2
10
13
-
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
-
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/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