2
10
198
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbecb8629b11f30f6bcea8abfa50b538.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=FQPXxESo6ERN8d4N7%7EXClW74oVWnKM5ab5X6qvtuZCmD-7%7EFDPfvEG%7EoUjXE9dlzW%7EVXH9k%7EELnW1JdL-osQFSIlnqIcWtyN4f4xDMDoh5kgBtDyhMMI81pT5Gxt8lyjklxIeQe7G1AEXZ3F6jaB7Frit1DE2azFg-2L3fHPdZ0HwV32X65LpbxJnXmuY7kWl26RbFtjGbszocZvjUwGWXHAC3A4-H1%7E0MWwFsKt%7E0CBwvbBD1jCNrpRJ1fWUh7Ypy%7EjfQwJT-x3wCYHj632YcvhtHqOimQedVlrc4gq5lbxv3hdsql3G3QD4EhlyhJamaiT8bb-yg5Xvd1pAtiEOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
04f9aa87f665386dd8e8551303884819
PDF Text
Text
OUR
INSINCERITY.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�OUR INSINCERITY.
------- >-------
OST of us are insincere—frequently from
laudable motives, sometimes from cowardice
or indolence. St. Bernard found out that he was
“ never less alone than when alone,” and many of us
early discover that we are never less at home than
when at home, and that in more senses than one
“ there is no place like home ”!
Adolescents of both sexes are generally delighted
to get away from home, to shake off but for a few
hours the unavoidable restraints of the home-circle,
and say what they really think and feel without fear
of censure or admonition.
Unquestionably young people as well as older folk
require to be both censured and admonished, but it
must be admitted that if censure and admonition, to
say nothing of derision and contempt, follow the
free expression of opinions, the probability is that
they will be repressed altogether or reserved for less
scrupulous ears. Young women who have less easy
access to other circles, frequently become from the
mere force of circumstances accomplished hypocrites,
better understood and better appreciated by some
casual acquaintance than by their nearest and dearest
relatives. The domestic felicity of England is very
much vaunted; it may possibly bear a favourable
comparison with that of other nations, but the
private experience of most of us can supply such a
formidable array of dismal exceptions, that the other
M
�4
Our Insincerity.
side of the question is likely to fade out of sight*
If you wish to form a fair opinion of Mr. Brown and
his grown-up son, you must not invite them together,
for neither of them can come out in his true colours
in the presence of the other, and though from long
habit they may appear quite at ease when together,
you will find out when you see them apart that they
are conscientious Jesuits, each bent upon concealing
his real opinions from the other,—that Brown junior
does not retain one of the principles in which he has
been so carefully brought up, although he has “ Daily
Portions ” on his table to remind him of them, and
that Brown senior has long ago given up most of the
notions he has been at such pains to instil into his
son. Father and son, mother and daughter, sisters
and brothers, are very rarely upon confidential terms
with each other. Insincerity, especially in religious
matters, is the order of the day. People go to Church
to propitiate a mother, or to satisfy a father, to pacify
their wives or to edify their servants,—certainly not
to please themselves or their Maker, for they know
full well that their motives will not stand his scru
tinizing eye. Going to Church saves a disturbance
at home, hides peoples’ real sentiments, and makes
everything seem straight. At home we are insincere
upon principle, and insincere we must always be so
long as those who think differently from ourselves
are sneered at, and avoided as fools or criminals.
Some of us need not walk far to find Protestant
parents who have turned their sons and daughters
out of doors for becoming Papists—but what is a
Papist to a Materialist ? Suppose the thoughtful
daughter of an Evangelical mother were quietly to
inform her parents that she did not believe in a
future state, that she found the Bible very unsatis
factory upon the subject, and that she felt no sort of
aversion to the doctrine of annihilation, that though
the notion of another and a better world was a
�Our Insincerity.
5
pleasing conceit, she felt grateful for and satisfied
with her life here, which she was willing to give up
when called upon.
Suppose she were to question the authenticity of
the Bible, the identity of the Great First Cause
with the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and then
finish up by insinuating that the minister they “ sat
under” was intellectually below the average ; would
the expression of such sentiments, however cautiously
worded, meet with such a reception in the home
circle as to encourage her fearlessly to avow her
opinions in future ? I trow not. Sorrow, con
sternation, indignation, and anger would put an
effectual and abiding extinguisher upon her and
her opinions, and she would learn to imitate her pru
dent brother Jack, who fills his book-shelves with
Cumming’s works and his pockets with heretical
pamphlets, never tells the Governor what he really
thinks about anything, but goes to church as good
as gold and says Amen to all he hears, “ deceiving,
if possible, the very elect,” and saving appearances
with Jesuitical conscientiousness.
Children under seven are allowed a latitude of
opinion and a freedom of expression denied them in
after life. Most of us began by being practically
Atheists and Materialists,, content to be “ without
God in the world,” and abundantly satisfied with
temporal rewards; but after a while we get taken in
hand by our elders and are taught what we must say
we believe whether we do or not; and so we go
through life Jesuits from childhood, boasting like
grateful Protestants of our glorious privilege of
“ private judgment,” but, like wily Papists, cautiously
concealing the conclusions to which it leads us.
Our ears have become so much accustomed to
certain statements which from time immemorial have
been handed down and accepted without scrutiny,
that it is not until we have become acquainted with
�6
Our Insincerity.
innumerable exceptions to the supposed rule that we
begin to look doubtfully at it. Good people have a
tendency to make out that what they think ought to
be really is, but in a highly civilised community it is
extremely difficult to determine whether a belief in
God, a horror of death, and a yearning after immor
tality are really innate or not, because education with
her creeds and catechisms is calculated to repress
innate ideas.
“ Let’s play at funerals and I’ll be the corpse,”
said a child of five to her little cousins a few minutes
after her father’s remains had been removed from the
house, and when her widowed mother returned from
the cemetery, she was horrified to find that the
funeral obsequies were not concluded in the nursery,
nor would her little girl consent to give up her
amusing game until she had extorted a solemn
promise from mamma to be allowed to go to a real
funeral before long.
“ Mind the coffins,” cried Charlie to his papa just
returned from the City, and who was rushing
upstairs to prepare for dinner. Charlie’s aunt had
given him a very large box of bricks, and he had set
up little coffins all over papa’s bedroom, each con
taining a bit of stick wrapped in rag ; he passed the
evening in cutting out stiff paper lids for his coffins,
and in the morning a portion of the Funeral Service
was read over them by Charlie in his night-shirt,
while indulgent papa said “ Amen like a clerk ” from
the bed.
It is so frequently asserted that the fear of death
is innate that people learn to look upon the assertion
as a fact, and take it for granted that somebody or
other must have looked into the matter and found
it all true; but those who have been thrown much
among children, especially among the children of the
poor, are well aware that, so far from dreading death and
shunning corpses, they exhibit a ghastly indifference to
�Our Insincerity.
7
the subject which must be seen in order to be believed.
The children of the poor will put pins and marbles into
their dead brother’s mouth, and even take the corpse
off the bed and set it in a chair near the fire,
reprove it for not “ holding up,” and conduct them
selves in such a way as to put all idea of innate fear
to flight. We are taught to dread death, taught to
pull down blinds, to speak in a whisper, walk about
silently, and, if we can afford it, to put on black
clothes ; but suppose we were not taught so to behave,
(and the neglected children of the poor are not so
taught), would the conduct of the community at
large be such as to put the assertion respecting the
innate fear of death beyond all dispute ?
Let us admit that we are insincere, and that for
the sake of peace we follow suit. The little girl in
that queer book called “ Gates Ajar,” after listening
to the received account of the joys of heaven, is so
little enticed thereby that she asks if she may be
allowed to go to hell on a Saturday afternoon, if she
had been very good all the week in heaven—a
thoroughly unconventional, irreligious, but sincere
little girl! a wicked, ungrateful little girl, who had
had so much pains taken with her and yet is not
allured by the prospect of perpetual worship here
after ! How can we be sincere as long as creeds,
catechisms, and ceremonies are considered the tests
of religion, piety, and. morality, and what is “ private
judgment” worth if the expression of it alienates
our nearest relatives and scares away our best
friends? “ Private judgment ” sounds grand and
glorious, but let any one dare to come to his own
conclusions upon religious matters and he will soon
see how his spiritual pastors and masters like
the result, and what the Protestant’s privilege of
“private judgment ” really amounts to when put into
practice.
If but for one Sunday we would really act
�8
Our Insincerity.
honestly, how many of us would he found listening
to sermons ? How lamentable and ludicrous it
is to make unintelligible creeds and the patient
endurance of pulpit platitudes the test of probity
and sterling worth ! Well may our attractive writer,
Greg, express his amazement that, “ out of anything
so simple as the life of Jesus could have grown up
anything so marvellously unlike its original as the
current creeds of Christendom.” The most rigid
advocates of Divine Service cannot point to Jesus as
an upholder of public worship, for he prayed on
mountain tops far away from observation, and em
phatically gave the preference to private devotion,
which is to be “ openly rewarded.”
Was anybody ever so entirely unconventional as
the Christ is represented to have been, so indifferent
to forms and ceremonies, and so callous to public
opinion F If he “ to whom all hearts are open ” were
to visit our churches in order to expel the infidels as
he did the money-changers of old, how many of us
would be left to receive his blessing ?
Tied up in a tight knot by our mother the Church,
we are years and years enthralled by creeds, dogmas,
catechisms, and articles, and when at last we do get
free, how great is that freedom ! Most of us have been
informed by devout friends that an infidel is an incar
nation of moral depravity, and some of us have read
appalling accounts of the last hours of unbelievers ;
but in after-life it may chance that we discover a
decidedly sceptical tendency in many of our most
honoured friends which in no way militates against
the received standard of right and wrong ; and it may
also happen that we come across sincere believers
who are distressingly attached to things of this
world, and who quit it with unedifying reluctance.
However, it would never do to hint at such discoveries
in the presence of Mrs. Grundy, because she has
decided otherwise, and must not be thwarted. But
�Our Insincerity.
9
what good end is answered by our habitual insincerity ?
Is it supposed to please God ? Certainly Christ’s
disciples are said to have been indignant when they
actually saw outsiders casting out devils in his name,
but Christ was not reported to have been at all angry.
Would he be angry now with a well-conducted infidel
because he is sorry for poor Mrs. Lot, and thinks it
would have been far better to have turned her infamous
daughters to salt ere they reached that cave of unholy
memory; evidently then, as now, one person might
steal a horse while another might not look over
the gate.
Poor Mrs. Lot’s is a very hard case, and kindhearted people wish it were not true; but it would
never do to say so, for the Jews believe it, and Mrs.
Grundy believes it, and we must believe it because it
is alluded to in the Mew Testament, and is beyond all
dispute. Could the Christ of the Gospels really be
angry with those who cannot believe that his Father
burns his rebellious children for ever and ever; and
would he be pleased with us if we followed the divine
example and baked ow disobedient sons and daugh
ters in red-hot ovens ?
If that unfortunate collection of books in an evil
hour called “ The Word of God ” had had the advan
tage of being revised by Jesus Christ, it is just pos
sible that it would have undergone a very considerable
alteration, and even now not a few of us are looking
forward to the time when it may be divested of much
that disfigures it and makes it so objectionable in a
moral point of view, presenting us with a God so
grovelling and so bloodthirsty that the wonder is not
that there are infidels, but that there are believers ;
believers, moreover, of high principle, who, by a
Curious inconsistency, are not ashamed to confess
that they really do believe it, and who are quite en
chanted to see their daughters reading the edifying
pages of the “ Blessed Book.” That Romanists should
�IO
Our Insincerity.
believe in the infallibility of the Pope is amazing, but
that the enlightened members of the Reformed Church
should believe in the infallibility of a book, and of
such a book, is far more incomprehensible.
Parents tenderly anxious to protect their children
from all contaminating influences, purchase a Family
Shakespeare for home use, but it does not occur to
them that the Family Bible contains the very things
which have been so -carefully expunged from the
works of the great poet. “ I do wish God would
write some novels ” said a lively girl, whose books
were selected for her by her judicious parents, “ for
Pa lets us read all God writes.”
A clergyman’s daughter, well known to the writer,
when at school, took up, one Sunday afternoon, a
novel, and was wrapt up in it, when all at once
she was reminded that it was Sunday and that secular
books were not allowed. She contended that her
father always permitted her to read any of Miss
Edgeworth’s novels even on Sunday, but nevertheless
she was of course made to yield for the sake of
example; so the pert young lady exclaimed in her
haste, “ then I’ll go and read the 23rd of Ezekiel and
much good it will do me.” The following year the
same young lady refused to be confirmed, and quietly
informed the principal of the school (well-known to
the writer) that as she did not believe the Bible was
written by the inspiration of God, she objected to
answer the Biblical questions drawn up for candidates
for confirmation ; so the rite was in her case put off
till a “ more convenient season.” Such pupils are
awkward to deal with in orthodox schools, but they
are few and far between as the sincere are every
where.
A benighted Papist in the form of a young
Frenchman bought a Bible the other day at the
Crystal Palace.
He had never read the Bible-.
�Our Insincerity.
ii
After dipping into it for an hour or two he said,
“je n’ ai jamais suqu’ il y eut des obscenites dans la
Bible! He is sure to become a Protestant in the
most literal sense of the word! Should we not all
protest against obscene statements wherever we find
them ? Does coarse language cease to shock us
because we are taught that God inspired the writers ?
Ought we not rather to be the more shocked because
God did inspire them. Infidels have too high an
opinion of God to believe that He had anything to
do with the composition of such a volume as the
Bible. They hope not—but unfortunately they are not
sincere—frequently they act the part of believers so
well that they are never found out ; and so we go on,
wearing our masks, singing our hymns, and denoun
cing the Jesuits with exemplary zeal, while acting
upon their principle that “ the end justifies the
means,” and thinking it best to keep the peace at
home—not a bit afraid of God, but in great and
abiding awe of Mrs. Grundy.
PRINTED BY C. AV. 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
Our insincerity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 11 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. 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
[1875]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5471
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Our insincerity), 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
Free Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/89c84c846e4770a8a1dd0c28dda480dc.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=usrEbahPZrUX951LMvrKVaJuSwpwB5ki3rj39ahxMJlMQHJN1t-BF0DeKl3YxSo9AVGiVbIUi53oyu8fIOG9bRUmfFjuCagfJ9Fqeu6uIWSz%7E4wYQMhuiFiFhQDlSvUMW2Bm9OIXhvk8VR2Xl%7E1qFrkfmVAUiaysVZmqWembZz6bbiZFh3hF3VlvMyYUaGHdRNXo9%7ESWV1p%7Eg%7EsHxdBqIrpnYpl0wD02KaSiPf1CljKz93kjfzxOcnvmSYDl3mqOa32wrzhuC56rUPNNZuLEBuYj0sDpOdrHPFfoiqMEl9x0HSRN7K3QQ%7EnVLHLT8KTYGP9xdwda5LNru2b64IbVPg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a41a5dc0993497f73392bdc400a6804b
PDF Text
Text
b'2.SA ó
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ON RELIGION.
BY
a ¡former elder in a scotch church.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�“If the religion of the present differs from that of
the past, it is because the theology of the present has
become more scientific than that of the past; because
it has not only renounced idols of wood and idols of
stone, but begins to see the necessity of breaking in
pieces the idols built up of books and traditions and
fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs; and of cherishing the
noblest and most human of man’s emotions, by wor
ship ‘for most part of the silent sort’ at the altar of
the Unknown and Unknowable.”—Huxley : Lay Ser
mons and Addresses.
�ON RELIGION.
��ON
RELIGION.
------ >-------
ORDS are things of extraordinary power. Al
though they possess only an arbitrary or conven
tional meaning, yet it is surprising to see the tyranny
which they exercise over men’s minds. This is especially
manifested during a time of rapid change in opinion. It
then becomes quite a study to watch how parties range
themselves under the cover of words, and how multi
tudes are more scared by having an ill-favoured word
applied to them, than by having done an evil action.
To a student of English history, for example, how
much is brought to mind by the mere words—Puritan
and courtier ; roundhead and cavalier ; covenanter and
dragoon; methodist, moderate, dissenter, churchman,
&c. Not only is he reminded that such parties once
existed in this country, and were in violent opposition
to one another ; but he is reminded, also, that the
name often gave a title to favour and reward if its
holders were great and in power, or was sufficient to
call down ignominy and hardship if its holders were
few and in subjection. The merit or demerit lay in
the name, not in ability or character. Nor are things
much- different even yet. A great conflict in opinion
is at present waging in this country, and, as in former
times, great importance attaches to certain words.
Thus when a man is said to be conservative or liberal
in politics, we know what statesmen think about him;
when he is said to be evangelical or infidel in opinion,
we know what religionists think about him; and this,
W
�4
On Religion.
although the person who may claim the favoured
name is a much less honourable and useful member of
society than the man who is spotted with its opposite.
In this conflict the word religion and its congeners not
only perform most important duty of the kind referred
to, but often blind even the rational inquirer himself
to the perception of what is true. Thus, when the
exposure of orthodox superstitions is sometimes being
pressed to the last defence, is not the cover thrown out
and too readily admitted : 1 Man cannot do without reli
gion : therefore, until you find something better than
the Gospel, leave him with his belief in God, in future
life and responsibility.’ The word religion has over
awed the disputant. Or again, when the ignorance
and badness of some religious professor has been made
manifest, is judgment never arrested by the remark, he
is a “good” man, a “religious” man; although he may
be mistaken, or for the moment left to himself? The
reason in both cases is alike. I hope to make plain to
the reader, before concluding, both what I consider the
nature of religion to be, and the meaning which is
likely in the future to attach to the word.
Nor is it only by half-educated people that Truth is
thus sought to be killed or protected by a word. The
following is copied from the newspapers of the month
of July 1870:—“A letter from the Bishop of Man
chester was read at the meeting of the Manchester
Secular Society last night, declining a challenge to
meet one of their practised speakers in debate on the
evidence and benefits of Christianity and the Church.
His lordship justified his description of the Society as
a manifestation of the powers of evil, by saying that
though he respected the honesty of his correspondent,
he was bound as a Christian to believe that a society
which opposed and denied the principles of Christianity
was a manifestation of a maleficent power. The religion
which had survived the assaults of Hume, Voltaire,
�On Religion.
5
and Tom Paine would survive the attacks of Holyoake
and Bradlaugh.”
I have no wish for the present either to defend secu
larists, or to say a word against their assailants, but
surely there is misunderstanding or misapplication of
words in the sentences quoted. There is no point at
all in the Bishop’s remarks unless the words “ principles
of Christianity” in the middle sentence are synonymous
with the word “religion” in the last. And yet few
facts will be more readily admitted than that the “ re
ligion” which the Bishop says has survived the assaults
of Hume and others is a very different thing from what
is commonly known by “ the principles of Christianity.”
Por are not these last always set forth as a series of
dogmatic propositions, based upon revelation■ and do
not these propositions change in their aspect and form
of expression with each generation of men, or at all
events with each educational epoch; and is it not a
recognized fact that such an epoch has been passed in
the history of this country since Hume’s days 1 If,
therefore, religion is identical with the principles of
Christianity, then, because it is matter of literary his
tory that great changes have taken place in these
principles during the last century, we shall most cer
tainly fail to find the religion of Hume’s time surviving
at the present. More than this, if the identity is to be
entertained, I wonder where we shall look for religion
in what are called Apostolic days-—for according to the
most recent and most scholarly investigation of the earliest
Christian literature no traces of what are now called
principles of Christianity are found to exist therein.
Evidently, the Bishop here uses the word “ religion”
as equivalent to the theological dogmas of his own
Sect; whereas correct thinkers now for the most part
abstain from employing it in that antiquated sense.
In very olden times, it is true, Religion was much less
dogmatic than it has ever since been, but this was be
cause everything was then placed under its control, and
�6
On Religion.
none dreamed of questioning its authority. Family re
lations, business connexions, war, peace, the arrange
ments of national and social life, amusements, food,
dress, &c., &c., were all regarded as part of religious
service. This is very well illustrated in the social and
national life of Hindostán at the present day ; not to
speak of other peoples, among whom the priestly
authority is superior to the military. A careful student
of English history and manners finds numerous illustra
tions of it also in his own country.—As men become
wiser, the sphere affected by religion gets narrower ;
delivered from its governance they get experience of
life under new conditions; and as members of a republic
are emboldened to inquire into and criticize what is
called the “ divine right of kings,” so when men are
thus emancipated, they often seem disposed to analyse
the “ religious sense,” and see what really originates
and constitutes the essence of religion.
All men are said to be religious : religion is considered
by most people the proper product of man’s highest
cultivation. Let us look at these two statements with
some attention. First : When we speak of national
religion, Christian religion, Hindoo religion, Pagan
religion, and such like, it is evident that we do not
refer to something which is common to man as man,
but to something special to him as inhabiting a district
of country or as dwelling in parts of the world which
differ in thoughts and manners. The fact, however,
that it is the same substantive which is qualified by
these different adjectives indicates that it is the same
phase of human life which is referred to, although the
attention is immediately directed to the formal ex
pression in ceremony or speech, rather than to the
spirit which underlies the word or act. Eeligion in
this sense is more properly a system of doctrine
which metaphysically explains and systematizes the
religious life of different peoples, than religion’s self ;
�On Religion.
7
yet hitherto this has all hut universally passed for re
ligion, and he has been counted by his own nation or
sect the most religious man who has been most skilled
in its particular theology.
If religion, in the usual sense of the word, he com
mon to mankind, is there not something unaccountable
in the fact that, in all countries and in all times, a
class of individuals has been singled out and called
“ Divines ” because they were learned in that which
separated them and their fellows from all others?
Had they been so called because they were skilled in
all the varied hypotheses and opinions which men
had entertained respecting the mystery of Being, one
could have understood the distinction. As a result
of their theological knowledge thus widened, they
would most certainly have exerted themselves to
allay animosity and promote brotherhood. But it
has been far otherwise. They have got the name,
and worn the distinction, because they were masters
of that dialectic skill which could prove to those
of their own way of thinking that their notions
were right. This might or might not be occasioned
by men pinning their faith to the words of a con
secrated book, or of a consecrated class of men; but
the fact remains that hitherto it has been too much
the rule to count other men’s habits and opinions ir
religious—our own only, religious. The Christian has
regarded Hindoo and Mahommedan as heathen ; the
Boman Catholic has regarded the Protestant as apostate.
Second ~ regarded in the light of these differences,
one certainly cannot look upon religion as having as
yet produced any very high style of humanity.
I am aware that another aspect of religious life is more
frequently presented than this one,—an aspect in which
we are shown the enlightened, the graceful, the brotherly,
the heroic adorning the religionist. I gladly admit it;
but invite attention to the fact, that in all such ex
amples, natural disposition or culture will be found to
�8
On Religion.
have predominated over religious feeling, so much that
their contemporaries for most part knew them less as
religious persons than as persons of extraordinary intel
ligence, force of character, patriotism, or humaneness.
Oftentimes, indeed, they were put to death as having
no religion. Succeeding generations, when educated
in manners and general intelligence to their emi
nence, may have recognised and even paid homage
to their religious spirit, but this only shows that
Culture is at all times a generation at least in advance
of Religion. In further proof of this, is it not an
undoubted fact, that, when any great advance in know
ledge, in social usage, in economic or industrial art
has hitherto been attempted, religious thought and
prejudice have had to be contended with, ministers
of religion and their influence have had to be over
thrown? And these contentions have been carried
on with a bitterness unknown in any other human
strivings. No matter to whom he was opposed,
to the king, the philosopher, the man of science, or
the philanthropist, as much as to the evil doer,
the religious man always placed himself on God’s
side, and his opponent on the side of the Adversary.
Hence the melancholy scroll of antipathies, feuds,
and cruelties which religionists have now to answer
for and explain. More than nationality, more than
education, wealth, station, or age has religion separated
between man and man. Fiercer than rage for political
power, stronger than love of country, have been the
passions which religion has awakened and fanned into
flame. Cruel in hate and stubborn in opposition,
even the ties of blood and the family relations are
weak in the presence of the spirit of religion when intent
upon the differences of its manifestation among men.
But while these facts prevent numbers now-a-days
from awarding a high place to the religious sentiment,
they nevertheless are conducting them to a truer
knowledge than they have yet attained of its nature
�On Religion.
9
sad value. They prove that religion originates in
feeling, and is sustained by feeling. Physiology makes
plain that feeling is occasioned by things outside
affecting some part or other of the nervous system.
Rational philosophy maintains that thought is the
expression given to our varied sensations ; and by con
sequence that religious thought is just the expression
given to one of these varieties. If this be so, then
religion may be common to all men, provided that out
ward objects have impressed them all in the way calcu
lated to produce the sensations and expressions we call
religious. But this proves nothing respecting the
superiority of these sensations, and rests the universality
upon an entirely new finding; for hitherto it has been
regarded as ascertained that religion was the product
of a special faculty given to man, in virtue of which
he was not merely religious, but also God-conscious.
This notion of a special religious faculty has evidently
emanated from the mind of priests.
Current with
it is the corollary, that no races of men have been
discovered, or are discoverable, who do not possess
a religion, and a notion, however rude, of God. Our
belief in the special faculty, however, is completely
upset by the investigations of modern science and the
logic of the phenomenal philosophy; and our belief
in its corollary is fast giving way before the facts
ascertained by modern travellers. According to some
of the most trustworthy of these, including among
their number Roman Catholic missionaries, many of
the tribes inhabiting South America have no religion
whatever, have no idea of a Supreme Being—conse
quently have no word to express it in their languages.
Others, long resident among the Indians of California,
affirm that idols, temples, religious worship or cere
monies were unknown to them, and that they neither
believed in the true and only God, nor adored false
deities. The five nations of Canada, and the North
�IO
On Religion.
American Indians, had no public worship nor any word
for God. According to others, in a great many islands
of the Pacific ocean, there are neither temples, nor
altars, nor offerings ; nor traces of any religious belief
or observance. Dr. Schort, Captain Grant, Burchell,
Baker, Palgrave, all speak of tribes in Asia and Africa
who have no form of worship or religion.
The authentication and verification of facts like
these, is of immense importance in an inquiry like the
present. Some of the names quoted from are beyond
suspicion, although the facts borne witness to are new
and very hard of belief. In addition, a great number of
similar witnesses are quoted, with considerable fulness
of detail, by Sir John Lubbock in his ‘ Pre-historic
Times,’ and also in his recent book on the 1 Origin of
Civilization;’ and the reports of several Boyal Com
missions for inquiring into the state of the working
classes in our own country, furnish numerous proofs
that human beings destitute of religion and of a notion
of God are found elsewhere than in foreign lands and
among ‘ savages.’
I am not concerned to account for the fact that some
races of men, in their most savage state known to us,
have no religious ideas, whilst other races, possibly in
a more savage state, have such ideas. This is no more
to be wondered at than the fact that some nations are
naturally of a warlike and others of a peaceful disposi
tion. But the facts, as certified by the best authorities,
are serious difficulties in the way of those who believe
in the Hebrew narrative, and in the theories which are
built thereon. And what is most worthy of remark is,
that in some cases travellers have been obliged to
admit these facts much against their inclination. Thus
Father Dobritzzhoffer says, “ Theologians agree in
denying that any man in possession of his reason can,
without a crime, remain ignorant of God for any length
of time. This opinion I warmly defended in the
University of Cardoba, where I finished the four years’
�On Religion.
11
course of theology begun at Gratz, in Styria. But
what was my astonishment, when, on removing from
thence to a colony of Abipones, I found that the whole
language of these savages does not contain a single
word which expresses God or a divinity. To instruct
them in religion, it was necessary to borrow the
Spanish word for God, and to insert it into the Cate
chism, with an explanation.”
The truth is, that men and nations must have
advanced considerably in civilization, before they could
take up the religious idea, and the entertaining of it
marks a period or era in the process of human develop
ment. For, as will appear presently, the rudest reli
gious belief implies not only acquaintance with natural
phenomena, but also reflection upon the way in which
they relate themselves to man. I know that it is diffi
cult, if not impossible, for the educated mind to under
stand the uneducated, and that when it speculates upon
the bygone history of mankind, to a certainty it looks
upon men and things in these former times through the
eyes of its own experience. But when we seek for the
dawn of “ religion,” we are not so much peering into
pre-historic times, as tracing to its origin a state of
idealism which could not belong to absolutely unedu
cated man; and which our knowledge of man’s intel
lectual nature assures us could be the result only of
a process of reasoning—however imperfectly or blunder
ingly that process had been followed through its
successive logical stages.
It is in keeping with this conclusion that the earliest
gods which savages worship appear to have been for
the most part of cruel nature. They are such them
selves ; and besides, dangers and fears had more to do
with their earliest reflections than pleasures and hopes.
The reason of this is obvious. They are dependent
upon soil and climate far beyond civilized men.
Not having learned economy or thrift, they live
�12
On Religion.
riotously while weather is good and food lasts, and
then imagine themselves the victims of vengeance
when their supplies fail. They battle fiercely with
one another for the last morsel of food and the
snuggest shelter. In consequence they think much
of the club or stone which does them good service
in the struggle, and are deeply impressed with any
happy chance which they think has helped them to
victory. Hence they get to worship sticks and stones,
a gust of wind, a glint of sunshine, a stream of water,
or any thing they have associated with their welfare or
success. Their religion originates out of the accumula
tion of these mental effects or deposits—which in
philosophic times are called ideas, knowledge, thought.
Now, observe the point where the religious sense
begins. It is not to the act of the savage shrinking from
the impact of the stone thrown at him, or exulting
at its deadly effect upon an opponent, that we attach
the term religious, but to his state of mind after he
has come to regard the stone as possessed of qualities
which will serve him advantageously if employed
against his enemy, or on the contrary, injure self
greatly, if used by the enemy against him. His fear
as manifested in the shrinking, or his hope as evidenced
in the exultation, may be the root of the whole matter;
and the ultimate findings of reason may by and by shut
us up to the conclusion that we have no nobler origin
for religion in man than this instinctive love of life
which he has in common with all animated nature.
Meanwhile, I content myself with the remark, that
in the mere perception that the stone possessed qualities
which admirably fitted it for purposes of offence and
defence, the untutored mind had not passed into the
idealistic stage. It is to this stage that rationalism
has as yet limited the application of the word religious.
When our savage ancestor first thought of the qualities
of stone being inherent in it as life is in man, and
invested the stone with a will which he conceived
�On Religion.
Blight be inclined to him or turned from him, and
which will, working in the stone like passion in him.«!£, rendered its hardness and power of motion more
«viceable ' or more hostile to him—then we consider
that he attained to the state of religions consciousness.
Immediately he would resort to expedients to avert the
stone’s enmity, and to propitiate its favour. This was
his religion, and these acts of propitiation, dèe., would
constitute his religious service.
•
A process of idealization originating in some such
fashion as this appears to have been the beginning of
all varieties of the religious idea. In some rude minds
it began by imaginings suggested by a serpent or wild
beast, in others by ponderings on the destructive forces
of Nature or musings on its productive power ; but in
all cases it is to the ideal entertained, and not to the
object that originates it, that worship is paid. I do not
wonder at believers in a book-revelation being opposed
to this theory, and disposed to question the facts upon
which it rests, for it tells against them in twTo ways.
It show's that the god and the religion of the “heathen”
m not the invention of a devil ; and that the god and
the religion of the Christian can be traced to the same
Oligin as those of the savage.
The origination of the religious idea in respect of the
heavenly bodies is another case in proof of the correct
ness of this theory, and I adduce it for the purpose of
directing attention to the additional fact, that religion
Séems to have originated through men, in their ignor
ance, investing the images in their minds with attri
butes which they did not attach to the objects as known
to their senses. Thus, it could not be the knowledge
that the sun was the centre of light and heat to the
earth which caused our forefathers to worship it ; but it
must have been a process of reasoning on the natural
phenomena connected with the sun’s rising and shining,
�14
On Religion.
ingenious enough to us who look hack and seek to
unravel it, doubtless profound and conclusive to those
early peoples who were impressed by it. When his
beams in mild and placid mood gladdened the earth,
primitive man saw that flowers blossomed and were
fragrant, that corn waved, and fruits ripened, and that
joy filled the breast of animated nature ; when at other
times the solar rays shot down upon the earth in
strength, he saw the ground parch, plants wither, and
man and beast smitten with heat run to shelter; and
when in winter the ruler of day shone only for a short
time, or hid his face altogether for a season, he found
that the earth became sterile and cheerless, and that
men and beasts shivered with the cold and often
perished. Reflecting on these changes in the light of
very imperfect knowledge, minds strongly imaginative,
and little educated conceived the force residing in
the sun to be like the life in their own bodies, that its
movements were directed by a will variable as their
own, and fitful and partial as their own tempers.
Hence they used sacrifices, libations, invocations, lauda
tions, to turn away its wrath, and secure its favourable
regard.
So was it, in short, with all the skiey influences and
other natural phenomena. Even in the later deification
of heroic men the same principles are found at work ;
and the best scholars now-a-days know of no other
origin of the voluminous and marvellous mythologies of
antiquity,—any of which, when read in the light of
this hypothesis is full of beauty and meaning, however
much it may have been a puzzle to our forefathers. In
such rude beginnings erudite ethnographers and archae
ologists see the starting point of the human intellect,
and trace onward its growth to its present development.
Working in the same fight, and with the same materials,
the greatest authorities in philology are studying the
various languages of antiquity, and are gathering the
fragments for the foundations of a science of religion,
�On Religion.
15
which promises not only perfectly to explain the past,
but also to make men feel truly akin to the present.
But the Evangelical school will not permit the name
11 religion” to be applied to any of these manifestations.
They say that they are the superstitions of mankind.
According to them, religion consists in those beliefs and
services which take their rise from the revealed word of
God. In their theory the religious is not only the highest
product of humanlife; but man was created perfect in re
spect to all the requirements of religion—with conscience
‘set’ like the mariner’s compass so that infallibly it
could decide between good and evil; and he was animated
with an entity, distinct from and superior to the life
of the body—called spirit—a morsel of the Divine.
These are held to distinguish him from all other
creatures; and because of his distinction and superiority,
God is represented as constantly dealing with man in
special to prepare him for inconceivable dignity in a
future world.
My present purpose does not require that I should
further describe this hypothesis. In every particular it
opposes the theory of religion and of the religious life
as I have endeavoured to set it forth. It says that
man in his earliest days was not uneducated, but per
fect in wisdom and holiness; that the object he
worships is not the product of his imagination, but a
far-distant and inapproachable Being who, from time to
time, acquaints a selected tribe of men with as much
of his nature and character as they are able to compre
hend, leaving it to the chapter of accidents to dis1
seminate such revelation among the vast family of
mankind. I have not the slightest wish for the present
to raise even one of the many questions which such a
theory suggests ; but I deem it important to observe,
that whether the religious sense is quickened in man s
•mind by natural phenomena, or by the words of a book,
the mode of operation and the effect produced is much the
�16
On Religion.
same, so that if the product of the Bible is religion as
distinguished from superstition, the product of natural
phenomena is no less so. There is indeed this difference
to begin with, that what is termed the fundamental pos
tulate of religion, the being of God, is taken for granted
in all. systems of revealed, more than it is taken for
granted in any system of natural religion. Over and
above this, we must remember that a book (even the
Bible) stands as much outside of man as the phenomena
of nature, and that its power to excite reflection, which
is the true originator of religious emotions, is limited
by the same conditions.
It is true that without
reflection its revelations can awaken emotions of
wonder and awe, or paralyse with fear, for what the
ear hears, as well as what the eye sees, acts upon the
nervous system. But then, as we have seen, ration
alists do not consider these things religion; and if
any revelationists are disposed to maintain that they
should be called the “beginning of wisdom,” I commend
to their consideration the following words of Sir John
Lubbock.—“ If the mere sensation of fear, and the
recognition that there are probably other beings, and
especially one, more powerful than man, are sufficient
alone to constitute a religion, then indeed we must
admit that religion is general to the human race ; but
if the definition be adopted, we cannot longer regard
religion as peculiar to man. We must admit that the
feeling of a dog or a horse towards its master is of the
same character; and the baying of a dog to the moon
is as much an act of worship as some ceremonies which
have been so described by travellers.”
Judging from the Bible narrative itself, however,
there is no sentiment which we can call religion till
the mind is not only impressed with what it sees, or
reads, or hears, but farther, till it believes that the
things or beings it has thus become acquainted with,
bear relation to itself, and have or can acquire influence
over it—and is excited in the contemplation of them
�On Religion.
*7
by hope as well as fear. If, therefore, we must with
hold the epithet, “ religious,” from the lowest manifes
tations of the feelings of awe, &c. (those feelings which
horses and dogs have in common with man), even be
lievers in Scripture must fall hack upon the very pro
cess which we saw carried on in the case of those who
had worshipped stones and the heavenly bodies.
As we have said, the attention must be fixed upon the
Being the Bible speaks of, just as the worshipper of
images fixes his attention upon figures, pictures, music,
legends and acts of devotion, until not only is there.an
ideal formed in the mind, but also until the imagination
has clothed this ideal with attributes such as it considers
noble, good, wonder-working, and awe-inspiring. Nor
must it be forgotten that this ideal is in every case
conditioned by the natural constitution and experience
of the person who beholds and reflects. Thus, 1 the
Bible being witness,’ a man of pastoral habits conceives
the Being whom he worships to be a wise and good
shepherd—untiring in care and watchfulness over his
flock; unerring and considerate in his choice of pasture, &c. A patriarch conceives the being whom he
worships to be the acknowledged and revered head of
tribes and families—supreme in authority, because his
worshippers are his children. Religious kings conceive
God to be as their own nature is inclined. One thinks
him Lord of lords, God of battles, leading to victory or
suffering defeat; another thinks him to be of milder
mood—“ruling in righteousness,” giving his people
peace in their day. The sage and the prophet conceive of
God after their fashion—rising early to instruct;
patiently teaching the ignorant, “ line upon line, pre
cept upon precept;” laying open the future, and show
ing the consequences of conduct so that hearers may
be restrained from wickedness, and encouraged in well
doing. So, also, in what is called the New Testament
part of the Bible, we find the Hebrew student of Greek
philosophy thinking of God as spirit unencumbered
�18
On Religion.
with body, removed from the transitoriness, and pas
sion, and corruption of earth, and having intercourse
with it only for the purpose of electing a chosen num
ber of its inhabitants to live with him for ever in the
same state of ethereal perfection. This same Greek
philosophy holds sway even to the present time over
the cultivated mind in Western Europe, and hence the
permanence of this last conception, aided by the circum
stance that the revelation of the Book which contains
and popularizes it, is believed to have been closed at
the time when the civilization which gave birth to the
philosophy was falling into decay.
Now in all these cases, which are merely suggestive
of what might be greatly detailed, the most ardent
Biblist must admit that the conception of God is con
ditioned by the habits and culture of the worshipper
quite as much under the revelational as under the
rational theory. This admission not only gives great
insight into the nature of religion, but weightily de
termines the question of the necessity for, and useful
ness of, a Book-revelation—which has hitherto rested
mainly on the assumption that without the Bible man
could not have discovered anything respecting the
character and purposes of God.
But besides this, other very important conclusions
also emerge, some of which relate themselves closely
to not a few of the discussions of the present day
—as for example to the Education question. For
the second time in the course of our brief inquiry it is
made evident that the religious state is a state of emo
tion, governed by ideals, and that these ideals are the
product of a man’s circumstances and training. In
this sense it is impossible to communicate religion
either by teacher or by book. By either or by both
means you can teach doctrines and opinions, but these
are not religion; religious service is the throbbing of
the pulse in the presence of what we consider surpas
�On Religion.
ï9
singly good and "beautiful and true, and you can no
more produce that by instruction than you can make a
man love by telling him to do so. To attempt to com
municate such emotions by direct teaching and injunc
tion will have a most injurious effect on the nature of
man or child. A stronger and more suggestive state
ment than this, is, I think, warrantable, viz., that when
you seek to teach men or children to be religious, the
product is not religion, but hypocrisy or superstition ;
but I am content for the present with the more
moderate and general way in which I have put it. _ It
is in fact just as useful and as efficacious to say,'be
poetical, as to say be religious or good. We can give
information one to another regarding phenomena, their
similarities, differences, relations ; we can draw out and
quicken one another’s powers of observation and com
parison; and thus we can affect the nervous system of
our friend or pupil. But whether his feelings shall
express themselves in the way we call religious is
beyond our control, and must be left to his own con
stitution and intention.
A further important remark occurs here, in close
connection, viz., that it is the ideal and imaginative
alone which man worships—-not the real and substan
tive. In other words, it is round a being and towards
attributes which have no existence save in the mind,
• that the ideas and services usually called religious
centre ; and religion thus becomes a varying and
diminishing thing as men get better informed. A
curious illustration of this is furnished by the negroes
on the west coast of Africa. They have deities—who
are charged with all the evils that befall them; so
much so, indeed, that the negroes represent them as
“ black and mischievous, delighting to torment them
various ways.” 11 They said that the European’s God
was very good, who gave them such blessings, and
treated them like his children. Others asked, mur
�20
On Religion.
muring, Why God was not as good to them ? Why
did not he supply them with woollen and linen cloth,
iron, brass, and such things, as well as the Dutch 1
The Dutch answered, that God had not neglected
them, since he had sent them gold, palm-wine, fruits,
corn, oxen, goats, hens, and many other things neces
sary to life, as tokens of his bounty. But there was
no persuading them these things came from God.
They said the earth, and not God, gave them gold,
which was dug out of its bowels ; that the earth yielded
them maize and rice, and that not without the help of
their own labour ; that for fruits they were obliged to
the Portuguese, who had planted the trees; that their
cattle brought them young ones, and the sea furnished
them with fish ; that, however, in all these their own
industry and labour was required, without which they
must starve; so that they could not see how they were
obliged to God for any of those benefits.” They knew
not whence their diseases and calamities came, therefore
they attributed them to gods, whose favour they sought
to propitiate, so that these things might be averted:
they knew whence gold, palm-wine, fruits, &c., came,
therefore “ they could not see how they were obliged
to God for any of those benefits.” If they had known
how cloth, iron, brass, &c., were produced would they
have had the thought of God and of His goodness
suggested by the sight of “ such blessings ? ”
So, I believe, it has been in all cases and in all times.
That which our ancestor knew about the stone—its
colour, its hardness, its sharpness, &c., he never thought
of worshipping; the qualities he supposed or believed it
to possess, viz., the ability to help him and the willing
ness, toward these he directed his religious acts. So
with the worshipper of the sun or any other heavenly
body j so with the Egyptian and his deified animal—
with the Greek and his apotheosized hero—with the
Hindoo and Brahm—with the Hebrew and God—with
the Christian and Emmanuel. Moreover, while man
�On Religion.
21
nsvsr worships an object or being for those qualities
which he knows it to possess, it appears an inevitable
result, that as soon as he becomes convinced an object
does not possess these qualities which in his fondness
he had attributed to it, he diminishes his reverence and
ceases to worship altogether. Thus, when his growing
intelligence assured him that the sun in the heavens
had no passions and no will, as he had in the days
of his ignorance supposed, but was only matter in a
certain mode of existence, he ceased to worship
it; when our not very remote Catholic forefathers
came to look upon departed saints as only dead men,
and Mary the mother of Jesus as only a beatified
woman, their religious services towards them were
brought to an end. In all these cases, in a wonderfully
true sense, Protestants are able to see the old saying
verified—“ Ignorance is the mother of devotion.” In
like manner, is it not equally true that when modern
Christians come to see that it is entirely ideal qualities
with which they have invested the historical Jesus,
(qualities become now as much inconsistent with our
conception of the divine as of the human) they cease
their Christian worship ? While men remain unaware
that it is their own conceptions and idealizations only
which they worship, they continue to address prayers
and praises Jo them; it remains to be seen whether,
after they lea,In that the only God man has hitherto
■ known, possibly can know, is an ideal one, they will
continue religious service—in the form of prayer and
praise.
All through our inquiry it has been evident that when
man reflects upon anything which affects and interests
him much, he is prone to form an ideal of it to worship.
We have moreover seen, that the religious idea took
its rise in man after he had risen so far in the scale of
civilization. The question which now occurs, presses
heavily upon some of the most thoughtful minds of
�22
On Religion.
our time, viz., whether, when in the progress of develop
ment, he has attained a certain point in civilization, he
may not leave the religious idea, in every sense in
which it has hitherto been understood, altogether be
hind as no longer compatible with his education and
knowledge. The evolution of events will supply the
only satisfactory answer; but a very common experience
in human life often forces itself on our attention when
revolving this speculation. The youth when courting
the mistress of his affections is very worshipful, in the
old sense of that word.
He is, moreover, full of
visions of excellence, which all crystallize round her.
By and by they get married, and they come to know
each other more truly. The worship becomes tamer, and
the visions more like the reality. But if they are honest
natures, properly mated, as the bright visions get dull,
purpose and action coalesce more promptly and fitly,
and grow into that noble, and beautiful and durable
thing known as wedded life. Shall it be with mankind
that, as they become better acquainted with the processes
and powers of Nature, they will be less influenced than
they have been by their speculations upon the Unknown,
less prone to resort to intreatings and commendations
addressed to it, and more intent promptly to conform
themselves to Nature’s regulations, wisely to avail them
selves of her helps, and composedly to submit them
selves to her decrees ? It may be; but analogies are
not arguments.
Two things, however, are already evident from the
thinkings and sayings of educated men ; (1.) As regards
the ideal, which we have seen holds such a prominent
place in religion: cultivated men seem unable to live
without an ideal; and admit it to be axiomatically
true, that no man can improve in intelligence and
manners without one. To quote the words of Principal
Shairp : “ You may dislike the word, and reject it, but
the thing you cannot get rid of, if you would live any
life above that of brutes. An aim, an ideal of some
�On Religion.
23
sort, be it material or spiritual, you must have, if you
have reason, and look before and after.” (2.) As regards
the question of religion: some of the most highly edu
cated of the present day, while renouncing religion in
every sense in which it has hitherto been understood,
nevertheless claim to be counted religious, because they
are silent and conscious of ignorance, when worshippers
after the old fashion are loud in prayer and praise; or be
cause they are devoted to the discharge of duty, a thing
which former religionists called mere morality. Thus,
to cite a recent extreme example, the philosopher Comte
idealized the human race, past, present and future, and
invested it with attributes fitted to call out and occupy
the best sympathies and services of which his nature
was capable. Our fathers, if not also most of our
contemporaries, would see in all this only the com
monest acts of morality; in virtue of these services,
however, Comte claimed to be called religious, because
he believed in “ the Infinite nature of Duty.” I need
make no reference to the spirit and manner in which he
might seek to discharge these duties ; for all hitherto
known as religionists would say, the distinction lies not
in the mode, but in the essential nature of the two
services.—So, to cite another example, furnished by a
different type of mind, and a different kind of train
ing, the late James Cranbrook, in his later days,
often said that, when thinking of God, the only ideal
present to his mind (if ideal it could be called)
was that of force—Force, not defaced by quality,
not limited by time, nor space, nor knowledge. In
the presence of such inconceivable mystery, he said
he was for the most part silent when worshipful,
and that his religious service consisted in humbly inquirin^into the modes by which this Mystery manifests
itself, through the co-ordinations and successions of
phenomena.—John Stuart Mill, also, in treating of this
subject, remarks :—“ It may not be consonant to usage
to call this a religionj but the term so applied has a
�24
On Religion.
meaning, and one which is not adequately expressed
by any other word. Candid persons of all creeds may
be willing to admit, that if a person has an ideal ob
ject, his attachment and sense of duty towards which
are able to control and discipline all his other senti
ments and propensities, and prescribe to him a rule of
life, that person has a religion.”*
One word in conclusion. I beg to remind my readers
that in the present paper I have carefully abstained
from introducing any questions relating to the exist
ence and nature of Deity. These I consider extraneous
to the subject which has been under review. In proof
that the nature of religion may be discussed without
dealing with these other topics of controversy, may I
not appeal to the personal experience of many “free
inquirers,” who must be conscious of the endurance of
those feelings they call religious, notwithstanding the
change which has taken place in their theological
opinions'? In this conviction, I leave it for earnest
consideration.
* Auguste Comte and Positivism, by J. S. Mill.
The Editor of this series, anxious for outspoken inquiry
on these great topics, from which true philosophy will
never shrink, counsels the reader to study, along with
these pages, the essay " On Matter, Force, and Atheism,”
by the Rev. T. P. Kirkman, M.A.
TUBNBULL AND SPD«RS, 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
On religion
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Published anonymously. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. 'By a former elder in a Scotch church'.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N275
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work (On religion), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4c052c840fed9bca2a5d278edd3efb8f.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=ufBSXPhdqMWhrrcLmdTcj1VcmKcoYiyFALu6nryW8BjPSHHXdOHt2w5H%7EfkSVBLwGUJ8VCNOqjenmGKyFz2BSBmsWWHlhYrBNNKJlUG6l%7Ebbwv%7E9uUMVrouXNtjh6nbgee%7Ew2hksPbsUfeKE56Ru8lS%7EZ4GmsXNx5HHZR7x4T-TivXCl%7EPU5NLP-gtRUmhvn04cJu-zJBF%7EcZFYoWw0tL8YEUN3InzBQvAI2A%7EC-gYH0MqnqtA7T%7EirLmLSXigf2NQbKlW7%7EcVx9yOxEOBjvSeZIQuUdK5vnioCOoohREwFqytccvzkR0X7cdJLMn6aVqKh-FvI6AkpCwzhf-OHneA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f821ee327d362681044b54962c21007f
PDF Text
Text
CT
ORTHODOX
THEORIES OF PRAYER.
BY
A BARRISTER.
*
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��ORTHODOX THEORIES OF PRAYER.
OME time ago, a controversy was raging in various
■ periodicals on the subject of prayer—our reason
for noticing which, at this late period, will udirectly
appear.
The real issue raised was this—Is there any reason
for supposing that human supplications are capable of
influencing directly the processes of external nature ?
We say “ external,” because no one seems to deny that
a man may, by this agency, produce a great effect upon
himself, and his own nature. To be sure, the modus
operands is a matter of dispute between the philosopher
and the theologian, the former attributing whatever
result may have followed solely to what is called reflex
action, the latter to the immediate action of the Deity.
Still, an effect is in both cases admitted, and it is not
round this point that the controversy has raged. Again,
we have used the word “ directly,” because it is quite
plain that human supplication may have a considerable
indirect effect, say, upon a religious person at a critical
period who knows that he is being prayed for, and who
believes that a great force is being exerted on his behalf.
So, too, curses (which are a species of prayer) have
often brought about their own fulfilment, by the fears
they have instilled into their objects. In these sorts
of cases, candid theologians, even when adhering to
their own views, are willing to admit that a solution,
such as does not suppose any interference with natural
laws, may fairly be submitted for consideration. If
S
�4
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
men would go on praying for benefits on behalf of
themselves, or of others in reach of their voices, or in
reach of knowledge that those voices were being
thus raised ; then, although there would be a differ
ence of opinion as to the mode in which the results of
such action, admitting that it had results, must be held
to have been brought about, still the man of science
would have very little to say. But the contention of
theologians goes a great deal farther than this, and it
appears to us that the men of science have been justi
fied, nay, that they have only discharged an imperative
duty, in entering a most earnest protest against it. The
contention is, as we have said, that human prayer is
capable of modifying directly the course of external
nature. No better illustration of this claim can be
given than the familiar case of rain and fine weather.
The churches maintain that the faithful are able to
procure at one time a downfall, and at another a cessa
tion of rain ■ and they have imposed it as a duty upon
their members, when called upon by the officiating
minister, or other higher authority, to put in force the
machinery for this end. Upon this well-worn subject,
we repeat that we have hitherto refrained from offering
any observations to the readers of this series, in which,
indeed, two or three excellent papers on Prayer in
general have already appeared.
We have been induced to break our silence in con
sequence of an article which has recently appeared in
an able contemporary (Fraser’s Magazine, Sept. 1873).
This article puts forward a theory of prayer, which is
not new,* but which is very clearly stated and agree
ably illustrated by the writer. For aught we know, it
may have been still better set forth elsewhere—for we
do not profess to have read everything which has been
written on this subject of late. We, at any rate, have
not met with any clearer recent statement of it, nor do
* For instance, it is to be found in Euler’s Lettres a une princesse
Allemande.
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
5
we remember to have seen it anywhere distinctly ex
posed. Probably men of the calibre of Professor Tyn’dall have thought that it would be a waste of time to
show its inherent weakness. Yet it is never a waste of
time to refute theories of this kind, which, from their
plausibility are particularly liable to attract superficial
minds, and which, under the guise of offering scientific
solutions are really the offspring, of a spirit which is
fundamentally opposed to true science.
The theory is this, that prayer may be able to ope
rate directly upon the sequence of external events,
without any violation of law. The Almighty may have
so adjusted the course of nature as to make the favour• able issue of a prayer an effect dependent upon the
prayer as a cause; the particular cause having been
foreseen and having its effect assigned to it in the
general scheme. Thus, for example, a high reading of
the barometer at Bergen, and a low reading at Dundee
will indicate the approach of a storm, for the inhahitants of the East Coast of Scotland; yet, a pious
mother, with a son in the North Sea, may succeed in
averting it by her entreaties to Heaven, without any
violation of law, or consequent disturbance. For the
law may be that the wind blows from a high to a low
barometer, with a force proportioned to the differences
of the barometric pressures in all cases where prayer to
the contrary is not put up, or, rather, put up success
fully. In cases where it has been decided that the
prayer shall be granted, as suppose in the foregoing
instance, there may have been “ an adjustment from
eternity of physical causes to this specific moral end,”
the result “ being serenely wrought out by the natural
operation of remote causes, the combination of which
no science could have predicted beforehand, albeit after
the fact no science can detect any trace of violence or
interference with the steadfast order of things. The
event which answered to the prayer had lain latent
from of old in the undeveloped plan of nature, just as
�6
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
surely as it had lain from the beginning in the secrets
of the Divine foreknowledge."
We have here, by the way, an illustration of the
strange mode in which theologians are endeavouring to
engraft on their system the modern conception of
“Uniformity of Law.” A little while ago, compara
tively speaking, it would have been considered by their
predecessors in the highest degree blasphemous to sug
gest that the Almighty either would not, or could not
comply directly with the requests of his supplicants, in
the same manner as men are able to oblige others ; andthat inconceivably complex and intricate chains of ar
rangements stretching up into infinite time must neces
sarily have been made in every case where prayer had
to be answered. Science, however, having forced this
conception of Law upon them, they are in the position
of men in the fairy tale who have got hold of a Genius
without being possessed of the means of making him
obey them. They really suppose that they have en
listed science on their side, or at any rate have dis
armed all reasonable opposition from that quarter, when
in view of a series of phenomena the precise causes of
which have not been ascertained, they exhibit another
series of entirely dissimilar phenomena, and without
proving the faintest connection between the two, call
upon us to recognise in the latter a 11 possible cause ”
of the former. It is the old story of the Goodwin
Sands and Tenterden steeple. And supposing the phe
nomenon in that case had been, as it is easy to conceive
that it might have been, the disappearance of a shelf
that had stopped up Sandwich haven, instead of the
appearance of a new one, it might have been argued on
these lines, that the building of Tenterden steeple, an
act presumably agreeable to the Almighty, was a “ pos
sible cause ” of the harbour being opened. We might
then have been able with Mr Bacon, the author of the
article we are considering, to detect “ in the day when
the earth and sea shall yield up their secrets, running.
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
7
parallel with a line of moral influences, the vestiges of
an old train of geologic causes, working down through
all the periods of creation until the two lines of diverse
operation converge upon a distinct predeterminate point
of time and space,” the points upon which these parallel
lines have all along been converging having been on
this hypothesis the building of the steeple, on the one
hand, and the clearing away of the sand on the other.
■“ Tous les evenements sont enchain&s dans le meilleur
des mondes !” in a way which even Pangloss did not
suspect. On reading the above, we are irresistibly re
minded of Sheridan’s simile. Whatever science there
■may be in all this, has been disfigured, as gipsies are
supposed to disfigure stolen children, to prevent its
being recognised.
Of course, where real causes are unknown, anything
whatever, the agency of which in producing the given
phenomenon has not been actually disproved, may be
-labelled as a possible agent or cause. We can prove
that the presence of the Sun above the horizon is not the
cause of dew, because we have dew by night after the
setting of the sun. But we cannot disprove the hypo
thesis of some of the low church papers, that Ritualism
and Infidelity attract cholera to our shores. Nor can we
disprove the hypothesis, that prayer is able to influence
storms. But we can submit some considerations which
render these and similar hypotheses so violently im
probable, that they may be safely neglected. Indeed,
if any account had to be taken of them, there could be
no science in the proper sense of the term.
Whenever we are able to trace natural phenomena up
to their real causes, it is found that human prayer is
not among these causes. This is a conclusion co-extensive with human experience, and must be accepted as a
truth of universal application. No person, for instance,
supposes that eclipses are now-a-days in any.way affected
by prayer. The opposite is demonstrable.
For an
eclipse, say of the Sun, being immediately due to the
�8
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
interposition of the moon between us and that lumi
nary, a calculation is made of the time when this collo
cation of the three bodies will be known to take place,
and it is found not to be subject to any disturbance
such as would be produced by the introduction of a new
cause not previously accounted for. What is true of
an eclipse holds good of the most ordinary physical
phenomena of every-day life, with the causes of which
we have become acquainted. The presumption is enor
mous, that in all those cases in which the imperfection
of our instruments leaves us unable to trace phenomena
to their true causes, there is similarly no room left for
the agency of prayer. This conclusion is immensely
strengthened by the fact, that even where we are un
able to penetrate to the ultimate laws of phenomena,
yet, whenever we are able to make any way at all in a
discovery of their nature, we find ourselves in a region
of absolute law, i.e., in the presence of secondary laws-,,
which may be plainly conjectured to be dependent
upon more general laws. At any rate, the onus probandi is thrown upon those who assert the contrary,
and it is difficult to see how they can shape their ob
jections so as not to fall under one of the three follow
ing heads.
1. It maybe said that, even granting all this, no
absolute case is made out against the efficacy of prayer
of this particular kind. For it cannot be demonstrated
that the future order of nature will resemble the past
order. This has been admitted by Hume ; and we
think that Theology in its struggles is capable of
snatching at the admission as at a straw. Indeed, Canon
Mozley has turned it to considerable account in his Bampton Lectures. According to this view, even although
eclipses should be shown to have been due to certain
well-defined causes in the past, yet it by no means
necessarily follows that they will not be influenced by
prayer in the future; and it would be therefore by no
means an absurdity to pray against the occurrence of
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
9
one, supposing such, a course should at any time seem
desirable in the interests of the supplicant or others.
This theory would, of course, render an entreaty for
any miracle (as we term it), however stupendous, per
fectly legitimate. This point, however, the value of
which may be left to the consideration of the reader, is
not taken by Mr Bacon. The argument here is that
prayer may be conceived as having such and such an
effect in an altered constitution of nature, to which our
past experience could furnish no guide. Whereas, his
contention is, that there is reason to suppose it may
have an effect in the present constitution of things.
And indeed, unless this latter ground be established,
it is clear that although many ingenious metaphysical
invitations might be addressed to them, yet, as a matter
of practice, no persons would offer up these prayers.
2. Prayer may be asserted to be one of the possible
causes of physical phenomena, till the other causes are
discovered. The law may be so arranged that when
these other causes are found out by man, prayer ceases
to act as an agency, in consequence, it may be said, of
its ceasing to be put up, though this, by the way, is
not strictly the case, for long after the truth as to any
phenomenon is laid bare by science, the uninstructed will
continue to pray in the direction of their supposed
interests. According to this view, although a thousand
years hence meteorology may be so far advanced as that
rain and fine weather will be predicted with certainty
a long while beforehand, and prayer will accordingly
then be futile, it may not be futile now. Or, to take
eclipses again, some thousands of years ago prayer may
have been effectual in warding them off, though it
would be idle to offer it up now-a-days. This is some
thing in the shape of the former theory reversed. It
is a projection of chaos into the past instead of the
future. The Egyptians may have been right when they
informed Herodotus that the sun had twice risen in the
west and twice set in the east. And this singular re
�IO
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
suit will follow, that any one who gets hold of what
afterwards t turns out to be a natural law, for the first
time, and keeps it to himself, will be wrong, as omitting
one important ingredient, viz., prayer, which would
still be presumably capable of being followed by an
effect not allowed for. But what is here supposed as
to a person keeping a discovery to himself for a while
is, as has already been stated, exactly what takes place,
if for one person we substitute a small body of scientific
men. These discoveries do not penetrate to the mass
of citizens in civilised communities for many years •
and here is an excellent opportunity for observing
whether the calculations of philosophers are liable to
be disturbed by such an agency as prayer. Yet no
single instance of any such disturbance has been verified.
3. The above theories may excite a smile in the
minds of those who are unfamiliar with the methods of
theology. But is there anything one whit less absurd
in the remaining theory to which we shall be driven,
and which is supported by most of the leading thinkers
on the orthodox side,—which is indeed the one upon
which the case of Prayer (in the sense in which we are
using the word) is mainly rested ? It is thus clearly
stated by Mr Mill:—Originally all natural events
were ascribed to such (special) interpositions. At pre
sent, every educated person rejects this explanation in
regard to all classes of phenomena of which the laws
have been fully ascertained, though some have not yet
reached the point of referring all phenomena to the
idea of law, but believe that rain and sunshine, famine
and pestilence, victory and defeat, death and life, are
issues which the Creator does not leave to the opera
tion of his general laws, but reserves to be decided by
express acts of volition.” * In judging this latter
theory it will be found that as is constantly the case in
matters not admitting absolute determination, we are
reduced to a balancing of probabilities. We must re_
* “ System of Logic,” fifth ed., vol. ii., p. 521, note.
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
n
peat that the matter stands thus. Prayer having once
been held capable of producing an effect upon all phy
sical phenomena, and being now by general consent
restricted to those only the laws of which have not
been discovered and established, and this process of
adding phenomena to the domain of law, and conse■quently subtracting them from the domain of prayer,
having gone on uninterruptedly, and pari passu with,
accurate observation, is it more probable that pheno
mena the causes of which are unknown resemble those
which have been explained, in being governed by simi
lar laws, or that they are exceptions, in which our
prayers, demonstrably useless in all other like cases (if
the present constitution of the universe is to be main
tained), may be, after all, efficient causes ? Or, in other
words, no single instance being scientifically established
in which prayer has had any effect on external nature,
and the course of nature, as far as it has been ascer
tained in countless cases and for countless ages, abso
lutely excluding this agency, is there any ground for
-claiming it as a power in those cases where we are at
present unable to trace effects to their true causes ?
Theologians reply that there is such a ground ; and
we do not know that in our day they have found a
more able spokesman than the late Dean Mansel, whom
we shall accordingly quote. In his “ Limits of Reli
gious Thought ” he writes as follows :—
“ Even within the domain of Physical Science, how
ever much analogy may lead us to conjecture the uni
versal prevalence of law and orderly sequence, it has
been acutely remarked that the phenomena which are
most immediately important to the life and welfare of
man are precisely those which he never has been, and
probably never will be, able to reduce to a scientific
calculation.” *
This, by the way, is a very slovenly classification, for
if there be any phenomena “ immediately important to
* P. 134, fifth edition.
�12
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
the life and welfare of man,” such are, certainly, before
all others, the regular transmission of light and heat
from the sun, the alternation of day and night and the
seasons, in compliance with laws which prevent our
being sent wandering through space or absorbed in the
central luminary, and other phenomena of the kind
which are capable of being reduced to a scientific cal
culation. However, Dean Mansel continues :—
“ This argument admits of a further development, in
which it may be applied to meet some of the recent
objections urged, on supposed scientific grounds, against
the efficacy of prayer, as employed in times of national
calamity, such as pestilence or famine. The celestial
phenomena, recurring at regular intervals and calculable
to a second, are by no means a type of the manner in
which the whole course of nature is subject to law.
On the contrary, there are other classes of natural phe
nomena, with respect to which matter is to some extent
directly subject to the influence of mind; man being
capable, by his own free action, not indeed of changing
or suspending the laws of nature, but of producing, in
accordance with those laws, a different succession of
phenomena from that which would have taken place
without his interposition. Franklin sends up his elec
tric kite, and directs the fluid with which the thunder
cloud is charged to a course different from that which
it would otherwise have taken, and the same thing is
now done by every man who erects a lightning-con
ductor. Subject to these influences, the material world
must be regarded, not as a rigid system of pre-ordained
antecedents and consequents, but as an elastic system,
which is undoubtedly capable of being influenced by
the will of man, and which may, therefore, without any
violation of scientific principle, be supposed to be also
under the influence of the will of God.” *
* P. 135, note. How about earthquakes (against which men are
taught to pray), and in which of the two classes of phenomena
shall we rank them, and the cognate phenomena of volcanic
eruptions ?
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
ij
The argument is, that where phenomena are capable
of being directly influenced by man, and so removed
from the sphere of exact prediction, they may be sup
posed to be capable of being directly influenced by
God, and so made the subject of prayer. The reverend
Dean has put the point rather strangely, but we will
not dwell on this. Every one, that is, every Theistr
admits the above proposition and something more.
We believe that all phenomena are capable of being
directly influenced by the Almighty. But this is not a
fair statement of the point in issue. The argument, to
have any bearing on the subject, should be capable of
being maintained in this form. “ Where phenomena
are capable of being directly influenced by man, there
is reason to suppose that they will be directly influenced
by God at the request of man.” The real question is
not as to the power of God, but as to his mode of
working as revealed to us. That the Deity could, if
he thought fit, in answer to human prayer, arrest the
course of a thunder-storm or a pestilence, may be con
ceded, without any appreciable weight being thereby
accorded to the argument for prayer. What we have
to consider is, whether there is any reliable evidence of
his ever having worked in this fashion. If there is
not, then to talk about prayer as a “cause” is an idle
speculation. On the other hand, human labour or
effort is a vera causa capable of producing determinate
results on external nature, as every day experience
shows us. Not only does Franklin divert the course
of the electric fluid, but men have changed the climate
of large tracts of the earth by cultivation, thus entirely
altering what, but for their intervention, would have
been the course of rain, storms, &c. Zoophytes have
produced an analogous effect by raising coral islands.
To argue that because man is able to act immediately
on nature in certain cases, therefore God in those par
ticular cases may be supposed to act in a like way, is a
complete non-sequitur. Again, to argue from the power
�34
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
of human effort over nature, the power of human prayer
to accomplish like results in the same field, is equally
•absurd. In the one case, as, for instance, in the clear
ing away of large forests, and the consequent diminntion of rainfall in those districts, we have a regular
■ chain of causation, entitling us to rank the burn an
effort as an antecedent and the increased dryness as
a consequent. Here a fresh antecedent being intro
duced is followed by a change in the phenomena, and
in this sense of course all nature is an “ elastic system,”
the stars of heaven as well as drops of rain. When
prayer has been exhibited to us as an unmistakeable
antecedent, followed in like manner by clearly ascer
tained consequents, we shall think it as much a matter
of duty to pray as to labour; but not till then.
Strange to say, theologians have never made an at
tempt in this direction. More than this, they have
looked upon all efforts to ascertain the value of prayer,
even when undertaken with the most single-minded
■desire of arriving at the truth, as so many attempts
nearly resembling blasphemies. Surely this is a mis
take on the part of the upholders of this supposed
agency. For, if it be capable of influencing pheno
mena, in the way suggested, this influence may pos
sibly in some one case (and one would suffice) be
capable of being traced ; and this possibility would be
a sufficient justification of research, even in the eyes of
the theologian, inasmuch as if it were realised, the
sceptic would be silenced. Meanwhile, we are com
pelled to say with the lawyers, “ De non apparentibus
et non existentibus eadem est lex.”
To return to the theory of which Mr Bacon, the
author of the article in Fraser, is the latest spokesman.
It possesses what to many will be the incontestable
advantage of extending the power of prayer by making
it applicable to past as well as future events. He in
forms us at the outset that he was travelling twenty
years ago in Mesopotamia with two American theolo-
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
15
gians, one of them a missionary. A letter reached the
latter, dated long months before at Shanghai in China,
informing him that his brother was dangerously ill of
a typhus fever that was approaching its crisis. The
question arose, would it be right to pray for the sick
man ? To which the theologians replied, no. He is
either recovered or dead. In the first case, prayer is
superfluous; in the second, it is useless. Mr Bacon
was not satisfied with this answer at the time, and after
much consideration he deems it wrong. “ The reasons
against excluding such a case from the domain of
prayer are like those which apply against excluding all
cases which come within the sphere of physical law.”
“ The difficulty involved in it is not substantially different from that involved in prayer for future physical
blessings; it is only more vivid, and more incapable of
being evaded. It does not need a great philosopher, it
is possible for a childlike mind, to recognise that an
unknown fixed event in the past, as well as in the
future, may have been fixed with reference to its rela
tions, not only in the physical but also in the moral
system; so that it is no absurdity to believe that a cer
tain chain of invisible and imponderable morbific in
fluences, terminating in an unknown issue of life and
death on the banks of the Yang-tse-Kiang might have
been adjusted with fatherly reference to what, six or
twelve months later, was to be the spiritual attitude
and act of a heavy-hearted missionary wanderer floating
on a goatskin raft down the Tigris.”
The common-sense of the reader will, it is needless
to say, be perfectly satisfied with the reply of “the
theologians.” There is, indeed, a very great difference
between praying for future and praying for past “ phy
sical blessings.” In the one case it is possible that theprayer may have an effect: in the other case, to sup
pose this is in reality a contradiction in terms. A thing
cannot have for a consequent that which has preceded
it. It must be remarked, however, that, according to-
�16
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
this theory, the possible antecedent e.g., in the case of
the missionary’s brother recovering or dying, is not,
strictly speaking, the missionary’s act (praying or de
clining to pray), but God's foreknowledge of what the
act would be. Not that this really mends the matter.
But, before looking into this question a little more
closely, let us see whither we shall be led if we adopt
the line of action which Mr Bacon prescribes.
Any past event whatever, the issue of which is un
known to the person praying, may be made the subject
of prayer, and (provided there be nothing improper or
immoral in the request) of legitimate prayer. To entreat
that Judas Iscariot, or even Cain, may have repented
before dying, that the number of slaughtered in some
• ancient battle was not so great as reported by ancient
historians, that Seneca may have made acquaintance
with Paul and become a convert to Christianity, all
these are fair objects of supplication. The event may
have been adjusted in reference to the subsequent
spiritual attitude and act. Prayer for the dead becomes
■ a solemn duty for all of us, as wre are reminded by the
illustrations just given. For their permanent condi
tion may have been adjusted (we cannot help using Mr
Bacon’s own tenses) in the same way. If the missionary
on the Tigris was authorised to pray that his brother
at Shanghai had recovered six months before, he wTas
just as much, nay, very much more, called upon to pray
that, in the event of that brother not having recovered,
he might have departed this life in the odour of sanc
tity. Similarly we may pray this on behalf of any
person whatever whom we know to be dead, and whose
final earthly state of mind we do not know. And this
being so, surely all those who believe in the efficacy of
retrospective prayer, ought to set to work and pray for all
the dead. We may add that a very rude shock is given
by this theory to the doctrine of free-will, as might
easily be shown. This, however, we shall not press,
-though we apprehend that it would have weight
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
17
with a writer holding the theological views of Mr
Bacon.
According to this theory, prayer, impertinent and
indeed impious to one man, would he a solemn duty to
a person standing by him—we mean in reference to an
■event one and the same, and possessing an equal in
terest for both.
Let us suppose that, instead of being on the Tigris,
the missionary had been at a hotel in New York, and
that a gentleman had called upon him with the an
nouncement that he had recently come from Shanghai.
“ Here is a letter,” he says, “ which I had intended to
post to you on my arrival here, but have preferred
bringing with me, on accidentally learning your address.
It informs you of a serious illness of your brother’s, six
months ago, and of the issue. Open the letter and
you will see whether he recovered or died.” It would
seem that it would be the missionary’s duty, before
breaking open the seal, to kneel down and pray that
his brother had recovered, inasmuch as to him the
result is unknown. Indeed, Mr Bacon puts a pre
cisely similar case in reference to a “telegraphic de
spatch.” Would it not be the duty of the visitor to
reply, “ My good sir, if you don’t know, I do. No
thing that you can devise can alter the event you will
find recorded in that letter.” “ 0 ! but the Almighty
may have so adjusted a chain of morbific influences,
&c., with fatherly reference to what is nowr going to be
my spiritual act.” “ But the very words you have
used, ‘may have adjusted,’ show you what nonsense
you are talking.” The pious missionary, however, ad
heres to his view, offers his prayer, opens the letter,
.and reads the result. Hereupon his equally pious and
very delicate sister chances to come into the room, and
is informed of the illness, but the result' is withheld
from her. How is the missionary to advise his sister ?
•Clearly that she ought to pray.* Prayer, which is a
* "W e might go further.
It would be the duty of the missionary
•
�18
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
futility for him, still remains a duty to her, or else all
this theory tumbles to pieces. But he cannot advise
her to pray with any reference to the result, for the
result is known to him. He is in the position the
visitor stood in a short time before. He can only ad
vise her to pray in a sense quite different from that in
which prayer is used in this theory, viz., as a pos
sible means of influencing past events. Now transport
the missionary back to the Tigris, and suppose the
visitor (Smith) at Shanghai. Smith (and a number of’
other people) know the event: the only difference is
that he does not happen to be at hand to tell the mis
sionary that he knows it. But this does not make the
prayer less futile.
As this is a theory extremely likely to lay hold of
certain persons of a theological turn, we do not think
it a waste of time to repeat that prayer of this kind is
an attempt to tamper with a past event by getting at a
past antecedent which (admitting the theory) has already
produced a consequent. It is plain that a person, C.,.
who knows what happened six months ago,—say that
A. then recovered of a dangerous illness,—and who is
a believer in Mr Bacon’s general theory, would reason
correctly thus as to B., A.’s surviving brother : “ God
may have so adjusted the result in this particular instance
in accordance with his foreknowledge that B. would
either pray or not pray. If B. prays I shall think that
this was very likely the case. If he does not pray,
■ then clearly it was not the case. But either way prayer
can be of no avail now/’ One of the numerous falla
cies of this theory lies in supposing that this view
which is true to C. need not be true to B. ; that be
cause a thing is not known to B. it may be presumed
to be in a certain sense undetermined, by B. If it is
true to C. it must be true generally. It follows that
wheD any event is known to any being in creation
not to inform his sister of the result, with the view of inducingher to pray.
�Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
19
prayer about it becomes useless to everybody. Another
fallacy consists in not observing that in either case,
i.e., whether the issue of the disease be or be not known
to the supplicant, a known past event has to be dealt
with, viz., the Deity’s complete foreknowledge of what
would be the supplicant’s course. The prayer is offered
up in order that the Deity foreseeing it—which now he
■is enabled to have done—may have been thereby dis
posed to save the sick man. But if a cannon may
have been fired off, or not fired off, at Waterloo, ac
cording as a foreknowledge of whether I should this
day pull or not pull a string influenced a superior
power, I can no more by my action on the string affect
that foreknowledge than I can fire off the cannon of 1815.
This theory, then, viz., that of the Supreme Being
adjusting the issue of sickness, &c., to subsequent en
treaties, is not only a wild figment of the brain, opposed
to the lessons derived from a study of nature, but it
does not even justify the practice which is sought to be
founded upon it.*
* Theologians, like common jurymen, require to have things
often put before them ; so I shall make no apology for again set
ting the matter out thus. Granting Mr Bacon’s wild theory of
the existence of a law in virtue of which persons’ lives or deaths
may, in certain cases (for there is no pretence that this is always
•so), depend on subsequent prayers, we will suppose that a certain
event, the issue of which is to me unknown, has reached me, e. gr.,
the illness of my brother six months ago. Now I believe that the
Deity 'nwjy have ordered that issue in reference to his foreknowledge of what would be my action. The only effect of my prayer
now can be to inform me whether the issue, when ascertained, can
be brought into possible connection with the law.
I pray—news comes of his recovery—law has possibly come into
operation.
I pray—news comes of his death—the case did not come under
the law.
I don t pray news comes of his death—law has possibly come into
operation.
I don’t pray—news comes of his recovery—the case did not come
under the law.
In the two cases where my prayer does not correspond with the
past event, law could not have operated.
In the two cases where my prayer did correspond with the past
event, law might have operated.
�20
i
Orthodox Theories of Prayer.
What, we may ask in conclusion, is gained to the
cause of theology by these wild assertions of the power
of prayer over external nature ? To what purpose all
these astounding complications ? The belief, it may
be said, is necessary to stimulate a prayerful spirit.
Yes, but then it ought to be shown that this is a prayer
ful spirit exercised in the right direction. No one, it
is clear, from the theological point of view, can know
for certain whether supplications of this kind meet
with success or not. We should have thought that the
spirit which it is deemed so desirable to cultivate might
find a sufficient scope in the internal sphere, where,
though the modus operand,! may be in dispute, no one
denies that prayer is capable of producing effects,
which is the chief thing. With regard to external
nature, may not a spirit of submission to supreme wis
dom—rather than one of a desire for change in our
own interests—be, at least as “ theological” as it is
philosophical ? Are not, we say, true philosophy and
true religion at one, the former in urging that it is
wiser, the latter in admitting that it is more devout, to
leave external nature in the hands of the Author of
Nature ?
The fallacy consists in putting it that, if I pray God may have
saved my brother; or, if I (Lortt pray, God may not have saved
my brother.
The fact is, that my brother has been saved or not saved with
full foreknowledge of what I should do.
If saved, saved either Secawse it was known I would pray; or,
though it was known I would not.
If dead, dead either because it was known I would not pray ; or,
in spite of its being known that I would pray.
TURNBULL AND SI’BAKS, 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
Orthodox theories of prayer
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "by a Barrister'. [Title page].
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
CT205
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religious practice
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 (Orthodox theories of prayer), 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
Prayer
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6baf17b19d1c59faf194a5c8246f9f73.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=sGaBKN7xHpdkX7OM1LHxuszfCEQ71s4nn0ozddkTzYBZiu%7Etxwh7DfpO1LMm2loec%7Ez18cyzUXzRmzwaMqVZHiSwAVRgAfeOsQVINpwRbDe3zpAjNxeLfh-LZzo52I0rNIECygkU%7EOGRYnuVBn0GBQlm4KwZqJowHfnRbPHtBLwS3ehbTeH9oRrS0GDYbGfoWxfY9wmErifNkdPCTtnZfwfXdKIpjJLga-QjFBTQP8FHDa2GkBGVCN3r4FoEVXZF4bmgBRQPHDWbVpmau-RbwLY4SVt8mPezhoU9mmA%7Ed85CKEP19W%7EXLhQvJJhtT4qIdsKuy8VeDfnxtJdYBXqDLg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
528aa36fda883e95aeea0f695d0cd929
PDF Text
Text
EUTHANASIA.
AN ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND
AGAINST IT.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
�0
fc
rW
�EUTHANASIA.
T may be well to explain that the publication of this
pamphlet has arisen under the following circum
stances. In the London correspondence of the Western
Morning News of November 13, 1874, there appeared
the following paragraph :—“ It is a serious question
which ought to be faced, if in cases where there is
mortal disease a patient should not be at liberty to
demand his order of release from the burden of the
flesh at the hands of authorised functionaries of the
State. The relief would accrue not only to the
sufferer, but also to those weary and agonised watchers
who have to wait round the bed of pain, and feel that
they are helpless. If we may put a murderer out of
existence for the benefit of society, why may we not
put a saint out of existence for his own unspeakable
benefit—involving, as it would, the exchange of pro
longed torture for the joys of Paradise ? In both cases
life would be taken by properly constituted officials;
but in the one case death would be an execution, in
the other a euthanasia.”
This paragraph excited a good deal of comment,
chiefly of an unfavourable character. It has been
thought desirable to treat the subject somewhat more
fully, and the following pages will contain an abstract
of the arguments used against “ Euthanasia,” and the
replies to them.
Two things, however, should be premised. First,
that by the term “ Euthanasia” suicide is not intended
I
�4
Euthanasia.
second, that the writer thinks it is quite possible argu
ments may he brought forward which would be so
strong as to counterbalance those in favour of “ Eutha
nasia.” He has not met with any such arguments
hitherto, but as they may exist he wishes this
pamphlet to be considered as a contribution towards
a discussion rather than as a final and conclusive
decision.
By the term “Euthanasia” is meant a putting to
death with the full consent of the person concerned,
any one who, being in entire possession of his mental
faculties, and stricken by a mortal and painful disease,
knows that his days are numbered, and desires to avoid
the period of agony that in the ordinary course of nature
lies between him and dissolution. . Under certain cir
cumstances even suicide is deemed lawful. For instance,
when a woman has taken her life rather than lose her
honour, as happened at Cawnpore. Other cases are
conceivable. For example, if a criminal (much more a
righteous man) were about to be put to a horrible
death, such as used to be inflicted in the middle ages,
such as is still inflicted by savage tribes, no one would
blame him if he anticipated his end by a few minutes,
and escaped intolerable torture by a dose of laudanum.
Or take another case—one that too often happens—in
which a shipwrecked crew without food are compelled,
in order that they may not all perish, to cast lots as to
which of them shall die and be eaten. In such a case
no one would condemn as a murderer the man who put
the victim to death. Supposing, in order to spare his
friend that terrible office, the victim put himself to
death, should we not think that he had displayed the
very highest kind of self-sacrifice ? Should we not say
that he had laid down his life for his friends ?
This much is said, not to argue in favour of the right
of suicide, which, however admissible in some cases,
could not be sanctioned as a general proposition with
out opening the door to very grave inconvenience and
�Euthanasia,.
5
mischief, but by way of supporting the argument that
it is lawful under the conditions stated above to take
the life of another. In a word, if, under certain
conditions, a man may take his own life, a fortiori, he
may have it taken for him with his consent.
It has been urged, however, that there is no real
parallel between the cases cited. The Cawnpore case
is admitted to be doubtful and very difficult to decide.
But it is argued that a martyr certainly would not
anticipate his death, and that in the case of the ship
wrecked crew the prime object would be to save life,
not to destroy it. To this it may be replied that the
martyr was not intended. It is probable that his
testimony at the stake may be of so great service to the
truth, and therefore to mankind, that it would be worth
while for him to encounter the severer kind of death.
But if we take the case of a white man falling into the
hands of savages, and knowing that he has a death of
horrible toru^ent before him, and that he has the means
of escaping it by inflicting upon himself a painless
death, we can hardly do otherwise than admit that
he would be right to resort to such means. The other
objection is little to the point. There is no such
antagonism as it suggested. Ex hypothesi there is no
possibility of “ saving ” life. The terms of the propo
sition imply that death is certainly and indisputably at
hand, and the only question at issue is, if death shall
be accelerated in order to save the agony of dying.
This acceleration is described by an adverse critic
as the act of “ a rebel rushing unbidden into the world
of spirits.” But there is no rebellion; on the contrary,
there is entire submission. The doomed man knows
that sentence of death has been passed upon him by his
Maker, and he submits to it without murmuring. He
has received his call to another world, and he hastens
to obey it. It may, indeed, be said that he makes too
much haste; and that is the point under discussion.
But certainly too great eagerness to comply cannot be
�0
Lutbanasia.
called rebellion. There are some diseases of a very
formidable character, concerning which a surgeon will
admit that it is an equal chance if an operation will
cure or kill. The disease will slay (say) in three
months; the operation may slay in a week. No one
would say that the patient had been guilty of “ rebel
lion ” because he chose to have the operation performed,
and died under it, even though he thereby shortened
his life by eleven weeks. Why, then, when there is
no chance of a cure, should not the fatal issue be
anticipated? If it be said that, in the first case, the
object is the preservation of life, while, in the second,
it is the destruction of life, the answer is, that in the
second case the destruction is the will of God, and that
it cannot be “ rebellion ” to act in accordance with that
will. Moreover, if we admit disease to be the servant
of God’s will, if cancer or any other agonizing disease
is his minister, why should we not count opium to be ?
Here the argument is used that euthanasia is unlaw
ful, because it frustrates the purposes of God, who has
“corrective ends” in view when he sends affliction,
and who intends it as a “disciplinary process.” In
other words, pain is discipline, and therefore ought not
to be evaded. If this argument is true, it is difficult to
understand how it can be right to alleviate pain. Why
should it be unlawful to escape from the “discipline” by
one large dose of narcotic, and yet lawful to escape it by
repeated small doses ? At present, in cases of cancer,
a doctor keeps his patient during the last stages of the
disease perpetually under the influence of opiates, and
thinks himself and the sufferer fortunate if he can retain
him in a narcotized condition until the end comes.
Yet no one accuses the doctor of evading the “dis
ciplinary ” process; on the contrary, he would be
thought to fail in duty if he did not carry out this
treatment. It is difficult to see how there can be any
disciplinary process or corrective ends here for anybody,
whether the patient or the friends who watch by his
�Euthdnasia.
7
bedside. In some cases the pain is too great to yield
to opiates. Then patient and watchers alike endure
agony; and the question arises if it be lawful for a man
to sacrifice his life in the battle-field, while full oi
vigour, for the good of his country, is it not lawful for
him also to sacrifice a few weeks of wretched existence
on his death-bed for the sake of his family 1
Something has been said about the possibility of
doctors making mistakes, and giving up as hopeless
patients who have actually recovered. But there are
certain diseases in which there can be no doubt; and
it is only with regard to such, and only with regard to
those of them which are peculiarly painful, that the
question of euthanasia arises. We may be quite sure
that the patient himself will be in no hurry to die.
The tenacity with which men cling to life under the
most desperate circumstances will always tend to pre
vent any premature death of this kind. But even
supposing that the worst does happen, that a patient
is hastened out of life who might have recovered, he
has, if there be any truth in the Christianity we pro
fess, but exchanged a poor, miserable existence for one
of glory and bliss. When we lose anyone dear to us,
we say that we would not have him back again, be
cause it would be to bring him back from the joys of
Paradise to the troubles, and trials, and temptations of
earth. Bearing this in mind, it seems strange that men
should be ready to put a poor, burnt moth out of its
misery, believing, as they do, that it has no other life
in store, yet should think it wrong to put a cancereaten fellow-being out of his misery, though for him
there is reserved an exceeding and eternal weight of
glory.
Here, however, the theological idea comes in. Per
haps it is not endless happiness, but endless misery,
which is in store for him. Without discussing here
the existence of hell and eternal punishment, assuming
indeed that those ideas have an answering reality, we
�8
Euthanasia.
would ask if a man would not be much more fitted to
pass into the more immediate presence of his Judge
with the full consciousness that he was about to die,
and with every opportunity offered him of repentance
and “ making his peace with God/’ than if he were to
pass away in a state of unconsciousness, whether through
the ravages of disease or under the influence of opiates'?
A condemned criminal, unless he be wholly and irreclaimably hardened, usually shows sufficient contrition
during the days which elapse between his sentence and
execution to justify the chaplain in admitting him to
the most solemn rite of the Christian religion. Surely
there would be much more likelihood that a less
grievous offender would be able to make confession of
sin, restitution wherever possible, and in other ways
prepare himself for his future state, if he could choose
his own time for entering it.
Much of the antagonism to euthanasia arises from
the sharp distinction which is drawn between this life
and the next. There are two possible theories about
death—1st, that it is the end of all, and, 2nd, that it is
the entrance into a new life. In the first case, it can
make no difference to a man if he die three months
sooner or later. He escapes so much agony at the cost
of annihilation; but as when he is annihilated he
knows nothing, he is not conscious of any loss, if indeed
to escape three months’ agony be loss. In the other
case, which is the far more generally-accepted theory,
it is difficult to see how a few weeks’ earlier or later
entrance into another life can alter the conditions of it.
True, we know nothing of those conditions; and the
great mystery which hangs over the next world will
nearly always keep men back from entering it volun
tarily. But the hypothesis we have all along supposed
is that of a man compelled to enter at a very early date,
and to whom is left no other choice than one of days.
Another argument used against “Euthanasia” is,
that any one who has watched by the dying bed of a
�Euthanasia.
9
loved relation, must know that the one desire of the
survivors is not to hasten death, but to postpone it till
the latest moment. No doubt this is so, and the feeling would always tend to limit Euthanasia, and it is
desirable that it should be so limited, to those cases
where the sufferings are very great and agonising, and
the fatal issue beyond all doubt. So long as there is
little pain, the parents of a dying child, for instance,
will cling to the last hope of life as a shipwrecked
man will cling to the one plank which is left him in
mid-ocean. Ordinary death itself becomes a Euthan
asia when it is simply a last sigh, and then eternal
calm. But who can tell the agonies that mothers have
endured when watching over a child stricken by one
of those lingering, torturing, internal diseases which
sometimes affect children, and which are known to be
absolutely fatal ? The case of children is, however,
more difficult to determine, because it would not be
easy to obtain from the patient that consent which has
been mentioned as a necessary preliminary condition.
In the case of adults, it would clearly be an act of sel
fishness if the relatives wished to prolong the sufferer s
agonies when he had expressed his wish to end them.
Objectors to Euthanasia say broadly, that no man
has the right to take his life. To this the reply is, that
whether there be or be not a clear and definite canon
against self-slaughter, it can have no bearing upon the
case now in question. In this case, death, the act of
dying has begun ; and, the only question is, how long
the terrible ordeal shall last. If there is any force in
the objection, a criminal called upon to choose between
the gallows and roasting to death over a slow fire,
ought to chose the second because it takes longer, and
gives so many more minutes of life. Similarly, if it
could be shown that in the case of the cancer-tortured
patient already described, the administration of opiates
would shorten life even by only a single day, opiates
ought not to be administered, for, if we may spare the
�IO
Euthanasia.
patient one day of anguish, there is no reason why we
should not spare him ten days or a hundred. In any
case, there is no parallel here between the conditions we
are supposing and an ordinary suicide. The man who takes
a dose of prussic acid because he has sustained a severe
pecuniary loss, or is threatened with exposure to humi
liation and shame, is a coward, and shows that he has
no endurance or fortitude, and no courage to try and
make the best of the many years of life which per
chance might remain to him. But when sentence of
death is passed, there can be no object in prolonging
the act of dying. In a word, suicide means extin
guishing life, Euthanasia means escaping from dying.
The statement which has been made, that Euthanasia
is 11 atheistical,” is scarcely worth noticing. To say that
submission to God’s will without murmuring, and an,
at the worst, too great eagerness to obey it, are tanta
mount to denying the existence of God is a self-con
tradiction so flagrant, that it needs no further words to
expose it. “ Atheist ” is a favourite term applied by
theologians to all who differ from them. It has about
the same meaning in their mouths as the word “bloody”
has in the mouth of the London rough. It is an ex
pletive, and no more.
Finally, a few words remain to be said as to the prac
tical operation of Euthanasia. Manifestly, it would
have to be guarded from abuse by the most rigid and
jealous precautions. It must be carried out with the con
sent of the patient; that, as has been said, must be a
primary condition. Death must be administered only
by the hand, or in the presence of a public functionary,
such as the coroner; and only after a most precise and
unhesitating declaration on the part of two medical
men that death is inevitable, and that it is likely to be
attended with great suffering. Possibly, if these pre
cautions were observed, even the good people who talk
about “atheism,” might in time learn to see that death
so coming was as much the will and the act of a mer-
�Euthanasia.
11
ciful God as the long-drawn agonies of malignant
disease. At the same time, it should be clearly under
stood, as was stated at the outset, that there may be
practical objections to Euthanasia which the present
writer does not foresee, and that these pages are to be
considered rather as a contribution to, than a settlement
of, a discussion. In fact, it has dealt almost exclu
sively with the theological objections, and these the
writer believes have no real foundation.
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
Euthanasia: an abstract of the arguments for and against it
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 11 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Reference to correspondence in Western Morning News, November 13, 1874. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
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
G5503
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Euthenasia
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Euthanasia: an abstract of the arguments for and against it), 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
Euthanasia
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7bf0a030e74da5e5be9374ecf5f8aed8.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=i%7EpcjtL5Ua8M23I0cEqovFZX5BKAl5-n8-nLMdi1z77Uy7Nz1q3E6uk1gjaLrK-CPrAKAqjyibn0RRADW8PdLEz4SVcVanAAkDk43RpeeO9R3v-cs-2qXJus3JKYvPXqcWU9rXQ8qC0t9Qy016EiKMCjcb-p6HzuozW6QEdxP6jcszT%7E40Z8meqlyjWn78uRA61y27eN1ZJIkdRaj%7EEactx4kK68lZfjaxK49K-3S302pQVW1nNQj73XlAlm7XORnlddkfTFD7sZ5pLXaUS38sSzN30PJTd4M5Ss9m4q3SXYv2zjsVP-n5fEDFN3AzxjVu83G%7EZGVwH%7EGlyId1ligw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4426e2bfdabf1bc2257ac01edffae95c
PDF Text
Text
JEWISH LITERATURE
AND
MODERN EDUCATION:
OR,
THE USE AND MISUSE OF THE BIBLE IN
THE SCHOOLROOM.
BEING TWO LECTURES DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE
SOCIETY, MARCH 26th AND APRIL 2d 1871.
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR,
BT
THOMAS SCOTT, RAMSGATE.
Price One Shilling and Sixpence, stitched.
On better paper and bound in cloth, Two Shillings and Sixpence.
�“ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that
they
.
.
.
searched the Scriptures daily, whether those
things were so.”—Acts xvii. 11.
�PREFACE.
Whether or not the Solution, given in these Lectures,
of the “Religious Difficulty” in our National Education,
be acceptable for practical application, is a question other
than that of the intrinsic soundness of that Solution.
It is to this only that my responsibility extends. The
responsibility of declining to accept a proffered remedy
must rest with those to whom the offer is made.
I had intended to keep these Lectures in manuscript,
and repeat them wherever an audience might be found
desirous of hearing facts stated without respect to aught
but the facts. It is in compliance with very many
and pressing solicitations that I have, by printing them,
withdrawn them from further delivery as Public Lectures.
My hope now is that the readers will not be less nume
rous than the hearers would have been, had I adhered
to my original intention.
The Lectures are printed with the changes made on
their second delivery, in Edinburgh.
I cannot let them
�iv
Preface.
go from me without acknowledging my obligations to
the series of small publications issued periodically by
Mr Thomas Scott of Ramsgate, to whose indefatigable
self-devotion to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free
Expression,” the present rapid spread of information,
and consequent movement of thought on religious
matters, especially among the clergy of the Establish
ment,—(a movement far greater than the public is aware
of)—is in no small degree attributable. The tracts
entitled, The Defective Morality of the New Testament, by
Professor F. W. Newman; The Gospel of the Kingdom,
and The Influence of Sacred History on the Intellect and
Conscience,—especially deserve mention for the use I
have made of them.
A few brief passages given as
quotations, but without reference, are for the most part
taken, with more or less exactness, from The Pilgrim and
the Shrine.
E. M.
London, September 1871.
�SYNOPSIS.
LECTURE THE FIRST.
KOri 3TIOS
.11.
J2.
.83.
i4.i 5.
’ .‘< 6.
7.
- , J 8..
: .(9.
INTRODUCTION,
.....
DEFINITION AND FUNCTION OF EDUCATION,
THE SCHOOL BOARDS AND THE “RELIGIOUS DIFFICULTY,”
THE GENESIS AND HABITAT OF THE “DIFFICULTY,”
THE BIBLE AS A MORAL TEACHER,
THE BIBLE AS AN INTELLECTUAL TEACHER,
THE BIBLE “WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT,”
THE GOSPELS AND THE CHARACTER OF JESUS,
.
THE “KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,”
1
3
6
11
12
24
27
35
37
LECTURE THE SECOND.
.0110.
ill.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A RULE OF LIFE AND FAITH,
.
41
THE “CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,” DOCTRINAL AND
OTHER,
.
.
.
.
.
.48
12. WHY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS, .
57
13. HOW IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH,
.
.
.65
;14. “notes and comments;” the principle of thf.tr
CONSTRUCTION,
.....
69
115. BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY,
.
.
.
.74
16. BIBLICAL INSPIRATION,
.
.
.
.78
17. THE BIBLE AND MODERN COMMENTATORS,
.
.
86
>18. THE BIBLE AND MODERN PRACTICE,
.
.
.88
19. THE SCHOOL AND TEACHER OF THE FUTURE, .
.
94
��LECTURE THE FIRST.
------- o-------
I.
Why is it with, us in England, that with all our achieve
ments in Science, Literature, and Art; in Government,
Industry, and Warfare; in Honour, Religion, and Virtue;
with conquests ranging over the whole threefold domain
of Humanity, the Physical, the Intellectual, and the
Moral,—why is it that the moment we attempt to ex
tend the manifold blessings of our civilisation to the
entire mass of our countrymen, we find ourselves at fault
and utterly baffled 1
Long has the condition of myriads among us been
known to be terrible in its degradation. Long have we
acknowledged an earnest desire to raise them out of that
condition. Measure after measure have we devised and
enacted; but none of them, not even the vast Church
establishment of the realm, has proved in any degree
commensurate with the evil. At length our efforts have
culminated in the elaboration and enactment of one
comprehensive scheme; and we have proceeded so far as
to have elected as our representatives to carry it into
effect, those of us whom, for superior intelligence and
energy, we deem best qualified for the task.
Shortlived, however, do our exultant hopes promise to
�2
'Jewish Literature
be. The very agents of our beneficent intentions, the
Schoolboards, in whose hands are borne the germs of our
redemption and future civilisation, are altogether at such
odds within themselves upon some of the leading and
most essential principles, that the scheme threatens
wholly to collapse in disheartening failure, or to become
a perennial source of bitterness and dissension.
Is it not passing strange ? Based though our culture
has for centuries been, upon one and the self-same book,
so far from our having attained any degree of unity
thereby, we are divided and rent into sects and factions
innumerable and irreconcilable, until it would appear as
if the very spirit of that proverbially perverse and stiff
necked people whose sacred literature we have adopted
as the rule of our faith and practice, had passed into
ourselves and become a constituent part of our very
nature.
The greatness of the emergency,—for it is the redemp
tion of our masses from pauperism, ignorance, and bar
barism that is at stake,—not justifies merely, but impe
ratively demands the strenuous collaboration of all who,
having the good of their kind at heart, have made this
question one of special investigation. It is in no spirit
of hasty presumption,—scarcely is it with much hope of
wide acceptance,—at least in the present,—that I have
responded to the invitation to recite here to-day the con
clusions to which my study of the points at issue has
brought me. Rather is it that it will be a relief to my
self to have thrown off the reflections and results which,
in a somewhat varied experience at home and abroad,
have accumulated upon me, and to feel that I have done
this at the time when there is most chance of their being
useful. It is thus that I have prepared my contribution
�and Modern Education.
3
towards the solution of “ the Religious Difficulty ” which
lies “ a lion in the path ” of our National Education and
all our national improvement, showing as- yet not the
smallest symptom of discomposure through any “ Reso
lution ” of Metropolitan or other School-board.
II.
In all emergencies, whether of conduct or of opinion,
where there is doubt and space for deliberation, it is
best to go back to the very beginning of the matter, and
there, in its initial principles, seek the clue which is to
conduct us safely out of our dilemma. It is wonderful
sometimes how readily a skein is disentangled when
once the right end of the thread has been found. Our
friends across the Atlantic, the Americans, were for a long
time disastrously hampered in their attempts at legisla
tion. It is not surprising that it should have been so,
when we consider that the principal object of legislation
is Man, and that the two great sections of the American
community differed altogether in their definition of Man;
the one holding that persons who had dark complexions
and a peculiar kind of rough curly hair, several millions
of whom lived in the country, were not men L and the
other holding that they were just as much entitled to be
treated as human beings as people with light complexions
and smooth hair. At length, after many years of bitter
quarrelling, ending with one of the most fearful inter
necine conflicts ever known, it was agreed to regard all
people as human, and to legislate alike for them with per
fect equality; whereupon the difficulty entirely vanished,
and the course of the nation became smooth and easy.
In like manner our difficulties, in regard to popular
�4
Jewish Literature
instruction, have all arisen through our neglect of a de
finition. We have not defined to ourselves the precise
object of the system of National Education, which, after
generations of anxious endeavour, we have at length
succeeded in obtaining, and which we are now seeking
to bring into operation throughout the length and
breadth of the land.
The first step towards obtaining what we want, ever
is to know what we want; and since in this case we
cannot purchase the article ready-made, but have to
fabricate it for ourselves, it is not sufficient to have a
bare name for it, or a vague apprehension about it, but
we must be conversant with its nature, characteristics,
and uses.
Let us further simplify and enlarge the scope of the
question, and ask what is the object of all the education,
public or private, which we give, or seek to give, to our
children ? What, in short, is the purpose of education 1
Using the term education in its broad sense, and
without reference to technical instruction in special
subjects, we can only answer, that its purpose is to
make children into good and capable men and women by
cultivating their intelligence and their moral sense, or
conscience.
It follows, if we agree to this definition, that we are
bound to reject as worse than useless, any instruction
which is calculated to repress or pervert either of those
faculties from their proper healthy development.
Those who at first hesitate to acquiesce in this defini
tion, in the belief that education should have a more
special object, such as to make good Christians, good
Catholics, good Protestants, good Churchmen, or good
Nonconformists, must on a little reflection perceive that
�and Modern Education.
5
they cannot really mean to rank the intelligence and
moral sense as secondary and subordinate to such ends,
but that they only desire people to be good Christians,
good Churchmen, and so on, because the fact of being so
would, in their view, involve the best culture of the
faculties in question. So that if they believed it did not
involve this end, they would abandon their preference
for such denominations. That is, they would rather
have people to be good men and bad (say) Noncon
formists, than good Nonconformists and bad men.
Agreeing, then, that the object of education is the
development of the intellect and moral sense, we shall,
no doubt, further agree that the best chance of success
fully cultivating those desirable qualities which we
designate virtues, lies in impressing the mind while
young with the most elevated and winning examples of
them, and guarding it from any familiarity with their
opposites ; and that it is because we deem such qualities
to be best, that we regard the Deity as possessing them
in the Infinite, and hold up as a pattern of life the most
perfect example of them in the finite.
Yet, though agreeing both in the object and method
of education when thus plainly put before us, so ingeni
ously perverse and inconsistent are we that we first
refuse to agree upon any common system of instruction
whatever, and then we insist upon neutralising or
vitiating such instruction as we do agree upon, by
mingling it with teaching which is at once repressive of
the Intellect, and injurious to the Moral Sense.
The sole impediment to the success of our efforts, the
rock upon which all our hopes of rescuing the mass of our
countrymen from ignorance and barbarism are in danger
of being dashed, consists in the unreasoning and indis
�6
'Jewish Literature
criminate veneration in which the Bible is popularlyheld among us. Impelled by that veneration, we hesi
tate not to degrade our children’s view of Deity by
familiarising them with a literature in which He is
represented as feeble, treacherous, implacable, and
unjust; and confound at once their Intelligence and
Moral Sense, by compelling them to regard that litera
ture as altogether divine and infallible.
Strange infatuation and inconsistency, if, after toiling
for years to obtain an effective system of national edu
cation, we either abandon the task as hopeless, or insist
upon accompanying it by teaching which involves a fatal
outrage upon the very intellect and conscience which it
is the express purpose of that education to foster and
develop!
III.
Before' considering the action of the School-boards, I
must advert for a moment to the principle of their constitution.
There is this difference between Government by Re
presentation and Government by Delegation. It is the
‘ duty of the mere delegate to vote on any given question
precisely as a majority of his constituents may instruct
him. The deliberative function rests with them. He is
their faithful, but unintelligent instrument. The repre
sentative, on the contrary, is selected on account of his
superior faculties or attainments, to go on behalf of his
constituents to the headquarters of information, and
there, in conference with other selected intellects, form
the best judgment in his power; his constituents deter
mining only the general principles and direction of his
policy.
�and Modern Education.
7
The School-boards which are charged with the deter
mination of our new educational system, having been
selected on this principle of representation, we are
entitled to look to their superior intelligence to sup
plement popular deficiencies ; to be superior to popular
prejudices; to be teachers, and, if need be, rebukers,
rather than followers and flatterers of the less instructed
masses : and it is due to such bodies that we carefully
examine the methods by which they propose to deal with
existing difficulties.
Those difficulties turning exclusively upon Religion,
one great step towards their solution has been gained by
the agreement to exclude from the common schools such
minor subjects of difference as the creeds and catechisms
of particular denominations. The Bible remains, the sole
stumbling-block and rock of offence.
The London Board may be taken as representative
not only of the largest and most intelligent. body of
constituents, but also of all the other School-boards. I
propose, therefore, to deal with the propositions by
which the members of that Board have sought to meet
the “religious difficulty.” They are six in number :
1. That the Bible be excluded altogether, on the
ground that its admission is inconsistent with religious
equality.
2. That the Bible be admitted and read,, but without
note or comment.
3. That the Bible be read for the purpose of religious
culture, at the discretion of the teacher.
4. That the teacher’s discretion in the use of the Bible
be so restricted as to exclude the distinctive doctrines of
any sect.
5. That no principle respecting the use of the Bible
�8
'Jewish Literature
be laid down, but that each separate school be dealt with
by itself.
6. That the Bible be read with such explanations in
matters of language, history, customs, &c., as may be
needed to make its meaning plain; and that there be
given such instruction in its teaching, on the first prin
ciples of morality and religion, as is suitable to the
capacities of children; always excluding denominational
teaching.
The Fifth Resolution, “ that no principle be laid down,”
aptly describes the condition of the question up to that
point. In the absence of a definition of its object, it
was impossible for the Board to lay down any principle
for its guidance. In the absence of any controlling
definition, it could only look back to its constituents to
see what they would bear from it. And looking to the
confused mass of public opinion and prejudice in the
absence of any light of one’s own, is like shutting one’s
eyes to avoid seeing the dark.
Travelling one day by a railway on which there are
several tunnels, I observed that whenever the train
entered a tunnel, a little boy who sat next to me, im
mediately pressed his hands over his eyes, and buried his
face in the cushions. To my inquiry why he did this,
he answered that it was because he was afraid of the
dark. I asked him whether it was not just as dark to
him when his face was buried in the cushions. He said
yes; but he had not thought of that, and he would not
know now what to do. I could not bear to deprive him
of his faith, however unenlightened, without giving him
another. A lamp was burning in the roof of the car
riage, too dim in the broad daylight to have attracted
his attention, yet bright enough to dispel the gloom of
�and Modern Education.
9
the tunnel. I suggested that, instead of covering his
face, he would do better to keep his eyes fixed on the
lamp. The little fellow brightened with joy at the
thought; and during the rest of the journey, the in
stant we entered a tunnel, there he was, no longer fear
ful and burying himself in deeper darkness, but steadfastly
looking to the light that shone above him.
“ Look to the light 1 ” is no bad maxim even for those
who have to determine grave questions for the benefit
of others. We have but to “look to the light” of the
definition we have already agreed upon, and difficulties
fly like darkness before the approaching dawn. Even
the difficulties themselves, like Daphne before the Sun
god, are apt to turn into flowers for our delectation. .
The Sixth Resolution, that proposed by Dr Angus, and
supported by Professor Huxley, is the first that shows
any consciousness that there is a light to which we may
look for encouragement and guidance. “ That instruc
tion should be given in the Bible on the first principles of
morality and religion” According to our definition, Edu
cation consists in the cultivation of the Intelligence and
the Moral Sense. This is the light on which the gaze
must be so steadily fixed, that no conflicting influences
shall be capable of diverting our attention. Interpreted
by it, the Bible itself bears witness to the way in which
it should be used. Here, in full accordance with it, is
one of its utterances, “ God is no respecter of persons;
but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with Him.” (Acts x. 34-5.)
Acting in this spirit, our School-boards will be no re
specters of authors or books, but in every writing that,
and that only, “ which feareth God and worketh righte
ousness,” shall be accepted by them. Here is another,
�io
J
’ ewish Literature
also on the positive side: “ Whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any
virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
(Phil. iv. 8.) And another seems to define that Scrip
ture or writing, as alone given by a holy inspiration,
which “ is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor
rection, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.)
And on the negative side we have “ Refuse profane and
old wives’ fables;” (1 Tim. iv. 7.) “not giving heed to
Jewish fables.” (Titus i. 14.) “But all uncleanness let
it not be once named among you ;” “ for it is a shame
even to speak of those things which are done of them in
secret.” (Eph. v. 3, 12.) And one more on the posi
tive side. “ Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of
God.” (1 Cor. x. 31.)
Yet with these plain rules for our guidance, not one
of the resolutions proposes to place any restriction upon
the use of the Bible by the children. One, indeed, pro
poses to exclude it bodily from the schools, the good and
the evil together, but upon grounds in no way connected
with its fitness for the perusal of youth. And even the
resolution finally accepted by the Board, while ambigu
ously proposing “ to give from the Bible such instruction
in the principles of religion and morality as is suitable
to the capacities of children,” ventures on no protest
against the Bible as it now stands being put into the
hands of children at all.
The fact is, that the members have allowed themselves
to be so exclusively guided by the “ winds” of popular
“ doctrine,” that they “ have omitted the weightier mat
ters of the law” of morality, and “ passed over judgment
and the love of God.”
�b
and Modern Education.
11
IV.
The reason is not far to seek. A representative body
would not be representative were any wide interval to
intervene between its own intelligence and attainments
and those of its constituents. The latter can be guided
in their selection only by the light they possess j not by
that which they do not possess. Wherefore, for the
School-board to have passed any more radical Resolution
than that which it did pass, would have been for it to
have made itself, not the representative, but the inde
pendent superior of the body which elected it. The
primary defect, therefore, lies with the people at large.
It is the vast amount of bigoted ignorance and supersti
tion still remaining among us that constitutes the real
obstacle to any sound system of national education. It
is the elders who require to be instructed, before we can
begin to teach the children. It is true that a transition
has begun. But every step of the progress from the old
to the new, from darkness to light, is so vehemently
opposed by the vested interests of the dead past, that
the patience of those who believe in the possibility of
progress may well be exhausted, and their faith quenched
in despair.
To be effectual, therefore, remonstrance must be ad
dressed to the people at large, rather than to their
representatives on the School-boards. The transition of
which I spoke as having already begun, is the transition
from a morality affecting to be based upon theology, to
a religion really based upon morality, and, consequently,
to a sound system of morality. This transition must
attain a far more advanced stage in its progress before
the School-board can even begin to carry out the Re-
I
�12
"Jewish Literature
solution it has passed. It is absolutely impossible to
“ give from the Bible, instruction in the principles of
morality and religion suitable to children,” until the
popular theory respecting the Bible, and the theology
based upon it, is so vastly modified as to amount to
an almost total renunciation of that theory. The ab
solute and irreconcilable antagonism between what is
called Biblical Theology and the modern principles of
“ Religion and Morality,” cannot be too distinctly
asserted or loudly proclaimed, if we sincerely desire
our children to have an education really consisting in
the development of their intelligence and moral sense.
Valuing the Bible highly as I do, for very much
that is very valuable in it, it is no grateful task to have
to search out and expose the characteristics which
render it an unsuitable basis for the instruction of
children, whether in morality or in religion. Such ex
posure, however, being indispensable to the solution of
the problem of our national education; to shrink from
it would be to abandon that problem as insoluble, that
education as impossible.
V.
Bearing always in mind our definition of the purpose
and method of education, namely the development of
the intelligence and moral sense by the inculcation of
“ the true, the pure, and the honest,”—bearing in mind
also the fundamental fact in human nature, that man’s
view of Deity inevitably reacts upon himself, tending
to form him in the image of his own ideal,—it is selfevident that to familiarise children with the imperfect
morality, the coarse manners and expressions, the rude
�and Modern Education.
13
fables, and the degrading ideas of Deity, appertaining to
a people low in culture—such as were the Israelites—
and to confound their minds and consciences at the most
impressible period of life by telling them that such
narratives and representations are all divinely inspired
and infallibly true,—is to utterly stultify ourselves and
the whole of the principles by which we profess to be
actuated in giving them an education at all. Did we
find any others than ourselves, say South Sea savages,
putting into the hands of their children, books containing
coarse and impure stories, detailing the morbid anatomy
of the most execrable vices, extollipg deeds prompted by
a spirit of the lowest selfishness, exulting in fraud,
rapine, and murder, and justifying whatever is most
disgraceful to humanity by representing it as prompted
or approved by their Deity, and so making Him alto
gether such an one as themselves,—surely we should say
that they must indeed be savages of the lowest and most
degraded type, and sad proofs of the utter depravity of
human nature.
In investigating from our present point of view the
contents of this most read, yet most misread, of books,
we must dismiss from our minds any idea that its most
objectionable features are amenable to revision or re
translation. The faults thus removable are but as
freckles upon the skin compared with a constitutional
taint. For it is the spirit as well as the letter of a large
portion of it, that whether “ for reproof, for correction,
or for instruction in righteousness,” is hopelessly in
fault: and the spirit of a book is of infinitely greater
importance than its superficial details.
Palpable to the eyes of all are the hideous tales of Lot
and his daughters; (Gen. xix.) Judah and Tamar;
�14
Jewish Literature
(xxxvii.) the massacre of the Shechemites; (xxxiv.)
the Levite of Ephraim; (Jud. xix.) David and Bathsheba;
(2 Sam. ix.) Amnon and his sister ; (xiii.) and whole
chapters in Leviticus and the Prophets. That such
things should be in a book given freely to children to
read, and that they should be expected notwithstanding
to grow up pure and uncontaminated in mind and habit,
is one of those anomalies in the British character which
makes it a hopeless puzzle to the world. Who can say
that much of the viciousness at present prevalent among
us, is not attributable to early curiosity being aroused
and stimulated by the obscenities of the Old Testament ?
To put the Bible as it is into the hands of our children,
is not only totally to bewilder their sense of right and
wrong,—it is to invite familiarity with the idea of the
worst Oriental vices.
Even in the case of those vices being mentioned only
to be denounced, the suggestion is apt to remain, and
the denunciation to be disregarded. It notoriously is
injudicious to put into the minds of children faults of
which they might never have thought themselves, for
the sake of admonishing them against them. It is
related somewhere that a catalogue of offences punish
able by law was once posted in the Roman forum as a
warning to the citizens; but that this was followed by
such a vast increase in the number and variety of the
crimes committed, that it was found advisable to remove
it. I myself know an instance of a pious mother sending
her daughter to a boarding-school, having first written
in her Bible a list of the chapters and passages which she
was not to read. It is remarkable how popular in the
school that particular Bible became. The other girls
were always borrowing it. There is no reason to suppose
that boys would have acted differently.
�and Modern Education.
15
It is true that the particular instances I have adduced
may not he immoral as they stand in the Bible, but they
are assuredly provocative of immorality in children who
read them. A far more serious indictment against the
Bible as a handbook of moral instruction must be founded
on its habit of representing the Deity as a consenting
party to some of the worst actions of its characters :
nay, so unreliable is it as a basis of anything what
ever, that after thus characterising the Deity, it deals in
strong denunciations against those “ who not only com
mit such things themselves, but have pleasure in them
that do them
(Rom. i. 32.) thus, by direct implication
condemning the Deity Himself. If it be desirable to
impress upon children the belief that only those “ who
fear God and work righteousness are acceptable to him,”
it is to stultify the whole principle of their education to
represent Him to them as an eastern monarch, selecting
his favourites by caprice, and independently of any merit
or demerit on their part. Yet the entire Bible rests
upon the idea that so far from being an equal Father of
all, “ whose tender mercies are over all His works,”
(Ps. cxlv. 9.) the Almighty selected out of all mankind
one race to be “ His own peculiar people,” (Deut. xiv. 9.)
and out of that race certain individuals to be His own
peculiar favourites, and this in spite of the most glaring
defects in their characters and conduct; and sustained
those whom He had thus chosen through the whole
course of their misdeeds.
Thus, Abraham is said to have had “ faith,” and this
faith is said to have been “ imputed to him for righteous
ness (Rom. iv. 22.) but how far was his actual conduct
righteous, and how much faith did it imply 1 Assured
by repeated promises of the divine favour and protection,
�i6
Jewish Literature
as well as of a great posterity through his then childless
wife Sarai, he twice voluntarily prostituted her to Pagan
chieftains, pretending that she was only his sister. And
we read that “the Lord plagued,”—not the liar and
poltroon who thus degraded his wife, and entrapped the
kings, whose hospitality he was enjoying;—not the wife
so extraordinarily ready to “ obey her husband in all
things(it appears that her age was about sixty-five on
one occasion, and ninety on the other);—but “ the Lord
plagued Pharaoh and Abimelech with great plagues be
cause of Sarai, Abraham’s wife,” and in the case of the
latter, would only grant forgiveness upon the intercession
of Abraham, saying, “ for he is a prophet.” (Gen. xii. 20.)
Isaac, we read, copied the twice committed fault of his
father, in passing off his wife Rebekah as his sister upon
another king, and was divinely blessed notwithstanding.
In short, in all three transactions, out of the whole of the
parties to them, Abraham, Isaac, Sarai, Rebekah, .the
three kings, and the Deity, those only who indicate the
possession of any moral sense whatever are the Pagan
kings, who show it in no small degree, and these alone
are punished; while Abraham and Isaac retain the divine
favour throughout, the former being honoured by the
distinctive title of “ Friend of God.” (James ii. 23.)
The selfishness and cowardice of Abraham are still
farther illustrated by his treatment of Hagar and Ish
mael. There is no reason to doubt the perfect truthful
ness of the Bible narrative in respect to him. But when
it goes on to represent the Deity as encouraging him in
his cruel and unfatherly conduct to his son, and bid
ding him follow the lead of a frivolous and heartless
wife;—“ In all that Sarai hath said unto thee, hearken
unto her voice(Gen. xxi. 12.) then our m'oral sense is
�and Modern Education.
i7
offended, and we refuse to identify the God of Abraham
with the God of our own clearer perceptions.
The utter indifference of “ the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob” to any moral law whatever, reaches its climax
in the history of Jacob. A liar and a trickster from
early youth, yet constantly enjoying the presence and
approbation of God, who finds no word or sign of re
proach wherewith to touch his conscience or arouse his
fears,—such is the patriarch whom the Bible sets forth
as one of God’s especial favourites, because, forsooth, he
had “ faith.” In presence of this mystic quality, right
and wrong sink into absolute nothingness; and that
most fatal of all impieties, a total divorce between the
.will of God and the moral law, finds its plea and justi
fication. It is little that I would give for the moral
sensibility of the child who could read without a pang of
indignation and a tear of pity the tale of this ingrained
blackleg’s atrocities ; his taking advantage of his rough,
honest-hearted brother’s extremity of exhaustion through
hunger to extort from him his birthright; (Gen.
xxv.) his heartless deception of his poor, blind old
father; (xxvii.) his repeated cheats, thefts, and false
hoods against his father-in-law; (xxx., &c.) and the
divine confirmation to him of the blessings thus fraudu
lently acquired ; “ yea, and he shall be blessed,” and con
stant assurance of the divine presence and approbation.
It is without a word of repudiation that the Bible ac
quiesces in Jacob’s degradation of the Deity to a huck
stering or bargaining God; a God, too, who can be got
the better of in a business transaction. For, “Jacob
vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me in this
way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment
to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in
B
■
�i8
"Jewish Literature
peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone
which I have set for a pillar shall be God’s house; and
of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth
unto thee.” (xxviii. 20, &c.)
When the Israelites reach the Promised Land, their
“ sacred history” consists of little beside perpetual but
cheries. The more directly they are represented as being
under divine guidance, the more sanguinary is their
career. Slaughter of men, women, children, infants at
the breast. None spared, none, except, sometimes—
and mark the exception made by the followers, not of
Mahomet, but of Jehovah—the unmarried girls. Every
sentiment of humanity and mercy is accounted an un
pardonable weakness. Jehovah appears as a savage
patriot-God, approving impurity, treachery, murder, and
whatever else was perpetrated on the side of his “ chosen
people.” A Bushman of South Africa being once asked
to define the difference between good and evil, replied,
“ It is good when I steal another man’s wives; evil when
another man steals mine.” Such is precisely the standard
of right and wrong laid down by the Bible in respect to
the Israelites and their neighbours. Can we wonder that
recent moralists have written to vindicate the Almighty
from the aspersions cast upon his character in the Bible.*
In all the events of the late dreadful war upon the
Continent, probably no single incident caused such a
thrill of horror as that of the wounded German soldier
who staggered from the field of battle into a peasant’s
cottage, and fell fainting upon the bed, and only lived
long enough to tell his comrades how that the woman of
the cottage had taken advantage of his helpless condition
to pick out his eyes with a fork. Possibly the French
* E.g. Theodore Parker in America, and Dr Perfitt in England.
�and Modern Education.
J9
woman had heard of the blessing pronounced upon Jael
for a similar act. Possibly she had learned from “ Sacred
History” that the most revolting perfidy and cruelty be
come heroic virtues when exercised upon one’s own side.
And were not we Europeans of to-day, with all our faults,
infinitely in advance of those bad times, we too might
find a patriot-poet rivalling the utterances of the
“divinely-inspired” Deborah, to laud the French tigress
as the Jewish one was lauded, detail with rapturous
glee every particular of the fiendish deed, and mock the
wretched victim’s mother watching and longing in vain
for her murdered son’s return.
Nay, the conduct of her whom the Bible pronounces
as “ blessed above women,” was even more flagrant in
its utter heinousness than that of the French woman.
For the husband of Jael had severed himself from the
hostile peoples; “there was peace between Jabin, the
King of Hazor, and the house of Heber, the Keliite
and he dwelt, a friendly neutral, in a region apart. The
general Sisera, moreover, utterly beaten and discomfited,
had fled expressly to Jael’s tent for safety, knowing the
family to be friendly, and she had invited him in with
assurances of protection. “ Turn in, my lord, fear not.”
(Jud. iv.)
While Abraham is described as “ the friend of God,”
to David is awarded the honour of being styled “ a man
after God’s own heart; ” (1 Sam. xiii. 14; Acts xiii. 22.)
“who turned not away from anything that he com
manded him all the days of his life, save only ” in one
particular instance. (1 Kings xv. 5.) In order to see how
little the Bible is fitted for the instruction of children in
respect of a moral sense, let us brush aside for a moment
the halo with which the name of David is surrounded,
�20
'Jewish Literature
and read his history for ourselves. It is through want
of doing this, that a popular writer has recently described
his life as uniformly “bright and beautiful up to the
time of his one great sin.”* Yet, his career, soon after
the intrepid act which first brought him into notice, was
one of rebellion and brigandage. Collecting all that were
in debt, distress, and discontent, (1 Sam. xxii. 2.) he or
ganised them into bands of freebooters to levy blackmail
upon the farmers. One of these, named Nabal, when
applied to on account of David, boldly and naturally
answered, “ Who is David ? and who is this son of Jesse?
there be many servants now-a-days that break away
every man from his master. Shall I then take my
bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed
for my shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not
whence they be ?”
However, Abigail, the wife of Nabal, touched by her
servant’s account of the gallantry of the band, took of
her husband’s stores and gave liberally to them. Upon
this David assured her that, but for her conduct, he
would not have left even a dog of Nahal’s household
alive by next morning. A few days afterwards Nabal
died; the Bible, as if to remove any suspicion of foul
play, stating that “ the Lord smote him;” when David im
mediately took Abigail to be his own wife. (1 Sam. xxv.)
When the great contest took place between the Philis
tines and the Israelites, in which the latter were utterly
routed, and Saul and Jonathan, David’s bosom friend,
were slain, David with his forces stood aloof, unheeding
the peril of his countrymen. (1 Sam. xxx.) The crown
thus devolved upon Ishbosheth the son of Saul, who was
supported by eleven out of the twelve tribes. David,
* Miss Yonge, in “ Musings on the Christian Year.”
�and Modern Education.
21
however, would not accept their choice, even though the
whole strength of Israel was needed at that critical mo
ment to withstand the Philistines. (2 Sam. ii.) Exciting
a civil war, he got himself acknowledged as king by the
dissentient tribe of Judah. Treachery and murder came
freely to his aid, and he at length found the crown of
Israel in his hands. But he felt his tenure of it insecure
so long as any descendant of Saul remained to dispute it
with him. He therefore concerted with the priests, who,
since Saul had slighted their authority, had sided with
David, a plot to get rid of the seven sons and grandsons
of Saul. The country having been for three years dis
tressed by famine, David consulted the Oracles. In
Bible phraseology, he “ inquired of the Lord.” Of what
kind of a Lord he inquired, may be judged by the re
sponse. “ It is for Saul and his bloody house, because
he slew the Gibeonites ” many years before. Upon this
the Gibeonites, duly instructed, besought of David that,
as an “ atonement,” seven males of Saul’s family should
be 11 hanged up unto the Lord.” And David took the
seven and delivered them into the hands of the Gibe
onites, five of them being sons of his own former wife
Michal, “ and they hanged them in the hill before the
Lord. . . . And after that, God was intreated for the
land.” (2 Sam. xxi. 1-14.) Revolt, treason, murder,
human sacrifices, all in the name of “ the Lord ” !
On one occasion, after defeating the Moabites, David,
we read, assembled all the people of that nation on a
plain, made them lie down, and divided them into three
groups with a line. Two of these groups he put to death,
and the other he reduced to slavery. (2 Sam. viii. 2.) The
conquered Ammonites he treated with even greater fero
city, tearing and hewing some of them in pieces with
�22
Jewish Literature
harrows, axes, and saws, and roasting others in brick
kilns. (xii. 31.) His luxury and voluptuousness equalled
his cruelty. Having had seven wives while he ruled
over Judah alone, he added to the number all those who
had belonged to Saul, (8.) and took yet more wives and
concubines after he had come from Hebron, (v. 13.) But
these, and his vast pomp, were insufficient to satiate him.
Having caught sight of Bathsheba, the wife of one of his
captains named Uriah, he took her to himself, and sent
Uriah to join the army in the field, giving express orders
to his commanding officer to place him in the fore front
of the fight to insure his being killed.
It appears that there was then in Israel an honest pro
phet named Nathan, who had the courage to remonstrate
with the king, and who did so with such effect, that
David was made, for once, to see the enormity of his
conduct. We read, however, that the Lord put away
David’s sin, so that he did not die. But his child did.
And no sooner was the innocent thus punished for the
guilty, than “ David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and
she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon; and
the Lord loved him. And he sent by the hand of
Nathan the prophet,” now subsided into the obsequious
court chaplain, “and he called his name Jedidiah,” or
“ Beloved of the Lord.” (2 Sam. xii.)
Old age and infirmity wrought no amendment in the
truculent spirit of David ; a spirit so truculent as to make
it morally impossible that he could really have been the
author of any of those psalms which in after ages it
pleased his countrymen to ascribe to him; excepting
only, perhaps, the more ferocious of them. He has been
called, “ the Byron of the Bible,” which, after what has
just been stated, seems exceedingly unfair to Byron.
�and Modern Education.
23
Early in David’s career of blood, one Shimei had, in
generous indignation, cursed him for his murder of the
sons of Saul. (2 Sam. xvi.) He had afterwards begged
forgiveness and received it. (xix. 16-23.) Yet David’s
last instructions to Solomon were in this wise—“ Behold
thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, which cursed
me with a grievous curse in the day when I came to
Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan,
and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put
thee to death with the sword. Now, therefore, hold
him not guiltless . . . but his hoar head bring thou
down to the grave with blood. So David slept with his
fathers.” (1 Kings ii. 8-10, &c.) And Solomon “com
manded Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, which went out and
fell upon Shimei, that he died.” (46.) “ And Solomon
loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David, his
father.” And “ the Lord appeared to Solomon in a
dream by night; and God said, ask what I shall give
thee. And Solomon said, Thou hast shown unto thy
servant David, my father, great mercy, according as he
walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in
uprightness of heart with thee : and thou hast kept for
him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son
to sit on his throne. . . . And God said unto him . . .
if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and
my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then
will I lengthen thy days.” (1 Kings iii.)
The mystery of these astounding utterances is not far
to seek. History in those days was the work of the
sacerdotal class. To support and subserve that class was
then, as it has been, for the most part, ever since, to be
pronounced, “ beloved of the Lord,” no matter how evil
the individual really was, or how derogatory to the di
�24
Jewish Literature
vine honour it might be to have such a preference ascribed
to it. To have “ faith ” in the priests counterbalanced
and condoned any quantity of wicked “ works.” Their
standard of right and wrong, good and evil, was that of
the Bushman. Whatever was for them was good ; what
ever was against them was evil. It is, then, for us seri
ously to ask ourselves whether, when we set before our
children as a fit object of worship such a being as the
Bible represents the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
of Samuel, David, and Solomon, to have been, we are
ministering towards the end we have in view in giving
to them an education; or whether, in place of raising
them in the scale of being, we are not rather ministering
to the total degradation in them of the human soul.
VI.
1 .
These are but a few of the instances in which the
Bible is antagonistic to one of the main objects of educa
tion, the development of the moral sense. We will now
examine how far its teaching is adapted to promote the
cultivation of the intellect, still confining ourselves to
the Old Testament.
What are the “ glorious gains ” of the modern mind,
of which we are justly proud, and what are the ideas re
specting the constitution of the universe, the recognition
of which we regard as necessary to entitle any one to
the appellation of an intelligent and educated person 1
Surely they are that the order of nature is invariable,
the whole universe being governed by laws so perfectly
appointed as to need no rectification, and fixed so inher
ently in it as to constitute its nature. That, though in
capable of interference from without, inasmuch as there
�and Modern Education.
25
can be no without, all things proceeding from within
from its divine immanent character,—its parts are en
dowed with a capacity of advancing by a process of con
tinual evolution to a degree ever higher of complexity
and organisation, as within the physical structure rises
the mental, with all its capabilities of moral, intellectual,
and spiritual, in grandeur surpassing the majesty of the
whole external Cosmos. That it is a low and degrading
superstition to regard deity as other than One, ever liv
ing and operating equally and impartially throughout the
whole domain of existence; or as dwelling apart from
the world, and only occasionally giving proof of his being
by disturbance of the general order. And that,—while it
is impossible truly to ascribe to him aught of feeling cor
responding to the love, hate, fear, passion, caprice, appe
tite, or other affection of men,—when for purposes of
instruction or devotion we seek to utilise the anthropo
morphic tendency of our nature, He is to be represented
as the absolute impersonation of all that we recognise as
best in Humanity.
To what depths do we fall when, abandoning these
hard-won gains of the Intellect’s long warfare against
ignorance, barbarism, and superstition, instead of placing
our children upon the vantage ground we have acquired,
and handing to them our lights at the point which we
ourselves have attained, that they may carry them on
yet further, we abuse their understandings at the most
impressible age, by compelling them to regard the
Almighty as no equal God and Father of the whole
human race, but the exclusive patron of a small Semitic
tribe dwelling in Palestine, whom he supported by
prodigies and miracles in their aggressions upon their
neighbours, revealing to them alone the light of his
�26
'Jewish Literature
word, and condemning all others to enforced darkness.
By teaching them to believe in magic and witchcraft,
in talismans, charms, and vows; in beasts speaking
with human voices and sentiments; (Gen. iii. 1-4;
Num. xxii. 28-30.) in a deity writing with a finger; (Ex.
xxxi. 18.) speaking with a voice; (xix. 19.) enjoying
the smell of roast meat; (Gen. viii. 21.) standing face to
face ; (xxxii. 30.) walking in a garden ; (iii. 8.) revealing
his hinder parts; (Ex. xxxiii. 23.) coming down to obtain
information as to what men were doing, and to devise
measures in accordance therewith; (Gen. xi. 5-7 ; xviii.
20, 21.) impressing men, not through their consciences,
but by signs and wonders, miracles and dreams; recog
nising and confirming advantages gained by fraud, to the
irreparable disadvantage of their rightful owner; (Gen.
xxvii. 33-37.) in the case of one deliverer of his chosen
people, making his strength depend upon the length of
his hair; (Jud. xvi. 17.) allowing another, in virtue of
a hasty vow, to offer up his daughter in human sacrifice
as a burnt-offering; (xi. 30-39 ; Num. xxx.) and, lastly,
teaching them to believe in man created perfect, and
yet unable to resist the first and smallest temptation;
and, for such a peccadillo as the eating of the fruit of a
magical tree, being with his whole unborn progeny so
ferociously damned as to be redeemable only by another
human sacrifice, even the stupendous sacrifice of God’s
only Son.
How utterly bewildering to the expanding intelligence
of youth to be told that the God whom they are to
worship is revealed in the Bible, and to find him such a
being as this ! Terrible indeed is their responsibility
who proclaim as divinely infallible every absurd or
monstrous narrative to be found in the fragmentary
�and Modern Education.
legends of a barbarous and imaginative people. When
we consider how great is the difficulty of detaching the
mind from pernicious ideas when imprinted on it in
childhood, and fitting it to receive the later revelations
of reason and morality, we can but shudder at the sum
of misery undergone in the conflict between the Intellect
and the Conscience, through the former having com
menced its onward march, while the latter still continues
bound to the beliefs of childhood. A very Nessus-shirt
of burning poison and agony to all generations of
Christendom, has been the garb of ancient faith which we
have adopted and worn, in spite of its being totally
unfitted to us.
VII.
It is a practice with many savage tribes to invest some
object with certain magical properties, altogether inde
pendent of its real qualities, and to worship this with a
blind adoration, the whole process being known by the
name of Fetich-worship.
Now what else than precisely such Fetich-worship is
theirs who would put up a book to be venerated, but
refuse to allow it to be made comprehensible by any
kind of interpretation ? Yet, of all the Resolutions
considered by the School-board, that for which the
country at largS manifested the strongest preference at
the elections was the proposition “that the Bible be
read in the schools, but without note or comment.”
It can only be the absence of any precise notion as to
what education consists in that has prompted a sugges
tion so utterly opposed to any sort of wholesome de
velopment. To suggest difficulties—such difficulties—
�28
'Jewish Literature
and forbid their explanation ! Better far that the
children read the Bible in the original tongues at once,
than in the “ authorised version.” They might not get
much good from the process, but they would assuredly
get less harm.
But we will test the working of this suggestion by a
few out of the numerous instances of apparent contra
diction which, “ without note or comment,” cannot fail
to plunge youthful readers in hopeless perplexity.
And first, concerning the Deity, we read that “ God
saw everything that he had made, and behold it was
very good.” (Gen. i. 31.) This was said after the
creation of man, when the character and liabilities of
that creation must have been fully known to God.
Yet we are told soon after that “ it repented the Lord
that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him
at his heart; (iv. 6.) implying that he was surprised and
disappointed at the way man had turned out, having
expected better things of him : implying, too, that the
divine prescience was at fault, the divine work a failure.
And in many other passages we read of the Deity as
repenting and changing his mind; being weary and
resting. Yet elsewhere in the same book it is declared
that “ God is not a man that he should repent;” (Num.
xxxiii. 19.) being one “with whom is no variable
ness, neither shadow of turning;” (Jam. i. 17.) “who
fainteth not, neither is weary.” (Is. xl. 28 ; also 1 Sam.
xv, 35 ; Jonah iii. 10 ; Ex. xxxiii. 1 ; &c.)
Even the all-important questions of God’s justice and
power remain in suspense with such passages as these
unreconciled : “ A God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he.” (Deut. xxxii. 4.) “ Hear now, 0
house of Israel; are not my ways equal ? are not your
�and Modern Education.
29
ways unequal ? Therefore I will judge you.............
every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God.”
“ The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.”
(Ez. xviii. 20, 25-30.) And, “ I . . . . am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children.” (Ex. xx. 5.) Also, “For the children being
not yet bom, neither having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto
her (by God), the elder shall serve the younger. As it
is written, Jacob have I loved (Jacob !) but Esau have I
hated.” (Eom. ix. 11-13 ; Gen. ix. 25 ; Matt. xiii. 11-17.)
How, moreover, are children to reconcile this with the
declaration that “God is no respecter of persons?”
And while, notwithstanding that “ with God all things
are possible,” (Matt. xix. 25.) we are told that “ the
Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants
of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabi
tants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
(Jud. i. 19 ; Josh. xvii. 18.) Also that the inhabitants
of Meroz were bitterly cursed “because they came not
to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” (Jud. v. 23.)
Notwithstanding that we read in several places that
God was seen face to face, and his voice heard, (Gen. iii.
9, 10 ; xxxii. 30; Ex. xxiv. 9-11; xxxiii. 11 ; Is. vi. 1.)
we are yet assured that “ no man hath seen God at any
time; ” (John i. 18.) hath “ neither heard his voice at any
time, nor seen his face.” (v. 37.) And God himself said
unto Moses, “ Thou canst not see my face; for there shall
no man see me and live.” (Ex. xxiii. 20.) And Paul
speaks of him as one “ whom no man hath seen, nor can
see.” (1 Tim. vi. 16.)
It is little that children will learn from the Bible con
�3°
Jewish Literature
cerning the origin of evil, when, against “ I make peace
and create evil. I the Lord do all these things;” (Is.
xiv. 7.) “ out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good ?” (Lam. iii. 38.)—they set, “ with
out note or comment,” “ God is not the author of con
fusion;” (1 Cor. xiv. 33.) “a God of truth, and without
iniquity, just and right is he.” (Deut. xxxii. 4.) “God
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man.” (Jas. i. 13.)
Concerning the divine dwelling-place, we read that
“ the Lord appeared to Solomon, and said ... I have
chosen and sanctified this house . . . and mine eyes and
heart shall be there perpetually.” (2 Chron. vii. 12-16.)
Yet we also read, “ Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not
in temples made with hands.” (Acts vii. 48.) In one
place he is described as “ dwelling in light which no man
can approach;” (1 Tim. iv. 16.) and in another it is
said, “ clouds and darkness are round about him.” (Ps.
xcvii. 2.)
Similarly contrast these also: “ The Lord is a man of
war(Ex. xv. 3.) “ The Lord mighty in battle(Ps.
xxiv. 8.) “ The Lord of hosts is his name.” (Is. li. 15.)
And, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (1
Cor. xiv. 33.) “ Bloody men shall not live out half their
days.” (Ps. lv. 23.) “ The God of peace be with you all.”
(Rom. xv. 33.)
In reference to the making and worshipping of images,
we have the positive command, “ Thou shalt not make
unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath. Thou
shalt not bow down to them, nor serve (or worship)
them,” (Ex. xxii. 4.) and many repeated denunciations
of idolatry. Yet Moses was commanded to “ make two
�and Modern Education.
31
cherubim of gold.” (xxv. 18.) Also, “ the Lord said
unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a
pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is
bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.” (Num. xxi. 8.)
A direct act of idolatry commanded by God himself!
The books of Exodus and Leviticus abound in direc
tions instituting and regulating sacrifice, in terms such
as “ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering
for atonement;” (Ex. xxix. 36; also xviii.; Lev. i. 9;
xxiii. 27, &c.) and the most complex and gorgeous
system of ceremonial worship was based upon it, ex
pressly by divine command. Yet in the Psalms we find
the Almighty exclaiming, “ Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanks
giving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High.” (Ps. 1.
13, 14.) And in Isaiah, “To what purpose is the mul
titude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the Lord . . .
I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he-goats . . . When ye come to appear before me, who
hath required this at your hand ? Bring no more vain
oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new
moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.”
(Is. i. 11-13.) And Jeremiah represents the Almighty
as positively repudiating any connection with the Levitical code. “ I spake not unto your fathers, nor com
manded them in the day that I brought them out of the
land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
(Gen. vii. 22.)
“ Without note or comment,” children would assuredly
fail to comprehend the significance of the antagonism
necessarily existing between the whole sacerdotal
class, with its “ trivial round” of ritual and observance,
�32
Jewish Literature
and immoral doctrine of compensation for moral de
ficiencies by material payments, and the honest, out
spoken prophet or teacher of practical religion. And to
fail to comprehend this, is to fail to learn one of the
most valuable lessons to be derived from the Bible.
Even the horrible practice of human sacrifice finds
justification with the sacerdotal followers of the Jewish
divinity. We have already seen how, backed by the
priests, David delivered up the seven sons and grandsons
of Saul, “ and they hanged them in the hill before the
Lord . . . and after that God was entreated for the
land.” (2 Sam. xxi.) Moreover, “God said unto Abra
ham, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac . . . and
offer him fora burnt-offering.” (Gen. xxii. 2.) Jephthah,
too, “ vowed a vow unto the Lord” that he would “ offer
up for a burnt-offering” whatever he met first on his re
turn home, provided the Lord would give him a victory.
The victory was given, and the bargain was kept; “ the
Lord,” of course, being in his omniprescience, well aware
what it involved; and, to judge by his antecedent and
subsequent conduct, by no means incapable of being in
duced thereto by the magnitude of the bribe. Jephthah’s
own daughter was the first to come to congratulate her
father j “ and he did with her according to his vow.”
(Jud. xi.) The sacerdotal law gave him no choice, for it
positively enacted that vows, however iniquitous, were
not to be broken, except when taken under certain cir
cumstances by a maid, a wife, or a widow. (Num. xxx.)
The liberality and mercifulness of God find expression
in many touching declarations in the Scriptures. We
read that “ every one that asketh, receiveth, and he that
seeketh, findeth.” (Matt. vii. 8.) “ Those that seek me
early shall find me.” (Prov. viii. 17.) Yet on the other
�and Modern Education,
33
side we have, “ Then shall they call upon me, but I will
not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not
find me.” (i. 28.) And notwithstanding such assertions
as: “The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (James
v. 11.) “He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the
children of men.” (Lam. iii. 33.) “ The Lord is good to
all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (Ps.
cxlv. 9.) “I have no pleasure in the death of him that
dieth, saith the Lord God.” (Ezek. xviii. 32.) “ God is
love;” (1 John iv. 16.) “Who will have all men to be
saved;” (1 Tim. ii. 4.) “For his mercy endureth for
ever;” (1 Chron. xvi. 34, &c.)—we find also the following
ferocious utterances : “ The Lord thy God is a consuming
fire.” (Deut. iv. 34.) “ I will dash them one against
another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the
the Lord. I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy,
but destroy them.” (Jer. xiii. 14.) “And thou shalt
consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall
deliver thee: thine eye shall have no pity upon them.”
(Deut. vii. 16, and 2.) “ Thus saith the Lord of hosts , . .
slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Sam. xv. 2, 3.) “ Because they
had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of
the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men.
And the people lamented because the Lord had smitten
many of the people with great slaughter.” (1 Sam. vi. 19.)
" I also will deal in fury; mine eye shall not spare,
neither will I have pity. And though they cry in mine
ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.” (Ezek.
viii. 18.) “And the Lord said, Go through the city and
smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay
utterly old and young, both maids and little children,
and women. . . . and begin at my sanctuary.” (ix. 4-6.)
c
�34
'Jewish Literature
It is no less impossible to derive from the Bible alone
any- certainty of God’s unfailing truthfulness than of his
mercy. It is true that we are told, “It is impossible for
God to lie.” (Heb. vi. 18.) “ Lying lips are an abomina
tion to the Lord.” (Prov. xii. 22.) “‘Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Ex. xx. 16.)
“ These things doth the Lord hate ... a lying tongue
. . . a false witness that speaketh lies.” (Prov. iv. 17-19.)
And, “ all liars shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. xxi. 8.) Yet,
on the other hand, we find the lies of the Israelitish
women in Egypt, and of Rahab in Jericho, justified;—
“ that admirable falsehood,” as St. Chrysostom called
the latter. (Ex. i. 18-20; Josh. ii. 4-6.) We find the
atrocious deceit of Jael more than justified. (Jud. iv. v.)
And we have also this astounding revelation from behind
the scenes in heaven :—“ And the Lord said, who shall
persuade Ahab 1 . . . And there came forth a spirit and
stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
And the Lord said, wherewith 1 And he said, I will go
forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy
prophets. And he said, thou shalt persuade him, and
prevail also; go forth and do so. Now, therefore, be
hold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil con
cerning thee.” (1 Kings xxii. 21-23.) And in confirma
tion of this otherwise incredible narrative, we read later,
“ If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a
thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will
stretch out mine hand upon him, and will destroy him
from the midst of my people.” (Ezek. xiv. 9.) The New
Testament adopts a similar view of God’s dealings; for,
mingled with its “ glad tidings of salvation,” we read,—
�and Modern Education.
35
“ God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie, that they all might be damned.” (2 Thess.
ii. 11, 12.)
Once more it must be asked, Can we wonder that
earnest and pious men of our own times have, in their
zeal for the honour of God, endeavoured to rescue his
character from the treatment it receives in the Scriptures ?
VIII.
The character of Jesus is as variously drawn in the
New Testament as that of the Deity in the Old; and
those who desire the children in our schools to recognise
in him the perfect man and infallible Teacher, should, to
be consistent, be the very last to wish them to read the
New Testament “ without note or comment.” Too often
it happens that the explanatory lessons with which the
Scriptures are accompanied, are utterly pernicious, and
even blasphemous. This very year, a youth who has
been for some years a student in one of the wealthiest of
our public foundation-schools, was required to give some
instances of human feeling on the part of Jesus. Of
the value, whether intellectually or religiously, of the
education given at that school, we may judge by
his answer. Of the tender sympathy shown by Jesus
towards all who were suffering : of his unselfish devotion
to the cause of the poor and the depraved; of his noble
indignation against injustice and oppression; of his in
tense sense of a personal Father in God, and instinctive
detestation of all sacerdotal interference;—of all these so
eminently human characteristics, our scholar said nothing.
The result of his compulsory attendance at the school
chapel every morning, and at two full services every
�26
"Jewish Literature
Sunday, beside much other Scripture instruction, was to
impress upon him the belief that whatever is human is
bad, and whatever is bad is human. He concluded,
therefore, that by human feeling on the part of Jesus,
an instance of something bad was intended. And he
actually sent up for answer, as a solitary instance of
human feeling on the part of Jesus, the story of his losing
his temper, and cursing a fig-tree for being barren when
it was not the season for figs 1 (Mark xi. 13, 14, 21.)
As any explanations which accompany the reading of
the Old Testament should be contrived to disabuse chil
dren of the notion that the Deity could ever have been
such a being as is there described, so in reading of Jesus
in the New Testament they should be told that there are
indications of a better man than the Gospels make him,
peeping out through the corrupted text. “ It is impos
sible that such love and devotion as followed him through
out his life could ever have been won by a hard, unjust,
or intolerant character.” Yet he is represented as more
than once addressing his admirable and devoted mother
in a rough, unfilial tone; (John ii. 4; Luke ii. 4.) and
launching most uncalled for reproaches at a gentleman of
whose hospitality he was partaking, on the occasion of a
woman coming in and washing his feet with her tears,
and wiping them with her hair. (Luke vii. 32-50.)
Nor can there be any doubt as to what must be their
natural judgment of the spirit of one who could describe
his own mission in these terms : “ Whosoever shall con
fess me before men, him will I also confess before my
Father which is in heaven. But whosoever will deny
me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a
�and Modern Education.
yj
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s
foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. x. 32-36.)
Hardly will they reconcile this with the promise of his
birth-song, “On earth peace, good-will toward men;”
(Luke ii. 14.) but will hastily conclude that the angels
were sadly misinformed. And when they read that one
who is elsewhere described as “ going about teaching and
healing” among a people who were “ perishing for lack
of knowledge,” uttered to his disciples such words as
these, “ Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God : but unto others in parables ; that
seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not
understand;” (Luke viii. 8.) and read further, “ Therefore
they could not believe, because he hath blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be con
verted, and I should heal them; ” (John xii. 39, 40.)—and
from these fearful utterances, turn to the declaration, that
this same Jesus had received “ all power in heaven and
earth;” (Matt, xxviii. 18.) and that he “ came not to judge
but to save the world;” (John xii. 27.) came especially
“ to seek and to save that which was lost;” (Luke xix. 10.)
it will be no wonder if their souls finally succumb to
despair, and they cry to their teachers, “ Be merciful:
take away from us this book, if you dare not explain to
us its meaning.”
IX.
I shall conclude the present lecture by pointing out
the notable contradiction apparent between the Bible
�38
"Jewish Literature
and the fact of the world’s present existence. The New
Testament contains scarcely a passage of any length that
does not make some allusion to the near approach of the
end of the world.
We may conceive the perplexity of children when,
after reading in ordinary history the events of the last
eighteen hundred years, with their piteous tale of cruelty
and oppression, disease and death, they open their
Bibles and read that, all those centuries ago, men were
summoned to repent because “ the kingdom of heaven ”
was then “at hand;” (Matt. iv. 17.) and find that by
“ the kingdom of heaven ” was meant, not merely a social
or moral regeneration, though the phrase is sometimes
used in this sense, but the personal second coming of
Christ, and end of all things. That both the Baptist and
Jesus preached thus : that the twelve apostles were sent
forth to preach thus; (x. 7.) that the seventy were
charged with injunctions to announce to the inhabitants
of any city-on their entry, “the kingdom of God is
come nigh unto you (Luke x. 8-11.) that Jesus repre
sented himself as a nobleman who had gone into a far
country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return;
and instructed his disciples in these terms, “ Occupy till
I come (xix. 13.) that this was the kingdom for which
Joseph of Arimathea “ waited (xxiii. 51.) unto which
Paul prayed that he might be preserved; (2 Tim. iv. 18.)
charging Timothy to “ keep the commandment.............
until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Tim.
vi. 14.)
How bewildering to the youthful intelligence, to per
ceive the world still going on much in its old track,
slowly elaborating its own destiny, and to find in the
records of its history no trace of the dread phenomena
�and Modern Education.
39
which they read in their Testaments were to portend
and accompany the return of the Son of Man and of God,
—the darkened sun, the falling stars, the bloodshot
moon, the roaring sea, the myriad hosts of heaven, the
voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; the
judgment of the quick and dead, the wailing of the lost,
and the gathering of the elect from the four winds of
heaven, the resurrection of those who slept, the ecstasy
of “we who remain,” as Paul said, (1 Thess. iv. 15-17.)
when “ caught up to meet the Lord in the air,” on his
“ coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory;” (Matt. xxiv. 29-35.) for which all the disciples
were bid to watch ; (Mark xiii. 37.) and which some of
them were still to be alive on earth to see. For Jesus
had said, " Verily I say unto you, that there be some of
them that stand here now which shall not taste of death
till they have seen the kingdom of God come with
power.” (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark xi. 1; Luke xix. 27.)
“ Immediately after the tribulation of those days
and,
“ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall notpassaway,
until all these things shall be fulfilled.” (Matt. xxiv. 29,
35.) Add, too, the assurance of the angels to the disci
ples as they stood watching the Ascension, that he should
return “ in like manner;” (Acts i. 11.) add the declara
tion of Peter that “the end of all things is at hand;”
(1 Pet. iv. 7.) add the admonition of Paul to the
Romans, “ Now it is high time to awake out of sleep,
for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand;” (Rom. xiii.
11, 12.) “ these last days;” (Heb. i. 2.) even the days of
us “ upon whom the ends of the world are come ; ” (1 Cor.
x. 11.) add, lastly, the final book of “The Revelation,”
opening with the announcement that these things “ must
�40
'Jewish Literature
shortly come to pass •” and concluding with the declara
tion, “ Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come,
Lord Jesus,”—a book which, claiming to be the final
utterance of divine truth, is charged with dire curses
against any who should add to it; instead of saying,
rather, “to be continued, so long as God continues to
work in man,”—add, I say, to all that has been set forth,
these and the yet other numerous similar intimations of
the then expected rapidly approaching end ; set children
to read them “ without note or comment,” but with the
belief which they will inevitably acquire, from the fact
of the Bible being put into their hands without informa
tion to the contrary,—the belief that it must therefore
be all infallibly true, that God did speak, the Lord did
say, all the things therein ascribed to him; and then,
if they retain any particle of intelligence whatever, most
surely they will have but a confused idea of God, a con
fused idea of man, and a confused idea of the relations
between them; a confused idea of right and wrong, a
confused idea of faith and fact; or rather, we may con
fidently declare, a false and pernicious idea of all things
whatsoever, in heaven and earth, from beginning to end.
�and Modern Education.
LECTURE THE SECOKD.
X.
It is not unusual for people, when pressed upon the
subject, to say, “ We do not lay much store by the Old
Testament. We concede much of what you say against
it as a teacher of morality and even of religion. We
value it chiefly as the basis and introduction of the New.
It is upon the New Testament that we take our stand.
The sufficient, and only sufficient, rule of life, its prac
tical religion and morality, are distinct and unimpeach
able.” I propose, therefore, to conclude my examination
of the effects of the popular proposition, “ that the Bible
be read without note or comment,” by showing that in
respect of its teaching, both religious and moral, even
the New Testament requires elucidation and correction
to prevent it from being productive of much that would
be immoral, irreligious, and grossly superstitious.
Passing over the innumerable discrepancies in the
gospel narratives, to reconcile which so many “ Har
monies ” have been constructed in vain, let us compare
first those utterances of the New Testament which have
regard to life—civil, political, and social. Are our chil
dren to learn from its pages to grow up to be intelligent
and independent citizens, respecting the laws, and re
�42
Jewish Literature
specting themselves ? It is clear that, “ without note or
comment,” they will hardly escape great perplexity of
conscience when on one side they read, “ Be subject to
principalities and powers, obey magistrates.” (Tit. iii. 1.)
“ Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) “The powers that be are
ordained of God. Whoso therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God:” (Rom. xiii. 1, 2.) and
on the other side, find, that no sooner did a dilemma
arise, than “ Peter and the other apostles answered and
said, We ought to obey God rather than man.” (Acts
v. 29.)
Concerning the institution of Slavery, we find in the
Old Testament the most conflicting utterances, of which
one is, “ Of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy . . . and they shall be
your possession. . . . They shall be your bondmen for
ever(Lev. xxv. 45, 46.) and another, “ Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger nor oppress him (Ex. xxxii. 21.)
both of which are in the books ascribed to Moses. While
the New Testament contains no direct reprobation of
Slavery, but rather the reverse. It must be remembered
that, wherever in our translation the word servant occurs,
the original means slave. And while masters are enjoined
to “ give unto their slaves that which is just and equal”
for their labour, and to “ forbear threatening ” them;
(Col. iv. 1; Eph. vi. 9.) it says nothing in repudiation
of the institution itself as being unjust and unequal;
but repeatedly admonishes slaves to be content with
their condition ; to “ count their masters worthy of all
honour (1 Tim. vi. 1.) and be “ obedient to them with
fear and trembling.” (Eph. vi. 5.) We read, moreover,
that Paul himself sent back to his master the slave Onesimus, after converting him to Christianity. (Philemon.)
�and Modern Education.
43
There are, indeed, ample grounds for fearing lest all
respect for Rights vanish in the prominence given exclu
sively to Duties. And even in the important matter of
respect and affection for parents and relatives, children
may fail to find a sufficient rule to exclude hesitation.
It is true that they read, “ Honour thy father and
mother,” for the low and unsatisfactory motive, “ that
thy days may be long.” (Ex. xx. 12.) “Husbands love
your wives.” (Eph. v. 25.) And “whoso hateth his
brother is a murderer.” (1 John iii. 15.) But there is to
be set on the other side this of Jesus himself, “ If any
man hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and chil
dren, and brethren, and sisters ... he cannot be my
disciple.” (Luke xiv. 26.)
Great will be their perplexity, too, when, after the
ordinary lessons of the schoolroom, inculcating respect
for property, the duty of industry, forethought, and thrift,
the disgrace of beggary, and evil of pauperism, they read
“ without note or comment,” “ Take therefore no thought
for the morrow“Lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon earth.” (Matt. vi. 34,19.) “ Sell whatsoever thou hast
and give to the poor;” (Mark x. 21.) and see how Jesus
backed up his communistic precepts by his practice, in
instituting the order of Mendicant Friars, by sending
forth the Twelve and the Seventy with injunctions to
“ carry neither purse nor scrip.” (Luke x. 3-7, &c.)
Neither can we consistently endeavour to cherish in
children a love of science, literature, and art, and all the
glorious uses of which man’s high faculties are capable ;
a love, in short, of that mental culture to obtain which
we expressly send them to school; if we ply them with
such contemptuous allusions to it as “ Beware lest any
man spoil you with philosophy and vain deceit; ” (Col.
�44
'Jewish Literature
ii. 8.) “The Greeks seek after wisdom ;” (1 Cor. i. 22.)
“ Vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so
called;” (1 Tim. vi. 20.) “Knowledge puffeth up;” (1
Cor. viii. 1.)—without telling them at the same time,
that ignorance ever “ puffeth up ” far more than know
ledge; that “science,” now-a-days stands on a very dif
ferent basis to that on which it stood in those days,
namely, on a basis of positive fact as ascertained by
actual investigation into the phenomena of the universe,
instead of on the imaginations and foregone conclusions
of men who believed in the infallibility of their mental
impressions, and pretended to knowledge independently
of experience; and that it is our highest duty and pri
vilege to cultivate “ every good gift and every perfect
gift,” intellectual and other, “ which cometh down from
the Father of lights.” (Jam. i. 17.)
Even in so simple a matter as the advantage of bear
ing a good character, they will be at a loss to determine
between “a good name is better than precious oint
ment ;” (Eccl. vii. 1.) “ it is rather to be chosen than
great riches;” (Prov. xxii. 1.) and, “Woe unto you
when all men shall speak well of you.” (Luke vi. 25.)
The Bible makes it a reproach to King Asa that “ in
his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physi
cians,” and significantly adds, “Asa slept with his
fathers.” (2 Chron. xvi. 12.) Of another patient it is
said that she had “ for twelve years suffered many things
of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and
was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,” but straight
way was healed through faith. (Mark v. 25-29.) And
there is this express injunction, “ Is any sick among you?
let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
�and Modern Education.
45
Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up.” (Jam. v. 14.) “Without note
or comment,” but influenced, unconsciously perhaps,
within school or without it, to regard the plain teaching
of the Bible as intended to be followed unshrinkingly,
the children in our National Schools will be apt to grow
up with the belief that it is unchristian and wicked to
call in a doctor, or to take medicine, when they are ill.
Lawyers are scarcely named but to be censured in
such terms as these: “Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye
lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye your
selves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Woe unto you lawyers I” (Luke xi. 45, 52.) For “with
out note or comment,” the term rendered “ lawyers,” will
inevitably be held to signify, not the expounders of Rab
binical doctrine, but the members of that eminent profes
sion which is so indispensable to the maintenance of our
rights and privileges. While the despised “ publicans ”
of Jewish times, instead of being recognised as mere
collectors of taxes, are sure to be confounded with our
own respectable company of “ licensed victuallers.”
We have seen how summarily two of the learned pro
fessions may be disposed of. Following the Bible with
out guidance by “ note or comment,” the clergy will be
in danger of faring little better than the lawyers or doc
tors. And this brings us to the subject of religious
duties as laid down in the New Testament.
It is, whether rightly or wrongly I do not venture to
decide, a subject of peculiar pride with us, that we are a
prayerful and churchgoing people. But what is really
curious is, that the practice of assembling together for pub
lic worship, we regard as essential to our character as Chris
tians. Now, how can children be expected to understand
�46
Jewish Literature
“without note or comment” that it is their duty to
attend “ divine service,” when they find that Jesus, who is
held up to them as the infallible pattern and guide of life,
never joined in public prayer himself, but always when
he wished to pray or meditate went apart, either “ up
into a mountain,” (Matt. xiv. 23.) or some other “ solitary
place,” (Mark i. 35.) or “ withdrew about a stone’s cast
(Luke xxii. 24.) that he only went into the synagogue or
the temple to read or to teach ; (Luke iv. 16: Matt. xxi.
23.) or to indulge in what to children and unexplained
must appear to be riotous conduct in church, namely to
drive out with blows and threats a number of persons
who were exercising a lawful industry in its precincts;
(Matt. xxi. 12.) that the persons he mentioned in one of
his parables as “ going up to the temple to pray,” (Luke
xviii. 10.) belonged to the classes he most persistently de
nounced, being a pharisee and a publican; and even these
he distinctly exonerates from the reproach of having
joined in common prayer ; that moreover, in addition to
his example, he delivered precepts absolutely prohibitory
of all public praying in these emphatic terms: “ When
thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the
corners of the streets to be seen of men. Verily, I say
unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy
Father which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly;”
(Matt. vi. 5, 6.)—a rule which he relaxed only on the
condition that two, or at most three, should agree upon
a subject for petition, in which case they might gather
together in his name. (Matt, xviii. 19, 20.) It is indeed
a painful perplexity in which the minds of the more sen
�- .<N
and Modern Education.
47
sitive children will be plunged when they ask themselves
how, in the face of Christ’s most positive precepts and
example, they can continue to pray in church or chapel,
and at the same time deserve to be called by his name.
The propriety of continuing to observe the Sabbath, if
rested on the Bible alone, will remain, to say the least,
doubtful. The difference in the reasons assigned for its
institution can hardly fail to create wonder as to the
authority upon which the command said to be “ written
with the finger of God” himself, basing the appointment
upon the creation of the universe in six days, (Ex. xxxi.
17, &c.) was changed to one representing it as a memo
rial of the deliverance out of Egypt. (Deut. v. 15.)
While the institution itself is, on account of the abuses
to which it led, referred to variously by the later pro
phets ; and, in the New Testament, seems to have been
repudiated in a great measure, if not altogether, by Jesus
and the apostles; Paul distinctly admonishing the Colossians in these terms : “You hath Christ quickened. . .
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances. . . Let
no man therefore judge you . . in respect of an holi
day, . . or of the Sabbath.” (Col. ii. 13-16.) So that
something at any rate has to be added to the New Tes
tament to justify our present usage in this respect.
In the absence of explanatory comment, the statements
of scripture respecting the resurrection of the body appear
in direct conflict with each other; as also do those re
specting the after-life of the soul. In the Old Testament
we are told, “ He that goeth down £0 the grave shall
come up no more.” (Job vii. 9.) “The dead know not
anything, neither have they any more reward.” (Eccl. ix.
5, 10.) And in the New Testament, “ The trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised(1 Cor. xv. 52.)
�48
Jewish Literature
“Then shall he reward every man according to his
works.” (Matt. xvi. 27.) While the narratives of the
ascent of Enoch and Elijah seem to find a positive con
tradiction in the declaration of Jesus, “No man hath
ascended up to heaven but he that came down from
heaven, even the son of man;” and the narrative makes
him add, “ which is in heaven,” putting what appears to
be an absurd contradiction into the mouth of Jesus.
(John iii. 12.)
And even concerning the status of Jesus himself, expla
nations are needed to reconcile the various contradictory
declarations; “I and my Father are one.” (John x. 30.)
“ He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
(Phil. ii. 6.) “ Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,
and in favour with God and man.” (Luke ii. 52.) “ My
Father is greater than I.” (John xiv. 28.) “ Of that day
and that hour knoweth no man. . . Neither the Son,
but the Father.” (Mark xiii. 32.) And his agonised ex
clamation when dying, which we can easily believe to
have been held up by the clergy of those days as uttered
in remorse of soul for a life spent in opposition to the
church orthodoxy of his country,—“ My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me ?” (Matt, xxvii. 46.)
XI.
Much stress has been laid by orthodox writers on the
“ Continuity,” or uninterrupted connection, of Scripture.
The inference which they have drawn from the con
sistency existing between its various parts, is that it
must all be alike the result of one divine harmonious
scheme. That such Continuity exists it is impossible to
help seeing, but the extent to which it exists, and its
�and Modern Education.
49
significance in relation to what is called doctrinal
religion, are likely, “ without note or comment,” wholly
to escape the observation of youthful scholars.
The whole religious system of the Old Testament rests
upon the theory that the object of Religion is, not the
exaltation of man, but the delectation of the Deity; and
the stimulants offered in it to the practice of religion are
of the most material and seductive kind, wealth, honour,
long life, numerous posterity. In the New Testament
the same idea is continued, with this difference, that
experience having demonstrated the theory to be unsound
as regards this life, inasmuch as prosperity does not by
any means always accompany virtue, nor adversity vice,
rewards and punishments are there reserved for a future
state of existence, in a region inaccessible to verification
by experience.
Two other instances of Continuity between the two
divisions of Scripture may be classed together as being
intimately connected with each other. These are, the
institution of Sacrifice, and the character of the Jewish
Deity. To the instances already given of the amazing
ferocity of this Being, as represented in the Sacred Books
of the Jews, may be added the tremendous threats and
penalties denounced for the smallest transgressions, the
readiness to dart forth from the mountain and deal
destruction upon any who might but touch it; and the
perpetual demand for blood. This propensity for blood
constitutes a notable instance of Continuity in the
character of the God of the Bible. Blood of animals;
blood of peoples hostile to the Israelites; blood of
transgressors among the Israelites; and in numerous
instances, blood of unoffending men, women, and
children, even from among his own chosen people.
�50
'Jewish Literature
(1 Sam. vi. 19 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 15 ; Ezek. ix. 6 ; &c.) We
have already dealt with David’s sacrifice of the seven
sons of Saul: “ They hanged them in the hill before
the Lord. .... and after that God was entreated for
the land;” (2 Sam. xxi.) Jephthah’s sacrifice of his
daughter; (Jud. xi.) and Abraham’s attempt to sacri
fice his son. (Gen. xxii.) Of this last I must speak
more fully, because there are, holding high positions
both in the church and in popular estimation, as thinkers
and scholars, men who insist on drawing from it a moral
which they deem favourable to the character of the deity
as represented in the Jewish Scriptures. But at present
they have failed to do more than read back into the
Bible the civilisation of their age and their own personal
amiability. So far from their being justified in regard
ing the arrest of Abraham as a protest on the part of
the Deity against the prevailing custom of human sacri
fices, the narrative distinctly asserts that “ God tempted
Abraham ” to commit the horrid deed: that his consent
to commit it was accepted at the time as an “ act of faith,”
and rewarded by a renewal of the promise of a numerous
posterity; and not only is there in the Scriptures no
expression whatever commending him for refraining
from completing the sacrifice, but the New Testament
treats it approvingly as being as good as completed,
saying in one place, “ By faith Abraham, when he was
tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the
promises offered up his only-begotten son;” (Heb. xi. 17.)
and in another place, “Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son
upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works faith was made perfect ?” (Jam. ii.
21, 22.)
�and Modern Education.
51
So far from the principle of human sacrifices, or the
belief in a deity who required to be propitiated by blood,
being repudiated in the New Testament, “the Continuity
of Scripture ” is in these respects plain and indisputable,
and the principle is carried to a height undreamt of in
Old Testament times. The God of the Jewish priests
requires at length the blood of his own “ only-begotten,”
“ beloved ” son ! It is only when this tremendous climax
has been reached that the dread thirst is appeased. This
is the fundamental argument of the eminently sacerdotal
epistle to the Hebrews, (of unknown authorship). In it
we are assured that “ without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sins.” (Heb. ix. 22.) A human parent, not
in this respect “ made in the image of God,” can forgive
a repenting errant child. The divine parent, made by
priests, and at once unhuman and inhuman, must have
his “pound of flesh” from somebody. This epistle tells
us concerning Christ that “ neither by the blood of goats
and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for
us............... So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many;” (ix. 12, 28.) thus adopting and justifying the
view of the high-priest Caiaphas, who, by virtue of his
sacerdotal office, counselled and I prophesied that Jesus
should die for the people;” (John xi. 50, 51.) — a
view shared even by John himself, who in one of his
epistles declares that “ God sent his only begotten Son
to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John iv. 9, 10.)
Thus early were the attempts of Jesus to abolish sacer
dotalism, and promulgate purer notions of the Deity,
defeated by his own disciples, or by those who wrote in
their names; and the reformation which constituted the
real Christianity, overlaid and stifled by “ the Church.”
I
�52
'Jewish Literature
Let the churches called Christian, demonstrate, if they
will, their “ Continuity ” with the most hideous of
Jewish superstitions ; and cherish the recollection of the
worst side of the Jewish Divinity, by perpetual repetitions
of the rite which, while declining to practice it simply
“ in remembrance ” of a loved and lost benefactor, they
yet profanely style “the holy Eucharist.” Say they, it
requires a miracle to keep the church up ? Well, perhaps
it does. But if we who “ have not so learned Christ ”
are to act consistently with our more advanced ideas of
religion and morality, the “notes and comments” by which
the reading of these passages in our schools is accom
panied, must direct attention rather to the higher and
better teaching of prophetical lips ; “ the sacrifices of
God are a contrite heart; ” (Ps. li. 17.) “ he saveth such
as be of a contrite spirit;” (xxxiv. 18.) and “ dwelleth
with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit;” (Is. lvii.
15.) as well as that of Jesus himself, “If a man love
me he will keep my words; and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him.” (John xiv. 23.) There is no savour of blood here.
If an education is.to be imparted that is consistent
with “ the development of the intellect and mor^J sense,”
the doctrine that justice can be satisfied by the substitu
tion of the innocent for the guilty, must be rigidly ex
cluded from our schools. It is true that this doctrine is
not without a certain significance; that there is a way by
which the position of the wicked may be bettered through
the condemnation of the righteous. For the punishment
of the innocent involves the divine law of justice being,
not fulfilled, but so utterly shattered and destroyed, as to
be thenceforth absolutely non-existent. The sinner’s gain,
therefore, would consist in there being no law of justice
by which he could be arraigned.
�and Modern Education.
53
But so invincibly implacable is the deity of at least a
great portion of the New Testament, that even such stu
pendous atonement fails to gain him over. Its benefits
are confined to a fortunate few, and his fury towards the
rest is redoubled. As Burns says, he
“ Sends ane to heaven, and ten to hell
A’ for his glory.”
The penalties of evil-doing are infinitely enhanced, and
they are applied to a fresh class of offences. Here, too,
Continuity is combined with progression; but it is,
morally, a progression backwards. The Old Testament
consigns no one to eternal punishment, neither does it
make penal the conclusions of the intellect. The New
Testament abounds in menaces of the most fearful cha
racter, not only against malefactors, but also against un
believers. It represents the Almighty, when punishing
the reprobate, as uninfluenced by anything analogous to
the human motive of promoting the security of society or
the reformation of the criminal, but inflicting torture in
the spirit of a fiend, out of pure malignity, because with
no advantage to any. “ The unbelieving and the abomi
nable” are classed together, and, we read, “shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone;”
(Rev. xxi. 8.) “where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched;” (Mark ix. 44.) “there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. viii. 12.) “Depart
ye cursed,” is the final doom of those who had failed to
recognise Christ on earth, “ depart ye cursed into ever
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt,
xxv. 41.)
Nay, more than this. The gospels, as we have them,
actually represent Jesus himself as pronouncing sentence
�. 54
J
’ ewish Literature
of damnation upon all who cannot work miracles. His
last words to his disciples are thus reported: “Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea
ture. . . He that helieveth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my
name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with
new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark
xiv. 16.) Not to work miracles is not to believe, and
not to believe is to be damned. Is it not certain that if
the young are allowed to read the New Testament with
out explanation or correction by “note or comment,”
they will, as have millions of tender souls to their in
expressible terror and anguish, find the gospel of Jesus to
be to them but a gospel of damnation ?
Let us return to this world and the practical concerns
of life. In its manner of dealing with the crucial act of
life, marriage, and its treatment of the relations of the
sexes generally, the New Testament takes, in regard to
the Old, a great step backwards. A demonstration of its
vacillation and utter inadequacy to provide rules for the
conduct of civilised life on this most important of all
points connected with morals, will fitly conclude this
division of the subject. To the commendation of impotency uttered by Jesus, the stress laid by him upon mere
physical fidelity, (Matt. xix. 9, 12.) and his disregard of
all incongruity or incompatibility of character or affec
tion, as a plea for separation, (a peculiarity which we
have in our institutions but too faithfully followed), must
be added these sentences of Paul: “ Art thou bound to a
wife ? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a
wife 1 Seek not to be bound. . . It is better to marry
�and Modern Education.
55
than to burn,” and, “ good for the present distress.” (1 Cor.
vii. 27, 9, 29.) Hardly from this will our youth learn to
recognise love as capable of being a pure and an elevating
influence, or to give to Christianity the credit, so often
claimed for it, of having raised woman from the depressed
position in which that age found her. It will be in vain
that they read “Marriage is honourable in all,” (Heb.
xiii. 4.) when they find the prevailing spirit of the
gospel to be ascetic, exalting absolute chastity as one of
the loftiest of virtues, and denouncing all natural desire
as sinful in itself. (1 Cor. vii. 1, 38; Rev. xiv. 4.) Will
not the later teaching of Scripture appear to them to
have receded sadly in its fitness for humanity, from the
earlier which commanded men to “ increase and multi
ply;” (Gen. i. 28.) commended a virtuous woman as “a
crown to her husband;” (Prov. xii. 4.) and pronounced a
blessing on “children and the fruit of the womb;” (Ps.
cxxvii. 3, &c.) and, in so far as the relations of the
sexes are concerned, excite in them a preference for the
Jewish regime over the Christian 1
The number is beyond all reckoning, of women, the
best and noblest of their sex, the most fitted to be the
mothers and early trainers of mankind, who through a
superstitious regard to this characteristic of the New
Testament, have renounced their natural “ high calling,”
leaving to inferior types the fulfilment of the functions
upon the right exercise of which the progress, elevation,
and happiness of mankind depend ; who have withdrawn
themselves from the duties of real life into artificial
isolation, through a conscientious but mistaken belief,
that in practising the selfishness of the devotee, they are
seeking a virtue which is possible only through the exer
cise of the affections. It is in vain that Paul in his
�56
•
Jewish Literature
riper experience wrote, “ I will that the younger women
marry, bear children, guide the house,” (1 Tim. v. 14.)
when Churches persist in making so much of his earlier
utterance delivered, as he himself acknowledges, with
hesitation and doubt. “ The unmarried woman careth
for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both
in body and spirit: but she that is married careth for
the things of the world, how she may please her hus
band,” and . . . “ I think that I have the spirit of God,”
(1 Cor. vii. 34, 40.)—as if the best, the only way of serv
ing God was not by serving man. This is but an
expression and echo of that same Manichaean principle
of Asceticism, which has led alike Pagans and Christians
innumerable to despise the material world. Blasphem
ously divorcing the Creator from his work, it teaches
that nature is so utterly corrupt and wrong, that the
more we go against and mortify it, the more likely we
are to be pure and right.
‘ And so it comes that woman, while promoted theo
logically to be “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of
God,” ecclesiastically is regarded as a mistake of nature,
a thing to be snubbed and repressed, and condemned to
the living death of an enforced celibacy.’
One whom I dare to call the greatest of our philo
sophers, Herbert Spencer, has epitomised in a single
sentence all that can be said on this subject:—“Morality
is essentially one with physical truth. It is a kind of
transcendental physiology.” (“ Social Statics.”) It is
.through ignorance of this, the real basis and nature of
morality, that myriads of the best women in Christendom
have, in every generation, to the incalculable loss of the
whole species, made the saddest shipwreck both of their
own lives and of the lives which by their sweet and holy
influence they might have rendered supremely blest.
�and Modern Education.
57
There is a “ Higher Law” of morality which impels
ns to suppress our own affections and desires, not through
hope of reward here or hereafter; not through deference
to conventional standards, hut solely through an un
selfish regard to the feelings of those to whom it is our
lot to be allied. But that such a law is to be the law of
our lives, and sole standard of virtue, we find no intima
tion in the Testament, Old or New.
XII.
Yet, notwithstanding the failure of the Bible to pro
vide an authoritative or satisfactory rule either of morals
or of religion, I hold that, both for its own intrinsic
merits, and for the place which it occupies in the litera
ture and history of ourselves and of mankind, it ought
not to be excluded from the educational course of our
children.
It was proposed in the London School-board to exclude
it on the ground that its use as a religious text-book
outside the schools, makes its admission into the schools
inconsistent with religious equality. It certainly would
be, as is generally allowed, an act of gross unfairness to
admit partisan theology into a common school. But,
happily, as is also very generally allowed, speculative
dogma and practical religion are very far indeed from
being one and the same thing; and even those who
object most strongly to dogma in itself, desire to see
children brought up religiously, that is with reverential
regard for divine truth and law.
If fairness and impartiality forbid the Bible to be in
troduced and used as the text-book of any party or sect,
they equally forbid it to be excluded for happening to be
�58
'Jewish Literature
such a text-book. For this would equally constitute
dogmatic teaching, though of a negative kind. Perfect
fairness requires that the question of the introduction
and use of a book within the schools, should not be in
any way dependent upon dogmatic opinions entertained
respecting it by parties outside the schools. Perfect
fairness forbids that anything which is good and instruc
tive in itself, be excluded merely on account of the source
from which it is derived; be it from Turk, Infidel, Heretic,
Pagan, Jew, or Christian. It is here that the limitation
imposed by our definition of education, comes to our aid,
“ The cultivation of the intelligence and moral sense” by
means of “ whatsoever things are true, pure, and honest;”
“ that fear God, and work righteousness;” and are “pro
fitable for doctrine (or teaching), for reproof, for correc
tion, for instruction in righteousness.”
Thus, in the common schools, nothing must be taught
as being the “ Word of God,” or as not being the “ Word
of God either assertion being equally dogmatic. But
everything must be allowed to derive its force from its
own intrinsic character. And. those who hold that the
children ought to be taught to regard the Bible as being,
or containing, exclusively the “ Word of God,” will only
betray their own want of faith if they express misgivings
lest that word fail to assert its own efficacy and speak its
own divine message to the soul, without special enforce
ment as such by the schoolmaster.
Perhaps, too, upon the idea being put before them,
they will even acquiesce in the suggestion, that for any
man, be he schoolmaster or priest, or any body of men,
lay or cleric, ancient or modern, even though dignified
by the title of “ General Council,” to take upon them
selves the responsibility of determining or declaring what
�and Modern Education.
59
is, or what is not, “ the Word of God,” is to lay them
selves open to the charge of the most stupendous pre
sumption of which finite being can possibly be guilty:
a presumption which is no other than that of declaring
themselves to be infallible, and entitled to sit in the
temple of God as if they were God. (2 Thess. ii. 4.)
And further, to declare that the Bible is or contains
exclusively “ the Word of God,” is to forbid the souls of
men to find a divine message elsewhere than in the
Bible. It is to dictate to God as well as to man. For
it is to forbid God to make of others “ ministers to do
his will.” (Ps. ciii. 21; Heb. i. 24.) It is to extract all
meaning from the saying of Jesus, “ Lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt, xxviii. 20.)
It is to reject that “ Spirit of truth” who was promised
to “guide us into all truth.” (John xvi. 13.) It is to
“ quench the Spirit that giveth life,” in “ the letter that
killeth.” (1 Thess. v. 1, 9; 2 Cor. iii. 6.) It is to insist
that the Almighty speak to men, like a clergyman of the
Establishment, only from a text in the Bible. Let us, if
we will, define as “ the Word of God” that which “feareth
him and worketh righteousness;” but let us not dog
matise as to what particular author or composition comes
under that category^ For “ the Word of God” can only
be the word or thought of which God makes use to im
press the heart of any. If we “ search the Scriptures,”
we find that neither by the writers of the Psalms, by the
prophets, nor by Jesus, scarcely, if ever, is the phrase
used to denote that which was already written, but only
the deeper impression then present in the mind of the
speaker or writer. If not used by God to impress the
heart, it is then not “ his word.” The same utterance
may be “ his word” on one occasion, and not on another.
�60
Jewish Literatur'e
Varying for each person, it is not always the same for
any person, inasmuch as that which impresses us in
one mood, does not necessarily affect us in another. A
“ word of God” cannot fail, any more than a “ law of
God” can be broken. Any definition of Deity that does
not exclude such a possibility, is an utterly inadequate
definition, and one dishonouring to God.
But in the matter of the education of the young, we
have to use our best judgment in apportioning the means
to the end we have in view. And therefore we must
put into their hands such reading only as is plainly
adapted for their edification, whether we take it from
the Bible or from any other book. It is for children to
to be in statu pupillari to men. It is for men to be in
statu pupillari to God.
I hold, then, that the Bible should be used in our com
mon schools, First, for its intrinsic merits. In its pages
we find the most complete revelation of humanity to be
found in any written book, showing the gradual growth
of the moral and spiritual faculties from the most rudi
mentary ages to the Christiaii era. We find this mainly
in the exhibition of the rise and development, however
irregular, of the idea of God, until, from a Being so
limited in his nature and operations as to be able to
sympathise and side with only a few individuals or a
particular race, partaking all the deficiencies of their own
gross, rude natures, bribed by gifts, appeased by sacri
fices, partial, cruel, jealous, capricious, the patron and in
stigator of blood-thirsty and fraudulent men and actions,
the resort and associate of “ lying spirits,” and sharing
his sovereignty with the devil, — he is at length pre
sented to us as “ the high and holy one that inhabiteth
eternity;” (Is. lviii. 15.) “ the righteous judge;” (Rev.
�and Modern Education.
61
xix. 11.) “creator of all things;” (Gen. i. 1, &c.)
“ Saviour of all men;” (1 Tim. iv. 10.) “ whose kingdom
ruleth over all.” (Ps. ciii. 19).
Here we find first recorded the existence of a sense of
responsibility for our actions to a law and a power which
are above us. “ Here human nature is drawn in all its
extent, from its lowest depths to its loftiest reach; for the
Bible is a gallery in which all the paintings are life-like,
but the subjects so varied, that none are too gross for
admission. Being a revelation of God according to the
characters and imaginations of the men in whose con
sciousness his idea was conceived, it is emphatically a
revelation of man, inasmuch as man’s ideal is the index
to his own character and degree of intelligence.
This, however, is no speciality of the Bible. It is the
characteristic of all art and literature which speaks out
the genuine deeper feelings of men’s hearts ; and in this
respect, as containing the truest art, the Bible ranks as
the highest classics.
In selecting from the world’s literature, reading lessons
inculcating “ the true, the* pure, and the lovely,” who
could have the heart to exclude the remarkable hymn of
the creation; the significant allegory of Eden; the charm
ing pastoral of Isaac and Rebekah in their first love; the
touching idyl of Joseph and his brethren and their aged
father; the wondrous romance of the Exodus; the story
of Moses, that king of men; the noble recitations of law
and legend in Deuteronomy; the interesting narratives of
Samson, Samuel, David, and Solomon; the simple tales
of Ruth and of Esther, so illustrative of the manners of
the ancient east; the sublime poetry of Job and the
Psalms; the shrewd wisdom of the Proverbs; the genial
cynicism of Ecclesiastes; the magnificent outpourings of
�62
Jewish Literature
Isaiah, denouncing the degradation and despair of his
countrymen, and encouraging them anew to hope and to
restoration through the moral regeneration of their
nature ? (Which of us even now could not point out
some nation that has sore need of an Isaiah ?) Then the
noble lesson of Jonah, wherein children are oftener
taught to see a tale of a cross-grained prophet, a whale,
and a gourd, than to recognise the poet’s protest against
the popular notion, shared by Jonah, that the Lord was
a mere district-god who could be avoided by change of
place, and to see the moral of the fable in the representa
tion of deity as everywhere present alike, even in the
depths of the sea.
And, added to these, the exquisite purity and simpli
city of the gospels, with their central figure of Jesus and
his enthusiastic life-devotion to the cause of man’s re
demption from sin and suffering, and deliverance from
the blighting effects of religious formalism, and the
crushing weight of sacerdotalism; producing from the
harmonious depths of his own great soul a sublime ideal
of God as a Father, and a rule of life for man most noble
in conception even when most impracticable of applica
tion. (Of all the characters of history, I know of none
who would have sympathised more intensely with the
object and the views I am seeking to advance, than the
Christ whom I find in the gospels. Of course to the or
thodox and the vested interests of his day, he was only a
sad blasphemer and dangerous revolutionist.) Then, the
varied and genuine humanity of the Epistles; and, no
tably, the magnificent monologue on charity, (in the thir
teenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians,)
wherein Paul, dropping his too favourite character of
Rabbinical lawyer and quibbling controversialist, soars to
�and Modern Education.
63
an altitude whither the churches have never yet been
able to follow him. And, lastly, the lofty rhapsody of
the Apocalypse, wherein fervid imagination, escaping
from the woes beneath which mankind was being crushed
by a Domitian and a Nero, took refuge in an ideal
“ state of God,” where all wrongs should be redressed,
all tears wiped away, the tormentors relegated to ever
lasting punishment, and sorrow and pain be no more for
their victims.
And not for its intrinsic merits only, but for its in
fluence’ on the hearts of mankind, should our children not
be strangers to the volume in which, to borrow words
from one of our most highly inspired writers, “book after
book,Law and truth and example, oracle and lovely hymn,
and choral song of ten thousand thousand, and accepted
prayers of saints and prophets, sent back as it were from
heaven, like doves to be let loose again with a new
freight of spiritual joys and griefs and necessities; where
the hungry have found food, the thirsty a living spring,
the feeble a staff, and the victorious warfarer songs of
welcome and strains of music: which for more than a
thousand years has gone hand in hand with civilisation,
. . often leading the way. . . a book which good
and holy men, thepest and wisest of mankind, the kingly
spirits of historyl enthroned in the hearts of mighty
nations, have borne witness to its influences, and declared
to be beyond compare the most perfect instrument, the
only adequate organ of humanity; the organ and instru
ment of all the gifts, powers, and tendencies, by which
the individual is privileged to rise above himself.”*
To exclude all knowledge of the Bible from our youth,
would be to make a greater gap in the education of a
* S.T. Coleridge’s “Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.”
�64
Jewish Literature
Briton than to omit almost any calculable number of
other books, including the bulk of the world’s history.
Indeed it would be to exclude almost all history what
soever; not ancient history merely, with knowledge of
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Rome in its decline and fall;
but the history of all Christendom itself, with that of the
Papacy and the Reformation, and the whole of our own
struggles for and against liberty | (for even we have not
always been consistently on the side of freedom:) almost
all of which struggles have been associated more or less
with the Bible; the rise and origin, too, of the United
States of America. All these in the past, together with
our own condition in the present and hopes in the future,
and the signification of the vast bulk of our literature,
would, without some knowledge of the book that has
filled a leading part in them all, be absolutely dark and
meaningless.
Besides, there is not so much wisdom and beauty in
the world that we can afford to throw any away. If we
exclude the Bible altogether as being a text-book of our
own religious sects, there is no plea upon which we can
admit the admirable teaching that is to be found in the
sacred books of the Hindoos and Chinese, the Mohamme
dans and Buddhists. Nay, to exclude the good parts of
any book merely because it happens to be the text-book
of a sect, is to put it in the power of any small knot of
persons to secure the exclusion of any book whatsoever,
by claiming it as one of their sacred books. Fancy a sect
of Shakespeare worshippers getting by such means all
knowledge of Shakespeare excluded from our educational
course ! Or a new sect of Pythagoreans to revive the
worship of numbers, and, setting up Colenso as their highpriest, forcing us to exclude arithmetic from our schools !
�and Modern Education.
65
Indeed, if only because of the very power and popular
ity of the Bible, it should not be left to be dealt with
exclusively by a class of interpreters who acknowledge
other allegiance than to the developed intellect and con
science of men. But, containing as it does, the whole
sacred literature of the most remarkable of all ancient
peoples, the Jews, and that of their most remarkable
sect of religious reformers, the Christians, who, together,
more than any other people, have influenced the develop
ment of the human mind and the course of human his
tory; to exclude all knowledge of it from our youth
would be to keep back from them the master-key to the
heart and facts of humanity.
XIII.
But the fact of the Bible being, not a single book, but
a whole literature ranging over many centuries, greatly
simplifies the question of dealing with it. We rarely use
the whole of any book in the schoolroom; never an entire
literature. Imagine the whole, or samples of the whole, of
our own literature being put at once into the hands of a
child, with its rude early legends and ballads, its laws and
statutes, its medicine and science, its trials and police
reports, and all the revolting details which even the least
respectable of our newspapers suppress as “ unfit for pub
lication !” Yet this is what we have done with the
ancient literature of the Jews. Instead of exercising any
discrimination, we crowd our houses with it, we read it
aloud to our families, we put it entire into the hands of
■our children; and when we find impurity and supersti
tion rife among us, instead of admitting that we have
■done our best to promote them, we postulate the horrible
E
�66
J
’ ewish Literature
doctrines of “ original sin ” and “ total depravity,” and
shift the responsibility from our own shoulders to those
of “the devil!” It was remarked once by a well-known
Frenchman that “the English tolerate no indecencies
except in their Bibles.” Fatal exception, when we print
Bibles in millions, in all the languages of the earth, and
thrust them into the hands of every babe and suckling
and growing youth.
The remedy which I propose is twofold : First, that a
new version, omitting the whole of the parts which are
objectionable on the score of decency, omitting also the
headings by which ecclesiastical editors have sought to
palliate immorality or strain the meaning to the support
of particular doctrines, be made to take the place of the
existing “ authorised versionand that this be done
so completely that the old version be no longer accessible
to the young, but continue to exist only as a curiosity
or book of reference upon the shelves of students.
This change is one which, while it might be'initiated
by the School-boards undertaking to produce such a
version for the use of their schools, would require both
general and individual action on the part of the people
themselves. It will be aided by the wise resolve of the
Bible-revision Committee to omit the headings from their
new and improved version. If the powers of this Com
mittee were extended so as to enable it to make these
changes, a great step towards carrying out this part of
my proposed remedy would be gained. To further it
would be an admirable occupation for a society which
has existed for years among us under the presidency of
Lord Shaftesbury, calling itself “ The Pure Literature
Society.” Strange to say that, with all its zeal for
purity in literature, it has never yet tried its hand on
�and Modern Education.
6y
the Bible. It will indeed prove itself worthy of its high
title and calling, when it joins in the chase of the
“ authorised version ” from our homes, and the pews of
our churches, so that children shall no longer be tempted
to beguile the tedium of a sermon by feeding their
curiosity on its improprieties.
It is related of Goethe that he was present at a meeting
of the Dutch clergy, when it was proposed to establish
a censorship to enforce the expurgation of any improper
books which might be brought forward for publication!
Goethe at once expressed his admiration of the plan, and
recommended that they commence with the Bible.
Whereupon the king of Holland said to him, “ My dear
Goethe, pray hold your tongue. Of course you are quite
right: but it won’t do to say so.”
This, however, is not enough. There are, as we have
seen, very many portions of the Bible which, while not
totally “ unfit for publication,” are yet shocking, to the
intellect and moral sense if accepted literally as true,
inasmuch as they are libellous to the Deity. I propose,
therefore, Secondly, that teachers be required, alike by
School-boards and by parents, whenever such portions
of Scripture are read,—(and they ought to be read, if
only to show the advance we have made)—to make their
pupils clearly understand that they represent only the
imperfect notions of a barbarous age and people. ' That
just as the Greeks had their supreme ruling divinity in
Zeus, their divinity of song in Apollo, of war in Ares, of
gain in Hermes, of storms in JEolus, of wisdom in Pallas,
and of love in Aphrodite; so the Jews, instead of dis
tributing these functions among a number of distinct
divinities, ascribed them all in turn, no matter how
�68
'Jewish Literature
incongruously, as occasion required, to their own Jehovah.
By turn he is a “ man of war,” he is “love,” he is “fire,”
he “ rides on the wings of the wind,” and so on.
We cannot even accord to the Jews the credit, often
claimed for them, of being, in a world of polytheists, the
only pure monotheists. It is true that their institutions
forbade the worship of more than one God.; but they
recognised the existence of many gods. They were
monotheists in worship, but not in faith. Their Jehovah
was a far too unsociable, exclusive, “jealous” God, to
share their homage with others. He thus was made
strictly in the image of the Jews themselves, the most
exclusive of human races. That Baal and Chemosh,
Ashtoreth and Molech, were all realities for them, is
shown in frequent utterances ascribed even to Jehovah
himself. And Solomon, though “ the wisest of men,”
established their worship in Jerusalem. The Bible
shows, tod, by numerous instances, that the Jews were
by no means satisfied with their own deity. The minds
of their loftiest poets, indeed, occasionally, in their
loftiest moods, rose to the conception of a deity, one and
universal; but they did this in common only with the
loftiest minds of all peoples, ages, and religions; those
minds whose opinions have ever been regarded by the
conventional and superstitious as atheistic and blasphem
ous, whether it be Socrates, Spinoza, Shelley, or Jesus.
But even if the Jews acknowledged but one God, they
called him by various names ; and it would be an addi
tional safeguard against superstition if, in the new
version, those names were preserved. In translating
the Latin and Greek writers we never think of substitu
ting God for Jupiter or Apollo. There is no valid
reason for dealing differently with Jehovah, Elohim,
Adonai, Shaddai.
�and Modern Education.
69
This, then, is the whole conclusion :—
(1.) That the Bible should be admitted into the
schools; but it must be a purified, an expurgated Bible;
and (2.) That its reading must be accompanied by such
“ notes and comments ” as will make it really conducive
to the development of the Intelligence and Moral Sense
of the scholars.
But to minister to these ends, it must be read with no
adventitious solemnity that might specialise it as a
superior authority, and invest it with a preter-educational
character. For this would at once be to remove it from
the category of legitimate educational uses, by exempting
it from the operation of the normal digestive apparatus
of the intellect. In short, to make the Bible useful for
education, it must be taught comparatively. And as this
implies the possession of a certain amount of related
knowledge, it is clear that there is but very little of it
that is suited to the very young or very ignorant.
XIV.
Now for the general principle on which these u notes
and comments ” should be based.
It is universally acknowledged that the human mind
is endowed with a tendency to imagine the Deity as pos
sessed in perfection of all the qualities which are recog
nised by itself as best. The strength of this tendency is
ever in inverse proportion to the degree of the mind’s
development, being greatest in the most rudimentary
stage of intelligence.
Investing the Deity with the attributes of personality,
the finite mind cannot do otherwise than make God in
its own image. The character of that image is the mea
�70
Jewish Literature
sure of our own moral and spiritual capacity. For, when
by God we mean the ideal of our own imagination, it
follows that the character of our God indicates the de
gree of our own development. Later on, when the mind
attains a certain advanced stage of intellectual progress,
we find our conception of Deity so transcendently en
larged, that no definition satisfies us, save one which re
cognises Him as the sum of all the forces, physical, moral,
and spiritual, at work in the universe; the divine work,
which we call Nature, being the sum of all phenomena.
God the sum of causes, Nature the sum of effects. This
is no dogma. It is only a definition of what we mean
by God, what by nature.
For the purposes of early education, however, we have
to deal with God in a moral aspect, as the Ideal of
Humanity j the perfection towards which it is our high
est function to strive. Wherefore, nothing can be more
fatal to our moral progress than to have that ideal de
graded to a low type of character. If we are to call him
“ Fool,” who, denying cause and effect, says, “ there is
no God,” (Ps. xiv. 1.) what are we to say of him who
teaches that God is evil ? What, again, are we to call
those who, holding that God is absolutely good, and that
a firm belief in that goodness is requisite to enable man
to be good also, and who, moreover, desire to cultivate
goodness in their children, yet hesitate not to put into
the hands of those children narratives of impurity,
cruelty, and deceit, and tell them that the perpetrators
and their deeds were acceptable to, and indeed prompted
by, the Deity ? If the purpose of right education be to
develop the moral sense, what sort of education is this ?
If another- purpose be to develop the intellect, how is this
end to be served, when the only way of escape that such
�and Modern Education.
teachers have, on being questioned by their perplexed
pupils, lies in declaring it to be a “ mystery,” and so
closing the doors of their intelligence the moment it
begins to expand ? .
Keeping in mind the remarks I have made respecting
the inevitable anthropomorphism of all imperfectly de
veloped minds, you will perceive that it involves no
reproach to the Jews that, in those early stages of human
progress, they partook of the universal tendency, and
constructed their God in their own image; that they
credited him with the qualities, moral and immoral,
which they found in themselves; and, in their total
ignorance of natural law and phenomena, were more ready
to seek the divine hand in departures from the regular
order of nature, than to recognise it in its establishment
and maintenance. It is thus that all early literatures
necessarily contain prodigies and fables illustrative of the
imperfect notions of their period. And so far from these
things being true because they are in the Bible, or a re
proach to the Jews in being untrue, the miracle really
would have been if there were no miracles, no anthro
pomorphism, in the Scriptures. In this sense, therefore,
it may be said that the truth of the Bible is proved by
the untruths of the Bible.
Even if we give the Jews credit as having done their
best for the honour of their god in thus constructing him
in their own image, we assuredly cannot lay claim to
similar credit for ourselves. For we have fallen infinitely
below our own best, in the character we have assigned
to our God. Think for a moment how marvellous is the
anomaly we present. For six days of the week we avail
ourselves freely of the wondrous results of the most ad
vanced science and culture, philosophy and thought, of
�72
Jewish Literature
this nineteenth century after Christ, in which the labours
of all former centuries have culminated, and we do this for
our own advantage and enjoyment; and on the seventh
day, when the honour of our God is concerned, we are con
tent to jump back to the nineteenth century before Christ,
and borrow for him both character and lineaments from
a semi-barbarous Syrian tribe, whose whole literature
proves their absolute incapacity to comprehend the
simplest of his works in nature. And in their image,
fitful and vengeful, we make our God, refusing him the
benefits of the light we have gained. A wondrous feat
of moral and intellectual athletics is this our weekly
jump backward and then-forward again.
The resolution finally passed by the London Board
provides that “ the Bible shall be read, and there shall
be given therefrom such instruction in the principles of
religion and morality, as is suitable to the capacities of
children, no attempt being made to attach the children
to any particular denomination.”
Thus, the Bible is to be read “ with notes and com
ments.” If, however, these notes and comments are not
to be of the kind I have just described, the Resolution
means absolutely nothing. If the teachers are not to
explain that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Samuel, David,
and Solomon, were, in respect of the acts which have been
enumerated, exceedingly bad men, and that the deity
who is said in the Bible to have approved of them, was
but the imaginary local divinity of the Hebrews as re
presented by their priests, the Resolution is nothing but
an illusion and a blind. If the teacher is not to say that
Abraham was wrong to follow his impulse to sacrifice
his son; Jacob wrong to cheat his nearest and dearest
relations ; Samuel wrong to revoke his sovereign’s pledge
�and Modern Education.
73
of clemency, and rebelliously to set up a rival to him;
David wrong to sacrifice the sons of Saul, and to order
the execution of the man he had sworn to spare; if
he is not to say that Jesus and the apostles were mis
taken in expecting the early end of the world rand
re-appearance of Christ; that the story of his birth
is a piece of mere paganism, and that many of the
injunctions in the New Testament are not fitting rules
for civilised life—the Resolution is utterly devoid
of meaning. I am not saying that it may not be per
fectly sound theology to praise Abraham and Jacob for
these things, and represent the deity as approving of
them, but only that it is neither good religion nor good
morality; and it is not theology, but religion and mor
ality, which, both by the Education Act and the Resolu
tion, the teacher is bound to inculcate. Even if it be
true that morality is based upon religion, the religion
containing such theology can certainly not claim to be in
any way connected with morality. And to teach it will
be to go directly in the face of the Resolution which
provides “ that instruction be given from the Bible in
the principles,” not of theology, but “of religion and
morality.” Wherefore, when a question arises in the
schools, such as that of the propriety of Abraham’s com
pliance, of Jael’s treachery, or of Caiaphas’s counsel to
offer up Jesus in human sacrifice as an atonement for the
people;—the teacher acting in accordance with our
definition and the Board’s Resolution, will have no
choice but to reply, “ The justification of these actions
belongs to the domain of theology. Morality unequivo
cally condemns them. And my duty here is to teach
you morality.”
And this, I think, settles the question which has been
�74
"Jewish Literature
raised since the passing of the Resolution, namely, the
question, Who is to give Biblical or religious instruction
in the schools, whether the ordinary teachers who are
responsible to the Board, or the clergy or other persons
specially appointed for that ^purpose by the various reli
gious bodies themselves ? The resolution declares that
the children are to be taught, not theology, but Religion
and Morality. To admit, therefore, independent teachers
of theology, would be, in so far as such theology is in
conflict with religion and morality, to admit teachers of
irreligion and immorality, and would thus neutralise the
Resolution of the Board, and the whole object of educa
tion, which, as cannot be repeated too often at this time,
consists in the development of the intellect and moral
sense.
Probably nothing could be put before the young more
pernicious than the teaching of the official theologian.
It was but the other day that a clergyman of the English
Establishment preached a sermon to the effect that Jacob
was quite right to cheat his father and brother because
he knew that he should make a better use of the property
than they would. No, however sound the theology of such
teaching may be, and this is no rare or extreme instance,
it certainly is not the teaching by which either the
intelligence or the moral sense of children is likely to be
developed.
XV.
So far from the simple and natural explanation which
I have given of the incongruities and contradictions con
tained in the Bible, having been diligently promulgated
by those who have’ undertaken to be its interpreters, our
spiritual teachers have, on the contrary, during some
�and Modern Education.
75
three hundred years done their best to erect the Bible
into an jinfallible standard, not merely of theology, but
of religion and morality. Outvying the apostle who, in
the excess of his zeal, cut off one ear, they have done
their best to stop up both ears against the voice of reason
and conscience. They forget that Jesus restored the in
jured organ.
It is true that an excuse for the existence of the popular
theory, and for the tenacity with which it has held its
ground, is not far to seek. It was natural that we should
feel a high degree of gratitude towards the book which
materially aided us in emancipating ourselves from the
yoke of mediaeval Papalism, and asserting our own indi
viduality among the community of the nations. It was
natural that our enthusiasm for the agent of our deliver
ance should lead us to place it high, even too high, in our
regards. And so it came that we replaced an infallible,
but discomfited, Pope by an infallible book; not per
ceiving that, if indeed it was a credit to the Bible to
have made us free, we do the reverse of honour to it by
allowing it to tyrannise over us in turn.
Again, in addition to being a grateful, we are an emi
nently prudent, folk. We prefer to be on with a new *
love before we are quit of the old. Hating anything
like an interregnum, we cry, “ The king is dead. Long
live the king,” without the interval of a moment. And
so we continue to cling to the old accustomed dwelling,
letting it crumble into ruin around us, rather than endure
a brief season of discomfort while waiting for the rear
ing of a new habitation on its site. “ If we give up the
Bible as an infallible guide,” it is asked, “ to what are
we to look in its place 1 ”
Having at present to deal with facts, and not with
fancies, there is no need to enlarge on the popular dogma
�76
Jewish Literature
further than to say that, not being contained in the Bible
itself, but being unknown alike to the Fathers of the
primitive Church, to the Reformers of the sixteenth cen
tury, and to the articles and formularies of both the
Romish Church and the English, it must have its basis
in modern innovation rather than in ancient authority.
I ascribe, then, the popular theory respecting the
Bible in some degree to the causes I have named, but
mainly to that instinctive monarchical tendency which
leads the uneducated to distrust their own intelligence
and moral sense, and require some palpable ruler and
guide. “ In their ignorance of the experimental cha
racter of human nature, men will seek infallibility some
where ; in an oracle, a priest, a church, or a book.” This
tendency has been, as a rule, sedulously fostered by
governments and teachers. Once deprived of their
Fetich, and roused from indolent acquiescence in its
supposed commands, they cry out that their gods have
been stolen from them, and fancy that the universe
will collapse, because they are now forced to fulfil their
proper vocation, and use their own faculties.
It was in virtue of this characteristic that the Swiss
theologians of the seventeenth century maintained the
inspiration • of the comparatively recent vowel-points of
the Hebrew text: that the early Christians ascribed a
supernatural origin to the Septuagint; and the Council of
Trent gave an authority superior to that of the original
texts to the Vulgate, which attained such a height of
superstitious respect that, according to Erasmus, some
monks, on seeing it printed in parallel columns between
the Greek and the Hebrew, likened it to Christ crucified
between the two thieves. (Colloquies.) And it was even
seriously proposed by the theological faculty of Mayence,
�'’-ft
^■r,'‘'7?-,?>,''z
and Modern Education.
▼
77
in the 15th century, to make a total “ revision and cor
rection of the Hebrew Bible, inasmuch as it differed
from the authorised Latin translation ! ”
Perhaps the most singular fact in connection with the
popular doctrine is, that to doubt its accuracy has come
to be treated as a piece of heinous moral depravity, and
this even by some who ought to know better. When
the eminent author of the “Christian Year” was con
sulted respecting a difficulty in the way of receiving it,
felt by Dr Arnold, then a student, Keble’s advice was
“ work it down 1 Throw yourself wholly into your
parish or your school, and work it down! ” * This
simply meant, “ ignore itas if faith consisted in the
suppression of doubt, and conscientious scruples were
demons to be exorcised.
Later in life, when pressed on the same point by Sir
John Coleridge, who urged the subject on him as one
that he was competent to deal with, adding that it pro
mised shortly to become the great religious question of
the time, Mr Keble, after endeavouring to evade an
swering, replied shortly that “most of the men who had
difficulties on this subject were too wicked to be reasoned
with.”t Such was the answer of one of the most vene
rated of modern Sacerdotalists to a near relative. of the
great Coleridge, who (in the book I have already quoted)
had pronounced the popular doctrine to be “ superstitious
and unscriptural.”
“ Ignore a conscientous scruple, or you are too wicked
to be reasoned with I” Respect a dogma because it is a
dogma, no matter how the reason and the conscience, nay,
the Almighty himself, be outraged thereby! Submit
humbly to authority, no matter how immoral its require* Stanley’s Life of Arnold.
f Coleridge’s Memoirs of Keble.
�78
"Jewish Literature
ments! Ignore your scruples, and instead of manfully
“facing your doubts” and “beating your music out,” let
your doubt remain, an unresolved discord, to jar ever
more within your soul! To such straits are they driven
who remain in bondage to “ the weak and beggarly ele
ments” of the popular orthodoxy. Surely it is time for
us to say positively that we will not commit the minds
and consciences of our children to teachers who will bring
them up to regard sincerity as a vice, and crush at once
both intellect and moral sense by superstition, popular or
ecclesiastical.
XVI.
But though our immediate teachers in nursery, school
and pulpit, have laboured assiduously to inculcate this
dogma, it may safely be affirmed that, in addition to the
vast range of authorities already named who reject it,
there is not at this day a single scholar, (I do not say
“learned divine,” but scholar of acknowledged critical
ability,) lay or cleric, orthodox or heretic, in Christendom,
who holds it for himself. One and all, they recognise the
existence in the Bible of, at the very least, a largely per
vading. element of human imperfection. It is true that
Dr Hook in his “ Church Dictionary” defines “ Inspira
tion” as being “the extraordinary or supernatural in
fluence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by
which the prophets and sacred writers were qualified to
receive and set forth divine communications without any
mixture of error,” and asserts upon his own sole autho
rity that in this sense the term occurs in the passage,
“ all scripture (is) given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim.
iii. 16.) It is true that in this he is followed by Dr
�and Modern Education.
79
Wordsworth and other prominent churchmen. But no
critical scholar ventures to affirm that “ Inspiration ” is
identical with, or implies, “ Infallibility.” On the con
trary, their profoundest investigations only serve to de
monstrate the truth of the conclusion patent to common
sense, that humanity is so constructed as to be incapable
of infallibility in the absence of means of verification;
and that the being prompted by a “ holy spirit,” or dis
position, by no means guarantees a man against error,
however wide his spiritual range, or deep his spiritual
insight.
But farther, even if the original text could be regarded
as infallible, there is the. fact that we do not possess that
original text, and that the documents which claim to be
derived from it, have passed through the hands of many
copyists, each more or less accurate, more or less honest.
And were the text certainly perfect as it is certainly most
defective, there are still the difficulties of translation, diffi
culties which are, as every scholar knows, often absolutely
insurmountable. For the language of different nations
varies with their ideas, and their ideas vary with their
institutions, associations, and habits; so that different
languages frequently have no terms whatever in which to
express the ideas contained in other languages. Many
tropical tribes, for instance, have no words to express
such things as ice and snow, because those things are alto
gether unknown to them. A translation, therefore, of
the Bible into their language is, so far as ice and snow
are concerned, impossible. “ In the islands of the South
Seas there were no quadrupeds Until the first navigators
took some pigs there, when the name given by the natives
to the pigs, became the generic term for all four-legged
animals. The horse was the big pig that runs over the
�8o
J
‘ ewish Literature
ground. The cow was the great milky pig. The sheep
the curly pig. We may imagine the feelings with which
the pious translators of the Bible for the islanders found
themselves compelled to use a corresponding designation
for the phrase “Lamb of God.” The Zulus of South
Africa had no idea of God or a future state, and prized
above all things flesh in an advanced stage of decomposi
tion. Wherefore the missionaries in translating the Bible
for them, and rendering the supreme good in their lan
guage, were obliged to identify God and heaven with
rotten meat.
The same lack of corresponding terms exists more or
less between all languages, as is shown by the fact that
words and phrases are often transported whole from one
language into another. Moreover, words used to express
actions, principles, or qualities, in one language, often be
come concreted into persons and things by the genius of
another. And in all languages, or nearly all, the same
word frequently has many different significations. (As
in English the words Jac,
&c., have each half-a-dozen
meanings.) It sometimes happens, therefore, that a trans
lator has to be guided by what he is led by the context
or some other criterion to think the passage is likely to
mean.
Thus, in the passage, “ Whosoever will save his life
shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake
shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain
the whole world, and lose his own soul ? or what shall a
man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. xvi. 25, 26.)
—the word rendered soul is precisely the same, article
and all, with the word rendered life.
Again, for the word spirit, which is used by us in nearly
a score of different senses, personal and impersonal, the
�and Modern Education.
Greek equivalent, pneumo,, generally, if not always, signi
fies the air, breath, or life. In the well-known passage
in John, (iii. 8.) “ The wind bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence
it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is
born of the spirit,”—the word rendered wind, and the
word spirit, are identical, article and all, with each other.
Yet the translators have given to the same word, occur
ring in the same sentence, two entirely different mean
ings. And, as if to justify this, the modern printers of
the. Greek text sometimes give a capital initial to the
word which is translated spirit; thus in a measure, alter
ing the text to suit the authorised version.
Such was the imperfection of the ancient Hebrew for
the purposes of expression in writing, that it was not
until long after the Bible had been written that the dis
tinction between the tenses of past and future was pro
perly developed. It was in their confusion between these
tenses that our translators, in the magnificent ode of
Isaiah beginning, “ Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people,”
produced the absurd and impious phrase, “ She hath re
ceived at the Lord’s hand double for all her sins,” in
stead of the joyous assurance, “ She shall receive . . .
double for all her sufferings.” (xl. 2.) It is easy to im
agine the difficulty attending prophetic expression in a
language which had no distinct future tense !
A very little reflection on the modus operandi of what
theologically is called “ Inspiration,” will at once exhibit
to us the fallacy of the popular notion. It can only con
sist of an impulse or impression on the mind, so strong
as to make the individual receiving it, ascribe it to a
preternatural source. But, however irresistible for him,
the authority and character of the impression must still
F
�82
'Jewish Literature
be determined, not by its strength in relation to his
mind, but by its own intrinsic nature. A bad impres
sion cannot proceed from a healthy source; neither does
a strong impression imply accuracy of doctrine. It is
under an irresistible impulse that the maniac mother
flings her child down a well. It is under an impression
so strong as to be for him an inspiration or divine reve
lation that the celibate takes his unnatural vow, the
devotee starves himself into bad health, the Russian
fanatic mutilates his body, and the Revivalist goes into
convulsions of madness. Thus, whatever is claimed to
be a divine revelation, must be referred ultimately to the
test of the Intellect and Moral Sense, as the sole canon
of criticism. Even the common notion that infallibility
may be attested by the power to work miracles, must be
disclaimed in presence of the instances ascribed in
Scripture to magical or diabolical agency.
“ Wherefore, although a man may have an overwhelm
ing sense that something claiming to be God has spoken
to him, it is clear, that unless he has a prior, personal and
infallible knowledge of God,—a knowledge prior, that is,
to his ‘ inspiration,’—he knows not but that it may be
a demon assuming the garb of light, perhaps even one of
those ‘ lying spirits’ who are represented in the Bible as
infesting even heaven itself, or a fantastic creation of his
own excited fancy. It behoves him, therefore, still to
judge the communication in his calmer moments by its
own intrinsic character, and to deliberate upon the actions
to which it impels him.” The wider the range we learn
to assign to Nature and the human faculties, the less be
comes our necessity for seeking a preternatural origin for
our ideas and impulses, and the more honour we pay to
the divine worker and his work.
�and Modern Education.
83
The prevalent readiness to distrust our own ability to
.perceive the higher moral facts of the universe, and our
consequent liability to refer all revelation to the con
sciousness of men who lived ages ago, is, no doubt, attri
butable partly to our possession of so many ancient books
which claim our attention, and draw our minds away
from the contemplation of the direct action of the uni
verse upon our own individual consciousness; and partly
to the repressing influence of those sacerdotal interests
which naturally repose upon traditional authority rather
than upon living insight and reason.
The habit is one to be firmly checked if we would
avoid the practical Atheism of banishing G-od and Truth
from the living present to the dead past. “ The creed or
belief of any age is, at best, but the index to the height
■of the divine presence of Truth in that ago.” To adopt
its limitations as our own, is to turn a deaf ear to the
voice of that “ Spirit of Truth” or Truthfulness, of whom
it was said by one who himself drew all his inspiration from
within, that “ when he is come he will guide you into all
truth.” (John xvi. 13.) It is but a limited sway that this
Spirit of Truthfulness has as yet obtained. Wherefore
the effect of all dogmas,—whether formulated in creeds,
■catechisms, or articles of faith,—and their maintenance by
oaths and emoluments, independently of intrinsic pro
bability or any possibility of verification, is to arrest
the natural development of Humanity and to disturb and
retard the whole process of the evolution of the species,
in regard to its highest functions. It is to give the
world a base money-bribe to retain in its maturity the
form, the garb, the dimensions, the ^maturity of its
childhood. Hear a recent utterance of one who, with
whatever drawbacks, seeks still to combine the prophet
�84
Jewish Literature
and the poet, and thus, with “ Songs before Sunrise,’^ •
heralds the dawn of better times:
A creed is a rod,
And weapon of night:
But this thing is God,
To be man with thy might,
To grow straight in the strength of thy spirit,
And live out thy life as the light. *
The very word Inspiration, in its primary meaning,
relates to the atmosphere. It is an ancient supposition
that ideas are inhaled with the breath. A man found
himself possessed of an idea or thought which the
moment before he had not. Whence could it have
come, if not in-breathed, or inspired, with the air 1 It
was Pythagoras who conceived the idea that the vital
process of the world is a process of breathing, the
infinite breath or atmosphere of the Universe being the
source of all life. An imaginative Oriental people
readily, in their expressions, personified such supposed
source of life and thought. We matter-of-fact Westerns
go on to make such personification absolute and dog
matic. Pn&uma, the air, becomes a personal spirit, or
assemblage of spirits, and divinely “ inspires ” us: as in
the old days of philosophy in Persia, under the influence
of which, during, or after the Babylonish captivity,
many of the Jewish sacred books evidently were com
posed,—’the breath, or Div, formed a linguistic basis for
a personal Devil,j
Ideas in the air !
Those who know what it is to
* Swinburne, very slightly altered.
t Cons. Donaldson’s “ Christian OrthodoxyArt. “Interme
diate Intelligences.”
�and Modern Education.
85
-crouch in the unhealthy confinement of close study, ever,
as the Poet says,
“ With blinded eyesight poring over miserable books,”
till heart and head become heavy and dull; and then to
betake themselves to seaside or mountain, where the
fresh winds of heaven blow freely upon them, inflating
their lungs, aerating their blood, and “sweeping the
cobwebs from their brains,” until the renovated organism
becomes re-charged with creative energy, and ideas
begin anew to spring up in the mind, revealing to it
“ Tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything, ”
—such as these can well appreciate the charming old
fancy that peopled the air with ideas, and regarded
every new thought as a separate spirit. It is only under
theologic manipulation that such gentle poetry becomes
steam-hammered into hard dogma, that existence is rob
bed of its charm, and millions of mankind are doomed
to pass through life, and to leave it, without ever having
been allowed to know how good the world really is.
But above and beside the questions of Inspiration, of
Language, of Transcription, and Translation, there is
the question of Interpretation. And, supposing all other
difficulties surmounted, we are here met by an impass
ible barrier. For the proposition is nothing less than
axiomatic, that “ an infallible revelation requires an
infallible interpreter : and that both are useless without
an infallible understanding wherewith to comprehend
the interpretation.”
By such demonstration of the utter impossibility of
infallibility, (in the theologic sense,) the ground is
entirely cut away from beneath, not only all past, but all
�86
'Jewish Literature
• future superstitions. For, by. annihilating “ authority,
it compels us to refer everything whatsoever to the
criterion of the intellect and moral sense of man. There
is now, therefore, no longer any space for " dogma.”
XVII.
To the list of authorities already given, I propose to
add a few representative names from the various schools
of theologic thought within the Established Church.
The first is that of the Bev. Dr Irons, who, in his
remarkable little volume, “ The Bible and its Inter
preters,” declares that “ any reasonable being who
would accept the Scriptures at all, must take them on
some other ground than that which identifies the written
Word with God’s Eevelation. A more hopeless, carnal,
and, eventually sceptical position, it is impossible to
conceive.” (p. 39.) Dr Irons, in this, follows the learned
Bishop of St David’s, Dr Thirlwall, whose recent noble
protest against the dishonesty of sacerdotal bigotry in
high places, in relation to the work of Biblical revision,
may well raise our respect for him to veneration, as one
who, in spite of his position, has dared practically to
point the distinction between Morality and the prevalent
Theology. In one of his Episcopal charges, Dr Thirlwall
points out the fact that “ Among the numerous passages
of the New Testament in which the phrase The Word
of God,” occurs, there is not one in which it signifies the
Bible, or in which that word could be substituted for it
without manifest absurdity.
It is notorious that the popular imagination is wont
to regard the same phrase, when used in the Psalms, as re
ferring, if not to the whole of the Old and New Testaments,
at least to the books ascribed to Moses and Samuel. .
�and Modern Education.
87
The late Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Alford, in his
“New Testament for English readers,” (p. 3.) says,
“Each man reported and each man selected according
to his own personal characteristics of thought and
feeling.”
Yet one other name, that of Bishop Colenso, whose
critical analysis of the Hebrew text is allowed by
scholars to constitute one of the most remarkable monu
ments of patient labour and sober judgment to be
found in literature. These scholars, approaching the
subject from opposite directions, agree in their main
conclusions. Their immediate motives, however, differ
considerably. The object of Dr. Irons is to force us
back, in the search for Infallibility, to rely altogether
upon “the Church.” “Hearthe Church,” is his maxim.
(Matt, xviii. 17.) But which Church ? we must ask,
and ask in vain. What saith the Church of England
in her articles? “As the Churches of Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Alexandria, have erred, so also hath the
Church of Rome erred.” (Art. xix.) Moreover, “General
Councils.............sometimes have erred.” (xxi.) (It was
a general Council that determined what books should
form the canon of Scripture, and what should be
rejected.) Can we wonder if the other Churches rejoin,
as at least one of them has done, with anathemas,
“ So also hath the Church of England erred ?”
The object of Dean Alford was to mediate between
the two extremes of popular orthodoxy and the results
of critical knowledge.
That of Bishop Colenso is simply to find out and state
what is the fact, believing that such purpose alone is
consistent with the deference due to the intellect and
moral sense of man, to truth, and to God Himself. In
�88
-
'Jewish Literature
one of his “ Natal Sermons,” he sums up the results of
his labours by describing the Bible as containing the
“Early attempts at History,” the writers of which
record, with «the simplicity of childhood, the first ima
ginings of thoughtful men about the Earth’s formation
and history, and mingle with traditionary lore and
actual fact, the legends and mythical stories of a hoar
antiquity, yet tell us how men were “ moved by the
Holy Ghost,” in those days, how they were “feeling
after God,” and finding Him, how the light shone
clearer and clearer upon their minds, as the day-star
of Eternal truth rose higher and higher upon them. . . .
A human book, in short, though a book full of divine
life.............written, as Paul says, for our learning, but
not all infallibly true.” (i. p. 62, &c.) •
But Dr. Irons and Bishop Colenso, while differing
apparently so widely in their motives, yet have in reality .
the same object. The Bishop would force us back
directly upon the Intellect and the Moral Sense. And
Dr Irons would force us back upon them through the
intermedium of “ the Church,” whatever that may be.
For we need not entertain the uncharitable supposition,
that he would have us substitute the authority of the
Church for that of the Mind and the Conscience.
XVIII.
There is yet another authority to which it is necessary
to refer, inasmuch as it is the highest present expression
of the intellect and moral sense of the country applied
to the regulation of human life in its secular relations.
We have seep that, so far as following Christ and his
precepts are concerned, there are many respects in
�and Modern Education.
89
which both the Church and the world are palpably
anti-Christian. The world rejects communism, celibacy,
and contempt of knowledge; and both Church and
world set at nought the most positive injunctions of
Christ and of the Bible, as in taking medicine and in
praying in Church. The practice of our Courts of
Law is equally in opposition to the. popular doctrine of
an infallible Bible. Yet, with curious confusion, the
popular mind still endeavours to concur with both;
and judges still have the audacity to assert that the law .
of the land is founded on the Bible.
I will give an example or two.
You will remember the passages I quoted (p. 44.) in
reprobation of the medical profession, and of those who,
in illness, “ Seek not to the Lord, but to the physicians.”
Well, we have among us a small sect calling itself after
a Bible-phrase, “ The Peculiar People.” These hold
that prayer is the only allowable resource for Christians
in tijne of sickness. They do not refuse to cure them
selves of hunger by food, of fatigue by rest, or to pick
themselves up when they fall. They have no consistent
theory or uniform practice respecting the relation of
means to ends. But because a verse in one of the
Epistles enjoins the calling in of the elders to pray over
the sick, and declares that “the prayer of faith shall
save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;” (Jam.
v. 14.) they prefer to die sooner than call in a doctor, or
take any medicine. Had the Apocrypha been thought
fit by our Church to be included in the Canon, this sect
would have had no existence, for the Book of Ecclesiasticus contains several warm commendations of medicine
and medical men : saying, “ Honour the physician. . . .
for the Lord hath created him............... the Lord hath
�90
'Jewish Literature
created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise
will not abhor them.” (xxxviii. i. 1-15, &c.)
A short time ago, however, the neighbours of the
people who are so very “ peculiar” as to show their faith
in the New Testament by their works, and to risk their
lives on the strength of a vote in an ecclesiastical council,
(that rejecting the Apocrypha,) were scandalised by
observing that they had allowed a child to die without
taking any human means to save it. An appearance in
the police-court followed, when the leaders of the sect
attempted to justify their conduct by an. appeal to the
Scriptures. But so diametrically opposed is the Spirit of
our Law to that of the Sacred Books upon which our
Law-Established Church is founded, that the magistrate,
though he made allowance for the offenders on the ground
of gross ignorance, flatly refused to receive their plea, and
warned them that on a repetition of the offence, nothing
would save them from being committed for trial on a
charge of manslaughter. And his conduct received the
approbation of a country calling itself Christian!
The other instance is that of the late case of “ Lyon
versus Home.” This was an action for restitution of’
money obtained under false pretences; and of course in
an action of this nature the one thing to be proved is
that the pretences under which the money was obtained,
were false.
The defendant Home is one of a sect of persons who
claim to hold intercourse with the spirits of the dead.
The prosecutor Lyon is, (or was,) a believer in thedoctrines of that sect, and in the defendant Home as one
of its chief apostles. She is, (or was,) also a wealthy
widow; and under the supposed injunctions of her
departed husband, as made known to her through the-
�and Modern Education.
91
mediumship of Home, she made over to Home a large
portion of her property, I believe some <£60,000, but
the amount, however material elsewhere, is not material
to our argument.
You will bear in mind that what I am about to relate
occurred in a country whose laws maintain, at an enormous
expense to its people, a Church called Christian, whose
Sacred Books,—which are accepted by the whole nation
officially as divinely inspired, and by the bulk of the
nation individually as infallibly true,—repeatedly and
unmistakeably affirm the leading doctrines of the sect to
which the parties in this case belonged; namely, that
intercourse is possible and frequent between the living
and the spiritual world.
To quote some of the numerous passages involving this
belief, there is the well-known story of the witch of
Endor, in which the spirit of Samuel is represented as
appearing to the witch, and delivering a discourse for the
benefit of king Saul. (1. Sam. xxxvii.) There is the
statement that at the crucifixion of Jesus, many of “ the
Saints which slept arose. . . . and appeared unto many.”
(Matt, xxvii. 52-53.) There is the story of the “Trans
figuration,” in which Moses and Elias, dead for hundreds
of years, appeared to the disciples; (xvii. &c.) the con
version of Paul, in which Jesus himself, sometime dead,
addressed Paul in an audible voice from heaven, (in the
words of a Greek Play ;*) (Acts ix. 4-6.) and the
summoning back of the spirit of Lazarus to his body.
(John xi. 25-43, &c.) There is the parable of the rich
man in torment conversing with the spirit of Abraham
in bliss, begging, with curious confusion between spirit
and matter, that the spirit of Lazarus might be permitted
* The Bacchae of Euripides.
�92
Jewish Literature
to “ dip the tip of his finger in water ” and cool the rich
man’s tongue : or, in case the alleviation of suffering
were not among the functions of the blessed, that the
spirit of Lazarus might be sent back to earth to convert
the five living brethren of the rich man; which last
request-was refused, not as the first was on the ground of
its impossibility, but as superfluous and useless. (Luke
xvi. 22, &c.). We read, too, of guardian angels, (Matt,
iv. 4.) and “ministering spirits;" (Heb. i. 14.) and of
a whole apparatus of intermediate intelligences existing
between God and man. In the Acts we find certain
pious Pharisees exclaiming of Paul, “ if an angel or
spirit hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” ♦
(xxiii. 9.) John tells us to “ believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits whether they be of God.” (1 John iv. 1.)
Job, in thrilling language, describes a spirit as passing
before his face and pausing to speak to him. (iv. 15, &c.)
The practice of necromancy is forbidden in Deuteronomy,
(xviii. 2.) its reality not being called in question; (though
how the Jews reconciled it with their denial of the after
life, does not appear.) The Gospels repeatedly refer to
cases of possession by spirits, without specifying their
nature or origin; and in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,
the fact of apparitions of the dead is regarded as being,
for the Bible, past a doubt.
S.uch, on this point, are the tenets of the book which
it is an article of faith with the very people whose law
was invoked in the case of “Lyon versus Home,” im
plicitly to believe. And yet, so far from any proof
being required of the falsity of the defendant’s pretences,
they were at once assumed to be an utter and monstrous
imposition; and the defence was laughed out of court,
in face of the contents of the very book upon which the
�and Modern Education.
93
witnesses in it had been sworn : the book upon which
our Religion is “ by law established
and for the sake
of inculcating which as infallible, we insist upon vitiating
or crippling our whole system of National Education !
To these illustrations of the growing divorce between
ancient credulity and modem Belief must be added that
of Witchcraft; concerning the belief in which John
Wesley said that “The Bible and Witchcraft must stand
or fall together.” While the anger excited among us by
the devout utterances of the Prussian king over his late
successes, may be ascribed in some degree to the fact
that we are learning to repudiate the old notions which,
recognising success as the test of merit, make Divine
Providence the arbiter in human quarrels ; and in some
degree to the consciousness of having ourselves been
such eminent practisers in the same pietistic line as to
make king William’s conduct look very much as if meant
for a caricature of our own.
Having paid some attention to the recent sittings of
the Church Assemblies in Edinburgh, I have been pleased
to observe symptoms of a growing respect for the authority
of the Intellect and the Conscience in regard to matters of
Eaith, north of the Tweed. I have read that one clergy
man declared his belief that the sacrifice of Christ was
an atonement of sufficient value to counterbalance the
misdeeds of Satan himself, and justify the Almighty in
pardoning the Arch-fiend; and that another “ elder ”
valued the character of the Deity so highly “that his hair
stood on end at the notion that God could ever be re
conciled to the devil.” I take it as a hopeful sign that
these two theologians should thus renounce all claim to
judge such questions by the old dogmatic standards, and
appeal instead to their own moral sense. They have only
�94
'Jewish Literature
to carry the process somewhat further to perceive that the
God who could create such a being as the devil at dll, or
who could require to be propitiated towards his own off
spring by such a sacrifice as that of Christ at dll, is no
God worthy of being acknowledged or revered by any
being possessed of a spark of intelligence or independence
of spirit.
Lord Chesterfield once wrote to a friend, “Both
Shaftesbury and I have been- dead for several years; but
we don’t wish the fact to be generally known.” In the
same way very much of the Bible has been dead for
some time. It still exists, but is outliving its influence
for evil; and there are many who fancy themselves in
terested in keeping the fact from being generally known.
Yet that it is no chimera which I am encountering,
has just been powerfully illustrated by a discussion in
the House of Lords * in relation to University Tests;
wherein it was declared, both by Lord Houghton and by
the Marquis of Salisbury, that “ the immense majority
of the people of this country adhere to the authority and
teaching of the Bible; their reverence for it being so
absolute that any person who avows hostility to its
doctrines is disabled, not only from holding any office
connected with moral and religious teaching, but almost
from any political office. And that no one can appear at
the hustings with any chance of success, and announce
that he does not accept the Bible.”
XIX.
Sir John Coleridge was right when he said that this
Bible question promised shortly to become the great
* (Debate of May 11th 1871.)
�and Modern Education.
95
religious question of the time. It is so; not for the
reason he then anticipated, hut because the Bible, or
rather the popular theory about the Bible, stops the way
to our advance in all that favours the redemption, or
constitutes the highest good, of a people.
By reason of this one impediment our whole system
of national education “ hangs fire; ” while our systems
of private education are neutralised or vitiated. It is
therefore for those who are under no obligation to refrain
from using their reasoning faculties; those who decline
allegiance to any dispensation which imposes a penalty
for putting forth a hand to .sustain and forward that
which they regard as the Ark of their country’s redemp
tion ; (1 Chron. xiii. 9, &c.) those who believe that it is
only through man working together freely and intelli
gently with man towards the highest moral ends, that
real good is to be done;—it is for these, I say, to grapple
with the difficulty, and if need be, to take the place of
those who have hitherto been our teachers. If we are
no longer to regard the Bible as a Fetich, to be adored,
but not comprehended; if wfe are not to adopt as an
article of Faith the suggestion of the flippant Frenchman,
that the God of the Jewish Scriptures and of our own
advanced intelligence and moral sense, is in reality one
and the self-same Being ;■—that he was once as bad as
the Jews made him out to be, but has improved with
age and experience, (a suggestion I have lately heard
seriously propounded by a clergyman in despair at the diffi
culties he found in the Bible)—then the solution which
has now been proposed must be accepted by us: other
wise the intellect and the conscience must be rejected
altogether as illusory and inventions of the devil; and
some other criterion, and one which discards both
�96
yewish Literature
intellect and conscience, must be sought for to regulate
our judgment.
For my part, I think better of my countrymen than
to believe that when once the truth is put plainly before
them, they will long halt between the two opinions. I
believe that when once the alternative is shown to them
to lie between gross superstition and a rational religious
ness,—they will no longer endure that their faith be only
definable as believing what they know to be untrue; but will
insist on their children being trained to subject all
things to the test of a cultivated intelligence and moral
sense. Thus trained, they will peruse the Bible, no
longer as slaves, but in a spirit of intelligent appreciation,
sifting out the germs of truth for themselves, and not
scoffing at or rejecting the whole on account of the husks.
From henceforth the teacher in the schools of the
nation must never forget that it is the purpose of his
schoolroom to be the training-ground, not of any party or
sect, but whereon to develop the faculties which later in
life are to determine the nature of individual belief. To
impart a bias, or to anticipate or prevent the formation
of genuine, honest opinion, by the early instilment of
dogma, is at once to stultify every principle of sound
education, inasmuch as it is to repress the intellect and
contravene the moral sense. Whatever the views which
may be adopted in mature age by those who have been
educated under the system I am advocating, there will
be no cause to fear that they will be the' worse for being'
founded in an intelligence and moral sense which have
been thus rigidly trained in youth.
Shall it be said of our solution as was said by one
upon first beholding the sea, “ Is this the mighty ocean, •
�and Modern Education.
97
is this all ? ”
“ Yes,” we may confidently reply, in
respect to our reliance upon the intellect and the con
science developed by rational education, “ these are all.”
At first, indeed, you see from the margin but a small part
of them. But only trust yourself to them: launch boldly
out upon them: sail where you will with them, and they
will bear you safely through the whole universe of
being.”
At present, for us in England, the issue lies with our
School-boards. If their members are themselves ignorant
of the simple law of human development in religious
ideas, or are unworthily complacent to the ignorance and
superstition of their constituents, generations may pass
before the standard of education and religion is brought
up to the standard of modern thought and knowledge.
Generations may pass and the Bible will still be found
the subject of hopeless contention, and source of fatal
disunion and weakness. And generations long here
after will find the country sunk deeper and deeper in
ignorance and barbarism; while the nations which have
sprung from our race, and speak our language, will have
passed so far ahead of us that they can only look back
upon “ poor England” with pity and contempt as an effete
and imbecile land, “ whose prophets prophesied falsely,
whose priests bore rule by their means, and whose people
loved to have it so.”
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
Jewish literature and modern education, or: the use and misuse of the Bible in the schoolroom, being two lectures delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, March 26th and April 2d 1871
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 97, [1, 3] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end.
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
G3435
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Judaism
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 (Jewish literature and modern education, or: the use and misuse of the Bible in the schoolroom, being two lectures delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, March 26th and April 2d 1871), 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
Judaism
Religious Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/298114b791a8369734ccb323b1601dfe.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=g0AM0oiVT5TVQT2gHdtDH2ok8jhQDdjPRePqJ2EimZaYHqAQptAjEJ5RhidAEViZur3i3MNwawwcOjxOLJYRVOGfNN-uO3bHYc1cR4ji69SE4mJ7kXgL8MfkY4rrWzUlluee-CkxRz3YcvUrI7RSizq0az8Sr4kxfyDmrdelST9C-KSailjjE8UeC8HzuM6fpoPggGPcJHIEYnXA2beU-x0dMVblCnNnbCqr5ZwFED3fOIJuWSvWVOuSzlvqsn5EE%7E-pkhMUdA3-aHDQqPpin7idnREYN5KD-WzP%7EatZwZMh9xd5BRIVJDBKELLOHPGph6unvZB%7EG9r5TC3SVJ-3hw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
111d5bff2e026c54585bf6588645f3be
PDF Text
Text
CT
4^
THE
((
CONFOUNDED” CONVERT.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Ninepence.
'
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
J, HAYMARKET, W.
�THE
“CONFOUNDED” CONVERT.
LAMENTABLE want of tact ordinarily disfi
gures the conduct of those whose friends or
relatives exhibit tendencies Rome-wards. A very
limited knowledge of human nature is enough to
convince us that, neither in early childhood nor in
after life, is opposition of much avail. Even when
we are under the influence of a mere whim, re
monstrance, however well meant, generally increases
our craving for the coveted object, and engenders
malevolent feelings towards our opponents.
When I was a child my father took me, when long
evenings were setting in, to buy a paint-box in a
large repository. While he was selecting one, my
eyes had fallen upon a large, clumsy, wooden horse,
to which I took a violent fancy, and implored my
father to buy me that instead of the paint-box. He
did not choose a moment so inappropriate for preach
ing a sermon, but instantly bought the horse and
helped me to draw it home. The wheels were too
small and too slight, so the horse fell down several
times. Not a disparaging word did my father utter;
he picked it up, and said he would make some nice,
new wheels.
In two or three days the whim was over; I was
tired of my horse, and wanted a paint-box. With a
lamentable absence of generosity, I asked my father
why he had not bought the paint-box. “ Because,”
A
�4
The “Confounded” Convert.
said he, “ you had set your mind upon a horse, and
though I knew you would get tired of it, I wished
you to choose for yourself.” “ But why did not you
tell me I should get tired of it ?” persisted I. “Be
cause,” said he, “your head was too full of the
horse to listen to reason. You would have disliked
the paint-box just then ; you would have thought me
unkind; besides, I do not want you to use my eyes,
I want you to learn to act for yourself; if you think
you have made a bad choice I am very glad of it,
and we will see about the paint-box at once.” Older
folks take fancies to real horses, and can papa restrain
them ?
People are never so much in earnest as when their
religious feelings are aroused, and all hostile measures
are worse than useless. Those who begin to doubt
are in a fair way; they have then begun to think,
and the more they think upon religious matters, the
more they will doubt. People retain their old creeds
because they rarely think them out. “ Think wrongly
if you please,” says Lessing, “but think for your
self.” Prom the moment a man begins to think, the
horizon clears, and though he may be destined to
wander in a maze of dogmas for years, his ultimate
conclusions will, if he be worth anything and con
tinue to think,, land him as far away from Rome as
his most zealous friends could wish.
Regret, if you will, the tediousness of the process,
but do not retard it by coarse ridicule and impolitic
opposition. Assist him, on the contrary, to dive
deeply into the heart of Rome. Depend upon it, if
once he get into it, he is sure to get out of it, and
though he may travel thither by slow and easy
stages, he will assuredly return by express.
Many, perhaps most, born Catholics and super
ficial converts stagnate in the Pontine marshes merely
because they give themselves no trouble. With one
decade of the Rosary, and one chapter of the Imita
�The “Confounded” Convert.
5
tion daily, one Mass weekly, and three confessions
and communions yearly, a person may go dithering
on in respectable orthodoxy, tormenting neither him
self nor his neighbours with his spiritual concerns.
But the zeal of an earnest, conscientious, thoughtful
convert should never be suffered to flag; that is to
say, if those to whom he is near and dear are anxious
to see him emancipated from his fetters. He should
not be thwarted but seconded, not coarsely and scorn
fully, but with great tact and discretion. It will be
of the utmost service to him to go daily to Mass, to
confess at least once a week, to communicate very
frequently, to say five Mysteries of the Rosary and
the Little Office every evening, to try to gain every
Indulgence offered, to wear the five Scapulars, the
miraculous medal and an Agnus Dei, and to become
a tertiary of one of the religious orders in “ the world.”
If very enthusiastic he should procure the Little
Office, extracted from the works of St. Bonaventura,
in which the Psalms of David and the Te Deum are
adapted to Mary—“ 0 come let us sing unto our
Lady,” “Holy, Holy, Holy, Mary Mother of God.”
This Office is said daily by the priests of the Pious
Society of the Missions, and may be had gratis at the
Italian Church.
He should often serve at Benediction, and thus
become conversant with candle ends and decoration
dodges. He should be encouraged to walk in reli
gious processions after a tottering doll with a lighted
candle in his hand, singing the Litany of our Lady.
His reading should not be confined to the Lamp, and
other trashy serials; he should make himself tho
roughly acquainted with S. Thomas Aquinas, Bossuet,
Liguori, &c. Por a while it would do him immense
good to confine himself exclusively to the Lives of
the Saints, selecting those compiled by the Fathers
of the Oratory, and beginning with Saint Rose of
Lima, which is short and shocking.
�6
The “Confounded” Convert.
Last, but not least, be should become intimately
acquainted with a great many priests, especially
foreign ones. He should consult them in the confes
sional upon cases of conscience,, knotty points, &c.,
and see them at the dinner-table over their wine.
Let all this be done zealously and uninterruptedly for
a period varying from seven to twenty years—few
cases progress more rapidly—and your convert if
worth anything will not disappoint you. But you
must give him time. Rome was not built in a day,
and she will not be destroyed in a day. Innumerable
occult influences, wholly unsuspected by lookers-on,
have frequently influenced during a period of many
months those contemplating Rome, and having finally
braved public opinion, and taken the decisive step, is
it at all likely that they will be laughed out of such
convictions by some indignant Protestant, who in all
probability has never thought about his own creed,
and would be much embarrassed to give an answer
to the question “ How do you know the Protestants
are right ? ” Everybody is aware that a large pro
portion of converts quietly leave the Church of Rome ;
some of them return to the sect they quitted, but
most of them become free-thinkers.
Only a few months ago I heard a priest, whose
success in winning Anglicans to Rome is well-known,
give an address to a religious community upon the
occasion of his receiving a convert into the church.
He said, “ the wonderful religious movement through
out the length and breadth of the metropolis, hopeful
and encouraging though it seems, fills me with appre
hension. It is one thing to receive the faith and
another to retain it. Grave doubts beset me when I
review my converts, and I therefore earnestly implore
you to pray that they may obtain the grace of per
severance.”
, My circle of acquaintances is by no means exten
sive, and yet I have seen ten of them abandon the
�The “Confounded” Convert.
7
Church of Rome. Of these ten, seven were converts.
The remaining three were an Italian lady, an Italian
gentleman, and a young Spaniard. I know them
intimately; they are all free-thinkers, though the
men were educated in Catholic colleges abroad. Let
us now see how Rome looks to thoughtful converts,
when, having recovered from the agitation ordinarily
inseparable from a step so important, and having
become reconciled to the novelty of their position,
they can calmly glance around them.
Though it is mainly my own experience that I am
about to submit to the reader, I am, I believe, justified
in constituting myself the mouth-piece of others from
whom I am now severed by death or distance, but
with whom I have frequently discussed those tenets,
practices, and tendencies, which we all ultimately re
pudiated entirely. The remainder of this pamphlet
will be unsatisfactory owing to its fragmentary
character. I have endeavoured to recall the various
things that shocked and startled me, as one by one
they came before me, until the Papal Infallibility
proved the drop too much and drove me without the
pale. Had I heard Mgr. Berteaud, Bishop of Tulle,
preach in Paris three years ago, I should have had a
clearer idea of infallibility, for he contends that “ St.
Peter did not need to be taught by Christ, as he was
in confidential relations with the Father independently
of the Son, and that the like privilege extends to his
successors; thus Father and Pope may have secrets
in which Christ does not participate, so that it is
safer to go to the Pope than to Christ, for when the
Pope speaks it is more than Christ—it is God the
Father Himself ” ! Thus spoke the learned Bishop
in the Church of St. Eustache.
From first to last I was astonished, disconcerted,
and scandalized at the irreverent rapidity with which
priests allow themselves to address God in the solemn
sacrifice of the mass. Not one priest, now and then,
�8
The a Confounded ” Convert.
but all the priests I knew habitually gabbled over
their mass with such unseemly haste, that I, though
my own utterance is rapid to a fault, soon abandoned
all idea of keeping up with them. From the supposed
divinity of the reputed author of the Lord’s Prayer
and from its extreme brevity, one would suppose that
something like reverence would accompany its recital,
yet that is the very prayer the priests gabble through
in a manner I found to be physically impossible, and
which led me to surmise that labial as well as 11 mental
reservations ” were sanctioned by Rome.
Nothing can exceed the ludicrous manner in which
the Rosary and Angelus are scrambled through in
public; it must be heard to be believed—priests and
people are animated apparently by but one object, to
get it over as fast as possible. Let any one go into
a Catholic church while this devotion is going on and
say whether or no I exaggerate. Father Faber
thought it “ advisable to pray at railroad speed, that
the prayer might be over before the devil had time to
tamper with it ” ! I have asked priests how it is that
they encourage such perfunctory devotion by setting
so bad an example. I have been told “ God looks to
the heart, and as our thoughts always travel much
quicker than our words, it cannot matter how fast we
move our lips.” Rome is never at a loss for an
answer ! Other priests have, however, agreed with
me and admitted that it would be far better to have
ten “ Hail Marys ” said with devotion, than fifty so
ludicrously gabbled. The Stations of the Cross gene
rally performed in all the churches upon Friday
evenings in Lent, ought from its nature to be one of
the most impressive devotions ; but let those anxious
to pay their tribute of sorrow and sympathy to their
suffering Master avoid those fourteen stations where
all their devotions will be put to flight by the fourteen
“ Our Fathers,” “ Hail Marys,” and “ Glory be to
the Fathers,” hurried through with the same busi
�9
The “Confounded” Convert.
ness-like rapidity which mars the mass, the Rosary,
and indeed all the vocal prayers at which I have had
the misfortune to be present.
Another great stumbling-block to converts, is the
filth of the sanctified. The unpretending secular priest
says his mass with clean hands; but those conspi
cuous for piety, like the Capuchin Fathers and Monks
of Mount Carmel, say their mass with very dirty
hands and black nails. They go through the cere
mony of dipping the tips of their fingers into cold
water at what is ironically called the “ Lavabo,” but hot
water, soap, flannel, and a nail-brush would be a more
appropriate Lavabo for one about to handle his Crea
tor. . “ In the hands of the priest,” says S. Augustine,
‘‘ as in the virginal womb of Mary, the word becomes
incarnate.” “ In the hands of the priest,” says Bossuet, “ a physical action takes place as real as that by
which the Saviour’s body was formed the first time.”
But very holy priests do not think it at all necessary
to have clean hands; a clean heart is all they crave
and in the Church of Rome outward and visible filth
is not unfrequently viewed as a symptom of inward
and spiritual grace; but it takes converts a Iong time to
associate a lively faith in the Real Presence with very
dirty fingers, and many ardent Catholics, to whom I
have often mentioned my own notions on this point,
have honestly admitted that the negligence of very
holy priests in this particular has impressed them
very unfavourably; the only excuse that can be made
for them is, that they are “ righteous over njuch.”
Those who leave the Church of England on account
of the discord which there prevails, are wofully dis
appointed as they gradually discover that in joining
the Church of Rome they have not come to an “ in
numerable company of angels.”
Bitterness of feeling which, strange to say, the
priests, take no pains to conceal, is found among
Catholic orders as among Protestant sects. The
B
�IO
The ^Confounded" Convert.
secular priests are jealous of the regulars, who manage
to get hold of more consciences, and, consequently, of
more money.
An excellent secular priest once said to me, “ When
I get tired of real hard work I shall go into a monas
tery ; those monks have a fine time of it; never ex
posed to the inclemency of the weather, and always
taken care of when they are ill. I have no one to
look after me. Whoever wants an easy life, let him
be a monk, say I, and whoever wants to get rich, let
him take a vow of poverty I” An excellent regular
priest once said to me, “ What should a secular priest
know of the inner life ? Always in contact with the
‘ world,’ what should he know of union with God, and
how can he guide a soul through the obscure night of
mental prayer ? I have never been able to compre
hend the vocation of a secular priest.” Another em
phatically expressed his doubts as to whether Mon
signor Capel would be saved ; and, considering that
several monsignors have “come out from among
them,” those doubts were justifiable ! Let those who
wish to convince themselves of the malevolence exist
ing between the regulars and the seculars, take up
their quarters in Kensington and make their obser
vations.
“ How is it you do not come to hear me preach on
Tuesdays?” said a Kensington priest to me. “We
attend the Carmelite church,” said I, “and prefer it
to any other.” “I am quite at a loss to understand
what in the world people find so attractive in that
church, and in those uneducated foreign monks,” ob
served he ; “ what is the use of them ? what do they
do all day ?” The monks are not allowed to adminis
ter the last sacraments without the permission of the
head-priest at the Pro-Cathedral, who refuses to grant
it. Once this refusal went forth under circumstances
that placed his conduct in a very unamiable light.
An elderly French gentlewoman came over during
�The “Confounded” Convert.
n
the war, and fell ill in her rooms, just opposite the
Carmelite church. The French monks visited her
frequently, and showed her every attention; but, as
her end approached, it was explained to her that she
would be obliged to send for an Englishman from the
Pro-Cathedral. She besought the monk to ask per
mission to attend her until the end; but he, having
been frequently refused, declined. A friend of mine,
who had devoted much time and money to the in
terests of the Pro-Cathedral priests, offered to present
the old lady’s petition in person and plead her cause
herself. She was unsuccessful. The French monk
was not allowed to give the last sacraments to his
countrywoman who was dying just opposite to him,
so she was anointed by an Englishman from the
parish church. Not converts only, but old Catholics,
are shocked at the envy, hatred, malice, and all un
charitableness so artlessly exhibited by their spiritual
pastors and masters. The priests I knew had a very
contemptuous opinion of the Jesuits and their tactics;
they used their private judgment considerably while
discussing their demerits, and were of opinion that
the members of the Society of Jesus were more alive
to their own interest than to that of their Master !
However, it takes converts a long while to digest
the various inconsistencies and disappointments that
come before them. None so blind as those who will not
see. Converts are in that position ; they see things
as they ought to be—not as they are. But give them
time, lend yourself to their delusions, go with them
to church now and then, read the same books, second
the setting-up of a candle before an image of St.
Joseph, treat their favourite priests hospitably, and
you will have your reward.
In my visits to the sick I was occasionally asked
for an Agnus Dei. I had never seen one. I went to
buy some and found they were not to be purchased, but
that I might possibly get one from a priest. I men
�12
The “Confounded ” Convert.
tioned the matter to an amiable old lady, who at once
gave me what she called a “ very perfect ” one, which
some devout priest had brought from Rome. It was
enclosed in a tiny leather bag, neatly stitched with silk.
Previous to giving it away, I thought I would have
a look at it, so I ripped it open and saw some cotton
wool. Wool was more suggestive of a lamb, but they
had told me there was wax in the bag, and, as this
was a “ very perfect ” Agnus Dei, I expected to find
wax. I saw the wool but not the wax; however, a
priest had told me not to trust the evidence of my
senses, so I replaced the wool, stitched up the bag
and gave it away; for after all a fraction of wax
might have been there to which the Papal blessing
might have been attached, and which might prove in
valuable in a thunder-storm. In religion we must
walk by faith and not by sight. It was not more
extraordinary that an atom of wax, invisible to the
naked eye, should preserve from lightning than that
a crumb of the host should contain the entire Christ 1
Some time afterwards, a priest for whom I have a
sincere regard, asked me to do him a great favour.
He wanted me to translate a little book upon the
Agnus Dei from the Prench. I did so, and much
regret that I kept no extracts from a work to which
I owe many a hearty laugh. An Agnus Dei was
there said to be well-nigh omnipotent, curing every
species of malady, and averting all peril on land and
water. With an Agnus Dei worn with faith, all
human interference was rendered unnecessary, and
even a tiny fraction of one (for an entire one is rarely
seen) had produced results most marvellous. In
justice to the priest I must add that he was heartily
ashamed of that little book, and called to express his
regret that I had wasted my time over it. Half of it
had been cut out by the authorities to whom he sub
mitted it, while he said he should have cut out the
whole of it I
�The “Confounded” Convert.
i3
Everybody is aware that nothing is so hostile to the
interests of Rome as private judgment, and that to
the suppression of it she owes that appearance of
unity so attractive to converts. But let the con
verts dive deeply and they will come to such a rich
vein of confusion among the priests, to whose judg
ment they are so ready to submit, that at last they
will be forced to lay aside their ecclesiastical spectacles
and scrutinise this confusion with the naked eye.
Fervent converts of either sex are generally willing
enough to give up their private judgment, at least for
a while.
Many of them have long been tossed about upon
the waves of controversy, and, having been driven
from pillar to post, il seeking rest and finding none,”
are quite delighted to lie at anchor in the hospitable
harbour of the Church of Rome; but the moment
they put to sea again, as the enterprising are sure to
do, they will find a most uneven surface, and upon
the rocks beneath the greater number will certainly
shipwreck. Once while waiting to see a friend, I saw
a book upon “Frequent Communion,” by the Abbe
Favre. It interested me and I borrowed it. In it
were these words : “If you permit the sacred host to
dissolve in the mouth you do not communicate,
because the Eucharist does not nourish or produce its
effects but in the manner of food by descending into
the chest.” Wondering what, under such highly
problematical circumstances became of Jesus Christ,
I was much struck by these lines and determined to
ventilate the matter. I read the extract to a lady of
almost masculine intellect, who, though she had been
brought up a Catholic, has recently left the Church.
She said she always endeavoured to keep her tongue
motionless after communion, and was never conscious
of the act of deglutition. “Then,” said I, “it is
quite clear that you have never communicated.”
When next I went to confession I asked the priest
�The “Confounded” Convert.
if these things were so. “ I never heard of such a
thing in my life,” said he, with genuine amazement;
but when I gave my authority, and showed him the
extract, he said he would make inquiry. Meantime,
my mother, who was as deeply interested in these
matters as myself, determined to ask her learned
Jesuit confessor the same question. On the following
Saturday we each went to confession, and then com
pared notes. My secular priest said, “ I have made
inquiries about that matter and find it is true; you
do not communicate ; you must not let the Host
lose its consistency, but swallow it entire.” My
mother’s Jesuit confessor said, “ That’s all bosh, my
dear child ! ’ No doubt he was right. No doubt
that answer would suit most of the questions asked
in the confessional, and put an effectual end to all
scruples of conscience; but what about the conver
who is so ready to give up his own judgment and
submit to another ?
People cannot run over to the Vatican for an in
fallible answer. One priest says that they have not
received Jesus Christ, another says they have, and
who is to decide ?
Before becoming a Catholic I had mesmerised many
people and performed various cures. My first con
fessor was a Jesuit, who, being less ignorant of
mesmerism and its effects than are priests generally,
raised no objection to my continuing to employ it as
a curative agent. But he went abroad, and I sought
another priest, who not only seemed horrified that I
had ever had anything to do with mesmerism, but
insisted upon my giving it up. I maintained that,
as a Jesuit father had sanctioned it, it was impossible
the Church could condemn it. My words made an
impression. He promised to make particular inquiry
concerning the decision of the Church on the subject.
He did so, and assured me that under no circum
stances could a practice of a nature so questionable
�The “Confounded” Convert.
15
be tolerated, and he once more requested me to
abandon it.
Some months later, an Italian priest of gentle
birth and considerable culture, came to pass his
vacation in London. He was introduced to us, and
became our constant visitor. He was slowly regain
ing his strength after a lingering attack of typhoid
fever, and one day asked me if I could direct him to
a respectable mesmerist, as he had but little faith in
drugs ! Laughing in my sleeve, I sent him to Mons.
Adolphe Didier, who mesmerised him three times a
week until he returned to Italy considerably bene
fited. This most amiable and charitable priest as
sured me that the English clergy dawdle sadly over
mass, and that in Italy they get over it in twenty
minutes. On Sunday he chose the ten o’clock mass
because it was the shortest, but invariably com
plained, with amusing frankness, of its length. He
did not give us an opportunity of seeing how fast he
could celebrate the solemn sacrifice, for he did not
say mass at all during his holidays, but, availing
himself of his opportunity, entered freely into the
amusements of the metropolis, frequenting, in par
ticular, the Canterbury Hall, where, having paid for
two seats, one for himself and the other for his hat,
he gave himself up to the enjoyment of . the comic
songs he heard, the music and words of one of
which he took to Italy to console himself with when
his holidays were over. I was subsequently thrown
into frequent contact with some monks from La
Trappe, temporarily absent from their monastery for
mercantile purposes, whose conduct, though they re
ceived Jesus Christ every day, and never went to
the Canterbury Hall, contrasted most unfavourably
with that of our Italian friend. I had an opportu
nity of observing those monks as, day after day,
they breakfasted upon rump-steak, eggs, claret,
and coffee. I heard the incessant chattering the
priest kept up, and examined the unusually deli
�i5
The “Confounded'1' Convert.
1
cate texture of his flannel vests. His temper was
under as little control as his tongue, and his conduct,
from first to last, exhibited a lamentable absence of
honourable feeling. It does not fall to the lot of
many to walk through the streets of London with a
Trappist monk to buy a frying-pan. The priest’s
companion was the cook of the community, and an
adept at frying. Wishing to put his talent to the
test, I requested him to fry some fish, &c. Having
obtained the priest’s permission, he of course assented,
but contended that he must have a different fry
ing-pan. He could not speak English, and I could
not understand what sort of a frying-pan he wanted,
so I offered to go with him to a shop to buy one.
The priest raised no objection, and promising not to
speak unnecessarily, we sallied forth. My impres
sion now is that the objection to the frying-pan
was a ruse on the part of the cook, for he could not
meet with one to suit him; but, as we were returning,
he suddenly showed me some paper money, and
asked me where he could get it changed. I took
him to a shop, and saw some sovereigns handed over
to him. “I do not wish Father Francis to know
anything about this,” said he. “All right,” said I,
“ the silence of La Trappe shall seal my lips ! ” I
should never have believed that a Trappist priest
would have allowed his young monk to take a walk
with a woman—but he did. I should never have
believed that a young monk, so fresh from his vows,
would have had any money unknown to his superior
—but he had. Still less should I have believed that
he would take me into his confidence, and get that
money changed through my instrumentality—but he
did. We knew for a certainty that those monks
were from La Trappe—we should never have guessed
it. The monk was as effectually hidden in the man
as was the Agnus Dei in that cotton wool 1 Their
affections may have been set upon “things above,”
�The ^Confounded” Convert.
17
but their conversation was decidedly “of the earthearthy,” and my ecclesiastical spectacles almost fell
off during my acquaintance with them. Father
Francis contradicted the report that Trappists dig
their own graves. He said the mortality was very
high in the Order, and, judging by appearances, was
in no hurry to rejoin his brethren who “die daily ! ”
Experiences such as mine were calculated to set a
convert thinking, and I did think very deeply—but
the end was not yet—I had not dug deeply enough.
The next thing that arrested my attention was
spirit-rapping. Those priests 1 knew viewed it as
an appalling sin. They assured me that it emanated
from the devil, and that the sign of the cross had
frequently put an abrupt termination to a seance at
which great things were expected. I did not contra
dict them. The priests my mother knew took a more
genial view of the matter, and volunteered to accom
pany her to a seance, so she wrote to a well-known
medium and appointed a meeting. Some of them
also were under the erroneous impression that in
their sacred presence no manifestations could take
place, and that a crucifix, breviary, or sign of the
cross could put a legion of devils to flight, but we
knew better, and it is well that all priests should know
that some of the most startling phenomena take place
in defiance of so-called holy people and holy objects.
It is in the presence of confirmed sceptics and mate
rialists that no results ensue; a fact so well known
that should a priest succeed by his mere presence in
preventing or interrupting any so-called manifesta
tions, one would be inclined to suspect that the
failure was due to infidelity on Ms part, or that the
supposed fraction of the true Cross in his crucifix
was not genuine !
An amusing instance of the folly of leaning upon
a so-called “superior” occurred in my own expe
rience. My confessor was abroad. I was passing
�The “Confounded” Convert.
through a mental phase of an embarrassing nature,
so, like a well-instructed Catholic, I determined to
“show myself to the priest.” Selecting one who
knew me well, I manifested myself unto him. He
admitted his inability to counsel me, but earnestly
recommended me to apply to the bishop of the dio
cese, Dr. Grant, who from his position as father of
the flock, and from his distinguished piety, was so
competent to give me good advice. I obeyed this
well-meaning but short-sighted priest, sought Dr.
Grant, and followed the whimsical counsel he gave.
How matters might have turned out had I used my
own judgment it is, of course, impossible to say ; but
worse they could not have gone than they did under
the episcopal guidance of that holy man.
A third, to whom long after I mentioned the matter,
expressed his amazement that any priest should have
sent me to a man so devoid of judgment as Dr. Grant,
while a fourth insinuated that he was more of a sneak
than a saint. Who shall decide when doctors disagree ?
Infallibility ought to be transferable ; the fallibility
of the poor priests causes sad havoc among the
faithful, who trust implicitly to the leadership of
those who to them are Popes, and to whom they are
taught to look up to as to God; for “ the voice of the
priest is the voice of God,” and each man’s con
fessor is to him a bright and shining light.
By this time I had had almost enough of “ spiritual
direction,” and whenever my thoughts reverted to
the matter, one Martin of blessed memory obtruded
himself into my meditations and detracted seriously
from the dignity of the whole subject. I was only a
convert1
Before and after my reception into the church I
had spoken often and openly with my Jesuit instructor
upon the subject of Mary.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were, I contended,
enough for any reasonable person, and Mary was an
�The (lConfounded” Convert.
19
excrescence. I told him I considered the Rosary a
most contemptible devotion, and that to hear how
agreeable such a string of “ Hail Marys ” was to
Christ’s mother, did not raise her in my estimation.
I told him I could neither use the prayers nor believe
the miracles in the “ Glories of Mary,” and that I
was glad that many staunch, old Catholics regretted
the circulation of such a collection of absurdities.
Jesuits, it is well known, are 11 all things to all men ; ”
their main object is to send people away pleased with
themselves and, above all, with their director; my
friend was one of the most acute but not one of the
most conciliating. He said there was no necessity
for me to use prayers or adopt practices towards
which I felt no attraction. The Rosary was not of
obligation—belief in the miracles was not binding
upon the faithful. The Litany of our Lady was cer
tainly sung at Benediction, but Benediction was not
of obligation, so that I was making a great fuss about
nothing. St. Alphonsus was an enthusiastic Nea
politan, and of course his fervent appeals to Mary
sounded like exaggerations when translated into
English and read by those who had not his love for
Mary—a lover would be excused, even commended,
for saying he adored his intended, and no one would
suspect him of idolatry. I was not to depreciate the
“ Glories of Mary; ” I was to admit that I did not
love Mary, and that St. Liguori did ; he hoped the
day would come when I should think differently,
&c. He said, that as on earth we had father and
mother, so in heaven the feminine element was not
wanting, and that Mary was our heavenly mother.
I remarked that, as the Holy Ghost was feminine,
Mary was not wanted on account of her sex. I was
studying Hebrew with a Jew, who took an early
opportunity of telling me that in Hebrew that person
of the Christian Trinity is feminine, as well as the
bird Jonah, the dove, by which that person is sym
�20
The ’‘’’Confounded’' Convert.
11
bolised. He then, to humble me, assured me that one
“ Hail Mary ” offered with childlike faith is more
pleasing to God than learned disquisitions ; that I had
better pray for simplicity and study the penny cate
chism ; that he knew a poor milk-woman who, though
she had no education, had more “ inward light ” than
many who thought themselves to be somewhat, &c.
With similar platitudes confessors are in the habit of
silencing their troublesome penitents. I told a friend
of mine—not a convert—about that poor milk-woman.
To my surprise she burst out laughing. “ Why,”
said she, “ my confessor has a pious milk-woman in
tow! I bought ‘ Watts’s Logic’ the other day, and
was silly enough to tell him how much I liked it.
He said I must never look into it again, that humility
and not philosophy was expected of me, and that he
knew a poor milk-woman who had more knowledge
of God’s ways than his most learned penitents.” We
agreed that milk-women should have their confes
sionals where babes in theology might imbibe the
pure milk of the Word until able to digest 'Watts’s
Logic ’ and the Holy Ghost. The function of the
Holy Ghost is not easy to understand, for though
Mary was his spouse, Christ was not his son. Christ
was the Son of God the Father who was not the
Spouse of Mary. The Holy Ghost, we are told, united
God the Father to His daughter Mary, and the Incar
nation was the result! I could not understand this
“ mystery,” but I was not a milk-woman !
However, Mary herself seemed less complicated
than her relations, and, anxious to do as others did, and
to lose no grace through my own negligence, I com
menced invoking her.
I soon became conscious that the attitude of my
mind seemed precisely the same whether I was addres
sing God, Mary, or Joseph, and that therefore there
must be something wrong in myself or the system.
I returned to the charge with the Jesuit. He admitted
�The “ Confounded” Convert.
21
the difficulty, but said that11 folks did manage to over
come it, that in religion everything depended upon
the will. We must make our intention before we begin
to pray. Old Catholics felt the distinction between
dulia and latria, and so should I, by-and-by.” I read a
work upon the subject, and found that the Saints do
not hear the prayers made to them. God hears them
and tells them that certain people are praying; then
the Saints begin to pray and God begins to listen, so
that, after all, it is really to God that people are pray
ing ! The method was too complicated for me, though
I was considered lamentably deficient in simplicity.
Rome specially recommends the practice of medita
tion, and I did meditate at considerable length. Would
that others would devote themselves to so wholesome
a practice. I have said I went among the poor. To
them I feel sure Mary is Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. I have spoken to priests who have travelled
in Italy and in Ireland; they have assured me that
the lower orders in both countries are far more
devout to the Saints than the upper classes here are
to the Trinity. I visited a Catholic servant girl who
was in St. Mary’s Hospital, about to undergo a
dangerous operation. I did not know at that time
that the Mother was more loved than the Son, so
began speaking to her about Jesus. “ I put all my
trust in Mary,” said she; “I get all I want from
Mary; I shall squeeze my image of Mary tight in my
hand all through the operation ; I am sure- she will
bring me through.” When naming this to a priest
who was dining with us, he assured me that he had
recently been attending a dying Irishwoman, and
could not induce her to say the holy name. There is
an indulgence for saying “ Jesus ” at the time of
death, but she would say nothing but Mary I An
ardent and most charitable Roman Catholic friend
once called upon me and implored me to pray for a
poor woman who was dying in the workhouse. She
�22
The “Confounded” Convert.
had been a fervent Catholic, and particularly devout
to St. Joseph, but now, said my friend, “ she talks
about 1 Jesus only ’ and all that Protestant cant, so I
have taken her a picture of St. Joseph, but I am most
anxious about her, for she has actually refused to see
a priest, and it is very shocking.”
This woman interested me deeply. I was anxious
to see her and ask why she had cast off Joseph and the
priest just when others seem most in need of them ;
so I hastened to the workhouse, but was too late.
The woman had expired, “ trusting to Jesus” to the
last, and seeking no additional aid from Joseph or the
priest. My friend was much grieved, but I was far
more concerned upon her account, and sympathised
more with the poor woman who had transferred her
affections from Joseph to Jesus. I have been thrown
into contact with a great number of Catholics who
had the liveliest faith in Joseph, and who were con
stantly making u Novenas” to him, burning a lamp in
his honour, and setting a candle up in the church be
fore his statue. Without one exception, I can say
that signal failure was the result of all these petitions
and practices—failure in one instance so complete
that I can never recall it without a smile. Joseph is
not an impartial saint; he has his favourites. S.
Teresa was one ; perhaps the poor woman in the
workhouse was not one.
I have already commented upon the marvellous
rapidity with which priests run up the hill of Calvary
to crucify Christ afresh in the unbloody sacrifice of
the mass, but I had yet to learn in what extraordinary
places they sometimes keep their Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ.
An intelligent young lady, a friend of mine, went
to America as a governess. When out of a situation
she was engaged by a priest for a few months as
house-keeper. She was only twenty-four. One even
ing, while she was quietly mending his cope, he
�The “Confounded" Convert.
23
entered the room and opened a cupboard, in which,
among other articles, his boots and shoes were kept.
“ Tour thickest boots are not there,” said my friend.
“ I do not want them,” said he; “I have only come
for the blessed sacrament. I am going to a sick call,
and shall not be in till late.” My young friend had
no idea Jesus Christ was in the boot-cupboard, but
there he was. She was not fortunate in her eccle
siastical acquaintances ; she had encountered some in
Austria whose mode of life afforded her copious matter
for meditation, and now she was not less amazed to
be engaged as housekeeper to a priest who said office
in true American fashion with his feet on the hobs
and kept the blessed sacrament in his boot-cupboard.
When her letter arrived containing this singular
information, we had with us an Irish lady, a very
dear friend. I read the letter to her. She said, “If
you were to see the Irish priests and the places in
which they keep the blessed sacrament, you would
wonder the people have a morsel of faith left. What
would you think of a priest who kept it in his waist
coat-pocket during a sailing excursion, and put it in
the drawer with his fishing-tackle when he got home ?
Ah, you English have no idea of the faith of the Irish!
you could never hold out!” “But,” said I, “ do you
think the priests have as much faith as the people F”
“Well, then,” said she (she was a merry girl from
Sligo), “ what they have faith in is a glass of good
whisky and a chat upon politics ; my brother-in-law
could never get them out of his house as long as a
drop of whisky was left in the bottle ! There is no
merit, at all at all, in the faith of you English ; you
should see an Irish missioner over boiled leg of mutton,
whisky and politics, and then put your faith to the
proof by going to confession to him the next morning,
while two or three dogs are quarrelling close to the
confessional. ¥ou do not know what faith is, in
England!”
�24
The “ Confounded” Convert.
She, doubtless, knew what superstition was in Ire
land, and may have had frequent opportunities of
remarking with what unedifying freedom some of the
Irish priests permit themselves to discuss confessional
matters over their dessert.
Various things had sorely shocked me, as one by
one they presented themselves to my reluctant gaze ;
but to hear priests express themselves so unreservedly
upon confessional matters, and that in the presence of
the laity, was certainly not calculated to impress a
convert favourably. “Priests,” said an old Irish
priest to me across the dessert-table “ are as embar
rassed as possible when they come to confession, and
no wonder, as the burden of their song is generally
something against the holy virtue. We are often
much embarrassed to know how to act; for instance,
here is a man and here is a woman, both in the same
boat, both come to confession, but neither of them
likely to bid adieu to the other. I withhold absolu
tion, but am told ‘ the whole family means to com
municate the following morning, and great scandal
will be caused by my abstaining, for they know I have
come out to confession ; pray do give me absolution! ’
What is the poor priest to do ? He cannot throw
Jesus Christ’s Body to the dogs ; he may not, even if
he would, expose his penitent to remark; I will tell
you how to manage. I give no absolution; I tell the
penitent to come to church with the others, but to
remember at the last moment that she swallowed a
drop of water and is disqualified for communion,
having broken her fast. Thus I screen Jesus Christ.”
Meditating upon these things, it seemed to me that,
if, to a woman and a convert, a priest will permit him
self to chat in this strain after four glasses of sherry,
what would he not say to his brethren after a glass
or two of whisky ? Names, I have been told, they
are careful to conceal, but reticent about the confes
�The “Confounded” Convert.
25
sional many of them are not, and those who are are
called “ priggish ” by the rest. A glass of wine
elicits many a remark respecting the tedious, trouble
some, and expensive ceremonial of which not the priests
only, but many of the thoughtful laity are not merely
weary but ashamed. It is a pitiable sight—one a
convert ought to see—the preliminaries of a procession
which take place in a dirty sacristy ; at the Italian
Church, for instance, let a convert go thither and
meditate.
An experience of a different nature came before me
next. I was requested to prepare a row of middle
class girls for their first Communion, and to bestow
special care upon one, named Emma, who it seems
had been already instructed for that sacrament a year
previously, but had not presented herself at the altar,
saying she had overslept herself. I did my best with
them all, and chose the easiest hymn I could find for
them all to learn. It began “ Jesus, Jesus come to
me, Oh how much I long for Thee.” But Emma
never knew it. One day she had lost her book;
another day she had had no time ; then she had been
ill; had been sent out on errands; had known itquite well last night, but now it had all gone out of
her head. I retained her when the others left, and
asked her kindly how it was she would not commit
such an easy hymn to memory. “ It is not that,'' said
Emma, “ but I don't long for Him, and I will not say
I long for Him when I know I do not.” 11 But do
you not love Jesus?” said I. “Ho, not much; I
like many people much better,” said candid Emma.
“ But we must try to love Him and to long for Him
. . . ” . She interrupted me with “ Oh, I know all
that, but suppose I don't love Him, what then ?” This
was a poser, so I said I would think over the matter.
These children were in a convent school, where they
were very short of nuns, two being ill, so I was asked
to help them. The reverend mother evinced no
C
�16
The “Confounded” Convert.
horror at Emma’s state of mind, but said, “ It does
look so bad for a convent girl nearly fifteen not to
have made her first Communion; what will people
say ? You had better choose another hymn ; go on
preparing her and if the priest passes her, you will
have no responsibility.”
I changed the hymn and “ went on ” preparing her ;
but at the eleventh hour Emma 1‘ went off,” and was
never seen by those conscientious nuns again. I have
every reason to suspect that from first to last the chief
object of the Church is, like that of “ the world,” to
keep up appearances.
The confessional is from first to last a mass of
inconsistencies, contradictions, aud absurdities, but
it requires some time to detect them. Those who
go but rarely to what is called “their duty,” and
who are indifferent about religious matters, will find
nothing to cavil at in the confessional. But the
earnest, thoughtful Catholic, who rakes out his con
science every week, and studies the conduct of those
who do likewise, may find a few flaws in the confes
sional—a few serious drawbacks to it, which may lead
him, though reluctantly, to the conclusion that he
could do his duty quite as well without going to “ his
duty.” Converts fancy it will be such an assistance
to them to have a spiritual guide who will take a
lively interest in them, pilot them through all diffi
culties, and watch over them with tender solicitude.
It takes them some time to find out that the most un
satisfactory of all counsellors are the timid, tonguetied, servile clergy of the tyrannical Church of Rome.
Exemplary Catholics, whom I have long known, have
frequently cautioned me against following priests’
advice in secular matters—against taking a servant
or governess upon their recommendation, and against
telling them one whit more than is absolutely neces
sary about anything. But my mother and myself had
to find out for ourselves how futile it is to expect the
�The li Confounded” Convert.
27
smallest help from them even upon matters spiri
tual. Reciprocity in the confessional there cannot
be, the priest is tongue-tied, he dares not say what he
thinks, he must pretend to be either surprised,
grieved, disappointed, or quite prepared to find that
his penitent has any doubts, misgivings, or difficulties,
about any article of faith. Not one of them ever
threw the least light upon anything I ever put before
them. They invariably wriggle out of everything, by
saying “ treat all thoughts which assail you upon
such matters as temptations, and whenever you are
inclined to doubt about any doctrine, make an act of
faith.” Once three hosts were put into my mouth,
possibly they had been kept in a damp place; they
separated in my mouth, and confusion arose in my
mind about these three wafers which, if given to three
communicants, would have been three Christs. I told
a priest that as in a crumb of the host there is sup
posed to be an entire man, I could not help imagining
that in three hosts there must be three Christs.
<c Temptations, my child, temptations ; he that receives
a crumb receives his Saviour; he that receives three
hosts receives his Saviour; temptations, my child 1 ”
I soon left off imparting my difficulties to them ; they
had but one answer, “ Temptations ! ”
Of course the priest dares not speak out boldly,
and say “ the whole affair is such a tissue of absurdi
ties and contradictions that if I were to permit myself
to dive deeply into it I should never say mass again.”
By telling the penitent that she is labouring under
a temptation they get rid of the difficulty, push the
matter on to the devil’s back, and tranquillise the
penitent, who is rather proud that she is allowed to
be tempted, “ counting it all joy,” and delighted to
find that what she really thought was a want of faith
is only a temptation. The strength and the weakness
of Rome lies in the Confessional. Of late the Church
has urged very frequent confession upon her children.
�28
The “Confounded” Convert.
Elderly Catholics assure me that in their young days
it was considered sufficient to confess before great
festivals only; and they regret the frequency of con
fession, “ which takes young people and servants away
from home duties and fills their heads with spiritual
direction, until they all fancy they are called to the
cloister.” Certain it is that frequent confession is
inculcated, and for many years I was rarely absent
more than a week from confession. I had a great
variety of Confessors, not from love of change, but
from force of circumstances. I made my first con
fession to a J esuit; it was, of course, a general
confession, embracing all my previous life. He told
me that I should never have to revert to anything I
had said ; that after he had given me Absolution the
past would be entirely blotted out, and that I was to
begin my career as a true child of the Church. Six
weeks later he heard my mother’s first confession, and
made similar remarks to her. This Jesuit was, upon
the whole, the best of my various Confessors ; for
though he had his surly moods, when he would send
me to the penny catechism, he was generally willing
to discuss a point with me as with an equal. Priests
love to dogmatise and to lay down the law, but this
old priest did neither, and I respected him. He con
sidered that an immense amount of time was wasted in
Farm Street by both priest and penitent in so-called
“ direction.” Let anyone go to Farm Street on a
Wednesday or Saturday afternoon and he will see
numbers of the fair sex patiently waiting for an hour
or more outside Father Clare’s Confessional. Those
ladies have nothing to do; they like a great fuss to
be made about themselves and their souls; when they
find a conciliating priest they make the most of him,
and frequently entertain for him an affection so
strong as to leave but little room in their hearts for
any other love. This may easily be the case, without
any of that undue familiarity so often unjustly im-
�The “ Confounded ” Concert.
29
puted to priests. Young gentlewomen would not be
attracted by such conduct; but, nevertheless, the
feeling entertained for the Confessor is not unfrequently strong enough to deter from matrimony, and
I have heard it adduced as a reason for the celibacy
among Catholic gentlewomen living in the world.
From what I have heard and noticed among my High
Church friends, I should surmise that their interviews
with their spiritual guides are of a far more emotional
and sensational character than similar meetings
among Roman Catholics. During the two years I
continued with the worthy old Jesuit, matters went
pretty smoothly; but even then confusion had arisen
in my mind respecting matter for Absolution, and the
expediency of such very frequent confession.
The confession of venial sins is not of obligation. I
rarely committed a venial sin with full deliberation,
for I was straining every nerve to keep my conscience
clear, so that no voluntary omission or commission
should mar the full effect of my frequent communions.
Sins of my past life I had been told not to bring
forward ; moreover, I had read that we are not called
upon to satisfy twice for the same sins.
Absolution is called “ the dripping of the Precious
Blood upon the head of the repentant sinner.” But in
my weekly confessions there were no intentional faults
to own, and, consequently, no contrition could be ex
cited ; what, then, became of the Precious Blood ? Once
I asked my old Jesuit if there was not a great deal of
Blood wasted in my case; for venial sin as to guilt
could be cancelled by contrition, and as to prmishment
by Holy Water, Mass, Communion, &c., without any
confession at all. He quoted David’s words, “Wash,
me yet more and more,” one washing is not enough
for me. Then he added “the Sacrament of Penance
has a preventive effect and gives great grace, great
power to resist temptation, &c.” I retained my own
opinion but followed his advice; kept going to con-
�50
The ^Confounded'''' Convert.
fession though I had nothing to confess, and always
received Absolution though there was no matter for
the Sacrament; it was, I thought, his affair—my duty
was to obey—but I meditated.
At the end of two years I went abroad. I was
taking off my dress preparatory to going to bed; my
German hostess and another lady were present.
“ Good God,” said the former to the latter, “ she
has no Scapular ! ” Startled at the solemnity of the
exclamation, and surprised that my English friends
had been so supine as to my eternal welfare, I
expressed my readiness to have one. They gave me
five bits of flimsy merino, stitched together, and told
me that I was to wear them with devotion, and never
take them off; so I kissed them now and then, not
exactly knowing how to exhibit devotion towards
such unsuggestive rags, which they called by the
imposing name of Our Lady’s Livery. “ You will
never go to Hell as long as you wear that,” I was
told. “But,” said I, “if I keep clear of mortal sin I
shall not go to Hell, even if I have no Scapular.”
“ You are just like all converts,” said my friend.
“You have no simplicity; you must try to become a
little child if you would be a true Catholic.”
I continued my weekly confessions of nothing, and
the foreign priest used now and then to ask me if I
would rather have Absolution, or merely his Benedic
tion ; for, said he, “ I have many penitents who, in
consequence of a lack of matter, are not absolved
each time they come to me.” I thought it very odd
of him to ask me such a question, as he ought to
know what to do; however, I chose the Benediction,
which seemed to answer just as well.
When I returned to England I found that my
respected old Confessor had been sent abroad, and
from that time my troubles increased. One day I
went to a Marist Father, and began as usual, “ Since
my last confession, &c.” “Say the Confiteor,” said
�The “Confounded” Convert.
3i
he. For four years I had been weekly to confession,
but had never said the Confiteor, which, however, in
the “Preparation for the Sacrament of Penance” is
appointed to be said. I did not know it in English,
but could say it in Latin from having heard it so
often in Church. I repeated it, and proceeded to tell
him that I could recall no voluntary fault since my
last confession, that I bad been remiss about several
duties, &c., &c. “Be ashamed,” said he; “humble
yourself very much that you have so little light that
you cannot discern your sins. You should hear the
roly nuns who come with deep compunction to con
fers what to their clear vision are grievous sins, but
which you are too blind to see.” “Is it my fault
thai I cannot see my sins ? ” said I, privately deter
mining never to go to him again. “ Pray, my poor
child, pray very much to know yourself, and think
of the saints who confessed every day and were never
at a loss for matter.”
After a similar confession, my old Jesuit would
have said, “ Thank God ! say three Gloria Patri for
your pemnce, make a good act of contrition for all
the sins ycu have ever committed, and I will give you
Absolution.” However, as Saint Liguori says there
are a great many “Religious” in Hell, it was not
surprising taat some of the nuns had more to say
than I had.
The following week I went for old sake’s sake to
Farm Street, vhere, at the Altar of the Sacred Heart,
I had been received into the Church. Another name
was over my old friend’s Confessional, but in I went
and down I knelt, saying the appointed words,
Bless me, Fathei, for I have sinned. “ Is the door
shut?” said the oriest, who possibly felt a draught.
I rose, and having ascertained that it was shut,
returned, and commenced the Confiteor, which I had
taken pains to learn in English. “ Never mind about
all that,” said the old gentleman, sharply, “ we have
�32
The “ Confounded ” Convert.
no time for that here; what have you done since
your last confession ?” Disinclined to open my door
after such an introduction, I made short work of it,
and retired to meditate.
We were then staying with a friend until our plans
were settled, and I was availing myself of the interval
to visit all the churches I had not seen. The follow
ing week I chose Sunday for my confession. A grand
mass and a fine sermon were expected at St. George’s.
I thought I would hit several birds with one stone,
and apply to a priest there of some renown, for a
solution of the Confiteor mystery. It seems I ought
not to have chosen Sunday, but I did not know th.it,
having often seen people confessing on that day.
A few workhouse women were waiting outside his
box, but with great courtesy they let me go in first.
“ Bless me, Father, for I have sinned,” said I.
“ Why did you not come yesterday,” said be, and,
without giving me time to reply, went on, ‘‘ Well,
now, we have not done much to please our d«ar Lord
since our last confession; we have heard mass with
out attention or devotion; we have spoke* censori
ously, uncharitably, impatiently, and snappishly, have
we not?” “Yes, Father,” said I, with same mental
reservation. “Is there anything else?” “No,
Father.” “ Well, then, in future come on Saturday.
Say five Our Fathers for the Holy Souls make an act
of contrition, and I will give you Absolution.”
By this time I had had nearly enough of casual
Confessors—regular directors I had wholly aban
doned ; but all this time I was praying with great
perseverance for a good, zealous, sensible Confessor.
Before pronouncing Absolution the priest generally
gives utterance to sundry platitudes, called indeed
“ a point,” but which are for the most part destitute
of piquancy. He will draw your attention to some
approaching festival, to some popular devotion, or to
some flaw in your character which he thinks your
�The “Confounded" Convert.
33
confession has brought to light. On one occasion I
was told that self-love was the great barrier to holi
ness, that I must learn to hate myself with a good,
hearty hatred, and that then God would love me.
“ Do you understand me, my child ? ” “Yes, Father,”
said I; “ but when I have arrived at hating myself,
how shall I manage to love my neighbour as myself ?|”
“ Kot until yon have put away all self-love will you
have light to see the truths which the saints not only
knew but practised; you need humility—pray for it.”
Another time, while wondering what I should find,
to say in confession, it occurred to me that I had said
the Pope was a great fool for sending the Golden
Rose to Queen Isabella. Here were two faults';
moreover, I had given utterance to this forcible
expression in the presence of others, and thereby
given scandal. Rather glad to have something defi
nite to say, I accused myself of censuring the conduct
of my superior, and . • . but before I could proceed
the priest, to my amazement, exclaimed, “ Why that
is the very thing I am always doing; I cannot con
ceive why the archbishop should fix upon me to hear
a parcel of nuns’ confessions; I have to take two
omnibuses besides a long walk, and it costs me a
shilling a time ; but I do not mean to go again, I can
tell him ! ” I did not finish my confession, but had a
cosy chat with this honest fellow, and was sorry to
hear he was not resident in England. He seemed to
have settled down into a state of chronic indignation,
with which I thoroughly sympathised.
About this time I went to call upon a friend who had
recently joined the Church. She looked very red and
hot. The fender was full of the remains of burnt paper,
and there was an oppressive smell of scorched leather
in the room. Her Irish Confessor, hearing that she
continued using her Protestant Bible, commanded her
to burn it, with all other Protestant religious books,
and I was just in time to see the remains of her
�34
The “Confounded” Convert.
heretical library smouldering in the fire-place. As I
always used, and infinitely preferred, the Protestant
version of the Bible, that scene made an impression.
Subsequently, when settled with a regular Confessor,
I asked him whether there was any objection to my
reading the Protestant translation. “ Certainly not,”
was his answer, “ you may use any translation you
like; the Protestant one is more flowing.” However,
I was to have a few more experiences before I met
with a suitable Confessor, and, meantime, I turned
my attention towards some new clothes, and engaged
a surgeon’s daughter, who had seen better days, to
come and work for me. She was much interested in
religious matters.
. “ It is a great blessing,” said she, “ that priests
differ so much; it seems very odd that they do differ,
if Almighty God really is behind the scenes ; but it is
a great comfort, for if they all agreed I, for one,
should never get Absolution. The other day my
Confessor chalked out a course of action I thought
would injure my interests, so I would not obey him,
and he refused Absolution. I was very anxious to go
to Communion the next day, so I took a long walk in
the rain, and told my old Confessor all about it. He
gave me Absolution at once, and said I was a great
fool for submitting any secular matter to a priest.”
A still more flagrant case came under my notice.
When Cardinal Manning’s letter appeared in the
papers pronouncing it sacrilege to receive the Sacra
ments without firmly believing the dogmas of the
Infallibility and Immaculate Conception, my mother
showed symptoms of rebellion, but went dutifully to
her Carmelite Confessor, and told him candidly that
she could not assent to the Infallibility. “ Then, my
child,” said he, “I cannot give you Absolution; I am
not permitted to do so.” “ But, surely,1’ said she,
“ you would not have me say I believe what I do not
believe ? ”
�The “Confounded” Convert.
35
“ On the contrary, I admire your frankness, but am
obliged to refuse you Absolution,” said he.
Perplexed and uneasy, my mother then said she
would try to digest the unwelcome dogma, upon
which the Carmelite relented, and after an unusually
long exhortation gave her Absolution. But such
an Absolution by no means satisfied my mother.
She determined to submit the case to a Jesuit at
Parm Street, under whose spiritual direction she
had long been, though during our stay in Kensing
ton she frequented the Carmelites for convenience
sake.
“ I have not come to confession,” said she. “ I
cannot get Absolution because I do not believe in
Papal Infallibility.” “ Oh, my dear child,” said the
genial Jesuit, <£ you and I perfectly understand each
other. Infallibility, you know, only regards faith and
morals; make your confession with a quiet mind, and
I will give you Absolution directly.” My mother,
however, insisted that she was not entitled to it, and
went away strengthened in her opposition to the
arbitrary dogma of Infallibility, and convinced more
than ever of the futility, and, in her case, of the
decidedly injurious effects of frequent confession.
The Carmelite was no doubt right—that is to say,
he began well; but he ought to have remained firm,
and instead of giving Absolution he should have told
my mother to go away, and be damned. “ Let him
be anathema,” says the Church; “ I will give you
Absolution directly,” says the Jesuit. And where
was the Holy Ghost all this time ? with the Cardinal,
the Carmelite, or the Jesuit ? Perhaps He was on a
visit to those heavenly-minded milk-women who had
“ more knowledge of God’s ways than those who
thought themselves to be somewhat.”
About this time we were intimate with an excellent
foreign priest, who frequently passed a few hours
with us for the purpose of perfecting himself in
�36
•
The “Confounded” Convert.
English. He was quite opposed to weekly confession
in the case of those who led a life of such cloistral
monotony as did we. He thought, and we fully
agreed with him, that the affair was likely to become
merely mechanical, and was injudicious, to say the
least of it. Some weeks passed before I felt inclined
to confess again. I did not retrograde; I did not
lose my fervour; I did not miss the sacrament in the
least. I was surrounded by those who never let a
week go by without a visit to the priest. They were
not edifying specimens of the fruits of the system.
Catholic parents have expressed their amazement to
me that Protestants, without one half the “means of
grace” enjoyed by Catholics, behave so much better.
Far be it from me to say that frequent confession
never does good. I can only say that I was continu
ally distressed to see how extremely remiss about
their most obvious duties were those whose concern
for their spiritual welfare led them to distant Con
fessors, and whose examination of conscience occupied
a great portion of their time every week. Priests
are, I have reason to suspect, very indifferent as to
what the penitent does or leaves undone. The great
point with them is that you should put in an appear
ance regularly at Mass, show at Benediction, and be
seen before the Blessed Sacrament. Unlike their
Master, they prefer that your prayers should be in
public-1—in their Church, and during devotions in
which they play a prominent part. This may proceed
from their child-like simplicity. An indifferent peni
tent, who frequents the public services of the Church,
would, I believe, be more favourably viewed by the
clergy than even a saintly milk-woman who confined
her devotions to the cow-house.
This manifest absence of the practical element
among those always talking of Father This and Father
That, this lamentable lack of personal piety among
those always handling holy things, feeding upon
�The “Confounded'1' Convert.
1
37
Christ and being washed in his blood, drove a zealous
friend of mine out of the Church. “ I am sadly
afraid,” wrote she, “ that even well-meaning Catholics
prefer religion to morality. The Church seems every
thing ; it does me no good, and I have left it for
ever.”
At length I went to confession once more, after six
weeks’ absence. “Name a sin of your past life,” said
the Redemptorist, “ that I may give you Absolution.”
Here was something quite new. I had been told
never to revert to past sins; I had been absolved
hundreds of times without adding a sin of my past
life, though, as the reader knows, I had wondered
what the Precious Blood fell upon, and what grace
could accompany the recital of involuntary venial
faults for which I could not feel contrition. Suddenly
called upon to name an old sin, I took the first which
suggested itself, and said I had stolen a red herring,
with full deliberation, when I was twelve years old.
I have since ascertained that the value of the thing
stolen must be five shillings to constitute a mortal
sin, so that I was not much nearer the mark with my
poor red herring. It was a venial sin, and restitution
was required under pain of loss of grace for voluntary
venial sin; however, I got Absolution, after explain
ing that I could not trace the owner of the herring.
I tried another Redemptorist, and when he de
manded a sin of my past life, said, “ I am a convert.”
“ Then name a mortal sin since your conversion,” per
sisted he. “ I am unable to see ”—I had used that
form of expression ever since the Marist had rebuked
me for blindness—“ any mortal sin since I was
received,” said I. That scrupulous man heaved a
deep sigh, but, begging me to be very sorry indeed
for all my sins, absolved me inaudibly.
I had had many misgivings, but now felt quite sure
that the Precious Blood could be fully absorbed by
mortal sin only. However, I had recourse to a priest
�38
The “Confounded” Convert.
said to be a profound theologian. “ You must never
allow a priest to give you Absolution without suffi
cient matter,” said he; “ and if there be no matter,
you are always to name a former sin—you may bring
forward the same thing every week if you like.”
‘■'How can a sin once confessed, forgiven, and
atoned for, serve over and over again ?” said I. “ Is
it not very much like doubting the efficacy of the
Precious Blood, which washed it effectually away
the first time ? ”
“ The Ghurch allows it,” said he, “ and we may be
sure it is all right.” He proceeded to tell me that a
difference of opinion exists in the Church about Bap
tism, some theologians accepting and some contesting
the validity of heretical baptism. Those priests who
were so careful to ask for a sin of my past life were
those who believed I had been properly baptised in
infancy. Those who gave Absolution without allu
sion to the past believed that my second baptism in
the Roman Catholic Church was alone valid, and
that therefore I had only to look back as far as that
for my mortal sins. All this having been fully
explained to me, the next thing to be done was to
find a priest who required neither the Confiteor,
which I did not like—though it seems it ought to be
said—nor a sin of my past life, for which I could not
keep renewing the heart-breaking sorrow implied by
contrition. Before succeeding, two or three other
matters came under my notice which impressed me
very unfavourably, and once more drew my attention
towards that blessed Martin, and considerably in
creased my devotion to him. I went to call upon the
old lady who had given me the “very perfect” Agnus
Dei, and there I met a lady of Spanish extraction.
Hearing that I was a convert she expressed amaze
ment, saying, “Why I, who have always been brought
up in the Church, do not believe one half she teaches.
Por instance, I do not believe one word about Abso-
�The “Confounded” Convert.
39
lution, and my Confessor knows it. T wonder he
gives me Absolution ! I should not dare to do so if
I were a priest.” “ But why do you go if you have
no faith?” asked I. “Well,” said she, “it is the
force of habit; before communion it is usual to con
fess. I wish I had more faith. I always tell the priest
I do not believe; if he likes to absolve me after that,
it is his affair.” I found that her confessor was the
same genial Jesuit who had so indulgently proposed
to absolve my doubting mother. The old lady did
not like the turn the conversation had taken. She
felt how strange it must sound to a convert’s ears;
so, in the amiable hope of making matters better, she
made them worse by interrupting with “ I should
like to have three masses said for my poor dear niece.
I have three said every year, but really five shillings
is a great deal to give for a mass. I used to send
over to Trance and get them said for a franc apiece,
but the archbishop has put a stop to that, and makes
us pav five shillings and have them said in England.”
With that absence of simplicity for which I had
frequently been reproached, I asked how it was that
Christ could be had cheaper on the Continent, and
was told that there were more priests there, and that
“everything was cheaper,” Christ, of course, included.
My knowledge of human nature—from which, alas I
sacerdotal nature is no departure—inclined me to the
opinion that the five-shilling rule was often violated,
and, anxious to be of use to the old lady, I sought
and found a priest who, for her and for other friends
of mine, said mass for half-a-crown. This matter
being now settled to everybody’s satisfaction, except
mine, I determined to talk it over with an intelligent
Catholic then devoted to the Church, but now a free
thinker.
He said, “ If you think out all these things you
will certainly lose your faith; it does not do to dive
deeply into every little thing. I have never paid a
�4o
The “Confounded” Convert.
priest for saying mass; the subject is unpleasant to
me in a high degree. The priest must say his mass,
so that we are not exactly paying for the Holy Sacri
fice, but for its application by force of the priest’s
intention to our case. The doctrine of the priest’s
intention is the weakest part of the whole system;
there is no certainty about anything in the Church of
Rome, for that doctrine invalidates Ordination, Abso
lution, Consecration, and, in short, everything. Be
lieve me, it is by not thinking that you will retain
your respect for Rome. The laity on the Continent
never trouble themselves about these matters.
When they begin to think the clergy will begin to
tremble.”
1 felt he was right. However, I went on for a few
months with an excellent, kind-hearted priest, to
whom I had been recommended, and all went pretty
well until, as in my mother’s case, the Cardinal’s
letter drove me, without one minute’s delay, out of
Rome.
In vain my Confessor assured me that the letter
was “ not meant” for me; my impression was that it
was intended for all who read it. I had made some
progress in the simplicity so much insisted on by
Rome, and was actually simple enough to think that
the Cardinal said what he meant, and meant what
he said, so I took him at his word, and left that
most complicated apparatus for saving men’s souls,
called
The Infallible Church.
PRINTED BY C. AV. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The "confounded" convert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT190
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The "confounded" convert), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Catholic Church
Catholic Converts
Conversion-Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e6d37189b0ad537af9042d66f817c6db.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=GpgiY3QpV39jBsxkqwZdnGRM%7EjsThTeIKprekJS-5hPS-Twl9ahhqx1jMjN1c8HdLranCnYgNQvrTHYE090CPLBBDDBxIbowOnF49jn7oQE0gebvbXLoGu-QxeRq74oh4x5-yARbfMEDPtGAoA9EI5f7Zj8tk1Sfb34Bc-YmBcioBapSOSLsDYCBcpUCV2ZsS%7EO1OvIuJh0HTAEamm3PuwcHfo5W4YhuVMxRG30g85g4zZAu0IIUHJrP42mQ4mFeS%7EcGf3-s1kmXgnNepoQ7uvZMkb9VKqTztSoRoJg9NjezOTj%7EG3H5Ey6bkvF21OWNND1MOaOSfXya2TMr1XHQoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b4c44d5657a68f7f69051ca7ed36910e
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
.8
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
MAY,
"Y^'ERY little has
V circles during
18 76.
•
.
been stirring in ecclesiastical
the past month, except in the
way of preparation for the battles to come. The din
of arms is heard, but the blows are not struck against
the foe, but only on the anvil, to mould the blade for
future use. Hot indignant words are heard from the
Ritualist camp, whispers of a Uniate Church, of se
cession, of rebellion, but the angry tones are hushed
down by the wiser leaders, and the speakers are
bidden to possess their souls—and their benefices—
in patience until brighter days. Menaces answer $
from the Low Church battalions, who, flushed by.
recent victory, dream of a resurrection of the palms'
�2
Simeonitish days. The Broad Church stand care
lessly as ever, indifferent to attack, knowing that the
spirit.of the age is flowing against their enemies, and
conscious that they are more in harmony with it than
either High or Low. Outside the Church progress
is visible on every hand. As science spreads scepti
cism increases; as eastern researches are more eagerly
prosecuted the true foundations of popular Chris
tianity are being laid bare, and their real nature is
seen; as criticism lays down its canons with morecertainty the Bible becomes more and more dis
credited as Divine, more and more proved to bo
human both in its beauties and in its faults; every
advance, in every direction, is leading men further
and further away from their ancestral faith, and is
building up brains too large and too strong to be
moulded by priestly touch or to be bound in ecclesi
astical bands. Cheering is the prospect to the lovers
of humanity, and ever fuller and fuller swells the
hope which animates them ; the hope of that glorious
day when man shall no more be the slave of super
stition, and woman no longer the tool of the priest.
A curious point of contact between the ecclesiastical
and civil lawsis now before Parliament, and the Rock
is loud in its denunciations of the proposed legisla
tion. Many of the colonies have passed a law legal
izing a marriage between a man and his deceased
wife’s sister. This law has, in due course, been
sanctioned by the Home Government, and a Bill is
now introduced to make such colonial marriages legal
in England, should the parties come into this country,,
and to protect their offspring from all disadvantages
they might otherwise suffer from here, owing to the
difference of the colonial and home marriage laws.
Upon this Bill the Rock writes a very bitter article,
speaking of such marriages as “ a form of incest,”
and saying that “the present law of Great Britain is
avowedly founded on the law of God,” and that
�3
Christian men in Parliament” ought to be verycareful not to “ legalise what God condemned in the
case of the old Canaanites.” It seems a pity to raise
angry feelings by dealing with an important social
question in this style; the Hock ought to confine
itself to Church garments and the personality of
Satan, and not venture into the delicate domain of
social legislation; in that sphere the bitter tone of
theological controversy is out of place, and is even
dangerous.
Another strange interposition of the Bock in poli
tical matters is found in an article upon the proposed
new title of the Queen: if the mischief of the name
Empress be averted, then may “England,as specially
favoured by the Most High, continue to hold the
highest place among the kingdoms of the earth, in
stead of—in an access of pride—provoking Him to
leave us to ourselves, and so perhaps add another
chapter to Volney’s famous book, ‘The Ruins of
Empires.’” So not only is this magic title to scare
away the Emperor of Russia from our Indian frontiers,
but it will also frighten “ the Most High ” away from
our borders. What a curious juxtaposition 1
The Rev. Flavel Cook is prospering; can he—ac
cording to mediaeval stories—have entered into some
compact with the Evil One, for whom he is now
suffering ? A church, seated to hold 1,000 persons,
is to be erected for him near Clifton; the testimonial
fund has already reached the sum of l,000Z., the
Exeter branch of the English Church Union contri
buting 100Z. as “ a public and tangible mark of
sympathy ” with his treatment of Mr. Jenkins. The
costs of the trial are a warning to ecclesiastical
litigants; those of Mr. Cook amount to between
l,200Z. and l,400Z., and those of Mr. Jenkins to be
tween 800Z. and 900Z. The Wesleyan body have
spent some 3,000Z. in vindicating their right to the
title of Reverend, so that, on the whole, suitors and
�4
defendants in these courts must often exclaim:“ How
dear are thy counsels unto me, 0 Lord ! How great
is the sum of them.”
The Church Herald has found a successor; this
valuable paper is called The Pilot, and is “ A Journal
of Religion, Politics, Literature, and Art.” It is
neatly printed on good paper, price threepence. To
what party it belongs it is hard to say, but it appears
to be of very extreme High Church views, and yet
not Ritualistic, while it evidently is issued to promote
union with Rome. It advocates the Roman primacy,
in preference to the present Parliament primacy, and
is the sworn foe of Erastianism. It speaks with high
approval of a pamphlet entitled “ The Discipline of
Christ, or the Discipline of Devils;” and the discipline
of devils is, according to the publication in question,
that of Lord Penzance : the Royal Suprcm a p.y is (1q)
huge Tudor imposture,” and the following passage is
endorsed: “Forced to choose between the Crown, as
advised by the Senate, and the Pope, as advised by
his theologians, or to sink into a sect aKtyahos and
avopos, increasing numbers of us are learning to pre
fer the Bishop to the Crown, the rules of the Congre
gation of Rites to the dicta of the Privy Council.
The rule of a Catholic Metropolitan, with right of
appeal to Rome, is at least preferable to the rule of
‘ Archbishop’ Penzance, with the sorry right of ap
peal to. my Lords of the Judicial Committee, a body
which is, now and henceforth, the ‘ Holy Governing
Synod ’ of the Anglican Church.” On this subject of
Lord Penzance and his Court, much wrath is poured
forth : the Pilot maintains that Courts which judge
Church matters, ought to be “ Courts Christian,” i.e.,
ought to “ depend upon the Synods of the Church
“ the law which ‘Courts Christian’ ought to adminis
ter is the Divine Law;” “ but nothing of this kind
obtains in the case of Lord Penzance and his Court.
He can only be likened to a comet which belongs to
�5
no recognised system whatever.” a Suppose some
‘ question of the law Divine ’ to arise; it may be a
question of ritual, as in Mr. Ridsdale’s case; or it
may be question of doctrine, as in Mr. Bennett’s case ;
or a question of the exercise of the power of the keys,
as Mr. Cook’s.” This question, when raised, may
seriously affect the welfare of the whole Anglican
Church ; it may touch in their tenderest point the con
sciences of the most devout Churchmen and Church
women of the day ; the very character of the Anglican
Communion fororthodoxy, or the validity of the Sacra
ments, may be involved in it; and by whom is it to
be decided ? By Lord Penzance in the first place ;
and by Lords Cairns, Selborne, Hatherley, and a few
Other lay judges in the last resort.” Horror of hor
rors ! a layman, with unconsecrated hands, is touch
ing the ark of the Lord. “ They may condemn what
the Church approves; deprive a Priest whom the
Church would gladly retain and support in the exer
cise of his ministry ; admit to Communion a layman
whom the Church would certainly repel; and all the
whileBishops, Priests, Deacons, and faithful laity, must
sit still and see the doctrine, discipline, and worship of
the Church dislocated and mutilated, and say no
thing.” And what does the Pilot advise among so many
rocks, and stress of weather so terrible? “Uncom
promising resistance.” Such is the mot d’ordre of the
new paper, and when the strength of the “ Catholic
party” within the Church is remembered, the ap
pearance of this paper at the present critical juncture
is a “ Sign of the Times ” not lightly to be ignored.
If this party, as a whole, resolve on a policy of resist
ance to the Secular Courts now ruling the Church,
and decide for union with Rome rather than submis
sion, the days of the Establishment are numbered.
We have always hoped much from the attempt to
“ stamp out the Ritualists,” and our hopes seem
likely to be realised. The attitude of the Pilot to
�6
wards the Rationalists also deserves a word of notice;
if its policy towards Lord Penzance is one of uncom
promising resistance, its policy towards the Free
Thinkers is one of uncompromising hostility. Mr.
Gould speaks of God’s Truth before “ the bar of
Reason.” “ ‘Before the bar of Reason I ’ We thank
him for the admission. It is Reason, then, that is to
decide matters of Faith ! The very Truth itself was
once arraigned at the bar of a ruler who, sitting as
the Representative of the World, asked, with uncon
scious irony, the scoffing question, ‘ What is Truth ?’
And Pontius Pilate remains, for all time, the typical
representative of all Rationalism. ‘ Before the bar of
Reason !’ Yet the author of this book professes to hold
the Catholic Faith, provided always that its ‘ imper
fections ’ be supplemented by the gospel of science.”
The Belfast address of Professor Tyndall is “ a display
of second-hand erudition,” than which “nothing
could be more pitiable.” Mr. Mill is “ an over
rated writer of so-called philosophy, who has been
dead for some time, and is now almost forgotten.”
This is quite up to the Church Herald standard. As
to education, the “ Act of 1870 is efficiently doing
the Devil’s work,” by teaching children without
dwarfing them with dogmas. It attacks the late
Lady Augusta Stanley for her sympathy with Pere
Hyacinthe in his marriage, and says : “We are glad
that the Father — now a father in quite another
sense—did not adopt her Ladyship’s loose views as
to vows, and apply them to what Dean Liddell terms
the ‘yet dearer confidence of wedded life.’ Yet if
one kind of religious vow may be broken with im
punity and commendation, why not another ? Phi
lanthropy, of whatever kind, and rotten sentiments,
are very poor substitutes for Christian principle.”
What Christian principle it shows to write thus
coarsely over the scarce-closed grave of a good and
noble-natured woman, respected by all for her gene
�7
rous work among the poor, and her wide-hearted
charity ! Our new paper gives an interesting account
of “ Religion in Germany,” where “ Strauss—who
was personally honoured by some of our English Royal
Family—and other odious infidels of the same kind,
have done their dark and deplorable work. Except
amongst Roman Catholics, Christianity is practically
banished and inoperative.” “ The decline of what is
called ‘Evangelical Lutheranism’ has been at once
rapid and sure. Reason has triumphed over Reve
lation. For example, in the year 1831 eight Prussian
Universities could boast 2,203 theological students ;
in 1873 no more than 740. . . . The supreme govern
ing body has had to proclaim to the world that in a
year or so one-sixth of the vacant benefices will have
none to fill them. Pastors cannot be obtained for the
churches, which are being closed for lack of them.”
Truly, the labours of German rationalists have not
been without results, and we, in England, who follow
in their steps, may well rejoice in the success which
has crowned their labours.
Our old friend, the Church Times, seems quite mode
rate and charitable after this terrible Pilot. Far from
urging uncompromising resistance, it counsels sage
policy. In writing on “ the Persecution,” while it
proposes that a Sustentation Fund should be formed
for the support of clergymen dispossessed of their
benefices under the new Act, it at the same time
counsels the clergy not to unwisely precipitate mat
ters, but to distinguish between the essentials and
the accessories of divine worship. A “cute” sug
gestion is also made—that when a priest is dispos
sessed for “Catholic practices,” and a successor is
placed at his post by the bishop of the diocese, the
congregation should withhold all their customary
offerings, whether through the offertory or otherwise.
“ There is not the least reason why any question of
charity, or rather of want of charity, should come in.
�8
The whole thing should be regarded simply as a pure
matter of business, and be conducted in a business
like way. The absolute stoppage in all such cases of
all voluntary offerings whatsoever would, we shrewdly
suspect, soon very palpably change the general aspect
of affairs.” This is really very sensible advice from
the Catholic stand-point, and shows that the children
of light are endeavouring to use somewhat of the
wisdom of the children of this world in dealing with
the foe. But a sharp battle is imminent when com
batants begin girding up their loins in this fashion,
and since brother is going to war with brother, and
that before the unbeliever, we may look forward to
the downfall of the Establishment, as of a house
divided against itself. There is a rather clever skit on
“I ho Law,” published in the Church Times, contrast
ing the legal Church decisions given from time to time
since Henry VIII.
“ ‘ The Law’ made it penal to read in the Prayer Book,
And waited until it became quite a rare book,
Then made an engine of greater enormity,
And cut off our toes with the Act Uniformity.
*
*
*
*
*
‘ The Law’ gave its blessing to Essays, Reviews,
And settled the clergy may write as they choose ;
But Voysey and Heath, who believed what ‘Law’said,
Were seized by its minions and thrown out of bed.”
And so on, for half a column. How bitterly the
Church party.feel regarding the Law may be judged
from the following extract from a leading article in
this same number. The Record, “ it seems, is very
solicitous about the majesty of the Law—the Law,
namely, by which it was declared that a churchman
may hold the New Testament to be a pack of lies,
and our Saviour’s own words to be ‘ quite incom
patible with decency and religion.’ ” One cannot
but wonder how long it will be before the State sees
the unwisdom of meddling in these Church squabbles,
and recognises the real danger implied in the growing
�9
contempt for law; wherever the law comes into con
flict with the rights of conscience, the law will
assuredly go to the wall, and wise statesmen will
make such conflict as rare as possible by carefully
avoiding all State interference in matters of religion.
Some terrible things have happened lately. Dr.
Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, has actually given
the benediction in an Ulster coat. Once before he
has been known to deliver it in evening dress. Truly
shocking I “ Yet this is the prelate who wishes to
prohibit the true devout Catholics of the Church of
England from worshipping their Lord in the ‘ beauty
of holiness.’ ” What can be hoped for a Church whose
chief minister worships the Lord in an Ulster ?
Another burial scandal has been added to the many
which, week after week, make the Burial Bill more
necessary. At Dore, near Sheffield, a young child
died, and, when all arrangements for the funeral were
completed, the Vicar of Dore, the Rev. J. T. F. Aldred, said “ that he could not inter the boy, inasmuch
as he had not baptised him.” The child had been
baptised, it seems, by the sacrilegious jhands of a
Primitive Methodist minister, instead of by the
divinely appointed Vicar of Dore. The Vicar, how
ever, gave permission to bury the corpse in the
churchyard, and the friends decided to hold a
service in their own chapel, and that Primitive
Methodist Mr. Whitby should complete the service
in the road, the body being placed in the ground
meanwhile. The programme was duly commenced,
but when the funeral procession arrived at the grave
yard, behold the Rev. E. B. Chalmer, of the Church
of England, advancing to meet the body, reading the
sentences from the Burial Service. The rival clerics
glared at each other, and the following conversation
took place :—
Rev. W. Whitby.—“ Stop, sir, if you please. We
do not want any service read. We have had a ser
�10
Vice in our chapel, and we do not wish any service of
your Church.”
Rev. E. B. Chalmeb.—“Ton cannot bury here,
then.”
Rev. W. Whitby.—“ I say yes. It has been done.”
Rev. E. B. Chalmeb.—“ But you cannot have the
body interred here unless the service is read.”
Rev. W. Whitby.—“It shall be buried like a dog,
then, without your service.”
Such was the conduct of these two Christian
gentlemen over the body of a dead infant, while the
mourners stood around sobbing. The mother was
almost fainting, naturally suffering intensely at this
quarrel desecrating her baby’s funeral; at last she
prayed that the child might be interred in peace,
with any service, and Mr. Chalmer victoriously carried
off the corpse, and read his service over it without
further interruption. In this fashion are Dissenters
taught to reverence the Establishment, and thus it is
sought to convince them that the Church is the Church
of the nation. The Dore case seems likely to create
some interest, as the Bishop of Lichfield has been
appealed to, and questions have been asked about it
in Parliament. It appears, nevertheless, that the
clergyman must have acted in accordance with the
law, for there is manifestly no right on the part of a
Dissenting minister to read any service at the actual
burial, although he may hold a service in the road,
provided he create no obstruction ; and the clergyman
has surely a right to use the Burial Service over any
corpse buried within his freehold, unless it comes
within the excluded classes mentioned in the rubric.
The unjust state of the law as regards Free Thinkers
is painfully exemplified in the case of the children of
the late Lord Amberley. These children were com
mitted, by their father, to the care of Mr. Spalding,
a tutor chosen by himself, whom he could trust, and
who understood his wishes with regard to their reli
�11
gious, or rather non-religious education. The grand
father, Earl Russell, claimed the children, pleading
that children could not legally be committed to the
care of one who would educate them in no form of
religious belief. A case was submitted to counsel, and
was decided in Earl Russell’s favour, and the children
of the heretic were handed over to the Christian, to
be brought up in a creed detested by both their
parents; these children, if they grow up Christians,
must believe that both their father and their mother
have perished everlastingly. People talk of religious
equality in England: how much equality does the
law allow to the Free Thinker? If this case had
happened in Spain, and the parents, being rigid Pro
testants, had confided their children to the care of a
Protestant, and the law had stepped in and handed
them over to a bigoted Roman Catholic grandfather,
to be brought up in the Roman Catholic creed, we
should have heard enough cry of “injustice,” and
“intolerance,” from those very people who approve of
such treatment when it is only against the hated Free
Thinker. Earl Russell has also seized his dead son’s
manuscripts, and stopped the publication of a book
on religions, to which Lord Amberley had been devot
ing his time and strength. Not content with all this,
a final outrage was perpetrated on the helpless dead :
the bodies of Lord and Lady Amberley, buried at the
dying wish of each in unconsecrated ground, have
been exhumed and reburied in the Russell consecrated
vault, so that those who, in life, could not be forced
within the Church, may be handed over to her when
they can no longer defend themselves. Thus bitterly
intolerant does the so-called Liberal Earl Russell show
himself; protesting against persecution of his fellowChristians abroad, he persecutes those who disagree
with himself at home, and pours the cruelest insults
possible on the head of his own dead children ; for he
destroys the one immortality for which Lord Amber
�12
ley hoped and laboured, the immortality of his thought,
enshrined in the suppressed book; he takes his children
to bring them up in a superstition hated by both their
parents; and he takes the most cowardly of all re
venges on the dead bodies reverently committed to
the bosom of the mighty mother, by insultingly tear
ing them from their resting-place, thus desecrating
even the last home of the dead. Will the day ever
dawn when honest heresy shall be as respected as
honest orthodoxy, and men and women shall reverence
in others the freedom they desire for themselves?
Sometimes orthodox Christians complain that the
tongue of the Free Thinker speaks bitterly; and that
sharp taunt is used where gentle persuasion would be
more attractive: but can they wonder that sometimes
our words are bitter: can they wonder that our arrows
are sometimes keenly barbed, when they know that
no thought is taken how our tenderest feelings may
be trampled on, and our hopes crushed; that no voice
will be raised in defence of the sacredness of the tie
between parents and children of our brotherhood, no
word of rebuke spoken to those who desecrate our
graves, and who crush out the one hope of immor
tality to which we cling, the hope that our thought
shall live, and may serve the world of men when we
are gone to our rest.
c
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. May, 1876
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT174
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (Signs of the times. May, 1876), 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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e6df8905d04b5d72cdf7d8ee6b5b0cd8.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=TR0SaNpWhY5zAeisDHWB%7EVxOQo2bfYZCC4M-oe3E92w4SQKJ%7EQeNDeBvulKC6J1FoWjuQk6dX9iCcyGBfywO51Aq6HKTlc3HnHaRw4suH5NRoTOSQYkUg1vR3dNoE40cI16l06C8jMMH9IuTu8Oo1mTS09GygscJcM5XKe2nKIrtmYD%7EjvswHxLg90v1JX1ObPD5kytL3gSoWJ1LmLHV9LgfZIJXbLnlNC51n6-OZOTrg1KTWxSUPCBxeyb9s3utSL2imIWQ0pfyVxSiV-mkIRDgB05%7E2LtHkQ0qhxPu6ubfxFQK5QmLZDzVwdOaltHoVcvpfF6kw3-yg-aId8xziw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c3eedb27cad8e597c992ab7d9a5a9cbb
PDF Text
Text
NOTES ON BISHOP MAGEE’S
PLEADINGS FOR CHRIST.
BY A BARRISTER.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price, Sixpence.
��PLEADINGS FOR CHRIST.
-------- ♦--------
VERY one, who knows anything of his public
career, will be inclined to think and to speak
favourably of Dr Magee, Bishop of Peterborough. A
man who, by his own unaided talents and eloquence,
has raised himself from the position of a humble curate
to a deanery, and subsequently to the Episcopal Bench,
must possess qualities of a character to recommend
him to the sympathy of most Englishmen. His first
speech in the House of Lords was such as abundantly
to justify his elevation, if oratory is to be held as a
qualification for the office of a Bishop. It was emi
nently rhetorical, but rhetoric is not out of place in a
public assembly, and it possessed the superlative
merit of being effective.
It is for these reasons that we lament seeing him in
what we think a false character, that we regret to ob
serve him not taking the proper measure of his natural
powers. He should have contented himself with
moving the hearts of men by his eloquence, and have
avoided all attempts at close reasoning, either on
scepticism or on any other subject. Above all, he
should not have attempted to reason in print. 11 It
would be as idle for an orator,” says Lord Macaulay,
“to waste deep meditation and long research on his
speeches, as for a manager to adorn the crowd of
courtiers and ladies who cross the stage with real
pearls and diamonds.” But the case is very different
. with a treatise intended not to command loud plaudits
E
A
�4
Pleadings for Christ.
but to be perused in the calm of the closet, not merely
to excite admiration but to carry conviction. Here
paste diamonds are quite inadmissible. And we
regret to find that in the sermons before us Bishop
Magee has given us nothing but paste.
We first took our pen in hand with the intention of
briefly reviewing these remarkable sermons, and com
mencing our review by a sketch of their contents.
We do not know whether it will be possible to carry
out this intention, for the more they are examined the
greater does the difficulty of the task appear. How to
give a reduced outline of that which is, in itself,
without form and void ! Confused thought, bad logic,
false analogies, mark every step of the Bishop’s pro
gress. For pages together, he fires at imaginary enemies,
sometimes he fires in the air, at others, he is firing into
the ranks of his own co-religionists. It is as difficult to
convey an idea of his general argument, as to put together
the fragments of an ill-prepared pudding which has
fallen to pieces in the boiling. After reading and
re-reading these sermons, a sense of hopelessness of
reproducing their purport weighs on the mind, like
that which appalls the hearer, after listening to Foote’s
burlesque narrative which ends in the marriage of the
barber.
We are not exaggerating. We pledge ourselves to
establish every one of these statements before we have
done with the Bishop. We do not even profess to
argue from the “sceptical” point of view; for we
think that it is the orthodox who have a cause of
complaint against such a “ defence” as this. We are
perfectly ready to admit that it furnishes no fair sample
of what may be alleged in defence of Christian dog
mas ; and that from that side have emanated, and are
even now being produced, defences of Christianity
which, if to be answered at all, are only to be answered
by writers of consummate skill in dialectics. Our
observations apply solely to the pamphlet before us.
�Pleadings for Christ.
5
We repeat that it is impossible to give an idea of it as
a whole, and that all that we can hope to do is to lay
a few of the bricks of which it is bnilt at the feet of
the reader, in order to enable him to judge of the
character of the edifice. 'We may take the opportunity
of saying here that we should never have taken this
trouble, if these discourses had not been heralded with
an immense flourish of trumpets, and borne the name
__ with the announcement that they are revised and
corrected by the preacher—of an English prelate. It
may be added that they are edited by a dean who was
at one time the head master of one of our greatest
public schools. There has been a great labouring of
the mountain; let us try and give some idea of the
result.
These discourses, then—“Argumentative Discourses”
they are called on the title-page—are three in number,
“Christianity and Eree-Thought,” “Christianity and
Scepticism,” “ Christianity and Faith,” and they appear
together under the general title of “Pleadings for
Christ.” The text of the first sermon is taken from
St John’s G-ospel viii. 33, “ How sayest thou ‘ Ye shall
be made freeP” We regret to find at the outset that
the Bishop does not understand the narrative which
he has made the theme of his discourse; or, at any
rate, does not seem to know that the rendering of it
which he assumes to be the true one, is open to discus
sion. He supposes “they” at the beginning of verse
33, to refer to those Jews who are said to have “ be
lieved on Christ” in verses 30, 31, and he takes “the
Jews” who are represented as disputing with Christ
throughout the remainder of the chapter, and who
ultimately take up stones to throw at him, to be these
same converts, who immediately lapse into disbelief on
hearing the words “ Ye shall be made free.” The way
in which the narrative is printed in our English ver
sion should have guarded the Bishop against rushing
to this conclusion. There is a
before “They” at
�6
Pleadings for Christ.
verse 31, showing the sense the translators attached
to the passage. The context should equally have
warned him: at verse 37, “ye seek to kill me,”
cannot refer to those who had just professed their
belief in him, but to the mass who still disbelieved.
“The Jews” again are spoken of at verses 48, 52, 57.
They it was, not “those Jews which had believed on
him,” who took up the stones. “The Jews” is the
term constantly used by John to signify those who
dispute with and do not acknowledge Christ. There
is a similar division of opinion in the next chapter but
one, x. 19. Further on, the Jews (the unbelievers)
again pick up stones to throw at him. The Greek is
aurp. “ Answer was made to him
as the
orthodox commentator, Bloomfield, says, “ not by those
just before mentioned who ‘believed on him,’ but
some bystanders.” Dr Brown in his commentary
writes, “ The hostile part of his audience here break
ing in upon the words of encouragement addressed to
the believing portion,” &c. “ Some present asserted,”
(Scott). “ That is the other Jews who had not believed,”
(Dr Adam Clarke.) This is the obvious sense, and so
de Wette and most other commentators take it. Dean
Alford, it is true, takes Bishop Magee’s view, referring
to v. 36, which we do not think by any means conclusive.
So that the occurrence which the Bishop makes the
theme of his discourse, pressing it upon our attention,
with frequent repetitions of its purport, “First they
believe on him, shortly afterwards they seek to take
his fife,” the scene which is “ a prophecy of the whole
history of Christ’s life in his church, the story of those
who come and of those who go,” &c., &c., is to our
way of thinking, and if the opinions of the best com
mentators are worth anything, a purely imaginary one.
This, however, is a small matter. The Bishop
* So Mark xii. 13, “And they send unto him,” &c. Gr.
d.iroaTeX\ovui irpos a-urbv rivas, &c. Certain persons are sent to
him. John xviii. 28, “ Then led they Jesus,” &c.
�Pleadings for Christ.
7
presently goes on to give us his idea of Free-thought
and Free-thinkers. The ideas which he has formed on
this subject, always more or less confused, and often
contradicting each other, are constantly appearing on
the surface all through his three discourses. As these
free-thinkers are the class of persons against whom
we presume that he directs his arguments, it is certainly
essential that he should understand what is meant by
the term. Let us see, then, what he does understand
by it. Free-thinkers, it seems, are persons “ deter
mined not to hear reason,” “ unwilling even to listen
to arguments for Christianity.” They are men who
say, “ I cannot stop to listen to your evidences of
Christianity, when upon the very face of it you bear
this stamp of falsehood, that you are opposed to free
dom.” And again, “No evidence of prophecy or
miracle will make me give up my freedom of thought.”
Elsewhere we read that free-thinkers are those “ who
reject either all or a part of Christianity.” With re
gard to this last definition, we must notice, in passing,
its singular felicity and clearness. According to the
Bishop, a Unitarian is a free-thinker, because he rejects
a part of Christianity, i.e., the divinity of Christ. But
the Bishop himself is a free-thinker, according to twothirds of the Christian world ; for he rejects a doc
trine which is with them a part and parcel of Chris
tianity, i.e., that of a supreme visible church. What
is “ Christianity 1 ” In this passage it must mean the
particular form of it professed by Dr Magee.
Having thus introduced us to the Free-thinker—
who is, it seems, a being who rejects all or a part of
the Bishop’s theological views, because they interfere
with his freedom—the preacher proceeds, throughout
the rest of his sermon, to treat us to a dissertation on
free-thought in general. This, he says, can only be
of three kinds. Freedom, as opposed to necessity ;
freedom, as opposed to authority; or freedom as op
posed to responsibility. Our space does not permit us
�8
Pleadings for Christ.
to deal more than briefly with the Bishop’s mode of
arguing under these three heads.
The doctrine of “ Freedom as opposed to necessity ”
—“ that a man is free to think in one way or another,
that it is not an absolute necessity for him always to
think in one way or another, that his thoughts do
not grow out of him as the blade grows out of the
seed,”—we had generally heard defined as the doctrine
of Free-will; and surely it is much better, in discus
sions of this kind, to adhere to a recognised term,
than to devise a fresh one (unless good cause be shown),
which may only serve to confuse all concerned. Here
it is the Bishop himself who, as usual, becomes con
fused. “Thought” immediately afterwards figures as
“ belief,” and an entirely new proposition is intro
duced to the reader : “ Christianity teaches that man
is free—ay, terribly free I—to will his own belief,
when it teaches us that man is answerable for his
belief, because men cannot be answerable for that over
which they have no choice or power whatever.”
Noting with pleasure this last admission, we must
say that there is a good deal in this sentence which
might challenge comment, as illustrating the Bishop’s
slip-shod method, and which yet we must pass by.
But we feel constrained to ask this question, Is it
true that man has the power to will his own belief ?
To be of any service to the argument, belief must
here mean a true belief. Man must have it in his
power to will to believe what is certainly true, and
must have some verifying faculty within him, inde
pendent of the external accidents which help to shape
opinions, for the non-exercise of which faculty he is
responsible. For it is only in consequence of his
possessing such a power that he can be held to be
justly punishable for going wrong, in which case alone
he will be liable to punishment. This is only a round
about way of stating an old view, as to which orthodox
theologians are at issue with all reasonable Christians.
�Pleadings for Christ.
9
That a man is responsible for the steps which he takes
and the care which he exercises in arriving at an
opinion, is a reasonable statement ; but the assertion
that he is responsible for the opinion itself, if it turns
out to be a wrong one (in other words, that he has the
power of willing to adopt a right one), is an assertion
not likely to help the Bishop in his crusade against
the free-thinkers. Nor will he probably make more
way with them when he goes on to point out that it
is a very remarkable and a very strange thing that it
is the very people who call themselves free-thinkers—
many of them at least—who most strongly insist upon
the fact, that man is not answerable for his belief;
whereas, “ it is the Christian ” (i.e., the man who holds
the opposite view), “ who is the real free-thinker.”
They will be inclined to contend that there is more,
much more, real freedom, not to speak of morality, in
the doctrine that man is bound to form the very best
opinion he can, without being subject to punishment
in case he should honestly fall into error, than in the
view which represents us as being complete masters of
truth and error, on the condition of being subject to
eternal damnation, if we perversely arrive at a con
clusion different from that of the Bishop of Peter
borough.
We are next treated to the Bishop’s views on Free
Thought as opposed to authority. “It is said that
freedom of thought is opposed to all authority: and we
are told that thought cannot be free if it submits to
authority.” We do not know by whom these foolish
statements are supposed to be “ told ” or “ said.” Here
as elsewhere the Bishop constructs a lay figure for the
purpose of smashing it to pieces; an innocent pastime,
but one not at all conducive to the spread of Christi
anity. Accordingly he proceeds to ask, in a tone of
conscious triumph, “ Have you ever considered how
many of your most cherished opinions you are receiving
on authority, not because you have proved them for
�io
Pleadings for Christ.
yourselves, hut because you have taken them from
some one who you believe knows more than you do ?
You take the opinion of your lawyer on law as an
authority; you take the opinion of your doctor on
medicine as an authority, &c.” The Bishop might
have added that we should be perfectly willing to
accept him and other right reverend persons, as autho
rities on certain ecclesiastical subjects. If for instance
we wished to know from what side of the altar or
table, north, south, east, or west, it is lawful to read
the communion service, and which are the Popish
points of the compass in connection with that ceremony;
what the precise functions of god-fathers and god
mothers, or of archdeacons may be; what the exact
force of the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian
creed, and how far an Anglican may be allowed to
accept them cum grano; we should personally be
glad to accept the Bishop as an authority on these
matters, of which he must necessarily know a great deal
more than we, who indeed know nothing. But the
Bishop has omitted to say (indeed he could not say)
that we are bound to accept any of these people as
infallible authorities, even on the matters of fact to
which they testify (as for instance, what is the law,
lay, or ecclesiastical in a particular case, what is the
precise effect, sudorific or emetic, of a certain drug, &c.),
much less that we are bound so to accept them on
points where an independent judgment may fairly be
exercised, as for example the goodness or badness of a
law, the beneficial effects of a particular mode of
treatment, the wisdom or silliness of certain ecclesias
tical practices. And without this notion of infallibility
as attached to authority, his illustrations will be of no
use at all against real free-thinkers: in fact, they are
such as these latter will be glad to adduce on their own
behalf. Thus, so far are we from yielding up our
judgment implicitly to the authority of lawyers, that we
believe some of the very worst laws ever devised to
�Pleadings for Christ.
11
have been their especial work, and nearly every bad law
to have received their general approval. The mistakes
of doctors are proverbial. The bleedings, and sweatings,
and purgings and blisterings of the last century are pro
nounced by the modern practitioner to aggravate. the
very symptoms which they were intended to alleviate.
Indeed, no better illustration than that, of medicine
could be adduced to show that authority is not . always
on the right side, and that we are bound, even in cases
where some deference is due to it, not altogether to lay
aside that watchful attitude of the mind which charac
terizes free thought. If the Bishop means to assert that
theology is an exception to this rule, he is advocating
Boman Catholic doctrine pure and simple, and that
under circumstances which are not likely to commend
it to our acceptance : since the very Protestantism of
which he is a professing minister was founded at the
Reformation by those who refused to submit to the
then existing authority, and distinctly exercised their
own free thought.
But, says the Bishop—supposing any one to work a
miracle, then clearly you ought to submit to his. au
thority. The passage in which he sets forth this view,
is so curious, and at the same time so well illustrates the
style of his reasoning, that we subjoin it.
“ Let us suppose that you were walking through one
of the grave-yards of this city in company with another,
and that the discourse fell upon the resurrection of the
dead, and that you were arguing that it was impossible
-—that there was no authority to prove it-—and suppose
that the person walking with you said, £ I know more
than you of the dead, and I will give you a proof that I
know more than you do,’ and suppose that, stretching
out his hand, he bid the dead in that grave-yard arise,
and that they sprung up alive out of the earth ■where
they had been sleeping, do you mean to say—is there
any one in this congregation who could say, if he saw
that miracle—that the person who had wrought it would
be no authority on the question of the resurrection of
�12
Pleadings for Christ.
the dead, or that it would he any tyranny over his
Free-thought to say, ‘ Believe this person ?’ Your freethought, because it is free, would immediately ally itself
with the authority of the person who had done this
thing?’
If by this it be meant that a man who went about
raising dead people would be looked upon as an au
thority on the subject of raising the dead, this is a
truism.
He would, we think, be the sole living
authority on that head. But if it be meant that a
simple manifestation of miraculous power (and one
miracle is not more wonderful than another) ought im
mediately to command our submission to the authority
of the wonder-worker on all other points,—as for
instance on morals,—this is diametrically opposed to
common sense and to the teachings of Scripture. We
are repeatedly warned in the Bible that the power to
work miracles and signs and wonders is no proof of a
Divine mission. We do not know what any of the
*
congregation in Norwich Cathedral might do, under
the hypothetical circumstances, but we hope that all of
them would act in a way the exact opposite to thatattributed to them by the Bishop. We trust that, in
stead of “ allying themselves to the authority ” of the
resurrectionist, they would very carefully weigh any
moral teaching with which he might favour them. In
other words, we advise them, should the case arise, to
use their “ freedom of thought.” Nor could a better
illustration of the importance and necessity of exercis
ing true Free-thought (as distinguished from the strange
and unintelligible creation of the Bishop) be set before
them.
The next two sentences have somewhat puzzled us.
We append them in the hope and belief that the
reader will be better able than ourselves to seize their
full purport.
* Matt. vii. 22 and xxiv. 24 • Rev. xvi. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 9, &c.
and of Deuteron, xiii. 1-5.
�Pleadings for Christ.
13
“ So you see freedom of thought is not inconsistent
with the authority we claim for the Christian Revela
tion. For this reason, that the revelation submits its
proof to your Free-thought, and unless you accept its
proof, of course you cannot accept its authority ; but,
if you do accept it, you do not lose your freedom ; on
the contrary, you are asserting and acting upon your
freedom.”
.
Upon this, as far as we can understand it, and indeed
upon the whole argument of which it forms a part, we
must remark that we never heard of a person who
rejected the Christian Revelation because it interfered
with his freedom of thought, in the sense in which the
term is used here, that is to say the exercise of his
free-will. One man examines the evidences in favour
of Christianity and is satisfied with them and embraces
Christianity. Another, after examination, deems them
inconclusive and declines to accept Christianity. Both
these men exercise their “ free-thought ” or free-wfLl.
The Bishop is all the time tilting against a wind-mill.
Or, to take the illustration with which he has himself
furnished us : A. sees a person raise a dead body in a
Norwich churchyard, and immediatelyyields an implicit
obedience to this person. B., who sees the same thing,
would like a little more information, before following
this course. In what sense can it be said that A. is
“ asserting and acting upon his freedom ” more than B 1
The Bishop now approaches his third point. “ Now,
I come to the third idea of freedom—that of free
dom as opposed to responsibility—and this is what
I really believe most men mean, when they talk
of Free-thought as opposed to Christianity.” We
are glad, after following the preacher through a
labyrinth of which we are never sure that we hold
the clue, to find ourselves at last face to face with
him on a bit of open ground. For it is certain
that a claim to Free-thought must include the idea
of our not being morally responsible for any opinion
�14
Pleadings for Christ.
honestly arrived at. We hold the truth of this
idea, or proposition, to be absolutely unassailable,
on the assumption that there is an equitable God.
We do not say that man will not be punished eternally
for an honest mistake ; but we do assert that it is
impossible to conceive such a punishment as other
than immoral and unjust. Theologians have tried
to get out of the difficulty by pleading that what
seems unjust to us, may be just upon the whole, &c.
But this does not really help them. Words must
be used in the sense which is commonly attached
to them, or there is an end of all clearness in our
ideas and our reasoning. If Supreme Justice to all
can, without a contradiction, be made to include
what we call Injustice to us, we must think of it
as Injustice, and are not assisted one whit, by revers
ing the terms and calling it Justice. Theologians,
we repeat, have always felt this to be a great difficulty,
and some of them have devised the doctrine that
God may not after all be omnipotent, and may be
compelled to doom the greater part of the human
race to endless tortures. But the Bishop pours
out his rhetoric, undismayed by any such considera
tions as these. To him everything is quite clear
and satisfactory. Yet we should have thought that
a little reflection might have induced him to pause
before giving his approval to the doctrine that man
ought to be condemned for his opinions. Supposing
the dogma of the Church of Borne (which embraces
the majority of Christians) to be correct—“ Hors de
l’Eglise point de salut,” the Bishop himself would
be liable to eternal hell-fire for his opinions, nor
would it help him on his own theory, that he had
formed them conscientiously.
We are sure that if
his Lordship examines his own heart, he will confess
that he could not avoid thinking such a judgment
on him to be an unjust one, and we are equally sure
that he would be quite right in his conclusion.
�Pleadings for Christ.
15
The way in. which the Bishop seeks to establish
the propriety of eternal punishment for mistaken
opinions from the analogies furnished by Society, Law
and Nature, is as singular as anything in these
singular discourses. He tells us that Society and
the Laws are perpetually punishing men for their
Free-thought. “ If a man utters a seditious thought,
if he utters a libellous thought about his neighbour,
if he utters a foul or indecent thought, is it true that
he ought not to be punished?” And again “Let
a man entertain uncharitable thoughts, suspicious
thoughts, evil and unkind thoughts of his neighbour—
let him not even utter them in speech, but show
them in his manner and look—let his fellow-men
know that he thinks ill of them, or unjustly of them
—and you know well how Society visits on that man
this exercise of his Free-thought.” Here it will be
observed that, with systematic confusion, the Bishop
uses “ Free-thought ” in an entirely new sense. It
means here the claim of a man to think (and act)
precisely as he pleases : and no reference is made
to the one important point “ Does the man honestly
believe that he is doing right in indulging in the
thought, or act 1” In the majority of the instances
given above, the man must clearly know that he
is doing wrong, and he is very properly punishable
both in this world and, as we believe, in that to
come. By simply changing the meaning of Freethought in this way the Bishop escapes in a cloud
of verbiage. And yet, to take his own analogy,
nothing is more clear than that society, in awarding
its moral judgment, invariably attaches great weight
to this plea, where it can be satisfactorily established,
viz., that a man has done an act under a conscientious
sense of its being a right one. The Laws, it is true,
cannot always do this. The reason is, of course,
that our Justice must necessarily be dispensed in a
rude fashion. We are obliged to mark out certain
�16
Pleadings for Christ.
actions as injurious to society and to punish, those
who commit them: and not having the necessary
machinery to weigh motives, we are, as a general
rule, obliged to neglect them, though even here a
striking exception will occur to every one in the
case of the insane, whom we do not punish, but only
keep out of harm’s way, on the ground that they are
not responsible, because they are supposed not to know
that they are doing wrong. No one, now-a-days,
will call General Washington and his associates
criminals: and the fact of their success in their
enterprize has nothing to do with their criminality or
innocence : they would have been precisely the same
men, morally speaking, if they had succumbed to
the British Forces instead of gaining the advantage
over them.
Yet it is probable that they would
all have been hanged or shot if the issue had been
different. The Law would have punished and society
would have acquitted them. Charlotte Corday was
executed, and we think rightly executed, for assass
inating Marat: but posterity has refused to assign
to her action any but an infinitesimal share of moral
blame. We remember reading some years ago of
a Swedish clergyman who, if we recollect rightly,
poisoned some of the most religious among his con
gregation, under the idea that he was conferring a
benefit on them by sending them to Heaven. This
man was probably put to death—he ought to have
been, if sane—but it is clear that, if the truth of his
plea could he established, his offence in a moral point
of view, was of a totally different kind from that of
Thurtell or the Mannings.
It is true then that
the Law does often punish men for acting on con
scientious motives : but this arises from the necessary
imperfection of all Law which as we have said can
go only a very little way into the question of Intent
and must deal with the overt Act. To argue from
this that an all-seeing Being who is acquainted with
�Pleadings far Christ.
17
intents and motives must be expected to act in a
similar way, is a strange piece of reasoning. Nor
does it appear to us that any such conclusion can
be drawn from the Analogy of Society. It is true
that it has often punished men for their conscientious
opinions; but the more civilization has advanced
the more has such a practice come to be admitted,
in theory at least, to be indefensible and barbarous.
And there is no surer sign of a healthy society than
this ; that its members should be allowed to hold and
to express publicly any opinion whatever that is not
positively illegal, or immoral, without incurring repro
bation. In short, we are altogether at a loss to see
how any inference can be drawn from the “ Analogy
of Society” of a kind to lead us to suppose that God
will condemn honest error to never-ending torment.
In appealing to the “ Analogy of Nature ” the
Bishop seems to us to be standing on much firmer
ground. In all these sixty-six closely printed pages,
the only coherent argument is one adapted from Butler.
Bishop Magee points out that the forces of nature are
inexorable. However conscientious a man’s views
may be as to these, yet, if- they happen to be wrong
ones, they may lead him to his destruction. “ Let him
freely think that fire does not burn, or water drown ;
let him think that fever is not infectious, or that
ventilation is unhealthy ; let him think wrongly con
cerning any law of nature, and he will find that he
will be visited by a sharp and merciless punishment.”
We must enter some preliminary objection to the
word “ punishment ” here. No doubt the term is used
popularly, precisely in this sense. Nothing is more
common than to hear of a person being “ punished for
a mistake : ” though, even here, if we are able to show
that the mistake was unavoidable, this is generally
held to be destructive of any such view, and the idea
of Punishment disappears. The same vague use of
the term obtains in such expressions as “ punished for
�t8
Pleadings for Christ.
the sins of his ancestors.” But, in its more exact sense,
we shall find punishment (at any rate among civil
ized nations) invariably conceived as the consequence
of wrong-doing.
The history of Persecution fur
nishes no exception to this, for the Catholics who
burnt the Protestants, burnt them, among other reasons,
for this one : that they believed them to be indulging
themselves in wanton and wilful errors. They had
not arrived at the conception (any more than Bishop
Magee appears to have arrived at it), that a conviction
might force itself upon the mind. They thought, as
he does, that every man has a complete control over his
own belief, and a power of forming a true belief, and as
they felt that their belief was the true one, they deemed
every one deeply culpable who did not conform to
it. In any case, the fact that the word “ punishment”
is used in a loose, and sometimes figurative sense of
almost everything that hurts, should make us cautious
about accepting it here, where it takes for granted a
point that admits of argument. We are aware that
Death and Suffering of all kinds are looked upon by
theologians as punishments from on high, but this is a
position which requires to be established, and cannot
be assumed in the above passage. We do not think
then that the man who innocently runs his head
against one of the great powers of nature and is
stunned, as far as this life is concerned, can properly
be said to be punished, in the sense in which that
term is affixed to the endless punishment of the im
penitent. We once knew of a person whose case was
exactly that which the Bishop puts. He had arrived
at certain very strong notions as to the power of
volition. He had convinced himself that if a man
who had never learnt to swim, found himself all of a
sudden out of his depth, and retained perfect presence
of mind, he would instinctively strike out in a swim
ming attitude, and so remain on the surface. Full of
this discovery, and of the great benefit which he would
�Pleadings for Christ.
19
confer upon mankind by illustrating it in his person, he
jumped into the Severn and was immediately drowned.
We have never been able to think of the waters which
closed over this good soul’s head as punishing him, or
doing anything else to him than stopping his breath,
and so removing him from the world. Similarly, one
of ourselves who overdrinks himself is properly
“ punished ” by a splitting headache : but we should
not use the same word (at least not in the same sense)
in the case of a savage who drank off a flask of brandy
in ignorance of its intoxicating properties. A spec
tator who adventures himself into a battle is said to be
punished for his temerity by receiving a bullet in his
person, but no one uses the word in the case of a
soldier engaged in the fight. Take any instances that
you like, and you will always find that the idea of
punishment, properly speaking, corresponds with the
idea of wilful transgression, (of which, of course, negli
gence is a form), and that wilful transgression excludes
the notion of a conscientious mistake.
Putting aside this consideration, however, and
admitting, as we must do, that at any rate suffering
does often, in this world, follow upon innocent
mistakes, it seems to us a very large deduction to
make from these premises, that a like order of things
may be expected to hold good in another world. We
do not recollect that even Bishop Butler went so far
as this. He argued that the analogy of nature, the
whole present course of things, shows that there is
nothing incredible in God’s rewarding and punishing
men for their actions («.<?., their good or bad actions)
hereafter; and this we think a reasonable proposition.
If we may argue from our experience of this world,
that men in another world will suffer for their mistakes
here, there are many like inferences to be drawn with
as good reason as this one : for example that, inasmuch
as many generations are known to suffer through the
innocent error of an ancestor, a similar law may be
�20
Pleadings for Christ.
expected to be enforced hereafter: which surely will
commend itself to no one.
*
These are assumptions
altogether without warrant; mere projections of all the
admitted difficulties which we find in our present
imperfect scheme into another one, of which we know
nothing positive. And they have the suspicious
appearance (which marks Butler’s great treatise
throughout) of being devised as buttresses to a preestablished dogmatic system of theology. As there
were many things in this, which, impartially considered,
must offend the moral sense of mankind, it was deemed
opportune to show that there were many similar things
in the constitution of nature. There is no theology,
however monstrous, which might not be bolstered up
by the same method. That because A, who disbelieves
in infection, + catches the small-pox, there is reason to
believe that B, who is not satisfied on the evidence
that the Pentateuch is an inspired work, will be
roasted everlastingly, is an inference that never would
have occurred to any one educated human being, if
there had not been a church or churches in existence
which had previously insisted on the latter proposition.
Granting, however, to the fullest extent, the truth
of the Bishop’s position, and admitting that man may
(or if you please will) be punished hereafter for errors
in belief: we are at a loss to see how he can turn this
to account in arguing with an infidel, e.g., a man who
does not believe in miracles. If we can conceive the
. * Whenever a dogma in theology suggests itself to the imagination, of such a monstrous character as to provoke the in
ternal exclamation, “ Nobody can believe this! ” one is always
forced to check the utterance by the second thought that
probably a great number of persons do preach and believe
either that or something still more monstrous. But we hope
no one holds the exact view in the text. Adam’s error, it
will be recollected, was not an innocent one.
t We take one of the Bishop’s illustrations, without
committing ourselves to an opinion on the theory of infection
prevalent among most medical men. He is probably aware
that it has been disputed.
�Pleadings for Christ.
21
latter as becoming convinced of the truth of the
assertion, he will only exclaim with the Roman
Catholic, “ So much the worse then for the Bishop of
Peterborough, and those who agree with him! ” The
fact is, and this crops up all through these sermons,
the Bishop does not really believe in the existence of
such a thing as an honest and conscientious rejection of
a miraculous revelation.
As he himself tells us,
further on, such facts as that Jesus Christ was miracu
lously conceived and bom of a virgin, that he descended
into hell, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven,
are to him, “facts as certain as the great lights of
heaven; we cannot conceive the possibility of our
doubting them.” He feels that they are true; therefore
they must be true. It would be as impossible for a
reasoner of this description to imagine that there are
people holding opinions diametrically opposite to his
own, with an earnestness, a sincerity, a tenacity of
conviction, and a sense of deep responsibility to God
for the way in which those opinions have been formed,
in no respect inferior to his, as it was for the Eastern
King to imagine the existence of ice. Somehow or other,
if these people would only take proper pains, they must
see how wrong they are 1 The Bishop thinks that if they
were once convinced of the awful consequences which
may attend mistakes in theology, they would be in
duced to change their views. He warns them of their
danger, as one might warn a parcel of careless school
boys playing on the edge of a precipice. We know some
old Tories who altogether deny that modern Radicals
can be sincere, and modern Radicals who hold precisely
the same narrow-minded view about old Tories. We
make no doubt, both these Tories and Radicals would
hold as certain, that if their adversaries could once be
convinced of this dogma, that “ a mistaken view of
politics may entail eternal damnation,” they would
immediately become frightened, reconsider their posi
tion, and come over to the opposite side !
�22
Pleadings for Christ.
Before concluding our notice of this discourse, there
are two more passages in it which we must briefly call
attention to. “ Ah! there is something after all in
that word, ‘ I believe in God the Father Almighty,’—
there is something in knowing and believing in an
omnipotent and loving will, that has the power to save
the free thought of an erring creature from the terrible
punishment which comes from the soulless and merci
less machinery of law,” and further on we read of the
great importance to us of God “suspending those
terrible laws which we so dread.” We are not sure
that we quite understand this. If by “ the soulless
and merciless machinery of law,” and “ those terrible
laws which we so dread,” are meant those general laws
which we observe working around us, we do not see
that as a rule they are suspended, or that erring creatures
are ever rescued, except by the operation of other laws,
from their effects. As the preacher himself has very
correctly put it,—f£ The great machinery of the world
will not arrest its revolutions for the cry of a human
creature, who, by a very innocent error, by the mistaken
action of his free thought, is being ground to pieces
beneath them.” It cannot therefore be of any import
ance to us, in this sense, that God should have the
power to save us from the machinery of these laws, or
to suspend them, since, in point of fact, he never does
exercise these powers. The Bishop evidently alludes
to laws supposed to hold good in regard to another
world, as, for instance, that all men are by nature
doomed to endless and excruciating torment through
the fault of Adam—a law the operation of which was
miraculously suspended by the Almighty in favour of
certain persons. The Bishop quietly assumes the exist
ence of this law as a matter not open to dispute, just
as that fire burns and water drowns, and then cries
out, “ How important it is that we should have some
one to save us from its operation ! ” We think it
much more important that no such frightful law
�Pleadings for Christ.
23
should exist, and the Free-thinker is, in our opinion,
quite justified who requires very strong proof of it.
And, for this reason, we entirely concur in the remarks
which follow. “ Let us,” he says, “ introduce a new
fact into the world of existing facts. Let us suppose,
for argument’s sake, that there is a God. Can it be pos
sible that it should be a matter of indifference how men
think about this new fact ? Does it make no difference
to 11s whether he is a father or a tyrant 1 ” &c., &c. We
believe that there is not a Free-thinker who would not
cordially endorse this ; and we have read the same
sentiments, almost the same words, from the pens of
some among them.
*
In short, while it is granted on
both sides that it is of the greatest importance to us to
acquire, as far as we are able to do so, correct notions
about God, and that it certainly does make a great
“ difference to us whether he is a father or a tyrant,”
the Free-thinker argues that it is the orthodox doctrine
which represents him as a tyrant. We must say that
there is some prima facie ground for this assertion.
An Almighty Sovereign who condemns the great ma
jority of his subjects to unceasing agonies of the most
exquisite kind, bears some resemblance to such a
character, and it is for theologians to prove that there
is no likeness between the two. It will not help them
with their opponents (and we presume that it is their
object to persuade and to convince such), to point out
the importance of believing in a Being able mercifully
to suspend “terrible laws,” the existence of which
these latter deny; or who, if they admitted them,
* “ Is there not something absolutely rotten in the condi
tion of those who contentedly jog on with what may be en
tirely false notions of their Deity ? Assuredly it is of as
much consequence to the human race to acquire, as far as it
is able to do so, correct notions about him as about the physi
cal configuration of the world it inhabits. And if people don’t
choose to inquire, they cannot make sure that their notions on
this head may not be deplorably false ones —Pleas for Free
Inquiry (published in this Series), page 12.
�24
Pleadings for Christ.
■would look upon such an exercise of mercy as akin
to the act of a king of Dahomey, who, after con
demning a thousand of his captives to slow torture,
should mercifully except a few who happened to strike
his fancy.
We must now take the liberty of explaining to the
Bishop, in a few words, what we take to be the mean
ing of a Free-thinker and Free Thought. We do not
hold Free Thought, in our acceptation of the word, to
have anything to do with the doctrines of Necessity
and Free Will, or to be opposed to authority (in the
sense of all authority), or to responsibility (in the sense
of all responsibility). Still less are we ready to admit
that Free Thought “ will not stop to listen to evidence.”
On the contrary, we understand by a Free-thinker in
religion, a man who lays claim to the right of what is
called private judgment, the right of examining for
himself the evidences of every creed that is submitted
to him, in opposition to the dogma that he is bound
to accept any one creed solely on authority. Niebuhr
was a free-thinker on the subject of early Boman history,
but so far from not stopping to listen to the evidence, we
should say that a great part of his life was passed in
weighing it. Protestantism is the legitimate outcome
of free-thought. Wicklyffe, Luther, Calvin, and the
rest of the Reformers, were free-thinkers. The belief
which the Bishop professes, has been established by
the persistent exercise of this right; but as sometimes
happens in the case of the heir to a wealthy tradesman,
he is for repudiating the very means by which his
possessions have been acquired. The fact is that,
whenever a religion becomes stereotyped, it inevitably
puts forth this claim to authority. In the case of
Roman Catholicism, this is a consistent claim, and the
term h'&re penseur has a definite meaning, as opposed
to implicit obedience to authority, the doctrine of the
church, and the word is freely applied by Roman
Catholic divines to Protestants. For a Protestant
�Pleadings for Christ.
25
Bishop to take arms against Free-thought, is to try and
cut away the ground from under his own creed. Unless
indeed it be contended that a man is free to examine
into the claims of orthodox Protestantism on the con
dition of accepting them, but not free to examine on
the condition of rejecting them, which is a very Irish
way indeed of expressing the doctrine of authority.
It will be said that this is not the meaning vulgarly
attached to the term a Free-thinker. This is quite
true. By a process, the steps of which are very plain,
the development of Protestantism (originally the
creation of Free-thought) into a system not less
authoritative in its claims than that from which it
sprang, has been the cause that “ Free-thinker ” has
come to be applied to a man who ventures to inquire into
and to doubt these its own claims. It means generally
the same thing as Sceptic, Infidel, Unbeliever. In
Brande’s Dictionary of Science, it is defined as “ almost
synonymous with Deist.” If the Bishop had used the
word in this accepted sense, we should not have had
to trouble ourselves with questions of definition. But
he has not so used it. He has credited Free-thinkers
with opinions and modes of reasoning evolved out of
the depths of his own internal consciousness. Against
Free-thinking in the ordinary meaning of the term, it
would be easy to show that his arguments are alto
gether worthless. But we must go on briefly to
consider his second sermon, which bears the title
“ Christianity and Scepticism.”
Here, again, we think it a great pity that he has
not stuck to the use of words in their ordinary sense.
We all know what is meant by the expression, “Mr
So-and-so is a religious sceptic.” It means that he
doubts, that he does not yield a full assent to the
dogmas of Christianity, or it may cover more than this,
and imply that he disbelieves them. In ordinary
parlance, the term is not distinguished from Free
thinker, Infidel, &c., as we have just said. But the
�2,6
Pleadings for Christ.
Bishop in his affectation of exact definitions has
furnished us with a Sceptic whom we do not recognize.
With him a Sceptic is a man who “ will not recognize
the existence of a God until he has it demonstrated as
clearly as that the three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles.” “ He doubts all human testi
mony.” “ He demands certainty.” “ He will assent
only upon scientific demonstration,” &c., &c. And in
a wonderful passage (wonderful even in these sermons)
he supposes his audience to have come to listen to
him, not only possessed of this same view of the
meaning of Scepticism, but actually prepared to hear
him (the Bishop) demolish it once and for ever by a
proof of the truths of Christianity, as clear to their
minds as that two and two make four! After ex
claiming “We cannot demonstrate Christianity I” (the
ejaculation is printed once in italics, and twice in
capital letters) he goes on, “ With what effect does this
announcement fall upon your hearts 1 Possibly upon
some with a feeling of disappointment. You may
have come to these sermons, expecting to go away
from them, with your faith made as clear and certain
to you, as that two and two make four. You may ex
claim, ‘ If, after all you say, there is room for doubt,
what do you mean by talking of evidence ? Evidence
leaves no room for doubt. I thought you were
going to make my faith so certain that I should never
doubt again. I thought you were going to answer all
questions, to silence all objections, and to send me
away with a mathematical certainty of every truth in
my creed ” We know nothing of Norwich, but we
do not believe that any single individual in the
Cathedral was such an idiot as this passage would
seem to imply—that he came under the impression
that the truths of Christianity might possibly be
demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid, and that
now, after eighteen centuries, the Bishop of Peter
�Pleadings for Christ.
27
borough, with his brilliant reputation, was the man
likely to furnish the demonstration.
We do not deny that there may be in the world
sceptics who answer the Bishop’s description, though,
after a considerable intercourse with those who bear
the name, we have never chanced to meet with such a
person. We think it not at all unlikely that in this
case he may have drawn upon his personal experience.
Possibly some infidel cobbler or tinker may have
accosted him during his ministrations as a hard-work
ing curate (we can hardly imagine such a being coming
in contact with a Dean or a Bishop) with the remark,
“ Prove to me your religion as you prove that two and
two are four, and then I will believe it 1
And . Dr
Magee has perhaps gone away with the reflection,
“ This then is modern Scepticism 1 ” A very small
attention to the arguments, the “insidious objec
tions,” as Dean Goulburn calls them—which are
exciting so much consternation in the orthodox camp,
might have convinced him that this is not Modern
Scepticism. This is not the foe that he has to combat,
if he would render any service to the cause which he
has at heart. Those who reject “ all human testi
mony ” must of necessity be a very small minority,
call them by what name you will, and seem to. us
scarcely worth powder and shot, for they must reject
the story of Caesar and of Napoleon as'well as that of
Christ. If by the term “ all human testimony ” be
meant, “human testimony in favour of the miraculous,
this ground has certainly been taken up by respectable
advocates, but it has been expressly. repudiated by
nearly every sceptical thinker of eminence. When
you are going out to meet an enemy, it is of .no
use directing your artillery at one of his outlying
wings, which is not only disowned by the main
body, but has got itself hopelessly entangled in a
morass.
There is, indeed, such a thing as a Sceptical school
in Philosophy—the school of Pyrrho and others—of
�28
Pleadings for Christ.
which we should imagine that not one in every hundred
of the Norwich audience had ever heard—a confused
notion of which may have been present to the Bishop’s
mind in constructing his definitions—yet, even as ap
plied to that, they would be wholly wide of the mark.
We cannot of course go into this : and shall content
ourselves with remarking that the last known Sceptic
of this school, the man who, in modern times, dropped
the plummet of scepticism into human consciousness
itself, was David Hume.
“Sceptic,”in its proper acceptation—since the Bishop
is so particular in his definitions—means one who
meditates before giving his assent to a proposition,
who looks about him, observes, deliberates, entertains
doubts, suspends his judgment. He need not be one
who suspends his judgment as to the dogmas of Christi
anity (or anything else) because they are not capable
of mathematical demonstration—as the Bishop’s defini
tion implies-—but he may doubt, on the ground that
the evidence for them is not satisfactory to his mind.
This is the case with nine out of ten sceptics properly
so called. And it is of course only a truism to say that
we are all of us sceptics on many points, on precisely
the same grounds. We are, for instance, ourselves, at
this present moment of writing (September, 1871) en
tire “ sceptics,” in the proper sense of the term, as to
the Tichborne case. It is not that we refuse to hear
evidence on the question, for we have waded, with
great attention, through all the evidence that has been
produced: it is not that we demand absolute demonstra
tion before forming an opinion, for we shall be satisfied
with a reasonable balance of probability, on one side or
the other, just as we are often perfectly satisfied with
the result of a conviction for murder based on ci rcn mstantial evidence. Supposing the suit to determine
through the death of the claimant, or some other cause,
and no fresh facts to be adduced, we should remain
permanently in this state of mind. If we were told
that we must believe one way or the other, on pain of
�Pleadings for Christ.
2.9
eternal damnation, we should be infallibly damned to
all eternity• because it would not be “ in our power
to will a belief” (notwithstanding the Bishop’s ridicu
lous assertion to the contrary) but only to affect one ;
and we should not take the trouble to do this, because
it would not answer the purpose. To Hell we must go.
Imagine a person in this frame of mind being stowed
into a cathedral and talked at for an hour on the im
propriety of not arriving at a conclusion as to the
validity of the plaintiff’s claim, on the folly of
requiring absolute demonstration, and being warned
how a similar demand would be fatal to all morality,
&c., and he will tell you that all this does not touch
him. “The gentleman in the pulpit,” he will say,
“doesnot understand my case.” And similarly, we
believe, that throughout the whole of this sermon,
the Bishop has misunderstood modern Scepticism as
completely as in the preceding one he has misunder
stood Free-thought.
Every sceptic, then, with whom we are acquainted
will entirely concur with the Bishop in thinking it most
unreasonable to ask for mathematical proof of Christi
anity, and will he ready to admit that there is much
which we ought to believe on less evidence than this.
We agree also in this, that the laws of morality are not
susceptible of any such proof, and yet we should be for
immediately hanging up the next convicted murderer,
without taking the least notice of his plea that we had
not demonstrated murder to be wrong. In short, we
agree in several of the Bishop’s conclusions, while
carefully repudiating all connection with his arguments
and his inferences, when we are lucky enough to be able
to understand them.
For example, while he is quite right in saying, that
we ought not to ask for positive proof of the existence
of a God, we think he is entirely without warrant in
adding, “ If we could give you the same kind of proof
that there is a God, that we can give you that two
and two make four, then your religion would do you
�30
Pleadings for Christ.
just as much good as the knowledge that two and
two make four.” This is assuredly a startling mode
of expression, for we had thought that without the
knowledge that two and two make four, man would
still be a hairy savage, frequenting caves and hollow
trees instead of cathedrals.
*
The bishop would
seem to take the view of the charity-boy in “ Pickwick,”
who, after being taught his letters, wondered whether
it was worth while going through so much to learn so
little. However, he immediately explains his mean
ing : “ It would not cultivate that which religion is
meant to cultivate in you ; and that is the quality of
faith—of belief in spite of doubt, of assent in spite of
difficulty. ’ ’ Of course the same argument applies to the
Evidences of Christianity. If these were made quite
plain, “ the dwellers in the citadel would die for want
of food; the faith that should be the nutriment of
your souls would perish utterly.” This is not new,
and it has the awkward appearance which we noticed
just now, in a somewhat similar case, of being an
ex post facto plea, in view of certain difficulties in the
way of the Christian evidences, which had to be ad
mitted. If the difficulties had not existed, or could
have been boldly denied, we should not have heard
of the plea. Such as it is, it is good for every religion
under the sun, for the distinctive tenets of Catholicism,
for Buddhism, Confucianism, Mahometanism, Mor
monism, Spiritualism. Indeed, if “belief in spite of
doubt, assent in spite of difficulty,” be “ the quality
which religion is meant to cultivate in us,” it might
be alleged, without any violent absurdity, that the
greater the difficulties, the more highly is this quality
of faith exercised, and that, consequently, that religion
is most likely to be true on behalf of which the
smallest amount of evidence can be offered. Grant
* Galton, in his Tropical South Africa (quoted by Sir J.
Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, 2nd edition, pp. 334, 335),
tells an amusing story of the difficulty experienced by a
savage in understanding that two and two make four.
�Pleadings for Christ.
31
ing, however, that absence of direct proof, and even
(for the sake of argument) of very strong proof, should
be no bar to our accepting a revelation; yet it seems
to us to be. an entirely unauthorised inference to draw
from this, that God could not, if he had so chosen,
have favoured us with a revelation of his will as clear
as that two and two make four, without thereby causing
our highest faculties to deteriorate, “to die for want
of food,” to cease to be “living things.” Yet this is
what the Bishop's assertion means. We may be
quite sure that if divines thought they could establish
their dogmas by a mathematical proof, they would not
hesitate to make the attempt; * and they would point
(with great justice) to the fact, or supposed fact, of
their being so provable, as a sure evidence of their
divine origin. It would be represented to be incon
ceivable that God should suffer man to be led astray
by difficulties purposely interposed in the way of his
arriving at the truth on matters affecting his eternal
interests, or should furnish him with less than a
mathematical proof on a subject of such absorbing
importance : as inconceivable as that two and two
should not always and everywhere be equal to four,
or that the properties of one triangle should not be
found in every similar triangle ; in other words, that
God should throw difficulties in the way of all at
tempts at a science of Numbers, or Mensuration or
* The late Professor Ferrier actually did make the attempt,
in his Institutes of Metaphysics, to establish the existence of
a God, in a series of propositions, after the manner of Euclid.
If he had succeeded, there can be no doubt that his work
would have been hailed—and not by divines only—as the
most important of all contributions to human knowledge.
We should have heard nothing of the “ decay of faith,” &c.,
consequent on his discovery. Similar attempts have been
made (not to speak of Descartes) by Dr Samuel Clarke, Mr
Gillespie", and other Christian writers. Bishop Butler, in his
well-known correspondence with the former, says, that he
had for a long time made it his business to try and prove the
being and attributes of God. He clearly did not think, with
Bishop Magee, that success in such an undertaking would be
injurious to mankind.
�32
Pleadings for Christ.
Astronomy. Indeed, there is no end to the considera
tions which might be pressed into the service of an
analogy between nature and revelation, if (which is
conceivable) a revelation had been imparted in this
particular way.
A few pages on, we are surprised to find the Bishop,
who is preaching against one form of scepticism, launch
into praises of Doubt, or the sceptical spirit, as Buckle
terms it. Is it possible that he has taken to bless, what
he was called to curse ? “ Very valuable and important
is this first calling out of the instinct of doubt, this
first awakening of the sceptical part of man—of his
understanding. . . the sceptical inquiring mind is ever
questioning of every apparent fact................doubt,
precious and invaluable doubt, is ever leading man on
from question to question. . . . doubt is the cause of
progress, the implement of discovery, the spur to
reformation, the motive power that is specially needed
for the ever onward march of humanity in knowledge
and science. Doubt! without this invaluable instinct
of doubt, humanity would be stagnant: with it and by
its help humanity progresses. We do not disparage,
we highly value the uses of doubt.” This passage, by
the way, is a singular illustration of the manner in
which a man may be unconsciously the subject of
influences to the tendencies of which he is opposed.
The Bishop cannot altogether shake off the philosophy
of his epoch: the breath of Free Inquiry plays
through his Theology. You would search in vain
for such a passage in the writings of an orthodox
Divine of the eighteenth century.
It is true that he qualifies this by the observation
that “ doubt is useful upon one condition, and one
only—that it start from a first belief.” This is defined
as “the supreme instinctive belief that beneath all
appearances there is a reality—that something under
lies and causes all being. It is the search after this
�Pleadings for Christ.
33
(if I may so speak of it) Essence of Existence, the
search after this I am that still leads on the doubter.”
We are not sure that we understand this, and should
like to apply it to an example. Among the doubts,
i.e., instances of the exercise of the sceptical spirit,
which have most largely benefited Humanity, are the
doubts which arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries as to the reality of witchcraft. Fighting
against the general faith of mankind and the authority
of the Bible, wielded by the clergy, this doubt has
passed into a conviction. It seems to us now-a-days
well-nigh incredible that hecatombs of innocent
creatures should have been offered up to a mischievous
delusion and a passage in Exodus: toothless old
crones, even such as have a hump on their backs, live
in peace in their cottages, or at the Union workhouse :
the superstition has been banished to such localities
as the wilds of Scotland and Cornwall, where its evil
effects are kept in check by the strong arm of the law.
Surely this doubt was a useful one. What then was
“ the first belief ” from which it started ? What is
meant by “the search after the Essence of Existence,
the great I am ” which must have 11 led on the
doubters” in this case, if they were to render any
service? We should imagine that great service might
have been rendered by men who had no belief in the
world but one, and that of a negative character,
namely, that there was no such thing as witchcraft.
We should suppose that Atheists and Sceptics such as
the Bishop is arguing with, might render great service
by their doubts, on various points, even though their
doubts were attached to no “primary belief that there
is a cause in all things ” even though they denied a
God, and Futurity, and the existence of a soul, and
the existence of matter, and the trustworthiness of
the senses, and the reality of everything but pheno
menal impressions. Indeed we know that men such
as this have constantly benefited humanity by their
�24
Pleadings for Christ.
scepticism on other questions, and originated 'and
stimulated doubts of the most beneficial' character.
Not one whit more clear is the Bishop, in his ex
position, when he comes to deal with the important
subject of morality. He is quite right in saying that
the rules of morality cannot be proved, and he should
have contented himself with this, wrhich is a good re
joinder to those wdio demand that the truths of
Christianity should be proved. He should, we think,
have followed the advice of Lord Mansfield to the
gentleman possessed of little law who was going out
to the colonies as a judge, and have pronounced an
opinion, without giving his reasons. As it is, he
follows his adversary to a point, where his own retreat
seems to be cut off. “ What is morality ? ” he asks,
“ Morality is that code or rule of action which you.
follow in questions of right or wrong. It is something
different from the moral sense or the power of feeling
right or wrong.” It is the power of knowing what is
right or wrong. All this is very slovenly as a defini
tion, and we do not understand the last words,
especially taken in connection with what follows. It
is of course a part of the Bishop’s case that the rules
of morality cannot be demonstrated, and by way of
clinching this argument, he reminds us that these
rules are constantly varying. They vary from one
generation to another. “Whose morality is it that
you will have ? That of your own day, or that of the
past generation? These differ very much on many
points. As you know, our ancestors approved of
duelling and the slave trade. We disapprove of both.
Which are in the right ? ” We should like to ask the
Bishop a similar question. What guarantee has he
for his morality, whatever it may be? There is of
course a certain moral code laid down in the New
Testament which will serve as his Law generally, but
on points of constant occurrence which cannot be re
ferred to this code, or on which its interpretation may
�Pleadings for Christ.
35
be doubtful, how does he decide, and how does he
know that he is right in his decision 1 Of course the
Bishop would repudiate any guide of such a grovelling
character and mushroom origin as Utilitarianism.
Faith is his guide ! “ An act of Faith ” relieves him
of all his difficulties. “ He wills and chooses to be
lieve that conscience in him is something supreme and
divine ” (and yet two pages before this it is admitted
that man “knows that his conscience has been mis
taken more than once—that at one time he thought
that right, which he now thinks wrong.” How can a
man have that within him which is Supreme and
Divine, and which at the same time is continually
urging him to do what he ought not to do ? And how
can this be a guide of any kind ?) In the next sermon
the Bishop reiterates his point. “We must submit
the understanding to the soul; must elevate the con
science above the merely logical and questioning
faculty ; must say, by the help of that instinct of faith
which is given us for the very purpose of rising above
the instinct of doubt—1 In spite of all that can be
pleaded to the contrary, I feel, I know that this is right
and true.’ ”
Surely all this only requires to be stated, and needs
no refutation. And yet it was preached to a number
of persons and appears in print “ revised and corrected
by the preacher.” Let us take one case as an illustra
tion. Not so very long ago, Christian Inquisitors
“ handed over to the secular arm ” or, in other words,
caused to be burnt, persons who differed from their
theological views, and they believed that they were
doing not only a moral, but a religious act. Supposing
an inquisitor to have conceived some doubts as to the
propriety of the practice, he should according to this
view have stilled them at once (we have no doubt
that some did so still them) by reasoning like that of
Bishop Magee’s, “ I will submit my understanding to
my soul. I will elevate my conscience above the
o
�26
Pleadings for Christ.
reasoning faculty. I will appeal to the instinct of
faith -which was given to me to stifle doubt. In spite
of all that can be pleaded to the contrary, I feel, I know
that it is right to burn the man. To the stake with
the heretic ! ” We will admit that the inquisitor may
have thought that it was right to act as he did: and
we do not suppose that any moral culpability would in
that case attach to him on account of his action. But we
altogether deny that he knew that he was right, because
he thought that he was right. This appeal to the
instinct of Faith, this silencing of doubts, these wild
cries of “This must be so ! ” “This shall be so !” “I
feel I am right!” “I know I am right!” furnish, it
is needless to say, no foundation for a science of
morals. They are shifting quicksands, in which every
attempt at a building would immediately sink out of
sight, and be engulfed for ever. They form the kind
of argument which we should expect to see put with
perfect sincerity, before a missionary, by a Feejee Chief
about to offer up a human sacrifice to his Deity. “A
fig for your objections ! I feel I’m right! I know
I’m right! ” &c. And if the Bishop happened to be
that missionary, we don’t see how he could meet the
argument. It is his own.
It is not very easy to follow the Bishop’s meaning
in his Third Sermon. His chain of reasoning may be
set forth in the following terms, without omitting any
material link.
Our whole moral and religious life is based upon
faith; faith being a trust in a person—in a nature—
i.e. in our spiritual as opposed to our animal nature.
Whenever these two latter are brought into conflict,
man is subject to a trial, a discipline, &c. But we
have to deal not only with our own higher and better
selves (our spiritual nature); we also come in contact
with other natures higher than our own. Whenever
we come in contact with these higher natures, the same
trial is repeated, which occurs when our animal is
�Pleadings for Christ.
yj
brought in contact with our spiritual nature. There
is a trial whether the lower nature will recognize the
good that is in the higher one, and admit it to be
higher than itself. For this higher nature, in that it
is higher, must necessarily be a mystery to a lower
one.
Now, there is in the heart of every one of us an
instinctive belief that there must be somewhere a
perfect nature. Suppose such a perfect being to exist,
and suppose him to make himself known to man by
means of a revelation, we should expect from analogy
that the same thing would occur, that the manifesta
tion of him would be a trial to our faith, that it would
be mysterious and self-contradictory. It might be said
beforehand, that a God who was as easy to understand
as a proposition of Euclid, could not be the true God.
In this last sentence, we think that the Bishop is again
drawing a most unwarranted inference. A few pages
ago, we were told that God could not make a revelation
of himself which should be incapable of being denied,
without thereby causing man to deteriorate. Now, we
learn that he could not make his nature and attributes
intelligible to mankind. This is a purely gratuitous
assumption, and it is surely unwise in a preacher, or
indeed in any one, thus to limit the powers of the
Almighty, and to attempt to show, or at least to infer,
that no other kind of revelation was possible to God
except that on behalf of which he is arguing. Moreover,
it is wholly unnecessary for his purpose. The Bishop,
like an inexperienced soldier, almost always charges
the enemy to a point where he is left without supports.
It is indeed quite true (and we suppose this is what is
meant by the preceding part of the paragraph) that we
should not expect or think it likely, a priori, that a
revelation from God would make the whole of his
nature as plain to man as a proposition in Euclid. We
should expect it to be a revelation of his existence, and
of such a portion of his attributes as he might choose
�28
Pleadings for Christ.
to convey to us, coupled it may be with some commands,
or intimations which would amount to commands, as to
our duties towards him, and towards one another.
Granting this, how will it help the Bishop? We
never heard the contrary maintained. We never heard
it urged as an objection to the Mosaic and Christian
revelations that they do not make perfectly plain to
man all the mysteries of the Divine Existence. And
it is not too much to say that not a single Eree-thinker
or Sceptic would take up this ground.
The Bishop’s argument now takes a jump of a
startling character. Not only should we expect that
a revelation would be accompanied by all sorts of
difficulties—for without such difficulties where would
be the trial of faith ?—“ but we should expect also that
it would be a revelation of God by means of a person,
because we know that the highest tendencies of our
being, at its best moments, are ever to find a righteous
personality; we should expect, therefore, that if there
came to us a revelation of God, it would not come
merely in the form of certain propositions or doctrines,
but in the manifesting of a nature.” We are be
wildered on meeting with this remark from the pen of
a prelate who must necessarily believe in the inspiration
of the Old Testament. For if its records be true, it is
certain that God Almighty did make a revelation “ in
the form of certain propositions or doctrines,” and
without any exhibition of “ a person” or “a righteous
personality,” or “ a nature” such as the Bishop postu
lates as antecedently to be expected in the case of all
revelations. If it be objected that this revelation
contains prophecies of the future manifestation of a
perfect human nature, we reply that a prophecy of
what was one day to take place under a more perfect
dispensation does not in any way affect the fact that a
revelation was made by God to the Jews of a character
precisely the opposite of what the Bishop tells us “ we
should expect.” The Mosaic revelation, we repeat, was
�Pleadings for Christ.
39
not made “by means of a Person,” (though it may
have contained intimations of the future appearance
of such a person), but by means of “ propositions and
doctrines” communicated by God to Moses and the
Jews throughout their history. This we think alto
gether fatal to the argument that, granted the possi
bility of a revelation, we should expect it a priori to
be made by means of a Person—for here is a wellauthenticated instance of a revelation which was not
made in this manner. It is indeed astonishing how
persons of average intelligence can imagine that they
are advancing arguments of great weight when, start
ing from an established theological belief or dogma,
they proceed to show by an a priori method how every
one who considered the matter must have anticipated
exactly what they themselves believe to have happened.
Nor is there any creed, past or present, or conceivable
by the human mind, which is not susceptible of this
treatment. By the exercise of a little trouble, a very
plausible case might be made out for the Buddhist,
Confucian, or Mahometan systems. It might, for in
stance, be shown to be antecedently probable that the
descendants of Ishmael would in time receive a reve
lation in the same manner as the descendants of Isaac
had received one, through the direct communications
of God to a mighty prophet of their own race. Or, if
Jesus had appeared in the shape of a woman (a con
ceivable hypothesis, and one in no way blasphemous)
it is easy to see how divines might have shown that
the selection of this sex for the exhibition of the
highest and most loveable qualities of humanity was
exactly what might have been expected, and that the
fact of Jesus appearing as a woman, and not as a man,
was among the most startling proofs of the truth of
the whole story. On looking closely into this kind
of reasoning, we see that for the purpose of convincing
an adversary it is absolutely valueless. Thus the
Bishop tells us that among the things to be expected
�40
Pleadings for Christ.
was this : that the earth should be visited by a perfect
man. Or, to give his exact words, “We do believe
that in answer to the craving desire of the soul of
man to look upon human perfection, this earth has
once been visited by a perfect man.” We do not be
lieve that there exists a craving desire in the soul of
man to look upon an absolutely perfect being of his
own species—much less a desire so intense that it was
to be expected that a miracle would be wrought to
gratify it. We admit, indeed, that there is such a
thing as an abstract idea of moral perfection—for of
course it is moral perfection that is here spoken of—that
there is a vague ideal, which in different minds assumes
different types, of perfect wisdom, goodness, &c., an
ideal towards which the best minds are always striving;
but this is a different proposition altogether. If there
be such a natural craving to look upon an embodied
specimen of human perfection, and one so strong, as
to demand the exhibition of a miracle, there are other
natural cravings much stronger, and which by a parity
of reasoning, would require miracles to satisfy them.
For instance, the desire to have some positive expe
rience of the existence of the soul after death, some
knowledge of the conditions of such existence, if real,
are far more intense in man than the one just men
tioned. It would follow that in answer to this he
ought to be visited by spirits, or in some other way
have his craving satisfied, and in fact we believe that
this is the doctrine professed by Mrs Guppy and Mr
Home, but not assented to, as far as we have been able
to learn, by any person of sound judgment.
But the Bishop does not stop here. Not only was
it to be expected that if God revealed himself to man
kind, he would reveal himself by means of a Person,
and that an absolutely perfect one (or, in other words,
that God would assume a human form, since to no
being save God can we attribute absolute perfection)
but, he adds, it was similarly to be expected that on
�Pleadings for Christ.
41
the appearance of God in the flesh, he would he
treated just as he was treated. “ You would expect
to hear just what the story tells you—how he was
despised and rejected of men ; how those who saw
Pirn besought him that he would depart out of their
coasts.” We should have been led to anticipate all
this “ before we opened a page of the gospels, before
we read a line of that wondrous life ! ” That is to
say, we should have been led to anticipate beforehand
not only that God would put on the form of man, but
also that of a very humble man, so as to admit of his
being “ despised and rejected j ” and that many would
eye him unfavourably; for we scarcely suppose the
Bishop to mean, in his last sentence, that we should
have been irresistibly led to infer such a detail as that
the Divine Being would transport devils into swine,
and so cause his absence to be desired, though this
would not be much more absurd than the rest of the
right reverend prelate’s a priori a expectations.’
Now, we are afraid that this style of argument is not
likely to carry great weight with the free-thinkers
and sceptics, to convince whom has been the Bishop’s
object in penning, and preaching, and printing these
discourses. Nor do we think it calculated to have much
weight with anybody. Nothing, we repeat, is more easy,
and at the same time more thoroughly useless, than to
construct an enormous chain of antecedent probabilities,
leading necessarily to any religious dogmas whatever.
It is like a man designing a labyrinth of his own, and
taking care that the issues shall all be in one direction.
Thus the Roman Catholic, taking up the Bishop’s
expectations, would add another of his own. He
would expect beforehand that a divine Being would
not leave the truths which he had come to proclaim
to be scrambled for by a multitude of differing sects,
but would found a divine society or church as the
infallible authority to be looked up to after his de
parture. And granting the premises, this seems to us
�42
Pleadings for Christ.
as reasonable an anticipation as any of those which
the Bishop sets before us. A Jew’s “anticipations”
will be exactly opposite to those of the Bishop. He
will tell you that it was not to be expected that God must
necessarily reveal himself through a divine person, and
that when the Messiah appeared, he would not appear
in a lowly station to be derided and persecuted, but
to rule over his nation as a king. A Mahometan or a
Buddhist would have no difficulty in showing how the
events recorded in their several religious histories, and
the dogmas of their several creeds, were just such as
“might have been expected” from the nature of
things. And a Parsee would expect, “ before you
opened a page ” of the Zendavesta, “ before you read a
line of that wondrous book,” that it would contain just
exactly whatever it does contain. When the preacher,
by the aid of fancy, transports himself back to a period
antecedent to the Christian revelation, he carries his
own religious belief with him, and ingeniously projects
into the imaginary future what he has brought from
the real past. Deprive him of this knowledge, and
we shall never hear of his expecting any of the events
which he says were to be expected. As gratitude has
been defined to be a lively sense of favours to come,
so expectation, in this sense, may be described as a
lively anticipation of occurrences which we believe to
have actually taken place.
*
The preacher, to do him justice, seems, at the close
of his discourse, to be visited by a faint glimmering of
consciousness of the utter uselessness of this kind of
talk. “We have reached the point,” he says, “at
which, leaving speculations as to what might be or
ought to be, we arrive at the historical facts which
we assert have been. Others will take up the argu
* A well-known illustration of the truth we have been
affirming—if what is so obvious needs illustration—is to be
found in the argument of Irenaeus, showing how we should
have expected from analogy that there would be four Gospels.
�Pleadings for Christ.
43
ment here, and go on to show you, from history, or
prophecy, or miracle, such evidences as the facts , of
the Christian story may furnish. My task ends with
the attempt to remove those stumhling-blocks which
might prevent your coming to hear them. It will be
their task to lead you onwards from the door of the
temple to its very innermost shrine ; it has been mine
to lead you up these three steps, as it were, just to the
very threshold.” AWe cannot congratulate the Bishop
upon his metaphors any more than upon his arguments.
The stumbling-blocks which are interposed between the
free-thinker and the door of Norwich Cathedral are partly
of his Lordship’s own laying. There cannot be three
greater ones than these three discourses which lie before
us. So far from being able to lead any one up a .flight
of steps, the Bishop has been quite unable to maintain
his own equilibrium. In plain English, these “ Plead
ings for Christ ” are calculated to do a good deal of
harm to the cause of orthodoxy in Norwich, where we
suppose they will be principally read. Sceptics or
free-thinkers there will be led to suppose that such a
prelude as this contains small promise for the series
of sermons to which it serves as an introduction. They
will be apt to surmise that when one preacher has so
ingeniously avoided, where he has not entirely mis
apprehended, their real difficulties, others will be likely
to follow in the same path.
It would have been
better, we think, if these discourses had begun at the
point where the Bishop of Peterborough leaves off.
It would have been better if those who, he says, are
going to “ prove the miracles of Christianity ” * (which
he elsewhere says can’t be proved), had at once ad
dressed themselves to that task, which, if accomplished,
would have rendered any preface unnecessary and all
reply useless.
We cannot conclude without giving one or two
detached specimens of the Bishop’s reasoning powers.
* Discourse i., page 13.
�44
Pleadings for Christ.
They might be taken almost at random from almost
every page. The difficulty is in making a selection.
Thus, at the very outset, we have this : “ Those who
tell you that Christianity was received in an ignorant
age, because men thought they saw miracles to prove
it, say what is contradicted by the story of Christianity
itself, and forget that many of those who saw the
miracles nevertheless rejected the worker of the
miracles.” We must not be understood to profess
the view as to the propagation of Christianity which
the Bishop assails ; but for the life of us we cannot
see how the statement that Christianity was received
in an ignorant age, because men (i. e. the converts)
saw certain phenomena which they deemed miracles,
to prove it, is contradicted by the fact that many
other people who saw the same phenomena rejected
Christianity. Substitute “Spirit-rapping,’’for “Christ
ianity;” “ Manifestations,” for “ Miracles,” and soften
down “ an ignorant age ” into “an age not free from
superstition” and you will see what nonsense this
makes. “ Those who tell you that Spirit-rapping
was received (z.e. believed in) in an age not free
from superstition because men thought that they
saw manifestations to prove it, say what is contra
dicted by the story of Spirit-rapping itself and forget
that many of those who saw the manifestations never
theless rejected the workers of the manifestations.”
In this case both statements are true and neither
contradicts the other. Nor is there any contradiction
in the case put by the Bishop. “Miracles,” too,
is used in two entirely different senses in this
sentence of his. The word, in the first place means
“ acts which whether real miracles or not they believed
to be such.” In the second place, it may mean either
this or “acts which were really miracles, but which
they did not deem to be such” and this entirely
vitiates the reasoning. Bor, in no case would the
statement that Christianity was received in an ignorant
�Pleadings for Christ.
45
age, because people thought they saw what they
deemed to be miracles to prove it, be coutradicted
by the fact that other people who saw the miracles
(not necessarily believing them to be miracles) rejected
it. There are other instances of confusion in this
one sentence, which in an ordinary sermon we
should have thought nothing of; but which in “ an
argumentative series of discourses in defence and
confirmation of the Faith ” are quite inexcusable.
But the whole book is, in this sense, inexcusable.
For instance, what is meant by this assertion ?
“ All mysteries, everything that we cannot understand,
must come to our understanding in the shape of two
contradictory propositions; we view the thing on
two opposite sides, because we cannot see it all round
and at once.” We are aware that some mysteries
are of this character, but we are surprised to hear that
this is true of everything that we cannot understand.
We should not have hesitated to say, for instance, that
the sensations of animals are a great mystery to man.
What, then, are the two contradictory propositions
which this mystery conveys to the understanding ?
Again, the authorship of Junius, is to many people still
a mystery. As to this, not two but some twenty
different propositions, each one contradicting all the
rest, will probably suggest themselves to the mind.
We had marked some other samples for comment,
but our Paper is already swollen to twice its projected
bulk. We cannot however take leave of the Preacher,
without noticing his parting fling at Science and
Civilization. “Did Science ever comfort a sorrow?”
he asks, “ Did Science ever heal a broken heart ?
Faith in civilization I Did civilization ever yet
remedy the evils that are burrowing and festering
into the heart of Society ? Civilization 1 . . .
It means the rich growing very rich. It means the
poor growing very poor.......................... Civilization and
Science !
Have they arrested war 1
Have they
�46
Pleadings for Christ.
softened the heart of humanity ? Civilization and art
and science ! Why, they are busy making mitra.illeuses,” and so on.
We are certainly not among those, if such there he,
who hold that Science is likely to remove all evil and
misery from among us, to turn men into angels and
the earth into a paradise. But we do think, at the
same time, that the above expressions of Dr Magee
on the subject of Science and Civilization are most
pernicious nonsense. And we think further that it is
very sad that such nonsense should fall from the lips
of a man who receives five thousand a-year of the
public money, and is accommodated with a seat in the
Legislature in the capacity of a National Instructor.
“ Did science ever comfort a sorrow ? ” Yes, in thou
sands and hundreds of thousands of cases, and startling
proofs of this are before the Bishop’s eyes every day of
his life. A man is smitten with a disease which a
couple of centuries ago was deemed incurable. Science
relieves him by an operation, and restores a smile to
the faces of his sorrowing wife and children. The
agonizing dread with which, in times past, he would
have contemplated the prospect of being hacked and
cut into, is soothed by the assurance that he will
undergo the process without pain. The telegraph
summons the operator, and the railway train brings
him in time to save the life of the patient. Here,
under God, Science has comforted the sorrows of a
whole family. A widowed mother is expecting her
only son home from a distant land, and trembles with
apprehension as she hears the wind roar down the
chimney. Her son is at sea in the gale, but Science,
in the shape of a chart, points out the dangerous coast
to the captain, and Science, in the shape of steam,
enables him to avoid it. When the ship springs a
leak, Science is there with its pumps, which keep her
from sinking. Science throws up a rocket, and Science
puts out a life-boat. Civilization brings a number of
�Pleadings for Christ.
47
people down to the beach with offers of lodging
and dry clothes for the shipwrecked mariners,
where, less than a hundred years ago, false lights
would have been exhibited by wreckers, and the
vaults of the parish church would have been stocked
with smuggled casks of brandy, with the full know
ledge and acquiescence of the parson. Will any one say
that Science has not comforted the sorrow of the widow
by restoring her son to her ? Does the Bishop suppose
that reading the Bible in the solitude of one’s closet has
ever comforted a sorrow ! We are sure that he does.
Has he reflected that if civilization had not given birth
to printing, there would have been no printed Bibles to
read ? “ Science never healed a broken heart! ” Has
he considered how many hearts have been prevented
from breaking at the loss of their dear ones, by the
single discovery of Jenner ?—a discovery which, by the
way, like that of chloroform, was bitterly opposed, on
religious grounds, by the clergy.
*
Really, these are
the kind of observations which we should feel our
selves called upon to make in a Dame’s school.
Civilization, he says, has never yet remedied the evils
that burrow and fester into the heart of Society. It
has not remedied all of them certainly, and never will,
but it has put a stop to, and diminished a good many.
That men are no longer bought and sold as slaves, or
burnt and drowned for witches, or tortured to make
them confess crimes of which they are innocent, or
* “ The introduction of vaccination was fiercely opposed,
because it was alleged to be repugnant to religion, morality,
law, and humanity. The pulpits resounded with attacks on
the impious and presumptuous man who dared to interfere
with a visitation from God. ” Dr Lyon Playfair, Speech in the
House of Commons, May 24, 1870. The use of Chloroform
in cases of child-birth was similarly opposed, as being a viola
tion of Genesis iii. 16, but happily with little effect. Civiliza
tion, or in other words, the progress of Science and Enlighten
ment, had by this time provided men with an armour of proof
against these theological darts, which, being found incapable
of doing serious harm, ceased to be thrown.
�48
Pleadings for Christ.
hung for trifling acts of dishonesty prompted by
hunger, or loaded with chains and beaten with whips
when insane, or tortured for their religious opinions,
that drunkenness has died out of the upper and is
surely doomed in the lower classes, that duelling, and
bull-baiting and cock-fighting and prize-fighting are
things of the past, that bribery is deemed disreput
able, that a respectable householder has a voice in the
government of the country, and can no longer be
politically disposed of, along with a number of other
householders, like a pack of sheep, by a Duke, or
a Dean and Chapter; these are among a thousand
blessings which will suggest themselves to every
one as being due to the advance of Civilization in
this country. In most cases they have been gained
without any active aid on the part of the clergy—in
many, despite their opposition. And this is intelli
gible, for the Bishop, in his tirade against Civilization, is
only advocating—doubtless with good intentions and per
haps unconsciously—the interests of his own class. The
motto of the bulk of the clergy (we admit that there
are bright exceptions) is, and always has been, Quieta
non movere, for advancing civilization means necessarily
the decline of the theological spirit. But the Bishop
has not done belabouring civilization. “ It means the
rich growing very rich; it means the poor growing
very poor.” What it really means for the poor man
is cheaper necessaries and cheaper luxuries, many of
the things which he has learnt to look upon as neces
saries having formerly been luxuries even for the
wealthy. It means cheaper provisions, cheaper bread,
cheaper tea, cheaper sugar, cheaper clothing, cheaper
furniture, cheaper newspapers. The conveniences now
to be found in the cottage of a Lancashire mechanic were
not to be found in the castle of the greatest mediaeval
baron. Giles, the Devonshire ploughman, after his
day’s work, repairs, if he is a steady, sober man, with
out a wife, or with a good one, to his very humble
�Pleadings for Christ.
49
but very tidy abode, puts his damp linen to dry before
the fire-place if he is wet, has his bit of supper, possibly
with his bit of fresh meat at harvest or other times,
drinks his cup of tea, puts on his spectacles, reads his
Bible, or a scrap of old newspaper, with his feet resting
on a square of cheap carpet, goes up to his bed-room,
opens or shuts his window according to the state of
the temperature, extinguishes the benzoline lamp on
his little deal table, and creeps into his rough but not
very dirty sheets, covered with a blanket. Giles’s
ancestor, four hundred years ago, after a longer day’s
work, had nothing but a mud hovel to resort to, with
out furniture, linen, fire-place, tea, spectacles, carpet,
bed, sheets, blankets, window, table, lamp, newspaper,
or Bible. He never tasted meat. The few waking
hours which he spent out of his work were as complete
a blank to him, in respect to intellectual resources, as
the waking hours of a pig or a goose. He was not
permitted to change the character of his labour, or the
place of his residence. "When past work he simply
rotted off the face of the earth. That civilization has
made “ the poor poorer ” is utterly untrue; it has
made them infinitely richer than they were before.
11 Have civilization and science softened the heart of
humanity ? ” asks the Bishop. We do not remember
to have met with a sillier question than this, even in
a sermon. The poor benighted heathen poet answered
it eighteen hundred years ago.
‘ ‘ Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes
Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros,”
isamong the first passages inhisDeZec/wswhichtheschoolboy is put to construe. Look merely to the experience of
the last forty years. The amendment of our Draconian
code, the abandonment of the brutal pastimes of our
forefathers, the laws for the prevention of cruelty
to animals, the improved treatment of prisoners, the
whole course of legislation with regard to the poorer
classes, the Factory Acts, the prohibition of female and
�Pleadings for Christ.
infant underground labour, the law relating to chimney
sweeps, the laws passed for the protection of sailors,
the establishment of post-office savings’ banks, loan
societies, benefit building societies, the sanitary acts,
the recent provision for enabling a pauper to have his
children educated at the public expense, not to speak
of that much older law acknowledging the right of the
worn-out labourer to claim the means of subsistence
from the commonwealth—all these are so many glaring
proofs that civilization does soften the heart of humanity.
But, says the Bishop, “ Have civilization and science
arrested war ? ” No. But we may ask in return—“ Has
religion ? ” The priests of the various Christian sects,
while loudly proclaiming their horror of all war in
general, have always accommodated themselves most
cheerfully to each individual war in particular. The
Archbishop of Paris is invoking the blessing of the
Almighty on the chassepot, while the Archbishop of
Cologne is invoking his blessing on the needle-gun.
Perhaps Dr Magee may recollect, himself, putting up
prayers for the successes of the national arms (in other
words, that a large number of Russians might be
slaughtered) during the Crimean war; and the priests
at Moscow and Odessa were, we may be sure, offering
up similar prayers for the destruction of the Allies.
The victory of Sedan is a “divine mercy” to the
Christians in one part of the world, as the victory of
Jena was to those in another. Where the Divinity is
thus made to figure on both sides, revelation will have
no more effect in changing the general estimate of war
than the introduction of the same quantity into both
sides of an equation will alter its value.
We are
silent as to the numerous wars which have been directly
provoked by religion. Now civilization has certainly
done what theology has utterly failed to do. It has
greatly ameliorated and softened the usages of war, from
•the days when prisoners ceased to be slaughtered in
cold blood and saw death commuted to slavery, to the
�Pleadings for Christ.
51
davs of the Geneva Convention. And if anything is
likelv to pnt a complete stop to war, it is precisely
that very scienee which the bishop describes as manu
facturing implements of such a deadly character, Ihe
man who invents a machine which, at the touch of a
spring, will sweep away a whole army, will be one of
the greatest benefactors to humanity that the world
ever saw. Supposing the discovery to become generally
known, as must inevitably be the ease, he will have
rendered war impossible. We have heard of duels
aeross a pocket handkerchief, but not when both com
batants have loaded pistols in their hands. Now it is
in this direction that the most deadly discoveries in
science are unquestionably fending—appalling in the
immediate destruction of life which they cause, bene
ficent in the ultimate saving of it.
We believe, then, in Science, and also in civiliza
tion or in other words, in the moral and material
improvement of the race effected by mans own
intelligence and exertions. We believe that one is
the mainspring of the other. What is it that the
Bishop would have us turn to, as a panaeea for our
pis
“Faith’” Faith in what? Whaf is meant
by Faith in this place ? The Bishop is not very clear
on the point: nor do we make this a subjeet of
reproach, for we have noticed the word used in the .
same hazy sense elsewhere. Does he mean Faith
in the dogmas of Christianity ?_ We should suppose
so from the general seope of his argument, and from
a passage in whieh he says: “Webelieve m an eternal
peace, but it is to be at the coming of the Prince of
Peace.” “It is in this faith and this alone, he adds,
“ that we gain courage to look upon the sins and
sorrows whieh afflict humanity.” If this be so, then
this is a mere assertion of his own views, which he
is quite entitled to make, provided he does not put
it before us in the light of an argument. With
Free-thinkers it can carry no weight _ whatever. If
he means something different from this : a belief m
n
�52
Pleadings for Christ.
a God, in our responsibility to God, in what are
called the truths of Natural Eeligion, we do not see
how this will help him. For nine out of every ten
Free-thinkers will agree with him, not only in holding
'these as truths, but as truths of the highest interest
and importance to mankind. Believing in the con
clusions of Science, as being what they undoubtedly
are, so many direct revelations of His modus operandi
made by God to man, they are prepared to yield
an assent to other propositions which are not capable
of a scientific demonstration. Of this character is the
existence of a God. They hold that this and other
similar propositions rest upon a very solid basis
of reason, in that they solve all the phenomena to
which they can be applied, and are the only attainable
solutions which can be made to solve them. But
they do not believe them to have been the subject of
any special and miraculous revelation. A man may
hold this sort of faith, thousands do, without believing
in a revealed religion. Now it is on behalf of a
revealed religion that the Bishop has been arguing
throughout.
It is not perhaps a bad suggestion on the part of
the Dean of Norwich, who edits this pamphlet, that
the Cathedrals “ with their naves capable of holding
vast congregations ” should be utilized for the de
livery of sermons in aid of the orthodox faith. But
we must warn him of one thing. “ The vast congre
gations ” which are likely to pour into the cathedrals
on these occasions will be mainly composed of women,
and orthodox males, who do not require these sermons,
and of the curious, the people who are always attracted
by a “ Star,” and who will be mightily pleased by
an eloquent and frothy discourse, till they lose the
recollection of it in the next monster concert or thril
ling melodrama.
The unbelievers, the class for
whom these productions are specially intended, will,
for the most part, see them in their printed form.
�Pleadings for Christ.
53
We think, then, that it would be judicious to enlist, at
any rate for some portion of this series, the services of
preachers of whom happily there are many in the Church
of England : men who without any public reputation
as Bishops and debaters, are able to think consecutively,
and have made themselves acquainted with the real
difficulties which lie in the way of belief. We notice
this, because we observe that the only other name on
the rota is that of another Bishop and brilliant speaker,
the Bishop of Derry. What he may do for the cause
we have no means of prejudging. He may do ex
cellently well. He can scarcely do worse than his
predecessor.
But there are, we repeat, numerous
clergymen of less note admirably adapted for this
task : who might not half fill the nave and north aisle
of Norwich Cathedral, but who would produce some
thing that Free-thinkers and Sceptics would have to
attend to : who would carry out the object promised
to us in the programme to this series, and furnish us
with what the pamphlet before us certainly does not
contain—“Argumentative discourses in defence and
confirmation of the Faith.”
TUBNBULL 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
Notes on Bishop Magee's pleadings for Christ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 53 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "By A Barrister". 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
G5541
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Notes on Bishop Magee's pleadings for Christ), 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
Free Thought
William Connor Magee
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/038833b08505e1b02fcabe1f797791b9.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=H5D6Akrur7g3Am9WbamIe9z-Nlitu87ZavkrVvglpcaGYL17VNXwyhL8tmGkwJIVUT6Ke17%7E-418m2cPOfWeek-iAbtox9DNqSsGLlfFMsgcCXrNdHv-Usof58jY7LkARi7paa4xxuauUGNWFrRj3y6A4WS38-AHU-JvVwTz8K-U5Hb22lKg%7EF9Z33GzmN9QNS8P9qqqNEYHj26szu%7EIrlRxdk3hSE7NFcUJ80ymLBWTUR3bKR56TNZmYfSb6RK8ZXR6-zvY73ZlG7bOyHBIaGjpyqj-L0mUuC0QBnUZpP91PTrKQYb84eb5SCHpL2FdjGP4kC%7ED8ACr5IsI9hqz1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
28cded6ddce3630449d92770a9d5dd62
PDF Text
Text
PLEAS FOR FREE INQUIRY.
PART II.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON “THE ARGUMENT
FROM ANALOGY.”
BY
“M. A.”
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
��PLEAS FOR FREE INQUIRY.
N a paper, which I had the honour to contribute to
this series some months ago, I ventured to point
*
out that this much might be affirmed with confidence of
the religious creed commonly, or perhaps rather nomi
nally, entertained in this island, viz., that it is one which
ought to inspire all men, and must certainly inspire all
unselfish men, with the hope that it is untrue. Tn
saying, and in repeating this, I do not conceive myself
to" have lit upon any new or strange argument bearing
upon Revelation, or indeed to be doing anything more
than drawing a very simple and obvious inference from
the alleged facts which it brings under my notice. “ AR
men are accursed ; their natural destination is Hell, a
place of excruciating and endless torment; from this
fate, impending over all,’ some (or, if you please, many)
will be rescued by miraculous means.” The inference
or conclusion which I draw from these statements is
the necessary and unavoidable one, that they constitute
very bad tidings, indeed tidings of the most appalling
character, for mankind in general. And (suppose I
put out of sight my own personal interest in the matter)
this conclusion will certainly involve the hope—from
which I am powerless to defend myself if it be a sin,
and unwilling to defend myself, if I had the power,
whether it be a sin or not—that the so-called Revela
tion, containing these announcements, may prove wholly
untrue. Nor shall I be induced to smother the hope,
if I am told (what, indeed, I am not very clearly told
* Pleas for Free Inquiry, Part 1.
I
�4
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
in this case) that every man in the world, hy the
*
exercise of due care, may escape the dreadful fate im
pending over him ; since this will leave quite untouched
the particular announcement which has called forth the
emotion in question. I shall continue to hope that a
number of persons will not perish in a coal-mine to
morrow, even after being informed that the death of every
one of them, if it takes place, will be the result of his own
fault. But, for a fuller discussion of this subject, I
must refer the reader ro the paper above mentioned, f
Yet, as I pointed out at the end of that paper, and
as must suggest itself to every impartial mind, to assert
(what I think is plainly demonstrable) that it would
be greatly for the interest of mankind that such terrible
tidings should be untrue, and that we are therefore en
titled to hope that they may be untrue, is a very differ
ent thing from concluding that they are untrue. It may
turn out that such a conclusion is by no means warranted,
and we must be very eareful not to mistake our wishes
for proofs in the matter. No doubt it is difficult to under
stand that the Supreme Being (represented to us as in
vested with the attributes of power, justice, goodness,
mercy, &c., infinitely multiplied) should reveal himself
to us under such a terrific form, and animated by such
intentions towards our race. Yet, satisfactory evidence
that he had thus revealed himself and his intentions
would, of course, be a complete answer as to the fact :
though, whether we could continue to employ with
respect to him the epithets “just,” “good,” “merciful,”
in any other than a non-natural sense, is another ques
tion. It is not proposed to discuss the evidences of
Christianity in this paper, except in so far as a resem
blance between what is to be found in nature on the
one hand, and the matter and method of Revelation
* See note at the end of Pleas for Free Inquiry, Part I.,
and the “Larger Catechism of the Church of Scotland,” &c.,
quoted there.
t Note (A) at end.
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
5
so-called on the other, constitutes a part of such evi
dences. It is of this resemblance, or what is styled the
“Argument from analogy,” that I wish to say something.
I have said that it is difficult for any dispassionate
person to suppose certain parts of Revelation (which
word I use in the sense of the alleged miraculous Bib
lical Revelation) to be true. They come into direct
conflict with the moral sense of such a person. There
is, for instance, no orthodox believer out of the “ Evan
gelical” School,—I mean no reasonable Christian—who
does not admit that the endless torturing of sentient
beings by their Creator is a difficulty of this kind.
Accordingly, some sincere men, owing to the shock to
their consciences of such a communication, and many
others, carelessly jumping to a desired conclusion, have
gone their way, satisfied that it would be a waste of
time to inquire into the evidences of such a revelation
as this.
It is at this point that the “ Argument from Ana
logy comes in. The very same difficulties, it is
alleged, which are found in Revelation are also to be
found in nature, and can in no wise be urged as objec
tions against the former,- unless they are admitted to
be objections against the latter, which, however, is
allowed to be from the hand of God (for Atheists are
not dealt with by this argument). And this conside
ration not only removes all ground for holding that
Revelation cannot be from the same hand, but also fur
nishes some positive reasons for supposing that it is
from the same hand. Instead of imagining what God
is, or is not likely to do, we are told, let us consider
what he has done and is doing in this world of ours.
For example, he certainly is permitting the existence
of a great deal of evil here, to use the mildest form of
words; and surely a greater difficulty than the exist
ence and incidence of Evil is not to be conceived. Not
only is there in the world a terrible amount of suffer
ing, which an Omnipotent Being might have prevented,
�6
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
but it is perpetually lighting upon the persons who
from our point of view are the wrong persons. Indeed, •
nothing is more clear than that suffering is not pro
portioned to guilt in this world. Now, if you suppose
a being with faculties even vastly superior to our own,
but with no experience or information of a constitution
of things like that of our planet, a being such as “may
possibly be in the creation, to whom the Author of
Nature has manifested himself under the most amiable
of all characters, that of infinite absolute benevolence,” *
and should proceed to inform him, if he needed to he
informed, that this world is under the immediate
government of the same omnipotent, all-wise, and
benevolent Creator, he would certainly deem it before
hand inconceivable that suffering of any kind should
exist here ; still more inconceivable, if such an expres
sion, be permitted me, that it should be inflicted on
the innocent as well as on the guilty. He would indeed
presume not only that there would be no suffering, but
that there would be no sin. Possibly, the very nature
of suffering (if not of sin) would be unintelligible to
him. Yet here is sin and here is suffering. Surely
then, it is most absurd to contend that a revelation
which informs us of a great amount' of misery to be in
flicted hereafter (and that, not upon wholly innocent
beings, nor according to its more humane adherents,
upon any that might not have escaped) must needs on
this account be untrue; that it may be rejected without
examination of its proofs, as not possibly coming from
God, by such poor ignorant creatures as ourselves. The
writer who by his masterly treatment of it has made
this subject of analogy his own is, as every one knows,
Bishop Butler, the “ Bacon of Theology,” as he has
been styled. Nor can I help saying that his argument
seems to me unanswerable, if not pressed beyond a
certain point. What that point is we shall shortly have
occasion to consider.
* Butler, Analogy, Pt. i., ch. 3.
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
7
It may be as well, however, to mention at once an
inference or conclusion which this Analogy is not strong
Enough to sustain. For it has been contended by some
recent imitators of Butler that we should expect a Reve
lation to contain the same difficulties as are to be found
in Nature. This is equivalent to saying that we should
expect the Almighty’s handwriting, like that of a man,
to be always the same; or, perhaps rather that from one
ill-deciphered character we can form an idea of what
his general hand-writing is. This kind of reasoning
furnishes one, among many examples, of the way in
which the guarded conclusions of great thinkers are
often exaggerated by their disciples.
*
We should, I
venture to think, anticipate exactly the contrary. We
should expect that a revelation
from an
all-good Deity—and such a one is taken for granted on
both sides—would be, as the name indicates, an “ un
covering,” not a means of darkening what was diift be
fore ; of clearing up some of the mysteries of life, not
of deepening them; of removing, if only to a small
extent, some of our difficulties, not of multiplying them
a thousandfold. If we saw great suffering inflicted on
many persons by a Prince of whose benevolence we had
reason to feel assured, we should not be inclined to
predict that a message from him purporting to deal
with their case, would, while explaining nothing, con
vey news of a still more dreary, and dismal and, worse
than all, of an unalterable fate, to these same persons.
However, to argue that the occurrence of certain diffi
culties in connection with revelation is not a sufficient
ground for rejecting it, inasmuch as the same or like
difficulties are to be found in Nature—this is to take
up quite a different position. And this really is a large
part of Butler’s contention. It will be observed that
here are two distinct propositions stated—(1), That a
Revelation is not rendered incredible by reason of
certain difficulties, when the same or similar difficulties
* Note (B) at end.
�8
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
are found in Nature ; (2), That the same &c. difficulties
are found in Nature as are connected with this Reve
lation. The former of these two propositions seems
to me indisputable, and is taken for granted; the
latter (which is the real point) is, in my opinion, open
to some observations. Supposing, however, it be ad
mitted to the fullest extent, the reader will please to
observe how far we shall be carried. Not by any means
to the conclusion that revelation is not incredible (since
the evidence for it may completely break down); but to
this, that it is not rendered antecedently incredible by
the particular objections referred to. Now, whether all
the objections that may be brought against Revelation,
before evidence heard, be or be not such as may also be
urged against Nature, I take it that now-a-days few
reasonable men contend that any of these objections,
or any combination of them, render Revelation in
credible ; but only that it is rendered very unlikely. If
the argument from Analogy were supposed incapable of
being pushed to a further point than I have above in
dicated, it would not be styled “ an impregnable fortress
erected for the defence of Christianity.”* Bishop
Butler does carry it a stage further: so far as to meet
this presumption by a counter-presumption of likeli
hood; and as nothing more than a probable conclusion
can be drawn from any Analogy, he has in reality made
the utmost available use of it. His propositions, then,
embrace what I have above stated and something more.
They go to this (a) If there be an analogy or likeness
between that system of things and dispensation of Provi
dence which a Revelation informs us of, and that
system of things and dispensation of Providence which
Experience together with Reason inform us of, i.e., the
known course of Nature; this is a presumption that
they both have the same author and cause;+ (&) There
to such an analogy, &c., between Revelation and Nature,
or, as he himself expresses it further on—They are
* Professor Alden. Bartlett’s Life of Bishop Butler, p. 320.
+ Note (C).
r
F
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
9
very much, of a piece, and may be traced up to the
same general laws, and resolved into the same prin
ciples of divine conduct. The conclusion is that it is
probable that Revelation has a divine author. In this
syllogism (and I have thrown the argument into this
form merely for the convenience of remarking upon its
parts) it seems to me that both the major and minor
premiss are, to say the least, open to some criticism.
Let us take the latter first. What are the resem
blances alleged to exist between Nature and Revelation ?
And a consideration of the points in which they are
said to resemble each other will include that of “diffi
culties ” common to both.
Now these resemblances may be classed under two
heads. Firstly, those which exist between the subject
matter of Revelation and the inferences to be drawn
from an examination of what may be called the natural
scheme. Secondly, those which exist between the
mode in which Revelation has been communicated
to man, and the manner in which natural knowledge
is conveyed. The first head includes a comparison
of the two communications; the second, of the respective
modes of communication;
Under the first head, probably most theists will
admit, that there are some strong indications from other
sources than revelation, of the present life not being
the end of all things for man; that we may gather in
the same way that we are under the government of God,
a government carried on by rewards and punishments
(many startling observations forcing themselves upon
our minds as tp both these means so employed; for
instance, that punishment is often, to all seeming, quite
out of proportion to guilt; and that there is often a
point in a man’s career at which no repentance or
alteration of conduct will serve to stave off the earthly
punishment incurred); that moreover the government
of God wears the appearance of a moral government,
one under which the practice of virtue has a tendency
�io
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
to promote happiness, and that of vice, misery; that
hence it would seem likely that we are in a state of
probation, as implying difficulties, trial and danger,
with regard to this world, and that there are reasons
for inferring that we are in a similar state with regard
to another world; that this state of probation seems
intended for our moral discipline and improvement,
certainly here, and probably hereafter; that we are
seemingly in the midst of a scheme which is quite in
comprehensible to man, full of mysteries and difficulties,
and in which what would strike us as the best means
are not always adopted to produce the required ends,
but which is presumably—the wisdom and goodness of
God being taken for granted—related to other parts of
a great and general scheme, the very nature of which
we are incapable of seizing; yet a part of which, we
are entitled to infer, or at least to surmise, will consist
in a final adjustment of our condition, in accordance
with the principles of strict justice; of which final
orderly settlement the germs are plainly discoverable in
this our present state, where God has unmistakably
marked his approval of virtue and disapproval of vice.
Now all these and other indications of a divine and
moral scheme which an examination of the natural
course of things suggests to us are authoritatively con
firmed and republished by the voice of Revelation.
Besides its statements on these heads, revelation
makes several others which will not be so generally
accepted, e.g. (1.) that we are in a fallen and ruined
condition. But whether this be true or not, it cannot
be said (it may be alleged) that we are without an
intimation to that effect from nature. Since all nations,
even such as have never heard of the revelation we are
discussing, have held substantially the same view. (2.)
that we stand in need of some means of propitiating an
angry Deity. Now, no one can deny that there is no
notion more deeply impressed than this one by nature
upon the mind of man, as is proved by the existence
of sacrifices all over the world.
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
11
Further, Revelation teaches some dogmas (and pre
scribes certain ordinances) not to be discovered or
approached to by reason. For example, the existence
of the Trinity. We cannot compare these directly with
anything in nature, or draw a comparison in any way
*
further than by observing that they are mysteries, and
that there are in nature also mysteries. Yet they are
not, properly speaking, difficulties. I mean that the
presence of such alleged truths, not discoverable by
reason, in a revelation is not a difficulty. For we
certainly should expect it to contain some things not only
not discoverable by reason (else, why a revelation at all ?)
but also incomprehensible by us; though not, indeed,
as has been before said, to reproduce in an aggravated
form, and without explanation, all the difficulties of
life. It is not intended in the argument from analogy
to imply that everything out of what we are calling
“ nature ” must needs be exactly like everything in it
—which would be absurd. And the presence of such
mysteries in a revelation would be quite in accordance
with the acknowledged constitution and course of
nature, which, as Butler justly remarks, is quite dif
ferent from what, before experience, might have been
looked for. Nor can any one say that the allegation
of the existence of a Trinity in any way offends his
moral sense, or furnishes an A priori reason for refusing
to examine into the evidences of a revelation which in
culcates it as a fact. Eternal punishment does indeed
shock the mind. This and a few other dogmas, such
as the atonement, should be considered apart, as being
of an exceptional character.
It is rather in glancing at the second head, viz., the
resemblance or analogy between the mode in which
Revelation has been communicated, and that in which
natural knowledge has been conveyed to mankind, that
(subject to the exceptions just mentioned) the greater
part of what have generally been considered h priori
* Note (D).
�12
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
objections to revelation will be met with. Thus, that
the light of revelation is not universal; that its evidence
is not so strong as it might have been, on the contrary,
is such as to leave many honest enquirers, before whom
it is placed, in great doubt; that, supposing man in a
fallen state, the remedy should have been introduced
only after so many ages, and then made known so
gradually and partially, and through so long and intri
cate a series of means; that there should be such
diversities of opinion among those who accept Revela
tion, as to its real meaning, as are implied in the several
creeds of the Roman Catholic, Protestant, &c.; that all
men who receive revelation are not necessarily made
the better for it; these and other considerations of a
like kind have often been cited as difficulties in the
way of belief. And certainly whatever may be thought
of the force of the others, the second one instanced
above is a difficulty, in the case of the persons to whom
it applies, since there cannot be a greater difficulty to a
man in the way of believing anything than the fact
(admitted in this instance, in the case of many men)
that the evidence for it is to him wholly inconclusive.
Bishop Butler replies that it is precisely under similar
conditions, and with like apparent inequalities and un
certainties, that God distributes all his blessings, and
that all knowledge makes its way in the world. He
bestows all his gifts with the most promiscuous variety
among creatures of the same species.
*
We are obliged
to act, in the affairs of life, upon very uncertain evi
dence, and “strong objections are often seen to lie
against the best concerted schemes, not to be removed
or answered, but which seem overbalanced by reasons
on the other side, so that the certain difficulties and
dangers of the pursuit are by every one thought justly
disregarded, upon the account of the appearing greater
advantages in case of success, though there be but little
probability of it.” And again, “ numberless instances
* Part ii. ch. 6.
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
r3
there are, in the daily course of life, in which all men
think it reasonable to engage in pursuits, though the
probability is greatly against succeeding
*
And ad
summam, he waves off, as it were by a flourish of his
wand, all possible or conceivable objections against re
velation, under either of the above heads (except one
presently to be mentioned) with the remarks that we
are no judges of what a revelation might be expected
to contain, supposing one to be made; nor of the means
which God would adopt to communicate it ; nor as to
how far he might choose to secure its transmission un
corrupted to posterity, or, on the other hand, suffer it
to be handed down and consequently corrupted by
verbal tradition. + Again, that things appearing “fool
ish” may, in a scheme so greatly beyond our compre
hension, be the very best means to the very best ends.|
(1.) The first observation to be made with regard
to this analogy is, that—in Butler’s own words, though
he, indeed, uses them with a different application—
“ it is of pretty large extent.” § The legitimate conclu
sion to be drawn from it is, that there can be no such
thing as an a priori objection, or indeed an objection
or difficulty of any kind, in connection with any alleged
revelation whatever (unless it be an objection to its
morality, or by reason of plain contradictions in it—points to be presently considered). There are a number
of religions in the world of which it may be said that
they are republications of natural truths, and that they
announce some dogmas not discoverable by reason ; ob
jections to the doctrines of which, as well as to the mode
of their communication, may be met by precisely the
same arguments as are here employed on behalf of the
Christian Revelation. The very first objection which
will perhaps occur to the mind against examining the
claims of any of these religions, viz., that they are
held by nations which occupy a comparatively low
* Part ii. ch. 6.
+ Part ii. ch. 3.
§ Introduction.
I Part ii. ch. 4.
�14
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
place in the world, and whose civilisation is unpro
gressive, may he met in this same way. We are no
judges of the manner in which a revelation would be
given, nor to what sort of persons or peoples it might
he given. Thus, there is great reason to suppose that
a knowledge of the directive power of the magnet was
first communicated to the Chinese, though it might
have been expected that it would first have been made
known to the maritime nations of the West, to whom
it would have been of greater use. Nor are we in the
least degree entitled to infer that the recipients of a
divine revelation must needs, on that account, advance
beyond others in other kinds of knowledge, or in
material prosperity.
*
For if so, certainly any one
living between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries
of our era might justly have concluded that Maho
metanism was the true religion. Nor can any seeming
absurdities or follies in any of these religions furnish
us with a sufficient ground for not examining them ;
e.g., the transmigration of souls, the passage of the
departed over a bridge as fine as a hair, the invocation
of the moon-plant and its juice, the avatars of Vishnu,
the sacred character of crocodiles, oxen and snakes ;
and many other things of a like kind. If we were
told that there is a devil with horns and hoofs, that
it is incumbent on us to cross our fingers every time
we see a magpie, and to pick up and throw over our
left shoulder every rusty nail we find in the road—
in none of which dogmas or ordinances can anything
self-contradictory or clearly immoral be shown—such
ingredients could furnish no objection to a revelation
which contained them ; since, every seeming absurdity
is at once cured, as the lawyers style it, by the doc
trine that we are no judges beforehand of what a
revelation, supposing one to be given, might or might
not contain, or how far things foolish and ridiculous
in our eyes might be the very best means to the very
* Note (E).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
*5
best ends. Again, in reference to the religions of which
*
I have been speaking, the fact, if it be a fact, that there
is very slender evidence for the supernatural events re
corded in them can be no objection, “since we are
equally ignorant whether the evidence of it (revelation)
Would be certain, or highly probable, or doubtful.-Y
This very want of proof may be part of our probation
in respect to some one of these religions. And it may
be a true religion, even though the absurdities in it
were admitted to be real; since these absurdities may
be, after all, only corruptions of truths originally com
municated ; for, as we have just seen, we are no judges
how far God, if he gave a revelation at all, might
choose to secure its transmission uncorrupted to pos
terity. And it may be added, that as the difficulties
in nature are numberless, it would be easy to find one
which would match any given difficulty in any one of
these religions, or even, to carry the argument a step
further, and show a general resemblance between it and
the constitution of nature. £ Indeed, I will presently
show why there must be such a resemblance, more or
less marked, between what man learns, or thinks he learns,
from nature and what is taught him in any religion.
Try this analogy, for example, on Mahometanism.
And this may be shortly and fairly done by turning to
the last paragraph in Butler’s Introduction, where he
has given “ a general account of what may be looked
for in his treatise.” Every single word of that summary
will hold good of Mahometanism, except one sentence,
where, for “ (dispensation) carried on by the mediation
of a divine person, the Messiah,” we shall have to sub
stitute another form of words ; as for instance, “ carried
on by a succession of divinely appointed persons,—
Moses, Jesus, finally Mahomet.” And this would be
the substitution in place of a dogma for which even
Butler finds it extremely hard to extract a satisfactory
* Butler, Pt. ii., ch. 4.
J Note (F).
| Pt. ii., ch. 3.
�16
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
analogy from nature (the atonement) of a much more
simple and natural one, for which abundant analogies
could be shown ; and, so far, the task of the Mahometan
would be easier than that of the Christian apologist.
*
It may be added, that the former would have no sort of
difficulty in meeting, on Butler’s lines, an objection
which is commonly and foolishly brought against the
divine character of his religion, viz., that it was propa
gated by the sword. We are no judges of the means
by which a revelation would be propagated ; and it
would be the height of presumption to argue d priori
that God could not, or would not, use the sword for
that purpose. And the examples from nature which
make in an opposite direction are numerous. Know
ledge constantly finds its way in the world in the train
of brute-force. And brute-force has been largely em
ployed as a means of spreading both Judaism and
Christianity.!
In short, if any dispassionate person will look with
a little care into this subject, he will not fail to see
that, mutatis mutandis, the “ Analogy ” will hold good
for the creed of Islam, at least so far as this—which is
indeed the furthest point to which it can legitimately
be pushed in support of any religion—that there are
no d priori objections such as to render Mahometanism
. incredible, and that there are certain resemblances be
tween its teachings, the circumstances attending its
introduction, &c., and what we observe in the consti
tution of nature.
Turn, again, to Brahmanism or Buddhism. Here,
we shall be told (what we cannot be told in the case
of Mahometanism) that the analogy does not apply.
For in these religions there are things—precepts en
joined, and actions related of deities—distinctly im
moral. Now, immorality constitutes a clear a, priori
objection to a so-called revelation, as has been admitted
when we conceded (at least I have been willing to con* Note (G).
+ Note (H).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
17
cede) that the government of God is a moral govern
ment. This is a point which merits very careful
consideration. And this seems to me a suitable place
for considering it
First, I must ask, What is meant by the word
“immoral” in this place? The reader need not be
afraid of being dragged into the interminable contro
versy to which such a question may seem to open the
way. It will suffice, for my present purpose, to take
an example or two of actions, and to inquire whether
the term is held to apply in these instances. Is it im
moral to bind one’s unoffending son upon an altar, with
the view of putting him to death ? Is it immoral to
borrow one’s neighbour’s jewels of gold and jewels of
silver, and not to return them, or their equivalent in
case they are lost ? Is it immoral, after capturing a
strong city, or subduing a hostile nation, to put to
death in cold blood the enemy’s women and their babes
at the breast ? I suppose there can be but one answer.
Yet all these and similar things are found to have
been enjoined by the Deity of our Eevelation.
*
Are
we not, then, bound, on the above reasoning, if not to
reject in toto the revelation -of which they form a part j
at any rate, to reject those portions of it in which they
are represented as having been commanded by God ?
“ Not at all, says Bishop Butler j and to show the
desperate straits to which he is driven, I shall give this
part of his argument entire :—
‘ Reason can, and it ought, to judge, not only of the mean
ing, but also of the morality and the evidence of a revelation.
First, it. is the province of reason to judge of the morality of
the Scripture; i.e., not whether it contains things different
from what we should have expected from a wise, just, and
good Being ; for objections from hence have now been obvi
ated : but whether it contains things plainly contradictory to
wisdom, justice, or goodness ; to what the Light of Nature
teaches us of God, And I know nothing of this sort objected
against Scripture, excepting such objections as are formed
upon suppositions which would equally conclude that the
* Note (I).
B
�18
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
constitution of nature is contradictory to wisdom, justice, or
goodness, which most certainly it is not, Indeed, there are
some particular precepts in Scripture, given to particular
persons, requiring actions which would be immoral and vicious
were it not for such precepts. But it is easy to see that all
these are of such a kind as that the precept changes the whole
nature of the case and of the action, and both constitutes and
shows that not to be unjust and immoral which, prior to the
precept, must have appeared and really have been so ; which
may well be, since none of these precepts are contrary to im
mutable morality. If it were commanded to cultivate the prin
ciples and act from the spirit of treachery, ingratitude, cruelty,
the command would not alter the nature of the case or of the
action in any of these instances. But it is quite otherwise in
precepts which require only the doing an external action ; for
instance, taking away the property or life of any. For men
have no right to either life or property, but what arises solely
from the grant of God. When this grant is revoked they
cease to have any right at all in either. And when this re
vocation is made known, as surely it is possible it may be, it
must cease to be unjust to deprive them of either. And
though a course of external acts which, without command,
would be immoral, must make an immoral habit, yet a few
detached commands have no such natural tendency. I thought
proper to say thus much of the few scripture precepts which
require not vicious actions, but actions which would have
been vicious had it not been for such precepts ; because they
are sometimes weakly urged as immoral, and great weight is
laid upon objections drawn from them.”—(Analogy, pt. ii.,
ch. 3.)
If the above reasoning is to be accepted, it must
lead necessarily to this : that nothing in any revelation
or religion—nothing, I mean, which is represented as
an act or command of a Deity—can be objected to as
being immoral. For every such objection, it may be
urged, is also an objection to the constitution of nature
in which effects similar to those caused by the acts or
the carrying out of the injunctions in question are cer
tainly to be found. If the Hebrew Divinity’s orders
to the Israelites to massacre the children at the breast
of the Canaanites present no difficulty in view of the
fact that God repeatedly smites infants at the breasts,
and causes them to perish by diseases, and to be
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
19
swallowed up by earthquakes, fires, tempests, &c., all
antecedent objections to infanticide as a religious rite
are removed at the same time. The rapes of Jupiter
and the thefts of Mercury cease to be immoral from
this point of view, since it is certain that women are
ravished and men are robbed in this world. And it
comes to the same thing in the end whether the gods
permit an act to be done, or order it to be done by an
other, or do it themselves. But the absurdity of even
discussing this question at all, under the conditions set
forth, is clearly shown by a consideration of Butler’s
next plea. It really comes to this, (1.) We ought to
reject a revelation in which God is represented as com
manding or doing anything immoral ; (2.) Nothing
which God commands or does can be immoral. Surely
on the strength of this, a Hindu may unanswerably
contend that no orders or exploits of (say) Vishnu,
however extravagant or cruel—if such there be—can be
held as constituting an h, priori objection to his creed.
The question will be simply as to the facts. Bor if
Vishnu did order or do the things in question they
became, ipso facto, right.
Bishop Butler of course sees this difficulty, and
makes desperate efforts to get out of it. He distin
guishes between “ the doing an external action” and
“ the cultivating of certain principles and a certain
spirit;” between “a few detached commands which
have no natural tendency to form an immoral habit,”
and “ a course of external acts which, without such a
command, would be immoral, and would have such a
tendency.” It is obvious that here are distinctions
which will not hold. It is quite idle to say that to
order a man to massacre a few babes is not to cause
him to cultivate a spirit of ferocity, or, at the least, of
insensibility to human suffering. Or that to instigate
a man to cheat a few people is not to develope in him
more or less, according to his nature, a taste for appro
priating what does not belong to him. Or take the
�20
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
case, which just now suggested itself to me, of rape.
Rape is an external action: the depriving a woman of
what may he of more value to her than life itself. Yet
a woman has no right to this possession, except what
is given her by God. When he has signified his re
vocation of the grant, it ceases to be unjust to deprive
her of it. Now will any one contend that a man who,
by divine command, had perpetrated a small number of
rapes (or, if you please, one) would not necessarily
have the spirit of lust cultivated in him ? There is no
-distinction to be drawn here between a few immoral
■acts and many immoral acts, except as to their number;
nor between cultivating certain principles and a certain
spirit, and doing by command external actions which
must tend towards their formation, except this much:
that the doing by command of these actions would be
calculated to foster in the agent and others those bad
principles and to stimulate that bad spirit in an extra
ordinary degree, since such deeds would seem to have
been invested with a divine sanction.
It may be thought, at first sight, that the argument
might have been boldly driven over this difficulty. And,
indeed, it might be contended, very much on the lines
of the “ Analogy,” that we are no judges of what con
stitutes “immutable morality:” that actions, injunc
tions, &c., appearing in the highest degree immoral to
us. might, if we knew more of the general scheme, be
shown to be moral. That, consequently, it might be
quite in accordance with the principles of such a
scheme that certain persons should be ordered to culti
vate the spirit of treachery, lust, cruelty, &c. In other
words, that we are quite at sea as to absolute right
and absolute wrong. And this is virtually the argu
ment of those who uphold the dogma of eternal punish
ment, which is not maintainable except on these prin
ciples. This argument would, however, be quite at
variance with the main positions of Butler (indeed,
impossible to him), who, by the way, nowhere encum-
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
II
bers himself with the doctrine of eternal punishment,
and avoids it as carefully as he avoids the subject of
inspiration. It might, however, be plausibly urged by
the adherent of any so-called false religion, in which an
unusual number of monstrosities occurred. We need
not, however, go into this. Taking the “ Analogy” as
it stands, and not debiting the author, even in imagina
tion, with pleas which he would have repudiated, it seems
there can be no objection on the score of morality to
any religion, or else that there are objections on that
score to Revelation. I venture to hold the latter view,
for which I will endeavour shortly to state my reasons.
This not being admitted by Butler, it will be found
that his general reasoning leads to the former conclu
sion. And, since there can be no a, priori objections on
any other ground, save, indeed, such as may arise from
manifest contradictions, in so far as these may be
brought under this head, it follows that, with this ex
ception, there can, on Butler’s principles, be no h priori
objection of any kind to any revelation or religion.
This consideration in no way weakens the Bishop’s
legitimate argument, since objections of a certain class
to Christianity are not the less removed, because ob
jections of the same kind to other creeds are removed
at the same time. But it is well to observe the wide
scope of the general argument, and to notice at once
that it is applicable, in its main features, to a vast
number of religions, not all of which can be, possibly
not one of which is, true, in the sense of containing
' nothing but truth.
(II.) The second observation which must, I think,
force itself on the mind is, that this argument is not
altogether satisfactory in its mode of dealing with
certain difficulties. Bor instance, the one which as I
said at the beginning has, more than any other, driven
some people to pass by the evidence for revelation ; the
doctrine of Eternal Punishment. One scarcely likes to
use the word with regard to a writer usually so candid,
�22
j
I •
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
but it certainly seems to me that Butler has somewhat
evaded this difficulty. We read of punishment to be
inflicted hereafter, punishment which may be greater
than the offence seems to deserve, greater than the en
joyment derived from the sin, of people being finally
disposed of according to their deserts (a belief which it
is impossible to reconcile with this one) &c., but we no
where, that I can recollect, meet with unmistakeable
Eternal Hell-fire in the pages of the Analogy.
*
Yet
that it is to be found in Revelation is as plain as any
thing can be. If we attempt to soften down this
doctrine into something which is not in the words
conveying it, we shall be introducing a solvent of
immense power and unknown range of application.
There it is in the Bible, and we must make what we
can of it. Now there is nothing in Nature at all corre
sponding to this ; unless it be said that there are such
things as pain and punishment in the world. But
punishment here-—if we admit the existence of a moral
scheme—is apparently inflicted, partly as a discipline
and means of reformation (in which, its proper char
acter, as opposed to the conception of a mere wreaking
of vengeance, men, i.e. legislators, &c., have been
gradually led by God to contemplate it, when appointed
or inflicted by themselves). It appears, at any rate, to
be designed for this purpose in most cases, and we can
not say that it is not so designed in all cases coming
under our observation: since we cannot affirm that
punishments seemingly final to us are really such.
Indeed, (revelation apart) the opposite hypothesis
would be more probable.! On the other hand,
punishment made everlasting assumes the form of
pure vindictiveness.| There is no analogy to be
drawn between what is finite and what is infinite in
this connection ; between what is after all of a nearly
imperceptible character—for all the earthly sufferings
of all who have ever lived, or will ever live, are but a
mere prick of the thumb, not even that by comparison
* Note (J).
f Note (K).
J Note (L).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
*3
—and what is beyond all that the imagination can
conceive in horror, intensity and duration; between
what is often seen, and may be always conjectured, to
fulfil an end, and what cannot be conceived as fulfilling
*
any.
Indeed, it would be just as reasonable to call
upon us to infer from the fact that a benevolent autocrat
had been sometimes known to enjoin an extra drill upon
a soldier who had neglected his duty, or even, if you
please, upon one who had not neglected his duty, that
the same monarch would be likely to order the greater
part of his army to be roasted at a slow fire; though
even here the ratio of the difference between the two
commands to that between what we see in the course of
nature and what is presented to us as a prospect
by revelation is as the breadth of a human hair to
the distance between the earth and the furthest measured
part of the heavens infinitely multiplied. There is, I
say, no analogy to be drawn between finite punishment
and punishment involving unimaginable conditions.
And as for pain and suffering, Butler (who like every
other man was under the influence of the tone of
thought prevalent in his day) is very fond of drawing
similes from civil government, the government of the
master over his servant, the parent over his child, &c.
In the course of human training and education, a wise
governor, parent, teacher, master, officer in an army,
will constantly inflict pain and ordain sufferings, 'not
for the mere gratification of causing them, or because
he cannot help doing so, but with a view to the
ultimate benefit and improvement of the sufferer. It
was pain to the Spartan youth to have to endure his
discipline, it is pain to the recruit to acquire his
exercises, it is pain, often real pain, to the schoolboy to
learn his lessons. This modus operandi may often for
wise reasons be immediate!y exercised by the Almighty.
And if it be replied that Omnipotence might have
devised some other plan for the object in view, the
answer may be found in Butler’s own profound observa* Note (M).
�24
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
tion. “ The benevolence of God may not be a bare
single desire to make all men happy, but to make the
virtuous and wise man happy.” And how virtue can
be tested and called forth, except by suffering, it is im
possible for us so much as to conceive. And as to
what is sometimes remarked, that suffering often seems
to fall on the wrong people, we must answer that we
really do not know that this is so. The still more pro
found saying of the writer of the Epistle to the H ebrews,
“ whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth
every son whom he receiveth,” may be a complete solu
tion of the difficulty.. These people so>exceptionally and
as it would appear undeservedly tried may be ultimately
advantaged in that they have been deemed worthy of a
higher examination It is not indeed pretended that here
*
is a full explanation of the final causes of human suffering;
but that here is an account of it not wholly unsatisfac
tory to our minds. Now, none of these consideratoin
hold good with regard to eternal pain and punishment., t
Again, look at the case of alleged' immoral commands
of the Deity. The difficulty is not to be cut by the
assertion that whatever God commands must be moral,
any more than the former difficulty can be settled by
alleging that whatever he does must be just. This is
only to use words in a non-natural sense. There is no
resemblance or analogy to be found in nature for these
commands. A revelation which represents the Almighty
as enjoining murder and theft presents difficulties which
are not at all paralleled by the undoubted fact that in
this world people are murdered and robbed: since in the
latter case it is admitted in the argument which we are
considering that such acts bear the stamp of his dis
pleasure ; in the former ease, they bear the very
strongest mark of his approval which we can imagine it
possible for God to put upon them, viz. the breaking
through the general order of the Universe specially to
enjoin them. And strange as it may seem to us that
* Note (N).
+ Note (0).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
^5
an all-powerful Being should endure things, indeed all
forms of evil, which at the same times he disapproves,
yet this is a mystery the existence of which is admitted;
and it is impossible therefore to show an analogy in
things permitted but disapproved to similar things
ordered and approved * Nor can any analogy he shown
between these immoral commands and the operation of
diseases, pestilences, earthquakes, fires, &c. Some
people suppose the matter quite settled by pointing to the
course of nature. A thousand children (say) are swept
away by small -pox, so many others go down in a ship,
and so on. “ Does not this,” they ask, “ amount in
effect to precisely the same thing as if God had ordered
their slaughter through the agency of man ? ” This is
not so clear to me. The introduction of human agency
into the problem seems to me to make all the difference.
From no source can we gather that God approves of the
pestilence, &c., as a pestilence. Much less is it possible
to conceive that the work which it effects could be en
trusted to man without his being thereby demoralized,f
for the direct contrary of this can be proved. To be
sure this pestilence may be the best, perhaps the only,
means of accomplishing an object in the end beneficent
for the race; just as a surgical operation which,
though if viewed per se, and by some one who did not
understand its purport, it would seem a cruel and
horrible process, might yet he of great service to the
patient and a beneficent act on the part of the operator
who knew all about it; while to make a man hack and
mangle a number of other men, without his knowing
the why or the wherefore, could not but injure him.
We should deem in the highest degree unlikely the
news that a good schoolmaster had set his boys to flog
each other, because such a course could not be other
wise than deeply injurious, particularly (which is the
point here) to the floggers. And it would not remove
our difficulty to be informed that the Schoolmaster had
* Note (P).
+ Note (Q).
�26
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
himself flogged boys for the same offences. But, further,
it is not absolutely certain that God approves of
the catastrophe, earthquake, pestilence, &c., at all.
These things may be as hateful to him as sin itself.
Nor will it suffice to reply that he must approve of
them, since he as the Author of everything must be
held to send them, or since he does not prevent them,
though he is admittedly able to do so. For, if so, then
God must approve of the murder of B. by A., since he
is the author of everything and did not prevent A. from
sticking B. Which supposition would be fatal to the
whole theory of a moral scheme. Here, indeed, is an
old difficulty, the existence of evil side by side with an
all-wise and all-powerful God: and we must at once
pronounce it insoluble by man. But it is important
to note that certain forms of evil (sins) are allowed
full scope in the world, while yet it is certain that they
are reprobated and loathed by God: for it follows
that the same may hold of many processes which we
call natural ones, the presence of which, due it may be
to some mysterious cause quite out of our reach and
range of apprehension, need not by any means show
that they are viewed with divine favour. At any rate,
unless it can be demonstrated that this is not so, it is not
certain that the destruction of a hundred persons by a
tempest can be in any way compared, for the purposes
of this argument, with the killing of those persons by
human agents on express command, z.e., that there is
any analogy, of the kind required, between evil, as to
the genesis of which we are in the dark, knowing only
that it exists, and evil with the process of manufacture
of which, and the direct agents in producing which, we
are made acquainted, in the shape of a God miraculously
ordering a crime and man executing it.
The common-sense of civilised mankind has per
ceived the force of this distinction, without, perhaps,
(as often happens), having analysed it. There can be
no doubt that news of the most extensive destruction
�Pleas for Tree Inquiry.
27
of human life, magno arva tenerr Diluvio, nutare urbes,
subsidere terras, would not affect us in the same pain
ful way as if we had learnt that God had ordered
a man to sacrifice one of his own sons. It maybe said
that this difference in our feelings would be owing to
the comparatively ordinary character of the former
series of events, and the (in any case, happily) un
common character of the latter event. But the com
monness or uncommonness, the natural or miraculous
character of the news would have nothing to do with
the peculiarity of the shock occasioned. The reason of
the difference lies in this, that nowhere in nature is
there to be found an intimation that human life is “ to
be held sacred ” by God. Quite the contrary. But
there is to be found in the human conscience an inti
mation from God that human life is to be held sacred
by man.
Of course it will be said—it is virtually said by
Butler—that the intimation only amounts to this, that
human life is not to be taken by man (to keep to this
illustration) unless an order from God to the contrary
is received. Very well. I am willing to accept this
account of the matter. But now arises a question of
the utmost importance in this inquiry. What evidence
am I entitled to require in order to be satisfied that
such a command has really been given? Here are, as
it were, signs of God calling me in two different direc
tions at one and the same time. Which is the voice,
and which is the counterfeit ?
Let us look a little more closely to this point, which
goes to the very heart of the analogy.
We must approach the consideration of an alleged
Revelation either with no preconceived notions of the
nature of God, or with some preconceived notions.
Butler, of course, takes the latter view, and he fairly
admits that injunctions contained in it, which should
be contrary to immutable morality or plain manifest
contradictions, would form a sufficient reason for re
�28
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
jecting a revelation. Why? Because we evidently
start on our inquiry with these among other assump
tions : that God is moral, that God is truthful, and
will not deceive us. Indeed, without postulating the
latter quality for the Deity, all inquiry would be use
less. The ground would be cut from under our feet.
Now, we must derive these notions (1) from an obser
vation of the course of external nature, and the indi
cations as to the character of God given in it; or (2)
from some other source, which can only be human
conscience—using the word without entering into nice
discussions, wholly unnecessary in this place; or (3)
from a combination of the two.
If our notions are to be derived wholly from (1)
external nature, the question will arise, “ How can we
get from this source an assurance of the veracity of
God ? ” I must confess I do not see how we are to
infer this from nature. There are, indeed, no such
things in nature as truth and falsehood ; because
nature makes no assertions, no positive promises ; while
instances abound every hour of the day of men being
cruelly and fatally deceived by her supposed promises.
It may be said that the observed uniformity of natural ,
processes, what is called the order or course of nature,
contains in it an implied promise that it will never be
broken through, and that that promise is kept. But
this ground, which is not really philosophically sus
tainable, is at any rate not open to orthodox theo
logians, part of whose case it is that past uniformity
in nature is no guarantee whatever (i.e., contains no
promise) of future uniformity.'
*
For, indeed, if it were
admitted that it did, either there could be no miracles,
or every miracle would be a divine lie. It will be
found, as a matter of fact, that the idea of God’s
veracity does not come into existence in our minds,
till we have begun to anthropomorphize God, which,
from the very constitution of our minds, we are com* Note (R).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
29
pelled to do. We can only take in a knowledge of
God, like all other knowledge, subjectively. He can
(perhaps rather, does) only reveal himself to us in
terms of the human conscience. It will he found that
from this latter source mainly spring our ideas of God’s
truthfulness j so also of his infinity, omnipotence, and,
in a large degree, of his morality, justice, benevolence.
For though (as I have allowed) there are indications in
nature of a benevolent Deity, a moral government, &c.,
I by no means admit that these are strong enough,
taken alone, to justify anything like an assurance on
the subject. To use, with a little latitude, the language
of the metaphysicians, it is from the ego rather than
the non-ego that these conclusions are drawn. Simi
larly, it may be remarked, that our belief in a future
state (without which, all these our inquiries would
lose the greater part of their interest) is almost entirely
drawn from within. It is the resultant of an internal
desire implanted in us by our Maker, and a confidence
in his goodness and justice similarly communicated to
us : from which we gather that he would not be likely
so cruelly to mock and deceive us as to implant in us
a natural instinct destined never to be satisfied.
*
Several indications in nature serve to confirm this in
ternal anticipation of a future life : not all of them put
together are strong enough to serve as its foundation. +
If this internal apprehension of the essential qualities
of God (essential, that is, to the conception which he
himself compels us to form of him) be, as the very
statement of it imports, a revelation of himself from
God to man, made in the terms of human conscience
it follows :
(1) That we must accept the revelation in those
terms. Any other so-called Eevelation which contra
dicts this one in one particular, is as unlikely to be
true (I am satisfied to put it in this way) as one which
contradicts it in another particular. We should all -of
* Note (S).
t Note (T).
�30
Pleas for tree Inquiry.
us, I suppose, cry out that we found it very hard
to believe a message, no matter how great and how
numerous the miracles which were said to confirm it,
which should represent God as having lied continuously
for six thousand years ; because this would contradict
our fundamental conception of God’s veracity, fie.,
what he has told us of himself on this head. Yet this
message would certainly not be more unlikely to be
true than one which represents him as ruthlessly
fiendish and cruel to all eternity. For I shall not
waste words upon any one who tells me that the doc
trine of eternal punishment does not contradict his
conception of God’s benevolence. The notion of good
ness having come to us in the same way as the notion
of veracity, must be accepted on the same terms, fie.,
as meaning what we mean by it. And a statement
which conflicts with our necessary conceptions on one
point, is as improbable as one that conflicts with them
on another point. The only way of getting out of this
is, by making “ goodness ” to mean something different
from what we mean by it. But in that case, as I have
already pointed out, we are entitled to apply the same
process to “ veracity ; ” * and the basis of all possible
religion, natural or revealed, crumbles away beneath
our feet.
(2) That no act, command, &c., contradicting our
conscience can be accepted on evidence less strong than
that given in our conscience. Hence, evidence that
would be sufficient to establish a physical miracle would
be insufficient to establish immorality — immorality
in a human sense, there is no other sense in which
language can be used—on the part of the Deity. An
authoritative communication from on high, “ the voice
of God speaking in us,” as Butler terms conscience,
cannot be overthrown by any amount of doubtful evi
dence. Yet it is admitted by Butler that the evidence
n favour of a miraculous revelation, containing these
mmoral acts and commands, is doubtful; this very
41 “Pleas for Free Inquiry,” Pt. i., p. 33.
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
31
doubtfulness being part of our probation in respect to
it. I conclude, not indeed (I will take it) that there
is any absolute antecedent incredibility in the state
ments that God has encouraged lies, and prompted
various cruel and immoral actions in this world, and
that he will torture sentient beings eternally in the
next world ; not that statements to that effect are in
capable of being established by any evidence ; but that,
on Butler’s own showing, the evidence which he is
prepared to adduce on their behalf cannot be held
sufficient for the purpose which he has in view, since
nothing short of a demonstration will suffice; and he
says he is not (and, indeed, we know he is not) pre
pared with a demonstration.
(III.) The question of miracles seems to me to be
very unsatisfactorily treated by Butler and his chief
*
followers.
It is clear that nothing in the remotest
degree approaching to a supernatural interference with
established laws can be traced in nature. The utmost,
therefore, that can fairly be urged, in the course of this
argument, on behalf of Revelation, is that Miracles are
not impossible. And this I should be, for my part,
quite prepared to concede.
But instead of maintaining this impregnable position,
orthodox theologians of eminence, in their desire to
carry the war into the enemy’s camp, have gone so far
as to assert that we ought to approach the miracles of
revelation with a presumption in their favour. They
seem to think that by assigning what they choose to
call an “ adequate cause” for these interferences, they
have thrown the cuw/s probcindi on their adversaries.
At least, so I cannot help understanding the late Dean
Mansel, who paraphrases a passage in the argument of
Butler (the original of which is, however, far more
guardedly and cautiously expressed) in these words,
“ If we ‘ take in the consideration of religion’ we see,
not merely that there may be some possible reason, but
* Note (U).
�32
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
that there is an actual reason for such a departure (from
God’s ordinary course of government); and thus, when
the miracle is part of a religious revelation, the weak
presumption against it, merely as a miracle, is de
stroyed, and gives place to a positive presumption in
its favour.”*
It is impossible not to protest against this assump
tion, which makes miracles immediately probable, on
condition of their being wrought in behalf of some
religious system, and deduces from this, their supposed
function, an actual (z.e., an adequate and sufficient)
reason for God’s departing from his ordinary course of
government. We are no judges at all of what would
constitute to God an adequate cause, or occasion, for
such an exercise of his power; still less are we entitled
to assume that the communication of certain mysterious
dogmas or religious truths would furnish such a cause,
or even the faintest approach to it. For it is at any
rate conceivable that these might be conveyed to us by
the Almighty in the same way as in point of fact all
other kinds of knowledge have been conveyed. Mira
cles, I repeat, are quite possible, but I deny that you
can anywhere point to a spring likely to set them in
motion : for this would be attributing to you an approxi
mate knowledge of the Deity’s ultimate intentions
which neither you nor any one else on this earth can
possess. Your argument is virtually this:—“ Here is a
world plunged in darkness, from which it can only
emerge by supernatural aid directly applied. This
supernatural aid -can only be given by means of a
Revelation. A Revelation can only be given through
the medium of miracles. Therefore an actual reason
for miracles has been shown.” Here is nothing more
than a series of assumptions. Miracles, in whatever
* “Critical Examination of the Argument of Butler” by
the Rev. H. L. Mansel, B.D., given as an Appendix to
“Lectures on Butler’s Analogy,” by the Right Hon. Joseph
Napier, LL.D..
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
33
connection they may he alleged to occur, must he judged
of on the evidence produced, no test as to the A priori
probability or improbability of their being wrought
being possible to us in our present state of knowledge,
or rather of ignorance. And it is as gross ignorance
and presumption to talk of their probability under some
given circumstances (however important these may
seem to us) as to deny their possibility under a.ny cir
cumstances.
It does not fall within the scope of this paper to
discuss the evidence which may be produced in favour
of the Biblical miracles. But perhaps I may be per
mitted in passing to submit a consideration, obvious
indeed, and, on that very account, to be borne in mind,
because it will be found naturally to suggest itself
whenever the question arises, as it must do at some
point in the enquiry, “ What is the precise amount of
evidence requisite to establish such and such alleged
violations of what we call Law?”
Granting that the most stupendous miracle may take
place to-morrow, I hold it for a clear and certain law
or canon with regard to all past alleged suspensions of
the course of nature (those in Scripture excluded) that
“ The miraculous element in every such narrative
fades away in proportion as light is poured upon
it: so that full light (by which I mean sufficient
to guide us to a proof or demonstration on the
subject) causes it instantly to vanish.”
Now if we find this law illustrated in any one of the
miracles—and it is admitted that they all hang together
—in the Inspired Records submitted for our examina
tion, this will raise a suspicion that they may all of
them be subject to the same Law. If we find it apply
to a second, the suspicion will be deepened, and so on.
If we find it apply to all the miracles on which direct
light can be thrown, and only not applicable to those
which cannot be subjected to such a test, here are
grounds for an Induction—not indeed a complete one,
c
�34
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
but something a long way towards it—that if the same
process could be employed in their case, the latter would
in like manner vanish from sight; in other words, that
they are only kept in a fictitious state of existence
owing to their nature being such as to elude the pro
cess of verification.
For example, no one can prove that Jonah did not
voyage in the belly of a large fish, that Jesus was not
miraculously conceived and raised from the dead, &c.
And it would have been well for them as a whole, if all
Biblical miracles had been of this character. But un
fortunately some of them do confront science in such a
way as to fall directly under the law above mentioned :
with the result of entirely vanishing in some cases, of
being practically effaced in others, partially effaced in
other numerous cases—according as the light thrown
on them is full, or of a strength less than this in vary
ing degrees.
Thus the Deluge is a miracle on which full light can
be thrown. This, it is needless to say, is one of the
greatest physical miracles on record; indeed, in respect
to its material effects on the race of man, the greatest.
We know that it was accepted as an historical event by
Jesus and his apostles. Yet nothing is more certain
than that no supernatural interference such as that
which is here related ever took place. The earth has
been interrogated and has told its story, written by
the hand of Almighty God, and the revelation thus
accorded us is to the effect that vast tracts of country
have never undergone the universal submersion recorded
in Genesis. Again we have full light poured upon the
alleged miraculous creation of animals, after man and
before woman, contained in the Jehovist’s account of
the world’s beginning, and the whole narrative disap
pears as a history.
Two other stupendous physical miracles are to be
found in the Scriptures—stupendous, that is to say,
relatively to man. since they arc not really more won
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
35
derful than an interposition which should produce a
shower of rain, or heal a sick person in an exalted
station; miracles which the Church of England
habitually prays for.
*
They have moreover an excep
tional importance for us, in that their character renders
them subject to the test which I have proposed. These
are the stoppage of the sun in Joshua, and its retrograde
movement in Isaiah. Of these we may say with con
fidence that they never happened; that they are, except
upon the wildest suppositions, demonstrably untrue.
They are evidently founded on the idea that the sun
was a ball of fire, of comparatively small size, subject
to no law except that of appearing in the heavens to
give light during the day, and disappearing at night,
and capable of being waved to and fro, without causing
disturbance to anything else, like a lantern. From no
individual, from no nation possessing a correct idea on
this subject, could such a tradition have emanated.!
Accordingly, after a desperate resistance to scientific
teaching (God’s truth) founded on this very passage,
the orthodox have devised an explanation to the effect
that popular language is used here to describe a stoppage
of the earth’s motion. But the earth itself could not
be stopped without another series of miracles being
wrought to avert the consequences of such an event.
And if we are driven to evoke an immense series of
subsidiary miracles, it would be better, one would think,
to suppose such as should confirm the literal accuracy
of the inspired writer. This might be done by making
the sun boldly circulate round the earth for the occasion,
and be stopped, things being afterwards restored, with
out disturbance, to their usual order—a double change
in the arrangements of the solar system which might
have been effected by a series of interpositions not more
wonderful than would be required on any other hypo
thesis, and the narrator’s credit being completely savedThen, there is the supernatural darkness which over.
* Note (V).
t Note (W).
�36
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
spread 11 the whole earth” at the crucifixion of Jesus.
The absence of all mention of such an occurrence by
contemporaries, or of any tradition confirming it, is to
us (who are better able to estimate, than were our pre
decessors some centuries ago, the amount of light which
such a silence throws on the subject), conclusive proof
that it never took place. So, some have taken the
words to mean the land of Judeea only. If the event
had been laid a thousand years earlier, we should never
have heard of this subterfuge. It would have been
confidently asserted that the words mean what they do
mean, and what the early Christians held them to mean,
the whole earth. Similarly, that Jesus saw all the king
*
doms of the world from a lofty mountain is disposed of
by the discovery that the earth is not flat. The idea
of the narrator evidently was that Jesus on this occasion
was furnished with the power of seeing to an immense
distance. He would never, we may be sure, if he had
known the facts, have placed his hero under the
necessity of seeing round an immense globe. Here,
“a vision” is nowadays adopted as the solution, in
absolute defiance of the context, for why should any
one be taken to the top of “ a lofty mountain” to
see a vision ? These clumsy tonings-down of events,
once honestly accepted in the sense they were in
tended to bear, furnish good illustrations of the opera
tion of our Law. Where the full light of science
penetrates, miracles disappear. Let but its beams strike
upon them ever so little, their limits contract.
Again, diabolical possession, witchcraft, divination,
the prophetical and monitory character of dreams,
throwing of lots, &c., in the Bible, have had some
additional indirect light thrown upon them in recent
centuries, and with the inevitable result of causing
them to lose something of their distinctness even to
orthodox eyes. Of course, it cannot be proved that the
scriptural narratives on these heads are not true; but they
* Note (X).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
37
are certainly somewhat dimmed by the discovery that
everywhere else the phenomena in question are gross
delusions engendered by ignorance—a discovery which
has, comparatively speaking, been only recently made.
This last observation, it is true, holds good of all
miracles. We believe all so-called supernatural oc
currences, outside the Bible, to be mere delusions. But
then, as we have seen, those who support the Biblical
miracles see some special reasons for the more impor
tant ones, which render them worthy of credit. Now
it cannot be pretended, at least it is not generally
alleged, that there was some special and exceptional
cause why witchcraft, proved everywhere else to he a
mischievous superstition, should have been a reality in
Judsea and in some other countries. So that these
occurrences have been allowed, by general consent, to
sink into a kind of half-light from which we may be
sure that they will never emerge.
The above consideration (and it is time that I should
apologise for what has been somewhat of a digression)
is only one of many which would I think entitle us to
ask for very strong evidence as to any alleged miracle,
lying quite out of the path of direct observation : and
would not permit us to accept Butler’s statement that
no stronger evidence “ is necessary to prove the truth
and reality of them than would be sufficient to convince
us of other events, or matters of fact,” or to agree with
him that “ it is by no means certain that there is any
peculiar presumption at all, from analogy, even in the
lowest degree, against miracles, as distinguished from
other extraordinary phenomena.”
(IV.) The line of argument adopted in the “Analogy”
is surely fraught with great danger to the doctrine of
Inspiration, a subject which the author has somewhat
passed over. It may be urged, with great force and
truth, that there is no a priori incredibility in a
miraculous revelation, nor in the circumstance of such
a revelation being attended with great difficulties (1.)
�38
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
in relation to the character of the doctrines conveyed,
ordinances prescribed, &c., (2.) in reference to the
means employed for propagating a knowledge of these.
And it may fairly be shown, or attempted to be shown,
in support of this line of argument, that similar diffi
culties exist in the constitution of nature. But all
these observations bring us, of course, no nearer to
Inspiration than this: that it is not incredible that a
miraculous record of the revelation might be given us
(which we admit); and that we must judge on the
evidence, as in the more general case of a revelation
itself, whether such a record has been given to us or
not; while as to this particular dogma, the ground is
completely cut away from under those a priori con
siderations which lend to the evidences which we have
for its truth all the value that they possess.
It must be borne in mind that the evidence of Scrip
tural Inspiration is wholly different in kind from that
adduced in favour of open and patent miracles. For
inspiration such as we are treating of is, from its very
nature, a secret process; in the course of which the
Spirit of God is supposed to operate upon the mind
of the writer, without any witnesses. It might, of
course, rest upon the same kind of evidence as other
miracles. Thus, five hundred persons who asserted
that they had seen and heard an angel dictate to St
Matthew the words of his gospel, would furnish us with
the same kind of testimony for his inspiration which
we are said to possess for the resurrection of Jesus.
Or, again, if we were told that Mark had gone about
performing miracles in attestation of the divine guidance
vouchsafed to him in the composition of his book, here
again would be evidence of the same sort brought
before us. But we are confessedly without anything
of the kind. We are not even told by the Evangelists
themselves that they are writing under other than
ordinary conditions. A few passages which have been
cited from the Epistles are of much too doubtful a
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
39
character to constitute evidence, even if we could accept
a writer’s own hare statement of his inspiration as
*
evidence.
It will be found, then, that the argu
ments on which a belief in inspiration is founded are
mainly two. (1.) It is not likely that God would
interpose miraculously to give man a religion without
providing an infallible record of it for his guidance ;
(2) the early Christians and the Universal Church have
always held the Bible to be inspired—an argument
which, even admitting the literal truth of what is here
stated, is of no weight at all, since the early Christians
were no better judges of the divine character of pub
lished documents than we are, unless it be implied that
God would not be likely to suffer the early Christians
and the Church to be mistaken in so important a par
ticular. But both these a priori considerations are
entirely upset by the argument from analogy. It
teaches us that we are no judges at all of what God
would be likely to do in such a case. There is no a
priori unlikelihood that he would give a revelation,
and suffer its incidents and doctrines to be communi
cated to posterity through ordinary channels. Nor
can it be said to be improbable that he should have
allowed a mistaken notion on this head to be held
along with substantial truths. Indeed, analogy shows
us that it is extremely probable that he would do this.
To take one conspicuous example out of many that
might be cited. A belief in the immediate return of
Christ was certainly held most firmly in the first
centuries ; and most justifiably, since there is no dogma
more unmistakably asserted than this is, throughout
the whole of the New Testament; and it was among
the most potent (if it was not the most potent) means
of spreading Christianity.
Yet we know that this
belief was a complete mistake. Similarly, it might be
necessary for the success of Christianity, in some of its
early stages, that the New Testament books should be
* Note (Y).
�40
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
looked upon as inspired. Yet this belief might be
equally unfounded.
As this point is of the utmost importance, 1 may
be excused for saying, at the risk of some repetition,
that here, in my opinion, is one form of the Nemesis
which must pursue this “Argument from Analogy.” Here
is the inevitable “ reverse of the medal.” The ortho
dox champion may legitimately take the ground that
there is no improbability in God surrounding revelalation with, and introducing into it, all manner of
difficulties (ground which he is indeed driven to, on
observing the unquestionable difficulties that there are
in it). But having done this, having gone to the con
stitution of nature for his guide, he is estopped, as the
lawyers style it, from all a priori defences of inspira
tion, and driven back upon the evidence; which, if
arguments of this kind be excluded, is nil, as far as
any external support of the Bible is concerned. Some
of the more able and candid religious writers have per
ceived this dilemma; and, accordingly, a prelate, who
has taken a conspicuous position in these discussions,
has recently announced that the history and doctrines
of the New Testament “might be capable of proof,
and so deserving of credence,” even if we adopted the
lowest view of inspiration, or gave it up altogether.
*
Unfortunately for this view, some of the most vital
dogmas of the Bishop’s creed are supported wholly and
solely by the inspiration of the writers from whose
pages we take them ; and if this be withdrawn, or if it
be supposed that the writers in question may have
made mistakes, there is worse than no evidence for
these events; there is evidence of the strongest kind,
internal and external, against them. Thus, to take
one example, the narratives of the nativity in Matthew
and Luke, recording events wholly unknown to, and
unsuspected by Paul and Peter, and utterly irreconcileable either with themselves, or with each other, or with
* Note (Z).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
41
other parts of the Gospels, will have to he rejected
by every dispassionate inquirer as obviously legendary.
What applies to the whole applies also to the parts,
since we have no miraculous guarantee that the canon
was formed under infallible guidance. Admitting,
*
then, that the whole of the rest of the New Testament
were inspired, there is no difficulty in supposing (in
deed, there are many reasons to induce us to suppose)
it likely that God might permit an uninspired Gospel
(e.g., say that of John), good for edification generally,
but containing exaggerated statements of certain doc
trines, to circulate with the rest. Again, there is no
difficulty in supposing that, the bulk of the New Testa
ment being inspired, the Divine Being might allow
spurious passages to be interpolated into the divine
text. Indeed we have one momentous example of an
admitted insertion of this kind (the one text on
which the doctrine of the Trinity reposes), still read
in our churches, and accepted as inspired by the bulk
of the Christian world.! On either of the above
suppositions we let in Unitarianism. And, indeed, it
has always appeared to me that, with some changes
here and there in forms of expression, Butler’s argu
ment might be adopted in its entirety by members of
that creed.
Let us see how far the foregoing observations are
confirmed by a reference to the principal passage in
which Bishop Butler deals with the subject of Inspira
tion. It is to be found in Pt. ii. chapter 3 of the
Analogy. The words between brackets are my own.
‘ ‘ These observations, relating to the whole of Christianity,
are applicable to inspiration in particular. As we are in no
sort judges beforehand by what laws or rules, in what degree,
or by what means it were to have been expected that God
would naturally instruct us ; so, upon supposition of his af
fording us light and instruction by revelation, additional to
what he has afforded us by reason and experience, we are in
* Note (AA).
+ Note (BB).
�42
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
no sort judges by what methods and in what proportion it
were to be expected that this supernatural light and instruc
tion would be afforded us. (It might be afforded us through
ordinary channels. A supernatural revelation by no means
necessarily involves the idea of a supernatural medi-nm for
communicating it to all ages. The substance of the revelation
and the events attending it, might be left to the world on
evidence of the usual kind, the same kind of evidence that
we have for the existence and exploits of Csesar, and the
discourses of Socrates. Nobody on the above reasoning can
say this is unlikely. “We are no judges, &c.” Surely this
goes to the root of Inspiration itself). We know not before
hand what degree or kind of natural information it were to be
expected God would afford men, each by his own reason and
experience ; nor how far he would enable and effectually dis
pose them to communicate it, whatever it should be, to each
;
*
other nor whether the evidence of it would be certain, highly
probable, or doubtful; nor whether it would be given with
equal clearness and conviction to all. Nor could we guess,
upon any good ground I mean, whether natural knowledge or
even the faculty itself by which we are capable of attaining
it, reason, would be given us at once or gradually. In like man
ner we are wholly ignorant what degree of new knowledge it
were to be expected God would give mankind by revelation,
upon supposition of his affording one, or how far, or in what
way (or whether at all) he would interpose miraculously to
qualify them to whom he should originally make the revela
tion for communicating the knowledge given by it, and to
secure their doing it to the age in which they should live, and
to secure its being transmitted to posterity. We are equally
ignorant whether the evidence of it would be certain or
highly probable, or doubtful; or whether all who should have
any degree of instruction from it, and any degree of evidence
of its truth, would have the same; or whether the scheme
would be revealed at once, or unfolded gradually. (So that we
could not say beforehand, it was at all unlikely that God
would suffer the bulk of Christians to misunderstand his
revelation so far as to believe in the Divinity of Jesus, for two
thousand years ; gradually—through such means as improved
knowledge which should lead them to reject some interpolated
passages, and better to understand others—unfolding to them
Unitarianism as the truth. * Nay, we are not in any sort
)
able to judge whether it were to have been expected that the
revelation should have been committed to writing, or left to
be handed down and consequently corrupted by verbal tradi
tion (or have been committed to writing and got consequently
corrupted, e.gr. by insertion of foolish traditions about the
*Note (CC).
�Pleas for free Inquiry.
43
Nativity) and at length, sunk under it, if mankind so pleased,
and during such time as they are permitted, in the degree
they evidently are, to act as they will.” *
There is more to the same effect, the argument, as
the above extract will sufficiently show, being virtually
this : that as we are no judges of the circumstances
and conditions under which God would give us an in
spired record of revelation, supposing he gave one at
all, we can in no wise say that it might not be attended
with precisely those difficulties which are now urged
against its acceptance. And this is a good answer to
certain assumptions in the form of objections which
are alleged against the Bible and other sacred books,
the Koran, Vedas, &c. But it is equally, in effect,. an
answer to similar assumptions in favour of Inspiration,
viz., that God would not be likely to grant a revela
tion without providing an inspired record of it, that he
would not be likely to suffer the early Church to be
deceived. And as these assumptions appear to me the
only grounds on which the doctrine of Inspiration can
be based,f (since we have no direct evidence for it), I
cannot but think that this Dogma is rudely shaken by
the line of argument adopted in the Analogy.
(V.) There is an observation to be made upon what
I have called the Major premiss (a) at page 8.—
“ If there be an analogy or likeness between that
system of things and dispensation of Providence which
a revelation informs us of and that system of things and
dispensation of Providence which Experience together
with reason inform us of i.e. the known course of
nature ; this is a presumption that they both have the
same author and Cause.”
This may be admitted, with Butler’s limitation “ at
least so far as to answer objections against the former’s
being from God, drawn from anything which is analogi
cal or similar to what is in the latter.”
*Note(DD).
+ There is, of course, the argument from internal evidence,
to which reference is made in p. 52.
�44
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
And this remark, so limited, will apply to all religions,
for in all religions there are the same difficulties as are
to be found in nature, and a general resemblance be
tween what is taught in any one of these religions and
what is found in the course of nature could be estab
lished. The correct way of putting it would be, as we
have seen, that there is no objection whatever to be
raised beforehand against any religion, and that each
must be judged of on the evidence. However, all
apologists are not so cautious as Butler, and unquestion
ably the argument has often been put in this form :
that if the same difficulties are exhibited in nature as
are urged against revelation, and if a general resem
blance can be shown between the two,'we ought to accept
the latter as being from the same hand as the former.
*
Now this, is by no means to be at once admitted in
the sense intended. For it is at any rate possible that
man might have put his experiences and impressions,
his hopes and fears, into the so-called revelation; indeed,
on the supposition (and whether this be a correct one
or not is precisely the point at issue) that it was the
outcome of human reflection and speculation on the
mysteries of the universe, he would be compelled to do
this. These speculations would be founded on what
he saw, or fancied he saw, in the constitution of nature,
including under this term the operations of his own mind.
Indeed, they could not be founded upon anything else.
Thus revelation teaches us, among other things, that
there is a God, and a future life, that we are now in a
state of probation for this future life in which rewards
and punishments will be dealt out, that we are at the
same time in a condition “ of apostacy and wickedness,
and consequently of ruin,” that this gave occasion for the
scheme called the atonement, &c., &c. It is said that
these dogmas which we will call collectively (R), bear a
strong resemblance to and are confirmed by what is ob
served in the constitution of nature (N). But it by no
means follows from this thatR andN are both to be traced
* Note (EE).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
45
directly to God (G) in the sense intended. One may spring
from the other, and as N cannot he made to come from
R, it is possible that R may have been deduced by man
from N. It does not from this by any means follow
that a vast number of the inferences contained in R
may not be true ones, for this may have been the par
ticular mode adopted by providence for the evolution of
these truths. But neither does it follow that we are
bound to accept them as thesubject of a miraculous reve
lation. And a resemblance between R and N is not of
itself sufficient to establish the probability of any such
revelation having been made.
To give an illustration or two of what I mean. The
atonement may be instanced, because I have just men
tioned it, and because it happens to be the leading
dogma of Christianity, yet a variety of other instances
would serve as well. The prevalence of sacrifices all
over the heathen and savage world has been repeatedly
pointed to as confirming this dogma ; inasmuch as -this
shows that there is a natural sense of guilt in man
and a belief that the Deity, or Deities, require some
offering by way of propitiation. But the opposite
theory is, to say the least, as worthy of attention, viz.,
that man has himself put these notions, which may be
partly true and partly false, into revelation; so that an
announcement of the wickedness of the world (let us
suppose a very true one) is found in it side by side with
that of a supreme sacrifice, which may be after all only
an example of “ survival ” of a baseless superstition,
which has come down to us in a transmuted form in
the shape of the dogma of the Atonement. We cannot
pronounce a dogmatic judgment prima facie between
these theories; but some light is thrown upon them
by analogy, at least so far as to render it by no means
necessary that we should immediately accept the for
mer ; and this is all I am contending for. Dor instance,
an idea quite as indigenous to the mind as the efficacy
of sacrifice, is that of the supernatural character of
�46
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
dreams. Every savage tribe is imbued with this idea,
every child, every untutored person retains strong traces
of it, nor has civilization by any means completely
eradicated all vestiges of it even from the minds of the
most educated. Now it will not be asserted that the
prevalence of this belief all over the world could be of
the slightest value for confirming any religious dogma
that might be represented as corresponding to it, since
the belief itself is now-a-days known to be a false one.
On the other hand, supposing revelation to be after all
only a human creation, we should expect to find this
superstition extensively introduced into it; and so to
be sure it is. The Old and New Testaments literally
teem with prophetic and monitory dreams ; and the
same may be said of witchcraft, magic, throwing of
lots, ghosts, evil spirits, &c. A strong suspicion is en
gendered that the notion of sacrifice may have been
introduced in a like way, and that the doctrine rests
upon no better foundation. At any rate, a correspond
ence between a wide-spread natural belief and a scrip
tural dogma, &c., cannot be cited as any confirmation
of the truth of the miraculous communication of the
latter, since, as we see (1), its prevalence is no proof of
its being true; (2), whether true or false it may have
engendered the dogma.
Again, Death has always seemed to man, and espe
cially to primitive man, a very terrible and mysterious
thing. This idea, or instinct, is confirmed by revela
tion, in which we are expressly told that Death came
into the world as a punishment for sin. Here we have
an undoubted resemblance between what is conveyed in
natural and in so-called miraculous teaching. Does it
follow that because of this resemblance the latter is to
be accepted off-hand for what it pretends to be ? Here
we are, in the present day, not without light which, as
far as it reaches, is full light upon the subject. For
we know that there was such a thing as Death in this
planet ages before the first appearance of man. Death,
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
47
then, could not have been brought into the world by
the sin of man. If inflicted on account of the sins of
any beings, these must have been shell-fish of some
kind—foraminifera, or trilobites,—or, in the event of
successive acts of creation having taken place, perhaps
sins of these and subsequently of the iguanodon and
megalosaurus. If it be contended that it was inflicted on
man, for the sins of man, this is equivalent to asserting
that our species was alone originally intended for
earthly immortality, in the midst of the decay and disso
lution of every other material form surrounding it: a
wild hypothesis, rendered violently improbable (to use
no stronger term) by the constitution of our bodies and
by a variety of other considerations.
*
It is as impos
sible to disprove it as to disprove the assertion that
Sirius has satellites of green cheese revolving round
him ; but its value may be left to be estimated by
every unbiassed mind. Here is a case where a resem
blance between what is taught in revelation and an
instinct or prompting of nature (greatly confirmed as
this must have seemed to be previously to geological
discoveries by an observation of the apparent order of
nature) cannot convince us that we ought to accept the
teachings of revelation. On the contrary, there is over
whelming evidence that man has put his rude impres
sions and superstitious guesses on this subject into the
revelation.
The same observations apply, with increased force,
to the mode in which the so-called revelation has been
conveyed to man. It is legitimately argued by Bishop
Butler that the circumstances of the latter having been
very gradually made known to the world—and as yet
indeed only to a portion of the world—of the evidence
for it being doubtful, of errors having been suffered to
be mixed up with it, &c. &c., furnish no conclusive
objections against its Divine origin, inasmuch as the
same phenomena are observed to attend the progress of
* Note (FF).
�48
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
all kinds of knowledge. This, I say, is perfectly fair
(even if not convincing to all minds) as an answer to
objections. But to pnsh the argument a step further,
and to urge that a revelation ought to be accepted
because its course has been attended by the same cir
cumstances as attend the progress of naturally acquired
knowledge, is evidently ridiculous. For the question here
is as to whether this revelation has or has not been
naturally developed, and if developed by natural means,
it must, of course, have followed the same course' as
other kinds of natural knowledge.
(VI.) But the chief observation to be made upon
Butler’s main line of argument—and, as far as I know,
it has not been made before—is this: that it is per
fectly good, in defence of a system of pure Theism, in
defence of the belief that there exists a God who has
never, except by natural means, revealed himself to
mankind. All the objections and difficulties which can
be urged against such a belief can also be urged against
the constitution of Nature. And it has the advantage
of being in complete accordance with the natural con
stitution of things, whereas, on the other supposition,
the analogy has constantly to be strained in order to
make it fit in with a set of pre-established dogmas upon
which, so to speak, it has to wait; or is otherwise not
conclusive for the purpose intended, just as a resem
blance between the anatomy of man and that of the
monkey is not conclusive as to the miraculous creation
of each species by the same hand, but is consistent with
the theory of a natural development of the one from
the other.
What are the objections which can be urged before
hand against a system of pure Theism ? Virtually, it
will be found that there is only one, however much the
form of expressing it may be varied. “ It is not likely
that God would leave us in a state of ignorance on such
momentous topics as those treated of in revelation. It
is not likely that God would submit his children to
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
49
such pain and confusion as would result from their
uncertainty as to their duties here and their destiny
hereafter. Or (which amounts to the same thing)
without revelation, man would not have sufficient light
to guide him, and it is not likely that a benevolent God
would leave him without sufficient light.”
But these objections or difficulties, formidable as
they may appear to some, and may be in reality, can
not consistently be raised by an adherent of the “ Argu
ment from Analogy.” For the very basis of this
argument is that we have no means of judging before
hand of what God would be likely to do, other than
such inferences as may be drawn from an observation
of what he has done and is doing; in other words,
from the constitution of the world in which we find
ourselves. I shall directly have occasion to advert
briefly to the inferences to be drawn from such a sur
vey, and their bearing on the whole question of what
I call Theism. Let it suffice here to say, in reference
to these particular objections, that the most cursory
glance at Nature will show us man left by God in a
state of uncertainty, i.e., without proof of absolute
Truth, on all the most. momentous questions which
affect him. This uncertainty as to our whereabouts,
prompting to searches and explorations in various
directions would seem to be the source of the same kind
of healthy movements as those which in the physical
world prevent stagnation and corruption. Be that as
it may, its existence in the case of all other subjects
save this one is indisputable. Nay, as to religion itself,
it is admitted by the orthodox that the vast majority
of the human race have always been and still are and
(for ought that can be proved to the contrary) always
will be in a state of profound ignorance and uncertainty;
indeed this allegation is part of their case. It follows
that the objection if good for anything is good against
any revelation which is not universal. Again, if stress
be laid on the pain and misery which absence of
D
�50
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
certainty on such a topic would cause us to endure, and
the improbability of a benevolent God inflicting them,
then—putting altogether out of sight the condition of
the bulk of the world in this very respect—the objec
tion in this form is utterly demolished by an observa
tion of the constitution of things, that is to say by
analogy, which at any rate shows that a benevolent
God does inflict or suffer to be inflicted on us pain and
misery of various kinds. And there is no reason a
priori why we should not be made to endure pain in this
way as well as in any other; while very many reasons
could be given why we should, if the course of nature
be the same here as elsewhere. Moreover, such pain
and misery as may be involved in an absence of absolute
certainty as to the existence of a God, a future state,
&c., is as nothing compared to Eternal Damnation;
and to be sure it would be singular that the theory of
a divine revelation should be based on an a priori con
ception of God being too good to leave us without one,
yet that it is to be no presumption against this revela
tion, when set before us, that it upsets this h priori
conception of God’s goodness. Again the objection
*
put in this form, that without revelation man would not
have sufficient light to guide him, that the light of
nature would be insufficient, &c., is itself open to very
serious objections. What is meant by “ sufficient 1 ” We
are no judges of what God might deem sufficient in
such a case. What is meant by the “ Light of Nature ? ”
If it be intended that God could not convey a know
ledge of himself and of our duties to us such as should
be adequate for our guidance, by natural means, and
without the help of miracles, this is a baseless assertion
not an argument. If it be meant that, in point of
fact, natural light has hitherto everywhere proved in
adequate, as is evidenced by the condition of the
Heathen world past and present, the answer from the
other side is that the growth of man’s religious know* Note (GG).
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
51
ledge has been extremely gradual, like that of all other
kinds of knowledge. It is still, to use Butler’s words,
“ a small light shining in a dark place.” This “ very
gradualness” observable in natural operations, has
we have seen been appealed to by the apologist on be
half of revelation. It is no reason, he says, because
the progress of certain religious dogmas has been slow,
that they may not have been miraculously communi
cated. And assuredly the slow progress of any religious
knowledge can form no reason why it may not be of
natural growth ; and conversely, if of natural growth
then judging from analogy its progress would be slow.
There is therefore no ground for the assumption that
because such light as the Romans had attained to in
the first, or the Chinese in the nineteenth century, was
insufficient for their guidance (granting this) therefore
no light sufficient for such a purpose could or would
ever be likely to be kindled in the human mind by
natural means. This assumption does not take account
of the immense scale, as to time, of the Almighty’s
natural operations, and moreover it takes for granted —
what is indeed one of the main points in issue, viz.—
that a great part of the teaching of Christ, which we all
accept, is not to be admitted as an element in our
progressive religious knowledge naturally imparted to
and acquired by man.
So then, neither absence of “ sufficient light,” i.e.,
of certainty as to God, our duty, our future; nor the
consideration that a development and dissemination of
a belief in God, &c., by natural means must needs be
exceedingly gradual; nor again, that all sorts of false
notions and superstitions would probably for a long
time disfigure these beliefs in their natural progress, or
that in point of fact they have always done so: none
of these or other considerations of the same kind can
be urged as objections to a system of pure Theism by
those who argue from Analogy ; for Analogy shows us
a like wrant of certainty, a like gradual development, a
�5^
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
like admixture of error accompanying, and marking the
growth of all other kinds of knowledge.
So also there are other objections which are not pro
perly speaking a priori objections to Theism, but objec
tions to Theism on a comparison of that system with
Revelation, which are similarly overthrown by analogy.
Thus; that the moral teaching, at any rate, of Christ
is inexpressibly sublime and full of divine truths,
according to the admission of infidels themselves, and
that it is not likely that God would have allowed these
truths to be circulated in conjunction with narratives
of impostures or hallucinations such as Theists represent
miracles to be; that it is not likely that God would
have allowed so many generations of civilised men, in
cluding saints and martyrs, to be mistaken in this matter
and to build their hopes on a foundation of sand, &c.
And many other similar arguments will readily occur
to the mind, since they are indeed those on which a
very large portion of the Christian world, often un
consciously to themselves, found their belief in the
supernatural’ parts of their creed. Yet Analogy will
show that it is extremely likely that God would act in
the way here objected to, and that in supposing a Deity
unlikely so to act, we are only dealing with a creation
of our own fancy, not at all representing God as he
reveals himself to us in the constitution of nature.
An objection of this kind against Theism may be
noticed in passing. It is said that revelation carries
with it its own credentials, that it bears internal evidence
not only of the truth of the doctrines which it conveys,
but of their having been miraculously conveyed: it shows
us a system such as man could not have evolved for
himself. This is very much the way in which a savage
looks upon a watch. Without entering into the very
large question which is completely begged by this
objection, it may suffice to say that the votary of every'
religion holds precisely the same view as to his par
ticular creed; which indeed presents itself to him
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
53
subjectively, and through the medium of that sixth
sense (I had almost called it) formed by education and
habit; whereas, to the rest of the world, looking at it
objectively and with their natural eyes, the natural
filiation of its tenets is plainly discernible. There is
not a single dogma, hardly a precept, in the Christian
revelation which might not have been, nay, which had
not been, already in some shape or other evolved by
man. And this is a complete
a
*nswer
—not indeed to
those who contend that they were miraculously con
veyed and confirmed, since this might be established by
external evidence—but it is a complete answer to their
alleged internal miraculous character. And if this fact
of their having been confusedly evolved by man, be urged
—not very consistently it seems to me,—as additional
evidence of their truth, as the voice of nature confirming
revelation ; I say that the voice of nature repeating itself
in revelation is by no means a confirmation of revelation,
in the sense intended; for this would serve to show
that revelation is, to this extent, only the echo of the
natural voice of mankind, not (as the savage just men
tioned supposes echoes to be) the miraculous voice of
an unseen being. But as I have touched on this point
in the preceding section, I will not dwell further
on it.
*
Let us, then, for a moment, do as Butler bids us,
and, “ instead of that idle and not very innocent em
ployment of forming imaginary models of a world, and
schemes of governing it, turn our thoughts to what we
experience to be the course of nature with respect to
intelligent creatures/ and we shall find such a course
of nature perfectly consistent with the gradual and
natural growth of religious knowledge—a knowledge
not including certain proof in matters commonly called
transcendental, yet amounting to probable evidence,
that will serve as a light to humanity. And this is
very much of a piece with the general “ Scheme of
* Note (HH).
�54
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
Nature,” in conformity with which man, from the be
ginning, seems to have been placed under the neces
sity of forming opinions with reference to questions
most practical and vital to him, upon very uncertain
data 5 the better opinions pushing their way onwards
by a principle of natural selection, and through the
medium of the more favoured races,— a process slow,
indeed — to theological eyes, intolerably slow — yet
startling to those only’who have not sufficiently con
sidered the processes of nature as recently made known
to us by the Almighty in a revelation which cannot be
disputed. Science, in these late days, has changed the
popular conceptions as to the physical world, and will
assuredly change the popular conceptions as to the
moral world. Instead of the earth and the heavenly
bodies having been called into being by a series of
instantaneous fiats (the representation most consistent
with the old ideas of the mode of working and dignity
of the Creator), we now see their origin thrown far
back into what, to us, is the Eternity of the Past.
Instead of the heavenly luminaries dancing attendance
upon our planet, we see the latter to be a mere in
finitesimal speck in the midst of space, with no ap
parent connecting link between the system to which
it belongs and countless other systems, except such as
are to be found in uniformity of observed laws, and in
the consideration borne in upon a thinking being by
all that he finds without and within him, that “ the
hand which shaped them is divine.” And this planet
of ours, with which we are mainly concerned, grew,
only after long ages, into a habitation fit for man.
Man, after his appearance, crawled upon its surface, an
ignorant, brutal, and naked savage, for thousands, and
possibly tens of thousands, of years before the date
commonly assigned to the supposed Adam. His di
vinities were malignant spirits; of a life beyond the
grave he had either no conception, or at the best a
very vague one. Ninety-nine hundredths of the
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
55
human race have lived under these conditions. Yet,
just as happened in the physical world, layers of
morality and religion seem early to have been forming.
These people, we may be sure, went on robbing and
murdering each other till it was found that, without
protection to life and property, human society could
not go on. Here was a revelation that murder and
robbery are wrong. Other experiences were gathered
and reduced into form, which means that other beliefs
were founded. The ground reached by the furthest
wave was necessarily retained and made good, as long
as there was a general advance of humanity represented
by the races which, for the time being, constituted its
vanguard ; and that this general advance (to whatever
cause it may have been due) has taken place to the
present time, seems very plain. So, step by step, out
of the first Cimmerian darkness and the subsequent
twilight, there emerge into the clear morning of His
tory certain advanced races, the Egyptian, the Jewish,
the Greek, each of them bearing to the common fund
treasures wrought from the common soil by its own
individual genius ; treasures in the shape of science,
art, philosophy, and religious knowledge. In each of
these cases the rude instincts of early man saw in such
possessions gifts supernaturally bestowed by the gods.
Just as Ceres teaches man to cultivate the staff of life,
and Saturn frames laws for the Latians, and Prome
theus saves the human race from destruction, and in
structs them in astronomy and mathematics; so the
Hebrew Jehovah miraculously instructs his people in
the worship of one supreme Divinity.
*
In all these
cases, save one, the notion of supernatural communica
tions is now discarded : the miracles have dropped off,
the truths and discoveries which they enveloped, and
at one time served to protect, remain. In one region
alone, that of religion and morality, “Survival” still
keeps alive a belief in miraculous interventions. Yet
* Note (II).
�56
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
analogy is strongly in favour of religion and morality
having been developed in the same way as all other
kinds of knowledge. And dreadful as It may appear
to some that such countless generations should have
been left without any external light for their guidance;
that the truths painfully arrived at by man should have
been so largely mixed up with fables and errors, often
indeed owing their lives to these fables and errors;
that even now we are without anything like certainty
on questions of the deepest interest to us, and are ob
liged to content ourselves with inferences more or less
plausible ;—yet, after all, this state of things is strictly
in accordance with “what we experience to be the
course of nature with respect to intelligent creatures.”
My limits do not permit me to enter into a closer
examination of the analogy which might be established
between the general course or scheme of nature, and a
system of non-miraculous development of religious
knowledge or (if the term be preferred) of religious
ideas. It has here been only hinted at: it will be
found to form a subject full of interest and instruction
to those who inquire more narrowly into the matter.
To revert, before concluding, to Butler’s main argu
ment, the theme of Part I. of his famous “Analogy.”
On behalf of revelation it has swept away certain objec
tions (still very often raised by people who ought to
know better), just as similar objections against a system
of pure Theism, or Mahometanism, or even Spirit
*
ualism might be demolished. And it has shewn a
certain resemblance between Revelation and the course
of nature, just as resemblances between nature and
many other religious systems might be established.
Only, that on behalf of none of the latter has a oham.
pion in this particular line of Butler’s powers arisen.
The writer renders no light service to a creed who
* The author has attempted to shew how some of Butler’s ar
guments may be employed on behalf of the last-named creed in
“Hints f<?r the Evidences of Spiritualism,” Trubner&Co.,1872<
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
57
establishes this much, that its evidences demand serious
investigation j and at the same time he renders service
to the truth by establishing a true proposition on this
as on any other subject, ’lhe evidences of Christianity
do then demand inquiry. Its witnesses are entitled to
come into court j and the greater part of the ft priori
objections which have been, urged against their admis
sibility must be held to have been overruled. This
much—no more than this, but still this much must
be conceded to Bishop Butler and his followers.
It is not my intention, either now or hereafter, to
adventure myself into such a vast subject as is here
presented to us—that of the claims of Christianity to a
miraculous origin. There is, however, one point of
capital importance lying on the threshold of such an
inquiry, and which seems to me capable of being
adequately considered within a moderate compass.
Necessarily, the first step in the investigation will be
to examine the records of Revelation. Now it is dis
tinctly alleged by those who put them in evidence that
they are different in character from all other records, in
that they have been divinely inspired, and are conse
quently (the veracity of God being admitted) infallibly
true. Should this claim be established, it is clear that
we shall have to accept whatever they contain. . On the
other hand, should the claim fail, or even if it be left
doubtful, it is equally clear that we shall be entitled to
submit their contents to the same sort of criticism
which we are authorized, indeed bound, to employ in
regard to all other books. I propose, then, in a suc
ceeding paper, to offer a few further remarks on this
subject of Inspiration,
�NOTES.
Note, (A) p. 4.—One would think that this proposition
that it is greatly to be hoped that a large portion of
mankind are not destined to be excruciatingly and un
ceasingly tormented, or, in other words, that a Revelalon SO fearfully opposed to the interests and happiness
of the race may prove to be untrue, is so self-evident,
that no person who had reflected on the subject could
be found to dispute it. I mean no person outside a
lunatic asylum, whither reflection on this hideous
theme has driven many people. One would think that
the ground the orthodox must needs take up would be
this: that no doubt the tidings were inexpressibly awful,
but that unfortunately they were true. And yet (as
noticed in Part I.) divines will boldly stand up and
argue as though their orthodox belief— doubtless a very
sincere one—were not a fearful necessity to them ; as if
it were the wjz&eZzever or sceptic who had cause to be
frightened and awe-struck at his conclusions or uncer
tainties. Thus, for instance, Mr Henry Rogers, a
writer of great reasoning powers, and a candid° writer
when his prejudices do not obscure his reason, can pen
what follows :—
“What may be expected in the genuine sceptic is a
modest hope that he may be mistaken; a desire to be
confuted ; a retention of his convictions as if they were
a guilty secret; or the promulgation of them only as
the utterance of an agonized heart, unable to suppress
the language of its misery ; a dread of making prose
lytes, &c.—(Eclipse of Faith, 4tli edit., p. 32.)
What a conscientious sceptic (in the author’s sense,
of one who has brought himself to doubt the truth of
Revelation) ought to feel and to do, is to experience a
lively sense of joy to be able to think that mankind
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
59
may not be in such an awful position as that which
Revelation represents them to be in ; to welcome even
the gloomiest suggestions of scepticism—such as uni
versal annihilation (which, though not, as I relieve,
representing the truth, would be only an evil to the
fancy of the living man, and soon therefore to him
no evil at all) —as a happy substitute for the
frightful and very realistic bugbear of countless mil
lions seething in eternal flames, from which lie has
in some degree delivered his mind; to be anxi
ous to impart his doubts to all whom he meets ; and,
in case they should become something more than doubts,
and amount to reasonable convictions on that side, then,
as the happiest of all discoveries, as the utterances of
an over-joyed heart unable to suppress the language of
its contentment; to wish to make as many proselytes
as possible ; in fact, his feelings and course of conduct
ought to be the exact opposite of what the author of
the “Eclipse of Faith” enjoins on him.
(B) p. 7.—It is true that Origen, from whom Bishop
Butler is supposed to have taken the hint for his Ana
logy,” has expressed himself to the effect that “he
who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from him
who is the Author of Nature may well expect to find
the same sort of difficulties in it as are found m the
constitution of naturebut this does not amount to
more than this, that he who believes the Bible to be
from God need not be startled by any difficulties similar to those attending the constitution of nature which
may be found in it. Butler always expresses himself
very cautiously on this point, e.g.,“ the things objected
against, considered as matters of fact, are shown to be
credible from their conformity to the constitution of
nature.” This reasoning is perfectly legitimate, and is
quite a different thing from asserting that we should
expect beforehand that a revelation from God would
contain the same difficulties as are to be found in nature.
In addition to the above passage from Origen, a verse
�6o
Pleas for Tree Inquiry.
in the Apocrypha has been frequently cited, as having
furnished Bishop Butler with the key-note to his work.
It.is to be found in Ecclesiasticus, xlii., v. 24, “All
things are double one against another, and he hath
made nothing imperfect.”
But this verse really does not bear the sense which is
sought to be fixed upon it, viz. : that the visible order of
things may be surmised to be a copy of the invisible.
The real meaning of the writer is to be gathered from
another passage of the same book, where he sets forth
the same sentiment more in detail, “ Good is set against
evil, and life against death. So is the godly against
the sinner, and the sinner against the godly. So look
upon all the works of the Most High, and there are
two and two, one against the other.”—Ecclesiasticus
xxxiii., v. 14, 15.
The meaning of the writer is plain, and we may be
sure that he had nothing resembling the “Argument
from Analogy” in his mind. His views are exactly
those alleged by Chrysippus (and by a great many men
before and since Chrysippus) in explanation of the
existence of evil in the world. “ Nihil est prorsus
istis imperitius, nihil insubidius, qui opinantur bona
esse potuisse, si non essent ibidem mala. Nam c.irm
bona malis contraria sint, utraque necessarium est opposita inter sese, et quasi mutuo adverso queeque fulta
nisu consistere: nullurn adeo contrarium sine contrario
altero. Quo enim pacto justitiae sensus esse posset, nisi
essent injuriae? . . . quid item fortitudo intelligi posset
nisi ex ignaviae oppositione ?” &c.—Chrysippus apud
Aul. Gell. Noctes Atticae, vi. 1.
(C) p. 8.—It is true, he adds, “ at least so far as to
answer objections against the former’s being from God,
drawn from anything which is analogical or similar to
what is in the latter.” Indeed, as Reid observes, But
ler “ only makes use of analogy to answer objections
against the truths of religion.” Still, the ground taken
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
6i
up here is in advance of that indicated in (1) and (2).
It is asserted, not only that there are the same difficul
ties in Nature as in Revelation, hut that there is a
general likeness between them; not only that the
difficulties do not render the latter incredible, but that
the resemblances render it probable.
Under the words “ system of things and dispensation
of things which a revelation informs us of, ’ the author
must be held to include the character of the revelation
(“not made known to all men, nor proved with the
strongest possible evidence,” &c.) for this its character
furnishes him with much of his analogy.
Further on, the expression “ the same author and
cause,” may be objected to on the ground that a Theist
would admit Christianity, and, indeed, everything else,
to have God for its author and cause in a certain
sense. But every one understands what Butler
means.
(D) p. 11.—Of course scores of fanciful analogies have
been drawn between the mysteries of the Trinity, In
carnation, &c., and things observed in nature ; e.y., In
the simplest figure there are three lines, in every body
three dimensions. For other examples see Buchanan’s
“ Analogy considered as a Guide to Truth,” pp. 36, 37.
(E) p. 14.—The heads of themost important, if not the
most ancient, branch of the Christian church have
always taken care to distinguish between material pro
gress, and much that we should hold to evidence in
creased civilization on the one hand, and advancement
in divine knowledge on the other. Indeed, the re
morseless logic of events has forced them to this. The
Pope and all his Cardinals were quite ready to admit
that London was richer, better lighted, better paved,
better drained than Rome when under their sway; that
life was more secure in England than in the Papal
�62
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
states, Ireland, or Spain; that there were more rail
ways in Middlesex than in the Campagna, &c., &c.,
hut they by no means drew the inference that Pro
testantism was, on these accounts, more likely to be
true than Catholicism.
(F) p. 15.—Let any one carefully peruse the chapter
(Part ii., c. 5,) in which Butler brings forward Analo
gies in Nature for “ the appointment of a mediator, and
the redemption of the world by him,” and then set
himself, as an exercise, to apply the same kind of rea
soning to almost any doctrine that has ever been
believed in by man, Manichaeism, Sun-worship, the
Metempsychosis, the Nirwana of Buddhism, the imma
culate conception of the Virgin, the infallibility of the
Pope, and he will be surprised to find how any or all
of these dogmas may be shown to be credible in a like
way, and to be greatly confirmed by what we observe
in Nature.
As a specimen of this kind of perverted ingenuity,
though by no means one of the strongest that might
be quoted, the following from Dr Bannerman’s “ In
spiration” merits attention. He tells us that “in the
province of nature there are analogies appropriate and
sufficient to meet the objection brought against the doc
trine of plenary inspiration.” The way he establishes this
is by showing that “ in one sense the actions of men are
their own, moved by their own will, &c. In another
sense the actions of men are God’s, dependent on his will,”
&c. “ And standing upon the ground of such analogies,
we have reason to assert that the objection so generally
urged against the doctrine of Scripture inspiration, that
we cannot conceive or explain the possibility of the
human agency in its freedom and variety combining
with the divine in its plenary perfection, is no objection
at all, seeing that the very same difficulty is found in
every other department of the operations of God.”
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
63
(G) p. 16.—It may be said also that the passage in
Butler’s introduction “ (dispensation) proved by mira
cles” would not apply to Mahometanism. If so, this
again would render the task of the Turkish or Persian
apologist all the easier. However (not to speak of the
night-journey to Jerusalem, &c.,) there are miracles in
Mahometanism, even though it cannot perhaps be said
that they proved the revelation in the above sense.
The divine inspiration of the Prophet was miraculous.
(H) p. 16.—Ko one can dispute that Christianity has
been greatly indebted to force for its spread. With
out going so far as a writer in this series who asserts
that from and after the date of Constantine “ The Eoman soldiers spread the Christian Church over the
Eoman Empire ” we must at any rate admit that “ the
native religion in Mexico was literally butchered out
of existence; while the countries of Quito, Peru, and
Chili, were baptized in blood into the pale of the
Christian Church.” (Date of the New Testament
Canon, p. 7). Christians have forcibly taken posses
sion of the whole continents of America and Australia,
and multiplied there : and this was just as much
spreading their religion by force as if they had in all
cases (like the Mahometans) compelled the aborigines
to choose between conversion and death. If we were
to land in France and gradually extirpate the French
till we occupied their country, this would be greatly to
spread the English language in Europe, by the help of
force. And it is no answer to say that it was not the
object of the colonizers to spread their religion: so again
in the latter supposed case it might not be, and proba
bly would not be, the object of the invaders to spread
their language. The question is, not whether means
were intended for a particular end, but by what means
that end was achieved.
As a specimen of the manner in which the Christians
obtained their foothold in the New World let the fol
�64
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
lowing account suffice. The Pilgrim Fathers (probably
the most respectable body of emigrants that ever left
these shores) made a night expedition against a fortress
of the Pequod Indians. “Their guns dealt out death
pitilessly. Still the number and arrangement of the
wigwams made the task of conquest slow and difficult.
‘ We must burn them out!’ cried the leader, and he
threw a firebrand into one. The English formed a
chain round the place, and in a few minutes the whole
settlement was ablaze. Thus embarrassed and beset,
the Indians were shot down easily j none were spared.
As the Israelites slew the Amalekites, so did the Pil
grims slay the Pequods. In an hour, six hundred of
them had perished, and only two Englishmen had
fallen. When morning dawned, three hundred more
warriors came confidently up from the other fort;
aghast at the scene of carnage which met their
astonished eyes, they tore their hair and beat the
ground j they too were swept down. Before many
days were over, not a man, woman, or child of that Pequod tribe was left behind!” (Westminster Review,
vol. lxxx. p. 336).
(I) p. 17.—Besides these immoral actions directly en
joined, and examples of immoral legislation, e.g., Ex
odus xxi. 2-6: 20, 21, there are, as is well known, a
number of actions of a similar kind recorded in the Hebrew
Scriptures with the approval of the narrator and which,
on the supposition of his having been divinely inspired,
must be held to have been approved by God. In this
category are the lies of Abraham about his wife, the
theft of her father’s images by Rachel, the treachery of
Rahab, the cold-blooded perfidy of Jael, the hewing in
pieces of Agag by Samuel, the vindictive curses of
Elisha entailing the violent death of children (or young
men) who had wounded his vanity by a harmless jibe,
&c., &c. The whole career of Jacob furnishes an ex
ample of the lowest and meanest vices crowned with
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
65
Divine favour. What would be the estimate formed
by the Christian of these events and transactions if he
found them in the Vedas or the Koran1? Or what would
he say to the morality of Mahomet cursing a barren
fig tree, or Abubekr striking with death two persons
guilty of the same offence as Ananias and Sapphira 1
(J) p. 22.—In a note to Pt. i., ch. ii. of the Analogy,
the author certainly speaks of “the duration and
degree” of future punishment held out by Scripture.
In the same note we have that “ each shall receive ac
cording to his deserts,” that God “ will render to every
one according to his works.’ It is impossible for me
to reconcile these two conceptions, except by that use
of language in a non-natural sense, which is a favouiite
device of Theologians for escaping from difficulties in
a cloud. I do not think that Butler (one of the most
humane and benevolent of men) had ever brought
himself fairly to face the difficulty, as his gingerly mode
of handling the topic shows. “ Butler argued that the
Analogy of Nature gave much reason to suspect that the
punishment of crimes may be out of all proportion
with our conceptions of their guilt,” says Mr Becky,
Rationalism in Europe I. 368. bo they might be,
without anything in the faintest degree approaching to
Hell being realized.
Beibnitz on the other hand
(quoted by the same author) goes straight to the mark,
without any compromise. Offences against an Infinite
Being, he says, acquire an infinite guilt, and therefore
deserve an infinite punishment.
(K) p. 22.—Butler (in his note just quoted) admits
that the opposite hypothesis would be as probable. “All
that can positively be asserted to be matter of mere
revelation with regard to this doctrine (that of a i future
state of punishment) seems to be that the great dis
tinction between the righteous and the wicked shall be
made at the end of this world '} that each shall then
E
�66
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
receive according to his deserts. Reason did, as it well
might, conclude that it should finally and, upon the
whole, be well with the righteous and ill with the
wicked; but it could not be determined upon any
principles of reason whether human creatures might
not have been appointed to pass through other states
of life and being, before that distributive justice should
finally and effectually take place.” Revelation apart,
then, there is no reason whatever why death, when
viewed as the punishment of an offence or offences,
may not be inflicted as a discipline and means of re
formation, just the’ same as (say) a fit of the gout after
drinking. This is what is meant in the text.
With regard to human creatures being destined to
pass through other states of being, an hypothesis as
reasonable as any other in a matter on which we have
no certain information-—the notion certainly must be
held to derive some support from the fact of the vast
proportion of mankind who die in infancy and child
hood, and to whom this world cannot be said to have
been a place “of probation.” If the next state be final,
then the law of probation which we are told is “a
general doctrine of religion,” does not hold universally
for natives of our earth. If it does hold, then there
must be a probation for these excepted ones in another
state. In other words, the next state will not be final
for some. If not final for some, it may be not final
for all of us. Analogy is strongly in favour of this
view, and the wide-spread belief in the metempsychosis
may as fairly be cited in its favour, as a belief in the
efficacy of sacrifices in favour of the doctrine of the
Atonement.
(L) p. 22.—This, so far frombeing an objection in their
eyes, is precisely the light in which many eminent and
devout Christians love to contemplate Hell. It would
be difficult, without quoting him at some length, to
give an idea of the almost boyish glee of the exemplary
�Pleas for tree Inquiry.
67
Baxter at the prospect of the exquisite torments pre
pared for the greater part of his fellows ; with what an
evident gusto he rolls about in his mouth the words
“revenge,” “vengeance,” &c., like a child sucking
lollipops; how the mere iteration and reiteration of the
sounds fascinate him. Here are specimens from his book,
which was one of the earliest books put into my hands,
and without which I suppose that no Evangelical’s
library “is complete,” the well-known “ Saints’ Rest.”
“The torments of the damned must needs be ex
treme, because they are the effect of divine revenge.
Wrath is terrible; but revenge is implacable............
And how hotly revenge will pursue them all to the
highest..................Consider also how this justice and
revenge will be the delight of the Almighty,” &c.,
&c.
And we have God with a rod in his hand, “laying
it on,” God laughing at sinners, mocking at them,
rejoicing over their calamities, never wearied of plagu
ing them, the wrath of God burning up souls as fire
burns fuel, the flames of hell taking hold upon them
with fury as gunpowder seizes tinder, &c., &c.
By’the wray, in reference to these frightful descriptions
of the place of torment, I have heard it said that such
language as Baxter’s would not be used by Protestants
now-a-days. This seems to me, then, a suitable place
for introducing a few quotations from a published
sermon by the most popular nonconformist preacher of
our day, Mr Spurgeon. For although Mr Spurgeon’s
readers to mine are doubtless as a thousand to one, yet
I think it likely that the one person, here and there,
whom I have in my eye, may not have seen this
sermon. The Italics are my own. But every one who
has heard this famous preacher will readily imagine the
unction with which these passages must have been
italicised in the delivery. I quote from the “ New
Park Street Pulpit,” No. 86. “That endless period
�68
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
of unmingled misery which is the horrible doom of the
impenitent.” . . . . “ If you have not (confessed your
sins) you have not felt the sentence of death in your
selves, and you are still waiting till the solemn death
knell shall toll the hour of your doom, and you shall
be dragged out, amidst the universal hiss of the execra
tion of the ivorld, to be condemned for ever to flames
which shall never know abatement............... hell itself
is but a rightful punishment for sin. I have heard
some men dispute whether the torments of hell were
not too great for the sins which men can commit. We
have heard men say that hell was not a right place to
send such sinners to as they were; but we have always
found that such men found fault with hell because they
knew right well they were going there............... I ask
you, when you were convinced of God, whether you did
not solemnly feel that he would be unjust if he did not
damn your soul for ever. Did you not say in your
prayer, ‘ Lord, if thou shouldst now command the
earth to open and swallow me up quick, I could not
lift up my finger to murmur against thee; and if thou
wert now to roll o’er my head the billows of eternal fire,
I could not, in the midst of my bowlings in misery,
utter one single word of complaint about thy justice V
And did you not feel that if you were to be ten
thousand thousand years in perdition, you would not
have been there long enough? You felt you deserved
it all; and if you had been asked what was the right
punishment for sin, you dare not, even if your own
soul had been at stake, have written anything except
that sentence, 1 everlasting fire.’ .... Oh what a
horrible fate will yours be, when, as you walk into the
mouth of hell, you will see eyes staring at you, and
hear a voice saying, ‘Here he comes. Here comes the
man that helped to damn my soul.’ And what must
be your fate, when you must lie for ever tossed on the
bed of pain, with that man whom you were the means
of damning. As those who are saved will make jewels
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
^9
in the crown of glory to the righteous, sure those whom
you help to damn will forge fresh fetters for you, and
furnish fearful faggots to increase the flames of torment
which shall blaze around your spirits............ But as
for my poor words, they are but air. For I have not
heard the miserere of the condemned, nor have I
listened to the sighs and groans and moans of lost
spirits. If I had ever been permitted to gaze within
the sheet of fire which walls the gulf of despair, if I
had ever been allowed to walk for one moment o’er that
burning marl whereon is built the dreadful dungeon
of eternal vengeance, then I might tell you somewhat
of its misery. But I cannot now, for I have not seen
those doleful sights which might fright our eyes from
their sockets, and make each individual hair stand
upon your heads............... Those bones of yours which
you thought were of iron will suddenly be melted, that
heart of yours which was like steel or the nether mill
stone will be dissolved like wax in the midst of your
bowels, you will begin to cry before God, and weep and
howl............... And thou wilt say, 1 0 Lord! it is true
I am now tossed in fire, but I myself lit the flame. It
is true that I am tormented, but I forged the irons
which now confine my limbs. I burnt the brick that
hath built my dungeon. I myself did bring myself
here. I walked to hell even as the fool goeth to the
stocks, or an ox to the slaughter. I sharpened the
knife which is now cutting my vitals. I nursed the
viper which is now devouring my heart............... One
of the miseries of hell will be that the sinner will feel
that he deserves it all. Tossed on a wave of fire, he
will see written in every spark that emanates therefrom,
‘ Thou knewest thy duty, and thou didst it not.’
Tossed back again by another wave of flam e, he hears a
voice saying, ‘Itemember, you were warned.’ lie is
hurled upon a ■ rock, and whilst he is being wrecked
there, a voice says, ‘ I told thee it would be better for
Tyre and Sydon in the day of judgment than for thee.’
�jo
Pleas for tree Inquiry.
Again he plunges under another wave of brimstone, and
a voice says, ‘ He that believeth not shall he damned.
Thou didst not believe, and thou art here.’ And when
again he is hurled up and down on some wave of torture,
each wave shall bear to him some dreadful sentence
which he read in God’s word, in a tract, or in a
sermon.”
I should myself have been unable to conceive a more
dreadful mode of torture than that of being perpetually
roasted by a slow fire. The author’s ingenuity has
refined upon this, by adding the forced perusal of
tracts and sermons to the agonies of the damned. And
this is the religion of a large portion of the English
middling classes in the nineteenth century. This is
their idea of a good God! This is the sort of creed, the
denouncers of which are stigmatised as seeking to rob
mankind of their dearest hopes, &c., &c. Passages
quite as bad as the above (nothing indeed could be
worse) might be cited from the pages of Anglican and
Roman Catholic divines. See especially a pamphlet
called “ A Sight of Hell,” which must be debited to a
writer of the last-named Church, quoted by Lecky,
“ European Morals” ii. 237, and commented on in the
Examiner of March 30, 1872.
(M) p. 23.—There is, indeed, one end, and one only,
which (if we exclude the notion of pure vindictiveness
as a quality of the Deity) eternal punishment might be
conceived as fulfilling-—that of serving as a warning to
some sentient beings other than the men of this world.
This would be on the principle of hanging men for
forging one-pound notes, &c., an arrangement which is
not, now-a-days, held to have been a very moral one.
One difficulty about this view is, that we must suppose
the beings in question to be furnished with some sort
of idea of the offences for which this punishment had
been decreed. For mere information, or knowledge,
that so many people were being tortured everlastingly
(for offences of unknown extent) would surely not
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
71
answer the object; which must be to convey that the
slightest sin will, in the course of things, be visited by
eternal wrath. And we can scarcely suppose that it
such a knowledge were furnished them, the spectacle
of the incongruity between the offences committed and
the measure meted out, would raise in theirjminds a high
idea of the Almighty’s justice, or tend to their moral
improvement. Slavish fear would be the sentiment
engendered, and a sense of horror precisely like that
caused by the executions of forgers and sheep-stealers,
the injurious effects of which to society were found to
outweigh their supposed advantages. Moreover, the
prospect of their own eternal punishment does not, on
the Christian hypothesis, deter the greater part of those
who believe in it from incurring it (not to speak of the
received fate of devils, which is a case strictly in
point).
(N) p. 24.—The doctrine that we are in a state of pro
bation, that this world is a school, dimly seen by some
of the heathen, is, we know, clearly brought out by
Jesus, who may fairly be said to have been the first
to announce it in definite terms. It is, of course, not
capable of proof, but it embodies a theory which ac
counts for a great deal of what is mysterious in this
life, and is the only theory which does in any way
account for these mysteries. What I am concerned
with here is to show that it furnishes a possible solu
tion of some of those so-called anomalies and enigmas
of human existence, which are specially brought for
ward by the upholders of what I am forced to call an
immoral Deity, as justifying the most extreme views
of his cruelty and ruthlessness to us in another state.
11 You are dreadfully shocked,” say these people, at
any course of action which does not come up to your
standard of justice, humanity, mercy, benevolence,
being attributed to the Almighty. How, then, do you
explain the case of a street arab, a ‘ gutter child,
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
bom of a family of criminals in the back slums of a
town, set to thieve at an early age, and who goes on
from crime to crime, till at last he expiates his offences
on the scaffold, without perhaps having ever heard the
name of God out of an oath till the last few weeks of
his life 1 ” I will throw in, into the bargain, if you
please, and if you believe in phrenology, that such a
man has been cursed with the most atrocious cerebral
development, with the organs of combativeness, des
tructiveness, &c., inordinately pronounced ; nature shall
have fitted him out as devoid of benevolent and virtuous
instincts as it is possible for a man to be. And, for
purposes of comparison, I will take, on the other side,
a person born of virtuous parents, tenderly and re
ligiously reared, having enjoyed the best education,
living in affluence, gifted by nature with the noblest
qualities, deservedly beloved by his fellows, a good
son, husband, father, master, landlord, the promoter of
every good work, dying finally in the odour of sanctity.
Now, are you prepared to affirm that, looking to a future
life, the murderer has necessarily been placed at a dis
advantage as compared with the philanthropist ? You
cannot show this, and the contrary is quite conceivable.
The former has had every kind of obstacle, external
and internal, to contend against; the latter has had,
so to speak, none. The former may have gained the
greater number of marks, and have passed, on the whole,
the better examination. A ship which makes the port,
after a tempestuous voyage, with her masts gone and
the crew hard at work at the pumps, is often a better
ship than the one which puts in, with her gear un
touched, after a smooth sail. It may be a more meri
torious act in the eyes of the Supreme for a man of
a certain temperament to refrain, at a particular moment,
from thrusting a knife into his fellow, than for another
man to build a hospital. “ To whom much is given,
of him much is required,” involves the converse ; and
the parable of the talents is a clear intimation of what
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
73
I may, without profanity, call a system of handicap
ping. And so some slight indication of softening and
repentance on the part of your street arab, as he is
being led out to the gallows, when perhaps the very
existence of virtue has only been recently brought be
fore him (and we have an instance of this very kind in
the beautiful story of the penitent thief), may outweigh
all the virtuous actions of the other mans life; just as
it might be a greater feat of strength for one person to
crawl a yard in an hour with several hundredweight
attached to him, than for another to run ten miles in
the same time; and the relative strength and endurance
of the two men might fairly be tested in this way by
any one who possessed the requisite data for a com
parison.
At any rate, here is a possible solution (I myself be
lieve it to be the real one) of the inequalities of life,
which would leave quite undimmed our conceptions of
the justice, mercy, goodness, &c., of God, using those
words in a purely human sense. Where, I say, is the
solution of this kind which you can postulate as con
ceivable for eternal punishment ?
N.B.—I suppose I shall scarcely be met with the
silly observation, that if the above view (undoubtedly
the view of Jesus) be correct, we should be entitled to
leave people alone, and not try to raise their condition.
“ If every one’s probation is perfectly fair, why seek to
alter the terms of it ? ” For many reasons ; this among
them, that, quite irrespectively of any other world, the
duty is put upon us of promoting and increasing virtue
generally in this world. The man who, with one talent
committed to him, makes another talent, may be neither
better nor worse than he who to ten talents adds ten other.
But as it is better for the world that for every one talent
existing in it there shall be ten, so by putting the
former in the way of acquiring nine others, we shall
not indeed be altering the character of his probation,
�74
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
but increasing the sum of the general happiness (as
well as the man’s own happiness here, which counts
for something).
Will it be contended, that if a philanthropist had met
the penitent thief in the midst of his career, well knowing
that if the man were let alone,,he would find his way on to
a cross by the side of Jesus and, so, through this chance
companionship, to heaven,—that it would not have
been equally the duty of that person to turn the thief
from his evil ways, if such a result had been possible 1
To be sure, the latter could not well .have had his
eternal prospects bettered, but he might have spent a
pleasant and honoured evening of life here below into
the bargain, and many people would have been spared
anxieties and loss of property. And a number of other
results might have followed, with which the good man
would have had no concern, if he had foreseen them;
because, quite irrespectively of them, his duty was
clear—to convert, if he was able to do so, a sinner.
(0) p. 24.—I make no apology for adding another note
on this subject of eternal punishment. For a chain is
never stronger than its weakest link. This doctrine is
an integral part of Christianity, announced in unmistakeable terms by its founder (Matt, xviii. 8, xxv. 41,
46 ; Mark iii. 29, ix. 43-48), and preached and taught
by the apostles (2 Thess. i. 9 ; Jude 6, 7 ; Rev. xx. 10);
and if they were mistaken on such a subject, the whole
fabric of orthodoxy will be loosened. Now, it has often
occurred to me, and seems indeed indisputable, that
no person who holds this view is justified in bringing a
child into the world. Such an act becomes a monstrous
crime perpetrated for the gratification of one’s own
selfishness. And if any men deserved eternal punish
ment, they would be those who, holding this dogma,
did not immediately combine, or take individual action
to put an early end, as far as they were able, to the
existence of our race on the earth. For, every child
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
75
brought into the world is introduced into an existence
in which there is a strong chance that he will finally
be unutterably miserable. Indeed, this is not an ade
quate statement of the case with regard to a vast num
ber of Christian parents; since a large proportion of
those who procreate children actually believe that the
average chance for any given human being of escaping
this doom is exceedingly small. What is most re
markable to the philosopher is that one constantly
hears of wise and prudent parents forbidding marriages
on temporal grounds such as these : “ One of the parties
comes of a consumptive family. It would be wrong to
be the means of bringing into the world children who
would be likely to suffer from sickness, to inherit a
malady.” What more common than to hear something
like this? Yet it never seems to occur to any Christian
that the same considerations apply with infinite force
to a future life; that it must be wrong to call into life
beings who come into the world inheriting God’s curse
and who are likely to suffer from hell fire. What can
be the defence for such conduct ? A religious parent
may say, “ I will answer for my child’s bringing up,
and shall take care so to train him that the chances
will be great of his being saved.” Yes ; but how are
you going to answer for your grandchildren and great
grandchildren and descendants at a remote period, of
whom there may be thousands in various walks of life,
and who will presumably only enjoy the average small
chance of salvation of the bulk of mankind?
Or it may be said, “ 1 am obeying God’s orders.
He has commanded us to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ ”
I am not so sure about the conclusion that might be
drawn on this head from the Bible, for more than one
passage in the New Testament might be cited in favour
of celibacy. And, in case of doubt, one would think
the decision ought to be in favour of the course most
consistent with humanity. Yet granted that the
words “ Be fruitful and multiply,” addressed to Noah
�7Pleas for Free Inquiry.
and to Jacob, entail upon every individual Englishman
the obligation of getting a wife as soon as he can afford
it, and procreating as many children as possible, the
birth of every child ought even then to be looked
upon as a very sad event only brought about to obey
the command of God. And I do not observe that
these events are so regarded by Christians. Again,
this command, “Be fruitful and multiply,” i.e., “Pro
duce as large a number of victims as you can for hell
fire,” was surely a most horrible command of the Deity
to people who could not have understood the real force of
it; since there was no knowledge of a future state given
at the time the words were uttered. A God who could
deceive mankind in this way is capable of deceiving
them in any other way.
Some people think they have found an argument
on behalf of the appalling superstition which we are
considering in the statement that “God has surely a
to do what he likes with his own.” This really means
that he has the poiver, which we are not disputing.
A moral God could have no such right. “ I believe,”
says Butler, “ in the moral fitness and unfitness of
actions prior to all will whatever, which I apprehend
certainly to determine the Divine conduct.” This
belief (if the word “ moral ” is used in the only sense
in which any one is entitled to use the word at all) is
altogether fatal to the dogma in question. This point
has been touched upon by an ingenious writer, “ Henry
Holbeach,” who has on some points arrived at conclu
sions (as many other persons must have done) very
like my own, though without my knowledge, as his
writings have just now come under my notice for the
first time. Cf. Henry Holbeach, Student in Life and
Philosophy, vol. ii., article “ Reason and Faith,” and
the “Contemporary Review,” May, 1871.
(P) p. 25.—It might be argued (probably has been
argued) in a like way that the story of Jacob’s career
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
77
—a career which, as I have said, is one of vice
and perfidy and meanness crowned by divine favour •
presents no difficulty, because in fact we do often see
knavish men prospering, and becoming rich and power
ful, and founding great families. But this is altogether
to misapprehend the difficulty, which consists not in a
bad man enjoying material prosperity, . but in God
miraculously according to the bad man his moral bless
ing. Imagine God Almighty openly blessing Napoleon
I. from heaven after the battle of Austerlitz ! Will any
one say that this is not altogether a different thing from
Napoleon being at that time what he was (by divine
permission) arbiter of Europe ?
(Q) p. 25.—Unless we suppose a fresh miracle, to pre
serve his mind from undergoing this process,, e.g. to
enable him to kill a number of people without being the
worse for it. But (putting aside the spectators of his
deeds and the persons informed of the command given
to him, who would require similar miracles for them
selves) would not this virtually come to the same thing ?
For the effect of such a miracle would^ only be to
blunt his moral sense.
(R) p. 28.—The present Regius Professor of Divinity
at Oxford, Mr Mozley, has made this position the theme
of his Bampton Lectures in defence of Miracles.
(S) p. 29—No doubt the statement in the text is open
to some criticism. “How,” it may be asked, and has
often been asked, “ can a desire for a future state be evi
dence of a future state ? May we not be deceived and
tortured in this respect, as it is admitted that we are in
so many others ? And is there such a general desire
or belief? The Buddhists and. Confucians (a. large
portion of the human race) seem to be entirely without
it.” I think these objections might be met, if space
permitted. The statement in the text is, however,
�78
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
to the effect that a belief in a future state, where it ex
ists, is drawn chiefly from within, and rests on much
the same basis as the doctrine of God’s veracity, &c.
Of this I think there can be no doubt.
I must observe further, in anticipation of an objec
tion which may occur further on, that the withholding
from man of any proof positive of a future state, of which
I speak elsewhere as in a certain sense a pain to which
we are subjected and which might have been expected,
is altogether different from endowing man with an
instinct, without anything objective to satisfy it. To
the latter mode of proceeding we might, without
violence, apply the terms “ mocking and deceiving us : ”
not so, to the former.
(T) p. 29.—Butler’s first chapter “Of a future Life” is
the weakest chapter in his book. It must suffice here
to say that all the reasons given by the author in
Sections i., ii. for a belief in the existence of living
beings after death are as applicable to brutes as to men.
And though he himself notices the difficulty, he does
not fairly meet it. Immortality, he says, does not
necessarily imply a capacity for eternal happiness, or
that the immortal being should ever become a rational
and moral agent. Yet, even if it did, this would offer
no difficulty, since we do not know what latent powers
and capacities brutes may be endowed with. But in
fact it does not imply any such thing, it does not imply
any such latent powers. And the economy of the Uni
verse might require that there should be living
creatures without any capacities of this kind (?'.e. that
every flea that we crack and oyster that we eat should
exist to all eternity in the character of a flea and an
oyster) and, after all—he ends by saying—the ultimate
disposal of brutes is a great mystery of which we, who
are not acquainted with the whole system of things, must
be profoundly ignorant. This is quite true, but can
scarcely be thought satisfactory by those who take the
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
79
liberty of observing that all the Bishop’s previous pre
sumptions in favour of death not being the destruction
of living beings are either valueless, or must extend to
animals. Either he has shown strong reasons for sup
posing every cow and sheep to be immortal, or he has
shown nothing at all. The argument goes the length of
asserting that sentience in whatever form awakened will
probably never be extinguished. Our sponges may
meet us in another world. Butler, however, goes on to
state grounds for a belief in the immortality of man
as distinguished from that of the brutes. He dis
tinguishes between the capacities of reason, memory,
and affection on the one hand, and perceptions by our
organs of sense on the other: and adds that the former do
not depend upon our gross body in the same manner as
the latter do. It has been well observed that no one in
the present day will surmise that though sensation and
perception are dependent on the organism, reason,
reflection, &c., may not be. And I must add that even
if the above distinction could be established, yet to
draw an arbitrary line including beings possessing a cer
tain amount of memory, reason, and affection (of which
capacities the beasts certainly have two, and we can
not be sure that they are altogether destitute of the
third) and to place outside the line beings falling be
low a certain standard in these respects : to say that
here is a reason for supposing that the former class is
immortal and the second class not so, is altogether as
gratuitous an assumption as any that can be made.
(U) p. 31.—Butler’s chief argument in favour of mir
acles (Pt. ii. ch. 2, sec. 3) or, to speak with precision, his
statement of the case as regards the presumption against
miracles, is pronounced by one of the ablest living
believers in these phenomena to be “ not an adequate
representation of the presumption against a miracle ; ”
as one which “ does not carry our common sense along
with it.” (Mozley, Bampton Lectures. Leet. V., note
�80
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
2). Bishop Fitzgerald speaks of it as “ a passage in
which we may perhaps detect a misconception of the
subject in the pages even of this great writer.” (Dic
tionary of the Bible, Article “ Miracles.”) The Bt.
Hon. Joseph Napier, who has published a volume of
Lectures on the Analogy, styles the argument in this
place “at first subtle, if not obscure,” and the
whole chapter “ somewhat difficult,” admitting that the
author “ is generally supposed to have lapsed into fal
lacy : ” while Dean Mansel, who like Mr Napier and
Archdeacon Lees maintains the soundness of Butler’s
reasoning, confesses that his arrangement of heads is “ a
little awkward.”
The fact is that there is not a more obscure passage
than this in the whole of Butler’s writings. The reader
who wishes to learn what can be said on both sides of
the question and to arrive at a conclusion for himself as
to whether the author has or has not “ confounded im
probability before the fact and improbability after”
must refer to the above works. I think that Mr Mozley
has well said all that there is to be said on the subject.
While on the subject of this chapter, I may remark
that few scientific men in the present day would accept
the distinction which Butler, in accordance with the
state of knowledge in his time, draws between the
course of nature “a,t the beginning of the world,” “upon
the first peopling of worlds” &c., and the present
settled course of nature. Science shows us processes
in operation in this planet, ages before the appearance
of man, precisely similar to those which we observe at
this day. And if the introduction of man, and of life
generally, into the world be an effect incapable of being
referred to any known causes, we are no more entitled
to postulate a miracle on its behalf than in the case of
rain and fine weather,
p.
(V) 35.—I am far from saying that prayers for a sick
person put up by himself or by others, may not some
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
81
times be of great physical service to the sufferer. They
may act on his imagination and so on his body. In
the same way bread-pills have often been of great use.
(W) p. 35.—See some striking remarks on this miracle
in Professor Tyndall’s “Fragments of Science,” 2d edit.,
pp. 446-447.
“ There is a scientific imagination as well as a historic
imagination, and when by the exercise of the former
the stoppage of the earth’s rotation is elearly realised,
the event assumes proportions so vast in comparison
with the result to be obtained by it that belief reels
under the reflection. The energy here involved is equal
to six trillions of horses working for the whole of the
time employed by Joshua in the destruction of his foes.
The amount of power thus expended would be sufficient
to supply every individual of an army a thousand
times the strength of that of Joshua with a thousand
times the fighting power of each of Joshua’s soldiers,
not for the few hours necessary to the extinction of a
handful of Amorites, but for millions of years. All
this wonder is silently passed over by the sacred
historian, confessedly because he knew nothing about
it. Whether, therefore, we consider the miracle as
purely evidential, or as a practical means of vengeance,
the same lavish squandering of energy stares the scien
tific man in the face. If evidential, the energy was
wasted, because the Israelites knew nothing of the
amount; if simply destructive, then the ratio of the
quantity lost to that employed may be inferred from the
foregoing figures.”
(X) p. 36.—This was the view held by nearly all the
early fathers. I believe that there is not a single pas
sage in the New Testament in which y5j oecurs, where
it may not be translated by our “ earth,” in the sense
of the whole earth; and that nowhere can it be made
to bear the sense of a region of the earth, such as
F
�82
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
Judaea. There are of course passages where it might he
rendered by “ the ground,” “ he went and digged in the
ground” (sb rr, yri) Matt. xxv. 18. “Saul falling upon
the ground” frttsuv sirl rfy y5h) Acts ix. 4, &c., where
we should similarly use 11 earth,” and indeed that word
is used in the authorized version. But there would not
be the slightest doubt about the meaning of an English
author who spoke of “darkness covering the whole
earth,” nor can there be the least doubt about evi vaeav
T7iv y%v, Matt, xxvii. 45; if ohrjv rqv yrtv, Mark xv. 33,
Luke xxiii. 44. The last named evangelist adds that
the sun was darkened.
Dean Alford has a singular note here. “ Of course the
whole globe cannot be meant, as it would be night
naturally over half of it!” Why could there not be
darkness over the whole globe, because half of it was
already dark ? But the Dean is doubtless laying stress
on the supernatural character of the event. “The
whole world could not be made miraculously dark, in
asmuch as a portion of it was already naturally in that
state.” Very true; but who does not see that this is
a reason, founded on our present additional knowledge,
against the whole miracle, which, as conceived by the
evangelists, is shown to have been impossible !
(Y) p. 39.—Passages have been adduced from the
Apocalypse in which the author speaks of himself as “ in
the spirit.” This is a natural introduction to a divine
message which he supposes to have been (or, if the ex
pression be preferred, which actually was) communicated
to him by afflatus of the Spirit for transmission to the
churches, as also to the narrative of the wonderful
visions subsequently vouchsafed to him. No argument
can be drawn from these expressions for the Inspiration
of Matthew, Mark, &c., writing accounts of what they
had seen and heard, and heard of, with their fleshly eyes
and ears. If anything, the inference would be rather the
©ther way : that Inspiration was a condition of which the
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
83'
subject was distinctly conscious, and the absence of all
mention of so remarkable an experience in the.pages of
a writer, would be some presumption against his having
been inspired.
(Z) p. 40.—Bishop Harold Browne in “Aids to
Faith,” Essay vii., on Inspiration.
(AA) p. 41.—I am of course supposing myself to ba
addressing Protestants here and elsewhere. The Roman
Catholics hold a much more formidable position in
respect to Inspiration.
(BB) p. 41.—The allusion is, I need hardly say, to 1st
John v. 7, 8, where the best orthodox scholars candidly
admit an interpolation of the words within brackets..
“ For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the
Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness
in earth] the spirit and the water and the blood, and
these three agree in one.” Dean Alford says, “ There
is not the shadow of a reason for supposing them
genuine.”
(CC)p. 42. There is no difficulty in supposing that the
Arians may have occupied a position, in the Divine
scheme, analogous to that which the orthodox Protestant
assigns to the Waldenses, Albigenses, &c. Their be
lief, though stamped out by violence in part, and in
part fallen to decay, may have been the true belief, and
may be destined to revive at the appointed time, after
a long period of darkness.
(DD) p. 43.—Butler admits, in this passage, that we
have no ground for expecting beforehand an Inspired
record of a Divine Revelation. He goes on thus :
“ But it may be said ‘ that a revelation in some of
the above-mentioned circumstances—one, for instance,
�84
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
which was not committed to writing, and thus secured
against danger of corruption—would not have answered
its purpose. I ask, what purpose ? It would not
have answered all the purposes which it has now
answered, and in the same degree, but it would have
answered others, or the same in different degrees. And
which of these were the purposes of God, and best fell
in with his general government, we could not at all
have determined beforehand.
“Now since it has been shown beforehand that we
have no principles of reason upon which to judge
beforehand how it were to be expected revelation should
have been left, or what was most suitable to the divine
plan of government in any of the forementioned re
spects, it must be quite frivolous to object afterwards
as to any of them against its being left in one way
rather than another, for this would be to object against
things upon account of their being different from ex
pectations which have been shown to be without rea
son. And thus we see that the only question concerning
the truth of Christianity is whether it be a real revela
tion, not whether it be attended with every circum
stance which we should have looked for; and concerning
the authority of scripture, whether it be ivhatit claims
to be (surely, rather, what it is claimed for it by Theo
logians that it is)—not whether it be a book of such
sort and so promulged as weak men are apt to fancy a
book containing a divine revelation should. And,
therefore, neither obscurity nor seeming inaccuracy of
style, nor various readings, nor early disputes about the
authors ofparticular parts, nor any other things of the
like kind (how about manifest contradictions ?) though
they had been much more considerable in degree than
they are, could overthrow the authority of the Scripture,
unless the Prophets, Apostles, or our Lord had pro
mised that the book containing the divine revelation
should be secure from those things.”
As to the last sentence, I would venture to observe
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
85
(1.) That it certainly cannot be meant here to imply
that disputes (i.e. doubtfulness) about the authors , of
parts of Scripture ought not to weaken the authority
of Scripture. They must of course weaken.it very
materially as to those particular parts, and in some
degree as a whole. What are the New Testament
Scriptures ? That collection of works about which the
early Christians agreed in the main that they were in
spired. This is the external “ Evidence ” we have for
them—positively there is no other—else why not admit
the Gospel of Nicodemus into the canon ? Now dis
putes about the second Epistle of Peter (doubts
generally felt as to whether it was the work of an
Apostle at all) weaken the evidence for that part of
Scripture and its consequent authority for Protestants.
At the same time they weaken the authority of Scripture
in general to this extent, that the bare suspicion of a
mistake having been made in the composition of the
canon in one case, engenders the further suspicion that
a mistake may have been made in the case of other
books. (2.) Butler has with candour added, unless the
Lord, &c., had promised that the book should be secure
from those things. But the modern Theologian, argu
ing on Butler’s lines, would probably think this quite
an unnecessary limitation. Eor we surely must have
heard of the promise through the Book itself. And
(it might fairly be argued) as we are no judges before
hand how far God would permit this record to be
corrupted by verbal traditions, this alleged promise
might be one of them; and, practically, the whole
thing would be explained away in a hundred easy
fashions, like the distinct promises of the Lord’s early
reappearance.
Before leaving this subject of Inspiration, I must
glance at Coleridge’s argument, for it is a common one.
The Bible finds me, finds me more than all the other
books in the world, finds me at greater depths of my
being.” No doubt. But how can the statement of
�86
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
this fact (true enough, I am ready to admit with regard
to parts of the Bible) he taken for a valid argument in
favour of the Inspiration—I mean the inspiration of
the writer—even of those parts 1 The sermon on the
mount, taken down roughly, or even summarized
by a newspaper reporter, would find most people.
Much less can it stand as an argument for the inspira
tion of the whole Bible. For there are large portions
of it which, whatever might be the pretensions or claims
to inspiration of the writer, would certainly find no one.
As to these, the test fails. On Coleridge’s principle,
we should have to pick and choose, each for himself,
according to his inner light (which would lead to curious
results) or else to accept a great part of Scripture as in
spired, on the ground of its being unlikely that God
should have allowed dross to be mixed up with the
gold ; an assumption which, we have seen, is repugnant
to analogy and disproved by experience.
(EE) p. 44.—According to the Times’ report, this is
the precise expression used by Canon Liddon in one of
the series of discourses on Christianity, delivered at St
Paul’s towards the end of last year (1871).
(FF) p. 47.—The theory of the “ Fall,” viewed as a
general dislocation of nature, is intelligible, and this is
of course the theory which underlies the old legend.
Then, it was supposed, death and suffering were in
troduced, the earth was cursed and brought forth
thorns and thistles, in the sweat of his brow man was
made to eat bread. Before ^that time earth was a
paradise, &c. But, as we now know, the world was
not a paradise before that time. Very much the same
conditions prevailed as prevail now. Carnivorous
animals preyed upon the weaker species; crops fit for
human food required labour to produce them in any
quantity that would be sufficient for a growing human
population (happily for mankind, for the idea of a
�Pleas for Free Inquiry.
87
garden with, people in it who should have nothing to
do but walk about and pluck delicious fruits and bask
in the sunshine and go to sleep, is clearlyquite alien,
to all that we can gather of the Creator’s purposes itt
©lacing man here below, and a mere dream of early
humanity) and these and other considerations show the
mythical character of the narrative. Yet writers of Mr
Henry Rogers’ ability go on harping about “ man not
being in his original state,” “the religious constitution
of his nature having received a shock,” &c.
(GG) p. 50.—Mr Henry Rogers calls attention to the
profound immorality which would have to be ascribed
to a God who left his creatures without a miraculous
revelation, “remorselessly exposing them“ chucking
his human offspring into the world ; ” “ suffering them
to make their appearance under the benediction of an
infinitely beneficent Creator in the condition of one of
the aborigines of Australia,” “allowing them to grope
their way during unnumbered ages,” &c., &c. Indeed
this is a point which the ingenious writer constantly
reverts to. See his “ Eclipse of Faith,” 4th Ed., p. 162.
“ A Defence of the Eclipse of Faith,” 3d Ed., pp. 45,
47,48. “ Greyson Correspondence,” vol. ii., p. 221.
It does not seem to him in the least shocking that the
same beneficent and omnipotent Creator should intro
duce into his revelation, when made, an announcement
of eternal damnation to a large part of the human race.
(HH) p. 53. Nothing in the above paragraph is in
tended by the author to be hostile to the opinion (which
he himself holds) that in the Bible is to be found a valu
able system of religious teaching expressly designed by
God for man, and nowhere else accessible. That the
disjecta membra of this system are to be found else
where does not in the slightest degree detract from the
value of the service rendered to mankind by him who
co-ordinated them into a whole.
�88
Pleas for Free Inquiry.
(II) p. 55.-—Modern research, has established, almost
beyond the possibility of cavil, that a belief in one
Supreme Being was conveyed to the Hebrew race by
natural and gradual means. Cf. Revue des Deux
Mondes, September 1, 1869 for a succinct account of
Professor Kuenen’s inquiries in this direction; and
another article in the same review of February 1, 1872,
bearing the title “La Bible et 1’Archeologie ” which
contains a good deal of information, very loosely put
together, on the subject. That it was gradually con
veyed is patent on an examination of the Bible itself.
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
Pleas for free inquiry. Part II: Some observations on "the argument from analogy"
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 88 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references. "By M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge" [Title page]. 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
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5537
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Pleas for free inquiry. Part II: Some observations on "the argument from analogy"), 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
Free Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc60c21f4e7274783cecf464dfa5d6f9.pdf?Expires=1787788800&Signature=PXuIXAwimiltm2M1Z9SZMQnNiD623fm%7EfvHYZ4Cs5opS2H3IVePuLbbQtbsQleMTq7Nzt9HZsaIhC-a9NBzniZkJUH9lnSxU09hRF0pXOqb--G4UYnByxSWMObV5UEA0RYWrlQlPiTRA%7EqxwUKxiCJ5WAVrTqSCHWEwVBWM-BgDt0RusH8z3fNg6DPdPK1OQXVgaX2Mt1cRpcGSW4qNRA-yhiwW-1qizDXkgnz2RHF%7EP7wfVpu5ggRGp83f%7EYkEPxGR%7EltG-K7jXvCXSh3v3%7ECrS4muKq2r5ll4MFT%7EwpHwLNLhNslSnFkeWIrbQtm4x8w09jssFdCEar6llgKT7kA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
22bfcedb250444b2b23c9c66c39969a1
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
MARCH, 1877.
.---------♦--------
HE last Signs chronicled promise well for the
Times, for the Free-Thought horizon is bright
ening day by day. All along the line the advance is
clear and marked, and the present orthodoxy is, among
cultured people, as rationalistic as the heterodoxy of
twenty years ago. No one dreams of prosecuting
the Dean of Westminster, although many of his
utterances are quite as heretical as anything said by
the Bishop of Natal; Convocation itself shuts its eyes
to the decanal heresies, and wopld promptly silence
any unwise zealot who whispered a motion of censure
against the Broad Church dignitary. The whole of
T
�2
the Broad Church school are now disseminating heresy
broadcast. Some years ago the Rev. Mr. Robertson,
of Brighton, was regarded as “ dangerous” and the
words “ infidel ” and “ unbeliever,” were freely
bandied about concerning him ; now, a feeble evan
gelical or High-church curate might preach his ser
mons in a small town, and the most critical of heretic
hunters would “ sit under ” him complacently. In
the sects, as in the Establishment, the same kind of
progress is visible, although here, from a lower
average of education among the clergy, there is found
a larger proportion of bigotry and narrow-mindedness.
Outside orthodoxy, in the Free-Thought party itself,
advance may be noted; heterodoxy is more scientific,
more assured, more aggressive, more confident. The
vast progress made in natural science, the new dis
coveries of Geology, and the investigations of
Astronomy have built up such bulwarks of defence
around heresy as to make for ever impossible the
triumph of ecclesiasticism. On the other side may be
remarked the increasing struggles of the Roman
Communion to regain her old position, struggles that
have been—and are being—to a certain extent
successful. The two opposing armies are each calling
in their stragglers. It becomes more and more
apparent that there is no sure resting-place between
“ complete submission to authority and complete
submission to reason,” and so Rome attracts the
weak, the timid, the dependent, while Rationalism
enrols the strong, the bold, the self-reliant. Of the
issue of the conflict between these two vast armies
there can be no doubt; the battle will be long; it
will shake many countries; it will rage over many
lands; but ultimately the Star of Reason and of
Science will triumph, and the white flag of peace
will wave over a human race which is free from
the bondage of superstition, and unfettered by the
shackles of the priest,
�3
Mr. Tooth has at last been stopped, but the stoppage
of the clergyman involved the stoppage of the ser
vices. After some delay, a writ was issued against
the recalcitrant priest for contempt of Court; when
this was issued, a difficulty arose as to serving it;
the writ was issued for Surrey, and Mr. Tooth, who
preferred Maidstone to Horsemonger-lane Gaol, was
abiding in Kent. It is only fair to say that Mr.
Tooth acted, under these circumstances, with con
siderable submission, as though to show that his
previous resistance had been really conscientious ; on
learning that another writ could not be served on
him for a month, he went up to London and gave
himself over to the officers. He was duly conducted
to Horsemonger Gaol, and placed on the debtors’ side
of the prison; there he holds a levee of his friends, a
specified clergyman, acting as Lord Chamberlain and
issuing cards of admission to those favoured ones
who are privileged to enter the court and pay their
respects to the imprisoned monarch of Hatcham. The
Church of St. James’s was desolate ; a Mr. Chambers
held the bishop’s appointment as curate-in-charge, and
curate he was, but in charge he was not. The souls
of the people rejected his curing powers; the church
itself was locked against him; the keys were in un
known hands. “ Order reigned in Hatcham,” but it
was the order of silence and of death. At length
Mr. Chambers fled, and a Mr. Day was appointed.
The new curate sent to Horsemonger Gaol for the
keys, but Mr. Tooth had “no answer to give;” he
applied to the churchwardens, but they were keyless.
So the arm of the locksmith was called in, and nine
iron wedges burst open the vestry door. Mr. Day
marched in, in triumph, and on Sunday, Feb. 11, St.
James’s was once more open to the public. How
the matter will end for the Establishment it
needs a prophet to say; at this present writing
Mr. Tooth shows no signs of giving in, and many
�another priest is said to be emulous to share the
martyr’s palm.
Mr. Ridsdale, a Folkestone Ritualist, is another of
the “ persecuted;” he is more objectionable than Mr.
Tooth, inasmuch as he takes more time. Mr. Tooth
simplified all matters by refusing to plead, or to in any
way recognise the authority of the Court presided
over by Lord Penzance. But Mr. Ridsdale, discon
tented with the judgment pronounced upon him by
the Court of Arches, appealed to the Privy Council,
and day after day ten judges and five assessors have
sat to decide the shape into which the sacrament
bread may be cut, and how high a parson may raise
his hands with a chalice in them. When we remember
how great is the pressure of business in the lawcourts, and how heavy are judicial expenses in this
country, it is nothing short of scandalous that ten
judges should waste day after day, listening to longdrawn historical arguments, in order to decide points
which are absolutely immaterial. For the sake of
corn mon sense and for the comfort of the country,
parsons, and lay church-people, ought to be allowed
to wrangle over the shape of clothes and the lighting
of candles among themselves, and these absurdities
ought not to be intruded among the really vital
interests, the decision on which lies in the hands of our
judges. Men selected for their strong brains and
acute intellects ought not to be compelled to devote
themselves to matters of man-millinery, while the
important work for which they are really needed is
put aside and neglected. “ Out of evil comes good,
however, and the country, weary of the folly and the
waste, will the sooner call for disestablishment in a
voice whose tone cannot be misunderstood.
Already we find the Times bitterly complaining of
the state of affairs, and gibing at the triviality of the
points under dispute, winding up a leader by remark
�ing that if “the only matters which absorb the
attention of the clergy are such as are raised in ‘ the
Folkestone case,’ they will soon find out that the
nation cares very little for anything they may do or
anything they may say.”
While the English Establishment is thus torn with
strife, the Scotch sister is also in sore trouble. In
the northern part of the island, the conflict which
ends in the law-courts seems to begin in a free fight.
A most ludicrous scene occurred at Strichen,. where
the Presbytery was gathered together to sanction the
appointment to the parish of New Deer of a gentle
man elected by the parishioners. The Presbytery—tor
some reason unknown—objected to the cleric on
whom had fallen the choice of the people, a Rev. Mr.
Bruce, and refused to endorse the election; the
indignant parishioners surrounded the. Presbytery,
shut the doors upon it, clamoured for justice at it,
and howled disapproval in fashion most unmistakable.
But the Presbytery was equal to the occasion ; it put
itself in fighting attitude, and glanced around for
arms; the sword of the Lord was not visible, but a
substitute presented itself in the shape of a map of
the district; the Rev. P. M’Laren was the new
Gideon; he seized the map, rolled it up tightly,
and charged for the door, clearing a path for his
comrades in the faith. The Presbytery escaped, t e
M’Laren triumphed, and—two summonses for assault
have been taken out against the militant cleric.
The Rev. Dr. Cunningham of Crieff, lecturing on
the Westminster Assembly, made some strong state
ments of the opinions held concerning “ the Con
fession of Faith.” Among other things, he pointed
out the objections raised to its theory of crea
tion of the world in six days, as being incom
patible with geology, and to “ its doctrine of the
non-salvability of the heathen,” which condemns
�6
X: °heaT
the reverend doctor, th y
it
id>
ever m hell-tire . ... • •
he over all his works:
h°d’S ^bXcommon“atherof all mankind; nay,
he cannot be the uomm
worshippers
they who worship such a being
.g
?£ a bad
from the report, whether or no
impossible to judge
. , these objections,
Dr Cunningham^tln^ wr^ihese
them
rep®”daald published “ “™ok wfiTthrir"^
sown^in many™ mind the first seeds
of inquiry.
It is 00^^^-^"^
place Haworth and eighteen men and hoys were
suffocated. At ^e bu™l servr.ce, the™,
C. Heath, gave a s
which the deceased met
that “it was no accident
wh p^dence, which
their deaths, but a dlsP®“ „ g h « dispensations ”
ought to be awaruite all pr^OToe
people
XsXtySm; one poorwoman, for mstanoe,
^“23 —’ “Providence” cannot
well be of a grateful character.
Lord Shaftesbury and Lord KinrjH
falling out bitterly over the post10^* J& nu2nber of
Church of Scotland.
s
f
j in Scotland,
- Wk"°W“ “
�7
congregations,” but are not part of the English
Establishment. Lord Shaftesbury, probably regarding
the movement as anti-ritualistic—the Scottish Epis
copal Church having leanings in that direction—
gave it his sanction and encouragement, and Lord
Kinnaird wrote to him, complaining of his “ advo
cating and supporting a schismatical sect.” Lord
Shaftesbury retorted that the congregations in
question were a “ branch of the Church of England,”
and tartly remarked that he traces in Lord Kinnaird’s
expressions
“ as directed to myself, the language, though I hope not the
spirit, of Ahab, ‘ Art thou he that troubleth Israel ?’ I may
answer with Elijah, ‘I have not troubled Israel, but,’ &c.
Let conscience and examination supply the remainder of the
verse.”
Lord Kinnaird replied that the bishops in Scotland
disapproved of the “ English congregations,” and
that their disapproval was shared by the English
prelates. But Lord Shaftesbury would permit no
talk about schism, and wrote with but scant courtesyk:
“ From all quarters I am accustomed to very curious language,
and specially from those who have no understanding of the
words which they use. But when you apply such a term as
‘ schismatic ’ to the conduct of a man like the Rev. Mr.
Drummond, I must confess to you that I had rather betake
myself to the General Assembly than live under the govern
ment of bishops, who have taught you so to think and speak
of sincere and humble followers of Jesus Christ.”
In reply, Lord Kinnaird plunged boldly into the
mazes of Christian theology, and, assisted by some
theologian more skilful than himself, he strove to
shake the gaunt Earl’s Low Church theories. Hap
less controversialist! Roused into fury, Lord Shaftes
bury shouts angrily :
“These thunderbolts, launched by the Scotch bishops from
behind your shield, exhibit a furious spirit, feeble minds, and
feebler hands ; what effect they may produce on the world at
large I cannot say, but on myself they produce nothing be
yond a sense of astonishment and pity.”
�8
When, after this, Lord Shaftesbury prays that “ by
God’s blessing, the old Protestant spirit be revived
among us,” he makes us feel inclined to put up a
petition to the contrary effect to the goddess of courtesy
and good taste. If his style of controversy be the
result of an old Protestant spirit, then from that
spirit “ Good Lord deliver us.”
Strange methods of reaching God are now used in
this country. Everybody knows that “ missions ”
form one of the most popular amusements of the day ;
services at unusual hours, hymns sung to bright
negro melodies, whispered confidences into the ear of
the “ missionerall these are a charming diversion,
quite out of the usual way. A mission has been going
on in Manchester, and not only are the hoardings
placarded with enormous “ posters,’ setting forth the
amusements provided, but there are also to be seen
large bills bearing an appeal from the committee to
all “ earnest Christians,” requesting them to pray for
God’s blessing on the mission. Advertising for
prayer seems a strange device to the earnest nonChristian ; why not placard the prayer itself, and then
it would appeal directly to God ?
The Indian famine is a punishment for our national
sin in having proclaimed Queen Victoria Empress of
India without saying any prayers. . The famine came
before the proclamation, but such trifles are, of course,
unworthy of notice by the devout student of God’s
mysterious ways. The potato famine arrived as a
chastisement for endowing Maynooth College. Other
revelations are shortly expected, explaining for what
sore sins we are visited with cattle-plague, Australian
mutton, and expounders of prophecy. The Rock—
for every one will at once recognise the master-hand
who drew the above—winds up with this terrible
warning :
“Our diplomacy has failed at Constantinople, and greatly
�9
aggravated the peril and confusion which it vainly sought to
allay. At home ‘ the waters are out,’ and the extraordinary
and unseasonable character of the weather is already causing
grave disquietude. Then look at the state of our Church and
the tremendous conflict through which she will have to pass
ere she can be purged of the defilements which wring the
hearts of her friends, and make her a byeword and a mockery
in the eyes of her foes! Those who fear the Lord have indeed
cause to besiege His mercy-seat.”
The parson who objected to the title of “ Rev.” as
applied to a Wesleyan minister has been outdone in
absurdity by the Rev. Mr. Mickelthwaite, Vicar of a
parish near Sheffield. This herald of peace com
plained that on the tombstone of one Thomas Vokes
it should be recorded that the deceased had “ laboured
in the capacity of a local preacher twenty years.” The
clergy seem to be growing more and more intolerant
in country parishes, and there is sore need of a
“Public Burial Act” to compel them to behave with
some decency towards the dead, and some respect
towards the living.
The question of Disestablishment is coming rapidly
to the front, so rapidly, that resolutions on the subject
in Parliament would scarcely seem premature. The
Church Times loudly proclaims that the only choice
now left is between “retractation on the part of the
State, or disestablishment.” It is stated that Mr.
Gladstone has announced that the “ Church will be
compelled to claim spiritual independence, and that
she can only secure that result through disestablish
ment.” Already High Churchmen are raising the cry
for “ Gladstone and Disestablishment.” The meet
ings held in favour of disestablishment are larger,
more numerous, and more unanimous than ever. On
the other hand, the Church Defence Association is
endeavouring to make head against the storm, and
sows defence-tracts broadcast in every direction.
Thus the strife waxes warm, and the final struggle,
we may hope, will not be much longer delayed.
�10
We will conclude with one of the most cheering
Signs of the Times, and that is the increased and
increasing Liberalism of the daily and weekly press.
No more certain mark of the direction of public
opinion can he seen than the fact that column after
column of so many newspapers is devoted to the full
and free discussion of the dogmas of the Christian
creed. Editors find that these papers sell better when
such controversy is admitted into their pages, and
they naturally, therefore, welcome it. What surer
hope of triumph can the Free Thinker have than this
open discussion on religious topics ? Devoted to the
elucidation of Truth, and desiring only to discover it,
he asks for, he desires, nothing more than a fair field
of argument. Confident that Truth is to be found
by fullest investigation, he sees in discussion the
promise of her speedy triumph, and in the interest
now taken in religious problems, and the earnestness
with which they are debated, he sees the sign of a
dawning light which shall soon arise upon an enfran
chised world.
We regret to state that this number of “ Signs of
the Times ” will be the last. Advancing age and
failing health compel the publisher to cease a work
that has been to him an ever-growing pleasure and
most congenial occupation.
The pamphlets have made their mark, have done
their work; the old foundations are undermined;
superstition is tottering to its fall; the sower now
stays his hand, full of hope and courage for the future,
full of content for the past, sure that others will carry
on the same work, in other fashions, and that the
seed he has scattered so widely will spring up in rich
harvest of freedom to be reaped in the days to come
by those for whom he has laboured.
LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. March, 1877
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 10 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. "We regret to state that this number of 'Signs of the Times' will be the last" [Page 10].
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
1877
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5519
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Signs of the times. March, 1877), 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
Free Thought