1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d21b1981dae1e032041a92324e97ad1d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bJkC81Qy5MvUbdND8xPjOwHz9wth6P5EKjuj9VAfVHN1I%7E-ppwrkfEgAk%7Eq%7EN20iMOQmiNLG8G7eo8sQKj5nhvuZhzJIQ9rEvMoyHqmdHNMfuep8-J7H1h5HEtFjX-hpFJKACagIunaEGJ1B%7E32nZqSPsp%7ETq80NRmHgQBlBNx5DVi6tiQxy3AgUw8jRVxoo5T76KJs6AcNxwaJpEudG1qfYQamvMGZvh4-xkA8DFMWO3hZoQDeDVJm68KNzaeaGXMa9kK%7E6c%7E%7EvZ-zBkuXPtM9tDclmvOIPmSSt3W09I37QnDGkADlqPwcWHCGTL9fwPGZ48sY2iYztVxk8LUeN5g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1356e0938373a1ad505b18e3a1f4bc12
PDF Text
Text
ON THE HINDRANCES
TO
PROGRESS IN THEOLOGY.
*
*
MBY THE LATE
EEV. JAMES CRANBROOK.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
�L---------------------- ---------------
ILUIL—.
‘I
L
�ON THE
HINDRANCES TO PROGRESS IN THEOLOGY.
HEN one considers the great amount of intelli
gence and active thought existing in modern
society, especially as compared with the past, one is
apt at first to be surprised that so little progress has
been made amongst people in general in religious, or
more properly speaking, in theological questions.
Those who venture upon such questions, to think for
themselves and to doubt, or in any very serious
degree to modify, the old and long received dogmas,
are still the easily numbered few ; whilst the
unreasoning, quiescent and bigoted recipients of the
orthodox beliefs are the overwhelming majority. It
may help to encourage those of you who are for mak
ing progress in theology as well as everything else,
and possibly to awaken profitable reflection in those
who have hitherto been indifferent in the matter, if
I offer you this evening some considerations serving to
account for the still great preponderance of the old
beliefs.
In the first place, then, notwithstanding the
admittedly wide-spread intelligence of the present
day, I think the comparatively slow progress of
theology is due to the very imperfect education which
has been and still is generally received. It must be
observed that the active intelligence amongst us is
not due to the education in the technical or scholastic
sense of the term. Whatever improvements have
been made in the methods and subject-matter of
W
�4
On the Hindrances to
teaching, have been made within the last fifteen or
twenty years, and such improvements have not
affected those who have advanced to the middle
stage of life, and whose thinking constitutes the char
acter of the present generation. When they were at
school scarcely a single step had been taken out of the
old rut along which scholastic education had dragged
. its slow course for generations. There was nothing in
it to quicken the mind or to form those habits of
thought which alone constitute a liberal, broad and
national intelligence. Boys in the middle classes learn
ed a little Latin, less Greek, some Geography, scraps of
naratives called History, under the designation of
Astronomy the names of stars they never were
taught to identify, and were in many cases pretty
well drilled in Arithmetic. Girls learned still less of
what was useful; in arithmetic seldom got beyond
reduction, and became prodigies if they reached the
rule of three (as it was called); but were thought to
make up for the deficiency by acquiring the power
of tinkling dance music and battles of Prague on the
piano, of drawing on paper straight lines which did
not lie evenly between extreme points, and circles
whose radii were anything but equal to one another,
and of making embroidery and other fancy articles
the taste of which was an offence to gods and men.
In all this education received by both boys and girls,
there was nothing to teach them observation,
analysis, reflection, comparison, reasoning, or any of
those intellectual processes which are essential to the
full exercise and development of our rational nature
Of course there were exceptions to this. Here and
there were teachers far before their time, whose pupils,
if led through the same routine course, had breathed
■into them a spirit of enquiry which has made them
assume a place amongst the most progressive of the
day. These, however, were the exceptional cases, and
education was for the most part such as I have
described it.
Fortunately, however, there were influences at work
�Progress in Theology.
5
in society ready to meet these boys as soon as they
left the school for the business of life, which were
calculated to do in part the work their school educa
tion ought to have done. The great discoveries of
science, applied to manufactures and commerce, had
already begun to change the whole aspect of social
life. The most active thought had become necessary
to conduct the ordinary affairs of business. Accurate
observation and reasoning had become as necessary
in the shops and the mercantile counting-house, as in
the study of the savant and the philosopher. Infor
mation became essential; the cheapening of the
newspapers supplied the want, and with the com
mercial information, they furnished other kinds of
intelligence. Thought thus became amazingly quick
ened, and the intellectual activity of the present day
has ensued.
But now, observe, this kind of intellectual activity,
thus superinduced, does not necessarily extend itself
to all subjects coming within its sphere. On the
contrary, being called forth for a specific purpose, it
is very apt to confine its activity to the purpose for
which it has been called forth. It does not assume
the character of a general habit of mind, but is merely
a particular instrument employed for a particular end.
It is analogous to the development of the physical
powers. The physical powers may be developed by
proper training altogether, so that whenever anything
has to be done by any, or all of them, it will be done
with the full and most perfectly developed powers;
but instead of this general education, we may develop
for a particular end some one or the other of these
powers alone, that of the arm for working, hammering,
&c., or of the legs for running, walking, or say, turning
a lathe. Just so is it with our thoughts—there are
the general and the special education; and the special
education may be very complete for its purposes and
yet leave the thoughts without those habits of general
application which are essential to the completely
rational man.
�6
On the Hindrances to
Now that is precisely what we find (with daily
increasing exceptions, however, thank God) to be the
effect of the training or education forced upon men
by the business pursuits of the present day. The
special training for business does not extend its
influences over the general habits of thought, and
consequently men may be found most intellectually
efficient within the sphere of their active life, who
beyond it shew no more rationality than children.
The want of early training affects the whole sphere
of their thought excepting in that one direction in
which the necessities of their circumstances have
compelled them to become rational. As I have said,
there is a great increasing number of exceptions to
this statement, where men of all classes and pursuits
are exercising rational habits of thought upon all
subjects coming under their notice; but still, I have
described what up to this time has been the prevailing
fact. And the fact explains at once the slow progress
made amongst the majority of people in theology, or,
as it is generally termed, religion. They have received
their creed in the mass, there has been nothing in
their education to lead them to enquire into the truth
of either this doctrine and that, or of the system as a
whole. They listen to the teachings they receive from
Sunday to Sunday with absolute credulity, leaving all
their faculties of reasoning in abeyance; or if exer
cising them, exercising them upon the most insignifi
cant points. Or if they attempt to reason and enquire
upon the vital points, they never bring to bear upon
the subject the same acuteness of observation and
analysis, the same closeness of comparison and reason
ing, that they employ in their business concerns.
They treat religion as altogether a different kind of
thing, and indulge in all the loose habits of thought
their unsound education left untouched. And so,
when we consider all the other influences at work’
we. cannot wonder that such men remain fixed in
their , old superstitions, and become sometimes even
the bigoted, opponents of progress. Their education
has determined their destiny.
�Progress in Theology,
7
And all I have said of men applies equally to the
case of those women whose household affairs are of
sufficient magnitude to require the exercise of much
attention and judgment. Indeed, such women are
often better situated than men for acquiring general
rational habits of thought, for the objects they
have to attend to are of a more miscellaneous char
acter, and less likely, therefore, to confine the appli
cation of the rational powers to one narrow and
specific line. But then, on the other hand, there areother causes, chiefly arising out of the affections,
which counteract these more favourable circumstances,
and which nothing but an early training could in the
majority of cases correct. And thus it comes to pass
that amongst both men and women rational opinions
make but slow head-way, and only here and there are
found those, who, having risen above the education of
their youth, become rational in matters of religion.
The second cause I assign for the slow progress
of religious thought is fear—blind, unreasoning,
superstitious fear—which extends its influence over
all persons not yet redeemed from its curse. Fear
has been the prime and most effective motive power
in nearly all, if not all^the religions of the world up
to the present time. In some, of them its agency was
overwhelming. God, or the gods, were represented
in an awful aspect full of vindictiveness, revenge, and
cruelty. Men trembled at the thought of them.
Their religion became a mere effort to appease the
divine displeasure, or to purchase the divine favour.
Oriental speculations had considerably modified these
conceptions when Christianity arose and became (at
all events as presented by its founders) the gentlest
form of faith the world then had known. The
teaching of both Christ and Paul, so far as it is ascer
tainable, presented the character of God in a benign
relation to the world, and encouraged trust and love
rather than- fear. One dark and gloomy doctrine
however was still retained, which although neutralized
�8
On the Hindrances to
in the loving spirits and teaching of these noble men,
became developed into fearful forms under the influ
ence of the fiery and dark minds which succeeded
them. I refer, of course, to the doctrine of eternal
punishment. That doctrine I am compelled to own
both Paul and Christ distinctly taught. I should be
glad to think that the philanthropic apostle, and
above all that the gentle, loving Jesus had given no
countenance to the immoral doctrine. But all honest
criticism forbids me from doing so. The methods of
criticism adopted by those who hold the contrary
conclusion seem to me altogether subversive of rational
interpretation, and would leave every document at
the mercy of the interpreter.
Now, the doctrine they sanctioned, and which the
whole ®f the New Testament teaches or recognises,
has ever since been made more or less an efficient
instrument of terror. In the hands of the best men
of the church it has been used merely for the purpose
of restraining vice or stimulating faith. But the
darker spirits have used it with Satanic power to
mould men to their will. Especially has this been
the case in times of doubt, heresy, and schism. Then
with all the vehemence of eloquence, and with all the
invention of art, its awful, sulphurous terrors have
been drawn forth before the affrighted imaginations,
of men, in the expectation that the fear of the horrible
torments of an endless life might preserve them
within the orthodox fold of Christ. In the present
day such representations are much modified, and the
fear arising out of them is consequently less active.
The genteel, tolerably-educated minister of your city
churches would not venture to deal out flames and
fiery darkness as his fathers did. It is only in some
out of the way parish, situated at what seems the
worlds end, in some little conventicle where the
preacher is innocent of a day’s schooling, that you now
hear of eternal damnation in all the fulness of its
horrors. Yet the influence if it has a strong hold of
men s, and especially of women’s feelings.
�Progress in Theology.
9
Fear has always restrained enquiry.
The
anathemas of the church long held back the mind
of Europe from enquiry into the protestant dogmas.
“ What if the Church’s dogmas should prove to be
true ? The eternal perdition would be incurred by
the doubting of her creed.” The same fear virtually
operates now. “ One’s first concern is the salvation
of the soul. What if one exposed it to jeopardy by
pursuing these inquiries about the incarnation, the
atonement, the inspiration and authority of the
Bible ? Leave such questions alone, and tread not on
such dangerous ground.”
Such dangerous ground !—that is of course,
assuming, before the enquiry, that these orthodox
dogmas are true. But what if they be untrue ?
Which will be the dangerous ground then ? And
how can you tell whether they be true or untrue
until you have thoroughly investigated the matter ?
Should they prove to be untrue, and untrue I
thoroughly believe them to be, they must be working
intellectual and moral mischief in your souls. For
every lie entails intellectual and moral mischief.
But it is of no use to tell a large portion of the
orthodox this. The fear of losing the soul has so
taken possession of the feelings that it shuts out all
reason, all common sense, and leaves them the miserable
victims of their superstitious delusions. They turn
a deaf ear to all argument, evidence, and proof of
every kind, and see nothing but the hazard of eternal
woe in the questionings of reason. They have no con
fidence in the divine fatherhood that the gospel of
John tells them about ;•—no confidence that the God
of truth will guide aright the mind seeking to know
the truth, much less have they any confidence in the
rational faculties with which man is endowed, and in
the certainty that all honest enquiry must bring a
blessing of some kind with it. But that grim devil
the ignorance of barbarous times conjured into
existence, and those dreaded torments over which he
presides, frighten them out of their seven senses into
�io
On the Hindrances to
the irrational act of clinging tenaciously, as if for
their life, to the unexamined dogmas of orthodoxy.
One grieves to see the gentle nature of women so
abused, but grows indignant when men, pretending
to a higher intellect and a stronger understanding,
show the same foolish weakness.
And yet all
around us the dark superstition is keeping both men
and women, parsons and people, from all thorough
going rational enquiry. It is as powerful in this
respect amongst large masses as ever ; and no doubt
it will require another generation before the multitude
arise above it.
In the third place, I think an ignominious love of
ease, comfort, or peace of mind, keeps a large number
from enquiry. There are very few who love truth for
its own sake. It is courted rather for the fortune it
brings, the blessings of a physical and spiritual kind.
Most seek some ulterior end, and above all ease,
comfort, peace of mind and great enjoyment. Now if
you do not harass your brains by entertaining doubts
and making enquiries, orthodoxy will furnish you
with these desired blessings. On cheap terms it will
assure you of the salvation of your soul and God's
present and eternal favour, and in addition will
bring you the approbation, sympathy, and regard of
the respectable people around you. But if you once
set off upon the dangerous road of free enquiry,
instantly all these blessings disappear, and there is
no saying to where you will be led. Knowing this,
the majority of quiet well-to-do people are very care
ful to shun enquiry.
And the mischief feared lies in two directions :
first, in the dogmatical. When verities which have
been venerated for ages are once called into question
and doubt, their mind loses all its anchorage ground,
and seems to itself like a ship out at sea in the midst
of a storm. Whither it will be driven no one can
tell. And there are again two things which distress
it; the one is the uncertainty and suspension of faith
into which it is brought. Most minds rebel at this.
�Progress in Theology.
11
It requires thorough mental training and discipline
to be able to suspend one’s judgment without pain
during the examination of evidence. We become
impatient of it, and want to settle down on the one
side or the other. The mind wants rest; but as long
as enquiry lasts there can be no rest—no reposing
on assured truths—no drawing of comfort from’
sweetly consolatory doctrines ! It is all hard work,
and moving on from point to point. And so rather
than embark upon such troubled waters, shoals of men
superstitiously keep the harbour of the old faiths.
There at least, so long as they do not doubt, they
find quiet and comfort.
And then the other thing which keeps them from
enquiry is that they find many are led when once
they loosen their moorings, lengths which seem to
them perfectly horrifying. Some who once were good,
sound, orthodox believers have become what these
people call perfect infidels; and mistrust of themselves,
apparently, or mistrust of the truth, leads them to
fear such if they once set out might become their
own fate. Some could go as far as Robertson of
Brighton, but it would be dreadful to get to the
length of Martineau! Some could go as far as
Carlyle, but it would be ruin to think like Stuart
Mill 1 Some could accept of the theism of Newman,
but the positivism of Comte would be perdition ! So
each and all have their several bugbears of infidelity
which terrify them from thought. It does not seem
to occur to such people that it is just possible that
those who have gone the lengths they fear to go,
may have reached the truth. They only think of the
consequences to which they presume it will lead.
“ Oh, say they, we could find no comfort, no ease, in
such horrible doctrines, however true they might
appear. All peace would be thrust from our souls
for ever.”
Well, and suppose it were so; did you come into
this world for ease and comfort, or to find the truth
and live by it 1 Is blessedness to be had in a false
�12
On the Hindrances to
peace, or in the living facts of the universe ? Ease !
Comfort! For shame ! Go get you into a cradle and
call out some crazy beldame from the workhouse to
rock you your worthless life long. That is all such
drowsy souls are fit for. And yet although all reason
must condemn them, although they themselves must
for very shame be forced to own that in the pure and
perfect truth man’s supreme bliss can alone be found,
and that in this day of the disruption of parties and
the dissolution of churches each one must search out
that truth for himself, this bugbear of extreme
Infidelity keeps thousands, and will continue to keep
thousands, from all manly and honest enquiry. One
grieves over their weakness, but the remedy seems
far away.
The other disturbance to one’s comfort and peace
lies in the social direction. Men like to be at ease
when their professional or business engagements are
over. It is comfortable to get home, sit down by the
fireside, chat with one’s wife and children, read the
newspapers, or doze over a glass of wine. Besides,
these are acquaintances, perchance friends, amongst
whom one likes to spend a pleasant evening now and
then over a game at cards, or in conversation upon
the social and political gossip of the day. But now,
earnest religious enquiry is very apt to break in upon
all this, to make one’s home a scene of constant con
tention and tears, and to make one’s acquaintances
very shy and distant. If the wife have not the
intellect to enter into the questions with the
husband, or the husband with the wife, to what
bickerings, sometimes angry discussion and wordy
contentions, it leads. And then who can resist those
tears and those earnest appeals, “ if not for your own
sake, for the sake of the souls of our darling
children give up such wicked doubts!” And
then the good people, too, aid the home influence.
Who will associate with an infidel ? Who will have
anything to do with him who denies the verities of
the faith ? “ My dear fellow, such notions are
�Progress in Theology.
13
not respectable, and I can assure you if it became
known that you hold opinions so dangerous it will
materially affect your business. You have a young
family rising up, and cannot afford to indulge in such
speculations. Besides, I confess all your friends
concur with my own feeling in the matter, that is,
however much we respect you, we should not like it
to be known we associate with the companion of
infidels. You are all right, you know, but you will
be thrown amongst all sorts of vagabonds, and people
will suspect that you have fallen into the vices to
which Infidelity always leads. Give it up, my dear
fellow, give it up, if you do not wish every respectable
acquaintance to give you up.”
Who could withstand such arguments as that ?
So the poor fellow does give it up, dismisses his
doubts, henceforth walks demurely with his wife and
sweet babies every Sunday regularly to church, and
by and by gets held up by his minister as the very
type of “ That large and respectable class of intelli
gent men who amidst the doubts and scepticism of
a licentious age hold fast by the old faiths 1”
Another reason just alluded to operates with some.
I referred to the low character imputed to those who
depart from the old beliefs. It is the common con
clusion of weak minds that he who doubts the accepted
dogmas is a bad man. And even what the world
calls respectable men and women, great professors of
religion, think it no shame to either create or pro
pagate all sorts of lying slanders against the infidels.
Now and then this is done unconsciously of the wrong,
the ignorant people not knowing that slander is a form
of immorality and that to speak evil of one another
without sufficient evidence is a crime. But generally
the evil is known, but committed under the palliating
thought that it does God service. Now the effect of
this is twofold: 1st, Ignorant people who do not
know the wickedness of which religious people can be
guilty, believe the slanderers, and shrink very natu
rally from connecting themselves with such seemingly
�14
Hindrances to Progress in Theology.
disreputable parties. And 2dly, They are very apt to
conclude that bad men cannot have found the truth.
Of course the character of a person cannot affect the
truth or untruth, the validity or invalidity, of his
arguments and propositions. And a rational person
would judge of the doctrines by these alone. But in
matters of religion, as we have seen, the majority are
not rational. And so these slanderers succeed in
their efforts to deter the weak-minded from enquiry,
and in God’s name effectually do the devil’s work.
Other reasons might be added to these to account
for the large number shunning all enquiry upon the
questions of religion; but these must at present suffice.
And they are sufficient to encourage our faith and
hope in the gradual progress of the truth. That which
lies at the root of them all, the want of a sound judg
ment, a disciplined mind habituated to exercise its
reason upon all things, must gradually give way
before the more enlightened system of education all
classes are feeling their way towards. And in time
it will affect women as well as men. Those tender
affections which now bind them to superstition will
not always be so perverted. When woman receives
the education her nature requires, the intellect will
assert its proper supremacy. Already there are some
noble pioneers, the vanguard of the advancing race.
When the whole host has come forward, then divine,
bliss-giving, beauteous truth shall be our sovereign
mistress, and all men will dare to follow whithersoever
she may lead.
Turnbull and Spears, Printers, Edinburgh.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On the hindrances to progress in theology
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cranbrook, James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 p. ; 19 cm.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[18--]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1595
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (On the hindrances to progress in theology), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Theology
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/013df9b90309957a1160a9edeeddf80c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M5I%7Eii9157GljpvUi74EVwNPvS6fjiqxGVmoVb-wS8sqp8P7dM9x3hHpx7PxAcVv7AqxjrDodpc18hpsDh%7ExNyFuPozD0H1J4-ro8pg3aNO9hlV3DRv2A0YOy44zvCB03Tu96uDNc%7Exp0YXhfryMq8EQsv8pWC7vk8zV%7EjqEMq%7E6rssSEx7O2prDVnqEVKjQhfRU88QP2dT5ZlehodttCi9%7EI4KBv10Hh1e4MQuKoNXy6myQEuBzUeiSN7fzBdlnCJaOC54C1GQ%7Elaof%7EJlVnCiHuCHr9khHG2rJYLJid0p-%7EOJUxjI2FbCP-sfSzITpaz2xQ3fEgZN9BHlc2O40OQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
806d784e4d19c2db56207f09150f53b1
PDF Text
Text
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
Positivism, or the Religion, of Humanity, is the name
given by the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, to the
system of thought and conduct founded by him, and
signifies that it rests on a basis of demonstrable, or “posi
tive”, science. The name has been objected to in some
quarters as being ungainly, and in others as suggesting
the idea of dogmatism. To the first of these objections,
although, perhaps, superficially true, it may be replied
that every system has a fair claim to be recognized by the
appellation bestowed on it by its founder; and this ia
especially the case where a man like Comte is concerned.
The other objection, expressing the idea that Positivism
leans towards intellectual autocracy, can be maintained
only so long as ignorance of its real nature prevails. In
addition to the qualities of reality, utility, certainty, and
precision, which are connected in ordinary language with
the term positive, Comte points out that, when science was
applied to the study of social phenomena, it at once as
sumed an organic character, and that, being organic, it
necessarily became relative. It could not, however, become
relative without becoming also sympathetic, and it is this
last quality which, although usually regarded as having
no connection with science, Comte declares to be specially
typical of Positivism.
In his famous Law of Intellectual Progress, without a
reference to which even the briefest account of Positivism
would be imperfect, Comte asserts that every theoretical
conception framed by the human mind passes through
three stages ; the first being the Theological, or fictitious;
�4
WHAT POSITIVISM MEAN’S.
the second, the Metaphysical, or abstract; the third, the
Positive, or scientific. The first of these stages is always
provisional, the second simply transitional, the third alone
definitive. It is not intended to discuss here at any length
the truth of this law, which can be adequately appreciated
only after a study of Comte’s Philosophy of History ; but
it may be mentioned that it has been accepted by various
thinkers of eminence, and notably by John Stuart Mill.
Considering, however, its importance, as furnishing the
foundation from which the whole Positivist system springs,
it will, perhaps, be well to give a very brief explanation
of its meaning, which is this:—Prom the earliest epoch
at which we can conceive man to have become possessed
of even the smallest amount of speculative power, he must
spontaneously have been led to theorize, although in a
very crude way, on the origin and meaning of the multi
tudinous facts of the world around him, and must, for his
own satisfaction, have endeavoured to frame some explana
tion which might account for their existence. Of real
knowledge he could have but little, and his means of
acquiring it were very slender. He was, therefore, neces
sarily thrown back upon imagination and hypothesis; and
the simplest and readiest hypothesis which could, under
the circumstances, present itself to him was, that the endless
motion and variety he found pervading the world were the
products of intelligence of some kind, resembling that
which he himself was conscious of possessing, although,
of course, infinitely more powerful. This assumption lies
at the root of all theological philosophy, whatever the
precise shape of the doctrines which, from age to age,
have been built upon it. It is, however, a mental process
which, according to Comte, is itself also susceptible of
.analysis into three stages. In the first of these, primitive
man, knowing nothing of the distinction which, with the
progress of science, has been drawn between organic and
inorganic nature, incapable of realizing the ultimate dif
ference between life and death, supposes all matter to be
animated, and assumes that the intelligences, to which he
ascribes the changes he sees, dwell in and form part of
the objects with whose existence his senses make hirn,
acquainted. The lion roars, the fish swims, the eagle
soars, because it is alive and possessed of an intelligence
similar to his own. And so the river flows, the cloud
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
5
moves, th© lightning flashes, because, so far as he knows,
it, too, is alive, and endowed with intelligence.
This mode of explanation, which Comte denominated
Fetichism, was regarded by him as the inevitable startingpoint of man’s intellectual activity. With the increase of
. knowledge, however, and the advance of reasoning-power,
it was eventually found to be insufficient. The hypothesis
■ < of universal, all-permeating life and will was discovered
t 1 to be irreconcilable with the facts furnished by ever
widening experience, and it had accordingly to be modified.
The world was still assumed to be governed by intelli
gence, but that quality was no longer attributed to
inanimate bodies, upon which man had, by degrees, learned
to exercise, within certain limits, an unquestioned power.
It was now supposed to reside in certain supernatural
beings, having no corporeal existence, and dwelling apart
from matter, although continuing to preside over different
groups of phenomena manifested by matter—beings which
were accessible to the prayers of man, and susceptible of
being propitiated by his sacrifices. With this form of
philosophy, known as Polytheism, the reign of theology,
properly speaking, began.
But this enormous effort of abstraction once accom
plished, by which the attributes of Life and Will were
detached from the countless objects of inanimate nature,
and bestowed on a comparatively restricted number of
purely mythical gods and goddesses, it was inevitable that
this theory should have a much less stable existence than
that which preceded it. A gradual process of concentrartion in the number of deities, to which, from the outset,
the system was necessarily exposed, could eventually
have but one logical termination. This was the establish
ment of Monotheism, and the recognition of a single god
as the legitimate heir to the government of the universe.
Every Polytheistic system must, in the nature of things,
come to this in the end.
So long, however, as theological methods were pursued,
SO long, that is to say, as men persisted in inquiring into
the causes of phenomena, the answers obtained were more
and more doomed to be regarded as unsatisfactory and
delusive. Men vt*fere, however—as they still are—reluctant
to frankly abandon the search for causes; but, growing
mistrustful of purely theological solutions, the habit was/
�6
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
by degrees, formed of silently ignoring them, and seeking
the desired explanation in various abstract principles, quite
as much the creation of their own minds as theology, and
quite as unreal: of which tendency a familiar illustration
is afforded in the case of Moliere’s aspirant to medical
honours, who, amidst the applause of the Court of Ex
aminers, explains the narcotic properties of opium, not by
the soothing intervention of the god of sleep, but by the
assumption that it is possessed of a certain “ dormitive
virtue ”. This method marks what Comte calls the Meta
physical stage, and is regarded by him as a mere transition
from the Theological search into causes to the final, scien
tific, Positive stage, in which all hope of ever learning the
real nature of causes is definitively abandoned, and men
are contented to voluntarily restrict themselves to the study
of the laws of phenomena—a study which has, in fact, been
going on all the time concurrently with the other inquiry ;
has been the basis on which the whole of man’s practical
activity has rested; and the chief agent in discrediting
supernaturalism, and gradually narrowing its domain.
Supposing the Law of the Three Stages to be true, it
involves, ultimately, the universal abandonment of every
form of theological belief—that is to say, the disappear
ance of every religion resting on a supernatural foundation.
Religion, however, as suggested by its etymological deriva
tion, is the binding force of all human society, and by no
writer has this been more clearly recognized than by Comte.
It is religion which, under one form or another, holds
society together. In order, therefore, that the social fabric
may not, as a result of intellectual progress, be dissolved,
and anarchy supervene, it is necessary to discover some
substitute for theological religion. Science must become
religious. Positivism, then, professes to be such a religion.
It is ostensibly based on science, and, in Comte’s view, is—
in its general principles at least, if not in all its details—
destined ultimately to become universal.
The fundamental problem of human life, as stated by
Comte, is how to subordinate Egoism to Altruism—or, to
put it in a perhaps simpler, though certainly less compact
form, how to give continually-increasing predominance to
the higher over the lower side of man’s nature, so that his
activity, which originally was inspired by necessarily in
dividualist motives, may become ever more and more social
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
7
in its character. This is a problem which, it is almost
needless to say, has been empirically dealt with, although
not explicitly recognized, by every religion in its turn, and,
in some cases, with remarkable success; but, owing to
what Positivism regards as the fatal want of reality in the
doctrines of all previously-existing religions, it was impos
sible that the success could be other than temporary. Those
creeds, whatever their differences in dogmatic details, all
inculcated in man’s mind a spirit of reverence and sub
mission to some supernatural power or powers, which he
supposed to exercise absolute dominion over his destiny,
and from which he derived all that he possessed. As a
collateral and subordinate result they also, through the
wisdom of their teachers, the spiritual leaders of the race,
fostered the sense of duty and desire for union among
those whose lives were subject to the same conditions, and
who acknowledged allegiance to the same Divine Power.
At first, no doubt, this was done in a very rudimentary
and imperfect way; but every fresh religious develop
ment, while becoming simpler in its supernatural aspect,
strengthened the social ties, until Christianity, by its
doctrine that all men were children of one Father, and
consequently brethren, carried the conviction of the unity
of the race to a point which had never before been reached,
thereby approximating more closely than any previous
creed to a solution of the problem.
Assuming, however, the truth of the Positivist hypothesis
as to the disappearance of theological belief, a substitute
will eventually be required for the supernatural Power
which has so long served, not merely as the rallying-point
of man’s intellectual conceptions, but as the source of
inspiration of his social sympathies. This substitute
Positivism finds in Humanity, which, following out a
suggestion of Pascal, it personifies as an immense and
eternal Being, to whose immeasurable services we are
indebted for all the blessings we enjoy, and whose
existence, apart altogether from disputed theological
legends of origin, is, at all events, an indisputable fact.
It is not unusual to speak of Positivism as if it were a mere
a priori emanation from Comte’s brain; as if he had under
taken the task of reconstructing society in such a fashion
as merely to give it a shape which should correspond with
his own prejudices and conceptions; and he has accord
�8
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
ingly been, taxed with arrogance and presumption. But
to regard Positivism in this fight is to mistake its character
and its aims. It is, in theory, a scientific construction,
framed in accordance with what Comte regarded as per
manent and incontrovertible laws governing the world and
man, and cannot, therefore, justly be condemned as a mere
arbitrary scheme for which Comte alone is responsible.
How far its claim in this respect is well-founded is, of
course, open to question, and no one was more sensible
than Comte of the difficulties which lay in the way of its
general acceptance. He was fully aware of the tentative
nature of his task, but, while acknowledging the possi
bility that shortcomings might ultimately be detected in
his doctrines, he insisted strenuously on the virtue of his
method. “ In all inquiries,” he said, “but especially in
the study of social questions, the method is more important
than the doctrine ” ; and in more than one passage of his
fundamental work, the Philosophic Positive, he admitted, in
a spirit of modesty widely separated from the arrogance
laid to his charge, that different conclusions from his own
might be arrived at by “more fortunate successors”,
employing his method, but possessed of later, and there
fore more accurate, information. The tendency to agree
with him that social, like all other, phenomena, are subject
to the action of natural law, is certainly increasing.
Whether the system he built up on this assumption will
ultimately secure the adhesion of mankind, is a question
which only the future can decide.
Although, however, Positivism puts forward these scien
tific pretensions, it has by no means the dry, cold character
with which it is sometimes reproached, and which is popu
larly attributed to all science. Its cardinal principle is
the supremacy of feeling over intellect, and this principle
is fostered in every way by the conception of Humanity, by
the cultivation of a sense of gratitude to the past, by a
touching attitude of reverence towards the dead, by insist
ing on the sacredness of family ties, by exalting the func
tions of woman as a wife and a mother, and by the most
elaborate provisions for what Comte called Cuite — a
French word which has, perhaps, no adequate equivalent
in English, but is more or less imperfectly rendered by the
word “worship ”, and which, as employed by Comte, has
for its object to enforce the idea, not merely of the solidarity,
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
>
9
but—what is far more important—the conimu/ty of the
human race: an idea which lay at the root of Carlyle’s
Hero Worship. “The History of the World”, said Car
lyle, “is the Biography of Great Men”, and he declared
that he knew of “no nobler feeling ” than “the transcen
dent admiration of a Great Man”, to which he gave the
name of worship. Comte—with whom, not merely on this
but on some other points, Carlyle had much in common—
gave a more universal and systematic form to this con
ception by his remarkable compilation of the “Positivist
Calendar ”, which, with the double view of cultivating
a knowledge of the history of the past, and stimulating
our gratitude for the legacy it has bequeathed to us,
devotes each day in the year to the memory of some bene
factor of the race: some great man who, whether as priest
or warrior, poet or statesman, thinker or worker, aided, by
his efforts, the great cause of human progress. Carlyle
justifies hero-worship by asking whether every “true
man” does not feel “that he is, himself made higher by
doing reverence to what is really above him ” ; and this
question is some index to the spirit which animates Posi
tivism. It urges its adherents to endeavour to understand
the past, as a means of raising their own characters. It
seeks to repress the tendency, so widely manifest in the
present generation, to glorify itself at the expense of its
ancestors, and to substitute for it a spirit of humility,
springing from a more thorough knowledge of the extent
of our obligations; in reference to which, indeed, it affirms,
in one of its most characteristic axioms, that, with the
lapse of time, the living become ever more and more subject to
the dominion of the dead, and that, therefore, in adopting
an attitude of irreverence towards the past, we are vainly
striving to escape from an inevitable destiny.
As a further means of subordinating the individual to
the community, and therefore to Humanity, Positivism
seeks to break down the barrier which now exists between
private and public life, by means of a series of social cere
monies, to which Comte gave the name of Sacraments,
and which are intended to remind each member of a community that, in all the important epochs of his career—
e.g., birth, marriage, death—his interests are not exclusive,
but that he forms part of a greater whole which is also
concerned. This view of life, although expressed under
�10
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
theological forms, has been, sanctioned by all previous
creeds, and Positivism merely continues the tradition.
By these and similar means it endeavours to assert the
supremacy of feeling over intellect, and to stimulate the
sentiment of social duty—duty to Humanity. But according
to the wise phrase of Tacitus, which has been so often
repeated, the difficulty is not merely to do our duty, but
to know what is our duty ; and here the assistance of the
intellect is necessary. Such knowledge is to be obtained
only by education directed to social ends ; and perhaps the
most important part of Comte’s work is his comprehensive
scheme for the reform of education, which, if carried out,
would mean a veritable revolution, not merely in the
methods of teaching, but in social habits and modes of
life. It would be superfluous at the present moment to
enter into the details of this scheme, but the magnitude of
the changes it contemplates is faintly indicated by the pro
vision that schools, as now understood, would be abolished,
all children being left in their mother’s care till the age of
fourteen, and receiving from her the rudiments of educa
tion which they are now taught at school. This, however,
is merely a preliminary process, it being proposed that, at
the age of fourteen, the children of all classes, and both
sexes, shall commence an encyclopaedic training (occupying
seven years, and founded on Comte’s Classification of the
Sciences), which is intended to give them a general
acquaintance with the whole field of human knowledge,
beginning with mathematics, passing afterwards in suc
cession through astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and
sociology, and terminating with morals. This education is to
be imparted by an organized body of teachers, whom Comte
designates by the name of a priesthood—a term which,
especially in Protestant countries, is invested with certain
sinister associations, and the employment of which accounts,
no doubt, for the suspicion with which many people view
Positivism, under the impression that, if once established,
it would be dangerous to liberty. Of the existence of this
feeling Comte was quite aware, but his survey of history
led him to the conclusion, which, ignoring current preju
dices, he formulates as a definite sociological theory—that
no society can exist, and be developed, without a priesthood in
some form or other. “All men”, he said, “stand in need
of education and counsel ”, and wherever any institution
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
11
is found to exercise these functions, there, under whatever
name it is known, exists what is in essence a priesthood. In
this sense the germ of a Positivist priesthood has already
made its appearance, although in a very imperfect form.
The science teacher, the physician, the journalist, each in
his own way, performs these functions, and may conse
quently, within his own limits, be regarded as a priest.
Comte, however, desired that what is now done in a
spontaneous, informal way, with too often no guarantee of
either capacity or integrity, should be done by a carefully
selected body of men, trained for the purpose, devoting
their whole lives to the work, and voluntarily abandoning
all competition for wealth or exalted position.
But education, in the Positivist sense, must not be re
garded as limited to mere book-learning. Its object, as
already stated, is to inculcate principles of civic duty—to
make men not merely scholars, but citizens; the education
which allows any member of the community to stand aloof
from the political and social movements of his time, how
ever elaborate it may be from the intellectual stand-point,
being, in Comte’s view, utterly unworthy of the name.
Obviously, however, the character of civic duty is governed
by the conception which exists as to the nature and func
tions of the State; and here, again, Positivism sets forth an
ideal which, if established, would effect a revolution. With
the decay of theology, it regards as inevitable the decline
of the hereditary principle in government, the institution
of birth being directly dependent on theology. On this
hypothesis, the ultimate form of government will be
republican. War also, being regarded as another ally of
theology, it is assumed will disappear. If, in fact, the
Positivist estimate be correct, there are spontaneous ten
dencies now at work, by which society will ultimately be
transformed—which will, by degrees, abolish the theolo
gical, monarchical, and military character it still possesses,
and render it instead scientific, republican, and pacific
industrial. Abandoning, as Positivism does, all idea of a
future life, and of consolation in another world for the
misfortunes of this, it considers the highest duty of the
human race to be that of developing, by collective efforts,
the resources of the earth, its only dwelling-place, so that,
by the labours of each succeeding generation, the happiness
of its inhabitants may be increased. With the acceptance
�12
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
of this view, many of the special classes identified with, and
supported by, existing institutions will gradually become
extinct, and society, in the main, will assume a purely
industrial aspect, the bulk of it consisting of workmen,
labouring as now, only under vastly improved conditions,
and with more avowedly social aims, in association with,
a comparatively small body of capitalists, regarded as
trustees of the wealth of the community, under the intel
lectual and moral' guidance of the priesthood, and in
spired and consoled by the companionship and sympathy
of women.
Industry, however, being the basis of the society to
which Positivism looks forward, and peace being ever
more and more firmly established, Comte predicts that the. communities into which mankind is now distributed will,
by degrees, undergo a process of re-arrangement. Thereare, in his view, three normal forms of human association
—three social aggregates which call out man’s affection,
and inspire him with a sense of duty—the Family, the
State, and Humanity. Of these, the spirit of union is most
intense in the case of the first, and most general in thecase of the last; the State serving as a connecting link
between the two—appealing to man’s sympathy and ener
gies on behalf of something nobler than the interests of
. the narrow family group, and so helping to raise him to
a consciousnesss of his duty to Humanity. In order, how
ever, that this process should be effective, the idea of
Country should be real and tangible. Patriotism, in the
proper sense of the term, Comte holds to be impossible in
the case of such enormous societies as those now con
stituting the principal states of the world. They are toolarge to inspire a genuine sentiment of affection and de
votion, and he regards it, therefore, as certain, that, sooneror later, a movement of decomposition will set in, which
will reduce them within narrower limits. The ideal Posi
tivist State, the State destined to become universal, is
represented by a city with its surrounding territory; and
Comte anticipates that, under the influence of this view,.
Europe will in time break up into a number of small
republics of the size of Belgium or Tuscany, in which,
as a result of the restraining discipline of the new universal
spiritual power which Positivism will establish, civic
duty, now too often a synonym for mere vulgar Chauvin
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
13
ism, will become a reality, modified, restricted, and en
nobled by subordination to the still loftier sentiment of
■duty to Humanity.
It will be seen that the aims of Positivism are large,
and it is consequently regarded with hostility by many
who are ignorant of its teaching, or who shrink from its
conclusions. It is sometimes classed indiscriminately with
Atheism, Communism, and other theories of a purely
revolutionary character ; and if attention be directed only
to the results which it proclaims as inevitable, and for
which it seeks to prepare the way, this comparison is,
perhaps, not unnatural. Between Positivism, however,
and other so-called “progressive” schools, there is a pro
found difference in method, which is too often overlooked.
While they mostly look to political changes, either peace
ful. or violent, as a means of achieving their ends, Positivism
relies solely on moral means. It insists that a reformation
in ideas must precede any alteration in institutions. One
of the most pregnant and luminous political maxims with
which Comte has enriched the world consists in this—that
progress is but the development of order ; from which maxim
the conclusion is inevitable that, unless based upon order,
progress of any permanent character is impossible. Al
though, therefore, the intellectual, moral, and political
aspects of society will, in the course of time, if the Posi
tivist ideal be reached, undergo modifications of which
the most advanced reformers now scarcely dream, yet it
is assumed that they will be effected gradually and spon
taneously, as the result of previous convictions arrived at
by means of Positivist education. Briefly, the method of
Positivism may be described as that of evolution as opposed
to revolution.
. Whether the Eeligion of Humanity be destined to justify
its title, time alone can show. Its success, or its failure
can matter nothing to its founder. The philosopher to
whose genius it is due, who passed his life in poverty and
obscurity, , gaining a precarious subsistence as a teacher of '
mathematics, now sleeps peacefully, indifferent alike to
praise or blame, in a quiet hollow of Père-Lachaise. It is
however, a significant testimony to the force of his doc
trines, that, in various parts of the world, they have
succeeded in. attracting groups of devoted adherents, of
different nationalities, who carry on a systematic propa
�14
WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
ganda. The influence of his teaching, moreover, cannot
De measured by the number of those who call themselves
Positivists. In Comte’s phrase, Positivism is “systema
tized common sense”, and, as such, it acts, naturally
enough, in different ways on different minds, influencing
them to an extent which it is quite impossible to gauge.
Persons of the most widely varying pursuits, although
unable to accept it as a whole, and even rejecting its
leading principles, have acknowledged their obligations
to it on points connected with their own special ex
perience.
The centre of the Positivist movement is at No. 10, Rue
Monsieur-le-Prince, Paris, where M. Pierre Laffitte, the
friend and disciple of Auguste Comte, assisted by a body
of younger co-religionists, carries on the work of scientific
and historical teaching essential to the progress of the
cause, and where also a Positivist magazine, La Revue
Occidentale, is published every two months. There are also
groups in Havre, Rouen, and other French cities. Positi
vism was introduced into England by Dr. Richard Con
greve, another disciple of Comte, and there are now three
organized bodies in London, the best known, perhaps, of
which has its head-quarters at Newton Hall, Fleur-de-lis
Court, Fetter Lane. The movement has of late years
spread to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other
British cities. It has branches also in Sweden, the United
States, Chili, Brazil, India, etc. The organization is not
very strict, and there are differences of opinion as to the
opportuneness of giving prominence to certain aspects of
the system; but, by common consent, an agreement exists
on fundamental points of doctrine. All the groups cherish
the same ideal, although some of them differ as to the
means of arriving at it.
Comte’s principal work, La Politique Positive, instituting
the Religion of Humanity, has been translated into
English, and published in four volumes by Longmans,
but is now out of print. Comparatively few people, how
ever, have sufficient time, and perhaps still fewer the
inchnation, to study, as it requires and deserves, so large
and important a philosophical work. Those who wish to
make acquaintance with the system, without so serious an
expenditure of energy, will do well to read Comte’s smaller
works, two of which, the General View of Positivism, and
�WHAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
15
the Catechism of Positive Religion, are published in English
in a convenient form, price half-a-crown each. The former,
translated by Dr. Bridges, and published by Messrs.
Beeves and Turner, 196, Strand, is an admirable exposition
of general principles, and, as such, is perhaps the more
suitable for a person approaching the subject for the first
time. It begins with a most remarkable chapter on the
intellectual character of Positivism, the first reading of
which, to any one not previously familiar with philosophical
problems, is in itself a veritable education. In the suc
ceeding chapters, it deals with such subjects as the nature
and uses of wealth (in connexion with which it includes a
profound criticism of the ordinary Economic and Socialist
theories), the position and duties of the workman in a
properly-organized society, the social functions of woman,
the human theory of marriage, the relation of Positivism
to Art, the meaning of the conception of “ Humanity ” as
a central object of religion, etc., etc. But, for the purpose
of learning the nature of the institutions by which it is
proposed to give effect to these principles, and to form
an idea of what society, organized in accordance with
them, would belike, the reading of the General View should
be supplemented by that of the Catechism, a translation of
which, by Dr. Congreve, is published by Messrs. Triibner
and Co., Ludgate Hill. The original appeared in 1852,
four years later than the General View, and as a conse
quence, Comte’s views having become more matured, the
religious conception of Positivism is brought forward more
distinctly. In it are found the list of books, known as the
Positivist Library, which Comte recommended for habitual
reading by those whose leisure is limited, and who are,
therefore, under the necessity of making a selection from
the enormous mass of literature by which they are sur
rounded ; a copy of the Positivist Calendar; and sundry
other tables, the knowledge of which is essential in order
to thoroughly realize the nature of Positivism, not merely
as a philosophical creed conducing to sound and tranquil
lizing convictions, but as a large-hearted effort to reor
ganize society, to stimulate material and moral progress,
and to increase the sum of human happiness. An English
abridgment, by Miss Martineau, of the Philosophic Positive
is published by Triibner in two volumes. An appreciative
memoir of Comte, with some account of the system, will
�16
WIIAT POSITIVISM MEANS.
be found ill the second volume of Lewes’s History of Philo
sophy. * A fuller and more synthetic view, however, is
given in the Notice sur V Œuvre et sur la Vie P Auguste Comte,
by Dr. Bobinet, his friend and physician.
Any one wishing for further information as to the organiza
tion in England, or the methods of propaganda, is requested
to apply to the Secretary of the English Positivist Com
mittee, Newton Hall, Fleur-de-lis Court, Fetter Lane,
London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What positivism means
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ellis, Henry
English Positivist Committee
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publication details from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[18--]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G2815
Subject
The topic of the resource
Positivism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (What positivism means), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Positivism
-
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