1
10
120
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4571ffc366e80992b0c3c87a686e6c76.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=b0EBPlF7MDHro9jsktKNHi10belsFhi6aNiqYKBHT9jiZKP8i%7EN6jkbaNoLtHknC-m6vycZ7uIrvpj5nVWmekIAmmeiHXfWe53NzwHx10zINpMS8AgkQzLskuAsp0EDwH3cBvTTqWOLEc7u6ECuUvMwCMajzti6xtvc4G9LMzUvlp7tQE2lJJyhfGTopsKYkZWr5gLJnc6IMdY2Ipx5fASMmDIUZkfAstTFC1VuuxeP8Thv9tnUj3NOCUBbPSJmlTwEPkSHABz2%7E1vyuQMIm-hNq1ZEZ37SfrbkSwqVc6HLYVztN2ucAThTC59eBPFWzfQrB3Td6kQ0o9eBWrDenkg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfa74e648a725242d26ce7a1de3a9aae
PDF Text
Text
Wherein they Differ.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought/’
f th or of “ Teachilu/s of Secularisin Compared with Orthodox Christutn ityf'
**- F&dntum ami. Special Creatim^'1' Seeidarism: Ctn^tpuchiveand L>estmG^'e,” u Glori[^<jf Unbelieff “ Saints and Sinners: Which?"
J^ible 'Morality,’
Chrinanity: J ts Origin, Nature and;
- ii^lumtcef “ Agrwsticjgm and' Christian Theism: Which. is
the Metre Reasonable
“ Reply ta Father La'tnbert,"
- • ■
‘■‘■The Superstitionof the Christian Sunday: A
, i'iti ,' .■ Plea for Liberty wyd J> nd ice, ’ ‘fc The JSeprors
WfU,. d- ~ • of the French Rerohiidm," ttec., <£•«.<
■ t.
_
CO^EJ^S.
The Potency of Scienge.
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man..
Creation/, Time and* Mate
rial^ •
6. The BubEb Account
TTONg.
Soropto :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE, *
'5 Adelaide,- St. East?
, /PRICE
of the
Qrigin of Death.
7. The I&ble Deluge.
8-. The Mosaic Account of the
FlooI) : Scientific Obj ec-’
15 CENTS.
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN. THEY DIFFER.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“ Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence," “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism : Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,"
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice,''’ “ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” de., de.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONTENTS:
Science.
6. The Bible Account
The Potency of
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man.
Creation: Time and Mate
rial.
ofthk
Origin of Death.
7. The Bible Deluge.
8. The Mosaic Account of the
Flood : Scientific Objec
tions.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
15 CENTS.
A
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
The Potency of Science.—The distinguishing characteristic of this
age is science; it is essentially an age of invention, experiment
and discovery. Knowledge is pushed into the field of physical
nature on all hands to such an extent that each day brings to light
something both new and unforeseen. We are ever on the alert for
wonders in the field of discovery which will not amaze, simply
because they are not unusual. All thought to-day is more or
less influenced by natural science. Old opinions, not only in the
domain of the material, but also in the intellectual and moral,
have to be remoulded or abolished in obedience to the dictates
of the higher knowledge that we have attained of the workings
of natural law. That which cannot reconcile itself to science
must disappear as out of harmony with the genius of the epoch.
We do not, of course, allege that physical science covers the
entire field of knowledge, but we do contend that there is no
phase of thought that is not very largely moulded by modern
discoveries. Scientific truth can no longer be successfully op
posed, even by the most dogmatic theologian, and it is now too
powerful and too widely known to allow itself to be even
ignored. Hence, whatever opinions are advocated, the pretence
put forward in their favour usually is that they are in harmony
with science. The difficulty too often lies in making good this
claim.
Science may be defined as being an investigation into the
phenomena of nature, and the best application of the lessons de
rived thereby to the requirements of life. It may be further
described as meaning facts reduced to a system ; not a fixed,
cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. “■ Science is the enemy
of fear and credulity. It invites investigation, challenges the
�4
SCIENCE AND THE BIRLE:
reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the unbeliever. It
seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, education and liberty
to the human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It
has furnished a foundation for morals, a philosophy for the
guidance of man......................... It has taught man that he cannot
walk beyond the horizon—that the questions of origin and
destiny cannot be answered—that an infinite personality cannot
be comprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any
system of religion based on the supernatural cannot by any
possibility be established—such a religion not being within the
domain of evidence. And, above all. it teaches that all our duties
are here—-that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that
intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom
and that ‘ man believes not what he would, but what he can.’ ”
It has been said that we can have no complete system of science.
To some extent this is true ; for no science is perfect, if by per
fection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But
sufficient information of a positive character has been obtained
in many fields of enquiry to justify conclusions that may be re
garded as reliable. Science has stamped its valuable impress on
the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore
hitherto unknown regions; by its aid we can descend into the
depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological
errors that have too long held captive the human mind; by its
aid we can not only avert many of the diseases which “ flesh is
heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its
gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its mani
fold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the
strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations
from a state of barbarism to partial civilisation, and stimulated
man to emancipate himself from the curse of degrading super
stitions. That which was hidden from the gaze of the ancient
world has, by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us
in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the
broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com
municate with our European friends by that cable which connects
nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
5
we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very
length and breadth of the land. As the late Prince Consort of
England said in 1855 : “No human pursuits make any material
progress until science is brought to bear upon them............. Look
at the transformation which has gone on around us since the
laws of gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and the expansive
power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the
whole state of existence—one might say, the whole face of the
globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While
■contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is sadden
ing to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages
long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth
was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine
purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or ignorant
misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual
conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too
frequently its usefulness has been impaired, and its exponents
have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own
senses. True, from a theological standpoint we could not expect
aught else. A study of the histories of orthodox Bible believers
will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in
those discoveries which show so unmistakably the errors of their
faith.
The potency of science over the influence of theology was
never better presented than in the following eloquent language
by Col. Ingersoll : “ Science, thou art the great magician ! Thou
alone performest the true miracles. Thou alone workest the
real wonders. Fire is thy servant, lightning is thy messenger.
The waves obey thee, and thou knowest the circuits of the wind.
Thou art the great philanthropist! Thou hast freed the slave
and civilised the master. Thou hast taught men to chain not
his fellow-man, but the forces of nature—forces that have no
backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat—forces
that never know fatigue, that shed no tears—forces that have
no hearts to break. Thou gavest man the plough, the reaper and
the loom—thou hast fed and clothed the world ! Thou art the
great physician ! Thy touch hath given sight. Thou hast made
�6
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
the lame to leap, the dumb to speak, aud in the pallid cheek thy
hand hath set the rose of health. ‘ Thou hast given thy beloved
sleep’—a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing
nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence of man—
preserver of light and love ! Thou art the teacher of every
virtue, the enemy of every vice. Thou hast discovered the true
basis of morals—the origin and office of conscience—and hast
revealed the nature and measure of obligation. Thou hast
taught that love is justice in its highest form, and that even
self-love, guided by wisdom, embraces with loving arms the
human race. Thou hast slain the monsters of the past. Thou
hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou hast read the
records of the rocks, written by wind and wave, by frost and
flame—records that even priestcraft cannot change—and in thy
wondrous scales thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars.
Thou art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the
very Christ, the only saviour of mankind. Theology has always
been in the way of the advance of the human race. There is
this difference between science and theology—science is modest
and merciful, while theology is arrogant and cruel. The hope
of science is the perfection of the human race. The hope of
theology is the salvation of a few and the damnation of almost
everybody.”
Notwithstanding the value, potency and grandeur of science
it is only of comparatively recent date that its usefulness has
been fairly acknowledged and its power duly appreciated.
Formerly new discoveries were tested by the Bible and encour
aged or discouraged according to their agreement or disagreement
therewith. Fortunately, the Bible test is no longer accepted as
the standard of appeal but the question of utility has taken its
plaqe. Science now holds its undisputed sway although many
of its revelations contradict the teaching both of the Hebrew and
Christian Records.
The Bible and Science.—The Bible has hitherto occupied
in the world a very exceptional position, and there is still
claimed for it “ divine authority and unerring accuracy.” In
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
7
the multiplicity of tests to which its claims might be sub
jected, the one above all others which it must face to-day, isthat of science. By this it must stand or fall. If true, it
should not fear this mode of examination, but whether it does
or not it must submit to this tribunal.
That modern science has demonstrated as fallacies much that
the Bible contains is now recognised by many professing Chris
tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach
science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the or
thodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to
contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate
that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general im
provement. The national and individual condition of society
would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science..
For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science,
is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal
wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to*
have been written under divine inspiration for the guidance and.
instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, butshould expound its truths in such a concise and practical manner,,
that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should also
commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest
of the land. But it is not sufficient to say that the object of the
book was not to teach science ; that it had a far higher and5
nobler purpose. There might be some weight in such an allega
tion if all its teachings were confined to regions that lie outside
the domain of modern research, though even then such teachingscould not escape being tested by the influence which science hasexerted over every form of thought, indirect if not direct. Un
fortunately, however, for those who take this view, the Bible
does refer to scientific subjects, and deals quite largely with
matters that fall within the region in which science reigns
supreme. This being so, we are certainly justified in ascertain
ing whether or not the two are in harmony. That such subjects
are.dealt with no one can doubt who is at all acquainted with
the teachings of the book. Kalisch says, “ The Bible is not silent
upon the creation ; it attempts indeed to furnish its history \
�8
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
but iii this account it expresses as facts that which the researches
of science cannot sanction.” But the subject of creation is not
the only topic upon which the book states the very opposite to
what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the
phenomena of the solar system, and the mode by which disease
and death entered the world, are scientific questions. These,
with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a
reference to its statements thereon will show that science and
the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. The fact is there
have been but few discoveries of any magnitude in science that
have not exhibited in some way the fallacy of portions of the
Bible. That which in the days of Moses might have been con
sidered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science
has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as
natural laws, subsequent experience has shown to be in opposition
to scientific discoveries. The antiquity of man has been proved
to be considerably greater than Moses alleges; geology has
demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years before
the time of creation stated in the Jewish account; the theory that
all mankind descended from one primeval pair is now given up
as unreliable ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded ;
the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific sup
porters ; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed
in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded superstition; the teach
ing of the New Testament that the world and its contents are to
be destroyed by fire, has but few believers ; a burning hell for
the “ wicked souls of the departed ” is deemed too revolting and
absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction ; hence science has
practically killed the belief in the devil and firmly closed for
ever his supposed illuminated habitation. The Bible teaches
that mankind has degenerated from a state of perfection;
science, on the contrary, indicates that the career of man has
been progressive, and that each age, profiting by experience, has
been superior to its predecessor. The Bible affirms that at a
certain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares
that such an event could never have happened. The Bible asserts
that all the kingdoms of the world were exhibited from a cer-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
9
tain high mountain; geography teaches that there are many
parts of the world totally invisible from any one elevation. The
Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the water;
experience proves this to be impossible. In almost every field
the “ sacred writings ” appear to be the very antithesis of the
teachings of science.
The entire account of man’s early history as given in the
Bible is flatly contradicted by scientific research. Many attempts,
indeed, have been made to harmonise the two, but without suc
cess. Sophistry, equivocation, denunciation, all the engines, in
short, of polemical warfare, have been brought forward to dis
prove the well-attested facts of science; while those who have
been honest enough to restrict themselves to argument have
usually ended by accepting the facts and giving up the theory.
The great strength of a scientific theory lies in the cumulative
proof of which, if it be a scientific theory, it becomes capable ;
while a fact of science may be attested in many ways. For in
stance, while the geologists have bden at work tracing the
history of the earth from its earliest beginnings, and in so doing
have discovered evidence of the co-existence of man with many
of the extinct animals, of whose remote antiquity there can be no
doubt, the archaeologists have been busy in another field of en
quiry, and proving the same fact in another way. When the
same fact is thus arrived at by independent enquirers, and
different sciences force the mind to the same conclusion, the evi
dence of its truth is such as to be irresistible. Now the very
converse is the case with the orthodox defenders of the Bible.
Working in the same field, on the same subject-matter, they
arrive at various conclusions, and the best we have is a number
of conflicting theories, and if they were to be accepted a means
of harmonising the harmonisers must be found. Of course they
serve their purpose for a time by deceiving the uninformed and
misleading the unenquiring. But for the intelligent and logical
enquirer a study of the Hebrew Records themselves is quite
sufficient to discredit theology, and to show beyond all reason
able doubt that the Bible and science do not agree ; the one is
stationary, the other is progressive ; the first is bound by the
�10
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
ignorance of the past, the second is guided by the knowledge of
the present. Modern thought has neither hesitation nor regrets
in giving up the Bible as a monitor in the practical duties of life,,
for we have science remaining, and its light will shine with an
ever increasing brightness as the years roll on, until theological
ignorance and folly shall be replaced by a knowledge of natural
forces and a wisdom based on the experiences of a more un
fettered intellectual development.
The Bible and Creation.—The supposed creation of theworld and the origin of man as narrated in the Bible fur
nish striking evidence of the contradictory nature of the
teachings of that book to the revelations of science. If wo
accept the chronology of the Hebrew records as being correct,
there is no difficulty in ascertaining how long it is according
to the Bible since the world and man were created. For in
stance, in Genesis, we read that when Adam was 130 years old
his son Seth was born; when Seth was 105, Enos was born;
when Enos was 90, Cainsn was born; when Cainan was 70,
Mahalaleel was born ; when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born ;
when Jared was 162, Enoch was born; when Enoch was 65,
Methuselah was born ; when Methuselah was 187, Lamech was
born; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these
dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah. 1056yearr; 600 years after this the flood appears, making from the
creation of man to the flood, 1656 years. Then reckoning from
the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the
present time, 1890, we have a total of 6047 years since man first
appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus 20 it is said that “ in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is,” and in Genesis 1 we read that “ God created man on
the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days
after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this
adequate proof that the Bible teaches that "the world and man
have existed only a little over six thousand years ? This was
really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford,,
who, in his famous lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
11
of the Old and New Testaments,” delivered on behalf of the
Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really
historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture
is the shortness of the time into which all history is (or at any
rate appears to be) compressed by the chronological statements,
especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews is fixed by
many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century
before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus,
according to the numbers of our English version, but a very little
exceeds a thousand years. Consequently, it has been usual to
regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all man
kind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six
centuries of the Christian era ; and, therefore, that all history,
and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races
of men were formed, by which languages developed into their
numerous and diverse types, by which civilisation and art
emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within
the narrow space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our
Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insuffi
cient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms,
which reach back (according to the most moderate of modern
critical historians) to about the time at which the numbers of
our English Bible place the deluge. Considerable diversities of
language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly
different physical types appeared not much subsequently ; civili
sation in Egypt had, about the pyramid period, which few now
place later than B.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts existed
in the shape in which they were known in the country at its
most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted
anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of
Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show
to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our
English Bible do not allow ”
Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geo
logical lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage
—a Christian writer—that “ the mass of evidence which com
bines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irre-
�12
sciteNcfe
and the bible
:
Sistible and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but
those who ate alike incapable of observing the facts and appre■ciating the reasoning can for a momeut conceive the present
state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of
existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent
their lives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclu
sion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the
-earth’s first formation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to
be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all com
petent persons that the formation even of those strata which are
nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably
millions of years, in arriving at their present state.” In reply to
this, two different theories have been put forth in defence of the
Bible records with a view of bringing them into harmony with
science. The first theory is that a long period—countless ages,
in fact—elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd
verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first
two chapters of that book was only a re-adaptation of the chaos
of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is
made to animals or plants as being in existence before the time
referred to by Moses ? Is it not said by this writer that light
was created on the first of. the six days, and the sun on the
fourth ? Admit this to be true, and then, previous to that time,
there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which
science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological
investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants
found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the
-earth, indicating thereby that no new creation took place 6,000
years ago ? Clearly theie was and could be no such break in
the continuity of the chain of geological events as this theory
assumes. The remains of animals and plants found in the tertiary
are identical with those living to-day, and there was, therefore,
no new creation of fauna and flora at the time at which the
writer of Genesis declares the origin of the whole to have taken
place. If such had occurred evidences of it would be found in
those old records written in stone, which cannot err as docu
ments may do that have been produced by human fingers.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
13‘
Besides, does it not look very much like a childish work of
supererogation to create by a special supernatural act a new set
of plants and animals, exactly like those already existing, who
would, as a matter of course, have propagated their species in
the ordinary natural way as they had been doing for generations
before ? Nor is there the slightest intimation in the book that
any sort of an interval of long duration occurred between the
. creation described in the first verse and that enumerated in the
subsequent account. It is evidently one continuous record, the
whole extending over just six days. The second theory is that
the days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days, but long
periods extending probably over millions of years. This is the
more popular of the two theories amongst orthodox Christians
at the present time. But, like the other, it is beset with insur
mountable difficulties. The light and the darkness are stated to
be synonymous with day and night, which alternate regularly
with each other. Epochs of light and equally long epochs of
darkness we know did not occur, for such darkness would have
been fatal to the vegetation which existed. Then the keeping
of the Sabbath day is enjoined on the principle that God worked
for six days and rested on the seventh, leaving the inference
conclusive that the days in the one case were the same as those
in the other. The most fatal objection, however, of all to the entire
theory is that the order of creation as described in Genesis and
that discovered by geological science are not at all the same. The
vegetable kingdom was not in its origin separated by millions of
years from the beginnings of animal life, as this theory would
make it appear to have been, one entire day or epoch coming
between them ; neither did the higher and lower forms of land
animals make their appearance at the same time. From any
point of view, no reconciliation between the Bible and science
appears to us possible, at least upon this point.
The Origin of Man.—Whatever lack of information may
exist as to the precise time when man first appeared on
the earth, it is as certain as anything can be that the
human family have been in existence much longer than
�14
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the time stated in the Bible. Professor Huxley writes:—
Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption that man co
existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a
barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared
together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles
Lyell supports the statement, that “ North America was peopled
more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr.
Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the
delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen
■claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years
prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire
■of hereditary kings to 5413 B.C. “ It is now generally conceded,”
observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which
we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon
•earth; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or
millions of years.beyond our reach. The spurious systems of
Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the
Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by
prejudice, to the monumental records of Egypt as our best guide.
Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primitive state of
man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages ; for the Egyptian
Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before
'Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and
surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from
the barbarous stage...........These authorities, in support of the
extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though
startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a
few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the
leading geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so ex
treme for man’s existence on earth may shock some preconceived
opinions, it is none the less certain that the rapid accumulation
of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific
world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have alreadycarried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and
when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to
attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This
•conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such arch-ae-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
15
ologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt,
etc., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick,
Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have
really mastered the monuments of Egypt. Nor do these monu
ments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full
tide of civilisation, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the
same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold
intercourse with Egypt at the present day.......... In short, we
know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it
now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a
dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period
going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to
the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the world.” The
two magnificent works of Nott and Gliddon, entitled “ Types of
. Mankind ” and “ Indigenous Races,” are too little read at the
present time. They contain some few errors, no doubt, but on
the whole they abound in erudition and furnish overwhelming
evidence both of man’s early appearance on the earth and of the
impossibility of supposing all the races to have had the same
origin. The Adam and Eve theory is shattered into fragments
by the facts produced in such abundance. No answer to these
books has been put forth, and we fail to see that any is possible.
“ The theory,” say Nott and Gliddon,“that all nations are made
of one blood, is entirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that
all mankind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of
Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could
trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distincion characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the
case. “We know,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ of no archae
ologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver
that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and
scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as dis
tinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this
moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes,
Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monu
ments, of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the
paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age.
�16
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the
multifarious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock ; because
the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were
absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they
are now; just as they all were then from co-existent Negroes.
Such a miracle, indeed, has been invented, and dogmatically
defended ; but it is a bare postulate, and positively refuted by
scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there
must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian
races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr.
Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt prove
beyond all question that the Caucasian and the Negro races
were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years
ago as they are now. If, then, the difference which we find ex
isting between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced
by external causes, such change must have been effected accord
ing to Bible chronology in about 1,000 years. This theory is
decidedly contradicted by science and experience.” Now, no
external causes are known that are capable of producing all
the varieties of mankind as we see them to-day. They appear
to be separated from each other by broad lines of demarcation
which nothing that we are at present acquainted with can bridge
over. No consideration of the influence of sun, climate, or geo
graphical position will aid us in solving the problem. If man
kind all sprang from the same stock, which of course is very
questionable, it must have been tens of thousands of years before
the time at which Adam is supposed to have lived. For, as Pro
fessor Draper observes :—“ So far as investigations have gone
they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote
from us by many hundreds of thousands of years......... We are
thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years
of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date
for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of
years, and human existence antedates that. But not only is it
that this grand fact confronts us, we have to admit also a primi
tive animalised state and a slow and gradual development. But
this forlorn, this savage condition of humanity is in strong con-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
17
trast to the Paradisiacal happiness of the Garden of Eden, and
what is far more serious, it is inconsistent with the theory of
the Fall.” [“ Science and Religion,” pp. 199-200.] It is evident,
therefore, that the Bible is at fault in reference to man’s origin,
and no sophistry of explanation will make it agree with the
records of science.
Creation: Time and Material.—The’ disagreement between
the Bible and science as to the time occupied in the al
leged creation of the world is exceedingly clear. According
to the account in the Bible, this event occurred in six days.
There it is distinctly stated that the heavens and the earth and
all that in them is, were created in six days (Ex. 20 : 11). “For
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord
blessed the seventh day and hallowedit.” The Jews understood
the word “day” as embracing a common day of twenty-four
hours. From the 20th of Exodus it is perfectly certain that it
is to be understood literally. God commands the Jews to “ Re
member the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,.
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid
servant, nor thy ’cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”
Why ? Because—“ For in six’ days the Lord made heaven andi
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh
day ; wherdfore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed
it.” “ Now,” remarks S. J. Finney, “ if the word ‘ day ’ is an in
definite word, embracing a long and indefinite period of time,
how could the Jews know when to work or when to rest, and
how do we know when to keep the Sabbath at all ? If it means,
according to Dr. John Pye Smith, many thousands or even
millions of years, the Sabbath has not yet begun; men are fooling
away one seventh of their time on a false notion that it is
‘ holy.’ ” But it has already been shown that the epoch theory
entirely breaks down when tested by facts. Mr. Priaulx says
“ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division
�18
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined
hy any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless,
no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twentyfour hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent
the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six
natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation
by a chaotic period. Geologists, on the conti ary, declare that
■the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous
periods of time during their formation, and that even in the
■vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of
species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual
■change in the organic world.
Equally at fault is the Bible with reference to the sequence of
events. So diverse, in fact, are the accounts as furnished by
the Bible and by science up©« this zpoint that all attempts to
reconcile them must prove to be time wasted and labour thrown
away. Many years ago Dr. Sexton, who although now a Chris
tian is still & scientist, and would find some difficulty in replying
to his early writings, wrote as follows in his “ Concessions of
Theology to Science ” :—“ The greatest objection, and one which
is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first
chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days
as including all the ages that have passed away, during which
those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their
appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the
rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not
the same in the two cases. According to geology, there is a
gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and
animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being
found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more
recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of
the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all
the inhabitants of the waters in another—the two separated
from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created
but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the
organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as
creeping things, and as high as man,, which certainly does not
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
19
accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which
are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of
existence, are represented as having made their appearance with
the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also
contrary to fact. The sun, too, does not exist till the epoch after
the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as
the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must
have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is
a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the
theory that light had been previously formed, and that there
fore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s
rays is equally as indispensable to vegetation as the luminous
portion that we call light.”
The Bible statement of the material from which man was
made differs from the facts discovered by scientific investigation.
We read irt Genesis that man was made from the dust of the
earth ; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved that
dust does not contain the elements found in the human organ
ism. The late Dr. Herapath, one of the leading chemists of
the day, wrote thus boldly upon this subject:—“ From our days
of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us ‘ that man
was made out of the dust of the earth ; ’ and, ‘ as dust thou
art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion, if literally
true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as one of the
elements of organised structure, for no soil or earthy material
capable of being employed by agriculturists can be found with
out alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot
be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests
against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as
geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical
sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits
by those who have neglected the study of true science, but still
profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That
man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organic
material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated
by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves
to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of
�20
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this
fluid certainly cannot be found in dust, for we only apply that
ter<n to earth that is dry. Dust mixed with twice its own weight
of water would cease to be described as dust. Yet there is no
escape from the statement made in the Bible that of such ma
terial as dust man was formed. The literal reading of the ori
ginal, as all scholars agree, is “ dust from the ground,” that is,
ordinary dust such as we meet with on the ground. Now, it is
certain man was not made from any such material, and by no
legitimate stretch of language can it with anything like accu
racy or truth be said that he was. The principal elementary
. substances to be found in human bodies are oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen and carbon, but these are not to be found in ordinary
dust, with the exception of a very trifling modicum of oxygen.
Silicon, one of the main ingredients of dust, can hardly be de
tected in the human organism. The Lamaic creed supposes man
is the production of water. Priaulx suggests that, had the writer
of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat
nearer the truth.
The Bible Account of the Origin of Death.—The Bible
alleges that “by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; ” that is, that through the supposed disobedi
ence of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the
alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a
punishment, i« to many “a consummation devoutly to be
wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of
corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a
curse upon man not to die. Are there not thousands who suffer
a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or
opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of
nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a
welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis,
how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into
realms of bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead
of remaining in this “ vale of tears, ought certainly to be
accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his condition.
�WHERMN THEY DIFFER.
21
But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of
death involves many difficulties. If death had not been intro
duced, could the world contain its ever-increasing inhabitants ?
And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient
to support such an immense multitude ? Suppose the serpent
had not played its “little game,” could a man who had no know
ledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the
chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in
a furnace and not be burned to death ? Or if he were in a coal
mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further,
did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ?
If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read,
“ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If,
however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of
theij; kind took a prominent part in what is termed “ the fall of
man ? ” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death
is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man
cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an
universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law.
As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to
that change until we progress to a given point; then our organ
isation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely
•exhaust life’s power, and death ensues as certainly as a fire will
cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition
•of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But
the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” death was not
.a necessary consequence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic
statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted
similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the con
trary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure,
how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ
in their nature from those whose offspring they are. Certain it
is that man’s constitution is such that he cannot avoid the
liability to death. He is so organised that all the influences
operating upon him, while for a time and under certain condi
tions they afford him sustenance and support, may yet, diverted
from their normal purpose, cause him to cease to live. Indeed,
�22
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
it is impossible even to conceive of a human body which is pos
sessed of immortality. The phrase is used glibly enough, but let
one reflect upon it, and ask himself what is the meaning that he
attaches to the expression “immortal man.” A human being lives
by taking food, and that very food diverted from its proper pur
pose may cause death; anyhow, its absence will produce that
effect. Excretions of a poisonous character are continually being
eliminated, and should the glandular organ whose function it is
to remove these deleterious substances cease to act, then the
result is as fatal as though a poison had been swallowed. If it
be said that this would not occur because there would be no
disease, we reply that there is still the impossibility of supposing
an organism, whose existence is dependent on something outside
itself, being at the same time independent of all else.
Then there is the important fact that death was in the ^orld
millions of ages before the supposed existence of Adam and
Eve. There are, indeed, few persons of any education now who
can doubt that at least the lower animals died long before man
was created. Geology has brought to light their fossil remainsentombed in the various rocks which go to make up the crust
of the earth. They came into existence, played their brief part
on life’s stage, and passed away, not simply individually, but
in whole races, long before the era dawned which gave man bis
birth. They preyed on one another then as now, the carnivora
devouring the less ferocious tribes ; and both together becoming’
buried in the earth, their remains were preserved to tell their
history to future generations of men. Race followed race in long
succession, each to pass away as its predecessor bad done whilst
as yet man had not made his appearance upon the scene.
But it was not simply the lower animals that died before the
time assigned to the creation of Adam, It is now demonstrated
beyond the shadow of a doubt that man had shared the same
fate ages before. If our fabled first parents resided in the Gar
den of Eden six thousand years ago, they came far too late in
the history of the world to be the progenitors of the whole
human family. Whole races had flourished and had passed
away long before that time. Death had existed whilst the per-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
petrator of original sin was not yet born. In no sense, there
fore, can it be a fact that Adam’s sin was the cause of death.
The Fall itself involves contradictions to science. Take, for in
stance, the curses pronounced on the ground, the woman, and
the serpent : the merest tyro in science knows that all these
are simply non-existent. Thorns and thistles are not accursed ,
on the contrary, they are highly useful plants. Moreover, they
were in existence long before the time at which the Fall is said
to have occurred. And they most unquestionably made their
first appearance, not as the result of any curse of God, but by
the ordinary laws of nature. Then the so-called curse on woman
is by no means universal. The pains referred to occur in their
severe form only amongst civilised peoples, and always as a re
sult'of artificial modes of living and the violation of natural
laws. Savage women are almost exempt from such pains, and
suffer no more than do the lower animals. The curse upon the
serpent is still more absurd : “ On thy belly shalt thou go,” as
though serpents ever practised locomotion in any other way.
Nor were serpents changed in their organisation at this time—
as some have suggested—for the remains of those found in
geological strata, whose existence dates back to a period pro
bably a million years before man appeared, show precisely the
same kind of organisation as their modern descendants. Thesecurses are, to say the least, very childish, and place the charac
ter of the Being who is said to have uttered them in a very
contemptible and degrading light. Fortunately, however, ac
cording to science, the whole story is regarded as fiction, not as
fact.
The Bible Deluge.—Modern researches have unmistakeably
established the fact that between science and the Mosaic ac
count of the flood there is an absolute antagonism.
The
Bible statement is, that less than five thousand years ago, God
discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.” Not two thousand years before
this, so the book relates, God had made man pure and
�24
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine super
intendence, and subsequently the edification of the preaching of
Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the
Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind from degenerating so rapidly
that the Lord repented “ that he had made man, and it grieved
him at his heart.” God possessed, it is .-aid, infinite power, wis
dom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise
a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead
upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all except one
family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment
of justice and to every feeling of benevolence. No being with a
spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily
exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the
agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent
God could have found other means to correct the work of his
own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and a warning, the cold water pro
cess proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better
after the deluge than they were before it.
If this deluge were a fact, what can be said of the God who
was the chief actor in it, and who was entirely responsible for
the great calamity—an event so fearfully cruel and so revolting
that one “ cannot think of it without horror nor contemplate it
without dismay.” How can we reconcile the drowning of a
whole world with the justice and goodness of the Almighty
One ? Say that the wickedne-s of man was great upon the
earth, was that any reason for destroying any chance of repent
ance ? What should we say of an earthly despot who acted in
a like manner ? The cruelty and supreme wickedness of the
action thus attributed to God has never been paralleled or even
approached by the greatest monster the world has ever seen ;
and on the part of infinite power the action mu-t partake of the
character of the actor and become infinite in its utter depravity.
Say that men were wicked, was it therefore just to overwhelm
in a common destruction the son with the sire, the little child
who had not yet learned to sin with those who were the real
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
25
sinners ? In the presence of this narrative, we can only say
that, if men were wicked, the being who destroyed them was
more wicked still.
Again, according to the orthodox version of this fearful
tragedy, man had fallen, Adam for his sin had been cast out of
Eden, and the redemption of man was impossible through any
efforts of his own. The Redeemer who was necessary had not
yet been sent. How, then, could it be consistent with infinite
goodness to punish for wickedness which was unavoidable, to
destroy man that he was sinful when he could not by any possi
bility be otherwise ? Moreover, be it observed that this narra
tion is a libel upon the character of God in other ways. By
this universal deluge a great change was effected, but no im
provement. The new generations were as wicked as those which
had gone before ; nay, the very man Noah, who had found grace
in the sight of God, was drunk in his tent immediately, and his
son Canaan, another of the saved ones, maketh shame of his
father. In the 9 th chapter of Genesis the whole disgusting ac
count may be found. The God who drowned the world to cure
the evil in it with no better results than this could not be a God
of any foreknowledge. Or, if it be said that he knew this
would be so, then the utter malignity of the drowning becomes
only proportionately increased.
Our present object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman
character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in
Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern investigations
and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palp
able that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of
the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was
only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in
error, inasmuch as it clearly teaches the universality of the
deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, ch. 6
and 7 : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have
created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and
the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me
that I have made them'” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a
flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is
�26
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the breath of life, from under heaven ; and everything that is
in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I havemade will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living
substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of
the heaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah
only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
Bishop Colenso says that the Flood described in Genesis, whether
it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in
credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his
work, “The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that
Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have
doubted the universality of the deluge......... I need not refer
more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood ; this
seems to me even more astonishing than the universal.” Pro
fessor Hitchcock observes: “ I am willing to acknowledge that
the language of the Bible on this subject seems at first view to
teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the
supposition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to
know what prevented the water from finding its level. More
over, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion
of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that
no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found.
Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals
if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family,
together with “ two of every sort,” could have emigrated to
those parts which the deluge was not intended to visit.
In speaking of this flood, “ Julian,” one of the ablest Biblical
scholars in England at the present day, in his excellent .work,
“ Bible Words : Human, Not Divine,” has the following valuable
remarks upon the account as given in Genesis chapters 6, 7,.
and 8 :
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
27
“ Two of Evtry Sort.—Chapter 6 is Eloistic: the word ‘God’
is used. In verses 19, 20, we read: And God said to Noah he
was to take into the ark ‘two of every sort,’ to keep the race
alive; the two were to be a male and its female : ‘ Of fowls after
their kind, and of cattle after their kind; of every creeping
thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come
unto thee. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten,,
which thou shalt gather together for thee and them.’’
“ This writer evidently supposed that wild beasts and birds of
prey could feed on hay and eat ‘ straw like an ox ; ’ that the
number of animals was so small that two of every sort could be
stalled in an ordinary-sized church ; and that four men would
suffice to feed all the animals and remove the filth from the ark.
Why, a small travelling menagerie requires more attendants to
feed the collection and keep the place clean.
“ The writer supposed that wild beasts would consort with
their lawful prey—serpents with doves, hawks with sparrows,
owls with mice, and insectivorous birds with insects ; for, though*
daily food was to be taken into the ark, only two of every
sort of animal were to be saved, just enough to keep the race
alive.
“ Seven of Clean Animals and Birds.—‘ Two of every sort,’
Elohim says, and repeats the injunction—two of every sort,
remember; only two, and no more ; one male and one female of
each species of beast, bird, and reptile. The-next chapter (7) is
a Jehovistic one; for, instead of God, we read ‘Lord,’ or the
‘ Lord God ; ’ and here a distinction is made between clean and
unclean beasts, and between quadrupedsand birds. Mark what
is said : ‘ Of every clean beast (7 : 2, 3) thou shalt take to theeby sevens, the male and the female; and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls of the air by
sevens, the male and the female.’
“Here the direction is seven clean beasts and seven of all
species of birds, ‘ a male and its female.’ Now, as seven is an
odd number, it was plainly impossible to pair seven animals ; sothe writer must have meant seven pairs, or fourteen of every
clean beast and every fowl of the air. This, of course, would
�38
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
require a much larger ark, and would greatly increase the daily
labour of Noah and his family.
“ This wise and sagacious writer saw plainly that birds and
beasts of prey could not live upon seed, so he increases the num
ber of animals for food. He also wanted Noah to offer sacrifice
after the Flood ; -and, had he killed one of his two clean beasts,
he would have extirpated the race ; so he makes Jehovah coun
termand the order of Elohim, and tell Noah that Elohim made a
mistake ; that he did not mean ‘ two of every sort of beast and
bird and creeping thing,’ but only of unclean beasts. All clean
beasts and all birds wTere to be collected by sevens (a sacred
number); but why seven pairs of eagles, vultures, condors,
toucans, parrots, lyre-birds, mocking-birds, cranes, owls, and so
on, is a mystery of mysteries.”
<
Scientific Objections to the Mosaic Account of the Flood.—
Among the many scientific objections to the account of the
Flood as given in the Bible are the following :
1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demonstra
tion that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the
result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The
evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progress
ing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection
to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Bev.
Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many
leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c, who once referred
the diluvium to the one period of the historic deluge, have now
publicly, withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh Miller, in his “Testi
mony of the Rocks,” says: “ In various parts of the world, such
as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna,
there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes,
which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian
deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent ma-'
terials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calcu
lations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have
passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve
thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
29
provinces of France, Kalisth, in his Genesis, observes: “Distinct
mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and
animal life, bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition
of our planet.......... That extraordinary region contains rocks,
consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits; one of
the rocks is sixty feet in thickness ; and a moderate calculation
shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that
single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote
than the date of the Noachian flood ; they show not the slightest
trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge;
their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology
irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has been subject
to many floods, it has never been visited by such an one as that
described in the Bible.
The evidences of the Flood that have been sometimes quoted
are really funny. Not long ago Talmage declared that the flood
was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction by the fact
that sea shells and other remains of marine animals were often
found on the summit of the highest mountains. He forgot to
mention that the Flood was said to have been caused by fresh
water, and that consequently marine animals could have had no
place in its waters. These remans found on mountain tops are
due to other and well known causes. Geologically there is not
only no evidence that such a flood occurred as that described in
the Bible, but there is a mass of undoubted evidence to the con
trary. “ Julian ” observes : “ Such a cataclysm as the Flood
must have left its marks on the earth ; but geologists have not
succeeded in finding a single trace—no confusion of animal
relics, no huge water gullies, no stratum of alluvial earth, which
such a sweep of water would produce. We find relics of marine
animals inland, it is true, and on the tops of high mountains;
but these fossils are all in order, each in its own stratum. There
is no confusion of animals in these rocks, as if a world had been
stamped out in forty days.”
2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says: “And the
waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high
i
�30
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
thills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further,
“ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount
Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, there
fore, required to cover this mountain would be, in the estimation
■of Dr. Pye Smith, Professor Hitchcock, and many other eminent
writers, eight times greater than what already existed. From
whence then came the tremendous mass of water required to
produce the Flood, and what became of it afterwards ? These
.are questions which Biblical students should answer or con
fess their inability to do so and admit the absurdity of the
.record.
3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have been
not more than 600 feet long, 100 feet broad, and 60 feet high ;
yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but
“ two of every living thing of all flesh.” According to Hugh
Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of
birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that
so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have
furnished accommodation for this vast congregation ? Space,
too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the
Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob
tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to some
forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for
so long a period the carnivorous and herbivorous animals—the
swallows, ant-eaters, spiders, and flies ? The Black Hole of Cal
cutta would have been a paradise to it. It is monstrous folly to
suppose all the animals of the earth, by twos and sevens, could
be squeezed into such a space. It is no less folly to suppose that
they would not all have been suffocated before one day had
passed. There is a little difficulty also about the light. There
were, it appears, three storeys in the Ark, and but one window.
Now, where was the window positioned ? In the upper storey ?
Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two storeys of the Ark
were in the dark, where many of those have since been who
have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of
science.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
31
4. The Collecting the Animals. The difficulties attending the
narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are
thus aptly put by the Rev. T. R. Stebbing, M.A.: “ To achieve it
he (Noah) must have gone in person, or sent expeditions, to
Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North
for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ;
the hippopotamus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the
apteryz, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought
together by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game,
caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas and titmice must
all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be em
ployed to secure them uninjured. They must be fed and cared
for during a journey, perhaps of thousands of miles, till they
reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one ano
ther while the search is continued for rats, and bats, and vipers
and toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch,
specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace,
would naturally wish and naturally be selected to transmit as a
boon to his favoured descendants.”
5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that,
after the waters began to subside, the inhabitants of the Ark
existed for nearly eight months in the temperature prevailing at
a spot “ 3,000 feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely
will not be contended that this statement harmonises with sci
ence any more than does the reeord of an olive tree retaining its
life after being under the pressure of several tons’ weight of
water for nearly three-quarters of a year. “ Naturalists tell us
that sun and air are needful for vegetable life; but neither sun
nor air could get to trees buried seven miles deep in water. And
even supposing the trees to have been in leaf, a wind sufficiently
high to dry up seven miles of water in 110 days would certainly
have stripped the trees, if it had not rooted them up altogether.’
Colenso says :—“ The difficulty, that so long an immersion in
deep water would kill the olive, had, no doubt, never occurred
to the writer, who may have observed that trees survived ordin
ary partial floods, and inferred that they would just as well be
�32
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
able to sustain the deluge to which his imagination subjected
them.” Kalisch observes : “ It is agreed by all botanical autho
rities, that, though partial inundations of rivers do not long or
materially change the vegetation of a region, the infusion of
great quantities of salt water destroys it entirely for long
periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine imme
diately after the cessation of the Deluge.”
�* Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WWH
Orthodox Christianity, 96 pages.’ Price 25 cents.
Contents.—Physical Teachings. Intellectual Teachings. Present Condition of
Society. Morality. Ethics pf Religion Secularism and the Supernatural. Secu
larism at the hour of Death. Secularism in ^Toeory
Secularism in Practice,
Secularism more reasonable than Christianity. /‘Secularism more noble than Christ
ianity. Secularism more beneficial than Christianity. Secu'ariSm Progressive.
Secularism, its Triumphs. Secularism, its Service to Mankind. Secularism, its
Struggles in the Past. Secularism in the Future. Summing up.
SECULARISM
«
IS IT BOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND I- jslebate between the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Chai les Watts. With
Prefatory Leiters by Gemge Jacob Htflyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an.
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents,
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S
20 cents, post free.
TACTICS of INFIDELS.”’
*v.V’
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
ContsNTS.—Christianity rf'Human Origin—Not Original^-Tndefinite, Im'
practicable and Contradictory in its Nat use— Its Influence Tested by‘Histpiy apd the
Admissions of Christian Writers
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THEIR
CAUSES 24 pages, price to cents
.
Contents.—Atheism and Social Order—Indications of a Great Struggle - Or
thodox Misrepresentation—The'Horrors of the French Resolution—The Causes
of the Excis es
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
pages in.cover ; price 10c.
22
Contents.—What is Secularism? Bible Idolatry—The Secularist's Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man and his
supposed redemption through Christr Reason and Experience the true guide in
human actions Why supreme attention should be given to the duties of this life.
Science more trustworthy than reliance upon any supposed Supenja ural power.
Morality is of natural growth, haying no necessary connection w thT/tflogy. Tne'
consistent carrying out of Secular teaching in every day life the best preparation for
any future exis’ence,
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
Contents.—Bib|e Morality, Bible Teachings, Tqe Christian’s Theory of the j
Bible, The Bible as a Guide.
AGNOSTICISM AND € HRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price lO cents.
Contents.—(1) What is Agnosticism ? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and to
Chi istian Theism. (3) Is it sufficient to sati.-ify man s" intellectual fequirements.
The batural and the Supernatural.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
10 cents. '
Contents.—What is Evolution ? The Formation of Worlds. Tee Beginning
Life upon the Earth. Origin of Man. Diversity of Living 1'nings. Physical
Powers. The Future of Man on Earth.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH1
24 pages in cover : price 1 Oc.
Contents. —The orthodox division of mankind in*o only two classes an error
Who are the Saints? Catholic and Protestant Saints. Pre-ordained and
Free-will Saints The Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily and HalfandJHalf Saints. Who are the >pipers, and what is 'in,? The relative value
of the servic&rendered to the world py Saints and finders,
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE’ CHRISTIAN SUNDAY:^ A
Plea for-Liberty and <Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
Contents.—Introduction The Sabbath : Its Origin. Tne Institution - of Sun
day. Sabbatarian Inconsistency r- Sabbatarianism and Morality. A Free Sunday
and a Day of Rest.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF?* 22 pages in cover; price 10e.
Contents.—Wnerein does the Glory of Unbelief consist? dUnbehef widespread
amongst all classes, Wnat is Unbelief? Its true nature defined- Can it be dis
pensed with ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done for the world.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL;
or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE, 24 pages, price io cents.
Content^.—I. Whatjdowe Know of.Nature-? IL Th^Grandeur ind Potency
of Nature. III. The Supernatural. IV. What is the Supernatural ?■ V. Belief
and Knowledge. VI; Religion ; Natural and Supernatural.
.
i
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the-Justice^ of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to.Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages iif cover; price 10c.
p
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.'
Dr R. F Burfis, of Halifax, N.S, 16 pages, jtfricb 5c.
In this letter the following subjects are dealt with ". I. Why do the Clergy Avoid
Debate? 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towards Christianity. 3. Freethopgbt
and Men of Science. 4. The Difference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ
and Heroism. 6. Christianity and Slavery.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
last published/
CHRISTIANITY: DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARYKate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price to cents.
-By
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? fl.“ Our Father Which art in
Heaven.” lit Tfae FaiJ and the Atonements fV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity. V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT:
(The Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union).
A. Journal of
TTiomglit.
CHARLIES WATTS - - Editor
Secular Thought is devoted mainly to the promulgation of Cqnstructive Sh3ularisin in the affairs of everyday life and is purely
Agnostic in reference th all phases of Alleged Supernatural ism.
Secular Thought is published every SATti'iDAY, at Millichamp’s
Buiiding, 31 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, OnL
Terms : $2.00 a Year (paid iff advance); $1.00 for six months.
Single copies, 6 cents
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE
-----
TORONTO, ONT
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Science and the Bible : wherein they differ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Spine title: Pamphlets by Charles Watts. Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Science</span> and <span class="highlight">the</span> <span class="highlight">Bible</span> : <span class="highlight">wherein</span> <span class="highlight">they</span> <span class="highlight">differ</span>), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA840
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3224db3aa937b7de80b81813628c309c.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=vDlelMvZqcV3n%7E4RPFxsBpcDwbEcp%7EgySr6il8vSVJeF0-Nq0JjpldzTOqffKwxByEhoObadv9dXeRwawl1STSBPgw3mQN0waUHncKXpVR80AV%7Eh8ak%7EyPf4ZHPpIENFFchLL63VPCCKLMUkd0EKqD6ASqhW252dYyBCyiaylXkQ%7Ei9AmEzlUT3PeSLh3rHqcvP%7EUHBv9QZL0fsTnY-sNpP7%7EqH8x%7EUeBNTFsmrQvw%7ED1MRdeZB33z%7EH%7ES-c3AY3DWGjc1j3M9iuJNmSW3NYYRLhAZIgbPCNLzNror7%7EpcIYTPRHx57-730dvy12IcX89NIa%7EzkUtAg6227Y9nVnwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d058292252481749b9e91f9ce8eb03e
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGICAL
PRESUMPTION
AN
LETTER
OPEN
TO
THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALIFAX, N.S.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ^Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,'’ “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,”
“
Superstition of the Christian Sunday : A
Plea for Liberty and Justice, ” ‘ ‘ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” Ac., Ac.
In this Letter the following subjects are dealt with : 1. Why do the
Clergy Avoid Debate 1 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towar Is
Christianity. 3. Freethought and Men of Science. 4. The Dif
ference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ and Heroism.
6. Christianity and Slavery.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
-
5
CENTS.
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMP1ION.
-AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALTFAX, N.S.
Reverend Sir :—In No. 1 of The Theologue, a magazine issued
apparently under the auspices of the Presbyterian College at
Halifax, N.S., you have published a lengthy article purporting to
be a reply to “ A Canadian Agnostic,” although it is evidently
intended to refer to myself. You commence by saying:—“ For
between two and three years past the Maritime Provinces have
received periodical visits from the chief champion of Agnosticism
in Canada.” Is it not rather surprising that a reverend gentle
man of your position, influence, and ability should have remained
so long silent and allowed this “ Canadian Agnostic ” to have
made his “periodical visits,” and to have given utterance to what
you are pleased to term “ unsupported statements and pitiful
perversions,” without seeking to reply to him face to face, cor
recting the mischief which you suppose that he wrought upon
the minds of his hearers ? Is it not your duty as a Christian
minister to “ defend the faith ” in the presence of those before
whom it is attacked ? Are you not aware that the Bible enjoins,
«tnd that your Master and his chief successor, St. Paul, set you
the example, to “ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself ” ?
t(Prov. 25:9). Do we not read in the “ Word of God,” “ Come
now and let us reason together ” (Isaiah 1 : 18) ; also, that very
•early in his career Jesus was found in the temple in the midst of
doctors, “ both hearing them and asking them questions,” and
that St. Paul “ disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and
with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him, and spake boldly for the space of three
months ” (Acts 17 : 17 ; 19: 8). Pardon me, Reverend Sir, for
sasking what reason you assign for avoiding the injunction of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
3
your “ sacred book,” and the “ sublime example ” set you by
Christ and St. Paul ? Are we to regard such neglect upon your
part as an illustration of practical Christianity ? How many
Secular halls have you gone into and “ spake boldly ” with
Agnostics ? Is your absence from these “ temples and syna
gogues ” to be ascribed to the fact that you have discovered that
such “ disputing ” would not be profitable to your cause, or that
for personal reasons you have found that in this, as in many
other instances, it is not always wise for rev. gentlemen to at
tempt in this practical age to emulate their Lord and Master ?
While your discretion in thus “ avoiding the enemy ” may indi
cate your sagacity, it does not show that you have too much con
fidence in the faith you preach. Rest assured, Rev. Sir, that
principles or systems that will not stand the test of honest criti
cism in fair and gentlemanly debate, have but little claim upon
the intelligence of the present day.
Probably you may urge that you have come to the rescue of the
Faith in the article. you have penned in The Theologue. But
purely that mode of warfare can scarcely be looked upon as being
either very safe or very heroic. You virtually admit, in the
article in question, that you base your comments upon mere hear
say of what your opponent is supposed to have said at periods
varying from one to three years ago, and you deal with the
“ reports ” of his statements where he is unable to correct or
answer you. Moreover, the probability is that but few of your
readers ever heard one of his lectures, and therefore they have
only an ex parte account from which to judge. Now, does it not
occur to you that it would have been far more heroic and “ Christlike ” in you, and would have given greater satisfaction to the
public, had you attended the “ Canadian Agnostic’s ” lectures and
availed yourself of the opportunity always afforded on such
occasions to reply there and then ? In that case, “ the bane and
antidote ” would both have been offered to those present, al
lowing them to decide for themselves which was the bane and
which was the antidote. If, however, for some reason this
^arrangement was not convenient to you, why did you omit to
�4
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
accept his invitation, which was published more than once in the
Halifax papers, to a public debate ? Can it be that you fail to
realise the force of Milton’s opinion that truth will never suffer
.in its conflict with error ? The policy adopted by the orthodox
clergy of shunning public controversy may please the older
members of the Churches, who unfortunately have been trained
to accept their views upon trust, but it will never satisfy the
young and intelligent minds seeking to know the reason why
they should endorse the faith submitted to them. Blind belief
and passive submission belong to the theological darkness of the
past, not to the intellectual light of the present.
Your article appears to me to be remarkable for its theological
presumption and groundless allegations. I wish you to particu
larly understand that I do not use the term presumption in any
offensive sense whatever. It is not my custom or desire to know
ingly initiate the very objectionable feature, too prevalent in
some discussions, of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of thosewho differ from me. Such conduct too often inflames the
passions but seldom wins the assent of reason. All controversy
should be governed by intellectual discrimination, not by angry
disputation. Truth should invariably be the goal in such con
flicts, and the best and most dignified me'ans of reaching it is
calm and kind investigation. By applying the word presump
tion to your article I wish it to be understood that in it you
make statements upon mere supposition and that you substitute
opinions for facts. In no one instance throughout the article do
you deign to make an effort to prove what you assert, but you
urge with marvellous confidence your allegations as if they were
beyond question. This, I regret to say, is a common practice
with theologians; they seldom acquaint themselves with the real
nature of the opinions or principles they assail, and thus they
; frequently mislead their hearers or readers with unfair conclu
sions drawn from false premises. You say : “ Very pertinent and
' pointed was the reply of Sir Isaac Newton to the astronomer
Haley when he spouted infidelity in his presence. ‘ Sir,’ said
that Prince of philosophers, ‘ you have never studied these sub-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION,
5
jects and I have. Do not disgrace yourself as a philosopher by
presuming to judge on questions you have never examined.’ ”
If this anecdote is a fair reflex of Newton’s mind it is clear that
his theology, which, by the way, was exceedingly small from an
orthodox point of view, did not protect him from a fair share of
egotism and conceit. This incident, however, which you have
selected, has a most significant meaning in reference to your
article in The Theologue, for, evidently, “ you have not studied ”
with too great care the subjects upon which you therein write.
For instance, where did you obtain from Agnostic philosophy a
justification for your assertion that Agnosticism was “a system
of accumulated negation,” and that it taught, “ we are sure only
of what is present and visible ? ” This, Sir, is a pure theological
fiction, caused by an utter lack of knowledge upon the part of
the assertor as to the facts about which he was writing.
You seem to entirely misunderstand our position as Secularists
and Agnostics in reference to Christianity. It may, therefore,
be of some service to inform you in a few words what that posi
tion really is. There are three principal modes of criticising the
modern Orthodox pretensions set forth on behalf of popular
Christianity. First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely
destitute of truth, and that they have been of no service what
ever to mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse.
Many of the superstitions of the world have been allied with
some fact, and have in their exercise upon the minds of a portion
of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful purpose.
In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard it
as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in our opinion,
is unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess
what they hold to be true as we have to entertain views which
we believe to be correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted
by intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The
third and, probably, the most sensible and fair mode of dealing
with Christianity is to regard it as not being the only system of
truth; as not having had a special origin ; as not being suited to
all minds; as having fulfilled its original purpose, and as possess-
�6
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
ing no claim of absolute domination. This is the true position of
Secularism and of Agnosticism towards popular orthodoxy.
Such a position is based upon the voice of history, the law
of mental science, and the philosophy of the true liberty of
thought.
Having dealt with these introductory points, the main issuesin your article are reached, and here your “ sins of omission and
of commission ” come glaringly to view.
Your “ sins of omission ” consist mainly in your not even
making the attempt to prove what you so readily assert
n your article, and not in any way verifying your nu
merous allegations. You reproduce old statements that have
been refuted again and again, and leave your innocent readers
to suppose that what is advanced are undisputed facts. Such an
orthodox procedure may be expected from the pulpit, but it is
sadly out of place in a magazine, particularly where you profess
to answer an Agnostic opponent. You apparently penned the
article under the impression that your Christian friends would
be satisfied, without evidence of the correctness of your position,
and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that your desire was to
convince those who are adverse to your theological views. But
surely you are not so oblivious of the intellectual activity of the
times as not to recognise that for you to succeed in this laudable
effort something more than vague assertion is necessary. This,
Sir, is not an age of mere blind belief or of passive submission,—
at least, it is not so outside the church. Facts are required, and
evidence is necessary, when dealing with the Agnostic position,
and it is your neglect in supplying these very essentials that
constitutes, in my estimation, your “ sins of omission.”
You accuse “ A Canadian Agnostic ” of misapplying the term
Freethought to certain “ leaders in the departments of Science
and Statesmanship, of Literature and the Arts,” but you do not
furnish a single verification of your charge. What “ names ” of
“leaders” has the Agnostic claimed as belonging to the Freethought ranks who were not Freethinkers ? You omit to men
tion one in support of your statement. True, you say, “ Some
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
7
of the names noted, e.g., Darwin, Huxley, Martineau (both Har
riet and James), cannot be included in the Infidel class.” If, Sir,
by the term “ Infidel ” you mean a disbeliever in orthodox Chris
tianity, then undoubtedly the four persons whose names you.
mention were “Infidels” in the fullest sense of the word. Is itnot a fact, wThen in 1859 Darwin published his “ Origin of.
Species,” and when in 1877 he issued his “Descent of Man/’ thathe was branded by both the press and the pulpit as an “ Infidel ?”
Even such a high-class journal as the Saturday Review said
of the assault Darwinism made upon religion:—“ It tends to
trench upon the territory of established religious belief,” and.
the Quarterly Review exclaimed that the teachings of Darwin
were “ absolutely incompatible, not only with single expressions
in the word of God on that subject of natural science with
which it is not immediately concerned, but .... with the
whole representation of that moral and spiritual condition of
man which is its proper subject matter.” Dr. Andrew Dickson
White, in his “ Warfare of Science” (p. 149,) quotes Bishop
Cummings, who wrote: “Christians should resist to the last
Darwinism ; for that it is evidently contrary to Scripture.” Tne
Dr. also refers (p. 147,) to the Rev. Dr. Hodge as saying,.
Darwinism “is a denial of every article of the Christian faith/
In 1871 the Rev. W. Mitchell, Vice-President of the Victoria
Institute, wrote : “ Any theory which comes in with an attempt
to ignore design as manifested in God’s creation, is a theory, I
say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the theory of Dar
win does endeavour to do ... So far as I can understand the
arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavour
to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the
deity.” Another amiable minister of the “ Gospel of love ” in 1882
went so far as'to say that Charles Darwin, who had then recently
died, “ was burning in hell.” Do you not know, Sir, that both
Darwin and Huxley openly and frankly avowed themselvesAgnostics ? Professor Huxley was the originator of the term as it /
is at present understood, and he is now on,e of its ablest exponents.
Freethought is an essential element in Agnosticism, and, there-
�8
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
fore, was it not quite right to name these two scientists as Free
thinkers? You utterly ignore these facts, which either shows
that you were not acquainted with them, or else that you pur
posely omitted to mention them. In either case the omission is
not calculated to enhance your reputation as a trustworthy
student and expositor of history.
You mention Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Goethe, Carlyle and
others to substantiate your views upon Christianity and the
Bible ; yet it is to be regretted that you make no effort to vindi
cate in what way either of those writers refutes the position taken
upon these subjects by “ A Canadian Agnostic.” Surely you do
not contend that those “ burning and shining lights ” regarded
orthodox Christianity as being perfect or the Bible as an infallible
book. The whole tenor of Locke’s philosophy is based on know
ledge, while theological teachings are founded on faith. Newton
contended that the universe was guided by natural law, and not
as your system alleges, by the alleged supernatural. As for
Carlyle, Professor Tyndall and Moncure Conway have recently
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the “ Sage of
Chelsea ” was a thorough sceptic to the orthodox religion.
It is clear from your article that you are under the delusion
that “ A Canadian Agnostic ” sees no good in the Bible, while
the fact is that he recognises much in that book which is true
and useful; but he also finds much therein that is erroneous, and
which would, if acted upon, be injurious both to individual and na
tional progress. Forgive me, Rev. Sir, if I am unable to accept the
■Queen of England, or “the dying words of Sir Walter Scott” as
authorities upon the true value of the Bible. The English throne
•or a death bed are not the best places fiom which to obtain
efficient and impartial evidence to justify claims that are contra
dicted by investigations made at the seats of learning by such
men as Davidson, Jones, Westcott and the author of “Super
natural Religion,” while they were in health and possessing
mental vigour. It is upon the candid researches of scholars like
these that Freethinkers rely for the facts as to the history, na
ture and worth of the Bible. If it be true that Walter Scott
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
9
whispered just -before his death, “ Bring me the Book,” meaning
the Bible, he did no more than probably a devout believer in
the Vedas, the Zendavesta or the Koran would have done under
similar circumstances. But, again, you omit to do the very thing
which it was necessary you should have done in your case,—
namely, to show in what possible manner such a request could
prove that your Bible was superior to all other existing books.
You appear to attach too much importance to the opinions of
eminent men without first ascertaining upon what grounds such
■opinions are formed. This is a grave omission upon the part of
a rev. gentleman in your position. Of course every person has
a right to entertain his or her opinion, but its real value can
only be estimated by discovering its relation to facts. Moreover,
when you cite opinions in support of your contentions it is due
to the cause of truth that your citations should, so far as they
•affect the questions at issue, be given fairly and in full. This
you have not done in your article.
For instance, in reference
to your testimony to the character of Christ, you only produce
partial statements and thereby cause an erroneous conclusion to
be arrived at. Take as an illustration of the truth of my charge
the following passage from your article: “ Men the reverse of
friendly to Christianity, as we understand it, such as Strauss,
Theodore Parker, Renan, and Rousseau, have endorsed Richter’s
judgment on Jesus,‘He is the purest among the mighty, the
mightiest among the pure.’ ” Now, Sir, you ought to know that,
as you have put these words, they are likely to mislead your
readers. Not one of the four men you have quoted “ endorsed”
what you teach from your pulpit as to the character and mission
of Christ. Why did you not state that Rousseau’s “ testimony ”
was put into the mouth of his “ Vicar of Savoy,” who subse
quently adds in reference to the Gospel containing the supposed
sayings and doings of Christ, “ Nevertheless this same gospel is
full of incredible things, things which contradict reason, and
which it is impossible for any sensible man to conceive or admit.”
You might also have added that Renan in his “ Life of Jesus”
says that: Christ had “no knowledge of the general conditions
�10
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with science, “ be
lieved in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons ”
(pp. 79-80) ; he was “ harsh ” towards his family, and was “ no
philosopher ” (pp. 81-83); he “ went to excess ’(p.174); he “ aimed
less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm “ sometimes his in
tolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and ap
parently absurd ” (pp. 274,275); and “Bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart ” (p. 278).
I have now sufficiently supplied your omissions to enable a
better opportunity for a just judgment to be formed as to the
worth of the opinions of your witnesses upon the character of'
Christ. I would not have you mistake my objections to
omissions. I grant that at times it may be right, nay necessary,
to omit certain things, but the sin comes in when persons are
misled by the omissions as to the facts of the matter under con
sideration. Such is the great drawback pertaining to a large
portion of your article. It bears the semblance more of special
pleading, than a candid statement of the whole truth. It reads
like the production of the partial theologian, instead of the
work of a just and equitable reasoner.
Your article is so replete with inaccurate statements, bold asser
tions and erroneous conclusions, that it would occupy more space
than I have allowed myself to deal with all of your “ sins of
commission.” A few instances, however, will suffice to show
your lack of historical precision and logical deduction.
You say that George Washington declared, “ It is impossible
to govern the world without God,” and you refer to him as if he
were a Christian, whereas you should know that he was a Deist
and did not in any way accept orthodox Christianity. The God
in whom* Washington believed was certainly not the Bible Deity,
and his religion was far more Secular than it was theological.
You next insinuate that I slander the character of Christ
Now, Sir, to slander is to utter that which is false and maliciouswhich I have never done in reference to Christ. Judging from
his alleged biographies, I admit that he possessed some excellent
traits of character, and I applaud his strong denunciation of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
11
certain evils of his day. Regarding him as one possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavourable influences for in
tellectual acquirements, belonging to a family not very remarkable
for literary culture, retaining many of the failings of his pro
genitors, and having but little care for the world or the things
of the world, there is much to admire in the life and conduct
of Jesus. But when he is raised upon a pinnacle of great
ness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the
production of any age or country, being equal to God himself ,
he is then exalted to a position which, in my opinion, he does
not merit, and which deprives him of that credit which other
wise he would be entitled to. True, I cannot endorse your
unsupported assertion that Christ was perfect and that he “ died
the death of a god,” for if your teaching be correct, he came on
earth with a mission to perform, a part of which was to die on
the Cross ; yet, when the time arrived for his destiny to be ful
filled, he sought to avoid his fate, and shrank from that death which
was said to give life to a fallen world. So ovei vhelmed was he
with grief and anxiety of mind, that he “ began to be sorrowful
and very heavy.” “ My soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even
unto death.” At last, overcome with grief, he implores his
father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting
him. If Christ knew in three days he should rise again ; that
his death was to be little more than a sleep of a few hours’
duration; if he were conscious that ultimately he should tri
umph over death, wherefore all this trouble and mental suffering ?
In reference to the statement of “ A Canadian Agnostic ” that
Christianity is not original you exclaim : “ He however took
good care not to attempt showing it.” If you will read my
pamphlet on “Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence,’’
you will find that I did attempt to show it; and if you require
additional proof it is only for you to accept an invitation, which
I now offer you, to discuss the claims of Christianity either upon
the platform or through the pages of The Theologue, where your
article appeared, and in Secular Thought.
In speaking of Christ you remark he “ imperceptibly drew all
�12
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
classes of men to him—lifted them up from the horrible pit in
which they were imbedded, into heavenly places, till poverty
gave place to comfort, intellectual degradation to intellectual
development.” This statement is almost an unpardonable sin
upon the part of a scholar who should know that “ all classes of
men ” never were drawn to Christ either in the past or at the
present time. Even the Rev. Dr. A. Burns, of Hamilton, Ont.,
admits: “ No dialectical skill, nor witchery of logic or rhetoric,
can justify the attitude of the church toward the nine hundred
millions who have yet to hear the first Christian sermon. On
what principle can the Church affirm that Christianity is
for the healing of the nations ? Do Christians believe that ?
Could they make the sceptic believe that they were sincere ? ”
As to your allegation that comfort and intellectual development
replaced poverty and degradation under the influence of the
church, history records the very opposite as being the fact;
poverty and submission are the essential teachings ascribed to
Christ, and during the greater part of seventeen hnndred years
of Christian rule the masses throughout Christendom were the
victims of want, misery, ignorance, and mental degradation.
If you read Professor Draper’s “ Conflict between Religion and
Science,” and “ The History of European Morals,” by Lecky,
you will discover that for centuries, when Christianity was
paramount and unrestrained, there was “ A night of mental and
moral darkness,” as recorded by Lecky, who further adds:
“Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . . The splendid discoveries of physical
science would have been impossible but for the scientific scepti
cisms of the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of
Europe passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till
Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and industrial
independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the
intellectual revival of Europe begin.”
Equally reprehensible is it on your part to allege that the
Church has been opposed to slavery and that “ its complete sup-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
13-
pression is due mainly to the operation of Christian influences.”
It would be almost impossible for a more groundless assertion
than this to be uttered; and if such reckless writing is to be
taken as a fair sample of the historical knowledge possessed by
the clergymen of Halifax, no marvel that they avoid debate and
publish their perversions of facts where no correction can be
given. It is thus that theological presumption thrives and ortho
dox errors are perpetuated. The truth is that slavery is a Bible
institution, that while some professed Christians opposed the
crime it was fostered by the Church, and many of those who
condemned its cruelty and injustice were designated by Chris
tians as “ Infidels.’ Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the
condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before than it
was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to Christianity
many of the slaves had political power, they were educated, and
allowed to mix in the domestic circles of their masters, but subse
quent to the Christian advent the fate of the slave was far more
ev ere; hence, Lecky observes, “ The slave code of imperial
Rome compares not unfavourably with those of some Christian
countries.” (“ Hist, of Morals,” Vol. I, p. 327.) The Council of
Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church communion
without the consent of their masters. The Council of Orleans
(541) ordered that the descendants of slave parents might be
captured and replaced in the servile condition of their ancestors.
The Council of Toledo (633) forbade Bishops to liberate slaves
belonging to the Church. Jews having made fortunes by slave
dealing, the Council of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the
selling of Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws
were also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Latern
Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots and bishops
held slaves. The Abbey of St, Germain de Pres owned 80,000
slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. Let me
suggest that you carefully read that excellent work : “ Acts of
the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” by Parker Pillsbury, and “The
American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery,” by
James G. Birney, and you will then learn how the Churches op-
�14
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
posed the abolition of the slave trade. It is stated in “ The
Life and Times of Garrison ” that at a convention held in May,
1841, Mr. Garrison proposed : “ That among the responsible
classes in the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the existence
of slavery, the religious professors, and especially the clergy,
stand wickedly pre-eminent, and ought to be unsparingly ex
posed and reproved before all the people.” In a recent editorial
in Voice (N.Y.) appears the following: “Even the powerful
East New York M. E. Conference publicly reprimanded five of
its members, one of whom was the late Rev. Dr. Curry, for the
sin of attending an Abolition meeting addressed by Wendell
Phillips ! This is the way Mr. Phillips found it necessary to
lash the hesitating, time-serving clergy of Boston in his speech
on the surrender of Sims in 1852 : ‘ I do not forget that the
Church all the while this melancholy scene was passing [the
surrender of the fugitive slave Sims] stood by and upheld a
merciless people in the execution of an inhuman law, accepted
the barbarity and baptised it Christian duty.’ ” Theodore Parker
said that if the whole American Church had “ dropped through
the Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause
would have been further on.” (His Works, Vol. 6, p. 233). He
pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract among all
its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and
that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by
Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even Wilberforce himself
declared that the American Episcopal Church “ raises no voice
against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in
practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”
Your identifying Secularism with “ Robert Elsmere ” and
calling it the “ Gospel of Despair ” is evidence that you do not
understand what Secular philosophy really is. It is not pre
tended that “ Robert Elsmere ” was a Secularist. Permit me to
remind you that Secular principles enable a man to live a noble
and a happy life and die a contented and peaceful death, with the
belief that if there be another existence or a continuation of the
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
15
present one, he is safe to realise all its advantages. With the
Secularist there is no despair, no fear of hell with its inhuman
tortures, but the highest consolation born of confidence in the
result of meaning well and of doing well.
I have now pointed out enough of your sins of omission and
of commission to exhibit to the candid reader how recklessly you
have written upon matters to which you clearly have not given
.much thought and attention. In conclusion allow me to express
a sincere hope that in future you will seek to learn the facts of
anything you oppose before hastily condemning it, and that
thereby you may avoid violating the Bible command not to
“ bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Charles Watts.
SECULARISM :
Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
and
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
60 pages, price 25 cents.
H.
GARDENER.
Secular Thought Office, Toronto.
�Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity. 96 pages. Price 25 cents.
SECULARISM : IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND? Debate be
tween the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by George Jacob Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents.
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S “ TACTICS of INFIDELS.”
20 cents, post free.
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION : THEIR
CAUSES.
24 pages, price 10 cents
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 22
pages in cover ; price 10c.
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price 10 cents.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 10 cents.
SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH ? 24 pages in cover : price 10c.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.” 22 pages in cover; price 10c.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL; or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE.
24 pages, price 10 cents.
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the Justice of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover; price 10c.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.
Dr- R. F Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
r6 pages, price 5c.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
Just published.
CHRISTIANITY : DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY.
By
Kate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price 10 cents.
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? II. “ Our Father which art in
Heaven.” III. The Fall and the Atonement. IV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity, V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
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 (Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.), 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
RA841
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
Agnosticism
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a1725f9e4fd74e0d241b794dd91cb9cc.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=FiGOLXFkYXI7L48blyj658HqKkzNGrfWqdzyLpDt8bi7vLFDOurDlBb%7EhEbd4Cb%7EKbGluOUGnfbnGd6Gzrard8FVpd0T0JZaou2DnDHX9waKn6hixgv3TM5gMwfO8IZFa0lu6oxbBmQVgqDO5R5nuyAgIrF-iihrVBmAkNBPUTSuxw8IsqDtm-YxFFuEYzAYEAF%7EUnZ%7E9nhT9F3At0IAO96hbcy6zmkzZolt2PSLQb-djfDnJmfxmVil8P5r-YR1WZchSTq1sk5%7EPA8eNN8C4Y4AqkLWAAlvYt5VSAPmXtHsmGO6DuAeyulLBR8Pv64CW3dD51hUyD3aa36lZ-3HYw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
071ae630a3e83935ad0fcbe07d3dce5a
PDF Text
Text
WHY DO RIGHT?
A SECULARIST’S ANSWER.
BY
CHARLES WATTS
( Vice- President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence.
��WHY DO RIGHT?
A
SECULARIST ’S
ANSWER.
Most persons can distinguish between right and wrong;
but it is not so easy to decide why certain actions are right,
and others the very reverse. According to orthodox
Christianity, the sanction for right-doing is a conviction
that our actions should accord with God’s will, and that we
should abstain from the performance of wrong acts through
fear of punishment in some future existence. These are
not the Secular reasons for doing the right thing or
avoiding the wrong. Apart from the difficulty of ascer
taining what the will of God is (for it is nowhere definitely
stated), the value of that will would consist in its nature.
We should ask, Is it just or reasonable to think that
obedience to that will would secure the happiness of the
community ? Is it not a fact that all that can be known of
the supposed will of the Christian God is to be learnt from
the Bible ? But then it should be remembered that the
many representations given of the Divine will in that book
are not only contradictory, but they would, if acted upon,
prove most dangerous to the well-being of society. For
instance, it is there stated that it is God’s will that we
should take no thought for our lives (Matt. vi. 25); that
we should not lay up for ourselves treasures on earth
(Matt. vi. 19); that we should resist not evil (Matt. v. 39);
that we should set our affections on things above, not on
things on the earth (Col. iii. 2); that we should love not
the world (1 John ii. 15); that if we offend in one point of
the law, we are guilty of all (James ii. 10); that we are to
obey not only good, but bad, masters (1 Peter ii. 18); and
that it is good morality to say, “ What, therefore, God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder ” (Matt. xix. 6);
that we should swear not at all (Matt. v. 34); that we
cannot go to Christ except the Father draw us (John vi. 44);
�4
WHY DO RIGHT ?
that we are to labor not for the meat which perisheth
(John vi. 27); that we are to hate our own flesh and blood
(Luke xiv. 26); that those who leave their families for the
“ Gospel’s sake ” shall be rewarded here and hereafter
(Mark x. 29, 30); that men should believe a lie, that they
all might be damned (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12); that the world
cannot be saved by any name except that of Christ
(Acts iv. 12); that salvation should be obtained through
faith, and not of works (Ephes, ii. 8, 9); that the sick are to
rely upon the “ prayer of faith ” to save them (James v. 15);
that if any two Christians agree upon something, and send
a supplication to heaven for that something, it shall be
granted them (Matt, xviii. 19). Now, according to general
experience, if we complied with the will of God, as here
stated, society would not pronounce our actions as right,
but they would be condemned as being hurtful to the
commonwealth.
Secularism is opposed to the orthodox idea that we
should do right through fear of hell. This is the lowest
and most selfish reason for doing good that can be
given. According to the Secular idea, the desire to
do right should not be prompted by merely personal
considerations, but with the object of enhancing the
best interests of others, as well as our own. Besides,
the fear of hell has proved inoperative, either as an
incentive to right action, or as a deterrent to wrong
doing. Even those who profess to be influenced by this
motive have a greater dread of a policeman than of a devil,
and a more vivid conception of a jail than of a hell.
Penalties remote from life do not, by any means, exercise
the same powerful influence upon human conduct as do those
of the present time. The Secular idea of right and wrong
is, that neither is the mere accident of the time, and that
these terms do not represent a condition which is the
result of “ chance
on the contrary, they denote actions
which are the outcome of a law based upon the fitness of
things. The primary truths in morals are as axiomatic as
those in mathematics. Moreover, there is, in the mind of
every properly constituted person, an appreciation of right
and a detestation of wrong. We urge that vice should
be shunned because it is wrong to individuals, and also to
society, to indulge in it; and that virtue should be practised
�a secularist’s answer.
5
because it is the duty of all to assist, both by precept and
example, to elevate the human family. A writer in the
London Echo of August 22 last answers the question why
we should do good apart from theological considerations
in the following pertinent language: Because “certain
actions are followed by more happiness to the actor
than other actions, and because those actions which give
him the most happiness are such as are helpful to
others.
The most highly-developed men have dis
covered this to be true, and the ‘ average ’ man will
ultimately discover it and act on it. Just in proportion as
we become helpful to others we find our own happiness
increasing. And as all our actions inevitably spring from
the desire of our own happiness, it follows that we must go
on becoming more helpful to each other as we develop.
Even those foolish persons who now injure others know
this to a certain extent. Ask a burglar which gives him the
more happiness, to steal or to spend the money he steals
with the woman he lives with ? He will tell you that his
highest happiness is in giving pleasure to his Kate. Ask
Andrew Carnegie which gives him the more pleasure, to cut
his workmen’s wages down or to spend the money in
building a public library ? He will tell you he finds more
pleasure in spending the money for others than in wrench
ing it from his workmen.”
The word “right’’originally meant straightened; hence
the common saying, “putting things to rights,” is understood
as being equivalent to putting them straight or in order.
A writ of right is a legal method of recovering land that
has been wrongfully withheld from its owner, and to right
a ship is to restore it to an upright position. A man
whose acts are deemed good and useful is described as
being “upright ” and “straightforward.” The notion that
legal enactments determine what is morally right and
wrong is as fallacious as the idea that the Bible decides
the question. Many of the laws of our country are based
upon principles the very opposite of what we regard as
morality; while the conflicting teachings of the Bible
disqualify it from being a correct guide in ethical conduct.
It appears to us that, if there are no other standards of right
and wrong but those of the Bible and the law of the land,
then such standards by themselves must be arbitrary,
�WHY DO RIGHT ?
having no universal application to mankind. Possibly some
legal and scriptural commands may be right, but when
they are so it is not because they have the sanction of
Parliament or the Bible, but in consequence of their being
in harmony with the taste and requirements of the public.
That many of the decrees and teachings emanating from
these two sources have been considered wrong is evident
from the fact that men have persistently refused to obey the
one or to accept the other. Take the case of those Free
thinkers, philosophers, and scientists who have so often been
at variance with the Church, and who have refused to obey
certain laws of their country which they deemed wrong.
These men have not only been censured, but sometimes
they have been punished as wrong-doers; and yet,
ultimately, it was proved that they were in the right, and
that the Church and the law were in the wrong. The
standard of the Church and of the law was tradition, custom,
or common belief; the standard of those who were censured
was knowledge. As this knowledge increased the number
of offenders against the stereotyped forms of law, both
human and divine, increased also, until the old foundations
had to yield in favor of those more in harmony with free
dom and justice, and more in accordance with the intellect
of the nation.
By the Secular idea of right we mean that conduct which
is beneficial both to the individual and to the community—
conduct that is in agreement with an enlightened conception
of human duty. It may be admitted that the usefulness of
an act is not always present in the mind of the actor, but it
seems to us impossible to estimate the value of an action
the purpose or result of which is not useful. The real
worth of all actions depends upon the manner in which
they affect our judgment, our feelings, and our general well
being. When we assert that the sense of right-doing exists
in nature, it must not be supposed that we mean it can be
found in a mountain or in the sea; but our meaning is that
it is in that part of nature called human. It is this belief
in the natural basis of right-doing that inspires us with the
endeavor to improve that nature which is the source of all
that is noble. The Secular notion of right and wrong is
based upon reason and experience, which are the surest
guides known to man.
�a secularist’s answer.
7
In considering the question of right and wrong we ought
not to ignore any facts, however unpleasant they may be to
some of us. Human nature has its dark as well as its
bright side. There are men so constituted and so
surrounded by depraved conditions that, from their
actions, one would suppose they prefer doing wrong rather
than right. In many instances men are ferocious, cruel,
and brutal. They practise lying and deception, and injure
and destroy their fellow creatures. Such persons are too
often born in moral corruption and trained in the lowest
form of criminality; they grow up destitute of any selfrespect, and without any sense of right action. People of
this class are the unfortunate victims of a bad environment,
which has contaminated their natures both before and
after birth. If these “ heirs of unrighteousness ” were
spoken to as to the duty they owe to themselves and
to society, probably the replies would be: “As life and
society were thrust upon me, why should I respect either ?
Why should I prefer the straight to the crooked path—the
beautiful in nature to the repulsive ? What advantage is
truth to me when I profit by lying ? Why may I not
repudiate the tyranny involved in the injunction that I
ought to be virtuous ? If I am happy in following my
present course, why should I bother about the effects of my
conduct upon society ?” It will be readily seen that the
man who raises the foregoing questions has no conception of
moral duties and the influence of right action. Moreover,
it is well known that vicious and immoral men are the first
to object to the same kind of conduct which they practise
being directed against themselves. A man may delight in
lying, but no liar likes to be deceived, and no brute in
human form desires to be injured himself. Those who
inflict pain upon others are the first to shudder at the lash
being applied to themselves.
Society itself, notwithstanding the boasted influence of
the Bible and the loud professions of Christianity, has
peculiar ideas of right and wrong. It condemns the killing
of one man as a criminal act; but he who kills thousands is
made a hero. In the one case detestation is evoked, while
in the other honors are bestowed. Hence, the only sense
to which the soldier is amenable is that of duty, not of
right. The public regard his acts as being performed for a
�8
WHY DO RIGHT
1
good purpose—namely, that of destroying those who are
looked upon as enemies. Our forefathers, we are told,
made this island inhabitable by destroying the wild beasts
that once infested it; but it appears to us that a greater
work than that remains to be done, which is to subdue the
wild passions of man. Christianity has failed to accom
plish this desirable result. As the London daily Times
sometime since remarked : “We still seem, after hard upon
nineteen centuries of Christian influence and experience, to
be looking out upon a world in which the ideal of
Christianity, which we all profess to reverence, is wor
shipped only with the lips. . . . Throughout Europe we
find nations armed to the teeth, devoting their main
energies to the perfection of their fighting material and the
victualling of their fighting men, and the keenest of their
intellectual forces to the problem of scientific destruction.
Beneath the surface of society, wherever the pressure
becomes so great as to open an occasional rift, we catch
ominous glimpses of toiling and groaning thousands,
seething in sullen discontent, and yearning after a new
heaven and a new earth, to be realised in a wild frenzy of
anarchy by the overthrow of all existing institutions, and
the letting loose of the fiercest passions of the human
animal.”
Alas! it is too true that the world, for the most part,
has hitherto worshipped force. Poets, from Homer down
wards, have thrilled thousands with graphic descriptions of
scenes of splendor and of glory. Military renown has been
regarded with greater interest than have the triumphs of
ethical culture. Such men as Alexander the Great and
Napoleon have been exalted to the highest pinnacle of
fame, and their deeds have been extolled as if these men
had been the real saviors of the people. This is a mistaken
adulation and an undue exaltation, which is opposed to the
Secular idea of right. What can be more wicked than
devastating and depopulating countries in order that one
warrior may rival another in what is called military glory.
As John Bright said at Birmingham in 1858 : “ I do not
care for military greatness or military renown. I care for
the condition of the people among whom I live. . . .
Crowns, coronets, mitres, military display, the pomp of war,
wide colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles,
�A secularist’s answer.
9
light as air, and not worth considering, unless with them
you can have a fair share of comfort, contentment, and
happiness among the great body of the people. Palaces,
baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make
a nation. The nation in every country dwells in the
cottage.” Right cannot advance if brutal force remains in
the front.
It may be urged that, if our estimate of men in modern
“ Christian England ” be correct, there is but little chance
of establishing any system of right. Happily, although
what we have written is unquestionably true in some cases,
it is not true of all men. There are other members of the
human family who possess dispositions which enable them
to act rightly, so that the world will be the better for the
part they have played in the great drama of life. These
workers for the public good are influenced by higher laws
than Bibles or Parliaments can command or enforce.
According to the Secular view of right, all persons should
be instructed in the duties of citizenship; they should
be impressed with the necessity of taking an active interest
in all things that pertain to the welfare of life, and to
consider political and social rights as well as those that
refer merely to ordinary every-day conduct. Of course, as
civilised beings, we require some centre of appeal, some
test by which we can determine what is right and what is
wrong. However defective our standard may be con
sidered, and however varied the results of an appeal
thereto may prove, we know of no higher authority to do
right than because it accords with the general good of
society. We regard it as utterly futile to go back to
Bible times, when theology was supreme, to find a test by
which modern conduct shall be regulated. Doing right in
those times meant obeying the will of the despot, and com
plying with the wish of the priest. At that period right
had no relation to the requirements and independence of
the individual. In the evolution of human life the chief
business of men is to translate might into righthand to
substitute mental freedom for intellectual subjection.
Under the influence of the Secular idea of right, it will be
found easier to speak the truth than to endeavor to deceive.
Candid and fair dealing will be looked upon as the sovereign
good of human nature; and the acquirement of, and
�10
WHY DO RIGHT ?
adherence to, this commendable habit will be found less
difficult than mastering the technicalities of law, the
reasonings of metaphysicians, or the verbose quibbles of
theologians.
The Secular method of establishing a true conception of
right is to continually augment our experiences with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. Although instances
may be quoted of greater fidelity being found in some of the
lower animals than is perceptible in many men, the power
of foreseeing events in the case of the most intelligent of
“ the brute creation ” is not very strongly marked. The
Secular idea of right is that the best judgment possible
should be exercised upon all occasions for the purpose of
discovering what is most calculated to promote individual
and general happiness. Moralists dilate upon the varying
rules of conduct that obtain in different nations and under
different governments. Now, while it is quite true that
various conflicting ideas of right and wrong exist in
different countries, that fact does not exempt people from
performing the duty of considering, in every case, what is
the right course to adopt to secure the welfare of the
nation in which they live. The principle of improvement
applies to all conditions and to all races of men. Take the
important feature of family life : on this point opinions are
entertained of the most opposite character. In one country
men believe in one god and in having many wives, while
in another country men believe in three gods and having
only one wife. And yet both beliefs are deemed right.
The Secular idea is that we should study what is right for
us to do under the conditions in which we live. In this
country there is no doubt that the development of the
affections, and of a due regard to the rights and enjoyment
of others, points to the conclusion that the union of one
man with one woman is the best solution of the marriage
problem. True, the Bible sanctions polygamy, but with
that we are not now concerned ; monogamy is accepted as
the best matrimonial arrangement for us under present
conditions.
It is supposed by some persons that it is too late to
discover anything new in morality. This, however, is a
mistake, because the acquirements of modern life impose
upon us duties that were unknown to the ancients, and
�A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
11
which require, upon our part, an intelligent apprehension
to enable us to perform them with credit to ourselves and
for the benefit of others. Science and learning are valuable
in proportion as they tend to make better men and
women, and inspire within them a desire to promote
general happiness. The endeavor to advance human
felicity is the best evidence of the existence of a living,
active morality, and of a proper sense of right. Let us,
then,
Rest not ! life is passing by,
Do and dare before you die.
Something mighty and sublime
Leave behind to conquer time.
Glorious ’tis to live for aye
When these forms have passed away.
Why should we be good ? Theologians would have us
believe that the only satisfactory reply to such a query
must come from Christianity. But, as we have already
shown, the Christian’s reasons for being good are both
selfish and ineffectual. We hope to show that there
are better reasons for goodness than the desire to
please God and to secure everlasting happiness in “ realms
beyond.” The theological delusion, that religion alone
supplies the motive for personal excellence, has arisen
through people entertaining the erroneous idea that
natural means are impotent to cure the evils that dominate
society. It has, however, been discovered that vice must
be dealt with like all else that is human. A supernatural
remedy for moral disease appears to the student of nature
no more reasonable than a supernatural cure for any of
the physical diseases which “flesh is heir to.” When a
man feels the pangs of some physical malady, he knows
that there is some derangement in the organ in which it
occurs ; in addition to applying a remedy, if he be wise, he
will endeavor to discover the cause, so as to avoid the
malady in future. Now, Secularists consider that the
same course should be taken with moral diseases, which
often arise from a morbid condition of the brain, produced
sometimes by the bad arrangements of society, or through
not acting up to the proper duties of life. Virtue and vice
are not mere accidents of the time, but are as much the con
sequence of the operation of natural laws as the falling of
�12
WHY DO RIGHT ?
a stone or the growth of a flower. The causes of crime
should be investigated as carefully as the causes of cholera
and other epidemics have been. The physical and the
moral are more closely connected than is generally sup
posed, and the influence of the one upon the other is
beyond all doubt very great. Man’s mental and moral
natures both depend upon material organs, and are there
fore influenced by physical forces; and it is not unusual for
the same causes that generate disease to produce crime.
So little, however, do people study the relation of mind to
brain that vice prevails where, with a little judicious
thought and action, virtue might be found. The Secularist
acknowledges these important facts, and, expecting no
supernatural help, he goes earnestly to work himself.
Holding that whatever happens occurs in accordance with
some law, he deems it his business to endeavor to ascertain
what that law is, that he may turn it to some practical
account.
We think that with the extensive knowledge which now
exists, allied with intellectual culture, it is not difficult to
demonstrate that man ought to do his duty for reasons
which belong alone to this life. By the word “duty” we
here mean an obligation to perform actions that have a
tendency to promote the personal and general welfare of
the community. This obligation is imposed upon us by
the requirements of society. For instance, the Secular
obligation to speak the truth is obtained from experience,
which teaches that lying and deceit tend to destroy that
confidence between man and man which has been found to
be necessary to maintain the stability of mutual societarian
intercourse.
Again, our obligation to live good lives is derived from
the fact that, as we are here and are recipients of certain
advantages from society, we therefore deem it a duty to
repay, by life service, the benefits thus received. To avoid
this obligation, either by self-destruction or by any other
means, except we are driven to such a course by what
have been termed “irresistible forces,’’would be, in our
opinion, cowardly and unjustifiable. As to the word
“ought,” the only explanation orthodox Christianity gives
to this term is a thoroughly selfish one. It says you
“ ought ” to do so and so for “ Christ’s sake,” that through
�A
secularist’s answer.
13
him you may avoid eternal perdition. On the other hand,
Secularism finds the meaning of “ ought ” in the very
nature of things, as involving duty, and implying that
something is due to others. As the Rev. Minot J. Savage,
in his Morals of Evolution, aptly puts it: “ Man ought—
what ?—ought to fulfil the highest possibility of his being;
ought to be a man; ought to be all and the highest that
being a man implies. Why ? That is his nature. He
ought to fulfil the highest possibilities of his being; ought
not simply to be an animal. Why ? Because there is
something in him more than an animal. He ought not
simply to be a brain, a thinking machine, although he
ought to be that. Why ? Because that does not exhaust
the possibilities of his nature : he is capable of being some
thing more, something higher than a brain. We say he
ought to be a moral being. Why ? Because it is living
out his nature to be a moral being. He ought to live as
high, grand, and complete a life as it is possible for him to
live, and he ought to stand in such relation to his fellow
men that he shall aid them in doing the same. Why ?
Just the same as in all these other cases : because this, and
this only, is developing the full and complete stature of a
man, and he is not a man in the highest, truest, deepest
sense of the word until he is that and does that; he is
only a fragment of a man so long as he is less and lower.”
The careful and impartial student of nature will discover
that therein continuous law is to be found, but no accidents
or contingencies. And what we call the moral state is one
wherein man is enabled to recognise the wisdom of com
pliance with this law. It is quite true that men may refuse
to obey the moral law, but, if they do, they must suffer in
consequence. This is one reason why men should be good,
inasmuch as the fact of being so brings its own reward. It
not only secures immunity from suffering, and adds to the
health fulness of society, but it exalts those who obey the
moral law in the estimation of the real noblemen of nature.
A man of honor—one whose word is his bond, who practises
virtue in his daily life—wins the respect and confidence of
all who know him, and he thereby sets an example that will
be useful to emulate; and he at the same time acquires for
himself a tranquility of mind known only to the consistent
devotee of human goodness. What is called Christian
�14
WHY DO RIGHT ?
morality has no sanction in merely natural sentiments and
associations. Nobility of action is supposed by orthodox
believers to be the result of a “ fire kindled in the soul by
the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul is reported to have entertained
the grovelling notion that, if this life is “ the be-all and
end-all,” then “we are of all men the most miserable”;
“ therefore,” says he, “ let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die.” Here the problematical happiness in a problematical
future is put forth as a higher incentive to goodness than
the wish to so regulate our conduct that it will produce
certain beneficial results in our present existence. Persons
who share the views of St. Paul, as set forth in 1 Cor. xv.,
will derive but little pleasure from the virtue of this world.
The satisfaction which should be felt in benefiting mankind
independently of theology falls unheeded on orthodox
believers. They fail to experience happiness simply by the
performance of good works. Virtue, to them, has no charms
if not prompted by the “ love of God.” Nobility, heroism
generosity, devotion, are all ignored unless stimulated by
the hope of future bliss. Christians deny the possibility of
virtue receiving its full reward on earth. If they think
their faith will conduct them safely to the “ next world,”
they appear to have no trouble about its effects in this. A
man who is good only because he is commanded to be so, or
through fear of punishment after death, is not in touch with
the philosophy of modern ethics. The true moral person
is one who does his duty, regardless of personal reward or
punishment in any other world. The Secular motive for
being good is that this world shall be the better for the
lives we have led, and for the deeds we have performed.
Regard for the moral law is not based upon a nega
tion, neither is it a mere question of expediency, but
rather a positive acting principle, working for practical
goodness. A really moral man is one who is interested in
the well-being of others—one who has discovered that he
belongs to the family of men, the social advancement of
which is dependent, more or less, upon each other. Unsocial
beings are those who care for nobody but themselves, and
whose sense of right-doing consists in studying their own
interests without concerning themselves about the welfare
of others. Emerson said : “ I once knew a philosopher of
this kidney. His theory was, ‘ Mankind is a damned rascal.
�a secularist’s answer.
15
All the world lives by humbug; so will I.’ ” Fortunately,
individuals of this type are becoming fewer and fewer, and
are being replaced by men and women in whom are to be
found aspirations for the true, the useful, and the elevating
functions of life. To such members of the human family
as these it can be made evident that truth and honor are
essential to their well-being, and that doing good is an
absolute necessity to the formation and the perpetuation of
a society based on confidence and trust. The virtue of
veracity is the foundation of the true social fabric. Law,
commerce, friendship, and all the embellishments of life rest
upon the great principle of veracity. It is this which gives
the surest stability to all moral obligation. While being
faithful to ourselves, we should never fail to manifest fidelity
in our associations with all members of the community.
Our aim ought always to be to so serve others that we may
help ourselves, and to so serve ourselves as to be helpful to
others. As Pope puts it :•—“ Self-love and social is the same.”
Emerson has said : “The mind of this age has fallen away
from theology to morals. I conceive it to be an advance.”
Undoubtedly this is true, for the intellect of the age is
more than ever finding its justification for being good in
the results of action, rather than in the commands of
creeds and dogmas. The inspiration to goodness is now
recognised as coming from earth, not heaven; from man,
not God. As a recent writer well puts the fact: “ It is
not a belief in an arbitrary personal God which ennobles a
life. Most of the burglars and murderers, most of the
unjust monopolists and cruel sweaters, believe in ‘God.’
It is goodness that ennobles a life, and goodness is not
necessarily associated with godliness. It is not a hope of
heaven that makes a life beautiful. Many who believe in
heaven are very hard to live with here. It is gentleness,
kindness, considerateness, friendliness, love, that make a
life beautiful; and these qualities are not necessarily
associated with a hope of heaven. It is not piety that
wins esteem. There are many pious persons whom you
would not trust with a five pound note. It is fair dealing,
honesty, and fidelity that win esteem; and they are not
associated with piety.”
�16
WHY DO RIGHT ?
Darwin, in his Descent of Man, gives potent reasons why
we should live good lives. He points out that the
possession of moral qualities is a great aid in the struggle
for existence; that people with strong moral feelings are
more likely to win in the race of life than persons who are
destitute of such feelings. Goodness has in itself its own
recommendation, inasmuch as it secures for its recipients
peace of mind, temperance in their habits, and a sense of
justice in their dealings with others. Men of honor, whose
lives are regulated by the principle of integrity, furnish the
best of all reasons for being good. They are happy in the
consciousness of the nobility of their own nature, and they
derive consolation from the knowledge that they render
valuable service to others by the dignified example they
set, and the exalted lives they live. Those who can see
the worth of virtue and of truth in human character are
embued with a spirit of emulation; they desire to be
associated with a superior order of society. Such members
of the community can readily see that without “ confidence
and trust” the commercial world would collapse. The
same principle applies to the whole of human life, for it is
not simply that “ honesty is the best policy,” but that it is
the only policy which will secure a tranquil state of
existence. Rectitude is the source of self-reliance in life
and at death. Men who are able to distinguish the good
from the bad are attracted by honor and refinement.
They shun malignity and vulgarity, and are repelled by
what is vicious and demoralising. Men should be good
because goodness qualifies them for friendship, and wins
for them the esteem of the best of their kind. Further, it
awakens within them a sense of what is most fitted to
enable them to adopt an elevated mode of living. They
become practical believers in that which is just and useful,
and they are thereby inspired to strive to realise their
ideal born of newer and higher perceptions of truth. Let
the lover of goodness once be admitted into the presence of
the intellectually gifted and morally heroic, and life will
present to him a new aspect. When we read of Plutarch’s
heroes; of Greece with her art and her literature; of Rome
with her Cicero and her Antoninus ; and of the muster-roll
of men and women whose memories are surrounded with a
halo of intellectual brilliancy and ethical glory, we no
�A SECULARISTS ANSWER.
17
longer regard the world as the habitation only of moral
invalids and of mental imbeciles. On the contrary, a
higher faith in the potency and grandeur of human good
ness is evoked, exalted thoughts are inspired within us,
and we are induced to believe that goodness will be more
than ever appreciated for its own sake, and that virtue
will be honored and revered for its intrinsic merits.
While admitting that the moral brightness of life is some
what tarnished by the base, the brutal, the suicidal, and
the insane characters that are still found in our midst, we
believe in the law of progress and the work of reform.
We recognise a powerful motive for being good in the belief
that such conditions may be produced that shall tend to
remove depravity and to establish righteousness. Such
disasters as the cholera, and numerous other epidemics that
once made uncontrolled havoc upon society, have been
checked by the application of suitable scientific remedies;
why, then, should not moral evils be made to yield to
judicious treatment ? When men understand that moral
law is as certain as physical law, and as necessary to be
obeyed if we are to have a healthy state in human ethics,
the reformation of the community will be capable of
achievement. Whether we regard man as the creature or
the creator of circumstances, or as both, it is certain that
his organism and its environment act and re-act upon each
other. While intelligence indicates the best way to pursue
in life, it is obvious that circumstances must be such as to
permit of our pursuing that way. From what we know of
human nature, it appears to us necessary that it should be
surrounded with inducements that have the power to draw
out the best that is in it. It has been well said that man
is a bundle of habits ; therefore moral forces become strong
as they become a part of the habit of life. We cannot
reasonably expect the State to be ruled by right and love
unless these virtues exist in the citizens. No nation has
ever attempted to live like a society of friends—without
gaols, policemen, etc.—because the idea of moral duty has
been only partially realised. In proportion as we properly
understand the nature of goodness, and regulate our lives
by its genius, so shall we be governed by ideas instead of
by force. The misfortune of our present societarian condition
is the difficulty attending its improvement. Although, like
�18
WHY DO RIGHT ?
trees, we grow and expand from within, there seems, as it
were, an iron band around us, that prevents our free expan
sion and our full growth. The quality of our acts may be
good in a certain degree, but it is not of the required
strength. The quality has been impoverished through
neglect and theological adulteration; and what is now
required is persistent and intelligent conduct, that shall
purify life, and rid it of the legacy of the ignorance, the
folly, and the superstition of the dark past. Our hope is
in purification ; we want earnestness and candor to take the
•place of the apathy and hypocrisy which have so long held
sway. Then real goodness will illuminate the hearts of
men, and virtue will shed its lustre upon the emancipated
humanity of the world.
Why should we be good 1 The answer, from a Secular
standpoint, is : Because goodness, in itself, is the basis of all
true happiness; it is the progenitor of peace, order, and
progress. To be good is a duty we owe to society as well
as to- ourselves. In virtue alone are to be found those
elements that ennoble character and exalt a nation. . The
unselfish love of goodness, and the desire to acquire a
practical knowledge of the obligations of life, have hitherto
been too much confined to the few, while the many have
neglected to strive to realise the highest advantages of
existence. The cause of this misfortune is not difficult to
discover. It is apparent in the radical evil underlying the
whole of the theological creeds of Christendom—namely,
an objection to concentrate attention on the present life,
apart from considerations of any existence “ hereafter.”
The mistake in the theological world is that its members
regulate their conduct and control their actions almost
exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology,
and their modes of thought are too much a reflex of an
imperfect antiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient
inspiration from this source fly into the fancied boun
daries of another world—a world which is enveloped
in obscurity, and upon which experience can throw no light.
History has been subverted by this theological error from
its proper purpose. Instead of beihg the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations ; instead of being
a guide to the future, it is really the master of the present.
�A secularist’s
answer.
19
The proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard
of appeal in these. The wisdom of the first century is
regarded as the infallible rule of the nineteenth. The
watchword of the Church is “As you were,” rather than
“As you are.” Christian theology hesitates to recognise
active progressive principles, but holds that faith was stereo
typed eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subsequent
actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Secularism
prefers the healthy and progressive sentiments thus ex
pressed by J. R. Lowell:—
New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth ;
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Orthodox Christianity appeals to the desires and fears
of mankind. It is presented to the world under the two
aspects of hope and dread. Some persons regard it as a
system of love, offering them a pleasant future, stimulating
within. them hopes delightful to indulge, and supplying
their imagination with splendors enchanting to con
template. On the other hand, many reject Christianity
because it contains gloomy forebodings, presenting to them
a being who is represented as constantly sowing the seeds
of discord and unhappiness among society, who has nothing
but frowns for the smiles of life, and whose chief business
it is to crush and awe the minds of men with fear and
apprehension. If Christianity furnishes its believers with
hopes of heaven to buoy them up, it also gives them the
dread of hell to cast them down. The one is as certain as
the other. As soon as a child begins to lisp at its mother’s
knee, its young mind is impressed with the notion that
there is “ a Heaven to gain, and a Hell to avoid.” As the
child grows to maturity, this notion is strengthened by
false education and religious discipline, until at last the
opinion is formed which frequently culminates in making
the victim an abject slave to a fancy-created heaven and an
inhumanly-pictured hell. Christians sometimes assert that
to deprive them of their hope in heaven would be to rob
them of their principal consolation. If this be correct,
so much the worse for their faith. Better have no con
solation than to derive it from a creed which condemns to
eternal perdition the great majority of the human kind.
�20
WHY DO RIGHT ?
The true object of rewards and punishments should be
to encourage virtue and to deter vice. Most, if not all, of
the religions of the world have employed these agencies in
the promulgation of their tenets, not, however, as a rule,
in the correct form. Theologians have connected their
systems of rewards and punishments with the profession
of arbitrary creeds and dogmas that have little or no
bearing on the promotion of virtue or the prevention of
vice. The final reward offered by Christianity is made
dependent on beliefs more than on actions. This is unjust,
inasmuch as many persons are unable to accept the belief
that is supposed to secure the reward. Moreover, accord
ing to the Christian system, the same kind of encourage
ment is held out to the criminal who, after a life of crime,
repents and acknowledges his faith in Christ, as to the
philanthropist whose career has been one of excellence and
goodness.
Equally defective and objectionable is the system of
punishment as taught by Christians, making, as it does,
correction to proceed from a motive of revenge rather than
from a desire to reform. Through life we should never
cherish revenge, nor harbor malice. To forgive is a virtue
all should endeavor to practise. Governments who desire
to win national confidence do not seek to make the chief
feature of their punitive laws of a retaliative spirit; they
aim rather to enact measures that tend to the reformation
of the criminal. Now, the drawback to the threatened
punishment of Christianity is, that it offers no incentive to
reformation, for, when once in hell, the victim must for
ever remain, and there no opportunity is afforded for
improvement, and no facility offered for repentance. It
cannot be said that the sufferings of those in the bottomless
pit exercise any beneficial influence upon those on earth,
inasmuch as we cannot witness their torture, and, if we
could, instead of inspiring within us love and obedience,
doubtless it would excite detestation towards the being
who, possessing the power, refused to exercise it to prevent
mankind enduring such barbarous cruelty. The rejected
of heaven are here represented as being the victims of
unutterable anguish; as having to endure tortures which
no mind can fully conceive, no pen can adequately
portray.
�j.
A SECULARIST S ANSWER.
21
This Christian doctrine of punishment is based upon a
principle opposed to all good government. It allows no
grades in virtue or vice. It divides the world into two
classes—the sheep and the goats, leaving no intermediate
course. Now, mankind are not either all good or all bad;
there are degrees of innocence and guilt in each. Horace
recognised this ; hence he said :—
Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned pain.
Punishment is valuable- only so far as it tends to the
reformation and the protection of society. It has been
shown that hell fire must fail in the former, and experience
proves that it is cpiite as impotent for the latter. Our law
courts are constantly revealing the fact that those who
profess the strongest faith in future retribution have
frequently been remarkable for savage brutality and
uncontrolled cruelty.
If it be asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adhe
rents as being superior to theological and other speculative
theories of the day ? the answer is, (1) Because Secularists
believe its moral basis to be more definite and practical
than other existing ethical codes; and (2) because Secular
teachingsappear to them to be more reasonable and of greater
advantage to general society than the various theologies of
the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in particular.
That Secular teachings are superior to those of orthodox
Christianity the following brief contrast will show.
Christian conduct is controlled by the ancient, and
supposed infallible, rules of the Bible; Secular action is
regulated by modern requirements and the scientific and
philosophical discoveries of the practical age in which we
live. Christianity enjoins as an essential duty of life to
prepare to die ; Secularism says, learn how to live truth
fully, honestly, and usefully, and you need not concern
yourself with the “how” to die. Christianity proclaims
that the world’s redemption can be achieved only through
the teachings of one person ; Secularism avows that such
teachings are too impracticable and limited in their
influence for the attainment of the object claimed, and that
improvement, general and individual, is the result of the
brain power and physical exertions of the brave toilers of
�22
WHY DO RIGHT ?
every country and every age who have labored for human
advancement.
Christianity threatens punishment in
another world for the rejection of speculative views in
this; Secularism teaches that no penalty should follow the
holding of sincere opinions, as uniformity of belief is
impossible. According to Christianity, as taught in the
churches and chapels, the approval of God and the rewards
of heaven are to be secured only through faith in Jesus of
Nazareth; whereas the philosophy of Secularism enunciates
that no merit should be attached to such faith, but that
fidelity to principle and good service to man should win the
right to participate in any advantages either in this or any
other world.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives
little or no assistance from orthodox Christianity. Not
withstanding the fact that Broad Churchism or Latitudinarianism has begun to make some concessions to reason and
scientific progress, and however strongly apparent may be
the desire for compromise on the part of the theologians,
there are still many of the most distinctive doctrines of
orthodoxy which are most decidedly opposed to the
standard of modern ethics and influence. Such, for example,
is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, where paternal
affection is ignored, and where the innocent is made to
suffer for the guilty; that right faith is superior to right
conduct apart from such belief ; and, most especially, that
unjust and equity-defying dogma of eternal condemnation.
It is really beyond the scope of such a system as the
orthodox one to promote the moral development of
humanity. This can only be effectually done by the
action of those social, political, and intellectual forces to
which we are indebted, as it were, for the building up of
man from the very first institution of society. These have
been, are, and ever must be, the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is
by them that we are what we are. It is: (1) the social
activities that have led to the formation, maintenance, and
improvement of human society; (2) the political activities
that have led to the formation, maintenance, and improve
ment of the general government, to the establishment of
States or nations, and to the recognition of the mutual
rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
�A secularist’s answer.
23
activities that have led to the interchange of human
thoughts, to the formation of literature, to the pursuits of
science and art, to the banishment of ignorance and the
decay of superstition, to the diffusion of knowledge, and,
finally, to all mental progress.
It is said that, without a fixed rule for conduct, all
guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not so; Secularism
recognises a safe and never-erring basis for moral action,
which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad
general maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the
supreme law.” This may be taken as a fundamental
principle for all time and all nations. The kind of action
which will produce such well-being depends, of course,
upon individual and national circumstances, varied in their
character and diversified in their influence. This
progressive morality is the principle of the Utilitarian
ethics which now govern the civilised world. It is not
merely the individual, but society at large, that is con
sidered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian
existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual
bee labors only for individual necessities. No ; but that all
is subordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the
drones increase, they are expelled or restricted, and well
would it be for our human society if all drones who
resisted improvement were banished from among us. In
the moral world, as in religious societies, there are too
many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the
good conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing
to contribute to the store of the ethical hive. The
morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their
kindly charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—
all these spring directly from their long-acquired and
developed experience. As the poet of Buddhism sings :—
Pray not, the Darkness will not brighten ! ask
Nought from the Silence, for it cannot speak !
Vex not your mournful minds with pious pains :—
Ah, brothers, sisters ! seek
Nought from the helpless gods by gift and hymn,
Nor bribe with blood, nor feed with fruit and cakes ;
Within yourselves deliverance must be sought;
Each man his prison makes '
�CHARLES WATTS’S WORKS.
The Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox
Christianity, is., by post is. 2d.
Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence. 4<d-, by
post 5d.
Secularism: Destructive and Constructive. 3d-> by post 4d.
The Glory of Unbelief. 3d., by post 4d.
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is the More
Reasonable? 3d-, by post 4d.
A Reply to Father Lambert’s “Tactics of Infidels.” 6d.,
by post 7d.
Theological Presumption.
R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
An Open Letter to the Rev. Dr.
2d., by post 2j^d.
The Natural and the Supernatural; or, Belief and Know
ledge. 3d., by post 4d.
Evolution and Special Creation. ContentsWhat is Evolu
tion ?—The Formation of Worlds—The Beginning of Life upon the
Earth—Origin of Man—Diversity of Living Things—Psychical
Powers—The Future of Man on Earth. 3d., by post 3%d.
Happiness in Hell and Misery in Heaven. 3d-, by post 3%d.
Science and the Bible. 4d-, by post 5d.
Bible Morality: Its Teachings Shown to be Contradictory and
Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3j^d.
Secularism: Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient
to Meet the Wants of Mankind ? Debate between the Editor
of the Evening AZh/Z (Halifax, N.S.) and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll,
and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener, is., by post is. 2d.
Secularism: its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2%d.
Is there a Life Beyond the Grave ? 3d-, by post 3%d.
Education: True and False. (Dedicated to the London School
Board.)
2d., by post 2j^d.
Christianity and Civilisation: Why Christianity is Still
Professed. 3d., by post 3^d.
Saints and Sinners: Which? 3d., by post 4d.
The Horrors of the French Revolution. 3d., by post 4d.
The Existence of God; or, Questions for Theists. 2d., by
post 2%d.
Secularism: Its Relation to the Social Problems of the Day.
2d., by post 2j^d.
Miscellaneous Pamphlets.
232 pp., in neat binding, 2S., by
post 2S. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why do right? a secularist's answer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Why</span> <span class="highlight">do</span> <span class="highlight">right</span>? a secularist's answer), 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
N680
RA1576
RA767
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
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9cd3c750c8110b71155eafe4a20b2d84.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=HZwiwedjVmRwOjlZTWDsJR%7Ezm-SPZZx6ErW2d-SgYnsBX3YsSSKLCet5NsA0di382wikFE2CE2aoNFtyjxbh-p-sdJRMSuvB0CEYAhz-101-XLRUCwyh4t5mOob9R-m0Ewz9m-piHWuP3GHVbMipce4DMCRHxw5XS4eCcFsHhaGk0Gk4u1Phu-rP5f9WaJdlcIAaFCR-YBlFvz0ny-uaL5IMbDeY8sjv8%7ELWOE26YsTpnTSCkGN3pKInqIdt-xOLOqAWeDu1tSgt-D2%7E6D9xzKkXyT2mmhZxpy79IQmnATnyHPqTqL2qdka%7E702WgYpoId96oM41E7gteRwGZMsFkA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
51c24515f8ecc6b9d69d76e868a947a8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD AND REVELATION.
�PRINTED BY
ARTHUR BONNER, 34, BOU/VERIE STREET,
�PREFACE
The writer of the following pages does not for a moment
suppose that he has brought forward any fresh arguments
tending to throw doubts on the existence of a God who
loves and governs, or to discredit the belief in dogmatic
Christianity.
All that he has aimed at accomplishing is to set forth
in plain and unmistakable language the objections enter
tained to the popular creed by those who recognise in
nature not a supremely benevolent Creator, but rather a
Spartan mother, whose purposes may in the main be good,
but who seems to attain her ends by merciless means,
regardless of the sufferings of her children; and in revela
tion, the progressive thoughts of man in his strivings to
attain a knowledge of the infinite.
Nothing, assuredly, would give him greater satisfaction
than to be convinced of the existence of a Being who “in
perfect wisdom, perfect love, is working for the best”; but
after much anxious thought on the subj ect he is driven to
the conclusion that however much there may be in nature
which fosters and supports this view, there is much more
which discountenances and conflicts with it.
He is not, however, prepared to say that he would hail
with equal satisfaction the proof of the truth of the
�iv
PREFACE.
Christian revelation as enunciated from so-called orthodox
pulpits, or as taught in church creeds, or Westminster con
fessions of faith. And why ? Because it seems to him
that if it indeed be true that “ strait is the gate, and
narrow the way that leadeth to life eternal, and few there
be that find it”, then the prospect—and what a prospect!—
before all but a small minority is truly appalling: i.e., if
the popular theology be true.
Still it must be acknowledged that the question is not
one of liking or disliking, but one of fact to be determined
by the evidence available in the case. The second part of this
essay is therefore devoted to the consideration of the question
whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that
the Christian revelation, as generally understood and inter
preted, is a direct and stereotyped revelation from Almighty
God; and if not, whether those are to be condemned, who,
disregarding the moral law, act on the aphorism “Let us
eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die
�GOD AND REVELATION.
It is impossible for those who study the religious problems
of the day to avoid recognising the fact that, not only is
there an ever-increasing number whose views on religious
subjects widely diverge from our Church creeds—that
dogma is losing its hold on the educated class—but that the
very existence of the Deity is being called in question by
many highly-cultivated and thoughtful minds.
It seems to be generally recognised that the old Deistical view of the last century is no longer tenable, and that,
as a matter of fact, there is no logical halting-ground
between an infallible Church or book, on the one hand,
and complete—I won’t say Atheism, but—confession of
ignorance—on the other.
No doubt the existence of the Deity is strenuously denied
in some quarters—that is, the Deity of the popular theology.
The late Lord Eedesdale, not many years ago, in view to
the prevention of the admission of Atheists into Parlia
ment, strove to introduce a Bill, the preamble of which
ran as follows : 1 ‘ Whereas it is expedient that provision
should be made against Atheists taking part in the legis
lation of the country, be it enacted as follows : That from
and after the passing of this Act, every peer and every mem
ber of the House of Commons in taking his seat in Parlia
ment shall, before taking the oath of allegiance and subscrib
ing the same, in accordance with the provisions of the Act
of Parliament of 1866, make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz.: ‘I do solemnly and sincerely declare and
affirm that I believe in Almighty Cod’.” The Bill was very
properly rejected without a division, the then Bishop of
�6
GOD AND IlDVELATION.
London deprecating its introduction on the rather strange
ground that it would exclude Agnostics, whom he did not
wish to exclude, as well as Atheists, whom he did. And
the only interest the subject now evokes is that it affords
a curious illustration of the loose and inaccurate way in
which people sometimes express their thoughts. It does
not appear to have occurred to the author of the Bill that
any definition of the term was required, or that any possible
doubt could arise in anyone’s mind as to what he was
called upon to subscribe to.
“ I believe in an Almighty God.” These are momentous
and solemn words; but words are, after all, but intellectual
counters, and by no means invariably convey the same
meaning to all who hear them. What would an Agnostic
say to them ? Could he conscientiously make such a
declaration ? He might—the Bishop of London notwith
standing—for an Agnostic does not, so far as I am aware,
deny the existence of a Supreme Being. Though he may
say he does not know, he assuredly recognises some power
or force in the universe, to which in his ignorance he may,
if he be so inclined, apply the term “Almighty God”.
Nevertheless, a conscientious thinker not in accord with the
popular theology, if pressed for an answer, would probably
ask for an explanation of the sense in which the words
are used. He might fairly rejoin that people’s views differ
considerably as to the meaning of the term, and enquire
whether he was called upon to subscribe to a belief in the
God of the Old Testament; or in Matthew Arnold’s “power
which makes for righteousness” ; or merely in some un
known and inscrutable power which has proved adequate
to the production of all phenomena; or in the Deity
of Professor Plint, viz., a self-existent eternal Being,
infinite in wisdom, power, and holiness, righteous and
benevolent, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things
therein.
For the purpose I have in view, I shall assume that this
last definition describes the nature and attributes of the
Deity intended, and shall therefore now proceed to enquire
what evidence nature affords for the existence of such a
Being.
I must, however, start on my enquiry with an assump
tion, which, I suppose, no one. with whom I have dis
cussed these subjects will care to dispute, viz., that
�GOD AND REVELATION.
7
there is a power behind phenomena, by which all things
are sustained and governed. (Whether this power forms
part of the universe, or whether it is distinct from and stands
outside of it, as it were, and governs the universe, I do. not
know, nor do I think it would be profitable to enquire.)
This being granted, I shall at once proceed to the considera
tion of the question whether this power is intelligent, as we
understand the term, or merely mechanical or uncon
scious. The argument for intelligence or mind is briefly
this : We see and know that mind exists ; our own minds
and the minds of others with whom we are brought into
contact excludes the possibility of doubting the fact; hence
it may be fairly argued that as nothing but mind or in
telligence could have produced mind, the cause of our
known minds must have been an antecedent mind; or, to
put it in other words, “intelligent beings.now exist, but
as intelligent beings did not always exist, intelligence
began to be, but as nothing from nothing can come, as
intelligence cannot come out of non-intelligence, the cause
of intelligence or mind must itself have been intelligent ”.
Endeavors have been made to answer this in various
ways. Mr. Mill says: “If the existence of the human
mind is supposed to require as a necessary antecedent
another mind, greater or more powerful, the difficulty is
not removed by going back a step. The creating mind
stands as much in need of another mind to be the source of
its existence as the created mind. An eternal mind is simply
an hypothesis to account for the minds which we know to
exist. Now it is essential to a true hypothesis that it
should remove the difficulty and account for the facts, but
this it does not do.” And again, it has been argued that
we don’t know, or at any rate are not justified in dogmati
cally asserting, that nothing but mind could possibly pro
duce mind. Where is the proof, it is asked, that nothing
can have produced a mind excepting another mind, or that
intelligence must spring from pre-existing intelligence?
It has also been suggested that there may be, for aught we
know to the contrary, a power in the universe as much
transcending mind, as mind transcends mechanical force or
motion. Although we are totally unable to conceive such
a power, nevertheless we are told it may exist. The re
joinder is this: It is not intended to explain mind in the
abstract, much less to explain the existence of an eternal
�8
GOD AND REVELATION.
mind j what I have to account for is the existence of my
own individual mind, which I know to have had a begin
ning in time, and, though it may possibly be true that
mind, may be due to some other cause than mind, and
that intelligence may in some way or other have sprung
from non-intelligence, I have no right, by all the rules
of sound logic, to. resort to a remote or improbable hypo
thesis for a solution of the difficulty when a nearer and
more probable one is close at hand, viz., the hypothesis
that the human mind has been caused by some other mind
more powerful than its own; nor is the argument vitiated
because I can form no conception how the original mind
was formed, or whether it was even formed at all. While
admitting that it is not possible to demonstrate the exist
ence of an eternal mind, I yet hold that, looking at all
the. facts which come under our observation, it is much
easier to think, of the power which has given rise to all
phenomena as intelligent, than to think of it as non-intelligent, or as possessing some power superior to intelligence.
A power superior to and excluding intelligence is an un
thinkable hypothesis, and to assert the possibility of the
existence of something to account for a fact which we
know, that something being in itself unthinkable, is, it
seems to me, unnecessarily travelling out of our way to
encounter a difficulty.
. The argument for the existence of an intelligent power
is further supplemented by the argument from the exist
ence of life on this planet of ours. It is admitted, by all
who are competent to pronounce an opinion, that a time
was when life did not exist on our earth. Whence came
it then? As nothing from nothing can come, as life cannot
spring out of non-life, life must have been produced by
some pre-existing intelligent power. The whole force of
the argument depends on the truth of the premiss that life
requires, for its explanation, antecedent life; whether, in
short, nothing but life could have produced life.
That life has arisen out of dead matter has never yet
been proved. Bastian thought he had demonstrated the
fact, but his proofs were shown by Professor Tyndall to
be. fallacious. Tyndall, however, and other eminent phy
sicists do not deny that life may have arisen at some time
or other out of non-living matter. Nature’s laboratory is
very different from the chemist’s. The earth was at one
�GOD AND REVELATION.
9
time undergoing chemical processes which have no parallel
in the present day. Professor Huxley says somewhere:
** If it were given me to look back through the abyss of
time geological I should expect to see the evolution of
living from non-living matter.” And Tyndall writes:
** Evolution in its complete form postulates the necessity of
Ufe springing out of non-life, but the proofs of this
are still wanting.” Still however it is pretty clear that
Tyndall is himself a thorough evolutionist, believing not
only in the possibility of life springing out of dead matter,
but in the certainty of its having done so. Both these
distinguished professors with many others who think with
them may be wrong in holding such opinions; nevertheless
in the face of such authority we are not justified in dog
matically asserting that fife could not by any possibifity
have sprung out of non-life. Virchow, the great German
physiologist, even when rebuking Heeckel for his extreme
materiafistic utterances never ventured to assert the impossibihty of fife proceeding from non-living matter: . all
that he presumed to assert was that the proof of its having
done so is still wanting.
As pertinent to the present inquiry it may be asked
**h,ow did smallpox and other cognate diseases arise?”.
In the present day, and as far as our experience carries us
back, we know that they require for their development the
pre-existing germ, but how came this pre-existing germ ?
If you reply, it was latent in matter from the very commence
ment of things from the time the earth began to cool, and to
become fit for the abode of living creatures; then I rejoin,
life too may have been latent in inorganic substances, only re
quiring favorable conditions to bring it forth. One hypothesis
is about as difficult to grasp as the other. Bishop Temple,
in his Bampton lecture for 1884, says : 11 Then came a time
when the earth became ready for life to exist upon it; and
the life came, and no laws of inorganic matter can account
for its coming. As it stands this is a great miracle.” Here,
it appears to me, is an assumption without a particle of
proof; in other words our ignorance is employed to play
the part of knowledge. Because we do not know dis
tinctly, or even remotely, how an alleged transaction has
taken place, it is assumed that some miraculous agency
must have been at work to produce it! But this by the
way.
�10
GOD AND REVELATION.
If, then, it be admitted that life may have originated in
some other way than by creative intelligence, or by what
we call a miracle, the existence of life on the globe at the
present time does not materially strengthen the argument,
for the existence of a creative mind. Should it be re
plied that, admitting for the sake of argument, life did
spring far back in the world’s history from non-living
matter, a supreme power must have endowed non-living
matter with the power to develop the germ of life, I reply :
“ Certainly there must have been some power or force at
work to enable it to do so; ” and it seems difficult to avoid
the conclusion that this power possessed intelligence.
The next argument which may be adduced on behalf of
the existence of an intelligent creative power is the wellknown argument from design which Paley has so effectively
used. Whichever way we look, to the infinitely great or
the infinitely small, we may define the whole as of judicious
contrivance or design. Now design, argues Paley, predi
cates a designer, and shows that he who contrived or
designed things had consciousness or intelligence. Th®
answer is that in case of human contrivance or design, such
as the manufacture of a watch or a telescope, no doubt a
designer is predicated. But why is this ? Because we
have a prior knowledge that watches and telescopes are
made by. man. When the African traveller Campbell
shewed his watch to a group of savages, they started back
in alarm, conjecturing from the sound and motion of the
works that it was a living and supernatural thing. Like
the poor children of the desert, we, her more civilised sons,
attempt to explain the unknown by the known. We
have some experience, at any rate, of the laws which
preside over the action of physical forces, but we have no
corresponding knowledge of the relations existing between
a supreme Being and effects of nature of which we can
take cognisance.
Paley remarks : “I know of no better method of intro
ducing so large a subject than that of comparing a single
thing with a single thing: an eye, for example, with a
telescope. As far as the examination of the instrument
goes, there, is precisely the same proof that the eye was
made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for
assisting it. They are both made on the same principle,
both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission
�GOD AND REVELATION.
11
and refraction of rays of light are regulated.. For in
stance, it is necessary that the rays of light, in passing
through water into the eye, should be refracted by a more
convex surface than when it passes out of air into the eye.
Accordingly we find that the eye of a fish, in that part of it
called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than the eye of
a terrestrial animal.” “ What plainer manifestation of de
sign can there be”, asks Paley, “ than this dissimilai’ity ?
Paley, of course, attributes the difference of structure be
tween the eye of a fish and that of a man to the immediate
action of the Deity, manifested in special creation, whilst, as
the author of “ A Candid Examination of Theism” points out,
we in the present day are able to ascribe it to the agency of
certain laws, to wit, inheritance and variation, survival of
the fittest, and probably of other laws as yet undiscovered.
Again, Paley alludes, as evidence of design in nature, to the
ingenious mechanism of the venomous snake. Take the
cobra, for instance. The fang of the cobra is a perforated
tooth, loose at the root; in its quiescent state lying down
flat on the jaw, but furnished with a muscle which enables
the reptile to erect it. Ender the root of the tooth lies a
small venom-bag, the contents of which are replenished from
time to time. (How the poison is secreted is not known.)
When the tooth is in an erect position, and the animal is
ready to strike, the root of the tooth presses against the
bag, and the force of the compression expels the poisonous
fluid with a jerk through the hollow tooth into the minute
puncture made by its point. This is all exceedingly clever
and ingenious, no doubt; and if cobras had been created
with the deadly contrivance as we now see it, there would
have been some force in Paley’s, argument. But I sup
pose no naturalist would maintain this. Snakes and
creeping things, like everything else, have followed the
laws of evolution, and the ingenious mechanism which we
admire is the result of those laws. The truth is that the
theory of evolution, unknown or but dimly discerned, in
Paley’s day, has much weakened the force of the design
argument. It may, however, be remarked in passing that
although the evolution theory was then unknown, Paley
alludes to a system (apparently maintained by some in his
day) which he terms “Appetencies
A short description
of this system is that pieces of soft ductile matter, being
endowed with propensities or appetencies for particular
�12
GOD AND REVELATION.
actions, would, by continued endeavors carried on through
long series of generations, work themselves gradually into
suitable forms, and at length acquire, though perhaps by
obscure and almost imperceptible improvements, an organi
sation fitted to the action which their respective propen
sities led them to exert.
Paley, of course, makes short work of this theory, and,
anticipating the line of argument adopted by theologians
. our ownremarks: ‘ ‘ This theory coincides
with, the * Atheistic system, viz., in doing away with
the necessity for final causes”; just what was sa-id of
Darwin s theory about a quarter of a century ago.
Recently, however, it has been discovered (see Bishop
Temple’s Bampton Lectures for 1884) that the doctrine of
evolution redounds more to the honor and glory of the
Creator than its opposite—the special creation theory.
What would Paley have said to this, had a contemporary
of his own so spoken of the system of appetencies ? But
we are learning to know better, or rather the evidence for
the truth of evolution being too strong to be ignored,
theologians are beginning to discover that it is not only a
highly religious doctrine, but, most surprising of all, in
harmony with revealed religion. But this by the way.
The truth appears to be, that, if it could be shown that the
special creation theory were the true one, e.ff., that man,
with all his wonderful organisation, was specially created
as he now is, some six, or even 60,000 years ago (the time
matters not), then I think we must admit the force of
the design argument; but if, on the other hand, the
evolution theory in its extreme form be the true one, viz.,
that man has been evolved through countless ages from non
living matter, or even from a very low form of life, the
design argument is much attenuated, if not deprived of
all cogency. It seems to me, however, that when all is
said that can be said in favor of evolution, intelligence
must have, been at work in the beginning to set things
going, as it were. Take the case of the human eye for
instance. . It seems inconceivable how so delicate a struc
ture as this organ could have come into existence without
intelligence as its primal cause. Admitting that the eye
was. developed through countless ages by rays of light
impinging on the most sensitive part of the original
organism from which it sprung—or in any other way that
�GOB AND REVELATION.
13
evolutionists consider the feat was accomplished, the
question still remains, “ By what power or process was
the first impetus given?”. It is all very well to say, Given
force, matter and the law of gravitation everything must
have happened that has happened. But why must ? Who
gave the law of gravitation ? Does not a law point to a
law giver ? For my part, I think it much easier to think
of intelligence at the bottom of things than to think of
everything having arisen by unconscious mechanical law.
Probably Bacon was right when he said, “ I had rather
believe all the fables of the Talmud and the Alcoran than
that this universal frame was without a mind”; but there
is an immense leap from this admission to the conclusion to
which Paley seems to arrive in his 23rd chapter, when he
says, “ Contrivance, if established, appears to me to prove
everything which we wish to prove, amongst other things
it proves the personality of the Deity, as distinguished from
What is called nature, and sometimes a principle.” What
has been proved—or, rather, rendered highly probable—
is that the universe which includes and surrounds us is
th© life-dwelling of an Eternal mind; but when we proceed
to clothe this wondrous power with certain attributes,
which, we think, must necessarily belong to it, e.g., omni
science, omnipotence, perfect benevolence, holiness, and
the like, and invest it with a personality, then I assert that
the statement is not borne out by the facts coming within
our cognisance; but this point will be discussed further
on. In any case, if my argument hitherto has been falla
cious, it is of no great consequence as far as the purpose I
have in view in writing this essay is concerned; it is a matter
of speculative interest to me whether the world we inhabit
owes its existence to intelligence and contrivance, or to
certain forces or laws which are non-intelligent or uncon
scious.
What really concerns me to know is this: Whether a
Being exists with whom lamin any way enrapport-, whether,
in short, there exists an all-wise, all-powerful, benevolent,
and moral governor of the universe, who takes an intelli
gent and loving interest in the creatures He has brought
into existence. A Being such as this is generally postu
lated by theologians (though a judicial character is usually
assigned as well), and we are moreover told to think of
him, as a personal God. But it may be fairly asked, prior
�14
GOD AND REVELATION.
to discussing the evidence for the existence of a Being
possessing the attributes just enunciated, What is meant
by a personal God ? Press theologians on the point and
they give an uncertain sound. Many, doubtless, think of
God as a person—that is to say, a person with bodily parts
and organs like ourselves, and with a mental organisation
akin to our own—and I have no doubt that the earlier
Biblical writers so thought and spoke of God, and that
many so think of him even in the present day seems hardly
open to question; nevertheless, the educated portion of
mankind shrink from thus materialising the Deity, and yet
if you ask them what .they mean by a personal God the
answer is by no means clear. They may, and generally
do, define a personal God as a being without bodily orga
nisation, in whom cognitions reside and in whom volitions
flow; in other words, a Being who possesses a mental
organisation differing in degree from our own—one, in short,
who thinks, wills, and acts—but as we know or can know
nothing of mind apart from bodily organisation, the definition fails to enlighten us much. The fact is, when we
consider the matter closely it is by no means easy to think
of a personal God without thinking of him as a person.
We know nothing of personality apart from bodily organi
sation, and nothing is gained by defining a thing unless
you make it more comprehensible by the process. A defi
nition is not an explanation. I therefore hold that the use
of the term “personal God” is a misnomer. But setting this
aside as of no moment, what we want to know, as I have
said before, is whether the power by which all things
exist possesses any of the attributes I have enumerated^
whether it is possible to think of it, or Him, as in any way
caring for what He has brought into existence. This is
the real question at issue, in which I take a lively interest;
and I wish in the first instance to consider it apart from
any question of revelation, and to ask myself the question
—and if possible find an answer to it—whether nature
affords any evidence, and if so, what evidence for the
existence of such a Being.
The evidence generally adduced in support of the exis
tence of a moral being, or governor of the universe, is the
evidence afforded by the moral nature of man. It is said
that a cause cannot be less than its effects, and it is argued
that if a moral nature exists in man, it must have been
�GOD AND REVELATION.
15 .
implanted by a power higher than man, and the
Being who implanted it must also be moral. Now if it
be true, as it probably is, that all the moral feelings have
been evolved from the simple feelings of pleasure and
pain, inherent I presume in the lowest living organism, then
logically it is not necessary to credit an intelligent Being
—the author of all things—with possessing moral feelings
akin to our own, any more than it is to credit Him with
our vices. A cause need not be like its effect. It may be
as well in this connexion to quote J. S. Mill, and Professor
Huxley. The former says “there is not an idea, feeling, or
power in the human mind, which requires to be accounted
for on any other theory than that of experience”.
Huxley says “ with respect to the development of the
moral sense out of the simple feelings of pleasure and
pain, liking and disliking, with which the animals are pro
vided, I can find nothing in the arguments of those who
deny this to be so which have not been satisfactorily met ”.
I am not therefore prepared to admit that the moral nature
©f man proves the existence of a Being possessing analogous
feelings. There may, however, be a parentage for morals,
and it may consist in the endowment of every sentient
creature with the simple feelings of pleasure and pain, out
of which our moral feelings have been gradually evolved.
The moral nature of man and conscience are, if not inter
changeable terms, so closely allied, that the present question
will be elucidated by the consideration of what conscience
really is, and how far it is a reliable guide to our actions
in life.
Conscience is spoken of as the voice of God, in the soul
of man. Theodore Parker tells us that there is a small
voice within us, which if we obey will always guide us aright.
(The italics are mine.) Another writer, Mr. Armstrong,
says “ Let me tell you how it seems to me how I have made
acquaintance with God. I find that at certain moments
of my life there is that within me which I can best describe
as a voice—though it is but a metaphor—addressing me,
and largely influencing my conduct. I call the source of
that voice which I fancy speaks to me ‘ God ’. I call
the source of all those monitions and warnings which rise
within me ‘God’. I find when my mind is bewildered
and in doubt that somehow or other when I address that
Being there comes to my soul a clear, shining light, and
�16
GOD AND REVELATION.
I see things plainer and more beautiful than before. I
apply to him in pain and in sorrow, and the pain and
sorrow become light, and I am instantly assured that God
is there to comfort and console. I pray to him in weakness
when my strength fails, and what is the result: a new
strength comes to me.”
_ Now so far from denying the reality of these impres
sions, I am the first to admit their genuineness ; but I
believe they are the result of the reflex action of prayer on
the mind. A Roman Catholic prays to the Virgin Mary
(see Crown hymn-book) as well as invokes the saints, and
a new strength comes to him. The curate of Ars (whose
biography is one of the most interesting ever published)
was in the habit of spending hours on his knees invoking
his favorite saint, St. Philomine, and a new strength cam®
to him too. I have seen a Mahomedan criminal ascend
the scaffold, supplicating his prophet in his hour of ex
tremity, and assuredly a new strength came to him also,
and who can doubt that pious Hindus derive consolation
from invoking one or more of the persons of the Hindu
trinity ? This being so, I fail to see that Mr. Armstrong’s
argument is of much weight.
As regards what Theodore Parker says about the con
science, I observe that it may prick us when we act
contrary to what we believe to be right ; but unfortunately
it does not supply us with an index to what is right. It
may, and often does, lamentably err. A South Sea
Islander feels no qualms of conscience in killing and
afterwards eating his victim, nor a Thug in strangling his.
It is or was part of his religion to do so. Should tho
latter’s conscience prick him at all, it would be if, in a
moment of weakness, he allowed his victim to escape. As
Mr. Lecky has well observed, “ Phillip II. and Ferdinand
and Isabella of Spain—zealous Roman Catholics—inflicted
more suffering in obedience to their consciences than Nero
or Domitian did in obedience to their lusts.” One man’s
conscience leads him to Rome, and another’s to Geneva.
Calvin’s led him to burn Servetus, and the early Pilgrim
Fathers committed the most abominable cruelties in
obedience to their consciences, especially in the way they
dealt with reputed cases of witchcraft. Mrs. Gaskell’s
story of Loué the Witch is a true account of the horrible
atrocities that can be committed by upright and honorable
�GOJD AND REVELATION.
17
men. for conscience sake. In short, it seems a mere waste
of time to adduce arguments to show that conscience is an
uncertain and sometimes erroneous guide. It is a product
of the evolution of the human mind, and expands and
grows with knowledge and experience. We merely attribute
it to the still small voice to God because we already believe
j® a God. Those who have been brought up without any
Such belief have, of course, no feelings of the kind. As
the late G. H. Lewis remarked, “could we suppose a man
born with inherited aptitudes, left solitary on an island
before having had access to any of the stores of knowledge
accumulated by his race, he might acquire a rudimentary
knowledge of cosmical relations, although, without lan
guage or any access to the store of the experience of others
on which to proceed, there would necessarily be little in
him above that of an animal. Of mere intelligence there
Would not be a trace.” To such a person as here described
there would be neither moral intelligence or any conception
of a divine Being. To my mind the fact that conscience
is often a blind and misleading guide is a strong argument
against it being the voice of God speaking to us, as many
have declared it to be. Just conceive for instance, what
a tremendously powerful support for the existence of a
moral law-giver would be afforded if conscience were in
deed an infallible guide. If by simply inquiring within
we could ascertain the right or wrong of things, we should
then be able triumphantly to appeal without fear of con
tradiction to this circumstance as an irrefragable argument
for the existence of a moral law-giver.
It appears to me that the conscience argument, to prove
the existence of amoral Being with moral feelings differing
in degree only from our own, is not only of no moment, but
actually tells with some force against those who use it.
There are hundreds and thousands of people in the world
whose consciences are always pricking them for acts of
omission and commission of a most trivial character, in
which others of a more robust mental organisation see no
harm whatever. I repeat again, at the risk of being
accused of wearisome reiteration, that a certain line of
conduct, or mode of action, is considered right or wrong
according to one’s preconceived beliefs, arrived at partly
by inheritance and partly by education.
Mr. Armstrong remarks: “Conscience is simply the voice of
�18
GOD AND REVELATION.
God, which says, ‘ Do the right, do not do the wrong
It does not in any way say what is right and what is
wrong. That which I call the right, is the gradual develop
ment and evolution of history, and is largely dependent on
climate and other external surroundings. The idea of
right and wrong is purifying and clarifying in the course of
history. The conception of what is right and wrong is
better now than what it was a hundred years ago. Many
of the things then considered laudable are now considered
base, and vice versa.” Quite so. But why, then, persist in
calling it (conscience) the voice of God in the soul of man ?
Is it not rather the re-echo of our own beliefs, partly in
herited and partly acquired ?
It has been suggested to me that if the Ruler of the
Universe had made conscience an infallible guide in all
cases—alike to the ignorant savage and to the educated
man—this would have been to make him as it were a
God, knowing good and evil. As to this I cannot say;
but given a God—a moral Governor and Ruler of the
universe—who wishes to impress his law upon his
creatures, I see nothing absurd or contrary to reason in the
idea of his making conscience a true and infallible guide in
all circumstances, and in all our relations in lif e, alike to the
savage as well as to the civilized man. Under this view of the
case knowledge might be, as it now is, progressive, without
clashing with the prerogative of conscience. A savage
might be endowed with the innate idea that it was wrong
to steal or murder, without interfering with his capacity
for gradually acquiring a knowledge of the arts and
sciences. He might be left to his own devices in regard to
so small a matter as the preliminary knowledge required
for striking a light, and yet be intuitively aware that it is
wrong to scalp his neighbor.
So far, then, I have endeavored to show that conscience
is the result of several factors working together, and that
its prickings are not due to the working of God’s spirit in
the mind of man, but to natural causes, easily explainable,
and that invariably to follow its dictates may, and does
often, lead to grievous error.
Do I seem then to say that we are to turn a deaf ear to
the voice of conscience, when it tells us not to steal, or He,
or slander our neighbor ? By no means. Conscience is a
real thing, whatever may be its parentage. At any rate,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
19
W® know that amongst civilized, races there is not only
nowadays a tolerable unanimity of opinion that certain
acts are wrong and hurtful, but the higher minds amongst
us know that they are not only hurtful to the community,
but also to those who are guilty of them. This is true
whether we accept the utilitarian or intuitive theory of
morals. In a properly instructed and cultivated mind,
B violated moral instinct avenges itself in regret and
remorse. Is conscience to be treated as of no account
because we occasionally hear of startling individual aber
rations, or because when the race was in its infancy, or
more ignorant than it is at present, it (conscience) led men
to commit acts which we now look upon with horror? Cer
tainly not. The law of evolution holds good in morals as
in other things, and the conscience grows and expands in
the individual as it does in the race. But to pursue this
question further would carry me beyond the scope of this
essay; all I have endeavoured to show is that conscience
is not the direct voice of God in the soul of man, but the
product of the evolution of the human mind, and that the
existence of moral feelings in man is no proof of the
existence of similar feelings in the mind of the Deity.
The next, and to my mind most important, stage in the
discussion is, whether the intelligent power whose existence
we have shown to be highly probable possesses attributes,
such as perfect love, perfect wisdom, and unlimited power.
If he has not all three, the outlook for us poor mortals is
Hot very promising. If he possesses the two former without
the latter, however much he may have the will, he may
not have the power to help us; and if he possesses the last
only, without the two former, the case seems even worse
still. The subject is a very large, and, even amongst
orthodox theologians, a confessedly difficult, one to deal
with. The problem of course is how to reconcile the moral
and physical evil we see in the world with the existence of
a Being of perfect wisdom, perfect love, and perfect power;
Though the contributions to apologetic literature under
this head have been enormous, and would fill libraries, the
problem remains nearly as dark as ever, and the more
candid of the writers are obliged to acknowledge that it is so.
Curiously enough, Professor Rogers, with a very different
obj ectinview, permitshimself to write as follows in his answer
to Newman’s Phases: “He (God) sends his pestilence, and
�20
GOD AND REVELATION.
produces horrors on which the imagination dares not dwell,
not only physical, but indirectly moral, often transforming
man into something like the fiend, so many say he can
never become. He sends his pestilence and thousands
perish—men, women, and the child that knows not its
right hand from its left, in prolonged and frightful agonies.
He opens the mouths of volcanoes and lakes; and.boils
and fries the population of a whole city in torrents of
burning lava.” Professor Rogers, himself a Theist of the
orthodox type, supposes himself to be addressing Theists,
and his object is not of course, to disprove the existence
of an allwise and loving God (for that he takes for granted),
but to show that nature’s difficulties are just as great as
those of revelation. He argues, in fact, on the lines of
Bishop Butler and his school, that nothing in the Christian
revelation appearing to reflect on the goodness of the
Creator can really do so, while nature itself presents the
same if not greater difficulties. In other words, if a Being
of infinite love and infinite power can boil and fry a whole
population in burning lava, where is the difficulty in
believing that he will boil and fry thousands and millions
for ever and ever in hell fire. John Henry Newman also
asks, “ How can we believe in a good God when the
world is what we see ? ”, and yet he answers the question
somehow in the affirmative. It has been well said,
that such writers adopt a very dangerous course, and sug
gest more doubts than they solve. Admitting their
premises, it is not easy to deny their conclusions. If the
God of nature can be called very good, there is no reason
for denying that quality to the God of revelation, although
the vast majority of mankind will be tormented in hell for
ever. But does the world we inhabit afford satisfactory
evidence of goodness, as we understand the word? I am
by no means blind to the many harmonies and beneficent
arrangements to be found in nature. The sun rejoices
us with her light and warmth,1 the trees bear fruit for our
Use. The streams refresh us with their sparkling waters;
1 The earth receives but the 2,170 millionth part of the sun’s heat.
A little more, or a little less, would be fatal to the existence of life on
the planet. Were the sun’s heat doubled to-morrow we should be
exposed to a temperature of over 500 degrees; that is to say a heat
sufficient to melt lead, and to convert all the waters on the earth’s
surface into steam.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
21
thousands of forms of colors and sounds are blended into
combinations, which, varying for ever, are for ever beautiful.
The planet which we inhabit moves in regular course round
the sun at the rate of 1140 miles a minute, and this goes on
year after year, and yet no collision takes place. And so all
things proceed, as if a master’s hand were at work; but
look on the reverse side of the medal. I confess that I
recognise with something of the Pessimist’s view the
discordancies and malevolencies of nature. Appeal, if
you will, to the experiences of a city missionary, or medical
officer in a poor London dis .rict, and ask him what he has to
say to the miseries which come under his daily observation.
Multiply his experiences a hundredfold, and you will then
have but a faint idea of the sin, misery and wretchedness
existing in London during the short space of twenty-four
hours ; and London is after all but a very small portion of
the habitable globe. I have been reading an article called
il Poverty, Clean and Squalid ”, by Archibald Brown, an
East End clergyman, which makes one almost sick with
sorrow that such things should be. Here are a few extracts.
* ‘ Have you ever thought, reader, what it must be to wake of
a morning, not only without a shilling in the house, but without
an idea where to find one? To start the day without breakfast,
to tramp miles to find work, and then tramp miles back without
having got any—to see the wife take some of her scanty under
clothing to the pawn shop to get something for the children—
to battle with hunger until chairs, tables, blankets, and beds
have all gone in the conflict ? Have you ever grasped the idea
of the anguish suffered through those weary days ? and yet all
this and much more is being endured by thousands as I write.
Squalid poverty”—the writer adds—“is a revolting picture.
.... The blunting process has been complete. Hope has
died out, self-respect has been starved to death, and the man
and woman sink to the level of their surroundings. Whole
districts seem socially damned. The people corrupt one another
and drag one another down. My visits to such places are
generally made at night, with a box of wax vestas to find
where the stairs are, and light me into these dens, for I find it
better to visit them at night. But, oh, the squalor ! Dirt on
the floor, dirt on the walls, dirty rags on dirty people, and one
indescribable collection of filthy sacks and rotting rugs for the
Shake down or bed. Do you wonder if the people who reside
in such dens, live morally dirty lives and die squalid in soul
as well as body ? Under the coverlet of night what a ferment
ing butt of misery and muck lies simmering in London, A
�22
GOD AND REVELATION.
stunted moral and physical manhood is inevitably the result of
certain conditions of existence; so writes a scientist. His words
are true, and we have named the conditions. And to all this
misery must be added the slow starvation process which
thousands are undergoing, owing to want of the common
necessaries of life—food and fuel—augmented by the present
severe weather, which has now lasted more than a fortnight.
January, 1886.”
This is the actual experience of an East End minister,
remember, who has no object in exaggerating matters.
I would ask you to reflect for a moment on the amount
of misery which an all-powerful Being standing in the
relation of a father to his people might remove if he had
the desire to do so. Take the Indian famine of 1878-79
as an illustration. This was probably attended with a
greater amount of suffering than any other single event of
history. It is computed that four millions of souls perished
during its continuance. It was not only, it must be remem
bered, the mere physical pain of slow starvation that had
to be endured, but the more grievous mental torture in
volved in witnessing the sufferings of others—wives and
little children, tender babes at their mothers’ breasts, all
perishing day by day, and their natural protectors unable
to help them. And mark this: all this suffering might
have been prevented by a few seasonable showers of rain,
which came not, though prayers were offered up for them
week after week in all the churches throughout the length
and breadth of the land. Then try to realise in imagina
tion the sufferings of the early Christians under Nero, the
far more grievous tortures inflicted by the high priests of
religion on reputed heretics,1 the judicial burnings, hangings, and disembowellings that were committed for many
centuries in Europe alone—nay, the sufferings of the pre
sent day. I read the following in to-day’s newspaper:
“The snowstorm is making itself felt in more ways than
one. Not merely are our streets in a condition dangerous
1 Torquemada’s victims alone amounted to 114,401, and of these
10,220 were roasted to death. Spain’s total of victims done to death
hy the Inquisition amounted to 323,362. In addition, 3,000,000 of
Jews and Moors were expelled from her soil, and many thousands of
them died of privation. In the ninth century the Empress Theodora
put to death 100.000 heretics. 14,000 Huguenots at least were slain
in the massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
23
to life, "but there is in our midst a constant amount of
semi-destitution, to the miseries of which the snow must
be perfectly appalling...............At the present moment there
are, it is said, no fewer than 5,000,000 of men, women,
and children who are absolutely starving.’’—Jan., 1886.
But, after all, what is this compared with the sum-total
of suffering now existing in the world ? Beckoning the
population of the world at 1,200,000,000, it would be no
exaggeration to say that at the present moment, whilst I am
writing these lines, there are at least 10,000 human beings
undergoing the extremest amount of suffering that the
human body is capable of sustaining, longing for the
death that is so long in. coming, and many hundreds of
thousands, more probably, whose condition is not much
better. Why is all this suffering permitted, if a God of
infinite love and tender pity really reigns on high ?
Should I be told that the Almighty, having endowed man
with free will, is not responsible for the result, I reply, in
the first place I am not so sure of this. If the Almighty
is omniscient, it seems to me He is responsible; besides,
we haVe high authority for saying he is the author of evil
as well as good. In the second place, I rejoin that even
if I concede the point and admit that God is not bound in
justice to interfere in man’s inhumanities to man, how are
we to reconcile the great catastrophes of nature,, every
year claiming their hecatombs of victims, with the existence
of a God of love and mercy.
I have already instanced the Indian famine—one out of
many. I would cite the great Bengal cyclone of 1876—
and there have been several minor ones since—which
claimed its hundreds of thousands of victims.
Mr. Voysey instances the fire at Santiago., in Chili, in
1864, where a church was struck by lightning and des
troyed, containing 2,000 human beings in the very act of
prayer, most of whom perished by suffocation or were
burnt alive. Then, in 1881, an earthquake occurred at
Chio, in Asiatic Turkey, when in the town itself only fifty
houses were left standing, whole lines of streets having
disappeared. On all sides, we are told, from the ruins
were heard cries of distress, voices supplicating assistance,
which in most cases were in vain, the buried victims being
left to perish. In short, as a recent writer puts it, “Nature
impales men, breaks them on the wheel, casts them to be
�24
GOD AND REVELATION.
devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes
them with stones, starves them with hunger, freezes them
with cold, poisons them by quick or slow venom of her
exhalations, and has hundreds of other hideous deaths in
reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a Nero or a
Domitian never surpassed. All this Nature does with the
most supercilious disregard of mercy and justice.”
This thought has often occurred to me. If, indeed,
there is a. God who has a mind akin to our own, and
mercy and justice signify the same things with him as they
do with us, how is he able to bear the shrieks of thousands
of men, women, and childrenthat daily and hourly, from all
quarters of the world, ascend to the “mercy seat on high”,
and will continue to ascend as long as life endures ? Does
he experience any of the feelings that would arise in the
heart, of a .man ? If so, they must, humanly speaking,
exercise a disturbing influence on his mind. But to ask such
a question is to answer it. To imagine such a thing is to
introduce an anthropomorphic conception of the Deity which
is impossible to entertain. If, on the other hand, Dean
Hansel is right in asserting that with the Deity justice,
mercy, and goodness differ not only in degree, but in kind,
from the realities which go by these names amongst men,
then how can we possibly feel that we have a father in
heaven who is touched by our infirmities ? The problem
is insoluble from whichever side we view it, and we can
but echo back the poet’s mournful cry—we are but
“ Children crying in the night,
Crying for the light,
With no language but a cry
If we turn, to the brute creation, do we find a happier
state of things ? I trow not. Beneficent arrangements
are to be found no doubt, but what of the malevolences ?
Nature—as some writer puts it—has most elaborately
adapted the teeth, of the shark, the talons of the eagle,
the claws of the tiger, the poison-fang of the serpent, to
strike, to torture, and to destroy. Theologians have, of
course, made many attempts to justify the ways of God to
man as well as to the brute creation, and if they fail in
their efforts it is for no lack of ability in marshalling
their facts, but from the inherent weakness of the cause
they are defending.
�GOD. AND REVELATION.
The arguments generally adduced in explanation of the
evils of life are those I am about to consider. I am not
aware that there are others, though many of them, in the
hands of a skilful apologist, are capable of considerable
amplification, and may be made to look more plausible
than in the guise I am able to present them.
First, then, it is said :
(a) Pain is necessary for our protection and safety;
our very lives depend on our susceptibility to pain—e.y., if
falling down were not painful children would never learn
to walk upright; if contact with fire did not cause pain
a person might lose his life before even he knew that he
was being burned.
(¿) All our knowledge has sprung out of our pain ; our
sufferings have been a perpetual stimulus to our minds
to acquire knowledge. We should never have made so
much progress in the arts and sciences if we had not
experienced many tumbles in climbing the ascent leading
to knowledge.
(c) If there were no pain, there would be no pleasure.
None of us can compute how much of actual pleasure
is derived from contrast with pain. To enjoy pleasure
at all there must be alternations of pain. For instance,
a man after recovering from a severe attack of gout ex
periences by contrast a greater amount of pleasure than he
did before the attack commenced.
(rf) Pain enlarges our sympathies, and teaches us
patience; it excites some of the noblest faculties of the
human mind; there would be no sympathy and love were
it not for sorrow and suffering which called them forth.
(N.B.—This argument is susceptible of great amplifica
tion.)
(0) Pain and death are often the results of our own vices
and imprudences, and we have no right to expect the Cre
ator to intervene, for that would be to tamper with man’s
free will.
(/) Pain is much exaggerated; pain occupies a compara
tively small portion of a man’s life : the greater portion of
human existence is passed in painlessness, or in actual en
joyment; even in exceptional cases of a long life of pain,
the time after all is as nothing compared with eternity.
(y) Pain and suffering may be for our good, though we
�26
GOD AND REVELATION.
know it not. How many things which at one time were
thought to he evil, have turned out blessings ? It may be
argued that as human beings, full of tenderness and
compassion, especially parents, find themselves compelled
to inflict pain and sorrow on those they love; similarly,
our heavenly father may find it necessary to inflict pain on
those whom he loves, for their good.
(A) Pain or death is, after all, only the pain or death of
the individual: the mere fact of many hundreds or even
thousands being overwhelmed in the same calamity does
not increase the actual quantity of pain endured by each
individual. We have therefore no right to appeal to the
evidence afforded by a catastrophe like an Indian famine
or cyclone as an evidence of want of love, any more than
we have to a catastrophe in which one life only is involved.
On the contrary, it has been argued that a body of men
collectively meet death much more philosophically than a
single individual does.
(¿) Death after all may be nothing more than a change
of life under different conditions, and may prove a blessing
instead of a misfortune.
(/) Catastrophes, like a famine, or an earthquake, or a
pestilence, are in the long run beneficial to the human race,
as they decrease the population, which would otherwise
inconveniently increase, or they may serve other useful
ends, although we may be unable to discern them.
(&) Pain, as regards the animal world, is not so exces
sive as we imagine ; and in the case of animals it may be
intended to serve some good purpose. Paley says “it (mean
ing the destruction of animals by one another) is rather a
merciful arrangement than otherwise, as if the beasts
were left to die of old age, the world would be filled with
drooping, superannuated, half-starved animals, who would
linger and die after all a more painful death than if killed
by other animals ”.
Now, in considering the foregoing, it appears to me that
most of them are quite beside the mark. I am not pre
pared to argue that the existence of some pain in the
world is incompatible with the belief in divine beneficence.
We will take the case of a boy who, when climbing a tree,
misses his hold, tumbles to the ground, and sustains a com
pound fracture of his leg. This is very painful to him, no
doubt. But is the accident any impeachment of the divine
�GOD AND REVELATION.
27
love ? It is true that the law of gravitation might have
been altered in the boy’s behalf, or his bones might have
been made impervious to the shock, or he might have been
endowed with the foreknowledge of what was going to
happen, and so have been prevented from climbing the
tree. But because none of these things were done, shall
we impute a want of beneficence to the Deity ? Similarly
if I build my house over a cesspool, or sleep in the wind,
or do any other foolish act, have I a right to complain if
I suffer in consequence ? I think not. Experience will
teach me that nature’s laws cannot be defied with impunity,
and I shall if I am wise abstain from such acts in future.
Can, however, such horrors as the Indian mutiny, or the
seething mass of human misery that exists in every large
town all over the world, be disposed of by a similar line of
argument ? Not altogether. The innocent child when
tossed on the point of the bayonet of the mutinous siphaee,
before its mother’s eyes, was guilty of neither ignorance
nor folly. Similarly, the condition of many of our London
poor is owing to no fault of their own. An article by
Cardinal Manning, headed “ The Child of the English
Savage,” reveals a depth of cruelty to children which
Would be incredible were it not vouched for on the best
authority.
Charles Kingsley, writing of the Indian mutiny, says :—
“ I can think of nothing but these Indian massacres; the
moral problems they involve make me half wild. Night and
day the heaven seems black to me, though I never was so
prosperous and blest in my life as I am now. I can hardly
bear to look at woman or child. They raise some horrible
images from which I can’t escape. What does it all mean ?
Christ is king, nevertheless! I tell my people so. I should
do, I dare not think what—if I did not believe so. But I sorely
want someone to tell me that he believes it too.”
He may well ask the question, “ What does it all mean ? ”
if an omnipotent and benevolent Being rules the Universe!
Should I be told that man having been endowed with
free will, God cannot interfere to frustrate that free will,
though indescribable miseries may result from his non
interference, I reply, “ Suppose I admit the justness of
the argument—which I do not—there still remains the
great catastrophes of nature to be accounted for, which
have nothing to do with man’s free will. I see a column
�28
GOD AND REVELATION.
in this morning’s newspaper headed with the words
“ Disastrous floods; great destruction of life and property
all over Europe ”. Who is reponsible for these floods
and the miseries they have caused ? The details in some
cases are too harrowing. How are these things to be
reconciled with the existence of a God of love ? Man here
is passive. It is nature that is actively at work to
mutilate and destroy, and is not nature’s God responsible
for the result ? The argument adduced in (y) is quite inap
plicable to such cases of apparently ruthless barbarity. Pain
in certain cases may be beneficial, though in others it hardens.
But what has this to do with the wholesale slaughterings
of nature ? Again, the parallelism—even in the case of
ordinary every-day suffering—drawn between the acts
of an earthly and heavenly parent will not hold good.
It may be necessary for the former to inflict pain on his
children. But why ? Because he has, or thinks he has, no
other means of effecting his object. If he had, I should
maintain his mode was a cruel one. It is with him but a
choice between two evils. The case, however, is different
with a Being of unlimited power and with full choice of
means; and, therefore, to my mind, the one case affords
no analogy to the other.
The argument in (A) does not appear to me to be of
much cogency. We are rot considering the case of the
sufferer so much as the Being who caused the suffering. A
case of suffering where millions are involved, seems to me
to make the indictment all the heavier against the Being
who caused or permitted the suffering, than if one single
death only resulted.
In reply to (¿), I would remark that the explanation
put forward is purely hypothetical; such evidence as we
possess is insufficient to make it even probable. In the
first place, even if true, it fails to account for the difficulty,
for happiness conferred hereafter is not a sufficient justifi
cation for the infliction of torture here. If all deaths were
natural deaths, without pain and without suffering either
to oneself or to one’s belongings, there might be some
thing in the argument; and if it be indeed for a man’s
good to be removed to another world, why should it be
necessary, in the felicitous words of Professor Rogers,
to fry him first in red hot lava, or scald him to death in
boiling water, or to torture him by withholding the means
�GOD AND REVELATION,
29
of sustenance till he ¿Lies from exhaustion ? Besides,
looking at the case from another point of view, what
grounds have we for supposing that the sufferer’s condition
will be improved in the next world ? The teachings of our
orthodox pulpits point to a very different conclusion.
Should you reply, that we are not tied down to the ortho
dox view, and that you believe that “ good shall somehow
be the final gaol of ill”, I rejoin: “I cannot prove that
your optimist view is wrong, but judging from what goes
on here you are very unlikely to be right
After all, this
is only another phase of the blessings in disguise argu
ment. Mr. Voysey writes in this connection: “Though
the facts are beyond dispute, there is not a tittle of evidence
to prove any malicious, merciless, or cruel design, or any
criminal carelessness, on the part of the great destroyer;
on the contrary, there is everything to prove that since
death is a blessing to every individual as well as to the race [the
italics are mine], the slaughter of many thousands at one
time by the periodic or exceptional convulsions of nature
is a sign rather of benificence than of malignity ”, Every
thing to prove that death is a blessing! Well, in a sense
it may be. It may be better for those overwhelmed by
the calamities of life, to sink as Byron has it, into the
barren womb of nothingness, than to live out a life of
misery here; but this is not the sense intended by the
writer. He speaks of death as God’s messenger, sent to
call us to our home above. If it is so, where is the proof ?
And supposing for argument’s sake that it is so, is this
a sufficient justification for the infliction of ruthless cruel
ties here? The slaughter of many thousands a sign of
beneficence? The slow slaughter of 4,000,000 in the great
Indian famine a sign of beneficence! I will believe it
when the earth’s motion is reversed, or the stars fall from
heaven, but not before !
As regards (j). Here again we have an appeal to our
ignorance. Admitting that some ultimate benefit to the
race does come out of a catastrophe like the great Indian
famine of 1858-1859: is this an adequate excuse for its
infliction? Such lame and inadequate explanations are
to me simply exasperating. Surely we have a right to
expect a merciful and all-powerful Being to gain the desired
©nd by some less revolting means. It cannot surely be neces
sary to boil and fry or starve to death thousands of human
�30
GOD AND REVELATION.
beings in order that some good may result to the survivors'
Besides, why should nature require patching and mend
ing at all ? Does not this imply a defect in the artificer ?
Consider once more the immense amount of suffering
caused by the existence of venomous reptiles—snakes,
scorpions, centipedes, and the like—not only to man, but
to animals. Paley endeavors to make light of the afflic
tion. He says, in effect, that the bite of the rattlesnake
(he probably had not heard of the cobra) is not often fatal;
that they (venomous reptiles) are seldom found in places
or countries inhabited or frequented by man, and that if
man invades their territories, he must take the conse
quences. Of course this is utter rubbish. Around almost
every native village in India hundreds of venomous reptiles
abound, which invade the dwellings of the inhabitants and
cause much havoc amongst them. What would Paley
have said had he known that there are annually 20,000
deaths reported from snake-bite in India alone, and pro
bably many more unreported ! After this it were bathos
to say anything about the number of cattle, sheep, etc.,
destroyed by similar means. Is the existence of these
things in a world where man has not too much room for
his own needs, no impeachment of the divine love ? Do
they not rather make us question the beneficent arrange
ments in nature which theologians are so fond of parading
for our benefit ?
As regards the reply given in (¿), I observe that it
is miserably inadequate and untrue. It is not a fact,
within my experience, that animals suffer little pain in
their lives, or that their deaths are generally painless ones.
A pack of wild dogs only obey their natural instincts when
they hunt down a sombhur to death. A cat instinctively
tortures a mouse to death. The boa-constrictor often
paralyses his victim with fear before he embraces him
in his deadly coil. A hunting cheta commits terrible
havoc amongst deer and other ruminants. Rabbits
suffer greatly from the stoat and weasel tribe. It was
only this morning that, hearing a great cry (almost human
it seemed to me) as of an animal in pain in the plantation
behind my house, I went to see what occasioned it, and
found a stoat hanging on to the back of the head of a
young rabbit, the latter making frantic but unsuccessful
efforts to shake off its assailant.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
31
I have more than once witnessed, in India, a crow
pheasant manipulating a frog of the largest size, merely
tearing out and eating its entrails, the agonising croak
of the animal during the operation being horrible—far
worse than when in ordinary course, a frog is slowly
disappearing down the throat of a snake, or even a larger
frog. It was always a source of wonder to me that
nature should be so needlessly cruel. A dog takes a
positive pleasure in hunting down a hare. Cattle, both
in their domesticated and wild condition, suffer tortures
from the foot and mouth disease; numbers of animals
undergo lingering deaths from attacks of parasites; in
fact, wherever we look, we see more or less of suffering
in the animal world. I shall be told in reply that the
pain is more apparent than real. I see a writer in one
of the quarterly reviews cites several instances in support
of this view, asserting, that a leech may be divided in the
middle while it is sucking blood, and be so little dis
turbed by the operation that it will continue to suck for
some minutes afterwards ; that the dragon-fly will devour
its own tail and fly away afterwards as briskly as ever;
that insects impaled with a pin will eat with as much
avidity as when free and unhurt. It is stated that on one
occasion a scientific collector impaled a carnivorous beetle
with a pin, that it somehow managed to get loose, and, in
spite of the pin in its body, devoured all the other speci
mens in the case. The story of Dr. Livingtone and the
lion is pressed into the service of natural theologians.
That distinguished traveller relates that when he was
seized by the lion he felt no particular pain; that the
shock produced a stupor similar to that felt by a mouse
after the first shake of the cat. How Dr. Livingstone
could have been aware of the mouse’s sensations it is
difficult to say; but most people will, in spite of the
learned doctor, still continue to think that the mouse has
a very bad quarter of an hour indeed, after being seized
by a cat.
How far the other instances given by the quarterly re
viewer are correct I am unable to say; but no one doubts
that where there is feeble brain organisation and little or
no nervous system, there is correspondingly little pain ;
but all warm-blooded animals must and do feel acutely’
and the higher we ascend in the scale, the more suscepti
�32
GOD AND REVELATION.
bility to pain do we find. It is impossible for apologists to
deny all physical suffering in the animal creation, but they
try to minimize the amount as much as possible, asserting
that the pains are a trifle as compared with the pleasures
and enjoyments of life. This is a question which every
one must answer for himself—for my part, I am unable to
agree with the apologists, or to admit that, even if the
assertion be true, it is a sufficient explanation of the suffer
ings which none can deny. In short, let theologians argue
as they will, there is no denying the fact, as Physicus points
out, “that we stand in the midst of a wonderful and beauti
ful, but also of a terrible and cruel, world, and a world more
over inwhich pain and cruelty, the slaughter of the weak by
the strong, and their decay and death by their own imperfect
organization, are not accidental defects, but are of the
very essence of the development of life on the globe, and
go back ages before man’s appearance on its surface. So
far as life and the improvement of life are the outcome of
the struggle for existence, the organic world seems to have
its roots in suffering. In such a view evil is no longer to
be dismissed as a temporary incident, but as a tremendous
reality, bound up with the very constitution of things ”
I may be told that it is exceedingly presumptuous of me to
presume to sit in judgment on the acts of the Almighty,
and that I am not a competent judge in the matter. To
this I reply that I am not sure they are the acts of the
Almighty—certainly not of the Deity of Professor Flint—
besides, I am asked to pronounce an opinion, when the facts
of nature are favorable, and exhibit beneficent design (for
this is the whole scope and purport of writers of natural
theology), but when they appear unfavorable, or male
volent, I am told I am presumptuous if I dare to pro
nounce an opinion upon them. I am also informed that I
have not the necessary knowledge—and that if I were
behind the scenes—I should judge very differently. To
which I reply, that I am competent,—as far as my know
ledge extends,—to form an opinion on what goes on before
my very eyes, and to doubt my own competency in this
respect is like doubting the multiplication table because
I am ignorant of the differential calculus. Is it a mark
of reverence to say that black is white when black it
appears to me to be ? Besides, the argument, as an argu
ment, appears to be worthless, because it might be, with
�GOD AND REVELATION.
33
equal cogency, pressed into the service of a believer in one
of the Pagan Deities in justification of an act (which
appeared to us cruel or immoral) popularly assigned to that
Deity.
The author of “A Candid Examination of Theism ”
says :—
‘ ‘ If natural selection has played any large share in the
process of organic evolution, it is evident that animal enjoy
ment being an important factor in the natural cause must
always have been furthered to the extent in which it was
necessary for the adaptation of organisms to their environment,
and such we invariably find to be the limits within which all
enjoyments are confined. On the other hand, so long as the
adaptations in question are not complete, so long must there be
more or less suffering. Thus, whether we look to animal
pleasures or animal pains, the result is just what we should
expect to find on the supposition of those pleasures or pains
having been due to necessary and physical, as distinguished
from intelligent and moral, antecedents ; for how different is
that which is, from that which might have been. Not only
might beneficient selection have eliminated the countless species
of parasites which now destroy the health and happiness of the
higher organisms ; not only might survival of the fittest, in a
moral sense, have determined that rapacious and carnivorous
animals should yield their places to harmless and gentle ones ;
not only might life have been without sickness, and death
without pain ; but how might the exigencies and the welfare
of species have been consulted by the structures and habits of
One another.”
t
Is it any explanation of the mystery to be told in reply
that our knowledge is partial, and could we but see the
whole, the objections would probably disappear?; or is
the difficulty minimised by the contention that we are
looking at a work which is not yet finished, and that the
imperfections we see may be a necessary part of a large
but yet only partially carried out design? I think not.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a favorite one with theo
logians ; but it convinces no one. Besides, the great catas
trophes of Nature can hardly be called imperfections.
Furthermore, supposing that the miseries of life do possess
an occult quality of promoting good in the far off future :
what then ? Does the end, according to our moral code,
justify the means ? Hidden good often conies out of
human misdeeds and crimes, but that does not prevent
�¡4
GOD AND REVELATION.
them from remaining misdeeds and crimes ; and, in like
manner, if in the order of nature good comes out of the
mass of misery and injustice with which the world teems,
that does not lessen the significance of the fact that the
method by which the supposed good is attained is a method
of misery and injustice.
Should I be told, as I have been told before now, that
all the misery which surrounds us, physical and moral,
is the result of the transgression of our first parents, I
reply that the difficulty is only removed one step farther
back. The Creator of the Universe, supposing him to be
all-powerful and possessing all knowledge, is equally
responsible for the result. Besides, as regards the brute
creation at any rate, the earth has yielded up her secrets,
and we know that animals existed, preyed upon one
another, and died, under much the same conditions as
they now live and die, ages before man’s appearance on
the globe.
In concluding this part of my essay, I would quote the
words of a living Roman Catholic writer, not because they
by any means afford a satisfactory explanation of the diffi
culties I have been considering, but because the writer
sees, as clearly as I do, the malevolences of Nature, and
because also his explanation is largely imbued with the
merciful spirit of the age, which seems to find expression
in the words of Lord Tennyson :—
“ Behold we know not anything ;
We can but hope that good shall fall
At last far off—at last—to all,
And ever winter turn to spring.”
The writer referred to says :
“ I can no more reconcile the evil and misery in the world
with the existence of a bénéficient creator than you can.
It is one of those overwhelming and heart-piercing mys
teries that encumber human life. But is not the Christian
explanation upon the face of it more reasonable than any other ?
Sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and does not the
teaching of all religions echo back the eternal law ? Here of
course we all throw back upon another of those unsolved and
insoluble mysteries that surround men on all sides—the mystery
of free will, as to which I do not see how we can get further
back than St. Augustine’s teaching ; that a world m which a
moral order or period of probation was established, wherein
�GOD AND REVELATION.
35
rational creatures should work out their own eternal destiny by
their own merit, is more excellent than one containing no such
order, and that the existence of the moral order implies liberty
to sin, as a concomitant of liberty to do right.”
And, adds the writer—
“ of this I am confident, and it seems blasphemous to doubt it,
that the eventual condition of every soul will be such as is best
for that soul—the best that is possible for it, as being what it
is, and what it has made itself to be. This is the larger hope,
which we may not only faintly trust but assuredly believe—the
one ray of light in the great darkness.”
This is all very well as far as it goes, and is a remark
able admission, as coming from a Roman Catholic,1 but
the mystery of free will affords little assistance to the mind
overwhelmed by the great catastrophies of nature, or aghast
at the apparently needless sufferings of the brute creation.
In truth, the mystery is, as Mr. Lilly himself admits, in
soluble.
The conclusion of the whole matter appears to be
this. To one who, on independent grounds, say on the
dictum of an infallible church, or an infallible record, be
lieves in spite of indications in nature to the contrary, in
an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-merciful Deity, it may be
possible to avoid facing the dilemma, and to rest content
with the assumption that the two horns of the dilemma
may be made to meet, in some inconceivable way ; but in
the absence of such grounds, and should he care to exercise
his reasoning faculties at all on the subject (a task he is
invited to undertake by the numerous writers on natural
theology from Paley downwards), he can hardly avoid the
conclusion that the power which the universe manifests to
him is non-infinite in its resources, or non-beneficent in
its designs.
1 Very different from the view taken by the Rev. Father Furness
(a Roman Catholic writer), who speaks of hell being paved with the
skulls of infants only a foot long.
�PART II.
I have said, it may be possible for one who on indepen
dent grounds, believes in the existence of an all-powerful,
all-wise, and all-inerciful Deity, to avoid facing the
dilemma, etc. ; but, on carefully considering the matter,
it seems questionable whether any authority whatsoever
would suffice to win our intellectual assent to a proposition
which is, as I believe, contradicted by the evidence of our
senses.
Moral and physical evil confront us on every side—much
of it probably remediable—but much more entirely beyond
our control, for which the Creator of the Universe is
directly responsible. Nevertheless, in spite of this fact,
if we are satisfied that He has made a revelation to man,
we must believe that in some way or other He cares for
the creatures He has brought into existence (else why
would He make a revelation at all?). He may not be allpowerful, or He may be deficient in benevolence ; never-.
theless we may be sure that He exists, and we are bound
to accept what He has been pleased to reveal to us—and
reject it at our peril—provided always that we are satis
fied that it emanates from a Being who governs the world.
There are some who assert that they know intuitively
that God exists (as Theodore Parker expresses it, the
voice of God in the soul of man), but they only arrive
at this conclusion because they have imbibed the idea
at some period or other of their lives. If a child of
Christian parents were taken away from its home when
only a few months old, and brought up by a race who had
no ideas of God, or a future state, the child would remain
as ignorant as its foster parents of these beliefs. It has
been said that no races or tribes exist whose minds are a
complete blank in regard to the existence of a Supreme'
(36)
�GOD AND REVELATION.
37
Being. Be this as it may, it is beyond dispute that the
Ordinary savage’s religion (if such it can be called) consists
merely in a belief in a Fetish or Devil of some kind,
whom he seeks to propitiate by offerings and sacrifices,
but this is a very different thing from a belief in. an
intelligent Personal Governor of the Universe—-a conscious
Supreme Power with whom we can enter into personal
relations.
Further, some of the acutest minds of this or any other
age, lack any such intuitive knowledge. They, it is true,
acknowledge some power or force in the universe—an
eternal energy from which all things proceed—but confess
their utter ignorance of its attributes. I think, therefore,
we must dismiss the idea that God has intuitively revealed
himself to mankind.
As regards the evidence afforded by nature for the
existence of a Supreme Being, I have already discussed
the question in the first part of this essay, the conclusion
arrived at being that there is reasonable evidence to. esta
blish the existence of an intelligent Power, but that is all.
We must therefore turn to revelation, and examine the
evidence on which it rests, in view to ascertaining whether
it affords us reasonable grounds for believing that it
emanated from a Being who rules the universe, who is
also all-powerful, wise, and good. Although history.records
more revelations than one, I shall content myself with con
sidering the Christian revelation, being willing to accept
Paley’s dictum, that if the Christian religion (that is the
revelation of the Christian religion) be not credible, no
one with whom we have to do will support the pretensions
of any other.
Paley, after supposing or assuming more than he has
any right to assume, asks, “Under these circumstances, is
it improbable that a revelation should be made ? Suppose
God to design for mankind a future state, is it unlikely that
he should acquaint him with the fact ? ” To which I
reply, By no means; but then I deny the premiss on which
the whole argument is based. We have no right to assume
certain alleged facts, viz., the existence of a Moral Governor
and Ruler of the Universe, who designs a future state for
man, and then to argue from these facts for the probability
of a revelation. I conceive the more legitimate way of
dealing with the question, if we are to argue at all on
�38
GOD AND REVELATION.
probabilities, is to take the Christian revelation as it
stands, and then ask ourselves the question, Is it probable ?
What, then, is this Christian revelation ? or of what does
it consist ? If I read my Bible correctly, we are told that
some six or seven thousand years ago (the time is of no
great consequence) the Almighty planted a garden in Eden
(wherever that may have been); and there caused a fullgrown man suddenly to rise out of the ground, endowed with
intellect, speech and conscience ; that this man being cast
into a deep sleep, an incision was made in his side, from
which a woman was formed; that after a time the woman
—in spite of God’s injunction to the contrary—beguiled by
a serpent, partook of the fruit of a particular tree, and
persuaded the man to do so too, m consequence of which
act of disobedience, they (the man and the woman) were
driven out of the Garden of Eden, and made to work for
their daily bread. That Adam lived for 930 years, and
begat children,1 but his descendants become so hopelessly
bad, that God regretted that he had made man, and deter
mined to destroy both man and beast from the face of the
earth, excepting Noah and his children, and their wives
and families; and this intention the Almighty carried out
by means of a flood, which covered the whole earth—that
is to say, all the high hills that were under the whole
heaven—and so all life was destroyed except Noah and his
family, and the beasts that he had taken with him into
the ark. Nevertheless, this wholesale purification failed
to improve the moral character of man, for the race lapsed
into wickedness again, till at length, after some thousands
of years, God, according to a purpose which he had formed
before the foundation of the world, incarnated himself in
the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the
Trinity, who, after a ministry of about three years (query:
was it one?) on the earth, was crucified by the Roman
1 Charles Bray says :—“ For God to make a Paradise out of which
he knew his new-made creatures would be very shortly driven, was a
mockery, a delusion, and a snare. But it may be said that Eve must
have been left free or there would have been no virtue in resisting-.
What, left free to destroy herself and all her race ? Surely no such
fatal gift could be safely entrusted to so frail a creature, particularly
as God knew perfectly well how it would all end. And then, again,
if on the day of her disobedience she had surely died according to
promise, no great harm would have been done, for she would not then
have brought a curse on her whole posterity.”
�GOD AND REVELATION.
39
Power, at the instigation of the Jewish nation, but with
the foreknowledge and consent of God the Father, m
order that he (Jesus Christ) might be a propitiation
for the sins of the whole world; in other words, that the
first person of the Trinity might consistently, with his
attribute of justice, forgive the sinner, who accepted the
second person of the Trinity as his Saviour. As Milton
says:—
“ Man losing all,
To expiate his treason had nought left
But to destruction, sacred and devote,
He with his whole posterity must die;
Die he, or justice must,
Unless some other able and as willing pay.
The rigid satisfaction death for death.”
This, or something very like it, is the revelation which
we are called upon to believe. I ask is it prima facie
probable? I am not denying that it possibly may be
true; all I say is, that it is not the sort,of story that
commends itself to our intelligence. Tertullian says of it:
** Credo quia incredibile,” that is, u I believe it because it
is too improbable for anyone to have invented it.” At any
rate, it is not too much to say that the whole story of the
creation of man, the deluge, and the ark, conflicts not only
with the scientific knowledge of the present day, but the
doctrine of the atonement (softened down though it
may be by modern apologists) with our sense, of right
and wrong; for how, it may be asked, can it consist
with justice to allow guilt to be transferred from the
guilty to the innocent ? I do not say it is all impossible;
all I do say is, that before we give in our adhesion to the
story, we are entitled to demand the strongest possible
evidence that God has really revealed it. Paley sajs .
“ I remember hearing an unbeliever say that if God, had
given a revelation He would have written it on the skies.
Allowing for metaphorical language, I think He would.
'Were an earthly potentate to send a messenger to his
subjects charged with a message improbable in itself, but
of paramount importance; the contents of which, if ueglected, would entail utter ruin upon them, and their
descendants, we are entitled to say that it would be
incumbent upon him so to accredit his messenger, that no
reasonable doubt be left in the minds of any of his
�40
GOD AND REVELATION.
subjects as to his (the messengers) authority and mission.
Similarly, I think we are entitled to expect an equally explicit attestation of the heavenly message.
Paley observes that if the evidences of revelation were
overpowenngly strong, it would have the effect of restrain
ing our voluntary powers too much, and would call for no
exercise of humility and faith. It would be no trial or
thanks, he says, to the most sensual wretch to forbear
sinning if heaven and hell were open to his sight The
same line of argument has only to be used in the hypo
thetical case I have cited above, to show what nonsense it
amounts to The fact is, not only is faith magnified above
its deserts, but it is put m the wrong place. If God has
unquestionably spoken, reason is silenced. It is super
seded by faith.
But the question is whether God has
spoken, and until that question is decided, there is no
legitimate scope for the exercise of faith. To do so before
would be to make faith and credulity interchangeable
terms. Take the incarnation of the Supreme Being This
is a mystery which my intellect cannot fathom, but I
rightly accept it on faith, if I am sure that it has been
revealed Similarly, as regards the Romish doctrine of
transubstantiation, my intellect may be quite unable to
fathom. the mystery of the transformation of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but if I
believe the doctrine to be taught by divine authority, then
1 am bound to accept it on faith; and so again a Mussulman
is morally bound to accept the Koran as his rule of faith,
in spite of its inherent improbabilities, if he is satisfied that
it has.been written by the inspiration of the Almighty •
but it is too much to ask him or anyone else to exercise faith
th\mAssage 'before he is satisfied that God has spoken
through Mahomed, in the pages of the Koran. And so it
X T/eRrd to the Christian revelation. If I am sure
i d-iG0™8 ®poken either through the medium of an In
fallible Church, or in the pages of the Bible, I bow my
head, and accept the revelation he has been pleased to
make; but I must know first of all that he has really
spoken, or else I shall only be guilty of credulity in
accepting it.
As I shall probably be told that sufficient evidence
does exist to convince any reasonable person that the
Christian revelation is a direct revelation from Almighty
�GOD AND REVELATION.
41
God, I shall now proceed to consider the question, as
'briefly as I can.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church claims not only
to be the true Church of God, the infallible interpreter of
God’s revelation to man, “ but the depository of a mass of
unwritten tradition handed down in unbroken succession
from the time of St. Peter (the alleged first Bishop of
Rome) to the present day, which it is incumbent on its
followers to believe. It is also very exclusive, for it teaches
that none beyond its pale can be saved.
Admitting that it was within the compass of divine
power to have communioated to the world the certitude
that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true and
infallible Church ; as a matter of fact, such a communica
tion has not been made. The Roman Catholic Church may
claim to be the mouthpiece of Almighty God, and the
Pope, his vice-regent on earth, but when we ask for her
credentials, she has none to show. She may appeal to the
Bible and tradition, but it is obvious, that to those who
believe neither in the infallibility of the one, or the truth
of the other, this is no proof at all. If we meditate upon
her past history, we shall hardly be tempted to take her
word for her assumptions. Her previous character is too
bad. It is impossible to deny that she is directly respon
sible for the horrors of the inquisition which claimed their
hundreds of thousands of victims. She, or rather the head
of the Church, ordered a medal to be struck in commemo
ration of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. M. Bouzique
writes :—
“Of all the persecutions which the Roman Catholic Church
has carried on against religious liberty in France, none has a
more odious character than that which followed the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. The crusades against the Albigenses,
the slaughter of the Vaudois, the massacre of St. Bartholomew
itself, may in part be referred to the barbarousness of the time,
but the Dragonades surpasses them all in horror.”
The history of French Protestantism, from the end of
the seventeenth century to the end of the eighteenth,
presents one long history of bloodshed and horror. The
same writer remarks :—
“ The Protestants of every condition, age, and sex, given up
as a prey to the violence of a fanatical soldiery, to the hateful
�42
GOD AND REVELATION.
passions of the Roman Catholic clergy, had to suffer all the
afflictions and tortures, all the horrors and infamies that could
be devised by the grossest brutality, united to a cruelty the
most exquisite.”
The whole of this system of robbery, brutality, and
murder, which ancient paganism cannot parallel or ap
proach, Jiad its source in three base authorities—Louis
XIV., Pere la Chaize, his confessor, and Pope Innocent XT.
The latter, instead of interposing his1 authority to put a
stop to these horrors, writes to his obedient son, Louis XIV.,
on the subject of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, as
follows :—
“Our very Dear Brother in Jesus Christ,—Among all the
illustrious proofs that your Majesty has given of your natural
piety, there is none more striking than the truly worthy zeal of
the.most Christian King, which has led him to revoke all the
ordinances rendered in favour of the heretics of his kingdom,
and the provision he has made by very wise edicts for the pro
pagation of the orthodox faith; as we have learnt from our
very dear son, the Duke d’Astrees, your ambassador at our
Court. We have thought it our duty to write to you this letter,
in order to. give an authentic and durable testimony of the
eulogies which we bestow on the fine religious sentiments which
your spirit manifests ; and to congratulate you on the load of
immortal commendations which, by this last act, you have
added to all those which, down to this time, render your life so
glorious. The Catholic Church will not forget to mark in its
annals so great a proof of your devotion to it. I will never
cease to praise your name. But, above all, you may safely
expect from the divine goodness the reward of so fine a resolu
tion, and to be assured that for that result we shall continually
put up the most ardent prayers to that same goodness. Our
venerable brother the Archbishop of Fano will say to you the
rest, and in cordial earnestness we give your Majesty our
apostolical benediction.
“ Given at Rome the 13th November, 1685.”
And this from a man who professed to be a follower of
Jesus Christ, and the head of God’s infallible Church on
earth!
. At the time when the act of revocation was issued, the
king was living in adultery with Madame Maintenon, who
had not long succeeded her predecessor in adultery,
Madame Montensan. A worthy son of the Church
indeed!!
�GOD AND REVELATION.
43
The sale of indulgences, under the authority of Leo X.,
was a disgrace to any church, and was one, if not the chief
cause, that brought about the reformation. A certain
dealer in indulgences (Bernardin Sampson) unblushingly
declared he could forgive all sins, and that, heaven and
hell were subject to his power. He maintained that he
could sell the merits of Christ to anyone who could buy
them for ready money. He boasted of having levied
enormous sums from the poor as well as the rich. Did the
Pope take any steps to stop this blasphemy ? No; he
directly encouraged it, in order that the money so levied
might replenish his exhausted coffers. A worthy follower
of Christ indeed !!
In 1493 Pope Alexander VI. issued a bull laying down
the axiom that the earth was fiat. In the 13th century
Pope Boniface VIII. interdicted dissection as sacrilege..
The Church burnt Giordano Bruno for promulgating
the opinion that the earth revolved round the sun. Galileo
narrowly escaped the same fate, after being harried and
worried to death’s door, and made to recant his so-called
errors.
Not only have many of the Popes been grossly
immoral in their lives—some of them, for instance the
Borgias, monsters of iniquity—but they have been the
determined enemies of all progress, as well as of civil and
religious liberty; even so recently as the reign of the last
Pope (Pius IX.) a syllabus was issued, the 78th
and 80th propositions of which declare, “ Cursed be he
who holds that in Catholic countries the free exercise of
other religions may laudably be allowed, or that the
Roman Pontiff may, or ought to come to terms with
progress, liberalism, and modern civilisation.”
For my part I share the opinion of those who hold that
the Roman Church only lacks the power to be as great a
tyrant over the liberties and consciences of the people
as she has been in the days of the past; and that were
the Roman Catholic religion predominant over the
length and breadth of the land, real progress would be
impossible.
As Dr. Beard says, in answer to the Bishop of Salford,
‘1 You bring a bad character with you. You revive memories
most adverse to your claims. You speak as a lamb now,
but if you gain power, you will resume your inborn pro
�44
GOD AND REVELATION.
penalties, and become the very wolf we expelled from
England many years ago.” Does anyone donbt that this
would be so ?
Again, the Church prides herself on her unchangeable
ness ; she declares that her teachings have been the same
yesterday, to-day, and will be the same for ever. But this
is not true. As Dr. Beard says, “Without denying the
fundamental truths of Christianity, she disfigured and
mutilated them so as to render them scarcely recognisable.
The unchangeable Church changed every century, until
she had transmuted the simple and sublime religion of Christ
into a complicated mass of unparalleled absurdities.”
Boman Catholics would probably deny this, but I ask
them, Was not the Bible a sealed book which laymen were
forbidden to read ? Is it, or is it not true, as Dean Stanley
says, that the Eucharist was up to the 13th century ad
ministered to infants in the Roman Catholic Church, and that
total immersion was also practised by the same Church up to
the same period ” ? If true, does the practice exist now ?
Recently we have had the doctrine of the Infallibility of
the Pope added to the list of beliefs which the Roman
Catholic Church imposes on the consciences of its followers,
to say nothing of the immaculate conception of the Virgin
Mary.
If it be asked how it is that the Roman Catholic Church
has satisfied the consciences and claimed the allegiance
of such men as Newman and Manning, who were once
aliens from its fold, I reply, “ I cannot say, further than
this, that there is no accounting for religious beliefs ”.
With Newman, I suppose his logical mind saw the necessity
for an infallible interpreter of God’s word. If I understand
his. writings correctly, he seems to say that there is no
logical halting place between Atheism on the one hand and
an infallible Church on the other. I do not dispute his
immense learning and his dialectical skill, but what is it
all worth when he is ready to surrender his intelligence
and judgment to a belief in such an absurdity as the
miracle of the liquifaction of St. Januarius’ blood ? I have
not his “Apologia” by me to refer to, but I distinctly
remember when reading his controversy with Charles
Kingsley, that while admitting that any Roman Catholic
was justified in rejecting the miracle if he chose, he
(Newman) thought it rather more likely to be genuine
�GOD AND REVELATION.
45
than otherwise I1 Putting Newman aside, why do the
Popes permit such a jugglery as this to take place
year after year if they really are what they claim
to be ?
Others there are again, who, tormented with doubt, seek
rest for their souls in the arms of an infallible Church.
They allow their intellects to go to sleep, that their hearts
may have food, and comfort, and rest. Once make the
final plunge, and everything else is so easy! The Romanist
points to the 140 sects into which Protestantism is divided,
and asks triumphantly, “ Can the truth be here ? ”. The
Church invites its hearers to come to it, and promises
them a solution of all their difficulties. If only you can
believe in the one infallible Church, your difficulties may
be made to vanish. How much depends on that little
word “ if ” !
I have referred to the lives and teachings of the
Popes as evidence against the claims of the Church.
I think this is important, because we must not forget
they are selected by the whole body of the Cardinals after
solemn prayer that their choice may be guided aright. Is
it credible that if the Almighty had really established a
visible church on earth, he would have permitted the election
of such creatures for his viceregents as many of the Popes
have been, e.g., Paul II., Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII.,
Alexander VI., and Julius II.—some of them steeped
in every form of vice known to the most depraved
imagination?
I have said that the Roman Catholic Church appeals to
the Bible and tradition in support of its claims. But
allowing, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is
inspired, can the Church’s claim to be the head of Christ’s
Church on earth be made out from it ? Mr. Spurgeon,
than whom, I suppose, no one has a better textual
acquaintance with the Bible, evidently thinks not, for he
1 Since writing the above, I see from an extract from the British
and Foreign Evangelical Review that Newman says, “ I think it impos
sible to withstand the evidence which is broughtforward for the liquefac
tion of the blood of St. Januarius, and for motion of the eyes of the
Madonna. I firmly believe that portions of the true cross are at Rome
and elsewhere. I firmly believe that relics of the saints are doing
innumerable miracles daily. I firmly believe that the saints in their
lifetime have before now raised the dead to life.”
�46
GOD AND REVELATION.
permits himself to write as follows of the Roman Catholic
Church:
“We think too much of God’s foes, and talk of them with too
much respect. Who is this Pope of Rome ? His Holiness ?
Call him not so, but call him his blasphemy, his profanity,
his impudence I What are he and his cardinals and his legates
but the image and incarnation of Anti-Christ, to be in due
time cast with the beast and the false prophet into the lake of
fire?”
Mr. Spurgeon may not be a competent authority on the
claims of the Roman Catholic Church, but no man
knows the Bible better than he does, and he certainly
fails to find any support for the Church’s claim in its
pages. Besides, he is not exactly alone in his opinion,
though the use of such forcible language may be quite
exceptional.
What, then, is an individual of average intelligence
to do who is in search of a belief ? To embrace the
Roman Catholic religion; to cast in his lot with Mr.
Spurgeon, or any other of the numerous dissenting bodies;
to join the English Established Church as by law esta
blished ; or to associate himself with Mr. Voysey’s Free
Church; or with the Unitarian body? It were hard to say,
i.e., if he insists on having a definite creed of some kind.
Excepting the Romanists and the Theists (in which I
include the Unitarians), most churches hold that the Bible
contains the sole rule of faith. I shall therefore proceed
to consider the claims that it has to be considered the
infallible word of God. Before doing so, however, it may
■be as well to notice some, at any rate, of the different
theories that have been formulated from time to time in
regard to the inspiration of the Bible. In my younger
days one, and only one theory was generally admissible,
viz., that the writers of the several books of the Bible
were mere amanuenses, writing at the dictation of the
Holy Ghost, and that no mistakes were possible; in other
words, the theory maintained was that of the verbal and
plenary inspiration of the Bible. You hear it still in
almost every orthodox dissenting chapel in England ; it is
the doctrine taught by evangelists of the Moody and
Sankey type; it is held by the Salvation Army, but it is
losing its hold on the educated portion of our orthodox
divines.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
47
The late Dr. Baylee, one of the first Hebrew scholars of
his day, and a man of very considerable intellectual
ability, whom I had the pleasure of meeting when he
filled the office of Principal of the Birkenhead Theological
—Training College, says in a manual written for the use of
his students :
“ The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired—every word,
every syllable, every letter, is just what it would be had God
spoken from Heaven, without any human intervention. Every
scientific statement is infallibly accurate—all its history and
narratives of every kind are without any inaccuracy.”
The late Bishop of Lincoln, when Canon Wordsworth,
used almost identical language, but I have not his book to
refer to. Burgin writes, “ The Bible is none other than the
voice of him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of
it—every chapter of it—every syllable of it—every letter of
it, is the direct utterance of the Most High ” ; and scores
of other writers might be quoted who use almost identi
cally the same language.
The uneducated masses who believe in the Bible at aH
hold this view, but of late years the ground has shifted a
little, and educated and cultivated minds, influenced un
consciously perhaps by the liberalism of the age no less
than by the advancing tide of knowledge, have to some
extent broken away from the old moorings. We hear less
nowadays of verbal and dynamical inspiration of the Bible,
and more of the human element it contains.
The view taken by Dr. Harold Brown, Bishop of Win
chester, is this : '
“ The inspiration claimed for the Bible is infallible so far as
it relates to things pertaining to God, and fallible in matters of
history and daily life. Thus, some portions of the Bible are
given by organic inspiration, God Himself speaking through
the medium of man’s organism; other portions are simply the
expression of the author’s own sentiments, it may be under the
influence of a general inspiration, or by the exaltation of his
natural faculties.”
The difficulty, adds the Bishop, of enunciating a definite
theory of inspiration, consists exactly in this—in assigning
the true weight respectively to the Divine and human
elements. And a difficulty it remains, for the learned
Bishop does nothing to clear it up ; he leaves us with a
Bible containing a mixture of fallible and infallible state
�48
GOD AND REVELATION.
merits, and tells us that those statements which refer to
God—which are just those we have no power to test the
truth of—are the words of Almighty God himself; and
that those statements referring to natural phenomena, of
which we are capable of judging (at all events, to some
extent) are simply the opinions of the writers, and there
fore fallible. The conclusions of such men as Cardinals
Newman and Manning are logical. The believer in a
special infallible revelation, if he be rational and logical,
is driven to find an infallible interpreter for his infallible
book.
The Rev. M. F. Sadler, Prebendary of Wells and Rector
of Honiton, (belonging to the Evangelical School) writes:
“There are undoubtedly great difficulties attending the enun
ciation of any clearly defined theory of inspiration—as, for
instance, whether it is verbal, plenary, or dynamic; whether
all the various books of the Bible were written with equal
divine assistance. Whether all parts of it have the same
authority for all purposes, as, for instance, whether all its state
ments may be quoted with equal confidence on matters of
doctrine, matters of fact, matters pertaining to civil history or
natural science. Again, the question of inspiration is practically
allied with considerations respecting the present state of the
text of the original—its translation and its interpretation.”
He goes on to say:
“ God must have exercised such a superintendence both over
the minds and pens of the Evangelists that they are to be
implicitly relied upon for the account they give of Christ.
The exact nature of the superintendence we may be unable to
define, but that it was of such a sort as to enable the children
of God to exercise unbounded faith in the narrative, as giving
them a reliable view of the person, work, power, and pretensions
of Christ seems beyond doubt. What we are as sure of as our
own existence is that if there be any Holy Ghost, he was in the
four men (the Evangelists) cognisant of, and taking into account
every sentence they wrote, superintending and controlling
every plan they formed, recalling to the memory of two, if not
three, the partially forgotten words, or their source ; so ordeiing
that the Church should have need of all of them, and not be
able to dispense with any one of them, and, what is more, not
be able to weave the fourfold story into one, but each must be
read separately, one by one, one after another, so that each
child of the kingdom may have the more deeply engravened
on his heart every divine lineament of the features of the king
in his beauty. In order to do this, the inspiring divine intelli
�GOD AND REVELATION.
49
gence in the Evangelists so order matters that they are not
exempt from mistake of time, and place, and arrangement. Even
if they are so exempt, that exemption is to us as if it were not,
for we cannot reconcile their seeming discrepancies, and never
shall in this world. But these very discrepancies, and diver
gencies are under the cognisance of the Holy Spirit, distinctly
permitted by him, inasmuch as they were not corrected, but
allowed for manifold purposes, as, for instance, in avast number
of cases, to assure us that we have the true meaning—one report
supplying the comment to the other; in other cases allowed, I
believe, for the express purpose of preventing our weaving the
four narratives into one, and so cheating our souls of that
multifold realisation of Christ s personal life which is in the
sight of God of such moment to our spiritual life.”
This seems to me great rubbish; but the writer at any
rate recognises and admits very freely the human element
in the Bible, but his mode of accounting for its being there
is truly wonderful.
Mallock, the author of “ Is Life worth Living ? writes
as follows :
” What then has modern criticism accomplished on the
Bible ? The biblical account of the creation has been shown
to be, in its literal sense, an impossible fable. Stories that were
accepted with a solemn reverence seem childish, ridiculous,
grotesque, and not unfrequently barbarous; or if we are hardly
prepared to admit so much as this—this much at least has been
established firmly—that the Bible, if it does not give the lie
itself to the astonishing claims that have been made for it,
contains nothing in itself, at any rate, that can of itself be
sufficient to support them. This applies to the New Testament
just as much as to the Old, and the consequences here are
much more momentous. Weighed as mere human testimony,
the value of the Gospels becomes doubtful or insignificant. For
the miracles of Christ, and for his superhuman nature, they
contain little evidence that tends to be satisfactory and even
his (Christ’s) daily words and actions it seems probable may
have been inaccurately reported, in some cases perhaps invented,
and in others supplied by a deceiving memory. When we pass
from the Gospels to the Epistles, a kindred sight presents
itself; we discern in them the writings of men not inspired
from above, but with many disagreements amongst themselves,
and influenced by a variety of existing views, and doubtful
which of them to assimilate. We discern in them, as we do in
other writers, the products of their age and circumstances; and
if we follow the Church’s history further, and examine the
appearance and growth of her great subsequent dogmas, we
�50
GOD AND REVELATION.
can trace all of them to a natural and non-Christian origin.
Two centuries before the birth of Christ, Buddha is said to have
been born without a human father. Angels sang in heaven to
announce his advent; an aged hermit blessed him in his
pother’s arms ; a monarch was advised—though he refused—to
destroy the child, who, it was predicted, should be a universal
ruler. It is told how he was once lost and found again in the
temple, and how his young wisdom astonished all the doctors.
His prophetic career began when he was about thirty years
old, and one of the most solemn events of it is his temptation
in solitude by the evil one. And thus the fatal inference is drawn
that all religions have sprung from a common and earthly
root.”
J
And these reflections emanate from sincere believers in
Christianity, the last only being a Boman Catholic, whose
aim and purpose are doubtless to exalt authority at the
expense of the Bible ; nevertheless, in my opinion, there is
much truth in his contention.
In this connection Mr. Gladstone remarks :
“ It is perfectly conceivable that a document penned by the
human hand, and transmitted by human means, may contain
matters questionable, uncertain, or even mistaken, and yet may
by its contents as a whole, present such moral proofs of truth
divinely imparted, as ought to command our assent and govern
our practice.”
This is, of course, quite possible, but the question is whether
it is true; and if true, how are we to ascertain where the
human elem ent ends and the divine begins ?
I will now pass on to consider what claim the Bible has
to be regarded as divinely inspired.
Let us consider the Old Testament writings, in the first
instance.
We have in the first and second chapters of Genesis an
account of the creation, which, if true, would no doubt go
far to convince us that the writer of that portion of it, at
any rate, was under the inspiration of the Almighty when
he wrote it. Now nothing in polemical writing has struck
me more forcibly than the discussion between Mr. Gladstone
and Professor Huxley on the cosmogony of Moses, which
has lately appeared in the Nineteenth Century. Does any
human being gifted even with a minimum of ratiocinative
power, doubt for a moment on which side the victory lies?
Is not Professor Huxley’s last reply perfectly crushing?
�GOD AND REVELATION.
51
For my part I was under the impression that the question
‘1 whether the cosmogony was or was not opposed to the
conclusions of science ” had been definitely settled nearly a
quarter of a century ago by one of the writers of that now
almost forgotten book, “Essays and reviews,” but it
appears I was mistaken, for of late the question has cropped
up again, but I believe only to result in the further dis
comfiture of the reconcilers.
A Dr. Einns has during the last year or two been lec
turing and writing on Genesis. His book fell into my hands
some little time back, and the impression it left on my
mind was that though it contained some interesting facts in
natural history, it utterly failed in its purpose, which was
to shew that the Mosaic record of the creation was scien
tifically correct. Judge therefore of my surprise on reading
some rem arks of the Lord Chancellor at the conclusion
of a lecture on Genesis, delivered by Dr. Kinns.
Lord Halsbury said:
“ It was a matter of congratulation that a man like Dr. Kinns
should be able to show that the Bible and the words of science
had in them the same inspiration. Philosophaters—for they
could not be called philosophers—spoke of Dr. Kinns as having
no right to speak on such subjects as science; but all the first
men of science were with him.’’
Is this so; or, rather, is it not absolutely false ?
Professor Huxley in his later article remarks :
“ My belief is, and long has been, that the Pentateuchal story of
the creation is simply a myth. I suppose it to be an hypothesis
respecting the origin of the Universe which some ancient thinker
found himself able to reconcile with his knowledge of the
nature of things, and therefore assumed to be true.”
And is not this opinion endorsed by the vast majority of
scientific thinkers ?’
Professor Drummond, the author of “Natural Law in
the Spiritual World,” and orthodox, I believe, as ortho
doxy goes, says :
“ That the championship of a position (by Mr. Gladstone), which
many earnest students of modern religious questions have seen
1 I see that Professor Dana, the American geologist, states it to be
his opinion that the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord.
It would be satisfactory if he informed us how he arrived at this
conclusion.
�52
GOD AND REVELATION.
reason wholly to abandon, cannot but excite misgiving’s of a
serious kind,”
°
and adds:
“ To theological science the whole underlying theory of the
reconcilers is as exploded as Bathybius.”
The present Bishop of London takes somewhat different
ground in his Bampton lectures for 1884. He says:
“It is quite certain that the purpose of revelation is not
to teach science at all. Where the creation is mentioned,
there is clearly no intention to say by what process [what!] it
was effected, or how long it took [what!] to work out the
process.”
The obvious reply is, that although the purpose of reve
lation may not have been to teach science, nevertheless we
should expect facts—whether intended to teach science
or not—when stated in an inspired record, to be cor
rectly stated, if mentioned at all—not for instance,
that grasses, herbs, and fruit trees were created, or
brought into existence, before there was any sun by
which their life might be vivified and supported. Later
on the Bishop speaks of the narrative as an allegory,
though he is careful to add that there is nothing in the
allegory that crosses the path of science. If this means
that. the statements put forth are scientifically correct,
nothing can well be more inaccurate, and the Bishop must
feel that this is so, or else why should he emphasise the
fact that the purpose of revelation is not to teach science ?
Dr. Temple apparently does not feel himself able to
deny the truth of the theory of evolution, even in regard
to man, for he says :
“His (man s body) may have been developed according to the
theory of evolution, but at any rate it branched off from other
animals at a very early point in the descent of animal life,”
and adds, in conclusion,
We cannot find that science, in teaching evolution, has yet
asserted anything that is inconsistent with revelation, unless we
assume that revelation was intended not to teach spiritual truth, but
physical truth also. [The italics are mine.J
I would ask, what is the use of adding this note of caution
if the evolution theory is not opposed to scriptural teach
ing as regards the creation of man and animals ?
�GOD AND REVELATION.
53
Surely this sort of argument is worse than useless. The
question is whether the Bible states fact or fiction.
Apologetic Christian writers nowadays for the most part
turn their attention to the task of showing that the
Darwinian theory (which is now too well established for
them to put on one side) is not Atheistic ; they argue in
fact that this theory redounds more to the honor and
glory of the Creator than does the older theory of special
creation. A recent writer observes :
“The attitude of orthodoxy towards the new discoveries in
science goes through three stages. First we are told that they
are false and damnable (this is exactly what we were told of
the Darwinian theory of descent some 20 or 25 years ago);
next that they are deserving of cautious examination; lastly,
that they are, and always have been, matters of general
notoriety, and are without any bearing whatever on religion
or morality.”
The theory of evolution is rapidly passing into the third
stage.
But apologists forget that the question isn’t whether this
(the Darwinian) theory does away with the necessity for
a first cause, but whether it is not vitally opposed to
the revelation of the Bible. Dr. Temple thinks not, on
the ground apparently that revelation was not intended to
teach physical truths. Not intended to teach physical
truths indeed! But this is not the question. It is whether
the story of the creation of man and animals, as narrated
in Genesis, is opposed to what we now know to be true.
As Mr. Laing observes :
“ It is absolutely certain that portions of the Bible, and those
important portions relating to the creation of the world and of
man, are not true, and therefore not inspired. It is certain that
the sun, moon, and stars, and earth were not created as the
author of Genesis supposes them to have been created.”
And as regards man, we have good reason for believing
that he has progressed from a state of the rudest savagery
towards civilisation and morality, and that his existence
dates back probably to the last glacial period—probably
200,000 years. This being so, how can these facts be
reconciled with the theory of Adam’s fall, which is the
foundation of the whole superstructure of redemption and
regeneration ?
�54
GOD AND REVELATION.
If, however, anyone should deny, as possibly he fairly
may, that man’s great antiquity has not been proved, I
would ask him to turn to the first chapter of Genesis, and
see whether it be possible to square the theory of the evo
lution of man, and animals with the statement of their
mode of creation in Genesis. If he can do this, he will
have performed little short of a miracle.
It is all very well for Dr. Temple to remind us that the
object of the Bible is not to teach us science, and that
where the creation of man is mentioned, there is clearly no
intention to say by what process this creation was effected.
As I have already pointed out, when questions involving
science are touched on in an inspired narrative, we should
expect them to be correctly stated; and that when we read
that man was created a living soul about 6,000 or 8,000
years ago, endowed with speech and intellect; that state
ment does not mean, and cannot mean (unless words have no
meaning at all) that he was, countless ages back, evolved from
some lower form of life, and gradually progressed from the
rudest savagery to his present comparatively high state of
civilisation. The special creation theory, or the evolution
theory (either the one or the other), may conceivably be
true, but it is only trifling with language to maintain that
they are not fundamentally opposed to one another; and
to assert that the Biblical account of the creation is in har
mony with the Darwinian theory is, in my opinion, to talk
nonsense.
Mr. Gladstone does not even touch on the question as to
whether the creation of man, as stated in Genesis, is in
accordance with scientific knowledge of the present day :
all he attempts to show is that the fourfold division of
animated creation, as stated in Genesis, viz.:
1. Water population ;
2. Air population;
3. Land population of animals ;
4. Man;
is substantially correct.
But Professor Huxley shows that this is not even the
case.
It is not, however, merely in regard to the story of the
creation alone that we are unable to signify our assent.
There are many Biblical stories which, while they cannot .
be demonstrated to be false (like the story of the creation,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
55
for instance), are almost more incredible, e.g., the story of the
universal deluge and the ark, and the many impossibilities
the narrative involves. Also such stories as the following.
(1) The plagues of Egypt (Exodus iv.). Moses casts
his rod on the ground, and its becomes a serpent; on
seizing it by the tail, it becomes a rod again.. The repe
tition of the miracle before Pharaoh and his servants;
and, most strange of all, the ability of Pharaoh s .magi
cians to perform the same wonder ; and then the climax :
Moses’ rod (serpent, I presume.) swallows up all the others.
(2) The extreme improbability, not to say impossibility,
in its physical results, of the story narrated in Genesis xix.,
33 to 36.
.
(3) Samson catches 300 foxes and ties their tails to
gether, with a firebrand between each (Judges xv., 4), and
sends them amongst the Philistines’ corn, to destroy it.
(4) His slaughter of a thousand men with the jawbone
of an ass (Judges xv., 15).
(5) The raising up of Samuel by the witch of Endor
(1 Sam. xxviii.).
(6) The cursing in the name of the Lord by Elisha of
mocking little children who knew no better, and the
destruction of forty-two of them by bears in consequence
(2 Kings ii., 24).
(7) The story of the building of the tower of Babel, and
the reason assigned for the confusion of tongues.
The list might be extended almost indefinitely, but cm bono?
If these miracles are credible, others of the same nature
are so too; if not, it is only a waste of time to add to
their number.
It is not that I deny the possibility of divine inter
ference in the affairs of men, but many of the miracles
of the Old Testament have an air of grotesqueness
about them, that stamps them as mythical. Is any
thing gained by calling them parables, as Mr. Laing
apparently does ? or allegories, as they are termed by the
New Jerusalem Church ? One can at any rate understand
the utility of some of the New Testament miracles as a
manifestation of God’s power, and as evidence of the
divine mission of the person who performed them ; but
this explanation will not hold good with regard to many,
at any rate, of those related in the Old Testament. .
Whatever else may be true—whatever theory of inspira
�56
GOD AND REVELATION.
tion we may hold—we know that these wonderful narra
tives did not and could not have happened as related ;
and. ah the persuasive eloquence of the most eminent of
Christian apologists will hardly persuade us that they did.
But do they believe them themselves ? I can hardly credit
it, though it is difficult to say what a man may not believe
if he gives his mmd to it—Cardinal Newman being an
instance in point. Then, again, does any human being
not tied hand and foot to traditional modes of
thought .believe that the Almighty held those long
conversations with Moses related in the 25th and
following chapters of Exodus, or that he was turned
from his purpose (Numbers xiv., 12) because of the
arguments of Moses (verses 13 to 16 of the same chapter) ?
I know it is the fashion to say, ‘ ‘ Oh, these words don’t
mean that: they mean something else ” ; but if words have
any meaning at all, they mean here exactly what they say.
The very idea is inconceivable ! How are we to explain
it. all ? Will Dr. Harold Brown’s theory meet the case,
viz., that the Bible is infallible as far as it relates to God,
but fallible in matters of history and daily life ?
There is another difficulty in regard to accepting the Old
Testament as the word of God, and that is the difficulty of
recognising parts of its moral teaching as having emanated
from a God of holiness and purity. I have by me the
Rev. J. H. Titcomb’s lecture on this subject, published at
the request of the Christian Evidence Society. He says:—
‘‘No one can possibly shrink more than I do from these
divine injunctions which the Old Testament records concerning
the massacre of whole cities and peoples. I stand in imagina
tion amidst those scenes of terrific slaughter, and as I listen to
the shrieks of helpless women and children, mercilessly sabred
and speared, I lift up my eyes to heaven, and exclaim, ‘ Can
this be thy work, O merciful Father ? Surely, oh surely, these
murderers have mistaken their self-barbarity for a divine
commission I ’ ”
‘ ‘ Such, I suppose, ’’ the writer adds, 1 ‘ are the first instincts of
every feeling heart in this day of nineteenth century civilisa
tion.” Well, how does he get over the difficulty? In this way.
The nations thus given over to slaughter were hopelessly
conupt (an assumption which I notice all Biblical apolo
gists make, without much evidence to support it), and
therefore it was the most merciful course to annihilate •
�GOD AND REVELATION.
57
them, with their women and children, because, argues the
writer, these children if spared would certainly have grown
up like their parents, and perpetuated the same contagion.
The case must be desperate indeed if it be necessary to
resort to such an apology as this, and yet it admits of no
other, excepting, probably, the true one, viz., that the
writers fell into the error of attributing to God the bar
barities of man. Is not this explanation, on the face of it,
a thousand times more probable than that a benevolent
Being—a moral Governor of the Universe—ordered the
slaughter of women and little children by the thousand!
As regards the treatment of the Midianites, when Moses
ordered the slaughter of all of them—save the virgins, whom
the Israelites were permitted to keep for their own depraved
purposes. The apologists explanation is, that Moses, in
this instance, acted on his own responsibility : that Moses
was inspired to record it, but not necessarily to give the
order. It is true that the Bible does not say that the
Almighty ordered it, but He certainly does not condemn
it, and if we read the 31st chapter of Numbers, verse 25,
to 30, it will be seen that the historian makes the Almighty
not only tacitly acquiesce in the arrangement, but issue
explicit instructions as to the distribution of the booty
taken from the Midianites, of which the 32,000 virgins
formed a part (see verse 35). A canon of criticism which
Dr. Titcomb lays down a little later on may meet the diffi
culty. It is “that the Jewish writers were frequently in
the habit of attributing to God himself the evils which He
permitted in his providence ”; but, on the other hand, it
creates another, and we naturally ask : “ How are we to
know when the biblical writers are giving us their own
views, or writing under the guidance of Gods holy spirit ? ”.
To me the difficulties of accepting the whole of the Old
Testament as genuine history are simply insurmountable.
For my own part, I feel as satisfied as I do of my own ex
istence that many of the stories therein related are not
true. If, however, we admit one half of the Bishop of
Winchester’s canon of criticism, viz., that the writers are
fallible in matters of history and daily life, the task of the
reconciler ought to be at an end; as to the other half,
there is no proof whatever that it is true.
But, after all, it has been urged that we need not trouble
ourselves about Old Testament history: what specially
�58
GOD AND REVELATION.
concerns us is the New. Let us therefore turn to it, and
see what grounds there are for accepting it as the in
spired word of God, written for our instruction and guidance
in all matters relating to our spiritual well-being.
First of all, it is not known with any degree of certainty
when or by whom the four Gospels were written. The
three, first are manifestly not independent narratives, but
compiled from a common source. Froude thinks, that
though the synoptics may have had no communication with
each other, they were supplementing from other sources of
information a central narrative which they all had before
them. As regards Matthew, there can be no doubt he
wrote primarily for the Jews, and actually makes Christ
say: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel.” The question as to the time he wrote hardly
admits of a definite answer, because of the way the work
originated. Matthew wrote the substance of his gospel in
Aramcean, probably before the destruction of Jerusalem.
It was afterwards translated into Greek; but the date of
our present gospel Dr. Samuel Davidson assigns to about
the year a.d. 105; Luke’s to the year 110; Mark’s to about
120, and John’s to about a.d. 150 ; but in no case have we
sufficient evidence to show that any one of the gospels con
tains the evidence of an eye witness.
St. John may or may not have written the gospel which
bears his name. Volumes have been written on this subj ect alone; but the general consensus of opinion is against
him. At any rate, it is certain that the latter presents a
marvellous contrast to the clear addresses to be found in
the Synoptics. If Jesus spoke in the simple way described
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is almost impossible to
conceive of his having uttered the long metaphorical dis
courses contained in the 4th. But this is not a point I
wish to press. Even if St. John be the author of the
4th Gospel, the difficulties which encumber our path will
not be removed one hair’s breadth.
What I wish to consider is this: Whether the in
ternal evidence of the four Gospels is of such a
nature as to incline . us to accept the statements of
the writers as true statements. As I have said be
fore, the theory of the verbal inspiration of the Bible
has nearly died out, but still it may be not amiss to note,
a few of the verbal inaccuracies to be found in the New
�GOD AND REVELATION.
59
Testament, showing at any rate that whatever other ideas
about inspiration may be true, the verbal and mechanical
theory will not stand the test of criticism.
(1) Purification of the Temple.—Did it occur shortly before
the crucifixion (see Matt, xxi., 12), or was it
at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus
(John ii., 13).
(2) Recognition of Jesus as the Messiah.—Was Jesus at once
i.e., at the commencement of his ministry, recog
nised as the Messiah by John the Baptist (John
i., 29, 39-45), by Andrew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, and Nathaniel, or are the synoptics correct
in saying that none of the disciples (not even
John the Baptist) arrived at that conviction till
a comparatively late period of Jesus’s ministry
(see Matt, xi., 2, 3, also xvi., 14—17).
(3.) The anointing of the feet of Jesus.—When was it done
and where. Luke says (Luke vii., 11 and 37) it
occurred early in the ministry of Jesus in the
house of a Pharisee in Nain; that the anointer
was a sinner—that is, a woman of immoral
character. Matthew says (Matt, xxvi., 6) the
scene took place in Bethany, in the house of
Simon the leper. John says (John xi., 2;
xii., 1) that it occurred in Bethany six days
before the Passover; he does not actually
say in whose house it took place, but the reader
is entitled to infer from the context that the event
took place in the house of Lazarus, for we are
told that Martha served, and that the anointer
was Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who was certainly
not a sinner in the sense intended to be conveyed
by St. Luke.
The last Supper.—Was it the Passover feast, or was it
not ? The Synoptics positively assert the former.
St. John the latter. (Matt, xxvi., 19 ; Luke xxii.,
15 ; John xviii., 28 ; xix., 31).
Crucifixion of Jesus.—Was Jesus crucified at the third
hour (9 a.m.), and gave up the ghost at the ninth
hour (3 p.m.)—(Matt, xxvii., 46 ; Mark xv., 23),
or is John right in asserting that at 12 noon
Jesus was still before Pilate?
�60
GOD AND REVELATION.
The thieves on the Cross.—Did one only, or both, the
thieves, revile Jesus. Matthew says both did;
Luke only one. (Matt, xxviii., 44; Luke xxiv., 43.V1
The hearing of the Cross.—Did Jesus himself bear the
cross to the place of execution (John xix., 17),
or was it carried for him by one Simon (Matt’,
xxvii., 32).
No advantage is likely to accrue by extending the list of
contradictions that are to be found in the New Testament ;
but for those who wish to see all that can be said in this
connection, Thomas Scott’s “ English life of Jesus ” affords
the necessary medium—a work below that of Strauss in
erudition; but what it loses in this respect is more than
made up by incisiveness and clearness of style—a work, I
may add, which though written 14 years ago, has never yet
been answered in spite of challenges to the Christian Evi
dence Society to undertake the task.
Of course, answers have been found to these and other
contradictions by so-called orthodox theologians, but
these harmonisers of the text of the Bible have, in
my opinion, . made matters worse than they found
them, and simply injured the cause they have at
heart by the obvious weakness of their arguments,2
. 1 Canon Farrar says: “ Here we might suppose that there was an
irreconcileable contradiction. But though the Evangelists sometimes
seem on the very verge of mutual contradiction, no single instance of
a positive contradiction can be adduced from their independent pages.
The reason of this is partly that they wrote under divine guidance,
and partly that they wrote the simple truth. The first two synoptics
tell us that both the robbers during the early part of the hours of the
crucifixion reproached Jesus ; but we learn from St. Luke that only
one of them used injurious and insulting language to Him ”
Now I have a great respect for Canon Farrar’s bearing and acumen,
but what are they all worth when he condescends to the use of
language like this ? What meaning does it convey to anyone’s mind
when read in conjunction with the biblical texts bearing on the
subject ? The 1st Evangelist says the thieves cast the same in His
teeth ; Mark, that they that were crucified with Him reviled Him.
Luke, on the other hand, that one of the thieves only did so, and that
the other rebuked, his fellow malefactor for his presumption, The
discrepancy js hardly worth mentioning, but Canon Farrar’s attempt
at harmonising the two accounts is truly wonderful. It simply shows
how utterly untrustworthy are those as guides to others, who have a
preconceived theory to support.
- Origen held that there were three anointings, as others have held
�GOD AND REVELATION.
61
It would surely be better—in the interests of Chris
tianity I mean—to abandon untenable positions and
concentrate one’s whole strength in defending the main
fortress. A Christian may regret that he has not an in
fallible record to refer to, and argue that the proba
bilities are all in favor of the infallibility of a book
revelation which proceeds from God, but if he has not got
it he had better accept with a good grace what Mr. Glad
stone says may be conceivable, viz., that the Bible may
contain matter questionable, uncertain, or even mistaken,
and yet as a whole present such moral proofs of its divine
origin as to command our assent. Whether it does so
will be considered further on.
We come now to consider questions involving something
more than mere mistakes of time and place, that is, state
ments of events which, if they did not occur, go far to
impeach the credit of the writers who narrate them as
faithful—though not necessarily dishonest—historians.
(1) Matthew records the flight of Joseph and Mary with
the infant Jesus into Egypt almost immediately after his
birth, where they remained, we are told, till after Herod’s
death. Luke, on the other hand, not only makes no mention
of the fact, but informs us of the birth and the circum
cision on the eighth day, followed by the presentation in
the temple at Jerusalem, where, after a peaceable per
formance of all things ordered in the law of the Lord, they
(the parents and the young child) depart from Jerusalem
and return to their own city, Nazareth. It is not only
that there is no mention of the flight in Luke, but Luke’s
account appears to exclude it. The two narratives must be
read together to appreciate the force of this.
Again, the account given in Matthew of the massacre of
all the young children in Bethlehem under two years of
age is not only not alluded to by Luke, but is extremely
improbable in itself. Herod no doubt committed many
acts of cruelty during his reign, which Josephus narrates
with no intention of sparing his character; and yet the
Jewish historian makes no allusion to the massacre of the
there were two purifications; but acts and words do not repeat them
selves. The same objections in each case to the work of the woman
would not be raised by the lookers on ; nor is it possible that Jesus
would defend the act in each case by the same arguments.
�62
GOD AND REVELATION.
young children. The event is not absolutely impossible,
but it is so improbable as to entitle us to refuse our
assent to it, when we reflect that it rests on the authority
of a writer who misquotes prophecy in order apparently
to enhance the credibility of the narrative. It need hardly
be pointed out that the prophecy in Jeremiah (xxxi., 15)
refers not to children slaughtered at Bethlehem hundreds
of years after the prophet’s death, but to persons taken
captive at Rama, near the tomb of Rachel, who is repre
sented in the prophecy as weeping for her children ; but
these, Jeremiah adds, shall return, and her sorrow shall
be turned into joy. How, then, can it possibly be made
to refer to Jesus of Nazareth? (See Matt, ii., 17.)
Similarly in regard to the temptation of Jesus. The
narratives of the Synoptics spread it over a period of forty
days, and inform us that Jesus was taken by the devil
through the air and placed on a pinnacle of the temple.
The story is extremely difficult to credit from whatever
point of view we regard it. Thomas Aquinas, I think it is,
who refers to this wonder in support of the then prevailing
belief in witchcraft. He says : “ If the devil had the power
of transporting Jesus through the air, why deny him the
power of transporting an old woman through the air on a
broomstick?” So improbable does the event seem that
many orthodox commentators have enunciated the theory,
that the occurrence was merely subjective, and had no
real existence in actual fact. But why I especially allude to
this narrative is that the fourth gospei not only makes no
mention of it, but leaves no room for it. Within a week
after his baptism, Jesus is described as surrounded by dis
ciples in Galilee, while according to the Synoptics he is
fasting in the wilderness, not having yet gained a single
disciple.
Casting out of devils.—Many instances of this are given
in the Synoptics, but the case referred to in Matthew viii.
28, et seq., makes more demands on our faith than the
others.
In the first place we read that devils, inhabiting human
frames, address Jesus and deprecate their being cast out
at all; but if it must be so, then they ask permission to be
allowed to go into the bodies of a herd of swine; and we
know the fate that attended the latter in consequence of the
request being acceded to. The story to my mind is simply
�.GOD AND REVELATION.
63
incredible and impossible. It indicates either that Jesus
shared the common opinions of his day in regard to demon
iacal possession, or that the New Testament writers have
made him responsible for their own views on the subject.
It has been said by apologists that Jesus only accommodated
himself to the understanding of his audience: that per
sonally he did not believe in demoniacal possession. But
how is this to be reconciled with the statement of his that
“this kind only goeth out by prayer and fasting”? There
are some people I know who, even at the present day,
maintain that demons inhabit the human body. With such
persons I cannot argue. Let them hold their opinions if
they like, but they must not expect me to listen to them.
The extraordinary prohibition of Jesus to his twelve
apostles (Matt, x., 5) not to go into the way of the Gentiles
or into any of the Samaritan cities, but rather to the Jews
—a most improbable order to have emanated from Jesus
himself; especially in view of the fact (John iv.) that Jesus
himself was in an early period of his ministry hospitably
entertained by the Samaritans, and dwelt two days in
their city, receiving their acknowledgement—or at any rate
of some of them—of his Messiahship. In the 23rd verse of
the former chapter we read that Jesus informs his disciples
that they shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till
the son of man be come. Surely this is an anachronism.
Jesus, at the time he is reported to have said this, had not
even informed his disciples of his death. Any allusion to
his second coming would have been unintelligible to them.
It seems to me certain that the words were attributed to
him, long after his death, by a writer who failed to see the
incongruity of the speech. Another anachronism is to be
found in the words : “ From the days of John the Baptist
until now ”. If the Baptist had been dead some years the
remark would have been intelligible, but seeing that he
was in prison at the time, we must conclude that the speech
was put into Jesus’s mouth long after the Baptist’s death.
A third is to be found in Matt, xxiii., 35, Baruch, or
Barachias, was not slain till thirty-five years after Christ.
The miracle of the reduplication of the loaves and fishes.—
If the miracle recorded in the 14th of chapter of Matthew
really occurred, it seems incredible that the disciples should
have replied when their Master observed that he could not
send the multitude away fasting (Matt. 15), “Whence
�64
GOD AND REVELATION.
should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to fill so
great a multitude?”—rather would they not have entreated
Jesus to do again what he had shown himself already able
to perform ?
The miracle at the pool of Bethesda (John v.). This I take
it to be one of the most extraordinary and improbable
narratives in the New Testament. The account seems to
me to involve the belief (1) that there was a certain pool
of water in the populous city of Jerusalem which had some
miraculous power imparted to it through the instru
mentality of an angel, by which arrangement the first
person (and the first person only of the multitudes who were
congregated on its brink) who managed to struggle into it
was cured of any infirmity he might happen to be suffering
from; (2) that the troubling the water was a periodic
affair ; that is to say, we are given to understand that an
angel was in the habit of coming down from heaven from
time to time to impart miraculous restorative power to the
water of the pool.
If the writer had informed us that Jesus imparted the
power for a particular purpose, and on a particular occasion,
the narrative would have been neither more or less impro
bable than many others of the miracles attributed to him ;
but the periodic performance of the miracle by an angelic
visitor, with all its concomitant improbabilities, is really
too great a tax on our faith. Visits of angels to
men were so common before and even after the Christian
era, that they appear to have excited no surprise. But
can we in the 19th century take the same view ? Can we
in the least realise the possibility of multitudes of sick
people anxiously waiting in the porch for the coming of
an angel, who was to impart certain restorative power to
the water of the pool ? Positively, I cannot. In short, it
makes miracles íhe normal condition of things, and as such
they were regarded by those who lived and wrote in the
first century of our era. Of course there are people living
in the latter end of the 19th century who see nothing in
congruous in the fact of an angel visiting this earth and
interfering in its affairs ; but such people seem to me to
live in a different atmosphere of thought altogether from
ordinary mortals, and anything you may say opposed to
the traditional view seems to have no effect on them.
The cursing of the barren fig-tree.—This is the only puni-
�GOD AND REVELATION.
65
tive miracle ascribed to Jesus, and has certainly exercised
tbe judgment and divided the opinions of even orthodox
commentators. Is it credible, I ask, that Jesus should cause
a fig-tree to wither up because it had no fruit upon it
out of season (Mark says “the time of figs was not yet ”) ;
or is it likely that Jesus should have expected to find figs
upon it at an unseasonable time of the year ?
Many explanations have been offered for this apparent
anomaly. It has been said that the act was simply a
symbolical one, designed to impress on the minds of
the disciples that every tree which brought not forth
good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire;
others, again, have considered it as symbolical of the
Jewish nation. But there are no grounds for either
assumption. The remarks of Jesus after the event have
no reference to anything of a symbolical character, but
refer altogether to the power of faith which, if they
possess, would enable the disciples to do a far greater
wonder than the cursing and withering up of the fig-tree.
The miraculous event immediately after the crucifixion of
/ms.—Mark and Luke tell us that there was darkness
over the whole land for the space of three hours, and that
the veil of the temple was rent in twain, but Matthew
(xxvi. 51) goes further, and says, “The graves were
opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
and came out of their graves after his resurrection, and
Went into the city and appeared unto many
It positively takes one’s breath away when such a
phenomenon as this is gravely propounded for our accept
ance ! What even are orthodox believers to make of it ?
In respect to this stupendous event Canon Farrar remarks:
“ It is quite possible that the darkness was local gloom which
hung densely over the guilty city and its immediate neighbour
hood, and as an earthquake shook the city, and split the rocks,
and as it rolled away from their places the great stones which
closed the cavern sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the
imagination of many [the italics are mine] to have disimprisoned
the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with ghostly
visitants who, after Christ had risen, appeared to linger in the
holy city.”
This explanation may be better than insisting on the
literal performance of the miracle, but it has its dangers
too, for if wo apply a similar canon of criticism to almost
�66
GOD AND REVELATION.
any other of the miracles—even to the crowning miracle of
all, that of the resurrection—it will evaporate into thin
air, leaving nothing behind but the theory of a subjective
vision, which is, I think, all that Paulus and writers of the
rationalistic school ever contended for.
The resurrection of Lazarus.—This, perhaps the most
marvellous and certainly the most circumstantially detailed
event of any recorded in the New Testament, is not even
alluded to by any of the synoptics. We have only John’s
word for it. How are we to explain the silence of the
synoptics, if the event really occurred ? They wrote much
nearer in point of time to the alleged miracle than did the
author of the 4th Gospel, and yet they say nothing about
it, although—mark this I—it is represented as the point on
which the subsequent catastrophe turned! It brought
about the secret meeting of the Sanhedrim; it led that body
to plot and scheme for Christ’s apprehension ; it must have
been more talked of and generally known (had it occurred)
than any other event in the history of Jesus; it ultimately
led to his arrest; and yet the synoptics are wholly silent
about the matter!
Many absurd and far-fetched explanations have been
offered for their silence, one being that the event was
too well-known to everyone to need any record—an
argument, as Scott observes, which would apply equally
to the narrative of the crucifixion. The fact is, their
silence cannot be explained on any reasonable hypo
thesis. I know there are some minds on whom such an
omission made no impression, so tied down are they to
traditional ideas; but to me their silence is almost con
clusive as to the non-performance of the miracle, for I
cannot on any other ground account for their failure to
mention it.
In addition to the foregoing, there is another difficulty
which has to be explained. I allude to the apparent omni
science of the Evangelists. On the theory that they were
merely amanuenses, writing down events at the dictation of
the Holy Ghost, the difficulty vanishes. But we know
that they were nothing of the kind. How then are we to
suppose they came by the knowledge of events which
happened when they could by no possibility have been
present: for instance, how did they get their knowledge of
what transpired between Jesus and the devil during the
�god
And
revelation.
67
temptation; or the angel Gabriel’s speech to Mary, and her
reply to him; or Mary’s hymn, commencing, “ My soul
doth magnify the Lord ” ; or the speech of Pilate’s wife to
her husband about Jesus; or the conversation that passed
between Herod and the daughter of Herodias concerning
John the Baptist; or Jesus’ prayer in the garden of
Gethsemane when his disciples were asleep ?
As it is by no means my intention to give a complete list
of the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the
theory of the infallibility, or even the inspiration of the
Bible, I will now pass on to the consideration of the famous
speech of Jesus in Matt xxiv., and its counterpart in Mark
xiii. and Luke xxi. After describing the destruction of the
Holy City, and the woe that shall come upon the people, he
goes on to say, “ Immediately after the tribulation of those
days shall the sun be darkened .... and they shall see
the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory; and he shall send his angels with the
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect,
&c., &c.,” adding (in Matt, xxiv., 24), “Verily I say unto you,
this generation shall not pass away till all these things be
fulfilled ” ; and again, in the 44th verse, “ Therefore be ye
also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of
Man cometh”. This discourse, as given in Matthew and
Mark, is to all appearance as plain as any statement can be :
it asserts positively not only that the temple and city should
be destroyed within a very short time, but that the world
should come to an end, and the final judgment of all man
kind be completed within the lifetime of that generation,
all that was uncertain being the exact day and hour. More
than 18 centuries have passed away, and Christ’s second
coming is still delayed. All sorts of desperate attempts
have been made to explain away these statements, but they
have failed ignominously. Either one or the other alter
native must be accepted: either Jesus uttered the prophecy
or ho did not. If he did, subsequent history has falsified
the prediction ; if he did not, we have another instance of
the Evangelists making their Master responsible for words
he never uttered.
Mr. Hatton, an orthodox commentator (one of the very
few who look difficulties fairly in the face), says: “ That the
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is greatly confused
with the vision of spiritual judgment of all things is clear
�68
GOD AND REVELATION.
enough, and it is remarkable that two quite distinct state
ments as to time are jumbled up together in the oddest con
fusion. It is impossible that two such statements could have
been made in the closest juxtaposition without a clear dis
tinction between the provisions to which they refer. The
gathering of the armies, the slaughter, the famine, and the
destruction of the city—all this is to take place within that
generation; but the final judgment with which the disciples
certainly confused it, was, apparently almost within the
same breath, declared to be absolutely indeterminate and
reserved by God amongst the eternal secrets.” That is to
say, Mr.Hatton thinks the disciples misunderstood Jesus;
but if they misunderstand him here, they must have misunderstood him on other occasions too; for there are other
texts which go to show that Christ prophesied as to his
speedy second coming, and these are in no way mixed up
with the destruction of Jerusalem, e.g., “Verily, verily, I
say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not
taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom.” “Ye shall not have gone over all the cities of
Israel until the Son of Man be come.” “ If I will that ye
tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” “ Hereafter sb all
ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven.” That Christ’s disciples
all confidently entertained the erroneous expectation of
Christ’s speedy second coming, and entertained it on the
supposed authority of their Master, there can be doubt
whatever, says Greg; and this I think is as certain as
anything can be, short of mathematical demonstration.
Professor Plumptre, the Dean of Wells, comments on
the prophecy as follows :—
“ How are we to explain the fact that already more than 18
centuries have rolled away, and the promise of his coming is
still unfulfilled ? It is a partial answer to the question to say
that God’s measurements of time are not as ours, but that
which may seem the boldest is also the truest and most
reverential. Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even
the Son, but the Father; and therefore He (Christ) as truly
man, and as having therefore vouchsafed to accept the limita
tion of knowledge incident to man’s nature, speaks of the two
events, as poets and prophets speak of the far-off future.”
The learned dean also seems to think that “ the words
received a symbolical and therefore a partial and gormanent
�GOD AND REVELATION.
69
accomplishment in the manifestation of the power of the
Son of Man at and after the destruction of Jerusalem, but
await their complete fulfilment till the final advent
What good can there possibly be in telling us that God’s
measurements of time are not as ours, in explanation of the
words of Christ that the existing order of things should
come to an end in that generation, and that many standing
before him should not die till he came in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory to judge the world ?
And it seems to me equally useless to say that the prophecy
received partial accomplishment at the destruction of
Jerusalem, because Christianity then began to make way
in the world. What is gained either in speaking of Christ’s
limitation of knowledge in connection with prophetical
language? If the dean had said boldly, “ Christ’s know
ledge was limited, and therefore he spoke under a misapprehension as to the time of his second coming” ; or if
he had said he (Christ) “spoke with the licence of a
poet ” and therefore we must not take his words literally,
one could have at any rate understood either half of the
proposition; but bracketed together they appear to me to
make nonsense. The fact is no explanation is possible,
except, of course, that the Evangelists were mistaken,
or that Jesus spoke under limitations of knowledge, and
therefore erroneously.
If the foregoing considerations do not altogether dis
prove Mr. Gladstone’s theory, viz., “ That although the
Bible may contain matters questionable, uncertain, and
even mistaken, yet it may by its contents as a whole present
such moral proofs as ought to command our assent, etc. ”,
they at any rate detract from its probability to a very
considerable extent, for we naturally ask, If the writers
were mistaken on so many points, and shared the common
errors of their day, what ground have we for supposing
that they were exempt from error in matters relating to
things of the unseen world, or even spoke under inspiration
at all ? It has been argued that if we think the evidence
sufficient to establish the two great cardinal doctrines
on which Christianity rests, viz., the incarnation and the
resurrection of Christ, why trouble ourselves about minor
matters ? What can it possibly signify, for instance,
whether certain demoniacs were permitted to go into a
herd of swine; or whether an angel came down periodically
�70
GOD AND REVELATION«
to impart certain restorative power to the water of the
pool of Bethesda, or whether 5,000 men were fed with
five loaves and two fishes, so long as we have an
assurance that Christ rose from the dead. If he did,
says a well-known writer, “this miracle alone would
prove that Christianity is a divine revelation ”. True, but
the evidence on the point must be thoroughly convincing,
in view of the fact that it is found recorded in a book which
contains numerous errors and inaccuracies on matters of
daily life and history.
Of course it is open to anyone to deny that this is so,
but surely it is better, even in the interests of Christianity,
to admit the fact, as so many Christian writers have done,
than to resort to the extravagant hypotheses of the
harmonists, who have, in my opinion, done more harm to
the cause they have at heart than all the assaults of the
unbelievers put together.
The Bishop of Carlyle remarks that the Apostles’ Creed
speaks of two miraculous circumstances of our Lord’s earthly
history, and two only: the coming into the world and the
going out of it..“ He came amongst us ”, says the Bishop,
“by an extraordinary birth. He left us by an extraordinary
exit, involving a triumph over death. On these two great
facts, each Christian expresses belief as a condition of
baptism.” Although the Bishop does not say so in so many
words, I infer from his remarks that a belief in these
two occurrences is, in his opinion, alone necessary to
salvation. Let us then first consider what grounds we
have for belief in the former. It will be noted that the
evidence for it rests entirely on certain statements made in
Matthew and Luke. Are we prepared to accept so mar
vellous an event on the ipse dixit of writers who have been
shown to be untrustworthy in so many matters of detail,
especially when we remember that the idea of a virgin
birth was by no means new ? (Buddha was credited with a
similar miraculous birth, so were many of the ancients—
Pythagoras and Plato, for instance.) Matthew weakens
the credit that might otherwise possibly attach to his narra
tive by quoting the occurrence as a fulfilment of prophecy.
He says: “ Now all this was done that it might be fulfill cd
which, was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying:
Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc., etc.” Matthew
Arnold remarks: “It becomes certain that in these words
�GOD AND REVELATION.
71
read on. Christmas Day, the Prophet Isaiah (from which
Matthew quotes) was not meaning to speak of Jesus Christ,
but of a Prince of Judah, to be born in a year or two’s
time.” Similarly the Evangelist misquotes, or rather
misapplies prophecies, in three other cases in the same
chapter. Now, how does the Bishop explain this ? Whilst
admitting the misquotations, he says: “St. Matthew,
apparently looking from a Jewish point of view, did not
see things with exactly the same eyes as his English
namesake ” (meaning Matthew Arnold). In order, the
Bishop says, “ to enter into St. Matthew’s mind, we must
remember the education to which the J ewish Church and
nation had been subjected. . . . . Consequently, when a
Jewish disciple came to write the history of the life and
ministry of his Lord, whom he entirely believed to be the
Messiah, he could naturally find up and down the pro
phetical books, references—some direct and some oblique,
to Him for whose coming these books had unquestionably
made preparation. Is it wonderful then that St. Matthew
should see in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ the fulfil
ment of these magnificent words of prophecy, ‘ Behold &
virgin shall conceive, etc.’ ?” The reply isBy no. means
wonderful, but just what we could expect, if we view the
Evangelist as an ordinary Jewish writer not exempt from
the beliefs and prejudices of his age and country; but very
wonderful indeed if we look upon him as an inspired his
torian, writing under the guidance of the spirit of God.
Such an explanation is to me no explanation at all.
There remains, then, St. Luke’s account for considera
tion. The Bishop sets a great store on St. Luke’s testimony.
He credits him with being (probably correctly so) the
author of the acts of the apostles. He says that
“ This narrative gives us unsurpassed opportunities of testing
the honesty, the intelligence, and the power of observation
appertaining to the author”. The Bishop refers to the
story of the voyage of St. Paul from Palestine to Italy,
and his (Paul’s) shipwreck on the coast of Malta, and in
doing so says: “We must be impressed by a strong belief
that St. Luke was a man possessing in a high degree the
habit of careful observation which his medical profession
demanded and fostered, and also that he had in eminent
abundance the valuable faculty of setting down accurately and
clearly the things which he observed”.
�72
GOD AND REVELATION.
I would observe that, in this history of the very voyage that
the Bishop refers to, St. Luke tells us of a viper coin i ng
out of the fire, and fastening on Paul’s hand. Now
surely this was not an anecdote that would have emanated
from a physician, highly skilled, and a careful observer of
facts as distinguished from fictions ? The belief in such
reptiles as salamanders (fabulous monsters supposed to
live in fire) does not, I think, bear out the character
assigned to Luke by the Bishop, especially if we remember
that he was supposed to be writing as an eye-witness.
Besides, if there is any truth in my previous criticism, Luke
was by no means exempt from the mistakes and delusions
of the other Biblical writers. In this view, we are not at
all likely to accept the story of the incarnation as historical
because we find it recorded in St. Luke’s Gospel.
In regard to the second miracle, viz., the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead. Here we have the very keystone
of the Christian position. Take it away, and the whole fabric
collapses. As St. Paul says, “ If Christ be not risen, then is
our preaching vain, and.your faith also is in vain ”. It will
be noted that the event is related with more or less circum
stantially by all four Evangelists; but unfortunately it is
impossible to weave their several accounts into one
harmonious whole, and none of them harmonise, in my
opinion, with that given in the Acts of the Apostles. It is
not, however, my intention to give chapter and verse for
this assertion. Anyone can satisfy himself on this point
by carefully perusing the Gospel narratives themselves. I
will merely refer to one single instance. Jesus tells his
disciples (Matt, xxvi., 32) that after he was risen again, he
could go beyond them into Galilee; the angel repeats the
injunction to Mary Magdalene (Matt, xxviii., 7); and we
read that Jesus himself (Matt, xxviii., 10) on the first day
of the week very early in the morning appeared unto the
two Mary’s, and enjoined them to “ Tell my brethren that
they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me”.
Accordingly the eleven disciples went into Galilee to a
mountain, as Jesus had appointed, and there he appeared
unto them (Matt, xxviii., 16); but in the 24th chapter of
Luke, we have a totally different account, viz., “ That the
eleven disciples were gathered together at Jerusalem on the
first day of the week (1st and 33rd verses), and Jesus stood
in their midst ” (36th verse). It seems certain that if the
�GOD AND REVELATION.
73
eleven, journeyod into Galilee and saw Jesus on a mountain
they did not at the same time remain in Jerusalem and see
him there too.
There is this, however, to be said, that while the Gospel
writers contradict one another in detail, they all agree in
the main point, viz., that Christ rose from the dead; but,
considering the magnitude of the event, the many points
on which they conflict, and that in no single case, not even
in that of the writer of the 4th Gospel, can we be sure that
we have the testimony of an eye witness, all I am disposed
to allow from their unanimity of statement on this par
ticular point is, that at the time the Gospels were written
the belief in the resurrection was a well-established fact
amongst the Christian community. But we derive this
information in a much more dependable form from St. Paul’s
epistles. He wrote at a much earlier date. He stands
prominently forward as a true historical character, and we
know something about him, which is more than can be
said in respect to the four Evangelistic writers.
Here we must pause for consideration. No one, I think,
who reads the letters of the great apostle to the Gentiles, can
fail to be deeply impressed with the writer’s earnestness and
truthfulness of character. From a fanatical persecutor of
the despised sect of the Nazarenes, he became their firmest
supporter. His whole subsequent career was devoted to
the cause of the Master he loved so well. “I count all
things loss”, he says, “ for the knowledge of the excellence
of Christ Jesus my Lord ”.
We feel certain that St. Paul is speaking the truth as far
as he discerns it, and we know that his four most important
letters, viz., one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, and
one to the Galatians, are genuine, whatever the others may
be. At the same time, 1 do not think this excludes the possi
bility of interpolations in the text at a later date. From these
letters we learn St. Paul’s whole mind towards Christianity.
He was, after his conversion, it is unnecessary to say, a firm
believer in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
He goes so far as to say that if Christ be not risen,
Christianity is a delusion, and “ we are of all men the most
miserable.” He claims to have seen Christ, for he says,
“Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Cor., 9); and
again, “Last of all he was seen of me, also as of one born
�74
GOD AND REVELATION.
out of due time” (1 Cor. xv., 8); and we may be quite suro
that he meant what he said.
Further, we have St. Peter’s testimony (see his first
epistle, which, however, we are not sure is genuine)
where he says, “Blessed be the Lord, and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant
mercy, has begotten us again unto a lively hope by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’’—that is,
“ who. hath restored us from the state of temporary despaii*
in which we were after his death to a renewed hope by his
resurrection ’; and, again, the author of the Acts (supposed
to be Luke) makes Peter say that it was essential in filling
up the place of Judas “ to choose one who had accompanied
with the apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in
and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John
unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must
one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.'1'
1
Besides the testimony of St. Paul and St. Peter (if the
latter’s epistle is genuine) and the writer of the Acts, we
have the fact, as Mr. Hatton points out, that although all
was confusion and dismay on the morrow of the Crucifixion,
yet within two months after the death of Christ the Church
at Jerusalem was increasing at a rate at which we have no
reason to suppose the numbei' of Christ’s disciples ever
increased during his lifetime. Mr. Hatton asks :
“ How could the blasted hopes of the apostles revive without
some great substantial and even physical stimulus? If the
person of our Lord was admitted by all to have reappeared
amongst them, no doubt these hopes would have revived, but
not otherwise. For my part I cannot doubt that the best
explanation is that which is alleged to have been, viz., that
Christ himself returned to his apostles after his death, and
that it was his directing mind which gave them a new and
powerful impulse.”
There is no doubt much plausibility in this con
tention, and if resurrections from the dead were in the
nature of ordinary occurrences, or even if we had but one
previous well authenticated instance of a resurrection of a
dead person, we might perhaps accept Mr. Hatton’s ex
planation as the easiest solution of the difficulty: but
have we ?
The late W. R. Greg seems to think we may account
for the belief by supposing that Christ never really
�GOD AND REVELATION.
75
died, but rose from the grave only.
The circum
stance of his being taken down from the. cross much
earlier than was customary—he was only six hours on
the cross; according to St. John only three—coupled
with the fact that Josephus narrates an instance of resusci
tation after crucifixion, which came under his own observa
tion, lends some support to this hypothesis. Nevertheless,
there are so many difficulties in the way of accepting it
that, without pronouncing it absolutely impossible, I think
it cannot be admitted as a solution of the problem.
How, then, did the report arise that Christ had risen from
the dead if he did not come to life again and appear cor
poreally to His disciples after the crucifixion? It by
no means follows that because we are unable to give a
satisfactory answer, the resurrection story must be his
torically true. Events are happening every. day that
are quite inexplicable to us on any hypothesis we can
frame, but that is no reason why we should refer them to
a supernatural origin. How can we account for the belief in
the -miráeles worked by the Curate of Ars, who only died
somewhere about the middle of the present century ?
His miracles, especially those of healing, were vouched for
by half a dozen credible witnesses—doctors of medicine
amongst their number—some of whom may possibly be
alive at the present day. He made more converts than
St. Paul probably did, and gave up his whole life to the
service of the Church he loved so well.
It is best, I think, to acknowledge that at this
distance of time, and with much that is obscure and
hidden from our view, we must be content to leave the
question as to how the belief in the resurrection first
arose, in conjecture, not forgetting that in those days it
was no difficult matter to induce a belief in the resurrec
tion of a dead person. Matthew Arnold points out that
the resurrection of the just was in St. Paul’s time a ruling
idea of a Jewish mind. Herod at once, and without
difficulty, supposed that John the Baptist had risen from
the dead, and in telling the story of the crucifixion, the
writer of the first Gospel added, quite naturally, that when
it was con summ ated many bodies of the saints which slept
arose and appeared unto many. Renan thinks that it is
to Mary Magdalene’s impressionable mind that we owe
the first report of the resurrection. Who can tell ? All
�76
GOD AND REVELATION.
we know is that in a very short time the belief in their
Masters resurrection spread amongst his followers and
that it was this belief, coupled with an assurance of his
speedy return to judge the world, which made the estab
lishment of Christianity a possibility.
St. Paul’s testimony is of a later date. He doos not
appear on the scene till eight or ten years after the cruci
fixion, and his most important epistles were not written for
certainly ten or fifteen years after that. Nevertheless he
distinctly affirms that he had seen Christ. But, we may
ask, when, and under what circumstances ? Was it on that
celebrated journey of his to Damascus ? He does not say
so m any of his Epistles, but from the narrative in the
Acts it would appear likely. At any rate, we have his
testimony to the fact. But the question is, what is it
worth without the test of cross-examination ?
Dr. Carpenter, speaking of alleged supernatural or non
natural occurrences, says:
“ Granting that the narrators write what they firmly believe
to be true,, as having themselves seen, or thought they had
seen, is their belief sufficient justification for ours ? What is
the extent of allowance which we are to make for prepossession
(1) as to modifying their conception of an occurrence at the
time; and (2) as modifying their subsequent remembrance of
it. . .. . . The result of my enquiries into curious phenomena
is such as to force upon me the conviction that as to all which
concerns the supernatural, the allowance that has to be made
for prepossession is so large as practically to destroy the validity
of any testimony which is not submitted to the severest scrutiny.”
If this be true in regard to events happening towards the
close of the nineteenth century, how much more so in the
first century, when supernatural events were looked upon
in the light of ordinary occurrences! It must be remem
bered, that the history of religious enthusiasm in all ages
supplies us with abundant illustrations of men who have
identified the overpowering impressions of their own ■mind
with divine communication, or have taken subjective
visions for real appearances of divine persons. (The case
of Emanuel Swedenborg is a noted instance in point.)
AV© know that before his conversion St. Paul signalised
himself by the persecution of the early Christian converts,
and that he took a part in the stoning of Stephen. Is it
not conceivable that the dying words of the proto-martyr
�GOD AND REVELATION.
77
may have sunk deeply into his soul, and given him grave
cause for reflection ? When setting out on that journey of
his to Damascus, cannot wo imagino his asking himself
the question : “ Is it not possible that these despised Nazarenes, who so cheerfully sacrifice their lives and their
possessions for the sake of their master, may be right after
all ? If so, then mine must be devil’s work.” Possibly
agitated with thoughts something like these, and overcome
with the fatigues of the journey, is there anything impro
bable in conceiving that cerebral disturbances were induced
which led Paul to see visions and hear voices ? Such
occurrences are by no means uncommon. In this view
there need be nothing miraculous in his sudden conversion.
Once led to see the error of his ways, he would naturally
become as enthusiastic in his efforts on behalf of Christi
anity, as he previously had been in his opposition to it; in
short, Saul the persecutor would become Paul the apostle.
As Renan observes, “Violent and impulsive natures,
inclined to proselytism, only change the object of their
passion. As ardent for the new faith as he had been for
the old, St. Paul, like Oomar, in one day dropped his part
of persecutor for that of an apostle.”
If I remember rightly, the conversion of Ignatius Loyola
approximated somewhat closely to that of St. Paul. Dif
ferences there were, but we read in his life that the Virgin
Mary appeared to him with the infant Jesus in her arms,
and from that hour to the day of his death, his conversion
was as true and genuine as that of St. Paul.
Colonel Gardiner saw Jesus Christ on the cross, sus
pended in the air, and this was the turning-point in his
life.
Samson Stainforth, a Methodist soldier of Cromwell’s
army, thus relates his conversion : “ From twelve at night
till two it was my turn to stand sentinel at a dangerous post.
I had a fellow-sentinel, but I desired him to go away, which
he willingly did. No sooner was I alone than I knelt down,
determined not to rise until the Lord had mercy upon me.
How long I was in this agony I cannot tell, but as I
looked up to heaven I saw the clouds Open and Jesus
hanging on the cross; at the same moment I heard the
words, ‘ Thy sins are forgiven thee
Lord Herbert of Cherbury, before publishing his deistical
work, “ De Veritate,” hoard a similar voice from heaven.
�78
GOD AND REVELATION.
History abounds with instances of persons mistaking
subjective visions for real appearances. Eoman Catholic
literature is full of them, even at thepresent day. To Eo
man Catholics they are real; why must we assume that the
appearances to St. Paul were of a fundamentally different
«character ? Should you reply, 111 think your explanation
ef St. Paul’s conversion very improbable ”, “Very well,”
I rejoin, “formulate one for yourself”. All I contend
for is that it is not necessary to resort to a supernatural
hypothesis in St. Paul’s case, and to say that the appear
ances to him differed in kind from many we read of in
history, and which we know were merely the result of dis
turbed cerebral action.
I havo been told that Paul was not at all the sort of
person to see visions. Why? He tells us himself he was
weak in body, of presence contemptible, and suffered from
a thorn in the flesh, whatever that may have been. He
speaks of himself (at least it is presumed he is narrating
his own experiences) as having been caught up to the
seventh heaven, and there having seen unspeakable things.
And yet, however unable we may be to accept his visions
as objective facts, how our hearts go along with him
when we read the account of his labours, his love and
sympathy for his fellow-men, and the entire consecration
of his whole life to his master’s cause. Can we wonder that
he had the rare gift of attracting men towards him. Savanarola, Whitefield, Wesley, and many others who might
be named, possessed a similar gift. All thoroughly earnest
men who have an intense conviction of the truth of their
mission have it more or less. We are hardly, then,
surprised, when Agrippa says to St. Paul, “Almost thou
pcrsuadest me to be a Christian”. St. Paul’s earnest
ness and eloquence in pleading on behalf of Christianity
nearly turned the scale in the king’s mind—that is, if we
are to believe the account given in the “Acts ”.
The Eev. C. A. Eowe, in his ‘ ‘ Historical evidence for the
Eesurrection ”, asserts that there were more than 250 persons
living who believed that they had seen Christ alive after
his crucifixion. I call this a monstrous overstatement. It
rests, of course, upon the 6th verse of the 15th Corinthians;
but St. Paul could only have known of the appearance to
the 500, from hearsay. Such evidence at the best, is only
second-hand. What seems probable is, that a year or two
�GOD AND REVELATION.
79
after the crucifixion, a report gained credence, from small
beginnings, that Christ had appeared to a number of
persons at once ; and that in the course of a few years, say
within 10 or 15 years afterwards, the legend had assumed
a more definite form, and had reached the number of 500.
Did St. Paul when speaking of the appearance of the 500
allude to the ascension ? If so, Luke’s account of it does
not accord with the statement, as we are led to infer from
what he says, that the ascension took place in the presence
of the 11 apostles only.
St. Paul says Jesus appeared to James, and then to all
the apostles; but this is only second-hand testimony. They
don’t say so for themselves. St. Peter in his first epistle
speaks of the resurrection as a well-recognised fact, but
he nowhere says, like St. Paul, “ I myself saw Christ after
his resurrection” ; besides there is some doubt as to the
genuineness of the epistle. Dr. Samuel Davidson, a dis
tinguished Biblical critic, assigns it to the year 113. The
testimony of the writer of the Acts is not that of an eye
witness (as to the resurrection I mean), and there are two
instances, if not more, in that work, in which the writer
appears to have drawn upon his imagination. One instance
I refer to, is that of the slaughter of Ananias and Sapphira—a most improbable incident,—as Sir Eichard Han
son in his life of St. Paul justly points out.
However loth we may be at times to reject Paul’s
testimony as to the resurrection, we must remember that it
is almost, impossible to isolate it from the other events
narrated in a book which purports to be an inspired record
conveying a divine message from God to fallen man. Such
a record can hardly contain errors and contradictions on
material points without affecting the credit of the whole.
Dor instance, if we are told that an angel was in the
habit of periodically coming down from heaven to impart
healing properties to the water of Bethesda, or that Jesus
Christ foretold the end of the then existing dispensation
and his second coming in the clouds of heaven to judge the
world during the lifetime of the generation then living
(a statement fully accepted by St. Paul and other Christian
converts), and a few pages afterwards we read that Christ
rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples in a bodily
form, we naturally ask ourselves the question, “If the story
of the angel is incredible, or if the statement as to Christ’s
�80
GOD AND REVELATION.
second coming has boon falsified by the eflux of time, why
should wo credit the latter, resting as it does on the
evidence of writers about whom we know little—whose
writings may have been interpolated, who certainly shared
the common errors of their day, who were mistaken on
other points bearing on the Christian revelation, and who
were just as likely to mistake subjective visions for
objective ones, as any of the persons I have referred
to?”.
We cannot pick and choose as we like. It is all very
well to say if the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact
of the resurrection, that will carry all else with it. Very
good. But is the evidence sufficient ? I have endeavoured
to show that it is not; and I further maintain that the
evidence, such as it is, is considerably weakened by being
found in close connection with narratives of events which
wo feel satisfied never happened, and sayings which were
never uttered ; or, if uttered, were erroneous. Just remem
ber how easy it would have been to establish the fact of
Christ’s resurrection once, and for all time. Had he shown
himself, as the author of “ Supernatural Religion ” points
out, after his resurrection to the chief priests and elders, and
confounded the Pharisees with the vision of him whom they
had so cruelly nailed to the cross, how might not the future
of his followers have been smoothed, and the faith of many
made strong.
Cardinal Newman seems to think that we cannot account
for the establishment of Christianity excepting on a super
natural basis. He asks, “ Is it conceivable that a rival
power to Ceesar should have started out of so obscure and
ignorant a spot as Galilee, and have prevailed without
some extraordinary and divine gifts ?”.
A writer on Christian evidences also observes that the
great Roman Empire crumbled to pieces before the power
of the Gospel, and the last Pagan emperor when dying
exclaimed in accents of despair, “ Oh, Galilean, thou hast
conquered! ”. Julian (the emperor referred to) said nothing
of the kind. Professor Rendall, in his Hulsem lectures
for the year 1876, after eulogising the character of the
Emperor, adds : “ The Christians fabled how Julian, after
receiving the fatal javelin wound, cried out, ‘ Vicisti
Galilaoe ’
I fear this is not the only story invented by the
early Christians. As regards, however, the decline and fall
�GOD AND REVELATION.
81
of the Roman Empire, and the establishment of Christianity
on its.ruins, I would remark that it was falling to pieces
from its own inherent decay, before Christianity came
in contact with it; and with respect to its conversion to
Christianity, there was, no doubt, that in the new religion
which adapted itself to the wants and circumstances of the
people with whom it came in contact. Lecky says :
“We can be at no loss to discover the cause of its (Christianity’s)
triumph. No religion, under such circumstances, had ever
combined so many distinct elements of power and attraction.
It proclaimed the universal brotherhood of man. It taught
the supreme sanctity of love. It was the religion of the suffering
and the oppressed. The chief cause of its success was the
congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of man.”
Wo may extend the list, and say that one of its chief if
not its greatest attraction—to the suffering and oppressed
at any rate—was the overpowering boliof in the speedy
second coming of Christ to judge the world, and reign with
his saints on earth for 1,000 years.
To say that the conversion of the Roman Empire
was as literally supernatural as the raising of the
dead, is to talk, nonsense; but this has been said by
Christian apologists. Just as Christianity adapted itself
to the needs of the people of Palestine, and afterwards
swayed the Roman world, so did Buddhism adapt itself to
the wants of the Aryan races with which it came in contact.
When the question is asked, “IIow is it possible to explain
the success of Christianity without miraculous and divine
assistance
I would retort: How can you explain the
success of Buddhism without similar divine assistance?
1 he latter would be the more difficult task of the two for
what Gautama preached was a gospel of pure human ethics,
divorced not only from a future individual life, but even
from the existence of a God; and yet Buddhism can
boast of . a larger number of followers to-day than
Christianity can—even if we give the latter the benefit of all
her nominal adherents. Who can explain this? and vet
it is- a fact.
J
It has been argued that Christianity has sufficed to satisfy
N® Fritinal A6*? Of ? Bacon’ a Shakespeare, and I
Newton, that it has subdued and tamed the most savage
natures, reclaimed the drunkard and the thief, and proved
a blessing and a consolation to thousands of pious souls
�82
GOD AND REVELATION.
borne down by the sorrows and calamities of life. Hence
the inference is drawn that it must be divine.
That Christianity has claimed the allegiance of some of
the greatest minds of this or any age, I am not in a position
to deny. But it must not be overlooked that in the age of
Bacon and Shakespeare miraculous Christianity did not pre
sent the same difficulties as it does to us. A well-educated
schoolboy is, in certain branches of knowledge, ahead of
the greatest _ sages of antiquity. Sir Matthew Hale was
not inferior in intellect to a modern chief justice, because
he believed in witchcraft. As a well-known writer says,
“ The more enlightened modern who drops the errors of
his forefathers by help of that mass of experience which
his forefathers aided in accumulating, may often be,
according to the well-known saying, ‘ a dwarf on grant’s
shoulders
But as to the opinions of our leading men of the pre
sent day. In considering them as a guide to our own
beliefs, I would eliminate the views of all professional
theologians and teachers like Bishops Lightfoot and
Magee, because, although gifted with great intellectual
powers, they write and argue with preconceived views.
The whole force of their great intellect is used in support
of the beliefs they have been educated in, and for the
dofence of which they hold a brief. They write in all
honesty, but under a prepossession.
As regards the religious opinions of our leading
scientific men, they, it is well known, are opposed to any
view based on supernaturalism. But it is extremely difficult to get at the opinions of men whose opinions are
worth having. For the most part, they keep them to
themselves. It would be ’ extremely interesting to know
the religious views of, say, 100 of our leading statesmen,
men of science, philosophers, poets, and historians, etc.
The Pall Mall Gazette, who is always interviewing some one
or other, and eliciting opinions on divers subjects of
interest, might possibly help us here. Amongst the
mighty dead, who have rejected supernatural Christianity,
I would mention the names of Gibbon, Hume, Adam
Smith, Condorcet, Von Humboldt, Goethe, Thomas
Carlyle, George Eliot, and J. S. Mill.
The latter
points out that it would surprise us if we knew the
religious opinions of some of our leading men. For my
�GOD AND REVELATION.
83
own part, I have known at least two who have
conformed to the religious rites of the Church, and
yet have held “ sceptical views ” on religious subjects.
In respect to what are called strictly orthodox views, I
doubt whether one educated and thoughtful mind amongst
fifty holds them. Who amongst us can truthfully say that
he believes all that is embodied in our Church creeds?
When we hear one of our Church’s dignitaries saying
that he derives the greatest comfort and consolation from
the Athanasian Creed, what are we to think of his habit
of mind ? Is not this a very prostitution of the rational
faculty ?
That the teaching of Christianity has been the
support and mainstay of thousands; that it has in
fluenced the conduct, and altered the lives of thou
sands more, I should be the last to deny. There is
that in Christianity, quite apart from its miracles, which
satisfies the aspirations, and adapts itself to the wants and
circumstances of those brought under its influence. If true
Christianity consists, not in the acceptance of certain
metaphysical dogmas about the person and work of
Christ, and the nature of the Deity, but in the cultivation
of that spirit of self-sacrificing love which was the distin
guishing characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth, then we need
wonder at its claiming the allegiance of our
highest and most cultivated minds—and if (as is generally
the case) the belief in a future state of never-ending hap
piness,, as a reward for certain beliefs and lines of conduct
here, influences the lives of thousands, converting the
drunkard, and reclaiming the harlot and the thief, can we
Wonder at it ? Who denies that Christianity has been
an intense agency for good ? But we must not forget that
there is a reverse side to the picture—a religion based on
the Westminster confession of faith, and the shorter
catechism, has driven thousands to the lunatic asylum.
P1 our own day, the doctrine of hell fire is not quite
exploded. Father Ignatius, not long ago, preaching in a
friend s church, created the greatest excitement and terror
(as well he might) amongst his audience by bellowing
ioith. in a voice of thunder the following :
,
J lo?k /’ut into the churchyard I see the graves of
hundreds of thousands of former villagers who have gone
away. Where have they gone to ? Where ? Where, I ask ?
�84
GOD AND REVELATION.
To hell or to heaven ? Which ? To heaven ? Not half of them.
Your father is in hell! your mother is in hell! My dear people,
added the preacher, you are not accustomed to be spoken to
plainly, and in a matter-of-fact business-like way about your
souls. You are talked to as if religion were a sentimental
namby-pamby kind of thing.”
And Mr. Spurgeon is not far behind Jonathan Edwards1 in
his viows of the state of the lost. He says :
“ What will you think when the last day comes to hear Christ
say, ‘ Depart ye cursed, etc.’, and there will be a voice behind
him saying, ‘ Amen and as you enquire whence came that
voice, you will find it was your mother. Oh, young woman,
when thou art cast away into utter darkness, what will you
think to hear a voice saying ‘ Amen ’—and as you look, there
sits your father, his lips still moving with the solemn curse.”
Is not this another and a lamentable instance of
how men’s minds may become positively perverted, not
to say depraved, by adopting and teaching Calvinistic
theories of belief ? Oh, the pity of it! And yet, I
suppose, Mr. Spurgeon is not less humane naturally than
his unconverted brethren.
But to all this it may very fairly bo replied, “We
have nothing to do with certain individual opinions—
what does revelation teach?”. Well, that is a diffi
cult question to answer. If by revelation is meant the
teaching of the Bible, all I can say is, that it is very
diverse in its teaching, and this diversity is more clearly
seen the more it is submitted to the test of candid exami
nation. I maintain that no single phase of Christianity,
High Anglicanism or Evangelicalism, Trinitarianism or
Unitarianism—eternal torment or universalism—or con
ditional immortality—derives exclusive support from the
whole of the Bible. Each particular phase will find toxts
to support it. How is it that the common saying is literally
true—that we can prove almost anything from the Bible ?
How is it that sects the most opposite in doctrine and
belief do appeal to the Bible for their diverse beliefs ? How
is it that men go on fighting, apparently for ever, the
battle of the texts ? The simple and, I fancy, true expla
nation is that the Bible is written by men writing as
1 J. Edwards says: “However the saints in heaven may have
loved the damned whilst here, their eternal damnation will only serve
to increase a relish for their own enjoyments ”,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
85-
fallible human beings to the best of their judgment and
belief, but holding diverse views, and not always holding
the same views at all periods of their lives.
It is hard to say whether the doctrine of eternal torment is
or is not taught in the Bible. In some places it appears to be,
and in others not. St. Paul seems to me on the whole to
have held the view of the total annihilation of the wicked,
while Jesus Christ (at first sight, at any rate) appears to
have taught the doctrine of everlasting torment; but it
may well be, as Matthew Arnold points out, that all th©
expressions about hell and judgment and eternal fire, used
by him, were quotations from the book of Enoch; that he
found the texts, ready at hand, which his hearers under
stood, and employed the ready-made notions of heaven
and hell and judgment, just as Socrates talked of the rivers
of Tartarus.
In contradistinction to the views of Mr. Spurgeon and
others, it is only fair to quote the Rev. H. Allon, a wellknown Congregational minister. In his lecture on the
moral teaching of the New Testament (published at the
request of the Christian Evidence Society), he says,
“Whatever perplexity our minds may feel about the
possible meaning (possible indeed!) of New Testament
threatenings, we may surely trust his love, that it will bo
nothing from which our human love would shrink
If
this be so, we may at once discard the doctrine of
eternal punishment, for we may be quite sure that
no earthly father, however brutal his instincts may
be, would condemn even the worst of sons to an
eternity of torment, though it should consist only of
mental torment.
But is Mr. Allon’s teaching Biblical ? I doubt it.
The editor of the Christian is very wrath with those
who assert the universal Fatherhood of God.
He
says: “We protest solemnly against this doctrine; first,
because it cannot be found or proved from the Bible;
secondly, because, like all other errors, it subverts the
truth, and also because it does away with the necessity for
the substitutionary work of Christ, for no true father needs
expiation, and only a judge or a ruler demands satisfaction
tor the law broken, and is bound by absoluto justice to
exact punishment; but not so a father, he is ever ready to
forgive ”. There is a good deal of unconscious irony in
�86
GOD AND REVELATION.
all this, but bow far it accords with Biblical tomchiny it
is difficult to say.
For my own part, I am inclined to think that the New
Testament, on the whole, teaches the eternity of punish
ment (if not of physical torment), although a believer in
conditional immortality, or a universalist, will find much
in its pages to support either view. At any rate, when we
find men like Canon Farrar and Professor Plumptre deny
ing that the doctrine of eternal punishment is taught
in the Bible; and others, like the late Dr. Pusey and
the late Bishop of Lincoln (no whit behind the other
two in scholarship) declaring that it is, we begin to
realise the impossibility of arriving at any decision on
the point.
But supposing the Bible does teach the doctrine of
eternal punishment; what then ? Must we believe it ? Not
unless we are also prepared to believe in demoniacal posses
sion and witchcraft. John "Wesley was^ not far wrong,
when he said that to give up a belief in witchcraft was
tantamount to giving up a belief in the Bible.
It has, however, been suggested to me that, admitting
the fallibility of the Church, and the non-inspiration of the
Bible (inspiration is here referred to in the sense generally
understood by Christian apologists), is it not possible that
there may have been a gradual unfolding of revelation.
For instance, in the physical world, secrets of the highest
importance to the race to know—discoveries in medicine,
in chemistry, in electricity, in sanitation, etc.—have been
hidden for thousands of years, and are now only as it were’
coming to light and benefitting the race (we may even yet
be only in the vestibule of knowledge). Is it not possible
that a similar law may hold good in the moral world ?
The planet we inhabit was not fashioned in a day. If the
Deity works by slowly evolving processes in one depart
ment of the universe, may He not do so in another ? Who
shall undertake to deny that he is not now, and ever has
been, slowly but surely preparing the world for the recep
tion of spiritual truths, and bringing it to a knowledge of
Himself. May not all religions that have claimed the
allegiance of mankind contain some truths or adumbra
tions of the truth ? and, amongst all the greatest religious
teachers the world has ever seen, may not the prophet of
Nazareth have received the largest measure of inspiration
�GOD AND REVELATION.
87
of them all, and yet not have been divine in the sense in
which Christians generally understand the term ?
Granting the existence of a Being who desires to make a
revelation to mankind^ I see nothing antecedently improbable
in the • idea. Judging by analogy, it seems to me more
likely to be true than the dogma of a final and stereotyped
revelation (as contended for by Paley) delivered once for
all to an ignorant and barbarous nation, residing in a small
corner of the globe, to the exclusion of other nations, which
were, to say the least of it, in quite as forward a state of
civilisation, and therefore as fit to be the recipients of a
revelation as the nation to which it is declared to have
been especially vouchsafed; but however this may be, the
idea of a gradual unfolding of revelation seems to me, at
present at any. rate, incapable of verification, and must,
therefore, remain an hypothesis at the best.
What, then, is the conclusion to which we have come ?
This. (1) That nature affords no satisfactory evidence of
the existence of a supreme, omnipotent, righteous, and
benevolent Being, who is distinct from and independent of
what. He has created (such evidence as there is rather
pointing to. the existence of an intelligent Being, who is
either wanting in benevolence or wanting in power); (2)
that nature failing us, when we turn to the Christian
revelation whether conveyed through the medium of an
infallible or inspired Church, or book, or both—for evidence
of what we seek, we find it, too, fails to support the desired
conclusion.
This may seem to be a melancholy result at which to
arrive, and the question may be asked, “What then
remains if we have no sure ground of faith—nothing
certain and tangible to reply upon ? ” Are we to eat,
drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die, and are no
more seen ? If such a line of conduct yielded the highest
form of happiness, I should be inclined to answer the
question in the affirmative. For intelligent and rational
human beings, however, we know that it does not. But for
those who are not intelligent and rational, what then?
How are we to make it plain to the brutal savage, or even
j r Palely selfish nature, that virtue is better than vice
and honesty better than dishonesty ? Plainly we cannot do
so, the world being constituted as it is at present. As a
thoughtful writer points out: “It is impossible to construct
�88
GOD AND REVELATION.
a chain, of reasoning which shall recommend the grand
principle of morality, apart from any question of rewards
and punishments hereafter, to beings whose only thought
it is to fill their bellies and gratify their lusts.” Upon such
natures the fear of consequences exercises a wholesome re
straint (the fear of hell, as Burns has it, is a hangman’s whip
to h’aud the wretch in order); but because we cannot do so,
does this.afford any justification, to those who know better,
for leading a life of self-indulgence, regardless of the
wants, the rights, and privileges of others, and indifferent
as to whether their conduct affects their neighbours
injuriously or not ? Certainly not. But the question of
“ why must I do what is right when it apparently conflicts
with my own interests to do so ” is one which is foreign
to the scope and purport of this essay. All that I would
remark in this connection is, that it seems tome quite possible
to reject dogma, and to believe that much in the Old and
New Testament (especially the Old) is unhistorical; and
yet to look to Christ as our highest exemplar, and to
acknowledge that the ethics of the sermon on the mount
will hold good for all time, and that the closer we follow
its teaching, the better will it be, not only for our individual
interests, but for those of the community of which we
form but an infinitesimal part.
As to the question of a future state of existence, by
which I mean the continuance in a future fife of the
individual ego, I should bo sorry to dogmatise; but I must
say, the difficulties of imagining anything of the kind are
enormous. That any fool or idiot (as Charles Bray says)
can have the powei’ to bring into existence a dozen beings
that shall bo immortal, and whose condition may ultimately
bo one of everlasting misery, is truly a wonderful and
horrible conception; besides, if wo grant a future life to
a Newton and a Shakespeare, must we not do so too to the
uncultured savage, whoso moral ideas are nil, and whose
language is not much above the clacking of hens, or the
twittering of birds ?
As we stand by the death-bed of one inexpressibly
dear to us, it seems impossible to realise the fact that
wo are parting for ever; but if we reflect a little, it
may occur to us that after the lapse of years our whole
habits and thoughts so change, that a reunion may not be
so desirable as it at one time appeared. The child loses
�GOD AND REVELATION.
89
its mother; the child grows into an adult, forms other
ties, and becomes in time a grey-headed old man ; he has
almost, forgotten his mother, at any rate has ceased to
look forward with rapturous delight to a reunion with her.
Similarly the mother, if in another world, has also pre
sumably formed fresh ties and associations, and would fail
to recognise her son in the old man, whose mind has
presumably changed as much as his body.
As for the argument that without a future state it is
impossible to justify the ways of God to man, it has no
weight with those, of course, who are not Theists, and
even for those who are, the argument seems to be a poor
one. Mr. Voysey writes: “I would leave the Atheist far
behind in my maledictions against the gross and unspeak
able cruelty and immorality of the course of this world, if
there were no future state ” ; and Paracelsus says :
‘ ‘ Truly there needs another life to come !
If this be all----And other life awaits us not—for one
I say ’tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle,
A wretched failure. I, for one, protest
Against it, and hurl it back with scorn
But it seems to me that if God’s dealings with man cannot
be justified here, they are not likely to be justified here
after.
Macaulay observes:
“Tn truth all the philosophers, ancient and modern, who
have attempted without the help of revelation to prove the
immortality of man, appear to have failed deplorably.”
And Professor Huxley says :
“ Our sole means of knowing anything is the reasoning
faculty which God has given us, and that reasoning faculty
not only denies any conception of a future state, but fails to
furnish a single valid argument in favour of the belief that the
mind will endure after the dissolution of the body.”
Nevertheless, it may. At any rate, whether there is a
future life or not, it is plainly for our advantage (I mean
for those who are civilised human beings) to improve our
condition here, and to cultivate those moral instincts, which,
whatever may be their origin, have become part and parcel
of our nature, to the best of our ability—confident that in
so doing we shall be playing our right part in the world,
�90
GOD AND REVELATION.
and at the same time best fitting ourselves for any future state
that may possibly be in store for us, and should none await
us, then this world’s advantages, in their highest sense,
will at least have been secured to us.
���
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
God and revelation
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 90 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Published anonymously.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Arthur Bonner
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (God and revelation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N282
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
God
NSS
Revelation-Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/767bb194ee58c7945706846c94e88985.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=U1%7EvvYpX7mXdagEIwmYk2XIqqZ4odKKZMg037YqYBPG--sKJQld3N3S-7AIT%7EUO%7ELh2Ffzlr8QDpvQUWphMpuG4ugWx3Hyn7jSSqaCd%7EstfGxVgBh53KiJiCuj41pEXjEuJ2fU-hiicxOSZ4bdXH7e3HJIIg-2iVwRg-sfqTkpLjZ-35aFsiJQPOpgNfcS2zXKLgztW9Stk-wOc3q0goplVQp80bMlB7wRcJ8eLMSm1SzpfCsIJpqc3lTjn2EPyuFF0AigsULBrgZZNYT2jtbfZEn%7EcRp2r0nLuGKQBF0sX8%7ELrNJL%7E382zPKKoYcNCPumLNlp-TIzq6EaxEsbs0VA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
903d71228d278d575b0ec785ce62a1e2
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The psycho-physiology of the moral imperative: A chapter in the psycho-physiology of ethics
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 528-559 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. "Reprinted from the American Journal of Psychology, Vol, viii, No. 4" - see title page.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Leuba, James Henry
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The psycho-physiology of the moral imperative: A chapter in the psycho-physiology of ethics), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G999
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
Ethics
Psychology
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d2ad8b731145bc2996b3733d3d7a0aff.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=E7U8mOPIRzOUYwjXWOw2yHGqD3RvC%7EWFjlA0ajRSmQba8yOOl6nWhore48YEgRSy7Bp2fplUfxbZcreJiouMf1Y5h1-ZiAWBsszap7lFf8VnST1mhZ26FAFyT2hQyUqMLv5GG0ZzshcZxHRSxZTVzw9xPHU-qcQucBoWSOX3snUAtnO-XGSzEyj5wc-mYEVeh5FQxUFrb%7EYcyXVG5LA-pPwJ-JoF-kZcwnGNTywwB%7EgpginZv5T3OBjOZG2h7Yom-ehjUgbnIPDM93db4j4TI8gYhm3ShWkQ6N7T6GJLSWiHG5RI8UeLQfzDYQcj%7EcsWdZQmkqxmkgCDItu-fvOk1A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e0933e8608f8f50a6388e3e8d90658bf
PDF Text
Text
97
Art. IV.—Shelley.
1. The Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Edited by
Mrs. Shelley. 1853.
2. Essays; Letters from Abroad; Translations and Frag
ments. By Percy Bysshe Shelley. Edited bv Mrs. Shelley.
1854.
3. The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. By Captain Thomas
Medwin. 1847.
4. The Shelley Papers. By Captain Thomas Medwin. 1833.
O write well on any theme requires not only a knowledge of
the subject, but a deep sympathy with it. The first requisite
is more commonly fulfilled than the second. Men can, after a
fashion, master a subject—know its bearings and its details—and
still have no real attachment for it: men, too, if they are at all
suspected of this indifference, will lash themselves into a
spurious love, which may be detected by its very absurdity. But
true love springs from the heart, can admire the virtues of its
friend without exaggeration, and yet not be hoodwinked to his
faults ; has the sincerity to praise where praise is deserved, and
the courage to reprove where reproof is wanted. Hence is it
that true love is the same as thorough knowledge, for it sees both
sides of the matter. Shelley’s critics, as well as his biographer,
have been of all kinds except the last. Captain Medwin should
remember that as it is the fault of a bad logician to prove too
much, so it is of an indiscreet friend to praise too much. He
has, however, in his “ Life of Shelley” contrived to fall into both
mistakes. But he is also wanting in the higher qualifications of
a biographer. It has now become, somehow or another, an esta
blished axiom that nothing is so easy to write as a biography.
Jot down a few facts, reckon them up like a schoolboy’s addition
sum, and you have a Life ready-made. Nay, perhaps save your
self even this trouble, and, in these days of mechanical aids, take
a “ Ready Reckoner,” and you will find it done for you. An
other popular receipt is, to sketch in a few lines here and there—
never mind if they are a little blurred—paint them in watercolours, and you have a portrait at once : the critics will clean
your picture for you gratis. Perhaps nothing is so difficult as a
biography; but of all biographies, a poet’s most so. You have
in his case not only to trace the mere liver of life, but all those
back currents and cross eddies in which his stream of poesy has
flowed. Every little action has to be examined to see what effect
T
[Vol. LXIX. No. CXXXV.J—New Series, Vol. XIII. No. I.
II
�98
Shelley.
it has had upon his life and his poetry, for the two are inter
woven as w7oof and warp : not only this, hut the biographer must
bring a congenial and a poetic spirit to the task—must show in
what new realms of poesy our poet has travelled, what new
beauties he has discovered, what new Castalian springs he has
drunk of; should show, too, what new views of life he has
opened up, how these views originated, and what their ultimate
aim is—for this is the important point—and what real value they
have in their practical bearing upon this earth ; and how far they
are likely to affect and improve it. But in Shelley’s case the dif
ficulty is tenfold increased. His character, in one sense one of
the most simple, is in reality one of the most complex. So shy
and reserved in many matters, yet speaking forth so boldly and
uncompromisingly; so inconsistent at times, yet ever the same in
the cause of truth ; so impulsive in most matters, yet so firm in
behalf of liberty; so feminine and so susceptible, yet so heroic
and resolute, he presents a medley of contradictions. All this
must be accounted for by his next biographer. Nevertheless, we
are thankful to Captain Medwin for what he has accomplished;
he has done it to the best of his endeavours, and with a certain
species of enthusiasm which will atone for many defects. But a
Life of Shelley is still wanted—so much remains that is still
obscure about him. Any little facts, as long as they are genuine
and upon undoubted authority, would be welcome; for it is these
little facts and traits—little they are wrongly called—which help
us to judge of a man’s character, and give us such an insight into
his life and poems.
“Truth is stranger than fiction,” said Byron; yet, we suspect,
without knowing why. The one is Nature’s real infinite order of
things; the other, only man’s worldly finite arrangement. We
talk of sober truth and wild fiction; but it is truth in reality that
is wild, and fiction sober. “ As easy as lying,” says Hamlet, but
truth is hard to imitate. Hence to thinking men the romance of
history is more exciting than any novel; a biography more inte
resting than any fiction. Shelley’s life, with all its pathos, is an
example. The imagination of no novelist would ever have dared
to have drawn such a character. It would have been scouted at
once as impossible in the highest degree. Let us endeavour to
give some sort of a brief sketch of it, trying to fill in, with what
cunning we have, the lights and shades. Percy Bysshe Shelley
was born at Field Place, in Sussex, on the 4th of August, 1792,
related through his family to Algernon and Sir Philip Sydney,
heir to a baronetcy and its rich acres. Novel readers would be
delighted in such a promising hero; young ladies would have
fallen in love with him at once, or with his ten thousand a year.
He was brought up, it appears, with his sisters until he was
�At Sion House, Brentford; and at Eton.
99
seven or eight years old, and then sent to an academy at Brent
ford, and subsequently, at thirteen, to Eton. At neither schools
did he mix with the other boys, but like Novalis and many other
boy-men, took no part in the sports. This shyness and reserve
he never threw off during life. It appears even in his poems;
they seem to shun the light of the common world, its din, its
noise ; they fly away to the realms of imagination for peace
and quietness. We can fancy Shelley walking by himself with
that delicate feminine face and quiet dreaming eye, glooming
moodily over his supposed wrongs, which, by-the-bye, he might
have easily cast away, had he but set to work and bowled round
hand, or played at fives with the rest; they would have dropped
off, as lightly as the bails, with the first wicket he took. But it
was not so, and he ever afterwards looked back with pain upon
those early days. Writing of them in the Dedication of the “Revolt
of Islam”—
“ I wept, I knew not why; until there rose
From the near schoolroom, voices that, alas!
Were but one echo from a world of woes—
The harsh and grating strife of tyrants and of foes.”
At Sion House, Brentford, Shelley was a great reader of
blue-books,” so called, says Captain Medwin, from their covers,
and which, for the moderate sum of sixpence, contained an
immense amount of murders, haunted castles, and so forth.
When the “ blue-books” were all exhausted, Shelley had recourse
to a circulating library at Brentford, where, no doubt, as at all
circulating libraries, plenty more “ blue-books” were to be ob
tained, and where he became enchanted with “ Zofloya, or the
Moor,” whose hero appears to have been the Devil himself. No
doubt, to this source may we trace Shelley’s love for the morbid
and the horrible, which happily, under better influences, disap
peared from his writings. Here at Sion House, too, was exhi
bited Walker’s Orrery, which even surpassed “ Zofloya” in its
attractions, and which first turned Shelley’s thoughts in a better
direction than circulating libraries generally point to. At Eton,
an old schoolfellow of Shelley’s gives the following account of
him:—“ He was known as ‘ Mad Shelley,’ and many a cruel
torture was practised upon him. The‘Shelley! Shelley! Shelley!’
which was thundered in the cloisters, was but too often accom
panied by practical jokes—such as knocking his books from
under his arm, seizing him as he stooped to recover them, pulling
and tearing his clothes, or pointing with the finger, as one Nea
politan maddens another.” We often look upon a school as an
epitome of the world—a perfect microcosmos. And the above is
as true a picture of the world’s treatment of Shelley, as of Eton.
A few more years, and it was the world itself, with stronger lungs
h 2
�100
Shelley.
and with bitterer tones, crying out “ Mad Shelley;” it was the world,
a few years after, that seized his books with Chancery decrees; it
was the world, that is to say, these same boys, now “ children of
a larger growth,” that pointed at him with its finger. Shelley
felt all this in after-life as much as he did now at school; not
the mere insults, but that these boys, now men, should never have
outgrown their weaknesses. One more point in his Eton career.
He was there condemned to that most distasteful of all tasks to
true genius, to write Latin verses, that poetry of machinery.
Shelley, condemned to the Procrustean bed of longs and shorts,
wishing to enter the promised land of science—Shelley, who
hereafter should be the true poet, scanning with his fingers
dactyles and spondees, asking for a short and a long, that great
desideratum to finish a pentameter with, and all the time thirsting
to drink from springs that might refresh his mind, is a pitiful
spectacle, well worth pondering over. How many promising
minds this insane custom, still continued at our schools, has
blunted and sickened, cannot well be computed, we should say.
We wonder boys have not yet been practically taught the Pyrrhic
dance or the evolutions of a Greek chorus; they would be quite
as mechanical and far more amusing. In one person alone at
Eton did Shelley at all find a congenial spirit, a Dr. Lind, of
whom Mrs. Shelley writes, that he supported and befriended
*
Shelley, and Shelley never mentioned his name without love and
reverence, and in after years drew his character as that of the old
man who liberates Laon from his tower-prison, and tends on him
in sickness. This is touchingly like Shelley’s nobleness, which
never forgot a kindness. Most poets have ever looked back upon
boyhood with joy; it is the storehouse of many an old affection,
full of many dear memories. Shelley’s was blank enough of all
such things ; this one old man, a green spot in its sandy wild.
And now, since Eton would do nothing for Shelley, he betook
himself to reading Pliny’s “Natural History,” puzzling his tutor
with some questions on the chapters on astronomy. He next
commenced German. The fires of such an ardent spirit could
not easily be smothered out. Chemistry and Burgher’s “ Leonora”
were now his two engrossing themes; and about this time he wrote,
in conjunction with Captain Medwin, “ The Wandering Jew,” the
little of which that we have seen is poor enough; but Shelley’s
ideas are described by the gallant captain as “images wild, vast,
and Titanic in which remark we suspect that Captain Medwin
is like the Jew, rather “wandering.” And now we are approach
ing a great event in Shelley's life. A Miss Grove, a cousin of
his, of nearly the same age, who is described as very beautiful,
* See Mrs. Shelley’s note on the “Revolt of Islam.”
�At Oxford.
101
captivated him. We like to dwell upon these two child-lovers.
The frost of the world must have thawed away for the first time
to poor Shelley; a spring, full of fresh thoughts and hopes, were
springing up in his heart. He had found some one in this wide,
wild world to love him, and to love. Upon his dark night now
came forth the evening star of love, trembling with beautv and
light. Surely it was not the same old world, with its haggard
nightmares and its feverish dreams ? The dew of love fell soft
upon that wild brain of his. It was the first love—that first
iove which comes but once in a man’s life. You may have it
again ; but, like many another fever, it is slight and poor in
comparison. Of her and himself did he write in after years—
“ They were two cousins like to twins,
Ancl so they grew together like two flowers
Upon one stem, which the same beams and showers
Lull or awaken in their purple prime.”
To her, too, did he dedicate his “ Queen Mab —
“ Thou wast my purer mind,
Thou wast the inspiration of my song ;
Thine are these early wilding flowers,
Though garlanded by me.”
And now, in conjunction, these two child-lovers wrote the
romance of ‘ Zastrozzi. We would fain linger here on these
happy days. But there is already a third party in the number—
it is a skeleton. Shelley, now not much more than sixteen, went
up to Oxford, engrossed with his chemistry. But Oxford did
not, any more than Eton, encourage his pursuits. Acids and
Alma Mater did not agree. Galvanic batteries and portly dons
were not likely to be on the best of terms. Why, a Head of a
College might mistake one for some infernal machine. So
Shelley betook himself to philosophy; Locke was his professed
guide, but in reality the French exponents of Locke, which is a
very different matter. Hume, too, became his text-book ; and
the poet, now a convert to Materialism, rushed on to Atheism;
and in a moment of enthusiasm conceived the project of con
verting Alma Mater herself. We don’t well see what other course
that venerable lady, with the means she possessed, could pursue
but the one she adopted. So Shelley was expelled. It is worth
considering, however, that there was no other weapon left against
Atheism but the poor and feeble one of expulsion. On Alma
Mater we need waste no reflections; but turn to Shelley in his
utter desolateness, for unto him it must have been an hour of
great darkness. The old traditional guide-posts were gone, and
he had to walk the road of life alone. New world-theories he
must construct; the old eternal problems he must now solve
�102
*
Shelley.
for himself. Other griefs from -without pressed upon him. His
cousin deserted him, or rather, we should suppose, was made to
desert him. His treatise on Atheism had deeply offended his
relations, though we are surprised at its preventing his marriage.
An expected baronetcy in this world, like charity, can hide a
multitude of sins. A baronet’s blood-red hand could easily, we
should have thought, have covered up even Atheism, since it gene
rally can conceal so many faults. So Shelley left Alma Mater, and
matriculated at the university of the world, where he should
some day take honours, though from thence some would have
expelled him too. He appears to have gone up to London, living
with Captain Medwin, speculating on metaphysics, and writing
letters under feigned names to various people, including Mrs.
Hernans. To show in what a state of mind he was at this time,
we may give the following anecdote in Captain Medwin’s own
words :—“Being in Leicester-square one morning at five o’clock,
I was attracted by a group of boys standing round a welldressed person lying near the rails. On coming up to them I
discovered Shelley, who had unconsciously spent a part of the
night sub dio.” We read of him, too, sailing paper boats on the
Serpentine, as he did years after on the Serchio, just as he
describes Helen’s son—
“ In all gentle sports took joy,
Oft in a dry leaf for a boat,
With a small feather for a sail,
His fancy on that spring would float.”
(“Rosalind and Helen.”)
He returned home, where, however, he did not remain long, in
consequence of his falling in love with a Miss M estbrook, a
schoolfellow of his sister’s. This was productive of another
breach with his family, more serious than that caused by his
Atheism. Miss Westbrook, it appears, was the daughter of a
retired innkeeper; and Shelley’s father, the baronet, with proper
aristocratic notions on all points, had long been accustomed to
tell his son that he would provide for any quantity of natural
children, but a mesalliance he would never pardon. So when
Shelley married the daughter of the retired innkeeper, his father
very properly cut off his allowance. Anything in this world, we
believe, will be forgiven, except this one thing. You may take a
poor girl’s virtue, and it passes for a good joke with the world; but
if you make her the only reparation you can, you shall be an out
cast from society. Such doctrines are a premium upon vice, and do
more harm to a nation than Holywell-street: and we are more in
clined to place many of the griefs of Shelley’s first marriage, with
its sad results, at the front door of fashionable society, -than to any
other cause. The retired innkeeper and Shelley’s uncle, Captain
�His and Schillers Love for the Storm.
103
Pilford, however, found the requisite funds, and Shelley and his
young wife went off to live in the Lake District, where Mr. De
Quincey gives us the following picture of them :—“ The Shelleys
had been induced by some of their new friends (the Southeys) to
take part of a house standing about half a mile out of Keswick,
on the Penrith road. There was a pretty garden attached to it; and
whilst walking in this, one of the Southey party asked Mrs. Shelley
if the garden had been let with their part of the house. ‘ Oh, no,’
she replied; ‘the garden is not ours; but then, you know, the
people let us run about in it, whenever Percy and I are tired of
sitting in the house.’ The naivete of this expression, ‘run about/
contrasting so picturesquely with the intermitting efforts of the
girlish wife at supporting a matron-like gravity, now that she was
doing the honours of her house to married ladies, caused all the
party to smile.”* Ah ! could it, indeed, have been always so; and
we think of another poet who says of himself and his wife, “I was
a child—she was a child;” and we sigh as we think over their
tragic fates. Shelley did not stay here long. We find him flitting,
spirit-like, about from place to place. We meet with him at one
time at Dublin, which he was obliged to leave on account of a
political pamphlet he had published. Soon afterwards we dis
cover him in North Wales, helping to assist the people to rebuild
the sea-wall which had been washed away. All this time, too,
was he suffering bitterly in spirit—the struggle was still going on
within. In addition to this, his wife was by no means a person
suited for him, and after a three years’ union they were separated.
In July, 1814, conceiving himself free, we find him travelling
abroad with Mary, the future Mrs. Shelley, daughter of Alary
Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, well known for their antimatrimonial speculations. They crossed the Channel in an open
boat, and were very nearly lost in a gale. Shelley’s chief enjoy
ment seems to have been on the water; and in this expedition
his greatest delight seems to have been in sailing down the rapids
of the Rhine on a raft. He is in this particular very like Schiller;
in fact, a portion of Schiller’s biography might be applied, word
for word, to him :—“At times he might be seen floating on the
river in a gondola, feasting himself with the loveliness of earth
and sky. He delighted most to be there when tempests were
abroad; his unquiet spirit found a solace in the expression of its
own unrest on the face of nature; danger lent a charm to his
situation; he felt in harmony with the scene, when that rack was
sweeping stormfully across the heavens, and the forests were
sounding in the breeze, and the river was rolling its chafed waters
into wild eddying heaps.”t And we find this love for water and
* “Sketches, Critical and Biographic,” p. 18.
f "Life of Schiller.”
�104
Shelley.
the storm in Shelley’s poems. He now returned to London, where
he suffered from poverty and absolute want. Nothing daunted
him. He now betook himself to the study of medicine, and com
menced walking the hospitals. Gleams and visions of liberty
lighted him upon his path ; but they were all mere will-o’-the-wisps,
and went quickly out, leaving him in blacker darkness than
before. Doubts still surrounded him on all sides. It is a pic
ture worth studying—that delicate, womanly face, thoughtful and
sad, with its long curling hair, and its genius-lighted eyes, brood
ing painfully in poverty over its woes. We look on him, and he
seems as some flower that has bloomed by mistake in winter-time
—too frail to cope with the blasts and the falling sleet, but yet
blooms on, prophesying of sunshine and summer days. The year
1815, however, brought him relief. It was discovered that’the
fee-simple of the Shelley estates was vested in Shelley, and that
he could thus obtain money upon them. The old baronet was
furious at the discovery, but was ultimately persuaded to make
his son an allowance. Shelley, now freed from his pecuniary
difficulties, again went abroad in May, 181G, this time to Secheron,
near Geneva, where Byron was living; and here the two poets
kept a crank boat on the lake, in which Shelley used “ to brave
Bises, which none of the barques could face.” How much Byron
profited by his intercourse with Shelley let the third canto of
“ Childe Harold,” which was written at this period, testify; and
let us at the same time remember Byron’s own words—“You
were all mistaken about Shelley, who was, without exception, the
best and least selfish man I ever knew.” After an absence of
more than a year, Shelley returned to England; and now per
haps the bitterest trial of all awaited him. His wife had drowned
herself. Woe seems to have shrouded him as with a garment.
How bitterly he feels it, these and many other verses tell—
“ That time is dead for ever, child,
Browned, frozen, dead for ever;
We look on the past
And stare aghast,
At the spectres, wailing, pale and ghast,
Of hopes that thou and 1 beguiled
To death on life’s dark river.”
Nay, the strain on his mind was too much, and he became for a
time insane, and so describes himself in “Julian and Maddalo.”
And now, as if his bitterness were not enough, the Court of
Chancery tore his children away from him. “ Misfortune, where
goest thou, into the house of the artist ?” saith the Greek pro
verb. And still the struggle was going on within, embittered by
woes from without. Life’s battle-field is never single. We
cannot stop to inquire whether trials and struggles may not be
�His Friendship with Keats.
105
in some way essential to the education of genius, and whether
there may not be some as yet unrecognised law to that end.
The old fable is certainly a true one of the swan singing only in
its death-agonies.
But there must be an end; and now the scorching day was
melting into a quiet eve : the stormy waves were subsiding. We
have dwelt at some length on the previous details, but must now
be more brief. We do not so much regret this. It is in the
storm only that we care to see the straining ship brave out the
danger—any day we can see plenty of painted toy-boats sailing
on the millpond. Shelley now married his second wife, Mary
Wollstonecraft Godwin, and led a quiet life at Marlowe, writing
“ Alastor” and the “Revolt of Islam,” and endearing himself to
the villagers by his kindnesses. He here contracted severe
ophthalmia, from visiting the poor people in the depth of an un
usually cold winter. About this time, too, he became acquainted
with Keats, and nothing can be finer than the friendship between
the two poets—nothing nobler in literature than Shelley taking
up the gauntlet for his oppressed brother poet against the re
viewers, and writing afterwards to his memory the sweetest of all
dirges, the “ Adonais.” So dear did he hold his friend, that when
Shelley’s body was washed ashore, Keats’ poems were found in
his bosom. In 1818, Shelley left England, never to return.
Life now was becoming unto him as a summer afternoon with its
golden sunshine. He had found a wife whom he could love:
that passionate heart, ever seeking some haven, had at last found
one—little voices now again called him father. The mists of
youth wrere clearing away; gleams of light were breaking in upon
him. He had betaken himself to the study of Plato ; and perhaps
there was no book in the world that was likely to do him such
good. In one of his letters he writes, “ The destiny of man can
scarcely be so degraded, that he was born only to die.” But
even now he had his troubles, as we all shall have, be the world
made ever so perfect. He lost one of his children; was still
troubled with a most painful disease; was still the mark for
every reviewer’s shaft. And now, when everything promised so
fair and bright, on one July afternoon the waves of the Mediter
ranean closed over that fair form, still young, though his hair
was already grey, “ seared with the autumn of strange suffering.”
The battle of life was past and over.
We have thus given a hurried sketch of Shelley’s life. Impul
siveness was no doubt the prominent feature of his character.
Love for his fellow-men, hatred against all tyranny, whether of
government or mere creeds, combined with kis ardent and poetic
spirit, hurried at times his as yet undisciplined mind away. No
doubt he struck at many things without discretion. But it re
�106
Shelley.
quires older men than Shelley to discriminate what is to be
hit. Strike at the immorality of a clergyman, and he screens
himself behind the Church, and there is instantly a cry you are
assailing Religion itself. Many stalking-horses, some of them
with huge ears and broken knees, are there walking about on this
earth, which we must worship, even as the ^Egyptians did cats,
and the Hindoos cows. Animal worship is not yet extinct.
Shelley, too, was one of those whose nature is their own law;
who refuse to be cramped up by the arbitrary conventionalities
of life which suit ordinary mortals so well, which fact is such a
puzzle to commonplace minds that they solve it by setting down
the unlucky individual as a madman; an easy solution, in which
we cannot acquiesce. One of those few, too, was he
“ Whose spirit kindles for a newer virtue,
Which, proud and sure, and for itself sufficient,
To no faith, goes a begging.”
An isolation of spirit, too, he possessed, often peculiar to genius.
He found no one to sympathize with him; hence his mind was
turned in upon itself, seeking higher principles, newer resolutions
than are yet current. He found himself, even when amidst the
throng, quite alone; though jostled by the multitude, quite soli
tary. Society to such a one is pain; the very noise of human
voices, misery. Hence, in his despair, he is tempted to exclaim
to his wife, “ My greatest content would be utterly to desert all
human society. I would retire with you and our child to a soli
tary island in the sea, would build a boat, and shut upon my
retreat the floodgates of the world: I would read no reviews, and
talk with no authors. If I dared trust my imagination, it would
tell me that there are one or two chosen companions beside
myself whom I would desire. But to this I would not listen.”
That Shelley should have been misappreciated is only natural. To
a proverb, the world likes its own, and Shelley was not amongst
that number. High-minded, he despised the inanities of life;
sincere and earnest, he hated the hollowness of the day. Too
sensitive, he turned away to bye-paths. The flock of sheep herd
together; he was sick at heart and wandered by himself. Poetic
and ideal, he felt more than most of us the heart-aches and
brain-aches of life, and ever seeking, ever hoping, found no cure
for them. Speculative and philosophical, he felt the burden of
the world-mystery and the world-problem, which he was ever
trying to solve, and which every time lay heavier on his soul.
Weak and physically frail, he felt life’s pack more than others,
and knew not how to carry it without its galling him. A loving,
sympathizing soul, he found but little affection, little love in the
world ; for the most part a cold response and hard hearts, and so
he uttered his wail of misery and then died.
�His Critics.
107
He was slain accidentally in the battle of life—a mere stripling
fighting manfully in the van. Still the army of life, like a mighty
billow, rushes on; still the battle rages, still the desperate charge
of the forlorn hope—here it gains, there it wavers, then is swept
away—and still fresh ones follow on: the individual fighting in
the first place for himself and his own necessities; and then, if a
noble soul, doing battle for his fellow-creatures, helping the weak,
raising up the down-trodden. The years sweep on like immense
caravans, each of them laden with its own multitude, brawling,
striving, fighting. We look out from the windows, and see behind
us the earth covered with the monuments of mighty men, with
nameless mounds where sleep the dead. Let us linger round the
grave of him who lies beneath the walls of Rome, near the pyra
mid of Caius Cestius, “ in a place so sweet that it might make
one in love to be buried thereand see what epitaphs have been
written over him, and what, too, we have to say.
In plainer words, we will proceed to look at Shelley as exhibited
by others, glancing at his religion, his politics, and poetry, by all
of which we may be enabled to learn something more, and to
form a completer estimate of him; and we would here remark
that whatever censure or praise we may bestow on him, the one
should be laid on, the other doubled by, his youth.
We have now passed away from the old reviewing times of
Gifford, when difference of opinion was added to the sins usually
recognised by the Decalogue, when it actually could taint the
rhymes, and make the verses of too many or too few feet, accord
ing to the critic's orthodox ear. This old leaven has long since
died out of all respectable Reviews, and can only be seen in its
original bitterness in a few religious publications, where vitupe
ration so easily supplies the place of argument. The world
luckily sees with different eyes to those it did thirty years ago.
Most people can now give Shelley credit for his noble qualities
of generosity and pureness of moral character; and even those
who may differ widely from his opinions, are willing to admit the
beauty of his poems. Most people, we said; all certainly except
those connected with a few religious publications, and the author
of “ Modern Painters.” Mr. Ruskin seems to be seized with some
monomania when Shelley’s name is mentioned. In the Appendix
to his “ Elements of Drawing,” he calls Shelley “ shallow and
verbose.” In a note in the second volume of“ Modem Painters,”
part iii. sec. ii. chap. iv. § 6, he speaks of Shelley, “ sickly
dreaming over clouds and waves.” As these objections are mere
matters of opinion, we shall pass them by; it is hopeless to
try to make the wilfully blind see. But in the third volume,
part iv. chap. xvi. § 38, he talks of Shelley’s “ troublesome
selfishness.” Facts are said to be the best arguments, and we will
�108
Shelley.
give Mr. Ruskin, as an answer to his libel, the following pathetic
story in Leigh Hunt’s own words :—
“ Mr. Shelley, in coming to our house at night, had found a woman
lying near the top of the hill, in fits. It was a fierce winter’s night,
with snow upon the ground—and winter loses nothing of its severity
at Hampstead. My friend, always the promptest as well as the most
pitying on these occasions, knocked at the first houses he could reach,
in order to have the woman taken in. The invariable answer was,
they could not do it. He asked for an outhouse to put her in, while
he went for the doctor. Impossible. In vain he assured them she
was no impostor—an assurance he was able to give, having studied
something of medicine, and even walked the hospital, that he might
be Useful in this way. They would not dispute the point with him ;
but doors were closed, and windows were shut down. Time flies; the
poor woman is in convulsions; her son, a young man, lamenting over
her. At last my friend sees a carriage driving up to a house at a little
distance; the knock is given; the warm door opens; servants and
lights put forth. Now, thought he, is the time; he puts on his best
address—which anybody might recognise for that of the highest gentle
man—and plants himself in the way of an elderly person who is step
ping out of the carriage with his family. He tells him his story.
They only press on the faster. ‘ Will you go and see her ?’ ‘ No, sir,
there is no necessity for that sort of thing, depend on it—impostors
swarm everywhere—the thing cannot be done. Sir, your conduct is
extraordinary.’ ‘ Sir,’ cried Mr. Shelley, at last assuming a very diffe
rent appearance, and forcing the flourishing householder to stop, out
of astonishment, ‘ I am sorry to say that your conduct is not extra
ordinary ; and if my own may seem to amaze you, I will tell you
something that may amaze you a little more, and I hope will frighten
you. It is such men as you who madden the spirits and the patience
of the poor and wretched ; and if ever a convulsion comes in this coun
try, which is very probable, recollect what I tell you—you will have
your house, that you refuse to put this miserable woman into, burnt
over your head.’ 4 God bless me, sir! Dear me, sir!’ exclaimed the
frightened wretch, and fluttered into his mansion. The woman was
then brought to our house, which was at some distance, and down a
bleak path; and Mr. Shelley and her son were obliged to hold her till
the doctor could arrive. It appeared that she had been attending this
son in London, on a criminal charge made against him, the agitation
of which had thrown her into fits on their return. The doctor said
that she would have inevitably perished had she lain there only a short
time longer. The next day my friend sent mother and son comfort
ably home to Hendon, where they were well known, and whence they
returned him thanks full of gratitude.”
This was an action worthy of a descendant of Algernon and
Sir Philip Sydney, and may perhaps remind Mr. Ruskin of a
certain parable of the good Samaritan. Again, in the same
volume and part of “Modern Painters,” ch. xvii. § 26, Mr. Ruskin
calls Shelley “passionate and unprincipled;” and again, in §41,
�Mr. Ruskin on Shelley.
109
lie speaks of his “ morbid temperament.” It is only charitable
to suppose that Mr. Ruskin has never read Shelley’s Life ; and,
again, in the same volume and part, ch. xvi. § 34, he writes,
“ Shelley is sad because he is impious.” This sort of reasoning
reminds us of a story told in Rogers’s “ Table Talk,” which, as it
affords us some further insight into Shelley’s character, may be
given:—“One day, during dinner, at Pisa, where Shelley and
Trelawney were with us, Byron chose to run down Shakspeare,
for whom he, like Sheridan, either had, or pretended to have, little
admiration. I said nothing; but Shelley immediately took up
the defence of the great poet, and conducted it with his usual meek
yet resolute manner, unmoved with the rude things with which
Byron interrupted him—‘ Oh, that’s very zvell for an Atheist,’ ”
&c. Byron, however, did not approach Mr. Ruskin’s absurdity.
Atheism here did not altogether spoil Shelley’s defence; it only
made it pretty good. Orthodoxy, we must suppose, would have
rendered it perfect. But Mr. Ruskin boldly asserts, “Shelley is
sad because he is impious;” or, in other words, because Shelley
happens to differ from Mr. Ruskin’s notions on religion. It is
true that Shelley is sad—not, though, because he is “ impious,” but
from mourning over the wrongs that he sees hourly committed
—the day full of toil, the air thick with groans. A solemn tone
of sorrow pervades his poetry, like the dirge of the autumn wind
sighing through the woods for the leaves as they keep falling off.
We are ashamed and mortified to find Mr. Ruskin using such a
coarse and vulgar argument—he who is ever complaining of the
unfairness of his critics. But perhaps Mr. Ruskin may find this
out, that when he has learnt to respect others, his critics will be in
clined to treat him more leniently; and, furthermore, whilst he
deals so harshly and so uncharitably with Shelley, we would in
all kindness remind him of the line, “ who is so blessed fair that
fears no blot?”
And now for our orthodox reviewers, and their treatment of
Shelley. “Queen Mab” is generally selected by them as the
piece de resistance. We are far from defending the poem as re
gards its tone and spirit, nor do we uphold Shelley in any of his
attacks upon the personal character of the Founder of Chris
tianity ; he finds no sympathy with us when he calls Christ “ the
Galilean Serpent.” Much more do we agree with the old dra
matist, Decker, when he writes—
“ The best of men
That e’er wore earth about him was a sufferer,
A soft, meek, patient, humble, tranquil Spirit;
The first true gentleman that ever breathed.”
Shelley himself afterwards thoroughly disclaimed the opinions
�110
Shelley.
of this early and crude production. Upon an attempt being made
to republish it, he thus wrote to the editor of the Examiner:
—“ A poem, entitled ‘ Queen Mab,’ was written by me at the age
of eighteen, I dare say in a sufficiently intemperate spirit—but
even then was not intended for publication; and a few copies only
were struck off, to be distributed among my personal friends. I
have not seen this production for several years; I doubt not
but that it is perfectly worthless in point of literary composition;
and that in all that concerns moral and political speculation, as
well as in the subtler discriminations of metaphysical and reli
gious doctrine, it is still more crude and immature.” And he
goes on to say that he has applied for an injunction to stop its
*
sale. Shelley, in after life, was the last man to speak slightingly
of religion or religious matters—no true poet can ever do that;
he, above all men, venerates religion. By him, as Shelley says
in the Preface to the “ Revolt of Islam,” “ the erroneous and de
grading idea which men have conceived of a Supreme Being is
spoken against, but not the Supreme Being itself.” But why
“ Queen Mab” should ever be picked out as so peculiarly blas
phemous by its assailants, we have ever been surprised. We are,
we repeat, far from sympathizing in the least with Shelley’s ex
pressions; but we equally abhor the tenets of his orthodox
reviewers. They are far more open to the charge of blasphemy
than Shelley. It is they who degrade God, and God’s creatures,
by representing him as the God of vengeance, and all His works
vile and filthy; this glorious world as the devil’s world, and all
the men and women in it chosen vessels of wrath, unable to do
one good deed of themselves. They call Shelley an Atheist, in
deed ! Rather call all those Atheists who deny liberty and all
rights to their poorer brethren; who would trample them still
deeper in the mire of ignorance, who would desecrate God’s Sab
baths with idleness, and who make God in their own images piti
fully sowing damnation broadcast on his creatures. Call them,
too, Atheists, yes, the worst of Atheists, who lead a life of idleness
and aimless inactivity; for the denial of God (a personal God, in
the common sense of the term) does not constitute Atheism; but
spending a life as if there were no God, and no such things as
those minor gods—Justice, or Love, or Gratitude.
Shelley was, at all events, sincere in his creed, which is more
than can be said for most of his opponents. He suffered for it,
and suffered bitterly; not, indeed, the tortures of the rack, but
those more painful ordeals which we in this nineteenth century
are so skilful to inflict. All ages have very properly allotted
special punishments to their greatest spirits. The Greeks gave
* See also a letter to Mr. John Gisborne—“ Shelley’s Letters and Essays,”
vol. ii. p. 239.
�Religion at the Present Day.
Ill
hemlock to Socrates; the Jews rewarded Jesus with a cross.
Galileo received a rack for his portion. But we English have
found out the greater refinement of cruelty, which may be in
flicted by hounding a poet down by Reviews and Chancery-suits.
Contrast Shelley, and his fervid eloquence, and poetry, and zeal,
with his opponents. Go into an English church, and there you
shall too often see but an automaton, now in white now in black,
grinding old church tunes of which our ears are weary. It—for
we cannot call that machine a living human being—finds no re
sponse in the hearts of its hearers. Notone pulse there is quickened,
not one eye grows brighter. If it would but say something to
all those men and women, they should be as dancers ready to
dance at the sound of music. But no voice comes, unless you
call a monotonous drawl a voice. The farce is all the more
hitter, because that figure to our knowledge leads a life quite
contrary to the words upon his lips. How few of these Automata
in white or in black would, in days of darkness and of trouble,
stand up for their Bible and their Gospel, and dare to pull off
the surplice and gown, and wear the martyr’s fiery shirt! One
of them comes into the Church for the family living, and makes
God’s house a place for money-changers and traders in simony;
the other, because he has not capacity enough for any other pro
fession. And these are the men that are to lead us in days when
science and knowledge are fast advancing in every direction!
these the men to sing of God’s wondrous works ! Do they not
rather dishonour God, and prostitute religion to the worst form
of Atheism ?
That Shelley, or any one else, should become wearied with our
present religious condition, we are not surprised. Our wonder
is, that there are not far more of the same class. We have for
years been lying under a tree which is long past bearing—waiting,
alas ! for fruits, and not finding even a green branch, or a shady
place. The once pure water of baptism is now turbid, the very
sacramental bread mouldy. We must sorrowfully say with Jean
Paul—“The soul which by nature looks Heavenward, is without
a temple in this age.” So the old religious roads of thought are
being torn up; the old via sacra being levelled. As it has been
said a thousand times, no one need fear that religion will ever
die. While there is the blue unfathomable sky above us, in which
swim golden sun and moon and stars, and the comets trail along
like fiery ships, there will ever arise a sense of mystery and awe
in the breast of man; and while the sweet seasons come round,
there will spring from his heart, like a fresh gushing fountain, a
psalm of thankfulness to the Author of them. The deep spiritual
nature of man can never die. And it is no sign of the decay of
religion, but quite the reverse, when men refuse to be fed on the
�112
Shelley.
dry husks and chaff of doctrines. Yes, we will hope that a new
and a brighter Reformation is dawning; that fresh Luthers and
Melancthons shall arise, and that we shall have a Church wherein
Science shall not fear to unfold her New Testament—wherein
poets and philosophers, and painters and sculptors, may be its
priests, each preaching from his own pulpit—when every day
shall be equally holy—when every cottage shall be a temple,
and all the earth consecrated ground—consecrated with^ the
prayers of love and labour.
And now let us turn to Shelley’s politics. Most poets have ever
been the supporters of Liberty. And the reason is, as Words
worth says, “ A poet is a man endowed with more lively sensi
bility, more enthusiasm and tenderness, and a more comprehen
sive soul than are supposed to be common among mankind.”
They feel “ the sweet sense of kindred” more than others, and
cannot bear to see some of their brethren chained like galleyslaves to the oar of labour—earning their bread with tears of
blood, without time for leisure, or meditation, or self-improve
ment ; working like the beasts of the field, with this difference,
that they are less cared for by their masters. As Milton says—
“ True poets are the objects of my reverence and love, and the
constant sources of my delight. I know that most of them, from
the earliest times to those of Buchanan, have been the strenuous
enemies of despotism.” The remark is true. Tyrtaeus singing
war-strains, and the old Hebrew prophets rousing Israel from its
sleep of bondage, are instances of what is meant. All poets
have felt this love for Liberty. Even Mr. Tennyson can turn at
times from his descriptive paintings, and give us such a lyric as
“Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,” so full of noble hopes and
sympathies. A little time ago we had a novel with a Chartist poet
for its hero ; and by-and-bv a living poet, the son of a canal
bargeman, risesup among us—no fiction this time—uttering strains
of woe to that same often invoked Liberty. But the feeling is
most vivid in early youth ; the cares of the world soon grow
round us, and many of us find out it is to our apparent advantage
to remain silent; and we become to our shame dumb, ignomi
niously content to accept things as they are. Some even turn
renegades, as Southey. But in Shelley the flame every day burnt
brighter. Liberty with him was no mere toy to be broken and
laid aside, but the end and aim of his life. He kept true to the
dream of youth, and the inspiration of early days, when injustice
has not yet clouded our vision. But, on the face of it, is there
not something supremely ridiculous in the son of a wealthy
baronet coming forward to delineate the woes of men about
which he could really know nothing ? Why not have written
�The Times in which Shelley lived.
113
odes of the Minerva-press stamp, which could have been read to
aristocratic drawing-rooms ? The answer is, that this thing
genius is strong and earnest, and, luckily, will not bend like a reed
before any fashionable breeze from Belgravia or St. James’s.
Society is a costly porcelain vase, wherein the poor plant genius
is cramped and stunted, and artificially watered and heated, in
stead of living in the free open air, enjoying the breeze and the
showers of heaven; it must either break its prison or wither.
Shelley adopted the former course. Let us rejoice it was so—
that there was one man who, though brought up in luxury, had
the heart and the courage to pity the misfortunes of the poor.
Let us remember, too, the days Shelley had fallen upon, when the
nation was suffering all the distresses a long war could entail;
when a Parliament of landlords enacted the Corn-laws for the
benefit of their own rents; when prosecutions were rife for the
most trifling offences ; when Government actually employed spies
to excite starving men to violence; when “ blood was on the
grass like dew.” It was the dark night that preceded the dawn
of a better day. Since then, schools have sprung up ; free-libraries
and museums have grown here and there; parks have been
opened; baths and wash-houses built; crowded districts drained
and ventilated; cheap and good books diffused. Within the last
few months “The National Association for the Advancement of
Social Science” has held its first meeting, and there is a general
wish, except perhaps amongst a few, to improve the condition of
the working classes. A man who, in Shelley’s position, should
now write as Shelley did, could simply be regarded as a misguided
enthusiast; and we can only pardon Gerald Massey in some of
his wild strains, by knowing how galling is the yoke, and how
bitter the bread, of poverty. Still much, almost everything, yet
remains to be done. The life of the labourer still, as Shelley
would sing,
“ Is to work, and have such pay
As just keeps life from day to day.”
Not even that, as the poorhouse in the winter’s night can testify.
But, after all, what is this image of Liberty which Shelley has set
up for us ? We can answer best in his own words :—
“ For the labourer thou art bread,
And a comely table spread,
From his daily labour come,
In a neat and happy home—
Thou art clothes, and fire and food
For the trampled multitude:
No—in countries that are free
Such starvation cannot be,
As in England now we see.”
[Vol. LXIX. No. CXXXV.J—New Series, Vol. XIII. No. I.
I
�114
Shelley.
This surely is rather a material view; no one can well see
treason in the loaf, or impiety in the well-filled cupboard; and yet
an important one. The soul of man can never be fed, while his
body is racked with hunger; his mind can never be warmed with
any spark of the higher life, while his limbs shiver with the cold;
his spiritual faculties can never be raised, while be is sunk in
physical uncleanness. But rising to a higher strain, Shelley
proceeds:—
“ To the rich thou art a check;
When his foot is on the neck
Of his victim, thou dost make
That he treads upon a snake.
Thou art Justice—ne’er for gold
May thy righteous laws be sold,
As laws are in England:—thou
Shieldest alike the high and low.
Thou art Wisdom—freemen never
Dream that God will doom for ever
All who think those things untrue
Of which priests make such ado.
Thou art Peace—never by thee
Would blood and treasure wasted be
As tyrants wasted them, when all
Leagued to quench thy flame in Gaul.
*****
Science, and Poetry, and Thought,
Are thy lamps ; they make the lot
Of the dwellers in a cot
Such, they curse their Maker not.
Spirit, Patience, Gentleness,
All that can adorn and bless,
Art thou; let deeds, not words, express
Thine exceeding loveliness.”
(“ The Masque of Anarchy.”)
This, we must confess, is superior to most of his delineations of
Liberty. In a great many places he doubtless runs very wild in
the cause of Freedom. He had not yet attained that true calm
ness which is requisite for any great movement. Youth has it
not. The green sapling cracks and explodes in the fire, yet gives
no heat; the seasoned log burns bright and quiet. It is not by
fiery declamations, by mere impulse, that anything in this world is
ever surely gained, but by calmness, clearness of vision, and deep
insight. The still small voice makes more impression on us
than the loudest shouts, for the latter are, through their very noise,
quite inarticulate. Still the question remains to be answered,
�Happiness, how obtained.
115
how is this and other visions of Liberty to be realized ? Was
Shelley himself in the right way to bring about the desired
reform ? Certainly, as far as his hand could reach, he did his
utmost. He poured what oil he could on the raging waters
round him. But these attempts, and all others like them, are, it
is very obvious, only palliatives, not real remedies. Shelley’s
views as to Reform and Liberty are very vague. He seems to have
had some idea that with a hey presto, everything could be
changed. Pantaloon had only to strike the floor three times, and
the whole scene vanished; the old witches, who caused all the
trouble, were to be changed at once into beautiful sprites;
Columbine should come dancing on, and a general return to
Fairyland, everybody paying for every one, and nobody taking
anything. He himself was willing to make any sacrifice. In
this respect he seems to have been like some innocent child,
wandering into a garden, singing as he went, plucking with its
tiny hands the flowers and fruits, willing to share them with any
one—wishing, perhaps, that men could live upon them altogether,
and not a. little vexed and surprised when told that they would
not bloom in the winter time—wishing, too, that the beds might be
kept trim, and the grass might be cut without human labour—and
then sitting down, musing, melancholy, and sad, on the first falling
leaf.
To us it appears that liberty and happiness—if it be liberty
and happiness we want—depend upon no legerdemain, no
shuffling of cards. Once let us learn that our well-being depends
not upon external circumstances, but upon the riches of moral
goodness, and that our mind, like a prism, can colour all events,
and we shall then be on the true road to a higher reform than
our politicians have yet dreamt of. To teach men their duty,
and what love and what justice mean, seems to us just now the
one thing needful. Gold, perhaps, is the medicine least wanted to
cure human ills—the worst salve for human bruises. The mere
kind look and the kind action will be treasured up with its own
interest, not to be counted at any poor per cent., whilst the money
will have been foolishly squandered—how much more the word
which shall kindle a new idea, a fresh truth, another life. The
mechanic earning his few shillings a week, enough to support
himself, may find pleasure, if he has but learnt to take an
interest in the few green grass blades beneath his feet, and the
few opening flowers in his garden, which no lord in his castle can
surpass. Nothing is so cheap as true happiness: and Providence
has well arranged that we may be surrounded by ever-flowing
springs of it, if we will but choose, in all humility, to drink of
them. Shelley, unfortunately, fancied that there was some one
specific to be externally applied to the gangrene of wretchedness,
i2
�116
Shelley.
and cure it at once and for ever; but we must go far beyond the
surface, and the application must be made, not to the diseased
part only, but to the whole body of society. And as to the
sorrows and contradictions of life, we take and accept them,
believing that there is a spirit at work for good, which will bring
them out to a successful issue. And we are proud to be instru
ments in working out so grand a principle, believing that the
pain and the loss to us will be gain to the human race; that
these days of sorrow will be a gain to coming years; that this
sadness of a part will be a gain to the whole. In this is our un
faltering trust; and secure in it we can go joyfully along, enduring
patiently whatever sorrow or whatever conflict we may encounter,
striving to help our weaker brethren, giving them what aid we
can.
Painful as it may be to think of a number of fellow-creatures
toiling early and late, yet labour has its own claims on our grati
tude. Labour seems to be man’s appointed lot here, and it is
foolish to quarrel with it; still more foolish to call it a curse; the
thistles and the thorns have been, perhaps, of more benefit to the
human race than all the flowers in the Garden of Eden. They
have called forth man’s energies, and developed his resources.
All those chimneys in our factory-towns—are they not as steeples,
veritable church steeples and towers of the great temple of Labour,
pointing, with no dumb stone fingers, up to heaven, saying, by
us, by labour, is the road up there ? Does not the flame and the
smoke-wreath look as if it came from some vast altar, the incense
of sacrifices—yes, of noble human sacrifices, daily offered up;
and do not the clank and clash of a thousand hammers and anvils
sound sweet upon our ears, as the music of bells calling us to our
duty—trumpets sounding us to the battle of life, that battle
against evil and wrong ? So it must be: out of darkness cometh
light, and from the cold frosts and bitter snows of winter, bloom
all the beauteous flowers of spring; and from all this grime, and
dirt, and sweat of labour, who shall prophesy the result ? Even
now are there giants in the land; even now may we see cranks,
and wheels, and iron arms, tethered to their work instead of men;
even now do wre hear the music of the electric wires across the
fields, telling us other things than the mere message they convey;
even now may the hum of the engine, and the breath of its iron
lungs, be heard in our old farm-yards, and the reaping-machine
seen cutting down the golden wheat, and the steam-plough
furrowing up the fields, taking away the heaviest burdens from
the backs of men. Shelley would have hailed such a time with
delight—when there should be some margin of the day given to
the ploughman and the mechanic for rest and recreation—for re
�The Power of Love and Justice.
117
member, a man is ever worthier than his hire. Had Shelley ever
seen a railroad, he would, perhaps, have exclaimed with Dr. Arnott,
“Good-night to Feudality.” It is curious to notice what an in
terest he took in endeavouring to establish a steamer on the Gulf
of Genoa. But all the leisure in the world, all the instruction
that can be had, will avail us nothing, if we do not build on
higher principles than we are at present accustomed to—if we do
not rest our foundations upon Love and Justice. “Ah !” sighed
Shelley to Leigh Hunt, as the organ was playing in the cathedral
at Pisa, “ what a divine religion might be found out, if charity
were really made the principle of it instead of faith.” This, then,
is a part of Shelley’s creed—a creed which is beginning at length
to be felt; the creed of Jesus and of Socrates ; of poets of to-day
and of yesterday; the law of laws; the doctrine of charity—that
charity which Paul preached as greater than faith. Let our poli
tics and our religion be built upon love and justice for their
foundations, and once more will man live in harmony with the
rest of the creation—will smell sweet with “ his fellow-creatures
the plants,” and his voice will be attuned with the love-songs of
the birds. He will then understand how he was made in God’s
image, for God is love; the world will then once more bloom a
Garden of Eden, and Selfishness, that evil spirit—call it the
devil if you will, for it is this world’s devil—be ousted from our
planet.
But it requires something more than a poet’s strains to break
the spells that bind us—to exhume the people from their present
sepulchre of ignorance. A Tyrtaeus is of no use, unless we will
fight; his strains of no avail, unless we will work, man to man,
shoulder to shoulder. The walls of prejudice and selfishness will
not fall down by any mere trumpet-blast. If any one thinks us
too ideal, let him know we are purposely so. The ideal
is better than the real, and it is something to be ideal in
these practical days of ours. “ Equality ” and “ love ” may per
haps never be known, as they should be, amongst men. Riches
have been well compared to snow, which if it fall level to-day,
to-morrow will be heaped in drifts. But surely there is an equality
apart from money, and a love which knows not bank-notes; we
will hope for, and aid forward, too, the day when there may not
be the present gulf betwixt the peer and the peasant, and when
that simple commandment shall be better observed, “ Do unto
others as you would be done by.”
In a note to “ The Prometheus Unbound,” Mrs. Shelley thus
writes:—
“ The prominent feature of Shelley’s theory of the destiny of the
human species was, that evil is not inherent in the system of the crea
�118
Shelley.
tion, but an accident that might he expelled. This also forms a
portion of Christianity. God made earth and man perfect, till he, by
his fall—
‘Brought death into the world, and all our woe.’
Shelley believed that mankind had only to will that there should be
no evil, and there would be none. That man could become so perfect
as to be able to expel evil from his own nature, and from the greater
part of the creation, vras the cardinal point of his system.”
There is much truth in this. Our misery arises from the in
fringement of natural laws; and as long as those laws remain
broken, our misery will still continue. But Hope is by our side,
and she tells us, with the unmistakeable voice of truth, that men
will some day grow wiser and less selfish than at present—when
most of the present suffering shall pass away—when none need
be long unhappy, except through their own fault—for the earth
was created for a good and a happy purpose, though it take
myriads of years to accomplish it.
And now let us not be one-sided, but view Shelley as a whole
—the unripe as well as the sunny side of the fruit—the dark
shadow on his orb as well as the sunlight. His impulsive
character prevented him from laying enough stress on the grand
principle of duty. Its infinite worth we cannot over-estimate.
Duty is a pillar firmly fixed in rock of adamant, round which we
climb heavenward; round everything else we only twine horizon
tally, crawling along the ground. How far a stronger sense of
duty in Shelley would have saved him from the wretchedness
which he suffered, and his first wife from the terrible catastrophe
consequent on his leaving her, we shall not attempt to estimate;
but certainly it would have impelled him, as it did Milton, to
return from Italy when his country was in danger, and like him
also, if need were, to support himself even by keeping a school.
We have already noticed his want of a due appreciation of the im
portance of Labour. He forgot also that the energies of man are
tempered to an iron hardness by adversity; that our strength
springs up fresher and stronger under the clouds of trials and
sufferings; that our souls are braced by the keen, cold winds of
poverty; our faculties purified by the fire of affliction. Hence
was he ever planning Utopias, where the idle should batten upon
the earnings of the industrious — cloud-cuckoo-towns, where
idleness and the take-no-thought-for-to-morrow principles should
become the laws of our being, which are all of them impossibili
ties on this toiling planet. Again, too, Shelley erred in being
too ready to pull down instead of to build up. Greater harm has
"been done, both in religion and politics, by men whose capabili
ties have been of the destructive order, without the constructive
�Shelley, and the Arrangements of Society.
119
faculty, than by all tlie bigots that ever breathed. It is worse
than cruelty to take away the bread of life and the waters of life,
however adulterated they may be, from a man, and offer his
hungry and thirsting soul nothing in their place. But the grand
mistake of Shelley’s was the idea of revolutionizing the course of
things by a simple change of institutions. The best form of
government can do but little, unless the reform begins with the
individuals themselves. Govern ourselves well, and we need not
then talk so much about governing others. It is not the form of
government, so much as the men and women, we must care for—
not this or that institution, but the first principles of honesty and
justice amongst ourselves, which we must regard.
That men should be severe upon Shelley we can well under
stand—good, easy people, whose skins are luckily so tough and
insensible that the harness of life can make no raw on them—
whose heads are but moulds for so many cast-iron opinions and
creeds. That an over-sensitive poet should break away from all
the rules of life, and betake himself to the wilderness of his own
doubts and speculations, is to them a most incredible, not to say
a most wicked thing. To leave a home fireside, with its six
o’clock dinner and port wine, in exchange for a doubtful supper
on bread and cheese, and a certain one on metaphysics—to form
your own world-theory—to found a fresh morality—is to them
the height of madness. They forget that the arrangements of
society are made, and rightly too, for the mass—that is, for such
people as themselves—and that a poet is something very different
from themselves, and that these laws which operate so well for
them, will in all likelihood work fatally on the poet. So the
poor poet must be hooted and brayed at by all the chorus of
human owls and quadrupeds. He plunges away madly into the
darkness beyond, solitary and sad, endeavouring to steer by the
compass of his own thoughts. The world looks on him in his
struggles and his toils with the same quiet indifference, not to say
pleasure, that a boy does at a cockchafer spinning in agony on a
pin’s point. That Shelley’s views were often wild and crude, no
one for a moment will deny. Enthusiastic and impulsive, he
jumped to all sorts of conclusions on the most important points.
The value of a young man’s experience—and Shelley died at
nine-and-twenty—is not worth much, and it is only by expe
rience we can test anything in this practical world. He himself
found this out at last. Circumstances also had a great effect in
his case, as they have upon all of us. We perhaps can never
rightly weigh the balance of any man’s actions, because we never
allow enough for the circumstances which should be placed in
the other scale. Here was Shelley, the son of a man who was
,
�120
Shelley.
entirely different in his whole nature, sent to school where he
*
was brutally treated and discouraged in his studies, marrying a
peison who was in no respects fitted for him. On the other
hand, suppose that he had had a father who could have judi
ciously sympathized with him, been sent to a school where
masters would have encouraged his studies, and have married a
suitable wife, who shall say what Shelley might have been ?
But we are dealing with things not as they might be, but as they
were and are. One small pebble in the way of a stream shall
make the river flow in another direction, and water quite other
lands and countries to what it does now. Yet man, perhaps,
should not be a stream, as weak as water. Be this as it may, it
is certain that before Shelley s death the mists that had long
obscured the rising of his dawui were already melting, and his
day was just breaking, all calm and pure; the bitter juices were
all being drawn up, and converted into sweetness and bloom; the
fruit of his genius was fast becoming ripe and mellow.
We have gone thus far into Shelley’s life and opinions, without
touching upon his poetry; for we think that if a person cared
nothing at all about poetry in the abstract, he must be struck
with that still higher poetry of kindness and generosity which so
inspired Shelley. His written poetry, in our mind, is quite a
secondary affair to that. There is a poetry of real life which is
grander than any yet sung by minstrel. The man is greater
than his poems.
The critics have plenty of stock objections to find with Shelley’s
poetry. The most common complaint is, that he is too metaphy
sical ; that the air is so rarified in his higher regions of Philoso
phy, that ordinary beings can’t breathe it; that his verse is like
hard granite peaks, brilliant with the lights and the shadows of
the changeful clouds, robed with white wreaths of mists, and
touched with the splendours of the setting and the rising sun,
but not one flower blooms upon it, not one living creature is to
be seen there, only ethereal forms flitting fitfully hither and
thither; and we must, to a certain extent, admit the truth of the
charge. Shelley exhibited to a remarkable degree the union of
the metaphysical and the imaginative mind. Philosophy and
poetry prevailed over him alternately. For a long time he was
doubtful to which he should devote himself, f It is from an
overbalance of philosophy that there is such a want of concrete
ness in his poems. He was for ever looking at things in a meta
* “As like his father, as I’m unlike mine.”—Letter to Mrs. Gisborne,
f See Mrs. Shelley’s note on the “ Revolt of Islam.”
�The Cause of Shelley s Poetry.
121
physical point of view, projecting himself into Time and Space;
regarding this earth as a ball, with its blue robe of air,
“ As she dances about the sun,”
instead of parcelled out into rich farms and sprinkled with towns,
and solid three and four-storied bouses, and walls fourteen inches
thick, tenanted by Kit Slys, Shylocks, Iagos, Falstaffs, and the
whole company of humanity, who play on alternate nights and
days the tragedy or the comedy of life. That he should have
taken this abstract view of life is not at all wonderful. All great
minds are ever attracted by the problem of life. This world
riddle is of all things the most fascinating to the ardent and
inquiring spirit. The reason why Shelley sang of the things
he did, was simply that they both interested and pained him more
than others. Living in an age, which gave birth to the French
Revolution, which was agonized with the throes of all sorts of
speculative theories, his verse naturally echoed them. Every true
artist—whether by poetry, or painting, or architecture, it matters
not—gives us the great questions of the day, with his attempted
solution of them. Hence is it that Shelley is really a poet, be
cause in his verse he truly sympathized with the wants of the
day. Before a man can write well, he must have felt. It is not
fine phrases, or similes, or fine anything else that make a poet,
any more than fine clothes make a man. Shelley found out that
the old-established customs, the old morals, the old laws, did not
suit him. The every-day maxims of low prudence sounded to
him very much like baseness; the common religion to him was
synonymous with uncommon irreligion, and public morality
looked to him merely a mask for private immorality. He felt
all this, and felt it bitterly, and sighed after nobler aspirations;
hence his poetry. His great failing is a certain amount of queru
lousness, instead of calmly reposing amidst all his conflicts in an
eternal Justice, which, though it may be far from visible to com
mon eyes, is still the foundation of the world. He had before
his death passed through only one stage of the conflict which
most great minds undergo. Before belief, there must be doubt;
before the fire, the smoke. Shelley never attained that perfect
repose which the greatest poets have possessed, and his poetry
consequently does not rise to the highest order. Now, Shelley
defines poetry as “ the expression of the imagination,”* and he
has Shakspeare on his side—
“ The lunatic, the lover, and the poet,
Are of imagination all compact.”
* “ A Defence of Poetry.”
�122
Shelley.
Strangely does that word “ lunatic” sound now, as we think of
that tale of “ Mad Shelley.” But this is exactly what Shelley’s
poetry really is—“ the expression of the imagination,” unmodi
fied by experience, and any knowledge of this world of men and
women. Imagination, though doubtless the first requisite of a
poet, is far from all. As Novalis would say, “ a poet is a Tnie.rocosmos.” The great poets are all of them many-sided. Their
poetry is both /ztjtnjtTtc and 7to' ]<tiq. They illustrate both the
u
Aristotelian and Baconian theory of poetry, as well as much
more. They are like lands which bear crops of all kinds. They
possess, in fact, the united faculties of all other men, and these
faculties serve to check and balance one another. Every part
working in unison, nothing unduly developed at the expense of
another, are the characteristics of all great poets, and, in fact, of
all great men, who are only poets in another way. Shelley’s
imagination, unluckily, galloped away with him, instead of his
reining it in. Take some of the most imaginative pieces that
have ever been written, and we shall find how they are all of them
more or less ballasted. There is that most fairy-like of all things,
“ The Birds” of Aristophanes, brilliant with imagination, yet still
occupying our interest by its wit and humour. Again, “The
Midsummer Night’s Dream” and “ The Tempest,” with all
their scenes from Fairyland, and their spirits, are balanced
by the human creations, and the interest and incidents that
arise from the plots. Shelley seems never to have anchored
his imagination to anything.
There was no clog to it.
Nothing to tie it down. Hence his weak, shadowy drawings,
his want of substance, an absence of reality. Hence his
characters are too often mere personified abstractions; thoughts
which have been only half-clothed in human bodies. For
we cannot agree with Lord Macaulay in thinking that they
cease to be abstractions, and interest us as human beings; for
common experience tells us that they do not.
*
Shelley had in
him none of the elements which made Shakspeare essentially
popular. He was a vegetarian, a water-drinker. In philosophical
moods he doubted the existence of matter; but then he was
always in philosophical moods. He is, in short, too spiritual,
too subtle for ordinary men with good appetites, who are not
troubled by the theories of Berkeley. We cannot fancy him at
one of those “ wit-combats” at The Mermaid, drinking sherrissack, and joining in the chorus of a song. He wanted the
faculty of humour, though Captain Medwin assures us he
possessed it strongly. We have looked in vain; we cannot find
* See some incidental remarks on Shelley, in the Essay upon “ The Pil
grim’s Progress.”
,
�if
q
ja
dt
<1
His Poems as illustrated by his Life.
123
a spark of it in his letters, which, on the contrary, are marked hy
his usual melancholy spirits. He was too metaphysical to he
humorous. He had more of the Jaques and the Hamlet vein
than Falstaff’s in him. Hence his bitter outbursts of sarcasm.
We must, however, turn to his Life to account for the peculiarities
of his poetry. We find there that it took him only a few weeks
to write “ The Prometheus Unbound,” whilst he laboured at
“ The Cenci” for months; that he forsook his drama of
“ Charles I.” in disgust, for “ The Triumph of Life,” one of
his most abstruse poems. A curious trait, which gives us no
little clue in the matter, is mentioned by Captain Medwin, that
Shelley was in the habit of noting down his dreams. “ The first
day,” he said, “they made a page, the next two, the third
several, till at last they constituted far the greater part of his
existence, realizing what Calderon says, in his comedy of ‘ La
Vida es Sueno’—
‘ Sueno es Sueno.’
‘ Dreams are but the dreams of other dreams.’ ”
What could be expected of a poet to whom dreams were the only
realities of life ? And yet there is something peculiarly pathetic
in the story; to many of us, as well as to Shelley, probably our
sleeping and our waking dreams are the happiest parts of our ex
istence. We build our air-castles, those dreams of the day, and
take refuge in them from the toil and uproar of the world. There
are times when all of us become disheartened, when the spirit
within us faints, when we sigh in our hearts—
“ 0 cease ! must hate and death return ?
Cease! must men kill and die ?”
Shelley was, notwithstanding his sanguine hopes, subject to such
fits of despondency; no wonder that he should write down his
dreams. After all, we live far more in our world of thoughts,
and fancies, and dreams, and spend a happier existence, too, in
them, than on the real material world. Shelley, too, seems to
have known that the abstract nature of his poetry would be a bar
to his popularity, and says, in a letter to a friend, that there are
not five people who will understand his ‘‘Prometheus Unbound;”
and in his prefatory lines to his “ Epipsychidion,” he writes:—
“ My song, I fear that thou wilt find but few
Who shall conceive thy reasoning.”
And this might be said, with some limitation, of all his poetry.
Again, when his wife complains of his want of human interest
and story, he wishes to know if she, too, has become “criticbitten.” As he said of Keats, he himself can never become
popular; his effect upon men will be, not to make them applaud,
�124
Shelley.
but to think. Popularity and fame were not the things Shelley
cared for. It would be well if our young poets would remember
this. No great thing ever did become popular at once. The
fact of its becoming popular at once, shows it is not worth much.
If you care for popularity, then write songs which can be played
on street-organs, and by sentimental young ladies in drawing
rooms, and which commonplace critics can understand. But if
you respect yourself—and that’s the only respect worth anything
—never mind if only five people understand you; these five are
worth five millions of others, nay, are worth the whole of the rest
of the world. As to Shelley being difficult to understand, we
apprehend that this is far more the reader’s fault than the poet’s.
Plato, instead of saying “ poets utter wise things which they
do not themselves understand,” should have said, “ which their
readers do not try to understand.” We are not amongst those
who look upon poetry as a mere amusement, as a light recreation.
The office of the poet is the highest in the world. As Shelley finely
says, “ poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world;”
and he himself was the Laureate of Freedom. The poet comes
as spokesman between nature and the rest of his fellow-men: he
is the true priest—the true prophet; extending the tent of our
thoughts, enlarging the horizon of our ideas, teaching whatever
is lovely, whatever is holy and pure, revealing the unseen things
the common eye cannot see, and the melodies the common ear
cannot hear, interpreting the mute symbols of [flower, and cloud,
and hill, drawing his inspiration from the depths within his own
soul.
There is another point in connexion with this want of human
interest in his poems—that though Shelley experienced at times
all the hardships of poverty, yet he was not born poor. Unlike
the Burns and the Shakspeares, he never mingled with the crowd,
never learnt human life in that rough, coarse way, which tinges
their poetry with common every-day experiences, and invests
their characters with a flesh-and-blood reality. At school he was
always reserved, and in after-life much the same. Hence it is that
Sheliey never draws upon our feelings, like the great masters, in
his longer pieces ; there is none of the pathos of life, except, per
haps, in the “ Cenci.” He is too cold ; his characters are like
statues of white marble ; no warm blood flows in their veins, no
tears trickle down their cheeks. They might be inhabitants of
another planet, for what we know, giving us the benefit of their
views on various social problems.
Again, as we are criticising, we must find fault with those dulcia vitia of overloaded imagery and similes. His verse too often
flows not in a clear, deep, rolling stream, but more like a moun
tain current, swollen and impetuous from rain, jostling together
�The Past, Present, and Future.
125
■ everything that floats upon it. His imagery is often so rich that,
E- like the fruit on too luxuriant branches, it completely weighs
k the verse down and requires propping up. A very curious ex|t ample of this may be seen in “ The Skylark,” where, after comk paring the bird to all beautiful things, having said that its song
t is sweeter than the sound of showers, he closes by—
L
r
r
e
“ All that ever was
Joyous, and clear, and fresh, thy music doth surpass.”
He cannot, in fact, heap simile on simile fast enough, though the
verses are even now overflowing with them, like flowers overpowering with their sweetness. Again, we must notice an opposite vice—a love for unpleasant situations and things—
“ At whose name the verse feels loath ”—
as in “ The Cenciand a disagreeable love for the details of madness and hospital-life, as in “ Julian and Maddaloand we have
finished the catalogue of his principal offences. We dare say
there are plenty more minor faults, but we wont deprive other
critics of the pleasure of exposing them.
Shelley’s imagination was both his stepping-stone and his stumbling-block. It unfortunately mars his poems by its over-excess,
yet it gave him wings, with which he could soar aloft above the
8 grovelling views of our everyday life. The fault of the literature of
E the day is that it is too retrospective ; thinks that the Golden Age
« is in the Past, and not in the Future. It has its eyes fixed in the
a back of its head, and if it ever attempts to look forward, squints
s most abominably. This is the worst sign of the day, or of any
fl day. Let us, if we will, praise the dead Past, and crown its grey
a temples with a wreath of glory; but let us look forward to the
A Future as a happv youth, holding a cornucopia of all good things
9 in his hand. Shelley, at times, when a film came across his
w eyes, sank into this wild sea of despair, but his imagination soon
m buoyed him up.
There is a good Scottish proverb which it
• would be well for us to remember—“We maun live with the
« present, and no’ with the past.” Our duty lies with the present,
m and it is simply by making it as good as possible that we can
< mould the future. Shelley’s imagination, too, prevented him from
js- sharing in our English insularity.
There was nothing local in
•H his mind. It was as catholic as the universe. Hence he was
w ever looking forward with courageous hope. Golden gleams of
-fl the future flashed before him. He could conjure up new Edens,
ai and see Liberty again with Justice walking hand in hand upon a
i® new earth.
Shelley’s poems will not bear studying as a whole, nor will his
ar characters bear analysing. They are, in fact, all representations
■
c
ij
k
8
w
V
�126
Shelley.
of Shelley. The reason of this is that Shelley sought to give
his own views to the world, and he had no medium to give it
through hut himself. He had no resources from experience 'to
draw upon, no character but his own that he really knew. His
life was a poem, his poems his life. Alastor sailing in his boat,
is Shelley ; Lionel in his dungeon-walls, Shelley; Laon, with his
visions of Liberty, Shelley. So his female characters are only
Shelley over again with long dresses and short sleeves. In one poem
only, “ The Cenci,” does he make any effort to get behind the
mask of his creations. But even here Count Cenci is only the
reverse of former characters ; he is only their antithesis, as im
pulsive towards evil as they were towards good. Shelley should
have remembered an axiom of his favourite author, Plato—kcckoc
JJ£V fytoV OV^UQ.
Turning to Shelley’s poems, we perceive at once the instinctive
feelings of the true poet. Thus he begins “Alastor” :—
“ Earth, ocean, air, beloved brotherhood !
If our great mother have imbued my soul
With aught of natural piety to feel
Your love, and recompense the boon with mine;
If no bright bird, insect, or gentle beast
I consciously have injured, but still loved
And cherished these my kindred.”
Mr. Leigh Hunt, in his “Recollections of Lord Byron and
some of his Contemporaries,” speaks thus of Shelley—“ He was
pious towards nature, towards his friends, towards the whole
human race, towards the meanest insect of the forest.” But he
was more than this. He felt that we are all akin, not men
alone, but the cloud above our heads, and the flower beneath our
feet. He felt that man is related to the world as a Part to the
Whole. He felt how all things mysteriously influence us, and how
to these influences we are akin. Such natural stepping-stones as
these lead us to Heaven, to which also we are allied. This rela
tionship it is, above all things, the poet’s office to show. Dearly,
too, does Shelley love Nature, who gives to us all alike her beau
ties, trying to read us the lesson—
“The simple life wantslittie, and true'taste
Hires not the pale drudge Luxury to waste
The scene it would adorn.”—(“ Epipsychidion.”)
How long it will be before we shall find out that we can live
without our present costly tastes, that our food will be as sweet
from clean earthenware as from silver dishes (many of them, by
the way though, only plated), that our sleep will be quite as re
freshing from a plain bedstead as one that suffocates us with its
unpaid-for hangings, we cannot undertake to say. The sooner,
�His Love for Personification.
127
however, the better. Very fine is the old fable of Antaeus, who,
when he touched his mother earth, received fresh strength.
Nature is the true corrective of the false bias which our minds
insensibly contract from the present sordid state of the world.
A walk in the woods acts as a tonic. A landscape fills the senses
not only with mere material visions of beauty, but these react
again upon us with a precious moral spirit.
We must not pass over Shelley’s love for personification of in
animate objects, a result of his strong imagination. Take, for
instance—
“ Our boat is asleep on Serchio’s stream,
Its sails are folded like thoughts in a dream,
The helm sways idly, hither and thither;
Dominic, the boatman, has brought the mast,
And the oars and the sails, but 'tis sleeping fast,
Like a beast unconscious of its tether.”
(“The Boat on the Serchio.”)
There is another well-known example in the “ Cenci,” of the
rock hanging over the precipice, clinging for support, as a dying
soul clings to life. This propensity it is that leads him to
humanize the objects of nature. He cannot see a stream, but he
forthwith converts it into a personage, as the old heathen poets
would have into a god or a goddess. He gazes upon Arethusa ;
it is no longer a stream, but a beautiful nymph with crystal feet
leaping from rock to rock, her tresses floating on the wind, and
wherever she steps, the turf grows greener and brighter. And
then comes Alpheus, no longer a stream but a river-god, with his
fierce beard and glaring eyes, chasing the nymph whom the earth
tries to rescue from his embrace ; and so they rush along in .their
mad pursuit. This is quite in the spirit of the old Greek my
thology. In these prosaic days we are ever analysing the old
Divinities; we put Venus into a crucible and melt her down,
and look at Jupiter through a microscope like any other
specimen of natural history. We will, however, continue our
quotation, as it developes many of Shelley’s characteristics in a
few lines :—
“ The stars burnt out in the pale blue air,
And the thin white moon lay withering there;
To tower and cavern, rift and tree,
The owl and the bat fled drowsily.
Day had kindled the dewy woods,
And the rocks above and the stream below,
And the vapours in their multitudes,
And the Apennine's shroud of summer snow,
And clothed with light of airy gold
The mists in their eastern caves uprolled,^
�128
Shelley.
JShelley’s love for the mountains amounted to a passion. Long
before Mr. Ruskin wrote—who seems to arrogate for himself the
priority of seeing any real beauty or use in them—had Shelley
sung their praises. So fond was he of them, that Captain Medwin
tells us he was continually sketching them in his books. A claim,
too, has been put in for Wordsworth, that he first gave us the
scenery of the sky, and all the glorious cloud-scapes and air
tones, which earlier poets had so strangely neglected. Shelley
may at least share this glory with him; though the critics have
forgotten that Aristophanes has a still prior claim. Shelley is
continually alluding to them. His lyric on the “ Cloud” paints them
as they move in their huge battalions across the sky, in all their
colours, from red sunrise to crimson sunset; or as they come
sailing along with their black wings, as if they were Titan ships
waging war one with another; or in the night lying as if they
were silver sands lippled by the waves of the wind, and lighted
by the moon.
In all Shelley’s pieces there is a strange melancholy feeling,
which we have alluded to before; not the result, as Mr. Ruskin
foolishly thinks, of any impiety, but from the poet’s affection for
Humanity, and his sorrow at its ills. Take this picture of
Summer and Winter”:—
“It was a bright and cheerful afternoon,
Towards the end of the sunny month of June,
When the north wind congregates in crowds
The floating mountains of the silver clouds
From the horizon—and the stainless sky
Opens beyond them like seternity.
All things rejoiced beneath the sun—the weeds,
The river, and the corn-fields, and the reeds;
The willow leaves that glanced in the bright breeze,
And the firm foliage of the larger trees.
It was a winter such as when birds die
In the deep forests; and the fishes lie
Stiffened in the translucent ice, which makes
Even the mud and slime of the warm lakes
A wrinkled clod, as hard as brick; and when,
Among their children, comfortable men
Gather about great fires, and yet feel cold;
Alas! then, for the homeless beggar old.”
Shelley, with all his love for Nature, could no longer dwell upon
the last scene. The wind sowing the flakes of snow on the
earth, the frozen grass lying on the bald fields like grey hair, and
the icicles hanging like a beard from the rocks, had no charms
for him. He was thinking of all the frost-bitten, homeless,
breadless wanderers. So through all his poetry he is ever musing
�His Melancholy Feelings, and their Causes.
129
on the wrongs and sufferings of poor humanity. This gives it a
peculiar melancholy tone, not morbidness, but a true deep pathos.
He writes more of the fall of the year, than of its birth. He
sings the dirge over its bier, rather than the marriage-song of
the Spring. The wild wind, “the world’s rejected guest,” moans
among his verses, and there finds a home. Ever does he say,
“ the sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought.”
Another reason is there for this feeling with Shelley, his habit of
looking at the world from a metaphysical point of view. The
very grandeur and might of the Universe casts a shadow upon the
heart of man. All great minds have ever known this profound
gloom. Whether CEdipus interprets or not the world-riddle, he
shall die. Mark how in “ Alastor” Shelley writes—
“ The thunder and the hiss of homeless streams.”
How much is conveyed in that word “ homeless.” The
streams wandering along, seeking rest and finding none, until
they reach the haven of the sea, and then are snatched away
again into the air, seeming to say, “ we change, but we cannot
die;” here we are condemned to be for ever, restless, shifting,
changing. So with all things. And Shelley felt this strongly.
The mountains which seem so firm, and “ all that must seternal
be,” are after all but as changeful as the clouds which rest upon
their brows.
Many minor points are there which we might discuss, such as
Shelley’s particular fondness for a certain class of images, and
particular words. On one of these in particular, taken from the
green fields, he seems to dwell with great affection. Thus he
writes—
“ Nor peace, nor strength, nor skill in arms, or arts,
Shepherd those herds whom tyranny makes tame.”
(“ Sonnet on Political Greatness.”)
So he speaks of Arethusa "‘shepherding her bright fountains
of Adonais, “ whose quick dreams were his flocks
and of the
West Wind—
“ Driving sweet buds like flocks to feed on air.”
So, again, in the “ Witch of Atlas,” he calls the wind “the shep
herdess of ocean flocksand he speaks of the earth itself as
“ the last of the flock of the starry fold.”* Even in his prose
* It is curious to notice how the “ one miud common to all individual men,”
as Mr. Emerson would say, repeats the same idea. Thus Edward Bolton, a
poet but little known, writes thus:—
“ Lo! how the firmament
Within an azure fold
Theflock of the stars hath pent.”—(“ Hymn for Christmas.”)
[Vol. LXIX. No. CXXXV.]—New Series, Vol. XIII. No. I.
K
�130
Shelley.
he returns to this metaphor, and calls Dante “the Lucifer of the
starry flock.”* And even in his translation he uses it, thus
expanding
eXar^pa (3oG>v, i]yhTOp oveipwv
Nvktog,
(“ The Homeric Hymn to Mercury.”)
into “ a Shepherd of thin dreams, a cow stealing.” Other
favourite words, such as “winged,” “islanded,” will readily occur to
every reader. Space fails us, and we must he brief. Much more
is there that might be said about Shelley’s poems, showing how,
in the first place, they were inspired by his early reading, how they
next yielded to German influences, how these developed themselves
into Materialism, and how this, too, was merging into a sort of
Spiritualism at the time of his death; marking each era accu
rately, and showing, too, what effects the French and Italian
schools of poetry had upon him. Especially, too, should we like
to dwell on some of his lyrics; nothing approaches them for
sweetness and melody, except some of Shakspeare’s songs, or some
of Goethe’s minor pieces. But we must turn to the man himself.
Poetry he loved with a religious spirit. Noble was he in work
ing at it as his profession. Noble, too, was he in his choice of
life. On one hand lay ten thousand a-year and its game pre
serves, and its bright smiles of courtly women, its soft-cushioned
and soft-carpeted drawing-rooms, its dinners with endless courses,
its revenue of salutations and bows, its faithful army of faithless
toadies; on the other, poverty with its bleak sharp rocks, where
yet a man may find a cave to live in; its rude angry sea, yet to
which if a man shall listen he may hear the eternal melodies; with
its black clouds overhead, which, though so dense, will sometimes
open out spaces of the clear, blue, unfathomable sky in the day,
and the bright keen stars in the night. Shelley made no hesi
tation which he should choose; and nobly done, we say to him,
and all such. Noble, too, was he that he wrote on fearlessly and
boldly in spite of party-reviews and party-critics. Fame was not
his mistress. He worshipped not at the shrine of that most
fickle of goddesses. Ever higher, was his motto. He was ever
quoting this sentiment from the second volume of St. Leon—
“ There is nothing which the human mind can- conceive which it
may not executeand again, “ Shakspeare was only a human
being.”t His face was ever upward—up the steep hill of poesy,
whose rarest flowers bloom on the highest peaks. What he might
And every one will recollect how Bloomfield’s “ Farmer’s Boy ” so naturally
speaks of the stars as—
“The beauteous semblance of a flock at rest.”
* “Defence of Poetry,” p. 35.
f See Mrs. Shelley’s note on “ The Cenci.”
�His Personal Character.
131
have been, had he lived, we can never tell. Dying at twenty-nine,
we are judging him only by his weaknesses. What could we have
told of Shakspeare or Goethe, if the one had only lived to write
his “ Pericles,” and the other his “ Werter” ?
Let us not forget,- too, the pureness of Shelley s morals. His life
in this respect was as pure as crystal without one flaw, one stain
on it. Many scenes are there in his writings, one especially in
the “ Revolt of Islam,” which could have been treated by no
other man with the same pureness of thought. Above all things,
too, do we prize his letters to his wife; they are so full of genuine
affection and kindness. Well was it that he should die in the
great ocean, pure as he himself was, that ocean which he so
dearly loved. Above all men, too, is Shelley religious, strange
as it will seem to many readers. Love for all that is good and
beautiful and truthful, reverence for all that is great and noble,
a spirit of humility, had their roots deep in the depths of his
soul. What matters it about names and sects ? Let us hear
no more about them; they are all but roads and lanes and paths,
more or less straight, more or less wide, to the great Invisible
Temple.
We must place Shelley amongst the world’s Master-Spirits and
Master-Singers; a younger brother of that grand blind old man,
Cromwell’s secretary. Shelley, too, was one of the world’s
Forlorn Hope; one of those generous martyrs who now and
then appear at such rare intervals, and fill us with undying hope
in the cause of Humanity; one of those who would willingly
lay down his life in the trench, if his body would but bridge
over the chasm for his comrades to pass. Such a man makes us
prouder of our race; and his memory makes the earth itself a
richer world. There is a light flung round Shelley’s life, though
so marked with griefs and disasters, which has never shone on
the most victorious king or Icaiser—a light that shall burn for
ever as a beacon to all Humanity.
�
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
Shelley
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: p. 97-131 ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliography (p.97) and bibliographical references. Reviews of four works about Shelley: The Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Edited by Mrs. Shelley. 1853 -- Essays; Letters from Abroad; Translations and Fragments. by Percy Bysshe Shelley. Edited by Mrs. Shelley. 1854 -- The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley, by Captain Thomas Medwin. 1847 -- The Shelley Papers by Captain Thomas Medwin. 1833. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From Westminster Review 13 (January 1858).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wise, John Richard de Capel
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Poetry
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Shelley), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT44
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
Conway Tracts
English Poetry
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Poetry
Poetry in English
Romantic Poetry
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e8fbe921129141bdceb80820b1c9d5de.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=en%7EwNCDXVx5dx2rdWeJkegqolqV43yzJqQfuyCk-eetG66N5AHgrn2M2iuP3OVFXTBJ9xNTs9nB2q7uIvgwwWC0dC0LCUPtGYfDBBerr1-IDy3V8FAbxIg8UXblhIeGQXlJXuHRjS43LrnbBNA5dVO0gaeLljgZwj7wUwaF2dN3b%7E7-JlGKgb%7EoQ%7Exszuyy7EX3bH2ltWz605ujR%7EVj86jevvONPucmeyx1aoTSP2ixo5P-z67dI5NOeBs9riQgD-xl7QQfCWP0A01j6W11qypIeJ1i9MeGoJfh3CEliqQbCfNUYV%7EtnXMzQK3iijQabOtA4%7EwVyUr4%7EQO8zMg8tNw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
13fd95793b662c29d884b1e09f6eef78
PDF Text
Text
2JbJb
ft.fi-IS'ST? ■
-
tfA/S’S'Z-
£A/£'5’3~
&AI85T ft ft [?•>(> ■
�Tl?e Teachings of Secularism
COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of Secular Thought
CONTENTS
Physical Teachings
Intellectual Teachings
Present Condition of Society
Morality
Ethics and Religion
Secularism and the Supernatural
Secularism at the hour of Death
Secularism in Theory
Secularism in Practice
Secularism more Reasonable than Christi
anity
Secularism more Noble than Christi
anity
Secularism more Beneficial than Christi
anity
Secularism Progressive
Secularism, its Triumphs
Secularism, its Service to Mankind
Secularism, its Struggles in the Past
Secularism, in the Future
Secularism, Summing up
TORONTO
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, 31 ADELAIDE STREET EAST
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
��SECULAR TEACHINGS.
I. PHYSICAL.
As Secularism has been so thoroughly misrepresented of late in
the press and pulpits of Toronto, we purpose in the following pages
to explain to our readers what true Secular principles really are.
We commence at the very foundation of our philosophy. The first
subject of importance to man is his physical health. His bodily
organization, from any point of view, demands special concern.
With an abnormal condition of body a normal state of mind is
hardly possible ; and certain it is that there must be an entire ab
sence of comfort and pleasure where the physical frame is subject
to the ailments of disease. Of all the branches of knowledge that
civilized man has engaged in that which relates to his own health
is of supreme importance.
Man is related to everything that surrounds him. The sun influ
ences his daily life, and the moon and stars light him to his couch
•of repose. The earth furnishes him with the ten thousand needs of
his bodily frame, and the very winds are his servants. Electricity,
and the other mighty forces of nature, he makes subservient to his
will, while the lower animals and plants he employs for his daily
food. Wherever he looks, and with whatever object he comes into
contact, he finds materials ready made to his hands, to be moulded
into new forms for new uses all subservient to his life and happi
ness. It is of the highest importance, however, how he uses those
agents. For while they are all adapted to supply health and com
fort, they are also calculated to spread abroad disease and death.
The most beneficial object with which he is called upon to deal
frequently becomes the vehicle of some fatal malady. Great care,
�2
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
therefore, is requisite in dealing with these. That which is, under
ordinary circumstances, the most productive of good, may become
the deadliest of poisons. The water we drink may contain the
seeds of death, and the very atmosphere become the means of dis
seminating contagion. What is called physical education is. there
fore, deemed by Secularism of paramount importance.
It has been said that self-preservation is the first law of nature,,
yet in respect to health it is frequently most terribly neglected. In,
this age, when enlightenment has become so wide-spread, and edu
cation so general, it is lamentable to see how coldly indifferent
many persons are with regard to the laws upon which their health
depends. A sound mind in a sound body every person extols in
theory, but m practice, alas 1 how rarely do we come across either
the one or the other ? Health all agree to be the chief good of
life, the principal aim of man ; and yet how few pursue it as though
they considered it worth the seeking for. Money, fame, the
bubble-reputation, ambition, men struggle to obtain, overcoming
what appear' to be insurmountable difficulties in the contest; but
health, which is of a thousand times more importance than all the
others put together, they scarcely bestow a thought upon, until it
is irretrievably ruined and incapable of being restored. Then
physicians are asked in vain to do that which was once so easy,
but has now. become impossible. It was Voltaire/1 think, who de
fined a physician as a man who was asked every day to perform a.
miracle viz., to reconcile health with intemperance. But it is not
simply intemperance, in the sense in • which that word is usually
employed, that destroys health, but a thousand apparently harmless
acts which are every day performed, which eat into and destroy
the most vigorous frame and strongest constitution. The neglect
of the important laws of life is one of the deplorable evils of the
present age, and it is to be found, not simply amongst the illiterate,
but it reigns supreme in the midst of the halls of intellect, the
temples of genius,. and even the places where Science should hold
her sway. In this age, when knowledge of natural law is sogeneral, and when most persons are aware.that defective health isto be largely traced to a derangement of one or more of the vital
functions, such as digestion^ circulation, respiration, and that these
functwns are to a large extent mutually dependent in the economy
of the human frame, we should expect them all to be most assidu
ously attended to and cultivated. Unfortunately, this is not so for
it too often happens that if one of these functions receive any at
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
3
tention, the rest will be completely neglected, and even the utter
neglect of them all is far from being uncommon. Sir Philip Sidney
has well said that :—
“ The ingredients of health and, long life are,
Great temperance, open air, light labour, little care.*
All these are most terribly neglected in these modern times. Our
business pursuits, as a rule, shut out the whole of these ingredients,
and hence the prevalent disease and premature deaths that abound y
amongst us.
,
.
.
The relations of the human body to the aliment which sustains
it is a point of the greatest moment. As is the food of a people, so
will the people be. Gross diet makes gross men and women ; an
extravagant and luxurious regimen will result in indolence and
apathy on the part of those who indulge in it, and pure, healthy,
and unstimulating food will give rise to (other things being equal)
a pure, virtuous, and healthy population. There can be no doubt
that the downfall of the great Roman Empire, so long the mistress
of the world, was largely due to the extravagant and luxurious,
living of the Emperors. From this came indolence, effeminacy^
and finally the overthrow of the whole Empire. There is one fact,
in connection with food which may be mentioned here ; it is that
nature has placed within us certain sensations, which point out to
us, in an infallible manner, when we require afresh supply. These,,
of course, we do not fail to attend to in some way or other, since to .
neglect them is painful. But we violate great and important laws
bearing on the question notwithstanding. We eat too rapidly, we
do not allow the requisite time for digestion, and, above all, we are.
not careful as to the kind of food we take. We study our appetites
rather than our health. The consequence of all this may be easily
foreseen. As we have to go in search of our food, we require tolabour to procure it, and hence some sort of forethought and judg
ment is essential to the obtaining it, which fact of itself no doubt
causes us to devote a larger share of attention to the subject than,
we otherwise should do ; but still with all this the neglect is terrible
to contemplate.
. . With the air we breathe the case is very different from the food.'
Except under circumstances attending its entire . exclusion, we ex*
perience no sensations as to the need of it.at; ajl corresponding to
the appetite for food. Neither does any sense analogous to taste
enable us to detect its impurities. True, this is done to a certain
�4
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
texent with the nose, but only in a very partial degree. The at
mosphere of a room may be deteriorated to an extent highly preju
dicial to health, and we may remain in entire ignorance of the fact.
The consequence is that our negligence here is a thousand times
greater than in regard to food, and hence the innumerable train of
diseases that flow from the inhaling of impure air, with which
every student of sanitary science is familiar.
Impure air is one of the chief causes of disease at the present
time, and it is also a source of enfeebled intellect and deteriorated
morals. For virtue and health are more nearly allied than many
persons imagine. And the intellect cannot be clear in an atmos
phere that is not fit to breathe. The great thinkers of the past
spent most of their time in the open air. Sir Isaac Newton made
his greatest discovery in a garden where he was accustomed to
carry on his studies. To go farther back, the Peripatetics, the
most enlightened philosophers, perhaps, of their age, used to walk
up and down in the porches of the Lyceum at Athens. And of old
Homer, who spent most of his life in wandering from place toplace
in the open air, it is said ;—
r
K '
“ Seven cities contend for Homer dead,
Through which the living Homer begged his bread.”
<
This is not the place to enlarge in detail upon the advantages of
pure air or sound food ; but to point out the great importance of
attending to the laws of health is the duty of every Secular teacher,
for what is true Secularism but to make the very best use of the
world in which we live ? Hence the health of the body should
claim the foremost attention amongst Secular duties.
K
*
<
Ki' '
\
II. INTELLECTUAL. .
The great John Locke well remarked that “ In the sciences every
one has as much as he really knows and comprehends. What he
believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds which, however
Well in the whole piece, make no considerable addition to his stock
Who gathers them. Such borrowed wealth, like fairy money, though
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
5
it were gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but leaves
and dust when it comes to use.” Knowledge is to-day diffused over
a larger surface in society than it ever was before. Yet, unfortu
nately, through indolence or inability, or some other cause, the
great mass of mankind are content to skim lightly over its surface,
leaving the sweets of its inner mysteries untasted. Such persons
are like tourists who content themselves with congregating upon
the frontiers of a country, but do not care to penetrate into the
interior. It is to be regretted that most men’s information upon
the great questions of science and philosophy is extremely super
ficial. As a rule, men are not thinkers ; thinking is a process, which,
being laborious, becomes tiresome and fatiguing to all but a few
who have cultivated their intellectual powers to such a degree as
to render it easy and agreeable. The consequence is, that for every
one who possesses anything like profound information upon any
particular topic there are ten thousand who simply repeat other
men’s opinions, having none of their own, nor any real material
stored in their minds out of which such could be manufactured.
The bright side of this state of things is that it has greatly tended
to the multiplication of-elementary books on the various branches
of science. These books, elementary as they are, usually show a
considerable improvement upon the knowledge of former days, and
prove, therefore, conclusively the direction in which humanity is
moving. That mankind are advancing intellectually there can be
no doubt. Looking back to the infancy of our race, at least as
near to that time as history will allow us to approach, and contrast
ing the state of things then existing with what we experience to
day, we cannot but be struck with surprise at the enormous changes
that have occurred. Yet in science more real progress has been
made in the last half century than in all the previous ages. The
present is, therefore, essentially a scientific age. And although the
general knowledge of mankind is on the surface, still it is a great
improvement on the past, which argues well for the future. Our
task—the task of to-day—is rather to help on the movement than
to complain that it has not gone further on, or struck its roots deeper
into the soil of human nature.
Civilization, says Guizot, embraces two elements—the improve
ment of society a*nd the improvement of the man ; and the ques
tion which he says is put to all events is, What have they done for
the one or the other ? I stop not here to enter upon a discussion
fraught with difficulty, and yet full of interest, as to which of these
�6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
is the cause and which the effect, or whether they may not each be
cause and effect in turn. Guizot himself seems to think—and he
quotes Collard on that side-—that the individual is made to advance
society. But much might be said on the other side. Our real busi
ness as Secularists, however, is to see that some kind of advance
does take place, and to help it on to the utmost extent of our power.
No doubt, mental progress is a law of the race, and as such will
force its way on at any risk or cost. As the poet has said:—
“ Go bid the ocean cease to heave,
The river cease to flow,
Bid smiling Spring retrace her steps,
And flowrets cease to blow.
Go drive the wild winds to their home,
The lightning to its nest,
Then bid the car of progress stay,
Whose courses never rest.”
In this matter we should resolve to aid in pushing on the great
car of progress ; and he who does not, but stands in its wav, is very
likely to get crushed after the fashion of the victims of Juggernaut,
beneath its wheels. All progress is intellectual, all improvement
refers to the mind ; hence, the importance of intellectual discipline.
There can be no doubt that the publication of so large a number
uf books at the present time tends greatly to the spread of know
ledge and the deepening of the intellectual character of the age.
The printing press has been the instrument employed for furthering
'education and increasing mental culture. “ In these late ages,”
says old Vicesimus Knox, “ there is scarcely a subject which can
reasonably excite human curiosity on which satisfactory informa
tion. may not be acquired by the perusal of books ; and books, too,
from their multitude and cheapness, obvious to all who are disposed
to give them their attention. Poetry, history, eloquence, and phil
osophy, in all their ramifications, are constantly at hand, and ready
to gratify the mental appetite with every variety of intellectual sub
stance. Tne imagination can at all times call up, by the medium
of books, the most vivid representations of every object which the
physical and moral world have been known in any age or country
to produce. Exempt from the inconvenience of foreign travel, from
the dangers of a military life, from the narrow escapes of the voy
ager, from the tumult of political engagements, the student can
enjoy, in the comfortable retreat of his library, all that has em
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
7
ployed the active faculties of man in every department of life.”
Books are brilliant stars in the intellectual hemisphere, and their
value must not be underrated nor their advantages neglected. Mind
receives its necessary pabulum by communing with mind, and this
if can do more easily and more perfectly in books than perhaps any
where else. Hence books are the greatest and most powerful agents
in mental development. Some one has curiously described a book
as a brain preserved in ink—not a bad description, remembering
•that the mightiest thoughts of the mightiest brains are there pre
served.
In almost every department of knowledge has the genius of im
provement and invention been at work, and the results may be seen
scattered abundantly around us whichever way we look. The en
tire earth has been converted into a huge observatory or laboratory
for man, in almost every part of which he is found daily working in
comparing results and communicating knowledge. Could the great
men of the past, who devoted themselves to physical science—fore
most amongst whom was Aristotle—rise from their graves, and catch
a glimpse of the present state of things, how, after the first feeling
of surprise was ovar, would their hearts be gladdened by the spec
tacle they would then behold ! Astronomical, geological, physio
logical, and chemical discoveries, throwing all the science of the
past into the shade, form the heritage of the poorest and most in
significant of mankind. True, the great problem of life is yet un
solved, and a score of metaphysical questions still remain unan
swered ; but in physical science the discoveries that have been made,
and the improvements that have taken place, are startling even to
contemplate. In all that concerns the practical, in all that has to
do with the subjugation of natural forces and the direction of the
laws of the Universe to new issues conducing to the happiness of
man, modern progress has been rapid almost beyond conception^
The simplicity of the processes by which some of the mightiest and
grandest of the discoveries of the age have been made, and the
elementary character of the laws concerned in their production, are
exceedingly pleasing to the man of intellect. 11 Almost all the great
combinations of modern mechanism,” remarks Sir John Herschel,
“ and many of its refinements and nicest improvements, are creations
of pure intellect grounding its exertions upon a moderate number
of very elementary propositions in theoretical mechanics and geo
metry.” The truth of these remarks will be apparent to every scien
tific student.
�8
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
In what position do we as Secularists stand intellectually towards
the present age ? This is a question that each and all of us should
carefully consider. Every Secularist should make it his especial
business to practise mental culture, and to induce others to do the
same. A man who neglects the discipline of his intellectual powers
is a stranger to the highest enjoyments of existence ; he is no re
cipient of that lofty influence which emanates from the pure foun
tain of intellectual treasures. Secularists profess not to waste their
time in attempting to solve problems that defy solution, nor to search
for discoveries in the field of metaphysics as impossible as the object
of alchemy. ' We are taught by our principles to have to do with
the real side of human life, and to care only for the speculative in
so far as it has a direct influence on practical things. Intellectual
culture is a reality. We know what it means, and we prefer to deal
with it from a practical standpoint, and on its useful side. The
moment we stop to discuss the question, What is the intellect in its
nature and essence ? we bid fair to leave the well-beaten track of the
real, to wander in fields of speculative ether, where there are no
highways and no places to which they could lead. What do we
know of the exact nature of what is termed the human mind after
thousands of years of theorising on the part of philosophers ? We
simply employ the word “ mind ” as having reference to the intel
lectual part of our organisation. But as to what constitutes its
essence little or no progress has been made towards that discovery,,
since the days of the great Stagyrite, and, perhaps, earlier. Such
is not the case with experimental science. Our obvious duty, there
fore, is to cultivate our intellectual powers, and no Secularist ought
to neglect it. As I have said, the age is superficial in its knowledge.
Let it be our business to remedy this state of things as far as pos
sible, and to render it deep and profound ; at any rate, we can do
this in the case of ourselves. Good books exist around us ; let us
read them with care and profit. Much of the literature of the age
I know is worthless and even worse ; but there is, after all, a great
deal that will pay for more serious reading and thinking over. Es
pecially is it a Secular duty to discriminate between the two, and,
having done so, to reject the weeds, and devote our time and ability
to the cultivation of the flowers. We, of all people, should prize
good books, and turn them to good account, and at the same time
emphatically denounce bad ones, that are likely, not only to mislead
human thought, but also to corrupt and deprave, rather than to ele
vate, the intellect of man.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
9
III. THE PRESENT CONDITION OF SOCIETY.
'
“ Physician, heal thyself,” is most excellent advice, especially de
serving of application in these days of “ Mind-other-people ’s-business-instead-of-your-own.” Morally, the theological opinions of
neighbours are too frequently considered before personal ethical
culture; politically, public attention is often directed to foreign
affairs rather than to home questions ; socially, the condition of the
heathen is regarded with the greatest solicitude, while the disgrace
ful state of our own poor is sadly neglected ; religiously, the soul's
salvation of the semi-savage abroad is deemed of far greater impor
tance than the moral regeneration of people at home. What has
been the result of such policy ? The present condition of society,
morally diseased to its very core, supplies the answer. After eight
een hundred years of the active reign of Christian theology, what
do we discover in our very midst ? A deplorable lack of real
physical comfort among the masses of the people ; a thoroughly
unhealthy moral tone, no less in the religious than in the political
and commercial world ; and an air of artificiality permeating most
phases of society. Both in public and private life the real is dis
carded for the imaginary, and the shadow is accepted in lieu of the
substance. Principle is sacrificed to selfish interest, and fidelity to
conviction is made subordinate to popular favour. Theological
professions we have in abundance ; but a marked inconsistency
robs them of true ethical potency. The blessings of peace are
preached, while the humane observer stands aghast at the world’s
record of the blood and carnage of a brutal warfare. Love is ex
alted to a pinnacle of sublime admiration by the same people who
dim its transcendent lustre with dense clouds of theological hatred
and spite. Liberty, with its golden blossoms, is adored in name,
while many of its most sacred rights are ruthlessly trampled under
the feet of a self-appointed authority. The brotherhood of man is
loudly proclaimed at the same time that its fraternal bonds are being
divided by the monopoly of wealth and the false ideas associated
with class distinctions. The poor are blessed by the teachings of
theology and cursed by the laws and customs fostered and defended
by the Church and its priests. Might takes the place of right, false
�IO
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
hood is substituted for truth, and law stands for justice. Society
may not be sick unto death ; but its health is sadly impaired, and
a skilful physician is indeed required. Where is this saviour of the
race to be found ? Not in the domain of theology, for from its
school have come so many moral quacks that its genuine reputation'
cannot be maintained. Evidently these theological physicians do
not understand the nature of the disease they profess to cure, and
consequently they apply a false remedy. Regarding all moral dis
eases as being alike, they have only one remedy for each and all,
and that remedy is theology. Thus we have the introduction of
the “ kill or cure ” principle, and there can be no doubt that the
moral deaths far outnumber the patients cured through the adoption
of this alleged panacea. The lesson of history clearly demonstrates
that theology is impotent to rid society of those moral evils which
now so extensively mar the happiness of the human race ; the true
requirement, therefore, is a correct knowledge and application of
ethical science..
The human race is in reality governed by the two great princi
ples of good and evil, right and wrong. Upon one of these princi
ples must the construction of society, and the character of those
beings who compose it, be based. The old religion of the Persians
appears to have sprung from the recognition of this fact, and mod
ern legislation has proceeded upon a similar acknowledgment. By
the term good, when applied to man’s activity, we mean that line
of conduct based upon truth, leading to unity and general happiness.
By evil we understand those actions founded on falsehood and de
ceit, ending in disunion, vice, and wretchedness.
Taking society as it is, there are few persons who will contend
that it is constituted as firmly as it should be upon the principles
of goodness, union, and mutual love. Theoretically—from the
Christian standpoint—this certainly should be the character of so
ciety, for so many years have gone by since, according to the
orthodox belief, the angels of an omnipotent God came down through
the blue vault of the firmament with the welcome message of
11 Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.” Instead, however, of
such a peace and goodwill having been inaugurated, the centuries
that have flown by since those words were supposed to have been
uttered, have been notorious for their falsehood, disunion, and
misery ; and up to the present time little or no fundamental im
provement has taken place. Many of our institutions, having em
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
II
anated from laws based upon ignorance of the real requirements
■of human nature, have been the means of keeping the people im
becile in mind and wretchedly poor in body. These institutions
and laws still keep many in idleness who would gladly be employed
in adding to the general wealth ; they allow others to be a dead
weight upon industry; they perpetuate pauperism, foster bad hab
its, and encourage crime. The great ethical science is ignored,
and while the primary causes of physical diseases are lost sight of
or neglected, millions of money and much valuable time are wasted
in every generation in futile endeavours to effect a partial cure of
the diseases thus engendered. Throughout Europe we find a bitter
feud existing between the aristocracy and the democracy, leading
to conspiracies, ostracisms, and the maintenance of huge standing
armies. In short, the present state of society is something worse
than artificial: it is opposed to the welfare of mankind, it causes
degradation, injustice and cruelty; hence it is that in so many
countries there are conspiracies—men banding together, and pledged
to effect, at any risks, immediate social revolution.
The same evil conditions existing around us aftect even the rising
generation. Those who know what the tuition of the ordinary
street Arab is, who have instituted comparisons between |he gutter
child with his fluttering rags, his unkempt hair, dirty face, obscene
and ribald language, habits of theft, lying, etc., and the well-clad,
neat, dainty, and “ respectable ” scion of the aristocrat or plutocrat,
■can well appreciate the necessity for radical reformation. In the
image of God, says the theologian, are they all made; but shame
to the hypocrisy which, Pharisee-like, suffers this neglected gutter
urchin to give the lie direct to its own loud professions of love to
God and man. To-day, under the shadow of our proud cathedrals
and lofty domes, under which incense burns and gaudily-vested
priests and choristers chant praises to God for having done all
■things well; to-day, be it remembered, beneath the shadows of the
towers and pinnacles of the many churches and chapels, staring
with gaunt countenance, hollow cheek,’and hungry eye, rustling the
gay dresses of fine ladies as they pass, dying ever and anon on door
steps, or being carted away enclosed in a parish coffin, are thou
sands of those “images ” for whom apparently God has done no
thing, and society, if possible, even less.
That improvement of a very fundamental character is considered
necessary is evident from the fact that in all civilised countries the
�12
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
major portion of the population are urgently demanding reform.
The question is, what is the remedy for existing evils, and to whom
shall we look to obtain it ? To my mind, the true remedy is to be
found in the highest moral, physical, and intellectual development
of human nature, the acquirement and application of genuine edu
cation, and the destruction of all priestly and imperial power which
seeks to fetter human thought and despotically control individual
action. The highest outcome of ancient civilisation in Greece and
Rome was at a time when true freedom adorned their history. In
, Athens and Republican Rome we have glorious illustrations of this
fact. Potent in arms, able at one period to defend and preserve
their liberties against every aggressor, these States were mighty in
other and nobler fields. In philosophy, science, literature, art, and
all that enriches and elevates mankind, these grand democracies
were unequalled. Even to-day they are to us as .luminaries—they
“ being dead yet speak ” to all posterity.
The great object that Secularists should keep in view is to pro
mulgate principles capable of re-moulding society in such a man
ner that the greatest possible liberty and happiness may be secured
to the individual and to the general community. To obtain this
thoroughly, a knowledge of the causes of good and evil to man must
be acquired. Ignorance is admitted to be an evil which directly
impedes human progress and stands in the way of human happi
ness. This ignorance many of us regard as being possible to re
move, and to substitute in its place a knowledge of the pathway
leading to goodness, truth and virtue.
It must distinctly be understood that no sudden revolution, in
recklessly overturning the social equilibrium, by fire and sword, is
recommended by Secularism. All such attempts would be cruelly
disastrous ; besides, the misery and bloodshed thereby engendered
and caused would in all probability “put back the hands of the
clock,” and hand society over to the tender mercies of some other
unprincipled tyrants and oppressors. Having established a sound
system of education; having secured a knowledge of the power and
duty of man ; of the value of truth ; of the necessity of fidelity to
conviction , of the recognition of the rights of others ; of the impo
tence of all theologies as reforming agencies ; of the service of
science ; of the nobility of self-reliance ; of the necessity of intellec
tual discipline and moral purity, our attention should then be di
rected to the best means of extending the usefulness of these re
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
13
quirements, and of applying them to the practical duties of daily
life.
It has been clearly demonstrated that the panacea for the wrongs
and woes of the time is not to be found in Church doctrines or
dogmas. Old creeds have had their day, and before the power of
modern thought the superstition that those creeds bolstered up is
rapidly tottering to its basis. Society, as now constituted, with its
strongly-marked distinctions between rich and poor, its blatant
hypocrisy, its wicked extravagance and abject penury, has been
too long supported by the theories of so-called Divine predestina
tion and ordination. These theories are, fortunately, becoming
more and more discredited by the intelligence of the nineteenth
■century. The world of man is waiting and struggling for some
signs of its redemption by human agencies. The priest, with his
incantations and conjurings, will, we hope, shortly be known only
as an evil of the past, and then will be inaugurated a new era,
wherein we shall all be true kings and priests—kings in our own
free individuality, and priests in the grand temple of nature, offer
ing up daily and hourly an uninterrupted and unselfish sacrifice of
•duty and devotion for the benefit of an enlightened and a progres
sive humanity.
IV. MORALITY.
Secularism accepts as its moral code the system of ethics known
as Utilitarian. There are hundreds of acts which we agree with
all believers in an alleged supernatural religion in considering
vicious, as there are hundreds of others that all men, whatever may
be the particular system of ethics that they accept, admit to be vir
tuous. About these there is no dispute. The reasoning by which
the conclusion is arrived at, that one set of actions are moral, and
another set immoral, can in no sense affect the question as to our
duty in relation to them, when their moral or immoral character
has been once made out. This world is the scene of our deeds, be
they good or bad. The most enthusiastic advocate of a future life
admits that his duties lie in this world whilst he remains in this
�r4
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
world. Herein, therefore, we are agreed. To him there may be—
and no doubt are—many duties which we, as Secularists, should
not recognize as such ; our business is not with them, but with the
large class of acts about which we are agreed, and in reference to
which, therefore, there is no dispute.
As soon as a human being comprehends the relation in which he
, stands to other human beings, there must arise between them a
' system of morals. This is based upon the fact that the one ought
to exercise certain dispositions, and display certain feelings towards,
the other. At the same time he expects similar conduct from the
rest towards himself. “ It is manifest to everyone,” says Wayland,.
“ that we all stand in various and dissimilar relations to all the
sentient beings created and uncreated with which we are acquaint
ed. Among our relations to created beings are those of man to
man, or of that of substantial equality, of parent and child, of
benefactor and recipient, of husband and wife, of brother and sister,,
citizen and magistrate, and a thousand others.” These relation
ships involve certain duties, which we call moral acts, and the best
state of society is that in which they are the most perfectly
practised.
Now, that morality to-day is terribly defective no one can doubt..
There are fearful vices amongst us, which are eating into the
heart’s core of society. Drunkenness, debauchery, and hypocrisy
prevail to an extent that is alarming, and things apparently are
growing worse and worse. In trade, morality is at a very low ebb.
The commercial world seems to have a moral (?) code of its own,
to which it strictly adheres, but this code is not one of which a
moralist can approve. In self-defence a civilised man has often to
become a semi-savage ; so it frequently happens that a scrupuloustrader is driven to become unscrupulous, in order to compete with
men less honest than himself. Mr. Darwin somewhere says that
the law of the animal kingdom is “ eat and be eaten
in the trad
ing community there is a sort of parallel in “ cheat and be cheated.”
This state of things is much to be deplored, and it is our business,
as Secularists, to do what we can to remedy it. What is needed
is a purified public feeling, and this can only be accomplished by.
the individuals of which society is composed doing their duty.
The business of the Secularist in these cases is to set an example
to his religious neighbours. We pride ourselves on having out
grown old and obsolete superstitions; we must, therefore, show
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
15
that with us morality is of paramount importance. It is often
urged that even if religion be not true, yet it exercises certain re-.
straints over men that would render it extremely dangerous to
society to remove its influence, and thus turn the quondam devotee
adrift without a guide. Perhaps there is some truth in this when
applied to ignorant and uncultivated men ; let Secularists show by
their superior morals that the remark does not apply to them.
Our business is to do the best that we cah to promote the welfare
of society. Of all people in the world, therefore, we must not
neglect the sphere in which our whole duty lies. The Secularis.
who does not look properly after the affairs of this life is an anomaly
and a paradox. To him this life is the only life—at least, the only
one that he knows anything of—and, therefore, his every energy
should be devoted to making the best of his present state. The
Science of Morals it becomes the Secularist essentially to study,
and not only to study theoretically, but to put into practice. The
eyes of all men are upon us, watching for an opportunity of tri-.
umphing over our failings. It behoves us, therefore, to be exceed
ingly careful how we act. People who are content to run in the
old grooves will be excused should they stumble ; but those who
chalk out a new path for themselves must keep erect, not even
allowing a foot to slide, or heavy penalties will be visited upon their
heads.
There is great room for improvement in this respect amongst
mere Sceptics, and hence the necessity of obedience to the moral
law being enforced as a Secular duty.' Many persons are too much
inclined to run into an opposite extreme from that which prevails
in the religious world. While some rely entirely on faith as their
rule-of life, others seem to attach too much importance to the want
of faith. The latter cry out loudly that belief cannot save man
kind, but they appear to forget that neither can unbelief. The
world wants deeds—great, noble, and consistent deeds. Society
can only be reformed by works—z. e., by moral acts, which carry in
their train all the real blessings of peace, gentleness, kindness, jus
tice, truth, and love. To perform work that will bring about these
desirable results is the highest morality.
Among the systems of moral philosophy that have been promul
gated as guides for human conduct, Utilitarianism occupies the
foremost place. It appears to Secularists as more definite and sat
isfactory than any other, and certainly at the present time it is more
�i6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
generally accepted by thinkers and that class of men whose views
mould the intellectual opinions of the age. The principle of Utili
tarianism has a regard solely to the uses of things ; hence all actions
by it are to be judged of by their use to society, and the morality of
an action will consequently depend upon its utility. An important
question here suggests itself: What is Utility, and how is it to be
judged of and tested ? What, it is urged, may appear useful to one
man, another may regard as altogether useless ; who, therefore, is
to decide respecting the utility of an act ? The answer will be found
in the greatest-happiness principle, which is of itself a modern de
velopment of the doctrine, and somewhat in opposition to the first
form of Utilitarianism. “ Usefulness,” observes David Hume, “ is
agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter of fact,
confirmed by daily observation. But useful ? For what ? For
somebody's interest, surely. Whose interest, then? Not our own
only, for our approbation frequently extends farther. It must,
therefore, be the interest of those who are served by the characters
or action approved of ; and these we may conclude, however re
mote, are not totally indifferent to us. But, opening up this
principle, we shall discover one great source of moral distinction.”
Here it is clear that with Hume the doctrine of utility was intim
ately associated with approbation—in fact, the two were insepar
ably connected. The greatest-happiness principle, as will be seen,
grew very naturally out of this, but is a much more recent devel
opment.
The utility of acts and objects have doubtless had much to do
with the estimation in which these are held in society, whether the
fact be recognised or not. Hume says : “It seems so natural a
thought to ascribe to their utility the praise which we bestow on
the social virtues that one would expect to meet with this principle
everywhere in moral writers, as the chief foundation of their
reasoning and enquiry. In common life we may observe that the
circumstances of utility is always appealed to; nor is it supposed
that a greater eulogy can be given to any man than to display his
usefulness to the public, and enumerate the services which he has
performed to mankind and to society.” That this is so there can
not be the slightest doubt. Nor is this principle a purely selfish
one, as some have contended, since the use of arts refers not
simply to their operation upon ourselves individually, but upon
society at large. Self-love is no doubt involved here, as, in
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*7
fact, it is in everything we do. But self-love is not the ruling
principle any further than that it is identical with the love of hu
manity. The great fact of mutual sympathy here comes in. The
reciprocal feeling of joy or sorrow has been experienced probably
by every person. The pleasures and pains of our fellows affect us
largely, whether we will or no. There is no man so selfish but he
finds his joys increased when they are shared by others, and his
griefs lessened when he sorrows in company. This fact Hume has
worked out at great length, with a view to show why it is that
utility pleases. Viewing Utilitarianism, therefore, as simply a
question of utility in the lowest sense of that word, it is yet a most
potent agent in society, and has much more to do with forming our
conclusions as to the morality of certain acts than is usually im
agined. The mai} of use is the man whom society delights to
honour; and very properly, for he is the real benefactor of his
species. To say that a thing is useful is to bestow upon it a high
degree of praise, while no greater condemnation can be passed upon
any piece of work than to say that it is useless. Even the sup
posed Gods have been estimated by their utility ; for Cicero charges
the Deities of the Epicureans with being useless and inactive, and
declares that the Egyptians never consecrated any animal except
for its utility.
The principle of Utilitarianism as a moral system cannot be said
to have received a definite shape until it was advocated by Jeremy
Bentham. Even with him it did not appear in that clear and
explicit form which John Stuart Mill has since imparted to it. In
his writings we have for the first time something like philosophic
precision. Pleasure and pain are shown to form the basis of utility,
and to furnish us with the means of judging of what is useful and
what is aot.
To speak of pain and pleasure to ordinary persons conveys no
idea as to the welfare or otherwise of society, but leads the mind
to revert to its own individual good or evil, and then to impart a
selfish basis to the whole thing. This was not what was meant by
Bentham, as the following passage from his work will show : “ By
utility is meant that property in any object whereby it tends to
produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this,,
in the present case, comes to the same thing), or (what comes
again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
�18
SECULAR. TEACHINGS.
evil, pr unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if
that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the
community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that
individual.” Bentham takes great pains to show that the com
munity is a “ fictitious body composed of the individual persons
who are considered as constituting, as it were, its members,” and
that, therefore, the interest of the community is simply “ the sum
of the interests of the several members who compose it.” Hethen
goes on to affirm that “ an action may be said to be conformable to
the principle of utility, or, for shortness' sake, to utility (meaning
with respect to the community at large), when the tendency it has
to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has
to diminish it,” which is really another way of saying the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, or, to use a far more preferable
phrase, the greatest amount of happiness for all. “ The words
ought and right and wrong, and others of that stamp,” take their
meaning from this principle. This philosophy was full of the prac
tical spirit of the age which gave it birth, and it exhibited an utter
•disregard for the unproductive theories of the past. The idea of
'happiness very largely took the place of the old idea of duty,
wherein was seen a powerful reaction against the sentimental ethics
that had prevailed so long. Its attempt was to base virtue on moral
legislation, rather than on feeling, and to construct an ethical code
out of the most matter-of-fact materials. Thus self sacrifice, which,
of course, is one of the highest and noblest duties of man, is in no
way incompatible with Utilitarianism and the pursuit of happiness ;
since, whatever pleasures he who practises self-denial may volun
tarily forego, it is always with a view of procuring, if not for him
self, yet for his fellows, some greater good. The martyr at the
stake, the patriot in the field of battle, the physician penetrating
into the midst of the death-breathing miasma with a view to allevi
ate pain, each feels a sense of satisfaction in the act, which is really
the intensest kind of happiness to himself, and, what is more im
portant, he is procuring happiness on a large scale for his fellow
creatures. It is not individual, but general, happiness that the'
Utilitarian has to keep before his eye as the motive of all his
actions.
Secularism submits that acts are moral which produce the
greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number. This view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
*9
■of morality is justified by a knowledge of two important principles
—namely, the doctrine of circumstances, and the doctrine that
general utility should be the object of all our endeavours. Secu
larism urges that it is the duty of society to acknowledge these
principles, to study their operation, and to develop their influence.
The doctrine of circumstances teaches us the mutual relations of
man and society, indicating how they affect, and are affected by
each other. The doctrine of utility shows that those relations may
be improved by the proper encouragement of beneficial influences.
The scientific definition of any particular object of our contempla
tion is, that it is rhe sum of all the causes which produced it. If
■one of the causes which tended to produce that particular pheno
menon had been deducted, or if additional influence had been
added, the result then produced would have differed from the re
sult 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 affect
ed him and his development previous to arid 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 English lily is remarkably fine and
delicate, but within a few miles of Madrid it is a huge tree of some
ten or fifteen feet in itg 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 England. The same principle is shown
in the various productions of the soil. We take a wild flower
from the woods for the purpose of improving its appearance and
value. It has grown up under what is named natural circum
stances ; we transplant it to a garden, and endeavour to modify its
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 con
stitution and character. If it has faults and blemishes, we imme
diately remove those chemical causes, or protect it from those
�20
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
climatic influences which produced such faults. If it be its half
developed beauties which we wish to foster into full maturity, wemultiply and stimulate those conditions which we have discovered
by experience to have a positive influence on the better part
of it's nature. The change in its condition and appearance
has been produced by the modification and encouragement
here, discouragement 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
fhe house garden with its breadth of foliage. Now to apply this
to the argument- under consideration. Secularism may be here
designated as the science of human cultivation. The problem that
it sets to itself with reference to man in his moral relations to so
ciety is, to bring him from the condition of the wild flower to
that of the garden flower. And as with the uncultivated flower, so
it is in many respects with the wild, uneducated man. The flower
is what it is, and the wild, undisciplined man is what he is, in con
sequence of the aggregate of causes which have made them both,
what they are. Secularism recognizes these influences of circum
stances. It cannot, therefore, regard man as naturally bad; onthe contrary, it believes in the goodness of human nature, remem
bering that man frequently lacks improvement as the result of
being surrounded by imperfect conditions, through the neglect of
correct discipline, and a want of proper understanding of his moral,
and intellectual faculties.
In any moral system it is essential that not only should the code
laid down be clear, but the motive to obey it should also be made
apparent.
In other words, what is termed the sanction of the
principle must be pointed out. It would be of little value to have
a perfect method in morals unless the sanctions were such as were
likely to influence mankind. Now, Mr. Mill has not overlooked
' this fact in connection with Utilitarianism, but has devoted con
siderable space to its consideration. He seems to think, however,
that no new sanctions are needed for Utilitarianism, since in time
and in an improved state of society—it will have at command
all the old ones. He says : “ The principle of utility either has^
or there is no reason why it might not have, all the sanctions which
belong to any other system of morals. ...These sanctions are either
external or internal.” Hethen enlarges upon these with a view
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
21
io show that the greater number of them belong as much to Utili
tarianism as to any other ethical code. The sanction of duty, upon
which so much stress is laid by the opponents of Utilitarianism,
becomes as clear and as powerful under the new system as under
the old. Whatever may be the standard of duty, and whatever
the process by which the idea has been attained, the feeling will
in all cases be very much the same.
The pam occasioned by a
violation of what is called the moral law, constituting what is
usually termed conscience, will be felt quite as keenly when the
law has been arrived at by a Utilitarian process of reasoning, and
when the moral nature has been built up upon Utilitarian princi
ples, as in any other case. The ultimate sanction of all morality
is very much the same—a subjective feeling in our own minds, re
sulting from physical conditions, country, and education.
This, then, is briefly the Utilitarianism which we hold to consti
tute a sufficient guide in morals, and to be worthy to supplant the
old and erroneous systems that now prevail. As Secularists, we
are content to be judged by this standard. This system we accept
as the ethical, code by which we profess to regulate our conduct.
There can hardly be conceived a higher aim than happiness,
especially the happiness of the race. That perfect happiness is
not attainable we, of course, admit ; but neither is anything else
in perfection. Nothing, however, can be more certain than the
fact that very many of the present causes of unhappiness could be
removed by well-directed effort on the part of society, and the
result be a state of things of which, at tfie present time, we can
( hardly form any conception. The duty of each of us is to do as
much as possible towards bringing this about.
In Mr. Mill’s work upon “ Utilitarianism ” the following passage
occurs : “ The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals
utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness ; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain ; by unhappiness, pain
and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral
standard set up by this theory, much more requires to be said; in
particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and plea
sure ; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these
supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life upon
�22
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure and
freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and that all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the Utilitarian as in any
other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in them
selves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the preven
tion of pain.” It must be understood that the word pleasure here
is used in its very highest sense, and includes, consequently, such
enjoyments as arise from- the culture of the intellect, the develop
ment of the sentiments, the use of the imagination, and the action
of the emotions. One of the errors into which the opponents of
Utilitarian happiness frequently fall is that of confounding pleasure
with the mere gratification of the animal propensities. If this were
so, the whole system would be a most despicable one, and unworthy
the attention of men of intelligence and moral worth. But it is
not; and he who brings this as a charge against it does so either
in gross ignorance, or with a view to pervert the truth. Perhaps it
was not wise to use the words pleasure and happiness as being syn
onymous, seeing that they are usually employed to mean two very
different things; but the explanation having been given that they
are so used, no one can plead this use as an excuse for falling into
vrror on the subject.
Secular morality is based upon the principle that happiness is the
chief end and aim of mankind. And although there are, doubtless,
persons who would warmly dispute this fundamental .principle, it is
very questionable whether their objection is not more verbal than
anything else. That all men desire happiness is certain. The
doctrine enunciated in the well-known line of Pope is frequently
quoted, and generally with approval :
'
“ Oh, happiness ! our being’s end and aim.”
*
'
When we meet with persons who profess to despise this aspiration, it will be generally found that it is only some popular con
ception of happiness of which they are careless, while they really
pursue a happiness of their own, in their own way, with no less
ardour than other people. A definition of happiness itself is not’
easy to give. Each person would, were he asked to define it, in all
probability furnish a somewhat different explanation ; but the true
meaning of all would be very much the same. To refer again to
Pope, what truth there is in the following couplet I—
“ Who can define it, say they more or less
Than this, that happiness is.happiness ? ”
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
23
With one it is the culture of the intellect; with another, the ex,
ercise of the emotions ; with a third, the practice of deeds of phil
anthropy and charity ; and with yet another—we regret to say—
the gratification of the lower propensities. In each case it is the
following of the pursuit which most accords with the disposition of
the individual. And wherever this course does not interfere with
the happiness of others, and is not more than counterbalanced by
any results that may arise from it afterwards, it is not only legiti
mate, but moral. Broadly, then, Secular efforts for the attainment
of happiness may be said to consist in endeavouring to perform
those actions which entail no ill effects upon general society, and
leave no injurious effects upon the actors. Such conduct as is here
intimated involves the practice of truth, self-discipline, fidelity to
conviction, and the avoidance of knowingly acting unjustly to
others.
Mr. Mill points out—and herein he differs from Bentham—that
not only must the quantity of the pleasure of happiness be taken into
consideration, but the quality likewise. He remarks : “It would
be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is con
sidered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be
disposed to depend on quantity alone.” True, it may not always
be easy to estimate the exact respective value of the different quali
ties of pleasure ; but this .is not necessary. An approximation to
it can be obtained without difficulty. In all those who have had
experience both of the higher and lower kinds of pleasure—that
is, of the culture of the intellect and the gratification of the pas
sions—a preference is generally shown, at least in theory, for the
higher. And the rest are in no position t® fairly judge. It may be
urged that many a man who possesses the rare wealth of a cultured
mind will be found sometimes grovelling in the mire of sensuality,
thereby showing a preference for a time for the lowest kind of plea
sure. To this it may be replied that the fact is only temporary, and
cannot, therefore, be set against the experience of months and
years—perhaps of the greatest portion of a life ; and, secondly, he
does not in his own opinion, even while descending to indulge in
the lower pleasure, give up his interest in the higher ; so that the
defection cannot be looked upon in the light of an exchange. He
feels that he will be able to go back again to his intellectual pur
suits, and enjoy them as before. Ask him to make a permanent
exchange—to give up for ever the higher pleasures, on the condition.
�24
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
that he shall have a continuance of the lower to his heart’s content,
and probably he will treat the offer with scorn. “ Few human
beings,” observes Mr. Mill, “ would consent to be changed into
any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of
a beast’s pleasure; no intelligent human being would consent to be
a fool; no instructed person would be an ignoramus ; no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they
should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they with theirs. They would not resign
what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction
of all the desires which they have in common with him.” Those
who neglect their capacities for enjoying the higher pleasures may
probably imagine that their happiness is greatest; but their opinion
on the subject is worthless, because they only know one side. On
this question, therefore, we find a unanimity—at least with all who
are competent to judge of the question.
The most important point to be considered in connection with
this question of Secular happiness is that it is not the pleasure of
the individual that is considered paramount, but of the community
of which he forms a part. The principle of the greatest happiness
is often treated in a discussion of this subject as though it meant
the greatest possible pleasure that the individual can procure for
himself by his acts, regardless of the welfare of his fellow creatures,
which would be selfishness in the extreme. Nothing can be more
unselfish than Secular morality, since the sole object it has in view
is the happiness of the community at large. And every act of the
individual must be performed with this in view, and will be consid
ered moral or not in the proportion in which this is done. In cor.
roboration of this view, Mr. Mill truly remarks : “ According to
the greatest-happiness principle, as above explained, the ultimate
end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desira-ble (whether we are considering our own good or that of other
people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as
rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality;
the test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity
being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of ex
perience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness
and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of compari
son. This being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of
human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
25
may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human coil
duct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been
described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all
mankind ; and not to them only, but to the whole sentient creation.”
Two facts of great importance are to be noticed in this extract;
first, that happiness is the end of existence, and that all human
effort should be bent as far as possible to the attainment of this
object; and, secondly, that here, and here only, can the true stan
dard of morality be found. The second principle flows as a neces
sary consequence from the first. All human action must, therefore,
be brought to the test of how far it is conducive to the promotion
of the greatest happiness of society at large. The consistent per
formance of such action will tend to promote the Secular idea of
human happiness and the welfare of mankind.
The question is asked, Why is Secularism regarded by its adher
ents as being superior to theological and other speculative theories
of the day ? The answer is (1) because we believe its moral basis
io be more definite and practical than other existing ethical codes ;
.and (2) because Secular teachings appear to us to be more reason
able and of greater advantage to general society than the various
theologies of the world, and that of orthodox Christianity in par
ticular.
First, compare Secular views of morality with the numerous and
conflicting theories that have been put forward at various times on
the important topic of moral philosophy. From most of those
theories it is not easy to reply satisfactorily to the question, Why
is one act wrong and another right ? There is no difficulty, gen
erally speaking, in pointing out what acts are vicious and what
others virtuous ; but to say why one is immoral and another moral
is a very different matter. Ask for a definition of virtue, and you
receive in reply an illustration. You will be told that it is wrong
to lie, to steal, to murder, etc.—about which there is no dispute ;
but why it is wrong to indulge in these acts, and right to perform
others, is the business of ethical science to discover. But here
again the method that will be resorted to, with a view to reply to
this query, will depend upon the moral code believed in by the per
son to whom the question is put. This method it is, in point of
fact, which constitutes what is called ethical science. On looking
over the history of moral philosophy, apart from Secularism, we
find such diversified and conflicting theories advanced on this sub
�26
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ject that it is frequently difficult to arrive at the conclusion that
there can be any certainty in the matter whatever. Some hold,
with Dr. Samuel Clarke, that virtue consists in the fitness of things;
others, with Adam Smith, discover its basis in sympathy ; others,
with Dr. Reed, Dr. Thomas Brown, and Dugald Stewart, contend
for a moral sense; another class, with Miss Cobbe, maintain, that
there is such a thing as intuitive morality ; others, with Paley, as
sert that virtue consists in doing good to mankind in obedience to
the will of God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness ; others,
with Dr. Johnson, are content with the will of God as a basis, with
out adding the motive introduced by Paley; and yet others, with
George Combe, fancy they have a key to the whole thing in phren
ology. Now, all these theories are resolvable broadly into three
great classes—first, those who regard the “ will of God ” as the
basis of moral action ; secondly, those who contend that the true
guide of man in morality is something internal to himself—call it
conscience, moral sense, intuition, or any other name that you.
please to give it; and, thirdly, those who urge that moral science
is, like other science, to be discovered by the study of certain ex
ternal facts. To the latter of these the Utilitarian or Secular sys
tem belongs.
A small section of professing Christians have now given up the:
will of God as the groundwork of their morality. This, however,,
seems to us inconsistent with their faith, for the following reasons
i. If the Bible God be the father of all, surely to act in accordance
with his will should be the best guide in life. 2. Christian morality
is supposed to consist of the teachings of the Bible, the alleged
record of the will of God. 3. If God’s will 'is not the basis of Chris
tian ethics, what is,’ from the Christian standpoint ? As Secular
ists, we cannot regulate our conduct by the Bible records of God’s
will, inasmuch as that book is so thoroughly contradictory in its
interpretation of the said will. In one passage the killing of human
beings is forbidden by God, and in another passage special instruc
tions are given by the same being to commit the prohibited crime.
The same conflicting injunctions are to be found in the “inspired
word ” in reference to adultery, lying, retaliation, love, obedience to
parents, forgiveness, individual and general salvation, and many
other acts which form part of the conduct of human life.
As to the internal guide to morality, nothing can be more clear
than the fact that, even if man possesses a moral sense with which
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
’7
he is born into this world, and which is inherent in his nature, its
teachings are not very distinct, and the code of law based upon it
is by no means definite. For not only do the inhabitants of differ
ent countries vary considerably in regard to the dictates of con
science, according to the nature of their education, but the people
of the same country will be found to be by no means agreed as to
what is right and what wrong, except in a few well-marked deeds.
One man feels a conscientious objection to doing that which an
other man will positively believe to be a praiseworthy act. In this,
as in other matters, education is all-potent over the mental char
acter. It would indeed be difficult to reconcile these facts with the
existence of any intuitive moral power.
Recognizing the difficulties and drawbacks pertaining to the
above theories, Secularists seek for a solution of this moral-philo
sophy problem elsewhere—that is to say, in the eternal results of
the acts themselves upon society, and in the effects that invariably
spring from them whenever they are performed. It must be dis
tinctly understood that we do not claim perfection for our mor?l
code ; but we do believe that it is the best known at the present
time, and that it is free from many of the objectionable features,
which belong to those theories which we, as Secularists, cannot ac
cept. It may be urged, as an objection to the external test of the
result of action, that it tends to make morality shifting and depen
dent very much upon the circumstances existing at the time. This
is doubtless true ; but it is of no value as an argument against the
doctrine of utility. For is not all that we have to do with subject
to the same law of variation ? Fashions change, customs alter,
and even religions become considerably modified by external cir
cumstances. The following stanza in Lord Byron’s “ ehilde Har
old ” portrays a great truth :—
“ Son of the morning, rise, approach you here ;
Come, but molest not yon defenceless urn.
Look on this spot, a nation’s sepulchre :
Abode of gods, whose shrines no longer burn.
Even gods must yield, religions take their turn ;
’Twas Jove’s, ’tis Mahomet’s ; and other creeds
Will rise with other years, till man shall learn
Vainly his incense soars, his victim bleeds ;
Poor child of doubt and death, whose hope is built on reeds !*
�*8
SECULAR TEACHINGS,
V.—ETHICS AND RELIGION.
Throughout the history of mankind morality and religion have
been two potent factors in influencing the formation of human
character. By the term morality is understood the principle which
rules and regulates the customs and habits of society; and the
word religion is employed to represent Theistic beliefs or aspira
tions which are said to be possessed by a majority of the human
race. In connection with these two factors the arts of sacerdotal
ism and priestcraft have associated the error that religion and
morality are really identical; that the two are mutually interde
pendent, and to sever them would be absolutely fatal to both.
The fact is that morality was distinct from religion in its origin,
and the two have, in many important instances, remained so up to
the present in their development. The origin of the first forms of
religion of which we have any record was fear and the prostration
of reason; while that of morality was the outcome of intellectual
culture and thoughtful experience. This fact has been clearly
shown in a very able work entitled “ The Morals of Evolution,” by
Minot J. Savage. On page thirty-one he observes : “ Religion
and morality were totally distinct in their origin. At first they had
nothing to do with each other. Religion was simply an arrange
ment between man and his gods, by which he was to gain their
favour or ward off their wrath. Morality, on the other hand, is a
matter of behaviour between man and man.” On pages twentyfour and twenty-five Mr. Savage says : “ Go far enough back into
antiquity to come to the time when large numbers of men were
fetish worshippers; when the object of their adoration, their
reverence, or fear, is a stick, or a stone, or a reptile. Of course,
you will understand in a moment that the worship of an object like
this cannot be associated in the mind of a worshipper with any
necessity for telling the truth, with any necessity for being pure,
with any necessity for being charitable and kind towards his fel
lows.” The same principle is enforced in the case of the Indian
devotee, who fasts and torments himself, not that he may benefit
mankind morally by his sufferings, but solely in order that he may
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
29
acquire favour and power with the gods Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva. Such a man is very religious, but he is not necessarily a
moral man, for, if his fellow men were to emulate his example, the
human race would be enervated, if not become extinct.
A similar proof as to the ancient differentiation between religion
and morality can be found in the Old Mexican religion, and also in
the Old Testament record of the dealings of Jehovah with the
Hebrew people. Jacob was religious, but certainly not very re
markable for morality; as indeed were Samson, David, Jephthah,
and other characters in the Hebrew records. It was not morality
which induced Joshua to command the unmerciful slaughter of
the Canaanitish men, women and children. It was not morality
which led Samuel, God’s high-priest, to murder Agag' whom even
Saul would have spared ; nor that prompted David to kill thp
Philistines, while he himself was the honoured recipient of Philis
tine hospitality. Such actions cannot be defended morally; but
religiously they can ; and they have been vindicated and excused
by Christian teachers and preachers.
Not only have religion and morality been dissociated in the past,
but we know that they have been kept far from each other in the
immediate present. Need reference be made to those most iniquit
ous, immoral wars, not many years since, in Zululand and Afghan
istan ? Did not Christian bishops from their seats in the English
Parliament openly express their approval of the cold-blooded and
sanguinary policy which brought down upon the nation the
opprobrium due to the cowardly and uncalled-for assailer and
despoiler of the weak, the unprotected, and the semi-savage; a
policy which directly led to national suffering, national poverty,
national degradation and humiliation, and which caused the blush
of shame to mantle the cheek of every true-hearted Englishman
possessed of a virtuous zeal for the reputation of his native land ?
Mr. Gladstone publicly declared his sorrow at finding so many of
his co-religionists going woefully, fatally wrong in matters of
national morality. His words were : “ To my great pain and dis
appointment, I have found during the last three years that thou
sands of Churchmen supplied the great mass of those who have
gone lamentably wrong upon questions involving deeply the in
terests of truth, justice and humanity. I should hear with much
comfort any satisfactory explanation of this very painful circum-
�30
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
stance.” It is not here contended that morality is never associated
with religion, but rather that the two are not necessarily allied,
and that there is no lack of instances where the one is to be found
professed and acted upon without the other.
The highest forms of religion to-day bear upon them the impress
of that morality which has gradually grown with our growth and
strengthened with our strength ; it is morality that has modified
religion, not religion that has modified morality. This will explain
in some measure why it is that men to-day are not worshippers of
fetiches ; that they have not deities of the wood, the mountain, and
the cave; that the Christianity of to-day is more humane than it
was in the time of the Inquisition ; that it now reprobates offences
which but four centuries ago it was wont to excuse and condone.
The morality of men, their love, their benevolence, their kindly
charity, their mutual tolerance and long-suffering—all these spring
directly from their long-acquired and developed experience.
The ethical science of the nineteenth century derives no assist
ance from orthodox Christianity, based as it is upon what is re
garded as a divine revelation from God to man. Siich a system is
incapable of promoting the moral development of humanity. This
can only be effectually done by the action of those social, political,
and intellectual forces to which we are indebted, as it were, for the
building up of man from the very first institution of society. These
have been, are, and ever must be4 the moral edifiers of the human
race. Without them true progress is impossible, since it is by
them that we are what we are^ It is (i) the social activities that
have led to the formation, maintenance, and improvement of human
society; (2) the political activities that have led to the formation,
maintenance, and improvement of the general government, to the
establishment of States or nations, and to the recognition of the
mutual rights and duties of such States; and (3) the intellectual
activities that have led to the interchange of human thoughts, to
the formation of literature, to the pursuits of science and art, to
the banishment of ignorance and the decay of superstition ; to the
diffusion of knowledge, and, finally, to all that mental progress
which so widely removes the civilized man from the savage.
The manner in which society has been built up has been clearly
shown by Mr. Spencer in his “ Data of Ethics ; ” but we need no
learned disquisition or treatise to convince us of what is a self-
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
31
evident fact. By experience we learn all things; as the homely
proverb has it, “ the burnt child dreads the fire.” So, in the early
ages of society, men had to learn from experience what was good
and what was bad for society. In the early stages of national
governments nations had to discover what was conducive to the
welfare, and what detrimental to the well-being, of a State. The
exercise of man’s intellectual activities has also been purely empiri
cal, or experimental. In literature, science, and art, the records of
the past ages have been records of continually growing experiences.
We are wiser to-day than our fathers were, because we possess all
their experiences plus our own. Upon the same principle, subse
quent generations will be superior to us, inasmuch as they will
have additional experience to guide them to what we possess. Our
morality is the resultant, the outcome of experiences, and wise
action based thereon. Intelligent men no longer slay hundreds of
thousands of sheep and oxen in sacrifice ; desolate other regions •
massacre myriads of their fellow men ; burn heretics at the stake ;
-or condemn a race to perdition because of their unbelief. Society
would no longer tolerate the infliction of the tortures of the Inqui
sition, or the intolerant decrees of the Star Chamber ; and
why ? simply because our social, political, and intellectual experi
ences have shown us how utterly absurd, cruel, and ridiculous all
those.past follies have been. What has altered all this ? It can
not be said that Christianity, the Bible, and the Church have pro
duced the change. All these orthodox agencies existed amid the
human weaknesses and wrongs referred to ; but the present im
proved moral sense did not then obtain, hence the immoral acts.
This, then, constitutes the practical ethics of time—namely, our
social, political, and intellectual status, and we are proportionately
more moral in the present era as we are socially, politically, and
intellectually superior to what our forefathers were. The orthodox
revelation has really had nothing whatever to do with this improve
ment, because revelation from a God to man cannot logically
change or modify itself; it must be, like the laws of the Medes
and Persians, wholly unalterable, “ the same yesterday, to-day^
and forever.” This, indeed, is what orthodox religionists claim for
what they call their morality—that it never changes. But such a
contention is fatal to their claim to possess a truly humanitarian
system of morality. The very essence of such a system is its
�32
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
adaptability to the ever-varying necessities and circumstances of
mankind. It is not here contended that prudence, honesty, benevo
lence, must ever change their inherent nature. On the contrary,
they will ever be binding upon man ; but for what reason ? Merely
because he cannot exist justly and happily without them. He must
be prudent or he loses his all, and thus becomes a burden on
others ; he must be honest, or he will be a criminal to society, and
will not be able to have any guarantee for his own rights and for
the safety of his own possessions; he must be benevolent, or else
he will neglect his duty to others, and the old age of iron will return,
with its law of might making right, and the despotic rule of the
strong over the weak.
This is what is meant when we affirm that we can' have no fixed
rule of morality. It is said, however, that without such a fixed
rule for conduct, all guarantees to virtue would be absent. Not
so ; Secularism recognizes a safe and never-erring basis for moral
action, which is taken, not from Revelation, but from the Roman
law of the Twelve Tables, which laid down the broad general
maxim that “ the well-being of the people is the supreme law.”
This may be taken as a fundamental principle for all time and all
nations. The kind of action which will produce such well-being
depends, of course, upon individual and national circumstances,
varied in their character and diversified in their influence. Rulesof life, “ revealed ” eighteen hundred years ago, do not meet the
requirement and satisfy the genius of to-day. This progressive
morality is the principle of the Utilitarian ethics which now govern
the civilized world. It is not merely the individual, but society at
large, that is considered. To use an analogy from nature, societarian existence may be compared to a beehive. What does the
apiarian discover in his studies ? Not that every individual bee
labours only for individual necessities. No; but that all is sub
ordinated to the general welfare of the hive. If the drones increase,
they are expelled or restricted, and well would it be for our human
society if all drones who resisted improvement were banished from
among us. In the moral world, as in religious societies, there are
too many Nothingarians—individuals who thrive through the good
conduct of others, while they themselves do nothing to contribute,
to the store of the ethical hive.
It has been intimated that a higher and still further improved
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
33
condition of society is before us. The true ethical standard of the
future will doubtless be based upon the recognition of the primal
truth that it must always be right to act for the welfare of society.
One consequence of this will be that it will be our duty to promote
our individual interests. No man can do this without indirectly
benefiting his neighbour, so that from the increased good of the one
springs the increased good of the many.
The welfare of humanity does not necessarily depend upon the
belief in a Deity or a future state. “ The proper study of mankind
is man.” The wisest of the Romans, the great statesman and phil
osopher, Cicero, taught his son that man’s morality was the neces
sary result of reasoning built upon human necessities. Robert
Owen gave practical meaning and force to this teaching, by incul
cating principles the adoption of which would assuredly end in the
establishment of a new moral world. Such a world, we believe,
lies before us—a world wherein every human character shall be
formed upon principles based upon right-knowing and right-doing,
upon the enforced expulsion of ignorance and the removal of the
causes of evil. If religion is to be retained in the future, the only
religion which will be worthy of the name as a binding system will
be one in which the good of all faiths shall be retained, and from
which their errors shall be eliminated ; a religion based, not upon
supernatural figments and allegories, but upon the eternal laws of
nature and the laws of that great kingdom of human nature whose
only monarch and subject is man. He it is who must be regarded
as the foremost actor in the great drama of life. Down through the
ages we trace his footsteps, from the time when he appears totter_
ing as the infant, to the present age wherein he is learning to stand
erect. How gradual, indeed, has his progress been, with what
slow and faltering steps has he gone on from generation to genera
tion, from century to century. Truly, it has been a long and a toil
some journey that he has trodden ; a journey over rough rocks,
through brambles, briers, and thickets of ignorance ; but, happily,
the race has contrived always to keep the true light somewhere be
fore it, although many a false light has been held up to mislead it.
“ Through the shadow of the globe we sweep into the perfect day.1
�34
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
VI. SECULARISM AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
It is very desirable that the teaching of Secularism in reference to
the supernatural should be clearly understood. What does this
term really mean ? Etymologically it signifies, super (“ above ”) and
natura (££ nature )—that is, something above, greater than, or dis
tinctly higher than, nature, or things natural, as these phrases are
ordinarily employed. This word nature mankind has used in a
duplicate manner. Thus we talk of nature when we refer to what
philosophers term the cosmos, or the whole of the things percep
tible to the senses, from the rose and its delicate fragrance to the
planets, comets, suns, stars, and their motions. The other appli
cation of this term is to the constitution, mental and physical, of
man regarded as a living animal and as a rational being. When
used in the latter sense, the word is generally conjoined to another,
thus making the compound, “ human nature.”
The word superhuman would probably be more appropriate than
supernatural. Still, if the latter phrase is intended only to con
vey the idea of something beyond general human experience, then
it is not difficult to understand the meaning of its use. For ex
ample, take the old illustration ; we can readily imagine a creature
formed like the idol Dagon, of the Philistines, which was repre
sented as being half fish, half woman. We can also create other
mental visions which would, in their extreme grotesqueness, put to
shame the ogres and chimeras of romance, but these would be
supernatural in the above signification of the word, inasmuch as
their archetypes were never known to man in any stage of his pro
gress through the ages. Hence it may be possible to conceive
a thing supernatural so far as human nature is concerned; but
how, it may be asked, are we to determine with respect to the
cosmos, to that universal nature of which the human nature forms,
after all, but a part ?
This question goes to the very root of the matter, and much
more, both in philosophy, science, and religion, depends upon our
answer than might, at first sight, be supposed. “ How are we to
determine as to what is supernatural with regard to.the universe ?”
Man is, it will be urged, confessedly a finite being. His faculties
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
35
of perception, his powers of seeing, hearing, etc., are limited. How,
then, it may be asked, is it possible for man to determine what
realities may exist either “ in the earth beneath” or in the heavens
above ? The reply to this is, that human nature is the key of uni
versal nature ; that the non-apparent is to man the non-existent;
and that those things must be considered by man as things above
nature of which no perception or demonstration can be possible.
If by the term supernatural is meant a personal being above and
apart from nature, then Secularism says : Such a problem it leaves
for each mind to decide, if it can, for itself. Being unable to in
form, the Secularist should refuse to dogmatize upon a subject
upon which he can impart no information. In the opinion of the
present writer Secularism has no necessary connection with any
form of Theism. If it be asked whether or not a Theist can be
a Secularist, the answer is, It depends upon the nature of his
Theism. A consistent believer in the Bible God cannot be a
..genuine Secularist. On the other hand, if a Theist believes that
he can best serve and love and honour his God by serving, loving,
and honouring his fellow-men, and by making the most of this
life, then he may be an admirable Secularist.
The lesson of history is that the mystic and dogmatic teachings
in reference to the existence of a Supernatural Being have ever
been fraught with wrong to man. The records of the past are
ample proof of this. Whether it be Pagans with their deities,
Jews with their Jehovah, or Christians with their Trinity, all such
theologisms have brought forth cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.
Truth, virtue and love are the three elements which should go to
wards the foundation of human conduct. They formed its basis
in the case of Buddhism, in the humanitarianism of Auguste
•Comte, and in the great science of man’s true education and en
lightened benevolence, as promulgated by that great philanthropist
and philosopher, Robert Owen.
From the historical development of the churches’ idea of the
Supernatural it will be seen that it has never been a necessary
factor in human elevation. We should, therefore, apart from all
such vague speculation, learn how to perform aright the duties and
requirements of life. The true way to effect this is to work for the
improvement of Humanity, and this can be done by the forma
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
�36
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
tion of good characters, which ennoble it, by the exemplification of
correct conduct, which enriches it, and by securing the triumph of
the better part of our natures, which dignifies it.
Ethical unity is the proper basis of true benevolence. This,
great human instinct is not dependent upon any form of Super
naturalism for its manifestation ; its activity is evoked by a
desire to. alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted, and to enhance
the happiness of the unfortunate. To aid in securing a fair oppor
tunity for the exercise of this benevolence prompts Secularists toaim at correcting every cherished error by the substitution of a true
knowledge of the natural for the old doubtful speculations as to the
alleged Supernatural.
The Church proclaims that love to God is the basis of religion ;
Secularism, on the other hand, teaches that the principle that
fosters the development of virtue, happiness and nobility of char
acter is service to man. This is practical morality, and experience
!
demonstrates that it is superior as a reforming agency to Super(
natural beliefs. For eighteen hundred years the Supernatural .
J
notion has been incorporated into the Church. “ To it has been *
I
given all power. Its hand has wielded every sword. Every
I
cannon has stood ready charged to second its command. Every
I
crown has received, its blessing; every standing army its prayers
I
and the training of its priests. But what has it done to establish
|
- justice and truth in the earth ? Let the dungeons of the Inqui|
sition make answer. Let the gibbets, whose chains hang heavily
1
freighted with skeletons, rattle in your ear. Ask the millions of
?
ragged, starving paupers, covered with filth and vermin, on their
I
knees to the few who are covered with diamonds and royal inI
sigma, to sing its triumphs. Alas, poor wretches I blinded by
f
ignorance, they do; but their song breathes no hope for this
|
world. Let the millions, upon whom it rivets its fetters of slavery,
tell how it brought them glad tidings. Let the prisons, glutted
!
with men and women, their hearts filled with savage hate produced
|
by the cruelty and vengeance of our criminal laws, illustrate its
|
beauty. Let the thousands of brothers, sustained by the degrada|
tion and ignorance it has cursed the bodies of men and women
|
with, in order to save their souls, establish its power to cleanse the
I
world with blood. Let the millions who, after toiling ten hours a
•|
day, cannot satisfy the bare necessities of life, the thousands of
!
I
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
37
white-raced and sad-hearted children toiling in the factories, wit
ness to its power to make men just and kind. In the name of rea
son and humanity, is this morality ? Are these things right ? Is
this the ought-to-be, to which all must yield in the spirit of faith ?
Must we continue to say that man is born to misery, as the sparks
fly upward, and that all this is but just punishment for our sins ?
Are we always to have the poor with us, because even the revised ,
New Testament says so ? Are the powers that be ordained of
‘God ? Is there in reality a Devil, an almost infinite fiend, who is
permitted to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour ?”
These are the errors and delusions and impotent views taught by
believers in the Supernatural, and is it not time that such evils and
weaknesses were removed, and a course of action adopted to avoid
their repetition ? To perform this task effectually, we must incul
cate the truth that right and wrong have their foundation in the
mind of man, and not in Supernatural ideas. A cultivated reason
and a well-trained judgment are the surest guarantees for noble
actions and benevolent and just consideration for others. This
may not be religion, but it is the teaching of Secularism ; and in
proportion as it is adopted by mankind, so shall we advance to the
physical, moral and intellectual regeneration of our race.
VII. SECULARISM AT THE HOUR OF DEATH.
____
1
It is a favourite, and, as they seem to think, an effec
tive argument of the Christians, that, although Secularism
■may do very well in healthy life, it fails in sickness
and at the hour of death.
Were this supposition true, it
would 1?e but a poor compliment to Christianity. If its chief
use is for the sick or dying, it is a mere drug or anodyne, things
which are abominable to the strong and healthy, instead of being
wholesome food and drink. A dose of opium would be just as
-good. The only religion or philosophy which should command our
allegiance is one that* supplies a sound rule of life, a principle by
which we may live well, not by which we may die easily. Very
few instances of Christian resignation equal the calmness and
indifference with which any ordinary Eastern submits to death
when death can no longer be avoided. The stories still current
�38
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
among the more ignorant of orthodox Christians of the terrible
death of eminent Freethinkers have again and again proved to be
but pious frauds. Even were they true, they are counterbalanced
by the accounts given themselves of the deaths of very religious
persons, haunted and agitated almost to their last moments by
dreadful fears of perdition. But, in fact, as those who have had a
large death-bed experience, can testify, nearly all men die serenely,
without reference to their faith or want of faith. Fallen intoextreme weakness, they cannot feel strongly on any subject; the
past, the present, and the future are but as dim dreams, in which
their languor takes but the faintest interest; life slips very
easily from the relaxed grasp; exhausted with the long struggle,
they are not only willing, but rather anxious to sleep.
But, apart from these considerations, let us take the case of a
consistent Secularist lying for weeks upon a sick-bed, regarding
with lucid mind the certain approach of death. What has he to
fear ? If he has been faithful to his convictions, acting up con
sistently to the light which his intellectual industry has acquired,,
why s&ould the honest Secularist have any dread as to any here
after? His life has been glad and he has made the most of it; he
has drained the cup of its wine to the lees, and can retire satisfied
to slumber after the banquet. Or his life has been stern, and still
he has made the most of it; he has fought its battle to the bitter
end; and wounded, worn out, and broken down, must rejoice when
he can sink to rest. There surely should be no forebodings in the
forethought that the sleep maybe eternal. As John Stuart Mill
finely says in concluding his posthumous Essay on the “ Utility of
Religion,” which, unlike the following Essay on Theism,was written
before his mind was shaken by the loss of his idolized wife : “I
cannot but think that as the condition of mankind becomes im
proved, as they grow happier in their lives, and more capable of
deriving happiness from unselfish sources, they will care less and
less for this flattering expectation (of a future life). It is not,
naturally or generally, the happy who are the most anxious either
for a prolongation of the present life, or for a life hereafter; it
is those who never have been happy. They who have had their
happiness can bear to part with existence ; but it is hard to die
without ever having lived. When mankind cease to need a
future existence as a consolation for the sufferings of the present,,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
39
it will have lost its chief value to them, for themselves. I am now
speaking of the unselfish. Those who are so wrapped up m sell,
that they are unable to identify their feelings with anything which
will survive them, or to feel their life prolonged in their younger
contemporaries, and all who help to carry on the progressive move
ment of human affairs, require the notion of another selfish life
beyond the grave, to enable them to keep up any interest in exist
ence.......... But if the Religion of Humanity were as sedulously
cultivated as the supernatural religions are (and there isro difficulty
in conceiving that it might be much more so), all who had received
the customary amount of moral cultivation would up to the
hour of death live ideally in the life of those who are to follow
them; and though, doubtless, they would often willingly survive as
individuals for a much longer period than the present duration of
life, it appears to me probable that after a length of time, different
in different persons, they would have had enough of existence, and
would gladly lie down and take their eternal rest................... The
mere cessation of existence is no evil to any one ; the idea is only
formidable through the illusion of imagination which makes one
conceive oneself as if one were alive and feeling oneself dead.
What is odious in death is not death itself, but the act of
dying and its lugubrious accompaniments, all of which
must be equally undergone by the believer in immortality.”
And in the final sentence: “It seems to me not only pos
sible but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a
happier condition of human life, not annihilation but immor
tality, may be the burdensome idea ; and that human nature,
though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to
quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that
it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence, which
it cannot be assured it will always wish to preserve.” In this
thought Mr. Mill was anticipated by Lord Bacon in his fine frag
ment on Death : “ I have often thought upon death, and I find it
the least of all evils. All that which is past is a dream ; and he
that hopes or depends upon time coming, dreams waking......
Physicians in the name of death include all sorrow, anguish,
disease, calamity, or whatsoever can fall in the life of man, grievous
or unwelcome ; but these things are familiar unto us, and we suffer
them every hour, therefore we die daily. I know many wise men
�4°
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who fear to die ; for the change is bitter, and flesh would refuse to
prove it; besides, the expectation brings terror, and that exceeds
the evil. But I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but
only the stroke of death.” If there be an eternal sleep, it promises
the positive gain of release from all suffering and sorrow, while the
seeming loss of pleasure is cancelled by unconsciousness. If we
are not to see our loved ones more we shall have no wish to see
them, and soon also they will have no wish to see us. And so with
every other apparent privation. The dreamless slumberer desires
nothing, regrets nothing. “ There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together.;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great
are there ; and the servant is free from his master.”
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, as I
have shown in my pamphlet, “ Secularism, Destructive and Con
structive,” we estimate the various religions of the world which
conflict with each other, more or less, at one hundred — a very
moderate calculation—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 ninetynine, and the other goes “ one better ” and rejects the whole hun
dred. 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 such
questions will be asked as, “ To what 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 intellectually ? ” If the answers are given
honestly in the affirmative, then no one need fear the result. It is
degrading to the character 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
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
41
did not discern it, for not professing to see clearly when the eyes
he thought 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 man
fully according to the best light we can obtain ; 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
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 is 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 light that failed to see.
If he be just who reigns on high,
Why should the Secularist fear to die?*
1
VIII. SECULARISM IN THEORY.
The theory of Secularism is simply that this life and this world
in which we live demand and will reward our utmost cultivation;
that the instruments of this cultivation are reason and social effort;
that the harvest to be reaped from it is happiness, general and
individual.
Looking at the world, we are convinced by what human reason
has already discovered in it, and by the experience which has veri
fied the discoveries, that it is perfeot order, in the sense that its
operations follow unvarying laws, that the like antecedents have
always the like consequents. This immutable constancy of what
are termed the Laws of Nature, gives us a stable foundation on
which to build up physical science and all the arts which are the
applications of such science. The laws we know we cannot change;
but the more we learn of them the better we can adapt ourselves
�42
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
and the conditions of our life to them, the better we can avoid such
of their workings as would be otherwise harmful to us, the better
we can avail ourselves of all in their workings which is profitable
to us. Thus Secularism regards science as the true Providence;
and affirms that by persistent careful study of Nature, and per
sistent application of the results of that study, this Providence
can be made to yield ever richer and richer benefits to our race.
Looking at mankind, we are convinced in the same manner, that
human nature, no less than nature in general, is the subject of
unvarying laws, that in it also the like antecedents have always
the like consequents; and the stability of law in this domain givesus firm ground on which to build up physiological, psychological,,
and sociological science, and the political and social constitutions
which are the applications of such science. These laws also we
know we cannot change ; but in their case also the more we learn
of them the better we can adapt ourselves and the conditions of
our life to them, the better we can avoid their injurious and avail
ourselves of their beneficial workings. So that here also Secular
ism regards science as the true Providence ; and affirms that by
the study of Man, and the application of the results of that study,
this Providence can be wrought to confer ever richer and richer
boons on our race.
As for the controversy between virtue and happiness, which is in
a great measure a mere contest as to words, we know how the
great name of Epicurus was almost from the first degraded by his
opponents into a great synonym for the pursuit of coarse sensuous
pleasure, in the term Epicureanism. But why should this happi
ness, which Utilitarianism teaches us to seek in common, be spoken
of as something mean ? The great object of Christian life is to gain
eternal happiness in heaven, and we do not find that such happi
ness is supposed to be concerned only with sensual joys; on the
contrary, it is assumed to involve all the most sacred emotions and
aspirations, to include all the beatitudes. It is such happiness, in
so far as it shall prove to be attainable, that Secularism seeks to
realise, not in heaven but on earth, not in eternity but in time?
not for elect individuals here and there, but for all mankind. This
happiness implies, firstly, material well-being, sufficiency of food,
clothing and houseroom, with good air, good water, and good
sanitary conditions : for these things are necessary to bodily health'
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
43
and this is essential to the health of the mind, and only in health
is real happiness possible. Again, it implies mental well-being,
sufficiency of instruction and education for every one, so that his
intellect may be nourished and developed to the full extent of its
capabilities. Given the sound mind in the sound body, it further
implies free exercise of these, absolutely free in every respect so
long as it does not trench on the equal rights of others, or impede
the common good. In this full development of mind as well as
body, it need scarcely be said that true happiness brings into its
service all the noblest and most beautiful arts of life. Some per
sons seem to fancy that Secularists have nothing to do with music,
painting, sculpture, care nothing for the glories and grandeurs of
the world, have no part in the treasures of the imagination ; as if
there were no utility in any of these. But we recognize in them
the very high utility of touching to rapture some of the finest
chords in our nature ; we know and feel just as well as others, and
perhaps better than most, since we give ourselves more to the scien
tific study of man, that there are different kinds and degrees of
enjoyment, and that some kinds are far superior to others, and we
know how to value the superior as compared with the inferior.
But yet more, this social happiness implies all the great virtues
in those who can attain and keep it. Wisdom, for without thist
transitory and selfish pleasures will be continually mistaken for
happiness; and even with a desire for the common good, this good
will be misconceived, and the wrong means taken to secure it.
Fortitude, to bear when necessary, and the necessity in the present
state of the world is as frequent as it is stern, deprivation of per
sonal comfort rather than stifle our aspirations and relax our efforts
for the general interest. Temperance, for with excess no per
manent happiness is possible. Magnanimity, for only by aid of
this virtue can we keep steadily in view, as the sole aim of all our
striving, the sole aim worthy of true men and women, the greatest
good of the greatest number; all littlemindedness ever turns to
selfishness. Truth, for without it the stability of society could not
be maintained. Justice, and above all else Justice, for it is the
profound and unchangeable conviction of the equal rights of all
which alone can inspire and impel us to seek the freedom and
happiness of all, oppressions since the world began having been
based on injustice, the oppressors exaggerating their own rights at
�44
SECULAR TEACHINGS
the expense of those of the oppressed. And to these great virtues
of the mind, we must add, as essential to this true happiness, what
are commonly called the virtues of the heart, the fervour of Zeal
or Enthusiasm, and the finer fervour of Benevolence, Sympathy,
or, to use the best name, Love. For if Wisdom gives the requisite
light, Love alone can give the requisite vital heat; Wisdom climb
ing the arduous mountain solitudes, must often let the lamp slip
from her benumbed fingers, must often be near perishing in fatal
lethargy amidst ice and snow-drifts, if love be not there to cheer
and revive her with the glow and the flames of the heart’s quench
less fires.
Seeing thus what quali’ties and energies are required in those
who would win this happiness for themselves and their fellows, or
would even advance but a little the great day of its advent, we
are surely entitled to ask, What virtue can be more noble than
this ? What more lofty and unselfish object can be proposed for
human effort than this of destroying ignorance, oppression, and
suffering, of instituting enlightenment, freedom and happiness ?
We believe that the final test of any so-called virtue, as of any
action, is the question, Does it tend to the common good ? If it
does, we hold it in esteem, and in some cases in reverence; if it
does not, however fine the name it bears, we look upon it as an
error, and in some cases as a vice or crime.
IX. SECULARISM IN PRACTICE.
Secularism is clearly a theory of action, to be realized in conduct;
not a theory of speculation, which may be held without influencing
our every-day life. The theory of Secularism is a theory of War
against theological pretensions; and the warfare to which it applies
is continual, without intermission of treaty or truce, for every brave
and loyal man, being warfare against all that is noxious and may
be vincible, in nature and human nature. So that if any one makes
profession of Secular principles, without putting them or striving
to put them into practice, we must declare that he is really not a
Secularist; just as we should declare him no soldier who should
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
45
pore over military books, and dream about strategy and tactics, '
without ever taking part with head or hand in the fight to which
his duty called him. With head or hand, because it is clear that . the solitary thinker, carrying on his profound investigations into
the elements and processes and evolution of the world, or into the
subtle nature and obscure history of man, and communicating the
results of these for the enlightenment and advantage of his fellows,
is not less but rather more essentially active on our side in the
battle of life, than he who is called the fnan of action himself; just
as the statesman who prepares for the war, the administrator who
organizes the army, and the general who plans and directs the
campaign, have far more to do with the result—though they strike
no blow and fire no shot—than any of the banded subordinates who
use sabre, lance, or rifle.
We are in constant struggle with Nature,—to make its barren
regions fertile, its unhealthy regions wholesome; to soften its'
rigours, and guard against its perils; to breach its barriers, and
bridge its abysses, between nation and nation; to bend its powers
to our service, and fashion its productions to our commodity; to
trace out its hidden treasures, and penetrate its secrets, availing
ourselves to the utmost of every discovery. Wherefore the Secu
larist, to the full extent of his faculties and opportunities, assists,
encourages, and welcomes each advance in any of the sciences or
useful arts. Nothing which gives or promises new knowledge of
nature can be indifferent to him, however remote it may seem from
the concerns of ordinary life ; for in wrestling for such knowledge
the intellect is braced, and in conquering it is expanded ; while it
is always possible, and has frequently been the case, that the
most abtruse researches have led to priceless practical benefits.
We are also in constant struggle with Human Nature, as hitherto
developed in ourselves and others, and with the political and social
institutions which have sprung from it; to cure its manifold dis
eases of body and mind, amend its manifold defects, establish it in
vigorous health to diminish, and, if possible, destroy, its aboundng gross ignorance, want, oppression, bigotry, disunion, hatred,
envy, selfishness; to increase, and, if possible, make universal, the
contraries of all these. And with regard to the question of possi
bility, as we who look forward with hope and trust to vast and
indefinite improvements in the state of mankind, are often mocked
as impracticable dreamers, there is one word to say: Until all
�46
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
who love their fellows and regard posterity, find themselves, having
done their utmost, without spark of hope or sinew of strength for
further effort, until our whole race crouches in impotence and
despair, no one can say, Here is the extreme boundary of improve
ment ; and until such boundary is reached, indefinite advance is
possible. For this is a contest in which hope itself is puissant
toward victory, and in very truth a sure pledge of victory; for hope
means endeavour, and endeavour precludes defeat; seeing that our
object is to vanquish Nature, not by resisting her laws, but by
taking advantage of them, and that we are ever living successful
lives, and fighting a winning battle, while we can endeavour with
hope.
Therefore, the true Secularist is, and always will be, in the van
of all efforts to improve the condition of the great bulk of the
people, physically, mentally, morally, socially, politically. As he
regards all men as really his brothers (not his “ dear brethren,” as
clergymen say on Sunday from the secure height of their pulpits,
to poor creatures whom they consider mere serfs, hewers of wood,
and drawers of water, on week days) and believes that all have
equal rights to full development and free exercise of their faculties,
his politics will naturally be of a most liberal tendency; he will
constantly work towards the government of the people by the
people, towards making the Executive the servant and not the
Master of the nation. It does not follow that in all cases he will
desire the immediate establishment of a Republic ; he may be con
vinced that the mass of his countrymen are not yet fit for such a
form of government. But if so, he will not be content that they
should remain thus unfit; he will do his best and urge all whom
he can influence to do their best likewise, to decrease and ulti
mately to destroy this unfitness ; preparing the way for a govern
ment based upon the will of the nation. To this end he will do
all in his power to diffuse Secular instruction, particularly among
those of the rising generation, whose minds are fresh and eager for
new knowledge, whose characters are plastic to training, who are
not yet hide-bound in prejudice and hardened by old habits. Feel
ing himself essentially a “ rational social animal,” he will endeavour
always to act in company with as many of his fellows as possible,
and will frankly support co-operation in every department of
activity. Thus for the political education of the people, both in
theory and practice, nothing can be more valuable than well organ
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
47
ized Clubs and Societies. Lectures, debates, and readings inform
and brighten the intelligence; the various functions of the
members, and the mutual forbearance requisite to amicable work
ing, furnish excellent civic training; and the “ rational social ”
being thus provided for, there is every opportunity to cultivate the
■“social’ in its most familiar sense by amusements in common;
for the reflection of joy from one to another, where many friends
are gathered, indefinitely multiplies the enjoyment of each.
The Secularist cannot but strive for the abolition of all privi
leges of Class or Sect in the body politic; while he will seek to
make all change with as little violence as possible and with as
much consideration for those who must be dispossessed of what
does not belong to them, as they themselves and the circum
stances would allow. For doubtless all the reforms demanded by
our principles can be brought about by legal means ; by patient,
orderly, persistent, and combined constitutional efforts on the part
of the people. We do not wish to stir up Class or Sectarian
animosities, though we are continually accused of doing so ; we
are well aware that the privileged persons have become what they
are by long habit and training, or, generally speaking, by the force
of circumstances ; and that we ourselves, if brought up in the same
conditions, would probably cling as stubbornly as they do to these
inequitable distinctions ; but we cannot cease or remit our endea
vours to redress wrongs or cancel injustice, in the interest of the
.whole nation, out of tenderness for certain misguided and selfish
sections.
In our relation with other countries,. the ruling desire of the
Secularist, who regards not only his own people but all mankind
as brothers, will necessarily be for peace and amity, for mutual
profiting instead of mutual destroying. There have been, and
probably will be often again until nations in general have grown
much better and wiser than they are, wars certainly justifiable,
because necessary, on the one part. But no reader of history can
fail to see that the majority of wars have been justifiable neither
on the one part nor on the other; that they have been brought
about by the pride, greed, passion and folly of rulers, and the
imbecile ignorance of subjects, who allowed themselves to be first
inflamed, then impoverished and slaughtered, for objects in which
they had no real interest, which indeed very often were such that
their real interests were far better served by defeat than by victory.
�48
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
Secularism in practice does not seek to destroy any one truth
that is associated with Christianity. Its practical force is employed
in building up Secular principles, and in combatting orthodox doc
trines and actions which are so many obstacles to the development
of positive Secular principles. For though the influence of ortho
doxy is much less than it used to be, both in depth and expanse,
and is decreasing year by year, it still floods wide tracts, making
barren fens and swamps of what should be, and will be, when it is
drained off, among our most fruitful fields. If it has now little of
whatever power for good it once had over the thoughts and actions
. of men, it has still much power for evil. If it no longer makes
saints and martyrs, it makes serfs and bigots. We want real
Secular education for all our children, such as shall endow them
with some useful knowledge and the instruments for acquiring
much more, such as shall prepare them for their work in the world,
and make them intelligent citizens; and we cannot get this because
of sectarian squabbles, because of the arrogant greed of the Church.
Primer, copy-book, and arithmetic shall be withheld’, unless the
Bible may be everywhere thrust in amongst them; the Bible, with
its beautiful stories of Noah, Lot, Dinah, Tamar, and the rest, to
inform the intellect and purify the heart of the young ; the Bible,
with its lucid dogmas, as to which all the sects are at loggerheads
among themselves. Hard at work all the week, we want to enjoy
ourselves on Sunday; but orthodoxy, so far as it can, shuts us out
from all means of rational amusement; closing museums and art
galleries, stopping innocent entertainments, leaving the general
masses of the people no alternative but the stupefying influence of
most stupefying sermons. Politically, again, the mass of the
Church has been for long generations, and is henceforth pretty
sure to be always obstructive to every movement for the benefit of
the mass of the people.
Orthodox Christianity is opposed to civic freedom, free thought,
free speech, fiee action ; it is opposed to Science, at the heels of
whose noblest philosophers its curs are always yelping now they
dare not bite; it is opposed to Utilitarianism, withdrawing fine
intellects from useful studies into barren controversies, and gener
ous hearts from social labours into cloistered asceticism. There
fore, Secularism in practice must be at war with it continually,
until its cathedrals, churches, and chapels are ennobled into
Schools of Science, Museunis of Arts and Secular Halls.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
49-
X. SECULARISM MORE REASONABLE THAN CHRIS
TIANITY.
Orthodox Christianity being, by its own avowal, built upon faitfi>
which is the abnegation of reason, while Secularism is built upon
reason and experience, it may be thought superfluous to enter upon
an argument to prove that the latter is more reasonable than the-,
former. But Christians in general, although in the interest of their:
mysteries they vilify reason, are very glad to avail themselves ofu
whatever help, or apparent help, they can derive from it.
This is especially true of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism^
more consistent and thorough, gallantly offering to us in itself the
reductio ad absurdum of faith trampling reason under foot. Protes
tantism is an illogical compromise between reason and faith, expe
diency and religion, common sense and uncommon nonsense. It
upholds the right of private judgment, and condemns all who
exercise this right beyond its own strait limits. It appeals to
reason against the absolute claims of Rome, and to faith against,
the unanswerable arguments of science. .It worships an alleged.
infallible book, and rejects an infallible interpreter of the book. It.
tries to buttress its sinking and sloping walls with laborious “ evi
dences,” and brands the inspection which shows that these are’
hollow and unsound as heterodox Rationalism. It has no firm
ground to stand upon ; nor can there be any between the orthodox
faith without reason of the Ultramontane and the reason without
the orthodox faith of the Secularist.
Christianity boasts an infallible book, and no two of its manifolcE.
sects can agree in its interpretation- Ah, they reply, in a momen
tary truce with each other, that all their arms may be turned against:
the unbeliever, our differences are on pointsnot essential, in essen
tials we all agree. But if the differences are of such small moment,:,^
why dispute so desperately about them i1 Why fine, imprison*,
banish, torture, and put to death, because of them ? Whyorganize
wholesale massacres, and engage in bloody wars, whose records
are at ociously cruel even for the annals of warfare, on account of
these insignificant differences ? Lollards and Puritans, Waldenses,
Albigenses, and Huguenots, Guelphs and Ghibellines, Lutherans
and Roman Catholics, none of these were Atheists or Sceptics,,
they were all alike ardent Christians, and their murderers were:
�5o
'
f
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
ardent Christians too. But such things can be no more ! Probably
not, but no thanks to orthodoxy; they have receded before the
growing spirit of Secularism. The spirit of the' sects is just as
loving as of old ; but we, whom they slander, have bound them
over to keep the peace ; they dare not smite, they can only rail at
each other. Romanism cries: “Let every man who-trusts in his
reason be accursed,” while Protestants exclaim : “ The Romish
Church is the masterpiece of Sataji.” Christianity professes to
have an infallible book, which it worships. Yet all Christians
competent to judge admit that there are doubtful and interpolated
passages in the original, and many errors in the translation. Hence
a body of learned but fallible divines have been engaged in revising
our version, so as to settle its infallibility. All intelligent Christians,
also, while affirming that it is the very Word of God, adding to or
taking from which is to be followed by certain penalties,, under
stand it in various senses : some parts in the literal, some as alle
gorical, some as poetical, some as spiritual. But what right have
they to do so ? Where can such a process end ? Who has the
infallible authority to draw the lines, saying, This you shall interpret thus, that you shall interpret otherwise, and so on ? An infal
lible book must be taken as a whole, if taken at all, though reason
be entirely ignored in the taking ; you are not at liberty to say, I
will accept this bit, I will reject that; who are you to set up for a
judge, citing the very Word of the living God before your tribunal,
making it justify and explain itself, ruling this verse to be admis
sible and that not, deciding that God said just what he meant in
■one place, but did not in another ? The first exercise of private
judgment, in explaining or explaining away the meaning of any
single verse, leads logically and inevitably to the criticism of the
. whole Bible as if it were any other book ; tamper with a word, and
you lose the infallibility ; the Bible is handed over by faith to reason,
that merciless inquisitor for inspired writings.
1
This infallible book includes a story of the Creation of the World,
of a universal Deluge, of the confusion of tongues ; long historical
narratives; positive statements affecting chronology, astronomy,
and other sciences ; all of them demonstrably wrong in certain
particulars, many of them self-contradictory. It is not necessary
here to go into details on these matters, for they have been abund
antly analyzed and tlye assertions proved in books which Christians
have fried in vain to refute ; nay, in many instances, the wiser or
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
51
lowing his example ; they tell us his precepts are divine, and utterly
ignore them in daily life.
more astute Christians, after defending to the utmost their unten
able positions, have evacuated them altogether, with the consolatory
remark that they were really worth nothing, that the Bible teaches
moral and spiritual and theological truths, not history and science.
Thus no one of any intelligence, however orthodox, would, I sup
pose, venture now in England to assert that the sun and the moon
stood still at the command of Joshua, or that the sun went back
ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah that his life should be prolonged.
It is urged, however, that the infallible book is only infallible in
its moral, spiritual, and theological teachings ; and, of course, in
its narratives of the birth, life, death, resurrection and astension
of the Divine Man, Christ Jesus. But the narratives differ so
among themselves that no amount of ingenious sophistry, and
assuredly abundance of this has been brought to bear, can reconcile
them. No one has hitherto even proved it probable that they were
written by the men whose names they bear, or within a century
and a half of the time to which they refer ; no one has given valid
reason why they should be preferred to a multitude of similar con
temporary narratives which the Christians call Apocryphal. No
Christian can give a reason for accepting the miracles recorded in
the Gospels, which would not, were he consistent, make him ac
cept the miracles recorded of Brahma, Buddha, Mohammed, and
the innumerable miracles of the Romish hagiology, stretching with
out interruption from the Acts of the Apostles to the acts of our
Lady of Lourdes, from the wounds of the risen Christ to the stig
mata of Louise Latour. No Christian can prove that all the prin
cipal superhuman features in the career of his Christ were not
■copied from the much older myths of the Hindoo Chrishna, these
themselves pointing to physical myths far more ancient.
And then, supposing .the Gospels authentic as to the moral teach
ings of this God-man, and as to the life he led upon earth. Are
not many of his precepts injurious, many quite impracticable ? and
all affected by the illusion possessing him that the end of the world
was at hand ? Was not his mode of life such that if any one in
this un-Christian Christendom of the nineteenth century dared to
imitate it, he would be certainly imprisoned as a vagabond, pro
bably confined as an incurable lunatic. The Christians hold him
(Christ) up as the Great Exemplar, and carefully refrain from fol-
�52
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
As to the theological teachings of this infallible Book. It hasbeen super-abundantly demonstrated in Freethought literature,,
that its cardinal doctrines, the Triune God, the Creation, the Origin,
of Sin, Fall of Man, Original Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, Resur
rection, Ascension, eternal Heaven and Hell, are absurd and self
contradictory ; that they make the Deity at once a remorseless and
unjust tyrant, and a vacillating ruler. No Christian really believes
them, for no Christian, nor any other man, can understand them
and we cannot believe propositions of which we cannot catch themeaning, which cannot be put into plain words without manifest
self-contradiction. The Christian can only suppress his intellect
with regard to them ; resolutely shut his eyes and mutter, I believe
that anything may be there for aught I can see to the contrary; he
can only act with reference to these astounding mysteries, as he
knows it would be ruinous to act in any other business of life.
So much for the reasonableness of Christianity. Over against
this inextricable entanglement of reason and faith, freedom and
servility, candour and sophistry, these absurd and degrading im
possibilities, self-contradictions, self-stultifications, Secularism,
offers the plain, straight, spacious pathway of reason and experi
ence. It has no science, no history, no books, no persons, that it
wants to hide or shield from free human criticism. It has no
theories which it is not ready and eager to abandon, directly facts
shall have declared against them ; no rule of conduct which it will
not at once modify if change seems necessary in the interest of the
genera] happiness. Mysteries it acknowledges, and confesses that
they are truly mysterious, without proceeding to exhibit them in
dogmas as if it had turned them inside out. It is not weighted
with the impossible tasks of reconciling the existence of evil with
that of an Omnipotent and All-good Creator ; and of proving and
worshipping the Infallibility of a book crowded with evident errors..
It doesnot threaten the vast majority with never-ending torments,,
and promise an elect few never-ending bliss, both alike preposter
ously disproportioned to any possible merits or demerits of human
life ; it simply seeks by the best approved means to make this life
as happy as possible for all, assured that if there be another it
could not be better prepared for than thus.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
XI.
53
SECULARISM MORE NOBLE THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
Not only are the cardinal doctrines of Christianity intellectually ab
surd and self-contradictory,but many of them arealso morally degrad
ing. Not only do they soften and confuse the brain which tries to
believe them; they also harden and pervert the heart which tries
to justify them. Thus in the endeavour to reconcile the sub
sistence of an All-good, All-wise, All-powerful God, Infinite and
Eternal, Creator of all things and beings, with the existence of
Evil and the Devil; with the dogmas of the Fall, the Atonement,
■and the everlasting Hell for unbelievers; a man’s conscience must
be sophisticated as injuriously as his reason. They are as revolt
ing to the healtny moral sense as to the healthy common sense.
They could only have arisen among a barbarous people, who
looked upon God as an irresponsible tyrant, like the human tyrants
they were accustomed to crouch under abjectly, but fiercer and
more powerful, able to extend his vengeance over all regions and
prolong it through all times ; they only survive now among persons
who are otherwise comparatively free and intelligent, by the force
of early training and habit, by the influence of venerable associ
ations, which benumb the moral sense, emasculate the reason,
and baffle honest inquiry with their prodigious prestige. If a
thousand average children were brought up without hearing of
Christianity, subject simply to the Secular education and moral
discipline now generally recognized in England and on the Ameri
can continent, as needful to prepare them for the ordinary work of
the world and make them good citizens (and assuredly this is no
high standard of instruction and training); and if, as they
approached manhood and womanhood, the Bible were placed in
their hands, and its leading doctrines calmly explained to them, as
held by the leading Christian Churches, it may be safe to assert
that every one of these youths and maidens would reject large
portions of the Book, not merely with contempt, but with abhor
rence, and reject the whole of the doctrines, not merely as
irrational, but as immoral, essentially wicked and vile. And
surely the priests are one with us in this forecast; else why do
they so desperately insist on thrusting their Bible into our public
'
�54
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
schools, even though they have ample opportunities for instilling
its teachings into the young in private, in the family, in the church ?
The more nakedly and coldly one states the chief doctrines of
this Bible, and the chief acts it records of its Deity, the more false
and ignominious do they show themselves. The perfect God
makes a perfect man, having previously made a wicked Tempter;,
and the perfect man succumbs to the very first temptation. For
this lapse the Merciful God curses, not only him, but likewise all
his posterity, and the very earth on which they live.
In the
course of time this Immutable God repents him of having made
man, and destroys with a flood, not only all mankind, but all living
things, save the few of each in the Ark. The destruction works
no good, for men are as wicked after the deluge as before. This God,
who is no respector of persons, has his chosen people, whom he leads
into a promised land, ordering them to murder ruthlessly all its
inhabitants,but not finding power in his Omnipotence to enable them
to do so. This is the only thing in which the chosen people heartily
try to fulfil his commandments ; in all else they are constantly re
belling against him and falling away from his worship, despite the
countless miracles it is said he works amongst them. This good.
God rends the kingdom from Saul for not utterly destroying the
Amalekites, as divinely ordered, “ man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This loving God slays
seventy thousand of his chosen people because David, at God’s
instigation, has caused a census to be taken. Having left all man
kind, except the Jews, in the perdition of idolatry for about two
thousand years ; having also destroyed or dispersed ten-twelfths of
the chosen people, so that no sure trace of them is left, and re
duced those remaining to servitude, soon to be followed by disper
sion ; this tender God resolves to redeem the world, that as in
Adam all died, so in Christ may all be made alive. This
one God has by this time become three Gods, while ever
remaining one, having begotten on himself a Son, and from
the Father and Son a Holy Ghost having proceeded, the
three co-eternal, co-equal, and each almighty. Nothing less
than the sacrifice of a God can atone for the sins of men;
so God the Holy Ghost begets God the Son from a . human
virgin, who remains a virgin after conception and child-bearing,
though she purifies her untainted self from the maternal taint, m
accordance with the low notions of her people ; and God the Son,.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
55
who is innocent, must suffer death to appease the wrath of himself
and the other two persons of the sole God against man. God the
Son is crucified, and dies and descends into Hell, and rises from
the dead and ascends into Heaven ; yet as God he. could not die?
as God he was and is everywhere ; and if only his manhood died,
there was no divine, no sufficient atonement. The scheme of his
sacrifice involved inexpiable and unpardonable guilt in his betrayer
and murderers ; God could only assure the atonement by securing
the necessary crime in men who are in his hands as clay in the
hands of the potter. All who believe in this God-man shall be
saved, all who disbelieve shall be damned or “ condemned” ; and
as the vast majority who have since lived never heard of him, and
a continually-increasing minority of those who hear of him can’t
believe in him, while the bulk of those who profess to do so
don’t keep his commandments, this Gospel of Salvation
is in truth a Gospel of Damnation; as he said himself, “ Many
are called, but few are chosen.” The chosen people, of whom
he was one on the mother’s side, among whom he lived, and who
had the opportunity of knowing and judging him, rejected him, and
their descendants reject him still. Jesus, good as a man, is de
cidedly objectionable as a God ; for in this character he could have
revealed himself indisputably and immediately, to the redemption
of all.
Orthodox Christianity is ignoble in that it makes our salvation
depend upon blind faith instead of upon reason and love and good
works. It is ignoble in that its votaries must more and more so
phisticate the moral sense in seeking—and seeking how vainly!—
to reconcile ever-growing natural truths with stark old super
stitions. It is ignoble in that, by demanding absolute faith
from men who must doubt and disbelieve much of its teach
ings, it . manufactures dissemblers and hypocrites. It is in
tensely ignoble in its “sublimated selfishness” of making the
chief end of life the salvation of one’s own precious soul.
It is horribly ignoble in making the eternal bliss of the few
elect, compatible with the eternal torment of the majority pre
destined to damnation : a man must be fiendishly callous and sel
fish who can rejoice in looking forward to such a Heaven counter
poised by such a Hell. It is ignoble in what it deems its noblest,
emotions, its love and reverence and adoration of the Deity, its
ecstacies of Divine influx and communion. For these emotions,
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
sare irrational, the object of the love is a dream and a delusion, the
'God revered and worshipped is pourtrayed in its own Bible as
-capricious, unjust, vindictive^ merciless ; and these orgies of reli
gious excitement, which overstrain, rend, and often ruin the moral
•..fibre, are as harmful as any other drunken revels.
Secularism, on the other hand, is quite free from all these moral
-degradations which .are of the essence of orthodoxy. Secularism
lis not called upon to reconcile irreconcilable antinomies; has no
.meed to palter with the standard of right and wrong, truth and
^falsehood; does not ask for pretence of belief where there is no as
surance ; does not fetter the reason and mutilate the conscience.
.It recognises abundant evil and misery in the world, and endea
vours by hard work to decrease and as far as possible destroy
<hem; it recognises much good and happiness, and endeavours by
-wise work to increase and extend them ; untrammelled in either
case by obsolete myths or incredible dogmas. The true Secularist
loves and reveres his fellow men whom he knows, not the Bible
-■God of whom he does not know. Upright, as an honest man who
-respects himself and his fellows, he dees not abase himself, and
•crouch down crying that he is a miserable sinner, because he has
.read in an old story-book that the first woman and man ate an
. apple countless millenniums, as science has taught him, after the
liuman race came into existence. He seeks happiness, not selfishly,
'but unselfishly, not for one, but for all; the Heaven on earth
•■towards which he strives would be no Heaven to him if counter
balanced by a Hell.
XII. SECULARISM MORE BENEFICIAL THAN
CHRISTIANITY.
It has been already shown in previous articles that Secularism is
more beneficial than Christianity in two most important respects,
.namely, its freedom from intellectual absurdities and from moral
^sophistication. But generally, and avowedly, Christianity is not
beneficial for this life and this world. The teachings and actions
of its author were based upon the fixed delusion that the end of
ithe world was at hand. Thus he says: “ For the Son of Man
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
57
■shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say
unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of
death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Again, having foretold wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes,
false Christs, and false prophets showing great signs and wonders,
he adds: “ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and
the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn,
and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with
power gnd great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” And he
concludes : “ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24 : 5-34 ; compare Luke
21 : 25-32, and 1 Thess. 4: 14-17.) These are among the most
explicit prophecies in the Bible, and the most exact as to date of
the events foretold. Yet it would be difficult to find them quoted
by any Christian advocate in the very astonishing collections of
41 Prophecies fulfilled ” with which we are abundantly favoured.
This omission may be due to the facts that, although the period for
their fulfilment is long overdue, although all standing there have
tasted of death, and all that generation have passed away nearly
■eighteen centuries since; although frequent alarms have been
given, and a bright look-out has been everywhere kept; the Son
■of Man has not been seen coming in the glory of his Father with
his angels.
Consider the effects of this delusion upon Christ’s teachings.
Why care for this world, whose destruction was imminent ? Why
trouble about this life, so soon to be swallowed up in the life
eternal ? This life and this world were naturally contemptible to
him ; their enjoyments and treasures were baits and snares of the
Devil. Therefore we read in the Gospel called of St. John (which
Luther tells us “ is the true and pure Gospel, the chief of the
Gospels, inasmuch as it contains the greatest portion . of our
.Saviour’s sayings ”), “ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal ”
{John 12: 25); and again, “I pray not for the world; but for
�58
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
them which thou hast given me ; for they are mine. . . . They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17 :
9, 16). Therefore he said : “ Take no thought for your life, what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what
ye shall put on. . . . Take therefore no thought for the mor
row; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself”
(Matt. 6: 25, 34). Therefore he contemned all natural affections
(Matt. 10: 37 ; 12 : 46-50; 19 : 29). Therefore he taught, Resist
not evil (Matt. 5 : 39) ; and his great apostle taught abject sub
mission to tyranny, “the right divine of kings to govern wrong”
(Rom. 13: 1, 2). Therefore he enjoined poverty and asceticism
(Matt. 19 : 21, 23, 24); not the regulation, but the destruction, of
our natural instincts, the continence of self-mutilation and castra
tion (Matt. 5 : 29, 30; 18 : 8, 9 ; 19 : 12). As every student of the
New Testament is aware, it would be easy to multiply texts from
the Gospels and Epistles, all in a similar strain, and all spoken or
written under the influence of the fanatical delusion that the de
struction of this world and the advent of the kingdom of Heaven
were imminent. It is clear from these maxims and precepts that
all the improvements, social and political, scientific and artistic,
commercial and mechanical, which have been made in the world
since the birth of Christianity, have been made in spite of it, not
because of it; have been wrought by the spirit of Secularism ever
struggling, and in recent centuries with ever-growing success,,
against the spirit of dogmatic religion.
But Christianity puts in a predominant claim to beneficence, in
that it secures to its believers everlasting bliss after death, or, at
the worst, blesses their lives here with the hope and expectation
thereof, even should the expectation not be realised. In the first
place, we answer that it likewise assures, not only to all dis
believers, but to nearly all if not quite all professing believers,
everlasting torture after death ; or, at the best, curses their lives
here with the dread and expectation thereof, even should the ex
pectation not be realized. For Jesus said, “ Why call ye me Lord,
Lord, and keep not my commandments ?” and again, “ By their
fruits ye shall know them and the truth is there is no man or
woman living in Christendom wfio does keep his commandments,
and scarcely any who seriously and thoroughly tries. Who takes
no thought for the morrow ? Who resists not evil ? Who, being
smitten on the one cheek, turns the other also ? Who, being asked
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
59
for his cloak, gives also his coat ? Who sells all that he has and
gives it to the poor ? So-called Christians would have been
extinct in the first century after the crucifixion- of their Jesus had
they not copiously adulterated their other-worldliness with thisworldliness, their uncommon nonsense with common-sense ; and
the result is that we can’t find a genuine Christian among the
hundreds of millions of Christendom, unless it be here and there a
fanatical monk or hysterical nun.
As to the hope of Heaven, which the Christians claim as a bless
ing in this life, it is over-balanced by the curse of the fear of Hell.
But in truth, though the hope and the fear seem effective to some
minds as arguments in a debate, they are seldom effectual in real
life. A good many Christians in rare moments, a very few zealots
more commonly, may be exalted by the foretaste of Heaven ortormented by the foretaste of Hell. When wrought to intensity
fear certainly does more harm than the hope can do good; there
are but too many instances of persons thus terrified into incurable
lunacy, into the very worst species of delirium tremens known..
But, as a rule, every honest and intelligent man must be aware
that the fear of Hell in itself has scarcely any influence in keeping
Christians from what they think sin, and the hope of Heaven
scarcely any influence in attracting them to what they think holi
ness. No stronger proof of the weakness and unreality of the
general faith in Heaven could be adduced, than the fact that good
“ Christians” cling to this life as hard and as long as they can ;
that when they are sick they pray for recovery—from what ? from
the danger of going straight to eternal beatitude ; that they will
physic and doctor themselves desperately, preferring a miserable
death-in-life here to perfect life in the kingdom of glory ; that they
never resign themselves to the Saviour’s bosom until they can no
longer keep out of it. If this point had really the important bear
ing on the case that some weak-minded and low-thoughted persons* seem to fancy it has, one could further answer that Christianity, in
this respect, simply stands on a level with all other revealed re
ligions, since each of these promises future felicity to its own
faithful and threatens future punishment to unbelievers. Why, then,
should hope of Heaven allure us, or fear of Hell frighten us, into
Christianity rather than into Mohammedanism, Brahminism, or
Buddhism ? If intelligent belief were subject to the will, and not
the offspring of independent reason, probably most men would
�€o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
prefer the Heaven of Mohammed, and most men and women the
Nirvana of Buddha to that everlasting psalm singing in long white
nightgowns> amidst the howling of “ all the menagerie of the Apo
calypse,” which constitutes the Heaven of Christ.
Secularism is more beneficial than Christianity, inasmuch as it
teaches no figment of the “ end of the world,” of the existence of
a personal Devil; no submission to despots; no anxiety whether
we shall “ be with the damned cast out or numbered with the
blest.
The world is our home, and Secularism teaches us a
paramount duty to make the best of it by striving to increase its
usefulness, its purity, and its ethical greatness.
XIII.
»
SECULARISM PROGRESSIVE; CHRISTIANITY
STAGNANT.
Christianity, as taught in our churches, is chained fast and
riveted with iron to the immutable dogmas of an immutable God;
round its neck hangs the millstone of an infallible book, which it
worships in abject stupor as a Fetish; the multiplex windowless
walls of its dungeon are adamantine Traditionsand Creeds, Articles
and Catechisms, Decrees of Councils, and Decrees of Popes. It is
thus essentially stagnant and inert; it does comparatively but
little useful work in the world; it is perishing of atrophy, brain
and heart and limbs irretrievably wasting away. In this life it has
no future; its future is in the life to come (or not to come!); its
ideal is in the past, to which its vacant eyes are ever reverted in
the dense gloom of its prison-cell. Its perfection was in the Primitive Apostolic Church, the Church of the immediate disciples of
its Lord and Saviour; the Lord who has almost practically ceased
to reign, the Saviour who has almost ceased to save. His example
and teachings were regarded as being perfect; those who lived
with him were thought to be blessed with these in unst.nted abund
ance, in untainted purity. Flowing through the long centuries
since, the slender rill has grown a mighty river, pouring itself
through many branches into the sea; but how the purity of the
fountain has been adulterated in its course !—it has been impreg
nated with the most various soils, mingled with affluents from
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
6r
diverse regions, polluted with all the abominations of the cities
that have arisen on its banks, and the ships that have sailed upon
its waters. Such now is the Church of many churches ; but the
genuine Christianity thereof is limited to that thin thread of “ the
pure water of life ” which has trickled down from the divine source,
Jesus. It is, therefore, a fallacy to speak of the development of
Christianity ; if it were born full-grown and perfect, how could it
admit of development ? The great churches have swelled from it,
but how ? By unlimited dilution and adulteration. They have
taken to themselves the things of this world, which are alien from
true Christianity ; they have allied themselves with the powers of
this world, which are hostile to true Christianity ; they have mixed
reason with faith, science with Providence, time with eternity,
earth with Heaven, wealth with poverty, comfort with asceticism,
self-indulgence with self-renunciation; and this unclean composite
slush is the Holy water of Ecclesiasticism, but assuredly it is not
the “ living water ” of Christ. As well talk of developing a bottle
of good wine into a barrel, by flooding it with gallons of ink, milk,
gin, beer, and blood.
And this fallacy of the development of Christianity suggests
another not less gross : the fallacy that former Freethinkers have
been refuted, because modern Freethinkers as a rule take other
grounds for attack. The shifting is always due, not to the repulse
of the assailants, but to the retreat of the assailed. Speaking
broadly, no Freethought assault on the entrenchments of Chris
tianity has ever been baffled. But as the Christian champions
were driven out of one line they withdrew to another ; and the
Freethinkers in following up their success of course had to abandon
their old parallels. Sap and mine had done their work effectually
there, and must be advanced against the next inner line. Driven
out of this in turn, the Christians fell back on another, to be there
duly beleagured by the ever-advancing Secularists. Let us
honestly confess that the Christians have shown immense ingenuity
and industry in planning and throwing up entrenchment within
entrenchment. Let us honestly admit that they have made a most
stubborn defence, having such mighty power and enormous wealth
to fight for. But the leaguer cannot last for ever. Storming one
after another, steadily and irresistibly, these concentric lines, we
must at length girdle and constrain the inmost citadel with a ring
of fire and iron, not to be broken by sallies from within, not to be
�62
SECULAR TEACHINGS
broken by assaults from without, which, indeed, are not to be
feared, since afi the open country is friendly. Then the last hold
of the Christian Church will have its choice of surrender or starva
tion ; with the chance of some stray bombshell exploding her
magazine, blowing casemates and garrison to the—fourth person
in the Christian Godhead. If she has then any sense left, she will
abdicate the usurped powers she has abused, disgorge the vast
treasures she has stolen and obtained under false pretences, and
come down to live human life with human kind, happier and better
than she ever has been as Priestess of Delusions and Empress of
Slaves.
The Primitive Church was the realized ideal of genuine Chris
tianity. In so far as any of the modern Churches deviate from
this archetype they are degenerate and corrupt, void of the essen
tial spirit of Christianity. The first Christians, we are told, were
filled with the Holy Ghost, had the gift of tongues, worked miracles,
were delivered by angels, had all things in common, suffered all
things for Christ’s sake, believed that the end of the world was at
hand as Jesus had assured them, cared nothing for patriotism or
political freedom, had absolute faith, were opposed to the wise and
prudent, but at one with babes, preferred celibacy to marriage; we
are even told, though it seems incredible to our modern experi
ence, that they continued together in one accord and loved each
other. In so far as our modern professors resemble these, they are
real Christians: in so far as they differ from these, not Christians
at all. Thus the Pope and the Ultramontanes are consistent
Christians in denouncing Rationalism, Liberalism, Science; in
encouraging celibacy ; in valiantly continuing to cultivate miracles,
scornful of a sceptical world ; and the Pope is signally consistent
in enduring persecution and the horrible imprisonment of the
Vatican, for the sake of the Church, and in the unlimited dust he
shakes off his feet against those who refuse to receive him. The
Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving is consistently
Christian in claiming and exercising the primitive endowments,
such as the power to work miracles and edification by unknown
tongues. The Shakers are consistent Christians in having all
things in common; and the Peculiar People in depending upon
Prayer and Providence instead of worldly Science for the cure o i
disease. On the contrary, all the Churches and Sects are incon
sistent and un-Christian in so far as they add to or take from the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
^3
revealed Word of God, in so far as they compromise with the
world and common-sense, in so far as they care for the mortal body
and neglect the immortal soul, in so far as they depend upon work
and science instead of prayer and providence, in so far as they are
concerned with this life instead of the life to come.
Christianity is essentially inert, stagnant, with its ideal perfec
tion in the past, Secularism is essentially active, progressive, with
its ideal of a loftier and nobler mundane existence in the future.
It is chained and riveted to no stark dogmas, it has no infallible
Book like a millstone round its neck, it is imprisoned in no admantine creeds and formulas. It has no decrees of Popes nor authority
of Thirty-nine Articles to. retard its intellectual advancement. It
refuses to regulate its modern life by the dictums of by-gone days.
Its mendacity is not fixed to the “rock” of the first century. On
the contrary, Secularism is constantly growing in thought with the
constant growth of Science, it is always open to the corrections of
Experience, it holds no theories so tenaciously that it is not ready
to fling them away directly facts contradict them. As time rolls
on and the treasures of the universe are revealed by the activity of
the human mind, Secular philosophy is ever ready to avail itself of
this natural revelation. It assimilates gladly all it can find of good
and true in the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, as in Homer, Dante,
and Shakespeare, without burdening itself with what it deems bad
or false. It is ever increasing in action with the ever-increasing
inter-communication between the various countries of the world,
and the ever-increasing common interests of their inhabitants. Its
life of life is unintermitted activity and progress.
XIV. SECULARISM: ITS STRUGGLES IN THE PAST.
Although the name Secularism is comparatively new, the prin
ciples it embodies were recognized and influential long before the
birth of Christianity. The old classical religions were in a large
measure Secularistic, notwithstanding their myths, which, indeed,
were more fanciful than gloomily superstitious; they deified the
powers of nature, the great inventors and improvers of the useful
and beautiful arts, and the heroes who compelled into orderly
�64
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
pea ce the disorders of the world. They did not starve and degrade
this life in subservience to a dubious hereafter. And the old
classical sages, who dissolved the grossness of the myths into sym
bols and allegories of natural and moral philosophy, had carried
far the cultivation of reason and science, before the blight of
Christianity fell upon them, and kept them barren for more than a
thousand j ears. In Alexandria, the great capital in which the
intellect and culture of the East met and commingled with thoseof the West, there was immense literary and scientific activitylong before and long after the Christian era. Libraries of hun
dreds of thousands of volumes were collected in the Museum and
the Serapion ; there were zoological and botanical gardens ; experi
ments were vigorously carried on. The Alexandrians knew that
the earth is a globe; they had correct ideas of the poles, the axis,,
the equator, the arctic and antarctic circles, distribution of climates’
&c. They had invented a fire engine and a steam engine. The
geometry of Euclid comes from them ; the genius and achieve
ments of Archimedes in pure and applied mathematics have pro
bably never been surpassed ; Ptolemy’s “Treatise on the Mathe
matical Construction of the Heavens ’ remained unequalled and
uncontroverted until the time of Copernicus. Christianity, with
its contempt for this world, and the science of this world, with its.
fanatical vw-ions of a new Jerusalem, coming in the clouds, swelled,
to a delug. and overwhelmed the fruitful fields of philosophy with
ignorance and delusion. Constantine adopted it as a powerful
engine of statecraft, and it was adapted to the popular grossPaganism in order to render it agreeable to the masses. Nohistorical facts can be more certainly proved than that the greater
part of the rites and symbols of Christianity came from the Pagan,
idolatry, and most of the subtleties of its theology from Pagan
metaphysics. On the ground that all truth was contained in the
infallible Word of God, the early fathers and their successors for
centuries firmly held (and woe to him who overtly disagreed with
them !) that the earth was a plane, with the sky for dome, and the
sun, moon, and stars for lamps; with Heaven above the sky, and
Hell beneath the earth. Their chronology and geology, in so far
as they could be said to have any, were equally absurd, being
based on the Book of Genesis. St. Augustine got Pelagius con
demned, and the great truth established that there was no death
in the world before the Fall of Adam and Eve 1 In Alexandria
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
65
itself Christianity celebrated its triumph over human reason by
destroying the Serapion and scattering its incomparable library,
and by murdering Hypatia. The sweet Saint Cyril, who instigated
a Christian mob to this foul and brutal murder, was the same re
presentative of piety who triumphed over the Nestorians, and
foisted the worship of the Virgin into the Church ; Mary and her
son being but' a Christian revival of the old Egyptian Isis and
Horus. Faith being supreme, science lay in a long catalepsy.
For fifteen hundred years Christendom did not produce a single 1
astronomer. Even the pure mathematics, which needed no experi
ment or apparatus, were utterly neglected ; the monks and hermits
believing that they had better things to think of! The learned
(by comparison) were chiefly occupied with miraculous legends,
commentaries ingeniously obscuring the obscurities of the Bible,
disputes about mysteries and dogmas of which none really knew
or could know anything. The knights and nobles were always
fighting among themselves, or plundering traders and artisans.
The Church, as it grew more powerful, grew more worldly and
corrupt; Popes bribed and intrigued .for election ; two, and even
three, at one time fought and cursed each other ; bishops and
abbots were great luxurious lords ; monasteries and nunneries,
which at first were the dungeons of starved and mutilated
lives, grew proverbial for all voluptuousness ; Rome was the com
mon sink for the worst vices of all Europe. The peasantry and
labourers were mere serfs, crushed in hopeless misery beneath
feudal exactions and despotism. Their food was the food of hogs,
their cabins were sties. As no laws of nature were acknowledged,
no sanitary measures were thought of, though from the general
filth and want dreadful plagues and families were frequent; the
Church got a rich revenue from shrine-cures, and relic-cures, and
miraculous cures of all sorts, which were so beneficial to the peo
ple that it has been reckoned that in England, to take one example,
the population scarcely doubled during the five hundred years
succeeding the Norman Conquest. As for superstition, it was
omnipotent; the air was supposed to swarm with devils and
angels ; witchcraft was thought to be so common that “witches”
and “ wizards ” were always being put to death ; relics commanded
a fetish worship as degraded as exists among the lowest tribes of
Africa.
Such was the beatific civilization established by Christianity (of
�t>6
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
whose civilizing influences we hear so much) after a thousand
years ! Whence came the re-awaking of the spirit of Secularism,
which has already brought us to a condition that, with all its
drawbacks, is perfection itself compared with that of the holy
Middle Ages, so dear to the sentimental faithful ? Was it aroused
by some growth of Christianity within, or was it stirred from with
out ? It was stirred from without, for Christianity had no life in
itself for the development. Mohammedanism, with all its faults
and errors, kept itself pure from the base idolatry almost universal
in Christendom, and fostered to a certain extent literature, science,
and all the useful arts. Scholars tell us that the great Persian
poets rank with the greatest poets of all time. The noble works of
the Greek philosophers were translated into Arabic ; hence the
revival of learning and science in the West. The Moors in Spain
were centuries ahead of the rest of Europe in every department of
civilization. The Jews, whose treatment by Christians in the
Middle Ages was simply fiendish, were well treated by the Moslems,
tolerant of everything but image-worship, and developed trade,
and were skilful physicians. We know too well how both the
Moors and Jews of Spain were dealt with when the Christians had
re-conquered that country. The Crusaders, who went out in half
millions about twice a century, to recover the Holy Land from the
accursed Paynims, were hordes of barbarians, strong only in brute
strength and steel armour, compared with the liberal and culti
vated Saracens. When Godfrey took Jerusalem in 1099, he and
his chiefs wrote to the Pope that they had enjoyed a week’s
massacre of the Infidels, till “ our people had the blood of the
Saracens up to the knees of their horses.” From this commerce
between East and West came the revival of science, learning, and
art in Europe, which made the introduction of the basis of Secular
philosophy possible. The Greek and Latin classics were studied,
and as learning spread beyond the monkish cells heresies sprang
up, heresies which were the first faint germinations of Freethought
amidst the mental slavery of the Church, which fiercely resisted
every step of progress—physical, moral, and intellectual. ' The
only good things the Church seemed to foster were the fine arts;
and these were really fostered, not by its Christianity, but by its
Paganism. For the Popes and Dignitaries of the Renaissance
were mere pagans, and its lovely Madonnas and babes are but
Venuses and Cupids with halos. As Mr. Ruskin candidly testifies
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
67
in the second volume of his “ Stones of Venice ” : “I never met
with a Christian whose heart was thoroughly set upon the world
to come, and so far as human judgment could pronounce, perfect
and right before God, who cared about art at all.”
It is but fair to admit that the sceptical elements associated
with the Reformation of the sixteenth century played an impor
tant part in preparing the way for the consolidation of Secular
principles. Doubtless the religious reformers, in fighting for free
dom, gave an impetus to Freethought. But, unfortunately, daunt
less as they were, they lacked consistency. Having reached the
pinnacle of freedom, they forgot the rugged path up which they
had climbed. Having overcome the tyranny of their oppressors,
they themselves persecuted those who desired to travel further on
the road of progress. Hence, liberty was deprived of much of
its valuable service through the influence of theology on the minds
of men who commenced fighting the battle of freedom, but who
had to yield to the dictates of a limited and exclusive faith. The
Freethought of to-day has been stimulated by men who cared little
or nothing for popular religion at a time when orthodoxy was at
its lowest ebb. The last century, the years from 1700 to 1800, was
the least religious, the least Christian century of the Christian era.
It was the era of philosophy, of science and of Freethought ; of
Voltaire, of Rousseau and of Hume; of Black, with his discovery
<of the true principles of heat; of Dalton, with his discoveries in
■chemistry; of Watt, with his improvement of the steam-engine;
of Hume, with his demonstrations of the absurdity of religion;
■and of Thomas Paine, with his clear exposition of the great fun
damental principles of government. These are the men who have
really assisted in the progress of the world. Their principles have
sown the seeds of modern progress. To their efforts we are in
debted for much of the prosperity of the nineteenth century. As
Theodore Parker once said, the progressive philosophers of
’Christendom to-day are not Christians. The leaders of science
and philanthropy in modern times are men who have the love o
truth and the love of justice, who possess large and benevolent
hearts, but who have no practical faith in Christianity.
How the Church encouraged Freethought in the past may be
.read in the lives of heretics and the histories of heresies : Abelard,
Arnold of Brescia, Bruno, Vanini, Dolet, Berquin, Huss, Servetus,
Latimer, Ridley; the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Coven
�68
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
anters. How she encouraged science may be seen in her condem
nations of the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. First she
resisted printing, then tried to control it with her Index Expurgatoiius, her list of books forbidden to be read, being, in fact, a list
of books best worth reading. She opposed insurance, inoculation,
and vaccination ; she condemned the use of anaesthetics in ob
stetrics as impiously tending to remove from women the curse
imposed by God as recorded in Genesis. Geology, of course, she
has resisted with all the little might left her, for its immense cycles
of life make unutterably absurd her Biblical chronology of six
thousand years. She has steadfastly done her best and worst to
keep us back, and she has always been beaten in the long run ; she
could imprison, banish, and murder isolated men and women, and
even multitudes of men and women; but she could not for ever
imprison the human mind, or banish free thought, or murder our
aspirations toward liberty and light. Yet, in justice to her, to prove
how consistently and persistently she has' struggled against pro
gress, two instances may be cited. It has been reckoned that be
tween 1481 and 1808 the Holy Inquisition punished 340,000 persons,
of whom nearly 32,000 were “ punished as gently as possible, and
without effusion of blood,” or, in common English, were burnt
alive; and Buckle refers to a list of 60,000 Dissenters, mentioned
by Jeremy White, who in the 17th century were persecuted by the
Church of England, of whom no less than 5,000 died in prison.
XV. SECULARISM : ITS DEFINITE SERVICE TO
MANKIND.
It is urged by orthodox believers, as an objection to Secularism,
that its principles have not accomplished the same amount of good
for society that Christianity has. This comparison, however, is as
unjust as the conclusion drawn therefrom is fallacious. In order
that opposing principles shall produce equally beneficial results, it
is necessary that both shall have the same opportunities and facili
ties for manifesting their respective worth. This has not been the
case with the two systems under consideration; for while Christianity
has had nearly eighteen hundred years to exhibit its value, the
�SECULAR TEACHINGS,
69
public recognition of Secularism is but of comparatively recent
‘date. Besides,Christianity has commanded all the advantages which
wealth, influence, and patronage could bestow, while Secularism
has had to struggle in the cold shade of opposition, against theo
logical prejudices and religious persecutions. And history and
experience testify to the fact that systems which appeal to the
fears, the weaknesses, and the credulity of a people, have a better
chance of temporary success, than those principles whose claims
are submitted to the judgment of mankind. Hence. Secularists
■are less emotional, as a rule, in their advocacy than orthodox
‘Christians are. Secularists seek to win with the aid of argument,
not with the use of threats. They, believing in works of utility,
pursue an even course of conduct, disregarding alike the perplex
ities of a mystic faith, and the allurements of the orthodox fancied
life beyond the grave.
The question is, has Secularism achieved more useful results
during its brief existence as an organized force than Christianity
accomplished in a relative time of its primitive days ? Unques
tionably we answer in the affirmative. It is a favourite boast of
orthodox exponents that Secularists have built no hospitals,
erected no orphan asylums, and established no homes for the pOor.
It is true that in their distinctive organization Secularists have not
had an opportunity to do this, but in their individual capacity they
have always rendered valuable support to these useful agencies,
and for hundreds of years Christians did no more. It is the height
of folly to suppose that we are indebted to the Christian faith for
the benevolence of the world. Professor Max Muller has shown
that philanthropy and charity existed in abundance long before
Christianity dawned upon the world, that the chief characteristic
•of Buddhist morality was chanty, and that Buddha himself pro
claimed the brotherhood of man and exhorted the rich to perform
their duty by giving to the poor. That eminent and impartial
author, R. Bosworth Smith, M. A., of Trinity College, Oxford,
furnishes some valuable facts upon this subject in his work
on Mohammedanism. “ No Christian,” says he, “ need be sorry
to learn, or be backward to acknowledge, that, contrary to what is
usually supposed, two of these noble institutions [hospitals and
lunatic asylums] which flourish now most in Christian countries
- . . . owe their origin and their early spread, not to his own
religion, but to the great heart of humanity, which beats in two
�7o
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
other of the grandest religions of the world ” (“ Mohammed and
Mohammedanism,” p. 253). The writer then goes on to demon
strate that “ hospitals are the direct outcome of Buddhism,” and
that lunatic asylums are the result of “ Mohammedan influence.’
Lecky also observes that “ no lunatic asylum existed in Christian
Europe till the fifteenth century. The Mohammedans, in this form
of charity, preceded the Christians ” (“ History of European
Morals,” vol 2, p. 94).
Thus it will be seen that these institutions are not fruit from the
Christian tree. Such monuments of charity are supported by
benevolence, which is a human instinct belonging exclusively to no
one nation and to no one people. It is to be found wherever human
nature exists. It obtained long before Christianity was heard of,
and it will doubtless continue to benefit mankind when the Chris
tian faith has shared the fate of other imperfect systems. If
benevolence is a Christian instinct only, how is it that we find it so
largely displayed by those who have no faith in Christianity ? Vol
taire was no Christian, yet his benevolent acts won words of praise
from Lord Brougham. Robert Owen, who had no sympathies
with the religions of the world, spent a life and fortune in doing
good to his fellow-creatures. During the distress in 1806, caused
by the embargo placed on the ports of America, this Freethought
philanthropist paid ^70,000 for wages while his mills were stopped,
rather than the families of his work-people should suffer through
the lack of employment. Surely, this was disinterested benevo
lence. The history of Stephen Girard, the Philadelphia merchant,,
indicates how “ infidelity ” and philanthropy may be allied. Girard
was a “ total disbeliever in the Christian religion.” Notwith
standing this, during his life he gave the following proofs of his
generous nature:—“He subscribed $110,000 for purposes of
navigation, $10,000 towards the erection of a public exchange, and
$200,000 for railway enterprises. At his death he bequeathed
$30,000 to the Pennsylvania Hospital, $20,000 to the deaf and
dumb institution, $10,000 to the public schools of Philadelphia,,
and the same amount to the orphan asylum. In addition to these
bequests, Girard left large sums of money to the general poor,,
and for sanitary and social improvements.” James Lick
gave more than $1,000,000 for scientific and benevolent
purposes; James Smithson, an unbeliever, left half-a-million
to found the Smithsonian Institute at Washington; Peter
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
71
Brigham gave $3,000,000 for the purpose of establishing
hospitals for the sick-poor of Boston ; John Redmon gave $400,000
to support free beds in the hospitals at Boston ; William McClure
gave half-a-million to aid the workingmen of Indiana. In Glas
gow, Scotland, the Mitchell Library, with its bequest of ^70,000,
is the legacy of a Socialist and a Freethinker. Mr. George Baillie,
of the same city, left over ^18,000 to establish unsectarian schools,
reading rooms, etc.; and the Haldan bequest, of Glasgow, and
the Glen Institution were gifts of those who had no faith in the
religion of the Churches. The fact is, benevolence is a human
instinct born of human sympathy and stimulated by utility, which
is pre-eminently a Secular principle.
It is alleged that the service of Secularism to the world has been
impaired in consequence of its being partly negative in its advocacy.
But its positive teachings should not be overlooked. Moreover,
if negation be an error, Christianity is certainly not free from it,
inasmuch as it negates all systems but its own, and even to that it
is not consistently positive. But why this professed alarm at
negative advocacy ? Is negation to error a crime ? Is the
destruction of wrong useless to society ? Is it no service to man
kind, while shams are regarded as realities and falsehoods wor
shipped as truth, to pursue a negative. course of action ? Should
we be wise in being positive to foolish conjectures about another
world and injurious conduct in this ? On the contrary, it is necessary,
to prepare public opinion for the reception of advanced views by
clearing the human mind of the weeds of error, that we may have
some hope of successfully planting the flowers of truth. Instead,
therefore, of believing indiscriminately in ancient creeds, the Secular
advocate deems it wise to examine all faiths presented to him, and to
seek to destroy what is contained therein that ,is inimical to modern
improvement. The province of Secularism is not only to enunciate
positive principles, but also to break up old systems which have lost
their vitality, and to refute theologies which have hitherto usurped
judgment and reason. Secularism relies on no dogmas, and pays
no heed to religious theories about saving faith. It professes to'
know nothing about worlds beyond the tomb, and asserts, should
there be any, their duties do not commence here. It declines
to be dictated to by any priests, or to listen to the ridiculous stories
about alleged sacred books. It recognizes no church but that of
humanity, and knows no code of morals but that which is based
�72
SECULAR TEACHINGS
upon the happiness of man. Whatever interferes with general
usefulness, Secularism regards as dangerous to the commonwealth.
Hence the Secularist opposes orthodox Christianity, because
, he considers it antagonistic to the principles of utility. Secularism,,
however, is not limited to “ cold negation.” While as Secularists
we are negative to the follies of theology, we are positive to the
wisdom of humanity ; while many of us reject what is said to per
tain to the supernatural, we readily accept that which belongs to
the natural, and deem it right to conform as far as possible to
nature/s laws. Experience proves that such obedience is the best
guarantee against the many “ ills that flesh is heir to.” Thus
Secularism inculcates the most positive duties of life, such as the
study of physiology, by which man can learn to know himself; a
knowledge of the chemistry of food, water, and air, whereby he may
be able to maintain a healthy organization; an acquaintance with
the mental nature of man, which will enable us to know how cir
cumstances impel us in a certain direction, producing vice here,
virtue1 there, morality at one time, and immorality at another; a
consciousness of domestic obligations which will prompt men to
provide by their own industry for those dependent upon them, and
to seek to make provision by care and prudence for the evening of
life.
Secular workers have found it necessary to till and prepare the
soil of the human mind for the reception of the seed of truth
which has slowly but surely developed into flowers of mental
liberty.
True liberty is not the offshoot of a day, but
rather the growth of years. “ Our Elliots, o.ur Hampdens, and our
Cromwells, a couple of centuries ago, hewed yyith their broad-swords
a rough pathway for the people. But it was reserved for the present ■
century to complete the triumph which the Commonwealth began.’’
And this is just the century in which Secularism has manifested
its activity. The battle of the freedorq. of the press and liberty of
speech has been nobly fought, and practically won, but the victory
cost Paine, Hone, Wright, Carlile, Williams, Hetherington, Wat
son, and many others their liberty, and imposed upon them priva
tions which were keen to endure. For selling the Poor Man’s
Guardian only, upwards of 500 persons were thrown into prison.
For publishing the “ Age of Reason ” in 1797, Williams suffered
twelvemonths’ imprisonment in Coldbath prison. In 1812, Daniel
Isaac Eaton was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
73
the pillory, for the same grave offence ; and the following year, Mr.
Houston was sentenced to be imprisoned for two years in Newgate,
and fined ^"200, for publishing his book called “ Ecce Homo.” In
October, 1819, Carlile was tried for publishing Paine’s Theological
Works, and Palmer’s “ Principles of Nature,” and condemned for
the first to Dorchester Gaol, and a fine of ^1,000; and for the
-second to one year’s imprisonment, and a fine of ^"500, and had to
fi.nd security for good behaviour for himself in ^"i,ooo, and two
securities in ^100 each. His wife and sister were afterwards con
victed of similar acts, and suffered heavy sentences. Upwards of .
thirty other persons, many of them journeymen of Mr. Carlile,
and the rest small booksellers, were also subjected to fine and
imprisonment in various degrees of severity. After this, Charles
Southwell was imprisoned and fined ^"ioo, for publishing an article
in the Oracle of Reason.
' The Christian Church has ever persecuted those who differed
-from its teachings. This desire to promote free enquiry in its
early history was exemplified in the memorable proclamation of
the Christian Emperor Theodosius, in which he declared that
the whole of the writings of Porphyry, and all others who had
written against the Christian religion, should be committed
to the fire.
The writings of Celsus met with an equally
warm reception, and for a proof that the same desire has existed in
modern times, it is necessary not only to read, the history of those
Freethought pioneers of the last and early part of the present cen
tury, but also to remember that now, whenever Christians have
the power, they close the halls against us, in order that we may
not have the opportunity to promulgate the material for free in
quiry.
Thus it will be seen that Secularism in the past has of necessity
been principally destructive, having had to fight for its right of
•existence ; till this was won it had no opportunity of exemplifying
its constructive powers. It was reserved for a more recent date to
formulate its principles into order and practical working. This is
the pleasing task in which the Secular party is now engaged ; and
that is a work which we hope and believe will make Secularism an
important factor in the training and elevation of the present
generation.
z 7
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
XVI.
SECULARISM : ITS PRESENT TRIUMPHS.
What benefits have accrued to us from the victories of our fore
fathers in the long and desperate conflict between Science and'
Religion ? The Copernican 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.”
For people who believed that the earth was the centre and chief of
the universe, the sun and moon and stars being merely little lampsmoving around it, and the sky a canopy above it, it was not ridi
culous to conceive that beyond the sky there was a Heaven, be
neath the flat earth a Hell; and that God was supremely interested
in mundane affairs, and especially in the destiny of man, thenoblest creature of this royal earth. But such conceptions are
worse than ridiculous, they are idiotic, when we know that our
globe is a speck so minute in the Immensity of Space, that “ a full
stop in this print, as seen by the naked eye at a distance of two
feet, is several hundred times larger than the earth as seen from
the sun; ” while from the nearest of the fixed stars it would be
quite indistinguishable with telescopes much more powerful than,
we possess. If God gave his Only Son for us animalcules on this
microscopic spherule, what could he do for the Illimitable Uni
verse ? It is now seen that there is no above and no beneath ; no
place for Heaven or’ Hell. And we are not less insignificant in the
boundlessness of Time than of Space. It is true that our race was
in existence myriads of years before the date of birth entered in the
family Bible, but other animals and the earth itself were in ex
istence myriads of years before us ; and as the condition of the earth
is ever changing, all probabilities point to the prospect of the earth
itself and other creatures being in existence myriads of ages after
we are extinct. A hopeful look-out lor our immortal souls I
While astronomy and geology have thus dethroned the earth
and man, dissolved Heaven and Hell, and reduced the Book of
Genesis to a jejune fable, the progress of all the sciences has im
pressed upon us the universality and immutability of law, the
invariable sequences of events, thus slaying miracle, despatching
Special Providence, and rendering prayer for celestial help a child
ish folly. Most of us look to medicine and sanitary measures for
health, not to supplication and shrined relics. And in most of us.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
75
are included our so-called Christians, for, in spite of their dogmas,
the greater part of their lives are conducted o/i the principles of
Secularism, though generally it is a Secularism deprived of many
of its better qualities. They shut down their brains on Sundays
in church, but keep them open with their shops all the week.
They are now willing to avail themselves of all the benefits of
science, but beg us not to shock their bashfulness by exposing its
principles and deductions in all their naughty nakedness.
If the question is asked, Is the present age practically Christian
or Secular ? to whom or to what shall we appeal for an answer ?
Shall we go to the Church of Rome? “ No ; for its spirit is con
fessedly that of the past ages. Times change, governments alter,
nations rise, civilizations come and go, but Catholicism remains
the same. Its philosophy is still that of Thomas Aquinas; its
creeds are still damnatory upon all who cannot accept them in
every jot or tittle. Shall we appeal to the Anglican Church ? No ;
for that Church refuses liberty of thought and speech to even her
own children, as when she visited with excommunication, obloquy
and reproach the endeavours of Bishop Colenso to throw the light
of reason upon the hitherto dark cells wherein the Pentateuch was
enshrouded from public inquiry. Not to either of these must we
make application, but rather to the science, literature, philosophy
and politics of this nineteenth century of the Christian era.
First, then, let us appeal to science. “ Is the Bible scientifically
true ? ” To the geologist we say, “ Ought we to accept unques
tioningly the Bible account of the Creation ? ” The answer is dis
tinctly, “ No ! ” To the anthropologist we say, “ Is it true that all
mankind have proceeded directly from one man and one woman ? ”
The answer is distinctly, “No!” To the astronomer we say, “ Is it
likely that sun, moon, planets and stars were made in order to
give light to the earth ? ” The answer is a decided “ No ! ” “ Is
it,” we ask, “ true that the sun and moon stood still at the com
mand of Joshua ? ’’ The astronomer says : “ No ; such a thing
would,in the nature of things,have wrecked and destroyed the solar
system.” To the critical scholar, the man whose life has been de
voted to the study of the age and the authenticity of the different
portions of the Bible, we next apply to know whether these por
tions of the book were written by the men whose names they bear,
and in the age wherein their alleged occurrences transpired. He,
too, says: “ No ; these books are wholly human in their origin ;
�76
SECULAR TEACHINGS
they have been antedated, interpolated, added to and taken from ;
you must not accept them as being the very word of the very God.”
So much for the characteristic of the age as represented by
science. If we turn to literature, what does that tell us ? That it
is wholly emancipated from the trammels of theology, that the
priest and the Index Expurgatorius no longer control it. There
was a time when the literature of Eurqpe was confined to works
■of theology and devotion. The first book, we believe, printed by
Caxton was a Bible, then a Missal, and so on. Lives of the saints
were abundant, telling of martyrs who, like St. Denis, walked
about with their heads in their hands after they had been decapi
tated, of ten thousand virgins murdered at once, and other fictions
even more incredible. All this, however, has been changed ; our
literature now pays little or no heed to theology. True it is that
Bibles are multiplied by the million ; that goody-goody tracts and
pious story-books are circulated in all directions ; but these do not
form the literature of the age. No ; that is the production of the
leading spirits of the time—of its doctors, its political writers, its
scientists, its lawyers, and its philosophers. Monthly, weekly—
aye, and even daily, the Press teems with productions many of
which are utterly at variance with the theological dogmas of the
past.
It is admitted even by eminent divines that the phase of unbelief
known as Agnosticism is a prominent characteristic of the age.
Agnosticism declares that we have no knowledge of God ; that we
cannot pretend to say that. such a Supreme Intelligence exists;
and that we are absolutely precluded from affirming that the uni
verse is really destitute of such a central Nous, or Highest Intelli
gence. “ Canst thou,” asked the writer of the grand old Semitic
drama—“ Canst thou by searching find out God ? ” This inter
rogation the honest Agnostic has put to himself, and after long and
earnest exercitation of mind, after the intensest study of the world
external and of the inner consciousness, he arrives at the conclu
sion that the question cannot be satisfactorily answered, either
affirmatively or negatively.
The Philosophy of the age is far different to what it was when
men made their ignorance the standard of belief. There was a
time when even leeks, onions, and salt were worshipped as emblems
•of power and of the preserving influence. We have outgrown such
idle Fetichism, and we believe that priestcraft has in the past
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
17
imposed these and all other theologies upon the world. It is not true
that there is something in the heart of man which beats responsive
to the figments of theologians. Fancy yourselves in a desolate '
island left to shift for yourselves from childhood, without either’
priests or Bibles, or any means of becoming acquainted with the
thoughts and imaginings of other men in other regions. In such a
situation is it to be supposed that people’s hearts would prompt tothe education oi the doctrine of the Trinity, of the necessity of
baptism, of regeneration, of the Apostle’s Creed, or the ThirtyNine Articles ? Where would be natural religion in such a case ?
The probability is that, except people were strong-minded, if they
were barbaric and ignorant, they would do as their distant pre
decessors in human history did—that is, fall down before and wor
ship the thunder, the tornado, the sun, or the starry host. Each
of these phenomena, then, would be endowed with a latent spirit,
and, in process of time, have added to them one supreme Unknown
Being, for whom would be invented a designation equivalent to
our word God.
Orthodox Christians misrepresent the philosophy of the age,
because they have been trained from infancy to attribute all things
whatever to a being external to themselves. But the present age
is more practical than any other by which it has been preceded : its
energies are directed towards its own improvement.
The political world is conducted on Secular principles ; scientific
research is unfettered by theology, and is, therefore, Secular; and
the practical ethics of modern society are utilitarian, and are,
therefore, Secular. Happy, indeed, is it for the world that its
politics are now finally severed from religion. The stronghold of
the successful statesman to-day is the standard of utility. In his
reasoning, his whole argument is made to rest upon this, the
foundation of permanent progress. The career of Mr. Cobden in
England, and Mr. Lincoln in America, were illustrations of the
secularization of our modern public life.” They reveal to us the
path by which those must tread whose ambition it is to benefit
their age. Had they lived a few hundred years ago, they might
have built churches, or founded monasteries, or endowed colleges,—been the Wyckhams or St. Bernards of their time. Their lot
was rather to legislate and agitate—to give food to the hungry,
to undo heavy burdens, and to set the oppres sed free; to remove
impediments from the path of national progress, that human de
I
LI
�78
SECULAR TEACHINGS
velopment might be left to its own laws, to seek its welfare in its
own way. Life thus became to them mundane, secular, rational,
non-theological, spent amid the hard practical conflicts of politics,
and aiming at nothing higher than the advancement of justice,
righteousness, and liberty in the world.”
Indeed, this ignoring Christian principles as a guide is not con
fined to public men. Christians themselves have long since ceased
to be influenced in their every-day actions by the teachings of
their Master. In his work upon “ Liberty,” John Stuart Mill says,
<£ that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individ
ual conduct by reference to those (New Testament) laws.” The
reason why those laws cannot be obeyed in the nineteenth century
is given in the words of Mill, that “ the morality of Christ is in
many important points incomplete and onesided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings not sanctioned by it, had contributed to the
formation of European life and character, human affairs would
have been in a worse condition than they now are.” The same
writer tells us that, “ other ethics than any which can
be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist
side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral
regeneration of mankind.” Buckle also in his “ History of
Civilization,” after showing that until doubt began, civilization
was impossible, and that the religious tolerance we now have has
been forced from the clergy by the secular classes, states “ that
the act of doubting is the originator, or a't all events, the necessary
antecedent of all progress. Here we have that scepticism, the
very name of which is an abomination to the ignorant, because it
disturbs their lazy and complacent minds ; because it troubles
their cherished superstitions ; because it imposes on them the
fatigue of inquiry; and because it rouses even sluggish under
standings to ask if things are as they are commonly supposed, and
if all is really true which they from their childhood have been
taught to believe. The more we examine this great principle of
scepticism, the more distinctly shall we see the immense part it
has played in the progress of European civilization. To state in
general terms what in this introduction will be fully proved, it may
be said, that to scepticism we owe that spirit of inquiry which,
during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on every
possible subject; has reformed every department of practical and
speculative knowledge; has weakened the authority of the privi
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
79
leged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation ; has
■chastised the despotism of princes ; has restrained the arrogance
of the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy.
In a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental
■errors of the olden time : errors which made the people, in politics
too confiding; in science too credulous ; in religion too intolerant.”
Thus, as the result of persistent Secular advocacy, we can con
gratulate ourselves upon having achieved many important
triumphs. We have a freedom of speech unknown in Christian
times. The press is more liberal than it ever was. Education is
becoming more secular every year, and orthodox persecution dare
not manifest itself as it did in the past. Hell is shut up, and the.
<ievil is practically dead, while the churches have left their old
moorings and are seeking to adapt their teachings to the Secular
requirements of the age.
We are told that the ethics of Jesus Christ are contained in the
four Gospels, and to the four Gospels they have ever been confined. Like
the old-fashioned silk dress of the old-fashioned cottager, they have
always been kept locked up, as being excellent to look at but too
fine for daily use. No man has ever succeeded, despite his protes
tations, in loving his enemy as himself; no man has ever turned the
second cheek to the ready blow of the smiter; no man has syste
matically neglected himself out of a regard for the prosperity of his
enemies. Indeed, the very heroes of the Bible never did this.
David cursed his persecutors ; the Apostles called down vengeance
from heaven upon Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus ; Paul
delivered over one of his enemies to Satan, that he might learn
not to blaspheme; ” and generally throughout Christian history we
look in vain for the charity which beareth and endureth all things.
In our own age the real test of goodness of conduct is its useful
ness to the world. Though we do not make loud pretensions of
loving those who hate us, the whole gist and scope of our morality
is directed towards promoting the welfare of society by means
which will also secure the welfare of its component elements. This
is utilitarianism, not theology ; it is the recognition of the fact that
the thing called Duty is a something between man and man, not.
man and God. In our mutual relationship we find the natural en
couragement and motive-power for the display of every virtue.
The theory of immortality has nothing whatever to do with our
% prudence, our courage, our honesty,. or our purity of character.
�So
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
The stringent, adamantine necessities of our existence imperatively
require the exercise of these virtues. Would we live secure from
peril of death by starvation, of penury the most abject, we must
prudently provide against the danger. Would we preserve our
national independence and individual freedom, we must be pre
pared to defend these against every adversary. Would we wish
to be ensured against false dealing and breach of faith, we must
ourselves deal honestly with all men. Would we keep a “ sound
mind in a sound body,” would we preserve our wives and daughters
from insult, we must keep our passions under restraint, and show
by our own example the wisdom of so living. Upon prudence
truth, courage, honesty, and temperance is based the whole
edifice of modern civilization. Without them we could not exist
except as barbarians; they must always be the very corner-stones
of societarian morality.
XVII. SECULARISM IN THE FUTURE.
If ever since the Renaissance Science, Art and Freethought have
steadily advanced in spite of all opposition, and the power of the
Church has steadily decreased ; if Naturalism, in the weak infancy
of its birth, has not only defeated all the attempts of Supernatural
ism to crush it, but has wrested more and more its rightful domains
from the usurper ; we cannot doubt the issue of the conflict be
tween Secularism and its foes now that the former is grown tovigorous youth and the latter are falling into senile and anile de
crepitude. If Hercules even in his cradle could strangle venomous
serpents, he would have small fear of the brood when he was in
his prime, and they were fangless with age. With the impetus of
our long advance, with the growing momentum of our enlarging
mass and accelerating speed, our progress as Secularists in the
future, so far as human foresight can extend, must be yet more
rapid and irresistible. We have plenty of work before us, and
work abounding with difficulties ; but if the past is the prophet of
the to-come, we have every encouragement and augury of success
in undertaking it. If we and our immediate successors do not
signally triumph, it will be through our lack of courage, or energy,
or wisdom, or of all three ; for the triumph of our principles is sure
as soon as they are worthily championed.
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
In the first place, we must continue our effort to educate the
masses of the people, kept ignorant all these centuries back by the
mental tyranny of Ecclesiasticism. The education on which we
should insist must be free, compulsory, universal, and Secular. x
Those who want their children taught some religion can arrange
for this at home, or elsewhere, out of school hours ; the teaching
for which the nation provides must be of subjects which all the
nation recognizes as useful, and these subjects are strictly secular.
We have to remove all legal and other disabilities founded on sex. i
Although the Christians are fond of boasting that their religion has
elevated woman, we know that the New Testament, as well as the
Old, distinctly proclaims her inferiority and subservience to man.
With our belief that all human beings have an equal right to the
full development and the free exercise of their faculties, we are
bound to open to women as to men all spheres of activity. Women
will succeed in those for which they are fit, they will fail in those
for which they are not fit; it is waste of time to discuss before
hand their fitness or unfitness for this or that; it is absurd as it is
unjust to hinder them from trying at what they will.
We have to promote sanitation in every direction, the provision
of pure air, pure water, pure food, sufficient house-room for even
the poorest classes. We have to do our utmost to extend and im
prove the cultivation of Science in general, and all the useful, arts
which are nurtured by Science ; and especially we have to further
both in theory and practice, the doctrines of Sociology, in order
that the just relations of man to man and society may be deter
mined and established in fact, and the present anarchy and hosti
lity between the classes of the privileged and unprivileged may bedestroyed, and merged into a free and fraternal harmony. We'
have to endeavour to convince our fellow creatures that the realobject of existence should be to learn how to live well; and that j
this can only be accomplished by developing our physical organiza-- '
tion, cultivating our moral sense, and training our intellectual
faculties. We have to enforce the truth that all the real wants of
human nature are comprised under the heads of the physical,
moral, intellectual, social, political, domestic, and emotional re
quirements of mankind ; and that all these requisites are supplied
by Secularism without the aid of any theology.
A few special words may be addressed to our own party, to those
who are consciously and avowedly Secularists, and profess them-
�82
SECULAR TEACHINGS.
selves anxious to extend the principles and practice of Secularism.
We are stronger than we ever were, not only in ourselves, and in
the comparative freedom with which we can advocate our doc
trines, but also in the increased and ever-increasing amount of
powerful and intelligent opinion in favour of our leading principles,
though not yet consciously or avowedly Secularistic, and in the
diminished and ever-diminishing power of the Supernaturalism
and despotism to which we are opposed. It rests with ourselves
to make the most of our advantages. In the first place, we must
combine more generally, organize more thoroughly, work together
more cordially, than we have ever yet done. We cannot exercise
our due influence, we cannot as we ought hearten ourselves and
dishearten our adversaries without union and co-operation. The
very essence of practical Secularism is social, not isolated, effort;
as our end is freedom, education, health, and happiness in com
mon, we must strive in common for this end. In many towns
there are scattered Secularists who do little or nothing for the
cause, while, if they formed societies, they could do much. Of
course it is not required that any man should surrender or sup
press his convictions on essential points for the sake of conformity
with his brethren. But all genuine Secularists have so much that
is essential in common, that they can honestly act together, and so
multiply their strength, both for attack or resistance. Our devotion
to mental, moral, social, and political freedom should surely enable
us to live together in a brotherhood and sisterhood more cordial
and intimate than can be dreamed of by those whose main object
is selfish prosperity in this life, or selfish beatitude in a life to come,
.or the dual selfishness of the one and the other.
Again, even where we have Societies, they are usually much too
restricted in their scope. Lectures, discussions, and reading are
very valuable, and indeed necessary, but it should ever be remem
bered that if a man simply hears Freethought lectures, or reads
JFreethought books himself, leaving his family to gratify their
social instincts in ordinary society, his children will probably grow
up saturated with the prejudices and superstitions from which he
has been freed. We want the wives, children, and other relatives
of our members to be interested and delighted in our work. To
ih is end our Societies must be not only schools of instruction, but
;also resorts for innocent recreation. We need tender hearts no
Hess than hard heads, and must cultivate warm feeling as well as
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
83
■cool reasoning. Secularism is little or nothing worth unless it be
carried out in practice, unless it pervade the whole private and
public life of those who profess it. There are men—we all know
•such—who, because they have been delivered from the fetters of
Sup’ernaturalism ; because they have been enabled to learn that
•the Bible is, like any other book of ancient times, a mixture of
• truth and error, of good and bad; because they see clearly the
injustice of certain laws which bear heavily on themselves; flatter
themselves that they are very wise and distinguished men, far
superior to the vulgar folk about them, that they are shining para
gons of Secularism; while remaining as selfish and immoral as
before they were thus partially enlightened. Such men are not
Secularists at all, they are the opprobrium of Secularism. The
genuine Secularist, ever working toward the greatest good of
the greatest number, in the light of the clearest wisdom he can
acquire, must be a brave, kindly, sincere and just man. His
Secularism will be felt as a radiating blessing, first and most
warmly and brightly in his own home, and farther off, in propor
tion to their distance, by all his neighbours. If a man neglects and
ill-treats his wife and children, if he is idle and intemperate, if he
cheats in trade or scamps his work, if he is tyrannical to those
beneath him and obsequious to those above himk if he is jealous
■and envious, given to slander and falsehood, if he seeks only or
mainly self-gratification, whether of appetite or vanity or pride, we
must distinctly disavow him as a Secularist, however cleverly he
may write, however fluently he may speak, against the doctrines
adverse to our own. Secularism must no longer be charged, with
out protest, with the vices and lack of self-respect of persons ^ho
are really Nothingarians—men who are sceptical to the tenets of
■Christianity, but who never essay to regulate their every-day con
duct in accordance with the moral teachings of practical Secular
ism. We can only achieve a real and enduring triumph, and can
only deserve to achieve it, by approving ourselves not simply more
intelligent, but also more virtuous, than our opponents, more
courageous, honest, humane, zealous, and loving.
There is a large class of passive as distinguished from active
Secularists ; persons so circumstanced that they dare not, or think
they dare not, avow themselves publicly, fearing to wound and
estrange friends, or bring injury upon themselves. The cases of
such persons vary so extremely and indefinitely that no peremptory
�84
SECULAR TEACHINGS
counsel can be given applicable to the majority, or even to a large
number, save such as would be founded on the lofty but impracti
cable supposition, that all men alike must be and can be heroes,,
and, if the occasion calls, martyrs. One consideration, however„cart
safely be urged upon all such persons. They are much more num
erous than they themselves suppose ; so numerous that, if they all
took courage to declare their principles, they would find them
selves far too powerful to suffer from the social obloquy and os
tracism from which they shrink severally in their isolation. Every
Secularist is certainly required to show more vigour and courage
than the vulgar bondsmen of creeds and conventionalities. Weare already reaping rich harvests from the fields sown in the tears
and blood of the heroes and martyrs who went before ; it surely
behoves us, to whom by their efforts the task has been rendered somuch easier and less dangerous, to plant and sow more abundantly,
for the reaping and gathering of those who shall come after. This
is our just debt to our ancestry, which can only be paid to our
posterity. If our forefathers dared undaunted the prison and the
scaffold and the stake, when the ultimate triumph of the Good Old’
Cause was so remote and dubious, we must be degenerate indeed’
if we cannot dare some annoyance of ignorant contumely, some
injury to our business or social prospects^ when its final victory isso much nearer and so assured.
XVIII. SECULARISM: SUMMING UP.
In concluding an exposition of the teachings of Secularism, it may
be of service to the reader to briefly summarize the leading features
of Secular philosophy. Unfortunately it is too evident that through
out society there exist exceedingly imperfect ideas regarding man,
his duties and requirements. The search for truth and the acquire
ment of a practical acquaintance with the obligations of life are
too frequently confined to the few, while the many neglect to real
ize the real advantages of existence. Why is this ? What hasproduced such misconception of the object of human effort ? The
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
85
cause perhaps is not difficult to discover. It is apparent in the
radical evil underlying the whole of the theological creeds of
Christendom—namely, a lack of the desire to concentrate atten
tion on the present. The term “ present ” is here used as having
reference to the life we now experience, entirely apart from con
siderations of any existence “ hereafter.” Accepted in this Secular
sense, it is of course a duty to take thought for the morrow. Such
a prospective aspiration is demanded by prudence, and justified
■by experience. But the mistake of the theological world is that
its members regulate their conduct and control their actions
almost exclusively by the records of the past or the conjectures of
a future. Their rules of morality, their systems of theology, and
their modes of thought, are too much a reflex of an imperfect an
tiquity. Those who cannot derive sufficient inspiration from this
.source, fly into the fancied boundaries of another world—a future
which is enveloped in obscurity, and upon which experience can
throw no light. History has been subverted by this theological
error from its proper purpose. Instead of being the interpreter of
ages, it has become the dictator of nations; instead of being a
guide of the future, it is really the master of the present. The
proceedings of bygone times are thus made the standard of appeal
in this ; the wisdom of the first century is regarded as the infal
lible rule of the nineteenth. The watchword of the Church is “as
you were,” rather than “ as you are.” Christian theology hesi
tates to recognize active progressive principles, but holds that faith
was stereotyped eighteen hundred years ago, and that all subse
quent actions and duties must be shaped in its mould. Observing
this defect, Secularism asserts that immediate positive work is
more valuable than either retrospective or prospective faith. And
rather than worship mysteries, and venerate the unknown, a
Secularist strives to avail himself of the utility and value of the
realities which lie around him.
Secularism is a term selected to represent principles having
reference to the existence and necessities of mankind on earth,
neither affirming nor denying an existence “ beyond the grave.”
Secularists recognize this life as an indubitable fact; should
■there be another awaiting mankind in the future, all notions of
such a state must, we think, be mere conjectures. Therefore,
we deem it more useful to concentrate our efforts upon the
known life—that which really is—seeking to realize its value,
�86
SECULAR TEACHINGS
physically, morally, and intellectually, as fully as possible,,
thereby making the best of existence, and also preparing for
the highest enjoyment of any supposed life hereafter, if future ex
perience should demonstrate its reality. In reference to certain
theological views professed by the Christian world, the statement
of the “ Founder of Secularism” is here appropriate. “ Many of
us,” he observes, “ are not able to believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being, distinct from nature ; but we do not exact from
members of Secular Societies an agreement in opinion on this
theological question. We associate for practical purposes on the
wide field of Secularism, outside the abstract question of the ex
istence of Deity. Many of us do not hold the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul; but neither do we exact agreement on
this point from our friends. We seek the co-operation of all who
can agree to projnote present human improvement by present
human means. The existence of God, the future condition of'
man, are questions which five thousands years of controversy
have not settled ; we, therefore, leave them open to the solution
of intelligence and time; they shall not be with us barriers which,
shall divide us from our brethren ; we will not embarrass human
affairs with them. Morality, that system of human duties com
mencing from man, we will keep distinct from religion, that system
of human duties assumed to commence from God ” (Mr. Holyoake’s debate with Rev. B. Grant in 1853, page 7).
The teachings of Secularism are :—(1) That, as this life is the
only one of which we have any knowledge, we should seek to pro
mote, by material means alone, the physical, moral, and intellectual
condition of society. By material means we understand that which
is calculable in its operations, being the very antithesis of what is.
called spiritual agencies. This, of course, includes the proper use
of every intellectual faculty. (2) That personal excellence and
general usefulness in human affairs ought to be regarded as being
of greater importance than the consideration of theological specu
lations and the adherence to alleged supernatural teachings, and
should be the chief objects of human solicitude and labour. (3) That
the basis of all conduct is the temporal well-being of the people, and
the object of all action is the acquirement and practice of wisdom,
truth, temperance, fortitude, and justice. (4) That reliance upon the
discoveries of science, and sharing in the benefits arising from their
application to the needs of mankind, are preferable to reposing trust
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
«7
in theological faiths and the teachings of the Bible. (5) That the
motive prompting to action should be the attainment of the highest
possible individual and general happiness on earth, not the desire
for personal enjoyment in the alleged heaven of Christianity.
(6) That, if a just God exist, and if a judgment day ever arrives,
honest inquiry,earnest conviction, integrity of character, and fidelity
to principle should secure as warm an approval and as good a re
ward for the Secularist who rejects the faith of Christendom as
could be obtained by the Christian who is able to believe in theteachings of the New Testament. (7) That to select the good and
reject the bad in any or all religions is a right that any and every
person should be allowed honestly and conscientiously to exercise,
without incurring any disadvantages here, or any punishment in any
possible hereafter.
As to the “theory of the universe,” Secularism allows its ad
herents to form what opinion upon this matter the individual deems
in harmony with the evidence before him or her. Experience proves
that uniformity of opinions upon speculative topics cannot obtain.
All persons are left, therefore, to decide for themselves according
to the “light before them.” We impose no ancient conclusion as
the limit and boundary upon modern thought. If men and women
will work, irrespective of theological dogmas, for the good of society
in this life, they are practical Secularists. Secularism is not neces
sarily Atheism or Theism ; its principles are broad enough to admit
either Theists, Atheists, or Pantheists within its ranks.
The Secular code of morals is based upon the principle of utility;
it enjoins self-discipline, the love of truth, fidelity to conviction, ac
quirement and application of knowledge, fortitude in good conduct,
temperance, magnanimity, justice, and considerateness for the
rights, comfort, and welfare of others.
It is frequently asked : From a Secular standpoint, (a) What is
the source .of moral obligation ? (/>) What is the nature of a moral
action ? (c) What are the sanctions of morality ? (d) What are
the incentives to moral conduct ? The answer is clear and deci
sive
(a) Human nature is the source of m^ral obligation. The
more that nature is improved by experience and cultivation the
better and stronger will be the moral source. (6) Those actions
only are moral which are beneficial to mankind, and which add to
the welfare of society, both individually and ufellectively. (c) The
sanctions of morality are the protection of the individual and the
�88
SECULAR TEACHINGS
debt he owes to the community for its protective service, (d) The
incentives to moral conduct are personal excellence and the general
happiness and well-being of the community.
Secularists are often invited to indicate what Secularism has to
offer to mankind for their good that Christianity cannot consis
tently proffer ? To which we reply: (i) The right to reject, with
out peril or condemnation, whatever appears to us to be erroneous
in any or all of the religions of the world. Secularism defends this
Tight; Christianity condemns it. “ He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”
.(Mark 16: 16.) (2) The full liberty to regard Christianity as
being merely the outgrowth of the human mind. Secularism
grants this. The Church denies it in contending that Christianity is
a Divine system, and that its founder was a part of the Godhead.
To those who do not obey Christ’s Gospel he will come “ in flam
ing fire, taking vengeance on them” (2 Thess. 1: 8). (3) The ad
vantage of believing the Bible to be of human origin in estimating
its contents by its intrinsic value and not by its supposed “ Divine”
authority. Orthodox Christianity does not concede this. If it
did, its “ court of appeal” would be at once gone as an infallible
“ authority.” (4) The absence of any fear of being punished
“ hereafter ” for the legitimate exercise of reason in its true sphere
of Secular Freethought. Christianity does not permit this, inas
much as it enforces uniformity of belief, demanding all mankind
to accept Christ as their Saviour. In the case of rejecting this
demand, Christianity says : “For whosoever will deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven”
(Matt. 10: 33). (5) The acting upon the opinion that the princi
pal attention of man should be given to “ time,” and not to
“ eternity.” The world practically acts upon this principle. If
this is denied let it be shown (a) that national progress is the
result of aught else but the devotion of man’s principal attention
to the things of “ timeand (6) that such attention renders a
person less fit for any possible “ eternity.” (6) That science is of
more value to man than faith in the alleged supernatural. This is
the very opposite to the following New Testament teachings :—
“Take no thought for your life;” “Labour not for the meat
which perisheth ;” “For what is a man profited if he shall gain the
whole world and lose his own soul ?” “Man is saved by faith with
out works ;” “ Set your affections on things above, not on things
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
89
on the earth;” “ For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with
G-od;” “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of
the Church.......... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick;’
“ Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplica
tion let your requests be made known unto God“ But seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these
things [material wants of man] shall be added unto you.”
It is necessary to correct the erroneous qrthodox allegation that
the positive teachings of Secularism have been purloined from
Christianity. We claim that the present life is the only one of
which we have any knowledge ; that well-being in this world is
-our highest duty; that the only means we can rely upon to secure
this object are knowledge, wise action, and experience ; that con
duct should be judged by its issues on earth, and that science is
of more practical value than belief in any supernatural being
Surely these teachings are positive enough; but where are they to
be'found in the New Testament ? Again, the Secular motive fcr
;good conduct is the happiness of the individual and the welfare of
the human race in this life, while the motive power of Chris
tianity is supposed to pertain to some future life. Moreover,
Secularism teaches positively that no apprehension should be en
tertained of punishment after death for disbelief during life.
Christianity alleges the very opposite of this in its threatenings of
eternal punishment in hell. For New Testament proof of this
the reader is referred to Matthew 13: 42; 25: 30 and 46; Mark
9: 44; Revelation 14: 10, 11; 21: 8. The orthodox believer
replies to this by saying, “You can reject any truth without suffer
ing the consequences of such rejection.” Just so; but mark the
-difference in the two cases. If you reject a Secular truth, the con
sequences are confined to this life, and they follow in time to make
reformation possible. Not so with Christianity; in it there are
not mere consequences, but punishment, to be inflicted for “ ever
and ever,” when all opportunity for improvement has passed.
Equally desirable is it to correct the fallacy of our opponents in
reference to Secular responsibility, and what they term the “ free
dom of the will.” Secularism does recognize man’s responsibility,
•but by that term it means that we should deem it our duty to con
sider the effect of our conduct upon society, and that it is incumbent
upon us to act with a view of promoting, not to injure, the welfare
-of society. Such responsibility, however, is confined to this life.
�90
'
SECULAR TEACHINGS
and its extent depends upon the conditions and position of the
individual, and his relation to the general community. Of course,
where there is no power to choose, there can be no responsibility.
Hence we fail to harmonize the doctrine of predestination and
those passages in the New Testament which speak of the “ elect,”
and that man of himself can do no good thing, with the theological
notion of responsibility.
Secularism does not accept the “ free-will ” doctrine as taught
by the churches. The “ will ” is, like all things else, an effect aswell as a cause. It certainly counts for something, indeed for
much, in human actions; but then it has itself sprung from, and.
is conditioned by, organization, environment, and other causes
which it is powerless to control. Man’s motives do not arise from
his volition ; on the contrary, they govern the will. Man is free,,
of course, in a sense—that is, he is free to act in accordance with
his desires ; but these desires act independently of volition. And
this is all the freedom that is possible, and it is all that any rational
person should demand. No man wants freedom to do that which
he has no inclination to do, or to act contrary to his desires. His.
freedom lies in his capacity to obey his impulses; but these im
pulses the will has no power to create. The will is not an
originating cause, but itself an effect, the result of a complication
of circumstances, such as external surroundings, the condition of
the brain, temperament, age, sex, and heredity. To say that the
will is free in the sense that Arminians hold it to be, is to state
that which is paradoxical. For, if a person has the power to call
up a desire by the will, it is certain that some prior desire induced
him to do so. What, therefore, caused that desire ? Suppose one
individual says he wills to do a thing, and he does it: he must
have had an inclination, or he would not have thus willed and
acted. Some inclination must, therefore, precede the will, and,
clearly, the will cannot be the cause of that which precedes itself
in point of time, and to which, in fact, it owes its existence.
In our Secular advocacy we are being constantly met with the
statement that there is a “ religious instinct in human nature,” and
we are asked, How does Secularism propose to satisfy this ? Simply,
by allowing every individual to worship according to his or her
own desire, providing their action does not interfere with the rights
of others. Religion, in its truest sense, is not the monopoly of the
orthodox party. The Christian churches have robbed religion of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS
91
its legitimate etymological meaning and invested it with ecclesias
tical creeds and dogmas, thus limiting its proper signification and
also depriving it of its best and loftiest influence. With the
thoughtless masses religion is accepted as the teacher of fear, de
pendence and blind faith, instead of being regarded as the inspirer
of love, self-reliance and active service. The cross of Calvary is
erected as an emblem of redemption, making its devotees blind to
the lesson of history and experience, that the only redeemer of man
kind is man. Accepting religion apart altogether from theological
associations, it is quite possible to harmonize it with Secularism.
Of course, Secularism is thoroughly antagonistic to orthodox
Christianity ; but, then, there are ample means, separate altogether
from this faith, of satisfying every instinct of human nature. Pro
bably, if this alleged “religious instinct” were thoroughly ex
amined, it would be found to consist principally of veneration,
fear, wonder, hope, and gratitude. These, however, are purely
natural faculties, and the mode of their manifestation depends
upon birth, education and locality. What would satisfy a Turk’s
“ religious instinct ” would not suit a devotee of the Greek Church,
and there is a marked difference between the religious gratification
of a Hindoo and that of a European. The Catholic would regard
the Quaker’s religious satisfaction as very inadequate, while the
Primitive Methodist would view that of the Unitarian with equal
disfavour. It is the misapplication of these human faculties,
through ignorance of natural laws and the power of the priesthood
that has perverted them from their legitimate functions. Secular
ists do not aim to destroy any human instinct; they wish rather
that it should be properly understood, and that in its development
it should be directed by wisdom and controlled by reason and
science.
It is frequently charged against Secularism that it destroys the
principle of the brotherhood of man. Such, however, is not the
case. The foundation of the brotherhood of man, from a Secular
point, is the recognition and application of the just principle that
individuals should not work merely for their own good, but also for
the well-being of general society, and that all mankind should have
an opportunity of sharing in whatever conduces to their highest
welfare. We do not accept the term “ brotherhood of m<n ” in its
societarian application, in the sense that all mankind came from
one parent, but rather as manifesting, in a general manner, that
�■92
SECULAR TEACHINGS
feeling of love that exists in the domestic circle, and which is, or
should be, mutual between brothers. If we adopt the theological
application, what can be said of the conduct of an assumed Father
of all, who could purposely arrange one race to be superior to and
above all others on the face of the earth ? who could decree that
some of his children should be born and kept as slaves to others of
his children ? of a Father who could love one child and hate
another before either of them was born ? of one who gave to mil
lions of his children such organizations that up to the present
moment they have been wholly unable to understand and to
appreciate the advantages enjoyed by a favoured few ? and, finally,
of a Father who should so order his family arrangements that the
vast majority of his children should be lost forever ?
“ Secularism,” as Mr. George Jacob Holyoake has said in his
admirable work, “The Trial of Theism,” “is a recognition of
■causation in nature, in science, in mind, morals, and manners. In
electing its own sphere, however, it will combat without Contemn
ing others. It may also omitmuch that it respects, as well as that
which it rejects—but to omit is not to ignore. The solution of the
problem of union can only be effected by narrowing the ground of
profession, and widening that of action—it requires to collect
sympathies without dictating modes of manifestation.
“ Secularism teaches the good of this Life to be a rightful object
of primary pursuit, inculcates the practical sufficiency of Natural
Morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or the Bible, and selects as
its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by
material means.
“ Secularism holds that the Protestant right of private judgment
includes the moral innocency of that judgment, whether for or
against received opinion; provided it be conscientiously arrived
at—that the honest conclusion is without guilt—that though all
sincere opinion, is not equally true, nor equally useful, it is yet
equally without sin—that it is not sameness of belief but sincerity
of belief which justifies conduct, whether regard be had to the
esteem of men or the approval of God.
“With respect to the service , of humanity, deliverance from
sorrow or injustice is before consolation—doing well is higher than
meaningpwell—work is worship to those who accept Theism, and
■duty to those who do not.
“As security that the principles of Nature and the habit of
�SECULAR TEACHINGS.
93
Reason may prevail, Secularism uses itself and maintains for
others these rights of reason. The Free Search for Truth, with
out which it is impossible. The Free Utterance of the result,. "
without which the increase of Truth is limited. The Free Criti
cism of alleged Truth, without which conscience will be impotent
on practice.
“ A Secularist sees clearly upon what he relies as a Secularist.
To him the teaching of Nature is as clear as the teaching of the
Bible, and since, if God exists, Nature is certainly His work, while
it is not so clear that the Bible is—the teaching of Nature will be
preferred and followed where the teaching of the Bible appears to
conflict with it.
“ All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in
the best sense in which this term appears to be used. The dis
tinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good
which is dictated by Nature, which is attainable by material
means, and which is of immediate service to humanity, a religious
ness to which the idea of God is not essential, nor the denial of the
idea necessary.
“ Going to a distant town to mitigate some calamity there will
illustrate the principle of action prescribed by Secularism. One
man will go on this errand from pure sympathy with the unfortu
nate ; this is goodness. Another goes because his priest bids
him ; this is obedience. Another goes because the twenty-fifth
chapter of Matthew tells him that all such persons will pass to
the right hand of the Father; this is calculation. Another goes
because he believes God commands him; this is piety. Another
goes because he perceives that the neglect of suffering will not
answer; this is utilitarianism. But another goes on the errand of
mercy, because it is an errand of mercy, because it is an immediate
service to humanity; and he goes with a view to attempt material
amelioration rather than spiritual consolation; this is Secularism,
which teaches that goodness is sanctity, that Nature is guidance,
that reason is authority, that service is duty, that Materialism is
help.
“ Speaking mainly on the part of Secularists, it is sufficient to
observe—Man does not live by egotisms, hopes, and comforts—
but rather by self-renunciation, by service and endurance. It is
asked, will Secularism meet all the wants of human nature ? To
this we reply, every system meets the wants of those who believe
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Teachings of Secularism Compared With Orthodox Christianity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 95 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Teachings of Secularism Compared With Orthodox Christianity), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1848
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Christianity and Atheism
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/62d3528316601b71d06dead15744cfee.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=dgJPF1LFKJmSKhQ6wiHSVU6D64Nri13HCVxBBTvQ0y1nDf0IAZlgeWeRry22X90pEaeQGssgriNi3xbcIqUYWmlLjvLXmO3suBQ1NNXuJzEbUPqqCMk7JO4A7k0DHrYbN1AH%7EjADCwEuXp1FNUT1Q%7EL8X2bhDiFcw0MLn9t0X9oBrf-dXu-Kro-TzwH9hxdvuzaKi5CNGvvSTR0%7EYBuvbBE7aQ8Hpj-zF7Lx5dMKmVpmfx1LbRAuO6RsOwJlmkb5xOC6mxni0QJEfb5e1MNRSA0S1ghtoY6Y-bSH-Kzc7vMFqAm88Q7J1g6J913Lc2hJgwmqtgmxExWdbO%7EakM6Reg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
27cd7d425e8712431a4470e175273041
PDF Text
Text
AGNOSTICISM
AND
CHRISTIAN THEISM
I
Which is the More Reasonable ?
«
By CHARLES WATTS.
CONTENTS:
(1) What is Agnosticism? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and
Christian Theism ; (3) Is it sufficient to satisfy man’s intellectual
requirements?
The Natural and the Supernatural.
Price
Ten Cents.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE,
Toronto, Ont.
�omhmm
�AGNOSTICISM & CHRISTIAN THEISM :
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
I.
WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ?
This is pre-eminently a critical age, when the right to examine teach
ings submitted for our acceptance is more than ever recognized. In
the light of modern thought, no subject is too sacred for honest criti
cism, and no opinion too ancient for reasonable investigation. Rea-on
is now rapidly taking the place of blind belief, and serfdom to authority
issyielding to the influence of mental freedom.
Christian Theism as taught by the Churches has been so long regarded
by its adherents as being the embodiment of absolute truth, that to in any
way question its pretensions has been condemned as almost an unpar
donable sin. Every new philosophy that has challenged the positive
claims of Theism has been avoided and misrepresented apart from its
-pertinency and value. This has been the case particularly with the
philosophy of Agnosticism. It will, therefore, be interesting to in
quire, What is this Agnostic phase of thought ? In answering this
question, the reply will be classified under three divisions—(1) What
is Agnosticism ? (2) Its relation to the Universe and Christian
Theism; and (3) Is it sufficient' to satisfy man’s intellectual require
ments 1
What is Agnosticism ? The word is one that has become tolerably
familiar to a large section of society in sound, if not in its strictest
philosophical signification. It has come into use within the last few
years, and has achieved a great popularity. Friends arid foes alike
employ it—the former to approve it and the latter to condemn it, and
both to describe a certain phase of thought which is recognised as being
very extensive. Like most technical phrases, the term is derived from
the Greek, and signifies “ not knowing.” An Agnostic, therefore, is
one who confesses that he has no knowledge upon those subjects to
which his Agnosticism is applicable.
�4
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
Although the word Agnostic is comparatively new, that which it
represents is as old as humanity. Men are not now for the first time
discovering that there are questions which lie altogether beyond their
gnosis or knowledge. That discovery was made at the dawn of human
thought. A knowledge of his own ignorance was one of the qualities
which Socrates boasted that he possessed, and which distinguished him.
in such a marked manner from his wily antagonists, the Sophists ; and
at Athens, two thousand years ago, St. Paul is said to have found an
altar, the remaining one of many, dedicated to an “ Unknown God.”'
The limits of human knowledge have been recognized by the foremost,
men of the race in all lands and in every age. Before the mighty
mysteries of the universe the greatest thinkers have stood awe-stricken,,
aghast and dumb. The intellect has again and again been paralyzed
in its ineffectual attempts to read the riddles of existence, before which
those of the Sphinx are lost in their insignificance ; and no GEdipus hasyet been found competent to the task of furnishing the solution. “ Alli
things,” said the schoolmen, “ run into the inscrutable,”—a thought
equivalent to one to be found in Professor Tyndall’s “ Belfast Address.”'
Therein that eminent scientist says : “ All we see around and all wefeel within us....... have their unsearchable roots in a cosmical life.......
an infinitesimal span of which is offered to the investigation of man.”'
Thus it will be seen that Agnosticism is an old friend with a new name,,
and perhaps a few additional qualities. We meet with it under certain,
forms in the pages of the history of every age. The profoundest intel
lects have been familiar with its character, and have not felt themselves
ashamed to confess to the attitude of mind which it represents.
It should be distinctly understood that Agnosticism is not to be in
any way confounded with ignorance as that phrase is used in every-day
life. Herein consists ©ne of the errors into which our orthodox op
ponents are continually falling. They use the words Agnosticism and
general ignorance as if they were synonymous, which is misleading, to say
^the least of it—that is, unless the latter term be employed as the direct
/antithesis of omniscience. No one pretends to know everything, and
the knowledge of many persons is considerably less than they in their
own opinion imagine. It is stated that an admirer of Dr. Johnson
began on one occasion to praise him for the great extent of his know
ledge. “Pooh,” said Johnson, “you would say I had great knowledge
even though you did not think so.” “ And,” rejoined the admirer,
“ you would think so even though I did not say it.” The fault of
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
5
'Over-estimating our own knowledge is very common, and frequently
begets an egotism of a very dangerous nature. Invariably, the less a
man knows the more dogmatic he becomes, and the weaker the evidence
upon which his convictions are based the more positively will he assert
them to be true. It should require no extensive self-examination to
convince the careful thinker that, even if he knew all that can be
known upon every subject within the range of human gnosis, still
then the domain into which his knowledge does not extend would be
infinitely large compared with that small sphere which his information
has covered. In that larger province he is an Agnostic, and it would
be very unfair to designate him an ignorant person on that account.
Therefore, although Agnosticism means “ not knowing,” it is in no way
the equivalent of general ignorance.
The word Agnostic, however, in its philosophical sense, has a still
broader meaning. An Agnostic is not simply a person who is profossedly
ignorant concerning many subjects upon which other persons pretend to
have an extensive knowledge ; but he maintains that there are problems
the solution of which by man is impossible at the present stage of
his mental development. Further, an Agnostic is one who limits the
human mind by the measure of its capacity. That the finite can never
become infinite is probably a matter about which there can be no
difference of opinion, inasmuch as such a statement is a self-evident
truth, or as axiomatic as a proposition of Euclid. On the other hand,
a mind which is less than infinite cannot possess all knowledge. The
■consequence is, that there must always remain a wide field beyond the
range of the human faculties. In relation to that field every man must
be Agnostic, for the simple reason that his knowledge cannot penetrate
therein. Even the most orthodox believer proclaims his Agnosticism,
in a sense—that is, he admits that there are subjects which he not only
does not know, but which, from their very nature, he can never know,
since they relate to that which lies outside the sphere of thought. As
Herbert Spencer observes : “ At the utmost reach of discovery there
arises, and must ever arise, the question, What lies beyond ? ” (“First
Principles.”) And that beyond does not diminish, but rather widens,
•as knowledge increases ; for, the more we know, the more we discover
we have to learn. “ The power which the universe manifests to us,”
remarks the same writer, “ is utterly inscrutable.” Why should there
be any hesitation in admitting this truth ? No one looks upon it as
derogatory to human nature to admit that his power is limited, and
�6
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
that there are things which he cannot do. Why, therefore, should it beconsidered humiliating to confess that man’s knowledge, is limited, and
that there are topics which he does not and cannot know ? Not simply
that he has not advanced sufficiently in intellectual research to grapple
with them, but that they lie completely outside his sphere of thought.
In nature we can never know more than phenomena; and yet thesevery phenomena involve the necessity of the existence of something
which is their ground and support—that something being to us un
knowable. The unknown is postulated in the very terms we are com
pelled to use when speaking of the unknown. “ The senses,” as Lewes
observes, “perceive only phenomena; never noumena” (“History of
Philosophy ”). This opinion is not of modern origin, since Anaxagoras
maintained it, and Plato gave it his support. Thus it will be seen that
Agnosticism is not only not synonymous with what is generally termed
ignorance, but that it is compatible with the very highest and most
profound knowledge of which the human mind is capable.
Agnosticism being a philosophical, or certainly a quasi-philosophical,
question, must be judged of in the same manner as any other subject
of philosophy. Dogmatism is out of place in regard to it, and those
who accept its teachings must be content to practise humility and to
lay aside all arrogant assumptions of their great superiority to other
men whose views may not be identical with their own. As the ancient
philosopher observed : “We are never more in danger of being sub
dued than when we think ourselves invincible.” The object of the
whole Agnostic system is to learn, as far as possible, the limits of the
human mind in reference to the acquisition of knowledge, and, having,
done this, to use every effort to effect improvement wherever it is
possible, and to leave the useless and impracticable labour of sowing
the wind to those who seek to know the unknowable and to perform
the impossible. Wesley, in one of his hymns referring to the death of
Christ, says : “ Impassive he suffers, immortal he dies ”■—that is, in
capable of suffering, he did suffer; incapable of dying, he did die.
Now, is not this the very height of absurdity ? And yet, in reality, it
is not a whit more absurd than much that is put forth by those who
claim a knowledge of matters which lie beyond the sphere of human
reason. Agnostics, refusing to profess a knowledge they cannot com
mand, aim to differentiate the knowable from the unknowable, and
then devote their time and energies to widening the sphere of that
within human gnosis. Whatever else is possible, it is certain that we
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
7
can never extend the domain of the known into the unknown by in
dulging in wild flights of the imagination respecting the unknowable,
A® Socrates wisely observes : “ Having searched into all kinds of
science, we discover the folly of neglecting those which concern human
life and involving ourselves in difficulties about questions which are
but mere notions. We should confine ourselves to nature and reason.
Fancies beyond the reach of understanding, and which have yet been
made the objects of belief—these have been the source of all the dis
putes, errors and superstitions which have prevailed in the world. Such
notional mysteries cannot be made subservient to the right use of
humanity.”
“ Fear not to scan
The deep obscure or radiant light.
Heed not the man
Who draws old creeds to keep thee tight.
Examine all creeds, old and new :
Test all with reason through and through.”
II.
THE RELATION OF AGNOSTICISM TO THE UNIVERSE AND TO THEISM.
Agnosticism maintains that the teachings of theology relative to the
origin and nature of the universe, the existence of God, and immor
tality are simply questions of speculation, and that reason, science
and general knowledge do not support their dogmatic claims. Tne
theologian, on the other hand, contends that sufficient is known upon
these teachings to entitle them to our credence. In the face of these
two contentions, it will be profitable to ascertain as far as possible
which is the correct one. When the truth upon the matter is made
manifest, the wisdom of confining ourselves to the known and knowable
of existence yill probably be more readily recognized. What, then, are
those subjects which are dogmatized upon by the theologian, and to
which our attitude is purely Agnostic ?
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.
This is a question which, to us, is involved in absolute mystery. Not
only can it not be fathomed by the human mind, but no approach can
be made towards the solution of the'problem by the mightiest efforts of
the human intellect. We may go back millions of years in imagination,
�8
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
but even then we are no nearer to a beginning than we were before.
Indeed, the possibility of such a beginning at all cannot be thought—
in other words, is not thinkable. As Mr. Mansel observes, “ Creation
is, to the human mind, inconceivable.” Precisely the same with the
other alternative, of an external existence, whether of matter or
spirit. It presents no idea that we can deal with intellectually, because
it ^sembles nothing of which we have had, or can have, the smallest
possible experience. Something must have existed from all eternity ;
that is a necessary truth, from which there is no escape. And yet the
how of that eternal existence lies utterly beyond the sphere of human
thought. To waste time in trying to comprehend it, to say nothing of
making it the subject of discussion, much less of dogmatism, is the
supremest folly. Nor can we have the slightest idea as to what was,
or is, the eternal existence. The dogmatic Theist ascribes it to God,
and the positive Atheist declares it to be matter • but what in reality
either the one or the other means, in the strictest sense, by the terms
used, neither of them knows. For what is God, and what is matter <
Are they the same, or are they two different existences ? The Mate
rialist, of course, denies the existence of spirit, and hence by matter he
means something other than spiritj-but what ? Matter is simply a name
given to that which originates in us sensations. But all that is known
of this is phenomenal, and phenomena, as before pointed out, cannot
exist by themselves, but must be supported by something which underlies
them. What that something is, however, no one knows, since it lies
completely outside the sphere of sensation. Besides, modern science
has clearly shown that the existence of which alone we can be said to
have any knowledge is not matter, but force. But, then, force can only
make itself manifest by motion, and where there is motion something
must be moved. Say that this moving body is matter, as it probably
is, and then comes the question, Which was the eternal existence, force
or matter, or both ? If force, how could it exist as motion when there
was nothing to be moved ? And, if matter, how could theje be motion
—and we have no conception of matter without motion—in the ab
sence of force, which is the cause of motion ? If it be contended that
both—matter and force—were eternal, then have we not two absolute
and infinite existences, which is a contradiction ? The Theist postulates
spirit; but that only adds a fresh difficulty, as will be seen presently.
Here Agnosticism at once declares the whole subject to be outside of
our gnosis, and, therefore, one which does not concern us, and of which
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
nothing is known, or can be known. Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks
that, on the origin of the universe, three hypotheses only are possible:
—1. That it is self-existent (Atheism). 2. That it is self-created (Pan
theism). 3. That it is created by an external agency (Theism). Mr.
Spencer has, at very considerable length, examined each of these
theories, and shown them all to be unthinkable. His position is, that
a self-existent universe, which is a universe existing without a begin
ning, is inconceivable. We cannot even think clearly of “ existence
without beginning.” And, if we could, it would afford no kind of
explanation of the universe itself. The first theory, therefore, is un
tenable. But no less so is the second—that of a created universe. To
hold this, it is necessary, in Mr. Herbert Spencer’s words, to “ conceive
potential existence passing into actual existence.” Is it possible, how
ever, to form a conception of potential existence except as something
which is, in fact, actual existence—the very thing which it is not I It
cannot be supposed as “nothing,” for that involves two absurdities—
(1) That nothing can be represented in thought; (2) That some one
nothing is so far separated from other nothings as to be capable of
passing into something, Again, existence passing from one state to
another without some external agency implies a “ change without a
cause—a thing of which no one idea is possible.” A self-created uni
verse is, consequently, inconceivable. There is still left the third theory
—that the universe was created by some external agency. But here a
difficulty arises in the attempt to think of “ the production of matter
out of nothing.” Moreover, there is still greater difficulty if we suppose
the creation of space. If space were created, then there was a time
when it was non-existent, which is also utterly inconceivable. But
suppose all these difficulties overcome, there is yet another, the greatest
of all. What is the external agency referred to ? And how came it
into being ? These are questions to which no satisfactory answers have
been or can be given. Thus the origin of the universe belongs to a regior
into which no human mind can enter, and therefore Agnosticism is the
only possible attitude of thought we can consistently take with regard
to the matter.
THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE.
In connection with this question we encounter speculations in
abundance ; but demonstrative facts are nowhere to be discovered.
Herbert Spencer has shown that every sensation we experience com
pels us, whether wo will or not, to infer a cause, and this-
�10
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
idea of causation drives us irresistibly to a First Cause. And
yet the moment we have reached it we are landed in all kinds of
contradictions and absurdities. For instance, is this First Cause
infinite or finite ? If infinite, it is beyond our comprehension,
outside the sphere of our knowledge; and if finite, then there
must be something beyond its bounds, and it is no longer the First
Cause. The Duke of Argyle, in his “ Reign of Law,” observes :—
“We cannot reach final causes any more than final purposes ; for
every cause which we can detect there is another cause which lies be
hind ; and for every purpose which we can see, there are other purposes
which lie beyond.” By holding that the Universe is infinite, to use
the words of Spencer himself, “ we tacitly abandon the hypothesis of
causation altogether.” The First Cause must also be either independent
or dependent. But if independent, we can have no idea of it at all,
because everything we know and think of is dependent. If, however,
the First Cause be dependent, then it must, being dependent, depend
on something else, and that something else becomes the First Cause, to
which the same argument will apply. In a similar manner, this cause
must be absolute, and yet, as Mansel has shown, “ A cause cannot, as
such, be absolute ; the absolute, as such, cannot be a cause.” The
reason of this is very obvious; the cause, as a cause, exists only in
relation to the effect. But the absolute must be out of all relation, or
it would cease to be absolute. But, in truth, we cannot conceive of the
absolute at all. It lies beyond the reach of finite faculties to grapple
with; hence, we are compelled to relegate the entire matter to the
domain of the unknowable. The power which manifests itself in the
universe is utterly inscrutable, and therefore we are driven to Agnos
ticism to find in it a solid resting-place in reference to the origin and
nature of the universe.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
This is another question which, as already demonstrated, lies beyond z
the reach of finite powers. Let us glance at some of the various
methods that have been pursued—indeed, are still resorted to—to prove
the existence of God. The object in doing this, be it observed, is not
to attempt the foolish impossibility of proving the non-existence of
God. That would not be Agnosticism ; but the desire here is to
indicate that the question of the existence of God is a subject upon
which man, to be logical, must, from the very nature of the case
be Agnostic. Demonstration of the existence of God will hardly
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE ?
II
be contended for, except perhaps by the advocates of the a priori
method, and that need not be noticed here, since few representative
Theists resort to it, and fewer still have any idea what it really means.
The kinds of proof that are conceivable to be relied upon in this mat
ter are as follows :—
(a) The Senses.—These, however, can never furnish an argument to
prove the existence of God, inasmuch as our organs of sense have no
power to perceive anything that does not belong to the mere pheno
menal part of matter, and, hence, can never show us the noumenon
underlying appearances, much less an existence which is said to be in
no 5^ay material. If God has given a revelation, such revelation may
be seen or heard; but this, of itself, can only prove the revelation, not
God. Suppose we heard a voice, in tones of thunder which shook the
earth and reached every human ear, declare “ There is a God,” it
would prove nothing but the voice—not the God proclaimed. The
senses would perceive a sound, to which a very definite meaning might
be attached ; but the sound would not be God. It will not be denied
by any intelligent Theist that God can never become an object of
sense, and, therefore, that method of proof may be dismissed as totally
unavailing in the case.
(b) Scientific Research.—“ Canst thou by searching find out God 1” is
a question that was asked some thousands of years ago, and only one
answer has ever been, or probably ever can be, given, and that is a
negative one. Science, mighty and potent as it is for good, much as
it has done to ameliorate the condition of mankind, and great as its
triumphs are likely to be in the future, can never transcend sense
knowledge. All its processes are of a material character ; its instru
ments, together with the subjects which they explore, are material, the
phenomena with which it deals are material, and all its discoveries are
reported to the bodily organs of sense. Beyond the physical domain
of appearances no scientific investigations can ever go ; no telescope or
microscope can show us a trace of spirit; nor, in fact, of that, whatever
it may be, which underlies phenomena. Scientific facts may lead up to
philosophical generalizations ; but such generalizations are reached
by ratiocination (process of reasoning), and are no longer exclusively
scientific—in fact, are in a sense altogether independent of science. A
scientific fact and the interpretation of the fact are totally different
things. We may use science as a means for reading the riddles
of nature ; the reading, however, is not science, but philosophy; and
�19
v.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
science has but helped us to the facts which
process that is not
scientific has to explain. The Theist tells us, with Newton, that
science leads up to God ; but it will be seen that the upward road has
ceased to be withm the domain of science long before its termination
is reached.
Logveal Reasoning.—Here, of course, it will be argued by the
heist that we start on firm and solid ground. A moment’s reflection,
however, will show that this is by no means the case. Our starting
point and the conclusion at which we seek to arrive lie so far apart that
by no process of logic can we pass from one to the other. There is, in
truth, a great gulf between them, and we do not and cannot possess
the means of bridging it over. Xu all mathematical reasoning we start
from some axiom or necessary truth, which we find in our minds, and
which, by a law of our mentation, cannot be got rid of. This we make
the basis of all our reasoning and the foundation of the entire super
structure that we desire to erect. In geometry, in arithmetic, and in
logic this is equally the case. Now, all these starting points, whether
they be axioms relating to space, notions regarding quantity, or
mental conceptions, lie in our own minds, and are only known to us
by the fact that we find them there. From these we may reason, form
ing a long chain of logical links, until, at the end, we reach some truth
of a marvellous and startling character, which is as easy of demonstra.
tion as the concept or axiom with which we started. In this way
Theists endeavour to reason up to God. But it requires no very
profound thought to show that the process must break down before it
reaches that point. For instance, there is the fact that the conclusion
must be of the same quality as the starting point. If the primary
truth with which we commenced be internal to our minds, so must the
conclusion be at which we arrive. Beginning with ourselves, we must
continue and end with ourselves, and by no possibility can we reach
anything that is exterior to us. If, therefore, we reason up to a concept
to which the name of God is given, we shall be as far as ever from a
demonstration of his actual being. We. shall still be dealing with an
idea which exists simply in our own minds, and may or may not__for
here demonstration ceases and the logical argument breaks down_ be
a measure of some real existence. But there is another reason why
this logical process must fail. The attributes ascribed to God are of
that character about which we cannot reason. However exalted the
conception at which we arrive, it must be finite, relative, and condi-
�\
WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
13
tioned, while God is said to be infinite, absolute, and unconditioned.
It is, therefore, impossible that God can be the last term of a
logical induction. Of course, this does not furnish conclusive proof
that the absolute and unconditioned has no existence; it does, how■ever, prove that we cannot know everything of it, since it transcends
all our powers and faculties. It belongs to a sphere to which we have
no access. Hence, in all our research, investigation, and thought, we
bait when we approach the domain of the unknowable, bow our heads
and unfurl the banner of Agnosticism.
For a person to assert positively that he knows that a God exists,
who is an infinite personal being, is, in the face of the present limita
tion of human knowledge, to betray an utter disregard of accuracy of
expression. With the majority of orthodox believers, the term God
is a phrase used to cover a lack of information.
Persons behold certain phenomena ; the why and wherefore they
cannot explain • and because to them such events are mysterious, they
pause at the threshold of inquiry, and to avoid what appear to be
inscrutable difficulties, allege that such phenomena are caused by God.
Dr. Young, the Christian Theist, in his “Provinceof Reason,” says :—
“ That concerning which I have no idea at all, is to me nothing, in
-every sense nothing.............To believe in that respecting which I can
form no notion is to believe in nothing; it is not to believe at all.’r This
represents t-he position of Christian Theism. Although a person may
picture an object in his mind from an analogous subject, it has yet to
be shown how an idea can be formed of that upon which no knowledge
exists, either analogous or otherwise. All notions that have been
entertained of Gods have been but reflexes of human weaknesses,
human desires, and human passions, and therefore do not represent an
infinite personal Being. Xenophanes is reported to have said, that
“ If horses and lions had hands, and should make their deities, they
would respectively make a horse and a lion.” Luther, too, remarked :
“ God is a blank sheet, upon which nothing is found but what you
yourselves have written.” Schiller also stated : “ Man depicts himself
in his Gods.” The history of the alleged God-ideas justifies the truth
of those statements ; hence, we find that in different nations, at various
times, the most opposite objects have been adored as deities. The sun,
-moon, and stars, wood, and stone, and rivers, cows, cats, hawks, bats,
/monkeys, and rattlesnakes, all have had their worshippers. Even now
the professed ideas of God in Christendom are most discrepant. The
�14
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
God acknowledged by “ Advanced Theists ” is not the same Being in
many respects as the one depicted by Talmage and his school. Neither
does the object worshipped by the Deist correspond with the “Supreme
Power of the Pantheist. Then, if we go to the Bible, we discover
very different notions of God therein recorded. He is there described
as material, and then as immaterial j first as all-wise, and then again as
betraying a lack of wisdom j in one place as being all-powerful, and in
another as being exceedingly weak ; at one time as being loving, merci
ful, and unchangeable, at another as being revengeful, cruel and fickle
in the extreme. Surely, to rely on such absurd and contradictory
descriptions of a Being as these is more unreasonable than to frankly
admit that, if God exist, he is and must be unknown to us. This is
not a denial, but an honest confession that mentally no more than
physically can we perform the impossible.
It is alleged that the “God idea” is firmly rooted in the human mind.
What folly ! What is meant in this instance by an idea ? A mental
picture of something external to the individual. But where is that“ something ” corresponding with the many and varied representations
of a God ? The truth is, this supposed “ idea ” is no reality whatever,
but simply a vague “ idea ” of an “ idea,” of which, in fact, no idea
exists.
Besides, the term “ Infinite Personal Being ” is a contradiction.
Personality is that which constitutes an individual a distinct being.
This definition implies three requisites : First, that the person shall be
a personage ; second, that he shall be distinct from other things • and
thirdly, that he shall be bounded, that is, limited. But a bounded,
limited being is a finite being, and, therefore, cannot be an infinite
personal being. Is the assumed personality of God differentm fro
mine 1 If so, where is the difference ? Furthermore, is my personality
a part of God’s personality ? If it is, my personality is “ divine ; ” if
it is not, then there are two personalities, neither of which can possibly
be infinite, for where there are two each must be finite. Furthermore,.
personality is only known to us as a part of a material organization.
If, therefore, God is material, he is part of the universe. If he be a
part, he cannot be infinite, inasmuch as the part cannot be equal to the
whole. Personality involves intelligence, and intelligence implies ; 1.
Acquirement of knowledge, which indicates that the time was when,
the person who gained additional information lacked certain wisdom.
2. Memory, which is the power of recalling past events ; but with the •
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE 1
15
"infinite there can be no past. 3. Hope, which is based on limited per
ception, and which shows the uncertain condition of the mind wherein
the aspiration is found. Now, if God possesses these imperfect, faculties
he is finite; while, on the other hand, if they do not belong to him, he
is not an intelligent being.
Neither does the Theistic definition of God, as being infinite, har
monize with our reasoning faculties. Reason is based upon experience,
but an Infinite Being must be outside the domain of experience , reason
implies reflection, but we cannot reflect upon infinity, because it is
unthinkable ; reason implies comparison, but the Infinite Being cannot
be compared, for there is nothing with which to compare him; reason
implies judgment, but the finite is totally incompetent to judge of the
infinite ; reason is bounded by the capacity of the mind in which it
resides, but the mind to conceive the infinite must be unbounded;
reason follows perception, but we have no faculties for perceiving or
recognizing the infinite. Therefore, is not the Agnostic position of
silence as to the unknown the more reasonable ? If it be urged that
it is no part of Agnostic philosophy to consider these Theistic assump
tions, the answer is, that if such notions are well founded on demon
strated facts, there is no reason for the Agnostic attitude towards
them. It is the proving that Theistic allegations are unsupported by
observed truths which renders Agnosticism logical and justifiable.
Let it be distinctly understood that it is not against the existence and
nature of a God, per se, that exception is here taken—of that we know
nothing, but against the positive claims urged in reference to these
subjects. To these our indictment is directed.
The Orthodox notion of the “ innate consciousness of God’s exist
ence ” does not strengthen the position of the Christian Theist, for the
reason that it is groundless in fact. No doubt the error upon this point
has arisen with many persons through their regarding consciousness as
a separate faculty of the mind, whereas James Mill, Locke, Brown
and Buckle have shown it to be a condition of the mind produced by
■early training and surrounding associations. George Grote, in his
Review of J. S. Mill’s Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Phi
losophy,” aptly remarks : “ Each new-born child finds its religious
creed ready prepared for him. In his earliest days of unconscious in
fancy, the stamp of the national, gentle, phratric God, or Gods, is
imprinted upon him by his elders.” Thus it happens that what are too
frequently but the consequences of youthful impressions and subsequent
�AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
tuition are regarded as veritable realities. If this “ God idea” were
innate, is it not reasonable to suppose that all persons would have it ?
But there are thousands of persons who are ready to acknowledge that
ey have it not; and those who profess to have it are unable to ex
plain what it is. Probably, if a child never heard of God in the morn
ing of life, it would have no fancies concerning him in its mature age.
t is to be feared that these Theistic pretensions arise from an inade
quate acquaintance with the now admitted natural forces. There is
however, this hope, that as knowledge still more advances, dogmatism
will proportionately disappear, priestcraft will yield to mental freedom,
and work in controlling Nature and reliance on her prolific resources
will more than ever take the place of supplicating for, and dependence
on, alleged supernatural help.
The once favourite argument drawn from design in the Universe
affords no justification for the positive allegations of Theism. As Pro
fessor Taylor Lewis admits :—
“ Nature alone cannot prove the existence of a Deity possessed of
moral attributes.” Has it ever occurred to Theists that at the very
most the God of the design argument can only be a finite being, for
nowhere amongst what are supposed to be the marks of design in
Nature is an infinite designer indicated ? Now, a God that is finite isneither omniscient, omnipotent, nor eternal. The design argument,
moreover, points to no unity in God. According to natural theology,
there may be one God or hundreds of Gods. The Rev. S. Faber fairly
observes : “ The Deist never did, and he never can, prove without
the aid of Revelation that the Universe was designed by a single
designer,” Paley’s well-known comparison of the eye and the telescopeproves the very opposite of that for which it was used. It should beremembered that, but for the imperfection of the eye, the telescope
had not been required. Plainly, the argument may be stated thus :_
Designer of the telescope, man; designer of the eye, God ; telescope
imperfect, hence its designer w^s imperfect; the eye more imperfect,
since the telescope was invented to improve its power • ergo, God, the
designer of eyes, was still less perfect than man, the designer of
telescopes.
Dr. Vaughan, in his work “The Age and Christianity,” declares :
“ No attempt of any philosopher to harmonize our ideal notions as to
the sort of world which it became a Being of infinite perfection to
create, with the world existing around us, can ever be pronounced sue-
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
17
-cessful. The facts of the moral and physical world seem to justify
inferences of an opposite de-cription from the benevolent.” The Rev.
George Gilfillan, in his “Grand Discovery of the Fatherhood,” noticing
the horrors and the evils that exist around us, asks : “ Is this the spot
chosen by the Father for the education of his children, or is it a den of
banisment or torture for his foes ? Is it a nursery, or is it a hell ?
there is nb discovery of the Father in man, in his science, philosophy,
history, art, or in any of his relations.”
If nothing else rebuked the dogmatic assumption of the Christian
Theist, the existence of so much misery, evil, and inequality in the
world, should do so. What man or woman having the power, would
hesitate to use it to alleviate the affliction, to cure the wrong, and to
destroy the injustice which cast such a gloom over so large a portion
of society ? Let the many records of the world’s benevolence, devotion,
and kindness give the reply. To lessen the pain of the afflicted, to
assist the needy, to help the oppressed, are characteristics of human
nature which its noblest sons and daughters have ever felt proud to
manifest in their deeds of heroic self-denial. Contemplating the suc
cess of crime, the triumph of despotism, the prevalence of want, the
struggles on the part of many to obtain the mere means of existence,
the appalling sights of physical deformity—beholding all these wrongs
this sadness and despair, who shall dogmatically exclaim, “ All Nature
proclaims a Fatherhood of of ^df?The question of immortality scarcely belongs to the same class of
subjects as the others which have here been discussed; nevertheless,
even upon this subject, the Agnostic position appears to me to be the
correct one. Personally, I refuse to dogmatise either one way or the
other; and the question, after all, is but of little consequence. Our
business, for the present at all events, is with this world; and the,
affairs of the next may be left until we land upon its shores, if such
shores there be. To ignore the teachings said to refer to another life
is not necessarily to deny the existence of that life. One thing is cer
tain, and that is our present existence. Furthermore, experience
teaches us that time is too short, duties too imperative, and consequences
too important to justify us in wasting our resources and displaying a
‘disturbing anxiety about, to us, an unknown future.
“ Life’s span forbids us to extend our cares,
And stretch our hopes beyond our years.”
�18
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM :
DOES AGNOSTICISM SATISFY MAN’S INTELLECTUAL REQUIREMENTS 1
There are two objections frequently urged against the Agnostic posi
tion which with some people have considerable force. The first is, that
Agnosticism robs man of the great consolation and incentive imparted
by the belief in the certainty of the existence of a “ Heavenly Father”
and a future life. In the second place, it is contended that Agnosticism
fails to satisfy the demands of the human intellect. Let us exa.m in e
these objections, with a view of ascertaining whether or not they pos
sess any weight bearing upon the present question.
The first objection supposes that without Theism and its teachings
there is no adequate comfort and peace for the human race ; that this
life of itself is but little more than “ a vale of tears,” alike destitute
of the sunshine of joy and the power of imparting happiness in every
day life. Persons who entertain these gloomy ideas regard existence
as being necessarily full of trouble, aud think that mankind are incapable
with mere natural resources of enjoying a high state of felicity, and that
true bliss is only to be secured by believing in God and entertaining
the hope of pleasure in another world. Such morbid notions are born
of a dismal faith, and find no sanction in the real healthy view of life’s
mission. Existence is not a mere blank ; its condition depends largely
upon the use mankind make of it. To some the world may be as a
garden adorned with the choicest of flowers, and to others as a wilder
ness covered with worthless weeds. Life of itself is not destitute of
beauty, glory, solace and love. True, it is sometimes darkened with
clouds, but it is also enlivened with sunshine ; it is degraded by serf
dom, and elevated by freedom ; it is shaded by isolation, and illumin
ated by fellowship ; it is chilled by misery and persecution, and warmed
by kindness and affection ; it is blasted by poverty and want, and in
vigorated by wealth and comfort; it is marred by shams and inequalities,
and glorified by realities and equity ; it is humiliated by unequal and
exce sive toil, and dignified by fair and honest labour; it has its
punishments through wrong and neglect, but it has its rewards in right
and correct action. The lesson of experience teaches us unmistakably
that life is worth having even if Theism and the teachings in reference
to a future existence be nothing more than emotional speculations. In
the language of the Rev. Minot J. Savage, in his work, “ The Morals
of Evolution,” “ I believe there is not a healthy man, woman, or child
�WHICH IS THE MORE REASONABLE?
19'
on earth who will not join me in saying that life is worth living simply
for its own sake, to-day, whether there ever was a yesterday or there
ever will be a to-morrow. Have you ever stood, as I have, on a moun
tain summit, with the broad ocean spread out at your feet on the one
side, a magnificent lake or bay on the other, the valley dotted with
towns, with growing fields of greenness, or turning brown with har
vest ? Have you ever looked up at the sky at night, thick with its
stars, glorious with the moon walking in her brightness ? Have you
listened to the bird-song some summer morning ? Have you stood by
the sea, and felt the breeze fan your weary brow, and watched the
breakers curling and tumbling in upon the shore ? Have you looked
into the faces of little children, seen the joy and delight they experi
ence simply in breathing and living, beheld the love-light in their eyes,,
heard their daily prattle, their laughter, their shouts of joy and play i
Have you, in fact, ever tasted what life means 1 Have you realized
that, with a healthy body, in the midst of this universe you are an
instrument finely attuned, on which all the million fingers of the uni
verse do play, every nerve a chord to be touched, every sense thrilling
with ecstacy and joy ? No matter where I came from, no matter where
I am going to, I live an eternity in this instant of time. Is it not a
mistake, in the face of facts like these, to say that life is not worth,
living unless it is supplemented by a heaven ? ”
“ Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream.”
As to the second objection, it is said that man is born to inquire ;
his whole nature is bent in the direction of discovery ; curiosity to pry
into the secrets of nature and being forms one of his leading character
istics ; therefore, Agnosticism, which places a barrier to his further
investigation, must be objectionable, because it fixes the limits beyond
which he may not’ go. This allegation, if worth anything, must be
urged, not against Agnosticism, but against the limit of human powers.
To tell man that there are subjects which he can never master, not for
lack of time to look into them, but because they lie in a domain to
which, by the very nature of the case, he can gain no access, should
certainly not be calculated to stop his inquiry with regard to matters
upon which knowledge is to be obtained. The Theist believes that he
can never fully comprehend God; but does that prevent him from
�20
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM.
endeavouring to learn what he can? Agnosticism has not placed
limits to the human mind, but only defined them; it has not erected
the barrier beyond which the human intellect cannot pass, but only
described it j it has not invented the line which has separated the
knowable from the unknowable, but only indicated its position. The
mind of man is, therefore, free to inquire to the utmost extent of its
powers, and the complaint that it cannot do more is foolish in the
extreme.
Agnosticism is sufficient for all the purposes of life, and more than
that cannot surely be needed. There is no human duty that it is not
compatible with, no human feeling that it does not allow full play to,
and no intellectual effort that it would attempt to place restrictions
upon. It leaves man in possession of all his mental force, seeking only
to direct that force into a legitimate channel where it may find full
scope for its use. In a beautiful passage in his Belfast address, Pro
fessor Tyndall remarks :
“ Given the masses of the planets and their distances asunder, and
we can infer the perturbations consequent upon their mutual attrac.
tions. Given the nature of disturbance in water, or ether, or air, and
from the physical properties of the medium we canlinfer how its parti
cles will be affected. The mind runs along the line of thought which
connects the phenomena, and from beginning to end finds no break in
the chain. But when we endeavour to pass, by a similar process, from
the physics of the brain to the phenomena of consciousness, we meet a
problem which transcends any conceivable expansion of the powers we
now possess. We may think over the subject again and again, it eludes
all intellectual presentation.”
These words present a great truth, indicating, as they do, the proper
scope of man’s intellectual activity. The Agnostic does not fail to
carry on his investigations into Nature to the utmost extent of his
ability. He seeks to wring from her secrets hidden through all the
ages of the past; he pushes his inquiries from point to point, and learns
all that can be known of the marvellous processes of life and mind, and
only stops when he confronts the unknowable, beyond whose barrier
he cannot pass. His are the fields, the groves, the woods, the sea, and
all the earth contains ; the starry sky, too, is his domain to explore
All nature, with its majestic varieties, lies before him, presenting sub
jects of the keenest interest. In these he revels with delight; but the
�NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
21
incomprehensible he seeks not to comprehend, the unknowable he does
not make the idle attempt to know. In a word, he is a man, and he
aims not at the impossible task of becoming a God. Is not this course
more courageous, more dignified, and more candid than that adopted by
the dogmatic theologian, who, yearning for a knowledge of the absolute,
and yet failing to discover it, lacks the courage to avow his inability
to achieve the impossible ?
“ Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.”
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
There have been a large number of books written on this subject,
some of them by men of eminence in their respective departments of
thought. It has been dealt with from very different standpoints, and
therefore exceedingly conflicting arguments have been brought to bear
upon it. Two able American writers, Dr. Bushnell and Dr. McCosh,
have discussed it with considerable learning ; but one has to put down
their works with a great degree of dissatisfaction, since nothing like
clear definition is to be found in their pages. In England the subject has
been made the theme of several large works, of hundreds of magazine
articles, and of thousands of pulpit discourses, an<J yet the whole subject
is enveloped in the densest darkness. There must be some cause for
this, and the cause, I think, is not far to seek. The natural we know f
but the supernatural, what is that ? Of course, as its name implies, it
is something higher than nature—something above nature. But, if
there is a sphere higher than nature, and yet often breaking through
nature, nature itself must be limited by something, and the question
that at once arises is, By what is such limitation fixed, and what is the
boundary line which marks it off and separates it from the supernatural ?
And this is just what no two writers seem to be agreed upon. But, further
supposing such a line to be discovered, and to be well known, so that
no difficulty could arise in pointing it out, a still more difficult problem
presents itself for solution—namely, how man, who is a part of nature,
�-22
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
and able only to come into contact with nature, can push his knowledge
into that other sphere which, being non-natural, cannot be at all ac
cessible to a natural being ? If the supernatural region be synonymous
with the unknowable, it cannot clearly concern us, simply because we
have no faculties with which to cognize it, and no powers capable of
penetrating into its profound depths. In this case, as far as we are
concerned, there is practically no supernatural, for none can operate on
that sphere in which man lives and moves and displays his varied and in
some respects very marvellous powers.
According to many writers, the physical is the supernatural, because
dt is not under the control of natural law. But why ? If man be
partly a spiritual being, why should not natural law extend into the
■ sphere of his spiritual nature ? Indeed, an able writer on the Christian
■ side,-whose work has been enthusiastically received by all religious
denominations—Professor Drummond—has maintained this position,
the very title of his book stating the whole case : “ Natural Law in the
Spiritual World.” The great German philosopher, Kant, calls nature
the realm of sensible phenomena, conditioned by space, and speaks of
another sphere as a world above space, depleted of sense, and free from
natural law, and therefore supersensible and supernatural. But this
is to make the supernatural spaceless and timeless—in fact, a mere
negation of everything, and therefore nothing. Now, the only light
in which we can look at this subject, with a view to obtain anything
like clear and correct views, is that of modern science. By her the
boundary of our knowledge has been greatly enlarged, and through her
discoveries we have been enabled to obtain more sound information
regarding the laws of the universe than it was possible for our fathers,
with the limited means at their disposal, to possess.
If there be a sphere where the supernatural plays a part and exer
cises any control, it must clearly be in some remote region, of which
we have, and can have, no positive knowledge; and the forces in
v operation must be other than those with which we are conversant upon
this earth. Science cannot recognize the supernatural, because she has
no instruments which she can bring to bear upon, and no means at her
disposal for, its investigation. She leaves to the theologian all useless
. speculations regarding such a region, contenting herself with reminding
him that he is. in all such discussions, travelling outside the domain of
facts into a province which should be left to poets and dreamers, and
�NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
23
which belongs solely to the imagination. All law is and must be natural
law, from a scientific standpoint, because we can have access to nature,
and to nature only. It is impossible to get beyond her domain, even
in imagination.
The supernatural, if it exist, must reveal itself through nature, for
in no other way can it reach us so as to produce any impression upon
the human mind. But, if it come through nature, then how can it be
distinguished from the phenomena of nature ? It will be quite impos.
sible to differentiate between them. We are quite precluded from
saying, Nature could not do this, and is unable to do that. No man
can fix a limit to the possibilities of power in nature. She has already
done a thousand things which our forefathers would have declared im
possible, and she will doubtless in the future, under further discoveries
and advances in science, do much more which would look impossible to
us. Whatever, therefore, comes through nature must be natural, for
the very reason that it comes to us in that way. And the business of
science is to interpret in the light of natural law. Even if she should
prove herself incompetent to the task, it would only show that some
phenomena had been witnessed which had for a time baffled explana
tions, not that anything supernatural had occurred. And the business
of science would be to at once direct itself to the new class of facts,
with a view to finding the key with which to open and disclose the
secret of the power by which they were produced.
But what is nature ? Of course every man knows what is meant by
nature, in part at all events ; and the only difference in opinion or de
finition that can arise will be as to its totality. There are a thousand
facts lying all around us, and a thousand phenomena of which we are
every day eye-witnesses, that all will agree to call nature. The ques
tion, however,, does not concern these, but others, real or imaginary,
which differ somewhat from them, and which are supposed, therefore,
to be incapable of being classed under the same head. Those who de
sire to obtain a clear and accurate idea of nature cannot do better than
read carefully Mr. John Stuart Mill’s excellent essay on the subject,
published after his death. He gives two definitions, or rather two
senses, in which we use the word in ordinary, every-day language. The
first is that in which we mean the totality of all existence, and the
other that in which we use the term as contradistinguished from art—
nature improved by man. But it must be borne in mind that this is
�24
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL.
still . nature. Nature improved by man is only one part of nature
modified by another; for man is as much a portion of nature as the
earth on which he treads, or the stars which glow in the midnight sky
over his head. Nature, therefore, as I understand it, and as Mill de
fines it m his first sense, is everything that exists, or that can possibly
come into existence in the hereafter—that is, all the possibilities of
existence, whether past, present, or future. If I am asked on what
ground I include in my definition that which to-day does not exist, but
may come into existence hereafter, I reply : Because that which will
be must be, potentially at least, even now. No new entity can come
into being; all that can occur is the commencement of some new form
of existence, which has ever had a being potentially anyhow. No new
force can appear, some new form of force may. But, then, that, when
it comes, will be as much a part of nature as the rest—is indeed even
now a part of nature, since it is latent somewhere in the universe.
Man’s beginnings were in nature ; his every act is natural, his
thoughts are natural, and in the end the great universe will fold him
in its embrace, close his eyes in death, and furnish in her own bosom
his last and final resting-place. Beyond her he cannot go. She was
his cradle, and will be his grave ; while between the two she furnishes
the stage on which he plays his every part. And more, she has made
him, the actor, to play the part. Nature is one and indivisible. She
had no beginning, and can have no end. She is the All-in-all. Com
bined in her are the One and the Many which so perplexed the philo
sophers of ancient times.
Charles Watts.
��DATE DUE
Z7 JU L 2012
I
Demco, Inc. 38-293
�
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
Agnosticism and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Theism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Agnosticism and Christian Theism: which is the more reasonable?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1651
RA1853
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
Agnosticism
Theism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7f3d5d2591339dcf58a2986057d126d1.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=u%7EciBdJhS3u8l1BcpwM0ZeVLaLpHmHDxP9UVMvaBDRw0YuV-4-RQDg856KKPFuY0wmnC4ujqP2uMAOA96jNrNwe10%7EvY-zRKvCrTXGCVo%7E8TYDLzZZbl7uay47n%7EBrh2ec21TvCm4F4DNo0li%7EEt6IafHSvhUbkvLckw8p-OH1kIgKbJgoXVKIMtF0HYZOJApPsoYvoRhlnaWvbYrUaYC7KyWiMCcxddXjZhv%7EJDpY1MFzxOqhWXijM4gzgd3YU8sc20Mq%7EM%7Ed-%7Es48vdASR3INkO7578PeKhyHbKN6WiOU1JJArjJabNEfO49aw4r%7En4Mec%7E%7E62TBURb76kWyMuIA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9d3e547dd9cd6e8d86e37408683db1a
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
THE
NATIONALISATION
OF OUR
RAILWAY SYSTEM,
ITS JUSTICE AND ADVANTAGES.
By F. KEDDELL.
(Reprinted from JUSTICE.)
LONDON:
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
AND
W. L. ROSENBERG, 36, EAST FOURTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY.
�All who are interested, in
should, read.
Socialism
The Co-operative Commonwealth: an Exposition
of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund, of Philadelphia.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, is.
This book supplies the want, frequently complained of, of definite proposals for the
administration of a Socialistic State. Mr. Gronlund has reconciled the teaching of
Marx with the influence of Carlyle in the constructive part of his work, which is
specially recommended to English Socialists.
“ JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every
Saturday, one penny.
Socialism and Soldiering ; with some comments on the
Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi
ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion
(Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny.
The Appeal to the Young.
By Prince Peter
Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and
reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a
scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at the hands of the
French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers
Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of
Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id.
The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted
with additions from Justice.
Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand.
Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman.
(In
reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”)
New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny.
The Emigration Fraud Exposed.
By H. M.
What an Eight Hours Bill Means.
By T. Mann
Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per
mission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo.,
price one penny.
(Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait.
Thousand. Price one penny.
Socialism and the Worker.
By F.
A.
Sixth
Sorge.
Price id.
An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism.
Summary of the Principles of Socialism
By
H. M. Hyndman and William Morris. Second edition, 64-pp.
crown 8-vo., in wrapper designed by Wm. Morris, price 4d.
This gives an account of the growth of capitalist production, and concludes with a
statement of the demands of English Socialists for the immediate future.
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
(The Publications of the Modern Press can be obtained from W. L.
Rosenberg, 261, East Tenth Street, New York City.)
�NATIONALISATION of oar RAILWAY SYSTEM.
ERY few of those who considered the future of railways when they
V were first introduced foresaw the important part they would play
in the economy of the nation. To the Railway Companies the Legisla
ture granted a virtual monopoly over the means of communication
between town and town, and the towns and the country. The mono
poly was fenced about with certain restrictions, some of which were in
favour of the owners of land : these have been stringently adhered to ;
others were designed to protect the interests of the community: these
have gradually lost the little vitality they ever had. The monopoly was
granted under the middle-class sophism that it would always be to the
interests of the Railway Companies to serve the community well inas
much as their profits would increase if they did their work well, and
would decrease if they did it badly. But, being companies started with
the main object of making profit, they have steadily kept that aim in
view, and have constantly neglected the interests of the community as
much as they dared. Manufacture for profit has brought us adultera
tion and shoddy; distribution for profit, of which the transport is an
important part, has brought us evils equally great.
From time to time members of the middle class have approached this
subject with a full appreciation of the evils of the present system of
railway management, aud they have invariably ended with proposing
the transfer of the railways to the State. But, being middle-class men
with all the prejudices of that class, they have also invariably advocated
a system of compensation that would render the whole business a
failure. The Irish Land Purchase Bill broke the back of the Home
Rule Bill, and compensation breaks the back of all schemes put forward
up to the present day for the Nationalisation of Railways.
Mr. Charles Waring in a recent number of the Fortnightly Review
stated with precision the evils of the present system. He is somewhat
in advance of most of those who have written on the subject as yet. He
summed up the situation fairly enough in these words: “ The facts
which confront Society are exigent. Labour is unemployed, trade is
stagnant, enterprise is suspended, and the people in large numbers are
hungry and disaffected.” All this we say, and we say something more
that Mr. Waring does not, for he gives no idea of tracing these evils
back to their source, that of production and distribution being carried
on for profit and not for use. Mr. Waring further states that “ Her
(England’s) welfare can then be maintained in spite of the increased
competition of other countries if her instruments of industry, of which
railways are the greatest of all, be made properly available.” With Mr.
Waring’s plan for making the railways properly available we will deal
�^\^:\x.ck\x^x\XVXxvvx>s-?-? ;
;v;.‘
.x
4
later on. With his contention that under the present system they are
not “ properly available ” we heartily agree, and we will proceed to con
sider the facts on which this conclusion is based.
In the first place we will consider the magnitude of the problem. The
Capital value, that is the nominal amount spent in building up the pre
sent network of railways, is in round figures eight hundred million
pounds.sterling. The number of miles of railway are 20,000, the pas
sengers carried per annum are nearly 700,000,000, the goods carried
(exclusive, of live stock) are 260,000,000 tons. The receipts amount to
^671,000,000, of which ^33,300,000 are paid away as dividends. The
shareholders are estimated to be 400,000, the debenture holders 100,000;
the persons employed are nearly 400,000. These figures, however, give
us no idea of the power and influence the present railway system
has over the prosperity of the country. We can only appreciate
this, though but faintly, when we consider that there is not a single
exchange of commodities in which distance is involved that is not mate
rially affected by the grasp the Railway Companies have over the means
of communication and transport. The supply of food, of building mate
rials, and of clothing, is affected by the rates that the railway may
choose to levy. The managers of our railways can build up an industry
in any town by preferential rates, they can destroy it by levying maxi
mum rates. They can, and do prejudice home industries by conveying
foreign produce at a less rate than that imposed on home produce. The
only rule that they follow is that of declaring the highest dividend they
can ; all else is subsidiary ; a home industry may be destroyed, the pros
perity of the nation may be impaired for aught they care, so long as they
can maintain their dividends. The question, however, that we have to
consider is not how to preserve the interests of a few possessed of a
monopoly, but whether or no the monopoly granted by the Legislature,
when it represented not the nation but a couple of classes, should be
continued to the great detriment of the interests of the nation.
The only valid ground for maintaining the monopoly would be the
proof that the Railway Companies have made a fair and proper use of
their great powers, and have conduced to the prosperity of the people.
But the exact contrary is the case. The Railway Companies have
abused their powers, they have used them constantly to the furtherance
of their own interests, and they have grievously mismanaged their busi
ness to the great harm of the community. As is well known the indus
tries of this country are rapidly passing from the purely individualist
into the company form, whaile the business is carried on, directed, and
managed by salaried officials. In the case of the Railways, the Company
form, by the necessities of the case, was assumed at the very outset.
Now the workers know well enough how much harder are the conditions
when working for a Company than for an individual master, but this
effect on the condition of the workers, great though it is, is only a small
part of the evils that competition and production for the profit in the
Company form inflict upon the community.
In the case of the railways, however, we have ample evidence of the
great injury done to the community generally by distribution for profit
under the Company form, which may serve as some guide in estimating
the evils of production for profit under the same phase.
We stated that the capital value of the railways is estimated at about
eight hundred millions, and the amount divided yearly amongst share
holders, &c.. at ^33,300,000. The National Debt amounts tO;f740,330,000,
and the interest paid to the holders is ^28,883,670. These two items
. A:.
�5
show the burdens placed upon the workers of the present day by the
class legislation of former years. It is generally known that of the sums
borrowed which form the National Debt an enormous amount was abso
lutely wasted, but it is not so generally known that much of what is
called the capital value of the Railways is in part wealth absolutely
wasted, in part purely fictitious.
The waste consists principally of the ridiculous compensation extorted
by landowners for the ground required by the railways. The Legisla
ture when railways were first introduced consisted almost entirely of
landlords, the whole of whose power was used to extort this unjustifiable
compensation. Joseph Locke, an authority on this matter, estimated the
excess of compensation at about ^80,000,000. This amount is appa
rently arrived at after allowing a “ fair” compensation for the land, but
does not take into account the increased value given to the remainder
of the property by the mere presence of the railway. Had the landowners
made a free gift of the land required they would still have gained largely.
Some idea of the excessive compensation for land may be gathered from
the following instances quoted by William Galt. A parcel of land was
bought by one company for ^3,000 ; a further sum of ^10,000 was
claimed and paid for consequential damages. The London and Bir
mingham Railway Bill met with so much opposition in Parliament from
the interested landowners that the requisite land was ultimately pur
chased at three times its fair value, that being the only way in which
the opposition could be bought off. When the Eastern Counties Rail
way was planned, a few miles were required of the estate of a noble
lord under one plan and of that of a right honourable gentleman under
another plan. The noble lord stipulated that he should be paid
£120,000 for his five or six miles, and although the Bill was amended,
the noble lord obtained his ^120,000 and the right honourable gentleman
^35,000. The following table taken from William Gait’s Railway
Reform shows the cost per mile for land compensation only, paid by
four companies :
L. and S. W.
... ^4,000
London and Birmingham ^6,300
Great Western ... ^6,300
London and Brighton ... ^8,000
Against these amounts may be placed the case of the Peebles and Edin
burgh line, which was constructed shortly after the era of excessive
compensation at a cost of ^1,131 per mile for land and compensation,
and at a total cost of a little more than ^6.000 per mile.
The second source of waste is found in the enormous legal expenses in
curred by the companies, partly on account of the opposition offered by the
landed interest, and partly by the quarrels between the companies to
obtain control of certain districts, In the case of the four railways
above mentioned, Galt estimates the Parliamentary expenses per
mile, viz:—
L. & S. W....................... £^5° I Great Western .......... ^1,000
London & Birmingham... ^650 | London & Brighton ... ^3,000
The whole of the Parliamentary expenses of the Peebles and Edinburgh
Railway were ^1,569, say /"So per mile.
Further: the capital accounts of all the railways in the United Kingdom is
taken to be about ^800,000,000 ; but this is the nominal amount, and does
not represent the sum actually received and spent. Some of the stocks
have been issued at a discount, and even debentures at a fixed rate of
interest have been granted for an amount larger than that paid for them.
To establish anything like an approximate statement of how much of
�6
these £800,000,000 was actually received and paid away, and how much
is purely fictitious, would require an exhaustive research into the
financial history of our railway companies since they were first estab
lished. We can, however, glean from the statements issued for the
half-year ending 31st December 1885 sufficient facts to warrant the con ■
elusion that a heavy reduction on the £800,000,000 could on this score
alone be easily made.
The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway pay dividend on
£"17,696,175 shares and stock; the accounts show that only £”17,413,500
were received. In the accounts of the Great Eastern, allowance is
made for £”1,609,054, difference between nominal amount of the ordinary
stock and its price of issue, and for £”1,542,758, for a similar difference
on the guaranteed and other stocks. Dividend is paid on £"27,833,289;
ordinary and guaranteed stocks together.
The Metropolitan Railway have issued perpetual Preference stock for
£”2,502,038, of which £”400,408 is nominal, and has never been received
by the Company. On an issue of £”1,500,000 Preference stock by the
Metropolitan District, a discount was allowed of £”548,766 ; this item
alone reduces the nominal capital of the Company (£”7,860,519) by
nearly 7 per cent.
In the account issued by the Chatham and Dover of their expenditure
of capital during the half-year ending 31st December 1885, there is an
item of £”137,296, discount on issue of arbitration Preference stock; the
amount received during that half-year for this stock was £”443,159.
The London and North Western accounts show that they have
received for stocks and shares, £"66,185,705, which rank for dividend
and as capital for £"75,539,781. The difference is startling, £”9,354,076.
Leaving out of account the difference on the Chatham and Dover
accounts, as the figures given in it do not allow of any precise statement,
we find that the capital accounts of the other five companies referred to
are 12 per cent, greater than they should be, and are £"13,737,737 in
excess of the cost of the railway. If a mere cursory glance at halfyearly statements gives this result we may reckon with confidence that
an exhaustive investigation would materially reduce the swollen nominal
capital of our railways.
There is a further heavy reduction to be made on account of the mis
management, to use a mild term, of the railway companies on the score
of having paid dividends out of capital. The greatest ingenuity is shown
by railway managers in their efforts to keep up high dividends, especial,}’
in times of crisis and depression. This national concern is run for profit
and not for use, and every nerve is strained to show the most profit,
even when the means adopted are such as to prejudice future
interests.
Under the present system, where the transport of
commodities is left to companies to exploit for their own benefit, we
can hardly be surprised if dividends are objects of greater anxiety than
the national welfare; but we have a crowning proof of the incapacity of
the middle-class to manage their business in the manner in which the
managers-of railway companies have deliberately sacrificed the future
interests of the shareholders.
The way in which dividends are provided, in ordinary times partially,
and in bad times entirely, is simplicity itself. It consists of meeting
expenses that should be paid out of the yearly income by the issue of
further shares or debentures. The accounts that the companies render
show nothing of this except to skilled investigators. The ordinary
shareholder believes that the dividend has been fairly earned, and that
�the formation of further capital can be justified by principle. But the
dividend has not been earned so long as one item of legitimate current
expense is met by the creation of further liabilities. Every share thus
issued is a mortgage on the future, and is a proof of mismanagement.
Nor do the railway officials content themselves with piling up the capital
account to meet current expenses; to give a show of prosperity they will
starve the permanent way, and will keep down necessary expenses to a
dangerously low level. Further, to keep up the appearance the officials
will encourage enterprises that have but faint expectations of proving
remunerative, and embark on an extravagant outlay of capital on lines
that are open. To such a pitch was this method of doing business car
ried that Willliam Fleming, a high authority on railway figures, calculates
that in 1878 the following dividends were paid out of capital:
77 per cent, of the Great Western dividend. 57 per cent, of the Glasgow & S W. divnd
19
ditto
Gt. Northern ditto
The whole of the Manchester, Sheffield &
Lincolnshire dividend.
90
ditto
L. & N. Western ditto. Ditto
Caledonian dividend.
Lan. and York, ditto.
49
ditto
Ditto
North British ditto.
North Eastern ditto.
22
ditto
An examination of recent accounts show the same mismanagement
The sound principle that all the costs of working, including additional
accommodation and new rolling stock on all lines open for traffic, should
be met out of the receipts is completely ignored. Even such details as
huts for fogmen (N. W.), miscellaneous expenditure (L. C. & D.), lamps
(G.E.R.), are met by fresh capital. Re-signalling, interlocking signals,
continuous breaks, the cost of which at the most should be spread over
a few years, become a perpetual charge.
The rolling stock is on some lines starved as long as possible until a
big outlay of capital becomes inevitable. During the half-year ending
31st December, 1885, the Midland spent on rolling stock £80,074, the
South-Western, £93,858, the Great Eastern, £43,766, and the Great
Northern, £95,463, whilst the North-Western expended only £11,496.
and the Great Western, £11,763. Rolling stock from an engine down
to a coal truck has a limited life, and its cost should be defrayed out of
the income of the periodofits existence. To meet such charges by increase
of capital is financial jugglery, but it is almost inevitable when dividends
are made the chief object of a railway manager’s care.
T o sum up when the capital account of the railways is put at £800,000,000,
it must always be remembered that this amount is susceptible of very heavy
reductions. To arrive at anything like the real cost of the railways
serious reductions must be made: 1, on account of excessive and ridi
culous compensation paid for land ; 2, money wasted on legal expenses ;
3, the nominal character of part of the capital; 4, the payment of divi
dends out of capital by charging working expenses to capital account.
The next point to be considered is that of the rates the Railway Com
panies charge for the services they render; they have a practical
monopoly of the transport of commodities and passengers, subject only
to a control by the Legislature which has been and is still oc
the most grandmotherly description. In the various Acts of Parlia
ment establishing the different companies there is a list of maximum
rates to be levied on some fifty to sixty articles. To remedy this
absurdly inadequate schedule the Railway Clearing House has drawn up
a list of some 4,080 articles which are divided into seven classes with a
rate for each class. But this list is drawn up by the traffic managers of
the different companies, and the public has no voice in the matter. The
list bristles with anomalies, and is acknowledged to be imperfect and
�8
jl
jr
unfair by the railway officials themselves. No effort, however, is made
by the legislature to exercise any control over this classification, and
any proposition to rectify the anomalies and to subject the whole matter
to exhaustive amendment is met by the railway interest, which is second
to none in the influence it possesses in our middle-class House of
Commons, with persistent and hitherto successful opposition. As matters
are now, the maximum rates, established by the Legislature many years
ago under very different circumstances to those that now obtain, remain
in full force. The cost of locomotion, the time occupied in transit, the
character and bulk of the goods handled have all materially changed,
but the maximum rates remain the same. The reason why the railway
companies fight against any control in this matter is that these rates
afford them the means of granting preferential rates to districts and to
individuals. The maximum rates are so much above the cost of trans
port that ample opportunities are given of favouring one town or one
manufacturer by-granting him a special rate whilst other towns and
individuals are charged full rates.
The maximum rates fixed by the legislature apply only to carriage,
and the companies are further empowered to charge “ a reasonable sum
for loading, covering and unloading of goods, and for delivery and the
collection, and any other services incidental to the business or duty of a
carrier.” This extra charge is now known by the name of “ terminals,”
and to the items enumerated is now added, owing to carelessness in
drawing an Act of Parliament, a charge for the sidings and ware
houses. The amount of the charge is only limited by the word
‘ reasonable,” and the railway companies have not been slow to
avail themselves of the almost unlimited power to charge what
they like for terminals. The control exercised by the Legislature over the
charges of the railway companies for carriage of merchandise is there
fore a perfect farce. The mere transport is regulated by an antiquated
list of maximum rates which have little or no reference to the present
day, and the terminals are left to the discretion of the officials. The
result of such a “ control ” is aptly shown by the evidence of the Goods
Manager of the South Eastern Railway before the Parliamentary Select
Committee in 1881. The total charge on hops from Sevenoaks to Lon
don is 24s. a ton, from Redhill, 27s., from Staplehurst, 36s. Allowing
5d. a mile per ton for transport (the L.B: & S.C.R. charge 2d., and the
L. &S.W., 3d. per mile) the Sevenoaks rate leaves 15s. 8d. for terminals,
that from Redhill, 18s. 3d., and that from Staplehurst, 19s. 4d. The
Goods Manager admitted that ns. 6d. a ton for terminals would “ satisfy ”
the Company. A “reasonable sum” for terminals therefore means
according to the S.E.R. official a surcharge of 4s. 2d. to 7s. iod. per
ton in addition to a rate for transport that is double the average charge
of two other companies.
Under these fossil maximum rates and these elastic terminals a system
has grown up of preference to districts, to individuals, and to foreign
produce. Part of what has been done might of course be defended with
some show of reason, but it has been done by the wrong men. Such
important questions as creating new industries, and protecting old ones
by low railway rates, should be settled by the representatives of the
Nation, and not by Directors of a Company carried on for profit. The
tendency to consider first and foremost how to declare a good dividend
must warp the judgments of the railway officials, when they fix new or
revise old rates. The same cause must lead them to take advantage of
the public whenever they can; the Committee of 1882 found that the
�9
charges for conveyance were such as the managers thought “ the traffic
would bear,” or in other words as much as could be got without reference
to the cost of performing the service.
Competition is practically
absent; there is complete monopoly at 4,500 stations out of the 6,000
in the United Kingdom, and as Mr. Findlay, L. & N.W. manager,
confesses frankly the Companies agree between competing points. Mr.
Findlay as frankly states that to certain stations they charge higher rates
than to others further off “ simply because it is within our power.”
As regards preference shown to towns or districts the course adopted
by the railway companies has been in some cases apparently very judi
cious. For instance, at Westbury there is iron ore but no coal. The
Great Western Railway, therefore, grants low rates for the import of
coal and coke, and an industry that would not otherwise exist springs
into life The iron industry of South Staffordshire could not exist
were it not for the very low rates charged on the import of iron ore.
. But these are national concerns, and should not be left to the discretion
of indirectly interested railway officials. Further, who will guarantee
that the directors will never have any direct personal interest in the pro
tection of this or the other district ? A future director of the G.W.R.
might have a strong personal interest in stifling the inconvenient com
petition of W estbury with other iron producing districts. The commer
cial morality of the middle class of the present day does not stand so
high that such things are so improbable as to be practically impossible.
The preference shown to individual traders admits of no defence. Mr.
Horrocks, who takes a very moderate and middle-class view of the evils
of our railway systems, calls the inequalities “startling.” Traders find
out that they have been handicapped for years; more favourable rates
having been granted to their rivals. The defence of the managers is
refreshing in its coolness. They see no objection to individual preferences.
“ It is in accordance with commercial principle to charge one customer
10 per cent,, another 20, another 50, and another possibly 100, for doing
the same service.”
The preference shown to foreign over home produce is a kind of “ topsy
turvy ” protection. There is no doubt about the practice. Mr. Charles
Waring is emphatic on this point. He says, “ The companies not only
charge less for foreign than for home produce over equal distances, but
they charge less for foreign produce over a long distance than for home
produce over a short distance. They also grant facilities for getting early
into the market to foreign produce which they refuse to home produce.”
We would recommend this aspect of the question to the Fair Traders.
Here are companies to which the State has delegated one of the most
important functions of modern society: that of the transport of
commodities. The powers of these companies are such that they can and
do protect, by preferential rates, home industries in some cases and foreign
industries in others. This apparent contradiction is, however, solved by
the consideration that the companies use their vast powers simply and
solely for the purpose of making profits and declaring dividends. If pro
tecting home industries will increase their dividends, then preferential
rates will be granted to them, but if protecting foreign industries at the
expense of home industries will swell their dividends, why home indus
tries may and do go to the wall.
The next point to consider is the treatment and remuneration of
the workers on the railways, who are in one respect better off than those
who are employed in the production of wealth, for as yet few, if any, rail
way companies have shut their doors and discharged their hands, neither
�IO
do we find any parallel to overproduction causing a glut on the market,
and culminating in short-time and a large addition to the number of the
unemployed. This, however, does not apply to those employed in the
construction of railways who are discharged when their work is done.
The workers on the railways are, nevertheless, as much at the mercy of
the capitalists as any other workers; their wages are low, their hours are
long, and their occupation, in many cases, is one of great risk. But the
competition in this, as in other branches of industry, is so keen that men
are easily found who are willing to work under the present onerous and
dangerous conditions. It is a fact beyond dispute that in consequence
of the railway companies refusing to take proper precautions a large
number of their workers are every year killed and injured at their work.
The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants has, year by year,
specially called the attention of the Companies to the very dangerous
conditions under which the shunters have to work. But the Directors
have taken no step to remedy the evil; apparently the only thing they
have done has been to issue a rule that no one is to go between the car
riages or trucks whilst in motion. The utility of this measure is that in
case of a fatal accident the rule is produced at the inquest, the Company
is exonerated from blame, and the Employer’s Liability Act is shut out
of operation. The Companies thus protect themselves from any claims for
damages, although they know well that the work could not be done if the
rule were acted upon.
In the ten years ending December 31st, 1884, 1,081 shunters were
killed outright, and 9,256 injured; in rough numbers, three out of every
four of those engaged in this work were at the end of ten years killed or
injured, the injuries from the nature of the work being almost always
serious. This holocaust to capital grasping for dividends continues ;
in 1885 no less than 451 workers were killed and 2,117 injured, as will be
seen from the following tabulated statement of accidents to railway
servants.
Number
1885.
employed.
Killed. Injured.
—
6,165 station masters
7
7,407 brakesmen and goods guards 5°
435
37,840 permanent way
102
134
2
1,605 gatekeepers ...
3
149
12,874 engine drivers
23
48,070 porters and shunters
82
586
12,795 firemen
20
196
22
3,518 inspectors
4
5,902 passenger guards
63
5
19,012 pointsmen and signalmen .. 14
4i
70,405 labourers
86
48
1
2,060 ticket collectors, &c....
6
55,940 mechanics
20
23
62,833 other classes ...
87
367
346,426
45i
2,117
Notice should be taken of the proportion between the killed and
injured platelayers ; if a casualty happens to a gang of these workers and
eleven are affected by it, five will be killed outright. The accidents to
brakesmen and goods guards are also very serious ; out of every 150
employed in 1885 one was killed, and out of every 17 one was injured.
It is far safer to be a soldier than a brakesman.
�II
The wages paid to railway servants are an instructive illustration of
the way in which our capitalist society forces the proletariat to run
great risks to life and limb for a mere subsistence wage. Shunters
receive from 2s. 6d. to 5s. for a day of 10 to 12 hours; goods guards and
brakesmen 3s. to.5s. for 10 to 14 hours; and platelayers 2s. 2d. for 9 to
11 hours. The lower rates are those at which they commence, the
higher are those to which they can rise. The hours are no indication
of the length of the day’s work ; overtime is generally paid for at a higher
rate, but in some instances 144 hours per fortnight; 66 and 72 hours per
week must be worked before overtime commences. A statement was
made in the Huddersfield Examiner a short time ago that “ In a full week of
seven days there are 168 hours, and hundreds of railway servants can be
brought forward and produce a time bill of 112 hours.”
The wages of signalmen vary from 3s. to 5s. per day of 8 to 14 hours.
The difference between the length of the day is however not altogether
in favour of the shorter time. The eight hours indicate far greater
strain, and can only be undergone by men of exceptional tenacity and
hardness. The number of eight hours boxes is however small, and they
are only tp be found at points where the traffic is incessant or excep
tionally heavy.
The railway servants have a society established for the purpose of
resisting unjustifiable reductions in wages or increased hours, and for
obtaining reduced hours and fairer remuneration. It is also a benefit
society, making certain allowances to those of its members who meet
with death or injury by accident. It recently granted the sum of £500
to be offered in prizes for automatic and non-automatic safety couplings
to wagons. In this, and in the other matters, the Society is doing good
work, but at the best it is only a palliative, it does not pretend to attack
the root of the evil; it does not concern itself in any way with the social
problem. As long as the railways are private property, as long as the
workers are the proletariat, so long will the companies be able to find
workers only too anxious to work at the present low wage and under
present dangerous conditions.
In 1885 the remuneration of the workers on the railways, taking into
account the large salaries paid to managers and other high officials, the
directors’ fees, the salaries of all officials, and the wages of all the men
w’as met by the payment of about ^17,400,000. The number of officials,
commencing at station-masters downwards, is 346,426, giving an average
remuneration of under 19s. 6d. per week. The actual remuneration is,
of course, something less as the total amount paid away includes the
salaries of the high officials, clerks, book-keepers, &c., who are not
included in the Government returns of the number employed on the
railways.
The remuneration of the “ non-workers,” say the shareholders, deben
ture-holders, &c., in 1885 was ^32,768,000, being at the average rate of
4*02 per cent, per annum on the total capital, loans, &c. Say that the
workers are now at work on an average 12 hours per day, their numbers
could be doubled, that is, increased by over 350,000, their hours of work
reduced to six per day, and their average rate increased from 19s. 3d. to
28s. per week, if what is now paid away to shareholders were divided
among those who do the work.
It is merely a question of calculation how the railway men would be
affected by a gradual socialisation of the railways which would guarantee
a mimimum dividend on the average of 3 per cent, terminable within 30
years, or with the life of the present stock and shareholder. If such a
�scheme were commenced to-morrow, men who are now alive would live
to see the day when the overwork of 346,000 men would be divided
among 692,000 at fair rates of wages.
Again: the reduction of the average dividend to the same rate, 3 per
cent, of interest as Consols say, would increase the payments to the
workers by ^8,200,000 per annum, and would permit the immediate em
ployment of over 200,000 men at the present rate of wages, and in a few
years, long before the railways became the property of the nation, the
number of workers on them would be 700,000, who would receive some
thing approaching a fair wage.
The scheme for the nationalisation of our railway system put forward
by Mr. Charles Waring, is mainly based on the idea that the State shall
not work.the railways with the view of earning profit, but “ utilise this
national instrument in the way most calculated to benefit trade, and by
these means to contribute to and increase national wealth and welfare,
regardless of the remuneration of the instrument itself.” This is a very
taking way of putting forward what is thoroughly unsound. It is quite
correct that the State should not “ earn ” profit out of the railways as it
does now out of the Post Office. The remuneration of the instrument
itself, which we take to be the workers on the railways, is, however, the
most important matter, and should have the most careful regard and
attention. Mr. Waring’s contention that, under his system, “ the un
earned increment of trade will go into the pockets of the people instead
of the pockets of one class of capitalists,” shows at once that his point of
view is diametrically opposed to anything like a Socialistic solution of the
problem, and that he does not see how his plan would work. It is true
that the profits would not go into the pockets of one class of capitalists,
but they would go into the pockets of other classes of capitalists, and
would never reach the people at all. Mr. Waring’s plan is that the
smaller wolves should share between them what now goes to half-a-dozen
big wolves.
As far as regards the revenues of the Railways the receipts derived
from the Passenger traffic are not so important as those derived from
goods traffic. In 1885 the income of all railways in the United Kingdom
from passenger traffic was ^25,585,335, and that from goods traffic
^36,871,945. The return per train mile on the passenger traffic was 4s.
and on the goods traffic, 5s. iod. Passengers, however, embark and
disembark themselves, whilst goodshave to be collected and delivered,
loaded and unloaded. Further the average fare per passenger was last
year eightpence and i-8th ; taking'15 passengers as equal to one ton, the
railways received per ton of passengers 10s. 2d. as against 5s. 6d. say
per ton of merchandize.
The most noteworthy feature in the passenger traffic is the increasing
importance of the third class. In 1878 the number of 3rd class passengers
was 441,202,291, and their fares amounted to ^13,957^03, whilst in 1885,
the passengers were 603,762,117, and their fares amounted to ^17,588,730.
But the number of first and second class passengers in the same period
has fallen from 110,391,363 to 93,450,914, and the amount paid by them
for fares has decreased from ^8,064,726 to ^"6,174,081. In other words
whilst the first and second class passengers paid 36.62 per cent, of the
passenger receipts in 1878, last year they only paid 25.98 per cent.;
their quota of each 20s. received by the Companies has fallen from 7s.
4d. to 5s. 2d. in seventeen years. Considering the extra expense of
carrying first and second class passengers, and the great accommodation
placed at their disposal by the companies, it is manifest that the abolition
�of both or either of these classes will be one of the first steps to be taken
in Railway reform.
The treatment of the third classs traffic by the Companies is out of all
proportion to its importance. The middle class have at the present
day the control of the Public Press, and any shortcoming either in the
number or speed of the trains or in the conveniences and accommoda
tion afforded by the Companies and its officials is promptly enlarged
upon in the papers and as promptly attended to by the managers. The
consequence is that a large number of useless and superfluous trains are
run to suit the middle class, and the cost of running a large number of
nearly empty carriages is incurred without rhyme or reason. On the
other hand the complaints of the third class passengers seldom if ever
come before the public, and invariably meet with no redress. Anyone who
travels third class on our Metropolitan and Suburban lines can testify
to the inferior and scanty accommodation afforded by the Companies.
The passengers are themselves to blame to some extent for this state of
affairs ; they rarely object to being overcrowded, and any passenger who
protests against the presence of more passengers than can be carried
without great inconvenience is promply silenced and often abused by
those wno should protest with him. A second-claSs passenger who finds
no room in the second-class carriage promptly claims and is afforded a
seat in a first-class carriage ; the third-class passenger, however, crowds
into the third-class carriage while standing room remains, and if he com
plains at all, it is of those who obiect to his intrusion.
The immediate abolition of the second-class could be effected without
detriment to the finances of the Companies. The second-class pas
sengers in 1885, were 60,985,772, and their fares amounted to /2,931,111
giving an average of 114d ; the third-class passengers were 603,762,117,
and they paid in all ^i 7,588,730, or close on 7d a head. If all the secondclass passengers were to travel third-class there would, of course, be a
heavy loss, but the experience of the Midland Railway clearly shows
that this reform could be carried out with even an advantage to the
finance of the Companies. This reform, however, can only be considered
as a step towards the establishment of one class only. Those who insist
upon the distinctions that now obtain are mainly people who live largely
on the unpaid labour of the workers, or who are still under the yoke of
middle-class ideas of respectability.
The introduction of working men s trains at low fares shows that at an
early period local trains could be run at one and the same fare for anv
distance within the locality. This plan the London Road Car Company
has followed with success on the streets of London, and there is little
doubt that its introduction on our railways would be equally successful.
The longer journeys could then soon be treated on the same plan, but
the railway companies, who work the railways with the sole view of
earning a dividend, and who never regard the monopoly they possess
other than as a profit-earning machine are most unlikely to introduce so
sweeping a reform. But just as a letter can now be sent from London
to Inverness for one penny, so when the railways are taken over by the
community and managed in the interest of the community will a
passenger travel by train from Euston Square to the Highlands at a low
average fare.
The many complicated questions of rates for goods and passenger
traffic and the evil effects on the industries of the country caused by the
transportation of commodities being under the control and power of
joint stock companies, whose main idea is that of declaring the highest
�■
possible dividend, give rise from time to time to such great dissatisfaction
that railway commissions are appointed to examine into, and Bills are
proposedin Parliament to remedy, the evils and to solve the complicated
questions. The power of the railway companies is, however, so strong
in our present middle-class House of Commons, that both Commissions
and Bills come to naught, and the railway interest retains its old power
and control.
The consequence of this autocratic control of the companies
over the transportation of commodities was foreseen by many
prominent men of the Tory party when the present railway company
system was introduced. Sir Robert Peel declared to the railway mag
nates, “ You shall not have a permanent monopoly against the public,”
and his Government brought in and passed an Act empowering the
State to purchase the railways at the expiration of 21 years. This Act
has remained a dead letter, the principle of resuming the monopoly
is still fully recognised, but in practice the Companies have used
their monopoly as all monopolies have been used, namely for
their own benefit. Let us recite one or two cases of excessive
and of preferential rates. The principle on which the rates are framed
is simplicity itself; it consists in charging as much as the traffic will
bear, and the consequence is a set of rates defensible on no other principle
whatever. The London and North-Western charged 28s. 4d per ton on
steel wire from London to Birmingham, a distance of 113 miles, whilst
from Antwerp to Birmingham, 313 miles, they charged 16s. 8d. Another
Company charged as much for carrying goods 27 miles as for 86, and
again made no difference in the rate when the difference in distance was
116 miles. The Great Western charge id per gallon on milk for 10
miles, and the same rate for ten times the distance. Cattle are carried
from Norfolk to London at 10s. a head, whilst from the Midland
counties to London, a longer distance, the charge is 5s.
Foreign cattle
are carried on one line at 4s. less per head than English. Foreign
produce constantly obtains an undue preference. American meat and
cornare carried at lower rates than English meat and corn for
a shorter distance.
Large quantities of foreign produce are
charged less than home produce over equal distances, and are even
carried longer distances at less than home products over short journeys.
What is the remedy for this state of affairs ? Another Commission ?
All that a Commission can do is to make clear what previous Commis
sions have sufficiently demonstrated, namely, constant unfair preference
and a radically unsound treatment of the great question of the transport
of commodities by those who hold the monopoly, which Sir Robert Peel
declared should not be permanent. And what about a Railway Rates
Bill ? Anyone who followed the treatment by the railway magnates of
the very mild measure brought in by Mr. Gladstone’s Government in the
Spring of 1886 will at once see that any solution by the middle-class of
this important problem may hit a blot or two, remedy one or two evils,
but will never change the present system of monopoly carried on for the
profit and advantage of shareholders. Even supposing that a minister were
thorough enough to propose, and a House of Commons honest enough
to carry such a measure as Mr. Waring proposes, how much better off
would the workers be ? The railway question, as weil as all other
economic questions of the day, can only be solved by bearing steadily
in mind the effect that any proposed solution would have on the condi
tion of the workers.
Mr. Charles Waring is against the State carrying on the railways with
�II
a view of earning profit. He urges that they should be managed so as
to conduce to the “ largest development of trade, and to the “ growth of
commerce ; ” to help forward the establishment of innumerable centres of
industry,” and to “ increase the national wealth and welfare.” All these
are the fine phrases of the capitalist school. There is no reference to the
position of the worker, save such indirect and transient improvement of his
lot as may happen through greater development of trade and commerce.
His proposals might result in the improved position of the British trader,
but would leave untouched the relations between the Capitalist and the
Proletariat. In the domain of production of commodities every invention,
every discovery, every improvement in machinery, benefits the landlord
and the capitalist, and so in the domain of distribution, every improve
ment, every step towards perfection in working, also benefits the landlord
and the capitalist, but leaves the proletariat still the proletariat; the wage
slave of to-day is no less a wage-slave because the means of communica
tion and distribution are being improved day by day; in fact, the
tendency is in the other direction, the accumulation of unpaid labour is
accelerated by every improvement of which we boast so much to-day.
What, then, is the solution of the railway question that can alone be
deemed adequate, that will be able to solve at one and the same time the
two problems, how to manage the transport of commodities so that the
workers on the railways shall receive the full produce of their labour, and
yet at the same time help forward the production of wealth ?
If an energetic minority of the workers of Great Britain were thorough
Socialists the resumption of the monopoly granted to the railway com
panies could be effected in a single day and that without any compensa
tion whatever to shareholders, debenture holders, &c., except such as
they would have in enjoying the advantages of the organised system of
production and distribution which would replace the commercial anarchy
of to-day. Such a sudden change is, however, only possible at a climax
of an overwhelming popular movement. The French Revolution effected
a greater change when the land passed from the nobles to the people,
and the Stein land law brought about a “ Revolution ” in landholding
of equal magnitude in Prussia. This resumption of accumulated “ un
paid labour ” which has built up our railways without compensation is,
of course, the aim of every Socialist, and any deviation from this prin
ciple can only be justified on grounds of immediate expediency. A
moderate compensation might be advisable as solving the problem
sooner than a rigid adherence to the principle of recovering in full the
property of individuals who have no moral claim to it.
If the railways were taken over at once and without compensation,
the number of the workers could be doubled, their hours of work reduced
to six per day, and their average wages increased from 19s. 3d. per
week to 28s. At least 350,000 of the unemployed would be in work at a
decent rate of wages. If, however, full compensation were paid to the
shareholders, &c., not a single man could be added to the workers on
the railways, the wages could not be increased nor the hours of work
reduced. On the other hand, if the very liberal terms were arranged of
an annuity at 3 per cent, per annum for the next thirty years, the number of
workers at the present rate of wages could be increased by 200,000, and
the hours of work reduced to eight per day. What particular settlement
will be arrived at on this point will, however, depend entirely upon the
attitude of the workers ; the spread of Socialism amongst the prole
tariat and their steady combination will most materially affect the solu
tion. The average percentage paid away in dividends and interest
�i6
was 4.19 in i860, it is now 4.02 ; the variation has therefore been small,
but the average return on other investments has considerably fallen
during the same period, for instance, the value of money during the
same period has fallen from 5 per cent, per annum to 3 percent. The steadj^
return on the nominal capital of railways is of course the result of monopoly,
and the abolition of monopoly cannot be expected to carry with it compen
sation at the monopoly rate of return. Neither can the market value of
the shares be taken into account, for that also rests mainly on the return
per annum which is the result of the monopoly.
In any case, whether the railways are resumed by the community after
a long peaceful agitation, or at the climax of a short sharp struggle, the
first step towards reorganisation would be the concentration of all the
Boards that now direct our numerous railway companies. The practical
men, those who are conversant with the working of the traffic, would be
retained, whilst the guinea-pigs, the men of title, and the dummies who
say ditto to the leading spirit that virtually dictates the policy of the
company, would be retired. The practical men would then form a central
executive, and through local executives would carry out the organisation
of the railway service of Great Britain. But this central executive would
be subordinate to a Board which would direct which particular steps
should be taken first. On this Board it is not likely that there would be
a single man now in the service of any railway company. Apart from
the men who do the work on the railways to-day from the porters up to
those officials who actually manage the traffic, there is perhaps not a man
who is not so imbued with the present system of working for dividends
as to be virtually incapable of taking any new views. The direction of
the reorganisation would, therefore, of necessity be entrusted to some few*
thoroughly capable men, who, though they would have much to learn,
would have little to unlearn. In all probability the only apparent change
at first -would be the increase in the number of rhe workers, the
increase in their wages, and the reduction in their hours. It is not to be
doubted that this part of the programme could be carried into effect in a
few weeks. The other and no less important questions, the revision of the
rates on goods, traffic, and the systematisation of short and long distance
passenger fares, the proper use and extension of our canals, now burked
by the railway directors, the establishment of country tramways as
feeders to our trunk lines, would take more time, but all these reforms
would be carried out in a tithe of the time that it has taken the Com
panies to adopt and use a fairly efficient break, or to move one step
towards diminishing the annual slaughter of the shunters.
The main point, however, to be borne in mind is the inadmissibility of
any compromise whatever in the formation of the future directorate, or
in the principles of the reorganisation it is to carry out. In railways, as
in all other processes of production and distribution at present, the dead
instrument, capital, is that which now lives and grows whilst the workers
are changed to mere instruments, the reward of their labours is a sub
sistence wage, just sufficient to ensure the reproduction of the instrument
for the future. The due of the worker is, however, a share of all pro
ducts of labour in proportion to the work that he has done, and one
great step towards the realisation of this aim will have been taken when
the workers on the railways receive the full produce of their work.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The nationalisation of our railway system, its justice and advantages
Description
An account of the resource
Keddell writes of his opposition to the monopolisation of communication, transport and profit by railway companies and the dangerous working conditions experienced by their employees.
Place of publication: London; New York City
Collation: 16 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered page at end. Reprinted from 'Justice'.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Keddell, F
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press; W.L. Rosenberg
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The nationalisation of our railway system, its justice and advantages), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4975
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
Nationalisation
Railways
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/610c05e2046ef0474ecaaf04e039140b.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=B3M4icYdSpmmoIwqhJhltQYoRUIIQzwhRJNpnCL2euDksfZFieEOUY2w5KFjdHQm51oMDMaDGUJRLY6nHS6rqU1rSfgkweZ0nHzIhLFyop1cAHCUQSc7W62FzJRNAb7ygYu6eflGb90HE7b2s247MIjNyM5qv1VHMbE-bSzCuY8DUd7Pf3joqtSaQaOIL-xLUdlyB8rKr9R0CQ484vePyzDZuNM48Yl7mitR8loH3YT5gZ%7EAMGHvhhwrh0Pqp-vd15zE3tQwW%7EkjwY4deGb0Cl8aNG4zhdZE6jCaSKTEDcbELnC%7EVjpeVD7VHRCkTuIrSrwiF%7EKysYtggzFAp1KpFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
12904dc0f4fb39b8ea1a919d6c719b3f
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
WITH A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
R.
MR.
DALE,
W.
M.A.,
On “ Atheism and the House of Commons.”
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL
Author of “ The Martyrs of Progress" etc.
“ Get knowledge, get wisdom, with all thy getting,
get understanding.”
TWO
PENCE.
LONDON :
WATTS
&
Co.,
84,
FLEET STREET.
�WHAT IS A FREETHINKER?
HE Saxon word Free means not in a state of vassalage,
not under restraint, not ruled or obstructed by arbitrary
or despotic power. When we speak of a Free people
we do not mean a wild, reckless gang of robbers, but people
subject to fixed laws only, living under government—but one
made by the consent of the governed. A Freethinker is one
vho thinks without the restraint of any church, priest, or
king, but under the conditions common to all thinking
beings, the laws of their own nature, and those of the great
universe of which they form a part.
A very good lexicon (Imperial) defines Freethinker—
a Deist, an Unbeliever ; one who discards revelation, and
caHs it “a softer name.”
Secularism has been erroneously called a disguise or a
cover for the harsh sounding names Atheist and Infidel, while
the fact is Secularism expresses the policy of a life based on
purely human considerations, altogether independent of
Atheism and theology of all kinds.
No doubt new names tone down public feeling, cool
infla.-med bigotry, and give reason and common sense a chance
of being heard. But in both these eases here referred to it is
not only a change of names, but also of the things signified,
which are not represented by the old names. Secularism
implies progress towards right and light, and is not a
negation. Forty years ago it was a very common saying—
T
�3
“ Give a dog a bad name and you may as well hang him.”
At that time, and for hundreds of years before, to be even
suspected of being a Freethinker was not free from peril.
Names require new definitions, because with an increase of
knowledge come new distinctions. I remember the social
inconvenience of being called “ a Methodist,” and an
Unitarian was considered a kind of wild animal, whose habits
and peculiarities were not generally known—and hence to be
avoided by all prudent people. At that time Christians never
met on what they call “ common ground.” In fact the
“ common ground ” itself was undiscovered. It is not impos
sible that by the end of the present century persons of every
creed and of no theological creed at all, may meet as men for
the promotion of all political and social measures for the
common good. It will then be seen that the evil is not the
inclusion, of all, but the exclusion of any, who can render
service to society. To ask a man’s theological opinions will
then be thought an unpardonable impertinence, showing
ignorance or a want of good manners. The public are not
very particular in the use of words. Hence Voltaire and
Paine are absurdly called Atheists—a term these two great
Freethinkers would have repudiated with as much justice as
the Bishop of London or Mr. Sturgeon might, if the term
Were applied to them. Those two great defenders of Freethought were devout believers in God and a future state.
The same remarks apply to Hume and Gibbon. The term
“Atheist” is probably the most popular, the most successful,
and certainly the most ancient, of all the names by which
people have been held up to the scorn, hatred, or contempt of
mankind. More than 2,000 years ago one of the best men
alive was called an Atheist: Socrates was distinctly charged
with Atheism. The Christians who are so fond of the epithet
were themselves denounced as Atheists in their early days.
�4
Afterwards Christians denounced each other as Atheists, as
Athanasius did Arius, as the Catholics did Erasmus. In a
work by Marechai entitled, “A Dictionary of Atheists,” it is
shown, as the late George Dawson once said to me, that every
great man from Jesus Christ downwards has been called
Atheist. Persons who first disbelieved in witchcraft were
called Infidels and Atheists by eminent writers of the period.
Even telescopes were denounced as atheistical inventions,
because they extended human vision beyond the limits fixed
by God in the natural eye. The folly or at least the absurdity
indulged in by Christians is singularly displayed in their
calling Deists infidels and atheists, while they show their
affection for Theists as being men and brothers. Deist and
Theist mean the same, the only distinction is that one comes
to us from the Latin and the other from the Greek. They
both believe in God, although they differ about his active
interference in writing books, working miracles, and some
other matters. It has often struck me as peculiar that the
many millions of people in the East who do not believe in a
Supreme Being’ have escaped the wrath of the Christian
missionaries. Perhaps being so numerous, and all alike, the
application of the opprobrious epithet Atheist would prove a
failure. If Atheists were as plentiful as blackberries in
England they would probably be deemed as harmless. The
majority of Freethinkers have been believers in God and a
future state. A Deist, Pantheist, Theist, or an Atheist may
be a Freethinker ; but a Freethinker may not be either.
A milestone may be made of wood or iron or partly of
both—the term indicates now a definite idea apart from its
material. A lunatic now need not necessarily be affected by
the moon, and many persons are now melancholy who are not
always sufferers from black bile. An absurd answer was
such an answer as a deaf person would make, but now many
�5
persons who are not ¿leaf make absurd answers. "We now
say a steamer sails on a certain day, but it may not have a sail
on board.
The word person is said to have originated from a mask
worn by actors. Their personation of great characters led to
others, distinguished by certain forms or peculiarities of
character, being called personators or persons. The word
became associated with events and persons of the highest
importance and the greatest dignity in human affairs—hence
the word person was applied to men, and angels, and even
God himself was called a person. The word Religion, in
early times, meant the obligation of a man to do his duty to
and by the State—now it may mean a sort of theological
pantomime, or it may mean an intelligible creed deduced fiom
the Old and New Testaments.
The chief distinction between a ¿Freethinker and other
thinkers on matters theological is that his own reason is his
authority in determining the value of all evidence submitted
to it. The Bible, the Church, the Pope, and all the articles
of faith, by whomsoever promulgated, are to the Freethinker
only human author ¡ties, to be tested like all other authorities,
and to be accepted or rejected on exactly the same grounds.
If a person believes that the Bible or any other book is infal
lible—inspired by an all-wise supernatural agency, and
entirely exempt from error, he is bound to accept, without
question, whatever the book says, and therefore cannot be in
any rational sense a Freethinker. Of course a Freethinker
may believe that God inspires all great writers and speakers ;
but he holds the right to decide for himself which of the
writers or speakers are inspired, and to what extent they
claim his allegiance. His intellect, by which he judges, is at
least as divine as the intellect which produces the poem or
any work of art. He never expects other Freethinkers to
�6
take the same view as himself, however much he may desire it,
or try to persuade others. All conclusions arrived at after
diligent and honest enquiry are equally justifiable, equally
innocent, although they may, in his opinion, differ vastly in
importance. The concZ-wsw»« of Freethinkers may he, and
doubtless are variable ; but their method of following reason,
guided by knowledge and experience, unawed by all authority
but truth, is clearly distinctive to all who care to understand
in what respect it differs from the method of all other
thinkers. A Freethinker is not, as is commonly asserted, a
person who repudiates all great authorities, and treats lightly
the great faiths of the world. He is the one person, above
all others, who takes the trouble to read and examine them.
It is the believer, and not the unbeliever, who takes things on
trust and assents in most cases without examination. It is a
clear indication of industry, intelligence, and patient research
if a person obtains the reputation of being* a Freethinker.
You will seldom find ignorant Freethinkers, or any who lack
moral courage. A Freethinker is always an earnest thinker—
one who cares to know the truth, and is prepared to suffer the
consequences of the most searching enquiry into the claims of
what others may superstitiously regard as too sacred for
human investigation. It is not a question of dates or great
names or reputed divinity, or heavenly origin, with the Free
thinker, as is the question with other thinkers in arriving at a
conclusion on any subject. It is not what is fashionable or
generally believed that influences this mind. It is not the
opinion of the majority which determines his belief in any
matter. The opinion of a Freethinker on any subject may be
the same as that of the majority—it may be the same as all
great authorities in the Church or out of it. Some people
erroneously imagine that a person who is a Freefbin'k-er
delights in not agreeing with anybody, and some stupidly
�1
assert that it is his desire to appear odd, to be something
unlike anybody else, which induces him to adopt an un
fashionable creed. Let those who sincerely think so come
out from their Church, and see how the world will treat them,
and let us hear the result of the experiment. From what is
called “ a worldly point of view ” a person would be more
likely to “ get on” in the smallest congregation of the most
obscure sect of religionists than by numbering himself among
the fraternity of Freethinkers. He will find neither loaves
nor fishes among the faithless few—it is more like taking the
vow of poverty than rolling in riches. When a person
becomes a Freethinker, the question what shall he get by or
lose by it in a worldly sense does not occur, but how shall he set
himself free from priestcraft and superstition regardless of
cost. To become a Freethinker requires that you should set
a higher price on freedom and truth than on all else in the
world besides. He will forsake all to follow these, believing
they will repay him a hundredfold. Those who know the
uses of money and the advantages of wealth will never dispise them, but he who has tasted freedom will never part
with it for silver or gold. We all prize comfort and joy and
th® pleasures of sense, but without freedom what becomes
of mind, the hope of the world or the worth of human
nature ?
“ ’Tis Liberty alone that gives the flower
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume,
And we are weeds without it.”
Intellectual freedom is a necessity of progress, one of the con
ditions of human happiness, the pioneer of civilisation. All
that obstructs it, the Freethinker would sweep away—all that
promotes it, he cherishes, as it is the heritage of our race,
and the great deliverer of humanity from priestcraft, king
craft, and all other superstitions which afflict mankind.
�8
A Freethinker is often called a Sceptic, which means one who
is on the look out—a considérer, one not led away bv every
story teller. He is sometimes called a doubter, and the inten
tion is to convey the idea that the terms Sceptic or Doubter
mean something wicked or derogatory. The fact is the world
owes much to Scepticism and doubting. It is the proper state
of mind in relation to many things in this world. In a state
of uncertainty, in the absence of evidence, where demonstra
tion or proof of any kind is wanting, Scepticism or doubt
must prevail in all healthy minds.
What is a Freethinker ? I should describe him as one
who observes, thinks, and judges for himself. He is one who
has freed himself from the bonds of credulity both illiterate
and priestly. His spirit breathes charity or good will to all.
His hopes, desires, and efforts are in the promotion of the
best interests of mankind. He looks on ignorance and poverty
as two of the greatest afflictions of mankind, towards the
removal of which he devotes his best endeavours. If lie has
a religion it is as free from intolerance as it is from supersti
tion. He stands pre-eminent among men in intelligence and
nobleness of mind. He has the sublime reflection that his
life has been spent in the service of humanity : the conscious
ness of this gives him pleasing thoughts in life and enables
him to die in peace.
�9
MR. R. W. DALE’S SERMON.
EING familiar with newspaper reports of Mr. Dale’s
special public utterances, I had formed the erroneous
/
notion that in his case the preacher was absorbed in
the politician. Any one labouring under a similar hallucina
tion will be speedily restored to their right mind by a perusal
of his sermon on “ Atheism and the House of Commons.”
His view would disqualify the Catholic, Jew, and Freethinker.
It is clear that if Mr. Dale were a Chinese he would join the
celestials in their denunciation of the consumption of Cow’s
milk as unnatural and immoral. The sermon in question was
preached in Carr’s Lane Chapel, Birmingham, June 27th.
Referring to what he calls “the remarkable discussions” in
the previous week, which, on the last page, become “these
disastrous discussions,” he says: “We have had it forced
upon our minds that there are men who can find no evidence
that God exists.” At the same time he says the existence of
God has been the subject of discussion “ for many years,”
“ in every part of England,” and among “ all ranks and con
ditions of people.” If this had been only a political question
(which it most assuredly is, simply and purely) Mr. Dale said
he “ should be satisfied with discussing the subject elsewhere.”
He says, “There is a certain heat of passion almost always
created by political discussions.” In days agone it used to be
theological discussions which caused “heat of passion;” it
�10
seems the “ heat ” has been transferred. The leaders of the
House of Commons did not take Mr. Datte’s view : they
attributed the "heat” to its true sources—theological con
fusion and religious intolerance. Whenever theological
incomprehensibilities and religious fanaticism get mixed up
with politics and common sense there is always a fermentation.
This discussion shows Mr. Hale to be entirely in the wrong ;
for it shows that just government is only possible on the
Secular Method—independent of both Theism and Atheism.
If the proceedings of the past few weeks do not make this
truth clear to Mr. Dale and his friends—neither would they
be convinced if one rose from the dead.
“ Many philosophers,” Mr. Dale says, “ have regarded
the existence of God as a metaphysical hypothesis intended
to account for the order of the universe ; ” and on page 3 he
speaks of this same " metaphysical hypothesis invented for
the explanation of the origin of the universe.” There is no
evidence in this sermon to show that he knows there is any
difference between these two statements. The Origin of the
world is one thing, the Order of the world is another thing_
the study of the lattei’ has g’iven us all our knowledge; the
study of the former has resulted in endless disputes of no
value, being what Lord Bacon calls "milking the barren
heifer.” Mr. Dale says God is "infinitely more than the
great First Cause.” These words imply a little first cause,
a second cause, and any number of causes. Then he applies
the words "eternal” and "infinite” to the same. If you
tell me you have an eternal chain, a chain without beginning
and without end, and then ask me what I think of the first
link, my answer is that I don’t think anything„about it, and
am equally sure that you don’t. Then, if you get angry,
I tell you to your face that you do not know what you are
�11
talking about. Il may be well for the sake of some readers
to put clearly before them what all this is about.
Given the Universe, as it exists, the question arises—
How came it ? To answer this question theories have been
proposed. Something is assumed for the purposes of argu
ment to explain what is not understood—and this is
called an hypothesis. There are three theories or supposi
tions before the world about the universe more or less
satisfactory to those who accept them. To put the whole
matter briefly there are three assertions before us about the
Universe:—
1. That it is Self-existent.
2. That it is Self-created.
3. That it was created by an External Agency.
Mr. Date appears to accept the last. In my judgment there
is no theory which explains the Origin of the Material of
which the Universe consists or of what we call Space, or in
any degree enables us to understand their production out of
Nothing.
Cardinal Newman thinks it a great question whether
No. 1 is not as good as No. 3, that is, whether Atheism is not
as consistent with phenomena as Theism.
Sir William Hamilton says, “ The only valid arguments ”
for the existence of God “rest on the ground of man’s
inoral nature,” which Mr. Dale doubtless regards as utterly
corrupt.
Mr. Dale appears to have selected the term “Atheism”
as a peg on which to hang his scathing denunciations of
persons who are not Atheists : a more confusing or mischievous
proceeding is scarcely conceivable. He says that “ Atheism is
of two kinds ” (which in the nature of things is utterly
impossible)—“ practical Atheism” and “ theoretical Atheism.”
He says in “ theoretical Atheism His existence is denied, and
�12
His authority is, therefore, disregarded.” It is not usual to
disregard the authority of a king who does not exist, as he
very seldom has any.
Then “ There is practical Atheism, in which all the active
powers of man refuse to acknowledge the supreme authority
of God, though the fact of His existence is admitted.”
Mr. Dale should use another phrase instead of 11 practical
Atheism ; ” and I suggest “ impractical Theism,” or “ incon
sistent believing in God.’-’ Atheists whether practical or
impractical would not profess to believe in God and act as
though none existed.
The most serious objection to
Mr. Dale is his mixing up Atheism with the denial of all
obligations to morality and virtue. It is the less pardonable in
Mr. Dale because he reports a conversation between a friend
of his and one who said, “ I do not believe in the existence of
God, but if I did, I do not see that my life in any one respect
would be different from what it is : ” and Mr. Dale says this
man’s character was “ honourable and exemplary.” After this,
what right has Mr. Dale to say of theoretical Atheism,
“this is miserable unbelief?” Surely the believer in God
whose conduct is a living lie, ought to be followed by “ this is
a miserable belief.”
The difference between a practical and speculative Atheist
is thus expressed: “In the soul of the practical Atheist the
the dead corpse of faith is still lying,” and “from the soul of
the speculative Atheist the corpse has been removed.” It will
take more than Mr. Dale’s logic and eloquence to persuade an
Atheist, who is also an honest man, to weep over the departed
“ dead corpse of faith.” People seldom miss what they do
not want.
Mr. Dale is shocked at the words used by an M.P.,
“having some God or another” would satisfy the House.
Now it so happens that “the hon. mem.” who used these
�13
words accidentally spoke the truth. It is a fact that any
God ” is sufficient for the taking of the oath. I do not accuse
the M.P. whose “ profanity” is glaring, or Mr. Dale himself,
with a knowledge of the accuracy of the statement he made.
Mr. Dale says, “The God of the Deist ought not to satisfy
you ; ” but he admits it will do for the House of Commons,
for he says the oath “ may be taken by a Deist.” This shows
that the God of the Theist and the God of the Deist are not
alike, but “ one or the other ” will do.
Strange as it may appear in such a discourse Mr. Dale
introduces the old eternal problem of good and evil, a Pagan
notion which found its way into the Old Testament, and
ultimately got fairly landed in Christian doctrine. Here are
Our friends Light and Darkness struggling as of old.
Mr. Dale says, “We think we see Him in a conflict with
evil,” at the same time confident that “ the ultimate victoij-
will be with God.”
The terrible things which happen in the physical and
moral world Mr. Dale says “ sometimes oppress the faith of,
those who are most loyal to Him.” But why should they ?
Christians believe in a God who said, “ I form the light and
create darkness : I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do
all these things.”
It is the assumption that the Lord does not “ do all these
things” which makes all the difficulty. Surely Christians
remember that on one occasion God destroyed “ every living
substance ” on the earth. The destruction of the whole world
was at once so tragical and complete that “ Noah only re
mained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” On
another occasion He rained fire and brimstone out of heaven,
destroying the cities, inhabitants, and even that which grew
upon the ground.
�14
How can Christians forget that He sent His only begotten
son into the world to suffer death, exclaiming in agony_
“ My God ! My God! why hast thou forsaken me ? ” In the
face of these recorded facts why resort, as Mr. Dale does, to
some revolt having its origin in unknown worlds and under
unknown conditions.” This alternative is utterly uncalled for
and purely imaginary. Incredible as it may sound Mr. Dale
actually says, “ These disorders and evils appear to us to be
the signs of some appalling disturbance of the divine order”
It seems beyond belief that any intelligent man could write
such a statement; for "who can believe it possible to upset
any arrangements made by Almighty power. Alphonso X.
of Castille said if he had been consulted at the creation he
could have suggested a better and simpler plan.
Mr. Dale, in this passage, reminds one of the old Greeks,
to whom the sky was a concave sphere or dome, with the stars
fixed in it, all revolving on a point. It was atheistic to
speak of any but "circular motions;” it would have upset
the divine order of things,” and, in all probability, stopped
the “ music of the spheres.”
Mr. Dale seems to overlook that all things visible and
invisible are the work of God, and known to God from the
beginning of the world. As there is, according to Mr. Dale,
only one source of power in existence, it follows that
whatever happens is according to the will of God, in spite of
the will of God, or without the will of God interfering. In
either case the attributes Mr. Dale applies to Him fade away.
Mr. Dale says God “ satisfies the wants of every livi n g th i n g. ”
Surely that did not apply to those who perished in the flood,
or by famine in India recently, or a third of the population
of France in the 14th century who died of starvation, or to
our own people who daily die of hunger ? Mr. Dale says,
“We live and move and have our being in God.” This
�15
means the Universe and God are one, and not two separate
existences. Is it possible that such a sentence by a Greek
poet, introduced to the Word of God by Paul, and quoted by
Mr. Dale, can express his view ? He refers to the Design
argument approvingly. This argument implies just the oppo
site. It means that we are external to God, the work of His
hand—we are the clay and God the potter. Then again,
Mr. Dale says, “ There is no place which is not consecrated to
the manifestation of His power.”
If we tell Mr. Dale what God has done in the past,
according to His own account in His own inspired word—
if we tell him the plague carried away 5,000 a day, and
sweating sickness killed half the people of England—he says,
“ You may remind me of the disorder and confusion of the
universe.” But of what use to “remind” one who admits
the just and unjust, guilty and innocent, alike suffer and
perish in the presence of God himself? Mr. Dale goes on
with his parable all the same, although virtue and vice are
both disregarded by the author of our common calamities.
He is no respecter of persons ; he smites all alike.
Mr. Date, says, “1 agree with those who regard Atheism
as destructive of the strongest guarantees and defences of
human virtue.” What are the strongest guarantees and
defences of human virtue ? The answer Mr. Dale makes is
faith in a God of perfect righteousness. I “ remind ”
Mr. Dale that this did not furnish guarantees and defences of
virtue, or even human life, or of any living thing, in the cases
here referred to. And if “ the slippery ledge of Theism,” to
use Mr. Gladstone’s expression, does not furnish these
guarantees and defences, how can Atheism be “ destructive ”
of them ? Mr. Dale admits the whole case, but takes refuge
m “ portentous mysteries ” in the face of “tremendous diffi
culties.” Millions upon millions of our fellow creatures have
�16
no Supreme Being- in their religion; yet it stirred men’s
hearts 500 years before Jesus, second to none in antiquity,
it spreads its sway over a fifth of the human race. But they
have no House of Commons containing members who, according
to Mr. Dale “ gamble and get drunk and lead a profligate
life,” and still say—“ So help me God ' ” India has no repre
sentation in the House that rests on 11 the slippery ledge of
Theism,” and therefore no guarantees or defences of political
virtue.
“ Faith in a God of righteousness ” has not afforded
Englishmen “guarantees” of wise and just laws or
“ defences ” against tyranny and robbery. Men may have
“ faith in God” and honestly believe that all men should be
contented, especially if their own situation is a good one.
But suppose a change of places !
“ Faith in God ” lighted the fires of Smithfield, supported
the Inquisition in Spain, made torrents of blood flow in
Europe. “ Faith in God ” and the Bible made the Slave and
closed the door against his Liberator. The Liberators were
embraced by those who had Faith in Humanity, and were
tar’d-and-feathered by those who had faith in God. There is
no tyranny, no persecution, no war, no revolution which men
who have “ Faith in God ” will not frantically support and
promote—if they only have enough of it. Liberty and peace
are only possible in countries where men who have “ Faith in
God ” can be kept in check—be restrained by the sceptical
and indifferent. Not many years ago in this very town, next
door to Mr. Dale’s chapel, Catholics and Protestants would
have torn each other to pieces but for the Secular Powers.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What is a freethinker? with a special reference to Mr. R. W. Dale, M.A., on "Atheism and the House of Commons"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK is 1860-1880. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N125
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (What is a freethinker? with a special reference to Mr. R. W. Dale, M.A., on "Atheism and the House of Commons"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Free Thought
NSS