1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d1f80f50da8174e5a892ac40e29c2dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fQVFjrVp0SZj0CJzBdQLkdU6-m9EE35RWN4SD9ZU70OzA2IqCkDuRWpt8aUNieHqz31Pd%7E460LFfI%7Et5kyObN97d3Ptr3wx42vC3-jEFDpJ7w7gi6cBzCaEIiKUOKU30097FPiJGQOpNro%7E2mkfHdFCpv6P0clrWVOSoEgN1vfx4jY%7EDabgYIb%7EwXhRxROYaBTNHVAv9l8GbrRQVmlaesbf69qs%7E4qOPMnFbyNKNYg0Y8QBbxY5OTiV2GzU-lQCfm1zdCPbd1BDS454EZI-3RJKUccKqDKVaofhXAFONVvndSOvb%7EpB4sQ3Ly2yHmR7ULKmHpPLuE2SSweLt%7EiWwOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5bd47b31e33df2ff1bd91a5425c9db8c
PDF Text
Text
Reprinted {for wide and gratuitous distribution) from
“ The Scotsman" of Tuesday, November 28, 1871.
The Holy Bible : with an Explanatory and
Critical Commentary. By Bishops and other
Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F.
C. Cook, M.A., Canon of Exeter. Vol. I. The
Pentateuch. London : John Murray.
This is the first instalment of a work which, under
the name of the Speaker’s Bible, has been expected by
the public for the last seven years. The idea of it
originated during the excitement created in religious
circles by the appearance of “ Essays and Reviews ” and
the critical performances of such writers as Bishop
Colenso and Dr Samuel Davidson. The principles
maintained in such productions were calculated to shake
the popular faith in those ideas of Inspiration and
Biblical Infallibility which, however much questioned
or even denied on the Continent, had long held undis
puted sway in the average English mind. By many
persons of the highest respectability the prospect of a
change in this respect was viewed with disapprobation
�2
and apprehension, and many pamphlets and treatises
appeared, intended to guard the public mind against
what were believed to be the dangerous doctrines of the
innovating critics. Among others, the present Speaker
of the House of Commons interested himself in the
maintenance of the traditional views, and suggested to
the Archbishop of York the advantages that would
accrue to orthodox opinions by the publication of a
comprehensive Commentary on the Scriptures, in which
the latest results of Biblical learning should be pre
sented in such a manner that a layman of ordinary
education might have no difficulty in seeing the ground
lessness of the objections raised against the opinions in
which he had been reared. The Archbishop adopted
the suggestion, and got together a number of coadjutors,
expressly confined to the clergy of th e Church of Eng
land, the first-fruits of whose labours, after various
delays and the cogitations of several years, are now
before the public.
In judging of such a work, it is only fair to bear in
mind to whom it is addressed, by whom it is executed,
and what object it has in view. It is intended for the
laity, is meant to reconcile them to the ordinary evan
gelical view of the authority of Scripture, and is the
production of persons who regard themselves bound in
honour to maintain that view. In such circumstances
we cannot expect the exhibition of scholarly processes,
or much in the way of bold or even independent re
search or speculation. It would not have been too
much, however, to expect that so extensive and wealthy
a corporation as the Church of England might have
given proof of the possession of a fair amount of ripe
Old Testament learning, and of skill and decision in
the defence of whatever critical positions were assumed.
This expectation, however, is to a large extent disap
pointed. The Commentary, so far as it has gone, does
not exhibit great or original Hebrew scholarship, or
mature acquaintance with criticism. It is tiie work of
�3
men who are intelligent rather than learned in the
subject with which they deal. It would be unfair to
deny that a very great deal of information, historical
and exegetical, has been collected and judiciously
arranged for the purpose of a popular elucidation of the
text; but it is mainly a transference from Continental
sources, and the one or two authorities whom we have
at home. The lay reader will be saved the drudgery
of hunting through Smith and Kitto for the explana
tions suitable to different passages and subjects, but
that is really about the most that can be said of by far
the larger portion of the notes and excursuses. This
is no doubt a very useful work to have done, but it is
work of a decidedly humble order. Perhaps the most
original contribution to the volume is an Egyptological
essay by Canon Cook, which is well done both as a
rtsumt of existing materials and as an independent
criticism of their import. But even of this production,
meritorious though it be of its kind, it must be observed
that it is very doubtful how far it is likely to impress
the mind of an ordinary reader with the views which
the Commentary was designed and executed to promote.
Its main object is to confirm and illustrate the narra
tive of the Pentateuch from the Egyptian monuments,
and from these sources it is undoubted that strong evi
dence is adduced in support of the authenticity of many
statements in the Sacred Record. But it will not
escape the notice of a vigilant reader of this kind
of evidence (and Canon Cook’s essay is only one of
many such), that it fails to authenticate that class of
statements for which authentication is most needed.
It produces confirmation of the ordinary and natural
events of history, but none whatever of those super
natural events which are the main or only stumblingblock to many readers, and the great object of modern
scepticism. It is interesting to find side-light thrown
in from the monuments upon the history of Abraham
and Joseph, Pharaoh and Moses, and to see that the
�4
current of ordinary events there narrated is in harmony
with the actual conditions of Egyptian history and
society at the period; hut it is very remarkable that
no similar corroboration can be produced from those
monuments of any of the miraculous and more extra
ordinary narratives which are the real sources of religious
perplexity in connection with the Biblical record. On
such events as the messages'from Heaven to Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and others, the predictions of Joseph, the
swallowing up of Moses’ and Aaron’s rods by those of
the magicians, the plagues, the dividing of the Red
Sea, and the like, the monuments are dumb. In
matters where there are no difficulties of faith, this
kind of apologetic is profuse in confirmation ; it begins
to fail only at the point where faith needs to be
assisted. It may well be questioned whether such a
system of defence as this does any good to the cause
which it is designed to support. Canon Cook’s essay,
moreover, illustrates another mistake which is not
seldom committed by apologetic writers in the excess
of their eagerness to maintain what they believe to be
important positions. They often seek to defend their
position too well, and in their zeal, use means of pro
tection which have the effect of throwing open to
attack, or even surrendering other parts of the general
scheme which it may be equally essential to their pur
pose to maintain. For instance, Canon Cook, in his
anxiety to establish an early authorship for the Penta
teuch, makes it extremely difficult to establish a
similar early authorship for the Book of Judges.
He finds it necessary for his argument to show that
during the time of the Judges, Judea was con
tinually traversed or occupied by the Egyptian or
Assyrian hosts in their strategical movements in search
of each other. Had the Book of Judges been a con
temporary record, it is not conceivable that it should
have contained no reference to such transactions, any
more than it is possible to imagine a history of Belgium
�5
■written without an allusion to the battle of Waterloo
or those inarchings, counter-marchings, and conflicts
which made it the cockpit of Europe. Of course, if
the Book of Judges is made out or conceded to be
comparatively modern, the case is to that extent
strengthened for those who contend for a later author
ship of the whole Old Testament Scriptures.
If the Anglican clergy could not have produced, or
were not, in terms of their undertaking, hound to pro
duce, a great work of original scholarship and criticism,
they might at least have been expected to perform with
dexterity and resolution the special task which they
avowedly took in hand—the reconciliation of the
average popular mind to the traditional views. It
cannot, however, be said that they have been very suc
cessful here. The people on whom the book will tell
most powerfully in the interests of orthodoxy are those
who, for want of intelligent interest in critical ques
tions, will never read it. The fact of the book, and its
size, will produce a favourable impression on them. It
will set them at rest to know that the Bishops have
demolished Colenso and Davidson, for is not here the
confutation in a dozen volumes to be triumphantly
pointed to 1 Must not the Bishops be right when
they have so much to say for themselves 1 People,
however, who will read the book with a desire pos
sibly to have apprehensions allayed, and who will
moreover read it, not with open mouth, but with some
little degree of discrimination, are likely to experience
considerable disappointment. In not a few instances
they may find themselves constrained to ask in un
pleasant surprise, as they notice the forced character of
many of the arguments employed, “ Is this all that the
clergy have to say for themselves 1” And the general
impression left upon their minds seems likely enough
to be that, while Colenso and Davidson, and what is
vaguely called the Rationalising school, may be assail
able on various points of detail, there is more to be
�6
said for many of their positions than they had imagined
possible. They will he dissatisfied and staggered by
the haziness and hesitation with which many important
topics are treated in the Commentary, and, instead of
the simple, well-defined, thorough-going views of Scrip
ture in which they had been trained, and which they
may have expected to find vindicated out-and-out, they
will find themselves introduced to concessions and
compromises, and to a degree of uncertainty and in
definiteness of view, which is in effect a kind of help
less scepticism.
To take one or two examples. It is not unusual for
the commentators to assume that the divergencies
among critics opposed to themselves are a sufficient
proof of the unreasonableness of their opposition to the
view which they themselves uphold. For instance, in
dealing with the authorship of the Book of Leviticus,
we are told that “ the theories which are counter to its
Mosaic origin are so much at variance with each other
—no two of them being in anything like substantial
agreement—that it does not seem worth while to notice
them in this place.” Accordingly, there is no special
argument of any kind advanced in support of the
Mosaic authorship of this book. This can hardly but
be unsatisfactory to a reader of average discernment.
He will not fail to notice, that however much the anti
Mosaic theorists may differ in their positive opinions,
there is “substantial agreement” among them in the
negative opinion that, whoever wrote the book, Moses
did not; and he will scarcely be able to avoid feeling
that it would have been well to explain how so many
people who have learnedly investigated the matter,
have unanimously gone astray, and that the matter is
not properly disposed of by a mere assertion that the
opinions of such persons are of no consequence.
It appears to be considered a matter of great im
portance to show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
No doubt this is part of the traditional faith, but if it
�7
be an essential part of it, the readers of this Com
mentary are not likely to be greatly reassured upon the
point. The writers seem to be affected with consideraable diffidence as to the power of their arguments, and.
when all is done, to be prepared for making indefinite
deductions from the breadth of their conclusion. Two
kinds of arguments are used. The first is, that Christ
has recognised Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.
To doubt the Mosaic authorship is accordingly repre
sented as “ impeaching the perfection and sinlessness
of Christ’s nature, and seeming thus to gainsay the
first principles of Christianity.” If such an argument
be good at all, it requires no confirmation. But the
commentators proceed to fortify the impregnable, by
endeavouring to show from historical and internal
testimony that Moses might have written the Pen
tateuch, and that he probably did so. It will be diffi
cult for a reader of ordinary shrewdness to avoid ask
ing why, if Christ’s word on the matter is so con
clusive as it is alleged to be, it should be necessary to
back it up by what must be at the best delicate and
questionable inference. If the iron bridge is safe, why
should it be buttressed with pasteboard ? And then,
wrhen all is done, it is found that the Mosaic author
ship is only asserted in a modified manner. It is
admitted that Moses may have incorporated into his
work documents by other hands, and that in later
generations, particularly after the Babylonish captivity,
ten or eleven centuries subsequent to Moses, there was
probably a recension, comprising various unknown re
arrangements, explanations, and assertions ; so that
the view with which the reader is left is, that perhaps
Moses wrote a great deal of the Pentateuch, but which
parts are his, and which are his predecessors’ or editors’,
we have not now the means of determining. If the
Mosaic authorship is of the religious importance which
seems to be ascribed to it, surely this is not a satisfac
tory position in which to leave the subject.
�8
This perplexity is apt to be increased by the way in
which it is proposed to reconcile the existing Biblical
text with various parts of the testimony of modern
science. The commentators admit the difficulty that
is presented by the very great antiquity which they
concede to the origin of man in view of the limited
duration of human history as given in the genealogies
which occupy the early chapters of Genesis, even with
the extraordinary length of life there ascribed to the
Patriarchs. In explanation, they resort to the supposi
tion that the genealogies are not complete ; and in
answer to the objection, that they present every ap
pearance of completeness, they tell us that we must
“ consider all that may have happened in the trans
mission of the text from Moses to Ezra, and from Ezra
to the destruction of Jerusalem.” But if the text
could be tampered with in the way here indicated in
one important matter, why not in many others 1 and
what criterion have we by which to single out what is
really original and what has been interpolated, or alto
gether transformed, between the dates of Moses and
Ezra, or Ezra and the destruction of Jerusalem ? And
it is not only the text which grows uncertain in the
hands of the commentators; the interpretation of it
appears to become equally precarious. It is certainly
the popular and traditional view, that whatever the
Bible says is true, and that it says what the natural
meaning of its language conveys. The commentators,
however, introduce two principles which appear fitted
to create very great confusion in the minds of persons
who have been accustomed to read the Scriptures with
the old simple theory respecting their authority and
significance. They affirm it to be “ plain that a
miraculous revelation of scientific truths was never de
signed by God for man,” and leave us to understand
that we are to look for revealed guidance only to those
parts of the Scriptures which contain their “ testimony
to Divine and spiritual truth.” They do not, however,
�9
furnish any directions for drawing the line between
what is “ scientific truth ” and what is “ Divine truth.”
There are various historical statements and metaphysi
cal doctrines contained in the Scriptures, and it may
easily be conceived that the plain reader, having got
over his first surprise of learning, that he must not take
Scripture as his rule of faith in everything, should be
anxious to know whether and when seeming affirma
tions on such matters are to be accepted as revelation.
This anxiety cannot fail to be increased by the second
principle laid down by the commentators, which is,
that although the Bible does not give revelations upon
scientific matters, yet anything it does say upon such
things must be true, and therefore wherever the appa
rent meaning of Scripture is contradicted by undoubted
science, we must conclude that the apparent meaning
of Scripture is not the real meaning, and must be con
tent to believe that the real meaning of Scripture would
be recognised as true, if we could only know what the
real meaning is.
A good illustration of the working of this method of
interpretation is afforded by the mode in which the
commentators treat the history of creation in the first
chapter of Genesis, which they appear to regard as
dealing with 11 scientific ” as distinguished from “ divine
and spiritual” truth. The traditional interpretation
of this passage, as is well known is, that the universe
was made in six days, and in the manner and order
which are suggested by the natural meaning of the
words. The commentators, it need hardly be said,
allow that this interpretation cannot stand in the pre
sent day, but hold that, nevertheless, the conclusion
must not be drawn that the narrative is mythical, or in
any way erroneous. It is quite correct, only we do not
know fully what it means; but in so far as we do
know, we see that it accords with science. We fear,
however, that the difficulties against which this con
clusion is pressed will leave a disconcerting impression
�10
on the mind of the reader who has been accustomed to
the old and thoroughly unhesitating view of Biblical
infallibility. To show that, so far as understood, the
narrative in Genesis is in agreement with science, the
commentator, leaving aside minute discrepancies, alleges
that the order in which organised beings have succes
sively appeared on the earth is represented in Scripture
in substantially the same manner as by science.”
“ The chief difference,” it is said, “ if any, of the two
witnesses would seem to be, that the rocks speak of
(1) marine plants, (2) marine animals, (3) land plants,
(4) land animals ; whereas Moses speaks of (1) plants
[it should be land plants], (2) marine animals, ( 3) land
animals; a difference not amounting to divergence.
As physiology must have been nearly, and geology
wholly, unknown to the Semitic nations of antiquity,
such a general correspondence of sacred history, with
modern science, is surely more striking and important
than any difference in details.” But surely there is
an amount of begging the question here that is quite
impermissible. Even supposing it were of no conse
quence that the Mosaic account omits the “ marine
plants ” altogether, and that other differences in
“ details ” could be fairly left out of the account, is
it to be said that where the order is restricted to three
things—marine animals, land plants, land animals—
there is no discrepancy worth mentioning between the
history which places the marine animals before the
land plants, and that which places the land plants
before the marine animals ? If this is not a substantial
difference on the question of order, what is likely to be
held as a difference ? Manifestly, if the scientific order
is adhered to, it is necessary to fall back upon the pre
sent unintelligibility of Genesis, as is done with the
rest of the narrative in question. Perhaps the word
unintelligibility does not best describe the view of the
commentators in this matter. They seem not so much
to hold that the words mean nothing, as that they
�11
may mean anything, and that the Hebrew language in
such places as this has no ascertainable fixed signifi
cance. Thus they maintain that the word “ created,”
as applied to the “heavens and the earth,” means
“ formed out of nothingbut that same word
“ created,” as applied to the marine animals, they
affirm to mean merely “ made ” out of pre-existing
materials. But this word “ made,” applied in the sense
just mentioned to the land animals, has, in their view,
a totally different meaning from what it has when
applied to the sun, moon, and stars, which are appa
rently represented as formed after the creation of light.
In this case, to “ make ” the sun, moon, and stars,
means merely to “make them appear ” by rolling away
the clouds and vapours which had previously concealed
them. It will certainly alarm not a few of the laity to
learn that Hebrew lexicography is in so very uncertain
a condition.
There are various other cases in which the tradi
tional and apparent sense of the Biblical narrative is
departed from, not for any assigned lexical or gram
matical reasons, but because otherwise it appears difficult
to face modern scientific habits of thought. The his
tory of the Ball is substantially given up as an alle
gory, although the confusion of tongues at the Tower
of Babel is taken as simple history in tlie„. apparent
sense of the words. The Deluge, however, is treated
with more effort. It is explained as only partial,
confined to the district of Mesopotamia, where the
hills are very low, and beyond which- the human race,
notwithstanding the long antiquity already conceded
to it, and the powers of rapid multiplication claimed
for it in the commentary on Exodus in connection
with the Israelites, is not supposed to have spread.
The height of the water, apparently alleged in Scrip
ture to be fifteen cubits above the highest mountains in
the world, is thus to be calculated in relation to nothing
loftier than the elevations of Babylonia. “ The in
�12
habitants of the ark,” it is said, “ probably tried the
depth of the Deluge by a plumb-line, an invention
surely not unknown to those who had acquired the
arts of working in brass and iron, and they found a
depth of fifteen cubits.” The ark is rested “ perhaps to
the south of Armenia, perhaps in the north of Pales
tine, perhaps somewhere in Persia, or in India, or
elsewhere.” It appears to be forgotten, that extend
ing the area of the Deluge to India, not to speak of
“ elsewhere,” interferes with its proposed limitation to
Mesopotamia, and that the proximity to India of the
Himalayan range, rather tends to take from the em
ployment of heaving the lead, somewhat grotesquely
ascribed to Noah and his family, any air of proba
bility which it may be supposed to possess.
The endeavour to tone down the miraculous cha
racter of certain of the narratives from their apparent
meaning, which is illustrated in the instance now
quoted, is also shown otherwise. The plagues of
Egypt are laboriously described as mainly a mere in- ,
tensification of the natural calamities and distresses
of the country. Balaam and his ass are treated as
follows: — “ God may have brought it about that
sounds uttered by the creature after its kind became
to the prophet’s intelligence as though it addressed
him in rational speech. Indeed, to an augur, priding
himslf on his skill in interpreting the cries and move
ments of animals, no more startling warning could be
given than one so real as this, yet conveyed through
the medium of his own art; and to a seer pretending
to superhuman wisdom, no more humiliating rebuke
can be imagined than to teach him by the mouth of
his own ass. The opinion that the ass actually uttered
with the mouth articulate words of human speech, or
even that the utterance of the ass was so formed in
the air as to fall with the accents of man’s voice on
Balaam’s ears, seems irreconcilable with Balaam’s be
haviour.” We shall give but one other instance in
�13
which popular surprise will probably be created vv
the departure of the commentators from the apparent
and traditionally accepted interpretation of the text.
The seeming discrepancy between the Exodus and the
Deuteronomy versions of the Fourth Commandment,
in respect of the conflicting reasons assigned for its
enactment, is well known. The commentary, however,
explains that these “ reasons annexed ” formed no part
of the command as issued, however much the narra
tives appear to assert it, and that the First Table of
the Decalogue, as originally given, probably ran thus :
—1. Thou shalt have no other God before me. 2.
Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image. 3.
Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in
vain. 4. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath-day to
keep it holy. 5. Thou shalt honour thy father and
thy mother. This abbreviated Decalogue, we should
suppose, will be exceedingly welcome to schoolboys.
The parts omitted are accounted for as expositions and
comments dictated oil separate occasions from the
issuing of the original decrees. Still, with all the
deductions, it will be observed that “ Remember the
Sabbath ” of Exodus, and “ keep the Sabbath ’’ of
Deuteronomy, remain unreconciled, and the question
between an original command or the resuscitation of
an ancient one is left undecided.
From such illustrations, which might have been
multiplied, it will be plain that in the view of the com
mentators the Bible may very clearly seem to mean a
certain thing, and yet may mean something very
different; nay, its apparent meaning may look as if it
were unmistakeably distinct and indisputable, and yet
its real meaning may be undiscoverable by human
sagacity. The effect of such teaching, so utterly op
posed to thejjerspicuzYus claimed for Scripture by the
Reformers, must be to produce great perplexity in the
minds of those for the re-establishment of whose faith
this Commentary is professedly constructed. They will
be irresistibly urged to ask, “ What part of Scripture
�14
can we ever be sure that we really understand ? Here
are certain parts of it which we and the generations
before us thought were as clear as noonday, and on
the strength of that conviction were endeavouring most
dutifully to believe, and even condemning or persecut
ing other people for disbelieving ; and yet it turns
out that they mean something totally different, or that
their meaning is absolutely undiscoverable. Where is
this to stop ? If the account of creation does not
mean what it seems to mean, how can we be sure
that the account of Justification means what it seems
to mean ? It is true the commentators wish it to be
understood that this dubiety attaches only to “scientific’
statements, and not to those that affect “ divine or
spiritual truth ? ” But who is to tell which is which ?
On the whole, we cannot grant that the aim of the
Commentary seems likely to be much advanced by its
publication. People who have no difficulties, and want
to have none, may be helped by its appearance to
hector the perplexed, if possible, a little more loudly.
But waverers, if we may use the expression, are in
danger of being confirmed in their wavering. Yet we
would not like to say that it is a useless, or that it is
not a respectable work. It will form a good intro
duction to the subject for those who want to get a
compendious glimpse of the latest state of the questions.
We are bound also to say that it is free from acrimony
and abusiveness, and if not written always with scientific
impartiality, is invariably pervaded by a gentlemanly
tone. It promises to be the most notable work pro
duced by the conjoint labours of English divines since
the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confes
sion, and the future Church historian will probably
point to it as an important landmark in the history of
British theology, as showing how many important
positions had come, since the formation of those
memorable documents, to be regarded as very uncertain,
or even untenable, towards the last quarter of the
nineteenth century.
�
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 Holy Bible: with an explanatory and critical commentary
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted (for wide and gratuitous circulation) from 'The Scotsman' of Tuesday November 28 1871". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A critique of 'The Holy Bible' by Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F.C. Cook.... Vol. 1: The Pentateuch. London: John Murray. Date of publication from KVK.
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
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5476
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 (The Holy Bible: with an explanatory and critical commentary), 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-Commentaries
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Book Reviews
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/0cf11a8a1610e34d3b851cf7b479f70c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=INXk4M2QxeIWpAPSRNZYC0R8snTzPaSnkGEwKe2kLBHFsgyY7OqiKFYihgHoJok%7EqL4LKdZXb40aRCvyeQY0Me5c-QYjtQ%7EXvZqJ67mktmWtr2ixOhRRpFfL%7EUlDyUnoM6jZqggIVAqgPZ2jgA%7EBvcqPDoNFNXff7omwkp-cWRdJD8sKdIN8h2HqpGzMiO7M6OJQxDbmSwDbnmSufuApEhULWk0-0mUeLk0dYiNKs3w6VIehyziD0XLYDh9t%7E3dH8grZ84JmMiHsUStVW2nqvDL105sOkWl5EWxIvHlCzZXuru7M%7E8l0ltJ9ngOx1k6E5rudQ1h5KrqGMFrpsKiB0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5a7ad47639f6f87d2063ca451c042070
PDF Text
Text
THE
“PRAYER FOR THE SICK:”
HINTS TOWARDS A SERIOUS ATTEMPT TO ESTIMATE
ITS VALUE.
Reprinted with permission from the July No. of the
Contemporary Review.
HE following suggestive letter has been placed in
my hands, with a view to publication. It is
sure, I think, to interest the thoughtful readers of the
Contemporary Preview. It deals, indeed, with a sub
ject which interests everybody, and regarding which
all manner of men, from the Prime Minister down
wards, have given the public the benefit of their
views.
If such be attainable, it is surely desirable to have
clearer notions than we now possess of the action of
“Providence” in physical affairs. Two opposing
parties here confront each other—the one affirming
the habitual intrusion of supernatural power, in an
swer to the petitions of men ; the other questioning,
if not denying, any such intrusion. The writer of
the letter wishes to bring these opposing affirmations
to an experimental test. He considers the subject to
be accessible to experiment, and makes a proposal
which, if faithfully carried out, would, he thinks,
displace assertion by demonstration as regards the
momentous point in question.
T
�2
The “ Prayer for the Sick.”
It was justly stated by the Archbishop of York at
a recent meeting of the supporters of the Palestine
Exploration Fund, that the progress of the human
mind is from vagueness towards precision. The letter
before us seems an illustration of this tendency. In
stead of leaving the subject to the random assertions
of half-informed sceptics on the one hand, and hazy
lecturers of the Victoria Institute on the other, the
writer seeks to confer quantitative precision on the
action of the Supernatural in Nature. His proposal
is so fair, and his mode of stating it so able and con
ciliatory, that I could not, when asked to do so, refuse
to give it the support implied by these few lines of
introduction.
John Tyndall.
Athenaeum Club, June, 1872.
Dear Professor Tyndall,
Since dur conversation the other night, when
you were good enough to listen to a suggestion I
made relative to a means of determining the value of
prayer to the Deity, it occurred to me to put the idea
into writing, and to ask you to do me the further
kindness of looking at it in this shape.
It seems to me impossible at the present day to find
ourselves in contact with a source of power available
for human ends, or affirmed to be so on high authority,
without recognising a necessity—or even that it is a
duty—to estimate its value. And especially if the
power be one which is effective for the production of
physical results, is it desirable to examine its nature,
and to measure its extent, and the conditions under
which it works.
The value of prayer to the Deity has been recog
nised in all ages and by all nations, not merely by
the ignorant and superstitious, but by the more cul
tivated portions of the human race. And I think it
�The “ Prayer for the Sick.”
3
may be said that among the great body of religious
people of all denominations in this country, a belief
in its efficacy is almost universally professed. As to
the objects which it is believed are attainable by
prayer, they are almost without limit as to kind.
Taking as an authority that well-known compendium
which none will dispute to be the national epitome
of English religious idea on the subject, “ The Book
of Common Prayer,”* the legitimate objects of suppli
cation to God may be classified as follows :—
Class A. Spiritual improvement; moral superiority;
intellectual power.
„
B. National supremacy. Preservation from
pestilence, famine and battles. The
fertility of the soil; weather suitable
for the growth and preservation of ve
getable products. The health, wealth,
and long life of the chief national
ruler. A special share of grace and
wisdom for the Nobility, and for mem
bers of the Legislature and of the
Executive.
„
C. For all that are in danger; for the pre
servation of travellers, of sick persons,
of young children, prisoners, orphans,
and widows ; protection against murder
and sudden death.
„
D. Comprehends special forms for occasional
use, e.g., for “ moderate rain and
showers,” &c.; that “ scarcity and
dearth may be turned into cheapness
and plenty;” that “this plague and
grievous sickness may be withdrawn
* Although not used by Dissenters, they do not reject it
on account of its contents, since its very phraseology is often
employed by them, but for the most part because all forms
are deemed by them undesirable.
�4
I. x
The “ Prayer for the Sick.”
and the prayer for “ sick persons,”
which is not precise in its requests on
their behalf.
From all the foregoing it is impossible to resist the
conclusion already more than hinted, that a very
. ample belief exists in the Christian Church, in the
efficacy of prayer to God to avert dire physical evils,
which without it might occur; such, for example, as
disease and death. Were any one, however, hardy
enough to question this, it would suffice to point out
that the custom of offering prayers for the recovery
of sick persons when in great danger is almost univer
sal here. And it may be added that, in the larger
and more ancient section of the Church, prayer still
continues on behalf of the deceased, a custom, perhaps,
not less pious and reasonable than the first-named.
Now, I propose to examine this subject from on©
point of view only, in the endeavour to discover a
means of demonstrating, in some tangible form, the
efficacy of prayer. I commence by remarking, how
ever, that the objects of prayer in Class A. clearly
present inordinate difficulties, and are obviously un
fitted for our purpose. Class B. furnishes subjects
which might be examined, but which are less easy of
treatment than some of those to be found in classes G.
and D. But even here, elements of disturbance pre
sent themselves; thus, in reference to the influence
of prayer on states of the weather in limited localities,
that food may be cheapened, that travellers may be
preserved from accident, &c., it is certain that consi
derable difficulty would arise in any systematic
attempt to arrive at accurate conclusions. But this
leads me to remark that there appears to be one source
from a study of which the absolute calculable value
of prayer (I speak with the utmost reverence) can
almost certainly be ascertained. I mean its influence
in affecting the course of a malady, or in averting the
fatal termination. For it must be admitted that such
�The “ Prayer for the Sick.”
5
an important influence, manifestly either does, or does
not exist. If it is does, a careful investigation of
diseased persons by good pathologists, working with
this end seriously in view, must determine the fact.
The fact determined, it is simply a matter of further
careful clinical observation to estimate the extent or
degree in which prayer is effective. And the next
step would be to consider how far it is practicable to
extend this benefit among the sick and dying. And
I can conceive few inquiries which are more pregnant
with good to humanity when this stage has been
arrived at.
You will naturally next say, What practical shape
does the method take by which you propose to attain
your end ? The method has its difficulties, but I see
none that are insuperable. If I may reckon on the
active co-operation of those who most believe in the
value of such prayer, and I think I have a right to do
so, the enquiry will be easy. For few more interesting
subjects of enquiry can exist for the honest believer
than the extent of man’s influence with Heaven, at
the most momentous crisis in his personal history.
Before entering on the details demanded, it is first
necessary to remark that prayer for the recovery of
sick persons exists in two distinct forms, or, if I may
use the term, in two orders or degrees of quality.
For, first, there are the general prayers for the sick,
made without distinction as to individuals, or to
numbers, on most occasions of public worship. These
prayers are offered by, perhaps, thirty thousand con
gregations every Sunday in our country, since it is no
less the practice of the Dissenter than of the Church
man to remember devoutly the sick in the weekly
supplication. But besides these, there are the special
prayers for individual sick persons, which are by
general consent deemed also necessary; and thus it
is that when the patient holds a very high place
in society, a special form of petition is sometimes
�6
The “Prayer for the Sick.”
ordained to be used throughout the national churches
for his recovery. It is one of the advantages of rank
and gentle birth in England, that special prayers are
made for such every week at least, in most churches
throughout the country.
The first kind, or general prayer, then, must be
held to have a certain value not inconsiderable, since
it is this kind which is relied on against the dangers
of travel, of murder, and of sudden death, and respect
ing which no other or special petitions are provided.
This general prayer for the recovery from sickness is
constantly ascending, if I may use the term, in a broad
stream to heaven. Yet its objects, “all men,” being
so numerous, it is not held to suffice for all individual
cases. Hence the second kind, or spacial prayer ; and
the object sought by those who are interested in the
recovery of the sick, obviously is to concentrate the
special prayers of many on the recovery of one, in
the belief that by this means the malady may be
more certainly checked than were the patient’s fate
to depend only on the influence of the “general
prayer.” With this end it is that the special prayers
of a congregation are asked for A or B, or a special
prayer-meeting is held to offer the one object of
petition. I have been myself present at such meet
ings, and have witnessed the number, the minuteness,
and the length of the petitions.
Now the latter kind, or special prayer, is that
which readily lends itself to the earnest enquirer in
this matter, and it is by its means, if carefully and
conscientiously pursued, that we may certainly arrive,
if at all, at a solution of the great question I have
proposed.
The following appears to me to indicate the manner
of conducting the inquiry. It should be pursued on a
system somewhat analogous to that which is pursued
by the Faculty when a question arises as to the value
of any particular mode of treating disease. For
�The “ Prayer for the Sick."
7
example, a new remedy has been proposed, or is 'said
on high authority to be efficacious, and as authority
does not suffice in medicine further than to recommend
a given course, and never to prescribe it, the remedy
is carefully tested. Usually a hospital or a ward is
assigned for the purpose. All the patients suffering
from the disease to be treated are, during a certain
period, divided into two classes, and all are subjected,
as far as possible, to the same conditions, that single
one of treatment alone excepted.
The ages, sexes,
and many other particulars of the patients are taken
into account, and duly noted. The one class is treated
by the old system, and the other by the new remedy.
When a very large number—for in large number
only is there truth—has been thus dealt with, the
results are compared, and the value of the remedy can
be definitely expressed; that is, its influence above or
below that of the old treatment, as the case may be,
will appear in the percentage of recovery, or of
other results.
Now, after much thought and examination of the
various questions and objections which may possibly
be urged, I do not hesitate to propose an analogous
arrangement, in order to estimate and rightly appreciate
the influence of special prayer to check disease, or to, avert
death.
We possess unquestionable data in reference to
certain well-known maladies, particularly the fevers, of
eruptive type; such as small-pox, typhod, scarlet
fever, &c. Of some local acute disorders, such as
pneumonia, we know what is termed their natural his
tory pretty well, their duration and probable termina
tion at different ages, &c.
The mortality which
follows the great surgical operations at different ages
is a matter known and determined ; for example, after
lithotomy and lithotrity, amputations of the limbs,
hernia, &c. The very large records of past cases which
exist, and the very wide and careful researches which
�8
The “ Prayer for the Sick.”
have been made, have had for their result the pro
duction of known numerical mortality-rates per cent.,
tad applicable to future patients of different ages and
conditions. Indeed, the whole system of life assur
ance is, all the world over, based solely on the
accuracy of such data, and on the certainty with which
they will reproduce themselves. Whatever these
numerical results have been—'whether the mortality
rates deduced belong to healthy lives or to diseased
lives—-all have been necessarily made, subject to the
conditions of human life as it now exists, and includ
ing, among a thousand other influences, that most
important one of “ general prayer” by the whole
Christian Church for “ all men ” as it has been already
described, and influencing as it does, whatever may be
its extent, the sick, the suffering, those exposed to
murder and sudden death, &c., throughout the whole
world. Subject to this influence is that of every drug
prescribed. Influenced by this is the result of every
surgical operation.
Now, for the purpose of our inquiry, I do not pro
pose to ask that one single child of man should be
deprived of his participation in all that belongs to him
of this vast influence. But I ask that one single ward
or hospital, under the care of first-rate physicians and
surgeons, containing certain numbers of patients
afflicted with those diseases which have been best
studied, and of which the mortality rates are best
known, whether the diseases are those which are
treated by medical or by surgical remedies, should be,
during a period of not less, say, than three or five
years, made the object of special prayer by the whole
body of the faithful, and that, at the end of that time,
the mortality rates should be compared with the past
rates, and also with that of other leading hospitals,
similarly well managed, during the same period.
Granting that time is given, and numbers are suffici
ently large, so as to ensure a minimum of error from
�Illi
i, Bk
��The “ Prayer for the Sick.” .
9
accidental disturbing causes, the experiment will be
exhaustive and complete.
I might have proposed to treat two sides of the
same hospital, managed by the same men; one side to
be the object of special prayer, the other to be
exempted from all prayer. It would have been the
most rigidly logical and philosophical method. But I
shrink from depriving any of—I had almost said—his
natural inheritance in the prayers of Christendom.
Practically, too, it would have been impossible ; the
unprayed-for ward would have attracted the prayers of
believers as surely as the lofty tower attracts electric
fluid. The experiment would be frustrated. But the
opposite character of my proposal will commend it to
those who are naturally the most interested in its
success; those, namely, who conscientiously and d’evoutly believe in the efficiency against disease and
death of special prayer. I open a field for the exercise
of their devotion.
I offer an occasion of demonstrat
ing to the faithless an imperishable record of the real
power of prayer.
Atlienoeum Club, Pall Mall,
June, 1872.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The "Prayer for the sick": hints towards a serious attempt to estimate its value
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 9 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Consists of a letter by John Tyndall to the Contemporary Review; an unsigned letter to Tyndall, a galley proof attached to p. 9 of a statement signed 'Y', which replies to a statement by Mr McGrigor Allan reprinted from The Examiner, October 12, 1872. Neither 'Y's or Allan's earlier statements have been identified. Reprinted from Contemporary Review, July 1872.
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
[1872?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5523
Subject
The topic of the resource
Prayer
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 "Prayer for the sick": hints towards a serious attempt to estimate its value), 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
Illness
Prayer
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/66a2f46d8540c3504ff366e7ff124453.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ptLoORQP7kqQVO06bLmIooxjAgvghM3OYmz509SQoSczNTVHG5EERQsDQgTvosXV6oLQyRHHvHjTPyyrRVw8OdIV0D3xRPo6ax9YELAIAP3Zb2e1lVIfD44Bagu64Mi1mg-vnjslW5X5lGw3Xg%7EExaa%7E-dFZPaaLmWzpiMhOHn9uWy7HL-pxMUICyNeh3bbMcKdGMtKvGH28e9HXijGcub0Btq04LdIdZKykpFIQz3CbSdfpuEr-arzqpLmBKUDr8-MD-z1OqOr6RuW1bmOSD0O90sjXVxtFOkcQuuhS%7EOlJMcSx819WLw6xNbi7TE38XUQ2cyIujtPT24EDYEbWqg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f827b7b2cc9c0c5a93354e8080c50b96
PDF Text
Text
PROFESSOR TYNDALL’S
INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
[From The Inquirer of September 5, 1874.]
HE Inaugural Address delivered at Belfast, on
August 19, by Professor Tyndall, President of
the British Association, has probably come like a
thunder-clap to thousands who have read it or heard
of it. For here is one of the strongest, one of the
most generally acknowledged, representatives of
science, the chief, indeed, of the highest scientific
society in the world, from the very throne of science
—the presidential chair—speaking what will seem to
multitudes no other, than the most undisguised
Materialism, which to them will also be the blankest
Atheism. For it will seem the burden of the Address,
that matter alone is the mother and cause of all things,
and that beside it there is no other cause. No God,
no human soul.
When so intelligent a journal as the Spectator thus
interprets the Address in the issue immediately after
its delivery, we may be sure that thousands of persons
will thus interpret it also. And this word of Tyndall,
coming from such a source, supported by such pres
tige and such authority, will make the hearts of many
quail and sicken with fear and sadness. They will
feel a great darkness falling on them. The same
doctrine they will no doubt have often heard before,
but not from such a quarter, with such distinctness,
and coming with such terrible weight. They have
T
�2
thought of it hitherto as the craze of individual and
eccentric scientists, but now it comes as the testimony
of the whole spirit of science, past and present,
spoken through the mouthpiece of one of her latest
and greatest sons. And the thought cannot but
whisper itself: “ Is it, then, really true, or, if not
true, is science going to be all-powerful and make it
seem true, and so make it ultimately prevail ? If so,
then hope and faith must fade. Religion will have
no place. Prayer and preaching will cease. All the
various creeds through which we believe and about
which we contend will equally vanish. Religious
societies will be dissolved, and the whole spirit of
our civilisation must be changed, so that it is terribleto think what the future ages may be.”
We cannot wonder that already the tocsin of alarm
has resounded from many a pulpit. We may be sure
that for months, perhaps years to come, there will be
heard from thousands of pulpits protests, arguments,
denunciations, pleadings, intended to lay the terrible
ghosts which this memorable Address has raised.
But what is it that Dr Tyndall has really said to
cause such sensation and such fear ? He has simply
said out boldly what science has been really saying,
though often with timid, hesitating speech, for many a
year, we may say for many an age. It is this : that
matter, as we become more and more acquainted with it,
shows itself to us as capable, by its own inherent laws
and forces, of developing into all the forms and causing
all the phenomena in the universe that we witness or
experience. And so with matter given to begin with,
existing it may be in its crudest form, but still with
all its inherent laws and forces, there is no need of
any other Being, any Creator, any God to mould it,
for it will infallibly mould itself. It is but the same
thought with a wider extension which Laplace
uttered : “ I ask no more than the laws of motion,
heat, and gravitation, and I will write you the
nativity and biography of the solar system.”
�3
Yet do not let us be alarmed through mistaking
the real force and bearing of this apparently most
materialistic affirmation. Observe at the outset the
expression, that matter being given with its inherent
laws and forces, no other creator is necessary to
mould it. Surely not, we, too, say, because the
Creator, the eternal former and sustainer, is in the
laws and forces : they are but the expression of his
action. It is not, then, against the idea of God
Himself that the hostility of science, as represented
by the President of the British Association, is
directed, but against a form of thought in which
men in general have clothed God and presented him
to their minds. They have thought of Him under
the image of a Great Artificer, one who, using matter
as his raw material, worked it up by his power and
skill into the forms which we behold. It is this
thought of an Almighty Artificer, separate from
matter, that science cannot tolerate. But the de
struction of this form of thought, instead of plunging
us into the darkness of Atheism, opens upon us the
light of true Theism. It leaves us free to form
another far grander and worthier thought of God,
that of the In-dwelling, all-forming, and all-sustaining
Spirit of the Universe, which it is clear that Dr Tyndall
recognises under what he calls a Cosmical life—that
is, a life of the Universe.
The truth is, that this conception of God as the
Great Artificer has been inadequate and erroneous
from the beginning. We can now see that it was an
idol, because not the highest conception that we can
form, though perhaps inevitable to the times of
ignorance at which God has winked. And science,
like a young Abraham, has sought from its very
youth to break the idol in pieces. This is why
science has seemed so Atheistic in its tendencies.
The legend of Abraham preserved in the Koran is,
that when he was a young man he went into one of
the temples of his people in their absence and broke
�in pieces all the idols except the biggest there.
Abraham’s hostile feeling towards the idols was
known. He was arrested and brought before the
Assembly. “ Hast thou done this unto our gods,
O Abraham ? ” they inquired. “Nay, that biggest
of them has done the deed : ask them, if they can
speak.” For a time the people were confounded
with his reply, but soon recovered to say to oneanother, “Burn him, and avenge your gods.” The
young Abraham, science, conceived from the first a
hostility to the idol of an artificer God set up in the
temple of man’s mind, and sought to destroy it.
Dr Tyndall’s Address is partly a history of these
endeavours of science to break in pieces the idol.
He tells how in the infancy of Greek science Demo
critus, the laughing philosopher, declared his uncom
promising antagonism to those who deduced the
phenomena of nature from the gods. Empedocles,
who probably met death in his zeal for science in the
burning crater of Etna, and then Epicurus, followed
in the footsteps of Democritus. In the century
before Christ the Roman poet Lucretius boldly
announced the doctrine that Nature was sufficient for
herself. “If,” said he, “you will apprehend and
keep in mind these things, Nature, free at once and
rid of her high lords (the gods and demons), is seen
to do all things spontaneously of herself without the
meddling of the gods.” Whilst science slept, during
the Middle Ages, the voice of protest was not heard;
but when she awoke again, in the era of the Refor
mation, Giordano Bruno, once an Italian monk, again
raised the old witness, and declared that the infinity
of forms under which matter appears were not
imposed upon it by an external artificer. “ By its
own intrinsic force and virtue f he said, “ it brings
these forms forth. Matter is not the mere naked,
empty capacity which philosophers have pictured it,
but the universal mother who brings forth all things
as the fruit of her womb.” And the devotees of the
�5
idol, an artificer god, which he sought to break in
pieces, said, “Burn him, and avenge your god.” And
the Venetian Inquisitors did burn him at the stake.
Taking up Tyndall’s thought, we can now see that
the whole progress of science has seemed to strengthen
the protest and to give more strength to the doctrine
of Lucretius and Bruno, that “ matter, by its own
intrinsic force and virtue, brings these forms (of
nature) forth.”
Newton’s “Principia” went to show that, given,
in matter, the force and law of gravitation and the
laws of motion, there needed no artificer now to
conduct the solar system. The nebular hypothesis
of Kant and Laplace set forth that matter originally
needed no artificer to mould it into worlds, if we
suppose its particles scattered abroad in space
endowed with repulsion and attraction. They would
of themselves form rings, planets, satellites, and sun.
Dalton’s Chemistry showed that if we suppose a few
kinds of primordial atoms of different magnitudes, or
endowed with different forces and possessing certain
laws of attractive affinity, no artificer is necessary to
combine them into the innumerable compounds and
endow them with the qualities with which we are
familiar.
Darwin’s “ Origin of Species ” and
“ Descent of Man ” suggested that, given certain
organic forms of lowly type, no artificer was needed
to construct all the countless forms of organic nature.
For there were in these lowly forms intrinsic force and
virtue, by which they develop into higher forms, and
these into higher, until the ascidian becomes the man.
Herbert Spencer, and now Tyndall, suggest that even
in the inorganic forms of air, water, phosphorus, and
a few other elements, there are intrinsic force and
virtue to make them at some period or other of the
world’s history—Bastian says to make them now—of
themselves combine and form organisms of low type,
which develop, according to Darwin’s idea, even into
higher type ; therefore these inorganic atoms possess
�6
a latent life. Huxley would persuade us not only
that these inorganic atoms come in organic forms to
live, but that in the human brain they think and feel
and will. Thus every line of scientific inquiry seems
to have led to larger and larger belief in Bruno’s
intrinsic force and virtue of matter, making more
and more needless the conception of a Supreme
Artificer.
But we shall be mistaken if we suppose that this
antagonism between matter and God—that is, God
as the Artificer—has been felt only in the world of
science. It has been felt, too, though with less open
confession, in the world of religion. It has been
felt, it may be, where ignorance was bliss. As long
as science was unknown or ignored in the Church,
as during the Middle Ages, religions minds could
hold the belief in an artificer God without misgiving.
But as soon as science began to creep into the Church,
the paralysis of faith began. From that moment was
acted over again the story which the Greek poets
give us of the Theban Sphinx, the beautiful monster,
half-maid, half-lion, who, sitting on a rock, proposed
enigmas to the passers-by, and those who could not
answer them destroyed.
Beautiful but terrible science became the Sphinx.
She was always proposing to those who came near
her the enigma, “How can matter, which seems to
have force and virtue in it sufficient to account for
all things, have any need for an artificer Creator ? ”
And those who could not answer the question were
lost as to their faith in God. This, we believe, is
partly the explanation of the coldness and deadness
that came upon our Churches, especially our Pres
byterian Churches, during the last century. Ministers
and people had become more educated, they had
learnt something of the new science that was rising;
and then they heard the enigma of the Sphinx and
were troubled. Thenceforth it was a struggle with
them to believe. They had lost the child-like faith of
�7
their fathers. The old heartiness of prayer was gone.
Ministers and people began to be shy of strictly reli
gious topics, and to fall back on these ethical common
places of which they were more sure. And if this
same coldness and deadness has lasted on in some of
our churches till our own day, we suspect it has been
because there the old conception of God as the Arti
ficer has been maintained, whilst all the while the
Sphinx has been putting the question which has made
it unbelievable ; and that it is chiefly where the new
conception of the In-dwelling God has been introduced
through the influence of men like Dr Channing,
Martineau, and Theodore Parker, that the devotional
life has been again quickened and deepened.
Truly, then, men like Tyndall and Huxley, Spencer
and Darwin, with the terrible weapons of their
materialism, do but break down an old and much
battered idol which has long been the cause of dread
ful doubts, even to its own devotees, and has set
religion and science at bitter variance. But in
breaking down the idol they are doing us the greatest
service. They are letting in the light; they are
leaving us face to face with a conception of God
before hidden from us by our idol, but which presents
him to us not only in a form which science will allow
—before which, indeed, science and religion become
one—but in a form which is immeasurably grander,
more beautiful, and every way worthier of God than
that which has been broken down. Let us clearly
recognise that, when Tyndall claims for matter that
it is sufficient for everything, he is not thinking of
matter as that dead brute thing which the mass of
men suppose it. To him, as to Herbert Spencer,
matter is but the manifestation of a Great Entity, in
itself unknown and unknowable. It is but the
garment of what Tyndall calls the great cosmical
life—the great life of the cosmos—the Universe.
What is this Great Entity, what is this Great
Cosmical Life, but the Eternal God Himself, of whom,
�8
and through whom, and to whom are all things, who
“besets us behind and before,” and “ in whom we
live and move and have our being ” ? What is this
■conception suggested of the relation of God to the
world but that of the Psalmist—“The heavens shall
wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt
thou change them ” ? And what is this doctrine of
the unknown and unknowable life but that of Job?
“Lo ! these are parts of his ways, but how little a
portion is heard of him ! but the thunder of his power
who can understand ? ”
T. E. P.
FRITTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTEKEY 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
Professor Tyndall's inaugural address
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Signed 'T.E.P.'; possibly Thomas Elford Poynting. The Address was given in Belfast to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on August 19, 1874. Reprinted from 'The Inquirer', September 5, 1874. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. "The address before the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science was an occasion to state the aims and concerns of the premiere body of elite men of Victorian science. It was consequently one of the most prestigious places from which to pronounce on what men of science should be doing. John Tyndall famously used his address in 1874 to argue for the superior authority of science over religious or non-rationalist explanations. By the time of this address the Association had largely been taken over by the young guard, men like T.H. Huxley and Tyndall. Nevertheless, Tyndall's bold statement for rationalism and natural law was made in Belfast, a stronghold of religious belief then as now and so it was taken as an aggressive attack on religion. The address was popularly believed to advocate materialism as the true philosophy of science. It remains a powerful call for rationalism, consistency and scepticism." From Victorianweb: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/belfast.html [accessed 12/2017].
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
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5529
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philosophy
Rationalism
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 (Professor Tyndall's inaugural address), 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
Materialism
Natural Law
Philosophy and Science
Rationalism
Science and Religion