1
10
42
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/14c20735dd9486705b8b7711dc8885bd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=badjC0SDuSGEadAMQvN7o4GpLhEMAuP2X5D-2RZHDx7UhIVS5VVjalilRMh31sxz%7EGgyL587H2ZxH7chSjaRYMZXcquMJS4ks-OIqkZKqjqTd-S24KLPlrJkKD3M0Z8Av1UW7lSv19lcd68OpVmisBki9PWRgK8iAgbDPbfPkXFFvQDDTSzk9-uL18pm5GvYbuJA2m0pabzLSb0ptx9OBcmu99uB4wAqwlDdnm%7Ex-xCVAC1jc4O1Veb-2jFOfVIsr6Bc9sg2mv2K-y-%7EKt6IGJKt6Q8D72jGMtqLbxH1ELaU-Qiy98t3nzXl9%7EBW-44nVhgST3c2FfS4nfkj6RBmWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
112960047acaa48fee1515dba0010ce6
PDF Text
Text
RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
TRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE TVLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�RELIGIOUS
IGNORANCE.
Great deal is continually being said and written
about the duty of instructing the poor and
providing for the spiritual wants of the working
classes. Night schools, Sunday schools, Bible classes,
and periodicals of all kinds are set on foot for the
benefit of the ignorant poor, but nothing is ever said
or written about the expediency of instructing the
educated classes, who, upon the subject of religion,
are frequently as ill-informed, if not quite so ignorant,
as the “common people ” towhose religious improve
ment they sometimes devote themselves with edifying
zeal, recklessly guiding them to the brink of that
capacious ditch destined to receive the blind and
their leaders.
He would be a public benefactor who would under
take the delicate and difficult task of instructing
those who, for thirty years or more, have imagined
themselves well acquainted with the Bible, the church,
and religious truth generally, but who, when weighed
in the balance of first rudiments, are found wanting.
Those who have enjoyed the inestimable advantage
of not having been brought up under the auspices of
any particular sect, are quite amazed, not merely
at the ignorance which prevails among religious
people about the only book they seem to care for, but
at their unwillingness to admit their ignorance and
their disinclination to listen to their superiors in
learning and piety. Bor instance, people will talk
with glib assurance about “ the apocryphal books,”
just as if they knew what the word apocrypha means,
A
�6
Religious Ignorance.
and which the apocryphal books really are. Ask
what they mean, and you will be readily informed
that they (the apocryphal books) are the “ spurious
writings ” which were expunged from the Canon as
uninspired and therefore valueless. Ask if they are
acquainted with the apocryphal books of the New
Testament; you will find that they have never heard
of them, and that they do not wish to hear of them,
being abundantly satisfied with the four Gospels in
their Testament, and certain of their truth. Venture
still further, and tell them that an apocryphal book
does not mean one that is false, but merely one of
which the author is hidden or unknown, and that
therefore many of the books which have been retained
in the Canon are quite as apocryphal as those that
have been rejected, for that neither Jew nor Gentile
can tell who wrote them: you will not be encouraged
to proceed; your listeners do not want to hear any
more ; they see you want to “ shake their faith ” in—
no matter what, provided they believe it.
Great allowance must be made for them. A mind
nurtured in error, entangled with superstition and
clogged by conceit can no more accept a simple truth
than an enfeebled stomach can digest a heavy meal.
A long preparation is necessary before we can suffi
ciently divest' ourselves of our previous prejudices to
take in anything at variance with them. Few people
can, as Madame S wetchine pertinently observes, “bear
the weight of an entire truth,” and still fewer have
the humility to become “ little children,” even for
Christ’s sake. The excessive ignorance of the edu
cated classes in reference to religious matters must
be encountered to be realised. Ignorance, when
acknowledged, may be overcome; but ignorance
combined with conceit is likely to become invincible.
S. Paul accounts for the blindness of the Jews when
“Moses is read,” by saying that “the veil is upon
their heart,” but how thick a veil must be upon the
�Religious Ignorance.
7
heart of Christians when Jesus is read ; for what words
can be more intelligible than those attributed to the
simple and sensible teacher of Gallilee, “ Except ye
be converted and become as little children ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Where are
the Christians who think those words at all applicable
to themselves, who think they need conversion, or
who are humble enough to see that they are the very
people whom Christ would have placed with the
Pharisees among the “ little children ” in the infant
school ? It is only the “ common people ” round the
corner who want taking in hand, instructing and
converting ; they indeed should become “ little
children” and join a Bible class: but the gentle
folks at the manor, like the Pharisees at the Syna
gogue, are safe on the pinnacle of their self-suffi
ciency, giving thanks to God that they are “ not as
other men,” misinformed, unenlightened, credulous,
irrational; they have got hold of the real thing, and
can go on their way, rejoicing that “ wisdom is justi
fied of her children; ” not indeed that they know
what those words mean or that they might be more
accurately rendered. Not even an angel from heaven
could persuade such people that they have anything
to learn concerning what they call Bible truth.
It by no means detracts from the merit of the dis
courses attributed to Jesus, to be told that it was
generally the lower orders, “the common people” who
“heard him gladly,” and the Pharisees who despised
him. The Pharisees of old, like the orthodox of to
day, were full of their own notions, their own tradi
tions, their own doctrines, customs, ceremonies, and
self-complacency. The carpenter’s son should have
joined them, attended their Bible class, and accepted
their exposition of God’s word, instead of striking
out a path for himself.
It was precisely the educated Pharisee who had
not the wit to see that a man might deviate materially
�8
•
Religious Ignorance.
from, the path of orthodoxy and yet be a son of
■wisdom and a worthy inheritor of one of the “ many
mansions ” of the Father’s house. They were far
too narrow-minded and ceremonial to appreciate such
an unconventional character as Christ, who set times
and seasons, forms and ceremonies at naught, praying
and preaching when and where he chose, and eating
and drinking with those whom the Pharisees would
have scorned to salute in the market-place; but
wisdom was “justified of her children.”
To instruct the ignorant, unruly children of the
supine poor, is a most irksome and unthankful task,
but to enlighten the cultivated members of fashionable
congregations would be an incomparably more diffi
cult and disheartening undertaking, for their pastors
have laboured so sedulously to keep them in error
that they are almost incapable of giving truth a
hearing.
“ Wisdom,” says the worldly-wise writer of Eccle
siastes, “ is good with an inheritance,” but of course
if folly bring in a larger income wisdom may go to the
wall, and as “the inheritance” in traditional Chris
tianity is unfortunately contingent upon the due pro
mulgation of numerous time-honoured errors called
truths, the poor pastor must either uphold them or
forfeit his bread and butter.
A fair proportion of the clergy, including even
dissenters, are extremely well-informed upon many
religious and biblical matters ; they know for instance,
that the book of Ecclesiastes just quoted, is, in the
legitimate sense of the word, apocryphal; and that
Solomon, its reputed author, is the very last man
likely to have written it. Many of them believe in
Noah’s Ark just as little as Catholic priests do in
the liquifaction of the blood of S. Januarius. They
preach indeed to their hearers, but are careful not to
teach them anything which might open their eyes and
set them thinking; they know too well what the
�Religious Ignorance.
9
effect of thinking has been in their own case to run
any risk with their seat-holders !
Those who combine dense ignorance with extreme
conceit—a combination very often met with among
the “ Lord’s people ” in country towns—are beyond
the reach of sound instruction, and must be given
up as too “ wise in their own conceits ” to be taught
anything at variance with them ; but those who are
unaware of their own ignorance, who really do not
know how very little knowledge they possess, and
who are designedly kept in leading strings by those
who watch for their souls “ as they that must give
account,” and who guard them with tender solicitude
against the baneful influence of inquiry and common
sense; those are the people so sincerely to be pitied,
and how to get at them is the great difficulty.
Hemmed in by prejudice, early impressions, super
stitious fears, and vigilant relatives, their intellect
has never fair play, for they never venture to think
for themselves.
Some time ago a sermon was preached by a curate
one Sunday morning in a London church, the rector
being absent. The text selected was unfortunately
“ There are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water and the blood.” In the evening
of the same day the rector preached from the same
text.
Alluding to the new translation of the Bible then
contemplated, he said, “ the words I have taken for
my text must certainly go, as they are of no earlier
date than the sixteenth century.” How if all
religious guides would frankly impart the knowledge
they have obtained as did that rector, now a dis
tinguished but sorely censured Broad-churchman, we
should less frequently have to deplore the ignorance
of the people and the insincerity of the clergy. Of
course, many of the parsons know perfectly well
upon what a very uncertain foundation the whole
�io
Religious Ignorance,
fabric called Christianity really rests, and what
childish notions are afloat concerning the meaning
of the curious and interesting collection of oriental
books they get their living by “ expounding,” accord
ing to those childish notions. They must follow in
the footsteps of those who preceded them and keep
repeating the same platitudes, as feast after feast of
the ecclesiastical year comes round. Those clergy
men are not upon a bed of roses; their position, not
merely before God but even in their own eyes, makes
them wince. Time was when they firmly believed in
the inspiration of the Bible and could preach from a
spurious text with zeal and unction; that was the
time when they knew very little and thought still less.
Subsequent research and reflection have convinced
them of the purely human origin of the whole of it;
a discovery which enhances rather than diminishes
their appreciation of it, but which materially inter
feres with their theological views, and places them
in a most unenviable position in regard to their
flock. Too old to embrace any other profession and
with probably several children to educate, they must
stay where they are and console themselves with the
hope that they are more sinned against than sinning.
No help can come from the clergy taken as a body;
justifiable adherence to loaves and fishes silences the
few who could speak out if they dared, and unjusti
fiable ignorance and arrogance silences the many who
give themselves no trouble to ascertain truth, who
are too proud to profit by the literary labours of
others; or, if by some chance they hit upon such a
fact for example, as the culpable substitution of the
word “ scapegoat ” for the “ Azazel ” of the original,
Lev. xvi. 8, they are too weak to bear the weight of
it—for it is heavy! Well might the grave and
sensible Channing write, “ An Established Church is
the grave of intellect,” and well might Cobbett ask
“Is it worth one pound ? ” remarks wrung from
�Religious Ignorance.
11
those who “ meditate upon these things ” and would
gladly make their “profitingappear to all ” so that
“wisdom might be justified other children;” but
how is it to be done ?
The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, no
hope is to be expected from the clergy, the wise
among them are—and mean to continue—wise for
themselves as Solomon says, suffering fools “ gladly ”
as S. Paul did, and dispensing the weekly portion of
milk and water to deluded hearers who esteem them
selves highly privileged to be allowed to pay for it 1
When Jesus preached the famous sermon attributed
to him, not a single conversion is reported to have
taken place—it was so far a failure; but when the
contemptible coward Peter delivered his involved and
clumsy discourse, we are required to believe that
3,000 souls were added to the Church; and “ as it was
in the days of the Son of Man, so it is now.” Fools
have rushed in where angels fear to tread, contemptible
cowards are sitting in brave old Moses’ seat, and “ the
end,” alas, “ is not by-and-by.”
Humble students whose pecuniary position is fortu
nately uninfluenced by the free expression of their
opinions, dare to doubt whether Hebrew really was
the language in which the Old Testament was origi
nally written, whether it really is of such early date
as is commonly supposed, and whether we are justi
fied in assuming that ancient Jews were so much
more trustworthy than modern Jews ;—but religious
people, who never study at all, have no such doubts
—they know all about the authorship, language, date,
translation, and meaning of every word in the volume.
They have the light of faith, the wisdom which is
“ not of this world,” while the poor student is an
infidel, whose wisdom “ is folly before God.” Impos
sible to convince them that their appreciation of the
Bible would in no wise be diminished by a better
acquaintance with its history. Useless to tell them
�e
12
*
v*
"
.
'
Religious Ignorance.
that neither Moses nor Jesus ever said a word about
the duty of reading the Bible, and that, as it has not
pleased God to preserve one single letter of the origi
nals of either Old or New Testament, but has suffered
the entire collection of the so-called Holy Scriptures
to disappear from the face of the earth, it does not
seem probable that He thought them necessary to
salvation; they have made up their minds that they
are necessary to salvation, and most cheerfully do they
contribute towards the nine thousand pounds which
are annually spent in England for the furtherance of
the spread of the Word of God among nations who
have not yet had the privilege of possessing the
Blessed Book. Not until people are brought to under
stand that they could love and adore God as fervently
and serve their neighbour as zealously, without believ
ing in a collection of oriental fables, which have no
more claim to be called the Word of God than any
other allegorical or astronomical tales—not until they
can be persuaded that many who have long ago
abandoned all belief in the inspiration of the Bible
are nevertheless as devoted to the practice of prayer
as themselves—have quite as lively a hope in the
immortality of the soul, and whose conduct to their
neighbour is characterised by a far more comprehen
sive and exalted charity than their own—not until
then will their minds be able to bear the weight of
those truths which have been so long withheld from
them, and not until then shall we realise the full force
and practical application of those suggestive words,
“ Wisdom is justified of her children.”
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Religious ignorance
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT145
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Religious ignorance), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cd85d5a8b5a1357c356eaf6400c4eeb9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vuuEXs1dVAFZIfu8v0aUd6ScN3YLJgjVRDbeFOIee-jwQUY84seZncM-AkIzAruBkYpcUb3GTg23CQBf1BmBXqz8pZiD50Gm-K6SwdKWlbqNEn7OnggbLK6P9LkdiNdQj2yWDv8irAoeZD-1GMNrp0wA7n8k4YcdJQ8XXgENQWqVfY5GtflAepwzp46VpdYqZw2KJEWe3AYAO%7EfgBA3oem1UtCOw4%7EURb-cWRh2o2fbkpUPGcBUpApDOjRQNm2ccH1zZIYCPrd9A3siCPCNETdd--6kwLFdSXEIkbW84iuASuCBGv1l0IZ8ZsWpi6s38-ksXtKN%7EdKTMY-r1%7E64NMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
930e3389a421457147a867a29684738a
PDF Text
Text
THE
MYSTERY OF EVIL
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Ninepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE FULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET.
�THE
MYSTERY OF EVIL.HIS subject is not one of mere sectarian or"
temporary interest. It touches a depth far
deeper than even the differences which separate
disciples of Naturalism from those who profess faith
in a miraculous book revelation. The following
inquiry reaches down to the “ bed rock ” of all intel
lectual and moral life, and deals with the source and
development of force in the universe, with the nature
of human actions, and with the true fulcrum which is
to bear the leverage by which this still suffering and
disordered world is to be raised towards perfect har
mony with taw, and with the highest ideal of human
intelligence and happiness.
Orthodox guides are constantly warning their
people against this proposed line of investigation. We
are cautioned that the study of such a topic is unprac
tical and unprofitable—if not actually profane —
*
that it involves a mystery which is hopelessly inex
plicable, that attempts to solve the mystery have been
made over and over again by the “ carnal ” intellect,
but always with the same unsatisfactory result—the
mocking of our hopes, the answering of our questions
by empty echoes, which but rebuke our presumption.
This has been the favourite way of silencing the
T
* To proscribe as profane, studies beyond the comprehension of a par
ticular school or sect is a very old habit. The wisest Greek philosopher
maintained that Astronomy was a subject unfit for human inquiry, and
that the gods took it under their own special and immediate control.
B
�6
The Mystery of Evil.
questionings, the difficulties, and the fears of “ doubt
ing believers;” There can be no harm, we are told
in making qurselves acquainted, as a matter of history,
with how the loyal defenders of the faith have been
accustomed to “ hold the fort ” against the “ infidel,”
for we should ever be ready to give a reason of the
hope that is in us. But to venture to reason out the
point independently for oneself is to enter on a path
beset with danger and leading to despair. Minds of
any siamma, however, and especially if familiar with
the wonderful disclosures which science and critical
scholarship are daily making, are not likely to submit
much longer to this restraint of priestly leading
strings. They will insist on the right of testing the
most “mysterious” teachings of the church for them
selves, undeterred alike by threats of ecclesiastical
taboo in this world and of divine punishment in the
next. The light of truth—formerly claimed as the
sole prerogative of a pretended “ sacred order ”—now
finds its way as freely into the poor man’s cottage as
into the palace of the archbishop, and will, sooner or
later, compel the dullest to examine for themselves
with an urgency that cannot be repressed.
If I looked upon the question under consideration
as simply affording scope for curious speculation, I
should be content at once to relegate it for decision
to the learned hair-splitters who make it their busi
ness solemnly to adjust the distinction between
“ homoousion ” and homozousion.” But I am fully
convinced that the alleged “ mystery of evil ” is
essentially a practical question, and one upon which
hangs the true theory of the universe, a right concep
tion of man’s physical and moral relations, and a just
understanding of the nature of the human will and
human accountability. Moreover, the vulgar notions
on this subject will have to be abandoned before the
many philanthropic persons whom theological super
stitions have misled, are likely to unite in any effectual
�The Mystery of Evil.
7
attempt at man’s physical, rational, and moral eleva
tion. With all becoming reverence for the earnest
and often profound efforts of the wise and the good
in past times to master the difficulties of this subject,
we, in this age of riper learning and more extensive
scientific acquisition, occupy a vantage ground in
discussing it which was not possible to any previous
generation.
“ Evil ” is a term having a theological origin,
though it has in some measure been adopted in the
language of common life. We usually understand by
it whatever is contrary to our ideas of moral rectitude
and tends to interfere with the general happiness
of mankind physically, morally, and socially. It is
but too easy to find endlessly varied traces of the
wretchedness and wrong that seem to defy all
attempts to reconcile them with the rule of infinite
power, wisdom, and goodness in the universe.
What shall we say of the tribes and races that
have been permitted to live many centuries in inter
necine strife, ignorance, filth, and pestilence, and to
perish without contributing one thought worth pre
serving to the stock of human ideas ? And still it is
often around the haunts of the wandering savage or
the uncultivated boor, who is incapable of appreciat
ing the sublime, that nature puts forth her grandest
feats of power and beauty. Then what shall we
think of the havoc and sorrow which are the heritage
of multitudes born into the world with constitutions
naturally predisposing them to suffer pain or to
violate the sentiments of justice and humanity, and
brought up in homes that infallibly foster vice, cruelty,
and crime. Nor does it relieve the difficulty to view in
temperance, the sickly frame, the life-long disease, the
plague and the pestilence as being, directly or remotely,
penalties for the neglect of sanitary and moral laws ;
for reason will persist in asking, “ Why, if the universe
be ruled by a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and
�8
The Mystery of Evil.
love, was not this deep turbid river of misery stemmed
at the fountain ? ” Nay, there are forms of suffering
yet more appalling and that yet more perplex and
overpower us: the storm that dashes a thousand
helpless vessels in pieces in spite of every expedient
tried by the crews to escape an ocean grave; the
earthquake that engulfs towns and cities so quickly
that science and forethought are powerless to avert
it; the explosion of the mine that suddenly scorches
to death many an honest toiler and deprives many a
family of its bread-winner. And if we turn from the
fury of the unconscious elements to the conscious
and troubled inward experience of human beings, the
cloud of “ natural ills that flesh is heir to,” thickens.
The tangled affairs of social and moral life is patent
to us all. Why, in this century for instance, should
law and order, truth and right, have so little influence
upon civilised nations, to say nothing of those we
deem barbarians ? Look back, too, in history, and
behold the long perspective of prophets and martyrs,
who have sealed their loyalty to truth and righteous
ness with their blood, while the tyrants who slew
them died without one pang of remorse. Look
around and see all ages cut down, apparently at ran
dom ;—in many cases the wise and vigorous, the use
ful, the talented, and benevolent, withering away in
the morning or noontide of their days with their
gifts increasing in number and activity, while the effete
and the stupid, the besotted, the selfish, the useless,
are spared. Knavery arrayed in purple and fine
linen fares sumptuously, and at its gate honest
poverty clothed in rags, desires in vain to eat of the
crumbs that fall from the rich charlatan’s table.
Consider the millions that have innocently pined in
the dungeon, or that have been worked as beasts,
flogged as beasts, and sold as beasts. Consider the
throng of once blooming maidens ruined by heartless
human monsters. Think of nations in the first rank
�The Mystery of Evil.
9
of civilisation, bowing at the same altar, and rising
from their devotions to slay each other by weapons
of fiendish ingenuity. And with the spectacle also
before us of the greed of ambition, the vapourings
of pride, the treachery of the false, the meanness of
the little, the vices of the bad, and the frailties of
the good, the moral instinct within us cannot help
reiterating the question, “ Is this the sort of world
we should have expected under the government of a
Deity clothed with the attributes of perfection ? The
good man—crude though his ideal be—if he had the
power as he has the wish, would at once reduce this
chaos to order ; and does not the Theist believe in a
God infinitely better than the most benevolent of
men ?
An eminent living physical philosopher has said
“ Nature seems to take some care of the race, but
bestows very little on individuals.” And in brooding
on the dark side of this problem, a man of literary
note once exclaimed, in a private circle, “For the
credit of our conception of what goodness ought to
be, let us hope there is no God.” This, too, rightly
or wrongly, was the very thought put by Byron into
the mouth of Gain in his reply to Lucifer :
Why do I exist ?
Why art thou wretched ? why are all things so ?
Even He who made us must be as the Maker
Of things unhappy ! To produce destruction
Can surely never be the work of joy;
And yet my sire says He’s omnipotent.
Then why is evil ?—He being good ?
The same thought is strongly expressed by Mrs.
Browning:—
My soul is grey
With pouring o’er the total sum of ill.
*****
With such a total of distracted life
To see it down in figures on a page,
Plain, silent, clear
*
*
*
�IO
The Mystery of Evil.
*
*
*
That’s terrible
For one who is not God, and cannot right
The wrong he looks upon.
*
This problem of evil has stirred deeply inquiring
minds from the earliest times. In the ‘ Naishadha
Charita ’ (xvii. 45), a Charvaka, or materialistic
Atheist, is represented as addressing Indra and other
gods on their return to heaven from Damayantis
Svayamvara, and ridiculing the orthodox Indian doc
trines of the Vedas :—“ If there be an omniscient and
merciful God, who never speaks in vain, why does
he not, by the mere expenditure of a word, satisfy
the desires of us his suppliants ? By causing living
creatures to suffer pain, though it be the result of
their own works, God would be our causeless enemy,
whilst all our other enemies have some reason or
other for their enmity. ”f
Sophocles has lines to the same effect:—“ It is
strange that those who are impious and descendants
of wicked men should fare prosperously, while those
who are good and sprung from noble men should be'
unfortunate. It was not meet that the gods should
thus deal with mortals. Pious men ought to have
obtained from the gods some manifest advantage,
while the unjust should, on the contrary, have paid
some evident penalty for their evil deeds, and thus
no one who was wicked would have been pros
perous.” J
It may be convenient at this point to glance at
some of the methods that have been employed to
ease or remove the contradiction between the painful
phenomena of life and the credited rule of an allmighty, all-wise, and all-good Father. We shall
* ‘Aurora Leigh.’
t ‘ Additional Moral and Religious Passages, Metrically rendered
from the Sanskrit, with exact Prose Translations ”—Scott's Series.
t Quoted by Dr. Muir in the ‘Additional Moral and Religious
Passages.’
�The Mystery j)f Tvil.
ri
thus have an opportunity of detecting the fallacies
which lurk under all such methods of harmonising,
and which render them nugatory.
Epicurus, from a Theistic point of view, stated the
case very comprehensively when, in syllogistic form,
he said :—“ Why is evil in the world ? It is either
because God is unable or unwilling to remove it. If
he be unable he is not omnipotent. If he be
unwilling, he is not all-good. If he be neither able
nor willing, he is neither all-powerful nor all-good; ”*
and it is difficult to see how escape is possible from
between the horns of this dilemma on the supposition
that an infinite God exists.
The Manichseans believed good and evil or pleasure
and pain to be rival powers in the universe. This
was also virtually the Persian theory on the subject,
only the latter was clothed in oriental dress.f Bolingbroke and the sceptics of his day, accounted for the
phenomena referred to on an aesthetic principle—the
proportion of parts in the scale of sentient being.
Every animal has bodily members of varied grades
of honour and importance, and all in harmonious
subserviency to the general convenience of their
possessor. Every picture has an arrangement of
colour producing light and shade. All harmony
must consist of voices attuned from alto to bass.
Every considerable dwelling must have apartments
in the attic as well as on the ground floor, and of
greater or less capacity. So the world is formed
on a gradational plan from high intelligence, by
imperceptible degrees down to life of so doubtful a
* The great Lord Shaftesbury, in his “ Inquiry concerning Virtue,”
‘Characteristics,’Vol. II.,page 10,puts the case thus:—“If there be
supposed a designing principle, who is the cause only of good, but
cannot prevent ill which happens . . . then there can be supposed, in
reality, no such thing as a superior good design or mind, other than
what is impotent and defective; for not to correct or totally exclude
that ill . . . must proceed either from impotency or ill-will."
t Ormuzd and Ahriman. This is also the germ of the Christian
dogma of God whois “ Light,” and the Devil “ The Prince of Darkness.”
�12
The Mystery of Evil.
character that it is impossible to determine whether
it be vegetable or animal. In the moral sphere,
too, there is a ladder whose top reaches the loftiest
unselfishness, and whose rounds gradually descend
to the grossest forms of moral life. It is argued
that the world would be tame and monotonous
without these inequalities in the structure of
universal life, and that it is the constant fric
tion between beings of high and low degree which
helps to give that healthful impulse to human activity
that keeps the universe from stagnating; and
unavoidable accidents but quicken the forethought
and contrivance of men to provide against such
occurrences. It will be felt, however, by the most
ordinary thinker, that such a theory utterly fails to
cover all the facts, and fails especially to account for
the more formidable sufferings of humanity. It is
but the view of an artist who lives in a one-sided and
unreal region, surrounded by plenty, who simply
looks out upon the world through a colewr de rose
medium, and projects the image of his own luxurious
home upon the landscape outside.
There is another theory popular with a large class
of airy minds, which regards evil as a modification
of good. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood pro
ceed from the same source, and are degrees of the
same thing. Lust is only a lower form of love, and
what would be described as cruelty inflicted upon
others is not intended to cause suffering as cm end,
but only occurs in some rather abrupt and uncere
monious attempt being made by a person to reach
some object much wished for. But the one who
suffers happens to be, unconsciously perhaps, an
obstacle in the way of that object being attained;
and the suffering is occasioned simply by accident,
just as we stumble against a neighbour who has
the misfortune to cross our path at the moment
when our attention is fixed on something we
�The Mystery of Evil.
13
eagerly want to get at on the opposite side of
the street. So much the worse for the neighbour if
he sustain injury by the impact, but it is no fault
of ours !•
AVhat goes by the name of meanness, according to
the same theory, springs as truly from a wish to be
happy in the mean nature as nobility does when
manifested by a noble nature. As little harm is
intended by the one nature as by the other. But it
seems only necessary to state this method of meeting
the difficulty in order to see its inadequacy. Even
granting that the misery occasioned by men to each
other were reconciled by this mode of reasoning,
there is a class of troubles which are wholly beyond
human agency and control that remains utterly
unaccounted for ; and respecting the evils which the
theory professes to explain away, the question crops
up afresh, why, if the government of the world be
conducted by a Being of infinite power, wisdom and
love, is so much distress permitted to be caused,
howeu&r casually, by men to one another ?
Perhaps the most elaborate and closely-reasoned
attempt ever made to harmonise existing evil in the
world with perfect wisdom, power, and goodness, in
a Creator, was the celebrated “ Essay on the Origin
Qf Evil,” by Archbishop King. The writer postu
lates, as an axiom, that the universe is the work of a
God of infinite intelligence, power, and goodness ;
and he deals in precisely the same manner with the
alleged existence of freedom and responsibility in
human beings. The pith of the Archbishop’s explana
tion of moral evil is contained in the following
passage: “ The less dependent on external things,
the more self-sufficient any agent is, and the more it
has the principles of its actions within itself, it is so
much the more perfect; since, therefore, we may con
ceive two sorts of agents, one which does not act
unless impelled and determined by external circum
�1’4
The Mystery of Evil.
stances, such as vegetable bodies; the other, which
have the principle of their actions within themselves,
namely, free agents, and can determine themselves to
action by their own natural power, it is plain that the
latter are much more perfect than the former; nor
can it be denied that God may create an agent with
such power as this; which can exert itself into
action without either the concourse of God or the deter
mination of external causes, as long as God preserves
the existence, power, and faculties, of that agent;
that evil arises from the uniawful Use of man s faculties ;
that more good in general arises from the donation of
such a self-moving power, together with all those
foreseen abuses of it, than could possibly have been
produced without it.”
The gist of the Archbishop’s reasoning is in ’the
words : “ Evil arises from the unlawful use of men’s
faculties.” But this is a mere begging of the
question, and a shifting rather than a settlement of
the difficulty ; for even granting the assumption putforward, the inquiry naturally recurs: Why, in a
world created and sustained by such a perfect Being
as Theism recognises, was any arrangement tolerated
by which men should exercise their faculties unlaw
fully—especially as the results are so painfully dis
cordant with our notions of happiness ? It is assumed
by the Archbishop that man and not his maker is
responsible for the moral chaos that has always
characterised the condition of the race. But this is
only a repetition of the now exploded theologioal
fiction that man was created with his faculties and
circumstances equally and entirely favourable toobedience; and that his departure from law was his
own voluntary choice—a choice determined upon by
him with a full consciousness that he ought to have
acted differently, and that he was free to have done
so. By the voluntary depravation of his own mind
and by the force of his bad example he involved all
�Fvr.1
The Mystery of Evil.
i5
his descendants in the moral and physical conse
quences of his transgression. But with the undeni
able revelations of modern scientific and historical
research before us such a view is too absurd to need
refutation. In any case we are justified in holding
that on the hypothesis of a miracle-working God,
there is no tendency to disobedience, error, or vice,
in mankind that might not have been easily checked
in its first outbreak by an act of omnipotence. The
power that is asserted to have rained manna from the
skies, arrested the setting of the sun, changed water
into wine, and raised the dead, might surely have
been exerted in a way more worthy the dignity and
goodness of an infinite God, in stopping the first
outburst of moral disorder that has filled the world
until now with cruel and deadly passions and over
whelmed millions of sensitive spirits in intense
anguish.
By the same superficial and evasive reasoning, has
this writer disposed of those calamities which cannot
owe their origin, anyhow, to the will of man. He
coolly tells us that “ it is no objection to God’s good
ness or his wisdom to create such things as are
necessarily attended with these evils . . . and that
disagreeable sensations must be reckoned among
natural evils as inevitably associated with sentient
existences, which yet cannot be avoided. If anyone
ask why such a law of union was established, namely,
the disagreeable sensations which sentient creatures
experience, let this be the answer, because there could
be no better ; for such a necessity as this follows ; and
considering the circumstances and conditions under
which, and under which only, they could have exist
ence, they could neither be placed in a better state,
nor governed by more commodious laws.” That is
to say, God in his wisdom and goodness did his best
to secure the general well-being of the universe and
signally failed, as the physical accidents and agonies
�i6
The Mystery of Evil.
endured by innocent multitudes, prove! Yet this is
a book of which a distinguished Theistic philosopher
said: “ If Archbishop King, in this performance,
has not reconciled the inconsistencies, none else need
apply themselves to the task.” If the data of Arch
bishop King as regards the existence of a personal
Deity, clothed with infinitely perfect physical and
moral attributes, and as regards the free agency of man,
had been correct, the most logical course for him
would have been to have simply admitted the hopeless
irreconcilableness of these data with the state of the
world as we find it, and to have betaken himself to
the favourite retreat of orthodoxy,—mystery,—and
spared himself the pains of elaborating a tissue of
metaphysical fallacies which only make the confusion
to be worse confounded. But I reserve his data for
fuller examination afterwards.
The only other theory, which I shall notice, as
differing from the one to be subsequently proposed,
is that of fatalistic Deism, which was held in the last
century by a large class of European philosophers,
and sought to be refuted by Butler. The following
is an epitome of the argument of this school:—The
existence of Deity, as infinite and uncreated, is a
necessary fact, intuitively perceived. If God’s exist
ence be necessary, the conditions of his existence—
physical, mental, and moral,—and the modes of its
action and development, must be alike necessary. As
the visible universe is the outcome of this necessary
existence, all the forms of being contained in the
universe must also be necessary, by which we are to
understand that we cannot conceive the possibility of
their being otherwise than they are. If so, then all
the orders of existence in the universe, proceeding
from the depths of his infinite nature and constantly
dependent upon his support, are fated to form links
in one chain of eternal and unalterable necessity, and
to be precisely as they are. Therefore the develop-
�The Mystery of Evil.
17
ment of human beings, and of every other variety of
life, is destined to assume the particular form under
which they are found to exist at any given stage of
the evolution of the universe. Consequently, what,
in the vocabulary of mortals, is called freedom, is but
an illusion,—the actions and characters of rational
beings of all degrees of intelligence and moral
culture being included in that ceaseless development
which is controlled by the same central and allembracing principle of unexplainable necessity.
*
It is further maintained by the same class of
Deists that amidst all the apparent confusion that
prevails, indications of a process of orderly develop
ments are discernible, whether we trace the con
solidation of the earth’s crust, or the progressive
advance of vegetable and animal forms upon it,
or the gradual uplifting of the human species.
This evolution, it is asserted, is either caused
and directed by some controlling Intelligence,
or is the result of chance, or arises from some
inherent spontaneous power in the universe itself.
But our conception of chance excludes it from the
rank of a causal and regulating force, for we only
understand by the term what is fortuitous, blind,
undesigning, and impotent. Again, to suppose that
some inherent spontaneous power in nature itself is
shaping and directing universal progress would be to
endow the universe with physical, rational, and moral
power; in other words, to identify it with God, or to
view it as God. Therefore, it is concluded,—these
alternatives failing to satisfy the demands of logical
consistency,—the only tenable view left is that the
framework and development of the universe, is the
work of a Deity answering to the 0eos of Homer,
who represents the God of his conception, as being
* The reader will be reminded of a remarkable passage in the
‘Prometheus Vinctus ’ of uEschylus: “Even Jove is not superior to
the Fates.”
�The Mystery of Evil.
the source of all the good and evil of life. I confess
that for a time, while my own mind was passing from
supernaturalism to naturalism, and while I believed
that my choice in dealing with “ the mystery of evil ”
lay alone between rival forms of Theism, this notion
of God as the primal cause alike of happiness and
misery was the only one which seemed co-ordinate
with all the facts, and effectually to solve the mystery.
But, as will appear later in this paper, two objec
tions ultimately arose in my mind which shook my
fatalistic Deism to its foundation. The first of these
was, that the God I thought myself bound to believe
in fell far short of the ideal of virtue and goodness
at which an average high-minded man felt himself
obliged to aim, and thus I was conscious of doing
violence to my better nature in holding to such a
faith. The second objection was that the intuitive
idea of Deity was found by me to be a gratuitous
assumption which, with other beliefs of this descrip
tion, collapsed under the unsparing analysis to which
the intuitive philosophy has been subjected by the
inductive philosophy—the latter being the only one
which seems to me to accord with the universal
principles of truth.
After the preceding statement of attempted solu
tions of this alleged mystery by Theistic and Deistic
theories, it will probably be admitted that any method
of accounting for the existence of evil based on the
twofold hypothesis of an Almighty God of omniscience,
wisdom, and goodness, and the doctrine of the free,
self-determining action of the human will, cannot
escape from the charge of mystery—or, more properly,
of palpable logical contradiction. In presence of
these two conceptions, evil must inevitably remain a '
mystery. Let them be surrendered, however, and the
mystery instantly vanishes.
When a scientific analyst discovers that a hypo
thesis fails to cover and explain all the phenomena,
�The Mystery of Evil.
he unhesitatingly abandons it, and there is no other
alternative left to an inductive theologian—if there
be such a person—when he is placed in a similar
position. The facts in the present instance are
agreed upon by all. There is a large proportion,
if not preponderance, of what is known as JBvil
in the world; and if the idea of an infinitely
wise and good personal Deity tend to embarrass
instead of allaying the difficulties we have been
examining, clearly the idea of an universal ruler
ought, in loyalty to truth, to be removed from the
category of our beliefs, let the sentimental associa
tions be ever so hallowed and strong that have
gathered round it, and the same remark applies to
the allied dogma of free will in man.
As regards the first of these points, the justice of
the course recommended is strengthened when we
consider that the existence of such an almighty
person is incapable of scientific or any other kind of
proof worthy consideration. At the same time, in
venturing this remark, I wish emphatically to dis
claim all sympathy with positive Atheism; for a
dogmatic negation of any vitalizing and controlling
force in the universe, not being itself the universe, is
almost as objectionable as the most dogmatic form of
Theism. All I contend for is, that there is no ground
for believing in what theologians call a personal God,
in other words, “ a magnified man ” invested with
certain characteristics of humanity attributed to him,
these attributes being only infinitely extended.
Doubtless Theists, and particularly Christian Theists,
will be ready to adduce in reply their usual argu
ment for the existence of a personal Deity derived
from their intuitions. This, consistently enough, is
also the stronghold of Christian faith in the doctrine
of “ a supernatural gospel,” namely, “ its felt adapta
tion to the spiritual wants of Christian believers.”
And the more rapidly and convincingly the evidences
�20
The Mystery of Evil.
of science and historical criticism accumulate on the
non-supernatural and non-Theistic side, they shut
their eyes the closer, scream the louder against “ the
wickedness of Atheistic materialism,” and plunge
deeper into the sentimental abyss of their “ intuitions.”
Here is a passage a propos, written by one of the
ablest and best read leaders of the reactionary, semi
mystic, evangelical school which owes its origin (as
opposed) to the “ fierce light ” of modern thought,
against which the writer lifts a warning voice.
“ But whether we represent a ‘ new school ’ or a
theological ‘ reaction ’ we say frankly that, in our
judgment, the exigencies of the times require that
Christian Churches, and especially Christian ministers,
should meet the dogmas of materialism and anti-super
naturalism with the most direct and uncompromising
hostility. It is not for us to permit men to suppose that we
regard the existence of the living God as an open ques
tion. Nor shall we make any deep impression on the
minds of men if our faith in Jesus Glvrist rests on
grounds that are accessible to historical, scientific, or
philosophical criticism. If we are to meet modern
unbelief successfully we must receive that direct
revelation of Christ which will enable us to say ‘ we
have heard him, we have seen him ourselves and
know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour
of the world! ’ ” The great object of this school
seems to be to make a religious “impression ” in
Evangelical fashion, and stamp out all that frustrates
their doing so, proceeding from the sceptical camp.
The historical truth or error of the thing taught
seems to be of secondary consideration provided it
can be made to dovetail with Evangelical intuitions.
These intense believers deliberately tell us that it is
of no use our calling their attention to discrepancies
in the Gospel narratives by which these sources of
Christian facts are rendered historically untrust
worthy. They assure us that such criticism is idle
�The Mystery of Evil.
21
and beside the mark, and they console themselves
with the belief that these discrepancies are only
apparent, and that if we could but compare the
original documents (which, by the way, nobody has
ever seen or can find the least trace of) instead of
the mere copies of them (these pretended copies
being all we possess), we should be immediately
convinced !
*
So in regard to the existence of a personal Deity,
instead of looking at the facts as they are, they
assure us that, if we could only know all the compli
cations of the divine government, our difficulty in
believing in their Deity would disappear. But those
who fall back on the fitness of their conception of
Deity to their intuitions as a proof of his existence,
while perhaps feeling that this argument affords
perfect satisfaction to themselves, place an insuper
able barrier against all interchange of reasoning
between themselves and those who hold opposite
convictions. Any one who hides in the recesses
of his intuitions, has sunk into a state of intel
lectual somnolency from which no argument can
wake him.
’
There are some Theistic apologists, however, who
still have unshaken faith in the argument from design,
as establishing the existence of a beneficent designer.
But the fallacy of this argument is obvious. The
premises and conclusion stand thus :—“Every object
which bears marks of design necessarily points to
the existence of an intelligent designer. The universe
is such an object, therefore it had an intelligent
designer.” But it is usually forgotten that this con
clusion is arrived at by comparing the universe with
an object—a watch for example, that can bear no
* The weak point in this intuitional argument is that it proves too
much. It is the favourite proof with large sections of the adherents
of Buddhism, Brahminism, Fire-worship, and Mahometanism respec
tively, by which these systems are all Jett to be supernatural revela
tions. Therefore by proving too much it proves nothing.
�22
The Mystery of Evil.
analogy to it. It is taken for granted that the uni
verse sustains the same relation to a personal Creator
which a piece of mechanism does to a mortal con
triver.
Now, it might be perfectly fair to compare one piece
of human handiwork with another, and infer that
both suggested the application of power and intelli
gence equal to their construction. But in comparing
the universe—there being only one, and that one
infinite, with articles of man’s invention, which are
many and finite—are we not comparing the known
with the unknown, and carrying the principle of
analogy into a region where it can have no place ?
It may be just to infer that as one work of human
arrangement naturally implies skill in the maker, so
another work bearing marks of human contrivance,
should, in like manner, suggest to us the action of a
thinking mind. But science is so far in the dark as
to the mainspring of life, motion and development in
the one universe that we should be totally unwarranted
by the laws of thought in arguing from the origin of
what is discoverable to the orgin of what is undiscover*
able
To reason, therefore, from design in the
operations of man to design in the operations of
nature is illogical and impossible.
One of the most remarkable signs of change, of
late, in the conception of Deity, among progressive
thinkers, who still cling to the skirts of recognised reli
gious institutions, is the effort that has been made to
reconcile an impersonal Power influencing and shaping
the evolution of the universe with the teachings of
the Bible. The line of thought in Mr. Matthew
Arnold’s ‘ Literature and Dogma ’ has very decidedly
this leaning. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say
* Axiom V., in the Tractates Theologico-Politicus of Spinoza is
decisive on this point. “ Things that have nothing in common with
each other cannot be understood by means of each others i.e., the.concep
tion <f the one does not involve the conception of the other."
�The Mystery of Trail.
23
that this writer labours to turn the current notion of
a personal God into ridicule, and even seeks to prove
that, at least, the ancient Hebrews were not in sym
pathy with such a notion. Some will take leave to
doubt whether Mr. Arnold’s views of the Hebrew
conception of God be not more ingenious than accu
rate, and whether he may not have foisted far-fetched
theories of his own upon the text of the Bible in his
zeal to make out his case. But, at any rate, we have
the phenomenon of a writer cherishing devotion to
the teaching of Scripture and concern for the main
tenance of the national Church, and yet sapping the
foundations of orthodoxy, and actually sneering at
the idea of faith in a personal Deity, though pro
fessed gravely by eminent bishops—the two whose
names he repeats ad nauseam throughout the essay.
Another recent book of essays, written with a
similar purpose, but in a more reverent and philo
sophic spirit, is not unworthy of notice. The author
*
is a Nonconformist minister, and a member of the
London School Board—a gentleman of marked ability
and wide culture. The peculiarity of his position is
that while, like the Broad Church clergy, conducting
his service with a liturgy and a hymn-book, fashioned
after orthodox models, he has openly renounced the
dogma of the Supernatural in his pulpit teaching, and
rejected the notion of a personal God. He has chosen
to represent himself as a “ Christian Pantheist,”—a
term which we may be excused for deeming para
doxical—and strives throughout the volume to bring
his statements into accord with certain passages in
the New Testament. The essays reveal more than an
average (as well as a discriminating) acquaintance
with ancient and modern philosophy and theology,
and with the results of modern science in relation to
* 1 The Mystery of Matter, and other Essays.’ By J. Allanson Picton,
M.A. Macmillan. 1873.
�24
The Mystery of Evil.
the nature of the Universe. His thoughts are, now
and then, diffuse, but they are always expressed with
a wealth of language and sometimes with an eloquence
•not ordinarily met with in theological disquisitions.
There are, however, as it seems to me, weak points,
I had almost said occasional contradictions, in his
reasoning, into which he may have been unconsciously
led by his unique ecclesiastical relations, but which it
is beyond the scope of the present paper to criticise
at length. Nevertheless, he forcibly opposes the old
error which made a distinction between matter and
spirit, and he reduces the Universe, with Professor
Huxley, to a unity, namely, substance, of which what
have been vulgarly described as matter and spirit are
simply the phenomena. He further boldly rejects all
theories which regard Deity as one amidst a host of
other beings, and while, with religious fervour, recog
nising the presence of an efficient though unnameable
energy as vitalising and controlling all molecular
forces, he seems, at the same time, to identify that
unkown efficient energy with universal substance,
and accords to it the right and title to be formally
worshipped. I respectfully think he is not always
clear and consistent in this part of his theme. Some
times he refers—as Spinoza himself does—to this
vitalising and all-comprehending essence as if it were
invested with attributes of intelligence, wisdom, and
goodness, without which attributes the writer’s insistance upon the worship of universal substance as deity
would be a misnomer. And yet, difficult though it be
to discover homogeneity between certain parts of
these essays, in one respect the author’s aim through
out is unmistakeable. He emphatically pronounces
against the existence of a personal Deity. Some of his
remarks in opposition to the design argument are
especially worth quoting :—
“ It is demonstrable that there must be some fallacy
in such an argument as that of Paley. For if it be
�The Mystery of Evil.
25
rigorously applied, it cannot prove what Paley cer
tainly wished to establish—the existence of an omni
potent and omniscient worker. . . . If we are to
see design only when we can compliment nature on
an apparent resemblance to operations of human skill;
and if, the moment that resemblance ceases, we are
to confess our ignorance and to refrain from carrying
the analogy further, would it not be better, seeing
’how infinitely larger is our ignorance than our know
ledge, to recognise in both bearings of the analogy
an appearance only which, though for some purposes
practically useful, is infinitely below the divine reality.
. . . Of whatever value the analogy of human
design may be, no one would think of insisting upon
its admitted imperfections as a part of the argument;
and yet, without pressing those imperfections, it is
impossible to make the argument consistent. But if
it be fairly carried out, what it proves is this, that an
omnipotent designer, intending to produce a beautiful
and perfect work, went through millions of opera
tions, when a single fiat would have sufficed; that
these operations consisted not in clearly-aimed and
economical modifications of material, but in the evolu
tion of a thousand imperfect products, amongst which
some single one might form a step to the next stage,
while all the rest were destroyed; and thus the living
material wasted was immensely greater than that
which was used; that myriads of weaklings, were
suffered to struggle together, as though omniscience
could not decide, without experiment, which were
the better worth preserving; that in each successive
modification the worker preserved, as far as was pos
sible, the form of the previous stage, until it was found
to be inconsistent with life; nay, that he carefully
introduced into each successive product parts which
had become obsolete, useless, and even dangerous—
and all not through any inevitable conditions—for
omnipotence excludes them, but in pursuit of a
�26
The Mystery of Evil.
mysterious plan, the reasons for which, as well as its
nature, are acknowledged to be utterly inscrutable.
Analogies which lead to such issues surely cannot be
of much value for the nobler aims of religion.” *
The other cause of the difficulty encountered in
probing “ the Mystery of Evil ” is the traditional
notions entertained by many, of the action of the
human will. Man is represented by the orthodox as
a “free agent ” (I except, of course, hyper-Calvinists
who now form a very small minority among Chris
tians), and the doctrine of volitional liberty has
acquired prominence in theological and philosophical
discussions; not from any practical influence the doc
trine can exert, one way or another, on the actual
conduct of life, but simply from the accident that the
question whether the will was absolutely free or deter
mined by necessity happened to be thrown to the
surface, in the fifth century, in the theological battle
between the Augustinians and the Pelagians. The
inquiry is itself interesting and important, but many
mental philosophers from that period until recently,
having a dread of the odium theologicum, have been
desirous it should be known that they were “ sound ”
on the subject, and have been particular in declaring
themselves on the orthodox side. The strong enun
ciation of one view has called forth an equally vigor
ous statement of the opposite theory, and hence
philosophers have filed off into two sharply defined
parties—libertarians and necessitarians—so that the
importance that has come to be attached to the
free-will controversy is, in a great measure, adven
titious.
The introduction of moral evil into the world, as
before stated, has been ascribed by the greater number
of Christians to the voluntary disobedience of the pro
genitor of the race. Tradition has handed down the un
scientific and unhistoric story of an original man who,
♦ ‘ Mystery of Matter,’ pp. 330, 340,345.
�The Mystery of Evil.
i7
having been severely plied with temptation in order
to test bis virtue, voluntarily broke a certain arbitrary
and positive command of his maker, and involved him
self and his posterity in tendencies to wrong-doing
which could only be corrected by supernatural means.
But, without debating the wide question of the origin
■of mankind, manifestly men are so constituted and
surrounded that limitations are placed as indubitably
upon their volitional faculty as upon their other men
tal powers. So that in no libertarian sense can we
be said to be free agents. The form a man’s charac
ter takes is necessarily dependent on his innate pre
dispositions and capacities—the form and size of
brain and cast of temperament which he derives from
his parents—and on the nature and extent of the in
fluences under which he is trained. Some natures
are constitutionally more attuned to intellectual and
moral harmony than others, and when impelled by
favourable influences from without, there is little
merit in their moving in the line of conformity to
truth and right. There are other natures that inherit
less fortunate tendencies, to whom virtue must always
be the result of conscious effort, and especially if
they be encircled with influences unfriendly to the
culture of a high and noble life. It is certain that if
such persons attain any considerable degree of good
ness, the end will be reached through the experience
.of error and folly and of the natural penalties attach
ing to both. As far as I can understand, the chief
ground of the alarm affected by a certain class of phi
losophers and theologians at the idea of human actions
being determined by necessity is the morbid and ficti
tious weight they have given to the doctrine of indi
vidual responsibility; I say morbid and fictitious, be
cause whether a man violates the laws of nature or of
society he is sooner or later made to bear more or
less of his share of responsibility in enduring the
natural punishment due to the offence. Had the
�28
The Mystery of Evil.
same amount of concern been felt by society about
their collective share of responsibility in reference to
the physical, intellectual, and moral well-being of
individuals as is felt about the influence of necessi
tarianism upon “ men’s felt sense of individual respon
sibility ” the results to the community and the race
■vyould have been much more rational and beneficial.
I am persuaded that the individual conduct of citizens
—be they good or bad—is not affected in the slightest
degree, for better or for worse, by the views they
may entertain of the philosophy of the human will.
This might be proved demonstratively did space
permit.
The kernel of this controversy, then, lies in the
inquiry, Whether the will is absolutely self-determina
tive, and capable of arbitrarily kicking the beam,
when motives present to the mind, and tending in
opposite directions, seem to be evenly balanced; or
whether, in every instance, the motive, embracing a
great variety of considerations in the mind itself as
well as in the circumstances around it, do not infal
libly determine the character of the choice that is
made. If the libertarian view be the right one, no
certainty can be ever predicated as to the effect upon
the conduct of uniformly good or bad motives, and,
consequently, the most earnest and philanthropic ex
ertions to improve the world are, at best, dishearten
ing. But since it can be demonstrated that the for
mation of human habits is governed by necessary
laws, and that these laws can be ascertained and acted
upon with the undoubted assurance that correspond
ing results may be anticipated, the labours of science
and philanthropy are animated by a well-founded
hope that they need not be expended in vain. What,
then, is “ will ” but simply that faculty or power of
the mind by which we are capable of choosing ? And
an act of will is the same as an act of choice. That
which uniformly determines the will is the motive which,
�The Mystery of Evil.
29
as it stands in the view of the mind, is the strongest.
The motive is that which excites or invites the mind
to volition, whether that be one thing singly or many
things conjointly. By necessity, in this connection, is
meant nothing more than the philosophical certainty
of the relation between given antecedents and conse
quents in the production of actions. Man, like every
other sentient being, is necessarily actuated by a
desire for happiness, according to his particular esti
mate of it. It would be a contradiction to suppose
that he could hate happiness, or that he could desire
misery for its own sake, or with a perception that it
was such. He is placed in circumstances in which a
vast variety of objects address themselves to this
predominating desire, some promising to gratify it in
a higher degree, some in a lower, some appealing to
one part of his nature and some to another. He
cannot but be attracted to those objects and those
courses of conduct which his reason or his appetites,
or both combined, assure him are likely to gratify
his desire of happiness. The various degrees or kinds
of real and apparent good, promised by different ob
jects or courses of conduct, constitute the motives
which incline him to act in pursuance of the general
desire of happiness which is the grand impulse of
his nature. Sometimes he really sees and sometimes
he imagines he sees (and as regards their influence
on the will they come to the same thing) greater
degrees of good in some objects or proposed courses
of conduct than in others; and this constitutes pre
ponderance of motive, that is, a greater measure of
real or apparent good at the time of any particular
volition. This preponderance of motive will be as is
the character of the moral agent and the circum
stances of the objects, taken conjointly. This pre
ponderance of motive will be, therefore, not only
different in different individuals, but different in
different individuals at different times. That which
�30
The Mystery of Evil.
at any particular time is or appears to promise the
greatest good, will uniformly decide the Will. This
*
necessarily flows from the tendency of a sentient
nature to seek happiness at all, and is, indeed, only a
particular application of the same general principle;
inasmuch as it would imply as great a contradiction
that a being capable of happiness should not take
that which it deems will confer, all things considered,
a greater degree of happiness rather than that which
will confer a less, as it would be to imagine it not
seeking happiness rather than the contrary, or some
happiness rather than none. This certainty of con
nection between the preponderance of motive and
the decisions of the will is what is meant by necessity,
as simply implying that the cause will as certainly
be followed by the appropriate effect in this instance
as in any instance of the mutual connection of cause
and effect whatever,f
Motive sustains a dynamical relation to will, as a
cause does to an effect in physics. Therefore the only
liberty which man possesses or can possess, is not the
liberty of willing as he will—which is an idea philo
sophically absurd—but of acting as he wills, accord
ing to the laws of necessity. Otherwise he would
be independent of cause; and, indeed, libertarians
actually assert that a motive is not the cause, but
only the occasion of choice.^ Either human volitions
are effects or they are not. If they are effects, they
are consequents indissolubly associated with the an
tecedent causes or motives which precede them;
• “ The greatest of two pleasures or what appears such, sways the
resulting action, for it is this resulting action that alone determines
which is the greatest.”—Bain on the ‘ Emotions and the Will,’ p. 447.
t This is the course of argument adopted by Edwards in his re
markable book on the Will, and it is admirably summarised by Henry
Rogers in his ‘Essay on the Genius and Writings of Edwards,’pre
fixed to the Complete Edition of his Works, pp. xx to xxiv.
I For this distinction, enforced by Drs. Clarke and Price, see remarks
in Bain’s ‘ Mind and Body,’ p. 76; also in ‘ The Refutation of Edwards,’
by Tappan.
�The Mystery of Evil.
31
and therefore “ the liberty of indifference ” is im
*
possible.
If human volitions be not effects, the
actions of men are independent of condition or rela
tion, undetermined by motives or antecedents, and
for that reason removed beyond the domain of that
principle of necessary law which is the sole guarantee
for the order’and progress of the Uni verse, f
The elimination from this problem, therefore, of
the conception of a Deity clothed with personal and
moral attributes and of the notion of a self-deter
mining will in man, liberates it from all mystery and
difficulty whatsoever; for if there be no personal
God the existence of physical evil casts no imputa
tion upon the infinite character attributed to him.
And if there be no “ liberty of indifference ” in man,
he is exempt from the charge of being, in any sense,
the originator of moral evil, as the circumstances
that constitute his motives are made for him and not
by him; and therefore the praise of virtue and the
blame of vice and, in fact, the whole theory of con
science as held by the vulgar, are annulled.
What is the distinct reality left to us, then, after
we have parted with these two inventions of fancy ?
The pith of the matter may be conveniently summed
up in a few simple propositions :—
* Definition VII. In the ‘Tractatus’ of Spinoza runs thus:—“That
thing' is said to be free which exists by the sole necessity of its own nature,
and by itself alone is determined to action. But that is necessary or
rather constrained which owes its existence to another and acts according
to certain and determinate causes.”
+ The controversy on Free Will and Necessity has, within the last
quarter of a century, passed from the region of mere theological wrang
ling into the circle of scientific studies, and has assumed to the social
and moral Reformer practical importance. The subject now claims the
attention of all who would have intelligent views of the moral condi
tion and prospects of Humanity and who seek to work hopefully for
its regeneration. It is not within the province of this Essay to par
ticularise the various recent phases of the controversy, but those who
are alive to the importance of the subject cannot fail to find intensely
interesting those chapters bearing upon it in sucii works as Mill’s
• Lximination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy,’ Bain’s ‘Com
pendium or Mental ana McrcL Science,’ and Herbert Spencer’s ‘ Study
■of Sociology.’
�32
The Mystery of Evil,
1. All we can know of the Universe is phenomena,
—(including the molecular force-centres into which
existing organisms are resolvable by scientific analysis)
—and the fixed uniformity of the laws that regulate
and control the physical and moral evolutions and
developments of universal substance; but of noumena
we can know nothing, and consequently any dogmatic
definition—positive or negative, of a primal cause, in
or beyond substance, or not in or beyond substance
—is totally unsustained by facts. Therefore the sys
tems of Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Atheism
are mere hypotheses, which all involve unproved
assumptions. As regards the existence of any over
ruling power, we are in a state of nescience. As
regards motives and actions, all we know is the uni
form and necessary relation of sequence that exists
between them—nothing more.
2. The universe, or, at least, the portion of it with
which we have immediate acquaintance, is being
slowly and gradually developed from rudimental
elements, from confusion and discord to order and
harmony ; and this remark applies, throughout, to
physical, intellectual, and moral life. Thus it follows
that the generations of mankind, up to the present,
having been brought upon the planet before it has
reached the state of complete development and per
fect equipoise of forces, are fated to suffer those
physical trials which arise from storms, floods, earth
quakes, droughts, blights, and other casualties, which,
when the material agencies around us have attained
more perfect equilibrium, may be expected to dis
appear. There are many more physical inconveniences
experienced by the race by reason of their still
necessarily limited knowledge of the operations of
nature, of the laws of being, and of their true
relations to the world and humanity, and by reason
of the yet very imperfect stage of human culture.
It is inevitable, therefore, that numerous diseases and
�The Mystery of Evil.
33
sufferings should be encountered, which a broader
intelligence and a clearer forethought will, in the
distant future, be able to anticipate and prevent.
3. “ Evil ” is a word which originated with theolo
gians, and which, from its vagueness and ambiguity,
has introduced much of the mystification and error
that have beclouded past investigations of the subject.
In its primitive signification and as applied in theo
logy, evil had a penal character assigned to it, and it
derived that character from the childish tradition long
believed by adherents of churches, that physical dis
asters, including disease and death, were the result of
a trivial transgression committed by “ Adam.” The
same cause has been adduced to account for all the
moral obliquities which have brought pain and misery
upon the descendants of the first man. “ Sin,” which
denotes the moral side of evil, in the language of
theology, is represented as being at once an effect
and a cause of the first transgression. But with the
rejection of the idea of a personal Ruler of the world,
“ evil ” and “ sin ” in the sense in which they are
usually understood by the orthodox, are rendered
meaningless. Both these terms point back to a period
in the intellectual and moral childhood of mankind,
before the universal and uniform action of Law was
dreamt of, and when human duty was held to consist
only of a series of positive commands, formally pro
claimed by an infinite personal governor, and con
stituting his “ revealed will,” for the direction of his
creatures. And for the perpetuation of this anti
quated belief down to the present we are indebted to
stereotyped creeds, which clergymen and ministers of
religious bodies still solemnly pledge themselves to
maintain. But the light of science presents the
source of duty and the nature and standard of
morals, in our time, in an altered aspect. In this
amended view there is nothing corresponding to the
theological ideas of evil and sin in the world, at all.
�34
The Mystery of Evil.
What is caZZed evil is simply a synonym for imper
fection in the material or moral circumstances of
humanity, or in both. The earth has not yet attained
its ultimate and perfect form, and the mind
of man has not yet acquired a full and prac
tical knowledge of the working of law so as to
guard successfully against collisions with the more
violent and dangerous agencies of nature, and so as
to use nature as a minister of good. What is known
as sin or wrong-doing is nothing more than the
result of human ignorance, which is but another form,
again, of imperfection. Many acts, I am aware, are
called sinful by clerics and their votaries, but such
transgressions, though ranked by orthodox teachers as
equally obnoxious to divine displeasure with acknow
ledged natural immoralities, are found when looked
into to be only ecclesiastical sins—sins of priestly
manufacture which have no place in nature and no
recognition in the enlightened conscience. That this
is the only true account of the matter is evident
from the fact that, as men become familiar with the
uniform operations of nature in their bearing on
human welfare, the ills of life perceptibly diminish,
and the necessity of conforming, in every sphere of
existence, to natural law comes to have the force of
a safe and efficient guiding impulse. No sane being
ever did wilfully what he knew to militate against
individual or social happiness as an ulterior end, and
no one ever continued to practise habits having this
tendency a single moment after his mind became
really sensible, of the character and influence of his
doings. That acts mischievous and cruel are too
often committed there can be no doubt; but the
mischief or the cruelty is always and only accidental
to the design the malicious person has in view.
Many, it is true, persist in doing what they profess to
know is at variance with the principles of justice,
honour, and utility, and hence the apparent anomaly
�The Mystery of Evil.
35
of proper knowledge and improper conduct some
times being found united in the same person. But
the anomaly is only apparent; for the individual
professing to know what befits his relations to the
universe and to society, and yet doing what contra
dicts that knowledge, deceives himself that he
possesses suitable knowledge at all. Knoioledge, in
such a connection, is confounded with notions. A
man may have a notion or a dim idea of what he
ought to do or to be, in his imagination or his memory,
but in this instance the notion is held by the mind as
an impotent sentiment or a barren tradition, the mere
semblance of actual knowledge. The notion of a
thing is but a theoretic or hypothetical conception, and
does not penetrate the mind and touch the springs of
action. All knowledge, worthy to be so designated,
enters into us and becomes conviction, modifying
thought, feeling, and will. So that all the faults—
so-called—committed by individuals and communities
have proceeded from their not knowing better. Even
the crucifixion of the founder of Christianity is
ascribed, in the New Testament to this cause. “ I
wot,” says St. Peter, “ that ye did it ignorantly.”
This point receives irresistible confirmation on every
hand. The vast proportion of crimes of violence,
such as wife-beating, garotte-robbery, manslaughter,
and murder, are confined for the most part to one class
of society—those who live beyond the pale of education
and refinement, agencies by which feelings of decency
and humanity are fostered. And the only cause of
the difference between this social stratum and the one
above it is that the training of the better class of
people is favourable to the controlling of their
■passions, at least as regards the commission of
crimes of that hue. The sexual vices, again, are not
confined to any particular social grade. They are
probably indulged in as great a ratio by the well-to-do
as by the lower orders. But if we compare the victims
�3^
The Mystery of Evil.
of licentiousness, of whatever social grade, with the
philosophic and the devout who have been taught to
hold these vices in abhorrence, we here, again, find
the same rule hold good. The culture of the pureminded has been specially directed to the instructing
of the mind in the bad consequences of this sort of
vice, and to the habituating of the mind to the
moderation and government of animal appetencies.
In like manner the difference between the false ideas
and practices of many at one period of their lives,
and their improved ideas and practices at another,
lies alone in the fact that they have come to know
better.
The drift of this reasoning is plain. The ever
widening circle of knowledge, the knowledge of mani
fold truth in physics and morals, is the grand power by
which the upward march of Humanity is to be secured.
But, as has been already observed, knowledge, con
sidered as the great curative principle, is not. a mere
fortuitous concourse of facts, however good and useful
in themselves, thrown into the mind, any more than
food is muscular strength. Our diet must first become
assimilated with the tissues; and so knowledge, which
strengthens, renovates, and elevates, is the concen
trated essence of principles which the thoughtful
mind extracts from any given collection of facts.
This representation of the case is as consoling as
it is true; for it reveals a “silvery lining” in the
cloud of prevailing human suffering, which inspires
joy and hope as we contemplate the future of the
world. It is a law of nature that every common
bane should carry with it a common antidote, and
a careful inspection of history makes it clear that
it is the tendency of each separate species of error
and wrong-doing to wear itself out. The discovery of
imperfection, usually made through enduring the
painful results thereof, leads towards perfection in
every department of human interests. Every dis
�The Mystery of Evil.
37
comfort, physical and moral, that vexes the lot of
man, reaches a crisis; human effort is immediately
braced up to grapple with the crisis, and inventive
brains are excited to devise expedients for its removal.
Thus have all social and political improvements been
effected.
The method of viewing the problem of evil whicn
has been adopted in the preceding pages is the only
one compatible with an unruffled state of mind in
presence of the defects of our race that frequently
offer us such bitter provocation in daily life—bigotry,
cruelty, stupidity, selfishness, ingratitude, and pride.
A wise man once remarked ironically : “ There are
words in Scripture that afford me unspeakable conso
lation when I have to encounter a person who is
unreasonable and unjust. ‘ Every creature after its
kind.’ If such a man attempts to over-reach or insult
me; if he show treachery or unkindness; if he deceive
or malign me, I look at him with pity, and my sym
pathy for his misfortune in inheriting a defective
organisation, or in lacking efficient intellectual and
moral discipline, neutralises the anger I should other
wise feel towards him.” Thus the practical philosopher
remains undisturbed by the turbulent passions that
blind and warp the minds of the mass, who are
affected chiefly by superficial effects, the causes of
which they have not the patience or the capacity to
discriminate.
When the principles that have been enunciated
become intelligently and generally recognised, they
will not fail to produce a revolution in our whole
system of dealing with vice and legislating for crime.
The popular way of treating offences of all kinds at
present is as absurd as it would be, after the fashion
of our ancestors, to carry a bay-leaf as a preventive
of thunder, or to remove scrofula by hanging round
the neck a baked toad in a silk bag. Social irregu
larities of whatever kind, in a more rational age, will
D
�38
The Mystery of Evil.
no longer be visited with inflictions of corporeal pain,
whether deficient nourishment, the application of the
cat, confinement in a dismal cell, imposition of aimless
grinding labour or chains. Far less will the mur
derous propensity to kick or beat or stab or poison a •
fellow-creature, be punished by so preposterous an
instrument as the gallows or the guillotine. When
acts of violence against society come to be viewed as
the result of an imperfect nature or deficient know
ledge and culture, care will be taken by the State to
lay hold of the child through the influence of the
school, and insist by compulsion on every citizen from
tender years being taught the laws, social and legal,
under which he is expected to live. And when any
are found in riper years to give suspicion that the
lessons of their youth are overborne by innate bad
tendencies, public opinion, then enlightened as it
will be by science, will, in a spirit of philosophic
sympathy for the misfortune of the wrong-doer,
demand his prompt separation for a time, at least,
from his more fortunate neighbours, and his subjection
before any extreme manifestation of his propensity
accrues, to a beneficent regime, partly educational and
partly medical, to enable him, as far as possible, to
obtain the mastery over his besetting morbid tenden
cies, and merit a place once more, if possible, among
well-conducted members of the community. The
attempt, as now, to set the world right by teaching
theological dogmas and by the agitations of revivalistic
or ritualistic fanaticisms, or by the existing lex talionis
of our criminal law, is mere ridiculous and wasteful
tinkering. To permit a system of commerce which
offers the worst temptations for the commission of
fraud and fosters a heartless competition, that often
*
drives the honest and the weak to the wall, and then
* The noble-souled Robert Owen used to denounce it as “that
monster, competition; ” and by the way.it is worthy of remark, that
the evident tendency of social reform now is in the very wake of the
�The Mystery of Evil.
39
to treat as outcasts the victims of intemperance and
poverty which this unnatural system contributes to
produce, and punish them with the degradation of
the jail or the workhouse, is as senseless and cruel as
to sanction gins and snares in the highway and then
whip men for falling into them. These social absur
dities, arising from crass ignorance of the constitution
of man, and of physical and moral law, cannot last
for ever. They may be hallowed by prestige, pom
pous judicial ceremony, and Parliamentary prece
dent, but they belong to a transitional stage of social
life which is doomed before the triumphs of science
and philosophy. The old shallow and mischievous
scheme of reformation which exhibits a jealous Deity
consigning wrong-doers to eternal death and the ma
gistrate as “a terror to evildoers,” will be superseded
by a method of government in which the revolting
penal code now practised by civilised nations will
have no place, and in which, without exception, the
reform of the offender will be the supreme considera
tion, while the peace and safety of society will be
found to be promoted thereby. And surely such
happy anticipations for the race are a satisfactory
compensation for the sacrifice truth compels us to
make in parting with the illusions of our intellectual
childhood,—the dogmas of a personal God and a self
determining will.
The world is, indeed, racked and torn by selfish
ness, cruelty, ignorance, and folly. Communities
and individuals have writhed under burdens of sorrow
from the beginning. But manifestly the natwral
tendency of physical and moral law is not to produce
system of Owen which the “ respectable classes ” used to smile at as
Utopian. Most intelligent men are either tacitly or openly coming
round to the persuasion that “ Man is the Creature of Circumstances.
Mr. Owen probably inadvertently left out certain factors, indispensable
to the success of his “New Moral World.” But he has pointed out
for us the only true path, and the failure of his scheme was a grand
success.
�40
The Mystery of Evil.
these effects, but quite the contrary; and the com
plete happiness of the race is to be attained through
the knowledge of law and yielding submission to it.
But this great consummation can only be accom
plished by slow degrees. A thousand years in this
business is “ as a watch in the night.” If it should
be asked, why should this training to perfect virtue
and happiness be sb slow and painful, and why
should such slow and painful discipline be the only
safe and solid basis on which the progress of
humanity can be established, there is no answer
except that in the nature of things it must be so.
Suppose that we were living on some fair and perfect
planet when the earth was in its once fluid state, and
that we saw the huge animals belonging to that
geological period wallowing in the mire and obscured
by the dense fogs which then enveloped the half
formed world. If that had been our first introduc
tion to the present abode of man we should probably
have concluded, had we no previous experience of
such a state of things elsewhere, that a world of sea
and mud, with volcanoes ever and anon spouting
forth their lava and steamy vapours shutting out
the light, could never become fitted for human
habitation. But this, nevertheless, was the elemental
chaos, out of which our globe was, in the course of
countless ages, evolved. So the present development
of the moral world bears some analogy to the physi
cal state of the earth in the primeval ages. It is
still very gradually emerging out of its original intel
lectual and moral formlessness, and is yet a long
way from the harmony and beauty with which
humanity will, in future ages, be crowned. For any
one, therefore, to judge of the tendency and goal of
the universe from the seething troubles and pangs
that harass the world’s life now in its slow transition
state, would be as rash as for the imagined spectator
of the chaotic earth before man came upon it to
�The Mystery of Evil.
41
suppose that it could never be built up into a
habitable world. The error consists in judging the
whole circle of material and moral development by
the very small segment of the circle which we have
an opportunity of seeing. But a retrospect of
human history justifies the assurance that in nature
there underlies all present contradictions and incom
patibilities, a moulding principle that will eventually
transmute all incongruities into palpable consistency.
The very tardiness, therefore, of the process by which
humanity is to attain its highest possible life may be
taken as a guarantee for the permanent advance of
that life when it is realised. It is not for us now
living, or for immediately succeeding generations to
participate in this Elysium of prophetic forecast, at
least in our present state of existence; but instead
of moping Over our inevitable fate, and groaning
over the woes of the world, it is more becoming w cul
tured manhood to bear that fate with philosophic
fortitude, make the best of it, and help our. fellow
mortals to do the same. The idea of “ the Colossal
Man,” first worked by a great German writer, and
repeated in the retracted essay of Dr. Temple, looks in
the direction to which these remarks point. Humanity
must be viewed as a whole. Particular nations may
decay, but man is destined to rise to a higher plane
of being. For an indefinitely long period he is kept
under the tutelage of grievous trials, which, in the
wonderful economy of nature, have the effect of
unfolding and invigorating his powers, that he may
rise to the highest possible knowledge, and use that
knowledge in correcting his faults, so that at length
he may be brought into perfect accord with his own
noblest moral ideal, and with the general progressive
movement of the universe. Even if, for scores of
thousands of years, vast continents and islands of
savage or semi-barbarous people live and then perish,
there is no waste. Neither is there waste anywhere
�42
The Mystery of Evil.
in the laboratory of nature’s forces. Had .we seen
the germs which afterwards developed into primeval
forests, when these germs were just beginning to
sprout in the bare rocky earth, we could not have
dreamt of so mighty a use in store for them. But
could we come back to the spot centuries afterwards
when these tiny beeches and pines had grown into
giant trees, the function of the insignificant germs
would be obvious. The yearly shedding of the leaves of
the trees into which they have grown has covered with
mould the once barren surface in which they were
planted, and supplied land suitable for the sowing of our
crops. So the primeval trees in the forest of humanity,
the first races, to all appearance not worth the power
expended on their existence and support; these early
races and tribes—so unproductive for ages—have
been permitted to shed their millions of human
leaves to make soil in the moral world. The bar
barism that once reigned over the greater part of
the earth is a pledge, in the arrangements of nature,
that humanity will never, as a whole, return to
barbarism again. The child cannot grow into the
shrewd, cautious, enterprising man, but through the
tumbles and bruises of childhood and the mistakes
of passionate youth. Our measured intelligence,
charity, and tolerance in the present century, has
grown out of the ignorance, superstition, and intoler
ance of all the ages that have preceeded. The primi
tive races were allowed to live a life of low civilisa
tion, and so by the picture of wretchedness they
present for the warning of those who come after
them, prove at once a beacon of warning and an
effectual safeguard against the higher races that come
after, sinking back to the same condition. The same
consoling reflection applies to all the pains and dis
comforts which the good and the bad alike suffer in
our present condition. These untoward circumstances,
dark though they be, are not a mere waste of power,
�The Mystery of Evil.
43
but mark an epoch in universal progress—needful,
disciplinary, transitional, leading to grander issues,—
to universal conformity to the standard of universal
harmony. If in this unique development the interests
of individuals and races,—whose lot happens to be
cast in the early or intermediate periods of that
development,—are not so favoured as those of mankind
will be in the happier and more remote future, such a
consideration is subordinate, and not to be named in
comparison with the final result—the expansion,
culture, and coherent use of all the faculties of
humanity, the extinction of disease, want, strife, and
suffering of every kind ; and if such an end is only
to be gained, for a permanence, through physical and
moral suffering in preceding ages of the world, the
result may possibly well repay the cost. Nay, I
think science justifies me iji going farther. I might
venture to add that the trials to which individuals
and nations have ever been exposed in this life are
introductory to a state of being beyond the present,
when the island earth will be one in spirit with the
invisible “ summer-land,” when free and pleasant
communion between the embodied in the former
state, and the disembodied in the latter, will be
possible, when the sea of material and moral discord
that now divides the one state from the other will
be dried up, and when the last speck of imper
fection that sullied the purity and splendour of
regenerated humanity will be effaced.
In the immortal words of our Laureate :
“ 0! yet, we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will,
Defects of doubts and taints of blood;
That nothing walks with aimless feet;
That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When Nature makes the pile complete.
�44
The Mystery of Evil.
That not a worm is cloven in vain,
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivelled in a fruitless fire
Or but subserves another’s gain.
Behold we know not anything—
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last—far off—at last—to all,
And every winter change to spring.”
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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 mystery of evil
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Misc. Tracts 4. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, Haymarket, London. Includes bibliographical references. No author given.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4869
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Evil
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 mystery of evil), 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
Good and Evil
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5765ae4a5134f785b1b899ee2424343a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uu7l1WNFq-ZeR5wTFbJ50U5z-DBs12NtZKKiNE%7E53XusxU0zu0nQrs0d-qWP2uMdPKZXnoBIT1o3UYLbRLGAKph8FxkvtaLwD8QDk%7E%7EDrt7mXAUPg5xVflgSFC1GyOKRJVvBBgppzy8JWiWJHE5zTJ48a-D6SKhRbyd0wZ3buh1t5lMYHkv1nSFKdnLQfAjnDnzwSmYJAyJH-Jrhnd8DCoF8Weec-4PvUO0H2v5HmfD1YQQ%7Enx7EfdcXIKT7xFv4Ou1KUV2sBqvBSMZXFlNxXnfXbuixBAL4UPG2FwLOZx-eyNxuUkrhmV1jHjQbiU6gu3GiN6JANQ33n2SAH9F6BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3620817dbe95f9c1a0edf8ebf0662787
PDF Text
Text
CT <02
CLERICAL
“POOH, POOH!” RHETORIC.
Ovk aiffxpbv Tjye'i bpra to ipeuBrj Keyeiv ;
Ouk, ei rb cra>£ijvat ye rb if/evbos cpepei.
Philoctetes, 108-9.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAR, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�CLERICAL “POOH POOH!” RHETORIC.
T is much easier to be religious than to be moral.
This is remarkably the case in countries where
the Roman Catholic religion is that of the State.
There every person is religious, but scarcely any one
is moral. There religion is a respectable suit of
clothes to be worn on great occasions and holy days ;
or, it is a passport which those who dislike being
“ spotted ” carry with them to produce in case any one
might question their orthodoxy.
Religion—not
morality—circulates through the blood of these
people, through their families, their households, and
the very atmosphere they breathe. Their religion
may be blind admiration, or submission, or faith, or
adoration, or even it may be persuasion; but it
scarcely ever is a binding rule for their moral con
duct. It has not the least necessary connection with
any one moral virtue. The most hardened murderer,
the most self-indulgent sensualist, the most atrocious
villain may be rigidly devout,—as in the case of the
notorious Francisco Pizarro. He may even avow
publicly that he is rigidly devout and intensely pious
without giving the least shock to public opinion. In
short, the Roman Catholic Religion is witchcraft
undisguised. The Protestant Religion is witchcraft
disguised to a certain extent.
Protestants do not allow themselves the same,
indulgence that Roman Catholics permit themselves.
Protestants have less faith than Roman Catholics in
I
B
�6
Clerical '''‘Pooh, Pooh I ” Rhetoric.
the efficacy of a death-bed repentance. Regarding
the efficacy of the Sacraments there is a difference
of opinion among Protestants. Moreover the oracle
of Protestants is a dumb book called the Bible, whose
want of speech causes almost endless diversities of
opinion among those who consult it. These differ
ences and difficulties necessarily promote the cause of
morality. The accusation, that a man holds strange
opinions in order to find arguments for whatever he
has an inclination to do, is a reproach which must
always sting a Protestant who leads an immoral life.
Hence if a Protestant hold any peculiar opinion it is
cf almost infinite satisfaction to himself and advan
tage to his cause if he be able to point to a private
life of dignified moral repute. Consequently the
peoples among whom the Protestant religion prevails
are much more moral than the peoples among whom
the Roman Catholic religion is established by law.
Nevertheless, the Protestants allow themselves a
certain amount of a certain kind of self-indulgence.
In the first place, they have their little allowance
of witchcraft, namely, the laying on of hands—
infant baptism—-justification by faith—remission of
sins—and the final perseverance of the saints.
Secondly, they have their little hard and fast lines
of exclusiveness, as arranged among their various
divisions of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, &c. &c.
Thirdly, Protestants permit and even applaud a
certain amount of spiritual hatred, spiritual ran
cour, and spiritual denunciation. The odium tlieologicum is particularly gratifying to the Protestant intel
lect. At Exeter Hall, Belfast, or Glasgow, there
could scarcely be any public matter that would be
more likely to draw together a numerous audience
than the announcement that an eloquent firebrand,
on a certain time, and at a certain place, would
denounce Mr. Gladstone and the Pope.
�Clerical “Pooh^ Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
7
Fourthly (and principally), persistent and vocifer
ous assertion, in opposition to facts, that the Bible
has been written by men who were guided by divine
grace, and that Protestantism is the only true reli
gion on earth, are points that are almost universally
acted on and applauded by Protestants. If such a
course were adopted by Infidels it would be called
“ a system of enormous lying.” But when that
course is adopted for the preservation of Christianity
it is considered not only justifiable but a bounden
duty by almost all Protestants.
In Sophocles’ “ Philoctetes,” 108-9, Neoptolemus
says to Ulysses, “ Dost thou, then, not think it base
to tell a lie ? ” To this Ulysses answers : “No ; at
least not if the lie bring preservation.” This doc
trine is avowed by the Jesuits and practised by Pro
testants—especially by the clergy of the Established
Church in England and of the disestablished church
in Ireland.
In the days of David Hume, who flourished about
A.n. 1750, the clergy of the day deemed it their duty
to refute the arguments against miracles, against a
particular Providence, and against a future life, con
tained in his “ Inquiry concerning Human Under
standing,” published a.d. 1748. Not being able to
refute him they wrote what they called Answers'to
him. He says “ Answers by Reverends and Right
Reverends came out two or three in a year, and I
found, by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that the books
were beginning to be esteemed in good company.”
On the part of the clergy this was decent. It showed
they thought they had something to defend besides
their salaries. But the clergy of the present day
have long ago lost the power of using their pens, or
indeed of using any weapons requiring the aid of
human intellect to wield them.
So, when the late Dr. Strauss published, a.d. 1837,
his “Life of Jesus,” the clergy were quite taken by
�8
Clerical11 Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
surprise. The idea that Jesus might not be a strictly
historical character, and that the narratives con
tained in our Gospels might be, for the most part
mythological, was quite new to our clergy. They
had not as much as one argument to bring forward.
They could use only exclamations, such as Oh !—Ah !
—Such a thing to say !—Downright blasphemy !—
Shocking!—Horrible !—&c. &c.
Not long after this, a.d. 1844, “ Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation ” appeared. It found
the clergy utterly unable to bring forward an argu
ment against its statements and reasonings. The
clergy had been better employed. They had been
looking after rectories., archdeaconries, canonries,
prebends’ stalls, and deaneries, and the Presbyterian
portion of them had been manufacturing bricks and
getting leases of building ground. Nevertheless the
clergy raised against the “ Vestiges ” an outcry that
resounded through her Majesty’s three kingdoms;
but it was vox et prceterea nihil.
Not long after this, A.D. 1860, “ Essays and Reviews ”
made their appearance. Again the clergy were “un
practised, unprepared, and still to seek.” Again the
clergy raised an outcry, but it was as powerless as the
“ unearthly squeak ” uttered by “ the feeble forms of
the deceased dead” fluttering around Ulysses in Hades.
Before the sensation caused by the publication of
“ Essays and Reviews ” had died away, Dr. Colenso,
a.d. 1862, published the first volume of “ The Penta
teuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.”
This was too much. All the interjections in the
English language could not successfully resist this
rush of learned and clever publications on behalf of
the good old cause, “ Truth v. Christianity.” It
was deemed necessary to do something. The stupid
good people began to expect that the clergy would
do something. The ignorant little curates began to
expect that some powerful church dignitary would
�Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
9
come forth and refute Dr. Colenso. If there was
any such churchman in existence he did not make
his appearance. Mr. Speaker Denison suggested that
all the eminent blockheads in the church of England
should put their heads together and refute Dr.
Colenso. This was received with applause by the
stupid good people. And accordingly the Fathers
of the Church were gathered together in West
minster Abbey amidst “ the pride, pomp and circum
stance of glorious ” witchcraft to refute Dr. Colenso.
They commenced by receiving the holy communion! And
if they ever shall arrive at a conclusion, it will be “ a
conclusion in which nothing is concluded.”
In the meantime the expectation of the. stupid
good people was stretched to the utmost. They first
uttered a cry for help, next a scream of anguish,
then a howl of despair, and finally a wail of lamen
tation. This was too much. The clergy were at
their wit s end—and they had not to go very far to
reach it! Resort was had to the maxim of Ulysses,
that “ It is not base to tell a lie if the lie bring
preservation.”
So the clergy went among their flocks exclaiming
“Pooh, Pooh!” and preserving an ostentatious
silence on all matters of controversy.
Like all great and important doctrines, the pro- .
found reason and important theory contained in the
exclamation “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” have been gradually
“ developed.”
When Dr. Colenso was in England during the
year 1863 he wrote to a bishop asking for an expla
nation of certain statements he had made against
Dr. Colenso. To this the bishop replied that he
would not enter into a controversy “with one who
has been so ably answered ”—the bishop did not say
by whom. This is the suppressio veri in the form of
“ Pooh ! Pooh ! ”
At that time, 1863, a bishop was performing cer-
�io
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh!” Rhetoric.
tain ceremonies of witchcraft, commonly called
“ confirmation,” “ ordination,” “ consecration,’ &c.
&c., and when Dr. Colenso called on him to explain
certain ungrounded assertions he had made relative
to the futility of Dr. Colenso’s arguments against
the pretensions claimed for some parts of Holy
Scripture to be regarded as written by aid of Divine
inspiration, the bishop’s reply was to the effect that
he was too much occupied by his witchcraft to be
able to waste time in defending Holy Scripture.
This is the trick of shirking under the form of “ Pooh,
Pooh ! ”
A layman sent a copy of a tract published in
Mr. Scott’s series to a dignitary of the church of
England, requesting him to refute it, “ at which
his nose was in great indignation.” The dignitary
returned the tract with a message, to the effect that
he considered the act of sending him such a tract
was “a personal insult.” This is the stately profes
sional dodge under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Another layman sent a copy of another tract which
appeared in Mr. Scott’s series to a poor curate,
requesting him to refute the arguments contained in
it. The curate wrote back in reply that all the state
ments and arguments contained in that tract had
been written and refuted many years ago. The lay
man wrote back to the curate requesting him to give
.the names of the books which the curate alleged had
anticipated, and refuted the statements and argu
ments contained in the tract. To this the curate did
not give any answer. This is deliberate lying for the
Gospel’s sake under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh !”
A lay inquirer asked a dignitary to explain why
there are so many contradictory statements in our
New Testament regarding “justification by works,”
and “justification by faith?” The dignitary asked
the layman had he read certain books. The layman
answered in the negative. Thereupon the dignitary
�Clerical "Pooh, Pooh 1 ” Rhetoric.
11
named a number of books so numerous that it would
require the time of five or six average human lives
to peruse them, and the dignitary told the layman
that the answer to the question would be found among
those books. This is running away and taking refuge
behind the petticoats of mother Church under the
form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Dr. Farrar lately published a ‘ Life of Christ ’
grounded on the old maxim of obstinate stupidity:—
Over and over again I repeat it,
Time after time and day after day,
Nothing while I live shall ever defeat it
For over and over the same I will say.
A favourable notice of this performance is given
in the Quarterly Review for January, 1875. The
notice concludes thus :—“To fill the minds of those
who read his pages with solemn and not ignoble
thoughts, ‘ to add sunlight to daylight by making
the happy happier, to encourage the toiler, to con
sole the sorrowful, to point the weak to the one true
source of moral strength ’—these are the high ends
to which he [Dr. Farrar] desires that his work may
be blest, and we may safely promise him that he will
not be disappointed.” This is Peter driving a nail
through the Moon, and Paddy clinching the nail on
the other side, under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh I”
Many other instances of clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
rhetoric could be given. But it is needless. What,
has been said is amply sufficient to enable the intelli
gent reader to detect clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” rhetoric
under whatever guise it may lurk.
In his essay on Miracles David Hume says, “ ’Tis
strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the
perusal of these wonderful histories, that such prodi
gious events never happen in our days. But ’tis
nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all
ages. You must surely have seen instances enow of
that frailty.*’
�12
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
Recommending the clerics to study the works of
David Hume, and learn honesty, we shall take leave
of those holy men, expressing for them in English a
wish which Demosthenes expressed in Greek for
certain persons who “ flourished ” by dishonest means
in his day:—
“If it be possible, inspire even in these men a better sense
and feeling! But if they be indeed incurable, destroy them by
themselves : exterminate them on land and sea.”
Kilferest,
Feast of the Annunciation, 1875.
Printed
by c. w. reynell, little pulteney-street, haymarket, w.
�
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
Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT128
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Clergy
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/174ca15410927466f33c298498f4bacd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bU5OSGBke-NSt-rzCHnD2Svan-YDosnzoOhvshZb3mmQfvCoND-HkW8kM2c0TfdMNMeXwZek9pTXVDHK2BS7%7Ekus7eKTpzh6dQrXKO4uPNAgW-s1yUJRbbZnLiXMYSpT6XnCdd49XBXsXwqOYOEpG3WePUt1cuGAyibVIRcmmkwcT0yBzSMtetoGnr8E97UL543U0XjaGWczBcHDCjqdJv1IiksYEPLx%7EsxeTrQXqso6SM4JPJR7%7E-jPQnui7Tj9O452RxJ-QN6faIaNBGk00T0X0OtThxAjkpgWKPRyFiu3HD713LOGLxY8NIE8b-OLvUKAF0niMWsKO3eWaWZpSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6c7758f365dc711db5b3361c00d9d2f5
PDF Text
Text
“WHICH
THINGS ARE AN
ALLEGORY,”
—Galatians iv. 24.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
I I THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price' Threep.ence.
•
�LORHON:
PBIKTEB BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PBLTEKEY STREET
HAYMARKET.
�“WHICH THINGS ARE AN ALLEGORY.”
Galatians iv. 24.
ICH things are an allegory,” said St.
Paul, but who believes him ? If modern
expounders of Holy Writ would say so too, what a
blessed change would come o’er the spirit of our
Bible ! but no, everything must be taken literally.
Abraham, “ the friend of God,” listens to his spiteful
wife and turns his own child out of doors tn perish,
for aught he knew, in the wilderness with poor
Hagar, while we are called upon to admire this pat
tern of believers and to thank God that his edifying
sayings and doings have been transmitted to pos
terity. Ask any Sunday-school scholar who Hagar
and Ishmael were, and you will soon see that St. Paul
has spoken in vain and that every child in the king
dom is taught to look upon Hagar and Ishmael as
real people. Three hundred foxes all stood still “ so
nice and pretty ” to have their tails set on fire (the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is
of later date) and full-grown men are required to hear
the “inspired” narrative with holy awe, for Samson
was a type of Christ, and though St. Paul might
consider such things “an allegory,” they were a
dread reality to the foxes and the Philistines. . God
took such a lively interest in Ezekiel’s culinary
�4
“ Which things are an Allegory?
arrangements that He desired him to bake his cakes
with human excrement, and we are required to read
the filthy statement with becoming gravity and to
exclaim “ How unsearchable are his judgments and
his ways past finding out ! ”
Christians fail to see how wofully they are dis
honouring God by their acceptance of a series of
puerile fables alike unworthy of God and man ; they
have less light than St. Paul, who saw in these things
“an allegory.” Jews are supposed to have as much
reverence for the Bible as Christians; but those on
terms of intimacy with Jews—good strict Jews—
who see them in the family circle and have frequent
opportunities of studying them, are surprised and
sometimes shocked at the very familiar use they make
of Biblical expressions in ordinary conversation.
“ Here I am, for thou calledst me,” as Samuel said to
Eli; “I am not eloquent,” as Moses said to Adonai;
“ Why eatest thou not? ” as Elkanah said to Hannah,
etc. At first these constant allusions to a book
Christians generally reserve for private perusal, and
from which they rarely quote save on solemn occa
sions, seem rather irreverent; but to many Jews the
Scriptures are literally household words; whether
in their case familiarity has bred contempt they are
too cautious to discover. They certainly make very
free and easy use of them, and are very fond of
Bible riddles :—Which was the straightest man in
the Bible ? Joseph, so they made him a ruler; which
was the rudest girl in the Bible ? Ruth, because she
uncovered Boaz’s feet and trod on his corn, etc. But
strict, devout Christians take a very solemn view of
the Bible ; poor Samson, with his pretty game of
foxes’ tails, cannot win a smile from them. True,
Sarah laughed at God himself and was not punished,
but Christians dare not laugh at Ezekiel and his in
viting repast lest God should be angry; for though
�“ Which things are an Allegory A
5
David tells them that “ His anger endureth but a
moment,” even they know better ; an unchangeable
being cannot be serene one minute and furious the
next; once angry always angry, so we had better not
laugh; for though Sarah got off, poor Michal was
severely punished for what we should call commend
able ridicule of an indecent young man whose latter
days were in perfect harmony with the indecorous
scene which excited Michal’s contempt and derision
and which cost her the joys of maternity. Christians
never permit themselves to realise the scenes they
read so often with such imperturbable gravity, and
extremely interesting would it be to study the effect
produced upon both Jew and Gentile by a modern
Rabbi or Bishop who should conduct himself like
Saul, David, or Ezekiel. When the Jews of old saw
Saul quite naked they at once concluded that the
Spirit of the Lord had. come upon him and that he
was “among the prophets.” Would the modern
Jews come to the same favourable conclusion if the
Chief Rabbi at St. Helen’s were to act in the. same
manner F
No wonder there are infidels and atheists. Chris
tians are unwittingly fighting against themselves,
their Bible, and their God. By their ignorance,
bigotry, and superstition, they are alienating more
and more ’gentle and devotional souls who have no
innate tendency towards infidelity, but who find in
the current theology nothing elevating, edifying, or
encouraging. Good well-meaning Christians are
daily driving earnest inquirers into the boundless and
attractive realms of free-thought, whereas, if their
very rational questions could be sensibly, if not
altogether satisfactorily answered, many of them
might retain the main tenets- of a faith from which
they have reluctantly drifted away never again to
return.
�6
“ Which things are an Allegory
We may ask or guess Bible riddles, which, though
not approved, may be endured, but we may not ask
Bible questions in which there is no facetious element
without being suspected or even positively accused of
having “ got a twist.” Ask in a spirit of earnest
inquiry where Mrs. Cain came from ; how God ful
filled His promise to Ahab of bringing him back a
glorious conqueror ; whether the command given to
Hosea really came from God;—-you will be told that
“ it is not for us to pry into God’s mysteries,” and
that, “ if you go on like that you will soon be an
infidel.” In all probability you wiZZ “go on like
that,” and you will be an infidel, but who is to blame ?
Surely not those who wish to “ prove all things and
to hold fast that which is good,” rather those who
would gloss over everything and hold fast much that
is bad. The chief spoke in the religious wheel is
indisputably the Bible, and how it is that the religious
world is blind to a fact so obvious is wholly incredible.
Holy and zealous people might so easily and so grace
fully .avail themselves of the loop-hole afforded by
St. Paul, “ Which things are an allegory; ” but no !
Jacob really came to fisty-cuffs with Almighty God,
and would have done for him had not God hit upon
a tender part of his body to grip hold of, and thus
got free! Moses really was favoured with a private
view of what the unscrupulous writer of the Penta
teuch irreverently alludes to as God’s “ back parts,”
—words which ^inspired writers hesitate to quote,
which they would willingly soften down, but which
students are forced to admit are correctly translated
from the supposed original. Some of the language
made use of in the Bible is so offensive to occidental
ears that it would be an immense relief to discover
a mis-translation or an interpolation which might
save the reputation of the writers and screen the
volume from the attacks of the enemy ; however it is of
no use to talk in this strain to the orthodox, to whom
�“ Which things are an Allegory.”
7
the whole volume is the “Word of God,” and con
sequently must not be tampered with. It is of no
use to tell them that Moses could not have seen what
God has not got to show, “ parts” and that no whale
could possibly swallow even a boy. They will tell
you that “with God all things are possible,”
and that child-like faith is all that is required
of us. If the blessed day should ever dawn (as
God grant it may) when the so-called Word of
God shall be sifted as wheat and purged of its
dross, what a tiny volume will remain ! But that
they did it in ignorance, a heavy load of guilt lies at
the Christians’ door. They have well-nigh smothered
their God with Bibles, and have so effectually concealed
his parental attributes, that they have succeeded in
literally stamping out the idea of him in many a
gentle and noble mind. A coarse, vulgar, revengeful
God will not do for a refined, susceptible, and for
giving man. Cultivated people must have a cultivated
God. The Old Testament God may have done well
enough for people in ancient times, but in .these
days we cannot respect a God who “hisses,” swears
in his wrath, curses, “ is furious,” enjoys the “ sweet
savour ” of burning bullocks, shows his “ back parts ”
to his favourites, and commands the wholesale
slaughter of women and children. We want a God
less like a devil than the bogy of the Old Testament.
“ Better,” as Bacon says, “to have no opinion of God
at all than one that is unworthy of him.” But, unfortu
nately, people do not agree with Bacon any more than
they do with St. Paul, and they strenuously resist any
attempt to set a more dignified deity before their eyes,
quite satisfied to adore what, by a happy inconsistency,
they would shrink from imitating. However, there
is a ray of hope gently glimmering from Natal. In
the sixty-fifth Report of the Swedenborg Society
recently published we read that Bishop Colenso “ has
intimated his willingness to accept copies of such
�8
“ Which things are an Allegory
works as the Society might be pleased to grant him,”
and the Rev. Thomas L. Marsden trusts that the one
entitled “ Conjugal Love ” will be included in those
selected ; the Report adds “ It is to be hoped that the
Bishop will be led by the light shed on the letter of
the Word in these works to see his way out of the
difficulties which a literal interpretation has presented
to his mind, and also to realise the truth that the
letter killeth, but the spirit givethlife.” These things
we sincerely hope are not “ an allegory,” we should be
unaffectedly sorry if by any oversight “ Conjugial*
Love ” should be omitted in the list prepared for
Colenso. We hope it and all the seer’s lucid works
already grace his book-shelves, for with such a man
as Swedenborg for a master what may we not expect
from such a pupil as Colenso !
* So spelt in Swedenborg’s book.
I' 4
X
‘, U
li,
i
’
?» •
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
"Which things are an allegory."
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Title from Galatians iv, 24 and a plea for a more liberal interpretation of the Bible.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT135
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 ("Which things are an allegory."), 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
Bible-Criticism
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f832f6774712a4c4a7f099eaf0834e09.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=g4JOmgW80Q1TQ2XWenoD9%7EN%7Eyicgj%7E3HGkRpBhPYV6jMkpWY0ngCpko82DkevKbRFvsosLu7Ul-RQkMiVV98zwLDjcPmE5n-tdkEK4rQdnp8EIP%7EX3%7E2rwFEVSURst6o-AAXUeILzQKy2kgT9WfmKwZG3gXoLVDbNzmpT9vzci9DwaXWINcmyAnMSyODN33iPxPpE87qXmvFs-Ud5gunmw2IeFuKBtJpJljIC8tZil%7ECloWyGRJXd6-wF4bAFVzJLxCSpmyM22YtJXGfiaGDWNvEyye0ahU1Dguu6IABod-0jLq2ee%7EKIJcUyxyXD46HxKA0BgvSQx1jk3Lss0ymiw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c9fb4a209f04381e49efaecd6927ee58
PDF Text
Text
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
MARCH, 1875.
R. FRASER, the Bisbop of Manchester, is a
prelate who talks a great deal, but who is,
nevertheless, generally worth listening to. Some
short time since he discussed the subject, “Is Chris
tianity living or dead,” and he drew a very remark
able picture of the present state of the Church. The
candour with which the Bishop faced the facts of
practical life was something extraordinary. He
avowed that some people thought it wiser to pass
over in discreet silence questions which asked, if
Christianity be a passing system or an eternal truth,
but he—the Bishop—deemed that “ it was necessary
to face these issues, and to give them a distinct and
clear answer.” He noted that intelligent laymen
were in the habit of treating Church questions with
indifference, and he acknowledged that “religion
amongst us was becoming bitter, persecuting, in
tolerant, sectarian.” He urged Christians not to
think that it was enough to say : “ God will protect
his own cause.” “ What historical instance was there”
he asked, “ of God’s maintaining a cause which man
had deserted and despaired of?” If Bishops are going
to model their faith on history, we fear us that Chris
tianity is indeed dying very rapidly. Does Dr.
Fraser really want historical proofs of Christian
dogma ? Does he ask for historical instances of
prayer being answered ? If a Bishop thus seeks for
guidance from experience, there will soon be an
episcopal reinforcement to the ranks of Free Thought.
Bitterly does Dr. Fraser speak of “ Archbishops and
Monsignors and Canons ” wrangling “ about theo
logical terms, which they themselves could not ex
D
�2
plain consistently” (fie, Dr. Fraser !), while men and
women were sinning and dying around them. This
man has caught somewhat of his master’s “ enthu
siasm of humanity,” and the ring of his eloquence is
true and strong. He wound up with a stern warn
ing, more fit for the lips of a Free Thinker than for
those of a Christian Bishop: “ If the Church ceased
to have a hold upon the consciences and the under
standing of intelligent people, Churchmen might be
able to maintain for a little time the skeleton of her
organisation; they might still go on pattering her
creeds (sic), and subscribing to her articles ; butthose
would simply be so many swathing bands round a
corpse.” Verily, Dr. Fraser, you are a notable
“ sign of the timesmanly, outspoken, brave: a
very phenomenon among Bishops. After this, we
can scarcely be surprised to hear that the Bishop
puts a very high value on sound secular education,
and boldly says, that rather than keep a Church of
England school in a state of inefficiency, he would
hand it over to the School Board; ‘‘ it was of supreme
importance that our young people should be intelli
gently and thoroughly trained, in order that they
might face the religious problems of the future.”
But, as Dr. Fraser likes history, we would point out
to him that educated and intelligent people have
hitherto had a way of solving religious problems
which does not suit orthodox Christianity. Mr.
W. R. Greg has lately solemnly warned us that the
intellect of the country is becoming divorced from
religion; if this is the case—and we very sincerely
believe that it is so if, by religion, be meant ortho
dox Christianity—how will religion fare when
solid secular education has spread abroad among the
many the knowledge which is now the privilege
of the few ? Will the sharp lad believe in Dr.
Colenso’s arithmetic when applied to ordinary busi
ness, and doubt its accuracy when it shatters the
history of the Pentateuch ?—will he read of Cristna
and Maia in India, and never connect them with
�3
Christ and Mary in Palestine ?—will he see the black
virgin and child of “heathen mythology,” and not
trace to them the black virgin and child of Christian
relics ?—will the cross remain in his mind as the
symbol of his redemption, when he has met it again
and again in the oldest religion of the world ? In a
word, will history unfold to him her secrets, and lay
open to him her lore, and yet leave him simple and
childish, the toy of superstition, and the dupe of a
priest ? Knowledge and orthodox Christianity ?
Yes, perhaps, when you can persuade mid-day and
midnight to exist at the same moment side by side.
The National Society are, on the other hand, fully
at one with us as to the dangerous tendency to
orthodox Christianity—of Secular Education: they
have issued and circulated a pressing appeal to good
Church folk to come forward and help them, for “ our
poorer schools in all parts of the country are in great
danger of being lost to the Church.” The National
Society sees the rock ahead, and recognises the fact
that their craft is in danger, like that of the silver
smiths of Diana of old, if children are to be taught
to use their brains, without having their intellectual
faculties trained to run in Church harness. The
Bishop of Peterborough wisely denounces “the serpent
intellect,” for he, too, is wise in his generation, and
knows that even “ a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing” to his creed. True to the traditions of his
order, he would “ take away the key of knowledge,”
and those who would enter in he would hinder.
The Church Defence Association have also been put
ting their house in order, seeing that their enemies
are closing in on every side. Every speaker had the
same tale to tell, a moan over the danger which
menaced, and a shriek against the impending doom.
Oddly enough, the hopes of the Churchmen clustered
round Mr. Forster; surely never was a quainter
sight than these valiant devotees finding a champion
in a Nonconformist leader. It may be that, having
found him “ squeezable ” in the Education Bill, they
�4
hope by gentle pressure to persuade him to defend
the Establishment; at any rate, they build on him
their hopes. “ Every true lover of the Church ” is
summoned to aid her in keeping the national pro
perty she has so long usurped, and strange to say, for
a kingdom which is not of this world, a keen eager
ness is shown to “ keep tight hold of the money.”
We are surprised also to hear, from the lips of a
Church dignitary, that “if ever the Church were
disconnected from the State, it would necessarily
fall.” We had always imagined that Churchmen be
lieved that their Church was an independent organisa
tion, founded on a rock, against which the gates of
Hell should never prevail. Surely, then, it would not
fall, even though not buttressed by the State F What
ever the Church people may think, we are very sure of
one thing—that when the Church is disestablished, she
must also be disendowed, or else, like Frankenstein,
we shall have created a monster who will spread de
struction throughout the State. We, like Hr. Fraser,
have studied history, and we have drawn therefrom
some serious ideas about the danger to the Common
wealth of an independent and a wealthy Church in
her midst. In regard to this question Mr. Bright’s
speech at Birmingham is interesting, even though it
lack the old incisiveness and the old fire of eloquence.
His satirical reference to the clergy who boast them
selves gentlemen and sons of gentlemen, and are yet
so lawless as to require special legislation to curb
them, like the less respectable classes of publicans
and marine store-keepers, will scarcely be favourably
received in clerical circles ; yet it was answered by the
laity with thunders of applause. The drift of the
speech was to the disestablishment, or, as Mr. Bright
apparently preferred to phrase it, the enfranchise
ment of the Church, and it was throughout marked
with strong religious feeling of the earnest noncon
formist type. Although, on this point, we can have
no sympathy with Mr. Bright, yet it is well that the
thousands who are influenced by his voice should
�5
be so plainly urged io work steadily and quietly
to bring about this great change. The Bishop of
Carlisle has bitterly attacked Mr. Bright for his
speech, and essayed, somewhat lamely, to defend the
Church, and hoped God would bless her ; if He does,
disendowment must be close at hand, for we are dis
tinctly told, “ Blessed are ye poor.” A large meeting
assembled at Spurgeon’s tabernacle to hear a very
excellent lecture on the same subject from Mr. Vin
cent, and a meeting at the Free Trade Hall, Man
chester, echoed the same cry. Everywhere this ques
tion is coming to the front, and “ the signs of the
times ” point to a speedy destruction of the supre
macy of the State Church.
The question about the disposal of our dead, drags
its slow length along without exciting any very
strong feeling on either side. A suggestion has been
made which is a kind of compromise between burial
and cremation; it is proposed that the corpse should
be wrapped in a shroud and placed in a slight wicker
frame of open basket work, and then buried in the
ground. Advocates of this plan contend that the
sanitary objections to burial will be thus obviated,
for the slow decay which makes churchyards so
injurious to the living is principally the result of
the enclosure of the body in a solid coffin; earth has
powerful deodorising qualities, and some consider
that the present dangers would not exist if coffins
were no longer used. We may suggest that, even
supposing this theory to be correct in some cases, it
would not answer in clay, and would be of very
doubtful advantage in sandy soils. On the other
hand, cremation gives an absolute security against
injury to the living, and, in cases of contagious
disease, it would be an invaluable protection. A
little patient work in spreading information as to the
injurious results of burial, and in combating the
childish prejudices fostered by persons like the
Bishop of Lincoln, would soon bring about this
important sanitary reform.
�6
The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland is
trying to put together a hymn-book which shall pour
old wine into new bottles, i.e., pour old dogmas into
modern rhythm. The task appears to be a most
exhilarating one, and the traditional ideas of the
sobriety and sternness of the true Calvinist were
ruthlessly ignored by the Scotch hymn-makers.
When a hymn containing a line about “Angels
bending low before Him ” was under discussion, a
presbyter remarked that “angels have not got back
bones as we have.” We are curious to know whence
this gentleman derived his anatomical knowledge;
according to his Bible angels have arms, wings, and
feet, and a creature with these limbs who was devoid
of a backbone to support those to which they are
articulated, would be a curious natural phenomenon ;
besides, the Bible speaks of angels as “young men,”
and however devoid many young men may be of
backbone to their character, they yet possess the
physical property. One hymn was too “ churchy,”
another too “ stuffy,” another too “jingling ; ” on the
whole the sitting was very lively, and jokes flew
about freely. Scotchmen joking over hymns is
truly, as Dominie Sampson would have said, “ prode-gious.”
A curious little squabble is reported from the dio
cese of Exeter, ruled over, as our readers know, by
Dr. Temple, erst of Rugby. A clergyman who was
presented to a vacant cure was refused induction by
the Bishop; the clergyman was of blameless life, and
was beloved and revered by the people to whom he
had for some time ministered as curate ; “ why was
he refused ?” the public are asking. Was it that his
views were not quite those of his lordship of Exeter ?
It would be interesting to know, by the way, what
Dr. Temple’s “ views” are. Are they the views of
the liberal Editor of ‘ Essays and Reviews,’ who ad
mitted to that much-talked-of volume the essay of the
Rev. Baden Powell; or is the withdrawal of the first
essay—the Editor’s contribution—to be regarded as
�7
a mark of true repentance, whereby “ he publicly re
tracts, that, his wicked error ? ” Is the clever erst head
master of Rugby a believer in the bodily resurrection,
in the bodily ascension, in the return of the Son of Man,
in the miracles of the Bible, in any of the manifold
absurdities of orthodox Christianity ? And if he is
not, how much does he believe ?—does he believe just
enough to wear the mitre and live in the palace,
without conscience smiting him too hardly ? The
public would be deeply interested in hearing a con
fession of faith from the Bishop of Exeter. Once he
bade fair to be a leader in the army of Free Thought,
but, alas!
“Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a ribbon to stick in his coat.”
With how many the good seed of Free Thought
springs up for a time, and is then choked by what
Jesus sadly termed, “ the love of the world, and the
deceitfulness of riches.”
The controversy between Monsignor Capel and
Canon Liddon must have left the Ritualists with very
uneasy feelings. The Canon, however skilfully he
may have striven to Parry the blows of his antagonist,
had emphatically the worst of the fight, and was
thoroughly beaten out of his very untenable posi
tion :—■
“ What’s in a name ? ”
When Capel tries, by subtle blows,
The Canon’s faith to harry;
He foils each deadly thrust, and shows,
His name is rightly “Parry.”
In any controversy, the man who knows what he
means is sure to have the advantage over the man
whose meaning is hazy, even to himself, and when
the Roman Catholic defends Transubstantiation
against the Anglican who believes in a Real Presence,
somehow the Roman Catholic is sure to win. Then
how distressed the Ritualists must have felt when all
meaning of any kind was spirited out of their warm
eucharistic hymns. Canon Liddon is an adept at
�4
: A
'
.
8
*
**
juggling with words; but> for the sake of that sin
cerity which is wont to be called an English virtue,
we do very earnestly hope that Englishmen—if they
must be superstitious—will at least have the manliness <
to put their superstition into intelligible words, and
not to cheat themselves by using phrases which have
only one meaning on the face of them, and that a
meaning which common-sense folk are ashamed of on
week-days, even if they employ it on Sundays.
It is painful to look across the water to Spain, and
to see priestcraft once more raising its evil head in
that unhappy country, the “ privileges of which the
Church was unjustly deprived, are to be restored,”
and Rome is jubilant over the piety of the new boyking. There is, of course, no real Free Thought
possible- in Spain at present, among a people whose
education, is that burlesque of education, given grudg
ingly by a priesthood, and who have neither manli
ness of mind nor purity of heart. Still we had hoped
that the destruction of the fatal supremacy of the
Church would slowly have paved the way for a
sterner education, and would thus have brought the
people into a more enlightened condition, in which
they would have been fit to receive the light of Free
Thought. An ignorant people will always be super
stitious, and will degrade any truth that is offered to
them until it is narrowed to the capabilities of their
faculties ; and Spain is not yet able even to conceive
Free Thought. But she will sink yet lower under a
king, who is being incessantly blessed by archbishops,
and who chooses the Virgin as one of his CaptainGenerals.
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Signs of the times. March, 1875
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [S.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July 1908
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[S.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT142
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Signs of the times. March, 1875), 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
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/193de8c0b14d81090533b72a693ea213.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CkDcSqJhCUh%7Eo9Ke1iZIas3y48o3c0aPExvOvcwRH-pFj4Dy5hBRz41z87H9uFAjVR2ToMFFQ6e1i8Bbia0NB3qZgydv3jDndr0DQz%7EvSvArmFD-s1tGPB0k9tMgyxPcNZWbB5NdmrrrtfHqlc1U8AgWCPHG2UTimGG9xQvnIRw4%7EDPBEEpzoDqpfBZJOYX%7ERnvlieN1VSyyTu1APaoVNNvIRPGjL1ORQke3%7EBcWb7SWruY%7EuxDkUMFKm4aTySSyZh8dqALXcIQl91HaBJ4QnfHBrvgd1uPPlqdhew9IgEzqRcN7wu%7EjOG3wv%7EY7lTqI9DLfrQAajjKYNxGTjg772g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
df3532dd851d8abeaa1c8b42435f07ef
PDF Text
Text
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
JANUARY, 1875.
HOSE who are in the habit of reading this
little monthly record of ecclesiastical events
will remember the appeal made by the Indian Bishops
to the Church at home for men and money to
re-invigorate the feeble Indian offshoot. The docu
ment was one of the most curious confessions of
failure which could well have been made, and we
ventured to suggest at the time that its publication
was the result of some careless oversight. The
S.P.Gr. is, however, circulating an appeal among the
clergy, in which these “ dear Brethren in Christ ” are
reminded of this “loud call,” and are asked to “read
again the stirring and pressing appeal of India’s
chief Pastors,” and to make it “ a special subject of
intercession and exhortation on the appointed Day of
Prayer.” Great results, it appears, followed on last
year’s “ day of intercession ; ” some soldiers turned
missionaries, and some home clergymen also took up
the foreign work; this is, really, a very likely and
legitimate result of a day of intercession, and very
well exemplifies the reflex action of prayer. A man,
or a number of men, pray earnestly for a given
object; their hearts are set on it, their minds dwell
on it, and, as a natural consequence, they devote
their energies to furthering the cause for which they
have been praying. When the object prayed for is
one which is attainable through human effort, prayer,
for those who believe in it, may seriously influence
T
�2
the result, by turning the energies of the mind in
the direction of the wished-for prize ; what a man
prays for earnestly, he wishes for earnestly, and his
faculties will be on the stretch to seize every oppor
tunity of furthering the object in view. Hence we
have no doubt that the “ Day of Intercession ”
brought both men and money into the Mission field,
although we do not ascribe the result to supernatural
means. It reads oddly nowadays to see a Chris
tian Society asking for missionaries in order that
help may be given to “ the Lord against the mighty.”
One wonders somewhat confusedly who these
“ mighty ” may be, who are sufficiently strong to be
too much for the Omnipotent single-handed, but
apparently only just overweight him, as a few
Englishmen on his side will, it is hoped, be sufficient
to turn the balance in his favour. However, as
“ India has yet to be converted ” it is very evident
that “ the Lord ” alone has not been equal to the
task, and it is therefore quite reasonable that the “ cry
has gone forth to the Church for men who will come
to ‘ his ’ help.” When wicked rationalists hint doubts
about Almightiness, they are promptly rebuked and
are accused of blasphemy; it is, we suppose, all
right and proper when the “blasphemy” comes from
the S.P.G.
The vigorous ritualistic party are
having a little mission of their own to India,
which shows far more appreciation of the character
of the people with whom they have to deal than is
common among English missionaries. In fact, they
follow the wise Roman Catholic plan of making the
new religion resemble the old one as much as possible.
The Ritualists have noticed thatthe Hindoo reverences
a priesthood, and admires asceticism, and that he des
pises a “ religious organism which does not profess to
have a priesthood ; ” hence it comes to pass that “ our
conversions are confined to the very lowest class.”
They argue, therefore, that to do battle with the
“ false religions ” on equal terms, they must recognise
�3
the “two great principles which are rooted in the
Asiatic mind,” and they accordingly send out from
S. John’s, Cowley, some “ Evangelist Fathers ”—•
celibate priests who lead ascetic lives. This move
really shows some acuteness, but it must be rather
distressing to read in a Calcutta native paper that
the arrival of these Fathers causes a hope in native
circles that the English mind is at last moving up
to the higher mysticism of the Asiatic faith ! This
amiable approval does not sound very encouraging.
We would suggest to the Evangelist Fathers that if
they really wish to impress the Hindoo mind with
their asceticism, they should try and rival some of
the well-known austerities practised by Indian devo
tees. A Father swinging calmly from a hook would
surely be a proof of the English progress in asceti
cism, and would, perhaps, enable them to meet on an
equal footing the priests of the rival faith.
The excitement caused by Mr. Gladstone’s pamphlet
on the 4 ‘ Vatican Decrees’’has naturally spread far
and wide, and the glove he threw down at the feet of
the English Catholics has been caught up by a score
of eager combatants. Archbishop Manning was the
first to accept the challenge, and talked in his subtle
and evasive way about 1‘ conscience ” and “ duty to
God,” trying to make it appear that the limitations of
civil obedience which were acknowledged by the
Roman. Catholic were also binding on all those who
had a conscience at all. The plea was ingenious, but
transparently sophistical. Bishop Ullathorne had his
say, and Monsignor Capel had his. The latter boldly
owned that the “ ecclesiastical power was superior to
the civil,” and his honest, but over-zealous, avowal
has been met, by members of his own Church, with
considerable disapproval. A leading Roman Catholic
newspaper, however, lays down that, “ the Pope, in
virtue of his ecclesiastical office, has the power of
deposing any Sovereign whose government he may
consider injurious to the spiritual welfare of that
�4
country.” This, at least, is fairly plain speaking,
though we acknowledge that we cannot help remem
bering a boast once made—“ I can call spirits from
the vasty deep,” and the common sense reply :—
“ Well, so can I, and so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them V’
We fancy that Pius IX., deposing a king, would find
that, however well his thunder-bolt was launched, it
would fall short of its mark, and it would be well for
him if it did not recoil on his own throne. The poor
successor of Peter is, however, comforted and sus
tained by the offerings of the faithful, and the 2,600Z.,
lately forwarded to him from Ireland as “ Peter’s
pence,” must go far to console him for the attack on
S. Peter by the viperish ex-Prime Minister, which so
deeply vexed the Apostolic heart, although, while
denouncing it, the critic mildly remarked that he had
not read it. To us, in England, the main practical
interest of this pamphlet is, that it seems to show a
final break between the Liberal leader and the Roman
Catholic Church, and we cannot but watch with
interest for the next step forward on Mr. Gladstone’s
part. Is his quarrel with Rome a sign that he is
shaking off some of his ecclesiastical fetters ? If it
is, it would indeed be a notable “sign of the times.”
Archbishop Manning, it seems, has no intention
of tolerating any rebellion within the Church, and he
has caused a letter to be read publicly in the London
Churches to the effect that any so-called Catholic who
denies Papal Infallibility is, ipso facto, excommunicate ;
and that if such persons continue to go to confession
and to communion they are only committing an act of
sacrilege, and are increasing thereby their final
condemnation. An ex-Roman Catholic priest, the
Rev. R. R. Suffield, now a Unitarian minister at
Croydon, has contributed to this controversy an able
letter, pointing out how OldandNeo-Catholicism are,
practically, two different religions, and laying stress
�5
on the degrading effects of the subservience now
necessarily paid to an Italian Bishop. Mr. Suffield
takes up the true position that orthodox Romanists
are now really in the position of foreigners, as owning
allegiance primarily to a foreign potentate. He
suggests that the Church of England should “ perform
the happy dispatch,” as the Japanese say, by setting
an example of self-sacrifice, and declining, from
henceforth, all State favours. But surely Mr. Suffield
does not expect the Church to do this voluntarily ?
Poverty has long since ceased to be reckoned among
the Beatitudes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered a
new science. When we heard that the ecclesiastical
head of the English Church had publicly stated that we
were offered “ scientific proof of the truth of the Chris
tian religion,” all free thinkers naturally pricked up
their ears, and “ doubted whereunto this would grow.”
But disappointment awaited the enemies of the Church.
An archbishop does not use language, like common
people, in the vulgar sense of the words : he speaks
an archiepiscopal tongue, which is, however unin
tentionally on his part, very misleading to the public.
The archiepiscopal science is not what lav-people
call science at all; all that we know as “ science” is
contemptuously set aside, as “ science that deals with
matterand it is some mysterious entity which deals
with man,—but is not anthropology; which speaks
of his life here,—but is not physiology; of his hopes
hereafter, of God who made him, and his relation to
his maker, but appears not to be theology, which is
the science par excellence of Archbishop Tait. “ The
name of science belongs as truly, or more truly, to
this subject than to the subjects to which the word
is now so commonly applied.” Unluckily, we are
not told the name of this new science; it ought to be
theology, but the Archbishop can scarcely have an
nounced with all this flourish of trumpets, that he
was going to give a “ theological proof of the truth of
�6
the Christian religionbesides, theology does not
include man and his life here. So we are quite in
the dark as to this newly-discovered queen of sciences,
to whom alone apparently the name of science ought
to belong. This queer thing, however, is what affords
scientific proof to Christianity. So, after all, the
scientific proof is only archiepiscopal proof, with anew
name. The reverend champion of the faith did, how
ever, try to borrow a few scientific fig-leaves wherewith
to make aprons for the shivering creation of his
brain, but he failed in utilising them as sorrily as did
poor Adam and Eve. He dressed up Butler’s argu
ment about the living powers being independent of
the bodily faculties, in nineteenth century garb, and
suggested that as atoms were indestructible perhaps
the immortal soul resided in the atoms. So we have
“ every reason to believe, as a matter of science, that
death is not the end.” Bishop Eraser lately dis
covered in the theory of evolution a proof of the
hereafter of the individual man, and now Archbishop
Tait proves the immortality of the soul from the
indestructibility of atoms. Truly, drowning men
catch at straws. Nevertheless, it is a cheering
“sign” to see the dignitaries of the Church clutching
at the robe of Science to avoid being swept away.
“Manhas a free will,” says his Grace, deciding off-hand
a serious controversy, and, therefore, “ he must have
a connection with a will something like his own above
and beyond him,” Why ? Supposing that man is
free—a very large supposition, but which this is not
the place to contest—why does that fact imply a
“ higher ” will ? Also we “ must ” come to the con
clusion that our abstract notions of beauty and right
are embodied in a being who is the “ concrete of all ”
these. Again why ? Are all abstractions to be found
in a concrete form somewhere ? Cruelty, wickedness,
ugliness, for instance ? These unsupported “ musts ”
of the Archbishop, these unproved assumptions which
beg the whole question, are the “ scientific proofs ’*
�7
which we were promised. “Pat not your trust in
archbishops, for there is no help in them.” By twist
ing Professor Tyndall’s words in a way which—in a
layman—would be a dishonourable perversion, the
Archbishop makes him say, that in his best hours he
had “ forced on his mind the distinct belief that there
was some mind greater than any human mind.” If
the Professor said this, it must have been in some
private conversation with His Grace, or else the
reporters entered into a conspiracy to misrepresent
Dr. Tyndall in the papers. His remark that “ atheism
does not offer a satisfactory solution to the problems
of the universe,” is scarcely an assertion that theism
does ; and it is well known that the Professor regards
the “ unknown mystery ” as at present unsolved, if
not for ever insoluble, and that he therefore refuses
either to assert or to deny the existence of God. The
final insinuation, that Professor Tyndall rather envies
Christians their “ faith,” can only be met with a smile
of derision. We are cheered by being told, in con
clusion, that Christians must write in order to oppose
the spread of scepticism, and we note with satisfac
tion that the trumpet-call is ringing through the
Christian camp, to sound the alarm, and warn the
soldiers of the powerful foe in their front.
The Dean of Westminster has written a remarkable
preface to a volume of letters and discourses by Father
Hyacinthe (M. Loyson), which have been translated
into English by Mme. Loyson, and are now offered to
the public by Messrs. Macmillan and Co., under the
title of “ Catholic Reform.” In this preface, which
is, practically, rather an independent essay, Dean
Stanley defends the position of Liberals within the
various Christian Churches ; he maintains that men
who disagree with the dominant party in any Church
are morally entitled to remain within it, and “to
strive, openly and honourably, to realise within it
their own ideal of Christianity.” He points out how
every Church has had its Nonconformists, and he
�8
considers that those act wisely who do not form a new
sect, but endeavour rather to widen the limits of the
Church within which they find themselves. The
“ English Latitudinarians,” he says, proudly adopting
as an honourable title a term of popular reproach,
have not thought it worth while to become a sect,
but have preferred to remain within the Church.
However much many of us may disagree with the
views, on this head, of such men as Dean Stanley or
as Dr. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, the position they take
up is a very comprehensible one, and no one has a
right to accuse them of bad faith because they elect
to abide in the Church. Besides, such men as these
do free thought a service, which no one outside the
Church could render “ the causethey reach men
and women whom more advanced teachers could not
touch, and although they do not fight in the vanguard,
they yet are brave soldiers against illiberalism and
superstition, and they take their share of vituperation
and persecution. Many a one of our leading thinkers
owes his first awakening to the teaching of these
Broad Church Christians. On the Day of Inter
cession, November 30th, Dr. Caird, the great Scotch
Presbyterian, preached in Westminster Abbey, at
Dean Stanley’s invitation, taking the place occupied
last year by Professor Max Muller. Some day, we
may hope, Church pulpits will be readily opened to
all great teachers, and the way to that desirable con
summation will be greatly smoothed if the Church
dignitaries, so far as they can do so without incurring
legal penalties, will, as opportunity occurs, invite
worthy laymen and ministers of other denominations
to speak to their people. The intercommunication
will be a mutual benefit.
Bishop Colenso’s visit to England has been the
signal for an exhibition of petty religious bigotry.
The Bishop was visiting at Oxford, and had arranged
to preach in one of the local churches ; the sermon was
duly advertised, but when the report of the intended
�9
profanation reached the ears of his lordship of Oxford,
that prelate donned war harness, rushed forward against
his brother Bishop, and forbade the clergyman of the
church in question to open his pulpit to the dreaded
heretic. Of course the clergyman has no option but
to comply, and notice of the inhibition was conse
quently given : the ingenious parson, however, evaded
the episcopal injunction, by quietly delivering, himself,
the sermon which was to have been preached by the
Bishop. Meanwhile, Bishop Colenso preached in the
chapel of Balliol College, while his deputy represented
him at Carfax, and thus delivered two sermons instead
of one. We feel grateful to the Bishop of Oxford for
thus drawing public opinion to Dr. Colenso s heresy :
partly because it is encouraging to see that a bishop
heretical enough to be considered dangerous, yet re
mains legally a bishop, and so helps to encourage
other free-thinking ministers in their heresy in the
Church of England, and partly because sensible
people will feel themselves alienated from a church,
whose dignitaries show so much narrow-mindedness,
and so much fear of the very moderate heresy of the
Bishop of Natal.
The Bishop of Lincoln makes himself prominent
in inhibiting the Bishop of Natal from preaching in
any of the churches in his diocese, in consequence of
the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by
Bishop Gray, of Cape Town. As counsel for the
Bishop of Natal, Mr. J. Westlake thus.warns the
Bishop of Lincoln in his letter to the Editor of the
Times, dated December 6th:—“Upon.this, let me
suggest to the Bishop of Lincoln a view which .1
am willing to believe has not occurred to him.. It is
for the purpose of legal order that he holds bis power
of inhibition, and when he uses that power in support
of a condemnation pronounced in flagrant and avowed
defiance of law, he commits a breach of trust, and his
conduct is not morally distinguishable from that of a
magistrate who should abuse his powers for the pur-
�10
poses of political faction. A magistrate against whom
such an offence was proved would be removed from
the Commission of the Peace, and when the Esta
blishment is defended on the ground of the libertysecured to the Church by law, those who care to
maintain it should inquire whether there is not some
public mark of censure with which the Queen might
be advised to visit open disobedience, in the exercise
of legal powers, to Her Majesty’s order in Council,
by which the pretended Cape Town sentence was set
aside, and all authorities were required to govern
themselves accordingly.”
A controversy has arisen in the Western Morning
News in consequence of the London correspondent of
that paper having expressed a guarded approval of
Euthanasia. One of those clear-sighted folk who spy
heresy in everything, hotly demanded an apology to
the readers of the paper, for laying before them such
wicked “ atheism ”1 The correspondent makes a most
clever and spirited reply to his assailant, and has, so
far, all the laurels of the contest. We shall probably
soon have the Bishop of Lincoln declaring that as
Cremation destroys the resurrection of the body, so
does Euthanasia imply the non-immortality of the soul.
The Bishop of Peterborough has given us a new
rule for the selection of our creed—a new criterion by
which to test the value of various and conflicting
opinions as they are urged upon our acceptance.
This fresh light on a difficult subject may well
arrest the attention alike of orthodox and unorthodox,
simplifying as it does, to one narrow point, considera
tions which have hitherto presented an aspect of
bewildering complexity ; although whether the results
when reached will be precisely those to which the
worthy Bishop was endeavouring to lead his hearers
is a matter, to say the least, of considerable doubt.
Contrasting the Gospel of Christianity with what
he designates “the Gospel of Science,” he earnestly
recommends his listeners to reject the latter, not on
�11
the grounds of its weakness or falsity, but because
he affirms it not to be a Gospel of good news.
Here is a change of position—a shifting of ground
with a vengeance!
We have been hitherto instructed to look at the
truth or probability of all statements presenting
themselves for our acceptance, and with the more
care when weighty consequences hang on the issue ;
but, according to the Bishop, we may be spared this
elaborate sifting of questions, and ask ourselves,
not what is proved or provable, but what is most
pleasant and agreeable to our feelings—'most pro
pitious to our wishes.
Tried impartially on this ground which of these
two Gospels will gain the greatest number of adhe
rents ; in other words, which can be truly held to be
“ good tidings of great joy ” for the large majority of
mankind ?
Not, surely, that of Christianity, which consigns to
eternal punishment ninety-nine out of a hundred of
the whole human race, leaving a doubtful salvation
to be wrought out in fear and trembling for the
remaining few; not, surely, that religion which says
of the way to life “ few there be that find it,” while,
for the many, it points out the broad and well-trodden
road to destruction.
Is it not rather the Gospel of Science, which, if it
speaks of no paradise of bliss for the elect, has no hell
of eternal torment even for the weakest and lowest
of mankind, and which, if it cannot lift the veil from
the unknown future, at least lends to it no ghastly
terrors engendered by folly and superstition.
Dr. Magee appears to be the victim of as great a
delusion about Tyndall and Science, as the member
for Peterborough entertains with respect to “ Tichborne ” and the Jesuits.
Italy has no enthusiast to circulate free thought
publications among her people, and the cradle of
liberty is very behind-hand in theological reform.
'
�12
As no native-born innovator appeared, an English
gentleman has been bold enough to try the experi
ment of importing heresy. Some of Mr. Thomas
Scott’s most effective publications have been selected
by him, and translated into Italian; he has also
translated two of Mr. Voysey’s sermons, which read
very effectively in their new tongue. These tracts
are published in Milan, and are widely circulated
there and at Florence, the people buying them
readily. We can scarcely imagine that the priests
look favourably upon this new heresy, and the
vigorous attack made on sacerdotalism in an
original essay of Captain Dyas—the publication in
question—entitled ‘ Lettere di un Libero Pensatore
Inglese’ will not make that gentlemen a very welcome
guest in priestly circles. It is more than pleasant to
hear that so noble-spirited a work is being crowned
with the success that it deserves.
At a sitting of the German Parliament, on
December 6th, Herr von Varnbueler stated that “ the
Vatican was of opinion that, the less educated a
priest, the more fitted he was for his vocation in life.”
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENBY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Signs of the times. January 1875
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes:From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT131
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Signs of the times. January 1875), 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
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bd6a95c253bcdcf880622919e1e09129.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YGpskMXgSyTN5KffOSoQNEawIpBBVYhe2wPrR7QWe87ljj2iAU4FUv4II0aj0oA9XmruwwJ9KhOd5UsyoMxg7Ve%7EZatlWGG-KG%7Eb3ZbbVPkL1CvwJEXUaFBY0mD%7Efrw37gLrVIniPbOdBjuxNKepH0WVDj8p4y0Yjf5m6yXLLdidOBE92bWBfeQjej%7EzSPVUv3nCA1dDiAkTNXXWfQRONhJBzU2gv2h2fWfHjtMuRGCVnfRblrhXpuRkfC%7EcZ0wJDo97ukNsibQ6pOiB%7Ebi0FVDvuvYe5BOIawLn7LffDBC44lIef5vyzJ-10rg4h6V2EpPj%7ECo3Odd6PdbVD5jmlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fcb5b0f15d03bda2c5b686c92c1fb1c8
PDF Text
Text
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
APRIL, 1875.
ILENCE is brooding over the world ecclesiasti._ cal, and there are no “signs” of any impor
tance to chronicle. The month has been singularly
deficient in stirring events, and there is a general
hush of expectancy among the people. The two
armies of Free Thought and of Superstition lie face
to face, but no general engagement is threatening
just at present. Here and there, there is a slight
skirmish ; now and then two champions, such as Dr.
Tyndall and the Archbishop of Canterbury, charge
out, strike a few sharp blows at each other, and
then disappear. But none the less are the two
parties hard at work, entrenching the positions they
hold, undermining the fortress of the opposing army,
burnishing up their shields, and sharpening anew the
keen edges of their swords. Professor Lightfoot and
the Author of 1 Supernatural Religion ’ keep up a
somewhat bitter duel in the Contemporary and the
Fortnightly. The attack of the orthodox Defender of
the Faith lacks interest because of its pettiness; it
does not even shake that heavy wall of evidence built
up by the rationalist. The whole affair reminds us
of the charge by cavalry against British infantry
squares: here and there a man may go down, here
and there a momentary flaw may be detected in the
defence ; but at once the stern line closes up again,
and the firm square is as strong and as unbroken as
ever. Professor Lightfoot is proving how impreg
nable are the positions taken up, and entrenched so
carefully, by the Author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’
S
�2
The Contemporary is, as usual, full of theological
articles. Mr. W. R. Greg contributes a short paper
on “ Can truths be apprehended which could not
have been discovered p” He appears to answer the
question in the negative; but the article is in his
worst style, and totally unworthy of his fame. Then
we have an interesting article on “ The Laws of
England as to the Expression of Religious Opinion,”
by Mr. Fitzjames Stephens, Q.C. This essay is very
good, barring the cynicism and patronising tone
which disfigures it here and there, and which is in
separable from all which this author writes; and it
closes with a short Act of Parliament, proposed by
Mr. Stephens as a remedy for the present state of
things, which strikes us as very suitable to its pur
pose, and one which a Liberal member of Parliament
would do well to take up, and bring to the notice of
the Legislature. The present state of the law as
regards blasphemy and cognate offences is simply
disgraceful. The law is a dead letter wherever
the “ blasphemer ” is a man of mark or of power;
while, on the other hand, it can be invoked to crush
such a helpless and foolish offender as Thomas
Pooley. A law, the general enforcement of which
would outrage public opinion, is a disgrace and a
serious injury to any country; for it discredits all
law by its own uselessness, and weakens that rever
ence for law which is the safeguard of a free com
munity. A law which is constantly and openly
broken ought to be abolished if public opinion will
not allow it to be enforced. A law against “ deprav
ing the Christian religion,” and against denying
“ the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures,” is an
absurd anachronism in a country where Colenso
undermines the Pentateuch, and Huxley and Tyndall
sap the foundations of popular belief, and crowds of
cultivated and refined men and women openly turn
their backs on the churches, and devote themselves
�to spreading and popularising rational and scientific
Free Thought.
The controversy on “Is man an automaton ? ” is
raging fiercely in the scientific world. Professors
Huxley and Clifford have contributed able papers on
the one side, while Dr. Carpenter fights boldly on
the other. The automatism of man is, of course, an
inference from that of animals, the arguments for
which were so powerfully stated by Professor Huxley
in his address at Belfast, before the British Associa
tion. All those who see no gaps in natural order,
who trace one unbroken line of gradually ascending
organisations from the lowest form of animal life to
the crowning-point of highly-developed human intel
ligence, will naturally accept, as regards man, the
automatism which is almost proved as regards the
lower phases of animal life. The clear proofs afforded
by repeated experiment, that actions which have been
considered as conscious and purposive, are simply
due to what is termed reflex action, in which con
sciousness has no share—these proofs are naturally
making people ask, “ How far, then, is man an auto
maton ?” Science here, as in so many other places,
is invading the dominion which theologians thought
their own; she is beginning to speak in that old con
troversy of Free Will and Determinism, which has been
so fruitful a field for argument; she is having her
say on human responsibility. Naturally, theologians
do not like it, and they are thundering out anathemas
against the bold pioneers of Science; but Huxley
pushes them out of his way with a scornful defiance,
and Clifford blandly declines to leave any portion of
ground uncultivated by the ploughshare of Science ;
and so the Truth-seekers go on, peering into nature’s
secrets, and telling out all their discoveries. We
cannot but hope that in time Science will prove that
all crime is only a disease, of which men may be
cured as of any other disease, so that we may at last
�4
have some hope of grappling with the terrible human
degradation which religion has failed to cure, and
that men may at last be able, generations hence, to
look back on the brutality and on the ruffianism
which now disfigure society, as we look back upon
the plagues and black death which once decimated
our ancestors. Truly, Science is becoming the hope
of men, the true revelation, the true saviour, the
future king of the world.
Mr. Gladstone has struck another blow at his
enemies, and, ingeniously picking up their own
stones flung at him, has armed his sling with these
same pebbles, and with their own missiles has he
slain them. His generous and noble courtesy to Dr.
Newman is a pleasant feature in the warfare, and the
chivalrous tone of the antagonism between the two
great men is an example to all controversialists. Mr.
Gladstone is perfectly successful in maintaining his
original position, and he has absolutely fortified it
with his enemies’missiles. The answers to his “Ex
postulation ” have proved the justice of the original
challenge, and the necessity for the appeal to the
loyalty of Englishmen. He has shaken the Roman
Church in England more than could have been
thought possible; and he has, however unwittingly,
encouraged that spirit of free inquiry which, when
once it truly inspires a man, leads him through the
wilderness of doubt, and across the river of despair
into the fair land of truth and rational freedom.
The Pope, on the other hand, true to his logical
position of Defender of the Faith, as against human
knowledge, champion of the supernatural, as against
the natural, leader of the forlorn hope of theology, as
against science, has spoken fiercely against the educa
tion of the young in schools which are not controlled
by the priesthood, and bitterly complains that the
lambs of the Church are being turned into devouring
wolves. Wise is the Pope in his generation, wiser,
�5
unfortunately, than many of the children of light; he
knows the vast importance of impressing dogmas on
the ductile childish mind, and appreciates the advan
tages gained by the Church, if the priest be allowed
to mould the minds of the children. The question of
education is a question of tremendous importance to
all those who are interested in the spread of Free
Thought; yet, over and over again, do we find freethinking parents sending their children to schools
where they become indoctrinated with orthodox
beliefs. The cowardly fear of inj ury to social position
drives parents to inflict this great mental and moral
inj ury on their children; but if only free-thinkers
would be a little braver, if only they would speak out
publicly that which they believe privately, they would
find themselves so strong, both in numbers and in
position, that they would not need to trouble them
selves about these petty social considerations.. Never
yet in history has a great religious movement triumphed
where its pioneers have always been asking them
selves, “ Will this line of thought or this action be
considered by the people about me as thoroughly
respectable ? ” All great reforms must be carried in
the teeth of the world; always, when carried, they
become popular, and then the cross, borne by the
reformer as the symbol of the lowest degradation is
transformed into the symbol of victory, shines on
the topmost spires of the temples, and adorns the
crowns which circle the brows of kings.
It would not be right to omit all mention of the
glory shed upon the Church, of which he is a
minister, by the Rev. Mr. Coley, the vicar of Cowley,
near Oxford. This truly pious man had had his
righteous soul vexed day by day, by the ungodly
deeds which one Moses Merritt had ungodly com
mitted. Moses appears to have been given to in
toxication ; Moses’ language was not always of the
most refined description ; and Moses had once, alas!
�6
for the depravity of human nature, “brawled” in
Church. When this ungodly Moses died, it became
necessary to bury him, even as though he had been
a saint of the Lord. But Mr. Coley refused. Day
after day went on, and still Moses remained unburied,
tying aU this time in his poor cottage, where, around
the coffin, the survivors must eat, and drink, and
sleep. When ten days had passed, authority stepped
in, and ordered burial within twenty hours. Mr.
Coley then had it borne in upon his mind, that Moses,
on his death-bed, had spoken words of repentance,
and he thought himself justified, therefore, in allow
ing the burial. Why Mr. Coley took ten days to
find this out, deponent sayeth not: perhaps Moses
had visited the parson spiritually, and rapped out on
the clerical table a message of regret for his past
offences. Even then, however, Mr. Coley could not
give way entirely, but locked the Church doors against
the eleven-days-dead sinner. So the disgraceful busi
ness ended with a final struggle • the people broke
open the Church doors, and carried the coffin in ;
after that all went quietly. We scarcely wonder at
reading that Merritt’s widow had to be supported
at the grave ; between being obliged to live for eleven
days in a small cottage with a corpse, and the pain
ful scene at the funeral, the poor woman must have
sustained serious injuries both to mind and body.
It will be wrong if such conduct as this of Mr. Coley’s
be allowed to go unpunished. Probably, however, it
will serve as a new argument to help on the Burials’
Bill, and so Mr. Coley may have done good service
despite himself. Such parsons work hard for dis
establishment, and they help forward disendowment
too, for Parliament will scarcely be foolish enough to
consider men like Mr. Coley fit custodians of national
property. Every parson who discredits the Church
does us more service than our most energetic propa
gandists. We ought to elect Mr. Coley, by acclama-
�7
Mon, one of the provincial agents of the Liberation
Society.
“ Wrath is gone out against the people ; the plague
is begun.” Messrs. Moody and Sankey are now in
London, and the Agricultural Hall at Islington
and her Majesty’s Opera House are already engaged
“ for the Lord’s work.” Moody has asked—modest
man!—for 15,000/., and already 8,000Z. has been col
lected. These Christians shame us by the liberality
with which they support an antiquated superstition.
London is being mapped out into districts, and to
each district a certain number of visitors are appointed,
who are to call at each house in their “ vineyard,”
and “ present a leaflet with a few loving words, so
that every one may know that Jesus of Nazareth
passeth by.” This is a trying prospect, and doubt
less these “messengers of the Lord ” will not always
find that their “ paths are paths of peace.” If the
excitement in London equal that which has swept—
in a hysterical wave—over provincial towns visited
by these two spiritual mountebanks, Moody and
Sankey will become a downright nuisance. People
rushing about the streets, accosting harmless passers
by with the question, “ Have you found him ? have
you got the blood ?” ought to be handed over to the
police. From Salford and from Prestwich we hear
of cases of religious mania “ due to attendance at the
recent meetings of Moody and Sankey,” and the un
fortunate sufferers have to be sent to the lunatic
asylums. It is pitiful that, in this nineteenth cen
tury, crowds of men and women should be carried
away by a spiritual epidemic that reminds one of the
excesses of the devotees of the Middle Ages, and
should bend their necks under a yoke of coarse and
blatant superstition. We have searched in vain
through Mr. Moody’s discourses for the secret of his
influence; he appears to string together silly little
stories, with here and there a touch of drollery that
�8
reminds one of his American extraction, but of true elo
quence, or even of passion, there seems no trace what
ever. Mr. Sankey’s power is more easily understood ;
he has, we believe, a really fine voice, and uses it well
and effectively, and as he starts off his choruses with
the true music-hall appeal to the audience to “join in,”
the hymns carry all before them. They are generally
plaintive melodies, of the Christy Minstrel type, such
as “Lay me in my little bed,” or “Just before the
battle, mother;” and we know, by long experience of
the “ Original Christy Minstrels,” how strangely
attractive these songs are to the crowd. It is popu
larly reported, that before Moody and Sankey sailed
for England, they tossed up to see if they should
come as Revivalists or as Christy Minstrels : si non
e vero, e ben trovato, but we fear the story is too good
to be true. It appears that these gentlemen once
before favoured us with a visit, in 1870, I believe, but
no one appears to have been aware of their presence;
this time they have “ come with power,” and by vast
outlay in advertising and puffing they have made
their visit a success. A few more years of this work
and they may retire with handsome fortunes, for
truly, in their case, it is proved that “ Godliness is
great gain.”
The Church Disestablishment movement is quietly
gathering strength, and it is rumoured that a party
is being formed in Parliament, under the leadership
of Mr. John Bright, whose “cry” is to be, “Dis
establishment and the Repeal of the 25th Clause.” If
this be true, stirring times are coming for all those
interested in theological matters, and soon we shall
hear the trumpet-call which sounds the summons to
the assault. “ God defend the right! ” used to be
the ancient device ; “ Man fight for the right 1 ” must
be the motto of the modern champions.
PRINTED BY 0. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Signs of the times. April, 1875
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Includes a humorous and satirical account of Moody and Sankey revival meetings. p.7-8.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Thomas Scott]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5500
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Signs of the times. April, 1875), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Dwight Lyman Moody
Ira David Sankey
Revivalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/54297e0af756fa72bf3df1fceb4468e0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Tqacp2hoxp2Tsb1CwqgoX%7EbMTbYAJEDUSIujjHnhl%7EF8soXvRNJWjLSC1e16UQ-QUlhiV%7ECD9wr7wdA2-WftlCMz99ymPTPU%7El1%7EcFfJCx1HUN5e68F5zx1cZEhZmmJBiKKZPhCsMyP5CtV2dH-rsRE94qOypmwpkc1fPHaIeC6jX1COZALPkcjC2wECr6lui0uIO6CSFltE8-CmaXBBJ2Qkawx35e46V8c78L4FeVbb9q7QuBj5WbQQpoFeiViX%7EzqZk-rmbudqOXut-XIoKPfHryxssNvRYtpdWX6uKR246yNG%7Eja%7EQ7cdc8s-LFFyvYQGCqRdrXdJHu4FQt1CPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
90f8dfea30d9fb6bb4cc5f8145fe5770
PDF Text
Text
THE
MYSTERY OF EVIL.
��THE
MYSTERY OF EVIL.
. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Ninepence.
�JLONDON:
FEINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE FULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�THE
MYSTERY OF EVIL.
HIS subject is not one of mere sectarian or
temporary interest. It touches a depth far
deeper than even the differences which separate
disciples of Naturalism from those who profess faith
in a miraculous book revelation. The following
inquiry reaches down to the “ bed rock ” of all intel
lectual and moral life, and deals with the source and
development of force in the universe, with the nature
of human actions, and with the true fulcn/in which is
to bear the leverage by which this still suffering and
disordered world is to be raised towards perfect har
mony with law, and with the highest ideal of human
intelligence and happiness.
Orthodox guides are constantly warning their
people against this proposed line of investigation, We
are cautioned that the study of such a topic is unprac
tical . and unprofitable—if not actually profane —
*
that it involves a mystery which is hopelessly inex
plicable, that attempts to solve the mystery have been
made over and over again by the “ carnal ” intellect,,
but always with the same unsatisfactory result—themocking of our hopes, the answering of our questions
by empty echoes, which but rebuke our presumption.
This has been the favourite way of silencing the-
T
* To proscribe as profane, studies beyond the comprehension of a par
ticular school or sect is a very old habit. The wisest Greek philosophermaintained that Astronomy was a subject unfit for human inquiry, and
that the gods took it under their own special and immediate control.
B
�6
The Mystery of Evil.
questionings, the difficulties, and the fears of “ doubt
ing believers.” There can be no harm, we are told
in making ourselves acquainted, as a matter of history,
with how the loyal defenders of the faith have been
accustomed to “ hold the fort ” against the “ infidel,”
for we should ever be ready to give a reason of the
hope that is in us. But to venture to reason out the
point independently for oneself is to enter on a path
beset with danger and leading to despair. Minds of
any stamina, however, and especially if familiar with
the wonderful disclosures which science and critical
scholarship are daily making, are not likely to submit
much longer to this restraint of priestly leading
strings. They will insist on the right of testing the
most “mysterious” teachings of the church for them
selves,. undeterred alike by threats of ecclesiastical
taboo in this world and of divine punishment in the
next. The light of truth—formerly claimed as the
sole prerogative of a pretended “ sacred order ”—now
finds its way as freely into the poor man’s cottage as
into the palace of the archbishop, and will, sooner or
later, compel the dullest to examine for themselves
with an urgency that cannot be repressed.
If I looked upon the question under consideration
as simply affording scope for curious speculation, I
should be content at once to relegate it for decision
to the learned hair-splitters who make it their busi
ness solemnly to adjust the distinction between
“ homoousion ” and homozousion.” But I am fully
convinced that the alleged “ mystery of evil ” is
essentially a practical question, and one upon which
hangs the true theory of the universe, a right concep
tion of man’s physical and moral relations,, and a just
understanding of the nature of the human will and
human accountability. Moreover, the vulgar notions
on this subject will have to be abandoned before the
many philanthropic persons whom theological super
stitions have misled, are likely to unite in any effectual
�The Mystery of Evil.
7
attempt at man’s physical, rational, and moral eleva
tion. With all becoming reverence for the earnest
and often profound efforts of the wise and the good
in past times to master the difficulties of this subject,
we, in this age of riper learning and more extensive
scientific acquisition, occupy a Vantage ground in
discussing it which was not possible to any previous
generation.
“ Evil ” is a term having a theological origin,
though it has in some measure been adopted in the
language of common life. We usually understand by
it whatever is contrary to our ideas of moral rectitude
and tends to interfere with the general happiness
of mankind physically, morally, and socially. It is
but too easy to find endlessly varied traces of the
wretchedness and wrong that seem to defy all
attempts to reconcile them with the rule of infinite
power, wisdom, and goodness in the universe.
What shall we say of the tribes and races that
have been permitted to live many centuries in inter
necine strife, ignorance, filth, and pestilence, and to
perish without contributing one thought worth pre
serving to the stock of human ideas ? And still it is
often around the haunts of the wandering savage or
the uncultivated boor, who is incapable of appreciat
ing the sublime, that nature puts forth her grandest
feats of power and beauty. Then what shall we
think of the havoc and sorrow which are the heritage
of multitudes born into the world with constitutions
naturally predisposing them to suffer pain or to
violate the sentiments of justice and humanity, and
brought up in homes that infallibly foster vice, cruelty,
and crime. Nor does it relieve the difficulty to view in
temperance, the sickly frame, the life-long disease, the
plague and the pestilence as being, directly or remotely,
penalties for the neglect of sanitary and moral laws ;
for reason will persist in asking, “ Why, if the universe
be ruled by a Being of infinite power, wisdom, and
�8
The Mystery of Evil.
love, was not this deep turbid river of misery stemmed
at the fountain ? ” Kay, there are forms of suffering
yet more appalling and that yet more perplex and
overpower us: the storm that dashes a thousand
helpless vessels in pieces in spite of every expedient
tried by the crews to escape an ocean grave ; the
earthquake that engulfs towns and cities so quickly
that science and forethought are powerless to avert
it; the explosion of the mine that suddenly scorches
to death many an honest toiler and deprives many a
family of its bread-winner. And if we turn from the
fury of the unconscious elements to the conscious
and troubled inward experience of human beings, the
cloud of “ natural ills that flesh is heir to,” thickens.
The tangled affairs of social and moral life is patent
to us all. Why, in this century for instance, should
law and order, truth and right, have so little influence
upon civilised nations, to say nothing of those we
deem barbarians ? Look back, too, in history, and
behold the long perspective of prophets and martyrs,
who have sealed their loyalty to truth and righteous
ness with their blood, while the tyrants who slew
them died without one pang of remorse. Look
around and see all ages cut down, apparently at ran
dom ;—in many cases the wise and vigorous, the use
ful, the talented, and benevolent, withering away in
the morning or noontide of their days with their
gifts increasing in number and activity, while the effete
and the stupid, the besotted, the selfish, the useless,
are spared. Knavery arrayed in purple and fine
linen fares sumptuously, and at its gate honest
poverty clothed in rags, desires in vain to eat of the
crumbs that fall from the rich charlatan’s table.
Consider the millions that have innocently pined in
the dungeon, or that have been worked as beasts,
flogged as beasts, and sold as beasts. Consider the
throng of once blooming maidens ruined by heartless
human monsters. Think of nations in the first rank
�The Mystery of Evil.
9
of civilisation, bowing at the same altar, and rising
from their devotions to slay each other by weapons
of fiendish ingenuity. And with the spectacle also
before us of the greed of ambition, the vapourings
of pride, the treachery of the false, the meanness of
the little, the vices of the bad, and the frailties of
the good, the moral instinct within us cannot help
reiterating the question, “ Is this the sort of world
we should have expected under the government of a
Deity clothed with the attributes of perfection ? The
good man—crude though his ideal be—if he had the
power as he has the wish, would at once reduce this
chaos to order ; and does not the Theist believe in a
God infinitely better than the most benevolent of
men ?
An eminent living physical philosopher has said :
“ Nature seems to take some care of the race, but
bestows very little on individualsAnd in brooding
on the dark side of this problem, a man of literary
note once exclaimed, in a private circle, “For the
credit of our conception of what goodness ought to
be, let us hope there is no God.” This, too, rightly
or wrongly, was the very thought put by Byron into
the mouth of Cain in his reply to Lucifer :
Why do I exist ?
Why art thou wretched ? why are all things so ?
Even He who made us must be as the Maker
Of things unhappy ! To produce destruction
Can surely never be the work of joy;
And yet my sire says He’s omnipotent.
Then why is evil ?—He being good ?
The same thought is strongly expressed by Mrs.
Browning:—
My soul is grey.
With pouring o’er the total sum of ill.
With such a total of distracted life
To see it down in figures on a page,
Plain, silent, clear
*
*
*
�IO
The Mystery of Evil,
*
*
* . That’s terrible
For one who is not God, and cannot right
The wrong he looks upon.
*
This problem of evil has stirred deeply inquiring
minds from the earliest times. In the ‘ Naishadha
Charita ’ (xvii. 45), a Charvaka, or materialistic
Atheist, is represented as addressing Indra and other
gods on their return to heaven from Damayantis
Svayamvara, and ridiculing the orthodox Indian doc
trines of the Vedas :—“ If there be an omniscient and
merciful God, who never speaks in vain, why does
he not, by the mere expenditure of a word, satisfy
the desires of us his suppliants ? By causing living
creatures to suffer pain, though it be the result of
their own works, God would be our causeless enemy,
whilst all our other enemies have some reason or
other for their enmity.
Sophocles has lines to the same effect:—“ It is
strange that those who are impious and descendants
of wicked men should fare prosperously, while those
who are good and sprung from noble men should be
unfortunate. It was not meet that the gods should
thus deal with mortals. Pious men ought to have
obtained from the gods some manifest advantage,
while the unjust should, on the contrary, have paid
some evident penalty for their evil deeds, and thus
no one who was wicked would have been pros
perous.” J
It may be convenient at this point to glance at
some of the methods that have been employed to
ease or remove the contradiction between the painful
phenomena of life and the credited rule of an allmighty, all-wise, and all-good Bather. We shall
* ‘Aurora Leigh.’
+ ‘ Additional Moral and Religious Passages, Metrically rendered
from the Sanskrit, with exact Prose Translations ”—Scott’s Series.
I Quoted by Dr. Muir in the ‘Additional Moral and Religious
Passages.’
�The Mystery of Evil.
11
thus have an opportunity of detecting the fallacieswhich lurk under all such methods of harmonising,
and which render them nugatory.
Epicurus, from a Theistic point of view, stated the
case very comprehensively when, in syllogistic form,
he said :—“ Why is evil in the world ? It is either
because God is unable or unwilling to remove it. If
he be unable he is not omnipotent. If he be
unwilling, he is not all-good. If he be neither able
nor willing, he is neither all-powerful nor all-good ; ”*
and it is difficult to see how escape is possible from
between the horns of this dilemma on the supposition
that an infinite God exists.
• The Manichaeans believed good and evil or pleasure
and pain to be rival powers in the universe. This
was also virtually the Persian theory on the subject,
only the latter was clothed in oriental dress.f Bolingbroke and the sceptics of his day, accounted for the
phenomena referred to on an aesthetic principle—the
proportion of parts in the scale of sentient being.
Every animal has bodily members of varied grades
of honour and importance, and all in harmonious
subserviency to the general convenience of their
possessor. Every picture has an arrangement of
colour producing light and shade. All harmony
must consist of voices attuned from alto to bass.
Every considerable dwelling must have apartments
in the attic as well as on the ground floor, and of
greater or less capacity. So the world is formed
on a gradational plan from high intelligence, by
imperceptible degrees down to life of so doubtful a
* The great Lord Shaftesbury, in his “ Inquiry concerning Virtue,”
* Characteristics,’ Vol. II., page 10, puts the case thus:—u If there be
supposed a designing principle, who is the cause only of good, but
cannot prevent ill which happens . . . then there can be supposed, in
reality, no such thing as a superior good design or mind, other than
what is impotent and defective; for not to correct or totally exclude
that ill . . . must proceed either from impotency or ill-will.”
t Ormuzd and Ahriman. This is also the germ of the Christian
dogma of God who is “ Light,” and the Devil “ The Prince of Darkness.
�12
The Mystery of Evil.
character that it is impossible to determine whether
it be vegetable or animal. In the moral sphere,
too, there is a ladder whose top reaches the loftiest
unselfishness, and whose rounds gradually descend
to the grossest forms of moral life. It is argued
that the world would be tame and monotonous
without these inequalities in the structure of
universal life, and that it is the constant fric
tion between beings of high and low degree which
helps to give that healthful impulse to human activity
that keeps the universe from stagnating; and
unavoidable accidents but quicken the forethought
and contrivance of men to provide against such
occurrences. It will be felt, however, by the most
ordinary thinker, that such a theory utterly fails to
cover all the facts, and fails especially to account for
the more formidable sufferings of humanity. It is
but the view of an artist who lives in a one-sided and
unreal region, surrounded by plenty, who simply
looks out upon the world through a coleur de rose
medium, and projects the image of his own luxurious
home upon the landscape outside.
There is another theory popular with a large class
of airy minds, which regards evil as a modification
of good. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood pro
ceed from the same source, and are degrees of the
same thing. Lust is only a lower form of love, and
what would be described as cruelty inflicted upon
others is not intended to cause suffering as an end,
but only occurs in some rather abrupt and uncere
monious . attempt being made by a person to reach
some object much wished for. But the one who
suffers happens to be, unconsciously perhaps, an
obstacle in the way of that object being attained;
and the suffering is occasioned simply by accident,
just as we stumble against a neighbour who has
the misfortune to cross our path at the moment
when our attention is fixed on something we
�The Mystery of Evil.
*3
eagerly want to get at on the opposite side of
the street. So much the worse for the neighbour if
he sustain injury by the impact, but it is no fault
of ours!
What goes by the name of meanness, according to
the same theory, springs as truly from a wish to be
happy in the mean nature as nobility does when
manifested by a noble nature. As little harm is
intended by the one nature as by the other. But it
seems only necessary to state this method of meeting
the difficulty in order to see its inadequacy. Even
granting that the misery occasioned by men to each
other were reconciled by this mode of reasoning,
there is a class of troubles which are wholly beyond
human agency and control that remains utterly
unaccounted for ; and respecting the evils which the
theory professes to explain away, the question crops
up afresh, why, if the government of the world be
conducted by a Being of infinite power, wisdom and
love, is so much distress permitted to be caused,
however casually, by men to one another ?
Perhaps the most elaborate and closely-reasoned
attempt ever made to harmonise existing evil in the
world with perfect wisdom, power, and goodness, in
a Creator, was the celebrated “ Essay on the Origin
of Evil,” by Archbishop King. The writer postu
lates, as an axiom, that the universe is the work of a
God of infinite intelligence, power, and goodness ;
and he deals in precisely the same manner with the
alleged existence of freedom and responsibility in
human beings. The pith of the Archbishop’s explana
tion of moral evil is contained in the following
passage: “ The less dependent on external things,
the more self-sufficient any agent is, and the more it
has the principles of its actions within itself, it is so
much the more perfect; since, therefore, we may con
ceive two sorts of agents, one which does not act
unless impelled and determined by external circum
�14
The Mystery of Evil.
stances, such as vegetable bodies; the other, which
have the principle of their actions within themselves,
namely, free agents, and can determine themselves to
action by their own natural power, it is plain that the
latter are much more perfect than the former; nor
can it be denied that God may create an agent with
such power as this; which can exert ‘itself into
action without either the concourse of God or the deter
mination of external causes, as long as God preserves
the existence, power, and faculties, of that agent;,
that evil arises from the uniawful use of man s faculties ;
that more good in general arises from the donation of
such a self-moving power, together with all thoso
foreseen abuses of it, than could possibly have been
produced without it.”
The gist of the Archbishop’s reasoning is in the
words : “,Evil arises from the unlawful use of men’s
faculties.
But this is a mere beggino of the
*
question, and a shifting rather, than a settlement of
the difficulty ;.for even granting the assumption put
forward, the inquiry naturally recurs : Why, in a
world created and sustained by such a perfect Being
as Theism recognises, was any arrangement tolerated
by which men should exercise their faculties unlaw
fully —especially as the results are so painfully dis
cordant with our notions of happiness ? It is assumed
by the Archbishop that man and not his maker is
responsible for the moral chaos that has always
characterised the condition of the race. But this is
only a repetition of the now exploded theological
fiction that man was created with his faculties and
circumstances equally and entirely favourable to
obedience ; and that his departure from law was his
own voluntary choice—a choice determined upon by
him with a full consciousness that he ought to have
acted differently, and that he was free to have dono
so. By the voluntary depravation of his own mind
and by the force of his bad example he involved all
�The Mystery of Evil.
15
his descendants in the moral and physical conse
quences of his transgression. But with the undeni
able revelations of modern scientific and historical
research before us such a view is too absurd to need
refutation. In any case we are justified in holding
that on the hypothesis of a miracle-working God,
there is no tendency to disobedience, error, or vice,
in mankind that might not have been easily checked
in its first outbreak by an act of omnipotence. The
power that is asserted to have rained manna from the
skies, arrested the setting of the sun, changed water
into wine, and raised the dead, might surely have
been exerted in a way more worthy the dignity and ,
goodness of an infinite God, in stopping the first
outburst of moral disorder that has filled the world
until now with cruel and deadly passions and over
whelmed millions of sensitive spirits in intense
anguish.
By the same superficial and evasive reasoning, has
this writer disposed of those calamities which cannot
owe their origin, anyhow, to the will of man. He
coolly tells us that “ it is no objection to God’s good
ness or his wisdom to create such things as are
necessarily attended with these evils . . . and that
disagreeable sensations must be reckoned among
natural evils as inevitably associated with sentient
existences, which yet cannot be avoided. If anyone
ask why such a law of union was established, namely,
the disagreeable sensations which sentient creatures
experience, let this be the answer, because there could
he no better; for such a necessity as this follows ; and
considering the circumstances and conditions under
which, and under which only, they could have exist
ence, they could neither be placed in a better state,
nor governed by more commodious laws.” That is
to say, God in his wisdom and goodness did his best
to secure the general well-being of the universe and
signally failed, as the physical accidents and agonies
�16
The Mystery of Evil.
endured by innocent multitudes, prove ! Yet this is
a book of which a distinguished Theistic philosopher
said: “ If Archbishop King, in this performance,
has not reconciled the inconsistencies, none else need
apply themselves to the task.” If the data of Arch
bishop King as regards the existence of a personal
Deity, clothed with infinitely perfect physical and
moral attributes, and as regards the free agency of man,
had been correct, the most logical course for him
would have been to have simply admitted the hopeless
irreconcilableness of these data with the state of the
world as we find it, and to have betaken himself to
the favourite retreat of orthodoxy,—mystery,—and
spared himself the pains of elaborating a tissue of
metaphysical fallacies which only make the confusion
to be worse confounded. But I reserve his data for
fuller examination afterwards.
The only other theory, which I shall notice, as
differing from the one to be subsequently proposed,
is that of fatalistic Deism, which was held in the last
century by a large class of European philosophers,
and sought to be refuted by Butler. The following
is an epitome of the argument of this school:—The
existence of Deity, as infinite and uncreated, is a
'necessary fact, intuitively perceived. If God’s exist
ence be necessary, the conditions of his existence—
physical, mental, and moral,—and the modes of its
action and development, must be alike necessary. As
the visible universe is the outcome of this necessary
existence, all the forms of being contained in the
universe must also be necessary, by which we are to
understand that we cannot conceive the possibility of
their being otherwise than they are. If so, then all
the orders of existence in the universe, proceeding
from the depths of his infinite nature and constantly
dependent upon his support, are fated to form links
in one chain of eternal and unalterable necessity, and
to be precisely as they are. Therefore the develop-
�The Mystery of Evil.
x
17
ment of human beings, and of every other variety of
life, is destined to assume the particular form under
which they are found to exist at any given stage of
the evolution of the universe. Consequently, what,
in the vocabulary of mortals, is called freedom, is but
an illusion,—the actions and characters of rational
beings of all degrees of intelligence and moral
culture being included in that ceaseless development
which is controlled by the same central and allembracing principle of unexplainable necessity.
*
It is further maintained by the same class of
Deists that amidst all the apparent confusion that
prevails, indications of a process of orderly develop
ments are discernible, whether we trace the con
solidation of the earth’s crust, or the progressive
advance of vegetable and animal forms upon it,
or the gradual uplifting of the human species.
This evolution, it is asserted, is either caused
and directed by some controlling Intelligence,
or is the result of chance, or arises from some
inherent spontaneous power in the universe itself,
But our conception of chance excludes it from the
rank of a causal and regulating force, for we only
understand by the term what is fortuitous, blind,
undesigning, and impotent. Again, to suppose that
some inherent spontaneous power in nature itself is
shaping and directing universal progress would be to
endow the universe with physical, rational, and moral
power; in other words, to identify it with God, or to
view it as God. Therefore, it is concluded,—these
alternatives failing to satisfy the demands of logical
consistency,—the only tenable view left is that the
framework and development of the universe, is the
work of a Deity answering to the 0eos of Homer,
who represents the God of his conception, as being
* The reader will be reminded of a remarkable passage in the
‘ Prometheus Vinctus ’ of JEschylus: “ Even Jove is not superior to
the Fates.”
�18
The Mystery of Evil.
the source of all the good and evil of life. I confess
that for a time, while my own mind was passing from
supernaturalism to naturalism, and while I believed
that my choice in dealing with “ the mystery of evil ”
lay alone between rival forms of Theism, this notion
of God as the primal cause alike of happiness and
misery was the only one which seemed co-ordinate
with all the facts, and effectually to solve the mystery.
But, as will appear later in this paper, two objec
tions ultimately arose in my mind which shook my
fatalistic Deism to its foundation. The first of these
was, that the God I thought myself bound to believe
in fell far short of the ideal of virtue and goodness
at which an average high-minded man felt himself
obliged to aim, and thus I was conscious of doing
violence to my better nature in holding to such a
faith. The second objection was that the intuitive
idea of Deity was found by me to be a gratuitous
assumption which, with other beliefs of this descrip
tion, collapsed under the unsparing analysis to which
the intuitive philosophy has been subjected by the
inductive philosophy—the latter being the only one
which seems to me to accord with the universal
principles of truth.
After the preceding statement of attempted solu
tions of this alleged mystery by Theistic and Deistic
theories, it will probably be admitted that any method
of accounting for the existence of evil based on the
twofold hypothesis of an Almighty God of omniscience,
wisdom, and goodness, and the doctrine of the free,
self-determining action of the human will, cannot
escape from the charge of mystery—or, more properly,
of palpable logical contradiction. In presence of
these two conceptions, evil must inevitably remain a
mystery. Let them be surrendered, however, and the
mystery instantly vanishes.
When a scientific analyst discovers that a hypo
thesis fails to cover and explain all the phenomena,
�The Mystery of Evil.
ig
he unhesitatingly abandons it, and there is no other
alternative left to an inductive theologian—if there
be such a person—when he is placed in a similar
position. The facts in the present instance are
agreed upon by all. There is a large proportion,
if not preponderance, of what is known as Evil
in the world; and if the idea of an infinitely
wise and good personal Deity tend to embarrass
instead of allaying the difficulties we have been
examining, clearly the idea of an universal ruler
ought, in loyalty to truth, to be removed from the
category of our beliefs, let the sentimental associa
tions be ever so hallowed and strong that have
gathered round it, and the same remark applies to
the allied dogma of free will in man.
As regards the first of these points, the justice of
the course recommended is strengthened when we
consider that the existence of such an almighty
person is incapable of scientific or any other kind of
proof worthy consideration. At the same time, in
venturing this remark, I wish emphatically to disclaim all sympathy with positive Atheism; for a
dogmatic negation of any vitalizing and controlling
force in the universe, not being itself the universe, is
almost as objectionable as the most dogmatic form of
Theism. All I contend for is, that there is no ground
for believing in what theologians call a personal God,
in other words, “a magnified man” invested with
certain characteristics of humanity attributed to him,
these attributes being only infinitely extended.
Doubtless Theists, and particularly Christian Theists,
will be ready to adduce in reply their usual argu
ment for the existence of a personal Deity derived
from their intuitions. This, consistently enough, is
also the stronghold of Christian faith in the doctrine
of “a supernatural gospel,” namely, “its felt adapta
tion to the spiritual wants of Christian believers.”
And the more rapidly and convincingly the evidences
�20
The Mystery of Evil.
of science and historical criticism accumulate on the
non-supernatural and non-Theistic side, they shut
their eyes the closer, scream the louder against “ the
wickedness of Atheistic materialism,” and plunge
deeper into the sentimental abyss of their “ intuitions.”
Here is a passage a propos, written by one of the
ablest and best read leaders of the reactionary, semi
mystic, evangelical school which owes its origin (as
opposed) to the “fierce light” of modern thought,
against which the writer lifts a warning voice.
“ But whether we represent a ‘ new school ’ or a
theological 1 reaction ’ we say frankly that, in our
judgment, the exigencies of the times require that
Christian Churches, and especially Christian ministers,
should meet the dogmas of materialism and anti-super
naturalism with the most direct and uncompromising
hostility. It is not for us to vewn men to suppose that rve
regard the existence of the living God as an open ques
tion. Nor shall we make any deep impression on the
minds of men 2/ our faith in Jesus Christ rests on
grounds that are accessible to historical, scientific, or
philosophical criticism. If we are to meet modern
unbelief successfully we must receive that direct
revelation of Christ which will enable us to say ‘ we
have heard him, we have seen him ourselves and
know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour
of the world ! ’ ” The great object of this school
seems to be to make a religious “ impression ” in
Evangelical fashion, and stamp out all that frustrates
their doing so, proceeding from the sceptical camp.
The historical truth or error of the thing taught
seems to be of secondary consideration provided it
can be made to dovetail with Evangelical intuitions.
These intense believers deliberately tell us that it is
of no use our calling their attention to discrepancies
in the Gospel narratives by which these sources of
Christian facts are rendered historically untrust
worthy. They assure us that such criticism is idle
�21
The Mystery of Evil.
-and beside the mark, and they console themselves
with the belief that these discrepancies are only
apparent, and that if we could but compare the
original documents (which, by the way, nobody has
ever seen or can find the least trace of) instead of
the mere copies of them (these pretended copies
being all we possess), we should be immediately
convinced !
*
So in regard to the existence of a personal Deity,
instead of looking at the facts as they are, they
assure us that, if we could only know all the compli
cations of -the divine government, our difficulty in
believing in their Deity would disappear. But those
who fall back on the fitness of their conception of
Deity to their intuitions as a proof of his existence,
while perhaps feeling that this argument affords
perfect satisfaction to themselves, place an insuper
able barrier against all interchange of reasoning
between themselves and those who hold opposite
convictions. Any one who hides in the recesses
of his intuitions, has sunk into a state of intel
lectual somnolency from which no argument can
wake him.
There are some Theistic apologists, however, who
still have unshaken faith in the argument from design,
as establishing the existence of a beneficent designer.
But the fallacy of this argument is obvious. The
premises and conclusion stand thus :—“ Every object
which bears marks of design necessarily points to
the existence of an intelligent designer. The universe
is such an object, therefore it had an intelligent
designer.” But it is usually forgotten that this con
clusion is arrived at by comparing the universe with
an object—a watch for example, that can bear no
* The weak point in this intuitional argument is that it proves too
much. It is the favourite proof with large sections of the adherents
of Buddhism, Brahminism, Fire-worship, and Mahometanism respec
tively, by which these systems are all _fe.lt to be supernatural revela
tions. Therefore by proving too much it proves nothing.
C
�22
The Mystery of Evil.
analogy to it. It is taken for granted that the uni
verse sustains the same relation to a personal Creator
which a piece of mechanism does to a mortal con
triver.
Now, it might be perfectly fair to compare one piece
of human handiwork with another, and infer that
both suggested the application of power and intelli
gence equal to their construction. But in comparing
the universe—there being only one, and that oneinfinite, with articles of man’s invention, which are
many and finite—are we not comparing the known
with the unknown, and carrying the principle of
analogy into a region where it can have no place ?
It may be just to infer that as one work of human
arrangement naturally implies skill in the maker, so
another work bearing marks of human contrivance,
should, in like manner, suggest to us the action of a
thinking mind. But science is so far in the dark as
to the mainspring of life, motion and development in
the one universe that we should be totally unwarranted
by the laws of thought in arguing from the origin of
what is discoverable to the orgin of what is undiscover*
able. To reason, therefore, from design in the
operations of man to design in the operations of
nature is illogical and impossible.
■ One of the most remarkable signs of change, of
late, in the conception of Deity, among progressive
thinkers, who still cling to the skirts of recognised reli
gious institutions, is the effort that has been made to
reconcile an impersonal Power influencing and shaping
the evolution of the universe with the teachings of
the Bible. The line of thought in Mr. Matthew
Arnold’s ‘ Literature and Dogma ’ has very decidedly
this leaning. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say
* Axiom V., in the Tractaius Theolcgico-Politicos of Spinoza is
decisive on this point. “ Things that have nothing in common with
each other cannot be understood by means of each other; i.e., the concep
tion of the one does not involve the conception of the other.”
�The Mystery of Evil.
23
that this writer labours to turn the current notion of
a personal God into ridicule, and even seeks to prove
that, at least, the ancient Hebrews were not in sym
pathy with such a notion. Some will take leave to
doubt whether Mr. Arnold’s views of the Hebrew
conception of God be not more ingenious than accu
rate, and whether he may not have foisted far-fetched
theories of his own upon the text of the Bible in his
zeal to make out his case. But, at any rate, we have
the phenomenon of a writer cherishing devotion to
the teaching of Scripture and concern for the main
tenance of the national Church, and yet sapping the
foundations of orthodoxy, and actually sneering at
the idea of faith in a personal Deity, though pro
fessed gravely by eminent bishops—the two whose
names he repeats ad nauseam throughout the essay.
Another recent book of essays, written with a
*
similar purpose, but in a more reverent and philo
sophic spirit, is not unworthy of notice. The author
*
is a Nonconformist minister, and a member of the
London School Board—a gentleman of marked ability
and wide culture. The peculiarity of his position is
that while, like the Broad Church clergy, conducting"
his service with a liturgy and a hymn-book, fashioned
after orthodox models, he has openly renounced the
dogma of the Supernatural in his pulpit teaching, and
rejected the notion of a personal God. He has chosen
to represent himself as a “ Christian Pantheist,”—a
term which we may be excused for deeming para
doxical—and strives throughout the volume to bring
his statements into accord with certain passages in
the New Testament. The essays reveal more than an
average (as well as a discriminating) acquaintance
with ancient and modern philosophy and theology,
and with the resnlts of modern science in relation to
* ‘ The Mystery of Matter, and other Essays.’ By J. Allanson Picton,
M.A. Macmillan. 187.3.
�24
The Mystery of Evil.
the nature of the Universe. His thoughts are, now
and then, diffuse, but they are always expressed with
a wealth of language and sometimes with an eloquence
not ordinarily met with in theological disquisitions.
There are, however, as it seems to me, weak points,
I had almost said occasional contradictions, in his
reasoning, into which he may have been unconsciously
led by his unique ecclesiastical relations, but which it
is beyond the scope of the present paper to criticise
at length, nevertheless, het forcibly opposes the old
error which made a distinction between matter and
spirit, and he reduces the Universe, with Professor
Huxley, to a unity, namely, substance, of which what
have been vulgarly described as matter and spirit are
simply the phenomena. He further boldly rejects all
theories which regard Deity as one amidst a host of
other beings, and while, with religious fervour, recog
nising the presence of an efficient though unnameable
energy as vitalising and controlling all molecular
forces, he seems, at the same time, to identify that
unkown efficient energy with universal substance,
and accords to it the right and title to be formally
worshipped. I respectfully think he is not always
clear and consistent in this part of his theme. Some
times he refers—as Spinoza himself does—to this
vitalising and all-comprehending essence as if it were
invested with attributes of intelligence, wisdom, and
goodness, without which attributes the writer’s insistance upon the worship of universal substance as deity
would be a misnomer. And yet, difficult though it be
to discover homogeneity between certain parts of
these essays, in one respect the author’s aim through
out is unmistakeable. Se emphatically pronounces
against the existence of a personal Deity. Some of his
remarks in opposition to the design argument are
especially worth quoting :—■
“ It is demonstrable that there must be some fallacy
m such an argument as that of Paley. For if it be
�The Mystery of Evil.
25
rigorously applied, it cannot prove what Paley cer
tainly wished to establish—the existence of an omni
potent and omniscient worker. ... If we are to
see design only when we can compliment nature on
an apparent resemblance to operations of human skill;
and if, the moment that resemblance ceases, we are
to confess our ignorance and to refrain from carrying
the analogy further, would it not be better, seeing
how infinitely larger is our ignorance than our know
ledge, to recognise in both bearings of the analogy
an appearance only which, though for some purposes
practically useful, is infinitely below the divine reality.
. . Of whatever value the analogy of human
design may be, no one would think of insisting upon
its admitted imperfections as a part of the argument;
and yet, without pressing those imperfections, it is
impossible to make the argument consistent. But if
it be fairly carried out, what it proves is this, that an
omnipotent designer, intending to produce a beautiful
and perfect work, went through millions of opera
tions, when a single fiat would have sufficed; that
these operations consisted not in clearly-aimed and
economical modifications of material, but in the evolu
tion of a thousand imperfect products, amongst which
some single one might form a step to the next stage,
while all the rest were destroyed ; and thus the living
material wasted was immensely greater than that
which was used; that myriads of weaklings were
suffered to struggle together, as though omniscience
could not decide, without experiment, which were
the better worth preserving ; that in each successive
modification the worker preserved, as far as was pos
sible, the form of the previous stage, until it was found
to be inconsistent with life; nay, that he carefully
introduced into each successive product parts which
had become obsolete, useless, and even dangerous—
and all not through any inevitable conditions—for
omnipotence excludes them, but in pursuit of a
�26
The Mystery of Evil.
mysterious plan, the reasons for which, as well as its
nature, are acknowledged to be utterly inscrutable.
Analogies which lead to such issues surely cannot be
of much value for the nobler aims of religion.” *
The other cause of the difficulty encountered in
probing “ the Mystery of Evil ” is the traditional
notions entertained by many, of the action of the
human will. Man is represented by the orthodox as
a “free agent ” (I except, of course, hyper-Calvinists
who now form a very small minority among Chris
tians), and the doctrine of volitional liberty has
acquired prominence in theological and philosophical
discussions; not from any practical influence the doc
trine can exert, one way or another, on the actual
conduct of life, but simply from the accident that the
question whether the will was absolutely free or deter
mined by necessity happened to be thrown to the
surface, in the fifth century, in the theological battle
between the Augustinians and the Pelagians. The
inquiry is itself interesting and important, but many
mental philosophers from that period until recently,
having a dread of the odium theologicum, have been
desirous it should be known that they were “ sound ”
on the subject, and have been particular in declaring
themselves on the orthodox side. The strong enun
ciation of one view has called forth an equally vigor
ous statement of the opposite theory, and hence
philosophers have filed off into two sharply defined
parties—libertarians and necessitarians—so that the
importance that has come to be attached to the
free-will controversy is, in a great measure, adven
titious.
The introduction of moral evil into the world, as
before stated, has been ascribed by the greater number
of Christians to the voluntary disobedience of the pro
genitor of the race. Tradition has handed down the un
scientific and unhistoric story of an original man who,
* ‘ Mystery of Matter,’ pp. 330, 340, 345.
�The Mystery of Evil.
17
having been severely plied with temptation in order
to test his virtue, voluntarily broke a certain arbitrary
and positive command of his maker, and involved him
self and his posterity in tendencies to wrong-doing
which could only be corrected by supernatural means.
But, without debating the wide question of the origin
of mankind, manifestly men are so constituted and
surrounded that limitations are placed as indubitably
upon their volitional faculty as upon their other men
tal powers. So that in no libertarian sense can we
be said to be free agents. The form a man’s charac
ter takes is necessarily dependent on his innate pre
dispositions and capacities—the form and size of
brain and cast of temperament which he derives from
his parents—and on the nature and extent of the in
fluences under which he is trained. Some natures
are constitutionally more attuned to intellectual and
moral harmony than others, and when impelled by
favourable influences from without, there is little
merit in their moving in the line of conformity to
truth and right. There are other natures that inherit
less fortunate tendencies, to whom virtue must always
be the result of conscious effort, and especially if
they be encircled with influences unfriendly to the
culture of a high and noble life. It is certain that if
such persons attain any considerable degree of good
ness, the end will be reached through the experience
of error and folly and of the natural penalties attach
ing to both. As far as I can understand, the chief
ground of the alarm affected by a certain class of phi
losophers and theologians at the idea of human actions
being determined by necessity is the morbid and ficti
tious weight they have given to the doctrine of indi
vidual responsibility; I say morbid and fictitious, be
cause whether a man violates the laws of nature or of
society he is sooner or later made to bear more or
less of his share of responsibility in enduring the
natural punishment due to the offence. Had the
�28
The Mystery of Evil.
same amount of concern been felt by society about
their collective share of responsibility in reference to
the physical, intellectual, and moral well-being of
individuals as is felt about the influence of necessi
tarianism upon 1‘ men’s felt sense of individual respon
sibility ” the results to the community and the race
would have been much more rational and beneficial.
I am persuaded that the individual conduct of citizens
—be they good or bad—is not affected in the slightest
degree, for better or for worse, by the views they
may entertain of the philosophy of the human will.
This might be proved demonstratively did space
permit.
The kernel of this controversy, then, lies in the
inquiry, Whether the will is absolutely self-determina
tive, and capable of arbitrarily kicking the beam,
when motives present to the mind, and tending in
opposite directions, seem to be evenly balanced; or
whether, in every instance, the motive, embracing a
great variety of considerations in the mind itself as
well as in the circumstances around it, do not infal
libly determine the character of the choice that is
made. If the libertarian view be the right one, no
certainty can be ever predicated as to the effect upon
the conduct of uniformly good or bad motives, and,
consequently, the most earnest and philanthropic ex
ertions to improve the world are, at best, dishearten
ing. But since it can be demonstrated that the for
mation of human habits is governed by necessary
laws, and that these laws can be ascertained and acted
upon with the undoubted assurance that correspond
ing results may be anticipated, the labours of science
and philanthropy are animated by a well-founded
hope that they need not be expended in vain. What,
then, is “ will” but simply that faculty or power of
the mind by which we are capable of choosing ? And
an act of will is the same as an act of choice. That
which uniformly determines the will is the motive which,
�The Mystery of Evil.
29
as it stands in the view of the mind, is the strongest.
The motive is that which excites or invites the mind
to volition, whether that be one thing singly or many
things conjointly. By necessity, in this connection, is
meant nothing more than the philosophical certainty
of the relation between given antecedents and conse
quents in the production of actions. Man, like every
other sentient being, is necessarily actuated by a
desire for happiness, according to his particular esti
mate of it. It would be a contradiction to suppose
that he could hate happiness, or that he could desire
misery for its own sake, or with a perception that it
was such. He is placed in circumstances in which a
vast variety of objects address themselves to this
predominating desire, some promising to gratify it in
a higher degree, some in a lower, some appealing to
one part of his nature and some to another. He
cannot but be attracted to those objects and those
courses of conduct which his reason or his appetites,
or both combined, assure him are likely to gratify
his desire of happiness. The various degrees or kinds
of real and apparent good, promised by different ob
jects or courses of conduct, constitute the motives
which incline him to act in pursuance of the general
desire of happiness which is the grand impulse of
his nature. Sometimes he really sees and sometimes
he imagines he sees (and as regards their influence
on the will they come to the same thing) greater
degrees of good in some objects or proposed courses
of conduct than in others; and this constitutes pre
ponderance of motive, ‘that is, a greater measure of
real or apparent good at the time of any particular
volition. This preponderance of motive will be as is
the character of the moral agent and the circum
stances of the objects, taken conjointly. This pre
ponderance of motive will be, therefore, not only
different in different individuals, but different in
different individuals at different times. That which
�30
I
The Mystery of Evil.
at any particular time is or appears to promise the
greatest good, will uniformly decide the Will. This
*
necessarily flows from the tendency of a sentient
nature to seek happiness at all, and is, indeed, only a
particular application of the same general principle;
inasmuch as it would imply as great a contradiction
that a being capable of happiness should not take
that which it deems will confer, all things considered,
a greatef degree of happiness rather than that which
will confer a less, as it would be to imagine it not
seeking happiness rather than the contrary, or some
happiness rather than none. This certainty of con
nection between the preponderance of motive and
the decisions of the will is what is meant by necessity,
as simply implying that the cause will as certainly
be followed by the appropriate effect in this instance
as in any instance of the mutual connection of cause
and effect whatever.
!
*"
Motive sustains a dynamical relation to will, as a
cause does to an effect in physics. Therefore the only
liberty which man possesses or can possess, is not the
liberty of willing as he will—which is an idea philo
sophically absurd—but of acting as he wills, accord
ing to the laws of necessity. Otherwise he would
be independent of cause; and, indeed, libertarians
actually assert that a motive is not the cause, but
only the occasion of choice.J Either human volitions
are effects or they are not. If they are effects, they
are consequents indissolubly associated with the an
tecedent causes or motives which precede them;
* “ The greatest of two pleasures or what appears such, sways the
resulting action, for it is this resulting action that alone determines
which is the greatest.”—Bain on the * Emotions and the Will,’ p. 447.
t This is the course of argument adopted by Edwards in his re
markable book on the Will, and it is admirably summarised by Henry
Rogers in his ‘ Essay on the Genius and Writings of Edwards,’ pre
fixed to the Complete Edition of his Works, pp. xx to xxiv.
. t For this distinction, enforced by Hrs. Clarke and Price, see remarks
m Bain’s ‘ Mind and Body,’ p. 76 ; also in ‘ The Refutation of Edwards,’
by Tappan.
I
�The Mystery of Evil.
31
■and therefore “ the liberty of indifference ” is im■ possible.
*
If human volitions be not effects, the
actions of men are independent of condition or rela
tion, undetermined by motives or antecedents, and
for that reason removed beyond the domain of that
principle of necessary law which is the sole guarantee
for the order and progress of the Universe.f
The elimination from this problem, therefore, of
the conception of a Deity clothed with personal and
moral attributes and of the notion of a self-deter
mining will in man, liberates it from all mystery and
difficulty whatsoever; for if there be no personal
God the existence of physical evil casts no imputa
tion upon the infinite character attributed to him.
And if there be no “ liberty of indifference” in man,
he is exempt from the charge of being, in any sense,
the originator of moral evil, as the circumstances
that constitute his motives are made/or him and not
by him; and therefore the praise of virtue and the
blame of vice and, in fact, the whole theory of con
science as held by the vulgar, are annulled.
WTat is the distinct reality left to us, then, after
we have parted with these two inventions of fancy ?
The pith of the matter may be conveniently summed
up in a few simple propositions
* Definition VII. in the ‘ Tractatus ’ of Spinoza runs thus:—“That
thing' is said to be free which exists by the sole necessity of its own nature,
and ly itself alone is determined to action. But that is necessary or
rather constrained which owes its existence to another and acts according
to certain and determinate causes. ”
+ The controversy on Free Will and Necessity has, within the last
quarter of a century, passed from the region of mere theological wrang
ling into the circle of scientific studies, and has assumed to the social
and moral Reform er practical importance. The subject now claims the
attention of all who would have intelligent views of the moral condi
tion and prospects of Humanity and who seek to work hopefully for
its regeneration. It is not within the province of this Essay to par
ticularise the various recent phases of the controversy, but those who
are alive to the importance of the subject cannot fail to find intensely
interesting those chapters bearing upon it in such works as Mill’s
‘Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy,’Bain’s ‘ Com
pendium ot Meniai and Moral Science,’ and Herbert Spencer’3 ‘Study
of Sociology.’
�32
The Mystery of Evil.
1. All we can know of the Universe is phenomena,
—(including the molecular force-centres into which
existing organisms are resolvable by scientific analysis)
—and the fixed uniformity of the laws that regulate
and control the physical and moral evolutions and
developments of universal substance; but of noumena
we can know nothing, and consequently any dogmatic
definition—positive or negative, of a primal cause, in
or beyond substance, or not in or beyond substance
—is totally unsustained by facts. Therefore the sys
tems of Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Atheism
are mere hypotheses, which all involve unproved
assumptions. As regards the existence of any over
ruling power, we are in a state of nescience. As
regards motives and actions, all we know is the uni
form and necessary relation of sequence that exists
between them—nothing more.
2. The universe, or, at least, the portion of it with
which we have immediate acquaintance, is being
slowly and gradually developed from rudimental
elements, from confusion and discord to order and
harmony ; and this remark applies, throughout, to
physical, intellectual, and moral life. Thus it follows
that the generations of mankind, up to the present,
having been brought upon the planet before it has
reached the state of complete development and per
fect equipoise of forces, are fated to suffer those
physical trials which arise from storms, floods, earth
quakes, droughts, blights, and other casualties, which,
when the material agencies around us have attained
more perfect equilibrium, may be expected to dis
appear. There are many more physical inconveniences
experienced by the race by reason of their still
necessarily limited knowledge of the operations of
nature, of the laws of being, and of their true
relations to the world and humanity, and by reason
of the yet very imperfect stage of human culture.
It is inevitable, therefore, that numerous diseases and
�The Mystery of Evil.
33
sufferings should be encountered, which a broader
intelligence and a clearer forethought will, in the
distant future, be able to anticipate and prevent.
3. “ Evil ” is a word which originated with theolo
gians, and which, from its vagueness and ambiguity,
has introduced much of the mystification and error
that have beclouded past investigations of the subject.
In its primitive signification and as applied in theo
logy, ev^ had a penal character assigned to it, and it
derived that character from the childish tradition long
believed by adherents of churches, that physical dis
asters, including disease and death, were the result of
a trivial transgression committed by “ Adam.” The
same cause has been adduced to account for all the
moral obliquities which have brought pain and misery
npon the descendants of the first man. “ Sin,” which
denotes the moral side of evil, in the language of
theology, is represented as being at once an effect
and a cause of the first transgression. But with the
rejection of the idea of a personal Ruler of the world,
“evil” and “sin” in the sense in which they are
usually understood by the orthodox, are rendered
meaningless. Both these terms point back to a period
in the intellectual and moral childhood of mankind,
before the universal and uniform action of Law was
dreamt of, and when human duty was held to consist
only of a series of positive commands, formally pro
claimed by an infinite personal governor, and con
stituting his “ revealed will,” for the direction of his
creatures. And for the perpetuation of this anti
quated belief down to the present we are indebted to
stereotyped creeds, which clergymen and ministers of
religious bodies still solemnly pledge themselves to
maintain. But the light of science presents the
source of duty and the nature and standard of
morals, in our time, in an altered aspect. In this
amended view there is nothing corresponding to the
theological ideas of evil and sin in the world, at all.
�34
The Mystery of Evil.
What is called evil is simply a synonym for imper
fection in the material or moral circumstances of
humanity, or in both. The earth has not yet attained
its ultimate and perfect form, and the mind
of man has not yet acquired a full and prac
tical knowledge of the working of law so as to
guard successfully against collisions with the more
violent and dangerous agencies of nature, and so as
to use nature as a minister of good. What is known
as sin or wrong-doing is nothing more than the
result of human ignorance, which is but another form,
again, of imperfection. Many acts, I am aware, are
called sinful by clerics and their votaries, but such
transgressions, though ranked by orthodox teachers as
equally obnoxious to divine displeasure with acknow
ledged natural immoralities, are found when looked
into to be only ecclesiastical sins—sins of priestly
manufacture which have no place in nature and no
recognition in the enlightened conscience. That this
is the only true account of the matter is evident
from the fact that, as men become familiar with the
uniform operations of nature in their bearing on
human welfare, the ills of life perceptibly diminish,
and the necessity of conforming, in every sphere of
existence, to natural law comes to have the force of
a safe and efficient guiding impulse. No sane being
ever did wilfully what he knew to militate against
individual or social happiness as an ulterior end, and
no one ever continued to practise habits having this
tendency a single moment after his mind became
really sensible of the character and influence of his
doings. That acts mischievous and cruel are too
often committed there can be no doubt; but the
mischief or the cruelty is always and only accidental
to the design the malicious person has in view.
Many, it is true, persist in doing what they profess to
know is at variance with the principles of justice,
honour, and utility, and hence the apparent anomaly
�The Mystery of Evil.
3^
of proper knowledge and, improper conduct some
times being found united in the same person. But
the anomaly is only apparent; for the individual
professing to know what befits his relations to the
universe and to society, and yet doing what contra
dicts that knowledge, deceives himself that he
possesses suitable knowledge at all. Knozvledge, in
such a connection, is confounded with notions. A
man may have a woftm or a dim idea of what he
ought to do or to be, in his
or his memory,
but in this instance the notion is held by the mind as
an impotent sentiment or a barren tradition, the meresemblance of actual knowledge. The notion of a
thing is but a theoretic or hypothetical conception, and
does not penetrate the mind and touch the springs of
action. All knowledge, worthy to be so designated,
enters into us and becomes conviction, modifying
thought, feeling, and will. So that all the faults—
so-called—committed by individuals and communities
have proceeded from their not knowing better. Even
the crucifixion of the founder of Christianity is
ascribed, in the New Testament to this cause. “ I
wot,” says St. Peter, ££ that ye did it ignorantly.”
This point receives irresistible confirmation on every
hand. The vast proportion of crimes of violence,
such as wife-beating, garotte-robbery, manslaughter,
and murder, are confined for the most part to one class
of society—those who live beyond the pale of education
and refinement, agencies by which feelings of decency
and humanity are fostered. And the only cause of
the difference between this social stratum and the one
above it is that the training of the better class of
people is favourable to the controlling of their
passions, at least as regards the commission of
crimes of that hue. The sexual vices, again, are not
confined to any particular social grade. They are
probably indulged in as great a ratio by the well-to-do
as by the lower orders. But if we compare the victims
�36
The Mystery of Evil.
of licentiousness, of whatever social grade, with the
philosophic and the devout who have been taught to
hold these vices in abhorrence, we here, again, find
the same rule hold good. The culture of the pureminded has been specially directed to the instructing
of the mind in the bad consequences of this sort of
vice, and to the habituating of the mind to the
moderation and government of animal appetencies.
In like manner the difference between the false ideas
and practices of many at one period of their lives,
and their improved ideas and practices at another,
lies alone in the fact that they have come to know
better.
The drift of this reasoning is plain. The ever
widening circle of knowledge, the knowledge of mani
fold truth in physics and morals, is the grand power by
which the upward march of Humanity is to be secured.
But, as has been already observed, knowledge, con
sidered as the great curative principle, is not a mere
fortuitous concourse of facts, however good and useful
in themselves, thrown into the mind, any more than
food is muscular strength. Our diet must first become
assimilated with the tissues; and so knowledge, which
strengthens, renovates, and elevates, is the concen
trated essence of principles which the thoughtful
mind extracts from any given collection of facts.
This representation of the case is as consoling as
it is true; for it reveals a “ silvery lining ” in the
cloud of prevailing human suffering, which inspires
joy and hope as we contemplate the future of the
world. It is a law of nature that every common
bane should carry with it a common antidote, and
a careful inspection of history makes it clear that
it is the tendency of each separate species of error
and wrong-doing to wear itself out. The discovery of
imperfection, usually made through enduring the
painful results thereof, leads towards perfection in
every department of human interests. Every dis
�37
The Mystery of Evil.
comfort, physical and moral, that vexes the lot of
man, reaches a crisis; human effort is immediately
braced up to grapple with the crisis, and inventive
. brains are excited to devise expedients for its removal.
Thus have all social and political improvements been
effected.
The method of viewing the problem of evil whicn
has been adopted in the preceding pages is the only
one compatible with an unruffled state of mind in
presence of the defects of our race that frequently
offer us such bitter provocation in daily life—bigotry,
cruelty, stupidity, selfishness, ingratitude, and pride.
A wise man once remarked ironically : “ There are
words in Scripture that afford me unspeakable conso
lation when I have to encounter a person who is
unreasonable and unjust. ‘ Every creature after its
kind.’ If such a man attempts to over-reach or insult
me; if he show treachery or unkindness ; if he deceive
or malign me, I look at him with pity, and my sym
pathy for his misfortune in inheriting a defective
organisation, or in lacking efficient intellectual and
moral discipline, neutralises the anger I should other
wise feel towards him.” Thus the practical philosopher
remains undisturbed by the turbulent passions that
blind and warp the minds of the mass, who are
affected chiefly by superficial effects, the causes of
which they have not the patience or the capacity to
discriminate.
When the principles that have been enunciated
become intelligently and generally recognised, they
will not fail to produce a revolution in our whole
system of dealing with vice and legislating for crime.
The popular way of treating offences of all kinds at
present is as absurd as it would be, after the fashion
of our ancestors, to carry a bay-leaf as a preventive
of thunder, or to remove scrofula by hanging round
the neck a baked toad in a silk bag. Social irregu
larities of whatever kind, in a more rational age, will
D
�38
The Mystery of Evil.
no longer be visited with inflictions of corporeal pain,
whether deficient nourishment, the application of the
cat, confinement in a dismal cell, imposition of aimless
grinding labour or chains. Far less will the mur
derous propensity to kick or beat or stab or poison a
fellow-creature, be punished by so preposterous an
instrument as the gallows or the guillotine. When
acts of violence against society come to be viewed as
the result of an imperfect nature or deficient know
ledge and culture, care will be taken by the State to
lay hold of the child through the influence of the
school, and insist by compulsion on every citizen from
tender years being taught the laws, social and legal,
under which he is expected to live. And when any
are found in riper years to give suspicion that the
lessons of their youth are overborne by innate bad
tendencies, public opinion, then enlightened as it
will be by science, will, in a spirit of philosophic
sympathy for the misfortune of the wrong-doer,
demand his prompt separation for a time, at least,
from his more fortunate neighbours, and his subjection
before any extreme manifestation of his propensity
accrues, to a beneficent regime, partly educational and
partly medical, to enable him, as far as possible, to
obtain the mastery over his besetting morbid tenden
cies, and merit a place once more, if possible, among
well-conducted members of the community. The
attempt, as now, to set the world right by teaching
theological dogmas and by the agitations of revivalistic
or ritualistic fanaticisms, or by the existing lex talionis
of our criminal law, is mere ridiculous and wasteful
tinkering. To permit a system of commerce which
offers the worst temptations for the commission of
fraud and fosters a heartless competition, that often
*
drives the honest and the weak to the wall, and then
* The noble-souled Robert Owen used to denounce it as “ that
monster, competition; ” and by the way, it is worthy of remark, that
the evident tendency of social reform now is in the very wake of the
�The Mystery of Evil.
39
to treat as outcasts the victims of intemperance and
poverty which this unnatural system contributes to
produce, and punish them with the degradation of
the jail or the workhouse, is as senseless and cruel as
to sanction gins and snares in the highway and then
whip men for falling into them. These social absur
dities, arising from crass ignorance of the constitution
of man, and of physical and moral law, cannot last
for ever. They may be hallowed by prestige, pom
pous judicial ceremony, and Parliamentary prece
dent, but they belong to a transitional stage of social
life which is doomed before the triumphs of science
and philosophy. The old shallow and mischievous
scheme of reformation which exhibits a jealous Deity
consigning wrong-doers to eternal death and the ma
gistrate as “a terror to evil-doers,” will be superseded
by a method of government in which the revolting
penal code now practised by civilised nations will
have no place, and in which, without exception, the
reform of the offender will be the supreme considera
tion, while the peace and safety of society will be
found to be promoted thereby. And surely such
happy anticipations for the race are a satisfactory
compensation for the sacrifice truth compels us to
make in parting with the illusions of our intellectual
childhood,—the dogmas of a personal God and a self
determining will.
The world is, indeed, racked and torn by selfish
ness, cruelty, ignorance, and folly. Communities
and individuals have writhed under burdens of sorrow
from the beginning. But manifestly the natural
tendency of physical and moral law is not to produce
system of Owen which the “ respectable classes ” used to smile at as
Utopian. Most intelligent men are either tacitly or openly coming
round to the persuasion that “ Man is the Creature of Circumstances.
Mr. Owen probably inadvertently left out certain factors, indispensable
to the success of his “New Moral World.” But he has pointed out
for us the only true path, and the failure of his scheme was a grand
success.
�40
The Mystery of Evil.
these effects, but quite the contrary; and the com
plete happiness of the race is to be attained through
the knowledge of law and yielding submission to it.
But this great consummation can only be accom
plished by slow degrees. A thousand years in this
business is “ as a watch in the night.” If it should
be asked, why should this training to perfect virtue
and happiness be so slow and painful, and why
should such slow and painful discipline be the only
safe and solid basis on which the progress of
humanity can be established, there is no answer
except that in the nature of things it must be so.
Suppose that we were living on some fair and perfect
planet when the earth was in its once fluid state, and
that we saw the huge animals belonging to that
geological period wallowing in the mire and obscured
by the dense fogs which then enveloped the half
formed world’. If that had been our first introduc
tion to the present abode of man we should probably
have concluded, had we no previous experience of
such a state of things'elsewhere, that a world of sea
and mud, with volcanoes ever and anon spouting
forth their lava and steamy vapours shutting out
the light, could never become fitted for human
habitation. But this, nevertheless, was the elemental
chaos, out of which our globe was, in the course of
countless ages, evolved. So the present development
of the moral world bears some analogy to the physi
cal state of the earth in the primeval ages. It is
still very gradually emerging out of its original intel
lectual and moral formlessness, and is yet a long
way from the harmony and beauty with which
humanity will, m future ages, be crowned. For any
one, therefore, to judge of the tendency and goal of
the universe from the seething troubles and pangs
that harass the world’s life now in its slow transition
state, would be as rash as for the imagined spectator
of the chaotic earth before man came upon it to
�The Mystery of Evil.
41
suppose that it could never be built up into a
habitable world. The error consists in judging the
whole circle of material and moral development by
the very small segment of the circle which we have
an opportunity of seeing. But a retrospect of
human history justifies the assurance that in nature
there underlies all present contradictions and incom
patibilities, a moulding principle that will eventually
transmute all incongruities into palpable consistency.
The very tardiness, therefore, of the process by which
humanity is to attain its highest possible life may be
taken as a guarantee for the permanent advance of
that life when it is realised. It is not for us now
living, or for immediately succeeding generations to
participate in this Elysium of prophetic forecast, at
least in our present state of existence; but instead
of moping over our inevitable fate, and groaning
over the woes of the world, it is more becoming cul
tured manhood to bear that fate with philosophic
fortitude, make the best of it, and help our fellow
mortals to do the same. The idea of “ the Colossal
Man, ’ first worked by a great German writer, and
repeated in the retracted essay of Dr. Temple, looks in
the direction to which these remarks point. Humanity
must be viewed as a whole. Particular nations may
decay, but man is destined to rise to a higher plane
of being. For an indefinitely long period he is kept
under the tutelage of grievous trials, which, in the
wonderful economy of nature, have the effect of
unfolding and invigorating his powers, that he may
rise to the highest possible knowledge, and use that
knowledge in correcting his faults, so that at length
he may be brought into perfect accord with his own
noblest moral ideal, and with the general progressive
movement of the universe. Even if, for scores of
thousands of years, vast continents and islands of
savage or semi-barbarous people live and then perish,
there is no waste. Neither is there waste anywhere
�42
*
The Mystery of Evil.
in the laboratory of nature’s forces. Had we seen
the germs which afterwards developed into primeval
forests, when these germs were just beginning to
sprout in the bare rocky earth, we could not have
dreamt of so mighty a use in store for them. But
could we come back to the spot centuries afterwards
when these tiny beeches and pines had grown into
giant trees, the function of the insignificant germs
would be obvious. The yearly shedding of the leaves of
the trees into which they have grown has covered with
mould the once barren surface in which they were
planted, and supplied land suitable for the sowing of our
crops. So the primeval trees in the forest of humanity,
the first races, to all appearance not worth the power
expended on their existence and support; these early
races and tribes—so unproductive for ages—have
been permitted to shed their millions of human
leaves to make soil in the moral world. The bar
barism that once reigned over the greater part of
the earth is a pledge, in the arrangements of nature,
that humanity will never, as a whole, return to
barbarism again. The child cannot grow into the
shrewd, cautious, enterprising man, but through the
tumbles and bruises of childhood and the mistakes
of passionate youth. Our measured intelligence,
charity, and tolerance in the present century, has
grown out of the ignorance, superstition, and intoler
ance of all the ages that have preceeded. The primi
tive races were allowed to live a life of low civilisa
tion, and so by the picture of wretchedness they
present for the warning of those who come after
them, prove at once a beacon of warning and an
effectual safeguard against the higher races that come
after, sinking back to the same condition. The same
consoling reflection applies to all the pains and dis
comforts which the good and the bad alike suffer in
our present condition. These untoward circumstances,
dark though they be, are not a mere waste of power,
�The Mystery of Evil.
43
but mark an epoch in universal progress—needful,
disciplinary, transitional, leading to grander issues,—
to universal conformity to the standard of universal
harmony. If in this unique development the interests
of individuals and races,—whose lot happens to be
cast in the early or intermediate periods of that
development,—are not so favoured as those of mankind
will be in the happier and more remote future, such a
consideration is subordinate, and not to be named in
comparison with the final result—the expansion,
culture, and coherent use of all the faculties of
humanity, the extinction of disease, want, strife, and
suffering of every kind ; and if such an end is only
to be gained, for a permanence, through physical and
moral suffering in preceding ages of the world, the
result may possibly well repay the cost. Nay, I
think science justifies me in going farther. I might
venture to add that the trials to which individuals
and nations have ever been exposed in this life are
introductory to a state of being beyond the present,
when the island earth will be one in spirit with the
invisible “ summer-land,” when free and pleasant
communion between the embodied in the former
state, and the disembodied in the latter, will be
possible, when the sea of material and moral discord
that now divides the one state from the other will
be dried up, and when the last speck of imper
fection that sullied the purity and splendour of
regenerated humanity will be effaced.
In the immortal words of our Laureate :
“ 0 ! yet, we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will,
Defects of doubts and taints of blood;
That nothing walks with aimless feet;
That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When Nature makes the pile complete. »
�44
IFhe Mystery of Evil.
That not a worm is cloven in vain,
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivelled in a fruitless fire
Or but subserves another’s gain.
Behold we know not anything—
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last—far off—at last—to all,
And every winter change to spring.”
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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 mystery of evil
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Upper Norwood, London S.E.
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Published anonymously. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. From the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1828
N508
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ethics
Evil
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 mystery of evil), 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
Evil
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ba7246d6f025519d2adfdcf91fe2173.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pmSV1kcjCCO1WAD1MB1VqN89vqayTci3qkbZcDO94m5UYj-IjepLccBBFV7qshe6em5JE0Amx8FpDs1DKibK3MT%7EGA23lWYiF8ewdrekj%7EdXaXzThCYkTDY-csYx7YiMD4As5O3LAyPQGriIlv6KLgCyw%7E20ybvjF9jmp0gdrF1jJO1rbzBXJE8gTGLO6RIut7EIi%7ESqYVBmo7Q7nqxCUM4Y%7EkrrjhmaI3xmL1GoeKzwEPgud3ED32bRuUVKZ1b3jkXzLipiPDBeWmY5sTfUO2qRdjDYDvhC7tuL0iWFaLXzIfUW2-9%7Eh0Y05xihHs9DtlawtitI0MWimseMa2og7g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
455f795d83aec8c0d385336e8be47616
PDF Text
Text
CONVENT EXPERIENCES.
Miss A. F. B.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Ninepence,.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. IV. REYNELL, LITTLE PDLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�INTRODUCTION.
ANY have written upon the Convent Question.
Fanatical No-Popery champions, who have
never seen the interior of a Convent, have had the
effrontery to expatiate with all the assurance of eye
witnesses upon manners and customs most of which
would have been unintelligible to them even had they
been permitted to scrutinise them. Blinded by Pro <
testant prejudice, their faith concerning Convents is
literally “the evidence of things not seen.” Such
witnesses have written to little purpose.
Others, supposed to be runaway Nuns, who at once
went over to the enemy and became bright stars in
the Evangelical firmament, have also handled the
Convent Question. They have made “awful dis
closures,” quite worthy of a place in the annals of
secular crime; but their statements want filling in,
for neither in the world nor in the Convent are
“ awful crimes ” the order of the day, and those sup
posed runaway Nuns should tell us what went on
between whiles, that we might the better understand
the causes which led to such “ awful” results.
B
�6
Introduction.
To supply what is wanting, to tell the whole truth,
is the object of the following pamphlet. It is written
by one who, though she left the Convent and the
Roman Church, can nevertheless look back with
pleasure upon Convent days and Convent friends,
and who, strange to say, has not hitherto seen any
Anglican minister reproducing so faithfully the Jesus
of the Gospels as do many of the much-despised
Roman Catholic priests she formerly knew and whom,
she still holds in affectionate remembrance.
�CONVENT EXPERIENCES.
OME years ago I had a strong desire to enter a
Convent. I expressed my wish to my confessor
—an uncommonly clever old man—but he at once
opposed it. The secular clergy are by no means
favourable to Convents, and would far rather their
penitents remained in “the world,” where their good
works might shine before men and have a far wider
influence.
My Confessor’s opposition was of no avail, and
some time after we discussed the subject once more.
He made a sensible suggestion, upon which I acted.
He advised me to pass a few days in a suburban Con
vent, just to see what sort of an impression the mode
of life would make upon me, and he promised to write
to the Superior urging her to withhold nothing from
me, but to tell me with all frankness what was
required by the Rules of the Order.
I followed this advice, and went for a short time
into a Convent of some note. The result was most
unsatisfactory. Everything was far too comfortable,
too elegant, and too well-appointed for one passing
through such an ascetic phase as myself; moreover,
I was at a loss to understand by what mental process
the feather beds, merino habit, and inviting food
could be made to square with Holy Poverty. In
vain was I told by the Novice-mistress that not a Nun
in the community dare call a pin her own, that the
pronoun “my” was abolished and “our” substituted,
and that Holy Poverty was rigidly observed.
1 was too obtuse to understand her view of the
matter. I was full of fervour, I wanted to feel the
S
�8
Convent Experiences.
poverty I professed, and it seemed to me that, as
long as I had undisturbed enjoyment of other people’s
property, I should experience nothing of the sort,
whichever pronoun I might use, so that with my
views a vow of poverty taken in such an attractive
residence would have been a mockery. I took my
leave, but have since heard from one who for some
years was in a Convent of that Order that the “ in
teriormortification” to which the Nuns were subjected
was excessive; their affections were systematically
crushed, starved, and finally extinguished, until the
joyous, warm-hearted Novice subsided into a mere
automaton, afraid and ashamed of enjoying anything !
I communicated all my impressions about that
convent to my old Confessor, fully anticipating a
reprimand for venturing thus to censure my betters.
To my surprise, he seemed rather glad I had been dis
appointed ; said he had formed similar opinions him
self, and once more suggested that I should abandon
all idea of entering a Convent. But I had made up
my mind to be a Nun, and into a Convent I was
determined to go, in spite of my first failure. Some
months later, I joined an Order in which my expec
tations seemed likely to be realised, and where Holy
Poverty, with a few startling and amusing exceptions,
was keenly felt and daily practised by a fervent
community of about a hundred souls, all aiming at
serving their God perfectly by imitating as closely as
possible the Jesus of the Gospels and the Saints of
the Church, and by endeavouring with all their might
and main to execute everything, no matter how
trifling, “ after the pattern which was shewed them
on the Mount.”
They were aiming at serving their God—mark the
words—their God, that is, the Convent-God, whose
requirements we must of necessity consider ere we
coarsely censure those who fulfil them. This neces
sity has not been felt by those who have handled the
�Convent Experiences.
g
Convent Question; instead of laying the axe to the
root of the tree, they have contented themselves
with attacking the fruit, which they have failed to
destroy, for the Monk and the Nun “ have triumphed
gloriously,” and most of the monastic Orders are
flourishing in the British Isles, where they will con
tinue to prosper until the cause—the dread cause of
effects so direful—shall cease to exist. The wolf
must be slain—not the poor sheep he has molested ;
the dog must be shot—not the poor baby he has
bitten ■ the poisoner must be locked up, not the poor
victims he has infected. Those so anxious for the
destruction of Convents and Monasteries of course
imagine that the monastic spirit would be annihilated
by their fall; but they are unaware that the ConventGod is extensively worshipped outside the Convent
walls, and with similar results. Vows are taken and
religiously observed in “ the world,” while, to my
certain knowledge, bodily penances in the shape of
disciplines, hair-shirts, prickly armlets, &c., which in
many severe Orders, including even La Trappe, are
absolutely forbidden, are practised by many educated
Catholics in the quiet home circle—and mark—not at
the instigation of an ascetic director, but often in
opposition to his wishes, and of their own free will.
Confessors and Superiors of Convents are, taken
collectively, grossly calumniated.
Inmates of Convents, and frequenters of confes
sionals are prompted from within, not goaded from
without, to offer up their bodies “ a living sacrifice”
on the altar of their God, whose requirements we
shall easily ascertain by inquiring what it is which
urges so many intelligent, high-minded, enthusiastic
persons of both sexes to embrace the religious life—
for those who imagine that none but abject, half
witted, ill-favoured plebeians, people the cloister, are
vastly mistaken.
Most of those who enter Convents voluntarily—
�io
Convent Experiences.
neither driven thither by adverse circumstances nor
unduly influenced by some exciting revival which
Catholics call a “ Mission,” are animated by motives
which will bear the closest scrutiny.
They have a firm conviction that they are doing
exactly what God requires of them, and not one whit
more. If, indeed, they are mistaken, then it is truly
lamentable that so much generous self-sacrifice and
genuine purity of intention should be misapplied ; and
that youth, beauty, physical strength, mental ability
and innocent enjoyment should be daily sacrificed to
appease a well-nigh implacable Deity who has rarely
been intentionally offended by one of His victims,'
and who, by some unaccountable inconsistency, is
called the God of Love, seems not only horrible but
incredible. The Aztecs would have called Him
Tezcatlepoca, in whose honour a fine young man was
yearly sacrificed, by having his palpitating heart torn
from his heaving breast—but the Convent-God is
more exacting, for Tezcatlepoca’s victims did no
prior penance—on the contrary, they passed the pre
vious year in the enjoyment of everything this world
affords, and their end, though cruel, was instanta
neous, soothed moreover by the certainty of eternal
bliss in Paradise—but Convent victims pass the
whole “ time of their sojourning here in fear,” striv
ing to make their “ calling and election sure,” by
working out their salvation “ in fear and trembling,”
knowing that, “ unless their righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees they shall
in nowise enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” They
die as St. Paul died—“daily.” They believe as he
believed, that “ God is a consuming fire.”
They bring their bodies “into subjection” as he
did.
They “ count all things but dung,” just as he did.
They doubt whether, after all, they shall not be
“ castaways,” just as he did.
�Convent Experiences.
11
They are “ counted fools and the off-scouring of
all things ’’just as he was, and they realise with all
the intensity of an over-wrought nervous system
how fearful a thing it is “ to fall into the hands of
the living God.” They may be great fools for their
pains, but what about St. Paul ? He preached
poverty, chastity, and obedience. He beat his body,
fasted, gloried in suffering, despised the wrorld, had
visions, took a vow, and is universally looked up to
as the fairest flower of the new faith; but let any
body “ go and do likewise,” especially in an edifice
called a Monastery, and he will be universally looked
upon as an absurd fanatic or a hypocritical fool.
Call the Convent-God a ghastly myth, the morbid
creation of a disordered imagination if you will, but
what about the Pauline-God ? Did St. Paul worship
the reformed God of modern Christianity ? did he
know aught of the easy-going, virginity-despising,
match-making God of the period ? or had he formed
an erroneous conception of the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ? The great apostle himself
thought he had “ the Spirit of God,” and therefore
he spoke out boldly, and besought the Corinthians to
be “imitators of him as he was of Christ;” taught
the Galatians that those that were of Christ had
“ crucified the world with its affections and covetous
ness
cautioned the Philippians against “ minding
earthly things ; ” and told Timothy to be satisfied
with the mere necessaries of life, “food and raiment.”
Now suppose that valiant soldier of the cross were
to visit Christendom in order to claim his own, his
imitators, where in “the world” would he find them?
He might, indeed, hear his words in many a mouth
and see his epistles on many a book-shelf, but he
never said “read my epistles;” the burden of his
song was, “ mortify your members which are on the
earth.” Where are his followers, those who, like
himself, bear in their bodies “ the marks of the Lord
�12
Convent Experiences.
Jesus,” and in their daily acts of mortification and
self-denial fill up, as he tried to do, “that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ.” I could intro
duce him to many (fanatical fools ?) whose motives
are as pure as his own, whose faith, hope, and
charity would bear a favourable comparison with his'
own, and whose every action would stand the test of
his closest cross-examination; people who, like him
self, are not “conformed to this world,” but have
died to it long ago just as he did. St. Paul’s
followers are by no means so numerous as St.
Paul s readers—he is read by the wise men but
imitated by the fools. Fools are generally in the
majority, but the fools of the New Testament are
few and far between, and they are generally to be
found living in buildings where, like the early Chris
tians, they can have all things “in common.” To
some such edifice I should conduct St. Paul, and I
should explain to him that a new God-—-a reformed
God is worshipped nowadays—a God who cares far
more about Bible reading than Bible practice, and
being better adapted to the requirements of the age,
naturally carries all before him; that his old God is
quite out of date, only worshipped by fanatical men
and hysterical women, who are very little interested
in Bible reading, but very much interested in Bible
practices, and who have retired into private life in or
out of a Monastery, as the case may be; not at all
because they are sullen, cross-grained creatures with
out natural affection, but simply because their God is
so fearfully “jealous ” and exacting, that nothing
short of absolute self-sacrifice will satisfy him; more
over, that they have an odd, unpopular notion that
“the friendship of the world is enmity with God,”
and as it would never do to quarrel with him, they
find it expedient to avoid it altogether.
However, perhaps St. Paul’s views may have under
gone a change, perhaps he has a new God now, in
�Convent Experiences.
'
iq
which case he might be quite at home in modern
society, and be warmly welcomed in Rotten Row ; but
should he still adore the God for whom he so lovingly
laid down his life in days gone by, in what corner of
Christendom would he find a genial resting-place ?
It has now been made sufficiently clear what the
requirements of the Convent-God are, and what a
very striking resemblance they bear to those of the
Pauline deity. Surely those ought not to be ridiculed
whose works are in accordance with their faith. The
poor benighted Papist, and the coarse, vulgar Metho
dist missionary, really believe that the hero of the
Gospels was God, that he really meant us to follow
his example, and that if we refuse to renounce all
we have we cannot be his disciples.
Adult skeletons and babies’ bones, of which no
satisfactory account can be given, have been, and,
perhaps, will be, found both in and out of Convents;
licentious passions may run riot in the cloister as they
do in the camp, and the religious habit may conceal a
faithless Nun as a ball-dress may a faithless wife. It
is not of Convent vices, but of Convent virtues I wish
to speak—the virtues, not the vices, drove me away !
Besides, Sister Lucy has already laid so many “awful
disclosures ” before the public that it is, fortunately,
unnecessary to add to the number.
Monks and Nuns do not even lay claim to impecca
bility, and the members of the Reformed Church should
set the poor Papists a better example before they dare
to meddle with the mote in their brother’s eye.
A bag of bones certainly proves that a sin has been
committed, but nothing more. When a -member of
the Reformed Church, in the full blaze of Gospel
light, fulfils his vow by beating his wife to a jelly, are
we thence to conclude that matrimony is a snare, and
Protestantism a sham ?
The Reformed Church should set a reformed
example, and show the Bible-^oers how much better
the Bible readers are.
�14
Convent Experiences.
It is quite true that Catholics care very little about
reading the Bible, but it is not at all true that (as far
as this country is concerned) they are forbidden to
read it. A Catholic Bible only costs half-a-crown,
and a Testament tenpence.
One of my confessors insisted upon my reading a
chapter daily, another seemed to know the entire book
by heart—he had a text at hand for every emergency
—always assumed that I was acquainted with it., and
was quite a living Concordance; another (a Monk)
was an ardent admirer of St. Paul’s Epistles, from
which he was constantly quoting. St. Paul would
have loved that good old Monk because, like himself,
he was a doer of the Word. However, it is quite true
that very few Catholics like the Bible much, and still
fewer consider it any part of their duty to read it. I
was quite an exception. I was always fond of the
New Testament. I took it with me into the Convent,
and continue to appreciate much of it, but reading it
would never make me a Protestant.
From my infancy I have associated almost exclu
sively with Protestants, and have had the pleasantest
experience of them. I am still intimate with many,
and excellent companions they are. I find them
straight-forward, kind-hearted, and agreeable people,
far superior intellectually to Catholics, and therefore
much more interesting, but I am bound to say, after
due deliberation, that they are not one whit like
Christ—that, according to all appearances, they do
not even wish to be like him, and that so far from
looking up to, they generally look down upon those
who are like him. I know they do read the Gospels
very often, but should never suppose they had ever
heard of the Sermon on the Mount or of its “meek
■and lowly ” author. Protestants are assuredly the
readers of the Word and the hearers of the Word,
but most certainly not the doers of the Word.
Whether that is matter for regret is another thing—
�Convent Experiences.
15
it is, however, a curious view of Christianity of
which Protestants have got hold—one likely to prove
untenable before long, and one by no means calcu
lated to impress the Catholics favourably. “We go
by the Bible,” said a Protestant to me one day; he
would have been nearer the mark had he said' “We
give the Bible the go-by 1 ”
Protestants cannot bear to be reminded that Christ
extolled the celibate and even the eunuch, whom they
consider so unutterably despicable—they wish he had
said : “ Let every one seek the conjugal state betimes,
for in heaven they both marry and are given in
marriage.” They cannot endure any allusion to the
abject poverty Christ both practised and commended
•—they wish he had said : “ Seek ye first worldly
wealth and its advantages, for what shall it profit a
man to save his soul and lose his money.” Over and
over again have I asked my Protestant friends what
they suppose Christ did mean by those passages in
the Gospels the poor Papists so lamentably misappre
hend, and all 1 can get from them is, “ O you know,
he could not have meant that ”—but what they think
he did mean, I have never ascertained. My own
impression is that they are thoroughly ashamed of
Christ. If I am mistaken, if they really admire him,
then they ought to be thoroughly ashamed of them
selves, for their affected reverence for Christ’s words
is only to be equalled by their supreme contempt for
his meaning.
The fact is, that when the Protestants reformed
their Church and their God they ought to have
reformed the Bible too, instead of which they are
actually making a new translation of the old God’s
book ! Surely it would be far better for the new
God to have a new book, and then much of the
wrangling about “letter and spirit ” would of neces
sity cease ; it is too bad to take the old God’s book,
and by pretending He did not mean what He said,
�16
Convent Experiences.
make it do for the new one ! The God of the
Gospels and the God of to-day are two totally
different deities, and ought most certainly to have
two totally different books.
And now let us see how the Bible-doers get on far
away from all mundane influence in the quiet shade
of the cloister.
To no part of my life do I look back with more
pleasure and with less regret than to the time I
passed in the Convent,—it was a curious and interest
ing experience. The motives which induced me to
take such a step may be briefly summed up in these
few words—I believed that Christ said what he meant
and meant what he said. I was one of St. Paul’s
“fools for Christ’s sake.”
My second Convent was not a pretty place; it was
a big, ugly, plain, brick building, standing in a
large, unattractive piece of ground which was divided
into three gardens and a cemetery.
The interior arrangements were as inconvenient as
they were uncomfortable, but whether by accident or
design I never heard. I was told that a Nun had
planned the Convent; she may have been (and
very likely was) aiming at discomfort and incon
venience, in which case the result was most satis
factory. I may add just here, that Nuns have a great
objection to help from without; they stain, varnish,
whitewash, &c., make candles, bind books, frame
pictures, &c., themselves—often very nicely.
There was no “dim religious light ” in that Convent.
On the contrary, there was a great glare everywhere
always. The boards were scrubbed fabulously white
and strewn with fine, white, silvery sand; all the
walls were painfully white; the chapel was of very
light-coloured stone, the statues and bas-reliefs were
quite white, and there was hardly any shade in the
garden ; nevertheless the “ shade of the cloister ”
existed, but as we were never allowed to walk in the
�Convent Experiences.
17
cloisters (exercise being generally taken in the snn
just after dinner) the shade there was of no practical
utility. During my whole stay there I felt the
absence of colour very much; my eyes suffered from
the incessant glare, but I have no reason to believe
it affected anybody else. Being far from well on my
arrival, it was considered unadvisable to introduce
me to my future companions immediately, so for some
days I occupied a large private room where I made
the acquaintance of the most important person in
the Convent—the Ko vice-mi stress.
She might have been forty-five. She had a good,
wide brow, handsome eye-brows, and large, expres
sive, dreamy-looking eyes. Her manner was simple
and energetic, and she was without any exception
the most warm-hearted and tenderly-affectioned
creature I have ever known. Her physical strength
was something quite extraordinary; from half-past
four in the morning until half-past nine at night she
rarely sat down. I never heard her say she felt tired,
neither did she ever show the least symptom of
fatigue. She had a hearty appetite and an excellent
digestion, which, of course were in her favour, but
still her bodily strength was remarkable.
My intimacy with the Novice-mistress was, I am
sure, of a very exceptional character ; it contributed
materially to my happiness in the Convent, and was
one of the many causes of my leaving it.
After a while I got better, and was told I was to
make my first appearance in the Novitiate—the
name given to the general sitting-room of the
Novices and Postulants. Postulants are the new
comers, the askers for the religious habit, the
unclothed Novices. They wear the clothes they
brought with them out of “ the world,” which, if at
all smart, contrast strangely and unfavourably with
the clean, natty attire of the rest. Novices are
dressed just like Nuns, barring the veil, which in
�18
Convent Experiences.
their case is white instead of black. I said just like
Nuns, but there are other trifling differences in the
dress which would never strike the ordinary observer.
The great object of the Postulants is to receive the
religious habit, a ceremony which takes place at “a
clothing,” and is rarely delayed more than three
months. Postulants excluded from any cause from
an approaching “clothing” are generally much
disappointed; they cannot feel that they have begun
their religious life in good earnest until they see
themselves in the religious habit; moreover their
own attire has often become faded and even dirty.
Postulants are allowed plenty of liberty. They
generally arrive very much out of health. Previous
anxiety of mind ; troubles of all sorts ; the disappro
bation of their parents; the hindrances of every kind
which are designedly thrown in their path ; the terri
ble laceration of mind many of them have undergone
and continue to undergo for weeks and months, are
reasons for treating them with all the indulgence and
consideration possible. Postulants are not obliged
to observe silence ; a Novice is generally allowed to
devote herself to all the new-comers, and they may
do pretty much as they like, go out when they like,
come in when they like, and chat during the hours of
silence ; but few Postulants require all these conces
sions, they generally do their best from the first.
There is, however, one. permission of which the
majority avail themselves pretty extensively, and that
is the permission to loolc about them.
Everything and everybody seem so very queer in
the Convent, that were the “mortification of the
eyes ” insisted on from the first., I am afraid very few
would persevere. I was terribly given to staring
about; the novelty of the scene in my case never
seemed to wear off, and though quite up to the others
in many respects, I failed signally in the “ mortifica
tion of the eyes.” Eyes were to be “mortified”
�Convent Experiences.
i
because Christ had his eyes habilually fixed on the
ground; we know this to be a fact; had it been
otherwise the Evangelists would not tell us so fre
quently that “ He lifted up His eyes ”; they must
previously have been cast down in true cloistral
fashion ; it was a clear case. With my eyes for
awhile under my own control, I entered the Novitiate
with the Novice-mistress, at whose appearance the
hubbub of voices ceased and the fifty Novices rose ;
when she was seated they sat down and the noise
recommenced. They were at tea; they were having
brown bread and butter on brown wooden platters,
and were drinking either beer or tea out of brown
mugs. They were all between the ages of sixteen
and five-and-twenty. The greater number were Laysisters, and looked in rude health, as I believe they
were ; the rest were Choir-novices. It is upon these,
the young gentlewomen of the community, that the
oppressive weight of Convent life falls so heavily.
Many of them come straight from the ease, indolence,
and warmth of a luxurious home to the draughty,
carpetless, comfortless Convent, where their powers of
endurance, both mental and physical, are sadly over
taxed, and where the diet, though well adapted to
repair the muscular system, is but ill calculated to
restore the nervous tissue upon which such terrible
demands are made by the mode of life. Moreover,
too many hours are suffered to pass between the
meals, and the result is that the Choir-novices soon
begin to droop ; but I am anticipating. They all
looked very well and very happy, and were making
a great noise when I first saw them. The noise
amazed and scandalised me. I thought, as I believe
most people do, that Nuns rarely open their lips, and
that a Convent is as silent as the grave ; but I soon
found out that even in a Convent there was “ a time
to speak,” and the introduction of a Postulant into
the Novitiate is always the signal for “ speaking.’>
�20
Convent Experiences.
Convents are unavoidably noisy places, for, as tliere
are neither carpets nor curtains to deaden the sound,
nobody can move about silently, especially in Convent
shoes, which are clumsy and unyielding. Absolute
silence is rarely realised in active Orders, for even
when conversation is prohibited vocal prayer is con
stantly going on, and the wearisome repetition of
countless “ Hail Marys ” during the recital of several
Rosaries running, is knagging beyond belief. The
“ silence ” bell was a mockery. Tea—I should rather
say supper, for it was the last meal—being over, the
Novice-mistress rapped on the table; all stood up,
and the 51st Psalm, some prayers, and a hymn to
Mary were said in Latin—the latter with startling
rapidity. We then went into the garden, where
the younger Novices ran about, played at Puss-intbe-Corner, &c., or collected the innumerable snails
and caterpillars which swarmed over the cabbages.
The other Novices, including recently-professed Nuns
who were still in the Novitiate, walked up and
down with the Novice-mistress, whose duty it is
always to be present during recreation. The even
ing recreation was a sensible and a shady one. It
lasted about three-quarters of an hour, and then
the bell rang for night prayers, which lasted halfan-hour; and at half-past nine we were generally
in our cells. Cells—who in “ the world ” knows
what a Nun’s cell really is ? I thought they were on
or under the ground-floor, cold, damp, and dismal,
and furnished with a crucifix, a skull, and a prie-dieu.
Such a cell as that would have delighted me, for
those who enter a Convent from conscientious motives
are prepared for any amount of discomfort; they go
there on purpose to find it. Christ had no toilet
table, no toilet-vinegar, and no toilet-soap ; and his
followers know they must “ take no thought for the
body,” if they would be worthy members of a head
crowned with thorns.
�21
Convent Experiences.
I am so soyry I cannot tell the reader where my
cell was; it was either in. Nazareth or in Bethlehem,
but I do not know which. I was always a very bad
hand at finding my way about, and that Convent was,
as I said before, of intricate construction and I never
learnt my way about it. Each room and each staircase
had a curious name ; there was the Sacred Heart, the
Eive Wounds, Nazareth, Bethlehem, the Holy Angels,
the Holy Innocents, Mount Zion, Saint Agnes, Saint
Ursula, &c. Other Novices could take messages to
the Sacred Heart and be back directly; but I was
soon found to be an unprofitable servant and was
rarely required to run errands. On the first floor
was a large room without a fire-place, divided by un
painted wooden partitions into perhaps thirty tiny
compartments all open at the top, called “ cells ” and
one of them was mine, or rather ow as they always
say in Convents!
I confess I was much disappointed with it—it was
neither damp nor dismal—it was excessively dry and
painfully light. Disposed as I was to see the
religious element everywhere and to take a devotional
view of everything, I could not help thinking how
very much like a bathing-machine my cell was—had
it been quite straight the resemblance would have
been still more striking. The bed was fixed into the
side like a berth on board ship, a small cupboard was
opposite the door, on which stood a small jug and
basin, pegs were in the partition just like those in a
bathing-machine, and a bathing-machine lookingglass was fastened to the wall. There was one chair
for which there was hardly room, and a wee bit of
carpet in front of the bed. Whenever I go to the
sea-side and take a dip in the ocean, I am always
vividly reminded of my old Convent cell. I was
favoured some time ago with a private view of Hollo
way Gaol, and have no hesitation in saying that the
prisoners’ cells in that interesting building are incomC
�22
Convent Experiences.
parably more comfortable, more roomy, more private,
and more genteel than those occupied by ladies and
gentlemen in Convent-s and Monasteries; moreover,
■prison cells are well warmed and well ventilated, but
■our cells were cold and shamefully ill-ventilated.
Considering the defective ventilation and general
neglect of sanitary laws, it is astonishing that the
health of the community was not much worse. Some
of the dormitories in my Convent were just as badlyveniilated and over-crowded as were many of the
Metropolitan Workhouse Wards a few years ago.
Ignorance of, and contempt for, the body, combined
with an excessive reverence for the precepts of their
God are the causes which in Convents produce such
lamentable results; but as members of the Reformed
Church are neither ignorant nor fanatical, to what
influences are we to impute their shortcomings ?
In every cell there was a crucifix and in most a
crown of thorns—however, in mine there was only a
crucifix. The recollection of that crucifix brings to
my mind a silly taunt often flung at Catholics by
those who ought to know better. On Sunday, after
a late breakfast,—for the God of the day is not
exacting,—Protestants frequently pay Popery the
compliment of going to High Mass at the Pro-Cathe
dral or St. George’s. They hear fine music, they see
prettv flowers, they smell sweet incense, and they go
home saying, “What a sensuous worship it is,” but
it never occurs to them that out of a hundred
Catholics not more than five ever hear High Mass at
all. The High Mass is for the select few, but the
Low Mass is for the multitude. Long before the
Protestant has left his bed, hundreds and thousands
of Catholics have been to a Mass where there is no
music, no incense, and no sermon ; where there are
no flowers, no candles, and no attractions. At seven
and eight o’clock the Protestant may see at the
Italian Church, Hatton Garden, what he will certainly
�Convent Experiences.
23
never see in his own place of worship—the poor at
their devotions—unaided by anything to gratify their
senses, and frequently too far from the altar to catch
the low voice of the solitary priest or to see the two
candles which announce that a Mass is going on.
We never once had High Mass at the Convent,
neither could any of us see the altar from our position
in the choir. But I must return to that crucifix. It
consisted of a cross stained black (paint was for
bidden), on which was pasted a gaudy paper figure
of Christ. It did not elevate my soul to God, it did
not recall His crucified Son to my mind,—it was a
grotesquely ludicrous object, and it always reminded
me of Punch. Once, in an indignant mood, I turned
it with its face to the wall, but the Novice-mistress
turned it back again, telling me that if I could not
put up with an ugly crucifix I was no true child of
the Cross ; but the good soul tried to find me a less
objectionable one,—in vain, they were all alike;
indeed, everything that met the eye was as tasteless
as it could be, for Jesus had been satisfied with the
mere necessaries of life, and the disciple ought not
to be “ above his Master.”
The extinguishing of the lamp, accompanied by
the exclamation, “May Jesus Christ be praised,”
announced that everybody was in bed. At half-past
four a great bell rang, and somebody thumped loudly
at each cell door, saying “ Arise thou that sleepest,
and Christ shall give thee light.” At five, we were
all in the Chapel for morning prayers, followed by
Prime, Tierce, Sext and None of the Divine Office,
commonly called Little Hours. Most of the active
Orders use the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin,
which is usually printed with the English translation,
but we said the long office from the Boman Breviary
—the same which all the priests say all over the
world, and of which not one word was translated.
Reciting it in a slow monotone, took over two hours
�24
Convent Experiences.
daily, and I think I may venture to assert that the
two hours so spent were felt by the majority as a
very heavy penance; but as I shall have to return to
this subject we will leave it now.
The Angelus bell rang at the end of Kone, and
we all returned to our cells to make our beds, &c. ;
but the et cetera was no joke, especially to those Nuns
who slept in the Five Wounds, for they had to carry
the water in which they had washed, as well as their
empty jug (which rarely had a handle or a spout) down
three flights of steep stairs and across a very uneven
yard to the pump where they had to wait their turn
among the others. Sometimes the bell rang for
“ Meditation” before the poor girls got back to the
Five Wounds with the fresh water. However, most
of the Novices slept nearer the pump, and had time
for a few minutes Spiritual Reading before we were
all summoned into the Chapel again. I should like
a medical man to have seen us “ meditating.” It was
then half-past six, and we all (having been standing
since half-past four), knelt until a quarter to eight.
The mental prayer or meditation lasted till seven,
and then came Mass and Holy Communion. Then
we breakfasted upon brown bread, butter, and coffee
without sugar. There was never the remotest dif
ference in the routine of the Convent during the early
morning hours, and before proceeding further, it is
necessary to examine that routine very closely. We
had supped soon after seven upon brown bread and
butter, and the very weakest tea without sugar, and
we had passed the evening on our feet and on our
knees. At half-past four we were on our legs again
—from five to six we were kneeling or standing in
the Chapel (there is not much sitting during Office),
then came the pilgrimage to the pump, followed by
an hour and a quarter’s kneeling, bolt upright on a
hard deal stool, the hands closely joined (not clasped
which is less irksome), not a sound could be heard
�Convent Experiences.
25
from the old priest at the altar, and not a thing could
he seen, save the back of a Novice in front of you,
for we were arranged in rows one behind the other. The
quality of the bread and butter served at supper was
excellent, and the quantity unlimited, but many of
the Choir-novices could eat but very little of such
simple food. Insufficient air, sleep, and exercise, com
bined with almost uninterrupted brain-work, do not
tend to promote appetite; the nervous system was
habitually over-wrought; the Choir-novices were in a
constant state of tension, and the diet, even had they
been able to enjoy it, was ill-adapted to repair the
waste going on in the delicate machine upon which
such terrible demands were made. The Choir-novices
are the chief victims of the conventual system, for
the Lay-sisters, from whom mere muscular labour is
required, have ordinarily excellent appetites, and the
diet seems to suit them, moreover to them the transi
tion from the world to the cloister is frequently a
change for the better.
The Choir-novices sometimes fainted on their return
to their cells after Little Hours—one with whom I had
many conversations frequently fainted before breakfast
—she languished for want of sleep. There was plenty
of time to sleep provided you fell asleep at a quarter
to ten, as the Lay-sisters were sure to do after working
in the garden all day, but an over-taxed brain refuses
to sleep at the word of command, and many of the
Choir-novices could not compose themselves till after
midnight. It was seldom known that anybody had
fainted, for, from motives of piety, the Novices suf
fered in silence like their Master; moreover, they
were afraid of being sent back into the world as
too delicate for the cloister, so that not until they
broke down altogether was their enfeebled state
of health adequately realised. I was now among the
Bible doers, who literally took “ no thought for the
body,” and who fasted with a happy heart and a
�•2 6
Convent Experiences.
cheerful countenance, “ as to the Lord and not to
men.” Any Novice taken ill in the chapel was after
wards permitted to sit during meditation. Just in
front of me knelt an unusually tall girl, who had per
mission to sit, tand one day I asked her how it was
that she never availed herself of that permission.
She replied, “because I should fall asleep immedi
ately.” The Novice-mistress had something to lean
against, and often went to sleep; had we had some
thing to lean against ire should often have gone to
sleep ! That tail-girl (I forget nearly all their names)
drooped very soon after her arrival for want of more
animal food ; her lips and the inside of her eyelids
became quite white. Had she earlier made her re
quirements known she would have had some meat for
breakfast, but, like them all, she dreaded being sent
away as too feeble to observe the rule, so kept gradu
ally losing her strength until her languishing appear
ance excited attention. She had been educated in
the Convent-school, and, like many of the pupils, she
returned to live and to die among the companions of
her childhood. I am quite certain that all the girls
in that large Novitiate were voluntary victims, that
not the slightest attempt was made to induce them to
remain, and that they dreaded nothing so much as
the possibility of rejection. One pretty, lively Novice
was expelled during my stay for disobedience, and on
the morning’ fixed for her departure, she positively
refused to leave her bed, and had to be dressed and
ejected by main force.
And now let us go to breakfast. Some of us were
quite tired by breakfast-time, and there was but little
rest to be had during meals, for we sat upon forms or
stools, which afforded no support to the poor back.
We had brown bread and butter on brown wooden
platters, and about a pint of very fair coffee, nice and
hot, but without sugar. We were allowed to talk
during1 breakfast, and not one of the meals was hurried
�Convent Experiences.
27
over. The quantity of coffee was, I believe, unlimited ;
as often as a mug was pushed into the middle of the
table somebody got up and put coffee into it.
Then came the washing-up, a duty which generally
devolved upon the new-comers. Two large tubs of
very hot water were brought in by a Lay-sister, the
mugs were washed by one Postulant, rinsed by another,
and wiped by a third. We were cautioned never to
catch hold of anything by its handle. Handles were
looked upon solely as excrescences intended for orna
ment, and were therefore to be avoided, especially
during the washing-up. The water-jug in my cell
was the only dne I ever saw which had a bardie
and a spout; they had all fallen victims to circum
stances at the pump before my arrival, but the dinner
mugs, being entrusted to the Choir-postulants, were
most of them intact. Even now I rarely meddle with
handles, to the extreme amusement of my acquaint
ances. After the washing-up came the dread “ mark
ing ” of the Breviary, ready for Matins, and Lauds,
which were said daily at six o’clock in the evening.
Common sense and human nature are frequently
outraged in Convents ; but, unfortunately for those
who are so clamorous for their demolition, it can be
shown that most Convent-practices, so far from being
in opposition to the “Word,” are in strict accord
ance with it.
Supernatural motives and uncommon actions dis
tinguish alike the Prophet of Mount Carmel, the
Baptist in the Desert, and the Bernard in the Cloister.
Eervent old David praised God “ seven times aday,” and seven times a-day does the Church call
upon her children to do the same—so far so good.
But David knew the meaning of every word he said,
whereas a very small proportion of those whose mis
fortune it is to “ say Office ”—under pain, mind, of
11 mortal sin ”—understand one word of it.
To the majority of the over-worked secular priests
.•
*
�28
Convent Experiences.
of London the obligatory “ Divine Office ” is a very
serious infliction. Some of them have told me so;
one, indeed, with amazing frankness, said that the
Church had done wisely to make prayer compulsory,
for otherwise he for one should never pray at. all!
However, priests may say Office just when they like
—all at once or piece-meal—out loud or in a whisper
—fast or slow according to—I was going to say
devotion—but I had better say time. An hour suffices
for most priests to say the ordinary Office of the day
with sufficient distinctness to satisfy their consci
ences, and as they occasionally understand some of
it, things might be worse. In the Convent matters
are worse, considerably worse—for there it is very
unusual for anybody to understand any of it. I was
quite an exception, for having formerly given some
attention to Italian and having long been familiar
with the Psalms and Hew Testament in Latin, I
could soon find my way about the Breviary far better
than I ever could about the building, but I was the
only Hovice who understood anything more than the
Doxology. Every morning a Nun came to teach the
Novices to “ mark the book,” and at the end of twelve
months many of them were still unable to find their
places, and even the old Nuns themselves were often
at fault when the “ Commemorations ” were numerous.
I believe that “ Office ” was cordially hated by most
of the community, and that among the many uncon
genial occupations of the day not one was so tho
roughly distasteful to the majority as that unintelli
gible and most fatiguing Office. It was said—that
is the longest part of it—at six o’clock in a loud,
distinct monotone, and it occupied nearly an hour.
Many of the poor girls had been using their lungs
the whole afternoon in the various Schools of the
Order, and were quite tired out. I myself have fre
quently had to stop from sheer exhaustion long before
it was over; it was a most oppressive and irrational
�Convent Experiences.
29
affair. Once I asked the Ko vice-mistress if she really
thought God could possibly be pleased with such an.
offering. Her answer conveyed volumes. She re
plied, “ Never allude to the subject, for I cannot
bear to dwell upon it; I always offer up my intention
before it begins, and that is all I can do.” She, and
many of them, could say large portions by heart,
but nobody could translate a line. I thought it very
sad. On Sunday the Office for the Dead was said in
addition, so that the poor lungs got but little rest
even on the Day of Rest.
I have said before that Postulants had plenty of
liberty, so after the marking of the Breviary, I could
do much as I liked until twelve, when I had to
prepare the table for dinner. Being generally very
tired after so much standing, I was glad to have a
long rest in the garden, where I was frequently joined
by the Novice-mistress, with whom I had many very
interesting conversations, but it was only very
gradually that I began to see how fatal even to the
interests of the poor soul are the results of taking
“ no thought for the body.” Bible-readers are indis
putably “ wiser in their generation ” than Bible
doers, and if they could only persuade fervent Chris
tians that the hearers of the word are more acceptable
to God than the doers of it, the Monasteries would
soon be vacated ; but at present the poor fools really
think that they must suffer with their Master here if
they would reign with him hereafter.
Prom the Novice-mistress, I ascertained that many
Novices had been obliged to give up their vocation
and return- into the world in consequence of “ bad
knees.” Constant kneeling upon those hard stools
with no support whatever, seriously and permanently
injured the knee; water formed beneath the skin ;
the joint stiffened ; became enlarged and painful, and
the poor Novice was sent home. A very pretty girl
in the cell next to mine had a bad knee while I was
�30
Convent Experiences.
there—it swelled considerably—the other one became
painful, and for some weeks she could not put her
feet to the ground : however, she got better. Other
diseases (peculiar to women) were common in the
community ; they were indisputably induced by pro
tracted kneeling ; but as the sufferers never men
tioned their various ailments for fear of being sent
away, they were rarely discovered until after the
Vows had been taken.
“Let him that readeth understand,” that there
are voluntary sufferers outside Convent walls who
cast their gifts before a much more numerously fre
quented altar, and who adore a deity who is only to
be propitiated by wasps’ waists, exposed chests, dis
torted feet, and enamelled skin. When I was at school
some years ago, a girl of seventeen suddenly fell back
wards during tea-time, and was carried away in a fit;
the doctor attributed it solely to the camphor she was
in the habit of chewing to make her eyes bright. A
few months ago I visited regularly, first in the hospital,
and afterwards in the workhouse, a poor woman,
who died a very lingering death, owing to a diseased
bone in her instep. She told me she attributed
her then condition to the tight boots she had had
the folly to “ indulge ” in formerly. Magnanimous
victims 1 they suffer without any prospect of recom
pense, whereas, the fools of the cloister are silly
enough to believe that their Father who sees “ in
secret ” will hereafter “ reward them openly
they
actually think Christ said what he meant, and meant
what he said, and they count it all joy to share his
bitter chalice. Continual cheerfulness reigned in the
Novitiate ; I saw only two Novices who seemed dis
contented, they both left; one with whom I am
intimately acquainted begged hard to be re-admitted,
but without success; it was the monotony that
wearied her. Several (I think five), died during my
stay. I am sure they died “ in sure and certain hope
�Convent Experiences.
31
of a happy resurrection but one and all had a terri
ble conviction of an intervening Purgatory of a
frightful character; certainly a “ strange god ” was
worshipped there. One young consumptive Postulant
sickened immediately after her arrival; she begged
to be “ professed ” on her death-bed, her request was
granted, and she died in the religious habit. I may
take this opportunity of saying that Nuns do not
look so dead as other corpses, this is mainly owing to
their being buried in the same dress they wore in
life; those I saw did not look dead at all. I believe
low fever was one of the commonest causes of death.
Pour young Novices carried the coffins to the cemetery,
and the graves were very shallow ; had they been
deeper, the coffins would have floated. These deaths
all occurred in the “ Mother House ” of the community,
in Holland. Sickly members are generally sent
back from “ Missions ” to die in the Mother House.
The mortality was, I believe, high in the Order, so
the Nuns thought, but I am no judge. I confine
myself to what I know to be facts ; the Choir-novices
soon declined in health, and I saw very few elderly
Nuns.
At twelve the bell rang for vespers, and at half
past twelve we dined. There was always beef for
dinner, preceded by soup, accompanied by vegetables
or stewed fruit, and sometimes followed by a pudding.
The beef was generally stewed; if cold, there was
always abundance of nice, good, hot gravy for the
potatoes, but we seldom had cold meat. Strange to
say, this sameness of animal food never affected me
unpleasantly, neither did I ever hear anyone complain
of it or appear weary of it. We each had a clumsy looking soup plate, in which we received everything
we ate. We had large wooden spoons, which were
never washed—we licked them, wrapped the bowl in
paper, and rolled them up in our dinner-napkins with
our forks. Sand was handed round after dinner in a
�32
Convent Experiences.
saucer, we dipped our forks in it and rubbed them
bright with a piece of paper. A religious book was
always read aloud at table, and the mortification of
the eyes was especially enjoined during meals; once
I availed myself of it to transfer all my meat from
my plate to my pocket; it was tainted, and as it was
forbidden to leave anything (though a pig was kept),
I had no alternative. Lest any No-Popery champion
should thence conclude that the meat was invariably
unfit for food, I must add that it was generally good
and sufficiently well prepared, though always over
cooked, to be moderately inviting ; he will, however,
be pleased to hear that the beer was always detestable.
The reading during dinner was a gross absurdity.
Eating was a merely animal process, and consequently
disgraceful, so we were enjoined to nourish our souls
the while with holy reflections ; but as it was just
possible that our thoughts during feeding time might
take a carnal turn, a spiritual book was read aloud.
I was older than the rest, and upon a very different
footing with the Novice-mistress, so some months
later, when we had become very intimate I ventured
to insinuate that very few of the Novices were
attending to the reading, and that I sincerely hoped,
upon gastronomical grounds, that nobody was listening.
She seemed amazed at the surmise, for though she
admitted that her head was far too full of other
things, hers being a post of very great responsibility
and the Novices numerous, to allow of her attention
being fixed upon the reading, it had never occurred
to her that the thoughts of others might be wander
ing too. I asked her to put the matter to the test,
so one day she called out during dinner, “ Sister
Eudoxia, what is the reading about?” The poor
Novice rose, blushed, and muttered that she didn’t
know. Several more were appealed to with the same
results, and my triumph was complete. Of course,
the Novice-mistress, as in duty bound, reproved us
�Convent Experiences.
33
collectively for our supineness concerning our salva
tion, and reminded us that “ the kingdom of God is
not meat and drink.”
Immediately after dinner we had to say the 51st
Psalm out loud, marching the while from the refec
tory to the chapel, where some prayers were said
kneeling; then, after five “ Our Fathers ” and five
“Hail Marys,”repeated with extended arms, we pro
ceeded to the garden for the first Recreation ; but
several of the poor Choir-novices being by that time
quite tired out, were obliged to confess their need of
repose, and used to pass the Recreation time lying on
their straw beds in their cells. I have said there was but
little shade in the garden, and walking up and down
in the sun just after dinner was not invigorating—
we had no sun-shades, and my skin has never
recovered its previous hue. The interval between
breakfast and dinner had been spent by the Choir
novices in either teaching or studying, and at two
o’clock a bell called them all from the garden or the
dormitory to the same occupations, which lasted until
four. The Novitiate was ill-ventilated, it had. no
fireplace; the seats had no backs. In summer the
Novices might study in the garden, but as they could
not write comfortably in the open air they were gene
rally in the Novitiate. The carriage of most of
the Nuns was very bad—they stooped sadly, owing,
doubtless, to the demands made upon their spines
and chests. At four another bell rang—it was the
favourite bell “according to the flesh,” for it
announced a mug of coffee, a piece of bread-andbutter, permission to talk, and a brief respite from
lessons. The coffee was indescribably grateful—
never were the refreshing effects of that dear little
berry more apparent than in that Teaching Order,
where the nervous system was always on the stretch.
Close to me sat a clever Novice of twenty-two.
She was preparing for an examination and was
�34
Convent Experiences.
learning two foreign languages; I was her English
mistress, and a better pupil I never had. Novices
always do their best “ as to the Lord and not to
men.” I think she sometimes drank a quart of
coffee at four o’clock. She told me she never could
say a single prayer without distractions ; she thought
of her studies right through meditation, mass, office,
<&c., and was wholly absorbed by them. She had a
marvellous memory, but, like them all, she was
cruelly over-worked and became subject to attacks
of hysteria. Ignorance of, and contempt for, .the
poor body produced these melancholy results. Let
it not be supposed that the Superiors of Monastic
Orders are in clover while th e underlings are doing
bitter penance. I have never known and never
heard of the Superior of any Convent who had not
wretched health ; they are generally subject to violent
headache, neuralgia, and indigestion. Once I saw a
bit of rag peeping out from behind the Novice
mistress’s ear. I asked what it was. After a little
hesitation she said she had very sore ears, and that
something was the matter with her head. A little
coaxing induced her to let me see it. She took me
into her cell—it was close to mine and just like it—
she took off her stiffly-starched white cap and tight
skull-cap which were under the heavy black veil of
the Order. A Nun looks very strange without her
head-gear. I should not have known my Novice
mistress, she looked more like Jack Sheppard ! Her
poor head was all over scabs—white scabs—and
underneath these scabs a watery discharge was
slowly oosing. There was no skin behind her ears,
which were very red and quite wet. She used the
bits of rag to prevent the two surfaces from coming
into contact, for the skull-cap just caught in the tops
of the ears and bound them tightly to the head. She
had formerly had abundant auburn hair, and soon
after it was cut off this disease made its appearance.
�Convent Experiences.
35
She told me that others had similar heads.- I was
horror-struck. I moistened the scabs with warm
water and tenderly detached them all; then I saw
the thin discharge going on beneath. I often
washed her head, but all the scabs returned. Of
course the disease had become chronic. Air could
not possibly penetrate through the three thick cover
ings worn on the head, one of which was so stiff
that it was like card-board—it took a quarter of an
hour to rub the starch into it. Why they ran
counter to Bible teaching in regard to cutting off the
hair I never knew. It did not seem to answer.
Some of the Nuns had setons; the Infirmarian told
me so. She said they could not do without them,
but I do not know why they were required. I
never heard of them in this country, save, indeed,
as a thing of the past, but there they were in full
force.
At a quarter-past four we were all in the Chapel
for the Visit to the Blessed Sacrament; and as it was
the only time when we were at liberty to choose our
own devotions and say what we liked to God, that
brief visit was much appreciated. Moreover, it came
just after the coffee, and as it only lasted ten minutes
our poor knees had not time to become insupportably
painful. I only cared for mental prayer, and though
I had not the same reason for objecting to “ Office ”
as the others, I very early began to discover that the
immense amount of vocal prayer of all sorts appointed
by the Rule was calculated to put all real devotion to
flight, and that prayer was likely to become a merely
mechanical affair. My old Confessor had begged of
me to be in no hurry either to censure or to commend
what I saw in the Convent, but to wait quietly and
study the effect the whole thing made upon me before
I came to a conclusion. I followed his advice.
After the Visit most of the poor Novices resumed
their studies, and some of them took a sly glance at
�36
Convent Experiences.
their Breviary to see if they had forgotten where to
find and how to read the Antiphons, which at six
o’clock would have to be distinctly repeated in the
Chapel. I have known a Novice lose her appetite for
a week at the very thought of having to say the An
tiphons in the Choir, and then when the dread mo
ment arrived I have seen her burst into tears and
leave the Chapel sobbing. The nerves of a fervent
Novice who is striving with all her might to enter in
at the narrow gate, are necessarily morbidly sensitive,
and the mode of life is enough to undermine the
strongest constitution.
I do not recall one Novice who did not droop visibly
during my stay. They faded cheerfully, suffered
heroically, and “ died daily ” to all the comforts and
luxuries of life with a constancy and a devotion past
all praise; but willing as was the “ spirit ” the poor
neglected “flesh” was weak. The very thought of
those poor girls saddens me still. The tendencies,
the inevitable tendencies, of Convent virtues depressed
me, and the conviction that they were not one whit
exceeding the spirit of the New Testament, which I
was just then continually reading, drew my thoughts
into a very unexpected channel.
Roman Catholics face boldly all the New Testament
difficulties, and most generously do they try to meet
them. Protestants, on the contrary, shirk them;
they wish Christ had never said “ Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath and hateth not all his
relations, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple.” Protestants would rather be imperfect
and stick to their money than be perfect on Christ’s
terms ; so would most Catholics. I am not extolling
Catholics over Protestants ; all I contend for is that
good Protestants repudiate those principles which are
pre-eminently Gospel principles, and that good Roman
ists cordially embrace them and carry them out to
perfection.
�37
Convent Experiences.
Convents and Monasteries are not to blame ; if the
spirit that animates them be to blame, then let its
whereabouts be discovered and let it be stifled forth
with ere more victims wither beneath its influence.
Long before I contemplated a Convent life I was
familiar with bodily penances. None were allowed
in the cloister. Some of the Novices arrived with a
tight iron chain twisted round them ; it was at once
taken away and never returned.
The reader has now been informed how most days
passed in the Convent; from half-past four in the
morning until half-past nine at night there was no
change in the daily routine, but on Saturdays there
was a different programme. Before looking at it I
will state that after three months I was clothed, and
was a very happy, healthy Novice. I have said before
that many of the Novices concealed their ailments,
and were frequently very much to blame for their
reticence. I spoke out boldly to the Novice
mistress upon matters physical, and had the satis
faction of hearing her inform all her children
collectively that they were to sit in the Chapel when
kneeling affected them unpleasantly. We always
addressed her on our knees, an invariable custom in
all Convents, for the Superior represents God. This
startles Protestants, but it has no peculiar effect
upon Catholics, who from childhood upwards are
accustomed to listen to their Confessor week after
week as if he were God. Nothing could exceed the
good understanding there was between the Novice
mistress and her Novices, they all loved her; kneeling
did not diminish the affectionate familiarity of our
intimacy with her.
On Saturdays many strange things came to light.
We wore knitted black worsted stockings, and on
Saturdays we washed them, but no soap was allowed
—soap was said to spoil them. On Saturdays we
cleaned out our cells in the strangest way. Wet
D
�38
Convent Experiences.
sand was flung under the bed and we swept it out
with a common birch-broom. Fleas were looked for
on Saturdays. The Convent was beautifully clean
but there were fleas in the straw beds, and, as no
sheets were used, it was easy to find the fleas in the
twilled flannel coverings which did duty for sheets.
Once I caught seventeen fleas in “ our ” cell! The
straw beds were not uncomfortable, but they were
dangerous; the straw wasted, the beds became thin,
and many of the Nuns suffered from rheumatism,
which they assured me was caused by the want of
warmth underneath them ; the beds should have
been refilled more frequently.
On Saturdays we went to Confession. I am quite
familiar with the edifying and suggestive revelations
current in No-Popery publications. Of course “ they
speak that they do Ivnow and testify that they have
seen." I am going to do likewise. The priests 1
know consider it a misfortune to have anything to do
with Convents; they esteem no infliction comparable
to the bore of hearing Nuns’ confessions; they would
far rather hear a regiment of soldiers, who have a
catalogue of mortal sins to get rid of, than listen to
the monotonous rigmarole of a scrupulous Nun in
whose whole lifetime it would be difficult to find halfa-dozen voluntary deviations from the path of rectitude.
I know that if I were a priest I should avoid Convents.
Moreover a Convent priest always plays second fiddle
to the Superior and ranks after her in the estimation
of the Novices. Our old priest rarely said a word to
us. We were forbidden to ask him any advice, for
then his influence might have clashed with that of
the Novice-mistress. We were urged to get over our
Confession as quickly as possible in order not to keep
the rest waiting, and I am quite sure that very few
of us exceeded five minutes. I have been to confes
sion many hundreds of times “in the world,” andean
say with all sincerity that it is very rare to be ques
�I
Convent Experiences.
39
tioned at all in the Confessional. You are expected
to make haste and be off, as the secular priest has no
time to spare, and his poor, ignorant, half-prepared
penitents have the greatest claim upon him. I know
but one Catholic priest who likes hearing Confes
sions ; most of them hate it.
While I was a Postulant I had a large piece of
soap, but when I was clothed it was taken away, and
I was instructed to kneel down and ask for a piece of
community soap. I did so, saying “ May I for the
love of God have a piece of soap ; ” the usual form of
petition. A very hard bit of white soap, not quite
an inch square, was put into my extended hand, and
I was told that it was against Holy Poverty to use
the corner of my towel (certainly with such a bit of
granite as that piece of soap, it would have been !)
but that I might have a bit of an old stocking. I
made my acknowledgments in the accepted form,
“ Deo gratias,” and retired with the soap. The
next day was Saturday, and while sitting in the No
vitiate wondering where all the others were, a Novice
came and told me to go and wash my arms. Quite
amazed, I asked why ? “ Because,” replied Sister
Adelphine, “ the Novice-mistress says so ; ” she added
“ we always wash our arms on Saturday afternoons.”
This I thought a most troublesome and inconvenient
arrangement; but it never occurred to me till later
that arms were washed on Saturday afternoons only !
Legs were never washed at all!
Whatever struck me as strange I always discussed
with the Novice-mistress, not on my knees, but “ face
to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” From
her I learnt that nobody was allowed to wash until
she had put her stays on and had covered her neck
with a large handkerchief. Soap was to be used for
the face on Saturdays only. Arms were to be washed
on Saturdays only. Feet were never to be washed
with soap, and the water was only to rise to the ankle.
�40
Convent Experiences.
She had been eighteen years in the Convent, and her
ablutions had never extended further. Coarse flannel
chemises were worn next the skin; they were never
tak&n off at night, and were changed only once in
three weeks. Recently-clothed Novices, like myself,
were allowed to retain their own under-linen for some
weeks, or even longer. Woollen chemises were only
given to those who seemed likely to remain.
I was thunder-struck when I fully comprehended
the washing arrangements, and the Novice-mistress
was equally thunder-struck when she fully realised
what my notions of ablution involved. Only one
Postulant had ever presented herself to that large
community whose ideas upon soap and water at all
resembled mine. She left just before my arrival;
and, by a very curious coincidence, I have made her
acquaintance and we are very intimate. She is a
very intelligent Frenchwoman ; and when she found
that she could not have her accustomed cold bath,
she gave utterance to her sentiments with great free
dom, and left before she was elevated to the rank of
Novice. I proceeded more cautiously, and reserved
my remarks for the ever-willing ear of my friend the
Novice-mistress. I found that this woful neglect of
personal cleanliness was mainly due to profound
ignorance of the requirements of the body ; but as I
and the French lady were the only two among the
hundreds that, in the course of eighteen years, had
come under her notice who had expressed the smallest
astonishment at the washing arrangements, she was
quite justified in considering us peculiarly fanciful in
our notions. I could not persuade her that health
was at all contingent upon the condition of the skin.
When we discussed insufficient air, food, sleep,
clothing, and exercise, she readily embraced my
views, because the low tone of health among the Choir
novices was clearly attributable to those causes ; but,
unfortunately for my argument, no ill effects met the
�Convent Experiences.
41
eye which could be as clearly traced to insufficient
ablution. There were seventy young ladies m the
celebrated school attached to the Convent; they were
from the best families in the country. I was early
appointed “ Surveillante ” in the largest dormitory,
and was there while the children dressed and un
dressed. They used as much soap as they liked, but
they washed no more than we did—their feet were
washed less frequently, for while we might wash ours
every week they were allowed to wash theirs (and
no higher than the ankle) only once a fortnight.
Surely had they been accustomed to ample ablutions
at home, their parents would never have tolerated
such disgraceful neglect at school. I never heard one
of the children make any remark upon the subject,
and they all were in excellent health—so were the
numerous Lay-sisters, and yet not one drop of water
ever penetrated below the collar-bone or above the
ankle. They were all extremely dirty. With but
few exceptions all Monks, Nuns, and the children in
Convent schools are equally dirty—unblushingly
dirty.
...
The “ religious ” of the Order of Saint Dominic
are obliged by their rule to be clean in their persons
__but they are exceptions. I have known ladies
from other Orders who have either been Novices or
pupils, and they all agree with me that bodily filth is
part and parcel of the system pursued in Convents.
My remarks made no impression whatever upon the
Novice-mistress ; she thought me eccentric, and being
very much attached to me humoured me a little now
and then in regard to my skin. I have seen her ex
pressive eyes fill with tears at the thought of the in
adequate sleep, food, &c., which caused so many of
her Novices to languish; but to the advantages of
soap and water she was hopelessly insensible. The
Catholic Church teaches her children to hate, despise,
and mortify their flesh; the spiritual books tell them
�4-2
Convent Experiences.
to be ashamed and afraid of their bodies. Luckily
most of them give the Church the go-by, but in the
Convent they are conscientious and they act out their
convictions. Still I am bound to say that in my
opinion ignorance rather than fanaticism is at the
bottom of Convent filth.
The discovery of a bundle of babies’ bones would
indisputably have both startled and shocked me, but
my impression is that I should have rallied from its
effects far more rapidly than I did from the discovery
of the daily, monthly, yearly filth of the “ Spouses
of Jesus.” There was an incongruity about it I
never could get over ; and how it happens that my
views on the matter were so very unprecedented mys
tifies me still.
It was on a Saturday that I was told I was to leave
Holland, for that an English teacher was sadly
wanted in one of their Mission-Houses in London,
and that in a day or two I should return to my own
country with my new Superior. They avoided as
much as possible sending Novices from the MotherHouse, because, as the vows could not be taken else
where, their travelling expenses had to be paid back
again for the Profession. However, as nobody else
would have been equally available just then, I was
selected to go to London with the former Novice
mistress, whose new title was Sister Superior. I told
my dear, old friend that we should in all probability
never meet again. I had already almost made up my
mind to leave the Order, and she knew it. The very
many confidential conversations I had had with her
during nearly a year and a-half, combined with my
own observations, had convinced me that to make
the religious vows perpetual is both silly and cruel.
I am quite sure that many of the Nuns regretted
having made their vows, and I am equally sure that
no power on earth would induce them to break them.
I am certain that nothing is hidden from the Novices ;
�Convent Experiences.
43
they are frequently in regular harness for two years
before they take their vows, and know perfectly well
to what mode of life they are binding themselves ;
but it is a sad mistake to make the vows perpetual.
After a few years, when the first fervour has worn off,
when the health is seriously impaired, and when there
is nothing to look forward to but monotony, some of
them begin to doubt whether, after all, they have
done wisely. One of the Nuns told me she had never
ceased regretting the step she had taken, and she was
indisputably miserable.
Courtship precedes matrimony and the Novitiate
precedes the vows—both frequently turn out failures
—the bride and the Novice may make a mistake—one. becomes a wretched Nun, the other a miserable
wife, and yet neither is to blame. The Novice, how
ever, has ample time to make up her mind; she is
animated by the best motives; she feels happy, but
still she is honestly shown both sides of the question ;
she has less excuse than the bride, who sees but one
side; but she, the Novice, deliberately puts her head
into the noose and very rarely withdraws it. The
Visitation of Religious Houses by Protestant authori
ties twould be wholly useless. Nuns can get out of
durance without their aid if so disposed—but they
very rarely are so disposed, however miserable they
may be. Nuns can be released from the two vows of
Poverty and Obedience—one was so released by the
Bishop; she was an English woman of five-andthirty, and she left Holland during my stay there.
Protestants constantly forget that the inmates of
Convents do not want to get out, and that if they
were out they would still pursue the mode of life
which they consider in harmony with the precepts of
the Gospel, and with the practice of the Early Church.
There are Monks and Nuns in “ the world ” as well
as in the Cloister. I know some—some, moreover,
who lead a far more ascetic life than would be
�44
Convent Experiences.
allowed in most Cloisters. All the Nuns I knew en
tered the Convent in order the more closely to imitate
Christ. Had “ the world ” not been so hostile to his
interests, they would have remained in it.
They suffer quite as much as the relatives who de
plore them, but they see no alternative. Prove to
them that they would be more like Christ without his
poverty, his chastity, and his obedience, and that ab
solute self-renunciation is no part of his teaching,
then and then only will the Monasteries and the
Nunneries be vacated; but as long as the New Tes
tament contains the texts upon which their course of
action is founded, so long shall we see the muchdespised fruits of their voluntary Poverty, Chastity,
and Obedience.
PRINTED
BY C. W. REYNEEL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Convent experiences
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Barlow, Adela F. [Miss]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT144
Subject
The topic of the resource
Convents
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 (Convent experiences), 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
Convents
Conway Tracts
Nuns
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/434098f27df101e7287a045203ac15fd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Sx6kCY4KYfcg-hkB%7E6q9Rf2DqY042VQQ9TLJPYE3NctPGnE2MzttfafWYjrPzSoe7adBKO6Dsgo4iProCCJyQqP1oQ1t0o8fiX%7EmPwJYPFWKKUmn9eBD4glsbTY9JVHIa-uDfGFqhNeiSHNHcFAnZuvNYgYOhH36bPKnjmHJFQ7R55gWdzjRP%7E8JUbv5HjsiutxQ9gKC6d4iW-IZIwUIWMqcDiNOd9Y-N1t%7EaPVzMzbbalugPDBPHdwWLv3mGr%7EaAs1Qs%7Epj3-OA49Ll4AhqmOviMqnpgeF1Mns3yk6Z1x6L6-AwBYdMri6h-08qTn3MFk2R5lM2bsJyHNmpiODGJg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4fc0bab24e8ad6dbef954e23d09a7156
PDF Text
Text
ON
THE NATURE
AND THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C W. REYNELL, 16 LITTLE PULTENEY BTBEE
HAYMARKET, W.
�ON THE
NATURE AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
--------- ♦--------
T is impossible for those who study the deeper reli- gious problems of our time to stave off much
longer the question which lies at the root of them all,
“What do you believe in regard to God?” We may
controvert Christian doctrines, one after another ; point
by point we may be driven from the various beliefs of
our churches; reason may force us to see contradictions
where we had imagined harmony, and may open our
eyes to flaws where we had dreamed of perfection ; we
resign all idea of a revelation; we seek for God in
Nature only; we renounce for ever the hope (which
glorified our former creed into such alluring beauty)
that at some future time we should verily “ see ” God,
that “ our eyes should behold the King in his beauty ”
in that fairy “land which is very far off.” But every
step we take onwards towards a more reasonable faith
and a surer light of Truth leads us nearer and nearer to;
the problem of problems, “ What is That which men
call God?” Not till theologians have thoroughly
grappled with this question have they any just claim to
be called religious guides; from each of those whom we
honour as our leading thinkers we have a right to a
distinct answer to this question, and the very object of
the present paper is to provoke discussion on thispoint.
Men are apt to turn aside somewhat impatiently from
an argument about the Nature and Existence of the’
B
I
�6
On the Nature and
Deity, because they consider that the question is a meta
physical one which leads nowhere; a problem the reso
lution of which is beyond our faculties, and the study
of which is at once useless and dangerous • they forget
that action is ruled by thought, and that our ideas about
God are therefore of vast practical importance. On our
answer to the question propounded above depends our
whole conception of the nature and origin of evil, and of
the sanctions of morality • on our idea of God turns our
opinion on the much-disputed question of prayer, and,
in fact, our whole attitude of mind towards life, here
and hereafter. Does morality consist in obedience to the
will of a perfectly moral Being, and are we to aim at
righteousness of life because in so doing we please God ?
Or are we to lead noble lives because nobility of life is
desirable for itself alone, and because it spreads happi
ness around us and satisfies the desires of our own nature?
Is our mental attitude to be that of kneeling or stand
ing ? Are our eyes to be fixed on heaven or on earth ?
Is prayer to God reasonable and helpful, the natural cry
of a child for help from a Father in Heaven ? Or is it,
on the other hand, a useless appeal to an unknown and
irresponsible force ? Is the mainspring of our actions
to be the idea of duty to God, or a sense of the necessity
of bringing our being into harmony with the laws of the
universe ? It appears to me that these questions are of
such grave and vital moment that no apology is needed
for drawing attention to them; and because of their
importance to mankind I challenge the leaders of the
religious and non-religious world alike, the Christians,
Theists, Pantheists, and those who take no specific name,
duly to test the views they severally hold. In this battle
the simple foot soldier may touch with his lance the
shield of the knight, and the insignificance of the chal
lenger does not exempt the general from the duty of
lifting the gauntlet flung down at his feet. Little care I
for personal defeat, if the issue of the conflict should
enthrone more firmly the radiant figure of Truth. One
�the Existence of God.
7
fault, however, I am anxious to avoid, and that is the
fault of ambiguity. The orthodox and the free-thinking
alike do a good deal of useless fighting from sheer mis
understanding of each other’s standpoint in the contro
versy. It appears, then, to be indispensable in the
prosecution of the following inquiry that the meaning of
the terms used should be unmistakably distinct. I
begin, therefore, by defining the technical forms of
expression to be employed in my argument; the defi
nitions may be good or bad, that is not material;
all that is needed is that the sense in which the various
terms are used should be clearly understood. When
men fight only for the sake of discovering truth, definite
ness of expression is specially incumbent on them ; and, as
has been eloquently said, “ the strugglers being sincere,
truth may give laurels to the victor and the vanquished :
laurels to the victor in that he hath upheld the truth,
laurels still welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat
crowns him with a truth he knew not of before.”
The definitions that appear to me to be absolutely
necessary are as follows :—
Dialer is used to express that which is tangible.
Spirit (or spiritual) is used to express those intangible
forces whose existence we become aware of only through
the effects they produce.
Substance is used to express that which exists in itself
and by itself, and the conception of which does not
imply the conception of anything preceding it.
God is used to represent exclusively that Being in
vested by the orthodox with certain physical, intellec
tual, and moral attributes.
Particular attention must be paid to this last defini
tion, because the term 1‘ atheist ” is often flung unjustly
at any thinker who ventures to criticise the popular arid
traditional idea of God ; and different schools, Theistic,,
and non-Theistic, with but too much facility, bandy
about this vague epithet in mutual reproach.
As an instance of this uncharitable and unfair use of
�8
On the Nature and
ugly names, all schools agree in calling the late Mr,
Austin Holyoake an “atheist,” and he accepted the
name himself, although he distinctly stated (as we find
in a printed report of a discussion held at the Victoria
Institute) that he did not deny the possibility of the
existence of God, but only denied the possibility of
the existence of that God in whom the orthodox ex
horted him to believe. It is well thus to protest before
hand against this name being bandied about, because it
carries with it, at present, so much popular prejudice,
that it prevents all possibility of candid and free dis
cussion. It is simply a convenient stone to fling at the
head of an opponent whose arguments one cannot meet,
a certain way of raising a tumult which will drown his
voice ; and, if it have any serious meaning at all, it might
fairly be used, as I shall presently show, against the
most orthodox pillar of the orthodox faith.
It is manifest to all who will take the trouble to
think steadily, that there can be only one eternal and
underived substance, and that matter and spirit must
therefore only be varying manifestations of this one
substance. The distinction made between matter and
spirit is then simply made for the sake of convenience
and clearness, just as we may distinguish perception
from judgment, both of which, however, are alike pro
cesses of thought. Matter is, in its constituent elements,
the same as spirit; existence is one, however manifold
in its phenomena; life is one, however multiform in its
evolution. As the heat of the coal differs from the
coal itself, so do memory, perception, judgment, emo
tion, and will, differ from the brain which is the
instrument of thought. But nevertheless they are all
equally products of the one sole substance, varying only
in their conditions.- It may be taken for granted that
against this preliminary point of the argument will be
raised the party-cry of “rank materialism,” because
“materialism” is a doctrine of which the general
public has an undefined horror. But I am bold to say
�the Existence of God.
9
that if by matter is meant that which is above defined
as substance, then no reasoning person can help being a
materialist. The orthodox are very fond of arguing
back to what they call the Great First Cause, “ God
is a spirit,” they say, “ and from him is derived the
spiritual part of man.” Well and good ; they have
traced back a part of the universe to a point at which
they conceive that only one universal essence is possible,
that which they call God, and which is spirit only.
But I then invite their consideration to the presence of
something which they do not regard as spirit, i.e.,
matter. I follow their own plan of argument step by
step : I trace matter, as they traced spirit, back and
back, till I reach a point beyond which I cannot go, one
only existence, substance or essence; am I therefore to
believe that God is matter only ? • But we have already
found it asserted by Theists that he is spirit only, and
we cannot believe two contradictories, however logical
the road which led us to them ; so we must acknow
ledge two substances, eternally existent side by side;
if existence be dual, then, however absurd the hypo
thesis, there must be two First Causes. It is not I who
am responsible for an idea so anomalous. The ortho
dox escape from this dilemma by an assumption, thus :
“ God, to whom is to be traced back all spirit, created
matter.” Why? am I not equally justified in assuming,
if I please, that matter created spirit ? Why should I
be logical in one argument and illogical in another ? If
we come to assumptions, have not I as much right to
my assumption as my neighbour has to his ? Why may
he predicate creation of one half of the universe, and
I not predicate it of the other half ? If the assump
tions be taken into consideration at all, then I contend
that mine is the more reasonable of the two, since it is
possible to imagine matter as existing without mind,
while it is utterly impossible to conceive of mind exist
ing without matter. We all know how a stone looks,
and we are in the habit of regarding that as lifeless
�IO
On the Nature and
matter; but who has any distinct idea of a mind pur
et simple ? No clear conception of it is possible to
human faculties; we can only conceive of mind as it is
found in an organisation ; intelligence has no appreciable
existence except as residing in the brain and as mani
fested in results. The lines of spirit and matter are not
one, say the orthodox; they run backwards side by side;
why then, in following the course of these two parallel
lines, should I suddenly bend one into the other ? and on
what principle of selection shall I choose the one I am
to curve? I must really decline to use logic just as
far as it supports the orthodox idea of God, and
arbitrarily throw it down the moment it conflicts with
that idea. I find myself then compelled to believe that
one only substance exists in all around me; that the
universe is eternal, or at least eternal so far as our
faculties are concerned, since we cannot as some one
has quaintly put it, “ get to the outside of everywhere
that a Deity cannot be conceived of as apart from the
universe, pre-existent to the universe, post-existent to
the universe; that the Worker and' the Work are
inextricably interwoven, and in some sense eternally
and indissolubly combined. Having got so far, we will
proceed to examine into the possibility of proving the
existence of that one essence popularly called by the
name of God, under the conditions strictly defined by
the orthodox. Having demonstrated, as I hope to do,
that the orthodox idea of God is unreasonable and
absurd, we will endeavour to discover whether any idea
of God, worthy to be called an idea, is attainable in the
present state of our faculties.
The orthodox believers in God are divided into two
camps, one of which maintains that the existence of
God is as demonstrable' as any mathematical proposition,
while the other asserts that his existence is not demon
strable to the intellect. I select Dr. McCann, a man
of considerable reputation, as the representative of the
former of these two opposing schools of thought; and
�the Existence of God.
11
give the Doctor’s position in his own words :—“ The
purpose of the following paper is to prove the fallacy
of all such assumptions ” (z.e., that the existence of God
is an insoluble problem) “by showing that we are no
more at liberty to deny His being, than we are to deny
any demonstration of Euclid. He would be thought
unworthy of refutation who should assert that any two
angles of a triangle are together greater than two right
angles. We would content ourselves by saying, ‘ The
man is mad ’—mathematically at least—and pass on.
If it can be shown that we affirm the existence of Deity
for the very same reasons as we affirm the truth of any
geometric proposition; if it can be shown that the
former is as capable of demonstration as the latter,—
then it necessarily follows that if we are justified in
calling the man a fool who denies the latter, we are
also justified in calling him a fool who says there is no
God, and in refusing to answer him according to his
folly.” Which course is a very convenient one when
you meet with an awkward opponent whom you cannot
silence by sentiment and declamation. Again : “ In
conclusion, we believe it to be very important to be
able to prove that if the mathematician be justified in
asserting that the three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles, the Christian is equally justified in
asserting, not only that he is compelled to believe in
God, but that he lcnows Him (sfc). And that he who
denies the existence of the Deity is as unworthy of
serious refutation as is he who denies a mathematical
demonstration.” (‘ A Demonstration of the Existence
of God,’ a lecture delivered at the Victoria Institute.
1870, pp. 1 and 11.) Dr. McCann proves his very
startling thesis by laying down as axioms six state
ments, which, however luminous to the Christian tra
ditionalist, are obscure to the sceptical intellect. He
seems to be conscious of this defect in his so-called
axioms, for he proceeds to prove each of them elabo
rately, forgetting that the simple statement of an axiom
�12
On the Nature and
should carry direct conviction—that it needs only to be
understood in order to be accepted. However, let this
pass : our teacher, having stated and “ proved ” his
axioms, proceeds to draw his conclusions from them,
and as his foundations are unsound it is scarcely to be
wondered at that his superstructure should be insecure.
I know of no way so effectual to defeat an adversary as
to beg all the questions raised, assume every point in
^dispute, call assumptions axioms, and then proceed to
reason from them. It is really not worth while to
criticise Dr. McCann in detail, his lecture being nothing
but a mass of fallacies and unproved assertions. Chris
tian courtesy allows him to call those who dissent from
his assumptions “fools,” and as these terms of abuse
are not considered admissible by those whom he assails
as unbelievers, there is a slight difficulty in “ answer
ing ” Dr. McCann “according to his” deserts. I
content myself with suggesting, that they who wish to
learn how pretended reasoning may pass for solid argu
ment, how inconsequent statements may pass for logic,
had better study this lecture. For my own part, I
confess that my “ folly ” is not, as yet, of a sufficiently
pronounced type to enable me to accept Dr. McCann’s
conclusions.
The best representation I can select of the second
orthodox party, those who admit that the existence of
God is not demonstrable, is the late Dean Mansel. In
his ‘Limits of Religious Thought,’ the Bampton Lec
tures for 1867, he takes up a perfectly unassailable
position ; the peculiarity of this position, however, is
that he, the pillar of orthodoxy, the famed defender of
the faith against German infidelity and all forms of
rationalism, regards God from exactly the same point as
does a well-known modern “ atheist.” I have almost
hesitated sometimes which writer to quote from, so
identical are they in thought. Probably neither Dean
Mansel nor Mr. Bradlaugh would thank me for bracket
ing their names, but I am forced to confess that the
�the Existence of God.
*3
arguments used by the one to prove the endless absur
dities into which we fall when we try to comprehend
the nature of God, are exactly the same arguments
that are used by the other to prove that God, as believed
in by the orthodox, cannot exist. I quote, however,
exclusively from the Dean, because it is at once novel
and agreeable to find oneself sheltered by Mother Church
at the exact moment when one is questioning her verv
foundations; and also because the Dean’s name carries
with it so orthodox an odour that his authority will tell
where the same words from any of those who are out
side the pale of orthodoxy would be regarded with
suspicion. Nevertheless I wish to state plainly that a
more “ atheistical ” book than these Bampton Lectures
—at least in the earlier part of it—I have never read, and
had its title-page boriie the name of any well-known
Dree-thinker, it would have been received in the reli
gious world with a storm of indignation.
The first definition laid down by the orthodox as a
characteristic of God is that he is an Infinite Being.
“ There is but one living and true God ... of infinite
power, &c.” (Article of Religion, 1.) It has been said
that infinite only means indefinite, but I must protest
against this weakening of a well-defined theological
term. The term Infinite has always been understood
to mean far more than indefinite; it means literally
boundless: the infinite has no limitations, wo possible
restrictions, no “ circumference.” People who do not
think about the meaning of the words they use speak
very freely and familiarly of the “ infinitude” of God,
as though the term implied no inconsistency. Deny
that God is infinite and you are at once called an
atheist, but press your opponent into a definition of
the term and you will generally find that he does not
know what he is talking about. Dean Mansel points
out, with his accurate habit of mind, all that this
attribute of God implies, and it would be well if those
who “believe in an infinite God ” would try and realise
�14
On the Nature and
what they express. Half the battle of free thought
will be won when people attach a definite meaning tothe terms they use. The Infinite has no bounds ; then
the finite cannot exist. Why ? Because in the very
act of acknowledging any existence beside the Infinite
One you limit the Infinite. By saying, “ This is not
God you at once make him finite, because you set a
bound to his nature ; you distinguish between him and
something else, and by the very act you limit him ;
that which is not he is as a rock which checks the
waves of the ocean ; in that spot a limit is found, and
in finding a limit the Infinite is destroyed. The
orthodox may retort, “ this is only a matter of terms ; ’’
but it is well to force them into realising the dogmas
which they thrust on our acceptance under such awful
penalties for rejection. J know what “ an infinite God ”
implies, and, as apart from the universe, I feel compelled
to deny the possibility of his existence; surely it is fair
that the orthodox should also know what the words
they use mean on this head, and give up the term if
they cling to a “personal” God, distinct from “creation.”
Further—and here I quote Dean Mansel—the “ Infinite
must be conceived as containing within itself the sum,
not only of all actual, but of all possible modes of
being. ... If any possible mode can be denied of it
... it is capable of becoming more than it now is,
and such a capability is a limitation.” (The hiatus
refers to the “ absolute ” being of God, which it is
better.to consider separately.) “ An unrealised possi
bility is necessarily (a relation and) a limit.” Thus is
orthodoxy crushed by the powerful logic of its own
champion. God is infinite ; then, in that case, every
thing that exists is God; all phenomena are modes of
the Divine Being; there is literally nothing which is
not God. Will the orthodox accept this position ? It
lands them, it is true, in the most extreme Pantheism,
but what of that ? They believe in an “ infinite God ”
and they are therefore necessarily Pantheists. If they
�the Existence of God.
15
object to this, they must give up the idea that their God
is infinite at all; there is no half-way position open tothem ; he is infinite or finite, which ?
Again, God is “ before all things,” he is the only Abso
lute Being, dependent on nothing outside himself ; all
that is wo/God is relative ; that is to say, that God exists
alone and is not necessarily related to anything else.
The orthodox even believe that God did, at some former
period (which is not a period they say, because time
then was not—however, at'.that hazy “time” he did),
exist alone, i.e., as what is called an Absolute Being:
this conception is necessary for all who, in any sense,
believe in a Creator.
“ Thou, in Thy far eternity,
Didst live and love alone.”
So sings a Christian minstrel; and one of the argu
ments put forward for a Trinity is that a plurality of
persons is necessary in order that God may be able to
love at the “ time ” when he was alone. Into this point,
however, I do not now enter. But what does this
“ Absolute ” imply ? A simple impossibility of creation,
just as does the Infinite; for creation implies that the
relative is brought into existence, and thus the Absolute
is destroyed. “ Here again the Pantheistic hypothesis
seems forced upon us. We can think of creation only
as a change in the condition of that which, already
exists, and thus the creature is conceivable only as a
phenomenal mode of the being of the Creator.’’ Thus
once more looms up the dreaded spectre of Pantheism,
“the dreary desolation of a Pantheistic wilderness;”
and who is the Moses who has led us into this desert ?
It is a leader of orthodoxy, a dignitary of the Church ;
it is Dean Mansel who stretches out his hand to the
universe and says, “This is thy God, 0 Israel.”
The two highest attributes of God land us, then, in
the most thorough Pantheism ; further, before remark
ing on the other divine attributes, I would challenge
�i6
On the Nature and
the reader to pause and try to realise this infinite and
absolute being. “ That a man can be conscious of the
infinite is, then, a supposition which, in the very terms
in which it is expressed, annihilates itself. . . . The
infinite, if it is to be conceived at all,.must be con
ceived as potentially everything and actually nothing;
for if there is anything in general which it cannot
become, it is thereby limited ; and if there is anything
in particular which it actually is, it is thereby excluded
from being any other thing. But again, it must also
be conceived as actually everything and potentially
•nothing; for an unrealised potentiality is likewise a
limitation. If the infinite can be ” (in the future)
“ that which it is not ” (in the present) “it is by that
very possibility marked out as incomplete and capable
of a higher perfection. If it is actually everything, it
possesses no characteristic feature by which it can be
distinguished from anything else and discerned as an
object of consciousness.” I think, then, that we must
be content, on the showing of Dr. Mansel, to allow that
God is, in his own nature—from this point of view—
quite beyond the grasp of our faculties; as regards us
tie does not exist, since he is indistinguishable’and undiscernable. Well might the Church exclaim “Save me
from my friends! ” when a dean acknowledges that her
God is a self-contradictory phantom; oddly enough,
however, the Church likes it, and accepts this fatal
championship. I might have put this argument wholly
in my own words, for the subject is familiar to everyone
who has tried to gain a distinct idea of the Being who
is called “God,” but I have preferred to back my own
opinions with the authority of so orthodox a man as
Dean Mansel, trusting that by so doing the orthodox
may be forced to see where logic carries them. All who
are interested in this subject should study his lectures
carefully; there is really no difficulty in following them,
if the student will take the trouble of mastering once
for all, the terms he employs. The book was lent to
�the Existence of God.
iy
me years ago by a clergyman, and did more than any
other book I know to make me what is called an
‘•'infidel; ” it proves to demonstration the impossibility
of our having any logical, reasonable, and definite idea
of God, and the utter hopelessness of trying to realise
his existence. It seems necessary here to make a short
digression to explain, for the benefit of those who have
not read the book from which I have been quoting, how
Dean Mansel escaped becoming an “ atheist.” It is a
curious fact that the last part of this book is as remark
able for its assumptions, as is the earlier portion for its
pitiless logic. When he ought in all reason to say, “ we
can know nothing and therefore can believe nothing,”
he says instead, “ we can know nothing and therefore
let us take Revelation for granted.” An atheistic
reasoner suddenly startles us by becoming a devout
Christian; the apparent enemy of the faithful is
“ transformed into an angel of light.” The existence
of God “ is inconceivable by the reason,” and therefore
“ the only ground that can be taken for accepting one
representation of it rather than another is, that one is
revealed and the other not revealed.” It is the acknow
ledgment of a previously formed determination to believe
at any cost; it is a wail of helplessness; the very
apotheosis of despair. We cannot have history, so let
us believe a fairy-tale ; we can discover nothing, so let us
assume anything; we cannot find truth, so let us take
the first myth that comes to hand. Here I feel com
pelled to part company with the Dean, and to leave him
to believe in, to adore, and to love that which he has
himself designated as indistinguishable and undiscernable; it may be an act of faith but it is a crucifixion of
intellect; it may be a satisfaction to the yearnings of
the heart, but it dethrones reason and tramples it in
the dust.
We proceed in our study of the attributes of God.
He is represented as the Supreme Will, the Supreme
Intelligence, the Supreme Love.
�18
On the Nature and
As the Supreme Will. What do we mean by “ will ?”
Surely, in the usual sense of the word, a will implies
the power and the act of choosing. Two paths are
■ open to us, and we will to walk in one rather than in
the other. But can we think of power of choice in
connection with God ? Of two courses open to us one
must needs be better than the other, else they would
be indistinguishable and be only one; perfection implies
that the higher course will always be taken; what
then becomes of the power of choice ? We choose
because we are imperfect; we do not know every
thing which bears on the matter on which we are
about to exercise our will; if we knew everything
we should inevitably be driven in one direction, that
which is the best possible course. The greater the
knowledge, the more circumscribed the will; the nobler
the nature, the more impossible the lower course.
Spinoza points out most clearly that the Divinity could
not have made things otherwise than they are made,
because any change in his action would imply a change
in his nature; God, above all, must be bound by
necessity. If we believe in a God at all we must surely
ascribe to him perfection of wisdom and perfection of
goodness; we are then forced to conceive of him—
however strange it may sound to those who believe, not
only without seeing but also without thinking—as with
out will, because he must always necessarily pursue the
course which is wisest and best.
As the Szipreme Intelligence. Again, the first ques
tion is, what do we mean by wfeZZfyewce ? In the usual
sense of the word intelligence implies the exercise of
the various intellectual faculties, and gathers up into
one word the ideas of perception, comparison, memory,
judgment, and so on. The very enumeration of these
faculties is sufficient to show how utterly inappropriate
they are when thought of in connection with God.
Does God perceive what he did not know before ? Does
he compare one fact with another ? Does he draw con-
�the Existence of God.
T9
elusions from this correlation of perceptions, and thus
judge what is best ? Does he remember, as we remem
ber, long past events ? Perfect wisdom excludes from
the idea of God all that is called intelligence in man ;
it involves unchangeableness, complete stillness; it'
implies a knowledge of all that is knowable; it includes
an acquaintance with every fact, an acquaintance
which has never been less in the past, and can never
be more in the future. The reception at any time of
a new thought or a new idea is impossible to perfection,
for if it could ever be added to in the future it is neces
sarily something less than perfect in the past.
As the Supreme Love. We come here to the darkest
problem of existence. Love, Ruler of the world per
meated through and through with pain, and sorrow,
and sin ? Love, mainspring of a nature whose cruelty
is sometimes appalling ? Love ? Think of the “ mar
tyrdom of man!” Love? Follow the History of the
Church ! Love ? Study the annals of the slave-trade !
Love? Walk the courts and alleys of our towns! It
is of no use to try and explain away these things, or
cover them up with a veil of silence; it is better to
look them fairly in the face, and test our creeds by
inexorable facts. It is foolish to keep a tender spot
which may not be handled • for a spot which gives pain
when it is touched implies the presence of disease :
wiser far is it to press firmly against it, and if danger
lurk there to use the probe or the knife. We have no
right to pick out all that is noblest and fairest in man,
to project these qualities into space, and to call them
God. We only thus create an ideal figure, a purified,
ennobled, “magnified” Man. We have no right to
shut our eyes to the sad revers de la medaille, and leave
out of our conceptions of the Creator the larger half of
his creation. If we are to discover the Worker from
his works we must not pick and choose amid those
works; we must take them as they are, “good” and
“bad.” If we only want an ideal, let us by all means
�20
On the Nature and
make one, and call it God, if thus we can reach it better,
but if we want a true induction we must take all facts
into account. If G-od is to be considered as the author
of the universe, and we are to learn of him through his
works, then we must make room in our conceptions of
him for the avalanche and the earthquake, for the
tiger’s tooth and the serpent’s fang, as well as for the
tenderness of woman and the strength of man, the
radiant glory of the sunshine on the golden harvest, and
the gentle lapping of the summer waves on the gleaming
shingled beach.
*
The Nature of God, what is it ? Infinite and Abso
lute, he evades our touch: without human will, without
human intelligence, without human love, where can his
faculties—the very word is a misnomer—find a meet
ing-place with ours ? Is he everything or nothing ? one
or many ? We know not. We know nothing. Such
is the conclusion into which we are driven by ortho
doxy, with its pretended faith, which is credulity, with
its pretended proofs, which are presumptions. It defines
and maps out' the perfections of Deity, and they dis
solve when we try to grasp them; nowhere do these
ideas hold water for a moment; nowhere is this posi
tion defensible. Orthodoxy drives thinkers into atheism;
weary of its contradictions they cry, “ there is no G-od
orthodoxy’s leading thinker lands us himself in atheism.
* “ I know it is usual for the orthodox when vindicating; the moral
character of their God to say:—‘All the Evil that exists is of man;
All that God has done is only good.’’ But granting- (which facts do not
substantiate) that man is the only author of the sorrow and the wrong
that abound in the world, it is difficult to see how the Creator can be
free from imputation Did not God, according to orthodoxy, plan
all things with an infallible perception that the events foreseen must
occur? Was not this accurate prescience based upon the inflexibility
of God’s Eternal purposes? As, then, the purposes, in the order of
nature, at least preceded the prescience and formed the groundwork of
it, man has become extensively the instrument of doing mischief in the
world simply because the God of the Christian Church did not ch’oose to
prevent man from being bad. In other words man is as he is by the
ordained design of God, and therefore God is responsible for all the
suffering, shame, and error, spread by human agency.-So that the
Christian apology for God in connection with the spectacle of evil falls
to pieces.”—Note, by the Editor.
�the Existence of God.
21
No logical, impartial, mind can escape from unbelief
through the trap-door opened by Dean Mansel: he has
taught us reason, and we cannot suppress reason. The
“ serpent intellect ”—as the Bishop of Peterborough
calls it—has twined itself firmly round the tree of
knowledge, and in that type we do not see, with the
Hebrew, the face of death, but, with the older faiths,
we reverence it as the symbol of life.
There is another fact, an historical one, still on the
destructive side, which appears to me to be of the
gravest importance, and that is the gradual attenuation
of the idea of God before the growing light of true
knowledge. To the savage everything is divine; he
hears one God’s voice in the clap of the thunder, another’s
in the roar of the earthquake, he sees a divinity in the
trees, a deity smiles at him from the clear depths of the
river and the lake; every natural phenomenon is the
abode of a god; every event is controlled by a god ;
divine volition is at the root of every incident. To him
the rule of the gods is a stern reality; if he offends
them they turn the forces of nature against him ; the
flood, the famine, the pestilence, are the ministers of
the avenging anger of the gods. As civilisation ad
vances, the deities lessen in number, the divine powers
become concentrated more and more in one Being, and
God rules over the whole earth, maketh the clouds his
chariot, and reigns above the waterfloods as a king.
Physical phenomena are still his agents, working his
will among the children of men; he rains great hail
stones out of heaven on his enemies, he slays their
flocks and desolates their lands, but his chosen are safe
under his protection, even although danger hem them
in on every side • “ thou shalt not be afraid for any
terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for
the sickness that destroyeth in the noon-day. A thou
sand shall fall beside thee, and ten thousand at thy
right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
c
�22
On the Nature and
He shall defend thee under his wings, and thou shaft
be safe under his feathers.” (Ps. xci., Prayer-Book.)
Experience contradicted this theory rather roughly, and
it gave way slowly before the logic of facts; it is how
ever, still more or less prevalent among ourselves, as we
see when the siege of Paris is proclaimed as a judgment
on Parisian irreligion, and when the whole nation falls
on its knees to acknowledge the cattle-plague as the
deserved punishment of its sins ! The next step forward
was to separate the physical from the moral, and to
allow that physical suffering came independently of
moral guilt or righteousness : the men crushed under
the fallen tower of Siloam were not thereby proved to
be more sinful than their countrymen. The birth of
science rang the death-knell of an arbitrary and con
stantly interposing Supreme Power. The theory of
God as a miracle worker was dissipated; henceforth if
God ruled at all it must be as in nature and not from
outside of nature; he no longer imposed laws on some
thing exterior to himself, the laws could only be the
necessary expression of his own being. Laws were,
further, found to be immutable in their working, .
changing not in accordance with prayer, but ever true
to a hair's breadth in their action. Slowly, but surely,
prayer to God for the alteration of physical phenomena
is being found to be simply a well-meant superstition ;
nature swerves not for our pleading, nor falters in her
path for our most passionate supplication. The “ reign
of law” in physical matters is becoming acknowledged
even by theologians. As step by step the knowledge of
the natural advances, so step by step does the belief in
the supernatural recede; as the kingdom of science
extends, so the kingdom of miraculous interference
gradually disappears. The effects which of old were
thought to be caused by the direct action of God are
now seen to be caused by the uniform and calculable
working of certain laws,—laws which, when discovered,
it is the part of wisdom implicitly to obey. Things
�the Existence of God.
which we used to pray for, we now work and wait for,
and if we fail we do not ask God to add his strength to
ours, but we sit down and lay our plans more carefully.
How is this to end ? Is the future to be like the past,
and is science finally to obliterate the conception of a
personal God ? It is a question which ought to be pon
dered in the light of history. Hitherto the super
natural has always been the makeweight of human
ignorance ; is it, in truth, this and nothing else ?
I am forced, with some reluctance, to apply the whole
of the above reasoning to every school of thought,
whether nominally Christian or non-Christian, which
regards God as a “ magnified man.” The same stern
logic cuts every way and destroys alike the Trinitarian
and the Unitarian hypothesis, wherever the idea of God
is that of a Creator, standing, as it were, outside his
creation. The liberal thinker, whatever his present
position, seems driven infallibly to the above conclusions,
as soon as he sets himself to realise his idea of his God.
The Deity must of necessity be that one and only sub
stance out of which all things are evolved under the
uncreated conditions and eternal laws of the universe ;
he must be, as Theodore Parker somewhat oddly puts
it, ‘‘the materiality of matter, as well as the spirituality
•f spirit; ” i.e., these must both be products of this one
substance: a truth which is readily accepted as soon as
spirit and matter are seen to be but different modes of
one essence. Thus we identify substance with the all
comprehending and vivifying force of nature, and in so
doing we simply reduce to a physical impossibility the
existence of the Being described by the orthodox as a
God possessing the attributes of personality. The Deity
becomes identified with nature, co-extensive with the
universe ; but the Got? of the orthodox no longer exists ;
we may change the signification of God, and use the
word to express a different idea, but we can no longer
mean by it a Personal Being in the orthodox sense,
possessing an individuality which divides him from the
�-24
On the Nature and
rest of the universe. I say that I use these arguments
el with some reluctance/’ because many who have fought
and are fighting nobly and bravely in the army of freethought, and to whom all free-thinkers owe much
honour, seem to cling to an idea of the Deity, which,
however beautiful and poetical, is not logically defensible,
and in striking at the orthodox notion of God, one neces
sarily strikes also at all idea of a “ Personal ” Deity.
There are some Theists who have only cut out the Son
and the Holy Ghost from the Triune Jehovah, and have
concentrated the Deity in the Person of the Father;
they have returned to the old Hebrew idea of God, the
Creator, the Sustainer, only widening it into regarding
God as the Friend and Father of all his creatures, and
not of the Jewish nation only. There is much that is
noble and attractive in this idea, and it will possibly
serve as a religion of transition to break the shock of
the change from the supernatural to the natural. It
is reached entirely by a process of giving up ; Christian
notions are dropped one after another, and the God who
is believed in is the residuum. This Theistic school has
not gained its idea of God from any general survey of
nature or from any philosophical induction from facts;
it has gained it only by stripping off from an idea already
in the mind everything which is degrading and revolting
in the dogmas of Trinitarianism. It starts, as I have
noticed elsewhere, from a very noble axiom : “ If there
be a God at all he must be at least as good as his highest
creatures,” and thus is instantly swept away the
Augustinian idea of a God,—that monster invented by
theological dialectics • but still the same axiom makes
God in the image of man, and never succeeds in getting
outside a human representation of the Divinity. It starts
from this axiom, and the axiom is prefaced by an “if.”
It assumes God, and then argues fairly enough what his
character must be. And this “ if ” is the very point on
which the argument of this paper turns.
“ If there be a God ” all the rest follows, but is there
�the Existence of God.
2$
a God at all in the sense in which the word is gene
rally used ? And thus I come to the second part of
my problem; having seen that the orthodox “ idea of
God is unreasonable and absurd, is there any idea of
God, worthy to be called an idea, which is attainable in
the present state of our faculties?” (P. 10.)
The argument from design does not seem to me to
be a satisfactory one; it either goes too far or not far
enough. Why in arguing from the evidences of adapta
tion should, we assume that they are planned by a
mind ?. It is quite as easy to conceive of matter asself-existent, with inherent vital laws moulding it into
varying phenomena, as to conceive of any intelligent
mind directly modelling matter, so that the “ heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth
his handy-work. ’ It is, I know, customary to sneer at
the idea of beautiful forms existing without a conscious
designer, to parallel the adaptations of this world to
the adaptations in machinery, and then triumphantly to
inquire, if skill be inferred from the one, why ascribe
the other to chance? ” We do not believe in chance;
the steady action of law is not chance; the exquisite
crystals which form themselves under certain conditions
are not a “ fortuitous concourse of atoms; ” the only
question is whether the laws which we all allow to
govern nature are immanent in nature, or the outcome
of an intelligent mind. If there be a law-maker, is he
self-existent, or does he, in turn, as has been asked’
again and again by Positivist, Secularist, and Atheist,
require a maker ? If we think for a moment of the
vast mind implied in the existence of a Creator of
the universe, is it possible to believe that such a mind
is the result of chance ? If man’s mind imply a
master-mind, how much more that of God ? Of course
the question seems an absurd one, but it is quite as
pertinent as the question about a world-maker. Wemust come to a stop somewhere, and it is quite as logical
to stop at one point as at another. The argument from
�26
On the Nature and
design would be valuable if we could prove, a priori,
as Mr. Gillespie attempted to do, the existence of a
*
Deity ; this being proved we might then fairly argue
deductively to the various apparent signs of mind in
the universe. Again, if we allow design we must ask,
•“ how far does design extend ? ” If some phenomena
are designed, why not all 1 And if not all, on what
principle can we separate that which is designed from
that which is not ? If intellect and love reveal a
design, what is revealed by brutality and hate ? If the
latter are not the result of design, how did they become
introduced into the universe ? I repeat that this argu
ment implies either too much or too little.
There is but one argument that appears to me to have
any real weight, and that is the argument from instinct.
Man has faculties which appear, at present, as though
they were not born of the intellect, and it seems to me
to be unphilosophical to exclude this class of facts from
our survey of nature. The nature of man has in it
certain sentiments and emotions which, reasonably or
unreasonably, sway him powerfully and continually;
they are, in fact, his strongest motive-powers, over
whelming the reasoning faculties with resistless strength ;
true, they need discipline and controlling, but they do
not need to be, and they cannot be, destroyed. The
sentiments of love, of reverence, of worship, are not, as
yet, reducible to logical processes; they are intuitions,
spontaneous emotions, incomprehensible to the keen and
cold intellect. They may be laughed at or denied, but
they still exist in spite of all; they avenge themselves,
when they are not taken into account, by ruining the
best laid plans, and they are continually bursting the
cords with which reason strives to tie them down. I
do not for a moment pretend to deny that these “ intui
tions ” will, as our knowledge of psychology increases,
be reducible to strict laws; we call them instincts and
‘ Tile Necessary Existence of Deity.’
�the Existence of God.
27
intuitions simply because we are unable to trace them to
their source, and this vague expression covers the vague
ness of our ideas. Therefore, intuition is not to be
•accepted as a trustworthy guide, but it may suggest an
hypothesis, and this hypothesis must then be submitted
to the stern verification of observed facts. We are not
as yet able to say to what the instinct in man to worship
points, or what reality answers to his yearning. In
creased knowledge will, we may hope, reveal to us
*
where there lies the true satisfaction of this instinct: so
long as the yearning is only an “ instinct ” it cannot
pretend to be logically defensible, or claim to lay down
any rule of faith. But still I think it well to point out
that this instinct exists in man, and exists most strongly
in some of the noblest souls.
Of all the various sentiments which are thus at pre
sent “intuitional,” none is so powerful, none so over
mastering as this instinct to worship, this sentiment of
religion. It is as natural for man to worship as to
eat. ' He will do it, be it reasonable or unreasonable.
Just as the baby crams everything into his mouth, so
does man persist in worshipping something. It may be
said that the baby’s instinct does not prove that he is
right in trying to devour a match-box ; true, but it
proves the existence of something eatable; so fetish
worship, polytheism, theism, do not prove that man has
worshipped rightly, but do they not prove the existence
of something worshipable ? The argument does not, of
course, pretend to amount to a demonstration; it is
* “ Is therein man any such Instinct? May not the general tendency to
worship a Deity, everywhere be the result of the influence gained by
Priests over the mind, by the play of the mysterious Unknown and
Hereafter upon susceptible imaginations ? Besides, what are we to say
of the immense number of philosophical Buddhists and Brahmins, for
whose comfort or moral guidance the idea of a God or a hereafter is felt
to be quite unnecessary? They cannot comprehend it, and consequently
acts of worship to God would be deemed by them fanatical It is tra
ditionalists who either do not think at all, or think only within a narrow,
creed-bound circle, that are most devoted to worshipping Deity ; and if
so, may not the whole history of worship have its origin in superstition
and priestcraft ? In that case, the theory of an instinct of worship falls
to the ground.”— Note by the Editor.
�28
On the Nature and
nothing more than the suggestion of an analogy; arewe to find that the supply is correlated to the demand
throughout nature, and yet believe that this hitherto
invariable system is suddenly altered when we reach the
spiritual part of man? I do not deny that this instinct
is hereditary, and that it is fostered by habit. The idea
of reverence for God is transmitted from parent to child,
it is educated into an abnormal development, and thus
almost indefinitely strengthened, but yet it does appear
to me that the bent to worship is an integral part of
man’s nature. This instinct has also sometimes been
considered to have its root in the feeling that one’s indi
vidual self is but a “ part of a stupendous wholethat
the so-called religious feeling which is evoked by a grand
view or a bright starlight night is only the realisation of
personal insignificance, and the reverence which rises in
the soul in the presence of the mighty universe of which
we form a part. Whatever the root and the significance
of this instinct, there can be no doubt of its strength;
there is nothing rouses men’s passions as does theology ;
for religion men rush on death more readily and joyfully
than for any other cause ; religious fanaticism is the
most fatal, the most terrible power in the world. In
studying history I also see the upward tendency of the
race, and note that current which Mr. Matthew Arnold
has called “ that stream of tendency, not ourselves,
which makes for righteousness.” Of course, if there be
a conscious God, this tendency is a proof of his moral
character, since it would be the outcome of his laws •
but here again an argument which would be valuable
were the existence of God already proved, falls blunted
from the iron wall of the unknown. The same tendency
upwards would naturally exist in any “ realm of law,”
although the law were an unconscious force. For
righteousness is nothing more than obedience to law, and
where there is obedience to law, Nature’s mighty forces
lend their strength to man, and progress is secured.
Only by obedience to law can advance be made, and this
�the Existence of God.
29
rule applies, of course, to morality as well as to physics.
Physical righteousness is obedience to physical laws;
moral righteousness is obedience to moral laws ; just as
physical laws are discovered by the observation of natural
phenomena, so must moral laws be discovered by the
observation of social phenomena. That which increases
the general happiness is right; that which tends to
destroy the general happiness is wrong. Utility is the
test of morality. But a law must not be drawn from
a single fact or phenomenon; facts must be carefully
collated, and the general laws of morality drawn from a
generalisation of facts. But this subject is too large to
enter upon here, and it is only hinted at in order to note
that, although there is a moral tendency apparent in the
course of events, it is rather a rash assumption to take it
for granted that the power in question is a conscious one :
it may be, and that, I think, is all we 'can justly and
reasonably say.
Again, as regards Love. I have protested above
against the easiness which talks glibly of the Supreme
Love while shutting its eyes to the supreme agony of the
world. But here, in putting forward what may be said
on the other side of the question, I must remark that
there is a possible explanation for sorrow and sin which
is consistent with love. Given immortality of man and
beast, and tbe future gain may then outweigh the present
loss. But we are bound to remember that we can only
have a hops of immortality; we have no demonstration
of it, and this is, therefore, only an assumption by which
we escape from a difficulty. We ought to be ready to
acknowledge, also, that there is love in nature, although
there is cruelty too; there is the sunshine as well as the
storm, and we must not fix our eyes on the darkness
alone and deny the light. In mother-love, in the love
of friends, loyal through all doubt, true in spite of
danger and difficulty, strongest when most sorely tried,
we see gleams of so divine, so unearthly a beauty, that
our hearts whisper to us of an universal heart pulsating
�3°
On the Nature and
throughout nature, which, at these rare moments, we
■cannot believe to be a dream. But there seems, also, to
be a vague idea that love and other virtues could not
exist unless derived from f7ie Love, &c. It is true that
we do conceive certain ideals of virtue which we personify,
and to which we apply various terms implying affection;
we speak of a love of Truth, devotion to Freedom, and
so on. These ideals have, however, a purely subjective
existence, they are not objective realities, there is nothing
answering to these conceptions in the outside world, nor
do we pretend to believe in their individuality. But
when we gather up all our ideals, our noblest longings,
and bind them into one vast ideal figure, which we call
by the name of God, then we at once attribute to it an
■objective existence, and complain of coldness and hard
ness if its reality is questioned, and we demand to know
if we can love an abstraction ? The noblest souls do love
abstractions, and live in their beauty and die fortheir sake.
There appears also to be a possibility of a mind in
Nature, although we have seen that intelligence is,
strictly speaking, impossible. There cannot be percep
tion, memory, comparison, or judgment, but may there
not be a perfect mind, unchanging, calm, and still ?
■Our faculties fail us when we try to estimate the Deity,
and we are betrayed into contradictions and absurdities,
but does it therefore follow that He is not ? It seems
to me that to deny his existence is to overstep the
boundaries of our thought-power almost as much as to
try and define it. We pretend to know the Unknown
if we declare Him to be the Unknowable. Unknow
able to us at present, yes! Unknowable for ever, in
other possible stages of existence ?—We have reached a
region into which we cannot penetrate ; here all human
faculties fail us ; we bow our heads on “ the threshold
of’the unknown.”
And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man can
not see;
But if we could see and hear, this Vision—were it not He ?
�the Existence of God.
31
Thus sings Alfred Tennyson, the poet of metaphysics :
“ if we could see and hear; ” alas! it is always
an “ if.”
We come back to the opening of this essay: what
is the practical result of our ideas about the Divinity,
and how do these ideas affect the daily working life ?
What conclusions are we to draw from the undeniable
fact that, even if there be a “ personal God,” his
nature and existence are beyond our faculties, that
^‘clouds and darkness are round about him,” that he is
veiled in eternal silence and reveals himself not to
men ? Surely the obvious inference is that, if he does
really exist, he desires to conceal himself from the in
habitants of our world. I repeat, that if the Deity
exist, he does not wish us to know of his existence.
There may be, in the very nature of things, an impos
sibility of his revealing himself to men ; we may have no
faculties with which to apprehend him • can we reveal
the stars and the rippling expanse of ocean to the sight
less limpet on the rock ? Whether this be so or not,
certain is it that the Deity does not reveal himself;
either he cannot or he will not. And the reason—I am
granting for the moment for argument’s sake his personal
existence—is not far to seek ; it is blazed upon the face
■of history. For what has been the result of theology
upon the whole ? It has turned men’s eyes from earth,
to fix them on heaven • it has bid them be careless of
the temporal, while luring them to grasp at the eternal;
it has induced multitudes to lavish fervent sentiment
upon a conception framed by Priests of an incom
prehensible God, while diverting their strength from
the plain duties which Humanity has before it; it
has taught them to live for the world to come, when
they should live for the world around them; it has
made earth’s wrongs endurable with the hope of the
glory to be revealed. Wisely indeed would the Deity
hide himself, when even a phantom of him has wrought
such fatal mischief; and never will real and steady
�32
On the Nature and
progress be secured until men acquiesce in this benefi
cent law of their nature, which draws a stern circle of
the “ limits of Religious Thought ” and bids them con
centrate their attention on the work they have to do in
this world, instead of being “for ever peering into and
brooding over the world beyond the grave.”
“ What is to he our conception of morality, is it to
base itself on obedience to God, or is it to be sought
for itself and its effects ? ” When we admit that
God is beyond our knowing, morality becomes at
once necessarily grounded on utility, or the natural
adaptation of certain feelings and actions to promote
the general welfare of society. As no revelation is
given to us as one “ infallible standard of right
and wrong,” we must form our morality for our
selves from thought and from experience. For ex
ample, our moral nature, as educated under the highest
civilisation, tells us that lying is wrong ; with this
*
hypothesis in our minds we study facts, and discover
that lying causes mistrust, anarchy, and ruin; thence
we lay down as a moral law, “Lie not at all.” The
science of morality must be content to grow like other
sciences: first an hypothesis, round which to group our
facts, then from the collected and collated facts reason
ing up to a solid law. Scientific morality has this great
advantage over revealed, that it stands on firm, unassail
able ground; new facts will alter its details, but can
never touch its method ; like all other sciences, it is at
once positive and progressive.
“Is our mental attitude to be kneeling or standing?”
When we admit that the Deity is veiled from us, how
can we pray ? When we see that law is inexorable, of
what use to protest against its absolute sway ? When
we feel that all, including ourselves, are but modes of
Being which is one and universal, in which we “ live
♦ All men do not think lying wrong, e.g, Thugs and old Spartans.
Therefore it is not our moral nature that intuitively tells us this, but
our moral nature as instructed by the moral ideas prevailing in the
society in which we happen to be living.—Note by the Editor.
�the Existence of God.
33
and move,” how shall we pray to that which is close to
us as our own souls, part of our very selves, inseparable
from our thoughts, sharing our consciousness ? As well
talk aloud to ourselves as pray to the universal Essence.
Children cry for what they want; men and women work
for it. There are two points of view from which we
may regard prayer: from the one it is a piece of child
ishness only, from the other it is sheer impertinence.
Regarding Nature’s mighty order, her grand, silent, un
varying march,—the importunity which frets against
her changeless progress is a mark of the most extreme
childishness of mind; it shows that complete irreverence
of spirit which cannot conceive the idea of a greatness
before which the individual existence is as nothing, and
that infantile conceit which imagines that its own plans
and playthings rival in importance the struggles of
nations and the interests of distant worlds. Regarding
Nature’s .laws as wiser than our own whims, the idea
which finds its outlet in prayer is a gross impertinence ;
who are we that we should take it on ourselves to remind
Nature of her work, God of his duty ? Is there any
impertinence so extreme as the prayer which “ pleads ”
with the Deity ? There is only one kind of “ prayer ”
which is reasonable, and that is the deep, silent, adora
tion of the greatness and beauty and order around us,
as revealed in the realms of non-rational life and in
Humanity ; as we bow our heads before the laws of the
universe and mould our lives into obedience to their
voice, we find a strong, calm peace steal over our hearts,
a perfect trust in the ultimate triumph of the right,
a quiet determination to “ make our lives sublime.”
Before our own high ideals, before those lives which
show us “how high the tides of divine life have risen
in the human world,” we stand with hushed voice and
veiled face; from them we draw strength to emulate,
and even dare struggle to excel. The contemplation of
the ideal is true prayer; it inspires, it strengthens, it
ennobles. The other part of prayer is work: from
�34
On the Nature and
contemplation to labour, from the forest to the street.
Study Nature’s laws, conform to them, work in harmony,
with them, and work becomes a prayer and a thanks
giving, an adoration of the universal wisdom, and a true
obedience to the universal law.
“ Is the mainspring of our actions to be the idea of
duty to God, or the idea of loyalty to law and to mans
well-being V' We cannot serve God in any real sense ;
we are awed before the Unknown, but we cannot serve
it. For the Mighty, for the Incomprehensible, what
can we do ? But we can serve man, aye, and he needs
our service ; service of brain and hand, service untiring
and unceasing, service through life and unto death.
The race to which we belong (our own families and
kinsfolk, and then the community at large) has the first
claim on our allegiance, a claim from which nothing
can release us until death drops a veil over our work.
Surely I may claim that my subject is not an un
practical one, and that our ideas of the Nature and
Existence of God influence our lives in a very real way.
If I have substituted a different basis of morality for
that on which it now stands, if I have suggested a
different theory of prayer, and offered a different
motive for duty, Surely these changes affect the whole
of human life. And if one by one these theories are
denied by the orthodox, and they reject them because
they sever human life from that which is called revealed
religion, is not my position justified, that the ideas we
hold of God are the ruling forces of our lives ? that it
is of primary importance to the welfare of mankind
that a false theory on this point should be destroyed
and a more reasonable faith accepted ?
Will any one exclaim, “ You are taking all beauty
out of human life, all hope, all warmth, all inspiration;
you give us cold duty for filial obedience, and inexorable
law in the place of God”? All beauty from life ? Is
there, then, no beauty in the idea of forming part of the
great life of the universe, no beauty in conscious har-
�the Existence of God.
35
mony with. Nature, no beauty in faithful service, no
beauty in ideals of every virtue ? “All hope ? ” Why,
I give you more than hope, I give you certainty : if I
bid you labour for this world, it is with the knowledge
that this world will repay you a thousand-fold, because
society will grow purer, freedom more settled, law more
honoured, life more full and glad. What is your hope ?'
A heaven in the clouds. I point to a heaven attainable
on earth. “ All warmth ? ” What! You serve warmly
a God unknown and invisible, in a sense the projected
shadow of your own imaginings, and can only serve
coldly your brother whom you see at your side ? There
is no warmth in brightening the lot of the sad, in re
forming abuses, in establishing equal justice for rich and
poor ? You find warmth in the church, but none in
the home ? Warmth in imagining the cloud-glories of
heaven, but none in creating substantial glories on
earth ? “All inspiration ? ” If you want inspiration to
feeling, to sentiment, perhaps you had better keep to
your Bible and your creeds ; if you want inspiration to
work, go and walk through the east of London, or the
back streets of Manchester. You are inspired to tender
ness as you gaze at the wounds of Jesus, dead in Judsea
long ago, and find no inspiration in the wounds of men
and women dying in the England of to-day? You
“have tears to shed for him,” but none for the sufferer
at your doors ? His passion arouses your sympathies,
but you see no pathos in the passion of the poor ? Duty
is colder than “filial obedience? ” What do you mean
by filial obedience ? Obedience to your ideal of good
ness and love, is it not so ? Then how is duty cold ?
I offer you ideals for your homage : here is Truth for
your Mistress, to whose exaltation you shall devote your
intellect; here is Freedom for your General, for whose
triumph you shall fight; here is Love for your Inspirer,
who shall influence your every thought; here is Man for
your Master—not in heaven but on earth—to whose
service you shall consecrate every faculty of your being.
�36 On the Nature and the Existence of God.
Inexorable law in the place of God ? Yes : a stern
certainty that you shall not waste your life, yet gather
a rich reward at the close; that you shall not sow
misery, yet reap gladness; that you shall not be selfish,
yet be crowned with love, nor shall you sin, yet find
safety in repentance. True, our creed is a stern one,
stern with the beautiful sternness of Nature. But if
we be in the right, look to yourselves: laws do not
check their action for your ignorance; fire will not
cease to scorch, because you “did not know.”
We know nothing beyond Nature ; we judge of the
future by the present and the past; we are content to
work now, and let the work to come wait until it appears
as the work to do; we find that our faculties are suffi
cient for fulfilling the tasks within our reach, and we
cannot waste time and strength in gazing into impene
trable darkness. We must needs fight against super
stitions because they hinder the advancement of the
race, but we will not fall into the error of our opponents
and try to define the Undefinable.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY ST., HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On the nature and the existence of God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 36 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Published anonymously but author is Annie Besant; attribution from her work 'My Path to Atheism'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT141
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (On the nature and the existence of God), 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
Conway Tracts
God (Christianity)
God-Proof