1
10
13
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4571ffc366e80992b0c3c87a686e6c76.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UHqyN9Y7pmqPSzhzGpXwXv%7EE9eC-wKZ-2LWWsHjdiO4jDUIksaUOSgJrS4UKNt-a5%7ECFU4zeoYj-Cd2KFXfxprzZxrAp07UKaIrncS6J2JnppZGCcuR%7Eut9xEuImxdL4cnFmzrgAOQU89Z25TiCS3GA7jccETO0jVyKj9g0iFKhZSLbhcErKZ%7EqCgDZZ2cGc1xr4rQBUcxo4b9iA-yI%7EhZgVQSZOCObcYmDHFFZ7Prp8p3QPKpXEPEAh2JJCG2ExxfCImUsakREvhAFAK24SEf2S6Hex24a4ootUPrjFdYCX1zxek1dmnc-UG1kanrK5TcdlN1pax5poIgYWFpwtgw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfa74e648a725242d26ce7a1de3a9aae
PDF Text
Text
Wherein they Differ.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought/’
f th or of “ Teachilu/s of Secularisin Compared with Orthodox Christutn ityf'
**- F&dntum ami. Special Creatim^'1' Seeidarism: Ctn^tpuchiveand L>estmG^'e,” u Glori[^<jf Unbelieff “ Saints and Sinners: Which?"
J^ible 'Morality,’
Chrinanity: J ts Origin, Nature and;
- ii^lumtcef “ Agrwsticjgm and' Christian Theism: Which. is
the Metre Reasonable
“ Reply ta Father La'tnbert,"
- • ■
‘■‘■The Superstitionof the Christian Sunday: A
, i'iti ,' .■ Plea for Liberty wyd J> nd ice, ’ ‘fc The JSeprors
WfU,. d- ~ • of the French Rerohiidm," ttec., <£•«.<
■ t.
_
CO^EJ^S.
The Potency of Scienge.
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man..
Creation/, Time and* Mate
rial^ •
6. The BubEb Account
TTONg.
Soropto :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE, *
'5 Adelaide,- St. East?
, /PRICE
of the
Qrigin of Death.
7. The I&ble Deluge.
8-. The Mosaic Account of the
FlooI) : Scientific Obj ec-’
15 CENTS.
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN. THEY DIFFER.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“ Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence," “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism : Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,"
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice,''’ “ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” de., de.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONTENTS:
Science.
6. The Bible Account
The Potency of
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man.
Creation: Time and Mate
rial.
ofthk
Origin of Death.
7. The Bible Deluge.
8. The Mosaic Account of the
Flood : Scientific Objec
tions.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
15 CENTS.
A
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
The Potency of Science.—The distinguishing characteristic of this
age is science; it is essentially an age of invention, experiment
and discovery. Knowledge is pushed into the field of physical
nature on all hands to such an extent that each day brings to light
something both new and unforeseen. We are ever on the alert for
wonders in the field of discovery which will not amaze, simply
because they are not unusual. All thought to-day is more or
less influenced by natural science. Old opinions, not only in the
domain of the material, but also in the intellectual and moral,
have to be remoulded or abolished in obedience to the dictates
of the higher knowledge that we have attained of the workings
of natural law. That which cannot reconcile itself to science
must disappear as out of harmony with the genius of the epoch.
We do not, of course, allege that physical science covers the
entire field of knowledge, but we do contend that there is no
phase of thought that is not very largely moulded by modern
discoveries. Scientific truth can no longer be successfully op
posed, even by the most dogmatic theologian, and it is now too
powerful and too widely known to allow itself to be even
ignored. Hence, whatever opinions are advocated, the pretence
put forward in their favour usually is that they are in harmony
with science. The difficulty too often lies in making good this
claim.
Science may be defined as being an investigation into the
phenomena of nature, and the best application of the lessons de
rived thereby to the requirements of life. It may be further
described as meaning facts reduced to a system ; not a fixed,
cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. “■ Science is the enemy
of fear and credulity. It invites investigation, challenges the
�4
SCIENCE AND THE BIRLE:
reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the unbeliever. It
seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, education and liberty
to the human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It
has furnished a foundation for morals, a philosophy for the
guidance of man......................... It has taught man that he cannot
walk beyond the horizon—that the questions of origin and
destiny cannot be answered—that an infinite personality cannot
be comprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any
system of religion based on the supernatural cannot by any
possibility be established—such a religion not being within the
domain of evidence. And, above all. it teaches that all our duties
are here—-that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that
intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom
and that ‘ man believes not what he would, but what he can.’ ”
It has been said that we can have no complete system of science.
To some extent this is true ; for no science is perfect, if by per
fection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But
sufficient information of a positive character has been obtained
in many fields of enquiry to justify conclusions that may be re
garded as reliable. Science has stamped its valuable impress on
the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore
hitherto unknown regions; by its aid we can descend into the
depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological
errors that have too long held captive the human mind; by its
aid we can not only avert many of the diseases which “ flesh is
heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its
gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its mani
fold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the
strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations
from a state of barbarism to partial civilisation, and stimulated
man to emancipate himself from the curse of degrading super
stitions. That which was hidden from the gaze of the ancient
world has, by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us
in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the
broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com
municate with our European friends by that cable which connects
nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
5
we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very
length and breadth of the land. As the late Prince Consort of
England said in 1855 : “No human pursuits make any material
progress until science is brought to bear upon them............. Look
at the transformation which has gone on around us since the
laws of gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and the expansive
power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the
whole state of existence—one might say, the whole face of the
globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While
■contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is sadden
ing to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages
long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth
was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine
purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or ignorant
misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual
conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too
frequently its usefulness has been impaired, and its exponents
have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own
senses. True, from a theological standpoint we could not expect
aught else. A study of the histories of orthodox Bible believers
will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in
those discoveries which show so unmistakably the errors of their
faith.
The potency of science over the influence of theology was
never better presented than in the following eloquent language
by Col. Ingersoll : “ Science, thou art the great magician ! Thou
alone performest the true miracles. Thou alone workest the
real wonders. Fire is thy servant, lightning is thy messenger.
The waves obey thee, and thou knowest the circuits of the wind.
Thou art the great philanthropist! Thou hast freed the slave
and civilised the master. Thou hast taught men to chain not
his fellow-man, but the forces of nature—forces that have no
backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat—forces
that never know fatigue, that shed no tears—forces that have
no hearts to break. Thou gavest man the plough, the reaper and
the loom—thou hast fed and clothed the world ! Thou art the
great physician ! Thy touch hath given sight. Thou hast made
�6
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
the lame to leap, the dumb to speak, aud in the pallid cheek thy
hand hath set the rose of health. ‘ Thou hast given thy beloved
sleep’—a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing
nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence of man—
preserver of light and love ! Thou art the teacher of every
virtue, the enemy of every vice. Thou hast discovered the true
basis of morals—the origin and office of conscience—and hast
revealed the nature and measure of obligation. Thou hast
taught that love is justice in its highest form, and that even
self-love, guided by wisdom, embraces with loving arms the
human race. Thou hast slain the monsters of the past. Thou
hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou hast read the
records of the rocks, written by wind and wave, by frost and
flame—records that even priestcraft cannot change—and in thy
wondrous scales thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars.
Thou art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the
very Christ, the only saviour of mankind. Theology has always
been in the way of the advance of the human race. There is
this difference between science and theology—science is modest
and merciful, while theology is arrogant and cruel. The hope
of science is the perfection of the human race. The hope of
theology is the salvation of a few and the damnation of almost
everybody.”
Notwithstanding the value, potency and grandeur of science
it is only of comparatively recent date that its usefulness has
been fairly acknowledged and its power duly appreciated.
Formerly new discoveries were tested by the Bible and encour
aged or discouraged according to their agreement or disagreement
therewith. Fortunately, the Bible test is no longer accepted as
the standard of appeal but the question of utility has taken its
plaqe. Science now holds its undisputed sway although many
of its revelations contradict the teaching both of the Hebrew and
Christian Records.
The Bible and Science.—The Bible has hitherto occupied
in the world a very exceptional position, and there is still
claimed for it “ divine authority and unerring accuracy.” In
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
7
the multiplicity of tests to which its claims might be sub
jected, the one above all others which it must face to-day, isthat of science. By this it must stand or fall. If true, it
should not fear this mode of examination, but whether it does
or not it must submit to this tribunal.
That modern science has demonstrated as fallacies much that
the Bible contains is now recognised by many professing Chris
tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach
science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the or
thodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to
contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate
that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general im
provement. The national and individual condition of society
would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science..
For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science,
is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal
wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to*
have been written under divine inspiration for the guidance and.
instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, butshould expound its truths in such a concise and practical manner,,
that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should also
commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest
of the land. But it is not sufficient to say that the object of the
book was not to teach science ; that it had a far higher and5
nobler purpose. There might be some weight in such an allega
tion if all its teachings were confined to regions that lie outside
the domain of modern research, though even then such teachingscould not escape being tested by the influence which science hasexerted over every form of thought, indirect if not direct. Un
fortunately, however, for those who take this view, the Bible
does refer to scientific subjects, and deals quite largely with
matters that fall within the region in which science reigns
supreme. This being so, we are certainly justified in ascertain
ing whether or not the two are in harmony. That such subjects
are.dealt with no one can doubt who is at all acquainted with
the teachings of the book. Kalisch says, “ The Bible is not silent
upon the creation ; it attempts indeed to furnish its history \
�8
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
but iii this account it expresses as facts that which the researches
of science cannot sanction.” But the subject of creation is not
the only topic upon which the book states the very opposite to
what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the
phenomena of the solar system, and the mode by which disease
and death entered the world, are scientific questions. These,
with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a
reference to its statements thereon will show that science and
the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. The fact is there
have been but few discoveries of any magnitude in science that
have not exhibited in some way the fallacy of portions of the
Bible. That which in the days of Moses might have been con
sidered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science
has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as
natural laws, subsequent experience has shown to be in opposition
to scientific discoveries. The antiquity of man has been proved
to be considerably greater than Moses alleges; geology has
demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years before
the time of creation stated in the Jewish account; the theory that
all mankind descended from one primeval pair is now given up
as unreliable ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded ;
the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific sup
porters ; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed
in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded superstition; the teach
ing of the New Testament that the world and its contents are to
be destroyed by fire, has but few believers ; a burning hell for
the “ wicked souls of the departed ” is deemed too revolting and
absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction ; hence science has
practically killed the belief in the devil and firmly closed for
ever his supposed illuminated habitation. The Bible teaches
that mankind has degenerated from a state of perfection;
science, on the contrary, indicates that the career of man has
been progressive, and that each age, profiting by experience, has
been superior to its predecessor. The Bible affirms that at a
certain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares
that such an event could never have happened. The Bible asserts
that all the kingdoms of the world were exhibited from a cer-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
9
tain high mountain; geography teaches that there are many
parts of the world totally invisible from any one elevation. The
Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the water;
experience proves this to be impossible. In almost every field
the “ sacred writings ” appear to be the very antithesis of the
teachings of science.
The entire account of man’s early history as given in the
Bible is flatly contradicted by scientific research. Many attempts,
indeed, have been made to harmonise the two, but without suc
cess. Sophistry, equivocation, denunciation, all the engines, in
short, of polemical warfare, have been brought forward to dis
prove the well-attested facts of science; while those who have
been honest enough to restrict themselves to argument have
usually ended by accepting the facts and giving up the theory.
The great strength of a scientific theory lies in the cumulative
proof of which, if it be a scientific theory, it becomes capable ;
while a fact of science may be attested in many ways. For in
stance, while the geologists have bden at work tracing the
history of the earth from its earliest beginnings, and in so doing
have discovered evidence of the co-existence of man with many
of the extinct animals, of whose remote antiquity there can be no
doubt, the archaeologists have been busy in another field of en
quiry, and proving the same fact in another way. When the
same fact is thus arrived at by independent enquirers, and
different sciences force the mind to the same conclusion, the evi
dence of its truth is such as to be irresistible. Now the very
converse is the case with the orthodox defenders of the Bible.
Working in the same field, on the same subject-matter, they
arrive at various conclusions, and the best we have is a number
of conflicting theories, and if they were to be accepted a means
of harmonising the harmonisers must be found. Of course they
serve their purpose for a time by deceiving the uninformed and
misleading the unenquiring. But for the intelligent and logical
enquirer a study of the Hebrew Records themselves is quite
sufficient to discredit theology, and to show beyond all reason
able doubt that the Bible and science do not agree ; the one is
stationary, the other is progressive ; the first is bound by the
�10
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
ignorance of the past, the second is guided by the knowledge of
the present. Modern thought has neither hesitation nor regrets
in giving up the Bible as a monitor in the practical duties of life,,
for we have science remaining, and its light will shine with an
ever increasing brightness as the years roll on, until theological
ignorance and folly shall be replaced by a knowledge of natural
forces and a wisdom based on the experiences of a more un
fettered intellectual development.
The Bible and Creation.—The supposed creation of theworld and the origin of man as narrated in the Bible fur
nish striking evidence of the contradictory nature of the
teachings of that book to the revelations of science. If wo
accept the chronology of the Hebrew records as being correct,
there is no difficulty in ascertaining how long it is according
to the Bible since the world and man were created. For in
stance, in Genesis, we read that when Adam was 130 years old
his son Seth was born; when Seth was 105, Enos was born;
when Enos was 90, Cainsn was born; when Cainan was 70,
Mahalaleel was born ; when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born ;
when Jared was 162, Enoch was born; when Enoch was 65,
Methuselah was born ; when Methuselah was 187, Lamech was
born; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these
dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah. 1056yearr; 600 years after this the flood appears, making from the
creation of man to the flood, 1656 years. Then reckoning from
the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the
present time, 1890, we have a total of 6047 years since man first
appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus 20 it is said that “ in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is,” and in Genesis 1 we read that “ God created man on
the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days
after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this
adequate proof that the Bible teaches that "the world and man
have existed only a little over six thousand years ? This was
really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford,,
who, in his famous lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
11
of the Old and New Testaments,” delivered on behalf of the
Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really
historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture
is the shortness of the time into which all history is (or at any
rate appears to be) compressed by the chronological statements,
especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews is fixed by
many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century
before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus,
according to the numbers of our English version, but a very little
exceeds a thousand years. Consequently, it has been usual to
regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all man
kind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six
centuries of the Christian era ; and, therefore, that all history,
and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races
of men were formed, by which languages developed into their
numerous and diverse types, by which civilisation and art
emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within
the narrow space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our
Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insuffi
cient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms,
which reach back (according to the most moderate of modern
critical historians) to about the time at which the numbers of
our English Bible place the deluge. Considerable diversities of
language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly
different physical types appeared not much subsequently ; civili
sation in Egypt had, about the pyramid period, which few now
place later than B.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts existed
in the shape in which they were known in the country at its
most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted
anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of
Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show
to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our
English Bible do not allow ”
Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geo
logical lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage
—a Christian writer—that “ the mass of evidence which com
bines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irre-
�12
sciteNcfe
and the bible
:
Sistible and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but
those who ate alike incapable of observing the facts and appre■ciating the reasoning can for a momeut conceive the present
state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of
existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent
their lives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclu
sion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the
-earth’s first formation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to
be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all com
petent persons that the formation even of those strata which are
nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably
millions of years, in arriving at their present state.” In reply to
this, two different theories have been put forth in defence of the
Bible records with a view of bringing them into harmony with
science. The first theory is that a long period—countless ages,
in fact—elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd
verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first
two chapters of that book was only a re-adaptation of the chaos
of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is
made to animals or plants as being in existence before the time
referred to by Moses ? Is it not said by this writer that light
was created on the first of. the six days, and the sun on the
fourth ? Admit this to be true, and then, previous to that time,
there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which
science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological
investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants
found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the
-earth, indicating thereby that no new creation took place 6,000
years ago ? Clearly theie was and could be no such break in
the continuity of the chain of geological events as this theory
assumes. The remains of animals and plants found in the tertiary
are identical with those living to-day, and there was, therefore,
no new creation of fauna and flora at the time at which the
writer of Genesis declares the origin of the whole to have taken
place. If such had occurred evidences of it would be found in
those old records written in stone, which cannot err as docu
ments may do that have been produced by human fingers.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
13‘
Besides, does it not look very much like a childish work of
supererogation to create by a special supernatural act a new set
of plants and animals, exactly like those already existing, who
would, as a matter of course, have propagated their species in
the ordinary natural way as they had been doing for generations
before ? Nor is there the slightest intimation in the book that
any sort of an interval of long duration occurred between the
. creation described in the first verse and that enumerated in the
subsequent account. It is evidently one continuous record, the
whole extending over just six days. The second theory is that
the days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days, but long
periods extending probably over millions of years. This is the
more popular of the two theories amongst orthodox Christians
at the present time. But, like the other, it is beset with insur
mountable difficulties. The light and the darkness are stated to
be synonymous with day and night, which alternate regularly
with each other. Epochs of light and equally long epochs of
darkness we know did not occur, for such darkness would have
been fatal to the vegetation which existed. Then the keeping
of the Sabbath day is enjoined on the principle that God worked
for six days and rested on the seventh, leaving the inference
conclusive that the days in the one case were the same as those
in the other. The most fatal objection, however, of all to the entire
theory is that the order of creation as described in Genesis and
that discovered by geological science are not at all the same. The
vegetable kingdom was not in its origin separated by millions of
years from the beginnings of animal life, as this theory would
make it appear to have been, one entire day or epoch coming
between them ; neither did the higher and lower forms of land
animals make their appearance at the same time. From any
point of view, no reconciliation between the Bible and science
appears to us possible, at least upon this point.
The Origin of Man.—Whatever lack of information may
exist as to the precise time when man first appeared on
the earth, it is as certain as anything can be that the
human family have been in existence much longer than
�14
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the time stated in the Bible. Professor Huxley writes:—
Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption that man co
existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a
barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared
together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles
Lyell supports the statement, that “ North America was peopled
more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr.
Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the
delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen
■claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years
prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire
■of hereditary kings to 5413 B.C. “ It is now generally conceded,”
observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which
we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon
•earth; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or
millions of years.beyond our reach. The spurious systems of
Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the
Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by
prejudice, to the monumental records of Egypt as our best guide.
Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primitive state of
man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages ; for the Egyptian
Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before
'Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and
surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from
the barbarous stage...........These authorities, in support of the
extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though
startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a
few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the
leading geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so ex
treme for man’s existence on earth may shock some preconceived
opinions, it is none the less certain that the rapid accumulation
of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific
world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have alreadycarried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and
when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to
attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This
•conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such arch-ae-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
15
ologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt,
etc., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick,
Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have
really mastered the monuments of Egypt. Nor do these monu
ments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full
tide of civilisation, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the
same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold
intercourse with Egypt at the present day.......... In short, we
know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it
now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a
dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period
going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to
the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the world.” The
two magnificent works of Nott and Gliddon, entitled “ Types of
. Mankind ” and “ Indigenous Races,” are too little read at the
present time. They contain some few errors, no doubt, but on
the whole they abound in erudition and furnish overwhelming
evidence both of man’s early appearance on the earth and of the
impossibility of supposing all the races to have had the same
origin. The Adam and Eve theory is shattered into fragments
by the facts produced in such abundance. No answer to these
books has been put forth, and we fail to see that any is possible.
“ The theory,” say Nott and Gliddon,“that all nations are made
of one blood, is entirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that
all mankind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of
Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could
trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distincion characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the
case. “We know,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ of no archae
ologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver
that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and
scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as dis
tinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this
moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes,
Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monu
ments, of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the
paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age.
�16
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the
multifarious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock ; because
the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were
absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they
are now; just as they all were then from co-existent Negroes.
Such a miracle, indeed, has been invented, and dogmatically
defended ; but it is a bare postulate, and positively refuted by
scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there
must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian
races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr.
Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt prove
beyond all question that the Caucasian and the Negro races
were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years
ago as they are now. If, then, the difference which we find ex
isting between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced
by external causes, such change must have been effected accord
ing to Bible chronology in about 1,000 years. This theory is
decidedly contradicted by science and experience.” Now, no
external causes are known that are capable of producing all
the varieties of mankind as we see them to-day. They appear
to be separated from each other by broad lines of demarcation
which nothing that we are at present acquainted with can bridge
over. No consideration of the influence of sun, climate, or geo
graphical position will aid us in solving the problem. If man
kind all sprang from the same stock, which of course is very
questionable, it must have been tens of thousands of years before
the time at which Adam is supposed to have lived. For, as Pro
fessor Draper observes :—“ So far as investigations have gone
they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote
from us by many hundreds of thousands of years......... We are
thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years
of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date
for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of
years, and human existence antedates that. But not only is it
that this grand fact confronts us, we have to admit also a primi
tive animalised state and a slow and gradual development. But
this forlorn, this savage condition of humanity is in strong con-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
17
trast to the Paradisiacal happiness of the Garden of Eden, and
what is far more serious, it is inconsistent with the theory of
the Fall.” [“ Science and Religion,” pp. 199-200.] It is evident,
therefore, that the Bible is at fault in reference to man’s origin,
and no sophistry of explanation will make it agree with the
records of science.
Creation: Time and Material.—The’ disagreement between
the Bible and science as to the time occupied in the al
leged creation of the world is exceedingly clear. According
to the account in the Bible, this event occurred in six days.
There it is distinctly stated that the heavens and the earth and
all that in them is, were created in six days (Ex. 20 : 11). “For
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord
blessed the seventh day and hallowedit.” The Jews understood
the word “day” as embracing a common day of twenty-four
hours. From the 20th of Exodus it is perfectly certain that it
is to be understood literally. God commands the Jews to “ Re
member the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,.
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid
servant, nor thy ’cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”
Why ? Because—“ For in six’ days the Lord made heaven andi
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh
day ; wherdfore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed
it.” “ Now,” remarks S. J. Finney, “ if the word ‘ day ’ is an in
definite word, embracing a long and indefinite period of time,
how could the Jews know when to work or when to rest, and
how do we know when to keep the Sabbath at all ? If it means,
according to Dr. John Pye Smith, many thousands or even
millions of years, the Sabbath has not yet begun; men are fooling
away one seventh of their time on a false notion that it is
‘ holy.’ ” But it has already been shown that the epoch theory
entirely breaks down when tested by facts. Mr. Priaulx says
“ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division
�18
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined
hy any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless,
no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twentyfour hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent
the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six
natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation
by a chaotic period. Geologists, on the conti ary, declare that
■the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous
periods of time during their formation, and that even in the
■vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of
species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual
■change in the organic world.
Equally at fault is the Bible with reference to the sequence of
events. So diverse, in fact, are the accounts as furnished by
the Bible and by science up©« this zpoint that all attempts to
reconcile them must prove to be time wasted and labour thrown
away. Many years ago Dr. Sexton, who although now a Chris
tian is still & scientist, and would find some difficulty in replying
to his early writings, wrote as follows in his “ Concessions of
Theology to Science ” :—“ The greatest objection, and one which
is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first
chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days
as including all the ages that have passed away, during which
those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their
appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the
rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not
the same in the two cases. According to geology, there is a
gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and
animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being
found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more
recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of
the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all
the inhabitants of the waters in another—the two separated
from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created
but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the
organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as
creeping things, and as high as man,, which certainly does not
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
19
accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which
are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of
existence, are represented as having made their appearance with
the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also
contrary to fact. The sun, too, does not exist till the epoch after
the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as
the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must
have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is
a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the
theory that light had been previously formed, and that there
fore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s
rays is equally as indispensable to vegetation as the luminous
portion that we call light.”
The Bible statement of the material from which man was
made differs from the facts discovered by scientific investigation.
We read irt Genesis that man was made from the dust of the
earth ; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved that
dust does not contain the elements found in the human organ
ism. The late Dr. Herapath, one of the leading chemists of
the day, wrote thus boldly upon this subject:—“ From our days
of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us ‘ that man
was made out of the dust of the earth ; ’ and, ‘ as dust thou
art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion, if literally
true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as one of the
elements of organised structure, for no soil or earthy material
capable of being employed by agriculturists can be found with
out alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot
be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests
against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as
geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical
sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits
by those who have neglected the study of true science, but still
profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That
man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organic
material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated
by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves
to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of
�20
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this
fluid certainly cannot be found in dust, for we only apply that
ter<n to earth that is dry. Dust mixed with twice its own weight
of water would cease to be described as dust. Yet there is no
escape from the statement made in the Bible that of such ma
terial as dust man was formed. The literal reading of the ori
ginal, as all scholars agree, is “ dust from the ground,” that is,
ordinary dust such as we meet with on the ground. Now, it is
certain man was not made from any such material, and by no
legitimate stretch of language can it with anything like accu
racy or truth be said that he was. The principal elementary
. substances to be found in human bodies are oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen and carbon, but these are not to be found in ordinary
dust, with the exception of a very trifling modicum of oxygen.
Silicon, one of the main ingredients of dust, can hardly be de
tected in the human organism. The Lamaic creed supposes man
is the production of water. Priaulx suggests that, had the writer
of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat
nearer the truth.
The Bible Account of the Origin of Death.—The Bible
alleges that “by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; ” that is, that through the supposed disobedi
ence of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the
alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a
punishment, i« to many “a consummation devoutly to be
wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of
corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a
curse upon man not to die. Are there not thousands who suffer
a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or
opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of
nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a
welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis,
how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into
realms of bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead
of remaining in this “ vale of tears, ought certainly to be
accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his condition.
�WHERMN THEY DIFFER.
21
But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of
death involves many difficulties. If death had not been intro
duced, could the world contain its ever-increasing inhabitants ?
And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient
to support such an immense multitude ? Suppose the serpent
had not played its “little game,” could a man who had no know
ledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the
chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in
a furnace and not be burned to death ? Or if he were in a coal
mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further,
did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ?
If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read,
“ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If,
however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of
theij; kind took a prominent part in what is termed “ the fall of
man ? ” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death
is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man
cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an
universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law.
As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to
that change until we progress to a given point; then our organ
isation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely
•exhaust life’s power, and death ensues as certainly as a fire will
cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition
•of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But
the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” death was not
.a necessary consequence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic
statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted
similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the con
trary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure,
how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ
in their nature from those whose offspring they are. Certain it
is that man’s constitution is such that he cannot avoid the
liability to death. He is so organised that all the influences
operating upon him, while for a time and under certain condi
tions they afford him sustenance and support, may yet, diverted
from their normal purpose, cause him to cease to live. Indeed,
�22
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
it is impossible even to conceive of a human body which is pos
sessed of immortality. The phrase is used glibly enough, but let
one reflect upon it, and ask himself what is the meaning that he
attaches to the expression “immortal man.” A human being lives
by taking food, and that very food diverted from its proper pur
pose may cause death; anyhow, its absence will produce that
effect. Excretions of a poisonous character are continually being
eliminated, and should the glandular organ whose function it is
to remove these deleterious substances cease to act, then the
result is as fatal as though a poison had been swallowed. If it
be said that this would not occur because there would be no
disease, we reply that there is still the impossibility of supposing
an organism, whose existence is dependent on something outside
itself, being at the same time independent of all else.
Then there is the important fact that death was in the ^orld
millions of ages before the supposed existence of Adam and
Eve. There are, indeed, few persons of any education now who
can doubt that at least the lower animals died long before man
was created. Geology has brought to light their fossil remainsentombed in the various rocks which go to make up the crust
of the earth. They came into existence, played their brief part
on life’s stage, and passed away, not simply individually, but
in whole races, long before the era dawned which gave man bis
birth. They preyed on one another then as now, the carnivora
devouring the less ferocious tribes ; and both together becoming’
buried in the earth, their remains were preserved to tell their
history to future generations of men. Race followed race in long
succession, each to pass away as its predecessor bad done whilst
as yet man had not made his appearance upon the scene.
But it was not simply the lower animals that died before the
time assigned to the creation of Adam, It is now demonstrated
beyond the shadow of a doubt that man had shared the same
fate ages before. If our fabled first parents resided in the Gar
den of Eden six thousand years ago, they came far too late in
the history of the world to be the progenitors of the whole
human family. Whole races had flourished and had passed
away long before that time. Death had existed whilst the per-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
petrator of original sin was not yet born. In no sense, there
fore, can it be a fact that Adam’s sin was the cause of death.
The Fall itself involves contradictions to science. Take, for in
stance, the curses pronounced on the ground, the woman, and
the serpent : the merest tyro in science knows that all these
are simply non-existent. Thorns and thistles are not accursed ,
on the contrary, they are highly useful plants. Moreover, they
were in existence long before the time at which the Fall is said
to have occurred. And they most unquestionably made their
first appearance, not as the result of any curse of God, but by
the ordinary laws of nature. Then the so-called curse on woman
is by no means universal. The pains referred to occur in their
severe form only amongst civilised peoples, and always as a re
sult'of artificial modes of living and the violation of natural
laws. Savage women are almost exempt from such pains, and
suffer no more than do the lower animals. The curse upon the
serpent is still more absurd : “ On thy belly shalt thou go,” as
though serpents ever practised locomotion in any other way.
Nor were serpents changed in their organisation at this time—
as some have suggested—for the remains of those found in
geological strata, whose existence dates back to a period pro
bably a million years before man appeared, show precisely the
same kind of organisation as their modern descendants. Thesecurses are, to say the least, very childish, and place the charac
ter of the Being who is said to have uttered them in a very
contemptible and degrading light. Fortunately, however, ac
cording to science, the whole story is regarded as fiction, not as
fact.
The Bible Deluge.—Modern researches have unmistakeably
established the fact that between science and the Mosaic ac
count of the flood there is an absolute antagonism.
The
Bible statement is, that less than five thousand years ago, God
discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.” Not two thousand years before
this, so the book relates, God had made man pure and
�24
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine super
intendence, and subsequently the edification of the preaching of
Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the
Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind from degenerating so rapidly
that the Lord repented “ that he had made man, and it grieved
him at his heart.” God possessed, it is .-aid, infinite power, wis
dom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise
a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead
upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all except one
family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment
of justice and to every feeling of benevolence. No being with a
spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily
exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the
agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent
God could have found other means to correct the work of his
own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and a warning, the cold water pro
cess proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better
after the deluge than they were before it.
If this deluge were a fact, what can be said of the God who
was the chief actor in it, and who was entirely responsible for
the great calamity—an event so fearfully cruel and so revolting
that one “ cannot think of it without horror nor contemplate it
without dismay.” How can we reconcile the drowning of a
whole world with the justice and goodness of the Almighty
One ? Say that the wickedne-s of man was great upon the
earth, was that any reason for destroying any chance of repent
ance ? What should we say of an earthly despot who acted in
a like manner ? The cruelty and supreme wickedness of the
action thus attributed to God has never been paralleled or even
approached by the greatest monster the world has ever seen ;
and on the part of infinite power the action mu-t partake of the
character of the actor and become infinite in its utter depravity.
Say that men were wicked, was it therefore just to overwhelm
in a common destruction the son with the sire, the little child
who had not yet learned to sin with those who were the real
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
25
sinners ? In the presence of this narrative, we can only say
that, if men were wicked, the being who destroyed them was
more wicked still.
Again, according to the orthodox version of this fearful
tragedy, man had fallen, Adam for his sin had been cast out of
Eden, and the redemption of man was impossible through any
efforts of his own. The Redeemer who was necessary had not
yet been sent. How, then, could it be consistent with infinite
goodness to punish for wickedness which was unavoidable, to
destroy man that he was sinful when he could not by any possi
bility be otherwise ? Moreover, be it observed that this narra
tion is a libel upon the character of God in other ways. By
this universal deluge a great change was effected, but no im
provement. The new generations were as wicked as those which
had gone before ; nay, the very man Noah, who had found grace
in the sight of God, was drunk in his tent immediately, and his
son Canaan, another of the saved ones, maketh shame of his
father. In the 9 th chapter of Genesis the whole disgusting ac
count may be found. The God who drowned the world to cure
the evil in it with no better results than this could not be a God
of any foreknowledge. Or, if it be said that he knew this
would be so, then the utter malignity of the drowning becomes
only proportionately increased.
Our present object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman
character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in
Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern investigations
and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palp
able that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of
the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was
only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in
error, inasmuch as it clearly teaches the universality of the
deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, ch. 6
and 7 : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have
created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and
the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me
that I have made them'” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a
flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is
�26
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the breath of life, from under heaven ; and everything that is
in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I havemade will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living
substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of
the heaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah
only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
Bishop Colenso says that the Flood described in Genesis, whether
it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in
credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his
work, “The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that
Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have
doubted the universality of the deluge......... I need not refer
more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood ; this
seems to me even more astonishing than the universal.” Pro
fessor Hitchcock observes: “ I am willing to acknowledge that
the language of the Bible on this subject seems at first view to
teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the
supposition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to
know what prevented the water from finding its level. More
over, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion
of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that
no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found.
Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals
if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family,
together with “ two of every sort,” could have emigrated to
those parts which the deluge was not intended to visit.
In speaking of this flood, “ Julian,” one of the ablest Biblical
scholars in England at the present day, in his excellent .work,
“ Bible Words : Human, Not Divine,” has the following valuable
remarks upon the account as given in Genesis chapters 6, 7,.
and 8 :
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
27
“ Two of Evtry Sort.—Chapter 6 is Eloistic: the word ‘God’
is used. In verses 19, 20, we read: And God said to Noah he
was to take into the ark ‘two of every sort,’ to keep the race
alive; the two were to be a male and its female : ‘ Of fowls after
their kind, and of cattle after their kind; of every creeping
thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come
unto thee. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten,,
which thou shalt gather together for thee and them.’’
“ This writer evidently supposed that wild beasts and birds of
prey could feed on hay and eat ‘ straw like an ox ; ’ that the
number of animals was so small that two of every sort could be
stalled in an ordinary-sized church ; and that four men would
suffice to feed all the animals and remove the filth from the ark.
Why, a small travelling menagerie requires more attendants to
feed the collection and keep the place clean.
“ The writer supposed that wild beasts would consort with
their lawful prey—serpents with doves, hawks with sparrows,
owls with mice, and insectivorous birds with insects ; for, though*
daily food was to be taken into the ark, only two of every
sort of animal were to be saved, just enough to keep the race
alive.
“ Seven of Clean Animals and Birds.—‘ Two of every sort,’
Elohim says, and repeats the injunction—two of every sort,
remember; only two, and no more ; one male and one female of
each species of beast, bird, and reptile. The-next chapter (7) is
a Jehovistic one; for, instead of God, we read ‘Lord,’ or the
‘ Lord God ; ’ and here a distinction is made between clean and
unclean beasts, and between quadrupedsand birds. Mark what
is said : ‘ Of every clean beast (7 : 2, 3) thou shalt take to theeby sevens, the male and the female; and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls of the air by
sevens, the male and the female.’
“Here the direction is seven clean beasts and seven of all
species of birds, ‘ a male and its female.’ Now, as seven is an
odd number, it was plainly impossible to pair seven animals ; sothe writer must have meant seven pairs, or fourteen of every
clean beast and every fowl of the air. This, of course, would
�38
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
require a much larger ark, and would greatly increase the daily
labour of Noah and his family.
“ This wise and sagacious writer saw plainly that birds and
beasts of prey could not live upon seed, so he increases the num
ber of animals for food. He also wanted Noah to offer sacrifice
after the Flood ; -and, had he killed one of his two clean beasts,
he would have extirpated the race ; so he makes Jehovah coun
termand the order of Elohim, and tell Noah that Elohim made a
mistake ; that he did not mean ‘ two of every sort of beast and
bird and creeping thing,’ but only of unclean beasts. All clean
beasts and all birds wTere to be collected by sevens (a sacred
number); but why seven pairs of eagles, vultures, condors,
toucans, parrots, lyre-birds, mocking-birds, cranes, owls, and so
on, is a mystery of mysteries.”
<
Scientific Objections to the Mosaic Account of the Flood.—
Among the many scientific objections to the account of the
Flood as given in the Bible are the following :
1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demonstra
tion that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the
result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The
evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progress
ing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection
to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Bev.
Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many
leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c, who once referred
the diluvium to the one period of the historic deluge, have now
publicly, withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh Miller, in his “Testi
mony of the Rocks,” says: “ In various parts of the world, such
as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna,
there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes,
which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian
deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent ma-'
terials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calcu
lations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have
passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve
thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
29
provinces of France, Kalisth, in his Genesis, observes: “Distinct
mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and
animal life, bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition
of our planet.......... That extraordinary region contains rocks,
consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits; one of
the rocks is sixty feet in thickness ; and a moderate calculation
shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that
single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote
than the date of the Noachian flood ; they show not the slightest
trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge;
their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology
irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has been subject
to many floods, it has never been visited by such an one as that
described in the Bible.
The evidences of the Flood that have been sometimes quoted
are really funny. Not long ago Talmage declared that the flood
was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction by the fact
that sea shells and other remains of marine animals were often
found on the summit of the highest mountains. He forgot to
mention that the Flood was said to have been caused by fresh
water, and that consequently marine animals could have had no
place in its waters. These remans found on mountain tops are
due to other and well known causes. Geologically there is not
only no evidence that such a flood occurred as that described in
the Bible, but there is a mass of undoubted evidence to the con
trary. “ Julian ” observes : “ Such a cataclysm as the Flood
must have left its marks on the earth ; but geologists have not
succeeded in finding a single trace—no confusion of animal
relics, no huge water gullies, no stratum of alluvial earth, which
such a sweep of water would produce. We find relics of marine
animals inland, it is true, and on the tops of high mountains;
but these fossils are all in order, each in its own stratum. There
is no confusion of animals in these rocks, as if a world had been
stamped out in forty days.”
2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says: “And the
waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high
i
�30
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
thills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further,
“ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount
Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, there
fore, required to cover this mountain would be, in the estimation
■of Dr. Pye Smith, Professor Hitchcock, and many other eminent
writers, eight times greater than what already existed. From
whence then came the tremendous mass of water required to
produce the Flood, and what became of it afterwards ? These
.are questions which Biblical students should answer or con
fess their inability to do so and admit the absurdity of the
.record.
3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have been
not more than 600 feet long, 100 feet broad, and 60 feet high ;
yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but
“ two of every living thing of all flesh.” According to Hugh
Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of
birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that
so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have
furnished accommodation for this vast congregation ? Space,
too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the
Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob
tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to some
forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for
so long a period the carnivorous and herbivorous animals—the
swallows, ant-eaters, spiders, and flies ? The Black Hole of Cal
cutta would have been a paradise to it. It is monstrous folly to
suppose all the animals of the earth, by twos and sevens, could
be squeezed into such a space. It is no less folly to suppose that
they would not all have been suffocated before one day had
passed. There is a little difficulty also about the light. There
were, it appears, three storeys in the Ark, and but one window.
Now, where was the window positioned ? In the upper storey ?
Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two storeys of the Ark
were in the dark, where many of those have since been who
have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of
science.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
31
4. The Collecting the Animals. The difficulties attending the
narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are
thus aptly put by the Rev. T. R. Stebbing, M.A.: “ To achieve it
he (Noah) must have gone in person, or sent expeditions, to
Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North
for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ;
the hippopotamus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the
apteryz, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought
together by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game,
caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas and titmice must
all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be em
ployed to secure them uninjured. They must be fed and cared
for during a journey, perhaps of thousands of miles, till they
reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one ano
ther while the search is continued for rats, and bats, and vipers
and toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch,
specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace,
would naturally wish and naturally be selected to transmit as a
boon to his favoured descendants.”
5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that,
after the waters began to subside, the inhabitants of the Ark
existed for nearly eight months in the temperature prevailing at
a spot “ 3,000 feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely
will not be contended that this statement harmonises with sci
ence any more than does the reeord of an olive tree retaining its
life after being under the pressure of several tons’ weight of
water for nearly three-quarters of a year. “ Naturalists tell us
that sun and air are needful for vegetable life; but neither sun
nor air could get to trees buried seven miles deep in water. And
even supposing the trees to have been in leaf, a wind sufficiently
high to dry up seven miles of water in 110 days would certainly
have stripped the trees, if it had not rooted them up altogether.’
Colenso says :—“ The difficulty, that so long an immersion in
deep water would kill the olive, had, no doubt, never occurred
to the writer, who may have observed that trees survived ordin
ary partial floods, and inferred that they would just as well be
�32
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
able to sustain the deluge to which his imagination subjected
them.” Kalisch observes : “ It is agreed by all botanical autho
rities, that, though partial inundations of rivers do not long or
materially change the vegetation of a region, the infusion of
great quantities of salt water destroys it entirely for long
periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine imme
diately after the cessation of the Deluge.”
�* Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WWH
Orthodox Christianity, 96 pages.’ Price 25 cents.
Contents.—Physical Teachings. Intellectual Teachings. Present Condition of
Society. Morality. Ethics pf Religion Secularism and the Supernatural. Secu
larism at the hour of Death. Secularism in ^Toeory
Secularism in Practice,
Secularism more reasonable than Christianity. /‘Secularism more noble than Christ
ianity. Secularism more beneficial than Christianity. Secu'ariSm Progressive.
Secularism, its Triumphs. Secularism, its Service to Mankind. Secularism, its
Struggles in the Past. Secularism in the Future. Summing up.
SECULARISM
«
IS IT BOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND I- jslebate between the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Chai les Watts. With
Prefatory Leiters by Gemge Jacob Htflyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an.
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents,
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S
20 cents, post free.
TACTICS of INFIDELS.”’
*v.V’
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
ContsNTS.—Christianity rf'Human Origin—Not Original^-Tndefinite, Im'
practicable and Contradictory in its Nat use— Its Influence Tested by‘Histpiy apd the
Admissions of Christian Writers
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THEIR
CAUSES 24 pages, price to cents
.
Contents.—Atheism and Social Order—Indications of a Great Struggle - Or
thodox Misrepresentation—The'Horrors of the French Resolution—The Causes
of the Excis es
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
pages in.cover ; price 10c.
22
Contents.—What is Secularism? Bible Idolatry—The Secularist's Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man and his
supposed redemption through Christr Reason and Experience the true guide in
human actions Why supreme attention should be given to the duties of this life.
Science more trustworthy than reliance upon any supposed Supenja ural power.
Morality is of natural growth, haying no necessary connection w thT/tflogy. Tne'
consistent carrying out of Secular teaching in every day life the best preparation for
any future exis’ence,
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
Contents.—Bib|e Morality, Bible Teachings, Tqe Christian’s Theory of the j
Bible, The Bible as a Guide.
AGNOSTICISM AND € HRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price lO cents.
Contents.—(1) What is Agnosticism ? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and to
Chi istian Theism. (3) Is it sufficient to sati.-ify man s" intellectual fequirements.
The batural and the Supernatural.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
10 cents. '
Contents.—What is Evolution ? The Formation of Worlds. Tee Beginning
Life upon the Earth. Origin of Man. Diversity of Living 1'nings. Physical
Powers. The Future of Man on Earth.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH1
24 pages in cover : price 1 Oc.
Contents. —The orthodox division of mankind in*o only two classes an error
Who are the Saints? Catholic and Protestant Saints. Pre-ordained and
Free-will Saints The Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily and HalfandJHalf Saints. Who are the >pipers, and what is 'in,? The relative value
of the servic&rendered to the world py Saints and finders,
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE’ CHRISTIAN SUNDAY:^ A
Plea for-Liberty and <Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
Contents.—Introduction The Sabbath : Its Origin. Tne Institution - of Sun
day. Sabbatarian Inconsistency r- Sabbatarianism and Morality. A Free Sunday
and a Day of Rest.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF?* 22 pages in cover; price 10e.
Contents.—Wnerein does the Glory of Unbelief consist? dUnbehef widespread
amongst all classes, Wnat is Unbelief? Its true nature defined- Can it be dis
pensed with ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done for the world.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL;
or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE, 24 pages, price io cents.
Content^.—I. Whatjdowe Know of.Nature-? IL Th^Grandeur ind Potency
of Nature. III. The Supernatural. IV. What is the Supernatural ?■ V. Belief
and Knowledge. VI; Religion ; Natural and Supernatural.
.
i
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the-Justice^ of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to.Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages iif cover; price 10c.
p
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.'
Dr R. F Burfis, of Halifax, N.S, 16 pages, jtfricb 5c.
In this letter the following subjects are dealt with ". I. Why do the Clergy Avoid
Debate? 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towards Christianity. 3. Freethopgbt
and Men of Science. 4. The Difference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ
and Heroism. 6. Christianity and Slavery.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
last published/
CHRISTIANITY: DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARYKate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price to cents.
-By
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? fl.“ Our Father Which art in
Heaven.” lit Tfae FaiJ and the Atonements fV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity. V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT:
(The Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union).
A. Journal of
TTiomglit.
CHARLIES WATTS - - Editor
Secular Thought is devoted mainly to the promulgation of Cqnstructive Sh3ularisin in the affairs of everyday life and is purely
Agnostic in reference th all phases of Alleged Supernatural ism.
Secular Thought is published every SATti'iDAY, at Millichamp’s
Buiiding, 31 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, OnL
Terms : $2.00 a Year (paid iff advance); $1.00 for six months.
Single copies, 6 cents
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE
-----
TORONTO, ONT
�
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
Science and the Bible : wherein they differ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Spine title: Pamphlets by Charles Watts. Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Science</span> and <span class="highlight">the</span> <span class="highlight">Bible</span> : <span class="highlight">wherein</span> <span class="highlight">they</span> <span class="highlight">differ</span>), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA840
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
Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9da8cdbd3edb18aa2c5be0b3afe02111.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=XeWyjo5rHh2x5gDgGt7rvS-tGDOzDbYQVO3Ny6qNg5iYdFj68wyyiPUaXgu1y4clfVRw2I4dEIE9bEWPkHa8ZM96KrwyfYgNGlU-iH-2xQb49A6kQH8ZvNKqUK2zuIlRMW72ewl7nVEQjAVA8UnlX55t2dVaoQVC7hjroW6tZy9sSo94glI%7EEEGwDwhY26l%7ECctmfx32cGBZy6sFjtBVi0uSEFEHqZjKU1-67YVP4VU9qZQ%7EV2lPylrIPoLG31BTgHchl2WLFdq1PWiXujzdZKcRb4XLJxIrovhAxZb0KKGQbajjh4Q6mVwPkszgQUeSAR9zNDbH6QANhv2q2kvZTg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3297c1449aebe6cd8a2da5c1fb866b82
PDF Text
Text
Is It Founded
on
Reason, and Is It Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
and
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
H.
GARBENER
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
- 25
CENTS.
��PREFACE,
The following discussion was conducted during 1889, the paper
of each ^disputant appearing both in the Halifax Evening Mail
and in Secular Thought. The debate originated in the Editor
of the Mail issuing, in his paper of July 3rd, 1889, the sub-,
joined challenge to Mr. Watts, which, it will be seen, contains
also the conditions that governed the controversy:—“ If Mr.
Watts is anxious to present his views to the public, the Evening
Mail offers him an audience larger than could by any possibility
be packed in any public building in Halifax. The Evening Mail
denies Mr. Watts’ affirmation : ‘ That Secularism is based on
human reason and is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.’
To the discussion of this question we challenge Mr. Watts to a
controversy, he to take the initiative. Mr. Watts on his part
will have the privilege of publishing three articles in our col
umns alternately with three articles written by the Editor of
the Evening Mail, Mr. Watts to close the controversy in a fourth
article one-third of a column in length, in which he shall be
allowed to introduce no new, matter.” On July 10th Mr. Watts
sent the following reply : “ To the Editor of the Evening Mail:
Sir,—My attention has been called to an editorial in your issue
dated July 3, in which you invite me to discuss the proposition,
‘ That Secularism is based on human reason, and is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind.’ This you deny, and challenge me
to affirm the proposition in your columns. Your invitation is
given in such courteous language, and accompanied with stipu
lations so fair, that I accept your challenge upon the following
conditions, viz.: That my opening article appear first in Secular
Thought, from which you can copy it in the Mail, wherein you
will also insert your reply, which I will reproduce in Secular
�iv
PREFACE.
Thought; the subsequent articles in the debate to also appear in
a similar manner in each of the above-named papers.”
The conditions mentioned above being mutually agreed upon,
the discussion commenced in Secular Thought August 3rd, 1889.
That what has been advanced by either disputant may be
carefully read and studied is my earnest and sincere wish.
Charles Watts.
February 27th, 1890.
THE OPINION OF THE “ FATHER OF SECULARISM.”
“ Mr. Watts’ statement of Secular principles and policy, in his
debate with the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail is the best
I have ever seen. He distinguishes clearly and boldly that the
Secularist moves on the planes of Reason and Utility.
“ George Jacob Holyoake.”
(In his letter to the Toronto Secular Convention, 1889.)
�V
PREFACE.
COLONEL INGERSOLL’S OPINION.
400 Fifth Avenue, Feb. 9th, 1890.
My Dear Mr. Watts,—I have just read the debate between
yourself and the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail, N. S.
Your statement as to what Secularism is could not be improved
and your definitions of certain terms are accurate and lucid. I
have never read better. The Editor of the Mail does not under
stand you. He has not enough intelligence to grasp your
meaning. When you ask for a better guide than Reason, he
does not see that he cannot even deny that reason is the best of
all guides without admitting that it is. Suppose he had said
that the Bible is a better guide than reason, he would have been
compelled tc have given his reasons for the assertion, and in
doing this would have admitted that reason had been his guide.
I can hardly call this a debate that you had with the editor of
the Mail. In a debate there ought to be arguments on tooth
sides All the argument is on your side. Your antagonist refused
to come into the ring. He kept outside the ropes and even in
that place threw up the sponge.
You are doing a great and splendid work in Canada. Every
Freethinker ought to stand by you, and no one can afford to do
without Secular Thought. Best regards to Mrs Watts from
us all and to you.
Yours always,
R. G. Ingersoll.
�I
�INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN H. GARDENER.
When Mr. Charles Watts told me, about four years ago, that he
was going to Canada to start a Freethought paper I made up my
mind that he had taken leave of a large part of his usual good
judgment and was about to fly in the face of providence—so to
speak.
Canada and a Freethought paper impressed me as elements
that would refuse to mix. I thought I knew the characteristics
of both, somewhat intimately. I expected to hear of the arrest
of Mr. Watts and the discontinuance of his paper by the end of
the first month. I did not believe that Canada was ready for
his sturdy, vigorous style of advocacy of Secularism.
It appears, however, that I mistook the temper and trend
of the times and things in Canada, and that the past ten
years have made a vast change, not only in the States, but over
the border as well. And so to-day we see Mr. Watts not only
successfully conducting an able and fearless Freethought journal
in Toronto, and lecturing throughout the provinces ; but, also,
able to induce one of the editors of a leading daily paper to en
gage in a debate on the relative merits of Secularism and Chris
tianity, and to publish the same in the columns of his paper—the
Halifax Evening Mail. Thus Mr. Watts reaches not only the
avowed Liberal thinkers, but the conservatives also.
In reference to the debate, it is not necessary for me in this
Introduction to go into the merits of the case and attempt to point
out the defects in the argument of the Editor of the Mail. Mr.
�viii
INTRODUCTION.
Watts has proved himself fully able to do that. Indeed, the first
time I heard Mr. Watts debate in public I was so sorry for his
opponent that I felt almost inclined to take his side of the ar
gument. Mr. Watts gave him such an unmerciful intellectual
drubbing that it seemed to me every mental bone in his body
must have been broken, and that when Mr. Watts should let go
of his collar—as one might say—he would sink into mere pulp.
Yet it was all done with that courtesy of language and manner
which distinguishes Mr. Watts in debate.
Mr. Watts does not find it necessary to “ call names ” in lieu
of argument. He has facts on the tip of his tongue and logic
always “ on call.” He is not compelled to dodge the issue and take
refuge in vocal pyrotechnics—mere mental and verbal gymnastics
—to befog the minds of his readers and so cover his own retreat.
In short, I have always looked upon Mr. Watts as a masterly
debater, and I know’of few people—if any—who would not be
running a very serious danger of defeat in venturing to join
issue with Mr. Watts on the platform. There is one point to
which I wish to call especial attention touching this discussion.
It is to the splendid fact that the day is past when such a debate
as this can be suppressed. Only a little while ago not only Mr.
Watts would have “ found his occupation gone,” but the editor
of the Evening Mail would not have dared to give an honour
able, honest hearing to his opponent through the columns of his
paper. He could not have ventured to give Mr. Watts an open
field and to print ungarbled what was said by his antagonist in
belief. Canada is to be congratulated that she is now free
enough to do this and that some of her editors dare give the real
arguments and opinions of the unbelievers in organised supersti
tion. Until the Press is wholly free to do this; until it cannot
be boycotted or intimidated for it, there will be no such thing as
a free Press, and without an absolutely free Press all liberty is
in constant danger. This debate, therefore, serves a double
purpose. It not only enables Secularism and Christianity to try
conclusions ; but it gives the measure of liberty and freedom of
speech and Press to which Canada has attained in the year 1889.
�INTRODUCTION.
ix
The daily papers are a reflex of the public pulse. It is the easiest
and surest way to determine the stage of civilisation at which
we have arrived to simply watch the daily papers and read
between the lines.
If any subject or class is refused an honest hearing we may
be very sure that there is an iron hand on the throat of some
body. The grip is loosening when an editor here and there
•dares to give space to both sides—to all sides. The measure of
manhood is lengthening. The power of superstition is broken.
A better day is dawning. The Press no longer crawls at the
feet of dogmatic belief chained io the dead and ignorant past.
No honest cause ever needed suppression as an ally. The truth
is not afraid to measure conclusions with a mistake and give the
mistake an open field. Any argument that can hold its own
only by silencing its antagonist by force, thereby proclaims itself
built upon falsehood and sustained by fraud.
The pioneers of this new and real liberty of speech and Press
are, therefore, the landmarks in the new era. For this reason I
feel like congratulating Canada that the Halifax Mail and its
•editor as well as Mr, Charles Watts chose homes within her
borders. I think we may say that all thoughtful people will be
interested in the arguments of the Christian editor, who not only
has the courage of his own convictions, but the courage and
manliness to present to his readers the ungarbled convictions
•of his opponent also. Courage is a noble quality, and when it is
mental and moral as well as physical its possessor is well on his
way to a high order of civilisation.
I need not commend Mr. Watts and what he says to the
Liberal public. He has done that for himself; but I want to
repeat that there are other reasons than admiration of his ability
why such a debate as this should be- welcomed and widely read
by both sides. It shows which way the wind is blowing in more
ways than one. It shows what thoughts and opinions are on
the down grade. It is a landmark of our progress toward fair
play, and there is something for both parties to be proud of when
neither one skulks behind silence and suppression. Which ever
�X
INTRODUCTION.
argument the reader finds to his liking, therefore, he need not be
ashamed to say, “ This is my champion. He has come to the
front like a man for our cause and he has refused to take advan
tage of ‘kis adversary.” This is a proud boast, and it could be
made of few debates where a representative of organised super
stition had charge of one end of the arrangements and of an
organ which printed the discussion.
Therefore let us congratulate Christianity that she has at last
reached a point where she feels herself capable of fairness and
possessed of sufficient courage to be honest. And let us felicitate
Secularism that she had within her ranks the right man to ably,
courteously, and with the self-poise of the veteran, conduct her
side of the debate on a plane of thought and with a dexterity of
touch which all who know Mr. Watts so greatly admire.
Helen H. Gardener.
�SECULARISM:
A DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OE THE HALIFAX,
N.S., “EVENING MAIL” AND CHARLES WATTS.
The Proposition : “ Secularism is bastd on human reason, and is suffi
cient to meet the needs of mankind.”
Mb.. Watts affirms;
the
Editor of the Evening Mail denies.
Opening of the Debate.
BY CHARLES WATTS.
In supporting my affirmation of the above proposition, I have
been requested by my opponent to do three things : First, to
explain what Secularism is ; secondly, to define the leading terms
in the proposition ; and, in the last place, to show in what way
Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.
What is Secularism? In its etymological signification, it
means the age, finite, belonging to this world. Secularists, how
ever, use the term in a more amplified sense, as embodying a
■philosophy of life and inculcating rules of conduct that have no
necessary association with any system of theology. By this is.
meant that, while there are some phases of theology to which a
■Secularist could give his assent, it is quite possible to live noble
and exemplary lives apart from any and all theologies. For in
stance, Theists who are not orthodox can belong to a Secular So
ciety, as can also Atheists, although Secularism does not exact
either the affirmation of the one or the negation of the other. The
word Secularism was selected about 50 years ago by Mr. George
Jacob Holyoake to represent certain principles which recognized
“ the moral duty of man in this life, deduced from considera
tions which pertain to this life alone.” Such a selection was
deemed desirable, in order to enable those persons who could not
accept orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to
find elsewhere principles to direct and sustain them in the cor
�4
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
rect performance of their respective duties. Secularism is as far
as possible, the practical application of all knowledge’to the
regulation of human conduct, and apart from speculations and
beliefs which are unfounded, or unproved, or opposed to reason
Secular Principles. These, as Mr. Holyoake has frequently
-explained, “ relate to the present existence of man and to methods
of procedure the issues of which can be tested by the experience
of this life. . . . Secular principles have for their object to fit
men for time. Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by
'Considerations purely human. Its principles are founded upon
mature, and its object is to render men as perfect as possible in
this life,” whether there be a future existence or not. The Six
great Cardinal Principles of Secularism, as officially taught
by the Canadian Secular Union (incorporated under the general
Act of Parliament in 1877-1885), are briefly as follows:—
1. That the present life being the only one of which we have
any knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention. 2. That
Reason, aided by Experience, is' the best guide for human con
duct. 3. That to endeavour to promote the individual and
general Well-being of Society to the best of our ability is our
highest and immediate duty. 4. That the only means upon
,-which we can rely for the accomplishment of this object is
human effort, based upon knowledge and justice. 5. Conduct
is to be judged by its results only—what conduces to the general
^Vell-being is right, what has the opposite tendency is wrong.
6. That Science and its application is our Providence, or Pro
vider, and upon it we rely in preference to aught else in time of
need.
Secular Teachings.—(1) That truth, justice, sobriety, fidelity,
honour and love are essential to good lives. (2) That actions
are of more consequence to the welfare of Society than beliefs
in creeds and dogmas. (3) That “prevention is better than
curewe therefore, as Secularists, seek to render, as far as cir
cumstances will permit, depraved conditions impossible. (4)
That the best means of securing this improvement are, self-re
liance, moral culture, physical development, intellectual disci
pline, and whatever else is found necessary to secure this object.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
5
provided our actions do not, unjustly and unnecessarily, infringe
upon the rights of others. (5) That the disbelief in Christianity,,
or in other systems of theology, may be as much a matter of:
honest conviction as the belief in it or them. (6) That persecu
tion for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of theology is acrime against society, and an insult to mental freedom. (7) That
the Secular good and useful in any of the religions of the world
should be accepted and acted upon, without the obligation of'
having to believe in any form of alleged supernaturalism.
(8)«
That a well-spent life, guided and controlled by the highest,
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and?
happy death. (9) That the principle of the “ Golden Rule ”
should be observed in all controversy, and that courtesy, good
will, kindness, and a respectful consideration for the opinions
of those who differ from us should characterize our deal
ings with opponents. (10) That from a domestic standpoint
there should be no attempt at superiority between husband
and wife; that equality should be the emblem of every home,,
and that the fireside should be hallowed by mutual fidelity, affec
tion, happiness, and the setting of an example worthy of chil
dren’s emulation. These principles and teachings form the basis
of the Secularists’ faith—a faith which rests not upon conjec
tures as to a future life,'but upon the reason, experience, and
requirements of this.
Basis of Secularism. The exercise of Freethought, guided by
reason, experience, and general usefulness. By Freethought is
here meant the right to entertain any opinions that commend
themselves to the judgment of the honest and earnest searcher
after truth without his being made the victim of social ostracism
in this world, or threatened with punishment in some other.
The law of mental science declares the impossibility of uniform
ity of belief upon theological questions, therefore, Freethought
should be acknowledged as being the heritage of the human race.
Secular Morality. This consists in the performance of acts
that will exalt and ennoble human character, and in avoiding
conduct that is injurious either to the individual or to society at
large. The source of moral obligation is in human nature, and
�f)
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
the sanctions of, and incentives to, ethical culture are the pro
tection and improvement both of the individual and of the
community.
Secularism and Theology. The relation of Secularism to the
great problems of the existence of God and a Future life is that
of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying. If a person think
that he has evidence to justify his belief in a God and immor
tality, there is nothing in Secularism to prevent his having such
a belief. Hence, Atheism should not be confounded with Secu
larism, which is quite a different question. The subjects of Deity
and a Future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if
possible, for themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to
dogmatize upon matters of which it can impart no information.
Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistical profession as
the basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists, but it is
not considered necessary that a man should accept Atheism to
enable him to become a Secularist. The Secularist platform is
sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists or non
orthodox Theists. Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds ; it only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to
pursue aprogressive career independent of all speculative theology.
Negative Aspect of Secularism. Secularism is positive to the
true and good in every religion, but it is negative towards that
which is false and injurious. Our destructive work consists in
endeavouring to destroy that which has too often interfered
with our constructive efforts. Our negative policy “has been
to combat priests and laws, wherever priests or laws interfere
with Freethought—that is, our mission has been to act as a John
in the wilderness, to make way for science, and to make silence
for philosophy.”
Definition of Terms. Reason we define as being man’s highest
intellectual powers, the understanding, the faculty of judgment,
the power which discriminates, infers, deduces, and judges, the
ability to premise future probabilities from past experience and
to distinguish truth from error. Reason, says Morell, is that
which gives unity and solidarity to intellectual processes, “ aid
ing us at once in the pursuit of truth and in adapting our lives
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
7
to the state of things in which they exist” (“Mental Philosophy,’’
p. 232). “ It is the guide and director of human activity ” {Ibid.,
p. 235). Hooker, in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” says reason de
termines “ what is good to be done ; ” and Chillingworth, the
eminent Christian writer, in his “Religion of Protestants,” ob
serves :—“ Reason gives us knowledge; while faith only gives us
oelief, which is a part of knowledge and is, therefore, inferior to
it. . . .it is by reason alone that we can distinguish truth from,
falsehood ” * (quoted by Buckle in his “ History of Civiliza
tion ”). Bishop Butler remarks, “ Reason is indeed the only
faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even
revelation itself ” (“ Analogy of Religion,” p. 176).
Experience. This represents knowledge acquired through
study, investigation, and observation in the broadest sense
possible. We do not use the word in the limited form, as
Whately employs it, simply as individual experience, but as
comprising the world’s legacy of thought, action, scientific appli
cation and mental culture, so far as we are enabled to avail our
selves of these intellectual agencies.
Intuition. This I regard to be a mental recognition of an
impression or sensation as being the truth without the process
of reasoning. Intuition, therefore, differs from rehson and ex
perience inasmuch as it excludes the possibility of correcting a
mental impression by reflection and philosophical investigation.
The nature and value of intuition depend upon the intellectual
condition of the person who has it, upon his training, and the
surroundings which have formed and moulded his conceptions
or beliefs. The intuition of a savage is very different from that
of a civilized person, and the same difference obtains among the
devotees of the different religions of the earth. Moreover, my
opponent’s intuition may suggest to him that a certain thing
was right which my intuition in all probability would consider
wrong. In such cases, what is the factor that is to decide which
is the correct decision ? Secularism says that although Reason,
when assisted by Experience, may not be a perfect guide, it
* The italics are mine.
�8
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is the best known to us up to the present time. If the
editor of the Evening Mail has a monitor superior to the one
^elected by Secularists, let him produce it, and then we can
judge which is the better by comparison.
The terms Needs and “ Sufficient.
I place the following
interpretation upon these words in connection with the proposi
tion under debate. By needs is meant that which 'is actually
necessary, essential to the physical intellectual moral and emo
tional development of the human family. In this controversy
needs should be distinguished from wants, inasmuch as in many
cases a want is only a desire caused by habits not necessary tn
the well-being of society. I regard that as being sufficient the
nature of which is adequate to meet the requirements and to
satisfy the demands of the needs of mankind.
The request of my opponent has now been complied with, so
far as the space allowed me would permit. I have stated what
Secularism is, and have given a brief intimation of its principles,
teachings, and ethical basis. A definition has also been furnished
of what we mean by the terms reason, experience, intuition,
needs and sufficient. A statement of what human needs are and
wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them must be reserved
for my next article. In the meantime I shall read with consid
erable interest whatever my respected opponent may have to
say in reply to what is herein set forth.
THE “ EVENING MAIL’S ” FIRST ARTICLE, IN REPLY TO CHA REFS
WATTS.
In consenting to this debate we desired such a precise definition
of terms as would enab.e us both at the outset clearly to com
prehend the subject matter and scope of the discussion. Though
Mr. Watts’ thesis bears the stamp of sincerity, its definitions are
laboured and involved, vague or tautological; and the difficulties
which perplex his mind and unnerve his hand are manifestly
those which have for the most part entirely disappeared before
the enlightened thought of these more modern days.
We asked Mr. Watts for a clear and precise definition of
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
“ Secularism ; ” but he responds with numerous variations and
repetitions which only serve to confuse the reader’s mind, while
demonstrating beyond a doubt that Mr. Watts has never yet ob
tained a clear and comprehensive conception of the tenets of the
so-called Secularist faith. • For instance, under “ Secular prin
ciples,” we are furnished with “ the six great cardinal principles
of Secularism as officially taught.” But not content with this
official” statement, Mr. Watts reinforces it with a statement of
“ Secular teachings,” six [ten] in number, which differ more or less
from the preceding principles as they are “ officially taught.”
Then, as if fearful that “ Secular principles ” as “ officially
taught,” even though combined with “ Secular teachings,” might
not convey a clear conception of what “ Secularism ” is, Mr
Watts proceeds to state “the basis of Secularism” and to define
*
“ Secular morality,” as if these were different and distinct from
confusion, although under “ Secularism and theology ” we are
*
informed that “ Secularism fetters man with no theological
creeds,”—a purely negative aspect,—Mr. Watts proceeds to de
fine under another head “ the negative aspect of Secularism.”
All this serves to convince the reader that even Mr. Watts, the
professed exponent of this new faith, is in the unfortunate pre
dicament of having no clear and definite conception of his own
beliefs, and that, as a result, his attempts at elucidation only
serve to bewilder, confuse, and perhaps amuse those who intelli
gently strive to follow him through his illogical and labyrinthine
meanderings.
Equally unhappy is Mr. Watts in his antiquated allusion to
reason as a faculty of the mind, more especially as it is coupled
with the affirmation that “ Secularism is based on human reason.”
As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy all human needs, could
be based on a faculty of mind ! But our purpose is not to raise
mere quibbles in this debate, but rather to tear aside the covering
of antiquated verbiage with which Mr. Watts has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all
their naked reality. It is gratifying to us, therefore, that Mr.
Watts has not been completely bewildered by his wide knowledge
�10
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
of philosophical antiquities, but that his sound common «ense
leads him to reject the discarded conceptions of Butler, and more
correctly to define reason as “ the understanding, the faculty of
judgment, the power which discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges.” With this view we are more disposed to coincide, and
therefore, for the purposes of discussion we will consent to per
sonify reason as that which “ discriminates, infers, deduces and
judges; ” in a word, as that which weighs evidence.
Even Mr. Watts appears to have been convinced of the absurd
ity of his own affirmation that the Secularist faith is based on a
faculty of mind, and to have inclined to his other view that
reason is that which weighs evidence; for he immediately pro
ceeds to define Experience and Intuition as two sources of evi
dence, although these terms had hitherto been utterly foreign
to the controversy.
Ip closing Mr. Watts says: “ A statement of what human
needs are and wherein Secularism is sufficient to satisfy them
must be reserved for our next article ”; and therefore we are
forced to restrict ourselves for the present to Mr. Watts’ first
affirmation “ that Secularism is based on human reason ”; in a
word, that Secularism is based on evidence.
What then is Secularism ? Its first principle is, we are told,
“ that the present life being the only one of which we have any
knowledge, its concerns claim our earnest attention.” But herein
lies the assumption that our present individual existence is the
only life of which we may be cognizant. Where is the evidence
to support that assertion ? The “ concerns ” of this life “ claim
our earnest attention ! ” What evidence is there of the validity
of this claim ? What obligation is there to live at all ?
2. “ That reason aided by experience is the best guide for
human conduct.” Then reason alone is not the sole basis of
Secularism! And again we are told that “ although reason,
when assisted by experience, may not be a perfect guide, it is
the best known to us up to the present time.” Again we call for
evidence to substantiate this statement. Surely . Secularism
would make no assumptions ?
3. “ That to endeavour to promote the individual and general
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
11
well-being of society, to the best of our ability, is our highest
and immediate duty.” Again we ask what right has Secularism
to assume that there is any “ duty ” obligatory upon us ? Can
we impose such a “ duty ” upon ourselves ? If not, who has
imposed these duties upon us ?
4. Thus we might go through the list of “ Secular principles,”
and ask if “ knowledge and justice,” as alleged, are alone suffi
cient to promote the highest well-being of the individual and of
society. Are not benevolence and self-sacrifice equally essential ?
5. What claim to validity has the suspicious statement that
conduct is to be judged by results alone ? The doctrine of
these “ expediency moralists ” has been rejected by the vast
majority of men since it was first propounded over twenty
centuries ago. What evidence is there forthcoming to show that
this principle is based on reason ?
6. That we should rely upon Science as our Providence or
Provider in preference to aught else ! Science may provide food,
drink and apparel. But it depends upon the nature of the man
as to whether these provisions are complete and satisfactory.
The Hottentot knows few scientific appliances, and discards fine
raiment as well as savoury viands. Neither Hottentot modes of
life nor Hottentot morality may be expected to satisfy the needs
of this nineteenth century civilization.
These six Secular principles are assumed by Mr Watts, who
furnishes no evidence whatever as to their validity. The ten
teachings of Secularism must also be proved on grounds of utility
alone, since Mr. Watts accepts without evidence the utilitarian
tenet that “whatever conduces to the general well-being is right,
whatever has the opposite tendency is wrong.” But if Mr, Watts
will only furnish evidence of our personal obligation to speak
the truth, it may, perhaps, surprise him to find equally reliable
evidence of his obligation to believe in the existence of a God.
But these Secular teachings are of slight importance to this con
troversy. They are not new to Christian morality. That actions
are of more consequence than beliefs may, doubtless, be disputed,
since beliefs may be the ultimate source of actions. The third
teaching that “ prevention is better than cure ” cannot be accepted
�I
12
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
a Secularist novelty, seeing that centuries ago it passed into a
proverb. The fourth teaching is the theme of every Sunday
school teacher as well as of the Secularist; and what is more to
the point, the Sunday school teacher may make a claim of
priority to this teaching. The fifth teaching that disbelief may
be as much a matter of honest conviction as positive belief makes
against Secularism as much as against Catholicism.
As
for persecution, it is not now upheld in this free country.
And as for the prejudice which Mr. Watts has against “ alleged
supernaturalism,” that would doubtless be allayed if he would
but persist in making a closer study into the deepest of these
problems. The dividing line between the natural and the
supernatural was always an arbitrary one, and is now scarcely
recognized. What more natural than thought ? What more
supernatural than the existence of the thinker ? The “ golden
rule” and the rule for domestic government make up the ten
teachings of Secularism ? The body of these teachings is
accepted by all ? They are chiefly more or less crudely expressed
tenets ef an ethical system which is recognized by the majority,
and to which Secularism can make no special claim.
Nor is there any novelty in the basis of Secularism, which is
defined as the exercise of “ the right to entertain any opinions
that commend themselves to the honest and earnest searcher.”
That is, in exactly the same sense, the basis of politics, of
journalism, of digging drains or breaking stones. Nor does this
basis find any support in what is here crudely expressed as “a
law of mental science.” No “ law of mental science ” declares
the “ impossibility of uniformity of belief upon theological
questions.” We simply find from experience that men think
differently about the same thing, whether it be theology or the
best methods of drainage.
Nor is “ Secular morality ” more properly so described. The
doctrine, that the end of life consists in the perfection of individual
character and the good of the race, is as much a part of
“ Methodist morality ” as of “ Secular morality.”
Here then is the conclusion of this prolonged investigation.
“Secularism ” Is an arbitrarily selected part of our prevalent
as
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
13
moral beliefs. Such additions as are made are of very dubious
validity. The emendations are made without authority; and
the selections are accepted without evidence. For if evidence
were forthcoming it would be found to make the belief in God
as the belief in the morality of truth or justice. Herein is Mr.
Watts’ dilemma. He accepts in part a system of morality which
all accept; or else Secularism is Scepticism, or Agnosticism, pure
and simple. Scepticism which rejects one portion of our moral
beliefs will find no validity or obligation in the other portions
which Mr. Watts accepts. On the other hand, the evidence by
which Mr. Watts could establish the validity of one portion,
gives a like support to all. Secularism must be either identified
with orthodox morality or with scepticism; it cannot be differ
entiated from them both.
But, Mr. Watts adds, by way of excuse for the anomalous
position which he has assumed, “ the subjects of deity and a
future life Secularism leaves for persons to decide, if possible,
themselves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise
upon matters of which it can impart no information. ” But
herein lies the abject weakness of Secularism. Kant has said
that we cannot assume an air of indifference toward God, free
dom of the will, and immortality, which are always of deepest
interest to mankind. Mr. Watts refuses to think of these
problems which are of deepest interest to mankind; so other
men might determine to give up thinking altogether and live the
life of the brutes; but could they expect the majority of man
kind to follow their example ? Secularism refuses to inform us
upon these problems, and very properly so! So might the
sayage refuse to inform us of the moral principles which obtain
even in Mr. Watts’ meagre system of ethics.
In conclusion we scarcely need to ’remind Mr. Watts that it
yet remains for him to establish that Secularism “ is sufficient
to meet the needs of mankind,” a proposition which he has
elected to deal with in his second article. But before entering
upon that discussion it will be pertinent to the enquiry upon
which we have already entered for him to establish the validity
of those ethical principles and teachings which even Secularism
�14
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
is found to uphold. Mr. Watts professes to reject unreservedly
the Theistic system of ethics, and yet holds to certain of these
very same ethical teachings. He can only satisfy the needs of
this discussion by bringing forward evidence of the validity of
these accepted teachings, which evidence must, if he is consistent,
be found to have valid authority, even though the Theistic belief
be utterly rejected.
MR. WATTS’ SECOND ARTICLE.
In times before science had demonstrated the folly of the belief
in witchcraft and in the existence of a peregrinating devil,
there lived, it is said, a great magician.
He claimed to have a
secret by which he could at any moment summon King Beelze
bub and compel him to do his bidding. The magician had an
apprentice who one day listened at the keyhole of his master’s
sanctum, and learned the great secret of raising the Devil. The
next day during the absence of the magician the boy performed
the necessary incantations, and, lo and behold the devil came
up at his bidding. But, horror of horrors ! the boy got terrified
and he wanted his satanic majesty to retire again by the way
he had come. But this could not be accomplished, and the devil
remained, sadly to the discomfort of the poor lad.
This story aptly illustrates the present position of the
Editor of the EvcTt'i'tiQ Alciil in this debate. Enamoured by
certain theological incantations, he probably thought that he
could call forth such definitions that would paralyze the force of
the affirmation of the proposition. But, lo and behold when
the said definitions appeared they so terrified him as to “ perplex
his mind and unnerve his hand,” and he could take no definite
exception to any of them but the first, and with this one he
actually imagined “ difficulties which have for the most part
entirely disappeared before the enlightened thought of these
more modern days.”
My opponent in issuing his challenge to debate this question
very properly made the “demand ” that I should define Secular
ism and give its “ basic element ” ; that I should explain “ reason
�DERATE ON SECULARISM.
15
as distinguished from intuition and from experience ”; that I
should present a “statement of the ethical teachings of Secularism,
and the grounds of their validity.” Furthermore, he requested
a specification of the interpretation to be placed upon the terms
“ sufficient ” and “ needs.” To these fair requirements I readily
acceded in my opening article. Unfortunately, however, in doing
so I failed to please my opponent. Frankly, this did not surprise
me; still, it might, perhaps, have been more dignified on his
part if, instead of finding so much fault with my style of writing,
he had tried to answer my arguments.
According to my opponent I do not understand Secularism.
He says that “ beyond a doubt ” I have not a clear and com
prehensive conception ” of Secular tenets; and he charges me
with “ repetitions,” ignoring the fact that he does the same thing
himself in repeating, in almost the same words, this very charge.
But it is significant that he does not once make an effort to sub
stantiate his allegation; neither does he offer any other definition
of Secularism than the one given by me. In a debate of this kind
mere assertion is not enough, therefore, I await the proof for the
statement that “ Mr. Watts is in the unfortunate predicament of
having no clear or definite conception of his own beliefs.” It
•may also strengthen my opponent’s position if he can verify his
assertion that the Secular teachings which I mentioned “ differ
more or less,” from the Secular principles as “officially taught.”
The gentleman is also premature in charging me with affirming
that “the Secularist faith is based on a faculty of the mind.”
The term “ mind ” is not used by me in any of my definitions,
but as my opponent has introduced the word perhaps he will
define in what sense he employs it, and then I may deal with
his exclamation, “ As if a faith, which is supposed to satisfy
all human needs, could be based on a faculty of mind ! ” We are
next told that Experience and Intuition are terms that had
hitherto “been utterly foreign to the controversy,” and yet my
opponent demanded in his challenge that I should define these
very terms. Is not this “verbiage,” and a fair specimen of
“ illogical and labyrinthine meanderings ? ”
As I am pledged to deal in this article with the second part of
�16
DEBATE ON SECULARISM^
our proposition, namely, the sufficiency of Secularism to meet
the needs of mankind, I am compelled to reserve for my third
article a review of my opponent’s remarks upon Secular prin
ciples and teachings. These remarks, though bearing “ the
stamp of sincerity,” appear to me to be exceedingly “ laboured,
vague, and tautological.”
In order that I may not misrepresent the position of my no
doubt well-intentioned antagonist when I further reply to his
criticism, will he kindly answer in his next article the following
questions ? (1) Does the first Secular principle necessarily involve
the “ assumption ” that there is no future life ? (2) What better
guide is known for human conduct than that which Secularism
offers ? (3) Where does Secularism teach that “ knowledge and
justice alone ” are sufficient to promote the welfare of society ?
(4) What does my opponent understand by the term “ expedi
ency moralists ” ? (5) In what part of Christian morality is it
taught that any or all of the theological systems of the world
can be rejected by the honest searcher for truth, without his in
curring the risk of punishment hereafter ? (6) In what way *
does the fifth Secular teaching, as given in my previous article,
“ make against Secularism ” ? (7) What evidence is there that
the “ existence of the thinker is supernatural ” ? (8) Did Kant .
admit that by reason the existence of God and the belief in im
mortality could be demonstrated ? (9) Where is the proof that
" Mr. Watts refuses to think of these problems ” ?
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity
consists in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human
needs ? In the second paragraph of my opening article I men
tioned one fact to prove the necessity of Secular philosophy,
namely, that inasmuch as moral conduct is indispensable to the
well-being of society, Secularism has been found necessary to
enable those persons who could not accept orthodox Christianity
as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere principles to direct
and sustain them in the correct performance of their respective
duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto remained
silent.
/
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
17
I will now show in what way Secularism is sufficient to
meet the needs of mankind. What are these needs ?
(1.) Development of Man’s Physical Organisation. This is
regarded by Secularists as being the first important need, inas
much as upon the due observance of the laws of healtend,h dep
not only personal and general physical soundness, but also, to a
large extent, mental vigour and intellectual usefulness. To
satisfy this need Secularism urges the necessity of studying and
adopting the best means possible to secure sound bodies and
pure surroundings. Experience proves that health has obtained
and life has been prolonged, in proportion to practical attention
being given to the facts of science. This truth establishes the
reasonableness of the Secular principle that applied Science is
the Providence of Man.
(2.) Cultivation of our Moral Nature. To put it plainly and
briefly, by moral action we mean the performance of deeds that
will encourage virtue and discourage vice; that will foster
truth, honour, justice, temperance, industry, and fidelity; and
that will enhance the welfare both of the individual and of
society. Secularism teaches that the source of morality is in
human nature, and that its inspiration is in the happiness, pro
gress, and elevation of the human race. Experience furnishes
the means that enable us to judge of the ethical superiority of
some actions over others, and reason is the standard whereby we
can discriminate and judge right from wrong.
(3.) Cultivation of our Intellectuality. Secularism alleges
that such cultivation can be effectually acquired only by the
possession of knowledge and its correct application, which con
stitutes true education. This, as Taine remarks, “ draws out and
disciplines a man ; fills him with varied and rational ideas : pre
vents him from sinking into monomania or being exalted by
transport; gives him determinate thoughts instead of eccentric
fancies, pliable opinions for fixed convictions; replaces impetuous
images by calm reasonings, sudden resolves by the result of re
flection; furnishes us with the wisdom and ideas of others;
gives us conscience and self-command.” Surely such a course of
�18
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
training as this must be admitted to have its source in reason
and to be justified by experience.
(4.) Fostering of domestic happiness. Secularism alleges that
happiness and just contentment in the home are of paramount
importance. Domestic misery destroys the usefulness of indi
viduals, robs life of its sweetest charms, and wrecks the peace
smd comfort of whole families. To avoid this deplorable evil,
Secularism teaches that purity, love, fidelity, mutual confidence,
and connubial equality should reign in every household; that
between husband and wife there should be no claim to superi
ority in their matrimonial relationship; that “ a man possessing
the love of an honourable and intelligent woman has a priceless
treasure, worthy of constant preservation in the casket of his
affections.” It is, therefore, but just that the wife should main
tain her position of equality in the domestic circle, for without
this the blessings of unalloyed happiness and the inestimable
advantages of pure love will never adorn the “ temple of home.”
(5.) Promotion of social harmony. This, according to Secu
larism, consists in the human family living peaceably and amic
ably together upon the principle of the brotherhood of man.
The strong should help the weak, and the wealthy should respect
the interests and rights of the poor. Benevolence and self-sacri
fice should be ever ready to bestow a service when and where
necessity calls for their aid. Personal pleasure should never be
had at the cost of the public good, and the utmost individual
freedom should be granted, provided that in its exercise the rights
of others are not invaded. To fully realize such harmony, there
should be no forced theological belief and no persecution, or
social ostracism, for unbelief. Other things being equal, the sin
cere sceptic should be regarded with the same degree of respect
and fairness as the honest Christian. No one system has all the
truth, and no one religion can command universal assent; there
fore Secularism says that differences of opinion ought never to
be allowed to sever the ties of love andffriendship, or to mar the
usefulness of mutual fellowship and co-operation.
(6) Religions aspirations and emotional gratification. To
meet these needs, Secularism would substitute personal liberty
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
19
for theological dictation. It is not claimed even by theologians
that religious aspirations are uniform in all nations and among
all peoples. Such aspirations depend for their distinctive features
upon climate, organization, birth, and education. They assume
very different forms among the Chinese, the Buddhists, the
Mohammedans, the Jews and the Christians. Recognising this
diversity of feeling, Secularism deems it right that each person
should be permitted to believe or to disbelieve as he feels justi
fied, and to worship or not to worship as his reason dictates.
The Secular motto is, Freedom for all and persecution for none.
The emotional part of human nature is to the Secularist a reality
to be regulated by cultivated reason and to be controlled by
disciplined judgment. Where this is the case pleasure will not
degenerate into licentiousness and religion will not be degraded
into fanaticism.
The affirmation of the proposition under discussion has now
been stated. In the remaining two articles which by arrange
ment I am to write, my duty will be to analyse my opponent’s
objections to Secular philosophy, and in doing so (to use my
opponent’s words), my object will be “ not to raise mere quibbles,,
.... but rather to tear aside the covering of antiquated verbiage
with which ” the Editor of the Evening Mail “ has cloaked his
views, and to consider these, carefully yet courteously, in all their
naked reality.”
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” SECOND ARTICLE
IN REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
It will have been made clear to thoughtful readers of the pre
ceding articles that, stripped of all extraneous matter, the vital
issues at stake in this discussion are those which Mr. Watts has
deemed it expedient to avoid as much as possible in his second
contribution to the controversy. At the same time, our opponent
manifests an altogether undue anxiety to win unmerited prestige
by intimating that in calling him forth from the quietude of his
sanctum we have succeeded in “ raising the Devil.” We were
very suspicious at the outset, and this second article has only
�20
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
served to confirm the impression, that Mr. Watts is a far less for
midable adversary. For, if the traditions brought down from
the olden times may be relied upon as accurate, his satanic
majesty, though equally clever at begging the question, had
nevertheless the courage of his convictions, and was withal ever
.ready to give a plausible reason for the faith that was in him.
Without being intentionally offensive, we must confess at the
outset that Mr. Watts appears to have coloured the whole reli
gious, moral and social life of man with the false light of his
own personal prejudices. He appears most apprehensive lest his
free expression of opinion should subject him to religious perse
cution, to moral obloquy or to social ostracism. While sym
pathizing deeply with Mr. Watts, if it has been his misfortune
to experience such indignities, we may declare at the outset that
for the sincere seeker after truth, no matter where his investi
gations may lead him, we entertain the most profound respect.
Though educated in the Christian faith, we have the same
respect for Francis Newman, whose deep erudition drove him
into scepticism, as for his brother, John Henry Newman, whose
equally undoubted conscientiousness and profundity of thought
drew him within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church.
Secularism, as somewhat crudely defined by Mr. Watts, em
braces nothing more than a few arbitrarily selected tenets of our
prevailing moral beliefs. Christianity finds the authority and
validity of its ethical code, and an explanation of the personal
obligation of man, his sense of duty, in the existence of a per
sonal and intelligent God, who has a purpose concerning man, in
accord with which he has committed to man’s care an immortal
soul, a personality and consciousness that survive the death of
the body. The Christian religion which prescribes these ethical
teachings as the direct commands of God, gives a meaning to
this sense of duty, of personal obligation, by directly appealing
to our fear, our hope, our love, the most potent passions of the
human heart. Secularism, on the other hand, says Mr. Watts,
assumes the attitude of Agnosticism, neither affirming nor deny
ing the existence of God nor the immortality of the soul. In a
word, it declares that there is no evidence for such beliefs; and
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
21
therefore the moral code which Secularism arbitrarily selects
from the Christian code is by that affirmation denied the author
ity for its validity which Christianity finds in the Theistic belief.
Secularism Mr. Watts has defined as “embodying a philosophy
of life and inculcating rules of conduct which have no necessary
association with any system of theology.” If we would question
the authority of this Secularist code of morals, we are told by
Mr. Watts that “ the sanctions of and incentives to ethical culture
are the protection and improvement both of the individual and
of the community.”
So far as morality is concerned, Mr. Watts practically denies
the existence of God, at least he would exclude all such consider
ations from the discussion of his fragmentary moral code, and
would find in considerations alone affecting the well-being of
society and of the individual, the meaning and authority of
duty which Secularism declines to derive from theologic religion.
On first analysis it will be found that the underlying assumption
here is that society is constantly improving and approaching
perfection; and that this consummation, devoutly to be wished,
is sufficient to incite men to live moral lives, purely from a desire
to accomplish this end. But Professor Huxley, the leader of this
Agnostic school, has himself shown that this theory is wholly
inadequate and ineffective. Instead of finding such progress
exemplified in history as would incite men to worship humanity,
to live for humanity for humanity’s sake, the results of his study
are declared by himself to have proved unutterably saddening;
and, whatever their real merits may be, his words will doubtless
have due weight with Mr. Watts:
“ Out of the darkness of pre-historic ages man emerges with
the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. He is a brute,
only more intelligent than the other brutes; a blind prey to im
pulses which, as often as not, lead him to destruction; a victim
to endless illusions which, as often as not, make his mental exist
ence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren
toil and battle. He attains a certain degree of physical comfort,
and develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such
favourable situations as the plains of Mesopotamia or Egypt, and
then, for thousands and thousansd of years, struggles with vary-
�‘22
DEBATE ON SECULARISM,
ing fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, bloodshed and
misery, to. maintain himself at this point against the greed and
the ambition of his fellow-men. He makes a point of killing or
otherwise persecuting all those who try to get him to move on;
and when he has moved on a step foolishly confers post-mortem
deification on his victims. He exactly repeats the process with
all who want to move a step yet further. And the best men of
the best epoch are simply, those who make the fewest blunders
and commit the fewest sins.....................I know of no study so
unutteiably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity as
it is set forth in the annals of history 5 . . . . £and] when the
Positivists order men to worship Humanity—that is to say, to
®,dore the generalized conception of men, as they ever have been,
and probably ever will be—I must reply that I could just as
soon bow down and worship the generalized conception of a
‘ wilderness of apes.’ ”
But let us admit that from a scientific study of the history of
mankind—in a word, that from human experience it has been
ascertained that certain lines of conduct must be adhered to in
order to conserve the best interests of society as a whole. Society
may enact certain laws embodying that code of morals, and affix
pains and penalties for their transgression ; yet our conception
of the necessity for such laws is very different indeed from our
sense of duty, of personal obligation to pursue a certain line of
conduct in strict conformity with them. The “ must ” and the
“ ought ” are nowise identical. Passive obedience to an external
law differs altogether from a voluntary and active obedience to
a law that is internal. The Secularist fails utterly to give any
satisfactory account of duty; and we make bold to assert that
no satisfactory account ever has been found beyond the pale of
Theism.
But before proceeding further we must congratulate Mr. Watts
upon having radically improved his Secularist code since the
composition of his first article. Benevolence and self-sacrifice
have now for the first time in the discussion found a place among
the Secularist virtues. The Secularist code is without doubt ap
proaching completeness ! To Mr. Watts some credit is due for
having accepted the Christian code as his own, even though his
ethical system is deficient in all that energises and ennobles its
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
prototype. Does Mr. Watts deny that his is, in the main, the
Christian code ? We repeat, as an historical fact, that Christian
teaching first stamped benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the
moral consciousness of the race. It was Christ who first taught >
that he who loseth his life shall find it, that life should consist not in getting for self but in doing for others. For the duty of
benevolence and self-sacrifice, Secularism has, and can find, no
satisfactory explanation. Acting the part of an intellectual
Ananias it cloaks itself in the garb of Christian ethics, while.
dishonestly refusing to pay the only possible price, belief in the
existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe. Secularism
virtually admits that we ought to do something which many
leave undone, and which involves in the doing a painful struggle,
amounting even to self-sacrifice to do. We enquire, when and
why should we undertake this struggle ? Whenever necessity
calls, says Mr. Watts. Which merely amounts to the declaration
that when it is necessary that others should be happy, it is ne
cessary that I should be miserable. But of this necessity Secu
larism gives no satisfactory explanation ! On the one hand is
the way of self-indulgence and of pleasure, on the other the way
of pain and struggle, self-sacrifice, yea, even to the death. Though
human experience may say that it is necessary for the good of
the race that I should follow the path of pain, yet Secularism
leaves unexplained the crucial mystery—that I feel that I ought
to follow this path, not for the public good so much as for my
own good—that though in the struggle I lose my life I shall
nevertheless find it again. The mystery of that word “ ought ”
has never yet been fully explained outside the pale of Christen
dom. Secularism, profiting from prevalent Christian teaching,
may point out what its duties are ; but it fails utterly to create
an all-powerful desire to do them.
And just here it is admissible to revert to a question which Mr.
Watts propounds: “ Did Kant admit that by reason the existence
of God and the belief in immortality can be demonstrated ? ”
Certainly not. He did not admit that these facts could be de
monstrated any more than that the law of the uniformity of
nature can be demonstrated, or than Mr. Watts can demonstrate
�24
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
that his own father once had an existence. Mr. Watts must
know that he cannot, without making a vital assumption, demon
strate to me the fact of his own existence. All existence is
supernatural; phenomena, as made known to the consciousness
through the senses, is alone natural. What Kant did admit is
briefly this: “ My moral nature is such—I possess such a sense
of obligation and feel such imperious calls to holiness—that
unless there be a God and an immortality of the soul I can find
no explanation for it.” Nor does such a method of demonstra
tion differ essentially from that pursued by the natural scientist.
Prof. Huxley has told us that from the nature of ratiocination
it is obvious that it must start from axioms which cannot be
demonstrated by ratiocination, and that in science it must start
from “ one great act of faith ”—faith in the uniformity of
nature.
“ If there be a physical necessity,” says he, “ it is that a stone
unsupported must fall to the ground. But what is all that we
know and can know about this phenomena ? Simply that in all
human experience stones have fallen to the ground under these
conditions; that we have not the smallest reason for believing
that any stone so circumstanced will not fall to the ground ; and
that we have, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it
will so fall.”
From the experience of a stone falling we, by “ one great act
of faith ” in the uniformity of nature, a belief that is neither
demonstrated nor demonstrable, we reach the law of gravitation,
an axiom of natural science. The scientist finds that only by
assuming the fact of the uniformity of nature by this “ one
great act of faith,” can the universe of nature be satisfactorilyexplained. Theologic Religion, to use the pertinent words of
W. H. Malock, replies in like manner : “ And I, too, start with
faith in one thing. I start with a faith which you, too, profess
to hold—faith in the meaning of duty and the infinite import
ance of human life ; and out of that faith my whole fabric of
certainties, one after the other, is reared by the hand of reason.
Do you ask for verification ? I can give you one only which you
may take or leave as you choose. Deny the certainties which I
declare to be certain—deny the existence of God, man’s freedom
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
25-
and immortality, and by no other conceivable hypothesis can you
vindicate for man’s life any possible meaning, or save it from the
degradation at which you profess to feel so aghast.” There is
no other way by which the dignity of life may be vindicated!
Our beliefs in the existence of God and in the immortality of
the soul are facts ascertained by the same method and accepted
for the same necessary reasons, and by an act of faith, in like
manner as the law of the uniformity of nature is ascertained
and accepted.
If Secularism accepts the teachings of natural science, it is only
by exercising Huxley’s “great act of faith.” This Christian law
of self-sacrifice which Secularism enjoins, finds its validity and
authority only in a similar act of faith. Does not all meta
physics serve to show that the belief in the existence of nature,
as well as in our own existence, rests on a similar act of faith ?
In fact, no less profound a philosopher than Berkeley has said
“ I see God as truly as I see my neighbour.” What I know
is that I have certain sensations which I call sights and sounds..
What I infer or reason is the existence of a being—my neigh
bour. In fact, does not that very act of reason rest upon the
assumption, an ultimate unreasoned fact, of the existence of my
self ? It is precisely here in self-consciousness, that Descartes,
Sir William Hamilton' Jacobi, and others, have found the
fulcrum for the demonstration of the divine existence. In like
manner by faith alone we choose the right and shun the wrong.
I see that A is higher and better than B, and has the right to
me; and I surrender myself to it in reverential obedience,
though no science proves it, or no expediency makes it a duty
to me. By faith alone Mr. Watts accepts the teachings of
natural science. By faith alone can he accept the Christian law
of self-sacrifice. What we demand to know now is, by what
authority and on what evidence Mr. Watts would thus determine
and limit the bounds of faith to science and to Secularist
morality ?
To Mr. Watts’ general description of the needs of mankind
we are not disposed to take special exception. Man’s physical
needs no doubt find their satisfaction in food, drink, sleep, exer
�26
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
cise, etc,
Man’s intellectual needs find their satisfaction in
science, that is, knowledge in its widest signification. Man’s
aesthetic needs find their satisfaction in art. Man’s social and
political needs find their satisfaction in the family, in society,
and in the state. Man’s moral needs find satisfaction in right
living. Man’s religious needs are satisfied by religion. But the
significant fact is that Secularism, which has proposed to satisfy
all the needs of mankind, finds no place in Mr. Watts’ category.
In our opinion the omission is clearly vindicated by the fact that
Secularism, as a distinct form of science, or as a distinct faith,
has no proper place, either in the economy of knowledge or in
the economy of religion. To declare that Secularism can satisfy
our religious aspirations, and gratify our religious emotions, is
an obvious disregard for the meaning of the terms. A man’s
clothes may remain after his body has mouldered away, but
religious emotions, apart from a belief in God, are but the shrouds
of a ghost. The laws of heredity may transmit them to the
second or third generation, yet, except their object be revived,
their ultimate extinction is inevitable. But are we to understand
that Mr. Watts would substitute Secularism for theologic religion?
With equal authority and no less presumption would another
substitute sensuality for science. For a truth, our intellectual
needs require for their satisfaction the focussing of the results of
all science, of all knowledge. Such satisfaction theologic religion
supplies in the conception of God. This is the ultimate intellec
tual principle as the law of gravitation is the ultimate physical
principle. Secularism accepts the latter, but it utterly destroys
its usefulness in rejecting the first.
MR. WATTS’ THIRD ARTICLE.
In my last article, being anxious to give my reasons for affirming
the latter clause of the proposition in debate, I was necessitated
through the limited space at my disposal to omit a reply to many
of the criticisms offered by the Editor of the Evening Mail in
his first article. The reader is particularly requested to again
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
27
read that article and then note my answer here given. For the
sake of brevity the paragraphs containing the criticisms will be
taken in order. First, as to what my opponent has said upon
Secular principles:—
1. Herein there is no “ assumption,” but a definite declaration
“ that the present life is the only one of which we have any
knowledge.” If my opponent possess a knowledge of another
life, I shall be glad to ascertain what it is. The existence of
belief upon this subject is not denied ; but many persons are un
able to discover sufficient evidence to justify their acceptance of
such belief. If to some individuals the doctrine of immortality
appears true, Secularism does not interfere with their convictions.
The “ validity ” of our claim that the “ concerns of this life ”
should command “our earnest attention” consists in the fact
that its duties are known and their results are apparent in this
world; whereas, if there be a future existence, its duties and
results can only be understood in a “ world that is to come.”
Our•“ obligation ” to live is derived from the fact, that being here
and being recipients of certain advantages from society, we deem
it a duty to l'epay by life-service the benefits thus received. To
avoid this obligation either by self-destruction, or by any other
means, except driven to such a course by “ irresistible forces,”
would be, in our opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable.
2. It is true that “ reason alone is not the sole basis ” of the
Secularist’s guide; hence, we avail ourselves of the aid of experi
ence allied with moral and intellectual culture. The “ evidence ”
that these constitute, although not a perfect guide, the best
known to us, is shown in the absence of a better one. If my op
ponent is aware of a guide that is superior to the one we offer,
let him mention it, but until he does we are justified in claiming
ours as the “ best.”
3. By “ duty ” we mean an obligation to perform actions that
have a tendency to promote the welfare of others, as well as that
of ourselves. The phrase “ self-imposed duties ” is not mine.
Obligations are imposed upon us by the very nature of things
and the requirements of society.
4. Secular principles nowhere teach that “ knowledge and
�28
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
justice are alone sufficient” to secure the well-being of the indi
vidual and society. I have never made such an assertion either
in this or in any other debate. Certainly, benevolence and
self-sacrifice are, as Secularism teaches, sometimes “ essentials ”
in the battle of life.
5. The “ validity ” of this principle appears to me to be ex
ceedingly clear, in the fact that actions which conduce to general
and personal improvement must be a benefit to the human race.
All modern legislation that is approved by the general public is
based upon the usefulness of actions. Even Christ is said in the
New Testament to have taught a similar principle. [See Matt.
7 : 16-20 : 25 : 34-40; 1 Tim. 1: 8.] To borrow an idea from
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, that which is good both for the
swarm and for the bee must be of reasonable service to the com
munity, and, inasmuch as the fifth Secular principle inculcates
such service, it is “ based on reason.”
6. No doubt it depends upon “ the nature of the man” as to
how far scientific appliances “ are complete and satisfactory.”
This is one reason why Secularists recognise the necessity of
moral and intellectual cultivation. It enables individuals the
better to receive the application of science. Secularism does not
by any means recommend the regulation of life by “ Hottentot
morality,” with which science has little or nothing to do. The
Hottentot is a specimen of the influence of some other <c Provi
dence ” than that of science.
So much for my opponent’s criticism of Secular principles.
Now, as to his comments upon our teachings in the same article.
1. The Secular “ obligation to speak the truth ” is obtained
from experience, which teaches that lying and deceit tend to
destroy that confidence between man and man which has been
found to be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian intercourse. It would indeed “ surprise ” me to find that
the same reason makes it an “ obligation to believe in the exist
ence of God.” Truth fortunately is not the monopoly of Theism.
2. If it could be shown that Secular teachings were “ not new
to Christian morality,” it would not thereby invalidate their
force from a Secular standpoint. It should be remembered that
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
29
Secularism is eclectic, and selects from many sources whatever is
good or useful. The truth is, however, that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only “ new to
Christianity,” but they are the very opposite to what is taught
by orthodox Christians.
3. Of course it may be “ disputed that actions are of more
consequence than beliefs; ” but to dispute a fact does not neces
sarily destroy it. While “ beliefs may be the ultimate source of
actions,” it is the actions, nevertheless, that affect society.
4. True, the proverb that “ prevention is better than cure ” is
no “ Secular novelty.” Secularism adopts that which experience
has proved to be useful rather than that which is novel.
5. If persecution “ is not now upheld in this free country,” it
is because the Secular tendencies of the age will not permit it.
Where the Church has the power, even now, it practises perse
cution, as my opponent would speedily discover were he a
Secular propagandist. If he has any doubt upon this point,
numerous instances can be given him where unbelievers in
Christianity in this “ free country ” have had to encounter a
variety of petty acts of persecution in consequence of their hold
ing heretical opinions. Not long since in Halifax, where my
opponent resides, efforts were made by the Christian party to
prevent me having a hall to lecture in.
6. I admit that “ thought is natural,” but again I ask for evi
dence that the “ thinker is supernatural.” Why does my opponent
remain silent upon this point, introduced by himself ?
7. Exception is taken to my phrase, “ law of mental science,”
but my opponent admits the very point for which I contend in
this matter. He says experience teaches “ that men think dif
ferently about the same thing.” Exactly, and from the same
monitor, assisted by the process of reasoning, we learn that uni
formity of opinion is impossible, and why it is so, and this con
stitutes a part of “ mental science.” The philosophy of Secularism
comes in here and says all honest and intelligent opinions
should be welcomed as an advantage, and no penalty for unbelief
should be inflicted either in this or in any other world.
8. It is misleading to assert, as my opponent does, that, accord
�30
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ing to Methodist morality, “ the end of life ” is human improve
ment. Methodism goes farther than this and teaches that the
true object of life is to secure the belief in and hope of a future
life of blissful immortality. It also inculcates that mundane
affairs are only to be regarded as being of secondary importance.
For such teachings the Methodists have the sanction of the NewTestament. [See Matt. 6 : 19-25, 31-34; 16 : 26 ; Col. 3:2; 1
John 2: 15.]
9. In the application of the eclectic process to existing systems
of morality, “ Mr. Watts’ dilemma ” is not apparent. He does
“ accept in part a system of morality which all [many] accept.”
The validity of such selection is found in its usefulness, while
the invalidity of the portions he rejects is discovered in their
uselessness, and in some instances their positively injurious
character for the practical purposes of life.
10. Mr. Watts does not “ refuse to think ” of the problems of
the existence of God and a future state. He has thought of
these subjects seriously and impartially for nearly forty years,
and as a result he has come to the conclusion that the Secular
position in reference to both questions is the logical one. Being
unable to inform, Secularism does refuse to dogmatise upon
matters in reference to which it can impart no information, and
for the same reason as my opponent’s “ savage ” would “ refuse ”
to inform us of the moral principle, namely, that he knows
nothing about it, although the said savage belongs to a race said
to have been created “ in the image of God.” The position of the
Secularist here is that of the Agnostic: he neither affirms nor
denies, and in not denying the Secularist remains open to con
viction, being ever ready to receive whatever evidence may be
forthcoming. In the meantime, if there be a God of love and of
justice, and a desirable immortality, Secularism prescribes such a
course of action during life as should win the approval of the
one and secure the advantages of the other.
We now come to the consideration of the last article by the
editor of the Evening Mail, and without “ being intentionally
offensive,” I “ must confess ” that, as a controversial document it
is exceedingly defective, being very assertive and, in many in
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
31
stances, irrelevant to the proposition under discussion. I was
“ very suspicious at the outset ” that in his opposition to Secu
larism my opponent would not prove a's formidable adversary,”
and his “ second article has only served to confirm the impres
sion.” It is rather difficult to decide which is the more conspicu
ous in his “ reply,” his sins of omission or those of commission.
The attentive readers of this debate are requested to note the
persistent silence of my opponent in reference to most of the
questions put to him in my last article. The questions there
submitted involved “ the vital issues at stake in this discussion,”
and yet he has avoided noticing nearly the whole of them. Has
he discovered that silence is the better part of valour ? In my
previous article, paragraph four, proof was requested of the
assertion that I had misrepresented Secularism, and that its
teachings differed from its principles; a definition was also soli
cited of the term “ mind in the sixth paragraph, nine import
ant questions were submitted; and in paragraph seven, proof was
given of the validity of Secular principles. To all these, with
two exceptions, be it observed, ray opponent has not even at
tempted a reply.
Instead of grappling with “ the vital issues at stake,” what
has my opponent done ? After a misapplication of the incident
of “ raising the Devil,” and a few, probably unintentional, mis
representations, he indulges in some well-known Theistic and
Christian platitudes, which by his own request should have been
excluded from this debate. As to the jest of “ raising the Devil,”
if my opponent will again read my application of the story, he
may see that the monarch of the lower regions was not induced
to appear through my being called from my sanctum, but in con
sequence of the force of the definitions that were presented at
the command of my antagonist. This slight correction, to use a
humorous phrase, “ plays the devil ” with what no doubt was
intended by my opponent to be a harmless joke. True, I am a
“less formidable adversary” than his “ Satanic Majesty,” for “if
the traditions brought down from the olden times may be relied
upon as accurate,” that gentleman would have soon settled the
Editor of the Mail, by giving him a warm reception in apart
�-82
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ments where he would have had no opportunity for cool reflection
upon the errors he had made and the shortcomings that he had
manifested.
But, to be serious. Will my opponent name what “ extraneous
matter ” has been introduced into this debate upon my part, and
wherein I have “ deemed it expedient to avoid as much as pos
sible ” the “ issues at stake.” Will he also state in what part of
my last article I appeared apprehensive lest my free expression
of opinion should subject me “ to religious persecution,” etc. ? It
must be repeated that proof, not mere groundless assertion, is
required in debate. Perhaps, when my antagonist penned these
allegations, he was not quite free from the influence of the “ arch
deceiver.”
It is to be regretted that my opponent, in his last article, did
not confine himself to Secularism, as he agreed to do. In his
original challenge to debate with me he wrote : “ Secularism, and
not Christianity, is on trial before the bar of public opinion, and
it is obviuosly out of place to introduce irrelevant discussions of
the merits or demerits of Christianity,” etc. {Evening Mail, July
16th, 1889.] It would be interesting to learn why this change
of front has taken place. Let it be distinctly understood that I
have not the slightest objection to discuss the irrelevant matter
that has been introduced by my opponent, at the proper time.
At present, my business is to show the reasonableness and suffi
ciency of Secularism. When this debate is finished I shall be
ready to do my best to demonstrate that Christianity is thor
oughly unreasonable and quite inadequate to meet the modern
needs of mankind; also that Agnosticism is preferable to Chris
tian Theism. If my opponent, or any of his representative
colleagues, will accept an invitation to discuss these two ques
tions, either orally or in writing, I am at their service. Nothing
would be more easy, in such a debate, than for one to prove the
complete fallacy of the supposed validity of the Christian’s
ethical code, that the obligation of man and his sense of duty
find an explanation in the “ direct commands of God,” and the
very reckless statement that “ Christian teaching first stamped
benevolence and self-sacrifice upon the moral consciousness of the
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
33
race.” There is not a particle of truth in these wild assertions,
and to me it is marvellous how any man of intelligence could
entertain such palpable delusions.
My opponent says that Secularism teaches that, because society
is constantly improving, “ this is sufficient to incite men to live
moral lives.” Secularism enjoins more than this, namely, that
during the process of improvement truth, justice, love, and ethi
cal purity should adorn men’s lives. Such nobility of character
would enable us to make the best of this life, and at the same
time to secure the felicity of a future life if there be one.
I perfectly agree with the point that Prof. Huxley enforces in
the extract given by my opponent. What the Professor says is
no argument against Secularism, but it rather tells against
Theism. Furthermore, the Professor contends in his works,—
his “ Lay Sermons,” for instance,—that during the progress of
the human race theology and orthodox teachings have been a
mighty obstacle to its onward career.
I have already given the Secularist’s account of duty, and
when my opponent asserts “ that no satisfactory account ever has
been found beyond the pale of Theism,” he repeats an orthodox
error which has been discarded long since by the leaders of
modern thought. Duty involves morality, and it has been ad
mitted again and again, even by eminent Christians, that the
moral actions of a man do not necessarily depend on his belief in
God. Atheists have been and are as good and useful members
of society as Theists. Jeremy Taylor, Blair, Hooker, and Chal
mers have all admitted that it is possible for a man to be moral
independently of any religious belief; and the Bishop of Here
ford, in his Bampton Lectures, says : “ The principles of morality
are founded in our nature independently of any religious belief,
«!,nd are, in fact, obligatory even upon the Atheist.”
As to the word “ ought.” The only explanation orthodox
Christianity gives to this term is pure selfishness. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through him
you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand, Secularism
finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very nature of things, as
involving duty, and implying that something is due to others.
�34
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
As Mr. J. M. Savage aptly puts it: “ Man ought—what ?—ouo-ht
to fulfil the highest possibility of his being; ought to be a man •
ought to be all and the highest that being a man implies. Why ?
That is his nature. He ought to fulfil the highest possibilities
of his being; ought not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because
there is something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he ought to
be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust the possibilities
of his nature: he is capable of being something more, something
fhigher than a brain. We say he ought to be a moral being.
Why ? Because it is living out his nature to be a moral being.
He ought to live as high, grand, and complete a life as it is pos
sible for him to live, and he ought to stand in such relation to
his fellow-men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this and this
only is developing the full and complete stature of a man, and
he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest sense of the word
.until he is that and does that; he is only a fragment of a man
■so long as he is less and lower.”
Of course Secularists accept the “one great act of faith,”
because experience teaches the necessity of such. There is, how•ever, this great difference between Secular and theologic faith,
the one is based upon experience and the other on conjecture,
the one upon what we know and the other upon what we
surmise. Secularism accepts the first for the reason that it has
an experimental basis for its “ authority ” and utilitarian “ evi
dence ” as to its results.
From a Secularistic standpoint sensuality could not be substi
tuted for science “ with equal authority ” that Secularism could
be put in the place of theologic religion. Sensuality encourages
the lowest of human passions which are injurious to society,
while Secularism fosters the noblest aspirations of our nature,
which are beneficial to the general good of all.
My opponent’s objections to Secularism have now been
answered, and an invitation has been tendered him to discuss his
system based on Christianity and Theism. It remains for him
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
to accept or to refuse the opportunity now offered him to defend
his faith, as I have endeavoured to defend mine.
THE EDITOR OF THE “EVENING MAIL’S” THIRD AND LAST
REPLY TO CHARLES WATTS.
Although the Evening Mail had considered this debate at an
end in view of Mr. Watts’ delay in replying to our last article
(Sept. 6th) it is nevertheless with pleasure that we publish his
reply at this late date, more especially as we are personally
■assured that the delay on his part was owing to unavoidable
circumstances.
In the limited space at our disposal it would not be possible
and probably not profitable, to follow out every side issue that
may perchance have been raised during this discussion, though
we will endeavor to pay due attention to those of Mr. Watts’
arguments which are not altogether irrelevant to the vital ques
tion : Is Secularism sufficient to satisfy the needs of mankind ?
Mr. G. J. Holyoake is quoted by Mr. Watts in his second article
as saying :
“It is asked will Secularism meet all the wants of human nature.
To this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe in
it, else it would never exist. . . . We have no wants and wish to
have none which truth will not satisfy.”
But this is merely reasoning in a circle in the first instance
and begging the question in the second. When Secularism is
boldly offered to the Christian world as a substitute for preva
lent religious beliefs, with the express declaration that “Secular
ism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind,” it is an obvious
avoidance of the issue to meet the doubting enquirer with an
illogical argument such as this :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it, else it
would not exist.
Secularism is an existing system.
Therefore Secularism is sufficient to meet the needs of mankind
�36
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
This is obviously a non sequitur. It would be quite as conelusive to assert that:
Buddhism is an existing system.
Therefore Buddhism is sufficient to meet the needs of man
kind.
Or to syllogise thus :
Every system meets the wants of those who believe in it.
Die Schopenhauerische Philosophio is a system.
Therefore Schopenhauer’s pessimism is sufficient to meet.the
needs of mankind.
In the second instance, the reasoning of my Secularist friend
is equally inconclusive, involving as it does a glaring petitio
principii such as this :
Truth will satisfy all the wants (needs?) which we have in the
present or wish to have in the future.
Secularism is Truth.
Therefore Secularism will satisfy all our needs.
Yet it is obvious at a glance that right here Messrs. Holyoake
and Watts make the unwarranted assumption that Secularism is
Truth—the very point at issue. For what we demand to know
at the outset is, by what criterion can the Secularist discriminate
between the true and the false, in order that we, by this same
standard, may measure the truth or the falsity of Secularist prin
ciples and teachings ?
Again, when pressed on this point, Mr. Watts replies in his
second article:
I am requested to establish the validity of Secular ■ principles
and teachings. Does not my opponent see that such validity consists
in the necessity and adaptability of Secularism to human needs ? In
the second paragraph of my opening article I mentioned one fact to
prove the necessity of Secular philosophy, namely, inasmuch as moral
conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society, Secularism has
been found necessary to enable those persons who could not accept
orthodox Christianity as a guide in mundane affairs to find elsewhere
principles to direct and sustain them in the correct performance of
iheir respective duties. Upon this point my opponent has hitherto
remained silent.”
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
ST
This reasoning is far from conclusive. The argument em
ployed by Mr. Watts resolves itself into a syllogism such as the
following:
Moral conduct -is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Orthodox Christianity cannot be accepted by a society of Secu
larists, so-called, as a moral guide to direct and sustain them
in the correct discharge of their duties—i. e. in moral con
duct.
Therefore the teachings and principles of Secularism are suffi
cient to satisfy all human needs.
Or: Therefore orthodox Christianity should forswear its beliefs
and accept Secularism as a guide to moral conduct.
The Secularist argument might also be stated thus:
A body, called Secularists, have accepted certain principles and
teachings as their guide to all moral conduct.
Moral conduct is indispensable to the well-being of society.
Therefore, all members of society should embrace the Secularist
guide.
So, we repeat, with equal authority- and no less presumption,
might a South African native contend that Hottentot modes of
■life and Hottentot morality are sufficient to satisfy the needs of
this nineteenth century civilisation.
Now, we desire it to be clearly understood that we do not seek
to disparage the motives of any body of men who, finding that
they can no longer accept Christianity and its doctrinal teach
ings, and yet conscious that “moral conduct is indispensable to
the well-being of society,” resolve, after due consideration, to
place before themselves certain “principles to direct and sustain
in the correct performance of their respective duties.” In one of
his early discourses with Charles Bradlaugh, Mr. Holyoake, to
whom Secularism owes its name, admits that he was not unin
fluenced by such considerations of expediency in formulating the
Secularist principles and teachings. He said :
“ They were principles which we had acquired by the slow accretion
■of controversy, by contesting for them from platform to platform all
over the country; and, when they were drawn up, I submitted them
�88
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
in the aggregate form, many years after they had been separately for
mulated, to Mr. J. S. Mill, and asked him whether or not, in his judg
ment, we had made such a statement of Secular principles as wereworthy to stand as self-defensive principles of the working class, as an
independent mode of opinion which would no longer involve them in
the necessity of taking on their shoulders the responsibilities of an.
Atheistic or Infidel propagandism, except when it suited the purpose
of a member to do it.”
This desire to protect the working classes against the dire
consequences that too often issue from a rash espousal of Agnos
tic or Atheistic views, which led Mr. Holyoake to formulate a
body of arbitrarily selected principles for their guidance in tho
correct performance of certain duties, was without doubt a
commendable one. And so long as the Secularists confine their
energies to constructive efforts of this nature, we heartily wish
them “ God speed ! ” Though their methods may be less effi
cacious than those employed by Christian philanthropists, their
efforts in this direction will, though their sphere is circumscribed,
no doubt conserve the interests of morality. But when with a
presumption that is not born of knowledge and discretion,
Secularism impudently declares that its trite teachings—which
were arbitrarily selected and arranged at a particular crisis, to
administer, even though inadequately, to the needs of a limited
class who had been seduced from their early faith—are suf
ficient to meet the intellectual, moral, religious and aesthetic
needs of the whole human race, we may be pardoned if we find
ourselves unable to treat so preposterous a proposition with be
coming seriousness.
However, upon examination of the ten teachings of Secularism
which Mr. Watts has kindly outlined for us in his first article
we were forced to conclude that they were, of themselves, of
slight importance to this controversy, inasmuch as they containvery little that is new to Christian morality, and were chiefly
more or less crudely expressed tenets of an ethical system which
is recognised by the majority of the Christian world, and to
which Secularism can make no special claim. To invalidate-
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
39
this argument, and, ostensibly, to show that Secularism is a,
more excellent system, Mr. Watts retorts that the following five
Secularist teachings are not only new to Christianity but the
very opposite of what is taught by orthodox Christians:
“4. That the best means of securing this improvement (i. e. render
ing depraved conditions impossible) are self-reliance, moral culture,
physical development, intellectual discipline, and whatever else is
found necessary to secure this object provided our actions do not
unjustly and unnecessarily infringe upon the rights of others.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“ 5. That the disbelief in Christianity, or in other systems of the
ology, may be as much a matter of honest conviction as the belief in
it or them.”
“ 6. That persecution for disbelieving any or all the doctrines of
theology is a crime against social and an insult to mental freedom.”
“8. That a well spent life, guided and controlled by the highest
possible morality, is the best preparation for a safe and happy
death.”
(Note.—-The capitals are ours.)
“10. That from a domestic standpoint there should be no attempt
at superiority between husband and wife; that equality should be the
emblem of every home; and that the fireside should be hallowed by
mutual fidelity, affection, happiness and the setting of an example
worthy of children’s emulation.”
“ The truth is,” says Air. Watts. “ that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians.” Mr. Watts’ statement is worthy
of a denial as emphatic as can courteously be conveyed in the
language of debate. With regard to the 10th teaching of Secu
larism it is only necessary to refer to 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 ; Eph. 5:
22-33; Col. 3 : 18-19 ; Titus 2 : 4-5 ; 1 Peter 3. And if there is
found to be any discrepancy between the teachings of Mr.
Watts and those of Paul, we are disposed to accept the apostle’s,
even on the ground of utility solely. With regard to the 8th
teaching, we need only to say that Christ taught the highest
�40
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
morality. With regard to the 6th, that Christ never counten
anced persecution, except to turn the other cheek when first
smitten on the right! With regard to the 4th, that these virtues
are not only taught, but repentance and forgiveness for past
sins, and pureness of heart and holiness of life are inculcated
by the Christian, and accredited by personal experience, as the
only efficacious means of “rendering depraved conditions im
possible.
The 5th is more difficult of discussion in the limited
space at our disposal. Christ taught no “ system of theology.”
But it is clear that positive disbelief in the cardinal doctrine of
the existence of God, for instance, can never be a matter of
honest conviction. Even though unbelief may, in exceptional
eases, be justified, yet there can be no grounds for positive dis
belief. That there is no God is a negative that is incapable of
proof. The verdict may be that the existence of a God is not
proven; it can never bethat it is disproven. ' Even Mr. Holyoake, of whom Mr. Watts is proud to be known as a disciple,
has admitted (Reasoner xi., 15,232) that “ denying implies in
finite knowledge as to the ground of disproof.” The human
mind may be reduced to the dreary condition of saying “ there
is no knowing whether there be a God or not,” “ it doth not yet
appear.” Yet we repeat that positive, active disbelief in this
cardinal doctrine can never be a matter of honest conviction.
And furthermore it is clear that no sooner does the unbeliever
undertake to undermine the positive Atheistic belief of another
mind than he takes upon himself the terrible responsibility of
presuming to say in his heart that “ there is no God !”
We have thus far examined the five teachings which are alleged
to be “new to Christianity,” and which are, in fact, alleged to
be “ the very opposite to what is taught by orthodox Christians.”
From the analysis which we have made it will appear, we think,
to every reader of ordinary intelligence—that the Secularist
claim that its principles are new to Christianity and opposed to
Christian teaching is utterly untenable, if we except its affirma
tion that disbelief may be an honest conviction—an affirmation
•on the part of Secularism which is a self-evident absurdity. This
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
41
then is the proposition that Secularism makes to Christianity.
“ It is our peculiar glory that we admit to our fold all who deny
the existence of God. Do ye then forswear Christianity, for
swear your positive belief in God, and become partakers with
Atheists of this glory of unbelief !” And to make his meaning
clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, Mr. Watts has closed his
third article with the bald, bold affirmation that Christianily is
quite inadequate to meet the needs of mankind, and that Ag
nosticism is preferable to Christianity ; though the sole claim as
to the superiority of Secularist teachings, is made on the ground
that it recognises positive disbelief. The basis of this strange
and unnatural fellowship between the Theist and the Atheist, the
believer and the infidel, is thus set forth in Mr. Watts’ first
article :
“ Secularism, therefore, does not exact Atheistic profession as the
basis of co-operation. Atheists may be Secularists ■ but it is not con
sidered that a man should accept Atheism to enable him to become a
Secularist. The Secularist platform is sufficiently broad to admit the
fellowship of Atheists or non-orthodox Theists.”
If Secularists who believe in God, actually associate themselves
with Atheists—pardon us if we decline to accept an affirmation
to that effect!—they must be prepared to subject themselves to
the restraints which society in self-preservation is compelled to
place upon the active propagandists of Atheism. For “what
concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel ?” For if Mr. Watts in his definition
of the ‘ basis of Secularism,” and in his declaration in his
second article—that there should be no persecution, or social
ostracism for unbelief—means to assert that society has no right
to protectitself from the hopeless national ruin that the triumph
of Atheism would bring in its train, then we must most em
phatically dissent from his views so expressed. Yet the penal
or social prohibition of an active propagation of Atheistic views,
which is necessary for the protection of society, should be care
fully distinguished from religious or any other form of persecu
tion. Such 'a distinction is recognised by the common law of
�42
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
England, as Mr. Bradlaugh has had the temerity to discover, and
is certainly justifiable on grounds which are recognised even in
Secularist morality—the preservation of the social organism.
This then is our reply to Mr. Watts: All the positive truth of
your Secularism, all the science, all the social duty is mine no
less than yours, though I utterly reject all that is peculiar to
your Secularism, and maintain that man has no higher duties
than those which I owe to God, and to the Moral Idea which
commands my unconditional obedience ; and that it is sheer folly
for a man to live as if death were the end of all.
But what is the criterion by which Mr. Watts would discrimi
nate between right and wrong, the moral and the immoral ? Let
us examine the point more closely ? Mr. Watts says in his
second article that: “Reason is the standard whereby we can
discriminate between and judge right from wrong.” And, al
though he has thus made Reason the standard
w
* hereby
we dis
criminate, he has also said in his first article that Reason is “ the
power which discriminates,” “ the ability * * * * to dis
tinguish truth from error.” Yet, herein, Mr. Watts claims for
human reason those absolute functions which Theists assert of
the Divine Reason. Human reason, he would have us believe,
discriminates between right and wrong by the sole aid of its
own supreme light. Yet herein there is affirmed of the human
mind an attribute which is declared to be inconceivable when
predicted of the Divine Mind ! Nay more! Mr. Watts in open
ing the debate endorsed Hooker’s saying that “Reason gives us
knowledge,” and that “itis by reason alone that we distinguish
truth from falsehood.” Absolute reason, it is clear, cannot be
predicted of the human mind; since human knowledge is ad
mittedly very imperfect. But whence this idea of absolute
reason, of perfect knowledge, of truth unmixed with error,
which Mr. Watts, wittingly or not, assumes to exist ?
Again in his last article, Mr. Watts refers to “ truth, justice,
love and ethical purity” and “ nobility of character,” absolute
and infinite, to the realisation of which we are impelled. The
reference does credit to his heart, but not to his intelligence 1.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
43;
For what are these but attributes which are predicated by the
Theist of the Divine Ideal, the Deity, towards whom Mr. Watts,
as a Secularist, affects to assume an attitude of utter indiffer
ence, neither affirming or denying his existence ?
Again, Mr. Watts quotes with approbation a passage from Mr.
Savage, which we too most heartily endorse ; but which finds no
place in the tenets of consistent Secularism. Read that passage !
Man ought to fulfil “ the highest possibilities of his being ! ”
What are these but the capacities which are gradually realised
by us in time, by means of a.progress of personal character to
personal character—which capacities are eternally realized for
and in the Eternal Mind ? What are these possibilities toward
which we are impelled, but the realisation of the Moral Idea of
our own moral perfection ? But why ought man to fulfill these
possibilities ? Let Mr. Watts’ own quotation answer ! “ Because
there- is something in him more than animal ?
Because “ he
is capable of something more, Something higher than brain !”'
What is this occult and mysterious something, “more than
animal ” and “ higher than brain ? ” What can it be but the
human soul within us, with its infinity of moral and spiritual
possibilities, and its deep yearnings after God and an immortality?
Who, that has experienced the agony of soul that permeated the
very centres of our being in the more memorable crises of this
human life, can sincerely say with the Secularist that the needs
of his intellectual, moral and spiritual nature are satisfied by
assuming an attitude of indifference toward God and immortality?
Who can disregard that soul’s divine relationship, order his con
duct, as the Secularist prescribes, by “ considerations which
pertain to this life alone,” and yet develop his manhood “in the
highest, truest, deepest sense of the word ? ”
We might proceed with the reflections which Mr. Savage’s
words inevitably suggest; or we might discuss at length the
minor issues that Mr. Watts has raised. But for the present let
this suffice.
Is Secularism, then, sufficient to satisfy tbe needs of mankind ?
We reply that it offers nothing to satisfy the needs of that
�44
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
SOMETHING in our nature, which is “more than animal,” and
“ higher than brain,” the human soul. Secularism in-Mr. Watts’
category of needs, recognises “ religious aspirations and emotional
gratification;” but it fails utterly to satisfy what, as human
experience in all ages will conclusively attest, is one of the
supreme needs of the soul of man,—divine consolation. Secular
ism, gives no satisfaction to our faith, our hope, our reverence,
our love, and completely severs itself from all that will develop
the higher emotional principles of human nature. Secularism
not only fails to satisfy our reason, but it is, as we have
shown, inconsistent with itself and a gross violation of
the conditions of rational belief. Moreover, it affects, toward
God and immortality, an indifference which mankind must, by
reason of the very nature of man, find it impossible to maintain.
Secularism thus ignores not only our religious, moral and intel
lectual needs; but as it fails to energise the moral and spiritual
nature of man, so in like manner it affords no inspiration to art
and literature of an elevating and purifying character. “ All
epochs,” wrote Goethe, “ in which faith, under whatever form,
has pravailed, have been brilliant, heart elevating, and fruitful,
both to contemporaries and to posterity. All epochs, on the
contrary, in which unbelief, under whatever form, has maintained
a sad supremacy, even if for the moment they glitter it with a
false splendour, vanish from the memory of posterity, because
none care to torment themselves with that which has been
barren.”
Mr. Watts in closing challenges the editor of the Evening Mail
to a second discussion of the relative merits of Christianity and
Agnosticism; but while this proposition may be entertained at
some future day, when Mr. Watts is visiting this province, its
acceptance at the present time is not practicable. In fact, unless
Mr. Watts can assure us that, having received new light on the
subject, he is prepared to advance more reasonable arguments on
behalf of Agnosticism than he has thus far presented on behalf
of Secularism, a second debate would appear quite unnecessary
and unprofitable.
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
45
MR. WATTS’ CONCLUDING ARTICLE.
After a delay of over six weeks since my last article in this de
bate appeared, my respected opponent has penned his final reply
in the present discussion. I have good reasons for believing that
the delay which has arisen was caused by circumstances beyond
his control.
The reader is particularly requested to again read carefully
the whole of the debate and note in how few instances my
opponent has grappled with the main issues between us. I regret
that while I have answered every important question put to me
by the Editor' of the Mail, he has treated most of my requests
with either silence or evasion ■ and instead of combatting my
arguments he has indulged in good-natured generalisations of a
very indefinite character. He has made no attempt whatever to
verify his assertion that I did not understand Secularism, neither
has he given any other definition of that system than the one I
furnished. He has also omitted to show that Secular teachings
“ differ more or less ” from Secular principles, and in what sense
he used the term “ mind.” In my second article nine most im
portant questions were submitted to him, but with the excep
tion of one he has not taken the slightest notice of them. A
demand was made that I should deal with the word “ ought’’
and the question of duty from a Secular standpoint. I did so,
and showed that with Secularists these terms have a higher and
nobler meaning than is attached to them by orthodox Christian
ity. Furthermore, I indicated our “ one great act of faith ” and
upon what it was based ; also why sensuality could not be sub
stituted for science “ with equal authority.” To all these points
my opponent has given no attention, neither has he adduced any
proof that Secular morality, with its basis and incentives, is
defective, or that the Secular conception of human needs is
wrong. How far such an evasive mode of procedure will make
good the negative side of the proposition that we should have
discussed, the reader is left to decide for himself.
The Editor’s “ last reply ” is a peculiar specimen of contro
�-46
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
versial ingenuity, which may do “ credit to his heart, not to hi#
intelligence.” His syllogistic comments present a sad confusion
of logical precision and a lack of philosophical reasoning. The
limited space at my disposal prevents me showing the want of
harmony between the premises and the conclusions drawn. But
iperhaps such a course would be unnecessary, inasmuch as, be the
nature of the conclusions what it may, it would in no way affect
■either my quotation from Mr. G. J. Holyoake or my statement
as to moral conduct. Mr. Holyoake says that “ every system
meets the wants of those who believe in it.” It should be re
membered, however, that the adherent of the system in question
is supposed to decide for himself what his wants are. Such
wants may differ from those deemed necessary by the believer#
in other systems. Undoubtedly Buddhism is thought by the
Buddhist to be sufficient to meet his wants, just as Secularism is
regarded as being the truth by the Secularists. It is not correct
to assert that “ with equal authority and no less presumption [as
fthat of the Secularist] might a South African native contend
that Hottentot inodes of life and Hottentot morality are suffi
cient to satisfy the needs of this nineteenth century civilisation.”
No sane person within the pale of civilisation would contend
that the mode of living and the morality of the Hottentot are
sufficient for the requirements of the civilisation of the present time.
While certain human needs are universal, some “ wants,” being
the result of habit, are limited. That which may supply the
“wants ” of one race or class of persons would probably be found
inadequate in other cases. In my second article six needs were
cited which pertain to human nature in general, and to these
my opponent says that he is “ not disposed to take special excep
tion.” It was further shown in the same article wherein
Secularism was deemed sufficient to meet these needs. Instead
of meeting what was advanced upon this point, my opponent
substitutes for general needs particular “ wants ” acquired
through special training and introduces his poor Hottentot as an
illustration. Clever evasion, but most fallacious reasoning !
It is pleasing to know that the Editor of the Mail regards our
�DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
47
constructive efforts ” as being “ commendable,” and in my
opinion it would be well if no other mode of advocacy were ne
cessary. Unfortunately, however, theological exclusiveness and
bigotry compel us sometimes to do destructive work, in seeking
to remove from our midst all fancies, creeds and dogmas that
obstruct the carrying out of our constructive work. While shams
are regarded as realities, and falsehood is worshipped as truth, this
phase of our advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have
lost all vitality, except for evil, need to be broken up ; and theo
logies, which have hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require
to be refuted. The theologians claim to have “ the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and unless we walk in
their paths, unless we accept their authority, unless we believe
implicitly in all their teachings, we are at once condemned as a
rebel against their God, as an outcast from society, and as an
enemy of our fellow-men. While this cruel injustice exists, de
structive work will be necessary.
My opponent says that my statement that Secular teachings
numbered four, five, six, eight and ten are not only new to
Christianity, but that they are the very opposite to what is
taught by orthodox Christians, “ is worthy of a denial as em
phatic as can courteously be conveyed in the language of
debate.” Let us test the value of this bold denial. The fourth
teaching enjoins self-reliance, which is the very opposite to what
is taught by Christianity. (See 2 Cor. 3:5; John 6: 44.) It
makes belief in Christ an absolute necessity and threatens
damnation for non-belief. (See Acts 4:12; 16:31; Mark 16 : 16.)
The fifth teaching proclaims the right and honesty of disbelief.
Christianity denies this (1 Tim. 6 : 3-5; 2 Cor. 6 : 14, 15 ; 2
Thess. 1 : 8), and my opponent endorses the denial, as far as the
existence of God is concerned. The sixth teaching condemns all
persecution in consequence of the rejection of any theological
doctrines; Christianity, on the contrary, enforces such persecu
tion. (See Matt. 10 : 14, 15 ; John 15 : 6; 2 John 1 : 10 ; Gal.
1 : 9.) The tenth teaching alleges that between husband and
wife equality should exist in the domestic circle. This could
�48
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
not be if the injunctions found in Eph. 5: 24 ; 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35;
1 Tim. 2 : 11, 14 ; Col. 3 : 18, were obeyed. Herein the husband
is made the master and the wife is required to obey and submit
“ in everything, ” which is not equality but abject serfdom.
It is to be regretted that my opponent condemns the “ un
natural fellowship ” of the co-operation of Secularists, Atheists
and Theists, and he actually justifies “the restraints which soci
ety in self-preservation is compelled to place upon the active
propagandists of Atheism.” Here is the old spirit of theological
persecution, which the Editor of the Mail defends by quoting
scripture, and yet he denies that Christianity teaches persecu
tion. Oh ! consistency, where is thy blush ? As to the relative
danger of Atheism and Theism, if that were the subject for
debate, I would shew that under the influence of Theism, not
Atheism, the worst crimes have been committed, the bitterest
hatred engendered, the greatest injustice perpetrated, and utter
ruin produced; and, further, that such wrongs, cruelties and
crimes were done and committed upon the authority of the
Bible.
Yes, I do say that cultivated reason aided by experience is the
standard by which we test right from wrong. If there be a
higher one, why has it not been produced ? To talk of “ divine
reason ” is to speak of that of which we have no knowledge.
Besides, if such reason did exist, how would it be judged if not
by human reason ? In case two guides for human conduct are
presented, what but human reason decides which is the better ?
It is not true that as a Christian my opponent has all the
truth and advantages of Secularism. Our system teaches that
man is not by nature necessarily depraved; that his salvation
does not depend upon Christ, that man is not bound to believe
in one particular person under penalty of eternal perdition, and
that he should have no fellowship with the unbeliever. Ac
cording to Secularism, reliance upon science is of more import
ance than having faith in the alleged supernatural; that supreme
attention should be given to the duties of this life, rather than to
the speculations in reference to any other existence, and that
�DEPATE OX SECULARISM,
49
morality is of mor consequence than belief in any of the theo
*
logical systems of the world. These are truths that no orthodox
Christian can, to be consist--nt, accept.
I am not surprised that the Editor of the Evening Mail refuses
to a -cept my invitati n co discuss Christianity and Agnosticism.
Possibly in this deba e he has learned a lesson that will induce
him in future to be more cautious both in his offensive and defen
sive policy. When, however, he intimates that he would require
“ more reasonable arguments” to deal with he reflects upon his
own lack of ability. If my arguments in this debate have been
inferior, and remaining as they do unanswered, what chance
would my opponent have with better arguments ?
In conclusion, I wish to say that as Secularists we do not treat
the existence of God and immoitality “with indifference.” We
endeavour to get all possible light upon the subject, and in the
meantime we try so to live that if God exist our conduct shall
meet with his approval, and if there be a future life, we do our
best to deserve what advantages it may possess. While many
Secularists believe both in God and immortality, others are
unable to do so, and with them moral conduct is deemed of
paramount importance, because the welfare of society demands
it, and experience proves that mankind is the better for adopting
it. If they have no “ God to fear,” they have man to love, and
rega’d for his welfare is sufficient to inspire them to seek to
perform useful deeds. Christianity—which mainly urges each
one to look after the Salvation of his own soul, since it will not
profit him if he gains the whole world and loses this—is far
inferior to Secularism in this respect; the more so as it often
engenders hatred and cruelty for difference of belief, while
Secularism has no stark creeds into which it would make all
alike compress themselves. It simply says in a purely practical
tone, Come and let us work together for the good and happiness
of us ail, whatever our speculations may be. Seculaiism does
not require the motive Christianity thinks necessary. It finds
what to its adherents appears a stronger and better motive in
the love of our fellow creatures, whom we know, than in the
�50
DEBATE ON SECULARISM.
fear of God, whom we do not know. This is the essentia]
question, Shall I work in love of myself and my fellows fortheir
good and my own, or shall I work in fear of a Supernatural
Biing unknown to me ? I answer, I love those whom I see and
know, and will work with and for them ; I cannot love one whom
I neither see nor know and if he is, as my opponent believes,
almighty, he can want neither me nor any one else to work with
or for him ; and his purposes, moreover, must be quite beyond
our guessing. We might work dead against him, thinking we
were working for him, as Christian persecutors have done when
they thought, in punishing and putting to death heretics, that
they were doing God service.
�
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
English
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
Secularism: is it founded in reason, and is it sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: x, 50 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: The editor of the Evening Mail is not named; name from Amicus record is J.J. Stewart.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Holyoake, George Jacob, 1817-1906
Ingersoll, Robert G.
Gardener, Helen H. (Helen Hamilton), 1853-1925
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890?]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Secularism</span>: <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> <span class="highlight">founded</span> in <span class="highlight">reason</span>, and <span class="highlight">is</span> <span class="highlight">it</span> sufficient to meet the needs of mankind? : debate between the editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts, editor of Secular Thought : with prefatory letters by Geo. Jacob Holyoake and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll, and an introduction by Helen H. Gardener), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1857
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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8aff5888c1496de4d45ecf34be57a357.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TrNjJGsD%7EGrkn3ouYwozSx8pVDbXRHx1bEzStvCWFMjccHS1ND4BYJwoIaxKqb0-xWp385crXvDlG2aJGSIbr2uju55rP9VUl4Y5x2eO2K4jqbpEfvZHuZsuhSQvTa4nV1mpnR2DYeXgiJZqK5ThMpxyHdrWW9ITaMOgPj%7E01CIrmP%7EVCDpOaUwzMYSVF-TAf%7EZDO9LU58Ihd5ksF-LkfGsFAf3SqOQ-NnVSBZVowHEkOdjOaS23xt4h65%7EUZTD5na3ZZEFFiG703lPaZAO5FEFurtp49gFjC-y-AEMVnQhFZogqv4k2ot4sEYZh5IX-mCvZ3lnNiS-gge0EC6zsnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7a3b815f360fbc5bb5ab0a8f322cfde5
PDF Text
Text
RAJS 506
Orthodox Criticism Tested I
A REPLY
— TO----
FATHER LAMBERT’S
“Tactics of Infidels,”
---- BY-----
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought,
Author of “ History of Freethought," “ Teachings of Secularism Compared -with
Orthodox Christianity“ Evolution and Special Creation," " Secularism;
Constructive a d Destructive," “ Glory of Unbelief' * Saints and
Sinners; Which?" “Bible Morality" Etc., Etc.
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST*
TWENTY CENTS.
\
��The Critic
of
“TACTICS OF INFIDELS”
CRITICIZED.
For some few years past a certain Father Lambert has devoted
■much of his time to a defense of the Christian religion, mainly by
attacking Col. Ingersoll. Mr. Lambert seems to labour under the
impression that if the Colonel can only be extinguished Chris- »
tianity will necessarily be demonstrated to be true. But the
falsity of a system no more depends upon the assertions of one
man than its truth upon the declarations of another. Christianity
will not stand or fall by the quibbles and sophisms of Mr. Lambert;
so neither will the opposite by the great eloquence of Colonel
Ingersoll. In the following criticism of a book called “ Tactics of
Infidels ”—which appears to have had a very large circulation—
it is not intended to defend either Colonel Ingersoll or Mr. Lacy—
since they are quite able to defend themselves—both of whom are
■made to figure largely in its pages, but simply to show wherein
Mr. Lambert’s reasoning is at fault. We do not care to discuss
men, but only to examine the principles they represent, and the
arguments employed by them to defend their views. It is chari
table to assume that every man is honest in the advocacy of the
opinions he puts forward, unless the contrary be very clearly
proved. It may seem strange to a man brought up under religi
ous influences, and with a strong emotional nature, who has never
read a Freethought work, or listened to a criticism of the evidences
of his faith, that any one should doubt what he holds to be infall
ibly true, but it is no less astounding to one who has freed himself
from the trammels of the orthodox religion that any one can for a
moment believe in the monstrous pretensions of the so-called
Catholic Church. Still so it is, and the sincerity of many such is
■beyond question. In what follows the dialogue form has been
adopted, because Father Lambert seems to prefer that to any
•other ; and to think that it has many advantages, for his side at
�4
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
least. His idea is that our teachings are easily disposed of by this;
method, so we will humour him by submitting his own to the same
kind of test.
It is not intended in this criticism to give a thorough and exhaus
tive reply to Father Lambert, but only to glance at some of the
more conspicuous of his fallacies, and to show that, although he
prides himself so greatly on his logic, he occasionally falls into the
most illogical kind of reasoning.
Ingersoll. The universe, according to my idea, is, always was,,
and forever will be * * * It is the one eternal being—the only
thing that ever did, does or can exist.
Lambert. When you say “ according to my idea ” you leave theinference that this theory of an eternal universe never occurred to
the mind of man until your brain acquired its full development..
Of course you do not intend to mislead or deceive ; you simply
meant that your “ idea ” of the universe is, like most of our modern;
plays, adapted from the French or elsewhere. * * * The old
originals, from whom you copy, thought it incumbent on them to
give a reason, or at least a show of reason, for their “ idea.” In.
this enlightened age you do not deem it necessary. It is suffi
cient for you to formulate your “ idea.” To attempt to prove it
would be beneath you. Have you got so far as to believe that
your “ idea ” has the force of an argument, or that the science;
of philosophy must be re-adjusted because you happen to have an
“ idea ?”
Lacy. The words “ according to my idea ” are said to imply
primitive conception; because I say “ I have an idea,” I leave the
inference that no one ever conceived the same idea before !
Lambert. There is a difference between an idea and my idea.
To say you have an idea might cause surprise, but to say it is yours
is to claim orginality for it. If Ingersoll were to claim some of
Edison’s ideas as his, he would be liable to prosecution for infringe
ment of the patent laws. The pantheistic theory of the universe
is too old to be claimed by Ingersoll as his idea. In claiming ithe
carries out his usual method of appropriating the thoughts and
speculations of others without giving credit, for which he deservesthe title of the Philosopher of the Purloined. Of course, one may
get at his meaning, but this verbal hypercritic of Moses should try
to say what he means.
pJZaMs. Is it not something like splitting hairs to thus quibble
about the expression “ according to my idea ?” Surely a man
means nothing more by that phrase than that the thing thus pre
sents itself to his mind. There is no necessary claim in it toorginality. Father Lambert would doubtless say, “ according to
my idea Christ is God,” but surely no man in his senses would.
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
5
suppose that to mean that no one before had had the same idea.
The pretended difference between an idea and my idea is not worth
■discussing, for the former is an abstraction. There is no such
thing as an idea that is not, in reference to some person, his idea,
•and it consequently becomes to him my idea. Originality in ideaa
is rare, and surely a Roman Catholic should be the last person to
make complaint on that score. No doubt the Pantheistic theory
■of the universe is old, but that to a Roman Catholic ought to prove
•a recommendation. And as to Ingersoll, it is admitted that his mean
ing may be got at. Well, then, what more is wanted ? Is it not
somewhat unfair to first accuse the Colonel of purloining ideas and
passing them off as his own, and then to admit that the Colonel’s
Slanguage does not mean that. This is hypercriticism with a ven
geance. And shallow enough, too, it is at that.
Lambert. Ideas are the elements or timbers of a judgment, as the
ibricks are the component parts of a house. As the house is greater
than one of its bricks, so is a judgment, an assent or a faith greater
than any one of the ideas composing it. A judgment is, then,
more than an idea, on the principle that the whole is greater than
any of its parts. Your mistake arises from ignorance of the differ
ence between a judgment and an idea. It is another mistake to
•advance this ignorance as an evidence of modesty.
Watts. The difference between one’s judgment and his idea is
another quibble which savours more of nonsense than of metaphysi
cal reasoning. A distinction of course there is in strictly philosophic
language, but this largely disappears in ordinary conversation.
An idea is a representation of a real thing, and a man’s judgment
regarding that is in truth his idea of it. I read that a certain man
was sentenced to death for a particular crime. I judge that the
sentence was just, that is it was just according to my judgment, that
is that my idea of justice corresponded with the sentence. And when
I say my idea I do not mean that the idea originated with me, but
•that it accords with my conception of the things involved in it.
•<i Faith is an assent to truth on the authority of another,” says
Lambert. But that is not a good definition of faith, in fact it is a
very clumsy one. There may be no authority of another in the
case. Faith is, where it is reasonable, largely based upon experi
ence—not authority, and it is just that authority against which we
protest. I have faith that if I sow seed in the spring, I shall reap
a harvest in the fall; that if I sleep when I am fatigued I shall rise
�6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
refreshed, but to no authority am I indebted for this, but to experi
ence. The experience may not be all mine, but a generalization of
other men’s, but there is no authority. We reject the Father’s
definitions in common with his theology, for the one is the out.
come of the other. A judgment is no doubt largely based upon
an idea, but one may surely be allowed to state the idea in connec
tion with the judgment, without being liable to be misunderstood.
Besides, if it be wrong to say my idea, when the same idea is held,
by other persons, it must be equally wrong to say my judgment
unless in such judgment I stand alone.
Lambert. “ That which is eternal is infinite. It must be infinite,,
because if eternal, it can have nothing to limit it. But that which
is infinite must be infinite in every way. If limited in any way it
would not be infinite. Now, matter is limited. It is composed of
parts, and composition is limitation. Change supposes succession,,
and there can be no succession without a beginning, and therefore
limitation. Thus far we are borne out by reason, experience and
common sense. Then—Matter is limited and therefore finite, and
if finite in anything finite in everything ; and if finite in everything,,
therefore finite in time, and therefore not eternal. The idea of an
eternal, self-existent being is incompatible in every point of view
with our idea of matter. The former is essentially simple, un
changeable, impassible, and one. The latter is composite, change
able, passible and multiple. To assert that matter is eternal is to
assert that all these antagonistic attributes are identical—a privi
lege granted to lunatics only.”
Watts. Infinity we cannot conceive of, it is a mere negation, for
it means the not finite. Now, being a negation, how can it possessthe attributes here ascribed to it, or, in fact, any attributes at all ?'
Sir William Hamilton, one of the greatest metaphysicians of this
age, and an orthodox Christian, has completely pulverized the logic
of Lambert. He shows that what men absurdly call the infinite
is simply the indefinite, and that to talk of the infinite is to use a
word without meaning. Matter is composed of parts, and there
fore limited. What parts ? Can we conceive of a part of matter
which cannot be further divided ? Is it not infinitely divisible ?•
And if so, here is infinity, that is, the infinitely small, ascribed to
d. If it be not infinitely divisible, then we must reach a portion
■sf matter the half of which is equal to the whole, which is an.
absurdity. But the infinite “ is essentially simple, unchangeable^
impassible and one.” This means that it cannot be divided. Sir
William Hamilton has shown the absurdity of this in regard to
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
7
duration. Eternity and infinity are one, for eternity is infinity of
duration. Now, there is an eternity of the past and an eternity of
the future, that is, an Infinite Duration in the past, and an InfiniteDuration in the future, and these are divided by the present; that
is, your supposed Infinity is cut into two parts. And here is the
reductio ad absurdam. Either these two parts are infinite or they
* are finite. If infinite, then there are two infinites succeeding each
other; if finite, then two finites can make an infinite. This is not
my idea, but that of the greatest Scotch metaphysician ; and
Father Lambert can choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases.
The same argument will apply to space. Take another illustra
tion, also from Hamilton. A foot is infinitely divisible, that is, it
is divisible into an infinite number of parts ; a mile is infinitely
divisible. But, as one infinite must be equal to another, therefore
a foot is the same as a mile. All this goes to show that we have
no conception of the infinite and cannot discuss it. When we
speak of it we simply mean the indefinite.
The human soul, says Lambert, is not eternal because it started
at a certain point, but will live forever. Well, that starting point
was a point in duration, and hence duration itself from that period
is not eternal. The human soul, then, is finite ; but, if so, how
can it last forever ? for that is just what the Father argues that
finite things cannot do.
Lambert. The future life of man is not actual and real, but
potential, and will ever remain potential.
Watts. What in the name of reason does this mean ? If man’s
future life be not real, why trouble about it ? What possible
concern can we have with the unreal ? This is really to
teach non-existence, which is assuredly not in harmony with the
theology of the Vatican.
Lambert. To imagine, or rather to conceive an infinite line is to
conceive a line*to whose lineal value nothing can be added, for as
long as an addition to it can be conceived if is not yet infinite. Is
such a line conceived as a reality ? No. Let us see why.
Imagine your infinite line extending through space in opposite
directions—say north and south. Now this so-called infinite line
is not infinite so long as we can conceive it increased by additional
length. Let us now imagine another so-called infinite line of
equal length with the first, and running parallel to it. If we add
the second to the first do we not increase its lineal value ? Most
certainly. Then the first line was not infinite because it admitted
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
of addition. Nor are the two together infinite, because we may
imagine another parallel line and another addition and a conse
quent increase of lineal value. We may continue this process for
ever and never exhaust the possibilities—never come to a lineal
value that excludes possible addition. From this you will see that
you cannot conceive, much less imagine, an infinite ltne so
“ readily ” as yo< thought.
Watts. Why, certainly. But what does all this prove but that
Sir William Hamilton is right, and that man can form no idea of
the Infinite, and that every attempt to describe it must end in
hopeless confusion and contradiction. The Father has in this
paragraph completely refuted himself.
Lacy. Space is infinite expansion but nothing more.
Lambert. Expansion of what ? Expansion without something
expanded is a mere fiction of the mind, having no real existence
outside the mind. Expansion is a mode of matter, and without
matter it is a non-entity. As matter is finite its expansion is finite.
Herbert Spencer defines space as “the abstract of all co-exist ences,” and by “the abstract” he tells us he means “ that which
is left behind when the realities are absent.” Now, take away all
reality and what have you left ? No reality, nothing. Then, ac
cording to Spencer’s definition space is no reality. But reality,
real being, is the first essential condition of the infinite, therefore
space, having no reality, no real existence aside from matter, can
not be infinite.
Watts. Space is unquestionably infinite expansion, if you sub
stitute indefinite for infinite. Expansion of what ? Well, we don’t
know. It may be an abstraction, as Spencer supposes, but there
are a hundred different opinions on that subject entertained by the
ablest philosophers. But it is certainly as real as eternity, which
word the Father uses glibly enough. At all events, the conception
of space is as clear as the conception of matter, and clearer than
the conception of God. If space be not infinite, as Lambert says
it is not, then it is limited, and we should be glad to be informed
what limits it, and whether the something that limits it exists
outside of space, which, of course, means nowhere. Is there some
place where there is no space ? If not, space is everywhere, in
other words, infinite. If space be the possibility of extended
things, still there can be no limit to that possibility. But Space
and Time are realities, despite the talk of such small and gabbling
metaphysicians as Father Lambert.
All the talk about the infinite line is just an illustration of Sir
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
$
Wm. Hamilton’s doctrine that no clear conception can be formed
of the infinite, but that any discussion of the subject must be in
volved in paradox and contradiction. The Father should read
Dean Mansell’s Bampton Lectures, a book written from a religious
standpoint, and in defence of Christianity. The Dean makes short
work of the nonsensical talk about the infinite. The argument
about Numbers and Duration go to show the absurdity in which
the whole thing is involved, and to illustrate Hamilton’s position.
What the Father is trying to prove it is difficult to make out. No
addition of finite numbers will make an infinite. Of course not.
Whoever supposed that it would ? But, as no number of finites
-can make an infinite, and as we can only conceive of finites, what
becomes of the talk about the infinite ?
Lambert. The incapacity to conceive how a thing can be done is
no proof that it cannot be done.................... The fact that the how
of an act or process is inconceivable is no proof that it has not a
.how, or that it is impossible.................... It is one thing not to con
ceive a thing and quite another to'conceive a thing to be impos
sible.................... I cannot conceive how God created the world,
but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative act. I cannot
■conceive the nature of matter, but I can conceive no impossibility
in it.
Watts. We do not attempt to explain the how of anything, and
■questions with regard to it are childish. And we are not alone
here. Let the Catholic give us the how of the facts of nature, or
•of his own being. But, he says, there is a difference between not
being able to conceive of a thing and the conceiving of it as im
possible. Why of course! It is only Christians who confound
these. “ I cannot conceive,” says the Father, “how God created
the world, but I can conceive no impossibility in the creative
act.” Well, to me such an act seems impossible. Will Mr.
Lambert explain how to him it does not seem so ? Did God create
the world out of nothing or out of pre-existing materials ? If the
latter, these must have been eternal, or there must have been a
prior creation, to which the same argument would apply. If the
former, was not that an impossibility ? How could an infinite make
a finite, i. e., could an infinite cause produce a finite result ? Is
not this an impossibility ? Or, in truth, how could there be space
or time for the finite when the infinite occupied the whole of both ?
Besides, we have been told that there is no change or succession
�IO
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
in the infinite. But, if at some point of duration or eternity he
performed an act which commenced or ceased, then he changed in
time, became related to time and consequently to succession.
Why was not creative power displayed before the creation ? In a
word, it must have been eternal, as God is eternal and unchange
able. If the infinite does not change, then from all eternity it must
have been creating worlds, and in that case these worlds would,
themselves be eternal. We would like an explanation of this. I
am not asking for the how, but for an explanation as to the possi
bility of conceiving of such a process. “ Everything,” says L.,
“ is possible that does not involve contradictory attributes.” Very
well. Then here are the contradictory attributes. God is eternal
and unchangeable, yet he put forth a new exertion a few millions
or so of years ago and created worlds, thereby changing his course
of action. “ Change supposes succession and therefore limitation.”
God changed his action, therefore became subject to succession,
ergo limited, that is, not infinite.
True, a thing may exist of which we are unable to form any
conception, but at least it can have no concern for us. What can
we have to do with that of which we can form no conception ?
It is a waste of time even to talk of it. But we know quite as
well as Father Lambert the difference between the failing to con
ceive a thing and the conception of its impossibility. And it is
just this latter that we urge against his theology. But, says the
Father, “ You must have some conception of the creative act, or
you could not assert that it is inconceivable.” Of course, we have
a conception of what Theologians say in reference to the act, and
we declare their statements to be self-contradictory and absurd.
But this is a very different thing to forming a conception of the
act itself. For we declare such an act to be both inconceivable
and contradictory.
Now, the concession that we must think of God with limitations,
as Lambert maintains, shows how impossible it is for us to con
ceive of the infinite at all. It is clear that our conception of God,
according to Lambert, is not correct. But how can he reach, in
thought, a being that transcends all human conception ? Besides,
if we can only conceive of God as limited, and yet he may be
unlimited, what becomes of the argument that matter cannot be
infinite, because we conceive of it as finite. If God, although
only thought of as finite,, and described as such in the Bible, be
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
II
really infinite, the same argument will apply to matter. This
mode of reasoning is suicidal, and cuts its own throat.
Lambert. As to space, we have seen that it is not a real being,
but only a relation between material beings ; that abstracted from
material beings it is nothing ; that it bears somewhat the same
relation to extended or expanded things that form does to matter
or weight to ponderable things. Annihilate extended or expanded
things and form and space and weight will “ fade away like the
shadows which flit before us and are seen no more.”
Watts. Space, then, is nothing at all; in a word, there is no
space. Things therefore exist nowhere, But that which exists
nowhere does not exist at all: ergo, there is nothing in existence.
The Father confounds the filling of space with its annihilation.
Space is not destroyed by being occupied. It is still there, but no
longer empty. To say that where a body is the space is not, is to
say that a thing exists where it is not,—for it surely exists in spaGe,
—which is egregious nonsense. According to this philosophy
things do not exist in space but outside of it, and where that is we
should like to be informed.
Lambert. Christian philosophers tell us that space, in as far as
it is real, is the distances between extended or spaced things, and
can exist only when extended things, exist, just as form can have
no real existence without things formed. Space in this sense is
limited to extended things and therefore cannot be infinite.
Watts.—Then Christian philosophers have taught nonsense, as the
Father himself has in these pages. But who are the philosophers
that have taught this ? Space is just the one thing whose non
existence or even limitation cannot be even conceived. Let the
Father try if he can accomplish this impossible feat. What about
the Ether ? Scientists tell us that this fills all space, so then there
is no space left and space is not. According to Mr. Lambert, to
fill an empty thing is to destroy the thing itself when it is filled,
which is assuredly something new in reasoning.
Ingersoll. To put God back of the universe compels us to admit
that there was a time when nothing existed but God.
Lambert. It compels us to admit nothing of the kind. The
eternal God can place an eternal act. His creative act could
therefore be co-eternal with his being. The end of the act—that
is, creation—could be co-existent with the eternal act, and there
fore eternal. To deny that is to affirm that there could be a mo
ment when the eternal and omnipotent God could not act, which
is contrary to Christian teaching.
�12
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.-
Watts. Here we are told that God ean place a. creative act.
What that means no one can tell. Place it where ? Where it is,
that is, where it took place, or somewhere else. Really, this is
■child’s talk, and not reasoning. God can place anything, but he
must place it somewhere. The Father’s argument, if worth any
thing, is that he can place it no-where, and where that is I presume
even a priest cannot tell. “ His creative act could be co-eternal
with his being.” Well, in that case creation wasjrom all eternity,
hence the created thing was from all eternity, hence matter
was from all eternity, which is just what the Father elsewhere
denies. But to look at this in another light. The Creator
is the cause, the creation was the effect. Is it not a necessity
of thought that the cause must precede the effect ? If not how can
we discover causation at all ? Sequence and antecedence would be
meaningless terms. God created, that is, called into being, the
universe. Then before that occurred there was no universe, which
means nothing existed but God. No, says Lambert, creation is
■eternal. Then the thing made was contemporaneous in existence
with its maker, which is, in fact, to say that it was not made at
•all. To state that a thing is as old as the maker of the thing is
not argument, but downright nonsense, and may serve to bewilder
■children and ignorant Catholics, but assuredly can only be a source
of amusement for educated men.
Lambert. That creation could be co-eternal must be admitted if
we admit that God is eternal and omnipotent, and this we must
admit if we admit his existence. Hence it does not follow that
putting God back of the universe proves that he antedates it.
Lacy. If this be not so, what becomes of the dogma that God
■created matter “ out of nothing ?”
Lambert. If he can create from eternity he "can create “ out of
nothing ” from eternity. The dogma is in no danger.
Lacy. Can you conceive of such a creative act, without a time
■or point in infinite duration when it was performed ? Try it.
Lambert. I cannot conceive when it was performed, for the sim
ple reason that if it be an eternal act it could not, because eternal,
•ever have had a “ when.” Any act of which when can be asserted
is not an eternal act.
Watts. But it is not a question of conceiving of the when but of
the fact so called. And that involves a contradiction in terms.
That which was created was clearly an effect. Now an eternal
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
I J:
effect is a meaningless expression. You might as well talk of a
square circle. Every effect must have a cause, and the cause must
in the nature of things precede the effect, or it could be no cause
at all. Moreover, I should like the Father to tell us how we can
know of a cause except through its effect. In Nature we see
cause and effect co-related everywhere. But we know nothing and
can know nothing of a supernatural cause.
That transcends
knowledge. Besides, how can a finite effect be produced by an
infinite cause ? This question has been asked before but it comes
in here too. Does the infinite in its effect become finite ? Effect
is probably nothing but transferred force. And an infinite force
cannot in its transference become finite. Hence an Infinite Cause
cannot exist. Let Father Lambert meet this argument.
Lacy. We are told in the Notes that before creation was, time
was not. This as poetry may pass, but as fact it is inconceivable.
Lambert. If it be conceivable, even as poetry, it is conceivable.
Hence your argument from inconceivability falls to the ground, for
that which is conceivable even as poetry is possible, and that which
is possible is conceivable as fact. I must here again repeat that
inconceivability is not the criterion of possibility, and that therefore
our inability to conceive a thing is no evidence that the thing is
impossible. If sceptics could once get this truth injected into their
skulls, they would perhaps use their unmetaphysical catchword less..
Watts. It is not conceivable either as poetry or anything else,,
save perhaps absurdity and nonsense. The so-called truth which
sceptics cannot get “ injected ” (an injection of truth is surely a
new method of administering that article) “ into their skulls ” is no
truth at all but a whimsey wild as any legend in the holy(?) Catho
lic record of marvellous exploits. Inconceivability may not be the
criterion of absolute possibility, but it certainly is of truth as pre
sented to man. And Christians more than any other class of men
use it as such. It is, in fact, their stock argument against what
they are pleased to call infidel notions. How can any one assert
the truth of that which is inconceivable ? Think of a time when
there was no time, a period when yesterday was to-day, and to
morrow the week before last. It is of no use to say that this,
although inconceivable, might possibly be, for that is to use words
without meaning, which is just what this priest does. Words
should represent ideas, but to use words which have no ideas tocorrespond to them is to play fast and loose with language, and to-
�14
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF IXFIDELS
CRITICISED.
befool men by engaging in a game of battledore and shuttlecock
with phrases.
“ Oh, sense, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.’
Lacy. But if it be true (that before creation was, time was not)
how do we know that it is true ?
Lambert. We know it in this way. Time is the measure of
movement and change in moving and changing things ; it is an
appurtenance of changeable things, and it is evident that an ap
purtenance of a thing cannot exist without the existence of that to
which it appertains. Therefore, without created things, time could
not be. It does not require much profound thinking to see this.
Watts. It certainly does not require much “profound thinking”
to see the absurdity of this. See how adroitly the word “ created ”
is dragged into the conclusion, when it did not appear in the pre
mises. Why may not eternal things be moveable and changeable ?
In fact, are not such conditions essential to all things ? If the
eternal existence—whatever it may be—could not move or change,
then it is clear it could not act. For all action is movement, and
a fortiori change. There can be no action without a movement on
the part of that which acts, and if God does not move, it is as clear
as that two and two make four, that action on his part is impossi
ble. Jesus represents God as working and the Old Testament re
cord of creation is one of activity on the part of Deity. Now work
means change and movement. Nor does the absurd fiction of an
eternal creation remove this difficulty, for the creation of this world
was certainly not from eternity, since we know that in its present
form it had a beginning. The creation of the earth and of the
organic beings upon it involved action, and consequently move
ment, on the part of its creator. As, therefore, there must have
been movement and change to produce that which was not pre
viously existing, or even to alter the form of that which was, there
was movement and change in Deity when such creation took place.
And as God has thus moved and changed, he, too, must be subject
to Time, and consequently Time was eternal. Time and space,
the two great facts in the universe, are not to be shuffled out ofi
existence by the wily—I had almost written silly—sophisms of
this popish priest.
Lacy. We are told that “ God is pure act,’’the source and origin
of all activity and life. How there can be “ pure act,’’ or any other
act, without an actor, is another riddle to which we succumb.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
15
Lambert. Riddles and conundrums seem to buzz about your brain
like blue-bottle flies about a dead horse. You should try to learn
and comprehend that which you do not know and understand, and
not imbecilely yield to gross ignorance and display it as an evidence
of profundity.
An act is the reduction of a potentiality or possibility to a reality.
Pure act is an act of being which excludes all potentiality. A Being
which is necessarily real, which excludes from its essence everything
that implies imperfection or defect of reality, is pure act. Poten
tiality of any kind always and necessarily implies defect or lack of
reality, because it has always something not yet actuated or real
ized in act. Being, therefore, which is necessarily real, with su
preme and infinite reality, excludes all potentiality. Now God is
necessarily and essentially real. He excludes from his essence
everything that implies imperfection or defect of reality. He is
therefore Pure Act.
Watts. Lord Byron once wrote respecting a contemporary of
his, that he went about “explaining metaphysics to the nation,” and
then added, “ I wish he would explain his explanation.” These
ines are most applicable to Mr. Lambejt. He really does make
“ riddles and conundrums ” buzz about onr ears. It is difficult to
imagine him serious in this jumble o'f words, which he calls logical
argument. An act without an actor. You might as well talk of a
walk without a walker, a stroke without a striker, a kick without a
kicker, a thought without a thinker. A being who acts, performs
an act, but without an actor there can be no act. “ Pure act ” is
pure nonsense, without any adulteration, and such as few men but
a Roman Catholic priest would try to throw dust in men’s eyes by
talking about. Moreover, an act requires not only the actor who
performs it, but also an agent upon which it is performed. What
was the agent in this case ? “ God is pure act.” Then the word
God is a name for an act performed by some other being, who is
higher than God, and somewhere there must be an agent upon
which the act is performed. But such unmitigated absurdity is
hardly worth discussing. And we are to be accused of “gross ig
norance ” and “ imbecility” if we fail to understand this meaning
less jargon. Be it so. Truly that proverb about “ blind leaders
of the blind ” has received a verification in the case of Father
Lambert.
Lambert. The difference between murder and killing is determined
by the intention. If a hunter, intending to kill a deer, kill a man
whom he mistook for a deer, he is not guilty of murder because he
�i6
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
had not the intention. It will be observed, then, that the moral
nature of an act depends on the nature of the actor, and the good
ness or wickedness of the moral act depends on the intention of
the free moral agent. It is a mistake to suppose that a good act
is a moral one and a bad one is not. Every act of man, good or
bad, done with an intention, is a moral act. We attribute morals,
good and bad, to man alone, because he alone of all the inhabit
ants of the earth is capable of forming an intention and acting from
a motive.
Watts. Man performs thousands of acts with an intention which
are not moral acts. They are neither moral nor immoral, but
simply unmoral. He eats, drinks and sleeps with an intention, but
such acts do not fall within the range of any ethical code in this
world. The regulation of these is, no doubt, subject to moral law,
but the acts themselves per se are neither moral nor the reverse.
A man takes a walk along a country road to relish the scenery, or
sails in a boat on a lake for enjoyment, listens to music, gazes at a
great painting, or reads a poem, all with the intention of amusing
himself, but these are not moral acts. The Father’s notions of
ethics are about as hazy as his philosophical disquisitions.
Lambert. A standard of right, or a measure by which to distin
guish what is right from what is wrong is necessary for man,—
without it all difference between right and wrong, is destroyed.
Men may and do err in the application of this standard, but this
fact does not lessen its value, for the error is not in the standard but
in the application.
Lacy. You say, yes, “ the will of God,” but how do we deter
mine that will ?
Lambert. When a man is called on to act he is obliged as a
moral agent to consider, there and then, whether the act he is
about to do is good or bad. He must determine it by the light of
his knowledge of the will of God. If he does this honestly and to
the best of his ability his act, so far as he is concerned, is good.
He must always follow his conscience and act on his own honest
interpretation of the standard. His knowledge and conception of
it may change but the standard is unchangeable ; because founded
in the will and nature of God. It is man’s duty to act according
to the will of God as far as he knows it or honestly believes he
knows it at the time. His knowledqe of the will of God is the
measure of his merit or demerit.
Watts. The statement that the will of God is the standard of
right and wrong is a gratuitous assumption, a begging of the whole
question. No scintillation of evidence is produced in support of
the assertion. And many very eminent Christians have disagreed
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
17
with it in toto. Dr. Samuel Clarke, a far greater man than Father
Lambert—and, withal, a dignitary of the church—maintained that
the moral law was to be found in the fitness of things. Adam
Smith discovered it in sympathy, and Paley in a sort of utilitari
anism ; whilst, if I mistake not, Cardinal Bellarmine placed it in
the decisions of the Pope of Rome, and held that should the head
of the church decree that acts now considered moral should hence
forth be immoral, and vice versa, the moral law would be changed.
We deny that the will of God has aught to do with the standard of
right and wrong among men, and demand the proof. Let that
be forthcoming.
But, in the next place, where is this will of God recorded ? Surely
if it were to be discovered anywhere it should be in Nature. And
yet no one can gather from natural phenomena, what is right and
what is wrong. For, as Mill has shown, Nature does every day
that which men are imprisoned and hanged for doing. She is, and
can be, no guide in morals. Mr. Lambert will no doubt reply that
the will of God is to be found in the mandates of his churchand
the Protestant will tell you it is in the Bible. But here again we
want the proof, which is not forthcoming.
Moreover, the teachings of both the church and the Bible are so
contradictory that no formulated moral code can be obtained from
either one or the other, or both combined. The church has en
joined repeatedly the performance of acts atrocious in their cha
racter and pernicious in their results, and anathematized and
excommunicated those who had too high a moral nature to perform
them,—whilst the moral code of the Bible is such a heterogeneous
mass of contradictions that there is not wanting a text to justify
any act, however outrageously immoral.
Lambert. Protestants, like Catholics, hold that the will of God
is the standard, and they value the Bible only because they believe
it to be a revelation of that will.
Watts. Exactly, but that only shows how blind they all are.
The will of God, according to one, is in the Bible, and according
to the other, in the church ; and these two are in flagrant oppo
sition to each other. What is the use, therefore, of talking about:
an abstract will of God, which no one can discover, and about which
those who believe in it are at sixes and sevens ? If there be such,
a will it is perfectly useless to man as a guide in life, because na
one knows where it is to be found. And the moral code which
�18
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
society recognizes is found neither in the Bible nor in the church,
but based upon the general experience of mankind, as. to what is
best for the happiness of the race. Surely Father Lambert must
be aware of this.
Lacy. The standard of right and wrong, whatever rule may be
professed, is in the mind and heart of man and has varied from age
to age, as he advanced from the barbarism of the past to the com
parative enlightenment of the present.
Lambert. The standard is certainly in the mind of man, for all
peoples in all times have recognized a supreme will as the standard.
Catholics, Protestants and Jews call it the will of God; Pagans
call it the will of the gods—but all recognize a supreme, super
natural will as the standard of right and wrong. You say truly,
then, that it is in the mind of man. But it is not always in his heart,
for men often do what they know to be wrong. This standard has
never varied, though men’s know edge of it may have increased or
diminished, or their application of it may have differed.
Watts. It is assuredly a most astounding statement to make to
say that the standard of right and wrong has never varied. Why
it has never remained the same for a century at a time, and hardly
any two nations think alike about it. Moreover, where is the stan
dard ? What is the use of saying that different people call it the
will of God ? No two of them agree as to what that supposed will
enjoins. Unless the said will of God can be found written some
where in a plain and unmistakeable form, it amounts to nothing
more than “ a will-o-th-wisp.” The Roman Catholics say it is in
the Church, the Protestants in the Bible, the Parsee in the ZendAvesta, the Mohammedan in the Koran, the Hindoo in the Shaster
and Vedas, and the Pagan in none of them. And all these records
of the will of God teach different systems of morality. No doubt
men often do what they know to be wrong, but they also often dd
wrong believing it to be right. When Christians persecuted and
burned each other they did it most conscientiously, believing firmly
that they were obeying the moral law, acting in accordance with
the will of God, and therefore doing right. What has taught us
now that these acts were wrong ? Not the will of God, but the ad
vancement of human knowledge. The Roman Catholic would
think he was doing wrong in eating meat on a Friday, whilst the
Protestant laughs at this as a silly superstition. Where is the will
<of God, then, which both profess to take for their guide ?
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS- OF INFIDELS*' CRITICISED.
19
Lacy. Our knowledge of the rules of morality has come to us by
<slow degrees, and is not perfect yet.
Lambert. If so, we cannot say that murder, theft and adultery are
wrong. We must wait for developments ! Some new discovery
may yet prove that vice is virtue and virtue vice, that honesty is a
superstition, decency a prejudice and duty an illusion.
Watts. That is a non sequiter. Because we have not yet attained
to a perfect system of ethics, it does not follow that some questions
in connection with it are not settled. “ Murder, theft,” etc., are
known to be wrong, not because they conflict with some imaginary
■divine will, but because they are prejudicial to the well-being of
society. It would be very difficult, in fact, to prove that “ murder,
theft and adultery ” were contrary to the will of God, for all are
sanctioned in the Bible, and have been defended by the Holy
Catholic Church. That Church has committed murder on a very
large scale, has practised robbery in the confiscation of the pro
perty of heretics, and even Popes have been the fathers of illegiti
mate children, and, in some cases, the very personification of im
purity, lust and uncleanness. Yet these Popes were infallible, and
•the vehicles of the divine will. Is not this the height of absurdity?
Lacy. Christian theology also affirms that there are three Gods,
•co-equal and infinite in every divine attribute, although declaring
that the three are in some inexplicable sense, one.
Lambert. This is the kind of stuff infidel writers feed their credu
lous dupes on. It is difficult to understand how one brought up in
a Christian community, and pretending to know anything about
even the simplest elements of Christianity, could honestly make
■the above statement. ... A Sunday school boy of ten years
■who, after studying the first three chapters of his catechism, should
make such a statement as Mr. Lacy makes, would richly deserve
to be spanked for inattention or pitied for his stupidity....................
“ Christian theology affirms that there are three Gods ! ” The
man who makes such a statement sacrifices all claim to considera
tion as a scholar, or to having the most ordinary knowledge of the
subject he elects to talk about. Yet this is the kind of people who
are most flippant and noisy"ab'but theology, the Bible, and Moses.
They are always as ready, as a self-cocking pistol, to give their.
“ honest ” and ignorant contents. Here is the author of a book,
who undertakes to treat of philosophy, revelation and Christian
theology, and who attributes to Christians a doctrine they not only
do not hold, but which they have m all times conrfmned / And this
ignorant upstart states it as if it were a matter about which there
is no doubt whatever. Can any language be too severe for such an
�20
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’’ CRITICISED.
offence ? If he be ignorant of the Christian doctrine on this sub
ject he is too ignorant to discuss Christian theology in a cross road
grocery; and if he be not ignorant of the Christian doctrine of the
unity of God, and yet made in cold type the above statement what
are we to think of him ? Does not his statement justify me ’in dis
missing him as too ignorant or too dishonest to deal with in discus
sing the great question at issue ?
Watts. Here is a storm in a teacup. The Father’s holy ire is
like that of an incensed Jove. But he should remember that not
only is abuse not argument, but that, as a rule, it proves the lack,
of argument. To call an opponent ill names, apply to him such
complimentary epithets as “ ignorant upstart,” and rave about
his unfitness for the task he has undertaken, is, no doubt, quite in
keeping with the priestly intolerance of the popish hierarchy, but.
it is not likely to carry conviction to the calm and impartial reader..
The Father should remember the story of the dispute about the
body of Moses, recorded in “ sacred scripture,” between the devil
and an archangel. Verily that archangel would have been silent
had he encountered Father Lambert, and it is even questionablewhether the other disputant would have had much chance with
him. And, after all, what is the matter ? What is all this commo
tion about ?
Lambert. Christian theology affirms that there are not three
Gods, but one God, one divine nature, and that in this one divine
nature there are three persons. The unity is asserted of the divine
nature, tri-unity of the divine persons, and it does not require more
than average brains to understand that nature and personality are
not one and the same thing.
Watts. But personality surely implies a distinct and separate
consciousness. One Bishop, in fact—Sherlock I think—said that
the three persons in the Godhead were “ as distinct as Peter, James
and John.” That either means three Gods, or three persons of
whom each is one-third of a God. Which is it, Father Lambert ?
Don’t try to escape by calling out “ mystery.” There is no mystery
at all, but simply a use of words without meaning, which is thesynonym of nonsense. In fact, the mass of absurdity that has
been written on this question is astounding. Three Gods yet onlyone God.
Lambert. It is inexplicable how one can be one and three at thesame time and in the same sense, but that is precisely what Chris
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
21
tian theology does not affirm. When it affirms unity and trinity or
God it does not affim them in the same sense. It asserts that the
■divine nature is one; the divine persons, three.
Watts. Is that so, friend Lambert ? I must ask you whether
you are not familiar with a mass of nonsense called “ The Creed of
St. Athanasius.” Have you not subscribed to that creed ? Now
what does it say ? “ The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”
Now, tell me, does not this predicate that they are three and one in
the same sense 1 If not, then words have no meaning. Nothing can be
more clear and plain. And the absurdity is repeated a dozen
times or more in different ways—and always to show that these
existences are three and one in exactly the same sense. Who is
the “ ignorant upstart” now ? The tables are turned, Father, as
any one can see with half an eye.
Ingersoll. He (God) authorized the murder of millions.
Lambert, He never authorized or ordered the murder of anyone
from Abel to Garfield. God is the author and giver of life, and
those He places on this earth He can remove at His will No man
has a right to live one instant longer than his Creator wills him to
remain, be he born or unborn, innocent or guilty. As creatures of
God we are absolutely His and can have no right whatever as
against Him.
Lacy. The proposition embraced in the Father’s comment
raises two questions : ist, Has God a “ right ” to do whatever He
arbitrarily might will with His creature man, moulded in His
image, whom He made a little lower than the angels, and thought
worthy of a crown of glory and honour ? Has He the right, for
instance, to inflict wanton punishment without any moral aim
whatever ?
Lambert. Yes. He has the right to do whatever He wills with
His creature man, first, because being infinitely perfect He wills
rightly and justly, and secondly, because man is His creature. To
suppose God to will unjustly or punish wantonly is to suppose Him
to be imperfect, but you cannot suppose this since you have ad
mitted Him to be perfect. God being infinitely perfect and just
His will is infinitely perfect and just; and an infinitely perfect and
just will has a right to will what .it wills to will. This does not
need demonstration, it follows from the admitted existence of a
perfect Being.
Watts. This bit of Jesuitical sophistry is worthy of a priest. It,
in fact, begs the question in dispute. How are the perfections ot
�22
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
any being to be learned but by the acts of such a being ? God is.
assumed to be a perfect being and then all kinds of what, under
other circumstances, would be deemed not only imperfect but very
vile and atrocious acts, ascribed to Him, are said to be perfect
because He performed them. This is logic with a vengeance. The
acts of God prove His perfection, and His perfection makes the
acts perfect. There is, then, no absolute distinction between per
fection and imperfection. A man declares that he has a command
from God to commit murder, and he slays most brutally many of
his fellow men. This is not a crime, because of the assumption
that a perfect being ordained it to be done. But no, the man may
have been a deceiver, or himself deceived, and thus his act not of
God at all. Exactly. And to-day no one would believe his story
about his having received such a command from God. Why, then,
should not the same common sense be used when discussing thepretensions of men who lived in earlier times ? Assume, if you
please, that God is perfect and just. Then it follows, as clear as
that two and two make four, that He could never have commanded
any human being to perform acts which are unjust. But the Bibleascribes such commands to Him. Therefore the Bible is, so far
at all events, false. The atrocious murders and vile licentious acts,,
which are said to have been commanded by God in the Old Tes
tament, were either ordered by Him or they were not. If they
were, then He is unjust; if they were not, the story is untrue. Let
Father Lambert choose which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If
there be a God He has given to man the faculties by which justice
can be distinguished from injustice, benevolence from malignity,,
virtue from vice, and by those faculties the acts ascribed to God
himself must be judged. To believe otherwise is to make thejustice and goodness of God terms without meaning.
Lacy Has He (God) the right to inflict wanton suffering with
out any moral aim whatever ?
Lambert. This is an absurd question. It is as if you should ask,.
Has the perfect Being the right to do wrong ? Has the perfect
Being the right to be imperfect ? A question that supposes im
perfection in the perfect Being involves a contradiction and requires
no answer. God, being perfect, has a right to do as He wills.
Watts. But can He will to do wrong ? If not, then we err when
we ascribe wrong to Him. And that is iust what the Bible does.
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
23
To say that an act which would be wrong in man is right in God,
is to deny that there is any absolute distinction between right and
wrong. Or, if the will of God makes an act right and just, then
there is no meaning in saying that God acts rightly, or justly, and,
moreover, such acts as murder, theft, etc., having been decided to
be right because God commanded them, then it is only right that
men should so regard them. And on this principle the Holy (?)
Catholic Church has acted again and again in the history of the
past, when she resorted to the fire and faggot argument to con
vince heretics. Such sophistical quibbling as this priest indulges
in is pitiable.
Lambert. The difficulty is not in conceiving divine justice, but
in understanding its application. Our ignorance of all the condiditions, circumstances and divine purposes disables us from judg
ing the acts of God in any given case. But, knowing that he is
the perfect Being, we must conclude a priori that his every act is
just, without reference to how it may appear to us whose minds
are rendered impotent by ignorance. To know what justice is and
to discern the justice of a particular act are different things. Man
is capable of the former but not of the latter in all cases, for the
latter depends on conditions of which he is ignorant.
Watts. But what is this but saying that we know nothing at all
about God ? What nonsense to talk of God’s perfections, when
we are unable to judge of what perfection in him would con
sist. We can only judge of any act, whether of a man or a God,
by such faculties as we possess, and if these are useless for the
purpose in the case of God, how absurd it must be to talk of the
justice of God at all. 'If justice in God means something totally
different from justice in man, it is only misleading to say that God
is just. I am told that God is love, but that may, upon this prin
ciple of reasoning, mean something totally different from what I
understand by the term, from its use amongst men; it may in
fact mean the very opposite,—hate. But all this goes to show how
idle it is to talk at all about that which no one can understand.
All the adjectives which Mr. Lambert uses to describe God, may
mean something entirely different to the ideas they convey when
applied to men, and therefore only serve to make “ confusion more
confounded.”
Lacy. If God be God, he is no Nero, no Herod, no Gessler,
but a Father lifting up his children to himself.
�24
the CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
Lambert. This is true, and therefore you and Ingersoll slander
him when you make him out a tyrant.
Watts. 'Why, it is you who make him a tyrant, by declaring
that tyranny is not tyranny when practised by him. Your entire
argument is, in fact, a defence of his tyranny by an endeavour to
show that his most tyrannical acts are right.
Lambert. If it (the Bible) is inspired by God, its pre*cepts and
commands must be just and right, however they may appear to
us. It will not do to say the Book commanded unjust things to
be done, and therefore it is not inspired. This is to beg the ques
tion, for if it be inspired those things which you imagine to be
unjust are not and cannot be unjust.
Watts. Well, but does not the fact that this book commands
unjust acts, or what we should call unjust acts under any other
circumstances, prove that it is not inspired by a just God ? And
if it be inspired, then we ought to take our ideas of justice from its
pages, and completely revolutionize our present ethical code.
But even Father Lambert dares not do this. Acts are com
manded, or said to be commanded, by God in the Old Testament,
which Mr. Lambert, with the fear of the law before his eyes,
dares not to perform in America. He might plead that they
were right because they had been approved of by God. But a
judge—even a Christian judge—would make short work of all such
nonsense, and the Father would soon find himself where he could
write no more books on the “ Tactics of Infidels.”
Lambert. He who has the absolute right to take life cannot be
guilty of murder in taking it ; for murder is. an unjust killing, and
there is no unjust killing in the taking of life by him who has the
absolute right to take it. There is no escape from this reasoning
except by denying the absolute right, and you cannot deny this
but by denying God’s existence ; for on the hypothesis that he
exists, he is creator, and being creator, the absolute right of dominion
over his creatures necessarily follows, * * * to deny this
right is to deny God’s existence.
Lacy. If by absolute dominion he meant to govern without
regard to the principles of justice, written by God’s own finger on
the human heart, we fail to see it.
Lambert. Inasmuch as absolute dominion does not . mean to
govern without regard to the principles of justice, your if is of no
consequence. No one thinks of asserting that the perfect Being
can govern without reference to his own essential attributes, of
which justice is one. When I assert the absolute dominion of God,
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
25
I simply assert that he is accountable to no one but himself, and
that whatever he does, merely because he does it, is beyond human
criticism.
Watts. This begs the whole question. We maintain, as Mr.
.Lambert must know, that the book is not true which ascribes
unjust acts to God. He assumes that God did act as here repre
sented, and then declares the acts recorded to be good, because
they were done by God.
But if our sense of justice is to be considered a guide for
our own conduct, we have the right to criticise, by means of
the same faculty, the actions of others. And when we are
told with one breath that God is good and with the next that
lie is the author of acts at which humanity shudders with
horror, we simply say that no one but a born fool can believe
both statements.
Either God is not good, or else it is fake
to say that he performed, or ordered to be performed, the acts
which are ascribed to Him in the Bible. The only other alterna
tive is to assert that we are incapable of judging of what is just
and right. But that is a more fatal position still to the Christian,
for it involves the fact that we have no guide for our own conduct.
Hence, we ourselves may kill and torture, inflict pain in the most
brutal form, and declare it wise and good to do so. In truth this
is what the Church has done in all ages, and no wonder, with such
pious examples before them ascribed to their God. If we are at
all capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between
justice and injustice, then we say boldly that such cruel acts as are
ascribed to God in the Bible are most terribly unjust. Nor is it
any answer to say that God did them, for that is to say he has no
sense of justice himself and is not good. We have rights even
against God himself, for, if he exists, it was he who gave us the
faculties by which his own acts are condemned. Our position,
However, is this, that the book which ascribes acts of horror, deeds
of blood and fierce cruelty to God is not true. Father Lambert,
with all the audacious effrontery of his class, assumes the truth of
the record and then proceeds to raise a superstructure of argument
upon the assumption. And this miserable quibbling he calls logical
reasoning.
Lambert. The Hebrew military laws did not abandon captive
women to the insolence and brutality of captors. On the contrary
�16
THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS” CRITICISED.
they made special provision forbidding the first familiarities of thesoldier with his captives. If you study the 21st chapter of Deuter
onomy, verses 10 to 14, you will learn that the soldier was obliged,
to make the captive his wife.
Watts . But to compel a woman to marry a man whom she
loathed and detested, a foreign invader of her country, the
slaughterer of her kindred and friends, does not mend the matter
much. What was such a marriage but another form of foul
licentiousness ? This explanation leaves the case nearly as bad as
it was before. Compulsory marriage of people who detest each
other, solely for the purpose of gratifying the lust of the man, is
brutal, unjust, and loathsome.
Lambert. As further proof you quote from Numbers: “But all
the women children who have not known man by lying with him,.
keep for yourselves,'1' and add :—
Lacy. Female innocence to be offered on the altar of lust!’
Noble trophies of victory !
Lambert. A Comanche Indian would probably interpret the
verse that way. But what is there in the words to justify the
inference that the captives were devoted to the lusts of the captors ?
The captives were to be adopted into the nation and subsequently
to intermarry with the Jews in accordance with the law of
Deuteronomy quoted above. It is only a libidinous imagination
that can give the words any other interpretation. The United
States government “ keeps for itself ” the children of those Indianswhom it destroys. Are we to infer that those children are to be
offered on the altar of lust ?
Watts. But to charge your opponent with having “ a libidinous,
imagination,” although a very Christian argument, does not get rid
of the difficulty. The text, interpreted by common sense, and not
by theological hocus pocus, clearly means that these young women
were kept alive for purposes of debauchery. Otherwise, why thequalifications stated ? The case of the children of the Indians is
not analogous, for there both sexes are preserved and treated in
, the same way. Here it was the females only, and they of a par
ticular age, and in their virginity. The sophistry of this wily priest
may be able to do much in the form of hood-winking his credulous
dupes, but it is inadequate to the task of explaining away the plain
meaning of this charming and delicious text.
Lacy. In this age does the Father require a writer to prove that
slavery is an evil and polygamy a sin ?
�THE CRITIC OF “TACTICS OF INFIDELS*’ CRITICISED.
2/
Lambert. He does most emphatically require those who reject
revelation to prove the wrong or sinfulness of slavery and poly
gamy. Those who believe in revelation believe they are wrong be
cause they are forbidden. But on what principle do you, who re
ject revelation, believe they are wrong ? Oh, they are slimy and
filthy. There, there, we have had enough of that kind of talk ; it
proves nothing.
Watts. Can anything be conceived of equal to this in reckless
and impudent audacity ? Revelation forbids slavery and polygamy ?
Where ? Let us have chapter and verse. Both are pretty gener
ally referred to in the Bible, and always without a single word of
condemnation. Had any unbeliever made an assertion of this
character, Mr. Lambert, with his excessive politeness, would have
called him a “ liar.” The entire statement is simply truth reversed.
Those who attach no importance to so-called supernatural revela,tion are the men who have always been first and foremost in con
demning polygamy and denouncing slavery, whilst the Christian
Church defended at least one of these monstrous evils up to quite
recent times. Why are they wrong ? Because they sap the founda
tion of all society, and are out of harmony with the best interests
of mankind. That is why, Mr. Lambert, and not because they are
condemned or forbidden by your so-called revelation, which they
most assuredly are not. Such an attempt to hoodwink the ig
norant dupes of a miserable superstition has rarely been witnessed
as is presented in the pages of this cunning priest’s book.
Lambert. The apostles claimed a divine communication and mis
sion. They worked miracles.
La,cy. Here again is a begging of the question by one who was
to grant nothing and take nothing for granted. Here it is assumed
that miracles were wrought, the very statement denied in the con
troversy.
Lambert. There is the same evidence to prove the miracles of
Christ and the apostles that there is to prove the existence and .
acts of Alexander and Csesar, namely, history and tradition. If
we rej( ct the former we must on the same principle reject the latter,
and if we adopt this principle we cut ourselves off comparatively
from all the events and personages of the past. The miracles of
Christ and His apostles are historic facts or events subject to the
same rules of historic criticism that other facts are.
Watts. But it should be borne in mind that this is just what we
deny, and for which we demand and wait for proof. Is there the same
�THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
historic evidence of the Christian miracles that there is for the ex
istence and actions of Alexander and Caesar ? If so, it is marvel
lously strange that it is never forthcoming. Why does not this
priest produce it ? We are tolerably familiar with the sort of evi
dence that his Church deals in. It is manufactured for the pur
pose, and is no doubt very conclusive to the poor dupes who are
bamboozled by an objectionable class of ecclesiastical dictators
who preserve their authority and their pay by lording it over their
victims. But rational men, who are not in bondage to the most
iniquitous hierarchy that has ever disgraced the earth, are not to
he fooled in this way. We assert boldly that no such evidence can
be produced, nor such evidence as would satisfy a legal mind and
convince an intelligent jury in a court of justice, even were the
issue the conviction of a prisoner for stealing a brass-headed nail.
But does not Mr. Lambert see that the cases are not at all analo
gous ? In the first place, it is of no great importance whether
Csesar lived or not, or whether Alexander performed the acts
ascribed to him. The question is not a very momentous one.- The
world would not be much affected whatever decision was arrived at
regarding it. But on the belief in the miracles of Jesus our eternal
salvation, it is said, depends, and evidence should therefore be ob
tainable about which no mistake could be made, and which no rea
soning could overturn. And secondly, everyone knows that the
strength of evidence tendered in support of any event should be in
proportion to the commonness or uncommonness of the event it
self. That which would suffice to prove an ordinary event would
be perfectly inadequate to show that an extraordinary one had
taken place. If I am told that such a man as Csesar lived, I have
no reason to doubt it, because there is nothing improbable in the
alleged fact. But if I were informed that he worked miracles, and
* came to life again after he was dead, the highly improbable char
acter of the circumstance would render much strong evidence ne
cessary before I should be convinced. There are stories told in
fact, which no amount of evidence could establish as true. The
testimony of a million men could not prove that which, by the very
nature of things, is impossible. And although I am not saying that
the miracles recorded in the New Testament are impossible, I do
say that they outrage all the laws of probability, and can only,
therefore, be believed on the production of an amount of evidence
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
2q
ten thousand times greater than that which would suffice to show
that Csesar had lived and written the commentaries ascribed to
him, or that Alexander had been a great warrior.
Lucy. The sceptic says, along with miracles we read of witch
craft and demoniacal possessions.
Lambert. And the merchant says, along with gold coin he meets
with counterfeits, but he is not so asinine as to reject all money
on that account. He takes care, however, to test each piece or
note, and rejects the false and accepts the true.
Watts. ' So, so, Father. There is the same difference between
miracles and such cases as those of witchcraft and demoniacal
possession, as between good coin and counterfeit money. Be
it so. But both the Bible and the huge ecclesiastical estab
lishment which you call the church, treat all three with the same
authority. Then, miracles are true, and demoniacal possession
and witchcraft spurious. It is quite refreshing to find a Romish
priest writing like this. It seems after all that there is a good deal
of counterfeit in the Bible and in the Church, which is just what
we have always maintained. Surely this was a slip of the pen on the
part of the priest. Witchcraft spurious ! Yet the Church has
put to death many thousands of persons for practising it. Demo
niacal possession a sham ! Yet the Bible teaches it, and the Church
maintains its truth. Be careful, Lambert, or you will be indicted
for heresy by your own church, and may be compelled, like poor
Gallileo, before any ignorant tribunal of the same hierarchy, to
eat your own words and recant.
Lacy. A crazy man was supposed to be possessed by the devil.
Lambert. Supposed by whom ? Where did you acquire this
piece of information which you impart so gratuitously ? We find
in the Scripture that certain persons were said to be possessed, but
we do not find that crazy men were supposed to be possessed. This
is an inference of your own which is not justified by the premises.
As a matter of fact the Scriptures themselves make a distinction
between demoniac possession and insanity, and recognize the exis
tence of both.
. Watts. The Scriptures “ recognize the existence of both.” Quite
so. Then please, Father Lambert, tell us how you reconcile this
with your former statement, that demoniacal possessions were
spurious and stood in the same relation to miracles that counter
�30
THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS ” CRITICISED.
feit does to genuine coin. We know perfectly well that in the Bible
a distinction is made between insanity and the being possessed by
devils, but we contend that this shows the ignorance of those who
wrote the Bible. No scientific man to day believes in demoniacal
possession, and Christians of education use their utmost endeavours
and the most ingenious and sophistical arguments to explain away
the meaning of those passages in the New Testament, where it is
mentioned. But to be serious, is such childish nonsense worth dis
cussing ? The fact is, Christianity in its orthodox form is obsolete,
and the wretched old wbrn out despotism, called the Church of
Rome, out of place in the midst of modern civilization. It could
only flourish in an age of ignorance, darkness and superstition and
must disappear before the light of science as clouds before the
noonday sun. That any man of intelligence can be found in this
age to defend its audacious pretensions, its absurd dogmas, its
puerile mummeries, its despotic proceedings, its persecuting spirit,
its illiterate and ignorant priesthood, its ridiculous claims, its
false and mischievous teaching, is perfectly astounding. But
so it is. Delusions die hard, and the greater the delusion, some
times the harder the death. Demoniacal possession ! What would
be thought of any man who should talk about that absurdity in a
meeting of men of science ? He would simply be laughed at, and
no one would deem it worth noticing, nor his opinions worthy of
discussion.
Lacy. We hear the Bible called “ God’s Book,” as if it had been
written as a unit.
Lambert. If you heard that you must be in the habit of keeping
•strange company. If you had asked an intelligent Christian for
information on the subject, he would have told you that it was
written by many authors and at long intervals of time; that its
present arrangement, chaptering and versification are a matter of
convenience.
Watts. It is a quibble, and a very poor one at that, to say that
the Bible is acknowledged by Christians to be composed of many
different books which were written by various men at different
time£, therefore, it is not spoken of as “ a unit,” or one. Mr. Lam
bert knows perfectly well that according to Christian belief these
were simply instruments in the hands of God, in fact, vehicles
through whom the divine teaching flowed down to mankind, and
that their own private views are not found at all in what they wrote.
�THE CRITIC OF “ TACTICS OF INFIDELS
CRITICISED.
31
The book had one author and that author was God, the men em
ployed being simply amanuenses, writing down what they were
inspired to put on record. Everywhere, therefore, amongst Chris
tians this volume is spoken of as a unit, under the name of the
Word of God. The teaching in its various parts—in whatever
age written—is believed to be of equal divine authority, and pass
ages from every book are frequently preached from in the pulpit,
and quoted in every-day life as applicable to the affairs of human
existence as we find it at the present time. The Romanist, of course,
puts the authority of his church above the Bible, but no Protestant
will for a moment allow this to be done. With both the Bible is
the word of God, and the latter takes as his motto, “ The Bible,
the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” The “ strange com
pany,” therefore, was Christian company. Strange enough, no
-doubt, but Christian still.
Lacy. The Pope is in his own sacred person also infallible.
Lambert. Here as usual in presenting Catholic doctrines you mis
represent. Had you consulted any of the many books which treat
of the decrees of the council of the Vatican you would have learned
that they do not teach that the Pope personally, or as a private
individual, is infallible, but that he is infallible only in his official
■capacity, as supreme head and judge of the church. As a lawyer
you should understand this distinction. You know the decision of
one of our judges given as a private individual, and unofficial, has
no weight in law ; while the same decision given formally in his
public and official capacity, is decisive.
Watts. If anywhere in the world a prize should be given for
quibbling this priest would certainly take it against all comers.
He is surely the champion hair splitter. How adroitly he intro
duces an analogy, which is no analogy at all, and thus throws dust
into the eyes of his readers, and then winds up with a flourish of
trumpets as though he had achieved a great victory over his
antagonist. The Pope is infallible only in his official capacity,
whatever that may mean. He is infallible as head of the church.
.But is he not always head of the church? If yes, then he is
always infallible, if no, who is head of the church when he is not ?
Or is the church sometimes without a head ? There is no analogy
-in the case of the judge dragged in neck and crop. The opinion
of a judge will be just as sound and just as accurate in private as
an public, only if given in the one case it has authority, whilst in
�32
THE CRITIC OF
TACTICS OF INFIDELS ’
CRITICISED.
the other it has not. But infallibility cannot be laid aside then,,
for it is an individual and not an official quality. An infallible
being must be always infallible, no matter where and to what his
infallible power is applied, and if the Pope be really infallible, heis quite as much so when giving orders about his dinner, choosing
his servants, selecting his stockings, or scolding his menials, or
when delivering his decrees ex cathedra in the conclave of Bishops.
To maintain the contrary is to ascribe the infallibility to the chair
in which he sits or to some of his official surroundings, which
would be too absurd even for a Roman Catholic to maintain, which
is saying a great deal.
This infallibility doctine has been the curse of mankind in all
ages where it has been taught. It has deluged the world with
blood, and stopped the onward march of progress by fire and
sword. Superstition is its twin brother, persecution is its offspring,
and cruelty of the most damnable kind the weapon it has ever em
ployed. The Protestant ascribes infallibility to his Bible, and the
Romanist to a common-place old man in the Vatican. We say “ a
plague on both your houses 1 ” Infallibility is not within the reach
of human beings, and they who pretend to have it cannot avoid
arrogating to themselves superiority over their fellows, and treating
better men than themselves as inferiors. The arrogant and often,
impertinent and insolent tone of the author of “ Tactics of Infidels ”
bespeaks the true papist in every line. He is a priest of an infal
lible church, which church is unparalleled for the mischief it has
done in the world by any organization in ancient and modern times,.
It has everywhere championed despotism, ignorance and priestly
intolerance, and has seldom, if ever, been found on the side of free
dom, benevolence, and justice. But its end is near. It is out of har
mony with the institutions of this country, and with the aspirations
of modern thought. When it is gone, the people will breathe more
freely, and feel that a horrible night-mare has been removed.
�
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
English
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK. At head of title: 'Orthodox criticism tested!'
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (A reply to Father Lambert's "Tactics of Infidels,"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1856
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
Free Thought
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dfc43acee4ade5d27d79dda0cbbb340f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CvAaHpIJL4er2SlqzlFYqGu1ZYFBy5ZV72hnZdJwODn8lOb9MRRaww3cI-9iQ7Qt7DTdEBzUKYAz-wlHOyWhpn%7EHjeD7xiSLBNthjtkQpnjDL4Qq63lVf1WD-ZT-da2HwzTAo%7EWQ8kR3u5NknS9wXdLdJgPA3LnUNJKduWxah3VUConaveWPuna%7EwXWMJMBb4CIS6CQz%7E4CzA2Qy-JxVJuFJYdro8XQX3NJWa5iyG6vcyn4%7E33rPPYAHv-htB6aJ%7ElpDAFuJkPcEpexRNiOGIMbR1sp6Z5wvkdoysjyWIejcus%7EmIecBYEplrxn09PuQDjr207jVICB02NKzseb8Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0c3b5acb35cc01dd2f9e1157ae94bcb7
PDF Text
Text
Its Origin, Nature, and Influence.
By CHARLES WATTS
CONTENTS:
Christianity of Human Origin—Not Original—Indefinite. Impracti.
cable and Contradictory in its Nature—Its Influence Tested by
History and the Admissions of Christian Writers.
Price Fifteen Cents.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE,
Toronto, Ont.
��CHRISTIANITY:
ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND INFLUENCE.
“ To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and
folly.”—Fohiet/.
INTRODUCTION.
The object of this pamphlet is to ascertain as far as possible what
evidence and demonstration, if any, can be reasonably adduced in
favour of the general orthodox claims relative to the Origin, Nature,
and Influence of the Christian religion. In these days of avowed
mental freedom and intellectual research, no apology should be needed
for entering upon such an investigation. Systems or principles
unable to withstand the test of fair examination are destitute of what
should be one of their highest recommendations. Belief without
critical examination has too often perpetuated error and fostered
credulity. If Christianity be fallacious, why should not its fallacy
be made known ? If, however, it be true, its truth will be the more
apparent as its claims are investigated and examined. Dr. Collyer
observes, in his lectures on miracles, that “ he who forbids you to reason
on religious subjects, or to apply your understanding to the investiga
tion of revealed truth, is insulting the character of God, as though his
acts shrunk from scrutiny—is degrading his own powers, which are
best employed when they are in pursuit of such sublime and interesting
subjects.
There are three principal modes of criticising the modern Orthodox
pretensions set forth on behalf of popular Christianity. First, it
is alleged that such pretensions are entirely destitute of truth, and
that they have been of no service whatever to mankind. This view
I cannot thoroughly endorse. Many of the superstitions of the world
have been allied with some fact, and have in their exercise upon the
minds of a portion of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful
purpose. In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard
it as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in my opinion, is.
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess what they
hold to be true as we have to entertain views which we believe to be
correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted by intellectual growth,
not crushed by dogmatic force. The third and, to my mind, the most
sensible and fair mode of dealing with Christianity is to regard it as not
being the only system of truth ; as not being of any special origin; as
being not suited to all minds ; as having fulfilled its original purpose,
and as having no claim of absolute domination. This appears to me to
be the true position of Secularism towards popular orthodoxy. Such
a position is based upon the voice of history, the law of mental science,
and the philosophy of true liberty of thought. We should in all our
endeavours seek to gain as far as possible that which is useful unaccom
panied with that which has become useless.
To the impartial student of history and to the keen observer of the
development of the human mind, it is apparent that systems are
frequently deprived of much of their real value through the injudicious
conduct of their expounders and defenders. Such persons are not con
tented to allow their theories to stand upon their own legitimate merits,
but they deem it necessary to add thereto claims which are most extrav
agant, and which have no necessary connection with the systems advo
cated. The result of such a policy is that fictitious surroundings frequently
•obscure the real nature and scope of the principles advocated. This is
particularly the case with subjects of a theological character. The
religious enthusiast, whose emotion too frequently gets the better of his
reason, is apt to indulge in certain delusions until, in time, they appear
to him realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook no doubt recognised this
when, referring to Jesus in the preface of his work, “ The Founders of
Christianity,” (page v.) he observed : “ Our idealizations have invested
him [Christ] with a halo of spiritual glory that, by the intensity of its
brightness, conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally perfect man our
.fancies have conceived.”
As with Christ so with Orthodox Christianity. The most wild,
absurd and fallacious pretensions are put forth on its behalf. Instead
af regarding the Christian faith as an outgrowth of the human mind, a
combination of truth and error, born amidst limited knowledge and
unlimited superstition, the majority of Orthodox Christians allege
that their system emanated direct from what is termed a divine
source; that it is unique in its nature, unequalled in its influence for
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE. AND INFLUENCE.
3
good and that it really ushered into the world the greatest civi
lization ever known to the human race. These theological extremists
not only ignore all in society that is evil and defective as belonging to
their system, but they credit Christianity with all improvements which
have taken place in modern times. It matters not whether it be a
steam engine, an electric telegraph, a printing press, the telephone, the
extension of political rights, the existence of benevolent and health
restoring institutions, the marked improvement of the physical con
dition of the people, the increased facilities for the education of the
young, the elevating and improved status of women, the promotion of
sobriety and even the lessening of persecution for the rejection of
creeds and dogmas; all these indications of modern progress are
credited to the Christian faith. Moreover, it is said with a grave
absence of modesty and an utter disregard of accuracy, that high-toned
morality, a correct sense of duty, a clear perception of truth and the
cultivation of the loftiest aspirations, are all the result of the advent
of Jesus of Nazareth.
In vain do we remind these reckless claimants that the principal
factors that operated in the establishment of the reforms that now
surround us, were science, education, an extended freedom of the
press, international and commercial intercourse, and the exerciseof mecha
nical genius, allied with mental liberty. These agencies of individual
and national progress did not exist in the palmy days of Church
supremacy, and they have been secured in spite of the unprincipled
and persistent opposition of the ecclesiastical party. Why is it, if
orthodoxy is so potent for good in these directions, that during cen
turies of its absolute reign it failed to give the world those measures
of reform, which have since been won through secular effort? Is it
not a fact that, after a long and fair trial, with everything in its
favour, the Church has proved incapable of securing the correct remedy
for such evils as drunkenness, social injustice and the withholding
from woman her proper position in the body politic ? Organizations
of a secular character have now to be formed to accomplish that which
theology, with all its power, proved itself impotent to achieve. The
Christian is also reminded that truth, benevolence, justice, a noble
sense of right and all the higher virtues that adorn mankind, have
been found, at least, as highly developed among those who are termed,
the men of the world as among those who profess the Christian faith.
�4
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
That this is so is plainly admitted even by high dignitaries of the
■Church.
Archbishop Whateley, in his “ Lectures on Political
Economy,” remarks : “ I have said that the object of the Scriptures
is to reveal to us religious and moral truths; but even this, as far as
regards the latter, must be admitted with considerable modification.
God has not revealed to us a system of morality such as would have
been needed for beings who had no other means of distinguishing right
and wrong. On the contrary, the inculcation of virtue, and reproba
tion of vice in Scripture, are in such a tone as seems to pre-suppose a
■natural power or a capacity for acquiring the power to distinguish
them.” And Dr. Chalmers, in concluding his sermon on Morality,
states : “We are put upon a cool exercise of the understanding, and
we cannot close it against the fact that all these feelings [those of
charity and virtue] may exist apart from the love of God, and apart
from the religious principle—that the idea of a God may be expunged
from the heart of man, and yet that heart be still the seat of the
same constitutional impulse as ever—that in reference to the realities
of the unseen, the mind may be a blank, and at the same time there
may be room for the play of kindly emotions.”
It is conceded frankly by the present writer, that what is sup
posed to be understood by the very latitudiriarian term Christianity is not
entirely destitute of truth, and that many of its professors are honest
and sincere workers for the common good. All systems being the
outcome of human aspirations, contain features good and commen
dable, for human nature is not totally depraved. The good and useful
work, however, performed by professing Christians is not the result of
their faith, but rather the necessary consequence of their well-trained
and well-developed organizations. Some natures are too pure to be
influenced in their general conduct by any theology. As it was with
the Romans so it is with the Christians of to-day, their Christianity
rests but slightly upon them.
z
In all our investigations, the desire to arrive at truth should be
paramount. No apprehension should be entertained that the result of
our enquiries may be unfavourable to the claims of any particular
faith, but the one desire and determination should be to accept the
verdict of facts. Feeling ought to yield to argument, and traditional
belief to the force of historical and general accuracy. Suppose, in the
examination of the origin, nature, and influence of Christianity, it
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
5
should be demonstrated that it is not divine, unique and pre-eminently
useful to man, would that deprive it of its intrinsic worth 1 Certainly
not. Truth is valuable regardless of its source. That which is based
upon verities and adapted to meet the requirements of human nature
should be recognized, whether it emanate from Pagan or Christian,
Jew or Gentile, the devout Believer or the honest Sceptic.
ITS ORIGIN.
Professing Christians not only allege that their faith is of divine
'Origin, but they contend that those who question the correctness of
such an allegation are logically compelled to show how it could have
been produced by human means. It will not be difficult to demon
strate that the allegation is utterly groundless, and that the contention
:is evidently unreasonable.
From experience we learn that systems emanate from the human
mind, but the same monitordoes not teach us that systems arise from what
is termed a “divine ” source. Besides, what does this word “divine” really
mean ? Has it ever been adequately defined ? Is it not simply an
■ expression used to represent a notion acquired through orthodox train
ing ? What knowledge do we possess to enable us to distinguish the
“ divine,” supposing it to exist, from the human ? Being ignorant of
anything beyond the natural, is it not presumptuous to ascribe a sys
tem or a principle to that of which we know nothing ? Christians
agree in regarding other religions than their own as being of human
origin ; why. then, should their faith be an exception ? Has Christi
anity anything to recommend it that the many other religious theories
• do not claim ? Miraculous power, sublime teachings, supernatural doc
trines, progressive aspirations, are claimed on behalf of systems dis
tant from Christianity.
Supposing, however, that the human origin of the Christian faith
-could not be satisfactorily established, would it necessarily follow that
its origin was supernatural ? Certainly not. If we question its
“ divine ” claims, we are not, therefore, bound to account for its exis■ tence. To doubt the validity of one theory does not make it a logical
necessity that we should assume the responsibility of inventing
mother. This is particularly so in reference to Christianity. So un
certain is the period when it first appeared in the world, so doubtful
are the records said to obtain in its early history, so corrupted have been
the channels through which that history has been traced, and so
^imperfect and contradictory are its credentials that we now have, that
�6
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFUENCE.
it is impossible to judge with sufficient accuracy the precise mode of its
introduction. Hence the presumption of those who profess to have
that knowledge. When Christians ascribe their faith to one cause, and
that cause supernatural, upon them devolves the duty of proving their position. Secularists regard Christianity as being the outgrowth of
the human mind, and consider there is nothing more marvellous in its
origin and progress than pertains to other reliigions. The divine origin
of Buddhism and Mohammedanism is denied by Christians : are they
prepared to give a satisfactory account of the introduction and growth,
of those religions ? Why should Christians demand in regard to their
faith what they are unable to perform in connection with theological
systems to which they are opposed ? The claim of the followers of
Christ on behalf of the origin of their religion is opposed to analogy,
reason and experience. “ It is surely therefore,” observes the Rev.
James Cranbrook, “ an absurdity to say that until we can account for
the origin of Christianity by some other means, seeing it is estab
lished, we are bound to accept it as true, and its advocates are not
bound to adduce any positive evidence in its support. I venture to
lay it down as a canon of both logic and rhetoric, in opposition to the
authority of Archbishop Whately, that every one who makes a posi
tive affirmation is bound to furnish the reasons for such an affirmation
before he demands the belief of others.”
It is a fallacy to suppose that Christianity was an entirely new
system, introduced into the world at one particular date. Great
changes—either of a theological, social, or political character—are not
the sudden product of any one period, but rather the gradual growth
of time. The religious phases that came to the front during the time
Christ is supposed to have lived, were but a further development of a
law that had been manifesting itself in previous ages, and that has
continued to still further unfold itself down to the present time. Prior
to the advent of the Jewish Reformer, a mighty struggle had been going
on between philosophy and superstition, and between polytheism and
monotheism. The polytheistic form of supernaturalism was losing its
hold upon the human mind. Its decay, however, was not in conse
quence of the adoption of Christianity, inasmuch as its decline had
commenced before the new faith had dawned. Lewes, in his “ His
tory of Philosophy,” says that “ the progress of Polytheism to Mono
theism was a continuous development ” This is true. And that-
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS OSIGIN. NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
7
■development was exceedingly rapid during the struggles of the Greek
philosophy. It was, intimates the above writer, “ Greek philosophy
that opened men’s eyes to human duty.” We have no right, therefore,
to infer that, if Christ had not appeared, Paganism would have
remained the prevailing theology. Instead of Christianity causing its
downfall, as frequently asserted, the Galilean religion really retained
many of the Pagan follies, some of which are to this day practised in
the Christian Church. “ It may with reason be doubted, if the fact is
as often remembered as it should be, that Christianity arose amid the
corruption and decay of the greatest civilization which the human race
had seen amid the death-throes of the ancient world..................... It is
often assumed that this proud heathenism and pagan glory were over
thrown by the meek and unlearned disciples of the Galilean prophet
of God. Nothing can be less true than this assumption . . . The
fall of the Empire, including the loss and ruin of the old phi
losophy and knowledge, was an indispensable condition of the spread
of Christianity. . . . The birth of Christianity being on this
wise, viz.: having taken place in an era of decay and death of art
and philosophy, of knowledge, of wealth, of population, of progress, in
every form ; and the absence of these things having been one of the
•chief negative conditions of its growth and prosperity, we must look
for the sources of its nourishment in another direction than these j not
in knowledge or the eager questioning spirit which leads to knowledge,
■but in the humble spirit which believes and accepts on trust the word .
•of authority; not in regulated industry, which aims at constant increase
and accumulation of wealth; but in the resigned poverty, which,
scorning this world, lays up riches in heaven ; not in political freedom
and popular government which aims at the progressive well-being of
all, but in the stern rigour of arbitrary power, which coerces the
vicious and refractory into a little order during their brief sojourn on
earth. In the decline and fall of Rome, or as it would be better to
say, in the final ruin of ancient civilization, the conditions favourable
to this order of beliefs or doctrines, spontaneously emerged.” (Morris
son’s “Service of Man,” pp. 174-5, 178-9). The fact is “Christianity
was only a slight modification of systems already existing—a modifi
cation determined by the combined action and concentration of all the
divergent lines of thought and feeling. Only ignorance can look upon
it as a something so original, so unique, so different from all that was,
�8
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
or ever had been, that nothing but the supposition of supernatural
interference could explain it. Christianity is accounted for by the ten?
dencies of thought in the age in which it was born.”
No one who has carefully and impartially read the histories of the
ancient religions and ethical systems, will contend that the principal
doctrines and moral teachings of the New Testament were known for
the first time in their connection with Christianity. The able Ameri
can writer, Charles B. Waite, M.A., in his “History of the Christian
Religion Religion,” says, “ Many of the more prominent doctrines of
the Christian Religion prevailed among nations of antiquity, hundreds
and in some instances, thousands of years before Christ.” Judge
Strange, in his great work, “ The Sources and Development of Chris
tianity,” shows that nearly all the Christian doctrines—the Atonement,
Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment of the Dead, Immortality, Sacrifice—
were of Egyptian origin, and, therefore, existed long before the time
of Christ. The same able writer, on page 100 of the work mentioned, says : •
“ Christianity, it is thus apparent, was not the result of a special
revelation from above, but the growth of circumstances, and developed
out of the materials, working in a natural manner in the human mind,,
in the place and at the time that the movement occurred.”
In reference to the moral teachings of the New Testament, those
of them capable of being practically carried out were borrowed from
men who lived long anterior to the Christian Era, and who wrote with. out the aid of Christian inspiration. “ To the truths already uttered
in the Athenian prison,” says Mackay, “ Christianity added little or
nothing, except a few symbols which, though well calculated for popu
lar acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to instruct, and oiler
the best opportunity for priestly mystification.” Sir William Jones, in
his tenth discourse before the Asiatic. Society, says “ Christianity has
no need of such aids as many are willing to give it, by asserting that
the wisest men of the world were ignorant of the great maxim, that
we should act in respect to others as we would wish them to act in
respect of ourselves, as the rule is implied in a speech of Lysias,
expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus, and I have seen
it word for word in the original of Confucius.” And the Rev. Dr.
George Matheson, in his lecbure on “The Religions of China,” page 84,
observes : “ The glory of Christian morality is that it is not original.”
Thus it is that Christianity is composed of materials born of the human
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
9
mind at different periods, and in various countries in the ancient and
modern world.
While it may be difficult to name the exact when and how
Christianity was ushered into the world, it is not difficult to indicate
• circumstances of a human character that in all probability favoured
its introduction.
Orthodox Christianity essentially appeals to the “ poor in spirit; ’’for
the self-reliant it has but little charm. At the time when Christ is
supposed to have lived, the people were longing for the appearance of
some one, either to console them in their misfortunes, or to deliver
them from their state of submission; at a time when one of the most
splendid, though imperfect civilizations the world had ever beheld had
reached its climax. The majority of the subject races under the
Roman Empire were slaves. Many of them who had been brave in
their freedom had become, as the result of their captivity, enervated
and degenerate. The Jews, to whom Christ is said first to have
appeared, had their national spirit nearly crushed out. They had been
for a century under the Roman yoke, and previous to that subjection,
the unfortunate subjects of equally as cruel conquerors. In Christ’s
time the descendants of Abraham had lost all prospect of earthly
success. Embittered by disappointment and wearied by persecution,
they were prepared to accept any change which they thought would
remove them from their unfortunate condition. The Jews were a people
who had been robbed of their independence; whose manhood was
gone, reduced to a state of physical dependency and mental poverty,
they were taught by Christ that this world is not the place of God’s
final government.
While on earth God’s people are persecuted
by way of trial and purification. But consolation is given in the hope
that the “ light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us
a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” This was virtually
the language of Christ to a ruined nation and a forlorn people. The
alleged founder of Christianity also urged upon his credulous hearers
that the end of the world was at hand ; that their existence on earth
was nearly over, and, if they accepted his faith, they should not only
have houses and lands during their brief stay here, but happiness and
immortality hereafter. So impressed were the early Christians with
the idea of the speedy destruction of the world, that they disregarded
the duties of this life. “They were dead,” says Gibbon, “to the busi
mess and pleasures of the world.” It must be remembered, moreover,
�10
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE’
that the primitive Christians were composed of the ignorant, super
stitious and servile classes of society; persons whom the above teach
ings were just calculated to captivate. Mosheim writes that “ among
the first professors of Christianity there were but few men of learning,
few who had capacity enough to insinuate into the minds of a grossmd ignorant multitude the knowledge of divine things.” It appears
that the early teachers of Christianity were as uneducated as the
“ignorant multitude” to whom they preached.
“We may here
remark,” says the historian just mentioned, “ in general that these
Apostolic Fathers and the other writers, who in the infancy of the
Church employed their pens in the cause of Christianity, were neither
remarkable for their learning nor for their eloquence. On the contrary,
they express the most pious and admirable sentiments in the plainest
and most illiterate style.” The .author of “ The Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire ” records that “ the new sect of Christians was
almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace, of peasants and
mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves.” Again, notic
ing the reproach that “the Christians allured into their party the
most atrocious criminals,” Gibbon quaintly observes, “ the friends of
Christianity may acknowledge without a blush, that many of the
most eminent saints had been before their baptism the most abandoned
sinners.”
Thus it will be seen that the natural conditions of society two1
thousand years ago were such as . to render possible the reception of
Christianity without the intervention of any alleged supernatural
power. This will appear the more apparent when it is remembered
that at that period Rome was remarkably tolerant to all new religions.
Chambers, in his “History of Rome,” states, “ One good quality they
(the Romans) pre-eminently exhibited; namely, the toleration of other
forms and rituals than their .own, no matter whether exhibited at
home or in the countries they, conquered.” “ Each nation,” says
Mosheim, “ suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of wor^ship, to adore their own Gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies,
■ 'and discovered no sort of displeasure at their diversity of sentiments,
in religious matters. . . . The Romans exercised this toleration in
the amplest manner.” Gibbon also states, “The various modes of wor
ship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by thepeople as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the
magistrate as equally useful.” That the Christians were persecuted by
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
11
the Romans cannot be denied, but the cause of that persecution was
not the mere profession of their faith so much as the fact of their
meeting in secret, and, as it was thought, conspiring against the State.
Renan, in his “ Hilbert Lectures.” says, “ Before Constantine, we
search in vain in Roman law for any enactment against Freethought.”
Remembering these general existing conditions, the means employed
-to introduce Christianity must not be overlooked in considering its
origin, Among such means were those of the promises of earthly
rewards, heavenly joys, and the practising of fraud and deceit. To a
poor and dependent people Jesus said : “There is no man that hath
left house, or bretheTn, or sisters, or father^ or mother, or wife, or
-children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive
an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and
mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world
to come eternal life.” (Mark x. 29, 30.) In fact, “Peter said unto
him [Christ], Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee ; what
shall we have therefore ? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto
you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the
Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, fudging the twelve tribes of Israel”. (Matt. xix. 27,
28.) The first Christian emperor, according to Gibbon, offered bribes
of garments and gold to those who would embrace the Christian faith.
(“ Decline and Fall,” vol. 11, pp. 472, 473.) With such inducements
as these, it would not be difficult, even in “this enlightened age,” to
secure converts to the most absurd faith. To these allurements must
be added the powerful factors, in a period of credulity and unsurpassed
ignorance and fear, of fraud and deceit. Mosheim says it was “ held
as a maxim that it was not only lawful, but praiseworthy to deceive
and even to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance the cause of
truth and piety ... it cannot be affirmed that even true Chris
tians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in this matter .
they who were desirous of surpassing all others in piety, looked upon
it as lawful, and even laudable, to advance the cause of piety by arti
fice and fraud.” (“Ecclesiastical History,” vol. 1, pp. 55-77). In the
fourth century, Lactantius exclaimed, “ Among those who seek power
and gain there will never be wanting an inclination to forge a lie for
it.” (Middleton’s “Letters from Rome.”) Gregory says, “A little
Jargon is all that is necessary to impose upon the people. The less they
-comprehend, the more they admire.”
�12
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
Another circumstance attending the introduction of Christianity is
that its early adherents retained many of the principal features of the
Buddhists and the Essenes.
Max Muller remarks, “Between the
language of Buddha and his disciples, and the language of Christ and
his apostles there are strange coincidences. Even some of the Buddhist
legends and parables sound as if taken from the New Testament,
though we know that many of them existed before the beginning of
the Christian era.” (“Science of Religion,” p. 113.) Professor Beal
observes, “ The points of agreement between the two are remarkable.
All the evidence we have goes to prove that the teachings of Buddha
were known in the East centuries before Christ.” (“ History of
Buddhism.”) It is worthy of note that the claims now set up on behalf of
Christ are very similar to those which were urged in the interest of
Buddha. Self-assertion, “ I am the light of the world ; ” self-assump
tion, “unequalled in perfection,” being “without sin the possession of
purity and great personal influence are features ascribed to Buddha as
well as to Christ. Thus, as an eminent writer observes, “the history of
Jesus of Nazareth as related in the books of the New Testament, is
simply a copy of that of Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed
from other nations.”
If possible, a more striking resemblance exists between the teachings,
of the Essenes and those of the four gospels. In fact, Dr. Ginsburg
considers there is no doubt that Christ belonged to the sect of theEssenes. The reader is referred to Bunsen’s “Angel Messiah,” and
to Judge Strange’s “ Sources and Development of Christianity ” for
detailed proof in favour of Dr. Ginsburg’s position. We give the
following from Mrs. Besant, as showing how the teachings of Christi
anity correspond with those of the Essenes : “It is to Josephus thatwe must turn for an account of the Essenes; a brief sketch of them
is given in ‘Antiquities of the Jews,’ bk. xviii., chap. 1. He says:
‘ The doctrine of the Essenes is this : That all things are bestascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that
the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when
they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not
offer sacrifices, because they have more pure lustrations of their own
on which account they are excluded from the common court of the
temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life
better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
13
husbandry.’ They had all things in common, did not marry and kept
no servants, thus none called any master (Matt, xxiii. 8, 10). In the
‘Wars of the Jews,’ bk. ii., chap, viii., Josephus gives us a fuller
account. ‘ There are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The
followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the
Sadduces; and the third sect, who pretend to a severer discipline, are
called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a
greater affection for one another than the other sects [John xiii. 35].
The Essenes reject pleasure as an evil [Matt. xvi. 24], but esteem con
tinence and the conquest over our passions to be virtue. They neglect
wedlock. . . . They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage
[Matt. xix. 12, last clause of verse. 1 Cor. vii. 27, 28, 32-35, 37, 38,
40], . . . These men are despisers of riches [Matt. xix. 21,- 53,
24] . . . it is a law among them, that those who come to them
must let what they have be common to the whole order [Acts iv. 3237, v. 1-11]. . . . They also have stewards appointed to take care
of their common affairs [Acts vi. 1-6], ... If any of their sect
come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it
were their own [Matt. x. 11]. . . . For which reason they carry
nothing with them when they travel into remote parts [Matt. x. 9,
10], . .
As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary;
for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but
put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers,
as if they made a supplication for its rising [the Essenes were then sun
worshippers]. ... A priest says grace before meat; and it is
unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The
same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and
when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that
bestows their food upon them [Eph. v. 18-20, 1 Cor. x. 3*0, 31, 1 Tim.
iv. 4, 5].
They dispense their anger after a just manner, and
restrain their passion [Eph. iv. 26]. . . . Whatsoever they say
also is firmer than an oath ; but swearing is avoided by them, and
the^ esteem it worse than perjury; for they say, that he who cannot be
believed without swearing by God. is already condemned [Matt. v. 3437].’ ” (“ Freethinker’s Text Book,” part 2, pp. 387-8).
It is a common error existing among orthodox professors, that what
is termed Christianity originated with Christ, eighteen hundred years
ago, in Palestine. The fact is, no date or country can be definitely
�14
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
fixed as being the time and place of the birth of what is now called
the Christian faith. The elements of which the doctrines and general
teachings of the orthodox Church are composed can be found in works
written long anterior to the Christian era. Even Eusebius, the
“father of ecclesiastical history,” admits that the Christian religion
was not new. He says : “Its principles have not been recently
invented, but were established, we may say, by the Deity, from the
very origin of our race. ... It is evident that the religion
delivered to us is not a new or strange doctrine; but, if the truth
must be spoken, it is the first and only true religion.” Themost, therefore,
that can be said with any degree of accuracy is, that a man, named Jesus,
and his followers perpetuated portions of pre-existing systems under
another name. But even this allegation is, according to some writers,
open to grave doubts. Still, as there is nothing remarkable in the
event, if true, it may be taken, in the present writer’s opinion, as
granted, because it in no way makes the assumption of the “ divine ”
origin of Christianity a necessity.
If the above circumstances fail to satisfy the orthodox believer as to
the human origin of his faith, let him ask himself the question, what
are the difficulties attending his assumption of its “ divine ” origin ?
If this divinity involves all-wisdom, all-power and all-goodness, then
the objections to the assumption that Christianity came from such a
source are strong indeed. (1) Why was its advent so long delayed ?
If it were superior to anything previously existing, and God knowing
this, and yet withholding it from the world until about two thousand
years ago, while having the power to give it at any moment, must
not this delay militate against his all-goodness ?
AVhen Christi
anity did appear, how did its slow progress at first harmonise with
the theory of the infinite power of its reputed author ? And further,
why, when it did advance, was it dependent upon acknowledged human
conditions for its success or otherwise? (3) Why, if its author
were so good, pure, and spotless, was its advent -associated with
fraud, deception, and falsehood? (4) Why, if the Christian system
were supremely true, were heretical writings of the early centuries
destroyed by the special mandate of the Church? (5) Why, when
Christ introduced his system, was it silent upon the three great
evils of his time, namely, poverty, slavery, and mental submission ?
Moreover, how is it that, instead of correcting the errors of his day
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
15
—such as belief in the possession of devils, and in the then immediate
end of the world—Christ made the mistake of sharing that belief
himself 1 (6) Finally, is it not remarkable, upon the supposition that
Christianity had for its origin an Infinite Being, that after nearly two
thousand years, it has only been heard of by one third of the human
race ? If God is all-wise, he must know of this limited knowledge;
if he be all-powerful, he could make the knowledge universal • if he
were all-good, it is only reasonable to suppose that he would have done
so. But he has not; we, therefore, arrive at the conclusion that
Christianity, like other religions, was simply the outcome of the human
mind, at a period when ignorance was the rule and knowledge the
exception. Our duty, therefore, should be to value it for whatever
intrinsic value it has, and not to accept it merely on account of an
imaginary supernatural origin.
ITS NATURE.
Orthodox Christianity is thoroughly indefinite, impracticable and
contradictory in its nature. No system was ever less rigid and more
plastic. It has certainly come up to the intimation of St. Paul, “ to
be all things to all men.” Persons of the most contrary dispositions
and the most opposite natures have been its great illustrators, expoun
ders, and living representatives. It has found room for all tempera
ments and for the most diversified classes of believers : the ascetic and
the luxurious enjoyer of life; the man of action and the man of con
templation ; the monk and the king; the philanthropist and the de
stroyer of his race; the iconoclastic hater of all ceremonies, and the
superstitious devotee ; Cromwell and Cowper ; Lyell and Wesley; Luther
and Dr. Pusey; John Miltonand C. H. Spurgeon; Talmageand Beecher ;
Catholics and Protestants ; Quakers and Salvationists; Trinitarians
and Unitarians ; believers in Free Grace and devotees of Predestina
tion. All these and many other similar opposites have found refuge
within the pale of Christianity. But it should be distinctly under
stood that this heterogeneous family is by no means the result of any
all-embracing comprehensiveness in the system of Christ, but rather
the effects of a Theology characterised alike by its indefinite, imprac
ticable, incomplete, and undecisive principles.
It is these peculiar features in Christianity that have deprived it of
a consistent and uniform history, and that have made its influence on
�16
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
the human mind so conflicting and so destitute of the power of produc
ing uniformity of action or belief. Hence, the varied and contra
dictory phases through which Christianity has passed since its incep
tion. Those who are acquainted with its early history will know that
the faith of Jesus as he preached it, and the faith of the Christians
to-day, are two entirely different things. Even if we accept the alleged
dates of Christian chronology to be historically correct, Christianity
was altered and modified immediately after the death of Christ. The
Christianity of Paul-was widely different from that of his Master. The
character of Christ was submissive and servile ; Paul’s was defiant and
pugnacious. We could no more conceive Christ fighting with wild
beasts at Ephesus, than we could suppose Paul submitting, without
protest or resistance, to those insults and indignities which are alleged
to have been heaped upon Christ. Neither could we for one moment
imagine Paul advising his disciples when anyone smote them on one
cheek, to offer them the other. Paul introduced, by his personal
character, a certain amount of boldness and energy into the Christian
propaganda, and, by the character of his mind, he largely modified the
Christian system. In fact, each successive age has left its mark and
impress upon Christianity. We have had the age of asceticism and
the ceremonial age, when the nightmare of theology cursed the world
with its indifference, its neglect, its mental darkness, and its immoral
corruptions. This unfortunate period was followed by Protestantism
and subsequently by Rationalism, which ushered in the age of reason
and mental activity. This new birth, or rather resuscitation of a
force that had been rendered for a time dormant by the Church, de
prived the faith of its original character, leaving but a little more than
the name to represent the Cross. “ Real Christianity has not ruled
the nations. It is disregarded in law, in equity, in the social adjust
ments, in commercial systems, in regulations concerning land, in the
rules of peace and brotherhood, and, alas, in much of the life of the
churches. . . . English hypocrisy is a tremendous reality; but
English Christianity is very largely a myth, if judged by the standard
of the New Testament.” (“Christian Commonwealth,” May 1, 1884.)
A similar diversity of character and influence is apparent in what
are termed Christian nations. There is no country existing that can
truly be called Christian, that is, where the teachings of the New
Testament are practically and consistently carried out. In all alleged
�CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE ANU INFLUENCE.
17
Christian nations ” the faith differs in its manifestations, presenting
not the emblems of the religion ascribed to Christ, but the impress of
the national customs and characteristics of the people who profess it.
Thus, in Rome, Christianity assumes the form of priestly dominion, in
Spain a blind and stationary faith, in Russia a political engine of
heartless oppression and revolting despotism, in Scotland a gloomy
nightmare, in England an emotional pastime, in America a commercial
commodity, and in Canada a hypocritical, puritanical pretension. In
most of these countries the Christian religion is only a profession of a
shallow garb of respectability, which is composed of custom and a de
sire to gain popular favour. The shadow is there, but the substance
is nowhere to be found. True, these professors attend church on Sun
days, and, to outward appearances, assume an air of solemnity, seek
ing to convey the impression that they are devout worshippers of the
“ Heavenly Father,” and that they have absolute confidence in his
“ Son, as the Saviour of the world.” But what is f^ie conduct of such
■devotees in their daily lives, and in their commercial pursuits' Do
they even attempt to embody in their conduct during the week the
requirements which they endorse as belonging to their faith ? Certainly
not. In their business transactions, practically, money is their God,
and the Almighty dollar is their Redeemer.
The utter impracticability of orthodox Christianity is not only proved
by the indefinite nature of its teachings and the inconsistent conduct
of its professors, but it is clearly demonstrated by the character of its
leading injunctions. Among the more prominent principles taught in
the New Testament are : Asceticism, Disregard of the world, Nonresistance, Reliance on alleged Supernaturalism, Belief in the efficacy
of prayer, and Glorification of poverty. Moreover, many of the more
emphatically expressed injunctions of this book are the very incarna
tion and inculcation of humiliating forbearance and abject suffering.
They teach submission to physical evil, tyranny and oppression. They
inculcate an unprogressive and a retarding spirit; they draw the ener
gies and desires of men from the duties of this life, fixing them on an
uncertain, and, to us, an unknown future. The primary object of
Christ evidently was to teach his followers how to die, rather than to
instruct them how to live. He regarded man as an alien in this world.
Anything like a triumph of moral good over evil by human means ;
■anything like an escape from the pangs of poverty; anything like a
�1<5
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE,
successful insurrection of right which should produce the dethronement
of might, as being possible on earth, appears not to have crossed the
horizon of the mental vision of Christ. He contemplated suffering,
oppression, and submission in this life, as pre-ordained and inevitable;
and taught those who were persecuted and reviled, that great would be
their reward in heaven. The philosophy of Jesus was contentment
with whatsoever state of life you may be in j for “ "What shall it profit
a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul 1 ” (Mark
viii. 36.) “ My kingdom,” said Christ, “ is not of this world.” (John,
xviii. 36.) In vain, therefore, do we look to his teachings for any prac
tical guidance and support in the stern battle of life. His advice to
those struggling for mere human existence, was “ Seek ye first the
kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things [food,,
clothes, etc.] shall be added unto you.” (Matt. vi. 33.) What things
soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye
shall have them.” (Mark xi. 24.) “If two'of you shall agree on
earth as touching^ anything that they shall ask, it shall be done.”
Matt, xviii. 19.) This faith in another life was with him the “one
thing needful, and to it every plan of secular reform, however neces
sary> judicious, and effectual, had to give way. It is clear from the
very nature of these New Testament precepts that all the improve
ments, social and political, scientific and artistic, commercial and.
mechanical, which have been made in the world since the birth of.
Christianity, must have been obtained in spite of it, not because of it;;
they have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever struggling,
and in recent times with ever-growing success, against the spirit of
dogmatic religion.
M ith Christ, this life and this world were comparatively of little
importance ; their enjoyments and treasures were, to him, baits and
snares of the Devil. Therefore we read, “ He that loveth his life shall
lose it; and he that hateth his life in this .world shall keep it unto life
.ternal.” (John xii. 25.) And again, “I pray not for the world j but
for them which thou hast given me; for they are mine. . . . They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John xvii. 9,
16). Therefore he said, “ Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put
on. . . . Take, therefore, no thought for the morrow; for the
morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” (Matt. 6 : 25, 34.)
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
19 ‘
In vain do we look among any of the professed Christians for any
serious attempt to reduce these teachings into practice. They regulate
neither their public nor their private lives by the injunctions here
set forth. The sayings ascribed to Christ are modified and divested of
their legitimate meaning, in order that they may be made to harmonise
with human feelings. Who could obey that unnatural command given
by Jesus in reply to one who solicited permission to bury his father?—
“ Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.” . Were a person to
adopt this advice to day, he would justly be condemned as being desti
tute of all true natural feeling, and as lacking a due regard for the
tenderest and most sublime affection of human nature. Supposing we
were to adopt the counsel given by Christ, and take no thought for the
morrow, what would become of the advantages of all modern scientific
discoveries ? Clearly it was not by Christian principles that the re
formers of the world were prompted to introduce those useful move
ments, which to-day are so extensively appreciated. Had they loved
not the world, and had they been careful of nothing pertaining there
to, as advised in Scripture, civilization would have received but little
assistance from them. “ Take no thought for your life ! ” If we obeyed
this command, medical science and physiological discoveries would be
utterly useless. In counselling this indifference, Christ showed that
he had much to learn as to the real nature, wants, and duties of man.
Can a consistent Christian rebel against even the most atrocious
tyranny, or fight in even the most righteous cause ? If he be true to
his principles, he must obey the commands, “ Resist not evil,” and
“ 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. Whoso
ever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God •
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Were it
possible to induce men to carry out what is here advised, a weapon
would thereby be placed in the hands of the tyrant, which doubtless
he would use to a terrible extent upon his victims. It is only neces
sary to send forth the priests to teach the commands of Christ to the
unfortunate dupes and slaves of any despot, and if the teachings are
accepted as true and acted upon, they will prove a potent agency
in prolonging despotism, serfdom, and physical coercion. None are
more ready than tyrants to perceive that faith is a stronger prison
than a fortress, and that the Bible is a more effectual assistance than an
�20
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
army, in subjugating and enslaving the minds and bodies of their people.
But even if it were practicable to obey these precepts of non-resistance,,
the obedience would, in many cases, be most unmanly and immoral.
Resistance is not revenge; to allow, therefore, all evil to exist with
impunity, is to offer a premium for the greatest wrongs that ever
afflicted mankind. Had George Washington, Hampden, Mazzini, Kos
suth, Garibaldi and other brave reformers been content as the Bibleteaches, to obey the powers that be, and to “ resist not evil,” they would,
never have rebelled against oppression, and fought, as they did, for
social rights and political emancipation. Had they been consistent
orthodox Christians, they would not have produced those glorious revo
lutions, which have dethroned corrupt kings, and secured individual
and national liberty.
Progressive nations have always, in fact if not in theory, based their
political and social policy on principles the very antitheses to those of
the New Testament. Post office savings’ banks, divorce courts, armies,
of defence, are opposed to “ Lay not up for yourselves treasures on
earth.” “ What therefore God has joined together let no man put.
asunder,” and, “ Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn,
to him the other also.” “ Give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away,” does not harmonisewith our present law, which authorises the policeman to take underhis special care those who are affording an opportunity for this precept
to be put into practice. Besides, such conduct is only fostering that
reckless and mendicant spirit so often recommended by the churches,
but which should be judiciously discountenanced by all noble-minded,
men and women.
Among the general teachings of Christianity which cannot be relied’
upon, are those which encourage and crown with special sanctity
suffering and sorrow. Not only are those who mourn blessed, but we
are told that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain,”
that “those light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for
us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” Christians pro
fess to believe that “ the sufferings of the present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in the future.”
Hence the exclamation, “ For we know that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan ear
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
21
nestly, desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from
heaven.” Who can rely upon this gloomy estimate of the world and
human life ? To do so would be to blaspheme humanity, and to rejectthe happiness and joy which nature bestows upon her honest and duti
ful children. “ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven ” is a sad sentiment. If there be a heaven, it should be the
appropriate possession of the rich in spirit. Abundance, enthusiasm,
and heroism of spirit are the highest conditions of man. Poverty of
spirit is not by any means celestial or to be admired. A man in such
a state is either contemptible or pitiable, and in either case, relief from
it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. To assure people that atthe last day they will have to give an account of every idle word
spoken through life, is not to enhance their pleasure. Need we won
der that some Christians confess to be “ miserable sinners,” if they
honestly believe that their final doom may depend upon words spoken
in the jubilant moments of life.
Until orthodox Christians can prove to us that their principles arecapable of producing uniformity of character; until it is satisfactorily
explained that the precepts, as propounded by Christ, contain the ele
ments of that greatness which has invariably characterised the lives
of eminent statesmen, philosophers, and poets of all ages ; until it can
be shown that the principles as taught in the New Testament are com
patible with progress and human advancement; until the course pur
sued by Christ, when he was on earth, is adopted by his professed
followers of to-day ; until poverty is preferred to riches by the mem
bers of the various churches; until humility has taken the place of
pride ; and self-sacrifice to that of personal gain ; until sincerity and
consistency supplant that hypocrisy and cant, which are now soprominent in the domain of theology ; until peace, love, and harmony
shall reign in “ Christian nations ” instead of war, hatred, and discord;,
until prayer, as a means of help, is in reality preferred to reliance on
secular effort; until the poor are treated as being genuine brothers of
the “ one fold; ” until, in commercial activity and domestic arrange
ments, the affairs of this world are considered as being of sec
ondary importance to the preparation for some other state of existence;
until all these tilings are realities and not mere pretences, orthodox
Christianity must be deemed thoroughly impracticable in its nature,
and incapable of furnishing a code of morals by which all succeeding
�22
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
generations should be governed, and to which the great intellects of
the world should succumb.
The contradictory nature of orthodox teaching is another of its strik
ing features. The New Testament does not present one definite system,
but fragmentary records of conflicting theological views, which were
numerous during the early Christian era. Not to notice the self-con
tradictory teachings of the first three Evangelists, the gospel ascribed
to St. John is quite antagonistic in its doctrines and precepts to the
synoptic gospels. Hence it is that among different people in different
ages various Christian sects opposed to each other have arisen with
systems of their own, for which they each claim Christian authority.
The belief that Christ was a real existence, was born of a virgin, was
crucified, that he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven,
is at the present day considered by the orthodox church as being neces
sary to the Christian profession ; but during the first and second cen
turies each of these teachings was rejected by sections of the church.
Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christianity of the present
age, such as the Trinity, fall of man, original sin, atonement, media
tion and intercession of Christ, are alleged by some theological writers
not to be Christian doctrines at all, having no sanction in the New
Testament; while the orthodox party allege that to believe them is
essential to secure happiness hereafter. So conflicting are the leading
principles of the Christian faith, that they are rendered almost valueless
as rules to regulate general conduct. For instance, it is of no avail to
urge that Christianity is a religion of love, while Christ affirms that
no man can become a disciple unless he hates his own flesh and blood.
Even admitting, as it is sometimes contended, that the word “ hate ”
here means “ love less,” the statement is still objectionable. Can we
really love one of whom we know nothing (whatever we may believe)
more than we love our nearest relatives and dearest friends ? Man’s
highest and purest love should be for his wife and children; he is not
justified in neglecting them for the gratification of any religious en
thusiasm, be it what it may. A religion that exacts the best of our
affections, wars with the noblest aspirations of our nature. In fact, so
difficult is it to comply with Christ’s request upon this point, that good
Christian husbands frequently forego the commands of their master to
gratify the wishes of their wives. Paul judged that this would be the
case; hence he advised Christians to remain single, because “ he that
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
23
is married careth for the things of this world, how he may please his
wife.” And it is quite right that he should do so. Christ’s love, like
that of most of his followers, was confined to those who agreed with
his theology. His injunction to his disciples was to despise those who
would not receive them. “Those,” he said,“mineenemies,which would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before
me.” Even the woman of Canaan, who asked him for help, was at first
denied, and told, “ it was not meet to take the children’s bread and cast
it to dogs.” And it was not till the woman indirectly acknowledged
her faith that Christ granted her request. Belief, not humanity, called
forth his love. His forgiveness, too, was only for the faithful. “ He
that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of
God.’, Luke 12:9. “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as
a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into
the fire and they are burned.” Are these the sentiments of true love
and forgiveness ? Paul emulated his master in this particular ; and
accordingly we read : “ Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom
I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
“ If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have re
ceived, let him be accursed.” “ Be ye not unequally yoked together
with unbelievers. . . . What part hath he that believeth with an
infidel ? ” Here we have an incentive to that intolerance which has so
frequently prevented men holding different opinions on theological sub-„
jects from associating together.
The doctrines of “pardon for sin,” of the Trinity, and of “ falling
from grace,” are couched in language obscure and contradictory. No
man can believe all, and few men can understand, any portion of what is
taught upon these subjects in the New Testament. A professed holder
of one of the above tenets usually receives a particular impression as to its
meaning, according to the school in which he is trained. Such impres
sions made on the youthful mind are so deep and enduring, that it is
extremely difficult, and in many instances impossible, to erase them in
maturity. Hence, it is nearly useless to point out to one who has been
taught that all sin shall be forgiven, that Christ says that blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. Luke 12 :10. The Trinita
rian is unable to see the objection to his views in such passages as, “ My
Father is greater than I,” and that there is “ One God and Father of all,,
who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The Calvinist who.,
�24
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
relying on St. John 10 : 28 and Romans 8 : 38, 39, believes that when
man is onoe “converted,” he can never relapse, fails to see that his
opinion is proved to be fallacious by the following : “For if, after they
have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For
it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteous
ness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy command
ment delivered unto them.” 2 Peter 2 : 20, 21.
If it were necessary that any one part of Christian teachings should
be clear, it is that, we presume, which professes to refer to the salva
tion of the human race, but here we find the greatest perplexity. We
read : “There is no other name but that of Christ’s whereby men can
be saved,” Acts 4:12; “ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shaltbe saved,” Acts 16:31; “He that believethnot shall be damned,”
Mark 16:16. Here the necessity of belief in Christ is positively en
joined, and in 1 Tim. 2 : 4 it is stated as Christ’s wish that “all men”
should be saved. In the same book, however, we also read : “ For
there are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old or
dained to this condemnation,” Jude 4 ; “And for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that
they all might be damned who believed not the truth,” 2 Thess. 2 : 11,12.
But the new Testament admits that belief does not depend upon our
selves, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of
his good pleasure,” Phil. 2 : 13 ; “For by grace are ye saved through
faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God,” Ephes. 2:8;
“ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of our
selves ; but our sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor. 3:5. In John 14 : 6 it
is said : “No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” and in chapter
6, verse 44 of the same book Christ exclaims : “ No man can come to
me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.” It is manifest,
moreover, if the Scriptures be correct, that while God predestinated
some persons to be saved, he adopted means whereby others should be
lost. In replying to certain inquirers, Christ is reported to have said :
“ Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God;
but 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.” Mark 4 : 11, 12.
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
25
Equally uncertain are the means prescribed by this faith whereby
salvation is to be obtained. In one place, the New Testament says that
works are necessary (James 2 : 20-25), while it is also recorded : “For
by grace are ye saved, through faith : . . . . not of works, lest any man
should boast,” Ephes. 2 : 8, 9 ; “A man is not justified by the works
of the law, but by the faith,” Gal, 2 : 16 ; “ Therefore by the deeds of the (
law there shall no flesh be justified,” Rom. 3:20 ; “ Where is boasting,
then ? It is excluded. By what law ? Of works ? Nay; but by the
law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law,” Romans 3 : 27, 28 ; “ Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,”
Titus 3:5.
Even what is to be understood by the term “ believe in Christ ” is
not by any means clear. Are we to acknowledge Christ as a man or as
a God? Are we to suppose that the object of his mission was accom
plished in his life, or through his death ? Must we regard his teachings
or his blood as the medium of salvation ? To these questions neither
the New Testament nor Christians have given a definite and uniform
answer. For, while Unitarians allege that the command in the above
passages is sufficiently obeyed by believing in the manhood, life, and
teachings of Christ, the orthodox Christians state that, to avoid damn
ation, mankind must have faith in the divinity, the vicarious death,
and the atoning efficacy of the blood of Christ. The character of
Christ, as given in the New Testament, is thoroughly contradictory.
He could teach men to be merciful, and he could command that those
who would not accept him as the Christ, should be slain before him. He
could advise husbands to love and cleave to their wives, and he could
offer an inducement to break up the ties of domestic affection, lie
could advise children to honour their father and mother,while to others
he could say that, unless they hate their parents, they could not become
his disciples. At one time his advice is to “ resist not evil,” while at
another he authorizes shaking off the dust from the feet as a testimony
against unbelievers. He announces that “ they that take the sword
shall perish with the sword,” and he as emphatically says, “He that
hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one.” No sooner
does he state that “blessed are the peacemakers,” than he as earnestly
asserts that he came not to send peace, that his mission was to set a
�26
CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. Here are
characters thoroughly antagonistic—which are we to regard as a reliable
representation of the “person of Christ?” Was not the Rev. Dr.
Giles correct in saying, “ The history of Christ is contained in records
which exhibit contradictions that cannot be reconciled, imperfections
that would greatly detract from even admitted human compositions,
and erroneous principles of morality that would hardly have found a
place in the most incomplete systems of the philosophers of Greece and
Rome?”—(“ Christian Records,” preface 7.)
ITS INFLUENCE.
The influence of Christianity upon the world should be estimated
from its special effects upon individual character, as well as from its
general results upon national conduct. Of course, it is not always
right to condemn principles in consequence of the shortcomings of
those who profess to endorse them. The justice of such condemnation
will very much depend upon the nature of the principles themselves
and the claims set up on their behalf. The peculiar feature in connec
tion with Christianity is, that its professed believers have persistently
urged that its influence for good is so unmistakeable, that wherever its
power has been felt beneficial results have necessarily followed. Now;
this claim is not borne out either by the New Testament or by the facts
of history and of personal experience. Of course, it may be frankly
admitted that in the ranks of Christianity there are good men and
women ; it does not, however, follow that their goodness is the result of
their faith. Some persons are so well organized, and their moral training
is so complete, that it is next to impossible to induce them to depart
from the paths of rectitude; while, on the other hand, there are indi
viduals whose organizations are so imperfect, and whose ethical disci
pline has been so neglected, that no amount of theology will make
them good and useful members of society. Doubtless instances can be
cited where characters have been improved through acting in obedience
to the secular portions of the New Testament But the same can be
said, with truth, of the adherents to other religions besides that of
Christianity, and also of those who have been consistent believers in
the great ethical systems of the world. This, however, does not justify
the orthodox claim—that where the Christian faith has obtained, a
panacea has always been found for the weaknesses, the vices, the crimes
and the wrongs that have robbed the world of much of its virtue, its
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
27
purity and its honour. Instead of controlling the actions and regulat
ing the conduct of its professors, Christianity itself has been moulded
and modified by the individual temperaments, the habits, and the
national aspirations of those who were supposed to endorse it. Hence
as it has already been shown, in various countries, all termed Christian’
we find the profession of various and conflicting phases of the same
faith. The fact is, the reforming agencies that have operated in the
elevation of personal character and general actions belong exclusively
to no religious system ; they are the result of human conditions when
under the control of human reason and intellectual culture.
That Christian teachings have not always had the effect ascribed to
them by orthodox professors is evident, both from the New Testament
and the admissions of Christian historians. From the Gospels and
Epistles we learn that among the earliest recipients of the Faith were
those upon whom its influence was impotent either to enable them to
subjugate their evil passions or to inspire within them the love and
practice of truth. “ Contentions,” “ strife,” “ indignation,” and “ fraud,”
we are informed by the “ inspired word,” characterised their actions
towards each other. [See Acts 15 : 39; Luke 22 : 24; Matt. 20 : 24;
1 Cor. 6 : 8 ; 1 Cor. 5:1.] St. Peter, the “ beloved disciple,” was so
little impressed with the teachings of Christ that, it is said, he denied
his own master (Matt. 26 : 70 & 72), and thereby manifested an utterdisregard for truth and fidelity. St. Paul also, despite his Christian
proclivities, could boast, “Being crafty, I caught you with guile,” (2
Cor. 12 : 16). “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do
you service,” (2 Cor. 11 : 8). Were the Secularists to emulate such
conduct as this to-day, their principles would not be credited with
having a highly beneficial influence upon human conduct.
The records of history agree with the testimony of the New Testa
ment in reference to the non-effect of Christianity in the inspiration
of correct conduct. jMosheim frankly admits that for many centuries
the Christians were guilty of “lying, deceit, artifice, fraud,” and many
other vices. The same Christian writer remarks : “ The interests of
virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by two monstrous
errors which were almost universally adopted in this century [cent. 4],
and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs in the
succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was, that it was an act of
virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interest of the
Church might be promoted..................... The Church was contaminated
�28
CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE,
with shoals of profligate Christians........................ It cannot be affirmed
that even true Christians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in
this matter.” (See Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical History,” vol. I., pp. 55,
77, 102, 193.) Salvian, an eminent pious clergyman of the fifth cen~tury, writes : “ With the exception of a very few who flee from vice,
what is almost every Christian congregation but a sink of vices ? For
you will find in the Church scarcely one who is not either a drunkard,
a glutton, or an adulterer ... or a robber, or a man-slayer, and what
is worse than all, almost all these without limit.” (Miall’s “ Memorials
of early Christianity,” p. 366.) Dr. Cave, in his “ Primitive Christi
anity,” (p. 2), observes : “ If a modest and honest heathen were to
•estimate Christianity by the lives of its professors, he would certainly
proscribe it as the vilest religion in the world.” Dr. Dicks, in his
Philosophy of Religion,” (pp. 366-7), also states : “There is nothing
which so strikingly marks the character of the Christian world in
general as the want of candour, [and the existence of] the spirit of
jealousy. . . . Slander, dishonesty, falsehood and cheating are far
from being uncommon among those who profess to be united in the
bonds of a common Christianity.” Wesley once gave a picture of
^Christian society, which indicates the “ high morality” produced where
“gospel truths ” are disseminated. After stating that “ Bible reading
England ” was guilty of every species of vice, even those that nature
itself abhors, this Christian author thus concludes : “ Such a complica
tion of villainies of every kind considered with all their aggravations,
such a scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue ; such injustice, fraud
and falsehood; above all, such perjury and such a method of law, we
may defy the whole world to produce.” (Sermons, Vol. 12, p. 223.)
Surely, such Christian testimony as this should be damaging evidence
against the theory of the Church, that the “ light of the Gospel ” has
invariably been effectual in securing personal purity and individual
honour.
Neither did the Galilean faith remove the blots that dimmed the
glory of the ancient world. Slavery, infanticide, and brutal, inhuman
sports remained for centuries after the erection of the symbol of the
Cross. It is true, Rome, like every other country, had its vices, but
Christianity failed to remove them. As Lecky observes, “ the golden age
-of Roman law was not Christian, but Pagan.” [“History of European
Morals,” Vol. II., 44.] The gladiatorial shows of Rome had a religious
•origin ; and while some of the grandest pagan writers condemned them,
�CHRISTIANITY---- ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
29
they were not abolished till four hundred years after the commence
ment of the Christian era. And, be it observed, that the immediate
cause of their ultimately being stopped was, that at one of the exhibi
tions, in A.D. 404, a monk was killed. “ His death,” says Becky,
“ led to the final abolition of the games.” (Ibid. 40.) It is a noteworthy
fact that, while the passion for these games existed in Rome, its love
for religious liberty was equally as strong ; and it was this very liberty
that was first destroyed in the Christian Empire. (Ibid. 38.)
Every nation has had its national drawbacks, and Christian coun
tries are no exception to the general rule. Under the very shadow of
the Cross cruelties of the deepest dye have been practised. Bull-fights,
bear and badger hunting, cock fighting, and pigeon-shooting have all
been favourite amusements in Christian lands. Granted that immo
rality stained the history of ancient Rome and classic Greece, so it did
Christian England at the very time when the Church had absolute
authority. What was the state of morals in England during the age
of Henry VIII., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and George IV. ? Was
there ever a period of greater moral depravity and intellectual poverty
than when the Christian Church was paramount and supreme, when
the saints, the bishops, and the priests were guilty of the worst of
crimes, including incest, adultery and concubinage, when 11 sacred in
stitutions,” filled with pious nuns, were converted into brothels and
hotbeds of infanticide? (Ibid. 351.) Greece and Rome, with all their
immorality, will bear comparison with the early ages of Christianity.
If history may be relied upon, Christian England is indebted to Pagan
Rome and classic Greece for the .incentive to much of that morality,
culture, and heroism which give- the prestige to modern society. Upon
this point, Dr. Temple, in his “ Essay on the Education of the World,”
is very clear. “To Rome,” says the Doctor, “we owe the forms of
local government which in England have saved liberty and elsewhere
have mitigated despotism.” ... “ It is in the history of Rome rather
than in the Bible that we find our models of precepts of political duty,
and especially of the duty of patriotism.” ... “To the Greeks we owe
the corrective which conscience needs to borrow from nature.” Take
Rome to»day. That country was once the recognized mistress of the
world, renowned alike for its valour, its learning, and its taste; from
whose forums emanated that eloquence which still shines forth as the
production of a noble and heroic people—Rome, once the depository of
poetry and the cultivator of art, whose grandeur and dignity could
�30
CHRISTIANITY—ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
command the admiration of the world—such was Rome, but, alas ! how
has she fallen ! “ Christianity floated into the Roman Empire on the
wave of credulity that brought with it this long train of oriental super
stitions and legends.
(Lecky, Vol. I. 397.) The result was, she be
came a miserable, down-trodden, priest-ridden country. Her former
glory, dignity and valour departed, and were replaced by a mean and
cowardly terrorism, born of a degrading priestcraft and a cruel theo
logyFor one thousand years Christianity had its trial, with everything in
its favour. The Middle Ages were the brightest era of Christianity.
Then she had no rival. Assisted by kingcraft, she ruled the civilized
world through a thousand years, without one ray of light, without any
great addition to the arts and sciences, and then bequeathed to man
kind a heritage of cruelty, bloodshed and persecution. At this period
of her history there was a great impetus given towards science and
philosophy. Some of the most splendid intellects that ever appeared in
the world, and that might, under more favourable conditions, haveadorned humanity, enlightened society, and helped on progress, ap
peared in those days. But their intellects were stifled and rendered
comparatively useless by the influence of Christianity. Those were
the times when theology was paramount, unrestrained, and un
trammelled j when the blood, the genius, and the chivalry of Europe
were all wasted in the mad and useless crusades, when in one expedi
tion alone, instigated by fanatical priests, no less than 560,000 persons
were sacrificed to the superstition of the Cross. Do we require a proof
of the legitimate effects of orthodox Christianity ? Behold the history
of the seven crusades, which will for ever remain as a lasting monument
of a mind-destroying faith. For nearly two hundred years did the fol
lowers of Christ lay desolate one of the finest and most romantic por
tions of the known world, and laid prostrate thousands of human
beings. Do we wish to know the influence of the orthodox religion ?
Read the history of the Emperor Constantine, who with the sword in.
one hand and the Cross in the other, pursued his slaughtering and re
lentless career. Go to the streets of Paris, when in the fifteenth cen
tury they flowed with the blood of defenceless Protestants, and when.
10,000 innocent persons were massacred by the professed believers in
a meek and lowly Jesus. Visit the valleys of Piedmont, which were
the scene of a most inhuman butchery, when women were suffocated,
by hundreds in confined caves by the bearers of the Cross. Study the
�CHRISTIANITY----ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
31
history of the Inquisition, to whose power three millions of lives were
sacrificed in one century. Peruse the records of the actions of King
Henry VIII., Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, in whose Christian
reigns hundreds were condemned either to die at the stake or to endure
revolting cruelties in loathsome dungeons, because they differed from
the prevailing faith of those times. These were the effects of Chris
tianity when it had absolute power. Fortunately, in this age of pro
gressive thought, a change has come over the dream of man, and
practical work has taken the place of theoretical faith. In business, in
science, in politics, in philosophy, and partially in education, belief in
theology is not allowed to stand in the way of help for humanity. The
Church has lost the power it once had, and priests no longer command
undisputed sway over the intellect of the human race. Many of the
greatest minds of the nineteenth century have thrown overboard the
orthodox Christian faith, and the enlightened sons of earth will, ere
long, follow the example. The sun has arisen on the tops of the
mountains, heralding the advent of that glorious day when it may be
triumphantly said with Shelley :—
“ Fear not the tyrants will rule for ever,
Or the priests of the evil faith ;
They stand on the brink of that raging river
Whose waves they have tainted with death ;
It is fed from the depth of a thousand dells ;
Around them it foams, and rages, and swells ;
And their swords and their sceptres I floating see,
Like wrecks, on the surge of eternity.”
•
��
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
English
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
Christianity : its origin, nature, and influence
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 31 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[18--]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity : its origin, nature, and influence), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1852
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Free Thought
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2ccd3f3cad0920cd58a4f824ab947f3d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PaKCXLqtPuFM4rkvJULavh4vfGAOfjgz2JgeIBZZOQHH2M6Vh-StI4z9EKq3b-%7ESf6rrxjWD-gLjnUgNme1nXzzA%7EW-lDuVXt0GpefCl9Q9nEB%7EnvwL%7EN1irGzZseFyM50pLKlhAaEcPF%7EjHG2SEqyC9Gv3gGHo4H82iolSIIx5wjKJRq56pp-zurXx4HZ7uk0GTzBXEw47GHi8TE4pqqrnRiBUhzORqNperTvhhR4qkBu4cJRo5vaS5ZFxRs9H9i2nnS00EAaV-NIo0lpcB9E2nw3Al9DEmfSfD8U3Vj8RqVbfCtieu7ZQe%7Eo4KMjuL6UAOH0fx2NuzwxU9p5S6yw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
431c5d4cec527af41bd3f128122de76d
PDF Text
Text
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.
SECULARISM:
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity, ”"
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature amd
Influence” “Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
What is Secularism? Biblical Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man
and his supposed Redemption through Christ. Reason and experience
the true guide in human actions. Why supreme attention should be
given to the duties of this life. Science more trustworthy than reliance
upon any supposed Supernatural power. Morality is of natural growth,
having no necessary connection with Theology. The consistent carry
ing out of Secular teaching in every-day life the best preparation for
any future existence.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
TEN CENTS.
��SECULARISM :
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
It is an unfortunate fact in connection with the development of
human thought that new truths are frequently shunned, and theo
logical opinions are, as a rule, estimated more by their popularity
than by their intrinsic value. This probably may be explained to
some extent by the lamentable circumstance that for centuries
there has been too much mental indolence existing among the
masses, who, in too many instances, have put their thinking out
to be done for them, instead of exercising their own intellectual
faculties. The result has been the perpetuation of old ideas,
creeds, and dogmas, rather than the perception and fostering of the
discoveries of modern thought.
From time immemorial evils, errors, and immorality have
impeded ethical culture and marred the progress of the human
race. And it is urged that about two thousand years ago the
Religion of the Cross was introduced into the world for the express
purpose of correcting these wrongs and establishing purity, love,
and peace among mankind. That this desirable object has not
been achieved must be patent to the most superficial observer.
It has been very truly said that “ two thousand years have passed,
during which entire nations have knelt before a gibbet, adoring in
the sufferer who gave himself up to death—the Saviour of man
kind. And yet what slavery still! What lepers in our moral
world I What unfortunate beings in the visible and feeling
world ! What triumphant iniquity, what tyranny enjoying at its
ease the scandal of its own impunity ! The Saviour has come—
whence comes salvation ? ” The Bible has been read, sermons
have been preached, and prayers have been freely indulged in, but
still moral disease, crime, injustice, wrongs and bitterness of feel
ing abound on every side.. Bigotry still poisons the social life,
�4
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
4
fanaticism fans the fire of persecution, and theological exclusive
ness mars the brotherhood of man.
Recognizing this impotency of the Cross as a factor in promo
ting the Secular welare of society, a new gospel, termed Secular
ism, has been proclaimed, which we believe to be more in harmony
with the requirements and genius of modern life. This gospel is a
philosophy of existence and a science of life, apart from all neces
saryassociations with theology and separate from all forms of ecclesiasticism. According to its teachings nothing should be accepted
as truth merely upon external authority, but all questions should
be submitted to the test of reason aided by experience. A Secu
larist is one who prefers a knowledge of the natural to a forced
faith in the alleged supernatural—who relies upon “ those princi
pleshaving reference to finite determined time, as opposed to the un
determined infinite” believed by Christians. Secularism, in its ety
mological sense, means the age, limited, finite, belonging to the
world. To give it a more amplified definition, Secularism may be
considered as the application of the sciences to life, as in a smaller
degree astronomy is the application of science to the planetary
bodies, and botany the application of science to plants. Secular
ism, according to its founder, is distinguished from Atheism by its
independent course of action in reference to the question of the
existence of a Gode An Atheist, believing that the evils of
theology are to be traced to the assumptions of Theism, boldly
goes to what he considers the “ root of the evil,” and examines
the reasons for such assumptions. Secularism does not profess to
grapple with this alleged fundamental error of the religions of the
world, but contents itself with a more matter-of-fact field of action.
The question of the existence of a God being one of conjecture,
Secularism leaves it for persons to decide, if possible, for them
selves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise upon a
subject of which it can impart no information. The Secular plat
form is sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists,Theists,
Deists, or Pantheists. Secularism fetters man with no creeds, it
only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to pursue a
progressive career independent of all speculative theology. Man’s
duty from a Secular standpoint is to learn the facts of existence ;
to acquire the power of doing right; to progress in virtue and intelli
gence ; to seek to promote the happiness of others ; in a word to
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
5
endeavour to remove from society the present inequalities, and to
secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The phil
osophy of Secularism exhibits the science of life and indicates the
path of duty, and how we are to pursue it. It adopts the eclectic
method of selecting from systems, both past and present, whatever
is good and true, and amalgamating such selections with the dis
coveries of more recent thought, and the advantages revealed
through scientific and philosophic researches.
Secularism is two-fold in its nature, constructive and destruc
tive. As a constructive system, it prescribes definite rules to regu
late human conduct, and supplies the means to sufficiently satisfy all
the real needs of humanity. For this purpose it proclaims the
necessity of truth, temperance, industry, justice, fortitude, magnanimicy, benevolence, honour, wisdom, and love. Furthermore,
to meet the requirements of our nature, Secularism teaches that it
is imperative to possess a knowledge of the laws upon which
health depends, and to apply that knowledge in order that we
may have sound bodies, upon which a healthy mind so largely
depends; that the intellectual faculties should be properly devel
oped, as mental training induces lofty and ennobling conceptions
of the duties of existence ; that, as differences of opinion are sure
to obtain, and more particularly upon speculative questions, there
fore social harmony and friendship should never be disturbed and
severed in consequence of such non-agreement; that our emotions
and passions should be controlled by reason and regulated by
judgment ■, and, finally, that as morality is a more important factor
in life’s concerns than theology, it should be studied and accepted
unfettered with the figments of the various churches. This is the
constructive aspect of our philosophy.
In its destructive character Secularism seeks to remove as far as
possible from our midst all fancies, creeds, and dogmas that obstruct
thecarrying out of our constructivework. While shams are regarded
as realities, and falsehood worshipped as truth, this phase of our
advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have lost all vitality,
except for evil, need to be broken up; and theologies, which have
hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require to be refuted. The
theologians claim to have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth,” and unless we walk in their paths, unless we accept
their authority, unless we believe implicitly in all their teachings,
�6
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
we are at once condemned as rebels against their God, as outcasts
from society, and as enemies of our fellow-men. While this cruel
injustice exists, destructive work will be necessary. So long as a
mind-degrading theology seeks to rob man of his freedom of thought
and individuality of mind, so long as it threatens him with the
curse of God for striving to realize the nobility of man, so long will
at be our duty to labour earnestly to remove those obstacles which
for ages have stifled human thought, stultified the intellect of man,
and impeded the progress of the world. Thus it will be seen that,
while Secularism enunciates positive principles and duties, it is
compelled, at times, through a domineering theology, to engage
an a determined warfare; not indeed in one of steel and lead, and
fire and blood, but demanding from its soldiers the moral courage
and endurance which are so much nobler and rarer than the mere
physical; demanding the zealous loyalty to an Idea, which is so
much more easy to render to a Man; demanding a constant de
votion to Justice, while it is so much more natural to yield to selfish
Injustice; demanding the sacred fire of Love, which it is so much
harder to kindle, so much easier to quench, than the unholy fire of
Hate.
In our destructive work we make no attack upon the truth either
an Christianity or the Bible, neither do we condemn the useful in
religion. We seek only to destroy the errors, and impediments, and
<he false conceptions which have become associated with Christian
theology. For instance, we object to:—
Biblical Idolatry.—All books, to be really valuable, should be
regarded as our servants, and not as our masters. To prostrate
human reason at the shrine of alleged Biblical infallibility is to
sacrifice modern truth to ancient error, and to yield the discrimin■.atmg power of man’s intellect to the arbitrary decrees of ecclesivastical .counsels. We should use the Bible as we do any other
’book, estimating its worth by its merits, and not by its supposed
““inspired” authority. Surely it will not be contended that the
whole of the Bible can be reasonably endorsed as a record of facts.
Taken after the old orthodox fashion—namely, that all its state
ments are to be accepted as literally correct—the Bible contains
the greatest of conceivable absurdities. What could be more
absurd than the idea that Cain went into a country that did not
exist, and selected a wife who was not then born (Gen. 4: 16, 17);
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
7
that beasts were killed three times, and yet remained as
lively as ever (Ex. 9 : 6-25 ; 12 : 29 ; 13 : 15); that a talking ass
saw an angel (Num. 22 : 23-28) ; that a thousand men were slain
by one individual with a jaw-bone of an ass (Judges 15 : 15, 16);
that certain persons arose one morning and .found themselves all
dead (2 Kings 19 : 35); that the sun and moon stood still at a
special command (Joshua 10: 12-14); that the sun moved back ten
degrees, as a sign to a sick king (Isaiah 38 : 8); that a child can
be two years older than his father (2 Chron. 21 : 5*20 1 22 • L 2) j
that an iron axe could float on the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) ;
that a whale could swallow Jonah and retain him, on praying ground,
for three days, and then send him by express to dry land
again; that a child could be born without a human father;
that a man could be alone' while his friends were with him
(Luke 9: 18) ? Of course, these errors and follies are too palpable
to be believed as verities ; but, in sober truth, they are not more
ridiculous than many of the Bible allegations in the domain of
science, history, philosophy, and morality. What could be more
foolish and fallacious than the stories of the Creation, the Flood,
the Egyptian plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the exploits of
Sampson, the asceticisms of Christ, the adventures of St. Paul,
and, finally, the night mare of St. John the Divine ? Secularism
does not deny that the Bible contains some true and valuable
teachings; but the fact cannot be ignored that in its pages there is
also very much that is false, useless, and injurious; and in order
that its better parts shall not be marred by inferior portions, we
think it is necessary that the entire book should be subjected to
the eclectic process, which is the separation of the good from the
bad, the wisdom from the folly, the chaste from the obscene, and
that that only should be retained which harmonizes with truth,
decency, and the requirements of mankind. The Bible that should
have the highest claim on our allegiance to-day should be composed
of the truest philosophy, the noblest thoughts, and the grandest
ethics that can be selected from the works of the greatest men and
women in all ages and in all countries. Is it asked, where is the
Secularist’s Bible ? We answer, that portions of it are to be
found in every book and in all nations where a useful lesson is
enjoined and a noble truth inculcated. Chapters of our Bible
should be composed of records of the ethical glory of Greece and
�8
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the heroism and sense of duty which adorned the character of
ancient Rome in her palmy days. From the study of the vast
universe we would learn a lesson of humility, and with the aid of
geology we would master truths written on nature’s stony pages.
These lessons and truths should be illuminated by modern thought,
enriched by the accumulated wisdom of all ages, and augmented by
experience gathered as time rolls on. Thus we would have a Bible
fettered by no traditions, limited by no counsel, marred by no
theology, and cramped by thetauthority of no church. It should be
as free as mental growth, as wide as human intelligence, and as
pure and lofty as cultivated thought.
(2) Natural Depravity.—This priestly-begotten dogma we regard:
to be as false as it is degrading; it is a libel on human nature,
robbing it of its noblest qualities and its loftiest achievements.
That depravity exists is, alas ! too true, and so long as priestcraft
and kingcraft hold their sway it is to be feared that depravity moreor less will remain in our midst, depriving man of much of that
grandeur and nobility which in all probability would otherwise
adorn his character and ennoble his conduct. Secularism, how
ever, denies that the human-kind are by nature necessarily
depraved; their history, with its records of self-sacrifice, its
benevolence, its disinterested virtue and its sublime purity, denies
the degrading assumption. When we contemplate the fidelity of
the husband, the devotion of the wife, the affection of the mother,
and the love of the child, we cannot think that the fountain from
which these natural virtues flow is corrupt. As we look upon the'
babe in the cradle who could believe that that emblem of innocence
is a new husk of depravity ? Is it not more dignified and true to
regard it as a fresh stock of human goodness, capable of being
developed into a grand flower of truth, which in after years shall
bud forth into blossoms of usefulness and beauty, whose foliage of
noble deeds shall charm, and whose fragrance of purity of thought
shall regale, those by whom it is surrounded? Parents and guar
dians cannot be too particular in protecting the infant mind from
the machinations of theology at the very time when it is too young
to protect itself. For it is in the sunny days of childhood when
the heart knows no care, when sweet innocence beams upon the
cheek and hope sparkles in the eye, when the mind in its purest
, simplicity is unable to detect the snare ; it is then the seeds are
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
9
sown which in after years bear such disastrous fruit. The Church
knows this, hence its solicitude to secure the control of the rising
generation in the very morning of life. The birthplace of the
notion of “inherent depravity” is the Church; its parents are
ignorance and credulity, and its nurses are the priests. Let a
child be born in the domain of Secular freedom ; let it be properly
trained from infancy, receiving lessons of truth, duty, and selfrespect ; let it have an.example placed before it worthy of emu
lation, and then there is but little doubt that a character will be
formed contradicting the false assumptions of the Church that
mankind are naturally depraved. Rather than endorse the mel
ancholy opinion of Jeremiah, that the heart of man is deceitful and
above all things desperately wicked, we would echo the philosophy,
if not the words, of Shakespeare, when he makes the Prince of
Denmark exclaim : “ What a piece of work is man ! how noble in
reason, how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how express
and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how
like a god—the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.”
This represents the Secular idea of man’s capability, and in our
opinion is more true to nature than all the grovelling teachings of
theology as to the alleged inherent depravity of the human race.
(3) Theological Supremacy.—It is the duty of every .Secularist to
endeavour to destroy the evil influence of theology, inasmuch as it
retards intellectual development and national progress. It is the
nightmare of the human mind, conjuring up phantoms which de
stroy the healthy vision of man’s mentality. Theology was dom
inant and despotic in the Middle Ages, which are selected out of
all bad times to be branded as most emphatically the Dark Ages
—ages of ignorance, fetishism, oppression, and slavery ; ages
gloomy, brutal, and horrible. In their universal darkness theology
was enthroned supreme and triumphant; every ray of light which
•came to pierce it pierced the heart of the Church like an arrow,
and rent some of her kingdom from her ; and, if we are now in
twilight instead of black darkness, it is because the dawn of Secu
larism is kindling more and more, and the night of theology more
and more receding and vanishing away.
(4) The notion that man is a fallen being, and that he can only be
.redeemed through the merits of Christ.—To believe this teaching to
•be true is to subvert the lesson of all history, and to lack faith ^n
�10
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the power of man’s self-reliance, which is one of the most useful
and ennobling characteristics of his nature. The career of the
human race has been one of progression, not of retrogression, and
so far as man has been redeemed from the errors and imperfections
of the past that redemption has been the result of personal and
societarian effort, and not in consequence of the life and death of
any one man, or of the origination of any supposed and super
natural religion. The popular orthodox theory teaches that nearly
six thousand years ago an all-wise and all-powerful God created
the world, and then set man in the midst of a scene, surrounded
by temptations it was impossible for him to withstand ; God im
planted in man’s breast certain desires which, as God, he must
have known would produce man’s ruin. A tree is then placed by
God near Adam, bearing the very fruit which God must have
been aware would meet those desires which he had just planted
in the minds of his children. God, all good, then makes a serpent
of the worst kind, in order that it might be successful in tempting
Eve to eat. After this, God commands Adam not to eat of the
fruit under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time that
Adam would eat of it and not die. God allows the serpent to suc
ceed in his plan, and then curses the very ground for yielding the
tree which he (God) had caused to grow. Not content with this,
the Almighty dooms both man and woman to a life of pain and
sorrow ; further, he assures them that their posterity shall feel the
terrible effects of their doing what it was impossible for them to
avoid. At length the unchangeable God changes his mind ; he
will no longer commit wholesale injustice. He determines to send
his son, who is as old as himself, and therefore not his son, to die,
but who is invested with immortality, and therefore cannot die, to
atone for wrongs which had never been committed, by people who
had never been born, and who consequently could not very con
veniently have committed any error. As a conclusion to the
whole, this all-merciful Being has prepared a material fire of brim
stone, to burn the immaterial souls of those who fail to see the
necessity and justice of this jumble of cruelty and absurdity.
The folly and cruelty of this scheme are still more apparent
upon closer investigation. Here we have a Being of unlimited
knowledge, of unlimited power, resolving to make man out of a
material of his own selecting ; it is only reasonable, therefore, to-
�secularism: destructive and constructive.
II
suppose that he secured the very best material which could be
had. Having made man, he at once pronounced the work to be
good. A short time after, however, a mistake was discovered, the
work turned out to be very bad, and God was grieved at his heart
that he had made man at all. Most mechanics can improve upon
their work when they discover it to be faulty; but not so with the
Bible God : bis only resource apparently was to introduce the
cold-water cure and wash the human race, one family excepted
from the face of the earth. This was an absurdity with a ven
geance ; but it was also cruel and unjust in the extreme. Does
the Christian ever ask himself the question, What object could
Deity have had in creating men, if he knew that the thoughts
of their hearts would be evil continually, and that he would have
so soon to destroy them ? As God, he knew what would happen,
what must happen. He knew that the serpent would tempt, and
that Adam and Eve would become victims to the temptation, and
that an awful catastrophe must ensue. Can we reconcile it with
our reason and our idea of justice, that a Being of perfect holinessand goodness, with unlimited power, a Being, spoken of as “ our
heavenly Father,” would have created man at all under such cir
cumstances ? Realize, if you can, for one moment, the awful
spectacle the Flood must have presented. Families banded to
gether, witnessing the gradual rising of the waters ; husband and
wife, brother and sister, friends and lovers,-clinging to each other
as the tide of destruction approached. In a short time the husband
is separated from the wife, the child from the mother, and sister
and brother, and friend and lover, and husband and wife—all, allr
are floating to destruction. One by one disappears from the sight
of those who remain, until at last the agony of all is over, the
shrieks of all are hushed, and the only visible remains of creation
are an ark floating towards Mount Ararat. Presently it finds its
resting-place, the waters gradually subside, and when the land
again is seen what a sight to behold ! The earth, before so beauti
ful and lovely, with children playing in their innocence on the
greensward, and flowers blooming with their fragrance, now pre
sents the aspect of one huge slaughter-house; and “our Father
who art in heaven ” is said to have caused and witnessed a scene
that no human being can think of without horror, nor contemplate
without dismay. A Being that would pre-determine such an
�12
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
awful calamity as this cannot be worthy of our veneration and
love.
To destroy the belief in, and allegiance to, the figments of
theology is the object of our destructive policy. But let it be dis
tinctly understood that, in the place of these dogmas, we inculcate,
among others, the following positive principles:—
(i) That the true guide in human actions is reason, assisted by
.experience.—We do not allege that reason is a perfect guide, but
we do allege that it is superior to any other of which at present we
.have any knowledge. By reason is meant the totality of man’s
intellectual powers, the ability to separate truth from error, and to
premise future probabilities from past experience. In order that
the fullest advantages of reason may be realized, it is necessary
that it should be cultivated and developed as much as possible.
The ordinary house lamp is used for the purpose of giving light ;
but to secure an illumination for any length of time it is necessary
to supply the lamp with oil and to carefully trim it. If this be
not done, the light given will first become dim, and then ulti
mately expire. So it is with the great lamp of human reason,
which requires to be supplied with the oil of wisdom, and to be
trimmed with intellectual discipline, and then it will reflect a light
indicating the right path of human duty. It is objected by some
persons that reason is inadequate as a monitor, because it ignores
too much the emotional part of our nature. This, however, is not
so. Secularists do not neglect the emotions; they only endeavour
to control and regulate them. Secularism teaches that the intel
lectual should predominate over the emotional, not the emotional
over the intellectual. Where this rule is not observed religion
frequently degenerates into wild fanaticism, and pleasure into licen
tiousness. The distinction between the two methods, the reasonable
and the emotional, is illustrated by the mode adopted respectively
by the Christian and the Secularist in their efforts to win converts.
The one seeks to reach the head through the heart, the other en
deavours to gain the heart through the head. The Christian aims
to captivate by appealing to feeling, fear, and wonder; the Secu
larist desires to convince by submitting his claims to reason, judg
ment, and experience. The question is often asked, “ What does
Secularism propose to give Christians for the loss of their faith ? ”
Now, it is not our wish that Christians should give up their faith
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
13
while they think that doing so would be a loss to them. These sud
den and partial conversions are the cause of much of the hypocrisy
and nothingarianism that we find in the world. So long as a
Christian considers that his faith is better than Secularism it is his
duty to adhere faithfully to it. But if, in consequence of a calm
and argumentative appeal to his reason, he be convinced that
Secular principles are superior to Christian teachings, then to
give up what he sees to be the inferior for the superior would be
no loss, but a gain.
Further, it is urged that inrelying so much upon reason we deprive
ourselves of the highest advantages derived from emotional grati
fication, and that we limit the scope for the exercise of the power
of veneration. We are also charged with neglecting music, paint
ing and sculpture; with caring nothing for the glories and grandeurs
of the world; with having no part in the treasuresof the imagination.
Those, however, who know Secularists and their principles will
see at once how groundless such charges are. The truth is, we
recognize that in the proper gratification of our emotions some of
the finest chords in human nature are touched, filling us with
rapture and delight. Surely we have ample scope for the exercise
of our admiration and veneration in the temple of reality without
roaming in the barren wilderness of speculation and conjecture.
Have we no truth, no honour, no heroism, no devotion in the
world ? Does not the mighty universe with its countless varieties,
its charming beauties, and its transcendent wonders, present to
our view the loftiest and most fascinating objects for veneration ?
Contemplate the enchanting marvels of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, the numberless objects of the profoundest interest in the
starry heavens, the expanded earth, and the spacious seas. Gaze
with intensity upon the untold wonders revealed by modern science.
Take botany with its variety of foliage, zoology with its innumer
able number of animal organisms, geology with its fossil wonders,
bringing to view facts hidden through the ages of the past,
astronomy with its worlds upon worlds revolving around their
central suns ; are not these enough to venerate ? If not, take the
great science of man, with its profound intellectuality, its depth
of philosophy, and its richness of poetry, and those who fail to dis
cover amidst these fascinating realities scope for their emotional
gratification may depend upon it that their mentality is in an
�14
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
abnormal condition, and the sooner an improvement takes place
the better.
“ They tell us that we worship not,
Nor sing sweet songs of praise ;
That love divine is not our lot
In these cold modern days ;
That piety’s calm, peaceful state
We banish from the earth ;
They know not what we venerate
Whate’er we see of worth :
We venerate great Nature’s plan,
And worship at her shrine ;
While goodness, truth, and love in man,
We hold to be divine.”
(2) That supreme attention should be given to the facts and duties
of existence, regardless of any considerations of a life beyond the
present.—This life is a fact; but whether or not there be another
existence beyond the grave is a question that personally I refuse
to dogmatise upon. Secularists need not deny a future life, inas
much as it would be unreasonable to deny that of which many of
us admit we have no knowledge. Of the duties of earth we know
much ; of the alleged requirements of heaven we know nothing.
If we are to exist in some future life, and there be called upon to
perform certain duties, we can have no knowledge of their nature
and requirements until we participate in the supposed new exis
tence. It may be urged that the duties said to pertain to another
world are supposed to be of a particular kind, and that, acting
upon such a supposition, a preparation for their performance is
made. But it is, at least, possible that the said supposition may
prove to be erroneous, and in that case what has been done ?
Why, society has been deprived of time and services to which it
was justly entitled. We are all indebted to the general common
wealth for advantages received. No one can live successfully in
a state of isolation; we are dependent on others for numerous
benefits, and in return we are in duty bound to render back to
society what services we can to add to its uselfulness and stability.
If it be true that our bodies contain immortal souls, they ought to
be benefited by being allied with well-trained physical, mental,
and moral organizations. If, on the other hand, man has no soul,
�SECULARISM ! DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
15
then his body will be none the worse for good training and neces
sary discipline. In any way, therefore, the Secularist is safe, and
fully justified in acting up to the dictum, “ One world at a time.”
(3) 'd'hat Science and its application is a more trustworthy pro
vider for man than relying for help from any supernatural power._
That a radical change for the better has taken place in the physical
and general condition of the people within the last few hundred
years no one will deny. When the Church, with.its supernatural
pretensions, was at its noon, the state of society was horrible
beyond modern imagination. The peasantry and labourers were
mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath feudal exactions
and despotism. As no laws of nature were acknowledged, no sani
tary measures were thought of, though from the general filth and
want dreadful plagues and famines were, frequent. Before the
ravages of epidemics thousands of the noblest and fairest of the
sons and daughters of earth fled from their miserable homes only
to be caught within the jaws of agonizing death. The Church
existed, prayers were despatched to heaven, the aid of God was
invoked ; but no help came, desolation walked the earth. By-andbye science dawned, and with its magic natural powers accom
plished what faith, with its supernatural belief, had proved itself
impotent to achieve. The benefits that accrued to the world
through the advent of science cannot be over-estimated. Science
has been the lever that has transformed societv from the pestilen
tial past to the improvement of the present, from the age of faith
in heaven to the period of human effort on earth. The Coperni
can system, perfected mathematically by Newton, in the words of
Leibnitz, “ robbed the Deity of some of his best attributes, and
sapped the foundation of natural religion.” While astronomy and
geology dissolved heaven and hell, the progress of all the sciences
has impressed upon us the universality and immutability of law,
the invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatch
ing Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a
childish folly. Roger Bacon, with his discoveries in chemistry
and physics, did more to enable us to cure disease and prolong
human life, than Christ and all his co-workers. And Darwin,
Tyndall, Huxley, and Clifford have given us more practical infor
mation as to man, his nature, position and potency than the whole
of the theologians in the world. Science, therefore, is our provi
�16
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
dence ; on it we rely in the hour of danger ; and, as a matter of
fact, so do the Christians, although, to be consistent, orthodox
believers should do otherwise. When the storm is raging, the
thunder is roaring, the lightning is flashing, upon what do Chris
tians rely ? Have they not more real faith in the lightning-con
ductors upon the top of the steeples of their churches than they
have in all the prayers of Christendom ?
(4) That morality is of natural growth, and has no necessary con
nection with any of the theologies of the world.—Much confusion of
thought exists as to the true nature of ethical philosophy.
Morality is not an existence per se—that is, of itself. It is a term
used to indicate that condition of society wherein truth, justice,
honour, sobriety, industry and other virtues obtain. Where the
opposites of these are found immorality predominates. Our object,
therefore, should be to select a rule of life which encourages virtue
and discourages vice ; and, moreover, which indicates what is to
be done, and also when and how it should be done, in order that
not only the individual, but society at large, may be the better for
the life we lead and the action we perform. The orthodox basis
of human conduct is God’s will; but, inasmuch as it is difficult, to
say the very least, to ascertain what that will is, Secularism can
not accept it as the foundation of moral deeds. Where are we to
look for a concise and legitimate record of such a will? Notin
the Bible, for therein many representations of a most conflicting
character are given of what is supposed to be God’s will. Thus it
can be shown from the Old Testament that its God condemns
murder, adultery, robbery, lying, etc. ; while it can be as readily
demonstrated from the same book that he approves, and, in some
cases, really recommends these vices. A standard so contradic
tory as this cannot surely be accepted as a moral test.
Neither is conscience a trustworthy guide in this matter.
Practically, conscience is mental condition resulting from one’s
organization, training, and general surroundings, varying with
time and differing in individuals. It is not the function of con
science to determine right from wrong. It is reason and judg
ment which do this, and the province of conscience is to urge
fidelity to the decree of this intellectual monitor. Secularism, of
■course, recognizes the necessity of heeding the “ voice of con
science,” knowing full well that, if it were faithfully obeyed, there
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
17
would be less hypocrisy in the world than we have to deplore at.
the present time. Intellectual insincerity is the curse of the world
and the bane of the Church. People are too prone to sacrifice
their honest convictions at the shrine of public prejudice and to
the exactions of a fashionable theology. The consequence is that
an air of artificiality pervades modern life, converting the temple
of mental reality into an abode of mental moral dishonesty.
Secularism seeks to impress upon mankind the duty of saying,
what they mean and meaning what they say.
The basis of morality which commends itself to the Secularist
as being the safest, and most in accordance with the genius of the
age, is the usefulness of an action, those acts being moral which
produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.
This view of morality is justified by a knowledge of the doctrine
of, circumstances, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The scientific definition of any particular object of
our contemplation is that it is the sum of all the causes which pro
duced it. If one of the causes which tended to produce that par
ticular phenomenon had been deducted, or if additional influence
had been added, the result then produced would have differed from
the result as it now stands in precise proportion to the efficacy of
the cause which had been added or withdrawn. Now, Secularism
views human nature in this harmonious light. Man is as much
the consequence of all the causes and circumstances which have
affected him and his development previous to and since his birth
as any one tree or mountain.
The influence of circumstances on human conduct is forcibly
illustrated by a reference to the science of botany. In England
the myrtle is a small shrub or plant; but in the north of Africa it
is an immense tree. The lily in England is remarkably fine and
delicate ; but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of from
ten to fifteen feet in its dimensions. Botanists inform us that this
difference is in consequence of the different circumstances by which
each shrub or plant is surrounded. The influences in Africa and Spain
are more favourable to the extensive development of those plants
than they are in this country. The same principle is shown in the
various productions of English or American soil. We take a wild
flower from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance
and value. It has grown up under what are termed natural cir
�18
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
cumstances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify
ts condition. According to the end we have in view, so are, to
use technical language, the “ artificial causes ” we bring to act
upon its particular condition. We begin with an examination into
its constitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we
immediately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, we
multiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part of its
nature. The change in its condition and appearance has been
produced by the modification and encouragement here, the dis
couragement there, depression in one quarter, elevation in another
—of causes all of which were in existence and operation as much
when the flower grew in its wild state as now when it adorns the
house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now, to apply this to
the argument under consideration. Secularism may be designated
as the science of human cultivation. The problem that it sets to
itself with reference to man in his moral relations to society is to
bring him from the condition of the wild flower to that of the
garden flower. For, as with the wild flower, so it is in many re
spects with the wild, undisciplined man. The flower is what it is,
and the wild, uneducated man is what he is, in consequence of the
aggregate of causes which have made them both what they are.
Secularism recognizes these influences of circumstances, not for.
getting, however, that man has a certain amount of self-reforming
power. But this power is frequently rendered comparatively use
less to him through his being surrounded by inferior conditions,
through neglect of correct training, and a want of a proper under
standing of his moral and intellectual nature.
It is not claimed that the principle of utility is perfect, but only
that it is the best ethical foundation known to us. Should a better
basis for morality be presented, we shall be ready to accept it in
lieu of the one we now have, for we are chained to the decrees of
no councils and bound by the dictates of no Church. Having no
devil to frighten us and no hell to appal us, we are ever ready to
accept the revelations of truth, however much they may clash with
preconceived ideas. Herein consists one of the many advantages
of Secular progress over theological stagnation. If it be asked
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
19
why, from the utilitarian standpoint, we should do right, the answer
is, because the welfare of society demands it and the individual is
himself the better through doing right. Utility offers as an incen
tive for well doing the promotion of the happiness of the people in
general. By happiness is here meant the knowledge—so far as
it can be acquired—that our actions do no harm to others and leave
no injurious effects upon ourselves. Those persons who reflect ere
they retire to rest at night, if they can honestly experience such
happiness, can sleep the sleep of peace born of the consciousness
that during the day they have striven to do their duty honestly and
justly.
Fortunately for the exercise of such morality, we are not depen
dent upon the theologies or religions of either the past or the pres
ent. The sources of all ethical culture are found in human nature,
and its sanctions in personal and societarian requirements.
Morality was born of thoughtful experience, fostered by the highest
aspirations of the human mind, and is now being developed by the
exigencies of modern life. It needs no supernatural power to
determine its nature, and no Bible to manifest its force. While
humanity lasts its results will be felt and its service appreciated.
The obligations of truth, the essence of all moral conduct, are of
earth, not of heaven. Truth should be observed, not through fear
of God, but because we know from human experience that telling
falsehoods tends to destroy that confidence between man and man
which is so necessary to the honour and stability of society. As
the Bishop of Hereford remarks in his Bampton lectures : “ The
principles of morality are founded in our nature independently of
any system of religious belief, and are in fact obligatory, even on
the Atheist.”
(5) That the best preparation for a life superior to this is the
wisest and noblest use of the existence we now have.—Knowing only
of the present life, Secularists content themselves with its demands,
feeling assured that the best credentials to secure any possible im
mortality is the wisest and most intellectual use of the life we now
have. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation
to die well, and he will find that the principles which supported
him in health can sustain him in sickness. When the last grand
scene arrives the Secularist, having done his duty, lies down
quietly to rest. What has he to fear ? He knows that death is
�20
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The
bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that flies from flower
to flower, the colossal elephant, the tiny animacule, the intelligent
ape, and the almost unconscious zoophyte, all pass into a state of
unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done.
Why should man be an exception to the universal law ? His body
is built up on the same principle, and his mental faculties differ in
degree, but not in character, from theirs. He is subject to the
same law as the rest of existence, and to repine at death is as
absurd as to weep because he did not live in some other planet or
at some other time. Nature is imperative in her decrees and must
be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter
of which one organism is made up are required for the constructing
of another, so they must be given up for that purpose, and to
repine at it argues an ill-tutored mind. The work is done, and, if
it has been done well, there is nothing to fear when “ life’s fitful
dream is o’er.”
The orthodox believers assure us that Christianity is necessary
to enable a person to die happily. Is not this the height of folly
and a reflection upon the alleged goodness of God ? Are all the
other religions in the world impotent in this particular ? If we
estimate the various religions of the world which conflict with
each other, more or less, at one hundred—a very moderate calcula
tion—there can only be one that is true, so that the Christian has
only one chance out of a hundred, while there are ninety-nine
chances against him. What, then, is the difference between the
Christian and the Secularist ? The one rejects ninety-nine, and
the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hundred. But
the Secular position does not rest even upon this. If God be just,
he can never punish a man for not believing that which his reason
and judgment tell him is wrong. If we have to appear before a
heavenly tribunal, is it to be supposed that questions will be asked,
“Towhat church did you belong? What creed or dogma did
you accept ? ” Is it not more rational to believe that if any inquiries
are made, they will be, “ Were you true to yourselves and just to
others ? ” “ Did you strive to make the best of existence in doing
all the good you could ? ” “ Were you true morally and intellec
tually ? ” If the answers are given honestly in the affirmative,
then no one need fear the result. It is degrading to the character
�secularism; destructive and constructive.
21
<of any God even to think that he would punish one to whom, on
earth, he did not think fit to vouchsafe the faculty of discerning
his existence, for honestly avowing that he did not discern it, for
not professing to see clearly when the eyes he saw fit to give saw
nothing. Would he not be apt, if at all, to punish those (and they
■are very numerous) who, not seeing, confidently assert distinct
vision ? If we act honestly and manfully according to the best
light we can attain, if we love our fellow-men, whom we know, and
try to be just in all our dealings, surely we are making the best
preparation for any future life, the best preparation for the higher
knowledge, the clearer vision, the eternal heavenly beatitudes.
Though we are execrated and condemned by the tender mercies of
human bigots, we may, if we have lived as true Secularists, commit
ourselves without dread to an infinitely good and wise God, if he
be the loving father of all his children. We can die without fear,
as we have lived without hypocrisy.
“ What if there be a God above,
A God of truth, of light, and love,
Will he condemn us ? It was he
Who gave the sight that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die ? ”
Such is the twofold nature of Secularism, with a few of its lead
ing features. Thus it will be seen that it is negative to error, but
positive to truth ; that it only seeks to destroy whatever interferes
with mental freedom and the honest expression of individual
opinion : that its desire is to assist in making life a noble reality,
instead of merely an artificial existence. As Secularists, we wish
each and all so to live that when we are no more the world shall
have no just cause to reproach our memories. We counsel all so
to act that when life’s mission is accomplished those who were
bound to us by the natural ties of affection shall delight in the
recollection of their association with us. If this be done, then,
even if our present state be “ the be-all and end-all,” we shall not
have lived in vain, but the world shall be the better for the part
we have played therein. This is an immortality not of faith, but
of works. True, this Secularistic idea of practical usefulness may
be slow in its realization, as imperceptible in its realization as is
�22
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the construction of a coral reef. Still, if we are true and earnest,
it shall be as certain in its development. And, although at present
we have to encounter the obstacles of superstition and the spite of
intolerance, the work of progress still goes on. This inspires us
with hope for the future. We believe the time will arrive when
fancy will give place to reality, and imagination will yield to the
facts of life. Then, instead of the evils of priestcraft, the reign of
bigotry, and the strife of theology, we trust to have manifestations
of sincere love of man to man ; an awe-inspiring happiness in the
majestic presence of universal nature, and “ man, the great master
of all,” shall live a life of enduring service to the cause of individual
and national redemption. Assuming for the moment that we are
in error and partial darkness, and that we should strive to ob
tain new light, we adopt the prayer of one who was recently with
us, and say ;—
“ God of Nature ! give us light !
We are struggling through the night;
Through the cloud of crimes and creeds,
Lofty words and guilty deeds,
Honoured not, nor understood,
Workers for the general good.
Father, by the public scorn,
By the ties in anguish torn,
By the sad and ceaseless strife,
By the cross we bear through life,
Do us justice ! be our view
Truth or falsehood, we are true !
True to manhood’s mission grave,
To the task that Nature gave.
Ours the free and fearless thought,
Ours the honest, earnest doubt;
Not the cringing of the knee,
Not the impious mockery
Of the prayers that rise to Thee
Through a life of blasphemy.
Though our hearts be racked and riven,.
Though the clouds enwrap Thy heaven,
We are battling for the right—
God of Nature ! give us light I”
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
2’
3
Secularism : Past and Present.
Secularists, deeming “ the wise use of the present to be the just
profit of the past and the most reasonable preparation for the
future,” would do well to corsider from time to time the pro
gress of their principles and the different requirements of their
movement at the various stages of its development. The mode
of advocacy necessary at one period is frequently not desirable
at another. As time rolls on the natural law of change manifests
itself in all phases of thought and every field of action. The
intellectual scope of fifty years ago is evidently too limited for
to-day, when active thought is awakening new ideas and imparting
to the human mind additional vigour.
Secularism in the past manifested itself principally in its mili
tant aspect, having to contend with strong opposing forces. To
obtain a position in the public mind it had to fight its way against ,
misrepresentation and theological prejudice; and to maintain
that position many severe battles have been fought, calling forth
heroism, sacrifice, and devotion from brave Freethinkers whose
dauntless labours have made positive Secularism possible at the •
present time. Although the victories gained are unmistakable
and most encouraging, it must not be inferred that our final
triumph has yet been reached. Misconceptions of our views still
exist; and obstacles to the consolidation of our principles abound
on every hand. These drawbacks are, no doubt, to some extent
the result of the difficulties encountered in conducting past con
flicts. Having to meet an overwhelming opposition, backed by
power, wealth, and theological fanaticism ; being often compelled
to fight under the weight of a bitter persecution and the depri
vation of liberty of speech and the freedom of the press, it is no
marvel that errors of advocacy were committed and that apparent
conrusion of principles obtained. We have now, however, gained
important vantage ground : our present duty, therefore, should be
to correct past errors by stating plainly our principles and future
policy.
The public cannot be too frequently reminded that Atheism and
Freethought are not always allied with Secularism. Of course,
Freethought is essential to Secular Philosophy ; but it is only
a part of it and, unfortunately, the former very frequently is to
�24
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
be found without the latter. The same with Atheism : many
of its adherents do not subscribe to any constructive Secular
programme whatever. Our opponents have confounded these
three principles, and thereby have been prevented from com
prehending accurately the real nature of Secularism, which
they have erroneously supposed to be but the negation of
prevailing Theistic notions and the discarding of theological
dogmas. So far as methodically regulating daily conduct upon
an ethical basis is concerned, a mere Negationist may simply be
a Nothingarian, who in no way represents Secularism, which is
something more than rejection of orthodox Christianity, being,
the embodiment of positive principles sufficiently potent for the:
right regulation of human conduct.
The time has now arrived when Secularists should do some
thing beyond the old work of destroying theological dogmas.
The ground is sufficiently clear to admit of the erection of an
edifice of thought untrammelled by orthodox restrictions. The
Secular teacher will, if he is observant, find paths of usefulness
open to him free from the bigotry of the past. A characteristic
of the present time is that the public are inclined to hear an ex
position of Secularism if it be put before them in a proper manner.
Sobriety of speech is as desirable as sobriety of appetite. There
is no necessity of indulging in the folly of urging that the Bible
and Christianity are both destitute of goodness and utility \
better far to urge the truth that the value in each is at the
command of the Secularist, who accepts the useful wherever it can
be found. Furthermore, it is important to point out that any
material advantage offered by rel gion we can secure by a faithful,
adherence to the positive principles of Secularism.
Secular propagandism has now become an active vital force in
our midst; hence the greater necessity for judicious care being,
observed by our advocates. Whenever orthodox absurdity and
theological error impede our Secular work the course to pursue
is clear : destroy them if possible; but we should be prepared to
supply their places with sound principles of daily life, possessing
as recommendations reason and utility. What is required now
more than ever is the thorough carrying out of these principles in.
our conduct: union of action and an efficient organization.
�
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
Secularism : destructive and constructive
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[19--]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Secularism : destructive and constructive), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1851
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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a7bd8aeab5d8496849a0b8596f047b33.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kfMfGyHKo6dT-VlLdZ%7ELIKtaZiS2rl20gHFa22DeFp7ckVbfTBIua9lh1MS5ac55e5hM5iOzHL3S158EUYiwkRsqum-3aeUue1DZVAD5lh1oRWmJaIXrvuly4WakcsoaFZN2f1OMO7-z9z1qOWarizLsKMSSROd%7E6szNyzikIdawqE2n4SWbO%7E6GzTGzB7VjIwpPvjPgbf%7E-ZB26e67PCOyWZ8DOWkKD-kP-cgaqs8sWIp5sF6jvt6zNm4-jooDXgBRkD9puWeTVo1uPxb7uBqv2dBSXrIOMT%7ETQee-I6hNdfytx%7EzjQju-9AGtJhZFsBSFaxtLSpKx%7EYfpIZY9emg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
54b54db4b059240c3462c991b43ed305
PDF Text
Text
EDUCATION:
TRUE AND FALSE.
(RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE
LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.)
BY
CHARLES WATTS,
Vice-President of the National Secular Society.
Price Twopence.
^nnbart:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET.
1894.
��Education: True and False.
---------- ♦---------
A GREAT struggle is going on at present between the
friends of true education and the supporters of
Christian theology. A similar policy to that which
was in former times employed against science is now
being adopted by orthodox enthusiasts in reference
to education. Then the clergy bitterly opposed
modern science, but they discovered that it was
impossible for them to prevent its progress ; they
therefore made strong efforts to deprive it of its
legitimate influence, by hampering its teachings with
Biblical and theological interpretations. As Professor
Huxley observes in his Lay Sermons: “ In this nine
teenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical
science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew
is the incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium
of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient and
earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo
until now, whose lives have been embittered and their
good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters ?
Who shall count the host of weaker men whose sense
of truth has been destroyed in the effort to harmonise
impossibilities—whose life has been wasted in the
attempt to force the generous new wine of science into
the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of
the same strong party ? It is true that, if philosophers
have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged.
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every
science, as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules;
and history records that, whenever science and
orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has
been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and
crushed, if not annihilated ; scotched, if not slain.
�4
Education: True and False.
But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought.
It learns not, neither can it forget; and though at
present bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing
as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis
contains the beginning and the end of sound science ;
and to visit, with such petty thunderbolts as its half
paralysed hands can hurl, those who refuse to degrade
nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
This is precisely what is now happening in the
struggle to establish a free and secular system of
education ; and we have no fear but the results will
be the same as those which followed the conflict of the
Church with science. From the very inception of our
national system of education the clerical party has
carried on a persistent warfare against it. Prior to
1870 the clergy had the absolute control of the instruc
tion of the rising generation, and what were the
results ? True education among children was entirely
unknown, and thousands of boys and girls never even
entered a school, except perhaps a few on Sundays,
when mundane affairs were seldom referred to.
In 1820 only six per cent, of the population were
receiving even the poor instruction then imparted.
Cassell's History of England, says that in the
reign of George III., “ education, either in town or
country, was scarcely known. In our time even there
was not a school in all the swarming region of White
chapel, and many other equally poor and populous
regions of London, much less in country towns and
agricultural parishes. • . . The consequence was, that
the condition of the agricultural population was as
debased morally as it was destitute physically in the
almost total absence of education, the very funds
granted by pious testators for this end being embezzled
by the clergy or squirearchy.”
It is worthy of note that the efforts made in
the early part of the present century on behalf of
education met with the most determined opposition
from the clergy of the Established Church and from
some of the dissenting sects. Even Mr. (afterwards
Lord) Brougham, in seeking to increase the educational
grant and in endeavoring to promote a national scheme
of instruction, found that his greatest difficulty lay
�Education: True and False.
5
with the exponents of the Church. Washington
Wilks, in his history of the first half of the present
century, gives some valuable information upon this
subject, showing the opposition offered by the Chris
tian party to all kinds of education but their own
narrow and imperfect method. Mr. J. M. Ludlow, in
his Questions for a Reformed Parliament, mentions
that when the first grant of £30,000, in 1839, was
proposed by Government for educational purposes,
Canon Wray and the Rev. Hugh Stowell headed an
organisation in opposition to it. In 1843 the English
Dissenters resisted and threw out the Government
Factory Educational Bill. If to-day the Church is
more energetic in the matter of education, it is
because it seeks to counteract the influence of our
Board schools, which sooner or later will destroy the
power of that theology which has ever impeded human
progress and fettered human thought.
The conflict which has recently been going on
amongst the members of the London School Board was
produced from the same cause that originally, for a
time, paralyzed the educational movement. That cause
was the desire to ally with education religious teaching,
in reference to which there were and are so many
various and conflicting opinions amongst its exponents.
Thus it will be seen that a great obstacle to obtaining
at first any national system of instruction was the
diversity of the views entertained by the many sects
of theologians as to what should comprise the religious
element in education. The teachings of the Established
Church were considered by the Nonconformists to be
erroneous and injurious, while the instruction given
by the dissenting bodies was pronounced by Church
men to be “ heretical ” and “ fraught with grave
dangers.” Ultimately it was conceded by Parliament
that the Bible might be read in our public schools, but
that no theological doctrines should be taught. This
•constituted what is called the “ compromise.” In Bir
mingham, however, a determined opposition was
offered by the late George Dawson and others to this
concession upon the ground that as the meaning of
the Bible was a debateable question, it, like all debate
able books, should be excluded from public schools;
�6
Education : True and False.
This is the position we take, inasmuch as it appears
to us to be the only rational and satisfactory solution
of the question. We contend that a National School
which is paid for by all. irrespective of their theo
logical opinions, should be an institution for the teach
ing of that which all require and upon which all are
agreed. This agreement experience teaches us, is con
fined to purely secular knowledge. It is admitted
on all sides that it is essential that children should be
so educated as to prepare them for properly playing
their part in social life, and to afford them a fair
opportunity as far as their natural gifts will permit,
of discharging aright their duties of citizenship. In
order that this may be done, certain secular teaching,
about which there is no dispute, is necessary. Let
therefore the duties of the School Board be confined
to carrying out the generally acknowledged necessities
of education. The moment the question of religious
instruction is introduced, discord arises, and the real
object of the school is interfered with. To teach any
form of religion or to impose Bible reading in our
public schools at the expense of the ratepayers, we
hold to be unjust and to be a revival of the old
Church-rate in a new form. To take a decidedly
secular stand, and to insist upon an absolute avoidance
of every form of theological teaching, we regard as
being the only true course to pursue in opposition to
the proposals made by the clerical party on the School
Board. To simply exclude sectarian teaching as it
is termed is not sufficient while the Bible is retained,
for that book is the source of the perplexity caused,
and of the contradictions found in the theology which,
is sought to be inculcated.
The present struggle in London between Churchmen
and Dissenters has revealed the wish, upon the
part of a large section of the religious party, to use the
public schools and the public funds for the purpose of
teaching incomprehensible dogmas. In other words,
an attempt is being made to convert our Board schools
into miniature churches, and the teachers into mission
aries, for the promulgation of the doctrines now taught
in the orthodox pulpits and in the Sunday-schools.
The leaders of this reactionary movement proceed as
�Education: True and False.
7
if Board schools had been established as nurseries for
the purpose of supplying the Church with congrega
tions as the old members fall off. Now it is quite
certain that nothing of the kind was ever intended by
the originators of the institution of the Board schools.
The fact is that when it was abundantly proved that
millions of children were growing up without any sort
of education under the voluntary Christian system, it
was deemed desirable to make other provisions to
meet the educational wants of the age. The theological
party, of all sects, had failed to prepare the young for
good citizenship; therefore the State took the matter
in hand, and taxed all alike for the common good—
for if we efficiently educate those who in the future
will wield the destinies of the nation, it must be an
advantage, not to one class only of society, but to the
whole of the community. Intellect will, henceforth,
more than ever rule the world, and the better that
intellect is cultivated the better it will be for all
sections of the commonwealth.
It has always been of the utmost importance that
the nature and object of education should be clearly
understood. But it is more than ever desirable that
its true meaning and purpose should be recognised at
the present time, when the members of the Church
party on the London School Board are persistently
striving to subvert the National policy of education.
These theological obstructionists must be reminded
again and again that no man ought to be compelled,
either directly or indirectly, to pay for teaching his
own or his neighbor’s children a religion in which he
does not believe. Public schools ought to be secular,
free from religions of all kinds, for these have always,
with few exceptions in which Christianity cannot be
included, been a constant source of dissension, strife
and dispute. America does her public schooling well,
and is fairly free from what we quaintly call “The
Religious Difficulty.” The Independent (U.S.), refer
ring to certain sections which, even in America, would
like to get hold of the schools, says: “ The time has
come when all religious denominations must affirm
that no public moneys shall be used for sectarian
instruction ; the time-honored principle of the
�8
Education : True and False.
separation of Church and State must be again
emphasized. If a church is not willing to support its
own schools, it cannot come to the State for aid. Our
public schools must be kept free from the touch
of ecclesiastical control. No church has a right to use
ecclesiastical pains and penalties to control the vote of
American citizens.”
The clergy are constantly boasting that the children
of past generations were indebted to the Church for
the education they received. It is true, that before
1870,. religious bodies were active in imparting a
certain kind of instruction in British and National
schools, but little or no education, in its truest sense,
was given. Reading, writing, spelling and arithmetic,
constituted the whole of the instruction which the
children of the working classes received in those
days. Of course, tuition in these four departments is
necessary, but these branches do not comprise
education in its highest and fullest sense ; they are
only the means whereby education is obtained. Even
knowledge is not necessarily education, which consists
in the ability to use what is known wisely, not only
for the benefit of the individual, but also for the
welfare of general society. True education involves
physical and moral training, intellectual discipline,
and the formation of character.
It includes the
imparting of authentic knowledge about the phenomena
of nature and of man. Professor Huxley, in the
March number of Macmillan, 1868, wrote as follows :
“ By. way of a beginning, let us ask ourselves, What is
education ? And, above all things, what is our ideal of a
thoroughly liberal. education ? Of that education which, if
we could begin life again, we would give ourselves—the
education which, if we could mould the fates to our own will,
we would give our children. Well, I know not what may be
your conception upon this matter, but I will tell you mine,
and I hope that I shall find that our views are not very
discrepant. Suppose it were perfectly certain that the life
and fortune.of everyone of us would one day or other depend
upon his winning or losing a game of chess. Don’t you
think that we should all consider it to be a primary duty to
learn at least the names and the moves of the pieces; to
have a notion of a gambit, and a keen eye for all the means
of giving and getting out of check ? Do you not think that
�Education: True and False.
9
we should look with disapprobation amounting to soorn upon
the father who allowed his son, or the State which allowed
its members, to grow up without knowing a pawn from a
knight ? Now, it is a very plain and elementary truth that
the life, the fortune, and the happiness of every one of us,
and, more or less, of those who are connected with us, do
depend upon our knowing something of the rules of a game
infinitely more difficult and complicated than chess. It is a
game which has been played for untold ages, every man and
woman of us being one of the two players in a game of his or
her own. The chess-board is the world, the pieces the
phenomena" of the universe, the rules of the game are what
we call the laws of nature. Well, now what I mean by
education is learning the rules of this mighty game. In
other words, education is the instruction of the intellect in
the laws of nature, and the fashioning of the affections and
of the will into harmony with those laws. For me education
means neither more nor less than this: anything which
professes to call itself education must be tried by this
standard, and, if it fail to stand the test, I will not call it
education, whatever may be the force of authority or of
numbers upon the other side.”
This is a kind of education that the Church has never
understood, and therefore has never taught. The Earl of
Hardwick, at the opening of Parliament, November 19,
1867, is reported to have said, “All that was required
for the working classes was to teach them to read the
Bible.” And Dr. Adam Smith states, in his Wealth of
Nations: “The object of religious instruction is not so
much to render the people good citizens in this world,
as to prepare them for another and a better world in
the life to come.” This is the sort of “ education ”
that the Church has imposed upon the rising genera
tion. The result has been that the real object of culture,
which is to elevate and to discipline the moral nature
of man, has been retarded by such theological instruc
tion.
We desire to emphasize the fact that the true object
of all correct education is to cultivate the faculties and
to develop the sympathies that are common to all
members of the human family ; to make them intel
ligent and humane, and to fit them to play their part
in daily life so as to harmonise with the good of all.
By what means can this be accomplished ? We answer,
�10
Education: True and False.
by the acquirement of secular knowledge and the study
and application of the sciences, for these create the
very conditions of existence that secure the greatest
possible amount of social happiness. In order that our
Board schools may be properly utilised for these pur
poses, we submit that the teachers therein should
devote the whole of their attention, when teaching in
school, to the inculcation of practical truths, and leave
speculative opinions concerning theology alone. These
truths are sufficient to tax the ability of the teacher
and to occupy the time of the scholar, without per
plexing their minds with such proposals as Mr. Riley
and his religious supporters wish to be carried out.
These pious enthusiasts would have Bible lessons given,
the Trinity explained, and the children told that Christ
is God.
But, as the London Daily Chronicle aptly
observes, if we once embark on the enterprise of
drawing out a program of theological study for School
Board children we shall court the fate of those who
rush to the letting out of waters. The children will
be taught a particular form of theology by people who
are never weary of denouncing reformers for teaching
“ luxuries ” at the expense of the ratepayers. Nothing
can be more diverting than the attitude of people who
howl with rage because we teach children who are to be
handcraftsmen how to draw a plan, but who wail and
gnash their teeth because we do not teach them
dogmatic theology, and indoctrinate them in the anti
quities of ecclesiastical history. It is worse than folly
to urge that a girl cannot be taught all that is necessary
to make her a good wife and a fond mother without
she is told that the son of Mary had no human father.
How can it qualify a clerk, intellectually or morally,
to be assured that theologically one is three, and three
are one ? Cannot a boy be prepared to become a good
workman without being taught to submit to bad
masters, which is enjoined in the New Testament ?
Will it be impossible to have in the future efficient
statesmen and sound moralists except among such as
taught that the ruling powers in the universe were
established, and are controlled by God ? Such notions
are preposterous and worthy only of the Dark Ages
�Education: True and False.
11
■when theology was master of the situation, and educa
tion amongst the masses was unknown.
The facts of science and the teachings of the Bible
cannot be taught as if they were both true, without
confusing the youthful mind, and causing erroneous
notions to be formed. For instance, if the laws of
nature” are to be relied upon the doctrine of prayer
is a delusion ; if success in life is dependent upon
intelligence and industry, it is not the gift of God ; it
of ourselves we can do no good thing, self-improvement
is impossible ; if disease is caused through a violation
of natural law, it is not the result of the possession of
devils ; if some persons were ordained to condemna
tion before they were born, there is no such thing as
universal salvation ; if “ the wisdom of the world is
necessary to man’s progress it ought not to be described
as being “ foolishness with God.” Finally, if the con
tents of the Bible cannot be understood by eminent
scholars, children ought not to be expected to know
its meaning, and to teach them that which they cannot
comprehend is a waste of time and an injustice to
taxpayers, who contribute money for the education,
not for the bewilderment of the young. This is not a
question only of personal conviction but one of
national concern. Our contention is that the State
has no right to bias the rising generation either tor or
against religion, and every attempt to do so. should be
opposed to the very last by the Secular party.
The crusade which has been carried on by the ortho
dox party against a secular system of education in our
Board Schools is doubtless the result of a mistaken
notion that theology and Bible reading are a preventive
to crime ; and moreover that a “ godless education is
dangerous to the moral condition of society. Now there
is ample evidence, furnished by undeniable facts, that
Bible reading and the teaching of theology, do not
prevent crime or increase the moral status. 1 he truth
is that since the Board Schools have replaced Church
instruction, crime has considerably decreased. In
referring to the early part of the present century, the
Rev. Dr. Milner quotes official figures which show that
during the first seven years of the Bible. Society s
existence, the wickedness of the country, instead of
�12
Education: True and False.
being diminished, had almost been doubled ! For
instance, in 1810 the convictions for crime were 834 ;
but in 1817, when for ten years thousands of additional’
Bibles had been in circulation, the convictions had
increased to 3,177. From a Parliamentary Report of
Sir John Trelawney in 1873, concerning England and
Wales, we learn the following percentage of criminals
to the populationChurch of England, 1 in every
72 ; Dissenters, 1 in every 666 ; Roman Catholics, 1
m every 40 ; and Infidels 1 in every 20,000. The
Pall Mall Gazette recently stated that “ during the
period between October 1, 1891, and October 10, 1892,
there were 629 convictions for various offences, of
clergymen connected with the Established Church.”
The Ghurch Times, some time ago, reported the
Bishop of Dover as saying, at the Conference of the
Canterbury Diocesan Sunday-school Teachers, that he
had tried to trace the career of a hundred of his own
scholars. He was only able to trace seventy-seven,
and of these only two attended church regularly,
while thirty-nine were confirmed drunkards. He
further stated that at Leeds the chaplain of the gaol
reported, that 230 out of 282 prisoners had been
Sunday-school scholars. At Pentonville Prison, out
of 1,000 convicts, 757 had been brought up at Sundayschools. “ The United States Commission of Education
for 1871 ” published some curious figures, from which
it is found that, in examining the educational condition
of eight Bavarian provinces, the following suggestive
facts were presented:—In the first four provinces
there were forty-seven churches, twenty-two schools,
and seventy-one criminals. In the second four
provinces there were ten churches, thirty-four schools,
and only forty-three criminals. Thus it is seen that
those who read the Bible, and also those who preached
from it, were not prevented from becoming criminals ;
while the facts in reference to the Bavarian provinces
show that the School was superior to the Church as a
promoter of the great virtues of life.
Another interesting truth worthy of note is that
during the “ godless ” teaching of our Board schools
crime has decreased. The evidence presented by the
Judicial Statistics of England and Wales for the year
�Education: True and False.
13
ending September 29, 1891, reveals the fact that under
nearly every head of crime there was a marked decrease
compared with those of preceding years. Mr. West,
Q.C., Recorder of Manchester, recently stated that crime
in that city had decreased by two-thirds, and this
improvement he attributed largely to the influence of
Board school instruction. Mr. Howard Evans was
reported in Lloyd's Newspaper of November 27, 1892,
as saying : ii Criminal statistics show that the work of
education has proved morally effective. Only a quarter
of a century ago the population of our convict prisons
was 11,600 ; it is now only 5,000, though our population
has increased ten per cent. Within the same period
the numbers convicted for indictable offences have
fallen from 14,000 to 9,000.” After reading these facts
surely it cannot be contended that Bible reading and
theological teaching are necessary to secure a moral
state of society. It is not here contended that religious
teaching should not be taught under some circum
stances and at some places. What we urge is the
necessity of keeping it from our public schools, so that
these institutions shall be devoted to their original and
legitimate purpose, which is the educating of the young
in the secular requirements of life. Those who believe
in the necessity of Christian instruction (whatever that
way wean) have their churches and chapels wherein
such instruction can be given.
There are other grave reasons why the Bible should
have no official place in our public schools. Its educa
tional teaching is based upon fear and not upon love.
In Proverbs we read : “ A rod is for the back of him
that is void of understanding.” “ Thou shalt beat
him with a rod.” “Chasten thy son . . . and let not
thy soul spare for his crying.” Such Bible injunctions
as these may be the teachings of God, but they are the
very essence of brutality. Moreover, portions of the
Bible are unfit for children to see. Where is the
moral to be derived from such stories as those of Lot
and his daughters, David and his adultery, Jacob and
his wives, Judith and Ruth ? What effect would the
following passages have upon the religious youth in
whom the appetite for strong drinks was hereditary ?
“ Thou shalt bestow thy money for whatever thy soul
�14
Education: True and False.
lusteth after—wine or strong drink ” (Deut. xiv. 26) ;
“ Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let
him drink and forget his poverty and remember his
misery no more ” (Prov. xxxi. 6, 7). It may be said
that only the good portions of the Bible are to be read.
If so, these (or precepts equally as useful) can be had
from other books unaccompanied by what is so very
objectionable.
But further, the Bible undoubtedly teaches what is
false upon matters of history, science, philosophy, and
morals ; and yet these are among the Bible lessons
that are to be read. Still, upon each subject the most
glaring errors are propounded.
The teaching
of such fallacies is the more reprehensible because
many of those so-called orthodox saints who insist
upon “ Bible Lessons ” do not believe in them.
Professor Huxley saw the evil and inconsistency of
such conduct. Hence, some years ago, when he was
a member of the London School Board, he addressed
its members as follows. Speaking of the first chapter
of Genesis, he said : “ The reading of this chapter
would convey—whatever the chapter was intended to
convey—that the world was made in six natural days.
I don t say whether this is the right interpretation or
not; but I appeal to the common sense of the Board
whether that is not the interpretation which every
child capable of understanding the English language
would naturally derive from the statement contained
in the book of Genesis ? And, that being the case, it
is perfectly certain that this statement is erroneous,
and no more capable of being disputed than whether
the earth stands still or not. I submit that it is an
absolute crime that this Board should sanction the
instilling into the minds of children statements which
are not true, and which the instruction which they
receive a few years later will infallibly upset............
What I ask, and what I have a right to ask, and
what you as honest men must grant, is this, that
these tender children shall not be taught that which
you do not yourselves believe.”
Thus we plead for purely secular education. Sanc
tions for moral actions depend upon no Bible and upon
�Education: True and False.
15
no supernatural religion. Let our children be taught that
honesty is right, not because they are commanded by
the Bible not to steal, but for the reason that stealing
is an infringement upon the rights of others; that
telling the truth is right, not because lying would offend
any God, but for the reason that falsehood tends to
undermine that confidence which is necessary to the
stability of society ; that honor is due to parents, not
because children may live long, but for the reason that
they are indebted to their parents for life and training.
These are real and natural sanctions, dependent upon
neither theology nor upon “ sacred books.” Finally, we
plead for secular education because it is no part of the
functions of School Boards to seek to increase the
numbers of either Roman Catholics, Protestants, or un
believers. That is a task which should be left to those
who take an interest in either one of the three classes
of society mentioned, and it is their duty to
provide for the cost of the respective propaganda. No
one would complain more vehemently than the Chris
tian if he were called upon to pay for the teaching
of the principles of the National Secular Society.
Why, then, should Secularists be taxed to pay for
the teaching of a theology which they believe to be
the greatest enemy of all correct and useful education?
Is there no justice to be found in the realms of
theology ? Has the orthodox faith blunted within its
devotees all sense of equality and right? We think
that, to a large extent, it has, and our duty as Secular
ists is at least to protect the young, who are unable to
protect themselves, and to remove the snares placed
in their path. We would shield them from the
allurements and the dangerous policy of those who
would sacrifice the mundane welfare of the rising
generation, unless it is sought to be secured by the aid
of a theology that has, during centuries, proved itself
to be the deadliest foe to all noble kand ennobling
aspirations.
�CHARLES WATTS’S WORKS.
The Teachings or Secularism Compared -with Orthodox Chris
tianity. Is, by post Is. 2d.
Christianity : its Origin, Nature, and Influence.
Secularism ; Destructive
and
Constructive.
4d., by post 5d.
3d., by post 4d.
The Glory of Unbelief. 3d., by post 4d.
Agnosticism and Christian Theism ; Which is the More Reason able ? 3d., by post 4d.
A Reply to Bather Lambert’s “Tactics of Infidels.”
post 7d.
6d., by
Theological Presumption : An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr. R. F.
Burns, of Halifax, N.S. 2d., by post 2£d.
The Natural and the Supernatural; or, Belief and Knowledge.
3d., by post 4d.
Evolution and Special Creation.
3d., by post 3^d.
Contents :—What is Evolution ?—The Formation of Worlds—The
Beginning of Life upon the Earth—Origin of Man—Diversity of Living
Things—Psychical Powers—The Future of Man on Earth.
Happiness in Hell
Science and
the
and
Misery
Bible.
in
Heaven,
3d., by post 3jd.
4d., by post 5d.
Bible Morality : Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and
Defective as an Ethical Code. 3d., by post 3jd.
The Bible Up
to
Date.
2d., by post 2|d.
The Superstition of the Christian Sunday.
Education: True and False.
Board.) 2d., by post 2jd.
Secularism : Its Relation
2d., by post 2jd.
3d., by post 4d.
(Dedicated to the London School
to the
Social Problems of
Christianity : Defective (and Unnecessary.
Watts. 3d., by post 3^-d.
Secularism; Is it Founded on Reason,
to Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
the
Day.
By Mrs. Charles
and is it
Sufficient
Debate between the Editor of the “Evening Mail” (Halifax, N.S.) and
Charles Watts. With Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and Colonel
R. G. Ingersoll, and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener. Is., by
post Is. 2d.
�
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
Education: true and false. (Respectfully dedicated to the London School Board)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1894
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Education: true and false. (Respectfully dedicated to the London School Board)), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1577
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
Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f6fab2c377f05ea4868a67f3353791d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sdqC%7EwsM9JOWvtfqIcTeE5pZjBwFFzMShdXEwZFYJ1d-AuW4wa4wCT66%7ELglZvcv75p7%7EODjwPMC%7EM4SsaVDNEnk7OnZRPIMYCSBr144QxactrGoth-0a%7Eg0bjZSeMLNncZr%7E47b25I9LZbwqedcEfG46o1JitSC6QJ59mZTTQsSs0S8FuustQTTZlT8V9x0uPGDwoZaozt7ulJUsFTpR2bPxT10Gn9NAPBnofG5GlbaXYb32ezLFB4wgp50wKRJ5580xvF8Gpj7Ug02XDSFoyVB5F293CbBPaV77YzUFlcVN3mY3spiZo2e5iLuKRfLQm6zLxiXmA3RuxVJJsz9Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7da33cca055c715ed6100afc887c6f5d
PDF Text
Text
t“V
<*W"
72
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL REFORMER ?
CHARLES WATTS'
( Vice-President 0/ the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Fourpence.
��WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL REFORMER?
' Although Thomas Carlyle has said that “ in these days it
is professed that hero-worship has gone out and finally
ceased,” thousands of the professed followers of Christ
idolise his memory to such an extent that they appear to
be entirely oblivious of any defect either in his character
or in his teachings. They regard their hero as having been
the very embodiment of truth, virtue, and perfection; and
those persons who are compelled to doubt the correctness
of these assumptions are regarded by orthodox believers
as most unreasonable and perverse members of society.
Probably the principal cause why such erroneous and
extravagant notions are entertained of one who, according
to the New Testament, was very little, if at all, superior to
other religious heroes can be accounted for by the fact that
the worshippers of Christ were taught in their childhood to
reverence him as an absolutely perfect character, and as
being beyond criticism. Thus youthful impressions
resulted in fancied creations which, in matured life, have
been accepted as realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook
recognised this truth, for in the preface to his work, The
Founders of Christianity (page 5), he observes : “ Our own
idealisations have invested him (Jesus) with a halo of
spiritual glory, that by the intensity of its brightness
conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally
perfect man our own fancies have conceived. But let any
one sit down and critically analyse the sayings and doings
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels—let him divest his mind
of the superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask him
self whether all those sayings and doings are in harmony
with the highest wisdom speaking for all ages and races of
�4
AVAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
mankind, and with the conceptions of an absolutely perfect
human nature, and I am mistaken if he will not find a very
great deal he will be forced to condemn.”
Even the sons of Labor, the apostles of Democracy, and
the advocates of Socialism appear disposed to adopt Jesus
as their Patron Saint. Conjectures are being constantly
made by professed modern reformers as to what the
Carpenter of Nazareth would say upon the many political
and social questions that agitate the public mind in this
the latter half of the nineteenth century. These hero
worshippers seem to overlook the apathy of Jesus in
respect to the evils of his own time. Of course, it is not
difficult for an impartial observer to learn why the name of
Christ is invoked to support the various schemes that are
now put forward to aid the regeneration of society.
However little Christianity is practised among us, it is
extensively professed, and it is thought by many a virtue
to assume a belief, whether there are sufficient grounds for
doing so or not. This slavish adherence to fashion is an
undignified prostration of mental freedom and independ
ence, and it is also a fruitful source of the perpetuation of
error. My purpose in examining the claims set up for
Jesus as a political and social reformer, is to ascertain
if the records of his life, doings, and teachings justify such
claims. If Jesus were judged as an ordinary man, living
nearly two thousand years ago, my present task would be
unnecessary. If we assume that such a man once lived, and
that what he said and did is accurately reported, he. should,
in my opinion, be considered as a youth possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavorable influences for
intellectual acquirements, belonging to a race not very
remarkable for literary culture, retaining many of the
failings of his progenitors, and having but little regard for
the world or the things of the world. Viewed under these
circumstances, I could, while excusing many of his errors,
recognise and admire something that is praiseworthy in the
life of “ Jesus of Nazareth.” But when he is raised upon a
pinnacle of greatness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom,
surpassing the production of any age or country, he is then
exalted to a position which he does not merit, and which,
to my mind, deprives him of that credit which otherwise he
would, perhaps, be entitled to.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
5
The contentions which it is my purpose to dispute are :
that Jesus was a political and social reformer, and that
his alleged teachings contain the remedies for the wrongs
of modern society. Before directly dealing with these
points it may be necessary to glance at the various aspects
of reform that have, at different times in our national
history, been presented to the community; also to briefly
consider the nature of the required reforms, and some of
the principal methods that have been adopted to secure
them.
In quite primitive ages important struggles took place
to establish greater equality in the conditions of life. In
the time of Moses, according to the Bible, the land, for
instance, was not merely the subject of “tracts for the
times,” but the laws and regulations relating to it were
practically dealt with. It did not, however, cease to be
property, and its inheritance was recognised as a rightful
thing. The stock-in-trade of many modern reformers is
the denunciation of those who “ add house to house, field to
field, and grind the faces of the poor.” If this condemnation
is one of the many features of Socialism, then Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel may, in this particular, be fairly
termed Socialists—a name foreign to their language and to
the ideas of their day.
The contention with some is, that Christ was a successor
to all these prophets, that he took the same kind of
objection as they did to the then existing state of things,
and that he used the same form of speech in denouncing
them. The general reply to this is, that Christ was, if
anything, only a prophetic reformer, not a real one. In
proof of this many facts in his alleged history may be
cited. For instance, he did not rescue the land from the
control of the Romans, who held it from the people very
much in the same way as landholders do now; he did not
attempt to render any aid to the laborers of Rome, who in
his day were resisting the injustice of the capitalists; he
did not deliver his brethren of “ the royal house ” from
their foreign rulers; he did not redeem the Jews from
their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a
word, he entirely failed to do the reforming work that was
expected of him. About the year 1825 the “Christian
Socialists of London ” called special attention to the question
�6
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
of land as regulated by Moses, and the living in common
by the early Christians; but no practical issue arose out of
the discussion. From that period down to the present
the same subject has been more or less agitated, and still
the matter is very far from being settled. Now, if it is
alleged that Christ sought to bring about a just settlement
of the land problem, then the existence of the present
oppressive land laws proves that he failed, and that his
most devout followers have been equally unfortunate.
If Christ had been a practical reformer, we should not have
in our midst the deplorable injustice, the wrongs, and the
inequalities that now afflict society. These evils and draw
backs—the growth of centuries during which Christianity
was in power—-will doubtless be lessened, if not altogether
destroyed; but the work will be achieved by a moral
revolution, inaugurated and conducted by men who will
possess ability and experience that it is evident Jesus never
had.
It must be borne in mind that there are two kinds of
revolution—one that is gradual and intellectual, and there
fore useful; the other that is sudden, born of passion, and
therefore often useless as an important factor in securing
permanent reforms. We know that every change of
thought, or condition of things, involves a revolution which,
if controlled by reason and regulated by the lessons of
experience, must aid rational progress, and tend to build up
a State, and secure its permanence. But there is another
kind of revolution, which is sought to be produced by
Nihilism and Anarchism, both of which aim at the
destruction of the State. I am not in favor of either of
these “isms,” believing, as I do, that in our present
condition of society some form of government is necessary.
Law and order, based upon the national will, and the
principle of justice, appear to me to be essential in any
scheme that is accepted for the purpose of furthering the
political and social progress of the world. Then we have
Socialism, which concerns itself with economic, ethical,
political, and industrial questions. The principal subject,
however, dealt with by Socialists is the accumulation
and distribution of wealth. State Socialism dates from
the time of the eminent French writer, Claude, H. Count
de St. Simon, whose works were published in 1831. He
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
tried to secure the amelioration of the condition of the
poor, and aimed at the organisation of labor and the
distribution of the fruits of industry, upon the principle of
every man being rewarded according to his works.
Socialism is, in fact, an attempt (whether it is the best that
could be made is with some persons a debateable point) to
regulate the social relations, making them more equal than
they are at present, either by individual combination, by
municipal or co-operative action, by a philanthropic policy
of the Church, or by the control of the State. This last
phase of the Socialistic scheme means the complete
regulation by law of the equality of individuals, the State
being the owner of the land, and of all the instruments of
industry that are at present possessed by individuals, public
companies, etc., who now regulate, in their own interest,
production and distribution.
Having thus briefly stated the general conceptions and
aims of political and social reformers, the next step is to
inquire in what relation Jesus stands to any or all of them.
Of course there is only one source of information upon the
subject at our command—that of the four Gospels. From
these it will not be difficult to demonstrate that Jesus was
no mundane reformer. Although he was surrounded by
poverty, slavery, oppression, and mental degradation, he
made no effort to rid society of these curses to humanity.
As John Stuart Mill observes, in his work upon
Liberty (pp. 28, 29), in referring to Christian morality:
“I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many im
portant points, incomplete and one-sided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had contributed
to the formation of European life and character, human
affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now
are.”
Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century, No. 144,
pp. 178-186, points out that Christians have no right to
force their idealistic portraits of Jesus on the unbiassed
scientific world, whose business it is to study realities and
to separate fiction from fact. The Professor’s words are :
“ In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with
fossil remains, which looked quite plain at a distance, and
became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their
outline by close inspection. There was something there—
�8
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
something which, if I could win assurance about it, might
mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as
long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it
been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of
Jesus as it lies in the primitive strata of Christian litera
ture. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the
catacombs 1 Or is he the stern judge who frowns above
the altar of Saints Cosmas and Damianus ? Or can he be
rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic broken down by
physical pain of too many mediaeval pictures ? Are we to
accept the Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth
Gospel as the true Jesus ? What did he really say and do ?
and how much that is attributed to him in speech and
action is the embroidery of the various parties into which
his followers tended to split themselves within twenty
years of his death, when even the three-fold tradition was
only nascent ? .... If a man can find a friend, the
hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in
the Jesus of any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith
in that ideal. Who shall, or can, forbid him ? But let
him not delude himself that his faith is evidence of the
objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence
is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science
as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts, at
present, to very little.”
Equally emphatic are the remarks of John Vickers, the
author of The New Koran, etc., who, in his work, The Real
Jesus, on pp. 160, 161, writes: “Many popular preachers
at the present day are accustomed to hold Jesus up to
admiration as the special friend of the poor-—that is, as
the benefactor of the humble working class, and their
representations to this effect are doubtless very generally
believed. But a greater delusion respecting him than this
can scarcely be imagined ; for, however much he may have
been disposed to favor those who forsook their industrial
calling and led a vagrant life, his preaching and the course
which he took were prejudicial to all who honestly earned
their bread. He did nothing with his superior wisdom to
develop the resources of the country and provide employ
ment for the poor; all his efforts were directed to the
unhinging of industry, the diminution of wealth, and the
promotion of universal idleness and beggary. It was no
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
9
part of his endeavor to see the peasant and the artisan
better remunerated and more comfortably housed, for he
despised domestic comforts as much as Diogenes, and
believed that their enjoyment would disqualify people for
obtaining the everlasting pleasures of Paradise. A
provident working man who had managed to save enough
for a few months’ subsistence he would have classed with
the covetous rich, and required him to give away in alms
all that he had treasured as the indispensable condition
of discipleship. On one occasion he is said to have
distributed food liberally to the hungry multitude; but
the food was none of his providing, since he was him
self dependent on alms. Moreover, the recipients of his
bounty were not a band of ill-fed laborers returning from
work/not a number of distressed farmers who had suffered
heavy losses from murrain or drought, but a loafing crowd
who had followed him about from place to place, and
spent the day in idleness. Such bestowment of largess
would only tend to produce a further relaxation of
industrial effort; it would induce credulous peasants, to
throw down their tools and follow the wonder-working
prophet for the chance of a meal; they would see little
wisdom in plodding at their tasks from day to day, like
the ants and the bees, if people were to be fed by
wandering about trustfully for what should turn up, as the
idle, improvident ravens (Prov. vi. 6 ; Luke xii. 24).”
Many eminent Christian writers maintain that Jesus was
a social reformer, because he is represented as having, been
in favor of dispensing with the private ownership of
property, and also of people living together, enjoying what
is called “ a common repast.” Professor Graetz, in the
second volume of his able History of the Jews, devotes a
chapter to the social practices which prevailed at the time
when Jesus is alleged to have lived. On page 117 he
states that Christianity was really an offshoot from the
principles held by the Essenes, and that Christ inherited
their aversion to Pharisaical laws, while he approved of
their practice of putting their all into the common treasury.
Further, like them, Jesus highly esteemed self-imposed
poverty, and despised riches. In fact, we are told that
the “ community of goods, which was a peculiar doctrine
of the Essenes, was not only approved, but enforced.............
�10
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
The repasts they shared in common formed, as it were, the
connecting link which attached the followers of Jesus to
one another; and the alms distributed by the rich publicans
relieved the poor disciples of the fear of hunger; and this
bound them still more strongly to Jesus.” But Graetz
also adds that Christ thoroughly shared the narrow views
held by the Judaeans of his time, and that he despised the
heathen world. Thus he said : “ Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you ” (Matt. vii. 6). If this is “ Christian
Socialism,” it is far from being catholic in its nature. The
Socialistic element of having “all things in common ” was
limited by Christ to one particular community ; it lacked
that universality necessary to all real social reforms. It
was similar to his idea of the brotherhood of man. Those
only were his brothers who believed in him. He desired
no fellowship with those who did not accept his faith;
hence he exclaimed : “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned ” (John xv.
6); “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou
hast given me ” (John xvii. 9); “But he that denieth me
before men shall be denied before the angels of God ”
(Luke xii. 9); “ He that believeth not shall be damned ”
(Mark xvi. 16). This may be the teaching of theology, but
it is not indicative of a broad humanity, neither would it,
if acted upon, tend to promote the social welfare of mankind.
. Professor Graham, M.A., of Belfast College, contends, in
his work, Socialism: Olcl and New, that Christ taught
“ Communism ” when he preached “ Blessed be ye poor,”
when “ he repeatedly denounced ” the rich, and when he
recommended the wealthy young man to voluntarily
surrender his property to the poor. The Professor also
says: “ In spite of certain passages to the contrary,
pointing in a different direction, the Gospels are pervaded
with the spirit of Socialism ”; but he adds : “ It is not quite
State Socialism, because the better society was to be
brought about by the voluntary union of believers.” He
admits, however, that “ the ideal has hitherto been found
impossible; but let not any say that it does not exist in
the Gospels—that Christ did not contemplate an earthly
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
11
society.” Now this last point is just what could be fairly
urged, if the Gospels were trustworthy. There can be no
reasonable doubt that the disregard of mundane duties
would be the logical sequence of acting up to many of the
teachings ascribed to Jesus. For instance, he said, “My
kingdom is not of this world ” (John xviii. 36). “He that
loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (John xii. 25).
“ I am not of the world ” (John xvii. 9). “ Take no. thought
for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body what ye shall put on. . . . Take there
fore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself ” (Matthew vi. 25, 34). “ If
any man comes to me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life, he cannot be my disciple ” (Luke xiv. 26).
“Everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,
for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall
inherit everlasting life” (Matthew xix. 29). Even the
disciple who wished to bury his father was advised by
Christ to forego that duty of affection, for “Jesus said,
Follow me ; let the dead bury the dead.”
The fact is, Christ was a spiritualiser, and not a social
reformer. If he had been to his age what Bacon and
Newton were to theirs, and what Darwin, Spencer, Huxley,
and Tyndall have been to the present generation ; if he had
written a book teaching men how to avoid the miseries of
life; if he had revealed the mysteries of nature, and
exhibited the beauties of the arts and sciences, what an
advantage he would have conferred upon mankind, and
what an important contribution he would have given to
the world towards solving the problems of our present
social wrongs and inequalities. But the usefulness of Jesus
was impaired by the idea which he entertained, that this
world was but a state of probation, wherein the human
family were to be prepared for another and a better home,
where “ the wicked cease from troubling and the weary
are at rest.”
We have thus seen the views of the scientist, the
historian, and the professor, upon the subject under con
sideration ; it will now be interesting to learn what one
�12
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
of the successors to the apostles has to say in reference
to the same question. B. F. Westcott, D.D., the present
Bishop of Durham, in his work, Social Aspects of Christianity,
says : “Of all places in the world, the Abbey, I think,
proclaims the social gospel of Christ with the most touch
ing eloquence. ... If I am a Christian, I must bring
within the range of my religion every interest and difficulty of man, ‘ for other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ ”
This is not by any means correct, for many other
“foundations,” which have nothing to do with Christ,
have been laid, and upon them systems, some good and
some bad, have been built. For instance, there are
Individualism, Socialism, material standards of progress,
unlimited competition, and the application of science.
These are “ other foundations ” that men have had apart
altogether from Christ. But the solution to present social
evils, Dr. Westcott considers, is to be found only in the
Christian faith. He says : “ We need to show the world
the reality of spiritual power. We need to gain and
exhibit the idea that satisfies the thoughts, the aspirations,
the aims of men straining towards the light.” He admits
that science has increased our power and resources; but, he
adds, it “ cannot open the heavens and show the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” Of
course it cannot; for science has nothing to do with
the impossible, or with the wild speculations of theology.
In the Social Aspects of Christianity, as presented by the
Bishop, it would be difficult, indeed, to recognise the
principles of true Socialism. Moreover, as it is admitted
by him that science has increased our “power and
resources,” it is a proof that Jesus must have been a poor
reformer, when we remember that he did nothing what
ever to aid this strong element of modern progress.
From the references which I have here made to some of
the ablest writers of to-day, it will be seen how Jesus is
estimated by them. I now propose to analyse the various
statements which, according to the Four Gospels, were
uttered by him, that have any bearing upon the political
and social questions of our time. It will then be seen
whether Christ has any claim to be considered a political
and social reformer.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
13
That the political views held by Jesus were exceed
ingly crude is evident from the circumstance recorded in
Matthew xxii. It is there stated that, on finding a coin of
the realm bearing the superscription of Caesar, Jesus
declared that both Caesar and God were to have their due.
The very pertinent question put by the disciples afforded
a good opportunity for some sound advice to be given upon
the political subjection in which the people to whom Christ
was talking were living. They were in bondage to a
foreign power, and were anxious to know if it were
“lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not.” Instead of
returning a clear and intelligible answer, Jesus replied in
words which were evasive and meaningless, so far as the
information sought for was concerned. If he had any
desire to alter the then existing political, relations, or. to
suggest any improvement, he might have given a practical
lesson upon the duties and obligations of the ruled to the
rulers. Another opportunity was lost when, Pilate having
asked Christ an important question, “ Jesus gave him no
answer” (John xix. 9).
Subsequently, however, Jesus recognised the “divine
government,” for he said : “ Thou couldst have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
(John xix. 11). He also, having stated, “My kingdom is
not of this world,” added : “ If my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews.” Christ s notions of government
were similar to those of St. Paul, who said: “The
powers that be are ordained of God. . .. . and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation (Romans xiii.
1, 2).
Now, in the very face of these scriptural utterances, we
have men to-day who allege that Christ is their hero of
democracy. The belief that he ever intended to. improve
the government of this world by secular means is utterly
groundless. His negligence in this particular cannot be
explained away by saying that society was not ripe for
reform, and that Jesus lacked the power to revolutionise
the institutions of his time. There is truth, no doubt, in
the latter allegation, for the power of Christ for all practical
work seems to have been very limited indeed. He did not
attempt any political reform, as other men in all ages have-
�14
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
done; he did not make honest endeavors to inaugurate
improvements which, under happier circumstances, might
have been carried out. There is no evidence that Christ
ever concerned himself with such reforms as civil and
religious liberty, the freedom of the slaves, the equality
of human rights, the emancipation of women, the spread of
science and of education, the proper use of the land, and the
fostering of the fundamental elements of human progress.
His language was : “ Behold the fowls of the air : for they
sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they ? And why take ye thought for raiment ?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you, That
even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field,
which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall
he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith ? But
seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Christ’s declaration that his kingdom was not of this
world may be taken as a reason why he made no adequate
provision for secular government; but those who worship
him assert that his plan is the only one that can be success
fully adopted to secure the desired reforms, and that he
really did contemplate a better state of society on earth
than the one that then obtained. Where is the evidence
that this was so 1 Not in the New Testament, for it is
nowhere recorded therein that such was his mission. With
him the question was : “ For what shall it profit a man if
he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Even
Renan, who is so frequently quoted by Christian advocates
as extolling Jesus, admits that he lacked the qualities of a
great political and social reformer. In his Life of Jesus
Renan says that Christ had “ no knowledge of the general
condition of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with
science, “ believed in the devil, and that diseases were the
work of demons” (pp. 79, 80); he was “harsh” towards
s family, and was “no philosopher” (pp. 81-83); he
“went to excess” (p. 174); he “aimed less at logical
conviction than at enthusiasm”; “sometimes his intolerance
of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
15
absurd” (pp. 274, 275); and “bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart” (p. 278.)
But let us further consider what it is said that he taught
in reference to life’s social requirements, and also what was
his estimate of the world and the things of the world.
Under any system conducted upon rational principles the
first social requirement is to provide for sufficient food,
clothes, and shelter; for to talk of comfort and progress
without these requisites is absurd. Now, it was about
these very things that Jesus, as it has already been shown,
taught that we should take no thought. In Matthew (c. vi.)
special reference is made to the Gentiles who did take
thought as to the necessities of life ; but other people were
not to be anxious upon the subject, “ for your Heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” and
a promise is given that he will provide them as he
“ feedeth ” “ the fowls of the air.” Poverty and idleness
were essentials to Christ’s idea of a social state, as is proved
by his advice to the rich young man, to whom he said:
“ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor” (Matthew xix. 21). In John (vi. 27) it
is also said : “ Labor not for the meat which perisheth.”
What wealthy Christian will sell what he has and give to
the poor, and thus carry out Christ’s idea of social duties ?
And if the toiling millions did not labor for their meat,
they would get but little of it. It is not overlooked
that Jesus said to the young man, “and follow me”;
which meant, I presume, that he was to join the Chris
tian society in which they had “all things common”
(Acts iv.). But this state of existence could only be
maintained by giving up all one’s possessions and adding
them to the general stock. If all did this, the stock would
be soon exhausted. And the point here to be noted is, that
in Christ’s scheme no provision is made to provide for a
permanent mode of living, except by prayer or miracle.
Surely it must be obvious to most people that a
communion of saints, fed directly by God, could not be any
solution of the social problem for those outside such
communities Besides, there is little prospect of outsiders
being made partakers with the saints, unless God the
Father draws them unto Christ (John vi. 44); but no one
can go to the Father except by Christ (John xiv. 6).
�16
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Thus our chances of admission into the Christian fold are
very remote, for if we are admitted it must be through
Christ, to whom we cannot go unless the Father draws us ;
but then we cannot go to the Father except by Christ.
This is a theological puzzle, which must be left for a
“ Christian Socialist ” to unravel if he can.
The belief that a social condition of society is sustained
by an invisible power, where no labor is performed, and
where no interest is taken in its progress, or in the dignity
and personal independence of its members, is the height of
folly. It implies the destruction of all human institutions,
and the substitution of a “divinely-ordered state of
things,” such as some of Christ’s followers allege they are
now hourly expecting. Well might the late Bishop of
Peterborough say : “ It is not possible for the State to
carry out all the precepts of Christ. A State that
attempted to do so could not exist for a week. If there be
any person who maintains the contrary, his proper place is
in a lunatic asylum ” (Fortnightly, January, 1890).
The Sermon on the Mount, or “in the plain,” as
stated by Luke (vi. 17), has been called the. Magna Charta
of the kingdom of God, proclaimed by Christ, although it
has never been made the basis of any human government.
Its injunctions are so impracticable and antagonistic to. the
requirements of modern civilisation that no serious
attempt has ever been made to put them in practice.
It may be mentioned that the genuineness of the “ Sermon ”
has been boldly questioned. Professor Huxley writes:
“I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for
doubting whether the Sermon on the Mount was ever
preached, and whether the so-called Lord’s Prayer was
ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth” (Controverted Questions,
p. 415). The Professor then gives his reasons for arriving
at this conclusion.
The Rev. Dr. Giles, in his Christian Records, speaking of
the Sermon on the Mount, says : “ There is good ground
for believing that such a collective body of maxims was
never, at any time, delivered from the lips of our.Lord’;
and Milman declares that scarcely any passage is more
perplexing to the harmonist of the Gospels than this
sermon, which, according to Matthew and Luke, appears to
have been delivered at two different places.
�*S-'
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
17
Mr. Charles B. Cooper, a very able American writer,
aptly observes: “If this discourse is so important, as
Christians profess to believe—the sum of all the teachings
of Jesus, and the sufficient source of all morality—it is
curious that Mark and John knew nothing about it, and
that Luke should dismiss it with such a short report.
Luke, omitting the larger part of the matter, takes only
one page to tell what occupies three pages in Matthew;
and to find any parallel to much of Matthew we have to go
to other chapters of Luke and to other occasions. In
addition to which, they disagree as to whether it was given
on a mountain or in a plain.”
Taking a broad view of the teachings as ascribed to
Christ, I should describe most of them as being the result
of emotion rather than the outcome of matured reflection.
They are based upon faith, not upon knowledge, trust in
Providence being the cornerstone of his system, so far as
his fragmentary utterances can be systematised. In my
opinion, the idea of his being a political and social reformer
rests upon an entirely mistaken view of the union of what
are termed temporal and spiritual things. Examples of this
maybe seen in such injunctions as “Love one another ”
and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The first was
clearly applicable to the followers of Christ, for he
expressly states, “ By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples” (John xiii. 35); and the second command
applied only to the Jewish community, not to strangers
who lived outside. These injunctions did not mean that
those who heard them were to love all mankind. Christ
himself divided those who were for him from those who
were against him. To the first he said, “ Come, ye blessed
of my father ”; to the other, “ Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
It has always appeared to me to be remarkably strange
that Christ should be regarded as the exemplar of universal
love. Neither his own words, nor the conduct of his
followers, justify such a belief. It is, of course, desirable
that a social state of society should be based upon love and
the universal brotherhood of man. This is the avowed
foundation of the religion of the Positivists, their motto
being, “Love our basis, order our method, and progress
our end”; but no such commendable features are to be
B
�18
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
found in the Gospel of Christ, or in the history of the
Church. Jesus declared that his mission was only to “the
lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew xv. 24).
Moreover, the conditions of discipleship which he imposed
would, if complied with, exclude the possibility of love
among all men (Luke xiv. 26); as would also his avowed
object of breaking the peace and harmony of the domestic
circle (Matthew x. 34, 35). It may be said that such are
the contingencies attending the belief and adoption of a
new religion. Be it so; but that only shows the futility
of the contention that Christ established universal brother
hood. It is absurd to argue that he did so, when we are
told in the Gospels that his mission was to the Jews only
(Matthew xv. 24); that he would have no fellowship with
unbelievers (Matthew xv. 26); that he threatened to have
his revenge upon those who denied him (Matthew x. 33);
that he instructed his disciples to “go not into the way of
the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not” (Matthew x. 5); and, finally, that he commanded
those disciples, when they were about to start on a
preaching expedition, that “Whosoever shall not receive
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that
house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I
say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for
that city” (Matthew x. 14, 15). Shaking the dust from
the feet, be it remembered, was an Oriental custom of
exhibiting hatred towards those against whom the act was
performed. And surely the punishment that it is said was
to follow the refusal of the disciples’ administration was
the very opposite of the manifestation of love. This
accords with the non-loving announcement that “ the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power” (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9).
These references ought to be sufficient to convince any
one that Jesus cannot be reasonably credited with a
feeling of unqualified love for the whole of the human
race. His conduct, and the general spirit of his teachings
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
19
towards those who differed from him, forbid such a
supposition. His injunctions, if acted upon, would annul
the influence of the ancient maxim of “ doing unto others
as you would they should do to you.” Certainly he failed
to set a personal example by complying with this rule, as
his harsh language to those who did not accept his
authority amply proves. It is reported that Jesus said
(Matthew v. 22), “ Whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be
in danger of hell fire”; yet we find him exclaiming, “Ye
fools, ye fools and blind” (Lukexi. 40; Matthewxxiii. 17).
He advised others to “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you,” while he himself addressed those who were not
his friends as “hypocrites ” (Matthew vii. 5); “ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers ” (Matthew xxiii. 33). We may
here apply Christ’s own words to himself: “I say unto
you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned ” (Matthew xii. 36, 37). In Luke (vi. 37)
he counsels us to “forgive, and ye shall be forgiven ”; but
in Mark (iii. 29) it is stated, “He that shall blaspheme
against the Holy G-host hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation.” The unfortunate point here
is, that we are not told what constitutes blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost.
From these cases, and there are many more in the
Gospels of like nature, it is clear that Jesus taught one
thing and practised another—a course of conduct which
his followers have not been slow to emulate. But such an
inconsistent trait of character disqualifies those in whom it
is found from being the best of social reformers. Example
is higher than precept.
Whatever may be urged in favor of Christ’s supposed
“ spiritual kingdom,” his teachings have but little value in
regulating the political and social affairs of daily life, using
those terms in the modern and legitimate sense, inasmuch
as he has given the world no practical information upon
either the science of politics or of sociology. The affairs of
this world had but little interest with Christ. With him
pre-eminence was given to the soul over the body. We are
not to fear him who can kill the body only, but rather fear
him “ who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell ”
�20
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
(Matthew x. 28). Here we recognise the great defect in
Jesus as a societarian reformer. He treats this world as if
it were of secondary importance, and he furnishes no useful
rules for its practical government. True he says, “ Blessed
are ye poor,” and “Woe unto you that are rich but what
does this amount to ? These empty exclamations will not
abolish pauperism, neither will they produce the organisation
of honest industry, whereby human wants can be supplied
and social comforts secured. Would it not have been
better if Jesus had devised some plan whereby poverty
should become extinct ?
To talk, as Professor Graham does, about producing a
better state of society by a “ union of believers ” is, in my
opinion, folly. How is it to be done ? Every member of
“ the union ” would have to live on the alms of the wealthy
members. It would, in fact, be a society of the destitute
supported by voluntary contributions. Surely no sane
Socialists ever proposed to divide mankind into two
classes—z.e., paupers and those who feed them. We know
what the result of such a policy was in the case of the
Church. As the Professor says, the Church obtained the
funds of the rich in return for certain considerations which
were supposed to affect them in this world and in the next;
and out of such proceeds the clergy distributed bread to
the poor and kept something better for themselves. Thus
Europe for centuries was infested by fat, idle monks . and
an army of miserable beggars. A more detestable condition
of society to men of honor and independent spirit never
existed. Yet this “ Christian plan ” finds favor, as we have
seen, in “ the Abbey,” and is really the necessary outcome of
Christ’s mendicant teachings. For did he not allege that
the poor were blessed, and that “ ye hath the poor always
with you” (Matthew xxvi. 11)? If he contemplated that
the period would arrive when “it should be impossible for
men to be poor,” why did he not give some practical
instructions to hasten its advent ? This would have been
a o-rand contribution to social reform. But his overwhelm
ing anxiety about another life was, with him, the “one
thing needful,” and to it every other consideration had to
give way.
.
I am quite unable to understand how anyone can mistake
the obvious meaning of the parable in which the rich man
u-*** yMita
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
21
appears in hell and the poor man in heaven (Luke
xvi. 19-26). The only assigned reason is that the one was
well-to-do in this life, while the other suffered privations.
This is no justification for either of the men being where
they are represented to have been. For poverty is no
virtue, neither is it a crime to be rich. Men of wealth can
be worthy characters, and poverty may be allied with
much rascality. The wrong does not consist in possessing
riches, but rather in the misuse of them; and, therefore, to
be poor does not seem the highest qualification for future
bliss, and to be rich is not a sufficient cause for anyone
being excluded from an abode of happiness. But this
parable is another illustration of Christ’s exaltation of
poverty. He even dispatched his disciples on a mission of
propaganda, without scrip, money, or purse, to beg their
way through the world (Luke x. 7-10). Is this the highest
model that can be given for a mission to the poor ? It is
thought so little of to-day, even by professed Christians,
that they never adopt the plan suggested by their
“ Master.” They may preach “ Blessed be ye poor,” but
they have no desire to be one of them. They read the
warning, “Woe unto you that are rich; for ye have
received your consolation ” (Luke vi. 24); but they appear
to be exceedingly comfortable with their material consola
tion. “ A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and
they are consoled more with the riches of this world than
with the chance of having a harp in the next. In the case
of the rich young man (Luke xviii.) it is true Christ
advised the giving up of private property; but it is also
true that the advice was not deemed practical, for the
young man “went away sorrowful” (Matthew xix. 22).
Supposing he had accepted the advice, he would then
have swelled the ranks of the poor unemployed, and
thereby have become the recipient rather than the bene
factor, although it is recorded that “it is more blessed to
give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). The giving up all
one’s possessions would be as injurious to a community as
the amassing of wealth by the few is pernicious.
What is required is a social arrangement whereby all
members of the community shall have their fair share of
the necessities and comforts of life ; and this arrangement
Christ did not understand, or, if he did, he made no effort
�99!
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
to bring it into force, and consequently he lacked the
elements of a true social reformer.
There is an incident recorded in Luke (xii.) which shows
that Christ refused to say anything upon the subjects of
property, civil rights, and law and government. “ One of
the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother,
that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto
him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ?”
Here Jesus had an opportunity, as a social reformer, to
give the world an important lesson upon the duty of one
man to another; but he did not avail himself of it. He
acted more like a modern lawyer would do, who, when
asked by a stranger to give him advice, would reply: “I
am not your appointed solicitor ; if you want information,
you must consult your own legal adviser.”
The parable of “ the rich man who set up greater barns,”
related in Luke (xii.), is another illustration of Christ’s
defective teachings in reference to the affairs of this life.
The man in the parable proposed to enlarge his premises so
that he might be able to put by increased stock of fruits
and goods, and thus be in a position to take his “ ease, eat,
drink, and be merry.” There does not appear to be any
great crime in this, for he lacked room wherein to bestow
his fruits, etc. (v. 17). Surely there could be no serious
objection to making such careful provision for “a rainy
day.” Such conduct is frequently necessary to the advance
ment of personal comfort and general civilisation. Have
not Christians in all ages, since their advent, done the
same thing, when they have had the opportunity ? Layingup treasures on earth, although forbidden by Christ, is
often an effective precaution against starvation, and against
being in old age the slave of charity. But for doing this
very thing the man was told : “ Thou fool, this night thy
soul shall be required of thee ; then whose shall those
things be which thou hast provided ?” (v. 20). Jesus then
said, “ Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat,” etc. Here we have the prominent
Christian requirement of making the duties of this world
subservient to the demands of a future existence put forth
by one who is claimed as being a model social reformer.
If it is alleged that Christ meant that the man in the parable
should have distributed his fruits and goods rather than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
23
store them up, the reply is, the account does not say so.
Why did not Christ, instead of making heaven the principal
consideration, point out the evil influence of the monopoly
of wealth upon human society ? The social problems cannot
be solved by indulging in speculations as to another world,
of which we have had no experience. The principle sought
to be enforced in this parable is evidently that the soul is
of more importance than the body, and that heaven is of
greater value than earth. Thoughtlessness of the things of
time is directly encouraged by reference to the ravens :
“ For they neither sow nor reap; which neither have store
house nor barn; and God feedeth them ” (v. 24).
It is worthy of note that Jesus never once intimated
throughout his career, either by direct statement or
illustration, that this world was the noblest and most
desirable dwelling place for man, and that it was the home
of social felicity and mutual happiness. His heart and
home were in his Father’s house, whither he went to
prepare a place for his followers, to whom he gave a
promise that he would come and receive them unto
himself (John xiv. 2, 3). So little did Christ understand
the philosophy of secular reform that when he condemned
covetousness (which was very laudable upon his part) it
was because he thought it interfered with the preparation
for inhabiting “mansions in the skies,” rather than in
consequence of its effects upon homes on earth. He
entirely overlooked the agencies that promote human
comfort. The means that have been employed to produce
and to advance civilisation received from him no matured
consideration. If every word attributed to him had been
left unuttered, not one feature of modern progress would be
missing to-day. Let anyone carefully read, with an
unbiassed mind, the four Gospels, and then ask himself the
questions : What philosophic truth did Jesus propound ?
What scientific fact did he explain ? What social problem
did he solve ? What political scheme did he unfold 1 The
New Testament does not inform us. On the contrary,
while other men, with less pretensions than himself, were
active in giving the world their thoughts upon these great
questions, Jesus remained silent in reference to them. It
is no answer to say that to deal with the subjects was not
his mission. For, if he came simply to talk about another
�24
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
world, at the sacrifice of the requirements of this, then my
contention is made good that, whatever else he was, he
certainly was no political and social reformer.
It appears to me that the gospel of Christ is a very poor
one for any practical purposes, inasmuch as it never deals
with the material comforts of human beings. It does not
suggest any means by which the poor could obtain that
power by which they could secure the amelioration of their
sad condition. It is not here overlooked that Christ is
credited with saying that those who sought the “Kingdom
of God ” should have food, drink, etc., added unto them
(Luke xii.). But, unfortunately, experience teaches that
such a promise cannot be relied upon, for it is too well
known that many of those persons who occupied much of
their time in seeking the kingdom of God remained
destitute of the necessaries of life. It was during the
prevalence of this superstitious belief, and of an un
reasonable reliance upon Christ, that personal misery and
intellectual sterility prevailed throughout the land. For
many generations the indiscriminate followers of Jesus
failed to give the world any new thought, or to establish
any new political or social institution; and from the
Church nothing of practical secular value emanated during
the fifteen centuries of its uninterrupted reign. This,
however, is not all that can be fairly urged upon this
point. The followers of Christ not only failed to originate
any social scheme for the good of general society them
selves, but they did their utmost to crush those who did.
It appears almost incredible that such persistent efforts
were ever made to extinguish every new thought as those
recorded of Christians, when they had the power to do as
they pleased. New books were despised and destroyed,
and new inventions were said to be the work of the Devil.
True happiness cannot co-exist with physical slavery and
mental serfdom, and yet, it must be repeated, Jesus did
nothing to remove these evils. His apathy towards the
institution of slavery is the more strange if we accept the
authority of Gratz, that Christ was connected with the
Essenes, and that, to some extent, he founded his system
upon theirs. By that community slavery, we are told,
was prohibited ; yet we read that both bond and free were
one in Christ Jesus. Is not this striking evidence that
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
25
Jesus had no intention to seek the removal of this inhuman
blot from the history of our race 1
Those persons to-day who desire to establish a relation
ship between Socialism and Christianity dwell with much
persistency upon Christ’s views as to the division of
property. But let us see what are the facts of the case.
Jesus told those who were willing to leave their homes,
families, and lands for his “ sake and the Gospels ”
(Mark x.), that they should receive “an hundredfold” of
each in this world, besides “ eternal life in the world to
come.” Now, this is ridiculous in the extreme ; for what
possible advantage could it be to any one to have his or
her relatives multiplied a hundredfold ? Besides, where
could Christ get either a hundred mothers to replace
every one that had been forsaken, or a hundred acres of
land to compensate for each one that had been given up ?
And even supposing he could do this, what becomes of the
theory of despising landed possessions ? Moreover, if the
smaller number and quantity were a drawback, the larger
must be more so. Further, there is but little self-denial
involved in parting with ten acres of land to secure a
thousand. It is really surprising that the Jews did not
“ catch on ” in this matter. Probably they saw that it
was all a sham, because Christ had no means of keeping
his promise. Where were the houses, land, etc., to come
from ? Evidently Christ had none, for he appears to have
been entirely destitute of all worldly goods, having “ not
where to lay his head” (Matthew viii. 20). Would not
such an augmentation of property be antagonistic to the
principle Jesus taught on another occasion, when he said
“ lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ”
(Matthew vi.) ? No marvel that his friends thought he
was “beside himself” (Mark iii. 21), or that the Jews
considered “he hath a devil, and is mad” (John x. 20),
and that “ neither did his brethren believe in him ”
(John vii. 5). If any man at the present time dealt with
the question of property in the same way as Christ is here
represented to have done, he would not be regarded as a
social reformer, but rather as a man whose intellect was
far from being brilliant, and whose ideas were exceedingly
confused. Christ’s reply to the high priest, who asked
him the question, “ Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
�26
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Blessed?” (Mark xiv. 61), is, to my mind, clear evidence
that he was neither the political nor the social Messiah
that some persons allege him to have been. His reply
was, “ 1 am; and he shall see the son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Does not this accord with his statement, “ I am not of the
world,” and “ my kingdom is not of this world ” 1 Should
not this settle at once, as a fact, that the mission of Jesus
was not to be the founder of an earthly government, or
the promoter of a mundane social system ?
As to the idea that Christ will come, as he said, “in the
clouds,” that relates to the future, and has no bearing upon
the present inquiry, the results of which will not be affected
by either the fulfilment or the failure of that prediction.
The question is not what will be, but rather what Christ
did to entitle him to be classified as a secular reformer.
Professor Graham, as we have seen, admits that Christ did
not inaugurate State Socialism, but that he only proposed
a sort of friendly society among Christians themselves. In
doing even this, however, he showed himself sadly defective
in the knowledge necessary to a real reformer. There exists
to-day in this country an old-established Christian sect,
termed Quakers, who keep a common treasury for the
purpose of aiding those of their numbers who are in need.
But, be it observed, they fill their treasury by industry and
the result of laboring “ for the meat which perisheth,” the
very thing that Jesus forbade. The method of the Quakers
is a very charitable one, for it prevents their poorer
members from going to the workhouse, or from begging in
the streets, as other Christians are so often forced to do.
They are enabled, by this plan'of industry and of “ taking
thought for the morrow,” to preserve their dignity and
self-respect, and to receive all the advantages of assistance
without being branded as paupers, who have to forfeit
many rights in consequence of their poverty. This scheme
of mutual aid is not based upon Christ’s advice to “ forsake
all,’’.under the insane idea that they will be kept alive, upon
the same principle that the ravens and the lilies of the field
are; on the contrary, among the Quakers all who can both
“toil and spin.” Jesus, in his method, counselled no sort
of thrift, nor made any provision for the time of need.
There is no record, that I am aware of, that any society of
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
27
men ever lived upon help from heaven without labor, and
due care being taken for the requirements of life. Certainly
such a society does not exist in “ Christian England.”
The burden of Christ’s preaching was, “ Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” What was meant by this
kingdom it is rather difficult to decide, for it is variously
described in the Gospels. It is certain, however, that,
whether it signified the reign of peace and justice on
earth, or the appearance of Jesus “in the clouds,” neither
event has taken place up to date, although Christ said that
in his time the kingdom was “ at hand.” In Luke (xvii. 21)
it is stated “ the kingdom of God is within you ”; but that
does not quite harmonise with the description given of it
in Matthew (xiii. 47-50), where it is alleged that the
kingdom of heaven is “ like unto a net that was cast into
the sea,” which, when full, had the good of its contents
retained, and the bad cast away. “ So shall it be at the
end of the world,” when the angels are to “ sever the wicked
from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace
of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Now, if this refers to a condition upon earth, it is not a
very happy one. And in neither case is there any light
thrown upon the rational conduct of men, either politically or
socially. Besides, the repeated references made by Christ
to the approaching end of all earthly institutions render
the idea of his being a reformer of this world altogether
meaningless. The termination of mundane affairs was to
occur in the presence of those to whom Jesus was speaking
(Matthew xvi. 28). Whatever other texts may be cited to
the contrary, the meaning here is clear, that no opportunity
was to be given, and no provisions made, to reform the
political and social conditions of earth. Let any one read
the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and try to harmonise
the declarations there ascribed to Christ with the belief that
his mission was to reform the world, and the impossibility
of the task will soon be evident. True, in Matthew (xxv.)
works of utility are required to secure a place at the
“right hand” of God. But what does this involve?
Uniformity of belief (Mark xvi. 16), and only the relief,
not the cure, of poverty. No scheme was even hinted at
by Christ whereby the great army of the poor and
depraved should be impossible. He was inferior to the
�28
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
French philosopher, who aimed at providing a condition of
society wherein men should be neither depraved nor poor.
To put the matter concisely, what are the factors of
political and social progress ? Briefly, they are these:
The cultivation of the intellect, the extension of physical
and mental freedom, the recognition and the application of
the principle of justice and liberty to all members of the
community, regardless of their belief or non-belief in
theology, the knowledge and application of science and
art, the organisation of labor and the proper cultivation of
the soil, the possession of political power, the under
standing of the true value and use of wealth, and, finally,
the persistent study of, and the constant struggling against,
the numerous evils, wrongs, and injustice that now rob life
of its comforts and real worth. These are the agencies
that all men, who claim to be political and social reformers,
should support and cultivate. Not one of these originated
with Jesus, and throughout his career he never availed
himself of these essentials of all progress. Thus, to
designate him as the great social redeemer is entirely
unjustifiable. His very mode of living was the opposite to
that of a practical reformer. He was an ascetic, and
avoided as much as possible the turmoil of public life,
from which he might have learnt something of what was
necessary to adjust the social relations. Prayer, not work,
was his habit. In the day, and at night, would he retire
to the solitude of the mountain, and there pray to his
father (Luke vi. 12 and xxi. 37). So far did he believe in
the efficacy of supplications to God that he frequently told
his disciples that whatever they asked of his father he
would grant the request (Matthew xviii. 19 ; xxi. 22;
John xvi. 23). That this was a delusion is clear from the
fact that he prayed himself for the unity of Christendom,
that his followers might be one (John xvii. 21); yet from
his time down to the present divisions have always existed
among Christians. He distinctly promised that “What
soever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” (John
xiv. 13, 14). Relying upon this, the Church for centuries
has been asking that unbelief should cease, and yet we find
it more extensive to-day than it ever was. The lesson
learnt from experience is, that all reforms are the result of
active work, not the outcome of prayerful meditations.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
29
With all these drawbacks in the character of Jesus, it is
to me marvellous how he can be accepted as a model for us
in the present age. But thousands of his devotees insist
upon claiming him as their Ideal, although they cannot
regulate their conduct by such a standard. Such persons
overlook the fact that, if the better parts of an Ideal are
marred by that which is erroneous and impracticable, it is
comparatively useless as a guide in life. That Christ’s
alleged teachings are so marred the Gospels amply testify.
His conduct, on several occasions, was such as his
followers would not attempt to emulate to-day. Such, for
instance, as his treatment of his parents (Luke ii. 43-49 ;
John ii. 4); his cursing of the fig-tree (Matthew xxi. 18, 19);
his driving the money changers from the temple with “ a
scourge of small cards ” (John ii. 15); his possession of an
ass and a colt, which evidently did not belong to him, and
riding upon both of them into Jerusalem (Matthew xxi.
2-11); his expletives to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 37-44); his
breaking up the peace of the domestic circle (Matthew x.
34-36).
Judged by the New Testament, Christ was certainly not
“The Light of the World,” for he revealed nothing of
practical value, and he taught no virtues that were before
unknown. No doubt in his life, supposing he ever lived,
there were many commendable features; but he was far
from being perfect. While he might have been wellmeaning, he was in belief superstitious, in conduct
inconsistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbi
trary, in knowledge deficient, in faith vacillating, and in
pretensions great. He taught false notions of existence,
had no knowledge of science; he misled his followers by
claiming to be what he was not, and he deceived himself
by his own credulity. He lacked experimental force,
frequently living a life of isolation, and taking but slight
interest in the affairs of this world. It is this lack of
experimental force throughout the career of Christ that
renders his notions of domestic duties so thoroughly
imperfect. The happiness of a family, according to his
teaching, was to be impaired before his doctrines could be
accepted. So far as we know, he was never a husband or a
father ; and he did not aspire to be a statesman, a man of
science, or a politician.
Now, a person who lacks
�30
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
experience in these phases of life is not in the best
position to give practical and satisfactory lessons thereon.
Even in the conditions of life he is said to have filled, this
“ Light of the World ” failed to exhibit any high degree of
excellence, discrimination, or manly courage. As a son, he
lacked affection and consideration for the feelings of his
parents. As a teacher, he was mystical and rude; and as a
reasoner, he was defective and illogical. Lacking a true
method of reasoning, possessing no uniformity of character,
Christ exhibited a strange example—an example injudicious
to exalt and dangerous to emulate. At times he was
severe when he should have been gentle. When he might
have reasoned he frequently rebuked. When he ought to
have been firm and resolute he was vacillating. When he
should have been happy he was sorrowful and desponding.
After preaching faith as the one thing needful, he himself
lacked it when he required it the most. Thus, on the cross,
when a knowledge of a life of integrity, a sensibility of the
fulfilment of a good mission, a conviction that he was
dying for a good and righteous cause, and fulfilling the
object of his life—when all these should have given him
moral strength, we find him giving vent to utter despair.
So overwhelmed was he with grief and anxiety of mind
that he “began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “My
soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even unto death.” At
last, overcome with grief, he implores his father to rescue
him from the death which was then awaiting him.
Christ is paraded as the one redeemer of the world, but
his system lacks such essentials of all reform as worldly
ambition, and reliance upon the human power of regenera
tion. If we lament the poverty and wretchedness we
behold, we are told by Christians that “the poor shall
never cease out of the land.” If we seek to remove the
sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded
that they were “ appointed curses to the sons of Adam.”
If we work to improve our condition, we are taught that
we should remain “in that state of life in which it has
pleased God to call us.” When we endeavor to improve
our minds and to cultivate our intellects, we are informed
that “ we are of ourselves unable to do any good thing.”
If we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that “ faith in Christ is of more importance than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER 1
31
labor for man.” We to-day have but a vague idea of the
extent of the influence such teachings once exercised over
the minds of those who believed them. These teachings
have permeated the minds of orthodox Christians, stifling
their reason and perverting their judgment, till they
cherish the delusion that the reasonings of philosophers,
the eloquence of poets, and the struggles of patriots are
all worse than useless unless purified by the “ Spirit of
Christ.” It is such delusions which foster the erroneous
and retarding belief that every thought which does not
aspire to the throne of Christ, every action which is not
sanctioned by him, and every motive which does not
proceed from a love for him should be discouraged as
antagonistic to our real progress in life.
It is contended by some that, although Christ did not
give detailed remedies for existing evils, he taught
“ general principles ” which would, if acted upon, prove a
panacea for the wrongs of life. This was not so, for his
“general principles” lacked the saving power that was
desired. What were those “ principles ” as laid down in
the Gospels ? So far as they can be understood, they were
as follows: Absolute trust in God ; implicit belief in
himself; reliance upon the prayer of supplication; disregard
of the world; taking no anxious thought for the morrow ;
encouragement of poverty, and contempt of riches;
obedience to the law of the Old Testament; neglect of
home and families; non-resistance of evil; that persecution
in this world and punishment in some other would follow
the rejection of Christianity; and that sickness was caused
by the possession of devils. These are among the leading
“ principles ” taught by Christ; and, if they were acted
upon, there would be an end of all progress, harmony, and
self-reliance.
But even if the “general principles”
propounded by Jesus were good, that would not be enough
to make him the greatest reformer. It is necessary, in
addition to knowing what is to be done, to have the
knowledge of how it is to be done. And this is just what
Jesus has not taught us. Principles do not aid progress
unless they can be applied ; and, whatever value his
teachings may have as matters of belief, they are incapable
of application in the great cause of political and social
advancement in the nineteenth century.
�32
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Judged from the Secular standpoint, the real redeemers
of the world are those who study the great facts of
nature, learning her secrets, and revealing her power and
value to the human family. While Christ devoted himself
to the mysteries of theology, such reformers as Copernicus,
Galileo, Bruno, and subsequently Newton, Locke, Darwin,
and a host of other servants of humanity, endeavored
to the best of their ability to ascertain the truths of
existence, and to vindicate the principle of freedom.
Copernicus and his immediate successors redeemed the
world from errors which for ages had been nursed by the
Church; Locke based his philosophy upon knowledge, not
upon the faiths of theology; Newton contended that' the
universe was regulated by natural law, not by supernatural
power; and Darwin exploded the Bible error of creation.
These redeemers rescued mankind from the burden of
ignorance and superstition that had so long prevented the
recognition of truth and the advancement of knowledge.
Shakespeare contributed more to the enlightenment of the
human race than Christ was capable of doing; Darwin far
surpassed St. Paul in bringing to view the great forces of
nature, and the Freethought heroes and martyrs aided the
emancipation of intellect to a far higher degree than either
the “Carpenter of Nazareth ” or the whole of his followers.
The power that has enabled these secular redeemers of the
world to achieve their glorious results was found, not in
perplexing theologies, but in the principles of Science and
Liberty—the true saviors of men.
�
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
Was Christ a political and social reformer?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Was Christ a political and social reformer?), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1572
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Jesus Christ
politics
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5bc4fb14f898b9ba921ebddca2e59406.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mDjvrTgcHWqP-dRsknMwLIGLkEM6aPzVnVcNpmBtnTytjqsY5WLBv18yXa3GJv92uVx0uJaBxgxLTydEwR-fxGk0DUgoSy0NIAnsi6%7ElUhWTyEkMwGdpZbwSdTdfjRfHlsxkeATzXfO4AJJsb6SGuFMwX7hnjV2kpSiOET9aFZ%7ENbpqWUFD02ymFEKLurymkMd5bdR3pl8EwMpw70RLXYsZCjGE-VEyedN0L7lzShuuRMib%7EhbdiNtXhMhyeTaG2cgWFKJBSg0W3Apa70CnSAsYCWbEj8fozTK4JKRHd9vs9PI4%7EYRWmVcCWFGkHG692eSSKjOBd9fq0f%7EjFxAJJng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
564d1b26f2fe17ec4ebc97f3a624fd9c
PDF Text
Text
&A708Z
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged
THE
GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
---- BY----
CHARLES WATTS,
Editor of “ Secular Thought
Author of ‘‘ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,’’
Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” Glory of Unbelief,” li Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ‘‘ Christianity : Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,” li Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable? ” “Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
Wherein does the Glory of Unbelief Consist ? Unbelief Wide-spread
amongst all Classes. What is Unbelief ? Its True Nature Defined.
Can it be Dispensed With ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What
It has Done for the World.
TORONTO:
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide 'tr. Eait
PRICE
TEN
CENTS.
��THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF
•
The Glory of Unbelief is a phrase the relevancy of which many
persons will at first fail to recognize. It may be thought that
but little glory can surround that which has too frequently been
associated with obloquy and persecution. Yet a little reflection
will bring to view the fact that, allied with unbelief, there have
been a fidelity of conviction, a grandeur of conduct, and a bril
liancy of action that add a splendour and a lasting honour to the
fame of Unbelievers in all ages and in every clime. These are
the reformers of the world who have aspired to the true glory
spoken of by Pliny, which consists in having done something
worth the writing, having written something worth the reading,
and having made the world better and happier through having
lived in it. The Glory of Unbelief consists in its being the em
ancipator of the human mind, the liberator of human thought,
and the precursor of all advanced civilization.
Physical slavery, from its very nature, has been a curse to hu
manity, an injustice to the poor slave, and a disgrace to the up
holders of the inhuman traffic. For centuries this crying evil was
perpetuated through a devout belief that slavery was sanctioned
by a divine providence. When the period of practical unbelief
dawned emancipation followed, men condemned serfdom and re
fused to believe in its theological justification. A similar pro
cess has been observed in reference to intellectual bondage, which
for ages proved a nightmare to the human mind, depriving soci
ety of the advantages of freedom of thought and liberty of speech.
For generations the claims of ecclesiastical supremacy and priest
ly domination enslaved the intellect of the race, but with the
advent of unbelief these chains were snapped asunder and pro
portionately mental freedom was the result.
�2
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief is the basis of all Secular philosophy. So long as
people maintain a blind belief in the teachings of the past, so
long as their minds are fettered by the decrees of Councils and
the dogmas and creeds of the Church, so long will the develop
ment of Secular philosophy be retarded. Let, however, disbelief
in ancient errors be supplanted by the belief in modern truth and
Secular progress will thereby be promoted.
The fact that Unbelief extensively exists among all classes of
society is beyond reasonable doubt. It is prominent in our poli
tics, in our poesy, in our philosophy, and in the various scientific
expositions of the present day. It dominates the press, it agi
tates the pulpit, and it permeates our national seats of learning.
As the Rev. Daniel Moore in “ The Age and the Gospels ” admits
(pp. 10-14): “The tendencies to scepticism at the present day
show themselves more or less in every direction.” And the Rev.
Dr. Herbert Vaughan, in his pamphlet on “ Popular Education
in England,” written in 1868, observes (p. 53):—
“ The most thorough, the most logical, and the most distinct school
opposed to us is that of the Secularists. It would be vain to close our
eyes to the fact that their numbers are large and rapidly increasing.”
Referring to the progress of Unbelief in the English Universi
ties, the Westminster Review for October, 1860, remarks:—
“ Few, perhaps, are aware how far the decay of belief extends be
neath those walls. . . ‘ Smouldering scepticism,’ indeed ! When they
are honeycombed with disbelief, running through every phase, from
mystical interpretation to utter atheism. Professors, tutors, fellows,
and pupils are conscious of this widespread doubt.” “ It must be a
profound evil,” continues the writer, “ that all thinking men should
reject the national religion.” . . . “ The newspaper, the review, the
tale by every fireside, is written almost exclusively by men who have
long ceased to believe. So also the school-book, the text-book, the
manuals for study of youth and manhood, the whole mental food of
the day; science, history, morals, and politics, poetry, fiction and
essay ; the very lesson of the school, the very sermon from the pulpit.”
This testimony, recorded some years since, has been more than
ever confirmed within the last two decades. Go into what soci
ety we may ; move in what circle of life we will; Unbelief, either
active or dormant, confronts us on every side. The clergy con
template this sceptical progress, while they acknowledge their
inability to “ stem the tide of modern scepticism.”
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
3
While there can be no reasonable doubt as to the rapid increase
of unbelief in all phases of modern life, differences of opinion
may obtain as to the nature and authority of this unbelief.
For instance, it may be asked, Can unbelief have a philosophy ?
According to the majority of men who have been trained in what
is termed, orthodoxy, and who profess to accept the popular
teachings of the Christian faith, the answer would be a most
emphatic negative. But the impartial observer of the develop
ment of modern thought will doubtless think otherwise, and con
sider that he has ample reasons for the conclusion at which he
has arrived. If there is a philosophy of belief, why should there
not be a philosophy of unbelief ? The one may be true and the
other false, still both may be formulated in philosophic terms.
Unbelief has been so long branded as a crime, and so persistently
looked upon as a sin against God and as an enemy to all human
society, that the world has come largely to argue that it
has no philosophic basis. Ever and anon it is being declared
from the thousands of pulpits in the land that unbelief is the
great bane of the age, and that what mankind needs is more
faith in dogmas, at which an orthodox preacher himself declared,
“ Reason stands aghast and Faith herself is half confounded.”
Unbelief is not only condemned as being a crime, but it is pro
nounced as the worst of crimes. The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon, who.
is deemed by most persons as being no mean authority on ortho
dox questions, exclaims in pious fervour : “ Talk of decrees, I will
tell you of a decree, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned?
That is a decree and statute that can never change. Be as good
as you'please, be as moral as you can, be as honest as you will,
walk as uprightly as you may ; there stands the unchangeable
threatening, ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ ” This is
a sample of orthodox teaching in Christian England in this glori
ous nineteenth century—this age of progress, of civilization and
culture. The unbeliever is viewed as a man who voluntarily or
wilfully rejects the light of truth, who clings to error knowing
it to be evil, and who consequently deserves no mercy of any
God, and no consideration on the part of his fellow man. The
very name Unbeliever or Sceptic is looked upon as a byword or
.
�4
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
reproach; and the term Infidel, with many people, has a more
horrible meaning than that of thief or murderer. To quote
again from Mr. Spurgeon : “ Could you take murder and blas
phemy and lust and adultery and fornication, and everything that
is vile, and unite them into one vast globe of black corruption,
they would not equal the sin of unbelief. This is the monarch
sin, the quintessence of guilt, the mixture of the venom of all
crimes, the dregs of the mine of Gomorrah; it is the A 1 sin, the
masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the Devil.” Unbelief is
a sort of intellectual bugbear by which the simple-minded are
held in the worst kind of slavery—that of intellectual bondage.
Whenever a man begins to think differently from the Church a
hue-and-cry of “ Infidelity” is raised against him, and many are
compelled, if they would preserve their positions in business and
retain the good opinion of their fellow men, to retrace their foot
steps and enter again the fold of believers, where doubt comes
not and where enquiry has no place. For let a man be guided
by the dogmas of antiquity, declare that reason is a blind guide
and logic a weapon of the Devil; let him denounce with all the
power he can command the great and illustrious men of the earth
who have doubted the various theologies of the world, and such
a man’s respectability is safe in this world, and his salvation is
regarded as being secured in the next. “ Only believe,” says the
poet of Methodism—
‘ ‘ Only belie re, your sins forgiven ;
Only believe, and yours is heaven.”
No one can believe everything, and some must consequently
be unbelievers in all that which does not fall within the range
of his or her thought. Want of faith, therefore, so far from
being criminal, is a necessary condition of the human mind. No
one can escape it, do what he may. The Christian is an unbe
liever to the Mohammedan, the Buddhist, the Parsee, and other re
ligious devotees, as they are all unbelievers to him and to each
other. The question here is not which of these systems, or whether
any of them, is true; but the point to be observed is that the
advocate of each disbelieves in the dogma of the other, showing
that unbelief is a necessity, since the various faiths are all in
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
5
some respects antagonistic. The Agnostic is, of course, an unbe
liever ; but is any Christian minister in the world less so ? As
the great Lord Shaftesbury once remarked: “ The best Christian
in the world, who, being destitute of the means of certainty, de
pends only on history and traditions for his belief in these par
ticulars, is at best but a Sceptic Christian.” The fact is, both the
Agnostic and the Christian disbelieve in what the other teaches.
Why, then, does the Christian consider himself justified in apply
ing to the Agnostic an epithet which is used in an offensive
sense, and resent the same epithet when applied to himself ?
The Christian, no doubt, will reply that his opinions are true,
and those of the Agnostic false. But that is just the point in dis
pute and has no right to be assumed; and besides, might not the
Agnostic justify the use of the word in the same way ?
Before unbelief, even in religion, can be dispensed with advan
tageously—and even then, perhaps, it could not rationally be
discarded—three qualifications must be shown to be possessed
by the believer who talks in the language of ordinary Christian
men. First, he must be infallible; secondly, he must be strictly
honest, for infallibility does not necessarily imply honesty, and
thirdly, his system must be perfect. In the absence of any one of
these, he may mislead those who listen to and follow his teaching.
And no man can possibly have a right to proclaim a system,
which he demands to have accepted under pain of penalties in
this world, and worse penalties in some world to come, unless he
is prepared with demonstrative proof that he and his system are
possessed of these three qualifications. With regard to the first
no man can profess seriously to claim infallibility but the Pope of
Rome; and his claim is not only not attempted to be made good, but
we are told that it must be accepted without any proof whatever.
Besides, half the Christians themselves not only dispute this
claim, but denounce it in language as strong as that which they
apply to unbelievers. In fact, infallibility can only exist in
connection with Omniscience, because to be certain that one could
have made no mistake it is essential that he should have a perfect
knowledge of everything that is in any and every part of the
universe. If there be any one fact or circumstance with which
�6
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
he is unacquainted, this very fact or circumstance may contain
an additional truth not present to his mind, which, if known,
would considerably modify existing views.
The Protestant, however, does not even pretend to claim infalli
bility, and, therefore, quite unconsciously, although very ra
tionally, foregoes a great part of his authority. With him the
certainty of being right is transferred to some extent from the
individual to the system, and hence, although personally he lays
no claim to being infallible, he still demands implicit faith in his
teachings. Infallibility in his case is not in his own mind, nor
in the head of the Church, but in his text-book. The Bible, he
declares, cannot err, although he can. But, even if this claim
were established, it would not be sufficient, since it is not required
as a substitute for personal infallibility, but in addition to it.
An infallible book would be of little value without an infallible
interpreter, because a million different infallible minds will deduce
a million different conclusions, nine hundred and ninety-nine thou
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them being erroneous—and,
perhaps, the other one also—which multiplies the chances of
error so extensively that the alleged infallibility disappears.
But to claim infallibility for the Bible is really to claim it for
the writers of the various books which make up that volume,
and the same arguments hold good against its possession by
them as by the Pope of Rome or any other human being. Even
supposing that the infallibility of the original version of the
Bible were conceded, nothing would thereby be gained, since such
an infallible original is no longer in existence. The volume that we
have is simply a translation from the Greek executed by fallible,
erring men. Thus the first qualification necessary to the disposal
of unbelief we find to be absent. The second is that such
teachers must be honest. It is only stating a well-known truism
to say that all men are not honest, particularly in theological
matters. Insincerity is the great curse of the Church, too many
of its members endeavouring to make people think they believe
creeds and doctrines in which, in reality, they have no practical
faith whatever. Unless, therefore, we could be quite certain,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, as to the conscientious honesty
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
7
of the infallible teacher, even his infallibility would prove of
no avail. In business matters men always endeavour to act
upon the principle that honesty is the most important element
in life. They will not, as a rule, trust a dollar in the hands of
another person, unless thoroughly convinced both of his honesty
and of his capability to comply with the terms of the agreement
made. Yet these same men will stake their all in what they term
hereafter—the supposed eternal welfare of their souls—on the
ipse dixit of a priest or minister, without any guarantee of his
honesty or competence to perform his brilliant promises. Truly
man is a remarkable being, and, under the influence of theology,
his ways are marvellously strange and past finding out. The
very course which he applauds in secular transactions he not
only ignores in religious proceedings, but adopts the very opposite.
And yet we are told that the two lines of conduct—secular and
religious—are harmonious. In spite of all reckless condemnation
to the contrary, unbelief is a necessity of the human mind, to
escape which is altogether impossible.
There is but one state of mind in which it may be said un
belief can have but little or no place, and that is in a condition
of total ignorance. Perfect knowledge would, of course, remove
all unbelief of truth; but even with it there would be unbelief
as regards error. But, as this condition is unattainable, it need
not be discussed. Total ignorance does not disbelieve, because
.there is, in that case, nothing present to the mind in reference
to which unbelief can be exercised. This will go a long way to
explain the fact that, in times of supreme ignorance, unbelief
was comparatively unknown. Priestcraft held its sway, mental
stagnation obtained, and men and women were blind believers
O
in, and followers of, the then prevailing errors. But the moment
progress, from the condition of ignorance, commenced, new
forms of thought became present to the mind, new opinions weref
perceived, new theories sprang up, investigation took place, and
unbelief became a necessary consequent. And this belief will be
sure to increase with increasing knowledge. In childhood the
first impressions we receive we naturally enough imagine to be
indisputably correct, whether in religion, in philosophy, or in the
�8
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
ordinary commonplace affairs of life. The first impressions asto religion and to philosophy we receive from our parents or
teachers, and hence tradition frequently deceives us. As Dryden
says:—
“ By education most have been misled,
So we believe because we so were bred ;
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the boy imposes on the man.”
In the morning of existence theories in abundance crowd in.
upon the mind, the major part of them only to be subsequently
dismissed as untenable, and we become, perforce of necessity,
unbelievers to much that is presented to the mind. Each indi
vidual will probably accept some different theory to the others
but all will be unbelievers in those notions which have been
rejected. Much that comes before us has to be rejected as
utterly untenable, and we are unbelievers, whether we will or no.
We shall, of course, not all arrive at the same views; but that
will make no difference to the fact of our unbelief, since each
will disbelieve that which does not accord with his own deduc
tions ; and hence he becomes an unbeliever in all that is opposed
to the conclusions at which he has arrived. This unbelief will
deepen with increasing knowledge, because, the more we know,,
the greater the variety of the theories that will present them
selves to the mind, and the larger,, therefore, the number of these
that will have to be rejected. It will follow, as a necessary
consequence, that the unbelief will be commensurate with the
knowledge possessed. It is quite possible that some truth may
be rejected by a man as error; but that does not affect the question,
•under discussion. The real position is that unbelief in the
abstract is a necessity of the constitution of the human mind,
and the more the mind is instructed and cultivated, the more
extensive will be the unbelief. Thus Scepticism arises from the
very nature of things, and has its foundation in the universal
mentality of the race; and instead of deploring this fact, it is
one that should be rejoiced at, because it is a safeguard against
error; it stimulates and enriches human thought, and ennobles
the intellectual character of mankind. As Tennyson writes:—
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
9
“ There is more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds. ”
Seeing that there is so much that must come before the
human mind to be at once dismissed, and that so many various
and conflicting theories will present themselves before the intel
lect of every person who thinks upon ever so limited a scale,
the greater portion of which will doubtless have to be rejected,
our duty in regard to the matter is as evident as the sun at
noonday. Truth is a gem of which all men are professedly in
search, and all are obligated to discover and take hold of as
much of it as possible; and the only way in which this can be
done is by rejecting the error,—or that which appears to the
searcher to be such—for his own intellectual powers are the only
tests which he can apply to ascertain what is truth and what is
falsehood. Hence he must reject that which appears to him to
be irrational, and thus so far he becomes an unbeliever. If it is
said that this unbelief refers only to error, the question will arise,
What is error ? For is it not clear that, as no two minds are
constituted alike, and as no two persons can possibly follow out,
in every particular and in precisely the same manner, the same
line of thought and investigation, the conclusions reached can
not be the same always in the case of different individuals ? It
is possible that all will discover some truth; but truth, like man,
is many-sided; and, hence, some things which seem phases of
truth to one man will be classed with error by another. Free»
thought teaches the great fundamental truth—namely, that man
has an absolute right to think freely, unfettered by tradition and
uncontrolled by creeds and dogmas. This is the essence of all
true thinking ; for no one can think successfully in shackles,
and truth can never be properly reached while thought is in
chains. Protestantism boasts that it not only allows the right
■of private judgment, but that such right is its cardinal principle
and watchword. Now, true private judgment means the right
to arrive at any opinion which can be legitimately reached by
the laws of thought and the canons of logic, or the term is a mis
leading misnomer. It was the violation of this principle that
�10
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
made the conduct of the Protestant reformers so thoroughly
inconsistent. They robbed private judgment of its real essence
by compelling its conclusions to harmonize with their own, and
thus limiting that freedom which is absolutely necessary toprivate judgment.
The Rev. George Armstrong once said of the Church of Eng
land, and the same statement is equally applicable to some other
Protestant sects :—“ I am allowed the right of pi'ivate judgment
on condition that I arrived at the opinions settled beforehand
for me by the Church.” And he remarks: “ If I deny the right
of private judgment, the Church calls me a Romanistif I
acknowledge it and act upon it, she brands me as a heretic.”
Such inconsistency as this is foreign to the genius of Freethought. Unless a person’s right to think at all is denied, he
must be permitted the full right to arrive at any conclusion
which may seem to him rational. Every man has a right to his
views, even though he stand alone in their advocacy. Infalli
bility alone can possess the right to suppress any opinion, be
cause only infallibility can declare for certain that an opinion is
necessarily an error; and as, of course, infallibility does not
exist, such right is not to be found. A strong presumption that
the opinion sought to be suppressed is an erroneous one will not
be sufficient; because, in the first place, strong presumption is
not a proof, and, in the second place, very strong presumptions
have existed in the past in favour of the falsity of certain
opinions, which only a small minority held, but which afterwards
turned out to be true. The Roman Catholic denies the right of
private judgment altogether, and yet, strangely enough, he
always makes an appeal to it when seeking to make converts.
If a man says, I believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and
therefore I deny that you have any such right as that of private
judgment, I ask at once, “ Why are you a Roman Catholic ?” He
will, no doubt, proceed forthwith to give his reasons, thereby
admitting that he has exercised his own private judgment in the
matter—the very thing which he refuses me the right to do.
There is, and can be, no fixed standard of belief for all men,
unless the right of private judgment be entirely given up ; nor
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
11
scarcely then, as a matter of fact, for the standard itself will
have to be accepted or rejected according to evidence.
*’he Nonconformists who were persecuted even unto death, were,
like all other believers in creeds and dogmas, unable to resist the
temptation of oppressing others, when, by a turn of the wheel of
fortune, fate gave them an opportunity of so doing. The love of
rule and of lording it tyrannically over conscience is common to
all theologies and all theologians alike—to those of eld Paganism,
mediaeval Christianity, and that of Mohammedanism. The
doctrine that a wrong belief, the holding of an erroneous creed,
will lead to the consignment of the soul to eternal fire, “ where
the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” prompts men
(and seems to justify them in so doing) to exert all their powers
towards preserving their fellow men from becoming a prey to
Satan and from being irretrievably lost to God. Thus the bigot
has been always found prepared to plead, in extenuation of his
intolerance, his zeal on behalf of souls. Hence he has always
been ready to—
“ Deal damnation round the land
On each I deem thy foe.”
All persecution for unbelief is a crime and should be condemned
as such. No man, or society of men, can have the right to im
pose any restriction upon the liberty of thought or speech. Who
ever persecutes “ for conscience’ sake ” invades the dearest rights
and privileges of the human race, and really endangers and im
perils its highest and most cherished interests.
The Nonconformity of the present day appears to be ashamed
of its opinions. Instead of boldly adhering to- the true principle
Df private judgment, no matter whither it may lead, it adopts a
/policy of reservation. The modern Dissenter scarcely deems it
worth his while to combat the errors of ecclesiasticismand sacerdot
alism ; he himself is half a Churchman; and henow comes forwardas
the antagonist and opponent of what he terms the “ Unbelief of
the age.” But what is this Unbelief of which we hear so much ?
Is it not a logical carrying out and application of those principles
which gave the early reformers an excuse—a legitimate and
valid reason—for endeavouring to subvert and overthrow
�12
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Romanism and its man-destroying superstitions and prostrations
of the intellect to dogma and faith. The principle of free inquiry
once given to the world, and once admitted by mankind, it is
absurd and illogical for any new “ minister ” to attempt to forge
new intellectual shackles, or to say to the human mind, “ Thus
far shalt thou come, but no farther ! ” Whoever is opposed to
this right is an enemy to human freedom. As Milton has writ
ten :—
“ This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free ;
Which he who can, and will, deserves high praise;
Who neither can, nor will, may hold his peace :
What can be juster in a State than this ? ”
But to disbelieve is not only a right, it is also a duty ; for every
man is under an obligation to deny and to do his best to destroy
that which, after careful and deliberate examination, appears to
him to be false. No doubt the orthodox believers fear the legi
timate exercise of Freethought, simply because they are alarmed
that their own views will not stand the test; but this really
ought to be evidence to them that there is something unsound
somewhere in their connections. There is a fashion in these
matters, as in the cut of a coat, and the great masses of society
do not like to be out of the fashion. But fashion will seldom
stand criticism. “ There is more power,” said an old writer,
“in an ounce of custom than in a ton of argument.” Now, this
is just the state of things that requires to be changed. Moreover,
few will admit that they are guided by it, which is a tacit
admission that even they hold that it cannot be defended. They
profess to exercise their private judgments, to think and to
investigate even when they are bound hard and fast in the chain of
a despotic custom—which proves that they, too, recognize the
right to differ, which is really the right of unbelief.
There can be no progress without unbelief, for disbelief in an
old system must ever precede the introduction of a new one.
Progress always implies change and change is the outcome of
unbelief in that which is old and no longer able to serve the
world, added, of course, to what is considered to be a new truth.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
13
’Thus we find that those who oppose Scepticism are usually
adverse to change of any kind; their motto is, “The same yester
day, to-day, and forever.” Among such persons there exists a
deep-rooted prejudice against everything that is new, and this
stubborn clinging to the teachings of the past has sapped the
very vitals of progress and perpetuated errors and hypocrisy to
an unknown extent. The man who changes his views and
embraces a conviction contrary to that which he was known
previously to hold is usually stigmatised by all sorts of offensive
epithets among his fellow men, and often he is regarded as being
a very dangerous character. Now, change—assuming that it is
in the right direction—is always desirable, and such change must
of necessity arise out of unbelief. No man can trace the progress
■of human thought and opinion from the crude and unformed
ideas of the ancients up to the brilliant discoveries and marvel
lous inventions of the present day, without feeling a thrill of joy
run through his frame that his lot has been cast in these later
times. First one erroneous notion and then another has been
got rid of, until, although the old tree of error still stands, its
branches are shrivelled, its trunk is decaying, and its root is
loosening i-n the soil in which it stood so firmly rooted a few
centuries ago. And every step in the world’s advancement has
been brought about by unbelief. This fact is fully demonstrated
by Buckle in his “ History of Civilization.” This eminent writer,
after showing that until doubt began civilization was impossible,
-and that the religious tolerance we now have has been forced
from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that the act of
doubting is the originator, or at all events the necessary ante
cedent, of all progress. Here we have that Scepticism, the very
name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed,
and if all is really true which they from their childhood have
been taught to believe. The more we examine this great prin
ciple of Scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense
�14
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
part it has played in the progress of European civilization. . . ..
It may be said that to Scepticism we owe the spirit of inquiry
which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached
on every possible subject; has reformed every department of
practical and speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority
of the privileged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer
'foundation; has chastised the despotism of princes; has re
strained the arrogance of the nobles, and has even diminished
the prejudices of the clergy. In a word, it is this which has
remedied the three fundamental errors of the olden time—errors
which made the people, in politics too confiding, in science too
credulous, in religion too intolerant.”
Lecky, in his “ History of European Morals,” tells us that
“nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . The splendid discoveries of physical science
would have been impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of
the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till Moham
medan science and classical Freethought and industrial indepen
dence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the intellectual
revival of Europe begin.” Thus the lesson of all history is that'
unbelief in the old has ever preceded the introduction of the new.
Christianity itself came based upon the disbelief in Paganism,,
and the Pagans, feeling outraged at the proposed change, called
the first Christians not only unbelievers, but even Atheists.
Martin Luther disbelieved in the mysteries and mummeries of
Boman Catholicism, and the result was what is called the Protest
ant Reformation. Copernicus and Galileo disbelieved in the Bible
cosmogony, with its theory of the heavens; and this Scepticism
gave birth to correct views upon the great science of astronomy.
Modern geologists reject the Bible story of Creation, and the
consequence is more faith in Nature’s records than in the absurdi
ties of the Christian Bible. In philosophy the same thing has
occurred over and over again, as also in the political world. Thus,
unbelief has ever been the herald of change and improvement,
while its enemy has always been that superstitious conservatism
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
15.
that eschews all advancement, frowns down every new discovery*,
taboos all change, and keeps its anchor firmly fixed in the errors
of the past. With such persons mildew is more sacred than sun
shine, and decay preferable to the opening violet shedding its
fragrance in the morning air.
Unbelief is always spoken of as though it were a mere
negation, whose only mission could be to doubt and destroy.
The consequence of this misconception is, that the Freethought
party is denounced as being composed of members whose aim
is to pull down, without having any desire to reconstruct. The
pious orthodox believer looks upon the Sceptic as a sort of
modern Goth or Vandal, dangerous to the well-being of society,,
and to be avoided by all who care for the public good. These
are the wild fanatical notions, born of the theological delusion,,
which are held in reference to unbelievers. But such views are
most erroneous, to say nothing of their injustice. Some of the
greatest benefactors of the race who ever lived have been
unbelievers, that is, they have rejected those creeds and dogmas
which are clung to so tenaciously by the Church. “ It is his
torically true,” remarks J. S. Mill, “ that a large proportion of
Infidels, in all ages, have been persons of distinguished integrity
a,nd honour. . . . Persons in greatest repute with the world
both by virtues and attainments, are well-known, at least to
their intimates, to be unbelievers. ... It can do truth no
good to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary
acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the
noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work,
not only of men who’ did not know, but of men who knew and.
rejected, the Christian faith” (“On Liberty ”). And Mill was
quite right, for some of the noblest men and women who have
adorned the history of their times, and given to the world a.
record of the most useful deeds, have been unbelievers. Lucretius,
Spinoza, Goethe, Humboldt, Dr. Priestley, Newton, Voltaire,
Paine, Robert Owen, Lyell, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, and Harriet
Martineau are prominent in the Pantheon of the world’s bene
factors ; and these were all unbelievers from the orthodox stand
point. In France, nearly all the scientific men are heretics
�16
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
and Germany—the most Philosophic land of modern days—is
notoriously sceptical.
Unbelief is, of course, negative on the one side ; but there is
always another aspect of it to be seen, if one will only take the
trouble to look fairly for it. Unbelief in one thing means
belief in the opposite, and it is quite possible that such opposite
may be the more worthy of the two. This is another instance
how the word unbelief is used in a sense that is most certainly
not justifiable, because it conveys an idea of reproach, and
-almost of crime; and those to whom it is applied are thereby
singled out for ignominious attack and violent denunciation. It
may probably be replied here that the word is only employed in
this sense when it refers to disbelief in things which are infallibly
true, and too sacred to be tampered with, and far too well
established to admit of the possibility of doubt in regard to them.
But the position here assumed is absurd, since things which can
be demonstrated to be true beyond the possibility of doubt
cannot be disbelieved. No sane man can disbelieve in a proposi
tion of Euclid, or even the simple statement that two and two
make four. The fact, therefore, of the very existence of unbelief
in regard to any matter proves that it has not been demonstrated
to be true. As to infallibility, that idea has already been dis
posed of. Now, to say that anything is too sacred to be tampered
with, simply means that it is sacred in the eyes of those who
accept it; for it cannot be sacred to him who disbelieves it. To
assert that I am not at liberty to disbelieve in any dogma or
principle because some one else holds it to be sacred is to say that
he is infallible, and that I must, therefore, defer to his judgment,
surrender my own right to think at all, and take my opinions
ready-made from any one who is arrogant enough to claim the
right to dictate. Moreover, this view is self-destructive, because
a half-dozen different bodies may each be claiming the same
allegiance, and, as their views will probably be conflicting and
irreconcilable, to believe the pretensions of the one would be to
-disbelieve the claims of the others. But, if a person disbelieves
he also believes ; his disbelief is the negative side of his faith‘
-and his belief is the positive side.
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
17
Disbelief in an error, or in that which is held to be an error,,
by any man involves belief in the opposite of the error, which is
truth, or at all events that which is recognized as such by him
who receives it. To describe a man as an unbeliever without
having regard to what it is that he disbelieves, and consequently
what he believes as the opposite of his unbelief, is not fair to
him, and is equally unfair to those who from this description
learn to estimate his views. Unbelief and belief must run hand
in hand, and cannot be separated. The most devout believer is
equally an unbeliever with him whom the world calls “ Infidel ”
and stigmatises with reproachful terms and epithets in conse
quence of his Scepticism. They differ, of course, as to the sphere
of their faith and doubt; but the one has no more right to be
called a believer par excellence than has the other. All of us
claim to have some truth on our side, and in that truth we are
firm believers. Our faith in it is the basis of our disbelief in
error, and the mainspring of our actions in the advocacy of our
views and the efforts which we make to bring others to our own
way of thinking. We are only negationists so far as a pulling
down and a clearing of the ground may be necessary to prepare
the way for the new building that is to be erected. Just as Luther
disbelieved in Romanism and sought to destroy it, in order tomake way for Protestantism, so Secularists to-day disbelieve in
the errors of the Church, and are thereby inspired to work for the
establishment of greater and grander truths than theology ever
rocognized or the Church ever possessed. The old Church called
Luther an unbeliever, and it was right so far; but a large por
tion of society came to recognize him as a true believer. His
positive work was the outcome of his unbelief, and but for that
it could have had no existence. Christianity owes its existence
to unbelief. If Christ and St. Paul had not rejected many of the
teachings of paganism and Judaism the religious change which
it is alleged occurred two thousand years ago, would in all prob
ability never have taken place. Thus unbelief has ever been
the precursor of a newer and truer faith; it is the herald of
progress, the forerunner of improvement, and the harbinger of.
coming good.
�.18
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelievers are supposed to have no right to the term sacred,
whereas it belongs to them in a much higher sense than it does
to the Church. What is truly sacred ? The beautiful in art
the true in philosophy, the noble and pure in human conduct—
these are all sacred, because they are in harmony with the higher
instincts of man, and tend to elevate and regenerate the race.
True sacredness does not consist in supernatural power, priestly
arrogance, or assumption of authority to our fellow-man. Things
are made holy by the temper and conduct of him who uses them.
Man is his own consecrator, whether in his home, at church, or
in the temple of science. Where mind speaks to mind, either
orally or in writing, and thus impresses for good : where intellect
• diffuses its choicest blessings abroad among mankind; where
learning and thought rise into higher regions of light and truth ;
where poetry illumines and art charms; where liberty goes forth
breaking asunder the chains of the captive; where knowledge
•dwells and love manifests its power ; where virtue reigns
supreme and justice bears the sway—there, and there alone, is
true sanctification to be found, encircled in the temple of Reality
and enthroned upon the pinnacle of Humanity.
Instead of regarding the term sacred as representing these
great enobling qualities and mental activities, the popular believ
ers associate it with certain places, buildings, and theological
ceremonies. For instance, Palestine is called the Holy Land, and
is looked upon as sacred in consequence of the notion that it
was the birthplace of Christianity. It is a most significant
fact that if Palestine were sufficiently prolific to produce a
religion, it has been comparatively barren in science, philosophy,
and general education. A church is termed a sacred building,
and is thought to be made so through some bishop or other
•ecclesiastical official performing a ceremony called consecration,
in which prayers are offered and forms complied with of a
strictly religious character, and thus the building becomes trans
formed into a holy temple totally unlike what it was before.
The very stones are sacred now, and cannot be used for another
.purpose without profanation. Can anything in the world be more
absurd ? Is it not derogatory to man and an insult to human
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
19
.genius ? What possible effect upon bricks and stones and
mortar and cement can the words of a bishop or any official
have ? And yet modern professors of theology stand aghast at the
folly displayed by Pagan worshippers. It would be exceedingly
interesting to have the modus operandi of this process of making
such things sacred explained to us—to be told what is the nature
of the conversion they undergo, and in what sense they differ
after consecration from their condition before.
Worse still, the same piece of theological legerdemain is
practised in our burial grounds. These, too, must be conse
crated—that is, made sacred, or sacred bones, it is feared, could
not rest in them. In cemeteries part of the ground is generally
^consecrated, and part left in its usual state. The physical
difference—and there can be no spiritual, for it will not be main
tained that mould is capable of spiritual impressions—that has
been effected by this process is more puzzling than the Athanasian Creed. How deep down does the consecration extend? And
does it cover any clods of earth that might afterwards be
brought to the spot, but which were not there at the time the
•ceremony was performed ? Is the grass that will hereafter
grow also consecrated ? And, if so, what will be the effect of the
•eating of the said grass upon the bodies of unconsecrated cattle ?
Shall we get, as a result, consecrated beef and mutton ?
But, in all seriousness, what is consecrated ground ? And
what power has priest or bishop or pope, by the reciting of any
form of words, to accomplish anything of the kind ? One of
•our poets has well written, as a rebuke to these miserable
superstitions :—
“ What’s hallowed ground ? ’Tis what gives birth
To sacred thoughts in souls of worth.
Peace ! Independence ! Truth ! Go forth
Earth’s compass round,
And your high priesthood shall make earth
All hallowed ground.”
'This is the true consecration, the real making holy; for not by
ridiculous ceremony, but by noble thoughts, is everything hal
lowed and made sacred on earth.
�20
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
Unbelief leaves the mind free to receive new truths. The
greatest opponent that truth has ever had to contend with is dog
matism. A black cloud hangs over the mind of the dogmatist,
shutting out every ray of the bright and gladdening beams of
the sun of truth, and encircling all his mental powers in the
deepest darkness. To such an one improvement is nearly
impossible, and advancement in intellectual growth is never tobe dreamed of. His motto is always, “ As you were,” and his
watchword, if he has any, is like that of which Mackay preaches,
“ Backward, ye deluded nations ; man to misery is born.” When
a man dogmatically asserts that he has found all the truth which,
is capable to be found, and that his system contains perfect
verity without any mixture of error, his views become stereo
typed, and it is quite impossible that any change can take place
in his opinions. His mind is not open to receive new light from
any source whatever, and thought with him is a useless and
vain operation and investigation the quintessence of folly. For
him to receive any new truth would be to admit that what hepossessed before was in some way defective and imperfect, and
this his creed protests against with the authority of an infallible
mandate. His position is necessarily stationary ; he stands just
where his grandsires stood ages past, and where he would wish
his descendants to remain for ages to come. Now, surely un
belief is far in advance of such a condition as this, for it leaves
its possessor, without bias and prejudice, waiting the new know
ledge that is continually to be had for the seeking. It allows his
mind full scope to grow and advance in wisdom, because he does
not for one moment believe that he has reached aperfection beyond
which it is impossible to proceed. In connection with unbelief
there i-s always a certain amount of suspension of judgment—
that is to say, there is such an absence of dogmatism that any new
discovery of science, any fresh thought in philosophy, or better
and clearer ideas in religion, are always welcomed as an addition
to the stores of knowledge already in possession. A calm repose
rests on his mental powers : there is, to use the words of Harriet
Martineau, a “ clearness of moral purpose,” which “ naturally
ensues”—a “healthy activity of the moral faculties.” The un-
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
21
believer, not being biassed by any settled views which he thinks
■came from heaven, is ever ready to learn and be taught. There
is about him a lofty liberty which he alone can enjoy. From
whatever source the truth may come he is willing—nay, desirous
—to receive it. He is ever ready, as Dr. Watts observes, to—
.
“ Seize on truth where’er ’tis found,
On heathen or on Christian ground.”
The principal argument against unbelief is based upon the
supposition that we have an infallible guide, whereas the fact is
that we neither have nor can have anything of the kind ; and,
what is more, if we had such a guide, we could not understand
it, and therefore it would be no guide to us. All that man
requires is a reasonable probability, and his nature is so con
stituted that he is not capable of more. Besides, unbelief is not
voluntary, and the power of belief is not under the control of
the will.
Belief is the result of conviction, conviction of
evidence; and no man can believe either without or against
■evidence, or disbelieve in the face of evidence sufficiently strong
to carry conviction. Opinions change, theories pass away; old
faiths decay, and new ones appear in their places.
In connection with the Christian profession at the present time
we have an illustration of such inconsistency as is not to be
found in any other of the great religions of the world. History
fails to record in association with those faiths such a marked
difference between profession and action as we discover in the
Christian Church. In Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism,
there is a persistent and earnest effort to regulate personal con
duct in accordance with the alleged sayings and injunctions of
their respective founders. But it is not so with Christianity.
Where are the professing Christians to-day who even make the
attempt to adopt the advice, practice, and precepts ascribed to
Jesus of Nazareth ?' He was in every sense opposed to this
world, and, in most emphatic terms, he denounces its enjoyments,
iijs pride, its requirements, and particularly its riches. With
him, heaven was of greater importance than earth, submission a
ihigher duty than resistance, and poverty a greater virtue than
�22
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
wealth. Christ urged that practice was more valuable than pro
fession, and that the grace of God was more efficacious than the
ethics of man. Where, in the present day, do we find these
views practically endorsed even by Christians ? They are really
disbelievers to what they proclaim as being essential both for
life and for death. Consistency, where indeed is thy blush ? Before
professing Christians condemn us for our unbelief, let them show
us their genuine belief. Before they denounce us for rejecting
what we regard to be error, let them prove that they practice
that which they avow to be true. In the one case there is
honesty of purpose and sincerity of conviction; in the other
there is hypocrisy of profession and cant of fashion. Therefore
in the words of Polonius, we say to the Christian ;—
•
“ This above all, to thine own self be true ;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. ”
Wherein then consists the advantage of Unbelief ? It is the
symbol of mental freedom, the mark of intellectual dignity, the
genius of cultivated reason, the wisdom of being guided by pro
gressive thought, of replacing old fancies with new realities, of
proving all things and holding fast that which reason and
experience, not tradition and theology, decide to be true ; of
resisting to the very utmost all despotic sway over the intellect,
and of vindicating to the fullest extent the right of personal
independence. The advantage of unbelief is shown in its inspiring
mankind, not, in the words of Tyndall, “ to purchase intellectual
peace at the price of intellectual death. The world is not with
out refugees of this description, nor is it wanting in persons who
seek their shelter and try to persuade others to do the same. I
would exhort you to refuse such shelter, and to scorn such base
repose—to accept, if the choice be forced upon you. commotion
before stagnation, the leap of the torrent before the stillness of
the swamp. In the one there is, at all events, life, and therefore
hope ; in the other, none.” This, then, is the essence of unbelief
—not blind adherence to the past, but a loyal allegiance to the
ever-present. If it is asked what should a person disbelieve ? the
�THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
23
■answer is, everything that he cannot believe after honest investi
gation. Secularism condemns no one for not believing that
which fails to commend itself to his or her reason and judgment.
Hence, we do not believe in the necessity of priestcraft, the
wisdom of allowing the church to control the education of the
young, the necessary inferiority of women, the utility of death
bed repentance, and finality in thought, morality, or religion.
But we do believe in the right of individual opinion, unfettered
reason, moral excellence and intellectual discipline.
Unbelief asserts that every man and woman should be allowed
absolute freedom to test every religion by the light of reason,
and then either to accept one or reject all in accordance with the
dictates of his or her understanding ! By the revival of learning
at the Renaissance a great impetus and new momentum were
imparted to the human mind. The limits beyond which the
Roman Church had for centuries prohibited any advance, on
pain of the axe, the rack, the dungeon, and the stake, were now
overstepped by the aspiring, emancipated intellect. Those old
landmarks of the limits of former inquiry were now justly
despised, as the memorials of barbarian ignorance; and an appeal
was made from the dogmas of sacerdotal authority to human
nature, human science, and human thought. This latter, the
intellect, again asserted its supremacy, as it had of old time in
Greece and Rome. A bright and radiant future was before it;
it stood, as it were, upon an elevation from which it could take
a wide and enlightened survey of the complicated interests of
life. The master-spirits of the age soon proclaimed their deliver
ance from an irrational and degrading bondage, and demanded
that the nations of the European world should come out of the
darkness, the Egyptian bondage, of old Rome’s superstitions, to
emancipate themselves, to assert the dignity of their nature, and
to maintain the potency of their reason.
Mental freedom being secured, Unbelief refuses to be again
fettered; it has gone on from discovery to discovery; it has
tested the value of the cardinal doctrines of orthodox Christi
anity—tested them and found them worthless. What has now
�24
THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.
become of the Genesaic theory of the creation of the world ?
what of the age of the earth ? what of the origin of sin and evil ?
what of the doctrine of human depravity ? what of the belief in the
vicarious sufferings of Christ ? what of the old notion of eternal
punishment ? what of the destruction of the world by the deluge ?
what of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ? what of the miracles
of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha? what of the age of the Pentateuch?
what of the contention for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures ?
whatof the testimony respecting the Jesus Christ of the four Gospels ?
It is well known what science says to all these old-world doc
trines. It simply discredits them ; treats them as figments of
the undisciplined imagination, and passes them by as unworthy
of serious notice. This has been the noble work of Unbelief.
Being unbelievers in orthodoxy we prefer fact to fiction, reality
to imagination, and good conduct to mere profession 1 In the
words of Mazzini: “We propose progressive improvement, the
transformation of the corrupted medium in which we are now
living, the overthrow of all idolatries, shams, lies and conven
tionalities. We want man to be not the poor, passive, cowardly
phantasmagoric unreality of the actual time, thinking in one
way and acting in another, bending to a power which he hates
or despises, carrying empty Popish or Thirty-nine Article formu
laries on his breast and none within. We would make man a
fragment of the living truth—a real individual, being linked to
collective humanity, the bold seeker of things to come, the gentle,
mild, loving, yet firm uncompromising apostle of all that is great,
heroic and good.” Herein lies the Glory of Unbelief.
�
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 glory of unbelief
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1890]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Happiness in hell and misery in heaven), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1088
RA1850
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
Atheism
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b811ed14be6897ec083bb4184103317.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mTWb%7EjuiqC2yH6lrEEyI1nHiwuxOuzQBsE-rWM0c5SCX7tfZpzFRsyt93C6e2%7Ef9zVi-siZNfNYrvZKL%7EuIG71xAtqfYRYus%7Efii3CaBYMTHYIJuenKSJeDl3ozH9LhqzDiVg%7EGM8yltHHv3NYlf8lW51Vqcm%7EJZGvs4VBtH8e8DQGKN1Wpd%7EJj4gfKVFqmscxhNoWvrHuK1rkDdrhrxKX6EyQY6VgA5iB0dM6dLkezv6MY4iUmDNWBqIOXCfvKFDsrWvczB9FCVssfjhdiiyAWyZQHEGh%7EulAhUSYsgxfgQjkU-UR4lns2QgjxtBsbw5UOS7KwYSlSKXfpbMw9GyA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8cd436a4426f240f8c92e90a4d604543
PDF Text
Text
AND
-- •-—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Author of " Secularism : Constructive and Destructive,”
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday.”
1,1 Glory of Unbelief,” Ac., Ac.
"
TORONTO:
Printed at “ Secular Thought ” Office.
Price Ten Cents.
■
��AND
_______________
— BY----
CHARLES WATTS
Author of “ Secularism : Constructive and Destructive,”
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday,”
“Glory of Unbelief,” Ac., Ac.
——
TORONTO:
Printed
at
“ Secular Thought ” Office.
Price Ten Cents.
��HAPPINESS IN HELL
---- AND----
MISERY IN HEAVEN.
n/’b'W'b'b'hl'b'bl’b’U/b
“ HAPPINESS IN HELL.”
Under the above title there appears a remarkable article in the
December number of The Nineteenth Century, written by St.
George Mivart, who is one of the ablest exponents of Roman
Catl io icism at the present day. His new theory has produced
quite a sensation in orthodox circles, in consequence of his rever
sing the hitherto supposed nature and conditions of the abode of
his Satanic Majesty. Whatever views we may personally enter
tain in reference to Christianity, we always welcome any effort
made to improve upon its harsh and cruel features. We sincerely
hope, therefore, that this declaration that there is “ happiness in
hell ” will have the effect of rendering future Christian pic
tures of everlasting torments less horrifying than those ghastly
spectacles that in the past too frequently accompanied the pub
lications of such orthodox teachings. It will appear a novel idea
to most minds that hell is a place of agreeable associations and
of pleasurable sensations; but to be assured that “ happiness ” is
to be found there is indeed startling, and will no doubt astonish
and bewilder members of the Christian community who have
always regarded that institution as being the abode of extreme
and unutterable misery. Besides, apart from the followers of
Swedenborg, few persons profess to have any conception of differ
ent degrees of happiness hereafter. Such, evidently, was not
Christ’s idea if it is true, as stated in the New Testament, that at
“ the last judgment ” “ before him shall be gathered all nations :
�4
HAPPINESS IN HELL
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left.” From this we learn that
mankind are to be divided into two classes only—the blessed and
the cursed.
Mr. Mivart says that he deals with his subject in all serious
ness, and he avows his pity for intellectually good men who are
staggered at the monstrosity of hell. He asks two questions : “ Is
the doctrine (of eternal hell) really one essential to Christianitv ?
and if so, can it be a belief reconcilable with right reason, the
highest morality and the greatest benevolence ? ” For ourselves
we answer the first query in the affirmative, and the second in
the negative, as they appear to us to be two very different ques
tions.
It is rather strange that Mr. Mivart should announce
that he offers his suggestions to believers only. Surely Free
thinkers are as competent as his church, his councils or himself to
judge what is reasonable or moral. We especially press this
point because he professes not to blink any difficulty, and to be
impartial and candid. The belief in Theism is not necessary to
enable a person to decide whether it was just or otherwise to
establish an “ eternal hell ” for those who cannot accept
the Christian God as a reality; neither is the belief in
immortality indispensable to the formation of an opinion that it
is inhuman and unreasonable to “ torture for ever ” those who
reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of a future life. In fact,
persons are in a better position to judge fairly and accurately
the points at issue, whose minds are free from prejudice and
whose reason is unfettered by priestly-enforced dogmas.
It is worthy of note that Mr. Mivart does not deny the exis
tence of hell: neither does he contend that the Scriptures do not
mean what they say upon the subject, or that they have been
wrongly translated. On the contrary, he ascribes to God the
preparation of the institution which, in Mr. Mivart’s opinion,
exists sure enough ; but the material used and the mode adop
ted in carrying out its punishments are changed. Instead of
�AND MISERY IN HE.AVEN,
5
fire and brimstone for all its inhabitants, a section of the “ lost
souls ” are only to suffer through banishment from heaven and
deprivation of the “ beatific vision of God.” While agreeing
with Jesus that hell is to be eternal, Mr. Mivart differs from his
Master by allotting to the tenants different degrees of punish
ment according to their merits and demerits. Banishment from
God is to be the only fate for some, while others are to suffer the
poena sensus, which he says is “ the equivalent of hell fire.” This
is to us a very important point, for we are told that the recipi
ents of “the equivalent of hell fire” are to be the “ Unbelievers”
—those who do not accept the doctrines of the Church. In his
defence of hell-fire torments Mr. Mivart is supported by the
writers of the New Testament (see Matt. 5 : 22, 29, 30; 10 : 28 ;
23: 15-32; 25: 41, 46; Mark 3: 29; 4: 42-47; Luke 10:
15, 16, 23; Rev. 14: 16; and 16: 8), and also by the Cate
chism of the Eastern Catholic Church, which distinctly says
“ they will be given over to everlasting death; that is, to ever
lasting fire, to everlasting torments with the devils.” This is a
doctrine which Mr. Mivart informs us his church never con
demned, and he frankly admits that the reality of a terrible and
scorching hell has been enforced by the eloquence of the pulpit,
the brush of the painter, the skill of the sculptor, and the art of
the engraver. This may be all too true, but it shows the brutal
nature of theology and its inhuman influence upon its believers
nevertheless.
It would indeed be useless to appeal to Freethinkers, and we
trust it would to all men and women whose minds have not been
perverted by a cruel and relentless faith, to believe that the ex
istence of such an institution could be defended by “reason and
the highest morality.” We urge most emphatically that to de
prive anyone of rights and privileges, either in this or in any
other world simply on account of differences of opinion, would
be a violation of the principles of justice, and in opposition to
the teachings of all true ethics. As to the “ benevolence ” of
putting those who honestly reject a particular faith in the worst
position among the alleged new conditions of hell, that requires
�6
HAPPINESS IN HELL
special faculties, which we do not possess, to enable us to appre
ciate it.
But Mr. Mivart observes there is “ another side ” to Catholic
doctrine which teaches that tne “ happiness of hell ” will be the
lot of “ unbaptized infants,” and it may even be extended to
“ adults in heathen nations.” If this be so, baptism becomes an
unfortunate ceremony, for it is by no means certain to be accom
panied or followed by conversion, and if it is not, even according
to his new theory baptism destroys the possibility of happiness
in the next world. Upon the same principle missionaries are
simply agents for introducing damnation among the nations
they visit. If the poor heathens die without having heard the
gospel, happiness, we are told, awaits them hereafter, but if the
{ glad tidings ” are preached to them and they cannot or do not
believe, hell-fire is their portion “for ever and ever.”
Mr. Mivarb considers that a process of evolution is going on in
hell; but he also says the occupants are not allowed to escape
from the “ prison house” however much they may develepe in
goodness. Where, then, is the utility of such development if
emancipation from imperfect surroundings is not to be the re
sult ? It is a kind of progress similar to that made by the horse
at the mill. Mr. Mivart does not interpret the law of evolution
thus when he applies it to animals on earth. His argument
in dealing with man is that the process of evolution raises him
higher and higher both in body and in mind. This is a clear
contradiction to his idea of evolution in hell.
Mr. Mivart considers that Atheism is preferable to the belief
“ that God could punish men however slightly, still less could
damn them for all eternity, for anything which they had not full
power to avoid.” But this is precisely what the Christian’s God
js represented as doing. According to the popular orthodox be
lief, which is based on certain portions of the New Testament,
and is sanctioned by the articles and catechisms of the churches,
it is only the elect that are to be saved, while the vast majority
of the human race are to be punished “ for all eternity.” The
Bible states that the non-elect are powerless to secure their own
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
7
salvation, for it alleges that of ourselves we can do nothing; it
is God that worketh within us, and that some unfortunate vic
tims were ordained to condemnation before they were born (see
Romans 8: 29, 30 9 : 21, 22; 2 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil.
2 : 13 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 11, 12 ; Jude 8:4).
Mr. Mivart says : “Any unnecessary or useless suffering can
not, of course, exist with a good God.” Just so, then the fact is
that either God does not exist or the orthodox doctrine of hell is
a delusion. If there is any suffering at all in hell we allege that
it is both unnecessary and useless. Such suffering, be it remem
bered, is not regarded as being merely a consequence,it is a penalty
inflicted as a punishment upon those who believe not the “ Gospel
of Christ.” Apart entirely from the monstrous injustice of this
suffering, where is its utility ? The true object of punishment
• should be to reform those who are punished and to deter others
from doing wrong. The threatened punishment of orthodoxy
achieves neither of these results, inasmuch as it affords no oppor
tunity for repentance and offers no facility for improvement, for
when the victim is once in hell there he must remain for ever.
Neither can it be truthfully said that the sufferings in the
“ bottomless pit” would exercise a beneficial influence upon those
on earth. That the belief in hell torrm-nts is not a deterrent
from crime the history of criminality clearly proves. Nearly
all our worst criminals have been taught this doctrine. The
terror of the policeman has evidently been.more efficacious in
the prevention of crime than all the hell-fire that ever was or
ever could be manufactured. Besides, if it were possible for the
“ tortures of the damned ” to be witnessed, would such a sight
inspire the spectators with obedience to a God who caused such
barbarous cruelty ? Here the rejected of heaven are represented
as enduring tortures the extent of •which no humane mind can
fully conceive and no pen can adequately portray. The end of
perhaps a happy life is to be the beginning of everlasting misery.
The joy and sunshine of a mundane existence are to be followed
by clouds of wretchedness and the endurance of perpetual agony.
Amidst the eruption of burning mountains, flashing of light-
�8
H APPINESS IN HELL
ning and the roar of thunder; while the stars are descending,
the sun darkening and the moon being converted into blood, the
majority of mankind are to be exposed to the severest cruelties
it is possible for the most barbarous nature and the most fiendish
disposition to inflict.
Mr. Mivart makes the astounding statement that “nothing, in
fact, has been defined by the church on the subject of hell which
does not accord with right reason, the highest morality, and the
greatest benevolence.” Is this true ? God has been defined by
the church as the creator of all things; he must therefore have
created the devil. God, we are told, is all-wise ; he must, there
fore, have known the nature of the being he was creating, and
the havoc his handiwork would make among the sons and daugh
ters of men. God, it is said, is all-good ; then how could he
have been the cause of so much evil of which it is supposed the •
devil is the principal agent ? God is alleged -to be all-powerful;
why, then, did he not destroy the devil when he was defeated in
heaven instead of turning him upon the earth to play his devil
ish pranks among mankind ? God is defined as a being of love;
how is it, then, that he planned a scheme by which most of the
human race are doomed to an eternity of heart-rending suffering,
“ where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched?”
Does it accord with reason to believe that our “ heavenly Father ”
would do what an earthly parent would recoil from doing ? Is
it moral to inflict infinite punishment for a finite act, even if
that act is intentionally performed ? Is it benevolent to burn
men and women “ forever,” some of whom have been guilty of
no other “crime ” than their inability to recognize the orthodox
notion of ■“ truth as it is in Jesus ? ” This may be the theologi
cal view of what is right and useful, but it is a conception of
justice at which unperverted humanity stands aghast.
Mr. Mivart contends that God has granted a revelation whereby
hell may be avoided. “ But,” says he, “justice certainly does
not demand that this revelation should be made clear to all men.”
This is orthodox reasoning and consistency with a vengeance 1
How can that be a revelation which is not clear ? And, further-
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
9
more, of what service can a revelation possibly be to us if it is
not understood ? How can we act upon that, the meaning of
which is hidden from us ? If a knowledge of this special reve
lation is necessary to enable us to avoid misery and to secure
happiness, then justice does demand that the author of the reve
lation should, if he has the power, make it clear to all his
children. If he does not do so he is partial in the treatment
of his children, and, therefore, not, in this instance, a good
Father.
But the real question is, why did God make a hell for us to
avoid ? We are told that the devil was “ a fallen angel,” that
he was once in heaven, where he fell from his original state. It
would be interesting to learn that, if heaven is sinless, whence
came the evil influence that caused the angel to fall ? Angelic
materials cannot be of the best kind, and if war and sin once
reigned in heaven, what guarantee have we that they may not
again disturb the harmony of the “ celestial city ?”
If there be a hell, how does Mr. Mivart know that there will
be happiness there ? We presume that he has not visited that
habitation. St. Frances says that she was permitted to look into
hell, and she found it had three divisions. In the upper hell the
inhabitants were tolerably miserable, in the middle one intoler
ably so, but in the lower the torments were beyond ail under
standing. When she had looked into this terrible place her
blood was frozen with fright. “ The Confession of Faith tells
us that the inmates of hell suffer “most grievous torments in
body and soul, without intermission, in hell-fire forever ” The
Wesleyan Catechism affirms that “ hell is full of fire and brim
stone where the bodies are tormented for ever and ever , and
finally the New Testament alleges that “ the wicked shall be tor
mented . . . and the smoke of their torments ascendethup
for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night. Jf 0W
here are four authorities quite as trustworthy upon, this
as Mr. Mivart (that, we grant, is not saying much), and i£fc^at
they assert be correct, happiness cannot exist in such a pWe.
If, on the other band, the scriptures and the Christian writers
�10
HAPPINESS IN HELL
are in error, then the whole doctrine of hell is a delusion, which
we decidedly think is the case.
But let us turn from these revolting figments of a barbarous
faith to the inculcation of Secular teachings. In these we have
no threatened hell in another world to appal, no fire to burn or
devil to torture. Our injunction is, endeavor to avoid making a
hell upon earth, which is often done by fostering dogmas as
cruel as they are pernicious in their influence upon the peace of
the human mind. We have faith in the power of love, not in
the dread of fear. Therefore
While here live out a noble life
And ever follow right because ’tis right;
Not because ye shall be crowned with light,
And if in grander worlds ye go to dwell
It shall not there be counted to your scorning
That you your best have done,
But you shall still progress to everlasting morning.
MISERY IN HEAVEN.
Mr. St. George Mivart informs us that that there is an eter
nity of happiness in hell, and that “ the loss of heaven is an in
finite loss.” He does not, however, define what he means by
happiness, although he asserts that it differs in degree, and that
some persons “ no more desire the supernatural state than fishes
can desire to become birds or oysters sigh because they are not
butterflies.” If hell exist, and it is such a place as orthodox
Christians generally describe it, we fail to understand how it is
possible for any degree of happiness to be found there. But
what of heaven ? Let us endeavor to ascertain the nature and
state of affairs “ in another place,” as they say in the House of
Commons. If the information given in the Bible concerning
heaven be reliable, misery, not happiness, is its chief character
istic. Those, therefore, who prepared themselves for “ above,’”
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
11
expecting to find comfort and enjoyment, took the wrong road;
they should have gone “ below,” where they would have a warm
reception, and a brilliant and prolonged entertainment prepared
for them.
Happiness is understood in this world as being associated with
agreeable sensations. It is not a thing, but a state in which our
wants are supplied ; a condition of the mind that is in posses
sion of what it desires. Felicity expresses great happiness, and
bliss is its highest form. Happiness furthermore implies an
absence of conflicting influences. It depends on conditions,
which of course vary with individuals. A clown and a philo
sopher may be both equally satisfied, but they cannot be equally
happy when surrounded by the same conditions. Happiness,
great or small, can be secured only by experiences congenial to
the tastes of individuals, and which meet the requirements of
their varied capacities for enjoyment. An “ eternity ” of happi
ness can only mean a continuous state of joy. The common
conception of eternity, “ swallowing up time,” or “ when time
shall be no more,” is only symbolical. Applying eternity to a
future state is like speaking of a rope with one end cut off.
Eternity is neither future nor past. It cannot begin after the
one or before the other; hence entering on an eternal future is
inconceivable to the human mind.
Now do heaven and its arrangements, as depicted and recorded
in the Bible, comply with the requirements necessary to happi
ness ? In the first place, it seems paradoxical to speak, as some
theologians do, of the happiness of heaven, and at the same time
to assert that the senses through which all sensations enter are
not present. They speak of immaterial souls enjoying bliss,
which is as unphilosophical as it would be to talk of dissolving
moonlight or carving a shadow. Attributing agreeable sensa
tions to a soul without senses is as grotesque as ascribing the
darkness of the Middle Ages to the result of the Pope’s uncork
ing bottles of Egyptian darkness. To experience any sort of
happiness necessitates our possessing senses that enable us to
feel, see, and understand. Immaterial souls can enjoy only im-
�12
HAPPINESS IN HELL
material happiness, and it is quite immaterial to us whether we
experience such enjoyment or not, for it could make no material
difference to such souls as we are now supposed to possess.
Jesus, in speaking of children, said, “ Of such is the kingdom
of heaven.” We cannot, however, imagine a child being happy
without his toys or even with always having the same. Fancy a boy
without his top or a girl without her doll—where would be their
happiness ? Is it not also a fact that children begin to wonder
why they do not continue to admire their old sources of enjoy
ment when they have acquired tastes for new ones ? It is
similar with children of larger growth, whose happiness consists
greatly in the change of scenes and occupation. Literature is
the heaven of some minds ; but the most devout student looks
out for new books. To be compelled to read the same for
ever would not be the happiest occupation. Everything is
mutable, changes are interminable through all nature, absolute
quietude is unknown, and without constant change life itself
would cease to be. These essentials to the happiness of exist
ence are not to be found in heaven, and therefore to intellectual
persons it would be a place of misery.
We are not now dealing with the questions whether there is
a heaven or not, or if there is where it is located. These are no
doubt important points, but our present object is to ascertain
whether the Christian’s heaven, as described in the Bible, is an
abode of happiness or of misery. It may be urged that the
language of the Scriptures upon the question of heaven is figur
ative, which we do not deny ; but what is it figurative of ?
Language should make the subjects to which it refers clear to
the reader, and not obscure their meaning. Christ on several
occasions refers to the kingdom of heaven in parables, but from
these we obtain very little information as to its real nature.
This is not at all surprising when we are told that he spoke
in parables, so that those who heard him should not understand
(Mark 4: 11, 12.) It is true that on another occasion, Jesus
located heaven by saying the kingdom of heaven was “ within
you,” but this is as difficult to understand as the parables are,
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN
13
since he also states : “ In my Father’s house are many mansions
.... I go to prepare a place for you.” For persons to get these
mansions within them would be a greater performance than that
of the whale swallowing Jonah ! There is, however, one parable
about heaven (Luke 16: 19,31) which tells us of “a certain
beggar” and of “a certain rich man;” the one was in heaven
and the other within hell, and 1 oth were in hearing, seeing, and
speaking distance of each other. From heaven the rich man is
seen being tormented in hell. Now to think that anyone could
be happy while contemplating such suffering would be an out
rage against our common humanity. Such a horrible heavenly
spectacle would be worse than a Spanish bull-fight, or than
bishops warming their hands before the fires that consumed the
martyrs of old. Brutal as those scenes were, they lasted only for a
time, whereas this heavenly scene consists of ever-lasting torture
where all help to lessen the cruelty is denied. If any person
with a spark of humanity in his or her nature should get into
such a heaven, it is to be hoped that blinds will be there that
may be drawn, for such sights are only fit for monsters who die
on the gallows, and whose exit from earth was a blessing to
those left behind. The Christian’s heaven, as here described,
must be a place of misery indeed for every loving heart.
One great source of our happiness on earth is the liberty to
select our companions, to refrain from attending exhibitions of
torture, and to be permitted to relieve the victims of injustice and
cruelty. To be shut up, therefore, in heaven with those who
can look on others being tortured in flames of fire and who will
not or cannot relieve them must be a source of indescribable
misery. This parable receives confirmation from St. John, who
states (Rev. 14: 10) that a certain person “ shall drink of the
wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture
into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with
fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the
presence of the Lamb.” And this is the Christian’s idea of ulti
mate happiness. When a wish is expressed to be with Jesus and
the angels, as it frequently is by orthodox believers, they can-
�14
HAPPINESS IN HELL
not understand the sights and experiences that are in store for
them. Let us hope it is true that “ Eye hath not seen nor ear heard
. . . the things which God hath prepared for them that love
him.” Milton says, “ It’s better to reign in hell, than to serve
in heaven;” but in our opinion it would be still better to do
neither. Both institutions deserve to be lost in total oblivion
for the belief in their existence is no factor in the progress and
elevation of mankind. Humanity would have two evils the less
to overcome if hell were to cease from troubling, and if the
preachers about heaven were to be at rest.
We will now glance at what may be termed the Throne Room
of heaven as it is described by St. John, who is alleged to have
been an eye-witness. He certainly had very peculiar ideas both
of artistic beauty and of pictorial theology. He says that God
was like a jasper and a sardine stone; the rainbow about him
was the color of an emerald. This sparkling Deity was sur
rounded by four-and-twenty elders, their heads being adorned
with crowns of gold. Before the throne was a sea of crystal,
near which there were seven lamps, which were the seven spirits
of God. It is said that St. John was “ in the spirit.” This may
be so, or perhaps the spirit was in him; for no man in his nor
mal mental condition, either waking or sleeping, could conceive
such a jumble of nonsensical impossibilities as those recorded in
the book of Revelation. Some profane persons have compared
their alleged author to Tam O’Shanter, who also is said to have
had some strange visions.
St. John, we are told, found the door of heaven open, and
there he stood in front of a great white throne, with a frontage
of a crystal sea, but, “ whether (he was) in the body or out of
the body, I cannot tell.” He does not say that he felt alarmed
at the “ lightnings and thunderings of voices,” which “ proceeded
out of the throne.” People as a rule do not feel supremely happy
in a thunderstorm. But in addition to the war of the elements
there were four most remarkable beasts in the midst of and
round the throne, the like of which, so far as we know, no
naturalist has ever seen in this or any other country. The
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
15
beasts are represented as having resemblance to a lion, a calf, a
man, and an eagle, and they possessed six wings each and “ eyes
before and behind,” besides being “ full of eyes within.” They
must have been wideawake animals indeed, and to have found
the blind side of them would have been exceedingly difficult.
But, stranger still, they were musical beasts, and could all sing,
and evidently did so to some tune, for “ they rest not day
and night, saying Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty.” Then
we have what may be called a chorus, in which the beasts are
joined by the elders and by “ ten thousand times times ten
thousand, and thousands of thousands ” of angels. A pleasant
place this, truly, for a studious man or a nervous woman to be
doomed to “ forever.” Of course it may be a matter of taste,
but, speaking personally, if ever we find ourselves among such a
motley crew, we shall be inclined, if all other means of escape
fail, to test the efficacy of prayer, and to exclaim, from this place
“ Good Lord deliver us.”
According to St. John, the acoustic properties of heaven must
be unique, for he says that he heard every living thing both
there and on the earth, under the earth, and on the sea, say
something to him that sat on the throne, to which the four
beasts (one of them having a voice of thunder) said Amen 1
Such an exhibition of heavenly music would be to us no
pleasure, but a tremendous nuisance. We might, perhaps, under
pressure, be able to sit out the performance for a brief time; but
to have to endure it day and night for ever would be enough to
drive one stark staring mad. A succession of the same sounds
and sights, even when of a pleasant kind, would be one of the
most monotonous experiences on earth ; but to be compelled to
listen perpetually to the uproar of St. John’s heaven, and to
behold its horrible sights without any intermission, would be
the quintessence of misery. Putting aside their hideous thund
ering shouts amidsi lightning and hail, it makes one’s flesh
creep to think of those strange beasts constantly crawling all
over the place. There would be no rest for us even in the
presence of all the saints and the Lamb. St. John incidentally
�16
HAPPINESS IN HELL
remarks that a good deal of bookkeeping goes on in heaven. If
this be so, accuracy, we should think, could not be guaranteed
under such conditions of noise and confusion. In all probability
many names will be omitted or wrongly inserted, unless the re
cording angel is deaf and dumb and receives his instructions
through the medium of “ divine inspiration.” As to him who
was sitting on the throne, he must have been a peculiar indivi
dual, for it is said that from his face “ the earth and heaven fled
away,” but whence we are not informed.
There were other wonders in heaven, one of which was a wo
man clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve
stars on her head. Evidently she must have been the centre of
light, and had no necessity to grope about in the dark. She
was not, however, to be compared with the marvellous angel
giant, who was clothed with a cloud, bad a rainbow on his head?
a face like the sun, a voice like a lion, and his feet like pillars of
fire. The length given of his legs is most remarkable ; he set
his right foot on the sea, and his left on the earth. There is
one thing mentioned which must have given inexpressible joy to
some of the unfortunate inhabitants. “There was silence in
heaven for the space of about one hour.” This must have been
indeed a relief, even though it was only for a brief interval.
Crusty old bachelors have thought that if there were silence in
heaven it was evident that there were not many women there.
Upon this point we give no opinion, except that, if there were
more than one there, they must have been delighted that the
chorus of the beasts was stopped even for an hour, so that a
little cheerful feminine conversation could be indulged in. Most
women are painted as angels, at least before they are married ;
let us hope, therefore, that if there were any in heaven, they had
wings with which, at the re-commencement of the native music,
they could fly away and be at rest. This description of heaven
and its angelic inhabitants is what the Americans would call
“ fine and large but we ask, where does the happiness come
in ? Gaping at monstrosities and wonders like St. John wit
nessed, is not our idea of a blissful state. It is said in the New
�AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
17
Testament that Jesus was going to prepare a place for us. If,
however, St. John’s account of the “place” is correct, we have
no wish to congratulate Christ upon the success of his under
taking.
One thing, perhaps, we ought to be thankful for, and that
is, that the path to heaven is so narrow that only a few can
find it. If ever it is our misfortune to be located in the orthodox
heaven, we shall be inclined to burst into song and say :
“ Heaven’s a cheat, and all things show it;
We thought so once, but now we know it.”
We are sometimes told that if heaven does not really exist, it
is a pleasing illusion which people ought not to be ruthlessly
deprived of; and that they should not have doubts concerning
its existence infused into their contented minds. Our answer
to this is, when absurd errors are taught as truths, it is necessary
that the fact should be made clear, in order that their injurious
influences may be avoided. Now St.John says his account is
accurate, and that anyone making alterations or additions will
be subject to unspeakable penalties. But we repeat that it is
not the existence of heaven that we here question, neither do we
desire to deprive anyone of the hope of happiness hereafter. We
have simply shown that the Christian’s heaven as depicted in
the Scriptures does not offer grounds for a pleasing illusion, and
that it is not a home of happiness, but an abode of the most
wretched misery that it is possible for the human mind to con
ceive.
A heaven to be desirable should be a place where suffering
is unknown; where the true and the noble of the earth can
dwell in peace and harmony, undisturbed by personal pain, or a
knowledge of the gloom and sadness of others. To us the Chris
tian’s heaven appears destitute of every redeeming feature, and
it would be no pain to us to see it occupied by Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, and ourselves shut out. If there is such a heaven as
that described by St. John, we know of no people to whom it
would be a more appropriate abode than to the inmates of a
lunatic asylum. The fact is, the popular notion of heaven and
�18
HAPPINESS IN HELL AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
hell, which the churches profess to entertain to-day, is based on
superstition of which Pope said:—
She taught the weak to bend, the proud to pray,
To Powers unseen, and mightier far away ;
She, from the rending earth and burning skies,
Saw gods descend and fiends infernal rise ;
Here fixed the dreadful, there the blest abodes ;
Fear made her devils, and weak hope her gods :
Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust,
Whose attributes were rage, revenge, or lust,
Such as the souls of cowards might conceive,
And formed like tyrants, tyrants would believe.
Zeal then, not charity, became the guide,
And hell was built on spite, and heaven on pride.
�����
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
Happiness in hell and misery in heaven
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 18 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189-]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Hell
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Happiness in hell and misery in heaven), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA936
RA1855
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
Heaven
Hell
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c87ca08e98c031ef693eaad5be661490.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nkxJB4IDf7I%7EXiGaJSvgThd1xt9CObUn2WY76zW%7EQc%7Eqxyadk7pZKZDP%7Euw7uHXCoQNmG%7EXIAYKYJh5AfJcXfK1NAeSilEbVTff8puQkRnsGcCa1osQqG%7EuYL7-e0f54Qp8FW38fQK-vbvUE-igOrOWB1YES9K-NwFhBvMie87usqjf8yeO7BYMAxexZI2N64XYb9xfHGrN7zBHHB4kcCyWQmGPcAdceCw0jZUPfru9AXLqN8edjLCxPyxx4ke4DmEHfrQNxpmjm%7E2t167FcdBzggkZMsmlPH8GMkurl4rqgiYEoNijQ59ES4OKNIgZagrUCCICUUCvQlQsCsQQBoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fca23ba00f8766e35c1cba12b16a1905
PDF Text
Text
������������������������
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
Christianity: defective and unnecessary
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1900]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity: defective and unnecessary), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA853
RA1854
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Secularism