1 10 13 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc9ac3899737c3584e309e016353f125.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=aFt3VyKkm1kKA68Mst1nr-nWq9QHZdsAdklGBLFYiGLuvZsORr%7EnZe5tfbS23wc9UCOLmRu6RhtV3THC-%7E0Ap-Ff8KnOXn64cl5vNciGkvuOoXsYW0AgledlcXJrYLvVvr7-Iv6dQgecMDRcLD0YnWQz-lmh029ezWHf2CguULhfgm42YXsqMZJtET0xdRTTAwS2zDLf9IokSkmvsNd95y8xDdWEwyaWFCXVbe2rSdNwfYq%7EPUbwGQM3bkN3R9snHHp6EK9sL17W8TCn8MEs-KCc49ay31pWc1bsuo7K2fo31BgkB7Ri1b9pzz01BBosQZVAlNfS8juMrpdIR2zFhA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 8f2fce2d9df0e495d87defebe5565957 PDF Text Text SACERDOTALISM, AN ADDRESS DELIVERED TO THE MEMBERS AND FRIENDS OF THE NATIONAL SUNDAY LEAGUE, BY GEORGE J. WILD, LL.D.-, AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1872. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E. Price Threepence. �f �SACERDOTALISM. HE experience of life teaches us that most things with which varied Tcharacter, and we have to do are of so features a in display such different different circumstances that it is rash to pass too sweeping a judgment upon them. In history we find many instances where times and seasons have made all the difference between the good and evil of a system,— an advancement or retardation of growth have rendered that detrimental which before had been beneficial to a people. The subject of the present lecture forms no exception to these remarks. It has its fair as well as its repulsive side. Those who regard only the former will always be its zealous defenders, those who look only on the evil it has produced will be apt to be no less indis­ criminate in their condemnation and abuse. Let us endeavour to see where the truth lies between them. To this end it will be expedient in the first place to decide what is meant by this term sacerdotalism. It is derived from a word which signifies set apart, consecrated, or dedicated to a deity,—so that the Sacerdos is the person in special relations with the deity,—the sacrifice is any thing offered to the deity,— the sacra, or sacred things include all the rites and ceremonies connected with the religious worship of the Gods. There are many other words derived from the �6 Sacerdotalism. same source, but they all imply the idea of some special relation with deity. Now, sacerdotalism in its largest sense is the principle and spirit on which all these are founded, and by which they are perVaded : it is however generally more exclusively used in con­ nection with sacred persons, that is to say, it implies the spirit of priesthood and the theory on which it is based. The question, therefore, that I wish to suggest for our examination this evening, is whether this theory has been and is for the advantage or the detriment of society. In the compass of a brief paper only a very cursory view can be taken of so extensive a subject, but it may serve to call attention to some essential features of the enquiry. And let it not be thought that such an enquiry is of merely abstract and historical interest, since there is none I believe which more demands our attention under the circumstances of the present day. In considering this question we must take care not to lose sight of the fact I have already stated, viz., that the root-principle of sacerdotalism, the assumption on which priesthoods and all their creeds are founded, is that of some special private relation with the deity, the possession of some particular privilege and power different from that of other men. Wherever in the world you find anything in the nature of a priesthood, you will find this, as a matter of fact, to be the case. In the hoary past we read of the Brahmins conveying this notion by the assertion that they were derived from the head of Brahma; the Buddhist priest acts as a sort of necessary mediator to convey the prayers of the faithful votaries to the courts above. In the Mosaical religion the priests are represented as re­ ceiving a special revelation and commission at the mouth of God himself, who condescendingly comes down on the top of a mountain and enunciates his directions amidst thunder and lightning, and the sound �Sacerdotalism. 7 of a trumpet. The Greeks had their divine oracles of which priests were the ministers and promulgators, and the Romans their augurs who explained the signi­ fication of the auspices, and who were alone competent to decide whether they had been taken correctly ; and it has been the same in other nations. Moreover, all these races have had their sacred books supposed to contain revelations of the divine will of which persons connected with the Sacerdotal class were alone con­ sidered competent expositors. The Brahmins have their Vedas and Code of Manu; the Buddhists their Tripitaka; the Jews their books of the Law and Prophets; the Ancient Persians their Zend-Avesta; the Greeks and Romans their Books of the Sibylls. If we turn our view to Christendom we find similar phenomena. There, too, are divinely inspired writings, of which the Church,—the Church as used in this connection, meaning assemblies of the priestly body,— of which the Church is authoritatively declared to be the sole witness and keeper. There, too, according to the theory, is an order of men set apart by divine appointment and apostolic succession to be the means of conveying the highest blessings of religion to the world ; in the Romanist section of the Church, indeed, the only channels by which the divine presence can be secured in their mysteries, or pardoning grace be assured to the penitent; among the majority of Protestants the same notion being held in a modified form, the authoritative exposition of doctrine, the declaratory power of absolution, and the communication of the benefits of the real presence in the sacrament being retained in the hands of priests. The Anglican conception of the power of the priesthood well appears in the statements addressed to them in the ordination service, one of which from the mouth of the Bishop is in these words, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. �8 Sacerdotalism. "Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained. And he thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy sacraments.” In view of these facts, then, I think I am fully justified in the assertion, that wherever there is a priesthood there also is the assumption of some special relation to the deity, and a special authority thence derived. I return then to the question, has this theory been beneficial to society or not ? I must confess that I am not altogether prepared to say that there have not been certain advantages connected with it. In the early stages of savage life, when men were first beginning to emerge from a condition little above the brutes, there was an advantage in hedging round the most intelligent class with supposed divine sanctions. It is possible that this was the only way they had of commanding any respect or enforcing any kind of order among their savage associates, and that therefore this supposition was then a real necessity and an indispensable aid to human pro­ gress. It is, too, I think quite possible, that many of these early teachers and priests really believed them­ selves under the especial patronage and inspiration of some god. Contemplative and philanthropic minds meditating in the gloom of primeval forest or the solitude of boundless plains, while they sighed for the sorrows of their brethren and aspired after a day of deliverance and a happier land, may well have come to imagine that such a land was promised, and con­ ceived that the thoughts kindling within them, and the voices ever sounding in their hearts, came from some power above. They unconsciously peopled the silence and the solitude with phantoms, and then mis­ took them for realities. Thus the tradition of divine inspiration and of God’s speaking with men first arose, and thus it has descended to our times: it arose �Sacerdotalism. 9 at first in. an. honest belief, and though afterwards often, mixed with fraud, yet it has seldom been wholly made up of conscious deceit,—for a thing utterly fraudulent would not have lasted so long. In. early Egypt we read that the priests first taught the people the arts of life, and instructed them by a system of irrigation to convert those rising Nile waters, which they had before half dreaded as a peril, into a source of fertility and blessing. They too introduced the observation of the hea vens by which the periods of rising might be foretold. What wonder was it that the men, who first dis­ covered that the stars were thus subservient to human uses, as they gazed into those deep skies and read their celestial lessons, should dream that their radiant rulers were speaking to their hearts, should long to link their destiny to some “bright particular star,” or even dare to “ claim a kindred with them?” And what wonder was it when the lowly toilers on the land heard from these star-gazers lessons of guidance and found them come true, that they should think their teachers con­ versed with deities on the solitary mountain top, or lofty tower, and exaggerate to their fellows the sanctity and the mystery of that knowledge which struck their simple minds with awe. And still again at a later period we may be pre­ pared to allow that the priestly class has done good service to mankind. When, for instance, at the period of the decline of the Roman Empire, it seemed as if all the fruits of civilisation, all the results of the long travail of 1500 years were to be overwhelmed in a tide of barbarism, and the arts, laws and accumulated learning of the past for ever lost, the Christian church in many places presented a barrier to the storm, and afforded shelter to treasures whose destruction would have been irreparable. These facts are allowed even by a witness so unexceptionable as the historian * Gibbon. Some indeed have thought that we are in* Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c, 37. �10 Sacerdotalism. debted to the clerical body for at least as much destruc­ tion as preservation of the monuments of ancient litera­ ture. Hallam in one place seems inclined to attribute the decay of learning “ to the neglect of heathen literature by the Christian church,” * and elsewhere alluding to the stupidity and carelessness of ecclesiastics, in respect of the remains of ancient learning, he says “ so gross and supine was the ignorance of the monks within whose walls these treasures were concealed that it was im­ possible to ascertain, except by indefatigable researches, the extent of what had been saved out of the great shipwreck of antiquity.” f In another place, however, he acknowledges that if we be asked, “ by what cause it happened that a few sparks of ancient learning sur­ vived throughout this long winter ” of the middle ages, “ we can only ascribe their preservation to the esta­ blishment of Christianity. Religion alone made a bridge, as it were, across the chaos and has linked the two periods of ancient and modern civilization. J At any rate, then, we may at least concede that in whatever degree the clergy in the dark ages were able to make a stand against barbarism and rescue the monu­ ments of the past from destruction, they were indebted to the principle of which we are treating, which recognizes an order of men in special connection with the deity. For the barbarians in their native forests had long been accustomed to a superstitious regard for their own priests, and would thus be naturally inclined to shew a degree of forbearance to those who were protected by the insignia of religion, however ruthless they might be towards their unconsecrated opponents. They would apply the torch without scruple to a palace or a fortress, while they hesitated in front of a convent or a church. Such remnants of antiquity therefore as chanced to be sheltered in the latter had so far a better * Hallam’s Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. ix., pt. i. p. 337. + lb. c. ix., p. 519. J lb., p. 355. �Sacerdotalism. 11 prospect of preservation than those contained in secular walls. So far, then, we willingly grant that some degree of benefit has accrued to mankind from the sacerdotal principle in early stages of human development. A or would we deny that other advantages of a less direct nature are traceable at the same period, which space * will not now allow us to particularize. We have yet to inquire whether the same advantages are perceptible as we descend to more civilised times. That the notion of an order of men set apart, and endowed with a divine authority over their fellows is one very capable of being abused, I suppose no unprejudiced person would deny. Considering it ac­ cording to our general experience of human nature, what should we conceive to be the probable effect and tendency of such a notion ? I think all candid persons will agree that without very searching and continuous checks, one very natural effect of such a notion must be to produce in those under its influence a high degree of spiritual pride. As time goes on, spiritual pride, like all other, has a natural tendency to display itself; this can only be done by the extension and consolidation of spiritual influence and power. In the first place then a priestly body under the influence of this feeling would look about for the means of gratifying it; ecclesiastics will ordinarily be deficient in direct physical force, they will often therefore be driven to attain their ends by a close alliance with the monarch, the warrior caste, or the aristocracy of a country ; mutual concessions being made so that they may join hands for the continued repression of the vulgar. But further,, of all kinds of power, spiritual power is that which is most jealous of its rights and privileges. * V. Sharon Turner’s History of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. II., 167, also Soame’s Anglo-Saxon Church, c. IV. p. 215 and else­ where, and Milman’s History of Latin Christianity, Vol. VI., p. 433 et seq., and also I. 440, and II. 96, 97. �12 Sacerdotalism. Its representatives, ingrained with the idea that their dicta are derived from a divine source, and their rights conferred by a special appointment of God, are com­ pelled to be uncompromising by the very theory of their origin. To allow that their words are questionable they think is to be unfaithful to the oracles of God, to be lax in maintaining their rights is to betray the divine honour. In fact they get so accustomed at last to identify the glory of God and their own that they become utterly unable to distinguish them. So that to decry the statements of priests is to be called blasphemy, or to touch their property in not common robbery but sacrilege. This necessity of their position in the same way requires them to withstand all suggestions of improve­ ment, or advancements of knowledge which do not pro­ ceed from themselves. They are the divinely commis­ sioned teachers, they possess the heavenly oracles, out of which they have instructed the people on the world’s origin and their own, on their destiny, the laws which should regulate their lives, on what is good and what evil. If they allow their dogmas to be at best doubt­ ful, or grant for a moment that from some other source, sounder knowledge may be derived, their pride of place, their occupation is gone : there ceases to be any reason for their existence. “ For why,” might men say, “do we want messengers from the gods to teach us, when we increase in knowledge without them, when we can even perceive that much of their pretended knowledge is erroneous ?” The logic of their position, therefore, irresistibly compels priestly bodies to crush inquiry, and if possible stifle its results. In some cases of course these results are absolutely undeniable. Then there will arise a strong temptation to keep up the credit of their oracles by forced interpretations or crafty interpolations which may bring them into con­ formity with science. But every fresh discovery has a more unsettling effect, every escape of new light reason­ �Sacerdotalism. *3 ably makes them tremble for their security. But power which thus feels itself unstable is naturally dissatisfied; it could not be expected to remain passive under the slow and painful process of dissolution, and smilingly look on till the last vestige of its influence was stolen away. It instinctively perceives that to retain the dominion it still has undiminished it must fight hard to extend it, that it must throw out its roots and strive to interweave its fibres with the very ground­ work of human existence. It will endeavour, there­ fore, to make every relation of society so intimately dependent on itself, that to interfere with it in the slightest degree shall seem to conservative minds like risking every security of social order ; it must have a voice, and a function, and a hand everywhere, so that no war can be undertaken without its henison, no law passed without its sanction, no property change hands by transference or succession without its confirmation, no family relationship be incurred without its authority and permission, above all, no education proceed without its direction. And where, perchance from want of watchfulness, customs have crept in which tend to nullify its privileges and bring its ministers down to the level of common men, no pains must be spared by the wily introduction of new laws, or by the invention of fresh legal subtleties to countervail their effect. But as the world grows in enlightenment, perhaps all these measures fail and the situation is daily becoming more critical. It becomes then at last more and more apparent to the priestly order that they must demur at no means, however questionable or desperate, to hold together their waning dominion. Restive princes must be won by flattery, the vulgar dazzled by pomps or cowed by more awful terrors; both flattery and fear must be applied to unlock the chest of wealth, that most unfailing source of power,—if all else fail, the zeal of fanatics must be invoked and divisions kindled among brethren, that the light of new-dawning and �14 Sacerdotalism. dangerous truths may be smothered in the fumes of bigoted passions and civic slaughters. Divide et impera, divide and command, is a maxim which sacerdotalism has more than once known how to use in her exigencies; it may become dangerous for her that her subjects should be too united, and a little heresy has often been serviceable to warm up the cooling zeal of the elect. Such, or something like this, a philosopher in a by­ gone age might a priori have conjectured would be the course to which the sacerdotal principle would be driven by the necessity of its position as society pro­ gressed. And we shall find that such a conjecture would have been strictly verified by fact. Though, indeed, facts reveal to us an extent of unscrupulousness and a superfluity of craft and violence which no imagi­ nation could have foreseen. Amongst a large number I can now only refer you to a few salient examples which will serve to verify the principles I have pointed out. First, then, as to the tendency of priesthood to coalesce with the kingly or aristocratic class in order to keep under the mass of the people. Of this we have a variety of instances. Among the Brahmins there was a certain antagonism at an early period between the priestly and warrior castes, but they at length found it expedient to reconcile their differences and join hands in support of a creed which was so well adapted to keep the lower castes in their proper places. At a later period, * however, by combining with the lower, the Brahmins seem to have crushed the leading caste and got all power into their own hands. It is supposed by some that in like manner the next move of sacerdotalists in Europe will be to court and seek to ally themselves with the democracies. I can only advise all sagacious liberals to beware of them. Among the early Egyptians there seems to have arisen at times a similar antagonism, but * V. M. Muller’s History of Sanskrit Literature pp. 77-81, also p. 207, p. 485 seq. �Sacerdotalism. T5 eventually with the same result, of a consolidation of the sacerdotal power. Even among a people with so many democratic instincts as the Romans, and who were nominally republicans, we find that for many generations there was a close league between the aristocratic and sacerdotal classes. No one could be a Pontiff or an Augur unless he were also a Patrician, and thus the whole power of war and peace, the sanction of laws, and the partition of land, was retained in the ruling hands. This artful exclusion of the Plebeians was indeed eventually abolished by the Ogulnian law, though even then the Pontifex Maximus must still be a Patrician: however, no sooner was the Empire established than we find the Priestly class in close alliance with it, the Emperor either himself monopolising or exclusively appointing to its influential offices. In the Christian Church the same spectacle presents itself. Hardly has the Christian priesthood established its influence and obtained a numerous body of votaries in the great cities of the Empire, than we find it in close alliance with an imperial pretender; and henceforth its prelates “rear their mitred fronts in courts and palaces,” and the controversies of the faith take their place amongst the intrigues of eunuchs and clamour of courtiers. For their after successes against the yet widely prevalent paganism, the Christian priest­ hood are still largely dependent on the same principle of currying favour with Kings or King’s wives. Charlemagne is induced to convert the Saxons with fire and sword,—Clovis and his Franks rescue the sacred fold from the incursion of the heretics,—from another royal hand is obtained the patrimony of St. Peter,—and others consecrate the fruits of the earth to the service of heaven in the institution of tithes. Truly the Church had good reason for her adoption of the maxim, “the powers that be are ordained of God ! ” By what arts the clergy endeavoured to consoli­ �16 Sacerdotalism. date their power and extend its influence in every sphere of society, the history of every country in Europe and our own land furnishes innumerable ex­ amples. We find them not seldom instigating revolts of young princes against their fathers who had attempted to moderate clerical pretensions, teaching wives to plot against their husbands, laying counties and kingdoms under interdict, excommunicating ma­ gistrates on all sorts of frivolous pretences, concocting and dissolving marriages to further priestly encroach­ ments, manoeuvring the laity out of their voice in church affairs, and often, by artful concordats, monarchs out of their rights of investiture; they brought it about that clerics and their dependents should be ex­ empt from the jurisdiction of the lay courts, they obtained for their own courts exclusive jurisdiction in all causes matrimonial, and the right of interference in all matters connected with the nuptial contract, marriage portions, and dower; wills and testaments were brought under their sway : in many places to the exclusion of the lay courts they obtained jurisdiction over a large number of crimes, under pretence of their being spiritual causes: they even had their own prisons for lay offenders. Moreover, by artful contracts, and ■working on the superstitious fears of the dying, they acquired in all countries enormous accumulations of land, which no statutes of mortmain could check. The English Statute Book in earlier reigns is crowded with acts intended to control clerical rapacity, but all in vain. Common recoveries and uses and trusts still find a place in our law books as monuments of priestly ingenuity. It would detain us too long to go into further particulars under this head; but any unac­ quainted with the subject I earnestly recommend to read the seventh chapter of Hallam’s History of the Middle Ages, and any good edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, under the title Mortmain. �Sacerdotalism. J7 We have yet to give examples of the tendency of a priestly class to oppose itself to discovery and intel­ lectual advancement. Once upon a time the now sleepy Buddhists were reformers ; but the high priestly party in India, then represented by the Brahmins, eventually extirpated these innovators by force of arms. The religious authorities of Athens will never escape the shame of having persecuted to the death “ Socrates,” a good man, who they thought “ subverted the people.” Of the Jewish priesthood it would be superfluous to speak, for “ which of the prophets had not their fathers persecuted1?” as one of their last victims asked them. Since their days of misfortune, indeed, the Jews have been mostly called to endure the persecutions of others, and they have often set a bright example to the rest of the world. But in ancient times the Romans seem to have been the only people who saw the necessity of keeping the priesthood in order, and had some notion of the principle of toleration. We must turn again to the Christian Churches if we would find the most striking examples of the tendency of sacerdotal bodies to oppose themselves to all outside light. Their greatest father, St. Augustine, who may * be considered almost the creator of Western theology, denounced the belief in the Antipodes on the ground that no such people are mentioned in scripture among the descendants of Adam, and he was a true proto­ type of most of his followers. Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz applied to the Pope for a public censure of the same dangerous doctrine. The stock instance often referred to is that of Galileo, who was imprisoned for affirming the motion of the earth. Though so often alluded to I quite agree with a recent able lecturer in this hall that it is a story which should never be allowed to slip from men’s memories, for it shows in a * De Civ. Dei., xvi. 9. V. also Lactantius (Inst. III. 24), and. Pascal’s Satirical Allusion {Provinciates, Let. 18.) �18 Sacerdotalism. most striking manner the ingrained tendency of all * priesthoods. Science and scientific men cannot indeed now be dealt with in the summary method of past days, but who that remembers the bitterness with which the truths of geology were formerly assailed on account of their divergence from our sacred books, who that is acquainted with the animosity aroused by the science of historical criticism, and recollects the persecution of Bishop Colenso and the “ Essayists and Reviewers,” can doubt that the old spirit is still existent ? Indeed as long as priesthoods of any sort remain it always must exist, since the principle of science and the principle of sacerdotalism are mutually exclusive of each other. I recommend whoever doubts this to read the Ency­ clical Letter and the Syllabus issued by the present Rope not very long ago. If- finally evidence be demanded of those cruel and extreme measures to which, as I before stated, sacerdotalism, which is de­ termined to maintain its pride of place must at length be driven, instances crowd so thickly upon the memory that the only difficulty is in selection. Read the accounts of the horrible massacres of De Montfort, where Christian priests bore the cross in advance to inspire the ruthless soldiers to their bloody work. What memories are evoked by the day of St. Bar­ tholomew ! the dungeons of the Inquisition! the gate of Constance ! the revocation of the Edict of Nantes! the fires of Smithfield 1 And if you say these are Papal enormities, and nothing like them is found outside of the Church of Rome,—turn to the history of the Church of Geneva, and read of Michael Servetus, an accomplished physician, and the anticipa­ tor of Harvey in the theory of the circulation of the * For details of this story see the notes to Mr. Elley Finch’s valuable lecture, “The Inductive Philosophy,” or Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences, book v., c. 3, sec. 4. �Sacerdotalism. J9 blood,—witness such a man slaughtered at the hand of the pious and Protestant Calvin! Read of the burn­ ings of Puritans, of the sufferings of the ejected nonconformists, of Bunyan’s cell at Bedford, of Cart­ wright and others harried from city to city,—read the trials and imprisonment of free-thinking merr whose only crime was in printing books opposed to the orthodox opinions, and you will see that Protestant priesthoods though debarred from the trenchant blade of their predecessors, have not been wanting in the will though lacking the power to apply that ultima ratio, that last unanswerable argument of sacerdotalism. Surely the priestly principle ought to have produced some untold unimaginable benefit to the world, in some degree to compensate, or to make it possible for men to condone such a long and weary catalogue of suffering and tyranny ! I submit therefore to your judgment, that whatever advantages this principle may have possessed in the infancy of our race, whether as society progresses it does not become greatly evil. Until the citizen is developed the priest has a function, but when men have risen to the dignity of citizens he is no more a help but a hindrance. I have endeavoured to show you what was naturally to be expected from sacerdotalism, when childhood was left behind and men began to think and question for themselves, and adduced incontrovertible tacts which prove that it considerably more than fulfilled such expectations. And the experience is the same in all parts of the world, under all forms of government, and in all religions. It must have been so. A principle which attributes divine authority and a control over the conscience and over knowledge to a particular order of men, could never have existed in a world intended to move on, without producing collision, distress, and convulsion. And as long as only a hundred men remain in a nation who cherish that principle in their breast, they will be in their measure a source of �20 Sacerdotalism. weakness to the body politic, a hindrance to progress, an impediment to the free and natural growth of citizen life. But this principle is very far at present from being reduced to such narrow limits in this or any country. On the contrary it plumes itself and stalks abroad; powerful and even threatening parties are still under its sway in this country and elsewhere. In modern times however, its processes are so much conducted under elaborate schemes of legislation and forms of law, and so skilfully woven up with many of the most essential interests of society, such as educa­ tion, the care of the poor, the sick, and the criminal, that men do not often observe its working. But that it is no bugbear of the fancy the late course of legis­ lation in almost every country on the continent must convince the most incredulous. Within the last few years the governments of Spain, Italy, and Switzerland have been engaged in measures to restrain the preten­ sions or guard against the renewed artifices of the clerical order. Germany has been legislating on the subject within the last month : in Belgium at this present minute, clerical machinations have brought affairs to a crisis. Read M. Lavelye’s article in the November number of the “Fortnightly” if you wish to see how dangerous the arts of a clergy may be to civil liberty. Our own ministry have got a few sacerdotal nuts to crack in Ireland, which I fear will damage their teeth, with respect to education and the conflict of Papal and English law,—and you may depend upon it we have not heard the last of it in relation to Education in England. But I must leave further consideration of these greater matters as to which sacerdotalism hinders harmonious progress and obstructs the working of the laws of the land, and proceed in conclusion to mention one or two of the minor evils which also result from it. One salient form in which the sacerdotal principle �Sacerdotalism. 21 is opposed to the welfare of modern society, is that it breeds a class of men pledged to a foregone conclusion. It cannot but be an evil, that as our ever-increasing experience introduces us to fresh facts, there should be an influentially placed class whose first question will always be, not, what one would think must be the right and natural one,—are these things true ? but, how do they square with what we teach ? Will they in any way discredit our time-honoured assertions 1 And if they are thought to do so, will this class try and raise a prejudice, and prevent the real merits of the case from being seen where things cannot be absolutely denied 1 Is not this to weight knowledge very heavily in its already suffici­ ently difficult progress ? But the theory of an infallible record in the hands of a divinely appointed order of men necessarily drives them to such proceedings. They suppose that their office lays them under an obligation to maintain that what they have handed down is right; to admit that they might have been wrong is calculated, therefore they think, not only to breed suspicion with­ out, but hesitation and defection within their own camp. It seems to them, therefore, absolutely necessary to present a bold front to the outside world,—as they say, “ to magnify their office.” So we read of a clerical dignitary in a debate on one of the petitions against the Athanasian Creed; speaking against any concession he said, “ the office of the Church is not to please but to teach the people.” Who does not see lurking in these words the old theory, that the priestly body has some divine infallible source of information distinct and super­ ior to that of study and scientific examination, which are the only means open to ordinary men and mere worldly students and philosophers 1 To maintain this attitude they must do their utmost to exclude differences and secure uniformity of teaching in their own body, and under these circumstances the most professionally hide­ bound and uncompromising naturally take the lead. They see the necessity for increased care in the training �22 Sacerdotalism. of young ecclesiastics, so as to render them more imper­ vious to outside impressions and zealous to carry on the warfare against free-thought. Hence, they must be caught young, and carefully indoctrinated, not in the open air and under the mixed influences of great universities, but in the close atmosphere of theological colleges, where they can be thoroughly ingrained with the foregone conelusions they will have to maintain. Hence, the carefully edited class-books, where everything disagreeing with their own view is stigmatised as a heresy, and each point is carefully classified, and supplied with a pat answer, with the exactitude of a theological Bradshaw. Hence, the dusty shelves groaning under ponderous tomes of sham and exploded learning, to encourage the neophytes to believe that if they cannot find an answer to all objec­ tions within the limits of their own knowledge, that somewhere, at least, in those endless folios, there is the wherewithal to confound all adversaries. Under these influences a tribe of young sacerdotalists is created well drilled to answer the ecclesiastical rally, and to supply the deficiencies of an older, more dispassionate, and as they consider secular-minded class of clergy. Here will always be found a serviceable body apt in all the arts of ecclesiastical warfare, well skilled to amuse “ women with saintly trifles,” and work on the superstitious fears of the weak-minded, —active to go from house to house and muster their allies in drawing-room and cottage, to persuade them that in fulfilling their behests they are doing God service, wary to teach them the ready watch­ words, and breathe beforehand suspicions against new truths; here too, may be found the men who have a keen scent for the first savour of liberalism in a too candid comrade, who can convey clerical delation with a shrug and indicate heterodoxy with an ogle, who crowd clerical meetings in close and steady order, and howl down in concert every protest and remonstrance of their more sensible and moderate brethren. A further evil of which this sacerdotal principle is �Sacerdotalism. 23 fruitful in society, is that it creates in many minds a tendency to fanciful distinctions which have little relation to truth and reality. Thus there is the Church and the world, the one sanctified and sacred, the other common and unclean ; literature, which connects itself in any way with scripture, though perhaps utterly foolish and" frivolous if not harmful, is religious and sacred, other writings, however noble in spirit, if not so connected, are profane ; this amusement is allowable, that is wicked,—you may go to a concert, but not to a theatre, to a tea-party, but not to a ball; the same music is at one time secular, at another sacred; some days are holy, others are common; this ground is hallowed, that is only ordinary earth, as God made it. Thus men become hampered and bound up with a crowd of empty distinctions and sham sanctities bring­ ing forth a crop of imaginary and artificial sins which enervate weak consciences, and give scope for the sour and censorious. You yourselves are competent witnesses to this last fact; for who could have instigated the recent attempt to shut you out from this hall, but some one under the influence of the melancholy delusion, that what was innocent and improving recreation on common days was sinful on Sunday evenings 1 The same thing produces in some circles of society an exaggeration of trifles, a misperception of the true proportion of things, and not seldom an absolute anility of mind. Thus, with some, every little matter connected with the Church, whether colour, shape, place, or dress, is considered an essential of devotion, and an object of clerical emulation and energy. With others, every trumpery incident is magnified into a critical moment for religion, the world with them is everlast­ ingly coming to an end, the gas-strike and Hyde Park spouters are “signs of the latter days,” and parsons donn­ ing red petticoats are a fulfilment of prophecy. If some stone is dug up in Palestine or Mesopotamia with a �24 Sacerdotalism. Bible name on it, immediately it must be dragged into the ranks as a witness for scripture; forthwith there is a muster of the initiated, and a premonitory rustle round serious tea-tables, and soon arises over it such a clatter of tongues that one would think the very ark of the faith bad been rescued from the Philistines. But a more serious matter than these lively divertisements is that social bitterness and exclusiveness of which the sacerdotal principle is so often the root. There are circles in what is called the religious world, where almost every offence against society is excusable except one. A man may be a bad father, or a profligate and worthless son, he may be a heartless seducer, an unprincipled rascal, a getter up of bubble companies, a scientific swindler,—all these things may be forgiven him, but if he be an infidel the door of hope is shut;—this is the one unpardonable crime that no good qualities can compensate; though he is the soul of benevolence and the model of every virtue, unselfish, brave, learned, courteous and manly,—put him at the very best he is but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a limb of Satan in the garb of an angel of light. There are some even who carry their dread of contamination and their desire to demonstrate their own clearness from all lax principles to almost ludicrous extremes. In that house so spotless in its stucco and whose whole aspect is radiant with respectable orthodoxy, nothing that defileth shall ever enter in : no pudding-headed foot­ boy or buxom house-maid shall ever be there engaged, unless put through their doctrinal paces and catechised on the articles of their belief,—their shoes shall not be mended by a free-thinking cobbler, and they suspect the produce of a heterodox butterman,—the scullion must be a strict communicant and value the privileges of a serious family, where the very horses have learnt to look down their noses, and no dog upon the premises dare wag his solemn tail upon a Sunday. ' Before I close may I be allowed to impress upon you �Sacerdotalism. 25 one caution. From what I have said of the evils great and small arising from sacerdotalism, it must not be supposed that I intend anything like an attack upon the clerical classes whether of the Established Church or any other body. This caution is necessary, because some persons seem to find it difficult to distinguish between a principle and those who may happen to be connected with it. To me it appears perfectly legitimate to remark upon the evil of a system, and to illustrate it by allusion to certain prominent types past or present, without being considered to assail classes or individuals. For some of the worst features of sacerdotalism, such as its exclusiveness, its spiritual assumption, its dishonesty in dealing with evidence and others, may distinguish laity as well as clergy. But whatever the evil may be, no body of men living at the present time is responsible for it: in its first origin it was a natural growth and however much in the course of history it has been aggravated by violence and fraud, it has descended to us as part of our national heritage and education, and we have been born under its influ­ ence. In old countries things which have thus grown with their growth can only be got rid of by patience and mutual forbearance : by degrees we may hope that light will permeate the darkest quarters, but the pro­ gress of illumination will only be retarded by personal bitterness. And in this country we have all the greater reason for patience in these matters, inasmuch as our clergy as a body have certainly been less under the influence of sacerdotalism than any other,—many of them indeed have offered a steady resistance to its advance, and have been its most resolute and efficient opponents. And at the darkest period in nearly every Church, there have been men who were better than the spirit of their own age, and who would have been ornaments to any. At the same period that ecclesias­ tical fanatics were urging on the cruel revocation of Nantes, the saintly Fenelon had been advocating �26 Sacerdotalism. toleration, for which indeed not long after he became himself a sufferer. The immortal Pascal and the two devoted Arnaulds, Henri and Angelique, had adorned the same Church not long before. So, too, at the present, amongst ourselves, there are among the clergy of all denominations men of large and liberal minds, and notwithstanding occasional outbursts of professional zeal or exalted notions in this or that direction, a large body throughout the country whose virtuous and benevolent lives every man of right feeling must respect. We do not therefore revile men but principles and systems; and even those most under subjection to the system we are glad to acknowledge have many claims on our regard, and are inclined to consider it not so much their fault as their misfortune. But when we behold amiable and in many cases acute minds under the sway of principles which we con­ scientiously consider, and which history proves to be, utterly deleterious, may we not be allowed to regard a system with all the more indignation and dislike, which thus warps God’s fairest gifts, which turns those who might have been the benefactors and teachers of mankind into narrow religious recluses, and poisons hearts of natural gentleness and benevolence with theological hatred and the gall of the persecutor. Bor myself, at any rate, I cannot but confess that I consider this sacerdotal principle,—which is at the root of much that is called religion and which may infect laymen as well as clerics, which in its essence is the assumption of special divine favour and prerogatives, a usurpation over men’s consciences, and a blasphemy against those powers of reason and that light of science with which God has blessed our race,-—I consider this sacerdotal principle the very direst evil and the bitterest curse of civilised society. Through the false distinc­ tions it creates, and the assumptions to which it gives rise it often embitters all social life, it destroys the peace of families, it makes foes in a man’s own household, set- �Sacerdotalism. ting the father against the son, the child against the parents, the wife against the husband,—it is the very bane and spoiler of all good fellowship, all openheartedness and kindly feeling. And if as the old story tells us, there is an evil one, an inveterate foe to man who roams about seeking whom he may devour, entering human souls and dwell­ ing there, and when he enters “ keeping his house ” with such tenacity, that none can dislodge him, surely it is that foul fiend, that accursed spirit of sacerdotal pride and priestly assumption which sits in the living temple of God, if not quite daring to proclaim that he is God, yet inspiring his infatuated victims to declare, “ the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are ” we ! If there is anything that would justify the denuncia­ tion of the French satirist, it is assuredly this atrocious principle, not this particular religion nor that religion, but that evil spirit which has too much prevailed in all, that monstrous assumption which has raised its head wherever priesthoods have been found. When I per­ ceive in every place the difficulty, disorganization and hindrance it is still creating, and when I remember the long tragedy of the past, the terrible sum of misery,— the tortured bodies, the broken hearts, the ruined intellects,—for which it is responsible, the exclamation almost rises involuntarily to the lips, crush the infamous, “ ecrasez l’infame ! ” � 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 &amp; 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 Sacerdotalism: an address delivered to the members and friends of the National Sunday League at St. George's Hall, Sunday, December 8, 1872 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Wild, George J. (George John) Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 27 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references. Sacerdotalism is the belief that priests are essential mediators between God and man. 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 [1873?] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5466 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy 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 (Sacerdotalism: an address delivered to the members and friends of the National Sunday League at St. George's Hall, Sunday, December 8, 1872), 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 Priesthood Sacerdotalism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5cf583c61f516cc22fd9bf2675719229.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=PA%7ErSAEhGct4loHWkaYn4EKjC4HuuBuZImAxKqzE9mUM9cE7N9CwOLI3GWKCUgaqi8uUuG6THiW-fOtvHEZgKF9V8JnA1Qcsd4LT74EujLjBst0v3pxAgHc6GrRW3ar-n%7EJ0qYlMYOcWZLVUd3akUSntTuEUgxEbt%7Edg2xWATuRsTRM7iyNEtAQCnm7jFn%7EuXl9aC34qDorUJmUjNRoA-7vQrjHNwu5d4qmkm19xkSDCBw5WdWO5STi4XmyWvzVioMneftztZMES-mTSdm0ZAcUzVzxdMT4At6V7DCpggB80Kdvqpeb-JKYAH3PfOBjWxClAw-kmBBzH-43-KZv3Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 01371de3b53f050abccf235a070d5fac PDF Text Text “AN IDEAL PARISH.’’ y A SERMON, PREACHED AT ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, MAY 4th, 1873, BY THE REV. CHARLES VOYSEY. [From tho Eastern Post, May 10th, 1873.] On Sunday (May 4th) at St. George’s Hall, the Rev. C. Voysey took his text from 1 Peter, iv., 11, “If any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth.” He said—At the request of some of the congregation, I will resume my discourses on the subject of the Church. In order to form a correct idea of what a Church should be, we must first consider what are the proper relations between a minister and the people to whom he ministers. The first thing that strikes one as eminently desirable is that those relations should be made as close and as permanent as possible, short of absolute irrevocability. The parochial system, as it is called, furnishes the opportunity for such a relation better than any other which has yet been tried. A minister ought to be resident among the people to whom he ministers, and should make it his paramount duty to become personally acquainted with them, and if possible, to become their constant friend. He can do very little indeed for their advantage in the pulpit, unless he is tolerably familiar with their daily lives. Unless he knows their thoughts and sentiments by friendly converse, more than half of what he may say is like beating the air, and is sheer waste. Unless he hears their arguments against his own opinions, he and they will diverge further and further, till his influence is entirely destroyed —to say nothing of the constant strain upon his ingenuity as a preacher in selecting subjects for the pulpit, week after week, without having any clue as to what is most expedient or timely �2 for his hearers. Acquaintance and converse with the people is a perpetual mine of wealth for the preacher’s thoughts, not only giving him a large choice of topics, but directing him to the best selection that could be made. Important, however, as is the work in the pulpit, it is not nearly so important as the work in the parish. And if the minister's function be to build up the temple of religion and morality, and to help in raising to a higher platform the less advanced souls of his flock, that function can never be adequately fulfilled by mere preach­ ing. He must live amongst his people, and learn to understand their feelings and sympathise with their views, and have compassion on those who are are ignorant. Personal contact is the only power that one can depend upon to obtain a legitimate influence over the minds of others. We see it too often resorted to for most unworthy ends. It is an old complaint that priests have been wont to “devour widows’ houses,” and to “lead captive silly women laden with sins.” Of such influence we can only think with indignation and shame, but what I would advocate is the use, instead of the abuse, of a power which, when wielded aright, is pregnant with beneficial results. What the minister has to do is to serve his people—to lay out his days in such help of head, or heart, or hand, as may be within his power to render. If he knows his duty and privilge, it will delight him to make friends of all his parishioners, so that in time of trouble they will send for him, as a matter of course, knowing how faithfully and efficiently he will stand by them. Such help is something infinitely more than almsgiving. That, of course, is unhappily needful at times, but the help of which I speak may be extended to persons of all ranks and conditions, till almsgiving sinks into one of the most occasional and unimportant services he has to render. There may be places where such services are quite superfluous, but I believe I am right in saying that in nine-tenths of the parishes in England, the presence of a resident clergyman and his family is an unmixed blessing, for the loss of which not even liberation from superstition would entirely compensate. I have known clergymen who have spent the greatest part of their days in visiting their parishioners and in teaching in the village school. During their rounds, they have not only consoled the sick, and �3 raised the spirits of the depressed, but they have saved their parishioners from, serious losses by that counsel which could only be supplied by a man of culture. How often they have to write letters for their people and explain legal documents and supply legal information. How often they have sufficient knowledge of medi­ cine to be of invaluable service, and to win from the doctor, who had been summoned from a great distance, the welcome ejaculation l< You have saved the poor fellow’s life.” Every day brings up some fresh want which only a minister thus placed could supply. But then to do this, he must first be known and felt to be a friend, a friend in need, a willing friend, one who does not look for any return in Easter offerings; no, nor for any return in compli­ mentary attendance at Church■ nor for any other kind of quid pro quo. If a man has it in him, he will soon show that he works only for love, for the sake of being useful, and not even to be well spoken of, though that is a great boon in such a position. And so when he fails, as he surely must fail sometimes, in the pulpit, to satisfy his hearers, or to come up to the standard of his own ideal, he has at least the satisfaction that his whole life is spent in their service, and one good deed is better than a thousand ser­ mons. In spite of all the misuse that has been made of this relation of minister and people, it can assuredly be made the purest instrument of good that can be imagined. But you can only get this relation in the parochial system. Draw a line round a given area and let all the inhabitants of that area know that they have a property in the gentleman who resides among them as their minister; and? let him also know that he is placed there to be their common servant; let Jews and Christians, let Catholics and Protestants, Churchmen and Dissenters, Believers and Infidels alike claim his faithful friendship and service. Let him know that it is his business not to convert them, but to be of use to them in mind, body, and estate; to help them all whenever and howsoever he can; and then, if this condition be fulfilled, you have your ideal parish, in which peace will reign, in which sectarianism and religious strife become paralysed, and in which the minister of religion is recognised as the type of perfect toleration and the best of peacemakers. Do not think this is Utopian; it has been done already and done under more eyes than mine. �4 It is, however, essential to the clergyman’s fidelity and selfrespect that he be entirely independent of his parishioners for his income. He cannot possibly preserve a strict impartiality if he be supported by the voluntary subscriptions of his flock. Those who give more money for his support would claim more of his service and concession than those who gave less. He would become the rich man’s minister and the rich man’s tool. The poor could not feel, as they do under the endowment system, that he was par„ ticularly their property—more their servant because their needs for his culture were greater. No man, however high-minded, could bear such a restraint upon his conduct as that which is involved in being the protege of a wealthy parishioner who practically had the power of dismissing him. Still there is something in the objection : What is a parish to do with an incompetent or unworthy minister ? How is he to be got rid of ? Well. He ought to be got rid of; and parishioners ought to have the power of preventing a well-known obnoxious clergyman being forced upon them ; and after one year’s trial of any minister a majority of three-fifths or three-fourths of the parishioners ought to have power to remove him. This power in reserve would be enough wholesome restraint upon lax-minded or indolent men, while it would do no injury to the self-respect of those who were good and capable. The subject of patronage I do not here touch upon. I will now endeavour to represent what the minister and people ought to do in reference to the public ministrations of religion. Supposing them to be in the harmony which I have described, and which is much easier to achieve than is generally supposed, the minister, still keeping in mind that he is the servant of the people, will set his mind on having a service such as they, or the large majority of them, will approve. He may well be entrusted and expected to draw up the service in accordance with what he knows or guesses to be popular and within the limits of the resources of the district. He does not say, “You shall have this service whether you like it or notbut says, “ Try it for a little while, and if then you do not like it, we will alter it to meet vour objections, or prepare another.” If the loudest and most influential voices are inclined to be over-bearing and dictatorial, it will be his duty to plead foi' �5 minorities, and to retain or insert occasionally such forms as may be only pleasing to the few. But, if he have a grain of wisdom, he will regard the service in the Church as for the people and not for himself. He must waive his own prejudices so long as it does not involve the sacrifice of principle ; and he will remember that he is their spokesman, and not necessarily pledged to every word or sentiment that his parishioners desire him to read on their behalf. Here, instead of a new bone of contention, would be found a new bond of friendship and mutual esteem. A minister so acting would thereby recommend his own proposals far more eloquently than by any reasoning. It would be enough for the people to know that not only they eould have their own way about the service, but that that was the minister’s sole desire. Say not, this could not be done in a parish, when it has been done where not one single parochial advantage exists. It has been done here, where our congregation meets from the four winds, and many members of it travel long distances, few knowing each other, and the minister labouring under the overwhelming disadvantage of only meeting them in the pulpit, and exercising not one ministerial function for them during the week. If it be both possible and easy under our circumstances, it would be infinitely more so, were we all living together in one parish. I do not know how my brother clergymen would like what I have next to propose ? But I cannot forget that half-a-dozen per­ sons in my late parish, who still remained my sincere friends, felt conscientiously unable to attend the parish church while I preached in it. Such a case might happen anywhere, and in some places the scruples might be very numerous ; yet it always seemed to me a hardship that even six people were kept away from the church on such grounds. Now in my ideal parish, if I were minister, I would advocate the opening of the church once at least on a Sunday to the few who could not agree with the majority, and they might have as their minister for the occasion whomsoever they would, provided always that the man chosen were blameless in moral character, and that the services were decently conducted, and not made occasions for irreverent mirth. Next to subscribinoto Dissenters to enable them to build their chapels in one’s own parish, I' think, such a step would be highly beneficial. A man �6 only increases tenfold his influence by toleration. He diminishes it in like proportion by every act of exclusiveness and bigotry. I once saw a whole settlement of Baptists go over to the Church because the clergyman gracefully gave way in a matter of disputed right of occupation. I have now only to speak of the minister’s function in the pulpit. I take it for granted that he is a man of ordinary tact, and possessing what is infinitely more than tact, an honest and kind heart. I have assumed that every minister should have some culture, and be morally of blameless life. These are the only conditions with which the State ought to concern itself. As to his religious views and opinions, they are exclusively his own, to hold or relinquish at pleasure. His sole claim to appoint ment is that he is duly qualified from a literary point of view, and that he seeks to be a minister of religion. He goes to his parish perfectly untrammelled by religious tests, 39 Articles, 3 Creeds, or Acts of Uniformity. He is not bound to take any man, or any number of men, as his guide or model. He is perfectly free. All that is expected of him is that he will be faithful—true to himself, and to his own convictions. Being a man among men, it will be only natural for him to be tentative at first, and not shock and alienate the strangers who gather round to hear his earliest discourses. He will find out by gentle means how much the people agree with him and how far they differ, so that he may give attention to those points where reconciliation is attainable by persuasion or amplification. He will soon discover whether he can lead them on, or whether he is altogether unfit for their present stage of thought. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, such a minister’s work will be easy from the first, and crowned at last by the hearty concurrence of his parishioners. But this is the only limitation he will put upon his own perfect freedom; the only ground on which he will tolerate in himself the slightest reticenee. His grand aim will be to declare unto them “ the whole Counsel of God,” as it appears to him ; and not to keep back “ one word of God’s truth from the great congregation.” He has no excuse now for evasion or subtlety, or that most miserable and fashionable of expedients, the knocking to pieces of some orthodox doctrine, and then saying, “I believe in it for all that.” He has no ground for �■ i'*~- ■ t * •■ &fp?j 'ffi v> > z?*?b >?'■'■'';*■'?<* om ‘^yi >.,<r'> 5f’' ''.*'? *"• 7 hesitation. The people expect honesty from his lips, not things merely smooth and agreeable. They only bind him by tacit agreement to be true to himself, and not to deceive them by ambiguous speech, or hide his honest thought under a cloud of controversial dust. This, of itself, would be a great attraction. I know of the preaching of a heretic that was attended by some of his parishioners who could not bear his doctrine, and when asked why they continued to go to church to hear him, said, “ Well, he always speaks his mind, and says we are not obliged to think as he does.” Indeed it would be life from the dead in our English churches and chapels if the word were to go forth that everywhere on a certain Sunday, the ministers, without fear of pains, penalties, or social stigma, would really preach what they honestly believed. It would be such a day of Pentecost for thought and religious earnestness as the world has never yet seen. I know I am speaking the sober truth when I affirm that though there are many earnest and true-hearted men of every shade of religious opinion, who invariably say what they think to be true, are yet undistinguishable from the mass around them, who preach doctrines cut and dried for them, and shun original thought or speech as they would the plague. How can you tell whether a man be true to himself or not, if all are tethered with the same length of rope and must not transgress certain limits. Go to St. Pauls, or to Westminster, or to our Chapels Royal, or anywhere you please, and distinguish the honest men from the dishonest if you can. They are there sure enough, but you cannot test them. They are bound up in one bundle with the insincere and the indifferent. In the interest of all religious opinions what­ ever, it is absolutely needful to have no prohibition on the ex­ pression of honest opinion. Without that liberty you cannot be sure that the Protestant is not a Catholic, the Catholic an Infidel, the Evangelical a Rationalist. It is in the power of any Sunday School boy to say of every preacher thus tied and bound—“ Ah ! he did not dare say what he believes.” While we are yet ignorant, we need the fullest variety of opinion. Such differences are blessings, not curses, till the true science of God shall come. And we ought to welcome honest speech, how­ ever distasteful its arguments and conclusions, however seemingly f �8 dangerous to order and morality, simply because it is honest, and is the deeply rooted conviction o£ another man’s mind. More than this, 1 believe the honest utterance of opinions one does not like, does a great deal more good than the flattering repetition of sentiments already adopted. For the present I-close with this remark. The ideal parish which I have endeavoured to draw, is based upon the principles of Love, Liberty, and Truth. In sad contrast to these, the churches, as history tells us, are worked by hatred, intolerence, slavery, and falsehood—falsehood clung to after it had been detected and exposed. Shall not the Church of the Future learn a lesson by the shame brought upon the Church of the past, and cast away her idols of Dogma, Sacerdotalism, and so-called Uniformity to the moles and to the bats'? Eastern POST Steam Printing Works, 89, Worship Street Finsbury, E.C, � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; 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 An ideal parish: a sermon, preached at St George's Hall, Langham Place, May 4th, 1873 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Voysey, Charles [1828-1912] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [London] Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Published by Earstern Post, May 10th 1873. Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 6. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Eastern Post Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1873 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4330 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy 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 (An ideal parish: a sermon, preached at St George's Hall, Langham Place, May 4th, 1873), 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 Church-Going Clergy Morris Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7a301320f183fd5e99c33258f53b5789.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=QXmYgBO5JcLZ1PokZXfuNM1jnJxlBEO1sP2ZYvIQ9LGPbHS8nfpCRP0fv%7EE1QeNVeJB4KF0gobpEMLGldm6H1CqyMgd%7EYfR6gyXzoT7JdXneQyWwiVSO-kU1xXk4F9hbqP4zBhzS05hvlAiQklcx0SYkbXqnsYu0ZpXzW5QVCMRB2abA01EIAHz38-y3amCbjR4rr6Nb7RcOl6-wFzec0oiKCE-Z0MhqR8w6%7EKg0xKUQ4B3JzVlyOdO%7EnZhEf1OrBIjQvLRKDWtnbmqG-2Z-j6IrZzHoGPsGdkyXPoG08DYsJ9YaECPA7rBE-aiLCr4ZznHfEIzywuFjSEnAXHdjAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6a238836117898fda7d124ab5bb33e1f PDF Text Text CLERICAL INTEGRITY. BY THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE, AUTHOR OF “THE BIBLE; IS IT THE WORD OF GOD?” ETC. PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. Price Threepence. ��CLERICAL INTEGRITY. ----------- ♦------------ HE Record of the 27th May, 1872, notices, with animadversion, the Mr TVoysey has received encouragementof which clerical from some his brethren, whose names are published among his avowed supporters, and who retain their position in the ranks of the Church of England, while thus manifesting their sympathy with the free utterances of one who holds and inculcates a line of doctrine so conflicting with that to which they themselves stand officially committed. No doubt the position of these gentlemen, if they are in accord, broadly, with Mr Voysey in his views, and that of all similarly situated, is one which every friend to consistency must deeply lament. They profess to fight under banners the devices on which they no longer respect. They have to lead their followers by a way other than along the “ old paths ” hitherto venerated. Their trumpets give forth uncertain sounds, or what assuredly cannot be recognized as the regimental calls. If the freethinking laymen are out of place, who, for the sake of appearances, swell congregations to which in heart they do not belong, much more so are those clergy who have habitually to enact beliefs at violence with their real sentiments. The Record does well to call for integrity of profession on the part of the recognized ministers of the Church of England. It sees no advantage in having possession of the persons of the clergy without their operative souls: while, on �6 Clerical Integrity. the other side, those who feel that the inner men are with themselves, naturally desire to see the outer men openly associated with their convictions. No one, therefore, is satisfied with the anomalies of a position so false as that pointed to, while the subjects of the disorder themselves, can scarcely find satisfaction in the self-examination which at times must press itself upon them. The only cure that can be offered, where self-cure is not effected, is to unmask the real character of therprofessions made and abused. A recent pamphlet by a beneficed clergyman, entitled “Clerical Dishonesty,” wherein the writer assumes that the ordination vows pledge the utterer to nothing seriously binding on him, is one among many evidences that such an exposition, though dealing with much that must to most minds be self-evident, is not a task altogether supererogatory. The distinction between the two parties who are in question—the orthodox anglican and the free-thinker, is one concerning practice rather than principle. The free-thinker avows that his belief is one not formulated for him, but arrived at under his proper convictions. He is under no compulsion but that of his own ex­ ercised mind and conscience. The other party profess to enjoy a like liberty, but are far from really possessing it. There was a time when the whole Christian world found themselves under the dominion of a priestly body, from whom they had to accept their creed in all its material characteristics. The mould was made for them out of which they were to be cast, all in the same shape. Some freer and more enlightened spirits, after a course of centuries, objected to the thraldom and its results. The mould they saw to be a piece of human machinery, designed to effect conformity to other human minds, but not securing, what was professedly aimed at, conformity to the divine mind. That they conceived to be exhibited in a certain book, and by that book, and that alone, they claimed to guide their �Clerical Integrity. 1 ways. These, accordingly, made their protest, which in effect was, that the Bible was the sole, sufficient, and perfect rule of faith, by which each, according to his apprehension, was to govern himself. Nor was it com ceded that even the Bible stood on a platform beyond the reach of judgment. The Protestants chose to exercise their discernment thereupon, and excepted from its pages, as apocryphal, a considerable portion of its hitherto received contents. Now if the move­ ment represented a real freedom, the very book itself, evidently, stood in the utmost jeopardy. The process of excision might advance until nothing was left of the work but its binding. There are many in fact, at this moment, who would gladly expunge from it much that it asserts, and who would question the genuineness of whole sections of its writings. It is clear that the principle avowed was one that could not be maintained. To abide by a revealed faith, by’ something outside of human thought or experience, a recognized vehicle for the faith was obviously necessary; and beyond proclaiming the vehicle, and stamping it with the signet of authority, practically it was found necessary, also, to educe from it the creed to be followed. All this the Church of England has done for herself in her Articles and other formularies. The liberty to each to shape his faith according to his convictions is gone. The Romish mould, it is true, has been removed; but the Anglican mould has been substituted for it. A variety of subordinate protests and dissents have ensued, as an inevitable consequence. Whenever the restraint upon the convinced and dissatisfied mind be­ came unbearable, and sufficient numbers joined to form a new section, there was a departure from the parent stock, or a split among the already divided members, as when Protestantism came originally out of Rome. The elements for these divisions have continually multiplied, and several very decided offsets are now visibly ripen­ ing for independence in the bosom of the original in­ �8 Clerical Integrity. stitution. The difficulty is an inherent one, never to be surmounted. The revealed creed cannot be ascer­ tained, or maintained, without descriptive bounds. The Anglican mould has therefore been repeatedly cast ' away for the adoption of some one of the hundred minor Protestant moulds that have appeared to approach nearer to the ideal truth aimed at. Some years ago a notable effort was made by some fervent spirits to establish a basis of Christianity with­ out a formal creed. I refer to those currently known as the Plymouth Brethren, though the designation is not one of their own adoption. They said, let com­ munity of faith be our sole requisition for fellow­ ship. The proposition was, however, far from realizing an entire liberty of conscience, seeing that the faith it­ self had to be defined, and the possession of it ascer­ tained. Still it was the best attempt that circumstances allowed of towards freedom of thought in the avowal of a revealed religion. For some years this party stood together in happy communion without a formulated creed, but liberty of thought over the accepted vehicle of the faith led to its unavoidable l’esult. On one im­ portant subject in particular, the ascription, construc­ tively, of a sinner’s position to Christ, and the con­ sequent character of his alleged sufferings, independent views in a certain quarter prevailed. From another quarter these were denounced as heretical. And then a fresh term of communion was introduced. One “ Article of Religion,” if not thirty-nine, was prescribed, and all who held the reprehended views, and even all who tolerated those who held them, were ejected, and .the broken fragments of the party exist to this day in a state of irremediable disunion. It may then be accepted for a certainty that what is to be upheld as a revealed faith can only subsist by means of an organized system. The book conveying the faith has to be acknowledged, and its recognition made sure. After which the characteristics and bounds . �Clerical Integrity. g of the faith, as ascertainable out of the revelations of the book, have to be precisely described. The work, accounted a divine one, has, inevitably, to poise and support itself on humanly devised props and founda­ tions. Can such an unseemly partnership be’’based upon any true reality ? Man’s portion therein is most apparent. That attributed to the Almighty is what has to be severely questioned. Whatever their views on this momentous point, the clergy of the Church of England stand bound to assert the divine origination of the incongruous and ever-failing system. Then there is the status of the clergyman himself. He professes to be an ambassador for God. Is he sure of his credentials ? Has the Divinity, who is accessible equally to all, chosen out a select few on whom to confer special power and obligations ? Such is in truth the theory; but how are these elected ones separated to their work and held together ? Again, it is apparent, if the thing designed is ascribable to God, the whole apparatus for its realiz­ ation is palpably of man. The calling of the clergy is ordinarily taken up at the outset of life as is any other calling. It has its pecuniary and social advantages, with prospective temptations, conferring wealth, dignity, and power. Certain formulae are pre­ scribed, passing which the ambassador for God comes forth fully equipped with his human testimonials. Whether the Divinity has complacently endorsed these is of course a question. But, whatever his own con­ sciousness may be, the individual himself has, hence­ forth, and for ever, to assert his divine appointment and heavenly mission. What a standard has he adopted by which to test, in all sincerity, himself and his appointed work! And thus we really get back to Rome. The freedom of the Protestant movement becomes swamped in the method taken to give it realization. The articles, the creeds, the formulated services, the organized ministry, �io Clerical Integrity. are all required to ensure to the machine its appointed action. Seeking for God in his asserted word and work, we everywhere fall in with the human agency. Nor is the operation attended with anything like success. The object is to ascertain the truth as coming from Divine revelation, and then to secure conformity to this truth. For this purpose, all the stated defini­ tions are given, and the appointed teachers tested and banded together. And the result of all is failure. The Church of England, in its ministers and congrega­ tions, represents every shade of opinion, from the type of Rome to the utmost bounds of liberalized Deism. Are the tests so loosely drawn as to justify such latitude? Judicial decisions would certainly warrant a reply extensively in the affirmative, but will the appeal to the conscience endorse such a conclusion, especially in the instance of the free-thinkers ? The author of the pamphlet on “ Clerical Honesty ” appears to flatter himself that the bonds are of this imperfect nature, or have been made so by the prevail­ ing laxity with which they are put to use. He con­ fines himself to the actual questions and answers which occur when the candidate offers himself for ordination, without attempting to define the tenets then supposed to be avowed. The candidate, he thinks, may be per­ mitted to express the hope that “ the Holy Ghost ” has moved him to take up his office ; that he has been truly called thereto “ according to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the due order of the realm; ” that he “ unfeignedly believes all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,” as much, at least, as do some of the questioners ; that he will read the same to the assembled church, however painful it may be to him to do so; that, “ by the help of God,” he will “ gladly and willingly ” perform all his appointed duties, with whatever repugnance to his mind and conscience : that he will “fashion” his life to “the doctrine of Christ,” “the Lord being his helper;” and that he �Clerical Integrity. 11 will “ reverently,” and 11 with a glad mind',” obey his clerical superiors, and conform himself to their “ godly admonitions.” After this follows the ordination of the priesthood, or, as the writer prefers to read the term, the presbytery, in which very much the same ground is gone over, except that here the doctrine of 11 eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ ” is expressly required of him in his ministrations, and that he receives a com­ mission to forgive, or refuse, forgiveness of sins, which the writer hopes may be considered to mean no more than transgressions against ritualistic order, “ involving no question of morals.” On one of these points the writer confesses that his conscience stands wounded by the pledge to which he has been subjected; and that is the expression of his “unfeigned belief” in the whole of the canon­ ical Scriptures. The details given of the process of creation, for example, he has the evidence of his en­ lightened senses are untrue, and there is much more, no doubt, of that stamp, in these pages, which the knowledge of the day must make it impossible for him to receive. He laments, then, for himself, and his clerical brethren, the being “ compelled to read as God’s word what we know well God never said.” The admis­ sion is an important one, and in fact concedes the whole question. If a clergyman can surmount such a difficulty as this, to what stretch of elasticity may he not bring his ministrations? When can we be sure that his belief and his tongue are in real unison ? That many are guilty of such a compromise, in no way affects the character of the evil, save to enhance it. The ordination service is the Church’s safeguard for the maintenance and promulgation of her doctrines, and the pledges then exacted are by no means of a loose and insufficient sort. It binds the candidate to the whole contents of the Scriptures, not as he may choose to understand them, but as interpreted for him by the �i2 Clerical Integrity. Church herself, and commits him to matters of faith at least as difficult of acceptance as the account of the creation, or any other of the representations made in the record at variance with physical facts. The service opens with the Litany, containing these well known protestations. “ 0 God the Son, Redeemer of the world: have mercy upon us miserable sinners. “ 0 God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son : have mercy upon us miserable sinners. “ 0 holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God: have mercy upon us miserable sinners. “ Spare thy people whom thou hast redeemed with thy most precious blood. “ From the crafts and assaults of the devil; from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation, good Lord deliver us. “ By the mystery of thy holy Incarnation ; by thy holy Nativity and Circumcision ; by thy Baptism, Fast­ ing, and Temptation, good Lord deliver us. 11 By thine agony and bloody sweat; by thy cross and passion; by thy precious Death and Burial; by thy glorious Resurrection and Ascension; and by the coming of Holy Ghost, good Lord deliver us. “ Son of God : we beseech thee to hear us. “ 0 Lamb of God : that taketh away the sins of the world ; have mercy upon us. “ 0 Christ, hear us. “ Christ have mercy upon us. “ 0 Son of David, have mercy upon us.” The doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the second person of this triune Godhead in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, all the circumstances associated with his alleged birth, vicarious sacrifice, and resur­ rection, are here openly paraded as the faith of the recipient of the ordination, and of all concerned with him in this appointed service. When he himself speaks �Clerical Integrity. 13 of being moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him his office, he acknowledges the existence and functions of the divine emanation, so designated, which is alleged to have proceeded from the other two persons of the Trinity, the Father and the Son. When he describes himself to be acting “ according to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ,” he is referring to the teacher of Nazareth, now translated to heaven and ruling there as a divinity ; and when he declares he will fashion his life to “ the doctrine of Christ,” in glad submission to the admoni­ tions of his seniors, he avows all that the Church maintains to be involved in this doctrine—the con­ dition in himself of a lost sinner, heir of the wrath of God, and saved from that wrath by the outpouring of the blood of the Nazarene teacher. He also proclaims, through the means of the Litany, his belief in the being, power, and attributed operations of the devil. We have the expression here of all that characterizes what is known as orthodoxy, and no essentially un­ orthodox person can minister to such a system without violation to his estimate of truth. The Record, justly, and warrantably, calls upon all such to abandon their false positions, and not to weaken the community to the support of which they stand pledged by a fictitious adherence. A party to an engagement is not warranted in straining the document to free himself of his obliga­ tions. He is bound to understand what is expected of him, and to do it faithfully. Mental reservations, undisclosed to the other side, form no part of a genuine transaction. The Church of England has carefully and fully announced her doctrines through an extensive range of formularies, and they are not to be misunderstood, in their broad features, by any intelligent mind seeking to apprehend them. The clergyman is engaged to propagate these doctrines, and it is im­ possible that he can deflect therefrom, materially, without being conscious of the divergence. He professes to have been called of God to his ministrations, and has �Clerical Integrity. 14 engaged to discharge them with unfeigned mind, gladly and willingly. Under no other conditions would the Church have accepted his services; and when he finds that he cannot, with a free conscience, meet the condi­ tions, the path of duty should be clear to him. He should not flatter himself that he is doing good in the measure that he is advancing his true sentiments. A sermon can have little power which is contradicted, out of the same mouth, in the liturgy. He is but confusing truth with untruth, schooling his hearers in subtleties, and bringing them down to his own level of conscious inconsistency. Great Malvern, June 1872. TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Clerical integrity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Strange, Thomas Lumisden Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. 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 1872 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT110 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Clerical integrity), 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 Church of England Clergy Church of England Clergy Conway Tracts https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d65a5b90807c80da82810023e7d43a35.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=G%7EDTLDojfyr8-q7cW6IApc9UsapfebcaZgJTf-kzlBP3IvNIbknFlWmCVMvnS1L7c3gYGPveTuDK2-DCa-J6EenuvW4gUW-unxf7gyONF5Bhr49EeyWhtubpAvdreUTnulpGj5MEnxNKsp23h8-Qt4kPVEcXO-6WJAlSGkD-dncBxaMhVETIfzg9uACeyYsYW0JQaa5Q521Oz%7ECS6ACoZ7ugdGDvI4KjyhVYZkRvfSWYaY3NRbTwpaAdUAj989ibe9q-gsSMYSpUvxPrJtw3nd3NR-81%7E8EdfIyhF4L3wQDRDaiEmBdjnRN3mGA7lssPZRfPIXNlQmvcFE7bNZUDpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c3b56e59ed941e7130f20c034704af0c PDF Text Text CT3^ CLERICAL INTEMPERANCE. BY T. P. KIRKMAN, M.A., F.R.S. I Rev. Canon BARD8LEY, M.A. (N< Anne’s, Manchester.} PUBLISHED BY THOMAS MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE. ' ___ * 1871. SCOTT, ��CLERICAL INTEMPERANCE. Rev. Sir, OU have requested me in the name of a Com­ mittee of Northern Convocation to answer a long list of queries under the title, ‘ Effects of Intem­ perance in Religion, Education, &c.’ If the paper were issued to me by the command of my diocesan, or if it sprang from a Committee of earnest men of all denominations, or even a mixed Committee of Churchmen, lay and clerical, I should feel bound to attend to it. But, without expressing an opinion on the wisdom or usefulness of the inquiry, I prefer to lay aside a document proceeding from an anti­ quarian body so intensely sectarian and sacerdotal as Convocation. It occurred to me in reading the paper that there are two other questions about which Con­ vocation might be more usefully employed. One is, not the effects of intemperance on religion and edu­ cation, but the effects of what we divines call religion and education on intemperance. Many thinkers of the day are pondering this question, full of wonder that we clergy produce so small an impression on the ignorance and vice of the millions, and that the masses are more and more withdrawing themselves from our teaching and influence, while we appear more and more to prefer sectarian discord to wise and brotherly unity. Another question, perhaps more important, �4 Clerical Intemperance. is the effect of clerical intemperance on religion and education. I do not mean intemperance in the use of the bottle, although, from what I know of priests and preachers, I am inclined to believe that the average of their abstemiousness and self-denial, church-officers of all kinds included, is not much higher than that among the laity, taken all • through. It may be that the daily self-indulgence of many of us is a good set-off against the Saturday excess of about the same proportion of the toilers. What I mean is the intemperance of our stiff-necked pharisaism, popery, and priestcraft—of our mutual intolerance, pride, and bitterness. Can you look without a pang at this ugly fact, more hideous, and. I ' fear more hopeless, than that intemperance of the laity which we all deplore—that after eighteen centuries of pretended loyalty to him who sacrificed his spotless life in attacking the orthodoxy and priestcraft of his country’s abominable church, whose dignified clergy shrieked out,—“ Not this man, but Barabbas!”— , doubtless a much sounder churchman than Jesus— v we still exhibit to the sorrowing angels a spectacle a ' hundred times more guilty considering our light and learning than that wrangling and cursing of the • hostile priests of Gerizim and Zion ? I fear that the mutual anathemas and repulsions of the canting aiid i conjuring zealots among! the mock-Christian sects of this day are, in the sight of the Great Head in whom we all glory, far less pardonable than that old scorn and hatred between Jew and Samaritan. We ought - ■ to burn with shame as we pass each other in our ' White chokers in the sunshine ; and it is a merciful world that does not pursue us everywhere with the . finger of derision. The men of thought and action in other departments differ greatly and differ long ; but they all appear to believe in truth, and manfully and hopefully do they debate to find it: at the long run . they do find it, every life-time increasing the gold of �'Clerical Intemperance, imperishable knowledge. But among us how many are’ there who care one straw for truth, or who have any fixed belief that it is attainable by patient inquiry for the common gain of themselves and of fair anta­ gonists ? The Jews appear to have wiped away from their Church the greatest part of the priestcraft and lies which Jesus and Paul assailed, and thousands Of them are better disciples of those Masters than most of us; but we Christian divines continue century after century in our maze of mingled Judaism and Paganism, pelting each other with some old weed. Is not this evidence of drunken delirium more dreadful because more permanent than that which maddens the victims of alcohol ? The truth is within the reach of us all, if we only seek it in the love of it, such truth as is sufficient for salvation and Christian brotherhood; nay, it is actually in the possession of us all, both Jews and Christians. No need for more planting, or more building ; all that is required is'the removal of weeds and rubbish. It is not that we are, any'of us, ignorant of that revealed truth of God, which should be to us the bond of love and hearty co-operation in Christ; but that most of us undervalue and disparage it, in comparison of our quibbles of sham science, o4ur sectarian shibboleths, . and our priestly dominations. All that is required in addition to the grand' fundamentals of morality, in the way of symbol and common rconfes$ion among believers in one God, and in a future life for man, was long ago delivered by an authority greater than Councils and Convocations. It was to Rome, the' world’s queen and centre, that Paul laid down, once for all the confession or creed necessary and sufficient to entitle every sincere believer to the fulness of Christian birthright and privilege. After a solemn protest against speculation about unsearchable mysteries above, or miracles inscrutable below, he Says :—“ The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth *■ K, �6 Clerical Intemperance. • -and in thine heart, even the word of faith that we ■preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Master Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Was that short creed savingly sufficient, then, for Christian discipleship and fraternity ? Then I maintain that it is sufficient now. Whoso, in my hearing, makes that confession, and convinces me that he takes Jesus for the living Lord and Master of his life, be he white, black, or brown, baptized or unbap­ tized, I will give him the embrace of Christian love ; and if he has gifts and graces fitting him to teach in the name and in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, I would, if the laws of the Chief Priests and Pharisees permitted me—however he might dissent from my opinions in a hundred questions of history and speculation—give him leave to teach from my pulpit. Such confidence do I feel in the truth of that solemn word of Paul. Hence I cannot, for my life, see what right Popes, or Convocations, or Parliaments have ever had to lengthen, by one syllable, that early catholic creed which the great apostle of the Gentiles delivered to the Roman world. Every article which has since been added to the Christian creed, has been, so far as required to be believed under pain of -eternal damnation for denial or doubt of it, as much a pious fraud as the recent addition under the like anathema of the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility ; and I have no doubt that, if the history of such addi­ tions were exactly known, it would be evident that each was inserted for practical worldly ends, all of ■one value, in thrusting somebody up, and turning somebody out. But I am far from affirming the falsehood of such additions as mere propositions in theology. It may be a proposition quite true enough and clear enough for Romish theology to say that the Pope is infallible; but it seems hard for me to be damned for doubting it. �Clerical Intemperance. 7 I may be in the wrong in my estimate of the clearness and authority of S. Paul's short creed, in Romans x. But they have no doctor in their Con­ vocation or Conference, in their Synod or Assembly, nor even in their conclave of Cardinals, who would like to undertake, face to face, to prove me in the wrong, with that bright Pauline page open before me, along with our twentieth Article and the record of my Ordination vows, wherein I bound myself before God and man “ to teach nothing as required of neces­ sity for eternal salvation, but that which I shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture.” It may also be that I am not in the wrong. If I am in the right, what can there be, except reasons too mean to be confessed, which can prevent the Jews and Christians of this land, at least the non-Popish Christians—I suppose we must, yet long, despair of the Pagan pride of priesthood—from tearing down those blind partition walls which have hitherto been the ignominy of our Bibledom and the bulwarks of inidelity ? I am, Rev. Sir, Your obedient servant, THOS. P. KIRKMAN. Croft Rectory, Warrington, July 10,-1871. C. W. REYNE1L, TRINTER, 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Clerical intemperance Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kirkman, T. P. (Thomas Penington) [1806-1895] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Ramsgate Collation: 7 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Inscribed (unknown hand) on first page "Of course Mr (?) K. is practically right but whether the letter will do much good or any, is doubtful". A letter to the Rev. Canon Bardsley. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Haymarket, 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 1871 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT96 Subject The topic of the resource Christianity Clergy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Clerical intemperance), 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/80f6825bcd35b3479aac274f185505e5.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=Ll4D8kSUqW29-6ScHBxPePPojE6MiZoOoKbAgtE5wg9akayHTDbKd8vR597svi%7EUiKu-sIpu9PrhmGyaSMG5SWEEZAT0OudhT83FcT09qlNcY5TQ1dYc35IWVh9Y9lvyOc%7Et2e66GU0QA735Qb6nqPqtPTaMFZeQwVBESaemNAAkvQ9t65KzhkwAob4eH0kw4Go373ShefkrZg9KG5uCWLNXQg5EK9AZYLkqqyhHeQf6fTqQRTcE7T1zgGdv3QqpwuEPdASFZuW3QkQGmogMczanCNwonazJENxc-T3HUqJAi4lbXHYX8PWj%7EByAzGecrpGHBuW6MfDNgVbC36hH6g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4237e6faf7b322c7fc29b8c60ab2e897 PDF Text Text ON CLERICAL DISHONESTY: »«9 A REFUTATION OF CHARGES "?/ AGAINST REV. CHARLES VOYSEY. BY THOMAS P. KIRKMAN, M.A., F.R.S., RECTOR OF CROFT, NEAR WARRINGTON. MANCHESTER: JOHN HEYWOOD, DEANSGATE. 1871. Price, Fourpence. �** Id �PREFACE. I trust that the learned reader into whose hand these pages may fall will defend me from the charge of unbecoming condescension in going out of my way to correct a small editor. That gentleman happened to be exactly in my way when I was about something of far more importance than a criticism of his utterances. He was a convenient peg for the fixture of my theme, and I had evidently the right to use him. My theme is no part of the controversy between rational and irrational theology: whether the BroadChurchmen are right or wrong in their views of the manner and the measure in which God has revealed, and is revealing, his truth to man, is here not at all the question. The reader is welcome to assume and to say that the Divines of the rational school are ignorant and illogical, inconsistent and unbelieving, unphilosophical and heterodox, or anything equally disgraceful. The only thing that I shall call him to account for affirming is—that we are dishonest. If you choose to say that, I shall insist on your proving what you say. A deep thinker once re­ marked, “What a pity that lying should be a'sin, because it is so easy!” This charge of dishonesty against the thinking clergy of the Church of Eng­ land, . and of other communions in which Tradition �4 Preface. is trembling before Truth, is both easy and popular. Nothing tells better or pays better in your Times or your Telegraph. The charge has surely now been long enough made, without a syllable of evidence. The scribes who make it will confess, that I have taken some trouble to do what they find it so glib and easy to leave everywhere undone—namely, to state their case in the fairest and fullest manner, by examining those solemn and only engagements by which we clergy of the Established Church are bound in our Ordination, and which these anonymous writers so unreasonably and cruelly accuse us of violating. POSTSCRIPT. The manuscript of this paper has been a month in the hands and at the disposal of others. The only reason why it has not appeared sooner is, that they have not been able to see, as I see, the importance of the Unitarian Herald; so that its publication may be 'taken as a victory of editorial dignity. T. P. K. �ON CLERICAL DISHONESTY. The Editor of the Unitarian Herald, in the number for July 7, 1871, comes out in a leading article, in his largest type, overflowing with priestly unction, and flatuous with pharisaic pride, that easiest and happiest frame of true religion, which thinketh itself righteous, and despiseth others. The article is headed, “The Rev. Charles Voysey.” The pious* editor laments, as he has a perfect right to do,' that Unitarians have eagerly opened their pulpits to Mr Voysey. His regret has deepened since he read Mr Voysey’s full statement of his religious history, and he observes, "'We feel bound to repeat our conviction that Mr Voysey’s statement only makes his case worse than had been generally supposed, and that his course has been such as ought to be. greeted, by all who feel the paramount claim of clerical honesty, not with honour, but with open reprobation.” He shows, by Mr Voysey’s own state­ ment, that that gentleman “ had given up orthodoxy before he took orders at all.” He rejects his justifi­ cation of his decision to enter the Church by the prevailing and notorious laxity in interpreting the import of subscription to her articles: “Mr Voysey treats the whole question as if it was merely one of a fresh college subscription, entirely ignoring the solemn professions of ordination. At his ordering as deacon, at his ordination as priest, and, ten years later, on his having to read himself into his living, �6 On Clerical Dishonesty. he had to face the most solemn professions and vows, perfectly different from the mere formal subscriptions of his University course.” He goes on to acquit Mr Voysey of being influenced by pecuniary motives ; but he is convinced that he was unconsciously swayed to do an immoral act by a sense of the dignity of being a clergyman of the National Church, and he treats him as one of those who 11 suffer them­ selves to be blinded by this feeling, so that they never dare to look the morality of their position fairly and honestly in the face.” I was not prepared for a confession like this on the part of either of the editors of this little Herald, who are, both of them, in the front rank of Unitarian clergymen. That wealthy body, of whom they are leading ornaments, must have ways, that I should never have suspected, of making even such men feel the indignity of their apparently high position, when they can attribute to the prospect, by which Mr Voysey along with so many others of us was led astray from the path of morality, such a blinding dignity!—the dignity of rustic seclusion and oblivion in a world mad with money-worship, and rapidly grow­ ing richer, round about all these lucky Voyseys, with their certainty for life of £100, or sometimes £160, a year, and the additional dignity of a large family! Let that peep at Unitarian conceptions of dignity pass. We have before us a definite charge of dis­ honesty and immorality against Mr Voysey in present­ ing himself from a mean motive as a candidate for orders in a shaky state of orthodoxy, and in “ entirely ignoring the solemn professions of ordination.” The charge, I would say, is definite in general, if that is a phrase permissible: there is no mistake about what the pious editor means; but like all the most poisonous and malignant slanders, it is thoroughly indefinite as to particulars. Not an atom of proof �On Clerical Dishonesty. > 7 is brought forward in support of these most reckless accusations ! “ Proof V’ quoth the editor, “ who ever demanded proof of my utterances in my large-type article ? ” Proof, indeed ! if I think it my duty to disseminate a little calumny about clergymen’s motives, how is it possible to bring proof1? How am I to get hold of a man’s motives, and exhibit them to the readers of my paper ? They must, of course, take all that on the evidence of my sancti­ monious self.” The pious editor is right : we cannot demand that he shall produce this mean motive, “the lower consideration,” lower than greed of money, “ which mingles with their higher motives.” Let that pass also for the present. We proceed to the other immorality of “entirely ignoring the solemn professions of ordination.” Here we have a charge of which some proof can be demanded and produced. Fortunately, the pro­ fessions of Mr Voysey’s ordination are on record. We shall go through them in order, and consider first their solemnity, and secondly, the honesty or dis­ honesty with which they were faced, and with which they have been ignored or respected by Mr Voysey. (a) The first question, after the taking ‘ the Oath of the Queen’s Sovereignty,’ which was put to him at his first ordination, was this :—“ Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his people ?” His answer was, “ I trust so.” The ques­ tion was a solemn one. What proof can our editor bring forward that the respondent had not seriously and prayerfully weighed its solemnity, or that he did not really ‘ trust so1?’ “ Oh,” says the editor, “he was not orthodox, that is, his intellectual conceptions of religious truth were no longer those which had been instilled into his boyish mind : he no longer believed either in a God-Devil or a Devil-God, such as are set �8 On Clerical Dishonesty. forth in much of what is called orthodox theology.” But if he sincerely thought that those changes which his views of God’s will and character had undergone were the inward motions of the Holy Ghost, which rendered him fitter than before to pro­ mote God’s glory and to edify his people, even if that sincere thought was a sincere mistake, there could hardly be dishonesty and immorality in his answering : I trust so.’ The question had no bear­ ing at all upon his intellectual conceptions of fact or dogma, nor did he profess in his reply anything more than a trust which, as the editor will not deny, may be honestly felt even by a man not quite orthodox. (&) The next question was as follows: “ Do you think that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the due order of this Realm, to the Ministry of the Church ? ” The answer was, “ I think so.” What proof has our pious editor that he did not really think so ? “ Oh,” quoth the editor, “ a man truly called according to the due order of the realm to the ministry of the Church, means a man whose theological opinions are those of the Bishops, and Mr Voysey knew this; wherefore the truthful answer from his lips would have been simply —I do not think so.” That Mr Voysey knew this is a knotty point to prove. Let us suppose that Mr Voysey, in pondering this, was aware of the notori­ ous fact that bishops contradict each other in their opinions- about the first thing which the Church does for a child in baptism, and about the doctrine taught to a child at the beginning of the Catechism, and about what is generally necessary to salvation, a con­ flict of orthodoxy at the very threshold of Church­ manship, whose flat contradictions have had since to be appeased by the highest tribunal of Church law, by making both contrary sides equally orthodox ! And suppose, farther, that Mr Voysey had asked himself—how many Episcopal opinions does due �On Clerical Dishonesty. 9 . order require me to hold ?—and how’ am I to find out what the opinions of bishops really and un- , feignedly are 1 And suppose, again, that in his perplexity he had lighted on this most luminous passage in the Ordination of Priests, “ are you deter­ mined to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be per­ suaded may be concluded and proved by the Scrip­ ture 1 ” Suppose all this, and you may depend upon it he had well studied the matter thus—then, if he felt that he was honestly purposing to qualify himself in the spirit of that future vow for his second ordina­ tion, he might sincerely say that he thought himself called in due order to the ministry of a deacon. Nothing that can be said or hinted by ill-natured editors can throw more light on the obligation to teach the opinions of this doctor or of that, contracted by us in our first ordination, than what is shed by that glorious engagement which we take in our second. There are few things definite in what is called orthodoxy either Trinitarian or Unitarian; but the obligation of a clergyman of my Church as to what he is bound not to teach, is defined with all the rigour of science. All that is indefinite and inconsistent with itself will pale away from our for­ mularies like perished ink; all that is rigorous and scientific will year by year become blacker, more welldefined, and more indelible. The paling process has long been accomplished in the Church’s third article’, of which none but theological experts can now see the once stupendous import; and in the longer seven­ teenth article, which to our recent Protestant fathers was the battle-ground of burning strife, the process is well-nigh completed. We see nothing there but a few bleaching bones of controversies long dead and all but buried out of sight; and even reverend Unitarian editors, aching and angry with their defect of dignity, have learned to be ashamed of taunting us with our • degrading bondage to Calvinistic atrocities �io On Clerical Dishonesty. (c) The third question put to Mr Voysey at his first ordination was—“Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ?” To this he answered by the book, “I do believe them.” The honesty of the reply was exactly equal to that of the question. Our editor is awfully im­ pressed with the solemnity of this business. He be­ longs to a denomination of Christians which has always been the foremost and boldest in denying the truthfulness, scientific, historical, and moral, of hundreds of pages in these canonical books : he dares not say before the most uneducated man, or even woman of his own communion, that he unfeignedly believes them all. Yet he is captivated with the dignity and solemnity of the scene, where the bishop in his spotless robes, armed with the plenitude of parliamentary power, extorts from the quivering consciences of the anxious youths before him a quib' bling answer to a quibbling demand. The pious and sympathetic editor imagines himself adorning the province of that high functionary, and hears in fancy the grand sonorous tones with which he could roll out syllable by syllable that interrogation—‘ do you unfeignedly believe them all V The editor knows well that God, by His own reve­ lations of truth to man in this and the last century, has made it impossible for any student to prepare himself for orders in any university, Catholic or Pro­ testant in the world, so as to be able to say without painful evasion, and unworthy violence to verbal truth, that he unfeignedly believes even the first page of the canonical scriptures. The bishop, who is forced by an Act of Parliament of darker days to put this question, does not even pretend to believe that God made a water-tight firmament on the second day, dividing the waters above it from those below. He knows that that old firmamentum or solidamentum, which to Job was hard and “ strong, and as a molten �On Clerical Dishonesty. 11 looking-glass” of polished metal (Job xxxvii. 18), and which is described by Josephus in his first page of the “ Antiquities,” as a crystal which God fastened and hammered like carpenter work (such is the plain meaning of his Greek word), around his creation to separate heaven from the whole world, that this old fixed firmament is nowhere now, having been shivered to atoms by shots of thought through the first tele­ scopes. Three hundred years ago it was perfectly true to every bishop, priest, and deacon in England, except to three or four heretical mathematicians, whom they heartily cursed for their infidelity, that God made all that stupendous sapphire vault in one day; and the vault was there in its solid majesty and marvellous beauty, the transparent floor through which Moses and the elders saw God’s feet from the summit of Sinai, there to be seen with the stars of God stuck in it. And it is no less certain at this day to every clergyman and educated layman, that there is not, and never was, any such thing, and that Jeho­ vah did not make a firmament, nor any definite division between earth and heaven, on the second day. If the reader is curious to see exposed the miserable and bungling quibbles to which theologians have been driven by their despair or their dishonesty, in de­ fending the letter of the first page of the Bible, I refer him to my little tract—■“ Where is the firmament which God created on the second day 1 ” Who doubts that the chancellors and bishops who put together our ordinals and articles would have handled me more roughly for writing that tract than our bishops have handled Mr Voysey ? And all England would have applauded their treatment of such a blasphem­ ous heretic, for his denial of the clear unquestionable testimony of the first chapter of the Word of God, xbout so plain a thing as the firmament. If there were only a score of propositions in the canonical scriptures like this one about the firmament, �1'2 Un Ulerical Dishonesty. which bishops no more than other educated men un­ feignedly believe, it would be worth my while here to enumerate them; and laying them before the Churchmen- of England, I would say : Are you con­ tent that your Act of Parliament should continue for centuries to force your learned and godly bishops, in the most important of all their episcopal functions, to ask this question of those young candidates : ‘ Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ? ’ Would it not be at least more decorous in The presence of hostile critics of your church, to allow them to bracket the twenty passages which neither you nor they pretend to believe—and to demand from the youths an unfeigned faith in all the rest ? Would there be anything incon­ sistent with common honesty, to say nothing of solemnity, in such a change of your law ? Why should it be required of your young ministers to believe even a score of propositions which you and your bishops well know by the teaching of God Him­ self to be untrue, however honestly they may have been believed by good men of old 1 You may reply, that the bishop is not compelled by law when he puts that question, to say that he unfeignedly believes every proposition in the Scripture himself; and you may remark, that you see no reason why the young­ sters should make a wry face at swallowing what the bishop, once in their position, managed to get down. And with that wise observation, and a little chuckle at your own wisdom, good people of England, you are very likely to rest content! But I cannot help wish­ ing that you had a little more compassion on young and tender consciences, and a little more fear of tampering with the love of truth pure and undefiled. I say, if there were just twenty such passages, I would copy them out for once in order; but there are in fact hundreds of them, in which to every educated Christian mind an unfeigned belief is simply impos* �On Clerical Dishonesty. 13 sible. Biblical criticism, like astronomy and geology, is a science of which our Protestant fathers of the Reformation knew next to nothing; they accepted the Pope’s Bible, as they accepted his creeds, without sus­ picion that either his priests or their predecessors, the Jewish priests, had ever tampered with the sacred documents. It may be that our editor, if pressed for proof of his charge against Mr Voysey of dishonesty in taking Holy Orders, would be compelled to rest mainly on this assertion, without expressed reserve, of belief of all the Scriptures. And he has a right to press it; but certainly no more right against Mr. Voysey than against every living clergyman of our church who is fit to be called an educated man. “ Very true,” quoth our editor, “it is true against you all; you all were dishonest in your answer to that question, and the only honourable course open to you was to enter the ministry among us Unitarians : we are not so tight in such matters; and you would then all have been honestly established, as we are, to be prophets of the Lord.” To this I reply by quoting from the same leading article—After the same hard fashion is the travestie of Biblical criticism by which he is deliberately trying—under the careful cover of merely attacking verbal inspiration and the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead—to undermine the reverence of men for the Bible, and their discipleship to Christ.” It is evident that the man who wrote this (I know not who he is) has often something to say about the Bible, the force and value of which to the heads and hearts of his hearers require to be supplemented by a reverence for the Bible, as distinct from their reve­ rence for truth and righteousness. They sound like the words of one whose business it is to make in­ fluence and profit out of such mere book-reverence; and I hold the mission and the spirit of such a teacher, at least to thinking men, to be those of an arrant priest. The teacher- or preacher- craft that de- �14 On Clerical Dishonesty. mands as the condition of its useful action in grown men a reverence distinct from that due to truth and righteousness is simply priestcraft, more or less dignified and respectable. If this editor means to say that Mr Voysey is deliberately trying to under­ mine men’s reverence for truth and righteousness, or their discipleship to Christ as the Great Master therein, I pronounce the charge to be a deliberate and a most priestly calumny, and I defy him to prove one word of it. And my impression is, that by betaking ourselves to such a fountain of honour as this editor for our prophetic qualifications, we should jump out of the frying-pan into the fire, and find his little finger thicker than the church’s loins. Your true priest is none the less an arrant priest because he happens to be a nonconformist, whether with or without dignity. We proceed with our search for Mr Voysey’s immorality in the solemn professions and vows of ordination. (a!) The next question put to him was this: “ Will you diligently read the same unto the people assembled in the Church where you shall be appointed to serve ? ” He answered, “ I will.” Can the pious editor prove that he did not honourably keep that promise 1 I have no doubt that he- kept it at the cost of grievous pain to himself, such as many of us feel and bear without complaining; the pain of continual insult, in being deemed incapable of select­ ing for ourselves a passage of Scripture to read at any one service all the year round to our people—and the pain of being compelled to read as God’s word what we know well God never said. For example, I was compelled last Sunday to read the impudent charge of malice and murder which that baleful arch­ pope Samuel brought (1 Sam. xv.) against God. “ Samuel said unto Saul, thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, (centuries ago). . . . Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them �On Clerical Dishonesty 15 not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” I am very sure that holy Samuel said all that, and equally sure that, when he said it, his holiness was fibbing stupend­ ously. I was also compelled to read in that chapter, “ The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man that he should repent.” “ Then came the word of the Lord to Samuel saying, it repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.” “ And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” Can any of the bishops unfeignedly believe all this, even on the word of two Samuels, soapless and saponaceous ? Next comes the statement by the bishop of a deacon’s duties, followed by the question, “Will you do this gladly and willingly?” Mr Voysey answered, “I will do so, by the help of God.” Is our wise Editor in possession of any evidence that Mr Voysey ever for one day neglected to fulfil these duties ? Let it be observed that in the bishop’s complete statement of them, not a word is said about its being a deacon’s duty to be of the same opinion with bishops, not even if they be editors ; nor is he required to enquire or to know anything in general or in particular about their opinions. (0) The next question is, “ Will you apply all your diligence to frame and fashion your own lives, and the lives of your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples of the flock of Christ ? ” Mr Voysey answered, “ I will so do, the Lord being my helper.” Does the penetrating Editor find anything dishonest or immoral in this reply of the wicked Voysey ? Or does he know, or can he coin, any scandal about that gentleman’s family which can keep in countenance his own abominable and public slander of him ? (/) Once more: the bishop demands, “ Will you �16 On Clerical Dishonesty. . reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Min­ isters of the Church, and them to whom the charge and government over you is committed, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions 1 ” Mr *• Voysey answered, “ I will endeavour myself, the Lord being my helper.” No more questions or professions; the ordination of the deacon followed immediately. If the Unitarian Editor cannot find a justification of his accusations against Mr Voysey in the matter of this final profession, it is clear that he will find it nowhere in this solemn service of the first ordination. Before we press the argument farther, it seems best to run rapidly over the vows and professions of the second ordination, as we shall then have the whole matter before us, and give this groaning Editor a wider chance of shelter. In this, after some due formalities and a collect, the epistle, Ephesians iv. 7. . . is read, wherein are enumerated the gifts to men of him who led captivity captive, in the shape of church ministers, which are described as Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers. No priests ! let that be well weighed. No priests 1 yet surely, if the Church of England had intended to assert priesthood, in the old Pagan and Jewish sense of sacrificers, mediators, conjurers, necro­ mancers, and pardoners, she would have chosen a passage of Scripture for the ordination service of priests, in which at least the old word priest occurs. Then follows either the gospel Matt. ix. 36, or that John x. i., in neither of which is mention made of any functionary but the shepherd. Next comes the bishop’s address, most beautiful and impressive, on the duties of the office about to be assumed ; but neither priest nor priesthood, nor anything priestly, no, not a single syllable, defiles the Christian purity of the long allocution. “We exhort you, that ye have in remem­ brance into how high a dignity, and to how weighty an office and charge ye are called; that is to say, to �CJn Clerical Dis Honesty. 17 be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord.” That is the whole definition of the office. ' The. address being at an end, the first interrogation of the ordinal is uttered thus,—and mark I pray you the redoubled solemnity and awe which enchain the eyes > • of our pious and admiring Editor—(g) “ Do you think in your heart that you be truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this United Church of England and Ireland, to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood ? ” Ah ! poisoning word, you may say, forced after all into the teeth of that vanquished Protestant shepherd ! Ah ! mark of the Beast, for centuries more stamped on a web so beautiful! Hush, Hush ! ’Tis but a harmless word; it comes without evil meaning; it is nowhere defined in all the Church's formularies; you know priest is merely presbyter ! Woe ! Woe ! You may quibble on priest and presbyter; but that fatal priesthood will be claimed as the print of the cloven foot on a page otherwise so glorious ! The reply of Mr Voysey was—“I think it!” Will our Editor say that he did not think it 1 Will he point out a syllable of the eloquent address he had just heard, to which he did not assent, with all his heart and soul ? There is no stipulation in it that the candidates were to come to bishops for their learning or opinions: they were bid to seek both will and ability from God alone in the study of the scriptures ; not a syllable uttered about creeds or articles, either parliamentary or editorial! Of course Mr Voysey, cordially hating the word priest­ hood, had to content himself with the non-natural translation of it into eldership, or presbyterate, and he was thankful to have no definition more offensive proposed to him; nor was he ever called upon to undertake the office in the old Judaeo-Pagan meaning. (A) Then follows the glorious propounding of �18 On Clerical Dishonesty. that profession, and vow which is the Magna-Charta of our protestant Broad-churchmanship, the passport of immunity from all tax and all homage to priest­ craft, preacher-craft, professor-craft, and editor-craft of every hue, dignified or undignified. “ Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Doctrine required of necessity for eternal salva­ tion, through faith in Jesus Christ 1 And are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture ?” The answer of this wicked Voysey was, “ I am so per­ suaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.” The dishonest wretch ! Does he not well deserve to have suffered the loss of his bread and the spoiling of his goods, by his wilful error and obsti­ nacy in honouring the sacredness of that vow so much more than what in his conscience he believed to be traditions of the elders, and inventions of men, in creeds and articles, in acts of councils and parliaments, and in systems of theology? (i) The Bishop next proceeded thus:—“ Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to min­ ister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God, so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same ? The candidate answered, “ I will do so, by the help of the Lord.” We proceed rapidly with what remains. (/) The Bishop.—11 Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word ; and to use both publick and private monitions �On Clerical Dishonesty. 19 and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given ?” Answer.—“ I will, the Lord being my helper.” Observe in (z) and (/) the important restrictions, “ according to the commandments of God,” and “ con­ trary to God’s word.” (&) The Bishop.—“ Will you be diligent in Prayers, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh 1” Answer. —“I will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being my helper.” (Z) The Bishop.—“Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves and your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christi” Ansiver.—“I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper.” (m) The Bishop.—11 Will you maintain and set forward, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and love, among all Christian people, and especially among them that are, or shall be, committed to your charge!” Answer.—-“I will do so, the Lord being my helper.” In all the above Mr Voysey pledged himself neither to believe nor to teach any truth, but what he should find by study of the scriptures. (n) Finally the Bishop demands.—“Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Min­ isters, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments 1 ” Answer.—“ I will so do, the Lord being my helper.” This differs from (/) at the close of the former ordination, in being a vow of submission to the �20 On Clerical Dishonesty. godly judgments as well as godly admonitions of superiors. The vows (/) and (%) are the only ones from which the Editor can attempt to justify his charge of dishonesty against Mr Voysey. It is certain that the latter did not submit to the admonition of his Archbishop, when his Grace advised him not to publish his sermons. The question presents itself here, is there any point, or is there no point, at which a clergyman may without clerical dishonesty disregard the admonition of his bishop ? I think there is one, and only one point, the point of con­ science, at which this dishonour can be evaded; and at that point only when the clergyman openly appeals from the admonition to the judgment of his superiors. If the clergyman, having, under the pres­ sure of sovereign conscience, felt it his duty to disregard an admonition, publicly and manfully appeals from bishops admonishing to bishops in judgment according to the law of the land, with a determination to fulfil his ordination vow by submitting to that judgment, he may be unwise and foolish in his procedure, but I contend that he is neither dishonest nor immoral; and the man who anonymously charges him with dishonesty and immorality, for so working out the reconciliation of his conscience and ordination vow, is a slanderer. Nothing can be clearer than this, that in all our ordination vows, we reserve our right of appeal to conscience, holy scripture, and the law of England. The popular notion is that we are under a kind of military bondage to a certain shadowy figment made up of dead men, and called the Church, whose word of command we obey without appeal, or any consi­ deration of reason or consequences. The truth is, that we contract no allegiance to dead men at all, nor to any church but the living church of this Realm, of which bishops and dignitaries are a very insignifi­ cant fraction, as to numbers and final authority. �On Clerical Dishonesty. 21 The vulgar, who have never examined for them­ selves to what we are bound by our ordination vows, will applaud the calumny of the Unitarian editor. That he knows well; and I affirm that his article is all the more malignant for the certainty of its success among the ignorant crowd. The career of Mr Voysey has been truth, manliness, and honour, from beginning to end. The effect intended to be produced by this lead­ ing article is that, besides the guilt of subscribing the thirty-nine articles, and using the' liturgy of the Church, which Unitarians can hardly help ascribing to those of us who are not under the bondage of the old traditionary theology, there was a special dis­ honesty in Mr Voysey’s presenting himself for ordin­ ation, when he was convinced that much of what his boyhood had been taught was erroneous, a dishonesty in what he did and said in that ordination service. We have confessed the painful difficulty to which every educated candidate for orders is compelled by a law, once reasonable, but now alike cruel to the bishops and their clergy, to submit concerning un­ feigned belief of all the Scriptures. Passing that, Mr Voysey said nothing that in his conscience he did not believe; he bound himself there in the profes­ sions and vows of that special service to no theory or dogma; he engaged himself to acceptance of no statement of divine truth beyond what he should himself conclude from the study of the bible; he placed himself under no obligation that he intended to evade; nor did he make a single promise which he did not purpose and persevere, like an honourable man, to fulfil. He believed that he could better serve both God and man by contending for what he found to be the truth, inside the church, than out of it; he hoped that he might nobly be, as others had been, the instrument under God of extending Chris­ tian charity and free enquiry in theology ; he never �22 On Clerical Dishonesty. gave a pledge that he would not try to extend them; and he made his effort, not wisely perhaps for him­ self and his family, but certainly not after the fashion of this small editorial attempt to calumniate him, meanly, anonymously, sophistically. He printed with his name what he preached, like a brave man; he gave reasons for his opinions which honestly satisfied his judgment and his conscience ; he fully allowed to others the liberty of either answering or prosecuting him; he fought his battle before his judges with arguments which have yet to be con­ futed, and he has loyally submitted to their judgment. Let me now say a word about the dishonesty of Broad-churchmen in general. • Few people choose to talk about theology; of that few the majority agree that we are dishonest men, if we remain in our bene­ fices. Just so among Roman Catholics, few choose to think or speak on religious questions ; but nearly all agree that Protestants are dishonest men, in pre­ tending to hold the Catholic creeds, while they rebel utterly against the Catholic church. A devout Romanist is shocked and amazed at our hypocrisy and dishonesty in saying every Sunday, “ I believe One Catholic and Apostolic Church.” To his con­ science this appears an immoral and insolent abuse of the plainest terms of human speech. We laugh at his horror justly : we know that we employ the words in their literal and grammatical meaning. We mean what we say, and say what we mean. The creed propounds no definition of the word church, nor of the terms Catholic or Apostolic ; we have a right to restrict the term church to a denotation which ex­ cludes all the compelling authority of their Popes, their Fathers, and their Councils. They call this trifling and quibbling with sacred truth : we justly call it an accurate and scientific use of words. The vulgar can never see, what is the foundation of all �On Clerical Dishonesty. 23 logical precision of language, the difference between what we call the denotation and the connotation of a term. In books of rigorous science all mere connotations of words are thrown away—each term is used with a fixed denotation, determined by definition, and all that is required for truth and honesty in a writer or a speaker, is that he uses the same term always with the denotation to which his clear definition binds him. The Broad-Churchman insists, as he has a right to do, upon rigorous denotations of terms in the bond of creeds and formularies which he has subscribed : all vague connotations he throws away in the true spirit of science, for his theology is the theory of God’s revelations of Himself to man, that is, theological science, not monkish quibbles and legendary moon­ shine. In this spirit Mr Voysey has a right to read the Church’s bond; and the counsel for the prosecu­ tion were compelled to confess, facing the logic of the case, that he had nowhere either affirmed what the church’s bond denies, nor denied what it affirms. The court of Privy Council is not a tribunal of theological science : to that high court Mr Voysey has submitted in all that is practical, as he was bound to do; but mentally, and practically too, in the field of action from which their judgment does not exclude him, which is simply that of an unbeneficed presbyter of the Church of England, as legally eligible to a bishopric as the best of them, he appeals to the higher tribunal of theological truth, which, as sure as the tide is flowing, will finally reverse every decision of every Privy Council which is not rigor­ ously scientific. The majesty of English thought, serenely enthroned on the broad foreheads of our men of science, can patiently wait along with Mr Voysey, till Privy Councils can afford to sit and speak every day in their noblest robes of philosophic accuracy. They cannot often wear in court at present, anything �24 On Clerical Dishonesty. purer than the ermine of legal equity, which deter­ mines by a fine analysis, to which none but the most learned lawyers can attain, the resultant, for a given time t, of settled rights, of popular ignorance, and of human progress. For my part, in reading the church’s formularies in both the liturgy and articles, I find no difficulty in taking every sentence in a meaning literal and grammatical, yet perfectly rational, nor have I ever pledged myself to read them irrationally or nonsensi­ cally. I reject no definition which is precisely given in them, no fact plainly asserted in them, nor any inference explicitly drawn in them; yet I find it perfectly easy, by confining the terms un­ defined to a strict and simple denotation, to read every word, without a quibble of any kind, into sense and science. Something of this mode of honestly construing our formularies may be seen in the tracts by “ A Country Parson,” in Scott’s series, entitled, “ The Creeds and the Thirty-Nine Articles, their Sense and their Non-sense.” If any of those scribblers in papers, little and big, who are so fluent in their abuse of Broad-church dishonesty wish to catch the Broad-churchman in delicto, I advise them to study that book. The successful exposure of the dishonesty there perpetrated, will be of more value to the priests and the Pharisees than a score of tirades in barren generalities, and prate about principles neither granted, postulated, nor proved. Something should be added, in an examination of the ordination services, on the grand Finale of priest manufacturing. So" long as the people of England compel their bishops to employ that old popish formula in ordination, they have no right to complain of any deluge of ancient priestcraft and superstition that may cover the land. No embankment raised against it is of any value, while that floodgate is left open. In spite of the protestant character of �On Clerical Dishonesty. 25 our articles, and even of our ordination services up to this all dominant conclusion, our High-churchmen have mostly the best of the argument to a popular audience about the prayer-book, in affirming that priestly privilege and power in the Anglican com­ munion are precisely what they are in the Catholic, both Greek and Roman. From Broad-churchmen, who spurn with scorn unutterable the insinuation that they have ever accepted from a bishop the power either to for­ give or to retain the sin of any man against his Maker, it may fairly be demanded, how they read in a literal and grammatical sense without a quibble this most portentous formula : “ whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” I reply for myself, that I read it by taking as much liberty with the letter as the High-churchman takes. He reads it thus—and he has a perfect right to do so, till the people of England bar out his popish connotation by a strict definition—“whose sins against God's laws thou dost forgive, they are forgiven by God; whose sins against God’s laws thou dost retain, they are retained, i.e., unforgiven, by God.” It is simple and unambiguous. Now I read it thus: “Whose sins against the church’s laws, (in matters of ritual, creed, and ex­ ternal order involving no question of morals) thou dost forgive, they are forgiven by the church; whose sins against the church’s laws thou dost retain, they are retained by the church.” This is equally literal and grammatical with the other reading, and equally unambiguous. I have received from the bishop who ordained me this power both of forgiving and retain­ ing. For example, I can forgive any man whom I consider to be in a proper frame of mind his sins against church law in matters of fast or festival. Sup­ pose that he has eaten bacon on a Friday, or the last of his wife’s stock of mince-pies on Ash-Wednesday; �16 On Clerical Dishonesty. suppose that he has gone to the Methodist Chapel; suppose that he is not quite sound about the non­ human paternity of Jesus Christ, and has the pre­ sumption to say that St. Luke in his cautious phrases and his genealogy was evidently infirm in his orthodoxy on that point—then, if that man presents himself as a god-father, and is indistinct in his answer about the Creed, it is in my power, by virtue of my ordination, to forgive him such sins against mother-church; and if I know him to be a moral and religious man, I can thoroughly absolve him, and he will be as good a god-father as the Pope himself can make; I can also retain sins against the church’s laws. I can' turn an unworthy man away from the *“■ font-or from the communion table: if he has utterly neglected the religious training of his child, I can punish him by various means, such as delaying for three years the privilege of confirmation. I am as proud of my power of absolving and of retaining sin as any “ priest alive. But I am not such a lunatic as to fancy that I can forgive a man his sins against God’s moral and physical laws. If he is a drunkard who beggars himself and his family, or is injured in that state by his own cart-wheel, or shattered by delirium tremens, however orthodox and truly penitent he may be, neither my absolution, nor that of all the bishops and priests on earth, can diminish by one feather’s weight the amount of penalty and retribution which God will surely for that sin lay upon him in mind, body, and estate. Here let it not be pretended that in my reading of the ordination formula I am making a distinction unwarranted by the church, between sins against God’s moral laws, and sins against laws of her making. Is there any doubt, that when our prayer book was put together there were priests enough in our church, as there are in all Roman Catholic lands, inclined to impose on penitents far heavier penance for violation �On Cierica! Dishonesty. 27 of churcli-law in matters of fast or festival, of church­ going or schismatical proclivity, than for drunkenness, lies, and dishonesty ? If there is no such doubt, my distinction is both a valid and a weighty one. Few things in theology are so amusing as the attempts of high-church Divines who shrink from the impious claims of pardoning power made by the full# blown priest, to establish a claim of something less, yet awfully important, as the clerical contribution to God’s work in forgiveness of the penitent. Dr. Goulburn, prebendary of St. Paul’s, is here inimitable. . In his office of Holy Communion, 4th edition,'' 1865, he profoundly remarks : “ of course, it cannot be disputed that truth is truth, whoever speaks it; any true disciple of Christ, without being an ordained*' minister, may raise the drooping spirit of another by pointing him to the evangelical promises which assure pardon to the penitent and believing, and which Jhe faithfulness of God stands engaged to fulfil: but the minister alone can proclaim with authority the ' message of reconciliation. Others may tell it, niay point it out in scripture ; he alone can pronounce it— such is the significant word employed in our rubric.” “How charming is Divine-philosophy/” And how lucky our Church of England, in having dignitaries of Dr. Goulburn’s power, and bishops like Dr. Wilber­ force, discerning enough to choose the Goulburns for their examining chaplains! Croft Rectory, near Warrington. July 10,1871. 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 &amp; 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 clerical dishonesty: a refutation of charges against Rev. Charles Voysey Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kirkman, T. P. (Thomas Penington) Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Manchester Collation: 27 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. A comment on the leading article by the editor appearing in the 'Unitarian Herald', July 7,1871 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available John Heywood 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 G5526 Subject The topic of the resource Unitarianism Clergy 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 (On clerical dishonesty: a refutation of charges against Rev. Charles Voysey), 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 Charles Voysey Clergy Conway Tracts Unitarianism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4ff0e60aa3ed06141f0b1963d6ee71ea.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=NqtJL9JHA5GodfPx0vkf9lC1l0vNq3PD7GlRCf9LpbXJFhLd06l0EpQZncJUeZLWzHEnb3dQuKj8SUoD9XUQjEDL4M%7Et6l1Fbo9izXYPVW9Xby4Qs%7EmQLyWX4gROUReUETJhbA1TL6ClHCA08u5CUilOpTDvh1Do09VP-yElkAUU58g3JEKW3cCkm-9lvh991yiA%7EKpUGB-szqbNJ2PO1NKrCs8ToR2wtj3PPz0YbX0wGDz954ts69I3LvfrNysuF7tdeb6rPlnf4WeSxkj2gxeR1SbZ4gdV8AKv1Jcar91UomeL1fQFUxb9uaurexc79axc6AF0gtIZjc-FStQL8A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 0fdcce0891f3525bb3f522965cc95358 PDF Text Text cm RECOLLECTIONS OF DAWSON GEORGE AND HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER in 1846-7. BY ALEXANDER IRELAND. mgPRINTED, WITH ADDITIONS, FROM THE “ M. ��RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON AND HIS LECTURES IN MANCHESTER IN 1846-7. BY ALEXANDER IRELAND. AVING been requested by Mrs. Dawson, not long after her husband’s death in 1876, to contribute some recollections of him, in his earlier years, to a memoir then about to be undertaken by his intimate friend, Mr. Timmins, I willingly put together the following pages. For many years I had the privilege of knowing him in­ timately, and of being thrown into the closest relations with him; so that a warm friendship resulted,—a friendship which remained unbroken for thirty years, and was only severed by his untimely death. The memoir has not yet appeared, having been delayed by unforeseen circumstances ; but it is now, I am told, in a forward state for publication. I have lately had an opportunity of revising and considerably extending what I wrote in 1877, and of adding a few sentences which I would have hesitated to print while Mrs. Dawson was living. From this reticence I am absolved by her death, which took place about two years after that of her husband. She left, with those who knew her, rich remembrances of a tender and gentle, yet firm spirit; of warm sympathies, and H �4 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. the performance of active and never-ceasing charities. In her a nobility of nature was joined with high intellectual gifts, which made her conspicuous amongst women, and attracted towards her the admiration and regard of the best persons who came within the sphere of her influence. In the last week of 1845, while on a Christmas visit to rela­ tions in Birmingham, I went to hear George Dawson preach in a dissenting chapel, of which he was then the minister. I now remember little of the subject of his discourse, but I was struck by the simple earnestness of his manner, and the directness with which he went straight to the heart of the subject he had in hand. But what surprised me most was the quaint, vigorous, and singularly appropriate language in which he conveyed his thoughts to his hearers. It was Saxon, terse and sinewy; and there was a fluency and ease and perfect self-possession in his delivery which surpassed anything I had ever met with before. He had no notes or memoranda before him, and throughout his whole discourse there was not a word which was not in its right place. The attention of his audience was riveted from beginning to end, and what he said evidently produced a powerful effect on their minds. After the service, I was introduced to him, and invited to spend a few hours in his company, in the house of a common friend. Having heard that he had been delivering lectures on social, historical, and literary topics in Birmingham and some of the neigh­ bouring towns, I asked him if he would accept an invitation to lecture to the members of the Manchester Athenaeum, if I should be able to offer him one; and to this he assented. I was then one of the Directors of that Institution, and at the next meeting of the Board I proposed that he should be engaged to deliver a course of lectures. This was agreed to, and the selection of the subject, and the other necessary arrangements, were left in my hands. He then came to �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 5 Manchester to confer with me on the subject to be lectured upon. Many topics were discussed—literary, social, political, and historical—and at last it was decided that “ The Genius and Writings of Thomas Carlyle” would be the most fitting topic for the proposed course. The first lecture was delivered on Tuesday evening, 13th January, 1846, and was mainly of an introductory character. It was listened to throughout with rapt attention. His thorough appreciation of the spirit, and keen insight into the tendencies and bearings of Carlyle’s philosophy, his remark­ able power of summing up its cardinal features, and of applying it to the practical purposes of life, made him just such an interpreter as the apostle of “ The Gospel of Work ” himself might have desired. It abounded with homely illustrations and frequent appeals to common sense; and these were combined with a most effective elocution, and a singular raciness of language. Absence of affectation, and a directness and simplicity of manner pervaded the discourse. It was altogether one of the most interesting extemporaneous addresses I ever heard— not so much for its eloquence, though replete with that quality, of a glowing yet subdued character ; nor for its illustrations and imagery, which were numerous, varied, and striking ; but for its deep thought, wide and compre­ hensive views, and earnest sincerity, its elevated tone and disregard of petty conventionalities, its noble estimate of man’s nature and worth, and solemn regard for the great verities of life. His fearless outspokenness, even when his auditors could not wholly assent to his propositions (often startling enough), gave a freshness and charm to his address not often enjoyed in a lecture-room. And this was greatly increased by the vigorous seventeenth-century diction that flowed with such marvellous ease from his lips. It was not a mere lecture on Carlyle—a reading of selected passages with �6 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. comments thereon, but an embodiment of his spirit in a simpler form, and the application of his sentiments to the ele­ ments of our daily experience. It was a comprehensive sur­ vey of the spirit of the eighteenth century, and of that which dawned on the nineteenth; and comprised a vigorous exami­ nation of the faults and merits of the literature and morality of the period ; as well as an inquiry into the circumstances and the men that have effected a change in that spirit. He boldly swept away much of the meaningless talk about Carlyle’s style; and glanced at what he had done to make us acquainted with the greatest minds of Germany. In the course of his lecture, many prevailing fallacies, prejudices, and weaknesses were commented on and exposed with unsparing keenness—many popular idols dethroned. The key-note throughout was of the highest. His second lecture embraced an analysis of Sartor Resartns—that inimitable “mosaic” of meditations, tender recollections and confessions, passionate invectives, and romantic episodes—every page stamped with genius of the highest order, and from which has flowed all that its author afterwards wrote on life, duty, society, growth, work, culture, and the great and inscrutable problem of Being. The work must be regarded as an exposition of Carlyle’s philosophy, a grand prose-poem, a veiled autobiographical account of the changes of thought and opinion through which he had passed—changes through which every thoughtful man must pass on his way to settled convictions on the great questions of Life, Duty, and God. The third lecture was devoted to Heroes and Hero Worship, Chartism, and Past and Present. With regard to the first of these productions, he said its chief object was to show that all long-lived systems of religion and philosophy must possess some portion of truth; that shams never live long; and that truth-speaking and truth-acting are ever �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 1 accompanied by a certain kingly energy, as in the case of Mahomet and Cromwell; the latter of whom, after being gibbeted for two centuries, was now beginning to be appreciated. The great aim of Chartism -was, to bring prominently forward a subject which had been drowned amid the war-voices of party—“ The condition of England question.” It reproved the miserable policy of those Govern­ ments, which treat rebellion as the disease, instead of the symptom. Another feature of the book was its doctrine that, in all struggles for progress, the reformer should rather seek to create or diffuse the spirit, than busy himself with construct­ ing the precise form in which it should be embodied. In his remarks on Past and Present he adverted to the vivid artist-power with which Carlyle had thrown light and life into a musty old chronicle,—not by any added figments of fancy, but by a strict induction from the recorded facts; just as Cuvier, from the last bone or joint of a bone, would reconstruct the type of an antediluvian species. The fourth and last lecture was devoted to The French Revolution and Cromwell's Life and Letters. Speaking of the style of the former, he said that cavillers must surely in this case be silent; for never certainly was style better adopted to a subject than this. It was not unbefitting that the language in which a revolution was recorded should itself be almost revolutionary. It was of little use to read this marvellously-vivid book, if the historical facts were not pre­ viously known to the reader. He denounced as senti­ mental twaddle the perpetual harping upon the darker features of the struggle. Legitimists should remember that in the reign of our Henry VIII. there was more martyr-blood shed than during the whole French Revolution. The Revolution was an inevitable national and natural pro­ test against a corrupt and mechanical Church, and a sensual and insolent aristocracy, which for centuries had oppressed �8 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. the people. An infidel philosophy could never have stimu­ lated a nation to rebellion, had there been no oppression to rebel against. The Revolution was not to be considered a thing of the past. It was yet progressing. The present history of Europe was a part of its products. The reviving faith and earnestness of France, Germany, and England were the result of the Revolution. The book was not to be considered a philosophical history of that kind which details the events, and then tells us what to think of them; but a wonderful dramatic narrative, delineating, with matchless power of painting, particular scenes, and leaving the reader to deduce for himself the moral contained in the story. In his remarks upon Cromwell's Life and Letters, he praised the author for his modesty and reticence in keeping his own opinions comparatively in the background, and in allowing Cromwell to speak for himself. This was but showing a proper respect for Cromwell. He had been charged with pre­ senting only the virtues of the Protector;—the reason might be that the shadows in the picture had been made black enough already. Never had mankind been so duped as in allowing themselves to be taught to disparage Cromwell. The secret was that the corrupt courtiers of the succeeding age lived too close to the time of Cromwell to be comfort­ able. They felt dwarfed and chilled in the shadow of that great rock ; so they sought to bring it down—at least in public opinion—to their own stature. In a strain of rich humour and incisive sarcasm, he vindicated Cromwell from the oft-repeated charges of lying, hypocrisy, levity, and in­ difference to law ; and proved, by his treatment of Catholics, Episcopalians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Jews, that he was greatly in advance even of a later age in an enlightened respect for the rights of conscience. During these lectures the audiences increased in number from night to night, and many persons were unable to obtain �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 9 admittance. The delivery of this course was a noteworthy event in Manchester; not only did it stimulate earnest thought amongst us, but it also revealed to many searching spirits a series of writings, abounding in “ riches fineless,” hitherto known only to a small number of students. An impulse was given to free thought and to a spirit of free inquiry, and many young men and women were stimulated, by this and subsequent courses of his lectures, to higher aims, and encouraged, by their purifying and elevating tone, to aspire to a nobler daily life. The great success of the first course led to other engagements, not only in Manchester and Liverpool, but in other towns of Lancashire, and also in Yorkshire. Among the subjects treated by him were “ The Characteristics and Tendencies of the Present Age “The Influence of German Thought on English Literature; ” “ Historical Characters Re-considered ; ” “ The Poetry of Wordsworth ; ” “ Faustus, Faust, and Festus,” &c. There was one memorable appearance which Mr. Dawson made in Manchester to which I must refer before passing on to other matters. It was an oration on Shakspeare, de­ livered at the Athenaeum on the poet’s birthday, and in the afternoon. It was only thought of on the previous day, and notice could only be given to the public on the morning of the day upon which the address was to be delivered. Nevertheless, the hall was crowded to overflowing, and hundreds were unable to gain admission. The subject stimulated him to the exercise of his highest powers, and a more noble and worthy tribute to the genius of Shakspeare could hardly be imagined. It was certainly a remarkable proof of the lecturer’s powers, that he was able in our busy town, engrossed in commercial pursuits, to induce a thousand men to leave their ordinary callings at an hour in which they are generally absorbed in business, and listen with breathless attention to what he had to say about the genius �IO RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. of the greatest of poets, and the influence he has exercised on humanity. Towards the conclusion of the address, he said :—•“ We thank God for victories gained in warfare, but none seemed to thank God for genius, and for its victories gained over bigotry and superstition. Poets, painters, sculptors, and musicians were all teachers of the Kingdom of Heaven under different parables—each teaching in his own language righteousness and peace, love to God and man, the worship of the holy, the noble, the beautiful, and the true.” “ How gratifying to me,” to quote his concluding words, “to have been able, for a short time, to segregate a number of busy men from their ordinary pursuits, and induce them to think, during an hour of academic quietness, of one whose name would live, when even this great commercial town might be buried in the ruins and the decays of time, and whose genius had offered a true holocaust of peace-offerings and sinofferings and burnt-offerings upon the altars of Humanity, the incense from which might ascend for ever unto the Holiest of the Holy.” These and subsequent courses of lectures by Mr. Dawson were admirably reported by his intimate friend, the late Mr. John Harland, of the Manchester Guardian, who was one of the most accomplished stenographers of his day. The rapidity of Mr. Dawson’s utterance, and the novelty and unexpectedness of his turns of expression were sufficient to tax the powers of the swiftest reporter. Mr. Henry Sutton, of Nottingham, also a shorthand writer of the highest class, possessing rare skill and finish, became, a few years later, the head of the reporting staff of the Manchester Examiner, and was in the habit of frequently reporting Mr. Dawson. In recalling his experiences of that time, Mr. Sutton says :— “ I do not believe he had any notes before him when I heard him lecture ; everything seemed to come freely out of �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. ii a richly-stored mind, which, if it happened to forget for the moment what it had planned to say, was well able to extem­ porize equally-good material to fill any vacancy. This is how it seemed to me at the time, and was probably not incorrect. He was always more difficult to report than most speakers are; his matter was produced so freely and evenly, and had in it so little of verbiage or repetition, besides being so incalculable from its originality, that the reporter, straining hard to keep up with him, could neither afford, as with most speakers, to condense whilst going on, nor to omit in the hope of supplying what was missing. Thus, if part of a sentence was lost, the whole sentence was useless, and, in its absence, the thought-connection of the paragraph to which it belonged was broken, and the result was sheer disaster.” During Mr. Dawson’s frequent visits to Manchester and the neighbouring towns in the years that followed, I had many opportunities of becoming intimately acquainted with him, and of profiting by his society; and a very close friendship sprang up between us. Of his noble character and admirable qualities of heart and mind, I shall ever retain a grateful recollection, and I feel richer for having known him. I always found him one of the most genial and companionable of men. He had a tender, gentle, and most compassionate nature, and in him the elements of humour and pathos were delightfully blended. In his society the better part of my own nature was stimulated, my sympathies widened and enlarged, the inner as well as the outer world made brighter by contact with him. I have reason to know that this was the experience of other intimate friends besides myself. There was ever conspicuous in him an inherent natural courtesy towards, and thoughtful consideration for others, which attracted an amount of personal regard that does not always fall to the lot of men of intellectual power. In his friendships he was �12 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. steadfast as the rock, and to be relied upon under all circum­ stances and difficulties. With women and children he had the most winning ways, and for honest, simple, earnest, unpretending people—however wanting they might be in intellectual culture or refinement of manner—he entertained a sincere regard. He inspired immediate confidence and trust in those with whom he came into close contact. Here, they felt, was a straightforward, plain-speaking, sincere man, who meant truly what he said—sometimes a little rough and blunt, and peremptory withal—but at the core, kind, genuine, and generous. He never disputed or argued about creeds or dogmas of any kind, nor spoke disparagingly of those who thought differently from himself on religious subjects. He was naturally of a devout and reverent disposition, and the essential spirit of practical religion pervaded all he said or did. And yet this was the man beside whom Samuel Wil­ berforce, Bishop of Oxford (himself no ordinary man, and of whom one might have expected better things), refused to sit on the same platform, on the occasion of a celebrated Soiree held in the Manchester Athenaeum in 1846, for promoting the cause of intellectual culture, and at which celebrities of all shades in religion and politics were present;—because, to use the Bishop’s own words: “ I understand that Mr. Dawson is re-engaged to lecture at your institution, and I have met with sentiments in these lectures of his, which, as far as I understand them, seem to me to be at variance with Christianity; and therefore I cannot give even an accidental or apparent countenance to their further circulation.” There are few left who can recall the pleasant hours occasionally spent with Dawson, after his lectures, in the homes of some of his hospitable friends. Freed from the restraints of the platform, and surrounded by a few con­ genial spirits, he would revel in the luxury of perfect freedom, and, stretched on an inviting couch, enjoy to the full his �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 13 well-earned repose. During these hours, which were humorously spoken of as the sacred period for further elucidating the subject of the lecture—the “ after-math ” as it were—all manner of topics were discussed—often the political or social, or literary event of the day—amidst curling wreaths of soothing tobacco smoke, which somewhat veiled the features of the interlocutors, and gave a kind of courage to the younger ones. At such times, his wit and humour, free from the slightest taint of malignity or cynicism, had full play, and sparkled forth in endless sallies, evoking the best there was in others. He would sometimes give humorous descriptions of persons he had met in his lecturing tours, making vivid their peculiarities by his happy imitations. Often, too, he would descant on his favourite authors, and his cherished heroes and heroines in history and fiction, until the ominous sound of the clock gave warning that the symposium must break up, and respectable persons return home. George Dawson constantly advocated the exercise of free thought in its highest and noblest sense, as well as the assiduous cultivation of a spirit of free inquiry. “ Give me,” he used to say, using Milton’s own words, “the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties.” “ Let us forego this prelatical tradition of crowding free consciences and Christian liberties into the precepts and canons of men.” “To be still searching after what we know not, by what we know, still closing up truth to truth, as we find it (for all her body is homogeneous and proportional), this is the golden rule for making the best harmony, not the forced and outward union of cold, and neutral, and inwardly-divided minds.” He had a passionate love of fairness and fair-play. Everything mean, unworthy, self-seeking, and underhand was abhorrent to him. He detested cant in every form and shape; but what he exposed with the keenest satire, and denounced with the most wither­ �14 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. ing scorn, was that self-sufficient and arrogant intolerance which disparages and would deliberately inflict injury upon those who have the courage to think for themselves, and the independence to hold and avow honestly-formed opinions— however unpalatable these might be to the powerful and fashionable—however much in opposition to interests for the time predominant and in the world’s sunshine. I remember his once saying to me—“ Verily, in this country, known vice breaks fellowship less than suspected heresy, or difference of religious creed.” He looked upon any man—no matter what his creed or social position might be—who spoke of liberty of opinion as a favour conceded, and who treated that liberty with an air of condescending tolerance, as morally pestilent and detestable—whom self-respecting men should endeavour to get rid of by some legitimate but swift method of social extinction. During one of his visits to Manchester, I showed him a collection of passages I had made from the works of our greatest thinkers, bearing on the subjects of Free Inquiry and Free Thought, Liberty of Discussion, Intolerance, Religious Liberty, the Right of Private Judgment, the Unfettered Publication of Opinion, &c. Some of these he asked me to transcribe for him, wishing to introduce them on suit­ able occasions in his lectures. To readers of the present generation they would not perhaps appear so significant as they did to those who were young thirty or forty years ago—so remarkable has been the progress of opinion on these subjects within the last quarter of a century. They were from Lord Bacon’s Proficience and Advancement of Learning, John Locke’s Works, the Areopagitica, and other prose works (or rather stately prose-poems) of Milton, Jeremy Taylor’s Liberty ofProphesying, the writings of Bishop Butler, and Bishop Berkeley, and, among more modern writers, Samuel Bailey of Sheffield, and others. A few of these �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 15 extracts I have gathered together, and given at the end of this paper in the shape of an appendix. They were especial favourites with him, and represent the essence and outcome of his opinions on the subjects above named. Concerning the last-named writer, whose works are scarcely known to the present generation, I should like to say a few words. I had the pleasure of making known Bailey’s works to Mr. Dawson, who was previously unaware of their exis­ tence, and from the perusal of some of which he derived real pleasure and profit. No author of this century has written with greater force and clearness, or with more power­ ful reasoning, on the right and duty of free inquiry in every department of human thought, on the imperative necessity of candid, temperate, and free discussion, and on that much neglected part of morality—the conscientious formation and free publication of all opinions affecting human welfare. We have never had a more earnest and strenuous advocate of intellectual liberty and free discussion than Samuel Bailey. His style is truly admirable; its characteristics being lucidity, accuracy, and precision—not a word out of its place, not a word that could be spared—his meaning impossible to be misunderstood. All his works were carefully prepared, and long thought over, and subjected to frequent revisions, before publication. He was one of the most perspicuous of English thinkers, and no one can study his writings, especially his first Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions, and its successor, Essays on the Pursuit of Truth, on the Progress of Knowledge, and on the Fundamental Principle of all Evidence and Expectation, withQut having his intellectual horizon extended. To the thoughtful and earnest, who care for and can appreciate something higher than the ephemeral and vapid literature with which the press floods our modern circulating libraries, these two bracing volumes would be invaluable companions. �16 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. They act upon the mind like an intellectual and moral tonic. The most fitting monument to the memory of Bailey would be a carefully-edited edition of his works, most of which are scarce, and entirely out of print Colonel Perronet Thompson, an accomplished economist and philosophic thinker, and well known as the author of The Catechism of the Corn Laws, thus spoke of Bailey in an article in the Westminster Review:— “If a man could be offered the paternity of any com­ paratively modern books that he chose, he would not hazard much by deciding that, next after Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, he would request to be honoured with a relation­ ship to the Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions. ... It would have been a pleasant and an honourable memory to have written a book so totus teres atque rotundus, so finished in its parts, and so perfect in their union as the Essays on the Formation of Opinions. Like one of the great statues of antiquity, it might have been broken into fragments, and each separate limb would have pointed to the existence of some interesting whole, of which the value might be surmised from the beauty of the specimen.”* One of George. Dawson’s most striking and prominent characteristics was his robust common-sense; and to this may be added a shrewd observation of character. He also possessed a fine sense of humour, and the widest sympathies, moral and intellectual. His sarcastic power was of the most delicate and subtle kind; and when he had occasion to ex­ press scorn, ridicule, or contempt, no one could launch it forth with more effectiveness. In addition to these qualities he had, as I have already had occasion to remark, the rare * In Notes and Queries, 5th Series, Vol. IX., p. 182, will be found a bibliographical list of Samuel Bailey’s writings, contributed by me to that periodical in 1878. �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. <7 gift of being able to clothe his thoughts in the most terse and appropriate words, and to give utterance to them with an ease and mastery of the resources of our language that surprised his hearers. Sentence followed sentence, faultless in construction and symmetry. A lecture of an hour and a half’s duration might have been printed from his ipsissima verba, without a single alteration. While on the platform he rarely used notes or memoranda. With such endowments, it was not wonderful that he made the lecture-platform an edu­ cational agency. To his lectures and expositions (for he was a born expositor) numbers have been indebted.for their first real knowledge of some of our greatest countrymen, his­ torical as well as literary. The sympathetic, genial, yet finely discriminative manner in which he discoursed con­ cerning some of the great thinkers and men of action of the past, as well as of our own day, inspired many of his hearers with an earnest desire to become acquainted with their works ; and thus his lectures were the means of introducing no small number of thoughtful minds to the rich treasures of our literature and history. The admirers of George Dawson have never claimed for him the merit of originating new thoughts. But he had a wonderful faculty of seizing and appreciating the original thoughts, however abstruse or complex, of the highest order of minds; of perceiving at a glance their practical bearings; of making them attractive to, and understood by the thousands in all ranks and conditions of life, who so eagerly listened to him; and of adapting them to every range of comprehen­ sion. He agreed with Emerson in thinking that next to the originator of a good thought is the first apt quoter of it. If we are fired and guided by a good thought, the presenter of it—whoever the author may be does not matter—becomes to us a benefactor, claiming from us a gratitude almost equal to that we render to the originator of the thought itself. �i8 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. It may be of interest to those who have followed my remarks on Mr. Dawson as a lecturer, to know something of him in connection with his life and labours in Birming­ ham. For upwards of thirty years he was the most pro­ minent preacher in that town, and one of its most active and energetic citizens. As a preacher he was essentially eclectic. Well acquainted with the history of Christianity in its successive phases, he believed that even the greatest perversions of its purest form had some raison d'etre. He never accepted even the cardinal doctrines in the literal sense in which they were understood by the several sects. It would be presumptuous in me, and out of place here, to attempt to give any explanation of his views regarding these doctrines. Suffice it to say that his teaching influenced deeply both Trinitarians and Unitarians, and appeared less dogmatic and more reasonable to the many who stood entirely outside the pale of the sects. Some of the extreme sectarians on both sides complained that his teaching was unsound, because he stopped short of their dogmas, but he looked on all such doctrinal matters as not literally binding, but as “ views ” to be interpreted by the light of reason, the good of humanity, and the practical action which such beliefs could and should produce in every­ day life and work. He was never tired of teaching that real religion should unite, and not divide; that doctrinal views necessarily differed so greatly, that they should not, and could not be a bond of union. He held that, in the words of the great prayer in the Church Service, “ all who professed and called themselves Christians, should hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteous­ ness of life.” He always took a reasonable view of doctrinal difficulties, and constantly preached that “ he who does My work shall know the doctrine, whether it be good or evil.” Laborare est orare briefly expressed the essence and outcome �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 19 of his religious belief. The basis of all his teaching, the spirit of all his sermons, the stimulus to all his work, was the dominant conviction that Religion, the greatest of all human concerns, should pervade the thoughts and actions of men in every form, that it should rule in the State, the Community, and the Family, and even in the smallest concerns of ordinary life. By religion he always meant Love to God, and obedience to His divine will, as shewn forth in the laws of the universe, charity and love to our fellow-men, and the embodiment of the spirit of Christ’s teachings in our daily walk and conversation. How successful this form of teaching proved to be, may be found in the fact that, from his very earliest preaching, he attracted and continued to attract and to retain among his congregation, Trinitarians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, Bap­ tists, Churchmen, and especially many who did not accept the Bible as inspired, who did not believe in miracles, and many who, like Gallio, “ cared for none of those things.” All, however, heartily united in real service and genuine work. During the whole of his life the members of his church united heartily and liberally in establishing schools for the young and the adult, in kindly and generous care of the aged and the poor, in the industrial training of young women for service and for work, and in every kind of social influence to equalize the lot of all, and to improve the tone and character of rich and poor alike. “ The Church of the Saviour,” in which he ministered for upwards of thirty years, was opened in 1846, in the month of August, and his sermon, “ The Demands of the Age on the Church,” was an eloquent and powerful statement of his position as a teacher, and of the work he had set himself to do ; and which he accomplished with such marked success. In his earlier days he visited constantly and kindly the poor and needy, and I am told that no one who had not seen �20 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. him in a sick-room, ever saw Dawson at his best. His tender sympathy with all in trouble, his genuine humanity, in the best sense of the word, his generous hand and lovingkindness will be remembered by many with grateful heart and tearful eyes. Later on, his numerous engagements led to the appointment of a Minister to the Poor ; but whenever possible he attended all the sick and needy, and gave such consolation as only he could give. The church would seat about i,600 persons, and was generally full ; and, in the evenings especially, was crowded to excess. Many orthodox people attended their own churches and chapels in the morning, and came to hear him at night. One of the most conspicuous preachers in the town, for several years during his studentship, heard Dawson once every Sunday, and con­ fessed himself deeply indebted to his teachings, although he differed from his doctrinal views. The most remarkable and touching characteristic of Dawson’s services were his prayers, about which all agreed. Their thorough devotion, deep humanity, intense feeling, and passionate love and tenderness, may be found to some extent in the printed volume which has been issued since his death ; but only those who heard his gentle, earnest voice can ever appre­ ciate those memorable outpourings. Another of the promi­ nent orthodox preachers of the same town regarded these prayers as the very highest and best of Dawson’s true teach­ ing, and beyond all praise—the very spirit of all prayer to God. I have heard many devout men and women, of creeds the most opposite, speak of their wonderful beauty, and gratefully acknowledge the beneficent influence exercised by them on their own religious feelings. He generally preached every Sunday, morning and evening. Another of his notable characteristics was his reading of the Scriptures. One chapter read by him was better than most sermons. His simple, natural, earnest, manly style made old familiar �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 21 verses seem full of meaning and new beauty and force. It is difficult to describe the impressiveness of these readings and prayers. In his Church services he was especially eclectic. He was the first to introduce into Birmingham chapels the prac­ tice of chanting, of anthems, and of having the best music possible—at that time an innovation which shocked most .dis­ senters, but which nearly all have adopted since. He also introduced colour and decoration on the walls, where all had been dingy and drab before. Sometimes, on week-day even­ ings, he gave lectures in his church—one series of six on the Greek Church being most valuable and interesting in the Crimean War time. Another of his innovations was the social parties of the members of his congregation. This example, too, has been followed by all other dissenting con­ gregations in Birmingham. As a citizen, Dawson greatly shocked his brother preachers at first by appearing in non-clerical attire. From the begin­ ning, he took an active part in all public work, and especially in political and social reforms. He was one of the first to arouse any interest in the Hungarian struggle. He ear­ nestly supported the French Republic after Louis Philippe’s flight, and was one of the most eloquent speakers during the Crimean War. He ably and constantly advocated the claims of Italy, and was placed in the “ black book ” by the Austrians, as the friend of Mazzini. In all local matters he took a special interest; and he was really the first public man in Birmingham who studied and understood foreign politics, and who aroused any local interest in the affairs of Hungary, Italy, and France. His frequent absences on his lecturing tours prevented his taking personally any public work, except on the Free Libraries Committee; but on that, and on the Committee of the Subscription Library, he did excellent work from his coming till his lamented death. He educated the people by his lectures, and taught them �22 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DA WSON. to go to the libraries and use them. He and his accom­ plished and devoted friend, Mr. Timmins, established a lite­ rature class and delivered a series of lectures on English o Literature from Saxon times down to 1800. These lectures have been continued ever since with great and growing suc­ cess. They sensibly raised the tone of the town, and have set many persons reading and thinking. While he did not take office personally, he advocated most earnestly and per­ sistently the duty of every citizen to take some share of public work. It is beyond all question that he so educated and influenced his personal friends and occasional hearers, that they went forth to work; and he really gave the first impulse to that public life, high municipal spirit, political energy, and literary and artistic progress which have so distinguished Birmingham during the past thirty years. His constant pressure and personal influence infinitely improved the quality of the Town Council, which, when he came, was in but indifferent repute. He used to say : “ Never send a man into the Council whom you would not like to be Mayor.” Practically, that advice has been followed, and hence the very marked improvement in the municipal life of Birming­ ham. No one man ever had so large and so evident an influence in a great town. He came when, after the Reform Bill, the town was resting from its labours. He evoked a new spirit, and aroused a new life, and became an important power. No meeting, no movement, no cause was complete without him,yi2r or against. This sturdy independence, his manly courage, his inflexible principle, his passionate love of liberty, and unflinching fairness all round, made him respected and also feared. It was felt by all that he was above party, a man of stern principle, a bold, honest, and generous advocate of truth and justice. I must now bring these remarks to a close. Yet, I cannot do so without recording a most pleasant incident in our �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 23 intercourse, inseparably associated with the memory of my friend and his charming wife. He was married in the autumn of 1846 to Miss Susan Fanny Crompton, of Birming­ ham, a lady possessing mental gifts of no common order, and whose grace of form and feature will ever linger in the memory of those who knew her in the society which she so much adorned. To her might be applied the lines of Wordsworth— The reason firm, the temperate will, Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill; A perfect woman, nobly plann’d, To warn, to comfort, and command. Instead of making the usual conventional wedding tour, they wisely preferred a better course. They arranged with Harriet Martineau (who at that time was leaving England to visit Palestine), to occupy her pretty cottage near Amble­ side for a month. Here their honeymoon was spent amidst the most picturesque scenery of the Lake district. It was proposed that I should join them for a week, an invi­ tation gladly accepted. Fortunately, the weather was of the finest; and the hills, fells, lakes, and streams, and the fading glories of the autumn woods, were seen to perfection, bathed in the serene September sunshine. On this pleasant occasion, all the circumstances connected with my visit were of the most auspicious kind. Included in the invitation was Dr. W. B. Hodgson, afterwards Professor of Political Economy in the Edinburgh University, since deceased—a dear and most intimate friend of us both. His social gifts were of the rarest kind, and cannot be forgotten by those who had the privilege of knowing him. His unfailing memory and inexhaustible stores of wit and wisdom made him a favourite wherever he went. We had many delightful rambles by the margin of Rydal Water and Grasmere, and on the Loughrigg Fells; and the cliffs and woods of Fox- �24 RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. how often rang with the laughter evoked by our brilliant friend’s jokes and humorous stories. Alas ! that three of those merry voices are now for ever silent! The enjoyment of this delightful week was greatly enhanced by an unexpected piece of good luck for us. The way in which this came about was curious, but I need not enter into details. Suffice it to say that we had the rare privilege of spending part of a forenoon with the Genius loci—the venerable poet Wordsworth, then in his seventy­ sixth year—about four years before his death. He received us with a dignified but cordial courtesy, introduced us to Mrs. Wordsworth, and showed us many books in his library, taking down from the shelves some precious presentation volumes from Coleridge, Lamb, Southey, and other friends, and pointing out to us the inscriptions with which they were enriched. He walked with us about his grounds, conversing freely on various topics, and occasionally telling us amusing anecdotes of his neighbours. Not long before this had occurred the tragical suicide of Haydon, the painter, and the subject became matter of conversation. Wordsworth spoke most feelingly about the sad event, and asked us if we remembered his sonnet, addressed to Haydon in his earlier days, long before the clouds had begun to gather round him. Of course, all readers of Wordsworth know this, one of his finest sonnets, beginning “High is our calling friend,” and ending with the lines— And oh ! when nature sinks, as oft she may, Through long-lived pressure of obscure distress, Still to be strenuous for the bright reward, And in the soul admit of no decay, Brook no continuance of weak-mindedness : Great is the glory; for the strife is hard ! Wishing to hear the sonnet from the old man’s lips, and knowing it would gratify him to be asked to repeat it, we made the request with a deferential or rather reverential �RECOLLECTIONS OF GEORGE DAWSON. 25 hesitancy, to which, however, he at once acceded, repeating the lines in a sonorous and rather monotonous voice, but with evident feeling. On this occasion I was fortunate enough to have it in my power, by the merest accident of an accident, to give the venerable poet a trifling pleasure. While we stood in a little breakfast-room, fronting the eastern sky, which he called his morning study, he showed us with pride a set of framed portraits of some of the old English poets and worthies: Chaucer, Gower, Spenser, Shakspeare, Sidney, Bacon, Selden, Beaumont, Fletcher, and others the series known as Houbraken’s. On my observing that Ben Jonson was not amongst them, although he belonged to the same series, he said he had never been fortunate enough to meet with a copy of that portrait Curiously enough, and by rare good fortune, as far as I was concerned, I happened then to possess a very fine impression of the identical portrait wanted to complete his set It instantly flashed into my mind that here was a supreme opportunity offered me of pleas­ ing the aged poet, so I at once made my little speech: “ How much pleasure it would give me to fill up the gap, &c.” My offer was, after a little preliminary reluctance, accepted, accompanied with a friendly shake of the hand, followed some days afterwards by a cordial letter of thanks, after the picture had been received by him, and hung in its rightful place. This little incident was often recalled in after years, and became a pleasant memory with us. Inglewood, Bowdon, Cheshire, April nt, 7882. �APPENDIX. The following are the extracts (referred to at p. 15) from the writings of Bacon, Milton, Locke, Taylor, Berkeley, Butler, Brougham, and Samuel Bailey. The quotations from the latter writer are given at some length, as his works are comparatively unknown. Lord Bacon. 1561-1629. The commandment of knowledge is yet higher than the commandment over the will ; for it is a commandment over the reason, belief, and understanding of man, which is the highest part of the mind, and giveth law to the will itself: for there is no power on earth, which setteth up a throne, orchair of state, in the spirits and souls of men, and in their cogitations, imaginations, opinions, and beliefs, but knowledge and learning. John Milton. 1608-1674. The light which we have gained was given us, not to be ever staring on, but by it to discover onward things more remote from our present knowledge. Well knows he, who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrive by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain ; if her waters flow not in perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth ; and if he believes things, only because his pastor says so, or because the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy. BiSHor Jeremy Taylor. 1613-1667. It is unnatural and unreasonable to persecute disagreeing opinions: unnatural, for understanding being a thing wholly spiritual, cannot be restrained, and there­ fore neither punished by corporal affliction. It is in aliena republica, a matter of another world ; you may as well cure the colic by brushing a man’s clothes, or fill a man’s belly with a syllogism. . . . For is an opinion ever the more true or false for being persecuted ? Force in matters of opinion can do �APPENDIX. 27 no good, but is very apt to do hurt; for no man can change his opinion when he will, or be satisfied in his reason that his opinion is false because discoun­ tenanced. . . . But if a man cannot change his opinion when he lists, nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise, then to use force may make him an hypocrite, but never to be a right believer; and so, instead of erecting a trophy to God and true religion, we build a monument for the Devil. John Locke. 1632-1704. He that examines, and upon a fair examination embraces an error for a truth, has done his duty more than he who embraces the profession of truth (for the truths themselves he does not embrace), without having examined whether it be true or no. And he that has done his duty, according to the best of his ability, is certainly more praiseworthy, than he who has done nothing of it. For if it be our duty to search after truth, he certainly that has searched after it, though he has not found it, in some points has paid a more acceptable obedience to the will of his Maker, than he who has not searched at all, but professes to have found truth, when he has neither searched for it, nor found it. Bishop Berkeley. 1684-1753. Two sorts of learned men there are ; one, who candidly seek truth by rational means. These are never averse to have their principles looked into, and examined by the test of reason. Another sort there is, who learn by rote a set of principles and a way of thinking which happen to be in vogue. These betray themselves by their anger and surprise, whenever their principles are freely canvassed. Bishop Butler. 1692-1752. We never, in the moral way, applaud or blame either ourselves or others for what we enjoy or what we suffer, or for having impressions made upon us which we consider as altogether out of our power; but only for what we do, or would have done, had it been in our power; or for what we leave undone which we might have done, or would have left undone, though we could have done it. Lord Brougham. 1778-1868. The great Truth has finally gone forth to all the ends of the earth that man shall no more render account to man for his belief, over which he himself has no control. Henceforward, nothing shall prevail upon us to praise or to blame any one for that which he can no more change than he can the hue of his skin, or the height of his stature. Henceforward, treating with entire respect those who conscientiously differ from ourselves ; the only practical effect of the difference will be, to make us enlighten the ignorance on one side or the other, from which it springs—by instructing them, if it be theirs, ourselves, if it be our own ; to the end, that the only kind of unanimity may be produced, which is desirable among rational beings—the agreement proceeding from full conviction after the freest discussion. �28 APPENDIX. Samuel Bailey. 1791-1870. Whether a man has been partial or impartial, in the process by which he has acquired his opinions, must be determined by extrinsic circumstances and not by the character of the opinions themselves. Belief, doubt, and disbelief, therefore, can never, even in the character of indications of antecedent voluntary acts, be the proper objects of moral reprobation or commendation. Our appro­ bation and disapprobation, if they fall anywhere, should be directed to the conduct of men in their researches, to the use which they make of their oppor­ tunities of information, and to the partiality or impartiality visible in’ their actions. . . . The allurements and the menaces of power are alike inca­ pable of establishing opinions in the mind, or eradicating those which are already there. They may draw hypocritical professions from avarice and ambi­ tion, or extort verbal renunciations from fear and feebleness; but this is all they can accomplish. The way to alter belief is not to address motives to the will, but arguments to the intellect. To do otherwise, to apply rewards or punishments or disabilities to opinions, is as absurd as to raise men to the peerage for their ruddy complexions, to whip them for the gout, and hang them for the scrofula. . . . All pain, mental or physical, inflicted with a view to punish a man for his opinion, is nothing less than useless and wanton cruelty, violating the plain dictates of nature and reason. . . Although the advanced civilization of the age rejects the palpably absurd application of torture and death, it is not to be concealed, that, amongst a numerous class, there is an analagous, though less barbarous persecution, of all who depart from received doctrines—the persecution of private antipathy and public odium. They are looked upon as a specie of criminals, and their devia­ tions from established opinions; or, if any one prefer the phrase, their specula­ tive errors, are regarded by many with as much horror as flagrant violations of morality. In the ordinary ranks of men, where exploded prejudices often linger for ages, this is scarcely to be wondered at; but it is painful, and on a first view unaccountable, to witness the prevalence of the same spirit in the republic of letters ; to see mistakes in speculation pursued with all the warmth of moral indignation and reproach. He who believes an opinion on the autho­ rity of others, who has taken no pains to investigate its claims to credibility, nor weighed the objections to the evidence on which it rests, is lauded for his acquiescence, while obloquy from every side is too often heaped on the man who has minutely searched into the subject, and been led to an opposite conclu­ sion. There are few things more disgusting to an enlightened mind than to see a number of men, a mob, whether learned or illiterate, who have never scruti­ nized the foundation of their opinions, assailing with contumely an individual, who, after the labour of research and reflection, has adopted different sentiments from theirs, and pluming themselves on the notion of superior virtue, because their understandings have been tenacious of prejudice. The true grounds, the grand principles of toleration, or (to avoid a term which men ought never to have been under the necessity of employing) of religious liberty and liberty of conscience, are the principles which it has been the object �APPENDIX. 29 of my Essay to establish—that opinions are involuntary, and involve no merit or demerit, and that the free publication of opinions is beneficial to society, because it is the means of arriving at truth. They are both founded on the unalterable nature of the human mind, and are sure, sooner or later, to be universally recognized and applauded. Under the general prevalence of these truths society would soon present a different aspect. Every species of intoler­ ance would vanish ; because, how much soever it might be the interest of men to suppress opinions contrary to their own, there would be no longer any pretext for compulsion or oppression. Difference of sentiment would no longer engender the same degrees of passion and ill-will. The irritation, virulence, and invective of controversy would be in a great measure sobered down into cool argumentation. The intercourse of private life would cease to be embittered by the odium of heterodoxy, and all the benevolent affections would have more room for expansion. Men would discover that although their neighbours differed in opinion from themselves, they might possess equal moral worth, and equal claims to affection and esteem. A difference in civil privileges and social estimation—that eternal source of discontent and disorder, that canker in the happiness of society, which can be cured only by being exterminated, would be swept away, and in a few years a wonder would arise that rational beings could have been inveigled into its support. Another important consequence would be, a more general union of mankind in the pursuit of truth. Since errors would no longer be regarded as involving moral turpitude, every effort to obtain the grand object in view, however unsuccessful, would be received with indulgence, if not applause. There would be more exertion, because there would be more encouragement. If moral science has already gradually advanced, shackled as it has been by inveterate prejudices, what would be the rapidity of its march under a system, which, far from offering obstacles, presented facilities to its progress ? Whoever has attentively meditated on the progress of the human race cannot fail to discern that there is now a spirit of inquiry amongst men which nothing can stop, or even materially control. Reproach and obloquy, threats and persecution, social ostracism, will be vain. They may embitter opposition and engender violence, but they cannot abate the keenness of research. There is a silent march of thought, which no power can arrest, and which it is not difficult to foresee will be marked by important events. Mankind were never before in the situation in which they now stand. The press has been operating upon them for several centuries, with an influence scarcely perceptible at its commencement, but daily becoming more palpable, and acquiring accelerated force. It is rousing the intellect of nations, and happy will it be for them if there be no rash interference with the natural progress of knowledge; and if, by a judicious and gradual adaptation of their institutions to the inevitable changes of opinion, they are saved from those convulsions, which the pride, prejudices, and obstinacy of a few may occasion to the whole.—Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions, and on other Subjects. 1821. �30 APPENDIX. If, instead of encouraging candid and complete examination, I endeavour to instil my own notions into the mind of another by dogmatical assertion and inculcation ; if I do all in my power to prevent the evidence on both sides from coming to his knowledge; if I forcibly or artfully exclude any arguments or facts from his cognizance ; if I try to coop up his mind in my own views, by keeping aloof every representation inconsistent with them, and even pervert his moral feelings by teaching him the guilt of holding any other; if, instill greater defiance of integrity of conduct, I attempt to work upon his will in the matter ; if I offer him certain advantages provided he come to a conclusion agreeable to my wishes, and threaten him with obloquy, and pains, and penalties, should he decide against me; all these proceedings are surely so many offences, not only against him, but against the Almighty. What are they all but trying to prevent the full and free application of his faculties for discerning truth to a question of the greatest moment between him and the Almighty Ruler of the Universe? And what are the worst of them, but bribing and terrifying the poor human creature ; in the first place, not to examine fully and freely, not therefore to discharge the obligation he is under to his Maker ; and in the second place, to hide his internal convictions, and to profess what he does not feel. If the prin­ ciples of duty to God, which the light of nature clearly exhibits, are to be relied upon, it is scarcely possible to conceive grosser moral turpitude, or greater mad­ ness, than this. My own duty clearly is a full and impartial examination ; and yet, by the course described, I should be endeavouring, to the utmost of my power, to prevent in my neighbour that full and impartial examination, which is as incumbent on him as it is on myself. It is to be deeply lamented, that nothing is more common among mankind than this senseless, this immoral, this truly impious proceeding, the only pallia­ tion of which is unconsciousness of its real character. Look abroad into the world, and what is the language on this subject held by man to man, in all ages and all countries ? It is in effect this : I care nothing for your partiality or im­ partiality, for the diligence or negligence of your investigations : here are certain advantages in my gift: if you are of my opinion, or will say you are, they are yours; if you differ from me, I will take care you suffer for it. Figure to yourself, my friend, a young man, who, while he is desirous to discharge every duty, and ardent in the pursuit of truth, is at the same time ambitious of power, wealth, and distinction. A career is open to him, in which these latter desires may be gratified on the single condition of professing and teaching certain established tenets, and performing certain offices grounded upon them. Is it to be supposed, that before he accepts the tempting offer, his can­ dour and conscientiousness will be sufficiently strong to induce him to institute a fair and rigid examination of tenets on which his wealth and station are to depend ? and after he has accepted it, will the inducements to the performance of that duty be strengthened or increased ? The result is not very doubtful; he shuns inquiry and accepts the office, and from that moment all probability of any fair investigation is at an end : he becomes an intellectual slave bound in golden fetters : he is no more free to pursue truth than the chained eagle is free to soar �APPENDIX. 3i into the sky ; or rather he is quite as free to pursue it as the muezzin to throw * himself from the minaret, or as the traveller to leap from the summit of the great pyramid ; that is to say, at the risk of consequences—of utter destruction. And is it possible not to perceive, that besides putting an end to impartial examination, this species of bribery is a bounty on hypocritical pretension ? Is there one man in ten thousand, who, looking forward to the prospect of living in the enjoyment of worldly advantages from the profession of certain opinions, will shrink from that profession in the first instance, or subsequently abandon it, because he finds it impossible to believe in the opinions professed ? Can there be a more effectual method of creating insincerity, as well as indifference to truth, and can there be a practice more destructive of moral worth and real piety ? You know, Hassan, as well as I can describe, how all this is exemplified amongst the followers of the Prophet; you are aware not only of their utter neglect of examination, but of the secret disbelief of thousands of Moslems (priests as well as laymen) in much of what they profess for the sake of gain, the scarcely disguised violations of precepts they pretend to revere, the rapacity for wealth and power which puts on the semblance of holiness and laughs at the credulity of its dupes. I shall never, for my own part, lose the recollection of the indifference to truth and the hypocrisy I witnessed on my pilgrimage to Mekka. Wrapt myselfin holy thoughts and sincere devotion, I was shocked at the conduct of those whom sordid rapacity had congregated around the sacred place. Here, too, we have another main root of intolerance and persecution. When­ ever the emolument, power, and distinction of any set of men depend on the reception of particular doctrines, or are bound up in their maintenance, not only is all fair examination at an end on the part of their supporters, but the liveliest zeal is kindled in their defence, and the bitterest hostility is roused against all who will not fall into the same blind acquiescence. There is an inseparable connection between the lucrativeness of opinions and persecution.—Letters of an Egyptian Kafir on a Visit to England, in Search of a Religion, Enforcing some Neglected Views regarding the Duty of Theological Inquiry, and the Morality of Human Interference with It. 1839. * The muezzin is the crier who, from the minarets of the mosque, summons the faithful to prayer. A. IRELAND AND CO., PRINTERS, MANCHESTER. �k � 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 &amp; 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 Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ireland, Alexander Description An account of the resource Place of publication: [s.l.] Collation: 31 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: Reprinted, with additions, from the "Manchester Quarterly", No. II. April, 1882. Inscription in black ink: "M. D. Conway Esq, with A. Ireland's kind regards." From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes Appendix with extracts from the writings of several authors including John Milton and John Locke. Printed by A. Ireland anc Co., Manchester. George Dawson (1821- 1876) was an English nonconformist preacher, lecturer and activist. He was an influential voice in the calls for radical political and social reform in Birmingham, a philosophy that became known as the Civic Gospel. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available [s.n.] Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1882 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT46 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy Social Reform 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 (Recollections of George Dawson and his lectures in Manchester in 1846-7), 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 Clergy Conway Tracts George Dawson Nonconformism Social Reform https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca411458dbfc4b3d0a7243a60f8abbb5.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=nQEu%7ENvpussJsh6UggDDv0aa1e5KR47ls4cLMWapT3uyJWHuCJzDvizna20KXZeBe2cvzwcAoe7nJ4BO6zH581treVAIXngYIEKt4m1tcTVRw6B1TpoMOUTseZyieiKg4W0XcJ9n4Wc%7EuAwwvx1Y2gYtw5bGyLpWYxDGCp8pY4VGUV5YNnooYz08p26icRn0INIdRL2P01DaV4BcZHffqeHPDZkweMPRfcTXJxRSJNVGmvxvkcQUVgZR6OZQANxmRxxwCReQJ9Ool1xjCsiuI8zuoyqAyFd-OlcbtH%7EHB5ME4j2YzcnYrdWw6qY6MdwGZPEYkOylepUeSl9LM-i0iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5603a6bb0b1f98b0fbaf8ecd18d49fb8 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SUCiETY f THE CLERGY & COMMON SENSE Bs COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL. ■ PROGRESSIVE '^anbnn : PUBLISHING COMPANY 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. PRICE TWOPENCE. �J.ON DON : printed and published by g. w. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE. —+— Union has interviewed Robert G. Ino-ersoll, who criticises the Union’s recent interviews with clergymen. He is at Long Beach, and having been shown back numbers of the Union containing articles by clergymen, who have almost unanimously declared that the Church is suffering very little from the scepticism of the day, and that the influence of the scientific writers, whose opinions, are regarded as Atheistic or infidel, is not great, and that the books of such writers are not read as much as some people think they are, was asked, “What is your opinion with regard to the subject ? ” Colonel Ingersoll said : It is natural for a man to defend his business, to stand by his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose this accounts for the ministers all saying that infidelity is not on the increase. Only a few years ago science was superstition’s hired man. The scientific men apologised for every fact they happened to find. With hat in hand they begged pardon of the parson for find­ ing a fossil, and asked the forgiveness of God for making any. discovery in nature. Now religion is taking off its hat to science. Humboldt stands higher than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to change human thought than all the priests who have existed. Where there was one infidel twenty-five years ago there are one hundred now. “ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldli­ ness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that it is on the increase.” What is worldliness ? I suppose worldliness con­ sists in paying attention to the affairs of this world : The Brooklyn �4: The Clergy and Common Sense. getting enjoyment out of this life ; gratifying the senses, giving the ears music, the eyes painting and sculpture, the palate good food ; cultivating the ima­ gination ; playing games of skill and chance ; adorning the person ; developing the body, enriching the mind ; investigating the facts by which we are surrounded ; building homes, rocking cradles ; thinking, working, inventing, buying, selling, hoping. All this, I sup­ pose, is worldliness. These worldly people have cleared the forests, ploughed the land, built the cities, the steamships, the telegraphs, and have produced all there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the preachers denounce them. Were it not for worldly people, how would the preachers get along ? Who would build the churches ? Who would fill the con­ tribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious of all questions) would pay the salaries ? I be­ lieve in the new firm of Health and Heresy rather than the old partnership of Disease and Divinity, doing business at the old sign of the Skull and Crossbones. Some of the ministers that you have interviewed, or at least one of them, tells us the cure for worldliness. He says that God is sending fires, and cyclones, and things of that character, for the purpose of making people spiritual ; of calling their attention to the fact that everything in this world is of a transitory nature. The clergy have always had great faith in famine, in affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is a thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a crumb tflan for a banquet. They know that prosperity has the same effect on the average Christian that thick soup has, according to Bumble., on the English pauper— “ it makes ’em impudent.” The devil made a mistake in not doubling Job’s property, instead of leaving him a pauper. In prosperity the ministers think we forget death and are too happy. In the arms of those we love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment for­ gotten. According to the ministers, God kdis our children in order that we may not forget him. They imagine that the man who goes into Dakota, cultivates the soil, and rears for himself a little home, is getting �The Clergy ancl Common Sense. 5 too “ worldly ” ; and so God starts a cyclone to scatter his home and the limbs of his wife and children upon the desolate plains, and the ministers of Brooklyn say this is done because we are getting too “worldly.’ They think we should be more “spiritual”; that is to say, willing to live upon the labor of others, willing to ask alms, saying in the meantime,. “ It is more blessed to give than to receive.” If this is so, why not give the money back ? “ Spiritual ” people are those who eat oatmeal and prunes, have great con­ fidence in dried apples, read Cowper s Task, and Pollock’s Course of Time, laugh at the jokes in Harper's Monthly, wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows, and call all that has elevated the world “beggarly elements.” “ You have stated your objections to the churches— what would you have to take their place?” There was a time when men had to meet together for the purpose of being told the law. This was before printing, and for hundreds and hundreds of years most people depended for their information on what they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain. There was a time, of course, when Freemasonry was necessary, so that a man could carry, not only all over his own country, but to another, a certificate that he was a gentleman ; that he was an honest man. There was a time, and it was necessary, for the people to assemble. They had no books, no papers, no way of reaching each other. But now all that is changed. The daily press gives you the happenings of the world. The libraries give you the thoughts of the greatest and best. Every family of moderate means can command the principal sources of information. There is no necessity for going to the Church and hearing the same story for ever. Let the minister write what he wishes to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying, people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a Church in the name of duty, and then inflict upon them a sermonthatunder.no circumstances they would I do not think the ministers of to-day more intel­ �6 The Clergy and Common Sense. lectual than they were a hundred years ago ; that is, 1 do not think they have greater brain capacity, but I think, on the average, the congregations have a higher amount. The amelioration of orthodox Christi­ anity is not by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by the brain in the pews. Another thing : One hundred years ago the Church had intellectual honors to bestow. The pulpit opened a career. Not so now. There are too many avenues to distinction and wealth — too much ££ worldliness.” The best minds do not go into the pulpit. Martyrs would rather be burnt than laughed at. Most ministers of to-day are not naturally adapted to other professions promising eminence. There are some great exceptions, but these exceptions are the ministers nearest infidels. Theodore Parker was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher is a great man—not the most consistent man in the world—but he is certainly a man of mark—a remarkable genius. * “How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and what kind of instruction would you give ? ” I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is Christianity ? I do not include in the word “ Christianity ” the average morality of the world, or the morality taught in all systems of religion—that is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in the inspiration of the scriptures, the atone­ ment, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ and eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity its miracles, its absurdities of the atone­ ment and fall of man, and the inspiration of the scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I under­ stand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I suppose Christ taught—that is, in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness. I do not believe in loving enemies ; I have pretty hard work to love my friends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep the viper of revenge in his heart. But I * This was said in 1883, before Beecher’s death. �The Clergy and Common Sense. 7 believe in justice, in self-defence. Christianity—that is, the miraculous part—must be abandoned. As morality—morality is born of the instinct of se preservation. If man could not suffer, the word ”conscience” never would have passed his lip . Self­ preservation makes larceny a crime. Mui der will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds ; it is born of human want and human ex­ perience. “ The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember, savs that ‘man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.’ What is your idea of the chief end of ~r man O’? It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should be held in such contempt ^ere, and y nromised hereafter as an eternal reward ? Why not. be happy here, as well as in heaven ? Why not have joy here ? Why not go to heaven now—that is t(J-day • Why not enjoy the sunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad enough ; so bad that I do not believe that it was ever created by a benencen Deity; but what little good there is in it, whj> not have it? Neither do I believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the infinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation ? He has no equals, no superiors. How. can he have what we call^ta^^ How can he achieve what we call glory . y . he wish the flattery of the average Presbyterian ? What good will it do him to know that his course has been approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church . What does he care, even, for the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges ? I do not s^ w o * we can help God or hurt him. If there 06 a . being certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can affect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin against mam hoi that reason I have said, a hundred times, mjustwe is the only blasphemy. If there be a beaven^ Iwant to associate there with the ones wno had loJ|d me I might not like the angels, and the angels might not �8 The Clergy and Common Sense. like me. I want to find old firieads. I do not care to associate with the infinite ; there could be no freedom in such society. I suppose I am not ‘ • spiritual ” enough, and am somewhat touched with “ worldli­ ness.” It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough to say about the infinite, “I know nothing”; of eternal joy, “ I have no conception”; about another world, “I have no information.” At the same time I am not attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can hope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out the fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell. In response to the reporter’s query as to the progress made in theology, Colonel Ingersoll said:— By comparing long periods of time, it is very easy to see the progress that has been made. Only a few years ago men who are now considered quite orthodox would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for heresy. Only a few years ago men like Huxley and Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would have been considered as the most infamous of monsters. At that time every scientific discovery was something to be pardoned. Moses was authority in geology, and Joshua was considered the first astronomer in the world. Now, everything has changed, and everybody knows it except the clergy. Religion is finding out new meanings for old texts. We are told that God spoke in the language of the common people ; that he was not teaching any science ; that he allowed his chil­ dren not only to remain in error, but kept them there. It is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any question of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality, in a spiritual way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers, see that the Bible has ceased to be regarded as authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a dispute of fact. The most intellectual men of the world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men of the greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in con­ tempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of �The Clergy and Common Sense. 9 men who combat and deny the foundation of orthodox Christianity. I can remember when I would be the only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as autumn leaves ; they are everywhere. In all the pro­ fessions, trades, and employments the orthodox creeds are despised. They are not simply disbelieved ; they are execrated. They are regarded, not with indifference, but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of mechanics ■ in this couutry abhor orthodox Christianity. Millions of educated men hold in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of eternal punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as absurd by millions. So with the dogma of imputed guilt, vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this won­ derful reason : That the hearers will get more doubts from the answer than from reading the original argu­ ments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he can­ not defend Christianity from infidelity without creating more infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that he cannot answer the theories of Robertson Smith in popular addresses. The only minister who feels abso­ lutely safe on the subject, as far as his congregation is concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He declares that the young people in his church don’t know enough to have intelligent doubts, and that the old people are substantially in the same condition. Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so strong that other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev. Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity should never be refuted in the pulpit. I admit that it has never been success­ fully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers anmitted the impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed, to all public discussion. Dr. Wells tells us that scientific Atheism should be ignored ; that it should not be spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Van Dyke has the same feeling of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman, and he declares that the great majority of Christian people of to-day know nothing about current infidel theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance ; hat it would be dangerous for the Christian minister �10 The Clergy and Common Sense. even to state the position of the infidel; that after stating it, he might not, even with the help of God, successfully combat the theory. These ministers do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke. He thinks the blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks the Church is safe because the Christians read. He differs with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So the Rev. George E. Reed believes that infidelity should be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in his general and in the weapons of his warfare than some of his brethren. His confidence may arise from the fact that he never had a discussion. The Rev. Dr. McLelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the Catechism ; that there is not now enough' of authority ; not enough of brute force ; thinks that the family, the Church, and the State, ought to use the rod ; that the rod is the salvation of the world ; that the rod is a divine institution ; that fathers ought to have it for their children ; that mothers ought to use it. This is part of the religion of universal love. The man who cannot raise children without whipping them ought not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps a relic of barbarism in his heart. There is nothing reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is the only reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an aban­ donment of love and reason, and puts father and child upon a savage equality. The savageness in the heart of the father prompting the use of the rod or club pro­ duces a like savageness in the victim. The old idea that a child’s spirit must be broken is infamous. All this is passing away, however, with orthodox Chris­ tianity. That children are treated better than formerly shows conclusively the increase of what is called infi­ delity. Infidelity has always been a protest against tyranny in the State, against intolerance in the Church, against barbarism in the family. It has always been an appeal for light, for justice, for universal kindness and tenderness. �The Clergy and Common Sense. 11 “ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that it is on the increase ? ” It is the habit of ministers to belittle the men who support them—to slander the spirit by which they live. “ It is as though the mouth should tear the hand that feeds it.” The nobility of the Old World hold the honest working man in contempt, and yet are so con­ temptible themselves that they are willing to live upon his labor. And so the minister.. pretending o e spiritual—pretending to be a spiritual guide-looks with contempt upon men who make it possible for him to live. It may be said by “ worldliness ” they only mean enjoyment—that is, hearing music, going to the theatre and the opera, taking a Sunday excursion to the silvery margin of the sea. Of course, ministers look upon theatres as rival attractions, and most of their hatred is born of business views They think people ought to be driven to church by having all other places closed. In my judgment, the theatre has done good, while the Church has done harm, lhe drama never has insisted upon burning anybody. Persecution is not born of the stage. On the contrary, upon the stage has for ever been found impersonations of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and Justice, and these impersonations have always been applauded, and have been represented that they might be applauded. In the pulpit hypocrites have been wor­ shipped ; upon the stage they have been held up to derision and execration. Shakespeare has done tar more for the world than the Bible. The ministers keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldli­ ness. Nothing can be more absurd than this talk about spirituality. As though readers of the Bible, repeaters of texts, and sayers of prayers were engaged in a higher work than honest industry. Is there anything higher than human love ? A man is in love with a girl and he has determined to work for her and to give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is there anything more spiritual than that anything higher . They marry. He clears some land. He fences a field. �12 The Clergy and Common Sense. He builds a cabin ; and she, of this hovel, makes a happy home, She plants flowers, puts a few simple things of beauty upon the walls This is what the preachers call “ worldliness.” Is there anything more spiritual ? In a little while, in this cabin, in this home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle’s rock, while softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air. Is there anything more spiritual, is there anything more infinitely tender, than to see husband and wife bending with clasped hands over a cradle, gazing upon the dimpled miracle of love ? I say that it is spiritual to work for those you love. Spiritual to improve the physical condition of mankind—for he who improves the physical condition improves the mental. I believe in the ploughers instead of the prayers. “ Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed admit that the rich and the poor no longer meet together, and deprecate the establishment of mission chapels in connection with the large and fashionable churches.” The early Christians supposed that the end of the world was at hand. They were all sitting on the dock waiting for the ship. In the presence of such a belief^ what are known as class distinctions could not easily exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and poverty is a bond of union. As a rule, people are hospitable in the proportion that they lack wealth. In old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome. He took, in part, the place of the newspaper. He was a messenger from the older parts of the country. Life was monotonous. The appearance of the traveller gave variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive. As they become educated there is a tendency to pick their society. It is the same in the Church. The Church no longer believes the creed, no longer acts as though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded the sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope thrown by the minister to a man just above the falls ; if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as a lighthouse, he would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If �The Clergy ancl Common Sense. :i3 he really believed that the coachman, had an immortal soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain, he would do his utmost to make the calling and election of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact, the rich man now cares but little for servants. They are not included in the scheme of salvation, except as a kind of job lot. The Church has become a club. It is a social affair, and the rich don’t care to associate in the week days with the poor they may happen to meet at Church. As they expect to be in heaven together for ever, they can afford to be separated here. There will certainly be time enough there to get acquainted. Another thing is the magnificence of the churches. The Church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor people feel out of place in such magnificent buildings. They drop into the nearest seat ; like poor relations, they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table of Christ they are below the salt. They are constantly humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the thousands given by the millionaire. Their pennies feel ashamed to mingle with the silver in the contribution plate. The result is that most of them avoid the Church. It costs too much to worship God in public. Good clothes are necessary, fashionably cut. The poor come in contact with too much silk, too many jewels, too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be superiority. “ Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead of Churches, we had societies of ethical culture ? Would not the rich there predominate and the poor be just as much out of place ? ” , I think the effect would be precisely the same, n<? matter what the society is, what object it has, if com posed of rich and poor. Class distinctions, to a greatei or less extent, will creep in—in fact they do not have to creep in. They are there at the commencement, and they are born of the different conditions of the members. These class distinctions are not always made by men of wealth. For instance, some men obtain money, �14 The Clergy and Common Sense, and are what we call snobs. Others obtain it and retain their democratic principles, and meet men according to the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on- intel­ lectual grounds, for instance. There is not only the distinction which is produced by wealth and power, but there are also the distinctions which are born of intelligence, of culture, of character, of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt. Neither can any one blame respectable poverty for declining to associate with arrogant wealth. The right to make the distinction is with all classes, and with the individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have any society for any purpose—that is, where they meet together—without certain embarrassments being pro­ duced by these distinctions. Now, for instance, suppose •there should be a society simply of intelligent and cultured people. There wealth, to a great degree, would be disregarded. But, after all, the distinction that, intelligence draws between talent and genius is as marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty and wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some object is deemed of such vast importance that, for the moment, all minor distinctions are forgotten, then it is possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and intel­ ligent, to act in concert. This happens in political parties, in time of war, and it has also happened whenever a new religion has been founded. Whenevei’ the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we gave liberty to the slave during the civil war, and clad him in the uniform of the nation ; we wanted him, we needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly willing to forget the distinction of color. Common peril produces pure democracy. It is with societies as with individuals. A poor young man coming to New York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk about the old fogies ; holds in contempt many of the rules and regulations of the trade ; is loud in his denunciation of monopoly ; wants competition ; shouts for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him succeed ; let him have a palace upon Fifth Avenue, �The Clergy and Common Sense. 15 with, his monogram on spoons and coaches ; then, instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for-more police. He will then say, “We want protection , the rabble must be put down.” We have an aristocracy o wealth • in some parts of our country an aristocracy of literature—men and women who imagine J^emselv^s writers and who hold m contempt all people who cannot express commonplaces m the most ele§a^ diction ; people who look upon a mistake m grammar as far worse than a crime. So, m some communities, we have an aristocracy of muscle. The only true aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness. Intellect without heart is infinitely cruel ; as cruel as wealth without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle witho mercy. So that, after all, the real aristocracy must be that of goodness where the intellect is directed by th heart. “ You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as cruel as the aristocracy of wealth—what do you mean by that ? ” Bv intellect, I mean simply intellect ; that is to say, the aristocracy of education—of simple brain—expressed in innumerable ways—in invention, painting, sculpture, literature. And I meant to say that that aristocracy was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth. Atter all, why should a man be proud of something given him by nature ; something that he did not earn, did not produce ; something that he could not help, is it not more reasonable to be proud of wealth, which you have accumulated, than of brain which nature gave you And, to carry this idea clear out, why should we be proud of anything ? Is there any proper occasion on which to crow ? If you succeed, your success crows for you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not m the best of taste. And why should man be proud o brain ? Why should he be proud of disposition or of good acts ? “ You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet, of course, you must recognise the right of everyone o select his own companions. Would it be arrogant for �16 The Clergy and Common Sense. the intellectual man to prefer the companionship of people of his own class in preference to commonplace and unintelligent persons ? ” All men should have the same rights, and one right that every man should have is to associate with con­ genial people. There are thousands of good men whose society I do rot covet. They may be stupid, or they ma5T be stupid only in the direction in which I am interested, and may be exceedingly intelligent as to matters about which I care nothing. In either case they are not congenial. They have the right to select congenial company ; so have I. And while distinctions are thus made, they are not cruel ; they are not heart­ less. They are for the good of all concerned, spring naturally from the circumstances, and are consistent with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these distinctions in the Church more than we do in the club is that the Church talks one way and acrs another ; because the Church insists that a certain line of con­ duct is essential to salvation, and that every human being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were true, then, in the presence of such an infinite variety, all earthly distinctions should instantly vanish. Every' Christian should exert himself for the salvation of the soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness that he -would show to save a king. The accidents of wealth, education, social position, should be esteemed as naught, and the richest should gladly work side by side with the poorest. The churches will never reach the poor as long’ as they sell pews ; so long as the rich members wear their best clothes on Sunday. A s lone as the fashions of the drawing-room are taken to the table of the Last Supper, the poor will remain in the highways and„ hedges. Present ' fashion is. more powerful than faith, So long as the ministers shut up their churches and allow the poor to go to hell in summer; as long as they lea re the Devil without a competitor for three months in the year, the churches will not materially impede the march of human pro­ gress. People, often unconsciously and without malice, say something or do something that throws an unex­ �The Clergy and Common Sense. 17 pected light upon a question. The other day, in one of the New York comic papers, there was a picture representing the foremost preachers of the country at the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that they could enjoy each other’s society. These ministers are suppised to be the apostles of the religion of kind­ ness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and yet the idea that they could associate happily together is regarded as a joke! After all, churches are like other institutions—they have to be managed, and they now rely upon music and open elocution rather than upon the Gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They are giving up the doctrine of eternal punishment, and have consequently lost their hold. The orthodox Churches used to tell us there was going to be a fire, and they offered to insure ; and as long as the fire was expected the premiums were paid and the policies were issued. Then came the Universalist Church, saying that there would be no fire, and yet asking the people to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other churches. So with the Unitarian. That Church has no basis for organisation ; no reason, because no hell is threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just as the Churches have lost their belief in eternal fire, they have lost their influence, and the reason they have lost their belief is on account of the diffusion of know­ ledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and infamous. Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelli­ gent people can no longer believe it. It is regarded with horror, and the Churches must finally abandon it, and when they do that is the end of the church militant. “ What do you say to the progress of the Roman Catholic Church, in view of the fact that they have not changed their belief, in any particular, in regard to future punishment ?” Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win another battle. The last victory of Protestantism was won in Holland. Nations have not been converted �18 The Clergy and Common Sense. since then. The time has passed to preach with sword and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no more victories. That Church increases in this country mostly from immigration. Catholicism does not belong to the New World. It is at war with the idea our government, antagonistic to true republicanism, and in every sense anti-American. The Catholic Church does not control, its members. That Church prevents no crime. It is not in favor of education. It is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used as a political power, but here it dare not assert itself. There are thousands of good Catholics. As a rule, they probably believe the creed of the Church. That Church has lost the power to anathematise. It can no longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces— upon persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and heredity. « You have stated your objections to the,Churches— what would you have to take their place ? Of course there will always be meetings, occasions when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear what a man has to say upon some question, but the idea of going fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody upon the same subject is absurd. « Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher in that statement ?” Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is not orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting when talking against his creed. He delivered a ser­ mon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes the ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, conse­ quently, no one could be an infidel. Everyone believes in kindness, at least theoretically. In that sermon he throws away all creed and comes to the conclusion that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of intel­ lectual convictions upon certain subjects, 1 he more sermons like that are preached probably the better. What I intended was the eternal repetition of the old story—that God made the world and a man, and then allowed the Devil to tempt him, and then thought of a �The Clergy and Common Sense. 19 •scheme of salvation, of vicarious atonement; fifteen hundred years afterwards drowned everybody except Noah and his family, and, afterwards, when he failed to civilise the Jewish people, came in person and suf­ fered death, and announced the doctrine that all who believed on him would be saved, and those who did not, eternally lost. Now this story, with occasional references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem, and the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful joys of paradise, is the average sermon, and this story is told again, again, and again by the same man, listened to by the same people, without any effect except to tire the speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would take their texts from Shakespeare, if they would read every Sunday a selection from some of the great plays, the result would be infinitely better. They would all learn something ; the mind would be enlarged, and the sermon would appear short. Nothing has shown more clearly the intellectual barrenness of the pulpit than the baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The dignified dulness, the solemn stupidity of these addresses has never been excelled. No question was met. The poor candidates for the ministry were giyen no new weapons. Armed with the theological flint­ lock of a century ago, they were ordered to do battle for doctrines older than their weapons. They were told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the sceptic by ignoring the facts. There was a time when the Protestant clergy were in favor of education ; that is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a Pro­ testant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philo­ sopher. The Catholics are also in favor of education enough to make a savage a Catholic, and there they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger. A new idea is a doubt; a doubt is the thres­ hold of infidelity. The young ministers are warned against inquiry. They are educated like robins ; they swallow whatever is thrown in the mouth—worms or shingle-nails, it makes no difference—and they are expected to get their revenge by treating their flock �20 The Clergy and Common Sense. precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds of the Churches are being laughed at. Thousands of young men say nothing, because they do not wish to hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden aunts. Thou­ sands of business men say nothing, for fear it may interfere with trade. Politicians keep silent for fear of losing influence. But when you get at the real opinions of the people, a vast majority have outgrown the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people think these things good for women and children, and use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep order. Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of inde­ pendence. They are being examined by synods and committees of ministers, and they are beginning every­ where to say that they do not regard tnis life as a probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punish­ ment is too bad ; that the Bible is, in many things, foolish, absurd, and infamous ; that it must have been written by men. And the people at large are begin­ ning to find that the ministers have kept back the facts ; have not told the history of the Bible ; have not given to their congregations the latest advices, and so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox Christianity has almost outlived its usefulness. The Church has a great deal to contend with. The scien­ tific men are not religious. Geology laughs at Genesis, and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but very little of the motions of the heavenly bodies. Statesmen do not approve of the laws of Moses ; the intellect of the world has got on the other side. There is something besides preaching on Sunday. The news­ paper is the rival of the pulpit. Nearly all the cars are running on that blessed day. Steamers take hun­ dreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who has been at work all the week seeks the sight of the sea, and this has become so universal that the preacher is following his example. The flock has ceased to be afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep. In a little while all the libraries will be open all the museums. There will be music in the public parks ; the opera, the theatre. And what will the churches do then ? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to �The Clergy and Common Sense. 21 empty pews, unless the Church is wise enough to meet the intellectual demands of the present. “You speak as if the influences working against Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out of exist­ ence. Do you think that Christianity is any worse off now than it was during the French Revolution, when the priests were banished from the country and Reason was worshipped ; or, in England, a hundred years ago, when Hume, Bolingbroke, and others made their attacks upon it ? ” You must remember that the French Revolution was produced by Catholicism; that it was a reaction ; that it went to infinite extremes ; that it was a revolu­ tion seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand those times provided you know the history of the Catholic Church. The seeds of the French Revolution •were sown by priests and kings. The people had Suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years, and the French Revolution came because human nature could bear the wrongs no longer. It was something not reasoned—it was felt. Only a few acted from intellectual convictions. The most were stung to madness, and were carried away with the desire to destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to tear down palaces^ to cut throats, and in some way avenge the wrongs of all the centuries. Catholicism has never recovered—it never will. The dagger of Voltaire struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism has staggered from that day to this. It has been losing power every moment. At the death of Voltatre there were twenty million less Catholics than when he was born. In the French Revolution muscle outran mind, revenge anticipated reason. There was destruction, without the genius of construction. They had to use materials that had been rendered worthless by ages of Catholicism. The French Revolution was a failure, because the French people were a failure, and the French people were a failure because Catholicism had made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without reading him. Probably there are not a dozen orthodox ministers in the world who have read the works of �22 The Clergy and Common Sense. Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little while ago a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I offered him one hundred dellars to repeat a paragraph, or to give the title even, of one of Voltaire’s volumes. Most ministers think he was an Atheist. The trouble with the infidels of England a hundred years ago was that they did not go far enough. It may be that they could not have gone further and been allowed to live. Most of them took the ground that there was an infi­ nite, all-wise, bemficent God, creator of the universe, and that this all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too good to be the author of the Bible. They, however, insisted that this good God was the author of nature, and the theologians completely turned the tables by showing that this God of nature was as bad as the God of the Bible ; that this God of nature was in the pesti-, lence and plague business, manufactured earthquakes, overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of necessity, the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment, the Deists were all successfully answered. The God of nature is certainly as bad as the God of the Old Testa­ ment. It is only when we discard the idea of a deity, the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are able even to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel that I am neither a favorite nor a victim. Nature neither loves nor hates me. I do not believe in the existence of any personal God. I regard the universe as the one fact, as the one existence—that is, as the absolute thing. I am part of this. I do not say that there is no God ; I simply say I do not believe there is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit that I do not know, and the declarations of all the priests in the world upon that subject give me no light, and do not even tend to add to my information on the subject, because I know that they don’t know. The infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, com­ paratively speaking, of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin,. nothing of evolution, nothing, comparatively speaking, of other religions, nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics; in other words, the infidels of a hundred years ago �The Clergy and Common Cense. 23 knew the creed of orthodox Christianity to be false, but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The infidels of to-day have the facts. That is the difference. A hundred years ago it was a guessing prophecy—to-day it is the fact and fulfilment. Everything in nature is working against superstition to-day. Superstition is like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from dust to stars, is working together to destroy the false. The smallest pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade of . grass, rightly understood, destroys the orthodox creed. “You say the pews will be empty in the future until the Church meets the intellectual demands of the present. Are not the ministers of to-day, generally speaking, much more intellectual than those of a hun­ dred years ago, and are not the ‘ Liberal ’ views in regard to the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, future punishment, the fall of man, and the personal divinity of Christ which openly prevail in many churches, an indication that the Church is meeting the demands of many people who do not care to be classed as out-and-out disbelievers in Christianity, but who have advanced views on those and other questions ? ” The views of the Church are changing, the clergy of Brooklyn to the contrary" notwithstanding. Orthodox religion is a kind of boa-constrictor; anything it can’t dodge it will swallow. The Church is bound to have something for sale that some­ body wants to buy. According to the pew demand will be the pulpit supply. In old times the pulpit dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology is now run on business principles. The gentleman who pays for the theories insists on having them suit him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and they must supply the market with such religious vegetables as the congregation desire. Thousands have given up belief in the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement idea, and original sin. Millions believe now that this is not a state of probation ; that a man, provided he is well off, and has given liberally to the church, or whose wife has been a regular % �24 The Clergy and Common Sense. attendant, will, in the next world, have another chance; that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new trial. Others think that hell is not so warm as it used to be supposed ; that, while it is very hot in the middle of the day, the nights are cool ; and that, after all, there isn’t so much to fear from the future. They regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and they give them the old ideas on the same principle that they give them their old clothes. These ideas, out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off, some­ what ravelled, will, after all, do very well for paupers. There. is a great trade of this kind going on now— selling old theological clothes to the colored people in the South. All I have said applies to all Churches. The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not change its ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the ceremonies, the spirit that clothed the skeleton of ceremony with the white flesh and blood and throb of life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathe­ drals, the spirit that emptied the wealth of the world into the lap of Rome, has turned in another direction, Of course the Churches are all going to endeavor to meet the demands of the hour. They will find new readings for old texts. They will re-punctuate and re-parse the Old Testament. They will find that “ flat ” meant “a little rounding”; that “six days” meant “ six long times that the word “ flood ” should have been translated “ dampness,” “ dew,” or “ threatened rain”; that Daniel in the lion’s den was an historical myth ; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do with this world. All these things will be gradually explained and made to harmonise with the facts of modern science. They will not change the words of the creed; they will simply give new meanings; and the highest criticism to-day is that which confuses and avoids. In other words, the Churches will change as the people change. They will keep for sale that which can be sold. Already the old goods are being “ marked down.” If, however, the Church should fall, why then it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its existence. It apparently does no good ; it devours without producing; it eats without planting, and is a �The Clergy and Common Sense. 25 perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of value. It misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens without knowledge and promises without power. In my judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all mankind. But if it does not go in name, it must go in fact, because it must change ; and therefore it is only a question of time when it ceases to divert from useful channels the blood and muscle of the world. * You say that in the baccalaureate sermons de­ livered lately the theological students were told to answer arguments by keeping out of discussion. Is it not the fact that ministers have, of late years, preached very largely on scientific disbelief, Agnosticism, and infidelity, so much as to lead to their being repri­ manded by some of their more conservative brethren ? ” Of course, there are hundreds and thousands of ministers perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity. Their answers have done so much harm that the more conservative among the clergy have advised them to stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers, for the most part, are like this : Paine was a black­ guard, therefore' the geology of Genesis is on a scientific basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement is true, because in the French Revolution they worshipped Reason. And we know, too, all about the fall of man and the Garden of Eden, because Voltaire was nearly frightened to death when he came to die. These are the usual arguments, supplemented by a few words concerning myself. And, in my view, they are the best that can be made. Failing to answer a man’s argument, the next thing is to attack his character. You have no case,” said an attorney to the plaintiff. “No matter,” said the plaintiff, “ I want you to give the defendant the devil.” “ What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker’s statement that he generally buys five or six tickets for your lectures and gives them to young men, who are shocked at the flippant way in which you are said to speak of the Bible ? ” �26 The Clergy and Common Sense. Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had such immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York. This tends to clear away the mystery. If all the clergy follow the example of Dr. Baker, that accounts for the number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker would not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall always feel greatly indebted to him, shall hereafter regard him as one of my agents, and take this occasion to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all the converts to Christianity made by hearing me. Still, I hardly think it honest in the young men to play a game like that on the doctor. “You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story of Christianity, and say that the more sermons like the one Mr. Beecher preached lately the better. Is it not the fact that ministers, at the present time, do preach very largely on questions of purely moral, social, and humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke criticisms on the part of the secular newspaper press ? ” I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit to preach about things happening in this world ; in other words, that the preachers themselves are be­ ginning to be touched by “ worldliness.” They find that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for persons dealing in real estate in this world. And thousands of people are losing interest in Abraham, David, Haggai, and take more interest in gentlemen who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find that their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetu­ ally of death and coffins, and worms, and dust, and grave-stones, and shrouds, and epitaphs, and hearses, biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That they prefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in which they have a present interest, and about which something cheerful can be said. In fact, it is a relief to hear about politics, a little about art, something about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it necessary to advertise that they are going to speak on something that has happened within the last eighteen hundred years, and that for the time being, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the �The Clergy and Common Sense. 21 furnace. Of course I think that most ministers are reasonably honest. Maybe they don’t tell all their doubts, but undoubtedly they are endeavoring to make the world better, and most of the church-members think that they are doing the best that can be done. I am not criticising their motives, but their methods. I am not attacking the character or reputation of ministers, but simply giving my ideas, avoiding any­ thing personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor very bad—just fair to middling. “You say that Christians will not read for fear that they will unsettle their beliefs. Father Fransiola (Roman Catholic) said in the interview I had with him: ‘ If you do not allow man to reason you crush his manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credi­ bility of his faith, and through reason, guided by faith, he discovers the truth, and so satisfies his wants ? ’ ” “ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of Father Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the wrong end to. I do not think that reason should be guided by faith ; I think that faith should be guided by reason. After all, the highest possible conception of faith would be the science of probabilities, and the probable must not be based on what has not happened, but upon what has ; not upon something we know nothing about, but the nature of the things with which we are acquainted. The foundation we must know something about, and whenever we reason we must have something as a basis, something secular, some­ thing that we think we know. About these facts we reason, sometimes by analogy, and we say so and so has happened, therefore so and so may happen. We don’t say so and so may happen, therefore something else has happened. We must reason from the known to the unknown, not from the unknown to the known. This father admits that if you don’t allow a man to reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he says faith must govern reason. Who makes the faith ? The Church. And the Church tells the man that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and that he may afterwards reason, taking the faith as a �28 The Clergy and Common Sense. fact. This makes him an intellectual slave, and the poor devil mistakes for liberty the right to examine his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy their prisoners by insisting that there is nothing beyond the walls. — “ You criticise the Church for not encouraging the poor to mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the right of a man to choose his own company. Are not these same distinctions made by non-professing Christians in real life, and will there always be some greater, richer, wiser than the rest ? ” I do not blame the Church because there are these distinctions based on wealth, intelligence, and culture. What I blame the Church for is pretending to do away with these distinctions. These distinctions in men are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood, in education, and they are differences that will exter­ nally exist—that is, as long as the human race exists. Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What I wish to do away with is the contempt, and scorn, and hatred existing between rich and poor. I want the democracy of kindness—what you might call the republicanism of justice. I do not have to associate with a man to keep from robbing him. I can give him his rights without enjoying his company, and he can give me my rights without inviting me to dinner. Why should not poverty have rights? And has not honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to the same Church or not ? We cannot judge men by their wealth, nor by the position they hold in society. I like every kind man ; I hate every cruel one. I like the generous, whether they are poor or rich, ignorant or cultivated. I like men that love their families, that are kind to their wives, gentle with their children, no matter whether they are millionaires or mendicants. And to me the bloss om of benevolence, of charity, is the fairest flower, no matter whether it blooms by the side of a hovel or bursts from a vine climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no �Th& Clergy and Common Sense. 29 man because he is rich ; I hold in contempt no man because he is poor. “ Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infi­ delity is greatly exaggerated ; that it makes more noise and creates more notice than conservative Christianity simply on account of its being outside of the accepted line of thonght.” There was a time when an unbeliever, open and pronounced, was a wonder. At that time the Church had great power ; it could retaliate, it could destroy. The Church abandoned the stake only when too many men objected to being burnt. At that time infidelity was clad not simply in novelty, but often in fire. Of late years the thoughts of men have been turned, by virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless influences, to an investigation of the foundation of orthodox religion. Other religions were put in the crucible of criticism, and nothing was found but dross. At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our own religion, and this examination has excited great interest and great comment. People want to hear, and they want to hear because they have already about concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in error. Thousands come to hear me because they are interested in the question, because they want to hear a man say what they think. They want to hear their own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has turned, and the spirit of investigation, the intelligence, the intellectual courage of the world, is on the other side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox minister who believes in the Thirty-nine Articles with all his might is regarded to-day as a theological mummy, a kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic battery of faith, making strange motions, almost like those of life —not quite, <,We need no inspiration, no inspired work. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of the product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then you find �30 The Clergy and Common ¡sense. in the Bible other things upheld that are infamous. And why ? Because the writers of the Bible were barbarians in many things, and because that book is a mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teach­ ing morality without miracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it ? Credulity is not a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to investigate and to reason for them­ selves, and that there are facts enough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two families ; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians, and they teach their children the creed ; teach them that they are naturally totally depraved ; that they can only hope for happiness in a future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain belief is necessary to salvation ; that God punishes his children for ever. Such a home has a certain atmo­ sphere. Take another family : the father and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each other because kindness produces happiness ; that they should be gentle ; that they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And suppose this father and mother say to their children—If you are happy, it must be as a result of your own actions ; if you do wrong, you must suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you ; no Savior can suffer for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you plant, you must reap; and you must reap what you plant. And suppose these parents also to say—• “You must find out the conditions of happiness. You must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You must ascertain the nature and rela­ tion of things so that you can act in accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and peace.” In such a family there would be a certain atmosphere, in my judgment, a thousand times better, and purer, and sweeter than in the other. The Church generally teaches that rascality pays in this world, but not in the next ; that here virtue is a losing game, but the dividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they must serve God �The Clergy and Common Sense-. 31 on credit, but the Devil pays cash here. That is not my doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the highest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is wrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here and now. It means health ; it means in­ telligence, contentment, success. Vice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved by faith, nor by belief. It is a slower process ; we must be saved by knowledge, by intelligence,—the only lever capable of raising mankind. �Colonel Ingersoll's Works. -------- 0-------MISTAKES OF MOSES -10 Ditto. In cloth 1 6 The only complete edition published in England. Accurate as Colenso and fascinating as a novel. DEFENCE OP FREETHOUGHT 0 6 A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy. REPLY TO GLADSTONE 0 4 The raciest polemic of the age. With a bio­ graphy of Ingersoll. ROME OR REASON ? 0 4 A Reply to Cardinal Manning FAITH AND FACT. A Reply to Dr. Field 0 2 GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field 0 2 THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH 0 2 ART AND MORALITY 0 2 LIVE TOPICS -01 MYTH AND MIRACLE -01 REAL BLASPHEMY -01 REPAIRING THE IDOLS 01 SOCIAL SALVATION -01 THE GREAT MISTAKE -01 Orders over Sixpence sent Post Free. Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. PEAD “THE FREETHINKER,” Edited by G. W. Foote. Only Penny Freethought Paper in England. Published Every Thursday. Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; 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 clergy & common sense Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 18 cm. Notes: "Colonel Ingersoll's works" listed on back cover. No. 7a in Stein checklist, but pagination differs. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company; (G. W. Foote) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource [c1885] Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N326 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The clergy &amp; common sense), 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 Christianity-Controversial works Clergy NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4b1ccb040bcaac0eca089c9aa41b95ab.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=SyK29ENn0l2b%7EoS1SbGY6NK-ngxC-voMm-UlJSYOC2OXOgHXbWH-B7c3wF4vRfLUKosNRL2C4NprVb2W28XjfKuX7s5Vaho7Y%7Ep9fjrzsSRWkq0pxYwAjRYuyWSkGCsFGq6bsE2tyN3BRrzo5GlzwtrA861y9XxRUgFbwPaHuBYMWWyOo133M39LMH00L13ycmBmOyhHq%7EvXn10pFvEG4sIgYtVGU4B5UvYFJi02fqLGYoV9YBkbFNn87R4sKmJA41Bv6601eNV6jVAaMeZnXE63YNSyqAq-Dq0eBdolZfoz8d7Xw-BPXnPpFB2NHifYfVTYwLnxLZI%7EC2rVEo3e%7Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 9f889775b7197b80f47aa7459243db99 PDF Text Text ��8 on bT2-52national secular society LETTERS TO THE CLERGY BY G. W. FOOTE. LONDON; PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O. 1880. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, ^28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �PR EFACE. readers of the Freethinker, in which the following Letters appeared at various dates, have requested me to reprint them in a separate and convenient form ; but as I always intended to do this, I make no pretence of my natural modesty being overcome by “ the urgent solicitation of friends,” nor bespeak the reader’s “ kind indulgence?’ When a writer of considerable practice deals with familiar subjects, and takes pains with his composition, he would be something worse than modest if he imagined that what he wrote could be of no interest to any section of readers. So far, indeed, am I from imagining anything of the kind, that I frankly confess to a belief that these Letters form a fairly all-round statement of the Freethought positions in regard to Christianity; and, as such, they will doubtless be useful to many who would otherwise have to wade through a great many volumes, without, perhaps, obtaining the same satisfaction. To instruct it is necessary to interest, and to procure a hearing one must condescend to excite attention. Manv �iv. Preface. For this reason, among others, I adopted the epistolary form of writing in the present instance. It gives an air of nearness to the remote, and of reality to the abstract; it imparts a feeling of personality, which I hope has never run into virulence or abuse ; it endows a papei’ warfare with some of the actuality and vividness of a face-to-face encounter ; and, lastly, more perhaps than any other form, it allows the writer to avail himself of a great variety of rhetoric, and especially of the apostrophe, which is the most striking of oratorical arts, but is apt, in impersonal forms of composition, to appear stilted and affected. In order to correct the abuses of the epistolary style, I have endeavored to fix my attention upon the argu­ ments I was discussing, rather than the persons I addressed. Most of these, indeed, were unknown to me except by repute, and this made it the more easy to avoid falling into mere personalities. Open letters are little likely to elicit replies from . the persons addressed, and my experience is no ex­ ception to the rule. Besides, it is the fashion in Christian circles to ignore the editors of Freethought journals; the conspiracy of silence being, indeed, the last resource of a tottering faith. As a matter of fact, I expected no replies, and consequently I am not disappointed. What I write will produce its proper effect, whether it is replied to or not; and I have obviously written for the general reader rather than the ministers whose names decorate the tops of my Letters. �Preface. vv For the convenience of many readers, who may keep this collection of Letters by them, and refer to it at intervals, I have had it printed in large clear type. There is a curious impression among the orthodox that Freethinkers, for the most part, are frivolous young persons ; but the chronology of this impression is on a par with that of the Bible; in other words, it is an arbitrary conjecture. Happily there are young Free­ thinkers, and they are the hope of the future; but a very large proportion are “ declined into the vale of years,” and theii’ eyes will find the type of this little volume a positive comfort. I have not burdened my pages with footnotes or references. Except from the work I was answering, I have seldom had occasion to quote from living or dead authors. Whenever I have done so I have indicated the work, but I have not thought it necessary to give the edition, volume, or page. In no single instance, I believe, have I cited any author as an authority. I have always appealed to the reason of my readers. I pay them the compliment of supposing they think for themselves. And in this case an apt quotation may occasionally be indulged in, for the sake of its beauty or felicity, without begging the question, or overawing the reader’s judgment, by appealing to great names. There are no authorities in the realm of thought. Only that is true thinking which goes on 'in the indi­ vidual brain. Every so-called belief which reposes on external authority, may be acquiescence or prejudice,, but never judgment or conviction. �This is all I have to say in introducing this little volume. I now leave it to destiny. Hope and fear, perhaps, are alike unphilosophical; yet, as the future is unseen, and imagination will seek to pierce the veil, I fondly indulge a hope that if 1 do not succeed in converting anyone to what I regard as the truth, I may nevertheless excite an interest in questions that underlie private and public life in every Christian country. Indifference on such matters implies a want of insight or seriousness, and I would fain stimulate the temper which prompts us to look beyond the ■material or transient interests of life into the highei’ region of the spiritual and durable—the region where intellect is free from the trammels of personal loss or gain ; where imagination takes no shape of individual hopes and fears ; where conscience is the august voice of Humanity echoing through the chambers of our hearts. �LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. ��CREATION. TO THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE. My Lord,— It seems strange that I should have to address you, at least for the sake of courtesy, in such exalted language. Your Lord and Savior hade his disciples to call no man Master, and Lord is a still loftier title. Yet you are legally entitled to this designation, and you are a lord in reality as well as in name. You have a seat, when you like to occupy it, in the House of Peers; you reside in a palace; and, besides your “ pickings,” the extent of which I have no means of ascertaining, you enjoy a settled income of £4,500 a year. I knew not how to. reconcile these things with your profession as a minister of the gospel of poverty and renunciation; but I presume your powers of casuistry are equal to the task; and, after all, as theology is full of mysteries, it is not unnatural that there should be mysteries in the character and conduct of theologians. You have been good enough, my lord, to write a a curious little volume on “ Creation.” It is the first of a series entitled “ Helps to Belief,” which naturally attracted my attention. I happen to require as much help to belief as any man I know, and accordingly I invested ninepence in a copy of your production. Unfortunately it has not recompensed me for the out­ lay. My unbelief is rather confirmed than shaken, �10 Letters to the Clergy. and I am farther off than ever from the repose which is to be found on the pillow of faith. I have, however, read your volume with great care, and I venture to offer a few remarks upon it. Let me first congratulate you on an admission. You say— “ The very difficulty, so to speak, with, regard to the theo­ logical view of the opening of the book of Genesis is, that theologians will not consent to regard the document as a lesson addressed merely to the infancy of humanity, will not allow it to be regarded as a childish thing to be put aside by the human race in its manhood.” Your language is skilfully guarded; it might be read in either of two opposite ways ; yet I interpret you as I would a Sibylline oracle, and take the most favorable meaning. Regarded in that light, your description of the Creation story is admirable; it does credit to your candor and intelligence, as well as your style. I thank you for the phrase. “ A childish thing ” is the finest commentary on the first chapter of Genesis. The very epithet “ childish ” is supremely felicitous. What is childlike in infancy is childish in manhood; what was excusable in an age of ignorance and barbarism is contemptible in an age of science and civilisation. Let me next indicate a few points on whieh I have the honor to agree with you. “ Creation,” you state, “ begins and ends with the formula ‘ God said/ ” Yes, my lord, that is the alpha and omega of the mystery. In the language of Hamlet it is “words, words, words.” Logomachies, in theology and meta­ physics, pass current for realities; but the first attempt to define them in consciousness exposes their vacuity. “ God said let there be light, and there was light,” is the statement of Genesis; similarly the Hindu scrip­ tures declare that “ Brahma said let there be worlds, and there were worlds ”—and the one text is as true as the other. You affirm that Genesis makes “ no pretension to being a scientific history.” The discovery is rather �Creation. 11 late in the day, for your Church has, during the better part of two thousand years, insisted on the contrary doctrine; and from the days of Galileo until now it has persecuted to the full extent of its power the scientific men who, in the words of Professor Huxley, have refused to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism. Nevertheless, as you disclaim this .“ pre­ tension/’ it may for the moment be dismissed. You appear to admit that Genesis is not “ a scientific history,” and the admission shows you are fully aware that Hebrew mythology can no longer be opposed, as a divine truth, to the teachings of Evolution. You assert that such “ truths ” as the Incarnation and the creation of man in God’s image “belong to a high ethereal region to which it is impossible for either philosophy or science to rise.” One half of this sentence, my lord, is perfectly true. Philosophy and science cannot breathe in the attenuated atmosphere of faith, nor are they able to see through the clouds of mystery. The very language you employ when you speak as a theologian is foreign to them. “ Creation/’ you exclaim, “is a mystery, heaven and earth are mysteries, but through all these there shines the light of a living God—He, too, a mystery.” How one mystery illuminates another mystery is a curious problem which philosophy and science will gladly leave to the “ high ethereal ” intellect of the pulpit. They may accept your statement, however, without feeling that it amounts to a revelation; for to the eyes of reason a mystery is nothing but ignorance or selfcontradiction. A galvanic battery is a mystery to the savage, the telephone is a mystery to country clergy­ men, and the origin of life is still a mystery to biologists. On the other hand, the Trinity is a mystery to the arith­ metician, and and Almighty Goodness and Wisdom is a mystery to those who see and feel the existence of evil. In the one case, the mystery is an unexplained fact; in the other case, it is a contradiction between a fact and a theory. Mystery, in short, is mist; sometimes cloud, �12 Letters to the Clergy. and sometimes smoke. The cloud is ignorance, and the smoke is theology. Persons who deal in mystery, my lord, are apt to contract a taint of insincerity. I am sorry to see you referring to Moses as the author of Genesis, and still more to see you referring to “ some ancient documents” which he used in its composition. Surely your lord­ ship is aware that no single scrap of the Old Testament can be carried beyond the tenth century before Christ, which is several hundred years from the supposed date of Moses ; surely your lordship is aware that no Jewish “ documents ” existed at the time of the Exodus. You display the art of a professional pleader, my lord, in dealing with Professor Haeckel’s remarks on Genesis. While rejecting it as a “ divine revelation/’ this Great Evolutionist says it “ contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of Creation current amongst most of the other ancient nations.” You subsequently allude to this as “ a striking tribute to its scientific character.” Nay more, you convert most into all, and exclaim “ From Moses to Linnseus! A tremendous step j and before Moses no one.” Without dilating on your perversion of Haeckel, I would ask you, my lord, whether you are ignorant of the fact that the Creation story in the first chapter of Genesis was borrowed from the mythology of Babylon, as the story of the Fall in the second and third chapters was borrowed from the mythology of Persia? Should you be ignorant, your ignorance is inexcusable ; should you not be ignorant, your pretence of ignorance is unpardonable. You deal at considerable length with the word “ create,” but you evade every difficulty it raises. You rush off to the Greek, the Sanscrit, and so forth ; but you never refer to the Hebrew, which is the original language of “ inspiration.” The Hebrew hara does not express absolute creation out of nothing, for such a metaphysical absurdity never entered into the heads of the ancient Jews. For this reason, perhaps, you �Creation. 13 journeyed north, south, east, and west, instead of staying at home, and consulted every language but the one containing “ the oracles of God?'’ You do not wish to be precise. You “ define creation as the em­ bodiment of thought in an objective form,” which leaves the matter indeterminate. An artist embodies his conceptions by means of pre-existing materials. Do you imply the same of God? If you do, you assume the eternity of matter; if you do not, you assume creation out of nothing. This is the doctrine upheld by your Church, and you should plainly avow or disclaim it. Bishop Pearson, whose Exposition of the Creed is still a standard work in your colleges, gives forth no uncertain sound. “ Antecedently to all things beside,” he says, “ there was at first nothing but God, who produced most part of the world merely out of nothing, and the rest out of that which was formerly made of nothing.” You, my lord, express yourself more obscurely. You state that the material universe —in contradistinction, I presume, to the immaterial universe—points to “ some kind of origin.” And you add that “ the existing cosmos testifies in a thousand ways to a pre-existent chaos, out of which cosmos has grown; according to modern language it has been evolved; God created the chaos and evolved the cosmos.” This is what your lordship proffers as a help to belief! Why did you not adduce one of those “ thousand” testimonies to chaos ? Can you really conceive chaos—a universal confusion, in which things happen at random, and nothing is anything ? Do you know of a single Evolutionist who teaches that matter once existed without its properties? Are not the properties of matter the same in a comet as in a planet ? Do you know so little of the nebular hypothesis as to suppose that Professor Tyndall’s ‘‘fiery cloud,”- of which worlds are formed, is the primitive substance of chaos ? You refer to the nebular hypothesis, my lord, as �1.4 Letters to the Clergy. though you firmly embraced it; but you fail to recollect, or you forget to mention, that the great French astronomer Laplace, whose account of this luminous theory you summarise, was a convinced Atheist. You proceed to assert that there must have been “ something ” behind this “ primitive cause of the existing cosmos/’’ “ Whence,” you inquire, “ came the particular constitution of the materials, and the laws by which the constituent particles of the matter are governed ? ” The sentence is extremely vicious. You are guilty of tautology, for the “ con­ stitution ” of matter and its “ laws” are the same thing. You are also guilty of begging the question, for in asking whence they came you assume their advent, which you may justly be called upon to prove. The petitio principii is a favorite fallacy with theolo­ gians. I find a beautiful instance in another part of your volume, where you innocently observe that “ we cannot contemplate Creation, without regarding the Creator.” The remark is a truism, my lord; Creator and Creation imply each other, and by designating the universe a Creation you beg the whole question at issue. That matter began to be, or will cease to exist, it is easy to affirm, and as easy to deny ; but all analogy points to its eternity. Science shows us that matter cannot be destroyed any more than it can be created, and force is never diminished although it assumes different manifestations. The presumption, therefore, is in favor of the everlasting existence of both, whether in the ultimate analysis they are co-eternals, or different aspects of the one infinite substance of the universe. I say the presumption is in its favor, and before that presumption can be shaken you must give solid reasons for supposing that the universe had a commencement. It is futile, my lord, to observe that its eternity is inconceivable, since it is equally impossible to conceive of its beginning or ending. Where experience fails us reason moves but blindly, �Greation. 15 ancl speculation lias no other guide than the light of analogy. And what analogy lends the slightest color to your hypothesis of Creation ? The highest mind of which we have any knowledge is the mind of man, and the mind of man cannot create, it can only con­ ceive. The utmost man is able to do is to move matter from one position to another. He does so in conformity with his conceptions; but, like himself, his “ creations ” are not imperishable. The universe which produced him finally absorbs him ; his proudest “ creations ” may last for a few thousand years, but the effacing hand of time is ever at work upon them, and sooner or later they disappear, unable to resist the claim of Nature who allows of no eternity but her own. Recurring for a moment to your treatment of Genesis, I see you remark that “ to all persons capable of forming an opinion, the chief doctrines of geology are now beyond the range of controversy.” You admit the great antiquity of the globe and the slow evolution of living forms, and you proceed as follows :— “Many persons, perhaps at one time almost all thoughtful persons, who read the account of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis, concluded that the change from chaos to cosmos, though gradual, was one soon brought about by several quickly succeeding fiats of the Almighty will. Geology teaches with irresistible force that this was not so.” These thoughtful persons, my lord, who were never­ theless mistaken, paid the Scripture the compliment of supposing it meant what it said. They never sus­ pected the wonderful elasticity of language in the grasp of theologians. They took the Bible, as you, my lord, are bound to take the Thirty-nine Articles, in the “ literal and grammatical sense.” Geology, therefore, was honestly resisted as impious, until a new and more dexterous race of commentators arose, in whose hands the time-honored language of Revela­ tion became as plastic as clay in the hands of the potter or the sculptor, and capible of being fashioned �16 Letters to the Clergy. into any form that suited the exigencies of the struggle between Reason and Faith. Your position is that there is no “ antagonism between the hypothesis of Evolution and the truth of Creation.” Admitting the justice of your language, your position is impregnable. There cannot be antag­ onism between Evolution and any truth. But I deny the justice of your language. I say that you reverse the proper order of words. Evolution is the “ truth/’ and Creation is the “hypothesis.” Thus regarded they are not antagonistic, for there cannot be antag­ onism where there is no contact. You are, of course, free to assert, without even defining your terms, that a “ spirit ” works through the process of Evolution. You are likewise free to affirm that a “ spirit ” mixes the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, and the oxygen and hydrogen in water. Science is unable to contradict these statements, just as science is unable to dispute the meat-roasting power of the meat-jack. But, on the other hand, it does not trouble about what cannot be proved or refuted, and leaves metaphysical entities and quiddities to the irony of Swift or the raillery of Voltaire. From Haeckel, my lord, you quote a strong pas­ sage against “ purpose ” in Nature; and you might have added that Darwin saw “ no more design in Natural Selection than in the way in which the wind blows.” Does it not occur to you that these lords of science, these satraps of magnificent provinces in her empire, know her more intimately than you do, and that what escapes their vigilant attention is in all probability rather fancy than fact ? Your unpractised eye sees God everywhere ; their practised eyes fail to detect his presence. Even other eyes than those of the great English and German biologists have been unable to perceive what to you is so obvious. Sir William Hamilton, for instance, before Evolution challenged the public mind, declared “ that the phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, so far from warranting �Greation. 17 any inference to the existence of Gocl, would, on the contrary, ground even an argument to his negation?’ A very different writer, Cardinal Newman, confesses, “ If I looked into a mirror and did not see my face, I should have the same sort of feeling which actually comes upon me when I look into this living busy world and see no reflection of its Creator.” You, my lord, look through Nature up to Nature’s God. I have your word for it, but I doubt if your vision is so telescopic. That “ volition originates,” as you allege, is only true within certain limits. Volition does, indeed, originate fresh collocations of matter, but it originates nothing else. And when you say that volition “ has no cause preceding itself,” you are simply alleging that all volition is eternal, which is diametrically opposed to your own doctrine that the human will, the only one of which we have absolute knowledge, is a gift from God. You will find, my lord, an admirable discussion of this point in Mr. Mill’s Essay on Theism. Volition, as he points out, only acts by means of pre-existing force, first within the body, and afterwards outside it. It does not answer, therefore, “ to the idea of a First Cause, since Force must in every instance be assumed' as prior to it; and there is not the slightest color, derived from experience, for supposing Force itself to have been created by a volition. As far as anything can be concluded from human experience, Force has all the attributes of a thing eternal and uncreated.” Your argument for a First Cause is completely answered in the same Essay. In reality, my lord, a First Cause is a contradiction in terms. Causes and effects only differ in their order of succession; both are phenomenal changes; every cause has been an effect, and every effect becomes a cause. Causation, indeed, only applies to the changes in Nature, without affecting its permanent substance. Your whole remarks on Causation betray an imperfect acquaintance with the subject or a miserable trifling with your readers. Certainly “ the idea of cause is in the mind itself,” but �18 Letters to the Clergy. how did it get there ? You deny that it is generated by experience, and you add that “ a momenta consideration will show that this cannot be so.” Do you really suppose, my lord, that the Experiential philosophers, from Locke to Bain, have not given a moment’s consideration to the question ? Do you assert this of Herbert Spencer ? Do you assert it of John Stuart Mill 1 Have you read the fifth and twenty-third chapters of the third book in Mill’s Logic 1 If you have, I say you are taking advantage of your reader’s ignorance; if you have not, you are unfitted for the task you have undertaken. Thus far, my lord, you have not arrived ata Creator, since you have not proved Creation, nor even defined it in intelligible language. Were I, for the sake of argument, to grant that mind is an entity as well as matter, the presumption would be in favor of their eternal co-existence. Whatever Deity you affirm is shorn of the attributes of infinity; he cannot be infinite in power, at least, even if he be in wisdom and goodness, for he has an everlasting rival or an everlasting colleague. Nor are your difficulties ended here. The benevolence of your Deity is imperilled. It was the opinion of Plato that God is prevented from realising his beneficent designs by the inherent badness and intractable qualities of matter. But this view is easily confronted by an opposite dogma. Bentham was justified in saying, “ I affirm that the Deity is perfectly and systematically malevolent, and that he was only prevented from realising these designs by the inherent goodness and incorruptible excellence of matter. I admit that there is not the smallest evidence for this, but it is just as well sup­ ported, and just as probable as the preceding theory of Plato. From metaphysical arguments, my lord, I turn to what you say on Design. “ The argument from design,” you allege, “ is, in fact, one of the foundation stones of natural theology, and remains unshaken.” �Creation. 19 But I doubt if you really mean this, for if the argu­ ment is “ unshaken” it is difficult to see what induced you to support it afresh. “ Helps to Belief” is a title which implies that belief is enfeebled. You have the sense to drop Paley’s preposterous illustration of the watch, and you dilate upon the human eye, which is an optical instrument so “ delicate and complicated ” that it must be held to “ indicate design,” and to deny it is “ something like an absurdity.” Again, my lord, 1 say you are begging the question. However delicate and complicated an organ may be, if we discover how it became so we have explained it; and if the process, at every stage, has shown nothing but the action of natural causes, what necessity is there for a supernatural hypothesis ? When Napoleon said to Laplace that his system left no room for God, the great astronomer replied iC Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.” The law of parsimony forbids the assumption of occult causes when known causes are adequate to account for the phenomena. Now, my lord, it is indisputable, and you are well aware of the fact, that the human eye did not spring into existence suddenly. We are able to trace the evolution of this organ down to its beginnings in low forms of life, where it is but a local susceptibility to the stimulus of light. To this you reply that the result is no “ less ingenious or an indication of design, because you can trace the process by which the result is attained,” The ingenuity, my lord, is not in the result but in the process. You must find it there or not at all. You seem to admit Natural Selection as an established truth, but is it not incompatible with Design, except in that universal sense in which Design can only be an assumption 1 If adaptation can be explained as a result, without introducing design as a cause, theology has nothing to gain by pointing to any organ however exquisitely developed. And if "Natural Selection involves, as it does, the elimination by whole­ sale massacre and torture of countless unfit specimens, �20 Letters to the Glergy. does not this conflict witli all our notions of the wise use of materials and the intelligent adjustment of means to an end 1 There is also, my lord, an aspect of the case which you prudently conceal. According to your theory,God has been making eyes for hundreds of thousands and per­ haps millions of years. How is it, then, after such long and extensive practice, that he produces so many failures ? How do you account for short-sighted eyes, and even blind eyes ? What is your explanation of ophthalmic hospitals ? Would not any human workman be laughed at who turned out such multitudes of mis­ takes ? You declare, my lord, in the language of Paley, that ££ a man cannot lift his hand to his head without finding enough to convince him of the existence of God.” In a certain sense the remark may be true. Should the head be dirty, the man might find one of those objects which satisfied the magicians of Egypt that Moses and Aaron were inspired, and induced them to exclaim ££ this is the finger of God.’’ For the purpose of your case you dwell upon the greatness of man. Your language savors more of the platform than the pulpit. Century after century your Church has taught the doctrine of the Fall, and man’s utter depravity. You, however, speak of his ££ front sublime,” which, if the human race be taken as a whole, is positively absurd; you speak of his ££ grand powers,” which are difficult to find in a savage who can only count three; and of his ££ exalted instincts,” which are not dis­ coverable in countless millions of mankind. Thus you praise “ God’s handiwork ” to prove his wisdom and beneficence; while, in the pulpit, you go to the other extreme to prove the doctrine of original sin. Pursuing the Design argument, you point to “ the truth ” that££ every arrangement in a plant or animal accomplishes some definite end.” What then, you ask, is ££ the justifiable conclusion as to the origin of the �Creation. 21 organism ? Is it not this, that the organ is the out­ come of a creative mincl ?” Supposing the statement to be true, your conclusion is not a necessary one. In the struggle for existence the superfluous is harmful, and its possessors would tend to extinction. In the long run also, as organs grow by use and atrophy from disuse, the useful organs would flourish and the useless decay and disappear. There is no magic in the process, and nothing magical in the result. But your statement is not true. Man himself possesses rudimentary organs, which are of no service; they fulfil no function, being useless relics of a long anterior state. One of them, the vermiform appendage of the cfficum, has been known to harbour seeds, which have set up inflammation and caused death. Man has a rudimentary tail; rudimentary muscles for moving the ears and the skin; rudimentary hair over the body; and rudimentary wisdom-teeth, which are a great nuisance, and a common cause of neuralgia. Through the. law of inheritance, likewise, the generative and nutritive organs of one sex are partially transmitted to Ahe other. Perhaps your lordship will be good enough to inform me what “ definite end ” is served by the rudi­ mentary mammae in men ? You merely allude to these things, my lord, as “ very exceptional cases,” as though a theory need not cover all the facts. You even venture on the remark that.“ exceptions prove rules,” which is not an admitted law in any system of logic I am acquainted with. You also observe that these “ exceptions ” only raise “ a plausible objection ” to the Design argu­ ment. Haeckel considers them “ a formidable obstacle,” and I prefer his opinion to yours, especially when I watch your curious attempt to explain away “ the plausible objection.” “ A friend once presented me with a warm garment of exceed' ingly ingenious construction, and hade me wear it during the coming winter. I did so, and for some time I had two feelings �22 Letters to the Clergy. with regard to the garment: one, that of admiration of the ingenuity of its construction; the other, that of gratitude to my friend for thinking of me and trying to keep me warm. But one day an observing neighbor, with a keen eye and much penetration, discovered a button which appeared to be of no use. I may say that the explanation of the button was that it was an essential part of a garment, somewhat like mine, and which my friend had originally intended to give me; but in the course of the construction he had determined to adopt a somewhat improved form, and so the tailor altered the pattern, but omitted to remove the button. My observing neighbor suspected that this was the case; for my own part I had no strong opinion on the subject. It seemed to me that, button or no button, the garment was admirably contrived, and that the kindness of the giver was beyond a doubt.” God then, my lord, forgets the buttons.’ It is a poor compliment to his omniscience. He decided to make things in one way, altered his mind, left in some of the old pattern through inadvertence, and hence the presence of rudimentary organs. How charming I How pretty it would be in a nursery book ! Do you really mean it, my lord; and do you really see any analogy between the making of a coat and the growth ot an organism r Turning to the mental and moral aspects of the world, you are confronted, my lord, with the existence of evil. You are obliged to admit the presence of “ phenomena which it seems difficult to reconcile with the most obvious notions of perfect benevolence.” You allow that God “ permits the existence of much which is evil/’ and you are ashamed to fall back upon the orthodox theory of Satan, who does all the harm while the Deify does all the good. Accepting evolution, at least up to the point of man’s “ soul/’ you must be perfectly aware that pain and misery are not on the surface of things but part of their very texture; and that Natural Selection acts through a struggle for existence which makes the earth a shambles. “ Kill or be killed is a strange rule of life tor Beneficence to impress on its creation. You see this, my lord, and you have two ways of surmounting the difficulty. �Creation. 23 First, you say that the abounding evil of this world is “ inconsistent with certain conceptions which we have formed.” It is to be presumed you mean that God’s ways are not our ways. I concede the fact, my lord, but how is it to be reconciled with youi’ theory ? Why do you call the Deity “ good ” if you mean that his goodness and ours are different “ conceptions ” ? Can you expect me to worship a God whose beneficence has to be vindicated by arts which insult my under­ standing ? Let me remind you of the memorable protest of Mr. Mill in his reply to Dean Mansel, whose footsteps you follow with a faltering tread. “I will call no being good/’ he said, “ who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures ; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.” Secondly, you suggest that God was hampered by unfavorable conditions. “ Perhaps, if we knew all,” you say, “ we should know, as in our ignorance it may be permissible to guess, that the method of Creation actually used by the Creator was the only one possible in the nature of things.” You say again that God is carrying out a purpose, and that he knows the best, or “ perhaps the only way of doing it.” You also surmise that “ he was pleased to submit himself to limitations.” If the Deity submitted himself to limitations, who imposed them ? If he had a choice, as your language implies, is he not responsible for the selection ? Did he not create “ the nature of things,” and if it was unsuitable could he not create another “ nature of things?” Can you conceive any limitations of Omnipotence ? Is it possible to imagine Omniscience doing “ the best in the circumstances ” ? You trust that “ somehow things will come right at the last.” But is not this the language of blind faith 1 Is it not also an admission that things are wrong at present ? I see no force in your remark that “ he who does not believe in God does not get rid of the evil and sorrow.” He may try to lessen them, my lord; and he gets rid �24 Letters to the Clergy. of the belief in a monster. At the very worst “ The grave s most holy peace is ever sure,” and meanwhile it is a comfort to think that, No Fiend with names divine Made us and tortures us; if we must pine It is to satiate no Being’s gall. In your opinion “ Atheism is connected either with the excessive ingenuity of a subtle intellect, or with moral considerations of a perverse and morbid kind.” I differ from you, my lord; but I allow that you have cleverly dressed up the old fiction that every Atheist is a fool or a rogue. Atheists are not to be deceived by phrases. When you say that “ life must have come from a fontal origin of life” you are only making a “mystery” more mysterious. When you say that “ the egg contains a principle of life, which postulates a giver of life,” you are once more begging the question. You are an Evolutionist except at the beginning and the end. You assume that God created life, and you are loth to believe in the natural genesis of man. You remark that the “ missing link ” is “ not to be found in any of the geological records of the past ” How do you know that ? The geological record is imperfect, and the preservation of “missing links” is not a natural necessity. Nor have geological investigations been made in any part of the world where the human race could have originated. You smile at Haeckel’s belief that the remains of our early progenitors are embedded in the depths of the Indian Ocean,” and you remark that “ an imaginary continent is, of course, not science, and does not really help us.” The conti­ nent, however, is not so “ imaginary.” Certainly it is not so imaginary as the supernatural theories you in­ troduce to.account for what we do not understand, and to contradict what we do. Nor is it so imaginary as the “ distinction ” you find in Genesis between the life of man and the life of the lower animals. The �25 Creation. Revised Version informs us that the “ living soul” or “ breath of life ” was common to both. The “ soul ” elicits one of your characteristic sen­ tences. “ Here,” you say, et Science fails us altogether, Philosophy speaks with a doubtful accent, and Theology remains master of the field.” True, my lord; theology is always master of the field of ignorance, and where our knowledge ends our religion begins. What we know is Nature, what we do not know is Gfod. Science is ever widening the circle of light in which we live and work, and on the border of darkness the theologian plies his trade, passing off as the voice of the Infinite the echo of his own babblings. THE BELIEVING THIEF, TO THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON. Sir,— You are one of the most popular preachers in Christendom, you gather round you a congregation of five thousand men and women, and your printed sermons are said to be circulated in every part of the world where the English language is spoken. Nature has endowed you with a clear musical voice, not the orator’s voice, which is capable of expressing every emotion, from the soft whisper of pity to the thunder of denunciation, but the preacher’s voice, fitted to express the subdued and monotonous feelings of Protestant theology. This gift, combined with a fair command of homely English, and a Saxon capacity for work, accounts for your remarkable success. You are not an evangelist of new ideas. You have not to C �26 Letters to the Glergy. create an appetite for what you supply. The material upon which you work was produced in unlimited quantities before you were born. Orthodox instincts, orthodox sentiments, and orthodox ideas, were already in existence, and you have only played upon them. Out of the five million inhabitants of London, who are mostly. Christians by training, temperament, and profession, you have collected five thousand. This proves you an able competitor against other preachers, but it gives you no position as a leader of thought or a general in the army of progress. You have a certain vein of facetiousness, and a reputation for telling “ good stories,” but your gifts in this direction are heightened and exaggerated by contrast. The pulpit is expected to be dull, or at least decorous, and feeble witticisms from such a quarter are apt to pass as potent; just as a somersault, which is commonplace on the part of a street arab, would be comic if cut by a clergyman. Your private life is said to be exemplary. I have no means of judging, but I am content to believe ; as a man 1 value my own character, and I am ready to respect yours. But I am unable to reconcile your mode of living with your profession. I cannot understand how anyone with a fair amount of sincerity can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and above all the gospel of the Sermon on the Mount, and at the same time maintain an establishment like yours. When I hear that your residence is one of the finest in the south of England, that your grounds are magnificent, that your live stock rivals the Queen’s at Windsor, that you keep a splendid carriage and several fine horses, that your table is well appointed and your cigars are excellent, I am positively amazed at your Imitation of Christ. At such a rate the cross is easy to be borne. When I consider that you fully enjoy all the good things of this life, which must be provided by" the labor of others, and that you have in addition the glorious assurance of a reserved seat in Paradise, I �The Believing Thief. 27 cannot help reflecting that there is after all a profound truth in the text that “ godliness is great gain.” What a difference there is between the founder of Christianity and its modern exponents! He had not solved the problem of how to make the best of both worlds. He drank to the dregs that bitter cup which has furnished them with an easy theme for the cheapest eloquence. He died upon the Cross, and they live upon the Cross. I am not one of his devoted admirers, but I turn from them to him with a sense of relief. He looks pathetic, tragic, sublime, in com­ parison with these who coin his blood into golden shekels. Nor am I able to reconcile your enjoyment of life with your belief in predestination, hell, and the eternal perdition of the majority of the human race. You do not merely accept these doctrines ; you cling to them, and you denounce your brethren who would desert them for a sweeter faith. You see multitudes of your fellow-creatures dancing along “ the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire.” The friend whose hand you clasp to-day may be in Hell to-morrow. Your own children may fall into the place of torment. Yet you smile, you crack jokes, you grow fat, you contract the rich many’s disease of gout. Is this consistent1? Is it honorable ? Is it humane ? If I believed your fright­ ful creed I hope I should have the decency to be solemn. When your gout is acute you show your trust in God, and your belief in the efficacy of prayer, by taking a holiday at Mentone. You leave the congre­ gation to pray for your recovery while you try the effect of the air and sunshine of the Mediterranean. Does it not occur to you that an Atheist might get better in such circumstances? Why is it that God does you more good in the South of Europe than in the South of London ? Why is prayer offered up in one place and answered in another ? Why does God help you, and give no relief to the suffering thousands �28 Letters to the Clergy. within a mile of your Tabernacle, who do not earn a splendid income by preaching “ Blessed be ye poor/’ who must bear their afflictions in the fetid atmosphere of narrow streets, and languish and die for want of the resources which keep you out of heaven. This is a long exordium to a brief letter. Let me now pass to the sermon I wish to eriticise. It was preached on April 7, and is therefore an expression of your ripest wisdom. Its title, The Believing Thief/’ attracted my attention. There are so many believing thieves, and I wondered which of them you selected. Six years ago 1 fell among thieves myself, and they were all believers. An Atheist was a rara avis in Holloway Gaol. There were Catholics and Protestants by the thousand, during the twelve months I enjoyed a seasonable relish of Christian charity, and I was fully prepared to meet a believing thief. You have intro­ duced one. You select the first on record, the thief who begged a favor of Jesus on the cross. He was the very first Christian who ever entered heaven, and you “ think the Savior took him with him (I don’t admire your grammar) as a specimen of what he meant to do.” This fortunate gentlemen, you admit, was a convicted felon, and perhaps a murderer, but he believed on Jesus at his last gasp, and his soul soared away from the cross to the realms of bliss and glory. The other thief missed his opportunity, and that one mistake made all the difference between heaven aud hell. It seems a heavy penalty for a single blunder, but everyone knows that the difference between heaven and hell is no greater than the difference between divine and human justice. I cannot but admire the airy manner in which you skim over the discrepancy in the gospel narratives. Luke is the only one who relates the incident of the believing thief; the others represent both thieves as mocking Jesus. But instead of seeing a gross con­ tradiction, as you would in any other history, you suppose they both mocked Jesus at first, and one of �The Believing Thiej. 29 them was converted while engaged in this pastime. Such a method of interpretation would make a harmony of the wildest discord. According to Luke, Jesus said to the believing thief “ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” You dwell upon To-day with “ damnable iteration,” and you affirm that the converted felon was in Paradise that very evening. You decline to speculate “ as to where our Lord went when he quitted the body which hung upon the cross/’ though you must be aware of the importance of this problem. The Creeds say that he “ descended into hell.” This was the opinion of the greatest Fathers, it is endorsed in the Church of England articles, and it is countenancad by Peter and Paul. You shun the discussion of this point, and indulge your foible of dogmatism. Jesus died an hour or two before the thief, and “ during that time the eternal glory flamed through the underworld, and was flashing through the gates of Paradise just when the pardoned thief was entering the eternal world,” so that the Savior and his “ specimen ” went through the pearly gates together. You add that “We know Paradise means heaven, for the apostle speaks of such a man caught up into Paradise, and anon he calls it the third heaven.” Your uncritical audience may swallow this as gospel, but I can hardly suppose you so ignorant. You must be aware that the matter is not so simple. Learned divines have written at great length on the subject, and although their speculations are not infallible, there is still less infallibility in your dogmatism. Take up so accessible a book as Bishop Beveridge’s Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Catholica, read his chapter on the third Article, consult his learned and voluminous foot­ notes, and then ask yourself whether it is honest to veil the controversy from your congregation, and to decide it for them peremptorily as though you were an independent oracle of God. Learning apart, sir, there is another reason against �30 Letters to the Olergy. your dogmatism, and that is the language of Scripture. If Jesus went to heaven the very evening of his Crucifixion, did he descend again to re-animate his body on the Sunday morning ? And why did he undertake two such journeys ? Was it simply to fulfil his promise to the believing thief? Or was it to settle with his Father the arrangements for his public ascent ? Not being inspired, you may decline to answer these questions. But there is another question to which I may demand a reply. According to your assertion, Jesus went up to heaven on the Friday evening ; but according to John (xx., 17), Jesus met Mary Magda­ lene in the garden on the Sunday, and when she would have approached him, he cried, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. If Jesus did not speak these words, we may as well sell our Bibles for waste-paper; if he did speak them, you have been preaching a falsehood. I know the tricks of your craft, but I refuse to be deceived. I take a sentence in its plain and grammatical meaning. “ I am not yet ascended unto my Father,” is as clear a sentence as ever came from the lips of God or man. If Jesus had visited “ the third heaven ” before, he would have said “ I am now descended from the Father.’"’ You may answei' (what will not a minister answer ?) that the “I” refers to Christ’s body, but this is flying in the face of common sense. “ I ” may mean soul and body, or soul without body, but it cannot mean body without soul. Three-fourths of your pretty rhetoric is thus ex­ ploded. The believing thief was not in Paradise with Jesus that very day. Forty days elapsed according to one narrative—and you must accept it—before the Lord ascended; and during that time the believing thief must have hung about “ the pearly gates ” wait­ ing for his Redeemer. Let me press the dilemma. If Jesus said “ To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” he was mistaken, �Ute Believing Thief. 31 and if he was mistaken then, he may have been mis­ taken on a hundred other occasions. If Jesus did not say it, Luke is mistaken, and if Luke was mistaken once, he may have been mistaken often. Nay, if Luke was mistaken, Matthew, Mark, and John may have been mistaken ; and your infallible Scripture is like a dilapidated spider’s web ; or, if you prefer the simile, like a leaky kettle, which lets out the water of inspira­ tion, and puts out the fire of belief. The lessons you deduce from the story of the be­ lieving thief are not very edifying. First, you say, it shows the Savior’s condescension; and as man, in your view, is the riff-raff of creation, there is a great solace in his stooping to the worst of sinners. “ It gives me an assurance,” you exclaim, “ that he will not refuse to associate with me.” I presume you would call this modesty, but to my mind it is the pride which apes humility. You cannot boast of being the chief of sinners, for St. Paul seized upon that distinction. Nevertheless you may pride yourself, with a humble face, on being an excellent second. This attitude is common among the elect. They are miserable worms ; but how they rear their heads if others tell them so I Several times in the course of your sermon, you posi­ tively annex the Redeemer, calling him yours, and in­ viting your fellow sinners to come to “ my Lord.” See, sir, how tastes differ. You regard this as solemn ; to me it is laughable. I smile at your masked pride, and when you turn the seamy side of your cloak outwards I observe that the purple is all the nearer your heart. A great poet has satirised this “ humble ” posturing, and you will forgive me for quoting his epigram. Once in a saintly passion. I cried with desperate grief “ 0 Lord, my heart is black with guile, Of sinners I am chief.” Then stooped my guardian angel And whispered from behind, “ Vanity, my little man, You’re nothing of the kind!” �32 Letters to the Clergy. The second lesson is the supremacy of grace over works. According to your philosophy—borrowed chiefly, I suspect, from Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians—our noblest virtues are only splendid rags, that will make us burn all the better in Hell. Works cannot save us. The best man on earth deserves ever­ lasting torment every minute of his life. We are saved by grace. And the crowning proof of it is the salva­ tion of the believing thief. Death stared him in the face; he was incapable of good works. The grace of God entered into his heart, his soul was filled with faith, and, notwithstanding his life of crime, he soared from the cross into Paradise. Let me ask you wiry the other thief was less fortu­ nate. Why did the grace of God hold aloof from him ? Without that grace we cannot have faith, and with­ out faith we cannot be saved. Do you not see that this makes God everything and man nothing; that it is a gospel of fatalism, or arbitrary predestination; that all your preaching is wasted, except as it procures you a living ; and that it cannot possibly make the slightest difference how men act in this world, since God imparts grace or withholds it at his pleasure, saving whom he will save and damning whom he will damn 1 The third lesson is that the vilest sinner, who has led a life of selfishness orcrime—the thief, the seducer, the adulterer, the murderer—may be saved at the very last minute. “ In a single instant,” you declare, “ the sins of sixty or seventy years can be absolulely forgiven/’’ “ If a man dies,” you say, “ five minutes after his first act of faith, he is safe as if he had served the Lord for fifty years.” The believing thief went to Paradise through faith, and faith will enable the heaviest sinner to fly up to the pearly gates. Far be it from me to say that God, who made men, should plunge them into Hell, or inflict upon them the smallest suffering. I even deny his right to do so. He would be infamous to punish his own failures. Whatever responsibility there is in the case is from �The Believing Thief. 33 God to man, not from man to God. The creator is responsible, not the created. Still, man is governed by motives, and your doctrine is a premium on immorality. You set up a Heaven and a Hell, you offer pleasure or pain hereafter, and declare that a death-bed repentance will wash out a life of sin. True, you stipulate that the repentance shall be sincere, but the sinner will have little appre­ hension on that account. You appeal to his personal hopes and fears as to the future life; and you tell him that, however wicked he may be, he stands as great a chance of Heaven as the holiest saint, if he only looks to Jesus at the last. You call this a glorious gospel. I call it infamous. It is not a doctrine of mercy, but a doctrine of license. After appealing to men’s selfishness, without regard to reason ■or humanity, it shows them an easy way of making evil as profitable as good. Were I to adopt your own language I might call it “ infamous bosh.” You are in the habit of reading Flavel. From his sermon on this very subject you borrow the case of Marcus Caius Victorious, a heathen of the primitive times, who was converted to Christianity in his old age. But you dress up the story in an unscrupulous manner. According to Flavel, the Christians would not trust him for a long time, owing to “ the unusualfiess of a conversion at such an age.” Old age, however, is not enough for your purpose, so you turn him into “a gross sinner.” Your accuracy or honesty is a small matter. My •object in citing Flavel is to point oat that he saw the snare of death-bed repentance, and warned his hearers against it. You are more accommodating, sir; and in view of your belief, the more accommodating you are the more you sap the foundations of morality. Considering the company you picture in Heaven, the believing thief being a “ sample ” of the “ bulk,” I shall not be sorry if I am quartered elsewhere. I ■do not play the Pharisee, but, like every sensible and �34 Letters to the Clergy. self-respecting man, I choose my company. If it. makes no difference to the caterer, I prefer going below in the society of honest and intelligent sceptics, rather than above in the society of all the abject scoundrels who earned salvation by crying “ I’m sorry.” You appear to know a great deal about the invisible,, and I venture to ask you a question. “ Heaven and Hell,” you assert, “ are not places far away.” They are very near; in fact, you say, we may be in one or the other before the clock ticks again. Do you mean that heaven and hell are in the atmosphere ? Or do you mean that the soul, on leaving the body, flies with such inconceivable rapidity that distance is annihilated ?' Surely you have not stumbled on the truth that heaven and hell are within us. Let me conclude by asking you another question. You talk much about the believing thief. Do you know anything about the unbelieving one ? Daniel O’Connell declared that Benjamin Disraeli was the lineal descendant of the impenitent thief. Will you tell me if this is true ? And if so, have you any objection to preaching another sermon on the un­ believing thief, and his unbelieving posterity ? At any rate, it would be quite as instructive as your first sermon, and probably far more amusing. THE ATONEMENT, TO THE BISROP OF PETERBOROUGH. My Lord,— Like your brother in God, the Bishop of Carlisle, you have contributed a volume to the “ Helpsto Belief ” series; and as that volume is necessarily �The Atonement. 35 addressed to as many of the public as it chances to reach, I need not apologise for writing you this letter. According to the law, my lord, 1 am a member of the Church of England, and I have a right to look to you, as one of her Bishops, for spiritual guidance ; and certainly you should be able to give it, for you are paid the magnificent salary of £4,500 a year, which is only a trifle less than that of the Prime Minister of the British Empire. I can hardly suppose you take such a salary without feeling you deserve it, especially as it was part of the prospect before you when you declared your belief that you were called to your bishopric by the Holy Ghost. It is to be presumed, therefore, that you will not resent my approach, or feel aggrieved at my criticism of the help you have offered—at the cost of ninepence—to my belief. First, my lord, let me deal with your Preface. You remark that the Atonement is “ a subject the litera­ ture of which would fill a library.” True, my lord; the blood of Christ is nothing (in quantity) to the ink which his priests and prophets have shed in explaining it. After so many volumes on the subject one issurprised at the necessity for another. Ordinary blood does not require such a colossal literature. But the blood of Christ is a peculiar article, and its physiology and chemistry seem to change like the combinations of a kaleidoscope. In one respect your Preface is an apology. You observe that the “ large subject of the J ewish and Pagan sacrifices in their relation to the sacrifice of Christ,, could be only very inadequately dealt with.” But in an age of Evolution, my lord, when everything is being explained by the law of continuity and progression, this is simply evading your principal duty. You further observe that it was impossible to “ discuss the exact force and value ” of such terms as “ ransom,” “ redemption,” “ payment of debt,” and “ reconciliation.” Now these terms, my lord, are �36 Letters to the Clergy. found in the New Testament, which, as you fre­ quently assert, is the sole authority on the Atonement or any other Christian doctrine. Why, then, did you avoid what, as a preacher of the Word, you are chiefly bound to unfold 1 It is not true, as you allege, that you have confined yourself to the task of answering the “most common and salient objections to the doctrine of the Atonement/'’ for you devote but one chapter to that object, and four to general exposition. This excuse, therefore, fails utterly; indeed I can scarcely understand it, except on the supposition that your Preface was written before the volume. Your readers, my lord, are “ entreated ” to believe that you have “ endeavored to deal honestly with objections.” Why should you “entreat” them to believe this ? Does an honest man beg the world to acknow­ ledge him as such ? Does he not rely on his character speaking for itself 1 You have written and published your volume, and why should you protest your sincerity in the Preface? Had you a shrewd suspicion of its necessity? I admit the difficulty of a man in your position being honest—I mean intellectually. You provide, not proofs, but excuses for faith. You confess that you seek to help those who “ only doubt and yet would fain believe.” Is not the veiy suggestion immoral ? Why should we desire to believe anything ? I do not deny the fact; it is a frailty of our nature; but a public teacher should not pander to our infirmi­ ties. Writing for those who would “ fain believe ” is an easy occupation. Feeling ekes out the deficiencies of reason, and premises are distorted to justify impos­ sible conclusions. That you have “ dealt tenderly with doubts and difficulties ” I cheerfully admit. You smooth down the feathers of doubt with a loving hand, and deal tenderly—oh, so tenderly !—with every difficulty. I shall not emulate you, my lord, in this, respect; and perhaps you will find eventually that difficulties are like nettles, that if you cannot grasp them will sting. �The Atonement. 37 Your first chapter, my lord, opens with a piece of advice, namely, that those who explain a Christian doctrine should first “ state it in the very words of Scripture itself/’ But you do not follow your own recipe. You select a passage in which “ atonement,” “ redemption,” or “ propitiation ” does not occur. I admire your prudence and tenderness, but I wish you had more courage. The passage you select is as follows :— “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Ep. St. John i., 8,9). Now, my lord, I ask you frankly whether any theo­ logian, except one who deals tenderly with difficulties, would ever select this as his text for expounding the Atonement. The passage does not contain a reference to the doctrine. Would it not have been braver, and more honest, to select a strong, downright passage from Paul or Peter, to explain it, defend it, and stand by it to the death ? Why should Revelation require the as­ sistance of the most dexterous special-pleading ? Why should God’s truth be championed with subterfuges ? Why is it necessary to present the teachings of infi­ nite Wisdom and Goodness in the least offensive man­ ner ? To my mind, you had better leave the “ diffi­ cult, abstruse mystery,” as you call it, to take care of itself, than defend it by such specious arts. Let me, however, follow your divagations. You ask, What is sin ? and you define it as “ that tendency in our nature which induces it to resent and rebel against law ”—a definition which would delight the Ozar of Russia or the late King Bomba of Naples. You say that man is “ essentially lawless, and he is, moreover, the only being in creation that is so.” Other creatures live in harmony with their environment, but in man there is a struggle between conscience and desire. There is little struggle, my lord, between conscience �38 Letters to the Clergy. and desire among the lowest savages. A Thug has been known to feel remorse at having missed an opportunity of assassination, but this illustration will not serve your turn. As man ascends in the intel­ lectual and moral scale, he is able to perceive the law of reason, his sympathies are developed, and his imagination “looks before and after?’ He forms ideals, which he more or less strives to realise; and the conflict in his nature, to which you point, is simply an incident of his upward struggle. It is the antagonism ■of past and future in the arena of the present. To the Evolutionist it is perfectly intelligible. Tiger passion, or monkey lust, is no more a mystery than our rudi­ mentary tail. They are marks of our descent. And our ideals and aspirations are fore-gleams of the goal to which we are ever advancing. You make a mystery also of conscience, this monitor 44 which blames us when we transgress, which punishes us for it, too, by a very sore penalty.” Not in all cases, my lord. Remove the fear of discovery, and the dread of punishment, and there is a small residuum of con­ science in millions of Christians. I haye yet to learn that the clergy themselves are more sensitive than their neighbors. Thousands of Church livings are bought and sold in the market as openly as any other merchandise, yet every clergyman, on taking a benefice, solemnly swears that he has not been a party to any simoniacal contract. Do you mean to assert, my lord, that this perjury ca.uses the hypocrites a single pang I You desire the sceptic to inform you why man blames himself for wrong-doing, and why he does not blame himself for being stunted, sickly, dull, or stupid. You ask how it is he feels no remorse because he cannot write like Shakespeare or paint like Raphael. Does it not occur to you that conscience deals with conduct, and that conduct is determined by motives ? One element of conscience, and perhaps the strongest, is susceptibility to public opinion ; but public opinion, while it may induce a man to act in one way rather �The Atonement. 39 than another, cannot alter the limits of his nature. If stature, health, good looks, and ability were amenable to motives, conscience would have asserted its supremacy over them. We only blamg ourselves for what is blameworthy in others, and W reserve our reproaches for what is alterable. We do not blame a fchimney-pot for falling upon us, because it is useless. For the same reason we do not blame a man for being short or ugly. If our reproaches had any effect, there would soon be a forceful pressure of public opinion on little ill-looking people. I have said, my lord, that we only blame ourselves for what is blameworthy in others, and I add that what condemns is in both cases the same. “I 33 and 44 me 33 are very convenient terms, but they sanction a great deal of nonsense in philosophy and theology. It is “ 133 who am selfish and “ I ” who am generous. It is 133 who do wrong and “ I ” who repent. But this 133 is a very complex being, and in reality it is different parts of my nature that act in these various ways. I have personal impulses and social instincts. When I sin against the law of reason and humanity my better feelings condemn the transgression, and my remorse will be proportionate to their strength. Were I to strike my child in a moment of anger (I have never done it, and I hope I never shall), I should have little to fear from public opinion, which still sanctions such outrages; but I should suffer remorse, because my love for my child, and my sense of personal ■dignity, would -utter their emphatic protest when my passion subsided. Where is the mystery, my lord, and why do you assume that the Materialist is unable to account for the facts'? Why should you tell us that God has designed the sting of conscience as a punishment for disobedience1? Is it a mark of divine wisdom that the good should feel it most and the bad least ? Would < cattle-drover prod the swift ox and leave the slow ungoaded ? �40 Letters to the Clergy. Recurring to sin, my lord, I see you define it as “ an offence against a person.” 1 agree with you; but I differ from you when you say the person is God. I cannot sin against God, because I cannot injure him; although he can, sin against me, for he can make mo happy or miserable. I can only sin against my fellow men. This idea does not seem to have entered your mind. You refer me to God for forgiveness. A cheap philosophy, my lord I What of those I have wronged ? Were I a pious bank director, who had feathered, his own nest and ruined thousands, I might obtain God’s forgiveness, but would it be any reparation to those I had robbed? Would it restore the suicide to his happy home? Would it drown the curses of my victims ? You admit yourself “how unavailing penitence must be to remove the consequence of transgression.’* But you draw a distinction between forgiveness as an act and forgiveness as a sentiment. Nevertheless you see that this will not serve your purpose, for the doctrine of the Atonement involves the remission of penalties. You therefore fall back upon “ something strange, wonderful, not easy to understand or believe.” You assert that Christ procures actual forgiveness for us “in some mysterious way.” You say it is effected by a suspension of the laws of nature, which “ in some way ” withdraws us from “ what would otherwise be their inevitable and necessary operation.” In other words, my lord, you take refuge in a miracle, where I decline to follow you. You begin by appealing to reason, and end by renouncing it. No wonder you exclaim, a little later, when dealing with an objection, that “ this is merely an intellectual difficulty I ” When we plead to God for mercy, you tell us that “ our cry is helped, is made more prevailing, by the pleading for us of another, and that other Christ.” You say that this is neither immoral nor absurd, for “ friendly intercession is a familiar fact of our human experience,” and if it is neither unnatural nor unworthy �The Atonement. 41 as between man and man “ why should it be so as between man and God ?” Do you not see that the illustration is a poor compliment to. the Deity ? You make the Son more merciful than the F^fther. And as, according to the articles of your Church, it is all settled beforehand, the whole business is a divine comedy. I do not understand how “ there may be a wrath of God that is kindled by the flame of love,’"’ but if you choose to picture the Father “nursing his wrath to keep it warm,” and the Son cooling him down and coaxing him into a good temper, I have no right to quarrel with you. England is a free country —especially for Christians. “ Our repentance/’ you say, “ could not avail to obtain our pardon were it not for what Christ has done and is doing for us.” But what has he done, and what is he doing ? He is the “ propitiation for our sins.” But what does this mean “? You say it will “ help us little to have recourse to grammar and dictionary.” Perhaps so. But would it not help us to have recourse to the language of Peter and Paul ? You studiously avoid their utterances, and in my opinion you do so because they teach a doctrine of the Atonement which you desire to conceal. You repudiate their plainest teaching. “ Where,” you ask, “ in the whole New Testament is it alleged that Christ died in order to appease an angry God ? Nowhere 1 ” Turn, my lord, to Romans v., 9, and read—“ Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him,” or, according to the Revised Version, from “ the wrath of God.” Again you say that “this idea of Christ suffering the same, or an equivalent, penalty with that which is due by us, and this suffering being a satisfaction to the justice of God, is wholly indefensible.” Now Peter says (1st, iii., 18) “ Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.” Paul says (1st Cor., vi., 20) “ For ye are bought with a price.” He repeats this sentence in the next chapter. If words have any meaning your “ indefensible ” doctrine is supported by D �42 Letters to the Clergy. Scripture. Your own words that “ in the sacrifice of Christ’s death there was an atoning, a propitiatoryefficacy,'” really concede the whole case you would dispute. You hedge and trim, and talk mysteriously, but you finally settle down on the good old orthodox doctrine; the doctrine of Peter and Paul; the doctrine of your standard authorities, Beveridge and Pearson; the doctrine of your Book of Homilies; the doctrine of the eleventh Article of the Church of England. Adam fell, and we, his posterity, inherit his sinful nature, which, as your ninth Article declares, “ in every person born into this world deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Christ came to be crucified, as your second Article declares, in order “ to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” According to Scripture we must be saved by the name of Jesus or not at all; wherefore your articles (10, 13, 17, and 18) distinctly affirm that only those are saved who are “ chosen in Christ,” that our best deeds with­ out “ the grace of Christ ” are displeasing to God, and that the noblest men, outside the Christian pale, whether heathen or unbelievers, are doomed to ever­ lasting hell. Your heart, my lord, or your prudence, revolts against this hideous doctrine. But why did you sign the Thirty-nine Articles ? Why do you take £4,500 a year to teach what you cannot believe? Would it not be more manly to teach it plainly or disown it publicly ? You tell me that “ in some way Christ’s death has removed an obstacle to our forgiveness; ” you say you admit “ an Atonement ” but no “ particular theory of the Atonement; ” you say “ we are wise if we refrain from at all attempting to define; ” and finally you appeal to Faith to justify your “strange, mysterious, difficult, perplexing dogma.” Why should I believe what is strange, mysterious, difficult, and perplexing ? You have many good reasons for pretending to—a bishopric, a seat in the House of Lords, social distinc­ �The Atonement. 43 tion, and £4,500 a year. But what reason have I—a poor, persecuted Freethinker—to believe what I cannot understand; or what, so far as I do understand it, I utterly detest and abhor 1 Pardon me, my lord, for introducing the name of Thomas Paine ; but he was a great man, and his name will outlive that of any member of the present bench of Bishops. My object in mentioning this illustrious writer is to show you the impression made upon his mind, in boyhood, by your doctrine of Atonement; and I will give it in his own words from the Age of Reason. “ I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the Church, upon the subject of what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. Aftei- the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself in any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I did not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had anything in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection arising from the idea I had, that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it 1 believe in the same manner to this moment: and I moreover believe that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” I do not know whether God is too good to do such an action, for I have less acquaintance with him than Paine, who was a Deist; but, with that exception, I have the honor to endorse every word in this passage. You deny that the sacrifice of Christ was made “ to appease the wrath of an angry God^” but you allow that it was “ to effect the compassionate purpose of a loving God.” What is this but juggling with words ? It is not the form of expression I object to, but the substance of the doctrine. However you state it, the fact remains that God required the sacrifice of his own �44 Letters to the Clergy. son before he would be reconciled with his creatures. Nor will it avail to plead that Christ was a willing victim. This may prove his generosity, but it does not save the reputation of his father. Whether Christ came, as you affirm, or was ** sent,” as I read in St. Paul, your Deity is equally cruel and detestable. Calvinism boldly takes its stand on what it calls divine justice, which is happily very unlike human justice, and follows St. Paul in affirming God’s right to do as he likes with his own. It is not for us to question, but to obey. He is angiy with us for our sins, which he regards as infinite because they are com­ mitted against an infinite being; and as our sins, nay, every one of them, deserves an infinite punishment, it follows that we must suffer for them eternally. There is, however, one way of escape. Being a trinity, God is able to act in three different ways at once. Justice is therefore wielded by the Father, mercy by the Son, and grace by the Holy Ghost. The Father insists on payment of his debt of damnation, the Son offers to pay it all with his own sufferings, and the Holy Ghost undertakes to supervise the contract. Such is the time-honored doctrine of the Atone­ ment, and although I regard it as a theological pantomime, I am bound to confess that it hangs together logically; .while your doctrine, if I may be allowed a colloquialism, is neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. I have already observed, however, that you use language which implies the whole orthodox theory. You allow the three ideas of propitation, sacrifice, and atonement; and as an anatomist from a few bones, or even one, will construct the entire skeleton of the organism to which they belonged, so a skilful Calvinist would develope his complete theory out of your admissions. Your only escape from his remorseless logic is to cry “ A mystery, a mystery ’ ” But it is easy for the Calvinist to reply that, while the reason of a process may be a mystery, the process itself is not so, �The Atonement. 45 and that while the facts are uncertain, it is idle to discuss their explanation. Having tried to understand what you mean by Sropitiation, I can discover nothing but this, that esus Christ puts the Almighty in a good temper; but you do not state how the operation is performed, or why it is needed. You are equally hazy as to sacrifice. You tell me that the death of Christ removed an obstacle to our forgiveness, an “ obstacle existing not on the human but on the Divine side.” But you do not state the nature of the obstacle, or explain how one part of the Trinity removes obstacles from the mind of another part of the Trinity. As for atone­ ment, you veil your meaning, if you have a meaning, in a cloud of words. It is possible that you will im­ pose or a number of invertebrate readers, but every thinking person who yeads your essay will wonder how it is that Christian doctrines are defended by the method of emptying every leading term of the meaning it has borne for nearly two thousand years. The Christian ship is to be rebuilt and refitted, a fresh cargo is to be chartered, new bunting is to be run aloft, and all that is to be retained is the old figure­ head 1 ° To my mind it is beyond a doubt that the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is a sublimation of the old Jewish and Pagan notions of sacrifice. This you deny, and for various reasons. The first is that the Pagan idea of sacrifice was “ the substitution of an unwilling victim.” Not necessarily so, my lord; and if you read the two stories attentively you will find that Iphigenia was no more and no less an unwilling victim than Jesus Christ. Your second reason is that the immolation of victims was “ selfish and cowardly,” and I presume you intend it to be inferred that it is “ generous and brave ” on the part of Christians to avail themselves of the sufferings of their Savior, and that the beautiful hymn “ Throw it all upon Jesus ” is the perfection of disinterestedness. I cannot admit �46 Letters to the Clergy. the inference, and I dispute the fact. The ancient sacrifices were not necessarily “ selfish and cowardly.” They were nearly always corporate ceremonies. There was supposed to be a spiritual autonomy of the tribe or nation, and if the gods were offended they plagued the whole body of their worshippers. For this reason, as is pointed out by Renan, the national gods were always the most bloodthirsty and terrible, while the domestic gods were merciful and benign. The sacri­ fice, therefore, was made in the interest of the whole people, to avoid pestilence, famine, or extermination. It was not selfishness and cowardice, but a dark super­ stition, which led the Jews to hang the sons of Saul in order to arrest a famine. After three years’ suffer­ ing they inquired of David, who inquired of the Lord, and the Lord’s answer was singularly felicitous for David’s ambition. “ It is fo» Saul,” said Jehovah. The sons of the late king were then hanged, David was relieved of the presence of seven possible pretend­ ers to the throne, and “ God was entreated for the land.” Your third reason is no less unhappy. That the Jewish mind could entertain the “abhorrent” Mea of human sacrifice, which is involved in the death of Christ, you say is inconceivable. But you forget two important things; first, that Christianity spread chiefly among Gentiles and Jews who lived in Gentile cities ; second, that as the doctrine of the Atonement grew up gradually, the sacrifice of Christ was at once mystical and retrospective. His death was not the death of a man, but the death of a man-god; and that very fact is the secret of the Atonement. You are discreetly silent, my lord, as to the Blood of Christ, but it contains the whole mystery of the Atonement. Being at once God and man, he was proxy for both in a blood covenant, and thus the two estranged parties were made at one with each other. He was also a perfect sacrifice once for all, dispen­ sing with the further immolation of men or animals. �The Atonement. 47 Not only was his the ££ blood of the new covenant/’ it was “ shed for the remission of sin.” ££ Without shedding of blood,” says St. Paul, “ there is no remis­ sion/' and Christ fulfilled the whole of the conditions. This is the meaning of propitiation, sacrifice, and atonement. From beginning to end it is a doctrine of blood. It is the final development of a superstition which has prevailed in every part of the world, begin­ ning in the blood covenant of savages, ascending into the blood covenant of sacrifice in barbarous religions, and reaching its acme in the bleeding figure of your god-man Jesus Christ upon his sacrificial cross. His bloody sweat, his blood-stained brows, his gory hands and feet, and the blood-spurt from his wounded side, are all designed to emphasise the central idea. It is his blood that cleanses us from sin ; we have ££ redemp­ tion through his blood we are ££ justified by his blood he has ££ made peace through the blood of his cross.'’ And every time you renew your covenant with God at the communion table, you do so by drink­ ing the blood of Christ. The passionate words of Othello are a splendid summary of your creed—££ Blood, blood, Iago, blood.” Let me conclude, my lord, by reminding you of a great distinction, and the only distinction, between the Christian and the Pagan ideas of sacrifice. The Pagans, and also the Jews, sacrificed animals, and occasionally human beings, on the altars of their gods. The Christians, however, conceived the idea of their God becoming his own victim, and shedding his own blood instead of theirs. The Pagans were ready to die for their gods, but the Christians made their god die for them. It was a brilliant conception; worthy of the meekness which has walked the earth with fire and sword, and the humility which has revelled in dogma and persecution. �48 .Letters to the Clergy. OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY. TO THE REV. EUSTACE R. CONDER, D.D. Sir,— You have undertaken a bold task, but I fear your success will not be commensurate with your courage. The defence of the morality of the Old Testament is a forlorn hope. Victory is impossible. The utmost you can do is to show your possession of that virtue which is called fortitude in a king and obstinacy in another animal. The Present Day Tracts issued by the Religious Tract Society are written by men of eminence and ability. When the recent tenth volume fell into my hands it excited my respectful attention. Your own tract on “Moral Difficulties in the Old Testament Scriptures ” appealed most directly to my curiosity. I read it carefully, made copions annotations in the liberal margin which seemed provided for the. purpose, and set it aside for criticism in the Freethinker. I am now able to carry out my intention in this open letter, which I trust you will do me the honor of perusing. Should you desire to answer my criticism, I will gladly place the columns of my paper at your service. Wishing to track you step by step, I will first notice your introductory remarks. They exhibit your point of view, contain your definitions, disclose the principles that guide your judgment, and settle the ground on which discussion must take place. “ Mere intellectual difficulties,” you say, ought not to surprise us and need not trouble us. You regard them as natural, nay, inevitable, in the revelation of infinite wisdom. But “the case is otherwise with moral difficulties,” and we are “ constrained to solve them.” You define moral difficulties as “any such representa- �Old Testament Morality. 49 tions of the character and dealings of God as we are at a loss to reconcile with perfect rectitude, wisdom and love/’ I accept the definition as excellent. Yet I cannot agree with you that “ the supposition that the character of God actually falls short of absolute excel­ lence, or that his wisdom is fallible,” is to “ a sane and virtuous mind inconceivable.” John Stuart Mill denied the possibility of demonstrating the existence of a God at once all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good, in face of the tremendous evils that afflict and desolate the world. The only God, in his opinion, consistent with the facts of experience, is one of limited power, and perhaps of limited intelligence and benevolence. What you declare inconceivable he regarded as possible, or even probable; and neither you nor your colleagues will find it easy to induce the world to consider you more “sane and virtuous ” than this illustrious philosopher. There are two qualities you claim as indispensable to a proper consideration of the subject—reverence and honesty. You complain that “ reverence is reckoned superfluous by some who pride themselves on their honesty.” Sir, the complaint is unjust and illogical. Honesty is all you have a right to require or reason to expect. Reverence is not a preliminary; it should be a result. I decline to reverence your book, your doctrines, or your deity, without examination. I must discuss them openly, fearlessly, and completely. This is the only honest plan. If at the end I find what deserves my reverence, I shall yield it without solicita­ tion. But were I to approach your views with a feeling of reverence, the discussion would be decided before it commenced. I cannot swathe the sword of criticism at your bidding. Let it flash and cut; only falsehood will suffer; truth is invulnerable. It is idle to tell me that the Bible is “ the most venerable, wonderful, and indestructible monument of human thought.” If by venerable you mean ancient, the statement is untrue; in any other sense you are begging the question. Nor am I to be imposed upon �50 Letters to the Clergy. by your lavish chronology. The Bible has not been a power and a consolation “ through thousands of years.”' Even its oldest fragments are not to be carried beyond the ninth century before Christ. The greater part of the Old Testament is later than the Captivity. You have thus a chronology of considerably less than three thousand years; and during half that period the Bible was a sealed book to the people. Until the Reformation they were unable to read it in their vernacular tongues and become acquainted with its contents. You may regard me as “ coarse and vulgar ”—to use your own polite language—but I cannot reverence your “venerable documents.” Age is not necessarily respectable. Old thieves are found in the dock, and ancient superstitions in the human mind. Witchcraft is older than Christianity; would you therefore treat it with reverence if you heard the nurse teaching it to your children ? “ Coarse and vulgar ” are hard words, but I persist with my objection. I cannot allow that “ the sceptic is bound to keep a check on his hostile feeling” while “ the Christian is not bound to suppress his love to the Bible, or to affect an impossible impartiality.” If impartiality is impossible on the one side, why demand it so strenuously on the other? You speak of “pro­ fessional ” assailants of Christianity. Are you not one of its “ professional ” champions ? You frown at those who are “ bent on making out a case.” Is not that the object of your Tract? You say that the sceptical objections to Scripture have been “ discussed, and more or less satisfactorily disposed of, times without num­ ber.” Might not the sceptic say the same of your “ evidences ” ? You assert that the moral difficulties of the Bible “ occupy but a small place in it,” and that “ anywhere out of the Bible they would give us no trouble.” Is this true ? Are there not bestial stories in the Bible, voluptuous descriptions, and obscene phrases, that would subject an ordinary volume to prosecution, and its publisher to fine and imprisonment ? �OtS, Testament Morality. 51 Another remark in your introduction remains to be noticed. You declare that “ a real Christian ” is “ not less, but more sensitive than a sceptic to moi al diffi­ culties in the Bible.” Then, sir, the real Christian has a miraculous power of concealing his perturbation. Honest sceptics—even such eminent men as Voltaire and Paine—have been insulted and persecuted. Their criticisms met with no other answer until such replies had ceased to be effective. According to my in­ formation, the moral, as well as the “ merely intel­ lectual ” difficulties of the Bible, have been exposed by sceptics, and seldom, if ever, by Christians. The orthodox plan has been to commence with persecution of the critics of Scripture; then to pass on through successive stages of insult, denunciation, deprecation, and silence; finally, to resort to labored and dis­ ingenuous apologies, with the pretence that the world is really indebted to Christians for its knowledge of the “ apparent ” defects and deficiencies of Holy Writ. I come now to your specific treatment of the moral difficulties of Scripture. The first case is that of God’s dealings with Adam and Eve. Whether the story be literally true, or an allegory, you allow that the “ moral and spiritual meaning ” is the same. Man, you say, was “ endowed with a moral nature in which sin had no place,” a statement which is belied by the fact that he fell. He sinned; he was guilty of “ a deliberate viola­ tion of known duty ; ” he disobeyed “ God’s positive command;” he committed a breach of that “ law written in the heart; ” and he suffered the inevitable penalty. Such is your argument, and nearly every word is false. The fact is that Adam ate an apple, which he was forbidden to touch. Millions of boys have done the same thing since, but their parents have not damned them everlastingly for such a trivial offence. You may tell me that a parent’s command is one thing, and God’s another. I answer that an act cannot be affected by the greatness of the person who forbids it; otherwise �52 Letters to the Clergy. morality is nothing but submission to authority, and the goodness or badness of conduct depends on the disposition of lawgivers and executioners. What could two beings in the position of Adam and Eve know of duty? Mr. Gladstone himself, in his reply to Colonel Ingersoll, is obliged to admit that this unhappy couple had no “ ethical standard,” no rule of “consciously perceived right and wrong,” but were under the law of “ simple obedience.” “ Their con­ dition,” he continues, “ was greatly analagous to that of the infant, who has just reached the stage at which he can comprehend that he is ordered to do this or that, but not the nature of the thing so ordered.” In other words, they were infants in knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and they acted like infants in the presence of a shining allurement. I know not whether you have children, but, if you have, I suppose they have often done what you told them not to do. Yet I have no doubt you are too humane to turn them out of your house, and if you did the law would make you support them. It is a crime to strike a child, it is foolish to punish. Love is the true discipline, and wisdom and patience are its best instruments. I have a right to show even a child that certain things annoy me, but no right to beat it for a mistake, or to curse it for an indiscretion. Even if it sometimes showed a bad dis­ position, I should reflect that it probably derived it from its parents, and feel all the more tender and patient on that account. Nothing is more miserably stupid than the mere imposition of one’s will, with no other justification. Parents should guide, and in some cases restrain; but it is a wretched egotism which prompts them to say “Do this because I tell you to.” Let us apply this truth to the story of the Fall. Why did Jehovah act in a manner which I, as a human parent, should consider disgraceful ? Why did he steel his heart against his own creatures ? Why did he curse his own children ? Why did he prohibit an action in itself harmless ? Why did he plant a trap for �Old Testament Morality. 53 two inexperienced beings, and punish them for falling into it ? Would he not have shown more wisdom and humanity if, instead of telling them not to eat apples, he had told them to be just, kind, and merciful to each other, fortifying the precept with his own example ? Let me ask you to consider the curse pronounced by your God on his “ disobedient ” children for their first “ offence/’ I pass the grotesque curse upon the serpent who tempted them, and the ridiculous curse upon the inanimate ground beneath their feet. What remains is sufficient for my purpose. Jehovah sentenced the man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. This may be regarded as a curse in hot countries, where labor is irksome, and everything invites to repose ; but in temperate climates like ours it is a pleasant and wholesome discipline. There is a great deal of truth in the observation of an American humorist that “ doing nothing is hard work—if you keep at it.” I admit, however, that the woman’s sentence was far more serious, and a curse indeed. <f I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception,” said the Lord, “ in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Such language is to mind infamous. I had a mother, I have sisters, I have a wife. I know that a woman, especially with her first child, needs all sympathy and support during her confinement. Motherhood, as In­ gersoll remarks, is the most pathetic fact in nature. Surely, sir, if the woman merited punishment—which I atn far from conceding—a merciful God would not choose the most piteous crisis of her life to inflict it upon her. A fiend sent to torment her at such a mo­ ment might melt with compassion, and murmur “ Not now, not now ! ” Am I, then, to worship a deity who is too callous to relent? No, I will not. As the son of a woman, as the husband of a woman, I say that if there be a God who deliberately adds a pang to the sufferings of a woman in childbirth, I hate him with every drop of blood in my veins. Words are too feeble �54 Letters to the Glergy. to express my scorn and loathing. I would rather have his room in Hell than his company in Heaven. Why did Jehovah place a temptation in the way of his inexperienced children if he knew that their fall would involve such awful consequences'? Why did he allow the Devil to heighten the temptation with with all the arts of a consummate seducer ? Why did he not not warn them against the wiles of their enemy ? Why did he station a cherubim at the gate of Eden to prevent them from returning after their expulsion ? Would it not have been more considerate had he used the same means to prevent the Devil from disturbing their innocent serenity ? You justify God’s inflicting the penalty of Adam’s transgression upon his remote posterity. You say that they were “involved in his sin/’ In what way, sir? To tell me that Adam begat a son “ in his own image ” is only to tell me that the son was his father’s child. It does not justify the transmitted curse ? It does not explain why a being of “ perfect rectitude, wisdom, and love ” punishes millions of souls for the fault of one soul milleniums before their birth. To my mind it seems perfectly clear that, if each soul is to be saved or damned alone, every soul should have a fair start. I deny that I should be prejudiced by the sin of an­ other. If God makes me responsible for the offences of my ancestors, I suppose I must submit to his power, but I will never acknowledge his justice. Your own heart, sir, is evidently superior to your creed. You perceive that the conduct of Jehovah is incapable of justification on the ordinary principles of human morality. You fall back, therefore, upon the position of Bishop Butler, which is inexpugnable to the attacks of Deists, but indefensible against the attacks of a later scepticism. You ask whether the Bible account of the Fall presents “any moral diffi­ culty which does not meet us equally in daily expe­ rience ? ” But this is not the argument you undertook to maintain. You set yourself the task of reconciling �Old Testament Morality. 55 the conduct of Jehovah with “ perfect rectitude, wisdom and love.’'’ It is idle to point out that worse things than those in the Bible happen in the ordinary course of nature. The universe is not on trial, nor its ruler. We are not, for the moment, concerned with the God of Nature, if such a being exist, but with the God of the Bible. It is useless to defend your Deity by saying “Mine is as good as yours.” I have no deity to defend. You have; and I must beg you to defend him on the principles you accepted in your introduction. Before I proceed further I will quote the following passage from your essay :—“ We must understand love and righteousness in God to mean substantially the same thing with love and righteousness in man, only free from all limitation and defect; otherwise, neither objections nor replies have any meaning.” This is youi’ own rule of judgment, and you cannot complain if I rigorously apply it to the rest of our “ moral difficulties.-” With regard to the Deluge, you make the gratuitous assertion that “ the substantial and weighty evidence for its reality is often overlooked by those who ought to know better.” After this somewhat pedagogic utterance it is amusing to read the footnote, in which you refer your readers “ for the bearing of geological science on the question ” to a tract by Sir William Dawson. I have read this tract, and the author argues for a partial flood. To use his own words, it was “ one of those submersions of our continents which, locally or generally, have occurred over and over again, almost countless times, in the geological history of the earth.” Yet I find you asserting, in the very teeth of your picked authority, that the Deluge “ stands alone ” by reason of its “ stupendous scale.” May I conclude that this is a dexterous way of steering between the Scylla of the heterodox view of a local flood and the Charybdis of the orthodox view of a universal flood ? At any rate, you. commit yourself to neither, but moralise on either side as it suits your purpose. �56 Letters to the Clergy. Let me also express my astonishment at the use you make of an awkward text, which you would have shown more discretion in avoiding. After drawing a dark picture of the awful sin of the antediluvians, you quote the sentence “ There were giants in the earth in those days/’ and you ask the reader to imagine what might have happened if men with the lust and cruelty of a Nero or a Borgia, the strength of a Samson, and the intellect of a Caesar, had lived for a thousand years. De you believe in the reality of such prodigies ? That they are conceivable I admit, but so is a centaur, a dragon, or a satyr. Such imaginary beings do not trouble the heads of sensible men, nor are your antediluvian prodigies any more entitled to respect. You are ill-advised in introducing these “ giants.” As the Revised Version discloses to the unlearned reader, they were simply Nephilim, who, as the context in­ dicates, were like the Gigantes of the Pagan mythology, the mixed offspring of heaven and earth. You are a devout believer in the existence of these fabulous monsters, but the existence of tlie Pagan giants, as Lempriere says, was also “ supported by all the writers of antiquity, and received as an undeniable truth.” Taking the Bible record as it stands, as you profess to, with its Ci stupendous ” slaughter of men, women, and children—in fact, the extermination of the whole human race, with the exception of eight persons—what is your excuse for the God who planned and executed this unparalleled massacre ? First, you remark that the same kind of thing fre­ quently happens, although on a smaller scale. People have been swallowed by earthquakes, swept away by pestilence, and destroyed by floods. Volcanoes have buried cities, the sea has engulphed myriads of ships with their crews. But all this is beside the point. As well might a murderer argue that his victim must die at some time, and that cholera and small-pox kill a great many more than he does. The only reply you can possibly make is the one which St. Paul resorted �Old Testament Morality. 57 to when he desired to silence the objectors to pre­ destinate damnation ; namely, that God made us, and has a right to do as he will with his own. But this exalts his power at the expense of his beneficence, and puts an end to all controversy on the subject. You next observe that the antediluvians were awfully wicked. Still, they were God’s creatures, and surely the Maker could have reformed his own handi­ work. Could not the being who said “ Let there be light I and there was light,” as easily have said “ Let all men be good—or decent” with a similar result? No doubt you will reply with the argument from “ free­ will.” But, for my part, I think it shocking to make men what they are, to curse and torture them for being so, and to offer them consolation or excuse in the shape of a metaphysical puzzle. It is not thus that we reason on any other subject than theology. According to the story, God gave the devoted multitude a warning. Noah, that “ preacher of righteousness,” admonished them for the space of a hundred and twenty years. But the Lord should have selected a better prophet, or, if that were impossible, he should have sent a capable missionary from heaven. Noah’s character, as revealed by his conduct after the Flood—when he indulged himself in drunkenness, in­ decency, and indiscriminate cursing—was not calculated to lend persuasion to his appeals. Indeed, I have often wondered why Jehovah took the trouble to preserve this precious specimen of his primitive creatures. Admitting the necessity of a wholesale massacre, it seems to me that the Lord should have completed the work and left none of the old race surviving. This would have enabled him to start with a fresh stock, instead of re-peopling the world through Noah. Had he followed this sensible method, it is to be presumed that the world, a few centuries later, would not have fallen into such wickedness that a whole city could not yield a handful of righteous men to save it from ■destruction, while the elderly gentleman who was E �58 Letters to the Clergy. spared on that occasion celebrated the event by getting drunk and committing incest with his own daughters. Suppose I grant you, for the sake of argument, that the antediluvians were all incurably wicked, that there was no room for gradations, that every man and woman was full of infquity. Still, there remains the fact ihat multitudes of children perished in thecatastrophe, who could not have sinned as they v ere too young to be responsible. You are unable to dis­ pute the fact, and your explanation is piepostero.is. You declare that “ the suffering of the innocent with the guilty, and on account of the guilty, is part of the mysterious economy of human life?’ Do you seriously mean that such bungling is a mark of “ perfect wisdom ” and such indiscriminate slaughter a mark of “ perfect rectitude and love ” ? Could not Jehovah have spared the children as easily as the family of Noah? Was there not wood enough to build a thousand arks, and time enough for their construction ? No wonder you close this section of your essay by deprecating further criticism, and bidding your readers “ reverently bow before the veil, and patiently wait till God’s own hand withdraws it.” But if we have to await God’s con­ venience, after all, it is a waste of time on yogr part (not to use a harsher phrase) to offer temporary explanations. Were I not acquainted with the petrifying influence of religious dogmas on the best feelings of the human heart, and the feebleness of the human imagination with respect to distant scenes and events, I should marvel at the continued worship of a Deity who could find no other method of dealing with his crea­ tures than drowning them. It is easy to kill, it is difficult to educate and develope ; the one shows ignorance and brutality, the other wisdom and hi 'inan­ ity. The destructive impatience of Jehovah—who, like all barbaric gods, was fond of hurling his thunderbolts—would be an intolerable anachronism in our civilised jurisprudence. But what would be �Old Testament Morality. 591 detestable in human practice is sacred in religious theory. Men who would not hurt a child, and who shudder at the sight of blood, ascribe wholesale massacres and the most relentless cruelty to the God. of their inherited faith. For the most part, I am convinced, they never attempt to realise these horrors, which, if vividly conceived, would drive them mad or destroy their belief. But let it not be supposed that it does the character no injury to harbor such notions of the being one worships. The debasement of our ideal must re-act upon our feelings, and it would startle many a Christian philanthropist to recognise how much of the brutal callousness of mankind is due to theworship of barbarous and bloodthirsty gods. Here and there, indeed, worship is carried to the point of imita­ tion, and the result is an Alva or a Torquemada. It is even held by Dr. Forbes Winslow that if “Jack the Ripper ” is ever caught, he will be found to be suffering from religious mania, and perhaps to consider himself charged with a murderous mission from heaven. Passing from the Deluge I come to the destruction of the cities of the plain. You compare this event with the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii,, whose inhabitants you conjecture to have been “ equally wicked.” What is your reason for saying so ? There is nothing in the authentic records of history to justify the conjecture. You are a thick-' and-thin pleader for Jehovah, but you have no scruple at libelling your fellow men. In any case, the analogy is useless to your object. • Educated men—to whom, I suppose, your tract is addressed—are not so super­ stitious as to imagine that Mount Vesuvius is a provi­ dential reservoir, which belches out its contents when the Lord has someone to punish. Nor is there any similarity between a volcanic eruption, which is as natural as a thunderstorm, and the “ fire from heaven31 which the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The one is natural, the other is miraculous. Some �60 Letters to the Clergy. perception of this difference must have been present to yoor mind when you fell back upon the Abrahamic exclamation “ Shall not the judge of all the earth do right ?” This, you say, is “ the one reply ” to all such difficulties, and “ it is adequate.'’"’ I deny its adequate­ ness ; I call it a begging of the question. But I admit it is “ the one reply ” of Bibliolators. They cry off in the crisis of debate, close their eyes, and offer up a prayer. Scientific criticism of the Bible removes the “ difficulty” in quite another fashion. The cities of the plain are imaginary places. Ancient peoples .associated legends with every striking aspect of nature. Ignorant of geology, the Jews and other orientals .ascribed a supernatural origin to the Dead Sea and its volcanic surroundings. The story grew up of cities that were destroyed on its site, and to this day the natives believe they see fragments of buildings and pillars rising from the bottom of the lake. Similarly, the story of Lot and his daughters is legendary. Moab and Ammon were for many centuries the implacable enemies of the Jews, who libelled them generically by tracing their origin to the incestuous and prolific intercourse of a father with his own offspring. Let us now consider the case of the “heathen nations” whose slaughter you admit to have been “ authorised by God’s express command.” You pro­ test against these massacres being judged by our modern ideas of humanity, and this may be a fair excuse for the Jew’s, but what-excuse is it for Jehovah ? It is idle to talk of the barbarities of ancient times; we are not discussing the morality of the ancient Jews, but the morality of an “ inspired ” volume, which, if it comes from a God such as you define, can never sink below the loftiest benevolence, and still less shock the common feelings of civilised men and women. One of your observations on. the chosen people is ludicrous, even as a piece of special pleading. Con­ �Old Testament Morality. 61 sidering the cruelties of antiquity, you remark that the “ Hebrews, far from being a ferocious and bloodthirsty people, were marked by superior self-restraint and humanity.” You seem astonished at their moderation. But is it not obvious that the Jews were never treated by their conquerors with the cruelty they displayed towards their own victims ? Had they been so, they would have been annihilated. The Assyrian govern­ ment was coarse and brutal, but it never equalled the ferocity of Jehovah’s warriors. So far were the Jews from being ill-treated during the Captivity, that many of them who had settled in Babylon refused to return, to Palestine when they were free to do so. Even under the Pharaohs, they had been allowed to multiply enormously, and if they were compelled to work they were not allowed to starve, for when they were sick of the desert manna they bewailed their loss of the fleshpots of Egypt. I can conceive of nothing more absurd, or more immoral, than your plea that every man must die, and that death by the sword is generally less painful than death by disease. It is an outrage on common sense and common humanity. It would justify every private murder and every public massacre that ever was or could be committed. I know that I must die, but I do not wish a set of pious assassins to decide when and how I shall expire; yet, according to your argument, I should thankfully hold out my throat to any inspired butcher who will do me the honor of cutting it. Your next argument is that the nations, whose territory the Jews requisitioned, were doomed to extermination as “ the just punishment of their outrageous wickedness.” You forget that the Jews vexed the Lord more than the nations he drave out before them. You also forget that the defeated side is always in the wrong, and that the character of the Canaanites is described for us by those who robbed and murdered them. That the Jews were God's executioners is open to �62 Letters to the Clergy. suspicion when we reflect on their interest in the massacres. Nor is it tenable that in the extermination of whole nations of men, women, and children, there is “ no principle involved different from what is involved in the execution of a single murderer for a single crime.” There are two objections to this argument, and both of them unanswerable. In the first place, it is quite inconceivable that “ outrageous wickedness ” was universal. Had it been so, the Canaanites would have perished from social anarchy, without waiting for “ God’s execu­ tioners.” There must have been a moderate regard for the primary laws of human society. Men must have supported their wives and families, and mothers must have cooed over their smiling babes. Yet we read that the massacre of these people was universal and promiscuous. Nay more, we read that the camels and asses were involved in the slaughter, while the horses were subjected to the infamous process of houghing. You would cry £< Shame!” if this were done by a desperate Irish peasant, but you ask me to regard it as divine justice when it is done by Jewish marauders in the name of their God. In the next place, the object of individual punish­ ment is not vengeance, but the protection of society. It is a warning, an example, a deterrent; characters which can never belong to massacre and extermination. Edmund Burke professed himself unable to draw up an indictment against a whole people; but you, sir, are ready to draw up their indictment, pronounce their sentence, and superintend their execution. There is something worse than death. It is dis­ honor. There is something worse than murder. It is violation. I do not wonder at your silence on this topic. You feel that a plea for the selection of virgins for the Jewish conquerors would affront the conscience of humanity. Yet I must remind you that this was done by the express command of Jehovah. Youth and beauty were sacrificed on the altar of lust. Maidens �Old Testament Morality. 63 were handed over—loy your God—to the bloody em­ braces of the murderers of their fathers and brothers. Your treatment of the projected sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham does not lessen its “ difficulties?’ That human sacrifices were common at that time is pro­ bable ; that parents had power of life and death ■over their children is certain. But what has this to do with a divine command ? Was Jehovah unable to rise above the morality of the age ? It may be that such a sacrifice was not “ at variance either with Abraham’s own conscience or with the ideas of morality then universally prevailing.” But Abraham’s conscience is a poor standard, and we are not bound by the moral ideas of that period. You forget the real point at issue. It is Jehovah who is on trial. Why did he tell a father to slay his son, or lead him to suppose that such a sacrifice could be acceptable ? Should a father obey a voice from heaven command­ ing him to kill his son 1 Not now, you reply, for the voice would be a delusion. But that is your opinion. The voice is not a delusion to the man who hears it. If he acts in all sincerity is he justified ? I defy you to answer this question without absolving him or con­ demning Abraham. Twenty voices from heaven would not induce a brave and tender man to commit a murder. If Jehovah thundered in concert with all the gods of the Pantheon, from the Himalayas to Olympus, I would not dip my hands in blood at his bidding. I would rather incur his vengeance than earn his rewards. I would despise his heaven, and never fear his hell. The cursing Psalms are another theme for your sophistry. You quote a few of the mildest as though they were fair samples of the rest. You cannot com­ plain, therefore, if I quote one of the worst:—“ Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.” �'64 Letters to the Clergy. Such infamous words would disgrace the lips of a fiend ? Is it not strange to find them in “ an inspired manual of devotion ■” ? Do you imagine that the study of these curses upon the innocent wives and children of one’s enemies is calculated to make men tender and merciful 1 You allege that “ the persons denounced in these Psalms were enemies of God, of religion, and of the commonwealth,” but you admit that they were “ also (at least in some cases) personal enemies of the Psalmist.” Do you not see that this is a very con­ venient way of gratifying malignity under the cloak of religion Will you also tell me how the “ widows ” and the “ fatherless ” were the “ enemies of God, of religion, and of the commonwealth ” ? Your defence of David is labored and curious. With regard to the very politic execution of Saul’s male descendants to arrest a famine, you bid me remember the old principle of blood-vengeance. Is the man after God’s own heart to be judged by secular standards? What is the use of the Grace of God if it leaves men slaves to the foolish superstitions and coarse morality of their age ? There is one point of the story which you conveniently forget. After the execution of the seven victims “ the Lord was entreated for the land ” and the famine ceased. Does not this make Jehovah an accomplice of David’s ? Will you ask me to excuse David and Jehovah on the same grounds ? David’s mean, treacherous, and cowardly murder of Uriah, after vainly endeavoring to make him pass as the father of Bathsheba’s bastard, it enough to damn him in the eyes of every honest man. It reveals a dreadful turpitude of character. It was not one act of passion, bnt a series of calculated villainies. Yet all you have to say in palliation is that David repented, and you appear to think that repentance is higher than innocence. I differ from you, but I will not argue the point. I will merely say that David’s repentance was rather fear than remorse. I read that he made atone­ ment by going to war, and butchering his prisoners �Old Testament Morality. 65 with every circumstance of horror. “ Where,” you ask, “ shall we find a parallel to his repentance ?” I answer—happily nowhere. “ An exhaustive treatment ” of the moral difficulties of the Old Testament is not your aim. You add that “ perhaps no such treatment is possible.” Here, at least, I have the honor to agree with you. No special pleading, however able and subtle, can make the Jewish scriptures anything but a record of barbarism, with gleams of growing culture, and occasional aspirations towards higher things. Some of the Old Testament pages are filthy, some are brutal, and some are disgusting. To defend these is to palter s with conscience, and to sap the very foundations of morality. INSPIRATION. TO THE REV. ROBERT F HORTON, MA. Sir,— Sundry press notices drew my attention to your work on Inspiration and the Bible. The Pall Mall Gazette praised your “ able and courageous treatment of the subject.” The Scotsman spoke, of its “ perfect candor and fairness.” The Scottish Leader “ could not but commend the book.” Canon Cheyne himself, in addressing the last Church Congress, described your volume as “ freshly-written and stimulating.” These are good testimonials, as testimonials go, and I turned to your book with curiosity and expectation. What you have to sav is addressed to believers, and I am not a believer. Why then, you may ask, do I meddle with what does not concern me. 1 do so, first, �66 Letters to the Clergy. because the subject is interesting to every citizen of a country in which the Bible is legally declared to be the Word of God. I do so, secondly, because I have suffered imprisonment for “ bringing the Holy Scriptures into disbelief and contempt,’’ and I have a personal interest in the question. I do so, thirdly, because every man who publishes a book submits it to public criticism. I do so, lastly, because you have not scrupled to give your opinion of the “ modem infidel ” and the “ poor Secularist/’ Pardon me for saying that you quite misunderstand the “modern infidel” and the “poor Secularist/’ Dealing with what you are pleased to call the “ cast-iron theory of inspiration,” you say: “We have multitudes among us who have thrown their Bibles away, or are using them only as corpus vile to flog and to deride. We have only to glance at the literature which issues from the infidel press to see that our working men at least, the part of the community for whom Christ’s religion is peculiarity adapted, the cast-iron theory has rendered no very signal service. From it and it alone in almost every case comes the. first difficulty to the young mechanic, who is just beginning to think for himself. To it is due first the sceptical suspicion and last the utter rejection of the Book; and when the poor Secularist after years of vainly beating the air is brought back again to truth and reality, it is by the living Christ, whom he might have known and loved from the first.” How many “ poor Secularists ” have you brought back to “the living Christ”? How many have you seen brought back by other preachers ? I suspect you drew on your imagination for the facts, and so long as they “ point a moral or adorn a tale ” there is nothing to shock a mind accustomed to the time-honored methods of Christian apology. From the earliest ages, when fraud and forgery were rampant, down to the present, when the silliest fictions are circulated in religious tracts and periodicals, your Church has con­ served the precious art of hoodwinking its devotees. I say your Church, because the spirit and policy of every sect has been essentially the same. �Inspiration. 67 I observe in your preface that you “ hardly know an argument waged at the present day on the Secularist platforms which does not derive all its cogency from the false impression which we have ourselves given about the nature and claims of the Bible.” If you honestly believe this, you are basking in afooPs paradise. It is true that Secularists point out the self-contra­ dictions, the absurdities, the immoralities, the in­ decencies, and the scientific and historical blunders of the Bible. But if you could purge the Bible of all these, if you could abolish the peccant parts from human memory, so that no one could ever know that they existed, you would find the Secularist, or the “ infidel,” ready with strong and plentiful arguments against the inspiration of the rest. You cannot cheat us by flinging overboard what you consider contraband. We object to your ship, your flag, your figure-head, and your cargo. We shall never be satisfied until the Bible ranks with other books, and is judged by human standards. We shall wage our battle against Chris­ tianity until it ceases to exist. We are pledged to oppose every species of supernaturalism, whether it assumes the lordly air of infallible authority or the humbler attitude of defence and apology. You admit that Biblical criticism is very largely the work of rationalists, though you “ do not refuse to build a church because the masons employed are Free­ thinkers.” The illustration is an unfortunate one. Do you suppose the Freethinking masons are building for you? Will the clergy play the part of architects, while the materials are supplied and wrought by their superiors ? You deceive yourself if you think so. Scientific criticism has not finished its work on your creed. Its solvent influence cannot be arrested. You admit that much has been destroyed, and the fate of the rest is equally certain. You are like a Russian traveller, chased by wolves. What you fling to your pursuers only whets their appetite for more. There is no shelter in sight, the snowy steppe stretches out �68 Letters to the Clergy. illimitably, and the age of miracles is past. You will be surrounded, and every bone will be neatly picked. You waste your time in telling Agnostics and Rationalists that there is a “ middle course ” between the old doctrine of inspiration and the theory that the Bible “ is not different from the Sacred Literatures of other Religions.” Were your Scriptures a greater monument of genius and power than its rivals, it would still be open to the fundamental objections which apply to all revelations. The rationalist rejects miracles in literature as well as in physics. All the books in existence were written by men, and all of them, including the Bible, bear the unmistakeable marks of their human origin. You are too sagacious and well-informed not to seethat the Bible does bear these incontestible marks of a human production. Consequently you are anxious to get rid of the “ cast-iron theory of inspiration,” accord­ ing to which every book, every chapter, and every verse of Scripture is directly inspired by an infallible mind. You declare it “ almost incredible that any reasonable person could entertain ” such a theory. But I must remind you that this is still the official theory of nearly all the churches. Just as the Church of England insists on its Articles being taken in the “ plain grammatical sense,” so the ministers of almost every denomination present the Word of God as textu­ ally inspired. They make reservations in controversy, and subtle distinctions in books for educated readers,, but the “ cast-iron theory,” is implied in the majority of their sermons, and openly taught in Sunday-schools. There are, indeed, some eminent ministers who are accounted “ reasonable persons,” and who nevertheless teach what is “ almost incredible.” Mr. Spurgeon, for instance, has recently declared his solemn con­ viction that every word of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is absolutely true. It must be allowed, however, that this view, is becoming more and more impossible in these days of general education; and if �Inspiration. 69 your Bible is to be saved out of the storm of debate, it can only be by changing the old theory of inspiration, Whether the change can be successfully made, or whether the success can be permanent, is quite another matter. You have your opinion, I have mine, and we must agree to differ. There is one aspect of the question which you over­ look, and the point it involves is more vital than any you have considered. If the Bible is inspired at all it must be inspired in the original tongues. Those who cannot read Greek and Hebrew are without an inspired Bible. A translation is the work of fallible scholars. However accurate they may be, they must make mis­ takes ; however honest they may be, they will be influenced by prepossessions; however learned they may be, they must find it impossible to overcome the difficulty which arises from the diverse genius of different languages. Sir William Drummond was un­ acquainted with any two Hebrew scholars who trans­ lated any two consecutive verses alike; and although Greek is more precise in construction, and less obscure in consequence of its varied literature, there are a host of conflicting readings of texts in the New Testament. In any case, therefore, unless we meet with the miracle of an inspired translator, it is absolutely impossible for -an ordinary Englishman—who must be saved or ■damned in English—to have an inspired Bible. What is revelation to the reader of Greek and Hebrew is •only hearsay to the readers of translations. They may catch gleams of the poetry, master the philosophy, and understand the ethical teaching; but they can never be sure of possessing an exact knowledge of the divine or doctrinal parts of the revelation, which may lurk unperceived or appear perverted in an ill-rendered text. The Catholic has a way out of this difficulty, for the voice of God remains with the Church, and enables her to decide infallibly what is the right interpretation -of Scripture. But the Protestant has no way of -escape, and unless he is a Greek and Hebrew scholar �70 Letters to the Clergy. he is without an inspired book. You might call the' English Bible an approximate revelation, but I regard this as an absurdity. Revelation means certitude/ and certitude has no degrees. Besides, it appears to me that an omniscient God is able to speak in English, and that he would do so if he had anything to com­ municate to Englishmen. I cannot believe he would send his message through foreign channels, and place us at the mercy of translators and interpreters. My own opinion is that not one Christian in a thousand has ever given five minutes’ thought to the question of inspiration. “The point which strikes us,” you write, “ is that Christians are more certain that the Bible is inspired than they are of the grounds of their certainty.” What is this but saying that their certainty is only acquiescence, and their belief only a superstition ? Before I deal with your definition of inspiration I will go to the etymology of the word. I will ascertain what it originally meant, and I will inquire what it still means among savages and barbarians. There is nothing like going to the roots of a question. A. religion, which comes to us from a remote past cannot be understood without a knowledge of its primitive­ character. The term Inspiration comes from the Latin in, and spiro to breathe. From this also we derive the word spint. Now, among barbarous people, the breath is a symbol of the soul, which is supposed to go in and out of the body, in trance or dreams, through the organsof respiration ; and there is nothing more certain than that the primitive idea of inspiration was the actual possession of a human organism by the spirit of the god. “ The inspiration or breathing-in of a spirit intothe body of a priest or seer,” says Tylor, “ appears to such people a mechanical action, like pouring water into a jug.” The god enters the man’s body, and talks with his voice, and “ the convulsions, the unearthly voice in which the possessed priest answers in the- �Inspiration. 71 name of the deity within, and his falling into stupor when the god departs, all fit together, and in all ?uarters of the world the oracle-priests and diviners by amiliar spirits seem really diseased in body and mind,, and deluded by their own feelings, as well as skilled in cheating their votaries by sham symptoms and cunning answers.” This view is supported by a study of the Old Testament. Dr. Maudsley is of opinion that Ezekiel and Hosea, to say nothing of other prophets, were mad; and certainly no man in his senses would spend nearly four hundred days besieging a tile, or marry a degraded prostitute. When the Hebrew prophets opened their mouths they said “ Thus saith the Lord/7 Their messages were plain and peremptory. It was not they who spoke, but the Deity through their lips. Coming to the New Testament, also, we find the primitive theory still current. When the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles they spoke with strange tongues. Paul himself is sometimes careful to dis­ tinguish between his personal teaching and the direct commands of God. He ridiculed, though he admitted, the gift of tongues. Doubtless he heard too much of what Tylor calls “ the unearthly voice,” which still survives in the Christian pulpit, for artificial tones are thought the proper vehicle for the language of inspira­ tion. Among the Arabs of the Soudan there is an implicit belief in the primitive idea of inspiration. The deity speaks through the dervishes, and the Mahdi, without question, utters the authentic oracles of God. Similarly, tne ancient Jews, who were a branch of the same Semitic stem, and in very much the same stage of religious culture, looked to their prophets as mouth­ pieces of Jahveh. The contention is absurd that this view of inspiration grew up after the time of Ezra. It only became systematised and retrospective. Inspira­ tion ceased to be current simply because a wellorganised theocracy set its face against unlicensed �72 Letters to the Clergy. traders, and because when the monarchy had disappeared there was no longer room for prophetical dictators. Having dealt with the primitive meaning of Inspira­ tion, which you were perhaps too discreet to mention, I come to the present use of the word. Not only is the Bible said to be inspired, but the same is said of the orator and the poet. This implies a gradual secularisa­ tion of the idea. The teacher, the enthusiast, the prophet, is no longer the. oracle of an indwelling divinity. Genius has ceased to be what it once was, a spirit attending a man and speaking through him; it means no more than a natural exaltation of certain mental or moral powers. It would seem that the time is approaching when the word Inspiration will be emptied of all supernatural meaning. When that time arrives, as it assuredly will, I very much doubt if the Bible will hold its place at the top of our literature. There are splendid things, when adequately translated, in the old Scriptures of India, and the great voices of Greece and Rome carry a high message. Nor did the vein of Inspiration close with the ancients. Poets, thinkers, and moralists, as lofty as any of antiquity, have been amongst us, and only require age to mellow their golden reputations. One of them, the mightiest in the roll of fame, the magisterial genius of this planet, lived, died, and was buried in our own England. Upon his brow sits the shadow of thought beyond the scope of the bards of Israel; his eye has depth within depth, until the beholder is lost in its profundity; every passion trembles on his mobile lips; and in the corners of his mouth there lurk the subtle sprites of wit and humor—a wit as nimble as the lightning, a humor as sweet and impartial as the sunshine. His very language is divine, speaking every note from the whisper of love to the tempest of wrath, from the mother’s lullaby to the hero’s challenge, from the soft flutings of sylvan peace to the thunder-roll of battle and death. Let the poets and prophets of Israel approach. The mighty palace of his genius shall find them all an �Inspiration. 7.3 appropriate apartment, leaving a host of chambers to spare, in some of which the decorations are too lovely for their stern regard. You contend, however, that Shakespeare was not inspired. You claim Inspiration solely for the writers of the Bible. The Book of Jonah is, in that sense, more precious than “ Hamlet,” the Song of Solomon than “ A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” the story of Samson than the tragedy of Lear or Othello. What, then, do you mean by Inspiration ? I seek in your pages for a definition, and I cannot even find a descrip­ tion. You move in a vicious circle, making no more progress than a gin-horse. You remind me of Mr. Micawber’s steed, who was all action and no go. “ We mean by Inspiration,” you say, “ exactly those qualities and characteristics which are the marks or notes of the Bible.” This is vague enough for a Pagan oracle. But you improve on it a few pages further on. You there say—“ What is Inspiration? We have to answer, precisely that which the Bible is.” In other words, the Bible is inspired, and Inspiration is the Bible. You seem to me to be feebly following in the foot­ steps of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. You have his equivocalness without his genius, his mysteriousness without his flashes of light. When he said certain things in the Bible “find me ” he was expressing a real truth, though in a mystical manner; but when you speak of “ marks and notes ” of the Bible, without telling what they are, or giving the slightest hint as to how they may be recognised, you are only darkening the obscurity you pretend to enlighten. Your real drift is not to be discovered in your defini­ tions, but in your incidental remarks. You say the Bible “ reveals another Order, a Kingdom of Heaven, a view of human nature and of human destiny which lies quite beyond our ken.” Its writers are inspired “as revealers of God, of God’s purposes, of God’s methods.” The whole book is inspired because “by F �74: Letters to the Clergy. reading it and studying it we find our way to God, we find His will for us, and we find out how we can conform ourselves to His will.” Does it not occur to you that the Mohammedans can say the same of the Koran, the Brahmins of the Vedas, the Buddhists of their many Scriptures, and even the Mormons and the Jezreelites of Joe Smith's gold tablets and James White's flying roll? Is it not a fact that, taking the world as a whole, people find their “ way to God ” through the Bibles of their native lands? Is it not a matter of training and habit? Can it be said that so many as one in a thousand ever forsake the Scriptures of their fathers’ faith for the Scriptures of another creed ? If you had been born and bred in Turkey, would you not have defended the Koran by the same specious arguments as you now employ in defence of the Bible ? I cannot help saying that you treat the Bible as a fetish. Y ou are ready to admit that the tales of its manufacture are very questionable ; you are willing to paint it afresh, and put it in a new light; but you will not abandon the idol, and trust to your own reason and conscience for guidance. You allow, for instance, that Paul was not the author of several epistles that bear his name. One of his disciples “ would not hesitate to veil his own hand under the form of a letter from his master,” and “ what we call forgery he would call modesty.” But this does not interfere with the inspiration of such documents; there they are in the Blessed Book, a precious possession for ever! Pardon me for holding that you are mistaken. I do not believe your view will commend itself to the common sense of mankind. Paul was believed to have been miraculously converted, and selected to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. That belief gave a stamp of authority to his writings. But if it is proved that he never wrote many of the documents bearing his name, they will inevitably lose that stamp of authority, and come to be regarded as the writings of unknown �Inspiration. 75 and irresponsible imitators. Nay, more, the whole Bible will suffer from such exposure. A few chambers may remain intact, but the rest of the edifice will be in ruins. What is really left in your theory of Inspiration ? You concede that the Bible writers were fallible, that they made gross mistakes in science and history, and even blasphemed the Deity in their pitiable ignorance. In what department then were they inspired? I deduce your answer from a remark on the Epistles to the Galatians, which displays “ inspired dealing with ethical questions.’’’ You assert that Paul’s ideas had not “ their genesis in the character or training of the writer,” and “ can only be explained by referring them to the Eternal Mind itself.” Here then is your last plank. The Bible is ethically inspired. You cling to Bible morality as your rock of ages in the weltering sea of discussion. But the event may prove you are trusting to a' treacherous support. Modern criticism is not inclined to respect your last refuge. It points to the moral crudities of the Bible, which, on your own admission, make “ a very pretty picture ” when they are collected together. But that is not all. Were a similar collection made of all its best teachings, its loftiest appeals and its wisest apophthegms, every item could be amply paralleled in the profane writings of antiquity; and some elements of morality could be found in those writings which are wanting in your Bible. Whoever asserts that the Bible contains any ethical teaching at once new and true, is an ignoramus or an impostor. Whoever, there­ fore, asserts that the morality of the Bible is inspired, occupies a position which, if he were wise, he would never seek to justify by reason, but would only vin­ dicate faith. �Letters to the Clergy. 76 THE CREDENTIALS OF THE GOSPEL. TO THE REV. PROFESSOR JOSEPH AGAR BEET. Sir,— I purpose to criticise your Fernley Lecture delivered at Sheffield on the fifth of August, entitled “ The Credentials of the Gospel: a Statement of the Reason of the Christian Hope.” I understand the Lecture is to he amplified into a volume, and supported with an army of references. But, as it stands, it contains the whole of your argument, and a concise statement is preferable to a diffuse one as a basis of discussion. It affords less opportunity for deviating into side-issues, or getting lost in a crowd of authorities. Your lecture purports “ to test the firm and broad foundation on which rests the Chistian hope.” It is characteristic of the present state of religious con­ troversy that you say nothing as to the Christian fear. The doctrine of Hell is gradually disappearing. Heaven is promised to believers, and in the words of Hamlet “the rest is silence.’"’ I have no doubt that this com­ promise will be serviceable for some time. But it cannot be permanent. Heaven and Hell are logical correlatives. They are like the Siamese twins. Destroy the one, and the other may linger for awhile, but its doom is sealed. Hope and fear move forward together. They are inseparably linked, and both are extinguished by knowledge. Where we are certain, we do not conjecture ; but where there is incertitude, the imagination will play in all directions. “ Our investigation,” you premise, “ shall be on methods scientific and philosophical.’"’ I do not con­ sider you have kept your promise. It is not scientific to reiterate dogmas; it is not philosophic to ignore �The Credentials of the Gospel. 77 replies, as the hunted ostrich ignores its pursuers. You do not “ test ” the foundation of your faith. You merely give a ground-plan of the building. You affirm that “ the foundation and root and source of all religion ” is “ the inborn moral sense.” The metaphor is mixed, and the assertion is false. Nothing is more certain than that religion and morality are of separate origin and have no necessary connexion. Such connexion as they have is formed gradually. It is conspicuous in high civilisations, but almost imperceptible in the lowest stages of culture. “ Many religions of the lower races,” as Tylor says, “ have little to do with moral conduct?’ The gods of an American or African savage “ may require him to do his duty towards them,” but “ it does not follow that they should concern themselves with his doing duty to his neighbor.” A robber, a brute, or even a murderer is not necessarily hateful to the gods; in fact, suih a man is often a great medicine-man or priest. Among the lower moral strata of our European population, two classes noted for piety are brigands and prostitutes. Religion, as the practical recog­ nition of invisible powers, is most prevalent among savages and barbarians. In this sense modern Europe is less religious than mediseval Europe, and the countries which are most saturated with religion are the most ignorant and degraded. The more progress men make in mental and moral culture the less does religion over­ shadow their lives. Ethical science emerges as reli­ gious influence declines, and in the words of Lecky, “ the formation of a moral philosophy is usually the first step in the decadence of religions.” The association of religion with morality is, indeed, an inevitable concession of the dogmatic to the useful. While self-preservation is the first law of nature, every­ thing must yield to the necessities of personal and social life. Natural selection weeds out the most superstitious in the struggle for existence. The main current of religion must accommodate itself to the �78 Letters to the Olergy. average conditions of contemporary civilisation. Appa­ rently it is religion that dictates, but in reality it obeys, just as the laws in a constitutional monarchy are enacted by Parliament though executed in the name of the Crown. Religion conforms to what it cannot avert, and finally, after a long succession of changes, it descends to the position of a servant of its old subject, whose interests it pretends to safeguard, just as the monarchy ends by posing as the bulwark of the people’s liberties. By this time it has lost its once imperial tones, it speaks in apologetic accents, and instead of commanding earth in the name of heaven, it proffers itself as an occult assistant of secular interests. When we are told that religion is a powerful aid to morality, we are also reminded that morality occupies the seat of sovereignty. With regard to our “ inborn moral sense/’ I admit its reality, as I admit the reality of our musical sense or our mathematical sense. But I deny its being “ inborn ” except as inherited. It is a product of evolution, like all the rest of our faculties, and it has all degrees of development, from the incipiency of the congenital criminal to the relative perfection of the true philanthropist. I am occupying no novel position. Giants . of thought, such as Darwin and Spencer, to say nothing of older writers, have laboriously constructed it, and I do no more than take advantage of their labors. While the books of such men are in the hands of edu­ cated readers, it is idle, nay ludicrous, to go on assert­ ing the old doctrines as though they were unchallenged. It is undignified, no less than futile, to sit upon the shore and ignore the flowing tide. Mrs. Partington herself, sweeping back the Atlantic with her broom, was less absurd; for her exertions were heroic, and she kept on the safe side of the waves without beating a sudden and ignominious retreat. You begin the real argument of your lecture by appealing to our “ moral judgments/’ which “ differ in �The Credentials of the G-ospel. 79 kind and differ infinitely from all others?’ You assert that this difference “ is revealed by the different emotions worked in us by a great calamity and a great crime.” This is very vague language. What is it that makes us regard calamities and crimes differently? Is it not a question of agency? We feel no resent­ ment against a flood or a fire. Why? Because they are insensitive, and unamenable to motives. Men, on the other hand,- are amenable to motives, and their wrong-doing excites resentment; first, in those they directly injure; and, secondly, in society at large. I do not mean that the feeling is a simple one. It in­ cludes hatred—which is only an intense form of dislike — fear, wounded self-love, a sense of disturbance, and, in many cases, though not in all, an imaginative per­ ception of danger to the community. So much for the feeling. The judgment is entirely different. It is purely intellectual. Some cases are perfectly obvious. The “ extreme cases ” you refer to are as easy of decision as whether water is good to drink or bread to eat. But the vaster multitude of intermediate cases call for great exercise of the mental powers. This is the reason why many persons of excellent dispositions are so often p.erverse in their moral judgments Even your moral judgment is defective, or you would not instance as “ a villain of very deep dye” a man who has “deliberately, and without provocation, killed his mother.” I should say that a man who murders his mother, without provocation, is not a villain, but a lunatic. “ These confident judgments,” you say, “ imply an infallible standard of comparison.” What is an in­ fallible standard ? I do not understand the adjective. A standard is simply a standard. It may be applied with all degrees of efficiency. A foot-rule is a foot­ rule. One man uses it well, and another ill; one will take the dimensions of a room with reasonable accu­ racy, and another make exasperating blunders. '£he �80 Letters to the Clergy. “infallibility” must be in the application of the standard. Your confusion on this subject is such that I feel no surprise at your silence as to the standard itself. You do not say what it is. You call it infallible, but that is no information. You speak of “ an eternal law of right,” and of the “ voice ” within us. But the voice is, in my opinion, only the echo of our own sentiments ; while the “ eternal law of right” may mean anything or nothing until it is explained. Words like eternal and infallible do not enlighten me. I want to know what is your “ law of right.” That is an indispensable preliminary. When you tell me that the moral judgment is “ universal,” I must deny the proposition if it means that “ all men everywhere know that treachery, lying, theft, adultery and murder are condemned by a law which speaks with an unerring voice of indisputable authority.” The Hindu Thug deems it right to murder, and the Thugs of your Church, in former ages, thought it a pious duty to slay heretics and infidels. Adultery among women is held to be wrong in most countries, but millions of savages would laugh at you if you told them that adultery among men was either a crime or a vice. Theft and treachery are wrong within the tribe or association, but frequently a virtue if practised on outsiders. Lying is only a vice within the same limits. These statements are indis­ putable, and I understand why you shun such witnesses as “ modern travellers or missionaries.” The breath of a single one of them would shatter the very basis of your argument. In a certain sense, however, I agree with your statement that “ to the mysterious tribunal within appeals all external teaching, moral or religious.” The only thing I object to is the epithet of “ mysteri­ ous.” For the rest, your statement bears out my contention that morality is primary, and not secondary to religion. Our reason is the proper judge of �The Credentials of the Gospel. 81 Revelation on the intellectual side, and our moral sense its judge on the ethical side. But this makes a clean sweep of every system which is based on faith. “ The teaching of Jesus,” you say, “is no excep­ tion.” I agree with you. But do you see the logical result of this admission ? If my moral sense is the judge of his teaching, in what sense can that teaching be called divine ? If it be divine, my moral sense must be diviner still. And if I have a faculty which is able to sit in judgment on his teaching, I have a faculty which would, in the course of time, enable me to discover all that is best in it without his assistance. “We wait with intense interest,” you say, “ to hear the verdict and sentence on the gospel of Christ pronounced by this unerring judge.” The attitude would do you credit if it were not assumed. The fact is, you are not waiting. You and your co-religionists never did wait. You were brought up as Christians because you were born in a Christian country, just as you would have been brought up as Mohammedans if you had been born in Turkey. You did not make up your minds ; they were made up for you. Education and authority have determined your creed. You were prejudiced in favor of Christianity. You took sides before you were able to judge. And you can only say that you are waiting for a verdict on Christianity in the sense in which an advocate is waiting for the decision of the judge and jury. How little you are waiting is seen from your very next sentence. You declare that “The judgment is decisive.” But you do not say whose judgement. You affirm that “ The moral teaching of the New Testa­ ment commends itself at once and irresistibly to our moral sense as right and good.” Whose is our moral sense ? I presume you mean the moral sense of Christians. And why do you confuse “ the teaching of Jesus” with “the moral teaching of the New Testa­ ment ?” Does not the second half of the Bible con­ tain the teaching of Peter, James, John, Paul, and �82 Letters to the Clergy. several unknown writers, as well as the teaching of Jesus Christ ? Finally, how does the moral teaching of the New Testament commend itself at once and irresistibly to our moral sense, when thousands of books and articles have been written by honest and able men and women to show that Christian morality is often imperfect.and sometimes pernicious1? You are obviously addressing Christians, and Chris­ tians only, when you assert that “ every moral excel­ lence ” is “ but a feature ” in the “portrait’’ of Jesus Christ. This is not a view which commends itself to Freethinkers, nor does it seem to commend itself to the Buddhists and Confucians among whom your missionaries labor. Unfortunately you do not enter into details. Your panegyric is general, and I can only raise a general objection. That the Jesus of the Gospels was a bad man is not often maintained, nor is it likely that his biographers would depict him as such, seeing he was the object of their adoration. But there are many degrees between badness and perfection, and Jesus does not reach the ideal height. Many elements of greatness were lacking in his character. The fact is, no man that ever lived was perfect. It is a false hero-worship which refuses to see most obvious failings. And the arbitrary veneration of a single ideal must have the effect of narrowing our sympathies and aspirations. You tell me “ The Carpenter declares that he alone knows God.” It is an assertion easily made, impossible of proof, and impossible of refutation. You also say that he makes other “unheard-of assumptions,” yet calls himself “ meek and lowly of heart,” and “ strange to say, we feel that these words are true.” Now “ strange to say ” I do not feel that the words are true. I cannot see the meekness of his denouncing those he could not convince; or the meekness of his extravagant railing against his religious rivals in the capital; or the meekness of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem amid the seditious plaudits of a fickle and fanatical mob. �The Credentials of the Gospel. 83 That “ we see him possessing infinite power” and “ infinite resources,” is belied by his inability to work wonders in certain cities because of their unbelief (Matt, xiii., 58). Did he not also feel that virtue had gone out of him when he was touched by a diseased woman ? Do you mean that “ infinite power ” could feel the loss of energy ? And do you think it was a being of “infinite power” who cried out “ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ? ” Such a dream as the Gospel life of Jesus you say was “ never dreamed before or since,” Indeed ! Are you unacquainted with the life of Buddha ? Did he not renounce the splendors of a royal court for a beggar’s robes ? Did he not wander as a poor mendicant through the land he might have ruled as king ? Did he not practise every form of self-sacrifice 1 Do not the stories describe him as giving up everything for the love of others, even yielding himself to be eaten by a tigress, out of pity for the emaciated creature and her famished cubs ? How beautiful is this in com­ parison with the callous exclamation of St. Paul— “ Doth God care for oxen ? ” As “ a dream ” the life of Buddha is, in my judgment, more pathetic and inspiring than the life of Jesus. I pass from your panegyric on Jesus to your doctrine of sin. You say that the vision of Jesus “brings to light our own deep pollution.'” Do you think that language of this kind is true or useful ? It is the historic language of your creed, I allow, but the modern mind is turning from it with disgust. Dwelling upon our moral infirmities is no more wholesome than dwelling upon our physical ailments. The man who made a public display of his ulcers, or made them the theme of his conversation, W’ould be regarded as a nuisance; but the man who makes a public exhibition of his moral maladies, and talks about his “ deep pollution,” is regarded as a promising candidate for heaven. I protest against this morbid spiritualism. It does not strengthen, it enervates us ; �84 » Letters to the Clergy. and too frequently it leaves more nastiness than it finds. Evolution shows us a better method of culture. Our vices are not diminished by studying them; they perish of inanition through the exercise of our virtues. Our welfare lies, not in exploring our defects, but in practising our powers. The clergy have always cried up original sin, and dwelt on our “ deep pollution.” The medical quack behaves in the same way. His object is to make us feel desperately ill, that we may fly to him for relief. The deeper our sense of “ corruption,” the greater the power of the priest. He battens, like a parasite, on the decadent side of our nature. He trades on our misery and our fears, allowing us as much hope as keeps us alive to patronise his nostrums. You dilate on our sense of sin, our apprehension of future punishment, and our expectation of future reward. Your philosophy is very lofty in its pretensions, but very grovelling it its essence. You deny that virtue is its own reward, or vice its own punishment. Where, you ask, is the punishment of the successful rogue ; where is the reward of the martyred hero ? There must be a future retribution to balance the account. Beyond the grave “ there is absolute recompense.” Such is your teaching, and it involves a gross assumption as to “ the future,” and a sad misreading of human nature. How do you know that the next life, if there be one, will exactly rectify the injustices of this life? If there be a governor of the universe, the presumption is that the polity of this w'orld is a fair sample of his methods. Analogy would lead us to believe that what goes on here will be continued elsewhere. On the other hand, your crude jurisprudence would create as many evils as it rectified. The supposition is infantile that men may be divided into two classes, the good and the bad, the sheep and the goats. We are all of us mixtures. Human character is more diversified than the ever- �The Credentials of the Gospel. 85 changing aspects of the external world. The best man has his failings, and the worst his redeeming qualities. A perfect adjustment, therefore, of consequence to conduct in a future life, would necessitate not one, but a million heavens and hells, each of them nicely varied and graduated for their appropriate inmates. Even then the balance would be fatally vitiated by the eternal rectification of temporary disorders. In short, the idea of “ absolute recompense ” in a future life is a childish dream, which is seen to be grotesque the moment we try to realise its details. Do you not see, also, that the “ absolute recompense ” you promise on the other side of death turns morality into huckstering 1 On this principle, virtue is only shrewd calculation, and vice a foolish mistake. The main-spring of your ethic is personal profit. You look with disdain on the utilitarian, but his philosophy is infinitely superior to yours. He makes happiness the goal of effort, but not the mere happiness of the individual actor. The welfare of society is his criterion of right and wrong. His standard is not personal but universal. In the presence of self-sacrifice for the good of others he is not embarrassed by your difficulties. He is not staggered, as you are, by “ the case of a man who has lost his life by doing a noble action.” I have said, and I repeat, that you misread human nature. Can you imagine a great dramatist depicting a hero on youi' principles? Were the dying hero to exclaim “ I have done right, I have lost my reward, but God will give it me in heaven,” he would at once alienate our sympathies. We should feel that he had been actuated by false motives, and our interest would vanish with the confession of his selfishness. Do you imagine that an Atheist soldier would shun the post of danger any more than his Christian com­ rade ? Would a regiment of Freethinkers fight less gallantly than a regiment of priests ? Did the three hundred Spartans die in the pass of Thermopylae for �86 » ) i Letters to the Clergy. patriotism or for reward ? Did they lay down their lives less cheerfully because they had no thought of “ future recompense’’ ? Do you seriously suppose that an Atheist fireman would not do his duty amid the flame and smoke"? Would he hesitate to save the lives of women and children because he had no hope of heaven ? Fortunately we act upon our impulses, and not upon the momentary calculations of expediency. Our social instincts are not at the mercy of the schools. They have been developed in us by ages of evolution, and they strengthen as civilisation advances. Self­ sacrifice is an expression of sympathy, and sympathy is independent of religion. I will do the martyrs of your faith more justice than to suppose they were always animated by the hope of heaven; and, on the other hand, I trust you will concede that the martyrs of my faith have shown equal courage with your own. Vanini and Bruno died at the stake, without hope of a “ future recompense.” And have you not heard of Milliere, who bared his breast to the bullets of the Versailles troops, and fell upon the church steps with the cry of Vive L’Humanite upon his lips "? The pivot of your scheme, however, is rather fear of punishment than hope of reward. You illustrate the line of the Roman poet that all religion began in terror. You say we “ cannot throw off the dark foreboding that sin will be followed by punishment/’ that “ we are compelled to believe that retribution awaits us elsewhere/’ that “forebodings of punish­ ment ” trouble us as we approach “ the dark river of death/’ and that “ we dread the penalty of our sins.” I am tempted to remind you of Carlyle’s grim remark on Ignatius Loyola. When this “ saint ” was laid low by “ the Cookery-shop and the Bordel,” he felt he was an awful sinner, but he recovered his health, and his puriency took the new form of Jesuitism. His sick repentance was only a shrinking from future punishment. “ Had he been a good and brave man,” says Carlyle, “ he should have consented at that point �The Credentials of the Gospel. 87 to be damned—as was clear to him that he deserved to be.” So I am inclined to say to any man who feels he ought to be damned—“ Go and be damned, and take it quietly.” Such manliness, however, is not found in Christian sinners. They want pardon, or “ deliverance from the future penalty of past sins.” But “the moral law knows nothing of pardon,” and the result would be “ despair ” if it were not for “ the Gospel of Christ,” which “ comes to us with a voice of mercy.” A sweet and easy Gospel indeed! It is preached from our pulpits, but set at naught in our criminal courts. How selfish is this Gospel! Surely when a man has done wrong his first thought should not be for himself, but for the victims of his wrong-doing. But on this matter you are silent. You point him to a way of escape, while he leaves the real burden of his sins behind him. Is this a gospel of strength or a gospel of weakness “? For my part, I prefer the philosophy of old Omar Khayyam. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. I admit this is not a gospel for knaves and weaklings It is a gospel for brave and honest men. Conduct and consequence are inseparable in this world. The bond cannot be brdken. Any system that teaches otherwise is false and pernicious. According to your philosophy, Christ not only saves 4ftom the future penalty of past sins, but also from the power of present sin. It is possible that you believe this, but what evidence is there to prove it ? It is clearly impossible to examine the lives of individuals, or to penetrate the secret recesses of personal character. We are able, however, to judge of a general influence by average results, and an appeal to statistics does not show us that Christians are morally superior to unbelievers. I defy you to adduce a single reason for �88 Letters to the Clergy. believing that they are so. When I was imprisoned for bringing your religion into “ disbelief and con­ tempt,” I found it was taken for granted that every criminal belonged to some form of faith. There were a few Jews, many Catholics, and more Protestants. Their religion was stated on the cards affixed to their cell-doors, mine being accurately described as “ None.” A chapel was maintained for their devotions, and a clergyman to physic their souls. Surely, then, you will not maintain that unbelievers fill our gaols, or populate them even in proportion to their numbers. Nor can it be maintained that they neglect their share of positive duty. They recognise the law of “ thou shalt ” as well as the law of “ thou shalt not.” You will find them conspicuous in every advanced move­ ment ; not, perhaps, in soup, blanket, and coal societies, which only skin and film the ulcerous sore, but in those radical associations whose object is rather justice than charity, and the prevention of evil rather than its mitigation. It is idle to tell me that the “ wonderful fitness ” of Christianity as a moral gospel has been “ tested by thousands of men and women.” The advocates of Buddhism, Brahminism, or Mohammedanism might make a similar assertion. The “ fitness ” in every case is the result of training. What men are “ fitted ” to is fitted to them. Had you been born and bred outside the pale of Christendom, you would have appreciated the “ wonderful fitness ” of some other faith. Thus far I do not see that you have established the credentials of your creed. I will now follow you through the remainder of your argument. You erect a number of dogmas on the basis of our ignorance of the origin of life and the evolution of mind. But this is entirely illegitimate. We are not entitled to reason from our ignorance. Every argu­ ment must be based on what we know. And while science is seeking a solution of new problems, I would remind you that its solution of old problems was always �The Credentials of the Gospel. 89 in opposition to religious dogmas. The clergy have always been wrong, and the presumption is that they are still wrong. I would also observe that the doc­ trines of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul prevailed for thousands of years before Chris­ tianity was born, and are therefore no part of the speciality of your faith. You are more to the point in asserting that “ one religion”—to wit, your own—“'occupies a place of unique superiority.” Yet the statement is somewhat vague. I understand “unique,” and I understand “ superiority,” but I cannot put them together as adjective and substantive. What is unique is not superior, and what is superior is not unique. You assert that “ all Christian nations stand im­ measurably above all others.” Do you include Abyssinia in “ all Christian nations,” and if not, why not1? Or do you regard it as “immeasurably above” Ceylon in morals or China in civilisation ? What, also, do you mean by asserting that “ in spite of tlieir many wars, the Christian nations of the world form, in a very real sense, a political brotherhood ” ? Where is the political brotherhood between France and Germany, or England and Russia? Is it not a fact that nine-tenths, at least, of the quarrels in the world are between Christian nations? Have not Christian nations carried the art of war to its highest develop­ ment ? Do they not manufacture all the rifles, all the cannon, and all the gunpowder, as well as all the rum, brandy, gin, and whiskey? You yourself admit that “ No army has the slightest hope of victory unless armed with the weapons and directed by the strategy of Christian nations.” You add triumphantly that “ The sword has passed into the hands of those nations who recognise the unique majesty of the lowly Nazarene.” This is the only part of your lecture with which I have the honor to agree. I would remark, however, that the military power of Christendom has nothing G e �90 Letters to the Clergy. whatever to do with Christianity. Where were the “ weapons 33 and the “ strategy33 of your faith when it vainly hurled crusade after crusade, for three centuries, against the infidel Saracens ? Where were the “ weapons 33 and the “ strategy ” of your faith in the seventh and eighth centuries, when the successors of Mohammed swept Christianity out of Asia and Africa ? Did not the Cross go down before the Crescent on a thousand battle-fields ? And what has turned the tables ? What has put the power of the sword into the hands of Christian nations ? Is it not that Science which the Church fought tooth and nail, with the vigilance of a sleuth-hound and the ferocity of a tiger? Without Science, the British troops would not have slaughtered the Soudanese. Without science, England would have established no empire in India; without science, the Anglo-Saxon race would never have colonised the world. Had Christianity succeeded in strangling Science, as she furiously endeavored, Europe would still be plunged in barbarism, and would have to hold its own against the hordes of Asia and Africa by sheer physical valor. It is well that civilisation gives us the means of defending it. It is well that Europe is for ever safe from the incursions of outer barbarians. But how strange the eulogy of our military prowess sounds from the lips of one who “ recognises the unique majesty of the lowly Nazarene.” Did he not declare that whoso took the sword should perish by the sword ? Did he not teach the sinfulness of resisting evil ? Did he not command his disciples to present their cheeks humbly to the smiter ? Are you not glorifying Science instead of Christianity ? Are you not riding roughshod over the plainest teachings of your master ? How will you present yourself at the Day of Judgment before the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount ? With respect to Art, you assert that it “owns, the supremacy of Christ.” You remark that “ Non­ Christian nations contribute nothing to our galleries of �The Credentials of the Gospel. 91 painting and sculpture, or to the world's treasury of music/' The grain of truth in these statements is simply this, that Europe leads the world’s culture. But it did this before Christianity appeared, and the explanation is not religious but physical. Christianity has not given the Abyssinians any ascendancy. It will not give it to converted negroes or South Sea islanders. The question of superiority is simply one of race and climate. Given the Caucasian, with his large and complex brain, and his superior facial angle, and he is bound to lead the march of progress. Science, literature, and art are not the product of Christianity ; they are the product of the Caucasian brain. This was true before Christianity appeared, and it will be true when Christianity has vanished. Your remarks on the impermanence of ancient civili­ sation, as compared with the modern, are simply amazing. Dating from the time of Charlemagne, which is a very liberal concession, we find modern Europe to be about eleven hundred years old; and during a large portion of that period it is only by courtesy that the West can be called civilised. The existence of Rome, under the Republic and the Empire, was nearly as prolonged, and the older civilisation of Egypt stretched back into the deepest mists of antiquity. It is true that Greece had but a brief career of glory, for she fell under the mightier sway of Rome. She was not conquered, however; or, if she was, she avenged herself. She liberalised her ostensible conquerors, and bequeathed the bases of our modern civilisation. Dig where you will, you come to Greece at last. Your very New Testament is written in Greek, and it was the Grecian mind that gave Chris­ tianity all its fecund power. It is perfectly true that Christianity arose in an age of decadence, and its doctrines and ethics savor of its origin. But there is, as I have already urged, no mystery in the remarkable progress of Europe after the long night of the Dark Ages. You say that �Letters to the Clergy. “ this phenomenon ”—the advance of Christian countries—“ demands explanation.” I assert that the explanation has been given. Modern civilisation arose among the same race, and in the same part of the world, as that in which the immediately preceding civilisation had flourished. The Renaissance itself began in the very country which had been the seat of the Roman empire. Your assertion, therefore, that “ of the pre-eminence of the Christian nations, no explanation can hr. found except in their Christianity is a piece of baseless dogmatism. Why the Turks have stagnated and decayed, while the Hungarians have advanced and improved, is a more complicated problem than you seem to imagine. If Christianity made all the difference, I ask you why Christianity did not civilise Abyssinia? There are political and climatic differences of the highest im­ portance, as will be admitted by every student of history and ethnology. With respect to Christianity itself, I know not. why you should say that it “arose suddenly.” It is in­ disputable that Jesus Christ—if he existed was born in a particular year; but that is the only element of “suddenness” in the history of your faith. Many influences besides that of the Prophet of Nazareth contributed to the formation of Christianity. This is such a commonplace of criticism that I will not con­ descend to ai'gue it. Your religion is as much a product of evolution as any othei’ system with which we are acquainted. That Christianity “ overspread the mightiest empire in the world” is undoubtedly true. It had converts in all parts of the Roman empire. But they scarcely numbered a twentieth of the population when it was made the state religion by Constantine. From that moment, it was not persuasion that made converts, but wholesale bribery and persecution. Proscription, fine, imprisonment, and murder, were the agencies by which the triumph of Christianity was completely secured. �The Credentials of the Gospel. 93 You assert that Christianity is “ now spreading to the ends of the earth.” I deny it. The Christian populations outside Europe are descended from European emigrants. The extension is merely physical. What impression have you made on the heathen populations of Asia and Africa ? Is not the failure of your missions a byeword 1 . Nor can I follow your assertion that “ The entire history of man affords no example of personal influence, and of devotion to and confidence in a person, which can for a moment be compared to the influence exerted by, and the devotion paid to, Jesus of Nazareth.” You are only speaking as a Christian to Christians. The names of Mohammed and Buddha are a sufficient refutation of your statement. I am astounded at your assertion that “ Paul’s firm belief of the Gospel reveals the deep impression made upon him by the personality of Jesus.” Is there the slightest evidence that Paul ever saw or heard Jesus ? Did he not despise and persecute his followers'? Was he not converted by a miracle or a sunstroke ? And is it not a fact that the Jesus of Paul’s epistles is far more a doctrine than a person ? I appeal to every­ one who has read his epistles apart from the four Gospels. Paul did, indeed, declare that Jesus had risen from the dead. But what is his testimony worth ? Do not his statements in Corinthians flatly contradict the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ? Did he not disbelieve the Resurrection on its intrinsic evidence ? Is not the fact apparent from his persecution of its believers before his strange experience near Damascus ? Does he not place this “ appearance ” of Jesus on a level with his appearances to the eleven ? And is not his testimony vitiated by this hopeless confusion of the subjective and the objective ? Ci Was the dead body of Christ raised to life1?” you ask ; and you add that “ upon this matter of historic fact depend the highest hopes of man.” If you believe �94 Letters to the Clergy. this, as I have no doubt you do, it is natural that you should make a little evidence go a very long way. You make no attempt to prove the Resurrection. You simply ask the sceptic “ How do you account for this and that if he did not rise V’ And the this and that are not facts of ordinary history, buty»ar£ of your own records. You ask the sceptic to explain the “ belief ” in the Resurrection. How do you explain the belief of the Mormons in Joe Smith’s gold tablets ? Mr, Froude tells us of Julius Caesar that “the enthusiasm of the multitude refused to believe that he was dead. He was supposed to have ascended into heaven, not in adulatory metaphor, but in literal and prosaic fact.” How do you explain that ? You say that the story of Christas resurrection was “ accepted by thousands of Jews.” The statement is founded on your own dubious records, written long after the time. But if it be true it proves nothing, unless the Jews were men of unconquerable incredulity, whereas they were grossly superstitious. If Jesus did rise from the dead, the great wonder is that all the Jews did not believe it. “It must be admitted,” says Diderot, “ that the Jews were a wonderful people; everywhere one has seen peoples deluded by a single false miracle, and Jesus Christ was unable to impress the Jews with an infinity of true ones.” The incre­ dulity of the Jews is a greater miracle than thq Resurrection. What you have to say about the dead body of Jesus shows a great want of historic perspective. How can it be affirmed that “ the most powerful party in Jerusalem had the strongest motive ” for disproving the story of the resurrection ? They had put Jesus out of the way, his disciples were a mere handful of insignificant men, and what did it matter if they talked about his having risen from the dead ? It was a harmless craze, and the priestly party had other matters to attend to. That they were “ exposed to a deadly peril ” is a wild assumption, utterly at variance �The Credentials of the Gospel. 95 with what is known of the very slight spread of Christianity among the Jews. Had it spread like a wildfire, and become threatening, and had the priests been publicly challenged to produce the dead body, there would be something in their silence. But nothing of the sort happened. Even if it had, and if after the lapse of months or years the sepulchre had been found empty, the priests might justly have answered that the body had not been buried by them, but by one of Jesus’s disciples, and that the disappear­ ance of a corpse, in such circumstances, was anything but miraculous. Still more absurd, if possible, is your plea that the disciples would not have shown such courage in pro­ pagating a delusion. The strength of a conviction is no proof of its validity. History shows us that men have displayed the most heroic courage in defending falsehood and imposture. Self-sacrifice proves a man to be in earnest, but does not prove him to be in the right. You say that the Resurrection “ has held captive many of the most intelligent and cultured of men, and now for many centuries nearly all the best of men.” You forget that these meu have been trained to believe it. VVith the exception of Paul, whose conversion, as I have said, was due to a miracle or a sunstroke, how many “ intelligent and cultured ” men accepted the Resurrection in the primitive ages ? Is it not a fact that Christianity spread among the poor, the lowly and the illiterate ? Is it not aiso a fact, as Gibbon observes, that the illustrious Pagans of that period considered the Christians “ only as obstinate and perverse enthusiasts, who exacted an implicit submis­ sion to their mysterious doctrines, without Jbeing able to produce a single argument that could engage the attention of men of sense and learning ” “? Passing to the question of miracles in general, you admit that “miracles do not happen,” but you deny the right of anyone to say that they never did. �96 Letters to the Clergy. Theoretically you may be correct, but practically you are wrong. Men cannot help reading the past by the present, and if miracles do not happen now the inevitable presumption is that they never did happen. Against this presumption you must bring an overwhelming array of evidence in favor of any particular miracle, and such an array of evidence is never produced. To talk about the “mysteries of nature is nothing but jugglery. If we cannot, at present, explain the origin of life, we" know what kind of evidence is requisite to justify us in believing that a man rose from the dead. And assuredly you will never impress a man of ordinary culture by telling him that when he lifts a weight he “ defies the law of gravitation?"’ If the Resurrection be a delusion, you remark that a delusion has saved the world. ” To prove this extra­ ordinary . paradox, you paint in dark tints the “corruption” of the Roman empire, and in light tints the morality of Christendom. Does it not occur to you that some progress might be expected in two thousand years ? Is it fair, is it rational, to point to the im­ proved morality of this sceptical age, and cry “ Behold the fruits of eighteen centuries of Christianity ? ” Turn to Mr. Cotter Morison’s book on The Service of Man, and read his chapter on “ Morality in the Ages of Faith.” Take the case of France alone, and see the effect of Christianity on private and public life. “ The court of the later Valois/’ says Mr. Morison, “ is painted for us by the garrulous Brantome; and one fails to see how it differed, except for the worse, from the court of Caligula or Commodus."” The same writer puts the whole question at issue in a few sentences. “Do we find, as a matter of fact, that the Ages of Faith were distinguished by a high morality ? Were they superior in this respect to the present age, which is nearly on all hands ac­ knowledged not to be an age of Faith ? The answer must be in the negative. Taking them broadly, the Ages of Faith were emphatically ages of crime, of gross and scandalous wickedness, of cruelty, and, in a word, of immorality. And it �The Credentials of the Gospel. 97 is noteworthy that, in proportion as we recede backward from the present age and return into the Ages of Faith, we find that the crime and the sin become denser and blacker.” The present age is the most unbelieving and the most moral the world has ever seen. All you can reply is that 44 anti-Christian teachers have themselves been trained in a moral and intellectual atmosphere formed by many centuries of Christian influences.” This hardly applies to John Stuart Mill, for instance, who was trained without any religion by his sceptical father. Besides, it is a two-edged argument. Sup­ pose 1 were to say that Christians are kept in check by secular and social opinion. Suppose I were to say that if it were not for the secular civilisation of our age they would return, via, the Salvation Army, to the primitive rites and doctrines of their faith, and show, in anarchy and barbarism, the unadulterated fruit of the Christian tree. If you have established the 44 Credentials of the Gospels,” you have only done so to the satisfaction of believers. You regard your 44 proof ” as 44 complete,” and I have no doubt it is as complete as you can make it. But I am very much deceived if it succeeds in convincing a single unbeliever. Let me, in conclusion, say a few words on your 44 precious possessions.” You have 44 faith in Christ and victory over sin.” Your faith in Christ is a sub­ jective phenomenon and can neither be proved nor disputed ; but your victory over sin will hardly bear the test of examination. I fail to see that Christians are morally superior to Freethinkers, and I defy you to prove that they are so. On the other hand, you hear 44 a voice from beyond the grave ” promising 44 to all who believe it immortal life,” and you cannot doubt 44 these glad tidings of great joy.” I presume this is the language of “the larger hope,” which dwells as little as possible upon hell and as much as possible upon heaven. But, for my part, I do not believe that such a sentimental compromise can be permanent. �98 Letters to the Clergy. I have read the New Testament for myself, and I am satisfied that its heaven and hell must stand or fall together. Consequently I cannot accept your “ glad tidings of great joy/’ which seem to me “ sad tidings of great grief.33 I cannot believe your creed, nor do I need its consolations, and I rejoice to be free from its great horror of eternal torment. I am content to follow my reason and obey my conscience. I may fail in both, for who but a pharisee is perfect ? But I still look calmly to the end. Should death be an everlasting sleep, I shall know no sorrow or regret. Should it be the entrance to a new life, I shall expect more sense and justice from God or Nature than I see in the dogmas of your faith. MIRACLES. * TO THE REV. BROWNLOW MAITLAND M.A. Sir,— I have purchased and very carefully read your little volume on “ Miracles 33 in the “ Helps to Belief” series. I cannot say that you have in any way helped my belief; though, perhaps, you may reply that I have no belief to be assisted. On the contrary, I feel more deeply than ever the hopelessness of a cause which has to be defended by subtle shifts and elaborate special pleading. What a difference between your plea for Miracles and the simple, manly, straightforward argu­ ment of Paley! I am well aware that the great Archdeacon showed a little of the wisdom of the serpent in his skilful illustrations, and that he sometimes pressed his evidence unduly. But his argument is on �Miracles. 99 the whole an honest one. . He appealed to reason and experience, and admitted that, in the last resort,, miracles, like everything else, must rest upon adequate evidence. Your treatise, however, is essentially an appeal against reason to faith. Your argument is almost entirely a, priori, and can therefore have no weight except with those who are already convinced. You devote nearly ninety-three pages to your point of view, to the antecedent objections to miracles, and to the presumption in their favor—all of which Paley dismisses with admirable brevity ; and you devote only twenty pages to the direct evidence for the Christian miracles. You give us a large and imposing portico to a small and beggarly house. Three-fourths of your time is employed in drugging the reader’s intelligence, so that when he approaches the real question at issue he may be easily deceived. With what contemptuous laughter would a legal advocate be treated, who should spend a whole day in opening his case, and devote an hour or two to the examination of his witnesses ! Yet this is piecisely the offence of which you are guilty. I am confident that if you conducted your case in this way before any tribunal, however loosely constituted, you would be severely reprimanded for wasting the time of the court, and peremptorily summoned to come to the point. As though anticipating such a criticism, you assert in your Preface that “ the case on behalf of the Christian miracles is considerably simplified by declining to defend them on the ground chosen by the sceptic/’ No doubt, sir; and the case would be still more simplified by declining to defend them at all. It would be simple and easy to assume the good old orthodox attitude of the days when sceptics were not to be reasoned with, but silenced by the resources of Christian charity. Why not declare at once that Christianity is a divine religion, from battlement to basement; that whosoever believes it will be saved, and whosoever disbelieves it will be damned ; that to defend �100 Letters to the Clergy. it is absurd, seeing that God will take care of his own; and that the cavils of the sceptic only proceed from his corrupt and sinful heart ? But if you cannot take up this attitude, you are bound to meet the sceptic, ay, and on the very ground he chooses; for if you are defending the holy garrison, instead of leaving the task to its divine master, you have no choice but to repel attacks at the very points where they are made. Nothing could be more ludicrous than rushing off to the opposite side, brandishing your weapons with immortal courage, and declaring that, whatever may be going on else­ where, the citadel at this point is absolutely invulner­ able. If I cared for the honor of your church I might also remind you that it is better to face the enemy than to show him your rear. He will not spare you on account of your cowardice, and if you must fall you should at least fall with dignity. Declining to meet the sceptic on his own ground, you affirm that the miracles of Christianity are “ lifted out of the mechanical into the moral sphere.” What is this but saying that they are lifted out of the sphere of reason into the sphere of faith ? Your object seems to be to reverse the natural order of things. Instead of proving the foundations to be solid, and afterwards examining the superstructure, you expatiate on the wonderful character of the edifice and argue that it largely guarantees the solidity of the basis,. Permit me to say it does nothing of the sort, and to add that no amount of declamation from the windows will prevent the building from tumbling down. How important is the question of Miracles, and how absurd to treat it with subterfuge, like the ostrich who buries his head to save his body from the hunters! Your own words may be cited against yourself. After pointing out that Christianity is “ from beginning to end supernatural,” you declare that “ the only possible alternatives are—a miraculous Christianity, or no Christianity at all.” Reject the miraculous, you say, and i( the entire Christian revelation would disappear �Miracles. 101 with it. No Christ would in that case he left to us. The man Jesus might remain ; but the Son of the Father would have vanished, and the Gospel would have shrunk into a fable. Christianity, thus deprived of its cohesion, would fall to pieces, and become num­ bered with the wrecks of worn-out beliefs.” True and forcible words! I heartily agree with you, and I am surprised at your making so feeble a defence for the very life of your faith. It is not my purpose to follow your remarks on the peculiar solemnity and importance of the Christian miracles. The argument is sentimental, and its force depends on temperament and training. You are able to see some subtle moral lesson in the cursing of a barren fig-tree, and I dare say you would find it in the cursing of a barren woman. You are able to discern a lofty spiritual meaning in the trick of turning water into -wine, or the production of half-crowns from the mouth of a fish. But such things impress me very differently. I regard them as childish stories, and marvel at their appearance in a pretended revelation from God. You may draw convenient distinctions between Christian and other miracles, but I can see none. You smile at the prodigies of Paganism, and you allow that no possible testimony could make the miracles of Catholicism credible. I extend the same consideration to the miracles of your faith. The scientific mind places all miracles ip the same category, and the historic mind views them as inevitable marks of inferior stages of culture. There is no necessity, either, to expatiate on the existence of God and his moral governorship of the universe; or on the doctrine of free-will, which you curiously regard as indispensable to a belief in the miraculous, as though Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards had never lived or written. Whatever a miracle may be on its theo­ retical side, on its practical side it is a matter of fact. �102 Letters to the Clergy. What is the use of an elaborate abstract argument to prove that a prisoner stole a watch ? What would be thought of a prosecuting counsel whose whole discourse was a disquisition on human frailty ? The question at issue is—Did the prisoner steal a particular watch at a particular time and place ?—and this must be decided by evidence. So with regard to the alleged resurrection of a man from the dead, or his birth without the agency of a human father. If such an event occurred, it must have been at a particular time and place, and in particular circumstances; and the fact must be established before we ’are entitled to discuss the theories of its explanation. You admit, yourself, in one of your intervals of lucid common sense, that “ The question whether it has ever occurred cannot be decided in the negative, any more than in the affirmative, by theoretical considerations, but must be solved by a patient sifting of evidence.” Do you not see that this admission condemns the whole plan of your book? Have you not devoted five-sixths of your space to “ theoretical considerations,” and only one-sixth to the “ patient sifting of evidence ” ? All you have to say about the antecedent prob­ ability or improbability of miracles amounts to this, that no one is entitled to say that miracles cannot happen. But why such a painful demonstration of a truism ? Neither Hume, Mill, nor Huxley, asserts the impossibility of miracles. They simply regard them as highly improbable, and you appear to be of the same opinion- “ Of course,” you assert, “ the general experience creates a presumption against the miraculous —a presumption so great as to necessitate a most rigorous scrutinity of the evidence, before an alleged miracle can make good its claim on our belief.” With this statement I concur; my only complaint is that you do not appear to possess the slightest conception of what is involved in the “ rigorous scrutiny of evidence.” Whoever admits that miracles are possiblef&oes so on the ground that anything is possible. I am not �Miracles. 103 prepared to denv the possible existence of a planet made of green cheese. I am ready to believe that a man is able to jump over a moon. All I require, before I believe in such prodigies, is the production of proof. And who will venture to dispute the justice of such a condition ? Modesty forbids me to ask more, and common sense forbids me to ask less. You will see, then, that I am quite insensible to the reproach that good men are the readiest to receive the Christian miracles. No doubt the Brahmin and the Buddhist would address you in the same vein. You will allow me to smile at your statement that “ the real touchstone was the doctrine,” and at your implication that the disciples of Jesus were the best men in all Palestine, while the rest of the population, who declined to follow him, were either “ careless or worldly” or “ thoroughly selfish and corrupt.” The story of Gamaliel, in the fifth chapter of the Acts, should alone have caused you to hesitate at perpetrating a wholesale libel on the countrymen of your Master. It seems as though the Christian apologist were under the imperative necessity of balancing his exaggerated praise of Jesus with the most unscrupulous defamation of unbelievers. I must also be permitted to smile at your reference to “the self-satisfied and sensuous sceptic.” Jesus forbade his disciples to indulge in the moral attitude of “ I am holier than thou,” but it is a peculiarity of Christians to neglect all the sensible teachings of their Savior. Ncr can I maintain a serious face on reading your description of Christianity as “ standing before us with the unmistakable marks on its brow of super­ natural energy, and filling the world with fruits which the natural stock of humanity could never by itself have borne.” What are “unmistakable signs” of “ supernatural energy,” and why are they visible on “ the brow ” ? I should also like to know whether you reckon among the supernatural “ fruits ” of Christianity such articles as racks, thumb-screws, wheels, and red- �104 Letters to the Clergy. hot iron boots ; and such phenomena as persecution, proscription, religious wars, and holy massacres. I will pass in a moment to your “ direct evidence of the Christian miracles.” But, before I do so, I wish to point out that you have forgotten to deal with, or even to mention, some of the principal antecedent objections to the miraculous. And yet, at least on one occasion, they lay right in your path. Speaking of the unbelieving Jews, who attributed the miracles of Christ to the power of Beelzebub, or were provoked by them into a passionate hatred, you say that “ To all of these alike the miracles were real, according to the testimony of the Gospels.” Surely the reflection must have occurred to you, while you were writing thissentence, that it was not the custom, in those ages, to dispute any body of miracles. Every religion, every sect, had its special supply; and the question at issue was, not which were real, but which were superior. Satanic, as well as divine, miracles are recognised in both the Old and the New Testament. Nor did the primitive Christians, or even the Fathers, ever dream of denying the miracles of Paganism. They ascribed them to the agency of demons, and simply vaunted their own as manifestations of the true God. It is beyond question, therefore, that the belief in miracles —good, bad, or indifferent—was then universal; and extravagant stories derived from an age of such abounding credulity, and gross ignorance of the laws of nature, are antecedently improbable. I would also observe that all the New Testament miracles, from the Incarnation to the Ascension, and from the first prodigy of Peter to the last prodigy of Paul, were believed and related by Jews, a race of men famous for their super­ stition, and laughed at on that account by the Boman satirists. To accept a supernatural story on their testimony would be like going to the madhouse for a jury and to the gaol for a judge. Not only have all religions had their miracles, but the miracles of all religions diminish and finally dis­ �Miracles. 105 appear in the light of science and civilisation. Then we behold the spectacle of a people laughing at the miracles of to-day, and staking their faith on the miracles of yesterday. Distance lends enchantment to the view. But only for a time. In the long run men will argue that miracles do not happen, and therefore they never did. The student of human culture will see the miraculous in its true perspective, and under­ stand the laws of its birth, development and decay; but the ordinary man, who lives and thinks in the present, will always use it to interpret the past and the future. What happens, did happen; what happens, will happen. Such is his logic, and in the main it is sound. But whether sound or unsound, it cannot be shaken by sermons or apologies. You say there is a God. Let it be admitted for the sake of argument. The question then arises, why did he work miracles in the past ? The answei' is, to prove and convince ; that is, to prove the doctrine and convince the spectator. But does not the same necessity for the miracles still exist? Is not the doctrine more doubted, and even rejected, than ever ? Are not the leading minds, in science and philosophy, outside the fold of faith ? Are not the Darwins, Mills, Huxleys, and Spencers as influential as the twelve apostles? Why then are no miracles wrought to convince them ? You can only reply that the Age of Miracles is past. Yes, and the Age of Reason has come. I now come to the only pertinent chapter in your little volume. Even there, however, you cannot refrain from your besetting sin. In the very first paragraph you seek to prejudice the reader’s mind in favor of what you desire him to believe. You remark that the miracles of Christianity are “ sufficiently probable to be believed on such testimony as in other serious matters would carry conviction with it.” The phrase is an artful one, and does credit to your subtlety. You insinuate that miracles are to be judged of like �106 Letters to the Glergy. “other serious matters,” as though there were no degrees in seriousness, as though the testimony that would convict a man of petty theft would suffice to prove that he raised the dead. Surely you must be aware that the more wonderful an allegation is, the more rigorous is the evidence which is required to substantiate it. Suppose, for instance, it were alleged that a dead man had come to life again. Would not the evidence of such an extraordinary occurrence need to be, not only “ adequate ” but overwhelming, before any sensible man would believe it 1 The testimony of persons who saw him die, and who witnessed his being placed in a tomb, would not suffice. Men have some­ times been thought dead, a doctor has given a certificate, the undertaker has made the coffin, and the “ corpse ” has revived. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to have positive proof that the man was really dead. On this point the evidence of ordinary observers is utterly worthless. “ Even medical evidence,” as Huxley says, “ unless the physician is a person of unusual knowledge and skill, may have little more value. Unless careful thermometric observation proves that the temperature has sunk below a certain point; unless the cadaveric stiffening of the muscles has become well established; all the ordinary signs of death may be fallacious.” Now I ask you seriously—for these are “ serious matters ”—whether any miracle of the New Testament was ever subjected to such a scrutiny. According to Hume, there is no miracle in human history which is supported by the amount and kind of evidence that would be requisite to establish it. No one has ever refuted this assertion, and I challenge you to refute it if you can. Set aside the prodigies of other faiths, and take your pick of the miracles of Christianity. Select the Resurrection if you will, and see whether you can produce as much evidence as would gain you a serious hearing in any court of law. What is your “ direct evidence ” of the Christian miracles ? You begin by passing over the Gospels, on �Miracles. 107 account of “ the partial obscurity which is alleged by critics of the modern sceptical school to envelope the date and authorship of these records/’ You select the four “ authentic ” epistles of St. Paul as “ documents over which no manner of doubt hangs ;” and upon these writings of a man who was not an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, who hardly refers to any miracle whatever except the Resurrection, and who, with respect to this one, flatly contradicts the Gospels and the Acts—you base the colossal edifice of Christian supernaturalism ! Supposing there is any truth in the Acts, it is incontestable that St. Paul disbelieved the Resur­ rection on its merits. He regarded the followers of Jesus with hatred and contempt. And how was his conversion effected ? You audaciously assert that “ he was won over to it [Christianity] by irresistible evidence of its truth.” But what is the fact? His conversion occurred on the road to Damascus. And how ? Did he sit down and say to himself “ Paul, vou had better think the matter over; this Jesus may be God, his miracles may be real, his Resurrection a fact, and his disciples the witnesses of truth; ponder the evidence once more, and carefully, before you proceed with your persecutions ” ? Did he calmly review the whole case, and rise with a conviction that he had been deceived ? Nothing of the sort. The “ irresistible ” something which turned the current of his life was not the weight of evidence or the power of argument. It was apparently a miracle or a sunstroke ; whatever it was, it was not an operation of reason. To assert, therefore, that he was won over to Christianity by “ the irresistible evidence of its truth,” is to fly in the face of your own records, and to presume too openly on the mental negligence of your readers. St. Paul’s scepticism before this physical convulsion is neglected in your argument. You simply dwell on his subsequent belief. But is this ingenuous ? You describe him as a man of “ powerful intellect.” How �108 Letters to the Clergy. was it, then, that his powerful intellect led him to believe that Christianity was false ? Setting aside the miracle, which you cannot assume, as miracles are the question in dispute, what single scrap of fresh evidence was presented to his mind during the rapid process of his conversion? The evidences of the Resurrection remained the same throughout. Before the shock, his unbiassed mind regarded it as fabulous; after the shock, he regarded it as true. But which of these mental states is of the most importance to an unpre­ judiced inquirer ? Assuredly, if you were not arguing in favor of your prepossessions, you would allow that the Resurrection was more damaged by St. Paul’s early scepticism than benefited by his later belief. In any case, St. Paul was not an eye-witness of the Resurrection, and the testimony of eye-witnesses is indispensable. For the rest, I have only to remark that you are ill-advised in claiming those “ five hundred of the brethren,” many of whom were known to St. Paul as having “ seen Jesus alive after his death and burial.” The statement is absolutely inconsistent with the Gospels, and especially with the Acts, where we are told (I., 15) that the total number of the brethren, after the Ascension, was only “ about an hundred and twenty.” You cannot expect to take advantage of a point on which your own witnesses flatly contradict each other. There seems no limit, however, to the assumption of Christian apologists. You not only claim those five hundred brethren, but actually parade them as “ hun­ dreds of persons who knew Jesus personally, and went forth at the risk of their lives to testify of his Resur­ rection,” and this in connection with a graphic picture of the sufferings of the early Christians I Again I complain of your disingenuousness. The Christians of the first century must not be credited with the mar­ tyrdoms of the second century. With the single exception of Stephen, who lost his life in a religious tumult, as thousands have done since, 1 defy you to �Miracles. 109 prove that a single witness of the Resurrection, or a single disciple of Jesus Christ, suffered martyrdom. Upon this point the apologists of your faith have systematically deceived theii' readers. If we reject the fantastic legends of the travels, achievements, and deaths of the twelve apostles, we are compelled to doubt with Gibbon “whether any of those persons who had been witnesses to the miracles of Christ were permitted, beyond the bounds of Palestine, to seal with their blood the truth of their testimony” Your own records prove that the first Christians found the Roman tribunals an assured refuge against their Jewish perse­ cutors. Not until the reign of Nero (a.d. 64), more than thirty years after the Resurrection, did the Christians fall under the stroke of cruelty; and, as Gibbon is persuaded, the “ effect, as well as the cause, of Nero’s persecution, were confined to the walls of Rome.” The martyr-witnesses of the Resurrection, therefore, are the mere offspring of imposture and credulity. The fact is, you cannot produce the testimony of a single eye-witness, good, bad, or indifferent. You are unable to trace the Gospels beyond a period “ early in the second century,” and, although you refer to c< a pre-existing narrative,” you are unable to tell us what it was, or indeed to assure us that there were not a dozen. Such documents, if they ever existed, which I admit is probable, are irretrievably lost. The four Gospels remain. Two of these do not profess to be the account of eye-witnesses, and the other two— Matthew and John—cannot be so in the light of your argument. You appear to think that the early Christian writers could not be “ weak-minded enthusiasts, open to hallucinations, or carried away by marvellous stories which had no foundation in facts.” But why not ? Why should they, and they only, be exempt from the common frailty of their age When cultivated Greeks and Romans were deluded by fables, and a grave �■110 Letters to the Clergy. Roman historian could relate a public miracle of the emperor Vespasian, is it conceivable that the ignorant and superstitious Galileans should be superior to such weakness? You are ready to ascribe the ecclesiastical miracles to “ignorance, superstition, or craft.” But such miracles were unhesitatingly accepted by the very Christian writers you must appeal to in support of the antiquity of your Gospels. Miracles did not cease with the apostles, but continued without interruption. Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and St. Augustine, all declared that miracles were wrought in their ages. You believe they were all mistaken, and I believe that the first Christians were all mistaken. Honesty is quite consistent with delusion. History shows us that the best men have been deceived. That the Gospels are “ free from any marks of con­ scious embellishment ” I will not now dispute. Men who honestly believe in miracles will relate them as matters of fact. The supernatural is only “ dished up ” when belief is waning. Simple-minded believers, in former ages, were satisfied with the Gospels; but in this age of refined credulity the Gospels have to be manipulated by theological cooks. Hence the pon­ derous Lives of Christ that are constantly streaming from the press. You conclude by remarking with regard to miracles that “since the establishment of Christianity, they have, as we believe, ceased to be wrought.” By roe, of course, you mean Protestants; excluding the Catholics, who form the majority of Christians, and who believe that a stream of miracles has flowed through the history of their Church. But although you hold that miracles have ceased, you hint at the possibility of their resumption. Should some “ terrible anti-Christian power ” arise to persecute Christianity, and “ muster the forces of earth and hell to crush it out of existence/'’ you venture to hope that God will “ bare his arm ” and come forth to “ avenge his own �Miracles. Ill elect.” For my part, I smile alike at your fears and hopes. Unbelief will not persecute youi’ Church, but give it fair play, and let it live or die. You need be under no apprehension of Freethought imitating the vile example of Christianity. But, whatever happens, I do not think you will be assisted by miracles. They do not occur in an age of Science and Board Schools. What Schopenhauei’ said of religions is particularly true of miracles—they require darkness to shine in. Science is daily revealing to us the most marvellous truths, which dwarf the wonders of theology into insignificance. Instead of raising one man from the dead it saves millions of lives ; instead of curing one blind man with clay ointment it places ophthalmic hospitals at the service of a myriad sufferers; instead of feeding a casual crowd, once in a millenium, by the supernatural multiplication of loaves and fishes, it enables us to carry on a gigantic system of commerce, which sustains multitudes who would otherwise be unable to exist; instead of smiting a rock, and calling forth a spring for a single thirsty crowd, it brings a regular supply of water, year after year, to the great cities of our modern civilisation ; instead of enabling one man to walk the waves in a tempest, it constructs gigantic ocean steamers that ride the wildest storms, and convey their passengers with comfort and safety across the trackless ocean. Truth is greater than fiction, and science is mightier than miracle. �112 Letters to the Clergy. PRAYER. TO THE REV. T. TEIGNMOUTH SHORE, M.A. Chaplain-in-ordinary to the Queen. Sir,— Having read your little volume on Prayer in the “ Helps to Belief ” series, I venture to address some remarks to you upon it. I have read several other volumes in this series without finding my faith assisted: on the contrary, I have only wondered that such flimsy arguments and paltry evasions could be put forward by men of reputation in the Christian Church. My wonder diminishes, however, when I reflect that men did not become Christians by reason, but by early training. Their faith is not a conviction, but a prejudice ; and the least plausible answer to objections is sufficient to preserve a belief which reposes on authority instead of evidence. It was remarked by Carlyle, in his essay on Diderot, that the usual “ evidences ” of Theism never did, and never ought to, convince any Atheist. The fact is, creeds are taught first, and “ evidences ” manufactured afterwards; s» that they are not the proofs but the excuses of faith. I do not deny, therefore, that your volume may help the belief of an otiose believer, who has heard that there are objections to his creed, and is satisfied to see some kind of printed rejoinder, in order to assure himself that the ministers of religion are looking after his faith. It will doubtless quiet his apprehensions, and enable him to sleep in peace, while the sentinels are watching at the gates. But I am perfectly positive you will allay no single doubt in the mind of any thinking Christian. Such a person, I am confident, will be tempted to exclaim, “ If this is all that can be said in reply to sceptical objections, I had better at �Prayer. ,113 once regard my faith as untenable, and cry like the Israelite of old—Ichabod, the glory is departed.” According to your Preface, you have made “ an attempt to put simply and plainly the answer which may be given to the most ordinary difficulties which are urged regarding Prayer/-’ I admit that you have put the answers simply, but you have not put them plainly. You have involved them in a great deal of preaching, as though your purpose were rather exhorta­ tion than discussion ; and, like the other writers in thia series, you contrive to leave the real point at issue until the last chapter, where you treat it with a very discreet, if not judicious brevity. You insist, at the outset, on the necessity of defini­ tion, and ask the pertinent question—What is prayer ? But instead of answering it at once, you occupy a dozen pages in talking loosely upon the subject. When you condescend to define, you say that Prayer is “ the intercourse of the spirit of the child with the Father of Spirits; it is the submission of the human will to the Divine.” In a later part of the volume you observe that you are not called upon to “ explain or to defend parodies of Prayer offered up to travesties of God,” but merely the “ reasonableness of Christian Prayer to the God whom Christians worship.” I venture to assert that your definition is the parody, and that what you call the parody is the true doctrine of prayer. It is true that, with the progress of science and civilisation every religious doctrine becomes attenuated, until at length it becomes a vague sentiment, and finally disappears. But while Prayer has any real existence it will always savor of its origin. Prayer is not the submission of the human to the divine will. That is worship. Prayer is a petition. It is an appeal to God, who, as Jeremy Taylor says, loves to be held in a sweet constraint. The man who prays asks for something. He may do it as crudely as the converted heathen, in Tylor’s Primitive Culture, who, on being asked by the missionary to come to morning prayers, �114 Letters to the Clergy. replied, “ Thank you, I don’t want anything just now?’ Or he may do it as superfinely as a Queen’s chaplain. But, however he does it, his prayer will be found to contain a request for something, that would not arrive in the ordinary course of nature. Even in the Lord’s Prayer, between two thick slices of flattery, is sandwiched a petition for daily bread; and when I open the Prayer Book of your Church I find prayers for rain and sunshine, for calm weather at sea, for good harvests, for recovery from sickness, and for grace, wisdom, and understanding ” for “ all the nobility,” who certainly need it without ever appearing to obtain it. What is all this but an appeal to God’s goodness, and an attempt to influence his will ? You admit this yourself in a subsequent chapter, and therefore your definition is as childish in substance as it is childish in expression. Your definition having broken down, I must follow you as closely as your tortuous course will permit. You innocently observe that the efficacy of Prayer must depend on our conception of God. If he answers prayer, it is reasonable to pray ; if he does not it is unreasonable. Exactly I If a shop sells bread, it is reasonable to go there to purchase it; if not it is unreasonable. But the question is—does the shop sell bread ? And that, you will observe, is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. When you assert that the efficacy of Prayer must only be discussed in relation to “the idea of God” which is expressed in “ the doctrine of the Church,” you are begging the question most flagrantly. A child might see through such a shallow artifice. Still more absurd, if possible, is your later assertion that “ Christianity as a whole is the true explanation and the strongest defence _ of the doctrine of Christian Prayer.” “ Admit the truth of Christianity,” you say, “ and Prayer is perfectly intelligible.” Of course it is. Swallow the whole box, and you will certainly have any particular pill. Prayer is an integral part of �Prayer. 115 Christianity, and telling me that if I admit Christianity I accept Prayer, is informing me of a very obvious truism. You can hardly regard this as an argument, and its use implies a gross contempt for the in of your readers. Although your definition of Prayer is a lamentable failure, you continue more or less in the spirit which inspired it. You assert that “true Prayer cannot flourish in an atmosphere of probability; it must breathe the air of clear and certain confidence. Only those can really pray who believe absolutely that every true prayer is heard and answered by God.-” This is a most convenient theory for the theologians. If the prayer be not answered, they can always reply that it was not a true prayer—whatever that may be —or that the supplicator’s faith was not absolute., Nay, I observe that you go to a still greater length of precaution. You assert that “ No is quite as much an answer as Tes.” If we obtain what we pray for we are answered; if we do not obtain it we are also answered. What a beautiful theory ! How blandly the theologian plays the innocent game of “ Heads we win, and tails you lose.’’’ Your theory is quite incapable of proof or disproof ; argument is useless on the one side or the other; it can only be left to the indignation of ^honesty and the derision of common sense. You say that desire and faith are the essential ele­ ments of Prayer. But such a truism does not require the elaboration you give it. You might as well dilate ■on the gastronomic truth that a good appetite is an •essential element of a good dinner. Forgetting that God is omniscient, or taking a ■singular view of that attribute, you say that we do well to remind him of our wants, but our prayers must be general and not particular. We shall show our modesty by desiring him to oblige us, without stipulating how he is to do it. We must leave that to him, for our knowledge of how anything is to be accomplished in �116 Letters to the Clergy. the “ varied and complex conditions of life” is “ partial and fragmentary,” while he is able to see and foresee everything. “ Thus, in regard to the legitimate ambitions of worldly life, we may (subject to limitations, already and yet to be stated), feel fully justified in praying for our own needs or those of others; though to pray without reserve for any particular promotion, or any definite success as the means of accomplishing it, would scarcely be in harmony with the time spirit of Prayer.” It would therefore be quite right for an ambitious Christian to say to God “please push me on,’-’ but very improper to say, “ please give me this post.” But I think you will find, on reflection, that the human mind thinks by particulars, and that it is impossible to dissociate the idea of advancement from the steps that must be taken to gain it. If my house were on fire, and my child in an upper room, which could not be approached by the staircase; if I were to plant a ladder against the wall, and saw that I must pass a window through which flame and smoke were belching; do you mean that it would be a true prayer if I said “ Let me mount to the top and descend in safety /’ but a false prayer if I said “ Let me pass and re-pass that terrible window ’’’ ? Your fine distinction seems to me perfectly chimerical. To an omniscient mind every chain of causation, whether extending through a day or a lifetime, is equally finite; and if there be any presumption in the case, it is as great if I ask for a prosperous life as if I ask for a particular blessing. It is true that if God exist he has a superior knowledge of means, but it is also true that he has a superior judgment of ends; and whether I ask for the end or the means, I am acting with equal simplicity. To tell an omniscient God of my wants is childish. Can it be more than childish to ask him for a particular favor ? Prayer necessarily proceeds upon the assumption that man can influence the will of God, and you prove �Prater. 117 this by your serpentine efforts to evade it. You draw impossible distinctions between God’s ultimate and immediate will. You talk of his unchanging purpose, yet you speak of exciting his emotions of tenderness, mercy, and love; as though, in the words of Ladv Macbeth, we could screw him to the sticking place! Such words as “ plead,” “ appeal,” “ beseech,” and “ implore,” are unintelligible, except as exciting emotion and influencing volition. Nor can I follow your assertion that it would be “ a mockery ” to ask God that the sun may not rise to-morrow, in order to mitigate a scorching heat. This was not the belief of the chosen people, who recorded the stoppage of the sun, in order that they might slaughter their enemies. It is idle to say “ we know it is God’s will that the sun shall rise to-morrow.” We know nothing of the kind, I admit we have a very good reason for believing it will rise to-morrow, but we have as good—because it is the very same—reason for believing that every law of nature will be in perfect operation, without violation, suspension, or accident. When you say that “ we do not know in the least whether it may be God’s will that a hurricane should die down at a particular moment,” and present this as a reason why we should pray for divine help in the crisis of a storm, you are only saying that meteorology is not as well understood as astronomy. There was a time when Christians prayed against an eclipse. Why ? Because they did not understand its causes. They still pray, though with diminishing heartiness, against bad weather. Why? Because they do not understand its causes. When they do understand its causes, they will cease praying against it, and confine their supplications to what is still con­ tingent. Now contingency is nothing but ignorance. When a coin is tossed into the air, men will bet on its falling “ heads or tails.” But the uncertainty is only in their . minds, for the fall of the coin was absolutely deter­ �118 Letters to the Clergy. mined on its leaving the tosser’s fingers. Similarly next week’s weather, or next year’s harvest, is deter­ mined already, only we do not possess the knowledge that would enable us to foresee it. When we come to the infinitely varied phenomena of human society, we are only able to perceive a few broad sweeps of ten­ dency. All the rest is uncertain to us, though certain enough in itself; and it is this mighty realm of con­ tingency that you shrewdly mark out as the future preserve of Prayer. “ I maintain,” you say, “ that in the regulation and variation of these conditions by the human will and choice there is a very wide margin for what I may call contingency.” This is perfectly true ; but if contin­ gency only means ignorance, and the consequent incapacity of prevision, it is obvious that you are reduced to the extremity of praying in the dark. Where light obtains, you find we have nothing to do but submit to the obvious will of God, or, in other words, to the necessity of Nature. The last quotation introduces a new factor—the human will. You appear to regard this as an indepen­ dent force, whereas it is the decisive action of a number of concurrent forces. This is an operation you do not appear to understand. You assert that “ a child holding a stone in its hand is to a very real and recognisable degree modifying the results of the action of gravity itself.” Did you ever know of gravity acting by itself1 The child no more modifies ? the action ot gravity by holding up the stone, than would a ledge upon which it had fallen. The law of gravity is acting with unerring precision all the time, as you will find by weighing the child, first with the stone in his hand, and then without it. The difference is the weight of the stone, and the weight of the stone is the action of gravity. You shrink from the cruder notions of prayer, although you ultimately find yourself bound to defend them, and maintain that God answers prayer �Prayer. m by controlling “ the physical world indirectly, through his action upon human thought and will.” According to this theory, when Smith prays for anything, he is asking God to influence Jones, Brown and Robinson. Instead of desiring the forces of nature to be directed towards his benefit, he is requesting that his fellow creatures may be shuffled into a more favorable com­ bination ; and as J ones, Brown, and Robinson are praying at the same time for the reshuffling of Smith, your doctrine terminates in a universal shuffle, and human society becomes a mere transformation-scene under the presiding genius of Prayer. Having reduced the world to this condition, you easily perceive whatever you desire. “We may then/’ you declare, “ pray for the recovery of a patient, and if God guides the physician’s genius to a true appre­ ciation of the nature and the proper remedy for the cure of the disease, we may consider the cure so effected in every true and reasonable sense a direct answer to our Prayer.” You call this “ true and reasonable.” I call it hocus-pocus. You are a Queen’s chaplain, and a great deal more dexterous than the simpleminded Peculiar People, but I have a far higher opinion of their honesty. I suspect, if the patient were your wife or child, you would leave as little as possible to the Lord. You would call in a skilful physician, who required but a modicum of divine superintendence and leave your poorer brethren, who can only afford the services of an inferior practioner, to experience the utmost efficacy of your celestial nostrum. Instead of skulking behind ambiguous illustrations, I invite you to take a simple one, and see whether it confirms or contradicts your theory. Let us go to the Prayer Book of your Church, which is a volume that binds you as a clergyman. In the “ Forms of Prayer to be Used at Sea” I find a special prayer against storms, containing the following ejaculation : “ O send thy word of command to rebuke the raging winds and the roaring sea; that we, being delivered �120 Letters to the Clergy. from this distress, may live to serve thee, and to glorify thy name all the days of our life.” Let me ask you to explain how God’s acting upon the physical world indirectly, through his action upon human thought and will,” is likely to make a storm subside. It seems to me that human volition cannot break or bend a single law of nature, and that human thought has no effect on the weather. The only way to save a ship in a storm is to handle her well, and throw overboard a few gallons of oil, which can be done by Atheists as well as by Christians. Super­ stition says that the will of God can control the winds and waves by some mysterious process. The doctrine is, of course, unintelligible, but you have undertaken to teach it. Yet you did not undertake to explain or defend it, and you are ill advised in attempting to do either. Your safest course is to say “ God does still storms in answer to prayer, but I do not know how he does it.” Not only does your theory of God’s control of the physical world by human agency break down, but you connect it with a metaphysical theory which has been repudiated by the greatest doctors of your own faith. Your argument stands or falls with the doctrine of Free Will. You perceive unchanging law in the external world, but you declare that the internal world of man’s nature is “ another department where God governs, not by Law, but through the freedom of the human Will.” I will not now discuss Free Will. There is no need to do so. You are defending Prayer as a Christian, and are not entitled to assume what many of the greatest Christians have denied. A’theoryof Christian prayer which would necessarily be rejected by Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards ; a theory which flies in the face of the plainest teaching of Saint Paul; a theory which is explicitly condemned by the tenth and seventeenth Articles of your own Church; such a theory, I say, is totally inadmissible �Prayer. 121 unless you prove it in opposition to these preponderant authorities ; and as you make no attempt to prove it, but simply postulate it as though it were a Christian axiom, I am justified in declining to accept it as a basis of discussion. The only question which is worth discussing, after all, is this—Does God answer Prayer ? Or, in other words—Is Prayer answered ? Now this is a question of objective fact, for I have contended, and you tacitly admit, that every one who prays asks for some­ thing that would not happen in the ordinary course of nature. It is idle to say that the lives of praying men prove the efficacy of prayer. You your­ self furnish the answer to this sophism, before attempting a singularly feeble reply. It is downright folly to assert that “ Christianity as a whole is the true explanation, and the strongest defence of Chris­ tian Prayer,” for that is assuming everything at first, and proving it afterwards in detail by means of the general assumption. The question is not whether God might, could, would, or should answer Prayer, but, in yom? own words, Does he do so ? Now the only way to answer this question is to appeal to evi­ dence. It has been proposed by Professor Tyndall, on the suggestion, I believe, of Sir Henry Thompson, that an experiment should be made in some hospital, by especially praying for the patients in one ward, and seeing whether it affords a greater percentage of cures. Such a proposal is alarming to the professors of mystery; for all religions die of being found out, and experiment is fatal to their pretensions. Accordingly you declare that this “ so-called experiment would, as a matter of religion, be a blasphemy,” and that “ Prayer made under such conditions could not have in it the essentials of Prayer.” But of course you carefully refrain from suggesting an experiment which would conform to the true conditions, and which would, at the same time, be a real experiment. Nor do you explain why God should regard as “ blasphemy ” an i �122 Letters to the Clergy. endeavor to ascertain the truth or falsity of a doctrine taught by priests. It is only religion that cries “ blasphemy I ” in the presence of investigation. Professor Tyndall did not propose that Atheists or unbelievers should pray for the patients in his special ward. His proposal was that they should be prayed for especially by every Christian congregation. Why should you regard this as “ blasphemy ” ? Is not this very thing allowed by your Prayer Book? In the “ Collect or Prayer for all conditions of men, to be used at such times when the Litany is not appointed to be said/-’ I find these words:—“ Finally, we com­ mend to thy fatherly goodness all those who are any ways afflicted, or distressed, in mind, body, or estate; [especially those for whom our prayers are desired}.” And a marginal note to this clause orders :—“ This to be said when any desire the Prayers of the Congre­ gation.” It would seem, therefore, that the Church itself commits the “ blasphemy ” of offering special prayers for individuals, and is hardly entitled to cry “ blasphemy 1” against others who propose to do the same. While waiting for your experiment, I look abroad in the world, and find no practical recognition of the efficacy of Prayer. No Life Assurance Company would calculate a sovereign's life policy on the ground that her subjects asked God to “ grant her in health and wealth long to live.” No Fire Insurance Company would grant a policy on a House of Prayer unless a lightning conductor were run up to prevent the Deity from making mistakes in a thunderstorm. Underwriters never think of asking whether the captain prays or swears, or whether he carries rum or missionaries. And when the Peculiar People use prayer, without mixing it with medicine, they are browbeaten by Christian coroners and jurymen. Let me advise you, sir, before you write again on this subject to read Mr. Francis Galton's article on Prayer in the Fortnightly Review for August, 1872. This keen, �Prayer. 123 scientific writer points out that in all the medical literature of modern Europe he has been unable to discover “ any instance in which a medical man of any repute has attributed recovery to the influence of prayer.” Yet they are always on the watch for sanative agencies, and if they do not strive to obtain the healing influence of prayer for their patients •“ it is not because their attention has never been awakened to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary, that although they have heard it insisted on from childhood upwards, they are unable to detect its influence.” Mr. Galton finds a way, too, of dexterously passing your wing and attacking you in the rear. Granted that the future is uncertain—that is, unforeseeable— there is still no uncertainty about the past. What has been has been; and although God, as you suggest, might frown upon and frustrate an attempt to make him the subject of a scientific experiment, not even Omnipotence can undo the past, and we may investigate it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer has been efficacious. Pursuing this line of inquiry, by the aid of historical and statistical tables, Mr. Galton discovers no trace of Prayer as an efficient cause. For instance, it is presumable that pious parents pray for their unborn offspring; as a still-birth is usually regarded as a misfortune, and baptism is thought so necessary to salvation that the Catholic Church provides in extreme cases for the baptism of the child in the womb. Yet Mr. Galton found, on analysis, that the lists in the Times and the Record showed exactly the same proportion of still-births to the total number of deaths. And this is only one of a dozen illustrations of the absolute nullity of your theological specific. You give only two answers to Prayer, and they are extremely ancient. Nay more, they are selected from the Bible I 0 sancta simylicitas ! Moses prayed to see “ the good land beyond Jordan,” and died without seeing it; but fifteen hundred years or so afterwards �124 Letters to the Clergy. he saw it from “ the summit of Tabor ” when Christ was transfigured. What a precious “ help to belief I ” Paul also prayed God to remove his “thorn in the flesh”—whatever that was; and, although the thorn was not removed, God “ gave the grace to bear it.” Well, if there be a God, let us hope he will give us grace to bear the logic of theologians. Pardon me, sir, for citing another answer to Prayer; no more apocryphal than your instances, and more recent and refreshing. In a Western State of America—you see the story is not two thousand years old—there was a long and unprecedented drought. All the farmers were in despair, for if rain did not soon fall there would be no crop in the locality. The Baptists therefore resolved to hold a Prayer Convention. Delegates assembled from all the churches and prayed lustily for rain. After two hours’ wrestling with God they received a telegram from a town with a large annual rainfall. It ran thus—“ Stop praying at once, we are flooded out.” Pardon me, also, for citing another answer to Prayer. The great Johnstown reservoir—a lake three miles by one—burst in the early summer of 1889, and devastated a populous valley, sweeping away houses, factories, and churches, and drowning ten thousand people. When the deluge had done its awful work, one bereaved woman was found near a muddy pool looking for her loved ones. On the rescuers approaching her she cried, “ They are all gone. O, Heaven, be merciful to them! My husband and my seven dear little children all swept away, and I am left alone.” Her terrible story is best told in her own words, as reported in the papers at the time. “We were driven by the awful floods into a garret, but the water followed us there inch by inch. It kept rising until our heads were crushing against the roof. It would have been death to remain; so I raised the window and placed my darlings, one by one, on some driftwood, trusting them to Providence. As I liberated the last one, my little boy, he looked at me and said, ‘ Mamma, you have always told me that �Prayer. 125 the Lord would care for me ! Will he look after me now ?’ I saw him drift away with his loving face turned towards me, and in the midst of my prayer for his deliverance he passed from my sight for ever. The next moment the roof crashed in, and I floated outside to be rescued fifteen hours later. If I could only find one of my darlings I could bow to the will of God, but they are all gone. I have lost everything on earth now but my life, and I shall return to my old Virginia home and lay me down for my last great sleep.” That poor woman taught her darling a lie. She did not think so; she took it on trust from the priest, who taught it as a trade. The worth of the doctrine might have been read on the boy’s dead face and the mother’s bleeding heart. Let me presume a little further on your patience. You will remember, perhaps, that the Prince of Wales was once stricken with gastric fever. Prayers were offered up for him daily, and the newspaper articles were nothing but sermons. But secular means were not neglected. The prince was tended by skilful nurses and the most eminent doctors. With their assistance, and the aid of a good constitution, he recovered. But the clergy insisted that his recovery was due to prayer. Accordingly a national Thanks­ giving Service was held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. God was duly thanked, but the doctors were not forgotten. One of them was knighted, and all were handsomely rewarded. Probably you would claim the Prince of Wales as a living proof of the efficacy of Prayer. But before you boast of it let us see what happened in America. President Garfield was shot by a pious assassin. Week after week Science fought with Death over his sick bed, and the awful struggle was watched by a trembling world. “ O God, let him live! ” prayed millions in church and chapel. “ O God, spare him, my husband, my darling ! ” cried the agonised wife. But his life ebbed slowly away amidst a nation’s prayers for his recovery. �126 Letters to the Clergy. If God saved the Prince of Wales, why did he not save President Garfield ? Is he a respecter of persons after all ? Oi' does he love Monarchies and hate Republics ? You are bound to give some answer ; for what sensible man will let you prove the efficacy of prayer by counting the hits and neglecting the misses ? And I defy you to give any answer without confuting your doctrine or dishonoring your God. • In the little sermon with which you conclude, you picture Christ standing “ amid the surging, weeping throng of agonised humanity ”—all created by the God of love—and hearing their cries for help from “ sin.” But is it not a fact that all the alleged miracles of Christ were physical ? Where in the whole of the Gospels, did he make a single bad man good? “I have chosen you twelve,” he said ; “ and one of you is a devil.” He had, therefore, in Judas a fine subject for one of his “ spiritual ” miracles. But did he work it? No, the “devil” betrayed him, and Judas has been cursed by Christians ever since. Pursuing the same idea, in an earlier part of your volume, you assert that “if Prayer, and answers to Prayer, are sometimes concerned with material and physical matters, it is only in connection with spiritual and moral conditions.” If you mean that miracles are always wrought in connection with religion, you are only uttering a barren truism ; but if you mean that Prayer is never answered for the merely temporal welfare of men, you are flying in the face of the Bible and the Prayer Book; and I must add that such a trick of special-pleading is a curious commentary on the airs the clergy give themselves as the divinely called servants of “ the God of truth.” Let us take the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, to say nothing of the many material answers to prayer in the Old Testament. Does it not contain a distinct request for “ daily bread ” ? And what is there spiritual or moral in this petition ? Is it not merely the voice of self-preservation, a cry from the stomach, a plea from �Prayer. 127 the animal nature? And is it not in strict conformity with the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, where we are told to take no thought for the morrow, what we shall eat or what we shall drink, but to leave all such things to^the care of God ? Prayer, in its beginning, was purely material. In the higher religions of civilised and moralised nations other characteristics are found. The deity is besought to diminish social evils, to redress wongs, to punish the wicked, and to increase righteousness. But just as the anthropoid in developing his brain did not lose his stomach, so the loftier developments of Prayer overlay without destroying this primitive stock. In its earlier stage, as Tylor says, it was “ unethical.” Look at this prayer, offered bj the head of a family in the Samoan Islands, when tha^ibation of ava was poured out at the evening meal. “ Here is ava for you, O Gods I Look kindly towards this family : let it prosper and increase ; and let us all be kept in health. Let our plantations be productive : let food grow; and may there be abundance of food for us, your creatures. Here is ava for you, our war gods !' Let there be a strong and numerous people for you in this land.” So the Gold Coast negro prays, “ God, give me to-day rice and yams, gold and agries, give me slaves, riches, and health, and that I may be brisk and swift.” Here is a* Vedic prayer—“What, Indra, has not yet been given by thee, Lightning-hurler, all good things bring us hither with both hands . . . with mighty riches fill me, with .wealth of cattle, for thou art great.” This is a Moslem prayer—“ O, Allah I make this town to be safe and secure, and blessed with wealth and plenty.” So your Church Service bids 'the congregation pray on behalf of the Queen, “ grant her in health and wealth long to live.” And so the Lord’s Prayer sums up all these material petitions in one compendious phrase— “ Give us this day our daily bread.” “ Throughout the rituals of Christendom,” as Tylor observes, “ stand an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle �128 Letters to the Clergy. from savage tiAes—that the weather -may be adjusted to our local needs, that we may have the victory over all our enemies, that life and* health and wealth and happiness may be ours?’ Your Prayer Book contains special forms of prayer against storms at sea, against sickness, for rain, for fine weather, and similiar mercies. What have these to do with “spiritual and moral conditions?” They are all bodily or material, and have nothing to do with “ the soul?’ That you are well aware of them goes without saying, for, as a clergyman of the Church of England, you must have uttered them frequently; and the Prayer Book is not so large a volume that a minister might plead ignorance of its contents. Your own ritual is thus a clear and flagrant proof that supplications are made to God for material blessings, quite independently of any other reMlts. Obviously, then, to assert that Prayer, even in Christian circles, is always connected with spiritual and moral conditions, is quite unwarrantable; and especially so on the part of a clergymen of the Church of England. Here I take leave of your volume. You have not “helped” my “belief.” You have said nothing to convince a doubter of the efficacy of Prayer. But you have shown me, once more, that Christianity has in its service a number of intelligent, accomplished, and well-paid men, who juggle and chop straw for a living. If I prayed at all, I would pray that they might despise the wretched business, and earn even a scantier allowance of bread in a more honest avocation. ��� 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 &amp; 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 Letters to the clergy Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: vi, [7]-128 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Replies to material published by several bishops and theologians. First published in The Freethinker. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N252 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy 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 (Letters to the clergy), 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 NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/86f2d903b9c825eadc9635f42a6ac6c5.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=Mh3oP3N4NxO2Ik77wowHaDjLL81CWe76MhN4b5RKxXy%7EwebRUF12rve8H6InPGiJCyeEIpVKdxVh4D0GBEcyFHYizv8U4RDWoBykF31tSYS1LyILVDTnz2s2VDQTX-eiCRYJdqhBEcW1XI-%7Ez0AWglC4ktGY7kwP9F94CySVPTm3zspcOxmja3qrwe19k4EL4eMVgldZA5uXYY145AAf6sH-xGb3UEWqn%7E2bEq2OxJovQ%7EkETB%7EejJ1fjFhnTNs49VvMD41FqZOgHJ9ldvAT2RH6URHN00GuKxh9M0gjUjl6ZIi0cWD-2eH5ZZjp5STo7S7YKWtrnto2h%7EFz37YbgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 860cebe91de87f7bd257d238475a62bc PDF Text Text THE BISHOPS AND THEIR WEALTH: CONTAINING SOME REMARKABLE EVIDENCE FROM THE PROBATE OFFICE. BY THE REV. MERCER DAVIES, M.A. Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital. LONDON: THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING COMPANY, 160, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1886. Pl"ice Twopence. ��CONTENTS. PAGE. § 1. Are the Bishops “ rolling in wealth ” ? 5 2. How 7 3. Evidence 4. Bishop Ryle’s 5. Can this position be justified 1 6. True and THE QUESTION IS TO BE DETERMINED. prom the 10 Probate Office. assertion contradicted. false views of a 13 Bishop’s Office. 7. Christian Bishops the 15 17 teaching about riches. 8. Why 12 cannot do their duty. 20 9. The influence of their example. 22 10. Not poverty, but moderation, required. 24 11. Who is to blame,—the Men, or the System ? 27 ��THE BISHOPS AND THEIR WEALTH. -------------------------------------- I. Are the Bishops “ Rolling in Wealth ” 1 MNE of the most important points in reference to the W position of the Established Church in England, is the wealth, or supposed wealth, of the upper ranks of its hierarchy. This is a point of great practical importance in itself ■ and it is one which occupies a very prominent place in the public mind. Perhaps there is hardly any other matter which so deeply and so widely affects the sentiments of large numbers of people, not only towards the Church, but towards Christianity and Religion generally, as this spectacle,—or, it may be, this spectre,—of the Bishops “rolling in riches.” Whether it is a real, substantial, spectacle, or only a spectre, conjured up by the imagination, is a question that is yet to be determined. That the belief in this state of things is very widespread, that it is almost universal, shared in by members and friends of the Church, no less than by her enemies, is beyond question. And yet there are some persons who venture to dispute the truth of it; or at least who think the popular impeachment requires to be qualified by other considerations which are not �6 generally understood, and which, in a great measure, take away its sting. The truth of the matter evidently has not yet been sifted to the bottom ; and it appears therefore very desirable that any further light which can be thrown upon it, of an authentic and trustworthy character, should be presented to the public as soon as possible. The Lord Bishop of Liverpool has lately published a series of ten short Papers on ££ Disestablishment.”* There is certainly some very good common sense and plain-speaking in some of these papers; especially in the ninth, where his Lordship takes up a theme which he has dealt with before,! in his own peculiar, earnest, and vigorous style, and where he says again, “ We need reform : there is no mistake about that.” But in the tenth and last of this present series, tho Bishop makes the following assertions :— “ It is utterly untrue that the Bishops are rolling in wealth, and the Clergy are overpaid. The Bishops have so many demands on their purses that they can hardly make both ends meet; and the Clergy, if incomes were divided, would not have three hundred a-year apiece.” I must confess that when I read these words, I was con­ siderably surprised ; for I was myself very much impressed with the common opinion, that the Bishops at least—to say nothing of other dignitaries—were generally overpaid to a considerable extent, that their incomes were very much beyond the requirements of the position they occupy, that a Series of Ten Papers by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool —London: Hunt & Co., 1885. f “Church Reform,” by the Rev. J. C. Ryle, B.A. Hunt & Co., 1870. * “ Disestablishment �7 of Ministers of the Church of Christ. And, therefore, it immediately occurred to me that it would be desirable to ascertain the truth of this matter, as far as could con­ veniently be done. If Bishop Ryle’s assertion should be found to be true, by all means let the Bishops have the benefit of it; and let the common prejudice which prevails on the subject be cleared away by the evidence of facts. If, on the other hand, it should be found that this assertion is made rashly and in error, then it is certainly no less necessary that the error should be corrected, and that the true facts of the matter, whatever they may be, should be clearly known and fairly taken into account, in dealing with this great question. And I have so much faith in the integrity and earnestness of the Bishop from whom I have ■quoted those words, that I believe he will be one of the first, in this case, to recognise the importance of the matter, and to make any such correction or qualification of his statement as truth may seem to require. II. How the Question is to be Determined. “ The Bishops have so many demands on their purses that they can hardly make both ends meet: ”—this is the homely, but very intelligible assertion of the Bishop; and this, I believe, is the opinion entertained by at least a considerable number of persons within the Church. The assertion has now been for several months before the world, and as it has not been, I believe, in any way repudiated by the other Bishops, it must be taken to have -at least their tacit concurrence. �8 Now, how is this matter to be tested ?—It is easy to bring forward the amount of income belonging to the several Sees at the present time ; and these figures must of course have some weight in the enquiry. But they are not conclusive by themselves alone. It is not denied that the incomes of the Bishops,—at least their nominal incomes,— are large : but then,—“ they have so many demands on their purses. ’—No doubt, they have : demands, of infinite variety. They have, most of them, large palaces, which they are bound to keep in repair, and the maintenance of which necessitates a large and constant outlay : they have demands for support to all religious and charitable Institu­ tions, both in their own several dioceses, and connected with the Church at large : personal expenses, to a large extent, which they cannot avoid, especially if they are to attend to their duties in Parliament. All these things,— and I cannot pretend to give anything like an adequate summary of them,—all these things, the Bishops may fairly plead, impose .heavy burdens on their purses, whether they like it or not. But is it the fact that their resources are generally exhausted hereby ? Is their expenditure nearly on a level with their income, and unavoidably so ? Da they barely contrive to make both ends meet, to keep out of debt, with very little over ?—If we might ask what is their balance at the banker’s, or what are their private investments in Consols, and such like, we might get an answer to these questions. We cannot do this,, however, with regard to those Bishops who are still living among us; nor can we expect them to volunteer such a public declaration of their private affairs as was �9 made by one of their most eminent predecessors. “ Silver .and gold have I none/’ said St. Peter, on a very notable occasion. But although we must not scrutinize too closely the .affairs of the living, we know that certain facts are ■occasionally published in the Newspapers, which bear very •directly upon this question; and which, being so made public, must be deemed to be matters of public interest, and subject to public comment. From time to time we read that the Will of some Prelate, lately deceased, has been proved in the Probate Court, and that his personal effects have been sworn to, at a certain value. And some of the amounts so published have been certainly rather remarkable, and such as fairly to lead up to that impression, which as I have said, does undoubtedly prevail to a large ■extent in the public mind. But the question is whether ■these individual instances of wealth are only rare and ■exceptional, or whether they may be taken to indicate the general position of the Bishops as a class. Now as this field of enquiry is entirely open to the public, as anybody is .at liberty to ascertain these facts from a public office, on the payment of a small fee, and as the matter is clearly one •of much public importance, there can be no feeling of impropriety or intrusion in entering upon such an investiga­ tion, and no breach of confidence in making known such facts. The life and conduct of a Bishop, as of any other public man, after he has passed away, have become matters of history; and no one can object to the publication of such .authentic particulars, but those who feel that they cannot be justified or excused. �10 III. Evidence from the Probate Office. With these views therefore I have collected together the amounts of personalty sworn to, upon the death of the various Bishops who have held office in the Church of England, during the last thirty years, from 1856 to the close of 1885 : and I now present the results of my enquiries in the following Table :— Table, showing the Names of the Bishops of England and Wales,, deceased, from 1856 to 1885 ; with the amount of Personalty proved at their death. Conse­ crated. 1827 1830 1824 1824 1831 1813 1837 1840 1856 Name. Years Nominal Amount Re­ of of signed. Died. Bishop­ Income Person­ of See. alty. ric. See. £ 4,500 £ 90,000 Hon. Hugh Percy Carlisle ... Jas. H. Monk... G. and B.... C. J. Blomfield Chest: Lon: 1856 Chr. Bethell ... Bangor Edw. Maltby ... Chich :Dur: 1856 29 1856 26 1857 1859 32 10,000 60,000 35 4,000 20,000 1859 28 8,000 120,000 Geo. Murray ... Rochester... Thos. Musgrave Heref: York 1860 47 23 5,000 60,000 10,000 70,000 20 5,000 50,000 Henry Pepys ... Worcester Hon. H. M. Villiers Durham ... J. B. Sumner... Chest: Cant: 1860 1860 5,000 140,000 1861 5 8,000 20,000 1862 34 15,000 60,000 1864 19 5,500 40,000 1839 Thos. Turton ... Ely Geo. Davys ... Peterboro’ 1864 25 4,500 80,000 1848 John Graham... Chester ... 1865 17 4,500 18,000 1860 J. C. Wigram... Rochester... John Lonsdale Lichfield ... 1867 7 24 5,000 45,000 4,500 90,000 1826 1845 1843 1867 �11 Conse­ crated. Years Nominal Amount of of Re­ Died. Bishop­ Income Person­ signed. alty. ric. of See. See. Name. 20 £ 4,500 4,200 45,000 4 4,500 35,000 1868 32 15 15,000 5,000 45,000 1869 H. Philpotts ... Exeter 1869 38 5,000 60,000 Hon. S. WaldeCarlisle ... grave Manchester J. P. Lee 1869 9 4,500 20,000 1869 21 4,200 40,000 4,200 Norwich ... 1857 R. D. Hampden Hereford ... 1868 8 1868 Francis Jeune ... Peterboro’ 1868 1854 C. T. Longley... Rip : Cant: W. K. Hamilton Salisbury... 1831 1860 1849 1848 1864 1836 1848 Samuel Hinds 14,000 1870 28 1869 1870 22 12,000 5,000 120,000 1870 ... St. Asaph Oxf Winch: 1872 29 4,200 14,000 1873 28 7,000 60,000 1869 1874 43 1874 1875 34 10,000 4,500 16,000 1878 37 23 4,500 16,000 1879 1842 A. T. Gilbert ... Chichester 1847 Lord Auckland B. and W. 1841 T. V. Short 1845 S. Wilberforce 1826 C. R. Sumner ... Winchester St. David’s Con. Thirlwall 1840 £ ____ * 80,000 1856 G. A. Selwyn... N.Z: Lichf: Chas. Baring ... G.&B :Dur: 1856 A. C. Tait Lon : Cant: 1882 26 1849 Alf. Ollivant ... Llandaff ... Rob. Bickersteth Ripon 1882 33 4,200 30,000 1884 4,500 25,000 1884 4,500 65,000 1853 W. Jacobson ... Chester ... John Jackson ... Line : Lon : 27 19 1885 32 10,000 72,000 1868 C. Wordsworth 1885 5,000 85,000 1869 1885 5,000 29,000 1870 Geo. Moberly ... Salisbury ... Manchester Jas. Fraser 17 16 1885 15 4,200 85,000 1873 J. R. Woodford Ely 1885 12 5,500 19,000 1841 1857 1865 Lincoln ... 1885 8,000 120,000 15,000 35,000 * I have not been able to find any particulars of Bishop Hinds’ estate. He resigned his Bishopric under somewhat peculiar circumstances ; and died, I believe, an honest, but a very poor, man M. D. �12 It appears then from this Table that, whatever may have been the demands upon their purses, either of a public and official, or of a private and personal nature, these individual Bishops were, at the time of their death, in possession of personal property, varying in value from twelve thousand to one hundred and forty thousand pounds; the average being about £54,000 a-piece, and the total personalty of the 39 Bishops being over two millions sterling; this being exclusive of any real estate they may have possessed, and exclusive also of any sums invested in policies of Life Assurance, or otherwise settled for the benefit of their families. These are facts, indisputable facts, which anyone may verify for himself at the cost of a very little trouble and expense; and they are facts of recent date, perfectly relevant to the question at issue. What are the inferences to be drawn from them ? IV. Bishop Ryle’s Assertion Contradicted. First of all, I think we are compelled to say that this Table directly contradicts the assertion of the Bishop of Liverpool. Out of the 39 instances here given, the amount of personalty is in only 7 cases below £20,000 ; the lowest of all being £12,000. Not one of all these Bishops could have been in the position indicated by Bishop Ryle, hardly able to meet the various demands upon his purse from all quarters; and certainly not one anywhere near to that condition which is unhappily only too common, too literally true, of many Ministers of Religion, “ hardly able to �13 make both ends meet ” ; hardly able to provide absolute necessaries for themselves and their families, out of the scanty pittance bestowed upon them. Nothing of this sort could be said of any one of those Prelates : so far from this being the case, it is clear that most of them must have saved annually large sums out of their income; that income, no doubt, in many cases coming from private sources in addition to the revenue of their Sees. Is there any possibility of escape from this conclusion ? I see none whatever; and therefore, in the first place, I think it is right that the truth should be acknowledged in this matter, the plain truth of the case, whatever conclusion it may lead to. It is not the fact—and I think the Bishop of Liverpool will much regret that he should have been led so hastily, though, no doubt, quite sincerely and in good faith, to assert the contrary in such positive terms—but with those figures before us, I think we are compelled to say it is not the fact that these Bishops have in any one case had any difficulty in meeting the various demands made upon their purses; but, on the contrary, they have had large sums to spare, to lay by; and in most cases, the popular idea, which Bishop Ryle so vehemently repudiates, that they were “rolling in wealth,” turns out to be abundantly justified. V. Can this Position be Justified. Now the inference which will generally be drawn from these facts, and which at first sight seems to follow �14 inevitably, will be one of condemnation; condemnation, to some extent of the individual Bishops themselves ; and still more, perhaps, of the system to which they belonged, and which produced or permitted these results. But there are some considerations on the other side which will be urged to mitigate this condemnation. First, it will be said that riches and wealth are comparative terms, depending upon the position which a man occupies. A thousand a year would be great wealth to any man of the artizan class, or even to many poor clergymen and others who have to live by the work of their brains; while yet the same sum would be felt as downright poverty by any great merchant or nobleman. Five thousand a year, therefore, or even ten thousand, some will say, is not too great an income for a man who holds a place among the Peers of the realm, and who is expected to keep up his position accordingly. Again it will be said that in many of the cases cited above, these Bishops were men belonging to high or wealthy families, and had large private means of their own, in addition to their episcopal revenues. Many of thorn also were men of talent, who increased their incomes by literary labours, and who could, perhaps, have gained quite as much from other sources, mercantile or professional, as they received from the Church. And again, there may be others who will argue that whatever they received as Bishops came to them honestly, as the authorised revenues of their Sees ; and that at any rate, whether these revenues were large or small, they did not create that state of things, but simply came into it, and accepted what was given to them by custom or by statute. If the question is to be looked at from a �15 worldly point of view, and judged by the tone of feeling which prevailed in former days, even in the first half of this century, and within the memory of many men still living, then indeed much weight may be given to such considera­ tions as these. But I venture to say, we know better in the present day; we are not to be blind-folded now by the traditions of past generations ; nor must we attempt to maintain any principles or practices which have nothing better than traditional usage to recommend them; which ■are not in accordance with the true and fundamental principles of the Church itself. No, I think it is time now to go back to first principles, and to ask, What is a Christian Bishop ? What are his duties 1 What should be his character ? What should be his position 1 VI. True and False Views of a Bishop’s Office. What are the Bishops of the Church of England ?—We know how the world in general looks upon them; as Clergymen who have distinguished themselves by learning, by preaching, or otherwise, and who, by favour of the Prime Minister for the time being, have been advanced to the highest rank of their profession; with a seat in the House of Lords, and a good income to correspond. In the ■eyes of the world, a Bishopric is a great prize : and who shall say how many a man, even among the Clergy them­ selves, has looked upon it in the same light, and hoped for it as the highest dream of his ambition! This is the outside, superficial view of the matter. But it is idle to ignore the truth that there is another and a much more �16 serious estimate of the position ; an estimate so grave, and yet so evidently true, that it seems marvellous how somany men, even including some Bishops themselves, could apparently shut their eyes to it. A Bishop is a man whohas undertaken the highest, the gravest, the most onerous, the most responsible office which any man can undertake in this world—to preach the Gospel of Christ, to deliver a message which he believes to have come from Almighty God, and to be the great instrument of saving men’s souls from perdition, and bringing them to eternal life. This,, at any rate, whatever other men think of Christianity, this is what he professes to believe ; and it is strictly on the strength of this profession that he holds his office in theChurch, with all the advantages and responsibilities belonging to it. If he does not really believe in these fundamental principles, these manifest doctrines of his Bible and his Prayer-book, then he is clearly living under false pretences and no itinerant fortune-teller, who pretends to some sort of supernatural gifts ; no “ Clerical impostor,” who passeshimself off for an ordained Clergyman, by false 1 ‘ Lettersof Orders,” is more worthy of reprobation than a man who, in the position of a Bishop, and for the sake of a Bishop semoluments, professes to deliver a message from God, and to convey spiritual gifts, which he does not himself truly believe in. This however, in the most general terms, is a Bishop’s duty, to preach the Gospel, to­ preach and enforce its truths, its principles, its hopes, and its warnings, with all the ability, and with all the means that he possesses : and not merely to preach it as one man out of many, but to be the chief preacher thereof �17 in his own particular field of labour, in his own Diocese. And I think we may safely say that if he cannot preach it sincerely, he had better not try to do it at all. W e are not indeed to expect a Bishop, who is still only a man, to be absolutely perfect; he may not be able to show forth in his own character all the virtues and all the graces which he must insist upon or recommend to others : but at least, there must be some relation between preaching and practice ; any great discrepancy between the two must not only be fatal to his own efficiency, but must even expose him to ridicule. And yet, simple and commonplace as this truism must appear, can it be denied that this discrepancy does exist to a very serious extent, in the case of the Bishops of modern times ? In many respects, their public­ character and position are palpably at variance with the principles they have to teach; and in nothing, perhaps, is this variance more conspicuous, in nothing is it more serious, than in this matter with which we are now dealing,, the high emoluments which they enjoy. VII. Christian Teaching about Eiches. The subject of riches is one which occupies a very prominent place in the ethics of Christianity; as indeed it must necessarily do in any system of religion or philosophy which attempts to deal practically with human wants and desires. Some means of living we must all have. If all men were content with a moderate supply of theordinary wants of human nature, probably there would be �18 a sufficient amount of food and other necessaries within easy reach of all: not all ready to hand without any trouble; but fairly within the reach of those who would use the powers and faculties which Nature has given them for this purpose. Unhappily, many men,—a very large proportion, I fear we must say,—are not satisfied with their own fair share of the good things of this world; but having obtained the means of grasping a great deal more than is necessary for themselves, they leave a corresponding deficiency for the rest of mankind. This is the principle of selfishness; and while, no doubt, it may be found at work in all the various conditions of the human race, barbarous or civilized, there is evidently in some respects more scope for its development in what we call a high state of civilization, such as our own,—much more than in a more primitive state, where men have to live more directly upon the fruits of nature, and to gather them daily with their own hands. Now, the teaching of Christianity is directed most earnestly and most unequivocally against this principle of selfishness : it attacks the love of riches, with the consequent desire of accumulating money, on all sides, and on various grounds. As nourishing self-indul­ gence, and the lower appetites of the flesh, instead of the higher aspirations after spiritual life; as showing a want of faith in the goodness and providence of the Creator; but most especially as showing a want of love and sympathy towards our fellow creatures, and oftentimes inflicting even grievous injustice and suffering upon them,—for all these reasons Christianity condemns the principle of covetousness and selfishness : and it enforces all these lessons by dis­ �19 playing the greatest example of unselfishness, of love, of self-sacrifice, which the world has ever seen. Whatever men may think about the personality or the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, this at least is not denied, that his was a grand example of self-sacrifice, of voluntary self-devotion for the good of others; and that, as such, it is worthy to be held up not only for the respect and admiration of men, but also most signally for their imitation. These are some of the prime lessons and principles of Christianity; and I venture to say with great confidence, that of all the theories and conclusions arrived at in the field of political economy •, of all the methods proposed by men for controlling and •correcting the evils of poverty, and the multifarious difficulties of social existence, this great principle of the Gospel, the principle of unselfishness, of brotherhood, of love, is not only the most elevated, but it is the most effectual, the most indispensable. Without this, all others must inevitably fail. Such is the constitution of the world, and of man himself as much as any other part of it, that some individuals will always be stronger than others ; more powerful in frame of body, or in intellect, or in shrewdness, or by having a better start in life ; and these favoured individuals, if they choose to push their own advantages, and to use them for their own selfish ends, must always be able to oppress those that are weaker, in spite of any human laws to the contrary. The true remedy is to govern and rectify the hearts of men : and there is no power that has yet been known in the world more able to do this than the faithful preaching of Christianity. �20 VIII. Why the Bishops cannot do their duty. And this is the work that is put into the hands of then Bishops of the Christian Church; this is the work which our own Bishops have undertaken to perforin : having in the first place received a direct commission thereto from their predecessors in the Ministry, and one that, as most of them probably believe, is ultimately derived from the Apostles, and from Christ himself: having also, in the second place, been appointed to their offices, and endowed with their revenues by the Crown, or the Civil Power of' the Nation. And the Nation is now asking, with much eagerness, as it is certainly entitled to ask, Have they done the work which they undertook to do ? Have they fairly and adequately fulfilled those great duties for which sucli ample opportunities, such liberal endowments, have been given to them, and on which the welfare of the people so intimately depends ? Have they effectually rooted out the principle of selfishness, of covetousness, and planted a spirit of Christian brotherhood in place of it ? Have they even made any substantial progress in this direction ?— These are not vain questions, asked merely for rhetorical effect: they are matters of the deepest and widest import­ ance. Men and women are living and dying, by thousands, in the midst of poverty, hardship, suffering, and misery, which ought to be remedied, which might be remedied the existence of which is a disgrace to us as a professedly Christian Nation. The fault of these things must lie heavily somewhere; and amongst other classes that are partly responsible for it, no small portion of the blame �21 must undoubtedly rest upon the Church itself. The Church has not done its duty to the Nation : it has not evangelized the masses; it has not Christianized the middle and upper ranks of the community. And if the Church, as a whole, has not done its work in these respects, it must clearly be the Rulers of the Church who are chiefly in fault. A great battle is not won by the desultory fighting of the rank and file of an army, and of its subaltern officers. There must be a General in supreme ■command, a man of ability, a man of energy, a man who has his heart in the cause for which he is engaged. Assuredly, the chief responsibility in this matter lies with the Bishops personally. One stirring Sermon preached in the heart of this Metropolis, preached with earnestness, preached with the power which goes only with perfect sincerity, preached by the Church’s chief Minister and Representative,—such a Sermon would be listened to and remembered; such a Sermon, or a few of them, if they were indeed worthy of their subject, would produce an effect on the public mind, a lasting and practical effect on public religion and morals. But when has any such Sermon been preached, on the subject of riches and covetousness, on Christian brotherhood and unselfishness ? Who has ever heard it, or even heard of it ? No : the thing has been impossible ; and for the simple reason that the Bishops themselves, with very few exceptions, have been among the greatest offenders against these very principles which it is their bounden duty to enforce. Their tongues are tied, their lips are closed, upon such a topic; the words which ought to be heard would verily stick in �22 their throat if they attempted to utter them. No man,— the case is as clear as daylight,—certainly no Bishop could possibly stand up before a Congregation, and declare those solemn warnings of the New Testament on the subject of laying up treasure upon earth, how hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and such like, while he knew that he himself had been steadily laying by large sums of money for the last twenty or thirty years of his life, and that he was at that moment in possession of capital, to the amount of fifty, sixty, or seventy thousand pounds. Yet these are the facts of the case; facts, which are now no secret, but which are entirely public property, which any man is entitled to know. Ought they not to be known 1 IX. The influence of their Example. The Bishops, of all men in the world, ought to be the most eminent examples of obedience to the words of their Divine Master ; the salt of the earth, the light of the world. But the position which they now hold compels men to ask this serious question,—Do the Bishops them­ selves believe in the truth and divine authority of these Holy Scriptures ? Is it possible that they can really believe in the truth or the force of those precepts, so repeatedly and earnestly insisted on by Christ and His Apostles, when they are so plainly setting them at defiance ? There is no disguising the fact that such questions as these are, raised very extensively among all ranks of society, and are answered in a spirit adverse to the Bishops themselves. �23 And I think it is hardly possible to overrate the gravity of the issues involved in this circumstance. The character and authority of the Bible is one of the most vital and fundamental questions in religion ; vital, not only as a matter of controversy, but as one of deep practical import­ ance to every sincere and earnest seeker after truth. But it is a question which cannot be solved for the bulk of mankind by appeal to historical and critical arguments. Such arguments, difficult even for learned Scholars, arealtogether beyond the reach of ordinary people. The only practical argument for the world in general,—that which has always been the real working power in religion,—is the sincerity and earnestness of the preachers themselves. If they, the Ministers of the Gospel, show that they thoroughly believe the message which they preach, and live according to it in their own persons as far as may be practicable, then their words and their example combined will not fail to produce a due effect on the rest of the world. But if there is any manifest inconsistency between the two, the preaching and the practice, then the inevitable result must be to cast a suspicion, not only upon their own integrity, but upon the truth of that message of which they profess to be the authorized bearers. And the world has seen so much of priestcraft, so much of lying fables told in the name of Religion, that there is indeed no small excuse for men, if, in doubtful cases, they lean rather to the side of incredulity than otherwise. Can it be doubted that a very heavy responsibility does lie upon the Clergy generally, and most especially upon the Bishops, on this account 1 Whatever amount of unbelief, of irreligion, is produced by �24 the influence of their example, will they not have to answer for it ? X. Not Poverty, but Moderation, Required. There are many other grounds also, both of principle and of practice, on which the possession of great wealth in the Ministers of the Christian Church is clearly injurious and indefensible ; but I will not dwell upon them on the present occasion. It is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that in making this protest against excessive wealth, I do not intend to advocate anything like the opposite extreme. We need not suppose that it is necessary for every minister of Christ in the present day to surrender all his temporal possessions, as many of the Apostles did, in order to follow this calling. St. Paul himself claims for those who labour in this vocation, as well as in any other, at least a reasonable maintenance; “the labourer is worthy of his hire.” And not only this, but he says also very reasonably, “ Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, or double payment.” But still, moderation is clearly required; and a man who is covetous, •or who accumulates large sums of money, is as much disqualified for the office of a Bishop, as one who is a winebibber, a passionate man, or a polygamist. And this applies not only to the case of rich endowments and high stipends drawn from within the Church; but also to wealth derived from external sources. It is sometimes pleaded as a merit of the present condition of our Church, that so much money is brought into it by individual members of �25 the Clergy, men who have private incomes of their own, and spend much of them in their own parishes. No doubt, many of those large sums which appear in our Table, were derived in a great measure from private property; and therefore, in the view of some persons, the fact of these large amounts of personalty being left at their death is not to be imputed as a fault to those individual Bishops. But pleas of this kind, as I have before said, though they may be all very well from a w’orldly point of view, yet clearly they do not hold good against the plain and wide-reaching words of Christ himself. His words, on this as on many other points, are undoubtedly of a most uncompromising character; and men must either serve him on his own terms, or not at all. A rich man therefore, if he wishes tokeep his money for his own personal use and enjoyment, should at least avoid the responsibility of becoming a Minister of the Church of Christ; above all, he should not accept a Bishopric, as so many men have done, for the sake of the social position and advantages which it gives him. Or, on the other hand, if he desires the office for its own sake, he must be prepared to devote his money freely, as well as every other talent that he possesses, to the great­ work he undertakes. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that a man who was really possessed of a proper Christian spirit could not keep these large sums of money in his own possession; he could hardly do it in any sphere of life ; least of all could he do it as a Chief Pastor and Shepherd of Christ’s flock. Seeing all the distress and misery existing around him, and which, as a Bishop, it is his duty to see and to care for, so much suffering which is un- �26 ■deserved, so much which might be at once effectually relieved by a small donation from his own purse, the mere ■crumbs from his own rich table :—I say, a Bishop who saw all this, and possessed but a reasonable measure of humanity and true Christian charity, would never be able to keep his purse strings closed. A Bishop without humanity is an anomaly, indeed ! Surely, the tale of Dives and Lazarus, which is so often repeated upon earth, will be repeated also in its terrible sequel, and with startling effect upon some of those who have “ prophesied in Christ’s name,” but have not done their best to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked : unless indeed all these words are altogether an •empty fable ! As to the other case, where men have actually enriched themselves out of the revenues of the Church, this is, of •course, much worse than the former one ; and it is difficult to speak of it in terms of truth and justice, without using language which might seem intemperate.—“ Will a man rob God 1 ”—This is a question which is sometimes applied to those who resist the payment of tithes and other ecclesiastical charges for purposes which they do not care for, or do not approve of. But I think the man who robs God most truly and most daringly, is he who appropriates to his own personal indulgence and aggrandizement the proceeds of a rich benefice, the funds which have been dedicated to the service of God, of His Church, or of the poor; funds which are urgently needed for all these important objects. The offence indeed is common enough; but I do not think it will escape condemnation on this account. �27 XI. Who is to blame—the Men, or the System ? That the condition of Bishops “ rolling in wealth ” is altogether inconsistent with their office, is indeed too plain to need further argument. The truth is clearly admitted in that sentence which I have quoted from Bishop Ryle in the beginning of this Paper : the very vehemence with which he repudiates the imputation implies not only a con­ demnation of such a state of things, but also that such ■condemnation is a self-evident and palpable truism. The Bishop is sound enough in his principles; but unfortunately, he is very far from being correct in his facts. The practical question then is this : Is all the blame for this state of things to be laid upon the heads of those individual Bishops themselves ; or is it to be attributed in a great measure to the System in which they were placed 1 It seems indeed impossible that they should be altogether acquitted as individuals for that disregard of the divine ■commandments of which they have individually been guilty. But yet, looking at the general character of the persons to whom these observations apply,—some of them surely good and earnest men,—we can hardly bring our­ selves to believe that the whole responsibility lies upon them personally. And if not so, then the only alternative must be to lay very much of it upon the system, the position, the Constitution of our Church, as it now exists. And this, I believe, is the true and fair explanation of the matter. A Bishop, in the present day, is evidently placed in a false position : even if he desires to be faithful to his calling, it is hardly possible for him to be so. With �28 his large income, and his flattering position in Society, he can hardly help being, to a very great extent, a man of the world, subject to the influences of the world, subject to the feelings, the ambitions of the world, and continually tempted to conciliate the favour of the world. It is indeed a cruel temptation for one who ought to be pre-eminently a man of God, a servant of God : it is all the more perilous, because it is so insidious; it may exist in company with such a very fair, very respectable exterior. How the mischief is to be corrected,—by reform, by dis­ establishment or disendowment,—these are wide and difficult questions with which I will not attempt to deal further in this place. I confine myself here to this single point, which is certainly not yet generally recognised as clearly as it ought to be, namely, that the mere fact of Ministers of the Church holding these positions of wealth and worldly grandeur is an evil in itself; mischievous to themselves, mischievous to the Church at large : and I do not think that any reform in the Church will be effectual or satisfactory until this state of things is thoroughly got rid of. �29 Lately Published. Price Sixpence. BODY AND SOUL: A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE RELATIONS OF PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE, By the Bev. MERCER DAVIES, M.A., Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital. The Bishop of Carlisle writes :—“ Thank you for your Pamphlet on Body and Soul, which I have read with much interest. Your notion of the brain generating a soul, and the analogy of electricity and galvanism, are very curious and ingenious.” “ I have read it through with much interest. I thoroughly believe with you that we shall be in the next world what we have made ourselves here. . . . Your Pamphlet I think a very good one.”—Rev. John Tagg, M.A., Rector of Meilis. “We like this short Essay. It is not biblical, and does not profess to be. Nor is it deeply scientific ; but it is pervaded by the scientific spirit, and in that spirit deals with the Brain, with Conscience, and with the Soul. It is certainly practical.”—The Rainbow. “ A singularly practical and useful Essay. . . . This attempt to trace the dangers of living against the conscience, in the physical disturbance and disorganisation of the Brain, is perhaps the most original and ingenious part of this little Essay. It seems at least worthy of attention, as suggestive of a new field of inquiry.”—The Church of England Pulpit. London: ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. May be had of the Author, 35, Fisher's Lane, Chiswick. POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS. �30 SEVEN PSALMS & HYMNS; WITH TUNES, COMPOSED AND ARRANGED IN VOCAL SCORE, WITH ACCOMPANIMENT' FOB THE ORGAN OR PIANOFORTE, BY THE REV. M. DAVIES, M.A. 1—WHEN WE, OUR WEARIED LIMBS TO REST—Psalm 137. 2. —LIFT UP YOUR HEADS.—Psalm 24. 3. —GREAT GOD OF HOSTS, COME DOWN IN THY GLORY. 4. -LORD, HAVE MERCY, AND REMOVE US. 5. —THE LORD OF MIGHT FROM SINAI’S- BROW. 6. —THOU ART GONE UP ON HIGH. 7. —THOU, WHOSE ALMIGHTY WORD. Note on the Tenor Clef. The Tenor stave consists really of the three upper lines of the Bass stave,, the one lowest of the Treble, with the middle C line included. In these pages this middle C line is .left blank. By this plan it is hoped that the difficulty of reading the Tenor Clef (so common with amateurs) will be entirely removed.— M. D. London : NOVELLO AND CO., 1, BERNETS’ STREET, W. NATIONAL SOCIETY’S DEPOSITORY, WESTMINSTER, S.W. Or from the Author, 35, Fisher’s Lane, Chiswick : POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS. Reduced Price, 1-s. 3<Z. ; or, each Hymn separately, Twopence. �31 THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING 60., Political publishers, LITHOGRAPHERS, LETTERPRESS DESIGNERS, ENGRAVERS, AND DIE PRINTERS, SINKERS, 160, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. Pamphlets, Leaflets, Reprints of Speeches, and every kind of political matter produced and distributed with despatch and economy. ESTIMATES FREE ON APPLICATION. � 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 &amp; 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 bishops and their wealth : containing some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Davies, Mercer Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's advertisements on p. 29, 30 and 31. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Southern Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1886 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T393 Subject The topic of the resource Church of England Clergy 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 bishops and their wealth : containing some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> 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 Church of England Clergy Socialism Wealth https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4092b8879ffe5da72d29d2a1ac1a97eb.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=qZfqKAWwcXmJ9sRHLC7SpuzvWB-SIw0kv57EHrnzjjZnkt3mkK7ktlje6wO3Q9%7E-Qiv-OKPM9yCiqeptfbl1SpSiXTYwO4tZUBtUFe4mlYdNK8Gsph970CjeNlZje7LhpHF03R1l8zK971NbPXpWTwJS3%7E8l8pNlWqulQvo1JRIUUWtTWUo1ruBWMPzCG7K86DIPn9peEkUAJgadM-ZqQE2mF8Icd4uVy9TaXen%7EtA5caj85WOhit4ATePUfmxRHwKCzY07rsIB8V3osBIdzWGdtFbgzJZIXd9Z91JyEdlQYVOznX9EeYnbI2wZ4MoyjtntWfw%7E1tOm0wzSZFicx5A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 396ac2f604800ead4d96929cf82a0127 PDF Text Text 73 ^2 ONE PENNY. THE BISHOPS AND THEIR RELIGION: TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON, AS PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH CONGRESS AT WAKEFIELD. BY THE REV. MERCER DAVIES, M.A., Author of “ The Bishops and Their Wealth,” &c. LI NDlNG LIBRARY THE S B 0 LONDUNT SOUTHERN PUBLISHING 160, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1886. COMPANY, ��I. A LETTER TO THE RT. REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON, President of the Church Congress at Wakefield, October, 1886. Chiswick, September 18th, 1886. My Lord Bishop, In case your Lord ship should not have seen my small Pamphlet recently published, on “ The Bishops and Their Wealth,” I beg leave to forward a copy for your Lordship^s acceptance, and at the same time to request your very careful and impartial perusal of its contents. I do this at this season especially with a view to the approaching Congress over which your Lordship is about to preside. I am quite conscious that in these pages I have brought a very serious impeachment against the Episcopal Body: but I beg to assure your Lordship that I should not have published such a work if I had not felt strongly that these were matters of the deepest importance to the welfare of the Church at �4 large: and I do not think that I have used a single expression here which goes beyond the limits of Truth and justice. I have seen some observations in reply to this Pamphlet, both from some of the Bishops, and also in the public Press; but nothing that appears to me to go to the root of the matter. Your Lordship, I think, will fully acknowledge the broad principle that the Ministry of Christ’s Church ought never to be an object of worldly gain or advantage ; and yet that it is a notorious and unquestionable fact that a very large proportion of the Clergy do make this sacred Office a means of selfish and personal aggrandizement; and that the Bishops themselves are to a large extent subject to the same charge. Whilst this is the case,— whilst it even reasonably appears to be the case in the eyes of the world, the inevitable result, as I have said, must be to bring discredit upon the Church, and upon the great message of the Gospel itself. But I will not detain your Lordship further. I leave the matter in your hands, trusting that your Lordship will not omit the important opportunity which is now presented to you, to rouse the Church to her great duty of self-reform. I believe indeed that if your Lordship shall do your duty faithfully on this occasion, you cannot fail to offend very seriously many of your brethren on the Bench, as well as a large por­ tion of the Clergy generally. But I feel sure also that if you should unhappily shrink from fulfilling this painful and difficult task, you will still mfre �5 ■grievously offend One whose anger will be more terrible than that of all the Bishops and Powers of this world together. I have the honour to be, My Lord Bishop, Your Lordship’s very obedient Servant, Mercer Davies. II. SECOND LETTER TO THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON. September 2*7th, 1886. Mv Lord Bishop, As I have not received any acknowledgement from your Lordship of my letter of the 18th inst, enclosing a copy of my Pamphlet on “ The Bishops and Their Wealth,” I conclude that your Lordship dissents from my view of the matter so decidedly as not to think it worth while to reply; or at any rate that you do not intend to face the difficulties which would lie before you, if you brought these matters prominently before the notice of the CongressAs therefore the time is short before the meeting of this Assembly, I proceed without further delay to state more fully the grounds on which I think it is �6 imperatively necessary that this subject should be taken in hand, especially by those who are chiefly responsible for the well-being of our Church, for its purity, its fidelity, and its efficiency. And I may say at once that I intend, so far as I am able, to press these remarks not only upon your Lordship’s attention, but upon the attention of the Public generally ; and for this reason, namely, that so far as my experience goes, in modern times at least, whatever reforms have been effected in the Church of England, have generally been forced upon her by the pressure of public opinion, rather than originated by the spontaneous action of her own Rulers, or by their own instinctive sense of justice and righteousness : this being especially true in all matters touching the funds of the Church, and the revenues received by its Ministers. I. My Lord, I say broadly and boldly in the first place that I think the Bishops and Clergy generally do not adequately “ realize the situation,” do not understand the grave position in which the Church now lies,—her dangers and her necessities. This is a sentiment, indeed, which has been often expressed, in reference to various evils which have been charged upon the Church. I do not however propose here to enter upon all these complaints which have been made against her, but to confine myself chiefly to one or two points. The question of Church Reform, as a matter of necessity, is to be included in the various subjects of discussion at the forthcoming Congress; Church �7 Reform, as a distinct subject of itself, and also in reference to various matters of church work and progress. But I venture to say that these various topics do not go to the root of the question : to repeat a phrase which I have heard, “ No tinkering up of the Church in minor matters will now be satisfactory.” No, my Lord: it is her very foundations that are giving way, and need to be renewed. And there are two points especially in which I think it is clear that this bold assertion is fully justified. The first and great foundation of any Church, or any religious community, is its Faith. A Church without a clear and strong faith can have no true common life, no lasting bond of union; can never flourish or contend successfully against its enemies, or against the world. And I say there is now a great want of faith, of religious belief, in the Church of England. The religion of the Church of England is supposed to be based upon the Bible, and upon the Bible as being substantially the Word of Grod. But it is clear that a very large proportion of those who profess to belong to this Church, or who are legally assumed to belong to it, do not really believe in this theory: very many of them do not hesitate to avow their disbelief; and a still larger number, who nominally profess to believe it, show plainly enough by their lives and conduct that their profession is merely superficial and illusory. I do not deny that there are some persons who do earnestly hold this �belief: I could point to some individuals of the present age, some who have passed away, and some perhaps still living, men of high character and intellect, who have sincerely believed in this truth, and whose faith and example are entitled to carry much weight in the judgment of the world. But still, looking at the world in general, it is a fact which I think will not be denied, that the number of those who sincerely, earnestly, intelligently, and of their own independent judgment, receive this Volume as a Divine Revela­ tion, is comparatively very small indeed. As to the great question of what may be the causes of this prevailing want of faith, I will uot attempt to discuss this at length in this place: there are, no doubt, many distinct causes operating with different classes of society: but the point with which I am here concerned is the fact that there is a widespread amount of unbelief abroad; that such unbelief must practically undermine the effect of all other work in the Church : and further, that this unbelief extends,— strange as it may seem,—even to the highest digni­ taries of the Church itself! My Lord, do you challenge this bold assertion ? Will the Bishops generally challenge it ? If so, I shall be prepared to support it by evidence of a very powerful character, and such as I think will surprise both the Church and the world. But for the present, I will content myself with quoting some words which I confess rather startled me when I first read them, three years ago ; �9 but which I have now come to think are very near the truth. This is what a Member of Parliament wrote to me with reference to some documents that I had laid before him:— “ I take the moral of your Correspondence with the Bishops to be that most thinking and sensible men,— even Bishops !—no longer really believe that the bible is in any true sense ‘ the word of God. ’ ” (Sept. 19, 1883.) If there is any reasonable ground for such an opinion as this, then certainly I think it becomes an imperative duty on the part of the Rulers of the Church to grapple earnestly with this great question without delay. I think they should endeavour to ascertain, as far as may be possible, what is the degree of authority truly belonging' to these ancient records of which our Bible is composed; what amount of obedience is due from us to their precepts. And I may add that there is one important duty which in the present day is probably better understood than it was in earlier times; namely, that in all these enquiries into the principles of our Religion, we should seek,—not, as was too often done in those days, chiefly for arguments to support and establish the faith which was already received, the orthodox creed,—but that we should look simply and honestly for the Truth, and be prepared to embrace it unreservedly, whatever we may find it to be. This, more than anything else, will restore to us the confidence and the sympathies of all intelligent men, all true men of science: and this �10 alone, I am sure, will bring us to the knowledge and favour of Him who is emphatically, the God of Truth. II. But there is another matter of the highest importance to the interests of the Church of England, which vitally affects the efficiency and success of all her work : and it is one in which again some degree of the truth is generally recognised, is too plain to be altogether ignored; but in which our Rulers apparently do not see the whole truth, in its full extent. My Lord, in order that the Church should be able to carry her message to the world with due effect, it is most obviously necessary that the world should have reasonable confidence in the bearers of that message ; it must have confidence in their personal integrity generally, and it must be satisfied that they themselves sincerely believe in the message which they preach. Now what is the state of things in regard to this matter at the present time; and especially with regard to the Bishops; do they possess the confidence of the people generally ? Do they enjoy the respect which is due to their high office ? It will not be denied, of course, that their private and personal character is generally free from reproach; they are known to be active and laborious in the discharge of their duties; they are not now-a-days charged with being im­ moderate in their mode of life, nor overbearing in manner; they are, in short, free from some of the grave faults which were imputed to many members of their Order, even within the last two or three genera­ �11 tions. But still, while all this is admitted, the question is whether in the judgment of the public, they realize that very high position which is implied in their name and office. This is the point which I think lies at the root of the question, as I have also said in my former Pamphlet. Are we to look upon the Bishops from a worldly point of view, simply as officers of a State Establishment, “ successful members of their profession” ? Or shall we take them for what they profess to be, Ministers of Christ, suc­ cessors of the Apostles, charged with the highest of all missions, to proclaim a message of salvation to a perishing world ? My Lord, judging from what we see, I think that the Bishops themselves, and the class ■of men from whom they are drawn, men of letters, men of University distinction, men of good family, do practically look at the position in the former aspect; and those who do so look at it appear to be generally pretty well satisfied with the result. But the People, the men who are not bishops, and not likely to be bishops, they look at it in the other light: they look at them as Ministers of God, they judge them by this standard: and this, as I have said before, I think is the true standard. And tried by this standard, they are found wanting; they are not what they ■ought to be; they do not come even reasonably near to their profession. “Your facts (as another correspondent writes to me,) are startling, and certainly go to show that the Heads of our �12 Church are not of the stamp or likeness of their great Master. There cannot be a doubt that the Church is losing the confidence of the people.” These are indeed mild words in comparison with some that I could, quote, letters from men of eminent position and high character, which have impressed these facts very deeply on my mind during the last few years. And as to the public Press,—not to speak of coarser displays,—even in the more respectable portion of it, which does not indulge in scurrilous abuse, even here the tone of a great deal that is written, the taunts that are veiled with a thin garb of propriety or politeness, show a deep-seated feeling of distrust and disrespect; a feeling that the Bishops are not sincere in their religion ; that they are, after all, men of the world, as careful and as fond of the good things of this world as anybody else. And while this is the case, while there is any reason­ able ground for such sentiments on the part of the public, I say that the Church cannot do its work, effectually. The Bishops may preach, aud the Clergy may preach, most eloquently ; but the people will not believe what they say ; they will look upon it all as a professional performance, which the performers go through simply because they are paid,—and often very well paid,—for doing it. My Lord, I believe this is the feeling of the public to a large extent: and I venture to say that, even if it is m some cases erroneous,, yet it is certainly not without a large measure of justi­ fication. And further, that it will never be eradicated �13 from the minds of the people till the Bishops and Clergy have learned to be content with a more moderate recompence for their labours in preaching the Gospel. III. There are some other matters in my former Pamphlet which I think are of much practical import­ ance, remarks which your Lordship at any rate has not attempted to answer, but which it is unnecessary to repeat here. There is however one point which I have there mentioned only very briefly, but which is of so serious a nature that I must say a few more words upon it. I have said that a Bishop in the present day is placed in a false position; in a position such that it is almost impossible for him to be faithful, and do his duty; and that this is therefore a very perilous position. Perilous !—My Lord, it is so perilous that I believe there is no class of men in the kingdom who stand in greater peril for their souls than the Bishops themselves. Listen to me, my Lord, if indeed you have any faith in these declarations of the Bible. That Book tells us that it is a very hard thing for any rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; not, of course, because there is anything sinful in the riches themselves, if they have been honestly acquired; but, I suppose, because they carry with them so many temptations, they have such a strong power in drawing away a man’s heart and soul from his Maker, and binding it down with the fetters of this world; and also because they impose such very heavy responsi- �14 Toilities upon him : “ for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” And if there is this danger and difficulty for rich men generally, you will hardly say that the difficulty is less in the •case of Ministers of the Gospel. Bather must it be ten times harder for a Bishop who is very rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven, than for any other rich man. It is not impossible ; for he may be liberal, and spend his money wisely. But what if he keeps his money to himself? What if, with his fifty thousand pounds in his pocket,he sees hundreds and thousands of his fellow creatures, of his own spiritual •children, those who are committed to his fatherly care, pining, starving, suffering, in untold distress, and not through their own fault: if he knows that scores of his own fellow-workers in the Gospel, poor Incum­ bents, poor Curates, are struggling and starving on their miserable £100 a-year, or even less : if with all this before him, all this which he knows well enough, •or ought to know, he still holds his hand, shuts his •eyes, and hardens his heart: then, my Lord, where is the Christian Minister, the Shepherd of the flock, the servant of Jesus Christ ? Who will give that man a hope of going to heaven ?—All this applies strictly to the man whose wealth is derived even from his own ■private or family property. And if this is true, there .•are indeed but few out of that list of deceased prelates who are not condemned hereby. But the case of those who have grown rich out of the funds of the Church �13 must; as I have said, be much worse: and there can be no doubt that very many of those named in that catalogue come, some more, some less, under this heavier condemnation. Let us look at the case of one of the richer dioceses such as London. Now the work that needs to be done in such a diocese as this, and that needs specially the hand and the brain and the heart of the Bishop to do it, all this, I am sure, as the Bishop himself would say, is at least ten times as much as he could do, however active and indefatigable he might be. I will not specify details of the work here; though I am prepared to go more fully into that matter, and hope to do so before loug, if time is spared me. But it will be found by any one who comes to look into it, that this expression is quite within the mark: there is ten times as much as any single Bishop could do; and consequently, there is need of at least ten Bishops to ■do it all properly. Now the revenues of that See are stated to be £10,000 a year : and I say therefore that if this sum were properly subdivided, it would suffice to maintain ten men of real, Christian, character, to carry on this great work of the Church. Not ten lofty Prelates; not ten Peers of Parliament; not ten men looking out for the great prizes of their “ profession ”; but ten men such as Bishops ought to be; men of simple life and manners; men of sufficient learning, experience, and ability; and above all, men who themselves believe in the Gospel which they preach. �16 And if all this might be done, done without any difficulty, without injustice to any man, then I ask, what is the responsibility of that man, whoever he is, who stands in the way and forbids it ? All the supervision which might have been exercised, but which is now omitted, because “ he has no time for that ”; all the scandals which he might havecorrected by his personal influence and authority ; all the doubts and difficulties of faith and doctrine which he might have solved; all the social evils which it is the special function of Christianity to remedy : all these things,—and the list is inexhaustible,—all this which might have been done, but which is now left undone, must surely be laid at the door of him who absorbs those large revenues of the Church, as if they were his own private property. Does not such a man stand in a perilous position, if there is indeed such a thing as future responsibility, if we are to answer at all for the things we have done or left undone in this mortal life ? But I think there is a greater source of peril even than this. The great spiritual danger of the Bishops^ position, as I have before said, is that it makes them too much men of the world, brings them too much under the influence, the power of the world. Now the plea which is commonly urged for having Bishops and dignitaries of considerable wealth and high social position, is that they may be able to speak to the upper classes on terms of equality, with more- �17 influence and authority than would be exercised by clergymen of smaller means. A very poor notion indeed of personal influence or spiritual authority is implied in this argument. But does the system succeed as a matter of fact ? Do the Bishops speak boldly and faithfully to the members of the upper classes individually, to all who are nominally or legally members of their own Church ? Do they tell them plainly of their faults, of their vices ? Of their selfish­ ness, their covetousness, their cruelties, their debauch­ eries ? Do they exercise Church Discipline towards them, even cutting off from the communion of the Church all those who live in wilful and known sin ?— Yet this is their sacred and bounden duty; this is a duty, wherein if they fail, you know very well, my Lord, what is the consequence. And it will not be superflu­ ous to repeat the words of the Prophet:— “ So thou, O Son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man, thou shalt surely die ; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity : but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Ezek. xxxiii., 7, 8. This is the responsibility cast upon them ; and it is one from which no Bishop can escape by pleading, as the Bishop of London might possibly do, that he had not time to perform all this work; because he might have at least nine other Bishops to share it with him : he cannot lay it upon his parochial clergy; for if they �18 neglect the duty, it is his business to admonish them, and see that they do it. No: whatever may be the pleas with which he quiets his conscience for putting off this important part of his Ministerial duty, I venture to say that the real cause is plain enough. He is so much a man of the world himself, he mixes in social intercourse with these men, he receives their hospitality, receives even their contributions for the Church, and is altogether on such friendly terms with them, that he could not venture to give them offence, such mortal offence as would often follow upon his faithful, plainspoken rebukes. It would indeed, as any­ body can see, be a most unpleasant task for him to'undertake : no Bishop would think of doing such a thing, unless he were indeed a man of most undaunted moral courage, of most unswerving fidelity. He must be a very Baptist to do it. But such a man is not found among them that wear soft clothing, and are in Kings’ houses. And therefore I say that the work is for the most part wilfully left undone. It is unfaithfulness to their Master, deliberate,, repeated, continual, un­ repented of.—Is not this a position of peril, my Lord ? But I pause. In a very few days, you will yourself prove or disprove the truth of my impeachment. These matters which I have now brought before your Lord­ ship, are, as I am sure you will not deny, matters of vital importance to the highest interests of the Church of England; matters which ought to be most seriously discussed at such an opportunity as is now at �19 hand. But, as I have said before, if you, the President, were to speak the truth faithfully and fearlessly on this subject before your assembled brethren, you could not fail to give deep offence,—certainly to a great number of them; your position as a Bishop would become not only disagreeable, but almost intolerable. Here then, in what is perhaps the most critical hour of' your whole life, you may prove yourself. You see your: duty to God on the one hand: you feel the power of the world on the other. Can you shake off its chains ? Can you deliver your soul from its bondage ? I certainly think your Lordship will feel the diffi­ culty of the situation : I sincerely sympathize with you therein, even though my pen, like a surgeon’s knife, is opening the wound : I think you will agree with me that it is a false position in which the Bishops ought never to be placed; and that the sooner they are extricated from it, the better. My Lord, The Truth shall make you free. I am, My Lord Bishop, Your Lordship’s very humble Fellow-Servant, MERCER DAVIES. 35, Fisher’s Lane, Chiswick. �20 Table, showing the Names of the Bishops of England and Wales, deceased, from 1856 to 1885; with the amount of Personalty proved at their death. Conse­ crated. Name. 1827 1830 1824 1824 1831 1813 1837 1840 1856 Hon. HugliPercy Jas. H. Monk... C. J. Blomfield Chr. Bethell .. Edw. Maltby ... Geo. Murray ... Thos. Musgrave Henry Pepys ... Hon. H. M. Villiers J. B. Sumner ... Tlios Turton ... Geo. Davys John Graham ... J. C. Wigram... John Lonsdale... Samuel Hinds... R. D. Hampden Francis Jeune... C. T. Longley... W. K. Hamilton H. Philpotts ... Hon. S. Waldegrave J. P. Lee A. T. Gilbert ... Lord Auckland T. V. Short ... S. Wilberforce C. R. Sumner... Con. Thirlwall G. A. Selwyn ... Chas. Baring ... A. C. Tait Alf. Ollivant ... Rob. Bickersteth W. Jacobson ... John Jackson ... C. Wordsworth Geo. Moberly ... Jas. Fraser J. R. Woodford 1826 1845 1839 1848 1860 1843 1849 1848 1864 1836 1854 1831 1860 1848 1842 1847 1841 1845 1826 1840 1841 1856 1856 1849 1857 1865 1853 1868 1869 1870 1873 See. Years Nominal Amount of Re­ of Income signed. Died. Bishop of See. Person­ alty. ric. Carlisle ... G. and B.... Chest: Lon: 1856 Bangor Chich: Dur: Rochester... Heref: York Worcester 1856 1856 1857 1859 1859 1860 1860 1860 29 26 32 35 28 47 23 20 £ £ 4,500 90,000 5,000 140,000 10,000 60,000 4,000 20,000 8,000 120,000 5,000 60,000 10,000 70.000 5,000 50,000 Durham ... Chest:Cant: Ely Peterboro’ Chester ... Rochester... Lichfield ... Norwich ... 1857 Hereford ... Peterboro’ Rip : Cant: Salisbury... Exeter 1861 1862 1864 1864 1865 1867 1867 1868 1868 1868 1868 1869 1869 5 34 19 25 17 7 24 8 20 4 32 15 38 8,000 15,000 5,500 4,500 4,500 5,000 4,500 4,500 4,200 4,500 15,000 5,000 5,000 Carlyle Manchester Chichester B. and W. St. Asaph... Oxf:Winch: Winchester St. David’s N.Z.: Lichf: G.&B..Dur: Lon : Cant: Llandaft ... Ripon Chester ... Line: Lon: Lincoln ... Salisbury... Manchester Ely 1869 1869 1870 1870 1872 1873 1874 1875 1878 1879 1882 1882 1884 1884 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 9 21 28 22 29 28 43 34 37 23 26 33 27 19 32 17 16 15 12 4,500 20,000 4,200 40,000 4,200 12.000 5,000 120,000 4,200 14,000 7,000 60,000 10,000 80,000 4,500 16,000 4,500 16,000 8,000 120,000 15,000 35,000 4,200 30,000 4,500 25,000 4,500 65,000 10,000 72,000 5,000 85,000 5,000 29,000 4,200 85,000 5,500 19,000 1869 1870 1869 1874 1885 From “ The Bishops and their Wealth 20,000 60,000 40,000 80,000 18,000 45.000 90,000 — 45,000 35,000 45,000 14,000 60,000 �21 Lately Published. Price Sixpence. BODY AND SOUL: A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE RELATIONS OF PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE, By the Rev, MERCER DAVIES, M.A., Formerly Chaplain of Westminster Hospital. The Bishop of Carlisle writes :—“ Thank you for your Pamphlet on Body and Soul, which I have read with much interest. Your notion of the brain generating a soul, and the analogy of electricity and galvanism, are very curious and ingenious.” “ I have read it through with much interest. I thoroughly believe with you that we shall be in the next world what we have made ourselves here. . . . Your Pamphlet I think a very good one.’—Rev. John Tagg, M.A., Rector of Meilis. “ VVe-Tike this short Essay. It is not biblical, and does not profess to be. Nor is it deeply scientific ; but it is pervaded by the scientific spirit, and in that spirit deals with the Brain, with Conscience, and with the Soul. It is certainly practical.”—The Rainbow. “ A singularly practical and useful Essay. . . . This attempt to trace the dangers of living against the conscience, in the physical disturbance and disorganisation of the Brain, is perhaps the most original and ingenious part of this little Essay. It seems at least worthy of attention, as suggestive of a new field of inquiry.”—The Church of England Pulpit. London : ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. May be had of the Author, 35, Fisher's Lane, Chiswick. POST FREE ON RECEIPT OF STAMPS. �22 THE SOUTHERN PUBLISHING CO, political ^ublisherei, LITHOGRAPHERS, LETTERPRESS PRINTERS, DESIGNERS, ENGRAVERS, AND DIE SINKERS, 160, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C Pamphlets, Leaflets, Reprints of Speeches, and every kind of political matter produced and distributed with despatch and economy. ESTIMATES FREE ON APPLICATION. ��24 Price 2d.: by Post 2%d. THE BISHOPS AND THEIR WEALTH: CONTAINING SOME REMARKABLE EVIDENCE FROM THE PROBATE OFFICE. BY REV. MERCER THE DAVIES, M.A. OT’insrio^rs of the press. “A gigantic anomaly is quietly but most effectively exposed and rebuked in a pamphlet we have received this week, which contains some remarkable evidence from the Probate Office.”—Christian Leader. “I heartily commend the perusal of Mr. Mercer Davies’ pamphlet. It is temperately and forcibly written ; and its argu­ ments it is not easy to gainsay.”—Weekly Bulletin. “While giving these considerations their due weight, we feel bound to say that the facts collected by Mr. Davies tell strongly on the other side. ”—Church Reformer. ‘ ‘ Mr. Davies’ pamphlet with the above title is exciting consider­ able interest. ”—Liberator. “ This is one of the most able and vigorous pamphlets which we have seen for many a day. It is scarcely necessary to say that in the opinions thus ably expressed we cordially concur, and earnestly commend the pamphlet to the attention of our readers : every page will amply repay perusal.”—The Democrat. LONDON : THE SOUTHERN PRINTING COMPANY, 160, FLEET STREET, E.C. 1886. � 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 &amp; 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 bishops and their religion : two letters addressed to the Lord Bishop of Ripon, as President of the Church Congress at Wakefield Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Davies, Mercer Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: First letter dated September 18th, 1886. Second letter dated September 27th, 1886. Publisher's advertisements on p. 21, 22 and 24. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Southern Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1886 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T392 Subject The topic of the resource Clergy Church of England 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 bishops and their religion : two letters addressed to the Lord Bishop of Ripon, as President of the Church Congress at Wakefield), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> 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 Church of England Clergy Socialism Wealth