will instruct
her ministers to seek a vote from the Commons,
commending for public merit any individual for
whom they are disposed to solicit from her Majesty
the honour of a Life Peerage.—The majority of the
Peers will be too sensible to resist the nation and
the Commons in such a cause, and a vast step on
ward will have been made.
So much for immediate Reforms : but what are
the more distant, yet necessary objects ?
We cannot undo in a day the malversations of
centuries. Every idea of immediate final Reform
is a sad delusion. For a century and a half, as
above remarked, instead of developing our ancient
organs, we have lamed or destroyed them. To re
make or invent requires both special knowledge and
wisdom. A popular movement cannot possibly dic
tate details. But I will not shrink from saying my
thought in outline, where I have thought a great
deal.
1. To stop unjust wars, entangling treaties, and
unwise diplomacy, the House of Lords should have
supreme controul over Foreign Affairs. The right
of advising her Majesty to declare war should be
�22
taken from the Privy Council, (which is in this mat
ter now a wooden machine,) and should be given to
the Lords ; every one of whom should have a right,
like that of the American Senate, to enter the Fo
*
reign Office and read every despatch. No Treaty
should be valid unless confirmed by the Lords, and
by the Commons also, if it involve pecuniary con
tingencies, and the House should have a right to
order the unmutilated publication of whatever di
plomatic document it pleases.
2. Every appointment to office should be made
out in the words, that her Majesty appoints the
person, “ by the consent of the House of Peers.”
Then the House would have a veto on every ap
pointment.
The Ministry would not dare to
appoint through mere favouritism, and would gain
power to resist importunate claimants of their own
party, whom they now reluctantly gratify.
Of course these new and high functions could
not be given to the Lords, until the nation trusts
them : and perhaps no Conservative, no peer, would
wish the Upper House to have this prominence in
the empire without some change in the present con
stitution. Sismondi,—a writer who energetically
combines an aristocratical creed with zeal for a freeholding peasantry,—declares as a historical induc
tion, that the essence and energy of aristocracy is
corrupted from the day that it becomes formally he
reditary. In England it has been saved by the dying
out of so many old peerages, and by the incessant
creation of new ones. The sole innovation of prin
ciple which I propose, is, that the creation shall be
made, not to reward partizanship, or to stock the
house with wealthy men ; but that^shall be voted
°l /optzmj cuique, (as the Romans have it) by the
representatives of the nation, and thus made a true
Aristocracy, a rule of the Best.
3. We want safety for our food which is on the high
seas.—The mischief of Bureaucracy is strikingly
�23
Illustrated in the recent history of this topic. In
i860 the United States Government sent a circular
to all its ministers in Europe, requesting them to
propose neutral privileges for all merchant ships in
time of war: and Earl Russell gave a decided re
fusal, without letting Parliament know that the offer
had been made. Three years later, Mr. Cobden re
vealed the fact, having got information of it from
America; and asserted of his own personal know
ledge that every Court of Europe would have
gladly acceded to the measure, if Earl Russell had
accepted it. The American Government did not
expect refusal from this quarter; for Lord Palmer
ston in a public speech at Liverpool had declared
his desire of such an arrangement. More recently
indeed, he has tried to back out of what he then
said ; but, as is believed, solely because he had found
Earl Russell unconvinceable. Such is the power of
one man, secretly to obstruct a matter of vital inte
rest to the nation. The doings of that one ship,
the Alabama, in spite of all the efforts of the Fede
ral navy, are a sufficient warning of what England
would suffer in a war with a power quite third-rate
on the seas. In fact, it is probable that either Aus
tria or Prussia could annihilate our merchant navy.
To compute the misery which would be endured by
the middle and lower classes of England from the
stagnation of foreign trade and the cutting off of
foreign food,—is impossible. It is not yet too late
to repair Earl Russell’s grave error; but if war
once come upon us, we then shall repent too late.
4. I believe that Ireland ought to be divided into
four Provinces, England into (perhaps) six, Scotland
into two; Wales would remain “the Principality:”
hence might be thirteen Provincial Councils with
free power of local taxation and local legislation,
subject only to a veto from Parliament, which in
most cases would gradually become a formality.
Time and trial, or lawyer’s skill, would discover in
�24
what cases the veto might be definitely renounced.
The Councils should be elected by a very extended suf4
frage, which in two generations might reach to every
adult who is ostensibly independent. The more
the Councils should relieve the Parliament of all
business except that in which the empire is neces
sarily a unit, the better. To controul the Executive
—to arrange all that is general to the United King
dom,—to look after India and the Colonies ; will
remain a more than sufficient task, if not only all
Private Bills are stript away, but also all business
concerning Education, Churches, the Poor, the Law
Courts, and Militia or Volunteers. If we had thus
many centres of national life, of high cultivation and
refinement, the unhealthy and threatening growth of
London would be arrested. We should soon have
many Universities, Free Education for all ranks, and
many small Army-systems, in wholesome emulation.
The Counties and the large Towns would no longer
be isolated, as strongholds of aristocracy and demo
cracy ; but the country gentlemen and nobility
would seek and find their places in the local Execu
tive and in the Provincial Councils, without being able
to block out meritorious men of every rank. The
poor would have a chance of rising to the top of the
scale. Instead of society being mischievously divi
ded, as now, into horizontal strata, its relations
would be local and territorial; for every Council
in England and its Executive would have a power
and dignity equivalent to that of a kingdom such as
Belgium or Holland.
Each would regulate its
local Religious Establishments : one would vie with
another in diffusing education : experimental legis
lation might become fruitful; and whatever mani
fest benefit one part had devised, would be initiated
without the ordeal of long Parliamentary cam
paigns.
The decay of English institutions from the acces
sion of William III to the death of George III was
�mainly due to the fact, that during European war
an English Parliament can ill attend to anything
else. J ust so, Parliamentary Reform was abandoned,
because Russian war came upon us.
This is an
evidently defective and barbarous condition; and
puts us into melancholy contrast to the United
States, in which no intensity of war lessens the do
mestic energy of the State Governments.
5. The question of Parliamentary suffrage cannot
be properly argued here. It is now complicated by
Mr. Hare’s ingenious proposals, of which I would
gladly see experiment in a single district, as in that
of the metropolis. To discuss his scheme fully
would require much space; to give an opinion
shortly would be arrogant. But to many reasoners
on the subject of the suffrage, a few general remarks
may be not superfluous.
Representative Legislators are an artificial sys
tem. Many men say to me : “I am not bound, to
obey laws, unless I have consented to them
iwy
'representative?' What if another say : “ I am not
bound to obey laws, unless I have consented to them
myself? " I think, that of the two, the latter state
ment has more reason. The former is every way
absurd. My representative may have voted against
the law ; then, I am not bound ! Women also are
free from all statute laws, by this argument. More
over, I never consented to be bound by my repre
sentative. Representation is a mere means to an
end. Justice to all orders and persons is the end.
Inasmuch as injustice in legislation generally pro
ceeds from one-sidedness of mind, a legislature
which does not contain men from all ranks is almost
certain to be unjust to the ranks excluded. But
merely to admit a right of voting, does not ensure
the object aimed at. The English farmers have
always had votes, but never in our days have
had representatives of their interest in Parliament.
Nor is the vote a natural right of individuals.
D
�26
If convenience suggested to cast lots in each rank,
and pick out a sort of jury from it as an electoral
college, no class would be injured, and no individual
could complain, as long as the results proved good.
Nor is it true that the men called “ potwall^ers ”
in old days were in any moral sense “ elevated ” by
the Parliamentary vote. That small shopkeepers,
artizans, farmers, peasants, and the entire female sex,
are wholly unrepresented in Parliament, seems to me
a great defect, apt to involve injustice to each
class, whenever it happens to have some special
interest and rights. But to remedy the evil is a
matter of extreme difficulty.
Neither extended
suffrage, nor universal suffrage seems to me likely
to bring an alleviation, until a distant date, after
living men are in their graves.
That persons may be “ elevated ” by possessing
the suffrage, they must be able to meet, and discuss,
and form definite opinions ; and not merely vote
once in seven years, but wait upon their representa
tive and press their judgments upon him, and be
able to call him to account, or be enlightened by
his explanation. A man who needs the Ballot to
shield him, and dares not allow the colour of his
political opinions to be known,—can do none of
these things; cannot fulfil the cardinal duties of a
constituent, and is degraded, not elevated, by pos
sessing the vote. Men who are too numerous or
too distant to meet and confer, are generally a mis
chievous constituency. Cliques and “ caucuses,” or
other Clubs, unknown to the Constitution, generally
snatch power out of their hands. I cannot convince
myself that the workmen who have “ Unions” are
not often in miserable subjection to the power of a
clique. The “caucuses” of the United Stateshave
constantly enabled those who are called “ trading
politicians ” to dictate the course of public events,
owing to the President being elected by suffrage on
too vast a scale. A nation which enjoys very
�27
vigorous local institutions,—where the Parish, as well
as the State, is in high energy, and education is not
only free to all, but accepted by all,—may bear
the occasional exercise of such a vote,—and will
use it well in a time of great national tension. But
to introduce those who have no daily political duties,
no local activity, no wide political thought, into the
responsibility of voting in huge masses once in seven
years, for a Parliament which is to be “ omnipotent; "
and to expect that this will promote liberty ;—seems
to me a lamentable and wild mistake. Electors
ought to have clear opinions as to the competence
of the elected for the highest and most difficult of
the tasks which will befal him. The welfare of our
millions is sacrificed by mismanagement of remote
affairs , as to which they have little knowledge and
no care. They should be able, not only to confer
and advise one another publicly, but to keep up
active personal relations with their representative.
Any enlargement of the franchise which impedes
these processes, or makes elections more expensive,
and leaves the expense on the candidate, must (I
fear) be a change greatly for the worse. At pre
sent, the power of a minister to threaten a dissolu
tion,—which means, to threaten a fine of some
hundreds or even thousands of pounds on single
members, if the voting be not to the minister’s taste,
is a disgrace and a grave mischief.
The French Reformers in the last century, who
first inEurope conceived generous and noble ideas
of popular power, were aware that nothing but con
fusion could come of Universal Suffrage acting
directly on a central system in a populous nation.
They devised the system of Double Election ; and
in my belief were fundamentally right. But on a
sound foundation they built unsoundly. The bodies
which thus elect, ought not to exist merely for the
sake of electing. They should elect because they are
a substantive power, trusted for other high duties,
�28
and therefore trustworthy for this function also. I
will not conceal my opinion, that if the United
Kingdom were divided into Provinces, every mem
ber of the Imperial Parliament ought ultimately to
be an ambassador delegated by the direct vote of his
Provincial Council; delegated with instructions, and
each liable to be separately recalled, and replaced at
the will of the Council. Such a system, I think,
would be a virtual return to the original idea, in
which the Knights and Burgesses certainly never
represented individuals, but represented corporate
bodies. There is the very same reason for electing
the central Parliament by representative Councils,
as there is for legislating by representatives, and
not by a folkmote, when a nation is counted by mil
lions. From every Council, on an average, seven
might every year be appointed, to sit for seven years,
unless recalled. Some of the seven every year
would be selected to gratify the petition of every
order of men : thus every class would have virtual
representatives in Parliament.
Every delegate
should have an honourable stipend from his own
Council, and never be permitted to incur any -election
expenses. In this way, from a humble origin, merit
might rise, first into the local legislature or local
executive, next into central posts of honour. And
there is no such security for the welfare of the lowest
ranks, as when a sensible fraction of the Executive
Government is ordinarily filled by men who have
risen .from below. At present no such men rise, nor
can rise, even into the Legislature, extend the suf
frage as you may.
After sons of peasants and of artizans shall be
found in high places,—after the House of Peers is
popularized,—no one would despair of changes in
the tenure of landed property, such as may elevate
the entire order of the peasantry ; but if it is to be
delayed so long, the problem will be solved by
Emigration in a mode far less satisfactory to the
�29
landlord class. If landlords are wise, they will
understand their danger ; and will prefer to have a
House of Peers which shall deal with it. Surely it
is happy for the Russian nobility that the Emperor
has taken in hand the removal of serfdom, instead
of awaiting the chances of revolution.
6. That pernicious system of Centralization which
makes French legal liberty impossible, and has
gravely damaged England, in India has run riot
without controul. When the East Indian Company
overthrew local treasuries in India, and put into
their central exchequer at Calcutta the tolls of roads
and ferries of the most remote South, they per
petrated a deed which doomed their rule to be a
blight upon the land, even if the virtue of their
lowest servants had been on a par with the best.
We know by positive official statement that in con
sequence of this diversion of moneys from their
local purpose, the roads of whole kingdoms became
overgrown, and so lost, that their old course was
matter for official inquiry. This hideous blunder
remains unreversed. India has no local treasuries.
Every coin in every province is liable to be spent
in some war against Nepaul, Afghanistan, or Thibet.
War is made with the very life-blood of material
prosperity: roads and bridges, canals and tanks,
cannot be repaired during war, while their funds are
mixed with the war funds. Many have of late been
finding out, that colonists will involve us in wars
with barbarian neighbours as long as they can sup
port their wars out of the resources of the Home
Government. Not less true is it, that India will
never be without a war, as long as there is a centra
lized treasure to support it and no Parliament to
refuse supplies. Mr. Bright many years since made
an elaborate speech in Parliament, which was heard
by all sides with very respectful attention:—if he
had followed it up, and claimed inviolable local
treasuries, he would have said all that I am here
�30
pressing. He urged that every Indian Presidency
should be independent of the rest, and that each
should be in direct relation to the Home Govern
ment. India, it is often said, is a continent, not a
country,
The diversities of its inhabitants are
enormous. No one proposes for it uniform legisla
tion.
If an English ministry could be at once
convinced that India ought to be divided into many
coordinate governments, it might be a reform not of
the distant, but of the near future. Parliament
would acquiesce in any thing proposed by the
ministry. There is evidently no reason in doubting
that a Government of io million people could defend
its own frontiers against any rude neighbours or
half barbarous potentates; and a Government thus
limited, would have far less tendency to aggression
than the powerful and proud Executive of 150
millions. A Viceroy is wanted in India, not to
govern but to reign. Take away the Governor
General, and send a prince of the blood royal, to
represent the Empress Queen to the Indian princes ;
—to receive their occasional homage and their
formal applications -to be the medium of transmit
ting their diplomacy to England, or their suits to
that Imperial Court which I imagine. The Central
Executive should be a mere “ Board of Works” for
Railways, Canals, Rivers, Harbours, Post, and Mint,
without a Foreign Office, an Army, or a Navy.
India will not cease to be drained’by war expenses,
and thereby to be misgoverned, until ambitious
central despotism is destroyed.
Every point above proposed by me, (except the
neutralization of merchant vessels in time of war,
to which Lord Palmerston once gave voluntary
assent) is developed out of the single principle, that
Centralization, and the Bureaucracy which it nou
rishes, must be severely abated. If Bureaucracy is
to be depressed, something else must be elevated.
What must that be ? I say, the House of Peers
�31
and an Imperial Court of Law. This ought not to
frighten a Conservative. But the House cannot
get or keep public support,—it cannot really lead
the nation,—without a Reform. What milder reform
is possible, than is above suggested ? What more
honourable to Peerage ? The strongest Democrats
rejoice to be presided over by a popular nobleman.
To a Reformed House of Peers the warmest lovers
of liberty among us would shortly rally. . A popular
movement can only dictate principles; such as are
these: let us have true Aristocracy, not Bureaucracy:
let us have political vitality every where, restricting
Centralization to its true functions : let every class
be represented in the Legislature, and be admissible
into the Executive.
Such principles are broad enough to be popular.
Details must be directed by cultivated intelligence,
independent of the ministry of the day. Every
ministry, like a Turkish Pasha, has an intense inte
rest in the present, and a very feeble interest in the
future. To allow a ministry to dictate permanent
policy is a truly grave mistake, tending to Turkish
ruin. The ministry has a task to execute ; but a
power which has a more permanent stake in the
country should prescribe what task. When the
House of Commons looks to the ministry to lead it,
and the Lords have no popular support, what else
can be expected but short-sighted policy ?
I have said enough, yet I wish to add, that I re
gard our system of voluntary political societies, made
for special objects, as a wretched crutch, and an
enormous waste of time and money. The argumen
tations which they carry on ought to be heard on
the floor of a local constitutional assembly,—of a
parish or municipality first,—thence by transference
to a Provincial Council, through which any petitions
should ordinarily go to Parliament. Then both
sides would hear one another from the beginning;
whereas now, an elaborate process is needed, before
�32
even the best cause can get a hearing from adversa
ries, while foolish schemes linger without effective
refutation.—The case of our peasants is sad and
disgraceful; but it needs wisdom still more than
sympathy. To abolish the Law of Primogeniture
might bring no immediate visible result; but it
would excellently inaugurate a new principle, and
give some hope for the future.
WILLIAM IRWIN, PRINTER, 5, PRINCESS STREET, MANCHESTER.
�
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
English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by William Irving, Princess Street, Manchester.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5219
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought), 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
Politics
Social Reform
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Reform
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/612a86d21a17fc3e11eb6f6cd2cb4630.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MqmbZa-sBKGuQqIkFdiXhyxPJ6Lq-Ni-iLWaquDFXWM-E4zeM2qqQblRxF5eI-RpoYMTvAwZvBJ7so9zWa2j3tkH1xbTgN0WEynmBbjdQBIyxtP5URUHKF0GliUnNlScubCEOKOrcW5Kb8KpbK%7EwzSGgggdP6r82w3oyJJg3DzVS3p7BePpNh5H3l0Jv2o0mrpmDxHQjutwb7QOm%7EABK9s1CSA4j0By75pj6S2RwfsoHgLwuivErxPLE9qCpDrOsR2KJCdiSD53s%7EOgg8wEOMC9L5syIngGirbkbu2k3ycmNv1T-Zttzj2aa36bEOAsS9rawRNDe3KCUDYGIvZeeKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bea4926af6caea4682ebe176f37ca957
PDF Text
Text
A DISCOURSE
AGAINST HERO-MAKING
>
$n
*
^tligxan,
DELIVERED IN SODTH PLACE CHAPEL, FINSBURY,
April 24th, 1864.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
Printed by request, with, Enlargements.
LONDON:
TEUBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1864.
�“ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom
ye believed ?
“ Paul planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Wherefore let no man glory in men.”
�-e
DISCOURSE
AGAINST
HERO-MAKING IN RELIGION,
OR more than twenty years we have been made familiar
F
with the phrase Hero-Worship.
It has been applied
not only in the regions of politics and literature, but in
religion, as the phrase itself strictly claims.
We have been
told, from very opposite quarters, that the' excellence, as well
as the characteristic, of the Christian religion turns on its
venerating a personal hero in Jesus of Nazareth.
Many who
regard Jesus as a mere man, yet insist upon inscribing them
selves his servants and followers, and on so wedding their
honour for him with their adoration to God most high, as
systematically to incorporate the two.
Nay, some who utterly
disown allegiance to Jesus—who think him to have taught
• many things erroneously, and to have had nothing super
natural in his character, in his powers, in his knowledge, in
his virtue, in his birth, or in his communications with God—
still maintain that he is fitly called the Regenerator of man
kind, and ought to receive—I know not what acknowledg
ment—as our Saviour.
It appears then not superfluous to
bestow a little space on the treatment of this question.
�4
I need hardly observe that personal qualities alone in no
case constitute a hero.
Action and success must be added;
and action cannot succeed until the times are ripe.
knows this better than the true hero.
No one
True genius is modest
in self-appreciation, and is fully aware how many other men
could have achieved the same results if the same rare con
juncture of circumstances had presented itself to them.
Men
of genius are fewer than common men, but they are no
accident.
God has provided for their regular and continuous
recurrence; theii birth is ordinary and certain in every nation
*
which is counted by millions.
The same is true in every
form of mental pre-eminence, whether capacity for leadership,
or genius for science, or religious and moral susceptibility.
Religion, separate from morals, is, of course, only fanaticism.
We venerate religion only when built upon pure morals.
Moral religion is notoriously a historic growth, and has de
pended on traditional culture at least as much as what is
especially called science; and its progress is not more way
ward and arbitrary than that of science, if the whole of
human history be surveyed.
The present is ever growing
out of the past, with a vigour and a certainty which never
allow the fortunes of the race to be seriously dependent on
any individual.
Each of us is, morally as well as physically,
a birth out of antecedents.
From childhood we are tutored
in right and wrong, not only by professed teachers, but by
all elder persons who are around us.
Improper deeds or
words of a child are reproved by a servant, or by an elder
brother, or even by a stranger, as well as by a parent or a
priest.
We imbibe moral sentiment, as it were, at every
pore of our moral nature; nor do we often know from whom
�5
we learned to abhor this course of conduct and to love that.
Hence no wise man will claim originality for his moral
judgments or religious sentiments.
A foolish dogma, a
fanciful tenet, may easily be original; but a pure sound
truth is more likely to have been old.
To prove its novelty
is impossible, and certainly could not recommend it: on the
contrary, the older we can prove it to have been, the greater
its ostensible authority.
For these reasons, in the theory of
morals and religion, a claim of originality can seldom or
never be sustained: in this whole field the question is less
■what a man has taught, than what he has persuaded others.
Hundreds of us may have said, truly and wisely: “ It is a
great pity that Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians of every
sect will not unlearn their dissensions, and blend into one
religious community.”
The sentiment must once have been
even new; yet its utterance coidd never have earned praise
and distinction.
But if any one devoted his life to bring
about such union, and succeeded in it, we should undoubtedly
regard him as a moral hero; though (as just said) no one
could succeed, until the fulness of time arrived and the crisis
was seized judiciously.
Thus, in discussing the claims put forth for special and
indeed exclusive honour to the name of Jesus, we have to
consider, not so much what he said, or is said to have said, as
what he effected; what impression he actually produced by
his life and teaching; what great, noble, abiding results his
energies originated and bequeathed.
The moment we ask,
What are the facts ? we seem to be plunged into waves of
most uncertain controversy; into discussions of literature
unsuitable for short oral treatment.
Yet, before the present
�6
audience, I may with full propriety claim as admitted that
which greatly clears our way.
I presume you to know
familiarly, that the picture of Jesus in the fourth gospel is
essentially irreconcilable with that in the three which
precede, and is neither trustworthy nor credible.
The
three first gospels, taken by themselves, do present a
character, a moral picture, sufficiently self-consistent and
intelligible to reason about.
But our present question (allow
me carefully to insist) is
Do we see in Jesus a remarkable
not,
man, a gifted peasant, a dogmatist by "whom we may profit,
whose noble sentiments we may admire or applaud? but
rather, Do we find one who dwarfs all others before and after
him? one to whose high superiority sages and prophets
must bow; before whom it is reasonable and healthful for
those who have a hundredfold of his knowledge and breadth
of thought to take the place of little children ?
Or, at least,
Has Europe and the world (as a fact) learned from him what
it was not likely to learn without him ?
Is that
trve
which
1s dinned into our ears, that Christendom has imbibed from
him a pure, spiritual, large-hearted, universal religion,
adapted to man as man, cementing mankind as a family, and
ennobling the individual by a new and living Spirit, unknown
to the philosophies, unknown to the priesthoods, untaught by
the prophets, before him ?
Even if we had no insight as to the comparative value of
the several gospels, one broad certainty affords solid ground
to plant the foot upon.
The positive institutions and active
spirit of the first Christian church are notorious and indubit
able;
On learning what the Apostles established in their
Master’s name within a few weeks of his death, We know
�7
with full certainty what they had understood him to leach}
what impression he actually produced, what was the real net
result of his life and preaching: and this, in fact, is our
main question.
Now, it is true beyond dispute—it is con
ceded by every sect of Christians—that in the first Christian
church the Levitical ceremonies were maintained with zealous
rigour, and that its only visible religious peculiarity consisted
in community of goods.
The candidate for baptism professed
no other creed but that Jesus was Messiah; and the obedience
of the disciple to the Master was practically manifested in the
sudden renunciation of private property.
This ordinance
was not, in theory, compulsory; but, while the fervour of
faith was new, it was enforced by the public opinion of the
church so sharply, as to tempt the richer disciples to
hypocrisy.
The story of Ananias and Sappliira is full of
instruction-.
They did not wish to alienate all their goods,
though they were "willing to be very liberal.
In deference
to the prevailing sentiment, they sold property and gave
largely to the church; yet were guilty of keeping back a part
for themselves secretly.
For this fraud (according to the
legend) they were both struck dead at the voice of Peter!
Such a legend could not have arisen, except in a church
which regarded absolute Communism as the characteristic
Christian virtues
Higher proof is not needed that Jesus
established this duty as the touchstone of discipleship: butj
in fact; the account in the three gospels tallies herewith
perfectly.
Jesus there mourns over a rich young man, as
refusing the law of PeHi’ection, because he hesitates to sell
all his goods; give them to the poor, and become a mendicant
friar,
When his disciples, commenting on the young man’s
�8
failure to fulfil tlio test, say: “ Lo! we have left all and
followed thee: what shall we have therefore?”
Jesus in
reply’ promises, that, in reward for having sacrificed to him
the gains of their industry and abandoning their relatives,
they shall sit upon thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of
Israel.
(In passing I remark, that the idea of such a reward
for such a deed is shocking to a Pauline Christian.)
The Jerusalem church was, alone of all churches, founded
by the' chosen representatives of Jesus on the doctrine of
Jesus himself, while the remembrance of that doctrine was
fresh.
It was a special community, not unlike a “ religious
order ” of modern Europe; and could not be discriminated,
by Jews any more than by Homans, from a Jewish sect.
In
the next century, those who seem to have been its direct
successors were called Ebionite heretics by the Gentile
Christians.
When Paul, who ostentatiously refused to learn
anything from the actual hearers of Jesus, had put forth
what he calls “ his own ” gospel—namely,“ the mystery that
Gentiles "were to be fellow-heirs ” without Levitical purity—
he brought on himself animosity and violent opposition from
the Christians of Jerusalem, who were the historical fruit of
Jesus’ own planting.
When Paul was in Jerusalem, one of
the leaders called his attention to the fact that, while many
thousands of Jews were believers, they were “ all zealous of
the law; ” he therefore advised him to pacify their mis
givings and suspicions of him, by performing publicly certain
Judaical ceremonies.
Paul obeyed him: nevertheless, no
such conformities could atone for his offence in teaching that
Gentiles, while free from the law, were equal to the Jews
before God; and Paul to his last day experienced enmity
�9
from the zealous members of that church.
His relations to
the other Apostles we know by his own account to have been
certainly cold.
He seems to be personally pointed at in the
Epistle of James, as “a vain man,” who preaches faith
without works; while he himself (as he tells us) publicly
attacked Petei’ at Antioch as a dissembler and weak truckler
to Jerusalem bigotry.
When, from first to last, the doctrine
of the church at Jerusalem was sternly Levitical, it is quite
incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious
nullity of Levitical ceremonies and the equality of Gentiles
with Jews before God.
But why need I argue about this,
when it is distinctly clear on the face of the narrative ?
In
the book of Acts the idea that “ God is no respecter of
persons ”—or of nations—breaks upon the mind of Peter as
a new revelation, and is said to have been imparted by a
special vision.
It is not pretended that Jesus had taught it;
nor does Paid, in any of his controversies against Judaism,
dare to appeal to the authority and doctrine of the earthly
Jesus as on his side.
In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount,
as also in a passage of Luke (xvi. 17), Jesus declares that he
is not come to destroy the law; and that “Bather shall
heaven and earth pass away, than shall one tittle of the law
fail.”
I am, of course, aware that Christian theologians
would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that
the words in Matthew, “ Until all be fulfilled,” mean “ Until
my death shall fulfil all the types.”
But this would make
Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle.
This is
indeed worse than trifling, and a gratuitous imputation on
the teacher’s truthfulness.
was understood.
He must have known how he
They supposed him to mean that Levitisnx
�10
was eternal; and lie did not correct the impression.
It was
then the very impression which he designed to make, simply
and truthfully; and the disciples, one and all, rightly under
stood him, and knew it well.
The verse which follows in Matthew clenches the argu
ment ; although (I see I must in candour add) I do not
believe that Jesus spoke it in exactly this form.
Never
theless, it emphatically shows how the writer interpreted the
verse preceding.
For he makes Jesus to add: “ Wherefore,
whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I find
myself unable to doubt that these words were written to
mean: “ Wherefore, one like Paul, who breaks the Levitical
ceremonies, and teaches the Gentiles to break them, is least
in my kingdom; but James, and the Apostles in Jerusalem,
who do and teach them, are great in my kingdom.”
The
intensity of feeling on this subject was such, that the Jewish
Christians easily believed Jesus to have prophetically warned
them against Paul’s error.
Be this as it may, the formula,
° break one of these least commandments, and teach men to
break it,” is in contrast to “ fulfilling the law,” and distinctly
shows that “ fulfilling the law ” refers to doing and enforcing
even the least commandments;
The Jerusalem church was the product (and, as far as wd
know, the only direct product) of the teachings of Jesus. Of
its sentiment we have an interesting Exhibition in the epistle
of James; in whom We see a high and severe moralist, pure
and exacting, full of righteous indignation against the
�11
oppression of the poor by the rich, and against all haughtiness
of wealth. He does not treat all private property as unchris
tian ; but only large property.
Evidently no rich man could
have seemed venerable to the chief saints in that church.
He assumes the guilt of all rich men, and announces misery
about to come on them, as does Jesus in the parable of Lazarus:
nevertheless, in him all the harshest parts of Jesus’ precepts
have been softened by the trial of practical life.
In fact, this
epistle is much in the tone of the very noblest of the Hebrew
prophets.
As with them, so in him, the moral element is
wholly predominant, and nothing ceremonial obtrudes itself.
Nay, what is really remarkable, he calls his doctrine the
K perfect law of libertyso little did those ceremonies oppress
him, to which from childhood he had been accustomed.
Let
due honour be given to this specimen of the first and only
genuine Christianity; yet it is difficult to find anything that
morally distinguishes it from the teachings of an Isaiah or a
Joel.
There is certainly a diversity: for the political ele
ments of thought have disappeared, which under the Hebrew
monarchy were prominent.
The great day of the Lord was
no longer expected to glorify the royalty of Jerusalem and
its national laws : and in this diversity lay the germ of great
changes.
It would be absurd to censure an epistle because it is not a
ritual, or to demand in it the fervours of spirituality found in
this or that psalm. Nevertheless, in the present Connection, I
must claim attention to the fact that neither the three Gospels,
nor the epistle pf James have ever been in high favour with
that Caivinistic or Augustinian school which most nearly
Represents Paul to the moderns;
To bring out the argument
�12
in hand more clearly, allow me to make a short digression.
Morality requires both action and sentiment.
No reasonable
teacher can undervalue either : yet some moral teachers press
more on action, and are said to preach duty and work; and
even make a duty of sentiment, laying down as a command
that we shall love God, love our neighbours, love not ease,
love not self.
Other teachers endeavour to excite, foster, and
develop just sentiment, and trust that it will generate just
action: possibly they even run into the error of shunning
definite instruction as to what action is good.
Finite and
one-sided as we are, two schools naturally grow up among
teachers, who may be classed as the preachers of duty and
the preachers of sentiment: but perhaps, if the question be
distinctly proposed to the ablest men of either school, “ Do
we learn action from sentiment, or sentiment from action ?”
they would alike reply (as in substance does Aristotle) that
both processes necessarily co-exist.
From childhood upward,
right action promotes right feeling, and right feeling generates
or heightens right action.
of the two schools.
There is no real or just collision
Nevertheless, as a fact of human history
easily explained, the preaching of duty and of outward action
gains everywhere an early and undue ascendency, perhaps
especially where morals and religion are taught by law, which
deals in command and threat.
The rude man and the child
are subjected to rule more or less arbitrary; and it is only
when intellect rises in a nation or in an individual that the
spiritual side of morals receives its proportionate attention.
In Greek history, we know the fact in the philosophy of
Socrates and Plato.
Among the Hebrews, a secular increase
of spirituality in the highest teachers will probably be con
�13
ceded by critics of every school to have gone on from the
time of the judge Samuel to the writer from whom came the
last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.
The characteristic
difference of the Greek and the Hebrew is this: that, however
spiritual the Greek morality might be, it seldom blended with
religion; and (with exceptions perhaps only to be found under
Hebrew influences, as at Alexandria) the moral affections
found no place in religion at all.
Now it has been recently
asserted by a Theist, that it is to Jesus that we owe that
regeneration of religion, which makes it begin and grow from
within. He is not (it is said) “ a mere teachei’ of pure ethics;”
but “his work has been in the heart.
He has transformed
the Law into the Gospel. He has changed the bondage of the
alien for the liberty of the sons of God.
He has glorified
virtue into holiness, religion into piety, and duty into love.”
Hence it is inferred that “his coming was to the life of
humanity what regeneration is to the life of the individual.”*
Deep as is my sympathy with the writer from whom I
quote, I am constrained to say that every part of the state
ment appears to me historically incorrect. It does, in the first
place, violent injustice to the Hebrews who preceded Jesus.
Did he first “ glorify virtue into holiness” ?
Nay, from the
very beginning of Hebraism this was done—at least as early
as Samuel.
Did he first “ glorify religion into piety” ?
Is
there then no piety in the 42nd Psalm ? in the 63rd ? in the
* I quote from the striking treatise of my friend Miss Cobbe,
called “ Broken Lights.” The whole protest against M. Renan, of
which the words above are the summary, should be read to under
stand their relation. I am authorized to say that she has not even
the remotest wish to make honour to Jesus a part of religion: she
intended to write as a historian only:
�14
27th ? in the 23rd ? Nay, I might ask; from what utterances
of Jesus can piety be learned by the man who cannot learn
it from the Psalms ?
Holiness and piety appear to me to
have been taught and exemplified quite as effectively before
Jesus as since.
Surely in the religion of the psalmists piety
dominated, as much as in Fenelon or in the poet Cowper. But
finally I have to ask, “ Did Jesus glorify duty into love?”
And, in order to reply, I turn to the three gospels, as con
taining our best account of what he taught.
A phenomenon there very remarkable is the severity with
which Jesus enforces as duty the most painful renunciations ;
and the contempt with which he rejects anything short of
immediate obedience to his arbitrary demands.
I know not
whether the narrators have overcoloured him ; but they give
us, on the one side, examples of prompt obedience to the com
mand, “ Follow me:” first, in Andrew and Peter; next, in
James and John ; who <l immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him.”
highly meritorious.
This is afterwards praised as
On the other side, when Jesus says to a
man, "Follow me,” and receives the reply, “Lord, suffer me
first to go and bury my father,” Jesus retorts: “Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee, but let me first go
and bid them fareioell which are at home in my house.
And
Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the
plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
The peremptory command to abandon their parents, not bury
a dead father, and not even say a word of farewell to the
living, is perhaps a credulous exaggeration of the writer; yet
it is in close harmony with the whole account, and with the
�15
declaration, “ He that hateth not liis father and mother, and
wife and children, cannot be my disciple
for evidently the
following of Jesus, as interpreted and enforced by himself,
involved an abandonment (perhaps to starvation) of these
near relatives.
It is not my purpose to dwell now on the
right or wrong of such precepts, but on the imperious tone in
which they are imposed fromzoithout, not the slightest attempt
being made to recommend them to the heart or understanding.
Again, in perfect harmony with the same is the reply, already
adduced, of Jesus to the rich young1 man, who comes to ask,
“What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
The
opportunity was excellent to set forth that no outward actions
could bring eternal life, but that such life was an interior and
divine state, to be sought by love and faithfulness.
Instead
of spiritual instruction, Jesus gives a crushing arbitrary com
mand : “ If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come and follow me.” Does such a teacher build from within
by implanting Love ? Does he act upon Love at all, or rather
on selfish Ambition?
He deals in hard duty and fierce
threat; commands too high, and motives too low; thoughts
of reward; promises of power; salvation by works; invest
ment of money for returns beyond the grave; prudential
adoption of virtue, which may soften judgment, win pro
motion, deliver from prospective prison and hell fire: topics
which at best are elements of Law, as opposed to Gospel.
In
the opinion of an increasing fraction of the most enlightened
Christians, the most noxious element in the popular creed is
the eternal Hell: the stronghold of this doctrine is in the
discourses of Jesus.
But what of Faith?
If Faith be a
�16
purely spiritual movement, which cleaves to Goodness and
Truth for its own sake, and without regard to selfish interests,
it is hard to say in what part of the three gospels it is found.
In the mind of Jesus all actions seem to stand in the closest
relation to the thoughts of punishment or reward on a great
future day.
To lose one’s soul means, to be sentenced when
that day shall come : cutting off a sin means, escaping muti
lated from a future hell.
In a religion practically moulded
on these discourses, calculation of what we shall hereafter
get by present obedience inheres as a primary essence.
The
only faith which Jesus extols, is, faith to work miracles, and
faith that he is Messiah and can work them.
frowned down and sighed over as unbelief.
Inquiry is
Power to forgive
sin is claimed by him; and, when this is reproved as impious
in a human teacher, the claim is marvellously justified by
identifying forgiveness with cure of bodily disease.
Add to
this the grant of miraculous powers to the Seventy, and a
delegation of power to forgive is made out at which Pro
testants may well shudder.
In another place (Luke vii. 4, 5)
Jesus declares forgiveness of sin to be earned by personal
affection to himself; but I am bound to add that, on special
*
grounds, I do not believe the account.
* The narrative in Luke vii. 37—50 seems to be an inaccurate
duplicate of that in Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3, John xii. 3; which
nearly agree as to time and place—viz., it was in Bethany, a little
before the last Passover. Matthew and Mark say, it was in the house
of Simon the leper : Luke says, of Simon the Pharisee. John calls
the woman Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and of Martha:
Luke says, a woman notorious for sin. I will here remark, that
discussion on the behaviour of Jesus to women of ill fame, which is
called “ delicate,” “ beautiful,” “ characteristic,” &c., appeal’s to me
wholly without basis of fact. Those who allow no historical cha
�17
Luke has in some parts added softer touches to Jesus, and
gives us two fine parables which it is astonishing that Matthew
and Mark omit, while they retail so many that are monoto
nous : yet even in Luke I seek in vain for anything calculated
to implant in the heart a sense of freedom ; to excite willing
service; or to cherish spiritual desire, gratitude and tranquil
In fact, Luke
love, careless of other reward than love itself.
is sometimes harsher than Matthew. Thus, in vi. 20, “ Blessed
be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye
that hunger now, for ye shall be filled.
But woe unto
.
.
you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation.
unto you that are full; for ye shall hunger.
Woe
Woe unto you
that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep.”
So indiscri
minate and thoughtless-are devotees, that such doctrine meets
with the same theoretic glorification as the essentially different
version of Matthew: “ Blessed are the poor in spirit.
.
.
Blessed are ye who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
If Matthew be correct and Luke’ wrong, Luke has foisted
upon Jesus curses against rich and mirthful men, in contrast
racter to the discourses in John will not quote John iv. 16—19, nor
John viii. 1—11, against this remark: and nothing remains but Luke
vii. 37—50. The fair fame of Mary Magdalene has been blasted by
believing this story in Luke, and then identifying her with the
woman.
I will add that many who must know seem to forget, that no
Greek philosopher—neither an Anaxagoras nor a Zeno, to say
nothing of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca—would ever
have felt crude or unjust severity towards a woman’s faults. If
English sentiment sometimes appear harsh against women who have
made a trade of themselves, is it not because sins which are gainful
to the sinner are more inveterate and more contagious than sins
which imf'Oterish him ?
B
�18
to the blessings on poverty and weeping: but if the curses
came from the lips of Jesus, Luke gives the opposite clauses
justly; in which case Matthew has improved monkish into
spiritual sentiment.
It would be a hard task to prove Luke’s
version out of harmony with the constant doctrines of Jesus.
To borrow Calvinistic phraseology, and (if my memory serves
me) the very words of a Pauline spiritualist: “ The three
gospels may be read in the churches till doomsday, without
converting a single soul.”
The spiritual side of Christianity,
inherited from the Hebrew psalmists, not from Jesus, was
diffused beyond Judaea, first by the Jewish synagogues, next
by the school of Paul, to whom the school of Jesus was in
fixed opposition, preaching works and the law, while Paul
preached the Spirit and faith. “ Though I give all my goods
to feed the poor,” says Paul, “ and give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, I am nothing.”
How vast the contrast
here to the doctrine of Jesus: “ Every one that hath forsaken
houses, oi’ brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,
or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hun
dredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.”
To make ascetic
sacrifices for the honour of Jesus was indeed a surpassing
merit in his eyes, unless the most important discourses, even
in these three gospels, extravagantly belie him.
I am unable
to discover on what just ground the opinion stands that the
character of Jesus is less harsh, and his precepts less sourly
austere than those of John the Baptist.
Little as we are told
of the latter (all of which is honourable), the two must have
had close similarities.
Let it be remembered that Apollos is
spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as “ instructed in the
�19
way of the Lord, and fervent in spirit, and teaching diligently
the things of the Lord,” while he “ knew only the baptism of
John.”
So also Paul falls in with “certain disciples” at
Ephesus, who pass as Christians ; yet he presently discovers
that they also know only John’s baptism.
It seems there
fore evident, that the two schools had nothing essential to
divide them, and were intimately alike.
When, on the other
hand, the sharp opposition of the Pauline doctrine to that of
James and the church of Jesus at Jerusalem is duly estimated,
some may think that certain words put into the mouth of
John the Baptist will become less untrue if changed as
follows: “ I indeed and Jesus baptize you with water unto
repentance and poverty ; but Paul shall baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Be that as it may—give as little
weight as you please to Paul’s strong points—press as heavily
as you will on his weak side, out of which came the worst
part of Calvinism—the fact remains, that Jesus did not teach
Christianity to the Gentiles, or declare them admissible to
his church without observing Mosaism; and that to the Jews
themselves he preached merely severe precepts, ethical or
monkish, with a minimum of what can be called Gospel;—
precepts, on which a religious order might be founded, but
totally unsuitable for a world-wide religion.
When people calmly tell me that Jesus first established
the brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the nullity of
ceremonies; that he overthrew the narrowness of Judaism;
that he found a national, but left a universal religion; found
a narrow-minded ceremonial, and originated a spiritual prin
ciple, I can do nothing but reply that every one of these
b
2
�2Q
statements is groundless and contrary to fact,
What his
disciples never understood him to teach, he certainly did not
teach effectually.
It is childish to reply that the fault lay in
the stupidity of the twelve Apostles.
speak as plainly as Paul did ?
What! could not Jesus
Surely, the more stupid the
hearer, the more plainly the teacher is bound to speak.
If
Jesus had so spoken, never could want of spirituality in the
hearer have made the words unintelligible.
Did only the
spiritual understand Paul when he proclaimed the overthrow
of ceremonies ?
Could the most stupid of mortals have failed
to understand Jesus also, if he had avowed that the Levitical
ordinances were a nullity and Gentiles the religious equals of
Jews ?
I may seem to insult men’s intellect by pressing these
questions; but do not they rather insult our intellect ?
For
they would have us believe Jesus to have originated doctrines
which are the very opposite of all that his actual hearers and
authorized expounders established as his, before there was
time for his teaching to fade from their memory, and to be
modified by novelties supervening.
I have called the primitive church of Jerusalem the only
direct product of Jesus.
Do I deny that Jesus bore any part
at all in setting up the creed known in Europe as Christian -
ism ?
I wish I could wholly deny it.
Gladly would I relieve
his memory of all responsibility for dogmas, whence proceed
far more darkness and weakness of mind, confusion, bitterness,
and untractable •enmities, than his moral teaching can ever
dispel; dogmas which as effectually break up good men into
hostile sects, with fixed walls of partition between them, as
ever did the ceremonialism which he is falsely imagined to
�21
have destroyed.
But, hard as it is to know how much of the
gospels is historical, I suppose that no one for three centuries
at least has doubted that Jesus avowed himself to be Messiah,
at first privately, at last ostentatiously; and was put to death
for the avowal.
ground.
If so much be historical, we are on firm
There is then no room for transcendental philoso
phies and imaginative theories, as to what authority and
honour Jesus was claiming.
The Jews of that day familiarly
understood that Messiah was to be a Prince from Heaven, who
should rule and judge on earth.
As to the great outlines of
his character and power, manifestly there was no dispute.
If
the popular notions on this subject were wrong, the first busi
ness with Jesus must have been to set them right.
But he
never discourses against them, nor shows alarm lest he be
thought to claim supernatural dignity and lordship: nor
could his riding triumphantly on the ass, amid shouts of
“ Hosanna to the Son of David! ” have been intended to dis
courage the belief that he was to exercise temporal as well as
spiritual royalty.
The learned and the vulgar were in full
agreement that Messiah was to be a supreme Prince and
Teacher to Israel, Judge and Lord of all nations: but the
rulers regarded it as impious, criminal, and treasonable to
aspire to this dignity w’hile unable to exhibit some miraculous
credentials. The fixed belief concerning Messiah was gathered,
not only from our canonical prophets, but also from the book
called “ The Wisdom of Solomon ” (whichwvas in the Greek
Bible of Paul and other Hellenist Jews), and still more vividly
from the book of Enoch, which Jude and Peter quote rever
entially, and Jude ascribes to the prophet Enoch, the seventh
�22
from Adam.
With the discovery of that book early in this
century a new era for the criticism of Christianity ought to
have begun; for it is evidently the most direct fountain of
the Messianic creed.
The book of Mormon does not stand
alone as a manifest fiction which had power to generate a
new religion; the book of Enoch is a like marvellous exhibi
tion of human credulity.
A recent German critic has given
the following summary of its principal contents
It not
only comprizes the scattered allusions of the Old Testament
in one grand picture of unspeakable bliss, unalloyed virtue,
and unlimited knowledge: it represents the Messiah as both
King and Judge of the world, who has the decision over
everything on earth and in heaven.
He is the Son of Man
who possesses righteousness; since the God of all spirits
has elected him, and since he has conquered all by righteous
ness in eternity.
He is also the Son of God, the Elected one,
the Prince of Righteousness.
which knows all secret things.
is poured out upon him.
He is gifted with that wisdom
The Spirit in all its fulness
His glory lasts to all eternity.
He
shares the throne of God’s majesty: kings and princes will
worship him, and will invoke his mercy.”*
So much from
the book of Enoch ; which undoubtedly was widely believed
among the contemporaries of Jesus.
How much of the self
glorifying language put into the mouth of Jesus was actually
uttered by him it is impossible to know. There is always
room for the opinion that only later credulity ascribed this
* I quote from a summary of the book of Enoch by the German
theologian Kalisch, given in Bishop Colenso’s Appendix to his 4th
volume on the Pentateuch.
�23
and that to him—that (for instance) he did not really speak
the parable about the sheep and goats, representing himself
as the Supreme Judge who awards heaven or hell to every
human soul.
But it remains, that this parable distinctly
shows the nature of the dignity which Jesus was supposed to '
claim in calling himself Son of Man ; and, even if we arbi- trarily pare away from his discourses this and other details
in defereflce to Unitarian surmise, we still cannot get rid of
what pervades the whole narrative, that Jesus from the
beginning adopted a tone of superhuman authority and
obtrusion of his own personal greatness, with the title “ Son
of Man,” allusive both to Daniel and to the book of Enoch.
According to Daniel, one like unto a Son of Man will come in
the clouds of heaven to receive eternal dominion over all
nations.
It is impossible to doubt, that, in the mind of those
to whom Jesus spoke, the character of Messiah implied an
overshadowing supremacy, a high leadership over Israel, and
hereby over the Gentiles, who were to come and sit at Israel’s
feet: a religious and, as it were, princely pre-eminence, which
only one mortal could receive, who by it was raised im
measurably above all others.
If he did not intend to claim
this, it was obviously his first duty to disclaim it, and to warn
all against false, dangerous, or foolish conceptions of Messiah ;
to protest that Messiah was only a teacher, not a prince, not
a divine lawgiver, not a supreme judge sitting on the throne
of God and disposing of men’s eternal destinies.
Nay, why
claim the title Messiah at all, if it could only suggest false
hood ?
Since he sedulously fostered the belief that he was
Messiah j without attempting to define the term) or guide the
�2<
public mind, he could only be understood, and must have
wished to be understood, to present himself as Messiah in the
popular, notorious sense. If he was really this, honour him as
such.
If his claim was delusive, he cannot be held guiltless.
Every high post has its own besetting sin, which must be
conquered by him who is to earn any admiration.
A finance
minister, who pilfers the treasury, can never be honoured as
a hero, whatever the merits of his public measures. 'A states
man or prince, entrusted with the supreme executive power,
ruins his claims to veneration if he use that power violently
to overthrow the laws.
Such as is the crime of a statesman
who usurps a despotism, sttch is the guilt of a religious
teacher who usurps lordship over the taught and aggrandizes
himself.
It is a bottomless gulf of demerit, swallowing up all
possible merit, and making silence concerning him our kindest
course, if only his panegyrists allow us to be silent.
A
teacher who exalts himself into our Lord and Saviour and
Judge, leaves to his hearers no reasonable choice between
two extremes of conduct.
him.
Whoso is not with him is against
For we must either submit frankly to his claims, and
acknowledge ourselves little children—abhor the idea of
criticizing him or his precepts, and in short become morally
annihilated in his presence—or, on the opposite, we cannot
help seeing him to have fallen into something worse than
ignominy.
I digress to remark, that a teacher supposed by us to be
the infallible arbiter of our eternity would detain our minds
for ever in a puerile state if lie taught dogmatically, not to
say imperiously.
If he aimed to elicit our own powers of
�25
judgment, and not to crush, us into submissive imbecility, the
method which Socrates carried to an extreme appears alone
suited to the object; namely, to refrain from expressing his
own decisions, but lay before the hearers the material of
thought half-prepared, and claim of them to combine it into
some conclusion themselves.
In fact, this is fundamentally
the mode in which the Supremely Wise, who inhabits this
infinite world, trains our minds and souls.
His greatness does
not oppress our faculties, because it is ever silent from with
out.
Displaying before us abundantly the materials of judg
ment, he elicits our powers ; never commanding us to become
little children, but always inviting our minds to grow up into,
manhood.
But, if there were also an opposite side of teaching-
healthful to us—if it were well to start from dogmas guaran
teed to us from heaven, which it is impiety to canvas—then
the matter of first necessity would be, that the uttered decrees
to which we are to submit should be free from all enigma, all
extravagance of hyperbole, all parable, dark allusion, and hard
metaphor, all apparent self-contrariety ; and, moreover, that,
we should have no uncertainty what were the teacher’s precise
words, no mere mutilated reports and inconsistent duplicates,
but a reliable genuine copy of every utterance on which there
is to be no criticism.
To sum up, I will say: Nothing can be
less suited to minister the Spirit and train the powers of the
human soul, than to be subject to a superhuman dictation of
truth; and nothing could be more unlike a divine law of the
letter, than the incoherent, hyperbolic, enigmatic, inconsistent
fragments of discourses given to us unauthoritatively as teach
ings of Jesus.
�26
But I return to my main subject.
I have shown what
conclusions seem inevitable, so soon as we cease to believe
that Jesus is the celestial Prince Messiah of the book of
Enoch, popularly expected in his day.
To lay stress on
his possession of this or that gentle and beautiful virtue
is quite away from the purpose.
Let it be allowed that
Luke has rightly added this and that soft touch to the
Let it be granted that the
picture in Matthew and Mark.
nobler as well as the baser side of the Jerusalem church
came direct from Jesus himself.
Whether any of the actual
virtues of European Christians have been kindled from fires
which really burnt in Jesus, it appears to me impossible to
know.
The heart of Paul gushed with the tenderest and
warmest love, and he believed Christ to be its source.
But
the Christ whom he loved to glorify was not the Christ of our
books, which did not yet exist; nor a Christ reported to him
by the Apostles, to whom he studiously refused to listen ; but
the Christ whom he made out in the Messianic Psalms, in
parts of Isaiah, in the apocryphal book called Wisdom, and
perhaps also in the book of Enoch.
With such sources of
meditation and information open, the personal and bodily
existence of Jesus was thought superfluous by a numbei' of
Christians considerable enough to earn denunciations in the
epistles of John.
A great and good man, Theodore Parker,
tells me that'it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. I reply,
that, though to invent a Jesus was undoubtedly difficult, to
colour a Jesus was very easy.
The colouring drawn from a
Buffering Messiah was superimposed on Jesus by the perpetual
meditations of the churches, which, after he had disappeared,
�27
sought the Scriptures diligently,
not
to discover whether
Jesus was Messiah, which was already an axiom, but to dis
cover what, and what sort of a person, Messiah was.
Ac
cording as the inquirers studied more in one or in another
book, the conception of Messiah came out different; and here
we have an obvious explanation of the varieties of portrait in
different gospels. The first disciples, who thus by prophetical
*
studies supplemented the dry outlines which alone could be
communicated by the actual hearers of Jesus, would naturally
affix to him many traits not strictly human, nor laudable
except on the theory of his superhuman character.
Never
theless, in a church exalted by moral enthusiasm and self
sacrifice, in which the highest spirits were truly devoted to
practical holiness, it is to be expected that whatever is most
beautiful and tender, pure and good, in the traits of character
which in Isaiah or elsewhere were believed to belong to
Messiah, would be eagerly appropriated to Jesus, as they
evidently were by Paul.
Some of these would be likely to
tinge often-repeated narratives; so that, although none could
invent the outline portrait of Jesus, no difficulty appears in
the way of a theory, that the moral sentiment of the church
has cast a soft halo over a character perhaps rather stem and
ambitious, than discriminating, wise, or tender.
* To my personal knowledge, this is the systematic practice of
Pauline Christians in the present day. They read of Jesus in the
Psalms, ih the Prophets, in the “ types” of Leviticus, in the Song of
Solomon, in the ProVerbs,—anywhere, in short,—with iiiore zeal and
pleasure than in the three gospels. A free instinct guides them to
feed on less stubborn material.
�28
We cannot recover lost history. Into the narratives and dis
courses of Jesus so much of legendary error has crept that we
may write or wrangle about him for ever : Paul is a palpable
and positive certainty.
In what single moral or religious
quality Jesus was superior to Paul, I find myself unable to say.
Is it really a duty incumbent on each of us to decide such
questions ? . Why must the task of awarding the palm of
spiritual greatness among men be foisted into religion ?
It is a fact on the surface of history, that Paul, more than
any one else, overthrew ceremonialism.
Hereby he founded
a religion more expansive than that of Isaiah, and, in his
fond belief, expansive as the human race, as the children of
God.
He was not the first Jew ta propound the nullity of
ceremonies.
If time allowed, that topic might admit in
structive amplification.
The controversy against ceremonies
was inevitable, and, with or without him, must have been
fought out.
What he effected, let us thankfully record; but
.God does not allow us to owe our souls to any one man, as
though he were a fountain of life.
It is an evil thing to call
ourselves a man’s followers, to express devotion to him, and
blazon forth his name.
Every teacher is largely the product
of his age: whatever light and truth he imparts, the glory
of it is due to the Father of Light alone, from whom cometh
down every good and perfect gift.
Any glory for it would
be inexpressibly painful to a true-hearted prophet; I mean,
for instance, to one true-hearted as Paul.
He had no wish
to be called Master, Master.
He could not bear to hear any
one say, “ I am of Paul.”
“ Who then is Paul, and who
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye have believed ?”
What!
�29
when a man believes himself to be the channel by which it has
pleased the Unseen Lord to pour out some portion of hidden
truth for the feeding of hungry souls, can such a one bear to
be praised and thanked for his ministrations ?
Nay, in pro
portion as he knows himself to speak God’s truth by the
impulse of God’s spirit, in the same proportion he feels his
own personality to be annihilated, and he breathes out an
intense desire that God in him may be glorified, but the man
be forgotten.
I say then, let not us thwart and counteract
such yearnings of the simple-hearted instructor.
himself further on this matter.
Hear Paul
“ Let no man glory in men;
for all things are yours : whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,
or the world or life or death, or things present or things to
come—all are yours.”
He means that the collective children
of God are the end, for whom God has provided teachers as
tools and instruments.
But this is not all.
In proportion as
the teachers are elevated, the taught become unable to judge
of their relative rank in honour. Pauf therefore forbad the.
attempt, and deprecated praise.
“ With me,” he continues,
“ it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or
of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not my own self, but he
that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before
the time, until the Lord come ; who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of hearts; and then shall every man have (his own)
praise of God.”
What else did he mean to say but: Think
not to distribute awards among those to whom you look up.
To graduate the claims of equals and inferiors is generally
more than a sufficient task.
Leave God to pass his awards
�80
on. those who are spiritually above you; who possibly, like
Paul, may receive your praise as painful, and be wholly
unconcerned at your blame.
The glorifying of religious
teachers has hitherto never borne any fruit but canonizations
and deifications, “voluntary humility and worshipping of
messengers,” vain competitions and rival sects ; stagnation in
the letter, quenching of the Spirit.
�
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
A discourse against hero-making in religion, delivered in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, April 24th, 1864
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Printed by request, with Enlargements. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: To M.D. Conway with the writer's kind regards.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5196
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), 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
Hero-Worship
Jesus Christ
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/662491e5583bf5399e75a2ddaf67d88e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Avj5TIuHePqy0ymwPpf129kD-LgMLqrv9Hppt0qxP5-axLFCJ6%7EhTA4mUvF7PbS%7Eqj6gViT1DGUptX%7EHvX9xcrawrVg2-nBgrNKT3jtbuMMAMaVfePkajqUzeN0-D282nFRDfLzI1t2ytmCSdauJYD82pNNZkHt4vlLYDQrne8nByB-1QwuKVawO1wb2SLALV4iB-XgI2Ol38KOcxfYCz3OVzu8BO0LWl2wfiExUKJLk5if3zcNyfDtw0bN1P%7EHdR6%7EmVzRMZsajx-DjcuAjtFYydOO2ivMOS2sDzhVMXo8sheKpKFWKbvXcfjFAsPm4xV-dZpOnLd5bFQXr0jCB2A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c177529e66963fe7f7c9bc94d3e6200f
PDF Text
Text
0^7
•
ZS-2. 4 Man
ON THE
HISTORICAL DEPRAVATION
OF
CHRISTIANITY.
BY
F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED DY C. W. BEYNELL, 16 LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, IV.
�ON THE
HISTORICAL DEPRAVATION
OF
CHRISTIANITY.
HRISTIANITY is not the only religion which
has undergone depravation. Side by side with
it Mohammedanism has developed its celibate fakirs
and its traditions, directly or indirectly, against the
doctrine of the prophet. The Parsee religion has
been corrupted by apathy, ignorance, and contact with
Hindooism, and Parsee reformers look back to the
earlier state for purer doctrine. Hindoos also allege,
and in important points have proved, that moral
enormities in their creed and practice are a later
depravation; insomuch that a school has arisen which
appeals to the Vedas or ancient Scriptures against
modern error. Finally, in the farthest east and north
of India the Buddhist religion has undergone change,
damaging additions, startling developments, which
remind every one of Christianity. Its first preacher
and eminent founder has been deified, an enormous
apparatus of monks, nuns, and holy orders has grown
up, with a materialistic worship utterly opposed to
the spirituality of its origin.
There is a philosophy now abroad among the
opponents of Christianity, which charges upon the
religion whatever evil has been historically intro
C
�4
On the Historical
duced into it. The main purpose of this tract is to
consider under what form such charge is justified, and
where it is unjust.
I. But before entering on the general question, I
wish to deal with a special accusation, which I perceive
to be made very widely and persistently. I copy from
a book which I just now opened at random :—“ The
tenets of every man’s religious creed determine, more
or less, the precepts of his morality. He whose creed
includes salvation to its recipients and damnation to
doubters and unbelievers, is of necessity a persecutor.”
This is part of a chapter with which I on the whole
agree, while I strongly deprecate this mode of attack
as unjust and untrue.
The vague phrase more or less makes it impossi
ble to deny the former sentence; yet the theoretic
and the practical morality of every nation are far
more influenced by national law and history, by
literature and science, than by its religious creed ;
and, in turn, the current morals modify the creed.
Next, at no time did any Christianity known to me
teach that all its recipients would be saved. “ Re
pentance of sin ” has always been taught and held to
be as needful as “ faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
To do evil that good may come has always (in theory)
been held sinful. However intense a Christian’s be
lief that rejection of Christianity is a damnable sin,
that has not the slightest tendency (according to any
good logic) to turn him into a persecutor. I want
to know, Was the man who wrote this charge ever a
Christian himself ? If so, had lie the heart of a per
secutor then ? I do not believe it; yet I cannot ac
count for his inability to understand how the case
presents itself to Christians who abhor persecution,
as I think all earnest Protestants do. It may be of
interest to state what arguments were used (to my
personal knowledge) from within the Anglican Church
in the years 1827-29, in favour of admitting Dis
senters, Catholics, and Jews to an equal participa-
�Depravation of Christianity.
$
tion of all civil and political rights. Of course it
was seen that they applied equally to Hindoos and
Mussulmans in India ; but indeed that was not in
contest. It was urged :—
“ Christians who happen to be English have the
political rights of Englishmen, just as Paul had
Roman citizenship from his birth ; but it is not 6ecause we are Christians that we have any right to
State-power. We can claim nothing to which every
Pagan would not be equally entitled ; for imagine
that some spiteful opponent had attacked Paul by
saying, that if Christians could get the opportunity,
they would eject from the Senate and from all the
posts of administration every adherent of the old re
ligion, and ask yourself how Paul would have re
plied. Would he not have rebutted the charge as a
slander showing utter ignorance of Christianity, which
teaches that our citizenship is in heaven ? Christ’s
kingdom is not of this world ; we have no more right
to oust Pagans from posts of honour than to deprive
them of their goods. If we could use power better
than they, perhaps also we could use money better
than they ; but this will not justify despoiling them.
We claim our rights as men and equals. In order to
rob us of these, it is pretended, most falsely, that we
do not concede to others the rights of men and equals.
Such, surely, would have been Paul’s reply.”
A fortiori, like arguments apply to the direct per
secution of a misbeliever. “I claim to announce
Christianity anywhere and everywhere. If I were
to. preach in Turkey, and a Mussulman were to im
prison me for it, I should feel and judge that he was
unjust. If he may not use violence against me for
uttering my convictions, neither may I against him
for uttering his convictions. To persecute him for it
would be sin in me; and my sin would be worse than
his error. To kill him for his error would be murder
in me. If his error is a wickedness, God is his judge ;
but I am not. Who made me judge over him ?
�6
On the Historical
Where does Jesus or an Apostle command any pri
vate person or any magistrate to use violence against
the teachers of error ? Did the Apostles teach that
magistrates or any hierarchy bear the sword to enforce
religious truth ? Nay, but Paul says that a Bishop
must be no striker. And again : The servant of the
Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt
to teach, patient, in meekness instructing opponents,
if God peradventure will give them repentance to
the acknowledging of the truth. James not only
agrees with Paul, but goes beyond him. The wise
man, full of knowledge, is to win over opponents by
good works and meekness of wisdom, which is pure,
peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. James
will not permit even denunciations, but declares that
these furies of the tongue are set on fire by hell; and
that if a man cannot keep his tongue with a bridle,
his religion is vain.”
In my youth and early manhood, I believed (or
supposed myself to believe) that there was an eternal
hell in which the wicked would be punished, and a
perverse rejection of Christ I held to be wickedness.
Nevertheless, this never suggested to me, nor could
have suggested, that it was right for Christians to
touch by legal punishment or restraint those who
taught a foreign religion or atheism. To justify per
secution by logic from the New Testament would
have appeared to me then, as it does now, to be
wholly puerile. I am amazed to find people quote,
“ Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord,”
as an argument why Christians must believe it right
to use the sword against unbelievers; whereas it is
Paul’s argument for the very contrary. Not only so,
but if the case had happened—which certainly never
did—that I met a Christian reasoning from the Scrip
tures for persecution, I should unhesitatingly have
said that the doctrine was essentially opposed to the
whole spirit of Christianity, and was therefore in
capable of proof by quoting detailed texts. Nothing
�Depravation of Christianity.
7
but a confusion of the Old Testament with the New
led the Puritans astray, and the Independents set
them right before long. Hooker and his contem
porary Anglicans, I think, were free from this
specially Puritanical confusion.
The doctrine of persecution I hold to be a depra
vation of Christianity, to which the New Testament
affords no countenance. It rose out of human pas
sions—pride, self-confidence, impatience, love of
power, and other still baser motives, all vehemently
condemned by the original Christian doctrine to
whichever of the earliest Christian schools we look.
II. I return to the more general question. We
see how early the elements of monkery and nunnery,
of ceremonialism, of episcopal power, of saint-worship,
and other errors, can be found within Christianity.
Are we therefore to treat full-blown Romanism as
the ZeyiYmufe unfolding of Christianity ?
Those who say Yes appear to me to confound two
things—the erroneous logic natural to an ignorant
age, and legitimate logic. Given the Roman world
in its actual state, in which the more educated stood
aloof from Christianity in disdain, while the unedu
cated, the busy, and the slaves flocked into it, per
haps it is strictly true that, with such materials and
circumstances, the downward course of Christianity
into grossly carnal ordinances, a monstrous creed,
and priestly rule, was inevitable. But this has no
tendency to disprove the assertion that the new
system was a depravation and essentially different
from the original; and that to pass it off as Chris
tianity is a portentous misrepresentation.
I gravely deprecate forms of speech which must
seem to Protestants a wild injustice. They earnestly
desire to hold fast the original Christianity. It is
fair and right to tell them that they do not go far
enough back, or to show them the difficulties of their
search ; and there is nothing in this to irritate them.
But to declaim against Christianity, and mean by the
�On the Historical
word simply Romanism, puzzles them on the one side,
or, on the other, insults them by identifying their
religion with an essentially different system, which
they disclaim, perhaps abhor. When it is notorious
that in the course of history the tendency of every
national religion is to change, and often for the worse,
there is no ostensible fairness, no plausibility, in
accepting the latest state as truly exhibiting the
essence of the first. Neither, therefore, on the face of
the matter, has the critic a right to adduce the later
stage as an aspersion on the honour of the earlier.
I have carefully written, “ on the face of the matter.'"
But an assailant may allege, that the depravations are
not accidents ; that if the logic of the historical de
velopment was weak, the weakness was largely caused
by errors essential to the religion from the first. If
he can prove this, he may justly maintain, that the
later state, though a depravation and not a legitimate
development, is still a solid objection against the
original teachers.
The closer the history of Christianity is canvassed,
the more undeniable does it appear, that its tendency
to depravation was caused by its diligently fostering
the spirit of credulity as a religious duty. If it be
said, as above, in excuse, that none of the highest in
tellect of the age entered the Christian Church,—that
it was peopled by slaves and an uneducated mass,
who hung on the lips of a few pious but narrow
minded teachers,—the reply is at hand, that neither
Jesus nor the Apostles went the way to bring edu
cated men into the Church. Whether Jesus laid
claim to miracles, may be doubtful; but those who
believe that he did, will not say that he used any
method likely to convince the educated of their truth.
He did not even leave behind him an authenticated
copy of his precepts and doctrine. So long as James
and Paul speak on purely moral subjects, we find
plentiful reason to admire and honour them; but as
soon as Paul begins to expound the Old Scriptures,
�Depravation of Christianity.
g
the intellectual weakness of his Rabbinism warns us
at once why he could not make converts among edu
cated men; yet his failures, instead of suggesting to
him that his logic was unsound, makes him only
moralize, like a modern Mussulman, on the mysterious
wisdom of God, who hides divine truth from the wise
and prudent, and reveals it to babes. Indeed, the
words, as I now quote, are ascribed to Jesus himself.
I do not think any candid person can deny that the
first teachers of Christianity quickly despaired of con
verting any but the ignorant. They invariably ad
dressed men’s consciences only, as if there could be
no such thing as legitimate intellectual doubt, which
needed for removal arguments addressed to the in
tellect. What can be more inconsequential and point
less than the historical rhapsody imputed to the in
spired Stephen? What less fitted to remove the
reasonable hesitations of a thoughtful and good man
than the addresses in the book of Acts ascribed to
Peter and Paul ? Paul at Athens is said to have
moved incredulity by announcing a future day, on
which God would judge the world by the interven
tion of a Man; and the only evidence he offers of the
truth of this is, that God has given assurance of it by
raising that Man from the dead. Although the book
of Acts is not the same thing as Paul’s own epistle,
this sketch is in general harmony with his doctrine
and method. We see distinctly, in his 1st Epistle to
the Corinthians, ch. xv., where he undertakes to re
prove and refute those who deny the future resur
rection of the body, how little understanding he
has of the evidence required by his case. That
Jesus was risen, he probably did not need to
prove, but only to show that this entails the resur
rection of mankind; yet in his own way he
undertakes to prove both.
On neither topic
is . he aware how entirely unsatisfactory is the
evidence which he offers. Those who know anything
of Socrates or Aristotle may easily imagine the blank
�IO
On the Historical
astonishment of those good and wise men, if such
proof had been laid before them as adequate. Yet
the resurrection of Jesus, if a fact, was a physical
fact, addressed to the common intellect, and no way
a spiritual truth, to be judged of by spiritual discern
ment. But Paul, after a short and rapid assertion
that Jesus had been many times seen after his death,
and that, last of all, he himself had seen him [of
course, in a vision or trance], rushes into a close and
animated argument, on which evidently is his chief
dependence. They must believe the resurrection of
Jesus, he says; for if it be not true, they will lose all
future reward for present sacrifice, and all motive for
preferring virtue to vice. (What would King Heze
kiah have said to this astonishingly base argument ?)
Nay, he adds, they are “ yet in their sins,” if Jesus is
not risen, as though deliverance from the power of
sin were not a matter of fact to the spiritual man, of
which he is himself conscious, and a sufficient judge !
Thus he reduces to a minimum ordinary evidence
concerning an outward fact, which in no other way
can be sustained ; and overbears an inward spiritual
fact by a simple dogma I If it be said, that when he
wrote, “ Ye are yet in your sins,” he meant, “ Ye are
unforgiven ; ” it is obvious to reply that Hebrew
Psalmists and Prophets had long taught that God
forgives all sins hated and renounced by the sinner,
and does not make forgiveness depend on His raising
some one from the dead; nor did Jesus ever assert
such dependence. In the second place, the resurrec
tion of Jesus, if a fact, took place under totally dif
ferent circumstances from that of men whose bodies
have “ seen corruption,” that is, suffered dissolution ;
and the argument from the one to the other is not com
plete, even as an analogy. Paul indeed does not define
what he means by “ resurrection,” while he scolds as
a “ fool ” any one who understands him literally.
While the paucity of cultivated men in the Church
is a theme of pious exultation, “lest any flesh glory,”
�Depravation of Christianity.
11
at the same time even in Paul, noble and heart-stirring
as his moral tone is, we cannot but see that he is far
quicker to denounce and threaten unbelief, than to
meet doubts with patient candour. This element
reigns through nearly all the New Testament. I
gladly except the Epistle of James, which is almost
free from dogmatic elements, and wish to believe that
in this respect also he represents Jesus to us. Yet
Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree in ascribing to
Jesus haughty denunciation, where it appears least
justified. It is not practically possible to reach a
Christianity in which intellectual doubt was kindly
welcomed and candidly satisfied. It is always treated
as a sin, and easy faith magnified as a high merit.
This, I apprehend, is the fatal fact which ensured
corruptions through the triumph of credulity in the
Church.
Fancy and folly, bad logic and blundering, haste
and love of the marvellous, are ever at work to
deform every oral tradition, and pervert the inter
pretation of whatever is written. The only check
upon their inroads lies in keen and jealous criticism.
To commend easy belief as a virtue, and frown on
slowness to believe as a dishonour to God, was certain
to entail illimitable error, burying out of sight the
original doctrines. If easy belief in a newly-announced
marvel is meritorious to-day, so will it be to-morrow,
so will it be next year : hereby a premium is offered
for a harvest of lies. From the beginning, the merit
of believing things wonderful was distinctly pro
claimed ; in the third century it was frankly applied
to believing things incredible. The reasoning faculty,
unless kept in constant exercise, withers as certainly
as the hand or the arm. While we approach God
mentally, or seek moral edification devoutly, argu
mentation is lulled to sleep : hence, if devotion absorb
the mind wholly, free intellect gets no play. To foster
criticism is the only sure way of holding fast attained
truth, not to speak of advancing to new truth. To
�12
On the Historical Depravation, &c.
scold down free thought prepares the corruption of a
religion by weakening the mind of the votaries.
When Infallibility is ascribed to any set of enuncia
tions and statements, every flaw in a noble discourse
becomes its most admired feature, and is most insisted
on, because it is difficult to believe,—because it mor
tifies “that beast Reason,” to use Luther’s vehement
phrase. The doctrine of Infallibility, which is the
head and front of Popery, is but the consolidation of
the authoritative tone of teaching which was originally
made a supplement to defective argument. It is a
familiar thought, that if the earth, without human
labour, bore to us, as in a fabled Paradise, milk and
honey, fruits and crops, clothes and shelter, our
bodies would be enfeebled by laziness and inaction.
Just so do our minds become torpid and weak, when
truth is guaranteed to us authoritatively. Infallibility,
whether in a Church or in a Book, such as shall super
sede criticism of the things asserted, is as little to be
desired, and as little to be expected, in Theology as
in Morals or Politics. No form of Christianity has
shaken off its incrustations of error, except where Free
Science has arisen to exercise and brace the spirit of
criticism. The noble moralities of the New Testament
will stand out more admirable and more valuable,
when surrounding error is purged away : but until
this work of criticism is performed, and the dogmatic
principle disowned, the spiritual and moral will con
tinue to be drowned in the ecclesiastical. Depravation
and schism, anathema and recrimination, must be
expected in the future, as in the past.
�INDEX TO THOMAS SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS
ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.
The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Load, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
Price.
Post-free.
ABBOT, FRANCIS E„ Editor of ‘Index,’ Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
* d'
The Impeachment of Christianity. With Letters from Miss Frances
P. Cobbe and Professor F. W. Newman, giving their Reasons for not
calling themselves Christians
0 3
Truths for the Times
- 0 3
ANONYMOUS.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II.,
and III. 6d. each Part
-16
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible
- 1 0
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
- 0 6
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of
Necessity”
-06
On Public Worship
-03
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give
Answers _
-01
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education.
Part I.—Its Influence on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the
Development of the Conscience. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint - 1 0
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth
- o 6
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
6
TnE Twelve Apostles
-06
Via Catholica; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country
Parson. Part I. - 1 3
Woman’s Letter - 0 3
BARRISTER, A.
Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ - 0 6
BASTARD, THOMAS HORLOOK.
'
Scepticism and Social Justice
- 0 3
�11
Index to ’Thomas Scolds Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation - 1 1
The Evangelist and the Divine -10
The Gospel of the Kingdom
- 0 6
BENTHAM, JEREMY.
The Church of England Catechism Examined. A Reprint
- 1 o
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Critically Examined -10
BROOK, W. 0. CARR.
Reason versus Authority -03
BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds - 0 3
Sunday Lyrics
.
-03
The New Doxology
- 0 3
CARROLL, Rev. W. G., Rector of St Bride’s, Dublin.
The Collapse of the Faith; or, the Deity of Christ as now taught
by the Orthodox '-06
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church
of England ”
-06
CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures
- 0 6
Letter and Spirit -06
Rational Piety and Prayers for Fine Weather
- 0 3
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil - 0 6
The Question of Method, as affecting Religious Thought
- 0 3
COBBE, Miss F. P.
Letter on Christian Name. (See Abbot) CONWAY, MONCURE D.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
- 0 6
TiIe Voysey Case -06
COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their
Non-Sense. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part - 1 6
COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity, being a Review of a
Paper by Dr Lang
-06
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible
- 0 6
CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
On the Formation of Religious Opinions - 0 3
On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology - 0 3
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought - 0 3
F. H. I.
Spiritual Pantheism
-06
FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
The Efficacy
of
Prayer. A Letter to Thomas Scott
-
- 0 3
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
iii
Price.
Post-free.
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH.
On Religion
....
- 0 6
GELDART, Rev. E. M.
The Living God
-03
GRAHAM, A. D., and F. H.
. On Faith ------03
HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology
-04
HARE, The Right Rev. FRANCIS, D. D., formerly Lord Bishop of
Chichester.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of
the Scriptures
-06
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
Annotations on the Lord’s Prayer. (See Scott’s Practical Remarks)
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely
on, if we cannot Rely on the Bible ? ” (See Professor Newman’s
>
.
- 0 6
Reply)
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revela
tion, what is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death ? ” 0 6
A Reply to the Question, “Shall I Seek Ordination in the
Church of England?”
- 0 6
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. Part I., is. Part II., Is. 6d. 2 6
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
HOPPS, Rev. J. PAGE.
Thirty-Nine Questions on the Thirty-Nine Articles. With
Portrait _
-0 3
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the
Present Age. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine
Revelation Considered
- 0 6
The Prayer Book adapted to the Age - 0 6
KALISCH, M., Ph.D.
Theology of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait
- 1 0
KIRKMAN, The Rev. THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
- 1 0
On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part 1 0
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part - 1 6
LAKE, J. W.
The Mythos of the Ark .
- 0 6
LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of
Mr Voysey
.
.
.
_
-03
LAYMAN, A, and M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds
.
-06
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
�iv
Index to Thomas Scotfs Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
MAOFIE, MATT.
d'
Religion Viewed as Devout Obedience to the Laws of the
Universe
-06
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education ; or, the Use and Abuse
of the Bible in the Schoolroom
- 1 6
How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
- 0 6
The Utilisation of the Church Establishment
- 0 6
M.P., Letter by.
The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation - 0 6
NEALE, EDWARD VANSITTART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
.
.
- 0 6
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Intro
ductory Remarks .
_
-10
The Mythical Element in Christianity .
- 1 0
The New Bible Commentary and the Ten Commandments
- 0 3
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion
-06
James and Paul .
.
.
-06
Letter on Name Christian. (See Abbot) On the Causes of Atheism With Portrait - 0 6
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism ; and On the Galla
Religion
.
.
-06
Reply to a Letter from an Evangelical Lay Preacher
- 0 3
The Bigot and the Sceptic
- 0 6
The Controversy about Prayer - 0 3
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines
- 0 3
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
- 0 7
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait - 0 6
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil
.
- 0 3
OLD GRADUATE.
Remarks on Paley’s Evidences - 0 6
OXLEE, the Rev. JOHN.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy
-06
PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity of the Eaith among all Nations
- 0 6
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ?
- 0 6
PHYSICIAN, A.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and
Philosophical. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part - 1 0
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of
our Age .
.
-16
PRESBYTER ANGLIOANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the
Clergy of the Church of England - 0 6
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education
0 6
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Ooupar-Angus.
Intellectual Liberty
0 6
The Finding of the Book - 2 0
ROW, A. JYRAM.
Christianity and Education in India. A Lecture delivered at
St George’s Hall, London, Nov. 12,1371
0 6
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
v
Price.
Post-free.
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
- 0 9
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian
Commentators. In Two Parts. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
Miracles and Prophecies -06
Original Sin
-06
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer”
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in
its Bearing on the Truth of Christianity
- 0 6
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society - 0 6
STATHAM, F. REGINALD.
Rational Theology. A Lecture
- 0 3
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and
Defended by T. L. Strange
- 0 6
Clerical Integrity
-03
Communion with God
-03
The Bennett Judgment
-03
The Bible ; Is it “ The Word of God ? ”
- 0 6
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed - 2 6
STMONDS, J. ADDINGTON.
The Renaissance of Modern Europe
- 0 3
TAYLOR, P. A., M.P.
Realities -------VOYSEY, The Rev. CHARLES.
A Lecture on Rationalism
- 0 6
A Lecture on the Bible -06
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. With Portrait 0 6
On Moral Evil
-06
W. E. B.
An Examination of Some Recent Writings about Immortality - 0 6
WHEELWRIGHT, the Rev. GEORGE.
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian
Evidence Society’s Lectures - 0 6
WILD, GEO. J., LL.D.
Sacerdotalism
-03
WORTHINGTON, The Rev. W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion - 0 6
Two Essays : On the Interpretation of the Language, of The Old
Testament, and Believing without Understanding - 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.,
Natural Phenomena and their Influence on Different Religious Systems 0 3
�Since printing the preceding List the following Pamphlets
have been published.
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFIOED CLERGYMAN, WIFE OF A.
On the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth
- 0 6
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
On the Historical Depravation of Christianity
- 0 3
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
The Christian Evidence Society
- 0 3
W. E. B.
The Province of Prayer -06
SUFFIELD, the Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
The Resurrection .
-03
PRINTED EY C. W. REYN ELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, W.
�
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
On the historical depravation of Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12, v, [1] p. ; 18 cm
Notes: Part of Morris Misc. Tracts 4. Publisher's list on numbered pages at the end.
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
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4850
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (</span>On the historical depravation of Christianity<span>), 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
Christianity
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d7b0a036996bd862cc15889979e36d3b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=C1GUAVs7F8Vzv17zJWbU8He8hbiabUKLAOi474k6h%7ELSzOmMd7ufpa9pf9Gqqw56sa9Y0D6W0eFlZtdJCFubFmktP2IWHM5ns8DRZXbCCFZvVyzufWuDaoKTD40CgdsS9w-P6Y97GxM3n7QrD9gdvzUal0Ze%7EIuVfXFwORdshbsgxBilGVEkio4XiZDCVSs0pye%7EbklPO%7ExevTF4mlVMIC0ofFM20TfCsHnG2tsVeTm14DAR407JDQeFGcONulOYKYUuGFRmjntqYoYIM-VG7DhTXAr-eSVHteZ72QV0Z2t7mxQABPVfzfDDRYIpVl3plr7lhSrVVVnLfX84Ol9lTw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b18a1949245d81eda6fdd087999a837
PDF Text
Text
ON THIS AND THE OTHER WORLD.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Sixpence
��THIS WORLD AND THE OTHER WORLD.
HE title I have assumed for this tract may appear
gigantesque : hut the reader will kindly remember
that no author need attempt to exhaust his subject. In
fact, I do but intend to make various remarks chiefly
on one writer who has devoted intense effort to the
topic. The philosophers who will have no theology,
except such as can be elicited by the study of that
which is external to the human mind, may attain to a
belief in some world-ruling Supreme Being, but in no
case are likely to have even the faintest expectation of
renewed existence for individual man after death. In
extreme contrast to this, such Theists as were Lord
Herbert of Cherbury, and, recently deceased, Theo
dore Parker and Mazzini, make human immortality a
first principle of religion. So is it with the Bengali
Theists, members of the Brahmo Somaj ; to whom I
cannot allude without expressing admiration and sym
pathy. My friend, Miss F. P. Cobbe, an ardent ad
mirer of Theodore Parker, is by far the most vigorous
and prominent advocate of this doctrine among ourselves;
which, in spite of the double-edged nature of the argu
ments on which she relies, deeply moves me.
In republishing her Essays on Life after Death, which
appeared in the Theological Review, she has prefixed an
elaborate, and, in many respects, valuable Preface,
commenting on Mr J. S. Mill’s three Posthumous
Essays. Perhaps it may seem needless to say, that in
T
�4
On this World and the other World.
everything which Miss Cobhe writes, there is sure to
be much that commands my interest and true sym
pathy ; but I avow this distinctly now, because I am
about to express strong dissent from her cardinal argu
ments and statements : and it may be well here to quote
from her what I regard as a primary truth, p. iii.
“We shall never obtain our truest and most reliable
idea of God from the inductions which science may help
us to draw from the external world. Spiritual things
must be spiritually discerned, or we must be content
never to discern them truly at all. In man’s soul
alone, so far as we may yet discover, is the moral
nature of his Maker revealed,” as in a mirror..............
“ If (as we must needs hold for truth), there be a moral
purpose running through all the physical creation, its
scope is too enormous, its intricacy too deep, the cycle
of its revolution too immense, for our brief and blind
observation. It must be enough for us to learn what
God bids us to be of just and merciful and loving, and
then judge what must be his justice, his mercy, his
love,” &c., &c.
One caution I desire here to add. Owing to essen
tial differences of nature, we need to practise virtues
which cannot exist in God. The exhortation, “ to
imitate him,” in order that we may attain high virtue,
is a precept in the Sermon on the Mount, which Miss
Cobbe, with many assenting, regards as high wisdom,
p. 216 ; but to me it seems a profound mistake, vir
tually reproved by my quotation from her, just made.
We do not see by our outward eyes the moral virtues
of the most High. We find nothing of him outside
of us to imitate ; we only gain some knowledge of him
by first knowing and feeling pure and noble impulses
in ourselves. But when Miss Cobbe deduces from this
precept of imitating God’s indiscriminateness, “ which,
for eighteen centuries has rung in men’s ears,” that
“ we ought to make the same sacrifices for the vicious,
as we should readily make for a beloved friend,” she
�On this World and the other World.
5
seems to forget that we cannot imagine the possibility
of God making any sacrifices at all. At least I do not
yet believe that she would seriously assert that “ mak
ing sacrifices ” is one of his virtues. When from an
imaginary quality in Him, she deduces a superlatively
high-flown and doubtful duty for us, this may warn us
how dangerous is the method she employs.
Nay,
poetry may sternly warn us :—
“ Must innocence and guilt
Perish alike ?—Who talks of innocence ?
Let them all perish. Heav’n will choose its own.
Why should their children live ? The earthquake whelms
Its undistinguish’d thousands, making graves
Of peopled cities in its path ; and this
Is neav’n’s dread Justice ; ay, and it is well.
Why then should we be tender, when the skies
Deal thus with man ? ”
(Mks Hemans’ Vespers of Palermo.)
Surely this is as good an argument as that based upon
the Rain. We cannot be wise in imitating the action
of the elements. All such precepts are an ignis fatuus.
In my belief, duty must stand on its own basis, as a
purely human science, to which religious knowledge
contributes absolutely nothing.
Upon pre-existing
morals, spiritual judgments are built. Religion cannot
tell us what is moral, though it can give great force to
moral aspirations. It can immensely aid us to self
restraint and sacrifice for the attainment of virtue,
hereby in turn making individuals nobler, and conduc
ing to more delicate moral perception, out of which
rises an advance of moral science itself.
But I proceed to Miss Cobbe’s topic, The Hopes of
the Human Race,—that is, the doctrine of human im
mortality. The new Hindoo Theists propound it as a
spiritual axiom. Apparently this was Theodore Parker’s
idea, who, nevertheless, also reasoned for it, if I re
member, from the alleged universal yearning of man
kind. The fact that all men so yearn, always appeared
�6
On this World and the other World.
to me very doubtful; nay, from the history of Hebrew
religious thought, a formidable objection arises : nor is
any such yearning of unspiritual men to me a worthy
argument. Indeed, what do they want ? A life as
closely like this life as possible, only more comfortable.
How can such desires, however universal, be an omen
that they will be gratified ? But when it is asserted,
that in proportion as men become sounder in morals,
and purer in religion, so does this belief of an after
existence, in which sin shall be subjugated, and evil
practically annihilated, grow up and take deep root;
the assertion (if true), comes to me with great weight.
It may not be decisive against objections, but I (cannot
make light of it; and the very possibility of an after
life, has, in my belief, a specific influence on spiritual
thought and feeling.
But to Miss Cobbe mere * possibilities and probabi
lities seem feeble : she is a bolder reasoner. To express
my own judgment, I fear I must say, she is an audaci
ous reasoner. The “ existence of evil ” is with her I a
dread mystery,” which (I am glad to say), she tries to
present as an exception; yet, she only doubtfully admits
Paley’s assertion, that “ it is a happy world after all
and calls his solution (pp. xlii., xliii.) “ an easy-going
optimism.” Truly, in my sentiment, the surrender of
this fact (for, a fact I consider it) would inflict on
Theism a most formidable wound. If there be no
future life, “ Man (she says), is a failure, the consum
mate failure of creation.” On this assertion she bases
the belief, that there must be a future life, to set right
what was wrong here. Seeing that we (the few) are
here happy, and that others, “ no worse than we, and
often far better,” (i drag out lives of misery and priva
tion of all higher joy, and die, perhaps, at last, so far
as their own consciousness goes, in final alienation and
revolt from God and goodness,” therefore, we demand
for these [Italics in the original] “ another and a better
life at the hands of the Divine Justice and Love: and
�On this World and the other World.
7
in as far as any one loves both God and man, so far he
is incapable of renouncing that demand.
One who
thanks God for hisTown joys, and is satisfied without
making “ demand for farther existence for himself or
anybody else,” she entitles “ selfish,” pp. lxiv., lxv.
Now, I try to apply this by taking the case of some
singularly wicked man, whose crimes or vices bring
him to a shameful death; and I ask myself, Could I
approach God in prayer, with this man’s name on my
lips, and say : “Thou hast created him, and hast not
hitherto shown him common justice, or common kind
ness ; thou hast allowed him to become depraved and
miserable ; therefore, I demand of thee a renewed life
for him, in which thou mayst redress thy injustices
and neglects.” To my feelings, such an address is the
height of presumption : even a harsher word may seem
appropriate. It reminds me of a much milder prayer,
that of a Frenchman, opening with the words “ Fear
not, 0 my God, that I am about to reproach thee.”
Yet I cannot see wherein my hypothetical prayer differs
from Miss Cobbe’s argument, except that the one is
said inwardly to one’s self, the other is said inwardly to
him who reads the heart. In substance they are the
same. My reason, as well as my sentiment, is shocked
by it; yet, she “ commends it to us as the true method
of solving the problem of a life after death,” p. lxvii.
Such an avowal is to me very revolting; and from one
whose many high qualities are justly appreciated,
cannot be passed over without definite protest and
disavowal.
Why are we to admit that man, as we see and know
him in this world, “is a failure,—the consummate
failure of creation?” This is a natural idea to those
who believe that the first man was perfect in virtue, and
that a golden age was succeeded by ages of silver, of
brass, of iron, and of clay. “2Etas parentum pejor
avis,” &c. 1 From one who not only has laid aside the
fables of Gentile religions, but reads Lubbock, Darwin,
�8
On this World and the other World.
and Tyndall, we might far rather expect a cheerful
light-heartedness, if not a joyful exultation, that by the
mysterious guidance of a hidden providence, our race is
ever advancing. History is to me a book so bitter of
digestion, that when consulted by aspiring ladies, I
have never dared to advise their study of it, without
warning them how very painful it is. Yet history
brings to me an unshaken conviction that man is no
failure, but a noble success,—the noblest success in the
only world open to our moral sight. The men of the
present day, collectively and on the average, are far
superior in virtue, as well as in knowledge, to those
of oldr
“ Atrides ! speak not falsely, when
Rightly to speak thou knowest.
For us, our boast it is to be
Far better than our fathers.”
Let those who tremble at crumbling creeds fancy
that man is becoming viler and viler, that the ages of
faith and goodness are past, and that we are ripening
for a fiery deluge, as Noah’s contemporaries for the
flood. But from Miss Cobbe I claim a clear perception
that the sway of reason is ever winning on passion and
caprice; that compassion wins on selfish recklessness ;
forethought how crime may be hindered, wins on rude
vengeance ; mild rule wins on severity; woman wins
on man; slavery is fast dying, serfdom is doomed; the
millions obtain a consideration never before accorded to
them; not only is public war less inhuman, less reck
less, less permanent in its ravages, but insurgents too
are less frenzied and milder in their successes ; nor are
foreigners so alienated as once. Man claims foreign
men for brethren as never before. Superstition,
bigotry, persecution are disowned, and are marvellously
abated. All the civilized profess, however little they
practise, equal morality to all races of men ; in all the
strongest communities, science and literature unite
many nations. The increased brilliancy of our light
�On this World and the other World.
9
discloses, alas ! the blackness of our guilt as never
before ; but this is a necessary part of our shame, our
repentance, and our purification. Our crimes and our
vices cause thousands of English hearts to weep
inwardly, as if they were daily afflicted by great
domestic calamity. We will not dissemble nor dis
parage the guilt, which is our common disgrace, and, to
the right-minded, the greatest of afflictions; yet it is
good to be thus afflicted, and it is a part of the agency
by which our nation and all the foremost nations of the
world are to be elevated; yes, and we may boldly say,
this ennobling process is perpetually going on, and
that, with very sensible acceleration. What more
(David Hume well asks) can we wish for than the
gratification of a [noble] passion ? and what passion can
be, in a man, more noble than the longing after a
better and better future for mankind? Miss Cobbe
herself expects this better future; “To judge from
irresistible analogy (she says), every future generation
will have a livelier sympathy with the joys and
sorrows of all sentient beings, such as scarcely in
their tenderest hours the most loving souls of former
ages experienced” (p. xx.). If human nature thus
advances, why does she account man to be a consum
mate failure, if there be no life after death ? Certainly
I, for one, cannot allow that to contribute to the
permanent and true welfare of the human race, of
which we are organic parts, is a slight honour, an
insufficient reward for a whole life of virtue; and
whether from Miss Cobbe, or from anyone else, I must
regard it as mischievous, delusive, and morbid, to pre
tend that life is a mournful dream, an empty bubble,
unless it is to be followed by an immortality. If
seventy years of life are worthless, so are seven
millions. The multiplication of bubbles gives nothing
but bubbles : it cannot change the quality. Life, in
the instinctive belief even of the miserable, is worth
having,—is intrinsically full of joy to every healthy
�io
On this World and the other World.
being. At least, suicides are but a fraction of the
race, and Miss Cobbe will not claim them as par
ticularly sound-minded. To the sound-minded, life
is surely precious; and if it have many pangs, of body
or mind, she herself does not wish it otherwise. Every
great birth comes forth with severe travail; and the
less we have to grieve for personally, the greater the
heartache which must be borne for others. Neverthe
less, every good man joyfully accepts this, nor can it
disturb his serene peace. To hold that pain is an
essential part of the high-training through which God’s
wisdom leads mankind, will not be called by Miss
Cobbe “ an easy-going optimism.” It has long
appeared to me that Virgil, in his treatment of this
whole topic, showed himself a wise philosopher,—
wiser than Christians and wiser than Atheists. “ Pater
ipse colendi Haud facilem esse viam voluit, &c., ...”
“ It was Jupiter (says he) who added evil venom to the
hideous serpent, and ordered the wolves to prowl and
the sea to heave; and shook down the honey from the
leaves, and hid away the fire, and stopped the wine
that ran abroad in rills; that use by practice might,
little by little, hammer out diverse arts—.” To earn
bread by the sweat of the brow, was, in Virgil’s belief,
no curse fulminated from an angry God on the human
race, but a stem necessity imposed by a wise God,
counselling for our exaltation, and “forbidding his
realms to become benumbed in drowsiness.” Miss
Cobbe, in her Intuitive Morals, emphatically proclaims
that virtue is the highest human good, which also it is
the grand unchanging purpose of God to promote in
his human world. She evidently has not changed from
this conviction. She must refuse to admit that the
physical pains suffered by the human race (however
inexplicable in separate instances), do at all in a broad
view affect the great argument of Theism. Moral evil
alone can, in her view, weigh against it.
Consider then the two opposite extreme cases of
�On this World and the other World.
11
her moral argument quoted above. Take, first, a
robber tribe—from the hills of India or from an
Eastern archipelago—or take a family of Thugs.
They were brought up from childhood with a very
narrow moral horizon. Duty to their nearest kin or to
their tribe, they understood; but truthfulness, or mercy,
or justice, to any beyond their tribe, they no more
dreamed of as duty, than an English sportsman thinks
of truthfulness or justice to salmon or hares, or an
ancient Greek or Roman to barbarians whom it was
convenient to attack. Surely it is a great mistake to
account men as wholly without virtue, or wholly miser
able, because the circle within which their virtue is to
be exercised is deplorably narrow. To deny the piety,
or morality, or mental happiness of an ancient Hebrew
king, because of his ferocity to Moabites or Ammonites,
does not belong to a very deep philosophy. His con
science did not condemn him. The Thug had a still
stranger and more perverse religion, coupling itself
more visibly with avarice. He perhaps may be cor
rectly described as having never had a chance of
attaining a noble moral state, and at last dying under
the English hangman, “in alienation to God” Yet
few persons, I think, will see in the fact any proof
that Thugs have a claim on God for a future life in
order to win a nobler morality. In contrast to this,
take the deplorable case of a man of high and refined
genius, subtle talent, poetical gift, easy and fluent
eloquence—acceptable alike to the cultivated and the
rude—a man reared in the highest cultivation both of
the family and of the schools (such a man was well
known in my youth)—who nevertheless surrendered
himself to the love of wine, beer, spirits, laudanum—
in short, any narcotic; and first disgraced himself
beyond recovery, becoming enamoured of the coarsest
company, and before long went down into the grave,
a miserable victim of his debaucheries. Will Miss
Cobbe say, “ God is neither just nor merciful, unless
�12
On this World and the other World.
he doom this man to be saved in another and a better
life ? ” To me the whole argument seems inadmissible;
but I must leave it to the reader’s judgment.
At the bottom of all seems to reside an assumption,
that if God permits wrongs and “undeserved suffering”
in this life, he must needs give retribution in another
life. Man, she says, is bound to do justice and mercy
without delay; but God, having an eternity to work in,
may put it off to a distant time (p. xxxvi.). In early
theology, the Divine Ruler was compared to a human
king, who had his throne and his court, his errand
bearers, his armies, his judges or judge, his executioners
and his prison. Minos, 2Eacus, Rheadamanthys, accord
ing to 2Egypto-Greek notions, judged the dead, as Jesus
for the Christians. Retribution for the crimes of earth
was of course a paramount object in such mythology.
Retribution for our sins or errors we often suffer here,
and therefore may suffer also in a future world; but in
neither case (in my estimate) barely because God is just.
Miss Cobbe propounds (p. 117), as a solemn fact of the
future, a mental purgatory of awful misery, and con
cludes its description by the words, “ when it has been
accomplished, the blessed justice of God will be vindi
cated” (p. 119). Perhaps by justice she here means
nearly the same as goodness; in which case I reverently
accept the thought as possible: yet I fear that the word
contains with her the idea of retribution—of forensic
punishment—which is notoriously the prevalent creed.
“Virtue,” says she (p. 28), “cannot be without reward;
nor can the crimes which human tribunals fail to reach
escape retribution for ever” (so p. 41, 42). But the
analogy from human to divine punishments breaks
down entirely. Indeed, no wise law-giver punishes
for retribution’s sake. Though, without past guilt, the
judge has nothing to punish (for of course he dares not
to touch the innocent); yet the purpose of punishment
is to prevent guilt in the future. ~Li the officer of law
could have prevented it in the past, and did not, he
�On this World and the other World.
13
would be himself to blame. What theology will pro
nounce that God was incapable of hindering sin in the
past, but will be capable of it in the future ? or that,
having been capable in the past, he neglected his duty,
but he will be more attentive in the future ? To put a
chasm and a convulsion between his present and his
future action, seems to me both morally and intellectu
ally inadmissible. The argument that he can delay
punishment, because he has an eternity to work in, is
singularly weak, as if his convenience were the matter
in question; but we have to consider what is equitable
and beneficial to his frail creatures. Elsewhere I have
used a comparison, which I venture here to reproduce,
of punishments by a schoolmaster. These should be
applied day by day, to keep the boys from offence.
The quicker the punishment follows the offence, the
more effective it is as a preventive : hereby it is kept
light—mere chidings may suffice for good discipline.
But if the master were to reserve all punishment to the
year’s end, and meanwhile only threaten and warn, the
volatile temper of children, unable to look far forward,
would make his warnings vain. Impunity would over
throw all discipline, and lead on into actual crime.
Then we should severely blame the master, and almost
exculpate the children. Now, if we are to reason
morally concerning the divine action, we cannot believe
him to leave the guilty unpunished in the present
world, and then to reserve severe punishments for them
in the distant unknown hereafter; nay, without even
public intelligible warning of a future tribunal; though,
indeed, to men as frail and short-sighted as children, no
such warning could be of avail. For this reason, all
idea of future retribution, as such, seems to me quite
untenable in the present stage of knowledge. Such a
Theodice as Leibnitz made an axiom, has no plausi
bility. The punishment of guilt Miss Cobbe regards
as entirely purifying, remedial, and beneficial. Good.
But for the innocent, and for those guilty ones whose
�14
On this World and the other World.
guilt is their misfortune, she intensely demands redress
of wrongs.
“ A tortured slave, a degraded woman,
must be immortal; for God’s creature could not have
been made for torture and pollution” (p. 49). It
would be unjust in the Creator (she alleges, p. xxxvii.)
to create a being “who endured on the whole more
misery than he enjoyed happiness.” An infant which
is born sickly, and, after lingering in undeserved pain
(p. xli.), dies without enjoying life, in her estimate is
injured by its Creator unless it has hereafter a balance
of happiness—a dialect more like to Bentham than we
might expect from her. Of course animals have never
“deserved” the torments which cruel men inflict on
them: must not a just God give them future redress ?
It is almost necessary for her, and she seems not averse,
to adopt from Bishop Butler the immortality of dead
animals. I will only here say, that such a theory
seems to break down with its own weight.
The
essence of justice (she says, p. 42) is, that 11 no one
being shall suffer more than he has deserved, or undergo
the penalty of another’s guilt.” What moral beings
have “ deserved ” is hard to know; that we must suffer,
one for and from another, is involved in the unity of
our race, but not as a forensic penalty.
What perhaps shocks me most, is the instability of
faith to which Miss Cobbe’s logic would lead us. After
much discussion, she brings out the flat avowal, as the
net result (p. 48)—“ Either man is immortal, or God is
not just!1 The whole passage seems to glance at what
I have myself written: my kind friend evidently hopes
to lead me forward to her more elevated position, while,
alas ! she repels me. She seems quite to forget how
limited is our knowledge of the possible and the im
possible ; and that it is by no means certainly beyond
the sphere of external science to establish that the
re-existence of an individual man, whose body has
crumbled to dust, is a physical contradiction. Wherein
Identity consists, no one seems able to say. We know
�On this World and the other World.
15
that our minds and souls were either bom with our
bodies; or, if with Plato we say they pre-existed, their
previous existence was nothing to us. I cannot shut
my eyes to the possibility of its being hereafter accepted
as a physical and metaphysical certainty, that a disem
bodied soul of man is a monstrous idea, against nature,
intrinsically absurd, and incapable of being identified
with a man who has lived in organic flesh. If this
were proved to me beyond dispute, should I then con
clude (or would my friend draw the inference) there
fore God is unjust ? Miss Cobbe herself seems nearly
convinced that memory has been scientifically proved to
depend on “the brain-tablet” (pp. 74-77). What would
future existence be to any of us, if it cut away all the
memory of the present world 1 I confess, if my con
fidence that God is just, depended on the certainty that
man is immortal, while the latter opinion is possibly
disprovable by science, I could have no firm faith in
the attributes of God at all. Miss Cobbe means to
make faith in God primary, and a belief of man’s
immortal life secondary (p. xiii.). Most rightly; but
in fact her proposed dilemma overthrows faith in God,
if immortality be disproved. This I hold to be a very
grave mischief. We censure those preachers who assert
that all moral law rests on supernatural evidence, on
miracles, on an infallible Bible, and that whoever dis
believes miracles may as well be immoral as moral. We
say that such preachers lay a trap for men’s feet, and
prepare for them a career of profligacy so soon as they
unlearn superstitions. But is not Miss Cobbe laying a
net for our feet, a dilemma to cast us into black darkness
of religious sentiment, if ever the progress of external
science happen to prove (which, for anything which she
or I know, may happen) that identity is absolutely
irrecoverable when the vital organs are all dissolved ?
If this were established to-morrow, my cheerful, happy
faith in God would remain undisturbed. I cannot
look with terror on science, but believe that all truth
�16
On this World and the other World.
is good for us. That God works under strict conditions,
all thoughtful persons know, who ascribe wisdom to
him. Mr J. S. Mill, it seems, imagined religious people
to be unaware of this, and thinks to refute them, when
he is saying, coarsely indeed, yet in substance the same,
as they say reverently; but this merely shows how
little intercourse he ever held with any high religious
mind. But only the fanatical can insist that reverence
for God shall depend on his doing for us things intrin
sically impossible.
Miss Cobbe seems anxious to
possess us with an agonizing despair concerning this
present world, if there be not an immortality awaiting
us. She fancies that nothing but clear light or total
darkness is possible: any intermediate position she
calls “playing fast and loose with our beliefs in
immortality” (p. xi.). But between certain knowledge
that a proposition is true and certain knowledge that it
is false, there must very often (and oftenest in the
highest inquiries) be an intermediate state of great
uncertainty; and if this be inevitable to our present
condition, it must be accepted as best for us by all who
revere God.
Spasmodic discontent with inevitable
ignorance, is a morbid state. It is not our task to
govern the world. As we are not “ equal to eternal
cares,” how can we wisely undertake to decide what
conduct is required from the divine justice? It is
astonishing to me that a deeply pious mind can enter
on such an argument. Never did I imagine that on a
religious question I should find myself on the side of
Mr J. S. Mill, and against Miss Cobbe: but so it
seems now to turn out. Sadly and scornfully she
rejects his declaration that the benefit of the doctrine
of immortality I consists less in any specific hope than
in the enlargement of the scale of the feelings.”
Specific hope 1—I never had any, and I am convinced
that very few people have; but the intellectual con
ception of a life after death I feel to be enlarging and
ennobling, though incapable of being fixed. Mr Mill,
�On this World and the other World.
17
I think, does not exhort us to cultivate delusions con
cerning it: he only insists that immortality is not
(cannot he) a proved and certain truth.
That no
proof has hitherto been attained available for all
spiritual minds, appears to me an undeniable certainty.
Not the less is it possible, that always to discuss the
topic and never settle it, enlarges the human senti
ment.
No argument seems to me less weighty than that
favourite one, “ I could not have a day’s happiness,
unless I believed I should meet my babe, or my
husband, or my sister, in Paradise : therefore there
must be a Paradise.” This is certainly very deep in
Miss Cobbe, who indicates that she was brought to a
belief in immortality by the death of one deeply
beloved.
Deep grief has its values,—grief for the
loss of friends, as well as grief of other kinds: I
certainly do not plead for heartlessness or apathy.
But as, when a revered parent departs in very full
age, grief is milder and soon fades into sweet and
sacred remembrance, so too ought it surely to be with
every loss, though for a while acuter. But to nourish
perpetual grief, to refuse every consolation but a belief
in immortality,—vowing to be miserable for life, if we
cannot attain this conviction,—presents itself to me as
emphatically morbid.
With the educated, the whole idea of God’s govern
ment of the world is essentially changed, since the
time that Christianity became prevalent.
Jew and
Christian, Manichaean and Arab, Saxon and Celt, so
far as they believed in any divine government at all,
supposed it to be carried on by direct intervention.
Jesus himself (if we believe his biographer), announced
the doctrine : “ If I pray to my Father, he will
presently give me more than twelve legions of angels.”
While this angelic theory was current, all the reasonings
concerning divine rule were different from what we
can now accept. At present neither of our Protestant
Archbishops, nor yet Archbishop Manning, expects
�18
On this World and the other World.
divine aid for the church through the swords of angels.
We hold universally, that divine influence follows
subtler paths for working its designs; a procedure
for which there must be profound reasons. Some
reasons we understand, but our knowledge must ever
remain mutilated and very partial.
If cruel and
undeserved torture had been prevented, that of course
would be the thing to rejoice us; that it has not been
prevented, startles us dreadfully; but after it has been
permitted, it cannot be undone. If it be an imputa
tion on the Divine Justice, let it have what weight it
may. To raise animals or men from the dead, and
give them a balance of happiness as a late compensation
for injustice, does not exalt my idea of the divine rule;
and for man to devise, this method of divine compensa
tion for injuries, which, according to our barbarian
reasoning, God ought to have prevented, strikes me
as reasoning equally barbarian.
This leads to a matter already touched on,—the
assumption that God’s future rule is to differ from his
past rule. If theology could be a web spun entirely
out of the head and heart, we might abide by our own
theories of divine rule, unmolested by material science.
But in fact it is from the outer world, reasoned on by
us, that the first suggestion of a World Spirit comes,
and from our own spirits we reason out some of the
attributes of that Spirit from whom is our origin.
Then we are bound to check our notions by observed
facts. We cannot disregard external attestations: then
we discover to our dismay that the divine rule is
wonderfully, nay, terribly, different from what we
expected.
Surely then humility should conclude;
“We are somewhere in mistake : God is wiser and
better than we, and our fancies were folly.”
How
then can we add, “ Because he has not done now what
we thought he ought to do, we are quite sure he will
do it hereafter, else he would not be just.” I had
fancied that only an infantine philosophy could expect
God’s future rule to differ from his past; that is, a
�On this World and the other World.
19
different law of justice to rule in a future (or in an
unseen), world, from that which exists in the seen and
known world.
To argue: “ This present world is
terribly bad, therefore there is an unseen world in
which everything is good; or if not, then God is
unjust,” appears to me to be planting the germ of
Atheism, and not at all to attain the wisdom, or even
the humility, of modern science. I cannot consent to
condemn as bad, the only world of God which I surely
know. There is evil in it which appals us, and evil
against which we are bound all our lives to struggle ;
but it is not, therefore, simply bad, and requiring a
supplementary world to be believed in, before we will
praise God for the present world. To say so, is to
throw contumely on all the religion of the early
Hebrews. Yet with its abundant infantine errors, it
originated for us that inward piety, which Miss Cobbe
with me values as life ; a piety, which according to
her, if I rightly understand her logic, was with them
groundless, because they did not believe in immortality..
But again, the future world which Christians
imagine (and apparently Miss Cobbe also), is to have
no evil in it. Whether this mean physical or moral
evil, in both cases it seems to me incredible. Beings
which have no bodies cannot have bodily pain j yet if
we imagine a community of personalities without
wants, none seem to have duties : something of want
and possible pain appears even desirable.
And if
there be duties (without which we are not moral
beings) finite creatures must always make partial
failures and be liable to error, wrong-doing, sin; and
virtue, which in a finite being cannot be divinely
perfect, must always need effort, sometimes even
struggle, to rise. Is it credible, that our Creator, who
put us in this world for present duty, should intend us
to hammer out for ourselves the image of an unrevealed
world, and plant this in the front of our adoration of
him, as something to be believed as firmly as his
existence and goodness 1 I confess, nothing has made
�20
On this World and the other World.
me so sympathize with the Secularists, as reading this
Book of Miss Cobhe. A future life which can only
be conceived most dimly, hidden away in the back
ground and reverentially contemplated as possible, acts
on us profoundly, like gazing into nightly darkness, and
seeing the mysterious infinite universe. It acts much
on the sentiment, little on the intellect; it does not
use up the mind by fruitless activity, nor has it any
influence at all for evil. As for its reasonableness,
even so severe a reasoner as J. S. Mill does not
censure, and rather commends it. But a doctrine of
immortality, thrust into the front of religion, intruded
upon us as a condition without which we may not
believe God to be just, distorts all proportions and
perspective, and perniciously carries minds into endless
argumentation hostile to tranquil serene reverence.
Thereby it defeats the end which my very devout
friend sincerely proposes to herself.
I more than ever doubt, whether religious thought
concerning these particular matters has changed since
the age of Cicero. In his dialogues are found sub
stantially all that our materialists can now urge against
a divine rule. It has often occurred to me, that the
Oriental doctrine of the stubbornness of matter was
perhaps only their mode of stating, that God works
under conditions,—partially known to us.
Side by
side with Atheism or Pantheism, were men, like
Cleanthes, who held to the belief of a perfect and just
God. The Stoics and Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus
did not need the belief of future existence (though like
Socrates many of them half believed it), to maintain
that virtue was the chief good, and that this remained
true even to a martyr dying on the rack. If Miss
Cobbe, assuming the character of a Satanic tempter,
had put to Thrasea her question, “ Why is it worth
while for you to persevere in virtue, when you are in
five or ten minutes to be annihilated 1 ” he would have
replied, “simply because virtue is the chief good;”
and I think she would applaud.
�INDEX TO MB SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS,
ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.
The, following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS
SCO TT, No. 11, The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
Price
». d.
ABBOTT, FRANCIS E., Editor of ‘Index,’Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Impeachment of Christianity. With Letters from Miss F. P. Cobbe and
Prof. F. W. Newman, giving tlieir reasons for not calling themselves Christians 0 3
Truths for the Times
-03
ANONYMOUS.
A Plain Statement,
-03
Address on the Necessity of Free Inquiry and Plain Speaking,
- 0 3
A. I. Conversations. By a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II., and III., 6d. each 1 6
Christianity and its Evidences
-06
Euthanasia; an Abstract of the Arguments for and against it,
- 0 3
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible -10
Euthanasia,
-.
-03
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
-00
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.”
-06
Nine Yea'rs a Curate -03
One Hundred and One Questions to which the Orthodox, &c. Per dozen
- 1 0
On Public Worship
----03
Our First Century
.06
Primitive Church History --09
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I.—Its Influence
on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the Development of the Con
science. 6d each Part
- ’
- 1 0
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint ’ ---JO
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
- 0 6
The Twelve Apostles
■ -06
Via Catholica-; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country Parson
Parts I., II., and III., Is. 3d. each Part
- 3 9
Woman’s Letter
-03
AN EX-CLERGYMAN.
What is jhe Church or England ? A Question for the Age.
_ -' _ - 0 6
BARRISTER, A.- Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ - 0 6
Orthodox Theories of Prayer
-.-03
BASTARD, THOMAS HORLOOK. Scepticism and Social Justice - 0 3
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation - 1 0
The Evangelist and the Divine
-10
The Gospel of the Kingdom »
-06
BENTHAM, JEREMY. The Church of England Catechism Examined. Reprint 1 0
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Critically Examined 1 0
BESANT, Mrs A.
Natural Religion, versus Revealed Religion
- 0 4
On Eternal Torture -06
On the Deity of Jesus. Parts I. and IL, 6d. each Part
- 1 0
On The Atonement
' -06
BRAY, CHARLES.
Illusion and Delusion ; or Modern Pantheism versus Spiritualism,
- 0 6
The Reign of Law in Mind as in Matter. Parts I. and II., 6d each Part
- 1 0
Toleration: with Some Remarks on Professor Tyndall’s Address at Belfast,
- 0 6
BROOK, W. 0. CARR. Reason versus Authority - 0 3
BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds
- 0 3
Sunday Lyrics -03
The New Doxology
-03
CANTAB, A. Jesus versus Christianity
-06
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “The Present Dangers of the Church of
England”
■ -06
�List of Publications—continued.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cs co ca co os os so
0
0
0
M co«o
1
co
0
co
0
sooscosocost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
os os
CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An examination of Liddon’s Bampton Lecture
----Dr Farrar’s “ Life of-Christ.” A Letter to Thomas Scott
Letter and Spirit
--------The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil The Question of Method, as affecting Religious Thought Rational Piety and Prayers for Fair Weather Spiritual Gambling; or, The Calculation of Probabilities in Religion,
CONWAY, MONCURE, D.
Consequences, ---------The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
• The Voysey Case
--------COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part
-----COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity. Review of a paper by Dr Lang
CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
On the Existence of Evil
------On the Formation of Religious Opinions '
On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology
----The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought
.
.
God’s Method of Government,
—
----On Responsibility,
--Positive Religion—Four Lectures, ----each
DEAN, PETER. The Impossibility of knowing what is Christianity Dr CARPENTER at Sion College ; or
The View of Miracles Taken by Men of Science DUBLIN DIVINITY STUDENT—Christianity and its Evidences—No. I.
DUPUIS. Christianity a form of the great Solar Myth F. H. I. Spiritual Pantheism -------FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
The Efficacy of Prayer, a Letter to Thomas Scott
Everlasting Punishment. A Letter to Thomas Scott,
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH. On Religion
GELDART, Rev E. M.. The Living God
-----GRAHAM, A. D.
On Faith ----------Cruelty and Christianity : A Lecture,
-----HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology --------HARE, The Right Rev FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the
Scriptures
------HENNELL, SARA S.
On The Need of Dogmas in Religion. A letter to Thos. Scott
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
Another Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we
0
0
0
0
6
6
9
6
0
0
0
0
3
6
6
3
0 8
0 6
0 4
0 6
0
6
CANNOT RELY ON THE BIBLE
-06
to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What
is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death ?”-06
A Reply to the Question—“Shall I seek Ordination in the Church of
England ?”
-06
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
A Reply
HOPPS, Rev J. PAGE.
Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. With Portrait
HUTCHISON, THOMAS DANCER—The Free-Will Controversy, -
- 0 3
- 0 6
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age.
Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
-10
Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, Considered 0 6
The Prayer Book Adapted to the Age
-03
KALISCH, M. Ph.D.,
Theology of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of his Commen
tary on Leviticus. With Portrait -10
�List of Publications—continued.
s. d.
KIRKMAN. The Rev THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
------On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part
Orthodoxy from the Hebrew Point of View. Parts I. and II. 6d. each,
LAKE, J. W.
Plato, Philo, and Paul; or, The Pagan Conception of a “Divine Logos,” shew
to have been the basis of the Christian Dogma of the Deity of Christ, LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey - LAYMAN, A, and M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds --------Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
-----LEWIS, TERESA. Cremation.............................................................................
MAOFIE, MATT.
Religion Viewed as Devout Obedience to the Laws of the Universe The Religious Faculty : Its Relation to the other Faculties, and its Perils,
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism traced to their origin, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I., IL. in. and IV. 6d. each Part
MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D. The Souls of the Children MACLEOD, JOHN
Recent Theological Addresses. A Lecture
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education: or, the Use and Abuse of the
Bible in the Schoolroom
-------How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
The Utilization of the Church Establishment MUIR, J., D.C.L.
Religious and Moral Sentiments. Freely translated from Indian Writers,
Three Notices of the “ Speaker’s Commentary,” translated from the Dutch
of Dr. A. Kuenen,
---M.P., Letter by. The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation
NEALE, EDWARD VANSIT TART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
I
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory
Remarks
---------The Mi'thical Element in Christianity
-----The New Bible Commentary' and the Ten Commandments
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion James and Paul
----On the Causes of Atheism.
With Portrait
_
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism ; and On the Galla Religion On the Historical Depravation of Christianity On this World and the other World,
-----Reply to a Letter from an Evangelical Lay Preacher The Controversy about Prayer
----.
_
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrine
. The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil The Two Theisms
-------Ancient Sacrifice,
----OLD GRADUATE. Remarks on Paley’s Evidences
OXLEE, The Rev JOHN, a Confutation of the Diabolarchy PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.. Is Death the end of all things for Man? PHYSICIAN, A.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and Philosophical
Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
------The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of our Age
Part I.—Genesis, Is. 6d. Part II.—Exodus, Is. Part III.—Leviticus, Is.
Part IV.—Numbers, Is. Part V.—Deuteronomy, Is. Part VI.—Joshua, 6d., PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of
the Church of England
H
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education
1
1
1
1
0
0
6
0
0
0 &
0 6
0 «
0 3
0
0
0
2 0
0 3
0 3
1 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
0 6
1 0
1 0
0 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
6 O
0 G
0 6
�List of Publications—continued.
s. d.
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Ooupar-Angus.
Intellectual Libertt
-66
The Finding of the Book
-20
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
.
-09
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christi'an Commentators
in Two Parts. 6d. each Part
-10
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prater."
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in its Bearing
on the Truth of Christianity
. ... 0 6
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society
- 0 6
SHAEN, MISS—Prayer and Love to God, per doz. 1 0
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and defended by
T. L. Strange
.06
An Address to all Earnest Christians
.....
Clerical Integrity
...
-03
Communion with God .....
...03
The Bennett Judgment
....
...03
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?”
-06
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed
-26
The Christian Evidence Society
.
-03
The Exercise of Prayer,
.
.
-03
SUFFIELD, Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
The Resurrection An Easter Sermon at the Free Christian Church, Croydon - 0 3
Five Letters on Conversion to Roman Catholicism
- 0 3
The Vatican Decrees and the “Expostulation,” - 0 6
VOYSEY, The R6v. OHAS. On Moral Evil
- 0 6
W. E. B.
An Examination of some Recent Writings about Immortality - 0 6
The Province of Prater,
-06
WHEELWRIGHT, Rev. GEORGE.
The “Edinburgh Review” and Dr Strauss
- 0 3
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian Evidence
Society’s Lectures,
-06
WORTHINGTON, The Rev W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion
- 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.
The Origin and the Abstract and Concrete Nature of the Devil, -03
SCOTT’S “ENGLISH LIFE OF JESUS.”
In One Volume, 8vo, bound in cloth, post free, 4s. 4d.,
SECOND EDITION OF
THE
ENGLISH
LIFE
OF JESUS.
RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,
THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Notice.—Post Office Orders to be made payable to Thomas Scott,
Westow Hill Office, Upper Norwood, London, S.E.
Friends to the cause ofu Free Inquiry and Free Expression,” are
earnestly requested to give aid in the wide dissemination of these
publications.
�
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
On this and the other world
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20, [4] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. Critique of Frances Power Cobbe's 'Essays on life after death' republished from Theological Review, with an added 'elaborate, and, in many respects, valuable Preface commenting on Mr. J.S. Mill's three Posthumous essays'. p. [3]. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
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
[1875]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4857
G5501
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (On this and the other world), 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
Afterlife
Conway Tracts
Frances Power Cobbe
Future Life
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/99d50e88c5396e5c62161a0a161e6c8d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uSdsoUCY4nXoT3WzDfo%7ElRkS9eJAZwHXCfVawvpBxNWBt-DHjgvssRI4ejN98oR-lUTnY2qzYsr6Re7%7EoQ7piMoBqDOSxrPNvTVhnwq2Eop7zRQ7wHsomcz4YOTFTj30tYh0olLca9NYaLa67Arz%7EedB%7EM%7EIvj1mkgUs01gkR9Oepfwfk0QqCwObi2SLFKw3xRmBYdfU5Z6lLIq5EU01W8ihwMNf3zCvovi3jRIb0l2k%7EAaeb4phjZ2fLqzv5ZZNsR1qGOFZjg9RA-QeXPjRETGy5ITtXm%7EsTXJOhLNCNgnZKwwnx9nuhKsXWA--RNscO2rO979jzoZeAow3Lc4WnA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b9e1b01feb9938e1c0e4591e2ec84049
PDF Text
Text
THOUGHTS
ON
THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
�My Dear Scott,
I do not know whether you will take interest
in this paper, which, in preparing to change my abode,
I have routed out of a drawer. You will observe that
it is dated 1841. At that time I had gone far from
“ the creed of the Reformers,” but had not quite cut the
last cords that bound me to the idea of Supernaturalism.—
Yours ever,
F. W. N.
June 9 th 1872.
�THOUGHTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.
T is impossible to extend inquiry and contemplation
ever so little beyond the bounds of ordinary thought,
without discerning how crude and untenable is the
popular conception of divine Omnipotence. The child
who is informed that God is Almighty, asks in great
simplicity, why then does God let any body be unhappy?
We may unhesitatingly deduce, that there is a real
contrariety between the divine perfections, as conceived
of by the child, and the existence of any evil. With
the same logical force, though with more rudeness, some
have alleged that the deity ought to have made man
other than he is. Nor has the highest intellect and
deepest piety ever essayed even to modify and relieve
the difficulty, except by suggestions drawn from the
topics of Optimism. It is said, “ Perhaps the allwise
God sees that it is best so to be: he sees ends to be
obtained, which, could not be obtained so well in any
other way; and which are valuable enough to deserve
being bought at such a price.” In different forms, this
is substantially the meaning of all that the humble
and pious can adduce. Whether learned or unlearned,
philosophic or simple, the topic to which they refer
us, is, “ Perhaps the Allwise God saw that there was
no better way."
A sentiment, even conjectural, which comes to us
recommended by such authority, cannot be deemed rash
and profane. If it is impious, what else is more pious?
Is it not the zealous effort of piety to shelter and
I
�4
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
defend its own existence 1 It is, and whether it be a
just sentiment or not, at any rate it is devotional and
humble. And yet, let us examine what it virtually
means. The evil which God has either ordained or
permitted is partly moral and partly physical; yet this, it
is suggested, was probably seen by him to be the best
means of attaining some eminently good end. Now it
cannot be intended to imply that he thinks slightly of
moral evil; an idea subversive of reverence for his holy
character, and degrading him into one who will employ
wicked means to compass his purposes. It must re
main, that the argument intends to say, that inscrut
able limitations exist in the divine power, which could
never have been suspected until the broad facts pro
claimed it; so that the deity had to submit necessarily,
at least for a time, to a state of things contrary to his
mind, as an essential prerequisite towards the attaining
of a glorious end beyond.
A recent essayist, whose work has attracted more
than usual notice, the Rev. Henry Woodward, has
forced prominently forward the fact, that nearly all
our reasonings concerning the Wisdom of God imply
some limitation of his power. To a being, Omnipotent
in the gross and popular sense, wisdom must be wholly
useless, and in fact becomes in him an unintelligible
quality. As policy is superfluous, to a conqueror who
can apply overwhelming force, so is wisdom superseded
by omnipotence. We admire the adaptation of lungs
to air, and of air to the lungs, on the supposition that
a difficult problem has been proposed,—how to free
the blood from noxious particles 1 But if we are asked,
“ why might not the divine fiat have done it as well?”
one reply alone is to be had,—that there are other
objects to be gained by adhering to the general laws of
matter, which objects could not have been so well
gained by a direct exertion of divine power. If other
wise, there would be no intelligible wisdom in employ
ing a circuitous, rather than a direct method of effecting
�Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
5
the end. The like may he observed in every other
case. Hence, wisdom and power are in one sense
antagonistic qualities ; the more you enlarge the sphere
of the latter, the more you diminish that of the former;
and every time we ascribe wisdom to the divine agent,
we virtually imply some unknown limitation to his
power, and deny the existence of almightiness in its
vulgar sense.
To ignorant persons, who have imbibed with their
devotional feelings the popular idea of omnipotence, it
is apt to appear a profane thing to assert, that it is not
within the power of the Almighty to recall the past; or,
to construct a square which shall have the properties of a
circle. But all thoughtful and philosophical minds
have long been aware, that that which is self-contra
dictory does not lie within the sphere of power;
and that it is no degradation to the Almighty that
he cannot make the same thing both to be and not
to be.
It being then certain, that limitations to the opera
tions of his power may exist, and do exist, which the
thoughtful of our race can discern, but of which the
ignorant and unthinking are not aware; we may
presume that other limitations possibly exist, which
no human mind would guess at a priori, and which may,
as yet,be concealed from all. And it has appeared,
that an analysis of every argument which ascribes
wisdom to the deity, manifests that there is a secret
conviction in all religious minds of the reality of that
which has been just called a presumption. Applying
such principles to the creation of intelligent and free
beings like man, we presently fall upon the conception,
that to be able to love God, man needed to be able
to hate him ; if free to go right, man is free also to go
wrong. At present it is enough to assert, that it is at
least a plausible opinion that the two sorts of ability
are inseparable. It is not only unproved that to create
a being capable of holiness without being liable to sin,
�6
thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
is within, the sphere of divine power; hut the prima
facie aspect of the case is the reverse, tending to con
vince us that the very idea is as self-contradictory as
that of a square circle. For when we try to analyse
the notion of freedom, or indeed of holiness, we find it
essentially implies a power of sin. For who would call
a man honest, who had no natural power to he dis
honest? or meek, who was physically unable to be
angry? or humble, who could not help his humility?
and so of all other moral excellences. Every one
of them implies a tfpoaipttsis or free choice; and they
not only could not be praised, but could not even exist;
for it would not be a soul if there were no freedom.
A liability to go wrong is then essentially inseparable
from a capacity to go right, as much as convexity from
concavity. They are little more than the same thing
viewed from opposite sides. We do not praise a stone
image of Xenocrates for temperance; for it cannot be
gluttonous ; and we do not blame a hog for gluttony or
a fox for theft, for they are incapable of the virtues of
temperance and of honesty.
Now if this does not wholly satisfy any one, let it be
at least allowed that the opinion is not wholly imaginary
or absurd, but that it has a measure of probability.
That probability appears at once to be turned into prac
tical certainty by the powerful testimony of matter of
fact on the same side. We do find, to an amazing
and appalling extent, moral disorder spread over the
whole world as known to us; and the greatest difficulty
is met in accounting for such a phenomenon within the
realm of so beneficent and wise a ruler as we believe to
superintend the earth. The fact forces on all pious
contemplators the conviction, that, in some sense or
other, he could not help it, consistently with the attain
ing of some paramount ends. If it is a physical
difficulty which he could not overcome, that no doubt
tends to degrade our conception of divine power; but
if it is a metaphysical difficulty, not at all. On the
contrary, our own minds are in fault for having invented
�Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
7
an absurdity, and then proposed it as a problem for
his power to effect. The latter is at once both the
alternative to which the case itself points us, and that
which preserves the honour of the divine attributes.
It does then appear to have as much proof as have any
of the received propositions of natural theology, that to
create a being capable of having a holy will, essentially
implies the endowing him with a power to sin; and that
even almighty power cannot separate the two, since the
idea is self-contradictory. •
If this is conceded, the first great question press
ing on us is; “ whether the evils resulting from
the creation of man, as a being capable of holiness,
are so enormous, as to outweigh all the conceivable
advantages.” We cannot set aside this, by imagining
some metaphysical necessity to have forced the deity to
the creation of mankind; without falling into a system of
mere fatalism. It would make out, that he is not our
voluntary creator, but is himself a kind of tool or machine
in the hands of destiny; and by breaking the moral con
nection between the creator and his creatures, would
appear to subvert all intelligent piety. Nor indeed can
the intellect approve such a conception, any more than
does our devotional feeling; for what can be a more
unmeaning phrase, than that God should create us by
necessity, and without his own choice? Forced then
to regard the act as chosen deliberately and voluntarily
on his part, we cannot help urgently desiring some
ground to believe, that the contingent evils thence
resulting are slight in comparison with the good. To
suppose either that he knew they would outweigh the
good, or that his foresight was defective, and that he
did not know how great they would prove, would
grievously impair our conception either of the goodness
or of the wisdom of God.
It is useless to deny that the doctrine of eternal
misery, whether as popularly understood, or as philoso
phically explained, spreads an impenetrable cloud over
the whole divine character. It matters not whether w&
�8
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
conceive of God as exerting a direct act of judgment, to
torture in everlasting flames the vast majority of the
human race; or whether the wicked are to endure
countless and never-ending agonies from accusing con
science and evil passions. The two doctrines possess
in common the fact of everlasting misery and everlast
ing sin, in appalling and ever increasing intensity; and
this, to a vast majority of the children of Adam. Even
if the last point were omitted, yet if there be millions
on whom this horrible lot would fall, the human heart
seems incapable of conceiving how this awful evil can
ever be a desirable purchase money for some greater good;
but we are forced back on the inevitable persuasion, that
it had been better that man had never been created.
Nay, could we realize what eternal sin and eternal agony
mean, perhaps we should conclude that such suffering
and such moral evil to a single individual would be too
great a price to pay for the everlasting blessedness and
perfection of all the rest of our race. No generous
mind,—or rather, no heart not harder than flint,—could
desire to purchase for itself a heaven at the price of a
hell to its brother; but would wish a thousand times
over that not one of the family had ever come into ex
istence. Such is the unconstrained utterance of ordin
ary human feeling; and if we are not to ascribe the
like to the supreme creator, if we are to suppose his
strength of mind such, that he does not flinch from
bringing about the welfare of the few, by results so
appalling to the many; devotion is crushed into super
stition, and adoration ceases to be intelligent. No
effort can be made to dispel the darkness resting on the
character of the most high, if the doctrine of eternal
punishment, in the philosophical and exact sense of the
term eternal, is true.
It is, however, certain, that one who is contemplat
ing the facts of the world with the eye of a natural
theologian, will not encumber himself with this doc
trine. It is, if sanctioned by Christianity, a load to be
supported by the credit of “ revelation; ” a new diffi-
�Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
9
culty introduced, of which we know nothing from a
contemplation of nature : and in this case it must be
allowed, that so far from bringing us “ good news,” and
clearing up the difficulties which distressed faith and
perplexed intellect, Christ has brought us the worst
news we could possibly have had, worse than the
wildest misanthrope could have imagined, and has in
tensely aggravated all pre-existing perplexities.
In
short, whatever is the amount of evidence testifying to
the truth of the Christian revelation, it might seem an
obvious axiom that it is the duty of every good man, as
it must be the impulse of every humane man, earnestly
to hope that Christianity may turn out to be a fiction,
rather than that this doctrine should be true : and this
circumstance loads it with so enormous an improbability,
as would suffice to overturn all intelligent faith in the
doctrine, were it even far better supported by Scriptural
evidence than it is.
Supposing then that this doctrine is set aside, let us
recur to the question, whether evil (physical and moral)
may not ultimately prove a sort of evanescent quantity,
in comparison to the good. The first step towards this
will assuredly be taken, if it is believed that the evil ix
temporary, the good eternal. Now, to this, the general
spirit of the Christian Scriptures strongly testifies ; nor
are there wanting special texts bearing on this result.
All sin is regarded as of the nature of corruption; and
is counted as “ of this agewhile all righteousness
and goodness is regarded as both coming down from God,
and as partaking of his nature, which is incorruption
and eternity. To the same conclusion both conscience
and philosophy point. From the very necessity of the
case, inexperience appears to draw after it errors ; we
make allowance for the indiscretions of youth: we
should think it inhuman to wish a man to be punished
to his dying day for his early offences. Moreover, the
punishment which they draw after them has a very per
ceptible tendency to correct and improve the man. It
would be unwise to desire that sin should not. tend to
�io
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
bring after it misery; for it would be to lose a whole
some instructor: but as we must wish the punishment
to be only in due measure, and to cease after it has an
nihilated that of which it was the chastisement, so we
have the testimony of experience, that this is ordinarily
the case. Man being himself finite, his sin is not in
finite in its’ effects on others, nor on himself; and if
not always remediable, yet it tends to self-exhaustion.
All virtue and goodness, being self-consistent, strengthen
continually with growth : but vices in every shape are
opposed to one another, and though occasionally they
may strengthen each other, the contrary happens far
oftener. Indeed, in different men, vices are in the long
run obviously and surely opposed, and wear each other
out in many ways. Now the fact is (however it be ex
plained) that man comes into this world with intellect
and conscience wholly unformed, and he has to be built
up into a moral and spiritual being. It would be more
reasonable to expect a person to be able to swim before
entering the water, than to expect a human being to
learn to go right, without ever going wrong. But if in
manhood we look back with a smile and without pain
at the sorrows of childhood, so also do we look back
without shame or remorse at the peevishness, greediness,
impatience, or other follies incident to that age ; nay,
nor does any sound minded man feel humbled at the
faults of youth,when they are merely the necessary
defects of that age, and not his own personal and
peculiar transgressions—I mean, such defects as the
being too sanguine and ardent, hasty and imprudent,
too ready to form friendships and to trust strangers,
too vehement in love and in expectation, somewhat too
confident of one’s own opinion. Just in proportion as
any of these were a voluntary transgression, they will
call for and produce humiliation, but no further. But
again, whatever may have been our past sufferings, yet
when at last we obtain honourable and permanent
repose, the remembrance of them is rather pleasant;
and if they have brought us spiritual improvement, we
�Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
11
may well count them a real good. No amount then of
mere outward suffering, not connected with our own
sin, during this short life, need cause the slightest dif
ficulty in our present argument. All evil is ultimately
annihilated, in comparison with the good. As concerns
the moral evil in which each of us may have been in
volved, no one can repine and justly regret, if the fire
which burns in the soul from this cause is fierce and
gnawing. If remorse do its work, and the man learn
to go softly all his days in the bitterness of his soul;
he will only the better learn that sin stingeth as a
serpent and biteth as an adder. In fact, as regards the
mass of mankind, perhaps no wise man would desire
to have the tormenting power of remorse lessened.
Nevertheless, as in the case of slight transgressions,—
an unkind word—a proud thought—a selfish neglect of
another—there is a soothing of the conscience, when
contrition has wrought its results,—confession and resti
tution ; so of greater offences there may be a genial
repentance, quite unlike mere remorse, and where there
is, some ultimate lesson may be taught both to the
offender himself and to others : and though it is not to
be imagined that it is better to him to have gone wrong,
than to have been both wise enough and good enough
to go right, yet his sin may in the end be a mere pro
cess of rising higher; just as the false notes on a violin
are but a state of transition towards better play. Hence
even the worst cases of guilt become reconcilable with
the divine wisdom in ordaining the present scene of
things : for in short, though all are transgressors, yet at
the worst one portion is led on towards moral perfection
and consequent happiness; and another portion, if it
does not attain this, yet at some period ceases to exist.
No difficulty arises, except on the belief that the sin
and misery of the latter is unsubdued and everlasting.
Exclude this conception ;—believe that goodness alone
is eternal; and it remains clearly intelligible, how
the divine wisdom may have ordained, on the one hand,
that man should gain a stable independent holy will,
�t
2
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
so as to be capable of friendship with his infinite crea
tor ; but that, on the other hand, this essentially de
manded that he should be left free to sin, and conse
quently moral evil has abounded and abounds, but only
for a time. Sin and its effects, remorse and misery, are
to be abolished, and the fruit of holiness shall flourish to
everlasting life.
But it will be inquired, is not this, after all, to main
tain, that the holy God uses base and unholy means to
work out his designs ? Does it not confound our sense
of moral distinctions, and make evil to be good when
it tends to a good end, if the view above given is
correct ? This objection exerts a force that is hard to
account for upon many minds ; for it does not seem to
have any intrinsic weight. It might seem to have
been borrowed from the barbaric reasoning of King
Agamemnon in Homer, or from a bye-gone Predestinarian school, whose doctrine annihilated all human
agency, arid imputed to the deity the acts of all men.
Certainly such a doctrine makes it impossible to defend
the moral character of our creator. If vice and cruelty
are bad, and he is as truly responsible for their exis
tence, as though he were the immediate agent, there is
an end of reasoning. The tyrant may justify himself,
by saying, that when he oppresses, he is only the tool
by which God scourges men. But the first principle of
all intelligent worship recognizes in ourselves a power
to resist the will of God, which constitutes sin against
him. It is in extravagant inconsistency with this first
principle, to imagine that because God gives us the
power to sin, therefore God ordains the sin and is
responsible for it. If with reverence we may use the
phrase, we may say that he is responsible for the general
result of investing us with such a power. Consistently
with goodness and wisdom, he must have foreseen that
in the long-run this arrangement was beneficent; and
consistently with justice, he must have provided that
no individual should suffer disproportionately, beyond
his deserts, from such an arrangement. But this may
�'Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
i2
co-exist with a steady upholding of the belief in his
fixed hatred of moral evil. A wise father will give his
son an allowance of pocket money, in order that he may
learn to spend judiciously : and even when he sees him
about to employ it foolishly, he will not check him,
deeming it better that he should learn by experience,
than by dictation. Without alleging that the cases are
perfectly parallel, this suffices to put into a clear light
the fact, that to make a beneficial disposal of affairs, well
knowing that the parties so invested with power will
partially abuse it, is quite consistent with the purest
disapproval of such abuse. All that is needed to justify
him who so ordains, is, a clear belief that in no other
way will so good a total result be gained.
In this light we must look on the men who are gene
rally regarded as the scourges of mankind. Who can
read without shuddering the atrocities of a Timour or
an Attila ? Indeed, in the latter, it appears less fright
ful from his very savageness.
We judge of him as
a wild beast, rather than as a man. But Timour was a
legislator and a would-be reformer. Alexander the
Great was eminent for political intellect. Our question,
however, is not, What are we to think of the men ?
but, How are we to vindicate the divine providence
which permits their action? It does not seem to be
difficult, after the above. Indeed, an Attila may be
classed with earthquakes or volcanoes; fearful visitations
not caused by moral evil; and no one who holds that
these physical evils are consistent with divine goodness
(partly as the results of good laws impressed on nature,
partly, as directly remedial) will find much difficulty in
believing the same of Attila. But we may go further.
Not only is it certain that we should injure man’s
nature, if we could wholly extinguish ambition; cer
tain, that the flame which in Alexander or Napoleon
burned to intense and baneful fury, is in its milder forms
quite essential to man’s welfare: but it is credible,
that, if we did but know the alternative possibilities
(which we never can know), we might find that the
�14
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil.
permanent good effected (blindly) by Alexander, by
Julins Caesar, by Napoleon, far more than out-balances
their evil. We may even venture to believe, that,
until mankind is otherwise more perfect, it is beneficial
on the whole that men of unbridled ambition do exist,
and will exist. This is God’s great influence for fusing
into one the separated tribes of the human race by con
quest ; the method by which the superior energies and
talents of one nation are ultimately diffused over
another : and although it produces countless miseries
on the way, inasmuch as the conquerors are not aiming
at good or concerned to use virtuous methods (and this is
their sin), yet an extensive survey of human history
will convince any well-judging mind, that our race
would never have attained its present elevation or its
present prospects of improvement, if ambition had
always been thwarted before it could overflow in
conquest.
It is striking to contemplate the analogy offered us
in the whole field of nature, as to the slow progress of
whatever is to be ultimately great. In the botanical
world it has been long proverbial, that vast growths are
slow; and the discoveries of geology magnificently
illustrate the saying. But there is another aspect from
which the same facts may be viewed. In one sense,
the material universe may be called always the same.
Having the same repulsions and attractions and the same
material masses, only the same phenomena (it might
seem) must for ever recur, did not organic life break in
to disturb the monotony. The influx of vegetable
forms introduces wonderful variety; yet each vegetable
in itself is, within near limits, ever like itself; nor
does any improvement in the individual, nor much in
the species, take place. Moral growth is the last and
most complicated of organic growths. If ferns took
many thousand years to perfect themselves, it is but
little to allow a hundred thousand years to man.
�-L /6Cz JUllUU.'UUJ J. {.UlLjyiCLVLb U/KL ± Ct^C/d //tCty (7CJ /UlU Utb UALWT&58(H(/
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS
SCOTT, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of
England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman .of the Church of England. Price6d.
Science and Theology. By R. D. Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia. Price 4d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly requestegto give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. Price 6d
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 7d., post free
The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures. By
the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. Price 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Benbficed Clergy
man of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
The “ Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is.
“The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Bentham. A Reprint. Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, Ind Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price fid.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Beneficed Clergyman. Price 6d.
“James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d
La w and the Creeds. Price fid.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks. By
Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c., Rector
of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Annotations by a
Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators. In Two
Parts. Price fid. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich
Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman. Price Is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a
Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d each part.
A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the
Bible? ” By Professor F. W. Newman.
The Dean of Canerbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter by M.P. Price 6d.
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot rely on
the Bible?” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich
Price 6d.
The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “The Pilgrim and the
Shrine,” “The Meaning of the Age,” <fcc. &c. Price fid.
The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. With Portrait. Price 6d.
On Public Worship. Price 3d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.’ Price 6d.
A Replt to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation. What is the Pros
pect of Man’s Living after Death ? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich. Price 6d.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church of England.
By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d.
The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. Price 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. In Three
Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
“The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. By Rev. Charles Voysey, Price 6d.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, considered
By W. Jevons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church
Price 6d.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its Influence on the
Intellect. Price Sixpence. Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the
Conscience. Price Sixpence.
�On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds, D.D., late
Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence.
A. I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Three Parts, 6d each.
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence.
Reason versus Authority. By W. O. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d.
The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
“Realities.” By P. A. Taylor, M.P.
On the Causes of Atheism. By F. W. Newman. With Portrait. Price 6d.
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?” By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High Court
of Madras. Price 6d.
A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d.
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Charles Voysey. With
Portrait. Price 6d.
Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. By Rev. J. Page Hopps. With
Portrait. Price 3d.
Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d.
Tub Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By M. D. Conway. With Portrait. Price 6d.
Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Pli.D. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait. Price Is.
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education. By Presbyter Anglicanus.
Price 6d.
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 3d.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey. Some remarks
by J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d.
A Challenge to the Meme «s of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thomas Scott.
On the Formation of Religious Opinions. By the late Rev. Jas. Cranbrook. Price 3d.
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought. By thelateRev. Jas. Cranbrook. Price 3d.
The Collapse of ihs Faith. Edited by Rev. W. G. Carroll, A.M., Dublin. Price 6d.
A Reply to the Question—“Shall I seek Ordination in the Church of England?”
By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6‘d.
A Lecture on Rationalism. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price 6d.
A Lecture on the Bible. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price 6d.
Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I. and II. By “ M. A.,” Trin. Col., Cam. 6d. each.
On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology. By the late Rev. Jas. Cranbrook. Price 3d.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education : or the Use and Misuse of the Bible in
the School-room. By Edward Maitland. Price Is. 6d.
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed, by T. L. Strange, late a Judge of the High Court
of Madras. Price 2s. 6d.
On CHURcn 'Pedigrees. By Rev. T. P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. Portrait. Two Parts. 6d. each.
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thomas Scott.
Price 6d.
Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ. By a Barrister. Price 6d.
How to Complete the Reformation. By Edward Maitland. With Portrait. Price 6d.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ? By Ed. Vansittart Neale. Price 6d.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and Philosophical. By a
Physician. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each.
Sunday Lyrics by Gamaliel Brown.
Christianity and Education in India. A Lecture delivered at St George’s Hall, London,
November 12, 1871. By A. Jyram Row, of Mysore. Price Sixpence.
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism, and on the Galla Religion. By Professor
F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
An Examination of some Recent Writings about Immortality. By W. E. B. Price 6d.
The Impeachment of Christianity. By F. E. Abbot. With Letters from Miss F. P. Cobbe
• and Prof. Newman, giving their reasons for not calling themselves Christians. Price 3d.
On Faith. By A. D. Graham and F. H, Price 3d.
Scepticism and Social Justice. By Thomas Horlock Bastard. Price 3d.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and defended by Thomas
Lumisden Si range. Price Sixpence.
Rational Theology. By F. R. Statham. Price 3d.
The English Life of Jesus. New Edition. By Thomas Scott. Price 4s. Postage 4d. extra.
The Living God. By Rev. E. M. Geldart. Price 3d.
Spiritual Pantheism. By F. H. I. Price 6d.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age. By Wm.
Jevons. Price 6d.
The Prayer Book Adapted to the Age. By William Jevons. Price 3d.
The Mythos of the Ark. By J. W. Lake. Price 6d.
The New Doxology. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d.
Truths for the Times. By Francis E. Abbot. Price 3d.
Clerical Integrity. By T. L. Strange. Price 3d.
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 3d.
�
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
Thoughts on the existence of evil
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Lecture written in 1841. [From author's note on title page verso]. Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
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
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4855
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Evil
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 />This work (Thoughts on the existence of evil), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Evil
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d479c8506722c0cc627b74fefcd7d399.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pxNbKcamVJ5t4h969mLzwNeQCmRjqXYV27hsTYYCuzqnJeDhdJWEkwhfo5kcb5oFAaXd5U80pPko2LXwmKtpVs7lHMcPFslXLxD2r48pMXI4EFjE79dL1-hvdJx0tBKgPL7DCy7lQP44SCLX1fs193kvvatZELwLCTh0Mf5EyOZVyRFatPUkgocxmdzv5tSjtpUaO0NML%7EJjUX3sYWJliauL1-uTTPSaFbJthzJW-APh2gbu5T9PXYDzZsCKXRWdqOSfdNW7hETmuF0nFhHRkdwbxMn-sjGgHRE-3L9y3rdQRwqJLXijvWmPjzTcrOfD%7EZlzPfA6SynCRYNNN16NfA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
06c13de82d0676c620458ffda3a3d2aa
PDF Text
Text
THE TRUE TEMPTATION
OF JESUS.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�TURNBULL AND SPEARS; PRINTERS, EDINBURGH
�THE TBUE TEMPTATION OF JESUS.
VERY one who has opened the New Testament is
aware that in the first and third Gospel a
remarkable story is found (alluded to also in the
second Gospel) in which the devil is represented to
have assailed Jesus with three special temptations,
and to have been repelled by quotation of Old Testa
ment texts. That it is impossible to maintain the
literal truth of this account has been reluctantly con
ceded by writers, who, like the author of “ Ecce
Homo,” are wholly unconcerned to ascertain when,
where, by whom, and with what means of knowledge,
these narratives were penned. Those who desire to
save their credit, try to rid them of a damaging burden
by declaring this scene to be allegorical. No spectator
is pretended. The idea that Jesus communicated
such inward trials to his disciples is contrary to
everything which is reported concerning his char
acter: for he is everywhere represented as wholly
uncommunicative, self-contained, more or less
mysterious, and moving in a separate region of
thought and feeling from the disciples. Evidently
this story does but express the opinion of the first
Christians, while Jesus was as yet believed to be only
human, that he, as others, must have had a struggle
against temptations, and therefore, against the devil.
It is not here intended to point out what is plain of
itself, that none of the temptations are worthy of the
acumen attributed to the experienced and wily Satan;
E
�6
The True Temptation of fesus.
and are merely puerile in fiction, whether Jesus be
imagined as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity,
or merely as a great and holy, but human prophet.
Here I intend to give prominence to that which I
believe to be the fundamental trial of a religious
reformer, especially when he attains great ascendancy
and commands high veneration. But first I must
say, I shall be truly sorry, if any Trinitarian read
these pages, and find himself wounded. I do not
address him. I argue on the assumption that Jesus
was subject to human limitations like all the rest of
us, and that it is our duty to criticize him and the
story of him, if it be of sufficient importance.
AV hat are the temptations of the prophet, can be no
secret in the present day: we see them in the
ordinary life of the admired preacher. To be run
after by a multitude, to be ministered to by fascinated
ladies, to see grey-haired men submissively listening
and treasuring up words,—easily puffs a young
preacher into self-conceit. In one who has too much
strong sense to be drawn into light vanity, fresh and
fresh success inspires, first, the not unreasonable hope
or belief that he is fulfilling a great work, and is
chosen for it by God, (not for his own merit, but be
cause, if a work is to be done, some one must be
chosen for it); next, an undue confidence in the truth
and weight of his own utterances, an extravagant
conviction that whoever resists his word, impugns
God’s truth, and makes himself the enemy of God.
In the denunciations of Luther against Zuingle, his
own wiser and more temperate coadjutor, in the
vehemences of John Knox, in the cruelty of Calvin
to Servetus, we see variously developed the same
dangerous tendency. If we cast the eye eastward,
to more illiterate nations, to those accustomed to
revere the hermit and the semi-savage as akin to the
prophet, to peoples whose homage expresses itself by
prostration, we see the tendency of the prophet to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
7
assume a regal and dictatorial mien even in the garb
of a half naked Bedouin. Many an eastern monk or
prophet, Syrian, Persian, or Indian, has been obeyed
as a prince; some have been attended on by large
armies : to some the native king has paid solemn
obeisance. In ancient Greece, where philosophy
overtopped religion, ascetic philosophers have been
accepted as plenipotentiary legislators; in which, no
doubt, we see portrayed, on a small scale, the legis
lative influence of a Buddha, a Confucius, or a
Zoroaster. When an Indian prophet found it natural
for multitudes to kneel to him or to prostrate them
selves, how hard must it have been to accept such
homage and retain a sense of human equality! how
hard not to think it reasonable that others bow down,
and unreasonable that any stand up and argue with
the prophet as his equal!
In the Gospels and Acts the habit of prostration
among these nations is sufficiently indicated; and we
see how it is resented (according to the narrative) by
Peter. When Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet and does
homage (certainly intending respect only, not divine
worship), Peter regards it. as quite unbecoming from
a man to a man. But Jesus is represented as accept
ing such homage without the least hesitation, and
apparently with approval. The cases are not few,
nor confined to any one narrative. Matt. viii. 2,
“ There came a leper and worshipped him.” Matt,
ix. 18, “There came a certain ruler and worshipped
him.” Matth. xiv. 33, “ They worshipped him, say
ing, Of a truth thou art the [or a] Son of God.”
Matt. xv. 25, “Then came the woman and
worshipped him, saying, Lord! help me.” On this
Jesus comments approvingly, “ 0 woman, great is
thy faith.” Matt. xvii. 14, “There came a certain
man, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord ! have
mercy on my son ! ” Matt. xx. 20, “ There came
the mother of Zebedee’s children, worshipping him,”
�8
The True Temptation of fesus.
Matt, xxviii. 9, “ They held him by the feet and wor
shipped him—this is after the resurrection, thereby
differing in kind from the rest. The same remark
applies to verse 17. We have substantially the same
fact in Mark i. 40; v. 6, 22, 33 ; vii. 25 ; x. 17. In
the last passage the rich young man kneels to Jesus: he
was not so represented in Matt. xix. 6. Luke v. 8,
“ Simon Peter fell down at Jesus’ knees.” Luke v.
12, “A man full of leprosy fell on his face, and be
sought Jesus.” In Luke vii. an account is given,
perhaps not at all authentic. A woman is repre
sented to bathe the feet of Jesus with her tears, and
wipe them dry with her long hair, and after that,
anoint them with ointment and kiss his feet inces
santly. Jesus, according to the narrative, highly
applauds her conduct, and avows that “ therefore,, her
sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Such conduct
on his part is far above criticism, if he was either a
person of the Divine Trinity, or a superhuman being,
who existed before all worlds and all angels, being
himself the beginning of the creation of God. I can
not doubt that the writer, called Luke, believed Jesus
to be superhuman, and therefore found no impro
priety in the conduct here imputed to him; but I
do not understand how any one who regards him as
a human being, can fail to censure him in the
strongest terms, if he believe this account. As I see
special grounds for doubting it, (inasmuch as it looks
like a re-making of the story reported in Matt,
xxvi. 6-13, which it exaggerates), I lay no stress upon
it: but even in that other account there is a selfcomplacency hardly commendable in a mere man.
Again, in Luke viii. 20, we read, “the woman fell
down before him.” She does not fall down in
Matt. ix. 22; therefore, here also the story may
have been “ improved ” by credulity. But it is need
less to follow this topic further. Suffice it to say,
that though we do not know exactly how much to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
9
believe, though we have frequent reason to suspect
exaggeration, yet the narratives all consistently
represent Jesus to have received complacently an
unmanly and degrading submission from his followers,
such as no apostle would have endured for a moment;
and it is hard to believe that such reports could have
gained currency, with no foundation at all. If, there
fore, we are to criticize Jesus on the belief that he
was man, and not God, nor a superhuman spirit, we
must admit, I think, that a real and dangerous
temptation beset him in this matter. He was prone
to take pleasure in seeing men and women profound
in their obeisance, prostrate in mind and soul before
his superior greatness ;—for prostration of the body
brings satisfaction to pride, only as it denotes
prostration of soul. It is difficult, with these narra
tives before us, to think that Jesus took to himself
that precept which Peter gives to the elders, that
they be not lords over God’s heritage, but be subject
one to another, and clothed with humility, that they
may be ensamples to the flock. Indeed, unless we
utterly throw away all the narratives, it is hardly too
much to say, that this is the very opposite to the
portrait of Jesus. If we will accept the theory that
he was superhuman, we can justify his immeasurable
assumption of superiority; but the fact remains, that
in places, too many to reject, he puts himself forward
as “ lord over God’s heritage.”
Two classes of facts, presented in the narratives,
must be carefully separated. The former is the
general superiority asserted by Jesus for himself;
the latter, is the special assumption of Messianic dig
nity. On the latter, there is notoriously an irrecon
cilable diversity of the fourth gospel from the rest.
The writer of the fourth, unquestionably ascribing to
Jesus pre-existence with God in some mysterious
way, and sonship in a sense perfectly unique, repre
sents his Messiahship as notorious to John the
�io
The True Temptation of^Jesus.
Baptist, to Andrew and Philip, from the very begin
ning, says it was avowed by Nathanael (whoever
this was), and preached by Jesus to Nicodemus
and to the woman of Samaria. All this is in so
flat contradiction to the three first gospels, that
nothing historical can be made out of the account;
and in trying to attain a true picture of Jesus, I
necessarily set aside the fourth gospel as a mischie
vous romance.—Nevertheless, the element which I
call an assumption of general superiority, is as com
plete and persistent in the three first gospels as in
the fourth.
Keshub Chunder Sen entitles it “ a sublime
egotism” in Jesus, to say, “Come unto me, and I
will give you rest: take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in spirit.”
Yet if Luther, or John Knox, or Wesley had said it,
we should adduce it in proof that he was eminently
lacking in that very grace,—lowliness of spirit,—for
which he was commending himself. But is this the
only egotism ascribed to him in Matthew ? Nay,
but in the celebrated beatitudes of the sermon on
the Mount, which some esteem the choice flower and
prime of the precepts of Jesus, he winds up with,
“ Blessed are ye when men shall speak evil against
you falsely for my sake.” He does not say “for
righteousness’ sake,” if the narrative can be trusted.
The discourse continues like itself to the end, for in
the close he says : “ Many shall say to me in that
day, Lord ! Lord ! have we not prophesied in thy
name, .... and then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you : depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.” This is, it may be said, a very energetic
way of declaring, that no pretence of following in his
train as a prophet could compensate for personal
iniquity. As such we may accept it: but it remains
clear, that he is claiming for himself a position
above the human; such as no beauty or truth of teach-
�The True Temptation of fesus.
11
ing could ever commend, as rightful from men to a
man, to the conscience of those reared in the schools
of modern science : while of course, if he claimed to
be higher than man, the first reasonable necessity,
and therefore his first duty, was to exhibit the
proofs of supernatural knowledge and authority.
Undoubtedly, the alternative lies open of disbelieving
the Evangelist. It may be urged, that the text
represents Jesus as also saying that in his name
they will claim to have cast out devils and done
many wonderful works; but that this is an exaggera
tion belonging to a later time, and so therefore
may the pretensions be, with which it is coupled.
Well; so be it: let us then look further.
According to Matt. ix. 6, Jesus claimed power
to forgive sin ; he brought on himself rebuke for it,
but proceeded to justify himself by working a miracle.
Whence did his disciples get the idea of his advancing
such extravagances, if really he did not go farther
than his disciples James and John? Presently after,
he is represented as preaching that he is the bride
groom of the Church, in whose presence the disciples
cannot mourn, and therefore ought not to fast; but
that when he is taken away, then they will fast.
How very peculiar and strange a sentiment to invent
for him, if it was not uttered ! Does it not rather
seem to have the stamp of individualism and truth,
thoroughly as it is in harmony with the tales of his
rejoicing to see men and women kneel before him ?
Next when Jesus sends out twelve disciples to say,
“ The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he is repre
sented to assert, that it shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than
for the house or city which has not received his
messenger. Surely, if any one were now to knock
at our house door with such a formula of words, and
on the strength of it expect to be accepted with the
honours of a prophet, only the weak-minded would
�12
The True Temptation of Jesus.
give him pleasant reception. Yet no ground what
ever appears for believing that there was anything
•to accredit such messengers then, any more than now :
certainly nothing more appears in the narrative,
which quite consistently everywhere holds, that
Jesus regarded the non-reception of his messengers as
a super-eminent guilt, merely because it was he who
sent them.
When it is added, “ ye shall be hated of all men
for my name's sake," we are perhaps justified in
esteeming that prediction as an after-invention of
popular credulity. But in the same discourse (Matt,
x. 23) we alight for the first time on the remarkable
phrase, “ The Son of Man,” afterwards indisputably
applied by Jesus to himself. “ Ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man
he come.” No one but Jesus himself ever calls him
the Son of Man. Whatever he then meant, the
book puts into his mouth yet more of sublime
•egotism. “Whosoever shall confess me before men,”
x(says he), “ him will I confess before my Father which
is in heaven : but whosoever shall deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is
heaven. He that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he
that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me.”
Certainly, when we begin to pare down these utter
ances, and try to reduce them to something that
would not be highly offensive in James or Paul, we
seem in danger of cutting away so much that is
characteristic, as to impair all confidence in what
remains. But unless we are bound to reject the
pervading colour of the narrative, I feel it not too
much to say, that in a mere man, the self-exaltation
approaches to impiety. What can it concern any
of us, that his brother-man should “deny him” before
our common Father? How suddenly would the
honour which we felt for a preacher be turned into
�The True Temptation of fesus.
13
grief and disappointment, or even indignation, if
we heard him to say, “ Blessed is he, whoever shall
not be offended in me!” He would fall in our
esteem, from the highest pinnacle to a very low
place, nor could any pretence of “ sublime egotism ”
save him.
In the same chapter in which the last words occur
(Matt, xi.) the Evangelist goes on into language not
dissimilar to that of the fourth gospel. “ All things
are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth
any man the Father save the Son; and he to whom
soever the Son will reveal him.” When it is
considered that, although the nucleus of this gospel
probably existed before the first century was ended,
we have absolutely no guarantee that the text was
finally settled, as we now have it, much before the
time of Irenaeus, toward the close of the second
century; no one has a right to be very confident that
this passage, so strongly smacking of the doctrines
which won ascendancy in that century, was not intro
duced at a later time. Perhaps the more reasonable
course here, is to strike out verse 27, (about the Son
and the Father) as foisted upon Jesus by a later
generation. What then shall be said of the words
which follow, already quoted, “ Come unto me, take
my yoke on you, and I will give you rest?” I can
accept them, if he is God, or a pre-existing Mighty
Spirit. I cannot accept them if he was only man : I
then do not entitle them sublime at all, but some
thing else.
Something or other to the same effect is for ever
cropping up in this narrative of Matthew, which I
purposely take as giving a more human representation
of Jesus than Luke or J ohn. He is presently reported
to say (Matt. xii. 6), “ In this place is one greater
than the temple............... the Son of Man is Lord even
of the Sabbath day.” Unless his words have been
�14
The True Temptation of fesus.
monstrously distorted, he intended to assert that he
was himself the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel the
Prophet, that he was personally greater than the
temple, and was Lord even of the Sabbath-day.
Will any one say, that Jesus merely claimed the
right possessed by every man to interpret the law of
the Sabbath by the dictates of good sense, and that
he regarded every pious man as greater than a temple
built of stone; and that the egotistic form of his
utterance was an accident ? In that case it certainly
was a highly unfortunate accident, and we may add, an
accident often repeated, which generated in his dis
ciples a veneration for him too great for humanity.
But accident so systematic is surely no accident at
all. If a good man who makes no pretensions is
worshipped as a god after his death, he is guiltless :
but if a man be worshipped as a god, who has
made enormous personal pretensions,—and if a
decisive weight in the argument for worshipping
him is, that he has left us no choice between
worship and reprobation, can one who regards
the superhuman claims untenable, doubt that self
exaltation and monstrous vanity was a deplorable
foible in the prophet ? I find only two ways of
avoiding the disagreeable inference : (1), by the
theory of Paul, or some higher theory; (2.) by so
rejecting all our accounts of his doctrine and miracles
alike as untrustworthy, that nothing is left us to
trust at all, nothing on which a faithful picture of
Jesus can be founded.
From beginning to end the narrative has but one
colour as regards the self-exaltation of Jesus. Matt,
xii., “Behold! a greater than Solomon is here.”
Matt, xiii., “ Many prophets and righteous men have
desired to see the things which ye see, and hear the
things which ye hear. Blessed are your eyes, for
they see; and your ears, for they hear.” And what
was this so precious instruction ? the Parable of the
�The True Temptation of'Jesus.
15
Sower ! Surely no sober-minded person can esteem
this so highly above all the teaching of Hebrew
sages.
But I pass to a new topic in the sixteenth chapter
of Matthew,—the anger of Jesus, when he is asked
for a sign from heaven. He replies by calling the
persons who asked him hypocrites, when evidently,
according to the notions of that age and nation, it
was a most reasonable and proper request. In fact,
the narratives elsewhere represent him as giving
them miraculous signs, which are signs from heaven,
in abundance; insomuch that, if he had been repre
sented as here appealing to these signs, and alleging
that these very persons had already witnessed them
plentifully, his imputation of hypocrisy might have
seemed natural. But that is not his line of argument.
He says : “ A wicked, and adulterous generation seeketh
after a sign,” as though the desire itself were wicked
ness, “ and there shall no sign be given unto it, but
the sign of the prophet Jonas.” And he left them
and departed. Such words refuse a sign not to the
individual only, but to the generation. Are we then
to believe that he consistently repudiated all pretence
of working miracle ? that he esteemed the desire of
seeing a miracle wrought, in confirmation of his pre
eminent claims, to be such a fatuous absurdity, that
he had a right to heap contumelious epithets on the
head of any one who asked for it ? In favour of
this opinion, appeal may be made to the epistles of
Paul, who does not betray any knowledge whatever
that Jesus had wrought miracles. Let us tentatively
adopt this view. Then, first, what a heap of gross
misrepresentation is put before us in all four narratives
if Jesus not only never affected to work miracles,
but even vehemently flouted the idea itself and
rebuked those who desired it. Next, it will follow
that no justification of his high pretensions was
even attempted by him, and therefore no denuncia-
�16
The True Temptation of Jesus.
tion of men for neglect of him was reasonable. It
follows that those resolved to justify him must cut
out all his denunciations likewise. Who will write
for us an expurgated gospel, to let us know what
was the true Jesus ? Who will convince us, that
a history thus garbled can ever be truly recovered,
or deserves our intent study ?
In the same chapter of Matthew (the sixteenth)
the momentous question is proposed to his disciples,
“ Whom say ye that I am ']'” According to the
narrative, he first gave them the hint, what to reply,
by a leading question, “ Whom do men say that I, the
Son of Man, am ? ” but perhaps that is only a stupid
exaggeration of the narrator, who did not see what
it would imply. Let us then drop this portion of the
words.
He feels his way cautiously with the
disciples, and sounds them. Simon Peter replies,
“ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Again I ask, Is this narrative grossly and delusively
false ? or may we trust a vague outline ? According
to it, Jesus is lifted by the reply into a most exalted
state, “ Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas,” says
he, ££ for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven............... I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven*
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, .... &c.” After this outburst,
what is it that we read as a consequence ? “ Then
charged he his disciples that they should tell no man
that he was Jesus the Christ.”
It seems utterly irrational and unworthy alike of
* Any one who doubts whether Jesus ever uttered such
words, may fortify the doubt by opining that the words
have got into the gospel from Rev. iii. 7, where nevertheless
Jesus, so far from giving the “power of the keys ” to any
apostle, retains the power strictly in his own hand. The
words in Rev. iii. 7, are borrowed from Isaiah xxii. 22,
which have no reference to Messiah at all, according to any
scientific interpretation,
�The True Temptation of fetus.
17
the most High God and of his specially anointed
Prophet (if one special Prophet was indeed so
promised), that Messiah should come into his
nation,—should expect subjection of mind from all
around,—should haughtily evade, instead of enlight
ening, those who mildly inquired into his claims to
authority; finally, should sedulously preserve his
incognito, and forbid his disciples to tell that he was
Messiah. Men may be either convinced or com
manded. To convince them you must kindly and can
didly answer their difficulties, and allow them to argue
against you; you must meet their questions as plainly
and honestly as possible, not browbeat or threaten
the interrogators, nor marvel over their unbelief and
stupidity. You must descend in the argument on
to a perfect level with the man whom you desire to
convince, and entirely lay aside all airs of authority,
even if you have authority. That is one course of
proceeding; but it is the very opposite of that
imputed to Jesus. But if men are to be commanded,
if submission is to be required of them, you must
make some display of power.* In that case you
seek to convince them, not that a precept is wise, or
a doctrine is true, but that you, its enunciator, have
a special right of dictation, drawing after it in the
hearer a special duty of submission. Of course, those
with whom the idea of miracles is inadmissible, do not
ask for signs from heaven; not the lessmustthey justify
the countrymen of Jesus in requiring from him some
credentials, when he claimed submission and used a
dictatorial tone. If the nation believed miracles to
be the marks of Messiah, and was in error, it
* Men of science appeal to power as an argument why
they should be believed, when want of leisure or talents
forbid the mastering of their arguments : thus Astronomers
appeal to their fore-knowledge of eclipses, and their power of
finding the longitude by their tables ; Electricians appeal to
the telegraph, and so on.
�18
The True Temptation of fesus.
belonged to Messiah to unteach them the error,
and, as one aware of their folly, to take precautions
lest miracles be imputed to him. Surely it was
quite unjustifiable, to require submission from Priests
and Pharisees, yet exhibit to them no credentials what
ever of the mighty function with which he was
invested. If words dropping from the mouth of
Messiah were divine commands, which it was impious
to dispute, nothing could supersede the public an
nunciation of his office, and the display of his
credentials, whatever they might be. No evasions
are here endurable, on the ground of the political
danger to be incurred, or the propriety of giving
insufficient proof in order to try people’s “ faith.”
To say that political danger forbade, is to say that
God sent Messiah insufficiently prepared for his work,
and afraid to assume His functions publicly. As to
trying “ faith ” by insufficient proof, nothing can be
less rightful or more pernicious. If the proof ad
duced be of the right kind and appropriate, it cannot
be excessive, but may be defective; and if defective,
it is a cruel trap, as if designed to lead honesty astray.
The only plausibility in this notion rises from con
fusion of truths which we ought to see by light from
within, with truths which can only be established
from without. No man can know by his inward
faculties that a Messiah is promised from heaven,
nor what will be the external marks of Messiah.
False Messiahs had already come. To accept lightly
any one as Messiah was the height of imprudence, and
certainly could not be commended as pious. Under
such circumstances, to dissemble Messiahship, and
work upon susceptible minds by giving them evidence
necessarily imperfect, was conduct rather to be
imputed to a devil, than to a prophet from God, if
done with serious intent. Those who defend it,
plead that the evidence was moral, and did not need
external proofs. If so, on the one hand full freedom
�The True Temptation of'Jesus.
19
of investigation was needed, not authority and brow
heating ; on the other, this alleges external proof to
be worse than superfluous,—to be in fact misleading;
so that to plead for its “ insufficiency” as a needful
trial of faith is a gross error. If external evidence
was wholly inappropriate, the producing of that
which you concede to be insufficient does but tend to
confuse ■ and mislead the simple-hearted, and cause
unbelief in the strong-headed. But if external evi
dence is admissible and appropriate at all for faith
to rest upon, then it ought to be in quantity and
quality sufficient to make the faith reasonable and
firm. If only internal light is to the purpose of
faith, and external evidence was not wanted for
Messiah, then neither was an authoritative Messiah
wanted at all; that is, a teacher to whom we should
submit without conviction; then it was right to
claim that Messiah would convince by argument and
reply to questions; would invite question or opposi
tion, not dictate and threaten; then we have to
sweep away the greater part of the four Gospels as a
false representation of Messiah. Whatever else may
have been true, one thing is certainly false;—that
God sent a special messenger to teach authoritatively,
and that the messenger thus sent forbade his disciples
to publish his character and claims.
From narratives so disfigured by false representa
tion, as every one is obliged to confess them, who
does not believe the miracles, and seeks to defend
Jesus by remoulding the accounts of Him ; how can
any one be blamed for despairing to arrive at accurate
and sound knowledge concerning his character and
teaching? What right has any one to expect to
recover lost history, or to think worse of his brother
if he regard the effort to be waste time ? Yet if I
were to say, I seem to myself to know nothing of Jesus,
I should speak untruly; for in the midst of the obscurity
and the inconsistencies of the narratives, there are
�20
’The True Temptation of Jesus.
some things unvarying, many things very hard to in
vent, and others unlikely to be invented, yet easily
admitting explanation, if we reason about Jesus as
we do about every other public teacher or reformer.
The details of doctrine are often untrustworthy, but
the current, the broad tendencies, the style and tone
of the teacher, seem to have made too strong an
impression to be lost, though round them has been
gathered a plentiful accretion of mistake and fable.
In outline we must say that the first peculiarity of the
preacher was, that he did not comment upon the law
and prophets, but spoke dictatorially, dogmatically,
as with authority—a thing quite right and proper,
while only moral truth is taught, which makes appeal
to the conscience of the hearer. But the Jews,
accustomed like the modern English to nothing but
comment and deduction from a sacred book, were
apt to enquire of Jesus by what right he spoke so
confidently, and paid so little deference to the learned.
On one occasion he is said to have given a very fair
reply, to the effect that they had listened to the
preaching of John the Baptist, without asking his
authority: “If John might preach to you dogmati
cally, why may not 12 ” was the substance of that
argument. But it is clear that, numbers of honest
sincere Jews, impressed by the moral weight in these
preachings, had begun to inquire whether this was
not a renewal of divine prophecy, whether divine
prophets must not have some recognizable note of
their mission, other than the influence of their doc
trine on the human conscience; whether, in fine,
Jesus might not be the expected Messiah. This was
a very anxious question, especially since delusive
Messiahs had appeared; but it was a question that
Jews were sure to make, and the three narratives
before us, defective as they are, persuade me that it •
was made, both in private talk, and in direct interro
gation to Jesus.
Now if we accept to the full the traditional Jewish
�The True Temptation of fesus.
21
belief of what Messiah was to be, (which falls short
of the dignity ascribed to him by Christians),
it is incredible that after commencing his public
functions he should remain ignorant of his being
Messiah, or need confirmation from his disciples or
from others. But if Jesus had little trust in learned
Rabbis or traditional doctrine, he may have had a
very vague and imperfect belief as to what Messiah
was to be; and the idea that he himself was Messiah
may not have at all occurred to him, until after he
had experienced the zeal of the multitude, and was
aware that a rumour was gone abroad among the
people, that “ a great prophet was arisen,” and that
some said he was the Messiah. Can any one study
his character as that of a man, subject to all human
limitations, and not see, that the question, “ Am I
then possibly the Messiah ?” if at all entertained,
instantly became one of extreme interest and anxiety
to Jesus himself? Indeed from the day that it
fixed itself upon him for permanent rumination his
character could not but lose its simplicity. Pre
viously he thought only, What doctrine is true
morality ? What are the crying sins of the day 2
But now his own personality, his own possible
dignity, became matters of inquiry ; and the inquiry
was a Biblical one. He was brought hereby on to
the area of the learned commentator, who studies
ancient books to find out what has been promised and
predicted about a Messiah. An unlearned carpenter,
however strong and clear-minded while dealing with a
purely moral question, was liable to lose all his super
iority and be hurtfully entangled when entering into
literary interpretation. Wholly to get rid of tradi
tional notions was impossible, yet enough of distrust
would remain, to embarrass fixed belief and produce
vacillation. Nothing is then more natural, than
that the teacher should desire to know what was the
general opinion concerning him, should be pleased
when it confirmed his rising hopes, should be elated
�22
The True Temptation of fetus,
when Simon Peter declared him to be Messiah, and
should bless his faith, even if not with the extrava
gance of giving him the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; finally, should be displeased with himself
-and frightened at his own elation, and, in order to
repair his error, should charge his disciples to tell
no one that he was Messiah; not that he desired to
keep the nation in ignorance, but because he was
himself conscious of uncertainty. After this his
conduct could not be straightforward and simple.
Such is the only reasonable interpretation which
I have ever been able to see, of this perplexed and
perplexing narrative, which is not likely to have
grown out of nothing. Jesus came into a false
position from that day, and of necessity (as I think)
his whole character must have changed for the worse.
Thenceforth, the dogmatism which had been a mere
form of teaching, and had involved arrogance only
in appearance, changed into definite and systematic
personal assumption. It is not likely that he began it
so early, or ever carried it so far, as even the narrative
of Matthew pretends; for as a caricaturist exag
gerates every peculiarity of a face, making its promi
nences more prominent, so does tradition deal with
the popular hero. I pretend not to know how much
is exactly true; but it comes before me as certain
fact, that the true temptation of Jesus was the
whisper made to him, “ Are not you possibly the
Messiah ?” and by it the legendary devil overcame
him. That whisper has cost to Europe an infinite
waste of mind and toil, no end of religious wars,
cruelties, injustices, anathemas, controversies, without
bringing any sure advance of religious truth to man
kind. How much more convulsion of hearts and
entanglement of intellects, how much of violent
political upturnings are inevitable, before European
nations can now become able to learn that to think
freely is a duty, and that religion is spiritual and
rational, not magical and supernatural ?
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may befhad on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr THOMAS
SCOTT, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of
England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Gd.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia.
Piice 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of Jesus.
Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are earnestly requested to give_ Answers
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. Price 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete in Six.
Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures. By
the Right Rev. Francis Harb, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. Price 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed Clergy
man of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
The “ Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is.
“The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint
Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev. P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
The Church: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price Gd.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records, with special reference
to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Price is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Benbficed Clergyman of the Church of England.
Price 6d.
“The Meaning of the Age.” By the Author of “ The Pilgrim and the Shrine ” Price 6d.
‘James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks. By
Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c., Rector
of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Annotations by a
Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman of the
Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators. In Two
Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist an© the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of Eng
land. Price Is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a
Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d each part
A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the
Bible ? ” By Professor F. W. Newman.
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot rely on
the Bible ? ” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
�List of Publications—Continued.
The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “The Pilgrim and the
Shrine,” “The Meaning of the Age,” &c. &c. Price 6d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.’ Price 6d.
A Reply to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What is the Pros
pect of Man’s Living after Death? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich. Price 6d.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangersof the Church of England.”
By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d.
The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. Price 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. In Two
Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
“The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. Price 6d.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, consideredBy W. Jevons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church.
Price 6d.
Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a Presbyter. Price 6d
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. W. R. Worthing
ton, M.A. Price Sixpence.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its Influence on the
Intellect. Price Sixpence. Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the
Conscience. Price Sixpence.
On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds, D,D., late
Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence.
A. I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each part
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence.
Reason versus Authority. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d.
The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
“ Realities.” By P. A. Taylor M.P.
The Beliefs of Unbelievers. By Rev. 0. B. Frothingham. Price 3d.
On the Causes of Atheism. By F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?” By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High Court
of Madras. Price 6d.
A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d.
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price 6d.
Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. By Rev. J. Page Hopps. Price 3d.
Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. Price Is.
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Professor F. W. Newman.
Price 3d.
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education. By Presbyter Anglicanus.
Price 6d.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey. Some remarks
by J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d.
A Challenge to the Members of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thos. Scott.
The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter, by M. P. Price 6d.
The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Friends to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free Expression” are earnestly requested to give
aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets.
�
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 true temptation of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 22, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 18 cm
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. The portrait is a photo that has been cut out and pasted to the title page. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
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
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4858
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
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 />This work (The true temptation of Jesus), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ-Temptation
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e4504d751c0ed0b885f01b215a8131e1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RV94IuGaO02YFsAsQTuNg%7EQBLTpQdmsQxtM8q4aH76ef8z%7E5yhoCjrpRWQ03ITxNvJu8ReTrDygkHr%7EZ9eoaOM25yk36mZOtoAfm3E%7EKaiiC705dc3MCd2f1bVG3OFpnqnmT8F%7EIpmox9d995V609ihMMJ7idwvTIBO2dNTSmS1Cey8hn1X39FTPtBWe9wC5OizpCX0kBaJVOVvxU3p8QhWbWbzGTbIf3akK9NorYfSU7b1LO1AL6hlWuxVa1-txPZkVWPvzc-LVnNW0kIpZgr3hgAhJTnMritmGzcV1NhL9m8-bX46dbZZ1gAzRxPLqyENfhOedkqIkFf-5vi7jhg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8a4880a294167634e5c48409ebba6944
PDF Text
Text
xio
nW
A DISCOURSE
ON THE
SERVICE OF GOD,
delivered by
Professor
F. W. NEWMAN,
AT THE
FREE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CROYDON, LONDON
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1875.,
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. TV. REYNELL, LITTLE rULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET.
�THE
SERVICE OF GOD.
“ 0 Lord, truly I am thy servant. I am thy servant, and
the son of thy handmaid. Thou hast broken my bonds.”—
Psalm cxvi. 16.
ELIGION has a long history. It is perhaps as
old as human nature. At every time it reflects
’ our moral and intellectual state. It is barbarous in
our barbarism. It is puerile, while our intellects are
immature. It becomes more manly with our manlier
thoughts, pure and tender with our more refined
morals. The rude or savage man, who discovers in
the vast world Powers greater than himself and
older than the solid globe, easily believes that some
gods are kindly and others cruel. The God who
gives genial harvests and healthful seasons is the
good God; but the power who wields the hurricane
and the lightning seems to be a demon. We know,
as a’ fact, particular tribes to have argued frankly,
that it is not necessary to concern ourselves about the
good God, who is sure to be kind. The only matter
of importance (they said) is, to propitiate the evil
demons, and avert their anger. Thus, as a matter of
policy, demon-worship is put forward as the cardinal
task of religion.
But wherein does this worship or service consist ?
It is assumed that the mighty Being who sometimes
crushes feeble man, crushes him through malevolence
and cruelty. Such a Being is likely to be proud,
vain, jealous; easily affronted, but appeased by sub
mission, by gifts and by flattery. Therefore the
service of the god becomes like to that of an earthly
tyrant. Worship paid to one somewhat lower in
R
�6
The Service of God.
morals than ourselves is degrading to the votary and
demoralizing. No one can say into what depths of
cruelty to man such fantastic service may descend, f
once the ceremonies of worship are systematized and
receive traditional sanction from national usages and
law.
' Thus, in order that worship or service to God may
be healthful, rightful, elevating, ennobling, the first
essential condition is, that we believe God to be better
than ourselves ; not merely more powerful, but better,
in every sense in which we can understand goodness.
It needs no high effort of thought, no especial power
of insight, to establish as a sure foundation, that, if
a Supreme God have any moral character at all, his
morality must be nobler than ours. In any case our
petty vices are in him simply impossible. He cannot
be irritable, jealous, thinking of his own honour, ca
pricious, malignant, fickle, fantastic. He does not
need offerings of food or of flowers, roast flesh or
honey-cakes, garlands of leaves, nor crowns of gold.
He needs no house built for his dwelling-place or
sleeping-rooms. He will .not wear robes of State,
though they be woven for him of fine purple and
edged with gold brocade. What then can we do to
serve such a Being, who wants for himself nothing
at our hands ?
It is within the compass of the humblest intellect,
so soon as man or woman thinks freely and defi
nitely, to make sure, that if God desire us to serve
him, it is not for his advantage or comfort or pride,
but for our benefit. We ought to revere him; why?
Because we are the better for revering him. But
again, why so ? Because reverence intrinsically
befits us, if he indeed be supreme in goodness and
wisdom, as well as in duration and power. Bor one
who is still a child to look up with admiration to a
loving father, is always good, because a mature man
is far higher in wisdom and goodness than a child;
�The Service of God.
7
but reverence of one man for another man is not, as
such, intrinsically good, and may be pernicious.
Reverence rightly directed, towards one who unques
tionably deserves it, softens, chastens, and confirms
moral character, and has no element of servility in
it. To have no object whom we revere generally
belongs to self-conceit, flippancy, shallowness of heart.
“ To be Reverent is Wisdom,” says a philosophic
Greek poet; and the voice of mankind classes irre
verence among vices. Yet (as above said) to revere
a God, to whom we attribute mean vices, is evil and
not good. That religion may be beneficial, it must
be pure; that it may be pure, criticism of it must be
•free.; no worship of false gods is endurable to true
piety. If it be possible sincerely to adore a being
.morally below us (which may greatly be doubted),
■such worship is at best a galling slavery. But when
;the worshipper discerns that his God is supremely
good, and deserves to be loved with all the heart and
soul, his chains drop off, and he may justly cry:
“ Thou hast broken my bonds. Thy service is perfect
freedom. Oh tell me what I am to do. Speak,
Lord ! for thy servant heareth. Blessed are they
who do thy commandments. Lord! teach me thy
statutes. Oh that I could hear thy voice ! ”
But no voice from heaven is heard in reply to suoh
aspirations. The wisdom of God draws out our own
powers, and, to do this, never dictates as an earthly
preceptor, but works on our hearts and intellects by
many an inward experience and many an outward
i event. That elementary religion which we call Pagan
•can Jhardly now be recognized by us as religion at all.
We may contemptuously .call .it “earnal ordinances,”
so long as it is external and corporate. But from
•the day that religion is treated as no longer a cor
porate affair to be transacted by a priest or a church,
but a .matter internal to the individual soul,—thence
forward it is nearly true to say that each of us has to
�8
The Service of God.
earn his own religious beliefs. Morals are dictated
to us by the human race in the most critical matters;
but neither mankind nor any individual can profitably
dictate on spiritual religion. At most one may con
fidentially tell to another his inward convictions, and
how his doubts and difficulties were removed; but
different minds are liable to (what may be called)
different diseases, and are relieved by different reme
dies. It is lovely and truly hopeful when, in opening
youth, ardent hearts aspire to dedicate life to the
service of God; yet nothing is commoner than for
the worshipper, after a glow of zealous devotion, to
lament that his earthly heart cannot keep it up.
Then he inquires, “ Is there any means of sustaining
religious affection, so that I may always feel that I
love God, as I did feel for a little while ? Is it a sin
that I am cold and dead, when I know that I ought
to rejoice in his supreme goodness ? ” This is but
one of many ways in which sincere hearts are dis
quieted ; yet a few words may here be in place.
We must not mistake religious emotion for religion.
Reverence implies a definite position of the under
standing and the moral judgment. This ought to be
a permanent state, which shows itself whenever the
thought of the Most High recurs to the mind. But
every emotion is transitory. Each is most healthy
when most spontaneous. To excite feeling artificially
is unhealthful, and tends to increase deadness. It
suffices to have the conviction deep in our under
standings that God deserves to be loved; we cannot
always have love to Him active and sensible. But
to say this is not to say half of what truth seems to
demand. The religious affections are good in their
place; they are right (as above said) because they
intrinsically befit us ; in greater or less intensity they
are necessary to religion. But as we must refuse to
believe that God, like a weak, vain man, is jealous
for his own honour, so must we beware of the stealthy
�The Service of God.
9
idea that he resents coldness or exacts gratitude.
The religious affections are not the service of God.
Religion itself is the true service of God, and it is
exhibited mainly in right conduct towards man. This,
in my apprehension, is the cardinal doctrine which
the Church of the Future has to make prominent,
and, as it were, bear aloft upon her flag. It certainly
has not been duly prominent in the past, and is very
often flatly denied. As the Hebrew prophets repre
sented Jehovah saying, “I need not your sacrifices of
bullocks and rams: if I am hungry, I will not ask
food of you,” so must we now insist that God is not
benefited by our psalms and hymns, nor is less
glorious or less blessed, if defrauded of our praise
and gratitude. On our own account it is good to
draw near to him and worship inwardly ; but to
make the service of God consist in this is, at bottom,
the same error as to identify the useless and selfish
life of a hermit with religious life.
That wise religion has its highest and ultimate goal
in right behaviour towards our fellow-men is not dis
tinctly expressed in the Hebrew or Christian Scrip
tures ; yet (I think) is often implied by Christian
Apostles and by Jesus himself; also'in the celebrated
passage of Micah, which sums up man’s duty to God
in justice and mercy, and humility or sobriety before
God. It seems impossible to find books richer in
urgent exhortations concerning outward conduct than
the Apostolic Epistles and the three first Gospels.
Nevertheless, all the books of the New Testament are
so overlaid with notional matter that the historical
Christian Church was seduced into making doctrines
and creeds paramount. In consequence men, cele
brated as eminent philosophers, have imagined that
in Christianity practical virtue is disesteemed. That
ceremonies may and do choke and bury true religion
is a familiar thought to all who honour the name
Protestant. That theories, doctrines, controversies,
�io
The Service of God.
religious emotion and efforts to kindle emotion may
be mischievous in the same way, many Protestants
are not duly aware. Theology, as science or art, is
but a means; our social perfection is the end which
theology ought to subserve. To attain such perfection
as men and women can attain in their mutual rela
tions is the highest service of God.
A misconception of this statement is more than
possible, and must be carefully guarded against. Mis
conception may arise out of the common distinction
between personal vice and crimes or offences against
society; also between personal virtue and social
virtue. We must not mistake such outward action
as alone the law of the land can command, or even
such as alone society can claim from us, for the sub
stance of religious life. Every personal vice, in truth,
makes us worse citizens, nor do any virtues so redound
in blessing to society as purely spiritual virtues. The
earliest scientific treatise on morals known to the
Western world maintained that justice included all
virtue, for to be defective in any virtue was a fraud
on society. Justice, strictly interpreted, was identical
with righteousness. There is truth in this.
To do an act Of kindness is acceptable to our neigh
bours, but to do it ungraciously may destroy all plea
sure from it and nearly all its value. It is not the
outward act only which kindles gratitude or affection,
but the act as indicating the temper of the doer. The
dullest of us is, after all, a spiritual being; we love
men for their goodness, even more than for their
usefulness to ourselves. If destitute, we covet sup
plies necessary to life; but man does not love for
bread alone. We wish for respect, for good-will, for
friendliness. We are quick to discern when another
is contemptuous, proud, selfish, ungoverned, grasping.All vices, however internal and hidden away, are dis
agreeable to us; and, if they abound in our neigh
bours, lessen our happiness and even our sense of
�•
The Service of God,
11
security. Sensual vice, it need hardly be insisted, is
manifestly pernicious to others as well as to the vicious
person. A drunkard is a bad husband, a bad father,
a bad son, a bad citizen in general. The seducer of
female virtue is pernicious in the highest degree; the
man of impure life is a centre of corruption and a
propagator of misery. Gluttony is the greatest cause
of disease, and variously incapacitates us. Those who
make their gain by encouraging -vice are among the
very worst citizens. To foster hatred within, of that
which would degrade us without, to simplify our habits
so as to be contented with little, may seem at first
purely personal virtues, yet without them we are not
armed against temptation, nor competent for warfare
with social misery. Hence a Christian Apostle re
garded spiritual virtues collectively as the weapons
and armour of God, for battle against the wicked
spirits who domineer in the world. In this noble
combat we need to put on not only tender mercies,
patience, and universal good-will, but also those vir
tues of the soldier—hardihood and self-denial, fru
gality and bravery. Paul is represented (in substance,
I doubt not, correctly) as leaving with the elders of
Ephesus his last solemn charges, and, as it were, his
dying words: “ I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold,
or apparel: yea, ye yourselves know that these hands
have ministered to my necessities and to them that
were with me. I have showed you that so labouring
ye ought to support the weak, and remember those
words of the Lord JesuSj—It is more blessed to give
than to receive.” Some one has said that Jesus
kindled on earth an enthusiasm of humanity. To me
it is clear that through the whole book, which we call
the New Testament, there burns an enthusiasm for
-moral perfection. Our task in this later age is to cull
the noblest flowers of Christian precepts, just as did
the Apostles from the Prophets and Psalmists who had
preceded them, avoiding the errors incident to the
�i2
The Service of God.
•
earlier era, and adding whatever wisdom the long
lapse of time has bequeathed to us.
Is then the service of God, as interpreted by Chris
tian Apostles, quite identical with that to which we
now ought to exhort one another ? Not quite iden
tical, I think. They believed that King Messiah
would return in the clouds of heaven, to set up a
rule of righteousness on earth. They saw the gross
injustices of princely power and institutions founded
on conquest; but to defeat iniquity enthroned in
high station seemed to them far too hard a task for
any one but the Lord from heaven. To behold the
kingdoms of this world under the reign of God and
his Christ was the sight for which their hearts ached;
but the only work for others to which they believed
themselves called, was, to prepare the elect,—a small
remnant of mankind,—for entering into God’s king
dom. We cannot blame them as weak in faith,
because they despaired of overthrowing organized
violence without miraculous intervention. In fact,
the primitive gospel or good news announced, what
long experience has convicted as an error ;—namely,
that the Lord Messiah himself would very shortly
descend from heaven with innumerable angels and a
trumpet sound, to claim his rightful royalty over
earth, and trample down the wicked princes who
ruled by the unseen might of Satan, God’s arch
enemy. Then would come the times of refreshing from
the presence of the Lord ; then righteousness would
flourish, and all the prophecies be gloriously fulfilled.
Reluctantly, slowly, and by necessity, Christians at
length resigned this splendid vision, and learned that
to leave political affairs to the management of bad
men was not the part of wisdom and duty : but
alas! forthwith arose an insatiable ambition to invest
Church Officers with the wealth, power, and prero
gatives of Pagan princes. Out of this has flowed a
total perversion of Christianity, and, for 1500 years,
�The Service of God.
13
incessant conflicts which abounded with misery and
innumerable moral evils; yet probably were inevit
able in some other shape, if they had not come in this
shape. From her more than millennial agony Chris
tendom emerges far stronger and. far wiser. We
now discern what has been the error. True religion
ought to consecrate, all our worldly action, not to dis
parage, to decry, and to desecrate the world. Herein
is the pivot of our new departure. We need to
revert to an older wisdom, which taught* that
“ God hath granted to us on this earth a small plot;
and this is that which we must cultivate and glorify.”
Religious action does not consist in propagating
religious opinions, nor even in cherishing religious
emotions; but in 'being good and doing good. To
desecrate the word secula/r, is akin to desecrating
marriage; each should be ennobled, not disparaged.
This world is not to be abandoned to men selfishly
greedy and ambitious, but is to be defended and
rescued from them by the concordant efforts of God’s
true servants. Unjust and corrupting institutions,
evil laws, reckless government, are not to be left
unmolested. Since bad law is of all bad things most
widely and deeply efficacious for evil, while good law
is of all good influences the mildest and most
effective for good; therefore, to purify laws and
institutions is a primary mode of establishing the
kingdom of God on earth. In no other way can the
roots of moral evil be torn up. It has often been
said, that three days’ drunkenness, fostered by ambi
tion to aid electioneering intrigues, undo the work of
three years’ preaching. This is but one illustration
out of fifty, and not at all the strongest, denoting
how futile is a moral crusade, if it will not attack
political villainies. Hitherto, among Protestants, all
national progress in morals has been retarded, just
'2,‘irApTi)v eAa%es • ratrriiv xotrfier.
�14
z
The Service of God.
in proportion as they have recalled from the first
Christian ages the doctrine that the saint is not a
citizen of this world; that the kingdoms of this
world are incurably wicked ; that the devil and his
angels are to be left in possession of political princi
pality; that Christians have nothing to do with
making the national institutions just, and the law
moral. The doctrine of Geneva, of Scotland and of
the English Puritans, took a course which avoided
this rock of offence, but ran upon' another, nearly as
Rome has done,—a rock which we mis-call Theo
cracy : but the Lutherans, and the Anglican Evan
gelicals, the Moravians, the Quietists, and other sects,
with many estimable persons, in striving to recover
the original position of the Christian Church, over
looked both our vast differences of circumstance, and
the glaring fact that that Church erred in expecting
the speedy overthrow of political wrong by a miracu
lous intervention. Without full self-consciousness or
any clear knowledge of the past, all the Churches of
England are now waking to their duty of purifying
the fountains of our daily life. Herein lies the germ
of a new religion ; new to us, if in some sense old.
There are those who believe that this new religion is
what Jesus meant to teach (but his words, say they,
have been garbled),—that when from human sym
pathy one man relieves another, who is- a captive, or
sick, or hungry, or naked, though he do it without
dreaming to serve God or thinking of God at all, yet
the Supreme Judge recognizes it as service done to
himself. This is neither place nor time for inquiring
into the truth of the interpretation. Suffice it to
say, that goodness is amiable, with or without reli
gious thought; that man needs our services, and
God does not need our love any more than our
flattery, and that in affectionate, dutiful or merciful
acts towards our fellow-men we best become jointwofkers with God. This is the earliest religion
�The Service of God.
15
possible to childhood, the only religion which can
commend itself to the barbarian conscience.
Will any one call it a poetical fiction, that all the
universe, inorganic, brute or barbarian, is doing the
work of God, obeying his command, fulfilling his
service ? alike the suns and planets, the elements and
seasons, the beasts and birds, tribes of savages and
ignorant masses of men? God makes the very
wrath of man to praise him, out of discord bringing
harmony. How much more ought we to recognize
as Tris servants that vast army of mute toilers, the
poor of every nation, prevalently simple and ignorant,
and despised as “ the herd of mankind,” though
often nobly unselfish and gloriously heroic ?• The
same may be said of the patient inventors and perfectors of mechanical and other civilizing art. Let
no man despise man; for we are all of one blood,
though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Adam
acknowledge us not. The love of God embraces us
all; therefore it is very fit, right, and our bounden
duty, to study the benefit of this human family as
our highest service to the common Father. Serving
man we best serve God; he that will be greatest
among us, let him be the servant of all. In that
service is love and joy; love, which is forgetful of
self; joy, in the lofty faith, which is sure that Right
must triumph.
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
��INDEX
TO
r
THOMAS SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS.
alphabetically arranged.
Ar The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.F.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
a ABBOT, FRANCIS E„ Editor of ‘Index,’ Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Impeachment or Christianity. With Letters from Miss Frances
P. Cobbe and Professor F. Wr. Newman, giving their Reasons for not
calling themselves Christians
0 3
■
Truths eor the Times
------ 0 3
kJan ex-clergyman.
t
I
L
>
i
J
□
O
What is the Church or England? A Question for the Age
.NONYMOUS.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II.,
and HI. 6d. each Part
-----A Few Sele-Contradictions of the Bible
An Address on the Necessity of Free Inquiry and Plain
Speaking, at the Inauguration of the Liberal Social Union, Saturday,
February 28, 1874 ------A Plain Statement
-----Christianity in a New Light
.
.
Clerical “ Pooh, Pooh !” Rhetoric
Euthanasia
------Euthanasia: An Abstract of the Argument for and against it Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of
Necessity”
------Natural Religion versus Revealed Religion
Nine Years a Curate
On Inspiration
On the Mediation and Salvation or Ecclesiastical Chris tianity - ■
On the Nature and .the Existence or God
On Eternal Torture
On Public Worship
On the Atonement
On the Deity of Jesus. Parts I. and If. 6d. each Part
Our First Century
0 6
1 6
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
4
3
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
6
4
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
6
6
3
6
0
6
�u
index to Thomas Scott's Publications,
Price.
Post-free.
s. a.
ANONYMOUS—continued.
Primitive CnuRCH History
101 Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to
Give Answers. Per dozen ----Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education.
Part I.—Its Influence on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the
Development of the Conscience. 6d. each Part
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
.
.
The Twelve Apostles
-----Via Catholica; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country
Parson. Complete in III. Parts. Is. 3d. each Part BARRISTER, A.
Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ Orthodox Theories of Prayer
BENEFIOED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation The Evangelist and the Divine The Gospel of the Kingdom
BENTHAM, JEREMY.
The Church of England Catechism Examined. A Reprint
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Critically Examined -.
o 9
1 0
1
1
0
0
3
0 6
0 3
1 1
1 0
0 6
1 0
1
0
BRAY, CHARLES.
Illusion and Delusion
-----The Reign of Law in Mind as in Matter. Parts I. and II. 6d.
each Part
------Toleration : With Some Remarks on Prof. Tyndall’s Address at Belfast
BROOK, W. 0. CARR.
Reason versus Authority -----BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds The New Doxology
------
CANTAB, A.
Jesus versus Christianity
«•
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church
of England ”------CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures
Dr Farrar’s “ Life of Christ.” A Letter to Thos. Scott
Letter and Spirit ------Rational Piety and Prayers for Fine Weather
Spiritual Gambling ; or, The Calculation of Probabilities in
Religion '------The Question of Method, as affecting Religious Thought
OLODD, EDWARD, F.R.A.S.
TnE Birth and Growth of Myth, and its Survival in FolkLore, Legend, and Dogma
-
0 6
1 0
0 9
0 3
0 3
0 3
0 6
0 6
0
0
0
0
0 6
0 3
0 3
�Index to Thomas. Scott’s Publications.
iii
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
CONWAY, MONCURE D.
Consequences
•
-03
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
- 0 6
The Voysey Case -06
COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their
Non-Sense. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part
- 1 6
COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity, being1 a Review of a
Paper by Dr Lang
-06
ORANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
God’s Method of Government
■
•
- 0 3
Human Depravity -03
On Responsibility -03
On the Existence of Evil
- 0 3
On the Formation of Religious Opinions ■» 0 3
On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology - 0 3
Positive Religion. Four Lectures. Each - 0 3
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought
- 0 3
DEAN, Rev. PETER, Minister of Olerkenwell Unitarian Church,
The Impossibility of Knowing what is Christianity - 0 3
DENYS, Sir GEORGE WILLIAM, Bart.
Disestablishment or Reform
•»
- 0 4
DR CARPENTER AT SION COLLEGE; or,
The View of Miracles taken by Men of Science
- 0 6
DUBLIN DIVINITY STUDENT.
Christianity and its Evidences. No. I. - 0 6
DUPUIS, from the French of.
Christianity a Form of the great Solar Myth - 0 9
F. H, I.
Spiritual Pantheism
FINCH, A. ELLEY.
Erasmus: his Life, Works, and Influence upon
the Reformation
FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
Everlasting Punishment. A. Letter to Thomas Scott
The Efficacy of Prayer. A Letter to Thomas Scott
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH.
On Religion
FROM “ THE INDEX,” published at Boston, U.S.A.
Talk Kindly, but Avoid Argument
GELDART, Rev. E. M.
The Living God
GRAHAM, ALLEN D., M.A.
Cruelty and Christianity. AJLecture
- »
GRAHAM, A. D,, and F. H.
On Faith •
0 6
the
Spirit
-
of
-
- 0 6
- 0 3
-03
-
-06
-
- 0 3
-03
-
- 0 6
0 3
�iv
Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
Trice.
Post-free.
a. il.
HANSON, Sir R. D;, Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology
•
-04
HARE, The Right Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of
Chichester.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study ot
the Scriptures
-06
HENNELL, SARA S.
On the Need of Dogmas in Religion. A Letter to Thomas Scott - 0 6
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revela
tion, WHAT IS THE PROSPECT OF MAN’S LIVING AFTER DEATH ? ” 0 6
A Reply to the Question, “Shall I Seek Ordination in t:-k
Church of England? ”
- o 6
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
HOPPS, Rev. J. PAGE.
Thirty-Nine Questions on the Thirty-Nine Articles. With
Portrait -03
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS DANCER.
The Free-Will Controversy
-06
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the
Present Age. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Claims • of Christianity to the Character of a Divine
Revelation Considered
- 0 6
The Prayer Book adapted to the Age - o 3
KALISCH, mJ Ph.D.
Theology of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait
-10
KIRKMAN, The Rev. THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
- 1 o
On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part 1 0
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part - 1 6
Orthodoxy from the Hebrew Point of View. Parts I. and II. od.
each Part
-10
LAKE, Rev. J. W.
Plato, Philo, and Paul; or, the Pagan conception of a “Divine
Logos,” shown to have been the basis of the Christian Dogma of the
Deity of Christ -10
LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
g
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of
Mr Voysey
-0 3j
LAYMAN, A, and M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds
•
- 0 6
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
- 0 «
LEWIS, Mrs.
Cremation -03
M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas for Free Inquiry. Parts I., II., Ill, and IV. 6d. each Part
2 0
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
v
Price.
Post-free.
MACFIE, MATT.
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism Traced to their Origin
. o 6
The Religious Faculty : Its Relation to the other Faculties, and its
Perils
•
-06
MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D.
The Souls of the Children
MACKAY, R. W.
The Adversaries of St Paul in 2nd Corinthians
- o 6
MACLEOD, JOHN.
Recent Theological Addresses. A Lecture
- 0 3
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education ; or, the Use and Abuse
of the Bible in the Schoolroom
-16
How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
- o (5
TnE Utilise T-on of the Church Establishment
- 0 6
M.P., Letter by.
The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation - 0 6
MUIR, J., D.C.L.
Additional Moral and Religious Passages from the Sanscrit - 0 6
Religious and Moral Sentiments, freely Translated from Inuian
Writers -00
Three Notices of “ The Speaker’s Commentary,” Translated from
the Dutch of Dr A. Kuenen
-00
NEALE, EDWARD VANSITTART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
- 0 0
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Intro
ductory Remarks -10
Reason, Religion, and Revelation
- 1 o
The Mythical Element in Christianity - 1 o
The New Bible Commentary and the Ten Commandments
- 0 3
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion
•
- o 0
Ancient Sacrifices
-03
James and Paul
. -0 6
Letter on Name Christian. (See Abbot) On the Causes of Atheism. With Portrait
- 0 6
On the Historical Depravation of Christianity
-03
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism; and On the Ga.,la
Religion
-06
On this World and the other World -00
The Controversy about Prayer - o 3
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines
- 0 3
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
- 0 7
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait
- 0 6
The Two 'Theisms -•
-03
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil
- 0 3
OLD GRADUATE.
Remarks on Paley’s Evidences -
-
-
-
- 0 G
OXLEE, the Rev. JOHN.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy
•
•
-
- 0 G
�v * ** $yfy?fiftyfiw?, •,’; *’•r* *
vi
Index to 'Thomas Scoffs Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity of the Faith among all Natkins-
-
.
- 0 6
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ?
-.
w
-.0 6
PHYSICIAN, A.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and
Philosophical. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part - 1 0
Introduction to the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua
- 0 6
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of
our Age. Part I.—Genesis -16
Part II.—Exodus. Two Sections. 6d. each Section
- 1 0
Part II I.—Leviticus
■»
-.10
e
Bart IV.—Numbers
- 1 0
Part V.—Deuteronomy
- 1 0
Part VI.—Book of Joshua
-.0 6
PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the
Clergy of the Church of England - 0 6
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education
0 6
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Coupar-Angus.
Intellectual Liberty
The Finding of the Book ...
.
ROGERS, WALTER LACY.
A Review of a Paper called “ The Fallacies of Unbelief.”
-06
2 0
- 0 4
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
- 0 9
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty-of Christian
Commentators. In Two Parts. 6d. each Part
■
- 1 0
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer”
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in
its Bearing on the Truth of Christianity
-06
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society - 0 6
SHAEN, Miss.
“ Prayer ”
and
“ Love to God.” Per dozen
-
•
- 1 0
-
-
- 0 3
STONE, WILLIAM.
The Story of the Garden of Eden
-
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor
Defended by T. L. Strange
An Address to all Earnest Christians Clerical Integrity
Communion with God
The Bennett Judgment The Bible: Is it,“ The Word of God?”
-.
The Christian Evidence Society
The Exercise of Prayer The Pauline Epistles ,
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed
-
Court of Madras.
of Divinity, and
- 0 6
-
-
-
•
-
- 0 3
-03
-03
- 0 6
- 0 3
-03
-06
- 2 6
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
vii
Price.
Post free.
s. d.
SUFFIELD, the Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
Five Letters on a Roman Catholic Conversion - 0 3
The Resurrection - '
-03
The Vatican Decrees and the “ Expostulation ”
- 0 6
VOYSEY, The Rev. CHARLES.
On Moral Evil
-06
W. E. B.
An Examination of Some Recent Writings about Immortality - 0 6
The Province of Prayer -06
WHEELWRIGHT, the Rev. GEORGE.
The Edinburgh lieview and Dr Strauss
- 0 3
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian
Evidence Society’s Lectures - 0 6
WORTHINGTON, The Rev. W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion - 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.
Dreams and Ghosts
■
- 0 3
Immanuel Kant. In his Relation to Modem History - 0 6
Since printing the precedi/ng List the following Pamphlets
have been published.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
A. F. B., Miss.
Convent Experiences
~
DIDEROT, Translated from the French of, by E. N.
A Philosophical Conversation
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
The Service of God
The Presence of God
ANONYMOUS.
On Prayer
-
- 0 9
-
- 0 6
-
- 0 3
- 0 3
-
- 0 3
�
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
A discourse on the service of God, delivered by Professor F.W. Newman, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, London
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, vii, p. ; 18 cm
Notes: Publisher's list on numbered pages at the end. Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4.
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
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4848
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 />This work (A discourse on the service of God, delivered by Professor F.W. Newman, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, London), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Christian Life
Morris Tracts