1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2ccd3f3cad0920cd58a4f824ab947f3d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PaKCXLqtPuFM4rkvJULavh4vfGAOfjgz2JgeIBZZOQHH2M6Vh-StI4z9EKq3b-%7ESf6rrxjWD-gLjnUgNme1nXzzA%7EW-lDuVXt0GpefCl9Q9nEB%7EnvwL%7EN1irGzZseFyM50pLKlhAaEcPF%7EjHG2SEqyC9Gv3gGHo4H82iolSIIx5wjKJRq56pp-zurXx4HZ7uk0GTzBXEw47GHi8TE4pqqrnRiBUhzORqNperTvhhR4qkBu4cJRo5vaS5ZFxRs9H9i2nnS00EAaV-NIo0lpcB9E2nw3Al9DEmfSfD8U3Vj8RqVbfCtieu7ZQe%7Eo4KMjuL6UAOH0fx2NuzwxU9p5S6yw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
431c5d4cec527af41bd3f128122de76d
PDF Text
Text
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.
SECULARISM:
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity, ”"
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature amd
Influence” “Agnosticism and Christian Theism:
Which is the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to
Father Lambert,” Etc., Etc.
CONTENTS:
What is Secularism? Biblical Idolatry—The Secularist’s Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man
and his supposed Redemption through Christ. Reason and experience
the true guide in human actions. Why supreme attention should be
given to the duties of this life. Science more trustworthy than reliance
upon any supposed Supernatural power. Morality is of natural growth,
having no necessary connection with Theology. The consistent carry
ing out of Secular teaching in every-day life the best preparation for
any future existence.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
TEN CENTS.
��SECULARISM :
DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
It is an unfortunate fact in connection with the development of
human thought that new truths are frequently shunned, and theo
logical opinions are, as a rule, estimated more by their popularity
than by their intrinsic value. This probably may be explained to
some extent by the lamentable circumstance that for centuries
there has been too much mental indolence existing among the
masses, who, in too many instances, have put their thinking out
to be done for them, instead of exercising their own intellectual
faculties. The result has been the perpetuation of old ideas,
creeds, and dogmas, rather than the perception and fostering of the
discoveries of modern thought.
From time immemorial evils, errors, and immorality have
impeded ethical culture and marred the progress of the human
race. And it is urged that about two thousand years ago the
Religion of the Cross was introduced into the world for the express
purpose of correcting these wrongs and establishing purity, love,
and peace among mankind. That this desirable object has not
been achieved must be patent to the most superficial observer.
It has been very truly said that “ two thousand years have passed,
during which entire nations have knelt before a gibbet, adoring in
the sufferer who gave himself up to death—the Saviour of man
kind. And yet what slavery still! What lepers in our moral
world I What unfortunate beings in the visible and feeling
world ! What triumphant iniquity, what tyranny enjoying at its
ease the scandal of its own impunity ! The Saviour has come—
whence comes salvation ? ” The Bible has been read, sermons
have been preached, and prayers have been freely indulged in, but
still moral disease, crime, injustice, wrongs and bitterness of feel
ing abound on every side.. Bigotry still poisons the social life,
�4
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
4
fanaticism fans the fire of persecution, and theological exclusive
ness mars the brotherhood of man.
Recognizing this impotency of the Cross as a factor in promo
ting the Secular welare of society, a new gospel, termed Secular
ism, has been proclaimed, which we believe to be more in harmony
with the requirements and genius of modern life. This gospel is a
philosophy of existence and a science of life, apart from all neces
saryassociations with theology and separate from all forms of ecclesiasticism. According to its teachings nothing should be accepted
as truth merely upon external authority, but all questions should
be submitted to the test of reason aided by experience. A Secu
larist is one who prefers a knowledge of the natural to a forced
faith in the alleged supernatural—who relies upon “ those princi
pleshaving reference to finite determined time, as opposed to the un
determined infinite” believed by Christians. Secularism, in its ety
mological sense, means the age, limited, finite, belonging to the
world. To give it a more amplified definition, Secularism may be
considered as the application of the sciences to life, as in a smaller
degree astronomy is the application of science to the planetary
bodies, and botany the application of science to plants. Secular
ism, according to its founder, is distinguished from Atheism by its
independent course of action in reference to the question of the
existence of a Gode An Atheist, believing that the evils of
theology are to be traced to the assumptions of Theism, boldly
goes to what he considers the “ root of the evil,” and examines
the reasons for such assumptions. Secularism does not profess to
grapple with this alleged fundamental error of the religions of the
world, but contents itself with a more matter-of-fact field of action.
The question of the existence of a God being one of conjecture,
Secularism leaves it for persons to decide, if possible, for them
selves. Being unable to inform, it refuses to dogmatise upon a
subject of which it can impart no information. The Secular plat
form is sufficiently broad to admit the fellowship of Atheists,Theists,
Deists, or Pantheists. Secularism fetters man with no creeds, it
only requires moral conduct, allied with the desire to pursue a
progressive career independent of all speculative theology. Man’s
duty from a Secular standpoint is to learn the facts of existence ;
to acquire the power of doing right; to progress in virtue and intelli
gence ; to seek to promote the happiness of others ; in a word to
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
5
endeavour to remove from society the present inequalities, and to
secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The phil
osophy of Secularism exhibits the science of life and indicates the
path of duty, and how we are to pursue it. It adopts the eclectic
method of selecting from systems, both past and present, whatever
is good and true, and amalgamating such selections with the dis
coveries of more recent thought, and the advantages revealed
through scientific and philosophic researches.
Secularism is two-fold in its nature, constructive and destruc
tive. As a constructive system, it prescribes definite rules to regu
late human conduct, and supplies the means to sufficiently satisfy all
the real needs of humanity. For this purpose it proclaims the
necessity of truth, temperance, industry, justice, fortitude, magnanimicy, benevolence, honour, wisdom, and love. Furthermore,
to meet the requirements of our nature, Secularism teaches that it
is imperative to possess a knowledge of the laws upon which
health depends, and to apply that knowledge in order that we
may have sound bodies, upon which a healthy mind so largely
depends; that the intellectual faculties should be properly devel
oped, as mental training induces lofty and ennobling conceptions
of the duties of existence ; that, as differences of opinion are sure
to obtain, and more particularly upon speculative questions, there
fore social harmony and friendship should never be disturbed and
severed in consequence of such non-agreement; that our emotions
and passions should be controlled by reason and regulated by
judgment ■, and, finally, that as morality is a more important factor
in life’s concerns than theology, it should be studied and accepted
unfettered with the figments of the various churches. This is the
constructive aspect of our philosophy.
In its destructive character Secularism seeks to remove as far as
possible from our midst all fancies, creeds, and dogmas that obstruct
thecarrying out of our constructivework. While shams are regarded
as realities, and falsehood worshipped as truth, this phase of our
advocacy will be necessary. Old systems that have lost all vitality,
except for evil, need to be broken up; and theologies, which have
hitherto usurped judgment and reason, require to be refuted. The
theologians claim to have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth,” and unless we walk in their paths, unless we accept
their authority, unless we believe implicitly in all their teachings,
�6
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
we are at once condemned as rebels against their God, as outcasts
from society, and as enemies of our fellow-men. While this cruel
injustice exists, destructive work will be necessary. So long as a
mind-degrading theology seeks to rob man of his freedom of thought
and individuality of mind, so long as it threatens him with the
curse of God for striving to realize the nobility of man, so long will
at be our duty to labour earnestly to remove those obstacles which
for ages have stifled human thought, stultified the intellect of man,
and impeded the progress of the world. Thus it will be seen that,
while Secularism enunciates positive principles and duties, it is
compelled, at times, through a domineering theology, to engage
an a determined warfare; not indeed in one of steel and lead, and
fire and blood, but demanding from its soldiers the moral courage
and endurance which are so much nobler and rarer than the mere
physical; demanding the zealous loyalty to an Idea, which is so
much more easy to render to a Man; demanding a constant de
votion to Justice, while it is so much more natural to yield to selfish
Injustice; demanding the sacred fire of Love, which it is so much
harder to kindle, so much easier to quench, than the unholy fire of
Hate.
In our destructive work we make no attack upon the truth either
an Christianity or the Bible, neither do we condemn the useful in
religion. We seek only to destroy the errors, and impediments, and
<he false conceptions which have become associated with Christian
theology. For instance, we object to:—
Biblical Idolatry.—All books, to be really valuable, should be
regarded as our servants, and not as our masters. To prostrate
human reason at the shrine of alleged Biblical infallibility is to
sacrifice modern truth to ancient error, and to yield the discrimin■.atmg power of man’s intellect to the arbitrary decrees of ecclesivastical .counsels. We should use the Bible as we do any other
’book, estimating its worth by its merits, and not by its supposed
““inspired” authority. Surely it will not be contended that the
whole of the Bible can be reasonably endorsed as a record of facts.
Taken after the old orthodox fashion—namely, that all its state
ments are to be accepted as literally correct—the Bible contains
the greatest of conceivable absurdities. What could be more
absurd than the idea that Cain went into a country that did not
exist, and selected a wife who was not then born (Gen. 4: 16, 17);
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
7
that beasts were killed three times, and yet remained as
lively as ever (Ex. 9 : 6-25 ; 12 : 29 ; 13 : 15); that a talking ass
saw an angel (Num. 22 : 23-28) ; that a thousand men were slain
by one individual with a jaw-bone of an ass (Judges 15 : 15, 16);
that certain persons arose one morning and .found themselves all
dead (2 Kings 19 : 35); that the sun and moon stood still at a
special command (Joshua 10: 12-14); that the sun moved back ten
degrees, as a sign to a sick king (Isaiah 38 : 8); that a child can
be two years older than his father (2 Chron. 21 : 5*20 1 22 • L 2) j
that an iron axe could float on the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) ;
that a whale could swallow Jonah and retain him, on praying ground,
for three days, and then send him by express to dry land
again; that a child could be born without a human father;
that a man could be alone' while his friends were with him
(Luke 9: 18) ? Of course, these errors and follies are too palpable
to be believed as verities ; but, in sober truth, they are not more
ridiculous than many of the Bible allegations in the domain of
science, history, philosophy, and morality. What could be more
foolish and fallacious than the stories of the Creation, the Flood,
the Egyptian plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, the exploits of
Sampson, the asceticisms of Christ, the adventures of St. Paul,
and, finally, the night mare of St. John the Divine ? Secularism
does not deny that the Bible contains some true and valuable
teachings; but the fact cannot be ignored that in its pages there is
also very much that is false, useless, and injurious; and in order
that its better parts shall not be marred by inferior portions, we
think it is necessary that the entire book should be subjected to
the eclectic process, which is the separation of the good from the
bad, the wisdom from the folly, the chaste from the obscene, and
that that only should be retained which harmonizes with truth,
decency, and the requirements of mankind. The Bible that should
have the highest claim on our allegiance to-day should be composed
of the truest philosophy, the noblest thoughts, and the grandest
ethics that can be selected from the works of the greatest men and
women in all ages and in all countries. Is it asked, where is the
Secularist’s Bible ? We answer, that portions of it are to be
found in every book and in all nations where a useful lesson is
enjoined and a noble truth inculcated. Chapters of our Bible
should be composed of records of the ethical glory of Greece and
�8
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the heroism and sense of duty which adorned the character of
ancient Rome in her palmy days. From the study of the vast
universe we would learn a lesson of humility, and with the aid of
geology we would master truths written on nature’s stony pages.
These lessons and truths should be illuminated by modern thought,
enriched by the accumulated wisdom of all ages, and augmented by
experience gathered as time rolls on. Thus we would have a Bible
fettered by no traditions, limited by no counsel, marred by no
theology, and cramped by thetauthority of no church. It should be
as free as mental growth, as wide as human intelligence, and as
pure and lofty as cultivated thought.
(2) Natural Depravity.—This priestly-begotten dogma we regard:
to be as false as it is degrading; it is a libel on human nature,
robbing it of its noblest qualities and its loftiest achievements.
That depravity exists is, alas ! too true, and so long as priestcraft
and kingcraft hold their sway it is to be feared that depravity moreor less will remain in our midst, depriving man of much of that
grandeur and nobility which in all probability would otherwise
adorn his character and ennoble his conduct. Secularism, how
ever, denies that the human-kind are by nature necessarily
depraved; their history, with its records of self-sacrifice, its
benevolence, its disinterested virtue and its sublime purity, denies
the degrading assumption. When we contemplate the fidelity of
the husband, the devotion of the wife, the affection of the mother,
and the love of the child, we cannot think that the fountain from
which these natural virtues flow is corrupt. As we look upon the'
babe in the cradle who could believe that that emblem of innocence
is a new husk of depravity ? Is it not more dignified and true to
regard it as a fresh stock of human goodness, capable of being
developed into a grand flower of truth, which in after years shall
bud forth into blossoms of usefulness and beauty, whose foliage of
noble deeds shall charm, and whose fragrance of purity of thought
shall regale, those by whom it is surrounded? Parents and guar
dians cannot be too particular in protecting the infant mind from
the machinations of theology at the very time when it is too young
to protect itself. For it is in the sunny days of childhood when
the heart knows no care, when sweet innocence beams upon the
cheek and hope sparkles in the eye, when the mind in its purest
, simplicity is unable to detect the snare ; it is then the seeds are
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
9
sown which in after years bear such disastrous fruit. The Church
knows this, hence its solicitude to secure the control of the rising
generation in the very morning of life. The birthplace of the
notion of “inherent depravity” is the Church; its parents are
ignorance and credulity, and its nurses are the priests. Let a
child be born in the domain of Secular freedom ; let it be properly
trained from infancy, receiving lessons of truth, duty, and selfrespect ; let it have an.example placed before it worthy of emu
lation, and then there is but little doubt that a character will be
formed contradicting the false assumptions of the Church that
mankind are naturally depraved. Rather than endorse the mel
ancholy opinion of Jeremiah, that the heart of man is deceitful and
above all things desperately wicked, we would echo the philosophy,
if not the words, of Shakespeare, when he makes the Prince of
Denmark exclaim : “ What a piece of work is man ! how noble in
reason, how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how express
and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how
like a god—the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.”
This represents the Secular idea of man’s capability, and in our
opinion is more true to nature than all the grovelling teachings of
theology as to the alleged inherent depravity of the human race.
(3) Theological Supremacy.—It is the duty of every .Secularist to
endeavour to destroy the evil influence of theology, inasmuch as it
retards intellectual development and national progress. It is the
nightmare of the human mind, conjuring up phantoms which de
stroy the healthy vision of man’s mentality. Theology was dom
inant and despotic in the Middle Ages, which are selected out of
all bad times to be branded as most emphatically the Dark Ages
—ages of ignorance, fetishism, oppression, and slavery ; ages
gloomy, brutal, and horrible. In their universal darkness theology
was enthroned supreme and triumphant; every ray of light which
•came to pierce it pierced the heart of the Church like an arrow,
and rent some of her kingdom from her ; and, if we are now in
twilight instead of black darkness, it is because the dawn of Secu
larism is kindling more and more, and the night of theology more
and more receding and vanishing away.
(4) The notion that man is a fallen being, and that he can only be
.redeemed through the merits of Christ.—To believe this teaching to
•be true is to subvert the lesson of all history, and to lack faith ^n
�10
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the power of man’s self-reliance, which is one of the most useful
and ennobling characteristics of his nature. The career of the
human race has been one of progression, not of retrogression, and
so far as man has been redeemed from the errors and imperfections
of the past that redemption has been the result of personal and
societarian effort, and not in consequence of the life and death of
any one man, or of the origination of any supposed and super
natural religion. The popular orthodox theory teaches that nearly
six thousand years ago an all-wise and all-powerful God created
the world, and then set man in the midst of a scene, surrounded
by temptations it was impossible for him to withstand ; God im
planted in man’s breast certain desires which, as God, he must
have known would produce man’s ruin. A tree is then placed by
God near Adam, bearing the very fruit which God must have
been aware would meet those desires which he had just planted
in the minds of his children. God, all good, then makes a serpent
of the worst kind, in order that it might be successful in tempting
Eve to eat. After this, God commands Adam not to eat of the
fruit under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time that
Adam would eat of it and not die. God allows the serpent to suc
ceed in his plan, and then curses the very ground for yielding the
tree which he (God) had caused to grow. Not content with this,
the Almighty dooms both man and woman to a life of pain and
sorrow ; further, he assures them that their posterity shall feel the
terrible effects of their doing what it was impossible for them to
avoid. At length the unchangeable God changes his mind ; he
will no longer commit wholesale injustice. He determines to send
his son, who is as old as himself, and therefore not his son, to die,
but who is invested with immortality, and therefore cannot die, to
atone for wrongs which had never been committed, by people who
had never been born, and who consequently could not very con
veniently have committed any error. As a conclusion to the
whole, this all-merciful Being has prepared a material fire of brim
stone, to burn the immaterial souls of those who fail to see the
necessity and justice of this jumble of cruelty and absurdity.
The folly and cruelty of this scheme are still more apparent
upon closer investigation. Here we have a Being of unlimited
knowledge, of unlimited power, resolving to make man out of a
material of his own selecting ; it is only reasonable, therefore, to-
�secularism: destructive and constructive.
II
suppose that he secured the very best material which could be
had. Having made man, he at once pronounced the work to be
good. A short time after, however, a mistake was discovered, the
work turned out to be very bad, and God was grieved at his heart
that he had made man at all. Most mechanics can improve upon
their work when they discover it to be faulty; but not so with the
Bible God : bis only resource apparently was to introduce the
cold-water cure and wash the human race, one family excepted
from the face of the earth. This was an absurdity with a ven
geance ; but it was also cruel and unjust in the extreme. Does
the Christian ever ask himself the question, What object could
Deity have had in creating men, if he knew that the thoughts
of their hearts would be evil continually, and that he would have
so soon to destroy them ? As God, he knew what would happen,
what must happen. He knew that the serpent would tempt, and
that Adam and Eve would become victims to the temptation, and
that an awful catastrophe must ensue. Can we reconcile it with
our reason and our idea of justice, that a Being of perfect holinessand goodness, with unlimited power, a Being, spoken of as “ our
heavenly Father,” would have created man at all under such cir
cumstances ? Realize, if you can, for one moment, the awful
spectacle the Flood must have presented. Families banded to
gether, witnessing the gradual rising of the waters ; husband and
wife, brother and sister, friends and lovers,-clinging to each other
as the tide of destruction approached. In a short time the husband
is separated from the wife, the child from the mother, and sister
and brother, and friend and lover, and husband and wife—all, allr
are floating to destruction. One by one disappears from the sight
of those who remain, until at last the agony of all is over, the
shrieks of all are hushed, and the only visible remains of creation
are an ark floating towards Mount Ararat. Presently it finds its
resting-place, the waters gradually subside, and when the land
again is seen what a sight to behold ! The earth, before so beauti
ful and lovely, with children playing in their innocence on the
greensward, and flowers blooming with their fragrance, now pre
sents the aspect of one huge slaughter-house; and “our Father
who art in heaven ” is said to have caused and witnessed a scene
that no human being can think of without horror, nor contemplate
without dismay. A Being that would pre-determine such an
�12
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
awful calamity as this cannot be worthy of our veneration and
love.
To destroy the belief in, and allegiance to, the figments of
theology is the object of our destructive policy. But let it be dis
tinctly understood that, in the place of these dogmas, we inculcate,
among others, the following positive principles:—
(i) That the true guide in human actions is reason, assisted by
.experience.—We do not allege that reason is a perfect guide, but
we do allege that it is superior to any other of which at present we
.have any knowledge. By reason is meant the totality of man’s
intellectual powers, the ability to separate truth from error, and to
premise future probabilities from past experience. In order that
the fullest advantages of reason may be realized, it is necessary
that it should be cultivated and developed as much as possible.
The ordinary house lamp is used for the purpose of giving light ;
but to secure an illumination for any length of time it is necessary
to supply the lamp with oil and to carefully trim it. If this be
not done, the light given will first become dim, and then ulti
mately expire. So it is with the great lamp of human reason,
which requires to be supplied with the oil of wisdom, and to be
trimmed with intellectual discipline, and then it will reflect a light
indicating the right path of human duty. It is objected by some
persons that reason is inadequate as a monitor, because it ignores
too much the emotional part of our nature. This, however, is not
so. Secularists do not neglect the emotions; they only endeavour
to control and regulate them. Secularism teaches that the intel
lectual should predominate over the emotional, not the emotional
over the intellectual. Where this rule is not observed religion
frequently degenerates into wild fanaticism, and pleasure into licen
tiousness. The distinction between the two methods, the reasonable
and the emotional, is illustrated by the mode adopted respectively
by the Christian and the Secularist in their efforts to win converts.
The one seeks to reach the head through the heart, the other en
deavours to gain the heart through the head. The Christian aims
to captivate by appealing to feeling, fear, and wonder; the Secu
larist desires to convince by submitting his claims to reason, judg
ment, and experience. The question is often asked, “ What does
Secularism propose to give Christians for the loss of their faith ? ”
Now, it is not our wish that Christians should give up their faith
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
13
while they think that doing so would be a loss to them. These sud
den and partial conversions are the cause of much of the hypocrisy
and nothingarianism that we find in the world. So long as a
Christian considers that his faith is better than Secularism it is his
duty to adhere faithfully to it. But if, in consequence of a calm
and argumentative appeal to his reason, he be convinced that
Secular principles are superior to Christian teachings, then to
give up what he sees to be the inferior for the superior would be
no loss, but a gain.
Further, it is urged that inrelying so much upon reason we deprive
ourselves of the highest advantages derived from emotional grati
fication, and that we limit the scope for the exercise of the power
of veneration. We are also charged with neglecting music, paint
ing and sculpture; with caring nothing for the glories and grandeurs
of the world; with having no part in the treasuresof the imagination.
Those, however, who know Secularists and their principles will
see at once how groundless such charges are. The truth is, we
recognize that in the proper gratification of our emotions some of
the finest chords in human nature are touched, filling us with
rapture and delight. Surely we have ample scope for the exercise
of our admiration and veneration in the temple of reality without
roaming in the barren wilderness of speculation and conjecture.
Have we no truth, no honour, no heroism, no devotion in the
world ? Does not the mighty universe with its countless varieties,
its charming beauties, and its transcendent wonders, present to
our view the loftiest and most fascinating objects for veneration ?
Contemplate the enchanting marvels of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, the numberless objects of the profoundest interest in the
starry heavens, the expanded earth, and the spacious seas. Gaze
with intensity upon the untold wonders revealed by modern science.
Take botany with its variety of foliage, zoology with its innumer
able number of animal organisms, geology with its fossil wonders,
bringing to view facts hidden through the ages of the past,
astronomy with its worlds upon worlds revolving around their
central suns ; are not these enough to venerate ? If not, take the
great science of man, with its profound intellectuality, its depth
of philosophy, and its richness of poetry, and those who fail to dis
cover amidst these fascinating realities scope for their emotional
gratification may depend upon it that their mentality is in an
�14
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
abnormal condition, and the sooner an improvement takes place
the better.
“ They tell us that we worship not,
Nor sing sweet songs of praise ;
That love divine is not our lot
In these cold modern days ;
That piety’s calm, peaceful state
We banish from the earth ;
They know not what we venerate
Whate’er we see of worth :
We venerate great Nature’s plan,
And worship at her shrine ;
While goodness, truth, and love in man,
We hold to be divine.”
(2) That supreme attention should be given to the facts and duties
of existence, regardless of any considerations of a life beyond the
present.—This life is a fact; but whether or not there be another
existence beyond the grave is a question that personally I refuse
to dogmatise upon. Secularists need not deny a future life, inas
much as it would be unreasonable to deny that of which many of
us admit we have no knowledge. Of the duties of earth we know
much ; of the alleged requirements of heaven we know nothing.
If we are to exist in some future life, and there be called upon to
perform certain duties, we can have no knowledge of their nature
and requirements until we participate in the supposed new exis
tence. It may be urged that the duties said to pertain to another
world are supposed to be of a particular kind, and that, acting
upon such a supposition, a preparation for their performance is
made. But it is, at least, possible that the said supposition may
prove to be erroneous, and in that case what has been done ?
Why, society has been deprived of time and services to which it
was justly entitled. We are all indebted to the general common
wealth for advantages received. No one can live successfully in
a state of isolation; we are dependent on others for numerous
benefits, and in return we are in duty bound to render back to
society what services we can to add to its uselfulness and stability.
If it be true that our bodies contain immortal souls, they ought to
be benefited by being allied with well-trained physical, mental,
and moral organizations. If, on the other hand, man has no soul,
�SECULARISM ! DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
15
then his body will be none the worse for good training and neces
sary discipline. In any way, therefore, the Secularist is safe, and
fully justified in acting up to the dictum, “ One world at a time.”
(3) 'd'hat Science and its application is a more trustworthy pro
vider for man than relying for help from any supernatural power._
That a radical change for the better has taken place in the physical
and general condition of the people within the last few hundred
years no one will deny. When the Church, with.its supernatural
pretensions, was at its noon, the state of society was horrible
beyond modern imagination. The peasantry and labourers were
mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath feudal exactions
and despotism. As no laws of nature were acknowledged, no sani
tary measures were thought of, though from the general filth and
want dreadful plagues and famines were, frequent. Before the
ravages of epidemics thousands of the noblest and fairest of the
sons and daughters of earth fled from their miserable homes only
to be caught within the jaws of agonizing death. The Church
existed, prayers were despatched to heaven, the aid of God was
invoked ; but no help came, desolation walked the earth. By-andbye science dawned, and with its magic natural powers accom
plished what faith, with its supernatural belief, had proved itself
impotent to achieve. The benefits that accrued to the world
through the advent of science cannot be over-estimated. Science
has been the lever that has transformed societv from the pestilen
tial past to the improvement of the present, from the age of faith
in heaven to the period of human effort on earth. The Coperni
can system, perfected mathematically by Newton, in the words of
Leibnitz, “ robbed the Deity of some of his best attributes, and
sapped the foundation of natural religion.” While astronomy and
geology dissolved heaven and hell, the progress of all the sciences
has impressed upon us the universality and immutability of law,
the invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatch
ing Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a
childish folly. Roger Bacon, with his discoveries in chemistry
and physics, did more to enable us to cure disease and prolong
human life, than Christ and all his co-workers. And Darwin,
Tyndall, Huxley, and Clifford have given us more practical infor
mation as to man, his nature, position and potency than the whole
of the theologians in the world. Science, therefore, is our provi
�16
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
dence ; on it we rely in the hour of danger ; and, as a matter of
fact, so do the Christians, although, to be consistent, orthodox
believers should do otherwise. When the storm is raging, the
thunder is roaring, the lightning is flashing, upon what do Chris
tians rely ? Have they not more real faith in the lightning-con
ductors upon the top of the steeples of their churches than they
have in all the prayers of Christendom ?
(4) That morality is of natural growth, and has no necessary con
nection with any of the theologies of the world.—Much confusion of
thought exists as to the true nature of ethical philosophy.
Morality is not an existence per se—that is, of itself. It is a term
used to indicate that condition of society wherein truth, justice,
honour, sobriety, industry and other virtues obtain. Where the
opposites of these are found immorality predominates. Our object,
therefore, should be to select a rule of life which encourages virtue
and discourages vice ; and, moreover, which indicates what is to
be done, and also when and how it should be done, in order that
not only the individual, but society at large, may be the better for
the life we lead and the action we perform. The orthodox basis
of human conduct is God’s will; but, inasmuch as it is difficult, to
say the very least, to ascertain what that will is, Secularism can
not accept it as the foundation of moral deeds. Where are we to
look for a concise and legitimate record of such a will? Notin
the Bible, for therein many representations of a most conflicting
character are given of what is supposed to be God’s will. Thus it
can be shown from the Old Testament that its God condemns
murder, adultery, robbery, lying, etc. ; while it can be as readily
demonstrated from the same book that he approves, and, in some
cases, really recommends these vices. A standard so contradic
tory as this cannot surely be accepted as a moral test.
Neither is conscience a trustworthy guide in this matter.
Practically, conscience is mental condition resulting from one’s
organization, training, and general surroundings, varying with
time and differing in individuals. It is not the function of con
science to determine right from wrong. It is reason and judg
ment which do this, and the province of conscience is to urge
fidelity to the decree of this intellectual monitor. Secularism, of
■course, recognizes the necessity of heeding the “ voice of con
science,” knowing full well that, if it were faithfully obeyed, there
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
17
would be less hypocrisy in the world than we have to deplore at.
the present time. Intellectual insincerity is the curse of the world
and the bane of the Church. People are too prone to sacrifice
their honest convictions at the shrine of public prejudice and to
the exactions of a fashionable theology. The consequence is that
an air of artificiality pervades modern life, converting the temple
of mental reality into an abode of mental moral dishonesty.
Secularism seeks to impress upon mankind the duty of saying,
what they mean and meaning what they say.
The basis of morality which commends itself to the Secularist
as being the safest, and most in accordance with the genius of the
age, is the usefulness of an action, those acts being moral which
produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.
This view of morality is justified by a knowledge of the doctrine
of, circumstances, indicating how they affect and are affected by
each other. The scientific definition of any particular object of
our contemplation is that it is the sum of all the causes which pro
duced it. If one of the causes which tended to produce that par
ticular phenomenon had been deducted, or if additional influence
had been added, the result then produced would have differed from
the result as it now stands in precise proportion to the efficacy of
the cause which had been added or withdrawn. Now, Secularism
views human nature in this harmonious light. Man is as much
the consequence of all the causes and circumstances which have
affected him and his development previous to and since his birth
as any one tree or mountain.
The influence of circumstances on human conduct is forcibly
illustrated by a reference to the science of botany. In England
the myrtle is a small shrub or plant; but in the north of Africa it
is an immense tree. The lily in England is remarkably fine and
delicate ; but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of from
ten to fifteen feet in its dimensions. Botanists inform us that this
difference is in consequence of the different circumstances by which
each shrub or plant is surrounded. The influences in Africa and Spain
are more favourable to the extensive development of those plants
than they are in this country. The same principle is shown in the
various productions of English or American soil. We take a wild
flower from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance
and value. It has grown up under what are termed natural cir
�18
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
cumstances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify
ts condition. According to the end we have in view, so are, to
use technical language, the “ artificial causes ” we bring to act
upon its particular condition. We begin with an examination into
its constitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we
immediately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, we
multiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part of its
nature. The change in its condition and appearance has been
produced by the modification and encouragement here, the dis
couragement there, depression in one quarter, elevation in another
—of causes all of which were in existence and operation as much
when the flower grew in its wild state as now when it adorns the
house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now, to apply this to
the argument under consideration. Secularism may be designated
as the science of human cultivation. The problem that it sets to
itself with reference to man in his moral relations to society is to
bring him from the condition of the wild flower to that of the
garden flower. For, as with the wild flower, so it is in many re
spects with the wild, undisciplined man. The flower is what it is,
and the wild, uneducated man is what he is, in consequence of the
aggregate of causes which have made them both what they are.
Secularism recognizes these influences of circumstances, not for.
getting, however, that man has a certain amount of self-reforming
power. But this power is frequently rendered comparatively use
less to him through his being surrounded by inferior conditions,
through neglect of correct training, and a want of a proper under
standing of his moral and intellectual nature.
It is not claimed that the principle of utility is perfect, but only
that it is the best ethical foundation known to us. Should a better
basis for morality be presented, we shall be ready to accept it in
lieu of the one we now have, for we are chained to the decrees of
no councils and bound by the dictates of no Church. Having no
devil to frighten us and no hell to appal us, we are ever ready to
accept the revelations of truth, however much they may clash with
preconceived ideas. Herein consists one of the many advantages
of Secular progress over theological stagnation. If it be asked
�SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
19
why, from the utilitarian standpoint, we should do right, the answer
is, because the welfare of society demands it and the individual is
himself the better through doing right. Utility offers as an incen
tive for well doing the promotion of the happiness of the people in
general. By happiness is here meant the knowledge—so far as
it can be acquired—that our actions do no harm to others and leave
no injurious effects upon ourselves. Those persons who reflect ere
they retire to rest at night, if they can honestly experience such
happiness, can sleep the sleep of peace born of the consciousness
that during the day they have striven to do their duty honestly and
justly.
Fortunately for the exercise of such morality, we are not depen
dent upon the theologies or religions of either the past or the pres
ent. The sources of all ethical culture are found in human nature,
and its sanctions in personal and societarian requirements.
Morality was born of thoughtful experience, fostered by the highest
aspirations of the human mind, and is now being developed by the
exigencies of modern life. It needs no supernatural power to
determine its nature, and no Bible to manifest its force. While
humanity lasts its results will be felt and its service appreciated.
The obligations of truth, the essence of all moral conduct, are of
earth, not of heaven. Truth should be observed, not through fear
of God, but because we know from human experience that telling
falsehoods tends to destroy that confidence between man and man
which is so necessary to the honour and stability of society. As
the Bishop of Hereford remarks in his Bampton lectures : “ The
principles of morality are founded in our nature independently of
any system of religious belief, and are in fact obligatory, even on
the Atheist.”
(5) That the best preparation for a life superior to this is the
wisest and noblest use of the existence we now have.—Knowing only
of the present life, Secularists content themselves with its demands,
feeling assured that the best credentials to secure any possible im
mortality is the wisest and most intellectual use of the life we now
have. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation
to die well, and he will find that the principles which supported
him in health can sustain him in sickness. When the last grand
scene arrives the Secularist, having done his duty, lies down
quietly to rest. What has he to fear ? He knows that death is
�20
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The
bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that flies from flower
to flower, the colossal elephant, the tiny animacule, the intelligent
ape, and the almost unconscious zoophyte, all pass into a state of
unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done.
Why should man be an exception to the universal law ? His body
is built up on the same principle, and his mental faculties differ in
degree, but not in character, from theirs. He is subject to the
same law as the rest of existence, and to repine at death is as
absurd as to weep because he did not live in some other planet or
at some other time. Nature is imperative in her decrees and must
be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter
of which one organism is made up are required for the constructing
of another, so they must be given up for that purpose, and to
repine at it argues an ill-tutored mind. The work is done, and, if
it has been done well, there is nothing to fear when “ life’s fitful
dream is o’er.”
The orthodox believers assure us that Christianity is necessary
to enable a person to die happily. Is not this the height of folly
and a reflection upon the alleged goodness of God ? Are all the
other religions in the world impotent in this particular ? If we
estimate the various religions of the world which conflict with
each other, more or less, at one hundred—a very moderate calcula
tion—there can only be one that is true, so that the Christian has
only one chance out of a hundred, while there are ninety-nine
chances against him. What, then, is the difference between the
Christian and the Secularist ? The one rejects ninety-nine, and
the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hundred. But
the Secular position does not rest even upon this. If God be just,
he can never punish a man for not believing that which his reason
and judgment tell him is wrong. If we have to appear before a
heavenly tribunal, is it to be supposed that questions will be asked,
“Towhat church did you belong? What creed or dogma did
you accept ? ” Is it not more rational to believe that if any inquiries
are made, they will be, “ Were you true to yourselves and just to
others ? ” “ Did you strive to make the best of existence in doing
all the good you could ? ” “ Were you true morally and intellec
tually ? ” If the answers are given honestly in the affirmative,
then no one need fear the result. It is degrading to the character
�secularism; destructive and constructive.
21
<of any God even to think that he would punish one to whom, on
earth, he did not think fit to vouchsafe the faculty of discerning
his existence, for honestly avowing that he did not discern it, for
not professing to see clearly when the eyes he saw fit to give saw
nothing. Would he not be apt, if at all, to punish those (and they
■are very numerous) who, not seeing, confidently assert distinct
vision ? If we act honestly and manfully according to the best
light we can attain, if we love our fellow-men, whom we know, and
try to be just in all our dealings, surely we are making the best
preparation for any future life, the best preparation for the higher
knowledge, the clearer vision, the eternal heavenly beatitudes.
Though we are execrated and condemned by the tender mercies of
human bigots, we may, if we have lived as true Secularists, commit
ourselves without dread to an infinitely good and wise God, if he
be the loving father of all his children. We can die without fear,
as we have lived without hypocrisy.
“ What if there be a God above,
A God of truth, of light, and love,
Will he condemn us ? It was he
Who gave the sight that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die ? ”
Such is the twofold nature of Secularism, with a few of its lead
ing features. Thus it will be seen that it is negative to error, but
positive to truth ; that it only seeks to destroy whatever interferes
with mental freedom and the honest expression of individual
opinion : that its desire is to assist in making life a noble reality,
instead of merely an artificial existence. As Secularists, we wish
each and all so to live that when we are no more the world shall
have no just cause to reproach our memories. We counsel all so
to act that when life’s mission is accomplished those who were
bound to us by the natural ties of affection shall delight in the
recollection of their association with us. If this be done, then,
even if our present state be “ the be-all and end-all,” we shall not
have lived in vain, but the world shall be the better for the part
we have played therein. This is an immortality not of faith, but
of works. True, this Secularistic idea of practical usefulness may
be slow in its realization, as imperceptible in its realization as is
�22
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
the construction of a coral reef. Still, if we are true and earnest,
it shall be as certain in its development. And, although at present
we have to encounter the obstacles of superstition and the spite of
intolerance, the work of progress still goes on. This inspires us
with hope for the future. We believe the time will arrive when
fancy will give place to reality, and imagination will yield to the
facts of life. Then, instead of the evils of priestcraft, the reign of
bigotry, and the strife of theology, we trust to have manifestations
of sincere love of man to man ; an awe-inspiring happiness in the
majestic presence of universal nature, and “ man, the great master
of all,” shall live a life of enduring service to the cause of individual
and national redemption. Assuming for the moment that we are
in error and partial darkness, and that we should strive to ob
tain new light, we adopt the prayer of one who was recently with
us, and say ;—
“ God of Nature ! give us light !
We are struggling through the night;
Through the cloud of crimes and creeds,
Lofty words and guilty deeds,
Honoured not, nor understood,
Workers for the general good.
Father, by the public scorn,
By the ties in anguish torn,
By the sad and ceaseless strife,
By the cross we bear through life,
Do us justice ! be our view
Truth or falsehood, we are true !
True to manhood’s mission grave,
To the task that Nature gave.
Ours the free and fearless thought,
Ours the honest, earnest doubt;
Not the cringing of the knee,
Not the impious mockery
Of the prayers that rise to Thee
Through a life of blasphemy.
Though our hearts be racked and riven,.
Though the clouds enwrap Thy heaven,
We are battling for the right—
God of Nature ! give us light I”
�SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
2’
3
Secularism : Past and Present.
Secularists, deeming “ the wise use of the present to be the just
profit of the past and the most reasonable preparation for the
future,” would do well to corsider from time to time the pro
gress of their principles and the different requirements of their
movement at the various stages of its development. The mode
of advocacy necessary at one period is frequently not desirable
at another. As time rolls on the natural law of change manifests
itself in all phases of thought and every field of action. The
intellectual scope of fifty years ago is evidently too limited for
to-day, when active thought is awakening new ideas and imparting
to the human mind additional vigour.
Secularism in the past manifested itself principally in its mili
tant aspect, having to contend with strong opposing forces. To
obtain a position in the public mind it had to fight its way against ,
misrepresentation and theological prejudice; and to maintain
that position many severe battles have been fought, calling forth
heroism, sacrifice, and devotion from brave Freethinkers whose
dauntless labours have made positive Secularism possible at the •
present time. Although the victories gained are unmistakable
and most encouraging, it must not be inferred that our final
triumph has yet been reached. Misconceptions of our views still
exist; and obstacles to the consolidation of our principles abound
on every hand. These drawbacks are, no doubt, to some extent
the result of the difficulties encountered in conducting past con
flicts. Having to meet an overwhelming opposition, backed by
power, wealth, and theological fanaticism ; being often compelled
to fight under the weight of a bitter persecution and the depri
vation of liberty of speech and the freedom of the press, it is no
marvel that errors of advocacy were committed and that apparent
conrusion of principles obtained. We have now, however, gained
important vantage ground : our present duty, therefore, should be
to correct past errors by stating plainly our principles and future
policy.
The public cannot be too frequently reminded that Atheism and
Freethought are not always allied with Secularism. Of course,
Freethought is essential to Secular Philosophy ; but it is only
a part of it and, unfortunately, the former very frequently is to
�24
SECULARISM : DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
be found without the latter. The same with Atheism : many
of its adherents do not subscribe to any constructive Secular
programme whatever. Our opponents have confounded these
three principles, and thereby have been prevented from com
prehending accurately the real nature of Secularism, which
they have erroneously supposed to be but the negation of
prevailing Theistic notions and the discarding of theological
dogmas. So far as methodically regulating daily conduct upon
an ethical basis is concerned, a mere Negationist may simply be
a Nothingarian, who in no way represents Secularism, which is
something more than rejection of orthodox Christianity, being,
the embodiment of positive principles sufficiently potent for the:
right regulation of human conduct.
The time has now arrived when Secularists should do some
thing beyond the old work of destroying theological dogmas.
The ground is sufficiently clear to admit of the erection of an
edifice of thought untrammelled by orthodox restrictions. The
Secular teacher will, if he is observant, find paths of usefulness
open to him free from the bigotry of the past. A characteristic
of the present time is that the public are inclined to hear an ex
position of Secularism if it be put before them in a proper manner.
Sobriety of speech is as desirable as sobriety of appetite. There
is no necessity of indulging in the folly of urging that the Bible
and Christianity are both destitute of goodness and utility \
better far to urge the truth that the value in each is at the
command of the Secularist, who accepts the useful wherever it can
be found. Furthermore, it is important to point out that any
material advantage offered by rel gion we can secure by a faithful,
adherence to the positive principles of Secularism.
Secular propagandism has now become an active vital force in
our midst; hence the greater necessity for judicious care being,
observed by our advocates. Whenever orthodox absurdity and
theological error impede our Secular work the course to pursue
is clear : destroy them if possible; but we should be prepared to
supply their places with sound principles of daily life, possessing
as recommendations reason and utility. What is required now
more than ever is the thorough carrying out of these principles in.
our conduct: union of action and an efficient organization.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secularism : destructive and constructive
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[19--]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Secularism : destructive and constructive), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1851
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/01445ca0e8c72a4f0b8b4be09e0b17e4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qe-SUiNe6TtyVhDUAii3FPfCxbaMJz%7EMkic1FsOKVbYnxNR9mD%7E8qnAp-XqO9j1uK9t-RJ-s5s8Ri17GH35YX3Jx%7Ed4BW1vR6EomloJYuXN4tbWQACOzrXaAruLMmJ19dI7Mjv3mstU%7EK6EZ96dq4qZcDxcPpJFbTnHKvhawVuUWGwKymXujWj7s38m0oyqBvAhG0PRdzLNlY7WJKCEbi9sTNtmhG9UYXsmGdsD7vYI%7EHOB-VkQKAm80l5aVwiVOimmRl8RsF-Pdpenxw5VlIwLwzhAQpTABXAdW6jKdYQKKO38v5iZjT1FAoctuiBak-w7fnw5wo%7EtxVza7Z1tgXA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d31400272d5c17196bd7550965e7f6b
PDF Text
Text
BIBLE MORALITY.
'Secularists have no desire to extol the Bible above its
merits, nor to depreciate it below its deserts. We gladly
admit that it contains some useful precepts; but these, as
a rule, are intermixed with so many teachings of an in
jurious character that their beauty is often overshadowed
and their utility annulled. Its coarse language in many
places renders it unfit for general perusal, and destroys its
value as a standard for every-day life. The true worth of
literature should be its moral tone. Novels are appreciated
by the intelligent reader in proportion to their being
“ adorned ” with a moral. And dramas fail to gain the
approval of the thoughtful public unless virtue is inculcated
in a chaste form. So with the Bible : if in its ethical tone
it is defective, or if it is questionable in its injunctions or
indelicate in its records, it cannot with advantage be accepted
as an absolute monitor in human conduct.
All correct codes of morals should be clear in their
authority and practical in their application. This is the
more necessary when severe penalties—as in the case of
Christian ethics—are threatened for non-acceptance and dis
obedience. Now, the ethics of the Bible are both contradic
tory and impracticable. The same line of conduct is enjoined
in one passage, and just as explicitly prohibited in another.
One man is blamed because he is not cruel enough, and
will not go on slaying the Lord’s enemies; another man’s
chief glory consists in being a mighty man of war and a
great destroyer of men, women, and children; while other
passages proclaim, “Thou shalt not kill,” and enjoin mercy
and “loving-kindness.” The most absolute rest is enjoined
on the Sabbath, and the fiercest denunciations are hurled
at the most vigorous Sabbatarian. Retaliation for wrong is
counselled, and forgiveness is enjoined. We are told to
“ love one another,” and we are commanded to hate our
�2
BIBLE MORALITY.
own flesh and blood. Industry is advised and also dis
couraged; lustful pursuits are condemned and also permitted.
Thus Biblical morality is destitute of the first fundamental
condition of all just ethics.
Among the general principles taught in the Bible and ex
pounded by orthodoxy in this country is that belief, not
conduct, is the foundation of virtue, and that uncharitable
ness towards opponents is justifiable. One of the first in
structions which a parent should enforce upon a child is
never to impute bad motives in matters of belief or non
belief. No lesson is more valuable than this, none more
calculated to render the child’s life happy and unsuspicious,
and to make its influence in the world more useful and
beneficial. The Bible permits just the opposite. Accord
ing to Christian teachings, if a man does an act of kindness,
we are not to accept it with gratitude simply as an act of
kindness, but we are to judge from the motives of his con
duct. Did he perform the act from love to God, or did he
do it only from respect for his fellow man ? If the former,
his services will go up as a sweet smelling offering to Deity;
if the latter, he merely performed a “ splendid vice.” The
motive, not the act, is the thing to be considered. If men
slay, ravish, and destroy for the glory of God, the motive
not only condones, but consecrates, the act. Hence, in the
early history of Christianity, the practice of lying for the
good of the Church was not only allowed, but considered
praiseworthy. To require universal belief in one particular
faith, and to condemn to eternal perdition those who are
unable to comply therewith, is not the most moral doctrine.
Truly, a book that teaches that “many are called but few
are chosen,” or, in other words, that the majority of our
fellow creatures are to be cast into a burning lake, cannot
assist to promote the happiness and good of mankind. The
tendency of such teaching as this cannot have a beneficial
effect, inasmuch as it often produces mutual hatred between
man and man. Artificial and unjust distinctions of govern
ment and of classes have often produced ill-feeling between
man and man; but that evil has been increased by the
religious distinctions based upon Biblical teaching. The
natural law of love is simple and clear. It is a duty to love
all men until we have reason to believe that the trust is mis
placed or abused. It then becomes necessary to slightly
�BIBLE MORALITY.
3
modify our conduct as an act of self-defence; hence the
enactment of laws for the repression of crime and the curtail
ment of injury. If a man’s belief teaches him that he can
persecute, we have a right to be upon our guard, for we
know from bitter experience that such belief has frequently
shaped itself into conduct. But whatever man believes
about matters that do not affect his conduct should produce
in us neither love nor hatred towards him. His belief may
be ever so curious, absurd, unreal, and fantastic, ever so
ridiculous and self-contradictory, and in proportion of its
partaking of those qualities it may excite and amuse us; but
it ought not to make us respect or dislike him one whit
more. With the Bible it is quite different: its defect con
sists in its teaching us to love and respect certain people
who believe certain things which have no direct beneficial
bearing on their conduct; while we are to avoid those whose
lives may be a model of purity and benevolence, but who
cannot subscribe to a certain faith.
The great principle of Bible morality is supposed to be
contained in the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue, we
are assured, enunciates moral lessons, against which no sub
stantial objections can be brought. There are two versions
of the Decalogue given in the Old Testament, varying in
certain not unimportant particulars. Moses brought down,
we are informed, the Ten Commandments from Mount
Sinai, where he had been having a tete-d-tete with the Lord.
They were written on stone, and were copied off for future
generations in Exodus xx. They are also given in Deuter
onomy v.; but that was merely from memory, when Moses
had become somewhat advanced in age. It is not surpris
ing, therefore, that he should insert certain interpolations in
the second giving of the law which are absent from the
first. How this incongruity can be reconciled with the doc
trine of the Divine inspiration of the Bible may be left for
Christians to decide among themselves. The Decalogue is
divided into two parts : that which relates to man’s duty to
God, and that which relates to the mutual duties of man to
man. It is worthy of notice that, although the second half
contains six commands, and the former half only four,
nevertheless the first half is a great deal longer than the
second. Most of the commands of the second half are con
tained in the most condensed form. The second, third,
�4
bible morality.
and fourth Commandments are all developments of the first.
7 he first really contains or assumes the three which succeed
it. The first? which is, “ Thou shalt have no other gods
before me,” of course involves the second against idolatry,
the third against blasphemous swearing, and the fourth en
joining restful remembrance of the creation of the world by
God. It is curious, while God in these Commandments
had so much to say in giving a complete code of conduct
to his creatures, and confining himself as he did within the
limits of a certain number of Hebrew characters, written on
a stone small enough for a man to carry down the side of a
steep mountain, that he should have wasted so much time
in telling them how to behave to him, and have left so little
space to contain what was far more important—viz., the
rules to regulate our conduct to each other. The whole
prescribed duty of man to man is contained in seventy
seven words. The second Commandment brings out that
particular character of the Christian God which is so con
spicuous in other parts of the Bible. We are not to make
and bow down to images. Very good advice, we readily
admit. But why are we not to do so ? Is there any appeal
to the generous and reverential sentiments of the human
heart ? Surely a noble and good God would have said
something similar to this : “ Thou shalt not bow down thy
self to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am
a great, beneficent, and generous God, with a wide, allembracing love. Thou shalt not degrade thy soul nor debase
thy being by worshipping the gods of the heathen. I am
your only father, who made and cares for you, and your
place of reverence and trust is in the all-sustaining hollow
of my hand.” Had the Deity said this, and proved his
sincerity by appropriate actions subsequently towards his
subjects, it would have done more to have won the affec
tions of his children to him than the whole of his present
recorded sayings contained from Genesis to Revelation.
But no; we find that a sordid appeal is made partly to the
mean fears, and partly to the paternal affections, of the Jews.
They are forbidden to worship other gods: “ For I, the
ILord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
rthe fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me.” Fancy a great, Almighty
(God, creator of the earth, being jealous of the estranged
�BIBLE MORALITY.
5
affection of an unfortunate Jew! But this is in keeping
with the general character of the Christian Deity, and most
of his particular and immediate acquaintances. The part
of the Decalogue which has reference to us, as members of
society, is so brief, in comparison to that which has been
occupied by theology and the requirements of God, that
little room is left for the introduction of rewards and punish
ments which are to follow the fulfilment or non-fulfilment
of so important a behest as “ Thou shalt not kill.” But the
punishment of idolatry, a most cruel, unjust, and revengeful
one, is given at full length. The fifth Commandment,
“ Honour thy father and mother,” is certainly, as far as it
goes, an excellent one. It comes home to the heart of
everyone who has the feelings of love and duty within him.
We can take no possible exception to its request. But the
reason given for its fulfilment is as selfish as it is untrue.
Yielding to no one in the belief that filial affection and re
verence are not only duties, but carry with them (as all
virtues do to some extent) their own reward in the satisfac
tion of an approving sense of right, it has yet to be shown
that the keeping of the first part of this command will secure
the accomplishment of the second. Honouring parents
does not invariably carry with it the fulfilment of the pro
mise, “ Thy days shall be long in the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee.” The best of sons have frequently
been called upon to pay the last debt of nature when still
in the bloom and vigour of their manhood, while some of
the worst of characters live to a comparatively old age, a
grief to their parents and a disgrace to themselves. Though,
therefore, we would echo the command, “ Children, obey
your parents,” we would also say : Do so, not from any selfish
hope of personal gain or long life, but for the love you
should have for those who have toiled for and protected you
through years of infancy and helplessness. Duty, gratitude,
and affection should be the inspiration to obedience, not
the grovelling incentive given by the Bible. But may not
this be taken as a fair sample of Bible teaching ? When
ever we discover a noble thought, a just precept, or a gener
ous sentiment, we generally find it surrounded by much
that is impracticable, misleading, and fallacious. The sixth,
seventh, and eighth Commandments call for no special
remark, save that, when they point out the extremes of
�6
BIBLE MORALITY.
certain vices, and forbid their indulgence, they fail to state
how far persons may go in their direction without commit
ting fatal errors; and this difficulty is all the greater when we
reflect that these were the very Commandments which most
of God’s favourites had the greatest predilection for break
ing- The chief object of the ninth Commandment is its
limitation. Why should the word “ neighbour ” be intro
duced in the prohibition of false swearing? It is equally a
wrong to swear falsely against a stranger as against a neigh
bour. The tenth Commandment is the only one of the
second part of the Decalogue which errs by excess of Puri
tanism. There can be no harm, for instance, in coveting a
neighbour’s house if sufficient compensation is offered to in
duce him to give up the lease; and, if we did not occasionally
covet our neighbour’s oxen, beefsteaks and surloins would
be even more scarce among the working classes than they
are at present. Speaking broadly, the one great objection
to the Decalogue is the absence of any noble, inspiring
principle of conduct. It teaches no real love, no true
charity; it is a penal code, not a rule of life.
Orthodox believers are continually proclaiming that love
is the foundation of Biblical ethics; the fact is, however,
that, if human actions were regulated by some teachings of
the Bible, there would be but few manifestations of love.
To kill the inhabitants of a conquered city, and to save none
alive (Deut. xx. io-i6),is a peculiar mode of exhibiting love to
our fellow men. The conduct of Christ was not calculated
to inspire us with a superabundance of love when he said:
“Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my father which is in heaven ” (Matt. x. 33);
or when he stated : “ But those mine enemies which would
not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and
slay them before me” (Luke xix. 27). Here we have an
indication of that unforgiving and revengeful spirit which
destroys true affection. If there be any truth in the popular
notions of sin and forgiveness, it was not moral for Christ
to act as he did when speaking in a parable to his disciples.
They, not being able to understand him, asked him for an
explanation of what he then said. His reply was : “ Unto
you 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,
�BIBLE MORALITY.
7
and hearing, they may hear and not understand, lest at any
time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them ” (Mark iv.). This is not only partial and unjust, but
a planned determination to teach so mysteriously that people
should not learn the truth, in case they should thereby be
saved. Such a mode of advocacy would be deemed in
jurious, indeed, in these days, and is only equalled by the
following “ inspired ” information to certain persons : “ 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, but had pleasure in unrighteous
ness ” (2 Thess. ii. n, 12). We are advised to be holy, even
as God is holy; but what is holiness according to Bible
morality? If a “Divine” sanction to a thing constitutes it
holy, then deceit, murder, lying, and the deepest kind of
cruelty are allied with Scriptural holiness. In 2 Kings x.
God is represented as rewarding the following crimes, and
thereby giving the Bible sanction to the worst kind of im
morality. Jehu, having become King of Israel, commences
his reign with a series of murders. Having resolved upon
the destruction of the house of Ahab, Jehu commences his
task in a manner possible only to those who fight with the
“ zeal of the Lord.” Killing all who were likely to obstruct
him in the carrying out of his base object, he arrived at
Samaria, his purpose being to slay all the worshippers of
Baal. In order, therefore, that he might entrap them all
into one slaughter house, he announced that he was a great
worshipper of Baal, and that he had come to offer a mighty
sacrifice to this idol. By this craft he succeeded in drawing
all the worshippers of Baal together. When the unfortunate
victims were assembled, tendering their sacrifices, Jehu
ordered his captains to go in and slay them, allowing none
to escape. Accordingly, they were all sacrificed to the
treachery of this “ servant of the Lord.” And this conduct
is approved by God; for in verse 30 is recorded : “ And
the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in
executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done
unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine
heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the
throne of Israel.” Bible morality is further illustrated in
the case of Samuel (1 Samuel xvi. 1-4). This prophet is
commanded by God to go on a certain mission under false
�8
BIBLE MORALITY.
pretences, and with a direct falsehood upon his lips. Now,
is it moral to deceive and murder ? If not, why did God
command and encourage such vices ? And why should
men be invited to imitate the example of one who practised
such immoralities ? Biblical ethics are alleged to be based
upon the “holiness of God.” In order to ascertain what
that “holiness ” really is, it is only necessary to read Genesisxxx. and xxxi., where immorality, ingratitude, deceit, and
theft are found to be ascribed to Jacob, who was encouraged
and beloved by God; Exodus ix. 13-16, where people are'
seen to have been raised up by God for the very pur
pose of being “cut off from the earth;” Exodus xxxii.,
for an account of the anger, injustice, and cruelty of Moses,
culminating in the slaughter of thousands of human beings
at the command of God ; Joshua vi., viii., and x., for a
record of his reckless murder of thousands of human beings,
among whom were men, women, and children, at the special
command of God; 2 Samuel xii. n-31, for adultery and
cruelty in connection with David; and then peruse Psalms
xxxviii. and cix. for a confession of a life of deceit, lying,
and licentiousness. Yet we are told that David “ was a
man after God’s own heart,” and that he “kept God’s com
mandments, and did that only which was right in his eyes ”
(1 Kings xiv. 8). Such maybe Biblical morality; but it is
certainly opposed to Secular ideas of ethical philosophy.
The teachings of the Bible in reference to slavery are
barbarously unjust. According to its permit, men and
women can be bought and sold like cattle, the weak being
compelled to serve the strong. In Exodus xxi. 2-6 we have
a most cruel law for regulating this “ Bible institution,”
the cruelty and injustice of which law are two-fold. First,
if the slave when he is bought be single, and if, during his
seven years of slavery, he marries and becomes a father,
then, at the expiration of his time, his wife and children are
his master’s, and the slave goes out free. Is this moral ?
What becomes of the poor man’s paternal affections ? Isthe love for his wife nothing ? Is he to be separated from
that he holds dear, and to see the object of his affectionsgiven to the man who for seven years had robbed him of his
independence and his manhood? If, however, the poor
victim’s love for his wife and children be stronger than his
desire for liberty, what is his fate? He is to be brought
�BIBLE MORALITY.
9
to the door, have his ear bored with an awl, and doomed to
serve his master forever. Thus Bible morality makes per
petual slavery and physical pain the punishments of the
exercise of the purest and best feelings of human nature.
Where is the moral lesson in the statement: “ And thou
shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after;
for oxen or for sheep, or for wine or for strong drink, or for
whatsoever thy soul desireth ; and thou shalt eat there before
the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine
household ” ? If this is not giving a license to the worst of
passions, words have no meaning. But Bible morality strikes
at the manhood and happiness of man. It stifles our
tenderest affections, and urges the exercise of the cruellest
passions by teaching that a man may kill the wife of his
bosom if she dare to entice him secretly from his God
(Deut. xiii. 6-9). Where is the man who will so far belie
his nature as to accept such morality as this ? Unfortunately,
Bible teachings have frequently caused a complete severance
and breaking up of the ties of affection in families. The
Bible commands its believers to leave father, mother, sister,
and brother to follow Christ. According to its teachings, it
is justifiable to break up a certain and a human bond that
we may get a problematical chance of a problematical
blessedness in a problematical future. There are few, doubt
less, who have not learned in their own sad experience how
the family tie has been often disunited by Christian teach
ings. Brothers and sisters have been separated for years
from the home of their childhood because they dared to
emancipate themselves from the shackles of the prevailing
faith.
Accepting the term “ moral ” as expressing whatever is
calculated to promote general progress and happiness, what
morality is contained in the following passages from the
Bible : “ Take no thought for your life “ Resist not evil
“ Blessed be ye poor“ Labour not for the bread which
perisheth “ Servants, be subject to your masters with all
fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward “ Let every man abide in the same calling wherein
he was called“ Submit yourself to every ordinance of man
for the Lord’s sake “ Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers, for there is no power but of God............
Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the
�IO
BIBLE MORALITY.
ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to them
selves damnation”? Were these injunctions obeyed, health,
independence of character, and political progress would be
ignored. For the reforms we have hitherto secured we are
indebted to men and women who practically disregarded the
Bible, and based their conduct upon the principle of utility.
To teach, as the Bible does, that wives are to be subject to
their husbands in everything (Eph. v.); to “set your affections
on things above, not on things on the earth ” (Colos. iii.);
to “ love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world ’* (i John ii.); to “ lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon earth” (Matt, vi.), is not to inculcate the principle of
equality, or to inspire man with a desire to take an interest
in “the things of time.” Whatever service the Bible may
render in gratifying the tastes of the superstitious, it cannot,
to men of thought and energy, be of any great moral worth.
To persecute for non-belief of any teaching, but more
particularly of speculative questions, is not in accordance
with ethical justice. Is it true that the Bible encourages
persecution for the non-belief in, or the rejection of, its
teachings ? If yes, so far at least is its moral worth lessened.
For belief in the truth of a doctrine, or the wisdom of a
precept, is, to the honest inquirer, the result of the recogni
tion on his part of sufficient evidence in their favour. When
ever that evidence is absent, disbelief will be found, except
among the indifferent or the hypocritical. Now, in the
Bible there are many things that the sincere thinker is com
pelled, through lack of evidence, to reject. What does the
New Testament inculcate towards such persons? When
Christ sent his disciples upon a preaching expedition he said
(Matt, x.) : “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear
your words, when ye depart out of that house or city shake
off the dust of your feet.” This, we are informed by
Oriental writers, was a mode in the East of showing hatred
towards those against whom the dust was shaken. The
punishment threatened those who refused the administra
tions of the disciples is most severe, for “ it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city.” In St. John xv. we read :
“If a man abideth 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.” This accords with the gloomy
�BIBLE MORALITY.
II
announcement (2 Thess. i.): “ The Lord Jesus shall be re
vealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire,
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of
the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall
come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all
them that believe.” Again (Mark xvi.) : “ He that believeth
not shall be damned.” St. Paul exclaims (Gal. i.): “If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.” He also says (1 Tim. vi.
3-5): “ If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ
....... he is proud, knowing nothing......... From such withdraw
thyself.” “ Of whom is Hymenseus and Alexander ; whom
I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to
blaspheme” (1 Tim. i. 20). In these passages persecution
and punishment are clearly taught for disbelief. And that
such teaching has had an immoral tendency the excommu
nications, the imprisonments, and sacrifice of the lives of
heretics in connection with the history of Christianity abun
dantly prove.
Orthodox Christians contend that the Bible is a necessary
factor in the educational system of all nations. While
admitting the necessity of instruction in the affairs of daily
life, they allege that a question of far greater importance is
the preparation for existence “beyond the grave.” They
profess to be impressed with the notion that there is a city
of refuge in store for them when they arrive at the end of
life’s journey; and, having to encounter many storms and
difficulties ere they reach this supposed haven of rest, they
feel assured that the Bible is a sufficient guide to carry
them safely over the sea of time, and land them securely in
the harbour of eternity. They therefore rely on this book
as if it were unerring in its directions and infallible in its
commands.
Now, there is ample reason to doubt the capability of this
Christian guide. Its inability, however, as an instructor and
guide does not arise from any lack of variety of contents.
The Bible contains a history of the cosmogony of the earth,
and the story of man’s fall from what is termed his first
estate of perfection and happiness. Then we have the
�12
BIBLE MORALITY.
history of God’s chosen people, from their uprise to their
national extinction, with a record of the Jewish laws, speci
fying those acts most calculated to propitiate the favour and
secure the rew’ard of heaven, and those which are con
demned, with their appropriate and stipulated punishments.
We have also glimpses of the histories of other nations, the
causes of their fall, and the account of their national sins,
which drew down upon them that wrath of heaven which
extinguished or sorely punished them. Following this, there
is the story of Job—the lessons to be derived from the sudden
collapse of his worldly greatness, and his soliloquies upon
the mysteries of nature and of providence. Next come the
Psalms—a copious manual of praise, prayer, cursing, and
penitence, followed by the woes, lamentations, and mis
fortunes of a host of prophets—some practical, some
mystical, and some evangelical—together with the four
different versions of the life, actions, and death of Christ;
a short account of the early doings of the Church, recorded
in several epistles written by sundry apostles, culminating
in the strange and extraordinary nightmare of St. John the
Divine. Now, any man who fails to discover in so large a
field materials by which to regulate his life must do so, not
from the scarcity, but the valuelessness, of the article
supplied.
In estimating the real value of the Bible as a moral guide
it must be taken as a whole, by which is meant those books
of the Old and New Testaments which are bound together
and commonly called the Word of God. And here a ques
tion arises that, if the knowledge of the whole Bible be
necessary to our future happiness, which according to St.
John it is, why is it that so many of the books that originally
constituted the Bible are lost ? If the testimony of the
book itself can be accepted, we have only a portion of what
at one time composed the Bible. In Numbers a quotation
is given from a book called “ The Book of the Wars of the
Lord;” in Judges and Samuel we read of “The Book of
Jasher;” in Kings mention is made of “The Book of the
Acts of Solomon
and in Chronicles of “ The Account of
the Chronicles of King David.” We further read of “The
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ” and “ The
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.” Allusion
is also made to “ The Book of Nathan the Prophet ” and to
�BIBLE MORALITY.
13
“The Book of Gad the Seer.” Notwithstanding the loss
of these books, Christians exclaim, How wonderfully their
book has been preserved ! Even the portions that are re
tained are so full of mistakes, errors, and corruptions that
its intelligent supporters are compelled to give the greater
part of it up as incapable of defence, while those who still
contend for its “ divinity ” hesitate to come forward and
support it in public debate.
Another question suggests itself: Are we to consider the
Old. Testament as the Word of God ? If so, upon the
Christian hypothesis, its teachings are equally as deserving
of our respect as are those of the New Testament. If, on
the other hand, the Old Testament is not intended for our
acceptance, why is it preached and enforced as God’s Word ?
True, it is sometimes stated that the Hebrew writings are
useful for instruction, although they are not of the same
authority with Christians as the New Testament. But here
it is overlooked that the New Testament is founded upon
the Old, and often appeals to it to corroborate its statements.
Furthermore, the New Testament distinctly says that the
Old was written by good and holy men for our instruction,
etc. Besides, does not Christ emphatically state that he did
not come to destroy its authority ? “ Think not,” says he,
“ that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever,
therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Here is
a command not to break even one of the least of the com
mandments. Again, Christ says: “The Scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; whatsoever they bid you ob
serve, that observe and do.” Among a collection of Chris
tian stories occurs the following anecdote :—A person once
asked a poor, illiterate old woman what she deemed to be
the difference between the Old and New Testaments, to
which she replied : “ The Old Testament is the New Testa
ment concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testa
ment revealed.” This has been triumphantly quoted by
Christian writers to show the harmony existing between the
�14
BIBLE MORALITY.
two books. But it is absurd and contradicts facts. The
assumption is, that the Old Testament is the partial statement
of a body of truths, from which the New Testament differs
not in kind, but only in degree. It is supposed that nothing
in the New Testament contradicts what is stated in the Old,
but only reveals and amplifies with a clearer light what had
already been stated partially and under allegorical semblance
in the Old. Now, so far is this from being correct that it
would be difficult to find any two alleged bodies of sacred
truths which differ from and contradict each other more than
the divine revelation made through Moses and the prophets,
and the revelation made through Christ and his Apostles.
For instance, Moses taught that retaliation was a duty, while
Christ strictly prohibits it. With Moses persecutors were
put to the edge of the sword; with Christ, however, they
were to be blessed. Under the old system, good works
and a virtuous life were the conditions of Divine favour and
reward, and bad works and a vicious life were to incur Divine
disfavour and punishment. Under the new system, faith is
the all-in-all, the essential condition of salvation.
A proof of the inadequacy of the Bible as a guide and
instructor is furnished by what are termed the “ liberal
Christians.” Here we have men of the best intentions and
of high intellectual acquirements refusing to accept the Bible
as an absolute guide, or as an infallible instructor. With
such persons the Bible has no value as “ infallible revela
tion.” If, however, the Bible is not an infallible record, it
is simply a human production, and has no more claim upon
us, except what its merits inspire, than any other book. Is
it not rather inconsistent to contend, as these liberal Chris
tians do, that certain portions of the Bible are “ divine,”
while the other parts are simply human ? If every Chris
tian sect put forward similar contentions, there would be
but few parts of the “ Holy Scriptures ” that would not be
divine and human at the same time, according to the respec
tive opinions of different classes of believers. But how are
we to decide what is “ divine ” and what is human ? To
what standard shall we appeal ? What criterion have we by
which to test its genuineness ? Shall we accept the authority
of the Protestant or the Catholic Church ? Shall we judge
from the standpoint of the Trinitarians or the Unitarians?
For the Bible to be trustworthy as a guide it should be
�BIBLE MORALITY.
15
reliable in its statements and harmonious in its doctrines.
That it is not so will be evident from the following reference
to its pages. The Bible teaches that God is omniscient and
omnipresent; yet in Gen. xi. 5 we read that the Lord came
down to see the city and the tower which the children of
menbuilded; and in Gen. xviii. 20, 21: “And the Lord
said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and
because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and
see whether they have done altogether according to the cry
of it, which is come unto me ; and, if not, I will know.” It
teaches that God is immutable ; yet, on several occasions,
we find him changing his mind, repenting, and sometimes
turning back from his repentance; as in the great instance
(Gen. vi. 6) : “ And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart ” (also
1 Sam. xv. 10, 11). God told Balaam to go with the men
(Num. xxii., 20), and was angry with him because he went
(Num. xxii. 21, 22). It teaches that God is invisible, yet we
read (Gen. xxxii. 30) : “And Jacob called the name of the
place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved and (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10): “Then up went Moses,
and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders
of Israel; and they saw the God of Israeland, again (Ex.
xxxiii. 11,23): “ And the Lord spake unto Moses face to
face, as a man speaketh unto his friend....... And I will take
away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but
my face shall not be seen and, finally (Gen. xviii.), we have
the remarkable though perplexed account of the Lord paying
a visit to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, and eating with
him of cakes, butter, milk, and veal. It teaches that God
is all good ■, yet we read (Isa. xlv. 7): “I form the light and
create darkness : I make peace and create evil: I the Lord
do all these things and (Lam. iii. 38): “ Out of the mouth
of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good ?” and
(Ezekiel xx. 25): “ Wherefore I gave them also statutes that
were not good, and judgments whereby they should not
live.” It teaches that God is no respecter of persons ; yet
we read (Gen. iv. 4, 5): “And the Lord had respect unto
Abel and to his offering ; but unto Cain and his offering he
had no respect;” and (Ex. ii. 25) : “ And God looked upon
the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them;”
and (Rom. ix. 11-13) : “For the children being not yet
�16
BIBLE MORALITY,
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God, according to election, might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth ; it was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.” And, in fact, nearly the whole Bible
story is that of a chosen people, preferred above all other
nations, surely for no superior goodness on their part! It
teaches (Ex. xx. 5) that God is a jealous God, “ visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me;” yet we read (Ezekiel xviii. 20):
“ The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” It teaches
that Christ is God (John i. 1, 14; Heb. i. 8); yet we read
(John viii. 40) : “ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that has
told you the truth, which I have heard of God;” also (1
Tim. ii. 5): “ One mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus.” It teaches (John x. 30) that Christ and his
father are one ; yet we read (John xiv. 28): “For my father
is greater than I.” It teaches (John xvi. 30; Col. ii. 3)
that Jesus knew all things ; yet we read (Mark xi. 13): “And
seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find anything thereon; and, when he came to it, he
found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet■”
and, far more significant (Mark xiii. 32) : “ But of that day
and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” It teaches
of Jesus (John viii. 14): “ Though I bear record of myself,
yet my record is true; for I know whence I came, and
whither I go ;” yet we read (John v. 31): “ If I bear witness
of myself, my witness is not true.” It teaches further (1
Tim. ii. 6) that he gave himself a ransom for all; yet we
read (Matt. xv. 24): “ I am not sent but to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel;” and (Mark vii. 26, 27): “The
woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation; and she
besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her
daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first
be filled; for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and
cast it unto the dogs.” It teaches that miracles are proofs
of a divine mission (Matt. ix. 6; John v. 36 ; Heb. ii. 4);
yet (Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 9) warns
against false prophets and anti-Christs, who shall show great
signsand wonders. It teaches in many passages of the New
�BIBLE MORALITY.
17
Testament that the end of the world is at hand, as in
Matt, xxiv., 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Peter
iv. 7; yet we read (2 Thess. ii. 2, 3): “ That ye be not
soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor
by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ
is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means.”
Further, on this subject, we read (Matt. x. 23), in which
Jesus is addressing the Apostles he sent forth : “Ye shall
not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man
be comeyet we read (Matt. xxiv. 14) : “ And this gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come
and, similarly (Mark xiii. 10): “And the gospel must first
be published among all nations.” It teaches (Luke i. 33 ;
Heb. i. 8) that the kingdom of Christ shall endure forever;
yet we read, in one of the most remarkable passages of the
New Testament (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28) : “Then cometh the
end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and
all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put
all enemies under his feet........ And when all things shall be
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject
unto him that put all things under him, that God may
be all-in-all.” It teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts
v. 3, 4); yet we read (John xv. 26): “ But when the Com
forter is come, whom shall I send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father
and, again (John xiv. 16): “I will pray the Father, and he
shall give you another Comforter and, again (Acts x. 38);
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and
with power.” Finally, it teaches that “ all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable” (2 Tim. iii. 16);
yet we read (1 Cor. vii. 6, 12): “ But I speak this by per
mission, and not of commandment....... But to the rest speak
I, not the Lord and similarly (2 Cor. xi. 17) : “ That which
I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were fool
ishly, in this confidence of boasting.”
The foregoing are but a few of “ apparent discrepancies,”
or, as we call them, direct self-contradictions; and, be it
remembered, they concern the essentials of Christianity—
the three persons of the God, the inspiration of the Holy
Scriptures, and the end of the world. The Bibliolater may
�18
BIBLE MORALITY.
be encouraged in the endeavour to reconcile them by the
assurance that an indefinite further number, just as perplex
ing, await solution.
Those Christians who are too enlightened to accept the
Bible, as it has chanced to come down to us, as in every
word the very Word of God, and too free-minded to
submit to the authority of a tradition which has varied
with all climes and ages, or a Church whose history is a
record of blunders, compromises, falsifications, self-contra
dictions, probably unequalled in the annals of any merely
secular institution whatever, manage to remain, in their own
estimation, Christians, by believing that God’s saving revela
tion to mankind is made in the Bible, and that everyone
may read it for himself if he studies the volume in a re
verent and prayerful spirit. They admit many errors of
copyists, reject many passages, and even books, as decidedly
spurious, and regard many others as doubtful; yet maintain
that, all deductions made, there is left a clear and sufficient
Divine message, whose essential character is untouched by
.any of the errors or defects, and unchanged by any of the
various readings.
Now, this theory is certainly the most illogical which a
Christian can hold ; for that of the thorough Bibliolater is
consistent in its blind submission of reason to faith ; and
the Roman and Church views are equally consistent in their
blind submission to faith and tradition and ecclesiastical
authority; while this new theory seeks and pretends to
•conciliate things which are essentially irreconcilable—reason
and faith, freethought and revelation, liberty and servitude,
the natural and the supernatural. But, as it is the theory of
some of the best and ablest of our religious fellow-citizens,
and of those who are most heartily with us in much sound
Secular work, it practically claims a fuller consideration here
than it intrinsically merits.
In the first place, it is evidently open to the fatal objec
tion that it makes man the measure and standard of his
God, setting up certain Scriptures as supernatural and
Divine, then subjecting them to the arbitrament of human
nature, the reason and conscience of the creature. Each
of those who hold it says in effect: “ Here are books pur
porting to contain the Word of God, and I believe they
do contain it, but mixed with many vain words of men;
�BIBLE MORALITY.
19
therefore, what suits me I shall consider Divine, and what
does not suit me I shall reject.” Numerous clever attempts
■have been made to smooth away this sharp self-contradic
tion ; but, so far as we are aware, and as was to be expected,
not one that can be deemed even plausible by any candid
outsider. There is but one mode of getting rid of it—a
mode swift and effectual, obvious, and facile in theory; but,
as long experience proves, very hard to put into practice—
.and this is to surrender the initial claim of Divine inspira
tion of the books, when, of course, it would be quite natural
and consistent to sit in judgment on them, as on any other
human writing, welcoming what in them we find good and
true, rejecting what we find bad and false.
It is indeed alleged that the special grace of the Holy
Spirit always illumines and guides every one who studies
these books in the proper frame of mind; but, as we find,
in fact, that no two serious students read quite alike—each
.reading in accordance with his peculiar temperament, intel
lect, training, and circumstances, precisely as he would read
were there no Holy Spirit in question—the said special
grace, having no perceptible effect, may be safely left out of
the calculation. Innumerable sectaries, all alike devout
and sincere, all alike drawing their inspiration from the
Bible, have differed widely on the very fundamental doc
trines of Christianity; and we never heard of the Holy
Spirit doing anything towards bringing these brethren into
unity. A Christian eclectic submits the Bible to the test of
his own reason and conscience, which have been educated
and purified, not by the book itself, nor by any supernatural
grace, but by the results of a long and gradual progress in
secular enlightenment and civilisation ; which progress has
been at nearly every step opposed on the authority of the
book, and in the name of the religion founded on it. Doc
trines that now revolt the common conscience did not in
former centuries revolt the consciences of men who were
taught by the book and purified by the Holy Spirit. It is
not by special grace, nor revelation of the Holy Scriptures,
but by critical scholarship, that men have come now to
decide as to the genuineness and authenticity, the date and
authority, of the various portions. Until free learning was
revived at the classical or heathenish Renaissance, the Holy
Spirit was content to leave all the most pious Biblical
�20
BIBLE MORALITY.
students in very deep darkness as to nearly all the points ott
which our eclectic Christians are now so clearly enlightened.
The family ideal set forth in the Bible is certainly not one
of a high ethical nature. The domestic relationship of
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon could
not be emulated to-day without practising gross injustice,and submitting to utter moral degradation. The IndoEuropean race has developed in morals as in knowledge,
and two thousand years ago, when Germanicus led the
Roman legions, he beheld with wonder the respect with
which the ignorant, rude, and warlike Germans treated their
wives and daughters. It is an insult to civilised women for
any one to commend the family ideal of those who made
woman a slave. Even Christ is represented as treating
women as if they were necessarily inferior to men ; while
his conduct to his mother, his commendation and personal
practice of celibacy, and his encouraging others to renounce
their own obligations to their families, are not calculated to
shed a halo of peace and happiness within the home circle.
Moreover, St. Paul’s doctrine of the absolute submission of
wives to their husbands can hardly be offered us to admire
as an ideal.
The Secularist family ideal is far superior to that of the
Bible, inasmuch as it is on a level with the ethics of our
societarian development. It teaches that marriage should
be the result of mutual affection, and that such a union
creates the responsibility of undivided allegiance, mutual
fidelity, and mutual consideration. It affirms that in the
domestic circle there should be no one-sided, absolute
authority; that husband and wife should be partners in
deed, not only in theory, animated alike by the desire to
promote each other’s happiness.
The basis of Bible morality, being God’s will, is very
delusive, for the simple reason that, if such a will has been
recorded, it is not known to us; and the conjectured repre
sentations of it given to us by theologians of all ages are
impracticable and conflicting. In the Bible there is not to
be found only one will ascribed to its Deity, but many;
and those are as contradictory as they are various. For
instance, murder, adultery, theft, deceit, and other crimes
can be proved from the Bible to be opposed to the expressed
desire of God, as given in the Scriptures; while upon the
�BIBLE MORALITY.
21
same authority these crimes can be shown to accord with
God’s will. The result is, it is impossible to regulate human
conduct upon the sanctions of either the “ inspired ” records.
It is this peculiar nature of Bible teachings which was, prob
ably, the cause of the early Christians lying for the glory of
the Church (see Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical History ”), and
of Christians at a more modern period robbing and murder
ing those whom they termed heretics. In doing what they
did in this persecuting business, the Bible believers, no
doubt, thought that they were acting in accordance with
•“God’s will,” as set forth in the “ Divine revelation.” The
founders and promoters of those body-and-mind-destroying
institutions, the Inquisition and the Star Chamber, were in
all probability sincere, and many of them in the affairs of
every-day life, apart from theology, good men. In religious
matters, however, they were cruel and inhuman in the
extreme. Why was this ? Because, no doubt, in punishing
even to death those who opposed the true faith, they thought
they were following the Bible as a guide (see Deuteronomy
xiii. 6-9).
The acceptance of the Bible as a standard of morality
involves also the recognition of teachings and doctrines that
are conflicting and impracticable. In one place we are told
that faith alone will save us (Romans iii. 27, 28); while in
another portion of this same “ authority ” we are assured
that works are necessary to secure salvation (James ii. 24).
In St. John we read, “No man cometh unto the Father but
by me ” [Christ] (xiv. 6); and in the same gospel it is
recorded, “ No man can come to me [Christ] except the
Father draw him ” (vi. 44). This makes salvation depend,
not upon man, but upon God. In John it is written, “ For
there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one
while Timothy states distinctly that “ there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
The New Testament teaches that Christ brought glad tidings
for all men ; yet we are assured that he came but to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel—that many are called, but
few are chosen. In one chapter we learn that all sin can
be forgiven, while in another part of the same book it is
said that the sin against the Holy Ghost is never to be for
given. In Timothy we read : “ For this is good and accept
�22
BIBLE MORALITY.
able in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all mento be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’7'
But this cannot be if it is true that “ for this cause God
shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a
lie.” If the delusions are sent by God, and if in conse
quence mankind believe a lie, and get punished hereafter
for such belief, it is only fair to suppose that God’s will was
that they should not come to a knowledge of the truth;
which contradicts what is stated in Timothy. John assuresus that “ whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and
ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
This is very consoling when we read the following : “ If any
man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters—yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” To be a disciple
of Christ you must hate your brother ; you are thus a mur
derer, and “no murderer hath eternal life.” If you wish,
therefore, to have eternal life, you must not become a dis
ciple of Christ. Martyrdom by death may not always be
the best way to advance a principle, inasmuch as more
good can generally be done by living for a cause than by
dying for it. But Christians say the martyrdom of the
early Christians proves the truth of their doctrines, and in
support of their contention they quote the words of Jesus :
“ And I [Jesus] say unto you, My friends, be not afraid of
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that
they can do.” These words, it is thought, prove that Jesus
taught and held life cheaply, in order to advance more
readily his doctrines. It appears, however, from John that
Christ did what many of his followers now do—taught one
thing and practised another; for on one occasion John says,
“ Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Jewry,
because the Jews sought to kill him.” What are we to do
in this case—follow Christ’s teaching, or his example ? To
follow both is impossible. Some persons condemn all war
upon the ground that it is anti-Scriptural, and in their justi
fication they quote Matthew, where he says : “ Then said
Jesus unto them, Put up again thy sword into its place; for
all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
The soldier, on the other hand, tells the peace man that we
ought to possess swords ; for in Luke it is said : “ He that
hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one.”
�BIBLE MORALITY.
23
Both would be equally justified, and both would be equally
condemned, by the New Testament—a very perplexing
position to be in. But the man fond of fighting would
keep his sword, believing that the more Christianity became
spread the more use there would be for the sword, as Christ
declared: “ Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am
come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law.” If Christ had succeeded in his object
-—and he has partially—the advocate of the sword would
have had good grounds for justification.
St. Paul considers charity the highest of virtues, without
which all other acquirements are as nothing. But then he
immediately destroys the efficacy of such teaching by the
following command : “ As we said before, so say I now
again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than
that ye have received, let him be accursed.” We are told
that “ wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom.”
But we are also assured that in much wisdom there is much
grief, and that he that increaseth knowledge increaseth
sorrow. It is folly to guide man to wisdom, telling him
that it is better than riches, while he is taught that “ the
wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.” Where is
the incentive for a youth to acquire knowledge when St.
Paul says, “It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the pru
dent ” ?
From these samples of the incoherent nature of Bible
statements and teachings, it will be seen how impossible it
is to rely implicitly on such a book as a guide in human
conduct. True, Christians may urge that there is no con
tradiction in the cases cited; that the Bible is God’s Word,
and must therefore be all true. It is in vain that the
student points out that this revelation abounds with impos
sibilities and absurdities, for he is reminded that with God
all things are possible, therefore let “ God be true, and
every man a liar.” It is further urged that the mistakes
occur through our lack of comprehension ; that the Scrip
tures would be plain enough if we could only “ see our way
clear ” to accept them as gospel; and that the depravity of
our nature prevents us viewing revealed truth in a spiritual
�24
BIBLE MORALITY.
light. These are the sentiments of many who profess to
accept the Bible as a guide. Truly, we must become as
little children if we endorse the doctrine of Scriptural infalli
bility.
The conduct of those who, in the face of such incon
sistency, contend for Bible infallibility is something more
than foolish; it is criminal. To shelter all that the Bible
contains under the halo of “ divinity ” is to pay homage to
the worst of human weaknesses. If a man is to pursue an
intellectual career; if he is to foster a manly independence;
if he is to live a life of integrity, he must not be bound
either by ancient folly or modern orthodoxy; but, unfettered,
he should learn the lessons afforded by a knowledge of the
facts of nature, and from the discoveries of science acquire
those rules which through life will be a surer counsellor than
the Bible, and a safer guide than theology.
�
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
Bible morality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the NSS pamphlet collection. Title in KVK given as 'Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide'. Publication given in KVK as London : Watts and Co., [19--].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[19--]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1582
N658
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Ethics
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 /><p>This work (Bible morality), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
NSS
Philosophy and Religion