2
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3224db3aa937b7de80b81813628c309c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uVMVr2BIRGxvQU1-1js5jkFitlKfUTxS5g0CmXi4BkjLIllyRYUStKFzKy0PCMrnuH743GHVF36Ova7j-LXvFaIJFGvj2twn6rUVLKB%7E5EcWbp44PftfYQzB39lrh4UHC7ljJ-UOE2y30V6T3s6SmbVLU8SIiDLyHcSoZCnFhhrpHH0wHAmenOoulqCDIMtrIioUQs1Cql2el9hHodP3MbJ7NTRzEQWTHmuOwiAWCQ5VdKOzMGQicmO1Tfpp5PcUrMADg6UbgSvOChDFjq0x46dJsDpzngflrYAttix4NTrsquiRBx54XNw9NsQEEBBGgFNNuKH3YPmLNXXnb-lQFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7d058292252481749b9e91f9ce8eb03e
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGICAL
PRESUMPTION
AN
LETTER
OPEN
TO
THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALIFAX, N.S.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“Bible Morality,” ^Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence,'’ “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism: Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,”
“
Superstition of the Christian Sunday : A
Plea for Liberty and Justice, ” ‘ ‘ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” Ac., Ac.
In this Letter the following subjects are dealt with : 1. Why do the
Clergy Avoid Debate 1 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towar Is
Christianity. 3. Freethought and Men of Science. 4. The Dif
ference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ and Heroism.
6. Christianity and Slavery.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
-
5
CENTS.
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMP1ION.
-AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REV. DR. R. F. BURNS, OF HALTFAX, N.S.
Reverend Sir :—In No. 1 of The Theologue, a magazine issued
apparently under the auspices of the Presbyterian College at
Halifax, N.S., you have published a lengthy article purporting to
be a reply to “ A Canadian Agnostic,” although it is evidently
intended to refer to myself. You commence by saying:—“ For
between two and three years past the Maritime Provinces have
received periodical visits from the chief champion of Agnosticism
in Canada.” Is it not rather surprising that a reverend gentle
man of your position, influence, and ability should have remained
so long silent and allowed this “ Canadian Agnostic ” to have
made his “periodical visits,” and to have given utterance to what
you are pleased to term “ unsupported statements and pitiful
perversions,” without seeking to reply to him face to face, cor
recting the mischief which you suppose that he wrought upon
the minds of his hearers ? Is it not your duty as a Christian
minister to “ defend the faith ” in the presence of those before
whom it is attacked ? Are you not aware that the Bible enjoins,
«tnd that your Master and his chief successor, St. Paul, set you
the example, to “ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself ” ?
t(Prov. 25:9). Do we not read in the “ Word of God,” “ Come
now and let us reason together ” (Isaiah 1 : 18) ; also, that very
•early in his career Jesus was found in the temple in the midst of
doctors, “ both hearing them and asking them questions,” and
that St. Paul “ disputed in the synagogue with the Jews, and
with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them
that met with him, and spake boldly for the space of three
months ” (Acts 17 : 17 ; 19: 8). Pardon me, Reverend Sir, for
sasking what reason you assign for avoiding the injunction of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
3
your “ sacred book,” and the “ sublime example ” set you by
Christ and St. Paul ? Are we to regard such neglect upon your
part as an illustration of practical Christianity ? How many
Secular halls have you gone into and “ spake boldly ” with
Agnostics ? Is your absence from these “ temples and syna
gogues ” to be ascribed to the fact that you have discovered that
such “ disputing ” would not be profitable to your cause, or that
for personal reasons you have found that in this, as in many
other instances, it is not always wise for rev. gentlemen to at
tempt in this practical age to emulate their Lord and Master ?
While your discretion in thus “ avoiding the enemy ” may indi
cate your sagacity, it does not show that you have too much con
fidence in the faith you preach. Rest assured, Rev. Sir, that
principles or systems that will not stand the test of honest criti
cism in fair and gentlemanly debate, have but little claim upon
the intelligence of the present day.
Probably you may urge that you have come to the rescue of the
Faith in the article. you have penned in The Theologue. But
purely that mode of warfare can scarcely be looked upon as being
either very safe or very heroic. You virtually admit, in the
article in question, that you base your comments upon mere hear
say of what your opponent is supposed to have said at periods
varying from one to three years ago, and you deal with the
“ reports ” of his statements where he is unable to correct or
answer you. Moreover, the probability is that but few of your
readers ever heard one of his lectures, and therefore they have
only an ex parte account from which to judge. Now, does it not
occur to you that it would have been far more heroic and “ Christlike ” in you, and would have given greater satisfaction to the
public, had you attended the “ Canadian Agnostic’s ” lectures and
availed yourself of the opportunity always afforded on such
occasions to reply there and then ? In that case, “ the bane and
antidote ” would both have been offered to those present, al
lowing them to decide for themselves which was the bane and
which was the antidote. If, however, for some reason this
^arrangement was not convenient to you, why did you omit to
�4
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
accept his invitation, which was published more than once in the
Halifax papers, to a public debate ? Can it be that you fail to
realise the force of Milton’s opinion that truth will never suffer
.in its conflict with error ? The policy adopted by the orthodox
clergy of shunning public controversy may please the older
members of the Churches, who unfortunately have been trained
to accept their views upon trust, but it will never satisfy the
young and intelligent minds seeking to know the reason why
they should endorse the faith submitted to them. Blind belief
and passive submission belong to the theological darkness of the
past, not to the intellectual light of the present.
Your article appears to me to be remarkable for its theological
presumption and groundless allegations. I wish you to particu
larly understand that I do not use the term presumption in any
offensive sense whatever. It is not my custom or desire to know
ingly initiate the very objectionable feature, too prevalent in
some discussions, of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of thosewho differ from me. Such conduct too often inflames the
passions but seldom wins the assent of reason. All controversy
should be governed by intellectual discrimination, not by angry
disputation. Truth should invariably be the goal in such con
flicts, and the best and most dignified me'ans of reaching it is
calm and kind investigation. By applying the word presump
tion to your article I wish it to be understood that in it you
make statements upon mere supposition and that you substitute
opinions for facts. In no one instance throughout the article do
you deign to make an effort to prove what you assert, but you
urge with marvellous confidence your allegations as if they were
beyond question. This, I regret to say, is a common practice
with theologians; they seldom acquaint themselves with the real
nature of the opinions or principles they assail, and thus they
; frequently mislead their hearers or readers with unfair conclu
sions drawn from false premises. You say : “ Very pertinent and
' pointed was the reply of Sir Isaac Newton to the astronomer
Haley when he spouted infidelity in his presence. ‘ Sir,’ said
that Prince of philosophers, ‘ you have never studied these sub-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION,
5
jects and I have. Do not disgrace yourself as a philosopher by
presuming to judge on questions you have never examined.’ ”
If this anecdote is a fair reflex of Newton’s mind it is clear that
his theology, which, by the way, was exceedingly small from an
orthodox point of view, did not protect him from a fair share of
egotism and conceit. This incident, however, which you have
selected, has a most significant meaning in reference to your
article in The Theologue, for, evidently, “ you have not studied ”
with too great care the subjects upon which you therein write.
For instance, where did you obtain from Agnostic philosophy a
justification for your assertion that Agnosticism was “a system
of accumulated negation,” and that it taught, “ we are sure only
of what is present and visible ? ” This, Sir, is a pure theological
fiction, caused by an utter lack of knowledge upon the part of
the assertor as to the facts about which he was writing.
You seem to entirely misunderstand our position as Secularists
and Agnostics in reference to Christianity. It may, therefore,
be of some service to inform you in a few words what that posi
tion really is. There are three principal modes of criticising the
modern Orthodox pretensions set forth on behalf of popular
Christianity. First, it is alleged such pretensions are entirely
destitute of truth, and that they have been of no service what
ever to mankind. This view we certainly cannot endorse.
Many of the superstitions of the world have been allied with
some fact, and have in their exercise upon the minds of a portion
of their devotees served, for a time no doubt, a useful purpose.
In the second place, certain opponents of Christianity regard it
as being deserving of immediate extinction. This, in our opinion,
is unjust to its adherents, who have as much right to possess
what they hold to be true as we have to entertain views which
we believe to be correct. Theological faiths should be supplanted
by intellectual growth, not crushed by dogmatic force. The
third and, probably, the most sensible and fair mode of dealing
with Christianity is to regard it as not being the only system of
truth; as not having had a special origin ; as not being suited to
all minds; as having fulfilled its original purpose, and as possess-
�6
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
ing no claim of absolute domination. This is the true position of
Secularism and of Agnosticism towards popular orthodoxy.
Such a position is based upon the voice of history, the law
of mental science, and the philosophy of the true liberty of
thought.
Having dealt with these introductory points, the main issuesin your article are reached, and here your “ sins of omission and
of commission ” come glaringly to view.
Your “ sins of omission ” consist mainly in your not even
making the attempt to prove what you so readily assert
n your article, and not in any way verifying your nu
merous allegations. You reproduce old statements that have
been refuted again and again, and leave your innocent readers
to suppose that what is advanced are undisputed facts. Such an
orthodox procedure may be expected from the pulpit, but it is
sadly out of place in a magazine, particularly where you profess
to answer an Agnostic opponent. You apparently penned the
article under the impression that your Christian friends would
be satisfied, without evidence of the correctness of your position,
and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that your desire was to
convince those who are adverse to your theological views. But
surely you are not so oblivious of the intellectual activity of the
times as not to recognise that for you to succeed in this laudable
effort something more than vague assertion is necessary. This,
Sir, is not an age of mere blind belief or of passive submission,—
at least, it is not so outside the church. Facts are required, and
evidence is necessary, when dealing with the Agnostic position,
and it is your neglect in supplying these very essentials that
constitutes, in my estimation, your “ sins of omission.”
You accuse “ A Canadian Agnostic ” of misapplying the term
Freethought to certain “ leaders in the departments of Science
and Statesmanship, of Literature and the Arts,” but you do not
furnish a single verification of your charge. What “ names ” of
“leaders” has the Agnostic claimed as belonging to the Freethought ranks who were not Freethinkers ? You omit to men
tion one in support of your statement. True, you say, “ Some
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
7
of the names noted, e.g., Darwin, Huxley, Martineau (both Har
riet and James), cannot be included in the Infidel class.” If, Sir,
by the term “ Infidel ” you mean a disbeliever in orthodox Chris
tianity, then undoubtedly the four persons whose names you.
mention were “Infidels” in the fullest sense of the word. Is itnot a fact, wThen in 1859 Darwin published his “ Origin of.
Species,” and when in 1877 he issued his “Descent of Man/’ thathe was branded by both the press and the pulpit as an “ Infidel ?”
Even such a high-class journal as the Saturday Review said
of the assault Darwinism made upon religion:—“ It tends to
trench upon the territory of established religious belief,” and.
the Quarterly Review exclaimed that the teachings of Darwin
were “ absolutely incompatible, not only with single expressions
in the word of God on that subject of natural science with
which it is not immediately concerned, but .... with the
whole representation of that moral and spiritual condition of
man which is its proper subject matter.” Dr. Andrew Dickson
White, in his “ Warfare of Science” (p. 149,) quotes Bishop
Cummings, who wrote: “Christians should resist to the last
Darwinism ; for that it is evidently contrary to Scripture.” Tne
Dr. also refers (p. 147,) to the Rev. Dr. Hodge as saying,.
Darwinism “is a denial of every article of the Christian faith/
In 1871 the Rev. W. Mitchell, Vice-President of the Victoria
Institute, wrote : “ Any theory which comes in with an attempt
to ignore design as manifested in God’s creation, is a theory, I
say, which attempts to dethrone God. This the theory of Dar
win does endeavour to do ... So far as I can understand the
arguments of Mr. Darwin, they have simply been an endeavour
to eject out of the idea of evolution the personal work of the
deity.” Another amiable minister of the “ Gospel of love ” in 1882
went so far as'to say that Charles Darwin, who had then recently
died, “ was burning in hell.” Do you not know, Sir, that both
Darwin and Huxley openly and frankly avowed themselvesAgnostics ? Professor Huxley was the originator of the term as it /
is at present understood, and he is now on,e of its ablest exponents.
Freethought is an essential element in Agnosticism, and, there-
�8
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
fore, was it not quite right to name these two scientists as Free
thinkers? You utterly ignore these facts, which either shows
that you were not acquainted with them, or else that you pur
posely omitted to mention them. In either case the omission is
not calculated to enhance your reputation as a trustworthy
student and expositor of history.
You mention Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Goethe, Carlyle and
others to substantiate your views upon Christianity and the
Bible ; yet it is to be regretted that you make no effort to vindi
cate in what way either of those writers refutes the position taken
upon these subjects by “ A Canadian Agnostic.” Surely you do
not contend that those “ burning and shining lights ” regarded
orthodox Christianity as being perfect or the Bible as an infallible
book. The whole tenor of Locke’s philosophy is based on know
ledge, while theological teachings are founded on faith. Newton
contended that the universe was guided by natural law, and not
as your system alleges, by the alleged supernatural. As for
Carlyle, Professor Tyndall and Moncure Conway have recently
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the “ Sage of
Chelsea ” was a thorough sceptic to the orthodox religion.
It is clear from your article that you are under the delusion
that “ A Canadian Agnostic ” sees no good in the Bible, while
the fact is that he recognises much in that book which is true
and useful; but he also finds much therein that is erroneous, and
which would, if acted upon, be injurious both to individual and na
tional progress. Forgive me, Rev. Sir, if I am unable to accept the
■Queen of England, or “the dying words of Sir Walter Scott” as
authorities upon the true value of the Bible. The English throne
•or a death bed are not the best places fiom which to obtain
efficient and impartial evidence to justify claims that are contra
dicted by investigations made at the seats of learning by such
men as Davidson, Jones, Westcott and the author of “Super
natural Religion,” while they were in health and possessing
mental vigour. It is upon the candid researches of scholars like
these that Freethinkers rely for the facts as to the history, na
ture and worth of the Bible. If it be true that Walter Scott
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
9
whispered just -before his death, “ Bring me the Book,” meaning
the Bible, he did no more than probably a devout believer in
the Vedas, the Zendavesta or the Koran would have done under
similar circumstances. But, again, you omit to do the very thing
which it was necessary you should have done in your case,—
namely, to show in what possible manner such a request could
prove that your Bible was superior to all other existing books.
You appear to attach too much importance to the opinions of
eminent men without first ascertaining upon what grounds such
■opinions are formed. This is a grave omission upon the part of
a rev. gentleman in your position. Of course every person has
a right to entertain his or her opinion, but its real value can
only be estimated by discovering its relation to facts. Moreover,
when you cite opinions in support of your contentions it is due
to the cause of truth that your citations should, so far as they
•affect the questions at issue, be given fairly and in full. This
you have not done in your article.
For instance, in reference
to your testimony to the character of Christ, you only produce
partial statements and thereby cause an erroneous conclusion to
be arrived at. Take as an illustration of the truth of my charge
the following passage from your article: “ Men the reverse of
friendly to Christianity, as we understand it, such as Strauss,
Theodore Parker, Renan, and Rousseau, have endorsed Richter’s
judgment on Jesus,‘He is the purest among the mighty, the
mightiest among the pure.’ ” Now, Sir, you ought to know that,
as you have put these words, they are likely to mislead your
readers. Not one of the four men you have quoted “ endorsed”
what you teach from your pulpit as to the character and mission
of Christ. Why did you not state that Rousseau’s “ testimony ”
was put into the mouth of his “ Vicar of Savoy,” who subse
quently adds in reference to the Gospel containing the supposed
sayings and doings of Christ, “ Nevertheless this same gospel is
full of incredible things, things which contradict reason, and
which it is impossible for any sensible man to conceive or admit.”
You might also have added that Renan in his “ Life of Jesus”
says that: Christ had “no knowledge of the general conditions
�10
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with science, “ be
lieved in the devil, and that diseases were the work of demons ”
(pp. 79-80) ; he was “ harsh ” towards his family, and was “ no
philosopher ” (pp. 81-83); he “ went to excess ’(p.174); he “ aimed
less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm “ sometimes his in
tolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and ap
parently absurd ” (pp. 274,275); and “Bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart ” (p. 278).
I have now sufficiently supplied your omissions to enable a
better opportunity for a just judgment to be formed as to the
worth of the opinions of your witnesses upon the character of'
Christ. I would not have you mistake my objections to
omissions. I grant that at times it may be right, nay necessary,
to omit certain things, but the sin comes in when persons are
misled by the omissions as to the facts of the matter under con
sideration. Such is the great drawback pertaining to a large
portion of your article. It bears the semblance more of special
pleading, than a candid statement of the whole truth. It reads
like the production of the partial theologian, instead of the
work of a just and equitable reasoner.
Your article is so replete with inaccurate statements, bold asser
tions and erroneous conclusions, that it would occupy more space
than I have allowed myself to deal with all of your “ sins of
commission.” A few instances, however, will suffice to show
your lack of historical precision and logical deduction.
You say that George Washington declared, “ It is impossible
to govern the world without God,” and you refer to him as if he
were a Christian, whereas you should know that he was a Deist
and did not in any way accept orthodox Christianity. The God
in whom* Washington believed was certainly not the Bible Deity,
and his religion was far more Secular than it was theological.
You next insinuate that I slander the character of Christ
Now, Sir, to slander is to utter that which is false and maliciouswhich I have never done in reference to Christ. Judging from
his alleged biographies, I admit that he possessed some excellent
traits of character, and I applaud his strong denunciation of
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
11
certain evils of his day. Regarding him as one possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavourable influences for in
tellectual acquirements, belonging to a family not very remarkable
for literary culture, retaining many of the failings of his pro
genitors, and having but little care for the world or the things
of the world, there is much to admire in the life and conduct
of Jesus. But when he is raised upon a pinnacle of great
ness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the
production of any age or country, being equal to God himself ,
he is then exalted to a position which, in my opinion, he does
not merit, and which deprives him of that credit which other
wise he would be entitled to. True, I cannot endorse your
unsupported assertion that Christ was perfect and that he “ died
the death of a god,” for if your teaching be correct, he came on
earth with a mission to perform, a part of which was to die on
the Cross ; yet, when the time arrived for his destiny to be ful
filled, he sought to avoid his fate, and shrank from that death which
was said to give life to a fallen world. So ovei vhelmed was he
with grief and anxiety of mind, that he “ began to be sorrowful
and very heavy.” “ My soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even
unto death.” At last, overcome with grief, he implores his
father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting
him. If Christ knew in three days he should rise again ; that
his death was to be little more than a sleep of a few hours’
duration; if he were conscious that ultimately he should tri
umph over death, wherefore all this trouble and mental suffering ?
In reference to the statement of “ A Canadian Agnostic ” that
Christianity is not original you exclaim : “ He however took
good care not to attempt showing it.” If you will read my
pamphlet on “Christianity: its Origin, Nature, and Influence,’’
you will find that I did attempt to show it; and if you require
additional proof it is only for you to accept an invitation, which
I now offer you, to discuss the claims of Christianity either upon
the platform or through the pages of The Theologue, where your
article appeared, and in Secular Thought.
In speaking of Christ you remark he “ imperceptibly drew all
�12
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
classes of men to him—lifted them up from the horrible pit in
which they were imbedded, into heavenly places, till poverty
gave place to comfort, intellectual degradation to intellectual
development.” This statement is almost an unpardonable sin
upon the part of a scholar who should know that “ all classes of
men ” never were drawn to Christ either in the past or at the
present time. Even the Rev. Dr. A. Burns, of Hamilton, Ont.,
admits: “ No dialectical skill, nor witchery of logic or rhetoric,
can justify the attitude of the church toward the nine hundred
millions who have yet to hear the first Christian sermon. On
what principle can the Church affirm that Christianity is
for the healing of the nations ? Do Christians believe that ?
Could they make the sceptic believe that they were sincere ? ”
As to your allegation that comfort and intellectual development
replaced poverty and degradation under the influence of the
church, history records the very opposite as being the fact;
poverty and submission are the essential teachings ascribed to
Christ, and during the greater part of seventeen hnndred years
of Christian rule the masses throughout Christendom were the
victims of want, misery, ignorance, and mental degradation.
If you read Professor Draper’s “ Conflict between Religion and
Science,” and “ The History of European Morals,” by Lecky,
you will discover that for centuries, when Christianity was
paramount and unrestrained, there was “ A night of mental and
moral darkness,” as recorded by Lecky, who further adds:
“Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last
three centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth
of Scepticism. . . . The splendid discoveries of physical
science would have been impossible but for the scientific scepti
cisms of the school of Bacon. . . . Not till the education of
Europe passed from the monasteries to the universities ; not till
Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and industrial
independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the
intellectual revival of Europe begin.”
Equally reprehensible is it on your part to allege that the
Church has been opposed to slavery and that “ its complete sup-
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
13-
pression is due mainly to the operation of Christian influences.”
It would be almost impossible for a more groundless assertion
than this to be uttered; and if such reckless writing is to be
taken as a fair sample of the historical knowledge possessed by
the clergymen of Halifax, no marvel that they avoid debate and
publish their perversions of facts where no correction can be
given. It is thus that theological presumption thrives and ortho
dox errors are perpetuated. The truth is that slavery is a Bible
institution, that while some professed Christians opposed the
crime it was fostered by the Church, and many of those who
condemned its cruelty and injustice were designated by Chris
tians as “ Infidels.’ Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the
condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before than it
was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to Christianity
many of the slaves had political power, they were educated, and
allowed to mix in the domestic circles of their masters, but subse
quent to the Christian advent the fate of the slave was far more
ev ere; hence, Lecky observes, “ The slave code of imperial
Rome compares not unfavourably with those of some Christian
countries.” (“ Hist, of Morals,” Vol. I, p. 327.) The Council of
Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church communion
without the consent of their masters. The Council of Orleans
(541) ordered that the descendants of slave parents might be
captured and replaced in the servile condition of their ancestors.
The Council of Toledo (633) forbade Bishops to liberate slaves
belonging to the Church. Jews having made fortunes by slave
dealing, the Council of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the
selling of Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws
were also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Latern
Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots and bishops
held slaves. The Abbey of St, Germain de Pres owned 80,000
slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours 20,000. Let me
suggest that you carefully read that excellent work : “ Acts of
the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” by Parker Pillsbury, and “The
American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery,” by
James G. Birney, and you will then learn how the Churches op-
�14
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
posed the abolition of the slave trade. It is stated in “ The
Life and Times of Garrison ” that at a convention held in May,
1841, Mr. Garrison proposed : “ That among the responsible
classes in the non-slaveholding States, in regard to the existence
of slavery, the religious professors, and especially the clergy,
stand wickedly pre-eminent, and ought to be unsparingly ex
posed and reproved before all the people.” In a recent editorial
in Voice (N.Y.) appears the following: “Even the powerful
East New York M. E. Conference publicly reprimanded five of
its members, one of whom was the late Rev. Dr. Curry, for the
sin of attending an Abolition meeting addressed by Wendell
Phillips ! This is the way Mr. Phillips found it necessary to
lash the hesitating, time-serving clergy of Boston in his speech
on the surrender of Sims in 1852 : ‘ I do not forget that the
Church all the while this melancholy scene was passing [the
surrender of the fugitive slave Sims] stood by and upheld a
merciless people in the execution of an inhuman law, accepted
the barbarity and baptised it Christian duty.’ ” Theodore Parker
said that if the whole American Church had “ dropped through
the Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause
would have been further on.” (His Works, Vol. 6, p. 233). He
pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract among all
its thousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and
that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by
Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even Wilberforce himself
declared that the American Episcopal Church “ raises no voice
against the predominant evil; she palliates it in theory, and in
practice she shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”
Your identifying Secularism with “ Robert Elsmere ” and
calling it the “ Gospel of Despair ” is evidence that you do not
understand what Secular philosophy really is. It is not pre
tended that “ Robert Elsmere ” was a Secularist. Permit me to
remind you that Secular principles enable a man to live a noble
and a happy life and die a contented and peaceful death, with the
belief that if there be another existence or a continuation of the
�THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
15
present one, he is safe to realise all its advantages. With the
Secularist there is no despair, no fear of hell with its inhuman
tortures, but the highest consolation born of confidence in the
result of meaning well and of doing well.
I have now pointed out enough of your sins of omission and
of commission to exhibit to the candid reader how recklessly you
have written upon matters to which you clearly have not given
.much thought and attention. In conclusion allow me to express
a sincere hope that in future you will seek to learn the facts of
anything you oppose before hastily condemning it, and that
thereby you may avoid violating the Bible command not to
“ bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Charles Watts.
SECULARISM :
Is it Founded on Reason, and is it Sufficient to
Meet the Needs of Mankind ?
DEBATE BETWEEN THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING
MAIL (Halifax, N.S.) AND CHARLES WATTS,
EDITOR OF SECULAR THOUGHT.
WITH PREFATORY LETTERS
BY
GEO. JACOB HOLYOAKE
and
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY
HELEN
60 pages, price 25 cents.
H.
GARDENER.
Secular Thought Office, Toronto.
�Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WITH
Orthodox Christianity. 96 pages. Price 25 cents.
SECULARISM : IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND? Debate be
tween the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Charles Watts. With
Prefatory Letters by George Jacob Holyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents.
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S “ TACTICS of INFIDELS.”
20 cents, post free.
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION : THEIR
CAUSES.
24 pages, price 10 cents
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. 22
pages in cover ; price 10c.
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price 10 cents.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 10 cents.
SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH ? 24 pages in cover : price 10c.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF.” 22 pages in cover; price 10c.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL; or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE.
24 pages, price 10 cents.
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the Justice of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages in cover; price 10c.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.
Dr- R. F Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
r6 pages, price 5c.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
Just published.
CHRISTIANITY : DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARY.
By
Kate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price 10 cents.
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? II. “ Our Father which art in
Heaven.” III. The Fall and the Atonement. IV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity, V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Theological presumption : an open letter to the Rev. Dr. R.F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S.), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA841
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
Secularism