1
10
29
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1add50475d5207c09d8791b3b6141b6f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GDeetZSRimEpOqAPZndIPNzgOYno6Ac-EL3H%7EK7SWItNcEbw66dvzpbkLfYzVrLIwP71B4PJtHigZY%7ECndmPP0w4DPEIWQtmAyjs3crIC7fdAkqkwO3cGfRbxaB-qO3njaCLrH46RgalbelEXQdp3o2TXdsmqvQlcSwk7M4WCVs0VGYdeYFxDZOLPXtwbDlV1SMZNrngDlFOK6kp35WvP2FRS-4cd4hOKsYwwFiikLYag%7Esytv30LFWYTZ2DRF9rrIaZvobbANkZjUO9BKmuwMyaoEidXXwHfmu8AdlVf7RfKHS5IvhH3a2KnrrsaItMFh3eCP30Jz5yfLDesUDWRw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2b6289062a8ec99277f058f88d4146e8
PDF Text
Text
GOD’S COMMANDMENTS
ACCORDING TO MOSES, ACCORDING TO CUBIST,
AND
ACCORDING TO OUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE.
A SKETCH
SUGGESTIVE OF
A NEW WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
FOR THE LAITY OF THE 19th CENTURY.
ADDRESSED TO ALL WHO DEEM IT THEIR HIGHEST DUTY
AS WELL AS RIGHT TO
“THINK FOR THEMSELVES.”
“HAPPY IS THE MAN THAT FINDETH WISDOM, AND THE MAN THAT GETTETH UNDERSTANDING."
PROV. III. 13.
LONDON :
N. TRÜBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1867.
PRICE SIXPENCE.
�From an Essay entitled, ‘ Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the
Temporal Happiness of Mankind,’ under the nom de plume of Philip Beauchamp
(printed 1822, and reprinted by Saville and Edwards, Chandos Street, Covent
Garden, 1866), the following extract is made as bearing to some extent on the
present work.
The evils which flow from the belief, not founded on experience, of the inter
ference of an unseen agent infringing at pleasure the laws of nature, are thus
described:—
1 As this persuasion utterly disqualifies mankind for the task of filtering truth
from falsehood, so the multitude of fictitious tales for which it has obtained
credence and currency in the world, exceeds all computation. To him who
believes in the intervention of incomprehensible and unlimited Beings, no
story can appear incredible. The most astonishing narratives are exempted
from cross-examination, and readily digested under the title of miracles or
prodigies. Of these miracles every nation on the face of the earth has on
record and believes thousands. And as each nation disbelieves all except
its own, each, tho’ it believes a great many, yet disbelieves more. The
most enthusiastic believers in miracles, therefore, cannot deny that an
enormous excess of false ones have obtained credence amongst the larger
portion of mankind.’
AV e heartily concur in the following observations on this Essay borrowed
from the Westminster Review for April, 1866. ‘ If it is rightly attributed to a
distinguished historian, we think it greatly to be regretted that he has not
given us in a separate essay his ripest thoughts on the subject.’ . . . . ‘ If
Philip Beauchamp would write something on these subjects, not grudging
to lend the well-earned authority of a known name, and in a manner going di
rectly to his object, he would meet with a more fitting circle of readers than he
could have done five-and-forty years ago.’
We also extract the following passage from an Address of the Rev. Dr
Robert Lee, delivered at the opening of the Theological Class in the University
of Edinburgh (Published by Williams and Norgate) :—
‘ In these days no class of men can possibly have, or should have at any
time, any real weight and authority in guiding opinion, unless it occupy a
somewhat independent position. Prisons and fetters are for the lawless
and disobedient, for thieves and murderers, and all those abandoned classes
who exist and thrive by injuring their neighbours and disturbing society.
Christian teachers, we hope, do not deserve or need to be so guarded, confined,
and pinioned; they are not so set upon perverting the truth, corrupting re
ligion, seducing the people, as that they should be required by law to swear,
at the beginning of their professional life, that they hold not only the great
Articles of the Christian Faith, which are both very simple and very few,
but a positive and categorical opinion regarding many hundreds of proposi
tions which they have not had time to weigh and study ; much less that
they should be required to swear that they will so think on all those points
. which they are now required to profess ‘ during all the days of their life.’ ’
JulIN CHILES AND SON, PRINTERS.
�GOD’S COMMANDMENTS.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
The complaint against those, who have dared to think for themselves,
and to throw aside the authority of all or some of what are called the or
thodox Dogmas of Religion,—for instance, the plenary inspiration of the
Bible, original sin, the eternity of hell torments,—that they leave the
unhappy man, woman, or child, whom they may succeed in enticing from the
pleasant paths of Orthodoxy, without a guide for their future conduct in
life, is not altogether an unjust complaint. The effort of almost all
free thought, no doubt, has hitherto been more on the negative side,—the
pulling down of the old, rather than the constructing a new Faith, or
putting the New Faith into such simple terms as to be at once understood
by all classes.
Now this New Faith, no longer confined to a few isolated thinkers
but spreading quietly in every quarter, on the one hand denies that
God has only revealed himself to man at a particular time or up to a
particular date in his history, and has since left him without any
further revelation beyond what he can obtain by groping about for
the meanings of a number of old books, written in various dead lan
guages, of uncertain dates and authorship, and of which, whilst the origin
als are certainly lost, it is impossible to know whether the oldest extant
copies, or supposed copies, are accurate or are not interpolated or even
forgeries. On the other hand, this New Faith expressly declares that God
is and ever has been revealing himself to man in the works of his Creation,
and that He has never revealed himself in any other way. This Faith, it
will be seen, interferes not with our freest speculations, nor with our
highest aspirations. Thus on the question of a life hereafter, while some
may maintain that one ground of their hope is, that only by a future life
can the misery in this be compensated; others will be free to hold and
will hold, that, while permitted to look forward to a future existence as
being within the scope of the Divine will, still, God’s governance of this
world is perfect and docs not absolutely require to be supplemented by
the life hereafter, to make up for the imagined short-comings, impcrfec-
�•1
tions, and injustice, in the arrangements for our life on earth ; and, more
over, that our obedience to God’s Laws ought to be quite independent of,
and not consequent on, the expectation of a future existence.
Now although there are many learned treatises setting forth the
grounds for this Faith, there is no hand-book for the unlearned to refer
to; there is no standard book or ‘ Catechism ’ of which the free-thinking
father or mother may say, ‘ This little book contains what I believe to be
a true exposition of God’s laws, and out of this I desire my child to
be taught his duty, his religious principles.’ We here use the word ‘re
ligious ’ advisedly and as the proper term, although the multitude may
think that it can be used only by the believers in miracles, in a devil, and
in the monstrous doctrine of the eternity of punishment, and of the end
less woe of those whom it shall not please God arbitrarily to call to ever
lasting happiness.
The present pamphlet is put forth as a partial attempt to supply this
want and to put into plain language what many men, while allowing their
children to learn by rote ten Commandments (possibly compiled for the
Hebrews, long after the time of Moses), and likewise the curious denuncia
tion of themselves contained in the Church-Catechism, as ‘ children of
wrath!’ really do teach them in the practical lessons of every-day life. Its
object is also to bring home to many men the dishonesty of not declaring
more openly what they believe on religious subjects, and at the same time
to give them aid in expressing their convictions, where from want of time
or inclination they have never exactly formularized what they do believe,
though feeling great repugnance to the dogmas sought to be imposed
upon them by the clergyman, who gives priestly consolation to their wives
and daughters. We have none of us, probably, very far to look without
finding among our friends or acquaintances some in this state; men who
are not masters in their own household, who may command the affections,
but have not the least influence over the theological or spiritual lives of
the members of their own family. In many cases utter worldliness or
amiable weakness is pleaded as an excuse for that dishonesty to which we
have taken exception.
Take, for example, a husband and wife—the latter, perhaps, not very
well grounded in her orthodox views : ‘ It will never do to bring up our
children otherwise than according to Church principles. How can we
expect they will get on ? ’ The wife will say, ‘ don’t give these new no
tions to the girls; even for the boys it will be far safer not to be marked
as unsound Churchmen. Think of their being called Infidels, Theists,
Atheists, and all those other shocking names. Why not leave well alone ?
The world got on very well, before that horrible Bishop of Natal was
heard of.’ And then, perhaps, the thought of a rich old uncle will arise,
and the wife will add the conclusive argument,f If he were to get the idea
�into his head that we were not bringing up our children in the strictest
Church principles, you know he would disinherit us and leave all his pro
perty to charities ; pray be careful?
Again, the following is not altogether an isolated or imaginary picture,
the result of an appeal from one free-thinker to another to come forward
with his name, on a subscription, say, for the Essays and Reviews Fund, or
still later for the Colenso Testimonial. ‘ I will give you willingly my £20 ;
but pray keep my name a secret. I would not have my wife suspect me of
thinking as I do on any account. If she were to imagine that I do not
believe exactly as she does, that I have doubts about Bible inspiration,
whatever that may mean, that I do not feel quite steady in my adherence to
the doctrines laid down with such peculiar clearness and force in the Athanasian Creed, or to any other of the so-called fundamental dogmas, she
would be quite miserable. Pray never give her a hint of such a thing.
We have lived so peaceably together for years. It would be quite cruel
on my part to give her an idea of my holding different views from her
own, and what would be the use of it ? It would only unsettle her mind,—
if not her faith, in which she is so wrapped up and contented !’ Thus two
beings, with reasoning faculties, living together nominally as one, profess
ing to have no secrets from each other, are yet perfectly estranged on the
most important of subjects, have no real interchange of thoughts; and
the man, on his side, acts a lifelong lie on the plea at best of good and
amiable motives.
We will not here undertake to judge our friend. Doubtless it may
be said with truth that any attempt on his ’part to f convert1 his wife
would at their time of life be useless ; but this we will say, many a man
imagines the difficulty far greater than it is. How often, if a husband
were quietly to explain to his wife his opinions and the grounds for them,
would he meet with a ready listener; and even should he fail to convince,
he would still have placed himself in the right position towards the
woman he has chosen for his life companion. If his own views have only
gradually opened to a wider sphere of thought, still is he not to
be at liberty to speak his thoughts ? Is free speaking to be the peculiar
privilege of the orthodox ? Are the clergy for ever to have their
own way, and is a husband in his own house to be the only person not al
lowed to express an honest opinion ? Ought not every sensible wife, in
stead of being shocked, to be gratified by the confidence shown in her
better judgment ? Her true complaint should be, of that confidence having
been so long delayed.
One cause for men not discussing these subjects with their wives may
not unfrequently be, that they have not worked out for themselves their
own faith ; they have perhaps discarded the traditional theory of religion,
they may disbelieve in miracles, but have never completely argued out the
�6
why and the wherefore with themselves ; they may not feel the force of the
dogmatic assertions that every thing is true that is in the Bible, and that
all our knowledge must be cut and shaped so as to,suit and fit into the
narrow compass of that book; but they have never seized the true argu
ment in reply; they have no clear and definite notion as to God’s
governance of the world. Consequently they feel uneasy when reproach
fully asked, ‘And where is your substitute for God’s Bible ?’ And they
think it far pleasanter to smother up their difficulties and let their wives,
who have no doubt on any one subject, and scorn, in the plenitude
of their blind faith, to notice the few little intricate difficulties in the
dogmas of the Church (difficulties which by-the-way eighteen centuries of
learned controversy have not solved), take the lead and give true orthodox
religious principles to their children. And be assured these fortun
ate children will never be allowed to suppose that any but very wicked
people, who are sure to go to hell, can hold any other views on the Catho
lic Faith.
To some of our male friends who find themselves thus situated, the
perusal of these pages may suggest a little self-examination, and the act
ing out their lives, according to the straight-forward promptings of their
reason.
The f Commandments ’ which will be found at the end of this work are
drawn up as a suggestion for a Code by which the principles of duty
may be taught to our children, in preference to the Ten Commandments
of the Jewish law, or to any selection of precepts, in the words which
tradition gives us as uttered by Christ. Apart from questions of dogma,
many of these Commandments will be accepted by the ‘orthodox.’
They necessarily illustrate the unfitness of the New Testament as a school
book, by the direct contrast which becomes evident between many of its
precepts, in their literal if not in their actual sense, and the real teaching
which we all ought to give to our children for their conduct in life,
—in one word, to make them truly ‘ righteous.’ We need however
scarcely observe that the quotations from the sayings of Christ are not
given as an attempt to decry his teaching; nor, in framing Command
ments for children who have never been crammed with the (to them) con
fusing lessons of the Old and New Testaments, would the apparently an
tagonistic reference to the sayings or precepts attributed to Christ here
introduced be at all necessary. They are, as will be seen, introduced to
counteract what is often the effect of teaching children from a collection
of books unsuited to their capacities.
We may be told that some passages, such as ‘ take no thought for to
morrow,’ and others, are not properly rendered in the authorized version
of the Bible. Our answer is, perhaps not; but if so, you, the ‘ orthodox,’
should not be so opposed as you admittedly are to an amended version,
�and until it is amended, you cannot blame us for objecting to the use of
words in a book you acknowledge to be faulty. There are nevertheless
other passages, about which no doubt as to the correctness of the transla
tion exists, and which still do not give us the proper teaching we require.
Let us, however, emphatically repeat that nothing written below is in
tended to cast contempt on the sayings of Christ here referred to. Wo
cannot be sure of the sense in which his hearers were intended to under
stand him, even if we have his very words. The language in which his
discourses have been handed down to us is the figurative, and often beau
tifully poetic, language of the East; but it is not the language in which we
want to teach our own children—still less the little plough-boys and the
girls of our country villages—their plain lessons of moral duty. Go into
any Sunday-school throughout the land, and calmly listen to the blunder
ing attempts of the well-meaning volunteer teachers, and hear what a mess
they make, what utter confusion they introduce to the children’s minds, in
stumbling overpassages which, if they explain properly, they have frequent
ly to declare mean exactly the reverse of what the words say; while, to
keep up a consistency between these words and their teaching, they have
to repeat to the children at every breath ‘ the words are figurative, are
allegorical, are spiritual/ We ask, ought this to be? Without much
presumption we may express a hope, that what is here written may give
some of these teachers a clearer view of the way in which they should, in
the words of the Church Catechism, teach a child to ‘keep God’s holy
will and commandments and walk in the same all the days of his life.’
It will be said that the language of these Commandments is not wholly
suited for children. That may be true, although the greatest care has
been taken to make the language as simple as possible. These Com
mandments are sketched out to assist parents and others in teach
ing their children—not by merely cramming by heart, but by patient
explanation and training ; and at any rate, there is nothing contradictory
in the language used, as in the passages to which we have taken excep
tion.
According to the age and development of the child, so ought the
teaching to be. It would be difficult to say how early thought does not
guide some of an infant’s acts. The infant takes food at first without
knowing the result; but before long, because it remembers the pleasure
experienced on former occasions. The child must then have formed an
idea, must have begun to think; and from that moment his education
has commenced. How ever little the parents and nurses may notice the
fact, the child, before he can speak or understand a word that is spoken,
may learn something of God’s Commandments. Through the language
of frowns and caresses, he learns the duty of obedience,—blind obedi-
�8
cnee at first, necessitated by his ignorance. Before the child can speak,
much more read, he will, in any well-regulated house, have learned much.
Even when he does begin to speak and read, how few are the words he
can understand. The difficulty of teachers is and always must be, to
adapt their language to the capacity of a child, and it is almost impossi
ble to put Commandments into words that shall be absolutely suitable to
children of all ages, and also to grown-up persons.
Here let us say a few words on obedience of children. Many parents
fear to lose their authority, if they encourage their children to think for
themselves, too early as they would say. They inculcate blind obedience,
just as the parson tries to inculcate it upon all his parishioners, whom he
would like to keep as children, in the bondage of authority, all their
lives. Why should this be so ? Is it not that the parents, through
indolence and want of proper education, have never attained to a thorough
knowledge of the reasons and principles which ought to govern their own
and their children’s conduct ? They have no faith of their own, of which
they can give a rational account. They are, moreover, afraid of tell
ing their children that they, their parents, are and must be ignorant of
many things; and, they take, as they suppose, the proper course of
teaching—by dogmatically telling the child he must do what he is bid,
without a reason; when, by a little pains, the child would obey with his
understanding, instead of on mere authority.
Instead of repressing a young child’s eager searching for a reason,
we ought to be gently leading him on with a kindly ‘ think for yourself on
all occasions, and on all subjects.’ IIow few parents dare to do this !
On the contrary, both parents and priests do just the reverse, saying,
‘ Think as I think ’—adding, when religion is the subject—‘ under pain of
loss of your eternal happiness ; ’ and thus they crush out that early instinct
implanted in all of us; for the child will think for himself if only encour
aged, instead of being snubbed. We are almost inclined to say, that nearly
the only independent thoughts of many men have been those of their in
fancy.
We trust, in conclusion, that nothing in this pamphlet will be taken
as intentionally offensive to the clergy. We number among them many
as our truest friends, and gratefully acknowledge the zeal of the whole
body in good works ; nevertheless, we look forward to the time when,
set free from the trammels of dogmatic authority, and no longer feeling
bound to expend their energies in ‘ reconciling ’ old books and fables
with the facts of modern science, they will join still more heartily with the
laity in aiding the intellectual and moral development of the human race.
�9
THE COMMANDMENTS,
ACCORDING TO MOSES AND TO CHRIST.
If the question be asked how many Commandments has God given to
us, the almost invariable answer, in the stereotyped words of the catechism,
will be, ‘ Ten/
Few of those making such an answer will have ever troubled them
selves with a thought on the subject. Satisfied with what they learnt like
parrots, when children, ‘ on their mothers’ laps,’ they have taken for
granted that what is said in the Prayer Book is the correct, the only
possible answer to the question.
Now let us ask, Has God given us ten, and only ten, or as many as ten
Commandments ? Many in reply will refer to the Decalogue as conclu
sive ; but let us hope that this answer will not continue to satisfy us and
our children.
It is true that Moses is said to have received Ten ; but on the face of
the Pentateuch itself it is impossible to say exactly what the Ten were, for,
as we shall see below, there are at least two * differing versions even of
these Ten. And, moreover, the Pentateuch contains many more Com
mandments said to have been given by God himself to Moses. The
* Besides the versions of the Decalogue in the xx. chap, of Exodus and in the
v. chap, of Deuteronomy, we find in the xxxiv. chap, of Exodus a third version.
This version is declared to have been delivered, quite as authoritatively as the
other two, by God to Moses. Here we will merely notice that it gives Sab
batical Commandments which, if any such are binding on Christians, must be
equally so with the 4th in the xx. chap, of Exodus.
v. 18. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt
eat» unleavened bread.
v. 21. Six days thou slialt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest : in
earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
v. 22. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of wheat
harvest and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
2 '
�10
question remains, ought a Christian to be satisfied with merely looking
for God's Commandments in the Old Testament ? Should he not give
a preference to what he may find in the New Testament as uttered by
Christ, the founder of his religion ?
Let us compare the Decalogues given in Exodus and Deuteronomy
with the Commandments given in the New Testament.
The Commandments recorded as The Commandments recorded in the
given to Moses—written by God
Gospels—as declared by Christ.
HIMSELF IN TWO TABLETS OF STONE.
From Exodus xx. 2—16.
From Mark xii. 28.
And one of the Scribes asked
him, which is the first Com
mandment of all ? (or, as
quoted in Matt. xxii. 36,
which is the great Command
ment in the Law ?) And Jesus
answered him, The first of all
the Commandments is:
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have 1. f Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our
brought thee out of the land of
God is one Lord, and thou shalt
Egypt, out of the house of bond
love the Lord thy God with all thy
age. Thou shalt have no other
heart and with all thy soul and
gods before me.
with all thy mind and with all thy
strength.' This is the first (and
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee
‘ great' in Matt.) Commandment.
any graven image, or any likeness
[This command is taken by
of any thing that is in heaven
Christ from Deut. vi. 5.
above, or that is in the earth be
Omitting all reference to the
neath, or that is in the water
land of Egypt, it is of uni
under the earth. Thou shalt not
versal application alike to
bow down thyself to them, nor
Jew and Gentile; while, to
serve them : for I the Lord thy
quote the words of the author
God am a jealous God, visiting
of the ‘ Sabbath,' ‘ it far more
*
the iniquity of the fathers upon
distinctly proclaims the unity
the children, unto the third and
of God, and it enjoins what
fourth generation of them that
the Commandment in the
hate me, and shewing mercy unto
Decalogue does not, — the
thousands of them that love me,
Christian duty of Love to
and keep my commandments.
God.']
3. Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain : for the
Lord will not hold him guiltless
* See a reference to this work in the
that taketh his name in vain.
note to page 13.
�11
4. Remember the Sabbath-day, to
keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work. But
the seventh day is the Sabbath of
the Lord thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor
thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates : For in six
days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them
is, and rested the seventh day :
wherefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
And the second is like it: name
ly, this—■
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.
[This command is taken by
Christ from Lev. xix. 18.]
There is none other greater than
these (Mark xii. 28—31).
On these two Commandments
hang all the law and the Prophets
(Matt. xxii. 36—40).
A new Commandment give I
unto you, that ye love one another
(Jno. xiii. 34).
In all the four Gospels not one
word can be found, as uttered by
Christ, in favour of keeping one
day holy above the others, or
against doing work on the Jewish
Sabbath, nor for change of the
Sabbath from the seventh to the
first day of the week, nor for hon
ouring him or God by the observ
ance of days. On the contrary,
Christ is reported as having on
some occasions worked or com
manded unnecessary work to be
done on the Sabbath day. Christ
*
evidently held different views from
* Plucking corn, Matt. xii. 1 ; Mark ii. 23; Luke vi. 1. Christ did not
deny that this was a breach of the Sabbath; but defended his disciples by quoting
David’s act as a precedent.
Healing on the Sabbath day a woman who had been ill for 18 years, and who
could well have waited one day longer. Luke xiii. 12, 13.
The impotent man takes up his bed, and thus deliberately, by Christ’s orders,
did unnecessary work (John v. 8). It could not even have been necessary for
him to do so to show that he was cured. The cure must have been evident
without his carrying a burden,—contrary to God’s injunction in Jeremiah xvii. 21.
1 Jesus spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the
eyes of the blind man with the clay’ (John ix. 6). Clearly, however trifling,
this was unnecessary work for one who is believed to have been God omnipotent.
Christ, again, joined a large feast on the Sabbath. Luke xiv. 1, 7—12.
�12
those of our modern English and
But in the version given in
Scotch Sabbatarian. Christ’s great
Deut. v. 14, the reason stated
apostle Paul also distinctly tells
for this Commandment is
his Christian converts that they
quite different.
need not observe days.
*
‘ That thy manservant and thy
It is possibly on this ground, that
maidservant may rest as well as
in the Catechism no reference is
thou. And remember that thou
made, either in the summary of our
wast a servant in the land of
duty to God or to our neighbour,
Egypt, and that the Lord thy God
to any obligation to observe one
brought tliec out thence through
day above another.
a mighty hand and by a stretched
out arm : therefore the Lord thy And from Mark x. 17 ;
And one asked him, Good
God commanded thee to keep the
Master, what shall I do that I
Sabbath day?
may inherit eternal life ? And
Jesus said unto him—Why
callest thou me good ; there is
none good but one, that is
God. Thou knowest the Comman dm ent s.f
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 3. Do not commit adultery.
4. Do not kill.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
5. Do not steal.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness 6. Do not bear false witness.
7. Defraud not.
against thy neighbour.
The 10th Commandment of the
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh
bour’s house, thou shalt not covet Decalogue is not referred to by
thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man Christ. He may have considered
servant, nor his maidservant, that his far more universal Com
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any mandment of ‘Love your neighbour’
thing that is thy neighbour’s.
was sufficient.
* ‘ Let no man, therefore, judge you in respect of an holyday, or of the New
Moon, or of the Sabbath days.’ Colos. ii. 1G.
‘O foolish Galatians (iii. 1), how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele
ments whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months
and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour
in vain.’ Gal. iv.
t What an opportunity was here lost by Jesus of enforcing the keeping
of the Sabbath if he had intended to enforce it,—an opportunity that our
modern Divines would only too gladly avail themselves of.
�13
5. Honour thy father and thy 8. Honour thy father and mother.
mother that thy days may be long
[It is surely better to teach
upon the land which the Lord
this Commandment as given
thy God giveth thee.
by Christ than with the ad
In the version given in Deu
dition of such a weak or in
teronomy the ground sug
complete ground as we find
gested for keeping this Com
in Exodus.] *
mandment varies from that in
Exodus, and is more explicit.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
as the Lord thy God hath com
manded thee, that thy days may
And he answered and said,
be prolonged, and that it may go
Master, all these things have
well with thee in the land which
I observed from my youth.
the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Then Jesus beholding him,
Deut. v. 16.
loved him, and said unto him,
One thing thou lackest. [If
thou wilt be perfect, Matt,
xix. 21.]
9. Go thy way; sell whatsoever
thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven.
A Commandment set aside in
our day, not only by the very
rich, as this man is repre
sented to have been, but by
Christians in general.
In addition to the nine Commandments here selected from Christ’s
teaching, and which Christians may be recommended to use as being his
substitute for the Decalogue, we find many more quite as solemnly laid
down by Christ as of universal obligation. Let us refer to Matt. v. and
vi., in which Christ in the Sermon on the Mount is represented as giving
new Commandments.
* If the reader of this pamphlet cares to look further into the parallel here
drawn between what maybe called Christ’s substitute for the Decalogue, and to
satisfy himself that the Decalogue was written for the Jews and not for Chris
tians, he is referred to ‘ The Sabbath ’ (Chapman and Hall, 1855), vol. ii., in the
first chap, of which, the Mosaic Sabbath is very fully considered.
�14
10. Swear not at all—but let your
communication be yea, yea, nay,
nay.
11. Resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also.
12. Ye have heard that it hath been
said, Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour and hate thine enemy : but
I say unto you f Love your
enemies?
13. When thou prayest enter into
thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door pray to thy Father
which is in secret.
14. But when ye pray use not vain
repetitions, as the heathen do.
15. Take no thought, saying, What
shall we eat and what shall we
drink, or wherewithal shall we be
clothed ? Take no thought for
the morrow. Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof.
And from Luke vi. 80.
16. Give to every man that asketh
of thee, and of him that taketh
away thy goods ask them not
again.
Some of these are wisely ignored by Christians at the present day ;
while two which might be obeyed, with no detriment—if with no positive
good, namely, (1) praying in secret only and not parading- prayers in
churches, and, (2) not using vain repetitions in praying—are universally
disobeyed by the great body of professing Christians.
Christ, therefore, at any rate did not confine himself to Ten; ac
cording to the Catechism, he did not give the proper reply to the ques
tion. He nevei’ repeated all the Commandments of the Decalogue.
For anything that Christ is reported to have uttered, he need not even have
been aware of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 10th Commandment of the
Decalogue, as handed down to us ; or of the statement in Deuteronomy
that the Ten Commandments were written by God himself in two tables of
stone. Even in giving out those Commandments of the Law which he
�15
did refer to, lie did not repeat them in the order in which they stand in
the Decalogue; and on the subject of the 4th and the 5th Commandments,
he certainly has not enlightened us as to which is the true version,—the
true Commandments, written in the tables of stone.
It is singular that Christians should not have sufficient faith in the
words of their Saviour to adopt his express teaching on the subject of
Commandments. For example, had they such faith, they would not now,
running back to the ‘weak and beggarly elements ’ of the Jewish Scrip
tures, repeat every Sunday they are at church such a Commandment as
the 4th, never uttered by Christ, and which not one of them attempts to
keep, in its strict letter and meaning,—that of absolute cessation from
work and nothing else.
*
We may here remark that the Catechism errs not only in limiting
the number of God’s Commandments, expressly contrary to the teaching of
Christ; but it further makes the child declare that he learns from these
Ten Commandments what no one ever could learn from them. What is
laid down in the Catechism as the child’s duty is a very fair summary of
moral law and duty as believed in and practised by many at the present
day; but to say that the child or grown-up person ‘chiefly learns’ from the
Ten Commandments all that is there put down is not true. Where do we
find in the Ten a word about ‘ submitting ourselves to our spiritual pastors
and masters ’ ? or ‘ ordering ourselves lowly and reverently to our
betters’ ? or ‘keeping our bodies in temperance and soberness’'?
* See on this point ‘ The Sabbath,’ vol. ii. p. 179.
�16
THE COMMANDMENTS,
WHICH BELIEVERS IN A GOD, WILLINGLY CALLING THEMSELVES CHRIS
TIANS, MAY CONSIDER OBLIGATORY UPON THEM.
Turning now to the realities of life, we will look at the Commandments
from our own point of view.
Surveying dispassionately the history of religious opinion through
all ages of the world, we perceive that, notwithstanding all the assump
tions of infallibility by Popes and Ecclesiastics in general, there
has been a constant progress in religious belief. We also per
ceive that the saying of old, that ‘ God made Man in his own image/
should be replaced by the real fact that ‘ Man has always been and
is still making God in his own image ’; that as human knowledge
increases, as our ideas of what is right and noble and true go on
improving, so do our ideas of what a perfect God must be. We have long
since given up the crude notion of an angry and jealous God—of a God
who was ready to walk in a Garden on earth, and to come at the call of
every patriarch who chose to summon him,—and though kings and earthly
potentates may still invoke the God of Battles in their prayers, and Arch
bishops and Bishops may still write prayers on cattle plagues and cholera,
deprecating God’s wrath, and urging him to interfere and abrogate his
own laws at the call of man, we express the hope that the days of such
mistaken attempts to honour God are numbered, and that the time is
rapidly coming when true science or knowledge shall have swept away
these lingering superstitions of bygone ages.
And what is prayer—the only prayer fitted for educated minds,—un
less it be, in the spirit of the Axiom stated below, an earnest searching
after and earnest endeavour to obey all the unchanging laws, moral as well
as physical, which govern this world? In this sense alone can ‘prayer with
out ceasing ’ be possible. In this sense men of science, though possibly
never entering a church built by the hands of man, may be constantly
offering up their ‘praise and thanksgiving’ to the Unknown ‘whose
temple is all space/ and ‘ with whom/ as was well said several hundred
years ago, ‘ is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’
The Commandments which we, who have not been brought out of the
land of Egypt, and who are not Israelites, but the descendants of Gen
tiles, may believe to be binding on us, though not given out, as the
Ten Commandments are said to have been, on the top of Mount Sinai, are
�17
such as we now derive from the united wisdom and experience accumu
lated by mankind during the past and present ages.
Our only AXIOM is this :—
It is our duty with all our energies to ascertain the laws, both moral
and physical, which govern this world and ourselves; to be constantly
endeavouring to obey these laws when ascertained, and never to
hesitate to give up an opinion or belief on what is called religion, any
more than on any other subject, if we find that that opinion or belief,
even though handed down to us from very ancient times, is inconsist
ent with our better knowledge at the present day.
Acting up to this axiom we accept St John’s declaration, (Little
children, let no man deceive you : he that doeth righteousness is right
eous,’ 1 John iii. 7. We also readily accept, as a bond of brotherhood
between Christ and ourselves, his declaration in Matt. xii. 50, f Whoso
ever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my
brother, and sister, and mother.’ Looking also to Christ’s earnest en
deavour to enforce the law ‘ Love your neighbour as yourself,’ we
desire to be called Christians, although we may utterly repudiate all
the miraculous stories of the Old and New Testaments,—although we may
utterly repudiate any belief in a personal Devil, just as we do in witch
craft,—and although we admit neither sacraments nor priests of any
kind, and look upon the miscellaneous books bound up together and
called the Bible as entitled to no more respect than what is due to them
as ancient records of what men have believed and have felt in former ages.
We differ from the priests of all denominations and the self-styled
orthodox in this ; that, while believing much that is in the Bible, we be
lieve nothing merely because it is in the Bible. We seek enlightenment
in the place of dogmatic assurance, and we accept the declaration of the
man of science, who, to use the words of Professor Huxley (in his lecture
on improving Natural Knowledge, delivered at St Martin’s Hall, London,
on Sunday evening, 7th January, 1866), f absolutely refuses to acknow
ledge authority as such ; for him scepticism is the highest duty, blind
faith the one unpardonable sin. The man of science has learnt to believe
in justification, not by faith, but by verification.’ Our faith may be
described as a simple ‘ Faith in Works.’
The Commandment which we may state includes all others is to (love
thy neighbour as thyself.’ This was, so far as we have any record, first
laid down, not by Christ, as many suppose, but in Levit. xix. 18; but
there its meaning was narrowed by the words which follow, ‘ Thou shalt
hate thine enemy.’ Christ could truly say to the Jews that he gave it to
them as ‘a new Commandment,’ earnestly endeavouring to counteract
the narrow teaching in Leviticus by telling his hearers to love their
�18
enemies, and showing here and elsewhere, that by ‘neighbour* we should
understand every human being. Five hundred years before Christ, Con
fucius, the great Chinese Philosopher, wrote the precept, ‘Do unto another
what thou would he should do unto you, and do not unto another what
thou would not should be done unto you. Thou only needest this Law
alone. It is the foundation and principle of all the rest? The heathen,
*
Seneca, also said ‘ Live for another as you would live for yourself? Now
we do not accept even this Commandment because it was uttered by Moses,
by Confucius, by Christ, or by Seneca, but because all our experience
teaches us that, whether uttered by them or not, it is, in complete accord
ance with the above Axiom, a true law of God;—for the more we study the
laws of this world, both moral and physical, the more do we find that the
happiness of ourselves and of our fellow-creatures—in one word, our
well-being in this life—is intended to be the great object of our existence
here, and that the real happiness of each individual is dependent on the
happiness of others; that a man cannot be truly happy if those around
him are miserable. It may be added that by acting thus, and only thus,
by really loving ourselves and our neighbours, can we show reverence and
love to that mysterious ‘ unknown/—that, to us in our present state,
incomprehensible Power which we call GOD, and believe to have, in
some way wholly beyond our capacity to imagine, created the Universe,
of which our little world is the merest atom.
We therefore, to prevent a possible misapprehension of Christ’s
meaning, would alter the order in which in selecting the two Command
ments from Deut. vi. 6, and Lev. xix. 18, he is recorded as having placed
them, and would say : ‘ first, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and
by so doing (secondly) thou wilt, and in this way only canst thou, show thy
love to God? In this sense love to God may be said to be the first (mean
ing by the first the ‘ greatest/ Matt. xx. 38) Commandment.
Only think of the cruelties and murders practised by Christians in all
ages under the plea of ‘ first love God/ and we shall agree how important
is the alteration in the order of the two Commandments as here suggested.
What were the Crusades and all the religious wars since the commence
ment of the Christian Era—all the martyrdoms and persecutions of Pro
testants by Catholics, and no less of Catholics by Protestants; and in a
less degree, what are all the bitter persecutions and religious feuds and
heart-burnings of the present day, but miserable, mistaken attempts to
love and honour God by hating and ill-using instead of loving our neigh
bour ?
* Confucius also said, ‘ Desire not the death of thine enemy. We may have
an aversion for an enemy, without desiring revenge? This probably is the doc
trine practically held by most Christians at the present day, of whom it would
be a stretch of imagination to say that they consider it a duty to llove their
enemies.’
�19
THE COMMANDMENTS.
1. Love your neighbour as yourself. Do unto others as you, in the
exercise of your best intelligence, think they ought to do unto you.
And how ought I to love myself? This is a question not generally put
to children. The duty itself is not properly enforced—but is rather depre
cated under the fear of inculcating ' selfishness.’ The following may be
stated as some of the laws, without obedience to which it is impossible to
say, ( I truly love myself?
2. Parents.—As a parent or guardian of children, so instruct and
educate them, and so conduct yourself, that they may learn to honour
and obey you, and prepare themselves in their turn to instruct their chil
dren, without troubling themselves too much whether ‘their days may be
long’ or short, but taking every pains that 'it may go well with them’
in the land of their birth or adoption; and that they may, in learning to hon
our and obey you, in your imperfection, learn still more to reverence and
obey that perfect Power, which is revealing itself continuously in the
works of the Creation, and which we worship as God, the Father Uni
versal.
The Hebrews of old said, the sins of the parents are visited on the chil
dren unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate God.
While rejecting the idea implied by the literal statement of a jealous God
punishing mankind for merely hating him, we accept these words partly as
meaning, If you do not obey the laws of God, but disobey them either
through wilfulness or ignorance, the consequences of your conduct or
your bad example will, by God’s unvarying laws, injure not only yourself
but also your children. Remember too that your neglect of your children
will react upon yourself.
Assist also in educating the poor—those whom their parents are
unable or neglectful themselves to educate. Be to them as a parent, where
opportunity offers. All of us are liable to suffer, and arc constantly suffer
ing through the ignorance of what are called the lower classes, although
this effect of their ignorance is very generally overlooked.
3. Health.—Will ye ‘ take no thought for your health, what ye shall
eat and what ye shall drink; and for your body, what ye shall put on ? ’
Matt. vi. 25. On the contrary, study the laws which govern your body
and your mind. Make yourself well acquainted with the beauty of that
wonderful piece of mechanism, that temple in which you dwell and which
constitutes your ' self,’ and strive to preserve it in perfect health as your
most valued treasure—'that it may be well with you’ on this earth.
�20
Though Solomon’s finery, made by human hands, was not so wonderful
as the lily, yet Solomon’s body without any clothing at all was at least as
glorious, and so is your own naked body, as any lily of the field or any
other of the comparatively simple works of creation.
Do no injury wilfully to your own body, nor to that of any man or
creature. ‘ If thine eye cause thee to offend’ (Matt. v. 29 and 30) ever so
much, do not pluck it out; ‘ if thine hand offend thee,’ do not cut it off;
but keep both eye and hand, both body and mind, under proper control.
You cannot ‘cut off’ the real offender, your brain and will.
In the carelessness for health, we continually find the sins of the parents
visited on the children, as instanced by madness, gout, and other diseases
properly called hereditary. Without health you are incapable of doing
your duty, and you become a burden to those whom you ought to protect
and to comfort. Thus fasting is no duty to us. We must take the greatest
care to get good food, though never eating or drinking too much ; while if
we purposely eat or drink too little, simply to ‘ mortify the flesh,’ we do
an injury to our health, and thus do wrong.
Remember also that mind or soul and body are one. You cannot
separate what God has truly joined together. A strong and healthy body
enables the mind to act healthily. A weak body tyrannizes over the mind.
4. Conduct.—Form good habits when young. Think for yourself.
Study to do right. Do not be misled by the common notion that what
is called ‘ Conscience ’ is an intuitive ’faculty or gift at your birth which
will develope itself without effort on your part. As a child gradually
learns to stand upright, wholly unconscious of the slight mental and
bodily effort still necessary to sustain him in that position, so by the care
ful exercise and training of his moral and intellectual powers may a man
gradually learn to judge, almost unconscious of an effort, when he is act
ing uprightly or otherwise. Watch over this faculty continually so as to
keep it, like the rest of your bodily and mental powers, in an ever
healthy state. Be just; be industrious, frugal, and careful, thus avoiding
*
debt (understand by this word inability to fulfil your engagements) as the
greatest shame, and becoming a self-supporting member of the community
in which you live. Be sober, be temperate, be chaste, controlling your
passions and preserving your health; but if you are struck on one
cheek (Matt. v. 39) do not offer the other cheek to be struck. Or if
a man takes your coat (Matt. v. 40), do not let him have your cloak
also; of him that taketh away thy goods, do ask for them again (Luke
vi. 30). If a man wastes your time by making you walk a mile with him
* The reader is referred on this question to an able treatise, A Discourse on
Ethics of the School of Paley, by W. Smith, Esq. London, Pickering, 1839.
8vo, price 3s. Gd.
�21
(Matt. v. 41), do not add to his folly and your own by walking two with
him. On the contrary, and notwithstanding what is said in Matt. v. 39,
< resist evil ’ always to the best of your ability. If injured by another,
strive to have him punished, that his conduct may be amended.
Be considerate of the feelings and opinions of others; but still be not
frightened out of plainly expressing your honest convictions either from
false delicacy towards others who differ from you or from a fear of their
coldness or hatred. Never give way to anger in discussion. Be moie
particularly guarded when the question is a religious one, for here its very
importance is apt to excite. The inclination to anger may anse fiom
vanity rather than zeal for the truth, and should warn you that you are
possibly in error or have not mastered the subject.
Judge others, that in so doing you may learn to judge yourself. While
obeying the injunction, Mudge not, and ye shall not be judged; con
demn not, and ye shall not be condemned’ (Luke vi. 37), to the extent
of not blaming others where, as constantly happens, you cannot know all
the motives of their acts ; do not think that by judging leniently of others,
you will escape f judgment/ or the consequences of your own folly or
wickedness.
Moreover be not deceived! Justice may be, but mercy, in the usual sense
of the word, is not an attribute of that Great Power which governs and con
trols this world. Punishment, either direct or indirect, in the depriva
tion more or less of that state of well-being for which we are fitted, at
tends every breach of God’s laws, physical or moral. Neither ignorance
nor good intention can be pleaded with success. The infant that burns
its hand in the fire or falls out of window, suffers punishment, without
mercy. The man who swallows poison, believing it to be medicine—
and the man who, knowingly, drinks strong liquors in excess, equally suffer
for their acts ; and so does the man who gives way to his passions, whether
he has, or has not, had the advantage of a good education. For a
definition of what may in one sense be called mercy, we might quote the
Psalmist, ‘ Thou, Lord, art mercifdl; for thou rewardest every man ac
cording to his works/ Psalm lxii. 12. The true mercy shown is the gift
of reason, which enables us by care and foresight to protect ourselves and
our children from nearly all suffering. For the rest, we must be con
tented, seeing that all things are not possible even to a God. How can
we be free-agents, and yet be secured against all suffering from our own
acts and the acts of other free-agents like ourselves ?
5. Language, Truthfulness, and Oaths.—Strive for the greatest accu
racy in expressing yourself, and early teach your children the true mean
ing of the words they utter, and urge on them the importance of correct
expression. A child is often made unhappy from inability accurately to con
�22
vey its meaning; and through life what constant quarrels and misery, among
even those who ought to be nearest and dearest to each other, arise from
carelessness or inaccuracy in the use of language.
Speak the truth at all hazards ; but do not suppose it to be a duty to say
at all times every thing you happen to believe. When called upon in a
court of justice to give evidence, do not accept the direction "Swear not
at alP (Matt. v. 34) literally; but swear or promise in the way that other
men may think most binding on the conscience, even though you feel that
in thus doing you in no way increase your obligation to speak the truth,
and nothing but the truth.
6. Promises.—Keep your promises, unless in keeping them you are
committing a greater error than in breaking them; but to avoid the dis
grace of breaking a promise, be extremely guarded in making any pro
mises at all. You are not able to foretell what may happen, and you may
find you cannot keep rash promises. Who but the most infatuated would
now hold up Jephtha’s slaughter of his only daughter, on account of a
rash and superstitious promise, as any thing but a fouL murder, an abom
inable wickedness ?
7. Property.—Lay up for yourselves treasures here (Matt. vi. 19).
Take thought for to-morrow, so that you may be able not only to keep
yourself and your children from want and bodily suffering, and conse
quent ill health; but may have a surplus for those who through real mis
fortune, or mental or bodily incapacity, have need of assistance. Bear
always in mind that although two of us shall agree to ask something
(Matt, xviii. 19), it is not true that God will grant it merely for the asking.
Nor if, like fowls of the air, none of us sow nor reap, nor gather into
barns, shall we be fed as they (Matt. vi. 26) ; but we shall starve, and de
servedly so. Though God has clothed us with a body more beautiful
and complex in its structure than any lily of the field (Matt. vi. 28),
still his having done so is no reason for supposing that we shall have,
without proper exertions on our own part, proper clothing to protect us
from the inclemency of the weather. The lilies of the field want no
clothing; but you will die of cold unless you clothe yourself.
8. Charity.—Do not e sell all that thou hast and distribute unto the
poor’ (Luke xviii. 22); for if you do, you will only increase improvidence
and want. On the contrary, never ‘ give to him that asks you ’ (Matt. v.
42), merely because he asks you; neither give to the poor merely because
they are poor. Rather suspect that the beggar is an unworthy object;
and remember that the giving alms to such a one is a bad act on your
part (prompted by your own ill-regulated impulsiveness), for it is—not
�23
only an encouragement to idleness, but a discouragement to the industri
ous neighbour of that beggar, and increases the evil you thus thought
lessly try to remedy.
Neither purposely give your alms ‘in secret,’ relying on the promised
reward in Matt. vi. 4; rather attend to the instructions to ‘ let your light
so shine before men that they may see your good works ’ (Matt. v. 16).
Alms openly and judiciously given, will offer an example and encourage
ment to your neighbour to do likewise. Still give not alms ostentatiously
nor in expectation of praise or of mercenary reward here or hereafter. If
the knowledge that you are doing good to a neighbour is not a sufficient
reward, you must have been very badly trained as a child.
Probably the greatest real charity you can bestow is to assist in
having the children of those who are unable or indifferent, properly
trained and taught, so that ‘ they may learn and labour truly to get
their own living, and do their duty in that state of life’ in which they
may be placed, or to which they may attain by their own intelligence.
9. Observance.of Days.—Keep each day as holy as any other;—God,
in the only way we can see him, namely, in his works, works every day
alike ; He never rests. Vary your occupations, arrange them as may be
expedient (‘ all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expe
dient,’ St Paul in 1 Cor. vi. 12) ; but your work in life—working
righteousness—must be continuous as God’s is.
*
* Freed from superstitious observance of days as being one more holy than
another, such an institution as a periodical cessation from ordinary work
is eminently ‘ expedient ’ among a hard-working people, so expedient that as
mankind grows in wisdom neither the penalty of death enacted by Moses nor the
5s. fine of our modern legislation will be wanted to enforce it. The Sunday as a
day more particularly set apart by man for assembling together, either in public
or private, for worship, or for moral instruction and training, which if true must
be religious,—for family and social reunions and intercourse,—and for the enjoy
ment of healthy recreation, bodily exercise, and innocent amusement,—may be
an institution of the utmost importance for promoting the love of ourselves
and our neighbours.
We have to remember, however, that the real rest given by God to man is the
portion of time allotted to sleep. If it were not that man commits excesses in
labour, both mental and bodily, periodical days of rest would certainly not be
necessary, however enjoyable. A proper amount of labour judiciously varied in
its kind every day in the year would be quite as conducive to health ; but just
as a man, who commits excesses in eating and drinking all the week long, may
recruit himself by abstinence on one day in the week, so may we, in the present
state of society, be in every respect benefited by a cessation from labour.
Let us remember also that the artisan, shut out by the superstition of the age
from national museums, picture galleries, botanical gardens, and other places
�21
10. Idolatry.—‘ Little children, keep yourselves from idols’ (1 John
v. 21). Avoid Idolatry in any form, whether it be in making an idol of
one day over another, or of a book, of an idea, or of a man. Accept
a belief from no man. To adopt or to hold a belief because it is written
in a book, or because a man or a church, in olden times or at the present
day, declares it to be true, is idolatry and superstition just as much as to
fall down before a stone, a picture, a graven image, a piece of bread, or a
wafer, and worship it. Think for yourself, unfettered, and undismayed
by the fear of consequences, or by the knowledge that the multitude is
against you. If you wish for a saying of Christ in support of this, re
member the passage (Matt. x. 35), ‘ for I am come to set a man at
variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.’
If you thus obey the command to love yourself and your neighbour
alike, you will, in the only way possible to man, show your real love to
GOD, and you may truly say with the Deuteronomist—
‘The Lord our God is one Lord, whom we love with all our
heart, and with all our mind, and with all our strength.’
In conclusion, we would ask our Christian neighbours to think for
themselves, whether it would not be better to teach their children even
from such a code of Commandments as is here imperfectly sketched out,
than from those of the Jewish Decalogue. We would also ask them
whether they would not prefer that their children should, on their en
trance into the world, have some such plain and simple guidance for
their inexperience, in the place of solemnly binding themselves to believe,
most usually without pretence of understanding them, three Creeds, differ
ing one from another, and the present Thirty-nine Articles of our National
Church ? In the one case they will be free to use their God-given
faculty of reason; in the other, they will grow up under a crushing bond
age, slaves to a priesthood and their barbarous anathema, ‘ To doubt is
damnation ! ’
How can a Church be truly national, if it does not permit the widest
differences on questions of mere intellectual belief !
where he might have a chance of learning God’s ways to man—has a perfect right
to spend the Sunday in his ordinary employment, and far better will it be that
he should do so than in mere idleness.
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God's commandments according to Moses, according to Christ, and according to our present knowledge: a sketch suggestive of a new Westminster Confession of Faith for the laity of the 19th century
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by John Childs and Son. "Addressed to all who deem it their highest duty as well as right to "think for themselves" [Title page].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
N. Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1867
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5267
Subject
The topic of the resource
Presbyterianism
God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (God's commandments according to Moses, according to Christ, and according to our present knowledge: a sketch suggestive of a new Westminster Confession of Faith for the laity of the 19th century), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
God
Moses
Presbyterian Church
Westminster Confession of Faith
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9cd3c750c8110b71155eafe4a20b2d84.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PiNQGV1v7kTwbegvG69aDbQi4Nz36Z3CumtAFwpQKGQa3FRP7J5xalFpqPhgo9VONCdmP-vUYYY5RqmboO5eg8RH8fToGaJ3wsto69VWuS7F9OYEyI-OWSmNU1b1T-u7KAuI578dn9xndLN3dTBW2ltKcbroxt3-gmBeiKwg03iRXtg-Z8b5zMsgF1r%7ETdHUXf8%7EGJPmHTB%7Ey%7Ebibc6QeVYuahcYq4R2gScYC3Mc2pjrImKQ-Jc4%7EkblgAPY3wqTu9pv8sCrLyv4ht5j3wGmFWMYKu50JzsIMznk4vmQPs%7EXQLF63icCQOobj1QZ1RsilkR7wYMibiu6kys3Y5lhSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
51c24515f8ecc6b9d69d76e868a947a8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD AND REVELATION.
�PRINTED BY
ARTHUR BONNER, 34, BOU/VERIE STREET,
�PREFACE
The writer of the following pages does not for a moment
suppose that he has brought forward any fresh arguments
tending to throw doubts on the existence of a God who
loves and governs, or to discredit the belief in dogmatic
Christianity.
All that he has aimed at accomplishing is to set forth
in plain and unmistakable language the objections enter
tained to the popular creed by those who recognise in
nature not a supremely benevolent Creator, but rather a
Spartan mother, whose purposes may in the main be good,
but who seems to attain her ends by merciless means,
regardless of the sufferings of her children; and in revela
tion, the progressive thoughts of man in his strivings to
attain a knowledge of the infinite.
Nothing, assuredly, would give him greater satisfaction
than to be convinced of the existence of a Being who “in
perfect wisdom, perfect love, is working for the best”; but
after much anxious thought on the subj ect he is driven to
the conclusion that however much there may be in nature
which fosters and supports this view, there is much more
which discountenances and conflicts with it.
He is not, however, prepared to say that he would hail
with equal satisfaction the proof of the truth of the
�iv
PREFACE.
Christian revelation as enunciated from so-called orthodox
pulpits, or as taught in church creeds, or Westminster con
fessions of faith. And why ? Because it seems to him
that if it indeed be true that “ strait is the gate, and
narrow the way that leadeth to life eternal, and few there
be that find it”, then the prospect—and what a prospect!—
before all but a small minority is truly appalling: i.e., if
the popular theology be true.
Still it must be acknowledged that the question is not
one of liking or disliking, but one of fact to be determined
by the evidence available in the case. The second part of this
essay is therefore devoted to the consideration of the question
whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that
the Christian revelation, as generally understood and inter
preted, is a direct and stereotyped revelation from Almighty
God; and if not, whether those are to be condemned, who,
disregarding the moral law, act on the aphorism “Let us
eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die
�GOD AND REVELATION.
It is impossible for those who study the religious problems
of the day to avoid recognising the fact that, not only is
there an ever-increasing number whose views on religious
subjects widely diverge from our Church creeds—that
dogma is losing its hold on the educated class—but that the
very existence of the Deity is being called in question by
many highly-cultivated and thoughtful minds.
It seems to be generally recognised that the old Deistical view of the last century is no longer tenable, and that,
as a matter of fact, there is no logical halting-ground
between an infallible Church or book, on the one hand,
and complete—I won’t say Atheism, but—confession of
ignorance—on the other.
No doubt the existence of the Deity is strenuously denied
in some quarters—that is, the Deity of the popular theology.
The late Lord Eedesdale, not many years ago, in view to
the prevention of the admission of Atheists into Parlia
ment, strove to introduce a Bill, the preamble of which
ran as follows : 1 ‘ Whereas it is expedient that provision
should be made against Atheists taking part in the legis
lation of the country, be it enacted as follows : That from
and after the passing of this Act, every peer and every mem
ber of the House of Commons in taking his seat in Parlia
ment shall, before taking the oath of allegiance and subscrib
ing the same, in accordance with the provisions of the Act
of Parliament of 1866, make and subscribe the following
declaration, viz.: ‘I do solemnly and sincerely declare and
affirm that I believe in Almighty Cod’.” The Bill was very
properly rejected without a division, the then Bishop of
�6
GOD AND IlDVELATION.
London deprecating its introduction on the rather strange
ground that it would exclude Agnostics, whom he did not
wish to exclude, as well as Atheists, whom he did. And
the only interest the subject now evokes is that it affords
a curious illustration of the loose and inaccurate way in
which people sometimes express their thoughts. It does
not appear to have occurred to the author of the Bill that
any definition of the term was required, or that any possible
doubt could arise in anyone’s mind as to what he was
called upon to subscribe to.
“ I believe in an Almighty God.” These are momentous
and solemn words; but words are, after all, but intellectual
counters, and by no means invariably convey the same
meaning to all who hear them. What would an Agnostic
say to them ? Could he conscientiously make such a
declaration ? He might—the Bishop of London notwith
standing—for an Agnostic does not, so far as I am aware,
deny the existence of a Supreme Being. Though he may
say he does not know, he assuredly recognises some power
or force in the universe, to which in his ignorance he may,
if he be so inclined, apply the term “Almighty God”.
Nevertheless, a conscientious thinker not in accord with the
popular theology, if pressed for an answer, would probably
ask for an explanation of the sense in which the words
are used. He might fairly rejoin that people’s views differ
considerably as to the meaning of the term, and enquire
whether he was called upon to subscribe to a belief in the
God of the Old Testament; or in Matthew Arnold’s “power
which makes for righteousness” ; or merely in some un
known and inscrutable power which has proved adequate
to the production of all phenomena; or in the Deity
of Professor Plint, viz., a self-existent eternal Being,
infinite in wisdom, power, and holiness, righteous and
benevolent, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things
therein.
For the purpose I have in view, I shall assume that this
last definition describes the nature and attributes of the
Deity intended, and shall therefore now proceed to enquire
what evidence nature affords for the existence of such a
Being.
I must, however, start on my enquiry with an assump
tion, which, I suppose, no one. with whom I have dis
cussed these subjects will care to dispute, viz., that
�GOD AND REVELATION.
7
there is a power behind phenomena, by which all things
are sustained and governed. (Whether this power forms
part of the universe, or whether it is distinct from and stands
outside of it, as it were, and governs the universe, I do. not
know, nor do I think it would be profitable to enquire.)
This being granted, I shall at once proceed to the considera
tion of the question whether this power is intelligent, as we
understand the term, or merely mechanical or uncon
scious. The argument for intelligence or mind is briefly
this : We see and know that mind exists ; our own minds
and the minds of others with whom we are brought into
contact excludes the possibility of doubting the fact; hence
it may be fairly argued that as nothing but mind or in
telligence could have produced mind, the cause of our
known minds must have been an antecedent mind; or, to
put it in other words, “intelligent beings.now exist, but
as intelligent beings did not always exist, intelligence
began to be, but as nothing from nothing can come, as
intelligence cannot come out of non-intelligence, the cause
of intelligence or mind must itself have been intelligent ”.
Endeavors have been made to answer this in various
ways. Mr. Mill says: “If the existence of the human
mind is supposed to require as a necessary antecedent
another mind, greater or more powerful, the difficulty is
not removed by going back a step. The creating mind
stands as much in need of another mind to be the source of
its existence as the created mind. An eternal mind is simply
an hypothesis to account for the minds which we know to
exist. Now it is essential to a true hypothesis that it
should remove the difficulty and account for the facts, but
this it does not do.” And again, it has been argued that
we don’t know, or at any rate are not justified in dogmati
cally asserting, that nothing but mind could possibly pro
duce mind. Where is the proof, it is asked, that nothing
can have produced a mind excepting another mind, or that
intelligence must spring from pre-existing intelligence?
It has also been suggested that there may be, for aught we
know to the contrary, a power in the universe as much
transcending mind, as mind transcends mechanical force or
motion. Although we are totally unable to conceive such
a power, nevertheless we are told it may exist. The re
joinder is this: It is not intended to explain mind in the
abstract, much less to explain the existence of an eternal
�8
GOD AND REVELATION.
mind j what I have to account for is the existence of my
own individual mind, which I know to have had a begin
ning in time, and, though it may possibly be true that
mind, may be due to some other cause than mind, and
that intelligence may in some way or other have sprung
from non-intelligence, I have no right, by all the rules
of sound logic, to. resort to a remote or improbable hypo
thesis for a solution of the difficulty when a nearer and
more probable one is close at hand, viz., the hypothesis
that the human mind has been caused by some other mind
more powerful than its own; nor is the argument vitiated
because I can form no conception how the original mind
was formed, or whether it was even formed at all. While
admitting that it is not possible to demonstrate the exist
ence of an eternal mind, I yet hold that, looking at all
the. facts which come under our observation, it is much
easier to think, of the power which has given rise to all
phenomena as intelligent, than to think of it as non-intelligent, or as possessing some power superior to intelligence.
A power superior to and excluding intelligence is an un
thinkable hypothesis, and to assert the possibility of the
existence of something to account for a fact which we
know, that something being in itself unthinkable, is, it
seems to me, unnecessarily travelling out of our way to
encounter a difficulty.
. The argument for the existence of an intelligent power
is further supplemented by the argument from the exist
ence of life on this planet of ours. It is admitted, by all
who are competent to pronounce an opinion, that a time
was when life did not exist on our earth. Whence came
it then? As nothing from nothing can come, as life cannot
spring out of non-life, life must have been produced by
some pre-existing intelligent power. The whole force of
the argument depends on the truth of the premiss that life
requires, for its explanation, antecedent life; whether, in
short, nothing but life could have produced life.
That life has arisen out of dead matter has never yet
been proved. Bastian thought he had demonstrated the
fact, but his proofs were shown by Professor Tyndall to
be. fallacious. Tyndall, however, and other eminent phy
sicists do not deny that life may have arisen at some time
or other out of non-living matter. Nature’s laboratory is
very different from the chemist’s. The earth was at one
�GOD AND REVELATION.
9
time undergoing chemical processes which have no parallel
in the present day. Professor Huxley says somewhere:
** If it were given me to look back through the abyss of
time geological I should expect to see the evolution of
living from non-living matter.” And Tyndall writes:
** Evolution in its complete form postulates the necessity of
Ufe springing out of non-life, but the proofs of this
are still wanting.” Still however it is pretty clear that
Tyndall is himself a thorough evolutionist, believing not
only in the possibility of life springing out of dead matter,
but in the certainty of its having done so. Both these
distinguished professors with many others who think with
them may be wrong in holding such opinions; nevertheless
in the face of such authority we are not justified in dog
matically asserting that fife could not by any possibifity
have sprung out of non-life. Virchow, the great German
physiologist, even when rebuking Heeckel for his extreme
materiafistic utterances never ventured to assert the impossibihty of fife proceeding from non-living matter: . all
that he presumed to assert was that the proof of its having
done so is still wanting.
As pertinent to the present inquiry it may be asked
**h,ow did smallpox and other cognate diseases arise?”.
In the present day, and as far as our experience carries us
back, we know that they require for their development the
pre-existing germ, but how came this pre-existing germ ?
If you reply, it was latent in matter from the very commence
ment of things from the time the earth began to cool, and to
become fit for the abode of living creatures; then I rejoin,
life too may have been latent in inorganic substances, only re
quiring favorable conditions to bring it forth. One hypothesis
is about as difficult to grasp as the other. Bishop Temple,
in his Bampton lecture for 1884, says : 11 Then came a time
when the earth became ready for life to exist upon it; and
the life came, and no laws of inorganic matter can account
for its coming. As it stands this is a great miracle.” Here,
it appears to me, is an assumption without a particle of
proof; in other words our ignorance is employed to play
the part of knowledge. Because we do not know dis
tinctly, or even remotely, how an alleged transaction has
taken place, it is assumed that some miraculous agency
must have been at work to produce it! But this by the
way.
�10
GOD AND REVELATION.
If, then, it be admitted that life may have originated in
some other way than by creative intelligence, or by what
we call a miracle, the existence of life on the globe at the
present time does not materially strengthen the argument,
for the existence of a creative mind. Should it be re
plied that, admitting for the sake of argument, life did
spring far back in the world’s history from non-living
matter, a supreme power must have endowed non-living
matter with the power to develop the germ of life, I reply :
“ Certainly there must have been some power or force at
work to enable it to do so; ” and it seems difficult to avoid
the conclusion that this power possessed intelligence.
The next argument which may be adduced on behalf of
the existence of an intelligent creative power is the wellknown argument from design which Paley has so effectively
used. Whichever way we look, to the infinitely great or
the infinitely small, we may define the whole as of judicious
contrivance or design. Now design, argues Paley, predi
cates a designer, and shows that he who contrived or
designed things had consciousness or intelligence. Th®
answer is that in case of human contrivance or design, such
as the manufacture of a watch or a telescope, no doubt a
designer is predicated. But why is this ? Because we
have a prior knowledge that watches and telescopes are
made by. man. When the African traveller Campbell
shewed his watch to a group of savages, they started back
in alarm, conjecturing from the sound and motion of the
works that it was a living and supernatural thing. Like
the poor children of the desert, we, her more civilised sons,
attempt to explain the unknown by the known. We
have some experience, at any rate, of the laws which
preside over the action of physical forces, but we have no
corresponding knowledge of the relations existing between
a supreme Being and effects of nature of which we can
take cognisance.
Paley remarks : “I know of no better method of intro
ducing so large a subject than that of comparing a single
thing with a single thing: an eye, for example, with a
telescope. As far as the examination of the instrument
goes, there, is precisely the same proof that the eye was
made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for
assisting it. They are both made on the same principle,
both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission
�GOD AND REVELATION.
11
and refraction of rays of light are regulated.. For in
stance, it is necessary that the rays of light, in passing
through water into the eye, should be refracted by a more
convex surface than when it passes out of air into the eye.
Accordingly we find that the eye of a fish, in that part of it
called the crystalline lens, is much rounder than the eye of
a terrestrial animal.” “ What plainer manifestation of de
sign can there be”, asks Paley, “ than this dissimilai’ity ?
Paley, of course, attributes the difference of structure be
tween the eye of a fish and that of a man to the immediate
action of the Deity, manifested in special creation, whilst, as
the author of “ A Candid Examination of Theism” points out,
we in the present day are able to ascribe it to the agency of
certain laws, to wit, inheritance and variation, survival of
the fittest, and probably of other laws as yet undiscovered.
Again, Paley alludes, as evidence of design in nature, to the
ingenious mechanism of the venomous snake. Take the
cobra, for instance. The fang of the cobra is a perforated
tooth, loose at the root; in its quiescent state lying down
flat on the jaw, but furnished with a muscle which enables
the reptile to erect it. Ender the root of the tooth lies a
small venom-bag, the contents of which are replenished from
time to time. (How the poison is secreted is not known.)
When the tooth is in an erect position, and the animal is
ready to strike, the root of the tooth presses against the
bag, and the force of the compression expels the poisonous
fluid with a jerk through the hollow tooth into the minute
puncture made by its point. This is all exceedingly clever
and ingenious, no doubt; and if cobras had been created
with the deadly contrivance as we now see it, there would
have been some force in Paley’s, argument. But I sup
pose no naturalist would maintain this. Snakes and
creeping things, like everything else, have followed the
laws of evolution, and the ingenious mechanism which we
admire is the result of those laws. The truth is that the
theory of evolution, unknown or but dimly discerned, in
Paley’s day, has much weakened the force of the design
argument. It may, however, be remarked in passing that
although the evolution theory was then unknown, Paley
alludes to a system (apparently maintained by some in his
day) which he terms “Appetencies
A short description
of this system is that pieces of soft ductile matter, being
endowed with propensities or appetencies for particular
�12
GOD AND REVELATION.
actions, would, by continued endeavors carried on through
long series of generations, work themselves gradually into
suitable forms, and at length acquire, though perhaps by
obscure and almost imperceptible improvements, an organi
sation fitted to the action which their respective propen
sities led them to exert.
Paley, of course, makes short work of this theory, and,
anticipating the line of argument adopted by theologians
. our ownremarks: ‘ ‘ This theory coincides
with, the * Atheistic system, viz., in doing away with
the necessity for final causes”; just what was sa-id of
Darwin s theory about a quarter of a century ago.
Recently, however, it has been discovered (see Bishop
Temple’s Bampton Lectures for 1884) that the doctrine of
evolution redounds more to the honor and glory of the
Creator than its opposite—the special creation theory.
What would Paley have said to this, had a contemporary
of his own so spoken of the system of appetencies ? But
we are learning to know better, or rather the evidence for
the truth of evolution being too strong to be ignored,
theologians are beginning to discover that it is not only a
highly religious doctrine, but, most surprising of all, in
harmony with revealed religion. But this by the way.
The truth appears to be, that, if it could be shown that the
special creation theory were the true one, e.ff., that man,
with all his wonderful organisation, was specially created
as he now is, some six, or even 60,000 years ago (the time
matters not), then I think we must admit the force of
the design argument; but if, on the other hand, the
evolution theory in its extreme form be the true one, viz.,
that man has been evolved through countless ages from non
living matter, or even from a very low form of life, the
design argument is much attenuated, if not deprived of
all cogency. It seems to me, however, that when all is
said that can be said in favor of evolution, intelligence
must have, been at work in the beginning to set things
going, as it were. Take the case of the human eye for
instance. . It seems inconceivable how so delicate a struc
ture as this organ could have come into existence without
intelligence as its primal cause. Admitting that the eye
was. developed through countless ages by rays of light
impinging on the most sensitive part of the original
organism from which it sprung—or in any other way that
�GOB AND REVELATION.
13
evolutionists consider the feat was accomplished, the
question still remains, “ By what power or process was
the first impetus given?”. It is all very well to say, Given
force, matter and the law of gravitation everything must
have happened that has happened. But why must ? Who
gave the law of gravitation ? Does not a law point to a
law giver ? For my part, I think it much easier to think
of intelligence at the bottom of things than to think of
everything having arisen by unconscious mechanical law.
Probably Bacon was right when he said, “ I had rather
believe all the fables of the Talmud and the Alcoran than
that this universal frame was without a mind”; but there
is an immense leap from this admission to the conclusion to
which Paley seems to arrive in his 23rd chapter, when he
says, “ Contrivance, if established, appears to me to prove
everything which we wish to prove, amongst other things
it proves the personality of the Deity, as distinguished from
What is called nature, and sometimes a principle.” What
has been proved—or, rather, rendered highly probable—
is that the universe which includes and surrounds us is
th© life-dwelling of an Eternal mind; but when we proceed
to clothe this wondrous power with certain attributes,
which, we think, must necessarily belong to it, e.g., omni
science, omnipotence, perfect benevolence, holiness, and
the like, and invest it with a personality, then I assert that
the statement is not borne out by the facts coming within
our cognisance; but this point will be discussed further
on. In any case, if my argument hitherto has been falla
cious, it is of no great consequence as far as the purpose I
have in view in writing this essay is concerned; it is a matter
of speculative interest to me whether the world we inhabit
owes its existence to intelligence and contrivance, or to
certain forces or laws which are non-intelligent or uncon
scious.
What really concerns me to know is this: Whether a
Being exists with whom lamin any way enrapport-, whether,
in short, there exists an all-wise, all-powerful, benevolent,
and moral governor of the universe, who takes an intelli
gent and loving interest in the creatures He has brought
into existence. A Being such as this is generally postu
lated by theologians (though a judicial character is usually
assigned as well), and we are moreover told to think of
him, as a personal God. But it may be fairly asked, prior
�14
GOD AND REVELATION.
to discussing the evidence for the existence of a Being
possessing the attributes just enunciated, What is meant
by a personal God ? Press theologians on the point and
they give an uncertain sound. Many, doubtless, think of
God as a person—that is to say, a person with bodily parts
and organs like ourselves, and with a mental organisation
akin to our own—and I have no doubt that the earlier
Biblical writers so thought and spoke of God, and that
many so think of him even in the present day seems hardly
open to question; nevertheless, the educated portion of
mankind shrink from thus materialising the Deity, and yet
if you ask them what .they mean by a personal God the
answer is by no means clear. They may, and generally
do, define a personal God as a being without bodily orga
nisation, in whom cognitions reside and in whom volitions
flow; in other words, a Being who possesses a mental
organisation differing in degree from our own—one, in short,
who thinks, wills, and acts—but as we know or can know
nothing of mind apart from bodily organisation, the definition fails to enlighten us much. The fact is, when we
consider the matter closely it is by no means easy to think
of a personal God without thinking of him as a person.
We know nothing of personality apart from bodily organi
sation, and nothing is gained by defining a thing unless
you make it more comprehensible by the process. A defi
nition is not an explanation. I therefore hold that the use
of the term “personal God” is a misnomer. But setting this
aside as of no moment, what we want to know, as I have
said before, is whether the power by which all things
exist possesses any of the attributes I have enumerated^
whether it is possible to think of it, or Him, as in any way
caring for what He has brought into existence. This is
the real question at issue, in which I take a lively interest;
and I wish in the first instance to consider it apart from
any question of revelation, and to ask myself the question
—and if possible find an answer to it—whether nature
affords any evidence, and if so, what evidence for the
existence of such a Being.
The evidence generally adduced in support of the exis
tence of a moral being, or governor of the universe, is the
evidence afforded by the moral nature of man. It is said
that a cause cannot be less than its effects, and it is argued
that if a moral nature exists in man, it must have been
�GOD AND REVELATION.
15 .
implanted by a power higher than man, and the
Being who implanted it must also be moral. Now if it
be true, as it probably is, that all the moral feelings have
been evolved from the simple feelings of pleasure and
pain, inherent I presume in the lowest living organism, then
logically it is not necessary to credit an intelligent Being
—the author of all things—with possessing moral feelings
akin to our own, any more than it is to credit Him with
our vices. A cause need not be like its effect. It may be
as well in this connexion to quote J. S. Mill, and Professor
Huxley. The former says “there is not an idea, feeling, or
power in the human mind, which requires to be accounted
for on any other theory than that of experience”.
Huxley says “ with respect to the development of the
moral sense out of the simple feelings of pleasure and
pain, liking and disliking, with which the animals are pro
vided, I can find nothing in the arguments of those who
deny this to be so which have not been satisfactorily met ”.
I am not therefore prepared to admit that the moral nature
©f man proves the existence of a Being possessing analogous
feelings. There may, however, be a parentage for morals,
and it may consist in the endowment of every sentient
creature with the simple feelings of pleasure and pain, out
of which our moral feelings have been gradually evolved.
The moral nature of man and conscience are, if not inter
changeable terms, so closely allied, that the present question
will be elucidated by the consideration of what conscience
really is, and how far it is a reliable guide to our actions
in life.
Conscience is spoken of as the voice of God, in the soul
of man. Theodore Parker tells us that there is a small
voice within us, which if we obey will always guide us aright.
(The italics are mine.) Another writer, Mr. Armstrong,
says “ Let me tell you how it seems to me how I have made
acquaintance with God. I find that at certain moments
of my life there is that within me which I can best describe
as a voice—though it is but a metaphor—addressing me,
and largely influencing my conduct. I call the source of
that voice which I fancy speaks to me ‘ God ’. I call
the source of all those monitions and warnings which rise
within me ‘God’. I find when my mind is bewildered
and in doubt that somehow or other when I address that
Being there comes to my soul a clear, shining light, and
�16
GOD AND REVELATION.
I see things plainer and more beautiful than before. I
apply to him in pain and in sorrow, and the pain and
sorrow become light, and I am instantly assured that God
is there to comfort and console. I pray to him in weakness
when my strength fails, and what is the result: a new
strength comes to me.”
_ Now so far from denying the reality of these impres
sions, I am the first to admit their genuineness ; but I
believe they are the result of the reflex action of prayer on
the mind. A Roman Catholic prays to the Virgin Mary
(see Crown hymn-book) as well as invokes the saints, and
a new strength comes to him. The curate of Ars (whose
biography is one of the most interesting ever published)
was in the habit of spending hours on his knees invoking
his favorite saint, St. Philomine, and a new strength cam®
to him too. I have seen a Mahomedan criminal ascend
the scaffold, supplicating his prophet in his hour of ex
tremity, and assuredly a new strength came to him also,
and who can doubt that pious Hindus derive consolation
from invoking one or more of the persons of the Hindu
trinity ? This being so, I fail to see that Mr. Armstrong’s
argument is of much weight.
As regards what Theodore Parker says about the con
science, I observe that it may prick us when we act
contrary to what we believe to be right ; but unfortunately
it does not supply us with an index to what is right. It
may, and often does, lamentably err. A South Sea
Islander feels no qualms of conscience in killing and
afterwards eating his victim, nor a Thug in strangling his.
It is or was part of his religion to do so. Should tho
latter’s conscience prick him at all, it would be if, in a
moment of weakness, he allowed his victim to escape. As
Mr. Lecky has well observed, “ Phillip II. and Ferdinand
and Isabella of Spain—zealous Roman Catholics—inflicted
more suffering in obedience to their consciences than Nero
or Domitian did in obedience to their lusts.” One man’s
conscience leads him to Rome, and another’s to Geneva.
Calvin’s led him to burn Servetus, and the early Pilgrim
Fathers committed the most abominable cruelties in
obedience to their consciences, especially in the way they
dealt with reputed cases of witchcraft. Mrs. Gaskell’s
story of Loué the Witch is a true account of the horrible
atrocities that can be committed by upright and honorable
�GOJD AND REVELATION.
17
men. for conscience sake. In short, it seems a mere waste
of time to adduce arguments to show that conscience is an
uncertain and sometimes erroneous guide. It is a product
of the evolution of the human mind, and expands and
grows with knowledge and experience. We merely attribute
it to the still small voice to God because we already believe
j® a God. Those who have been brought up without any
Such belief have, of course, no feelings of the kind. As
the late G. H. Lewis remarked, “could we suppose a man
born with inherited aptitudes, left solitary on an island
before having had access to any of the stores of knowledge
accumulated by his race, he might acquire a rudimentary
knowledge of cosmical relations, although, without lan
guage or any access to the store of the experience of others
on which to proceed, there would necessarily be little in
him above that of an animal. Of mere intelligence there
Would not be a trace.” To such a person as here described
there would be neither moral intelligence or any conception
of a divine Being. To my mind the fact that conscience
is often a blind and misleading guide is a strong argument
against it being the voice of God speaking to us, as many
have declared it to be. Just conceive for instance, what
a tremendously powerful support for the existence of a
moral law-giver would be afforded if conscience were in
deed an infallible guide. If by simply inquiring within
we could ascertain the right or wrong of things, we should
then be able triumphantly to appeal without fear of con
tradiction to this circumstance as an irrefragable argument
for the existence of a moral law-giver.
It appears to me that the conscience argument, to prove
the existence of amoral Being with moral feelings differing
in degree only from our own, is not only of no moment, but
actually tells with some force against those who use it.
There are hundreds and thousands of people in the world
whose consciences are always pricking them for acts of
omission and commission of a most trivial character, in
which others of a more robust mental organisation see no
harm whatever. I repeat again, at the risk of being
accused of wearisome reiteration, that a certain line of
conduct, or mode of action, is considered right or wrong
according to one’s preconceived beliefs, arrived at partly
by inheritance and partly by education.
Mr. Armstrong remarks: “Conscience is simply the voice of
�18
GOD AND REVELATION.
God, which says, ‘ Do the right, do not do the wrong
It does not in any way say what is right and what is
wrong. That which I call the right, is the gradual develop
ment and evolution of history, and is largely dependent on
climate and other external surroundings. The idea of
right and wrong is purifying and clarifying in the course of
history. The conception of what is right and wrong is
better now than what it was a hundred years ago. Many
of the things then considered laudable are now considered
base, and vice versa.” Quite so. But why, then, persist in
calling it (conscience) the voice of God in the soul of man ?
Is it not rather the re-echo of our own beliefs, partly in
herited and partly acquired ?
It has been suggested to me that if the Ruler of the
Universe had made conscience an infallible guide in all
cases—alike to the ignorant savage and to the educated
man—this would have been to make him as it were a
God, knowing good and evil. As to this I cannot say;
but given a God—a moral Governor and Ruler of the
universe—who wishes to impress his law upon his
creatures, I see nothing absurd or contrary to reason in the
idea of his making conscience a true and infallible guide in
all circumstances, and in all our relations in lif e, alike to the
savage as well as to the civilized man. Under this view of the
case knowledge might be, as it now is, progressive, without
clashing with the prerogative of conscience. A savage
might be endowed with the innate idea that it was wrong
to steal or murder, without interfering with his capacity
for gradually acquiring a knowledge of the arts and
sciences. He might be left to his own devices in regard to
so small a matter as the preliminary knowledge required
for striking a light, and yet be intuitively aware that it is
wrong to scalp his neighbor.
So far, then, I have endeavored to show that conscience
is the result of several factors working together, and that
its prickings are not due to the working of God’s spirit in
the mind of man, but to natural causes, easily explainable,
and that invariably to follow its dictates may, and does
often, lead to grievous error.
Do I seem then to say that we are to turn a deaf ear to
the voice of conscience, when it tells us not to steal, or He,
or slander our neighbor ? By no means. Conscience is a
real thing, whatever may be its parentage. At any rate,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
19
W® know that amongst civilized, races there is not only
nowadays a tolerable unanimity of opinion that certain
acts are wrong and hurtful, but the higher minds amongst
us know that they are not only hurtful to the community,
but also to those who are guilty of them. This is true
whether we accept the utilitarian or intuitive theory of
morals. In a properly instructed and cultivated mind,
B violated moral instinct avenges itself in regret and
remorse. Is conscience to be treated as of no account
because we occasionally hear of startling individual aber
rations, or because when the race was in its infancy, or
more ignorant than it is at present, it (conscience) led men
to commit acts which we now look upon with horror? Cer
tainly not. The law of evolution holds good in morals as
in other things, and the conscience grows and expands in
the individual as it does in the race. But to pursue this
question further would carry me beyond the scope of this
essay; all I have endeavoured to show is that conscience
is not the direct voice of God in the soul of man, but the
product of the evolution of the human mind, and that the
existence of moral feelings in man is no proof of the
existence of similar feelings in the mind of the Deity.
The next, and to my mind most important, stage in the
discussion is, whether the intelligent power whose existence
we have shown to be highly probable possesses attributes,
such as perfect love, perfect wisdom, and unlimited power.
If he has not all three, the outlook for us poor mortals is
Hot very promising. If he possesses the two former without
the latter, however much he may have the will, he may
not have the power to help us; and if he possesses the last
only, without the two former, the case seems even worse
still. The subject is a very large, and, even amongst
orthodox theologians, a confessedly difficult, one to deal
with. The problem of course is how to reconcile the moral
and physical evil we see in the world with the existence of
a Being of perfect wisdom, perfect love, and perfect power;
Though the contributions to apologetic literature under
this head have been enormous, and would fill libraries, the
problem remains nearly as dark as ever, and the more
candid of the writers are obliged to acknowledge that it is so.
Curiously enough, Professor Rogers, with a very different
obj ectinview, permitshimself to write as follows in his answer
to Newman’s Phases: “He (God) sends his pestilence, and
�20
GOD AND REVELATION.
produces horrors on which the imagination dares not dwell,
not only physical, but indirectly moral, often transforming
man into something like the fiend, so many say he can
never become. He sends his pestilence and thousands
perish—men, women, and the child that knows not its
right hand from its left, in prolonged and frightful agonies.
He opens the mouths of volcanoes and lakes; and.boils
and fries the population of a whole city in torrents of
burning lava.” Professor Rogers, himself a Theist of the
orthodox type, supposes himself to be addressing Theists,
and his object is not of course, to disprove the existence
of an allwise and loving God (for that he takes for granted),
but to show that nature’s difficulties are just as great as
those of revelation. He argues, in fact, on the lines of
Bishop Butler and his school, that nothing in the Christian
revelation appearing to reflect on the goodness of the
Creator can really do so, while nature itself presents the
same if not greater difficulties. In other words, if a Being
of infinite love and infinite power can boil and fry a whole
population in burning lava, where is the difficulty in
believing that he will boil and fry thousands and millions
for ever and ever in hell fire. John Henry Newman also
asks, “ How can we believe in a good God when the
world is what we see ? ”, and yet he answers the question
somehow in the affirmative. It has been well said,
that such writers adopt a very dangerous course, and sug
gest more doubts than they solve. Admitting their
premises, it is not easy to deny their conclusions. If the
God of nature can be called very good, there is no reason
for denying that quality to the God of revelation, although
the vast majority of mankind will be tormented in hell for
ever. But does the world we inhabit afford satisfactory
evidence of goodness, as we understand the word? I am
by no means blind to the many harmonies and beneficent
arrangements to be found in nature. The sun rejoices
us with her light and warmth,1 the trees bear fruit for our
Use. The streams refresh us with their sparkling waters;
1 The earth receives but the 2,170 millionth part of the sun’s heat.
A little more, or a little less, would be fatal to the existence of life on
the planet. Were the sun’s heat doubled to-morrow we should be
exposed to a temperature of over 500 degrees; that is to say a heat
sufficient to melt lead, and to convert all the waters on the earth’s
surface into steam.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
21
thousands of forms of colors and sounds are blended into
combinations, which, varying for ever, are for ever beautiful.
The planet which we inhabit moves in regular course round
the sun at the rate of 1140 miles a minute, and this goes on
year after year, and yet no collision takes place. And so all
things proceed, as if a master’s hand were at work; but
look on the reverse side of the medal. I confess that I
recognise with something of the Pessimist’s view the
discordancies and malevolencies of nature. Appeal, if
you will, to the experiences of a city missionary, or medical
officer in a poor London dis .rict, and ask him what he has to
say to the miseries which come under his daily observation.
Multiply his experiences a hundredfold, and you will then
have but a faint idea of the sin, misery and wretchedness
existing in London during the short space of twenty-four
hours ; and London is after all but a very small portion of
the habitable globe. I have been reading an article called
il Poverty, Clean and Squalid ”, by Archibald Brown, an
East End clergyman, which makes one almost sick with
sorrow that such things should be. Here are a few extracts.
* ‘ Have you ever thought, reader, what it must be to wake of
a morning, not only without a shilling in the house, but without
an idea where to find one? To start the day without breakfast,
to tramp miles to find work, and then tramp miles back without
having got any—to see the wife take some of her scanty under
clothing to the pawn shop to get something for the children—
to battle with hunger until chairs, tables, blankets, and beds
have all gone in the conflict ? Have you ever grasped the idea
of the anguish suffered through those weary days ? and yet all
this and much more is being endured by thousands as I write.
Squalid poverty”—the writer adds—“is a revolting picture.
.... The blunting process has been complete. Hope has
died out, self-respect has been starved to death, and the man
and woman sink to the level of their surroundings. Whole
districts seem socially damned. The people corrupt one another
and drag one another down. My visits to such places are
generally made at night, with a box of wax vestas to find
where the stairs are, and light me into these dens, for I find it
better to visit them at night. But, oh, the squalor ! Dirt on
the floor, dirt on the walls, dirty rags on dirty people, and one
indescribable collection of filthy sacks and rotting rugs for the
Shake down or bed. Do you wonder if the people who reside
in such dens, live morally dirty lives and die squalid in soul
as well as body ? Under the coverlet of night what a ferment
ing butt of misery and muck lies simmering in London, A
�22
GOD AND REVELATION.
stunted moral and physical manhood is inevitably the result of
certain conditions of existence; so writes a scientist. His words
are true, and we have named the conditions. And to all this
misery must be added the slow starvation process which
thousands are undergoing, owing to want of the common
necessaries of life—food and fuel—augmented by the present
severe weather, which has now lasted more than a fortnight.
January, 1886.”
This is the actual experience of an East End minister,
remember, who has no object in exaggerating matters.
I would ask you to reflect for a moment on the amount
of misery which an all-powerful Being standing in the
relation of a father to his people might remove if he had
the desire to do so. Take the Indian famine of 1878-79
as an illustration. This was probably attended with a
greater amount of suffering than any other single event of
history. It is computed that four millions of souls perished
during its continuance. It was not only, it must be remem
bered, the mere physical pain of slow starvation that had
to be endured, but the more grievous mental torture in
volved in witnessing the sufferings of others—wives and
little children, tender babes at their mothers’ breasts, all
perishing day by day, and their natural protectors unable
to help them. And mark this: all this suffering might
have been prevented by a few seasonable showers of rain,
which came not, though prayers were offered up for them
week after week in all the churches throughout the length
and breadth of the land. Then try to realise in imagina
tion the sufferings of the early Christians under Nero, the
far more grievous tortures inflicted by the high priests of
religion on reputed heretics,1 the judicial burnings, hangings, and disembowellings that were committed for many
centuries in Europe alone—nay, the sufferings of the pre
sent day. I read the following in to-day’s newspaper:
“The snowstorm is making itself felt in more ways than
one. Not merely are our streets in a condition dangerous
1 Torquemada’s victims alone amounted to 114,401, and of these
10,220 were roasted to death. Spain’s total of victims done to death
hy the Inquisition amounted to 323,362. In addition, 3,000,000 of
Jews and Moors were expelled from her soil, and many thousands of
them died of privation. In the ninth century the Empress Theodora
put to death 100.000 heretics. 14,000 Huguenots at least were slain
in the massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
23
to life, "but there is in our midst a constant amount of
semi-destitution, to the miseries of which the snow must
be perfectly appalling...............At the present moment there
are, it is said, no fewer than 5,000,000 of men, women,
and children who are absolutely starving.’’—Jan., 1886.
But, after all, what is this compared with the sum-total
of suffering now existing in the world ? Beckoning the
population of the world at 1,200,000,000, it would be no
exaggeration to say that at the present moment, whilst I am
writing these lines, there are at least 10,000 human beings
undergoing the extremest amount of suffering that the
human body is capable of sustaining, longing for the
death that is so long in. coming, and many hundreds of
thousands, more probably, whose condition is not much
better. Why is all this suffering permitted, if a God of
infinite love and tender pity really reigns on high ?
Should I be told that the Almighty, having endowed man
with free will, is not responsible for the result, I reply, in
the first place I am not so sure of this. If the Almighty
is omniscient, it seems to me He is responsible; besides,
we haVe high authority for saying he is the author of evil
as well as good. In the second place, I rejoin that even
if I concede the point and admit that God is not bound in
justice to interfere in man’s inhumanities to man, how are
we to reconcile the great catastrophes of nature,, every
year claiming their hecatombs of victims, with the existence
of a God of love and mercy.
I have already instanced the Indian famine—one out of
many. I would cite the great Bengal cyclone of 1876—
and there have been several minor ones since—which
claimed its hundreds of thousands of victims.
Mr. Voysey instances the fire at Santiago., in Chili, in
1864, where a church was struck by lightning and des
troyed, containing 2,000 human beings in the very act of
prayer, most of whom perished by suffocation or were
burnt alive. Then, in 1881, an earthquake occurred at
Chio, in Asiatic Turkey, when in the town itself only fifty
houses were left standing, whole lines of streets having
disappeared. On all sides, we are told, from the ruins
were heard cries of distress, voices supplicating assistance,
which in most cases were in vain, the buried victims being
left to perish. In short, as a recent writer puts it, “Nature
impales men, breaks them on the wheel, casts them to be
�24
GOD AND REVELATION.
devoured by wild beasts, burns them to death, crushes
them with stones, starves them with hunger, freezes them
with cold, poisons them by quick or slow venom of her
exhalations, and has hundreds of other hideous deaths in
reserve, such as the ingenious cruelty of a Nero or a
Domitian never surpassed. All this Nature does with the
most supercilious disregard of mercy and justice.”
This thought has often occurred to me. If, indeed,
there is a. God who has a mind akin to our own, and
mercy and justice signify the same things with him as they
do with us, how is he able to bear the shrieks of thousands
of men, women, and childrenthat daily and hourly, from all
quarters of the world, ascend to the “mercy seat on high”,
and will continue to ascend as long as life endures ? Does
he experience any of the feelings that would arise in the
heart, of a .man ? If so, they must, humanly speaking,
exercise a disturbing influence on his mind. But to ask such
a question is to answer it. To imagine such a thing is to
introduce an anthropomorphic conception of the Deity which
is impossible to entertain. If, on the other hand, Dean
Hansel is right in asserting that with the Deity justice,
mercy, and goodness differ not only in degree, but in kind,
from the realities which go by these names amongst men,
then how can we possibly feel that we have a father in
heaven who is touched by our infirmities ? The problem
is insoluble from whichever side we view it, and we can
but echo back the poet’s mournful cry—we are but
“ Children crying in the night,
Crying for the light,
With no language but a cry
If we turn, to the brute creation, do we find a happier
state of things ? I trow not. Beneficent arrangements
are to be found no doubt, but what of the malevolences ?
Nature—as some writer puts it—has most elaborately
adapted the teeth, of the shark, the talons of the eagle,
the claws of the tiger, the poison-fang of the serpent, to
strike, to torture, and to destroy. Theologians have, of
course, made many attempts to justify the ways of God to
man as well as to the brute creation, and if they fail in
their efforts it is for no lack of ability in marshalling
their facts, but from the inherent weakness of the cause
they are defending.
�GOD. AND REVELATION.
The arguments generally adduced in explanation of the
evils of life are those I am about to consider. I am not
aware that there are others, though many of them, in the
hands of a skilful apologist, are capable of considerable
amplification, and may be made to look more plausible
than in the guise I am able to present them.
First, then, it is said :
(a) Pain is necessary for our protection and safety;
our very lives depend on our susceptibility to pain—e.y., if
falling down were not painful children would never learn
to walk upright; if contact with fire did not cause pain
a person might lose his life before even he knew that he
was being burned.
(¿) All our knowledge has sprung out of our pain ; our
sufferings have been a perpetual stimulus to our minds
to acquire knowledge. We should never have made so
much progress in the arts and sciences if we had not
experienced many tumbles in climbing the ascent leading
to knowledge.
(c) If there were no pain, there would be no pleasure.
None of us can compute how much of actual pleasure
is derived from contrast with pain. To enjoy pleasure
at all there must be alternations of pain. For instance,
a man after recovering from a severe attack of gout ex
periences by contrast a greater amount of pleasure than he
did before the attack commenced.
(rf) Pain enlarges our sympathies, and teaches us
patience; it excites some of the noblest faculties of the
human mind; there would be no sympathy and love were
it not for sorrow and suffering which called them forth.
(N.B.—This argument is susceptible of great amplifica
tion.)
(0) Pain and death are often the results of our own vices
and imprudences, and we have no right to expect the Cre
ator to intervene, for that would be to tamper with man’s
free will.
(/) Pain is much exaggerated; pain occupies a compara
tively small portion of a man’s life : the greater portion of
human existence is passed in painlessness, or in actual en
joyment; even in exceptional cases of a long life of pain,
the time after all is as nothing compared with eternity.
(y) Pain and suffering may be for our good, though we
�26
GOD AND REVELATION.
know it not. How many things which at one time were
thought to he evil, have turned out blessings ? It may be
argued that as human beings, full of tenderness and
compassion, especially parents, find themselves compelled
to inflict pain and sorrow on those they love; similarly,
our heavenly father may find it necessary to inflict pain on
those whom he loves, for their good.
(A) Pain or death is, after all, only the pain or death of
the individual: the mere fact of many hundreds or even
thousands being overwhelmed in the same calamity does
not increase the actual quantity of pain endured by each
individual. We have therefore no right to appeal to the
evidence afforded by a catastrophe like an Indian famine
or cyclone as an evidence of want of love, any more than
we have to a catastrophe in which one life only is involved.
On the contrary, it has been argued that a body of men
collectively meet death much more philosophically than a
single individual does.
(¿) Death after all may be nothing more than a change
of life under different conditions, and may prove a blessing
instead of a misfortune.
(/) Catastrophes, like a famine, or an earthquake, or a
pestilence, are in the long run beneficial to the human race,
as they decrease the population, which would otherwise
inconveniently increase, or they may serve other useful
ends, although we may be unable to discern them.
(&) Pain, as regards the animal world, is not so exces
sive as we imagine ; and in the case of animals it may be
intended to serve some good purpose. Paley says “it (mean
ing the destruction of animals by one another) is rather a
merciful arrangement than otherwise, as if the beasts
were left to die of old age, the world would be filled with
drooping, superannuated, half-starved animals, who would
linger and die after all a more painful death than if killed
by other animals ”.
Now, in considering the foregoing, it appears to me that
most of them are quite beside the mark. I am not pre
pared to argue that the existence of some pain in the
world is incompatible with the belief in divine beneficence.
We will take the case of a boy who, when climbing a tree,
misses his hold, tumbles to the ground, and sustains a com
pound fracture of his leg. This is very painful to him, no
doubt. But is the accident any impeachment of the divine
�GOD AND REVELATION.
27
love ? It is true that the law of gravitation might have
been altered in the boy’s behalf, or his bones might have
been made impervious to the shock, or he might have been
endowed with the foreknowledge of what was going to
happen, and so have been prevented from climbing the
tree. But because none of these things were done, shall
we impute a want of beneficence to the Deity ? Similarly
if I build my house over a cesspool, or sleep in the wind,
or do any other foolish act, have I a right to complain if
I suffer in consequence ? I think not. Experience will
teach me that nature’s laws cannot be defied with impunity,
and I shall if I am wise abstain from such acts in future.
Can, however, such horrors as the Indian mutiny, or the
seething mass of human misery that exists in every large
town all over the world, be disposed of by a similar line of
argument ? Not altogether. The innocent child when
tossed on the point of the bayonet of the mutinous siphaee,
before its mother’s eyes, was guilty of neither ignorance
nor folly. Similarly, the condition of many of our London
poor is owing to no fault of their own. An article by
Cardinal Manning, headed “ The Child of the English
Savage,” reveals a depth of cruelty to children which
Would be incredible were it not vouched for on the best
authority.
Charles Kingsley, writing of the Indian mutiny, says :—
“ I can think of nothing but these Indian massacres; the
moral problems they involve make me half wild. Night and
day the heaven seems black to me, though I never was so
prosperous and blest in my life as I am now. I can hardly
bear to look at woman or child. They raise some horrible
images from which I can’t escape. What does it all mean ?
Christ is king, nevertheless! I tell my people so. I should
do, I dare not think what—if I did not believe so. But I sorely
want someone to tell me that he believes it too.”
He may well ask the question, “ What does it all mean ? ”
if an omnipotent and benevolent Being rules the Universe!
Should I be told that man having been endowed with
free will, God cannot interfere to frustrate that free will,
though indescribable miseries may result from his non
interference, I reply, “ Suppose I admit the justness of
the argument—which I do not—there still remains the
great catastrophes of nature to be accounted for, which
have nothing to do with man’s free will. I see a column
�28
GOD AND REVELATION.
in this morning’s newspaper headed with the words
“ Disastrous floods; great destruction of life and property
all over Europe ”. Who is reponsible for these floods
and the miseries they have caused ? The details in some
cases are too harrowing. How are these things to be
reconciled with the existence of a God of love ? Man here
is passive. It is nature that is actively at work to
mutilate and destroy, and is not nature’s God responsible
for the result ? The argument adduced in (y) is quite inap
plicable to such cases of apparently ruthless barbarity. Pain
in certain cases may be beneficial, though in others it hardens.
But what has this to do with the wholesale slaughterings
of nature ? Again, the parallelism—even in the case of
ordinary every-day suffering—drawn between the acts
of an earthly and heavenly parent will not hold good.
It may be necessary for the former to inflict pain on his
children. But why ? Because he has, or thinks he has, no
other means of effecting his object. If he had, I should
maintain his mode was a cruel one. It is with him but a
choice between two evils. The case, however, is different
with a Being of unlimited power and with full choice of
means; and, therefore, to my mind, the one case affords
no analogy to the other.
The argument in (A) does not appear to me to be of
much cogency. We are rot considering the case of the
sufferer so much as the Being who caused the suffering. A
case of suffering where millions are involved, seems to me
to make the indictment all the heavier against the Being
who caused or permitted the suffering, than if one single
death only resulted.
In reply to (¿), I would remark that the explanation
put forward is purely hypothetical; such evidence as we
possess is insufficient to make it even probable. In the
first place, even if true, it fails to account for the difficulty,
for happiness conferred hereafter is not a sufficient justifi
cation for the infliction of torture here. If all deaths were
natural deaths, without pain and without suffering either
to oneself or to one’s belongings, there might be some
thing in the argument; and if it be indeed for a man’s
good to be removed to another world, why should it be
necessary, in the felicitous words of Professor Rogers,
to fry him first in red hot lava, or scald him to death in
boiling water, or to torture him by withholding the means
�GOD AND REVELATION,
29
of sustenance till he ¿Lies from exhaustion ? Besides,
looking at the case from another point of view, what
grounds have we for supposing that the sufferer’s condition
will be improved in the next world ? The teachings of our
orthodox pulpits point to a very different conclusion.
Should you reply, that we are not tied down to the ortho
dox view, and that you believe that “ good shall somehow
be the final gaol of ill”, I rejoin: “I cannot prove that
your optimist view is wrong, but judging from what goes
on here you are very unlikely to be right
After all, this
is only another phase of the blessings in disguise argu
ment. Mr. Voysey writes in this connection: “Though
the facts are beyond dispute, there is not a tittle of evidence
to prove any malicious, merciless, or cruel design, or any
criminal carelessness, on the part of the great destroyer;
on the contrary, there is everything to prove that since
death is a blessing to every individual as well as to the race [the
italics are mine], the slaughter of many thousands at one
time by the periodic or exceptional convulsions of nature
is a sign rather of benificence than of malignity ”, Every
thing to prove that death is a blessing! Well, in a sense
it may be. It may be better for those overwhelmed by
the calamities of life, to sink as Byron has it, into the
barren womb of nothingness, than to live out a life of
misery here; but this is not the sense intended by the
writer. He speaks of death as God’s messenger, sent to
call us to our home above. If it is so, where is the proof ?
And supposing for argument’s sake that it is so, is this
a sufficient justification for the infliction of ruthless cruel
ties here? The slaughter of many thousands a sign of
beneficence? The slow slaughter of 4,000,000 in the great
Indian famine a sign of beneficence! I will believe it
when the earth’s motion is reversed, or the stars fall from
heaven, but not before !
As regards (j). Here again we have an appeal to our
ignorance. Admitting that some ultimate benefit to the
race does come out of a catastrophe like the great Indian
famine of 1858-1859: is this an adequate excuse for its
infliction? Such lame and inadequate explanations are
to me simply exasperating. Surely we have a right to
expect a merciful and all-powerful Being to gain the desired
©nd by some less revolting means. It cannot surely be neces
sary to boil and fry or starve to death thousands of human
�30
GOD AND REVELATION.
beings in order that some good may result to the survivors'
Besides, why should nature require patching and mend
ing at all ? Does not this imply a defect in the artificer ?
Consider once more the immense amount of suffering
caused by the existence of venomous reptiles—snakes,
scorpions, centipedes, and the like—not only to man, but
to animals. Paley endeavors to make light of the afflic
tion. He says, in effect, that the bite of the rattlesnake
(he probably had not heard of the cobra) is not often fatal;
that they (venomous reptiles) are seldom found in places
or countries inhabited or frequented by man, and that if
man invades their territories, he must take the conse
quences. Of course this is utter rubbish. Around almost
every native village in India hundreds of venomous reptiles
abound, which invade the dwellings of the inhabitants and
cause much havoc amongst them. What would Paley
have said had he known that there are annually 20,000
deaths reported from snake-bite in India alone, and pro
bably many more unreported ! After this it were bathos
to say anything about the number of cattle, sheep, etc.,
destroyed by similar means. Is the existence of these
things in a world where man has not too much room for
his own needs, no impeachment of the divine love ? Do
they not rather make us question the beneficent arrange
ments in nature which theologians are so fond of parading
for our benefit ?
As regards the reply given in (¿), I observe that it
is miserably inadequate and untrue. It is not a fact,
within my experience, that animals suffer little pain in
their lives, or that their deaths are generally painless ones.
A pack of wild dogs only obey their natural instincts when
they hunt down a sombhur to death. A cat instinctively
tortures a mouse to death. The boa-constrictor often
paralyses his victim with fear before he embraces him
in his deadly coil. A hunting cheta commits terrible
havoc amongst deer and other ruminants. Rabbits
suffer greatly from the stoat and weasel tribe. It was
only this morning that, hearing a great cry (almost human
it seemed to me) as of an animal in pain in the plantation
behind my house, I went to see what occasioned it, and
found a stoat hanging on to the back of the head of a
young rabbit, the latter making frantic but unsuccessful
efforts to shake off its assailant.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
31
I have more than once witnessed, in India, a crow
pheasant manipulating a frog of the largest size, merely
tearing out and eating its entrails, the agonising croak
of the animal during the operation being horrible—far
worse than when in ordinary course, a frog is slowly
disappearing down the throat of a snake, or even a larger
frog. It was always a source of wonder to me that
nature should be so needlessly cruel. A dog takes a
positive pleasure in hunting down a hare. Cattle, both
in their domesticated and wild condition, suffer tortures
from the foot and mouth disease; numbers of animals
undergo lingering deaths from attacks of parasites; in
fact, wherever we look, we see more or less of suffering
in the animal world. I shall be told in reply that the
pain is more apparent than real. I see a writer in one
of the quarterly reviews cites several instances in support
of this view, asserting, that a leech may be divided in the
middle while it is sucking blood, and be so little dis
turbed by the operation that it will continue to suck for
some minutes afterwards ; that the dragon-fly will devour
its own tail and fly away afterwards as briskly as ever;
that insects impaled with a pin will eat with as much
avidity as when free and unhurt. It is stated that on one
occasion a scientific collector impaled a carnivorous beetle
with a pin, that it somehow managed to get loose, and, in
spite of the pin in its body, devoured all the other speci
mens in the case. The story of Dr. Livingtone and the
lion is pressed into the service of natural theologians.
That distinguished traveller relates that when he was
seized by the lion he felt no particular pain; that the
shock produced a stupor similar to that felt by a mouse
after the first shake of the cat. How Dr. Livingstone
could have been aware of the mouse’s sensations it is
difficult to say; but most people will, in spite of the
learned doctor, still continue to think that the mouse has
a very bad quarter of an hour indeed, after being seized
by a cat.
How far the other instances given by the quarterly re
viewer are correct I am unable to say; but no one doubts
that where there is feeble brain organisation and little or
no nervous system, there is correspondingly little pain ;
but all warm-blooded animals must and do feel acutely’
and the higher we ascend in the scale, the more suscepti
�32
GOD AND REVELATION.
bility to pain do we find. It is impossible for apologists to
deny all physical suffering in the animal creation, but they
try to minimize the amount as much as possible, asserting
that the pains are a trifle as compared with the pleasures
and enjoyments of life. This is a question which every
one must answer for himself—for my part, I am unable to
agree with the apologists, or to admit that, even if the
assertion be true, it is a sufficient explanation of the suffer
ings which none can deny. In short, let theologians argue
as they will, there is no denying the fact, as Physicus points
out, “that we stand in the midst of a wonderful and beauti
ful, but also of a terrible and cruel, world, and a world more
over inwhich pain and cruelty, the slaughter of the weak by
the strong, and their decay and death by their own imperfect
organization, are not accidental defects, but are of the
very essence of the development of life on the globe, and
go back ages before man’s appearance on its surface. So
far as life and the improvement of life are the outcome of
the struggle for existence, the organic world seems to have
its roots in suffering. In such a view evil is no longer to
be dismissed as a temporary incident, but as a tremendous
reality, bound up with the very constitution of things ”
I may be told that it is exceedingly presumptuous of me to
presume to sit in judgment on the acts of the Almighty,
and that I am not a competent judge in the matter. To
this I reply that I am not sure they are the acts of the
Almighty—certainly not of the Deity of Professor Flint—
besides, I am asked to pronounce an opinion, when the facts
of nature are favorable, and exhibit beneficent design (for
this is the whole scope and purport of writers of natural
theology), but when they appear unfavorable, or male
volent, I am told I am presumptuous if I dare to pro
nounce an opinion upon them. I am also informed that I
have not the necessary knowledge—and that if I were
behind the scenes—I should judge very differently. To
which I reply, that I am competent,—as far as my know
ledge extends,—to form an opinion on what goes on before
my very eyes, and to doubt my own competency in this
respect is like doubting the multiplication table because
I am ignorant of the differential calculus. Is it a mark
of reverence to say that black is white when black it
appears to me to be ? Besides, the argument, as an argu
ment, appears to be worthless, because it might be, with
�GOD AND REVELATION.
33
equal cogency, pressed into the service of a believer in one
of the Pagan Deities in justification of an act (which
appeared to us cruel or immoral) popularly assigned to that
Deity.
The author of “A Candid Examination of Theism ”
says :—
‘ ‘ If natural selection has played any large share in the
process of organic evolution, it is evident that animal enjoy
ment being an important factor in the natural cause must
always have been furthered to the extent in which it was
necessary for the adaptation of organisms to their environment,
and such we invariably find to be the limits within which all
enjoyments are confined. On the other hand, so long as the
adaptations in question are not complete, so long must there be
more or less suffering. Thus, whether we look to animal
pleasures or animal pains, the result is just what we should
expect to find on the supposition of those pleasures or pains
having been due to necessary and physical, as distinguished
from intelligent and moral, antecedents ; for how different is
that which is, from that which might have been. Not only
might beneficient selection have eliminated the countless species
of parasites which now destroy the health and happiness of the
higher organisms ; not only might survival of the fittest, in a
moral sense, have determined that rapacious and carnivorous
animals should yield their places to harmless and gentle ones ;
not only might life have been without sickness, and death
without pain ; but how might the exigencies and the welfare
of species have been consulted by the structures and habits of
One another.”
t
Is it any explanation of the mystery to be told in reply
that our knowledge is partial, and could we but see the
whole, the objections would probably disappear?; or is
the difficulty minimised by the contention that we are
looking at a work which is not yet finished, and that the
imperfections we see may be a necessary part of a large
but yet only partially carried out design? I think not.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a favorite one with theo
logians ; but it convinces no one. Besides, the great catas
trophes of Nature can hardly be called imperfections.
Furthermore, supposing that the miseries of life do possess
an occult quality of promoting good in the far off future :
what then ? Does the end, according to our moral code,
justify the means ? Hidden good often conies out of
human misdeeds and crimes, but that does not prevent
�¡4
GOD AND REVELATION.
them from remaining misdeeds and crimes ; and, in like
manner, if in the order of nature good comes out of the
mass of misery and injustice with which the world teems,
that does not lessen the significance of the fact that the
method by which the supposed good is attained is a method
of misery and injustice.
Should I be told, as I have been told before now, that
all the misery which surrounds us, physical and moral,
is the result of the transgression of our first parents, I
reply that the difficulty is only removed one step farther
back. The Creator of the Universe, supposing him to be
all-powerful and possessing all knowledge, is equally
responsible for the result. Besides, as regards the brute
creation at any rate, the earth has yielded up her secrets,
and we know that animals existed, preyed upon one
another, and died, under much the same conditions as
they now live and die, ages before man’s appearance on
the globe.
In concluding this part of my essay, I would quote the
words of a living Roman Catholic writer, not because they
by any means afford a satisfactory explanation of the diffi
culties I have been considering, but because the writer
sees, as clearly as I do, the malevolences of Nature, and
because also his explanation is largely imbued with the
merciful spirit of the age, which seems to find expression
in the words of Lord Tennyson :—
“ Behold we know not anything ;
We can but hope that good shall fall
At last far off—at last—to all,
And ever winter turn to spring.”
The writer referred to says :
“ I can no more reconcile the evil and misery in the world
with the existence of a bénéficient creator than you can.
It is one of those overwhelming and heart-piercing mys
teries that encumber human life. But is not the Christian
explanation upon the face of it more reasonable than any other ?
Sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and does not the
teaching of all religions echo back the eternal law ? Here of
course we all throw back upon another of those unsolved and
insoluble mysteries that surround men on all sides—the mystery
of free will, as to which I do not see how we can get further
back than St. Augustine’s teaching ; that a world m which a
moral order or period of probation was established, wherein
�GOD AND REVELATION.
35
rational creatures should work out their own eternal destiny by
their own merit, is more excellent than one containing no such
order, and that the existence of the moral order implies liberty
to sin, as a concomitant of liberty to do right.”
And, adds the writer—
“ of this I am confident, and it seems blasphemous to doubt it,
that the eventual condition of every soul will be such as is best
for that soul—the best that is possible for it, as being what it
is, and what it has made itself to be. This is the larger hope,
which we may not only faintly trust but assuredly believe—the
one ray of light in the great darkness.”
This is all very well as far as it goes, and is a remark
able admission, as coming from a Roman Catholic,1 but
the mystery of free will affords little assistance to the mind
overwhelmed by the great catastrophies of nature, or aghast
at the apparently needless sufferings of the brute creation.
In truth, the mystery is, as Mr. Lilly himself admits, in
soluble.
The conclusion of the whole matter appears to be
this. To one who, on independent grounds, say on the
dictum of an infallible church, or an infallible record, be
lieves in spite of indications in nature to the contrary, in
an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-merciful Deity, it may be
possible to avoid facing the dilemma, and to rest content
with the assumption that the two horns of the dilemma
may be made to meet, in some inconceivable way ; but in
the absence of such grounds, and should he care to exercise
his reasoning faculties at all on the subject (a task he is
invited to undertake by the numerous writers on natural
theology from Paley downwards), he can hardly avoid the
conclusion that the power which the universe manifests to
him is non-infinite in its resources, or non-beneficent in
its designs.
1 Very different from the view taken by the Rev. Father Furness
(a Roman Catholic writer), who speaks of hell being paved with the
skulls of infants only a foot long.
�PART II.
I have said, it may be possible for one who on indepen
dent grounds, believes in the existence of an all-powerful,
all-wise, and all-inerciful Deity, to avoid facing the
dilemma, etc. ; but, on carefully considering the matter,
it seems questionable whether any authority whatsoever
would suffice to win our intellectual assent to a proposition
which is, as I believe, contradicted by the evidence of our
senses.
Moral and physical evil confront us on every side—much
of it probably remediable—but much more entirely beyond
our control, for which the Creator of the Universe is
directly responsible. Nevertheless, in spite of this fact,
if we are satisfied that He has made a revelation to man,
we must believe that in some way or other He cares for
the creatures He has brought into existence (else why
would He make a revelation at all?). He may not be allpowerful, or He may be deficient in benevolence ; never-.
theless we may be sure that He exists, and we are bound
to accept what He has been pleased to reveal to us—and
reject it at our peril—provided always that we are satis
fied that it emanates from a Being who governs the world.
There are some who assert that they know intuitively
that God exists (as Theodore Parker expresses it, the
voice of God in the soul of man), but they only arrive
at this conclusion because they have imbibed the idea
at some period or other of their lives. If a child of
Christian parents were taken away from its home when
only a few months old, and brought up by a race who had
no ideas of God, or a future state, the child would remain
as ignorant as its foster parents of these beliefs. It has
been said that no races or tribes exist whose minds are a
complete blank in regard to the existence of a Supreme'
(36)
�GOD AND REVELATION.
37
Being. Be this as it may, it is beyond dispute that the
Ordinary savage’s religion (if such it can be called) consists
merely in a belief in a Fetish or Devil of some kind,
whom he seeks to propitiate by offerings and sacrifices,
but this is a very different thing from a belief in. an
intelligent Personal Governor of the Universe—-a conscious
Supreme Power with whom we can enter into personal
relations.
Further, some of the acutest minds of this or any other
age, lack any such intuitive knowledge. They, it is true,
acknowledge some power or force in the universe—an
eternal energy from which all things proceed—but confess
their utter ignorance of its attributes. I think, therefore,
we must dismiss the idea that God has intuitively revealed
himself to mankind.
As regards the evidence afforded by nature for the
existence of a Supreme Being, I have already discussed
the question in the first part of this essay, the conclusion
arrived at being that there is reasonable evidence to. esta
blish the existence of an intelligent Power, but that is all.
We must therefore turn to revelation, and examine the
evidence on which it rests, in view to ascertaining whether
it affords us reasonable grounds for believing that it
emanated from a Being who rules the universe, who is
also all-powerful, wise, and good. Although history.records
more revelations than one, I shall content myself with con
sidering the Christian revelation, being willing to accept
Paley’s dictum, that if the Christian religion (that is the
revelation of the Christian religion) be not credible, no
one with whom we have to do will support the pretensions
of any other.
Paley, after supposing or assuming more than he has
any right to assume, asks, “Under these circumstances, is
it improbable that a revelation should be made ? Suppose
God to design for mankind a future state, is it unlikely that
he should acquaint him with the fact ? ” To which I
reply, By no means; but then I deny the premiss on which
the whole argument is based. We have no right to assume
certain alleged facts, viz., the existence of a Moral Governor
and Ruler of the Universe, who designs a future state for
man, and then to argue from these facts for the probability
of a revelation. I conceive the more legitimate way of
dealing with the question, if we are to argue at all on
�38
GOD AND REVELATION.
probabilities, is to take the Christian revelation as it
stands, and then ask ourselves the question, Is it probable ?
What, then, is this Christian revelation ? or of what does
it consist ? If I read my Bible correctly, we are told that
some six or seven thousand years ago (the time is of no
great consequence) the Almighty planted a garden in Eden
(wherever that may have been); and there caused a fullgrown man suddenly to rise out of the ground, endowed with
intellect, speech and conscience ; that this man being cast
into a deep sleep, an incision was made in his side, from
which a woman was formed; that after a time the woman
—in spite of God’s injunction to the contrary—beguiled by
a serpent, partook of the fruit of a particular tree, and
persuaded the man to do so too, m consequence of which
act of disobedience, they (the man and the woman) were
driven out of the Garden of Eden, and made to work for
their daily bread. That Adam lived for 930 years, and
begat children,1 but his descendants become so hopelessly
bad, that God regretted that he had made man, and deter
mined to destroy both man and beast from the face of the
earth, excepting Noah and his children, and their wives
and families; and this intention the Almighty carried out
by means of a flood, which covered the whole earth—that
is to say, all the high hills that were under the whole
heaven—and so all life was destroyed except Noah and his
family, and the beasts that he had taken with him into
the ark. Nevertheless, this wholesale purification failed
to improve the moral character of man, for the race lapsed
into wickedness again, till at length, after some thousands
of years, God, according to a purpose which he had formed
before the foundation of the world, incarnated himself in
the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the
Trinity, who, after a ministry of about three years (query:
was it one?) on the earth, was crucified by the Roman
1 Charles Bray says :—“ For God to make a Paradise out of which
he knew his new-made creatures would be very shortly driven, was a
mockery, a delusion, and a snare. But it may be said that Eve must
have been left free or there would have been no virtue in resisting-.
What, left free to destroy herself and all her race ? Surely no such
fatal gift could be safely entrusted to so frail a creature, particularly
as God knew perfectly well how it would all end. And then, again,
if on the day of her disobedience she had surely died according to
promise, no great harm would have been done, for she would not then
have brought a curse on her whole posterity.”
�GOD AND REVELATION.
39
Power, at the instigation of the Jewish nation, but with
the foreknowledge and consent of God the Father, m
order that he (Jesus Christ) might be a propitiation
for the sins of the whole world; in other words, that the
first person of the Trinity might consistently, with his
attribute of justice, forgive the sinner, who accepted the
second person of the Trinity as his Saviour. As Milton
says:—
“ Man losing all,
To expiate his treason had nought left
But to destruction, sacred and devote,
He with his whole posterity must die;
Die he, or justice must,
Unless some other able and as willing pay.
The rigid satisfaction death for death.”
This, or something very like it, is the revelation which
we are called upon to believe. I ask is it prima facie
probable? I am not denying that it possibly may be
true; all I say is, that it is not the sort,of story that
commends itself to our intelligence. Tertullian says of it:
** Credo quia incredibile,” that is, u I believe it because it
is too improbable for anyone to have invented it.” At any
rate, it is not too much to say that the whole story of the
creation of man, the deluge, and the ark, conflicts not only
with the scientific knowledge of the present day, but the
doctrine of the atonement (softened down though it
may be by modern apologists) with our sense, of right
and wrong; for how, it may be asked, can it consist
with justice to allow guilt to be transferred from the
guilty to the innocent ? I do not say it is all impossible;
all I do say is, that before we give in our adhesion to the
story, we are entitled to demand the strongest possible
evidence that God has really revealed it. Paley sajs .
“ I remember hearing an unbeliever say that if God, had
given a revelation He would have written it on the skies.
Allowing for metaphorical language, I think He would.
'Were an earthly potentate to send a messenger to his
subjects charged with a message improbable in itself, but
of paramount importance; the contents of which, if ueglected, would entail utter ruin upon them, and their
descendants, we are entitled to say that it would be
incumbent upon him so to accredit his messenger, that no
reasonable doubt be left in the minds of any of his
�40
GOD AND REVELATION.
subjects as to his (the messengers) authority and mission.
Similarly, I think we are entitled to expect an equally explicit attestation of the heavenly message.
Paley observes that if the evidences of revelation were
overpowenngly strong, it would have the effect of restrain
ing our voluntary powers too much, and would call for no
exercise of humility and faith. It would be no trial or
thanks, he says, to the most sensual wretch to forbear
sinning if heaven and hell were open to his sight The
same line of argument has only to be used in the hypo
thetical case I have cited above, to show what nonsense it
amounts to The fact is, not only is faith magnified above
its deserts, but it is put m the wrong place. If God has
unquestionably spoken, reason is silenced. It is super
seded by faith.
But the question is whether God has
spoken, and until that question is decided, there is no
legitimate scope for the exercise of faith. To do so before
would be to make faith and credulity interchangeable
terms. Take the incarnation of the Supreme Being This
is a mystery which my intellect cannot fathom, but I
rightly accept it on faith, if I am sure that it has been
revealed Similarly, as regards the Romish doctrine of
transubstantiation, my intellect may be quite unable to
fathom. the mystery of the transformation of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but if I
believe the doctrine to be taught by divine authority, then
1 am bound to accept it on faith; and so again a Mussulman
is morally bound to accept the Koran as his rule of faith,
in spite of its inherent improbabilities, if he is satisfied that
it has.been written by the inspiration of the Almighty •
but it is too much to ask him or anyone else to exercise faith
th\mAssage 'before he is satisfied that God has spoken
through Mahomed, in the pages of the Koran. And so it
X T/eRrd to the Christian revelation. If I am sure
i d-iG0™8 ®poken either through the medium of an In
fallible Church, or in the pages of the Bible, I bow my
head, and accept the revelation he has been pleased to
make; but I must know first of all that he has really
spoken, or else I shall only be guilty of credulity in
accepting it.
As I shall probably be told that sufficient evidence
does exist to convince any reasonable person that the
Christian revelation is a direct revelation from Almighty
�GOD AND REVELATION.
41
God, I shall now proceed to consider the question, as
'briefly as I can.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church claims not only
to be the true Church of God, the infallible interpreter of
God’s revelation to man, “ but the depository of a mass of
unwritten tradition handed down in unbroken succession
from the time of St. Peter (the alleged first Bishop of
Rome) to the present day, which it is incumbent on its
followers to believe. It is also very exclusive, for it teaches
that none beyond its pale can be saved.
Admitting that it was within the compass of divine
power to have communioated to the world the certitude
that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true and
infallible Church ; as a matter of fact, such a communica
tion has not been made. The Roman Catholic Church may
claim to be the mouthpiece of Almighty God, and the
Pope, his vice-regent on earth, but when we ask for her
credentials, she has none to show. She may appeal to the
Bible and tradition, but it is obvious, that to those who
believe neither in the infallibility of the one, or the truth
of the other, this is no proof at all. If we meditate upon
her past history, we shall hardly be tempted to take her
word for her assumptions. Her previous character is too
bad. It is impossible to deny that she is directly respon
sible for the horrors of the inquisition which claimed their
hundreds of thousands of victims. She, or rather the head
of the Church, ordered a medal to be struck in commemo
ration of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. M. Bouzique
writes :—
“Of all the persecutions which the Roman Catholic Church
has carried on against religious liberty in France, none has a
more odious character than that which followed the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. The crusades against the Albigenses,
the slaughter of the Vaudois, the massacre of St. Bartholomew
itself, may in part be referred to the barbarousness of the time,
but the Dragonades surpasses them all in horror.”
The history of French Protestantism, from the end of
the seventeenth century to the end of the eighteenth,
presents one long history of bloodshed and horror. The
same writer remarks :—
“ The Protestants of every condition, age, and sex, given up
as a prey to the violence of a fanatical soldiery, to the hateful
�42
GOD AND REVELATION.
passions of the Roman Catholic clergy, had to suffer all the
afflictions and tortures, all the horrors and infamies that could
be devised by the grossest brutality, united to a cruelty the
most exquisite.”
The whole of this system of robbery, brutality, and
murder, which ancient paganism cannot parallel or ap
proach, Jiad its source in three base authorities—Louis
XIV., Pere la Chaize, his confessor, and Pope Innocent XT.
The latter, instead of interposing his1 authority to put a
stop to these horrors, writes to his obedient son, Louis XIV.,
on the subject of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, as
follows :—
“Our very Dear Brother in Jesus Christ,—Among all the
illustrious proofs that your Majesty has given of your natural
piety, there is none more striking than the truly worthy zeal of
the.most Christian King, which has led him to revoke all the
ordinances rendered in favour of the heretics of his kingdom,
and the provision he has made by very wise edicts for the pro
pagation of the orthodox faith; as we have learnt from our
very dear son, the Duke d’Astrees, your ambassador at our
Court. We have thought it our duty to write to you this letter,
in order to. give an authentic and durable testimony of the
eulogies which we bestow on the fine religious sentiments which
your spirit manifests ; and to congratulate you on the load of
immortal commendations which, by this last act, you have
added to all those which, down to this time, render your life so
glorious. The Catholic Church will not forget to mark in its
annals so great a proof of your devotion to it. I will never
cease to praise your name. But, above all, you may safely
expect from the divine goodness the reward of so fine a resolu
tion, and to be assured that for that result we shall continually
put up the most ardent prayers to that same goodness. Our
venerable brother the Archbishop of Fano will say to you the
rest, and in cordial earnestness we give your Majesty our
apostolical benediction.
“ Given at Rome the 13th November, 1685.”
And this from a man who professed to be a follower of
Jesus Christ, and the head of God’s infallible Church on
earth!
. At the time when the act of revocation was issued, the
king was living in adultery with Madame Maintenon, who
had not long succeeded her predecessor in adultery,
Madame Montensan. A worthy son of the Church
indeed!!
�GOD AND REVELATION.
43
The sale of indulgences, under the authority of Leo X.,
was a disgrace to any church, and was one, if not the chief
cause, that brought about the reformation. A certain
dealer in indulgences (Bernardin Sampson) unblushingly
declared he could forgive all sins, and that, heaven and
hell were subject to his power. He maintained that he
could sell the merits of Christ to anyone who could buy
them for ready money. He boasted of having levied
enormous sums from the poor as well as the rich. Did the
Pope take any steps to stop this blasphemy ? No; he
directly encouraged it, in order that the money so levied
might replenish his exhausted coffers. A worthy follower
of Christ indeed !!
In 1493 Pope Alexander VI. issued a bull laying down
the axiom that the earth was fiat. In the 13th century
Pope Boniface VIII. interdicted dissection as sacrilege..
The Church burnt Giordano Bruno for promulgating
the opinion that the earth revolved round the sun. Galileo
narrowly escaped the same fate, after being harried and
worried to death’s door, and made to recant his so-called
errors.
Not only have many of the Popes been grossly
immoral in their lives—some of them, for instance the
Borgias, monsters of iniquity—but they have been the
determined enemies of all progress, as well as of civil and
religious liberty; even so recently as the reign of the last
Pope (Pius IX.) a syllabus was issued, the 78th
and 80th propositions of which declare, “ Cursed be he
who holds that in Catholic countries the free exercise of
other religions may laudably be allowed, or that the
Roman Pontiff may, or ought to come to terms with
progress, liberalism, and modern civilisation.”
For my part I share the opinion of those who hold that
the Roman Church only lacks the power to be as great a
tyrant over the liberties and consciences of the people
as she has been in the days of the past; and that were
the Roman Catholic religion predominant over the
length and breadth of the land, real progress would be
impossible.
As Dr. Beard says, in answer to the Bishop of Salford,
‘1 You bring a bad character with you. You revive memories
most adverse to your claims. You speak as a lamb now,
but if you gain power, you will resume your inborn pro
�44
GOD AND REVELATION.
penalties, and become the very wolf we expelled from
England many years ago.” Does anyone donbt that this
would be so ?
Again, the Church prides herself on her unchangeable
ness ; she declares that her teachings have been the same
yesterday, to-day, and will be the same for ever. But this
is not true. As Dr. Beard says, “Without denying the
fundamental truths of Christianity, she disfigured and
mutilated them so as to render them scarcely recognisable.
The unchangeable Church changed every century, until
she had transmuted the simple and sublime religion of Christ
into a complicated mass of unparalleled absurdities.”
Boman Catholics would probably deny this, but I ask
them, Was not the Bible a sealed book which laymen were
forbidden to read ? Is it, or is it not true, as Dean Stanley
says, that the Eucharist was up to the 13th century ad
ministered to infants in the Roman Catholic Church, and that
total immersion was also practised by the same Church up to
the same period ” ? If true, does the practice exist now ?
Recently we have had the doctrine of the Infallibility of
the Pope added to the list of beliefs which the Roman
Catholic Church imposes on the consciences of its followers,
to say nothing of the immaculate conception of the Virgin
Mary.
If it be asked how it is that the Roman Catholic Church
has satisfied the consciences and claimed the allegiance
of such men as Newman and Manning, who were once
aliens from its fold, I reply, “ I cannot say, further than
this, that there is no accounting for religious beliefs ”.
With Newman, I suppose his logical mind saw the necessity
for an infallible interpreter of God’s word. If I understand
his. writings correctly, he seems to say that there is no
logical halting place between Atheism on the one hand and
an infallible Church on the other. I do not dispute his
immense learning and his dialectical skill, but what is it
all worth when he is ready to surrender his intelligence
and judgment to a belief in such an absurdity as the
miracle of the liquifaction of St. Januarius’ blood ? I have
not his “Apologia” by me to refer to, but I distinctly
remember when reading his controversy with Charles
Kingsley, that while admitting that any Roman Catholic
was justified in rejecting the miracle if he chose, he
(Newman) thought it rather more likely to be genuine
�GOD AND REVELATION.
45
than otherwise I1 Putting Newman aside, why do the
Popes permit such a jugglery as this to take place
year after year if they really are what they claim
to be ?
Others there are again, who, tormented with doubt, seek
rest for their souls in the arms of an infallible Church.
They allow their intellects to go to sleep, that their hearts
may have food, and comfort, and rest. Once make the
final plunge, and everything else is so easy! The Romanist
points to the 140 sects into which Protestantism is divided,
and asks triumphantly, “ Can the truth be here ? ”. The
Church invites its hearers to come to it, and promises
them a solution of all their difficulties. If only you can
believe in the one infallible Church, your difficulties may
be made to vanish. How much depends on that little
word “ if ” !
I have referred to the lives and teachings of the
Popes as evidence against the claims of the Church.
I think this is important, because we must not forget
they are selected by the whole body of the Cardinals after
solemn prayer that their choice may be guided aright. Is
it credible that if the Almighty had really established a
visible church on earth, he would have permitted the election
of such creatures for his viceregents as many of the Popes
have been, e.g., Paul II., Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII.,
Alexander VI., and Julius II.—some of them steeped
in every form of vice known to the most depraved
imagination?
I have said that the Roman Catholic Church appeals to
the Bible and tradition in support of its claims. But
allowing, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is
inspired, can the Church’s claim to be the head of Christ’s
Church on earth be made out from it ? Mr. Spurgeon,
than whom, I suppose, no one has a better textual
acquaintance with the Bible, evidently thinks not, for he
1 Since writing the above, I see from an extract from the British
and Foreign Evangelical Review that Newman says, “ I think it impos
sible to withstand the evidence which is broughtforward for the liquefac
tion of the blood of St. Januarius, and for motion of the eyes of the
Madonna. I firmly believe that portions of the true cross are at Rome
and elsewhere. I firmly believe that relics of the saints are doing
innumerable miracles daily. I firmly believe that the saints in their
lifetime have before now raised the dead to life.”
�46
GOD AND REVELATION.
permits himself to write as follows of the Roman Catholic
Church:
“We think too much of God’s foes, and talk of them with too
much respect. Who is this Pope of Rome ? His Holiness ?
Call him not so, but call him his blasphemy, his profanity,
his impudence I What are he and his cardinals and his legates
but the image and incarnation of Anti-Christ, to be in due
time cast with the beast and the false prophet into the lake of
fire?”
Mr. Spurgeon may not be a competent authority on the
claims of the Roman Catholic Church, but no man
knows the Bible better than he does, and he certainly
fails to find any support for the Church’s claim in its
pages. Besides, he is not exactly alone in his opinion,
though the use of such forcible language may be quite
exceptional.
What, then, is an individual of average intelligence
to do who is in search of a belief ? To embrace the
Roman Catholic religion; to cast in his lot with Mr.
Spurgeon, or any other of the numerous dissenting bodies;
to join the English Established Church as by law esta
blished ; or to associate himself with Mr. Voysey’s Free
Church; or with the Unitarian body? It were hard to say,
i.e., if he insists on having a definite creed of some kind.
Excepting the Romanists and the Theists (in which I
include the Unitarians), most churches hold that the Bible
contains the sole rule of faith. I shall therefore proceed
to consider the claims that it has to be considered the
infallible word of God. Before doing so, however, it may
■be as well to notice some, at any rate, of the different
theories that have been formulated from time to time in
regard to the inspiration of the Bible. In my younger
days one, and only one theory was generally admissible,
viz., that the writers of the several books of the Bible
were mere amanuenses, writing at the dictation of the
Holy Ghost, and that no mistakes were possible; in other
words, the theory maintained was that of the verbal and
plenary inspiration of the Bible. You hear it still in
almost every orthodox dissenting chapel in England ; it is
the doctrine taught by evangelists of the Moody and
Sankey type; it is held by the Salvation Army, but it is
losing its hold on the educated portion of our orthodox
divines.
�GOD AND REVELATION.
47
The late Dr. Baylee, one of the first Hebrew scholars of
his day, and a man of very considerable intellectual
ability, whom I had the pleasure of meeting when he
filled the office of Principal of the Birkenhead Theological
—Training College, says in a manual written for the use of
his students :
“ The Bible cannot be less than verbally inspired—every word,
every syllable, every letter, is just what it would be had God
spoken from Heaven, without any human intervention. Every
scientific statement is infallibly accurate—all its history and
narratives of every kind are without any inaccuracy.”
The late Bishop of Lincoln, when Canon Wordsworth,
used almost identical language, but I have not his book to
refer to. Burgin writes, “ The Bible is none other than the
voice of him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of
it—every chapter of it—every syllable of it—every letter of
it, is the direct utterance of the Most High ” ; and scores
of other writers might be quoted who use almost identi
cally the same language.
The uneducated masses who believe in the Bible at aH
hold this view, but of late years the ground has shifted a
little, and educated and cultivated minds, influenced un
consciously perhaps by the liberalism of the age no less
than by the advancing tide of knowledge, have to some
extent broken away from the old moorings. We hear less
nowadays of verbal and dynamical inspiration of the Bible,
and more of the human element it contains.
The view taken by Dr. Harold Brown, Bishop of Win
chester, is this : '
“ The inspiration claimed for the Bible is infallible so far as
it relates to things pertaining to God, and fallible in matters of
history and daily life. Thus, some portions of the Bible are
given by organic inspiration, God Himself speaking through
the medium of man’s organism; other portions are simply the
expression of the author’s own sentiments, it may be under the
influence of a general inspiration, or by the exaltation of his
natural faculties.”
The difficulty, adds the Bishop, of enunciating a definite
theory of inspiration, consists exactly in this—in assigning
the true weight respectively to the Divine and human
elements. And a difficulty it remains, for the learned
Bishop does nothing to clear it up ; he leaves us with a
Bible containing a mixture of fallible and infallible state
�48
GOD AND REVELATION.
merits, and tells us that those statements which refer to
God—which are just those we have no power to test the
truth of—are the words of Almighty God himself; and
that those statements referring to natural phenomena, of
which we are capable of judging (at all events, to some
extent) are simply the opinions of the writers, and there
fore fallible. The conclusions of such men as Cardinals
Newman and Manning are logical. The believer in a
special infallible revelation, if he be rational and logical,
is driven to find an infallible interpreter for his infallible
book.
The Rev. M. F. Sadler, Prebendary of Wells and Rector
of Honiton, (belonging to the Evangelical School) writes:
“There are undoubtedly great difficulties attending the enun
ciation of any clearly defined theory of inspiration—as, for
instance, whether it is verbal, plenary, or dynamic; whether
all the various books of the Bible were written with equal
divine assistance. Whether all parts of it have the same
authority for all purposes, as, for instance, whether all its state
ments may be quoted with equal confidence on matters of
doctrine, matters of fact, matters pertaining to civil history or
natural science. Again, the question of inspiration is practically
allied with considerations respecting the present state of the
text of the original—its translation and its interpretation.”
He goes on to say:
“ God must have exercised such a superintendence both over
the minds and pens of the Evangelists that they are to be
implicitly relied upon for the account they give of Christ.
The exact nature of the superintendence we may be unable to
define, but that it was of such a sort as to enable the children
of God to exercise unbounded faith in the narrative, as giving
them a reliable view of the person, work, power, and pretensions
of Christ seems beyond doubt. What we are as sure of as our
own existence is that if there be any Holy Ghost, he was in the
four men (the Evangelists) cognisant of, and taking into account
every sentence they wrote, superintending and controlling
every plan they formed, recalling to the memory of two, if not
three, the partially forgotten words, or their source ; so ordeiing
that the Church should have need of all of them, and not be
able to dispense with any one of them, and, what is more, not
be able to weave the fourfold story into one, but each must be
read separately, one by one, one after another, so that each
child of the kingdom may have the more deeply engravened
on his heart every divine lineament of the features of the king
in his beauty. In order to do this, the inspiring divine intelli
�GOD AND REVELATION.
49
gence in the Evangelists so order matters that they are not
exempt from mistake of time, and place, and arrangement. Even
if they are so exempt, that exemption is to us as if it were not,
for we cannot reconcile their seeming discrepancies, and never
shall in this world. But these very discrepancies, and diver
gencies are under the cognisance of the Holy Spirit, distinctly
permitted by him, inasmuch as they were not corrected, but
allowed for manifold purposes, as, for instance, in avast number
of cases, to assure us that we have the true meaning—one report
supplying the comment to the other; in other cases allowed, I
believe, for the express purpose of preventing our weaving the
four narratives into one, and so cheating our souls of that
multifold realisation of Christ s personal life which is in the
sight of God of such moment to our spiritual life.”
This seems to me great rubbish; but the writer at any
rate recognises and admits very freely the human element
in the Bible, but his mode of accounting for its being there
is truly wonderful.
Mallock, the author of “ Is Life worth Living ? writes
as follows :
” What then has modern criticism accomplished on the
Bible ? The biblical account of the creation has been shown
to be, in its literal sense, an impossible fable. Stories that were
accepted with a solemn reverence seem childish, ridiculous,
grotesque, and not unfrequently barbarous; or if we are hardly
prepared to admit so much as this—this much at least has been
established firmly—that the Bible, if it does not give the lie
itself to the astonishing claims that have been made for it,
contains nothing in itself, at any rate, that can of itself be
sufficient to support them. This applies to the New Testament
just as much as to the Old, and the consequences here are
much more momentous. Weighed as mere human testimony,
the value of the Gospels becomes doubtful or insignificant. For
the miracles of Christ, and for his superhuman nature, they
contain little evidence that tends to be satisfactory and even
his (Christ’s) daily words and actions it seems probable may
have been inaccurately reported, in some cases perhaps invented,
and in others supplied by a deceiving memory. When we pass
from the Gospels to the Epistles, a kindred sight presents
itself; we discern in them the writings of men not inspired
from above, but with many disagreements amongst themselves,
and influenced by a variety of existing views, and doubtful
which of them to assimilate. We discern in them, as we do in
other writers, the products of their age and circumstances; and
if we follow the Church’s history further, and examine the
appearance and growth of her great subsequent dogmas, we
�50
GOD AND REVELATION.
can trace all of them to a natural and non-Christian origin.
Two centuries before the birth of Christ, Buddha is said to have
been born without a human father. Angels sang in heaven to
announce his advent; an aged hermit blessed him in his
pother’s arms ; a monarch was advised—though he refused—to
destroy the child, who, it was predicted, should be a universal
ruler. It is told how he was once lost and found again in the
temple, and how his young wisdom astonished all the doctors.
His prophetic career began when he was about thirty years
old, and one of the most solemn events of it is his temptation
in solitude by the evil one. And thus the fatal inference is drawn
that all religions have sprung from a common and earthly
root.”
J
And these reflections emanate from sincere believers in
Christianity, the last only being a Boman Catholic, whose
aim and purpose are doubtless to exalt authority at the
expense of the Bible ; nevertheless, in my opinion, there is
much truth in his contention.
In this connection Mr. Gladstone remarks :
“ It is perfectly conceivable that a document penned by the
human hand, and transmitted by human means, may contain
matters questionable, uncertain, or even mistaken, and yet may
by its contents as a whole, present such moral proofs of truth
divinely imparted, as ought to command our assent and govern
our practice.”
This is, of course, quite possible, but the question is whether
it is true; and if true, how are we to ascertain where the
human elem ent ends and the divine begins ?
I will now pass on to consider what claim the Bible has
to be regarded as divinely inspired.
Let us consider the Old Testament writings, in the first
instance.
We have in the first and second chapters of Genesis an
account of the creation, which, if true, would no doubt go
far to convince us that the writer of that portion of it, at
any rate, was under the inspiration of the Almighty when
he wrote it. Now nothing in polemical writing has struck
me more forcibly than the discussion between Mr. Gladstone
and Professor Huxley on the cosmogony of Moses, which
has lately appeared in the Nineteenth Century. Does any
human being gifted even with a minimum of ratiocinative
power, doubt for a moment on which side the victory lies?
Is not Professor Huxley’s last reply perfectly crushing?
�GOD AND REVELATION.
51
For my part I was under the impression that the question
‘1 whether the cosmogony was or was not opposed to the
conclusions of science ” had been definitely settled nearly a
quarter of a century ago by one of the writers of that now
almost forgotten book, “Essays and reviews,” but it
appears I was mistaken, for of late the question has cropped
up again, but I believe only to result in the further dis
comfiture of the reconcilers.
A Dr. Einns has during the last year or two been lec
turing and writing on Genesis. His book fell into my hands
some little time back, and the impression it left on my
mind was that though it contained some interesting facts in
natural history, it utterly failed in its purpose, which was
to shew that the Mosaic record of the creation was scien
tifically correct. Judge therefore of my surprise on reading
some rem arks of the Lord Chancellor at the conclusion
of a lecture on Genesis, delivered by Dr. Kinns.
Lord Halsbury said:
“ It was a matter of congratulation that a man like Dr. Kinns
should be able to show that the Bible and the words of science
had in them the same inspiration. Philosophaters—for they
could not be called philosophers—spoke of Dr. Kinns as having
no right to speak on such subjects as science; but all the first
men of science were with him.’’
Is this so; or, rather, is it not absolutely false ?
Professor Huxley in his later article remarks :
“ My belief is, and long has been, that the Pentateuchal story of
the creation is simply a myth. I suppose it to be an hypothesis
respecting the origin of the Universe which some ancient thinker
found himself able to reconcile with his knowledge of the
nature of things, and therefore assumed to be true.”
And is not this opinion endorsed by the vast majority of
scientific thinkers ?’
Professor Drummond, the author of “Natural Law in
the Spiritual World,” and orthodox, I believe, as ortho
doxy goes, says :
“ That the championship of a position (by Mr. Gladstone), which
many earnest students of modern religious questions have seen
1 I see that Professor Dana, the American geologist, states it to be
his opinion that the first chapter of Genesis and science are in accord.
It would be satisfactory if he informed us how he arrived at this
conclusion.
�52
GOD AND REVELATION.
reason wholly to abandon, cannot but excite misgiving’s of a
serious kind,”
°
and adds:
“ To theological science the whole underlying theory of the
reconcilers is as exploded as Bathybius.”
The present Bishop of London takes somewhat different
ground in his Bampton lectures for 1884. He says:
“It is quite certain that the purpose of revelation is not
to teach science at all. Where the creation is mentioned,
there is clearly no intention to say by what process [what!] it
was effected, or how long it took [what!] to work out the
process.”
The obvious reply is, that although the purpose of reve
lation may not have been to teach science, nevertheless we
should expect facts—whether intended to teach science
or not—when stated in an inspired record, to be cor
rectly stated, if mentioned at all—not for instance,
that grasses, herbs, and fruit trees were created, or
brought into existence, before there was any sun by
which their life might be vivified and supported. Later
on the Bishop speaks of the narrative as an allegory,
though he is careful to add that there is nothing in the
allegory that crosses the path of science. If this means
that. the statements put forth are scientifically correct,
nothing can well be more inaccurate, and the Bishop must
feel that this is so, or else why should he emphasise the
fact that the purpose of revelation is not to teach science ?
Dr. Temple apparently does not feel himself able to
deny the truth of the theory of evolution, even in regard
to man, for he says :
“His (man s body) may have been developed according to the
theory of evolution, but at any rate it branched off from other
animals at a very early point in the descent of animal life,”
and adds, in conclusion,
We cannot find that science, in teaching evolution, has yet
asserted anything that is inconsistent with revelation, unless we
assume that revelation was intended not to teach spiritual truth, but
physical truth also. [The italics are mine.J
I would ask, what is the use of adding this note of caution
if the evolution theory is not opposed to scriptural teach
ing as regards the creation of man and animals ?
�GOD AND REVELATION.
53
Surely this sort of argument is worse than useless. The
question is whether the Bible states fact or fiction.
Apologetic Christian writers nowadays for the most part
turn their attention to the task of showing that the
Darwinian theory (which is now too well established for
them to put on one side) is not Atheistic ; they argue in
fact that this theory redounds more to the honor and
glory of the Creator than does the older theory of special
creation. A recent writer observes :
“The attitude of orthodoxy towards the new discoveries in
science goes through three stages. First we are told that they
are false and damnable (this is exactly what we were told of
the Darwinian theory of descent some 20 or 25 years ago);
next that they are deserving of cautious examination; lastly,
that they are, and always have been, matters of general
notoriety, and are without any bearing whatever on religion
or morality.”
The theory of evolution is rapidly passing into the third
stage.
But apologists forget that the question isn’t whether this
(the Darwinian) theory does away with the necessity for
a first cause, but whether it is not vitally opposed to
the revelation of the Bible. Dr. Temple thinks not, on
the ground apparently that revelation was not intended to
teach physical truths. Not intended to teach physical
truths indeed! But this is not the question. It is whether
the story of the creation of man and animals, as narrated
in Genesis, is opposed to what we now know to be true.
As Mr. Laing observes :
“ It is absolutely certain that portions of the Bible, and those
important portions relating to the creation of the world and of
man, are not true, and therefore not inspired. It is certain that
the sun, moon, and stars, and earth were not created as the
author of Genesis supposes them to have been created.”
And as regards man, we have good reason for believing
that he has progressed from a state of the rudest savagery
towards civilisation and morality, and that his existence
dates back probably to the last glacial period—probably
200,000 years. This being so, how can these facts be
reconciled with the theory of Adam’s fall, which is the
foundation of the whole superstructure of redemption and
regeneration ?
�54
GOD AND REVELATION.
If, however, anyone should deny, as possibly he fairly
may, that man’s great antiquity has not been proved, I
would ask him to turn to the first chapter of Genesis, and
see whether it be possible to square the theory of the evo
lution of man, and animals with the statement of their
mode of creation in Genesis. If he can do this, he will
have performed little short of a miracle.
It is all very well for Dr. Temple to remind us that the
object of the Bible is not to teach us science, and that
where the creation of man is mentioned, there is clearly no
intention to say by what process this creation was effected.
As I have already pointed out, when questions involving
science are touched on in an inspired narrative, we should
expect them to be correctly stated; and that when we read
that man was created a living soul about 6,000 or 8,000
years ago, endowed with speech and intellect; that state
ment does not mean, and cannot mean (unless words have no
meaning at all) that he was, countless ages back, evolved from
some lower form of life, and gradually progressed from the
rudest savagery to his present comparatively high state of
civilisation. The special creation theory, or the evolution
theory (either the one or the other), may conceivably be
true, but it is only trifling with language to maintain that
they are not fundamentally opposed to one another; and
to assert that the Biblical account of the creation is in har
mony with the Darwinian theory is, in my opinion, to talk
nonsense.
Mr. Gladstone does not even touch on the question as to
whether the creation of man, as stated in Genesis, is in
accordance with scientific knowledge of the present day :
all he attempts to show is that the fourfold division of
animated creation, as stated in Genesis, viz.:
1. Water population ;
2. Air population;
3. Land population of animals ;
4. Man;
is substantially correct.
But Professor Huxley shows that this is not even the
case.
It is not, however, merely in regard to the story of the
creation alone that we are unable to signify our assent.
There are many Biblical stories which, while they cannot .
be demonstrated to be false (like the story of the creation,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
55
for instance), are almost more incredible, e.g., the story of the
universal deluge and the ark, and the many impossibilities
the narrative involves. Also such stories as the following.
(1) The plagues of Egypt (Exodus iv.). Moses casts
his rod on the ground, and its becomes a serpent; on
seizing it by the tail, it becomes a rod again.. The repe
tition of the miracle before Pharaoh and his servants;
and, most strange of all, the ability of Pharaoh s .magi
cians to perform the same wonder ; and then the climax :
Moses’ rod (serpent, I presume.) swallows up all the others.
(2) The extreme improbability, not to say impossibility,
in its physical results, of the story narrated in Genesis xix.,
33 to 36.
.
(3) Samson catches 300 foxes and ties their tails to
gether, with a firebrand between each (Judges xv., 4), and
sends them amongst the Philistines’ corn, to destroy it.
(4) His slaughter of a thousand men with the jawbone
of an ass (Judges xv., 15).
(5) The raising up of Samuel by the witch of Endor
(1 Sam. xxviii.).
(6) The cursing in the name of the Lord by Elisha of
mocking little children who knew no better, and the
destruction of forty-two of them by bears in consequence
(2 Kings ii., 24).
(7) The story of the building of the tower of Babel, and
the reason assigned for the confusion of tongues.
The list might be extended almost indefinitely, but cm bono?
If these miracles are credible, others of the same nature
are so too; if not, it is only a waste of time to add to
their number.
It is not that I deny the possibility of divine inter
ference in the affairs of men, but many of the miracles
of the Old Testament have an air of grotesqueness
about them, that stamps them as mythical. Is any
thing gained by calling them parables, as Mr. Laing
apparently does ? or allegories, as they are termed by the
New Jerusalem Church ? One can at any rate understand
the utility of some of the New Testament miracles as a
manifestation of God’s power, and as evidence of the
divine mission of the person who performed them ; but
this explanation will not hold good with regard to many,
at any rate, of those related in the Old Testament. .
Whatever else may be true—whatever theory of inspira
�56
GOD AND REVELATION.
tion we may hold—we know that these wonderful narra
tives did not and could not have happened as related ;
and. ah the persuasive eloquence of the most eminent of
Christian apologists will hardly persuade us that they did.
But do they believe them themselves ? I can hardly credit
it, though it is difficult to say what a man may not believe
if he gives his mmd to it—Cardinal Newman being an
instance in point. Then, again, does any human being
not tied hand and foot to traditional modes of
thought .believe that the Almighty held those long
conversations with Moses related in the 25th and
following chapters of Exodus, or that he was turned
from his purpose (Numbers xiv., 12) because of the
arguments of Moses (verses 13 to 16 of the same chapter) ?
I know it is the fashion to say, ‘ ‘ Oh, these words don’t
mean that: they mean something else ” ; but if words have
any meaning at all, they mean here exactly what they say.
The very idea is inconceivable ! How are we to explain
it. all ? Will Dr. Harold Brown’s theory meet the case,
viz., that the Bible is infallible as far as it relates to God,
but fallible in matters of history and daily life ?
There is another difficulty in regard to accepting the Old
Testament as the word of God, and that is the difficulty of
recognising parts of its moral teaching as having emanated
from a God of holiness and purity. I have by me the
Rev. J. H. Titcomb’s lecture on this subject, published at
the request of the Christian Evidence Society. He says:—
‘‘No one can possibly shrink more than I do from these
divine injunctions which the Old Testament records concerning
the massacre of whole cities and peoples. I stand in imagina
tion amidst those scenes of terrific slaughter, and as I listen to
the shrieks of helpless women and children, mercilessly sabred
and speared, I lift up my eyes to heaven, and exclaim, ‘ Can
this be thy work, O merciful Father ? Surely, oh surely, these
murderers have mistaken their self-barbarity for a divine
commission I ’ ”
‘ ‘ Such, I suppose, ’’ the writer adds, 1 ‘ are the first instincts of
every feeling heart in this day of nineteenth century civilisa
tion.” Well, how does he get over the difficulty? In this way.
The nations thus given over to slaughter were hopelessly
conupt (an assumption which I notice all Biblical apolo
gists make, without much evidence to support it), and
therefore it was the most merciful course to annihilate •
�GOD AND REVELATION.
57
them, with their women and children, because, argues the
writer, these children if spared would certainly have grown
up like their parents, and perpetuated the same contagion.
The case must be desperate indeed if it be necessary to
resort to such an apology as this, and yet it admits of no
other, excepting, probably, the true one, viz., that the
writers fell into the error of attributing to God the bar
barities of man. Is not this explanation, on the face of it,
a thousand times more probable than that a benevolent
Being—a moral Governor of the Universe—ordered the
slaughter of women and little children by the thousand!
As regards the treatment of the Midianites, when Moses
ordered the slaughter of all of them—save the virgins, whom
the Israelites were permitted to keep for their own depraved
purposes. The apologists explanation is, that Moses, in
this instance, acted on his own responsibility : that Moses
was inspired to record it, but not necessarily to give the
order. It is true that the Bible does not say that the
Almighty ordered it, but He certainly does not condemn
it, and if we read the 31st chapter of Numbers, verse 25,
to 30, it will be seen that the historian makes the Almighty
not only tacitly acquiesce in the arrangement, but issue
explicit instructions as to the distribution of the booty
taken from the Midianites, of which the 32,000 virgins
formed a part (see verse 35). A canon of criticism which
Dr. Titcomb lays down a little later on may meet the diffi
culty. It is “that the Jewish writers were frequently in
the habit of attributing to God himself the evils which He
permitted in his providence ”; but, on the other hand, it
creates another, and we naturally ask : “ How are we to
know when the biblical writers are giving us their own
views, or writing under the guidance of Gods holy spirit ? ”.
To me the difficulties of accepting the whole of the Old
Testament as genuine history are simply insurmountable.
For my own part, I feel as satisfied as I do of my own ex
istence that many of the stories therein related are not
true. If, however, we admit one half of the Bishop of
Winchester’s canon of criticism, viz., that the writers are
fallible in matters of history and daily life, the task of the
reconciler ought to be at an end; as to the other half,
there is no proof whatever that it is true.
But, after all, it has been urged that we need not trouble
ourselves about Old Testament history: what specially
�58
GOD AND REVELATION.
concerns us is the New. Let us therefore turn to it, and
see what grounds there are for accepting it as the in
spired word of God, written for our instruction and guidance
in all matters relating to our spiritual well-being.
First of all, it is not known with any degree of certainty
when or by whom the four Gospels were written. The
three, first are manifestly not independent narratives, but
compiled from a common source. Froude thinks, that
though the synoptics may have had no communication with
each other, they were supplementing from other sources of
information a central narrative which they all had before
them. As regards Matthew, there can be no doubt he
wrote primarily for the Jews, and actually makes Christ
say: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel.” The question as to the time he wrote hardly
admits of a definite answer, because of the way the work
originated. Matthew wrote the substance of his gospel in
Aramcean, probably before the destruction of Jerusalem.
It was afterwards translated into Greek; but the date of
our present gospel Dr. Samuel Davidson assigns to about
the year a.d. 105; Luke’s to the year 110; Mark’s to about
120, and John’s to about a.d. 150 ; but in no case have we
sufficient evidence to show that any one of the gospels con
tains the evidence of an eye witness.
St. John may or may not have written the gospel which
bears his name. Volumes have been written on this subj ect alone; but the general consensus of opinion is against
him. At any rate, it is certain that the latter presents a
marvellous contrast to the clear addresses to be found in
the Synoptics. If Jesus spoke in the simple way described
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is almost impossible to
conceive of his having uttered the long metaphorical dis
courses contained in the 4th. But this is not a point I
wish to press. Even if St. John be the author of the
4th Gospel, the difficulties which encumber our path will
not be removed one hair’s breadth.
What I wish to consider is this: Whether the in
ternal evidence of the four Gospels is of such a
nature as to incline . us to accept the statements of
the writers as true statements. As I have said be
fore, the theory of the verbal inspiration of the Bible
has nearly died out, but still it may be not amiss to note,
a few of the verbal inaccuracies to be found in the New
�GOD AND REVELATION.
59
Testament, showing at any rate that whatever other ideas
about inspiration may be true, the verbal and mechanical
theory will not stand the test of criticism.
(1) Purification of the Temple.—Did it occur shortly before
the crucifixion (see Matt, xxi., 12), or was it
at the commencement of the ministry of Jesus
(John ii., 13).
(2) Recognition of Jesus as the Messiah.—Was Jesus at once
i.e., at the commencement of his ministry, recog
nised as the Messiah by John the Baptist (John
i., 29, 39-45), by Andrew, Simon, Peter,
Philip, and Nathaniel, or are the synoptics correct
in saying that none of the disciples (not even
John the Baptist) arrived at that conviction till
a comparatively late period of Jesus’s ministry
(see Matt, xi., 2, 3, also xvi., 14—17).
(3.) The anointing of the feet of Jesus.—When was it done
and where. Luke says (Luke vii., 11 and 37) it
occurred early in the ministry of Jesus in the
house of a Pharisee in Nain; that the anointer
was a sinner—that is, a woman of immoral
character. Matthew says (Matt, xxvi., 6) the
scene took place in Bethany, in the house of
Simon the leper. John says (John xi., 2;
xii., 1) that it occurred in Bethany six days
before the Passover; he does not actually
say in whose house it took place, but the reader
is entitled to infer from the context that the event
took place in the house of Lazarus, for we are
told that Martha served, and that the anointer
was Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who was certainly
not a sinner in the sense intended to be conveyed
by St. Luke.
The last Supper.—Was it the Passover feast, or was it
not ? The Synoptics positively assert the former.
St. John the latter. (Matt, xxvi., 19 ; Luke xxii.,
15 ; John xviii., 28 ; xix., 31).
Crucifixion of Jesus.—Was Jesus crucified at the third
hour (9 a.m.), and gave up the ghost at the ninth
hour (3 p.m.)—(Matt, xxvii., 46 ; Mark xv., 23),
or is John right in asserting that at 12 noon
Jesus was still before Pilate?
�60
GOD AND REVELATION.
The thieves on the Cross.—Did one only, or both, the
thieves, revile Jesus. Matthew says both did;
Luke only one. (Matt, xxviii., 44; Luke xxiv., 43.V1
The hearing of the Cross.—Did Jesus himself bear the
cross to the place of execution (John xix., 17),
or was it carried for him by one Simon (Matt’,
xxvii., 32).
No advantage is likely to accrue by extending the list of
contradictions that are to be found in the New Testament ;
but for those who wish to see all that can be said in this
connection, Thomas Scott’s “ English life of Jesus ” affords
the necessary medium—a work below that of Strauss in
erudition; but what it loses in this respect is more than
made up by incisiveness and clearness of style—a work, I
may add, which though written 14 years ago, has never yet
been answered in spite of challenges to the Christian Evi
dence Society to undertake the task.
Of course, answers have been found to these and other
contradictions by so-called orthodox theologians, but
these harmonisers of the text of the Bible have, in
my opinion, . made matters worse than they found
them, and simply injured the cause they have at
heart by the obvious weakness of their arguments,2
. 1 Canon Farrar says: “ Here we might suppose that there was an
irreconcileable contradiction. But though the Evangelists sometimes
seem on the very verge of mutual contradiction, no single instance of
a positive contradiction can be adduced from their independent pages.
The reason of this is partly that they wrote under divine guidance,
and partly that they wrote the simple truth. The first two synoptics
tell us that both the robbers during the early part of the hours of the
crucifixion reproached Jesus ; but we learn from St. Luke that only
one of them used injurious and insulting language to Him ”
Now I have a great respect for Canon Farrar’s bearing and acumen,
but what are they all worth when he condescends to the use of
language like this ? What meaning does it convey to anyone’s mind
when read in conjunction with the biblical texts bearing on the
subject ? The 1st Evangelist says the thieves cast the same in His
teeth ; Mark, that they that were crucified with Him reviled Him.
Luke, on the other hand, that one of the thieves only did so, and that
the other rebuked, his fellow malefactor for his presumption, The
discrepancy js hardly worth mentioning, but Canon Farrar’s attempt
at harmonising the two accounts is truly wonderful. It simply shows
how utterly untrustworthy are those as guides to others, who have a
preconceived theory to support.
- Origen held that there were three anointings, as others have held
�GOD AND REVELATION.
61
It would surely be better—in the interests of Chris
tianity I mean—to abandon untenable positions and
concentrate one’s whole strength in defending the main
fortress. A Christian may regret that he has not an in
fallible record to refer to, and argue that the proba
bilities are all in favor of the infallibility of a book
revelation which proceeds from God, but if he has not got
it he had better accept with a good grace what Mr. Glad
stone says may be conceivable, viz., that the Bible may
contain matter questionable, uncertain, or even mistaken,
and yet as a whole present such moral proofs of its divine
origin as to command our assent. Whether it does so
will be considered further on.
We come now to consider questions involving something
more than mere mistakes of time and place, that is, state
ments of events which, if they did not occur, go far to
impeach the credit of the writers who narrate them as
faithful—though not necessarily dishonest—historians.
(1) Matthew records the flight of Joseph and Mary with
the infant Jesus into Egypt almost immediately after his
birth, where they remained, we are told, till after Herod’s
death. Luke, on the other hand, not only makes no mention
of the fact, but informs us of the birth and the circum
cision on the eighth day, followed by the presentation in
the temple at Jerusalem, where, after a peaceable per
formance of all things ordered in the law of the Lord, they
(the parents and the young child) depart from Jerusalem
and return to their own city, Nazareth. It is not only
that there is no mention of the flight in Luke, but Luke’s
account appears to exclude it. The two narratives must be
read together to appreciate the force of this.
Again, the account given in Matthew of the massacre of
all the young children in Bethlehem under two years of
age is not only not alluded to by Luke, but is extremely
improbable in itself. Herod no doubt committed many
acts of cruelty during his reign, which Josephus narrates
with no intention of sparing his character; and yet the
Jewish historian makes no allusion to the massacre of the
there were two purifications; but acts and words do not repeat them
selves. The same objections in each case to the work of the woman
would not be raised by the lookers on ; nor is it possible that Jesus
would defend the act in each case by the same arguments.
�62
GOD AND REVELATION.
young children. The event is not absolutely impossible,
but it is so improbable as to entitle us to refuse our
assent to it, when we reflect that it rests on the authority
of a writer who misquotes prophecy in order apparently
to enhance the credibility of the narrative. It need hardly
be pointed out that the prophecy in Jeremiah (xxxi., 15)
refers not to children slaughtered at Bethlehem hundreds
of years after the prophet’s death, but to persons taken
captive at Rama, near the tomb of Rachel, who is repre
sented in the prophecy as weeping for her children ; but
these, Jeremiah adds, shall return, and her sorrow shall
be turned into joy. How, then, can it possibly be made
to refer to Jesus of Nazareth? (See Matt, ii., 17.)
Similarly in regard to the temptation of Jesus. The
narratives of the Synoptics spread it over a period of forty
days, and inform us that Jesus was taken by the devil
through the air and placed on a pinnacle of the temple.
The story is extremely difficult to credit from whatever
point of view we regard it. Thomas Aquinas, I think it is,
who refers to this wonder in support of the then prevailing
belief in witchcraft. He says : “ If the devil had the power
of transporting Jesus through the air, why deny him the
power of transporting an old woman through the air on a
broomstick?” So improbable does the event seem that
many orthodox commentators have enunciated the theory,
that the occurrence was merely subjective, and had no
real existence in actual fact. But why I especially allude to
this narrative is that the fourth gospei not only makes no
mention of it, but leaves no room for it. Within a week
after his baptism, Jesus is described as surrounded by dis
ciples in Galilee, while according to the Synoptics he is
fasting in the wilderness, not having yet gained a single
disciple.
Casting out of devils.—Many instances of this are given
in the Synoptics, but the case referred to in Matthew viii.
28, et seq., makes more demands on our faith than the
others.
In the first place we read that devils, inhabiting human
frames, address Jesus and deprecate their being cast out
at all; but if it must be so, then they ask permission to be
allowed to go into the bodies of a herd of swine; and we
know the fate that attended the latter in consequence of the
request being acceded to. The story to my mind is simply
�.GOD AND REVELATION.
63
incredible and impossible. It indicates either that Jesus
shared the common opinions of his day in regard to demon
iacal possession, or that the New Testament writers have
made him responsible for their own views on the subject.
It has been said by apologists that Jesus only accommodated
himself to the understanding of his audience: that per
sonally he did not believe in demoniacal possession. But
how is this to be reconciled with the statement of his that
“this kind only goeth out by prayer and fasting”? There
are some people I know who, even at the present day,
maintain that demons inhabit the human body. With such
persons I cannot argue. Let them hold their opinions if
they like, but they must not expect me to listen to them.
The extraordinary prohibition of Jesus to his twelve
apostles (Matt, x., 5) not to go into the way of the Gentiles
or into any of the Samaritan cities, but rather to the Jews
—a most improbable order to have emanated from Jesus
himself; especially in view of the fact (John iv.) that Jesus
himself was in an early period of his ministry hospitably
entertained by the Samaritans, and dwelt two days in
their city, receiving their acknowledgement—or at any rate
of some of them—of his Messiahship. In the 23rd verse of
the former chapter we read that Jesus informs his disciples
that they shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till
the son of man be come. Surely this is an anachronism.
Jesus, at the time he is reported to have said this, had not
even informed his disciples of his death. Any allusion to
his second coming would have been unintelligible to them.
It seems to me certain that the words were attributed to
him, long after his death, by a writer who failed to see the
incongruity of the speech. Another anachronism is to be
found in the words : “ From the days of John the Baptist
until now ”. If the Baptist had been dead some years the
remark would have been intelligible, but seeing that he
was in prison at the time, we must conclude that the speech
was put into Jesus’s mouth long after the Baptist’s death.
A third is to be found in Matt, xxiii., 35, Baruch, or
Barachias, was not slain till thirty-five years after Christ.
The miracle of the reduplication of the loaves and fishes.—
If the miracle recorded in the 14th of chapter of Matthew
really occurred, it seems incredible that the disciples should
have replied when their Master observed that he could not
send the multitude away fasting (Matt. 15), “Whence
�64
GOD AND REVELATION.
should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to fill so
great a multitude?”—rather would they not have entreated
Jesus to do again what he had shown himself already able
to perform ?
The miracle at the pool of Bethesda (John v.). This I take
it to be one of the most extraordinary and improbable
narratives in the New Testament. The account seems to
me to involve the belief (1) that there was a certain pool
of water in the populous city of Jerusalem which had some
miraculous power imparted to it through the instru
mentality of an angel, by which arrangement the first
person (and the first person only of the multitudes who were
congregated on its brink) who managed to struggle into it
was cured of any infirmity he might happen to be suffering
from; (2) that the troubling the water was a periodic
affair ; that is to say, we are given to understand that an
angel was in the habit of coming down from heaven from
time to time to impart miraculous restorative power to the
water of the pool.
If the writer had informed us that Jesus imparted the
power for a particular purpose, and on a particular occasion,
the narrative would have been neither more or less impro
bable than many others of the miracles attributed to him ;
but the periodic performance of the miracle by an angelic
visitor, with all its concomitant improbabilities, is really
too great a tax on our faith. Visits of angels to
men were so common before and even after the Christian
era, that they appear to have excited no surprise. But
can we in the 19th century take the same view ? Can we
in the least realise the possibility of multitudes of sick
people anxiously waiting in the porch for the coming of
an angel, who was to impart certain restorative power to
the water of the pool ? Positively, I cannot. In short, it
makes miracles íhe normal condition of things, and as such
they were regarded by those who lived and wrote in the
first century of our era. Of course there are people living
in the latter end of the 19th century who see nothing in
congruous in the fact of an angel visiting this earth and
interfering in its affairs ; but such people seem to me to
live in a different atmosphere of thought altogether from
ordinary mortals, and anything you may say opposed to
the traditional view seems to have no effect on them.
The cursing of the barren fig-tree.—This is the only puni-
�GOD AND REVELATION.
65
tive miracle ascribed to Jesus, and has certainly exercised
tbe judgment and divided the opinions of even orthodox
commentators. Is it credible, I ask, that Jesus should cause
a fig-tree to wither up because it had no fruit upon it
out of season (Mark says “the time of figs was not yet ”) ;
or is it likely that Jesus should have expected to find figs
upon it at an unseasonable time of the year ?
Many explanations have been offered for this apparent
anomaly. It has been said that the act was simply a
symbolical one, designed to impress on the minds of
the disciples that every tree which brought not forth
good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire;
others, again, have considered it as symbolical of the
Jewish nation. But there are no grounds for either
assumption. The remarks of Jesus after the event have
no reference to anything of a symbolical character, but
refer altogether to the power of faith which, if they
possess, would enable the disciples to do a far greater
wonder than the cursing and withering up of the fig-tree.
The miraculous event immediately after the crucifixion of
/ms.—Mark and Luke tell us that there was darkness
over the whole land for the space of three hours, and that
the veil of the temple was rent in twain, but Matthew
(xxvi. 51) goes further, and says, “The graves were
opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
and came out of their graves after his resurrection, and
Went into the city and appeared unto many
It positively takes one’s breath away when such a
phenomenon as this is gravely propounded for our accept
ance ! What even are orthodox believers to make of it ?
In respect to this stupendous event Canon Farrar remarks:
“ It is quite possible that the darkness was local gloom which
hung densely over the guilty city and its immediate neighbour
hood, and as an earthquake shook the city, and split the rocks,
and as it rolled away from their places the great stones which
closed the cavern sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the
imagination of many [the italics are mine] to have disimprisoned
the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with ghostly
visitants who, after Christ had risen, appeared to linger in the
holy city.”
This explanation may be better than insisting on the
literal performance of the miracle, but it has its dangers
too, for if wo apply a similar canon of criticism to almost
�66
GOD AND REVELATION.
any other of the miracles—even to the crowning miracle of
all, that of the resurrection—it will evaporate into thin
air, leaving nothing behind but the theory of a subjective
vision, which is, I think, all that Paulus and writers of the
rationalistic school ever contended for.
The resurrection of Lazarus.—This, perhaps the most
marvellous and certainly the most circumstantially detailed
event of any recorded in the New Testament, is not even
alluded to by any of the synoptics. We have only John’s
word for it. How are we to explain the silence of the
synoptics, if the event really occurred ? They wrote much
nearer in point of time to the alleged miracle than did the
author of the 4th Gospel, and yet they say nothing about
it, although—mark this I—it is represented as the point on
which the subsequent catastrophe turned! It brought
about the secret meeting of the Sanhedrim; it led that body
to plot and scheme for Christ’s apprehension ; it must have
been more talked of and generally known (had it occurred)
than any other event in the history of Jesus; it ultimately
led to his arrest; and yet the synoptics are wholly silent
about the matter!
Many absurd and far-fetched explanations have been
offered for their silence, one being that the event was
too well-known to everyone to need any record—an
argument, as Scott observes, which would apply equally
to the narrative of the crucifixion. The fact is, their
silence cannot be explained on any reasonable hypo
thesis. I know there are some minds on whom such an
omission made no impression, so tied down are they to
traditional ideas; but to me their silence is almost con
clusive as to the non-performance of the miracle, for I
cannot on any other ground account for their failure to
mention it.
In addition to the foregoing, there is another difficulty
which has to be explained. I allude to the apparent omni
science of the Evangelists. On the theory that they were
merely amanuenses, writing down events at the dictation of
the Holy Ghost, the difficulty vanishes. But we know
that they were nothing of the kind. How then are we to
suppose they came by the knowledge of events which
happened when they could by no possibility have been
present: for instance, how did they get their knowledge of
what transpired between Jesus and the devil during the
�god
And
revelation.
67
temptation; or the angel Gabriel’s speech to Mary, and her
reply to him; or Mary’s hymn, commencing, “ My soul
doth magnify the Lord ” ; or the speech of Pilate’s wife to
her husband about Jesus; or the conversation that passed
between Herod and the daughter of Herodias concerning
John the Baptist; or Jesus’ prayer in the garden of
Gethsemane when his disciples were asleep ?
As it is by no means my intention to give a complete list
of the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the
theory of the infallibility, or even the inspiration of the
Bible, I will now pass on to the consideration of the famous
speech of Jesus in Matt xxiv., and its counterpart in Mark
xiii. and Luke xxi. After describing the destruction of the
Holy City, and the woe that shall come upon the people, he
goes on to say, “ Immediately after the tribulation of those
days shall the sun be darkened .... and they shall see
the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory; and he shall send his angels with the
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect,
&c., &c.,” adding (in Matt, xxiv., 24), “Verily I say unto you,
this generation shall not pass away till all these things be
fulfilled ” ; and again, in the 44th verse, “ Therefore be ye
also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of
Man cometh”. This discourse, as given in Matthew and
Mark, is to all appearance as plain as any statement can be :
it asserts positively not only that the temple and city should
be destroyed within a very short time, but that the world
should come to an end, and the final judgment of all man
kind be completed within the lifetime of that generation,
all that was uncertain being the exact day and hour. More
than 18 centuries have passed away, and Christ’s second
coming is still delayed. All sorts of desperate attempts
have been made to explain away these statements, but they
have failed ignominously. Either one or the other alter
native must be accepted: either Jesus uttered the prophecy
or ho did not. If he did, subsequent history has falsified
the prediction ; if he did not, we have another instance of
the Evangelists making their Master responsible for words
he never uttered.
Mr. Hatton, an orthodox commentator (one of the very
few who look difficulties fairly in the face), says: “ That the
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is greatly confused
with the vision of spiritual judgment of all things is clear
�68
GOD AND REVELATION.
enough, and it is remarkable that two quite distinct state
ments as to time are jumbled up together in the oddest con
fusion. It is impossible that two such statements could have
been made in the closest juxtaposition without a clear dis
tinction between the provisions to which they refer. The
gathering of the armies, the slaughter, the famine, and the
destruction of the city—all this is to take place within that
generation; but the final judgment with which the disciples
certainly confused it, was, apparently almost within the
same breath, declared to be absolutely indeterminate and
reserved by God amongst the eternal secrets.” That is to
say, Mr.Hatton thinks the disciples misunderstood Jesus;
but if they misunderstand him here, they must have misunderstood him on other occasions too; for there are other
texts which go to show that Christ prophesied as to his
speedy second coming, and these are in no way mixed up
with the destruction of Jerusalem, e.g., “Verily, verily, I
say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not
taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his
kingdom.” “Ye shall not have gone over all the cities of
Israel until the Son of Man be come.” “ If I will that ye
tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” “ Hereafter sb all
ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven.” That Christ’s disciples
all confidently entertained the erroneous expectation of
Christ’s speedy second coming, and entertained it on the
supposed authority of their Master, there can be doubt
whatever, says Greg; and this I think is as certain as
anything can be, short of mathematical demonstration.
Professor Plumptre, the Dean of Wells, comments on
the prophecy as follows :—
“ How are we to explain the fact that already more than 18
centuries have rolled away, and the promise of his coming is
still unfulfilled ? It is a partial answer to the question to say
that God’s measurements of time are not as ours, but that
which may seem the boldest is also the truest and most
reverential. Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even
the Son, but the Father; and therefore He (Christ) as truly
man, and as having therefore vouchsafed to accept the limita
tion of knowledge incident to man’s nature, speaks of the two
events, as poets and prophets speak of the far-off future.”
The learned dean also seems to think that “ the words
received a symbolical and therefore a partial and gormanent
�GOD AND REVELATION.
69
accomplishment in the manifestation of the power of the
Son of Man at and after the destruction of Jerusalem, but
await their complete fulfilment till the final advent
What good can there possibly be in telling us that God’s
measurements of time are not as ours, in explanation of the
words of Christ that the existing order of things should
come to an end in that generation, and that many standing
before him should not die till he came in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory to judge the world ?
And it seems to me equally useless to say that the prophecy
received partial accomplishment at the destruction of
Jerusalem, because Christianity then began to make way
in the world. What is gained either in speaking of Christ’s
limitation of knowledge in connection with prophetical
language? If the dean had said boldly, “ Christ’s know
ledge was limited, and therefore he spoke under a misapprehension as to the time of his second coming” ; or if
he had said he (Christ) “spoke with the licence of a
poet ” and therefore we must not take his words literally,
one could have at any rate understood either half of the
proposition; but bracketed together they appear to me to
make nonsense. The fact is no explanation is possible,
except, of course, that the Evangelists were mistaken,
or that Jesus spoke under limitations of knowledge, and
therefore erroneously.
If the foregoing considerations do not altogether dis
prove Mr. Gladstone’s theory, viz., “ That although the
Bible may contain matters questionable, uncertain, and
even mistaken, yet it may by its contents as a whole present
such moral proofs as ought to command our assent, etc. ”,
they at any rate detract from its probability to a very
considerable extent, for we naturally ask, If the writers
were mistaken on so many points, and shared the common
errors of their day, what ground have we for supposing
that they were exempt from error in matters relating to
things of the unseen world, or even spoke under inspiration
at all ? It has been argued that if we think the evidence
sufficient to establish the two great cardinal doctrines
on which Christianity rests, viz., the incarnation and the
resurrection of Christ, why trouble ourselves about minor
matters ? What can it possibly signify, for instance,
whether certain demoniacs were permitted to go into a
herd of swine; or whether an angel came down periodically
�70
GOD AND REVELATION«
to impart certain restorative power to the water of the
pool of Bethesda, or whether 5,000 men were fed with
five loaves and two fishes, so long as we have an
assurance that Christ rose from the dead. If he did,
says a well-known writer, “this miracle alone would
prove that Christianity is a divine revelation ”. True, but
the evidence on the point must be thoroughly convincing,
in view of the fact that it is found recorded in a book which
contains numerous errors and inaccuracies on matters of
daily life and history.
Of course it is open to anyone to deny that this is so,
but surely it is better, even in the interests of Christianity,
to admit the fact, as so many Christian writers have done,
than to resort to the extravagant hypotheses of the
harmonists, who have, in my opinion, done more harm to
the cause they have at heart than all the assaults of the
unbelievers put together.
The Bishop of Carlyle remarks that the Apostles’ Creed
speaks of two miraculous circumstances of our Lord’s earthly
history, and two only: the coming into the world and the
going out of it..“ He came amongst us ”, says the Bishop,
“by an extraordinary birth. He left us by an extraordinary
exit, involving a triumph over death. On these two great
facts, each Christian expresses belief as a condition of
baptism.” Although the Bishop does not say so in so many
words, I infer from his remarks that a belief in these
two occurrences is, in his opinion, alone necessary to
salvation. Let us then first consider what grounds we
have for belief in the former. It will be noted that the
evidence for it rests entirely on certain statements made in
Matthew and Luke. Are we prepared to accept so mar
vellous an event on the ipse dixit of writers who have been
shown to be untrustworthy in so many matters of detail,
especially when we remember that the idea of a virgin
birth was by no means new ? (Buddha was credited with a
similar miraculous birth, so were many of the ancients—
Pythagoras and Plato, for instance.) Matthew weakens
the credit that might otherwise possibly attach to his narra
tive by quoting the occurrence as a fulfilment of prophecy.
He says: “ Now all this was done that it might be fulfill cd
which, was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying:
Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc., etc.” Matthew
Arnold remarks: “It becomes certain that in these words
�GOD AND REVELATION.
71
read on. Christmas Day, the Prophet Isaiah (from which
Matthew quotes) was not meaning to speak of Jesus Christ,
but of a Prince of Judah, to be born in a year or two’s
time.” Similarly the Evangelist misquotes, or rather
misapplies prophecies, in three other cases in the same
chapter. Now, how does the Bishop explain this ? Whilst
admitting the misquotations, he says: “St. Matthew,
apparently looking from a Jewish point of view, did not
see things with exactly the same eyes as his English
namesake ” (meaning Matthew Arnold). In order, the
Bishop says, “ to enter into St. Matthew’s mind, we must
remember the education to which the J ewish Church and
nation had been subjected. . . . . Consequently, when a
Jewish disciple came to write the history of the life and
ministry of his Lord, whom he entirely believed to be the
Messiah, he could naturally find up and down the pro
phetical books, references—some direct and some oblique,
to Him for whose coming these books had unquestionably
made preparation. Is it wonderful then that St. Matthew
should see in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ the fulfil
ment of these magnificent words of prophecy, ‘ Behold &
virgin shall conceive, etc.’ ?” The reply isBy no. means
wonderful, but just what we could expect, if we view the
Evangelist as an ordinary Jewish writer not exempt from
the beliefs and prejudices of his age and country; but very
wonderful indeed if we look upon him as an inspired his
torian, writing under the guidance of the spirit of God.
Such an explanation is to me no explanation at all.
There remains, then, St. Luke’s account for considera
tion. The Bishop sets a great store on St. Luke’s testimony.
He credits him with being (probably correctly so) the
author of the acts of the apostles. He says that
“ This narrative gives us unsurpassed opportunities of testing
the honesty, the intelligence, and the power of observation
appertaining to the author”. The Bishop refers to the
story of the voyage of St. Paul from Palestine to Italy,
and his (Paul’s) shipwreck on the coast of Malta, and in
doing so says: “We must be impressed by a strong belief
that St. Luke was a man possessing in a high degree the
habit of careful observation which his medical profession
demanded and fostered, and also that he had in eminent
abundance the valuable faculty of setting down accurately and
clearly the things which he observed”.
�72
GOD AND REVELATION.
I would observe that, in this history of the very voyage that
the Bishop refers to, St. Luke tells us of a viper coin i ng
out of the fire, and fastening on Paul’s hand. Now
surely this was not an anecdote that would have emanated
from a physician, highly skilled, and a careful observer of
facts as distinguished from fictions ? The belief in such
reptiles as salamanders (fabulous monsters supposed to
live in fire) does not, I think, bear out the character
assigned to Luke by the Bishop, especially if we remember
that he was supposed to be writing as an eye-witness.
Besides, if there is any truth in my previous criticism, Luke
was by no means exempt from the mistakes and delusions
of the other Biblical writers. In this view, we are not at
all likely to accept the story of the incarnation as historical
because we find it recorded in St. Luke’s Gospel.
In regard to the second miracle, viz., the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead. Here we have the very keystone
of the Christian position. Take it away, and the whole fabric
collapses. As St. Paul says, “ If Christ be not risen, then is
our preaching vain, and.your faith also is in vain ”. It will
be noted that the event is related with more or less circum
stantially by all four Evangelists; but unfortunately it is
impossible to weave their several accounts into one
harmonious whole, and none of them harmonise, in my
opinion, with that given in the Acts of the Apostles. It is
not, however, my intention to give chapter and verse for
this assertion. Anyone can satisfy himself on this point
by carefully perusing the Gospel narratives themselves. I
will merely refer to one single instance. Jesus tells his
disciples (Matt, xxvi., 32) that after he was risen again, he
could go beyond them into Galilee; the angel repeats the
injunction to Mary Magdalene (Matt, xxviii., 7); and we
read that Jesus himself (Matt, xxviii., 10) on the first day
of the week very early in the morning appeared unto the
two Mary’s, and enjoined them to “ Tell my brethren that
they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me”.
Accordingly the eleven disciples went into Galilee to a
mountain, as Jesus had appointed, and there he appeared
unto them (Matt, xxviii., 16); but in the 24th chapter of
Luke, we have a totally different account, viz., “ That the
eleven disciples were gathered together at Jerusalem on the
first day of the week (1st and 33rd verses), and Jesus stood
in their midst ” (36th verse). It seems certain that if the
�GOD AND REVELATION.
73
eleven, journeyod into Galilee and saw Jesus on a mountain
they did not at the same time remain in Jerusalem and see
him there too.
There is this, however, to be said, that while the Gospel
writers contradict one another in detail, they all agree in
the main point, viz., that Christ rose from the dead; but,
considering the magnitude of the event, the many points
on which they conflict, and that in no single case, not even
in that of the writer of the 4th Gospel, can we be sure that
we have the testimony of an eye witness, all I am disposed
to allow from their unanimity of statement on this par
ticular point is, that at the time the Gospels were written
the belief in the resurrection was a well-established fact
amongst the Christian community. But we derive this
information in a much more dependable form from St. Paul’s
epistles. He wrote at a much earlier date. He stands
prominently forward as a true historical character, and we
know something about him, which is more than can be
said in respect to the four Evangelistic writers.
Here we must pause for consideration. No one, I think,
who reads the letters of the great apostle to the Gentiles, can
fail to be deeply impressed with the writer’s earnestness and
truthfulness of character. From a fanatical persecutor of
the despised sect of the Nazarenes, he became their firmest
supporter. His whole subsequent career was devoted to
the cause of the Master he loved so well. “I count all
things loss”, he says, “ for the knowledge of the excellence
of Christ Jesus my Lord ”.
We feel certain that St. Paul is speaking the truth as far
as he discerns it, and we know that his four most important
letters, viz., one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, and
one to the Galatians, are genuine, whatever the others may
be. At the same time, 1 do not think this excludes the possi
bility of interpolations in the text at a later date. From these
letters we learn St. Paul’s whole mind towards Christianity.
He was, after his conversion, it is unnecessary to say, a firm
believer in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
He goes so far as to say that if Christ be not risen,
Christianity is a delusion, and “ we are of all men the most
miserable.” He claims to have seen Christ, for he says,
“Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Cor., 9); and
again, “Last of all he was seen of me, also as of one born
�74
GOD AND REVELATION.
out of due time” (1 Cor. xv., 8); and we may be quite suro
that he meant what he said.
Further, we have St. Peter’s testimony (see his first
epistle, which, however, we are not sure is genuine)
where he says, “Blessed be the Lord, and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant
mercy, has begotten us again unto a lively hope by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’’—that is,
“ who. hath restored us from the state of temporary despaii*
in which we were after his death to a renewed hope by his
resurrection ’; and, again, the author of the Acts (supposed
to be Luke) makes Peter say that it was essential in filling
up the place of Judas “ to choose one who had accompanied
with the apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in
and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John
unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must
one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.'1'
1
Besides the testimony of St. Paul and St. Peter (if the
latter’s epistle is genuine) and the writer of the Acts, we
have the fact, as Mr. Hatton points out, that although all
was confusion and dismay on the morrow of the Crucifixion,
yet within two months after the death of Christ the Church
at Jerusalem was increasing at a rate at which we have no
reason to suppose the numbei' of Christ’s disciples ever
increased during his lifetime. Mr. Hatton asks :
“ How could the blasted hopes of the apostles revive without
some great substantial and even physical stimulus? If the
person of our Lord was admitted by all to have reappeared
amongst them, no doubt these hopes would have revived, but
not otherwise. For my part I cannot doubt that the best
explanation is that which is alleged to have been, viz., that
Christ himself returned to his apostles after his death, and
that it was his directing mind which gave them a new and
powerful impulse.”
There is no doubt much plausibility in this con
tention, and if resurrections from the dead were in the
nature of ordinary occurrences, or even if we had but one
previous well authenticated instance of a resurrection of a
dead person, we might perhaps accept Mr. Hatton’s ex
planation as the easiest solution of the difficulty: but
have we ?
The late W. R. Greg seems to think we may account
for the belief by supposing that Christ never really
�GOD AND REVELATION.
75
died, but rose from the grave only.
The circum
stance of his being taken down from the. cross much
earlier than was customary—he was only six hours on
the cross; according to St. John only three—coupled
with the fact that Josephus narrates an instance of resusci
tation after crucifixion, which came under his own observa
tion, lends some support to this hypothesis. Nevertheless,
there are so many difficulties in the way of accepting it
that, without pronouncing it absolutely impossible, I think
it cannot be admitted as a solution of the problem.
How, then, did the report arise that Christ had risen from
the dead if he did not come to life again and appear cor
poreally to His disciples after the crucifixion? It by
no means follows that because we are unable to give a
satisfactory answer, the resurrection story must be his
torically true. Events are happening every. day that
are quite inexplicable to us on any hypothesis we can
frame, but that is no reason why we should refer them to
a supernatural origin. How can we account for the belief in
the -miráeles worked by the Curate of Ars, who only died
somewhere about the middle of the present century ?
His miracles, especially those of healing, were vouched for
by half a dozen credible witnesses—doctors of medicine
amongst their number—some of whom may possibly be
alive at the present day. He made more converts than
St. Paul probably did, and gave up his whole life to the
service of the Church he loved so well.
It is best, I think, to acknowledge that at this
distance of time, and with much that is obscure and
hidden from our view, we must be content to leave the
question as to how the belief in the resurrection first
arose, in conjecture, not forgetting that in those days it
was no difficult matter to induce a belief in the resurrec
tion of a dead person. Matthew Arnold points out that
the resurrection of the just was in St. Paul’s time a ruling
idea of a Jewish mind. Herod at once, and without
difficulty, supposed that John the Baptist had risen from
the dead, and in telling the story of the crucifixion, the
writer of the first Gospel added, quite naturally, that when
it was con summ ated many bodies of the saints which slept
arose and appeared unto many. Renan thinks that it is
to Mary Magdalene’s impressionable mind that we owe
the first report of the resurrection. Who can tell ? All
�76
GOD AND REVELATION.
we know is that in a very short time the belief in their
Masters resurrection spread amongst his followers and
that it was this belief, coupled with an assurance of his
speedy return to judge the world, which made the estab
lishment of Christianity a possibility.
St. Paul’s testimony is of a later date. He doos not
appear on the scene till eight or ten years after the cruci
fixion, and his most important epistles were not written for
certainly ten or fifteen years after that. Nevertheless he
distinctly affirms that he had seen Christ. But, we may
ask, when, and under what circumstances ? Was it on that
celebrated journey of his to Damascus ? He does not say
so m any of his Epistles, but from the narrative in the
Acts it would appear likely. At any rate, we have his
testimony to the fact. But the question is, what is it
worth without the test of cross-examination ?
Dr. Carpenter, speaking of alleged supernatural or non
natural occurrences, says:
“ Granting that the narrators write what they firmly believe
to be true,, as having themselves seen, or thought they had
seen, is their belief sufficient justification for ours ? What is
the extent of allowance which we are to make for prepossession
(1) as to modifying their conception of an occurrence at the
time; and (2) as modifying their subsequent remembrance of
it. . .. . . The result of my enquiries into curious phenomena
is such as to force upon me the conviction that as to all which
concerns the supernatural, the allowance that has to be made
for prepossession is so large as practically to destroy the validity
of any testimony which is not submitted to the severest scrutiny.”
If this be true in regard to events happening towards the
close of the nineteenth century, how much more so in the
first century, when supernatural events were looked upon
in the light of ordinary occurrences! It must be remem
bered, that the history of religious enthusiasm in all ages
supplies us with abundant illustrations of men who have
identified the overpowering impressions of their own ■mind
with divine communication, or have taken subjective
visions for real appearances of divine persons. (The case
of Emanuel Swedenborg is a noted instance in point.)
AV© know that before his conversion St. Paul signalised
himself by the persecution of the early Christian converts,
and that he took a part in the stoning of Stephen. Is it
not conceivable that the dying words of the proto-martyr
�GOD AND REVELATION.
77
may have sunk deeply into his soul, and given him grave
cause for reflection ? When setting out on that journey of
his to Damascus, cannot wo imagino his asking himself
the question : “ Is it not possible that these despised Nazarenes, who so cheerfully sacrifice their lives and their
possessions for the sake of their master, may be right after
all ? If so, then mine must be devil’s work.” Possibly
agitated with thoughts something like these, and overcome
with the fatigues of the journey, is there anything impro
bable in conceiving that cerebral disturbances were induced
which led Paul to see visions and hear voices ? Such
occurrences are by no means uncommon. In this view
there need be nothing miraculous in his sudden conversion.
Once led to see the error of his ways, he would naturally
become as enthusiastic in his efforts on behalf of Christi
anity, as he previously had been in his opposition to it; in
short, Saul the persecutor would become Paul the apostle.
As Renan observes, “Violent and impulsive natures,
inclined to proselytism, only change the object of their
passion. As ardent for the new faith as he had been for
the old, St. Paul, like Oomar, in one day dropped his part
of persecutor for that of an apostle.”
If I remember rightly, the conversion of Ignatius Loyola
approximated somewhat closely to that of St. Paul. Dif
ferences there were, but we read in his life that the Virgin
Mary appeared to him with the infant Jesus in her arms,
and from that hour to the day of his death, his conversion
was as true and genuine as that of St. Paul.
Colonel Gardiner saw Jesus Christ on the cross, sus
pended in the air, and this was the turning-point in his
life.
Samson Stainforth, a Methodist soldier of Cromwell’s
army, thus relates his conversion : “ From twelve at night
till two it was my turn to stand sentinel at a dangerous post.
I had a fellow-sentinel, but I desired him to go away, which
he willingly did. No sooner was I alone than I knelt down,
determined not to rise until the Lord had mercy upon me.
How long I was in this agony I cannot tell, but as I
looked up to heaven I saw the clouds Open and Jesus
hanging on the cross; at the same moment I heard the
words, ‘ Thy sins are forgiven thee
Lord Herbert of Cherbury, before publishing his deistical
work, “ De Veritate,” hoard a similar voice from heaven.
�78
GOD AND REVELATION.
History abounds with instances of persons mistaking
subjective visions for real appearances. Eoman Catholic
literature is full of them, even at thepresent day. To Eo
man Catholics they are real; why must we assume that the
appearances to St. Paul were of a fundamentally different
«character ? Should you reply, 111 think your explanation
ef St. Paul’s conversion very improbable ”, “Very well,”
I rejoin, “formulate one for yourself”. All I contend
for is that it is not necessary to resort to a supernatural
hypothesis in St. Paul’s case, and to say that the appear
ances to him differed in kind from many we read of in
history, and which we know were merely the result of dis
turbed cerebral action.
I havo been told that Paul was not at all the sort of
person to see visions. Why? He tells us himself he was
weak in body, of presence contemptible, and suffered from
a thorn in the flesh, whatever that may have been. He
speaks of himself (at least it is presumed he is narrating
his own experiences) as having been caught up to the
seventh heaven, and there having seen unspeakable things.
And yet, however unable we may be to accept his visions
as objective facts, how our hearts go along with him
when we read the account of his labours, his love and
sympathy for his fellow-men, and the entire consecration
of his whole life to his master’s cause. Can we wonder that
he had the rare gift of attracting men towards him. Savanarola, Whitefield, Wesley, and many others who might
be named, possessed a similar gift. All thoroughly earnest
men who have an intense conviction of the truth of their
mission have it more or less. We are hardly, then,
surprised, when Agrippa says to St. Paul, “Almost thou
pcrsuadest me to be a Christian”. St. Paul’s earnest
ness and eloquence in pleading on behalf of Christianity
nearly turned the scale in the king’s mind—that is, if we
are to believe the account given in the “Acts ”.
The Eev. C. A. Eowe, in his ‘ ‘ Historical evidence for the
Eesurrection ”, asserts that there were more than 250 persons
living who believed that they had seen Christ alive after
his crucifixion. I call this a monstrous overstatement. It
rests, of course, upon the 6th verse of the 15th Corinthians;
but St. Paul could only have known of the appearance to
the 500, from hearsay. Such evidence at the best, is only
second-hand. What seems probable is, that a year or two
�GOD AND REVELATION.
79
after the crucifixion, a report gained credence, from small
beginnings, that Christ had appeared to a number of
persons at once ; and that in the course of a few years, say
within 10 or 15 years afterwards, the legend had assumed
a more definite form, and had reached the number of 500.
Did St. Paul when speaking of the appearance of the 500
allude to the ascension ? If so, Luke’s account of it does
not accord with the statement, as we are led to infer from
what he says, that the ascension took place in the presence
of the 11 apostles only.
St. Paul says Jesus appeared to James, and then to all
the apostles; but this is only second-hand testimony. They
don’t say so for themselves. St. Peter in his first epistle
speaks of the resurrection as a well-recognised fact, but
he nowhere says, like St. Paul, “ I myself saw Christ after
his resurrection” ; besides there is some doubt as to the
genuineness of the epistle. Dr. Samuel Davidson, a dis
tinguished Biblical critic, assigns it to the year 113. The
testimony of the writer of the Acts is not that of an eye
witness (as to the resurrection I mean), and there are two
instances, if not more, in that work, in which the writer
appears to have drawn upon his imagination. One instance
I refer to, is that of the slaughter of Ananias and Sapphira—a most improbable incident,—as Sir Eichard Han
son in his life of St. Paul justly points out.
However loth we may be at times to reject Paul’s
testimony as to the resurrection, we must remember that it
is almost, impossible to isolate it from the other events
narrated in a book which purports to be an inspired record
conveying a divine message from God to fallen man. Such
a record can hardly contain errors and contradictions on
material points without affecting the credit of the whole.
Dor instance, if we are told that an angel was in the
habit of periodically coming down from heaven to impart
healing properties to the water of Bethesda, or that Jesus
Christ foretold the end of the then existing dispensation
and his second coming in the clouds of heaven to judge the
world during the lifetime of the generation then living
(a statement fully accepted by St. Paul and other Christian
converts), and a few pages afterwards we read that Christ
rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples in a bodily
form, we naturally ask ourselves the question, “If the story
of the angel is incredible, or if the statement as to Christ’s
�80
GOD AND REVELATION.
second coming has boon falsified by the eflux of time, why
should wo credit the latter, resting as it does on the
evidence of writers about whom we know little—whose
writings may have been interpolated, who certainly shared
the common errors of their day, who were mistaken on
other points bearing on the Christian revelation, and who
were just as likely to mistake subjective visions for
objective ones, as any of the persons I have referred
to?”.
We cannot pick and choose as we like. It is all very
well to say if the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact
of the resurrection, that will carry all else with it. Very
good. But is the evidence sufficient ? I have endeavoured
to show that it is not; and I further maintain that the
evidence, such as it is, is considerably weakened by being
found in close connection with narratives of events which
wo feel satisfied never happened, and sayings which were
never uttered ; or, if uttered, were erroneous. Just remem
ber how easy it would have been to establish the fact of
Christ’s resurrection once, and for all time. Had he shown
himself, as the author of “ Supernatural Religion ” points
out, after his resurrection to the chief priests and elders, and
confounded the Pharisees with the vision of him whom they
had so cruelly nailed to the cross, how might not the future
of his followers have been smoothed, and the faith of many
made strong.
Cardinal Newman seems to think that we cannot account
for the establishment of Christianity excepting on a super
natural basis. He asks, “ Is it conceivable that a rival
power to Ceesar should have started out of so obscure and
ignorant a spot as Galilee, and have prevailed without
some extraordinary and divine gifts ?”.
A writer on Christian evidences also observes that the
great Roman Empire crumbled to pieces before the power
of the Gospel, and the last Pagan emperor when dying
exclaimed in accents of despair, “ Oh, Galilean, thou hast
conquered! ”. Julian (the emperor referred to) said nothing
of the kind. Professor Rendall, in his Hulsem lectures
for the year 1876, after eulogising the character of the
Emperor, adds : “ The Christians fabled how Julian, after
receiving the fatal javelin wound, cried out, ‘ Vicisti
Galilaoe ’
I fear this is not the only story invented by the
early Christians. As regards, however, the decline and fall
�GOD AND REVELATION.
81
of the Roman Empire, and the establishment of Christianity
on its.ruins, I would remark that it was falling to pieces
from its own inherent decay, before Christianity came
in contact with it; and with respect to its conversion to
Christianity, there was, no doubt, that in the new religion
which adapted itself to the wants and circumstances of the
people with whom it came in contact. Lecky says :
“We can be at no loss to discover the cause of its (Christianity’s)
triumph. No religion, under such circumstances, had ever
combined so many distinct elements of power and attraction.
It proclaimed the universal brotherhood of man. It taught
the supreme sanctity of love. It was the religion of the suffering
and the oppressed. The chief cause of its success was the
congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of man.”
Wo may extend the list, and say that one of its chief if
not its greatest attraction—to the suffering and oppressed
at any rate—was the overpowering boliof in the speedy
second coming of Christ to judge the world, and reign with
his saints on earth for 1,000 years.
To say that the conversion of the Roman Empire
was as literally supernatural as the raising of the
dead, is to talk, nonsense; but this has been said by
Christian apologists. Just as Christianity adapted itself
to the needs of the people of Palestine, and afterwards
swayed the Roman world, so did Buddhism adapt itself to
the wants of the Aryan races with which it came in contact.
When the question is asked, “IIow is it possible to explain
the success of Christianity without miraculous and divine
assistance
I would retort: How can you explain the
success of Buddhism without similar divine assistance?
1 he latter would be the more difficult task of the two for
what Gautama preached was a gospel of pure human ethics,
divorced not only from a future individual life, but even
from the existence of a God; and yet Buddhism can
boast of . a larger number of followers to-day than
Christianity can—even if we give the latter the benefit of all
her nominal adherents. Who can explain this? and vet
it is- a fact.
J
It has been argued that Christianity has sufficed to satisfy
N® Fritinal A6*? Of ? Bacon’ a Shakespeare, and I
Newton, that it has subdued and tamed the most savage
natures, reclaimed the drunkard and the thief, and proved
a blessing and a consolation to thousands of pious souls
�82
GOD AND REVELATION.
borne down by the sorrows and calamities of life. Hence
the inference is drawn that it must be divine.
That Christianity has claimed the allegiance of some of
the greatest minds of this or any age, I am not in a position
to deny. But it must not be overlooked that in the age of
Bacon and Shakespeare miraculous Christianity did not pre
sent the same difficulties as it does to us. A well-educated
schoolboy is, in certain branches of knowledge, ahead of
the greatest _ sages of antiquity. Sir Matthew Hale was
not inferior in intellect to a modern chief justice, because
he believed in witchcraft. As a well-known writer says,
“ The more enlightened modern who drops the errors of
his forefathers by help of that mass of experience which
his forefathers aided in accumulating, may often be,
according to the well-known saying, ‘ a dwarf on grant’s
shoulders
But as to the opinions of our leading men of the pre
sent day. In considering them as a guide to our own
beliefs, I would eliminate the views of all professional
theologians and teachers like Bishops Lightfoot and
Magee, because, although gifted with great intellectual
powers, they write and argue with preconceived views.
The whole force of their great intellect is used in support
of the beliefs they have been educated in, and for the
dofence of which they hold a brief. They write in all
honesty, but under a prepossession.
As regards the religious opinions of our leading
scientific men, they, it is well known, are opposed to any
view based on supernaturalism. But it is extremely difficult to get at the opinions of men whose opinions are
worth having. For the most part, they keep them to
themselves. It would be ’ extremely interesting to know
the religious views of, say, 100 of our leading statesmen,
men of science, philosophers, poets, and historians, etc.
The Pall Mall Gazette, who is always interviewing some one
or other, and eliciting opinions on divers subjects of
interest, might possibly help us here. Amongst the
mighty dead, who have rejected supernatural Christianity,
I would mention the names of Gibbon, Hume, Adam
Smith, Condorcet, Von Humboldt, Goethe, Thomas
Carlyle, George Eliot, and J. S. Mill.
The latter
points out that it would surprise us if we knew the
religious opinions of some of our leading men. For my
�GOD AND REVELATION.
83
own part, I have known at least two who have
conformed to the religious rites of the Church, and
yet have held “ sceptical views ” on religious subjects.
In respect to what are called strictly orthodox views, I
doubt whether one educated and thoughtful mind amongst
fifty holds them. Who amongst us can truthfully say that
he believes all that is embodied in our Church creeds?
When we hear one of our Church’s dignitaries saying
that he derives the greatest comfort and consolation from
the Athanasian Creed, what are we to think of his habit
of mind ? Is not this a very prostitution of the rational
faculty ?
That the teaching of Christianity has been the
support and mainstay of thousands; that it has in
fluenced the conduct, and altered the lives of thou
sands more, I should be the last to deny. There is
that in Christianity, quite apart from its miracles, which
satisfies the aspirations, and adapts itself to the wants and
circumstances of those brought under its influence. If true
Christianity consists, not in the acceptance of certain
metaphysical dogmas about the person and work of
Christ, and the nature of the Deity, but in the cultivation
of that spirit of self-sacrificing love which was the distin
guishing characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth, then we need
wonder at its claiming the allegiance of our
highest and most cultivated minds—and if (as is generally
the case) the belief in a future state of never-ending hap
piness,, as a reward for certain beliefs and lines of conduct
here, influences the lives of thousands, converting the
drunkard, and reclaiming the harlot and the thief, can we
Wonder at it ? Who denies that Christianity has been
an intense agency for good ? But we must not forget that
there is a reverse side to the picture—a religion based on
the Westminster confession of faith, and the shorter
catechism, has driven thousands to the lunatic asylum.
P1 our own day, the doctrine of hell fire is not quite
exploded. Father Ignatius, not long ago, preaching in a
friend s church, created the greatest excitement and terror
(as well he might) amongst his audience by bellowing
ioith. in a voice of thunder the following :
,
J lo?k /’ut into the churchyard I see the graves of
hundreds of thousands of former villagers who have gone
away. Where have they gone to ? Where ? Where, I ask ?
�84
GOD AND REVELATION.
To hell or to heaven ? Which ? To heaven ? Not half of them.
Your father is in hell! your mother is in hell! My dear people,
added the preacher, you are not accustomed to be spoken to
plainly, and in a matter-of-fact business-like way about your
souls. You are talked to as if religion were a sentimental
namby-pamby kind of thing.”
And Mr. Spurgeon is not far behind Jonathan Edwards1 in
his viows of the state of the lost. He says :
“ What will you think when the last day comes to hear Christ
say, ‘ Depart ye cursed, etc.’, and there will be a voice behind
him saying, ‘ Amen and as you enquire whence came that
voice, you will find it was your mother. Oh, young woman,
when thou art cast away into utter darkness, what will you
think to hear a voice saying ‘ Amen ’—and as you look, there
sits your father, his lips still moving with the solemn curse.”
Is not this another and a lamentable instance of
how men’s minds may become positively perverted, not
to say depraved, by adopting and teaching Calvinistic
theories of belief ? Oh, the pity of it! And yet, I
suppose, Mr. Spurgeon is not less humane naturally than
his unconverted brethren.
But to all this it may very fairly bo replied, “We
have nothing to do with certain individual opinions—
what does revelation teach?”. Well, that is a diffi
cult question to answer. If by revelation is meant the
teaching of the Bible, all I can say is, that it is very
diverse in its teaching, and this diversity is more clearly
seen the more it is submitted to the test of candid exami
nation. I maintain that no single phase of Christianity,
High Anglicanism or Evangelicalism, Trinitarianism or
Unitarianism—eternal torment or universalism—or con
ditional immortality—derives exclusive support from the
whole of the Bible. Each particular phase will find toxts
to support it. How is it that the common saying is literally
true—that we can prove almost anything from the Bible ?
How is it that sects the most opposite in doctrine and
belief do appeal to the Bible for their diverse beliefs ? How
is it that men go on fighting, apparently for ever, the
battle of the texts ? The simple and, I fancy, true expla
nation is that the Bible is written by men writing as
1 J. Edwards says: “However the saints in heaven may have
loved the damned whilst here, their eternal damnation will only serve
to increase a relish for their own enjoyments ”,
�GOD AND REVELATION.
85-
fallible human beings to the best of their judgment and
belief, but holding diverse views, and not always holding
the same views at all periods of their lives.
It is hard to say whether the doctrine of eternal torment is
or is not taught in the Bible. In some places it appears to be,
and in others not. St. Paul seems to me on the whole to
have held the view of the total annihilation of the wicked,
while Jesus Christ (at first sight, at any rate) appears to
have taught the doctrine of everlasting torment; but it
may well be, as Matthew Arnold points out, that all th©
expressions about hell and judgment and eternal fire, used
by him, were quotations from the book of Enoch; that he
found the texts, ready at hand, which his hearers under
stood, and employed the ready-made notions of heaven
and hell and judgment, just as Socrates talked of the rivers
of Tartarus.
In contradistinction to the views of Mr. Spurgeon and
others, it is only fair to quote the Rev. H. Allon, a wellknown Congregational minister. In his lecture on the
moral teaching of the New Testament (published at the
request of the Christian Evidence Society), he says,
“Whatever perplexity our minds may feel about the
possible meaning (possible indeed!) of New Testament
threatenings, we may surely trust his love, that it will bo
nothing from which our human love would shrink
If
this be so, we may at once discard the doctrine of
eternal punishment, for we may be quite sure that
no earthly father, however brutal his instincts may
be, would condemn even the worst of sons to an
eternity of torment, though it should consist only of
mental torment.
But is Mr. Allon’s teaching Biblical ? I doubt it.
The editor of the Christian is very wrath with those
who assert the universal Fatherhood of God.
He
says: “We protest solemnly against this doctrine; first,
because it cannot be found or proved from the Bible;
secondly, because, like all other errors, it subverts the
truth, and also because it does away with the necessity for
the substitutionary work of Christ, for no true father needs
expiation, and only a judge or a ruler demands satisfaction
tor the law broken, and is bound by absoluto justice to
exact punishment; but not so a father, he is ever ready to
forgive ”. There is a good deal of unconscious irony in
�86
GOD AND REVELATION.
all this, but bow far it accords with Biblical tomchiny it
is difficult to say.
For my own part, I am inclined to think that the New
Testament, on the whole, teaches the eternity of punish
ment (if not of physical torment), although a believer in
conditional immortality, or a universalist, will find much
in its pages to support either view. At any rate, when we
find men like Canon Farrar and Professor Plumptre deny
ing that the doctrine of eternal punishment is taught
in the Bible; and others, like the late Dr. Pusey and
the late Bishop of Lincoln (no whit behind the other
two in scholarship) declaring that it is, we begin to
realise the impossibility of arriving at any decision on
the point.
But supposing the Bible does teach the doctrine of
eternal punishment; what then ? Must we believe it ? Not
unless we are also prepared to believe in demoniacal posses
sion and witchcraft. John "Wesley was^ not far wrong,
when he said that to give up a belief in witchcraft was
tantamount to giving up a belief in the Bible.
It has, however, been suggested to me that, admitting
the fallibility of the Church, and the non-inspiration of the
Bible (inspiration is here referred to in the sense generally
understood by Christian apologists), is it not possible that
there may have been a gradual unfolding of revelation.
For instance, in the physical world, secrets of the highest
importance to the race to know—discoveries in medicine,
in chemistry, in electricity, in sanitation, etc.—have been
hidden for thousands of years, and are now only as it were’
coming to light and benefitting the race (we may even yet
be only in the vestibule of knowledge). Is it not possible
that a similar law may hold good in the moral world ?
The planet we inhabit was not fashioned in a day. If the
Deity works by slowly evolving processes in one depart
ment of the universe, may He not do so in another ? Who
shall undertake to deny that he is not now, and ever has
been, slowly but surely preparing the world for the recep
tion of spiritual truths, and bringing it to a knowledge of
Himself. May not all religions that have claimed the
allegiance of mankind contain some truths or adumbra
tions of the truth ? and, amongst all the greatest religious
teachers the world has ever seen, may not the prophet of
Nazareth have received the largest measure of inspiration
�GOD AND REVELATION.
87
of them all, and yet not have been divine in the sense in
which Christians generally understand the term ?
Granting the existence of a Being who desires to make a
revelation to mankind^ I see nothing antecedently improbable
in the • idea. Judging by analogy, it seems to me more
likely to be true than the dogma of a final and stereotyped
revelation (as contended for by Paley) delivered once for
all to an ignorant and barbarous nation, residing in a small
corner of the globe, to the exclusion of other nations, which
were, to say the least of it, in quite as forward a state of
civilisation, and therefore as fit to be the recipients of a
revelation as the nation to which it is declared to have
been especially vouchsafed; but however this may be, the
idea of a gradual unfolding of revelation seems to me, at
present at any. rate, incapable of verification, and must,
therefore, remain an hypothesis at the best.
What, then, is the conclusion to which we have come ?
This. (1) That nature affords no satisfactory evidence of
the existence of a supreme, omnipotent, righteous, and
benevolent Being, who is distinct from and independent of
what. He has created (such evidence as there is rather
pointing to. the existence of an intelligent Being, who is
either wanting in benevolence or wanting in power); (2)
that nature failing us, when we turn to the Christian
revelation whether conveyed through the medium of an
infallible or inspired Church, or book, or both—for evidence
of what we seek, we find it, too, fails to support the desired
conclusion.
This may seem to be a melancholy result at which to
arrive, and the question may be asked, “What then
remains if we have no sure ground of faith—nothing
certain and tangible to reply upon ? ” Are we to eat,
drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die, and are no
more seen ? If such a line of conduct yielded the highest
form of happiness, I should be inclined to answer the
question in the affirmative. For intelligent and rational
human beings, however, we know that it does not. But for
those who are not intelligent and rational, what then?
How are we to make it plain to the brutal savage, or even
j r Palely selfish nature, that virtue is better than vice
and honesty better than dishonesty ? Plainly we cannot do
so, the world being constituted as it is at present. As a
thoughtful writer points out: “It is impossible to construct
�88
GOD AND REVELATION.
a chain, of reasoning which shall recommend the grand
principle of morality, apart from any question of rewards
and punishments hereafter, to beings whose only thought
it is to fill their bellies and gratify their lusts.” Upon such
natures the fear of consequences exercises a wholesome re
straint (the fear of hell, as Burns has it, is a hangman’s whip
to h’aud the wretch in order); but because we cannot do so,
does this.afford any justification, to those who know better,
for leading a life of self-indulgence, regardless of the
wants, the rights, and privileges of others, and indifferent
as to whether their conduct affects their neighbours
injuriously or not ? Certainly not. But the question of
“ why must I do what is right when it apparently conflicts
with my own interests to do so ” is one which is foreign
to the scope and purport of this essay. All that I would
remark in this connection is, that it seems tome quite possible
to reject dogma, and to believe that much in the Old and
New Testament (especially the Old) is unhistorical; and
yet to look to Christ as our highest exemplar, and to
acknowledge that the ethics of the sermon on the mount
will hold good for all time, and that the closer we follow
its teaching, the better will it be, not only for our individual
interests, but for those of the community of which we
form but an infinitesimal part.
As to the question of a future state of existence, by
which I mean the continuance in a future fife of the
individual ego, I should bo sorry to dogmatise; but I must
say, the difficulties of imagining anything of the kind are
enormous. That any fool or idiot (as Charles Bray says)
can have the powei’ to bring into existence a dozen beings
that shall bo immortal, and whose condition may ultimately
bo one of everlasting misery, is truly a wonderful and
horrible conception; besides, if wo grant a future life to
a Newton and a Shakespeare, must we not do so too to the
uncultured savage, whoso moral ideas are nil, and whose
language is not much above the clacking of hens, or the
twittering of birds ?
As we stand by the death-bed of one inexpressibly
dear to us, it seems impossible to realise the fact that
wo are parting for ever; but if we reflect a little, it
may occur to us that after the lapse of years our whole
habits and thoughts so change, that a reunion may not be
so desirable as it at one time appeared. The child loses
�GOD AND REVELATION.
89
its mother; the child grows into an adult, forms other
ties, and becomes in time a grey-headed old man ; he has
almost, forgotten his mother, at any rate has ceased to
look forward with rapturous delight to a reunion with her.
Similarly the mother, if in another world, has also pre
sumably formed fresh ties and associations, and would fail
to recognise her son in the old man, whose mind has
presumably changed as much as his body.
As for the argument that without a future state it is
impossible to justify the ways of God to man, it has no
weight with those, of course, who are not Theists, and
even for those who are, the argument seems to be a poor
one. Mr. Voysey writes: “I would leave the Atheist far
behind in my maledictions against the gross and unspeak
able cruelty and immorality of the course of this world, if
there were no future state ” ; and Paracelsus says :
‘ ‘ Truly there needs another life to come !
If this be all----And other life awaits us not—for one
I say ’tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle,
A wretched failure. I, for one, protest
Against it, and hurl it back with scorn
But it seems to me that if God’s dealings with man cannot
be justified here, they are not likely to be justified here
after.
Macaulay observes:
“Tn truth all the philosophers, ancient and modern, who
have attempted without the help of revelation to prove the
immortality of man, appear to have failed deplorably.”
And Professor Huxley says :
“ Our sole means of knowing anything is the reasoning
faculty which God has given us, and that reasoning faculty
not only denies any conception of a future state, but fails to
furnish a single valid argument in favour of the belief that the
mind will endure after the dissolution of the body.”
Nevertheless, it may. At any rate, whether there is a
future life or not, it is plainly for our advantage (I mean
for those who are civilised human beings) to improve our
condition here, and to cultivate those moral instincts, which,
whatever may be their origin, have become part and parcel
of our nature, to the best of our ability—confident that in
so doing we shall be playing our right part in the world,
�90
GOD AND REVELATION.
and at the same time best fitting ourselves for any future state
that may possibly be in store for us, and should none await
us, then this world’s advantages, in their highest sense,
will at least have been secured to us.
���
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God and revelation
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 90 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Published anonymously.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Arthur Bonner
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 (God and revelation), 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>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N282
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
God
NSS
Revelation-Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/144333907e0df5166510fb57b643e074.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=wFPtJl9SGSlcFSFZL-hqEXSPyAkLmXI7dOsc8Pjg0ZMItiQHQ20DtxCaWFI6fvGPUnyaO82mc1KmEI12qn6gA51NJJPUvngCiAfluKtF6elilf1LwCp-ktshez8Lvt%7ELRMtMTUXzuvSSZZpfigtUwKvqOmGeM5j3BAhaif9m-6FxS21KaXka9jbpgc8%7EuaFBpGS3meYH5JJGGurP54PS384B7PL-4mq0nspxa7d28oqDZ-40bfORYx6CIqgjBc56sRf%7ECsGrsRScj35fhiopT9fSegYIwda1PK8dzKs2UYiEtfHLATiyoZcaCATbWy1rReCHt1yAQnm2n0Sotl8c6w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c4fe65c4f321c6538774d95c70ac2a8
PDF Text
Text
B 2a>9
KSt>S£
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
GOD.
Being also a Bsiet Statement ot Arguments
Against agnosticism.
BY
“TIUM ANITAS.”
Author of
“ Is God
Heaven”,
Commons
“ Christ’s Temptation”, “ Jacob the Wrestler”, “Jonah and the Whale”,
the First Cause?”, “Follies of the Lord’s Prayer”, “ Though's on
“Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath Question”, “How the British House of
Treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”, “ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish
Nation”, “ Socialism a Curse”, “ Against Socialism”, etc.
QoclIm?
PldxT \
LONDON:
FEEETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
COMPANY,
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH AND ANNIE BKSANT,
63 ELEET STREET, E;C.
�GOD.
BEING ALSO A BRIEF STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM
The following observations were suggested to me by a
remark—or rather, by a question put to me in the shape
•of an argument—by an intimate and, I believe, a true
friend, under rather peculiar circumstances. He is not
•only a Christian—and I will do him the justice of believing
him to be a sincere one—but a “ minister of the Gospel ”,
having qualified himself in what should have been his
hours of rest from daily toil, under the auspices of Mr.
Spurgeon.
We chanced to be inside a very important Catholic
•church in the City of Dublin. It was upon a Saturday
evening, a favorite time for going to confession amongst
the poorer Catholics. The interior of the place presented the
appearance usual upon such occasions, being only partially
and dimly lit up ; making the small red lamp burning in
front of the high altar [indicating the presence of the
“Host”—i.e., a small piece of God’s “ very flesh ” in the
form of the “ wafer ”, which is made of flour and water]
more remarkable and mysterious. Groups of penitents
kneeled and prayed, beads in hand, in front of one or
other of the numerous altars, either waiting their turn to
disappear into one of the many confessionals, or saying a
few prayers—perhaps a portion of their penance—after
coming out from them. Occasionally a priest would glide
quickly and silently past in that well-known conventional
and prof essional manner peculiar to them and their calling;
bowing to the very ground in solemn fashion as he passed
the “Adorable Host”. Pictures of the “Stations of the
�4
GOD.
Cross”; highly colored and decorated statues of “Our
Saviour”, the “Blessed Virgin”, “ St. Joseph”, and various
other saints ; stained glass windows, looking strangely and
weirdly indistinct in the dim light, and helping the gene
rally mysterious glamor which prevailed; people in various
stations of life, but chiefly the poor, sprinkling themselves
with holy water, blessing themselves and making the sign
of the Cross as they passed, or almost crept, in and out;
the curious odor so dear to the olfactory nerves of the
faithful, caused by the burning of incense, and which
never seems to leave the building: these, together with
many other features peculiar to the Catholic Church, seen
by my friend for perhaps the first time, inspired him with
much curiosity, but withal much contempt. I think it
likely that he experienced some such feelings, as did the
simple honest Scotchman when he, for the first time in his
life, got a glimpse of a bishop in the full blaze of his
glory and paraphernalia, officiating in a Catholic Church
upon the occasion of its being opened for public worship,
and exclaimed : “Ah! mon, but it’s the deil!”. However
that may have been, he is, as I say, a Christian minister,
and of course fervently believes in the existence of God.
In fact, he went so far as to declare—and I believe in all
sincerity—that he did not believe one single human being
existed who thought for a single moment there was no
God. This being so, and whilst we stood opposite the high
altar, he appeared to be suddenly struck with an idea: he
thought he saw a favorable opportunity of driving home
an argument, and thereby eventually saving my soul from
the awful doom which he felt sorrowfully confident was
hanging over it. For, turning to me, with much solici
tude, he asked the question to which I have alluded,
viz., “ Does not that fine piece of work ”—pointing to the
high altar—“ show design ? Does it not bespeak thought,
intelligence: in short, does it not show mind on the part of
the maker ? ” Of course I at once saw at what my friend
was driving; and there, in the centre of mystery and
mummery, with the Faithful, and, as we both thought,
foolish devotees, bowing and scraping, and blessing and
mumbling and crawling about us, we two, a Baptist
minister and an avowed Atheist, held an argument as to
whether there existed a God or- not. Of course it was
held in undertones ; but more than once we were
�GOD.
5
suspiciously glanced at; and, wonderful to relate, the
walls did not fall in upon us, nor did the floor open and
swallow us up! I believe, Atheist as I am, and holding
the Church of Rome—with its host, its mutterings, its
tinsel and trappings, its celibate (?)' priesthood, and its
large and lucrative trade done in departed souls—to be all
delusion and pretence, that my friend’s disgust at what
was passing around us, was greater than mine. Yet he,
in turn, finds no difficulty in subscribing to such things as
the “Trinity”, the “Fall”, and the “Atonement”
(embracing as the latter does, the pre-ordained tragedy of
the murder of God No. 2); the doctrine of eternal torment,
and the usual orthodox miracles ascribed to Christ, etc.,
■etc.
With these few observations as to the origin of the pre
sent paper, I will at once proceed with my task.
In dealing with my subject, I shall hold that “God”
means, not only the “Sovereign Lord”, the “Supreme
Being”, the “Maker of heaven and earth”, etc., which
terms all convey pretty much the same meaning or idea ;
but that it must necessarily mean the beginning of all
things; in fact, the First Cause. I take this to be the
primary meaning of the term; and to be the centre of nearly
all the definitions put forward. [I shall, in concluding
this paper, make some remarks upon the question as to
whether an Atheist can reasonably hold that the term God
conveys no meaning to him. “Creator”, “Maker”,
“First Cause ”, etc., seem to me to be fairly definite, and
to convey the idea that the person who uses them, or the
term (God) for which they stand, holds that he exists.]
Christians generally certainly hold God to be the begin
ning of all things. They all, with perhaps slight varia
tion, teach what is conveyed in : “ Before all things were,
God was ”. And the Theist, pure and simple, holds that
he in some fashion or other made, or caused the universe.
I shall, as a matter of course, endeavor to show that this
is erroneous.
My friend’s contention, as will have been observed,
amounts to nothing more nor less than our old familiar
friend the design argument: that because an altar, a
building, or a piece of machinery, indicates mind on the
part of the constructor, therefore the universe must have
had a constructor who possessed that attribute. I do not,
�6
GOD.
however, think that either he or they who hold the sama
opinion are sufficiently logical to admit that, inasmuch
as the universe, like the objects referred to, showsgreat imperfections, therefore its maker, like theirs, must
necessarily have had only an imperfect mind. To make
this logical confession would defeat the object of the
comparison and inference drawn.
My first objection to the theory that the universe wasconstructed or made is that it pre-supposes a period when
a universal nothing prevailed ; that there was a time when
this world, with its sun and its planets, and the other
millions of worlds, compared with which this is quite
insignificant, did not exist; and when matter in any form
was not. The thing is simply unthinkable. It is pure
assumption. It used to be assumed and enforced—by
death if necessary—before the shape, dimensions, laws,
etc., which govern this world (not to mention the others)
were known, that the very matter of which it is composed
was made—called into existence by this intelligent God,
about 6,000 years ago. But science having rendered that
position untenable, a compromise is made: what was
inspiration then is not inspiration now; and it is therefore
held that the raw material only existed previous to that
period, and that creating simply means fashioning, or
working into shape, which again was not accomplished in
the good old-fashioned six days—upon one of which we
are enjoined to rest from our labor—but perhaps (and
mark the perhaps) took six incalculable lapses of time.
But this latter-day shift does not touch upon the question
of the previous making of the matter. It leaves it exactly
where it was : impossible to suppose, and a most un
necessary assumption.
But it is further contended that the world was not only
made, but that its maker must have possessed intelligence,
must have had a mind. It ought not to be necessary to
point out that intelligence, or mind, is the result of brain
power. It is impossible to conceive or think of mind
except in conjunction with organism. And God is claimed
by those who insist upon his existence to be a pure spirit
without either body or parts. "What can be really known
of a pure spirit ? And how can you couple mind with it ?
Mind is a faculty of, and belonging to, certain animal
organisations, having its seat in the brain; and intelli
�GOD.
7
gence is the result of the greater or lesser supply, quality,
or exercise of that essentially animal organ.
How then
can a pure spirit, which cannot be conceived as having
any functional power or conditions whatever, be said to
possess mind ? As well might you speak of God’s mouth,
or God’s any other part, as speak of his mind. Indeed,
the folly to which I point is actually reached in such
phrases as “his all-seeing eye”, “the finger of God”,
etc., which are the common cant of Christians. I suppose
I shall be told these are but figures of speech ; but I see
no more reason for making them such than for doing a
like thing with God’s intelligence, which is the pivot upon
which the argument for design turns.
There are many Theists who do not venture upon a
description of God, simply contending that he does in some
fashion exist. Well, that is certainly much safer ground,
but of course it does not find favor with those who, whilst
holding him to be pure spirit, yet contend for his personality.
No less a person than Archdeacon Farrar1 is just now
triumphantly asking by way of a death blow to Atheism,
where motion and life came from ‘1 save the finger tips of
omnipotence ? ” It might be remarked, by the way, that
when the venerable Archdeacon is asked, Whence came
omnipotence ? it becomes his turn to take his own advice,
and, giving the “Rabbi’s answer”, say “I do not know”.
But the cream of the joke is, the Archdeacon thinks he
has solved the problem. It is doubtless very pretty and
off-handed, to talk about the world coming from God’s
finger tips: but why did he not say from his toe ends ?
For my own part, I do not think it matters much which
limb or end of omnipotence you make use of, either as
matter of fact, or figure of speech. Omnipotence could,
when he had the world, or worlds, rolled up into round
lumps, as easily have tipped them off with his foot, as
with his hand. I am curious to know upon what he rested
the rough lumps when at work upon them. Did he climb
all over them, or rest them in his lap ? Can God who is
without form, body, or parts, have a lap ? Get behind,
1 See the National Reformer of August 5th, 1888, containing his
seven questions, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s replies. Also Ernest Ferrol’s
reply in Secular Review of August 25th, 1888, and “Julian’s” scath
ing remarks in same journal of a week later.
�8
GOD.
ye of little faith!—or go to Archdeacon Farrar, and he
will tell you that God, being God, can have many laps,
and no lap, at one and the same time. What does the
Archdeacon say to this ? He speaks of the finger tips of
omnipotence : then why not of the nether end ? One were
as foolish as the other : and yet he deemed those who do
not come to the same conclusion as himself, to be talking
“ stupendous nonsense ”.
I believe that the idea of God working upon the worlds
cobbler-fashion is not, however, the orthodox one: a much
more sublime view is taken. God is made more of a
necromancer, or wizard : he did his work by his word :—
“ Heigh presto ! ” and it was done. “ Let there be light ”,
etc. “And it was so”, notwithstanding that there had
already been three mornings and evenings, and, shall I
be profane if I conclude, also nights ? How very omnipotent this God—formless, yet fingered and eyed—must
have been ! And it will not avail to argue that those
terms really are figures of speech, because having refer
ence to the particular attribute—mind—which we are
mainly considering ; it is implicitly believed that he is not
only possessed of intelligence, but is the fountain-head
of all wisdom. And there is logically no more reason why
eyes and fingers, or any other functional condition or term,
should be held to be figurative, than intelligence. . Seeing
is certainly as much the result of function as intelligence,
and intelligence is not less the result of function than see
ing. No doubt this figurative idea is extremely useful.
The inspired Scriptures are held to be both figurative and
literal, as occasion and the needs of this and that particular
doctrine or dogma may require. Of course it goes for
nothing that those who thus ring the changes, do so to
prove each other wrong,—both, too, being under God’s
Divine Providence!
Now, looking the argument fully in the face, that
because work done by man shows him to be possessed of a
mind, therefore the universe shows it must also have been
produced by a personal power—or even power other than
personal—possessing that quality ; I reply that nothing of
the kind necessarily follows, especially when it is contended
that the power or person so acting is pure spirit, producing
its work out of nothing. I think no one will be guilty of
holding cause and effect to be contained in such a pre
�GOD.
9
posterous contention. And the case is even worse when it
is further contended that its work demonstrates supreme
power as well as supreme intelligence.
It does not follow that, because a piece of music or a
steam engine is the result of brains, therefore the universe
is also the result of brains: much less of brains dwelling
in what could not possibly be a dwelling-place for them.
Because in order to produce your power, your brains, your
mind, or your intelligence, you have to travel out of nature
into something indefinable, something in which neither
•one nor the other could exist—in reality into nothing.
Talking of “omnipotence” does not explain anything;
neither does accounting for nature by supernature. Many
shallow Christians besides Archdeacon Farrar have made
•merry over what it is pretended the Atheist believes as
regards chance ; while they themselves maintain that law
and order were produced by miracle, which is a negation
•of all law, and that nature, which is an endless chain of
cause and effect, was caused by an uncaused cause ! This
is less logical than chance. If a cannon ball chanced to come
into contact with a man’s head it would speedily produce
an effect. But your uncaused cause is simply a contradic
tion of terms, or a logically impossible arrangement of
terms, and kills itself. Those who so argue resemble the
poor man who, thinking he had no further use for his
brains, got a friend to knock them out for him; or the
little boy who, having opened all his cockles by means of
•each other, was at a loss how to proceed on coming to the
last one, and so smashed it.
As a matter of fact the materialist is the last to subscribe
to a belief in “ chance ”. He must necessarily hold to
law and order ; it is the corner stone of his position. He
cannot even indulge in the luxury of a temporary reversion
or cessation of law, either through the instrumentality of
prayer or otherwise.
Perhaps the main difference upon this point between,
say, an advanced scientific Christian Theist and an Atheist
is that the former, arguing that the fact of the existence
of the world is insufficient, will insist upon going behind
it to find a cause. But he will then stultify himself and
cut the throat of his own argument by asserting the said
cause to have been itself uncaused: thus of a verity
straining at the gnat, and swallowing the camel.
�10
GOD.
The Atheist and Materialist, on the other hand, at once
admits that he knows nothing, and can know nothing,
beyond the universe. He takes it as he finds it. And
one of his highest aims is to become acquainted with it:
to understand the laws which govern and pervade it. But
he cannot suppose a time when it did not exist, nor a
time when it will cease to exist. Change it may, but it
will be in obedience to laws inherent in itself. Nature
perpetually changes, but it does not cease. And there is
no more reason to suppose that it began to be, than that
it will cease to be. Let anyone seriously try to think a
period in which there existed nothing — not even the
atmosphere; that all the millions cf orbs, suns, or systems
—for we cannot confine ourselves to our own comparatively
small system—did not exist, were not made; and that
somewhere out in space there did exist, and always had
existed, an incomprehensible something, formless, brain
less, and without substance, and yet possessing the
intelligence and power to produce all these millions of
worlds out of nothing, as if by magic. Let him attempt
to think it, and he will not only be lost in the folly of the
effort, but also in that of the reasoning it implies.
If the fact be candidly recognised that the world bears
down in its depths, and upon its surface, unmistakable
proofs of its incalculable age; and if it also be admitted
that there cannot be gathered one single scrap of evidence
that it once did not exist—that, as I have pointed out, a
time when it and all nature, of which it is but part, was
not, is unthinkable—the logical conclusion which affirms
the eternity of nature and her laws—by which I mean all
that happens in nature, and that is necessary for the
happening—will have to be conceded : thus shutting out,
or allowing no room for God. Nature therefore being
all-sufficient and eternal, necessarily could not have had
a supernatural beginning, nor indeed any beginning.
If I am told the world bears evidence of having had an
intelligent maker, I reply that such is not the case. It
bears evidence of vast and perpetual change ; of lapse after
lapse of time so great as to almost annul our sense of what
time means; but nowhere does it point to an intelligent
maker, and therefore a beginning. Nor does it give
evidence of an ending. In fact it gives evidence of its
own eternity. And least of all does it give evidence of
�GOI).
11
having had a beginning in a something which of a neces
sity must have been foreign to the laws and principles
which are part and parcel of itself. Of tho intelligence of
the alleged maker, as evidenced by his work, I will speak
presently.
The Theist, in his anxiety to find a beginning for what
it is impossible to conceive as having had one, travels out
of tho universe, beyond the real and knowable into the
regions of fairyland; and seems to havo invented—and
the Christians, with various additions and modifications
to have adopted—a kind of fabulous monster combining
all the good and bad qualities of his predecessors rolled
into one ; with the difference that while as a rule the
Gods which he replaced, or who went before him, took,
and were worshipped in, some particular shape or form,
the Jew-Christian God is said to be entirely without form ;
but is at the same timo capable of assuming all shapes
and forms, and also of assuming no shape or form what
ever, as time and occasion may require. Ho is accredited
with other peculiarities, perhaps not common to his more
savage and less manipulated precursors and contemporaries :
such as being a pure spirit without parts, but nevertheless
able to see, walk, talk, and sit; and possessing memory,
will, and understanding.
According to Dr. Cross, an enlightened and Christian
member of tho Liverpool City Council,1 God actually has
a “ snout ” capable of receiving a “ slap ” “ with tho back
of the” municipal “hand”. Which statement another
even more Christian councillor, not relishing the profanity
of his civic brothor, indignantly interpreted as “giving
the Almighty a bloody noso ” ! But tho most amusing
part of this incident was that the latter gentleman had to
withdraw, whilst the former statement was allowed to
stand unchallenged. So that by the decision of these
exports in Christian and Doistic niceties, it is fail’ enough
to speak of giving tho Almighty a “back-hander” on the
“snout”; but the line must bo drawn at bloodying his
nose. These arc not my vulgarities, bear in mind, but
are those of Christian gentlemen who would not desecrate
the Sabbath by giving their sanction to tho means of
educating working people upon that awful day.
1 See “Summary of News” iu National Reformer, August 12th, 1888.
�12
GOD.
Having regard to the traits and characteristics which go
to make up the Christian Deity, one cannot help thinking
that he would form a most interesting and unique addition
to the God Department of the Exhibition of Religions
newly opened at Paris. The only difficulty I see would
be as to shape. A pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke would
not be quite so tangible, and perhaps God-like, as some of
their divine majesties already placed. The form of man
is, I venture to think, too commonplace; and to give him
his great characteristic, no form at all, is of course quite
cut of the question. Hence the difficulty in representa
tion. It is possible that, if appealed to, he might deign to
signify to the promoters of the Exhibition in what par
ticular guise he would wish to appear amongst his rival
high-and-mighties.
In speaking of the shape or image of God, it is curious
to note that the portion of man which he is said to have
made in his own image and likeness is that particular
portion—?■'.<?., his mind—which is imageless, and which he
possesses, though in a larger degree, in common with all
creatures whose systems include brains. Therefore it
would be quite as true to say that he made cats and dogs
in his own image as to say it of man; or, in other words,
one statement is equally as foolish as the other.
It might not be out of place here to remark what I have
more than once pointed out—viz., the extreme reluctance
displayed nowadays by defenders of Christianity to discuss
or to touch upon the God of the Bible, and his doings as
therein related. They either evade or refuse point blank
to deal with the subject, pretending that it has nothing to
do with Christianity, etc., etc. Well, if not altogether
logical, it is yet good. It is well they are ashamed of the
root of their tree, and it gives hope that they will eventually
entertain a similar feeling with regard to the fruit thereof.
But I ask seriously and pointedly how Christians—and I
allude especially to Trinitarians—can hold Christ the Son
—who is co-equal with God the Father, being not a
separate God, but the second person of the God-head,
practically one and the same—to be innocent, or in any
way not responsible for all the acts said and done, as
related in the Old Testament ? The weak attempt at
evasion anent the New Dispensation, etc., does not
suffice; and cannot make bloodshed, deceit and lying,
�GOD.
13
obscenity, and profligate barbarity, other than they
are.
Whilst admitting that Judaism taken alone is not Chris
tianity, I urge that it is the foundation upon which it is
built, and that a Christian, whilst accepting the super
structure, may not reasonably eschew the foundation.
Man in building up a civilisation may reasonably subscribe
to the present-day result, whilst at the same time admitting
that many of the events which went before were not, as
now viewed, right or moral, man can but use his brains,
and he necessarily and often blunders. Frequently he
knowingly commits crime, which must be condemned,
although future generations are influenced and compelled
to shape their course by reason of it. Indeed the blunders
and crimes, as well as the great achievements and virtues
in the direction of truth and acknowledged right, of those
who go before, shape the course of those who follow.
But a God building up a religion—giving to man the
actual standard of right—is altogether another question.
He is not at liberty to blunder and commit crime, other
wise he is not God. Man cannot conceive (I admit some
men can) a God leading his people through bloodshed,
pillage, and rapine to a righteous goal. Man cannot
conceive a God doing and saying such things, and
establishing for centuries foolish fables regarding natural
facts, as not only to constrain his “ enemies ”, but his very
disciples, either to denounce or evade him. But such is
the case, for it would seem now that God has in part
changed his skin, and that number two portion is much
whiter than number one. Bible Theism is not now deemed
sufficiently respectable to go hand in hand with New
Testament Theism. The Son is ashamed of the Father,
and I look forward to a time when the enlightened will
be ashamed of both ; by which I mean, ashamed of being
—or rather of pretending to be—bound down and ruled
by such books of fable as both the Old and New Testa
ments admittedly are.
Going back again to the folly of hunting for a God, it
really is interesting to note how, in obedience to what he
believes to be a logical necessity, your believer in his
existence, after he has left the land of science and fact,
entered that of imagination and myth, and secured, as he
thinks, his origin for the land he has left, will, without
�14
GOD.
scruple, disregard what he conceived to be the logical
necessity which sent him there. He opines that there must
have been a beginning to all things, falls down before the
indescribable creation of his own brain, damns his brother
if he does not do likewise, proclaims that he has found the
beginning, and thus ignores the very principle which sent
him in search of it. All things must have a beginning,
except, forsooth, his God. That were a child’s method of
solving the difficulty. It is also a child’s method of
shirking it.
It may be contended, in fact it was so put by my friend,
that it is enough if the necessity for a maker of the world
is demonstrated, without going behind that maker : that
it is enough for man to know there is a creator, without
pushing the enquiry as to how be came about. I reply
that it is not enough. First, because that would be a
good argument against his existence, and for the allsufficiency of nature. But I reply further, and principally,
that the argument which insists upon the necessity of a
God, when carried to its fair and legitimate end, simply
annihilates him. If you insist that the universe—all
nature—must have had a cause (of .course an intelligent
one) equal to the effect, you must in common sense admit
that your cause is the effect of an antecedent cause also
equal to the effect. And so on, ad infinitum. Where then
is your first cause? I say that, according to your own
showing, your God is not a respectable half-way house to
the first cause. His very existence, as created by man,
logically kills him. The truth is, he does not, and so far
as we are able to reason, could not exist.
It may be argued that it were as reasonable to hold
that God always was, and therefore had no beginning, as
to hold the same thing of the universe and of nature. But
I reply again: first, that the God theory, whilst being in
no way a solution of the real difficulty, merely aggravates
it. It is a large and a gratuitous addition, and simply
piles difficulty upon difficulty. It assumes as a basis of its
existence, what the need for its existence says is impossible;
and so either evades or strangles the principle it evokes.
And I reply secondly: that man cannot travel beyond
nature. If ever he finds a first cause it must be a natural
one. To him super-nature is nil, he can know nothing of
it; and, therefore, to endeavor to account for nature upon
�GOD.
15
what must necessarily be not only pure assumption, but
the assumption of something to which you have no means
of applying a test, is simply nonsense. Let us suppose
that it is admitted that the beginning of nature is an im
penetrable mystery. Do we gain anything by creating
another and a more impenetrable mystery ? We know
the universe exists, but we do not know how it came to
exist; and in our simplicity we create a Aow, which must
be logically beset with the same impenetrable mystery and
necessity for an origin as that for which it is made to
account. Thus, whilst going very cunningly round the
smaller pit, we fall headlong into the larger one, com
placently belauding ourselves the while for our great
sagacity.1
When a person argues that, inasmuch as the world
could not have made itself, it must therefore have had a
maker ; but that the said maker—let it or him be what
soever you please—is free from such necessity, he does but
shift from what he considers one insurmountable barrier
to another and a more insurmountable one. It is like
saying ten must be composed of a sufficient number of
units, or their equivalent, but that twenty need not. But
such a method of reasoning brings you no nearer the
beginning : You are no nearer the First Cause.
This method of arguing back to Grod, and then killing
your argument, is very like that contained in the following
dialogue :—
“ Mother, who or what made that little gooseberry ? ”
“ That big one, my child.”
“ But mother, who made the big one ? ”
“My dear child” (this rather severely), “the big one
never was made ; it always existed.”
“ But mother, how could a big gooseberry exist without
having been made, any more than a little one ? ”
“ Hush I child ” (this time quite sternly); “ that is a
foolish and a wicked question.”
But why is it foolish ? Why does the Theist strain at
1 If those who believe in the mystery called God, did nothing worse
than pat themselves on the back, there would be very little harm
done. But they have ostracised and even burned alive their brother,
for but saying or doing something which pointed in a contrary direc
tion.
�16
GOD.
the smaller difficulty and swallow the larger one ? Why
endeavor to account for a seeming impossibility by accepting,
without question, a greater ?
Materialists see in this universe an endless chain of
cause and effect; and are not only willing but anxious ta
investigate these changes and conditions, down to the
remotest and most minute data. To them there is no
dread of encountering some awful nightmare in scientific
study, which will possibly shatter the fabric upon which
they build their theory. That such fear does exist amongst
Christians is evidenced by such statements as the following:
“How can we expect men of science, who do not neces
sarily believe in God, to be impressed by us, if we, who
do profess to believe in a spiritual creator, recoil from
much they tell us about the creative methods as if it would
undermine our faith1? ”1 (Italics mine). And, “why does
the scientific dread of first causes alarm us, if we heartily
believe ? ” etc.
Why, indeed! The non-supernaturalist—who does not
11 believe in a spiritual creator”—can have no fear or
alarm in unveiling nature; it is his interest and desire to
study her laws, and to become familiar with them, and,
when proven, to admit them as facts, preconceived doctrines
and revealed religion notwithstanding. But he is not
prepared to travel out of nature in order to find a super
natural origin for her existence. There is indeed no reason
for such a proceeding, nor necessity for it. Mother nature
is sufficient, is all in all. You cannot go beyond her, nor
get outside her influence. Super-nature is not. And this
fact is painfully evident in the efforts made by men to
dabble in the supernatural. Their gods, who may always
be regarded as the personification of their particular myth,
are generally disfigured with the passions, loves, and
hates which sway themselves. They are, physiologically
—if I may so misapply the word—made up of the legs and
wings of the animal world, after the manner of your
approved nondescript, which, whilst being unlike anything
in “the heavens above” or in “the earth beneath”, must
necessarily be built of such limbs and parts—no matter
how uncouthly thrown together—as are familiar to man.
’ See J. R. Hutton’s address upon “Atheism” at the Church
Congress, held at Manchester, October 3rd, 18S8.
�GOD.
17
The Gods always reflect the physiological and intellectual
condition of the people, for the time being, who set them
up; but must necessarily change as man’s condition and
surroundings change. They are at once the idols of the
age which gives them birth, and the laughing stock of
succeeding ages. Being ever made by man, they ever
bear man’s impress. Trie Christian God is no exception
to the rule. He is perhaps the biggest oddity of them
all, and before being Christianised simply revelled in
blood. Indeed, the Christian Church has done some
bloody and revolting work in his name. But he is now
less ferocious, and is satisfied with much milder holocausts
than of old. This change is, however, due to the fact
that ‘‘heretics” and “Atheists” have, either in con
formity with his will or in defiance of it, curtailed the
power of his priests. They may not now do what, under
God, was as holy as it was horrible and infamous.
I have elsewhere dealt more fully with God’s charac
teristics—his composition, his tripleness, his mother, his
father (poor Joseph), etc., etc. I have also said that it
would be more correct to say man made God than to say
God made man. I will now supplement that statement
by another, made by the some-time Bev. Parker Pillsbury,
who said : “ An honest God is the noblest work of man ”.
But I would further add that man has not yet produced
him. Gods indeed he has produced in abundance and
variety ; but as far as I know an honest one has yet to
appear. All Gods are jugglers ; or perhaps it would be
more correct to say all priests juggle in the name of their
Gods, which is practically the same thing. It would appear
to me that man’s failure in the art and craft of God-making
necessarily arises from two causes. First, his own im
perfections and his natural and inevitable tendency to
endow his creation with them; and, secondly, the materials
upon which he has to work—taken, of course, as showing
the character of the God he is manipulating. The world
as we find it does not bespeak an honest God; the folly
lies in the attempt to manufacture one. If any Christian
Theist objects to this, I ask him if it was honest to foreknowingly curse the human race with corrupt souls, or, if
he prefers, with corrupt natures, and then to damn it for
eternity because it either will not or cannot accept the
proffered salvation by reason of its corruption ? And I
�18
GOD.
ask the ordinary Theist, who may or may not believe in
the existence of hell—mostly, I think, they do not, although
I believe nearly all hold to a belief in some sort of future
existence—whether it is just or honest to curse millions of
living bodies with horrible diseases and imperfections,
inherited or not ?
As regards the making of Gods, doubtless our friends
the Christians think they have succeeded in producing the
genuine article, forgetting that they are under the neces
sity of supplementing him with the devil, and of counter
balancing his wondrous home of superlative bliss with the
dismal abode of unutterable woe in which the devil is, by
way of contrast, located. This, although I will give them
the credit of not knowing it, is the only possible outcome
of the conditions under which they must labor. Black
and white, sunshine and storm, joy and misery, peace and
love, hatred, war, and revenge, fair justice and benign
mercy, crushed innocence, and unmerited suffering, etc.,
accounted for upon the God theory, naturally give birth
to twins, one fair and the other foul, one good and the
other its antithesis—in a word, God and the Devil, or their
equivalents.
The great difficulty from the Christian point of view,
consists in God having to share his sceptre with his black
and discredited brother ; having to wield one end, as it
were, leaving the other to the devil—who, indeed, fre
quently annuls his co-partner’s God-ship most completely
by wielding both ends. God is not God all round. It
is at best a case of turn about between himself and the
devil. God is God to-day, but the devil is God to-morrow
—and very often the day after. God makes the world
to-day, declaring it to be good ; and the devil damns it
the next. God later on sends a Savior (one-third of
himself I don’t smile) to repair the mischief ; but the
devil so contrives matters1 that, after the lapse of nearly
2,000 years, a mere handful have heard his name; and
the bulk of those who have heard it, either fail to accept
him, or to be influenced for good by him. And so on to
1 You may hold that God does this—which, indeed, to be consistent
you ought to do—and so make him do the devil’s work if you please.
In which case, make your exit, Mr. Devil; God can do his own dirty
work without your assistance.
�GOD.
19
the end of the piece. God, the creator of heaven and
earth, and of all things, the Sovereign Lord, etc. etc., is
■so limited, thwarted, and hopelessly circumvented by a
power which he either purposely created, or which exists*
without having been created, and in spite of him, that he
■can. in no sense be held to be God : the very term becomes
a misnomer.
To glance again for a moment at what is called creation
—and I think I am justified in making these occasional
digressions, because they bear upon most important matters,
•said to have been done by God, or at least by what may
be termed the nowaday most important personification of
the idea. It is the common belief and tradition of the
Christian Churches that this particular planet was called
into existence by God, to be a kind of nursery ground
for a large quantity of angels whom he required to fill
up the gaps in the heavenly ranks, caused by the rebellion
and consequent expulsion of Satan and his confederates.
(Note the idea of coming to grief even in heaven.} But
Satan,1 although hurled into the bottomless pit, found
1 It might be worth remarking that the Bible, in its account of the
■creation does not say one single word to lead you to suppose that the
devil took hand or part in the apple-tree fable. It speaks of “ the
tree of knowledge of good and evil ”, and says (Genesis iii, 1) : “Now
the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which
God had made ”, etc., and is actually headed “The Serpent’s Graft ”,
and further states (verse 4) that God curses the serpent ‘ ‘ because
thou”—the serpent—“hast done this thing”. If the unfortunate
.serpent was in Satan’s hands, where the necessity of his superior
■cunning ? And why curse it for being made use of ? Is it held that
the serpent, being a reptile, was yet morally responsible for the part
the devil made it play, or that he himself played through its instru
mentality ? It would appear to me that in this case the devil was
the monkey, the serpent the cat, Adam and Eve the chestnuts, and
the Garden of Eden the fire. And bear in mind, if you take away
the Christian gloss, and rely upon the ‘1 unvarnished tale ’ ’ as given
in the text, the case is no better. You are bound to conclude that the
serpent as such, took an active intelligent part in the business, even
to the extent of making use of its powers of speech, etc., for w’hich
God held it morally responsible, and for which he deliberately cursed
it. What villanous trash it assuredly is, take it which way you will!
I am here deliberately ignoring the idea which seems to be held by
some of my critics (see Watts's Literary Guide, May, 1888), viz., that
■one should read the Scriptures, disregarding the common meaning of
language, and fishing, as it were, for renderings which might perhaps
completely metamorphose the entire text or story. Or as they put it,
■one ought to take note of the different aspect which these “ miraculous
�20
GOD.
occasion by means of the first couple of intended angel
progenitors, to convert the world into a regular market
garden of devils; a huge cradle for blasted souls I So
that God—otherwise he is not God—is, by the instru
mentality of the devil, filling up the ranks in hell, rather
than in heaven ! Passing by the singular notion of putting
pure souls through this worldly ordeal, with a fore
knowledge of its fatal consequences, I cannot but think
that God, every time he places these pure souls into his
now vile and be-devilled bodies, must feel sadly humbled
and disappointed at the continued success of the cast-out
rebel, and at his own impotency. That he will finally
assert himself and be revenged, battening the devil and
his victims down for ever in an eternal stew-pan, is, whilst
being a melancholy outcome of omnipotence, one of the
most ferocious and relentless intentions that any sane set
of people could dream of imputing even to a God. Besides
which, if God be God, it is but another way of saying that
it was ever his will and intention that this dire conflict
between good and evil should drag its sad and awful length
through ages upon ages, with the shocking consummation
of eternal and unmixed woe for nine-tenths of the creatures
created. (I am here referring exclusively to man.)
So far we have almost entirely dealt with that part of
the question which has reference to the supposed necessity
of a world maker. We have principally confined ourselves
to the consideration as to whether a God can logically be
held by man to exist; and have endeavored to show that
he cannot.
Now, leaving that portion of the case, and surveying
the world as it exists, what kind of a maker should we
have to judge him by the evidence of his work ? All
powerful, all wise and good—or even just? Most certainly
legends bear, when considered as indications of religious and mental
evolution, and as crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart ”,
etc. The Scriptures are not put forward as “ miraculous legends ”,
nor as “imperfect endeavors of the pious heart”, etc., but as God’sdirect word to man. I conceive it to be right and best to tight the
Bible as being what it is put forward to be. If it were placed in the
same category as other books of fable and legend, there would be no
need of fighting it. It is because it is not so, but is held to be God's
truth, permitting of no doubt, that the necessity of opposing it arises.
And to fight Christianity by means of a rendering of the Scriptures
which Christians do not hold, appears to me to be the height of folly.
�GOD.
21
not. The world as we find it and know it teems with
misery, wrong, pain, suffering and death. Nay, further:
it is full of unmerited and unpreventable suffering; and
this applies to all living creatures. It often applies with
more force to what is called the brute creation than to
man. Life, throughout nearly all classes of the animal
world, is an endless chain of destruction and consequent
suffering. Life for one creature means death to many
others ; each in turn falling a victim to the general
slaughter, or ending its existence in the painful throes
of a prolonged death from disease or starvation. Out in
the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, down in its
depths, and in the seas and oceans, the work of destruction
goes unceasingly on. Talon, tooth, claw, and poisoned
fang are ever doing their deadly work; and, in addition,
each creature is tormented with a parasite peculiar to its
kind. Is this the work of a perfect being? I do not
mind whether he can sit without the wherewithal to sit
upon, walk without legs, or see without eyes. Neither do
I mind whether he tipped them off with his fingers or
kicked them off with his foot. I am entitled to ask why,
if he be perfect, he did not at least make the helpless
brutes free from the suffering they endure. Countless
thousands of birds annually die of starvation alone,
because the almighty designer has covered the food upon
which he designed them to subsist with frost and snow
bound it up hard and fast with an atmosphere by the
inclemency of which they must perish, even should they
escape the starvation which it heralds. Does this show
intelligence of design? Would it do so on the part of
man ? How then can it do so on the part of a God ?
Must man annihilate his own sense of justice and mercy
as well as his intelligence, to discover them in a deity ?
Every stroke of the spade, every plunge of the plough,
means mutilation and death to numberless insects. And
if you do not kill the insects, the snails, slugs, and lice,
they will disfigure and kill your plants and your crops.
In fact, to kill is a necessary condition of life.
I would fain dwell upon the unpreventable, and what
may be called natural sufferings which the lower order of
creatures must endure, because they are not considered
responsible creatures, nor to be so suffering by reason of
fault committed: but space will not permit. They are
�22
GOD.
precisely creatures of nature; nothing' else. I am not;
now alluding to those which have been brought under the
sway of man; their sufferings are simply unspeakable;
which fact, though degrading to man in the highest degree,
does not help God’s case as the designer of the whole.
My remarks have reference to the animal kingdom at large.
They are, in the language of the deist, exactly what God
made them ; and, as such, stamp him as being, if
Almighty, most heartless and ferocious.
Do I hear some miserable apologist repeating the
wretched question-begging cant, that it is necessary, and
that he does all for the best ? Does he ? Does he set two
creatures which he has already made savage, to deadly
combat, sometimes by reason of their passions—as in the
rutting and breeding season—and sometimes by reason of
their prolonged hunger, all for the best ? Does he set
fire to vast tracts of land and burn all before him, scorch
ing and flaying alive all living creatures who cannot escape
the sea of fire as it is swept irresistibly onward by the
wind, all for the lest ? This point could be persisted in
to an almost unlimited extent, but I think enough has
been said to show that, even in the matter of the animal
world, God either would not or could not avoid the misery
which prevails.1
Turning to the elements and to the surface of the globe,
where do we find evidence of this wonderful combination
of power, wisdom, and love ? Does the world and its
surroundings display the perfect work of a perfect mind ?
Do storm, hurricane, landslip, or deluge—devastating
large sections of country ; destroying homes and lives by
the hundred; and dealing out want, sickness, and number
less consequent horrors wholesale; smiting the infant and
the old and helpless, the good and brave, as well as the
undeserving—evidence a good and mighty creator ? Are
the recent blizzards which perished and shrivelled up the
people as they plied their daily toil, marks of perfect
design ? Were the many hundreds of people’s heads
1 It may be remarked by the way, that in either case it is difficult
to see how he comes up to the God standard ; and the same remark
applies to the sin and misery existing all over the world. And bear
in .mind, I have but touched the subject, as it were, with my pen’s
point. The full measure of what I am but pointing to, must remain,
for ever untold.
�GOD.
23
which have been recently crushed in various parts of the
world by the weight of the hail-stones falling upon them,
designed to be so crushed ? And in any case, how does it
show the love and wisdom of the designer ? Did the
lightning which awoke the poor little affrighted child, as
she lay sleeping upon the sofa, and injuring her so much
that she died from the effects a few moments after in her
sorrowing father’s arms, show the exquisite perfection of
design which is urged ?
I am not giving day and date for these things; indeed
it is not necessary ; they are the daily record of what has
not unfitly been called, ilie tear of the elements. But here is
a brief and graphic account, taken from a newspaper,1 of
some of the horrors of the recent volcanic eruptions in
Japan, which comes to my hand altogether unsought, and
which I will give in full, as showing how truly awful are
some of the results of this design, which is said to denote
perfect power and wisdom. It runs as follows :
“ Advices received yesterday from Japan, via Honolulu and
San Francisco, bring additional particulars regarding the recent
volcanic eruptions in Japan, which resulted in the loss of
several hundred lives. The villages of Kishizarve, Arkimolo,
and Hosno, in Hinok-Hara, Mura, were covered with sand and
ashes, and the sites on which they stood thrown into a mountain,
the inhabitants, numbering 400, being buried alive, none
escaping. At Alina, forty-five residences were destroyed, and
twelve persons were killed. At Shibuza, seventeen residences
were destroyed, and twelve persons were killed. At Nagazaka,
twenty-five residences were destroyed, and ninety-eight persons
killed. And at Horekel, thirty-seven residences were destroyed,
but no one was killed. The people fled.”
This, I think, needs no comment. But worse follows.
The account goes on :
“The Datlii News Yokohama Correspondent telegraphs:
Further details have now reached here of the eruption of Bandal
Sau. The place where the disaster occurred has been and is
greatly changing, mountains having arisen where there were
none before, and large lakes appearing where once there were
only rich corn-fields. Landmarks are obliterated. The con
dition of the wounded is terrible : some have fractured skulls,
the majority broken limbs, while others are fearfully burned.
The state of the bodies recovered resembles the appearance of
1 Evening Mail.
�24
GOD.
victims of a large boiler explosion. Many of them are cut to
pieces, and others are par-boiled, so that it is difficult to
distinguish sex. But the most ghastly sights which met the
eye of the helpers were bodies dangling on the branches of
blackened and charred trees, thrown into the air by the awful
violence of the eruption. Their descent had in many cases been
arrested by the trees, and there the victims hung, their bodies
exposed to the cruel and well-nigh ceaseless rain of hot cinders
and burning ashes. From appearances, death speedily relieved
them from their agony; yet, short as the time was, their
sufferings must have been past belief. In other places the flesh
hangs from the branches of the trees, as paper from telegraph
wires. In one case a woman fled from the eruption with her
child upon her back, and while flying, a red-hot stone fell upon
the infant’s head, killing the little one and deluging the mother
in her child’s blood. She escaped, and reached Wakamutsu,
where she fell exhausted, with the mangled remains of her
child still tied to her back.”
This graphic and most appalling account may he truly
said to be written in letters of blood. And yet it must be
claimed by the design advocate as showing the fitness of
his design.
It would perhaps appear superfluous to comment upon
the above awful refutation of the fitness of things as
displayed by the universe, upon which the design argu
ment is mainly built. But awful and calamitous as it
assuredly is, it is a very small affair compared with very
many events of a similar nature which have preceded it.
I only mention it here because it comes to my hand as
I write. It is indeed a bit of touching up and remodelling
of the old “ design ” with a vengeance. One would think
that if the almighty architect desired lakes and mountains
to appear where stood cornfields, gardens, meadows, and
homesteads, he would have removed—or at least have
mercifully killed by painless process—those whom his own
providence had placed in his way. But he did not. He
saw fit to burn, scald, suffocate, and mutilate them in the
shocking manner stated. OhI the perfection of design
here displayed is most exquisite ! Yet would I ask if the
burning stone which crashed into the head of the little
creature, covering its wretched mother with its life blood
as it clung to her back, was designedly hurled? Had the
“finger tips of omnipotence” anything to do with it?
Or did the unhappy mother’s run for life carry her little
�GOD.
25
one beyond providence ? If you say that the mother had
a providential escape you must also admit that the child
met a providential death. Those who believe in Provi
dence cannot get outside of it; neithei’ can they find room
in it for accidents. God accidentally knocking the brains
out of a child cannot be thought of. Therefore it must
be admitted by those who believe in his providence that
he not only providentially shattered the head of this
particular little creature, but that he equally providentially
burned, boiled and mangled the life out of the other
victims.
These questions and considerations are part and parcel
■of the God question ; and need much answering.
I am tempted to ask if Mr. Balfour had some of these
horrors in his mind, when at Manchester, in his new
•character of semi-cleric he said: “There is no human
being so insignificant as not to be of infinite worth to the
maker of the heavens”, etc. Did the “infinite worth”
of these particular human beings consist of their fitness
for decorating charred trees with their livid and literally
living flesh ? What grim and hideous satires these pious
inanities become when contrasted with actual occurrences !
Drop the orthodox snuffle, and the thing said becomes
meaningless. Atheists are twitted by Theists, and es
pecially Christian Theists, with holding a belief in “blind
•chance ” ; but here we have something worse than “ blind
chance”: we have blind brutality, especially and design
edly so; and yet of a most undiscriminating kind. We
have pain and suffering inflicted without reference to
age, sex, innocence, or guilt.
I make the inventors and patentees of “ Blind Chance ”
. a present of this, and all other calamities, as work especially
and designedly done by their God to whom they childishly
pray : “ deliver us from all evil ”.
The Rev. Dr. A. W. Momerie, speaking at the Church
■Congress upon the subject of Pessimism, contended that
pain is necessary both for “men and animals” ; and this
notwithstanding God’s superiority to law, and his admission
that pain is the result of law which God made. He also
gave some reasons (?) why it is necessary, one being that
“ if pain had not been attached to injurious habits, animals
. and men would long ago have passed out of existence ”.
This, if true, is only another way of saying that God made
�26
GOD.
the necessity for pain, which is the very kernel of the com
plaint. He further says : “ If tire did not hurt, we might
easily be burnt to death before we knew we were in any
danger ” ! Does he forget, or ignore, the fact that we are
frequently burnt to death before we know we are in danger,
notwithstanding that fire hurts ? Does he mean that we
should be more easily burnt to death only for this wise
precaution of God’s in making fire hurt ? If that be his
meaning, I make free to tell him, it is but a poor crutch
for himself and God to hobble upon; for, as I have pointed
out, it frequently does hurt us to death; and therefore, at
best, the warning but partially succeeds. But will he
drive his argument fairly home, and affirm that the pain
by fire and boiling water to which I have been referring,
was necessary ? Or does he mean that some pain existing
by necessity, these dire results of excessive pain could not
be avoided ? And if so, what sort of an almighty God does
he believe in ? Is it necessary that the human race must
not only taste small pain in order to avoid greater, but
must also perish frequently in maddening and unendurable
pain ?
Does this rev. philosopher mean that it is necessary for
“men and animals” to actually pass out of existence in
most intense pain as a preventive, by means of small
pain, to their passing out of existence? Because this,
viewed in the light of what does occur, is about what his
contention comes to. To give him the greatest possible
latitude of which his contention will admit, he can but
claim that it is by means of what I am calling smaller
pain—-which frequently outgrows itself—that the animal
world (including man) is enabled to exist, and eventually
perish in greater or lesser pain as the case may be. Well,
that is poor enough, but poor as it is it leaves all pain
caused by sudden and unexpected convulsions of nature
completely out of the question. Take lightning for in
stance, which often does such sudden and fearful injury
that no forethought—not even aided by the knowledge
that it hurts—could possibly prevent. From the doctor's
mode of reasoning it would seem that it is necessary for
the electric fluid when disturbed to blast and shrivel up
11 men and animals ” instantaneously, so that they may know
it will blast and shrivel them up, before they know they are
in danger. May I ask this rev. and learned doctor to
�GOD.
27
show how the pain, which is meant not only to the victims
but to those who hold them dear, in the premature death
of one half the people born, before they reach the age of
seventeen years, is necessary ? Is it to prevent them from
passing out of existence? “To form character”? Or
to teach them that fire burns ? This arguing for the
necessity of pain is only another form of arguing for the
necessity of evil, and therefore—from the parson point of
view—of the devil. But does the Rev. Dr. Momerie forget
or ignore the creation and fall' as told in the opening
chapters of his Bible ? Or does he agree with me in
regarding them as amusing fables ? And if he does, has
he taken his flock into his confidence ? For my own part,
I am curious to know how God considered pain necessary
to keep “men and animals” from destruction, and from
passing out of existence when he bade them to be fruitful
and to multiply before pain came into the world. If he
thought pain necessary why did he tell Adam and Eve not
to do the thing which brought it about ? And why were
the poor serpent’s legs conjured off for doing what was
necessary ?
Of course this is all figurative. I will do the learned
doctor the justice of believing him to so regard it; but
then he ought not to be a Church of England parson. I
1 I have frequently marvelled at the tremendous dilemma God
would have been placed in had these first parents have partaken of the
“ tree of life ” as well as that of “ good and evil ”. Well might he
hurry them out of paradise exclaiming “lest perhaps he put forth
his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever”. It must be admitted that it would have been most unfortu
nate and awkward for the. almighty to have had a world on his hands
teeming with sin-struck immortals upon whom he had pronounced
death (both of body and soul), but who would not, nor could not, die
by reason of the charm contained in a particular tree which he had
planted in their midst. But there is another curious point: if it be
a fact that death came into the world by sin there was, previous to
the fall, practically no use nor need for this particular tree, except
perhaps as a kind of temptation, and even that is not made quite
clear, as Adam and Eve do not appear to have been forbidden to eat
of it. The people .were already immortal, and would, bar accidents,
“ go up ” without tasting death. And when the occasion for its use
might be fairly thought to have arrived, by reason of their having
incurred the penalty of death, they were, as we have seen, hurried
out of its presence.
And what about the animals ? Did Eve’s sin bring pain and death
upon them, or were they to die in any case ? And would they have
�28
GOD.
admit I have not read his book upon the “ Origin of Evil ”,
in which it is possible he may clear these matters up. In
the meantime I would fain tell him that, if God be the
origin of all things, evil must come in with the rest, and
certainly be put down to his account. The fact that pain
and evil do exist is indisputable, and, whilst fully
admitting this fact will not increase it; the tortuous
efforts to reconcile its existence with that of a good
and Almighty God will not remove nor lessen it.
Neither will dubbing those “ Pessimist ” who cannot shut
their eyes to it. The so-called Pessimist does not point
out the existence of pain and evil, with a view—as I take
if of sitting down and crying; but rather, with the view
of removing or lessening their power and scope. In this
he is certainly more logical than he who, whilst admitting
them to be deplorable, not only insists upon their necessity,
but caps all by affirming that an all-powerful creator could
not order it otherwise.
I will, before proceeding with my main contention,
trouble my readers with another very short, but shock
ing account of what I will call—if not intended—a
serious and awful hitch in the divine machinery. It is
taken from a daily paper of about the same date as
both lived and died free of pain ? And if so, what about the carnivora
and their victims? Were they originally to be all herb-eating
creatures (this would also apply to man), but completely meta
morphised into what they now are by God at the time he chopped
off the serpent’s legs? Perhaps there were no carnivora at that
period. In truth nothing whatever is known as to what time it is
said to have occurred. Modern believers in the fable are willing to
place it in any period, varying by millions of years, to which infidel
or scientist may drive them. Take again the case of whales ; are we
to suppose they were not originally intended to feed upon small fish ?
What of sharks, and, indeed, of fish generally ? Are we to suppose
they were not, till after the fall, intended to prey upon each other ?
The same may also be asked of birds preying upon insects, not to
mention those which prey upon their own species. Was this all to
be so, or are these creatures an afterthought, and so “made” by
God to suit the altered circumstances in which he found himself ?
Taken altogether it certainly does form a most curious instance of
the “ crude and imperfect endeavors of the pious heart to express its
sense of the tragedy and solemnity of human experience”. Fables
and legends indeed these things are, but they are not put forward as
such ; they are forced into children’s minds as truths, and kept there
by fear of hell. Hence, I say, it becomes necessary to completely
break down such pernicious nonsense.
�GOD.
29
the others from which I have quoted upon similar catas
trophes :
“ Mail advices have now been received from Cuba,
giving particulars of the recent cyclone in the island. It
appears that it raged on the 4th and 5th, over the whole
length of the province of Santa Clara, causing damage
amounting to millions of dollars. At Sogna, scarcely
twenty houses escaped injury. The desolation and ruin
was complete. The rivers overflowed their banks, and
vessels foundered or stranded, while in some cases they
were driven into the streets of the town. Fatalities are
reported everywhere. A hundred persons perished at
Cardenas, and seventy at Caibarien; the total number of
deaths in the island being estimated at one thousand.”
Now I ask: did these poor people, their homesteads,
their ships and commerce, and industries, mar the general
design ? Or, did they become part and parcel of it against
the intention and desire of the almighty architect, and
was it therefore that he thus cruelly wiped them out? And
in any case, do this and the other calamitous results of the
workings of nature—to which I have but pointed—demon
strate the fitness-of-all-things which is said to pervade the
universe ? Do they not rather demonstrate the unfitness
of all things ? Bear in mind, they are no mere theorisings :
nor are they isolated cases : they could be multiplied
without end. They are the daily lessons, bloody and
awful, which nature reads out to her children without
cessation. The world, every journey round the sun, pro
duces and chronicles in awful manner its yearly record
of calamities over which man has no control, but of which
he is the helpless victim : and which if held to be the work
of an almighty designer, would stamp him as being a
fiend.
The elements, under certain conditions, smite furiously
and indiscriminately all things which lie in their course.
They will blast the innocent lamb, or scorch up the poor
cow, as readily as they will topple over a church steeple,
or shrivel up a little child. They are but the blind forces
of nature, and could do no other than they do.
The Christian Theist is at liberty to hold these blind
forces of nature to be directed by an “ All-seeing eye”;
in which case I am at liberty to ask: To what kind of
monster does this all-seeing eye belong ? The sea, if lashed
�30
GOD.
into fury by wind or storm, will as readily engulph. the
little boat of heroes as they nobly face death in order to
rescue their fellow creatures, as it will the blood-stained
pirate craft which preys upon the helpless and the unwary.
The ill-fated emigrant ship—with its cargo of entire
families; its wives and children going to join the father
who waits with tender longing for their coming to the
home he has with love and industrious labor prepared for
them; its sons and daughters going to seek on foreign
shores the sustenance and comfort for parents and younger
children, which they fail to obtain at home—is as mercilessly
wrecked and submerged, as is the infamous slaver, with
or without its living freight of wailing and outraged
humanity.1 But I fail to see in what way this demonstrates
perfection of design—design as emanating from one who
is all-good and all-mighty.
Do you suppose, reader, that you could procure a patent
for your design after showing that it produced such un
toward and disastrous results as are produced by the
elements ? And if you did obtain your patent, do you
think after twelve months experience of its work, you could
sell it for much money ? Of course it must always be
remembered that man is in no sense perfect; consequently
his works must at most be but efforts in the direction of
perfection: the highest and best only excelling those
which they succeed. But this reasoning cannot be applied
to God. He deliberately, with all power and all knowledge
—present and to come—made things as they are; and is
therefore responsible for the world as it exists at this
.1 When I reflect upon the awful sufferings of every conceivable
kind which all living creatures must, by the nature and conditions of
their existence endure, and try to understand what it means, I become
appalled : my efforts to express myself fail me ; and I am over
whelmed. Let therefore no self-satisfied quibbler, holding a cut-anddried read to Heaven—whether upon the degrading plan of the agony
and death of an enthusiast, or upon the farce of a mangled and
crucified third portion of a God—point the finger of scorn at me.
My reason and my better feelings, which at times well-nigh unman
me, will not suffer me to worship anything so ignoble as their
butcher-God, whom they themselves have set up. And I deliberately
avow that I cast my measure of scorn, although utterly inadequate
—well, I will not say upon those who hold it; but certainly upon
the brutal and degrading idea that the same God, or indeed any God,
will, after this world and its woes are ended, doom the vast bulk, or
even one of the creatures he has created, to eternal torture !
�GOD.
31
instant: either this, or the word God loses its meaning.
A curtailed and changing immutable and omniscient
omnipotence is simply an impossibility, and ought to be
too ridiculous even for Christians to pin their faith to.
The idea of inventing an almighty God, and then killing
him, or annulling his almightiness by another, and calling
that other devil, is, to my thinking, excessively foolish.
Almighty God must, under pain of damnation, be held to
be good and just, even though we invent a devil to stand
sponsor for what we know to be evil and unjust. Nay,
further : our invention of the devil involves the idea that
God himself produced him as a kind of scape-goat, as a
something upon which to charge the existence of that evil
which he, although omnipotent, either could not or would
not avert. This is the reasoning involved—but I digress
somewhat.
It appears to me that, wherever you look, you are con
fronted with a mixture of good and evil; or they exist
side by side. I think the former is more generally
correct, although it is often difficult to determine which
really preponderates.
Take, for instance, the sun, which is the vastest and most
wonderful body of all those that go to make up our
special system, and whose rays are full of life-giving heat.
Yet there are some portions of the globe which are never
touched by them, whilst other portions are literally scorched
up. In some of the deserts, by reason of the heat, and the
absence of water, the suffering of man and beast is extreme.
So .with water. In some parts of the earth it is abundant,
and in others so scarce as to render life almost insupport
able. At some seasons of the year, rivers are dried up;
and at others they rise and overflow their banks, inundating
the surrounding country, and doing much injury to life
and property, perhaps sweeping away entire communities.
Some portions of the globe—especially at particular seasons,
are a. perpetual swamp, and are the source of constant
malaria, fever, ague, and death.
Can all this be held as evidence of perfect wisdom and
power on the part of a maker ? Bear in mind, I am not
speaking of nature and its wondrous revelations in a
mocking or disparaging sense. I am simply pointing out
its imperfections, and trying to combat the puny idea that
it had its origin in a ghost.
�32
GOD.
As another practical illustration of the complete failure
of the design argument, as evidenced by what actually
occurs, I will give, in full, the following from a daily paper,
the Freeman's Journal, of September 1st, 1888 :
“ What is one poor country’s meat, is another poor country’s
poison. While we are threatened with ruin by rain here, and
are praying for dry weather, they are face to face with famine
in Egypt by reason of the drought, and they are praying
for the Nile to inundate the lands. ‘Yesterday,’ says the
Correspondent of the Standard, ‘I had an opportunity of con
versing with two large landed proprietors, whose opinions may
be quoted as authoritative. One of these is a Bey, owning
immense fields, of which the yearly land-tax amounts to a small
fortune. He had come to Cairo in order to complain to Biaz
Pasha of the scarcity of water. His fields had now, he said,
been dry for sixty days, and under these circumstances it was,
he affirmed, quite impossible to pay the taxes. The other
proprietor, a well-known Pasha, whose land-tax amounts to
about two thousand pounds a year, declared that unless the
Nile should rise two metres within the next ten days, the whole
maize crop of Lower Egypt would be lost. There are out of
every six hundred acres, no less than one hundred and fifty
under maize, and the failure of this crop would mean financial
ruin and starvation for the fellaheen population, w’ith whom
maize is the staple food. As to cotton, my informant stated
that he had in one field a hundred men picking off the worms.
For some time past there had been no water, and unless there
was a speedy improvement, he, too, did not see any way of
paying the taxes.’ ”
Come nearer home. Take a glance at agriculture amongst
ourselves, and what do we find? We find the farmer’s
life one long struggle with the elements and against the
disasters resulting from them. True, he manages to live,
but often very badly. The weather is generally so unpropitious as to cause him, in a fit of despair—and always as
a last resource—to join with his Church, and take part in
offering up set petitions and special pleadings that God
will, for the sake of poor humanity in general, and himself
in particular, avert the calamitous results which would
follow a continuation or a fulfilment of what would appear
to be God’s present intentions.
It is quite clear that the majority of those who express
belief in “him who rules all things ”, and who talk much
of his providence—including his own ordained ministers—
do not always agree with him as to the wisdom and
�GOD.
\
33
humanity of the course he happens to be pursuing.
Indeed, bearing in mind their daily beggings and pray
ings, it would be more correct to say they never agree.
Practically they have much more faith in the seasonable
and desirable weather which they know will facilitate the
growth of their crops or ripen them into maturity than
they have in the deity whom they inconsistently believe is
providentially blighting them. Practically, I say, they
prefer to have a big finger in their own providential pie.
They pretend that God is all-wise, but go on their bended
knees to the end that he may drop his all-wisdom, which
means ruin to them, and adopt theirs. That their petitions
are not heeded is quite certain. Nature sweeps right on.
She always prevails, the mutterings to an imaginary
“throne on high ” notwithstanding. The marvel to me is
that intellectual people should engage in such childish forms.1
It might not be altogether amiss in speaking of prayer
to note that one of the bishops (him of Wakefield) at the
late Manchester Congress, whilst professing very frequently
that he had no fear of law, was yet very much staggered
at its immutability. The tenor and aim of his entire
speech was to tone down what he called the “splendid
paper read by Mr. Momerie ” ; because it contained
“ certain words ” which struck him “ very forcibly ”, and
made him “feel a certain amount of doubt with regard
to them”. The “doubt”, or fear, as I think it should be
called, is fully explained in the following passage which
comes immediately after: “What I felt at the moment
was this—may not some of those who form this audience
go away from here and say: ‘ Why, then, should I pray ?
Why should I ask God to restore a friend from a bed of
sickness? Why should I ever join in the church’s prayers
for a blessing on the harvest and the like?’.” Common
sense echoes : Why indeed !
. The Bishop, in his further remarks, whilst still depre
ciating the immutability of law, admits we cannot “alter”
the laws by which the universe is governed; but hastens
to point out that we can “interfere” with them. He
illustrates his meaning by asserting that we interfere with
the law of gravitation every time we pick up a stone and
1 See “ The Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed
Publishing Company.
Freethought
�34
GOD.
throw it into the air, or catch it as it falls. This is of
course to keep law from barring the way to miracle and
the utility of prayer. But it is wide of the mark; because
if it means that miracles can happen, there can be neither
sense nor utility in showing that one law may counteract
another. And if it does not mean that miracles may
happen, it means (from the Bishop’s point of view)
nothing. AVhat the statement, taken as a whole, actually
does mean—whether his lordship intended it so or not, is
another matter—is that, inasmuch as that law, as applied
to nature, is unalterable, but can be interfered (!) with;
therefore man, by means of prayer, can induce immutable
God to interfere with what he has decreed to be un
alterable! Poor Bishop of Wakefield. But it is only
another and a very weak edition of the Bev. Octavious
Walton’s “Swallowed Miracle”; wherein that philosophic
divine childishly contends that because there are other
laws, which, under given circumstances counterbalance
that of gravitation; therefore miracles are occurring every
moment of time ! The law of gravitation seems quite a
favorite sugar-stick to suck, with these clerical nincompoops.
Albeit, they do their sucking prayerfully; but they are
sure to suck it at the wrong end.
It would appear, so far, from this right rev. gentleman’s
utterances, that he holds law to be good all the while you
hold that it can be annulled by God, at the will or whim of
his creatures. He fears that if its immutability be but
once admitted, the efficacy of prayer is done for. He would
seem to recommend just enough law; but not too much.
Judging, however, by another passage in his speech, he
would appear to go even farther still, and throw law
entirely to the dogs; for he says: “I am not content to
accept that view of answers to prayer which tells us that
God may move the spirit of man to act upon outward
things by which he is surrounded; I say I want something
more direct.” If man is not going to act upon the things
by which he is surrounded, what is he going to act upon ?
It is evident that nothing less than the total cessation or
reversion of law will satisfy his lordship. But he is a
curious and quite an amusing description of Bishop. He
concludes his remarks by saying he believes that “he ”—
God—“governs and directs his own laws, and that the
whole world everywhere is bound with gold chains about
�GOD.
35
his feet”. By governing and controlling his own laws, I
presume he means that God decrees when fire shall burn
—or, as one of his colleagues puts it—“hurt,” and when
it shall not; and when water shall be wet, and when it
shall not; and also when man shall have too much of one,
or both; or not enough of either, as God may see fit—
always subject of course to the superior wisdom and
control of man, as exemplified by prayer.
I think there was an error of about 300 years made in
the date of this particular Bishop’s birth. He is living in
the wrong age.
With regard to the “world everywhere ” being chained
with gold chain about God’s feet: should I spoil the great
sublimity of the metaphor if I suggested brass or nickel
silver as being good material for the chain ? and that a
whole string of worlds chained about his neck would not
look amiss as a necklace, and that perhaps two fine large
planets would come in very well as droppers to his ear
rings ? I can appreciate a truly sublime or beautiful
metaphor, thought, or figure of speech, as such, even
though it embody an idea to which I demui’; but to talk
of binding the world everywhere with gold chain to the feet
of a footless ghost, with a view, as I take it, of teaching
that natural law may be effaced or reversed by means of
man’s supplications—for that is the Bishop’s great con
tention—is not to be sublime, but ridiculous. Clerical
inanity is a better term for such nonsense.
Speaking of prayer, and as an example of the mode in
which it is made use of, and, principally as an example of
its always non-success, I will for a moment direct attention
to an incident of the kind which has, whilst I write, been
forced upon my notice. When I say tho always non-success
of prayer, I mean that the happenings would have occurred
whether the petitions wore offered up or not; and that
whether they seem to be propitious or otherwise, they
have no reference whatever to the prayer. But beyond
that, it is really remarkable how the hopes of tho prayerful,
who of course hold their hopes to bo founded upon the
direct promises of him to whom they pray, are continually
falsified by daily events. I like to place these every-day
facts before the notice of my readers, bocause, being
indisputable, they most effectually answer and expose the
sacerdotal pretence which I hold to be so abominable and
�36
GOD.
so transparent. The wild Indian, who, whilst offering
incantations to the Great Spirit, patiently shooting arrow
after arrow into the clouds, till one floats and bursts over
his village, is not more foolish nor arrogant, and I might
add cunning, in claiming the result as being due to the
strength of his medicine, than is the mitred and tinselled
prelate, who offers up his incantations and mutterings,
and claims the ordinary and inevitable happenings of
nature as the result of his particular action. Indeed I find
it difficult to believe that thinking and intelligent men do
believe that there is a power of any kind waiting to fashion
his, or its, actions upon the supplications and cravings of this,
that, or the other people, or sect, or clan: the desires being
mostly in contradiction and at variance one with another.
I scout such an idea as being too absurd for serious argu
ment. But to go to the case mentioned; and in which
case, for the complete failure of the prayers, I will not ask
belief in my own words, but will give evidence out of the
mouths of Christians themselves. The paper I shall
principally quote is in no sense favorable to unorthodox
views, but is the recognised political organ of the Catholic
Church in the country (Ireland) in which it is published.
During the latter portion of the summer of 1888, and
far into the autumn, the weather had been extremely wet
and cold; continuous rain, with frequent very heavy down
falls, had prevailed. AVe were getting cold soaking rain
instead of genial sunshine. Great complaints and murmurings were heard on all sides, and general fears were
entertained that we should have a bad harvest with all its
dire results. In a word, and from a Christian Theist’s
point of view, God, nothwithstanding his all-wisdom, and
the perfection of his design, was going wrong: he was
rotting with excess of cold moisture, what his humble
subjects presumed to think he should have been browning
and ripening with heat. In this extremity my Lord Bishop
of Dublin, the Most Bev. Dr. Walsh, in the interests of
his faithful flock, came to the. rescue,1 and ordered special
1 lie came to their rescue upon a more important occasion—that of
their eSort to obtain self-government, but completely changed front,
directly his master, the Pope, spoke. What was political at once
became non-political in the Doctor's mouth. Only some two or three
dared openly allude to this ; the majority, including the National
Press—notably the Freeman—belauded him for the shuffle.
�GOD.
37
prayers for fine weather to be said throughout his diocese.
The prayers, as a matter of course, were of the usual
orthodox type. The petitioners were made to crawl into the
presence of their supposed offended tormentor by admitting,
as I think in grave satire, their complete unworthiness ;
and then craving as a favor that he might see fit to
change his mind by removing the kind of weather he was
putting upon them, and replacing it with the kind they
required ; and finally telling him not to mind what they
were asking, but to do as he thought best. What he did
think best, shall be told by the daily papers.
There are always three cardinal points which must be
existent in your orthodox petitioner; his total degradation
and unworthiness, his strong sense of what he considers
essential to his well-being, and his desire to obtain it; and
his total lack of the sense of the ludicrous, as displayed in
his telling God not to do as he is asked, but as he chooses.
What God really chose to do upon this particular occasion,
although quite usual, forms a very amusing and instructive
comment upon the petition itself, and upon special prayers
in general.
The announcement of the order for saying these special
prayers, I take from the Freeman’s Journal of August 11th,
1888, as follows :
“His Grace the Archbishop and the Weather.—In
consequence of the continued unsettled state of the weather,
and the precarious condition of the crops, his Grace the Arch
bishop of Dublin has issued directions to the clergy of his
diocese for the saying of special prayers in the Mass for a
favorable change. The prayers to be said from and after
to-morrow, till further notice.”
The weather upon that particular Sunday, and for hours
after the offering up of the special prayers, was perhaps
the worst we had yet experienced. Possibly it took some
little time to duly receive and consider the humble petition.
However that may have been, there was no improvement,
“no favorable change”; indeed matters became very
much worse. But the papers evidently held on as long as
they could in the hope that they would be able to score a
victory for the Archbishop. At length the editorial
patience of one, the Evening Telegraph of August 20th,
gave way ; the following item of news being the cause :
“Yesterday’s rain and storm. — A heavy rainfall took
�38
GOD.
place in many parts of Ireland yesterday. In West Cork much
damage is reported to have been caused to the grain and potato'
crops. The potatoes are in places affected with the blight.”
It would have been more correct to have said that it had
scarcely ceased to rain since the offering up of the prayers ;
but it is perhaps near enough. The same paper of four
days later, in referring to further storms said :
“ Great damage (says a telegram this afternoon) has been
caused in the lower Shannon valley by the heavy rains of
Tuesday. Hundreds'of tons of hay have been carried into the
river, and turf has been carried long distances. The corn crop
is lost. The potato crop is injured, and many roads are torn
up.”
The prayers were being answered very tardily ; or were
being answered in a reverse direction to that prayed for.
The Freeman's Journal of August 28th, under the heading
of “ The Rain and the Crops ”, gave a list of woes resulting
from the former, which came in from nearly all quarters,
and from which I will give a few quotations :
“ Kilrush, Monday.-—Such a destructive deluge of rain
has not been witnessed in West Clare for a quarter of a century,
as that experienced last night. All the rivers have inundated
the country around, and large quantities of hay in meadow
cocks have been carried seaward. In low lying districts the
houses have been flooded, and many were in danger of falling.
The oat and wheat crops have been laid in vast tracts. The
amount of damage caused by last night’s continued downpour
is incalculable in the country, as testified by various reports
to-day.”
Surely there could not have been one single grain of
faith amongst the hundreds of thousands of petitioners—
including the Archbishop himself-—or their prayers would
not have produced such lamentable results. But tho
accounts from all parts are the same.
“ Navan, Monday.—The prospects of a good or middling
harvest are again darkened by the incessant rains. All work
has been retarded.”
“ Castlewhelan, Monday.—The severe weather of the past
week has exercised a most dispiriting effect on the harvesting
prospects in the large districts of the County Down, of which
this town is the centre. Great fears are entertained for the
potato crops. The tubers, which are in abundance, remain still
very soft; and now reports from all sides signify that the spots-
�GOD.
39
which so surely indicate the approach of disease to the germ
have made their appearance,” etc. Sorrow is then expressed
for the partial failure of the oat, wheat, and flax crops.
“F-ERMOY, Monday.—-The hopes which were entertained here
some time ago of a bountiful harvest are now almost completely
blasted in consequence of the late incessant rains which have
fallen with the most destructive results to almost every descrip
tion of growing crops.” [This is certainly a trifle unco after
the Archbishop’s special prayers for their safety.] “The mis
chief done since last Sunday is incalculable, and should there
be a continuance of the present unsettled state of the weather
the consequences will be disastrous to the farmers of the dis
trict,” etc.
After giving a similar dismal account from Newry and
Banbridge, the list for that day closes with the following:
“ Lokgford.—-There can no longer be a doubt on the subject
that the crops in this county are a complete failure owing to
the recent rains. Every day for the last month [italics mine]
there have fallen heavy showers completely paralysing the
farmer’s efforts to save ’his crops. Turf, hay, and oats are all
bad. The potatoes, too, are failing rapidly. Nothing could
be much worse looking than the existing prospect.”
In reference to the above, it may be remarked that the
“showers” must have been “heavy” indeed to have
completely paralysed the farmers’ efforts for a whole
month. But be it noted that “the past month” spoken
of comprises at least three weeks which had elapsed since
His Grace’s special prayers were muttered ; and yet he
actually had the audacity to claim that his prayers were
answered !
This list of woes collected together for me by Christian
and God-fearing journalists (?) may be taken as a kind
of supplement to my own remarks upon the work of the
ejements, as illustrating the general unfitness of things.
Now, it will not be wondered at, after the above
leugthened spell of disastrous work done by the weather,
flat it did eventually and in natural course change for the
better. But what did this astute Archbishop do ? Did
he admit that he had ordered his special prayers just one
month too soon for an immediate response ? Not at all.
D:d he candidly admit that from beginning to end they
were a total failure ? Nothing of the kind. Then what
dil he do ? Why he actually insulted his God, and the
intellects (if they possessed any) of his flock, by ordering
�40
GOD.
fresh prayers—this time—of thanks to God for having
lent a favorable ear to their former ones, and so vouch
safing them fine weather ! Thus imposing upon the ig
norance and stupid credulity of his people, by making
clerical capital out of the ordinary workings of nature,
which if they, from his own stand-point, meant anything,
meant a complete failure. He asked that the rain might
cease, and the sun shine, in order that the crops might be
saved. The rain did not cease, the sun did not shine, and
the crops were not saved. Upon the showing of his own
people the destruction was general. Whereupon he
orders these same people—I should dearly like to call
them geese—to thank God for not destroying these very
crops I This of course is priest-like. These are the tricks
and trade devices of the priest’s calling; they are what
he lives by. But what can be said—how infantile, nay,
imbecile—or, to be orthodox, truly child-like—must those
be who kneel and pray and smite their breasts, making
offerings and crying “Amen” to such transparent chic
anery.
I was, previous to giving the foregoing Christian evi
dence against Christian Theism, dwelling upon the frequent
unfitness of the weather for the work it is insisted it was
designed to perform ; and will now in continuation of that
idea offer some further remarks, taking it up at the point
at which I broke off.
Now, it frequently happens that in spite of the prayers
(of the efficacy of which we have just had an example)
and all the care and precaution a farmer can bestow upon his
lands, his crops are blighted by unseasonable weather, by cold
winds, storms, droughts, hail and frost; and thus a who.e
year’s toil, expenditure, and anxiety is sacrificed. At
times, the failure of crops—often a particular crop which
forms the main subsistence of a people, or section of a
people—is so complete as to leave them without fool;
and gaunt famine with its hideous train of horrors stalks
through the land. In what way, I must continue to ask,
does all this show perfect order and design? Why the
best kept garden you meet with may become a mass of
blight and pest, the attention bestowed upon it notwith
standing. You will see a rose tree grow and bud forth
almost into flower, and wake up some morning to find it
blighted by the atmosphere, or covered with vermin; )r,
�GOD.
41
perhaps the centres of the yet unopened blooms become
cradles for destructive insects. (“ The worm i’ the bud”,
taken in the wide sense, is no mere poetic figure, as those
who cultivate and live by the land know to their dear cost.)
The same can be said of perhaps every plant that grows.
Your cabbages will be literally riddled and eaten to the
bare stalks immediately the larvse deposited by the butter
flies assume the caterpillar form. What nature, aided by
science and labor does to-day, she undoes to-morrow.
Entire orchards of fruit, gardens of hops, fields of corn,
potatoes, hay, etc., are yearly sacrificed to the elements.
And yet all this means perfect and exquisite design on the
part of a maker ! What it really does mean is simply that
nature is as we find her, and that there is no maker in the
case. All-wisdom and all-power, could not result in failure,
nor in disaster sometimes so hideous as to curdle the blood
as the tale is told.
Turning to man himself, can he, taken for all in all, be
considered to show evidence of having had a perfect
maker1 ? Is he is in any sense the work of perfection ?
For his own physical perfection, let the hospitals,
asylums, and houses for incurables all over the world
speak. For his mental and moral perfection, his doings
as recorded in history must answer. The penal settle
ments and gaols of to-day must also give their evidence.
It is held that God made man in his own image, and,
curiously enough, it is man’s mind, or spirit, as it is
termed—which is imageless—which is held to be so made.
But that by the way. It follows that, either God himself
was a depraved pattern, or he blasted man after the
making. Indeed the latter is claimed to be the true solu
tion. If I might be allowed to judge of “ God the
Father” by applying to him one of the standards claimed
as emanating from “God the Son”, anent judging the
tree by its fruit—more especially if man be the depraved
wretch Christian theists contend he is—I should have to
come to the conclusion that the tree in question was a
most corrupt and imperfect one.
I suppose there is not one single human being, sound
1 When I speak of man as having had a maker, I do so in the sense
generally accepted by Christians, and therefore the statement itself,
and any observations made upon it do not necessarily apply to those
Theists who believe otherwise.
�42
GOD.
in body and mind, brought into the world in a century,
though there are many millions of defective ones. Take
for example—and they are but a small item in the general
failure—the deaf mutes, the blind, and the idiotic from
birth. I suppose it would fill a fair-sized volume simply
to enumerate all the diseases peculiar to man. Those
peculiar to children alone are something appalling.
Take the average duration of life as a test of the
design argument. It is estimated that of all who are
born, one-fifth die within a year after birth, and onethird before the completion of the fifth yeai'; whilst
one half do not reach seventeen years ; and only six per
cent reach seventy-five years. So that, whilst one-fifth go
to the grave before they can be said to be well into the
world, one half never reach the age of maturity, and only
in every hundred reach what has been foolishly called
“ man’s allotted time ” I I think comment upon these
crushing figures is superfluous. I will but add that these
premature deaths are brought about, for the most part,
by painful, lingering, and dreary process ; and sometimes
by such shocking mutilations as we have previously
glanced at. And if you take the Christian theory, in
addition to his natural woes, every human being that ever
came into the world, or ever will come into it—-save the
first pair, who were themselves so defective as to succumb
at the first test—is literally damned with a soul whose
natural (i.e., unnatural) corruption is, upon the same
authority, certain to carry the vast majority into eternal
suffering.1
Man, like all other portions of the universe, is a mix
ture of good and evil. He has noble parts and degrading
passions, high aims and selfish fears, hates and jealousies.
He is capable of the highest deeds of known right and
self-sacrifice, and of the lowest deeds of cunning and
cowardice. He is capable of experiencing the highest
pleasure and the deepest woe. Man was not put upon
the earth cut and dried. His progress from savagery to
civilisation has been long and painful. And his further
progression onward and upward must needs partake of
1 It is explained by the Roman Church, that the soul is originally
pure, but becomes corrupted the moment it fuses with the body. I
claim that, whether the body blasts the soul, or the soul the body,
the result is still the same.
�GOD.
43
the same tedious nature. The evolution of man, from the
lowest to the highest type—without going further down
in the scale than man himself—does not argue for a
perfect maker. Man’s existence is one long struggle to
free himself from his grosser nature; and to develop into
a higher state. If it is contended that he had an Almighty
maker, in the sense in which the phrase is commonly
applied, then I am justified in asking why he should have
been made of such base material, and beset with such
untoward conditions. His maker, being Almighty, could
have made man upon any other plan, or with any set of
conditions, that he saw fit. Indeed, it is contended that
God did make man upon such conditions as he saw fit;
and behold the result!
I hold that man’s weaknesses, his infirmities, his
passions and sufferings—sometimes caused by himself,
sometimes by others, and sometimes inherited in spite of
himself—do not point to an intelligent, a just, and an
almighty maker. A child born blind, or lame, or covered
with some loathsome disease, would show the maker either
to be impotent or a monster. A perfect creator would not
blast what he had created with imperfections most shock
ing. And I will push my contention to man’s passions;
because God must be held responsible for the results of
his own work : especially when he is accredited with
having been cognisant of those results when he began it.
. Man is bound to hold man responsible to man, for his
right doing : hence the existence of courts of law and
justice throughout the civilised world. But if you are to
hold to the doctrine of a personal all-powerful maker and
superintender—especially the latter—of the world, you are
bound to lay to his charge the sorrow and suffering of all
living creatures, including man. And with regard to him,
I will add, sin likewise. As I have said, God must be
held, responsible for his own work. He is, from the
Theistic point of view, the primary mover, maker, and
first cause; or he is nothing. He either could not, or
would not, order it otherwise; and in either case it is
difficult to recognise the God-ship.
It is—and that most assuredly from what I will call the
God-maker’s point of view^-somewhat idle to talk of man
bringing all the misery upon himself ; that he knows
right from wrong, etc. That contention certainly cannot
�44
GOD.
apply to those who are born into the world with bodies
unfit for life, and in such manner and conditions as must
necessarily render their lives a grievious burden. Nor
will it apply to the innocent victims of those who do
wrong. Indeed it is inapplicable to four-fifths of the
wrong and misery endured by man—not to mention again
that endured by the lower order of animals. In fact, if
the all-ruling argument be brought in, it cannot apply
at all; else, where the «A-ruling ?
It must also be borne in mind that man does not always
know right from wrong. He frequently does the most
criminal things under the impression that he is doing
right. The conscience standard, or test of right and
wrong, which is generally put forward by Christian apolo
gists is not necessarily a true one. In a vast number of
cases it is no test at all. Conscience can only be a test of
right, in the sense that it is right to do what one believes
to be so ; but it is no test as to whether the thing done is
right or wrong. The truth or falsity of positions, theories,
and acts, must rest upon evidence, upon facts and con
siderations in connexion with themselves; and not upon
what a number of persons — or, rather, each individual
person, three parts of whom may be quite uninformed—
might conscientiously think or believe about them. One
man’s conscience will acquit him of doing things at which
another’s revolts. In Africa, a man’s conscience will acquit
him of sacrificing his brother man to the Fetish. In the
middle ages the highest consciences in the Christian world
sanctioned the burning alive of those whose consciences
forced them to differ from their executioners. Till recently,
the Christian conscience, even in Great Britain, sanctioned
upon Bible authority the burning of unhappy enthusiasts
or half-witted creatures as witches.1 And to-day, the
Christian will sanction the outlawry of the Atheist-—right
or wrong-—as per conscience. Conscience, to a far greater
extent than is usually admitted by those who urge it as a
1 At the present time, as a rule, the Christian advocate’s conscience
will not permit him to include the Bible a,s part of his creed. “ Bible
smashers” have doubtless had much to do in shaping the modern
Christian conscience. It is now a' matter of history that Christian
legislators have, under the guidance of the “ Infidel Advocate ”, con
scientiously passed into law what they but yesterday conscientiously
affirmed would insult their maker and bring ruin to their country.
�GOD.
45
standard, is only another name for intelligence, and must
always depend upon circumstances : upon creed, birth,
and surroundings.1 God must not, therefore, under the
plea of conscience, be freed from the consequences (which
he fore-knew) of what he has created; and which from
their very nature proclaim that he is not good and
omnipotent.
Some such ideas and considerations have doubtless been
in the minds of peoples at all times. The human race have
at all periods recognised the fact of the existence, in many
shapes, of good and evil; hence their many Gods, some
good and some bad.
The Christian has dethroned
and banished all the Gods but one, which he holds to be
the Z/w God. But he has balanced the case by inventing
the devil, who is a kind of concentrated essence of all the
old and bad Gods squeezed into one; and is made to do
duty for what I will call the black side of “ Creation”.
All the shortcomings, slips, and can’t-help-its of the good
or white God are saddled upon the black one—whose
presumed existence is thought to make that of his rival
more feasible.
The existence or non-existence of the devil may be
thought to be somewhat outside the question; but I
venture to introduce his sable majesty entirely upon the
authority of his friends—indeed I might say his patentees
—who have, I believe, not intentionally made him
co-equal, and frequently more than co-equal, with his
white brother in the management of the world. By far
the largest number, in fact by nearly all Theists, he
(the devil), or something equal to him, is held to be a
necessary antithesis to God proper. You see God is greatly
hampered : all over the world, at all times, he has been
heavily weighted, either by devils or devil, in some shape
or guise, which indeed is not to be wondered at; for,
taking a Bible and a Christian view, and, I think I would
be justified in saying, a Theistic view generally, he has
only himself to thank, because if he is the beginning, the
author and creator of all things, he is the author and creator
of the evils these devils and devil-Gods personify. Indeed
1 I think a better definition for conscience than the usually accepted
one, would be : The sense.of approval or sanction which we accord
or withhold to our actions.
�46
GOD.
the existence of evil is so patent to all as to have become
proverbial, and amongst us finds expression in such sayings
as : “ There is never a good without an evil ” ; and vice
versa. Why Giod does not see fit to uncreate the source of
evil—if he can do so without uncreating himself—is of
course beyond our ken.
Before finally quitting the design argument I will for
a moment or two longer dwell upon this personification
of evil, or rather, upon some of his doings as chronicled in
God’s book. I feel justified in doing so, because the
remarks I am about to make have direct reference to what
Christian and Jew alike assert God to have performed and
suffered, whilst working out what (under God) for many
centuries was held to be the very beginning of the work
of creation, but which is now held by Christians (of course
still under God) to be any period or stage of the work
which Science and Infidelity may ascribe to it. And I
would here submit that those who hold to a belief in the
doctrine of eternal punishment, ought to be the last to
dabble in the design idea.
According, then, to the opening chapters of the Bible,
the Almighty began his work in what may be termed the
Garden-of-Eden fashion, but finished it—well, very much
otherwise. Heaven will answer as denoting the beginning,
but Hell is the word which applies to the ending. God
had no sooner completed his work and blessed it, and
pronounced all things to be good, when, by the superior
cunning of a reptile—made by his own hands—he found
his design working so badly that he had at once to blast
everything he had made, and to introduce pain, labor,
thorns, thistles, disease, and death—not only for man, but
for beasts likewise. Thus Omniscience and Immutability
succumbed at the first bite of the apple. The serpent
obliterated Paradise, and deprived Omnipotence of its
meaning. And bear in mind the weak argument as to
free will does not affect the question—except in a detri
mental sense—of an Omniscient designer. If there be any
truth in the theory, you are bound to believe that the
serpent was designed to beguile the woman and so damn
mankind, and this, whilst adding nothing in the shape of
perfection to the general muddle, simply converts your
God into worse than a devil.
According to the prevailing Christian belief—certainly
�GOD.
47
the Roman Catholic belief—God created the world as a
means of replacing those angels who were expelled from
heaven for disobedience and rebellion; and the result,
according to the same authority, is simply becoming an
overflowing hell. God thought by means of this world
to recruit his celestial army, but the devil stole his recruits
before they were yet ripe, and made fuel of them to feed
his eternal stew-pan. Talk of design : it is really a worse
case than that of the painter who was not sure till he had
finished his picture whether it would turn out to be a
“ cow in the meadow ” or a “ ship in a storm ” ! If I am
asked for a justification for these remarks, I refer my
interrogator to the Bible account of the transaction, in
which he will see how the serpent, getting his own way in
the matter of Eve and the forbidden fruit, put God to
another and most disastrous shift—i.e., damning creation,
followed, if you will, by a confessedly futile scheme of
salvation.
If it were not so far away from my immediate subject, I
should like to go into the question as to where the Serpent’s
great wisdom came from ; and whether he had already
stolen a few apples upon his own account ? However that
may have been, God took summary vengeance upon him,
and at once either conjured or chopped off his legs, and
made him go upon his belly—although I presume he
was under the necessity of supplying him with a new
set of muscles to enable him to get along in his
new and strange method of locomotion. Or, has he—
the serpent—to some extent proved the truth of evolution
by acquiring for himself these organs since his fall ?
But what a childish fable for grown people to hold as
God’s truth.
Of course these observations are not founded upon any
thing better than the teachings and dogmas of men who
hold in various ways the position I am attacking. But in
such an enquiry as this, the things said for God, and of
God, by those who maintain his existence, are fair matters
for comment. And this applies to many other comments
in this pamphlet.
I have before me a scrap of what I take to be a portion
of a sermon upon the canonisation of St. Alphonsus
Rodriguez, in which the following passage appears. My
excuse for giving it is that it applies to God, inasmuch as
�48
GOD.
it shows God’s method, or one of his methods, of utilising'
defunct saints :
“ They ” (saints in general) “were a shield of protection not
only for those who invoked them, but also, through the super
abounding mercy of God, even to those who were ignorant of
their very names. Just as a range of mountains in the distance
frequently breaks the violence of the elements, so do the accu
mulated merits of the saints act as a barrier against the fury of
God’s vengeance, shielding even the unworthy from his wrath”,
etc.
Now this, divested of its oratorical and sacerdotal coloring,
means that one of God’s occupations is to providentially
raise up barriers in the shape of departed saints, against
his own wrath, so as to prevent himself from taking as
much vengeance as he otherwise would upon the beings he
has providentially created. What a dreadful character he
most assuredly would be if he were let alone—or rather, if
he let himself alone I Just imagine mountains of buffers
against the “fury of God’s vengeance” in the shape of
defunct saints I Under the circumstances mentioned, one
can scarcely help wondering how heaven can really be
heaven to them. Think of the picture here presented.
Shoals of departed saints dwelling in perfect bliss, but
nevertheless perpetually on the watch, both, in heaven and
out of it, so as to be ready at any instant to throw them
selves between God’s fury and his intended victims. I
don’t think I should care to be a saint under the circum
stances. But the saints were ever a queer lot, and it is
possible their work in the next world is quite as unco1
as in this. If we are to believe those who are authorised
to speak for them, they are, though dead, still used as a
kind of supernatural cement to patch up the design which
they preached, but which I nevertheless think they marred
when in the flesh.
It has just dawned upon me that possibly I have failed
to interpret aright the meaning of this highly-colored
statement of supernatural-natural nonsense and incredi
bility ; which indeed would be excusable. It is possible
that it is not the saints’ bodies which we are to understand
as acting as barriers and buffers, but their merits. These
merits would in that case stand in the same relationship to
God’s wrath and vengeance as the mountains do to the
fury of the elements, and thus prevent him, as I before
�GOD.
49
remarked, from doing such dire and dreadful things as he
■otherwise would do. He spends the fury of his vengeance
upon these mountains of virtues—after the manner of the
elements—rather than upon those who (presumably) de
serve it!
There is a most curious theological fact—it could only be
a fact theologically—peeping out from behind this mountain
■of sacerdotal nonsense, i.e., that God is so mighty, and so
wonderful as to be able to suffer his power and his inten
tions to be broken and scattered as are the elements
against mountains which successfully withstand their force,
and disperse them; without for an instant lessening his
omnipotence or his immutability. What a very wonderful
God these nineteenth century Christians must have !
The observations I am now about to make, although not
perhaps strictly pertinent to the subject, are yet bearing
upon it, being still in reference to the God question. I
make them with great respect, and with much diffidence:
respect for the opinions of those who, from their longer
and closer application to the question and better means of
studying it, are more capable of forming a correct opinion
than myself; and diffidence, because I know the conclusion
at which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion.
Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself.
But I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I
shall put forward seem to me to be real difficulties. If I
should appear dogmatic, or wanting in respect for greater
thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing a difficulty
in finding a method of conveying the thoughts I wish to
express. And I ask Christians to apply these remarks, in
so far as they are able, to what has preceded them (what
immediately follows does not touch them1); for, if in
arguing this subject I have not shown enough respect for
their feelings, have spoken harshly or irreverently of their
accepted doctrines and dogmas, I desire to say that I have
not intended to be wittingly offensive; although I will
confess I have not endeavored to hide feelings of con
tempt for certain beliefs and ideas which appeared to be
contemptible as they came before my mind. This I could
not avoid; it were false to act otherwise. And I must
1 This has reference to the argument which I am about to venture
upon, and not to the remarks I am now making.
�50
GOD.
also admit that I do not feel in any way bound to be
extremely tender with the doctrine of Christianity, as a
doctrine, and taken as a whole. Some things which have
happened, and which show even at this day a dangerous
smouldering of the awful Smithfield fires, have made a
deep impression upon me. To travel no further than
three of the foremost English Freethinkers of to-day: (a)
Mrs. Annie Besant was, by process of Christian law,
ruthlessly separated from all a woman holds dear, and
cast without means upon the world, because she, being a
Christian minister’s wife, dared to think, and was not
hypocrite enough to hide her conclusions, (#) Later on
Christian legislators actually endeavored to prevent her
and her fellow-students, the Misses Bradlaugh, from
teaching Science, pure and simple, to their fellow beings.
(0) Charles Bradlaugh was persistently treated with insult
and contumely, the sanctity of his person was outraged,
and he was robbed of his legitimate status as a citizen and
duly elected representative of the people, and all but
ruined—the struggle continuing for six years—by a Chris
tian House of Parliament, because he was an avowed
Atheist.1
Mr. G. W. Foote, in company with Mr. W. J. Ramsey,
was incarcerated in a felon’s gaol, treated as a criminal,
and made to suffer all the indignities of a convicted rogue
and thief, or perjurer, because he would not belie his
sense of right and liberty in matters of freedom of
thought.
Christians, now as ever, trample on those who differ
from them, and I do confess there is that within me which
will not permit me to kiss the hand that smites me; nor
lick the foot which spurns and kicks me. Christians
profess to do these things ; but their practice belies their
professions. For my own part, until I am allowed toexist upon equal terms in all respects, I will fight. I will
not prostrate my individuality before the Christian Jug
gernaut, and say : “ Trample out my existence, I am only
1 I am happy to know that a vast number of Christians have since
joined with others in contributing to clear off the debt incurred by
above six years’ struggle. Nevertheless Christians did the thing I
complain of in the name of Christianity. Any other man than
Charles Bradlaugh would scarcely have survived to afford the con
science-mongers an opportunity of thus easing their consciences.
�GOD.
51
an infidel ” ; but will, if need be, take my “ tomahawk”,
which a not altogether unfriendly critic has put into my
hand, and, striking right and left, hope it may never
alight upon the head of a friend, nor miss that of an
enemy.
Having said thus much, because I thought the occasion
opportune, I will proceed with the remarks to which I
have referred.
In this paper I have said that God is not, nor could he
be. . And it is upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus
distinctly denying the existence of God, that I wish to
make a few observations.
I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is
put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the
whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his
existence.. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings.
But I think I see very marked signs of what may be
considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism.
Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take
up this position, but what is considered the safer and more
moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean
that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to
mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him;
and that therefore he should neither affirm nor deny his
existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos
ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with
Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence. Mr.
Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of
Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of the
Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we
cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a
first cause, and a personal God; equally, we cannot prove
a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the
Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further
saying: “Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what
we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned”. I
would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all
practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull
ing the statement. But he further holds that if the
existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of
1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone.
�52
GOD.
course to illustrate the idea he is expounding) be asserted
in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos
sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be
admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible
in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist
an uncaused cause of all things ? If it, as well as the
existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc.,—
which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so
on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not
three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ?
It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr.
Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible
in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which
is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned,
the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned.
If anything which is inconsistent with what we really
know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a
beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—i.e., God
—stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a
term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot
be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of
the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct
issue.
The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr.
Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face
of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One
would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five
thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till
tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is,
as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the
non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously,
forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it
grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice
it denies it.
Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible
that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary
methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then
it is, so far Atheism : because the Atheist does but say
what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis
1 I notice that “D” (of the National Reformer) takes exception to
the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, hut I do not think that affects
the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God.
�GOD.
53
able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus
Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but
be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of
the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of
luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not,
physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but
who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical
ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility
of something about the Unknowable ; although that admis
sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions
superbly ridiculous.
Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the
possibility of what both practically say is impossible.1
It would appear to me that what is unknowable is not.
Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there
may be some points and niceties about it which pass my
comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some
very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all
things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an
individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra
ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with
what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you
prove to the contrary? ” Of course one could shake one’s
head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the
extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the
closure will come in again with quite as much force against
1 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journal (J March 30th,
remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over
which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic
ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and
Atheism is no more.”
Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than
Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am
startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of
reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is
assured. ‘ God ’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic
basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.”
With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be
difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and
if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God
being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults.
If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the
better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists
who believe in God.
�54
GOD.
improbable as it did against the impossible, when
used in reference to the Unknowable.
It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold
a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty.
But surely
it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no
matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general
way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside
the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend
the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or
idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing
spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding
that it may be this, that, or the other. The whole idea
seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely
wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically,
no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall
be completely outside or free from considerations which
are in connexion with the universe, or which are not based
upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos
ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which
assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or,
what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories
so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure,
rather than to throw more light upon what is already
sufficiently difficult.
As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach
ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This
may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre
sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it
as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism.
I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples
we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got
to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of
course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist
becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism,
or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve
further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other
hand if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist
has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says
no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says
perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution
till he arrives at Theism, which says yes.
Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house
between the two extremes, there will at all times probably
the
�GOD.
55
be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It
will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism,
and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become
a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of
faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a
time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being
neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose
minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded
as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who
are either going forward or returning, as the case may be.
I will endeavor to further explain myself, and to point
■out why I think an Atheist ought logically to be able to
say there is no God.
I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs,
Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the
Bev. W. T. Lee, and the. definition of Agnosticism quoted
from the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan
guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at
the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear
to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of
Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally
follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only
a very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi
fying the boast made by many, that there is no living
person who really believes there is no God. Of course this
boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when
they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those
whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything,
mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to
a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed,
and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and
teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind
of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would,
I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a
weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a
similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in
mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate
in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave
the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position
should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and
logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues,
which may contain no principle.
The question then arises which is the most logical
�56
GOD.
position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimateend and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at
the last gate by refraining from making such direct
declaration ?
At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part
of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may
not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what hisname implies-—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves:
m the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God.
Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he
remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he
do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi
tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula ‘ ‘ we do not
and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does
he not in reality say “ there is no God ” ? If you venture
as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not
logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean
that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps
after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the
hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict ? It
appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I
do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the
common and consequent result of investigation should not
be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other
enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we
cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we
must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an
open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves
Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of
to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who
professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that
neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not
withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi
bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with
the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for
him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra
dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume
the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in
supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot
assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore
its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded
then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that
ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible.
�GOD.
57
you venture one whit further in the shape of denial
than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the
extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put
out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who
do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be
true.
I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is
a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And
that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for
giving direct form to his verdict, or result of his investigation.
I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse
declared it contained no money, would not be held to be
illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin
ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con
tained money, but would not venture upon saying out
right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it
did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near
being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in
mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn,
and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all
possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the
wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi
tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use
in dropping one term and picking up another, which,
whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing?
If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean
one other thing: the possibility of the existence of God,
which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and
denial of Atheism.
Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I
think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with
approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had
with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism,
as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the
time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps
to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ?
But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility
If
1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a
purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to methat the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature is an
admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still
an admission that perhaps it (supernature) is; to the shutting out of
the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism.
�58
GOD.
of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean
that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact;
thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the
Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con
ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils,
ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms
with which the regions of supernature are peopled.
I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to
admit of a may-be, which the whole universe proclaims may
not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly
say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond
it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those
calling themselves Christians, will have much to be grate
ful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position. It is
certainly more difficult to argue against a position the
possible correctness of which you have already conceded,
than against one whose correctness you entirely repudiate.
It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction
in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quite
savoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is
not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I
thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that
Agnosticism is safer because it tells you neither to affirm
nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means
of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you
there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If
that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes
nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say
perhaps yes ? Do I then doubt, or half believe ? What
logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into
myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond
Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as
think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non
admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with
its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not.
The “ New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded,
and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. Wace, states that “ an
Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything
behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and,
as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially
that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know
nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good enough for
the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant
�GOD.
59
for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows
the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism.
Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good;
although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous
position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in
a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that
the name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who
claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable
God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late
bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said
that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”.
He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist,
nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take
a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own
part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I
1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National
Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The
correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following
quotation, given in the Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition
of the word, be correct: ‘ ‘ As the inventor of the word, I am entitled
to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence
of science whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man
shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly
is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley
to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to
God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the
existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such
belief. So far it is Atheistic ; but if it further means that man has
no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not
therefore to state his disbelief, then it is not Atheistic. And if
meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it
means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then
it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes
half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as
here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist
should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove.
But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean
ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege
that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi
cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny
the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss him.
Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is
scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to
the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their
accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to
deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance,
the Trinity.
�60
GOD.
think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com
patible with the position now apparently assumed by
leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements
taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti
mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in thebelief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and
safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in
Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case.
To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is,
at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between
the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not
demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no
God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic
doing so.
It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least
illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that,
while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out
side natural phenomena, nor of the first cause—which is
the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may
exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as
though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though
he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would
seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and
act Atheism.
I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we
are bound to have great respect, that the word God,
undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the
work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no
idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will
remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no
reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a
nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But
is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ?
It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It
is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and
earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin
ning and the End, and many other things. But the
cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the
supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is
meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist,
knowing what is broadly meant and held as to God by
those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the
word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no
�G01).
61
meaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can
yon not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to
convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can
know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined.
I recognise the difficulty; but reply : Would an Atheist
subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary
—I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would
not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no
inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or
asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning
only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to
convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to
convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli
gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his
existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the
universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to
whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories
of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question
of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a
matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning
is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist
to say yes or no to such general meaning.
If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean
the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently
clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I
presume in every scientifically arranged language in the
world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their derivatives.
If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion
arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and
Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and
therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does
exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will
—put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing
room for variations of definition) holds that he does not
exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ?
I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to
his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then
1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words
defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas they
are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular
word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put
forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either
accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence.
�62
GOD.
he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon
him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may
without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is
not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in thia
particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he
must not venture upon making the logical and consequent
avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic
tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear
upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to
affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to
deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its
existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results.
It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that
it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity.
I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not,
it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed
an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that
he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an
Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter
pret his position.
I could understand taking up the position that, because
we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what
mighty or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos
sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable
and improbable; although I should be strongly tempted
to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I
should consider beyond the improbable and to be im
possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round
and include all questions, and not be confined to that of
the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility
or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my
thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended
lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con
cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence.
I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving
expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving
expression to his conviction that a moon made of green
cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being
“ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis
belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus
be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither
affirming nor denying ” : it is the embodiment of denial
�GOD.
63
and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into
another position; but in the meantime, I must again say
that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it
that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare
the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis
believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name,
and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it
or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and
teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi
tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the
weak avowal he makes when he says “the Atheist does not
say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so
term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions
based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It
stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of
God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words,
he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not
be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate
to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much
reason be regarded as a loop-hole.
But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to
thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming
in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet
evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future
are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do
not know God — and forgive me if I once more say—
thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought,
I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow
to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all
its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other
terms as shall better define our position. In that case
we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature
Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the
term is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto
accepted sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic
one.
For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or
otherwise, I have.no hesitation in asserting that, so far
as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other
wise, I could not be an Atheist.
Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles
in the National JR&former, “In Defence of Agnosticism”.
They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and
�64
GOD.
profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them.
But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have
confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to
Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an
Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue
the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when
considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question”
being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”. But he
further says that some argument is admissible when he is
taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it:
“ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it
is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on
to explain, such assertions include statements with regard
to the order of nature ; as, for instance: “We may argue
from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence
of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”.
This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but
to my mind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to
leave the person awkwardly situated, who does not believe
in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his
God forward as being supernatural only, and as having
nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be
dumb; or limit one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at
most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put
forward in conjunction with our phaenomenal universe (as
indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled
to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him.
But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify
what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirmstively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we
know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be
verified either way without full discussion ? And why
should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the
other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only
discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ?
And finally, is that Agnosticism ?
But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade
the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward.
Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced
except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of
authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is
generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time
the cause and author or creator of the universe and of
�GOD.
65
all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone
who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the
enabling position, above all others, I take to be that
of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion
of the statement only, discussion upon the question
of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because
all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super
natural being. But the qualification comes in as a
kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to
discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at
once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that
even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of
the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega
tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say,
“ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must
not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not
know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis
factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos
ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s”
further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when
a Christian states that “three times one God are one
God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in
the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the
following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as
logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the
possibility, as to say the subject matter is beyond the
reach of my faculties, and that the assertion conveys no
meaning to my mind. These seem to be quite distinct
statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and
I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct
form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro
fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed.
I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”,
but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that
an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon
common sense and science, “does not, or needs not,
deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three
days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and
the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that
if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are
one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it;
but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor
disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be
�66
GOD.
hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming
nor denying.
The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored
to give form have been in my mind for a considerable
period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting
them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps,
in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them
more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other.
The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of
some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small
space here at my command I have not been able to much
more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned
works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do
but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as
occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My
observations are possibly better calculated to induce the
ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and
to look for larger and more complete investigations than
they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the
great of learning.
The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We
can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and
our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method
and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are
worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating
humanity, and building up a people who shall consider
their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry,
but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry,
rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches
and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ball, William Platt [1844-1917]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 66 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N056
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Agnosticism
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 (God: being also a brief statement of arguments against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), 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
Agnosticism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/434098f27df101e7287a045203ac15fd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Sx6kCY4KYfcg-hkB%7E6q9Rf2DqY042VQQ9TLJPYE3NctPGnE2MzttfafWYjrPzSoe7adBKO6Dsgo4iProCCJyQqP1oQ1t0o8fiX%7EmPwJYPFWKKUmn9eBD4glsbTY9JVHIa-uDfGFqhNeiSHNHcFAnZuvNYgYOhH36bPKnjmHJFQ7R55gWdzjRP%7E8JUbv5HjsiutxQ9gKC6d4iW-IZIwUIWMqcDiNOd9Y-N1t%7EaPVzMzbbalugPDBPHdwWLv3mGr%7EaAs1Qs%7Epj3-OA49Ll4AhqmOviMqnpgeF1Mns3yk6Z1x6L6-AwBYdMri6h-08qTn3MFk2R5lM2bsJyHNmpiODGJg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4fc0bab24e8ad6dbef954e23d09a7156
PDF Text
Text
ON
THE NATURE
AND THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C W. REYNELL, 16 LITTLE PULTENEY BTBEE
HAYMARKET, W.
�ON THE
NATURE AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
--------- ♦--------
T is impossible for those who study the deeper reli- gious problems of our time to stave off much
longer the question which lies at the root of them all,
“What do you believe in regard to God?” We may
controvert Christian doctrines, one after another ; point
by point we may be driven from the various beliefs of
our churches; reason may force us to see contradictions
where we had imagined harmony, and may open our
eyes to flaws where we had dreamed of perfection ; we
resign all idea of a revelation; we seek for God in
Nature only; we renounce for ever the hope (which
glorified our former creed into such alluring beauty)
that at some future time we should verily “ see ” God,
that “ our eyes should behold the King in his beauty ”
in that fairy “land which is very far off.” But every
step we take onwards towards a more reasonable faith
and a surer light of Truth leads us nearer and nearer to;
the problem of problems, “ What is That which men
call God?” Not till theologians have thoroughly
grappled with this question have they any just claim to
be called religious guides; from each of those whom we
honour as our leading thinkers we have a right to a
distinct answer to this question, and the very object of
the present paper is to provoke discussion on thispoint.
Men are apt to turn aside somewhat impatiently from
an argument about the Nature and Existence of the’
B
I
�6
On the Nature and
Deity, because they consider that the question is a meta
physical one which leads nowhere; a problem the reso
lution of which is beyond our faculties, and the study
of which is at once useless and dangerous • they forget
that action is ruled by thought, and that our ideas about
God are therefore of vast practical importance. On our
answer to the question propounded above depends our
whole conception of the nature and origin of evil, and of
the sanctions of morality • on our idea of God turns our
opinion on the much-disputed question of prayer, and,
in fact, our whole attitude of mind towards life, here
and hereafter. Does morality consist in obedience to the
will of a perfectly moral Being, and are we to aim at
righteousness of life because in so doing we please God ?
Or are we to lead noble lives because nobility of life is
desirable for itself alone, and because it spreads happi
ness around us and satisfies the desires of our own nature?
Is our mental attitude to be that of kneeling or stand
ing ? Are our eyes to be fixed on heaven or on earth ?
Is prayer to God reasonable and helpful, the natural cry
of a child for help from a Father in Heaven ? Or is it,
on the other hand, a useless appeal to an unknown and
irresponsible force ? Is the mainspring of our actions
to be the idea of duty to God, or a sense of the necessity
of bringing our being into harmony with the laws of the
universe ? It appears to me that these questions are of
such grave and vital moment that no apology is needed
for drawing attention to them; and because of their
importance to mankind I challenge the leaders of the
religious and non-religious world alike, the Christians,
Theists, Pantheists, and those who take no specific name,
duly to test the views they severally hold. In this battle
the simple foot soldier may touch with his lance the
shield of the knight, and the insignificance of the chal
lenger does not exempt the general from the duty of
lifting the gauntlet flung down at his feet. Little care I
for personal defeat, if the issue of the conflict should
enthrone more firmly the radiant figure of Truth. One
�the Existence of God.
7
fault, however, I am anxious to avoid, and that is the
fault of ambiguity. The orthodox and the free-thinking
alike do a good deal of useless fighting from sheer mis
understanding of each other’s standpoint in the contro
versy. It appears, then, to be indispensable in the
prosecution of the following inquiry that the meaning of
the terms used should be unmistakably distinct. I
begin, therefore, by defining the technical forms of
expression to be employed in my argument; the defi
nitions may be good or bad, that is not material;
all that is needed is that the sense in which the various
terms are used should be clearly understood. When
men fight only for the sake of discovering truth, definite
ness of expression is specially incumbent on them ; and, as
has been eloquently said, “ the strugglers being sincere,
truth may give laurels to the victor and the vanquished :
laurels to the victor in that he hath upheld the truth,
laurels still welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat
crowns him with a truth he knew not of before.”
The definitions that appear to me to be absolutely
necessary are as follows :—
Dialer is used to express that which is tangible.
Spirit (or spiritual) is used to express those intangible
forces whose existence we become aware of only through
the effects they produce.
Substance is used to express that which exists in itself
and by itself, and the conception of which does not
imply the conception of anything preceding it.
God is used to represent exclusively that Being in
vested by the orthodox with certain physical, intellec
tual, and moral attributes.
Particular attention must be paid to this last defini
tion, because the term 1‘ atheist ” is often flung unjustly
at any thinker who ventures to criticise the popular arid
traditional idea of God ; and different schools, Theistic,,
and non-Theistic, with but too much facility, bandy
about this vague epithet in mutual reproach.
As an instance of this uncharitable and unfair use of
�8
On the Nature and
ugly names, all schools agree in calling the late Mr,
Austin Holyoake an “atheist,” and he accepted the
name himself, although he distinctly stated (as we find
in a printed report of a discussion held at the Victoria
Institute) that he did not deny the possibility of the
existence of God, but only denied the possibility of
the existence of that God in whom the orthodox ex
horted him to believe. It is well thus to protest before
hand against this name being bandied about, because it
carries with it, at present, so much popular prejudice,
that it prevents all possibility of candid and free dis
cussion. It is simply a convenient stone to fling at the
head of an opponent whose arguments one cannot meet,
a certain way of raising a tumult which will drown his
voice ; and, if it have any serious meaning at all, it might
fairly be used, as I shall presently show, against the
most orthodox pillar of the orthodox faith.
It is manifest to all who will take the trouble to
think steadily, that there can be only one eternal and
underived substance, and that matter and spirit must
therefore only be varying manifestations of this one
substance. The distinction made between matter and
spirit is then simply made for the sake of convenience
and clearness, just as we may distinguish perception
from judgment, both of which, however, are alike pro
cesses of thought. Matter is, in its constituent elements,
the same as spirit; existence is one, however manifold
in its phenomena; life is one, however multiform in its
evolution. As the heat of the coal differs from the
coal itself, so do memory, perception, judgment, emo
tion, and will, differ from the brain which is the
instrument of thought. But nevertheless they are all
equally products of the one sole substance, varying only
in their conditions.- It may be taken for granted that
against this preliminary point of the argument will be
raised the party-cry of “rank materialism,” because
“materialism” is a doctrine of which the general
public has an undefined horror. But I am bold to say
�the Existence of God.
9
that if by matter is meant that which is above defined
as substance, then no reasoning person can help being a
materialist. The orthodox are very fond of arguing
back to what they call the Great First Cause, “ God
is a spirit,” they say, “ and from him is derived the
spiritual part of man.” Well and good ; they have
traced back a part of the universe to a point at which
they conceive that only one universal essence is possible,
that which they call God, and which is spirit only.
But I then invite their consideration to the presence of
something which they do not regard as spirit, i.e.,
matter. I follow their own plan of argument step by
step : I trace matter, as they traced spirit, back and
back, till I reach a point beyond which I cannot go, one
only existence, substance or essence; am I therefore to
believe that God is matter only ? • But we have already
found it asserted by Theists that he is spirit only, and
we cannot believe two contradictories, however logical
the road which led us to them ; so we must acknow
ledge two substances, eternally existent side by side;
if existence be dual, then, however absurd the hypo
thesis, there must be two First Causes. It is not I who
am responsible for an idea so anomalous. The ortho
dox escape from this dilemma by an assumption, thus :
“ God, to whom is to be traced back all spirit, created
matter.” Why? am I not equally justified in assuming,
if I please, that matter created spirit ? Why should I
be logical in one argument and illogical in another ? If
we come to assumptions, have not I as much right to
my assumption as my neighbour has to his ? Why may
he predicate creation of one half of the universe, and
I not predicate it of the other half ? If the assump
tions be taken into consideration at all, then I contend
that mine is the more reasonable of the two, since it is
possible to imagine matter as existing without mind,
while it is utterly impossible to conceive of mind exist
ing without matter. We all know how a stone looks,
and we are in the habit of regarding that as lifeless
�IO
On the Nature and
matter; but who has any distinct idea of a mind pur
et simple ? No clear conception of it is possible to
human faculties; we can only conceive of mind as it is
found in an organisation ; intelligence has no appreciable
existence except as residing in the brain and as mani
fested in results. The lines of spirit and matter are not
one, say the orthodox; they run backwards side by side;
why then, in following the course of these two parallel
lines, should I suddenly bend one into the other ? and on
what principle of selection shall I choose the one I am
to curve? I must really decline to use logic just as
far as it supports the orthodox idea of God, and
arbitrarily throw it down the moment it conflicts with
that idea. I find myself then compelled to believe that
one only substance exists in all around me; that the
universe is eternal, or at least eternal so far as our
faculties are concerned, since we cannot as some one
has quaintly put it, “ get to the outside of everywhere
that a Deity cannot be conceived of as apart from the
universe, pre-existent to the universe, post-existent to
the universe; that the Worker and' the Work are
inextricably interwoven, and in some sense eternally
and indissolubly combined. Having got so far, we will
proceed to examine into the possibility of proving the
existence of that one essence popularly called by the
name of God, under the conditions strictly defined by
the orthodox. Having demonstrated, as I hope to do,
that the orthodox idea of God is unreasonable and
absurd, we will endeavour to discover whether any idea
of God, worthy to be called an idea, is attainable in the
present state of our faculties.
The orthodox believers in God are divided into two
camps, one of which maintains that the existence of
God is as demonstrable' as any mathematical proposition,
while the other asserts that his existence is not demon
strable to the intellect. I select Dr. McCann, a man
of considerable reputation, as the representative of the
former of these two opposing schools of thought; and
�the Existence of God.
11
give the Doctor’s position in his own words :—“ The
purpose of the following paper is to prove the fallacy
of all such assumptions ” (z.e., that the existence of God
is an insoluble problem) “by showing that we are no
more at liberty to deny His being, than we are to deny
any demonstration of Euclid. He would be thought
unworthy of refutation who should assert that any two
angles of a triangle are together greater than two right
angles. We would content ourselves by saying, ‘ The
man is mad ’—mathematically at least—and pass on.
If it can be shown that we affirm the existence of Deity
for the very same reasons as we affirm the truth of any
geometric proposition; if it can be shown that the
former is as capable of demonstration as the latter,—
then it necessarily follows that if we are justified in
calling the man a fool who denies the latter, we are
also justified in calling him a fool who says there is no
God, and in refusing to answer him according to his
folly.” Which course is a very convenient one when
you meet with an awkward opponent whom you cannot
silence by sentiment and declamation. Again : “ In
conclusion, we believe it to be very important to be
able to prove that if the mathematician be justified in
asserting that the three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles, the Christian is equally justified in
asserting, not only that he is compelled to believe in
God, but that he lcnows Him (sfc). And that he who
denies the existence of the Deity is as unworthy of
serious refutation as is he who denies a mathematical
demonstration.” (‘ A Demonstration of the Existence
of God,’ a lecture delivered at the Victoria Institute.
1870, pp. 1 and 11.) Dr. McCann proves his very
startling thesis by laying down as axioms six state
ments, which, however luminous to the Christian tra
ditionalist, are obscure to the sceptical intellect. He
seems to be conscious of this defect in his so-called
axioms, for he proceeds to prove each of them elabo
rately, forgetting that the simple statement of an axiom
�12
On the Nature and
should carry direct conviction—that it needs only to be
understood in order to be accepted. However, let this
pass : our teacher, having stated and “ proved ” his
axioms, proceeds to draw his conclusions from them,
and as his foundations are unsound it is scarcely to be
wondered at that his superstructure should be insecure.
I know of no way so effectual to defeat an adversary as
to beg all the questions raised, assume every point in
^dispute, call assumptions axioms, and then proceed to
reason from them. It is really not worth while to
criticise Dr. McCann in detail, his lecture being nothing
but a mass of fallacies and unproved assertions. Chris
tian courtesy allows him to call those who dissent from
his assumptions “fools,” and as these terms of abuse
are not considered admissible by those whom he assails
as unbelievers, there is a slight difficulty in “ answer
ing ” Dr. McCann “according to his” deserts. I
content myself with suggesting, that they who wish to
learn how pretended reasoning may pass for solid argu
ment, how inconsequent statements may pass for logic,
had better study this lecture. For my own part, I
confess that my “ folly ” is not, as yet, of a sufficiently
pronounced type to enable me to accept Dr. McCann’s
conclusions.
The best representation I can select of the second
orthodox party, those who admit that the existence of
God is not demonstrable, is the late Dean Mansel. In
his ‘Limits of Religious Thought,’ the Bampton Lec
tures for 1867, he takes up a perfectly unassailable
position ; the peculiarity of this position, however, is
that he, the pillar of orthodoxy, the famed defender of
the faith against German infidelity and all forms of
rationalism, regards God from exactly the same point as
does a well-known modern “ atheist.” I have almost
hesitated sometimes which writer to quote from, so
identical are they in thought. Probably neither Dean
Mansel nor Mr. Bradlaugh would thank me for bracket
ing their names, but I am forced to confess that the
�the Existence of God.
*3
arguments used by the one to prove the endless absur
dities into which we fall when we try to comprehend
the nature of God, are exactly the same arguments
that are used by the other to prove that God, as believed
in by the orthodox, cannot exist. I quote, however,
exclusively from the Dean, because it is at once novel
and agreeable to find oneself sheltered by Mother Church
at the exact moment when one is questioning her verv
foundations; and also because the Dean’s name carries
with it so orthodox an odour that his authority will tell
where the same words from any of those who are out
side the pale of orthodoxy would be regarded with
suspicion. Nevertheless I wish to state plainly that a
more “ atheistical ” book than these Bampton Lectures
—at least in the earlier part of it—I have never read, and
had its title-page boriie the name of any well-known
Dree-thinker, it would have been received in the reli
gious world with a storm of indignation.
The first definition laid down by the orthodox as a
characteristic of God is that he is an Infinite Being.
“ There is but one living and true God ... of infinite
power, &c.” (Article of Religion, 1.) It has been said
that infinite only means indefinite, but I must protest
against this weakening of a well-defined theological
term. The term Infinite has always been understood
to mean far more than indefinite; it means literally
boundless: the infinite has no limitations, wo possible
restrictions, no “ circumference.” People who do not
think about the meaning of the words they use speak
very freely and familiarly of the “ infinitude” of God,
as though the term implied no inconsistency. Deny
that God is infinite and you are at once called an
atheist, but press your opponent into a definition of
the term and you will generally find that he does not
know what he is talking about. Dean Mansel points
out, with his accurate habit of mind, all that this
attribute of God implies, and it would be well if those
who “believe in an infinite God ” would try and realise
�14
On the Nature and
what they express. Half the battle of free thought
will be won when people attach a definite meaning tothe terms they use. The Infinite has no bounds ; then
the finite cannot exist. Why ? Because in the very
act of acknowledging any existence beside the Infinite
One you limit the Infinite. By saying, “ This is not
God you at once make him finite, because you set a
bound to his nature ; you distinguish between him and
something else, and by the very act you limit him ;
that which is not he is as a rock which checks the
waves of the ocean ; in that spot a limit is found, and
in finding a limit the Infinite is destroyed. The
orthodox may retort, “ this is only a matter of terms ; ’’
but it is well to force them into realising the dogmas
which they thrust on our acceptance under such awful
penalties for rejection. J know what “ an infinite God ”
implies, and, as apart from the universe, I feel compelled
to deny the possibility of his existence; surely it is fair
that the orthodox should also know what the words
they use mean on this head, and give up the term if
they cling to a “personal” God, distinct from “creation.”
Further—and here I quote Dean Mansel—the “ Infinite
must be conceived as containing within itself the sum,
not only of all actual, but of all possible modes of
being. ... If any possible mode can be denied of it
... it is capable of becoming more than it now is,
and such a capability is a limitation.” (The hiatus
refers to the “ absolute ” being of God, which it is
better.to consider separately.) “ An unrealised possi
bility is necessarily (a relation and) a limit.” Thus is
orthodoxy crushed by the powerful logic of its own
champion. God is infinite ; then, in that case, every
thing that exists is God; all phenomena are modes of
the Divine Being; there is literally nothing which is
not God. Will the orthodox accept this position ? It
lands them, it is true, in the most extreme Pantheism,
but what of that ? They believe in an “ infinite God ”
and they are therefore necessarily Pantheists. If they
�the Existence of God.
15
object to this, they must give up the idea that their God
is infinite at all; there is no half-way position open tothem ; he is infinite or finite, which ?
Again, God is “ before all things,” he is the only Abso
lute Being, dependent on nothing outside himself ; all
that is wo/God is relative ; that is to say, that God exists
alone and is not necessarily related to anything else.
The orthodox even believe that God did, at some former
period (which is not a period they say, because time
then was not—however, at'.that hazy “time” he did),
exist alone, i.e., as what is called an Absolute Being:
this conception is necessary for all who, in any sense,
believe in a Creator.
“ Thou, in Thy far eternity,
Didst live and love alone.”
So sings a Christian minstrel; and one of the argu
ments put forward for a Trinity is that a plurality of
persons is necessary in order that God may be able to
love at the “ time ” when he was alone. Into this point,
however, I do not now enter. But what does this
“ Absolute ” imply ? A simple impossibility of creation,
just as does the Infinite; for creation implies that the
relative is brought into existence, and thus the Absolute
is destroyed. “ Here again the Pantheistic hypothesis
seems forced upon us. We can think of creation only
as a change in the condition of that which, already
exists, and thus the creature is conceivable only as a
phenomenal mode of the being of the Creator.’’ Thus
once more looms up the dreaded spectre of Pantheism,
“the dreary desolation of a Pantheistic wilderness;”
and who is the Moses who has led us into this desert ?
It is a leader of orthodoxy, a dignitary of the Church ;
it is Dean Mansel who stretches out his hand to the
universe and says, “This is thy God, 0 Israel.”
The two highest attributes of God land us, then, in
the most thorough Pantheism ; further, before remark
ing on the other divine attributes, I would challenge
�i6
On the Nature and
the reader to pause and try to realise this infinite and
absolute being. “ That a man can be conscious of the
infinite is, then, a supposition which, in the very terms
in which it is expressed, annihilates itself. . . . The
infinite, if it is to be conceived at all,.must be con
ceived as potentially everything and actually nothing;
for if there is anything in general which it cannot
become, it is thereby limited ; and if there is anything
in particular which it actually is, it is thereby excluded
from being any other thing. But again, it must also
be conceived as actually everything and potentially
•nothing; for an unrealised potentiality is likewise a
limitation. If the infinite can be ” (in the future)
“ that which it is not ” (in the present) “it is by that
very possibility marked out as incomplete and capable
of a higher perfection. If it is actually everything, it
possesses no characteristic feature by which it can be
distinguished from anything else and discerned as an
object of consciousness.” I think, then, that we must
be content, on the showing of Dr. Mansel, to allow that
God is, in his own nature—from this point of view—
quite beyond the grasp of our faculties; as regards us
tie does not exist, since he is indistinguishable’and undiscernable. Well might the Church exclaim “Save me
from my friends! ” when a dean acknowledges that her
God is a self-contradictory phantom; oddly enough,
however, the Church likes it, and accepts this fatal
championship. I might have put this argument wholly
in my own words, for the subject is familiar to everyone
who has tried to gain a distinct idea of the Being who
is called “God,” but I have preferred to back my own
opinions with the authority of so orthodox a man as
Dean Mansel, trusting that by so doing the orthodox
may be forced to see where logic carries them. All who
are interested in this subject should study his lectures
carefully; there is really no difficulty in following them,
if the student will take the trouble of mastering once
for all, the terms he employs. The book was lent to
�the Existence of God.
iy
me years ago by a clergyman, and did more than any
other book I know to make me what is called an
‘•'infidel; ” it proves to demonstration the impossibility
of our having any logical, reasonable, and definite idea
of God, and the utter hopelessness of trying to realise
his existence. It seems necessary here to make a short
digression to explain, for the benefit of those who have
not read the book from which I have been quoting, how
Dean Mansel escaped becoming an “ atheist.” It is a
curious fact that the last part of this book is as remark
able for its assumptions, as is the earlier portion for its
pitiless logic. When he ought in all reason to say, “ we
can know nothing and therefore can believe nothing,”
he says instead, “ we can know nothing and therefore
let us take Revelation for granted.” An atheistic
reasoner suddenly startles us by becoming a devout
Christian; the apparent enemy of the faithful is
“ transformed into an angel of light.” The existence
of God “ is inconceivable by the reason,” and therefore
“ the only ground that can be taken for accepting one
representation of it rather than another is, that one is
revealed and the other not revealed.” It is the acknow
ledgment of a previously formed determination to believe
at any cost; it is a wail of helplessness; the very
apotheosis of despair. We cannot have history, so let
us believe a fairy-tale ; we can discover nothing, so let us
assume anything; we cannot find truth, so let us take
the first myth that comes to hand. Here I feel com
pelled to part company with the Dean, and to leave him
to believe in, to adore, and to love that which he has
himself designated as indistinguishable and undiscernable; it may be an act of faith but it is a crucifixion of
intellect; it may be a satisfaction to the yearnings of
the heart, but it dethrones reason and tramples it in
the dust.
We proceed in our study of the attributes of God.
He is represented as the Supreme Will, the Supreme
Intelligence, the Supreme Love.
�18
On the Nature and
As the Supreme Will. What do we mean by “ will ?”
Surely, in the usual sense of the word, a will implies
the power and the act of choosing. Two paths are
■ open to us, and we will to walk in one rather than in
the other. But can we think of power of choice in
connection with God ? Of two courses open to us one
must needs be better than the other, else they would
be indistinguishable and be only one; perfection implies
that the higher course will always be taken; what
then becomes of the power of choice ? We choose
because we are imperfect; we do not know every
thing which bears on the matter on which we are
about to exercise our will; if we knew everything
we should inevitably be driven in one direction, that
which is the best possible course. The greater the
knowledge, the more circumscribed the will; the nobler
the nature, the more impossible the lower course.
Spinoza points out most clearly that the Divinity could
not have made things otherwise than they are made,
because any change in his action would imply a change
in his nature; God, above all, must be bound by
necessity. If we believe in a God at all we must surely
ascribe to him perfection of wisdom and perfection of
goodness; we are then forced to conceive of him—
however strange it may sound to those who believe, not
only without seeing but also without thinking—as with
out will, because he must always necessarily pursue the
course which is wisest and best.
As the Szipreme Intelligence. Again, the first ques
tion is, what do we mean by wfeZZfyewce ? In the usual
sense of the word intelligence implies the exercise of
the various intellectual faculties, and gathers up into
one word the ideas of perception, comparison, memory,
judgment, and so on. The very enumeration of these
faculties is sufficient to show how utterly inappropriate
they are when thought of in connection with God.
Does God perceive what he did not know before ? Does
he compare one fact with another ? Does he draw con-
�the Existence of God.
T9
elusions from this correlation of perceptions, and thus
judge what is best ? Does he remember, as we remem
ber, long past events ? Perfect wisdom excludes from
the idea of God all that is called intelligence in man ;
it involves unchangeableness, complete stillness; it'
implies a knowledge of all that is knowable; it includes
an acquaintance with every fact, an acquaintance
which has never been less in the past, and can never
be more in the future. The reception at any time of
a new thought or a new idea is impossible to perfection,
for if it could ever be added to in the future it is neces
sarily something less than perfect in the past.
As the Supreme Love. We come here to the darkest
problem of existence. Love, Ruler of the world per
meated through and through with pain, and sorrow,
and sin ? Love, mainspring of a nature whose cruelty
is sometimes appalling ? Love ? Think of the “ mar
tyrdom of man!” Love? Follow the History of the
Church ! Love ? Study the annals of the slave-trade !
Love? Walk the courts and alleys of our towns! It
is of no use to try and explain away these things, or
cover them up with a veil of silence; it is better to
look them fairly in the face, and test our creeds by
inexorable facts. It is foolish to keep a tender spot
which may not be handled • for a spot which gives pain
when it is touched implies the presence of disease :
wiser far is it to press firmly against it, and if danger
lurk there to use the probe or the knife. We have no
right to pick out all that is noblest and fairest in man,
to project these qualities into space, and to call them
God. We only thus create an ideal figure, a purified,
ennobled, “magnified” Man. We have no right to
shut our eyes to the sad revers de la medaille, and leave
out of our conceptions of the Creator the larger half of
his creation. If we are to discover the Worker from
his works we must not pick and choose amid those
works; we must take them as they are, “good” and
“bad.” If we only want an ideal, let us by all means
�20
On the Nature and
make one, and call it God, if thus we can reach it better,
but if we want a true induction we must take all facts
into account. If G-od is to be considered as the author
of the universe, and we are to learn of him through his
works, then we must make room in our conceptions of
him for the avalanche and the earthquake, for the
tiger’s tooth and the serpent’s fang, as well as for the
tenderness of woman and the strength of man, the
radiant glory of the sunshine on the golden harvest, and
the gentle lapping of the summer waves on the gleaming
shingled beach.
*
The Nature of God, what is it ? Infinite and Abso
lute, he evades our touch: without human will, without
human intelligence, without human love, where can his
faculties—the very word is a misnomer—find a meet
ing-place with ours ? Is he everything or nothing ? one
or many ? We know not. We know nothing. Such
is the conclusion into which we are driven by ortho
doxy, with its pretended faith, which is credulity, with
its pretended proofs, which are presumptions. It defines
and maps out' the perfections of Deity, and they dis
solve when we try to grasp them; nowhere do these
ideas hold water for a moment; nowhere is this posi
tion defensible. Orthodoxy drives thinkers into atheism;
weary of its contradictions they cry, “ there is no G-od
orthodoxy’s leading thinker lands us himself in atheism.
* “ I know it is usual for the orthodox when vindicating; the moral
character of their God to say:—‘All the Evil that exists is of man;
All that God has done is only good.’’ But granting- (which facts do not
substantiate) that man is the only author of the sorrow and the wrong
that abound in the world, it is difficult to see how the Creator can be
free from imputation Did not God, according to orthodoxy, plan
all things with an infallible perception that the events foreseen must
occur? Was not this accurate prescience based upon the inflexibility
of God’s Eternal purposes? As, then, the purposes, in the order of
nature, at least preceded the prescience and formed the groundwork of
it, man has become extensively the instrument of doing mischief in the
world simply because the God of the Christian Church did not ch’oose to
prevent man from being bad. In other words man is as he is by the
ordained design of God, and therefore God is responsible for all the
suffering, shame, and error, spread by human agency.-So that the
Christian apology for God in connection with the spectacle of evil falls
to pieces.”—Note, by the Editor.
�the Existence of God.
21
No logical, impartial, mind can escape from unbelief
through the trap-door opened by Dean Mansel: he has
taught us reason, and we cannot suppress reason. The
“ serpent intellect ”—as the Bishop of Peterborough
calls it—has twined itself firmly round the tree of
knowledge, and in that type we do not see, with the
Hebrew, the face of death, but, with the older faiths,
we reverence it as the symbol of life.
There is another fact, an historical one, still on the
destructive side, which appears to me to be of the
gravest importance, and that is the gradual attenuation
of the idea of God before the growing light of true
knowledge. To the savage everything is divine; he
hears one God’s voice in the clap of the thunder, another’s
in the roar of the earthquake, he sees a divinity in the
trees, a deity smiles at him from the clear depths of the
river and the lake; every natural phenomenon is the
abode of a god; every event is controlled by a god ;
divine volition is at the root of every incident. To him
the rule of the gods is a stern reality; if he offends
them they turn the forces of nature against him ; the
flood, the famine, the pestilence, are the ministers of
the avenging anger of the gods. As civilisation ad
vances, the deities lessen in number, the divine powers
become concentrated more and more in one Being, and
God rules over the whole earth, maketh the clouds his
chariot, and reigns above the waterfloods as a king.
Physical phenomena are still his agents, working his
will among the children of men; he rains great hail
stones out of heaven on his enemies, he slays their
flocks and desolates their lands, but his chosen are safe
under his protection, even although danger hem them
in on every side • “ thou shalt not be afraid for any
terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for
the sickness that destroyeth in the noon-day. A thou
sand shall fall beside thee, and ten thousand at thy
right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
c
�22
On the Nature and
He shall defend thee under his wings, and thou shaft
be safe under his feathers.” (Ps. xci., Prayer-Book.)
Experience contradicted this theory rather roughly, and
it gave way slowly before the logic of facts; it is how
ever, still more or less prevalent among ourselves, as we
see when the siege of Paris is proclaimed as a judgment
on Parisian irreligion, and when the whole nation falls
on its knees to acknowledge the cattle-plague as the
deserved punishment of its sins ! The next step forward
was to separate the physical from the moral, and to
allow that physical suffering came independently of
moral guilt or righteousness : the men crushed under
the fallen tower of Siloam were not thereby proved to
be more sinful than their countrymen. The birth of
science rang the death-knell of an arbitrary and con
stantly interposing Supreme Power. The theory of
God as a miracle worker was dissipated; henceforth if
God ruled at all it must be as in nature and not from
outside of nature; he no longer imposed laws on some
thing exterior to himself, the laws could only be the
necessary expression of his own being. Laws were,
further, found to be immutable in their working, .
changing not in accordance with prayer, but ever true
to a hair's breadth in their action. Slowly, but surely,
prayer to God for the alteration of physical phenomena
is being found to be simply a well-meant superstition ;
nature swerves not for our pleading, nor falters in her
path for our most passionate supplication. The “ reign
of law” in physical matters is becoming acknowledged
even by theologians. As step by step the knowledge of
the natural advances, so step by step does the belief in
the supernatural recede; as the kingdom of science
extends, so the kingdom of miraculous interference
gradually disappears. The effects which of old were
thought to be caused by the direct action of God are
now seen to be caused by the uniform and calculable
working of certain laws,—laws which, when discovered,
it is the part of wisdom implicitly to obey. Things
�the Existence of God.
which we used to pray for, we now work and wait for,
and if we fail we do not ask God to add his strength to
ours, but we sit down and lay our plans more carefully.
How is this to end ? Is the future to be like the past,
and is science finally to obliterate the conception of a
personal God ? It is a question which ought to be pon
dered in the light of history. Hitherto the super
natural has always been the makeweight of human
ignorance ; is it, in truth, this and nothing else ?
I am forced, with some reluctance, to apply the whole
of the above reasoning to every school of thought,
whether nominally Christian or non-Christian, which
regards God as a “ magnified man.” The same stern
logic cuts every way and destroys alike the Trinitarian
and the Unitarian hypothesis, wherever the idea of God
is that of a Creator, standing, as it were, outside his
creation. The liberal thinker, whatever his present
position, seems driven infallibly to the above conclusions,
as soon as he sets himself to realise his idea of his God.
The Deity must of necessity be that one and only sub
stance out of which all things are evolved under the
uncreated conditions and eternal laws of the universe ;
he must be, as Theodore Parker somewhat oddly puts
it, ‘‘the materiality of matter, as well as the spirituality
•f spirit; ” i.e., these must both be products of this one
substance: a truth which is readily accepted as soon as
spirit and matter are seen to be but different modes of
one essence. Thus we identify substance with the all
comprehending and vivifying force of nature, and in so
doing we simply reduce to a physical impossibility the
existence of the Being described by the orthodox as a
God possessing the attributes of personality. The Deity
becomes identified with nature, co-extensive with the
universe ; but the Got? of the orthodox no longer exists ;
we may change the signification of God, and use the
word to express a different idea, but we can no longer
mean by it a Personal Being in the orthodox sense,
possessing an individuality which divides him from the
�-24
On the Nature and
rest of the universe. I say that I use these arguments
el with some reluctance/’ because many who have fought
and are fighting nobly and bravely in the army of freethought, and to whom all free-thinkers owe much
honour, seem to cling to an idea of the Deity, which,
however beautiful and poetical, is not logically defensible,
and in striking at the orthodox notion of God, one neces
sarily strikes also at all idea of a “ Personal ” Deity.
There are some Theists who have only cut out the Son
and the Holy Ghost from the Triune Jehovah, and have
concentrated the Deity in the Person of the Father;
they have returned to the old Hebrew idea of God, the
Creator, the Sustainer, only widening it into regarding
God as the Friend and Father of all his creatures, and
not of the Jewish nation only. There is much that is
noble and attractive in this idea, and it will possibly
serve as a religion of transition to break the shock of
the change from the supernatural to the natural. It
is reached entirely by a process of giving up ; Christian
notions are dropped one after another, and the God who
is believed in is the residuum. This Theistic school has
not gained its idea of God from any general survey of
nature or from any philosophical induction from facts;
it has gained it only by stripping off from an idea already
in the mind everything which is degrading and revolting
in the dogmas of Trinitarianism. It starts, as I have
noticed elsewhere, from a very noble axiom : “ If there
be a God at all he must be at least as good as his highest
creatures,” and thus is instantly swept away the
Augustinian idea of a God,—that monster invented by
theological dialectics • but still the same axiom makes
God in the image of man, and never succeeds in getting
outside a human representation of the Divinity. It starts
from this axiom, and the axiom is prefaced by an “if.”
It assumes God, and then argues fairly enough what his
character must be. And this “ if ” is the very point on
which the argument of this paper turns.
“ If there be a God ” all the rest follows, but is there
�the Existence of God.
2$
a God at all in the sense in which the word is gene
rally used ? And thus I come to the second part of
my problem; having seen that the orthodox “ idea of
God is unreasonable and absurd, is there any idea of
God, worthy to be called an idea, which is attainable in
the present state of our faculties?” (P. 10.)
The argument from design does not seem to me to
be a satisfactory one; it either goes too far or not far
enough. Why in arguing from the evidences of adapta
tion should, we assume that they are planned by a
mind ?. It is quite as easy to conceive of matter asself-existent, with inherent vital laws moulding it into
varying phenomena, as to conceive of any intelligent
mind directly modelling matter, so that the “ heavens
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth
his handy-work. ’ It is, I know, customary to sneer at
the idea of beautiful forms existing without a conscious
designer, to parallel the adaptations of this world to
the adaptations in machinery, and then triumphantly to
inquire, if skill be inferred from the one, why ascribe
the other to chance? ” We do not believe in chance;
the steady action of law is not chance; the exquisite
crystals which form themselves under certain conditions
are not a “ fortuitous concourse of atoms; ” the only
question is whether the laws which we all allow to
govern nature are immanent in nature, or the outcome
of an intelligent mind. If there be a law-maker, is he
self-existent, or does he, in turn, as has been asked’
again and again by Positivist, Secularist, and Atheist,
require a maker ? If we think for a moment of the
vast mind implied in the existence of a Creator of
the universe, is it possible to believe that such a mind
is the result of chance ? If man’s mind imply a
master-mind, how much more that of God ? Of course
the question seems an absurd one, but it is quite as
pertinent as the question about a world-maker. Wemust come to a stop somewhere, and it is quite as logical
to stop at one point as at another. The argument from
�26
On the Nature and
design would be valuable if we could prove, a priori,
as Mr. Gillespie attempted to do, the existence of a
*
Deity ; this being proved we might then fairly argue
deductively to the various apparent signs of mind in
the universe. Again, if we allow design we must ask,
•“ how far does design extend ? ” If some phenomena
are designed, why not all 1 And if not all, on what
principle can we separate that which is designed from
that which is not ? If intellect and love reveal a
design, what is revealed by brutality and hate ? If the
latter are not the result of design, how did they become
introduced into the universe ? I repeat that this argu
ment implies either too much or too little.
There is but one argument that appears to me to have
any real weight, and that is the argument from instinct.
Man has faculties which appear, at present, as though
they were not born of the intellect, and it seems to me
to be unphilosophical to exclude this class of facts from
our survey of nature. The nature of man has in it
certain sentiments and emotions which, reasonably or
unreasonably, sway him powerfully and continually;
they are, in fact, his strongest motive-powers, over
whelming the reasoning faculties with resistless strength ;
true, they need discipline and controlling, but they do
not need to be, and they cannot be, destroyed. The
sentiments of love, of reverence, of worship, are not, as
yet, reducible to logical processes; they are intuitions,
spontaneous emotions, incomprehensible to the keen and
cold intellect. They may be laughed at or denied, but
they still exist in spite of all; they avenge themselves,
when they are not taken into account, by ruining the
best laid plans, and they are continually bursting the
cords with which reason strives to tie them down. I
do not for a moment pretend to deny that these “ intui
tions ” will, as our knowledge of psychology increases,
be reducible to strict laws; we call them instincts and
‘ Tile Necessary Existence of Deity.’
�the Existence of God.
27
intuitions simply because we are unable to trace them to
their source, and this vague expression covers the vague
ness of our ideas. Therefore, intuition is not to be
•accepted as a trustworthy guide, but it may suggest an
hypothesis, and this hypothesis must then be submitted
to the stern verification of observed facts. We are not
as yet able to say to what the instinct in man to worship
points, or what reality answers to his yearning. In
creased knowledge will, we may hope, reveal to us
*
where there lies the true satisfaction of this instinct: so
long as the yearning is only an “ instinct ” it cannot
pretend to be logically defensible, or claim to lay down
any rule of faith. But still I think it well to point out
that this instinct exists in man, and exists most strongly
in some of the noblest souls.
Of all the various sentiments which are thus at pre
sent “intuitional,” none is so powerful, none so over
mastering as this instinct to worship, this sentiment of
religion. It is as natural for man to worship as to
eat. ' He will do it, be it reasonable or unreasonable.
Just as the baby crams everything into his mouth, so
does man persist in worshipping something. It may be
said that the baby’s instinct does not prove that he is
right in trying to devour a match-box ; true, but it
proves the existence of something eatable; so fetish
worship, polytheism, theism, do not prove that man has
worshipped rightly, but do they not prove the existence
of something worshipable ? The argument does not, of
course, pretend to amount to a demonstration; it is
* “ Is therein man any such Instinct? May not the general tendency to
worship a Deity, everywhere be the result of the influence gained by
Priests over the mind, by the play of the mysterious Unknown and
Hereafter upon susceptible imaginations ? Besides, what are we to say
of the immense number of philosophical Buddhists and Brahmins, for
whose comfort or moral guidance the idea of a God or a hereafter is felt
to be quite unnecessary? They cannot comprehend it, and consequently
acts of worship to God would be deemed by them fanatical It is tra
ditionalists who either do not think at all, or think only within a narrow,
creed-bound circle, that are most devoted to worshipping Deity ; and if
so, may not the whole history of worship have its origin in superstition
and priestcraft ? In that case, the theory of an instinct of worship falls
to the ground.”— Note by the Editor.
�28
On the Nature and
nothing more than the suggestion of an analogy; arewe to find that the supply is correlated to the demand
throughout nature, and yet believe that this hitherto
invariable system is suddenly altered when we reach the
spiritual part of man? I do not deny that this instinct
is hereditary, and that it is fostered by habit. The idea
of reverence for God is transmitted from parent to child,
it is educated into an abnormal development, and thus
almost indefinitely strengthened, but yet it does appear
to me that the bent to worship is an integral part of
man’s nature. This instinct has also sometimes been
considered to have its root in the feeling that one’s indi
vidual self is but a “ part of a stupendous wholethat
the so-called religious feeling which is evoked by a grand
view or a bright starlight night is only the realisation of
personal insignificance, and the reverence which rises in
the soul in the presence of the mighty universe of which
we form a part. Whatever the root and the significance
of this instinct, there can be no doubt of its strength;
there is nothing rouses men’s passions as does theology ;
for religion men rush on death more readily and joyfully
than for any other cause ; religious fanaticism is the
most fatal, the most terrible power in the world. In
studying history I also see the upward tendency of the
race, and note that current which Mr. Matthew Arnold
has called “ that stream of tendency, not ourselves,
which makes for righteousness.” Of course, if there be
a conscious God, this tendency is a proof of his moral
character, since it would be the outcome of his laws •
but here again an argument which would be valuable
were the existence of God already proved, falls blunted
from the iron wall of the unknown. The same tendency
upwards would naturally exist in any “ realm of law,”
although the law were an unconscious force. For
righteousness is nothing more than obedience to law, and
where there is obedience to law, Nature’s mighty forces
lend their strength to man, and progress is secured.
Only by obedience to law can advance be made, and this
�the Existence of God.
29
rule applies, of course, to morality as well as to physics.
Physical righteousness is obedience to physical laws;
moral righteousness is obedience to moral laws ; just as
physical laws are discovered by the observation of natural
phenomena, so must moral laws be discovered by the
observation of social phenomena. That which increases
the general happiness is right; that which tends to
destroy the general happiness is wrong. Utility is the
test of morality. But a law must not be drawn from
a single fact or phenomenon; facts must be carefully
collated, and the general laws of morality drawn from a
generalisation of facts. But this subject is too large to
enter upon here, and it is only hinted at in order to note
that, although there is a moral tendency apparent in the
course of events, it is rather a rash assumption to take it
for granted that the power in question is a conscious one :
it may be, and that, I think, is all we 'can justly and
reasonably say.
Again, as regards Love. I have protested above
against the easiness which talks glibly of the Supreme
Love while shutting its eyes to the supreme agony of the
world. But here, in putting forward what may be said
on the other side of the question, I must remark that
there is a possible explanation for sorrow and sin which
is consistent with love. Given immortality of man and
beast, and tbe future gain may then outweigh the present
loss. But we are bound to remember that we can only
have a hops of immortality; we have no demonstration
of it, and this is, therefore, only an assumption by which
we escape from a difficulty. We ought to be ready to
acknowledge, also, that there is love in nature, although
there is cruelty too; there is the sunshine as well as the
storm, and we must not fix our eyes on the darkness
alone and deny the light. In mother-love, in the love
of friends, loyal through all doubt, true in spite of
danger and difficulty, strongest when most sorely tried,
we see gleams of so divine, so unearthly a beauty, that
our hearts whisper to us of an universal heart pulsating
�3°
On the Nature and
throughout nature, which, at these rare moments, we
■cannot believe to be a dream. But there seems, also, to
be a vague idea that love and other virtues could not
exist unless derived from f7ie Love, &c. It is true that
we do conceive certain ideals of virtue which we personify,
and to which we apply various terms implying affection;
we speak of a love of Truth, devotion to Freedom, and
so on. These ideals have, however, a purely subjective
existence, they are not objective realities, there is nothing
answering to these conceptions in the outside world, nor
do we pretend to believe in their individuality. But
when we gather up all our ideals, our noblest longings,
and bind them into one vast ideal figure, which we call
by the name of God, then we at once attribute to it an
■objective existence, and complain of coldness and hard
ness if its reality is questioned, and we demand to know
if we can love an abstraction ? The noblest souls do love
abstractions, and live in their beauty and die fortheir sake.
There appears also to be a possibility of a mind in
Nature, although we have seen that intelligence is,
strictly speaking, impossible. There cannot be percep
tion, memory, comparison, or judgment, but may there
not be a perfect mind, unchanging, calm, and still ?
■Our faculties fail us when we try to estimate the Deity,
and we are betrayed into contradictions and absurdities,
but does it therefore follow that He is not ? It seems
to me that to deny his existence is to overstep the
boundaries of our thought-power almost as much as to
try and define it. We pretend to know the Unknown
if we declare Him to be the Unknowable. Unknow
able to us at present, yes! Unknowable for ever, in
other possible stages of existence ?—We have reached a
region into which we cannot penetrate ; here all human
faculties fail us ; we bow our heads on “ the threshold
of’the unknown.”
And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man can
not see;
But if we could see and hear, this Vision—were it not He ?
�the Existence of God.
31
Thus sings Alfred Tennyson, the poet of metaphysics :
“ if we could see and hear; ” alas! it is always
an “ if.”
We come back to the opening of this essay: what
is the practical result of our ideas about the Divinity,
and how do these ideas affect the daily working life ?
What conclusions are we to draw from the undeniable
fact that, even if there be a “ personal God,” his
nature and existence are beyond our faculties, that
^‘clouds and darkness are round about him,” that he is
veiled in eternal silence and reveals himself not to
men ? Surely the obvious inference is that, if he does
really exist, he desires to conceal himself from the in
habitants of our world. I repeat, that if the Deity
exist, he does not wish us to know of his existence.
There may be, in the very nature of things, an impos
sibility of his revealing himself to men ; we may have no
faculties with which to apprehend him • can we reveal
the stars and the rippling expanse of ocean to the sight
less limpet on the rock ? Whether this be so or not,
certain is it that the Deity does not reveal himself;
either he cannot or he will not. And the reason—I am
granting for the moment for argument’s sake his personal
existence—is not far to seek ; it is blazed upon the face
■of history. For what has been the result of theology
upon the whole ? It has turned men’s eyes from earth,
to fix them on heaven • it has bid them be careless of
the temporal, while luring them to grasp at the eternal;
it has induced multitudes to lavish fervent sentiment
upon a conception framed by Priests of an incom
prehensible God, while diverting their strength from
the plain duties which Humanity has before it; it
has taught them to live for the world to come, when
they should live for the world around them; it has
made earth’s wrongs endurable with the hope of the
glory to be revealed. Wisely indeed would the Deity
hide himself, when even a phantom of him has wrought
such fatal mischief; and never will real and steady
�32
On the Nature and
progress be secured until men acquiesce in this benefi
cent law of their nature, which draws a stern circle of
the “ limits of Religious Thought ” and bids them con
centrate their attention on the work they have to do in
this world, instead of being “for ever peering into and
brooding over the world beyond the grave.”
“ What is to he our conception of morality, is it to
base itself on obedience to God, or is it to be sought
for itself and its effects ? ” When we admit that
God is beyond our knowing, morality becomes at
once necessarily grounded on utility, or the natural
adaptation of certain feelings and actions to promote
the general welfare of society. As no revelation is
given to us as one “ infallible standard of right
and wrong,” we must form our morality for our
selves from thought and from experience. For ex
ample, our moral nature, as educated under the highest
civilisation, tells us that lying is wrong ; with this
*
hypothesis in our minds we study facts, and discover
that lying causes mistrust, anarchy, and ruin; thence
we lay down as a moral law, “Lie not at all.” The
science of morality must be content to grow like other
sciences: first an hypothesis, round which to group our
facts, then from the collected and collated facts reason
ing up to a solid law. Scientific morality has this great
advantage over revealed, that it stands on firm, unassail
able ground; new facts will alter its details, but can
never touch its method ; like all other sciences, it is at
once positive and progressive.
“Is our mental attitude to be kneeling or standing?”
When we admit that the Deity is veiled from us, how
can we pray ? When we see that law is inexorable, of
what use to protest against its absolute sway ? When
we feel that all, including ourselves, are but modes of
Being which is one and universal, in which we “ live
♦ All men do not think lying wrong, e.g, Thugs and old Spartans.
Therefore it is not our moral nature that intuitively tells us this, but
our moral nature as instructed by the moral ideas prevailing in the
society in which we happen to be living.—Note by the Editor.
�the Existence of God.
33
and move,” how shall we pray to that which is close to
us as our own souls, part of our very selves, inseparable
from our thoughts, sharing our consciousness ? As well
talk aloud to ourselves as pray to the universal Essence.
Children cry for what they want; men and women work
for it. There are two points of view from which we
may regard prayer: from the one it is a piece of child
ishness only, from the other it is sheer impertinence.
Regarding Nature’s mighty order, her grand, silent, un
varying march,—the importunity which frets against
her changeless progress is a mark of the most extreme
childishness of mind; it shows that complete irreverence
of spirit which cannot conceive the idea of a greatness
before which the individual existence is as nothing, and
that infantile conceit which imagines that its own plans
and playthings rival in importance the struggles of
nations and the interests of distant worlds. Regarding
Nature’s .laws as wiser than our own whims, the idea
which finds its outlet in prayer is a gross impertinence ;
who are we that we should take it on ourselves to remind
Nature of her work, God of his duty ? Is there any
impertinence so extreme as the prayer which “ pleads ”
with the Deity ? There is only one kind of “ prayer ”
which is reasonable, and that is the deep, silent, adora
tion of the greatness and beauty and order around us,
as revealed in the realms of non-rational life and in
Humanity ; as we bow our heads before the laws of the
universe and mould our lives into obedience to their
voice, we find a strong, calm peace steal over our hearts,
a perfect trust in the ultimate triumph of the right,
a quiet determination to “ make our lives sublime.”
Before our own high ideals, before those lives which
show us “how high the tides of divine life have risen
in the human world,” we stand with hushed voice and
veiled face; from them we draw strength to emulate,
and even dare struggle to excel. The contemplation of
the ideal is true prayer; it inspires, it strengthens, it
ennobles. The other part of prayer is work: from
�34
On the Nature and
contemplation to labour, from the forest to the street.
Study Nature’s laws, conform to them, work in harmony,
with them, and work becomes a prayer and a thanks
giving, an adoration of the universal wisdom, and a true
obedience to the universal law.
“ Is the mainspring of our actions to be the idea of
duty to God, or the idea of loyalty to law and to mans
well-being V' We cannot serve God in any real sense ;
we are awed before the Unknown, but we cannot serve
it. For the Mighty, for the Incomprehensible, what
can we do ? But we can serve man, aye, and he needs
our service ; service of brain and hand, service untiring
and unceasing, service through life and unto death.
The race to which we belong (our own families and
kinsfolk, and then the community at large) has the first
claim on our allegiance, a claim from which nothing
can release us until death drops a veil over our work.
Surely I may claim that my subject is not an un
practical one, and that our ideas of the Nature and
Existence of God influence our lives in a very real way.
If I have substituted a different basis of morality for
that on which it now stands, if I have suggested a
different theory of prayer, and offered a different
motive for duty, Surely these changes affect the whole
of human life. And if one by one these theories are
denied by the orthodox, and they reject them because
they sever human life from that which is called revealed
religion, is not my position justified, that the ideas we
hold of God are the ruling forces of our lives ? that it
is of primary importance to the welfare of mankind
that a false theory on this point should be destroyed
and a more reasonable faith accepted ?
Will any one exclaim, “ You are taking all beauty
out of human life, all hope, all warmth, all inspiration;
you give us cold duty for filial obedience, and inexorable
law in the place of God”? All beauty from life ? Is
there, then, no beauty in the idea of forming part of the
great life of the universe, no beauty in conscious har-
�the Existence of God.
35
mony with. Nature, no beauty in faithful service, no
beauty in ideals of every virtue ? “All hope ? ” Why,
I give you more than hope, I give you certainty : if I
bid you labour for this world, it is with the knowledge
that this world will repay you a thousand-fold, because
society will grow purer, freedom more settled, law more
honoured, life more full and glad. What is your hope ?'
A heaven in the clouds. I point to a heaven attainable
on earth. “ All warmth ? ” What! You serve warmly
a God unknown and invisible, in a sense the projected
shadow of your own imaginings, and can only serve
coldly your brother whom you see at your side ? There
is no warmth in brightening the lot of the sad, in re
forming abuses, in establishing equal justice for rich and
poor ? You find warmth in the church, but none in
the home ? Warmth in imagining the cloud-glories of
heaven, but none in creating substantial glories on
earth ? “All inspiration ? ” If you want inspiration to
feeling, to sentiment, perhaps you had better keep to
your Bible and your creeds ; if you want inspiration to
work, go and walk through the east of London, or the
back streets of Manchester. You are inspired to tender
ness as you gaze at the wounds of Jesus, dead in Judsea
long ago, and find no inspiration in the wounds of men
and women dying in the England of to-day? You
“have tears to shed for him,” but none for the sufferer
at your doors ? His passion arouses your sympathies,
but you see no pathos in the passion of the poor ? Duty
is colder than “filial obedience? ” What do you mean
by filial obedience ? Obedience to your ideal of good
ness and love, is it not so ? Then how is duty cold ?
I offer you ideals for your homage : here is Truth for
your Mistress, to whose exaltation you shall devote your
intellect; here is Freedom for your General, for whose
triumph you shall fight; here is Love for your Inspirer,
who shall influence your every thought; here is Man for
your Master—not in heaven but on earth—to whose
service you shall consecrate every faculty of your being.
�36 On the Nature and the Existence of God.
Inexorable law in the place of God ? Yes : a stern
certainty that you shall not waste your life, yet gather
a rich reward at the close; that you shall not sow
misery, yet reap gladness; that you shall not be selfish,
yet be crowned with love, nor shall you sin, yet find
safety in repentance. True, our creed is a stern one,
stern with the beautiful sternness of Nature. But if
we be in the right, look to yourselves: laws do not
check their action for your ignorance; fire will not
cease to scorch, because you “did not know.”
We know nothing beyond Nature ; we judge of the
future by the present and the past; we are content to
work now, and let the work to come wait until it appears
as the work to do; we find that our faculties are suffi
cient for fulfilling the tasks within our reach, and we
cannot waste time and strength in gazing into impene
trable darkness. We must needs fight against super
stitions because they hinder the advancement of the
race, but we will not fall into the error of our opponents
and try to define the Undefinable.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY ST., HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On the nature and the existence of God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 36 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Published anonymously but author is Annie Besant; attribution from her work 'My Path to Atheism'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT141
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (On the nature and the existence of God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
God (Christianity)
God-Proof
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ad2e5247ae1649781210545c1cdfd2ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aeLL9XS8Z%7Ey6LVs1HdbmSaChgV2z-1XjqgD8SHJLJO4EEPwNiXvzexbi5PpFLtF%7E0SpKPX73NuN8W5uC3uKASZCFiH6qKX19HAnPXS-rWtei0oslA1fsjfoIdLcCki6ZQYoZkmUJ2TXTq8XCzmTCimgQZjylHV18q3CcheLnf5RgiwsaXsEyjn-6ds%7Eo3Ix%7EChauwEfh6RPjVgBOPYns5wvmvapBQtzYkJGhhWZEGoOiPFExhtktwY426PNMzZjvrIPy0YpGV090CdpnU536SM4lrGspII-UA7dphS6kF3NKv4Y4H6vpnjeJxFcwXQzRIpV4aaa2ECkMVw82e3mgPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8ee05afcc4f58f1591070a4d60fe6be
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
IS THERE A GOD?
By CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
The initial difficulty is in defining the word “ God ”. It is
equally impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any pro
position unless there is at least an understanding, on the
part of the affirmer or denier, of the meaning of every
word used in the proposition. To me the word “God”
standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the
word repeatedly used even by men of education and refine
ment, and who have won reputation in special directions of
research, rather to illustrate their ignorance than to ex
plain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do affix
arbitrary meanings to the word “ God ”, but often these
meanings are in their terms self-contradictory, and usually
the definition maintained by one sect of Theists more or
less contradicts the definition put forward by some other
sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian Christian,
the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the
Calvinist, the word “God” will in each case be intended
to express a proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those
of the other sects. In this brief essay, which can by no
means be taken as a complete answer to the question
which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take
the explanation of the word “God” as given with great
carefulness by Dr. Robert Elint, Professor of Divinity in
the University of Edinburgh, in two works directed by
him against Atheism. He defines God (“ Antitheistic
Theories,” p. 1,) as “a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent,
omniscient, righteous and benevolent being who is dis
tinct from and independent of what he has created ” ; and
(“Theism”, p. 1,) as “a self-existent, eternal being, in
finite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and
goodness, the maker of heaven and earth”; and (p. 18,)
“the creator and preserver of nature, the governor of
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man ” ; (p. 18,)
�2
IS THERE A GOD ?
“ one infinite personal ” ; (p. 42,) “ the one infinite being ”
who “is a person—is a free and loving intelligence”;
(p. 59,) “the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite
beings”; (p. 65,) “not only the ultimate cause, but the
supreme intelligence”; and (p. 74,) “the supreme moral
intelligence is an unchangeable being”. That is, in the
above statements “ God” is defined by Professor Flint to
be : M supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omni
potent, omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, per
sonal being, creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven
and earth ; who is distinct from and independent of what he has
created, who is a free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the
governor of nations, the heavenly father and judge of man.
The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and
Son, from which this definition has been collected, form the
Baird Lectures in favor of Theism for the years 1876 and
1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved reputation as a
clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a Theistic
advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in
criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me
the definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that
a negative answer must be given to the question, Is there
such a God ? The association of the word “ supreme ” with
the word “ infinite ” as descriptive of a “ personal being ”
is utterly confusing. “Supreme” can only be used as
expressing comparison between the being to whom it is
applied, and some other being with whom that “ supreme ”
being is assumed to have possible points of comparison and
is then compared. But “ the one infinite being ” cannot be
compared with any other infinite being, for the wording of
the definition excludes the possibility of any other infinite
being, nor could the infinite being—for the word “one”
may be dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthink
able—be compared with any finite being. “ Supreme” is
an adjective of relation and is totally inapplicable to “the
infinite”. It can only be applied to one of two or more
finites. “Supreme” with “omnipotent” is pleonastic.
If it is said that the word “supreme” is now properly
used to distinguish between the Creator and the created,
the governor and that which is governed, then it is clear
that the word “supreme” would have been an inappli
cable word of description to “theone infinite being ” prior
to creation, and this would involve the declaration that the
�IS THERE A GOD?
3
exact description of the unchangeable has been properly
changed, which is an absurdity. The definition affirms
“creation”, that is, affirms “ God” existing prior to such
creation—i.e., then the sole existence; but the word
“ supreme ” could not then apply. An existence cannot be
described as “highest” when there is none other ; there
fore, none less high. The word “ supreme” as a word of
description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet
Professor Flint himself says (“Anti-Theistic Theories”,
p. 132), “ that reason, when in quest of an ultimate expla
nation of things, imperatively demands unity, and that only
a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the name of
U philosophy ”. Professor Flint has given no explanation
of the meaning he attaches to the word “ self-existent ”.
Nor, indeed, as he given any explanation of any of his
words of description. By self-existent I mean that to which
you cannot conceive antecedent. By “infinite” I mean
immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable ; i.e., that of which I
cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By
‘(eternal ” I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which
I cannot predicate limitation of duration or progression of
duration.
“ Nature ” is with me the same as “ universe ”, the same
as “ existence ”; i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all
phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be neces
sary for the happening of each and every phsenomenon. It
is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal,
infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discon
tinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the
possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think
forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have
no meaning for the word “ create ” except to denote change
of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely
unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“ Lectures and Dis
cussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new ap
pearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has
originated any new existence ; that we are utterly unable to
think that the complement of existence has ever been either
increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
.Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God ” as existing “ dis
tinct from, and independent of, what he has created ”. But
what can such words mean when used of the “ infinite ? ”
�IS THERE A GOD ?
Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the
“ universe ” existing distinct from God mean in addition to ?
and in other place than ? or, have the words no meaning ?
Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would
be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the
same as I should mean if I used the same words in the
highest possible degree of any human being. Here I
maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his
examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteous
ness and benevolence are two of the words of descrip
tion included in the definition of this creator and governor
of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create
men and govern nations, so that the men act crimi
nally and the nations seek to destroy one another in
war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256)
“ that God could have originated a sinless moral system”,
and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made
many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their
own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have
created only such angels as were sure to keep their first
estate ”. But it is inaccurate to describe a “ God ” as right
eous or benevolent who, having the complete power to
originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have origi
nated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were
not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of
God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot
be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human
beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to
be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevo
lent in “ God ” to contrive and create a hell in which he is
to torment the human beings who have sinned because
made by him in sin. “ God ”, if omnipotent and omnis
cient, could just as easily, and much more benevolently,
have contrived that there should never be any sinners, and,
therefore, never any need for hell or torment.
The Bev. B. A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this
question, says:—
“ ‘Either,’ argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, ‘God could
make a world without suffering, or he could not. If he
could and did not, he is not all-good. If he could not, he
is not all-powerful.’ The reply is, What do you mean by
all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile
things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that
�IS THERE A GOD ?
5
God is all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first en
joying immunity from suffering, and yet possessed of no
bility of character, is a self-contradictory conception.”
That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a “sinless moral
system from the first is a self-contradictory conception ”.
It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations
arranging one set of cannibals to eat, and another set of
human beings to be eaten by their fellow-men. It is im
possible to think a loving creator and governor contriving
a human being to be born into the world the pre-natal
victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason
to affirm this “free loving supreme moral intelligence”
planning and contriving the enduring through centuries of
criminal classes, plague-spots on civilisation.
The word “unchangeable ” contradicts the word “ crea
tor”. Any theory of creation must imply some period
when the being was not yet the creator, that is, when yet
the creation was not performed, and the act of creation
must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or
permanent change in the mode of existence of the being
creating. So, too, the words of description “governor of
nations” are irreconcileable with the description “un
changeable ”, applied to a being alleged to have existed
prior to the creation of the “nations”, and therefore,
of course, long before any act of government could be
exercised.
To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure
contradiction of terms. All attempts to think “person”
involve thoughts of the limited, finite, conditioned. To
describe this infinite personal being as distinct from some
thing which is postulated as “what he has created” is
only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still
more marked when the infinite personal being is described
as “intelligent”.
The Rev. R. A. Armstong, in a prefatory note to the
report of his debate with myself on the question “Is it
reasonable to worship God?”, says: “I have ventured
upon alleging an intelligent cause of the pheonomena of
the universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his
writings Mr. Bradlaugh has described intelligence as im
plying limitations. But though intelligence, as known to
us in man, is always hedged within limits, there is no diffi
culty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In
�6
IS THERE A GOD?
that case the essential conception of intelligence remains
the same precisely, although the change of conditions
revolutionises its mode of working.” This, it seems to
me, is not accurate. The word intelligence can only be
accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the
totality of mental ability, its activity and result. If you
eliminate in each case all possibilities of mental ability
there is no “conception of intelligence” left, either essential
or otherwise. If you attempt to remove the limits, that
is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to be thinkable.
It is unjustifiable to talk of “ change of conditions ” when
you remove the word intelligence as a word of application
to man or other thinking animal, and seek to apply the
word to the unconditionable.
As an Atheist I. affirm one existence, and deny the possi
bility of more than one existence; by existence meaning,
as I have already stated, “the totality of all pheenomena,
and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the
happening of any and every pluenomenon ”. This exist
ence I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished
in thought by its qualities. By “mode” I mean each
cognised condition; that is, each pheenomenon or aggre
gation of phenomena. By “quality” I mean each charac
teristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.
The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist
is that either the Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or
makes a blank avowal of general ignorance. The Atheist
does not do either; there is of course to him much that
is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this
within reach of knowing. With “the unknowable” con
ceded, all scientific teaching would be illusive. Every real
scientist teaches without reference to “God” or “the
unknowable ”. If the words come in as part of the
yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts
his experiments as though the words were not. Every
operation of life, of commerce, of war, of statesmanship,
is dealt with as though God were non-existent. The
general who asks God to give him victory, and who thanks
God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by
his Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance
on God’s omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight.
Cannon, gunpowder, shot, shell, dynamite, provision, men,
horses, means of transport, the value of these all estimated,
�IS THERE A GOD?
7
then the help of “ God ” is added to what is enough with
out God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in
performing some delicate operation relied on God instead
of his instruments—the physician who counted on the
unknowable in his prescription—these would have poor
clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar
people the most pious would avoid their surgical or
medical aid. The “God” of the Theist, the “unknowa
ble” of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the Atheistic
affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown,
affirms the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows
not of any proposition whether it be true or false.
Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare
that at any rate some qualities are infinite, e.g., that
existence is infinitely intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can
only think qualities of phsenomena. I know each pheno
menon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the
qualities of some phenomenon.
So long as the word “ God ” is undefined I do not deny
“ God”. To the question, Is there such a God as defined
by Professor ..Plint, I am compelled to give a negative
reply. If the word “ God ” is intended to affirm Dualism,
then as a Monist I negate “ God ”.
_ The attempts to prove the existence of God may be
divided into three classes:—1. Those which attempt to
prove the objective existence of God from the subjective
notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or from
the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as
the attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which
*{ essay to prove the existence of a supreme self-existent
cause, from the mere fact of the existence of the world by
the application of the principle of causality, starting with
the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the world,
or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue back
wards or upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is
held to be regressive inference from the existence of these
effects”. But it is enough to answer to these attempts,
that if a supreme existence were so demonstrable, that
bare entity would not be identifiable with “God”. “A
demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no
formal theological value. It is an absolute zero.”
3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature,
the fitness of means to an end, implying, it is said, an
�8
IS THERE A GOD?
architect or designer. Or, from the order in the universe,
indicating, it is said, an orderer or lawgiver, whose intelli
gence we thus discern.
But this argument is a failure, because from finite
instances differing in character it assumes an infinite cause
absolutely the same for all. Divine unity, divine per
sonality, are here utterly unproved. 11 Why should we rest
in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged
phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so
varied and so complex ? ”
If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must
avail to show that all the phenomena leading to misery
and mischief, must have been designed and intended by a
being finding pleasure in the production and maintenance
of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of
the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent
result, must he not equally be supposed to have designed
all results? And if the inference of benevolence and
goodness be valid for some instances, must not the in
ference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid
from others ? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from
the illustration of organs in animals supposed to be
specially contrived for certain results, what is the inference
to be drawn from the many abortive and incomplete organs,
muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in man
and other animals ? What inference is to be drawn from
each instance of deformity or malformation? But the
argument from design, if it proved anything, would at the
most only prove an arranger of pre-existing material; it
in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of
substance.
There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer
arranging a finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator
originating all existence. Brom an alleged product you
are only at liberty to infer a producer after having seen a
similar product actually produced.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.—1887.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is there a god?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N096
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
God
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 (Is there a god?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ef78fa3734c4dd2017790ae87d60d485.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M2dW0nx0k0K-eeRmfirUvhxhLomEgG5KEokSyx%7Eq7YPdowbD1iitQz73R1Ce%7EF4bamC04Y4ZkYqqQco5bjytPEJlA1mJQdBJOKlz9eD2nMUI3puE9u8VyOc5eQkuT0POqPDJA6N8IR1rBgrnAvY6VyQNivUJgb9xsf6jg2ihNm5cTgmPxg4S021cEx9aflR2MAXB6RCnBI2sQdM1nOiq282raqk6hw%7Ee3iYI86IkMQrEArhY59EaadMBzu58QOLYk--QSUGe5V5wpZ4BFfVamL88URAyuHF5KpjyYYeXdbao2VKJNcjM8njpjcxT05NxUL3%7E5BTyPjfgjtM8V8CFIw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a803955ff3ceb8b383e0cda775a61609
PDF Text
Text
/
=11 ____________________ _
___________________
■
i
i
i
i
■
■
i
i
— --------------a
i
i
No. 2
■
■
■
■
i
■
i
■
i
■
i
■
i
i
■
CHAPMAN COHEN
1
■
a
i
M
■
i
i
i
THE PIONEER PRESS
■
a
In
Pamphlets
for the People
MORALITY
1 WITHOUT
GOD
a
i
1
|
a
H
1
■
j
j
a
a
i
a
|
s
a
i
a
i
■
a
1
a
a
y
��Pamphlets
for the People
No. 2
MORALITY
WITHOUT
GOD
CHAPMAN COHEN
THE PIONEER PRESS
��Morality Without God
i.
Christianity is what is called a “revealed” religion. That
is, God himself revealed that religion to man. In other
religions man sought God—some god—and eventually
found him, or thought he did. In the case of Christianity
God sought man and revealed himself to him. The revela
tion, judging by after events, was not very well done, for
although a book made its appearance that was said to
have been dictated or inspired by God so that man might
know his will, yet ever since mankind has been in some
doubt as to what God meant when he said it. Evidently
God’s way of making himself known by a revelation is
not above criticism. There seems a want of sense in giving
man a revelation he could not understand. It is like
lecturing in Greek to an audience that understands nothing
but Dutch.
What was it God revealed to man? He did not reveal
science. The whole structure of physical science was built
up very gradually and tentatively by man. He did not
teach man geology, or astronomy, or chemistry, or biology.
He did not teach him how to overcome disease, or its
nature and cure. He did not teach him agriculture, or
how to develop a wild grass into the life nourishing wheat.
He did not teach man how to drain a marsh or how to dig
a canal so that he might carry water where it was needed.
He did not teach him arithmetic or mathematics. He
taught him none of the arts and sciences. Man had no
revelation that taught him how to build the steam engine,
or the aeroplane, or the submarine, the telegraph or the
wireless. All these and a thousand other things which we
regard as indispensable, and without which civilization
would be impossible, man had to discover for himself.
There is not a Christian parson who would to-day say that
3
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
God gave these things to man. That, perhaps, is not quite
true. Some of the clergy will say that God gave every
thing to man, inasmuch as he let him find them out. But
at any rate none of the things I have named is said to
have been revealed to man. He had to discover or invent
the lot. And in inventing them or discovering them he
behaved just as he might have behaved had he never heard
of God at all.
What was there left for God to give man? Well, it is
said, he gave man morality. He gave man the ten com
mandments. He told him he must not steal, he must not
commit murder, he must not bear false witness; he told
children they must honour their fathers and their mothers,
but somehow he forgot the very necessary lesson that
parents ought also to honour their children. He mixed up
with these things the command that people should honour
him, and he was more insistent upon that than upon any
thing else. Not to honour him was the one unforgivable
crime. But, and this is the important thing, while there
is no need for an inspired arithmetic or an inspired geo
metry, while there was no inspired chemistry or geology,
there had to be, apparently, an inspired morality, because
without God moral laws would be without authority, and
decency would disappear from human society.
Now that, put bluntly, lies behind the common state
ment that morality depends upon religious belief. It is
not always put quite so plainly as I have put it—very
absurd things are seldom put plainly—but it is put very
plainly by the man in the street and by the professional
evangelist. It is also put in another way by those people
who delight in telling us what blackguards they were till
Christ got hold of them, and it is put in expensive volumes
in which Christian writers and preachers wrap up the
statement in such a way that to the unwary it looks as
though there must be something in it, and at least it is
sufficiently unintelligible to look as though it were good
sound theological philosophy.
4
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
Is the theory inherently credible? Consider what it
means. Are we to believe that if we had never received
a revelation from God, or even if there were no belief
in God, a mother would never have learned to love her
child, men and women would never have loved each other,
men would never have placed any value upon honesty or
truthfulness, or loyalty? After all we have seen an animal
mother caring for its young, even to the extent of risking
its life for it. We have seen animals defend each other
from a common enemy, and join together in running down
prey for a common meal. There is a courting time for
animals, there is a mating time, and there is a time how
ever brief when the animal family of male, female and
young exist. All this happened to the animals without
God. Why should man have to receive a revelation before
he could reach the moral stage of the higher animal life?
Broadly, then, the assertion that morality would never
have existed for human beings without belief in a God
or without a revelation from God is equal to saying that
man alone would never have discovered the value of being
honest and truthful or loyal. He would not even have
had such terms as good and bad in his vocabulary, for
the use of those words implies a moral judgment, and
there would have been no such thing—at least, so we are
told.
I am putting the issue very plainly, because it is only
by avoiding plain speech that the Christian can “get away”
with his monstrous and foolish propositions. I am saying
in plain words what has been said by thousands upon
thousands of preachers since Paul laid down the principle
that if there was no resurrection from the dead, “let us eat
and drink for to-morrow we die”.
Sometimes the theory I have been stating is put in a
way that throws a flood of light on the orthodox conception
of morality. It is so glaringly absurd to say that without
religion man would not know right from wrong, that it
is given a very slight covering in the expression, “destroy
5
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
religion and you remove all moral restraints”. Restraints!
That expression is indeed a revelation. To the orthodox
Christian morality stands for no more than a series of
restraints, and restraints are unpleasant things, because they
prevent a man doing what he would like to do. It is acting
in defiance of one’s impulses that makes one conscious
of “restraints”. A pickpocket in a crowd is restrained by
the knowledge that there is a policeman at his elbow7. A
burglar is restrained from breaking into a house by hearing
the footsteps of a policeman. Each refrains from doing as
he would like to do because he is conscious of restraints.
It may be God; it may be a policeman. God is an un
sleeping policeman—I do not say an unbribable one,
because the amount of money given to his representatives
every year, the Churches that are built or endowed in the
hopes of “getting right with God”, totals a very con
siderable sum.
From this point of view, what are called moral rules
are treated much as one may treat the regulation that one
must not buy chocolates after a certain hour in the evening.
The order is submitted to because of the “sanctions” that
may be applied if we do not. So to the type of Christian
with whom we are dealing the question of right or wrong
is entirely one of coercion from without. If he disobeys
he may be punished, if not here, then hereafter. He asks,
“Why should a man impose restraints on himself if there
is no future life in which he is to be rewarded or punished?
Why not enjoy oneself and be done with it?” On this
view a drunkard may keep sober from Monday morning
till Friday night on the promise of a good “drunk” on
Saturday. But in the absence of this prospect he may say,
paraphrasing St. Paul, “If there be no getting drunk on
Saturday, why should we keep sober from Monday to
Friday? If there is to be no drunkenness on Saturday,
then let us get drunk while we may, for the day cometh
when there will be no getting drunk at all”.
But all this is quite wrong. The ordinary man is not
conscious of restraint when he behaves himself in a decent
6
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
manner. A mother is not conscious of restraint when she
devotes herself to nursing her sick child, or goes out to work
to supply it with food. A man who is left in the house of
a friend is not conscious of restraint when he refrains from
pocketing the silver, or when he does not steal a purse that
has been left on the mantelpiece. A person sent to the
bank to cash a cheque does not feel any restraint because
he returns with the money. The man who is conscious
of a restraint when he does a decent action is not a “good”
man at all. He is a potential criminal who does not com
mit a crime only because he is afraid of being caught. And
when he is caught the similarity of the Christian frightened
into an outward decency and the detected pickpocket with
the policeman’s hand on his shoulder is made the more
exact by the cry of, “O Lord be merciful to me a miserable
sinner”, in the one case, and “It’s a fair cop” in the
other.
The religious theory of mortality simply will not do. It
turns what is fundamentally simple into a “mystery”, and
then elevates the mystery into a foolish dogma. It talks at
large of the problem of evil, when outside theology no
such problem exists. The problem of evil is that of re
conciling the existence of wrong with that of an all-wise
and all-good God. It is the idea of God that introduces
the conundrum. The moral problem is not how does
man manage to do wrong, but how does he find out what
is right? When a boy is learning to ride a bicycle the
problem is not how to fall off, but how to keep on. We
can fall off without any practice. So with so many oppor
tunities of doing the wrong thing the moral problem is
how did man come to hit on the right one, and to make
the treading of the right road to some extent automatic?
But in the philosophy of orthodox Christianity man is a
potential criminal, kept from actual criminality only from
fear of punishment or the expectation of reward in a future
life. If the Christian teacher of morals does not actually
mean this when he says that without the belief in God no
such thing as “moral values” exists, and that if there is
7
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
no after-life where rewards and punishments follow, moral
practice would not endure, then he is more than mistaken;
he is a deliberate liar. Fortunately for the world,
Christians, lay and clerical, are better than their creed.
11.
We are back again with the old and simple issue of the
natural versus the supernatural. This is one of the oldest
divisions in human thought, and there is no logical com
promise between them. Morality either has its foundations
in the natural or in the supernatural. In asserting the first
alternative I do not mean to imply that there is a morality
in nature at large. There is not. Nature takes no more
heed of our moral rules and judgments than it does of
our tastes in art or literature. A man is not blessed with
good health because he is an example of a lofty morality,
nor is he burdened with disease because he is a criminal
in thought and act. Nature is neither moral nor immoral.
Such terms are applicable only when there is conscious
action to a given end. Nature is amoral, that is, it is with
out morality. The common saying that nature “punishes”
us or “rewards” us for this or that is merely a picturesque
way of stating certain things; it has no literal relation to
actual fact. In nature there are no rewards or punishments,
there are only actions and consequences. We benefit if we
act in one way; we suffer if we act in another. That is
the natural fact; there is no ethical quality in natural
happenings. Laws of morals are human creations; they
are on all fours with “laws” of science—that is, they are
generalizations from experience.
So morality existed in fact long before it was defined
or described in theory. Man did not first discover the
laws of physiology in order to realize the need for eating
or breathing, to digest food or to inhale oxygen. Nor did
the rules, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, etc.,
first make stealing and killing wrong. A moral law makes
8
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
explicit in theory what is implicit in fact. The fact creates
the rule; it is not the rule that creates the fact.
Non-recognition of this simple truth is mainly respon
sible for the rubbish that is served up by so many teachers
of ethics, and also for the unintelligent attack on ethics
by those who, because they are, often enough, dissatisfied
with existing standards of moral values, feel justified in
denouncing moral values altogether. As we shall see
later, moral rules stand to human society pretty well as
laws of physiology do to the individual organism. They
constitute the physiology of social life, with the distinction
that whatever rules we have must be modified in form
from time to time to meet changing circumstances.
Let us feel our way gradually, and in as simple a manner
as possible. We begin with the meaning of two words,
“good” and “bad”. What is their significance? There
are many religious writers and many of those who aim
at founding a religion of ethics—as though the association
of religion with moral teaching had not already done
sufficient harm in the world-—who speak of certain actions
as being good in themselves, and who profess a worship
of the “Good” as though it were a substitute for “God”.
There are others who puff themselves out with a particu
larly foolish passage from Tennyson that to follow right
because it’s right “were wisdom in the scorn of conse
quence”, and there is a very misleading sentence cited from
the philosopher, Immanuel Kant, expressing his “awe” at
man’s moral sense. We should always be on our guard
when the sayings of great men become very popular. It
is long odds that they embody something that it not very
wise, or that its wisdom has been lost in the popularization.
It should be very obvious that it is the height of stupidity
to do things in “scorn of consequence”, since it is the
consequences of actions that give them their quality of
goodness or badness. If getting drunk made people happ;er,
better, and wiser, would anyone consider drunkenness a
bad thing? In such circumstances the moral rule would
be “Blessed is he that gets drunk”, and the more drunken
9
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
he was, the better the man. If we can picture any actions
that are without consequences, they would not come within
the scope of morals at all.
The first point to remember is that there is no such
thing as good in the abstract. A thing is good in relation
to its consequences, or as it realizes the end at which we
are aiming. Tennyson was talking nonsense. These ethical
and religious philosophers who “blather” about the
“reality” of good in itself, are talking nonsense. It is not
possible to do right in scorn of consequences because it
is the consequences that make the action either good or
bad. It may be unpleasant or dangerous to do what is
right, and we admire the one who does right in such cir
cumstances, but this does not affect our standard of value.
It must also be remembered when we are seeking a
natural basis for morals, that—if the teleological language
may be permitted—nature requires but one thing of all
living creatures. This is efficiency. The “moral” quality
of this efficiency does not matter in the least. A Church
without a lightning conductor is at a disadvantage with a
brothel that possesses one. A man who risks his life in a
good cause has, other things equal, no advantage over a
man who risks his life in a bad one. Leave on one side
this matter of efficiency and there is not the slightest
attention paid to anything that we consider morally worthy
in the organism that survives.
Finally, efficiency in the case of living beings is to be
expressed in terms of adaption to environment, a fish to
water, an air-breathing animal to land, a carnivorous
animal to its capacity to stalk its prey, a vegetable feeder
to qualities that enable it to escape the attack of the
carnivora, and so forth. An animal survives as it is able
to adapt itself, or as it becomes adapted to its environment.
It is well to bear in mind this principle of efficiency,
because while what constitutes efficiency varies from time
to time, the fact of its being the main condition determining
survival remains true whether we are dealing with organic
structure or with mental life.
10
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
Now if we take ethical terminology, it is plain that the
language used implies a relation, and one of a very definite
kind. The part of the environment to which these terms
are related is that of other and like individuals. Kindness,
truthfulness, justice, mercy, honesty, etc., all imply this.
A man by himself—if we can picture such a thing—could
not be kind; there would be no one to whom to be kind.
He could not be truthful; there would be none to whom
he could tell a lie. He could not be honest, or generous,
or loyal; there would be none to whom these qualities
would have any application. Every moral quality implies
the existence of a group of which an individual is a
member. And as the group enlarges so moral qualities
take on a wider application. But this cardinal fact, that
ethical qualities, whether they be good or bad, have no
significance apart from group life, remains constant
throughout.
Now let us revert to man as a theoretically solitary
animal, a condition that has nowhere existed, for the
sociality of man is only a stage in advance of the gre
gariousness of the animal world from which man has
descended. But as an animal he must develop certain
habits and tastes in order to merely exist. Somehow man
must usually avoid doing things that threaten his existence.
Even in matters of food he must develop a taste for things
which preserve life and a distaste for things that destroy it;
and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of capacities
developed in the body that automatically offer protection
in the case of food against things that are too injurious to
life. But it is quite obvious that if a man developed a
taste for prussic acid, such a taste would not become
hereditary.
Human life, in line with animal life in general, has to
develop not merely a dislike for such things as threaten
life, but also a liking for their opposite. The development
of this last capacity means that in the long run the actions
which promote pleasure, and those which preserve life,
roughly coincide. This is the foundation and the evolu
11
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
tionary basis of the theory of Utilitarianism, or one may
say, of Neo-utilitarianism.
But man never does exist as an individual only, one
that is fighting for his own hand, and whose thoughts
and tendencies are consciously or unconsciously concerned
only with his own welfare. Man is always a member of
a group, and the mere fact of living with others imposes
on the individual a kind of discipline that gives a definite
direction to the character of his development. The law of
life is, that to live an organism must be adapted to its
environment, and the important part of the environment
here is that formed by one’s fellow-beings. The adaption
need not be perfect, any more than that the food one eats
need be of the most nutritious kind. But just as the food
eaten must contain enough nutrition to maintain life, so
conduct must be such as to maintain some kind of harmony
between an individual and the rest of the group to which
he belongs. If an individual’s nature is such that he will
not or cannot adapt himself to his fellows then he is, in
one stage of civilization, killed off, and in another he is
subjected to pains and penalties, and various kinds of
restraints that keep his anti-social tendencies in check.
There is a selective process in all societies, and even more
rigid in low societies than in the higher ones, in which
those ill-adapted to the common life of the group are
placed at a disadvantage even in procreating their kind.
And side by side with this process of selection within
the group there is going on another eliminative process
on a larger scale in the contest of group with group. A
group in which the members show little signs of a com
mon action, of loyalty to each other, is most likely to be
subjugated, or wiped out and replaced by a group in which
the cohesion is greater and the subordination of purely
individualistic tendencies to the welfare of the whole is
greater.
The nature of the process by which man becomes a
moral animal is therefore given when we say that man
12
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
is a social animal. Social life is in itself a kind of disci
pline, a training which fits a man to work with his fellows,
to live with them, and to their mutual advantage. There
are rules of the social game which the individual must
observe if he is to live as a member of the tribe. Man is
not usually conscious of the discipline he is undergoing,
but neither is any animal conscious of the process of the
forces which adapt it to its environment. The moralizing
of man is never a conscious process, but it is a recognizable
process none the less.
It may also be noted that the rules of this social game
are enforced with greater strictness in primitive societies
than is the case with later ones. It is quite a mistake to
think of the life of savages as free, and that of civilized
man as being bound down by social and legal rules. Quite
the opposite is the case. The life of uncivilized man is
bound by customs, by taboos, that leave room for but
little initiative, and which to a civilized man would be
intolerable.
But from the earliest times there is always going on a
discipline that tends to eliminate the ill-adapted to social
life. Real participation in social life means more than an
abstention from injurious acts, it involves a positive con
tribution to the life of the whole. A type of behaviour
that is not in harmony with the general social characteristics
of the groups sets up an irritation much as a foreign sub
stance does when introduced into the tissues of an organ
ism. Thus we have on the one hand, a discipline that
forces conformity with the social structure, and on the
other hand a revolutionary tendency making for further
improvement.
There are still other factors that have to be noted if we
are properly to appreciate the forces that go to mould
character and to establish a settled moral code. To a
growing extent the environment to which the human being
has to adapt himself is one of ideas and ideals. There
are certain ideals of truthfulness, loyalty, obedience, kind
13
�MORALITY WITHOUT GOD
ness, etc., which surround one from the very moment of
birth. The society which gives him the language he speaks
and the stored-up knowledge it possesses, also provides
him with ideals by which he is more or less compelled to
guide his life.
There are endless differences in the form of these social
ideals, but they are of the same mental texture, from the
taboo of the savage to the “old school tie”.
The last phase of this moral adaption is that which
takes place between groups. From the limited family
group to which moral obligations are due, we advance to
the tribe, from thence to the group of tribes that constitute
the nation, and then to a stage into which we are now
entering that of the relations between nations, a state
wherein, in its complete form, there is an extension of
moral duties to the whole of humanity.
But wherever and whenever we take it, the substance
of morality is that of an adaption of feelings and ideas
to the human group, and to the animal group so far as
they can be said to enter into some form of relationship
with us. There is no alteration in the fundamental
character of morality. Its keynote is always, as I have
said, efficiency, but it is an efficiency, the nature of which
is determined by the relations existing between groups of
human beings.
If what has been said is rightly apprehended, it will be
understood what is meant by saying that moral laws are
to the social group exactly what laws of physiology are
to the individual organism. There is nothing to cause
wonder or mystification about moral laws; they express
the physiology of social life. It is these laws that are
manifested in practice long before they are expressed in
set terms. Human conduct, whether expressed in life or
formulated in “laws”, represents the conditions that make
social life possible and profitable. It is this recognition
that forms the science of morality; and the creation of
conditions that favour the performance of desirable actions
14
�MORALITY WITHOUT COD
and the development of desirable feelings constitutes the
art of morality.
Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere,
nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works
up again what already exists. That is the path of all
evolution. Feelings of right and wrong are gradually ex
panded from the group to the tribe, from the tribe to
the nation, and from the nation to the whole of human
society. The human environment to which man has to
adapt himself becomes ever wider. “My neighbour’’ ceases
to express itself in relation to those immediately surround
ing me, begins to extend to all with whom I have any rela
tions whatsoever. It is that stage we are now entering,
and much of the struggle going on in the world is due
to the attempts to adapt the feeling already there to its
wider environment. The world is in the pangs of child
birth. Whether civilization will survive those pangs remains
to be seen, but the nature of the process is unmistakable
to those who understand the past, and are able to apply its
lessons to the present and the future.
There is, then, nothing mysterious about the fact of
morality. There is no more need for supernaturalism here
than there is room for it in any of the arts and sciences.
Morality is a natural fact; it is not created by the formula
tion of “laws”; these only express its existence and our
sense of its value. The moral feeling creates the moral
law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do
with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its
sphere of application and operation is in this world; its
authority is derived from the common sense of mankind
and is born of the necessities of corporate life. In this
matter, as in others, man is thrown back upon himself
and if the process of development is a slow one there is
the comforting reflection that the growth of knowledge
and of understanding has placed within our reach the
power to make human life a far greater and better thing.
If we will! !
Printed by G. T. Wray Ltd. (T.U.), 332 Goswell Road, London, E.C.l,
and Published by G. W. Foote and Company Ltd.,
103 Borough High Street, London, S.E.l.
����
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Morality without God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cohen, Chapman [1868-1954]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Series title: Pamphlets for the People
Series number: No. 2
Notes: Printed by G.T. Wray Ltd., London; published by G.W. Foote and Company Ltd. Tentative date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1910?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N160
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Ethics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Morality without God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Moral values
Morality
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b3cca79dbeaa83f3cffac54c6c80e89e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=rr6nM9ezxyEhHYJFnXxy3wb-g3XGIpuWrE6u6gEnPlNyxXJoKShLkWji9o4P0cXuQWRrCyFTIS%7EfdotWzSDEqQmeuPM0jdQolPlI-c3He9%7ECupvsplMRzmx%7EloJsiX9DBnBg01wVPlbvjNZRGfibpFMZS7-ENOetVczWcn8CoVbxwyNixrvATX%7ETPXxoISJ3ofveUQR2z5RCqhrEIr77Ry6lqqaRn%7EQoodRQGo%7E4fa4hdkeLlxkIHFg5vdFRmpzxc9eBW%7EFIHMWPgi0QHF00dsbmgh885CVotjdkUPqWhtQzvwCh3vlR-I7U9yeA-69ruXE4VoRaGCow8QSA%7EMcKeg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f33bf8a615fa5f1f91637e91e11c8dd1
PDF Text
Text
GOD’S METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
A DIALOGUE.
BY THE LATE
BEV. JAMES CRANBROOK,
EDINBURGH.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��<GOD’S METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
PROPOSE discoursing this evening upon certain
evangelical or Calvinistical views of God’s method
•of government. And I think I shall be able to treat
the subject more fairly if I throw it into the form of a
supposed dialogue, held between three gentlemen in one
of the private rooms of an Edinburgh hotel. The
gentlemen were comparatively strangers to each other,
and knew nothing of each other’s religious creed. But
they had met in a tour through the Highlands, and
being pleased with each other’s company, they had kept
together, and on their way homewards had stopped in
Edinburgh, to see what sights therein may be seen.
Amongst other places, they had been to John Knox’s
house, and had looked out of the window whence he
had frequently addressed the people. In the course of
some remarks upon the house, the conversation which
I am now to relate to you arose. The three gentlemen
will be distinguished by the names, Orthodoxies, Mysticus, and Dubitans, each expressive of their respective
stand-points. Orthodoxies, a Calvinist of the old ortho
dox school; Mysticus, one of those semi-mystical theo
logians of the present day, who attempt by metaphysics
to explain away or make appear rational and consistent
with modern thought, the essential principles of the old
system; and Dubitans, who has discarded all belief in
a supernatural revelation, and finds his God revealed in
the whole course of nature.
Orthodoxus had just said he thought something
more ought to be done by the civil authorities for the
preservation of the house, and laying open to the public
I
�4
God’s Method of Government.
so precious a memorial of the Reformation, when Dubitans rejoined that as a relic of the Reformation it had
some interest; hut, for his part, that interest became
wholly lost when it became associated with the name
of Knox, the least learned, the least gifted, and there
fore the most narrow and bigotted of all the reformers.
Orthodox'us. I am surprised to hear you say so. To
me it seems all that is free and religious in this land
must be ascribed to Knox and those who were associ
ated with him.
Dubitans. With regard to the freedom, I think that
a great mistake. The leaders of the movement did
nothing but give to it the definite form which it as
sumed. The people were the real source of the living,
free spirit which established the Reformation and the
political revolution which followed it; and had Knox
and the other leaders never existed, the freedom would
have been created in other, and possibly better, forms.
And then, with regard to the religion, what Knox
really did was to narrow the views of Calvin, and rivet
his system upon the nation in harsher and more repul
sive forms.
0. I fear by what you say you do not accept the
doctrines of Calvinism, and have slipped away from
that sure -ground of anchorage for some one of the new
fangled systems which have sprung up in the present
day. If such be the case, I trust you are looking well
to the ground on which you stand, and are not trusting
your precious, immortal soul to the uncertain results of
mere idle speculation.
D. It is because I have renounced idle speculation,
and am resting all my beliefs upon pure and simple
facts, that I have rejected Calvinism and all other forms
of supernaturalism.
0. My dear sir, you surely mistake. Calvinism rests
upon the most indubitable facts in existence. It appeals
to the experience of all mankind in confirmation of its
truths, and is derived from a revelation established by
�A Dialogue.
5
the most certain evidence. If you rested your beliefs
upon facts, you would most assuredly accept the Calvinistical- system.
D. Will you kindly mention to me one or two of
those facts which lie at the foundation of the system 1
0. Readily. And first, and most important of all,,
is the doctrine, or fact rather, of human depravity..
No one can doubt that human nature is depraved.
The evidence of it appears wherever we turn. The
policeman in the streets is a walking testimony to the
sad truth. Our gaols, our gallows, our laws, our judges,
all proclaim it aloud. The little infant just born, by
its cries of angry passion, bears witness. And we all
go astray from our birth, speaking lies. What sadder
proof could we have of the all-important scriptural doc
trine of human depravity ?
D. In conversations upon such subjects it is
absolutely necessary to have clear definitions of the
terms we employ. Will you therefore be kind enough
to explain to me what you mean by human depravity1?
0. By human depravity I mean that state of sin and
wickedness into which we have come by Adam’s trans
gression, in virtue of which all men at all times commit
sin or tend to the commission of sin.
D. And do you mean to say then that our gaols,
policemen, and laws, and the passions of infants, prove
that our nature became corrupted through Adam’s
transgression ?
0. No. They do not exactly prove that; but they
prove that our nature is corrupt.
D. Then you have given me in your definition two
factors, an alleged fact and an opinion.’ The alleged
fact is that all men universally sin. The opinion is
that this fact of sin arises out of the corruption of
men’s original nature through the sin of Adam. Ex
perience establishes the fact, you say. The opinion is
not derived from experience, but from the Bible.
0. You hardly state the fact of experience strong
�6
God’s Method of Government.
enough. Facts show not only that men universally
sin, hut also that their nature itself is sinful and
corrupt.
D. How so ?
0. Why, you must suppose that the nature which
always produces sin is in itself sinful and corrupt.
D. You must suppose—z.e., you must infer, conclude
by reason. So that again I remind you of my former
statement, experience merely gives the fact of universal
sin. The rest is inference, supposition, reasoning,
opinion, grafted upon the fact. Mow, to a certain
extent I admit the fact that men universally sin; but
I altogether contest the opinion that the sin proves a
sinful and corrupt nature.
0. Not prove a sinful and corrupt nature ! Then,
in the name of common sense, what does it prove ?
Does the vine produce thistles ? or the olive, brambles ?
D. The sins which men commit are transgressions
of some one or the other of the laws of their nature,
and they commit them through the want of knowledge
or sufficient self-discipline and control to act according
to the knowledge. They prove, therefore, not depravity,
but imperfection.
M. I do not accept our friend’s full system of
Calvinism, with its doctrine of universal depravity,
but there is the fact of sin existing in the world, the
darkest and most terrible evil, cursing man’s whole
existence.
D. I must confess I do not feel sin to be this dark
and terrible thing you represent it. You orthodox
people always seem to me to speak of it as though it
were a something of a distinct existence poured into
man’s heart and overwhelming his whole being in
ceaseless and unmitigated misery and wretchedness.
It is nothing of the kind. Sin is doing something
which does not lead to happiness. upon the whole and
in the long run. It is neither more nor less than that.
Now the great amount of happiness men enjoy shews
�A Dialogue.
7
me pretty conclusively that after all is said and done,
their wickedness is anything but of the character you
orthodox people make out. Upon the whole, the sum
of their happiness is much greater than the sum of
their miseries.
0. You have very greatly underrated the true
character of sin. Sin is the transgression of, or want
of conformity with, God’s holy and righteous law,
and the soul which sinneth shall die. It involves,
therefore, the eternal death of the soul, whatever
amount of happiness the sinner in his ignorance may
enjoy.
D. Observe, you are now again bringing in specula
tive opinions, and I thought we had agreed to rest our
beliefs upon facts. I have said that sin is trangression
of law, and by that I mean physical and intellectual,
as well as moral laws. As to the effects of sin, we
know them by experience. Whenever we violate a
law, it leads to suffering of some kind. But still,
experience proves that the suffering is much less than
the happiness in the world, and therefore, I say the
sin cannot exist to anything like the extent, or be
anything like so great an evil as you make out.
M. My conviction is, the real character and evil of
sin can only be seen in the incarnation and sacrifice of
the Son of God. When we see God giving up unto
the accursed death of the cross his only begotten Son,
and the Son voluntarily surrendering himself to death
that he may redeem men from sin, it is then that sin
comes out in its true character. And I do not mean
by this merely that it cost the Son of God so much
suffering to redeem men from it, but that its evil
character is seen in its contrast and antagonism to the
pure and holy love of God manifested in the sacrifice
of his Son.
0. I must just put in one word. I think our friend
Mysticus does not sufficiently bring out the infinite
sufferings the Son of God endured on the Cross to
�8
God's Method of Government.
atone for the transgressions of his elect. Those
infinite sufferings show above all things the exceedingly
dreadful and evil character of sin.
D. Of course, gentlemen so thoroughly versed in the
theology of your Church as you appear to be, will be
able to explain a point or two I never could understand
even when I myself was orthodox, but which are
essential to the whole system. Will you tell me in
what sense God made a sacrifice when he gave up his
Son ? and in what sense the Son of God made a sacri
fice when he gave himself up, as you call it 1
0. In what sense God made a sacrifice ? Why, he
sent forth his co-equal and co-eternal son as the infant
of the Virgin Mary, in the humiliating form of sinful
flesh, to live a life of ignominy and reproach, to endure
persecution and suffering, and at last to die the shame
ful death of the Cross, laden with the sins and guilt of
his elect. Surely that was a sacrifice, if ever there was
one !
D. You spoke of the Son as co-equal and co-eternal
with the Father 1 You give him all the infinite perfec
tions of God 1
0. Most certainly.
D. And these infinite perfections belong to him by
reason and necessity of his own proper nature, and are
not conferred or bestowed upon him ?
0. Certainly.
D. Then, of course, these perfections are unchange
able and indestructible.
0. Of course.
D. It is also the property of God not to suffer ; he
is impassible, as the theologians call it ?
0. It is the essential glory of God to live in the en
joyment of his own absolutely perfect being, inde
pendently of all things without himself. Were the
whole universe to perish, he would still be as glorious
and as blessed—rejoicing in his own absolute per
fection.
�A Dialogue.
9
D. Precisely, and the Son being God, possesses the
same self-sufficiency, independence, and unchangeable
glory and blessedness 1
0. Most assuredly.
D. Then when he became incarnate through the
Virgin Mary, his real and true glory and blessedness
remained unchanged; he continued as perfect and as
happy as he had been through all the past eternity ?
0. That is the doctrine of the church.
D. Then I return my 'former question, Wherein was
the sacrifice made by the incarnation ? Sacrifice is the
giving up of something; what did the Son of God
give up 1 Not his own true and proper glory and
blessedness, you say ; that he could not do as God.
0. He did not give them up, but he veiled them in
the garment of flesh—the infinite condescended and
humiliated himself to appear as the finite.
D. To whom were his perfections veiled ? To the
Father and himself?
0. Of course not.
D. To angels ?
0. No; for even the devils saw his glory and dis
cerned him to be the Son of God.
D. How then was his glory veiled ?
0. Men did not see it. There was no form or
comeliness that they should desire him.
D. Had they seen it before his incarnation 1
0. That depends upon whether we are to consider
the manifestations of God under the Old Testament as
made by the Son.
D. However, that is a critical point you cannot
solve. And at all events, they did not know it was
the Son as distinct from the Father. So that it is
perfectly correct to say the glory or perfections of
the Son as the Son were not discerned before his
incarnation.
0. It seems so.
D. Then how can you call the incarnation a veiling
�io
God's Method of Government.
of his perfections—a hiding of them ? These werediscerned by God the Father, by himself, by angels, by
devils, by all who had ever discerned them before
they only continued to be undiscerned by those who
had never discerned them. I cannot see what humilia
tion or lowering himself there is in that. Nay, I must
go further; according to your theory, the incarnation
became a means through which the perfections of the
Son of God were manifested to men—not at the time
being, but afterwards, when the Spirit enabled the
disciples to discern the meaning of all that he did and
suffered. So that upon your own showing the incar
nation, instead of humiliating, glorified him. And
therefore, I ask again, where was the sacrifice ?
0. You are forgetting all that he suffered on the
Cross.
D. All that who suffered ?
0. The Son of God.
D. The Son of God suffer ! Dreadful! I thought
you told me a little time ago that he possessed the
infinite perfections of God, inalienable and unchange
able. How then could he suffer ?
0. Well, it was not exactly the Son of God who
suffered, but the man Christ Jesus; but in virtue of
the mystical union of the divine and human in his
person, it is counted and is as though the divine
suffered.
D. It is counted and is as though the divine suffered !.
But did the divine nature suffer or not 1
0. The divine nature cannot suffer.
D. Then the Son of God did not suffer, and the
sufferings of the Cross were only the finite sufferings of
the man Christ Jesus. Again, I ask, where is the
sacrifice ?
M. I think our friend Orthodoxus has given you an
undue advantage by adhering to the old Calvinistical
system too closely. I regard the incarnation and death
of Christ as a pure and simple manifestation of God’s
�A Dialogue.
11
love. You will surely admit that it was an act of
infinite condescension upon the part of God when he
took upon himself our nature, and in the person of the
son lived amongst us, teaching, healing all manner of
disease and sickness, enduring the opposition of man,
and at last laying down his life upon the Cross. All
this was done to shew men the evil of sin, and to win
them hack into the paths of holiness. It was the outcoming of God’s infinite pity and grace to us ; and
therefore, I say, “Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
the sons of God.”
D. You have spoken of all this as being done and
endured by the Son of God. Of course you mean it
was done by Christ Jesus. The Son of God, as has
been admitted, could not in himself suffer, &c. Taking
that for granted, the Son of God merely inspires,
animates, or moves the man Jesus to do these things.
They are still finite actions, although done by a divine
impulse.
M. I admit that; but it was infinite love and con
descension of God to so enter into union with the
human nature as to become its impulse and animating
principle.
D. But you must now admit that it does not differ
from other manifestations of God’s love and condescen
sion, except in degree. All excellent men, all the
saints, are manifestations of God’s love in that way.
He animates their good actions and is the impulse of
them. And they are precisely of the same outward
form and character. It is human goodness, kindness,
truthfulness, love, and endurance which we see, although
of a divine impulse.
M. Yes ; but they possess divine dignity and glory
because of the union of the divine and human in his
person.
D. You give me an opinion superinduced upon the
fact. You do not see the divine dignity and glory in
�12
God's Method of Government.
the acts ; you merely see what is human. Afterwards,
the theological dogma about the union of the natures
leads you to infer the dignity and glory. But that can
have no practical influence whatsoever. The influence
is derived directly from the facts. So that it seems to
me this modern theory which you seem to have embraced
is the weakest of all the theories. You admittedly have
none but human love, goodness, purity, and truthful
ness manifested in Christ. You then add on, to give
effect to these things, the doctrine of the incarnation,
by which you suppose the human actions obtain a
divine glory. You call the Son of God’s being thus
connected with and animating the man Christ Jesus an
act of infinite love and self-sacrifice, and yet you have
to admit the Son of God gives up no single item of
his perfections, glory, and blessedness in the act. You
give up the old doctrine of the atonement.
M. I beg pardon, I do not. I hold it in a modified
form.
D. What form ?
M. Why, I think that Christ, by offering himself
a victim in obedience to the Father’s will, performed
the highest act of sacrifice, and all those who believe
in him have such fellowship with him in the sacrifice,
that it becomes their own, whereby they are delivered
from sin and made to partake of the blessedness of
eternal life.
I). Your terms are very vague. But at all events,
the sacrifice is not the endurance of suffering in lieu
of suffering; it is simply the exertion of a moral
influence which saves from suffering merely by purify
ing and bringing the mind of the saved into sympathy
with the mind of the Saviour. Now this is an abandon
ment of the old ideas of atonement and sacrifice, and,
disguise it as you will, the substituting for them of
merely the influence of a holy example. I admit that
is more rational, but it is less scriptural; and the
nationality is all merged by the introduction of the
�A Dialogue.
*
13
incarnation, in order to enforce the example which is
just as efficacious without it.
0. I perfectly agree with you. If I gave up my
Calvinism, I would give up the whole system of revela
tion which falls to pieces without it. But let me
remind you that, notwithstanding all you have said,
there remains the grand doctrine of the atonement
wherein Christ endured for his elect the infinite suffer
ings due to their sins.
D. You mean the man Christ Jesus endured them.
How could a being who is necessarily finite endure
what is infinite ?
0. By reason of his connection with Deity.
D. But you cannot infuse infinite properties into a
finite nature, else that would be making a man into a
Cod. Whatever that mysterious union you talk of in
the person of Jesus Christ of the divine and human,
the divine nature could not suffer at all; and the
human nature could not suffer what is infinite. So
that, after all, your infinite sacrifice for the elect
becomes a mere finite sacrifice offered by a man.
Orthodoxus—who had lately shown considerable signs
of uneasiness, here gathered himself up in his chair
with great dignity, and looking upon his companion
very gravely, begged, in the most pompous manner, to
say-—My dear sir, you and I have enjoyed many pleasant
days together in our recent tour, and to-morrow we
separate, perhaps never to meet again in this lower
world; but we shall meet hereafter at the judgment
bar of God. At the risk of even offending you, which
I should be unwilling to do, I must deliver myself from
the blood of your soul. You seem to me to be entirely
lost in a maze of carnal reasonings, which the Evil One
is always ready to lead self-sufficient intellects into. As
a friend, I therefore warn you of the danger in which
you stand. My brother, your precious soul is in jeo
pardy ! Yes ! your precious, never-dying, immortal
soul. There is only one name given under heaven
�14
God's Method of Government.
whereby men. can be saved, and yon are rejecting that
name. In yonr pride of intellect, you say, I will not
have this man to reign over me. What must be your
doom ? Ah ! already I seem to see the events of the
last great day. There sits the Judge, no longer the
meek and lowly Saviour you despise, but the righteous
and holy One, with eyes like a flame of fire, piercing
through and through you. Around him stand ten
thousand times ten thousand angels, ready to conduct
his elect to the joys of Paradise, and thrust down the
unbelievers to Hell. There, my friend, must you
stand and pass your last solemn trial. You reject
Christ, you put from you his precious sacrifice.
Nothing, therefore, can save you from the sentence,
which already methinks I hear pronounced—“Depart
from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for
the Devil and his angels.” Then will you realize the
woes in the hymn of that devout servant of God, Dr
Bonar:—
“ Descend, 0 sinner, to the woe!
Thy day of hope is done;
Light shall revisit thee no more,
Life, with its sanguine dream, is o’er,
Love reaches not yon awful shore;
For ever sets thy sun.
“ Call upon God, he hears no more;
Call upon death, ’tis dead;
Ask the live lightnings in their flight,
Seek for some sword of hell and night,
The worm that never dies, to smite,
No weapon strikes its head.
“Descend, 0 sinner, to the gloom!
Hear the deep judgment knell
Send forth its terror-shrieking sound
These walls of adamant around,
And filling to its utmost bound
The woful, woful hell!
“ Depart, 0 sinner, to the chain!
Enter the eternal cell;
, To all that’s good, and true, and right,
To all that’s fond, and fair, and bright,
To all of holiness and light,
Bid thou thy last farewell! ”
�A Dialogue.
J5
Alas 1 my friend, there shall he weeping, and wailing.,
and gnashing of teeth. Already I seem to hear the
despairing cry of your soul—I am lost, I am lost for
ever.
Orthodoxus had delivered his speech with great ex
citement, rising out of his chair in the midst of it,
waving his hand about in the air, and using most
vehement gesture. He sat down bathed in perspira
tion. When a minute’s silence had followed, Mysticus
turned towards Dubitans, and said : I cannot concur
with those denunciatory terms our friend has used, and
I think they misrepresent the character of God’s govern
ment. I have hope that at last the worst will be
rescued and saved. But, my dear sir, I am not less
■concerned about your soul than is he. I would rather,
however, draw you by the tender love and grace of our
God. I can hardly believe that you have ever fairly
looked at that grace as manifested in his beloved Son,
nr surely your heart would have long ago been melted
and won. Think, my dear sir, of all he has done for
you. See him born in poverty, a tiny infant in the
manger of Bethlehem. See him toiling along the lanes
of Palestine, and through the hot sun-scorched streets
of its cities, during the whole of a weary life, to do
good to men. Oh, precious Jesus 1 how he endures so
meekly the stupidity of his disciples, the treachery of
false friends, the sneers of the self-righteous Pharisees,
the contempt of infidel Sadducees, the brutality of the
mob ! How he hungers and thirsts, and has not where
to lay his head ! How ready he is to forget himself in
the service of others! Then, come to the last sad
scenes. Ah! see through shadows of the trees of
Olives that prostrate form in prayer. Hear what in his
agony he cries : “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou
wilt.” Ah! what is that which bedews his forehead, his
cheeks, and falls upon the ground 1 It is the sweat of
agony in great drops of blood ! Follow him to Pilate’s
�16
God's Method of Government.
judgment-hall. See him there spit upoD, and crowned
with thorns. Stand now on Calvary : behold the
victim of man’s sin and the gift of God’s love. Oh,
dark hour of sorrow ! What agonies the sinless One
endures, and how lovingly he bears it all! Not the
nails, not the laceration of the flesh, produce that dole
ful agony, but a deeper sorrow, poured forth in those
memorable words, “Eli, Eli, lama sabacbthani,” &c.
And now, let earth be clothed in darkness, for the
Son of God bows his head, and gives up the ghost!
And why ? Why all this sorrow ? Ah ! my friend,
for you, for you, for you he dies, that you may be won
to God, and be blessed for ever. Oh ! turn, turn unto
him, and yield your heart in recompence for such love,.
“Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my heart, my life, my all.”
During both these addresses Duhitans had sat very
quietly, resting his head upon his hand, and listening
with great, though apparently amused, attention.
When Mysticus had done, he quietly moved round
his chair, facing them more directly, and said: I
suppose I ought to be grateful to you both for the
deep anxiety you have shown for the salvation of my
soul. I am afraid my gratitude is not so deep as it
ought to be, but I will prove it to the full extent in my
power, by making a speech to you in return for your
own. Bear with me, then, while I say I think, Orthodoxus, the whole system of Calvinism, with its doc
trines of human depravity, predestination, atonement,
and punishment, one of the most grossly immoral and
degrading systems that ever was propounded by man.
It represents God as an omnipotent fiend, without the
sense of common justice, and much less of goodness
and love. Here he creates and sends into this world
millions upon millions of wretched beings, with natures
�A Dialogue.
<7
so depraved that they cannot but sin. Amongst them
he has a select few, for whom he made his Son endure
the sufferings due to the sins they could not help; these
he changes into saints by a supernatural power called
grace, and at last brings to blessedness. The rest—the
millions upon millions, being denied the grace, without
which they could not be changed into saints—perish,
and perish everlastingly. Hopelessly they are thrust
into eternal torments, and that for crimes they could
not possibly avoid, since Adam fell. Such a system is
perfectly fiendish; and a god who could so govern the
world would be a monster of iniquity, deserving to be
scouted out of the universe by all the creatures he has
made. Bor my part, if I were the creature of such a
god, all the torments he could inflict upon me by his
omnipotence should not make me cease to look upon
him with loathing and disgust. And as for your
system, Mysticus, it has but few more charms in my
eyes than that of Orthodoxus. You deny, indeed, the
iniquitous doctrine of eternal punishment, but you have
no right to do so. It is the doctrine of the New Testa
ment. To deny that seems to me a disgraceful tamper
ing with words to suit a necessity created by your
false position. You endeavour, by the help of your
moral and spiritual instincts, to get a system of religion
out of the Bible consistent with the thought and spirit
of the present day. Your attempt is in vain. The
system of the New Testament is an embodiment of
thought and spirit of the second century, not of the
nineteenth. I have read all that your leaders, Maurice,
Robertson, and the rest, have to say. It is vague,
illogical, and will not bear the test of analysis for one
moment. Your words are full of mysticism, which,
as soon as explained, throws you back on the old
Calvinism, or reduces your system to merely human
elements. The truth of it is, my friends, you are both
of you leaning on a broken reed. You are resting upon
the infallible inspiration of the Bible, the one of you
�18
God’s Method of Government.
endeavouring to sustain by it the theology of the six
teenth and seventeenth centuries, and the other a
mongrel system you have devised in the nineteenth,
out of a patchwork of modern metaphysics and old
theologies. But for that infallibility you have not the
shadow of a proof. The evidence altogether breaks
down when it is thoroughly examined. The books you
rest upon mostly belong to the second century. Their
statement of facts is mingled with myths; and most
•certainly they are directly opposed to all the conceptions
of modern science and the whole spirit and thinking of
this age. I exhort you, therefore, in return for the ex
hortations you have addressed to me, to throw off these
terrible superstitions by which your reason is enthralled.
Look the facts fairly and fully in the face, and then you
will learn that these notions of yours are only the con
ceptions of ignorant and barbarous times, and that by
far higher and better laws than you have dreamed of
God governs the world.
Here the waiter brought in their supper, soon after
which they retired to bed. Next morning they break
fasted separately, in order to suit the time of their re
spective trains, and went their way each one to his own
home. Which of them upheld the truth in their dis
cussion, I shall leave you all to judge.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God's method of government: a dialogue
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cranbrook, James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1598
CT157
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Calvinism
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 (God's method of government: a dialogue), 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
Calvinism
Conway Tracts
God
Heaven
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ba92ac61d491eb62b28486e13393feb6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gFEMKcEbnix5GEEt1%7ElMQiWFr760RxiE%7EwINqX-hpGTgGinfqfgx0qpweveXKpjMobpDG%7E05f7f9bkSYogK4bjQ6PUWwLf32VTkUBZf-yFvG302bJ793yKjrpYKc8QJDKcc4dvWX3qyT6epdvRk%7E7guyhC-W%7EV1VzqS6JHoun-NjuvHNBC1epwQQ4YXQM5j07PUiJhyCfiXv8L6rkO%7E4UolygggeKXeVFzLSf3%7EFPMyi%7EwAyG1LMjyOoO8jFs2%7EsVqIG57zxTVb515lO-jB7vAHpfa3M46YN%7E7UeZdCJvKgLwcwnQQaEHUw8SyPnV2RduahfcHwftkDD0IQSDxGApw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3f23529afa838e82eeb8b2eb3d2dce18
PDF Text
Text
B %V I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
G. W. FOOTE.
ITonbott:
X PROGRESSIVE
/
Y
Vi*
cm
'
PUBLISHING
COMPANY, .
28 STONECUTTER STREET, KO.
��B 2>7 (
ON
DARWIN
GOD
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�4
LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. 57. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
--------- •----------
Only a few feet from the tomb of Sir Isaac Newton,
in Westminster Abbey, lie the bones of Charles
Darwin. The two men are worthy compeers in the
scientific roll of fame. Newton’s discovery and estab
lishment of the law of Gravitation marked an epoch
in the history of science, and the same may be said
of Darwin’s discovery and establishment of the law
of Natural Selection. The Vrincipia and the Origin
of Species rank together as two of the most memorablemonuments of scientific genius.
In a certain sense, however, Darwin’s achievements
are the more remarkable, because they profoundly
affect our notions of man’s position and destiny in theuniverse.
The great English naturalist was of a.
modest and retiring disposition. He shrank from all
kinds of controversy. He remarked, in one of his
letters to Professor Huxley, that he felt it impossible
to understand how any man could get up and make an
impromptu speech in the heat of a public discussion.
Nevertheless he was demolishing the popular super
stition far more effectually than the most sinewy and
�4
DARWIN ON GOD.
dexterous athletes of debate. He was quietly revolu
tionising the world of thought. He was infusing into
the human mind the leaven of a new truth. And the
new truth was tremendous in its implications. No
wonder the clergy reviled and cursed it.
They did
not understand it any more than the Inquisitors who
burnt Bruno and tortured Galileo understood the
Copernican astronomy; but they felt, with a true
professional instinct, with that cunning of self-preser
vation which nature bestows on every species, including
priests, that the Darwinian theory was fatal to tlieir
deepest dogmas, and therefore to their power, their
privileges, and their profits. They had a sure intuition
that Darwinism was the writing on the wall, announc
ing the doom of their empire ; and they recognised
that their authority could only be prolonged by hiding
the scripture of destiny from the attention of the
multitude.
The popular triumph of Darwinism must be the
death-blow to theology. The Copernican astronomy
destroyed the geocentric 'theory, which made the earth
the centre of the universe, and all the celestial bodies
its humble satellites. From that moment the false
astronomy of the Bible was doomed, and its exposure
was hound to throw discredit on “ the Word of God/’
From that moment, also, the notion was doomed that
the Deity of this inconceivable universe was chiefly
occupied with the fortunes of the human insects on
this little planet, which is but a speck in the infinitude
of space. Similarly the Darwinian biology is a sen
tence of doom on the natural history of the Bible.
Evolution and special creation are antagonistic ideas.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
5
And if man himself has descended, or ascended, from
lower forms of life; if he has been developed through
thousands of generations from a branch of the Simian
family ; it necessarily follows that the Garden of Eden
is a fairy tale, that Adam and Eve were not the
parents of the human race, that the Fall is an oriental
legend, that Original Sin is a theological libel on
humanity, that the Atonement is an unintelligible
dogma, and the Incarnation a relic of ancient
mythology.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that Darwinism
would have been impossible if geology had not pre
pared its way. Natural Selection wants plenty of
elbow-room; Evolution requires immeasurable time.
But this could not be obtained until geology had made
a laughing-stock of Biblical chronology. The record
of the rocks reveals a chronology, not of six thousand,
but of millions of years ; and during a vast portion of
that time life has existed, slowly ascending to higher
stages, and mounting from the monad to man. It was
fitting, therefore, that Darwin should dedicate his
first volume to Sir Charles Lyell.
Darwin was not a polemical writer; on the contrary,
his views w7ere advanced with extreme caution.
He was gifted with magnificent patience. When the
Origin of Species was published he knew that Man
was not exempted from the laws of evolution. He
satisfied his conscience by remarking that “ Much
light will be thrown on the origin of man and his
history,” and then waited twelve years before ex
pounding his final conclusions in the Descent of Man.
This has, indeed, been made a subject of reproach.
�6
DARWIN ON GOD.
But Darwin was surely the best judge as to how and
when his theories should be published. He did his
own great work in his own great way. There is no
question of concealment. He gave his views to the
world when they were fully ripened; and if, in a
scientific treatise, he forbore to discuss the bearing of
his views on the principles of current philosophy and
the dogmas of popular theology, he let fall many
remarks in his text and footnotes which were sufficient
to show the penetrating reader that he was far from
indifferent to such matters and had very definite
opinions of his own. What could be more striking,
what could better indicate his attitude of mind, than
the fact that in the Origin of Species he never men
tioned the book of Genesis, while in the Descent of
Man he never alluded to Adam and Eve
Such con
temptuous silence was more eloquent than the most
pointed attack.
DARWIN’S GRANDFATHER.
Before Darwin was born his patronymic had been
made illustrious. It is a curious fact that both Darwin
and Newton came of old Lincolnshire families. Newton
wras born in the county, but the Darwins had removed
in the seventeenth century to the neighboring county
of Nottingham. William Darwin (born 1655) married
the heiress of Robert Waring, of Wilsford. This
lady also inherited the manor of Elston, which has
remained ever since in the family. It went to the
younger son of William Darwin. This Robert Darwin
was the father of four sons, the youngest of whom,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
7
Erasmus Darwin, was born on December 12, 1731, at
Elston Hall.
The life of Erasmus Darwin has been charmingly
written by his illustrious grandson.1 Prefixed to the
Memoir is a photographic portrait from a picture by
Wright of Derby.
It shows a strong, kind face,
dominated by a pair of deep-set, commanding eyes,
surmounted by a firm, broad brow and finely modelled
head. The whole man looks one in a million. Gazing
at the portrait, it is easy to understand his scientific
eminence, his great reputation as a successful physician,
his rectitude, generosity, and powers of sympathy and
imagination.
Dr. Erasmus Darwin practised medicine at Derby?
but his fame was widespread. While driving to and
from his patients he wrote verses of remarkable polish,
embodying the novel ideas with which his head fer
mented. They were not true poetry, although they
were highly praised by Edgeworth and Hayley, and
even by Cowper; but Byron was guilty of “ the false
hood of extremes ” in stigmatising their author as “ a
mighty master of unmeaning rhyme.” The rhyme
was certainly not unmeaning : on the contrary, there
was plenty of meaning, and fresh meaning too, but it
should have been expressed in prose.
Erasmus
Darwin had a surprising insight into the methods of
nature; he threw out a multitude of pregnant hints in
biology, and once or twice he nearly stumbled on the
law of Natural Selection. He saw the “ struggle for
existence ” with remarkable clearness. “ The stronger
1 Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. With a Preliminary
Notice by Charles Darwin. London : Murray, 1879.
�8
DARWIN ON GOD.
locomotive animals/’ lie wrote, ii devour the weaker
ones without mercy. Such is the condition of organic
nature I whose first law might be expressed in the
words, ‘ Eat or be eaten/ and which would seem to be
one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of
rapacity and injustice.’’ Mr. G. H. Eewes credits him
with “ a profounder insight into psychology than any
of his contemporaries and the majority of his successors
exhibit,” and says that he <c deserves a place in history
for that one admirable conception of psychology as
subordinate to the laws of life.” Dr. Maudsley bears
testimony to his sagacity in regard to mental disorders ;
Dr. Lauder Brunton shows that he anticipated Rosen
thal’s theory of “ catching cold ” ; and a dozen other
illustrations might be given of his scientific prescience
in chemistry, anatomy, and medicine. He was also a
very advanced reformer. He believed in exercise and
fresh air, and taught his sons and daughters to swim.
He saw the vast importance of educating girls. He
studied sanitation, pointed out how towns should be
supplied with pure water, and urged that sewage
should be turned to use in agriculture instead of being
allowed to pollute our rivers.
He also sketched out a
variety of useful inventions, which he was too busy to
complete himself. Nor did he confine himself to
practical reforms.
He sympathised warmly with
Howard, who was reforming our prison system; and
he denounced slavery at the time when the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel held slaves in the Barbadoes, and absolutely declined to give them Christian
instruction.2
2 Erasmus Darwin, p. 47.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
9
No one will be surprised to learn that Erasmus
Darwin was a sceptic. Indeed there seems to have
been a family tendency in that direction. His sister
Susannah, a young lady of eighteen, writing to him at
school in his boyhood, after some remarks on abstinence
during Lent, said “ As soon as we kill our hog I intend
to take a part thereof with the Family, for I’m in
formed by a learned Divine that Hog's Flesh is Fish,
and has been so ever since the Devil entered into them
and ran into the Sea.” Bright, witty Susannah 1 She
died unmarried, and became, as Darwin says, the
“ very pattern of an old lady, so nice looking, so gentle,
so kind, and passionately fond of flowers.”
Erasmus Darwin’s scepticism was of an early growth.
At the age of twenty-three, in a letter to Dr. Okes,
after announcing his father’s death he professes a firm
belief in “ a superior Ens EntiumJ’ but rejects the
notion of a special providence, and says that “ general
laws seem sufficient ” ; and while humbly hoping that
God will “re-create us ” after death, he plainly asserts
that “ the light of Nature affords us not a single argu
ment for a future state.” He has frequently been
called an Atheist, but this is a mistake ; he was a
Deist, believing in God, but rejecting Revelation.
Even Unitarianism was too orthodox for him, and he
wittily called it “ a feather-bed to catch a falling
Christian.”
His death occurred on April 10, 1802. He expired
in his arm-chair “ without pain or emotion of any
kind.” He had always hoped his end might be painless,
and it proved to be so. Otherwise he was not disturbed
by the thought of death. “ When I think of dying, ”
�10
PARWIN ON GOP.
lie wrote to liis friend Edgeworth, “ It is always without
pain or fear.”
Such a brief account of this extraordinary man
would be inadequate to any other purpose, but it
suffices to show that Darwin was himself a striking
illustration of the law of heredity. Scientific boldness
and religious scepticism ran in the blood of his race. ■
DABWIN’S FATHER.
Darwin’s father, Robert Waring Darwin, the third
son of Erasmus Darwin, settled down as a doctor at
Shrewsbury. He had a very large practice, and was a
very remarkable man. He stood six-feet two and
was broad in proportion. His shrewdness, rectitude
and benevolence gained him universal love and esteem.
He was reverenced by his great son, who always spoke
of him as “ the wisest man I ever knew.’’ His wife
was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, and her sweet,
gentle, sympathetic nature was inherited by her
famous son.
She died in 1817, thirty-two years
before her husband, who died on November 13, 1848.
There is little, if anything, to be gleaned from any
published documents as to the opinions of Darwin’s
father. Upon this point Mr. Francis Darwin has been
too zealously discreet. Happily I have been furnished
with a few particulars by the Rev. Edward Myers,
minister of the Unitarian chapel at Shrewsbury.
Mrs. Darwin was herself a Unitarian, and she
attended with her family the Unitarian chapel in High
Street, Shrewsbury, of which the Rev. George Case
was then minister. The daughters were all baptised
�DARWIN ON GOD.
11
by Mr. Case and their names entered in the chapel
register; but the sons were for some reason baptised
in the parish church of St. Chad. Charles Darwin
attended Mr. Case’s school, and was by him prepared
for the Shrewsbury Grammar School.
Up to 1825,
when he went to the University of Edinburgh, he,
with the Darwin family, regularly attended the Uni
tarian place of worship. But in 1832, after the erec
tion of St. George’s Church, Frankwell, they left the
chapel and went to church.
“ Dr. Darwin,” says Mr. Myers, who succeeded Mr.
Case, “was never a regular attendant at the Unitarian
chapel, but he went occasionally. Indeed, he never
regularly attended any place of worship, and his
extreme view’s on theological and religious matters
were so well known that he used to be commonly
spoken of as ‘Dr. Darwin the unbeliever,’ and ‘Dr
Darwin the infidel.’ ”
The question naturally arises, how could Dr. Darwin
have seriously intended his son to become a clergy
man'? Mr. Myers offers, as I think, a sufficient
explanation. The Church at that time was looked
upon as simply a professional avenue, like the law or
medicine; and, as Mr. Gladstone remarks in his
Chapter of Autobiography, “ the richer benefices were
very commonly regarded as a suitable provision for
such members of the higher families as were least fit
to push their way in any other profession requiring
thought and labor.” But, the reader will exclaim, how
was it possible to include Charles Darwin in this
category of incapables 1
The answer is simple.
Darwin was not brilliant in his youth. !Iis great
�12
DARWIN ON GOD.
faculties required time to ripen. He failed as a medical
student because lie had an unconquerable antipathy to
the sight of blood, and was so afflicted by witnessing a
bad operation on a child that he actually ran away.
He was always regarded as “ a very ordinary boy/’ to
use his own words; and his father once said to him,
“ You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat
catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and
your family.’’3 It was a singularly infelicitous pro
phecy, but it shows Dr. Darwin’s mean opinion of his
son’s intellect, and enables us to understand how “ Dr.
Darwin the infidel” devoted his unpromising cub to
the great refuge of incapacity.
DABWIN’S EARLY PIETY.
Either the Rev. George Case belonged to the
more orthodox wing of Unitarianism, or the teach
ing at the Shrewsbury Grammar School must have
effaced any sceptical impressions he made on the mind
of Charles Darwin, whose early piety is evident
both from his Autobiography and from several of his
letters. And this fact is of the highest importance,
since it follows that his disbelief in later years was the
result of independent thought and the gradual pressure
of scientific truth.
“ I well remember,” he says, “ in the early part of
my school life that I often had to run very quickly to
be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally
successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to
3Life and. Letters of Charles Darwin. Edited by his son, Francis
Darwin. Vol. I., p. 32.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
13
God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed
my success to the prayers and not to my quick running,
and marvelled how generally I was aided.
Speaking of himself at the age of twenty or twentyone, he says, “ I did not then doubt the strict and
literal truth of every word in the Bible?’0 When a
little later he went on board the “ Beagle/'’ to take that
famous voyage which he has narrated so charmingly,
and which determined his subsequent career, he was
still “ quite orthodox.’-’ “ I remember/’ he says,
“ being laughed at by several of the officers (though
themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality/’0
Darwin charitably supposes “ it was the novelty of the
argument which amused them/'’ But why was the
argument novel ? Simply because the Bible is a kind
of fetish, to be worshipped and sworn by, anything but
read and followed. As Mill remarked, it furnishes
texts to fling at the heads of unbelievers ; but when the
Christian is expected to act upon it, he is found to
conform to other standards, including his own con
venience. There can be little doubt that the laughter
of his shipmates produced a powerful and lasting effect
on Darwin’s mind. His character was translucent and
invincibly sincere ; and the laughter of orthodox
persons at their own doctrines was calculated to set
him thinking about their truth.
ALMOST A CLERGYMAN.
Being a f allure as a medical student, Darwin received
i Life and Letters, vol. i.. p. 31.
5 Vol. I., p. 45.
' 6 Vol. I., p. 308
�14
DARWIN ON GOD.
a proposal from his father to become a clergyman, and
1 he rather liked the idea of settling down as a country
parson. Fancy Darwin in a pulpit!
The finest
scientific head since Newton distilling bucolic sermons I
What a tragi-comedy it would have been I
Darwin carefully read “ Pearson on the Creed,”
and other books on divinity. £< I soon persuaded my
self,” he says, “ that our Creed must be accepted.”
He went up to Cambridge and studied hard.
“ In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary
to get up'Paley’s Evidences of Christianity and his Moral Philo'
sophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced
that I could have written out the whole of the ‘ Evidences ’
with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language
of Paley. The logic of this book, and, as I may add, of his
Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The
careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any
part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which,
as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me
in the education of my mind. I did not at that tirqe trouble
myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust, I
was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.”
Darwin probably owed most to the Natural Theology
of Paley. Writing to Sir John Lubbock nearly thirty
years later, he said: “ I do not think I hardly ever
admired a book more.” Perhaps it was less the logic
of the great Archdeacon than his limpid style and in
teresting treatment of physical science which charmed
the young mind of Darwin. He had a constitutional
love of clearness, and his genius was then turning
towards the studies which occupied his life.
Scruples gradually entered Darwin’s mind. He
began to find the creed not so credible. One of his
�DARWIN ON GOD.
15
friends gives an interesting reminiscence of this period.
“We had an earnest conversation,” says Mr. Herbert,
4< about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his
asking me, with reference to the question put by the
Bishop in the ordination service, 4 Do you trust that
you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, etc./
whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my
saying I could not, he said, 4 Neither can I, and there
fore I cannot take holy orders/ ” Still he did not
abandon the idea altogether; he drifted away from it
little by little until it fell out of sight. Fourteen or
fifteen years later, writing to Sir Charles Lyell, he had
gone so far as to speak of 44 that Corporate Animal,
the Clergy.”
Looking back over these experiences, only a few
years before his death, Darwin was able to regard them
with equanimity and amusement. There is a sly
twinkle of humor in the following passage.
“ Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the
orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a
clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever
formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving
Cambridge, I joined the 4 Beagle ’ as naturalist. If the
phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect
to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretary of a German
psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photo
graph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the
proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that
the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discus
sion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of
reverence,developed enough for ten priests.”7
The Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, accounts for
7 Vol. I., p. 45.
�16
DARWIN ON GOD.
Matthew Arnold's scepticism by the flatness of the
top of his head. Mr. Arnold lacked the bump which
points to God. But how does Mr. Cook account for
the scepticism of Darwin, whose head was piouslyadorned with such a prodigious bump of veneration ?
ON BOARD THE “ BEAGLE.”
While at Cambridge, studying for the Church,
Darwin made the acquaintance of Professor Henslow
and Dr. Whewell. He read Humboldt “ with care and
profound interest/’ and Herschel’s Introduction to the
Study of Natural Philosophy. These writers excited
in him “ a burning zeal to add even the most humble
contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science.5'
Humboldt’s description of the glories of Teneriffe
made him desire to visit that region. He even “ got
an introduction to a merchant in London to inquire
about ships." Soon afterwards he became acquainted
with Professor Sedgwick, and his attention was turned
to geology. On returning from a geological tour in
North Wales with Sedgwick he found a letter from
Henslow offering him a share of Captain Fitzroy’s
cabin on board the “ Beagle," if he cared to go without
pay as naturalist. The offer was accepted, Dr. Darwin
behaved handsomely, and the young man sailed away
with a first-rate equipment and a pecuniary provision
for his five years' voyage round the world. This
voyage, says Darwin, “ has been by far the most im
portant event in my life, and has determined my whole
career."
Readers of Darwin’s fascinating A Naturalist’s
�DARWIN ON GOD.
17
Voyage8 know that his great powers were matured on
board the “ Beagled’ “ That my mind became deve
loped through my pursuits during the voyage,” he
himself says, “ is rendered probable by a remark made
by my father, who was the most acute observer whom
I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from
being a believer in phrenology ; for on first seeing me
after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters and
exclaimed, ‘ Why, the shape of his head is quite
altered.’ ”
During the voyage Darwin was brought into close
and frequent contact with “ that scandal to Christian
nations—-Slavery.”9 This was a matter on which he
felt keenly. His just and compassionate nature was
stirred to the depths by the oppression and sufferings
of the American negroes. The infamous scenes he
witnessed haunted his imagination. Nearly thirty
years afterwards, writing to Dr. Asa Gray, he wished,
“though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North
would proclaim a crusade against slavery.” His im
pressions at the earlier date were recorded in his
book, and it is best to quote the passage in full:
“On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil.
I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To
this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful
vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco,
I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect
that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was
8 A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches into the Natural
History and Geology of the Countries visited during the
Voyage of H. M. S. "Beagle” round the World. By Charles
Darwin.
9 Life and Letters,veA, i., p. 237.
�18
DARWIN ON GOD.
as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that
these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that
this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I
lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the
fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a
young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten,
and persecuted, enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal.
I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice
with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head
for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw
his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye.
These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish
colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better
treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European
nations. I have seen at Rio Janeiro a powerful negro’ afraid
to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was
present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating
for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number
of families who had longed lived together. I will not even
allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authen
tically heard of ; —nor would I have mentioned the above
revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded
by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery
as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the
houses of the upper classes,where the domestic slaves are
usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived
.amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about
their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull
who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching
his master’s ears.
It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty;
■as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are
far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of
their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested
against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by
the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to
palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our
�DARWIN ON GOD.
19
poorer countrymen; if the misery of our poor be caused
not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great
is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see ;
as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one
land, by showing that men in another land suffered from
some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave
owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put
themselves- into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless
prospect, with not even a hope of change 1 Picture to yourself
the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little
children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to
call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the
first bidder I And these deeds are done and palliated by men
who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who be
lieve in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth I”1
The sting of this passage is in its tail. Darwin
must have felt that there was something hypocritical
and sinister in the pretensions of Christianity. He
must have asked himself what was the practical value
of a creed which permitted such horrors.
SETTLING AT DOWN.
Darwin married on January 29, 1839. His wife
was singularly helpful, making his home happy, and
subordinating herself to the great ends of his life.
Children grew up around them, and their home was
one of the brightest and best in the world. Here is a
pretty touch in Darwin’s letter to his friend Fox, dated
from Upper Gower Street, London, July 1840 : “He,
(i.e., the baby) is so charming that I cannot pretend to
any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our
baby, for 1 defy anyone to say anything in its praise of*
Pp. 499—500.
�20
DARWIN ON GOD.
which we are not fully conscious ... I hacl not the
smallest conception there was so much in a five-month
baby.'-’ Cunning nature I twining baby fingers about
the big man’s heart. Still the proud father studied
the cherub as a scientist; he watched its mental growth
with the greatest assiduity, and thus began those
observations which he ultimately published in the
Expression of the Emotions.
In September 1842 he went to live at Down, where
he continued to reside until his death. He helped to
found a Friendly Club there, and served as its treasurer
for thirty years.
He was also treasurer of a Coal
Club.
The Rev. Brodie Innes says “ His conduct
towards me and my family was one of nnvarying kind
ness.’"’ Darwin was a liberal contributor to the local
charities, and “ he held that where there was really no
important objection, his assistance should be given to
the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances
best, and was chiefly responsible.”
He did not, however, go through the mockeyy of
attending church. I was informed by the late head
constable of Devonport, who was himself an open
Atheist, that he had once been on duty for a consider
able time at Down. He had often seen Darwin escort
his family to church, and enjoyed many a conversation
with the great man, who used to enjoy a walkthrough
the country lanes while the devotions were in progress
DEATH AND BURIAL.
Darwin’s life henceforth was that of a country
gentleman and a secluded scientist. His great works,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
21
more revolutionary than all the political and social
turmoil of his age, were planned and written in the
quiet study of an old house in a Kentish village. He
suffered terribly from ill health, but he labored on
gallantly to the end, and died in harness. “ For nearly
forty years,"’ writes Mr. Francis Darwin, “ he never
knew one day of the health ot ordinary men, and thus
his life was one long struggle against the weariness and
strain of sickness.” But no whimperings escaped him,
or petulant reproaches on those around him. Always
gentle, loving and beloved, he looked on the universe
with unswerving serenity. A nobler mixture of sweet
ness and strength never adorned the earth.
In 1876 he wrote some Recollections for his children,
with no thought of publication. “I have attempted,”
he said, “ to write the following account of myself, as
if I were a dead man in another world looking back at
my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life
is nearly over with me.”
He was ready for Death, but they did not meet for
six years. During February and March, 1882, he wa?
obviously breaking. The rest must be told by his son,
‘■No especial change occurred during the beginning of April,
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experi
ment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th,
about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed
into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness
with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach
of death, and said, ‘ I am not the least afraid to die.’ All the
next morning he suffered from terrible nausea, and hardly
�22
DARWIN ON GOD.
rallied, before the end came. He died at about four o’clock on
Wednesday, April 19tb, 1882”2
Thus the great scientist and sceptic went to his
everlasting rest. He had no belief in God, no expec
tation of a future life. But he had done his duty; he had
filled the world with new truth ; he had lived a life of
heroism, compared with which the hectic courage of
battle-fields is vulgar and insignificant; and he died in
soft tranquillity, surrounded by the beings he loved.
His last conscious words were I am not the least afraid
to die. No one who knew him, or his life and work,
could for a moment suspect him capable of fear.
Nevertheless it is well to have the words on record
from the lips of those who saw him die. The carrion
priests who batten on the reputation of dead Free
thinkers will find no repast in this death-chamber.
One sentence frees him from the contamination of
their approach.
Darwin’s family desired that he should be buried at
Down. But the fashion of burying -great men in
Westminster Abbey, even though unbelievers, had
been set by Dean Stanley, whom Carlyle irreverently
called “ the body-snatcher.”
Stanley’s successor,
Dean Bradley, readily consented to the great heretic’s
interment in his House of God, where it is to be
presumed the Church of England burial service was
duly read over the “ remains.” Men like Professor
Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, ind Sir Joseph Hooker
should not have assisted at such a blasphemous farce.
It was enough to make Darwin groan in his coffin.
Well, the Church has Darwin’s corpse, but that is all
2 Li/e and Letters, vol. iii., p. 358.
�DAIDVIN ON GOD.
23
she can boast; and as she paid the heavy price of
telling lies at his funeral, it may not in the long run
prove a profitable transaction.
She has not buried
Darwin’s ideas. They are still at work, sapping and
undermining her very foundations.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAMPHLET.
My object is to show the general reader what were
Darwin’s views on religion, and, as far as possible, to
trace the growth of those views in his mind. I desire
to point out, in particular, how he thought the leading
ideas of theology were affected by the doctrine of
evolution. Further, I wish to prove that there is no
essential difference between his Agnosticism and what
has always been taught as Atheism. Finally, I mean
to give my own notions on evolution and theism. In
doing so, I shall be obliged to consider some points
raised by anti-materialists, especially by Dr. A. B.
Wallace in his recent volume on Darwinism.
SOME OBJECTIONS.
Let me first, however, answer certain objections. It
is contended by those who would minimise the impor
tance of Darwin’s scepticism that he was a scientist
and not a theologian. When it is replied that this
objection is based upon a negation of private judgment,
and logically involves the handing over of society to
the tender mercies of interested specialists, the
objectors fall back upon the mitigated statement that
�24
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
Darwin was too much occupied with science to give
adequate attention to the problems of religion. Now,
in the first place, this is not really true. He certainly
disclaimed any special fitness to give an opinion on such
matters, but that was owing to his exceptional modesty;
and to take advantage of it by accepting it as equiva
lent to a confession of unfitness, is simply indecent on
the part of those who never tire of holding up the
testimony of Newton, Herschel, and Faraday to the
truth of their creed. Darwin gave sufficient attention
to religion to satisfy himself. He began to abandon
Christianity at the age of thirty. Writing of the
period between October, 1836 and January, 1839, he
says “ During those two years I was led to think much
about religion.”3 That the subject occupied his mind
at other times is evident from his works and letters.
He had clearly weighed every argument in favor of
Theism and Immortality, and his brief, precise way of
stating the objections to them shows that they were
perfectly familiar.
True, he says “I have never
systematically thought much on religion in relation to
science,” but this was in ansAver to a request that he
should write something for publication. In the same
sentence he says that he had not systematically thought
much on “ morals in relation to society.” But he had
thought enough to write that wonderful fourth chapter
in the first part of the Descent of Man, which Avas
published in that very year. Darwin was so modest,
so cautious, and so thorough, that “ systematic
thought” meant with him an infinitely greater stress
3 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
25
of mind than is devoted to religious problems by one
theologian in a million.
The next objection is more subtle, not to say fan
tastic. In his youth Darwin was fond of music. He
had no technical knowledge of it, nor even a good ear,
but it filled him with delight, and sometimes sent a
shiver down his backbone. He was also fond of
poetry, reading Shakespeare, Coleridge, Byron, and
Scott, and carrying about a pocket copy of Milton.
But in later life he lost all interest in such things, and
trying to read Shakespeare again after 18/0 he found
it “so intolerably dull” that it “nauseated” him.
His intense pre-occupation with science had led to a
partial atrophy of his aesthetic faculties. It was a loss
to him, but the world gained by the sacrifice.
Now upon this fact is based the objection I am
dealing with. In the days of Sir Isaac Newton or
Bishop Butler, when belief was supposed to rest on
evidence, the objection would have seemed pre
posterous; but it is gravely urged at present, when
religion is fast becoming a matter of candles, music,
and ornament, seasoned with cheap sentimentality.
Darwin’s absorption in intellectual pursuits, and the
consequent neglect of the artistic elements in his
nature, is actually held as a sufficient explanation of
his scepticism. His highly-developed and constantlysustained moral nature is regarded as having no
relation to the problem. Religion, it seems, is neither
morality nor logic; it is spirituality. And what is
spirituality ? Why, a yearning aftei' the vague, the
unutterable; a consciousness of the sinfulness of sin;
a perpetual study of one’s blessed self ; a debauch of
�26
DARWIN ON GOD.
egotistic emotion and chaotic fancy; in short, a highlyrefined development of the feelings of a cow in a
thunderstorm, and the practices of a savage before his
inscrutible fetish.
Spirituality is an emoti mal offshoot of religion ; but
religion itself grows out of belief; and belief, even
among the lowest savages, is grounded on evidence.
The Church has always had the sense to begin with
doctrines; it enjoins upon its children to say first of
all “ I believed’ Let the doctrines go, and the senti
ments will go also. It is only a question of time.
Darwin tested.the doctrines. Miracles, special provi
dence, the fall, the incarnation, the resurrection, the
existence of an all-wise and all-good God; all seemed
to him statements which should be proved. He there
fore put them into the crucible of reason, and they
turned out to be nothing but dross. According to the
“ spiritual ” critics this was a mistake, religion being a
matter of imagination. Quite so ; here Darwin is in
agreement with them; and thus again the proverb is
verified that “ extremes meet.”
The last objection is almost too peurile to notice. It
has been asserted that Darwin was an unconscious
believer, after all; and this astonishing remark is
supported by exclamations from his letters. He
frequently wrote “ God knows,” “would to God,” and
so forth. But he sometimes wrote “ By Jove,” from
which it follows that he believed in Jupiter 1 Ou one
occasion he informed Dr. Hooker that he had recovered
from an illness,and could “ eat like a hearty Christian/ ’
from which it follows that he believed in the connection
of Christianity and voracity 1
�DARWIN ON GOD.
27
Mr. F. W. FI. Myers is too subtle a critic to raise
this objection in its natural crudity. He affects to
regard Darwin’s tranquillity under the loss of religious
belief as a puzzle. He asks why Darwin kept free
from the pessimism which “ in one form or other has
paralysed or saddened so many of the best lives of our
time.”
What “ kept the melancholy infection at
bay?”
“ Here, surely, is the solution of the problem. The faculties
of observing and. reasoning were stimulated to the utmost;
the domestic affections were kept keen and strong; but the
atrophy of the religious instinct, of which we have already
spoken, extended yet farther—over the whole range of aesthetic
emotion, and mystic sentiment—over all in us which‘looks
before and after, and pines for what is not.’ ”4
This is pretty writing, but under the form of insi
nuation it begs the question at issue.
Keligious
instinct and mystic sentiment are fine phrases, but they
prove nothing; on the contrary, they are devices for
dispensing with that logical investigation which reli
gion ever shuns as the Devil is said to shun holy water.
DARWIN ABANDONS CHRISTIANITY.
Dr. Buchner, the German materialist, who was in
London in September, 1881, went to Down and spent
some hours with Darwin. Fie was accompanied by
Dr. E. B. Aveling, who has written an account of their
conversation in Darwin’s study.5 This pamphlet is
4 Charles Darwin and Agnosticism. By F. W. H. Myers, “Fort
nightly Review,” January, 1888, p. 106.
5 The Religious Views of Charles Darwin. By Dr. E. B. Aveling.
Freethought Publishing Co.
�28
DARWIN ON GOD.
referred to in a footnote by Mr. Francis Darwin, who
says that “ Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impres
sion cf my father’s views.” 6 He does not contradict
any of Dr. Aveling’s statements, and they may there
fore be regarded as substantially correct.
Darwin said to his guests, “ I never gave up Chris
tianity until I was forty years of age.” He had given
attention to the matter, and had investigated the
claims of Christianity. Being asked why he abandoned
it, he replied, “ It is not supported by evidence.”
This reminds one of a story about George Eliot. A
gentleman held forth to her at great length on the
beauty of Christianity. Like Mr. Myers, he was
great at “aesthetic emotion” and “mystic sentiment.”
The great woman listened to him with philosophic
patience, and at length she struck in herself. “Well,
you know,” she said, “ I have only one objection to
Christianity.” “And what is that?” her guest en
quired. “ Why,” she replied, “it isn’t true.”
Dr. Aveling’s statement is corroborated by a long
and interesting passage in Darwin’s chapter of Auto
biography, which the reader shall have in full.
“I had gradually come by this time, that is, 1836 to 1839, to
see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually
rose before my mind and would not be banished,—Is it credible
that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he
would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva,
etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament?
This appeared to me utterly incredible.
“ By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be
requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by
0 Vol. I., p. 317.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
29
which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know
of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles
become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—'that tho Gospels
cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the
events,—that they differ in many important details, far too
important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual in
accuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these,
which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as
they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Chris
tianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions
have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had
some weight with me.
“ But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure
of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day
dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which
confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in
the Gcspels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free
scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would
suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very
slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that
I felt no distress.”7
Three features should be noted in this striking
passage. First, the order in which the evidences of
Christianity were tried and found wanting; second, the
complete mastery of every important point; third, the
absence of all distress of mind in the process. Darwin’s
mind was, in fact, going through a new development,
and the old creed was got rid of as easily as an old
skin when a new one is taking its place.
For nearly forty years Darwin was a disbeliever in
Christianity. He rejected it utterly. It passed out of
his mind and heart. The fact was not proclaimed
7 Vol. I., pp. 308-309.
�30
DARWIN ON GOT).
from the house-tops, but it was patent to every intelli
gent reader of his works. He paid no attention to the
clerical dogs that barked at his heels, but wisely kept
his mind free from such distractions, and went on his
way, as Professor Tyndall says, with the steady and
irresistible movement of an avalanche.
Much capital has been made by Christians who are
thankful for small mercies out of the fact that Darwin
subscribed to the South American Missionary SocietyThe Archbishop of Canterbury, at the annual meeting
on April 21, 1885, said the Society “ drew the atten
tion of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of
the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that
there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more
lasting.” Such language is simply fraudulent. The
fact is, Darwin thought the Fuegians a set of hopeless
savages, and he was so agreeably undeceived by the
reports of their improvement that he sent a subscription
of £5 through his old shipmate Admiral Sir James
Sullivan. This gentleman gives three or four extracts
from Darwin’s letters,8 from which it appears that he
was solely interested in the secular improvement of the
Fuegians, without the smallest concern for their pro
gress in religion.
Darwin subscribed to send missionaries to a people
he regarded as “ the very lowest of the human race.”
Surely this is not an extravagant compliment to
Christianity. He never subscribed towards its promo
tion in any civilised country. Those who parade his
“support*” invite the sarcasm that he'thought their
religion fit for savages.
s Vol. III., pp. 127-128.
�DARWIX OX GOD.
o1
Dl
DEISM.
Having abandoned Christianity, Darwin remained
for many years a Deist. The Naturalist’s Voyage was
first published in 1845, and the following passage
occurs in the final chapter :
“ Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my
mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests undefaced
by the hand of man; whether those of Brazil, where the
powers of Life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego,
where Death and Decay prevail. Both are temples filled with
the varied products of the God of Nature :—no one can stand
in these solitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in
man than the mere breath of his body.”9
This is the language of emotion, and no one will be
surprised at Darwin's saying subsequently “ I did not
think much about the existence of a personal God until
a considerably later period of my life/71 How great a
change the thinking wrought is seen, from a reference
to this very incident in the Autobiography, written in
1876, a few years before his death.
“ At the present day the most usual argument for the
existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward
conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.
Formerly I was led by such feelings as those just referred to
(although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever
strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the exist
ence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal
I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a
Brazilian forest, ‘ it is not possible to give an adequate idea of
the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which
fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction
that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.
9 P. 508.
1 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. ,309.
�32
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such con
viction and feelings to rise in my mind.” 2
!
Darwin's belief in a personal God had not per
ceptibly weakened in 1859, when he published the
Origin of Species. He could still speak of “the
Creator’' and use the ordinary language of Deism.
In a letter to Mr. C. Ridley, dated November 28,
1878, upon a sermon of Dr. Pusey’s, he said, “ When
I was collecting facts for the £ Origin ’ my belief in
what is called a personal God was as firm as that of
Dr. Pusey himself."3
It is therefore obvious that Darwin doubted Chris
tianity at the age of thirty, abandoned it before the
age of forty, and remained a Deist until the age of
fifty. The publication of the Origin of Species' may
be taken as marking the commencement of his third
and last mental epoch.
The philosophy of Evolution
took possession of his mind, and gradually expelled
both the belief in God and the belief in immortality.
His development was too gradual for any wrench.
People upon whom his biological theories came as
lightning-swift surprises often fancied that he must
be deeply distressed by such painful truths. Some
times, indeed, this suspicion was carried to a comical
extreme. “Lyell once told me,” says Professor Judd,
“ that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was
not one of the most unhappy of men, it being sug
gested that his outrage upon public opinion should
have filled him with remorse."4 How it would have
astonished these simple creatures to see Darwin in his
2 Vol. I., p. 811.
3 Vol. III., p. 236.
4 Vol. HI., p. 62.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
33
happy home, reclining on the sofa after a hard day’s
work, while his devoted wife or daughter read a novel
aloud or played some music ; or perhaps smoking an
occasional cigarette, one of his few concessions to the
weakness of the flesh.
CREATION.
Evolution and Creation are antagonistic ideas, nor
can they he reconciled by the cheap device of assum
ing their cooperation “ in the beginning.” When the
theologians spoke of Creation, in the pre-Darwinian
days, they meant exactly the same as ordinary people
who employed the term ; namely, that everything in
nature was brought into existence by an express fiat
of the will of God.
The epithet “ special ” only
hides the fate of Creation from the short-sighted. To
say that the Deity produced the raw material of the
universe, with all its properties, and then let it evolve
into what we see, is simply to abandon the real idea of
Creation and to take refuge in a metaphysical dogma.
Creation is only a pompous equivalent for “ God
did it.” Before the nebular hypothesis explained the
origin, growth, and decay of the celestial bodies, the
theologian used to inquire “ Who made the world ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked a fresh
question, “ Who made the plants and animals ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked another
question, “ Who made man? ” Now that conundrum
is solved he asks “ Who created life 1 ” And when
the Evolutionists reply “ Wait a little ; we shall see,”
he puts his final poser, “ Who made matter ? ”
�34
DARWIN ON GOD.
All along the line he has been saying “ God did it”
to everything not understood ; that is, he has turned
ignorance into a dogma. Every explanation compels
him to beat a retreat; nay more, it shows that
“ making ” is inapplicable.
Nature’s method is
growth. Making is a term of art, and when applied
to nature it is sheer anthropomorphism. The baby
who prattles to her doll, and the theologian who prates
of Creation, have a common philosophy.
When the Origin of Species was published, we have
seen that Darwin firmly believed in a personal God.
Unfortunately he allowed himself, in the last chapter,
to use language, not unnatural in a Deist, but still
equivocal and misleading. He spoke, for instance, of
“ the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.-” This
is perhaps excusable, but there was a more unhappy
sentence in which he spoke of life “having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one.” A flavor of Genesis is in these words,
and the clergy, with their usual unscrupulousness,
have made the most of it; taking care not to read it,
or let their hearers read it, in the light of Darwin’s
later writings.
In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, dated March 13,
1863, Darwin writes, “ I had a most kind and delight
fully candid letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out
as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief
failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he
no more believed in Creation than you or I.”5 Writing
again to Hooker, in the same month, he said: “ I have
5 Vol. III., p. 15.
The italics are mine.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
35
long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and
used the Pentatcuchal term of creation, by which I
really meant ‘ appeared ’ by some wholly unknown
process/’6
“ Truckling ” is a strong word. I fancy Darwin
was too severe in his self-reproach. I prefer to regard
the unhappy sentences about Creation as the slip-shod
expressions of a roan who was still a Deist, and who,
possessing little literary tact, failed to guard himself
against a misuse of popular language.
The greatest
misfortune was that the book was before the public,
and the expressions could hardly be withdrawn or
altered without a full explanation; from which I dare
say he shrank, as out of place in a scientific treatise.
ORIGIN OF LIFE.
“ Spontaneous generation is a paradoxical phrase,
and it has excited a great deal of unprofitable discus
sion. However the controversy rests between Bastian
and Tyndall, the problem of the origin of life isentirely unaffected.
Nor need we entertain Sir
William Thomson’s fanciful conjecture that life may
have been brought to this planet on a meteoric frag
ment, for this only puts the radical question upon the
shelf. We may likewise dismiss the theory of Dr.
Wallace, who holds that “ complexity of chemical
compounds ” could “ certainly not have produced
living protoplasm.” 7 “ Could not,” in the existing
state of knowledge, is simply dogmatism. Dr. Wallace
has a spiritual hypothesis to maintain, and like the
8 Vol. Ill, p. 18.
7 Darwinism, p. 474.
�36
DARWIN ON GOD.
crudest theologian, though in a superior style, he
introduces his little theory, with a polite bow, to
account for what is at present inexplicable.
The
thorough-going Evolutionist is perfectly satisfied to
wait for information. So much has been explained
already that it is folly to be impatient. The presump
tion, meanwhile, is in favor of continuity.
Argument without facts is a waste of time and
temper. “It is mere rubbish,” Darwin said, “thinking
at present of the origin of life; one might as well
think of the origin of matter.” 8 This was written in
1863, in a letter to Hooker. Darwin could not help
seeing, however, that the conditions favorable to the
origination of life might only exist once in the history
of a planet. A very suggestive passage is printed by
Mr. Francis Darwin as written by his father in 1871.
“ It is often said that all the conditions for the first produc
tion of a living organism are now present which could ever
have been present. But if (and oh ! what a big if!) we could
conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia
and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that
a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo
still more complex changes, at the present day such matter
would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were formed.”9
Darwin appears to have felt that life
have
originated naturally. The interposition of an imagi
nary supernatural cause does not solve the problem.
It cuts the Gordian knot, perhaps, but does not untie
it. Nature is full of illustrations of the truth that
“ properties ” exist in complex compounds which do
8^Vol. III., p. 18.
9 Vol. III., p. 18, footnote.
�DABWIN ON GOD.
37
not appear in the separate ingredients.
Huxley
rightly inquires what justification there is for “ the
assumption of the existence in the living matter of a
something which has no representative, or correlative,
in the not living matter which gave rise to it.” 1
There is no more mystery in the origin of life than in
the formation of water by an electric spark which
traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. Dr.
Wallace appears to see this, and consequently he
ascribes electricity, with gravitation, cohesion, and
chemical force, to the “ spiritual world ! ” 2
ORIGIN OF MAN.
Darwin’s masterpiece, in the opinion of scientists,
is the Origin of Species. But the Descent of Alan is
more important to the general public. As applied to
other forms of life, Evolution is a profoundly inte
resting theory; as applied to man, it revolutionises
philosophy, religion, and morals.
Tracing the development of animal organisms from
the ascidian, Darwin passes along the line of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, mammals, and
finally to the simians. “ The Simiadee then branched
off,” he says, “ into two great stems, the New World
and the Old World monkeys ; and from the latter, at
a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the
Universe, proceeded.”3
Notwithstanding that some specimens of the
“ wonder and glory of the universe ” cannot count
1 Lay Sermons, p. 137.
2 Darwinism, p. 476.
3 Descent of Man, p. 165.
�38
DARWIN ON GOD.
above the number of the fingers of one hand, while
some of them live in a shocking state of bestiality,
Darwin's deliverance on the origin of man was greeted
with a storm of execration. “Fancy/’ it was ex
claimed, “ fancy recognising the monkey as our first
cousin, and the lower animals as our distant rela
tions ! Pshaw 1 ” The protesters forgot that there
is no harm in “ coming from monkeys ” if you have
come far enough. Some of them, perhaps, had a shrewd
suspicion that they had not come far enough; and,
like parvenus, they were ashamed to own their poor
relations.
Anticipating the distastefulness of his conclusions,
Darwin pointed out that, at any rate, we were
descended from barbarians; and why, he inquired,
should we shrink from owning a still lower relation
ship ?
' '
“ He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel
much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some
more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I
would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey,
who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his keeper,
or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains,
carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of
astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his
enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide with
out remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency,
and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”4
Eighteen years have passed since then, and
Darwin’s views have triumphed. The clergy still
“hum’-’ and “ha'” and shake their heads, but the
scientific world has accepted Darwinism with practical
4 Descent of Man, p. 619.
�39
DARWIN ON GOD.
unanimity. Even Dr. Wallace, who at first hesitated,
is now convinced. “ I fully accept Mr. Darwin’s
conclusions,” he says, “ as to the essential identity of
man’s bodily structure with that of the higher mam
malia, and his descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes. The evi
dence of such descent appears to me to be overwhelming
and conclusive.”5
Now if Darwin’s theory of the origin of man is
accepted we may bid good-bye to Christianity at once.
But that is not all. The continuity of development
implies a common nature, from the lowest form of life
to the highest. There is no break from the ascidian
to man, just as there is no break from the ovum to the
child; and neither in the history of the race nor in
the history of the individual is there any point at
which natural causes cease to be adequate, and super
natural causes are necessary to account for the pheno
mena. The tendency of Darwinism, says Dr. Wallace,
is to “ the conclusion that man’s entire nature and all
his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual,
have been derived from their rudiments in the lower
animals, in the same manner and by the action of the
same general laws as his physical structure has been
derived.” G
Dr. Wallace sees that this is sheer materialism,
and casts about for something to support his
spiritualistic philosophy.
He assumes three stages
at which “ the spirit world ” intervened.
First,
when life appeared; second, when consciousness
began; third, when man became possessed of “ a
3 Darwinism, p. 461.
6 P. 461.
�40
DARWIN ON GOD.
number of his most characteristic and noblest facul
ties.” All this is very ingenious, but Dr. Wallace
forgets two things ; first, that the “ stages ” he refers
to are purely arbitrary, each point being approached
and receded from by insensible gradations; and
second, that his “ Spirit world ” is not a vera causa.
It is, indeed, a pure assumption ; unlike such a cause
as Natural Selection, which is seen to operate, and
which Darwin only extended over the whole range
of organic existence.
With respect to his third “ stage,” Dr. Wallace
contends that Natural Selection does not account for
the mathematical, musical, and artistic faculties.
Were this true, they might still be regarded, in Weismann’s phrase, as “a bye-product” of the human
mind, which is so highly developed in all directions.
But its truth is rather assumed than proved. Taking
the mathematical faculty, for instance, Dr. Wallace
makes the most of its recent developments, and the
least of its early manifestations ; which is a fallacy
of exaggeration or false emphasis. He also under
rates the mathematical faculty displayed even in the
rudest warfare.
There is a certain calculation of
number and space in every instance. It is smaller in
in the savage chief than in Napoleon, but the differ
ence is in degree and not in kind; and as the human
race has always lived in a more or less militant
state, the mathematical faculty would give its posses
sors an advantage in the struggle for existence; while,
in more modern times, and in a state of complex
civilisation, its possessors would profit by what may be
called Social Selection.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
41
Dr. Wallace lias discovered a mare’s nest. He may
rely upon it that the basis of beauty is utility; in the
mind of man as well as in architecture, or the plumage
of birds, or the coloration of flowers. And we may
well ask him these pertinent questions ; first, why did
“ the spirit world ” plant the mathematical, musical,
and artistic faculties in man so ineffectually that, even,
now, they are decidedly developed in less than one per
cent, of the population ; and, second, why are we to
suppose a divine origin for those faculties when the
moral faculties, which are quite as imperial, may be
found in many species of lower animals ?
ANIMISM.
Dr. Tylor is not a biologist, but he is one of the
greatest evolutionists of our age.
His work on
Primitive Culture7 is a monument of genius and re
search. Employing the Darwinian method, he has
traced the origin and development of the belief in the
existence of soul or spirit, from the mistaken interpre
tation of the phenomena of dreams among savages,
who afford us the nearest analogue of primitive man,
up to the most elaborate cultus of Brahmanism.
Buddhism, or Christianity. And as Animism is the
basis of all religion, two conclusions arc forced upon
us ; first, that the supernatural in being traced back to
its primal germ of error, is not only explained but
exploded ; and, second, that religion is a direct legacy
from our savage progenitors.
Religious progress
consists in mitigating the intellectual and moral erudi- «•
7 Primitive Culture. By Edward B. Tylor LL.D. 2 vols.
�42
DARWIN ON GOD.
ties of primitive Animism ; and religion itself, there
fore, is like a soap-bubble, ever becoming more and
more attenuated, until at length it disappears.
Darwin had written the Descent of Man before
reading the great work of Dr. Tylor, and his letter to
the author of the real Natural History of Religion is
worth extracting. It is dated September 24, 1871.
“ I hope you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you
how greatly I have been interested by your Primitive Culture
now that I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound
work, which will be certain to have permanent value, and to
be referred to for years to come. It is wonderful how you
trace Animism from the lower races up to the religious belief
of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at
religion—a belief in the soul, etc—from anew point of view.’’8
“A new point of view” is a pregnant phrase in
regard to a subject of such importance. What can it
mean, except that Darwin saw at last that religion
began with the belief m soul, and that the belief in
soul originated in the blunder of primitive men as to
the “ duality ” of their nature ?
Darwin has a very interesting footnote on this
subject in his Descent of Man. After referring to
Tylor and Lubbock, he continues—
“ Mr. Herbert Spencer accounts for the earliest forms of
religious belief throughout the world by man being led through
dreams, shadows, and other causes, to look at himself as a
double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As the spiritual being
is supposed to exist after death, and to be powerful, it is
propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its aid invoked.
He then further shows that names or nicknames given from
some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders
Life and Letters, vol. III., p.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
43
of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the
real progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is
then naturally believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred,
and worshipped as a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect
that there is a still earlier and ruder stage, when anything
which manifests power or movement is thought to be endowed
with some form cf life, and with mental faculties analogous
to our own.” 9
This is tracing religion to the primitive source
assigned to it by David Hume—“ the universal tendency
among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves,
and to transfer to every object those qualities with
which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which
they are intimately conscious.”* In other words,
1
Darwin begins a stage lower than Animism, in the con
fusion of subjective and objective such as we see in a
very young child ; although, of course, the worship of
gods could not have obtained in that stage, since man
is incapable of ascribing to nature any qualities but
those he is conscious of possessing, and it is therefore
impossible for him to people the external world with
spirits until he has formed the notion of a spirit within
himself.
Darwin was not attracted by that experiential
Animism which has such a fascination for Dr. Wallace.
In 1870 he attended a seance at the house of his brother
Erasmus in Chelsea, under the auspices of a well-known
medium. His account of the performance is not very
flattering to Spiritualism.
“ We had great fun one afternoon; for George hired a medium
who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery
Descent of Man, p. 94.
1 Hume, “ Natural History of Religion,” section III.
�44
DARWIN ON GOD.
points jump about in my brother’s dining-room, in a manner
that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths.
It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held
the medium’s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I
found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these
astounding miracles, or jugglery took place. How the man
could possibly do what was done passes my understanding.” 2
The more Darwin thought over what he saw the
more convinced he was that it was “all imposture.”
“ The Lord have mercy on us all,” he exclaimed, “ if
we have to believe in such rubbish.”
Darwin has not left us any emphatic utterance as to
his own belief about soul. “ What Darwin thought.”
says Mr. Grant Allen, “ I only suspect; but if we make
the plain and obvious inference from all the facts and
tendencies of his theories we shall be constrained to
admit that modern biology lends little sanction to the
popular notion of a life after death.” 3
Writing briefly to an importunate German student,
in 1879, he said “ As for a future life, every man must
judge for himself between conflicting vague probabili
ties.”4 This reminds one of Hamlet’s “ shadow of a
shade.” First, you have no certainty, nor even a
probability, but several probabilities ; these are vague
to begin with, and alas! they conflict with each other.
Surely such language could only come from a practical
unbeliever.
Like other men who were nursed in the delusion of
personal immortality, Darwin had his occasional fits
Vol. Ill,, p. 187.
3 The GoKpd A wording to Darwin. By Grant Allen, “ Pall Mall
Gazette,” January, 1888.
4 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
45
of dissatisfaction with the inevitable—witness the
following passage from his Autobiography.
“ With respect to immortality, nothing shows me so clearly
how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consid
eration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, thatthe sun with all the planets will in time grow too coldfoi life?
unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus
gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant
future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is
an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings
are doomed to complete annihilation after such long continued
slow progress. To those who fully admit the immoitality of
the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear
so dreadful.”5
Had Darwin been challenged on this passage, I
think he would have admitted its ineptitude, for he
was modest enough for anything. The thought that
every man must die is no more intolerable than the
thought that any man must die, nor is the thought
that there will be a universe 'without the human race
any more intolerable than the thought that there teas
a universe without the human race. On the other
hand, Darwin did not allow for the fact that immor
tality is not synonymous with everlasting felicity.
According to most theologies, indeed, the lot of the
majority in the next life is not one of happiness, but
one of misery; and, on any rational estimate, the
annihilation of all is better than the bliss of the few
and the torture of the many. Nor is it true that
everyone would cheerfully accept the gift of immor
tality, even without the prospect of future suffering.
Every Buddhist—that is, four hundred millions of the
5Vol. I,, p. 312.
�46
PAE WIN ON GOD.
human race—looks forward to “ Nirvana,” the extinc
tion of the individual life, which is thus released
from the evil of existence. Even a Western philo
sopher, like John Stuart Mill, understood this yearning
as appears from the following passage :
“ It appears to me not only possible but probable, that in
a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life,
not annihilation but immortality may be the burdensome idea ;
and that human nature, though pleased with the present, and
by no means impatient to quit it, would find comfort and not
sadness in the thought that it is not chained to a conscious
existence which it cannot be insured that it will always
wish to preserve.”8
Mr. Winwood Reade, on the other hand, indulged in
the rapturous prophecy that man will some day grow
perfect, migrate into space, master nature, and invent
immortality.7 It is all a matter of taste and tempera
ment. Both wailings and rejoicings are outside the
scope of philosophy, and belong to the province of light
literature,
A PERSONAL GOD.
We have already seen that Darwin remained a Deist
after rejecting Christianity. Not only in the letter on
Dr. Pusey’s sermon, but in his Autobiography, Darwin
discloses the fact that his belief in a personal God
melted away after the publication of his masterpiece.
Speaking of “ a First Cause having an intelligent mind
in some degree analogous to that of man,” he says,
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the
* Three Euxayx on Reliyion By J. S. Mill, p. 122.
i Martrydom of Man. By Win wood Reade, pp, 51.4, 515.
�DAB WIN ON GOD.
47
time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin
of Species; and it is since that time that it has very
gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker/’'’
By the time he published the Descent of Man, in 1871,
the change was conspicuous. He was then able to treat
religion as a naturalist; that is, as one who stands out
side it and regards it with a feeling of scientific
curiosity. Not only did he trace religion back to the
lowest fetishism, he also analysed the sentiment of
worship in a manner which must have been highly
displeasing to the orthodox.
“ The feeling- of religious devotion is a highly complex one,
consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and
mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear,
reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other
elements. No being coukl experience so complex an emotion
until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least
a moderately high level. Nevertheless, we see some distant
approach to this state of mind in the deep love of a dog for his
master, associated with complete submission, some fear, and
perhaps other feelings. The behavior of a dog when returning
to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a monkey
to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards
their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear
to be somewhat less and the sense of equality is shewn in
every action. Professor Braub ich goes so far as to maintain
that a dog looks on his master as a god.”9
This is not very flattering, for the dog’s attach
ment to his master is quite independent of morality;
whether the dog belongs to Bill Sikes or John
Howard, he displays the same devotion.
Darwin quoted with approval the statement of Sir
John Lubbock that “it is not too much to say that
3 Vol. I., p. 313.
Descent of Man, pp. 95, 96.
�48
DARWIN ON GOD.
the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick
cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.”1
He also referred to witchcraft, bloody sacrifices, and
the ordeals of poison and fire, cautiously observing
that “ it is well occasionally to reflect on these super
stitions, for they show us what an infinite debt of
gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason
to science, and to our accumulated knowledge ”2—in
short, to the slow and painful civilisation of religion.
That the universal belief in God proves his exist
ence Darwin was unable to admit. “ There is ample
evidence, he says, ££ derived not from hasty travellers
but from men who have long resided with savages,
that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who
have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no
words in their language to express such an idea.”*
On the other hand, as he remarks in the same work—
“ I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has
been used by many persons as an argument for his existence.
But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled
to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits,
only a little more powerful than man ; for the belief in them
is far more general than in a beneficent Deity.’’4
Attention should here be called to a silent correction
in the second edition of the Descent of Man. Defer
ring to the question “ whether there exists a Creator
and Euler of the universe,” he said, ££ this has been
answered in the affirmative by'the highest intellects
that have ever existed.” This was altered into “some
1 Prehistoric Times. By Sir John Lubbock, p. 571.
2 Descent of Man, p. 96.
3 Ibid, p. 93.
4 Ibid, p. 612.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
49
o/the highest intellects.’'’ Darwin had discovered the
inaccuracy of his first statement, and learnt that some
of the highest intellects have been Atheists.
Two important passages must be extracted from hie
Autobiography. After remarking that the grandest
scenes had no longer the power to make him feel that
God exists, he answers the objection that he is “like a
man who has become color-blind/’ which is a favorite
one with conceited religionists.
“ This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races
had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God;
but we know that this is very far from being the case. There
fore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are
of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of
mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which
was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essenti
ally differ from that which is often called the sense of sub
limity ; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis
of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the
existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague
and similar feelings excited by music.’5
Further on in the same piece of writing he deals
with a second and very common argument of Theism.
“ Another source of conviction in the existence of God, con
nected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses
me as having much more weight. This follows from the
extreme difficulty, or rather utter impossibility of conceiving
this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his
capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the
result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I
feel compelled to look to a First Cause having, an intelligent
mind in some degree analogous to that of man. Tlii s conclusion
was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since
3 Vol I., p. 312.
�50
DARWIN ON GOD.
that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations,
become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of
man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind
as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted
when it draws such grand conclusions ? ” 6
This handling of the matter may be somewhat con
soling to Theists. One can hear them saying, “ Ah,
Darwin was not utterly lost.” But let them see how
he handles the matter in a letter to a Dutch student
(April 2, 1873).
“ I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this
grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose
through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the
existence of God ; but whether this is an argument of real
value I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we
admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it
came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from
the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am
also induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the
many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again
I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion
seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of
man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.’ ‘
“ Man can do his duty ”—a characteristic touch ! The
man who said this did his duty. His scientific achievments were precious, but they were matched by his
lofty and benevolent character.
DESIGN.
Darwinism has killed the Design argument, by
explaining adaptation as a result without assuming
design as a cause.
The argument, indeed, like all
Vol. I., pp. 312, 313.
- Vol. I., pp. 306, 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
51
“ proofs” of God’s existence, was based upon
ignorance. It was acutely remarked by Spinoza, in
his great majestic manner, that man knows that he
wills, but knows not the causes which determine his
will. Out of this ignorance the theologians manufac
tured their chaotic doctrine of free-will. Similarly,
out of our ignorance of the caus s of the obvious
adaptations in nature, they manufactured their plausible
Design argument. The “ fitness of things ” was indis
putable, and as it could not be explained scientifically,
the theologians trotted out their usual dogma of “ God
did it.”
Professor Huxley tells us that physical science has
created no fresh difficulties in theology. “Not a
solitary problem,” he says, “ presents itself to the
philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not
existed from the time that philosophers began to think
out the logical grounds and theological consequenceof Theism.”8 While in one respect true, the states
ment is liable to mislead. Adaptation presents no new
problem—that is undeniable ; but the scientific expla
nation of it Cuts away the ground of. all teleology.
“ The teleology,” says Huxley, “ which supposes that
the'eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher
vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it
exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which
possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its deathbloAv.” Yet he bids us remember that “ there is a
wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of
Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental
8Zf/e and Letter?, vol. II., p. 202.
�52
DARWIN ON GOD.
proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the
whole world, living and not living, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the
powers possessed by the molecules of which the primi
tive nebulosity of the universe was composed.”0
Theologians in search of a life-buoy in the scientific
storm have grasped at this chimerical support, although
the wiser heads amongst them may doubt whether Pro
fessor Huxley is serious in tendering it. Surely if
eyes were not made to see with the Design argument
is dead. What is the use of saying that the materialist
is still “ at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always
defy him to disprove that the primordial molecular
arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena
of the universe?” The, very word “arrangement”
gives the teleologist all he requires, and the implied
assumption that we are “ at the mercy” of anyone who
makes an assertion which is incapable of proof, simply
because he “ defies ” us to disprove it, is a curious
ineptitude on the part of such a vigorous thinker.
When, in 1879, Darwin was consulted by a German
student, a member of his family replied for him as
follows :—“ He considers that tlie theory of Evolution
is quite compatible with belief in God; but that you
must remember that different persons have different
definitions of what they mean by God.”1 Precisely so.
You may believe in God if you define him so as not to
contradict facts ; in other words, you have a right to a
Deity if you choose to construct one. This is perfectly
harmless, but what connexion has it with the
»Vol. II., p. 201.
1 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DAPAVIN ON GOD.
53
“ philosophy ” of Theism ? There is no definition of
God which does not contradict facts. Why, indeed, is
theology full of mystery? Simply because it is full of
impasses, where dogma and experience are in hopeless
collision, and where we are exhorted to abnegate our
reason and accept the guidance of faith.
Darwin’s attitude towards the Design argument is
definite enough for such a cautious thinker. In one of
his less popular, but highly important works, the first
edition of which appeared in 1868, he went out of his
way to deal with it. After using the simile of an
architect, who should rear a noble and commodious
edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting stones
of various shape from the fragments at the base of a
precipice; he goes on to say that these “ fragments of
stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to
the edifice built by him the same relation which the
fluctuating varieties of organic beings bear to the varied
and admirable structures ultimately acquired by their
modified descendants.” The shape of the stones is not
accidental, for it depends on geological causes, though
it may be said to be accidental with regard to the use
they are put to.
“ Here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to
which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper
province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every
consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him.
But can itbe reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally
ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain
fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the
builder might erect his edifice ? If the various laws which
have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter
mined for the builder’s sake, can it be maintained with any
�54
DARWIN ON GOD.
greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of
the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic
animals and plants ;—many of these variations being of no
service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to
the creatures themselves ? Did He ordain that the crop and
tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier
might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds ? Did
He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in
order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity,
with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man’s brutal sport?
But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not
admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally
guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect
image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow
of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike
in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have
been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation
of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man in
cluded, were intentionally and specially guided. However
much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa
Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines,” like a stream “ along definite and useful lines
of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation
was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that
plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious
deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of
reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence,
and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the
fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the
other hand, an omnipotent end omniscient Creator ordains
everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought
face te face with a difficulty as insoluble as that of free will
and predestination.2
Darwin protested that this had met with no reply.
What reply, indeed, is possible ? Design covers every2 Farfniwn of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
Charles Darwin. Vol. II., pp. 427, 428.
By
�DARWIN ON GOD.
55
thing or nothing. If the bulldog was not designed,
what reason is there for supposing that man was designed ? If there is no design in an idiot, how can
there be design in a philosopher 1
The Life and Letters contains many passages less
elaborate but more pointed. Here is one.
“ The old argument from Design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now
that'fhe law of natnral selection has been discovered. We can
no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a
bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being like
the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design
in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”3
The fit survive, the unfit perish; and the theologian is
eloquent on the successes, and silent on the failures.
He marks the hits and forgets the misses. Were
nature liable to human penalties she would have been
dished long ago; but she works with infinite time
and infinite resources, and therefore cannot become
bankrupt.
Here is a passage from a letter to Miss Julia
Wedgwood (July 11, 1861) on the occasion of her
article in Macmillan.
“ The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is
without having been designed; yet, where one would most
expect design, namely, in the structure of a sentient being, the
more I think the less I can see proof of design.”4
This reminds one of a pregnant utterance of another
master-mind. Cardinal Newman says he should be an
Atheist if it were not for the voice speaking in his
conscience, and exclaims—“ If I looked into a mirror,
3 Vol. I., p. 309.
4 Vol. I., pp. 313, 314.
�56
DARAVIN ON GOD.
and did not see my face, I should have the sort of
feeling which comes upon me when I look into this
living busy world, and see no reflexion of its
Creator.”5
Here is another passage from a letter (July, 1860)
to Dr. Asa Gray.
“ One word more on ‘ designed laws ’ and 1 undesigned
results.’ I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and
kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands
under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you
believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly
killed this man ? Many or most persons do believe this; I
can’t and don’t. If yon believe so, do you believe when a
swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particu
lar swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that
particular instant ? I believe that the man and the gnat are
in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor
gnat is designed, I see no reason to believe that their first
birth or production should be necessarily designed.”0
Twenty years later, writing to Mr. W. Graham, the
author of the Creed of Science, Darwin says, “ There
are some points in your book which I cannot digest
The chief one is that the existence of so-called
natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.” 7
During the last year of his life a very interesting
conversation took place between Darwin and the Duke
of Argyll. Here is the special part in the Duke’s own
words.
“ In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin,
with reference to some of his own remarkable words on ‘ Fer
tilisation of Orchids ’ and upon ‘ The Earthworms,’ and
5 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 241.
6 Vol. I., pp. 314, 315.
7 Vol. I., p. 315.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
57
various other observations he made of the wonderful con
trivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impos
sible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect
and the expression of mind. He looked at me very hard and
said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming
force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely,
adding, ‘ it seems to go away.’ ’'8
This is a remarkable story, and the point of it is in
the words “ it seems to go away.’; There is nothing
extraordinary in the fact that Darwin, who was a
Christian till thirty and a Theisttill fifty, should some
times feel a billow of superstition sweep over his mind.
The memorable thing is that at other times his free
intellect could not harbour the idea of a God of Nature.
The indications of mind in the constitution of the
universe were not obvious to the one man living who
had studied it most profoundly. Belief in the super
natural could not harmonis 2 in Darwin’s mind with the
facts and conclusions of science. The truth of Evolu
tion entered it and gradually took possession. Theo
logy was obliged to leave, and although it returned
occasionally, and roamed through its old dwelling, it
only came as a visitor, and was never more a resident.
DIVINE BENEFICENCE.
The problem of how the goodness of God can be
reconciled with the existence of evil is at least as old
as the Book of Job, and the essence of the problem
remains unchanged. Many different solutions have
been offered, but the very best is nothing but a
8 Vol. I., p. 816.
�58 '
DARWIN ON GOD.
plausible compromise. Even the Christian theory of
a personal Devil, practically almost as potent as the
Deity, ancl infinitely more active, is a miserable make
shift ; for, on inquiry, it turns out that the Devil is a
part of God’s handiwork, exercising only a delegated
or permitted power. The usual resort of the theo
logian when driven to bay is to invoke the aid of
“ mystery,’7 but this is useless as against the logician,
since “ mystery ” is only a contradiction between the
facts and the hypothesis, and the theologian can hardly
expect to be saved by what is virtually a plea of
“ Guilty.7’
Like every educated and thoughtful man, Darwin
was brought face to face with this problem, and he was
too honest to twist the facts, and too much a lover of
truth and clarity to submerge them in the mysterious.
He preferred to speak plainly as far as his intellect
carried him, and when it stopped to frankly confess his
ignorance.
Writing to Dr. Asa Gray (May 22, 1850), Darwin
puts a strong objection to Theism very pointedly.
“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I
should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all
sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent
God would have designedly created the ichneumonidse with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies
of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not be
lieving this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was
expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be
contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the
nature of mar, and to conclude that everything is the result of
brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting
from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left
�DABWIN ON GOD.
59
to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that
this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the
whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.”9
The latter part of this extract about “ designed
laws ” is modified by a subsequent letter, already
quoted, to the same correspondent. The first part is
the one to be dwelt upon in the present connexion.
Dealing with the same subject sixteen years later in
his Autobiography, Darwin gives his opinion that
happiness, on the whole, predominates over misery,
although he admits that this ‘f would be very difficult
to prove.” He then faces the Theistic aspect of the
question.
“ That there is much suffering' in the world no one disputes.
Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by
imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the
number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that
of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly
without any moral improvement. • This very old argument
from the existence of suffering against the existence of an
intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one.”1
Darwin is perfectly conscious that he is advancing
no new argument against Theism. An age of micro
scopical science was, indeed, necessary before the
internal parasites of caterpillars could be instanced;
not to mention the thirty species of parasites that
prey on the human organism. But such larger para
sites as fleas and lice have always been obvious, and
the theologians have been constantly asked why
Almighty Goodness prompted Almighty Wisdom to
provide humanity with such a sumptuous stock of
these nuisances. It may also be observed that while
9 Vol. II., p. 312.
1 Vol. I., p. 311.
�60
DARWIX OX GOD.
cholera, fever, and other germs, are modern discoveries,
such things as tumors, cancers, and leprosy, have
always attracted attention, and they are more telling
instances of malignant “ design ” than the ichneumonidae in caterpillars, as they immediately affect the
gentlemen who carry on the discussion.
Darwinism does, however, present the problem of
evil in a new light. It shows us that evil is not on the
surface of things, but is part of their very texture.
Those who complacently dwell on the survival of the
fittest, and the forward march to perfection, con
veniently forget that the survival of the fittest is the
result. Natural Selection is the process. And if we
look at this more closely we discover that natural selec
tion and the survival of the fittest are the same thing;
the real process being the elimination of the unfit.
Those who survive would have lived in any case ; what
has happened is that all the rest have been crushed out
of existence. Suppose, for instance (to take a case of
artificial selection), a farmer castrates nineteen bulls
and breeds from the twentieth; it makes a great
difference to the result, but clearly the whole of the
process is the elimination of the nineteen. Similarly,
in natural selection, all organic variations are alike
spawned forth by Nature ; the fit are produced and
perpetuated, while the unfit are produced and exter
minated. And hoic exterminated? Not by the swift
hand of a skilful executioner, but by countless varieties
of torture, some of which display an infernal ingenuity
that might abash the deftest Inquisitor. Every disease
known to us is simply one of Nature’s devices for
eliminating hei’ unsuitable offspring, and a cat’s playing
�DARWIN ON GOD.
61
with a mouse is nothing to the prolonged sport of
Nature in killing the victims of her own infinite lust
of procreation. Place a Deity behind this process,
and you create a greater and viler Devil than any
theology of the past was capable of inventing. Accept
it as the work of blind forces, and you may become a
Pessimist if you are disgusted with tlic entire business ;
or an Optimist if you are healthy, prosperous and
callous ; or a Meliorist if you think evolution tends to
progress, and that your own efforts may brighten the
lot of your fellows.
Darwin put the case too mildly in his first great work.
“ When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves
with the full belief, that no fear is felt, that death is generally
prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy
survive and multiply. ’2
Professor Huxley, in liis vigorous and uncompro
mising fashion, has put the case with greater foice and
accuracy
“From the point of view of the moralist the animal world is
;on about the same level as a gladiator’s show, the creatures
are fairly well treated, and set to figlit—whereby the strongest,
the swiftest and cunningest live to fight another day. The
spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as no quarte1'
is given. He must admit that the skill and training displayed
are wonderful. But he must shut his eyes if he would not see
that more or less enduring suffering is the meed of both vanguished and victor.’’3
Dr. Wallace, on the other hand, argues that the
“ torments ” and “ miseries ” of the lower animals are
imaginary, and that “ the amount of actual suffering
- Origin of Species, p, Gl.
3 The Struggle for Existence, “ Nineteenth Century,” February,
1888, p-163.
�62
DARWIN ON GOD.
caused by the struggle for existence among animals is
altogether insignificant?' They live merrily, have no
apprehensions, and die violent deaths which are “ pain
less and easy?’ Really the picture is idyllic I But
Dr. Wallace’s optimism is far from exhausted. Ide
tells us that “ their actual flight from an enemy ” is an
“ enjoyable exercise ” of their powers. This reminds
one of the old fox-hunter who, on being taxed with
enjoying a cruel sport, replied: “ Why the men like
it, the horses [like it, the dogs like it, and, demmc,
the fox likes it too.”
RELIGION AND MORALITY.
Darwin was, of course, a naturalist in ethics, holding
1 hat morality is founded on sympathy and the social
instincts.
There is no more solid and satisfactory
account of the genesis and development of conscience
than is to be found in the chapter on “ The Moral
Sense ” in the Descent of Man. I do not think-, how
ever, that he had given much attention to the relations
between morality and religion, but what he says is of
course entitled to respect.
“ With the more civilised races,” he declares, “ the
conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has
had a potent influence on the advance of morality?’4
He speaks of “ the ennobling belief in the existence
of an Omnipotent God,”5 and again of “the grand
idea of a God hating sin and loving righteousness.”c
These are casual opinions, never in any case elaborated,
so that we cannot tell on what grounds Darwin held
1 Descent of Man, p. 612.
5 Ibid, p. 93.
« Ibid, p. 144.
�63
DARWIN ON GOD.
them. One would have liked to hear his opinion as to
how many people were habitually swat ed bt this
“ grand idea” of God.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. '
My views are not at all necessarily atheistical,
wrote Darwin in 1860 to Dr. Asa Gray.7 In the same
strain he wrote to Mr. Fordyce in 1879 :
“ What my own views may he is a question of no conse
quence to anyone but myself. But, as you ask, I may state
that my judgment often fluctuates. ... In my most extreme
fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of
denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and
more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an
Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of
mind.” s
Similarly, he closes a lengthy passage of his Auto
biography—“The mystery of the beginning of all
things is insoluble by us ; and I for one must be con
tent to remain an Agnostic.”9
Let us here recur to the conversation between
Darwin and Dr. Biichner, reported by Dr. Aveling.
Darwin “ held the opinion that the Atheist was a denier
of God,” and this is borne out by the extract just
given from his letter to Mr. Fordyce. His two guests
explained to him that the Greek prefix a was privative
not negative, and that an Atheist was simply a person
without God. Darwin agreed with them on every
point, and said finally, “ I am with you in thought, but
I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word
Atheist.” They suggested that Agnostic was Atheist
“ writ respectable,” and Atheist was Agnostic “ writ
7 Vol. II., p. 312.
8 Vol. I., p. 305.
s Vol. I., p. 313.
�64
DARWIN ON GOD.
aggressive?’ At which he smiled, and asked, “ Whyshould you be so aggressive ? Is anything gained by
trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of man
kind t It is all very well for educated, cultured,
thoughtful people ; but are the masses yet ripe for it ?”1
Mr. Francis Darwin does not dispute this report.
“ My father’s replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems to regard the
absence of aggressiveness in my father’s views as distinguish
ing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my
judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which dis
tinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which
Dr. Aveling belongs.” 2
This is amusing but not convincing ; indeed, it gives
up the whole point at issue. Mr. Francis Darwin
simply confirms all that Dr. Aveling said. The great
naturalist was not aggressive, so he preferred A gnostic
to Atheist; but as both mean exactly the same, essen
tially, the difference is not one of principle, but one of
policy and temperament.
Darwin prided himself
on having “ done some service in aiding to overthrow
the dogma of separate creations”® Had he gone more
into the world, and seen the evil effects of other dogmas,
he might have sympathised more with the aggressive
attitude of those who challenge Theology in toto as
the historic enemy of liberty and progress. This at
least is certain, that Charles Darwin, the supreme
biologist of his age, and the greatest scientific intellect
since Newton, was an Atheist in the only proper sense
of the word ; the sense supported by etymology, the
sense accepted by those who bear the name.
1 Dr. Aveling’s pamphlet, p. 5.
2 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 817.
3 Descend of Man, p, 61.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Darwin on God
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: 64 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N236
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Evolution
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 (Darwin on God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Darwin
Evolution-Religious Aspects-Christianity
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6b82a5a95f41e6164c2b46d4ba5e489b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vSkAFV5CMD1VsnpCNTXU5D7TSZp9OwfHK8-Yda2%7EJz-cQUNyjYQf5ejYqNeyn0fx1eYeBRTbuFXvQ7NcZqzODBoH%7ExtMTCzx8n2tQtmL6yPD3ZQD76zjReenRKjbT4fx8O4F2VW%7EB%7E0GL7DX8IDMULnAwMg9L-jsrHy80f4xYgu8ZyE1HYU6M5Jtac%7ENesRnQs9uHNEPuPgxzla2UV5wKm6mDa-KXeSJDixKUG8TiEN854A50FmBEL1vCFyNxGkMeDL5aZgqVs5cPL4PYDerQSuegcnD9YBVafc8arIzcka8E2%7ExeYqwqqhU%7E6eyCO12Qzs9t4jhx3%7EUNJF3Hbk0Ug__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
22866463666557d5f2834881f87ddcfb
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES.
ON
THE BOOK OF GOD
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE ONE HALFPENNY.
Itonlraij:
B. FOR DEB, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1893,
�THE BOOK OF GOD
AN OPEN LETTER
TO THE
MINISTERS OF ALL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
Gentlemen,—
I am going to address you on a very important subject,
and I shall do it in very plain language. It is my desire to be
understood, both by yourselves and by others who' may read
what I write. At the same time I have no intention to be
rude or personal. The truth of what I utter may hurt your
feelings, but in that case you have only yourselves to blam
You are, all of you, as Christian ministers, the expound
of a book called the Bible, which you all allege to be
Word of God. Many of you, being Catholic priests, do i
treat this book with exactly the same veneration as others 1
are Protestants; you put the Church first, and the Script!
second, and make the truth and authenticity of the one!
upon the living authority of the other. Yet, it is evident^
all of you, Protestants and Catholics alike, would be lost /with
out the Bible. Say what you will about tradition, and inspira
tion, and infallibility, it is after all the BOOK on whicB you
depend. Were the Bible lost for ever, and all recollection^ of
its contents obliterated from men’s minds, the Christiaiyfrldgfon
would certainly disappear. The “ fathers ” and jWivines ”
would be some assistance for a while ; but unless you had the
BOOK to quote from, to select texts’ for your sermons, and to
put into the hands of children, nothing could save your faith
from speedy, absolute, and irrecoverable destruction.
Now it is upon this Book—the Book of God, as you call it—
that I wish to address you; and my right to address you is
involved in my being an English citizen. In this country the
Bible is only allowed to be printed by certain printers; it is
“appointed ” by the Queen, that is, by the Government, to b
“ read in all the churches ” of the Established Religion; it .
put into the hands of the children in our public schools,
supported out of the rates and taxes, and they are forced to
read it as a sacred volume; and, further, it is protected by law
against such criticism as may be applied to other books, so that
men are liable to long terms of imprisonment like common
Ai
I
|
’*
■
■
■
■
B
■
�The Booh of God.
3
thieves for bringing it “ into disbelief and contempt.” This
being the case, and your BOOK being set up by law as some
thing holy, I have a right to ask you some questions about it.
Every book that is published, in a certain sense challenges
criticism; but a book like yours, which claims, and enjoys,
such an exalted position, should have its reputation established
beyond any reasonable doubt. Every man, I think, must
agree that a book, which we may be imprisoned for bringing
into “ disbelief and contempt,” ought to be God’s Word,
whether it is or not. For my part, however, I do not believe
it is ; and, before I have done, you will know why.
The Book of God which you use in this country is printed in
English; in other countries it is printed in French, German,
Italian, Spanish, and so forth. It is not alleged, however, that
God wrote himself, or inspired men to write, in these
languages. The Bibles in use in the various Christian
countries are translations. Now I know something of
translating, and I know it is simply impossible to translate
from one language into another with perfect accuracy, and
sometimes difficult to translate with any approach to accuracy.
I am sure, therefore, even without an examination, that the
English Bible cannot be the real Book of God. Besides,
there is more than one translation into English. The
Authorised Version, done in the reign of James I, in 1611,
was very largely a collation of previous translations. The
Revised Version has been done by an “ appointed ” Committee
of Christian scholars in the present generation; and it was
done, I suppose, because the old version was unfaithful. This
new version is found fault with in turn, and many disputes
have arisen over special passages. In the face of these facts,
I say that you have no right to pass off your Bible as the Book
of God. You may declare it is pretty nearly the same, or as
nearly as you can make it; but the very same it is not, and in
learned books, not meant for the people’s eyes, you admit is
deficiency.
Have you then, I ask, the hardihood to stand up and tell me
that this is all I am entitled to expect from my “ Maker ” ? If
a father has any communication to make to his children, should
he not make it in their own language ? Do you believe that
God is not as able to speak in English as in Greek or Hebrew ?
Ought not his “ Revelation ” to be expressed clearly, definitely,
unmistakably ? Ought it not, therefore, to be expressed, not
through questionable translations, but at first-hand, in all the
several tongues on this planet ? It would cost God no effort
to do this, for he is omnipotent; and no trouble, for he is
omniscient. Can you assign any legitimate reason for his not
addressing us all in the only way in which we should be sure
to understand him ?
�4
The Book of God.
I will now go back to your real Book of God, if such exist,
and ask you a few questions about that. Is not the Old
Testament written in Hebrew ? Is not Hebrew a language
very hard to understand P Was it not written right on, from
side to side of the parchment, without a break between the
words ? Was it not written without vowels? Would it not
be difficult for one man to be quite sure of the meaning of
another who wrote in this way? Would not the writer
himself, after a lapse of time, be occasionally puzzled to know
what he meant himself ? Is it not a fact that the meaning
of a vast number of passages in the Hebrew Bible is still
disputed ? Have not candid authorities, like Sir William
Drummond, confessed that they hardly knew of any two
Hebrew scholars who translated six consecutive verses in the
same way ? Is not all this now admitted by Christian
scholars, such as Canon Driver and Professor Bruce? Does
not the latter plainly declare that the Masoretic Hebrew
text—that is, the text now in use, with vowel points—is only
“ a translation by Hebrew scholars of the vowelless original ” ?
Does he not decisively assert that the “ errorless autograph ”
is a “ theological figment ” ?
Most of you, gentlemen, teach that Moses (for instance)
wrote the Pentateuch, and that he lived, roughly speaking,
1,500 years before Christ. But what is the age of your oldest
Hebrew manuscripts? The editors of the Revised Version
admit, in a footnote to their Preface, that “ the earliest MS. of
which the age is certainly known bears date a.d. 916.” Now
this is 2,400 years from the time of Moses; and let me ask
you, plainly, Is not this long enough for any amount of
accident and vicissitude ? And, unless you fall back on a
miracle, have you the slightest reason for supposing that
Moses himself would recognise the a.d. 916 document as his
own production ?
Besides the difficulty and obscurity of Hebrew, is it not the
case that the existing Manuscripts are full of different read
ings ? I gather from scholars on your own side, to say
nothing of sceptical investigators, that the number of different
readings amounts to many thousands, indeed to many myriads.
Will you kindly explain, then, how any man, even if he be a
perfect master of Hebrew, can be sure of having the exact
Word of God? You are also aware, or should be, that the
more ancient versions of the Old Testament—such as the
Greek Septuagint and the Roman FwZpate—diffe'r very con
siderably from the Masoretic text.
Thus we have Version differing from Version, and a vast
quantity of variations in the current Hebrew manuscripts;
that is, collection differs from collection, and, in the same
collection, document differs from document. It is evident,
�therefore, that the Hebrew Old Testament is no more the real
Word of God than the English Old Testament. I may be told,
of. course, that the variations are unimportant, and do not
affect the substance of the volume; but 1 deny this, and I add
that no variation can De unimportant when we are dealing
with a communication from God to mankind. You may think
it unimportant, but how do you know that God does ?
Supposing that God, for some reason which passes human
comprehension, chose that the first part of his revelation to dll
men should be given in a language only known to a small
section of them : even then, would it not be reasonable to
suppose that he would take care to preserve it in its integrity,
so that we might not be burdened with the difficulty of finding
out its words as well as its meaning ? You admit that the
manuscripts have suffered the common fate of ancient writings,
in the hands of custodians and copyists; and, to my mind,
this is an evidence of their human origin. I believe that, if
God wrote a message for us, personally or by proxy, he would
take the trouble to preserve it as he wrote it.
The New Testament manuscripts are older than those of the
Old Testament. None of them, however, go beyond the fourth
century; that is, the oldest copy we have of any book in the
New Testament, including the Gospels, was written at least
three hundred years after the death of Christ. Why is this ?
Why are there no earlier manuscripts ? Surely, if God inspired
the writers of them, he would not neglect their safety for
three centuries after theii- composition, and then begin to
take care of them. Had he preserved them until the days of
Constantine, the Church could have preserved them afterwards.
I dare say you will tell me that God did not work miracles to
preserve the autographs of the New Testament; but he
worked miracles to be recorded in them, and miracles to inspire
the writers of them, and I cannot see why he should not work
another miracle to preserve what they wrote.
So much for the documents themselves ; and now let me ask
you whether, in the Greek documents as we have them,
there are not hundreds of thousands of different readings ? If
this be so (and you cannot deny it), the Greek Testament
itself, in a multitude of cases, must contain what the Apostles
and Evangelists did not write, besides omitting, perhaps,
many things which they did write; so that, here again,
your very New Testament, even in the original Greek, is not,
and cannot be, the real, exact, authentic Word of God.
The Gospels are four in number, and there were many
others. The Church selected the four and stamped them as
canonical; it rejected the others, to' the number of dozens,
and branded them as apocryphal. To a Catholic, of course,
this is quite satisfactory, for he holds the Church to be
�6
The Book of God.
infallible; but the Protestant does not, and what is his
guarantee? You, gentlemen, who belong to Protestant
Churches, take the four Gospels on trust from the Catholic
Church, which you so often describe as idolatrous and fraudu
lent ; but I want you to give me a reason for accepting these
four Gospels, and no others, as the inspired Word of God.
What suits your convenience does not satisfy my intelligence.
I want a reason; something different from custom and
tradition, something founded on logic and evidence.
Let me now draw your attention to another aspect of your
Book of God. Over the heads of the various documents it
contains, you have their authors’ names printed. Thus you
announce that the first five books, the Pentateuch, were written
by Moses; that most of the Realms were written by David;
that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles were written by
Solomon; that the very curious story of a prophet and a whale
was written by Jonah; that a certain prophetical book,
referred to by Jesus Christ, was written by Daniel; that
fourteen epistles were written by Paul, one by James, two
by Peter, and three by John, who also wrote the Revelation;
and that the four Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John.
These announcements of yours, as to the authorship of the
books of the Bible, are most of them false. You were told so,
long ago, by sceptics like Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas
Paine; but now the fact is not only admitted, but proclaimed,
by scholars and professors within your own Churches. Let
me take, for instance, a volume like Lux Mundi, edited by
the Rev. Charles Gore, late Principal of Pusey House, Oxford.
This clergyman allows that the Pentateuch was not written
by Moses, who is only responsible for the Ten Commandments;
he also allows that David did not write the Psalms, nor
Solomon the Proverbs; and that Jonah and Daniel are
“dramatic compositions,” and not history; although, as a
matter of fact, Jesus Christ referred to both Jonah and Daniel
as records of actual occurrences. But the admissions of Mr.
Gore are outdone by those of Canon Driver, in his Introduction
to the Literature of the Old Testament. According to this
clergyman, the book of Genesis was written hundreds of years
after the time of Moses, by more than one hand; Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers are just as modern; while Deute
ronomy was written some time between Isaiah and Jeremiah.
The Hexateuch—that is, the Pentateuch and Joshua—was the
work of nameless Jewish scribes; and the whole of the
Priestly Code, or Law of Moses, belongs “ approximately to
the period of the Babylonian captivity.”
This view of the Pentateuch was advocated by Thomas
Paine, and unanimously opposed by the Churches. Dean
�The Boole of God.
7
Graves, Bishop Watson, Dr. Marsh, and a host of other
ministers, stood up for its Mosaic origin; and scores of men
and women were sent to gaol for selling books in which the
opposite was maintained. However, the case is now altered;
Canon Driver can only urge that the Jewish priests, who made
laws and ascribed them to Moses, should not be accused of the
crime of “ forgery,” as they were only conforming to “ the
literary usages ” of their age and nation; though, for my part,
I hold with Mr. Gladstone, that, if the Pentateuch was not
written by Moses, but by Jewish priests and scribes, eight
hundred years after his time, both the Jewish and the Christian
worlds have been made the victims of “ a heartless imposture.”
Let us take the rest of Canon Driver’s admissions as to the
Old Testament books. David did not write the Psalms, which
“ set before us the experience of many men, and of many ages
of the national life.” Proverbs was “ formed gradually,” and
not written by Solomon ; nor was Ecclesiastes, which belongs
to the second or third century before Christ; nor was the Song
of Solomon, which is a love poem, and not an allegory; so
that the headings of the chapters, in our English Bible, are an
absurd, if not a base, imposition on the British public. Job is
not history, but a drama, belonging to the period of the Cap
tivity, and the speeches of Elihu are interpolations. Daniel
was written hundreds of years after the time of its ostensible
author, probably about b.c. 168; so that its prophecies were
.Allfilled, because the events occurred first and the writer issued
his predictions afterwards. Jonah was written long after the
prophet’s age, probably in the fifth century; and it is “ not
strictly historical ”; that is, Jonah never converted Nineveh,
and never took a submarine excursion in the belly of a whale.
There is a great outcry in your Churches, gentlemen, against
the publication of such conclusions as those of Canon Driver,
but I do not observe that the clamorers try to answer him.
They want to silence him. But it is too late to do that; the
cat is favtly out of the bag. People with any eyesight, and
there aPe more of them than you think, now perceive that all
you have been teaching, for so maay hundreds of years, about
the Old Testament, is a falsehood. Its various books were not
written, for the most part, by the persons whose names you
’nave put at the top of them; in fact, you do not know who
wrote them ; and, if you have been all along mistaken as to
who wrote these books, and when they were written, I say it
is a thousand to one that you are also mistaken as to their
contents. It seems to me downright nonsense to say you do
not know who wrote a certain book, and at the same time to
say you are quite sure that all it contains is true.
/ The books of the New Testament, as to their authorship, are
just as uncertain as the books of the Old Testament. Of the
�The Boole of God.
fourteen Epistles by Paul, only four axe generally admitted as
authentic, and even those are disputed. The other Epistles, by
Peter and John, are also doubtful, if not spurious. Nor are the
Gospels in any better plight. Mr. Matthew Arnold thought it
time to tell the public that the Gospels did not exist, as we
now have them, before the last quarter of the second century;
that is, a good deal more than a hundred years after the death
of Christ. Dr. Giles, a clergyman of the Church of England,
declares that none of the New Testament books existed, as we
have the®, within a hundred and twenty years after the
Crucifixion. It is generally allowed by the most competent
critics that the earliest writings about Jesus Christ are lost;
that the four Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, were written lotig afterwards, in the second
century, by unknown persons; and that it was a very common
thing, in the early Christian Church, to compose books and
attach to them the names of the Apostles.
Now, gentlemen, I want to ask you a plain question, to
which I should like you to give me a plain answer. Your
Bible is stuffed with the most tremendous miracles; that is,
stories which* no man is called upon to believe, unless they
are accredited by the most tremendous evidence. Do you
really think, gentlemen, that the evidence you offer is good
enough ? Can you expect people, who think for themselves,
to believe a host of things contrary to sane experience, on the
word of men who lived somewhere—God knows where; and dF
some time—God knows when?*
The “ advanced ” ministers—that is, those amongst you,
gentlemen, who patronise the “ New Criticism —are patching
up a new theory of Inspiration. They see that it will no
longer do to maintain the old position, that the Bible contains
truth only, without any admixture of error; or, to use the
words of the late Mr. Spurgeon, that every sentence of it was
written bj an Almighty finger, and every word of it fell from
Almighty lips. Knowing that their Book of God dotn? contain
errors, in science and history, to say no more; they how teach
that the writers (whoever they were) were onlyXnBpired in
relation to religion and ethics; in short, thaj/the Bible.is
God’s Word because it reveals to us religious and moral trutrlB"
which we could not ourselves discover. Byr this is only a
temporising theory; it may do for the time* but it will pre
sently be seen through and abandoned ; in hfi’ief, your Book of
God will, sooner or later, have to stand on‘the Bhelf, side by
side with other Books of God; and then, gentlemen, you
will have to get your livingB in a more honest and useful
profession.----- Yours, with best wishes,
G. W. FOOTE.
Printed by G. W. Foote, 14 Clerkenwell-green, London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The book of God : an open letter to the ministers of all Christian churches
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: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Series title: Letters to the churches
Series number: 1
Notes: Title and first page badly torn. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1893
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N251
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
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 book of God : an open letter to the ministers of all Christian churches), 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
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7133143a51cf07bbdfabd90d8cc5a787.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=srr-DI8ocun%7EMXeTdNbMXwkup3N1Rz29CDdY2F7QbHuOMR8ZlXLFMbJ%7E8LZg4vioDLbm75axh%7EHSuZfIbtbAx92KzGSwASi-ol2vJoMp45GUTHMszPp%7EwsfTe0d810rgeLInICVx2-93jPMspsB4MN0%7EYmrhUIc94jNiaYLAeJhxIqUneXHMX90EvOqyxGYZDFDHnmEkRngjHvdEqCGv7HLDroTuwwGwUnAbHtDpTKo30Qzdbbvt43ffK0zmiNVOeUt06AkUYPP4kEAJlqDwdGlxe45Ogi7V6Oexs7FjKQKCMTgMmTSj7Ojcp5BdVCnw84CAbu3YpHAgGXdyQI6N1A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bae34b4ff3eca01cb1e1a308cd876baf
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIE^
THE GOD
THE
CHRISTIANS SWEAR BY.
A
BY
G-.
W.
BOOTIE
(Editor of The Freethinker).
“ I have a hundred times heard him [his father, James Mill] say,
that all ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a
constantly increasing progression, that mankind had gone on adding
trait after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called this
God, and prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of
wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is presented to man
kind as the creed of Christianity.” — John Stuart Mill, “Auto
biography,” p. 40.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
• /
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 8 82.
�Mr. Foote’s Pamphlets.
Secularism the True Philosophy of Life. Au Exposition
and a Defence
... 4d.
Atheism and Morality..................................................... 2d.
The Futility of Prayer.....................................................2d.
Death’s Test: or Christian Lies about Dying Infidels. 2d.
Atheism and Suicide. (A reply to Alfred Tennyson—Poet
Laureate)...
...
...
...
...
•••
Id.
BIBLE
ROMANCES,
1.—The Creation Story.................................................. Id.
II. —Noah’s Flood.............................................................. Id.
III. —Eve and the Apple ...
...
.............
... Id.
IV. —The Bible Devil
...
...
.......................... Id.
V.—The Ten Plagues ..............
...
...
... Id.
VI. —Jonah and the Whale
...................................... Id.
VII. —The Wandering Jews
.................
... Id.
VIII.—The Tower of Babel
.................
... Id.
IX.—Balaam’s Ass............................................................. Id.
X. —God’s Thieves in Canaan..................................... Id.
XI. —Cain and Abel
...
...
.......................... Id.
XII.—Lot’s Wife
............................................................. Id.
BIBLE ROMANCES—First Series—Containing the above Twelve
Numbers, bound in handsome wrapper, Is.
SECOND SERIES:
XIII. —Daniel and the Lions
......................... .
...
XIV. —The Jew Judges
.....................................
...
XV.—Saint John’s Nightmare
..............
..............
XVI.—A Virgin Mother
.................................................
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St.,E.C
�6 0-4 j S
N0-4-O
THE GOD THE CHRISTIANS SWEAR BY.
i.
John Stuart Mill, in one of the most incisive passages of
his Essay on Liberty, ridiculed the Christian notions of
oath-taking, and after stating that in our law courts you
must swear by God, he contemptuously added “ any God
will do.” In this country we must have a God, even if. as the
Americans say, it is only a little tin Jesus. Sir Henry Drum
mond Wolff on a memorable occasion emphasised this view.
When Mr. Bradlaugh first sought to take his seat in the
House of Commons that sapient member of the Fourth
Party urged against him that there was a grand difference
between the member for Northampton and the other legis
lators. They all had some deity or other, while Mr.
Bradlaugh had no sort of God. We have heard a Christian
minister carry this idea out to its logical end, and declare
that it is better to worship the wrong God than worship
none at all.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s offence is that he has no God. He is
therefore said to be unfit to sit in Parliament. Want of
brains or of honor might be easily overlooked, but want of
theology is unpardonable. It is the one sin which can
never be forgiven. You may sin against Man with
impunity, but you may not sin against the Ghost without
being treated as a criminal and an outlaw.
But, after all. Mr. Bradlaugh’s real offence is that he does
not believe in the Bible God. That is the deity the House
of Commons believes in. Christian and Jew are at one in
this. Aiderman Fowler and Baron de Worms coincide
here, and, as the man in Sheridan’s play says of two dif
ferent characters, “when they do agree their unanimity is
wonderful.” The God of the New Testament is simply a con
tinuation of the God of the Old. ’Tis the same God washed
and shaved, and with his best clothes on, a little more fit
for decent society. Why the Jew and the Christian have
fallen out so frightfully we cannot understand, except on the
principle that family quarrels are always the bitterest.
Mr. Bradlaugh does not believe in the Bible God, and
the pious majority of the House of Commons will not let
�4
him swear. Their God, Jesus Christ, said, “ Swear not at
all,” yet they claim a monopoly of swearing, and no doubt
many of them do a great deal more of it outside the House
than they ever do inside. Christ’s command is binding on
them, and they break it. It is not binding on Mr. Brad
laugh, and they make him obey it!
As Mr. Bradlaugh’s way to his seat is barred in God’s
name, we have the right to ask what kind of a being
he is. What is the character of this God the Christians
swear by ?
In answering this question we shall go to authentic
sources. Fortunately, we have this God’s character written
by himself, or at his dictation. The Bible contains it, and
to that we shall appeal. If we malign or misrepresent him,
the fault is his own.
When men describe themselves they never say the worst
that can be said. Something is concealed, something toned
down, something heightened. Defects are slurred over and
virtues brought into strong relief. No doubt gods act in
the same way. The. Bible God has described himself, and
if we find his character bad we may depend upon it
that if the whole truth were told it would be worse. Let
none of his worshippers, then, quarrel with the result of our
examination.
II.
God’s original name was Jehovah or Iahveh. He was one
of the deities of the early Jews. Natural selection applies
to gods as well as animals, and Jehovah beat all his com
petitors as the fittest to survive. Baal, Moloch, Ashtaroth,
and a crowd of other deities, perished in the struggle for
existence.
Jehovah never denied the reality of his opponents; on
the contrary, he fiercely resented their rivalry. He described
himself as a jealous god. A husband could not be jealous
of his wife unless there were other men to make love to
her, and no god could be jealous unless there were other
gods bidding for the adoration of his worshippers. Moses
styled Jehovah “the lord God of the Hebrews,” and
Pharoah in speaking to the prophet always refers to him as
“ your God.” And he himself distinctly says, in the
twelfth verse of the thirteenth chapter of Exodus, “ against
all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” This clearly
implies that they were gods as well as he, although of
�5
inferior power. He was only the strongest member of a
large family.
God the Son and God the Holy Ghost did not exist then.
Jehovah was too much absorbed in the task of self-preserva
tion to propagate himself. Only when his supremacy was
undisputed did he find leisure to branch out in two directions.
But his great adversary existed. The Devil was active
from the beginning of the world, and held his own against
Jehovah when Baal and all the other gods were demolished.
£^ay, he more than held his own; he outwitted and worsted
his rival; and from the Fall until now he has secured the
vast majority of the human beings whom the Lord made
expressly for himself. The Devil pursues a Machiavellian
policy. He allows God to create things and appropriates
them afterwards. God invests all the capital and the Devil
takes nearly all the profit.
This does not surprise us when we consider the Lord’s
ignorance. His knowledge and intelligence are about as
small as those of a savage. The only explanation of this
is that savages made him thousands of years ago.
While he worked hard at creating the world he quite
forgot that the Devil was prowling about. When it was
finished he retired to rest and the Devil turned everything
upside-down. Why did he go to sleep at all ? Or why did
he not depute an archangel to watch the world while its boss
was napping ?
When he made Adam as the flower of creation he pro
nounced everything good, but soon after he found it was not
good for man to be alone. Any idiot might have known
that. There was poor Adam, monarch of all he surveyed,
and king of the dreariest paradise that ever existed. What
are all the flowers in the world worth with no lovely flower
of womanhood to crown them ?
God then made Adam a wife. All the nothing out of
which everything was made being used up, some of the
manufactured article had to be employed. The Lord could
no more make something out of nothing, not even a curate;
so Eve was made out of one of Adam’s ribs. The first
woman was manufactured from a spare rib. Fortunately
the Lord did not bungle over this job; but suppose he had
forgotten some of his apparatus, and while he was gone for
it the dog had carried off that bone !
So far were Adam and Eve from being “ good,” that God
soon after cursed them up and down, and their descendants
�6
were so bad that he resolved to drown them as an old lady
does her stock of kittens. What a queer method! Why
did he not reform his children ? Why not hang a few
priests and put a few schoolmasters in their places ? The
Lord’s ways are not our ways, and he does as he likes with
his own.
Even then he bungled afresh and perpetrated blunder
within blunder. Instead of drowning all and starting with
a new stock, he saved eight of the bad old lot. These
replenished the world with wretched creatures like them
selves, and the people after the Flood were, if anything,
worse than those before it. Before Noah died there were
not ten righteous men found in one populous city to save it
from destruction, and no doubt other cities were very little
better.
After the Flood this God promised that he would never
again deluge the earth. But the people said “Walker!”
and began to build a big tower with its top in heaven, so
that if another Flood came they might mount the stairs and
step clean on to the golden floor. How high heaven is we
cannot say, but no tower could ever near it. When it
reached a certain height it would tumble about the
builders’ ears. But God did not know this any more
than they. He thought they might succeed. He knew
nothing of gravitation or the principles of architecture.
He . became alarmed, and instead of leaving them alone
until their tower toppled over, he afflicted them with a
diversity of speech. One man talked Sanskrit, another
Monoglian, another American Indian, another Dutch, and
another Double Dutch.
The story represents God as
ignorant of the simplest laws of nature, and stupid as a
hydrocephalic idiot.
III.
The Bible God is infinitely petty. He exhibits all the
weakness of a spoilt child or a savage chief. His temper is
usually very warm, and in his fits of anger he rages about
like a monstrous madman, killing wholesale by flood, famine,
earthquake, pestilence and war. Occasionally he relents.
But woe unto those who presume on his goodness, and
imagine that “ his tender mercies are over all his works ” 1
He suddenly rouses himself, and they and their fool’s para
dise vanish into limbo.
He is constantly changing his mind, and cannot be
�7
depended on for twenty-four hours together. He regrets,,
repents, wails, and carries on like a big baby whose hopes
are disappointed; and when things turn out contrary to his
expectations, he never blames his own want of foresight,
but damns his own creation for being what he made it.
Let us take an instance. He sent Moses to rescue the
Jews from bondage and lead them to the land of promise.
But after Moses brought them out of Egypt, the Lord found,
that they were all unfit to enter Palestine, and he led them
a devilish dance up and down the wilderness for forty years,,
until every soul had perished except Joshua and Caleb.
Even Moses was not allowed to cross the river Jordan; and
as, although a hundred and twenty years old, he was still
strong and hale, the Lord asked him up a mountain, and
there killed and buried him.
Another instance. While the Jews were in the desert,,
wandering about like a blind man in a fifty-acre field, the
Lord visited Mount Sinai ; and after staying there alone for
some time, he invited Moses to come up and spend a few
days with him. They had so much to talk about that the
interview lasted forty days and nights. During that time
the Jews grew impatient. They looked up and could see
nothing of Moses or the Lord except a murky cloud, and
they naturally concluded that both of them had ended in
smoke. Thereupon they desired Aaron to become their
leader and to make them a new God. Ever ready to
oblige, he accepted the leadership in place of Moses; and
for a God instead of Jehovah he made them a golden calf—
fit deity for such a multitude of fools.
When God observed the disgraceful antics of his “ holy
people,” his “ special people, above all people on the face of
the earth,” who had stripped stark naked and were dancing
like calves before the calf, he became greatly enraged.
“ Now Moses,” said he, “ just you get out of the way, for I
mean mischief. I’ll kill every one of the blackguards, and
start a fresh people.” But Moses, who had a calmer head,
smoothed down his ruffled feathers. “ Come now,” said he,
“ don’t act in a hurry ; think over it a bit; just remember
that you are bound by an oath to these scurvy Jews ; and
then think what the Egyptians will say and how they’ll
laugh at you.” Then the Lord cooled down, and said he
was sorry he forgot himself.
Sometimes his pettiness is more funny still. While
Moses was journeying from his father-in-law’s to Egypt to
�8
execute God’s commission, he stayed one night atva wayside
inn: and the Lord put up at the same hotel. At any rate
he “ met ” Moses there, and strangely enough tried to kill
him. Imagine an all-wise God seeking to kill a man for
obeying his commands, and imagine an all-powerful God
trying to do it without success ! Moses does not appear to
have committed any offence. The probability is that the
Lord had a fit of the blues that night, and, like human
beings in that state, he turned against his best friend.
On another occasion the Lord played Balaam a similar
trick. When the messengers of Barak came asking him to
come and curse the Jews, the prophet wisely asked the Lord
what he should do. The Lord said “ Don’t go,” and Balaam
stopped at home. The messengers came a second time: then
the Lord said “ Go,” and Balaam went. But he did not
reflect that a god who had changed his mind once might
change it twice; and that is exactly what the Lord did. He
posted an angel in Balaam’s path to slay him for doing as
God commanded ; and poor Balaam would inevitably have
perished had it not been for the providential interference of
his jackass.
God’s treatment of Pharaoh and the Egyptians was no
less singular. He sent Moses to bring the Jews out, and in
cited Pharaoh to keep them in. The king and the prophet
had ten tugs of war ; it was pull Moses, pull Pharaoh;
and each time the poor Egyptians suffered. At the end
God joined in and pulled Pharaoh clean over. If the game
had ended there we might enjoy the fun, for it is indifferent
to mankind whether kings or priests come to grief when they
quarrel. But it did not end there. The first-born of every
family in Egypt was slain by this divine butcher; and after
that he completed his “ plaguings ” by drowning Pharaoh
and all the Egyptian hosts in the Red Sea.
Nor was this God over clean. His necromancers, Moses
and Aaron, turned all the water of Egypt into blood, but
the magicians of Egypt beat them by turning all the rest
into blood. Then the Lord exerted his omnipotence to
defeat them. His two necromancers turned all the dust of
Egypt into lice. That settled it. “ This,” said they, “ is
the finger of God.” When they saw the lice they knew the
Lord was shaking himself.
Neither was God over truthful. He told an untruth to
Adam and Eve, which the Devil corrected. He falsified
many of his promises. The men and women he most favored
�9
were notorious deceivers. He hated open Esau and loved
lying Jacob. He more than winked at the guile of his ser
vants. He sanctioned the treachery of Jael, who invited a
hunted man into her tent and basely killed him while he
slept. He even kept lying spirits in heaven to go forth and
prophesy falsely so that people might be lured to ruin; and
there is a fine instance of this in the last chapter of the first
Book of Kings. No doubt the stock of liars is still kept
up, for any number of rogues, thieves and murderers have
.gone to glory since then.
IV.
Jehovah never had the faintest idea of justice until the
Jews had sufficiently progressed to give him lessons in that
virtue; and he heartily detested every sign of mental freeddom. He was so “jealous” that he visited the sins of the
fathers upon the children of those who neglected him for
three or four generations. According to the thirteenth
•chapter of Deuteronomy, he commanded his “ holy people”
to stone to death any person who broached new ideas on
the subject of religion, even though the heretic were bound
to them by the dearest ties of friendship or blood. The
twenty-eighth chapter of the same Book contains a list of
the curses he would inflict on them if they “ went after
■other gods.” It is one of the most terrible denunciations
in all literature, and any god ought to be ashamed of him
self for using such frightful threats. A man who indulged
in such language in the streets would be “run in” as a
public nuisance, and sent to an asylum or a jail.
Let it not be said that the Lord has improved in this
respect. There is just as vicious language to be found in
the New Testament. Saint Paul told the new elect to
“ hold no fellowship with unbelievers ; ” Saint John con
signs all sceptics to the “ lake which burneth with brim
stone and fire; ” and the statement of Jesus, in the last
chapter of Mark, that those who believed and were baptised
should be saved, while those who believed not should be
damned, shows that in the eyes of God heresy is the one
sin which can never be forgiven. It is worthy of notice,
too, that the deity of the New Testament is really more
cruel to sceptics than the deity of the Old Testament. God
the Father had them killed in this world, and there was
an end to their punishment; but God the Son prolongs their
�10
misery after death, and burns them for ever and ever in
hell.
In return for the undivided worship of his chosen people,
God promised, and in some cases gave them, many advan
tages at the expense of their neighbors. He told them to
“ borrow ” of the Egyptians without the remotest intention
of ever paying them back. He forbade them to practise
usury with each other, but permitted them to practise it to
any extent with the “ stranger,” so that no alien should be
able to say to them “ I was a stranger and ye took me not in.”
He told them that they should lend unto many nations, but
never borrow, and that he would “ make them the head,
and not the tail.” He depopulated whole districts for them,
to inhabit, and carried out the process in the most hellish
manner, sparing neither age nor sex. And all this was done
solely through his good pleasure, and not because the Jews
were any better than the populations who were exterminated;
for we are expressly told that they did “ more evil than did
the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of
Israel.” Moral obligations do not concern him. He claims
the potter’s right over the clay, and smashes one vessel and
preserves another, without any respect to their merits. He
“ hath made all things for himself; yea even the wicked
for the day of evil.” The saint who goes to heaven and
the sinner who goes to hell are both “elected” by his grace;
and the latter has no more right to complain than the dying
pauper who, when he resented the statement that he was
going to hell, was told that he ought to be thankful there
was a hell to go to.
V.
God’s savagery is a fruitful theme. Look at the story of
the Fall. He places a damnation-trap in Paradise and
curses the first couple for falling into it. How could he
expect them to refrain from the one thing forbidden ? The
tabooed fruit hung temptingly before their eyes every minute.
Is it any wonder they yielded ? The least inquisitive woman
in the universe would have had her teeth in one of those
apples in less than ten minutes. But God was so angered
by their offence that he not only cursed them, but all their
posterity, and even the ground under their feet. He must
have been an awful sight in his passion, and it is surprising
that he did not go off in a fit of apoplexy.
God curses the unborn for a paltry “ sin ” committed
�11
long before they were thought of ! What would be thought
of a legislator who proposed that the relatives of all mur
derers should be hung, and the relatives of all thieves
imprisoned ? We should judge him to be bad or mad. Yet
this is what God did, does, and will do ; God who should
be infinitely wiser than the wisest man and infinitely better
than the best.
Look at the story of the Flood. God drowned all the
people in the world, except eight, for being what he made
them ; and in his wrath he spared not the lower animals
who had no share in man’s transgression. He looked down
on the mountains filled with his fugitive children. He saw
them climb the rocky heights to escape from the devouring
waves. He heard their cries of agony as they were over
taken. He beheld the mother and babe drop together in
the raging flood. He witnessed the death-struggle of the
last strong man who scaled the highest peak and was washed,
off into the universal grave. And when the waters subsided,
he saw the earth a vast charnel-house, and the herbless
fields covered with the bones of a slaughtered world.
If it be a virtue to emulate God, the greatest villains in
history deserve the most reverence, and instead of hanging,
murderers we should maintain them in luxury during their
lives, and erect monuments to their memory when they are
dead.
Look at the Jewish wars. Read the twentieth chapter of
Deuteronomy, and ask whether any devil could have given
viler advice. Let God’s words stand in all their hideous
nakedness:—
“ When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer
of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people
that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they
shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but
will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And
when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou
shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But
the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in
the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;
and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities
which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of
these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive
nothing that hreathethy
�12
What awful maxims of desolation, straight from the heart
of cruelty and lust! The loving mother holds aloft her
habe, shrieking for mercy, and the flashing sword of
Jehovah’s bandits cleaves them dead together. The men
fight, and can die exclaiming that all is lost save honor.
But the flying maidens cannot even say that. They are
handed over by God’s command as victims to lust. Onehalf go to the soldiers and the other to the congregation,
after a few have been reserved for Jehovah himself. Thirtytwo thousand Midianitish virgins were treated in this way,
of whom “ the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two.”
O English maidens, with heaven’s own azure in your
sweet eyes, and hearts as soft as its fleecy clouds, look out
from the sheltei' of your homes on this ghastly scene!
Imagine the brave men who have perished in defending
hearth and home your own fathers and brothers ; imagine
the bloody corpses slain amid cries for mercy those of your
mothers and your baby brothers and sisters, whose prattling
presence was as dancing sunshine in the house; imagine
yourselves those sweet girls fleeing from worse than death ;
and then think whether this Bible God deserves your worship
and your love.
We need not wonder, after reading these maxims of in
spired war, why David showed his repentance for adultery
with Bathsheba by fighting the Ammonites, and putting his
prisoners “ under saws, and under harrows of iron, and
under axes of iron,” and making them “ pass through the
brick-kiln;” or why God took the kingdom from Saul for
sparing Agag after utterly destroying his subjects.
Look at God’s favorites. We judge men by the company
they keep, and the same rule should apply to gods.
Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected
from all the world’s inhabitants to be the founder of God’s
chosen nation, did only one good deed in his whole life.
He rescued his nephew Lot from captivity, and we will give
him the credit of it, although his defeat of five mighty
kings with a mere handful of servants is an achievement
which can hardly be credited without a great deal of faith.
Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice passed his
wife off as his sister, not to save her honor, but to save
his own skin; and on each occasion God punished not the
liar, but the persons who were simple enough to believe him.
He turned his own son and the lad’s mother out into the
wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a little
�13
dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another
son as a burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at
the critical moment. But in estimating character, intention
is everything. These two occasions show that he was a
murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.
Isaac was a true chip of the old block. He also was
a constitutional liar; like his father he passed his wife
off as his sister, and for the same paltry reason. Besides
this he had only one peculiarity. He was very fond of
venison, and liked it so well that, objecting to die on an
empty stomach, he laid in a good supply before giving up
the ghost.
Jacob was one of the meanest blackguards that ever
lived. He is the father of the great race of Jeremy
Diddlers. He diddled everybody he met—including God
himself—with the single exception of his uncle Laban, who
diddled him. He took advantage of his brother’s hunger to
bargain away his birthright. He cozened his blind father,
and cheated his brother out of the old man’s blessing. He
ran away like a coward to avoid Esau’s vengance. He
wrestled with an angel all night for his blessing, and
probably wouldn’t have let him go then if he wore clothes
and had any small change in his pockets. He bargained
with God for unlimited capital, without any security, on
condition of paying ten per cent, of the profits. He married
both his uncle’s daughters, got possession of all his sheep
and cattle worth having, and finally left the old man without
even a god to worship. On his way home he sent forward
a large present to mollify Esau, who was coming out to
meet him. But this noble fellow put it by, said he had
enough, fell on his brother’s neck, wept, and forgave him all.
Yet God says, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I
hated.”
David, the man “ after God’s own heart,” lied, deceived,
robbed, murdered, committed adultery, and died with counsels
of blood on his lips. This savage warrior was “ after God’s
own heart.” What a remarkably black heart it must be!
VI.
The treatment of women has often been declared a fair
test of civilisation. If God treats them worse than the
most advanced nations of to-day would tolerate he is far
�14
less civilised than his own creatures. We shall find that
his sexual views are almost beneath contempt. Women
are the greatest supporters of the clergy, yet the Bible God
outrages their holiest instincts in nearly every part of his
sacred word.
He so planned creation that the human race had to be
propagated through incest in the first generation. Why did
he not create two couples instead of one, so that their children
might have intermarried without violating decency?
Throughout the Old Testament woman is never regarded
as possessing any rights; she is treated simply as a chattel.
The Decalogue classes the wife with the ox and the ass as
things belonging to the husband, which his neighbours are
not to covet. God empowered the Jewish father to sell
his daughter as a concubine, and sanctioned wholesale
rape on the women who were “spoil ” of war. He allowed
the males of his chosen people to take wives for a month on
trial. He never said anything against infidelity on the part
of the husband, but he appointed a “jealousy” trial for
suspected wives so utterly revolting, as well as absurd, that
no preacher dares read it to his congregation. His favorites
from Abraham to Solomon were all polygamists. God
never inculcated monogamy, the marriage of one man with
one woman ; and no one, in the whole of the Bible, is for
bidden to have more than one wife except Bishops and
Deacons.
The Bible God clearly sanctions polygamy,
which desecrates our noblest feelings, turns love into lust,
and destroys the very idea of home.
The New Testament God is little better. He had no con
ception of true marriage. It never occurred to him that
love differed from lust. Jesus frowned on all sexual rela
tions. He even advised men to make themselves eunuchs,
and we might think that he carried out his doctrine if he
had not been followed about by so many females. He
taught that in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving
in marriage, which may be a consolation to timid husbands
who fear what might happen there with a fellow like David
prowling about.
Saint Paul, who was inspired by God, recommended
celibacy, which means the suicide of the race. He lived
single himself (the dry old crust!) and thought that the
best state for everybody. But if they could not live single
without fornication, he advised them to marry. This is
holy Paul’s doctrine, and he was called by God to preach.
�15
He places the union of men and women on exactly the same
ground as the coupling of beasts.
The Bible God emphasises the inferiority of women. The
first woman brought evil into the world. That would never
have been stated if men had not written the whole of the
Bible from beginning to end. God tells us how long the
patriarchs lived, but he does not consider women of suffi
cient importance to chronicle their ages. Nearly all the
Old Testament women are wicked. In the New Testament,
women are told to obey their lords and masters, and not
to open their mouths while away from home, but to wait
until they get their husbands by the fireside and then meekly
ask whatever they want to know. Women are to obey
men as men obey God. More false and ignoble doctrines
were never penned. Let husband and wife walk side by
side, not as mastei’ and slave, but as equals, and let the
hateful word “ obedience ” be banished from the vocabulary
of love.
The Bible God sanctions slavery, the right to property in
human flesh and blood, the most horrid institution that
ever disgraced and cursed the earth. Abraham was a slave
holder, and so were all the heroes of Israel. God told his
people to make slaves of their captives, and he laid down
laws as to their treatment. Saint Paul sent a runaway
slave back to his master. “ Servants, obey your masters,”
means literally “ slaves obey your owners.” God never
said a word against slavery from Genesis to Revelation.
Yet he had many opportunities. Why did he not waste
less time over laws of priestly millinery, and devote more to
the teaching of moral truth? Why did he not declare that
all men should be free and that no man should enslave his
brother ? Why did he leave it for the infidels of France to
invent that word of fire, “ Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,”
which sums up the aspirations of humanity, and flames like
a beacon over the stormy path of progress ?
We have already said that Jehovah was only one of an
ancient multitude of Gods. We now repeat that he was never
the infinite spirit of the universe, but a local, visible deity
of one little nation. He walked about in the Garden of
Eden “ in the cool of the day,” or, according to the learned
Lightfoot, about “four o’clock in the afternoon.” Cain
fled “ from his presence ” into the land of Nod, socalled perhaps because he was not wide awake in that
locality. Jonah tried to do the same thing but failed, be
�16
cause the Lord sent a storm after him, and had him thrown
overboard and swallowed by a whale, before he could reach
Tarshish which was outside his “beat.” God wrote ten
commandments on two tables of stone with his own finger.
Probably it had a long sharp nail like a Chinese ascetic’s.
A finger is inconceivable without a hand, a hand implies an
arm, an arm a body, and thus God becomes a magnified
man. In keeping with this view, we read that God showed
Moses his “ hinder parts,” a rather undignified and ludic
rous exhibition. We also learn that the Lord freoxuently
visited people he liked. On one occasion he looked in on
Abraham, who said “ Stop to dinner,” and God accepted
the invitation. Anyone who wants a copy of the bill of
fare on that occasion will find it in the eighteenth chapter
of Genesis. After dinner the Lord was so good-humored
that he promised Abraham, who was a hundred years old, a
son by his wife, who was ninety. Sarah knew better; she
treated it as a joke; and being in a secluded part of the
tent she laughed to herself. God, however, overheard her,
and asked why she laughed. Sarah, being afraid, answered
“ I did not laugh.” And the Lord replied “ But you didi
laugh.” Just imagine a conversation like that going on
between Sarah and Qod Almighty in Abraham’s back
kitchen I
In the New Testament, God is still visible. Jesus Christ
was God, and he walked and talked for about thirty-seven
years. And after rising from the grave he visibly ascended
into heaven with some fish and honeycomb just eaten on his
stomach!
This petty God of a petty nation, this Jehovah of the
Jews, has become God the Father of Christianity. The
deity of Christendom was worshipped three thousand years
ago in the form of a bull. That idol was real, but all the
rest is fancy. The Bible God is a superstitious dream
which will vanish into oblivion like the myriad imaginings
of unbridled ignorance. He is a last shadow of the night
fleeing before the mighty dawn of a new day.
P'reethoi/ght Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The God the Christians swear by
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: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements ("Mr Foote's pamphlets") inside front cover (p.[2]).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
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
N240
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Christianity
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 God the Christians swear by), 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
God
NSS