1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9faaee5c69db8e38ad78e1b49bc2211b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uMi-PeMZFts0eArB9IRmfHrAQsmEAdsJ72-JHPfphzexBelIGuPG7g19Rp301QMise4aLftDcN%7EfnA9xJwNx433qt50yAkCWGEchujVqEHFbBK7YnEa2LnDTa%7EJlBkk14MV3HTni%7E-UfJWGcRaYQgsh7zb1P3eCiQ3ucV9nzybrNv1oFH5nb1XuObdpDu2W5ASMf%7EtCdbRjVASxd3F46gNdh3KVuxLsaBgwodg9VtFEonFvK9OpFR9UdBBCmGy%7E0hANXUZIR9JNc1W6zpf36DiSUw4tFEBpsH-nk9-9HpteuykQQcTgzls%7EpTLpXAYwlBqOhDLdk8Ul2a%7EfJz7VDSA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
def0e0f008ef88262d8ba07e42dd2a3c
PDF Text
Text
THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
bourse of Sunhj (Jtaing Jettas,
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
I.
The Religion of Jesus; how it is ascertained.
The main question of course, is what the religion of Jesus
really was. And this, which we now proceed to discuss, is
here raised only because some answer to it was absolutely
necessary, if we are to obtain any satisfaction in regard to
the main issue. At the same time, it must be borne in mind
that the question now before us is subsidiary to our present
course of enquiry; and all that can be fairly expected is the
suggestion of a method, as to the soundness and the results
of which every man of candour and common sense can, to a
considerable extent, judge for himself. The method, however,
is likely to be depreciated, unless the real reasons for our
interest in the main issue are understood. On these, there
fore, we must at once say a few words.
Why then are we so anxious to know what was the
personal religion of Jesus himself? The times in which we
live show a good deal of change in feeling about this subject;
but still there are not wanting those who say “ we want to
know the religion of Jesus, because 1 whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic
�Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and
undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.’ ”
According to this view, correct theological opinions are
necessary to secure everlasting happiness. Jesus taught
correct theological opinions. Therefore, it is absolutely
necessary to know with infallible certainty what he taught.
*
Now I do not hold this view.
I regard it as injurious
to man and blasphemous against God. It is injurious
to man; because it diverts his attention from character,
which is the only key to the higher life; because it puts
pride of intellect in place of lowliness of spirit; because it
makes dogmatic confidence of more importance than loyalty
of soul. It is blasphemous against God, because it charges
Him with making salvation dependent on two conditions,—
exhaustive learning or stupid credulity,—one of which is
impossible to all but the very few, while the other degrades
and even brutalizes those who comply with it. From such
a conception of the reasons which give interest to the reli
gion of Jesus I differ fundamentally, essentially and utterly.
I repudiate the notion of salvation which it implies, as well
as the means it supposes necessary for attainment. For me
salvation has no meaning at all, except safety from sin,
whether in this world or in any other. Theological opinions
can have no merit or demerit in themselves; and would
have no importance whatever, were it not for the influence
which they directly or indirectly exert- on character.
If then it is not in pursuit of correct metaphysical opinions
about God that we go to Jesus, what is the real nature of
our interest in his religion ? We are floating far down
amidst a stream of influences, which, collectively, are termed
Christian. But this stream has been swollen by innumerable
tributaries, some entering high up, others far down the
current, and each of them bringing with it some special
qualities which sensibly affect the main stream. We talk
of ritualism on the one hand, and -rationalism on the other.
We discuss the effects produced on modern Christianity by
lutheranism or ultramontanism. And learned critics can
tell us what conflicting influences were exerted by Ebionite,
Pauline, and neo-Platonist doctors in the primitive ehurch.
But after all there is one main stream, the deep bed of which
has drawn all these tributaries into itself.
We may venture, perhaps, to carry the illustration a little
• * It will be said that this description is exaggerated. Perhaps it is, if we had
to do only with what people fully realize of their religious position. But much
mental distress is caused by dim apprehension of the logical consequences of
unrealized positions. Does the Athanasian Creed mean anything or nothing ?
�3
further. Here is a town on the banks of a fair river; and
the whole reputation of the city rests on the health-giving
qualities of the water. But this river has many contributing
streams unequally exposed to pollution. As time goes on
experience shows that the river water is losing both its
purity and its healthful qualities; and it is proposed to
remedy the evil by supplying the town directly from the
upper reaches of the stream. But opponents of the project
observe that all the tributaries have special qualities of their
own; and they argue that these are essential to the complex
properties of the river. That river grows, they say, in its
medicinal virtues as it descends and increases in volume.
True, the nearer tributaries are mere drainage, which might
well be got rid of; but if you go beyond a certain point,
about the exact position of which there may be difference of
opinion, you will experience a distinct loss for every sub
sidiary stream you exclude. In fact, by a providential
arrangement, the qualities of the original fountain are
necessarily latent until they are developed by the infall of
the earlier tributaries.
However sacred the waters of the
prime source may be, they are unavailable for restorative
purposes until thus mingled. On the other hand, it is
urged that however valuable the special qualities of the
lower st reams may be, yet these afford no sufficient com
pensation for the harm that is done by the peculiar liability
of even the earliest tributaries to pollution. At all events,
it may be said, let us try ! Let us mount up to the prime
source of all, the transparent fount that bubbles out of the
living rock, and let us draw thence and drink. It may be
that much may be wanting of what we are accustomed to;
but on the other hand, the water there may have properties
of its own, which have been dropped or neutralized in the
windings and comminglings of the course. It may even be
that we shall find there, in hitherto unimagined vigour, the
qualities which make the river’s fame.
Now Christianity, or at least the church, which ought to
be embodied Christianity, has, with fine meaning, been
called “ the city of God,” and it stands by the river of the
water of life. But the tributaries of that river, as we know
it, are many and various, and they are all alike exposed to
pollution. We hold this to be true, not only of mediaeval
and modern influences which have affected the church, but
of the very earliest streams of thought and feeling that
swelled the tide of its life. For it can hardly be denied
that even the teaching of apostles shows considerable traces
of theosophic speculation and metaphysical elaboration, en-
�4
tirely foreign to the original simplicity of Christ.
*
It may
of course he said that the maturer teaching of the apostles
was necessary in order to give practical efficacy to the
profounder elements, which, from the beginning, lay hidden
in the wisdom of Christ. This may, or may not have been
so; but, inasmuch as the prime impulse of the Christian
movement was indisputably given by Jesus, it is surely
worth our while to study the original ideas of the great
master himself, apart, if possible, from their later elaboration
by others. There must have been something very wonderful
in the first outburst of that mighty spiritual force, which
afterwards absorbed so many and such diverse intellectual
and moral energies into itself. Are there left any records
which may enable us to frame for ourselves a conception of
the mode of its operation ? There is much in the theories
and reasonings of St. Paul, for instance, which we feel that
we cannot now appropriate without doing violence to in
tellectual habits of judgment, and moral habits of feeling,
such as have obtained an unchallenged supremacy over
all ordinary affairs of life. Thus, his insistance on a vision
in the sky, as proof positive of the physical resurrection of
Christ, is entirely foreign to modern habits of reasoning.
And no ingenuity of commentators will enable us to read
the ninth or the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans, without a sense of painful incongruity with our
feeling of justice. Nevertheless St. Paul and the other apos
tles impress us with the idea of men profoundly moved by a
grand impulse towards a higher life; and that impulse is
clearly traceable to the ministry of Jesus. If we then, by
any means, could put ourselves imaginatively in their place,
is it not possible that we should feel that impulse too ? At
any rate, we long to know whether there is anything in the
reminiscences of Jesus still extant, which can at all account
for the extraordinary influence he exerted over such men.
And here we must not neglect a special reason for this
desire; a reason arising out of the prevalent and irreversible
tendency to depreciate miracle as an instrument of revelation.
This tendency is almost as clearly marked in those who still
believe in the historical reality of miracles as in those who
entirely reject them. It becomes then most profoundly
interesting to know whether, apart from the traditions of
miraculous power, which have surrounded the memory of
Jesus with a supernatural halo, there was sufficient in the
* As to the grounds of this assertion, let any one give one Sunday to the reading
,of St. Mark’s Gospel, and another to the Epistle to the Romans or Hebrews, and
he can estimate them for himself. As to St. John’s Gospel, see below.
�5
greatness of his character and the nobility of his teaching to
account for the impluse he gave to the higher life of man.
In other words, we want to learn whether, if the prevalent
theology and the whole of its miraculous associations were
abandoned, there is still that in the personal religion of
Jesus, which would attract us to profess ourselves Christians
and to justify us in doing so.
But further, for those who surrender theosophical theories
about the nature of Christ, there must arise special reasons
of peculiar force for the present enquiry. For the influence
he still exerts on the world is so immense, so profound and
searching; the hold he has taken on the hearts of men so
pathetic and inspiring, that the personal characteristics
which account for these things must appear of transcendent
interest. Indeed his career was, by all accounts, so short, his
social position was so lowly, his national associations were,
in the eyes of the western world, so despicable, his reported
doctrines were so unworldly in spirit, and often so paradoxical
in form, that the intellect is paralysed with astonishment,
and appeals to the heart’s experience of moral miracles, if
perchance it may find a solution there. What keen purity
of soul give vividness to the light that darts so far across
the ages ? What was the original music of the voice, whoes
broken echoes charm us even in their dying ? It is for the
answer to such questions that we want to know what was
the real religion of Jesus.
You have before you now two opposite reasons, or classes
of reasons, for interest in this question.
On the one hand,
we are told that eternal bliss or endless misery is dependent
on the answer. On the other hand, it is suggested that in
the simple origins of Christianity we may find anew an
inspiration sorely needed by this age.
But let us note here that the sort of information desirable,
as well as the degree of certainty necessary, is very different
in the two cases. If you are called upon to cross a plank
over an apparently bottomless abyss, you will need some
thing not far short of infallible testimony before you trust
it. But if you want to know what sort of spring-board will
enable you to leap the highest, the slightest testimony in
favour of any particular pattern may induce you to try it;
and then experience will be all the proof you require. Just
so, if you think that your” deliverance from the flames of hell,
or your enjoyment of the blessings of heaven, depends upon
your choice of a theology, you may well desire supernatural
and infallible testimony in favour of the system you select.
To talk of experimental proof is out of the question here.
�6
We may know by experience what excites and colours our
hopes ; but we cannot know by experience that these are
justified, until we have passed the abyss of death. We are,
therefore, dependent on the testimony of those whom we
suppose to have had superhuman means of knowledge. Thus
it becomes of crucial importance to us to prove, first, that
such persons existed; next, that they had superhuman means
of knowledge ; thirdly, that they taught precisely these
opinions and no others. But the case is very different when
you wish approximately to ascertain what it was that gave
the original moral impulse, of which Calvinistic and even
Pauline theology seems in itself incapable. This question is
of course susceptible only of a probable answer. But the
mere probability may attract your attention, and then
perhaps you can try it for yourself. In this kind of enquiry
you can expect no supernatural authority to decide, and no
infallible voice to direct. But you have this consolation;
character is not formed by infallible dictation, but by pic
tured ideals and imaginative sympathy.
A description of the method on which we proceed in this
enquiry will occupy the remainder of the present lecture.
Keep in mind the nature of the problem. We are asking
what was the personal religion of Jesus; not what it was
thought to be by Primitive Church Fathers, nor even by
Apostles. We are asking what there was original and dis
tinctive in the religion of Jesus; not what ideas he held in
common with the Jews.
Further, we are instituting no
enquiry now as to the historical outlines of his career. We
take for granted the common basis of facts on which all
historians, both sacred and secular, are agreed,—the lowly
origin, the prophetic ministry in Galilee, the establishment
of a circle of disciples, the excitement of opposition amongst
the great religious authorities of the day, and the tragic
death at Jerusalem. About these there is no dispute. The
difficulty begins when we attempt to distinguish, amongst
the reminiscences of unequal value and often conflicting
testimony left to us, the probable germs of the stupendous
results that followed. For these germs we are directed to
certain books of various character and independent purpose,
which, bound up together, make the New Testament.
Now, in taking up these for the purpose of enquiry, the
first condition we make is that, we shall be allowed to treat
them, so far as criticism is concerned, precisely as we should
treat any other books whatever.
So far as feeling is con
cerned, their venerable associations with man’s highest life,
and with our own holiest affections, necessarily put a differ
�7
ence between them and ordinary literature., But what we
ask is, that, so far as it is possible to prevent it, this difference
shall not interfere with the application of critical principles
such as we instinctively apply to works like George Fox’s
journal, or to the most trustworthy accounts of Emanuel
Swedenborg. In such books, common sense compels us to
account for many exceptional experiences, and improbable
assertions, either by misunderstanding, or visionary interpre
tations of ordinary facts, or by illusions of an excitable and
morbid spirit.
But an additional difficulty arises in regard
to some few of the New Testament books, and particularly
those of the utmost consequence to us in this enquiry. For in
the proper sense of the word, they had no individual authors,
but were a multitudinous expression of many minds, for
which the first writer effected little if anything more than a
transcription, from the vagueness of social memory, to the
distinctness of manuscript. In such a case, we shall have to
allow for the possible refractions and distortions caused by
the fluid medium of the social memory, as well as for inevit
able personal errors.
If any one thinks that this entire
freedom of criticism is inconsistent with true reverence, or is
not permissible in dealing with religion, he will do well not
to attempt to follow us any farther. We will not argue with
him now. The time-spirit will undeceive him, or at any
rate his children.
Now at a first inspection of the New Testament books, a
clear distinction is apparent at once between the epistles and
the gospels. The epistles give us theories about Jesus. The
gospels confine themselves for the most part to what he said
and did. The epistles are very largely concerned with the
ontology of the divine nature, and with the supernatural
offices assigned to Christ therein; the gospels tell us mainly
what Jesus was in this life, and his bearing toward human
sin and sorrow. The epistles describe a system; the gospels
exhibit a person ; the epistles discover to us an inspiration
hardening into a creed; the gospels show a creed dissolving
under an inspiration. To which then shall we go—to the
epistles or the gospels—with most hope of finding the
religion of Jesus?
Surely, however valuable the epistles
may be for other purposes, to make them our prime authority
in such an enquiry would be to obtain an answer .as to what
the apostles thought about Jesus, and not what he was in
himself. But, as we have already said, this is precisely
what we wish to avoid.
We will go then to the gospels; and in doing so it is
impossible to suppress the questions, who wrote them, and
�8
when were they written ? The importance of such questions
for our purpose, may be, and often is greatly exaggerated.
There are many simple souls who appear to imagine that
when they have thrown doubt on the apostolic origin and
date of the gospels, all questions about them cease hence
forward to have either interest and importance; and that we
might as well make a bonfire of them at once. And of
course if our object had been that which we have expressly
repudiated, the discovery of an infallibly certain theology,
there might be much force in such reasoning.
But such is
not our object, and therefore the reasoning is beside the
mark altogether.
For our more modest design, it is quite
sufficient if we can find any probably authentic record of the
memories and affections current in the early church, one or
two generations after the death of Christ.
For whatever
additions may, even so early, have been made to the actual
facts, we may well suppose that a supremely great character
and a creative spirit must have left traces which will be more
or less discernible. We have no object then in exaggerating
the antiquity of the gospels. The almost unanimous ac
knowledgments of very various critics are sufficient for us;
while as to the authorship of these works, if it can fairly be
made out, we are satisfied; and if it cannot, no theory of ours
is disturbed.
At the outset, it is to be observed that there is as clear
and palpable a difference in scope and feeling between the
first three gospels, and the fourth, as there is between the
gospels and epistles. The former three are called “synoptic,”
a word which means “ seeing together,”—because they give
substantially the same selection of anecdotes concerning
Jesus. The fourth gospel stands apart, having a distinctly
individual character of its own, and implying a much more
elaborate theory of Christ’s supernatural being than is found
in the others. As to the synoptical gospels, it is possible or
even probable that they existed pretty much as we have them
before the end of the first century.
*
I do not say that these
very books, identical in arrangement and wording, were
handed about then with the names of Matthew, Mark and
* This assertion is fully justified by these facts amongst many others. Justin
Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, quoted as documents well
known in the church, certain “memoranda” or “memoirs of the apostles,” and
the quotations he gives, are for the most part free quotations of passages from our
three gospels, or else are a medley from all three. Again, Papias, of Hierapolis,
writing about the year 125, A.D., relates certain traditions he had received from
“ the elders,” as to a Hebrew gospel written by Matthew, and a Greek gospel by
Mark. But it is too bold a conclusion to say our first gospel is a translation of
the former; or that the book assigned to Mark, was precisely identical with what
goes under that name now.
�Luke, attached to them; for that is scarcely made out. But
a selection of anecdotes existed, “familiar as household
words,” in the mouths of the earliest Christians. And this
selection, besides a good deal more, contained the substance
of these existing gospels.
So much may be said with
confidence, but beyond this we cannot go.
We cannot
assign a date within a range of thirty or forty years, to the
writing of these sacred anecdotes.
They certainly • cannot
have existed as books, when St. Paul was writing his epistles;
or in his references to the events of Christ’s ministry there
must surely have been some allusion to them. This would
shut us up to the last thirty-five years of the first century,
and we cannot pretend to speak more exactly. The question
of authorship, for reasons which will presently appear, is
scarcely worth discussing. The real truth is, as just now
hinted, that properly speaking they never had any authors
at all; but only editors.
Here we must try to estimate a most singular and interest
ing feature of these synoptical gospels; we have seen how
they differ from the epistles, and if you bear those differences
in mind, you will acknowledge that in spite of what has just
been said, they suggest strongly the priority of the gospels.
I am sure that if the New Testament books were put into the
hands of a scholarly and impartial critic, who had a feeling
for the growth of literature, but knew nothing whatever of
the theological issues supposed to be dependent on the
question, he would judge from internal evidence that the
gospels were earlier productions than the epistles. For there
is about the primitive literature of any creative epoch a
childlike freshness, a confidence independent of evidence, an
unconscious fulness of life, a healthy outwardness of imagin
ation, which cannot possibly be afterwards imitated by
art. To expect a work like the Iliad from the age of Pericles,
would be like expecting snowdrops in the blaze of summer.
Now, although the case of the gospels is very different from
that of a poem, yet they make upon us precisely the impres
sion of childlike freshness, unconsciousness, and uncritical
confidence inspired by imagination or affection. The epistles
on the contrary, show a laborious effort to build up a system,
a critical handling of older materials, and a self conscious
logic. To imagine that the church could pass through this
epistolary stage, and afterwards enter on the gospel stage,
*
would be to suppose that a boy who had reached the prag
matical age, could ever again become a genuine child. The
thing is impossible: and all the Dry-as-dusts in Germany can
never persuade me that the synoptical gospels were created
after the epistles had been written.
�10
You will say then there seems to be here a flat contradic
tion, for on one hand we have maintained that these gospels
could not have been written before St. Paul’s epistles ; on
the other hand we declare that they bear all the marks of an
earlier stage of church life. But the two positions are not
so inconsistent as they appear to be, and the reconciliation
is to be found in the highly probable suggestion, that the
anecdotes of Jesus now embodied in the gospels floated about
in an unwritten form many years before they were committed
to writing. This is quite in accordance with what is known
of the manner in which popular traditions were preserved
before the invention of printing; nay, it is certain, that some
great monuments of ancient literature, the poems of Homer
for instance, were handed down in this way for generations
before any written copies existed. Besides, this mode of
preserving the thoughts and memories of departed generations
was specially adapted to the customs of the jewish teachers;
thus the Talmud, a vast body of detailed commentary on the
Law, was developed to a marvellous extent between the
captivity and final destruction of the Temple, without a word
being written. Now it is not mere conjecture which leads
us to suppose that the very first followers of Jesus pursued a
similar plan, for there are certain appearances in the synop
tical gospels which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for on
any other supposition.
Take up the little 11 harmony ” of the gospels, published
years ago for Sunday Schools, by Mr. Robert Mimpriss, and
founded on Greswell’s “ Dissertations ”. Disregard the in
troductory chapters of Matthew and Luke, and also the
supplementary stories of the resurrection, in regard to both of
which sections of the combined narrative, the attempted
<l harmony” is most conspicuously hopeless. Confine your
attention to the actual period of Christ’s ministry, beginning
from his baptism and ending with his death. Exclude from
view the passages violently thrust in there from the fourth
gospel; and in the combined synoptical narrative which
remains you will find the remarkable features to which we
have referred.
You will observe that the selection of
anecdotes given, is to a large extent identical in all three ;
and if you compare the exact language used in any single
instance as in that of the leper healed or the paralysed
,
*
man let down through the rooff, the phraseology is strikingly
similar but also curiously different. The similarity is such
that you cannot suppose each writer to be composing an
* Matt, viii, 2. Mark i, 40. Luke v, 12.
t Matt, ix, 2. Mark ii, 3. Luke, v, 18.
�11
independent narrative; for this similarity is found not only
in reported speech, which we might suppose every author
would try to reproduce, according to accepted accounts; but
it is found also in the relation of events, which really
independent narrators would certainly describe entirely in
their own words.
On the other hand the differences are such that we cannot
imagine all the writers to have had the same document before
them, which they copied or altered according to their own views.
Experience shows that such a mode of working would
produce differences and agreements of a very different kind
from those actually before us
Three men having one
document before them with one general aim, though with
various views of detail, are morally certain to transcribe
some considerable portions of that document word for word.
Thus the whole three of them occasionally, and oftener two
of them, will give a whole paragraph without an alteration.
But such a case as this never occurs in a single instance,
throughout the whole course of the synoptic narrative. Now
on the hypothesis of a common document this is a most ex
traordinary circumstance. Whoever the writers were, they
were men whose religious ideas were so much in accord, that
attempts to point out minor differences between them
generally look fanciful and arbitrary. Is it possible then that
men having so much in common, and editing one single
document, would never have; agreed to reproduce a single
paragraph of it unaltered ? Their only reason for editing it
must have been that it seemed to them valuable. It might
require supplementing from their own traditional knowledge;
might require alteration here and there. But it is in the or it
highest degree improbable and unreasonable to suppose that
they would not leave a single paragraph as it stood.
Again, the differences are such as cannot be accounted for
on this supposition.
Men editing a common document,'
which on the whole inspires their confidence, will not as a
rule alter its wording, without some object in view; and this
object it is usually in the power of criticism to detect. If for
instance the original document, in relating the baptism of
Jesus, made the impression that the descent of the Spirit upon
him in the form of a dove was only an exstatic vision in his
own soul, we can well understand why the third evangelist
should add, as he does, the phrase “ in a bodily shape”* He
.
felt himself perfectly justified in giving expression to the
confident belief of the church circle in which he moved, that
* Luke iii, 22.
�12
the miraculous appearance was external and real. And if
all the differences were of that kind, although this would
leave our previous argument untouched, the fact, so far as it
goes, would be consistent with the idea of a common docu
ment variously edited.
But the truth is, the differences are
very rarely indeed of this kind. Not one out of a hundred
variations in phraseology can be accounted for in this manner.
In many cases it is only the order of the words that is
different; and even when the words are changed, they mean
very often precisely the same thing. On the supposition of a
common document these verbal alterations must appear nine
times out of ten, arbitrary, capricious and unnecessary. But
proceeding, as we do throughout, on the supposition that
human nature at the Christian era was very much what it is
now, we cannot believe that three reasonable men would
gratuitously have given themselves such unnecessary trouble.
The limits of similarity and the nature of the detailed
differences between these gospels therefore constrain us to
reject as improbable the idea that they spring from one
original document.
On the other hand it is equally impossible to believe that
these works are of entirely independent origin. It is incon
ceivable that three men, uninfluenced by any previously
existing model, should have hit upon nearly the same selection
of events for narration and should so often and continually
have used a phraseology so similar. And so we come back to
the suggestion mentioned, that the earliest, the original
selection of gospel anecdotes current in the church, was not
written at all, but existed only in an oral form. A simple ex
periment will prove that this supposition accounts for all the
appearances just described. Let a tale be told several times
over in nearly the same language to a number of intelligent
young people, and let them afterwards write out from memory
and entirely apart from each other, their recollections of the
story. The result will be found to present several of the
phenomena of these synoptical gospels. The arrangement
and the wording will be so nearly alike as to imply a common
source ; yet the differences will be of such a character, and so
capriciously distributed, as to suggest tricks of memory
rather than deliberate variations from a copy.
The process in the case of the synoptical gospels must have
been something of this kind. The words and deeds of Jesus
were of course the subject of constant conversation amongst
the apostles after his death. And as, little by little, their
mission opened out before them, their immediate business
was to make others acquainted with what had so powerfully
�13
influenced themselves. But their conversations and confer
ences one with another had settled, by a process of what may
not irreverently be called natural selection, the particular
anecdotes most available for their purpose. These anecdotes
therefore speedily became the common property of the Jewish
church: and so long as the apostles lived, there was probably
no thought of writing out these treasures of memory. But
as these first fathers of the church died off, there would
naturally arise a desire to have in some fixed form, the testi
mony popularly associated with their names. Thus many
“ took in hand ” as it is said in the third gospel, 11 to set
forth in order those things which were most confidently held”
by the churches. And amongst these attempts, three finally
eclipsed all others, probably because they were believed to
give in an authoritative form the preaching of the three
apostles, Matthew, Peter, and Paul.
*
The writers who wrote
these various versions of the story followed the one oral
gospel; but that oral gospel had differed in the lips of
various preachers, and these differences were certainly not
lessened by the reporters who wrote from memory. You will
now understand what is meant when we said that the synop
tical gospels had, properly speaking, no authors, but only
editors. The writers neither invented, nor made researches,
in our modern sense of the word1 they simply wrote what
they recognized as the common stock of Christian tradition.
In this way, such a gospel as that of Mark would be produced,
which begins with the baptism, and ends, in the most
ancient copies, with the mystery of the open tomb, but
without any account of the resurrection.
Gospels written
later, or re-edited, were enriched with such stories of the
birth and the resurrection of Christ as were current a few
years afterwards, when curiosity on these subjects had been
excited. And so we get the introductory and concluding
chapters of Matthew and Luke, which have manifestly a
different origin from that of the common synoptical gospel.
These three narratives then give the imaginative memories
that gladdened and hallowed the church at the very time
when Paul was elaborating his new theology, and the elder
apostles were alarmed at his innovations.
They reveal an
earlier stage of Christian life than his writings do; although
they did not assume a written form till his epistles were
given to the world. On this account the gospels form a
most interesting study.
Very little of what has now been said is applicable to the
* Mark was commonly believed to have been an attendant of St. Peter, and
Luke of St. Paul.
�14
fourth gospel, called by the name of St. John. On the
question whether it is rightly so called, we can only say here
that the balance of argument seems to be against the idea
that St. John wrote it himself, but rather favourable to the
opinion that this apostle founded a special school of doctrine
of which this gospel is the outcome. According to the
common belief, it was not written before the extreme end of
the first, or the beginning of the second century, and it is
quite possible that it was produced as late as the year 125,
but hardly later.
*
Of more consequence for us, however,
is the fact that it is not founded on the same cycle of
anecdotes as the synoptical gospels, and that it differs very
much from them in bearing all the marks of individuality, both in conception and execution. It is not at all improbable
that the writer followed certain traditional memories specially
preserved in the section of the church to which he belonged.
But, however this may be, these memories certainly received
the stamp of his own particular character and feeling; and
this is even more marked in his report of the words of Jesus,
than in his record of events. Thus, we do not seem to get
as near to the reality of Christ’s ministry in this gospel, as in
the synoptics. Yet perhaps there is a sense in which it may
occasionally take us even nearer. A great artist may treat
the landscape before him very freely, and yet may call up
more of the feeling impressed on actual beholder, than would
be possible with a more correct representation.
So it is in
matters of history. The story of the crucifixion in the fourth
gospel, is much grander than in the other three; and probably
excites more of the feelings with which the dread scene was
witnessed by sympathetic beholders. Nevertheless, there is
for the most part a lack of the childlike freshness which is so
charming in the earlier narratives.
It does not present us
with the impersonal memory of the church, but with the
choice recollections of a particular school, edited by a man of
uncommon genius and strong opinions. In fact, as was said,
between the synoptical gospels and the fourth, we find very
much the same difference which we remarked between the
gospels generally and the epistles. And carrying out the
same principle, we shall expect more information about the
personal religion of Jesus from the synoptics, than from the
later gospel. Still there are gleams of a special insight in
this work, of which we shall do well to avail ourselves when
we can.
* The late date assigned by some critics (A.D. 150—160) would leave its
position in the writings of Irenivus entirely unaccountable, to say nothing of the
evidence that it was known to the eaily Gnostics.
�15
The three synoptical narratives offer us the richest mine.
But even here it ought to occasion no surprise if we find
much alloy
“ The Jews require a sign,” said St- Paul,
speaking from his own experience; and certainly there are
miracles enough here to answer the longing of the Jews.
There are also interpretations of the Old Testament scriptures
which savour much more of pedantic rabbinism, than of the
simplicity of Christ. And there are apocalyptic visions which
at best are only reflections of Daniel, Esdras and Enoch.
But there runs throughout a vein of nobler metal, as clearly
distinguishable from primitive church gossip, as yellow gold
is from the hoary quartz and twinkling stars of mica amongst
which it is found. There are words of loving wisdom ; there
are suggestions of piercing insight; there are gleams of a
peculiarly exalted ideal of human life; there are pulsations
of an universal charity; all of which bear the stamp of
individual character, and are utterly foreign to the peddling
prejudices of Judaism.
Now suppose the diggers at Pompeii, should strike upon
a sculptor’s studio, where, in the confusion wrought by the
volcanic overthrow of the city, there lie scattered the frag
mentary remains of many works of art. , In many of them
there are traces of the poverty in thought, and sensationalism
in feeling, which mark a debased provincial taste. Others
show attempts at least towards a better ideal. But here is
detected a godlike head, and there a divinely carved arm,
and there again a grand torso, all of them betraying the
conception of a single mind, with the unerring stroke of the
hand that it directed. In such a case there is no hesitation.
Here, cry all beholders, is the work of the master; and all
the well meant rubbish around is no doubt the contribution
of apprentices or journeymen. Just so we judge as to the
fragmentary, often confused, relics left us in the gospels.
The difference in value between the materials they afford
is often too striking to escape the attention of even the most
careless ; though in other cases, an educated spiritual tact is
needed to appreciate it.
In Matthew xxiv, 29, we read—u immediately after the
tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from
heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken ; and
then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.”
These words are said to have been uttered, amongst a number
of similar predictions made, in answer to a question of the
disciples who asked “ what shall be the sign of thy coming
and of the end of the world ? ” And throughout these pas-
�16
sages, it is assumed that the “ coming of the Son of Man/’
the end of the world, and the establishment of the kingdom
of heaven are different phrases meaning the same thing. *
But in Luke xvii, 20, we are told that when the Jews
asked a very similar question, Jesus answered, “thekingdom'
of God cometh not with observation ; neither shall they say
lo, lo, here ! or lo, there ! for, behold, the kingdom of God
is within you.” These two descriptions of the kingdom of
God are in clear, unmistakeable and palpable contradiction to
one another. They cannot have been taught by the same
teacher. And there can be no hesitation in deciding which
of them we should attribute to the head and source of
Christian inspiration. The former passage is entirely in the
style of Dr. Cumming. It has all the appearance of being a
parody on the book of Daniel. And it is difficult to conceive
that he who reproved men for morbid anxieties which be
trayed a want of faith in God, would have stooped to gratify
the vulgar appetite, always felt by ignorance, for a cheap
insight into the mysteries of the future, apart from the
divinely appointed labour of induction. But the other pas
sage, in St. Luke, has a peculiar dignity. It is suggestive
of a serenely contemplative spirit that can look both beneath
and beyond the symbols of popular hope. It shows the
sympathy that can appreciate the value of such symbols,
and the inspired idealism, which expands their meaning.
It tells of a marvellous insight into the destinies of a
traditional phrase. It reveals the master who taught St.
Paul to say “ the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,
but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” f
Again, it is said in John vii, 31, that the appetite of the
crowd for wonders being entirely satisfied, they asked “when
Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than this man hath
done ? ” According to this signs were the accepted test of
Christ’s mission to men. And indeed the gospels appear to
be generally written on this assumption. But here and
there, we find words implying a conception almost startlingly
different. And as this was contrary to all the prejudices of
the disciples, it is more likely to have come from the master
whom in many things they misunderstood. “ Except ye
see signs and wonders ye will not believe.” The words
sound harsh in their present connection, addressed to a
father who applied for aid to a sick child. But'what if they
are a relic of Christ’s remembered impatience with the desire
of the people for wonders? In Mark viii, 11, we are told
* See Matthew xxv, 1,—31. t Note also Mark iv, 26, as equally in consistent
with the visions of chaos and cataclysm referred to.
�17
distinctly, that on one occasion being asked for a sign, Jesus
sighed deeply in spirit and said a why doth this generation
seek after a sign ? verily, I say unto you, there shall no
sign be given to this generation. And he left them and
departed.” *
The notion of sectarian privilege was strongly developed
among the early Christians; an inheritance derived perhaps
from the overweening ideas of national privilege entertained
by the Jews. Surely it must have been under the influence
of such prejudices that they wrote how, in explaining the
parable of the sower, for the initiated few, Jesus said, “unto
them that are without all these things are done in parables,
that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they
may hear and not understand; lest at any time they should
be converted and their sins should be forgiven them.” f
How utterly opposed is such a speech in motive and feeling,
to the words St. Matthew attributes to Jesus, when he found
that rank and fashion scorned him, and that his mission
must be amongst the ignoble multitudes who could render
him no reward ! 111 thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven
and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise
and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” It was
just these babes who could not understand the parable of the
sower. And to our mind there can be no doubt which
saying really reveals the heart of Christ.
It will very likely appear to many of you that the method
we have now described must depend very much upon indi
vidual tact, and must always be uncertain in its operation.
But the tact required is such as all may cultivate. It is not
dependent upon scholarship. All it needs is such a sense of
moral fitness between excuse and effect, as can detect in the
misty but shining uplands of the gospels, the fountain heads
from which the purest streams of moral influence in church
history have flowed. Those whose business it is to deal with
money, acquire, without scientific acquaintance with theprocess
of assaying, a tactual and visual perception which enables
them instantly to detect the difference between spurious and'
genuine coin. So those who make it the business of their
lives to emulate the spirit of Christ, need not be slow to learn
the art of practically distingushing the fine gold of His
words even though otherwise ignorant of Biblical criticism.
Besides, we may now recall with advantage what was said
about the absence of any need in such an enquiry, for
infallible certainty. You may and you will fall into error.
*See also Matt. xvi. 1 —4. tMark iv. 11.
�But such errors do not make the difference between salvation
and damnation; and with every step of progress in the
spiritual life, our tact will become more subtle and our per
ception more sure. The more we realize the essential spirit
of Christ, the more will all the complex elements of the
gospels fall into their proper places, until we shall feel
surprise that confusion should ever have arisen. How much
disappointed travellers sometimes are with great pictures, to
the sight of which they have looked forward as one chief end
of their journey 1 The features of Saint or Martyr are obscure
with stains of neglect and age, or with the blotches of more
than One inferior artist. But if the travellers have eyes to see,
they sometimes find that as they gaze, the familiar lines and
colours of antiquity seem as it were to detach themselves from
the corruptions of time, and to go back and back into majestic
loneliness, until they stand apart in their own venerable
sweetness, a miracle of art. Then the beholders wonder at
their own blindness that could for a moment confuse the
dust and daub of later ages, with the visions that first
brightened the world. So perhaps it may be with the image
of Jesus in the gospels. Primitive misconceptions have
dimmed it; and sectarian passions have distorted it. But
in some hour of sacred contemplation, undisturbed by pre
judice or fear, we feel as though a miracle were wrought. Then
(c all at once beyond the will
We hear a wizard music roll;
And through a lattice on the soul,
Looks thy fair face and makes it still.”
At least the subject is worth farther thought, for no darkness
of the past enshrines a more fascinating enigma than that of
the wonder working speaker, who with the breath of his lips
overthrew the temples of antiquity and on their ruins built
the modern world.
tTPFIEtD GREEX, Printer, Tenter Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
IL
The Religion of Jesus; His doctrine of God.
It would be a great mistake if we were to expect, in the
religion of Jesus, any philosophical explanation of the
mystery of eternal power.
Indeed, that is not the proper
business of religion at all. The work of religion is rather to
cultivate in men the temper most susceptible to the ultimate
sanctions of morality. But our approach to those ultimate
sanctions, is always approximate only; for they lie in the
region of the infinite; and this is the reason, though we
cannot admit that it is a justification, for the confusion
persistently kept up between religion and theology. The
influences that cultivate a moral susceptibility, and those
that shape an intellectual scheme, though they may often be
allied, are yet clearly distinguishable; and are seldom, if
ever, wielded with equal force by the same man.
In other
words, prophets and philosophers are distinct races.
Nevertheless, a religion is ineffectual unless it to some
extent satisfies intellectual as well as moral needs.
The
discovery of facts is a perpetual revelation. The world is
hardly of the same size to two successive generations of men.
�■;f
V
i«
fr
!
2
And in the growth of knowledge, some new born, but not
newly created, religion is continually wanted, to elevate the
moral temper of men, and fit it to appreciate the fresh aspect
in which the same eternal sanctions of righteousness are
from time to time presented. This is what the religion of
Jesus did. And it did it in such a way as to afford a type, or
method, that is always applicable when the same process is
necessary again. But to clear this up, a slight digression
will be necessary.
If, amongst pre-historic savages, the question was ever
asked, what reason is there in the nature of things why I
should not steal my neighbour’s bow and arrows, now when
his absence gives me the chance ?■—the only possible answer
would probably have been, because he has set up a mighty
fetish close by his hut, which will eat you up if you do. It
would be a mistake to think such superstitions only ridicu
lous. For to my mind, they show the dawn of a recognition
that the mysterious powers, which rule the world, take note
of human conduct, and have established in the nature of
things, a standard to which we should do well to conform.
In other words, such superstitions showed some susceptibil
ity, however faint, to the ultimate sanctions of morality.
*
But we shall not dispute that the intellectual idea of these
sanctions was very grossly inadequate. It would lead us too
far to trace the parallel development of theology and religion
through the ascending grades of polytheism and monotheism.
Most of you would admit, I presume, that there has generally
been some kind of correspondence between the tone of
morality, and the elevation of the sanction.
Where the
latter has been rude and base, the former has been low and
coarse. Indeed, it may be said, we did fetishism too much
honour to suppose that it was associated with anything that
we should now recognize as morality. Wherever it is known
in the surviving barbarism of the present day, all that it
does, so far as we are informed, is to give the force of fear to
the authority which binds men to the observance of apparently
unmeaning customs in dress, food or language.
The polytheism of the Greeks originated in the personifi
cation of various powers of nature. And this is a much
higher thing than fetishism. But even amongst them, the
philosophers complained that morality was kept down by
* I may be told that fetishism was cruel, base and foul in its morality, if
morality it could be said to have. But is it not possible that we know fetishism,
as we know Christianity, only in a degraded form ? At any rate, it touched imbruted men with awe; and that is something. Without that feeling, there is no
real susceptibility to moral sanctions.
�unworthy ideas entertained about the Gods. The monotheism
of the Mosaic religion furnished, in the sovereign will of the
Most High, a far nobler sanction of the moral law, than any that
was known to the poetic imagination specially characteristic
of the Greeks. But still the Jews, who were forbidden to
represent the deity by sculptured forms, certainly pictured
him mentally as a magnified man.
And the prophets
frequently warned them against the dangers of such a con
ception. “ Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an
one as thyself,” says the psalmist, speaking in the name of
Jehovah. “ Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood
of goats ? ” “Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,” asks
Micah, “ and bow myself before the high God ? Shall I
come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year
old?
....
He hath showed thee, 0 man, what is
good; and what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but
to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy
God?” To what is the appeal in these last words? It can
hardly be said that it is to the Mosaic law. For that is full
of minute directions concerning sacrifice and ceremonial.
The appeal seems rather to be to a common sense view of the
facts of life, seen in the light of a sincere conscience.
So
again, when Ezekiel, in the name of the Lord, condemns the
abuse of the proverb “ the fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” and declares that
there cau be no transference either of guilt or merit, he
appeals from a corrupt tradition to the actual facts of divine
government, and especially to the inward facts of conscience.
In such instances, we have particular cases of a general
law, which is this; that the movement from a lower to a
higher stage, both of theology and morality, is effected
directly or indirectly by a closer observance and a better
estimate of facts, whether inward or outward, and generally
of both. A higher intelligence showed that, as a general
rule, the fetish did not act as was believed. An effort of
moral courage proved that character did not suffer, and that
a fuller inward harmony was gained by disregarding the
petty rules of superstition.
Outward facts proved that the
world was not ruled on the principles assumed by tradition ;
and facts of conscience showed that a nobler life could be
lived by abandoning them. But in this process, it is always
the theological form given to the sanction of morality that is
the most difficult to deal with.
It retains its hold both on
the affections and the fears, long after its incongruity with
outward facts is apparent. The cry, “ great is Diana of the
Ephesians,” will be roared from ten thousand throats, long
�after the name has ceased to mean anything but an excuse
for the trade in silver shrines.
And this obstructive
ness has always a reflex influence on advancing morality,
tending to repress it to the level of effete ideas. In such
circumstances, the arguments of philosophy have very little
apparent effect. So far as they are directed against the
prevalent theology, they are necessarily of a negative
character; and men cannot live on negatives. But let men’s
attention be attracted to hitherto neglected facts, whether of
the inner or the outer world; and the theology will transform
itself. If you walk with a timid child along a dark road at
night, it is not reason that can dissolve away the gaunt arms
of the arboreal ghost that threatens at a turn of the way.
But attract her eyes to the glowworm that sparkles under the
hedge, and to the closed eyes of the sleeping daisies, and to
the dewy gossamer touched by the rising moon; teach her to
weave these into healthier fancies than those of the super
stitious nursery; and when she faces the road again, there is
no ghost to be seen.
To my mind there are many hints in the gospels, which
would lead us to suppose that the real ministry of Jesus as a
teacher was very much of the character here suggested. It
so exhibited the interest of present facts as to change, so to
speak, the spiritual centre of gravity. And so, to those
whom he inspired, the world was insensibly transformed.
11 If any man be in Christ,” said St. Paul, “ there is a new
creation; old things are passing away; behold all things
are become new.” Jesus found the Jews at just such a
critical stage of spritual history as we have supposed. A
haze of unreality had gathered over the ancient sanctities
of their religion. And this unreality both warped their own
consciences, and disguised their true relations to the outward
world. There is no doubt that in old times their sacred
songs, which proclaimed thatli all the gods of the nations
are idols, but the Lord made the heavens,” were instinct
with a moral energy such as often gave the nation superiority
on the battle-field. But this consciousness of a special in
spiration had developed into the monstrous fiction, that
they were singled out by the Infinite One to be his peculiar
treasure, and that in virtue of this favour they were destined
to world-wide dominion. Whatever we may say now about
the spiritual fulfilment of such expectations, the notion, as
they entertained it, was grotesquely false. They were not
God’s favourite people in any such sense as they supposed.
And there was not the slightest prospect of their ever
attaining again even the modest degree of political im
�5
portance enjoyed by Solomon. Indeed it was only the
contemptuous indifference of their Roman masters which
left to them, in their sanhedrim and synagogues, the
semblance of self-government. But the long disappoint
ment of their hopes, so far from leading them to doubt the
assumptions on which those hopes had been based, only
added a feverish scrupulosity to their observance of the
letter of the law. There must, they imagined, be some
reason for the shadow of divine displeasure that rested upon
their fortunes.
Some “ accursed thing ” must surely
be cherished; some particulars of their ancestral religion
must have been neglected. And therefore they redoubled
their attention to ritual and feast and fast, to sacrifices and
purifications, if by any means they might attain the perfect
obedience which would bring back the blessing of God. The
religion of the time, like that of many churches at the
present day, was passionately bent upon a past and im
possible, instead of a future and realizable ideal.
Now what Jesus did was to call these people back to
reality. He insisted upon present, actual and undeniable
facts, whether of their own consciousness or of the outer
world. That these facts were often dressed in a figurative
or parabolic form is no objection to this statement. For it
is just in this form that they go straight home to the com
mon heart of humanity. The image, the parable is but the
feathering of the arrow which gives directness to its flight,
and sends its point foremost to its aim. There are certain
discourses indeed about the end of the world, in which the
*
ideal of Christ’s religion seems to leave the earth and to
*
become dissolved amongst the clouds of sibylline oracle.
But the entire want of originality in these pictures contrasts
so singularly with the inimitable individuality characteristic
of both maxim and parable in other parts of the gospels,
that we have grave reason to suspect the intrusion of some
foreign element here. The disciples, living towards the end
of the first century, probably drew largely upon such books
as those of Daniel and Henoch in their own forecasts of the
future, and they insensibly enlarged some ill understood
expressions of their master by drawing upon such sources.
This however is mere conjecture. What is certain is that
those apocalyptic discourses are not original, but repro
ductions of earlier professed revelations. And it is precisely
where the teachings of the gospel seem to come freshest
from an original source, that they are characterized by
* e.g. Matthew xxir, Mark xiii, Luke xxi.
�6
an appeal from the phantasms of superstition to facts of
present experience.
There is a curious testimony to the startling impression
made by the words of Jesus when he first opened his lips as
a teacher. All these synoptical evangelists agree in saying
that what struck the people most was the “ authority ” with
which he spoke.
*
The usual theological interpretation of this
is, that he spoke as a divine being, having authority to give
commands. But that is a poor meaning; and does injustice
to the inherent moral weight of his words. Two of the
gospels give us a hint of the real siginificance, when they
contrast his manner with that of the scribes. “ He taught
them as one having authority and not as the scribes' ’ Now
how did the scribes teach ? They taught by adducing the
authority of the great rabbis, as interpreters of the ancient
scriptures. If they were discussing a question of perplexity,
as for instance whether it was lawful to light a candle on the
Sabbath day, they would refer to the views of various rabbis,
just as lawyers now reckon up opinions pronounced from the
bench. <( Rabbi Simeon allows it; Rabbi Judah disallows
it; Rabbi Joshua says the thing may be done under special
circumstances.” This mode of teaching was very dreary and
dry; and the more so, because it induced a habit of techni
cality which dwarfed the subjects of instruction. There
were no great broad issues manifestly affecting human life,
and making a direct appeal to the heart. Their lessons
bristled with points of law, and rasped the mind with
arbitrary decisions.
Now only think of the effect likely to be produced upon
people accustomed to that kind of thing, by a preacher
glowing with a grave earnestness, who deals only with
subjects interesting to every heart, and lets the truths he
teaches carry their own witness to the conscience! “ Blessed
are the lowly in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“ Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.” “ Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.” There was rarely any reference to
sacred writings ; and never any appeal to the wisdom of the
ancients.
The appeal was rather from, such overrated
authorities to common sense, right feeling and the manifest
facts of life.
Ye have heard that it was said to f them of
old time, thou shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall
* Matt. vii. 28. Mark i. 22. Luke iv. 32. In the last passage the English version
has “ power.” But the Greek word is the same as in the others.
t The marginal reading is the better.
�7
be in danger of the judgment.
But I say unto you, that
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be
in danger of the judgment.”
“Take heed that ye do not
your alms before men, to be seen of them : otherwise ye have
no reward of your Father who is in heaven.” 11 All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even
so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
Will it be said that the speaker in such utterances depended
on a supernatural dignity, such at as that time he could nothave
asserted, and which never was conceded before his death ? I
think it much more probable and reasonable to say that he
depended upon the power of moral facts, to bear witness for
themselves. “ The light of the body is the eye; ” he said,
“ If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be
full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall
be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be
darkness, how great is that darkness.” Here is a case in which
a figure of speech only gives force and point to the fact. For
it is clearly reason and conscience, united in the faculty of
moral judgment, about which the parable is spoken.
And
Jesus teaches that when reason and conscience are sincere,
they are the highest judges to which we can appeal. They
need training; they need information; they need careful
guarding against perversion; and all the more so, because
if they wholly fail, it is impossible that any light from earth
or heaven can help us. “ This it is which adds emphasis to
the solemn warning; “ take heed that the light which is in
thee be not darkness.” But so long as they are sincere, they
judge, and in the main judge aright, however action may
contradict them, what is best for the moral welfare of man.
To them all arguments and motives, to them revelation itself,
must appeal. Through them the light of God himself must
shine. Happy the man in whom reason and conscience are
most sincere, most free from beclouding humours of prejudice
and interest! For, says Jesus, “then the whole man shall
be full of light, as when in a humble dwelling, isled in
darkness, the bright shining of a candle doth give thee
light.”*
We can now understand what gave so startling an air of
authority to the teaching of Jesus, as distinguished from that
of the scribes. He believed in the affinity of the human
conscience for moral truth. And therefore he did not hold it
necessary to argue much, still less to appeal to the dried-up
wisdom of the ancients. He simply threw out his facts and
* Luke xi 36.
�8
principles with force sufficient to bring them within range of
the consciences of his hearers, assured that mutual attraction
between the soul and truth would do the rest. il The sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Did he
announce this as a sort of supernatural expert, who had been
behind the scenes at the m aki n g of the divine 1 aws, and therefore
knew their precise scope? It seems at once more reverent
and more reasonable to suppose that he said it as one “ who
knew what was in man,” that is, the facts of consciousness,
and understood how to appeal to them.
Jesus had not so much to say about the external world,
although no one knew better how to use it for purposes of
illustration
But when he had to deal’ with it directly he
used precisely the same method. He insisted on facing the
facts. And he would not allow that even the most specious
sentiments were any justification for ignoring them. Thus
on one occasion a number of Jews, partly with the object of
laying a trap for him, partly it may be in the hope of finding
sympathy for their own political discontent, asked him for a
plain opinion on the dangerous question, whether it was
lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. The answer was
characteristic. He asked for the tribute money, and pointed
to the head of Caesar stamped upon it. That head was sym
bolic of a great and palpable fact, the imperial power of Caesar.
The right of coinage was associated with supreme powers of
government, and responsibility for public order. Acknow
ledge the facts, says Jesus. “ Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s.” But lest he should be for a moment
supposed to teach that physical might constitutes right, he
adds “ render unto God the things that are God’s.” The
facts of the time made Caesar’s rule necessary and inevitable.
And if the questioners supposed that the mere acknowledg
ment of this rule by tribute was inconsistent with allegiance
to God, it only showed that they did not sufficiently estimate
the divinity of fact; and completely misunderstood the
relations of temporal and spiritual power. Another illustra
tion of the same loyalty to facts, is the contempt with which
Jesus dismissed the reasoning of those who argued, that the
victims of accident or tyranny must in some way or other
have been obnoxious to the special vengeance of heaven.
4< Those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and
slew them, suppose ye that they were sinners above all men
that dwelt at Jerusalem ?” He knows very well that this
was notoriously not the case. Nothing but the sort of
perverse ingenuity so often displayed in interpreting divine
providence according to private judgment, could have given
�9
the least show of reason to the inference. Jesus is certain
that both the reason and the conscience of his hearers is
against the supposition. And therefore without argument he
says “ I tell you nay ; but except ye repent ye shall all like
wise perish.”
But whether he was dealing with the inner or the outer
world, the consequence of his method, in appealing from
fancy to fact, was a simplicity of feeling and a lucidity of
thought, amidst which the soul fretted by Jewish superstitions
moved with a thrilling sense of sudden liberty, like a prisoner
set free from a dungeon. Indeed there is no mental feeling
so near akin to sudden release from physical agony, as is the
relief we gain, in the midst of perplexity, from loyal sub
mission to facts. Through what haunted mazes of unhallowed
confusion have many of us struggled in our younger days, im
pelled by a childish anxiety to reconcile scripture and geology '
First we eagerly welcomed any patent method for hastening
the slow movement's of nature, so that the world’s history
might be packed into six thousand years. Then, when we
found that would not do, we were devoutly grateful to the
Septuagint version for giving us some thousand years
additional, though, alas, we wanted a hundred millions.
Then perhaps there was some mistake in the Hebrew figures.
And we were glad to be informed by our learned friends that
a jot or a tittle might make all the difference between ten
and a thousand. What a stroke of genius seemed the sug
gestion of an ingenious person, that the winged fowl which
appear inconveniently on the fifth day, between the
“ whales ” of that day and the u creeping things ” of the
next,, were after all pterodactyls, or flying lizards, which
would be in their appropriate place. Still there was a sense
of elaborate unnaturalness pervading our wonderful harmony,
which every now and then shot a sharp twinge of pain from
the intellect to the conscience. Till at last, in some happy
moment, we quietly said to ourselves, Genesis is wrong, and
geology right, and we passed from the Babel of fictions to the
peace of reality. Nothing happened which we had foreboded.
The foundations of character, and the objects of spiritual
aspiration remained just what they had been before, only less
encumbered by rubbish or mist. And being rid of an intoler
able perplexity, we gained more instruction from the book of
Genesis itself than ever we had done in all our previous
abuse of it.
bo we may conceive many of the more candid young Jews,
in the time of Christ, to have been troubled in mind about
the apparently irrational character of some of their religious
�10
traditions. The heathen philosophers laughed at their notion
that idleness on one day in the week could be gratifying to
heaven. And had they not reason? How could it be
pleasing to God for them to neglect obvious duties, on the
plea that it was the sabbath day ? What a delight then it
must have been to them to have the knot of their perplexity
not cut by logic, but dissolved away by healthy moral
feelingI “ It is not pleasing to God,” said Jesus, “ that you
should neglect obvious duties; and it lawful to do well on
the sabbath day.”
So too, how fretting to any mind
absorbed in the essentials of conduct, must have been the
tendency, so marked on Christ’s day, to magnify the washing
of cups and pots, and brazen vessels and tables, as a religious
rite. Unconsciously to themselves they might lack the moral
courage to speak out what they knew to be the truth. But
the words of Jesus must have been to them like the relaxing
of a moral cramp. “ Hearken every one of you, and under
stand I There is nothing from without a man that, entering
into him can defile him: but the things which come out of
him, those are they that defile him....................... For from
within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, blasphemy,
pride, foolishness. These are the things that defile a man;
but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”* Thus
one distinctive feature, perhaps we may even say the original
motive of the religion of Jesus, was a claim of reverence for
facts instead of falsehoods; an insistance on less attention to.
figments of tradition, and more care about the divine side of
present realities.
It was this, his pre-eminent susceptibility to the divine
side of present realities, which distinguished Jesus so
supremely, and made him, in a spiritual sense “ the light of
the world.” And this characteristic was specially marked in
his method of dealing with the traditional idea of God. He
neither controverted noi affirmed it, except indirectly.
*
If
we might presume to judge by the proportion of prominence
given to subjects in these gospels, no church doctor ever
talked so little theology as the great Founder of the church
himself. He makes no pretence whatever of revealing any
mystery of the divine nature; nor, if the apocalyptic discourses
be excluded, any secret of the divine government. He simply
accepts the sense of God which the people around him have
inherited, and at the same time he endeavours to separate it
from all degrading associations, and to correct it with all the
brightest, best and purest experiences of life. He made no
* Mark vii, and Matthew xv.
�11
attempt at any metaphysical conception of God. To onto
logical speculation, he had not the least tendency. But
supreme providence, the ideal life, peace, righteousness,
mercy and justice, all seemed to him to have the grandeur of
eternity, and to be inseparable from the thought of God.
Suppose a blind child whom you loved, were to ask you,
what is the sun ? To tell him that it is an enormous globe,
more than a million times bigger than the earth, would be
to convey no real conception at all. Nor would it be of any
use to say that the sun is the source of light; for light the
child has never seen. Perhaps you would despair of answer
ing the question directly, until the child is more mature.
But you might lead him from the shadow into sunlight, and
from sunlight into shade, that he might feel for himself the
difference between the presence and absence of its rays; and
he would think of it as a diffusive glow which only something
intruding between the sky and himself can keep away. And
you would lead him out where wallflowers, or honeysuckle,
or roses bloom, and with the difference between that fragrance
and the damp decay of winter, he would learn to associate
the greater or less power of the sun. And you would make
him listen to the lark, and the thrush, and the blackbird, as
they burst into song when the morning rises, so that music
and gladness should be added to the glow and the fragrance
in which he has learned to feel the presence of the sun. So
Jesus dealt with men in his doctrine of God.
For men are
born, and necessarily remain, blind to the ultimate glory of
God. They keep on asking what is God? But it is a
question which cannot be directly answered. Therefore Jesus
sought to hallow the associations of the name. For he knew
that the heart can take in far more of its meaning than the
head.
He used the name of Father, indicative of all-pervasive,
all-moulding providence.
<c Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.” What did lie mean by this, but that
the presence of God is felt in the subtle sense of an infinite
spiritual order, which only comes to those who are lowly and
sincere? “ Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called the children of God.” In these words the moral
harmonies that are constituted by loving sympathies, are
made specially divine; and they who seek to maintain and
extend them, so manifestly do the work of God, that we see
in them his image. “ Seek ye first the kingdom of God and
*
his righteousness.” The conjunction <( and ” here expresses
identification rather than addition. Righteousness is the
kingdom or God, because it is the rule of his spirit in the
�12
heart. (( If ye had known what this meaneth f I will have
mercy and not sacrifice/ ye would not have condemned the
guiltless.” No, surely; for mercy softens away traditional
prejudice, and extends symyathy to every feeblest spark of the
divine life. Thus a Father’s heart, and purity and peace, and
righteousness and mercy are all associated with the thought
of him who is the ultimate mystery of all being. Or as some
one (I forget who) has said, “ God is the best that one
knows or feels.”
Do you ask me how this agrees with my view that the
method of Jesus is to recall men from fancy to fact? Well,
all facts are not like stones and bricks which you demonstrate
by kicking your foot or bruising your hand. As we have
often said, the most certain facts of all, are those of con
sciousness; for by these all others must be interpreted.
There are facts of the heart’s nature, as well as facts of gra
vitation and chemical afSnity. And when Jesus recalled
men’s thoughts from morbid speculations about theprophecies,
and told them they realised God best when they were loving
and just and merciful, I say he did recall their attention from
fancies to facts. And would to heaven their was some one to
do so now! From the soul-choking theology of the rabbis he
appealed to God’s ever dawning revelation in the heart. He
insisted that in exaltation of the moral life lay the best chance
of realizing the immeasurable fact of God’s being; that all
the best feelings there, were like rays that the eye might
follow back till they were lost in infinite light.
If the purpose and scope of these lectures did not forbid,
I would undertake to show that there underlies such teaching,
though never appearing on this surface, the ultimate philoso
phy of God, towards which all thought is tending. And
though that purpose prevents my going farther, this I will
say, that every one who finds a significance in Coleridge's lines
“ ’Tis the sublime in man, our noontide majesty,
to know ourselves,
Parts and proportions of one wondrous whole,”
must surely realise how all the virtues which subordinate
self and magnify the eternal all in all, do verily bring us
into the immediate presence of God.
But I hasten on to point out some specially practical
advantages attendant on this method of Jesus in dealing
with the doctrine of God. For (1) it did not directly attack
any sacred traditions. And (2) it required no abstruse
theories about God to be first established. And (3) finally
it was capable of endless expansion, and is applicable at the
present day.
�13
1.—It did not unnecessarily attack any sacred traditions.
Do not misunderstand me. There was no cunning reticence
on the part of Christ. The modern plan of believing one
creed and ostentatiously subscribing to another, for social
reasons, or reasons of prudence, formed no part of his
method. There were some traditions which were not sacred;
and these he did not hesitate to denounce. The supersti
tions, for instance, that polluted the sabbath were in his eyes
hurtful, from the spiritual pride and the morbid narrowness
of conscience they inspired.
Such superstitions he did
attack openly and fearlessly, in the teeth of their devotees.
He “ looked round about upon them in anger, being grieved
for the hardness -of their hearts.” He wondered that the
plain facts of God’s manifest rule did not touch them with
shame for their obliquity of vision. And if he were walking
our streets on Sundays now—if he were to see those homes
of intellectual light, those possible fountains of moral sweet
ness, our public libraries and museums grimly silent, dark
and empty, while crowds roll in and out at the reeking
doors of public houses, he would surely manifest the same
emotions now. He would look round about with anger on
us and our boasted civilization,—our lavishness in gun
powder and great guns, our timid parsimony in education,
the torrents of drink that roll down our street, the sprinkling
of popular knowledge that satisfies us,—and the fair future,
which is to us what the kingdom of heaven was to the Jews,
would receive its indignant vindication. “Woe unto you,
ye hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of knowledge
against men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer
ye them that are entering to go in.”
But apart from such reactionary superstitions, Jesus
accepted in the main, as a man of the age, the sacred
traditions of the people amongst whom he was born. It
was principally in his interpretation of the future which was
to grow out of the past that he differed from his country
men. He reverenced the ancient scriptures; but he saw a
higher meaning in them than others did. He cherished the pro
phecies ; but he gave to their material symbols a spiritual
meaning. He worshipped the God of his fathers ; but the
glory of that God reflected in his heart was like a new
revelation. And sects of considerable magnitude in the
early church were so impressed by the difference between
the Heavenly Father of Jesus, and the Jehovah of Moses,
that they maintained they were not the same God at all.
We shall not fall into their error. The ultimate mystery of
being hl ways and everywhere veiled under the name of God,
�14
or gods, is the same to all generations, though they dress it
in various forms and make of it very different applications.
To the philosophy of the subject Jesus apparently gave no
thought. He was only anxious that the abiding sense men
have of eternal being should be used as an inspiration of the
higher life. And this he accomplished by enshrining the
Supreme Name, reverenced by all alike, in a halo of the
best affections.
The example is one which we should do well to study at
the present day. We should not trouble ourselves too much
about theological opinions. Where they are clearly obstructive
and degrading in their influence, we may of course be bound
to expose their falsehood. Otherwise we shall do well to try
what is the best use we can make of the various forms, in
which men represent to themselves one ultimate fact. I
know there are some people now, as there always have
been any time these two thousand years, who exhort us to
get rid of the name and extirpate the feeling of God. They
might as well attempt to forbid the sense of infinity as we
look up to the midnight sky; or of eternity as we gaze on
the everlasting mountains. Far more sensible and more
feasible is the suggestion of Mr. Matthew Arnold, that we
we should think of God as the power impelling each creature
to fulfil the law of its being; or as the power, not ourselves,
that makes for righteousness. And indeed this last was
very much the course adopted by Christ.
2.—By thus accepting sacred traditions, and giving them
a higher meaning, Jesus avoided the necessity for any
abstruse theories about God. It is very unfortunate that
people will form their ideas of Christianity from the three
creeds, or from the Westminster catechism, rather than from
thy synoptical gospels. The general notion seems to be that
Jesus taught the doctrines of the Trinity and the Fall, and
Original Sin. It is true that something very much akin to
the first of these doctrines is laid down in the fourth gospel,
which, for reasons already given, we cannot regard as an
uncoloured description of earliest church memories. But in
the synoptics we repeat that there is hardly anything which
can be called theology, as this term is understood in the schools.
There is nothing about divine ontology. There is very little, and
that of doubtful origin, about the secrets of the divine counsels.
There is only a loyal endeavour to give a nobler, moral and
emotional interpretation to an accepted faith. Even the
moral attributes of God are described indirectly, by taking
it for granted that they answer to the human heart. “ Love
your enemies, bless them that persecute you, . .
that
�IS
ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven; for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust.” “ Take
heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is
in Heaven.” In such words we have an assumption, jus
tified by the whole ‘scope and law of human progress, that
generosity and sincerity and lowliness are pure and unper
verted inspirations of the power by which humanity at large
tends to fulfil the law of its being. Or think again of the
words Jesus is reported to have uttered, when he was forced
unwillingly to the conclusion that the learning and the
fashion and the social power of the times had no ears for
him, but that his mission was to the lowly and ignorant and
poor. It is not resentment but contentment; not a su
perstitious notion of a divine judgment against learning and
culture, but acquiescence in an inevitable law of human
progress, that we hear in his address to heaven. a I thank
thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent * and hast revealed
them unto babes. Even so Father, for so it seemed good in
thy sight.” That is to say, God cares for the poor, and makes
them his mightiest instruments. The most decisive revolu
tions, whether ecclesiastical or political, begin from below
and work upwards. There is a great deal about the method
of God’s government implied here. But it is founded upon
no abstruse reasonings. It comes from identifying the
impulses of philanthropy with the movements of the Divine
Spirit.
3.—Finally, one most striking advantage of such a doctrine
of God is its capacity for expansion in accordance with the
growth of knowledge. This is a point of the utmost possible
interest for us. For there can be no dispute but that men’s
notions of the world and of its order have entirely changed
since the era of Christ; and if he had imposed on his imme
diate followers a definition of God suitable to their intel
lectual limitations, it must necessarily have grown more
and more incongruous with the ideas of after ages. Indeed
this is just what many assume to be actually the case.
Taking their notion of the religion of Jesus from the creeds,
* The real matter of thankfulness is not that they were hidden from any one ;
hut that they were revealed to simple folk even at the cost of being hidden from
the learned. Let any one who thinks himself fitted to be Archbishop of Canter
bury and finds himself only a scripture reader in a low neighbourhood, contrast
his own feelings with those expressed in the text, and that will bring out its
meaning.
�rather than from the gospels, they insist that the a magnified
non-natural Man,” whom Christianity teaches us to worship,
can find no place either in or beyond the universe as it is
now beginning to be understood. And they have so much to
say for themselves, that it sometimes seems as though a
cheerless atheism were staring us into stone.
But in
truth we have no evidence that Jesus ever attempted any
definition of God.
*
He simply accepted the sense of eternal
being, which’ every man has, whether he knows it by that
phrase or not; and he told men to think of that eternal
being as the source of every impulse which impelled them
to their best. He said nothing to depreciate the sacred
tradition of a heavenly Monarch, the personal King of the
Jews ; but his method of dealing with the sense of eternal
being was a solvent, under which that Jewish tradition was
sure to pass away. And I think the same method is appli
cable now, amidst all the confusion of contending theologies.
They all assume, and they rightly assume, a sense in man of
eternal being, a unity in diversity, a whole comprehending
all parts, an abiding reality which no passing shows exhaust.
But then they try to give definite intellectual notions of this
Eternal, and their notions are all different. One says that
he is three persons in one God; another that he is the soul
of the world without body, parts or passions ; a third that
he is an infinite person who thinks and loves. For our
part we have no hesitation in allowing that all these notions
have germs of truth.
But as compared with the scale of
the subject, the germs are so very small that we are con
strained to regard them as infinitely distant from the reality.
Now if we would follow the method of Jesus, we should
rather say,—hold to your sacred tradition if you will, so far
as it expands and does not narrow your heart. But do not
expect to realize in it the living God, the Father of your
spirit. Rather he finds you and you find him in every im
pulse towards a better life. For as that Eternal Power
inspires the lilies of the field to clothe themselves with more
than Solomon’s glory, and the birds of the air to provide by
instinct for their young, so does he touch you with an impulse
to fulfil the law of your being, in a noble life. And if you
accustom yourself to it, this way of regarding God will grow
upon you, until you have an abiding sense of a divine
presence, and a constant incentive to that sort of prayer
whose highest expression is work.
* The words, “God is a Spirit,” supposing them to be authentic, are not a
definition. They really mean “ God is greater than any intellectual or cere
monial forms, and is to be approached by the heart.”
�17
Let me refer to the blind child again. I think, if you had
told him of a mighty ball rolling, with enormous force, the
little worlds around it, you would not have succeeded in con
veying any adequate intellectual conception of the reality;
but you would certainly have distracted his attention from
the tenderer and to him the more real significance of the sun.
But in establishing in his mind the association of some
unknown and unknowable splendour with the glow of summer
warmth, and the perfume of flowers, and the songs of birds,
you would at once make the sun very real to him; and yet
you would leave him free to adapt his ideas to every successive
instalment of knowledge about the subject which he might
prove capable of receiving. So it is with Christ’s doctrine of
God. It is not scientific. It is addressed to the heart. But
the very absence of any attempt at scientific definition makes
it as expansive as man’s knowledge of the universe.
One word more. Such a doctrine of God suggests an
Incarnation, which may be a permanent element in universal
religion.
The light of the body is the eye,” says Jesus.
But surely the eye is not illuminative by itself. It is light,
he says; because it appreciates light, and brings us into
communion with light. Just so the God of the soul is con
science ; not that conscience is eternal or boundless, but that
through it we get that sense of eternal right, or fitness, or
self-consistency, and that feeling of infinite authority on the
one hand and limitless obligation on the other, which seem
most to bring us into communion with God. It is always in
a realization of the sacredness of duty that the sense of God
is most impressive ; always in the commanding sweetness of
moral affections that the universal divinity seems to be
specially present. And these experiences are more intensely
human than any triumphs of the intellect. So God always
comes to us nearest in the form of humanity. And William
Blake seems to me to express in a few notes of music that
doctrine of God which we have been labouring for an hour to
explain when he sings—
To Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
All pray in their distress,
And to these virtues of delight,
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
Is God our Father dear;
And Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
Is man, His child and care.
�18
For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity, a human face;
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, a human dress.
Then every man, in every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In Heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Peace and Pity dwell,
There God is dwelling to.
TJPFIELD GREEN, Printer, Tenter Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
III.
The Religion of Jesus; His doctrine of Man.
The two main topics of every religious teacher are neces
sarily God and man. We have seen how Jesus dealt with
the former of these topics. He accepted the sacred tradition,
current amongst his countrymen, of an Eternal Power, at
once the supreme fount of law and the universal inspiration
of righteousness. But in his treatment of this great topic,
he differed very much from most of the teachers of his time.
To heighten the sense of God in the hearts of men, Jesus
did not think it necessary to grope amidst the mouldering
ruins of antiquity. He rather preferred to call attention to,
and to insist upon, the divine side of present facts, whether
the springing of the corn, the blooming of the lily, or the
best ideals of the heart. In dealing with human nature,
the method of Jesus was entirely similar. Whatever he
may have thought of the story of Adam and the garden of
Eden, he clearly had no theory whatever such as would
require a demonstrable foundation in any forgotten and
irrecoverable past. He took men as he found them, in
their sins, in their sorrows, in their better aspirations ; and
�2
his only doctrine of human nature was a practical inculcation
of the most obvious method, for making such better aspira
tions triumph over both sorrow and sin.
For such a doctrine of man Jesus had at least one pre
eminent qualification. He loved mankind with a purity
and disinterestedness of devotion, such as in all the records,
at least of western story, has never been paralleled before
or since. Those skilled in the learning of the east, tell us
that we may find in the philanthropy of Buddha, a striking
parallel to the love of Christ for mankind. But such au
thorities also inform us, that Buddha looked upon human
life as a wholly hopeless problem: and that he prized the
exercise of the highest virtues only as the speediest means
for getting rid of it altogether. Jesus, however, took a
more hopeful view of the condition of mankind. He came,
it is said, that they might have life, and that they might
have it more abundantly. The reminiscences of this sym
pathy in the gospels, especially where they bear the stamp
of historic truth, are so brief as to imply far more than they
distinctly state. But they are perhaps all the more touching
because of their simplicity and unconsciousness. Thus, for
instance, we read, in the first chapter of St. Mark, how on a
certain occasion Jesus, wearied perhaps with the excitement
of public employment, retired amongst the mountains that
he might meditate and pray, thus refreshing his spirit with
heavenly communion. But the multitude, who had learned
to appreciate the blessing of his presence, hungered for him
now in his absence as for their daily bread. So general and
strong was this feeling, that his disciples were driven to
search for him; and when they had found him, Peter said
to him, i( all men seek for thee.” There is more in these
words than mere curiosity. Indeed if our view of the gospel
story be correct, it could hardly have been at that time the
expectation of miracle which prompted this universal desire.
The people felt that he answered to their deepest needs. He
had a treasure to communicate, which was worth more to
them than any earthly riches, and therefore they hungered
after him as children after their parents. Now mark, how
quick is the response on the part of Jesus to this tie between
him and the multitude. His philantropic sympathies were
stirred ; he felt afresh the burden of his mission, “ Let us
go,” he said, ((into the next towns and villages that I may
preach there also ; for therefore came I forth.”
You know what is the effect produced on any feeling
heart, by the sight of a great multitude. Ten thousand
faces, ten thousand minds, ten thousand hearts, eack one
�3
7
[I
u
fl
fl
(j
>6
■»
fill
ft
to
ET
TO
TO
ml
opening a vista of life’s experience, overwhelm us with the
vastness of the interests which are embodied there. Now
there are several hints, scattered through the pages of these
gospels, which show how keenly susceptible Jesus was to
this kind of impression. More than once, we are told how
the mere sight of a great multitude of men stirred in him
deep emotion. In the sixth chapter of the same gospel of
St. Mark it is said, that when, on another occasion, Jesus
had retired into a sacred solitude, some thousands of people
were gathered together in the mountain glades waiting for
his appearance. The story goes on, il and Jesus, when he
came out, saw much people, and was moved with com
passion towards them, because they were as sheep having
no shepherd, and he began to teach them many things.” A
passage in St. Matthew, referring to the same or a similar
occasion, gives a touching detail of the reason for his feeling.
“ They were tired and lay down,” it is said, as though faint,
hopeless and desolate. Can you not picture to yourselves
the scene ? We may suppose that as Jesus turned an angle
of the valley, he was suddenly confronted with the crowd.
There were scattered on the grass slumbering men, worn
out with weariness and hunger; there were lost children
crying for their parents; there were mothers fainting under
the drudgeries of life; there were anxious faces that seemed
to tell of broken hearts. I like to think of the tide of feel
ing which arose in the heart of Jesus as he looked on such
a sight. The enthusiasm of humanity was upon him, “ the
harvest truly is plenteous ” he said, “ but the labourers are
few; pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that he will
send forth labourers into his harvest.” This feeling of quick
and deep sympathy, stirred by the sight of a vulgar mul
titude, does not appear to have been very common in
antiquity. And we may fairly see, in such emotions of
Jesus, the first spring of that side of benevolence, which
has covered the Christian world with hospitals, missions
and schools.
None can revive the moral life of men, without a deep
sympathy for them in his heart. In vain will a teacher
open before you the treasures of wisdom; in vain will he
draw pictures of the works of God, unless he feels at one
with the common instincts of humanity. Of course such
philanthropic sympathies may be, and often are, simulated
for selfish purposes. But such a cheat is always in the long
run detected. For there are times when the true philan
thropist must stand alone, because his very sympathy for
humanity, and his realization of its true interest will drive
�4
him to take up an attitude hostile to the passions of the
time' Will lie dare, for instance, to denounce a Russian war,
when millions of throats are howling for human blood ?
Will he dare to oppose the brutalities of popular vindictive
ness, whether directed against mutinous sepoys, or home
enemies of society ? A man that will stand such tests as
these, however eccentric his opinions may be, has at least
the good of his kind at heart. It might at first sight be
supposed that, however obnoxious the teachings of Jesus
were to the scribes and pharisees, his capacity of resisting
more popular prejudices was never put to the proof. This
however would be a great mistake. The word “ Messiah,”
according to its ancient associations, led the people generally
to anticipate a career of military victory, and the establish
ment of a world-wide dominion, the profits of which would
have been enjoyed mainly by the Jews. A man who cared
more for the applause of the people than for their good,
would have known how to turn such expectations to his own
advantage, even though he never entertained any thought
of attempting to realise them. But the course of Jesus was
very different. There are some hints in the gospels, which
appear to suggest that, at first, Jesus shrank from the title
of Messiah, and at any rate repudiated its public assumption.
And when, from causes which we cannot now investigate,
he allowed himself to be called by the name, he persistently
gave to it a spiritual significance such as^was directly con
trary to popular prejudice. By this he showed that his
sympathy for mankind was not assumed for any interested
purpose, but was deep and strong enough to enable him to
stand firm against prejudice, and ignorance, and perverted
faith, in whatever quarter they were found.
So far then as love and sympathy will go, he was well
qualified to deal with humanity. And though he professed
no philosophy, and did not enrich the treasures of learning
with any contribution towards a metaphysical analysis of
human nature, we shall not regret the absence of such
philosophical pretensions, if we find that he makes plain to
us, both the need and the possibility of religion. We shall
now show that, as in dealing with the name of God, so in
regard to human nature, his method was an insistance on
obvious facts of pregnant meaning, and an endeavour to
turn them to the divinest issues.
Well then, in the first place; we must note his significant
use of the word “ heart.” For by this term Jesus sum
marized and emphasized innumerable common and easily
recognized facts of consciousness, which may be neglected,
�5
but cannot possibly be denied. In the teaching of Jesus
the heart represents the whole moral nature in its unity
apart altogether from the metaphysical analyses which may
be useful for science, but have nothing to do with religion.
It expresses all the voluntary energies of human nature,
which are, or may be, touched with a sense of responsibility.
It included also the affections, which go with the voluntary
energies, and partake directly or indirectly in their respon
sibility. li Where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also,” that is to say, the whole of your voluntary energies
which are touched by a sense of responsibility. “ A good
man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth
good things ; and an evil man out of the evil treasure
bringeth forth evil things.” “ This people draweth nigh
unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their
lips, but their heart is far from me.” This is of course a
quotation from the prophets; but Jesus gives it a special
reference to the ruling classes of his day. And when he
says “ their heart is far from me,” what he means is, that
however they may comply with sacred forms, the reason of
compliance is not religion, because their voluntary energies
are given not to God, but to society, to fashion and to their
own interests. Thus you see Jesus makes no division be
tween intellect and emotion, imagination and reason. He
cares little for intellect arid imagination in themselves,
though he uses both for action on the moral nature. He
rather strove to concentrate all attention on those voluntary
energies touched with a sense of responsibility, which, as we
say, he expressed by the word “heart.” Now this is a part of
ourselves which is surely more interesting than any other.
For it is this which makes character, and character makes
conduct, and from conduct far the greater part of our hap
piness or misery must ever spring.
Here, however, I anticipate a difficulty, certain to be
started by some disputant, if we were holding a discussion.
And it is as well to notice that difficulty, because it enables
us to bring out more clearly the practical method of Jesus,
which consists in dealing with the obvious facts of conscious
ness, and leaving all more subtle analysis to philosophers,
whose province it is. The disputant, whom I have sup
posed to be present, would not patiently endure such a
description as I have given of Christ’s idea of the heart, as
representing the sum of the voluntary energies. “ Voluntary
energies indeed! ” he would exclaim; “ but there is no such
thing as freedom of the will at all. That is an old world
Bofion-which has long since been explained away. For of
�6
course every human action is a link in the endless chain of
causation. To suppose anything else would be to imagine
that chaos and order can exist not only side by side, but
intermingled and mutually co-operating.
The thing is
impossible and absurd; yet you preachers, with your talk
about 4 voluntary energies,’ will persist in assuming, as a
matter of course, what is demonstrably false.”
To such a disputant I should say; my friend, you altoge
ther mistake the subject in hand. We are not talking about
metaphysics, but about religion. If indeed we were to enter
on the philosophy of the will, I am very far from admitting
that your case is so strong as you suppose. But whether it
is strong or weak, we have nothing whatever to do with it
just now. Do not mistake me ; I am not about to back out
of the argument, and then go on as though it had been
decided in my favour. And to convince everyone of this, I
will try to explain how the case really stands.
All that religion assumes is something known to con
sciousness as will,—something that we agree to speak of by
that name. You may maintain, if you like, that the feeling
of self-determination suggested by the word is only an appear
ance, or a phenomenon, which when it is examined turns out
to be something very different. Well then let us call it the
phenomenal will. All I say is, it is there; and like all
other faculties requires an appropriate treatment. When
the judgment goes astray it wants fuller information ; when
fancy fails it needs kindling suggestions ; and when the will
decides wrongly it wants persuasion, warning, or encourage
ment. And this stands good whether the power of self-de
termination is merely apparent or not. After all, phenomena
are rather important things, and, not least, the phenomenal
will.
Everybody, whatever his metaphysical belief may
be, recognizes, in his actual practice, that the voluntary
energies,—those which are, as we have said, touched with a
feeling of responsibility,—must be treated in accordance
with their nature. If, for instance, you find a poor family
stricken down with fever through bad drainage, and too
ignorant to know what is wrong with them, you do not stop
to reason with them. You take means to get the defect
mended at once; and meanwhile you send them medical
advice and medicine. u Poor souls” you say, “it is no
fault of theirs ; and the remedy is beyond their power.”
But if, on the other hand, you see a lazy father lounging
about with his hands in his pockets, and starving his wife
and children, you do not deal with him after the same
fashion. You persuade him, you try to shame him, you
�7
upbraid, you even threaten, if by any means you may affect
his will. Not that you thus concede anything as to the
metaphysical question of free will. That is not at all involved.
But you do recognize some difference between the voluntary
energies which you are trying to touch with a keener sense
of responsibility, and involuntary properties, susceptibilities,
or accidents. You show that you recognize this difference
by your different methods in the two cases. Now that is
just what the gospel does ; no more. And we say that the
gospel method of dealing with the heart, that is, the sum of
the voluntary energies, is well worthy of your attention, no
matter what the metaphysical sect to which you own
allegiance.
li But,” says another, 11 this method of dealing with the
voluntary energies in a lump is most unscientific. We must
distinguish; we must analyse. There is the great question
of motives, and the power, possessed by attention, to single
out of a hundred motives the one that shall prevail. There
is the power of habit to be considered, and social sympathies,
and hereditary tendencies. All these must have their due,
if we are to have any rational conception of the voluntary
energies.” Certainly, I reply, if that is what you are
seeking. But it is not what we are seeking at present. It
is the business of philosophy to analyse. But religion,
dealing practically with conduct, or with feeling, must treat
the moral nature as a whole. In fact religion deals with the
moral nature very much as the moral nature deals with
muscular exertion. A lazy man does not like effort. But
if he is not wholly devoid of conscience, moral principle
says to him “ exert yourself; pull with all your might at
this rope; lift those stones out of the way.” Now there is
nothing more perplexing than the action of intention or
purpose on the muscles. There are impressions made on
the sensory ganglia of the brain. There is the conveyance
of some impression from the sensory ganglia to the cere
brum. There is a co-ordination of action amongst various
cells of the cerebrum. There are orders conveyed by the
spinal column, and from this through one set of nerves
called efferent, to the particular muscle to be exerted. There
is a return message through another set of nerves called
afferent, to inform the cerebrum of the progress made in
complying with its decrees, that is to say, of the extent to
which the muscle is contracted or expanded. There is a
determination of a flow of blood to the muscle. There is
the contraction of muscular fibre. All these facts anatomy
has detected iu what, to the consciousness, seems a very
�8
principles with force sufficient to "bring them within range of
the consciences of his hearers, assured that mutual attraction
between the soul and truth would do the rest. 11 The sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Did he
announce this as a sort of supernatural expert, who had been
behind thescenes at the makingof thedivinelaws, and therefore
knew their precise scope? It seems at once more reverent
and more reasonable to suppose that he said it as one 11 who
knew what was in man,” that is, the facts of consciousness,
and understood how to appeal to them.
Jesus had not so much to say about the external world,
although no one knew better how to use it for purposes of
illustration
But when he had to deal' with it directly he
used precisely the same method. He insisted on facing the
facts. And he would not allow that even the most specious
sentiments were any justification for ignoring them. Thus
on one occasion a number of Jews, partly with the object of
laying a trap for him, partly it may be in the hope of finding
sympathy for their own political discontent, asked him for a
plain opinion on the dangerous question, whether it was
lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not. The answer was
characteristic. He asked for the tribute money, and pointed
to the head of Caesar stamped upon it. That head was sym
bolic of a great and palpable fact, the imperial power of Caesar.
The right of coinage was associated with supreme powers of
government, and responsibility for public order. Acknow
ledge the facts, says Jesus. 11 Render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s.” But lest he should be for a moment
supposed to teach that physical might constitutes right, lie
adds “ render unto God the things that are God’s.” The
facts of the time made Caesar’s rule necessary and inevitable.
And if the questioners supposed that the mere acknowledg
ment of this rule by tribute was inconsistent with allegiance
to God, it only showed that they did not sufficiently estimate
the divinity of fact; and completely misunderstood the
relations of temporal and spiritual power. Another illustra
tion of the same loyalty to facts, is the contempt with which
Jesus dismissed the reasoning of those who argued, that the
victims of accident or tyranny must in some way or other
have been obnoxious to the special vengeance of heaven.
“ Those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and
slew them, suppose ye that they were sinners above all men
that dwelt at Jerusalem ?” He knows very well that this
was notoriously not the case. Nothing but the sort of
perverse ingenuity so often displayed in interpreting divine
providence according to private judgment, could have given
�9
the least show of reason to the inference. Jesus is certain
that both the reason and the conscience of his hearers is
against the supposition. And therefore without argument he
says “ I tell you nay ; but except ye repent ye shall all like
wise perish.”
But whether he was dealing with the inner or the outer
world, the consequence of his method, in appealing from
fancy to fact, was a simplicity of feeling and a lucidity of
thought, amidst which the soul fretted by Jewish superstitions
moved with a thrilling sense of sudden liberty, like a prisoner
set free from a dungeon. Indeed there is no mental feeling
so near akin to sudden release from physical agony, as is the
relief we gain, in the midst of perplexity, from loyal sub
mission to facts. Through what haunted mazes of unhallowed
confusion have many of us struggled in our younger days, im
pelled by a childish anxiety to reconcile scripture and geology I
First we eagerly welcomed any patent method for hastening
the slow movements of nature, so that the world’s history
might be packed into six thousand years. Then, when we
found that would not do, we were devoutly grateful to the
Septuagint version for giving us some thousand years
additional, though, alas, we wanted a hundred millions.
Then perhaps there was some mistake in the Hebrew figures.
And we were glad to be informed by our learned friends that
a jot or a tittle might make all the difference between ten
and a thousand. What a stroke of genius seemed the sug
gestion of an ingenious person, that the winged fowl which
appear inconveniently on the fifth day, between the
“whales” of that day and the “creeping things” of the
next,, were after all pterodactyls, or flying lizards, which
would be in their appropriate place. Still there was a sense
of elaborate unnaturalness pervading our wonderful harmony,
which every now and then shot a sharp twinge of pain from
the intellect to the conscience. Till at last, in some happy
moment, we quietly said to ourselves, Genesis is wrong, and
geology right, and we passed from the Babel of fictions to the
peace of reality. Nothing happened which we had foreboded.
The foundations of character, and the objects of spiritual
aspiration remained just what they had been before, only less
encumbered by rubbish or mist. And being rid of an intoler
able perplexity, we gainefl more instruction from the book of
Genesis itself than ever we had done in all our previous
abuse of it.
So we may conceive many of the more candid young Jews,
in the time of Christ, to have been troubled in mind about
the apparently irrational character of some of their religious
�10
traditions. The heathen philosophers laughed at their notion
that idleness on one day in the week could be gratifying to
heaven. And had they not reason? How could it be
pleasing to God for them to neglect obvious duties, on the
plea that it was the sabbath day? What a delight then it
must have been to them to have the knot of their perplexity
not cut by logic, but dissolved away by healthy moral
feelingI “ It is not pleasing to God,” said Jesus, “ that you
should neglect obvious duties; and it is lawful to do well on
the sabbath day.”
So too, how fretting to any mind
absorbed in the essentials of conduct, must have been the
tendency, so marked on Christ’s day, to magnify the washing
of cups and pots, and brazen vessels and tables, as a religious
rite. Unconsciously to themselves they might lack the moral
courage to speak out what they knew to be the truth. But
the words of Jesus must have been to them like the relaxing
of a moral cramp. I Hearken every one of you, and under
stand ! There is nothing from without a man that, entering
into him can defile him: but the things which come out of
him, those are they that defile him....................... For from
within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, blasphemy,
pride, foolishness. These are the things that defile a man;
but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.”* Thus
one distinctive feature, perhaps we may even say the original
motive of the religion of Jesus, was a claim of reverence for
facts instead of falsehoods; an insistance on less attention to.
figments of tradition, and more care about the divine side of
present realities.
It was this, his pre-eminent susceptibility to the divine
side of present realities, which distinguished Jesus so
supremely, and made him, in a spiritual sense “ the light of
the world.” And this characteristic was specially marked in
his method of dealing with the traditional idea of God. He
neither controverted nor affirmed it, except indirectly. If
we might presume to judge by the proportion of prominence
given to subjects in these gospels, no church doctor ever
talked so little theology as the great Founder of the church
himself. He makes no pretence whatever of revealing any
mystery of the divine nature; nor, if the apocalyptic discourses
be excluded, any secret of the divine government. He simply
accepts the sense of God which the people around him have
inherited, and at the same time he endeavours to separate it
from all degrading associations, and to correct it with all the
brightest, best and purest experiences of life. He made no
* Mark vii, and Matthew xy.
�11
attempt at any metaphysical conception of God. To onto
logical speculation, he had not the least tendency. But
supreme providence, the ideal life, peace, righteousness,
mercy and justice, all seemed to him to have the grandeur of
eternity, and to be inseparable from the thought of God.
Suppose a blind child whom you loved, were to ask you,
what is the sun ? To tell him that it is an enormous globe,
more than a million times bigger than the earth, would be
to convey no real conception at all. Nor would it be of any
use to say that the sun is the source of light; for light the
child has never seen. Perhaps you would despair of answer
ing the question directly, until the child is more mature.
But you might lead him from the shadow into sunlight, and
from sunlight into shade, that he might feel for himself the
difference between the presence and absence of its rays; and
he would think of it as a diffusive glow which only something
intruding between the sky and himself can keep away. And
you would lead him out where wallflowers, or honeysuckle,
or roses bloom, and with the difference between that fragrance
and the damp decay of winter, he would learn to associate
the greater or less power of the sun. And you would make
him listen to the lark, and the thrush, and the blackbird, as
they burst into song when the morning rises, so that music
and gladness should be added to the glow and the fragrance
in which he has learned to feel the presence of the sun. So
Jesus dealt with men in his doctrine of God.
For men are
born, and necessarily remain, blind to the ultimate glory of
God. They keep on asking what is God? But it is a
question which cannot be directly answered. Therefore Jesus
sought to hallow the associations of the name. For he knew
that the heart can take in far more of its meaning than the
head.
He used the name of Father, indicative of all-pervasive,
all-moulding providence.
“ Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.” What did he mean by this, but that
the presence of God is felt in the subtle sense of an infinite
spiritual order, which only comes to those who are lowly and
sincere? “ Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called the children of God.” In these words the moral
harmonies that are constituted by loving sympathies, are
made specially divine; and they who seek to maintain and
extend them, so manifestly do the work of God, that we see
in them his image. “ Seek ye first the kingdom of God andv
his righteousness.” The conjunction “and ” here expresses
identification rather than addition. Righteousness is the
kingdom or God, because it is the rule of his spirit in the
�heart. “ If ye had known what this meaneth ‘I will have
mercy and not sacrifice/ ye would not have condemned the
guiltless.” No, surely; for mercy softens away traditional
prejudice, and extends symyathy to every feeblest spark of the
divine life. Thus a Father’s heart, and purity and peace, and
righteousness and mercy are all associated with the thought
of him who is the ultimate mystery of all being. Or as some
one (I forget who) has said, u God is the best that one
knows or feels.”
Do you ask me how this agrees with my view that the
method of Jesus is to recall men from fancy to fact? Well,
all facts are not like stones and bricks which you demonstrate
by kicking your foot or bruising your hand. As we have
often said, the most certain facts of all, are those of con
sciousness ; for by these all others must be interpreted.
There are facts of the heart’s nature, as well as facts of gra
vitation and chemical affinity. And when Jesus recalled
men’s thoughts from morbid speculations about theprophecies,
and told them they realised God best when they were loving
and just and merciful, I say he did recall their attention from
fancies to facts. And would to heaven their was some one to
do so now 1 From the soul-choking theology of the rabbis he
appealed to God’s ever dawning revelation in the heart. He
insisted that in exaltation of the moral life lay the best chance
of realizing the immeasurable fact of God’s being; that all
the best feelings there, were like rays that the eye might
follow back till they were lost in infinite light.
If the purpose and scope of these lectures did not forbid,
I would undertake to show that there underlies such teaching,
though never appearing on this surface, the ultimate philoso
phy of God, towards which all thought is tending. And
though that purpose prevents my going farther, this I will
say, that every one who finds a significance in Coleridge's lines
“ ’Tis the sublime in man, our noontide majesty,
to know ourselves,
Parts and proportions of one wondrous whole,”
must surely realise how all the virtues which subordinate
self and magnify the eternal all in all, do verily bring us
into the immediate presence of God.
But I hasten on to point out some specially practical
advantages attendant on this method of Jesus in dealing
with the doctrine of God. For (1) it did not directly attack
any sacred traditions. And (2) it required no abstruse
theories about God to be first established. And (3) finally
it was capable of endless expansion, and is applicable at the
present day.
�13
1.—It did not unnecessarily attack any sacred traditions.
Do not misunderstand me. There was no cunning reticence
on the part of Christ. The modern plan of believing one
creed and ostentatiously subscribing to another, for social
reasons, or reasons of prudence, formed no part of his
method. There were some traditions which were not sacred;
and these he did not hesitate to denounce. The supersti
tions, for instance, that polluted the sabbath were in his eyes
hurtful, from the spiritual pride and the morbid narrowness
of conscience they inspired.
Such superstitions he did
attack openly and fearlessly, in the teeth of their devotees.
He “ looked round about upon them in anger, being grieved
for the hardness -of their hearts.” He wondered that the
plain facts of God’s manifest rule did not touch them with
shame for their obliquity of vision. And if he were walking
our streets on Sundays now—if he were to see those homes
of intellectual light, those possible fountains of moral sweet
ness, our public libraries and museums grimly silent, dark
and empty, while crowds roll in and out at the reeking
doors of public houses, he would surely manifest the same
emotions now. He would look round about with anger on
us and our boasted civilization,—our lavishness in gun
powder and great guns, our timid parsimony in education,
the torrents of drink that roll down our street, the sprinkling
of popular knowledge that satisfies us,—and the fair future,
which is to us what the kingdom of heaven was to the Jews,
would receive its indignant vindication. “ Woe unto you,
ye hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of knowledge
against men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer
ye them that are entering to go in.”
But apart from such reactionary superstitions, Jesus
accepted in the main, as a man of the age, the sacred
traditions of the people amongst whom he was born. It
was principally in his interpretation of the future which was
to grow out of the past that he differed from his country
men. He reverenced the ancient scriptures; but he saw a
higher meaning in them than others did. He cherished the pro
phecies ; but he gave to their material symbols a spiritual
meaning. He worshipped the God of his fathers; but the
glory of that God reflected in his heart was like a new
revelation. And sects of considerable magnitude in the
early church were so impressed by the difference between
the Heavenly Father of Jesus, and the Jehovah of Moses,
that they maintained they were not the same God at all.
We shall not fall into their error. The ultimate mystery of
being hl ways and everywhere veiled under the name of God,
�14
or gods, is the same to all generations, though they dress it
in' various forms and make of it very different applications.
To the philosophy of the subject Jesus apparently gave no
thought. He was only anxious that the abiding sense men
have of eternal being should be used as an inspiration of the
higher life. And this he accomplished by enshrining the
Supreme Name, reverenced by all alike, in a halo of the
best affections.
The example is one which we should do well to study at
the present day. We should not trouble ourselves too much
about theological opinions. Where they are clearly obstructive
and degrading in their influence, we may of course be bound
to expose their falsehood. Otherwise we shall do well to try
what is the best use we can make of the various forms, in
which men represent to themselves one ultimate fact. I
know there are some people now, as there always have
been any time these two thousand years, who exhort us to
get rid of the name and extirpate the feeling of God. They
might as well attempt to forbid the sense of infinity as we
look up to the midnight sky; or of eternity as we gaze on
the everlasting mountains. Far more sensible and more
feasible is the suggestion of Mr. Matthew Arnold, that we
we should think of God as the power impelling each creature
to fulfil the law of its being; or as the power, not ourselves,
that makes for righteousness. And indeed this last was
very much the course adopted by Christ.
2.—By thus accepting sacred traditions, and giving them
a higher meaning, Jesus avoided the necessity for any
abstruse theories about God. It is very unfortunate that
people will form their ideas of Christianity from the three
creeds, or from the Westminster catechism, rather than from
thy synoptical gospels. The general notion seems to be that
Jesus taught the doctrines of the Trinity and the Fall, and
Original Sin. It is true that something very much akin to
the first of these doctrines is laid down in the fourth gospel,
which, for reasons already given, we cannot regard as an
uncoloured description of earliest church memories. But in
the synoptics we repeat that there is hardly anything which
can be called theology, as this term is understood in the schools.
There is nothing about divine ontology. There is very little, and
that of doubtful origin, about the secrets of the divine counsels.
There is only a loyal endeavour to give a nobler, moral and
emotional interpretation to an accepted faith. Even the
moral attributes of God are described indirectly, by taking
it for granted that they answer to the human heart. u Love
your enemies, bless them that persecute you, . . • that
�15
ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven; for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth his rain on the just and on the unjust.” “ Take
heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is
in Heaven.” In such words we have an assumption, jus
tified by the whole ’scope and law of human progress, that
generosity and sincerity and lowliness are pure and unper
verted inspirations of the power by which humanity at large
tends to fulfil the law of its being. Or think again of the
words Jesus is reported to have uttered, when he was forced
unwillingly to the conclusion that the learning and the
fashion and the social power of the times had no ears for
him, but that his mission was to the lowly and ignorant and
poor. It is not resentment but contentment; not a su
perstitious notion of a divine judgment against learning and
culture, but acquiescence in an inevitable law of human
progress, that we hear in his address to heaven. il I thank
thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent * and hast revealed
them unto babes. Even so Father, for so it seemed good in
thy sight.” That is to say, God cares for the poor, and makes
them his mightiest instruments. The most decisive revolu
tions, whether ecclesiastical or political, begin from below
and work upwards. There is a great deal about the method
of God’s government implied here. But it is founded upon
no abstruse reasonings! It comes from identifying the
impulses of philanthropy with the movements of the Divine
Spirit.
3.—Finally, one most striking advantage of such a doctrine
of God is its capacity for expansion in accordance with the
growth of knowledge. This is a point of the utmost possible
interest for us. For there can be no dispute but that men’s
notions of the world and of its order have entirely changed
since the era of Christ; and if he had imposed on his imme
diate followers a definition of God suitable to their intel
lectual limitations, it must necessarily have grown more
and more incongruous with the ideas of after ages. Indeed
this is just what many assume to be actually the case.
Taking their notion of the religion of Jesus from the creeds,
lit
1;
iil
I
* The real matter of thankfulness is not that they were hidden from any one ;
but that they were revealed to simple folk even at the cost of being hidden from
the learned. Let any one who thinks himself fitted to be Archbishop of Canter
bury and finds himself only a scripture reader in a low neighbourhood, contrast
his own feelings with those expressed in the text, and that will bring out its
meaning.
�16
rather than from the gospels, they insist that the {t magnified
non-natural Man,” whom Christianity teaches us to worship,
can find no place either in or beyond 'the universe as it is
now beginning to be understood. And they have so much to
say for themselves, that it sometimes seems as though a
cheerless atheism were staring us into stone.
But in
truth we have no evidence that Jesus ever attempted any
definition of God.
*
He simply accepted the sense of eternal
being, which’ every man has, whether he knows it by that
phrase or not; and he told men to think of that eternal
being as the source of every impulse which impelled them
to their best. He said nothing to depreciate the sacred
tradition of a heavenly Monarch, the personal King of the
Jews ; but his method of dealing with the sense of eternal
being was a solvent, under which that Jewish tradition was
sure to pass away. And I think the same method is appli
cable now, amidst all the confusion of contending theologies.
They all assume, and they rightly assume, a sense in man of
eternal being, a unity in diversity, a whole comprehending
all parts, an abiding reality which no passing shows exhaust.
But then they try to give definite intellectual notions of this
Eternal, and their notions are all different. One says that
he is three persons in one God; another that he is the soul
of the world without body, parts or passions ; a third that
he is an infinite person who thinks and loves. For our
part we have no hesitation in allowing that all these notions
have germs of truth.
But as compared with the scale of
the subject, the germs are so very small that we are con
strained to regard them as infinitely distant from the reality.
Now if we would follow the method of Jesus, we should
rather say,—hold to your sacred tradition if you will, so far
as it expands and does not narrow your heart. But do not
expect to realize in it the living God, the Father of your
spirit. Rather he finds you and you find him in every im
pulse towards a better life. For as that Eternal Power
inspires the lilies of the field to clothe themselves with more
than Solomon’s glory, and the birds of the air to provide by
instinct for their young, so does he touch you with an impulse
to fulfil the law of your being, in a noble life. And if you
accustom yourself to it, this way of regarding God will grow
upon you, until you have an abiding sense of a divine
presence, and a constant incentive to that sort of prayer
whose highest expression is work.
* The words, “God is a Spirit,” supposing them to be authentic, are not a
definition. They really mean “ God is greater than any intellectual or cere
monial forms, and is to be approached by the heart.”
�17
Let me refer to the blind child again. I think, if you had
told him of a mighty ball rolling, with enormous force, the
little worlds around it, you would not have succeeded in con
veying any adequate intellectual conception of the reality;
but you would certainly have distracted his attention from
the tenderer and to him the more real significance of the sun.
But in establishing in his mind the association of some
unknown and unknowable splendour with the glow of summer
warmth, and the perfume of flowers, and the songs of birds,
you would at once make the sun very real to him; and yet
you would leave him free to adapt his ideas to every successive
instalment of knowledge about the subject which he might
prove capable of receiving. So it is with Christ’s doctrine of
God. It is not scientific. It is addressed to the heart. But
the very absence of any attempt at scientific definition makes
it as expansive as man’s knowledge of the universe.
One word more. Such a doctrine of God suggests an
Incarnation, which may be a permanent element in universal
religion. ((The light of the body is the eye,” says Jesus.
But surely the eye is not illuminative by itself. It is light,
he says; because it appreciates light, and brings us into
communion with light. Just so the God of the soul is con
science ; not that conscience is eternal or boundless, but that
through it we get that sense of eternal right, or fitness, or
self-consistency, and that feeling of infinite authority on the
one hand and limitless obligation on the other, which seem
most to bring us into communion with God. It is always in
a realization of the sacredness of duty that the sense of God
is most impressive ; always in the commanding sweetness of
moral affections that the universal divinity seems to be
specially present. And these experiences are more intensely
human than any triumphs of the intellect. So God always
comes to us nearest in the form of humanity. And William
Blake seems to me to express in a few notes of music that
doctrine of God which we have been labouring for an hour to
explain when he sings—
To Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
All pray in their distress,
And to these virtues of delight,
Beturn their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
Is God our Father dear;
And Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love,
Is man, His child and care.
�For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity, a human face;
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, a human dress.
Then every man, in every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In Heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Peace and Pity dwell,
There God is dwelling to.
UPFIELD GREEN, Printer, Tenter Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
bourse of Smito Staling Jutuns,
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
Ill
The Religion of Jesus; His doctrine of Man.
The two main topics of every religious teacher are neces
sarily God and man. We have seen how Jesus dealt with
the former of these topics. He accepted the sacred tradition,
current amongst his countrymen, of an Eternal Power, at
once the supreme fount of law and the universal inspiration
of righteousness. But in his treatment of this great topic,
he differed very much from most of the teachers of his time.
To heighten the sense of God in the hearts of men, Jesus
did not think it necessary to grope amidst the mouldering
ruins of antiquity. He rather preferred to call attention to,
and to insist upon, the divine side of present facts, whether
the springing of the corn, the blooming of the lily, or the
best ideals of the heart. In dealing with human nature,
the method of Jesus was entirely similar. Whatever he
may have thought of the story of Adam and the garden of
Eden, he clearly had no theory whatever such as would
require a demonstrable foundation in any forgotten and
irrecoverable past. He took men as he found them, in
their sins, in their sorrows, in their better aspirations ; and
�2
his only doctrine of human nature was a practical inculcation
of the most obvious method, for making such better aspira
tions triumph over both sorrow and sin.
For such a doctrine of man Jesus had at least one pre
eminent qualification. He loved mankind with a purity
and disinterestedness of devotion, such as in all the records,
at least of western story, has never been paralleled before
or since. Those skilled in the learning of the east, tell us
that we may find in the philanthropy of Buddha, a striking
parallel to the love of Christ for mankind. But such au
thorities also inform us, that Buddha looked upon human
life as a wholly hopeless problem: and that he prized the
exercise of the highest virtues only as the speediest means
for getting rid of it altogether. Jesus, however, took a
more hopeful view of the condition of mankind. He came,
it is said, that they might have life, and that they might
have it more abundantly. The reminiscences of this sym
pathy in the gospels, especially where they bear the stamp
of historic truth, are so brifef as to imply far more than they
distinctly state. But they are perhaps all the more touching
because of their simplicity and unconsciousness. Thus, for
instance, we read, in the first chapter of St. Mark, how on a
certain occasion Jesus, wearied perhaps with the excitement
of public employment, retired amongst the mountains that
he might meditate and pray, thus refreshing his spirit with
heavenly communion. But the multitude, who had learned
to appreciate the blessing of his presence, hungered for him
now in his absence as for their daily bread. So general and
strong was this feeling, that his disciples were driven to
search for him; and when they had found him, Peter said
to him, ■ all men seek for thee.” There is more in these
words than mere curiosity. Indeed if our view of the gospel
story be correct, it could hardly have been at that time the
expectation of miracle which prompted this universal desire.
The people felt that he answered to their deepest needs. He
had a treasure to communicate, which was worth more to
them than any earthly riches, and therefore they hungered
after him as children after their parents. Now mark, how
quick is the response on the part of Jesus to this tie between
him and the multitude. His philantropic sympathies were
stirred ; he felt afresh the burden of his mission, “ Let us
go,” he said, “ into the next towns and villages that I may
preach there also ; for therefore came I forth.”
You know what is the effect produced on any feeling
heart, by the sight of a great multitude. Ten thousand
faces, ten thousand minds, ten thousand hearts, each one
�3
opening a vista of life’s experience, overwhelm us with the
vastness of the interests which are embodied there. Now
there are several hints, scattered through the pages of these
gospels, which show how keenly susceptible Jesus was to
this kind of impression. More than once, we are told how
the mere sight of a great multitude of men stirred in him
deep emotion. In the sixth chapter of the same gospel of
St. Mark it is said, that when, on another occasion, Jesus
had retired into a sacred solitude, some thousands of people
were gathered together in the mountain glades waiting for
his appearance. The story goes on, il and Jesus, when he
came out, saw much people, and was moved with com
passion towards them, because they were as sheep having
no shepherd, and he began to teach them many things.” A
passage in St. Matthew, referring to the same or a similar
occasion, gives a touching detail of the reason for his feeling.
tl They were tired and lay down,” it is said, as though faint.,
hopeless and desolate. Can you not picture to yourselves
the scene ? We may suppose that as Jesus turned an angle
of the valley, he was suddenly confronted with the crowd.
There were scattered on the grass slumbering men, worn
out with weariness and hunger; there were lost children
crying for their parents; there were mothers fainting under
the drudgeries of life; there were anxious faces that seemed
to tell of broken hearts. I like to think of the tide of feel
ing which arose in the heart of Jesus as he looked on such
a sight. The enthusiasm of humanity was upon him, 11 the
harvest truly is plenteous ” he said, “but the labourers are
few; pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that he will
send forth labourers into his harvest.” This feeling of quick
and deep sympathy, stirred by the sight of a vulgar mul
titude, does not appear to have been very common in
antiquity. And we may fairly see, in such emotions of
Jesus, the first spring of that side of benevolence, which
has covered the Christian world with hospitals, missions
and schools.
None can revive the moral life of men, without a deep
sympathy for them in his heart. In vain will a teacher
open before you the treasures of wisdom; in vain will he
draw pictures of the works of God, unless he feels at one
with the common instincts of humanity. Of course such
philanthropic sympathies may be, and often are, simulated
for selfish purposes. But such a cheat is always in the long
run detected. For there are times when the true philan
thropist must stand alone, because his very sympathy for
humanity, and his realization of its true interest will drive
iii;
S'
I
I?
�4
him to take up an attitude hostile to the passions of the
time' Will he dare, for instance, to denounce a Russian war,
when millions of throats are howling for human blood ?
Will he dare to oppose the brutalities of popular vindictive
ness, whether directed against mutinous sepoys, or home
enemies of society ? A man that will stand such tests as
these, however eccentric his opinions may be, has at least
the good of his kind at heart. It might at first sight be
supposed that, however obnoxious the teachings of Jesus
were to the scribes and pharisees, his capacity of resisting
.more popular prejudices was never put to the proof. This
however would be a great mistake. The word “ Messiah,”
according to its ancient associations, led the people generally
to anticipate a career of military victory, and the establish
ment of a world-wide dominion, the profits of which would
have been enjoyed mainly by the Jews. A man who cared
more for the applause of the people than for their good,
would have known how to turn such expectations to his own
advantage, even though he never entertained any thought
of attempting to realise them. But the course of Jesus was
very different. There are some hints in the gospels, which
appear to suggest that, at first, Jesus shrank from the title
of Messiah, and at any rate repudiated its public assumption.
And when, from causes which we cannot now investigate,
he allowed himself to be called by the name, he persistently
gave to it a spiritual significance such as'-was directly con
trary to popular prejudice. By this he showed that his
sympathy for mankind was not assumed for any interested
purpose, but was deep and strong enough to enable him to
stand firm against prejudice, and ignorance, and perverted
faith, in whatever quarter they were found.
So far then as love and sympathy will go, he was well
qualified to deal with humanity. And though he professed
no philosophy, and did not enrich the treasures of learning
with any contribution towards a metaphysical analysis of
human nature, we shall not regret the absence of such
philosophical pretensions, if we find that he makes plain to
us, both the need and the possibility of religion. We shall
now show that, as in dealing with the name of God, so in
regard to human nature, his method was an insistance on
obvious facts of pregnant meaning, and an endeavour to
turn them to the divinest issues.
Well then, in the first place; we must note his significant
use of the word <( heart.” For by this term Jesus sum
marized and emphasized innumerable common and easily
recognized facts of consciousness, which may be neglected,
�5
but cannot possibly be denied. In the teaching of Jesus
the heart represents the whole moral nature in its unity
apart altogether from the metaphysical analyses which may
be useful for science, but have nothing to do with religion.
It expresses all the voluntary energies of human nature,
which are, or may be, touched with a sense of responsibility.
It included also the affections, which go with the voluntary
energies, and partake directly or indirectly in their respon
sibility. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also,” that is to say, the whole of your voluntary energies
which are touched by a sense of responsibility. “ A good
man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth
good things ; and an evil man out of the evil treasure
bringeth forth evil things.” “ This people draweth nigh
unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their
lips, but their heart is far from me.” This is of course a
quotation from the prophets; but Jesus gives it a special
reference to the ruling classes of his day. And when he
says “ their heart is far from me,” what he means is, that
however they may comply with sacred forms, the reason of
compliance is not religion, because their voluntary energies
are given not to God, but to society, to fashion and to their
own interests. Thus you see Jesus makes no division be
tween intellect and emotion, imagination and reason. He
cares little for intellect arid imagination in themselves,
though he uses both for action on the moral nature. He
rather strove to concentrate all attention on those voluntary
energies touched with a sense of responsibility, which, as we
say, he expressed by the word “heart.” Now this is a part of
ourselves which is surely more interesting than any other.
For it is this which makes character, and character makes
conduct, and from conduct far the greater part of our hap
piness or misery must ever spring.
Here, however, I anticipate a difficulty, certain to be
started by some disputant, if we were holding a discussion.
And it is as well to notice that difficulty, because it enables
us to bring out more clearly the practical method of Jesus,
which consists in dealing with the obvious facts of conscious
ness, and leaving all more subtle analysis to philosophers,
whose province it is. The disputant, whom I have sup
posed to be present, would not patiently endure such a
description as I have given of Christ’s idea of the heart, as
representing the sum of the voluntary energies. “ Voluntary
energies indeed! ” he would exclaim; “ but there is no such
thing as freedom of the will at all. That is an old world
notion-Avhich -has long since been explained away. For of
�6
course every human action is a link in the endless chain of
causation. To suppose anything else would be to imagine
that chaos and order can exist not only side by side, but
intermingled and mutually co-operating.
The thing is
impossible and absurd; yet you preachers, with your talk
about 1 voluntary energies,’ will persist in assuming, as a
matter of course, what is demonstrably false.”
To such a disputant I should say; my friend, you altoge
ther mistake the subject in hand. We are not talking about
metaphysics, but about religion. If indeed we were to enter
on the philosophy of the will, I am very far from admitting
that your case is so strong as you suppose. But whether it
is strong or weak, we have nothing whatever to do with it
just now. Do not mistake me; I am not about to back out
of the argument, and then go on as though it had been
decided in my favour. And to convince everyone of this, I
will try to explain how the case really stands.
All that religion assumes is something known to con
sciousness as will,—something that we agree to speak of by
that name. You may maintain, if you like, that the feeling
of self-determination suggested by the word is only an appear
ance, or a phenomenon, which when it is examined turns out
to be something very different. Well then let us call it the
phenomenal will. All I say is, it is there; and like all
other faculties requires an appropriate treatment. When
the judgment goes astray it wants fuller information; when
fancy fails it needs kindling suggestions ; and when the will
decides wrongly it wants persuasion, warning, or encourage
ment. And this stands good whether the power of self-de
termination is merely apparent or not. After all, phenomena
are rather important things, and, not least, the phenomenal
will.
Everybody, whatever his metaphysical belief may
be, recognizes, in his actual practice, that the voluntary
energies,—those which are, as we have said, touched with a
feeling of responsibility,—must be treated in accordance
with their nature. If, for instance, you find a poor family
stricken down with fever through bad drainage, and too
ignorant to know what is wrong with them, you do not stop
to reason with them. You take means to get the defect
mended at once; and meanwhile you send them medical
advice and medicine. “Poor souls” you say, “it is no
fault of theirs ; and the remedy is beyond their power.”
But if, on the other hand, you see a lazy father lounging
about with his hands in his pockets, and starving his wife
and children, you do not deal with him after the same
fashion. You persuade him, you try to shame him, you
�7
upbraid, you even threaten, if by any means you may affect
his will. Not that you thus concede anything as to the
metaphysical question of free will. That is not at all involved.
But you do recognize some difference between the voluntary
energies which you are trying to touch with a keener sense
of responsibility, and involuntary properties, susceptibilities,
or accidents. You show that you recognize this difference
by your different methods in the two cases. Now that is
just what the gospel does ; no more. And we say that the
gospel method of dealing with the heart, that is, the sum of
the voluntary energies, is well worthy of your attention, no
matter what the metaphysical sect to which you own
allegiance.
li But,” says another, “ this method of dealing with the
voluntary energies in a lump is most unscientific. We must
distinguish; we must analyse. There is the great question
of motives, and the power, possessed by attention, to single
out of a hundred motives the one that shall prevail. There
is the power of habit to be considered, and social sympathies,
and hereditary tendencies. All these must have their due,
if we are to have any rational conception of the voluntary
energies.” Certainly, I reply, if that is what you are
seeking. But it is not what we are seeking at present. It
is the business of philosophy to analyse. But religion,
dealing practically with conduct, or with feeling, must treat
the moral nature as a whole. In fact religion deals with the
moral nature very much as the moral nature deals with
muscular exertion. A lazy man does not like effort. But
if he is not wholly devoid of conscience, moral principle
says to him “ exert yourself; pull with all your might at
this rope ; lift those stones out of the way.” Now there is
nothing more perplexing than the action of intention or
purpose on the muscles. There are impressions made on
the sensory ganglia of the brain. There is the conveyance
of some impression from the sensory ganglia to the cere
brum. There is a co-ordination of action amongst various
cells of the cerebrum. There are orders conveyed by the
spinal column, and from this through one set of nerves
called efferent, to the particular muscle to be exerted. There
is a return message through another set of nerves called
afferent, to inform the cerebrum of the progress made in
complying with its decrees, that is to say, of the extent to
which the muscle is contracted or expanded. There is a
determination of a flow of blood to the muscle. There is
the cod traction of muscular fibre. All these facts anatomy
has detected in what, to the consciousness, seems a very
�8
simple process.
In fact the consciousness hardly detects
any parts at all. It wants to move an arm and it moves it,
without the .slightest notion of the delicate and complex
machinery of which it is making use. To this day, many
questions as to the mode in which that machinery operates
remain entirely insoluble even by the latest scientific dis
coveries. But does that, in the slightest degree, affect the
ordinary relations of the moral nature and the muscular
system in the lazy man ? Fancy the opening which such a
suggestion would give to the sort of person called by sailors
a “ sea-lawyer.” “ What is the use of ordering me about?”
he would ask, “your words certainly reach my sensory
organs; but really the connection of these with my cere
brum, and the co-ordination of the various ganglia there are
anything but satisfactory. Besides, I am greatly perplexed
about the action of the afferent and efferent nerves, and the
more I think about it the less can I control my limbs ” All
this would be very ridiculous; but not in the least degree
more so, than it is to interpose, between religion and the
moral nature, your ingenious metaphysical analysis. The
case supposed would be ridiculous, because, in the conscious
ness, determination and exertion appear to be a single act,
practically dependent for its energy on the amount of good
will thrown into it. And this is all that is assumed by
exhortation, persuasion or warning.
So is it with the proper influence of religion on the moral
nature. Mental anatomy may do good service in its own
place. But it cannot possibly alter the facts of conscious
ness, which testify that imagination, affection, reverence, all
unite to make one act of homage by which a man bows to
the eternal sanction of righteousness. Thus, by a simple
practical view of the moral nature, as a unity in conscious
ness, Christ puts the gospel outside philosophy; aye and
above it, inasmuch as conduct is the issue, and character
the highest aim of knowledge. However wise and analytical
we may be, we want some power to take us as a whole, to
inspire the instinctive movements of desire and affection;
and so to mould directly the grand evolution of increasing
purpose, by which a life is built up. Therefore it is that
the power of Jesus over the moral nature of man, a power
testified by the experience of eighteen centuries, is well
worthy of our study.
2.—The next fact brought into prominence in the original
simplicity of Christ’s religion, is that of universal sinfulness.
Here again there is an opening for endless analysis and
disputation. . What is the innermost secret of sin? How
�9
did it at first enter into the world ? Is it the attribute of a
fallen race ? or is it necessarily incidental to the existence of
a progressive race, always growing towards a higher condi
tion of life ? Well now, in the synoptical gospels, and
almost equally so even in the fourth gospel, Jesus seems to
take hardly the slightest notice of such incidental questions.
He simply notes the sinfulness of man as a palpable and a
terrible fact, which must be recognized, weighed, and felt, by
any one who would do any good to the world in which he
lives. This is implied in the words attributed to him at the
outset of his career. “Repent ye” that is, change to a
better mind, “ for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Hu
man sinfulness is assumed, even in the beauty and sweetness
of the beatitudes. “ Blessed are they who mourn,” surely
not those who mourn only because of pain or affliction; but
those who mourn for sin; because such sadness is already
touched with the dawn of a better life. The same, universal
fact is implied in the contrast always drawn between the
moral tendencies of men and the will of God. 11 If ye then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
how much more shall your heavenly Father give his Holy
Spirit to them that ask him ? ” It is confessed in the prayer
which Jesus taught to his disciples. J Forgive us our
trespasses, as we also forgive them that trespass against us.”
It is not a superficial accident, but pervades the totality
of the moral nature.
“ Out of the heart proceed evil
thoughts, murders, adulteries.” It is not individual but
universal. “ Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
11 Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye
and forgettest the beam that is in thine own eye?” 11 Woe
unto the world because of offences, for it must needs be that
offences come.” It tends to general ruin, fl Except ye repent
ye shall all likewise perish.” And the ruin to which it tends
is utter and unremediable. “ If then the light that is in thee
be darkness, how great is that darkness.” “ What shall it'
profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose himself or
be cast away?”
Perhaps it may be said that there is nothing striking or
original in mere insistance upon palpable facts. That is so.
But perhaps there is some originality, in this contentment
with palpable fact as a basis of religion. And though Jesus
limits himself to a practical view of human sinfulness, many
passages imply that the term was not used without a clear
and intelligent significance. In the view of Jesus sin was a
revolt from the will of God, a wilful or careless discord with
£he divine ideal manifest in the conscience. According to
�the teaching of Jesus, the will of God is to be identified with
“ the best one knows or feels; ” and whenever any one
wilfully or carelessly falls short of his best, this is rebellion
against the will of God. Accordingly it is in its aspect
towards God that sin appears in its worst character. Thus
in the parable of the unmerciful servant, the debt owing to
this servant was only a hundred pence, while that which he
owed his lord was ten thousand talents, a disproportion which
is certainly intended to represent Christ’s own estimate of the
difference between our guilt as against God, and our guilt
as against man. If you ask how is the will of God revealed
according to the teaching of Jesus? we can only refer to
what was said in the last lecture. It then appeared, on a
general review of the doctrine of Jesus about the Divine
Nature, that sacred tradition, association, nature, and
experience, all unite to suggest an ideal life which pictures
to us the will of God.
In all this there is no reference to the doctrine of
original sin,” as commonly taught in theological treatises.
Christ never mentions Adam or Eve by name; and only
indirect y refers to them when declaring the primeval sanctity
of the marriage tie. It is true that both moral and physical
evil is apparently traced to Satan, as in the parable of the
sower; and indeed in the Lord’s prayer, when correctly
rendered. But here Jesus is speaking according to the ideas
of the time, and not according to the new spirit which he
himself breathed. Besides, these references to the Evil One
are just of that vague and passing character natural to a
teacher, whose attention is more engaged by actual facts than
by the popular forms under which he instinctively expresses
them. Otherwise no one can read the synoptical gospels
without feeling that when Jesus had traced sin to the heart,
he was not in the least degree interested in tracing it any
further. In the heart it must be attacked ; in the heart it
could be overcome; and so far as the direct operation of
religion was concerned, there is no evidence that he
encouraged or approved any farther speculation concerning
the subject. Thus his doctrine of sin is not chargeable
either with theological or philosophical sectarianism. The
mystery of moral evil is still left open to any explanation
which science or philosophy may hereafter hope to give.
In illustration of the openness of the speculative questions
as left by the religion of Jesus, we may touch upon two
possible theories about universal sin. According to the
first it is the result of a fall from a previous state of perfec
tion ; according to the second it is rather a coming short of,
�11
or a hanging back from, a higher and better life which is
always being revealed to man. In the one case Eden is
behind us, in the other case it is before us. To make our
meaning clear, take as an example an innocent babe to
whom you cannot possibly attribute any actual sin, whether
your theological theory would condemn him as polluted by
original sin or not. There is no actual sin, for the simple
reason that nothing whatever is required of the voluntary
energies of the babe; and therefore it cannot have come
short of any requirement. But as soon as it grows to a
child, and begins to learn lessons, the possibility of a higher
life is set before it and forced upon its attention. But the
attainment of this higher life requires disciplined exertion;
and disciplined exertion is not always pleasant. Hence
disobedience and bad temper. And here is the first mani
festation of that “ foolishness ” or sin, which the proverb
assures us is bound up in the heart of a child, Now it is
quite possible to take either of two views about such
beginnings of sin. You may say, here is a fall from the
innocence of babyhood; or you may prefer to say, here is a
shrinking from the better life which begins to dawn upon the
opening consciousness. For myself I think the latter view
is more in accordance with the facts. But if you prefer the
other, I should never think of complaining, so long as the
theory has no evil influence on your educational methods.
Just so in regard, to the probable history of man; it may be
argued that in the pre-human state,—whatever that may
have been,—it would have been impossible to impute sin to
him, because he was not conscious of any alternative between
better and worse. Conscience did not require anything from
him; and therefore he was as incapable of sin as a babe.
But as reason awoke, law was conceived, and an ideal life
began to dawn. However low and poor the earliest ideal of
mankind might seem to us now, it was pregnant with the
promise of a better future. But one great price that had to
be paid-for this revelation was the possibility and, alas, the
actuality of sin. Now some still prefer to call this B the Fall
of man.” And some would even insist that the story of
Adam represents actual facts. But others say that the only
original sin is the innate conservatism of our nature, which
always tempts us to hang back from the better life just
within our reach. And all the significance they allow to the
doctrine of the Fall is, that it is the projection backwards, in
the generic memory, of that sharp schism between an
advancing ideal and a lagging practice, of which the whole
race is everywhere .conscious.
�12
But what we are anxious to insist upon now is, that what
ever theory you may prefer, it ought not to make the
slightest difference in your appreciation of the doctrine of
Jesus concerning human sin. He says nothing about a fall,
and nothing about the original awakening of conscience.
He takes moral facts simply as they are, and his language
concerning them answers to the feelings of the heart. What
ever may have been the origin of sin, no one can deny the
soundness of the exhortation “ if thy right hand cause thee to
*
sin, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy
whole body should be cast into hell.”f And whatever may
be the philosophical explanation of the general tendency
amongst men to build on false moral - principles rather than
on sound ones, it is certainly true that when “ the rains
descend and the floods come and the winds blow,” the
structure raised upon them, whether life or character, will
be exposed to ruin.
(3.) How entirely free from pragmatical theory was
Christ’s doctrine of human nature, is shown by his generous
assumption of a natural and original tendency to good in
man Theologians, more anxious about logical consistency
of system than about faithfulness to facts, have asserted
that, as a result of original sin, “ we are utterly indisposed,
disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined
to all evil.” | Such a misanthropic conception of human
nature was, however, no part of the religion of Jesus.
Indeed the opposite is clearly implied in his reference to
early childhood as an emblem of the better life. “ Except
ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
Surely such
words are entirely incongruous with the notion that Jesus
looked on little children as corrupt, condemned, and
instinctively with germs of evil. <£ Suffer the little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of Heaven.” It is in vain to say that in such- words
he referred only to their freedom from actual transgression.
It was rather because he saw in them the germs of all virtue,
that he likened the beginnings of the heavenly life to them.
Lord Palmerston, who on one occasion declared that all
children were born good, may not have expressed himself
with accuracy, as most parents know. But the heresy with
♦ That is the meaning of “ offend thee” in this passage.
t Hell—that is utter corruption; such for instance as the condition of a hope
less drunkard, or the moral state of the author of the Bremer Explosion.
| Westminster Confession vi 4.
�13
which he was charged by so-called religious newspapers,
breathed much more the spirit of the religion of Jesus than
any doctrine of “ total depravity.”
Already, for other purposes, I have called. attention to
Christ’s significant words about the light that is in every
man. And they are equally available to prove that Jesus,
however stern in his rebukes of sin, could never have taught
that human nature was “utterly indisposed, disabled, and
made opposite to all good.” Indeed he teaches that sincerity
is all that is necessary, to make this susceptibility to divine
light the entrance for all heaven to the soul. For “ if thine
eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light.” The
existence of this susceptibility and tendency to good is also
implied in several of his finest appeals to men. “ Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”
What desire could total depravity feel for divine perfection ?
“ Love your enemies . . . that ye may be the children
of your Father who is in Heaven.” I do not think that
creatures “ utterly indisposed” to all good, would be likely to
care much about the motive here. Again when speaking to
the people of the signs of the times, he denied that they had
any need of supernatural indications to enable them to
distinguish “ the power that makes for righteousness ” from
the powers of this world. They had an inward monitor to
which they would do well to take heed. “ Why,” he asks,
“ even of yourselves judge ye not what is right ?”*
When the young ruler came to him asking the way of
eternal life, and professing surprise at the simplicity of that
obedience to the commandments which was at first demanded,
it is said that “Jesus, beholding him, loved him.” It is
true that he added a special test, which had a very humbling
effect on the young man. Theologians of the Calvinistic
school, therefore, can hardly contend that, in their sense of
the word, the youth was a converted character. And the
emphatic record which is made of the feeling Jesus enter
tained for him suggests that the great Master warmly
appreciated the good elements that he found in the “ natural
man.” The unsectarian breadth of sympathy, with which
Jesus recognized the goodness of Zacchaeus, affords another
illustration of the same thing. All these reminiscences go
to show that, amongst the earliest recollections of the
teaching of Jesus, the doctrine of total depravity as well as
of original sin, was conspicuously absent. And thus we
confirm our position that Christ’s view of the facts of human
life was not warped by any theological or national prejudice.
* Luke xii, 57.
�14
He accepted such facts as they were, and made such use of
them as seemed best adapted to serve, not any theological
school, nor any ecclesiastical institution, but the practical
interests of universal religion.
Perhaps it will be thought that we have hitherto kept
unduly out of sight the obvious difficulties of the subject.
We have said nothing of Christ’s claim to fulfil the Jewish
prophecies concerning the Messiah. We have not touched
upon the question of miracles. We have paid no attention
to the germs of the doctrine of atonement, undoubtedly
contained in the gospels. I quite acknowledge the import
ance of these points; and we shall not shrink from dealing
with them in due course. But it is better in such a study
first to fix our attention on the positive claims which the
religion of Jesus has on our allegiance. It is a good rule not
to neglect obvious truth because of doubtful questions with
which it has been accidentally mixed up. Our observations,
so far, go to show that there is very much in the gospels, at
once fresh, vital, pointed, and clear, attractive to the sym
pathies of all humanity. This, does not depend for its
interest upon any miraculous stories; and therefore our
judgment concerning them cannot affect our estimate of this
more human element. In particular, we have seen much
evidence that one distinctive characteristic of the teaching of
Jesus was an honest recognition of facts as they are, apart
from the perversions and prejudices of traditional superstition.
But this is just an anticipation of the modern spirit cul
tivated by science. What constitutes such a recognition
religious is the application that is made of it. Science looks
at quantities, qualities and successions, in order to increase
knowledge. Religion considers facts, whether of the inner
or the outer world, only to sanctify the relations of the heart,
the sum of our voluntary energies, to the Supreme Power
which both sets of facts alike proclaim.
As to his essential condition and his ultimate destiny,
man is no less mysterious, than nature. He comes forth
from darkness, a spark of consciousness. He grows into
magnificence, covering the historic heavens with a train of
glory. But, as is the case with some comets, the curve of
his orbit is as yet beyond all human calculation. All we can
do is to note the facts of his nature and career; and turn
them where we can to our own salvation. This was what
Jesus did. How he did it we shall endeavour to learn
when we consider his doctrine of redemption.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
% fioarse ojj j^undaj ffltuquinfl
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
IV.
The Religion of Jesus; His doctrine of Redemption.
We have seen how, in dealing with human nature, Jesus
sought ever to divert attention from mere fancies, dreams,
and superstitions, to actual palpable facts. His chief inter
est in human nature, lay in the moral faculties; but he did
not consider the moral nature as it is seen in the last results
of philosophical analysis. He rather considered it as it pre
sents itself in the individual consciousness, in those activities
which both form and exhibit character. He traced the evil
that afflicts the world to its original root in the heart of
man; but he clearly enough allowed that there is also in
the heart of man a germ of good, capable of flowering out
into all the fruits of holiness and peace.
The doctrine of redemption from this evil, acknowledged
�2
and profoundly felt by Jesus, presents, in the form in which
it has come down to us, greater difficulties than any of the
subjects we have hitherto treated. To a much larger ex
tent than has been the case with Christ’s ideas of human
nature, his doctrine of redemption has been presented to
us in forms which involve forms of Jewish thought, which
it is occasionally very difficult for us to translate into mo
dern ideas and modern language. And tins seems to have
been the case because the hopes and feelings of Jesus him
self, on this subject, were more affected by the imaginations
of his predecessors concerning the future than his percep
tion of facts were by Rabbinical interpretations. You must
add to this, that the disciples were much more susceptible
to the attractive splendours of dominion, pomp, and political
power than they were to the charms of a present righteous
ness; an d under the influence of this susceptibility they
developed the very slightest hints that Jesus gave concern
ing the future into imitations of the prophecies of DanieL
and others immediately preceding the Christian era. Hence
it must be allowed that our Gospels, as we have them, are
not so consistent on this subject as they are in regard to the
doctrine of human nature. We find that spiritual ideas
conflict with material conceptions of the reign of God. In
connection with the former—that is, the spiritual ideas as
set forth in the Gospels—there are cleai’ traces of the same
simplicity which we have observed hitherto in all the teach
ings of Jesus ; and we may find perhaps, that, however per
plexing it may be to translate the other and more material
conceptions into modern ideas and language, it is not very
difficult to shew how they arose.
I shall, perhaps, best bring the whole matter before you
by considering, first, the kingdom of Heaven as set forth in
the Gospels; secondly, the conditions of heavenly citizenship;
and finally, the idea of Jesus as the Messiah, so far as this
idea seems to have been developed in the Synoptical
Gospels.
(1.) First, we have to deal with the kingdom of Heaven.
So far as we are aware, the first suggestion of this phrase—
“ Kingdom of Heaven,” or, “ Kingdom of God,” is to be
found in the book of Daniel. In Daniel ii. 44, we read: —
“ And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven
set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed ; and the
�kingdom shall not be left to other people, bat it shall break
in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
for ever.” Then again in the seventh chapter of the same
book of Daniel, and at the 13th verse:—“I saw in the
night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,
and they brought him near before Him. And there was
given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
people, nations, and languages should serve him : his do
minion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass
away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”
This idea of a Divine kingdom proved to be exceedingly
attractive to the Jewish writers who flourished in the cen
turies immediately preceding the birth of Christ. There
was one very remarkable book written within one hundred
years before Christ was born into the world, which was attri
buted to Enoch. That apocryphal book is quoted in the Epis
tle of Jude as though it were genuine Scripture, in the four
teenth verse—“ “ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied of these, saying, “ Behold, the Lord cometh with
ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all,
and to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly
deeds which they have ungodly committed.” The quotation
here suggests a description of the end of the world, and the
triumph of divine justice over human rebellion.
Such
visions occupy a considerable portion of this book, which
contains, perhaps, the most highly developed doctrine of the
Kingdom of God and of the Messiah to be found in preChristian literature. You will understand, then, that as
this idea had attracted so very much attention in the time
immediately preceding the Advent of Christ, it was likely
to be a subject of continual conversation and expectation
during the period of his activity. There was a stedfast
opinion prevailing, that all the troubles of the Jews were to
pass away; and not only so, but that the injustice which
triumphed at that time in all regions of the world should be
vanquished and put down by a kingdom diverse from all
preceding kingdoms, not only different in its attributes of
supernatural power, by which it was to prevail over all
others, but also, as regards its moral attributes, which
should, for the first time in the history of the world, estab
lish a universal rule of righteousness.
�4
There was a feeling prevalent in Europe, especially in
France, in the last quarter of the preceding century, which
may well be compared to this stedfast expectation of the
Jews. True, those who preached the Gospel of Humanity,
according to Rousseau, expected no miraculous interference
with the laws of Nature, as the Jews did. But they rZZrZ
expect, these preachers of the French Gospel, that, by some
marvellous transition and revolution in politics, all old and
imperfect forms of rule should pass away, and the reign of
“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” be established for
ever. Those who remember anything of the excitement of
men’s minds during the years preceding the passing of the
first Reform Bill—or those who have read attentively the
history of the time, wili understand how, at critical periods,
a whole people may be possessed with the idea that the
adoption of some particular law, or the triumph of some
particular man, may bring about a perfect state of things in
the world.
Now a man who would mould the future of a people
musX to some extent follow the forms of their imagination.
If he. cannot do this he must inevitably fail. Louis the
16th, and the glittering circle around him, had not sym
pathy enough to realize the attractions which certain forms
of political imagination had fox the people of the age ; and
therefore, though weakly good in his intentions, the poor
king entirely failed to stem the torrent of revolution. Mira
beau, on the other hand, had a strong and deep sympathy
with the forms of imagination popular among the people at
the time. And though his view of things was far more wide
and extended than theirs, his ideas of politics more expan
sive, and his realization of the difficulty of the problem be
fore them far truer to the actual facts of the case, his sym
pathy gave him a power over them which enabled him to
wield their feelings and wills with a sceptre mightier than
that of any king. With much appearance of probability it
has been conjectured that, had he lived, the whole course of
the Revolution might have been changed. Other illustrations might be given from the history of our own country ;
but-as that would lead us into the forbidden realm of poli
tics, we must abstain.
Now Jesus had a deep sympathy wTith the forms of ima
gination prevalent among his countrymen, the Jews of His
�5
day. He fell in with the idea of a time when injustice
should give place to an equitable rule : but if we read the
Gospels aright he gave a wider meaning to this idea than
any before him. True, the prophecies about the final
judgment of the world present great difficulties. But you
will be able to anticipate the way in which these difficulties
may be solved, by your knowledge that, in our view, these
books are of a complex character, for the most part consist
ing of simple popular reminiscences, but occasionally out of
a mere hint or germ in the sayings of Christ elaborating a
portentous vision of the coming days.
Jesus, in speaking of the future, using the imaginative
forms of language that the people loved, urging his hearers
to “ seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”
Now, please observe, the two phrases “ kingdom of God,”
and “ righteousness of God ” may be fairly regarded as
identical. And Jesus thus anticipated, or rather suggested,
the phrase used by the Apostle Paul—“ the righteousness
of God which is revealed from heaven.” Thus, by the
“ kingdom of God ” it would appear that Jesus meant the
rule of God in the heart; that is to say, he concentrated
attention almost exclusively upon the moral attributes of
this kingdom of God. It is as if he had said :—<f I heartily
sympathise with your longings; I join in your expectations.
A better time is certainly in store for us in the providence
of God. But that better time will never come till you have
better hearts; lor the root of the evil of mankind is there ;
and never can the better time come till the race is lifted
into a higher level, and led to adopt a higher standard of
life. This, I take, to be the meaning of the phrase in mod
ern English. John the Baptist had the same idea: —
“ Repent (change to a better mind); for the kingdom of
God is at hand.” But Christ carried this moral conception
of the kingdom of God much farther than John had any
■opportunity of doing, if indeed he had the moral capacity.
There are some words which would amply justify us in
saying that Jesus held this kingdom before his hearers as
entirely and exclusively a moral condition of mankind; as
for instance when he diverted the attention of his disciples
from all possible external scenes, denying that they could
see it in the outward sense in which they supposed it was
to come, 4< For,” said he, “ the Kingdom of God is within
you”
�liemember again, how at another time he sighed deeply
in spirit and said a How hardly shall they that have ricnes
enter into the kingdom of God.” And his disciples were
“ astonished out of measure, saying who then can be saved ? ”
What astonished them out of measure ? They had heard
him frequently discourse of the beauty of humility, the
attractiveness of a lowly heart. They knew that he valued
moral virtues more than political power or wealth, or the
pomps of warlike triumph. But they had never yet realized
how completely, almost exclusively, moral, was his notion of
the kingdom of heaven. What he said was in his view
of the kingdom, a mere common-place, a veritable truism.
“I low hard is it for them that trust in uncertain riches,” who
make these their idols, “to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Surely this indicates that a moral condition of the soul was
an essential requisite, even to understanding the nature of
that kingdom. It is not impossible that this spiritual con
ception was the “ mystery ” concerning the kingdom, which
Jesus explained to his disciples so far as they were sus
ceptible to these explanations, but which he distinctly said
was, as yet, hidden from the eyes of the multitude, to whom
he must needs speak in parables. But the parables are them
selves full of this conception throughout. “So is the King
dom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should
spring and grow up he knoweth not how. For the earth
bringeth forth fruit of herself; first, the blade, then the ear,
afterwards the full corn in the ear.” Could any image be
devised, so pregnant with suggestiveness concerning the
spiritual nature of the kingdom of God as this ? There is
no miracle here, as there is no violence,—everything going
on according to the law of vital processes. So is it with the
kingdom of God. And the same truth is taught in the
parable of the leaven “ which a woman took and hid in
three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.” The
progress here is noiseless, is imperceptible to ordinary obser
vation, and it is also dependent upon a vital process. So
far then the idea taught by Jesus was, that the Jews were
perfectly right in looking forward to a time when righteous
ness should reign, and peace and love abound; but that it
was a superstition on their part to identify it with any poli
tical dominion, or to suppose that it would be established
to pamper their pride.
�Now throughout the Gospels there is no absolute con
tradiction to this mode of conceiving the kingdom of God.
But it must be allowed that there is another element in the
synoptical ideas concerning it, intruding here and there, and
causing no small perplexity to those who believe in the
literal infallibility of the Bible. There is a certain externalisin in the conception of the kingdom of Heaven, quite
inconsistent with this teaching, and excluding this spirituality
of thought which we have noticed in the parables just now
mentioned.
This externalism culminates in the 24th chapter of Mat
thew, where the final triumph of the kingdom of God is
described after the fashion of that passage in Daniel, where
one like unto the Son of Man comes in the clouds of Heaven,
and there is given unto him an everlasting dominion. Such
modes of conceiving of the kingdom may have grown out of
certain ideas of future judgment to which Jesus certainly
looked forward. We find, for instance, in the end of the
parable of the tares—“ Then shall the righteous shine forth
as the sun in the kingdom of my Father.” Such words as
these seem not very far from the portentous visions set
forth in the chapter just mentioned. At least, it would pro
bably appear so to the disciples; but the distance between
the brief and natural image on the one hand, and the apoc
alyptic pictures on the other, wTas too great to be traversed
by him who spoke that parable of the seed dropped uoiselessly into the ground and producing at length the harvest.
In the parable of the tares, the sun-like radiance of the
righteous, in the glory of their Father, is a mere incident of
the judgment which should condemn wickedness. In the
24th chapter of Matthew the fearful portents in heaven and
earth are the whole substance of the Gospel which is preached.
I cannot believe that the man who conceived the kingdom
of God as a moral and spiritual growth should also conceive
it as a universal revolution or cataclysm. I therefore cling
to the idea that Jesus sought as far as possible to spiritualize
the ideas of His countrymen, Though he bade them not
to say “ Lo, here ! or lo, there ! ” he sympathised with their
outlook to the future, their eager expectations of better
times. But he insisted that the germ of those better times
was to be found in themselves. It was goodness which
made all the difference between the kingdom of Heaven
�8
and the kingdom of Hell. “ The kingdom of Heaven is at
hand,” not because the sky is likely to fall, or the mountains
to be swallowed up in the great deep; but because new
aspects of truths are proclaimed, and new ideas are in the
world, pregnant with glorious hopes for the future. Yet
“ except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish ”—none of
you shall have part or lot in the glory which is to follow ;
“ for the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”
Is not there the lesson for us in the teaching of Jesus ?
We want better times, and there are many who cherish eager
expectations of their coming. We look forward to a time
when religion shall no longer be the symbol of division, but
the emblem and guarantee of universal charity. We look
forward to a time when our children shall cease to suppose
that God is pleased with that universal compromise between
Bible and beer, which seems to form the whole philosophy
of contemporary politics. We look forward to a time when
men will gladly spend on the education of their children, as
much, at least, as they lavish on the means for destroying
their fellow-creatures’ lives. W e seem to have waited a
weary time; and therefore, some cry to God “ Oh Lord, how
long ?” and some petition Parliament, and some harangue
the working classes. Alas, the power that is to hasten that
better time is neither in the thunder of the skies, nor in the
clatter of debate; but it lies wholly in that which makes a
higher standard of human good, whether in politics or in any
otheraspect of human life. It is character that makes the
difference; it is character whcih faces difficulties ; it is char
acter which contemns superstition. It is character which
determines our ideas of good. Therefore character is the
seed of the kingdom.
(2) Now let us glance at the conditions of heavenly
citizenship. Throughout the synoptical Gospels it seems to
be implied that the kingdom of Heaven shall be established
on the earth. True, in the trouble and persecution which
distressed and embarrassed the early followers of Christ the
scene of that kingdom was shifted to another world. But
we accept the idea of that kingdom as it existed in the
original simplicity of the Gospel. Jn this kingdom of
Heaven each individual man is not only an element, but a
type, of the whole. Those who have read any outlines of the
philosophy of the ancients, will remember that Pluto,
�9
speaking through, the lips of Socrates, and desiring to
expound the nature of justice, says, that it will be better to
take a whole realm or state, instead of an individual man
as an example; for the state may be regarded as an enlarged
diagram of the individual; and in the enlarged diagram all
parts are seen more clearly. So is it with the kingdom of
heaven. What it is universally, that also it is in the indivi
dual man. When the kingdom of heaven is fully established
on earth, the reign of righteousness, peace and joy will extend
over all, simply because it has undisputed sway in every breast.
We have been told, by a great scientific discoverer, that the
blue of the firmament above our heads is constituted of an in
finite number of infinitesimal particles, so inconceivably mi
nute that they can vibrate only in response to the swiftest
constituents in the ray of light. Thus each sends to our eyes
the blue beam alone; and each little particle in itself contains
the secret of the whole heavens, and is an epitome of all its
grandeur. So is it with the kingdom of God; or so shall it
be when it is established among men. Each man in himself
shall shew forth the grandeur and purity which constitute the
whole,
*
Well then, this kingdom of heaven which is to be realized
on earth, and shine in each individual man, is characterized
above all by the fulfilment of the law of God : “ 3 hink not
that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not
come to destroy but to fulfil.” Such words are most important
for our instruction ; because there is often a tendency to treat
religion as a mere matter of sentiment or emotion. Ike reli
gion of Jesus is obedience to law. It requires clearness of
view, persistency of purpose, the full control of our faculties,
which alone can enable us to shew loyal obedience to law.
“ Whosoever shall break the least of these commandments ”
(for you must bear in mind that the law of Moses was regarded
as not only venerable but authoritative)- “ 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.” He wished to intimate that during the
period of transition to a different dispensation, which there
are many hints that he foresaw, men must not loose their
hold upon the bands of law, but must remember that the reign
of God is a reign of law. His view of this divine law was
utterly opposed to the idea of force; for it was to regulate,
�10
not the actions only, but the affections and sympathies of the
heart as well. “ If ye had known what that meaneth, ‘ I will
have mercy and not sacrifice‘if your affections as well as
your garments and your ostentatious observances of religious
rites had been brought into obedience to the law of God, you
would have shewn love and charity to your brethren.’ ” So
when he cries “ come unto me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden,- and I will give you rest,” he but gives utter
ance to the longing that he felt, to make his own obedience
to the divine will the type and the centre of attraction that
should draw all men into the sacred peace enjoyed by his own
soul.
This obedience to divine law, as conceived by Christ, involves
nothing short of an inward perfection of heart. Therefore he
says, “ be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is
in Heaven is perfect; ” that is to say “ your obedience must
be rounded and complete, with an entire, unreserved surrender
to the will of God. It was to be shewn by consistency
between the outward and the inward man;—“ ye shall know
them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs
of thistles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit,
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” “ Either make
the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt
and his fruit corrupt.” In the kingdom of God the outward
and the inward ever correspond.
One thing above all others, this subjection of the heart and
feelings to the law of God involves; and that is unrestrained
self-sacrificing love to God and man. “ Thou shalt love the
Lord thy Godwithall thy heart and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets ” Every
thing was to be sub-ordinated to unreserved allegiance to this
supreme attraction. “ No man ” he said, “ can serve two
masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or
else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”
From this springs the doctrine of the cross; for no man
can yield himself implicitly, unreservedly, to the supreme
will of God, without meeting in the course of his service, many
a time of trial when his own will is in direct contrariety to
what he feels to be the will of God, and when the acceptance
of the dictates of the divine Spirit, instead of the impulses of
his own heart, means disappointment, means loss, means suf
�11
fering, means everything that is involved in that sacred
emblem “ the cross of Christ.” But if we so far enter into
the Kingdom of Heaven that the Will of God becomes our
supreme law, then we shall love God more than ourselves, and
set our duty to Him above our own pleasure.
“A bright and noble picture,” you say I “but how is it to
be realized amid the circumstances under which we live ? ”
Jesus taught also his own idea of the method in which the
kingdom of God was to be established; and if we show how it
is to be established in every heart, we picture the process by
which gradually it is to be spread over the world.
First of all the evil is to be recognised. There is to be no
blinking of facts, either in our own consciences, or in the
world around us. “ Repent,” seek a change of mind; not so
much a change of opinion, as of aim and tendency. The
necessity of this is not only declared in plain words, but it is
implied in the practice of Jesus, who everywhere especially
addressed himself to the lowly and the weak, vho were moved
even to tears by a sense of their own imperfection and the
glorious possibilities of a divine rule. But under the teach
ing of Jesus, this repentance was not what it too often is
according to the modem representation—of one type only.
Jn the case of open sinners, whose acts daringly defied divine
law and public sentiment, there was indeed a deep passion of
self-condemnation, and bitter self-reproach. Thus, the Prodi
gal Son is pictured as saying, “ Father, I have sinned against
heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called
thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants; ” and the
sinful woman is portrayed as bowing at the feet of Jesus,
grovelling in the dust, and washing with her tears the feet of
the Saviour.
But there are other types presented in the Gospels.
“ Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness,
for they shall be filled;” and in his encomium on such
characters as Zacchseus, and, we may add, Nathaniel, we see
that Jesus could recognize the blessedness of such yearnings
after a better life as are found in guileless souls, who have
never descended to the depths of iniquity to which others have
fallen.
Another type is seen in the case of certain heathen who
came to him and moved his sympathy by the artless simplicity
of their bearing. The centurion, for example, who pleaded
�12
with Jesus for his servant, and the Syro-Phoenician Woman
who besought him on behalf of her daughter, had not received,
so far as we know, the spiritual education which had been
accorded to the Jews. They were humble people who knew
nothing but the very first aspirations of the divine life;
but they shewed that they were susceptible to the influence of
better things, and therefore they had his hearty sympathy.
Again, repentance is to be followed by faith, the lowest
degree of which we may suppose to be that required for the
working of miracles; about which we shall say nothing now,
because the subject of miracles is to come before us in the
next Lecture. But the faith most spoken of in the synoptical
Gospels is the willinghood of heart which readily answers to
divine call of the better life proclaimed by Jesus. This kind
of faith is continually implied, even where the word itself is
not used. It is the sort of fruitful receptivity, in which hearing
leads straight to action. “ Not everyone that saith unto me
Lord, Lord,- shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he
that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” “ Who
soever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them I will liken
him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock.” Such
words describe very clearly the sort of faith that is needed for
moral improvement. It is an allegiance of the whole moral
nature, -that is, as we have said, of the voluntary energies
touched with a sense of responsibility. The same meaning is
also often clearly apparent where the word faith, or belief, is
used. Thus Jesus said to the rulers at Jerusalem, “John
came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him
not: but the publicans and harlots believed him : and ye,
when ye had seen it, repented not afterward that ye might be
lieve him.” Belief, or faith, here evidently signifies the sort
of hearing that leads to doing. It is the hunger and thirst
after righteousness, to which satisfaction is assured. It is the
allegiance of the soul to a moral power whose sway it has
begun to feel, and from which it confidently expects a prac
tical solution of the problems of life.
We shall perhaps understand it better if we look at its
opposite, which is sometimes reprobated by Jesus. “Ye are
like unto children sitting in the market-place, and calling
to their fellows and saying, ‘ we have piped unto you and ye
have not danced, we have mourned unto you and ye have
not lamented.’ ” There was nothing serious about them,
�13
no recognition of the greatness of the problem of life.
The same frivolity and want of seriousness is seen in the case
of those, who on hearing from the King an invitation to attend
the marriage supper, “ made light of it,” and went every
one to his business. The opposite of this inate frivolity,
the earnestness of spirit that burns for truth and right, is
the noblest type of faith which we find in the Gospels.
On the whole then there does not appear to be necessarily
involved in the process of conversion to the Kingdom of
God anything unnatural .or supernatural. We all of us
want a better world, and we must all anticipate it in
our own lives and characters. It is to be obtained, not
by imagination, or sentiment, or emotion, but by obedi
ence to the law of God. Happy he who, if need be,
ihrough the pangs and tears of penitence, with earnest
devotion and loyalty of soul, gives himself to its realization.
(3) Now in a few words let us look at the idea of
Jesus as the Messiah, so far as it is contained in the synop
tical Gospels. We have noticed that Jesus does not, so
far as we can see, seem to have wholly sympathised with
the apocalyptic views of Messiah’s office entertained by his
immediate predecessors. But the views set forth in these apoc
alyptic visions had here and there a reverse side. This is
notably set forth in Isaiah liii. A servant of God is pictured
who, through his zeal for the divine will, becomes a subject
of scorn and persecution to the prosperous wickedness of the
world. Several prophets, whose works are not contained in
the canon, afterwards describe this servant of God as the
Christ, living a life of sorrow and toil, labouring, suffering and
even dying in the service of God. Nay, within the limits of
the canon—in the book of Daniel—the Messiah, it is prophe
sied. shall be “ cut off, but not for himself.” Let us bear in
mind this reverse side of the image of the conquering h ing,
which is to be found here and there in the sacred writings of
antiquity.
Now, inthebeginning of the life and ministry of Jesus there
does seem to be an unwillingness on his part to take up the great
title and to claim to be the Messiah at all. We cannot treat the
subject exhaustively now; but you remember that he suf
fered not the demoniacs to speak because they knew him, and
cried out that he was the Son of God. It is noteworthy that
although three apostles are represented as accompanying him
�14
I
ql
$
)■
ti the Mount of Transfiguration, a strict injunction is laid upon
them not to speak of it “ until the Son of Man is risen from
the dead.” We seem to haye in these reminiscenses clear
hints of a certain unwillingness in Jesus to take upon himself
openly the title and offices of the Messiah. The subject is per
plexing and difficult; but I think it possible that, as Jesus reali
sed more and more of the opposition inevitably to be offered by
the world to his doctrine, he felt within himself an answer to the
typical experiences ascribed to the suffering servant of God
in the prophecies of Isaiah, and in the later visions. It is
possible, it may be even probable, that he in his great heart
comforted himself with the thought that by his poverty many
should be made rich; and that by his endurance to the end
many would be strengthened to triumph over every sin.
Refer to that interesting and suggestive chapter, the 11th
of St. Matthew, and you will there find the soul of Jesus
is bowed down by the disappointment he must have felt in
the uncertainty of John the Baptist concerning the work
he was to accomplish in the world. This leads him to
reflect upon his failure to reach the hearts of men; and
then he lifts up his eyes to heaven, and says “ I thank
thee, 0 Father, that thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”
he means that his mission is a lowly one; and he winds up
with the invitation to all who are labouring and are heavy
laden, to come to him to be his friends and followers, that
they may find rest.
Surely it is possible that this sense of a special bur
den imposed on him by human sin and sorrow might
lead him to believe that he was bound to give his life a
ransom for many. If so, we may say with some degree of
confidence, that there is no such doctrine of Atonement
contained in the Synoptical Gospels as is enshrined in the
Creeds of the .Churches. Yet a doctrine of Atonement
and of reconciliation between man and the divine nature there
certainly is; and it is intimately connected with the Sufferings
of Jesus both in his life and in his death. In the parable
of the Prodigal Son there is beautifully set forth what may
be called the generosity of the divine nature in its relations
to human sin. The poor Prodigal comes shrinking into him
self, with fearful and trembling steps, dreading the kind of
reception he may meet with, dreading the first sight of his
�15
father’s figure, lest he should be met with strict justice and
therefore with rejection. But when he was yet a great way
off the father saw him. And an impression is given to the
hearers, that before the son had caught sight of the father’s
form, the father had set out to meet him. He ran with eager
ness and “fell on his neck and kissed him.” Every one be
lieves that in this Jesus intended to typify the eagerness, the
readiness, the anxious willingness of the divine mercy. The
father had been robbed, wronged, and had spent days and
months of misery and anxiety about his sinning and wander
ing son ; yet all this is forgiven when the miserable aspect of
the son reveals the sufferings that the child of his heart had
brought upon himself.
Now it does appear to me that Jesus in his contemplations
of humanity felt himself to represent the Father’s love. For
he was one with the divine purpose, one with the divine idea.
A feeling, ever stronger and nearer to his heart than any
anger against sin, was a sense of the burden with which
human waywardness and perversity pressed upon divine
love in its effort to purify and ennoble mankind. This di
vine love reigned in his own heart; and in his consciousness
of that, he represented the universal Father to men. He
could not but know that it must ultimately triumph, that it
must at length touch, and soften, and regenerate by its pa
thos and purity even the very hardest.
From the tumult of passion rising within him at the
intolerable hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees at Jeru
salem, how swift was the transition of feeling to that out
burst of tears and pity with which he cried, “ Oh, Jeru
salem, Jerusalem, how often would 1 have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen doth gather her chickens
under wings, and ye would not!” The whole atonement,
the whole truth in it, is there—a compassionate meeting
of divine love with the human sin and perversity that has
wronged it. And it is this that the memory, apd the image,
and the spirit of Jesus embody to us. Still, you cannot go
from the better light before you without feeling that there
is something in the Universe that yearns over you, and
moves you to return. You cannot do any wrong without
injuring society, and so crucifying afresh the Son of God,
inasmuch as all humanity is embraced in the heart of God
*
If you are a father wronging a family by your vices, child
�16
hood is divine, and Christ pleads for its interests and rebukes
its wrongs. If you are a hard tyrannical husband, woman
hood is divine; and in the dealings of the Jews with the suf
fering Christ there is an emblem of your self-willed and
cruel deeds. If you are a selfish, grasping, unsympathetic
man of business, bent only upon greed and aggrandisement,
humanity is divine; and its bleeding wounds cry to heaven
against you and your indifference.
The first step towards entering that kingdom of heaven,
of which we have been speaking, is susceptibility to voices
such as these, as we hear them from the lips of Christ.
“ See then that ye refuse not him that speaketh; ”•—for,
the heart that is steeled against the sufferings caused by
its own sin is, we may well fear, past all possibility of
redemption.
Upfield Greex, Printer, Tenter Street, Moorgate Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
floury of Jlundaj)
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
V.
The Gospel Miracles.
In pursuance of the plan announced at the beginning of this
course of lectures, we have dealt first with those principles of
Christianity which address themselves to the heart, and may
safely be regarded as equaUy enduring with the moral nature
of man. But I have not concealed, and do not conceal from
myself, that the minds of my hearers have, probably, been
haunted by speculations as to what is to be said about other
and more perplexing questions, on which we have not hitherto
touched, lhe broad, even, shining path we have hitherto
traversed is bordered on either hand by junglesand quagmires
of theology, and legend, the dread and horror of many spiritual
travellers. Many, indeed, have been prevented from entering
upon this king’s highway of simplicity and truth, because of
�the clouds and mists generated by the doubtful region on
either side. But as even jungles and quagmires may be, and
have been, reclaimed by cultivation, so a courageous application
of common sense may possibly, will assuredly hereafter, make
both theology’and legend fruitful in a harvest of spiritual sug
gestions. It is to that task that we turn at the present mo
ment, with no expectation of any great achievements, but
forced by our own convictions to do the best we can towards
helping those who may have suffered from perplexities similar
to our own. Amongst the difficulties which, in modern times,
surround the religion of Jesus as it has come down to us, none
perhaps, is more crucial than that of miracles. Of no difficulty
is the solution more decisive of the position which a man is to
hold in the classification of religious opinion. In fact, obser
vation leads us to think that all sects are being gradually
swallowed up in two classes of thinkers, so far as religion is
concerned, naturalists on the one hand and supernaturalists on
the other. The distinction between these two sects is not
merely one of less or of more belief. It is one that goes abso
lutely down to the very basis of our conceptions concernin g
the world and God. So far as our intellectual theory of the
universe is concerned, there is more difference between the
man who believes in one single miracle, though he may reject
all others, and the man who accepts absolutely none whatever,
than between the first man, accepting only one miracle, and
an adherent of the Roman system with all its latest additions,
including the Vatican decrees.
You will see, therefore, that I do not for one moment con
ceal the greatness of the intellectual issue. Nor is there any
danger that that should be disguised from you. The real
danger, at the present moment, is lest the moral and spiritual
issue involved should be exaggerated. Against that danger I
have hitherto done as much as I possibly could to guard. I
have shown that all of Christ’s religion which commends it
self to the affections of the heart, and to the mystic suscepti
bilities of the spirit in contemplation of the works of God,
must remain to us after we have made all abstraction of points
which rest on doubtful evidence. Now the heart of Christ is
surely much more precious to us than any wonders of his
hands; and that remains to us when these are dissolved away
into the mists of antiquity. The difference between these two
sects, of which I have spoken, is not a spiritual difference. It
�affects the intellectual theory held by different classes of men,
and by no means the attitude of the heart towards the divine
side of present facts. No rationalism can possibly dwarf the
mystery of this universe in which we live. No analysis can
ever neutralize the enchantment with which it kindles rever
ence, awe, and aspiration. If, then, we were to classify men,
not by intellectual opinions, but by the feelings of the heart,
and by spiritual susceptibilities, we should assuredly find that
there are many naturalists in religious opinion, who are far
nearer akin to such men as St. Francis, and St. Augustine,
and St. Paul, than are many of the most fanatical upholders
of miracles. The issue is not between religion on the one
hand and no religion on the other. The issue is rather between
dogma and conviction.
A word or two on the meaning of these terms may be ne
cessary, in order to explain clearly the idea before my own
mind. By dogma is properly meant any opinion that •• seems
good to ” a sufficient authority. It is derived from— or ra
ther it is simply a Greek word transferred into our own lan
guage, signifying that which has been decreed, or which has
seemed good to a sufficient authority. Concerning most dog
mas, it is to be remarked, that the assertion by the authority is
the evidence on which it rests. It is at least unverifiable, even in
conception, by far the largest portion of mankind. Convic
tion, on the other hand, signifies an opinion, always carrying
some feeling with it, which is borne home to the mind and
heart by observation, by personal experience, or by sympathy
with the experience of mankind. Such an opinion, or the
feelings associated with it, can always be tried for ourselves,
and so verified, independently of the ruthority of others. In
the doctrine of the Trinity£ whether as stated in the Articles
of the Church of England, or in the Westminster Confession,
you have an instance of dogma. Whether it is to be regarded
as true or not, it is impossible for any man to verify it for
himself, and to know by experience that it is true. On the
other hand, the spiritual fruitfulness of humility, concerning
which Jesus has so much to say, and on which he so largely
insists, is a conviction borne home to our own hearts, whenso
ever we open our eyes or our spiritual susceptibilities, by ob
servation, by experience, by sympathy with our kind. Every
man can try it for himself. Again, the doctrine of the In
carnation. In the last result the assertion of a presumably suffi
�4
cient authority is its only evidence; and it is certainly inca
pable of verification. But the blessedness of disinterested devo
tion, as the highest attitude of life, comes to us with convic
tion, when we have marked the manifestations of it in the
example of others, whether living in the present day, or in
past times. It is verified when we have imagined it for our
selves by sympathy with others, and above all when we have
tried it in our own action upon the world around us.
Now the essence of the strength of dogma will almost al
ways be found to depend upon miracle. Trace the evidence
sufficiently far, and you will always find it ultimately to rest
upon the assertion that it must be so, because certain portents
Were wrought in support of the doctrine declared. If then
miracle should dissapear from men’s sincere belief, dogma
must, however, slowly and gradually, sooner or later disap
pear with it; and we must learn to be content with such
convictions of the mind and heart as are verifiable by human
experience at the present day.
I shall not waste your time and my own by any attempt
to define miracle ; because it is not necessary for our present
purpose. Suffice it that certain events are related in the
Gospels, which are allowed to be contrary to all our daily
experience. It is alleged that thousands of men were fed
with a few loaves and small fishes, that would not have suf
ficed as a meal for more than six or a dozen. It is alleged
that people, from whom the vital spark had entirely fled,
were called back to life; nay, in one instance that a man
who had lain four days in the grave, and in whose body the
process of decomposition must have made considerable pro
gress, was, by a word of authority, summoned back once
more to this earthly scene. It is alleged that by a touch, or
by a word, the eyes of the blind have been opened ; still
farther, that veritable demons have taken possession of the
bodies of men, and have been expelled by the charm of a
spiritual authority. Such are but a few instances of the
marvels that crowd the pages of the Gospels. That there
are difficulties involved in such allegations, no one for a
moment disputes. If we take, for instance, the miracle in
which five thousand were fed by a few loaves and fishes, we
find that the paradoxes involved in it are almost beyond
computation, as well as imagination. Bread is the result of
a certain process of vegetable growth, followed by one of
�artificial manufacture. The same thing, the terms being
changed, may be asserted concerning the flesh of fishes. It
is the result of a certain process of animal growth ; and when
presented for food in a cooked form, is also the result of
a certain process of artificial preparation. In the endeavour
then to conceive, as a real transaction, what is alleged to
have taken place on that occasion, we find that three sup
positions only are possible. Either bread and fish were
created at nnce, in a cooked form, out of nothing; or secondly,
chemical elements were brought together from the surround
ing scene, and in an instant of time transformed into the
shape which usually requires months, if not a year, for its
accomplishment; or thirdly, we should be driven to conclude
that, the miracle consisted in producing upon the people the
impression that they had eaten a sufficient meal, and in dis
pelling their feeling of hunger, when the whole transaction
was an illusion.
Now whichever supposition a man takes—and one of these
must be taken—he finds that it does not at all fit into any
corner of his mind. He feels as though he were struggling
in a dream, with chimeras which set all sense and calculation
at defiance. There can then be only one reason for receiv
ing such a wonder as this, namely that it is proved, demon
strably proved, with a strength of evidence adequate to the
enormous burden that has to be sustained To that question
of proof then we at once proceed, and you will see that this
justifies me in leaving on one side the definition of miracle.
In practical life, the value assigned to testimony or evi
dence, is always determined by two factors. One of these
is the character of the evidence itself, specially its directness,
and the trustworthiness of the channel through which it
comes; while the other factor (too often forgotton) is the
experience and the mental condition of the recipient. If the
subject coucerning which testimony is given, is one that
naturally adapts itself to the experience and the mental con
dition of the person addressed, very little trouble is usually
taken to enquire into the other factor, the directness and the
trustworthiness of the evidence. Thus, for instance, you
may have been seated, at some time in the course of a journey,
on the box of a coach, and have been whiling away the time
in conversation with the driver. ♦ See that house Sir?” he
*
says, pointing over his shoulder at a mansion on the hill side,
�6
standing in the midst of an extensive estate. “ Yes,” you
say. “ Well Sir,” he goes on, “the owner of that mansion
twenty years ago, was a boy in our stable yard. Be set up
a coal yard on a very small scale, with a little money that he
had saved; and being a sober, industrious, prudent man, he
continued saving. He then bought a share in a coal mine.
He bought his share at a very fortunate moment; for just
then the price of coals suddenly rose, doubled in fact, and his
fortune was at once made. So rapidly did his wealth increase,
that he is now the owner of a third of the whole county.”
You scarcely thought at such a time of enquiring into the
evidence. The fact that the story was told you by a man
coming from the very stable-yard where this rich landed
proprietor was stated to have worked some twenty years
ago, perhaps prevented you from asking any farther ques
tions. But the circumstances are by no means unprece
dented ; they are not even in these days extraordinary. They
fit themselves to your experience, and to your knowledge of
the world. Therefore you accept the tale without any
farther enquiry; and if in the course of a month or two
afterwards, you are driving in company with a friend along
the same road, you repeat to him the story, as on your own
authority, without feeling the necessity of giving any evi
dence for it. And similarly he being accustomed to such
things, will receive it because you tell him so.
A little farther on, however, the same coachman says
again : “ See that house Sir ? A very curious circumstance
has taken place at that house several times. It is an old
family that lives there, and whenever the master of that
house brings home his bride, the ghost of a white lady
parades the passages, goes up the stairs, enters the bridal
chamber, and then disappears. If you will believe me, Sir,
I have seen it myself. For I was serving with the family
at the very time when the present master was married. And
at midnight, we were all of us on the look out, and there
I saw as plain as I can see you, the white lady coming along
the passage, and going up the stairs.” Well, when you
hear such a story as this, you smile. If you can avoid doing
it outwardly, you keep your smile to yourself; but you are
not in the least convinced. All your experience is against
the reality of such an occurrence as this; while the same
experience enables you to suggest many ways in which the
�7
impression might be made upon susceptible people. But if
a superstitious uneducated labourer be sitting by the coach
man at the same time, he takes it as simply and frankly as
you took the story concerning the landed proprietor, who
had risen from being a stable-boy to being the richest per
son in the county. He is used to believe in such things.
From his childhood such stories have been told to him by
his companions, and by his friends; and the coachman’s
own personal testimony is amply sufficient for him. He
goes his way and tells it among his boon companions at the
public-house bar, or amongst his fellow-labourers on the
harvest field. And they scarcely think of doubting it. The
very love of marvel confirms their belief, and they go on
circulating the story from one to another, so that it survives
from age to age. This is the way in which, what is called
by the Germans, Sage ”—and we have no English word
which gives the meaning so well—or, to use the Latin term,
it is the way in which legend arises. It is rarely to be traced
to any personal source. In the present instance the coachman
whom I am supposed to be quoting, was not himself the ori
ginator of the story ; for it existed in previous generations.
It grows up we know not how. It is in the air, or it is in
the constitution of a race. And it is always alleged with a
confidence which seems to require no evidence whatever.
Have you ever noticed the way in which children will re
late to each other the most extraordinary marvels, without
the slightest appearance of doubt, or any suspicion that evi
dence is required ? If you can go back to a sufficiently
remote period in your own childhood or infancy, you must
remember how you have told things to your younger brothers
and sisters, for belief in which you had not the slightest
trace of reason, but which nevertheless you did believe as
firmly as you now believe in the multiplication table. At
such an age no evidence is required. The very fact that,
by any means whatever, a strong impression has been made
upon the imagination, is sufficient to induce belief. Now
be it remembered, that as the embryo of any living creature
is said, and apparently with considerable truth, by physi
ologists, to pass through all the stages of development which
have in by-gone generations preceded the attainments of the
present form of the species, so the mind, in the course of its
education, passes through all the early stages to which we
�8
can hardly look back now by means of history or tradition,
and presents all the phenomena that used to be manifested
by adults in those days. Just as little children now, of a
highly educated race, will tell to each other without the
slightest, suspicion of any uncertainty, the most marvellous
tales, because by some unknown means a strong impression
has been made upon their imagination, so in remote times and
even now, amongst simple uneducated people, equally mar
vellous stories are related with a corresponding lack of any
foundation.
But now let me ask, why do you disbelieve the coachman
who tells you this ghost story on his own testimony ? Do
you doubt his word ? No; it may be you are sufficiently ac
quainted with him to be assured that he is a thoroughly
honest man, and that he has a character for truth
fulness amongst all his acquaintance.
But you dis
believe him because, in your own experience, you know
that frightened and ignorant people are exceedingly apt to
be deceived about ghosts. You know that they may mistake
the play of a flickering moonbeam on the wall, for a white
figure advancing towards them. You know that any piece of
drapery left in an unaccustomed place, and fluttering in the
draught at midnight, would make an impression that no argu
ment could possibly destroy. You feel that it is far more
probable that the experience should have been caused in such
ways than that the ghost should have been an actual, an ob
jective thing.
The extent to which this principle is to be carried, no doubt
sometimes excites serious questions as to the justice of its ap
plication. All we do now, however, is to note that such is a
principle commonly applied when we have to deal with stories
of the marvellous, related on the very best attainable evi
dence. I dare say that most of this congregation have read
some years ago, in common with myself, a statement made on
the personal authority of a respectable nobleman, that he had
seen a certain spiritualist float out of a window in the room
where this nobleman stood, go through the air, and enter
again at another window into the same, or into another room.
The story excited a good deal of attention at the time. But
how many people believed it ? I dare say not half-a-dozen in
this present assembly. And why not? Because you are
aware that? however honest and thoroughly truthful people
�9
may be, all are liable to some fallacies of perception and of
memory ; and that sometimes these fallacies take an altogether
abnormal shape, which it is impossible to predict. In Dr.
Carpenter’s " Mental Physiology ” you may read for your
selves a number of illustrations of these fallacies, which are
given with the names of the authorities, most of them of high
repute, on which they rest. I have spoken of fallacies of per
ception. Dr. Tuke, quoted by Dr. Carpenter, in his " Mental
Physiology,” relates that within his own personal knowledge,
a lady interested in the establishment of drinking fountains
for the multitude, was, on one occasion, on a visit with some
benevolent friends at a distance from her own home. In walk
ing along the road near to this house, she noticed what she
took to be a drinking fountain, erected in admirable taste,
upon which she distinctly read the inscription—“ If any man
thirst let him come unto me and drink.” Re-entering the
house amongst her friends, and believing that to them, as the
benevolent people of the neighbourhood, this public benefit
must be traced, she congratulated them upon the admirable
taste in which this fountain had been erected They opened
their eyes in astonishment. They had never heard of any
such drinking fountain; and they assured her upon their per
sonal knowledge, that there was nothing of the kind in the
neighbourhood. She, believing of course, as we all do, in rhe
own senses, insisted that she must be right. The scene was
re-visited, and no cause for the illusion could be discovered,
except a few scattered stones in the part of the road at which
she had seen this strange vision.
Another, Dr. Hibbert relates (also quoted in Dr. Carpenter’s
“ Mental Physiology,”) that on board a certain ship, the cook
died of disease, and his body, as is usual, was buried in the sea.
The man was lame, and always walked with a peculiar halting
gait, so that his figure could scarcely be mistaken when once
one had become acquainted with it. On a certain day, the
man on the look-out cried out in horror that there the figure
of the cook, walking with precisely his well-known lame gait,
was to be seen pacing the waters of the sea, at some distance
from the vessel. One after another came to observe; and all
of them, the whole ship’s company together, were convinced
that they saw before them the wraith, or corpse, or ghost, of
their deceased companion. Yet when the ship was steered
towards it, it was found to be simply a piece of floating wreck
that had deceived their vision,
�10
Such fallacies of perception are often greatly heightened
by fallacies of memory. Miss Cobbe (also quoted by Dr. Car
penter), relates, that on one occasion, when discussing with a
friend the subject of table-turning and spiritualistic phenom
ena, her friend asserted that in her own experience, a table
had rapped intelligibly to the hearers, when no one was within
a yard of it, so that it was beyond the touch of any of the com
pany. Miss Cobbe doubting it, asked how long ago this ex
perience might be. Well, it was nine years ago, but it was as
fresh in the friend’s memory as though it had occurred the
other day. The friend was asked, had she made any note at
the time ? Oh, yes, she had. And referring to her notes she
found the memorandum to be, that the table had rapped when
the hands of six persons rested upon it. Yet there was not
the slightest intention on her part to deceive. The experience
had simply become distorted in her memory, in the lapse of
seven years. And every one can recall how difficult it is to
reproduce exactly what took place some five or six, much more
what took place some ten or fifteen years ago. Nay, how
very hard it is to separate the events of one particular day, or
even year, from another! They will come back in groups,
strung together in a perplexity that ve find it difficult to
resolve. Those who have travelled rapidly through any new
country, will be aware how continually a church belonging to
one town, is by the imagination erected in another; how a
circumstance which took place in one locality is by the memory
referred to another. In fact, when anything of consequence
is depending upon our memory, we have to use the utmost
effort by recalling past associations, by looking up old letters,
and memoranda, and diaries, to correct the mis-impressions
that have grown into our minds by the lapse of time.
Another instance of the same kind may be mentioned here.
At the time when the late Miss Martineau was taking very
mnch interest in the phenomena of Mesmerism, she had a
young female dependant, who was very susceptible to the mes
meric influence, and under it used to show some very strange
phenomena. It was alleged currently amongst the friends of
Miss Martineau, that this young woman was capable, in the
mesmeric trance, of conversing in foreign tongues which
she had never learned, with those who were capable of
speaking them. Dr. Noble, who relates the incident, ventured
to doubt whether it really were so. “ Oh,” he was assured,
�11
“ there can be no doubt whatever of the matter; Lord Mor
peth himself bears testimony to it; he has conversed in foreign
languages with her, and she has answered him with apparent
ease.” Not quite satisfied, Dr. Noble took the opportunity
of mentioning the matter to a relative of Miss Martineau’s.
He said in reply that the story was not quite accurately re
lated. It was true that the young woman seemed to under
stand Lord Morpeth, when he spake to her in foreign tongues,
and that she answered him in the vernacular—in English
Meeting Lord Morpeth some time afterwards, Doctor Noble
asked whether this version of the story was literally correct.
“Why, no,” said his lordship, “not exactly. It is true I
did address her in foreign languages, and she answered in a sort
of inarticulate jargon which I took to be an imitation of the
sounds which I was uttering.” And so, by careful enquiry
the whole fallacy was discovered. But amongst those who
narrated it, on what they considered good authority, there
was no intention to deceive. Their memories had simply got
a misimpression through lapse of time, and they consequently
related the incident in a different form from that in which
they had received it.
Such experiences as these then, of the fallacies to which
both perception and memory are liable, justify us in sus
pending our judgment when anything strikingly contrary to
experience is related, and sometimes justify us in an entire
refusal to believe unless we are afforded an opportunity of per
sonal verification. Some cases occur in which you can however
scarcely impute a fallacy of perception or a fallacy of memory,
and yet you are unable to draw the inferences from the
occurence which those who narrate it would have you draw.
Not very long ago, a remarkable circumstance was related
by the Twnes’ correspondent, dating from the city of Brussels,
where, in emulation of the various sacred shrines, which have
sprung up in all parts of the Continent—illustrative of the
facility with which miraculous stories grow—a cave had been
found in a garden in the suburbs which it was alleged
the Virgin Mary was in the habit of haunting. Within this
cave there was a well or fountain to which the presence of
the Virgin, it was asserted, communicated miraculous powers.
In Brussels, at the time, there was a lady, the wife of a
well-known physician. The Times correspondent would
*
not give the name, because he said it was so well known
throughout the city, but the case he asserted was notorious
�12
to all. A lady, the wife of a certain physician, was afflicted
with a disease of the eyes, that threatened entirely to destroy
her sight. Her husband and the members of his profession
whom he consulted, could give her no relief; and it seemed
as if nothing but blindness was before her. Failing all
other means of restoration, and when she had all but, if not
entirely, lost the use of her eyes, she drove out to this
enchanted grotto in company with a female friend. They
prayed and performed their devotions in the grotto for nearly
an hour, without any result being obtained. At length the
coachman began to remonstrate, as he was impatient to re
turn. In despair the lady dipped her handkerchief in the
sacred water and re-entered her carriage. Wiping her eyes
with the dipped handkerchief, as she journeyed back, she
seemed to perceive a sudden brightness of sight, and this
grew upon her, so that by the time she reached home she
could see as well as ever. That very night a thanksgiving
service was performed on account of the miraculous cure, in
the church she attended. Farther, the next day a more
public service was celebrated to commemorate the re
covery, and you may be sure that the event lacked
nothing for want of reiteration and circulation. Who
thinks, now, of concluding from this that the story is
true—that the Virgin Mary did haunt the grotto, and
that the water possessed the miraculous power ? "Xou are
completely baffled, you have no explanation to offer. Ail
you say is, 1 will not accept the narration, I will not believe
in the virtue asserted to have been communicated to the
water by the Virgin Mary.
I have so far purposely dealt with incidents narrated in
our own generation, alleged on the testimony for the most
part of people now living. But it is necessary for a moment
to go back to the days of antiquity. I read for instance in
the work of Irenasus in refutation of all heresies, that
the heretics were convicted of falsehood by their inability
to work miracles. “ As for us,” he says “ it is notorious, it
is a common experience, that Devils are cast out, confessing
a,s they come out, the power that is exerted. The sick are
continually healed, the dead have been raised by the united
reiterated prayers of the Church, and they have continued
with us many years from the time of their resurrection.”®
* The translation here is not literal.
but it is substantially correct.
It was given freely from memory,
�13
This was written about the year 190 after Christ, and he
testifies it on his own experience. According to Eusebius,
Papias living in the early part of the second century, also
alleges that a dead man was raised in his own time, and it ap
pears to be implied, within circumstances pf his own know
ledge. Augustine, whose mind appears in many of its attri
butes above that of most of mankind, himself says that in the
town of Milan, where he was then residing, at the time of
his baptism, a revelation was made of the place where two
martyrs, St. Anastasius and St. Gervasius were buried.
St. Ambrose, who was then the Archbishop of Milan, had
these bodies raised up from the earth, and they were carried
amidst the acclamation of multitudes to the Cathedral Church.
A certain man who was entirely blind, hearing the outcry,
asked what it meant. He was told that the bodies of St.
Anastasius, and St. Gervasius, were being carried to the
Cathedral Church. Obtaining some one to lead him, the
blind man made his way to the church, obtained admission
to the shrine where the bodies lay, had his hand guided to
the face-cloth of one of the sacred corpses, and applied it to
his eyes. Thereupon, says Augustine, he received his sight.
And the circumstance was known to the whole city, and
excited their joy to a passion of gratitude. This is related
of a city in which he was living, and of the very time that
was likely to be most profoundly impressed upon him, be
cause of the spiritual experiences through which he had
passed, and the great step in life he had taken.
You will ask me, perhaps, what is the application of all
these illustrations ? Well now, I should be wrong both to
myself and to you, if I were to attempt to give that applica
tion this evening. The time is too far advanced. I have
felt it necessary to go into some amount of detail; and on the
whole, I believe that my duty both to the subject and to you,
will necessitate my delaying the completion of this lecture to
next Sunday evening. It is a most important subject, having
a vital bearing, not as I have already said, upon our spiritual
life, but upon our intellectual theory of the universe, and upon
the harmony of our spiritual life with facts as God reveals
them to us at the present day. I dare not, therefore, run the
riskofmisleadingyou,orof causing any misimpression through
the abbreviation to which I must necessarily submit my argu
ment if I endeavoured to carry it out at the present moment.
So far as I have at present gone, I have tried to show you
�14
that there are some assertions in sacred history, which do
not commend themselves to our experience of life. There
can only be one reason for believing the allegations made,
and this is, that the proof is demonstrative, having a force
of evidence able to bear the enormous weight that it is to
carry. I. have shown to you that, in dealing with evidence,
we always have to consider two factors, first, the nature of
the evidence itself, its directness and its trustworthiness, and
secondly the mental experience, and knowledge, and suscep
tibilities of the persons to whom that evidence is addressed.
I have then shown to you that in many cases where the
event commends itself to personal experience, it is accepted
without any strong evidence whatever. I have shown that
the experience of many people, especially of children and
child-like minds, adapts itself readily to marvels which are
entirely repulsive to us. I have shown that in endeavouring
to estimate the value of evidence alleged on behalf of any
particular events, we have to make great allowances for
fallacies of perception and memory. I have given many in
stances in which, owing to such fallacies, people have been
led to believe what has turned out to be utterly false. I
have shown that this is continually occurring in our own
day, and I have mentioned some similar instances—hun
dreds of which might be added—which took place in centu
ries gone by. It will remain for us, next Sunday evening,
to show how and to what extent, this argument is necessarily
applicable to the wonders that are contained in the Gospel
story.
Upfiekd Green, Printer, Tenter Street, Moorgate Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
floury of J^undag
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
VI.
lhe Gospel Miracles.
The division of the present lecture into two parts, has,
at any rate, this advantage; that it will enable us to give a
somewhat fuller treatment to the subject than had been
intended. It will be necessary for me, however in the first
place, very briefly to remind you of the course of thought
which was pursued last Sunday evening.
We showed then that the value of evidence depends upon
two factors; the first of these being its own directness andtrustworthiness; while the second consists in the mental
condition, experience, and predispositions of the person to
whom the evidence appeals. We showed that where any state
ment is made in accordance with our own.ordinary ex
perience, or expectations, we rarely think—unless the matter
�r/T
S'
2
is of very great and vital importance—of enquiring into the
precise worth of the evidence on which the assertion rests.
But on rhe other hand, where the allegation made is contrary
to our own experience, or our predisposition to certain mo les
of thought, more and more evidence is required in proportion
to the degree of opposition existing, until at length, in many
cases, nothing whaiever would induce belief, excepting the
opportunity of personal verification for ourselves. U e showed
that on such principles, we do as a matter of fact proceed in
all rhe ordin try transactions of life, and in the formation of
<>ur general opinions We showed, (and gave il u^trations in
detail which of course we cannot now repeat) that we are
justified in taking this course, by many fallacies both of per
ception and memory, to which average minds are subject.
You will thus see, that the case here maintained, is not
that miracles are impossible ; but that in ordinary practical
life, the most direct and apparently trustworthy evidence is
not allowed to shake our faith in the uniformity of the laws
which govern the universe. Here then, in setting out afresh,
it occurs to me to notice two objections which we should not
have been able to handle had we completed the subject last
Sunday evening. It may be said that the argument, so far
as hitherto pursued, would require that we should absolutely
never believe in anything which is alleged in contrariety to
our own experience. And we might be reminded of the wellkDown story of the Indian prince, who would believe any
number of purposely invented fables concerning the civiliza
tion of western lands, but who, when told that at certain
periods of the year, water could be carried ab^ut in a solid
form, positively refused to listen any further, on the ground
that he was evidently being duped. Here it may be said is
a case in which a man would not believe, because something
was alleged in contrariety to his own ordinary experience,
and it is a case in which he was clearly deceived in his
dependence upon that experience. Now on this I would
observe that the contrariety to the experience of the Indian
prince was only apparent, and not real. There was an
apparent opposition, but there was no real inconsistency with
his experience of the laws that govern the world around him.
For had he reflected, he would have discovered many in
stances of different objects that exist now in a liquid, and
now in a solid form. He might have observed that wax,
�3
when exposed to the heat of a candle, speedily becomes
liquid; and when the former temperature is restored, comes
back to the solid form again.
So many instances of this
kind might he have observed, even in his own climate, that
if he had sufficient intelligence, he might have seen some
hint in these illustrations of a general law, going to show
that the difference between a liquid and a solid form of any
particular object does very frequently depend upon tem
perature. It might then have occurred to him that in lands
where a greater variety of temperature was found than in
his own country, a larger number of objects would be sus
ceptible of these two forms than in the region to which he
was accustomed.
Thus in that case, although there was an
apparent opposition to his ordinary experience of water, there
was absolutely no inconsistency with the constant
experience he and his fathers had had of the uniformity of
the laws of nature. This is always found to be the case with
alleged exceptions to this grand uniformity, that pervades the
government of the world. The untutored savages, who first
meet with the wonders of civilization, see and hear in the
rifle, in its flash, in its report, and in its death-dealing force,
a miracle, equal, in its suggestions of divine power, to the
lightning and the thunder of the heavens. But a very little
education enables them to see that here is only a special
instance of exceedingly rapid combustion—lower degrees of
which they must have known even in their own uncivilized
arts.
So again, if an ignorant countryman is told, that by
looking through a little tube an astronomer is able to judge
what chemical substances may be found in Sirius, or even in
one of the far more distant nebulae, it seems to him like a
case of necromancy. But a little education will teach him,
that various objects in combustion produce different kinds of
light; and that these different kinds of light produce various
lines upon the spectrum, which may be illustrated to him by
every rainbow that spans the heaven. And when he has
been taught this much, he will bring the novel experience
within the order to which he has been accustomed in past
times.
There is therefore nothing in our arguments which would
lead us to deny, as impossible, everything that is apparently
opposed to our own experience. It would only lead us to
require as direct and trustworthy testimony as possible to
�4
anything which seems an exception to the laws of nature, as
we have understood them in the light of previous science.
And our argument, so far, would go to suggest that in the
case of any such apparent exceptions being really proved,
farther light upon the subject will enable us to see how they
fall under some still more general law than any we have
known before, or some modified interpretation of laws that
have been already understood.
Another objection to the line of argument hitherto pursued,
is to be found in certain most profound and interesting
lectures delivered by the Rev. Canon Mozley on the subject
of Christian Miracles. In the course of his argument he
*
enquires what is the principle on which our belief in the uni
formity of nature rests. He finds that the only proof that
can be given is constant observation. But he replies, and it
seems to me with very considerable acumen and force, that
observation can only apply to past time, and can afford no
certainty whatever as to the future. At any rate, you
cannot found upon observation of past times any proof
demonstrative of uniformity in the time to come. He acknow
ledges that if a certain phenomenon is seen to recur under
the same conditions a hundred times, a presumption is ex
cited that it will occur again. But if asked why this pre
sumption should be excited, he alleges that the only answer
to be given is that we are so constituted that we cannot avoid
entertaining it; whereas, no logical syllogism can be set
forth which will bear the weight of the proposition involved.
I he proposition is this : that if a physical phenomenon hap
pens a considerable number of times under the same apparent
conditions, we may be sure that this, and nothing else, will
always happen under those conditions. Any attempt to prove
this always sets out by assuming the fundamental uniformity
of nature, which, in the argument, is just *he point at issue.0
t
I think that it is impossible to reply to this argumentasregards
future time, except on the ground which I shall mention.
But farther, if it is impossible to apply, with any logical
demonstrative force, the observations made in past time, to
the probabilities, or at any rate to the certainties of future
time, so also it is impossible to say that any uniform results
* Bampton Lecture, 1865.
* I may be permitted to refer to my fuller discussion of this subject in “ the
Mystery of Matter.” p. 149. Macmillan &Co. 1873.
�5
derived from observation can certainly, and always, and in
fallibly, bind our conjectures as to any regions, or any times,
over which our observation has not been extended. The fact
that you cannot construct a syllogism which will bear the
presumption that because a thing has happened half-a-dozen
times it will therefore happen the seventh clearly implies,
Canon Mozley argues, that you can never obtain any absolute
certainty as to what goes on in unknown times or places. He
grants that conduct is necessarily governed, to a large
extent, by observations of what has taken place in past
times.
He holds that we are so constituted as to argue
the future from the past, in order that we may conform our
selves to the general laws by which the world is governed.
But he insists that it is impossible on such grounds to obtain
any logical proof, that miracles are impossible, or have never
happened.
I most cordially agree with him. I have never argued
that miracles are impossible; nor am I going to say now that
in no possible instance did anything of the kind ever occur.
My ground is, as you may already have gathered, somewhat
different from that. I hold with Canon Mozley, that it is im
possible logically to prove that because a thing has happened
a hundred, or a thousand, or a million times, it will necessarily
happen the time after, under the same conditions.
But I
say, as he does, we are so constituted that a presumption of
the kind is necessarily excited in our minds. And if we may
for a moment indulge in a teleological argument, it would
appear that we are so constituted, in order that we may live
and work in harmony with the constitution of the world
around us. Very well, then, I say, our assurance that the
sun will rise to-morrow morning is a case of loyalty to our
own constitution, and to the constitution of the universe
around us.
Here we find ourselves constituted so that a
certain presumption arises in our minds whenever we observe
a phenomenon to take place repeatedly without any excep
tion under the same conditions. I should think that we
were doing dishonor to the mysterious Power who so con
stituted us, if we did not. practically act on the suggestions
of such a presumption.
But loyalty to rhe constitution of
the universe is to my thinking an act of faith, just the
religious virtue which i< most insisted upon bv < hri-tian
teachers
So the ■ it <• m - * thi
o
I,
'
�6
uniformity of the laws of the world is a matter of faith. On
the other hand, if we are required to believe that, in any
instance, these laws of the universe have been suspended, or
have been overridden, we must have such proof demon
strative as will absolutely require us to act contrary to
what is apparently a fundamental law of our own being—to
be, to all appearance, disloyal to our faith in the constitution
of the universe, out of a still more binding loyalty to the com
mands of manifest, demonstrable, clearly proved truth.
But the view generally taken as to miracles is very
different from this. It is alleged that they are to be received
with faith. Not so however, according to Canon Mozley’s
argument, nor according to the most reasonable views of the
universe. It is the Divine order of the universe, that is the
object of faith, exceptions to which, (if such there are) must
be proved as clearly as any proposition in Euclid, before we
can be fairly called upon so far to do violence to our mental
constitution as to accept them.
This is the principle, we repeat, on which you act in
dealing with every allegation that is made concerning the
wonders of spiritualism, or concerning the miraculous powers
said to have been exercised during the middle ages, or
during the earlier ages of the Church. But if so, how is it
possible for you, when
you arrive at the first
century of the Christian era, suddenly to change your
mental attitude, and deal with the wonders alleged of that
time on wholly different, nay, on absolutely contrary
principles? It may be said that the stories recorded of
that golden time are worthier, more beautiful, instinct with
nobler moral motives, than the fables related by the
spiritualists, or by monks of the middle ages.
Granted.
This only shows, however, that they originated amongst a
people actuated by finer, purer, higher, moral feelings. It
does not, and cannot in the least prove, that they are stated
with more of historical accuracy; unless the evidence on
which they who originated them relied, can be produced, and
will stand the test of modern examination.. Will you plead
the sacredness of the ground upon which we have entered,
and demand the reverence that is due to the manifestations •
of the Divine Presence ? Such a plea we should be ex
ceedingly loth to reject; and it will certainly encounter no
want of sympathy on our part. But such a plea appears to
�7
us to raise far different suggestions from those that seem to
be implied. If the ground is sacred; if the age to which we
look back is m)re instinct than others with divine in
spirations; then there is all the more reason for sincerity and
truth on our part, in dealing with its traditions. . Never can
falsehood adorn the shrine of the Most High. Never can
insincerity, inconsistency, or double-dealing with ourselves,
fit us the better for worship and aspiration. Here, above
all, we must be true, if we would breathe the air of Heaven.
Here, above all, we must cleanse that mystic eye, of which
the Lord speaks in the Gospel, from all the dust and foulness
of wordly expediency and selfish cunning ; for says he,—
“ If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness! ”
Coining then to the stories that are told of that age, and
dealing with them on the same logical principles, or principles
of historical evidence, that are constantly applied to all other
cases of the kind, I. think, if we deal candidly with ourselves,
we shall be compelled to acknowledge, that it is impossible
to mention one of the sources of confusion and fallacy
noticed in the course of last Sunday evening’s lecture, which
is not present in the stories of the Gospels or the Acts. The
testimony given to us, with a certain exception or exceptions,
presently to be noticed, is not direct, scarcely even
professedly direct, and with one or two trivial exceptions, it
is impossible to trace that testimony to its exact personal
source. At the end of the 4th Gospel we are told, in a
supplementary chapter, and not. in the main body of rhe work,
that the narrative is the testimony of one of the Apostles of
the L<>rd, who attended upon him during his earthly
ministry. But the difficulty of believing that the vague
assertion in that later addition to the 4th Gospel is strictly
and literally true, is overwhelming.
And if it be once
admitted that another hand, however closely connected with
the authority of John, has been employ ed in writing the
Gospel, the directness of the testimony disappears at once.
You would scarcely decide an ordinary case in a criminal
trial upon indirect testimony. As you know, lawyers always
shrink irom it; and will only allow it even in extreme cases,
when it can be supported or corroborated in a variety of
other indirect methods.
Butin such a case as this there
tyould be no corroboration possible, still less, any verification
�8
on our own part. And if you consider the stupendous weight
of the assertions in the Gospel to be sustained, you must feel
that when once the directness, the clear and certainly proved
directness of the testimony is gone, all possibility of attach
ing any overwhelming weight to it disappears likewise. Nay
even if,—what is impossible,—it were to be maintained that
this 4th Gospel is the handwriting of John, yet it is admitted
on all hands that he could not possibly have written it till
towards the extreme end of the 1st century, when he would
be a man of some 90 to 95. years of age.
Such a man,
writing sixty years after the events, would scarcely be taken
as a sufficient witness to allegations that go contrary to the
whole experience of mankind. I have myself, as I have
repeatedly urged, no sympathy with those German critics
who make the synoptical Gospels to be a creation of the 2nd
century. I firmly believe that, in an oral form, they arose as
a cycle of narrative or anecdote familiar to the Church, during
the twenty or thirty years after the departure of Jesus from
the world. But it is impossible to call such narratives as
these, personal testimony. If you will remember, we showed
in the first of this series of lectures how they gradually grew
up by repetition from mouth to mouth amongst the various
Churches. AVe showed that they were wholly impersonal in
their character, a trait which, it may be observed in passing,
they share with all the most sacred parts of the sacred
Scriptures of the world. It seems as though, in deal
ing with the mysteries of religion, men do not care
much for personal testimony. They value rather the im
personal utterance of the heart of a whole generation, or
of the heart of a race. And in proof of such impersonal utter
ance, the reality of convictions and feelings, is most
valuable. But in evidence of any events alleged to have taken
place at definite times in certain particular places, 1 need
scarcely say that impersonal testimony of this kind is often
untrustworthy. Now the very description of the synoptical
gospels, as the Gospel not by Matthew but according to
Matthew, the gospel not by Mark but according to Mark, the
gospel not by Luke but according to Luke, would show that,
even in primitive times, these books were not regarded as in
any ordinary sense the personal testimony of the authors to
whom they were traced. A\ hatever authors they may be
supposed to have had, those authors only reduced to writing, as we
�have seen, a cycle of anecdotes which were current in the im
personal memory of the Church.
But again, if the evidence cannot be shown to be direct, and
personal, it is also exposed to objection on the ground of
probable fallacies both of perception and memory. All the
testimony we have on the subject goes to prove, that the early
generation amongst whom these narratives arose, were of the
kind described by the words of Jesus, when he said :—“ Except
ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” They were
on the look-out for miracles
They believed them to be an
ordinary part of Divine manifestations in the past; and they
looked for them therefore in their own experience. Such
people are specially liable to what we have described as
fallacies of perception. And years after the apppearance that
excited in them the conviction of a miracle, they are also
peculiarly liable to fallacies of memory. It is easily con
ceivable, for instance, that the commanding peace, which, I am
well assured, the presence of Jesus always brought with it, had
a healing influence upon the sick, whose homes he visited.
Paroxysms of fever may have been assuaged by his calm com
forting voice. And there was in him a loving authority that
subdued passion, even demoniacal passion, as we in tumultuous
hours are soothed by “ the sound of many waters.” A few
instances of this kind, parallels to which may be found in medical
records even of our own day, would be quite sufficient to excite
amongst a generation like that which lived in Gralilee, a belief in
hundreds of similar instances,—would be enough to quicken ima
gination by their description, would be enough to give the
firmest confidence in their circulation through the world.
But it may be said, there is one event above all, to
which we have the clearest and directest testimony; and
if that be proved, then all others may easily be believed,
because they are far inferior to it in the demands which they
make upon our belief. It is alleged that Jesus was crucified,
and that his death was clearly ascertained, and that after he
had lain one day and two nights (called three days in ordinary
rough reckoning) in the grave, he suddenly arose, and
manifested himself to his disciples. It is argued that these
appearances of Jesus constituted their chief reason for belief
in his divine power and majesty. It is urged that they must
have been confident of what they had seen, because many of
them sealed their testimony with their blood. Let us then,
�10
itLost reverentially, look at the case as it stands with regard to
the physical resurrection of Jesus. This wonderful event is
recorded in the four Gospels which, as we have seen, are all of
them of uncertain origin and date. Granting that we may
well believe they were written before the end of the first
century, or at any rate at the beginning of the second, still
we cannot fix their authorship with any certainty within a
few years. Now this in itself, in dealing with so stupendous
an assertion as that which is before us at present, is a grave
obj ction to the evidence adduced. But when we look farther,
we find still more difficulty
All four accounts given of the
appearances of Jesus, are exceedingly fragmentary ; just such
as would arise from the excited utterances of some remote
period, the experiences of which were never very particularly
described. They are of a fragmentary character, which could
scarcely have been permitted, if the narrations of this wonder
had been set down in writing within a brief period of the time
when it really took place.
You know how careful men
generally are, to set down memoranda of anything very ex
traordinary that has occurred to them. And they are the
more careful to do this in cases where they witness ex
traordinary events without any passing excitement, and in the
use of their ordinary reason. It does therefore appear at the
very first onset most extraordinary, that, of an event on which
the whole faithand expectations of Christians are said to rest,
we should have only the most fragmentary disjointed
descriptions, which scarcely fill a few pages of a small
book.
But looking farther, we find that these fragments are entirely
and hopelessly inconsistent one with another.
In the first
gospel—that of Matthew—we have related to us, first, a certain
vision of angels to the women who went to anoint the body of
the Lord.
Secondly, it is alleged that on their return from
the grave, Jesus appeared to them in person. Thirdly he is
said to have appeared some time afterwards, (but when is not
stated) to eleven of the disciples only, on a mountain in Galilee,
of which eleven disciples it is said with considerable
significance, “ some doubted.”
So far for the first
gospel.
In the second Gospel the two oldest manu
scripts give absolutely no narrative at all of the resurrec
tion. • In the Gospel according to St. Mark the narrative
ends in those manuscripts, with the words, “Neither
�11
said they anything to any man for they were afraid.” * I
grant that the previous words irnply that Jesus had risen from
the dead. But still it is not the less a significant circum
stance, that the oldest manuscripts of this Gospel should cease
at the 8th verse, and give no account whatever of any appear
ance of Jesus in the flesh. The narrative that is supplied from
the 9th to the 20th verse, will be found by any one who
carefully and candidly examines it, to be a mixture of the
other narrations to be read in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke
and John. That therefore cannot count at all as any evidence
on the question.
In the third gospel we find again the visit of the women to
the tomb. All agree in this. Secondly, ve are told of an
interview which was granted to two disciples, walking to
Emmaus, on the same day, the first day of the week. And in
the course of the conversation with those two disciples going
to Emmaus, it is certainly implied, if not distinctly stated,
*
that the women who went to the tomb in the morn
ing saw nothing but a vision of angels. Here is a direct
contradiction of the allegation contained in the narrative ’ of
St. Matthew’s gospel. Thirdly, on the same day, the first day
in the week, it is said that Jesus appeared to Simon alone.
Fourthly, it is said that, still on the same day of the week—
for there is no division of times—Jesus appeared to the eleven
in Jerusalem as they sat at meat. Finally, it is said that, in
the same day, or in the course of the night following, he led
them out to Bethany, and thence ascended to heaven. You
will see there is scarcely a single element in common
between the narrative in Matthew except the ordinary circum
stance that the women went to the grave in order to anoint
the body of Jesus, and found, as we may well believe, the
grave entirely empty. Not only is there no element in com
mon beyond this ; unless the divergent narratives of the angels
be so accounted ; but the one virtually contradicts the other,
and all the efforts of harmonists have failed to reconcile
them.
We proceed to the fourth Gospel. Here is alleged first a
vision to Mary Magdalen, which is often connected with the
vision to the women as narrated in Matthew. But certainly it
* Mark xvi. 8. The two manuscripts are theSinaitic and the Vatican; Loth
of which are assigned by I'Uchendorf to the- 4th century.
* Luke xxiv 23, 24.
�would scarcely occur to an ordinary reader that the same thing
was intended. Secondly, we are told that Jesus appeared to
the disciples the same day,—the first day in the week. Thirdly,
we are told that he appeared to them eight days afterwards,
in the same place; whereas in the Gospel of Matthew the
women were directed to tell the disciples to proceed at once to
Galilee. Fourthly, we have a vision in Galilee by the sea,
and not on a mountain, as is alleged in Matthew. Now, look
ing at the inconsistency, the fragmentary character, the un
certain date and origin of these stories, we are compelled to
come to the conclusion that, if they were related in connection
with any other religion than that which we ourselves profess,
or did they form a part of any ancient secular history, we
should immediately conclude that they only testified to a
general rumour reflected from many memories, and refracted
through many thoughts.
But I might be reminded, were we engaged in conversa
tion,—and such suggestions I always like if possible to an
ticipate—that the 15th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the
Corinthians stands on entirely different ground. I purposely
read it last Sunday evening, in order that you might have
ringing in your minds the clear and nervous utterances of the
Apostle concerning his own experience, and that which he
believed to have been the experience of other Christians as
well. Here there can be no doubt as to the authorship of the
testimony. The severest critics are agreed in saying that St.
Paul wrote this first Epistle to the Corinthians. In the course
of this first Epistle, the Apostle alleges that Jesus appeared six
times and you will observe that his account of the appearances
is another version, entirely different from anything that we
have in the four Gospels. He says he was seen first of all
by Cephas, “ then, of the twelve; after that he was seen of
above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater
part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep,
After that he was seen of James”—not mentioned in the
Synoptical Gospels—“ then, of all the apostles.” And last, of
all he was seen of me also as of one born out of due time.” The
key to the whole of this passage is found in the lust, words,
‘ last of all he was seen of me also.’ There cannot be the
slightest, doubt, of course, ihut St. Paul is here stating a
veritable experience which he had himself enjoyed. But
what was that experience? There is no clear description
�IS
given of it in his own words in any of his epistles. We
therefore are obliged to have recourse to the Acts of the Apostles
which do not stand exactly on the same ground of certainty.
Still we may accept the accounts there as giving, in all
probability, what was believed actually to have taken place.
We there find then that on occasion of a journey to
Damascus, when there is much reason for suoposing that he
was labouring under grave anxiety of mind, and reflecting
anxiously upon his past course of life; when he was fatigued
by travel and probably oppressed by the burning heat of
the sun; he suddenly fell from his horse in a trance ; and
in this trance saw the figure of Jesus and heard a voice address
ing him from the heavens. Tnsuch an experience there isof course
nothing in the least degree incredible; nothing which we
can have any difficulty whatever in imagining. But the
point here is, that St. Paul places the experienne of the
other disciples in precisely the same category as his own.
If they had seen the Lord so has he; ** he is not inferior
to any one of them. If they have known Christ after the
flesh so has he. Did not he listen to the voice of Jesus
from the skies, and did not he see him in his glorious
form ?
Thus you see we must carefully bear in mind, in estimating
the words before us, that the visions enjoyed by the other
Apostles were in the mind of St. Paul precisely equivalent
to what he had enjoyed himself. Now, will you say—bearing
in mind the multitude of visions that men have had in abnor
mal conditions of their brain and nervous system—that this
appearance to St. Paul could be nothing else but the very
figure of Jesus floating in the heavens ? Try to picture it—
for any real thing ought to be capable of being pictured—
dare you say that you can reverentially think of the body of
the Lord Jesus floating suspended in the heavens, the very
hands and feet, and lips and eyes, that had been known on the
Galilean shore ? Ts there not something utterly unworthy of
the whole dignity of the Gospel, in supposing that a piece of
magic like this took place ? How far more reverential it is
to believe, that on the over-wrought mind and heart of Paul an
impression was made—as vivid as the impression of the mid
day sun itself—that the figure of Jesus was there before him,
and that the lips of Jesus addressed him in rebuke.
* 1 Cor. ii. 9-
�It may, however, be said, granting this in the case of Paul,
and even granting that he was mistaken in supposing that his
was an objective, or external sight of Jesus, yet the case of
the other Apostles alleged by and known to himself, is so
very different that we must put a different interpretation upon
them, lie was seen by eleven men at once. At another time
it is said that he was seen by about five hundred brethren at
once. Now, it is clear that here we labour under a difficulty,
from not having the advantage of putting questions to the
writer. You know how often such things are said, on what
seems to the speaker himself the very best possible testimony,
but which, when closely followed up to its original source, dis
solves away into imagination, or the accumulations of various
personal errors of observation and memory. “ Above five hun
dred brethren at once ” —we should naturally wish to ask who
counted them, and how was there an assurance that they ex
ceeded that number ? Where were they ? At what season
of the year was it ? At what part of the day ? Was it on a
bare mountain ? Was it in a wood ? Was it on a cloudy or
a cloudless day ? What was the condition of the saints behold
ing ? Had they been fasting for any length of time previous ?
Had they any reason to suppose that some such vision would
be manifested to them all ? Vpon the answers to questions
such as these, would depend the whole value that we could
assign to even apparently formidable testimony like this. And
yet such questions can neither be asked nor answered at the
present day. We know, as a matter of fact, that cases have
occurred in which the same illusion has been experienced by
several people at the same time. One illustration was given
of this last Sunday evening, and I do not care to repeat it now;
mainly because I desire to keep as far as possible from these
sacred contemplations anything that might appear to have the
slightest tendency to ridicule. But cases have occurred re
peatedly, in which some object, not quite clearly seen, has
made the same illusive impression upon a considerable number
of minds at once. And failing the opportunity of asking
questions, such as I have mentioned, it is impossible for us to
say with any confidence that this alleged by St. Paul was not
one of them. We do not know with how many Christians in
Jerusalem he came into close personal converse. We know
that he preferred,rather to wander far off amongst the Gen
tiles ; and that he was comparatively little associated with the
�very first cirele of Christian disciples. It is, therefore, easily
conceivable, that a man full of enthusiasm as he was after bis
experience on th j way to Damascus, would very readily re
*
ceive any allegations concerning the personal appearance of
Jesus, without caring closely to examine on what evidence they
rested, or (what is possibly more important) under what cir
cumstances they occurred.
.Now, it is not sufficient in dealing with any matter of this
kind ,to say that any possible theory leaves difficulties behind.
Of course it does. But our position throughout has been that
our faith, faith in the divine order of the universe, requires proof
demonstrative, before we dare sin against it, by allowing that
the laws of that universe have been suspended. And we may
ask with confidence is such proof demonstrative before us here ?
Considering the fragmentary, contradictory character of the
Gospel testimony, its uncertain date and origin; considering
the manifestly visionary character of St. Paul’s own experience,
his identification of this experience with that of the other
Apostles as well, and in the absence of any information as to the
testimony that he himself required concerning the vision to the
twelve or to the .five hundred—we must candidly allow that,
however much our hearts might otherwise lean to belief in this
beautiful legend of ( hristian antiquity, we cannot, dare not,
say in the sight of the God of truth, that the proof is demon
strative, such as is needed.
Again we insist, it is not for us to construct any theory.
The question is whether the evidence supports the weight
of the stupendous assertion.
We can hardly maintain
that it does. The experience of the primitive disciples
may be for ought I know, utterly inexplicable to us now.
But at any rate we cannot concede that the physical
resurrection of the flesh and limbs of Jesus is the true ex
planation. If, however, we were pressed on the subject, we
should say that what we know of spectral illusions, and
what we know of the action of the . mind on the nerves
and senses, enables us to conceive some possible explana
tion. Think, what must have been the feelings of the
disciples after that dark hour when the voice of Jesus was
silenced on the cross. One dread cry of agony, pity, and
prayer, and the voice that had been their music was
silenced for ever on the earth. Do you not know what is
the sensitiveness of a bereaved heart ? Even, in ordinary
�16
life’s experience, it seems impossible to realise -that the so
familiar form is vanished for ever,—that the lips, whose
tones were so dear, can never stir again in articulate
utterance,—that the fair and beautiful form on which we
doted, must be irrevocably borne away into darkness. All
the earth seems shrouded under a terrific pall. It is not
the beloved form,—it seems rather the world itself that is
dead, and we buried with it in the heart of a universal grave.
In the intensity of silent endurance through which we pass
at such hours, the mind, quivering in all its susceptibilities,
is exposed to all kinds of illusions. And there are those
here in this present assembly, who have seen vividly in
dream the departed form of their beloved ones. Or even
walking in the quiet meadow in the stillness of the even
ing, they have heard a rustle and have felt a touch, as
though the dear hand were laid once more upon the
shoulder, and the sweet voice were whispering again in the ear.
If it is an almost insupportable agony, to lose those who
are bound to us only by the ties of private affection, how
complicated and accumulated was the grief of those men
who had lost, not only the light of their eyes, but, as they
verily, and indeed rightly believed, the light and hope of
the whole world ? Quivering as they were with the anguish
of that shock, any unusual sight or sound would be sufficient
to stir in them the sense of the sacred presence of their
master.
And divine whispers in their own hearts, ex
hortations to endurance and self sacrifice, directions how to
proceed in the the great mission upon which they were
bent, would by exceedingly possible fallacies of memory, be
come translated into the bodily vision of their master and the
articulate utterances of his voice.
Physiologists, some of them, tell us that the production of
organic life from dead matter—if any matter is dead, which I
am sometimes very strongly inclined to doubt—has only been
possible in certain eras of past time, and under special condi
tions of nature. In the early days, it is suggested, when the
crust of the world had not long solidified, and when all things
were quivering with heat, certain chemical combinations might
possibly be formed, which can never be renewed except by the
process of life. And thus was originated the organic world.
What the worth of that theory is I care not now for a moment
to estimate. But it may be that there do occur crises in the
�17
story of the human heart and soul, when visions and imagina
tions are possible, and inspirations are given, that are utter
ly unparalleled, and never to be recalled in any other age.
So it may be conjectured that the condition of mind which
produced the resurrection of Jesus, only existed once and
can never exist again.
You will see that throughout the argument in which
we have been engaged, I have never said a word or
breathed a breath, to hint at any slight upon the moral
character of the reporters of these events. The vulgar
argument on the subject often has been, that it is more
likely that witnesses told lies, than that miracles were
wrought. In my incapacity to define what a miracle is, I
can have no sympathy whatever with that argument. There
are laws of the moral nature as well as of matter, which I
should tremble to think could ever be set aside. I could
almost as soon believe in the real arrest of the sun in heaven,
or in the rising of the dead after the corruption of four
days in the grave, as I could believe that a man, burning
with the sacred fire of enthusiasm, like Paul, could ever do
evil that good might come, or tell lies to establish truth.
If, indeed, the elevation of the human conscience depended
upon, or originated in, degrading falsehood, then all our
notions of moral laws must fall into confusion. Then, truly,
the words of Jesus are falsified, and we do gather grapes of
thorns and figs of thistles. Our holiest blessings may be traced
back to the very pit of corruption.
“ Gracious deceivers who have lifted us
Out of the slough where passed our unknown youth 5
Beneficent liars! who have gifted U3,
With sacred love of truth.”
But it cannot be. The loveliest mirages spring up in the
purest air. The bright daylight of the loftiest spiritual life,
most removed from the ordinary world, is likewise most prolific
in vision and miracle. The keenest imagination, for the most
part, goes with the fullest heart. And be you sure, the hearts
that were full of Christ in those days of old, must needs project
their feelings upon the outward world, must needs picture to
themselves his moral beauty in visions of outward majesty, that
had no reality save in their own convictions and their own
feelings.
©
*
We have, however, this consolation, that the wonders
�18
related are in strict accordance with the feelings that the
inspirations of Jesus must have stirred.
No vengeful
wonders are told of him. He manifested the love of God.
No pride is ever hinted in his alleged disturbance of the
laws of nature, nothing but benevolence, kindness, love,
beneficence, pictured doubtless in imaginative and outwardly
unreal forms, but most true to the reality of Christ’s spirit
and mission. Read you the Gospels in the light of such
principles as these, and you will need to be haunted by no
critical suspicions as to this and the other word therein.
Irrational imaginations, where they exist, drop out of the mind.
The image of the heart of Christ, the spirit of his inspirations re
mains. Indeed, reflecting upon the necessities of mankind, the
darkness and the perversity of the generations through which
the stream of traditions has flowed, one may give thanks that
the Gospel took the form in which it has come down to us.
Dry, clear, prosaic truth never could have affected the hearts
of the simple as the same truth’ when arrayed in imagi
native forms.
“For wisdom dwelt with mortal powers.
Where truth in closest words shall fail,
When truth embodied in a tale
Shall enter in at lowly doors.
“ And so the word had breath and wrought
With human hands, the creed of creeds,
In loveliness of perfect deeds,
More strong than all poetic thought,
“ Which he may read, who binds the sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave,
And those wild eyes that watch the wave
In roarings round the coral reef.”
No prose could ever have told in so brief a space and with such
telling effect, of a love that passeth knowledge, of a self lost in
humanity, of a life which, through death, has become the inspi
ration of a world.
Upfield Green, Printer, Tenter Street, Moorgate Street, E.C.
�THE RELIGION OF JESUS:
ITS MODERN DIFFICULTIES
AND
ITS ORIGINAL SIMPLICITY.
(Bourse, of jSundag (Bailing J^tturos,
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON.
VII.
Revelation.
A certain friend of mine, one not unsympathetic with
the feelings uttered in the present course of lectures, though
entirely repudiating the opinions advocated, remarked to
me, after reading the first two, that probably I did not
believe in any revelation whatever. It was very difficult
to answer such a question as this by a single word, whether
negative or affirmative; for as I put it to him, either must
necessarily create a mis-impression as to my real position.
For if I had answered “ No, I do not believe in any
revelation,” this would have given the impression that I
recognise no certainty of any kind beyond the facts of
sense; whereas to me, the existence of some immeasurable
reality answering to the religious consciousness of mankind,
�2
is at least as certain as any facts of sense, and, in a true
meaning of the words, far more so. Or I might have given
the impression that I denied the reality of any communion
with the Spirit of God, in which communion I have a most
unfeigned'belief. But if, on the other hand, I had replied,
“ Yes, I do believe in a revelation,” then it must have been
supposed that I regarded, as real events in the history of the
world, the supernatural communication to special men of
secrets concerning the unseen world, which secrets are
unverifiable by the experience of any others. This, how
ever, I regard as a notion which is irrevocably doomed ; and
which cannot possibly survive the coming, or the third
generation. The present lecture gives me an opportunity
of more fully developing my own views on this point, which
of course can have no importance whatever, save so far
forth as they are able to attract the sympathies of those who
listen, or to carry conviction to their minds.
The word ‘ Revelation 5 then signifies simply the throwing
hack of a veil, or the discovering of a prospect which had
been previously hid. In certain gardens in the North of
England, much visited by tourists, the walk of the visitors
through the horticultural scenery there is made to culminate
in a theatrical effect, which excites the pleased surprise of
those who are subject to it. In a certain passage, between
lofty banks of evergreens, a folding gate is suddenly thrown
open. There stands revealed a wide shining prospect of
flood and field, of woodland and of distant hills, which fills
the mind with delight and admiration. So it has happened
in the history of past times, that the intellectual vision of
mankind, or, at other crises, their spiritual insight, has been
more or less suddenly enlarged front the petty limits of
former ignorance to a grander realm of order and of beauty,
the sight of which has permanently widened the experience
and the capacities of men. But Revelation has not
been confined to any special crises of human experience.
Mountain mists are not always instantaneously lifted;
oftener they gradually melt away, or are broken here and
there, revealing fragmentary vistas into distant beauties
which you are not able for some time to bring into relation
ship one with another. So has it been with the expansion
of human knowledge and feeling in contemplation of this
measureless universe. There have been great moments in
�the experience of mankind, when, as by a lightning flash
the cloudy firmament of ignorance has been rolled away,
and the eternal heavens of truth have been laid bare. But
such experiences as these have been by no means frequent.
More commonly the process of revelation has been gradual;
“precept,” as the prophet says, “has been upon precept,
line upon line, here a little, and there a little,” as powers of
human perception and reflection increased, until at length
this present generation arose, which inherits the glorious
prospect that has gradually dawned upon ages gone by.
Time was, if we may believe certain philosophers of the
present day, when man was simply one amongst the greater
apes, having eyes capable of perceiving nothing but the
promise of food, or the suggestions of physical pleasure.
He was capable at that time of no mental emotions but,
possibly, some dull confused curiosity about the more
startling effects produced on his mind by the outward world.
Now, however, his eyes perceive a myriad indications of
order and of purpose in the world without. Now knowledge
kindles imagination ; and imagination swells the heart with
rapturous delight, and the heart reacts upon imagination
and knowledge; while the most precious fruit of all is that
self abasement, which makes the spirit tender in contempla
tion of the Infinite. All this is matter of simple fact patent
to all who are capable of studying the past. And therefore,
revelation there certainly has been.
But generally, as you are aware, the word is used in a
narrower sense, with which it would be uncandid on my
part not to deal. For that narrower sense we must go back,
not indeed to extreme antiquity, but to the after-glow of
prophetic and apostolic times. In those days the govern
ment of the world was necessarily conceived, to some extent,
after the fashion of oriental despotisms.
Those who
believed in one Ruler of the Universe certainly perceived a
measure of harmony in the operations of Nature, and in the
arrangements of Providence; but they did not realize any
continuity of law. The operations both of Nature and
Providence were supposed to be dependent upon a will, so
far like human wills, as to be in a course of perpetual
change. In a word, nature and human experience, the
whole frame of material and spiritual things was supposed to
be dependent upon the will of a monarch, mysteriously
�4
shrouded from human observation, at whose behest the sun
at any moment might be blotted out in midday, or rivers
rolled back to their courses, or the march of the tide arrested.
Like the unseen monarchs of oriental courts, this Supreme
Being was supposed from time to time to issue decrees, or to
make known secrets of his counsels to those who stood very
near to him, and were his favourite servants; decrees and
counsels, a knowledge of which was withheld from common
men, unless indirectly communicated through these elect
messengers. Such knowledge as this of the decrees of the
Most High, or of the secrets of the unseen world, was for the
most part imagined to be communicated by symbolic visions,
taking place often in the night, and in unconscious sleep, or
or at other times in waking visions, when the soul was
wrapped from all external things, and bent only on the
spiritual world. Such visions as these were not only miraculous
in themselves, but oftentimes they needed supernatural com
munications for their interpretation. To such visions as these
the name of a 1 Revelation,’ literally of an unfolding of the
unseen, was specially and technically given. Of such revela
tions you have instances in the book of Daniel; also in the
apochryphal 4th book of Esdras; also in the book of Enoch,
quoted in the Epistle of Jude. If you compare these with
the greeter portion of the works of Isaiah, and Jeremiah, you
must be struck by a very marked difference.
Isaiah and
Jeremiah undoubtedly do imply a sort of miraculous com
munication from Heaven to their souls. But for the most
part they deal with moral exhortations and spiritual principles,
such as carry their own witness to the hearts of men. The
others we have named :—Daniel, Esdras, and Enoch, on the
other hand, deal mainly with the mysterious secrets of the
Divine decrees, with events of forthcoming times, which
could not be in any wise known except by a whisper from
Heaven, and which do not necessarily of themselves carry
any spiritual lessons to the heart. It is to such as these, that
the word Revelation came to be specially applied. Thus, for
instance, it is the title given to the last book in the Bible,
which deals mainly with such topics as those already described.
Turn to the 14th Chapter of 1st Corinthians which we read this
evening. There we find the Apostle giving a catalogue of the
various exercises that occupied the Christian congregation,
when they came together for worship:—“ How is it then
�5
brethren ? when ye come together, every one of you hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath
an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
It is clear then, that the doctrine literally teaching—for you
are for a moment to confuse it,with any theological dogma—was
distinguishable in the Apostle’s mind, and in the minds of
those to whom he wrote, from this which is technically called
a revelation. What that revelation was, we can only gather
by analogy and comparison. Looking at the special use of
the word to describe the last book in the Bible, with its visions
of unseen things, we should suppose that it signified here
some sudden, deep impression upon the mind of the
worshipping Christians, concerning the wonders of the unseen
world, or the events of the coming age. This distinction
may also, I think, be discerned more or less distinctly in that
chapter of the book of Jeremiah, which we read as our first
*
lesson.
On this point I will not speak so confidently, for it
must be confessed that the chapter is obscure. But there are
reasons for thinking that this distinction between a heavenly
message to the soul carrying its own witness with it concern
ing moral and spiritual truth on the one hand, and a
miraculous communication of some secret that can have no
testimony but testimony of a supernatural order, was in the
heart of the prophet, as he uttered these words :—“ When
this people, or a prophet, or a priest shall ask thee saying :—
W hat is the burden of the Lord ? Thou shalt, then, say unto
them, What burden ? I will even forsake you saith the
Lord.” And he goes on to denounce the use of this expresion,
the burden of the Lord,” as though it were a most serious
offence in the sight of Heaven. But why should he ? Why
should it be better to ask, “ What hath the Lord answered ?
What hath the Lord spoken ?” as they are here commanded,
then to enquire after the burden of the Lord ?
The
answer can only be conjectured from the significance of the
word '* burden.” It is a word of double significance, and
there is a play upon that double significance in the passage
before us. It is originally derived from a verb signifying to
" lift up,” often to lift up the voice to an exalted strain of
utterance. It was used then, to describe any charm or super
natural utterance, which was generally communicated in an
elevated, singing tone of voice. We may illustrate this from
* Jer. xxiii. see especially v. 33—38.
�6
our English word ‘ incantation,’ which means properly a sing
ing or a chanting, but came to be applied exclusively to the
charm, half muttered, half recited, in a singing tone, by the
wizards or the witches of bygone days. So, in the days of
Jeremiah, it would appear that certain prophets, against whom
he inveighs in the course of this chapter, were in the habit of
reciting their dreams, or their visions, or secrets supposed
to have been communicated from the unseen world, in a whin
ing, singing tone of voice, supposed to be specially fitted for
discourses concerning religion. It is against this that it
seems to me the prophet is inveighing. They are not to ask
what is the burden of the Lord; or if they do, it will become
in a very literal sense a burden to them. They are rather to
ask, what hath the Lord annwered them, what hath the Lord
spoken,—that is to say, what plain message have you from
our Lord and God, that can commend itself to our hearts, and
consciences ? Speak this and we will obey. Here I think is
hinted, with tolerable plainness, the germ of a distinction be
tween revelations, that deal only with alleged secrets of the un
seen world, and communications from the Divine Spirit to the
conscience, such as bring their own witness with them. Such
a distinction, perhaps is still farther confirmed by the observa
tion, that the name Revelation is rarely given to the preach
ing of Christ on earth, I say rarely because I do not wish to
speak too strongly; but I think, I should be within strict
limits if I were to say that it is never applied to the discourses
of Christ, only now and then to the Gospel as a whole. The
preaching of Christ was always described as the Word, either
the Word of Christ, or the Word of God. He himself is
represented as saying, “ the sower soweth the word.” The
Apostles in the beginning of the Acts speak of “ the Word
God sent to Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.” But
when the Apostles began to see visions for themselves, and to
communicate secrets concerning the eternal world, then the
word Revelation was applied to such utterances as these, h’ow
I do not for ODe moment, mean to imply that these ex
pressions, the ‘Word of God,’ or the ‘Gospel,’ the ‘good
news’ on the one hand, and ‘ revelation ’ on the other, were
always kept perfectly distinct. But certain it is that the
word Revelation when used with full emphasis, and in a
technical sense, did mean secrets about the unseen world,
which do not necessarily carry any moral lesson with them
�7
whereas the Word of God or the Gospel, “the glad tidings”
generally, almost uniformly, does mean such spiritual teaching
as carries its own witness with it to the heart. This distinc
tion, I think then, is important in dealing with this subject of
Revelation. Unfortunately, the distinction was not always
kept up; the name of Revelation in its narrower and more
technical sense, was gradually in the post-apostolic times ex
tended to the whole body of Christianity. Afterwards it was
extended to the Old Testament as well; and then, when the
various books of the Bible were bound up together, and not
till then, that is till a comparatively recent period—this word
Revelation was applied to the whole Scriptures. And thus
we are said to be deniers of Revelation, if we cannot hold that
this book gives to us infallible certainty as to the will, and the
works of God.
I am anxious that the distinction between these two things,
‘ Revelation ’ in its technical sense, on the one hand, and the
word of God in its moral and spiritual sense, on the other hand,
should be very plainly marked in the minds of all of you;
because upon your appreciation of this will necessarily depend
the conclusion to which you come, as to the probable tendency
of doctrines Such as those, which I have been preaching
during the last few Sunday evenings.
If you cannot
appreciate that distinction, then, I can well understand your
saying that the inevitable issue of such teaching must be
godlessness and irreligion. But if you do appreciate that
distinction, and will reflect upon it, then, however per
plexed the subject may be at the present moment,
1 think you will gradually come to see, that so far are these
doctrines from being fatal to real religion, that the only pos
sibility of the survival of religion in the future age, depends
upon the reality of such a distinction as this.
This use of the word Revelation in its narrower sense, must
be reckoned amongst the most formidable difficulties, which
entangle modern Christianity. For it necessarily divides
all human knowledge into two branches, which branches
come to be judged of, and estimated, on wholly different, and
often entirely incompatible principles. In the one branch
of knowledge we depend upon observation, upon experience,
upon reflection, upon verification. - In the other branch of
knowledge, that is the knowledge of Revelation, we are made
to depend, not upon the observed order of the Universe, or
�the constant experience of mankind, but upon certain ex
ceptions to that order and that experience, which exceptions
have very rarely occurred, and the reality of which is
dependent upon the directness and force of the testimony,
given from old times concerning them.
It must be
evident to you that Revelation in its narrower sense is
necessarily dependent upon miracle. If a man tells us, for
instance, that beyond this world there are three heavens,
and that departed spirits pass from one heaven to another,
in accordance with certain degrees of progress made in virtue
and spirituality, until at length they approach to the throne
of God himself, we naturally ask how he knows this. If he
replies ‘because it is revealed from Heaven,’ we are compelled
farther to ask how are we to be assured that it is revealed to
him from Heaven ? The only possibility of having any
certainty upon this point is necessarily bound up with his
power to work some miracle, that shall be a sign or token
to us of his receipt of the message from Heaven. I do not
say that a miracle or wonder wrought by him would be proof
demonstrative that he has such a message. But certainly,
if he is unable to give any such token, or sign as this, then
we have no evidence whatever to go upon, and we can only
imagine that some very strong impression has been made
upon his mind, which he takes to be a miraculous com
munication. You will see clearly, then, that if our views
propounded, during the last two Sunday evenings as to the
weakness of testimony to miraculous events are sound, and
likely to prevail, then, Revelation, in its narrower and
technical sense, cannot much longer be held to be a real
thing. It is dependent, as we have said, upon special com
munications of the secrets of the unseen world, evidenced
by miraculous powers. But the other branch of knowledge
is dependent upon observation and constant experience.
These * observations, and this experience, are capable of
renewal and verification from age to age. For instance, we
know now that the atmospheric air consists of certain gases.
We know the proportions in which they ought to be mingled,
in order to secure safety for life, and continued health. When
this discovery was made, it was a Revelation to mankind.
We are so certain of it now, that we care not to investigate
for ourselves, even if we have chemical knowledge to do so.
We, however, are secured by the fact, assured to us on all
�9
hands, that if we choose at any moment, now to make the
experiment for ourselves, we can obtain just those gases
of which air has been found to consist, in just the pro
portions, which have been discovered years ago.
This is a
fact that can always be verified; and our confidence
that it can be verified, makes us comparatively easy about
its truth.
So with regard to principles concerning the
organization of nations or society.
We have found, in
modern times, that free-trade is the true principle of pros
perity. It was very long before people would believe it.
But demonstrative arguments were discovered that con
vinced the minds of statesmen, and now we have verified
their truth by our experience. We can appeal to all to
witness for themselves ; to see the successes that have been
achieved by this principle. We are not dependent for this
truth upon mere testimony from others ; we can see it for
ourselves.
But religious knowledge, on the other hand, if it is to be
confounded with Revelation, in its narrower and more
technical sense, is necessarily dependent upon the testimony
given, by people in remote ages, toeventsofa most startling
and inconceivable character. Thus while all other branches
of knowledge have their testimony ready at any moment,
for anyone who chooses to enquire into it, religious knowledge
on the other hand, is made to be like an army ill-generaled,
which is always moving farther and farther from its supports,
and incurring continually increasing danger of being
helplessly surrounded by its foes. Hence there is often
times on arbitrariness, and a perversity, in the arguments
which are used to sustain belief in certain religious
doctrines, of which the very men who use them, would be
heartily ashamed if they were dealing with any other object
whatever. These are some of the evils which come from
dividing human knowledge into two branches, with which
we must necessarily deal on completely different, and often
on incompatible principles.
But besides, we have already seen the uncertainty of
historical evidence. And this uncertainty specially affects
those wonderful events, that are said to have been brought
about by miraculous power. Just in proportion as this un
certainty increases, the insecurity of all religion dependent
upon miracle must grow. And it is most sad and painful to
�10
look into the future, when we for a moment think that
religion is necessarily bound up with Revelation in this
narrower, or more technical sense.
It is impossible to
dispute that people’s common sense—I do not mean their
scientific knowledge—their common sense, their ordinary
tone, and habit of mind—is daily becoming increasingly
intolerant of any apparent exceptions to the order of the
universe; daily becoming increasingly intolerant, like
wise of insufficient evidence concerning past events.
And
no efforts of ecclesiastical bodies, no decrees of Con
vocation on the one hand, or of Congregational Unions on the
other, will ever succeed in fencing r^und this sacred area of
religious belief from the constantly advancing waves of
enquiry and certain knowledge. Farther still, this very un
certainty, which can hardly be disputed, begets in those who
think it important to cling to revelation in its narrower, and
more technical sense, evil tempers altogether inconsistent
with religion; the odium theologicum, theological hatred,
is already a proverb and a bye-word. If you yourselves
have cared to study the reports, now and then giveu forth to
the world, of debates that have been held between the pro
fessors of belief in miraculous revelation on the one hand,
and the professors of unbelief on the other, one of the most
painful impressions on your mind must have been the sense
of the far greater patience and confidence of the advocates
of unbelief, as compared with the advocates of belief. It
seems as though the very uncertainty of the position
irritated believers, and drove them to make use of
abusive epithets, instead of arguments. Nay, you know
yourselves, that wherever such questions as these are
agitated, in any society, or in any neighbourhood, they are
certain to give rise to angry feeling, and to abusive
language; and in nine cases out of ten this angry feeling,
and abusive language is found to be on the side, not of
those who doubt., but of those who profess to be believers in
miraculous revelation. Now, their natures are certainly
quite as good as the natures of those who take the opposite
side. VV e are not for a moment to believe that their tempers
are necessarily worse; but uncertainty,— incapability of
finding any foundation which commends itself as everlasting,
— vexes and irritates the spirit, and so leads men to supply
the lack of evidence by strength of language. iSo it comes
�H
to pass that religion oftentimes is apparently bound up with
moral evils, against which anciently it used to raise its most
eloquent protest, and which, if religion does not destroy them,
in the end will corrupt, incap icitate and slay it.
For such reasons as these, then, I cannot bear to think of
the future of spiritual religion as bound up with the fate of
so called revelation,—revelation in its narrower and more
technical sense. But I should be utterly false to myself were
I to admit for an instant that there is no such thing as revela
tion. Bevelation, that is, the unfolding of the works and of
the will of God to the consciousness of men, is perhaps the
very grandest aspect of human progress. It comes, as it
appars to me, through three channels : first, man’s observation
of the outward world, next the general experience of manknd,
and thirdly the spiritual insight occasionally given to in
dividual minds. Observation of the outward world, with its
riches of divine fact, gives to us our creed; the experience
of mankind gives to us the religious affections, feelings and
aspirations associated with that creed; and the spiritual insight
of some specially gifted individuals gives to us beauty and
effectiveness of religious form.
Let me illustrate these observations in a very few words
before I conclude. I have said that observation of the outward
world with its riches of divine fact gives to us the creed of
religion. I cannot myself doubt that the belief in one
Almighty Maker of the universe, reigning for ever unap
proachable and unrivalled in his glory, was suggested
originally by the harmony of the works of God and the unity
that manifestly stamps them. Indeed, we are told by
philologists that the name most commonly given, at any rate
by the classical races, to the Supreme Being, originally
signified the shining heavens, the expanse of the firmament
which binds or apparently binds all things in one. It was
the contemplation of the mid-day, or the mid-night heavens,
that-overwhelmed the souls of good men of old with a feeling
of the majesty and power witnessed there, and led them to
regard the superstitions of surrounding idolaters as worthless
falsehoods; while they bowed themselves in reverence before
one supreme Maker of all things.
But if it is objected that most nations in antiquity did
believe in a variety of Gods; 1 may rejoin, on the other hand,
that even those who believed in a variety of Gods always had
�12
a dim and awful sense of one supreme Fate behind and above
them all, wielding the destinies alike of Gods and men.
And this sense of some unity ultimately behind all inferior
powers must have been suggested to men’s minds by the
manifest harmony or indeed unity of the works of creation.
This revelation has been,—not weakened, if you consider it
aright, and will bear to have the significance of the name of
the Most High enlarged—this revelation has not been weakened
but materially strengthened by the discoveries of science in
modern days. There, perhaps, has rarely been a grander
moment in the history of the world than that in which Sir
Isaac Newton saw, in the falling of stones to the ground, the
one power that wields the planets in their course, and the
stars in the remote distances of space. At once a unity was
conceived that probably, almost certainly, grasps all things,
however unimaginably remote, nay infinitely distant from
ourselves. But this grand revelation has only been brightened
and enlarged by other discoveries of a more recent character.
We have been taught latterly, for instance, that all forms of
force are resolvable one into another. There is a shrewd
suspicion that substances, commonly considered as elementary,
may by a more powerful analysis hereafter be resolved into a
very few others, if not found to be all diverse forms of one.
In truth it cannot be denied that the researches of scientific
philosophers, so far as they have gone, all proceed on con
verging lines. I hey may be, as yet, far remote one from the
other, and we find it quite impossible to conceive in any
articulate manner what the ultimate unity of things may be.
Nevertheless, these discoveries all point in converging direc
tions upon one sublime unity that embraces all things.
Here, then, we have the outward facts of the world forming
our creed, And so does the experience of mankind by a more
imperceptible process, beget in us habits of reverence, a feel
ing of dependence, keen aspirations towards a higher life. It
is impossible for you to trace subtle consciousness of this
kind to any precise or individual origin. Such feelings have
gradually grown up in the race, they have been generated
by communion between the race and the mysterious divine
world without us. Never let us for a moment be supposed
to undervalue feelings of this kind, or to doubt the immortal
realities to which they answer. To me those feelings are in
themselves proof demonstrative that there must be a religion
�13.,
for mankind. Let us always cherish them as amongst the
most precious results of the traditions of past days.
Farther, there have arisen every now and then, indivi
dual souls specially gifted with spiritual insight, in whose
thoughts and feelings the religious creed of the race, and
still farther, the religious sentiments of the race, have crystalized into forms of beauty and power, that have attracted
the sympathy, and kindled afresh the feelings of all the
world. Such men were Moses and Samuel; such men, in
perhaps an inferior, or some may think in at least an
equal sense, were Pythagoras and Buddha; above all, such
a being was Jesus of Nazareth, who chiefly concerns us,
coming nearer to our hearts than any, and embodying in
himself the brightest of all the inspirations of our individual
lives. The real revelation in Jesus was not—if you will
simply read his own words—the communication of any unverifiable secret concerning the eternal world, or the mys
terious nature of the Most High. Barely did he speak of Buchthings at all. The real revelation that Jesus gave, con
sisted in the clearing up of certain facts of the moral and religigious consciousness, which, when cleared up, can always
bear witness for themselves. He stamped upon the hearts
of men, as it had never been felt before, the Fatherhood of
God above, whose children all men alike are, of every colour of
every race. He inspired men with a sense of brotherhood
one to another, and gave them to feel how reasonable it is
that on two great commands—love to God and love to man
—should hang the whole harmony of life. He taught that
the blessedness of the K ingdom of Heaven consists in estab
lishing the rule of God in the heart of man. He brought
out with an intensity that it had scarcely possessed before,
the abiding curse that is inflicted on humanity by sin. He
gave us to feel, likewise, the healing power of love. And
above all, not in words only, but in deeds, and, perhaps,
still more in suffering, he taught the transparent divine para
dox that the loss of self is the gain of God; that the true
throne of moral victory is the cross of endurance.
We have no time to sum up as we might have desired;
but here, I think is revelation enough to fill the heart
with gratitude, and the soul with admiring reverence. It
is a revelation that can always prove itself. Terms may
be changed—some of you may not. be able to accept in
�14
precisely the meaning that T give to the words, certain
phrases that have passed my lips now, but the thing sig
nified, the feelings of the heart, you all realize as most
precious, yea, and as most divine. Such a revelation as this
can be shaken by no discoveries of science, but is rather
strengthened by every increase of knowledge. Such a reve
lation as this does not of itself divide men into sects and
parties, but rather gathers all into the unity of one sacred
brotherhood.
Finally, let me say that, whatever conclusions may be
drawn—and freedom of thought, and freedom of language,
I should be the very last to deny to any—these lectures
have not been conceived in any spirit of hostility, to spiritual
religion. Rather they have been forced from me by the
deep conviction I have that only in the direction indicated,
can spiritual religion at length survive. The present day knows
but little of education. Most men as yet, make little attempt
to harmonize their knowledge, to balance one perception or
one opinion against another. Thousands, millions, there are,
content to use one kind of logic in dealing with business
matters, and another, and a wholly inferior, worthless logic,
in dealing with the most sacred matters. But these in
congruities cannot possibly last. Little by little education
is spreading, little by little the very youngest are being
taught to reflect; more and more is the embargo removed
from freedom of honest enquiry | and if not in your days,
then in the days of your children, or at any rate, in the days
of your grandchildren, a time will come, when if men
cannot separate spiritual religion f<6m belief in a mir
aculous revelation, spiritual religion must die the
death of all the superstitions of by-gone days. And this
would be, to my mind, the most frightful calamity that
coubl possibly overtake the race. It could not endure, or
humanity would wholly perish from off the faceol the earth.
All our finest feelings would die away; all the highest
delights of existence would be gone; and universal suicide
would be preierable to the sort of existence that would be
left. Such an event I believe to be altogether impossible
But terrible trials might be caused ; agonising perplexities
of mind ; and a long period of blank materialistic atheism,
from which men would only slowly emerge after the bitter
est suffering. It is against such a fate that we ought, if we
�15
have any care for posterity, to do our best to guard ; and it
is with such a view—if I may humbly say so—with some
lowly idea of doing a little towards an achievement of this
kind, that the present lectures have been delivered here.
The reality, the permanence of religion, I believe to be
guaranteed by the manifestation of the eternal God in the
Universe around us, by the constant experience of mankind,
by the religious susceptibilities of the race. Religion itself
is eternal as the heaven; but the sectarian opinions, on
which too many dote, are fleetingas the clouds that half ob
scure and half adorn the face of the sky.
Upfleed Green, Printer, Tenter Street, Moorgate Street, E. C.
�
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 religion of Jesus: its modern difficulties and its original simplicity. A course of Sunday evening lectures
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Picton, J. Allanson (James Allanson) [1832-1910]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 7 pamphlets ; 21 cm.
Notes: Seven separate pamphlets: I: The Religion of Jesus; How it is Ascertained. II. The Religion of Jesus; His Doctrine of God. III. The Religion of Jesus; His Doctrine of Redemption. V: The Gospel Miracles. VI. The Gospel Miracles [Part 2]. VII: Revelation. Includes bibliographical references. Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 6.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Upfield Green]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1876]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3385
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 (The religion of Jesus: its modern difficulties and its original simplicity. A course of Sunday evening lectures), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ-Historicity
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b0f4d5b5b9a2a3cd600b46d689297a43.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JrKB8NxesMlg5ieGdTNyDs7K5f97MJF1locwS2q5kkz%7E1KW8C9d2CbvPI5J190YK9btPwXmaubup9qwiv%7EiSgDb7JluoQTI88oT5TW6TP3qSp68CuAXhO2Pkjw39NEMmWS7Nom2s3sbBmeGBheF1r0DLTiF7vt7wpFhIONKfO9%7EBEMxFNCgS0V99alltj3zGF6zNqs1yQ7nSM6QNlwcKTNatkgc3O5aL0SfLb1xd6RfNBFM-tgBYntorZakyNN3fmDBGjAxglJcylxEZY0n0Oijy1E-wMCvcCedG4-oMryw1jMDvkfquwhGzPBY21tWgP0i0DHctPa1Dw8zW8EVf3A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
11200ea062c08e571f2712e4643af829
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL
A QUESTION OF ETHICS
NEW EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED, WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO
THE COMING EDUCATION BILL
BY
J. ALLANSON PICTON, M.A.
(Formerly M.P. for Leicester and a Member of the first School Boardfor London)
[issued for the
rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
��CONTENTS
-
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
-
■
v
-
-
xv
THE BIBLE SPHINX............................................................... i
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY............................................................... 9
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
....
16
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
...
23
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
-
-
-
34
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
-
-
43
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
...
56
CONCLUSION..........................................................................62
INDEX-
77
��PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In the arena of education the most significant event since the first issue
of this Essay has been the production and withdrawal of TMr. Birrell’s
Bill. I do not mention the Act of 1902, because it has appeared to me
significant of little but the illimitable evils occasioned by passionate
blunders in patriotism. It was the inevitable effect of a “ khaki
election.” But the Bill of 1906 was an attempt to correct, so far as
education was concerned, that mistake—with what results we know.
If, however, our belief in the continuity of progress be sound, it is incon
ceivable that the reactionary law of 1902 can remain much longer in
force. Such a notion would be as simple as that of the child who fancies
that an exceptionally long receding ripple indicates the turn of the
advancing tide. But if a new Education Bill is introduced, as we are
assured it will be, all highest interests demand that it shall not be drawn
on lines which will ensure its delivery into the hands of its sectarian foes.
In other words, no loophole must be left for associating the public
authority, whether imperial or local, with the teaching of dogmas that
divide us.
A nation which sets to its Government an impossible task ought not
to be captious in criticism of failure. Now the task appointed by a
reputed majority of English people to successive Ministers of Education
has been the establishment of religious equality in the schools, together
with security for “ simple Bible teaching.” And this latter phrase
practically means, as is abundantly proved in the following pages, the
ordinary Scriptural instruction common to the Sunday-schools of the
great evangelical sects—Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and all
Wcsleyans. But this common belief of those influential sects is, after
all, not the belief of the whole nation. For the Church of England,
through the voices of her most •zealous and self-sacrificing clergy and
most devout laity, denounces that common belief as not only insufficient,
but misleading. The Roman Catholics, as a matter of course, protest.
It is matter of common fame, to which I shall refer again, that a rapidly
The Educa
tion Bill of
1906.
A failure,
and the
reason why.
�vi
The prefer
ence of undenominationalism
fatal to
religious
equality.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
increasing number of Nonconformists themselves have surrendered most
important elements of that once common belief. And outside of all
these is a dim, uncounted, but formidable host, who utterly deny all
miraculous revelation, and who insist, as they have always done, but
more loudly than ever now, that their rejection of revelation does not in
the least invalidate their claim to full citizenship, including religious
equality.
What the reputed majority demand, then, amounts to this: that in a
nation notoriously divided as to forms1 of religious belief a delusive
attempt must be made to establish as “undenominational” one particular
form of belief that happens to be shared by certain great and influential
sects. Such a position reminds us of what is said of the Emperor Julian
by Mr. T. R. Glover in his Life and Letters in the Fourth Century: “A
zealot whose principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of
one stands in slippery places.” In our times we have to do, not with
an individual zealot, but with a congregate or multi-personal zealot,
constituted by an alliance of the great evangelical denominations. The
principle enunciated by Mr. Glover is, however, quite as applicable in
the twentieth century as in the fourth. And the story of the Education
Bill of 1906 cruelly exposes the fate of the modern zealot “whose
principle is the equality of all sects and the preference of one.”
Perhaps I may fairly claim that this painful and wasteful episode in the
struggle for national education is a glaring illustration of the main thesis of
the following pages. For that thesis, in few words, is simply this: that to
teach in the schools of the nation, and by authority of the nation, a
transcendental subject on which the nation is for the present irrecon
cilably divided in opinion is worse than impracticable. It is not only a
waste of time and money: it is a perennial source of strife, a deadly
injury to citizen education, a cause of hypocrisy, falsehood, and all the
forms of immorality inevitably propagated by these vices. Yet hardly
once in the course of the Parliamentary debates on that misbegotten
Bill was this essential issue fairly faced. With certain happy exceptions,
especially among the Labour Members, the prevalent assumption was
that we are all agreed on “simple Bible teaching,” though not one
champion of a lost cause attempted an articulate explanation of what
1 I say forms because one of my deepest convictions is that the division is super
ficial only. But the actual realities feebly represented by those forms were earnestly
taught in a strictly “ secular” school which I attended for six years of my boyhood.
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
vii
that teaching is. And nearly all ignored the patent fact that this effete
assumption has been long drummed out of existence by the discordant
sectarian bands who drowned by their noise all the more practical
educational issues at School Board elections. Nor has the abolition of
School Boards cured the mischief. For it has simply transferred the
battle of the Bible to municipal elections, and especially to the choice
of “ co-opted members ” on Education Committees.
But other signs of the times have portentously risen on the horizon ; Theology?’
and perhaps most significant among them is what is called “the New
Theology.” With that I have nothing whatever to do except to insist
that, however incorrectly the epithet “ new ” may be otherwise applied,
the movement is a novel and, I might even add, a startling illustration
of the main positions maintained in this Essay. For, instead of the
supposed unanimity of a reputed majority of the nation about the “simple
Bible teaching ” of which samples are given in the following pages, we
find even among the evangelical Nonconformists themselves an outbreak
of the most discordant opinions touching the origin, nature, infallibility,
and authority of the very Book whose exclusion from the schools, they
tell us, would be sacrilege. Now I am perfectly aware that such dis
cordance of opinion would be no sufficient objection to the inclusion of
the Bible as a “ classic ” in the school curriculum, always provided that
it could be treated as schoolmasters treat any other classic, and that
every teacher could be really freed from theological bondage. But, as
an old School Board hand and present member of a county education
committee, I know that these premises are at present simply impossible.
For the Bible is in the schools, not as a “ classic,” but as “ the word of
God.” Yet now the advocates of the New Theology, from their dis
tinguished leader the Rev. R. J. Campbell downwards, have practically
repudiated every intelligible sense in which the Book could be honestly
called the word of God.
I must dwell for a moment on this point, because, unfortunately,
the theological habits slowly formed during two millenniums impose on
good and honest men, I will not say a slippery, but certainly a subtle,
use of words which pleases the eye or ear, but leaves the reason
befogged. It is therefore necessary here to particularise the new forms
which the old problem of the Bible in school has assumed. For when
we are told that there is nothing in the new views held by so many
Nonconformists at all inconsistent with their advocacy of the old use of
�viii
Contrast of
the new
views with
‘ * simple
Bible
teaching."
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
the Bible as a class-book, it is surely needful to get a clear idea of those
new views, and also to remind ourselves of what the old use of the
Bible in school was and is. I will dismiss the latter first, because it is
only necessary to refer readers to the later pages of this book,1 which,
after six years, remain substantially, and indeed for the most pait
exactly, true of present practice.
In sum, the ancient and present usage amounts to this : That the
Bible is presented to the children as the very word of God, as “ God’s
letter to mankind,” and bearing everywhere the stamp of divine
authority, which it is wicked to doubt. But, of course, the time spirit is
too strong for uniform insistence on the old rigid literal interpretation.
Thus there is often an attempt on the part of the more intelligent
teachers in municipal schools to evade the difficulties of the Creation
story, the Fall, and the Tower of Babel, or perhaps of the Almighty’s
visit to Abraham’s tent, by feeble suggestions of “ allegory,” always with
the reservation that all is the “ word of God.” In this view of contem
porary Bible-teaching I am generally confirmed by Mr. Nevinson’s
recent most interesting letters to the Westminster Gazette on visits
which he paid to various elementary schools during the hour of religious
instruction. His remarks on the evident anxiety of Council school
teachers to avoid any suspicion of heresy were suggestive and painful.
Now let us note the contrast between the established usage in
public elementary schools—even those called “ undenominational ”—
and the ideas so rapidly spreading among Nonconformist supporters of
the Bible in school.23 To the “ New Theology,” as expounded by its
leader, the Bible has just as much authority as each individual mind
feels impelled to assign to it. But its claim to be “ the word of God ”
is gone. The first books of the Bible—so constantly prescribed by
Council “ syllabuses ” for the religious inspiration of infant minds—are
a collection of myths mainly of Babylonian origin. “ The Fall theory is
not only impossible in face of the findings of modern science; it is a real
hindrance to religion.”
The Incarnation, as understood by all recognised
1 See pp. 29 and following.
2 It is.only just to the Rev. R. J. Campbell to note that he at least is consistent,
and has joined the Secular Education I.eague. It is only what I should expect
of a man with a single eye to veracity.
3 Rev. R. J. Campbell, in The New Theology, p. 64. The italics are my own.
But the words are well worth emphasising in view of the constancy with which this
old myth is taught to young children as the starting-point of genuine religious
history.
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
ix
doctors of theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, is explained away.
Not that the divinity of Christ is denied. But it is regarded only as a
resplendent illustration of the divinity partly expressed, partly latent, in
every other man.1 It is true that, with expansive tolerance, Mr.
Campbell thinks “ even the Athanasian Creed is a magnificent piece of
work, if only the Churches would consent to understand it in terms of
the oldest theology of all”! The date and authority of this “oldest
theology ” are not given ; and it is not my business to conjecture the
author’s meaning. For my sole purpose in alluding to the book at all
is to show how far it shatters the persistent assumption that there is
such a thing as “simple Bible teaching” on which the dominant sects
are agreed. And the book proves my point, because it is written by the
most popular Nonconformist preacher of the day, occupying a sort of
episcopal pre-eminence in the central temple of Evangelical Noncon
formity, and because the book has attained a circulation rarely accorded
even to works of fiction.
Take up any syllabus23of religious instruction approved by local
Education Authorities, and note how impossible its prescription must
be to an honest teacher holding the “new theology.” For the greater
number of such documents—in fact, almost all—prescribe the story
of the Fall for the edification of the youngest children, together
with the narrative of the Deluge and the adventures of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, of which the mythical characters are clearly involved,
though not expressly stated, in the New Theology. Further, the New
Testament does not remain intact. For though Mr. Campbell is quite
willing that his adherents should believe the story of the Virgin-Birth
if they can, he is himself of opinion that it was “ unknown to the
primitive Church that it is an unauthorised addition to the earliest
Gospels; and that the reference in Matthew i. 23 to the supposed
prophecy of such a portent in Isaiah vii. 14 is due to the Evangelist’s
ignorance of Hebrews Anyone who observes what a prominent place
the story of Bethlehem takes in municipal religion as taught in Council
schools can judge of the cruel position into which the New Theology
forces any of its adherents who happen to be undenominational school
1 The New Theology, chap. v.
2 The character of these syllabuses, in which th? Act of 1902 has caused no
change whatever, is indicated in Chapter IV»
3 New Theology, p. 98.
Syllabuses
of Bible
teaching.
�X
“Canye not
discern the
signs of this
time ?”
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
teachers. Are they to tell the children what they themselves in the
new light believe to be false, or are they to resign their places ?
I need not pursue the subject; or I might show that in regard to
such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the Atonement, Apostolic
authority, and the nature of the kingdom of God, followers of this new
and popular teaching must find it impossible without hypocrisy to work
up to the pattern set before them in the syllabuses adopted by the
various education authorities. What, then, is the hope of those who
still support such a system ? Do they really think in their heart of
hearts that the adherents of the New Theology are a few aberrant and
exceptional persons who are negligible in any great question of the
national conscience? But in the following pages evidence is given that
these ideas prevailed to a large extent among elementary teachers
before ever Mr. Campbell was heard of. Are their numbers likely to
be lessened now ? I will quote an authority for which I have a more
rational reverence than any have who think that religion can be served
by blindness to staring facts. For one feature of the character of
Jesus does, I think, shine clearly upon us through all the mists breathed
by imaginative affection; and that is his splendid veracity. It-was
shown, as all the Gospels tell us, in his treatment of the Sabbatarian
superstition in his day. It was shown in his exposure of Pharisaism at
the peril of his life. It was shown in his daring to cast aside the
asceticism of John the Baptist and to rejoice with the sons of men.
And it seems to me it was his sense of outraged veracity which gave a
tone of anger to his retort upon those who wanted a sign of what could
never come, while they were blind to the plain tokens of what was
coming. “ O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky. But
can ye not discern the signs of this time?”
It can scarcely be too often repeated that my argument does not
involve any judgment one way or the other on the theological points at
issue between the different schools of thought above noticed. My sole
object is to expose the hollowness of the pretence that the great
majority of the nation are substantially agreed about the Bible, and
that they all mean the same thing by “ simple Bible teaching.”
Whether the old theologians or the new are right is a question that
makes no difference to my argument. At any rate, they disagree.
They differ about the dates, authority, and historicity of Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and most
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
xi
of the other Old Testament books.
They are at variance about the
Fall, the meaning of Jewish sacrifices, the Messianic prophecies, the
Atonement, the divinity of Christ, the extent of the inspiration of St.
Paul, the historical value of the Gospels, and especially of “St. John’s.”
But whatever may be the amount of truth attained by any of the
contending parties, it is only one party that has the advantage of having
its opinions established and endowed in the schools; and that is the
rapidly lessening section which holds to the old beliefs common to
Nonconformity and Low Church in the year 1871, and then stereotyped
once for all by the “ Compromise ” of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith.
Yet another sign of the times is the awakening of many earnest
Churchmen to the fact that the establishment and endowment of
religion, at least in the schools, involves humiliating conditions such as
cancel the value both of privilege and money. Thus it was interesting
to read in an editorial article of the Church Times on June 14th, 1907,
the following endorsement of the practical conclusion which the
ensuing pages were written to enforce : “ It is clear that under the
conditions of religious disunion prevailing in our country the appro
priation of public money in payment for religious teaching is a mistake.
It would not be impossible to make an equitable provision for all
religions alike; but the difficulties are great, and the fanaticism of a
small minority can make them insuperable. The only reasonable
alternative is to leave the provision of religious teaching entirely to
voluntary effort.” This practical conclusion is, of course, reached by a
very different course of thought from that of the following essay. And
for “ the fanaticism of a small minority ” I would substitute “ the
common sense of most.” But the value of the omen is its suggestion
that the possessors of a living faith, as distinguished from mere
formalists, are beginning to see that they dishonour their faith by
allying it with injustice and falsehood. If this sentiment spreads, the
wrong will cease.1
1 It is curious to contrast the above High Church frank acknowledgment of
obvious justice with the eloquent plea for privileged Puritanism uttered by one of
the ablest and most practical statesmen of the day. At Pontypridd, on July 20th,
1907, as reported in the Manchester Guardian, the Right Hon. D. Lloyd-George
rightly denounced the system which has given the Church of England millions of
public money “for the purpose of conducting little missionary schools throughout the
country.” But in eulogising with well-justified patriotism “a race whose intelligence
had been cultivated and strengthened and developed by a century of Puritan
theology,” he perhaps naturally overlooked the fact that church people have just as
good a right to object to a system which gives public money to pay for “ missionary
One variety
of opinion
alone estab
lished and
endowed.
The position
of Church
men.
�xii
New Regu
lations for
Training
Colleges.
Inconsis
tency of
M inisters of
the Crown.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Yet another sign of the times is to be found in the new “ Regula
tions for the Training of Teachers,” issued while I write. These regula
tions provide that no candidate for admission to any training college
may under any circumstances be rejected on the ground of religious
faith, “or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain
from attending any place of religious worship, or any religious obser
vance or instruction in religious subjects in the college or elsewhere."1
The last words, which I have italicised, are obviously incompatible with
the requirement of any religious belief whatever in candidates for
admission. They clearly leave it open to the intending student to
decline any Bible instruction or any lectures in “divinity.” But, of
course, the wise men of the Board of Education are quite aware of the
facility with which such a regulation may be evaded in already estab
lished training colleges. They therefore add another regulation, that
after August ist, 1907, no new sectarian training college shall be
recognised, nor any new hostel, unless connected with an unsectarian
institution. Moreover, to ensure compliance with these regulations, as
far as possible, the Board will prohibit the examination of candidates
by college authorities as a condition of admission. . Other means, of
course, will be taken to secure the necessary intellectual fitness of
candidates. But the colleges are to be left under no temptation to
favour their own theological persuasion. Now, surely, if such regula
tions are consistently carried out, they will of themselves, without any
new Education Bill, make the future use of the Bible in school impos
sible. For no student can be compelled to receive any instruction
therein either in his college “or elsewhere.” Now, if under such
circumstances any would desire still to have the Bible in school, they
neither love nor honour the book as I do.
Unfortunately, however, this does not appear to be admitted by the
Ministers of the Crown who are responsible for the new regulations.
And a brief note of the attitude they assumed towards an important
and influential deputation of Church dignitaries who, on July 20th,
schools” of that Puritan theology propagated under the form of “simple Bible
teaching.” . But even if the new Educational Bill should deny them the legal right,
the moral right will remain. I am well aware that Mr. Lloyd-George would repudiate
with honest indignation any idea of maintaining Puritan privilege. But to Church
men “ simple Bible teaching” is Puritanism. So it is to Catholics and to Unitarians
and Rationalists. And I think it is in the course of these pages proved to be
really so.
1 Regulations for the Training of Teachers, 8 (d).
�PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
xiii
1907, protested against those regulations, may well find a place among
the signs of this time. It is only due to the high ecclesiastics, headed
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who represented Church opinion, to
acknowledge that they argued their case with moderation and with the
inevitability of conviction necessarily involved in their view of life. On
the other hand, the chief merit of the response made by the Prime
Minister and Mr. McKenna was their emphatic distinction between
the denominational and the national point of view. They did not
deny that if teachers were to give instruction in Anglican doctrine they
must receive Anglican training. But they did deny that this was a
purpose for which public money could be fairly ear-marked. So far as
statutes and prescription guaranteed for the present the existence of
training colleges with a “ denominational atmosphere,” they admitted
the legality of privilege. But so far as statutes and prescription left the
Board of Education a free hand in administering grants of public
money for individual students, they insisted that national and not
denominational interests must determine their action.
But one cannot help regretting that they gave their whole case
away by needless deprecation of “the secular solution.” For surely, if
a teacher requires Anglican training before he can give Anglican
instruction, he must also require Biblical training before he can give
“ simple Bible teaching ”—all the more, indeed, if he is to make it
really simple. But, so far as the regulations show, no student is obliged
to receive such training. The Government abjures all responsibility for
such things, but will not allow a student to be rejected by any college
on account of his refusal to “attend any place of religious worship, or
any religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects, in the
college or elsewhere.” Indeed, to put the matter plainly, the only
forces on which religious people can rely to get these young people
trained for simple Bible teaching are church or chapel opinion, under
hand preferences, spiritual espionage, and in the last issue the social
boycott.
Now, if by deprecating the “secular solution” our statesmen mean
only that they desire a cultivation of right feeling and pure emotion, of
reverence, brotherly love, and loyalty to the real order of the universe, I
imagine that everyone must agree with them. But there is usually
more than this connoted by language of that kind. For the idea seems
to be that something very simple and obvious to common humanity is
Ambiguity
of the
phrase
“ secular
solution.”
�xiv
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
offered instead of ecclesiastical mysteries. But surely, when we
remember that “simple Bible teaching” includes Creation, the Fall,
the Deluge, the conquest of Canaan, God’s delight in David the man of
blood, the Virgin-Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension, we can
hardly help feeling that the concomitant rejection of the Church
Catechism is rather like “straining out the gnat and swallowing the
camel.”
Thus much by way of new Preface has been necessary to indicate
some signs of the times that have risen above the horizon since the first
edition was issued, and in view of which I have considerably altered
and enlarged the scope of the work. But for the sake of historical
continuity the Preface to the first edition is reprinted here, and the
story of the strange lapse of Nonconformity from its former consistency
is repeated, because it is at least of some importance to keep on
record the fact that objection to the “Compromise” of 1871 did not
originate with unbelievers in the Christian revelation, but with lovers of
the Bible. For a similar reason a considerable part of the earlier
chapters has been preserved in the original form, because it is of still
greater importance to remember that long before 1871 the first promoters
of “secular” schools were not “infidels,” but religious men.
J. A. P.
August, 1907.
�PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
Thirty years ago, in 1871, when the first School Board for London
accepted, with a close approach to unanimity, the well-known resolution
proposed by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., in favour of Bible
teaching in the schools, there was a small minority of three who
recorded their votes against it. Not one of these three was insensible
of the value and importance of the Bible in the education of humanity.
On the contrary, they had a reverence for it which was certainly not
shared by some of those who voted for the motion. Indeed, two of
them had devoted their whole energies up to that date to the work of
religious instruction. The first of the three was the Rev. Benjamin
Waugh, whose name is now known and honoured throughout the world
for the salvation he has brought to tens of thousands of suffering
children. The second was the late Mr. Chatfeild Clarke, a sincerely
religious Unitarian. The third was the writer of the following pages.
Few, if any, would like to confess that they have passed through
thirty years of experience without changing an opinion; and I hope I
have changed many opinions for the better. But all that I have
observed in the course of many imperfect labours in the field of
education has only confirmed the conviction expressed by that vote;
the conviction that we should have better served the interests of
religion as well as of education if we had acted on the judgment of the
older Nonconformists, that the Bible is not a proper subject for State
patronage and control. In so doing we should only have followed the
example set us by those States of Greater Britain whose eyes discern
the future more surely than ours.
J. A. P.
October, 1901.
XV
�*** In the following pages I mean by “ State schools ” all schools
supported by rates and taxes and subject to the Board of Education.
By “ municipal schools ” I mean schools provided, managed, and
partly supported by County or Town Councils. By “transcendental"
religion or doctrines I mean religious beliefs or dogmas that transcend
or go beyond the sort of experience or evidence usually required for
justice or legislation, and which are also outside the practical necessities
of citizen life.
�THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL
I.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
The problem of the right use of the Bible in the nation’s schools is
a question of morality quite as much as of religion. Yes, say the
advocates of its indiscriminate use, it is a question of morality, because
you can have no morality without religion, and no religion without the
Bible. Without stopping now to argue either of the points thus raised,
I may remind the holders of such opinions that some noteworthy men
of their persuasion have made these very points a reason for objecting
to the indiscriminate use of the Bible in the schools; and by the
phrase “indiscriminate use” I mean placing it in the hands of every
teacher, whether Catholic, Evangelical, or Rationalist, to give to the
children of believers and unbelievers alike explanations and instruction
therefrom in the principles of the Christian religion and of morality.
The once-honoured name of Edward Miall represents now, I suppose,
an extinct species of Nonconformity. Yet, whatever may have been
the defects of adaptability which made the sectarian struggle for
existence fatal to it, that obsolete type of Nonconformity at least
commanded respect by its moral consistency. For when it proposed
“the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control” it
meant all that it said; and was just as much averse to “State Patronage
and Control” in the school as in the Church. And therefore, from the
time of Sir James Graham’s Bill, which dates my earliest recollection of
the struggle for national education, the majority of English Noncon
formists stood out against any statutory system of State schools.1 This
attitude was for many years impersonated in Edward Miall, who held
that under such a system it would be impossible to exclude the Bible,
and that the Bible could not be properly taught by unspiritual, still less
by unsympathetic or unbelieving, persons. Thus, precisely because in
their view no morality was possible without religion, and religion meant
to them the Bible as a divine revelation, they insisted that the Book
was too sacred a thing for indiscriminate use in the sense defined above;
1 The weaker brethren supported the British and Foreign School Society, which
accepted Government grants. But they vainly thought that this did not commit them
to the principle of a statutory system of schools.
D
I
The
Miallites
�2
Devout
Secularists.
Speech of
Sir James A.
Picton in
1850.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
and, therefore, they dreaded the merging of their Voluntary schools in a
State system.
The next step in the development of Nonconformist opinion on the
question is, I fear, entirely forgotten by a younger generation, who think
of “ secularists ” in regard to national education as Secularists in belief.
Now, among the many historical mistakes for which ambiguity of
language, and especially of party epithets, is responsible, few are more
absurd than this perversion of recent fact. For just before and after
the middle of last century the prophetic eye that is sometimes a gift of
earnest religion began to discern not only the inevitability, but the
moral and intellectual necessity, of a statutory system of elementary
schools. And then some of the most earnestly religious among the
Nonconformists—such as the Rev. Edward Baynes and the late Dr.
Samuel Davidson—suggested that the difficulty might be evaded by
confining State or municipal schools to “ secular ” subjects, and leaving
to the Churches the responsibility for supplementing by religious
instruction this confessedly imperfect training.
I do not know that I can give a better illustration of the views then
held by many of the most devout Nonconformists than a quotation
from a speech delivered in 1850 by my father, the late Sir James A.
Picton, who was born and brought up among the Wesleyans, and was
thoroughly evangelical in his belief. At a meeting summoned by
several influential men in Liverpool, to petition Parliament in favour of
secular education, he moved the following resolution : “That, in order
that the rights of conscience may be effectually secured, it should be a
fundamental rule that nothing should be taught in any of the schools
which favours the peculiar tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”
But the speaker did not see in these words any suggestion of the future
“ compromise.” He believed that to avoid tenets peculiar to a part only
of the nation it would be necessary to confine instruction to secular
subjects. At the outset he referred to an article in the Nonconformist
newspaper, then conducted by Edward Miall, and strongly opposed to
any rate-aided system of schools. He then proceeded as follows :—
The gist of the argument is this : that because there are some things
in which it would be wrong for the community or State to interfere,
therefore the community should interfere in none, but should leave
everything to be effected by voluntary effort...... Is the illumination of
our streets to be considered all-important, and is the lighting-up of the
lamp of knowledge in the souls of darkened millions to be deemed
matter of no concern to the community as such?...... If it be right to
provide a library, it cannot be wrong to teach to read ; if it be just in
principle for the State to provide the means of intellectual gratification,
it cannot be unjust to afford the necessary preparation for its enjoyment.
...... The object to be attained is the communication of that knowledge
which shall fit a man to understand his social duties and duly to perform
his part in relation to this world. This is common ground on which all
�THE BIBLE SPHINX
3
can meet, and beyond this the community has no right to proceed.
Religious liberty should be absolute, or it is worthless. There cannot
justly exist any modification of it. The rights of conscience must be
held paramount to all mere human laws...... The practicability of the
system of education which we advocate has already been proved with
the most complete success in the New England States of America......
But this system is called irreligious, godless, and inimical to religion.
Could I bring my mind to this conclusion, I should regard the system
with the utmost abhorrence. I have been engaged as a Sunday-school
teacher for the last twenty-five years, in attempting to communicate
religious instruction to the young, and sooner would I consent to this
right arm being severed from my body than it should be upheld in the
support of any project adverse to religious truth. It is because I
consider this system most favourable to religious teaching that I give it
my warmest support. Let us look at the question fairly...... A news
paper is not of necessity irreligious unless it contain a theological
treatise or a sermon. The utmost that can fairly be said is that secular
teaching is incomplete ; but it is good as far as it goes. Now what
have religious teachers principally to contend with?...... Not so much, I
will take upon myself to say, the actual prevalence of vice in the young
as a degree of mental apathy or brutal ignorance, to remove which (in
Sunday-schools) often involves a most serious waste of time and labour.
...... A system, therefore, which should remove this obstacle, so far from
being unfriendly to religion, ought to be looked on as its most powerful
auxiliary. But, again, the communication of religious instruction1
requires a different mode of treatment from secular instruction. In the
latter some degree of coercion is absolutely necessary, and the attempt
to combine the two in simultaneous instruction is too often nominal
rather than real, a profession rather than a practice. The element of
religion should be love ; its teaching should be the voluntary effusion of
a devoted heart. The affections of the young should be called into
play, and everything should partake of the gentle and healing influences
of Him who “ spake as never man spake.” In thus enlightening the
minds of the young, and fitting them for the reception of religious truth,
I believe we are acting in accordance with the precepts of the divine
Redeemer, who instructed His disciples to “render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
No patriotic mind can look abroad on the heaving masses of life
around us increasing daily in consciousness of strength, without some
degree of apprehension arising, not from the character of our country
men’s hearts, but from the ignorance and darkness of their minds. The
heart of the Englishman still swells with the same generous and manly
emotions as it has ever done. The same hatred of oppression, the
same love of order, the same sense of justice and right, still form the
leading features of his character. But he is dark and longs for light.
1 What the speaker had in his mind was not the teaching of Jewish history, which
of course, if sincerity were allowed, might be communicated as easily as Greek or
Roman myths, but rather the conveyance of “grace and truth.” I am aware that
the distinction sounds antiquated now. And I cordially agree that, since character
and conduct are the highest educational end, every teacher, whether in so-called
“secular” schools or Sunday-schools, ought to be privileged to convey grace and
truth if he can. But in the nation’s schools the exercise of this high prerogative
must needs be subject to two essential conditions : (i) That he shall not wound the
religious susceptibilities of parents ; (2) that he shall never be faced with the dilemma
of hypocrisy or resignation if he should happen to differ from the religion of the
majority. And under resignation I include surrender of moral teaching.
�I
4
THE BIBLE SPHINX
Shall it not be given him ? He thirsts for knowledge. Shall not its
refreshing streams be poured into his soul? Justice, kindness, safety,
patriotism, all answer yes! “Wisdom and knowledge must be the
stability of our times ; then may we hope that the fear of the Lord will
be our treasure.”
Plausible but
fallacious
criticism of
the "secular
solution.”
Three
courses con
ceivable ;
but only one
possible.
Justice and patriotism may have answered “Yes,” but sectarianism
answered “No.” And in the sequel it was seen that the latter voice
was, unfortunately, more potent than was expected by such guileless
prophets as the speaker.
Of course, such a proposal as the above was open to obvious
criticism, on account of its suggested separation of things inseparable.
But many advocates of so-called “ secular ” schools were quite as well
aware as their critics that the distinction between things sacred and
secular is purely arbitrary. They knew that a religion of daily life—of
reverence, of devotion, of enthusiasm for good—was worth more than
all the rules of arithmetic, but that it might, and would, be taught, or
rather inspired, by a good man or good woman even in the process of
teaching those rules. They could not, however, quite see how it was
possible for such a religion of daily life to be naturally or effectively
taught in a course of Bible lessons wherein the good man or good
woman was forced to tell lies. And this they held must be the result
in a good many instances if teachers were accepted without any profes
sion of creed, but were expected to teach the average creed of the
nation, whether they believed it or not.
Now, this difficulty might be avoided in one of three ways—either
by allowing every teacher to use the Bible just as he would any other
book, and to say of it precisely what he felt, just as he would about the
Pilgrim's Progress or Paradise Lost; or, secondly, by allowing only
the use of an authorised selection of Bible extracts illustrating the
beauty of goodness; or, finally, as suggested by the so-called “ secu
larists,” by keeping the Bible out altogether. The first solution is, of
course, abstractly the right one, and in a hundred years will probably
be adopted. But, so long as any considerable section of the people
regard the Bible as miraculous and infallible, that solution is impos
sible. And this should be remembered by liberal thinkers, who talk
about the Bible as a “ classic,” which it would be vandalism to exclude
from the schools. Nor am I convinced by Dr. Frank Hayward’s
urgent and able plea that the Bible, treated on Herbartian principles,
leads the child through “historical culture-steps”1—is, in fact, savage
with the young barbarian, mythological with the boyish dreamer, while
it dramatises the evolution of despotic law and then of responsible
1 Reform of Moral and Biblical Education on the Lines of Herbartianism,
Critical Thought, and the Ethical Needs of the Present Day. (Swan Sonnenschein
and Co. ; 1902.)
�THE BIBLE SPHINX
5
freedom. For it seems to me that the writer gives up the whole case
when he admits that Jowett’s suggestion to “treat the Bible like any
other book ” is an impossible one. But the freedom of exposition
which Dr. Hayward himself advocates would be generally regarded as
compliance with Jowett’s suggestion, and would therefore be equally
impracticable. To say nothing of denominational State schools, which
are still very numerous, the local education committees, selected largely
for religious reasons, would not allow it. And if any teacher dared to
treat the stories of the Patriarchs, or Joseph, or David, or still more
the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, in accordance with the
modern criticism approved by Dr. Hayward, the debates of the local
authority would have a special value for the local Press. The second
solution, the selection of non-controversial passages, was advocated by
the late Professor Huxley. But when he realised his failure, and saw
what came of it, he was candid enough to own that the third solution
would have worked practically better than his.1 Those who advocate
this solution quite share the regret of liberal religionists that most of
our great colonies and the United States have found it necessary
generally to exclude or severely to limit in their primary schools the use
of so precious an inheritance from great times of old. They would
even agree that the expedient is a humiliating one. But, then, they do
not think that the humiliation attaches to those who would treat the
Bible like any other book. They rather think it falls on those who
persist in investing it with unreal attributes, such as forbid truth and
sincerity in using it.
The idea of a book absolutely without an error is now generally,
even by most of the religious sects, regarded as a figment of the ages of
ignorance. But, while the possibility of error is allowed, the admission
of its actual presence is guarded and limited by considerations which
have no relation whatever to evidence. It is, I believe, common now
for schoolmasters who know anything of geology to explain to their
pupils that in the Mosaic account of creation the word “ day ” does not
mean twenty-four hours, but an indefinite period of time. Yet those
teachers whose culture enables them to estimate the force of congruity
in determining the meaning of words, whether in literature or law,
must feel sure that the six-times repeated refrain, “The evening and
the morning were the ------ day,” determines beyond question the
intention of the writer to picture an ordinary day of twenty-four hours.
1 In a conversation with myself. The plan was never adopted, except in the
sense that, as even fanatics would not insist on having every word of the Bible read in
the schools, some selection was inevitable. But it was not made on Professor
Huxley’s lines. It kept always in view the dogmas common to the evangelical
denominations.
Prof.
Huxley's
proposal.
An inf lllible
book recog
nised no
where but in
school.
�6
The teacher
and Genesis.
The inquisi
torial rate
payer.
THE BIBLE SPHINX
Such teachers may know that various ancient commentators have felt
the need of a larger space of time for so majestic a work. But this
does not affect the impression made on their common sense that when
a man of Hebrew race wrote “ evening and morning ” he must certainly
have had in his mind the ordinary Jewish mode of reckoning from
sunset to sunset. If, therefore, he tells his young students of truth
that the sacred writer meant thousands of ages when he wrote “ days,”
this teacher knows in his heart of hearts that he is not speaking the
truth required at the moment.
It does not in the least matter whether the view here taken as to the
significance of “ evening and morning” be correct or not. The point is
that it is conscientiously held by a large number of educated teachers
who are required to teach the. Bible to children as “the word of God.”
And, of course, this special detail as to the meaning of the six days is
only fixed upon for distinctness of illustration. But let us leave that
detail, or suppose it obscured in a haze of generalities about the
undeniable dignity and occasional sublimity of the Bible story of
Creation. From the “ Broad Church ” point of view we are told that,
whatever may be the sacred writer’s errors in science, no ancient myth,
no poetic imagination of uninspired men, ever so nearly approximated
to the actual facts of the earth’s origin and development as recorded in
the rocks. Be it so—at least, for the purpose of our present argument.
Then let the teacher be free to tell this to his pupils; and, if he is a
man who happens to know where the narrative came from, let him be
free to tell his pupils further that it is a revised and improved edition of
a story found inscribed on clay tablets among the ruins of Babylon.
Certainly, if he were allowed to take this course, he would be saved
from much humiliating prevarication about the “ firmament in the
midst of the waters,” “ dividing the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament,” and about
the grass and herbs and fruit-trees which brought forth seeds and fruit
before the sun was made, and about the creation of birds before the
“ creeping thing and beast of the earth.” He might most honestly tell
the children that, with all its mistakes, the first chapter of Genesis is a
most precious and touching record of some devout soul’s effort to find
the secret of the world in God. But the requirement that he shall set
it forth as a direct revelation from the Creator of what he did before
there was any man to see it is surely a sore strain on any morality in
which truth has its proper place.
The conservators of a decaying creed, however, demur to any such
freedom on the part of teachers. “ We pay our rates and taxes,” they
say, “ to have the Bible taught in its simplicity as the word of God. It
would be an outrage on our conscience if teachers were allowed to treat
�TIIE BIBLE SPHINX
7
it as a human book.” And the advocates of a rate-aided Gospel in
municipal schools would add that it is not sectarian religion they want
—not, for instance, the Independent theory of Church government, nor
Presbyterianism, nor Infant Baptism, nor any such high matters -but
only the simple truths of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Atone
ment, and Immortality in heaven or hell, and Salvation by the blood
of Jesus. A good man whose notion of catholic comprehension is
embodied in the Union of the Evangelical Free Churches cannot
conceive that there is any touch of sectarianism in State-school religion
as thus defined. Perhaps he never meets with anyone who does not
hold the simple gospel composed of those doctrines. And if he hears
that such eccentric heretics really do exist, he waves them out of sight
with such phrases as “entirely exceptional” and “negligible minority.”
Whether that answer to the conscientious plea raised by these heretics
is in accordance with fact will be a question for our consideration later,
though I may remark, in passing, that the first years of the twentieth
century have already exposed the arrogance of any such assumption.
For the “ New Theology ” movement—already mentioned in the
Preface to the present edition of this Essay—has certainly not caused,
but only revealed, the widespread scepticism pervading the outwardly
orthodox majority.
Meantime, I would only observe that the “Nonconformist con- Change in^
science ” has not always been content to measure its own rights by the formist consize of the minority it represented. I am old enough to remember
times when the existence of even ten righteous men conscientiously
objecting to pay their parish church rates, though there might be five
hundred anxious to pay, was thought by good Nonconformists quite
a sufficient reason for resistance, even at the cost of distraint or
imprisonment.
While freely granting that in this preliminary statement of the issue
there are involved many incidental points on which I can have no hope
of sympathy from the majority, yet, if the substance of it be summarised,
I do not see how it can be denied without contradiction of patent facts
notorious to all. Who will dispute that on the relations of religion to
moral instruction, and of the Bible to religion, discordant and irrecon
cilable opinions are held with equal intensity of conviction by many of
the worthiest members of the commonwealth ? But those differences
are more than merely intellectual divergences. They touch on deepest
faiths and inspiring hopes and infinite fears. They are the clash of
mutually contradictory oracles held by opponents in the debate to be
the divinest utterance of their deepest and most real being. Indeed, the
differences are such that, if the opinions of any one group are adopted
as the law of the people’s schools, all other citizens must suffer painful
�8
The only
way.
TI1E TITLE SPHINX
and dishonourable disabilities. No matter what may be the selection
made, whether the opinions of Conformists or Nonconformists, of
Catholics or Protestants, of Rationalists or of “unsectarian” Evan
gelicals, all the rest must endure what they regard as the perversion
of the State’s authority and resources to mischievous and demoralising
uses. As ratepayers they must support out of their wages or wealth the
propagation into the new age of doctrines which they detest. As
teachers they must either play the hypocrite or take an inferior position.
As parents they must either acquiesce in the instillation into their
children’s tender minds of what to their parental affection seems
dangerous poison, or, by availing themselves of the “ Conscience
Clause,” they must inflict on their families the fate of little pariahs
during all their school hours. As citizens they must submit to have the
whole moral energy of the land they love devoted to immortalising
errors which, according to their point of view, may seem superstitious or
godless, loose and latitudinarian or promotive of priestcraft, but at any
rate offensive to some dearly cherished faith.
Under such circumstances I cannot see how the conclusion is to be
avoided, that the only way of treating the Bible honestly and reverently
in our educational system is to leave it to the voluntary action of
Churches, Sunday schools, and other religious organisations, to which
its popularity has been much more due than to State patronage and
control. In this conclusion I am supported by the invariable acknow
ledgment of reasonable religious people that such a course is the only
logical one, though persistent sentiment resists it. But there are some
cases in which English contempt for logic in legislation is obviously
mischievous and misplaced. And those are cases in which not merely
a rough adjustment to an average expediency is required, but an
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of some moral right. Of this
instances might be found in the history of religious toleration, the
slave trade, and slavery itself. Or if we come down to our own times, the
story of the opium trade with China—nay, also of Chinese labour in the
d ransvaal—proves abundantly that where the dictates of logic establish
moral claims the plea of expediency is always in the end overborne.
Some ingenious and plausible objections to the sovereignty of justice
in this case will be best treated later on. But if the Bible has to stand
like a mysterious and fatal Sphinx, with its unanswered questions and
its dire penalties at the gates of knowledge, that is not the fault of the
so-called secularists, but rather of the religionists, who refuse to
national school teachers unfettered freedom in the interpretation of
the Book.
�II.
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
“ Religious equality ” has too often been interpreted to mean equality
of privilege for Christian sects. We have not yet entirely outgrown
the feeble tolerance of kindly Commonwealth Puritans who would
extend the protection of the law to Presbyterians, Independents,
Baptists, and even Quakers, but who would bore with a hot iron the tongue
of a man who should outrage their “ fundamental ” beliefs. Modern
sentiment, indeed, protects us from too close an imitation of seventeenth
century practice in this respect. But in the assumption that the claim
to religious equality before the law is morally invalid in the case of
Unitarians, Rationalists, Pantheists,1 and Agnostics, the germ of the
old cruelty still survives. Now that is just the assumption which has
underlain all nineteenth-century discussion by liberal Christians of the
rights of “ultra-Rationalists,” or disbelievers in any revelation made by
a personal God.
The “ Broad Churchman ” repudiates with honest indignation any
lingering desire to subject even the “ Infidel ” to secular pains and
penalties on account of his unbelief. But he retains an equally honest
conviction that the “ Infidel,” by his alleged voluntary alienation from
the spiritual life of the Commonwealth, has forfeited any claim to
equal consideration with Christians on any question affecting the
establishment, endowment, or other public expression of the national
religion. This description of the attitude of liberal Christians towards
ultra-Rationalists can hardly be accused of exaggeration. Indeed,
there are not a few among the former whose objection to the unrestricted
citizenship of the “Infidel” is much more distinct. They say that he
dishonours their God and Saviour, and that, though they hope his
invincible ignorance may be leniently considered by the Supreme
1 If I do not mention “Atheists,” it is because I do not recognise the term as
properly applicable to any actual form of belief or unbelief. I never met, nor do I
expect ever to meet, a man who would deny that being is eternal. All the self-styled
“Atheists” I have ever known have simply denied that my idea of God, or any
other idea of God, answers to their notion of eternal being. I am bound to respect
their negative attitude. But I should call it Agnosticism, not Atheism. When I
find a man who positively denies that there is anything eternal, or, in other words,
who thinks that at one moment—so to speak—in the infinite past there was nothing,
and at the next moment there was everything, or “the promise and potency” of
everything, I will allow him the name of Atheist. But I shall not feel bound to
respect his intellect.
9
Limited
notions of
religious
equality.
�IO
At least it
should in
volve the
abolition of
compulsory
or merce
nary sacri
lege.
Strain on
conscience
sometimes
involved in
“ simple
Bible teach
ing.”
RELIGIOUS EOUA LI T\
Judge, yet they cannot consent to involve the nation in moral peril by
extending to him a “religious equality” inapplicable to irreligion.
It may be readily acknowledged that from this point of view the
problem of religious equality raises issues far too vast to be adequately
treated in connection with the right use of the Bible in the nation’s
schools. But it will presently be seen that, though we cannot help
indicating those larger issues, we do not need to lose ourselves in them.
For even if we grant, what I, for one, absolutely decline to do, that for
the public expression or recognition of the nation’s religious life the
legal recognition of the Bible is desirable—as, for instance, in the
Coronation service, and in swearing witnesses—yet everyone must
surely acknowledge that if any particular public use of the Bible
involves hypocrisy and lying, that use becomes a sacrilege, because, in
theological language, it desecrates the vessels of the Temple by
devoting them to the service of Satan. Now, precisely this is actually
involved in the use of the Bible in schools according to the great
Smith “Compromise.” Such an objection can only be met by asserting
that the desecration is not inherent in the legal usage of the book, but
in the infidelity or extreme Rationalism of those who cannot use it
aright. And this necessarily involves the corollary that none who are
unable honestly to use the Bible in accordance with prevalent opinion
ought to accept any office in which such use is required. Now that
means practically the exclusion of all who cannot accept the residuum
of Biblical belief common to Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents,
Baptists, and Methodists. The full justification of this assertion must
be reserved for a later stage of the argument, when we come to discuss
more particularly the position of teachers under the present order of
things. Meanwhile I only assume that, if this be so, it raises the
question of religious equality for Rationalists in a practical and limited
form, such as need not carry us very far into the vast issues suggested
above.
We need not, for instance, discuss the Broad Church idea that
individual alienation from the spiritual life of the Commonwealth may
justify the exclusion of that individual from entire religious equality.
For obviously we have to do here not with the spiritual life of the
nation, but with the Biblical theories which a national school teacher
is, as a matter of course, expected to hold and enforce. It is all very
well to say that “ theories ” are not expected, but practical teaching.
Yet if the practical point be the historical truth of the six days’
creation, or of the conversation of Eve and the Serpent, or of the
argument of Balaam’s ass with its master, or the three days’ lodging of
Jonah in the belly of a whale, or the Virgin Birth, or the feeding of
five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, or the bodily
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
ii
resurrection of Jesus guarded by angels, it is difficult to see how the
conscience of the teacher can avoid the issue of fiction or fact.
Either the teacher holds that the accuracy of such narratives is
guaranteed by an authority independent of historical evidence, or he
does not. If he holds the former theory, he can, of course, honestly
teach these stories as narratives of fact. But if he does not hold it,
even the chance hints occasionally let fall in the secular history lectures
of a training college are enough to suggest to him that for such stories
historical evidence of the sort required for secular events is not
forthcoming. And unless he have a mind exceptionally impervious to
the echoes of criticism in the air, he feels in his inmost soul that,
however useful as parables or otherwise those old-world tales may be,
they have no claim to be treated as historically true.
We are not, however, at this point concerned with the special diffi
culties of intelligent teachers. I have referred to the effect of historical
lessons in training colleges only as suggestive of the far more pronounced
scepticism pervading the wider circles of moderately-educated people,
who are under less temptation to a biassed judgment. And if I use the
word “scepticism,” I take it in its proper and original sense of an inquiring
spirit. I do not say, and I do not believe, that more than one-fifth, if
so many, of English-speaking people reject entirely the idea of a divine
revelation given them in the Bible. But I do maintain, because the
tone of our current literature of social conversation proves it, that the
old matter-of-course assumption of the divinely-guaranteed historic
accuracy of the Hexateuch, and the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles, - has entirely disappeared from all circles of tolerably
well-educated society. No literary aspirant to the pages of our most
eminently respectable monthly magazines has now the slightest hesitation
in treating the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as a figment of the
Great Sanhedrim, or of unsupported tradition. The popularity of the
late Professor Huxley’s controversial essays cannot be wholly explained
by their brightness and vigour. Admiring readers might not go all
lengths with him in his negative conclusions. But they were not
revolted by his claim to treat the Bible on the common-sense principles
that he applied to science; and even this extent of acquiescence
involved an immense shifting of the foundations on which their ideas
of cosmic and human origins, as well as of Judaism and Christianity,
had hitherto rested.
Reference to one recent publication alone may save us a good deal
of detail. Surely none but bigots can rejoice over the financial diffi
culties that prevented the completion of the “ Polychrome Bible.”
But if there should be any so unsusceptible to the real “powers of the
world to come ” as to imagine an interposition of a watchful Providence
Sceptical
attitude of
the ^eneraj
public.
The “Poly
chrome
Bible.”
�12
Religious
position of
its editors.
EELIGIO US EQUALITY
in this case, let them look at the volumes issued; let them note the
list of contributing scholars, nearly all belonging to churches reckoned as
orthodox; let them think of the amount of money sunk in a commer
cially unsuccessful, but magnificently prophetic, enterprise, and they will
be compelled to own that it indicates a flowing tide of new opinion about
the Bible. To describe it shortly, it is an incomplete edition of the
Hebrew Scriptures with a new translation, accompanied by brief
pregnant notes and a very few pictorial illustrations.
The feature from which the Polychrome Bible derived its name is
the variegated colouring of the pages designed to show at a glance the
various documents from which the Hebrew Scriptures, as we have them,
are believed by the editors to have been compiled. The treatment is
entirely and unreservedly free—as much so as if the subject were the
Vedas or the Zendavesta. It is at the same time profoundly reverential,
as is indeed most becoming whenever or wherever we study genuine
records of man’s struggle upwards from the passions of the brute to the
eternal life. The result, however, is a version subversive of many, or
indeed most, of our traditional ideas of the Bible. The translation, if it
is correct, which, so far as my knowledge goes, I believe it generally is,
would often make the evangelical interpretation of crucial passages
obviously impossible.1 The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is so
entirely rejected that the earliest documents therein of any length and
importance are attributed to the latter part of the ninth century B.c.,
while the narrative of creation in Genesis i. and Levitical regulations,
long defended as Mosaic, if nothing else was, are regarded as the work
of exiled Jews in Babylon about 500 b.c. The Prophecies of Isaiah are
assigned to a number of sacred bards, among whom the Isaiah of former
evangelical divines occupies a limited though luminous space. The
Psalms are “ the hymn-book of the second Temple.” We are
told that “it is not a question whether there be any post-Exilic Psalms,
but rather whether the Psalms contain any poems written before the
Exile.”
My point, however, is not the amount of importance to be attributed
to the scholarly judgment of the learned men responsible for this great
work, but rather their representative position in the world of religious
thought. Had they been condemned heretics, “ aliens from the
Commonwealth of Israel,” it might be said that their views are excep
tional and eccentric, at any rate of no value as evidence of the trend of
opinion. But so far is this from being a correct description that the
editors are all of them men of high position and some of distinguished
fame in English, American, or German Universities, and in communion
1 E.g., Isaiah vii. 14, where for “virgin” we read “young woman.”
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
i3
with national churches or other great and respected Christian denomi
nations. The chief editor was Dr. Paul Haupt, Professor of Hebrew
and the cognate languages in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
and until 1889 Professor Extraordinarius of Assyriology in the University
of Gottingen, Hanover. Isaiah has been edited by Dr. T. K. Cheyne,
Canon of Rochester, and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford. Exodus has been treated by Dr. Herbert E. Ryle,
Hulsean Professor of Divinity and President of King’s College,
Cambridge; the Book of Numbers by Dr. J. A. Paterson, Professor
at the Theological Seminary, Edinburgh ; and Deuteronomy by Dr.
George A. Smith, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis at
the Free Church College, Glasgow. There is no need to give the rest
of the thirty-eight names. With the exception of one Unitarian gentle
man and two Jewish scholars, the three editors of two minor books, all
of them would be recognised as official representatives of moderate
orthodoxy in religion.
Another proof of the revolution in opinion about the Bible is the
Encyclopedia Biblica, of which only one volume had appeared when the
first edition of the present Essay was published. This great and
scholarly work, though involving large expenditure, could hardly demand
the vast sum which would have been needed to carry out the original
idea of the Polychrome Bible with its Hebrew text, and English trans
lation, laboriously assigned to various older documents distinguished by
different colours. But in any case it must have been a costly work, and
the very fact of its completion in four large volumes suggests a popular
demand which could not have been found in Great Britain or America
fifty years ago. Not that there was less interest then in the Bible. But
the demand was almost exclusively for works which would prove the
Bible true. Now this is neither the motive nor the burden of the Encyclo
pedia Biblica. The one purpose is to ascertain the real facts and state
them. Nor does such a purpose in the least involve a negative or
iconoclastic zeal. For if the Bible were not a valuable inheritance of
mankind, such a work as this would not, morally or intellectually,
have repaid the enormous labour involved. And, like the parts of the
Polychrome Bible, it owes its existence, not to hesitant sceptics, still less
to “ blatant infidels,” but to clergymen and others, who are, many of
them, shining lights in reputedly orthodox churches.
Of the conclusions affirmed it may be said, generally, that while the
various writers differ considerably, there is scarcely one of them who can
be conceived as endorsing the idea of the Bible implied in the syllabuses
of scriptural instruction for public elementary schools.
The elaborate and searching article on the Gospels, running to 198
columns, is by two well-known authors—the Rev. Dr. Abbott, late Head
Similar case
of the En
cyclopedia
Biblica,
�T4
Thus
** simple
Bible teach
ing ” be
comes a
theological
test.
Limitations
of the
argument.
RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
Master of the City of London School, and Professor P. W. Schmiedel,
holding the Chair of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich. They are not
agreed, and the latter is much more “radical ” than the former. It must
not be assumed that I agree with him. For, if I point to the fact that
he allows only nine brief passages in the Gospels to be “absolutely
credible,”1 it is by no means for the purpose of endorsing any such
conclusion, but only to emphasise my main point here, that the dif
ferences of opinion among religious people are enormously great. From
which it follows that no education authority has a moral right to expect
all young teachers, fresh from the higher instruction now open to them,
to give, as a matter of course, such “ simple Bible teaching” as assumes
the historicity of the Gospels. And to exclude the increasing number
of those who cannot conscientiously do so would be a gross violation of
religious equality.
The inference I draw from such signs of the times as I have mentioned
is not an extravagant one. It is not that the majority of the people in
England or America have been converted to pure Rationalism, but only that
it is unjust and absurd to say that the rejectors of the historical accuracy
of the Bible are a negligible quantity, eccentric heretics, aliens from the
spiritual life of their race, and therefore rightly subjected to religious
disabilities where questions of national education are concerned.
Probably many of my liberal religious readers will think that I have
taken a great deal of unnecessary trouble to arrive at an obvious con
clusion. Of course that is so, they will say; but where are the religious
disabilities ? My answer is that those disabilities are twofold—first,
denial of the just rights of conscience ; secondly, exclusion from honest
and self-respecting service of the nation as teachers in its public schools.
I grant that, if disbelievers in Bible history can consent to a colourable
hypocrisy, they are not excluded ; but if anyone holds that eligibility to
appointment under such a condition constitutes religious equality, with
him I will not argue. I was brought up in a different school, and I
think it is a loss to the passing generation that the principles of that
school are, for the moment, out of fashion.
The argument of this chapter necessarily presupposes, as a condition
of its practical application, the stage of religious evolution reached by
England in our own age. But it would have been manifestly inap
plicable in any practical way of statesmanship to Wycliffe’s England or
even to Oliver Cromwell’s, as that great ruler was obliged sadly to
acknowledge.
Further, if there are now nations whose prevalent
religious feeling is mediaeval rather than modern, the argument would
be practically inapplicable also to them. But it does not in the least
1 Encyclopedia Blblica, s.v. “Gospels,” paragraphs 139-40.
�RELIGIOUS EQUALITY
15
follow that there is no such thing as eternal right. For, as I have said
elsewhere, the only intelligible sense in which moral truth can be called
eternal is this : “That whenever and wherever the same conditions occur
the same moral truth holds good.” 1 Thus, where the right of private
judgment on things religious has been popularly and authoritatively
affirmed, justice requires that each man should allow to all others the
same unreserved freedom of conscience which he claims for himself.
But where the right of private judgment is both popularly and authori
tatively denied, as it was in the Middle Ages, each man may feel bound
to be almost as watchful over his neighbour’s obedience to Church
authority as he is over his own. And when the alternative was ever
lasting hell-fire or heaven I can well conceive that the golden rule of
doing unto others as you would they should do unto you might well
suggest denunciation of the heretic for the salvation of his soul, or at
any rate for the prevention of the spread of his damnable errors.
The rule was the same; but the prevalence of superstition made the
conditions different, and therefore the practical application was different
from what seems right to us. But, at any rate, under mediaeval con
ditions compulsory uniformity of belief, so far as it could be practically
enforced, was perfectly defensible. There is nothing in this acknow
ledgment to detract in the least from our admiration of the martyrs for
individual conviction. Indeed, there is much to enhance our admira
tion. For they had to contend, not only against brute force, but against
the universal convention which confounded ecclesiastical obedience with
moral duty—just as, at the present day, acquiescence in “ simple
Bible teaching ” is regarded by many as a dictate of the moral law. Yet
surely England as a whole, England apart from Scotland or Ireland,
England of two or three hundred sects, England of a free Press and free
speech and “ liberty of prophesying,” England which has boldly inaugu
rated of late new programmes of free thought and of free religious
organisation, belongs to the twentieth century, not to the fourteenth,
and cannot, with any decency, longer maintain that religious equality
in the schools should be confined to Low Church and Nonconformist
sects.
1 Spinoza: A Handbook to the Ethics, p. 156 «•
�III.
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
b°fmit3th
Before the year 1870 the Nonconformists held that it is wrong, unjust,
Compromise and even cruel, to make a man pay for the maintenance and spread of
and after.
N
conformist
theones of
functions.
what he holds tQ be religioUS error.
j
old.fashioned enough fo be
of the same opinion still, unless we happen to live in a community that
still belongs to the Middle Ages. The sentimental generalities of
“ Broad Churchmen,” which appear singularly attractive to Noncon
formist “ perverts’’—like the late Right Hon. W. E. Forster1—have on
this subject blurred the boundary lines of right and wrong in the minds
of many influential men of Puritan traditions. With much plausibility
they say that men like the late Edward Miall were wrong in assuming
that there is a clear and straight-cut dividing-line between things
sacied and “secular.” They were wrong, also, in assuming that a
national or municipal government ought of right to confine itself to a
policy of gas and water, of sewage and sanitation. They were wrong,
agaill; in conceiving of government as a corporate policeman, whose
only duty is to keep individual citizens from wronging each other. If
the life of a man should be treated as a whole, and not as a mosaic of
religion, morality, business, and politics, so ought the life of a nation to
be treated as a whole. From that point ot view the business of a
Government is to foster and co-ordinate all healthy forms of the national
energy, w’hether ticketed as religious or secular, social or commercial,
aesthetic or practical, individual or collective. Nor is this reaction
against administrative nihilism ” confined to Broad Churchmen and
Nonconformists. It has generally the support of the Ethical Societies
and their organs, among whose aims the substitution of non-theological
ethics for religious instruction in the nation’s schools is prominent. I
do not understand, however, that the supporters of the Ethical Move
ment desire to make the denial of revelation a part of our school
teaching, still less to extort rates from the pockets of devout evangelicals
for the support of such teaching.
. ’ Though of limited outlook, Mr. Forster was a very shrewd man. The saying
attributed to him, that he “ would get over the religious difficulty in a canter,” at least
suggests his knowledge of Nonconformity in his day. He knew that if the sturdy
opponents of State patronage and control ” were allowed to have the “ simple Bible
teaching of their Sunday-schools patronised and endowed, their consciences would be
satisfied ; and they would not be able to conceive any reasonable objection on grounds
ot conscience by anyone else.
b
16
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
17
It is at this point that I find a limit to the generous theories of the
State’s function, which have so largely superseded that of the corporate
policeman. There are, I believe, other limits; for many methods of
social action derive all their charm and effectiveness from voluntary
impulse, and are practically paralysed if this be superseded by law. But
we are concerned at present only with the particular limit that comes
into view when religion is touched. It was from this point of view only
that the Nonconformist opponents of church rates could be justified.
In extorting from them by force the support of transcendental1 doctrines
that they condemned, an indefensible wrong was done to their con
scientious convictions. This has now been conceded to them. But
most of the survivors of that struggle appear strangely blind to the
bearing of their own arguments on the education rate, so far as it is
spent on the present Bible teaching.
I am one of a school till lately “everywhere spoken against,” who,
just because we prize the Bible highly, regret very much to see the
venerable Book misused as it is in our schools. Its value to us consists,
not in any revelation or any otherwise inaccessible information supposed
to be found in its pages, but in the unrivalled power of spiritual and
moral inspiration inherent in its noblest utterances. Through all our
changes of opinion, surviving all denials forced on us by evidence and
honesty, rising triumphantly from the scientific grave to which a dead
creed has been committed, that power seems to us indestructible,
immortal. We do not think of the Bible less ; we think far more of it
than when we believed in Eve’s apple and Balaam’s ass. For then it
represented to us a series of violent dislocations of the order of nature.
But now the Bible is to us an age-long vision of truth disentangling
itself from error, of right slowly conquering wrong, of the emergence
through the illusions and lies and sufferings and struggles and passions
and aspirations of mankind of that more perfect state which, if the earth
last long enough, must bless some future generation, and which, by its
consummation of past, present, and future in one consciousness, may
well be called the eternal life, or even “ the fullness of the godhead
bodily.”
We think such a Book degraded to low uses when it is enthroned as
a fetish, before which judgment and reason grovel in the dust of super
stition. And we protest against being made to pay for such sacrilege.
Indeed, the wrong done to conscience in our case is much more offen
sive than anything that could be alleged by our predecessors under
church rates. For, after all, our evangelical fathers and grandfathers
1 As explained in a preliminary note, I use this epithet to describe doctrines going
beyond the sort of evidence usually required for justice or legislation, and also outside
the practical necessities of citizen life.
Limits to
such
theories.
Real value
of the Bible.
Degrada
tion of the
Bible.
�i8
Possible
limits to the
rights of
conscience.
Where its
claims are
indefeasible.
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
agreed almost entirely with the religious and moral teaching of the
Established Church. Their points of difference touched only eccle
siastical order and sacraments, which, however important in their view,
could hardly be said to affect fundamental morality. But we, in these
times, are forced to support a system which we not only suspect, but
know by experience, to be utterly inconsistent with a cultivation of that
“ truth in the inward parts ” which in the Bible itself the Eternal is said
to require.
I am not so foolish as to hold that legal compulsion is necessarily
barred the moment any plea of individual conscience is raised. I fully
acknowledge also the difficulty of drawing a clear line between legitimate
and illegitimate pleas of conscience. Nor is it essential to attempt it
here. I confine myself to one class of cases in which it seems unjust
and cruel to reject the plea. But I will offer one or two suggestions on
the general question.
In matters on which public opinion is much divided by differences
depending on sentiment rather than on evidence it is always dangerous
for authority to be intolerant of conscience in recusants. Further, if
the differences concern transcendental questions, with no immediate
or obvious bearing on the practical life of the commonwealth, such
intolerance is more than dangerous; it is wrong. For one need not be
a fanatical “individualist” to hold that some inner sources of individual
character and will are of priceless worth to the community, and should
be held sacred in every man. Among these we may surely count the
individual feeling of solitary responsibility to eternal Power for personal
loyalty to its rule. Without this, indeed, we have no true common
wealth at all. For any group of creatures who fulfil only by instinct,
and unconsciously, separate functions of convergent advantage to the
whole of that group, are more on the level of a hive than of a common
wealth. To this latter some intelligent consciousness of subordination
to a common end is necessary, and this cannot be permanently secured
without individual loyalty to a control higher than institutions and
more comprehensive than the State. It was an inarticulate feeling of
this truth which led the ancients to insist so much on religion as the
sanction of patriotism. This also was what St. Paul had in mind when
he said, perhaps too indiscriminately: “Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers
that be are ordained of God....... Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake.” But when the loyalties
clashed St. Paul resolutely obeyed the higher. It has taken the rulers
of this world a long time to find out that it is precisely such men who,
if only their conscience be respected, make the best citizens. In fact,
records of our own time—such as some of the proceedings under the
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
i9
so-called Blasphemy Laws, and also under the Church Discipline Acts
—show that the lesson has not even yet been perfectly learned. But
we have surely got so far that, if any wrong done to conscience is clearly
made out, public opinion will insist on finding a remedy, lest so
precious an inspiration as that of individual loyalty to truth and right
should suffer sacrilege. My plea is that such a wrong is done by the
present system of Bible instruction in public schools, because it forces
every citizen, whatever his belief or unbelief, to pay for the propaga
tion of transcendental doctrines having no necessary bearing whatever
upon citizenship; and even though he may conscientiously think some
of those doctrines not only false, but immoral, still he must pay.
Before leaving this part of the subject, however, let me try to show
how such reasonable claims of the religious conscience as are here
raised may be distinguished from perverse individual revolts against
salutary State regulations. I will take the case of the self-styled
“Peculiar People,” a case by no means easy to deal with, but one
which an advocate of conscience-rights ought not to shirk. If I under
stand the position of these people rightly, it is their conscientious
conviction that the Bible requires them in cases of sickness to depend
on direct divine healing, without the intervention of a human physician.
I am not competent to discuss the legal difficulties which thus arise.
How far any man, whether a “ Peculiar ” brother or not, can be com
pelled to ask and act on medical advice for his child, just as he is
compelled to obtain “ efficient instruction ” for that child, I am not
lawyer enough to say. He is not compelled to go to the schoolmaster
for his child’s instruction if he can ensure it in some other manner. It
might be plausibly asked : Why, then, should he be compelled to go to
the physician for medical aid if he can obtain it in«some other manner?
But “ there is much virtue in an ‘ if.’ ” The legal view, or, at any rate,
the common-sense view—which lawyers tell me is the same thing—is
that the “if” here does in many cases introduce an impossible, and
therefore unreal, alternative. What the law requires is that the parent
shall do all within his power to prevent unnecessary suffering to his
child, and still more to save its life. Whether he be rich or poor, it is
within his power to obtain medical aid, and there are cases in which
legal evidence can prove that medical aid, so far as human judgment
can discern, would make all the difference between life and death. In
such cases “conscientious” objection to medical aid does not come
under the conditions laid down above as defining the rights of con
science.1 It may be, indeed, a case of false sentiment, but it is still
more a stolid refusal of evidence. Transcendental doctrine may,
1 See p. 18.
Spurious
claims. The
“ Peculiar
People."
�20
Difference
of the case
of the objec
tor to
vaccination.
THE NE W CHURCH RA TE
perhaps, be involved, and on that the parent may keep his own opinion.
But sickness and healing are matters of physiology rather than of
mysticism. They have a palpable and immediate bearing on the
practical life of the commonwealth. Where this is the case, and where
the requirement of medical aid is based upon an overwhelming con
sensus of experience and opinion, the community is abundantly justified
in telling the recalcitrant parent to keep his scruples for the kingdom of
heaven, and to render his due obedience to the kingdom of this world.
The conscientious objector to vaccination may claim to be in a
different and stronger position, not because his conscience is more
sacred than that of the “ Peculiar ” person, but simply because there is
not the same overwhelming consensus of experience and opinion to
support compulsory vaccination as there is to support compulsory
recourse to medical aid for serious illness. If experience had con
firmed Jenner’s assertion that one good vaccination would make the
patient insusceptible to small-pox for the remainder of his life, the
probability is that the question of compulsion would never have arisen.
The popularity at one time of the system of inoculation shows how
anxious people were to protect themselves. It is improbable that, if no
cases of small-pox after vaccination had been known, such a marvellous
preventive would have needed enforcement by fine or imprisonment.
But if, contrary to probability, resistance had been encountered similar
in its eccentricity to the attitude of the “ Peculiar People,” a claim
to exemption on conscientious grounds would have had small chance of
sympathy in the face of such overwhelming proof of a palpable and
obvious benefit to the practical life of the community. Even to the
plea that a man might well be allowed to leave his own children
unvaccinated, seeing that all others could, if they chose, be guaranteed
by this infallible antidote against danger from his neglect, it might perhaps
have been justly replied that he would be exposing his own children to
unnecessary danger and suffering, contrary to the spirit of modern law.
But all such arguments are annulled by the now notorious fact that the
vaccinated sufferers from small-pox outnumber the unvaccinated in
about the same proportion as the vaccinated bear to the unvaccinated
in the whole population.1 If a man draws from this fact the conclusion
that the alleged preventive makes no difference, but practically leaves
things just as they would be were vaccination entirely abolished, I do
not say that he would be unanswerable ; but I do say that it is unjust
to treat him as an obstinate fanatic or a traitor to society. This, in
1 See Report of the Dissentient Commissioners, annexed to that of the Royal
Commission on Vaccination, 1901. The “ Conscience Clause ” unanimously recom
mended on the motion of the late Lord Herschell would never have been suggested if
vaccination had accomplished what Jenner declared it would.
�THE NEW CHURCH RATE
21
fact, is just what the recent law has recognised by excusing from
compulsion all who, in proper form, make a declaration of conscientious
objection. In other words, the case is authoritatively pronounced to be
one in which the plea of conscience cannot justly be ignored.
Quakers and
I will take yet another case to elucidate the principle suggested war taxes.
above as a test of the rights of conscience. The other day I observed
in the newspapers the report of a sale by legal order of certain goods
belonging to a worthy Quaker who had refused to pay his taxes because
of the South African War. He would not voluntarily support bloodshed,
and therefore took joyfully the spoiling of his goods. But, with all
respect for one who is clearly a man of high character and strong
individuality, I hold his plea to be entirely illegitimate. The main
tenance of peace and the making of war both belong to the practical,
material life of the commonwealth. In such matters, if it is to act at
all, it must act as a whole. There may be, and there nearly always is,
division of opinion. But the majority determines the action, and it is
carried out as the action of the whole. On no other conceivable plan
could a commonwealth exist at all. This action as a whole, however, is
only secured by the subordination of the wills and opinions of the
minority to those of the majority. After doing all they can to secure
that right counsels should prevail, the minority are no longer responsible
in foro conscientice. To refuse at least passive obedience to the general
voice in a matter strictly within the functions of a commonwealth would
be to invalidate social order.
Of course, social custom or law may sometimes be so bad that it
ought to be resisted. And in that case chaos must be endured for a
while that a better order may succeed. But such extreme crises are
very exceptional, and perhaps they never arise unless the common
wealth, or those who usurp its powers, have exceeded its functions of
organising the practical, earthly (or, if we may use the word, secular)
life. This happened in the seventeenth century in England, and it is
the chronic state of things in Russia. But to say that the act of the
community in making external war can justify those who object to it in
refusing to pay taxes would be to declare any commonwealth impossible,
and to assert the principle of anarchism.
The conscientious objection felt by an increasing number of English Strength of
the case
people to be made to pay for the present Bible-teaching in the nation’s against the
Bible rate.
schools is not open to any such condemnation. Such teaching cannot
fairly be described as one of those public functions in which the
commonwealth, if it act at all, must act as a whole. Indeed, so far
as public elementary schools are concerned, such an assumption has
been solemnly repudiated by Parliament in the Act of 1870. That
Act does, indeed, forbid any “ creed or formulary distinctive of any
�22
THE NEW CHURCH RATE
particular denomination ”—a prohibition found perfectly consistent with
strongly dogmatic teaching. But it does not require that there shall be
any religious teaching at all. It throws the odium of persecution on
the local authority. Even in the elementary schools of the “ National
Society ” the State now declines any responsibility for religion except so
far as concerns the maintenance of the “ Conscience Clause.” It does
not examine in religion, and it does not “inspect” religious instruction.
It is clear, therefore, that in modern statecraft the support of religious
teaching is not placed on a par with the maintenance of war, or with the
provision of secular instruction as the duty of the whole commonwealth
acting together. Further, it cannot reasonably be said in defence of
municipal school practice that the infallibility of the Bible or its historic
accuracy, or the transcendental doctrines taught from it, have a palpable
or necessary bearing on the practical life of the nation. If, therefore,
any Rationalist were moved by his conscience to refuse to pay his
school rate on the ground that it is applied to propagate “free church ”
dogmas, his conduct would certainly not be open to the same criticism
as that of the conscientious Quaker mentioned above. And if the
evangelical Nonconformists were right, as I presume they still think
they were, in objecting to pay church rates, they ought to realise the
gross inconsistency of which they are guilty in compelling rejectors
of their creed to pay for teaching it. This is in flagrant contradiction
to the doctrine of religious equality which, with stammering tongues,
they still assert.
Survivors, if there are any, of the noble army of “church-rate
martyrs ” might ask why Rationalist nonconformity does not prove its
sincerity by a similar martyrdom. It is a question of proportion.
Unbelievers in supernatural religion have often gone to prison, or
suffered odious wrong in law courts, rather than play the hypocrite
But the devotion of part of a rate to a purpose they disapprove, while
they heartily applaud the use of the greater part of it, hardly seems to
them to justify martyrdom. The church rate was devoted wholly to
church uses. It would be scarcely becoming in the advocates of
religious equality as the right of a free-born Englishman to urge that
a man must have his goods distrained before he can fairly claim that
right.
�IV.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
Religious equality is also outraged by the exclusion of non-Evangelical ^ouki^
Nonconformists from honest and self-respecting service of the nation in belief ex...
l-i
r
i
r t
elude from
its public schools. This is a wrong which cannot, ot course, be felt so the nation’s
widely as the last, because, naturally, those born with an imperious service
vocation to teaching are a small minority. But where this particular
form of injustice strikes it is felt with a special bitterness. And the
number whom it affects is rapidly increasing. I do not mean merely
that the number of silent protestants against the doctrinal residuum
constituting “undenominational religion” is increasing, but that the
number among them who find either open or tacit hypocrisy intolerable
is rapidly growing. In proportion as the impossibility of retaining the
old beliefs becomes more widely felt, the demand for relief from any
pretence of believing them becomes more urgent. There was a great
change in the theology of the middle classes during the later years of
the nineteenth century.
Even so recently as the School Board era of 1870, the sharpness of ^j^ons
the issue between the creed of the Evangelical Alliance and actual fact question is
.
.
0
. .
more urgent
was not generally realised with anything like the same distinctness as now than in
now. The significance of Assyrian and Egyptian records had not been
grasped except by a very few profound scholars. The Tell-el-Amarna
Tablets, with their revelation of the condition of Palestine about the
time assigned to the Mosaic exodus, had not been discovered. The
Polychrome Bible had not presented its rainbow spectre of Bible
origins. The Encyclopedia Biblica had not appeared. Even the
“ Moabite Stone,” though discovered in 1868, was not generally
known, nor for years afterwards fully appreciated. The inscription of
Menephthah, recording a victory over certain “ Israhili ” in North
Palestine, about the date when he was supposed to have been drowned
in a mad pursuit of Israel through the Red Sea, was as yet unknown.
The enormous antiquity of the human race, and even of civilisation and
organised religion, was as yet entirely under-estimated, but has since
been enlarged beyond the dreams of old-fashioned anthropologists by
recent excavations in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Crete. So far as the
spade had then recovered the past of sacred lands, it was believed that
the correspondence of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Chaldean ceremonies
and forms of worship with Biblical references confirmed the Scripture
23
�24
Suspense
judgment
then more
possible
than now.
Acknow
ledgments
of a Free
Church
Council.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
record; while the actual occurrence in inscriptions of names mentioned
m the Old Testament was thought to have finally settled the question
of its historical veracity. It is true that the epoch-making book of
Darwin had been published eleven years before. But even among
scientific men there was considerable hesitation in applying the theory
of natural selection to man. And religious liberals who toyed with
edged tools dwelt fondly on the absence of the “ missing link.”
While such was the state of popular knowledge and opinion, it was
not difficult for conscientious teachers of the young to find relief in
suspense of judgment. Members of a profession largely under clerical
influence, and charged quite as much with the moral as with the
intellectual training of their pupils, were naturally predisposed to
believe that it was their duty in the meantime to go on teaching
“divinity” as it had been taught to them. Comfort was found in the
reflection that God’s voice in nature and God’s word in the Bible could
not possibly contradict each other; and the meaning given to both
terms remained so very vague that there was ample scope for temporary
accommodation. Even in cases where inconveniently definite questions
were asked, it was always possible for instruction to disappear in a haze
of reverence. “Do you think, sir, that we must take this literally?”
asked a boy in a class studying the ass’s argument with Balaam.
“Such an occurrence,” replied the master, “is so very remarkable,
and, indeed, unparalleled, that in the present state of our knowledge I
would rather not give an opinion. Perhaps there is some explanation
of which we are not at present aware.” So long as this kind of mental
attitude remained possible the disabilities of doubt were not acutely
felt. The supposed foundations of morality could be accepted as they
stood, with an acknowledgment that their relation to the foundations of
knowledge was an unsolved question.
But the state of things is very different now. The surrender of the
historic accuracy of a large part of the Old Testament is so general
that a very considerable number of teachers are conscious of a clear
contradiction between what they are expected to teach and what they
themselves believe. It is difficult to understand how an honest man
can accept a position like that. In March, 1901, the “National
Council of the Evangelical Free Churches,” in its meetings at Cardiff,
heard some plain speaking on this point from the Rev. Dr. Monro
Gibson. It is true that his subject was that of Sunday-school teaching.
But the principles he laid down are plainly applicable to all national
schools in which the Bible is taught as a divine revelation.1 And,
1 The analogy between undenominational State schools and Nonconformist
Sunday-schools, so far as concerns religious instruction, is far closer than is commonly
supposed. The effect of Mr. W. H. Smith’s resolution of 1871 was practically to
�REIV RELIGIO US DISA BILITIES
25
although no Board-school teacher is called upon to sign a creed or to
make any profession of faith, he would not be allowed to give religious
instruction if he did not assume this view of the Bible in all his lessons.1
So far as the Bible is concerned, then, the words of Dr. Gibson have a
clear bearing upon the position of municipal school teachers. He fully
admitted that “ within recent years difficulties had arisen on account of
the change of view brought about in the minds of many Christians by
the results, or supposed results, of recent investigations.” He was quite
willing to allow to Sunday-school teachers a latitude which experience
shows to be impossible in State elementary schools. The sectarian
equilibrium in the management of the latter is so exceedingly delicate
that it can only be preserved by excluding from the lessons everything
but what is held in common by the most conservative and orthodox
sections of each evangelical denomination represented. On the other
hand, liberal clergymen, like Dr. Gibson, can often secure a great deal
of freedom to the teachers within their own communion. This must be
remembered in applying the following observations to the case of
municipal schools, and accordingly the warnings must be interpreted
more stringently. The italics are my own :—
They were confronted (said Dr. Gibson) with the difficult and delicate
question as to what must be the attitude of our Sunday-schools towards
this burning question of the day. It should be laid down as an axiom
to start with that only those who firmly believed in the divine authority of
both Testaments had the right to be Sunday-school teachers at all.
(Cheers.) A man who had no message of God to declare, but only doubts
of his own to ventilate, was quite out of place in the pulpit or in the chair
of a teacher. Those who were themselves wandering in mist and dark
ness were no proper guides for others—least of all for the children.
Most intelligent people, indeed, had doubts and difficulties in minor
matters, so they could not expect their teachers to be all-round
introduce into nearly all the Board schools under Mr. Forster’s Act precisely the
evangelical teaching given in common by very low Churchmen, Wesleyans, Presby
terians, Independents, and Baptists. So far was this carried that for some time the
Catechism approved by representatives of the Evangelical Free Churches was actually
used by the School Board for Liverpool in its schools.
1 The experience of Mr. F. J. Gould, the author of an excellent manual of
Ethical teaching, and formerly an assistant master under the London Board, is
decisive on this point. Being exceptionally conscientious, he could not reconcile it
with his sense of right to teach a “syllabus” implying doctrines which he no longer
believed. True, he was generously relieved of the duty while still retained on the
staff. But he became a marked man, and the promotion deserved by his uncommon
abilities was barred. He naturally left the profession. But he has since written
handbooks of moral instruction valued even by the orthodox clergy, and is prominent
as a leader in the beneficent movement for the reform of moral teaching in our
schools. This is the sort of man whom our “tests” involved in “simple Bible
teaching” banish to the ranks of aggressive secularism. He is at this present time of
writing the honoured “minister”—if I may use the title—of the Leicester Secularist
Society. If anyone supposes that Mr. Gould’s case is peculiar, except in regard to
his unusual punctiliousness of conscience—well, such an one does not know as much
us I do of the working of ‘ ‘ simple Bible teaching. ”
Testimony
Gibson,
�26
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
dogmatists, though even in the minor matters they should be careful not
to parade their doubts. But if their doubts touched the great question
whether God had really spoken to man and given himself for our salva
tion, then must the doubter be silent; or, if he must speak, let it be
under the banner of infidelity, not under the flag of Christ. (Hear, hear.)
The teacher must be honest. If a teacher believed that the Pentateuch
was a composite production, he must not teach his scholars that Moses
wrote it all as his own original composition. He took this as a simple
illustration, which was none the worse in that it suggested the remark
that a good Sunday-school teacher was likely to find something much
better to do than to occupy his time with a matter which was of no
spiritual value when there were so many urgent themes pressing for
attention. (Cheers.) A man must either teach what he believed or not
teach at all. (Hear, hear.) In the great majority of the lessons in the
Old Testament, as well as the New, there need be no occasion whatever
for raising any of these questions. One of the greatest dangers of our
time was making far too much of the letter of Scripture and far too little
of the spirit. What of those cases where a difficult question was sprung
upon them ? In that case he should consider it to be the teacher’s duty
to state what he considered to be the truth on the matter, but at the same
time to intimate that this was a subject on which good Christians differed,
and therefore it was a matter which was not essential, on which a person
might think either this way or that without serious harm. It should, in
fact, be treated as an open question. It was the dogmatism that did the
mischief on both sides. Suppose he had the story of Eden to deal with,
and had reached the record of the Fall, and a smart boy popped the
question, “Was that a real serpent, teacher ?” Now he maintained that,
in the present state of opinion among good critics, it would be a grave
fault to say either “yes ” or “ no.” He should answer : “ Some say yes,
others say no ; but it does not matter in the smallest degree to our great
lesson of to-day which of them is right.” But some might ask: “ If you
leave stick questions open, do you not unsettle the mind of the scholar ? ”
His answer was that their minds ought to be unsettled on questions which
were unsettled. (Hear, hear.) The settling of the mind on a question
which was unsettled was most mischievous and in the highest degree
dangerous for the future. Who could tell, for example, what dire mischief
was done in the childhood of Professor Huxley by those who succeeded
in settling in his mind that the Bible must teach science with the
rigorous position of the nineteenth century or be utterly discredited ?
Noone could read intelligently Huxley’s anti-Christian writings without
seeing that his fierce antagonism to Christianity was determined by the
fact that he was taught in his youth to regard as settled questions those
which all intelligent Christians now treated as open or as settled in the
opposite way. What had been rubbed into him from his earliest days
was the mischievous dogma that, if there was a solitary inaccuracy in
any reference which touched the domain of science in any of the books
which made up the Bible, it was impossible to accept the Scripture as
from God. If only the minds of men like Huxley and Tyndall had been
unsettled on the question of the relation between science and inspiration,
how different might the history of Christian thought have been in the
last fifty years. He did not say they would have become Christians ;
that was not the result of an intellectual process, but the work of the
Spirit. But they certainly would not have spent their strength in sowing
broadcast the seeds of unbelief, and if they had not accepted Christ
themselves they would, at all events, have looked with favour, and not
with deadly hostility, on the truth. In guiding the steps of the young
they should see to it first that they were leading them up, and not down,
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
27
and next that the steps were made easy to them, so that they might not
stumble as they climbed.1
It must be a very prejudiced mind which would fail to recognise and
respect the moral and intellectual courage shown in these words from
the occupant of an orthodox pulpit. But the conclusion of the report
from which the above is an extract is even more instructive:—
Professor Rendel Harris (University lecturer in Palaeography at
Cambridge) opened the discussion. He said he thought that Dr. Gibson
was a little in danger of sailing down the channel of “ no meaning ”
between “yes” and “no.” As to the serpent mentioned in the Eden
story, if he were asked he should at once say that it was mythical, and
should be treated as such. (Oh.) When they were dealing with the
educated sense of mankind they should not hesitate to speak out bravely
and face the question, and say : “ Man is older than we thought him to
be at one time.” He asked them to appeal from the smaller Bible to the
larger Bible of nature. They learnt from Genesis that Adam sewed
together fig leaves. Well, the only fact they got there was that primitive
man could sew. (Laughter.) If, however, they went into Kent’s Cavern
at Torquay, they would find the actual needle used by primitive man.
That was much more convincing than any story, and he pressed upon
them the importance of studying the Bible by the light of nature and not
nature by the light of the Bible.
During Professor Harris’s speech many present dissented from his
views. Having exhausted his time-limit, a vote was taken as to whether
he should continue his speech. Several delegates voted against the
motion, and Professor Harris said he had no intention to break the time
rule. (Laughter.)
The Rev. P. Williams (Derby) thought that Dr. Gibson ought to have
dwelt longer on some of the important points, and not have passed over
them by using catch phrases. They would like to have had a definition
of the “Divine Authority of Scripture” and the “human element in the
Bible.” They knew both were there, but still they wanted the matter
defined so that other people might know they were there. (Cheers.)
Dr. Gibson, in reply, said he was bound by a time-limit, and could not,
of course, deal with all questions in a single paper.
The six years elapsed since that Free Church Council was held have
not lessened, but, so far, have rather increased, the moral difficulties so
frankly acknowledged. Now, if in a conference of “ Free Churches,”
with no fear of ratepayers before their eyes, and no sacred “compromise”
to maintain, it is so difficult to obtain a sanction for honesty in teaching
the Bible, how much harder, indeed how impossible, must it be to secure
it for teachers in rate-supported schools whose directors represent a
carefully-schemed balance of sectarian jealousies ! The only possible
expedient for maintaining an unreal appearance of agreement is to
adhere strictly to such explanations as are not likely to be challenged by
any section of evangelical believers. A paradoxical state of things thus
arises. For, while the liberty of teaching is necessarily much narrower
1 Manchester Guardian, March 14th, 1901.
Professor
Rendel
Harris.
Aggrava
tion of the
difficulty in
Public Ele
mentary
Schools.
�28
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
in rate-supported schools than in Sunday-schools under the liberal
influence of clergymen like Dr. Monro Gibson, the area from which the
teachers are, or may be, drawn is much wider in the former schools than
in the latter, and nominally there is no imposition of any creed whatever.
The moral
Is this anomaly favourable to the honesty so earnestly insisted upon
in the above extract? Honest and self-respecting service in Board
schools under the present system is obviously made impossible to
consistent Rationalists—nay, more, it is impossible to young men
trained under liberal Christian influences and encouraged to accept the
results of modern research, so far as these may appear consistent with
the retention of belief in revelation. Suppose a young teacher entering
school life with the teaching of Professor Rendel Harris fresh in his
mind, and impressed with Dr. Gibson’s manly exhortation not to teach
what he does not believe. There is handed to him a “ syllabus ” of
religious instruction in which “ The Life of Abraham ” is mentioned
as a subject. To the younger children he may teach it as a story
without saying whether he thinks it historical or not. Yet he
cannot but be aware that his little pupils receive it as actual fact.
That it would be possible to teach it otherwise is known to him by his
ofoidTes- exPerience of the effect produced when he indulges them with a fairy
tament
tale such as Little Snowdrop or The Kins: of the Golden River. The
stones as
...
mythology children are as much interested in these stories as though he had
assured them they were actual facts. Yet they know quite well that it
is not so. The stories belong to that wonderland where historic
criticism never intrudes. But when he relates to them “The Life of
Abraham,” including the divine demand for a human sacrifice, he is
aware that they receive it as a statement of solemn fact, while at the
same time he does not believe that it is so.
With the higher standards, containing children from twelve to fifteen
years of age, the difficulty is much more serious. Encouraged by the
liberty allowed him by clergymen such as Dr. Monro Gibson, he has
yielded to arguments which convince him that the records of Abraham’s
life in Genesis are a composite production, showing an unsuccessful
attempt to piece together a consistent whole out of discordant materials.
Warned against dishonesty in teaching, he cannot tell his pupils that the
narrative is guaranteed by the authorship of Moses. If among his
bTty of’
scholars a prize-winner in the examinations of the Sunday School Union
answering should ask how it is that a precisely similar incident, arising out of a falsequestions. hood about a wife, is related twice of Abraham and once of Isaac, the same
king being concerned at a considerable interval of time in two of the
stories, what shall this honest follower of Dr. Monro Gibson say ? If
he says what in his own conviction is the truth, that the confusion arises
through the unskilful patching of different materials, all of which are
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
29
largely, if not wholly, mythical, there will be a disturbance at the local
Education Committee, and the teacher’s career will be at an end. If
he prevaricates, and says that it really does not matter, that in any case
the moral lesson is the same, it is very doubtful whether even this would
satisfy the weak brethren of the Education Authority; but it would
certainly be fatal to the teacher’s own self-respect.
These observations are not in the least invalidated by the suggestion
that the opinions adopted by the teacher are possibly incorrect. From
the point of view of religious equality in the nation’s schools, such a
suggestion is entirely inept. The consideration of importance is that
even Christian opinion, as represented by men like Dr. Monro Gibson,
has now got the length of encouraging young people not to feel guilty of
mortal sin if their reading convinces them of the composite and imperfect
nature of “ The Life of Abraham.” And yet if they act on the declara
tion above quoted, that “ a man must either teach what he believes or
cruel
not teach at all,” the second alternative alone is open to them. Even The form of
lest
religious
though they should have the genius of a Pestalozzi or a Froebel, they inequality.
are excluded from the nation’s schools, except on condition of open or
tacit hypocrisy. If this is not religious inequality, and inequality of a
shameful and odious kind, I do not know what can deserve the
name.
Readers who keep pace with the times in matters of opinion, but are
unfamiliar with the working of the elementary school system, may
pehaps be incredulous as to the existence of such a state of things as is
here described. Is not the teaching “unsectarian”? they ask. The
reply is that it is only so in the sense of teaching all that the
“Evangelical Free Churches” hold in common. “Is not Bible
teaching confined to necessary explanations in grammar, geography,
and archaeology?” No, it is not, as.is clearly proved by the adoption,
for a time, of the Free Church catechism by the Liverpool School
Board.1 By the Shrewsbury School Board the teaching of the Apostles,
Creed was ordered, and, by the courtesy of the Town Clerk, I am
informed it is to this day continued by the local Education Committee
under the Act of 1902.
But as this point of the amount of disputed dogma possible under
the Cowper-Temple clause is very important, and is also the subject of
very general misunderstanding, I will give more detailed evidence.
And as most of this was previously given in the former edition, I shall
first show cause why it cannot be considered out of date. Indeed, it
will never be out of date as long as the creed common to certain
1 It is no answer to say that the answers on sacraments and Church order were
omitted. Of course they were. But to Nonconformists they are unimportant, com
pared with the body of divinity contained in the other answers.
�3°
The Presi
dent of the
Board of
Education
on the
“ CowperTemple
Clause."
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
influential sects and rejected by all the rest of the nation continues to be
legally treated as “ undenominational.”
The Times of June 26th, 1907, gave a brief but significant report
of the reception on the previous day by Mr. McKenna, President of the
Board of Education, of a joint deputation of educational and Non
conformist bodies on the question of the enforcement of the CowperTemple clause.1 The deputation, which included the Rev. Dr.
Clifford and the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, complained that the clause
was being interpreted in such an elastic manner that it practically gave
no protection to the evangelical Nonconformist conscience. I quote
the report of part of Mr. McKenna’s reply :—
He distinguished very considerably between what was the view of the
Board as to the law on this question and what its view was as to policv.
He had to deal with Acts of Parliament as they were. He did not
approve them, and he did not defend them. As regards the construction
which had been put upon the Cowper-Temple clause as to its value, he
was heartily in sympathy with everyone who had spoken. But when he
was asked whether they were to-day where they used to be between the
period 1879 and 1902, he was bound to answer that they were not. The
Act of 1902 made a very serious difference in the law. He had no
longer the power finally to determine whether or not the Cowper-Temple
clause was being contravened. He had been told that section 16 of the
Act of 1902 did not give him power to determine whether there had
been a breach of the clause, but, if there had been a breach, it gave him
power to enforce the law. There, again, it was a question of law ; it
was not a question for the layman. It was a question of the strict
construction of section 16 of the Act of 1902. Section 16 of the Act of
1902 enabled the Board of Education to compel an authority to fulfil
their duty by proceeding in the Courts of Law on an action of mandamus.
A local authority was under no obligation to compile a syllabus of
religious instruction at all, and was under no obligation to give religious
instruction in schools. Therefore, if a local authority did not compile a
syllabus or did not give religious instruction at all, they had not failed
to fulfil a duty. (Hear, hear.) He had no power under the Acts of
Parliament alone to enforce the Cowper-Temple clause by withholding
the grant. He could only deal with the Code at this moment as it
existed.
The rest of the reply dealt partly with a hypothetical future Bill,
and partly with the wrongs of religious Nonconformists in Preston, who,
it appears, suffer specially in that town the form of injustice which
Nonconformists themselves are quite ready to inflict on those who
believe less than they do. But what I have quoted is sufficient to
prove that, in the opinion of a Minister of Education with all sources
of official information at his command, the interpretation of the
Cowper-Temple clause, so far from being more just and rigorous, is
x I.e., Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 prohibiting in Board schools the use of any
“ religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular
denomination.”
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
3»
more favourable to sectarian dogma than when this essay first appeared.
I am perfectly justified, therefore, in once more calling attention to
the report of the Royal Commission on Education issued in 1888.
And I may say that not one fact adduced by me in 1901 has been
disputed.
Among a great variety of interesting information the Report
included an account of the religious instruction given in the elementary
schools. I learn from this Report that Pulliblank’s Teachers' Handbook
io the Bible and Mr. M. F. Lloyd’s Abridged Bible Catechism were
being used in Board schools with the apparent approval of the
Education Department. This fact shows what is meant by “unsec
tarian ” teaching. Of Mr. Pulliblank’s book I desire to say no more
than that it assumes throughout the literal historical accuracy of the
Old Testament, even of the early chapters of Genesis. Mr. Lloyd’s
Catechism, on the other hand, is an ingenious scheme to set forth the
whole evangelical doctrine of the plan of salvation by contriving to
furnish in the exact words of the Bible the answers to a number of
leading questions. Thus, to the question, “ What promise of a
Saviour was made to our first parents?” the answer is: “I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” It is
unnecessary to quote further. The assumption that the serpent-myth
is actual history, that the serpent was Satan and the seed Christ,
sufficiently shows how the plea of the Bible, and the Bible alone, may
be made to support the teaching under the name of unsectarian
religion, of beliefs abandoned by educated people and condemned by the
spirit of the age. This should be borne in mind when we note the
selections of Scripture made by School Boards and their successors for
the teaching of children.
It appears that at the date of the Report—and I can find no
evidence of any change—the Bible narratives of the Creation, of the
Fall, of the Flood, and of Noah’s exploits were considered to be
specially suitable for the moral instruction of infants. 'They were
prescribed for this purpose by the School Boards for Bolton, Manchester,
Rochdale, Newport, with St. Moollos, and many others. In Liverpool
the Book of Genesis was taken for the first year’s course; but whether
that included babies docs not clearly appear. The School Board for
London does not seem to have regarded those narratives as milk for
babes, and its selections were much above the ordinary level. But in
its prescription of the “lives” of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as
subjects for study, it certainly intended that they should be treated as
historical, and this all teachers understand. The same remark may be
made wherever a particular book or section of Scripture is prescribed
Illustration
of “ simple
Bible teach
ing' ” under
the C.-T.
Clause.
�32
Lessons in
Massacre.
Divine im
morality.
The case of
the New
Testament.
NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
by this or any other Board. Thus, under the Wanstead Board, the
higher standards were set to study Joshua and Judges. It would be
difficult to find in all literature two books more full of bloodshed,
murder, massacre, and savagery. I can appreciate as well as anyone
the gleams of a higher life that flash from their pages here and there.
And even the most shocking pictures they give of the ancient alliance
between superstition and cruelty might conceivably be used by a
teacher entrusted with perfect “ liberty of prophesying ” to illustrate
the depths out of which the evolution of reason and morality has
raised us. But that is not allowed to municipal school teachers any
more than to “sectarian” teachers. Indeed, the former are more
tightly bound by the “ Compromise.” The Book says that God over
threw the walls of Jericho by a miracle, and that by his express and
particular command the Israelites “utterly destroyed all that was in
the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and
ass, with the edge of the sword.” Now, if any teacher were to tell his
pupils that the massacre might be historical, but that the allegation of
a divine command was clearly false, there would undoubtedly be trouble
at the next Education Committee meeting, and probably at many others
to follow.
The same may be said of the slaughter of Achan and his family, of
the murder of the five kings at Makkedah, of the assassination of
Eglon, of the treachery to Sisera, and a dozen other sanguinary deeds
which, in reading Joshua and Judges, children are taught to regard as
excepted by divine command from ordinary rules of morality. How
can any educated man or woman read these sanguinary legends with
their innocent pupils without hastening to assure the children that these
are no words of God ? It is not a case in which silence can appease
the conscience. The absence of explanation or denial confirms the
misbelief in young hearts that are forming their faith for life. If the
truth cannot be told, at least let such horrible narratives be banished
from the schools.1
In dealing with the New Testament it might be thought that the
course is clearer. When we find selections from the life of Christ, or
the story of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, ordered to be taught,
or the Acts, or St. Paul’s Epistles, it might be thought that here at least
the plan of “ unsectarian ” instruction can meet with no difficulty. I
am not so sure of that. It is notorious that what is called “the Higher
1 I do not speak without experience. I taught Bible classes for many years. I
don’t think I ever took the Book of Joshua. But I did try to make Hebrew folklore
interesting. I remember I was specially pleased with the written reproduction, by a
boy of twelve, of my story of the Deluge. He concluded thus : “ All this sounds very
terrible ; but it would be still more terrible if it were true.”
�NEW RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
33
Criticism” has no more spared the New Testament than the Old.
Moreover, the acceptance of the results of that criticism is not confined
to “Secularist” lecturers, nor even to Unitarians. We have only to
glance at the list of contributors to the new Encyclopedia Biblica, and
at the opinions they support, to see that many scholarly Churchmen
have entirely abandoned the literal truth of New Testament history,
together with the authenticity of several epistles.
I do not urge their ecclesiastical authority as conclusive against the
Bible-instruction rate. But at least it helps to refute the arrogant
assumption of Nonconformist perverts and others that School-board
religion represents the views of all but an eccentric and negligible
group of ratepayers. The rational desire to treat the New as well as
the Old Testament like any other book is now supported by clergymen
of the Church of England who repudiate even a literal belief in the
physical resurrection of Christ. No one with an eye for the signs of
this time can doubt that these clergymen represent the theology of the
future. Nevertheless, any teacher who is now of that opinion can only
gain employment in a public elementary school on condition of playing
the hypocrite. Let it be clearly understood that what I am urging is
not the permission to teach such opinions in the schools, but only the
exclusion of a subject of instruction which, in the present chaotic
condition of belief, imposes on many of the best candidates for the
office of teacher the cruel alternative of insincerity or proscription.
If it be asked how such a paradoxical state of things as above
described can have been established in the entire absence of any
authoritative “ creed or formulary,” the explanation lies, as previously
explained,1 in the great renunciation of principle by Nonconformists in
1870. In consequence of that and the great Smith compromise the
creed of School Boards and of the later committees came to be, like the
creed of the Free Churches, the consensus, undefined in words, but
very rigid in substance, of the supposed opinions of the majority. “ And
why not?” cry some. “Surely true democracy consists in the rule of
the majority.” Well, in our time the democracy stands for Caesar.
And Nonconformists before 1870 used to be very eloquent on a certain
text in the Gospels reserving “the things of God” from Caesar’s control.
They, too, perhaps, are touched by the rationalism of the age, and now
explain that text away. But they cannot explain away facts; and it is
surely a shameful fact that, however clearly a young man is marked out
as a born teacher, his adhesion to the views of Robertson Smith,
Driver, and Cheyne on the Old Testament, and of Dr. Abbott or
Professor Schmiedel on the Gospels, excludes him from the freedom of
the profession except on one condition—that he shall speak or act a lie.
1 Tp. 16, 17, ante.
D
�V.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
On July 15th, 1907, there appeared in the Times an interesting and
impressive letter from Dr. T. J. Macnamara, M.P. This letter was
evoked by Mr. A. J. Balfour’s attack' on the new regulations governing
the admission of students to residential training colleges—an attack
supported by many fierce articles in the ecclesiastical press. To the
regulations themselves I have already referred in the Preface to this
edition. But the letter made special reference to the demoralising
effect of theological tests, and certain words which I shall quote from it
may very appropriately open the argument of this chapter. Thus, after
explaining how a “ King’s Scholarship ” gives the successful candidate
“a considerable Government grant in aid of a course of college training,”
Dr. Macnamara proceeded :—
Roughly, about 5,000 young people win this training “scholarship”
year by year ; but, when they seek to utilise it at a residential training
college, they find that about 4,300 of the 5,000 residential places open to
them are strictly reserved for students who are willing—over and above
their success in the Government examination—to subscribe to a pretty
rigid denominational test. As a matter of fact, the majority of these
4,300 residential places are open only to members of the Established
Church. What is the result ? If the student be a Nonconformist, he
must take a very high place indeed in the Government examination if
he is to secure admission to one of the very few undenominational
residential colleges. Because not only are the places open to him very
few, but they are open also to members of the Church of England.
Failing to secure entrance to an undenominational college, he telegraphs
right and left to the other training colleges, and is promptly told that he
will be admitted with pleasure if he is a member of the Church of
England. A number of young people, to my certain knowledge, succumb
to the temptation, and are admitted to the Church solely for the purpose
of utilising their dearly won Government "'scholarship.” Others very
properly decline to conform, and go on as ex-pupil teachers, and, having
been at this critical stage thrown off the track, never afterwards succeed
in completing the course for the teachers’ certificate. The grievous
hardship of all this is the fact that the Church colleges take in year after
year students who are far less meritorious and able than many of those
who are shut out. This is not only unfair to the apprentice ; it devotes
the State grant to the training of inferior material.
The italics are, of course, my own, and are intended to mark the
moral considerations with which I am about to deal. For, notwith
standing the idiosyncrasies of exceptional latitudinarians, ordinary
people, I believe, still regard a profession of faith as a moral or an
34
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
35
immoral act according as it is made truly or falsely. Now, I suppose,
evangelical Nonconformists, almost without exception, have heartily
approved the above letter. For very many of them have known cases
of bright boys and girls, devoted Sunday scholars and welcome additions
to Church membership, who have been subjected to precisely the
temptation described in the letter. News of their passing the King’s
Scholarship examination was eagerly welcomed by the chapel circle,
and a happy career was predicted for them in which “simple Bible
teaching,” unpolluted by catechism or formulary, was to be a con
spicuous feature.
Then came the check, the change, the fall.
For, though they had done very well in the examination, their success
was not so exceptional as to enable them to command one of the very
small number of places available in Nonconformist or undenomina
tional colleges. But their success had been quite sufficient to make
them desirable candidates elsewhere. And as the vast majority of
available places were elsewhere, the painful alternative arose of taking
a permanently inferior standing as teachers or of changing their profes
sion of faith. Dr. Macnamara deals very gently with the occasional or
perhaps frequent result. But, he says, “a number of young people, to
my certain knowledge, succumb to the temptation.” He seems to be
paraphrasing a very old account of the same transition : “ They give up
all religion and go to church.” That is not my judgment. Heaven
forbid! But if we talk of “ succumbing to temptation,” it is implied
that there is something morally wrong. And so, no doubt, thought the
pastors and the deacons and the Sunday-school superintendents of the
various chapels to which these perverts had belonged.
But I can imagine—nay, I have known—strictly analogous cases
which the same religious people would not see at all in the same light.
For in these days of “New Theology” and “re-statements” of doctrine
there is an ever-increasing number of young people with the teacher’s
gift and enthusiasm who do not, and cannot if they are to be true to
themselves, pretend to accept that view of the Bible which is implied or
presupposed in what is called “ simple Bible teaching.” That is, there
are very few narratives of either the Old or the New Testament which
they can conscientiously teach as historic fact; and very much of the
morality they think to be interesting rather as a record of ethical evolu
tion than as “ revelation.” Now, the crisis in the moral and spiritual
development of such young people may not occur so early as the time
of the King’s scholarship examination. Up to that period they have
accepted, almost as a matter of course, the Bible as “the word of God,”
and as an infallible revelation. But either towards the close of their
- college career or afterwards the rational spirit, which at the present day
A Moral
dilemma.
�36
Are the
rights of
conscience a
monopoly of
the advo
cates of
“ simple
Bible
teaching” ?
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
is more or less immanent in all forms of literature and learning, stirs in
them a questioning mood. They read Mr. R. J. Campbell’s New
Theology, and, their appetite for hitherto forbidden knowledge being
quickened, they look up the Encyclopedia Biblica in a public library,
and next are led to translations of Haeckel’s Riddle of the Universe; and
then, with a hunger for more spiritual food, they apply to the public
library again for the works of the various Anglican and Presbyterian
divines who have re-stated in once startling, but now familiar, forms the
theory of revelation.
The end of it is that at a period when they are expecting to become
head teachers they find that their views of both the Old and the New
Testament have so fundamentally changed that they can no longer give
“ simple Bible teaching ” with sincerity. They cannot, without doing
violence to their convictions, teach as fact “ the life of Abraham ” or
of Jacob as set down in the syllabus. They cannot sincerely teach the
Ten Commandments as laws written by the finger of God, because they
are now quite sure that they are nothing of the kind. Even the Gospels
they now regard as, to a large extent, legendary; and they are as certain
as they can be of anything that the Fourth Gospel was not written by
Zebedee’s son. What are they to do ? If they frankly avow their
position, they will probably be treated with courtesy, and something will
be said in praise of their honesty. But they will soon experience the
bitter truth uttered by Juvenal: “Probitas laudatur et alget.” For they
will be relieved of giving Scripture instruction, and their prospects of
promotion permanently barred.
It would be trifling with common sense and notorious facts to
pretend ignorance that there are large numbers of young teachers, both
men and women, in that very position at the present time. Here, then,
is a moral dilemma precisely analogous to that sympathetically described
in Dr. Macnamara’s letter to the Times. For these young men and
women must either prematurely blight their prospects of promotion or
they must set their teeth and put a strain on conscience such as will be
a life-long burden. But where now is the Nonconformist sympathy so
eagerly extended to the young chapel-folk whom Dr. Macnamara
described as “ succumbing to the temptation ” to go over to the
Church ? I am afraid it is sadly lacking. But why ? Surely the two
cases are on all fours in principle. Unless, indeed, Nonconformists
would draw the line at their own “ simple Bible ” views, and maintain
that, while it is perfectly right to doubt or deny any other religion, it is
wicked to doubt or deny theirs. One almost despairs of getting even
good and kindly and otherwise fair-minded people to see straight where
the Bible is concerned.
But sometimes, when the plainest proof of injustice fails of access to
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
37
the conscience through the ear, the ugly consequences of the wrong
may become so repulsive as to enforce conviction. And if I can only
show what the consequences are in this case both to teachers and
children, I do not despair of success. Indeed, I venture to think that,
if Dr. Macnamara could only realise how the moral difficulty he has
pointed out is necessarily involved in the retention of the Bible in
school, he would refuse to endorse any new Education Bill that should
transgress beyond secular lines.
The last words of the preceding chapter may by some be thought
too strong. But I shall establish their literal truth. It will be remem
bered that, in introducing the subject of the religious disabilities set up
by School Boards, and continued by local Education Authorities under
the Act of 1892, I have carefully refrained from asserting that the
barriers are absolutely impassable. All I allege is that the tests implied,
though not avowed, exclude Rationalists, whether Christian or non
Christian, from “ honest and self-respecting service as teachers in the
nation’s schools.” But they are, of course, not excluded from service
of a different kind. As an illustration of the sort of service which
latitudinarians or heretics are allowed to give, take the following extract
from a letter printed in Democracy^ of February 23rd, 1901. The
occasion of it was a previous letter from a Board-school teacher, com
plaining of the odious task of teaching what he did not believe.
Whereupon “Another Board-School Teacher” addressed the editor
thus :—
Sir,—The state of feeling disclosed by the remark of the “ Board-school
Licensed
hypocrisy.
Teacher” anent the pressure put upon him to teach “ Scripture” against
his wish is, 1 am afraid, common to many others of that class of the
community. One docs lose a certain amount of self-respect in standing
before a class and teaching for truth what one believes to be false. But
under somewhat similar circumstances I ask myself: Why be honest ?
Why trouble at all about the matter ? The Scripture lessons occupy
little time, after all, and the harm done cannot amount to much. In
view of the facts that all the work done in school may be described as
an attempt to enable the children to conform to the canons of Christian
or commercial morality (sic), and that no degree of conformity to those
of either cult will abate the ills or conduce to the welfare of humanity,
I feel that more harm is done in the ordinary school work than in the
time set apart for religious instruction. But one must get a living
somehow ; so I, personally, comply with the terms of my agreement
with my employers, and let conscience go hang.
I will not do any body of teachers the injustice of accepting this
gentleman as a fair representative of their moral tone. But my own
experience, and a fairly extensive intercourse with them during many
years, assures me that the first sentence in the above extract is
substantially correct. The discontent, however, is caused not by “ the
1 Since become The Ethical World.
Significance
of the above
letter.
�38
A dangerous position.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
pressure put upon them to teach ‘Scripture,’” but by the necessity
imposed upon them to teach it in a fashion inconsistent with their own
convictions. I will undertake to say that, if permission to teach
honestly what they believe about the Bible were given to school
teachers, three-fourths of them, at the very least, would tell the children
that the greater part of the Hexateuch must be regarded in the same
light as a series of fairy tales ; that the story of Jonah is a moral fable,
very impressive in its way, but probably destitute of even a basis of
fact; that the Book of Daniel is a romance, and that of Esther a
political apologue. I believe, also, that, if they dared, the same propor
tion of teachers would treat all the miracles of the Old Testament as
originating in the imagination of Jewish patriots and poets, rather than
in actual fact. Even if I put the proportion numerically too high, the
most sanguine believer in the evangelical fervour inspired by our
training colleges must surely feel that the letter above quoted is
indicative of considerable mental unrest. Let the extent of Rationalism
among teachers be minimised to the utmost possible degree consistent
with notorious facts, still it will remain true that a large number are
forced into teaching what they do not believe.
Now, this is a sort of fact of which the moral import is not dependent
on statistics. If only twenty per cent, of the men and women who stand
before their classes with the life of Abraham, or the account of the
Deluge, or the story of the Virgin Birth, or of the Resurrection, m their
hands as the basis of moral instruction, hold these parts of the Bible to
be unhistorical, while they are obliged to treat them as solemn facts, it
seems too like taking “ a lie in their right hand ” for the inculcation of
truth. The misdirected satire of Jean Ingelow in ridiculing a theory of
spiritual evolution which she did not understand would be much more
applicable to the case of these teachers :—
Gracious deceivers who have lifted us
Out of the slough where passed our unknown youth ;
Beneficent liars who have gifted us
With sacred love of truth.
Human nature is too complex and unfathomable to allow of any
sweeping affirmation of demoralising consequences in such a case. I
was once asked by one of the best men I ever knew, himself an
Anglican clergyman, why I did not seek orders in the Established
Church. I replied that “ for one reason I had never, up to that
moment, seen any creed that I could sign.” “ Indeed !” he responded ;
“never seen the creed you could sign, hav’n’t you ? Well, now, / have
never seen the creed I couldn’t sign.” Making all allowance for my
friend’s love of paradox, I yet could not but feel that between his notion
of responsibility for assenting to a creed and mine there was an
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
39
impassable difference. Yet I knew him to be in all other relations a
man of unimpeachable honour and courageously truthful.1 I should be
very loth, therefore, to deny the possibility that analogous instances, of
personal paradox may be found among teachers who believe one thing
and teach another. But the letter I have quoted above is sufficient
proof that the position is a dangerous one.
Let it be granted that the moral degeneracy exhibited in that letter ofthe
is an extreme and exceptional instance of the working of the system. teachers,
Let it further be conceded that at the other end of the scale there are
a number of sincere and devout Evangelical teachers whose Biblical
creed is an inspiration to them. There will remain the large majority
who belong neither to one class nor to the other. Pledged to no creed,
possessed of culture enough to appreciate the revolution in educated
opinion on the origins and authority of the Bible, they yet feel no
special impulse to any independent study of such questions, and
ordinary prudence warns them against any precipitancy in adopting
ideas which would create a daily consciousness of discord between duty
and conviction. The result is an attitude of conventional acquiescence
which guards their mental comfort, but empties their Scriptural teaching
of all reality. Some of the more studious among them, while shy of
reading distinctly Rationalistic books, find much edification in the
works of a contemporary school which suggest that after all there is
nothing exactly true, and it does not much matter. Mr. A. J. Balfour’s
elegant disquisition on the duty of believing with the majority, Professor
Percy Gardner’s charming explanation in his Exploratio Evangeltca of
the possibility that a creed may be both true and false at the same
time, have great attractions for honest men in such circumstances.
Pretending to their own consciences to adopt, though without legitimate
authority or open avowal, a freedom which I have above suggested as
their due if they are to teach the Bible at all, they tell the stories of the
Old Testament without any pretence of discriminating fact from fiction
even in their own minds. What does it matter ? they ask. If they
were telling the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, they would not feel
it necessary to warn their infant hearers that beans do not, as a rule,
produce stalks reaching up to heaven. The attitude of the child’s mind
towards such a narrative is, they well know, neither that of belief nor
that of unbelief. It is simply that of interest and wonder at an unfold
ing vision. Why should the case be different with the story of Eve and
the Serpent ?
1 There can be no harm now in stating that the clergyman was the late Rev. John
Rodgers, Vicar of St. Thomas Charterhouse—not “hang theology Rogers,” but his
successor in that cure—and for some time Vice-Chairman of the School Board for
London. Of his courage various education campaigns in London afforded ample
proof.
�40
The moral
difficulty is
that Bible
History is
tacitly
accepted in
school as
divine and
infallible.
MORA L EFFECT ON TEA CIIERS
It is not for me to answer that question. The point of my whole
argument is that, if Hebrew myth or legend is to be treated at all in
State schools, they should be treated precisely in that manner. What
I complain of is that they are not so treated, but rather as parts of a
divine and infallible history. And the position is such that they cannot
be otherwise treated, unless the children under instruction are expressly
told so. This would be quite possible in Sunday-schools, even of
orthodox churches, if liberal influences like those of Dr. Monro Gibson
or Professor Rendel Harris happened to prevail there. But in no
Board school is it at all possible, because the attempt would lead to
theological discussion on the Board, and revive the religious difficulty
in its most obnoxious form. The result is that teachers have to treat
as solemn fact every Hebrew legend or impossible miracle read as a
Scripture lesson. Those whom I have described above as receptive of
modern dissolving views, wherein historic falsehood shades off into
spiritual truth, may flatter themselves that they are only giving a moral
lesson through a parable. But the illusion is dissipated the moment
that any intelligent pupil asks such critical questions as occur to
precocious children. “ Mother,” asked a four-year-old enfant terrible
whom I once knew, “ what does God sit down on when he’s tired ? ”
“ O, my dear,” said the mother, “ God is never tired.” “ But,” retorted
the child, “you said he rested on the seventh day.”
Now, critical questions of children are of no disadvantage whatever,
if suggested by the inconsistencies of an avowed parable or fable. But
any question of the kind may rudely dispel the rationalising teacher’s
notion that he can use Hebrew myths as he uses JEsop’s Fables with
out letting his pupils know it. If it be said that as a matter of fact such
questions are rarely or never asked in school, so much the worse for the
system. For the absence of any such sign of intelligent interest shows
that the whole lesson is regarded as a ceremonial observance having no
relation to realities. Besides, there are many cases in which an intel
ligent and rational teacher, who was really free, would anticipate such
questions for the sake of the spiritual impression he is seeking to make.
If, for instance, he is using the infatuated Pharaoh of the Exodus as a
type of earthly power, scornful of spiritual verities, and eventually
crushed by a might that it cannot understand, he must needs deny the
literal truth of the assertion that “ God hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” ; or,
otherwise, all modern analogies fail. To explain the arrogant contempt
of George III. and his court for the new-born American patriotism, by
asserting that God hardened that monarch’s heart, would not be
tolerated even by literal believers of what is said about Pharaoh. It
is, therefore, impossible for the teacher to make any obviously fair
application of the ancient example to the modern instance.
�MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
41
Records
Take, again, the alleged command given by Jahweh to Moses, early of
Hebrew
Joshua, and Israel at large to smite the nations of old Palestine, and savagery.
“utterly to destroy them,” to “ make no covenant with them, nor show
mercy unto them.” Either this command is accepted as historical or it
is not. In the former case the teacher has an unenviable task in
“justifying the ways of God to men.” In the latter case a conscientious
teacher would almost give all his hopes of preferment to be allowed to
say that the statement was a false and blasphemous pretence of the
Israelites. But even here the recipients of dissolving views may find an
issue. It may not be true that any personal Deity gave such a
command. Yet the doctrine of the gradual selection of higher races
through the survival of the fittest in each generation’s struggle for life
is, in one form or another, generally accepted; and, probably, the
application of such a doctrine to the resettlement of ancient Palestine
would not stir up “ the religious difficulty ” even on School Boards.
But such an interpretation is estopped by the conditions under which
the lesson is given. The “ compromise ” involves a tacit undertaking
to assume, if not the infallibility, at least the historical accuracy, of the
Bible, especially where it narrates the successive steps in the progress
of the alleged revelation to which all the compromising sects are at least
officially committed. One of those steps is the establishment of the
chosen people in Palestine, and the suppression of the earlier inhabitants
by order of a personal divine ruler in order to make room for the former.
This divine ruler speaks with human speech, expresses emotions of anger
and jealousy indistinguishable from human feeling. He issues orders
like an earthly sovereign who has a policy of conquest to carry out. It
is not Fate, or the Unknowable, who is here acting and speaking. It
is an intensely personal Being, whose mercy elsewhere is said to endure
for ever, and whose “ compassions fail not.” How is it possible for any
honest Christian, with the words of Jesus murmuring in his heart, to tell
children that such a Being ordered these massacres? Yet no Elemen
tary schoolmaster would be supported by his Committee in treating as
fictitious the terrible command above-mentioned.1
What reality can there be in the teaching of the Bible under such In such a
case
limitations by any man or woman touched by the spirit of the age ? “ simple
Bible
The possibility of simplicity and straightforwardness is confined to that teaching ”
needs
small minority of teachers who still hold the whole Bible to be literally devout
true. Unconscious of any incongruity between modern thought and simpletons
as teachers.
the “ plan of salvation ” taught to them in their childhood, they are also
1 Of course, this general assertion, based on nearly forty years’ experience, must be
taken for what it is worth. But it is to be remembered that even school managers,
who themselves disbelieve any such divine command, would fear the “talk” of the
neighbourhood and possible offence to religious ministers.
�42
The intoler
able strain
on enlight
ened
teachers.
MORAL EFFECT ON TEACHERS
untroubled by any inconsistency between Old Testament fables and the
spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. They tell, with such fervour as a
cooling faith allows, of man’s first disobedience, of the curse thereby
entailed on all posterity, and of the elaborate process of miracle and
prophecy, of type and sacrifice, of commandments and law and ceremony,
by which a divine Being laboriously prepared the coming of the sacred
victim whose death and resurrection open the Kingdom of Heaven to
all believers. Such a course of instruction amid all the array of theo
logical dreams it unfolds has, undoubtedly, lucid intervals in which
moving appeals may be made to the heart. The loss of Eden, the
passion of Cain, the aspirations of Enoch, the faith of Abraham, the
story of Joseph, David’s heart-broken sorrow for Absalom—all, even
when taken literally, give the opportunity of contrasting the meanness of
self-will with loyalty of soul to a divine ideal. But the possibility of this
does'not in the least palliate the wrong spoken of in previous pages, the
injustice done to dissenting ratepayers and less orthodox teachers who
object to do evil that good may come. They protest against being made
aiders and abettors in the perpetuation of what they think falsehood,
even though some moral truths may occasionally glimmer through it.
But, outside the minority who can with their whole hearts “teach the
Bible ” in the sense intended by “ the compromise,” teachers are exposed
to degrees of strain varying from the abject surrender to hypocrisy
quoted above, to casuistical ingenuities and non-natural interpretation
of obvious duty. “ Obvious duty ” because neither by authority of
ratepayers, nor by orders of a School Board, nor even at the request-of
parents, is any man justified in teaching to his pupils as truth what he
himself believes to be a lie. “ Parable,” “ allegory,” “ fable,” and such
like, are not the words to describe the method of one who himself accepts
a Bible story in one sense and takes care that the children shall under
stand him in another. To talk about a dispensation of “ illusion ” is right
enough when we are groping after an increasing purpose running through
the ages of faith. In those times everyone believed the illusion, and
there was no dishonesty. But when a man tells of a universal deluge or
of the overthrow of Jericho’s walls by sound of trumpet, or of Joshua’s
arrest of the sun, in such a manner as to make the impression that he
believes them as facts when he does not believe them, this is not an
economy of illusion ; it is a lie—or at least if would be so to any
unsophisticated conscience,
�VI.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
At the risk of needless reiteration, I must again disclaim any inclination
to deny the educational value of the Bible, if properly used. The ques
tion here raised is, What has actually been the ethical value of the Bible
as taught under the conditions already described ? After thirty-seven
years of daily text-grinding in the people’s schools, or rather after a
hundred years of it if we take into consideration the previous work of
voluntary associations, the question of Browning’s Pope seems very
pertinent:—
“Well, is the thing we see salvation ?”
Is the language in our streets much purer or less profane and coarse
than it was in 1870 ?
More than one local Council, in grief at the coarse, foul, and
disgusting words constantly used in its streets, has desired the law to be
strengthened. We have had practically universal and professedly com
pulsory education for nearly six generations of school children1—and
yet we have to ask the magistrates to supplement the moral work of the
schoolmaster in a matter like this. The following paragraph from the
Westminster Gazette, of September 6th, 1901, is very suggestive, and
unfortunately is not yet irrelevant to present manners. The italics are
my own :—
We would gladly see the resolution passed by the East Ham Council
to stop offensive language on tram-cars adopted by other local autho
rities. The use of language of this sort is disagreeable enough to many,
wherever heard ; it is particularly so on public conveyances where other
passengers are compelled to listen to it. The strange thing is that those
who indulge in it are, as a rule, quite unconscious of giving any cause of
offence. They are so accustomed among their fellows to express them
selves in such a way that they go on doing so wherever they may be.
It will, no doubt, be possible to curb the nuisance by measures of the
kind referred to ; but, as the use of objectionable language anywhere is
an offence at law, it might be well, perhaps, if the law were put in
motion more frequently than it is. Persons passing along the streets
often have their ears assailed with foul expressions, which a few prosecu
tions might make less common.
Is it not a scandal that elementary schools should be so powerless to
mould the manners of children who have attended them for six, eight,
1 For the greater part of the period compulsory attendance has begun at five years
of age and ended after thirteen.
43
The voca
bulary of
the streets.
�44
I ack of
moral inspi
ration in
the schools.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
or ten years?1 All these foul-mouthed people, who “are so accus
tomed among their fellows to express themselves in such a way,” have
passed through some elementary school in which the Bible, or even the
Catechism, has been taught, and “ explanations have been given there
from in the principles of the Christian religion and morality.” And yet
they have not been saved from coarseness, profanity, and indecency in
speech.
Is the effect of cheap literature quite what we hoped and expected ?
When opening our first Board schools, did we forebode that in the
twentieth century the cry of “All the winners ” would sell more papers
than the most thrilling announcements of scientific or archaeological
discovery, or even of the most exciting political events ? If the English
translation of the Bible is, as some incongruously say, a “ British
classic,” should not its incessant reading have raised the intellectual
tone of the people above the level where it remains ? In our incessant
whining for clumsy methods of force to put down betting, bribery, and
impurity, is there not a manifest despair of moral remedies? Yet I
should not be at all surprised to find that the hysterical people who
continually write letters to the Press urging methods of barbarism, such
as the “ cat,” as infallible moral restoratives, have no less fervently
throughout their lives insisted on Bible drill. And when this con
spicuously fails, the natural conclusion, that there must have been some
lack of moral inspiration in the method, does not seem to occur to
them. The fine old Christian saying that “ force is not God’s way ”2
loses its significance when the Bible becomes a fetish; and “ Bible and
beer ” has to be supplemented by Bible and birch.
The good humour of an English mob is proverbial, and was a
character acquired long before “ simple Bible teaching,” under the
Cowper-Temple clause, was invented. But such good humour does
not prevent outbreaks of rudeness, coarseness, and disregard for the
rights of others which here and there make Bank Holidays odious.
Now, if moral training in public Elementary schools is good for any
thing, it ought surely to secure compliance with the precept, “ All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them.”
But the constant recurrence of cases in which private parks, by courtesy
1 Take, for instance, the objectionable and even dangerous habit of promiscuous
and continual spitting. Of late public authorities have been obliged, on hygienic
grounds, to interfere. But until doctors decided that disease may be spread thereby,
mere decency had no chance of consideration. I did my humble best as Board
School manager in London from 1871 onwards to secure attention to the subject, but
in vain. Yet if morals include “ manners,” as surely they ought, the doctors should
have been anticipated by the teachers.
2 “ Bia yap ou irphaevri r<p Gecp.” It occurs in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus
of uncertain but very early date (cap. vii.), and also in Irenaeus (contra Hcereses, lib.
iv., cap. xxxvii. 1).
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
45
opened to the public, have had to be closed because of the abuse of
such courtesy, proves that the lesson has not been successfully
impressed.1
I gladly acknowledge that juvenile crime, in the sense of offences
punished by sentence of magistrates or judges, has largely diminished.
But this has been brought about by improvements in the law rather
than in juvenile manners. Children who would, in a more barbarous
though recent age, have been sent to prison are now sent to Industrial
schools or Reformatories. That, however, is quite consistent with a
persistently low standard of juvenile morality, and of this there is too
much evidence.
Of such evidence I will give a specimen forced upon my attention An illustra
tive case.
on the very day when these lines are penned. Its value must, of course,
depend on the extent to which it corresponds with the experience of my
readers. But I scarcely think that many will say that it is an unusual
case. This morning, then (July, 1907), I was one of a bench of magis
trates before whom eight boys, of ages varying from twelve to seventeen,
were accused, some of them of stealing, and others of malicious damage,
involving, as was proved, serious danger to human life. The little
robbers had made a raid on certain “penny-in-the-slot” machines, by
means of tin discs, which, as it turned out, worked quite as well as the
penny with His Majesty’s image and superscription. Some of us
thought—and many may share our opinion—that machines making
theft so easy constitute an unfair temptation to our child citizens under
our present feeble and futile systems of moral training. But perhaps I
was alone in thinking that it was the moral training quite as much as this
imperfect “ penny-in-the-slot ” system that was to blame. For, what
ever may be the attractions of illicit chocolates and cigarettes, boys
from twelve to seventeen years old ought to have—and would have
under efficient moral training—sufficient feeling of the meanness of theft
and of its disastrous consequences to social order to enable them to
resist.
There were also three accusations of malicious damage, one of the
accused youngsters being a defendant also in the previous case. In a
neighbouring mountain quarry the stones are run down tramways having
an incline steeper than a high-pitched roof. Now, on a Saturday half
holiday, when there was no one about, these adventurous boys, finding
1 In the former edition I gave certain then recent and notorious instances of the
kind, in one of which two Sunday-school teachers in charge of a children’s excursion
were concerned. I have no reason to believe that the evil is much abated since then.
And I have had special opportunities during these years of not'.ng how vain are the
efforts of the, Selboine Society to preserve picturesque places of resort from desecration.
Picnickers seem to imagine that it is not of the least consequence in what state of
filthy untidiness they leave nature’s beauties.
�46
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
a waggon securely “scotched” at the top of one of these steep
The moral
instruction
of such
juveniles,
tramways, removed the “ scotch ” and started the waggon off. It was
good fun, no doubt; but, as several deaths have occurred through
incautious trespassing on these tramways, it was highly perilous fun,
and the boys were quite old enough to know it. Compared with this
danger to life, it seemed to me that the smashing of the company’s
waggon was trivial. In old times these peccant children would have
been sent to swell the number of juvenile criminals. But, of course, no
such consequence followed in this case; and as the same just and
rational leniency is now exercised in thousands of similar cases, this
amply accounts for the apparently satisfactory change in the statistics of
juvenile crime. Yet is it so satisfactory when we learn the real reason
of the change? These latter frolicking boys, though accused of
“ malicious damage,” were, I believe, not capable of malignity. No;
but neither they nor the pilferers had such sense as they ought to have
had at their age of their duty to their neighbour, or of their moral
relations to the community which assures their safety and their prospects
in life. Now, if anyone thinks this is too much to expect from boys of
twelve to seventeen, let him watch them at their games of “ marbles,”
or follow them to the cricket-field and the football-ground. There he
will find that cheating is held in contempt, that any youth who tries to
“ sneak ” an advantage from his fellows is not only pummelled, but
“ boycotted.” Why should it be different when the “ game ” to be
played is that of society ?
But it happened that an official visit which I paid to an “ undenomi
national” school1 at an hour earlier than the petty sessions suggested an
explanation. For there I found the “religious instruction ” going on.
The school was divided for this purpose into two classes, senior and
junior. The elder were studying the beginning of the romance of
Joseph in Genesis xxxvii. The points on which questions were asked
were the reasons for Jacob’s partiality to Joseph, the delights of a “coat
of many colours,” the filial obedience of Joseph—which, according to
the chapter before the children, seems very questionable—the signifi
cance of Joseph’s dreams, and the unreasonableness of his brethren and
father in objecting to them. The junior children were being instructed
in Matthew ii., especially the “ massacre of the innocents.” The lady
teacher was particularly anxious that the children should appreciate the
inferiority of Herod’s claim to be King of the Jews as compared with
that of Jesus. She was also careful to explain the wiles by which that
1 Lest it should be supposed that “denominational” schools would have done
better, I may as well mention that all the accused youths attended, or had attended,
a Church school.
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
47
child-slayer would have cheated the innocent Magi had it not been
for the intervention of the deity. And this was moral instruction !
Let it not be said that these instances are unfair because excep
tionally inept. The contrary is the case. I have myself known
teachers who realise that the practical problem is to awaken an effective
moral sense, and who try to bend “simple Bible-teaching” to its
solution. But it is they that are exceptional, not the type I have
described. And those exceptional teachers are usually earnest in
pleading for more freedom in treating the Bible and in extending the
scope of moral instruction beyond it. Nor let it be supposed that I am
here assuming the possibility of eliminating by any means whatever the
dangers attendant on exuberance of animal life in youth. But I do say
that the only way of minimising them is to develop as early as possible
a sense of comradeship, fellowship, responsibility to and for society,
which shall inspire the child to be as faithful to the surrounding
community as he is now to the narrower circle of his playfellows in
games. And I maintain that to look for any such results from a
talk about Joseph’s dreams and destinies, or about the rival regal
claims of Herod and Jesus, is to expect grapes from thorns and figs
from thistles.1
It may be said that our failure to improve morals as fast as we
increase knowledge condemns the churches as well as the schools.
That is so. But in regard to the possibilities of amendment in the
two cases there is this difference. The churches are much more free
than the schools are to adapt their moral teaching to the needs of the
time. Theological Articles scheduled in an Act of Parliament, and
even Trust Deeds deposited in a denominational Muniment Room, are
no more effective than the handcuffs and bonds imposed on professors
of the “box-trick,” where there is the will to get rid of them. But the
watchful jealousy of a majority on an Educational Committee elected
for the purpose of guarding the sacred compromise is not to be eluded.
As a matter of fact, it is notorious that the Churches are, to a very
considerable extent, changing their methods of teaching. I have
already given illustrations of the freer spirit which is gradually inspiring
even Evangelical Sunday-schools. We may well hope, therefore, that,
in accordance with historic precedent, the Churches will insensibly shift
the standard of orthodoxy. And, meanwhile, there is little temptation
to insincerity. Whatever may be the case with ministers—among
whom there is a great deal more moral heroism than is commonly
supposed—Sunday-school teachers, at any rate, have no temptation to
1 Anyone who supposes such an argument to imply materialism is quite mistaken.
It points to a universal religion, which involves, absorbs, and transforms all the
sectarian religions that have ever been conceived.
Schools
more stereo
typed than
churches.
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
continue their work of Bible teaching for a single day after they find
out that they cannot do so honestly. Besides, Sunday-schools do not
compel us to pay rates for their support. They have no national or
municipal authority at their back. They do not involve us as citizens
in responsibility for their teaching or moral influence. Whatever may
be said about the lingering fiction of a “ national ” Church, its Sundayschools are entirely voluntary and unofficial.
The case of public elementary day schools is very different.
Attendance at one or other of them is compulsory on some eighty-four
per cent, of our children. We are forced to pay for their support
Every
through taxes and rates. It is by the national or municipal authority,
spon^Mefor or both, that every lesson in them is given. We are, therefore, responineffiXncy sible for them; and if they are allowed to demoralise the commonschools.
wealth of the future, it is our fault. Or, if they are maintained on a
system proved to be inefficient in attaining the highest ends of educa
tion, every citizen is to blame. Further, the position of the elementary
teacher is a much more difficult one than that of the Sunday-school
teacher. To the former his work is also his livelihood. He cannot
abandon it with a light heart the moment he is required to offend his
conscience. Nor is there the slightest prospect at present of obtaining
for him an honourable “liberty of prophesying.” This would imperil
that sacred ark of the covenant, “ the compromise.”
The result is that the Bible teaching in public elementary, and
especially in municipal schools, is inevitably more demoralising than
that of Sunday-schools. In the latter the worst evil to be feared is
that of ignorance, or, perhaps, honest bigotry. But in the former the
tendency of the system is to make dishonesty a necessity of life. Or
if dishonesty be, considering all things, too hard a word to use, the
least evil that is possible is the prevalence of a lifeless formalism in
i
precisely that part of school teaching which most of all requires the
energy of an eternal spirit. Now, by this last phrase I mean the moral
fervour which persists from age to age only on condition that it shall
continually change its modes of expression into accordance with the
new actualities of the times.
Only use and wont can account for the indifference with which
the majority of electors look on while the springs of morality are
poisoned before their eyes. What does it matter? ask some. If the
teaching is false, it means as little to the children as the drone of a
beetle, and meantime the religious difficulty is avoided. It seems
never to occur to such people that they are thus consenting parties to
the waste of nearly one-fifth of a child’s school time. How can such
a system be anything but demoralising ? Even the children from
decent and respectable homes want waking up on moral subjects. Let
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
49
it be granted that such children hear nothing but good at home. They
hear it, however, in the form of kindly platitudes about “behaving”
and doing as they are told, and “honesty as the best policy”—which
platitudes are neither stimulative nor impressive. They require to be
made to feel that the matter of conduct is interesting, and they will
never be made to feel that by a teacher who explains the grammar and
geography and archaeology of a Bible story which he does not himself
believe. The fate of those children—alas, too many—who have no
decent homes to echo the platitudes of morality is far worse. It is
simply shocking to hear little victims of society’s crimes rattling off
pious phrases and shrieking saintly hymns to which they obviously
attach no meaning whatever. And if their teacher is compelled by his
engagements to add to the falsehoods and unrealities of their young
lives a lesson on a supernatural revelation which he does not himself
believe, he becomes, like the parent, to Christ inconceivable, who,
instead of a fish, "would give to his child a serpent.
Perhaps one reason for persistence in the present system is that its
most devout supporters do not regard morality as teachable, but expect
it rather to be inspired by a miracle of divine grace. The instrument
for the accomplishment of this opus operatum is the word of God, and
the word of God is identified wuth the Bible. A magic charm is thought
to lie in the syllables of the sacred text, like the influence once attri
buted to written spells—a charm altogether apart from any significance
of the "words.
Or if that be thought too strong an expression, I will try to defend
it. There are scattered through Shakespeare’s works very many gems
of moral truth quite clear and limpid enough to appeal to children in
the upper standards of elementary schools. Thus Portia’s exquisite
description of “ the quality of mercy” does not depend much upon the
context for its appeal to the heart. And detached sayings, such as
“Truth hath a quiet breast,” “Love’s best habit is a soothing tongue,”
“ Never anything can be amiss when simpleness and duty tender it,”
easily stick in the memory, and under free moral instruction would
become pregnant with connotations which would return whenever
the saying was remembered. But then no one attributes to such
words any supernatural authority, and they are, therefore, not recog
nised as “the word of God,” though in a clear sense they are so,
as being the inevitable outcome of human experience, which is a
partial expression of God. But the absence of a supernatural sanction
is thought to unfit such words for the purposes of religious instruction;
whereas when similar lessons are read from the Bible the supernatural
sanction is assumed, and therein lies their value. In other words, it is
not the moral contents, not self-evident truth, that counts, but only the
E
The Bible
as magic.
Not the
truth but
the sanction
valued.
�5o
How far
morality is
teachable.
Grace, its
meaning.
Communi
cated
through
human in
tercourse.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
supernatural sanction. And this is what I meant above by saying that
the Bible is valued for some supposed magic charm, akin to that of
written spells.
The same fond delusion which induces some well-meaning people to
hang up texts in railway waiting-rooms, or to employ sandwich-men to
carry texts on their backs, is also at the root of much zeal for text
grinding in schools. If the Genesis story of the Fall of Man, or of the
Flood, had been first given to the modern world by some learned
excavator of cuneiform records, we should certainly have considered it
extremely interesting, and in many ways suggestive of the attitude of
early ages towards the mystery of life. As fables they might even have
been recognised as useful for combining entertainment with instruction
in the teaching of children. But no one would have dreamed of making
them a formal basis of moral lessons. What is it, then, which gives
such narratives their sacred and even awful importance ? It is the
feeling that they are parts of a divine “plan of salvation” which must
stand or fall as a whole, and of which every separate part is essential to
the miraculous power of the whole. The moral significance is not the
point of importance, but rather the impact of a divine word.
Now there is certainly a grain of truth in the religious assumption
that morality is not teachable in the same way as, for instance, arith
metic is teachable. When, in the latter case, the main relations of the
digit numbers are fixed in the memory, the rest is mere matter of com
bination, requiring only attention. But no amount of memory work or
of combination of maxims will give morality. Here the working of the
sympathies and the will are absolutely essential. How is this to be
ensured ? The Evangelical people, who are the lifeguard of the system,
hold that it depends on a miracle of grace, and a miraculous Bible is, in their
view, the best, indeed the only means for evoking that. Now, I am not
going to assert that, as regards this miracle of grace, they are fundamentally
wrong. At any rate, I hold they are not so wrong as those who treat
of human nature as though it were wholly and utterly isolated from and
independent of the divine Whole in which it lives and moves and has
its being. But this expectation of grace from the mere repetition of
sacred spells is unworthy of the spiritual aspirations with which it is too
often associated.
No; grace comes through human intercourse, and the more vivid,
the more intimate, the more natural that intercourse is, the more
probable is the transmission of grace. Apply this to teacher and pupils.
The former is rightly expected to be the medium of a grace that touches
the sympathies and moulds the wills of his pupils. But he can only
discharge this function through free intercourse of mind and heart. How
is that possible to him in the course of lessons which require him to pretend
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
5i
a mental attitude wholly alien to his real life ? It is of no use to say
that it ought not to be alien to his real life, or that he ought to be a sincere
believer. There is nothing whatever in the engagement of a municipal
school teacher to bind him to that, and, even if there were, the ideas of
the most sincere “believers” about the Bible are now very often, indeed,
identical with those held by eminent unbelievers fifty years ago. But
the “ compromise ” makes no allowance for this change. And the
result is that really only a minority—and, I suspect, a very small
minority—of such teachers feel entirely at ease and natural in giving a
Scripture lesson.
How can a teacher, touched by the spirit of the age, feel at ease in
teaching the life of Jesus to his class? He has, perhaps, been reading
with sympathy and resistless conviction the article “Gospels” in the
new Encyclopedia Biblica, edited as we have seen and largely written
by eminent clergymen of the Church of England. He finds that in the
judgment of the writers of this particular article—a judgment founded
on evidence he cannot resist—the Gospels are a growth, rather than the
work of the men whose names they bear. For the reality of the miracu
lous events, including the resurrection, there seems to him now to be
no evidence whatever of the nature usually demanded by modern
historical science. And, indeed, nothing is left to him but a vision of
transcendent beauty floating between earth and heaven, too pure for
material solidity, and yet impossible of invention by any such minds as
are reflected in the New Testament canon. The result probably is that
he still keeps and still worships the Vision, as a transfiguration of a
supreme manhood too great to be understood or rightly reported by
disciples.
I am not writing a polemic, nor yet an eirenicon. I am not, there
fore, called upon to defend such a mental attitude as is here described.
I only say that, in these times, it is one very natural to many who desire
to keep both reason and emotion true. And those who go through
this experience, if they have the teaching faculty, are likely to be
specially quickened by that experience.
The very anxieties and
“searchings of heart ” they have suffered make them more sympathetic;
and the spiritual heroism which prompts them to refuse the consolations
of pretence gives a ring of sincerity to their utterance that tells upon
children no less than on adults. But imagine such a man or woman
set to give a lesson, according to the “compromise,” on the alleged
birth in Bethlehem, or the feeding of the five thousand, or the walking
on the sea! He must treat such things as historic facts, and is afraid
lest by any chance word he should betray his real position.1 He must
1 See preface, p. viii , where reference is macle to Mr. Nevinson’s observations on
this fear in his articles contributed to the Westminster Gazette.
The ration
alist teacher
and the lite
ot' Christ.
Bondage to
the letter.
�52
Disappear
ance of the
spirit.
To restore it
get rid of
insincerity.
Natural
morality
more easily
illustrated
by modern
instances.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
expound the “ fulfilments of prophecy ” asserted by Matthew or Luke.
He must explain away the words of Mary to the child Jesus, when she
said: “Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” If questioned
on the precise mode of multiplication of the baked bread and cooked
fishes that fed the five thousand, he can only reply feebly that these
things are a mystery, when he holds them to be fiction. The great
immeasurable soul of whom he has glimpses through the preternatural
transfiguration wrought by the Gospels is reduced in his inevitable
teaching to an itinerant wonder-monger, who puzzled the world by a
sort of holy magic. Is it strange that religion, taught after such a
fashion, should be morally barren ?
It may be asked, How would the position be improved by excluding
the Bible ? One answer is that the moral atmosphere in many schools
would be purified by the elimination of unreality and insincerity. That
such evils accompany the use of the Bible in school is not the fault of
the Book. It is a consequence of the conventional superstition with
which it is treated. But, so long as half the population regard it as
divine and infallible, while the other half believe it to be a collection of
human documents, each to be taken on its merits, it is impossible to
ensure sincerity and honesty in its use. If ever a time comes when it
can be used with the same sort of intelligent discrimination and freedom
as is claimed by university professors in teaching Cicero’s De Officiis or
Plato’s Republic, it will become an exceedingly valuable handbook.
But that time does not seem to be within a measurable distance now.
Another answer to the above question is that if morality were taught
as a part of our natural life, dependent on human experience and not on
a miraculous revelation, the teacher would be more likely to bring his
lessons home to the every-day life of his pupils. Which is the more
likely to inspire a wholesome fear of lying—the story of Gehazi, or the
account of a plague of small-pox which might have been stopped by the
isolation of the first cases but for the lying denials of their relatives that
there was anything wrong ? In my time it was usual to tell children
that “ Don’t-care ” met a lion, and was eaten up. The warning had not
much influence; but the true story of a child who walked unwarily, and
fell headlong down a flight of steps, induced, at any rate for a short
time, some alertness in looking to the path before us.
It is no aspersion on the Bible to say that it cannot supply the place
of systematic instruction in the morals of daily life. Listening to the
“ explanations given therefrom in the Christian religion and morality ”
by even the best elementary teachers, one cannot but feel that the
knowledge of Scripture is one thing and morality another. Both
teacher and taught are for the moment affecting to live in another world
entirely different from this, conducted on a different method, actuated
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
53
by impossible motives, and continually corrected by miracle. The
stories, the maxims, the doctrines, are items to be remembered for
examinations. But they are none of them on the same plane as the
child’s daily life. The notion of any practical application rarely occurs,
except as a preparation for death or a key to the dream-world of heaven.
In former years, when I was still a member of the School Board for Ineffectual
effort to
London, and much nearer in creed to the Evangelical Free Churches secure moral
training’
than I am now, I was so impressed with the practical absence of under the
late School
systematic moral teaching from the schools that I called attention to the Board for
London.
subject, and obtained the appointment of a small committee to consider
the question. One of the members was the late Rev. John Rodgers,
Vicar of St. Thomas’s, Charterhouse, and at that time Vice-Chairman of
the Board. My proposal was that a course of lessons should be based
upon the summary of practical morality given by the Church Catechism
in answer to the question, “ What is thy duty towards thy neighbour ? ”
I thought then, as I do still, that the summary is a very good one.1
The highest classes in elementary schools are perhaps capable of
receiving more definite instruction on the origin, nature, and obligations
of social relationships. But for children from seven to twelve years of
age it contains just the sort of practical summary of duty, in the form
of a “categorical imperative,” that is adapted to their needs. Drawn
out into a series of detailed lessons with ample illustrations, it would
form an admirable basis for a course of moral instruction and exhorta
tion likely to affect the life. In this conviction I went so far as to sketch
the outline of such a course of lessons, which, I suppose, exists still
somewhere in the archives of the extinct Board. And, as it was grounded
on the Catechism, I thought myself secure of support from Evangelical
Churchmen. I am glad to remember that the Rev. John Rodgers
supported me. But I was sadly disappointed in the more pronounced
Evangelical laymen. One of them, a most excellent man in all social
and business relations, though belonging to the straitest sect of
“ Low ” Churchmen, and elected to the Board entirely on account of
his religiousness, declared vehemently that “ it left out everything that a
Churchman cared for.” It was useless to suggest that “ everything a
Churchman cared for ” could be supplied in a Churchman s own
Sunday schools. The very appearance of teaching morality for its own
sake, apart from the magic, symbols, and formulas of theology, was
considered suspicious, and the project had to be dropped.
1 Among those who never learned this Catechism a very curious mistake is
prevalent. It is supposed to urge contentment with “that state of life unto which
it has pleased God to call” us, whereas, of course, the words are, “to which it shall
please God to call me.” Also the word “ betters ” has been quite gratuitously taken
to refer exclusively to social rank, whereas it refers just as naturally to moral worth.
�54
Attempt by
the Moral
Instruction
League to
assert the
rights of
parents.
Defeated by
undenomi
national
bigotry.
THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
The decision was regrettable ; but, from the point of view fixed by
the “compromise,” it was perhaps inevitable. For both Churchmen
and Nonconformists, having once established and endowed the Bible—
and practically their common interpretation of the Bible—as the one
sanction of morality recognised by the School Board, were naturally loth
to imperil that settlement by any admission of merely natural ethics.
But, however that may be, surely the later refusal of the same
Board to allow children to be withdrawn in accordance with the
Conscience Clause from Biblical instruction to receive moral lessons
instead is indefensible. The facts are as follows :—
A society known as the Moral Instruction League was formed
before the end of last century to stimulate attention to moral teaching
in schools, and to suggest what the members held to be better methods.
Using a right which is presumably within the limits of the British
Constitution, to influence their fellow-citizens by conversation, they
visited the homes of parents having children in attendance at Board
schools, and explained their ideas. They showed that by law the
children could not be compelled to receive the regulation Bible
teaching. They pointed to the article in the School Board Code which
directs that “ during the time of religious teaching or religious observ
ance any children withdrawn from such teaching or observance
shall receive separate instruction in secular subjects.” They then
suggested that the parents, if they preferred non-theological moral
teaching, should withdraw their children from the Bible lessons, and at
the same time request that they should, during the time of those
lessons, receive separate teaching in morality. The suggestions were
received by the parents with an unexpected amount of favour. As
many as a hundred children, or more, were withdrawn from theological
teaching in each of several schools. But so threatening a schism was
met with prompt measures by the alarmed devotees of the Compromise.
In the first place, separate moral instruction was refused to the children
withdrawn. Instead of that, they were set to toil apart at ordinary
school drudgery. Now, this appears to have been a rather hard, and
even cruel, interpretation of the School Board rule; for it virtually
refuses to recognise ethics as a “secular subject,” and it forces upon
unwilling parents the alternative of Bible or nothing. Under such
circumstances, it is easy to understand the success of the next step
taken by zealots for the Compromise. The parents were visited in
their homes, and the difficulty and unpleasantness of the situation
created for their children were vigorously explained. The result was
that the children returned to the Bible lessons; and this has probably
been adduced as evidence of the unanimous desire of parents of all
creeds and none to have their children taught the common faith of
�THE EFFECT ON SCHOOL CHILDREN
55
Evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Independents.
It would have been more generous, and equally in accord with their
existing School Board regulations, if the Board had consented to regard
natural ethics as a “secular subject,” and detailed teachers—who
could easily have been found—to give the lessons to the children for
whom they were asked. The refusal to do so suggests that the
authorities were afraid of the experiment. Perhaps, like the authorities
of Jewish orthodoxy at the first feeble beginnings of Christianity, “they
doubted whereunto this would grow.” But, after all, they are ministers
of law, not of their own theological views; and I cannot for a moment
suppose that their legal advisers would have told them that a concession
to these parents would be contrary to the law. There are some,
especially among the clergy, who boldly maintain the right of every
parent to have his children taught his own creed at the public expense.
It is noteworthy that these extremists belong to a Church which formerly
resisted fiercely the imposition of a conscience clause, and which also
refused to believe that any schools were necessary except her own.
But, though the new policy of the priesthood is certainly more
charitable than their former action, it has the misfortune to be imprac
ticable. Our sects are too many to allow this sort of liberality.1
But if ever there was a case in which parents were justified in asking
to have their own views of moral instruction carried out, it is surely the
case I have described. For they did not presume to ask that any
peculiar notions of theirs on transcendental subjects should be taught
to their children, nor yet any eccentricities of morality. They would
probably have been quite satisfied with the practical principles of
conduct set forth in the Church Catechism, as above quoted. If Bible
teaching can claim to be “unsectarian,” how much more justly can the
title be claimed for doctrines of morality from which not one in a
million of the population would dissent! The refusal of their request
was unreasonable, unjust, and ungenerous. That it would be sustained
by a majority of electors zealous for the Bible even to persecution may,
unhappily, be true. But it was not in the true interest of morality.
It is of a piece with the policy which sets unbelievers to teach belief,
and counts the conscience and heart of the teacher nothing so long as
he speaks by the Book.
1 Besides, it is absurd to say that a parent has a right to have his individual
opinions on transcendental subjects taught by his fellow ratepayers, and taxpayeis to
his children. For what the Commonwealth seeks by its education policy is good
citizens of this world, not of any unknown world. But when a parent asks that his
child shall be taught at the public expense such a doctrine, for instance, as priestly
absolution, he is asking not that his child shall be made a good citizen, but that he
shall be taught how to secure the safety of his soul in an unknown world. „ Such, a
claim is simply preposterous. If valid, it would give the “ Peculiar People a claim
to have their children taught at the public expense the sinfulness of calling in a doctor.
Bogus
rights of
parents.
�VII.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
Contrast of
kindred
States
where the
religious
difficulty is
excluded.
Second in importance to the disastrous effects of a hollow compromise
on the teaching of morality is its injurious influence on the development
of the national intellect. In the United States, and in our own greatest
Colonies, there has been an almost complete elimination of the religious
question. It is true that in the older settlements of Canada friction is
kept up by the survival of Catholic claims and influence. It is true
also that in the United States and in Australia occasional efforts have
been made by devout sectaries to disturb the settlement effected by
dropping theology. We know, likewise, that in many common schools
of the United States the old custom is still kept up of reading from the
teacher’s desk at the commencement of school a few verses from the
Bible “ without note or comment.” I am one of those who think that
this comment of silence is worse than almost any other. The custom is
a tribute to the survival of Puritan traditions in America. But the fact
that, in spite of these traditions, the Americans have substantially left
the teaching of the Bible and Christianity to the Churches is all the
more creditable to their spiritual courage. At any rate, their practice
affords no support whatever to the evangelical compromise in England.
But these modifications of pure “secularism” have been almost a
negligible quantity. It is substantially—and excluding Catholic Canada
—almost exactly true that the educational policy of Greater AngloSaxondom1 has been determined solely by educational interests, and
not by sectarian rivalry. I recognise, of course, that other advantages
besides this blessed peace have favoured our kinsmen beyond the seas,
and especially in the United States. The absence of an Established
Church, the more prevalent sense of equality, and, in the great
Republic, the system of common schools, which merges all class
interests in the one national and patriotic interest, have, of course,
conduced to the same end. But even these happy features of the new
commonwealths would have been ineffectual if the religious difficulty
had not been excluded.
1 This, of course, excludes the Anglo-Dutch States of South Africa. At the time
of writing, the religious question in education appears to be in process of settlement
for the Transvaal by the adoption of a Bill securing two and a half hours’ instruction
per weekin “Bible history.” The population there has apparently not yet become
as much interested in historical criticism as are the people of England. Contrasting
the two populations, we may find a fresh pathos in Koheleth’s words : “ He that
increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
55
�iwj&i
THE WRONG TO THE NA TION
57
These commonwealths have not had to balance the claims of jealous
sects. They have not had to repress the enterprise of heterodox schoc?
managers lest they should attract more scholars than the orthodox.
They have not been tempted to minimise the number of school places
needed in a district lest they should disturb sectarian monopolists who
could not raise the money for enlargement. They have been privileged
to consider two questions only—how many children required education,
and what were the best methods of intellectual and moral culture.
Whatever criticisms may be passed by our old-world scholars on the
rawness of American culture, witnesses of indisputable competence—as,
for instance, the correspondents commissioned to gather information
for the Times newspaper on American machine manufacture—are
emphatic in their testimony that the commercial and scientific progress
of the States is very largely owing to the facilities for education offered
from the common schools upwards. No ecclesiastical traditions, no
balancing of sect against sect, not even “ pious founders,” have stood
between the people and their intellectual aspirations. And this is not
in the least because the American people are less bigoted than we. So
far as we can judge, the Puritanical traditions of the Pilgrim Fathers
still exercise a widespread and enduring influence on American religion.
But, whatever may be their various beliefs, they drop them at the school
door, and ignore them in their educational counsels.
How different has been our experience in the old country! In 1807 ^sh^1'
the then Archbishop of Canterbury stamped out Mr. Samuel Whitbread’s veto,
precocious scheme of national education with a pious appeal to prejudice,
pleading for Christianity in the words of a heathen poet:—
Hac casti maneant in relligione nepotes.
This sanctimonious, but infamous, veto1 by a titled priest against the
education of a people is often quoted; but the oftener the better.
Those who have studied Mr. Whitbread’s scheme know that, though it
was of course far too indulgent to the Established Church, it drew the
lines of a really national education. And though it would not have
exorcised the demon of sectarianism any more than did the Act of 1870,
yet it would have practically anticipated by sixty-three years the estab
lishment of approximately universal elementary education. And when we
think of all that the nation has lost through that long delay, it is hard to
repress an indignation which, considering the sort of training received by
the clergy at the very beginning of last century, may perhaps be misplaced.
From that day to this the decisive consideration in every education ^nd^orlis
crisis has been not how to give our children the best possible training, ^ordibut how to 17
protect first the Established Church, and next the Bible. If Church and
Bible.
1 The Bill had passed the Commons, and would almost certainly have passed the
Lords if the Archbishop would have allowed it.
�5*
Failure of
Mr. Bal
four’s Act.
A lesson for
the future.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
the Nonconformists had not been false to their professed principles in
1870, a great part of the nation might then have adopted a wider policy
which must ultimately have attracted the whole people. But at the
golden opportunity their spiritual courage failed them. They dared not
trust religion to the “voluntary principle” which they had invoked
against the Established Church. They accepted State patronage and
control for religion in the schools. After that great betrayal every
School Board election became a theological battle. Questions of
education were quite secondary. How many candidates gave an hour
during their canvass to the best methods of teaching to read, or the most
interesting modes of presenting the problems of arithmetic? The
retention of the Bible, and the interpretation of “ unsectarianism,” or
rather “ intersectarianism,” so as to include all evangelical doctrine, have
been the two notes to which every platform has echoed.
Nor has the Act of 1902 successfully evaded the difficulty as the
ingenious and subtle-minded Premier of that day supposed it would.
For sectarian strife has been simply transferred to County Council
elections; and the balance of sects is considered more important than
educational knowledge in the selection of co-opted members of the local
Education Committees.
In the battle of progress it is always good to fix upon some definite
assertion of principle to be maintained at all costs. Supposing that
principle to be chosen, as a successful general selects his point of attack,
because it commands the field, victory on that point means a good deal
more than the achievement of one item in a political programme. The
success leavens the national mind with a new temper that suggests
consequential steps of further advance. When Cobden and his associates
in the Anti-Corn Law League fixed on the bread tax as their objective
point of attack, they were wise in their generation. The movement was
the more speedily successful because concentrated on the least defensible
position of Protectionists. But when once that point was yielded, the
whole case for Protection in general was practically given away; and the
doctrine of customs dues for revenue alone was triumphant.
In 1870 the Nonconformists had it in their power to do for the
emancipation of education what Cobden and Bright accomplished for
freedom of trade in 1846. The experience of religious Dissenters since
the beginning of the nineteenth century might have taught them that
sectarian domination, or sectarian rivalry, was hopelessly irreconcileable
with freedom of educational development. Common sense dictated
that the only effective way of removing the obstacle was to eliminate
theology entirely from public elementary schools, and to relegate it to
the free action of the Churches in accordance with the principles up to
that date held by Nonconformists. The notion of any danger to religion
�THE WRONG TO THE NATION
L
F
s
’
59
from such a policy ought to have been dissipated by the splendid
examples in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. So obvious
seemed the inference from such palpable facts that Mr. Gladstone
himself anticipated a Nonconformist demand for a “secular” system.1
Unfortunately, he gave them credit for more faith in their own principles
than they possessed. But if they had been courageous enough for
consistency, tens of thousands of the generation then coming into the
world would have been saved from the sectarian curse which has since
- blighted their education.
Let us observe what would have been gained by the exclusion of
theology. In the first place, there would have been a clear and definite
assertion of religious equality in the schools. Where education is
carried on under State patronage and control there are only two alterna
tive methods of maintaining religious equality in the schools. The one
is to teach every creed, and the other is to teach none. In a country
where a very few great denominations hold the field, as in Germany2 or
Austria, the former plan is possible, or at least plausible, though even
in such cases there are fragmentary sects who suffer wrong. De minimis
non curat lex. In Scotland also practically the same system is possible,
for Presbyterianism of one form or another is professed by nearly
the whole population. In Ireland the bad traditions of Protestant
supremacy have survived disestablishment: and education remains a
battle-field. Now I am dealing with the case of England and Wales,
not with that of Scotland or of Ireland. But, lest it should be supposed
that I shirk the question of the latter country, I will say at once that,
Ireland being still medieeval in religion, it would be ridiculous to try to
solve the problem of either school or university education on twentieth
century principles. Therefore no solution can possibly be found by
1 This is now too well established to need confirmation. He did not, indeed,
characterise “ simple Bible teaching ” as “ a monstrosity.” But he did characterise
as such the pretence of any municipal body to define what “ simple Bible teaching ” is.
2 We are sometimes pointed to the free, unhindered development of education in
Germany as a proof of at least the harmlessness of a denominational, system. But
between Germany and England there are very pregnant differences which make any
parallel impossible. Speaking generally, religious belief is not so much a matter of
individual conviction among average Germans as with us. Not that they are. less
religious in sentiment. Possibly they are even more so, because of their conventional
indifference about creeds. But they have not generally that idea of the duty of
individual conviction which generates our innumerable sects. Their confirmations and
first communions are very much a matter of social routine, like the “coming out” of
girls, or the assumption of the modern substitute for the toga mnlis by boys. To such
a state of feeling rate-supported catechism and scripture are of no consequence, and
this indifference makes sectarianism powerless for harm to the schools. Bismarck had
some trouble with Catholic obscurantists; but he gave them short shrift. Who ever
heard of a German district being stinted of school places to soothe the jealousy of the
Lutheran or the Reformed or the Evangelical Church ; or of a school generation being
allowed to grow up in ignorance in order that the Catholics might have time to supply
the needed school places ?
The two
alternatives.
Exceptional
case of
Ireland.
�6o
Working- of
the Smith
compro
mise.
THE WRONG TO THE NATION
ignoring the obvious fact that the Roman Church dominates the
consciences of three-fourths of the people as no Church or sect whatever
can claim to dominate the people of England and Wales. To insist on
“simple Bible teaching” in Irish elementary schools, or on undenomi
national universities, only adds insult to injury. The treatment must be
such as is adapted to a community less advanced in religious thought
than England; and “concurrent endowment” of educational institutions
is inevitable. The attempt to teach the creeds of all is never satisfactory,
even under the most favourable circumstances. But those cases in
which it seems to be compatible with some freedom of educational
development are explained by the fact that there is no desire for religious
equality and no intersectarian jealousy—at least so far as the schools are
concerned. They are cases of denominational supremacy by consent, in
the sense that social equilibrium is found, as in Germany, to be practically
secured by the recognition of a very few predominant sects in whose
influence the people placidly acquiesce.1 The champions of different
creeds do not fight each other over the starved minds and souls of
children. In England, however, the attempt to teach the creeds of all
is obviously hopeless. And those Englands beyond sea which have
most fully inherited the conscientious sectarianism of the Motherland
have wisely adopted the other alternative, and teach the creed of none.
Let us note the consequences of our perverse attempt at an impossibility.
Although the so-called “compromise”2 was devised and carried by
a Churchman, he was what in the vulgar language of controversy is
called a “Low Evangelical,” and, though one of the excellent of the
earth, he was considered in high ecclesiastical circles as little better
than a Dissenter. His evident desire to have evangelical Sunday-school
teaching introduced into Board schools appealed to the weak brethren
among Nonconformists. They thus gained the doubtful advantage of
endowment for their common gospel. But they inflicted a grievance on
Churchmen which it is impossible to explain away. For the genuine
Anglican view of Christianity differs from the united Nonconformist
view. And it differs from it in such a way that, if you teach the Non
conformist view, you necessarily prejudice the pupils against the Church
1 There is nothing at all in the above passage inconsistent with what I have
previously said concerning the conscience rights of minorities in a population that
religiously lives up to the twentieth century. When I visited Rome under Papal
government I had no scruple about conventionally “bowing my head in the House of
Rimmon.” And were I to live in Ireland, which is, as I have said, mediaeval in
religion, I should pay with cheerfulness either rate or tax for Catholic, Protestant,
Episcopal, or Presbyterian schools or colleges. But I must repeat that there is no
Chuich or denomination in England which has any colourable pretence to the position
which the Roman Church holds in Ireland.
2 The resolution of the late Mr. W. II. Smith was adopted with slight modifica
tions by so many School Boards that the case of London is typical of all.
�THE WRONG TO THE NATION
61
view, although you may say nothing about it. Nonconformists are
content with the Bible, and the Bible alone. Churchmen desire, also,
the catechism authorised by their Church. Nonconformists are satisfied A
if such explanations of Scripture are given as will set forth “the plan m.
of salvation,” meaning thereby the evangelical view of the Fall, the
types of Christ in Jewish history and ritual, the Incarnation, the
Atonement, and justification by faith. Churchmen, on the other hand,
attach great importance to the creeds and sacraments, and are naturally
jealous of any teaching which tends to represent the former as sufficient
without the latter. That this is actually the tendency of “ School Board
religion ” can hardly with fairness be denied.
1 think, then, that Churchmen had, and still have, a grievance under
local education authorities with their “ simple Bible teaching.” But the
policy pursued by Churchmen to secure its removal or diminution has
been a blight on the education of the country. They have resisted the
building of Board schools that were urgently needed. They have
insisted on keeping children in crowded and stifling rooms rather than
allow the relief which would have been given by undenominational
schools. They have stigmatised as “ unfair competition ” the endeavour
of School Boards or municipal authorities to spend their larger resources
on giving the children of ratepayers a higher education than the sects
could give them. They resisted low fees, and still more free schools)
as long as they could ; and when their opposition was bought out by the
fee grant they managed to retain a power of exacting special fees in
addition, and railed against every attempt of Liberals to rid education
of such vexatious hindrances.
Their influence with Parliament is enormous, and must continue to
be so while the choice of electors is practically limited to a small class
of moneyed men naturally susceptible to social glamour. Indeed, that
influence is resistless except during the brief moments when what
Edward Miall used to call “ some great blazing principle ” concentrates
popular attention. Such a principle was victorious when Church rates
were abolished, and when the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland
was disestablished. Such a principle might have been found in a real
religious equality for the schools. But the endowment of the united
evangelical sects provided nothing of the kind. It made all Non
conformist appeals to justice hollow and feeble, while it put a weapon
into the hands of Churchmen which they would not otherwise have
possessed. The result has been a course of reactionary legislation, the
purpose of which has been to restore, or at least maintain, eccle
siastical control, while its inevitable effect has been to obstruct and
blight educational progress.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
�VIII.
CONCLUSION
The next
Education
Bill.
Should
secure
moral
training.
Objection i
Material
istic, etc.
Human
experience
certainly
spiritual,
but not
admittedly
super
natural.
No wrong
done to the
orthodox
conscience.
In the Preface to this edition I referred to the failure of Mr. Birrell’s
Education Bill, and in these concluding words I shall venture to utter a
warning as to the fate of any future Bill which may be framed on the
same or similar, or even analogous, lines. “Weak counsels and weak
actings ”—to use Cromwell’s phrase—have brought things to this pass :
that morals are the worst taught subject in our elementary schools,
while by “ undenominationalists ” character and conduct, our chief
educational ends, are vainly supposed to be secured by a sort of Bible
teaching which Churchmen condemn, which Rationalists reject, which a
large proportion of our teachers cannot sincerely give, and discussion of
which even Nonconformists deprecate with a shrug. The first and
essential purpose of any new Education Bill, then, should be to make
obligatory in all State-aided schools a course of systematic moral train
ing independent of any supernatural reference, and based on the
experience of man.
There are not so many now as there used to be who would say that
this is sheer materialism and base utilitarianism. For surely human
experience is not all materialistic. Indeed, “love, joy, peace, long
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” belong as
truly to human experience as does the desire to buy in the cheapest
market and sell in the dearest. It is for the wise teacher to select the
elements of human experience on which moral training is to be based.
And if he selects the worse elements instead of the better, he is not fit
for his post. Now, if anyone should say to me, “You have quoted the
words of an Apostle; why not include them in the ordinary school
lessons ?” my reply is, I am certainly most anxious to include such
words as those if you will only allow them to be treated as expressions of
human experience, and not of miraculous revelation. For the moment
you introduce miracle or supernaturalism you let loose all the winds of
controversy with which we have been buffeted in the previous pages.
Nor can it be pleaded that the pious evangelical teacher would
violate his conscience by treating the highest New Testament morals as
matters of human experience. For, whatever they may have been in
addition to that, they were at least realised in human souls and found
by human experience to be the highest good. Indeed, a great deal of
pulpit eloquence at the present day, and all the best Sunday-school
teaching, is an appeal to common sense to try, by practising it, the
62
�CONCLUSION
63
value of Christian morals. There can therefore be no hardship what
ever in forbidding the Christian teacher to go beyond human experience
while giving moral instruction in State schools. Or, if it be rejoined
that to the Christian teacher miracle and revelation are actual facts well
within human experience, the reply is, firstly, that Christian teachers are
so much disagreed as to the extent and interpretation of those alleged
facts that no denomination can any longer claim to represent the
Christianity of the nation; and, secondly, that all belief in miraculous
revelation is now so widely surrendered that religious equality, nay,
common justice, is impossible unless such questions are kept out of
State schools.
But we are told that such a scheme is impracticable. In this case,
however, it is not we, but the objectors, who refuse to look facts in the
face. For this so-called “impracticable” system is being actually worked
with the best results by English-speaking people who, in the aggregate,
number some hundred millions.1 To persist, therefore, in dogged
denial of practicability is only to prove that a certain stolid attitude
known as non possumus is not absolutely peculiar to Popes. Or, if
it be said that the circumstances and habits of the great Republic and
of our newest colonies are too different from those of the old country to
allow of our adopting their practice in this case, here again the objection
quietly ignores palpable fact. For we do actually during four-fifths2 of
our school-time adopt the very rule that is so often said to be unEnglish, and therefore impossible. That is to say, the State makes it an
essential condition of any money grant that during each half-daily
session of the school there shall be two continuous hours3 devoted
exclusively to “ secular ” instruction. And during these two hours,
according to any strict interpretation of the law, it is illegal to devote a
single moment to any religious observance, exhortation, or lesson.
Now, if it is found so easy even in old English schools to give exclu
sively secular instruction during four-fifths of school hours in all State
schools of the land, why on earth should it be “ impracticable ” to do
the same thing during the whole time for which public authority is
responsible ?
1 The population of the United States of America is now more than eighty
millions. Add New Zealand, Victoria (Australia), South Australia, together with a
large part of Canada, the sum will not be far short of the figure given ; and if there
should be some deficiency, every year is filling it up. The case of India is different;
but it also illustrates the fact that among a population of very various, religious
beliefs secular training (exclusive of morals) affords the only practicable solution of the
education problem.
2 Where—if anywhere—advantage is taken of the legal permission to have
religious observances, etc., at the beginning and also at the end of each school
attendance, the proportion of time given to religious teaching may be slightly more.
But the custom is so infrequent that the figure given above is substantially accurate.
3 It may be one hour and a half for infants ; but that does not affect the principle.
Objection 2
Impractica
bility.
Solvitur
anibulando.
Even in
England.
�64
Encourage
ment given
by present
system to
an unreal
division
between
things
secular and
sacred.
Personal
experience
of a
" secular”
school.
Case ot
children
neglected or
not reached
by the
Churches.
Repudiation
in 1870 of
any claim on
the State.
CONCL USION
At this point I will make bold to say that the present arbitrary,
forced, and unnatural system of a sharp time-table division does more
to foster a false distinction between things secular and sacred than any
State system of purely intellectual and moral training. For in New
England or New Zealand the children of three equally religious neigh
bours belonging to the Roman, Anglican, and Presbyterian communions
go to school together and sit in class together without ever having the
false division of things sacred and secular obtruded upon them. Having
had the good fortune myself, from seven years of age to thirteen, to
attend a so-called “secular” school, I know by experience what I am
saying. For that exceptional school, like the “common schools”across
the ocean, was frequented, even in Liverpool, by some Roman Catholics
of the middle class, and I think by almost every other Christian sect,
in addition to Jews. I myself, having been brought up in the strictest
sect of the Methodists, may perhaps be credited with having had even
at that early age some sense both of religion and morals; and I declare
that the moral and even religious tone of that “ secular ” school was on
the whole higher than in a clergyman’s school to which I was afterwards
sent. I remember at the former school being quizzed as a “ Methody,”
but it was in a very good-humoured tone; whereas, at the clergyman’s,
a Jew school-fellow, being quick to resent insult to his religion, felt in
honour bound on one occasion to “ demand satisfaction ” from a stronger
class-fellow on that account, and got, unfortunately, rather more than he
wanted. In the “secular” school—and the same thing, according to
all evidence, may be said of similar schools in the New World—the
fact of religious division very rarely emerged, whereas in the clerical
school they were the subject of constant wrangle.
To arguments such as the above, especially when based on personal
reminiscences, a superficial reply is easy, but not effective, because it
ignores the main question at issue. “ It is all very well,” we are told, “ for
children brought up in Christian homes to hear nothing of the Bible in
school. For they hear it read, and perhaps explained, morning and
evening by their father. They also attend a place of worship regularly,
and probably Sunday school as well. But what of the thousands of
children who come from homes which have no Bible at all, or at least
where it is never read?”
The reply is obvious and conclusive:
Caveat Ecclesia. Let those who regard the Bible as “the word of God”
look to it. For the nation has distinctly and formally declared by Act
of Parliament that, so far as public elementary education is concerned,
it denies all responsibility for any teaching of the kind.
By no
statute in force is Bible reading or teaching required in the public
elementary schools, although it is permitted under certain restrictions
—on the express condition that no grant of money is made for it
�CONCLUSION
65
out of Parliamentary funds. Not only so, but the nation emphasises
its renunciation of responsibility by refusing to allow its inspectors
to examine or report on the results of Biblical teaching. The plea,
therefore, that, if any part of the children of the State are without
Bible-teaching from voluntary sources, the State must step in and provide
it, is legally estopped by the fact that the State has, for thirty-seven
years past, formally repudiated any such claim.
The arrangement that actually exists is an unprincipled compromise
unknown anywhere else on earth, and perhaps impossible to any but the
dear old land possessed by so pathetic a faith in “ muddling through.”
For the teaching of the Bible is entirely voluntary: only the voluntari
ness is a privilege not of individual ratepayers, or of individual teachers,
nor yet of individual parents—for the Conscience Clause is a shamz—
but only of County Councils or their Education Committees. Now,
notwithstanding the awakening of thought indicated by the literature
and organisations above alluded to,2 I readily acknowledge that still
surviving social custom and tradition ensure at least some majority on
County Councils in favour of the apparently safe generality of “simple
Bible teaching.” But scarcely a ratepayer who votes for it knows what
he means by it. And the interpretation has to be, not fought out—for
it never is—but meanly thrown upon the teachers, with the tacit under
standing that if, in their explanations, they offend the beliefs or super
stitions favoured by the County Council majority, that majority will want
to know the reason why. Such an arrangement may be cunning, may
be “expedient ” in the very basest sense. But the Churches who think
that by such a dishonest compromise they are doing their duty to
neglected children, or teaching “ truth in the inward parts,” reflect
shame on the faith they profess. In all reverence, I say that their
nominal Lord—if I have ever understood him—would rebuke them
with the words, “ Ye know not what spirit ye are of.”
To such arguments I know of no reply but the ignoble plea that the
“ compromise ” hushes strife, or, in other words, that it plasters over the
open sore of religious schism, “saying Peace, peace, when there is no
peace.” But surely those who know and feel what is at stake—the
moral culture, the character and conduct of the English people—will no
longer accept this feeble excuse for the neglect of national duty. To
them the hush of theological debate—though welcome enough—will
1 This was well known to the rejectors of Mr. Birrell’s real and effective clause in
1906. That clause, in its original form, excepted from the law of compulsory attend
ance the time during which religious instruction is given. Mr. Birrell supported this
by his own experience as a Nonconformist school boy at a Church school. He
“ flatly refused ” to claim exemption from Catechism, not because he differed from
his father, a distinguished Baptist minister, but because he preferred to take the lesson
rather than be exceptional. {Hansard, April 9th, 1906.)
a See Preface to the new edition, and also pp. 5, 11—13, 54F
The teach
ing of the
Bible is now
voluntary;
but not so
as to save
the rights of
conscience.
The policy
of “ flushing
up ”
�66
involves the
paralysis of
moral
teaching.
Recognition
of the fact
by Educa
tion Com
mittees.
The only
way.
National
morals
would gain
by the
“ secular ’’
system.
CONCLUSION
afford no sufficient compensation for the criminal neglect of our
children’s training in the moral essentials of social life. For while
Calvinistic and Arminian, Baptist and Low Churchman, blandly agree
on “simple stories from the Old Testament,” the result is that Jacob,
who impersonated nearly all the later vices of the Jews with none of
their virtues, is exhibited as a type to be imitated by English children if
they would please God.
There are, however, signs of an awakening of the public conscience
on this subject, and a considerable number of local Education Authori
ties1 are providing for systematic moral teaching in addition to, and in
many cases at a separate time from, “simple Bible teaching.” What does
this mean ? It means that the Scripture lessons, as given tinder the Com
promise, have been found inadequate for the moral ends desired. And
if the truth were known, its inadequacy is the direct result of the condi
tions under which they are given. If, therefore, the above plea be
true, that the compromise hushes up controversy, the hollow truce is
purchased by the exclusion from the teaching of everything that could
rouse or inspire. But, indeed, the plea is not true. For Catholics of
all shades cannot be, and ought not to be, satisfied with the com
promise. And if it be retorted that neither will they be satisfied with
“ secular education,” no one asks them to be satisfied with it. All they
are asked to do is to accept—as they do now—some four hours daily of
secular instruction from the State, and to supplement it at their own cost
by their own teachers with the theological training they desire.
But if objections on the ground of materialistic tendencies and of
impracticability and of the sacredness of a hollow truce are proved to
be futile, much more are the fears mentioned in the first words of this
Essay shown to be not only groundless, but opposed to the moral and
religious interests for which they are professedly concerned. For the
facts adduced in Chapters V. and VI. defy contradiction. These facts,
moreover, are the inevitable consequences of the moral incongruities of
an educational system involving the social, political, and religious wrongs
detailed in the earlier Chapters, II. to IV. Now, of those who say
“ Let us do evil that good may come,” St. Paul made the severe
remark, “whose damnation is just.” And, whatever the condemnation
may signify, it is surely incurred by those who would encourage lying to
promote truth, or who fancy that forced insincerity in the teacher can
inspire “the simplicity that is in Christ.” No, no; the very first and
most essential condition of improved and efficient moral training in the
1 Among these authorities are ten county councils, twenty-one borough councils,
and seven urban district councils. The Education Authorities for the West Riding of
Yorkshire, Cheshire, Devonshire, and Surrey have a syllabus of moral and civic
instruction substantially similar to that of the Moral Instruction League.
�CONCLUSION
67
nation’s schools is the relegation of all doctrine transcending human
experience to the custodians of the various phases of the faith. This
does not necessarily mean “ clericalism ”; for Nonconformist Sunday
schools are certainly not clerical. And if any portion of our fellow
citizens prefer clericalism, they have a perfect right to exercise their
choice, provided they do not make it either a pecuniary or a moral
burden on the State. Rid of such a burden, the State would be free to
use all its resources, both pecuniary and moral, as it has never done yet,
for the training of its children in the duties of a citizen. My argument,
therefore, holds good that, so far from being a guarantee for moral
training, the present permissive and quasi-voluntary system of Bible
teaching in State schools actually prevents it.
There is, I believe, only one other objection, which I need mention,
to the proposed relegation of Bible teaching to those who believe in it,
and that is the supposed overwhelming consensus of popular feeling
against any such a plan. Well, the next Minister of Education who
introduces a Bill may possibly have his eyes opened as to the hollowness
of this assumption. My own experience suggests that as everyone is said
to believe all men mortal except himself, so in this case each sensible
person thinks everyone to be devoted to the great Smith compromise
except himself. For over and over again have I been assured by more
members of School Boards and Education Committees than memory
can count that not only do they regard the present system as illogical,
but they think it unfair and inconsistent with religious equality. They
do not usually add that it is dishonest. For if they realised that, I will
do them the justice to say that they would become “ Secularists ” at
once. But they always add : “You must know that you and I are
almost alone in such an opinion, and you can never carry your
scheme.” Well, we shall see. But this I know, that in the evolution
of heterodoxy into orthodoxy there come moments when suddenly the
vast majority of people discover that they always held the hitherto
discredited opinion, and on this question that moment cannot be far off.
One sign of the coming change is the rapidly spreading recognition
of the utter impossibility of the task we have been setting since 1870
to our Ministers of Education. And so long as the teaching of
transcendental doctrines, whether supposed to be drawn from the Bible
or from Church tradition, is made one of the duties of the State school
teacher, the solution of the problem is far and away more difficult than
that of the Sphinx’s riddle, while the consequences of failure are now likely
to be, at least to the Minister of Education, analogous to the fate of
the monster’s victims. The thing has always been impossible since the
Toleration Act. But as misguided genius would persist in trying to
square the circle long after it was mathematically shown to be an
Supposed
popular
opposition.
Growing;
recognition
of the im
possibility of
any other
settlement.
�68
Inevitable
failure of
any new
Bill on the
lines of 1906.
Recent
spread of
rational
religion.
CONCLUSION
irrational problem, so, notwithstanding the long-drawn agonies of the
Forster Act with its reactionary amendment by Lord Sandon, and the
cynical exposure by Mr. Balfour in 1902 of the real meaning of State
meddling in religion, and the collapse of the final desperate effort in
1906 to secure a principle in name by surrendering it in substance, it is
still possible that temporising converts, from Miallism to CowperTempleism, may beguile some unhappy Minister of Education into a
fresh enactment of “ yea and nay ” in regard to religious equality in the
schools. But the failure of such an attempt is as certain as that yea
and nay are contradictory and mutually destructive. It may pass the
House of Commons. It may even, by threats of revolution, be forced
through the House of Lords. But any such settlement must be almost
as shortlived as the bungle of 1902. For as that was doomed from the
first by its failure to realise what is meant by religious equality among
Christian sects, so any new “ compromise ” will be doomed if it stops
short of extending unreserved religious equality to non-Christian people.
But such religious equality will be accorded only when Parliament
awakes to the fact that in passing from the nineteenth century to the
twentieth we have left the domination of supernaturalism behind, and
have entered upon the age of reason.
If any book known to the last generation was confidently regarded
as a book of facts, it was the Bible. Neither Churchmen nor educated
Nonconformists are by any means agreed in so regarding it now. It is
indeed a fallacy to say that they have on that account surrendered the
Bible as the story of a revelation. But they have learned that the facts
to which it bears witness are moral and spiritual in a much greater
degree than they are historical. They are learning to treat it as a vision
of spiritual evolution exhibiting not only the verities of human expe
rience, but its illusions and unrealities as well. It is prized for its
humanity rather than for its supernatural portents. In a word, it is
now valued for qualities which would be impossible to an infallible
book. Yet even those who take these intelligent views of the Bible
are by no means agreed as to their application.1 And those who do
not take such liberal views would be horrified by a proposal to trust
“ simple Bible teaching,” except under the strictest safeguards, to one
of their misguided brethren. But while fully conscious of this vast
change, and of the controversies it stirs, we are asked to maintain, and
perhaps under a new Bill to renew and continue, in State schools a
system of religious instruction essentially based on the recognition of
the Bible as an infallible book both of history and doctrine.
1 Of course, the so-called new views are most of them old enough. What is new
is partly the fresh support found for them by recent research, and partly their
acceptance to so large an extent by religious men.
�CONCLUSION
The result is that a large and growing number of masters and
mistresses are required to teach what they do not themselves believe.
Now, whether the opponents of the evangelical doctrines deduced from
an infallible Bible are justified or not in stigmatising some of those
doctrines as demoralising, at any rate it must be admitted that to teach
to children as sacred truth what you regard as falsehood is certainly
demoralising both to teacher and taught. To this, as I have insisted,
is very largely due the paralysis that enfeebles moral teaching in the
schools, and keeps the habits and manners of our population practically
at the same level from generation to generation. The sanctimonious
pretence of simple Bible belief required of teachers in all positions of
the sliding scale of “ the New 1 heology ” demands either a self-con
scious art of balancing like that of the tight-rope dancer, or a resigna
tion to mechanical procedure by rote. In either case inspiration is
impossible.
Meantime this formalism or dutiful dissimulation excludes serious
moral teaching in accordance with the advanced experience and needs
of the age. Of course, none but a pedant would think of giving to
school children a series of abstracts from scientific writers on morality.
But the sense of scientific relation and proportion acquired by the
teacher in his own studies may very well furnish the invisible skeleton
on which his parabolic and attractive lessons on daily life are fiamed.
It is not an unreasonable presumption that such lessons would be likely
to bear more directly and effectively on truthfulness, cleanliness,
industry, and consideration for others, than a study of Gehazi, or
Ananias and Sapphira, or Mosaic camp rules, or Solomons reference to
the sluggard and the ant. With regard to the last point of consideration
for others, I do not dispute that a fine illustration may be found in the
story of the young prophet and the borrowed axe in the Book of Kings.
But it would not be morally safe unless the teacher, if he thought the
floating of the axe to be fabulous, were allowed to say so.
But the danger of overlooking moral flaws in beautiful Bible stories
—a danger by which all we lovers of the old Book are beset—-is veil
illustrated by Dr. Frank Hayward’s unreserved eulogy on the story of
Joseph. “I admit,” he writes, “that the secularist should keep his
eyes open, and steadily protest against the teaching of stories such as Joseph
the ‘ Blagues of Egypt.’ But the objection to this story is not that it is
mythological, but that it is morally pernicious. The Joseph story may
be mythological, but it is morally priceless.” Is it ? Well, I admire it
very much. It is—as I once heard a distinguished newspaper editor
say of the Gospel narratives—“such good copy.” But when I am told
that it is “ morally priceless,” I cannot forego some mild criticism.
For instance, was it an amiable trait in a favourite son to be so
�7o
CONCLUSION
Some points eager to relate the divine omens of p;s future greatness to his less
morality.
regarded brethren? A teacher whom—as mentioned on a previous
page—I heard dealing with this point, suggested that “Joseph could not
help having dreams.” True; but he could have avoided making them
offensive to others. I am well aware of the absurdity of dealing thus
with a relic of ancient folk-lore. But if we are seriously asked to take
it as “morally priceless,” we must deal with it thus. I also heard the
same teacher fumbling to find some moral element in the boy Joseph’s
character to account for his divine election. But he could not find
anything except “obedience to his father,” of which the evidence is
Ifthe wn- scant- The one heroic moment in the story of Joseph is his resistance
dent”0*'
tO -P°hP^ar’s wife- And I am far from denying that, carefully related to
children nearing the age of danger, the incident may be advantageously
used. The reasons for his resistance concluding, “ How can I do this
great wickedness and sin against God ?” are perfectly admirable. But
unless the little hearers are plainly told that the whole narrative is
legendary, the impression they get from it of the direction of human
destiny by dreams and capricious interferences of heavenly powers, and
knowledge of the future given by special favour to an arbitrary king,
is not quite “morally priceless.”
corneHn
Again, it was no doubt astute policy in a tyrant’s vizier to take
com.
advantage of the seven prosperous years in order to prepare a “corner”
in corn against the coming famine. But is the example “morally
priceless”? “And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine
was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan
fainted by reason of the famine.” What then? A ruler whose example,
on thlects was “ morallY priceless ” would surely have pitied the suffering people,
people.
and fed them on the most liberal terms from the king’s stored-up wealth
of corn. But not so. The incomparable Joseph thought much more
of dynastic interests than of the people’s welfare. Accordingly, by the
interest's0 r°}al monoP°ly he first “gathered up all the money”; “and when
supreme.
money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan,” “Joseph
said, ‘Give your cattle, and I will give you for your cattle if money
fail’”; and after the cattle were all made royal property, he pressed the
desperate people’s need to the bitter end by compelling them to sell
themselves and their wives and children into serfdom to escape starva
tion. Was this action “morally priceless”?
Hy toMsro'
On the other fiancL much is made of Joseph’s wonderful magnanimity
brethren.
to his cruel brothers who had sold him to the Midianites. His kindness
was somewhat severe in the mental tortures it inflicted not only upon
them, but upon their aged father, by the detention of Reuben and the
enforced adventure of Benjamin. But when all possible credit has
been allowed to his family feeling and his tears, the imagination of the
�CONCLUSION
child who reads the story is more fired by the exultation Joseph must
have felt in the fulfilment of his dreams, and in the discovery of himself
to his brothers as “ ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.” No one
feels more acutely than I the incongruity of such criticism as applied to
an ancient and charming myth. But when we are told that; whether
mythological or not, it is “morally priceless,” the incongruity must be
endured fora moment, in order that the more dangerous absurdity may
be exposed.
.
But, after all, if the truth must be spoken, it is not really the moi al, st^utes
but rather the religious, character of Joseph that is valued for purposes ^act-on?
of “ simple Bible teaching.” Here was a boy from childhood chosen
by God and favoured with dreams of the honour divinely intended for
him. It is always supposed, though the Hebrew story does not say so,
that Joseph was a very pious boy, envied by his elders not only foi his
coat, but for his goodness.1 At every crisis in the narrative Joseph s
good fortune is accounted for by the special providence of God. 1 bus Divmc *
Potiphar “saw that the Lord2 was with him, and that the Lord made all -ward for
that he did to prosper in his hand.” The narrative adds: ‘‘And it
came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house
and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for
Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had
in the house and in the field.” It may very well be that by thus
insisting on the “immanence” of God in Joseph and his fortunes the Jheprob-^
two writers out of whose versions of tradition the tale as we have it was
compiled were using the best expressions provided by their language writers.
for skill, integrity, and business enterprise. For we know that, according
to Mosaic ideas, the handicraftsmen such as Bezaleel—and surely there
is beauty in the belief—had all their skill in cunning works, in gold, and
in silver, and in brass only because they were. “ filled with the spirit of
God in wisdom and in understanding and in knowledge, and in all
manner of workmanship.”3
But, unfortunately, as I think, and as ever-increasing numbers, are Modernmisthinking now, that is not the form taken by Joseph’s religion as explained tion.
by teachers imbued with the evangelical traditions common to Low
Church Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Independents, and Baptists. No;
they inevitably describe Joseph as of the Young Mens Christian
1 There is perhaps some colour given to this—though no justification in Stephen s
noble speech (Acts vii. 9).
, ,
2 Of course, the original word here is “ Jaliweh ; and it makes a diffeicnce, but
it is not for me to point out what that difference is. I deal only with the authorised
version which is used in schools. The Hebrew idea of Jahweh was not exactly the
teacher’s idea of “ the Lord.”
.
a If rightly interpreted, this was Spinoza’s idea likewise, only with a transcendent y
truer conception of God.
�IN
Its
unreality.
Bearing- of
such con
siderations
on the
coming
Education
Bill.
Such views
not irreli
gious.
CONCLUSION
Association type—a very good type so far as it goes, but a recent birth
of time—as pious and prayerful, and always consistent in his profession,
and diligent in all religious observances. The now well-known sensi
tiveness of the Egyptians to pollution by foreign religions is never
thought of as presenting any difficulty in the way of Joseph’s court life.
Nay, his “ divining cup ” and his marriage to a heathen priest’s daughter
who would certainly bring her idolatries with her into his house do not
seem to suggest the slightest incongruity with the Young Men’s
Christian Association type. All such difficulties are ignored or
explained away in order to transmute this delightful relic of old Hebrew
folk-lore into a sort of ante-dated Christian biography of a pious young
man, who prospered immensely because, on account of his piety, “ the
Lord was with him.” It is this unreal aspect of the story, and not any
“moral pricelessness,” which makes it attractive to the adherents of
“the compromise.”
Now, no future Education Bill permitting the seal of public authority
to be attached to any such interpretations or misinterpretations of the
Bible can have any chance of permanence. It matters not whether the
sign of public authority be the use of local rates to pay for such teaching
or whether it be the employment of a national servant, the schoolmaster,
to give it; or whether it take the odious form of compulsory presence
in the school during the time of such teaching under the mockery of a
conscience clause, so humorously exposed by Mr. Birrell. However
indirectly given, or however ingeniously concealed, the stamp of public
authority on effete religious ideas condemned, or at least surrendered,
by a rapidly-increasing proportion of the public is a forgery of the great
seal of common consent. For the common consent does not exist, and
any law that assumes it is incongruous with fact. Not only does the
chaos of opinion contradict it, but the undeniable advance of knowledge
condemns it.
The doctrine of evolution is against such a law. Historical criticism
is against it. The resurrection of Egyptian and Assyrian life confronts
and rebukes it. The common sense of a generation better informed
than their fathers rebels against it. And all that any good-natured
Liberal Minister with a weakness for futile compromise can gain by it
is a brief reprieve for an already sentenced system, and the prolongation
of the infamy of a country which sacrifices its children’s intellects to the
ghost of a superstition about their souls. Now, if any reader who has
followed my argument from the beginning of this Essay should be able,
in sincerity of conscience, to condemn these last words as the blind
judgment of a materialist, I can only regret that in earlier pages I must
have expressed myself badly. For it is not the judgment of a
“ materialist.” It is the heartfelt conviction of one who, during a long
�CONCLUSION
73
life, has cared more for religion than for anything else, and who is per
suaded that religion cannot long survive the prevalence of insincerity
and hypocrisy in the nation’s schools. If we would but faithfully apply
our historic conscience to the moral utterances of the Hebrew prophets,
their words would be much more valuable than they are. Certainly,
considering the base expediencies, the hollow pretences, that sustain the
Smith compromise, and the flagrant contradictions it impudently gives
to both the spiritual and the scientific facts of contemporary life, we
should tremble at the rebuke of Jeremiah: “ The prophets prophesy
The Public
Authority
to be abso
lutely
neutral.
falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to
have it so ; and what will ye do in the end thereofI”
But I cannot leave the subject without observing, finally, that the
present position of the Bible in the schools is typical of the general
relation of religion to contemporary life and opinion. Not that I have
any wish whatever for State patronage and control of any new theology.
On the contrary, I have been urging all along that State and munici
palities alike should keep out of the steam of the Medean cauldron into
which the scattered limbs of old beliefs have been plunged in the
expectation that they will emerge “ re-stated ”—not reinstated, but
transformed. The words that I add now are only intended as an
additional illustration of the absurdity of interference by either Board
of Education or County Councils in the struggle for the new Reforma
tion. For, whether their interference be on the Liberal or on the
Conservative side of controversies that affect every page of the Bible as
a school book, in either case they do nothing but mischief by meddling
in a movement that must be spontaneous. For, again, as the old
Christians said, “Force is not God’s way.” The story of Uzzah and his
fate is a savage one. But it has its application to the fate of all vain
glorious rulers, from Nero to Mr. Balfour’s late Government, who have
sought to steady with rude hands the ark of transcendental religion.
And if ever there was one age in which such meddling was more
perilous than in any other, it must be surely our own. For, though I
yield to no Archbishop, nor even to the venerable General Booth, in
my conviction of the deathlessness of religion while the human race
endures, its position at present is paradoxical and beyond all statecraft.
The real nature of its permanent value requires some spiritual courage
for its recognition; while its doubtful accidents have become idols to
the superstitious. And, as always happens when form supplants
substance, frank discussion is feared lest the superficiality of belief
should be betrayed. Just as a guarantee against theological strife in
Education Committees is sought by agreeing to treat the Bible as
something which we all know it not to be, so a social eirenicon is found
in a conventional acknowledgment of infallible revelation. In either
Present
chaos of
religious
opinion.
�74
Makes Bible
teaching' by
democratic
authority
immoral.
The New
Testament
and the
New
Theology.
CONCLUSION
case, acquiescence is impossible unless either by an incapacity or a
deliberate refusal to recognise patent facts.
Yet, so far as most of the public functions of religion are concerned,
in vain, apparently, do Reverend Canons and Very Reverend Deans
assure us that every book in the Old Testament, except certain of the
Prophets, is of unknown authorship and compiled from ill-harmonised
documents of disputable dates. In vain do they treat as mythical,
fabulous, or but loosely historical every alleged fact down to the death
of David, as well as every miraculous narrative that follows. Even in
the pulpits, which should be first to feel the influences of these
dignitaries of the Church, the Fall, the Deluge, the miraculous exodus
through the Red Sea, the theophany on Sinai, and the divinely ordered
massacres in Canaan, are still solemnly discussed as parts of an
infallible revelation. Yet there is scarcely an intelligent, well-read man
or woman among the hearers who does not know that this stolid
adherence to tradition requires such defiance of the laws of evidence as
would not be tolerated in regard to the disputed ownership of half-acrown. Nor do our scholarly divines offer us any better guarantee for
New Testament history.1 The new Christianity does not insist on the
literal historical truth of the nativity of Jesus, or of his miracles, or
resurrection, or ascension. It follows the author of the Fourth Gospel,
to whom the idea was more than the fact. In like manner the new
reformers think they lose nothing if they keep the idea of victory by
self-sacrifice as it shines out from the Gospel story. But, if I under
stand them aright, they do not pretend that such an idea was anything
new to man. They only think that in the reminiscences, part memory,
part imagination, of the earliest Christians, the idea took a form which
touched the common people as it had never touched them before. To
the faith of the neo-Christian, therefore, it matters little that the details
of the life and death of Jesus are imperfectly reported, and that of the
music of his speech only a few sweet and pregnant phrases can be
distinctly recalled. The evangelists, whoever they were, wTere neither
magicians nor creators, and their -work is absolutely inexplicable, unless
there survived through Christianity’s golden age the memory of a strong
and beautiful and adorable manhood which made beholders, when they
saw and heard him, think of eternal love and life and truth. To the
neo-Christian the value of a spiritual vision, or of an inspiring tradition,
or a combination of both, depends more upon its suggestiveness than
1 See The New Theology, by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, especially the chapter on
the Incarnation of the Son of God. I expressly disclaim any intention of imputing
to him more than an acknowledgment that the New Testament history is fallible,
and, as regards some important events, probably erroneous. See particularly pp. 101-4
in the above-mentioned work.
�CONCLUSION
75
on its correspondence with material fact. He is not, therefore, robbed
of his gospel by the victory of German learning and research over oldfashioned Anglicanism. He had long ceased to look for salvation
through any opus operatum of supernatural beings. He is assured of
that if he is loyal to the laws of evolution by which the eternal All
works out the human ideal. But he is quickened in hope and faith and
practice by every concentration of moral truth in an inspiring vision.
And that vision of the “ Son of Man ” which shines, though so patheti
cally marred, through the pages of the New Testament like some noble
but ill-kept work of genius in an ancient cathedral window, is with him
always, and will be when the last fibre of dogma has been dissolved
away.
This digression may be pardoned if only because of a desire to show
that this Essay has not been prompted by any alienation of sympathy
from the spirit of the New Testament. I believe that the book will
always be a source of inspiration to mankind, and that the prime origin
of that inspiration lay in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. I am
aware that only a small minority of religious people, as yet, are able to
acquiesce in so entire a surrender of evangelical theory as that to which
the learned doctors above referred to have seen their way. But, at any
rate, it is notorious that the conventional view of the Bible as an
infallible or absolutely authoritative book is now confined to ccremonia.
services, hypocritical social intercourse, and adherents of the great
Smith compromise. How much we lose by this discord between
appearance and reality will only be apparent to future generations. We
talk piously about the Prince of Peace, and we glorify war. We prattle
about Darwin’s ideas of evolution, and we wax emotioned over a great
statesman’s tribute to the “Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” We
look wise when scientific lecturers explain to us the uniformity of
natural law ; but when the Church thinks the season too dry it prays
for a miraculous gift of rain, and when it thinks we are getting too much
of that it prays for a stoppage of the gift. We read with eagerness of
discoveries that carry back the arts and triumphs of civilisation at least
seven millenniums before the Christian era, and then pretend to acquiesce
in prayers and sermons that imply a four or five thousand year period
for the whole “ plan of salvation.” Between our pious pretences and our
real convictions there is a discontinuity which cuts off practical life from
the real sources of inspiration still open in unwrested truth and the facts
of the world’s order. And, meantime, to ensure the reign of hypocrisy
in the coming age, we compel our teachers every day to instruct the
rising generation in beliefs which we no longer hold ourselves.
��INDEX
Churchmen’s contempt for mere morals, 53
----- grievance a real one, xi n, 60-1
Church Times, the, consistency of, xi
Civilisation, antiquity of, 23
Commonwealth, meaning and rights of, 21
Compromise of 1871, xi, xv, 10, 24 M,
41, 47, 48, 51, 54, 60, 65
----- impossible in the future, 72
Concurrent endowment, when justifiable,
60
Conscience Clause a sham, 65, 72
Conscience, limit to its claims, 18
----- no monopoly of “ undenomination
alists,” 36
Conventional acquiescence stifles moral
Balaam's ass, schoolmaster on, 24
inspiration, 39, 41
Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., 39, 58
Bank-holidays and moral training, 44, 45^. Cowper-Temple clause, its recent inter
pretations, 30
Belief of to-day the unbelief of the past, 51
Creation, as a school lesson, 5, 6
Bezaleel, 71
Crime, juvenile, diminution of, 45
Bible, as a “classic,” vii, 44
----- as a fetish, 44, 49
Daniel, Book of, 38
----- and birch, 44
Democracy (now Ethical World}, letter
----- degradation by insincere use, 17, 42
----- history necessarily, in State schools,
to> 37.
Disabilities, religious, 14
taught as fact, 40
Dissenters, other than orthodox, 23, 42
----- its true value, 17, 68, 75
----- more difficult to use in State schools Duty to my neighbour, 53
than in voluntary, 48
Education Bills, 1902, 1906, i
----- not imposed now by statute, 65
Education Bill, coming, i, 62, 68, 72
----- rate, case against, 21
Encyclopaedia. Biblica, 13, 23
----- see Simple
----- valued not for mere truth, but for Enfant terrible, 40
Equality, see Religious
supernatural sanction, 49
----- word of God, how far considered so Ethical Societies, 16
Evangelical Alliance, 23
now, viii, 68
Evangelical Free Churches, National
Bigotry of “ undenominationalists,” 54
Council of, 24
Birrell, the Right lion. A., his Education
Bill, v, vi
“Fall, the,” abandonment of, viii
----- on the Conscience Clause, 65
------------ retention of in “ syllabuses,” ix
Broad Church, intolerance of, 9
Force no remedy, 44, 73
C/ESAR, things of, Nonconformists on, 33 Forster, Right lion. W. E., 16
Campbell, Rev. R. J., vii, viii »., ix, Free Church Catechism, 29
------------ Council, 24
36, 74 n.
Canada, 56
Gardner, Professor Percy, 39
Cases of conscience, ix, 5, 6, 36
Gehazi, 52, 69
“ Categorical imperative,” 53
Germany, false analogy of, 59 n.
Chaos of religious opinion, 73, 74
Gibson, Rev. Dr. Monro, 24, 25
Church Catechism, its moral value, 53
Gladstone, the late Right Hon. VV. E., 59
Churches freer than State schools, 47-8
Churchmen, scholarly, Biblical criticism Glover, T. R., on spurious religious
equality, vi
by, 33
Abraiiam, “life of,” 28, 29, 31
Act of 1902, its significance, i, and failure,
59
Administrative nihilism, reaction against,
16
All the winners ! 44
Ananias, 69
Anti-Corn-Law League, lesson from, 58
Archbishop's, an, veto on education, 57
Athanasian Creed, Rev. R. J. Campbell
on, ix
Atheism, 9 n.
Australia, 56, 59
77
�MORAL INSTRUCTION
UNDER THE
NEW EDUCATION CODE.
“‘Moral Instruction’ should form an important part of
every school curriculum.”—From the Board of Education's “ Code
of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools ” figo6).
“Gbe Cbilbren’s Booh of fiboral lessons,”
by F. J. GOULD,
will be found to be of tne greatest service to teachers. It is already in use in some
thousands of Public Elementary Schools, and is giving the greatest satisfaction on
all hands.
THE THREE SERIES.
First Series: “ Self-Control ” and “Truthfulness.” With Frontispiece by
Walter Crane. 128 pp., medium 8vo, paper covers, 6d.; cloth, is.
Second Series: “Kindness” and “Work and Duty.” 204 pp., cr. 8vo,
cloth, 2S.
Third Series: “The Family,” “People of Other Lands,” “History
of Industry, Art, Science, and Religion.” 203 pp., cr. 8vo, cloth, 2s.
By THE SAME AUTHOR.
“Gbe Gbilbren’s plutardx”
With Six Full-page Illustrations by Walter Crane.
Cloth, 300 pp., 2s. 6d. net.
Press Opinions:
“ The work has been thoroughly well done, and should be largely used in the
school, and also in the home.”—Leicester Chronicle.
“ Published with a moral aim, for the illustration of which no author could be
better chosen.”—Outlook.
“As a gift book The Children's Plutarch would be admirable. Plutarch's Lives
is a literary classic; as presented by Mr. Gould to the young people the work
remains a classic.”—Midland Free Press.
“ Better than any commendation of the book that I can give was the verdict of
a thirteen-year-old boy to whom I gave it. He read it through at a sitting and
pronounced it ‘first rate.’”—W. T. Stead, in ‘‘'‘The Review of Reviews."
London: WATTS & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�
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 Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed., rev. & enl.
Place of publication: London
Collation: xv,79, [1] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Picton, J. Allanson (James Allanson) [1832-1910]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1907
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA993
N539
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Education
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 (The Bible in school : a question of ethics ... with special reference to the coming Education Bill), 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
Bible
NSS
Religion in the public schools
Religious Education-Great Britain