1
10
5
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/73b0c8d8ba0d0859f1ea3036a537a55c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=h6PT5pPMJY5AlZYWEIoYym2pDOgAmPUQyqLnGPMkRbsiVq4VLi-xWz%7EdemJsrpiC-fthd0i2XuV9cWNzK14jsXEun8i1p18ORu5LbIRb3yzjb9UhYDh8THhUiGrm8F9Q24k1y3fkQVaYm%7EHlnk6si6bsekhoOeSjlo9IjvMBoeqIHBcz4APnR3bm72ZwYWbr537iAYrJdgZSytpoMIClCAAgWrM%7Es0vFI99NP7eSRNFjBfVYwbSlmrEXsVwB931XvL7zY4yoOMQcR-GR8rnTDpbX0SWOL45nsQGHCKdX7YXJ98bVNyMgebf8ZQSscd%7EPAoUr986GbNIYCTXgH7CJHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f1b8c5aef115b17307681385a03d9ddc
PDF Text
Text
INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
BY
JOHN ROBERTSON,
AUTHOR OF “THE FINDING OF THE BOOK.”
“ The Christianity of Christ is not one thing, and human nature another;—
it is human Virtue, human Religion, man in his highest moments; the effect
no less than the cause of human development, and can never fail till man
ceases to be man.”—Theodore Parker.
“ The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to
his going.”—Solomon.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�“Far, very far be it from any devout mind, out of an unwarranted,
unreasonable, and most unnecessary jealousy, to arrest or stay the progress
of inquiry, or look with a timid and suspicious eye on any honest efforts
made to extend and diffuse the knowledge of nature. The. upright search
after truth can never be dangerous to him who lovingly engages in it, or dis
honourable to Him who is the God of truth. All scope is given to inquiry
into all the wonders, whether of the material world without, or of the moral
world within. It is your dignity, and duty so to inquire. You are men,
and you are commanded to be men in understanding. As men, you may
assert your privilege of investigating all the works of your Creator; and in
doing so, you are to follow truth whithersoever it may lead. You are not
constituted the judges of consequences and results. Your business is with the
facts and principles of truth itself. You are not to determine what should
be, or what might be,—you are to discover what is. This is the course be
coming alike the power and the infirmity of reason. Within this limit you
tread surely and safely. Cast aside, then, all alarm as to what may follow
from, your inquiries. Only prosecute these inquiries with due caution, and
put them fairly and faithfully together, so as to ascertain real facts and
draw none but legitimate conclusions. And we may fearlessly ran the
hazard of any inferences which they may suggest, confident that they will
all tend to shed new light and lustre on the wisdom in which the Lord hath
made all his manifold works.”—Dr Candlish, in “Reason and Revelation,"
pp. 139, 140.
“ Every one declares against blindness, and yet who almost is not fond of
that which dims his sight, and keeps the clear light out of his mind, which
should lead him into truth and knowledge? False or doubtful positions,
relied upon as unquestionable maxims, keep those in the dark from truth
who build on them. Such are usually the prejudices imbibed from educa
tion, party, reverence, fashion, interest, &c. This is the mote which every
one sees in his brother’s eye, but never regards the beam in his own. For
who is there almost that is ever brought fairly to examine his own prin
ciples, and see whether they are such as will bear the trial? But yet this
should be one of the first things every one should set about, and be scrupul
ous in, who would rightly conduct his understanding in the search of truth
and knowledge.”—John Locke.
�INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
--------- ♦---------
PROPOSE an experiment. Before reading my
next sentence, I invite those who favour me with
their attention to write down, or to think out, as I
have just now been trying to do, such a general defi
nition and explanation of the word Priest, as shall
*
fairly describe, and apply to, most or all of the dif
ferent varieties of men, to whom the word is appli
cable.
Those who have done so may now compare their
definition with mine, and see whether they at all
agree or totally differ, and whether they contradict
or supplement each other.
The definition which I propose is, that a priest is
an officer or minister of a traditional or authorita
tive, and national or corporate, religious institution;
and, as such, his distinctive mission is to be an
exponent or advocate of a religious system or creed,
I
* “ Our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter. Our
ancestors, the Saxons, first used Preostre, whence by further
contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low
Dutch have Priester; the French Prestre; the Italian
Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.”—
Packardson's English Dictionary.
�4
Reason and the Bible.
inculcating the belief or observance of certain dogmas
or ceremonies, as the fundamental and indispensable
condition of merit, privilege, and welfare, here or
hereafter.
The language of the consistent priest is never—
‘ Come, up hither. Open your eyes, look around, and
behold and judge for yourselves, as I judge for
myself, the goodness, the truth, and the reality, or
the wickedness, the falsehood, and the delusion of
those things to which I shall direct your attention,
and which I shall endeavour to make you understand.’
But his language is, ‘ Stand down. If you wish to be
regarded as a brother, and as a worthy member of
the church or of the community, you must not place
any reliance on the guidance of your own reason in
those matters which I instruct you to regard as
settled by the supreme authority; nor must you take
the liberty to investigate for yourself the evidences
of correctness and reality; but you must be content
to receive, with faithful and entire submission of the
intellect, the doctrines, the ceremonies, or the book,
which I hold out to you authoritatively as the revealed
Will or Word of God; and you must, in like manner,
faithfully accept and adhere to that interpretation or
application of what God has revealed, which has
been sanctioned by the traditions of the institution,
or by the institution itself, whose officer I am, as the
only true interpretation or application thereof, and
therefore as the rule and guide of your belief, wor
ship, and life.’ *
Reason is never invited by the priest to criticize,
test, and candidly weigh the evidence for and against
the authority to which he appeals. That authority
* “ The whole order of the clergy are appointed by God to
pray for others, to be ministers of his priesthood, to be
followers of his advocation, to stand between God and the
people, and to present to God all their needs, and all their
desires. Bishop Taylor, Sermon 6.
�Reason and the Bible.
5
is assumed to be supreme, and therefore above reason,
and beyond the reach of argument, commanding
absolutely the believing assent, with or without the
rational verdict, of all men to whom it comes, and in
some cases not even hesitating to doom, for their
unbelief, those who never heard of it.
*
The one fundamental argument of the priest, on
which his entire system of belief is based, is—Thus
saith the Oracle, or, Thus it is written. The truthful
ness of the oracle or of the writing, as well as of the
priestly or traditional interpretation, is postulated,
not proved. The priest does not profess to have,
but professes not to require, for himself or for
others, such evidence and arguments in support of
what he inculcates, as to secure the ratifying and
approving verdict of the unprejudiced inquiring
mind. His appeal is not primarily to the reason
and conscience of men, but to their prejudices and
emotions, such as those which arise from the influ
ence of traditions and customs, or from habitual
veneration and attachment to some external symbol
or standard of authority, such as a Church, a Pope,
an oracle, an image, or a book. He may, indeed,
welcome with approval, and may even condescend to
employ, a selection of evidences and arguments in sup
port of the supreme authority to which he appeals j
but such support is only regarded at the most as
secondary and subsidiary, and is never represented
by the consistent priest as the primary and essential
basis, on which to found and establish the supremacy
What are they that imbrace the gospell but sonnes of
God ? AV hat are churches but his families ? Seeing there
fore wee receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministrie whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also
that when, we are the sonnes of God, our continuance is still
vnder their care which were our progenitors, what better
title could there bee given them than the reuerend name
of presbyters, or fatherly guidesZfooto- Eccl. Pol.,
b. v., s. 78.
�6
Reason and the Bible.
of his authoritative standard or oracle. To find or
exhibit any evidence or argument against the genuine
ness of this assumed supremacy, is by the priest ac
cordingly denounced as a moral delinquency, a sacri
lege or blasphemy, not to be met with rational
reply and confutation, but to be simply abhorred and
condemned as treason against the Supreme.
The assertion of some supreme external standard
or symbol of authority, being thus the distinc
tive and fundamental doctrine of every priest, it
follows unavoidably that he practically assumes infal
libility for himself, or for the institution whose views
he expresses ; because he requires his assertion to be
believed without being tested, by the submission, and
not by the free action and verdict of reason, and be
cause he ignores or denies the right of reason to
investigate and to weigh impartially the evidence
and arguments on all sides, and so to judge of the
truth or falsehood—the certainty or uncertainty of
the supreme authority asserted by him. It is mani
fest that the supreme authority, thus dogmatically
and authoritatively ascribed to a book or to anything
external and apart from individual reason, not being
based upon the free appreciation of its intrinsic and
demonstrable merits and evidences, is practically
and truly based upon some other assumed authority,
to which reason is required to bow. It is impos
sible to get out of the dilemma, however much
sophistry may be employed to disguise it. The
man who declares to other men that a book or other
external thing is a revelation, and that its autho
rity is above reason, practically claims for himself
infallibility and supreme authority on that point, and,
by necessary logical implication, on all points.
If the supreme authority of the book, or other ex
ternal thing, is based on the manifest or provable
truthfulness and harmony of all that it attests, or
upon the clearness and completeness of all the evi
�Reason and the Bible.
7
dence regarding it, then reason must be invited and
employed to scrutinize its purport and its claims, in
order that these qualities may be ascertained and re
cognised. But if all such rational tests be rejected,
there is only one other ground that can possibly be
taken, and that is an appeal to another external autho
rity for support to the first. The claims of the high
est authority must either rest upon the manifestation
to reason of its evidence and merits, or else upon an
other authority behind it; and, in either case, that
which is appealed to must be at least equal in dignity
to that which it has to sustain. Perfection cannot be
rationally inferred where imperfection is discerned;
neither can infallibility be sufficiently attested by
aught that is fallible, nor supreme authority by aught
that is not itself supreme.
I conceive that thus far these remarks and reflec
tions have been so framed as to be fairly applicable
to the priests of many and widely different religions,
ancient and modern, as well as to those of popular
Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. But my
readers will, of course, have understood that I have
kept the priests of Protestantism especially in view.
The modern Protestant Christian Churches, though
in many speculative inferences and doctrines widely
differing from each other, are generally understood
and represented as, all alike, asserting, appealing to, and
resting on, the infallibility or supreme authority of
the Bible, while renouncing all pretensions to infalli
bility of their own, as Churches or as men. None of
them, so far as I can learn, has ever ventured formally
to declare that the authority of the Church or of tradi
tion, as embodied in the “ Articles of Religion,” the
“Confession of Faith,” or any other “Ecclesiastical
Standard,” is sufficient to establish, and to impose
upon the human conscience, the duty of believing the
infallibility or supreme authority of the Bible,
or indeed the duty of believing any doctrine
�8
Reason and the Bible.
whatever. On the contrary, it is expressly declared
by every Protestant Church, that no Church is
infallible,—that Synods and Councils have erred,
and are Hable to err, from which the inference is
direct and inevitable, that any doctrine, resting
merely on such authority, ought to be held subject to
the free investigation, reconsideration, and inde
pendent judgment, not only of all succeeding synods
and councils, but of every individual who has light
enough to discern the vast difference, which dis
tinguishes faith in God and in truth from faith in
the faith of other men. And yet, with gross inconsis
tency and self-contradiction, partly in the several
ecclesiastical “ Standards,” but much more glaringly
in the ministrations of very many priests, the idea is
constantly inculcated, and therefore of course it
is widely entertained, that the traditional dogmas
of the Churches are indisputable and infallible, at
least on those points which are considered funda
mental and essential, and especially on this point, viz.
the supreme authority of the Bible; and that it is
blasphemous presumption for any inquirer to subject
their assertion on this point to rational investigation,
and to the free judgment of his individual reason.
*
They who are fallible are continually asserting that
the Bible is the holy, authoritative, infallible, Word
of God; and that no man is at liberty to form a dif* “Orthodoxy, finding itself unsafe in the domains of
argument, flies towards those of moral sentiments ; and just
at the moment when it might be expected to surrender, it
turns sharply round, and boldly charges reason with sin.
This is an alarming charge. Before this moral discovery, we
exerted our reason to the utmost of our power, confident
that we had no spiritual danger to fear : now, most unfortu
nately, we are made to suspect that our sin may be great in
proportion to the power of our arguments. What indeed, in
common language, we call pride, is usually connected with
power, and the existence of the latter is for most people, a
pretty strong presumption of the presence of the former.
It must therefore happen, that, when reason is accused of
�Reason and the Bible.
9
ferent opinion, nor has a right to investigate, nor
freely to discuss the evidence for and against their
assertion-, but that every man is bound to submit his
reason to that supreme authority above reason, which
they assert that the Bible rightfully claims and pos
sesses. Those who do so are driven to employ any
amount of sophistry to conceal from others and per
haps even from themselves the plain logical fact, that
to assert in this absolute way the infallibility or
supremacy of the Bible, and the imperative duty of
human reason bowing to its teaching, is really and
practically to assert the infallibility or supreme au
thority of the Church, or of the man, by whom such
assertion is made.
This absurd and self-condemned position appears
to be at present held, in some degree, by every Pro
testant Church. But far beyond the comparatively
mild and half-concealed absurdity of any Protestant
Confession, very many of those clergymen and clerical
men, who delight to be called “ orthodox,” habitually
state and vindicate this “ Gospel of Unreason ” in all
its barefaced breadth of boldness and inconsistency.
The attempt has indeed been often made, by rea
soning against reason, to reconcile freedom of thought
with intellectual submission to the Bible; “to re
concile Reason and the Bible,” by so displaying and
enhancing all available internal and external evi
dence in support of the Bible, and by so ignoring
pride, the charge will appear .already more than half sub
stantiated, if reason has been too hard for the opponents.
Power of any kind, unless it can reward and punish to a cer
tain degree, is not an enviable possession. I have no doubt
that if a sin, to be called pride of sight, had been as neces
sary to some influential class, as the pride of reason is to
the orthodox parties all over the world; every long and
sharp-sighted man, who wished to live in peace, and avoid
the scandal of discovering things which his neighbours either
could or would not see, would now be obliged to wear
spectacles.”—Observations on Heresy and Orthodoxy, by the
Rev. Jos. Blanco White.
�IO
Reason and the Bible.
and disparaging, or endeavouring to explain away,
all internal and external evidence of an opposite
kind, as to make it appear to many superficial thinkers,
or too willing believers, that the whole is in harmony
with every part, that all its doctrines and statements
are in perfect accordance with the evidence and
with each other, and that all the relative evidence
will bear the strictest investigation, being such as,
when justly weighed, will carry complete conviction
to every honest candid mind, appealing to the serious,
upright exercise of unprejudiced human reason, and
thus meriting and commanding the approving and
ratifying verdict of all but those who are too stupid
or too wicked to give it proper attention.
So long as the belief in the Bible was an honest
and sincere belief, such was the reasoning, variously
illustrated, by which that belief was sustained and
propagated. Such is the language of the- “ Articles,”
and especially of the “ Confession of Faith” :—
Confession i. 5. “ We may be moved and induced by
the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend
esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the- doctrine, the majesty of the
style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole
(which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it
makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God.”
Such was the language of the Reformers in the six
teenth century, and of the great Protestant divines
in the seventeenth. Listen to Richard Hooker, one
of the most learned and gifted theological writers of
the post-Reformation period :—
“ Judge you of that which I speak, saith the apostle.
In vain it were to speak anything of God, but that by
reason, men are able somewhat to judge of what they hear,
and by discourse to- discern how consonant it is to truth.
Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature, things
�Reason and the Bible.
11
which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet
those also we believe, knowing by reason that the Scrip
ture is the Word of God............. A number there are who
think they cannot admire as they ought the power and
authority of the Word of God, if in things divine they
should attribute any force to man’s reason ; for which
cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace
reason............... By these and the like disputes, an opinion
hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to
be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as
if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity
the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom.”
Or let us consult, upon this subject, William Chil
lingworth, author of the famous work entitled “ The
Beligion of the Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,”
published in 1637, and of the still more famous say
ing which is so often quoted: “ The Bible, and the
Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ” :—
“ But you that would not have men follow their reason,
what would you have them follow ? their passions, or
pluck out their eyes and go blindfold ? No, you say ; you
would have them follow authority. In God’s name, let
them : we also would have them follow authority; for it
is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would
have them believe Scripture. But then, as for the authority
which you would have them follow, you will let them see
reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a
little about—to leave reason for a short turn, and then to
come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in
others ? It being, indeed, A plain impossibility for any
MAN TO ■ SUBMIT HIS REASON BUT TO REASON ; for he that
doth it to authority must of necessity think himself to
have greater reason to believe that authority.”
It is not likely to be denied that these specimens
fairly and fitly represent the distinctive views and
teachings of the Beformers and early Protestant
divines, on reason as the basis of all religious belief,
and on the complete harmony which they conceived
to exist between reason and the Bible. Assuming,
as we well may, that their language is honest and
�12
Reason and the Bible.
sincere, and that they meant exactly what they have
said, it is clear that, as held by them, theirs was a
reasonable faith, and that they did not feel called
upon to settle any visible conflict between the claims
of reason and those of the Bible, nor experience any
difficulty in harmonizing these with each other, and
putting faith in both. Their religious belief was by
them identified with their intellectual conclusion re
garding the authority of the Bible; so that their
utterances on the subject express both the conviction
of their hearts and the rational judgment of their
minds. The same kind of reasoning may even now
be heard from some believers, in whose experience
these two things still go together, and from some
others who wish to make it appear that they find it so.
But the conflict which then slumbered, being
apparently unsuspected by religious men in those
days, has been since then steadily growing in urgency
and importance, exactly in proportion to the increas
ing diffusion of knowledge and general progress of
intelligence, until it has now become difficult to
find an intelligent thinking man who believes, as
the Reformers did, in both Reason and the Bible,
as harmonizing together, and mutually supporting
each other. The conflict has, in recent times, and
especially of late, become so manifest and notorious,
that a profession of faith, in the old alliance or com
promise of the two rival claims, now suggests ignor
ance, imbecility, or wilful deception; and the ordinary
experience of an inquirer is accordingly very different
from what it formerly was, for he finds that the
question fronting him no longer admits of any but
an alternative and one-sided solution ; so that, if he
does not shirk it altogether, and remain indifferent
or in suspense, he must decide for himself whether
his reason shall be subjected to the Bible, or whether
the Bible shall be subjected to his reason.
The reconciliation of the two is a task very seldom
�Reason and the Bible.
13
now undertaken for the public, or accomplished by
individuals for themselves, except by the uninformed,
the shallow-minded/ or the unthinking. Easy-going,
peace-loving clergymen may sometimes still be heard
trying it in the pulpit; but it has almost ceased to
appear in print, the advocates on both sides appear
ing to be nearly unanimous on this one point, that
such an undertaking is now hopelessly difficult, and
that a genuine reconciliation is henceforth impossible,
on any conditions short of the subjection of one
claimant to the supremacy of the other.
It is, therefore, not my purpose to enter here upon
an examination of the various methods of reconcilia
tion which have been suggested. Some of them are
utterly absurd, and even ridiculous; and it is safe to
say that none of them can have any plausibility be
yond what may be purchased by the free employment
of sophistry and assumption, tricks which, until
recent times, were comparatively safe from detection
and exposure, though it is gradually becoming more
difficult and more hazardous to employ them.
One of the latest and ablest attempts of this kind,
that of the late Dean Alford, in his “New Testament
for English Readers,” which may fairly be regarded as
embodying the best and most plausible features of all
previous attempts to effect the desired reconciliation,
has been most skilfully and completely sifted and
exploded in previous pamphlets of this series, which
probably most of my readers have seen, and which
any of them may easily procure.
*
My intention is to deal here only with the plead
ings and pretensions of those more numerous (at
least in Scotland), and in their own way more con
sistent, advocates of the Bible, who apparently do
not believe, as the old Protestant divines and the
* “Commentators and Hierophants,” Parts I. and II.
price Sixpence each. See list on the last page of this
pamphlet.
�14
Reason and the Bible.
Westminster Assembly did, in the possibility and
duty of the reconciliation, and who do not even seem
to desire it, preferring to insist, .as honest true Pro
testants never did, upon the absolute surrender and
submission of Reason to the Bible.
Those who hold the views which these advocates
express have, apparently without knowing it, as
completely departed in one direction from the stand
point of the men of the Reformation, as those who
require the submission of the Bible to Reason have
departed from it in another and opposite direction.
Both parties alike have felt compelled to settle the
question one way or another. Neither party has
found it possible to harmonize the conflicting claims,
nor to find any satisfaction in compromising them.
The one party has decided one way, and the other
another way, that question which the Reformers did
not take up, and did not feel called upon to settle.
Let neither of these parties be deluded with the idea
that they are maintaining the standpoint of the Re
formers with regard to the Bible. That standpoint
was, as they clearly tell us, the then generally admitted
harmony and agreement of Reason and the Bible. If we
only try seriously to imagine such men as the old
Protestant Reformers compelled, as both of the parties
in question have been compelled, to abandon that
standpoint, to acknowledge the irreconcilable anta
gonism of the two, and to take the one side or the
other, by deciding for themselves whether their reason
should submit to be judged by the Bible, or the
Bible to be judged by their reason ; we can scarcely
fail to understand which side ought to be taken by
true Protestants now, and which side savours more of
the old Popish superstition.
It has of late been remarked by many, that, instead
of grappling with, and undertaking to refute, in the
pulpit or in the press, any or all of the really formid
�Reason and the Bible.
15
able and increasing arguments of objectors,—those
who maintain the traditional dogma, that the Bible
is the Word of God, have for some time past, almost
without exception, been timidly affecting to treat
the arguments with silent contempt, while at the
same time treating the persons, by whom these argu
ments are urged, with wrathful condemnation instead
of any reply.
It is usual for them to say that none of these
arguments or objections are new, which, nevertheless,
some of them are, though surely age alone is no dis
honour ; and that they have all been, long ago, hun
dreds of times, satisfactorily answered. The ex
planation of which appears to be, that when the
minds of men were more easily satisfied with such
answers as might still be given, there was no lack of
satisfactory answers. Whether this sufficiently ex
plains it or not, the phenomenon is notorious, that
the arguments of the objectors are from day to day
becoming more general, more formidable, and more
convincing than ever; while the arguments in reply,
as distinguished from the mere denunciations by the
maintainers, are becoming more and more obsolete,
impotent, and worthless; so much so, that they seem
to have very much escaped the notice or memory of
both parties alike. Unquestionably, however, there
have been, and must have been, plenty of “ sound
orthodox” arguments and replies, which may have
done good service to their employers in their own
day and generation, though these might now have an
effect quite opposed to that which they were formerly
understood to have; because the question now agi
tating men’s minds is comparatively A new question,
to which the old arguments and replies cannot be
easily adapted, having been originally addressed to
the reason; whereas men would now employ them
to reason against reason—a peculiarly delicate task !
There was a time when a very distinguished
�16
Reason and the Bible.
Father of the Church, the earliest distinct witness
for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, could
argue with acceptance that there must be four Gos
pels, and only four, because—there were four winds,
and four elements, and four beasts in the vision of
Ezekiel! Such an argument is of no use now.
There was a time, not so long ago, when it was
generally considered satisfactory to argue that, as
God’s ancient people were commanded to extirpate
heretics, and to destroy them utterly, so it was
clearly the duty of God’s people still to do the same
thing; and the stake, or the dungeon, or some suffi
cient penalty, was deemed by Catholics and Protes
tants alike, as it had been deemed by the Jews of
old, the most appropriate answer to all sorts of ob
jections. Such arguments are now out of date, at
least in this part of the world.
There has been a time, not yet gone by, though
we may hope that it is now gradually passing away,
when, beyond “ the three mechanical P’s,” the whole
idea of ordinary education has been, to furnish the
mind of the pupil with a complete panoply of stereo
typed ideas and ready-made conclusions, handed
down by tradition, regarding every branch of know
ledge, as well as regarding religion and the Bible.
It is only now, or of late years, that the idea has
begun to prevail, and no doubt is very rapidly
spreading, that, instead of merely cramming the
mind with assertions and dogmas, the far nobler
aim of education ought to be, the instruction and
training of each individual in the separate personal
use of his own mental faculties, by calling these
faculties constantly into exercise upon his own ex
perience and observation, as well as upon all his
lessons and studies, which for children ought to be
selected and directed by teachers or guardians,
having the principle of intellectual liberty rooted
in their hearts, and keeping that principle steadily
in view.
�Reason and the Bible.
17
The foremost educationists are now striving to1
discover the most effectual methods of accustoming
the young mind to think, to reflect, to investigate,
to compare, and to test everything for itself, search
ing everywhere, and always, for truthfulness and
reality, so that it may learn to know and understand
the certainty, or the certain doubtfulness, of every
thing in which it is instructed; and, above all, that
it may, as it ripens, become acquainted with its own
natural inherent right to judge for itself of the good
or evil, the truth or falsehood, the certainty or un
certainty of everything to which its attention may
be directed; of which right, at least in several of its
most important applications, the vast majority of
minds have hitherto been trained in profound prac
tical ignorance, thinly veiled, if veiled at all, by a
few fine-sounding phrases about the reverence or
respect due to this or that authority.
There cannot be a doubt about it, that a great
change in this direction, is coming gradually over
the whole united nation. There is at present a very
distinct prospect and intention of improvement. We
really do seem to be making a fresh start onwards
towards liberty and light. It is indeed both a grand
and a true thing to say, in the prophetic words of
our greatest orator,. John Bright,—“ I think I see,,
as it were, above the hill-tops of time, the glimmer
ing of the dawn of a better day, for the people and
the country that I love so well! ” It may seem rather
sanguine, but no longer seems chimerical, to hope
that even a middle-aged man may live to see the'
children of the people trained, each in the knowledge
and use of his or her birthright as one of God’s chil
dren,—the birthright of liberty,—complete freedom
of reason tod of conscience,—the very liberty which
the “Sons of God ” and “ enlightened ones ” have in
all ages striven, and often sacrificed themselves in
the attempt, to make mankind understand and use
B
�18
Reason and the Bible.
as their own. This is at once the scientific and the
truly Protestant, because truly Christian idea of edu
cation,—the education of the future,—a religious,
moral, and intellectual education.
Surely it would be an evidence of blind delusion,
or else of gross presumption and falsehood, were any
man to say that this aspiration is evil, or to condemn
it with opprobrious epithets as scepticism and infi
delity. It is the result and expression of Faith,—
religious faith in God, in Goodness, and in Truth, as
revealed to the inquiring mind, chiefly through the
contrasts drawn and discerned, between these intel
lectual conceptions on the one hand, and atheism,
idolatry, falsehood, or evil, on the other, by the free
and serious exercise of Reason—God’s gift for man’s
guidance, the conscientious verdict of which may
well be called, figuratively, “the Word of God” to
each individual. As to the duty or advantage of
faith in the faith of other men, whether these men be
the ancient authors of the Bible, or their more un
reasonable modern expounders, call me sceptic, or
infidel if you will:—only let the distinction which is
here drawn be clearly understood.
We may read the 145th Psalm, for example, with
intense appreciation of the sublime religious thought
which its stanzas express, and our minds may well
be filled with admiration and delight, especially when
due emphasis is laid upon the word “ ALL,” which
frequently recurs and appears to be the key-note of
the piece. If there be anything in the Psalm, such as
the phrase at the close of the 19th verse,—“ All. the
wicked will he destroy,”—which may seem to jar against
or contradict the rest, surely we may freely try to
interpret for ourselves the mind of the poet, so as to
harmonize the apparent discord, as by reflecting that
he has just before expressed his faith in God, as good
to ALL, upholding ALL that fall, and raising up ALL those
that be bowed down, and that therefore the meaning
�Reason and the Bible.
19
of what is said about the wicked must be, that God
will destroy or bring to an end all their wicked
ness, and thus raise up all those whom even their
own wickedness has caused to fall or to be bowed
down, so that there shall be no more any wicked.
Such liberties are taken by all commentators on the
Bible, under the guise of interpretation; but in
reality it is putting one set of words in place of
another ; and we may just as consistently altogether
reject the jarring note, either because we may not be
able to harmonize it with the rest, or because we may
find that its acceptance would upset all our ideas of
intellectual and moral perfection of character, as at
tributed to the “ Father of the spirits of all flesh/’ and
that it is therefore incredible or unintelligible to us.
This Psalm in a high degree, like every other lesson
in its own degree, becomes a revelation to our minds,
just in proportion to the clearness and force of the
free judicial verdict, which our reason and conscience
may be thereby stimulated and assisted to arrive at
regarding those matters which, to our minds, it illus
trates, or brings before our view.
Let us never forget, what it is mere priestcraft to
deny, that it is every man’s inalienable right, and his
duty, so far as it may be opportunely in his power,
as a man, as a Christian, and as a Protestant, to in
vestigate, examine, and judge every portion of the
Bible, as well as every other item of his information
and experience, and to arrive at his own individual
conclusions, with entire fulness of mental freedom.
The serious, honest, and deliberate exercise of this
freedom, is at least one true and real meaning of the
figurative phrase,—“ Faith in the Word of God,”__
which is a quite intelligible way of expressing a re
ligious. man’s experience of it ■ as are also the less
figurative phrases,
true wisdom,” “good under
standing,
liberation of the intellect,” “ rational
belief.”
�20
Reason and the Bible.
It is not improbable that some may condemn these
views, or protest against them, as seeming “ to exalt
reason to the place of God;" but the position here
maintained is merely that Reason is the faculty or
instrument with which God has endowed us, by the
proper personal use of which, alone, it is possible for
any of us to convert information and experience into
sound knowledge about anything whatever.
Those who may say that it is “ spiritual pride” and
“presumption” thus to test everything by the verdict
of Reason, ought to be reminded that, in so far as
Reason may be set aside, the only other test which
can possibly be substituted for it is that of our own
sentiments or emotions, such as veneration, esteem,
attachment, or fear; and this ought to make them
pause and reflect, before venturing to affirm that such
things as these ought to control our Reason, instead
of being regulated and controlled thereby; because,
in the clear and strong words of Archbishop Whately,
the humiliation of Reason which they require “ is a
prostration, not of ourselves before God, but of one
part of ourselves before another part; and there is
surely at least as much presumption in measuring
everything by our own feelings, fancies, and preju
dices, as by our own reasonings.” *
It is beyond a question, that there has of late been
a vast increase of open and avowed opposition to the
dogma, that the Bible, in all its parts and in all its
words, is the Word of God; and, though it is of
course less manifest, it is nearly as certain, that doubt,
unbelief, and silent opposition have increased to an
immeasurably greater extent.
It is also perfectly well known, and quite indisput
able, that the argumentative strength of the opposition
has of late been displayed with very much greater
vigour, fulness, and effect than it ever was in this
* Whately’s Notes to Bacon’s Essay on Truth.
�Reason and the Bible.
21
country before ; partly by the production of new evi
dence, criticism, and arguments ; but chiefly by the
more frequent and more extended publication, read
ing, hearing, and especially understanding, of the old.
With regard to the extent of publication, reading,
and hearing, however, it must be admitted that the
advocates of the dogma have hitherto had, and still
have, an immense advantage over their opponents.
Indeed, they may be said to have had, until recent
years, almost the entire influence of the pulpit, the
press, and the school, on their side ; and the rule is
clearly still the same, although the exceptions are
becoming more numerous. It is only in the matter
of understanding that the strength of the opposition
will bear any comparison; and were it not for this,
the Bible party would have no cause for their present
uneasiness and alarm. The assailants of the dogma
are constantly producing evidence and arguments,
which men can understand and feel the force of;
whereas the very few so-called replies, and the very
many assertions and so-called reasonings, of the de
fenders, are either not understood, or else understood
to be powerless.
It would be cumbrous, and it is not my plan, to
introduce here any quotations or reproductions of
the abundant evidence and arguments, which go to
prove that the dogma is false. Most of my readers
are, probably, in some measure acquainted with them;
and I cannot, for the present, do better than refer the
inquirer on this head to Mr Thomas Scott’s series of
publications, a list of which will be found at the end
of this pamphlet, nearly all bearing directly on the
point.
I prefer here to invite attention to the startling
effect, which the recent attacks of the comparatively
few assailants have had upon the attitude of the
vastly more numerous defenders of the dogma, and
to a few brief illustrations of the mode in which these
�22
Reason and the Bible.
attacks are being met, by some of the most zealous
champions of what is called “ orthodoxy.”
I have already observed how remarkably rare has
become the inclination of these champions to deal
with rational argument, and how chary they generally
are about grappling with the arguments of their op
ponents. Among those who are altogether innocent
of reasoning about the matter, are to be found the
most unrestrained shouters of anathema against the
objectors, whose objections they studiously evade.
They bewail the manifest increase of free thought
among their people, attributing all sorts of evil
motives to those who openly profess it, and proclaim
ing that “ God will surely punish" those who deny the
supreme authority of the Scriptures, but neverattempt
ing a word of rational reply or refutation.
Does any one doubt it, or think this exaggeration 1
There is abundance of evidence at hand, from which
only a few selections can here be made. Doubtless,
many of my readers are familiar with it. There is
even a strong probability, though the experiment has
not yet been tried, that, in Scotland at least, and I
suppose not in Scotland alone, the specimens, which
I am to quote, would be pronounced “ sound” and
“ orthodox” by the majority of clergymen of all deno
minations. Not a few might perhaps say that they
exemplify “ a somewhat indiscreet advocacy of the truth,”
or that they are decidedly “rather too orthodox;” but
it is very doubtful, whether any considerable num
ber of those who are included under the name Priest,
as defined in the beginning of this tract, would choose
to characterize these things as they deserve, viz.,, as
arrogant Popish assertions and malignant unchristian
calumnies, irreconcilable with reason, truth, and
evidence.
A lecture, addressed to the Students of Divinity,
at the opening of the Free Church College, Glasgow,
�Reason and the Bible.
in November 1870, by the Rev. Dr Gibson, Professor
of Divinity and Church History, on “ Some Present
Aspects of Religious Opinion,” supplies the following
*
illustrations.
“ The more conscience is enlightened by the religion of
Christ as the Great Prophet of His Church—in other words,
by the Bible, the revelation of His Holy Spirit—the more
do the principles of Christianity find in it an approving
response. Hence Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 2 : ‘ By manifesta
tion of the truth commending ourselves to every man's con
science in the sight of God;' not to every man’s conscience
or reason as the supreme authority to judge, or—as heralded
by a candidate for notoriety in our city—the absolute and
divine authority of reason, conscience, and love as ‘the only
ground of faith,’ but the absolute authority of God in what
He reveals and commands, and to which reason and con
science are bound to submit. ( If they do not, it is at the
peril of the poor mortal who refuses, and puts his poor
reason and conscience and love, small and variable as his
love is, on a level with the authority of the God of truth
and holiness and love. This manifestation of truth to
every man’s conscience as in the sight of God, so as to
leave him without excuse, can be shown of every one of
the doctrines and precepts of Scripture.”
It is not a little surprising that Dr Gibson should
quote these words of Paul, in support of the dogma
that “ reason and conscience are bound to submit ” to the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture, as to “ the abso
lute authority of God in what He reveals and com
mands.” Why ? Because it is that very dogma
against which Paul is there contending, having just
before called the law of Moses “ the ministration of
death,” which, he says, “ is done away.” In contrast
to the deadness of that law, he proposes, by manifes
tation of the truth, to commend his own doctrine to
every man’s conscience. This sounds wonderfully
like appealing to “the authority of reason, conscience,
and love, as the only ground of faith.” But does not
* Published in the “Watchword,” a Free Church Magazine,
for December 1870, and for January 1871.
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the Professor himself virtually make the same appeal,
when he affirms that the truth of every one of the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture can be manifested
to every man's conscience in the sight of God ? It
becomes merely a question of experimental fact, as to
whether or not the assertion will stand the test of
application. Let it be applied, for example, to the
following passages, selected almost at random:—
Exod. xxxii. 27—“ Thus saith the Lord God of
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go
in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp,
and slay every man his brother, and every man his com
panion, and every man his neighbour.”
Exod. xx. 13—“ Thou shalt not kill.”
Mai. iii. 6—“ I am the Lord ; I CHANGE NOT."
Gen. vi. 6—“ And it repented the Lord that he had
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart.”
Exod. xxix. 36—“Thou shalt offer every day a
bullock for a sin-offering for atonement.”
Levit. i. 9—“ And the priest shall burn it all on
the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
Jer. vii. 21, 22—“Thus saith the Lord. - I
spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
Heb. x. 6—“ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for
sin thou hast had no pleasure.”
Acts x. 34—“ God is no respecter of persons.”
Mai. i. 2, 3—-“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?
saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.”
(“ The children being not yet born.”—Rom. ix. 11-13.)
Gal. v. 22—“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, gentleness, goodness, faith.”
Jud. xv. 14, 15—“And the Spirit of the Lord
came upon him, and he slew a thousand men.”
Deut. vii. 16—“Thou shalt consume all the people
�Reason and the Bible.
^5
which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine
eye shall have no pity upon them.
1 Sam. xv. 3—“Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them
not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suclclin/j.”
Isa. i. 18—“Come now and let us reason together,
saith the Lord.”
Rom. ix. 18-21—“ Nay but, 0 man, who art thou
that repliest against God 1” &c.
Mat. xxiii. 2, 3—■“ The Scribes and the Pharisees
sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do.”
If Dr Gibson really understands how “ the mani
festation of truth to every man’s conscience, as in the
sight of God, so as to leave him without excuse, CAN
BE shown ” of the many such doctrines, precepts,
and contradictions of Scripture as these, it is surely
most desirable, that he should verify his assertion by
showing the manifestation, because few men are
likely to discover it for themselves.
“ Conscience is a creature, therefore a subject, and not a
sovereign, and is under law. What law, and whence does
it proceed? It must rest in, and proceed from Him who is
its Lord. How, then, does He, or has He expressed it?
“Without entering into abstract discussion, I think I
may affirm that it cannot be in natural conscience as man
now exists in the earth. Why so? Because you cannot
survey it in the light of history, of facts, ancient or modern,
either in the most limited or in the widest range either of
time or place, without coming to the conclusion that its
decisions have been so contradictory as to put ‘ darkness for
light and light for darkness, evil for good and good for
evil, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.’ What, then,
is the expression of His Lordship? and where is it to be
found ? All Christian men must at once say, in the Law of
the Lord revealed in the Bible. It is plain that conscience,
as a subj ect, cannot have a right to rule above its Creator
and Lord. Equally plain is it that this law, if it can be
found, it must obey; in other words, there must be an au
�q.6
Reason and the Bible.
thority. But that authority must be God himself. As
suming that there is a judgment-day, and that man is
responsible for his belief, one can hardly imagine each
mortal man daring to plead, at the great day, his conscience
to determine the judgment of the Most High. The autho
rity, then, must be the authority of God himself. It can
not be anything short of its Lord.
“ It is to this authority I refer when I affirm that a dread,
and consequently a hatred of authority is one present aspect
of religious opinion.”
The argument, here employed against “natural
conscience,” is perfectly good against those who assert
human infallibility or the supreme authority of any
man’s mind, or of any man’s writings, over the minds
of other men. It is, therefore, perfectly good against
the authority claimed for the Bible. Why so? Be
cause we cannot survey the Bible in the light of his
tory and facts, without coming to the conclusion that
its laws, doctrines, and statements are often so con
tradictory as to put darkness for light and light for
darkness, evil for good and good for evil; as witness
the numberless irreconcilable contradictions, which
abound in many parts of it, and even in the Gospels.
*
Natural conscience or reason, when reasonably exer
cised, enables us to discern errors and contradic
tions, and tn draw lessons of wisdom both from
those of other men and from our own, as well as
from those of the Bible.
That which is “affirmed’' about “ dread, and conse
* For countless contradictions, both, historical and doctrinal,
in the Old Testament, I may refer the inquiring reader to
Mr. F. W. Newman’s “History of the Hebrew Monarchy,”
(published by Triibner and Co., London); and I take this
opportunity of acknowledging that the train of argument,
pursued in my own essay on “ The Finding of the Book,” was
suggested and greatly aided by Mr Newman’s most admirable
and instructive work..
For similar criticism of the New Testament, I would refer
especially to “ The Evangelist and the Divine.”—See list on
last page.
�Reason and the Bible.
o.7
quently hatred of authority,” if not purely imaginary,
would require to be supported by evidence showing
to what class of men it applies; because, as regards
such men as Bishop Colenso, Mr Voysey, the authors
of “Essays and Reviews,” or the large class who
sympathise with them, it would be a quite unfounded
calumny to affirm, that they are influenced by “ dread,
and consequently hatred of authority.” It would surely be
both more charitable and more correct to say, that
discovery and rejection offalse authority, proceeding from
the love of truth and the hatred of falsehood, is one
present aspect of religious opinion.
“ Protestantism is not the right in the sight of God to
hold any opinion which each individual pleases, but the
right and duty of every human being to regulate his belief
by the unerring standard of the Holy Scriptures ; and that
God being Lord, and the alone Lord of the conscience, no
man, or set, or combination of men, may resist his authority.
. . . . God’s Word is a law, distinct, intelligible, and
immediate; whereas any other, under whatever guise or
form—the Church, the Pope, the Reason—is a usurpation
of the rights both of God and man.”
When Dr. Gibson says that, if Church, Pope, or
Reason be set up as a law over the individual conscience,
they usurp the rights both of God and man, he utters
a truth which every free man and noble nature
would die to maintain. But then, Reason in this
connection cannot mean a man’s own reason; for it
must be something external to him, as Church and
Pope are.
Not to dwell upon the commonplace absurdity of
imagining that it is in the power of any individual to
believe what he pleases! the question forcibly suggests
itself,—Shall any man, such as Dr Gibson, or shall
any combination of men, such as a Protestant Church,
presume to come between other men and God, by
holding up before them a book, with the assertion
that all are bound to accept it as the Word of God,
�28
Reason and the Bible.
without any evidence, or without any right on their
part to investigate and weigh all available evidence,
—and that if they allow their reason to decide for
themselves individually, whether such assertion is
truthful, credible, uncertain, or false, they are guilty
of “ a usurpation of the rights both of God and man ?”
It would be well for Dr Gibson to ponder over the
following apostolic words :■—“Hast thou faith? Have
IT Tq thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth
not himself in that thing which he alloweth!” (Rom. xiv.
22.)
“Is it bigotry, fanaticism, ecclesiasticism ? Are these
what we wish to defend and establish, as is asserted by great
men and small men? If such things can be justly applied
to the authority of Holy Scripture, we at once say that they
are what we wish to defend and establish. But the asser
tion, by whomsoever made, is a calumny on us, and a blas
phemy against Holy Scripture.” (!) “ The antidote, we
have seen, is the revealed Word of God—the Holy Scrip
tures, to be received and believed, not on the authority of
any man or Church, but on the authority of God himself,
because it is the Word of God" (/) “speaking to us directly
and immediately as a man speaking to his friend. This is
the sure foundation of all belief. If God does speak in His
works, in the conscience, and, above all, in His written.
Word, which is invariable and ‘ endureth for ever,’—all
with His own mouth, or, which is the same thing, by His
own Spirit in His Word, man must listen and obey ; and it
is impious and at man’s peril if he disobey, reason or prate
about inner light or inner consciousness, or spirit of the age,
or public opinion, as he may. Of all the delusions into
which the weak and inexperienced are so apt to fall, none is
greater than that of imagining that running with the tide
is a proof of deep thought, of deep learning, or high courage
and independence. It is the very reverse—a proof of a
weak and slavish spirit that is afraid to stand by the truth
and abide the frown or sneer of men of no higher authority
than itself. Think for yourselves, gentlemen, as against
man ; but beware of thinking for yourselves as against
God.”
In reply to Dr Gibson’s questions, it is sufficient to
�Reason and the Bible.
29
observe that bigotry signifies stubborn adherence to an
unreasonable opinion, and that what he says about
“ blasphemy ” sounds wonderfully like fanaticism, or
excessive and indiscreet zeal.
It would be a grand good thing if all who heard,
and all who may read, the last quoted sentence, would
act upon the advice there given, by thinking for
themselves as against Dr Gibson, or as against any
man who may, like him, dictate dogma in their hear
ing. Scarcely even Dr Gibson will venture to say
that those who do so are therein guilty of thinking
forthemselves “as against God!” On the contrary
it will be, and has been, in many cases, found by in
quirers, that for them to acknowledge all the words
of the Bible to possess the authority of God, would in
volve on their part the quenching or resisting of that
“ Word of God,” which constantly addresses itself to
their reason and conscience in the Books of Creation
and Providence, as well as in the Books of Experience
and History, both past and present, including, of
course, the experience and history of which the Bible
is the vehicle. Just in so far as all these “ Books ”
are observed and studied, will the “Word of God”
which men are often compelled to hear and to obey
even when not listening for it, which can be heard
nowhere but in the reason and conscience of the indi
vidual, and which Dr Gibson also professes to recog
nise, be understood, and its authority be recognised
and acknowledged by Reason.
“ Running with the tide,” as the Professor phrases it,
is, in itself, neither a proof of deep thought and high
courage, nor of the reverse; but is a propensity of
our nature, so strong that good men, and even great
men, have often been led astray by it. In fact it is
much more than probable that this very propensity
restrains many at the present time from thinking
freely, and from saying what they think, about the
Bible. The frown, and sneer, and social intolerance
�3°
Reason and the Bible.
of orthodox people are still powerful enough to be
really dreaded by dependent or timid “ freethinkers;”
for there is no lack of evidence, to prove, that those
bolder ones who do venture to think and to speak
freely, against the unreasonable assertions of the
advocates for the supremacy of the Bible over Rea
son, are not yet “ running with the, tide." It cannot
be denied, however, that there are some signs of
the approaching turning time.
Throughout the whole lecture, there is not the
slightest allusion to evidence, either for or against
the dogma. It would, indeed, appear that, according
to Dr Gibson, all evidence is quite superfluous and
useless or worse; for there is not one single argument
employed by him in support of his dogma, which
does not openly and avowedly rest upon that dogma
itself, as in the passages quoted, and these are the
strongest and most argumentative which I have been
able to select.
It would be amazing, and almost incredible, if it
were not elsewhere so common, to find that an expe
rienced Professor of Church History, and a leading
minister of the Free Church of Scotland, should have,
on such an important occasion, nothing better to say
in support or defence of the dogma which he calls
“ the foundation of all belief," than a mere set of varia
tions upon the words—It is, and it is, and it is, and
you must believe and say that it is, and must never
allow yourself to think that it is not, because it is !
only because it is !
The fair inference from Dr Gibson’s language is,
that he identifies his own opinion with . Revelation.
To dictate dogma, without appealing to evidence, and
without condescending to rational argument upon the
evidence, is to assume infallibility. Dr Gibson mani
festly assumes either that he himself is infallible, or
that he is expressing the opinion of some other
(assumed) infallible man or men, when, regardless of
�Reason and the Bible,
31
evidence and in defiance of reason, he merely asserts
that the Bible is the Word of God. He seems to be
quite unconscious of the absurdity of a Protestant
Divine making his whole system of doctrine rest
upon an assumption of infallibility.
It appears too clearly that the faith professed and
taught by Dr Gibson, and by that very large class of
clerical men whom he may be taken as representing,
is of a radically different kind from that which Jesus
taught his disciples, when he opened, as it is written,
the eyes of their understandings by arousing, instruct
ing, and stimulating them to the consciousness, the
exercise, and the enjoyment of their own duty, right,
and power to judge and to decide by Reason what
they ought to believe, and what they ought not to
believe. Having learned of Jesus, they could no
longer submit their Reason, as they had for many
generations been taught to do, to the traditions and
superstitions of their forefathers and of their priests;
but burst away from the mental yoke of bondage to
these traditions, to these priests, and to the supreme
authority of their old written creed or law, with all
its sacrifices of blood and burnt flesh, to pacify the
wrath and propitiate the favour of a jealous and ter
rible God, whom the law represented as requiring
such sacrifices and delighting in them. We read
that the words of Jesus were quick and powerful,
and that men were astonished at his doctrine, for
that he taught as one having authority, appealing with
all the force of Truth to the hearts and to the minds
of those who understood what he said; and not as the
scribes, who appealed only to chapter, and verse, and
word of their sacred books. Let it be remembered
that the Scribes and Pharisees were not ignorant nor
wicked men, but were the educated, the respectable,
the orthodox, and the synagogue-attending class of
their day, who stood up for the authority of “ God’s
Word ” as opposed to Reason. But the spirit of Jesus
�^2
Reason and the Bible.
they could neither bind nor subdue, though they could
put himself to death; and accordingly we read
that those who became disciples of Jesus were made,
free by the power of the Truth—that they passed
from darkness to marvellous light—from bondage to
liberty—spiritual liberty—mental liberty—the glori
ous liberty of the children of God, whom they ad
dressed, after the example of their elder brother, as
“ Our Father,” worshipping Him only, not with the
signs and symbols of slavish fear and dread, such as
the shedding and sprinkling of blood; but in spirit
and in truth, in confidence and love, as became the
“ Sons of God." There is reason to fear the disciples
of men like Dr Gibson can have little of that exper
ience, which the disciples of Jesus appear so fully to
have enjoyed.
I have already shown that the unreasonable faith
of modern popular Christianity is essentially different
from the orthodox Christian faith of the true prophets
of Protestantism, which was based upon their convic
tion of the entire harmony and agreement of the
Word of God and reason, so that the one voice could
not contradict the other, and so that conflict between
the two, or subjection of the one to the other, was for
them entirely out of the question, liberation and not
submission being then, as always, the experience of
those who listened to the “ still small voice,” and
obeyed the Word of God.
Most of us can now understand that the Reformers
made a critical mistake, in assuming or fancying, as
they manifestly did, that the Bible quite harmonized
with Reason, and that there could be no real conflict
between them, any more than there could be a real
conflict between Reason and the “ Light of Nature,"
which they also recognised as another Word of God.
But we can also understand that they did not err cul
pably, as we judge their opponents to have erred.
They certainly cannot be charged with wilful blindness,
�Reason and the Bible.
33
nor did they ever proclaim the duty of believing the
Bible without investigation, which, on the contrary,
they thought it safe to challenge and invite, by for
mally stating the rational grounds on which their own
belief was based. That to which their reason sub
mitted was tried, judged, and approved by their reason.
Their reason submitted to itself, that is to its own in
terpretation of every Word of God; and all other
submission of Reason those noble men and true pro
phets cast behind them with scorn, as the genuine
disciples and followers of “ the Prophet of Nazareth ”
always have done; for, “ where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is Liberty.”
The grand distinction, between them and the advo
cates of the Roman Catholic creed, was this very
point. The one party insisted upon the submission of
Reason to that which Reason was forbidden to test
and could not approve. The other party maintained
that:—
Confession of Faith, xx. 2—God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to
his word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.
So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com
mandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an
absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience,
and reason also.'"
Strange, indeed, it is to find, that the old Popish,
Jewish, and heathen error, the root of all errors and
superstitions,—that Reason is bound to submit to
authority not approved by Reason, has grown up
again, in a new shape, in the churches which call
themselves Protestant.
While such theology is taught and published by
doctors and professors, reputed highly orthodox, in
high places of the Church, it is perfectly notorious
that, from very many pulpits throughout the land,
C
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the same kind of doctrine is preached, which has
been well called, “ the, Gospel of Unreason." . My own
observation and experience of this preaching are of
course local and limited; but, judging from what I
read and hear, I infer that it is exceedingly common,
and by no means confined to one Church, nor to one
part of Great Britain.
It is probable, therefore, that many of my readers
may have often heard such specimens as the following,
which are supplied by pencil-jottings of sermons,
recently taken in the pews by myself and friends in
whom I have confidence. They are all genuine and
unadorned.
“ Every word of this blessed book, brethren, is
God’s message to us. It is to us individually that
Jehovah there speaks.” . . . “ If we would profit by
the Word of God, we must mix faith with the hearing
and the reading of it. We must believe that every
word of it is true, simply on God’s own authority.”
. . . “ God requires of us a child-like unquestion
ing submission to the divine authority of the Bible,
and a willingness to hear the voice of God in all
that the Bible says to us.” . . . “ A sense of God’s
authority in the Bible, and unquestioning submission
to that authority, is the best evidence of true. Chris
tianity.” . . . “ An atheist is one who denies the
existence of God; an infidel is one who does not
believe that the Bible is the Word of God; and
there is not much difference between the two, for he
who does not believe that the Bible is God’s Word,
does not believe in the God of the Bible.” . . .
11 Beware of hardening your hearts against the Word
of God, which speaks to us in every sentence of the
Bible.” . . “ Before a man can resist the authority
of God speaking to us in the Bible, there must be a
process of hardening the heart, quenching conviction,
and self-deception, by false expectations of safety in
some other way than that which the Bible reveals.”
�Reason and the Bible.
35
... “I believe that opposition and hatred to the
justice of God as revealed in the Bible, the desire to
quiet the accusations of a guilty conscience, and to
get rid of the fear of punishment which the Bible
tells them their sins deserve, are the true reasons
why men begin to question the authority of the
Bible.” . . . “ Those who deny this authority would
not be convinced, even although the most convincing
arguments were presented to them. All their objec
tions and outrageous views have been again and
again refuted. It is in the heart and not in the
head that their opposition has its seat.” ... “If
scenes such as the miraculous deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira were to occur in our own day, would they
not make some of us tremble ! Many an awful sight
would be seen at our communion tables, if those who
come there, and eat and drink damnation, were to be
struck down, as Ananias and Sapphira were. Theirs
was a miraculous death ; and it may appear to some
unreasonable, that Peter should thus have had the
power to deal so terribly with them. But, my
brethren, beware of limiting the power and the
sovereignty of the Most High. Though it may be
unreasonable, it is none the less true—none the less
a miracle. Woe unto the man that disputeth with
his Maker—Almighty God ! ”
I refrain from any particular criticism of these
rash assertions and uncharitable thoughts, to which
the thinking reader will easily apply most of my
remarks on Dr Gibson’s lecture • but that in
quirers may be enabled to judge of the true name
by which to designate the teaching of these too
zealous advocates of the Bible, I subjoin the follow
ing sentences from very high authorities in the
Roman Catholic Church.
*
* All quoted, with Latin originals and particular references,
in “ The Moral Theology of Liguori,” by Pascal the Younger,
London, 1856, pp. 43, 140, 196, 47.
�26
Reason and the Bible.
St Ignatius, the founder of the J esuits, says in his
“Epistle on the Virtue of Obedience,” A.D. 1553,
“ If you would immolate your whole self wholly unto
God, you must offer to Him not the bare will merely,
but the Understanding also.” . . . “The noble
simplicity of Blind Obedience is gone, if in our
secret breast we call in question whether that which
is commanded be right OR WRONG. This is what
makes it perfect and acceptable to the Lord, that the
most excellent and most precious part of man is
consecrated to Him, and nothing whatsoever of him
kept back for himself.”
To show how this principle is applied, Cardinal
Wiseman says, in his preface to “ The Exercises of
St Ignatius —“In the Catholic Church no one is
ever allowed to trust himself in spiritual matters.
The Sovereign Pontiff is obliged to submit himself
to the direction of another in whatever concerns his
own soul.”
To this may be added from the “Exercises —
“ That we may in all things attain the truth, that we
may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as
a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to
be black, if the hierarchical Church so define it.”
It may be instructive, as I am quoting, to take a
specimen of what these outspoken priests have said
about liberty of conscience. Pope Gregory XVI., in an
encyclical letter, dated August 1832, says:—“It is
from that most fetid fountain, indifferentism, springs
the absurd and mistaken notion, or rather raving of
madness, that liberty of conscience is to be recog
nised and vindicated. What has prepared the way
for this most pestilential error is, that ample and
immoderate liberty of opinion which is spreading
far and wide, to the ruin of Church and State,
though there are some men who, out of most con
summate impudence, maintain it is an advantage to
religion. This is the aim of that worst of all liberties,
�Reason and the Bible.
37
that never-enough-to-be-execrated and detestable
liberty of the press (Awe spectat det&rrima ilia ac
nunguam satis execranda et detestabilis libertas artis
librarian ad scripta gucelibet edenda in vulgus), which
some dare so loudly to demand, and even promote.
We are most horribly affrighted {Perhorrescimus'),
venerable brethren, when we see with what monsters
of doctrine, with what portents of evil we are over
whelmed (pbruamur)."
Nearly everything that can be said or thought
against this truly horrible presumption, which ignores
and hushes up, and utterly disregards or sternly con
demns all but its own one-sided kind of evidence or
argument, will be found, on reflection, easily and
equally applicable to such lectures and sermons as
those of which I have given specimens.
Is it not clear that this very same old SPIRIT OF
Popery, with only a slight alteration of form and
expression, has again got possession of our Protestant
pulpits and schools, and that much of the Reforma
tion work will have to be done over again, before we
can expect to get rid of its present unwholesome
superstitious influence in many branches of the
Church 1
The root and essence of Popery, and of all false
religion, the foundation of all superstitious belief, is
the submission of man’s Reason to some external
standard or symbol of “ Authority above Reason.”
The root and essence of true Christianity, of true
Protestantism, and of all true religion, the founda
tion of all rational belief, is the free exercise of Rea
son, liberation of the intellect, liberty of conscience,
private judgment.
These two kinds of religion or belief are as dis
tinctly opposed to each other, as are the two prin
ciples or foundations on which they respectively rest;
and there is no possibility of reconciling them, nor of
finding any tenable middle way or halting place
�28
Reason and the Bible.
between the two ; for all things are full of progress,
and the increase, as a general rule, is according to
the kind. The distinction, moreover, is not merely
such as there is between two opposite positions, but
rather such as there is between two opposite direc
tions; and no man can be travelling simultaneously
towards both the rising and the setting of the equi
noctial sun.
“All worship is idolatry,” says the great thinker,
Thomas Carlyle, the meaning of which appears to be
that every man who worships the Infinite or the
Unseen, worships his own symbol or conception of
the Infinite or the Unseen, which can in no case be
what the Infinite and Unseen is, so that the likeness
or unlikeness of the symbol-—the truth or the false
hood of the conception—can only be relative and
comparative terms, no possible symbol or conception
being absolutely, perfectly appropriate or true. But
he adds,—“Blameable idolatry is insincere idolatry,”
the meaning of which evidently is that, when doubts
have to be stifled, because the only possible solution
of them is unbelief,—when the voice of Reason is
disregarded, that another voice may be obeyed, which
Reason may not test, and therefore cannot approve,
—then begins false worship or blameable idolatry.
So long as there is no conflict between Reason and
Authority,—between the conscience and the Idol, the
worship may be reasonable and sincere, the idolatry is
not blameable, for “ where there is no law there can be
no transgression of the law.” But, so soon as the
conflict arises,—so soon as the antagonism is known
and felt by any individual, all true worship of the old
symbol or conception is at an end for him. Carelesslessness, indifference, and mental sloth may, for a
time, swell the ranks of neutrality; but every serious,
thoughtful mind is, in such circumstances, unable to
rest until it has made the choice, by deciding between
the rival claims of Reason and Conscience on the one
�Reason and the Bible.
39
hand, and of Authority, Tradition, or the Idol, on
the other.
Such is the time in which it is our lot to live.
The conflict has arisen, and has come to such a height,
that it is, now and henceforth, difficult for any think
ing man not to know and feel the antagonism between
the rival claims for supremacy of Reason and the
Bible. Every serious mind is now again being chal
lenged and compelled to make a choice, by determ ining whether the supreme authority of the Bible shall
be maintained by the submission of Reason, or
whether the supreme authority of Reason shall this
time again triumph over the worship of an Idol, con
demned by Reason, over the asserted and assumed
divinity and authority of a book, said to be the Word
of God, but with which Reason does not and cannot
harmonise, as Reason can and does harmonise with
every true Word of God.
The startling fact, to which men are day by day
awakening, is, that this question between Reason and
the Bible, which is at present challenging the verdict
of every inquiring religious mind, is just the very
same old question in a new form, as that which men
were invited, and many constrained, to settle for
themselves individually, at the time when the first
clear light of Christianity shone upon the supersti
tious gloom of J ewish and heathen traditional beliefs,
and again at the time when the dawn of the Protes
tant Reformation broke forth amidst the darkness of
Popish unreasonableness and intellectual submission
to authority. The love of truth and of humanity is
now again constraining men here and there to stand
forth, as of old, against dogmatism and superstition,
and against the antiquated and obstructive idea, that
those who ought to be the leaders and guides of the
people in ascertaining whatever is truest and best,
should be bound by oaths and bribed by emoluments
to maintain the existing fabric of opinion and custom.
�40
Reason and the Bible.
Not from Christianity, nor from Protestantism, have
we received “ the spirit of bondage again to fear.’
Why should not our religious teachers be, as our
scientific teachers are, free to follow evidence, truth,
a,nd fact, wherever these may lead, no matter what
existing theory or practice may thus be imperilled or
overthrown ? Why should they not stir up the gift
of God which is in them, as the Apostle Paul says to
the young preacher, “ for God hath not given us the
spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind ? ” Fear cannot enlighten the mind, nor
enlarge and strengthen the understanding—cannot
elevate the emotions, nor purify the affections—can
not subdue the will, even when it forces compliance
or assent—cannot convince the reason, although it
may stifle inquiry and discussion. There may be
much internal rebellion, even where there is so much
external submission and conformity as may be thought
necessary for safety or for comfort. Every one knows
that this is a common fact of daily observation, not
only in religion, but also in politics and in family
affairs. But surely it is the very height of folly to
imagine that we can propitiate or please the Father
of our spirits by being afraid to think. Surely it is
gross superstition to be deterred, by dread of .His
displeasure, from the freest, fullest, upright, serious
exercise of reason. “ If anything is clear,” says an
American writer, “ it is, that faith is large in pro
portion as it dares to put things to the proof. Fear
and laziness can accept beliefs ; only trust and cour
age will question them. To reject consecrated opi
nions demands a consecrated mind; at all events,
the moving impulse to such rejection is faith—faith in
reason ; faith in the mind’s ability to attain truth ;
faith in the power of thought—in the priceless worth
of knowledge. The great sceptic must be a great
believer. None have so magnificently affirmed as
those who have audaciously denied ; none so devoutly
trusted as they who have sturdily protested.”
�Reason and the Bible.
4i
It is not unusual for Bible advocates to declare
that they cannot reason at all with those who deny
the infallibility and supreme authority of the Bible,
because they cannot reason, say they, about that to
which reason is bound to submit, and on which all
reasoning must be based. To dispute or to deny the
supremacy of the Bible is, according to these men,
the same thing as to dispute or to deny the supremacy
of God. They apparently do not see the obvious
fact, that such a declaration is equivalent to a claim
of infallibility for themselves or for their own opinion
that the Bible is infallible : or else they would never
presume to say, that to contend against their opinion
about a book is to contend against God. Can they
not understand that, even though their assertion
about the Bible were clearly and unmistakably set
forth in the Bible itself, which, however, it assuredly
is fiot, it would still be inexcusably absurd to main
tain, that doubt or distrust of God is shown by those
who express their doubt or distrust of any of the
matter recorded in the Bible by the hands of men 1
It seems almost incredible that any intelligent mind
should fail to perceive the obvious, wide, and essential
distinction between these two kinds of doubt or
distrust; but yet it is too well known to need proof,
that many of our teachers think, or at least say, that
these two different things are the same, and both
alike criminal. Who has not heard or read thenstupid declarations, that to trace and exhibit the
various marks of human ignorance, error, and im
perfection, which abound in the Bible as in other
ancient books, is God-dishonouring blasphemy, which
He will surely punish ! No less weak and absurd
would it be for any free-thinking man to be cowed
into submission, or even into deference, by such un
reasonable and presumptuous assertions as these,
than it would be for an educated European to be
similarly influenced by the candid and common
�42
Reason and the Bible.
assertion of an orthodox Chinese, expressing his en
tire confidence in the certainty and truth of his
traditional belief, that the people, customs, and
opinions of the “ Celestial Empire ” are incomparably
superior to all others, and that all men of the Euro
pean persuasion are “ outside barbarians and devils.”
What, then, it is asked, is the use of the Bible 1
Why should it not be utterly abolished 1 If it is not
infallible, it is not to be trusted ; and if it is not to
be trusted, it can hardly fail to mislead ; therefore,
it ought to be destroyed. Freethinkers are often
told that, if they would be consistent, they should
argue thus, and should set the example by throwing
their own Bibles in the fire. I myself have been
thus addressed by “ orthodox ” clergymen, and have
been misrepresented by others as if I argued thus.
It might suffice to reply that the same argument,
if sound, would condemn all the treasures of litera
ture to the flames. The Bible is not infallible;
therefore, it ought to be destroyed. No other book
is infallible; therefore, all other books ought to be
burnt. From Homer to Tennyson, from Herodotus to
Froude, from Plato to Mill, from Aristotle to Hux
ley, from Zoroaster to Dr Cumming,—poets, histo
rians, philosophers, men of science, and divines have
all been fallible, and often in error, whatever pre
tensions to the contrary may have been set up by
themselves or by their admirers ; therefore, destroy
the works of them all, so that none may henceforth
be misled thereby ! Obliterate all the records of the
past, so that we and our children may .be free from
the dangerous influence of past delusions and mis
takes; because in none of these records can be found
perfection or infallibility.
The argument thus refutes itself, and the refutation
applies especially to the Bible. Books, old or new,
are valuable and useful just in proportion as they
�Reason and the Bible.
43
enable the student to profit by the varied experience,
culture, and progress, and even by the errors and
failures of other men. Modern thought and educa
tion, from the village school to the highest walks of
learning, are the still progressive fruits of accumu
lated ages •, and books have, ever since their first
employment, been the safest and most effectual vehicle
for the transmission and propagation thereof from one
age to another.
But let authority set the seal of assumed infallibi
lity upon any one book, and its usefulness will be at
once greatly impaired, if not entirely destroyed. In
stead of a help, it will soon become a hindrance, and
so it is now with the Bible. By the dogmatic ascrip
tion of infallibility and supreme authority, equally
and indiscriminately, to the whole of its contents, it
has come to be regarded through a mystic veil or
cloud of superstition. The intrinsic, direct, and selfevident inspiration of some portions has been de
graded and obscured, by placing these on the same
level with those of an entirely different and even
opposite character; the inspiration of the latter being
assumed and asserted to be no less an authoritative
fact, though neither self-evident, intrinsic, nor direct,
as judged by the free-thinking mind. The undeniable
majesty, truth, and beauty of very many passages are,
by this arbitrary interposition of traditional dogma,
confounded by reduction to equality with the weak
ness, meanness, or repulsiveness of others, which, but
for such interposition, reason would now universally
judge to be evil or incredible. The intellect and
moral conscience of men are stunted, distorted, and
hindered in their growth, by external authority train
ing and constraining one faculty of the mind to usurp
the province of another—by subjecting reason to the
religious sentiment—or, in other words, by cultivating
superstition.
The great value, interest, and use of the Bible, far
�44
Reason and the Bible.
from "being negatived or even impaired, are, in fact,
only discovered or vastly enlarged, when it is ap
proached as a venerable record of human thought,
experience, trial, and progress—the divinely appointed
education of mankind. The study of past errors,
faults, and failures is not less useful nor less instruc
tive than that of past wisdom, worth, and success.
Both alike are “ profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, and for instruction in righteousness
__ « for WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORE
TIME were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have
hope” of better times to come for us and for
humanity.
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
Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5516
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Protestantism
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 (Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Evidences
Christianity
Conway Tracts
Faith and Reason
Protestantism
Reason
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b1bebc27dfbe93aa54888598ee3aa6fc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=RYyBbg6IM2bIvBe%7EM6gtbRJGwwSxyHp5dp5XLy1mTekoBBbVYRfn8NJN3C24liZFzEt7LwMooeJt7dGmPYZdsXXIKYKnS%7EeEe7bBLX1sQsrYeY7UwLvjhSUm5jl5euO%7E8%7E8jbyPbVoeG6HAn6OSmEMa1C5DYdclbcGq2xfneRgzzADxN5dyMcIiVsT3v9BcbNZ9LuilcQ%7EHwUl0WljKkeeW8eaM1Y5FQsGUXU33TZ56MU-KXtTEY7HePbFJ9ZuJmznAtEkI%7EDpew48EIEiZRZdyb9%7Ebuk1h-0P6IaByDCVat3BEekvV9gt-9Ri983z9CI6SDOrG7%7EV%7EAUb1gxU3GFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52681812ff3ea72b37803bf637eb0551
PDF Text
Text
THE
[REPRINTED FROM
SECULAR
REVIEW.”]
London :
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
�/
■
Every Thursday.
Price Twopence.
THE SECULAR REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
The Secular Review is the recognised organ of cultured
Freethought in England, and its contributors comprise some
of the leading scholars and foremost thinkers of the country.
...
Subscription
...
is. ^y^d. per Quarter.
Publishing Office: 41, Farringdon St., London, E.C.
Price 2s. Post Free.
In Limp Cloth.
POEMS:
GENERAL, SECULARISTIC, AND
SATIRICAL.
By LARA.
Dedicated to Saladin.
“ Contains specimens of the most biting satire penned since
the days of Pope.”
London: W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
Recently Published.
Price
is.
6d. Post Free.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE
HYLO-IDEALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
DEMONSTRATING the true basis of
AGNOSTICISM.
By WILLIAM BELL McTAGGART.
London: W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�[reprinted from "the
SECULAR. REVIE.7. ']
THE COVENANTERS.
MONDAY, October 27th, 1SS4.
The House met at four o’clock.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
Answering Mr. Buchanan, the Marquis of Hartington Laid he
had communicated with Lord Wolseley as to the employment of a
greater number of Presbyterian chaplains with the Scottish regi
ments under his charge, adding that one at present at Alexandria
would be available, if his services were required.
Alas, that the world has not yet dispensed with the
services of Presbyterian Beetles of god and gun ! I
myself ran such a narrow escape of being a Scotch
Beetle that this project of employing the S-carabceus
Scotorum in Egypt brings up to my memory sundry of
the bloodthirsty insects’ previous ravages scrolled over
history’s panoramic canvas, and that in pigments of black
ness and fire.
There, with high cheek-bones and scowling brows,
with black gowns and Geneva bands, file past the dour
and grim fanatics who barred the path of Charles I. and
of Laud, Juxon, and Wren. There go they who, for
twenty-eight years, through steel and blood and heather,
set their backs against the wall of Fate and practically
swore to lead Scotland to Hell, rather than to Rome.
History has a pretty feasible hint that the shower of claspBibles that, on July 23rd, 1637, rained .so murderously
round the head of Dean Hanna in St. Giles’s church
were flung by Scottish ministers, dressed in female gowns
and mutches, and that their pulpit-trained voices initiated
the popular yell of “ Anti-Christ! Anti-Christ 1 A Pope !
A Pope I A Belly-god 1 Stone him !” It was the fanatical
�'l'HE COVENANTERS.
and hard-headed Presbyterian Beetles who, by their wild
biblically-phrased warnings, roused the Scottish peers to
a vivid apprehension that, if Charles and Laud succeeded,
the estates which had been confiscated from the Church
at the Reformation would be wrenched from the nobles
and restored to Rome. This was a potent argument; for,
whatever might be the territorial lord’s desire for a place
in the kingdom of heaven, he would fight and sing psalms
for twenty years rather than lose a single acre of his
’ands in the kingdom of Scotland. And thus there was
ilmost instantly arrayed against the Government a black
)halanx of ninety Beetles, walled round by John, Ear!
of Rothes; John, Earl of Cassilis; Alexander, Earl of
Eglinton; James, Earl of Home; William, Earl of
Lothian ; John, Earl of Wemyss ; and John, Earl of
Loudon ; Lord Lindesay, Lord Yester, Lord Balmerino,
Lord Cranston, and large numbers of the gentry and
lesser nobility. These, of course, led with them the
psalm-singing yokels of their estates, primed up by
the Beetles to a perfect phrenzy of religious fanaticism,
which could not fail to be exceedingly profitable to their
lords and masters. There is no patriotism in denying
that Scotland’s desperate struggle in the seventeenth
century was carried out by the immoral instrumentality
of Beetle and noble-primed bumbkins, howling from
Jeremiah and canting from Ezekiel, grimly frantic with
suffering and fanaticism, who, singing psalms, mutilated
the slain, and dashed their texts and swords at the same
time through the bodies of the dragoons of the Govern
ment. Scotland did all this drunk with divinity, and 1
should respect her quite as much if she had done it al!
drunk with whisky. And yet I should like to see the
land in the whole world that can afford to scoff at her.
Man, up to this time, has been a small and nasty animal
at the best, and what are magniloquently called his
noblest motives will not bear anything like rigid analysis.
You are kinder, to mankind w’hen you expect too little
c>f them than when you expect too much. And it will
puzzle your ingenuity to expect less than you will get.
The .passage in Genesis anent God’s making all things
very good would have stood better on its legs if it had
read, “God made all things very good save man, and
�3
THE COVENANTERS.
him he made mad.” It is teleology alone that makes
man madder than his “earth-born companions and
fellow mortals.” Well might Burns apostrophise the
mouse:—
“ Still thou art blest, compared wi’ me :
The Present only toucheth thee ;
But, ah ! I backward cast my e’e
On prospects drear ;
And, forward though I canna see,
I guess and fear.”
. ,
' j
'
'
.
It it all very well for writers of the school of Dr. Lewins
to abjure teleology absolutely. It rises superior to abjura
tion. The speculatively religious instinct is strong in
normal man, and I, for one, rejoice rather than lament
that it is so. It is not the religious instinct that has
stultified and cursed the race, but the diversion of that
instinct into baleful channels by interested sacerdotal anc
civil chicane. Man has too little religion, rather thar.
too much ; but he has certainly too much theology, rather
than too little.
But, back to the Black-Beetles of the Presbyterian
corner of the vineyard of the Lord. So well did the
interested leaven of religious sedition work that in June,
1638, the High Commissioner swaggered up to Holy
rood escorted by 20,000 men, most of them mounted.
There were present, moreover, 700 Beetles, the most
sour and grim kind that ever banged a bible for the love
of God. Many of them had buff coats under their
Geneva cloaks, and, according to Burnet, many wore in
their belts swords, pistols, and daggers, that, for the love
of heaven, they might redden the earth with blood.
Madly Beetle-bitten, the peasantry flew to arms ; every
Beetle-box in the country breathed of fire and slaughter;
the crackle of musketry was in every sermon, the roar
of cannon in every prayer; the sword-blade was sharpened
on the pulpit, and the kirk became a recruiting-ground
for the battle-field. “ We have now cast down the walls
of Jericho; let him who rebuildeth them beware of the
curse of Hiel the Bethelite ” was the refrain of a
Tyrtaean sermon by Henderson, of Leuchars. Beetles
Mushet, Row, Cant, Dickson, and a mighty host of
murderous piety, took up the cry. It was thundered
�4
THE COVENANTERS.
from hundreds of pulpits. The heather was, indeed,
on fire. The Beetle struck the Bible with his fist in the
emphasis of bloodthirsty rhetoric, and his voice found a
terrible echo in the ring of the armourer’s anvil, as the
hammer clashed and clanged upon the red-hot iron that
was being fashioned into bit and stirrup, helmet and
sword-blade.
The Lords of the Covenant prepared for war. Where
soever the carcase of prey is there shall the eagles of
militarism be gathered together. Heretofore Scotland
had proved too stale and pacific to be a fitting arena for
the restless energies of her gentlemen of the sword and
swashbuckling fire-eaters, and they had accordingly
poured in thousands from the banks of the Forth, the
Dee, and the Clyde to the banks of the Elbe, the Oder,
and the Danube, to follow Gustavus Adolphus for gold
and glory, and write their names imperishably in their
blood in the annals of the Thirty Years’ War, in which
the stubborn valour of the Scottish Legion filled all
Europe with their renown. The Beetles had now wrung
the coin out of the pockets of their frugal countrymen at
home, and their fighting countrymen abroad rushed back
to offer their steel blades and their blood for the merks of
the peasant and the burgher. The world had no better
soldiers than the Scoto-Swedish officers of Gustavus,
among the most distinguished of whom were Sir Alex
ander Leslie, Sir Alexander Hamilton, Sir James Living
stone, Monroe, Baillie, and other heroes of Prague and
Fleura, and numerous battle-fields in Polish Prussia,
Brandenherg, Westphalia, and Silesia. The Beetle, the
ancestor of him now wanted in Egypt, had done it with
a vengeance. Every fourth man in Scotland was to
consider himself a soldier. The sword of the Lord and
of Gideon s. The land was as busy as a beehive declaim
ing sermons, whining prayers, drawling psalms, and
getting ready arms and munitions—body armour for the
cavalry, buff-coats and morions for pikemen, and muskets
with rests for the musketeers. A cannon-foundry was,
moreover, established at the Potter Row, Edinburgh,
under the direction of Sir Alexander Hamilton, formerly
master of the cannon-foundries of Gustavus Adolphus at
Urbowt, in Sweden. And all Beetledom was up on end
�THE COVENANTERS.
5
and raving to Jehovah to hurl down the curse of Meroz
upon those who failed to gird up their loins and go forth
to help the Lord against the mighty.
The old legend-book of Judah was clasped to the very
heart of Scotland. Its bloodiest and most terrible texts
were interwoven with the common parlance of mundane
affairs and preached from with a wild and volcanic vehe
mence. “ And I will feed them that oppress thee with
their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their
own blood, as with sweet wine : and all flesh shall know
that I, the Lord, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the
mighty one of Jacob.” “The Lord hath a sacrifice in
Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea/’
“ Cursed be he who keepeth back his sword from blood.”
“ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his
sword by his side, and go in and out, from gate to gate,
throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother,
and every man his companion, and every man his neigh
bour.” These were the sort of bases of Beetle-spun
harangues that scared the pee-wheet and the plover of
the hills and moors. “Now go and smite Amalek,
and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them
not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass. And Saul gathered the
people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hun
dred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
And the Lord sent thee on a journey and said: Go and
utterly destroy the sinners, the Am al ekites, and fight against
them until they be consumed,” was the fearful text from
which a certain Beetle of Hell preached, and incited the
Covenanters to, after the Battle of Philiphaugh, enclose
the defeated musketeers of Montrose in the courtyard of
Newark Castle, and pour in volley after volley of shot
upon the defenceless and unresisting mass, till not a man
remained standing; and the gunpowder smoke cleared
away and left the court covered with blood and brains
like the floor of a slaughter-house, and the air rent with
the shrieks of those to whom Death had not yet come
in mercy to end their agony. After this holy massacre
1,000 corpses were interred in a spot which to this day
bears the shuddering name of The Slain Man's Lea.
And so much did the Presbyterian Beetles insist upon
�6
THE COVENANTERS.
the curses that would overtake those who spared the
Amalekites, the enemies of God, and so terribly did they
emphasise '''‘man and woman, infant and suckling,” that
the swords of the Covenant ripped open the bodies of
the women with child and transfixed the unborn babe
with the blade reeking with the blood of its mangled
mother,* that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
So much for the antecedents of the Presbyterian
Beetles Mr. Buchanan inquires about so kindly, and in
regard to whom the Marquis of Hartington replies that
there is a spare one to be had at Alexandria. Even
now, it would seem, Scottish soldiers do not feel they can
slaughter properly for the Lord unless they are under
the beetlefications of an Ephraim MacBriar or a Gabriel
Kettledrummle !
How long, O Lord, how long, will it be accounted
glorious to drill a bayonet through a diaphragm and
valorous to lodge a leaden pellet in the medulla oblon
gata ? No religion whatever can be true whose God is
the God of Battles, and whose priests officiate in the
sanctification of slaughter. O that there were a righteous
heaven, and that man’s objective Paradise was correlative
with man’s subjective desire ! then would I call to this
heaven to witness that the torn banners and emblazoned
rags of war are hung up as trophies in the Christian
churches and cathedrals—the relics and memorials of
wounds and misery and hate and death in the temples
of “the Prince of Peace”! I have sat in a certain
Cathedral and listened to the Gospel of goodwill to all
mankind, although, at the entrance, I had to pass dusty,
torn, and ghastly relics of some of the bloodiest engage
ments in India and the Peninsula. I yearn for the
religion that will account State murder and private
murder alike unhallowed, and which will find no room
in its fanes for bannered rags in memorial of burning
towns, slaughtered men, shrieking widows, and breadless
orphans, more than for the gory knives which were
wielded by the miscreants and murderers whose infamy
is perpetuated in the Chamber of Horrors at Madame
Tussaud’s.
Gordon of Ruthven.
�Price 2s., post free,
LAYS OF ROMANCE & CHIVALRY.
By W. STEWART ROSS (“Saladin”).
“ Some of these effusions are ot a very remarkable character, and indicate
that Mr. Ross has a genuine vein of poetic inspiration.”—Daily Telegraph.
“Mr. Stewart Ross shows great power of dramatic expression................. The
work will be welcomed by all who can appreciate poetic energy applied to the
interesting and thrilling incidents of theeailier and more romantic periods of
history.”—Aberdeen Journal.
“ Many of the poems are characterised by a spirit and ringing martial vigour
that stirs the blood.”—Daily Chronicle.
“ A book of romantic, historic verse, aglow in every page with the energy oi
a true and high poetic genius.”—Glasgow Weekly Mail.
“ The author gives ample proof of his varied talents, and his no small share
of the minstrel’s magic power. —Aberdeen Free Press.
“There is much that is excellent in the work........ Mr. Ross is apparently a
scholar, and might make a success in some other walk in literature."—Liver
pool Daily Post.
“ Mr. Ross is a poet of undoubted power.”—Hull Miscellany.
“ The poems are characterised now by vigour, now by grace, and now by
pathos.”—Nottingham Guardian.
“ Mr. Stewart Ross is not only a poet, he is a scholar and a thinker.”—
South London Press.
“The poems contain many fine thoughts, expressed in powerful language.”—
Newcastle Weekly Chronicle.
“ The book is well worthy the perusal of all readers of taste, and we trust
Mr. Stewart Ross will favour this department of literature with further efforts
of his genius.”—Liverpool Mercury.
London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
Just out, price id., post free i%d., The
WHITMINSTER SECULAR SCHOOL
INAUGURATION,
Speeches by Glegg Bullock, Esq., Saladin, Lara, Edith
Saville, and George Minson.
London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
Now ready, neatly bound in cloth, price is., post free is. 2d.,
LIFE
ON THE
BASIS
AND
OF
By ROBERT
MIND:
MODERN
MEDICINE.
LEWINS, M.D.
With an Appendix by “ Thalassoplektos ” (“Pioneer.”).
London : W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�RECENT. PAMPHLETS.
The Dying Faith, by Lara
...
...
...
o 3
A Visit to the Grave of Thomas Carlyle, by Saladin
o 1
The Divine Interpretation of Scripture, being a Reply to
Cardinal Manning, by Saladin ...
...
...
01
The Crusades, by Saladin
...
...
...
o 1
The Covenanters, by Saladin
...
...
...
01
Christian Persecution, by Saladin ...
...
...
01
The Flagellants, by Saladin
..
...
...
o I
The Iconoclasts, by Saladin
...
...
...
01
The Inquisition, by Saladin
...
...
...
o I
Christian Crackers, by Inquirer
...
...
...
04London: W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
Just issued, price 10s. 6d., post free,
OUTLINES OF
MENTAL PHILOSOPHY.
By J. D. MORELL, LL.D.
(Author of ‘•'■Manual oj History of Philosophy,'1
Grammar and Analysis,” etc.)
“ English
Since the Psychology of the Scottish School (Reid, Stewart, Brown)
has ceased to satisfy the requirements of the age, various efforts
have been made to discuss the whole question from a more scientific
point of view. These were commenced by Sir William Hamilton
in his Notes on Reid. Since then James Mill, Alexander Bain, and
Herbert Spencer have treated the whole science with great power
of analysis from a more sensualistic point of view. Various German
systems (Hegel, Herbart, Beneke) have also, during the present
century, attempted to throw new light on the subject, each in its
own particular form. The present Outlines were designed to take
into due account these various attempts at a more complete develop
ment of the science, and educe from them a brief and intelligible
sketch of a System of Psychology based on a critical apprehension
of all the previous analyses. These Outlines are now published
with such exposition as the progress of scientific thought on the
subject seemed to require. They are thus presented as a Text-book,
which may enable the student, in-some measure, to test the claims,
of opposing systems, and to enter fairly into the main questions
which have been mooted by the leading psychologists of Europe
in the present age.
London: W. Stewart & Co., the Holborn Viaduct Steps, E.C.
Edinburgh : J. Menzies & Co.
�Price One Penny.
p„,t Free Thrce-Halffma.
FROM THE VALLEY
OF
THE SHADOW OF DEATH.
By SALADIN.
IN
BRUNO
MEMORIAM
STEWART
ROSS,
Died i9th November, 1882, aged two years and five weeks.
3
London: W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
Recently Published.
Post free Twofence-halfpenny.
WITCHCRAFT
IN CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.
By SALADIN.
Being an Address delivered at the Inauguration of the Secular
Society at Stockport, November 19th, 1882—the Marquis of
Queensberry m the Chair.
London : W. Stewart & Co., 4r, Farringdon Street, E.C
Price 2s. post free.
Elegantly printed in colours.
SONGS BY THE WAYSIDE
OP AN AGNOSTIC'S LIFE.
By Himself.
London: W. Stewart & Co., 4i, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�Now ready, price id., post free ij£d.,
THE DIVINE
INTERPRETATION OF
- - SCRIPTURE:
A REPLY TO CARDINAL MANNING.
By Saladin.
Being a Paper read at the Cassadaga Conference, New York,
by S. P. Putnam, Secretary, American Liberal League.
“ This trenchant and incisive impeachment of the pretensions
of our greatest enemy, the Romish Church, was well worth re
printing, and we hope it will have a large circulation.”—Free
thinker.
16 pp., with Illustration, price One Penny, post free Threehalfpence,
CRUSADES.
THE
By Saladin.
16 pp., price One Penny, post free Threehalfpence,
CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION.
By Saladin.
V
In neat wrapper, price One Penny, post free Threehalfpence,
THE FLAGELLANTS.
a /
By Saladin.
In neat wrapper, price One Penny, post free Threehalfpence,
THE
COVENANTERS,
r- „
By Saladin.
z
f The Publishers will be pleased to forward an assorted parcel of
100 copies of the above Pamphlets (carriage paid) for distribution
" on receipt of ys. 6d.
London: W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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 Covenanters
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ross, William Stewart [1844-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 6, [3] p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from The Secular Review. Publisher's advertisements inside front cover, and on unnumbered pages at the end. "by Saladin" [title page], the pseudonym of William Stewart Ross. The Coventanters were people who believed in the presbyterian form of Protestant worship and organisation, and who had signed the various National Covenant. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Stewart & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1884?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N578
Subject
The topic of the resource
Protestantism
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 Covenanters), 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
Covenanters
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/956cdb3a8e124b1e9fa0e3ab20c0d61b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=p6j2J159bJP-HkQ%7EPFvSa6y5HucWSjoBDiuvyKR5TTHUUkieLzgpK-dM5zprzQtc3rsaMw2UCSvN1wTYn0J9AQP-0pg-ONHFUAzhh%7EYTQ7UinfSwj2oy5B0PpCjhYai2zaafIxc7IExpd-NQC5ur1fT2Lisx7mJdTL7XpHhHZ-J3NytSLOpAyloLbRMfUzFRcSO3rL%7EuUauUdhQMM48EW7pZXuaukWAr6pe%7EDx%7EjL%7ER7GmWPh%7EvEUvl14gTqTO77DFgwk30gdw-UYEEo67Y49OxxJ8j3%7ESecAWwXMSwhfLvfTZlbEU9o4R-YDo1wymAV2FmR6N7zCYnXPGNqld0gNw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8eeae4abe981b7ba451c2ec29e90fd64
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
FLAGELLANTS
'
AND
THE
COVENANTERS
(New Edition).
BY
SALADIN.
Author of “God and His Book,” etc.
London :
W. Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�THE FLAGELLANTS.
From the era of its half-mythical Galilean down
wards, Christianity has laid incontestable claims to
be considered the Religion of Misery. A radical
doctrine of the faith is that this world is only a
Babelmandeb, or Gate of Tears to the “ glory that
shall yet be revealed.” The teaching’s recorded of
Christ have all the jaundiced acerbity of the Essenes.
The son of Mary was an ascetic, or nothing. Ac
cording to him, the end of the world was close at
hand. Its concerns and aims were despicable, and
the best that could be done was to regard its plea
sures as pernicious seductions and lay up “ treasures
in heaven,” as it would avail a man nothing should
he ** gain the whole world and lose his own soul.”
Strictly compatible with the teachings of Christ
were the doctrines of Cardinal Damiani, when he
wrote a panegyric upon the efficacy of self-inflicted
suffering, and those of the celebrated Dominic, when
he introduced penitential hymns, to be chanted to
a tune to which the self-inflicted lash kept time.
Hair shirts, protracted periods of fasting, and the
like, had long been m vogue as means to propitiate
an angry heaven ; but Dominic affirmed that twenty
recitations of the Psalms, accompanied by selfinflicted scourging, was equal to a hundred years,
of ordinary penitence.
Dominic flourished towards the middle of the
eleventh century ; but it was not till about two
centuries later (1260) that the seed of asceticism
he had sown sprang up to be a great and popular
tree of self-torture. It was in an age of gloom
and suffering and wickedness that, at Pergugia,
in Italy, a monk named Regnier, with wild and
bitter eloquence, preached Flagellation as the anti
dote that would restore an afflicted people to the
�The Flagellants.
3
favour of an angry God. Like Peter the Hermit
in the first Crusade, like Luther at the Reformation,
or Bernhardt of the Millenarian insanity, this
Regnier had rightly interpreted the spirit of the
times. He put in his sickle, and the corn was
already ripe for the harvest. The wars of Guelph
and Ghibelline, famine, pestilence, rapine, murder,
and misery had, after a thousand years of Chris
tianity, made Italy and the most of Europe feel
that life was, indeed, not worth living, but only
a horrid and mysterious burden, which was taken
up involuntarily, and which left those who bore it
such cravens that they had not the courage to lay
it down.
And so another violent epidemic of Lose you-r
Reason to Save your Soul fell upon Christendom
like a rinderpest. The memory and inspiration of
the Man of Sorrows was again to lay the load of
a great sorrow upon the shoulders of the world.
Once more, as, under the preaching of Bernhardt
and Peter the Hermit, rowdy and rascal, swash
buckler and sword-player, blackguard and blackleg,
worked themselves into a frenzy concerning one
Jesus, whose name has always been a spell-word
with miscreants from the time of the Christian cut
throats mentioned by Tacitus down to Booth’s latest
prize, the “ blood-washed soul ” of ’Arry Juggins
the burglar.
Two by two the holy ones of the whip-lash
marched through the gaping multitudes on the
crowded streets. Their heads wTere covered with
sackcloth ; their remaining article of attire was a
bandage round the loins, which rendered them a
little decent for God’s sake. Their backs and breasts
were entirely nude. The back bore a huge cross,
daubed upon J&B skin with red paint ; and another
cross was smeared upon the naked breast. On
through the town, and through the wilderness, in
long and narrow file, like the march of the ducks
from the dub to the dung-hill, marched those nasty
saints of God. The hand of each sacred fanatic
bore a heaw and horrible whip, the thongs tipped
with iron ; and, with this whip, every pious madman
lashed his own bare back till the thongs were clotted
and gory, and long lines of blood running down
�4
The Flagellants.
from the scapula to the pelvis defaced the red cross
which had been painted on the skin.
To what shall we liken the men of that genera
tion? To a crazy dog, refusing its food and chew
ing off its own hind legs to please its master. But
the analogy is imperfect, and the man flogging his
own back to please his Jesus is more irrational than
the dog chewing off his own hind legs to please his
master ; for the dog is positively sure he has a
master ; but the ablest Christian that has ever writ
ten has not been able to establish that his Jesus
really ever existed. The only record of him is in
four so-called “ Gospels,” written by nobodv knows
who, nobody knows where, and nobody knows when,,
and the statements of which are contradicted by
each other and are utterly unsupported by history.
A pretty source, indeed, from which to derive a
Jesus in whose honour you can flog your back 1
But backs always will be flogged, and noses ever
will be held close to the grindstone, till he with
the back and he with the nose takes the trouble to
cultivate his brain, and dares to confront, eagleeyed, the authorities that would make him a chattel
and a poor mad cats-paw in the hands of priest
and tyrant.
Jehovah has ever liked singing and dancing and
capers to his glory and honour. David, the “ man
according to God’s own heart,” danced naked be
fore deity and certain young girls ; and another
worthy sang to God’s glory with acceptance because
Jael had hammered a nail into her guest’s head
while he slept. So the Flagellants, besides tickling
their own backs with whips, deemed it would be
well to tickle Jehovah’s ears with music. Accord
ingly they sang while they flogged. If vou think
flogging your back is conducive to making you
rival the efforts of Sims Reeves, just try the ex
periment. Flog your back while you sing, and you
will find-that many a quaver flies off into a scream,
and that many a crotchet is dead-born. But the
Lord had just to content himself with such music
as- was obtainable under the circumstances. Cer
tain fragments of the hymns which the Flagellants
sang have been preserved. Here are brief speci
mens
�The Flagellants.
5
“Through love of man the Saviour came,
Through love of man he died ;
He suffered want, reproach, and shame,
Was scourged and crucified.
Oh, think, then, on thy Saviour’s pain,
And lash the sinner, lash again ! ” *
The following are a few lines from the metrical
rendering' into English of “ The Ancient Song of
the Flagellants ” :—
“Tears from our sorrowing eyes we weep,
Therefore so firm our faith we keep
With all our hearts, with all our senses :
Christ bore his cross for our offences.
Ply well the scourge, for Jesu’s sake,
And God, through Christ, your sin will take.
For love cf God abandon sin—
To mend your vicious lives begin ;
So shall we his mercy win.” t
Thirty-three days and a-half was the shortest term
in which a Flagellant must macerate and lacerate
himself ; and these thirty-three and a-half days were
meant to be mystically symbolical of the thirty-three
years and a-half which the third part of God, and
yet equal to the "whole of God, had lived on earth
4‘saving souls” and making three-legged stools,
lhe devotees fell down on their dirty knees in the
dirty streets, and, setting up their naked, putrid,
and horrible backs, prayed to Jah and Jesus and
Mary to have mercy on their souls, before having
taken the trouble to find out whether they had souls
or not. Jah and Jesus and Mary had, however,
something else to do than attend to kneeling lunatics
with voices like cross-cut saws and backs like half
cooked beef-steaks. But the cities, then as now,
had plenty of fools, and certain of them rushed out
at their doors or leapt from their windows for God’s
sake to join the ranks of those who lashed their
hurdies with thongs and prayed with their knees
in the gutter. When all Christendom had managed
to lash its back to its own satisfaction, it threw
down the whip, got up from its knees, and took
to swearing and sinning in the usual way.
But, some fifty years afterwards, Christendom
again took it into its head that its back would be
* Preserved by L’Evesque : quoted by Lingard.
t Dr. He:ker.
�6
The Flagelleiits.
all the better for a flogging. So, in 1296, the saints,
particularly those of Strasburg, Spires, and Frank
fort, took unto themselves whips, and began busi
ness in earnest. The Jews had good broad backs,
which they were impious enough never to whip,
and this mightily offended the Christian Flagellants.
The Jews did not see their way to whip their own
backs, so, in the most obliging manner, the Chris
tians offered to whip them for them. The Jews
preferred to look after their commercial enterprises
to tearing away with a scourge at their own dorsal
rafters ; and, for this deadly sin, they were foully
massacred. The wretches who did not scourge their
backs had scourged the third of deity and crucified
him. Down with them to Tophet! One Jew,
goaded to desperation by Christian persecution and
outrage, set fire to the Town Hall and the Cathedral
of Frankfort, and they were reduced to ashes. Down
with the seed of Iscariot and Barabbas ! The holy
ones flung away their whips, and, seizing sword,
hatchet, and knife, devoted some hours of horror
to the slaughter of man, woman, and child of the
seed of Israel. The God of Jacob looked on ; but,
apparently, did not see his way to interfere. In
Frankfort, of all the sons and daughters of Salem
whose ancestors had sung to the Lord by the streams
of Babel, none remained alive, except a small rem
nant that, bursting through the carnage, had
escaped into Bohemia. Christ had “ redeemed ”
these Christians (they were well worth it) by a
bloody sacrifice upon Calvary, and, out of com
pliment—like Catherine Medici in her sanguinous
bath—they set him in blood to the chin. Every
tree must be judged by its fruit. I hereby defy the
history of all the other faiths to produce a tree like
the Christian one, which, from the deepest root to
the topmost twig, is dyed with human gore.
After the Frankfort tragedy of 1296, Flagellantism
did not rear its head conspicuously till the year 1348.
To students of history the mention of this date re
calls the deepest and widest grave that was ever
dug to receive the slag and refuse of morality. The
“ Black Death ” took into her hands the besom
of destruction, and swept into the sepulchre twentyfive millions of human beings ! Europe fell upon
�The Flagellants.
7
her knees, and from Dirt appealed to Deity. But
the appeal was in vain. In every Christian city
there was a plethora of disgusting sewage and un
speakable stench. Cleanliness is, proverbially, next
to godliness ; but the citizens of mediaeval Europe
were so godly that they forgot to be cleanly. Out
side Mohammedan Constantinople there was not a
bath on the entire European continent, from the
Straits of Behring to the Straits of Messina. Pious
Ignorance and theological Intolerance sat to the
eyes in filth, which it would give my readers the
jaundice to describe ; and mankind perished as do
clouds of locusts when overtaken by a gale at sea,
or as perish at the end of autumn tens of thousands
of hives of bees, when imprisoned amid the fumes
I
of burning brimstone.
“ God in heaven, Mary and all the Saints, what
is the matter now? ” gasped Christendom, as, with
pale lips and phrenized eye, she, in whole cityfuls,
-staggered into the grave. Nothing practical, as
connected with this wretched “Vale of Tears,’’
suggested itself to the follower of Jesus. He was
beyond and above attending to the carnal conditions
of this despicable earth, and from the midst of his
priests and relics and shrines and miracles his whole
hope was in heaven, and his only court of appeal
his “ Maker and Redeemer.’’ But neither Maker
nor Redeemer could be induced to interfere ; and
graves were dug till there were none left to dig
them, and corpses were borne out of the streets
and houses till there were none left to bear them.
There were only the voice of prayer, the cry of pain,
and the rattle of the death-cart ; and in certain dis
tricts even these sounds died away. In the houses
the dead were left with the dead. There lay a dis
used cart and a skeleton horse. Grass and weeds
flourished in the streets where a busy traffic had
— rolled its tides, and there the wind waved ghastly
shreds of human apparel, still adhering to more
ghastly relics of human beings. There was high
carnival for maggot and fly, and dogs and swine
tugged and snarled among the entrails of those who
bad trusted in Jesus and neglected their dust-bins.
The New Testament was looked to as the anti
dote to the bane ; and, whatever may be its merits,
�8
' -
The Flagellants.
it is a poor manual of hygiene. Scrubbing is never
mentioned, and there is no reference to washing,
except to the washing of “ souls,” whatever they
may be, in blood. There is, moreover, allusion to
the washing- of a certain party’s feet with tears,
and then drying them with maiden’s hair ; but this
is a sentimental and not an efficacious lavation. It
is not on record that Mary or Tabitha, or anyone
else, ever washed the shirt or tunica which was
worn under the seamless garment of Jesus, and I
question if it was ever washed or changed from
the day on which he left the carpenter’s bench till
the day that, with his life, he expiated his sedition
and folly. Through all the horror of the Black
Death we hear of no wholesome and honest wash
ing with water ; but there certainly was a washing
of the streets with blood. It was surmised that
tlris visitation of the wrath of Heaven was instigated
by the sinfulness of the Christians in allowing the
Jews to live ; for it was the Jews who had crucified
the Lord ; and yet, according to the Christian theory,
if the Lord had not been crucified, the world would
inevitably have been lost. The Black Death was
accompanied with another merciless massacre of the
Jews. It was also accompanied by another pitiless
flogging of backs. So fanatically wild did this selfinflicted back-flogging become that many held that
the rite of Flagellation should, in the Christian
Church, supersede the rite of Baptism. Many liter
ally flogged away the flesh off their bones, and yet
the plague did not abate ; and the sky and the earth
were pregnant with supernatural terrors. A pillar
of fire hung over the pope’s palace at Avignon ;
a red ball of fire in the heavens blazed over Paris,
and Greece and Italy were shaken with an earth
quake. And the Christians flogged and prayed, and
prayed and flogged, and sang and slew, and slew
and sang, and still the plague went on.
Flageliantism was not without its serio-comic as
pect. I cannot say whether it copied from the game
of Leap-the-Frog, or whether Leap-the-Frog has
copied from it. In Leap-the-Frog each boy vaults
over his neighbour’s bended back, and then bends
his own, and so on the process goes till each has
vaulted over the back of all. The Flagellants lay
!
/
|
�The Flagellants.
9
in rows, and one ran along the row scourging
furiously as he went with a leathern scourge tipped
with iron, and then he lay down ; and so on and
so on, till each had flogged the naked backs of all.
In lying in the rows to be flogged, however, those
who wished to do penance for certain crimes had
to observe certain recognized postures indicative of
these crimes. If the crime was perjury, till it was
his turn to get up and flog, the penitent lay on his
side, holding up three fingers ; if it was adultery,
he lay flat with his face on the ground ; and so on,
different postures of the body were fixed upon to
indicate different crimes. The Flagellants, too, were
not without their grotesque impostures in the shape
of pious forgeries. At one of their assemblies they
actually read a letter which had been sent to them
direct from heaven, and in which Jesus Christ was
good enough to give them his favourable opinion of
the efficacy of flagellation. The “ Blessed Virgin ”
had, with maternal affection, given her son some
assistance in the composition of this celestial missive.
Unlike the Millenarian mania, the Flagellant craze
•extended even to England. In 1351 a deputation
of 120 continental Flagellants visited London ; but
insular stolidity did not see its way to carry its piety
to the extent of lacerating its own flesh with
scourges. Even on the continent the irenzy began
to exhaust itself. The leaders betook themselves to
desperate resources to buttress up a falling cause.
They set themselves to the task of restoring life
to a dead child, and performed the “ miracle ” so
clumsily that the performance hastened their dis
solution instead of giving them a new lease of in
fluence. In the hey-day of their fanaticism neither
king nor pontiff saw it prudent to interlere with
the Flagellants ; but when the tide turned against
them, king and pontiff turned against them too. . A
bitter persecution set in, and Flagellantism, like
most other isms, was called upon to furnish its roll
•of martyrs, and it heroically enough responded to
the' call. Its dying spasm—and it was a vigorous
and terrible one—was in 1414, and some time later
it finally expired in the dungeons and amid the
fagots of the Holy Inquisition. Mankind, in the
mass, continue to be fools ; but, in the last four
�10
2 he Couenanteis.
centuries, there has been some small advance to
wards sanity, and it is now somewhat difficult toget anyone to flog his own back for the love of God.
W. S. R.
THE COVENANTERS.
MONDAY, October 27th, 1884.
The House met at tour o’clock.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
Answering Mr. Buchanan, the Marquis of Hartington said hehad communicated with Loid Wolseley as to the employment of a
greater number of Presbyterian chaplains with the Scottish regi
ments under his charge, adding that one at present at Alexandria
would be available, if his services were required.
Alas, that the world has not yet dispensed with'
the services of Presbyterian Beetles of god and gun I
I myself ran such a narrow escape of being a Scotch.
Beetle that this project of employing the ScarabceusScotorum in Egypt brings up to my memory sundry
of the bloodthirsty insects’ previous ravages scrolled,
over history’s panoramic canvas, and that in pig
ments of blackness and fire.
There, with hign cheek-bones and scowling browsr
with black gowns and Geneva bands, file past thedour and grim fanatics who barred the path of
Charles I., and of Laud, Juxon, and Wren. There
go they who, lor twenty-eight years, through steel!
and blood and heather, set their backs against thewall of Fate, and practically swore to lead Scotland
to Hell, rather than to Rome.
History has a pretty feasible hint that the shower
of clasp-Bibles that, on July 23rd, 1637, rained so>
murderously round the head of Dean Hanna, in
St. Giles’s Church, were flung by Scottish ministers,,
dressed in female gowns and mutches, and that
their pulpit-trained voices initiated the popular yell
of “Anti-Christ! Anti-Christ! A Pope! A Pope!
A Bellv-god ! Stone him ! ” It was the fanatical"
and hard-headed Presbyterian Beetles who, by their
wild biblically-phrased warnings, roused the Scottish
�The Covenanters.
11
peers to a vivid apprehension that, if Charles and’
Laud succeeded, the estates which had been con
fiscated from the Church at the Reformation would7
be .wrenched from the nobles and restored to Rome.
This was a potent argument ; for, whatever might
be the territorial lord’s desire for a place in the
kingdom of heaven, he would fight and sing psalms
for twenty years rather than lose a single acre of
his lands in the kingdom of Scotland. And thus
there was almost instantly arrayed ag-ainst the
Government a black phalanx of ninety Beetles,
walled round by John, Earl of Rothes ; John, Earl
of Cassilis ; Alexander, Earl of Eglington ; James,
Earl of Biome ; William, Earl of Lothian ; John,
Earl of Wemyss ; and John, Earl of Loudon ; Lord
Lindesay, Lord Yester, Lord Balmerino, Lord
Cranston, and large numbers of the gentry and
lesser nobility. These, of course, led with them
the psalm-singing yokels of their estates, primed
up by the Beetles to a perfect phrenzy of religious
fanaticism, which could not fail to be exceedingly
profitable to their lords and masters. There is no
patriotism in denying that Scotland’s desperate
struggle in the seventeenth century was carried out
bv the immoral instrumentality of Beetle and nobleprimed bumbkins, howling from Jeremiah and cant
ing from Ezekiel, grimly frantic with suffering and
fanaticism, who, singing psalms, mutilated the slain,
and dashed their texts and swords at the same time
through .the bodies of the dragoons of the Govern
ment. Scotland did all this drunk with divinity,
and I should respect her quite as much if she had
done it all drunk with whisky. And yet I should’
like to see the land in the whole world that can
afford to scoff at her. Man, up to this time, has
been a small and nasty animal at the best, and what
are magniloquently called his noblest motives will
not bear anything like rigid analysis. You are
kinder to mankind when you expect too little of
them, than when you expect too much. And it will.'
puzzle your ingenuity to expect less than you will
get.
1 The passage in Genesis, anent God’s making all
things very good, would have stood better on its
legs, if it had read, 4 God made all thing's verv good
�12
The Covenanters.
save man, and him he made mad.” It is teleology
alone that makes man madder than his “ earth-born
companions and fellow-mortals. ” Well might Burnsapostrophise the mouse :—
“ Still thou art blest, compared wi’ me :
The Present only toucheth thee ;
But, ah ! I backward cast my e’e
On prospects drear ;
And, forward though I canna see,
I guess and fear,”
It is all very well for writers of the school of Dr.
Lewins to abjure, teleology absolutely. It rises
superior to abjuration. The speculatively religious
instinct is strong in normal man, and I, for one,
rejoice, rather than lament that it is so. It is not
the religious instinct that has stultified and cursed
the race, but the diversion of that instinct into
baleful channels by interested sacerdotal and civil
chicane. Man has too little religion, rather than
too much ; but he has certainly too much theology
rather than too little.
"
fc' ’
But, back to the Black-Beetles of the Presbyterian
corner of the vineyard of the Lord. So well did
the interested leaven of religious sedition work, that
in June, 1638, the Hig’h Commissioner swaggered
up to Holyrood escorted by 20,000 men, most of
them mounted. There were present, moreover, 700
Beetles, the most sour and grim kind that ever
banged a bible for the love of God. Many of them
had buff coats under their Geneva cloaks, and,
according, to Burnet, many wore in their belts
swords, pistols, and daggers, that, for the love of
heaven, they might redden the earth with blood.
Madly Beetle-bitten, the peasantry flew to arms ;
every Beetle-box in the country breathed of fire and
slaughter ; the crackle of musketry was in every
sermon, the roar of cannon in every prayer ; the
sword-blade was sharpened on the pulpit, and the
kirk became a recruiting-ground for the battlefield.
We have now cast down the walls of Jericho ;
let him who rebuildeth them beware of the curse
of Hiel and Bethelite, ” was the refrain of a Tyrteeaa
sermon by Henderson, of Leuchars. Beetles Musfiet,
Row, Cant, Dickson, and a mighty host of mur
derous piety, took up the cry. It was thundered
■from hundreds of pulpits. The heather was, indeed,
�The Covenanters.
U
on fire. The Beetle struck the Bible with his fist
in the emphasis of bloodthirsty rhetoric, and his
voice found a terrible echo in the ring of the
armourer’s anvil, as the hammer clashed and clanged
upon the red-hot iron that was being fashioned into
bit and stirrup, helmet and sword-blade.
The Lords of the Covenant prepared for war..
Wheresoever the carcase of prey is, there shall the
eagles of militarism be gathered together. Hereto
fore Scotland had proved too stale and pacific to be
a fitting arena for the restless energies of her gentle
men of the sword and swashbuckling fire-eaters,
and they had accordingly poured in thousands from
the banks of the Forth, the Dee, and the Clyde to
the banks of the Elbe, the Oder, and the Danube,
to follow Gustavus Adolphus for gold and glory,
and write their names imperishablv in their blood
in the annals of the Thirty Years’ War, in which
the stubborn valour of the Scottish Legion filled
all Europe with their renown. The Beetles had now
wrung the coin out of the pockets of their frugal
countrymen at home, and their fighting countrymen
abroad rushed back to offer their steel blades and
their blood for the merks of the peasant and the
burgher. The world had no better soldiers than the
Scoto-Swedish officers of Gustavus, among the most
distinguished of whom were Sir Alexander Leslie,
Sir Alexander Hamilton, Sir James Livingstone,
Monroe, Baillie, and other heroes of Prague and
Fleura, and numerous battlefields in Polish Prussia,
Brandenberg, Westphalia, and Silesia. The Beetle,
the ancestor of him now wanted in Egypt, had done
it with a veng-eance. Every -fourth man in Scotland
was to consider himself a soldier. The sword of
the Lord and of Gideon ! The land was as busy as
a beehive declaiming sermons, whining prayers,
drawling psalms, and getting ready arms and muni
tions—bodv armour for the cavalry, buff-coats and
morions for pikemen, and muskets with rests for
the musketeers. A cannon foundry was, moreover,
established at the Potter Row, Edinburgh, under
the direction of Sir Alexander Hamilton, formerly
master of the cannon foundries of Gustavus
Adolphus at Urbowe, in Sweden. And all Beetledom was up on end, and raving to Jehovah to hurl
�14
*
The Covenanters.
• down the curse of Meroz upon those who failed
to gird up their loins and go forth to help the Lord
.against the mighty.
The old legend-book of Judah was clasped to the
very heart of Scotland. Its bloodiest and most ter
rible texts were interwoven with the common par
lance of mundane affairs, and preached from with
a wild and volcanic vehemence. “ And I will feed
them that oppress thee with their own flesh ; and
they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with
sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I, the
Lord, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty
one of Jacob.” ‘‘The Lord hath a sacrifice in
Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of
Idumea.” “ Cursed be he who keepeth back his
sword from blood.” “ Thus saith the Lord God cf
Israel : Put every man his sword by his side, and
go in and out, from gate to gate, throughout the
camp, and slay every man his brother, and every
man his companion, and every man his neighbour.”
These were the sort of bases of Beetle-spun
harangues that scared the pee-wheet and the plover
-of the hills and moors. “ Now go and smite Amalek,
and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare
them not ; but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And
Saul gathered the people together, and numbered
them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen,
and ten thousand men of Judah. And the Lord sent
thee on a journey, and said : Go and utterly destroy
the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them
until they be consumed,” was the fearful text from
which a certain Beetle of Hell preached, and incited
the Covenanters to, after the Battle of Philiphaugh,
enclose the defeated musketeers of Montrose in the
-courtyard of Newark Castle, and pour in volley
after volley of shot upon the defenceless and un
resisting mass, till not a man remained standing ;
and the gunpowder smoke cleared away and left the
court covered with blood and brains like the floor
of a slaughter-house, and the air rent with the
shrieks of those to whom Death had not yet come
in mercy to end their agony. After this holy
massacre, 1,000 corpses were interred in a spot
which to this day bears the shuddering- name of
�The Covenanters.
15
'The Slain Man's Lea. And so much did the
Presbyterian Beetles insist upon the curses that
-would overtake those who spared the A malekites,
the enemies of God, and so terribly did they em
phasise “ man and woman, infant and suckling,”
that the swords of the Covenant ripped open the
■bodies of the women with child, and transfixed the
unborn babe with the blade reeking with the blood
-of its mangled mother, that the Scripture might
*
be fulfilled.
So much for the antecedents of the Presbyterian
Beetles Mr. Buchanan inquires about so kindly, and
in regard to whom the Marquis of Hartington replies
that there is a spare one to be had at Alexandria.
Even now, it would seem, Scottish soldiers do not
feel they can slaughter properly for the Lord unless
they are under the beetlefications of an Ephraim
MacBriar or a Gabriel Kettledrummle !
How long, O Lord, how long, will it be accounted
glorious to drill a bayonet through a diaphragm,
and valorous to lodge a leaden pellet in the medulla
•oblongata? No religion whatever can be true whose
God is the God of Battles, and whose priests officiate
in the sanctification of slaughter. O that there were
.a righteous heaven, and that man’s objective Para•dise was correlative with man’s subjective desire I
Then would I call to this heaven to witness that
the torn banners and emblazoned rags of war are
hung up as trophies in the Christian churches and
^cathedrals—the relics and memorials of wounds and
misery and hate and death in the temples of “ the
Prince of Peace ” ! I have sat in a certain cathedral
and listened to the Gospel of goodwill to all man
kind, although, at the entrance, I had to pass dusty,
torn, and ghastly relics of some of the bloodiest
-engagements in India and the Peninsula. I yearn
for the religion that will account State murder and
■private murder alike unhallowed, and which will find
no room in its fanes for bannered rags in memorial
of burning towns, slaughtered men, shrieking
widows, and breadless orphans, more than for the
gory knives which were wielded by the miscreants
and murderers whose infamy is perpetuated in the
'Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud’s.
*
W. S. R.
Gordon of Ruthven.
�NEW EDITION.
'
•
380 pp, cloth, gold lettered. Price 3s.; post free, 3s. 3d;
GOD-AND HIS BOOK.
By SALADIN.
Ix Two Volumes Complete.
New Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, gilt lettered.
Vol. I., 260 pp. Price 2s. 6d. ; post free, 2s. gd.
Vol. II., 268 pp. Price 2s. 6d. 5 post free, 2s. 9d.
WOMAN :
Her Glory, Her Shame, and Her God.
By SALADIN.
Large Crown Svo, cloth, gold lettered, 265 pp.
Piice 3-.; post free, 3s. 3d.
THE
BOOK OF “AT RANDOM.”
By SALADIN.
Catalogue of Recent Works by Saladin free on application.
London: Il. Stewart & Co, $r, Farringdon St, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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 Flagellants and the Covenanters
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ross, William Stewart [1844-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: The Flagellants (p.[2]-10).--The Covenanters (p.10-15). The Covenanters is a new edition. Publisher's advertisements on back cover Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Stewart & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[188-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N587
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religious practice
Protestantism
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 Flagellants and the Covenanters), 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
Covenanters
Flagellants
Flagellation
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ded38dfe64ada77648e26d5be1da2a92.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TXAUdt55G1b38w6bTtg7-hYf9cbI1FzoGqUTv1tUk1ecRyFigOvDm0--%7Er04ZhE%7EWj4xsMv6IYbH7%7ElD-yc3pj5jfyIr2xWhmApLh47wPB94iVbQL2pXeJJvoGglYQI5L2OuJuLxmGnx5-eDrzNhIDXUYDFziEwJDmGiK-IplVQaSrAsI8i-6rK9lU8ROm065ObfAbrhJ9xl339I8sff7WI5lmPBlB7pon2MFHEvCxrburHxktPc7lOqTIaLkL-fOdwXVh7goQq7sqpIRUCjfxrs6iM6eCeuRdo9CHyk1vVFotmRfPeol6KpmLGI6xRxGWcDjJHIRBuExdu-jcjHeA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
020024eae427a4637c7bbb299bfecadf
PDF Text
Text
THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH
AN IMPOSSIBLE ONE
By the Right Rev. BISHOP VAUGHAN 1
“In order to know the religion of Protestants,” says Chilling
worth, “neither the doctrine of Luther, nor that of Calvin or
Melancthon is to be taken, nor the Confession of Augsburg or
Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles of the
Anglican Church, nor even the harmony of all the Protestant
confessions, but that which they all subscribe to, as the perfect
rule of their faith and actions, that is to say, the Bible. Yes, the
Bible, the Bible alone is the Religion of Protestants.”—
Vide the Religion of Protestants, a sure Road to Salvation, by
Dr. Chillingworth (ch. vi. 56).
If we turn to Whitaker's Almanack for 1900 we shall
find that he enumerates two hundred and seventyfour “ Religious Denominations ” in England alone.
Our leading Protestant journal goes so far as to say
that “ England alone is reputed to contain some
seven hundred sects, each of whom proves a whole
system of theology and morals from the Bible.”2 In
the United States of America there is said to be
almost an equal number, so that we can hardly be
accused of exaggeration if we say that, throughout
the English-speaking world, there are many hundred
distinct bodies of Christians.
Here we seem, at first sight, to be confronted with
a veritable sea of confusion, and to be listening to a
perfect babel of conflicting tongues. There seems no
way of classifying these hundreds of different churches.
They refuse to group themselves in any regular order.
Each is a law to itself. The outlines of each are so
indistinct, and so vague and ill-defined, that they seem
1 Reprinted by permission from Thoughts for all Times, and
revised by the author.
2 Vide The Times, 13th Jan. 1884—leading article.
�2
The Protestant Rule of Faith
to blend almost imperceptibly into one another like
the floating clouds in a storm-swept sky. Looking,
however, somewhat closer, we find that there is just
one among these Christian Churches which is funda
mentally different from all the rest. Different, in the
first place, in the number of its adherents. Not merely
in the sense of being larger and more extended and
more universally diffused than any other, which would
not be very remarkable, but in the sense of being so im
measurably greater as to exceed numerically, not only
any single Christian Church taken alone, but all other
Christian Churches put together. So that, if we
divide all Christian Churches into two parts, placing
the Roman Catholic Church upon one side, and all
other forms of Christianity on the other, we shall
find a larger number gathered together under the
banner of the Catholic Church than under the host of
distinct banners held aloft by all the varieties of con
flicting sects.1 That is perhaps the most obvious dis
tinction, lying, as it were, on the surface, and the first
to attract the notice of the casual observer.
But there is another and far more important distinc
tion, which takes us at once to the root of the matter,
and that consists in the difference of the rule of faith.
1 Note.—In the Ecclesiastical Dictionary, published this
year, 1900 (Benziger Bros.), there are said to be 270,000,000
Catholics, and but a total of 89,000,000 Protestants of all kinds.
On the other hand, the well-known statistician, Mr Mulhall, pre
pared for the Australian Catholic Congress a notable paper on
the Christian population of the world, which, according to his
figures, numbers at the present moment 501,600,000, and consists
of 240,000,000 Catholics, 163,300,000 Protestants, and 98,300,000
Greek Christians. Under the head of Protestants are included
more than one hundred different sects, who differ so widely from
°ne another that some—those, for instance, who deny the Divinity
,.
the mystery of the Holy Trinity—can hardly be
called Christians. Assuming all classes of Protestants to form
one religion, their total number in relation to that of Catholics
would be as two to three.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
3
The hundreds of different Christian denominations
may, and do, differ to an extraordinary extent among
themselves. They vary in innumerable unimportant,
and in a considerable number of important points,
both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet, however
widely they may differ upon other points, they all, or
almost all, are agreed as to their rule of faith. They
all accept Reason and the Scriptures; or, if you will,
the Scriptures, interpreted by reason, as the source
and very foundation of their respective creeds. They
one and all point to the Holy Scriptures as to the
infallible and unerring word of God. They ac
cept no other infallible or unerring authority upon
earth. The Bible is the Divine Book, and contains all
that is necessary to salvation; and there is no other
Divine authority, no other infallible guide or teacher
to whom men can have access. Though each denom
ination is distinct, and unlike every other, yet one and
all found their creed on this only infallible teacher,
viz., the Bible. “ Holy Scripture cohtaineth all things
necessary to salvation ”; and “ Whatever is not read
therein, nor maybeproved thereby,is not to be required
of any man,” etc. So runs Article VJ. of the Church
of England.1 “ Protestants assert that the Old and
New Testaments are the only safe source of religious
knowledge and form the sole rule offaith”2 Rev. W.
Lee writes:—“ As Evangelical Protestants, we claim
that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of our
faith and practice.”3
It is only when we turn to the gigantic Catholic
Church, which stretches out her arms over the entire
earth, that we discover a totally different rule of
1 Vide Thirty-nine Articles.
s Vide History of Civilization in Scotland, by Jn. Mackintosh,
vol. ii. p. 35.
3 Vide What is a Protestant? p. 9.
�4
The Protestant Rule of Faith
faith. The Catholic Church accepts reason, just as
the Protestant Church does. It is in her eyes a gift
of God, to be exercised and employed to the utmost ;
she also accepts the Holy Scriptures as the inspired
word of God, and as containing a Divine revelation.
She even pays them more honour and more respect,
and treats them with even greater reverence than any
of those Churches that profess to found their creed
on them alone. To this extent, therefore, she and
all other Christian bodies are at one. But here she
parts company with them. She does not believe
that God has abandoned this inspired Book to the
mercy of fallible men to be turned and twisted into
a thousand conflicting meanings, to be made to
support doctrines and practices not only different,
but opposite ; and to be a basis upon which hundreds
of distinct and irreconcilable sects may take their
stand. She believes that God confided this inspired
volume to the guardianship of a living and infallible
Church. That this Church is the only authorized
interpreter and explainer of its pages. That no
passage can really bear two or more contradictory
senses; and that where such contradictory interpreta
tions are set forth, it rests with her, and with her
alone, to decide absolutely, definitely, and with un
wavering certainty which is, and which is not, the
true interpretation ; and so to secure unity, or truth,
which is the same thing; for where there is truth,
there unity also must always be found.
There are, in fact, but two systems of Christianity
possible—the one based on private judgement, and the
other on authority. The system of private judgement
is by far the more flattering to human pride, and that
is why it has commended itself to so many haughty
and rebellious spirits. It makes each man, not a
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
5
disciple, but a master; not a learner, but a teacher;
not a pupil, but a critic. But, as a consequence, it
renders all real unity, not only difficult, but practically
impossible. Now, unless we are out and out rationalists,
and deny that infallibility exists anywhere, which
would be to destroy supernatural religion altogether,
I take it as evident that but two courses are open to
us: either we must accept the Bible as the only in
fallible teacher, or we must accept the magisterium of
the living and articulate Church as equally infallible.
If the infallible Bible alone will not suffice—if it is
found incapable of securing the unity for which Christ
prayed—we are forced and driven to acknowledge an
infallible Church. Now, our reasons for not accepting
the “ Bible and the Bible only ” theory are manifold.
In the space at my disposal I can suggest only a few
of the more important:—
I: Christ, when founding His kingdom on earth,
never wrote as much as a single line of any kind,
which seems strange, on the hypothesis that He
intended each man’s religion to depend upon his
personal interpretation of certain documents.
II. Though He commanded His disciples to “Go
and teach all nations,” to “preach to every living
creature,” etc., He never once commanded any one of
them to commit a word to paper or parchment.
III. Even the very expressions He made use of
seem to emphasize this fact; for He does not say:
“If any man will not read the Scriptures? but, “If
any man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee
as a heathen and a publican ” ; not “ He that follows
the Scriptures as his guide, follows Me,” but rather,
“ He that heareth you, heareth Me.” And, again,
“ Faith cometh {not by reading, but) by hearing"'; and
so on, in many other passages.
�6
The Protestant Rule of Faith
IV. Because (<?) very few of the Apostles wrote at
all. Out of the “ twelve,” only five wrote any portion
of the Bible, viz., St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St.
Jude, and St. James j1 and (p) because those who did
put pen to paper were urged to do so from special
circumstances, as when absent, or in prison, and from
accidental motives ; but (f) even then, they did not
address their writings to the whole Church, but to some
one or another section specially needing them, or to
some local church, and occasionally even to single
individuals, as is the case in the Epistles to Titus, to
Timothy, and to Philemon, etc.
V. Because the very form and construction of the
Scriptures seem to show that the Bible was never
intended to be a text-book of doctrine, or a summary
of belief. There is no clear or methodical statement
of the teaching of Christ, proceeding in regular
sequence, but exhortations, narratives, and incidents,
etc., are all intermingled.
VI. Because the entire Bible was not even com
posed until whole generations of Christians had passed
away. The Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John, for
example, had no existence for more than sixty years
after our Lord’s ascension.
VII. Because even after the various books of
Scripture had been composed, they were not at once
gathered together into one volume. Some were to be
found in one place, some in another, and it was not
until hundreds of years had rolled slowly by that the
various inspired writings were collected and placed
under the same cover ; so that during many generations
scarcely any one could have even seen the complete
collection, unless indeed he were a great traveller.
VIII. Because even when at last the whole of the
St. Paul was, of course, not one of “ the twelve ” Apostles.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
7
inspired writings had been collected into one volume,
not one person in a thousand could have obtained
possession of them. There was no printing; and
even paper had not yet been invented, so that the
only possible means of securing a copy of this volume
(in which each man is supposed to find his religion)
was to get it written out by hand, letter by letter,
and word by word : a process which would, according
to some authorities, take a scribe five years to accom
plish. Nor was this all: the copy had to be written,,
not on paper, which had not then come into use,
but on vellum or parchment. As a consequence, the
price was enormous and prohibitive. No one but a
rich man could afford to purchase such a thing. So
that for fourteen hundred years the system of “ the
Bible and the Bible only/’ interpreted by each indi
vidual, was clearly an impossible one, and, if impossible,
then to be rejected by every reasonable and reflecting
man. The well-known historian, Mr. W. E. H. Lecky,
is no Catholic, yet he observes: “ Protestantism
could not possibly have existed without a general diffu
sion of the Bible, and that diffusion was impossible
until after the two inventions of paper and printing.”1
Clearly a religion dependent for its very existence upon
such human inventions, unknown during fourteen cen
turies of Christianity, cannot be the religion of Christ.
IX. There was not only the initial difficulty of
procuring a copy of the Scriptures, there was the yet
further difficulty of reading them. The Protestant
historian, Macaulay, tells us that: “ There was then
throughout the greater part of Europe very little
knowledge, and that little was confined to the clergy.
Not one man in five hundred,” he says, “could have
spelled his way through a single psalm ; books were
1 Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 209.
�8
The Protestant Rule of Faith
few and costly: the art of printing was unknown,”
“ Probably,” writes Abbd Begin, a professor of the
University of Laval, “ there is no exaggeration in say
ing that nine-tenths of the population were not in a
position to read the manuscript of the Bible. Accord
ing to the Protestant system we should have to conclude,
therefore, that these poor unfortunate beings had no
rule of faith, and were out of the path of salvation.”
X. Because, whereas we know, on the one hand,
that Christ desired and prayed for unity of faith and
‘doctrine among His disciples, we know, on the other
hand, that the “ Bible only ” system has been, and is,
the direct cause of interminable divisions and innumer
able dissensions. In the words of the historian Lecky:1
“ It has been most abundantly proved that from
Scripture honest and able men have derived and do
derive arguments in support of the most opposite
opinions.”2 And if this be true in the case of “ honest
and able men, what will be the result in the case of
the less honest and the less able ? In our eyes such a
system stands self-condemned.
The above facts present themselves as insuperable
difficulties against the Protestant rule of faith. But
there remain others far greater still. There are three
fundamental tenets which are absolutely essential to
the Protestant theory, but which on strict Protestant
principles we hold to be absolutely unproved and unprovable. Let me exemplify them in this way: A
Protestant comes up to me, holding the Bible in his
hand. He says : “ This is the word of God ; this the
foundation of my faith. I don’t want any infallible
n J .On2nd November-1895, Mr. Lecky wrote : “I was brought
fP
e
of England, and have never severed myself
from it — Fzz& St. James s Gazette, 14th November 189 c.
Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 174.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
9
Church to teach me. All I need lies here, within the
cover of this book.” Thus Dean Farrar is reported to
have said: “We take our stand on the open Bible,
and declare it to be the very charter of our existence.”
What would we naturally reply? We would say:
“ Not so fast, my friend. Are you quite sure that you
hold in your hand the true Bible, the whole Bible, and
nothing but the Bible ? ”
I. Take the most important part of it, viz., the New
Testament. Consider its history. It was written by
different men, at different times, in different places,
and under different circumstances. The different
Gospels and Epistles composing it were floating about
in different parts of the Church, together with dozens
and scores of other Epistles and Gospels,1 and it was
not till the fourth century that the Catholic Church,
after carefully examining them one by one, said :
“ This is Scripture ”; “ that is not Scripture ” : “ this
we enrol in the canon ”; “ that we reject.” For
example, there is said to be a Gospel which has been
attributed to one of the twelve Apostles, viz., to St.
Bartholomew.2 The Catholic Church said : We reject
that, even though the writer was an Apostle; on the
other hand, there was a Gospel written by St. Luke,
who was not an Apostle, and the Church said: We
accept that even though the writer was not an
Apostle.
In this way the present Bible came into existence.
Now, either the Church which made the selection is
1 Note, for instance, the Protevangelion, the Gospel according
to St. Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Acts of Paul and
Thecla, the Epistles of St. Clement, of St. Barnabas, the Books
of Hermas, the Acts of St. Andrew, and a great many others,
which the Church has refused to insert in the Canon of Scripture
2 The Gospel according to St. Bartholomew is mentioned by
St. Jerome.
�IO
The Protestant Rule of Faith
infallible, or she is not infallible. If you admit her to
be infallible, then you are bound to listen to her, and
to obey her, and you must become a member of the
Catholic Church, which is the only Church which has
ever even so much as put forward the claim; but if
you say she is fallible, then you acknowledge that she
may err; and if she may err, then she may have erred
in her selection of the books of Scripture, and you
have no certainty that you possess the Holy Bible at
all! Some of the books you include may be mere
human documents—as, on the other hand, some of
the really inspired books may have been omitted.
Different Protestant denominations have different
Bibles.
Luther rejected from the Canon of the Scriptures
Job, Ecclesiastes, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
Second Epistle of St. Peter, and the Second and
Third of St. John, that of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse
(or Revelations). Calvin rejected Esther, Tobias,
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees.
Spinoza doubts the authenticity of the Pentateuch,
Judges, Kings, etc.; Strauss, the Gospel of St.
Matthew; Griesbach, the Gospel of St. Mark. Who
will decide between these, and countless others, if
there be no infallible court of appeal, no unerring
voice to pronounce sentence? No! If there be no
infallible Church to settle such questions, no one can
declare with any certainty that he possesses the Scrip
tures at all. Even were one satisfied with human
testimony, it would not help one, since human testi
mony itself is not agreed on the point.
II. A second difficulty arises concerning the ques
tion of inspiration. What proof can any one bring
forward that the Bible (granted that we have the
Bible) contains the whole inspired word of God, and
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
II
nothing but the inspired word of God ? Inspiration
is not a thing that can be proved by mere history or
intrinsic evidence. Whether the Holy Ghost Him
self has guided and guarded a writer and protected
him from all error, etc., can be known only by an
appeal to authority. It does not admit of ordinary
direct proof, or of ocular demonstration. So that,
unless the authority appealed to be an infallible one,
a man cannot be absolutely sure that the Scriptures
are inspired. No such authority can be found outside
the Catholic Church. There is not even agreement
among the various Protestant denominations upon
this most important, and in their case, positively
essential, point.
III. But the third difficulty is the most insuperable
of all, and that is the difficulty of correct interpreta
tion. The Bible, however holy a book, and however
certainly inspired, is not merely useless, but worse
than useless to one who draws from it doctrines and
principles which are contrary to its real teaching.
Yet this is inevitable, unless there be a Divinely
assisted, and consequently an infallible interpreter.
Some would persuade us that the Bible is an easy
and simple book to understand ; so easy, in fact, that
“he who runs may read.” Nothing could be further
from the truth. This may be proved from the Scrip
tures themselves. Thus the Eunuch of the Queen of
Ethiopia, who was studying the writings of the
prophet Isaias as he journeyed home, admitted to the
Deacon Philip that he could not understand the sense
of what he read, unless some one explained it to him.
After reading out some prophetic utterances, he
turned to Philip and said : “ I beseech thee, of whom
doth the prophet speak this ? of himself, or of some
other man?” (see Acts viii. 27-35). The Eunuch
».
�12
The Protestant Rule of Faith
himself was unable to decide, so he appealed to a
higher authority.
In the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel
(verse 25 et seqi} we have another illustration of the
difficulty of correctly interpreting the inspired text.
Our Lord is obliged to interpret, to His own disciples
on their way to Emmaus, “ the things concerning him
self, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets.”
He told them that they had not understood, and
therefore He “opened to them the Scriptures”—
8irip/j.r]vevev avTois ev 7racrai$ Tais ypatpais rd irepi eavTou
(verse 27). St. Peter, inspired by the Holy Ghost, re
veals to us still more clearly that there are “ certain
things hard to be understood, which the unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip
tures (J)? Kai ras Xoi7ras ypa<j>a$:'), to their own destruc
tion” (2 Peter iii. 16).
The truth of this contention is fully borne out by
the experience of past and present ages. One person
reads the Divine oracles in one way, and another in
another, so that from one and the same infallible
source are derived totally distinct and opposite
doctrines. The followers of Novatian take one view
and the followers of Sabellius another; while Donatists, Arians, Pelagians, and Nestorians all differ
among themselves. Truly does Erasmus remark that
“the interpretation of the Scriptures by individual
minds has never ended in anything but laming texts,
which walked perfectly straight before ”; while St.
Augustine, as early as the fifth century, declared : “ non
aliunde natae sunt haereses, nisi dum Scripturae bonae
intelliguntur non bene.” Butler reminds us how
Religion spawn’d a various rout
Of petulant capricious sects,
The maggots of corrupted texts.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
13
Some Protestants to whom the objection has been
put have attempted to meet it by saying : “ The diffi
culties pointed out may have some existence in the
case of careless and worldly-minded men, but if a
devout Christian takes up the Bible with reverence,
places himself in the presence of God, and earnestly
prays for the assistance and light of the Holy Spirit,
he will be sure to arrive at its correct and true mean
ing, so that he has nothing to fear.” Well! We
English are considered a practical people. We like
to test the theory for ourselves; for to use a homely
phrase, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Then let us, for the moment, accept the theory, just
to see how' it works. Take three honourable, good,
and learned men ; ?>., (1) the Anglican Bishop of
Lincoln, Dr. King ; (2) the Anglican Bishop of Liver
pool, the late Dr. Ryle; and (3) the late Rev Dr.
Martineau, a representative of Unitarianism. Each
believes in the Bible. Each, no doubt, approaches
the study of it in becoming dispositions. Each craves
God’s grace, and light, and assistance. Yet each
rises from his knees holding a totally different and
wholly irreconcilable doctrine.
The Protestant
Bishop of Lincoln finds authority in Scripture for a
sacrificing priesthood, for priestly, absolution, and for
the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
The late Protestant Bishop of Liverpool, on the other
hand, can discover nothing of the kind. On the con
trary, he finds that any clergyman who attempts or
pretends to forgive sins is usurping the authority of
Christ; further, he fails to discover any reason for
believing that Christ is truly present under the sacra
mental species. “ This is My Body ” means one
thing to the Protestant Bishop of Lincoln, and quite
another to the late Protestant Bishop of Liverpool.
�14
The Protestant Rule of Faith
Still both are able to find in the Bible the Divinity of
Christ. But a Unitarian, as clever and as sincere as
any Anglican prelate, takes up the inspired writings,
and he can find no proof within its pages even that
Christ is God ! He prays, and studies, and reads the
Bible, and then comes to the conclusion that Christ is
not God at all. You urge that the Scripture speaks
of Christ as “ God,” and as the “ Son of God.” He
will reply: “ Yes, but may not such words be applied
to a mere man? Does not the psalmist say, ‘Ye are
all gods, and sons of the Most High ’ ” ? If you return
to the charge and point out that Christ’s Divinity is
clearly contained in His own declaration, “ I and the
Father are one,” he will again retort: “Not at all;
that is merely a union of heart and will such as
exists, or may exist, among men. Nay, this is [he
will urge] evidently from Christ’s prayer—‘ Father, that
they may be one, even as I and Thou art one! ” This is
a fair specimen of the absurd and senseless position to
which the private interpretation of the Bible inevitably
leads. Here are three well-known, highly-respected,
learned and scholarly men each discovering a totally
different doctrine in the self-same words.
Is the Holy Ghost directing them all? Is the
Changeless, Eternal, and Uncreated Truth whispering
“ yes ” in the ears of one, and “ no ” into the ears of
another ; and declaring that a thing is false and true,
black and white, at one and the same time? To
say so would be blasphemous. If, instead of three
highly-educated and distinguished men of recognized
ability, we take the millions of educated and unedu
cated, learned and unlearned, young and old, rich and
poor, the effect of such a system becomes still more
apparent, and its consequences still more hopelessly
absurd and appalling.
�The Protestant Rule of Faith
i5
To sum up: I. We believe that the Incarnate Son
of God came upon earth to teach the truth. This,
indeed, is stated in the most emphatic way by Christ
Himself in the Hall of Pilate, viz.: “ For this was I
born, and for this came I into the world; that I
should give testimony to the truth” (John xviii. 37).
We believe with St. Paul that “the Church is the
pillar and ground of truth”;, that the Holy Spirit is
to “ remain with her for ever to teach her all truth ” ;
and that “the gates of hell (?>., of error) shall not
prevail.”
2. We believe truth to be one, and that it cannot
be anything but one, and in harmony with itself. We
hold that two Churches, teaching contradictory doc
trines, may both possibly be false, but by no possibility
can both be true. That they may both be true we
regard as a metaphysical impossibility, a self-evident
absurdity. But if instead of two, there be five or six
hundred claiming to be true Churches of Christ, the
absurdity of the situation becomes more glaring and
monstrous.
3. That there can be but one true Church follows,
not merely from the intrinsic nature of truth itself,
but also from the repeated and express declaration of
the Divine Founder of Christianity, e.g., “ There shall
be one fold or flock, and one Shepherd ” (John x. 16).
“ Be ye all one Body and one spirit, as you are called
in one hope of your calling. One Lord, onefaith, one
baptism ” (Eph. iv. 4, 5). A body is but one organized
whole; but:—“You are the body of Christ, and
members one of another,” and so forth. Further, the
very comparisons our Lord makes use of express the
same truth. He likens His Church to (a) a Kingdom,
(£) a City, (f) a House, (f) a Family, (f) a Fold or
Flock, (/) a Tree, (^) a Body, etc. All these figures
�16
The Protestant Rule of Fazth
imply a most essential unity, together with diversity.
What is more various than the different parts of a
living body? Yet what is more essentially one, and
in harmony with itself?
4. If unity be essential and vitally important, what
constitutes the bond of unity ? “ The Bible,” cry out
the Protestant Churches. “ The living and imperish
able voice of the Divinely assisted, and {because
Divinely assisted) infallible Church,” exclaim Catholics.
The one system maintains true unity in a community
of between two hundred and fifty and three hundred
millions, consisting of men of every race and nation,
and character and disposition, and language under
heaven. The other system cannot secure unity, even
within a national Church, among men of the same
race and country, and of the same general character
and antecedents—nay, cannot secure unity upon the
most vital points of Christian doctrine either among
the people, or the clergy, or even among the bishops
themselves.
Private judgement in religious matters is not
merely contrary to the whole idea of a teaching
Church; but it is by its very nature a strong solvent
of all true unity. Even such a pronounced Protestant
historian as Lord Macaulay could not fail to see that,
and to confess it. “ Our way of ascertaining the
tendency of free enquiry is simply to open our eyes
and look at the world in which we live: and there we
see that free enquiry on mathematical subjects pro
duces unity, and that free enquiry on moral subjects
produces discrepancy.” — Macaulay’s Gladstone on
Church and State.
There is no logical resting-place between Catholi
cism and Rationalism.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY,
69 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD, LONDON, S.E.
�
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 protestant rule of faith an impossible one
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted by permission from Thoughts for all Times, and revised by the author." Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC) WorldCat.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Vaughan, John Stephen
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1901]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Subject
The topic of the resource
Protestantism
Catholic Church
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1538
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 protestant rule of faith an impossible one), 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
Catholic Church-Apologetic Works
Protestantism-Controversial Literature
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f1996b4dd4444564122fdf3e7355c11a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WFERNGtg7KjyKjkkY%7EDbLyuqLQtBMdDLDImd11jzorG9K8cljAoL0nnK58ZQcEATyHUWJLiflaXYPxf5t41cwh5MxNj8MZnfDqOoCPg00mqsjqs80t8tQpdwydion0Km4Wu5rW2wfc%7EtqA7Jtpsg-x2pNoKTl6VV44rXPEhjB9%7EODirjr2ltwtwzlaNpfhBRx-dFPlHax-7EwwWEpPPouA3oIPqGc1eoPM-4PQ6zNA0p%7E2vhAWfsxWsCXLa3j3dhqaoLQQsK1-mY4jOX5Vn14IcpUpsBo5xR2OB9AWhK%7EFsa4QSMY-WaZqK4o8RXnlZFi3NlYAdIlcE4BmTvwEo4yg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6359ee87bb05ae53e704e7fdb952d40a
PDF Text
Text
Weakness
ELIGIOUS
OF
PROTESTANTISM.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN,
Emeritus Professor of University College, London; and formerly Fellow of
Balliol College, Orford.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1866.
Price *d.,post free.
7
�It is proper to say that this tract appeared originally in a Review. No
moderate change would suffice to make the tone natural to the author
when writing in his own sole name. It has been thought better to leave
the impersonal character which it bore from the first. Nevertheless,
allusions to passing events which would now be misleading, are omitted
or altered; one passage which was changed to please the Editor, is
restored more nearly as it was at first written; and an erroneous para
graph has been corrected.
August, 1866.
E. W. N.
�THE RELIGIOUS
WEAKNESS OF PROTESTANTISM.
TT is humiliating to every Protestant to look on the
map of Europe, and see the vast surface which is
covered by Catholicism, and the numerical weakness
of its nobler adversary. In less than forty years from
its feeble origin, Protestantism made its widest
European conquests; and thenceforward began to
recede, nor ever again recovered the lost ground.
Through the whole of the eighteenth century
Protestant doctrine might have been preached with
little molestation in the greater part of Europe, yet
nowhere did it extend itself. Neither in Ireland,
where a victorious Government was long bent to
reduce Catholicism by severe and unjust law (in
which they were far less successful than Catholic kings
in their bigoted violences); nor in France, where
unbelief laid the national religion prostrate and stripped
the Church of its revenues; nor in the dominions of
the Emperor Joseph II., who resolutely put down
Eomish pretensions, while remaining in communion
with the Church; nor even in his kingdom of
�6
The Religious Weakness
Hungary, where the two religions co-existed in much
good-will; nor under the Prussian monarchy, and
elsewhere in Germany; nor in Tuscany, under the
enlightened Leopold II.;—in short, nowhere at all has
Protestantism, even while she had a fair field and lea/ve
to speak truth, been able to win anything perceptible
on the field of history from her Papal antagonist. We
submit, that this is a phenomenon too broad, too
uniform, too decidedly marked, for any reasonable
man to pass by as insignificant. And it is the more
remarkable, because side by side with this religious
weakness, Protestantism has more and more dis
played its political and social superiority. Noto
riously the Protestant cantons of Switzerland are
superior in industry, neatness, and abundance to the
Catholic cantons of the same land; while climate,
soil, and race are the same. A similar distinction has
often been observed between Catholic and Protestant
farmers in Ireland. England, the largest Protestant
State in Europe, has been the richest and perhaps the
best ordered country, certainly that which stretches
its power farthest.
Nowhere else, not even in
despotic countries, is the executive Government more
energetic through the prompt obedience and concur
rence of the citizens; nowhere else, not even in
Switzerland or the United States, do the citizens
exercise their right to criticize and to thwart the
Government with a more loyal submission of the
ruling powers; nowhere is there less desire of
violent revolution than there has been for two cen
turies together in Protestant Great Britain (for the
�of Protestantism.
7
ejecting of one Catholic king does not here concern
our argument); nowhere is there a country, which, in
proportion to its millions, is fuller of all the elements,
mental and material, which kings desire and patriots
extol. In Canada, where the two religions come into
equal competition, the superior energy of Protest
antism in everything that constitutes the grandeur
of nations is manifest. Now it is a familiar fact,
that such worldly superiority does in itself tend to
the progress (at least to the superficial extension) of
the religion in which it is found. It cannot be said
that Catholics, like Turks, are so fanatically wedded
to their creed as to be proof against all refutations;
for it is notorious that in Catholic Spain, France,
Germany, a disbelief in the national religion is very
widely spread through the higher and middle ranks
—a disbelief which sometimes pervades the ruling
powers themselves. Yet, though they may cast off
the Romish faith, they seldom or never adopt that of
Protestants.
Probably all men who are thoughtful enough to
abandon the Catholic Church, are also well informed
enough to be aware what are the true causes of the
energy, wealth, and intelligence of the Protestant
nations ; that it does not arise from the positive creed
which they still hold, but from the private liberty
which accompanies this creed or from the energetic
public administration which this liberty enforces
and maintains. In fact France, though nominally
Catholic, vies to a great degree with England
in all national developments; and the causes are
�8
The Religious Weakness
evidently either purely political, or inhere, not in
religious faith, but much rather in religious
scepticism. Out of that unbelief, which by the
great French revolution of the last century broke
down the power of the Church, has arisen much of
the vigour of modem France ; no part of it can be
reasonably ascribed to the positive creed. Evidently
then it is to the negative side of Protestantism that
Protestant nations owe their energy and freedom, so
far as the cause is ecclesiastical at all. It will further
be observed that Russia, having a creed which from
a Protestant point of view is in its essence neither
better nor worse than Romanism, and being without
the individual freedom which is to us so precious,
nevertheless is on the whole flourishing within and
powerful without, because of the energy of its central
executive; an energy which is upheld by summary
proceedings of the Royal House from within to
secure an able occupant of the throne. In short, on
the very surface of history is a broad fact, which is
perpetually overlooked by the panegyrists of ecclesias
tical Protestantism—namely, that while all Europe
was still Catholic, every State was prosperous in a
near proportion to its freedom, and the freest dis
played exactly those points of superiority of which
England or Prussia may now boast. Look to the
Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella—a nation profoundly
Catholic ; in fact, more Catholic then than now—for
unbelief had not as yet pervaded its higher ranks, as
in later days. The Parliaments of Arragon, of
Castile, of Valencia were more spirited than those
�of Protestantism.
9
of England at the same time. The municipalities
were as well ordered and as independent; the local
authorities as active and as responsible to the local
community; the public law as efficiently sustained;
the industry was as intelligent, as persevering, and as
highly rewarded by wealth: or rather, in all these
matters Spain then took the lead of England. Her
poetry and other literature was in advance of ours;
she had a celebrated school of painting, while we were
strange to such art. By the patriotism, high spirit,
intelligence, faithfulness, and mutual trust of Span
iards, Spain then stood at the head of all Europe, and
lent to her subsequent monarchs—Charles of Ghent,
and his son Philip II.—an enormous power which
their despotism first lessened and soon undermined.
Spain has undergone no change of religion. Evidently
then, it is not Catholicism which in itself has been
her bane; but the despotism which, to sustain the
Catholicism, has crushed her intelligence and forbid
den her activity. Nearly the same remarks may be
made on Bohemia.
Turning to another country,
Belgium, we see a people which—although not without
violence from its princes preserved to Catholicism in
the struggle of the Reformation—has yet on the
whole retained its local freedom with singular success
under Catholic and despotic houses ; and since 1830
has become a wholly independent State, with a free
Royal Constitution. Thus, to speak roughly, we may
say that Belgium has never lost either her freedom
or her Catholicism. And she has all along been a
highly industrious, energetic, prospering country—
�IO
¥he Religious Weakness
not indeed intellectually prominent, for this has been
prohibited by the ascendant ecclesiasticism—yet her
general state suffices to prove that the material well
being of England does not spring from that Protesttantism in which she differs from Belgium, but from
that freedom which she has in common with Belgium.
Thus we cannot claim that Catholics will impute
any of these exterior advantages, of which we
boast, to our remaining ecclesiasticism, or regard
them as an honour to the positive side of our national
creed.
Nay, nor can we impute to this cause any part of
our mental superiority to Belgium or to Sicily; and
for this plain reason, that on the one side the
ecclesiastical organs have done their worst to crush
our intellectual vigour; and on the other our Puri
tanical school has done its worst to scold it down.
For every stupid and mischievous error a hard fight
has been maintained by theologians, in proportion to
their “ orthodoxy.” Take, for instance, the super
stition concerning witches and possession by devils.
The truth of the latter is still guaranteed in the
Canons of the Church of England, which regulate
the casting out of devils by license of the bishop.
The reality of witchcraft was publicly maintained
on Scriptural evidence alike by clergymen and
by judges. Chief Baron Hale (a very religious
man) not only argued for it Scripturally from
the judgment-seat in 1665, but had two women
hanged for witches. Education and free thought
prevailed, against the positive evidence of the Bible;
�of Protestantism.
i1
in favour of which the celebrated John Wesley still
struggled.
“ It is true,” says he, “ that the English in general, and
indeed most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up
all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere old wives’
fables. I am sorry for it
The giving up of witch
craft is in effect giving up the Bible................... .... I cannot
give up to all the Deists in Great Britain the existence of
witchcraft, till I give up the credit of all history, sacred and
profane.”
His contemporary, the celebrated Dr Johnson, a
High Churchman and anxiously orthodox, was a
believer in the “ Cock-lane ghost ” of those days.
Certainly no one can think that the theory of “ the
Bible and the Bible only,” &c., has led Protestants to
resign the Witch of Endor.—Again, if there is any
one national enormity which more than all others
tends to repress mental energy, it is religious perse
cution. Of this there has been far less among the
Protestant countries—to their undoubted benefit; and
yet, certainly, we have not to thank Protestant
theology for it. The practice of Calvin was substan
tially the theory of all the orthodox reformed
Churches. If the hierarchy or Presbyterians of Eng
land and Scotland could have had their will, mental
freedom would have been crippled in Great Britain
as effectually as in France or even in Spain. The
Independents won, by the sword of Cromwell, with
political also a religious freedom before unheard of in
these lands; yet for heretics who went beyond them,
it was long before the law provided safety, much less
�12
The Religious Weakness
gave them their natural equality. In every step of
progress towards freedom, it is lamentable to say that
English “ orthodoxy ” has always been found on the
side of resistance. Not only were the Test and Cor
poration Acts sustained by the Church influence, and
were abolished in 1828 by a lay Parliament, whose
Protestantism had but few positive elements of the
Reformed Theology; but even much later, when the
Dissenters’ Chapel Act was passed—an Act which, in
its practical aim, did but hinder the Unitarian
revenues, chapels, and burying-grounds from being
taken from the hereditary possessors (often children
or grandchildren of the donors), and given up to be
scrambled for by strangers, with a certainty that the
whole must be swallowed up in lawyers’ fees;—in
that crisis, when Peel and Lyndhurst, and even Glad
stone, stood up for the Unitarians, all the “ ortho
doxy ” of England stirred itself to resist this act of
equity. It is to our laity, and to that part especially
which has little ostensible religious character, that
every successive victory over bigoted intolerance is
due. Hence it is to the negative, not to the positive
side of Protestantism, that we must ascribe our
mental energy and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, these negative elements have been of
vast national moment, by liberating the energies of
individuals; whereby knowledge has risen into
science, industry into systematic art, wealth and
skill have increased, labour has organized itself, and
an unusually large part of the nation has employed
itself on fruitful thought and invention. But in all
�of Protestantism.
13
this there has been little or nothing of properly re
ligious influence. The more Protestantism has been
developed into its own characteristic prosperity, the
more Atheistic is the aspect of public affairs. It has
not known at all better than its Romish rival how to
combine religious earnestness with tolerant justice,
and has become just only by passing into indifference
to religion. Its divines often attack Romanism by
insisting on the vast spread of unbelief within the
pale of that Church; while they are astonishingly
blind to the very same phenomenon within all the
national Protestant Churches. This is not a recent
fact, as some imagine. Indeed, since the Restoration,
it is difficult to name the time at which it may
reasonably be thought that the existing English
statesmen had any grave and practical belief in the
national religion. Montesquieu, who passed for a
free thinker in France, found that in England (near a
century and a half ago) he had far too much religion
for our great-grandfathers. Equally in the Lutheran
Churches of Germany and of Sweden, also in the Calvinistic Churches of Switzerland and elsewhere, the
same face of events has presented itself: the clergy
tend either to lose all spiritual character, or to take
refuge in Unitarianism; the laity, in proportion to
their cultivation, have been prone to entire unbelief.
Under that measure of mental freedom which the
great rebellion against Charles I. brought in, and by
aid of the growing indifference to religion in France
and elsewhere, physical science has in the last two
centuries grown up. From this, more than from
�14
"The Religious Weakness
anything else, has proceeded the political superiority
of Europe to the Turks, the Persians, the Chinese. It
has given to us safe oceanic navigation—a vast
command of the useful metals and all material of war
—the steam-engine and all its developments —with a
miscellany ever increasing of practical applications
of chemistry. Indeed, the relative strength of differrent nations, which is ill measured by any religious
test, such as Catholicism or Protestantism, and is
not accurately measured even by a political test, such
as freedom or despotism, yet (numbers being equal)
is well measured by the development of physical
science. Russia is stronger than China, though
having but a quarter of the population; yet the form
of government in China is as despotic, the people is
as obedient, and far more conveniently situated, on
the noblest rivers, in highly advantageous concentra
tion, with a better soil and climate, and a splendid
oceanic coast. Russia has but one advantage, and
that one thing is all-important: she has introduced
the physical sciences of the West, and has turned
to Imperial service the skill of our ablest minds.
Two centuries ago, before physical science had
effected anything practical, the Protestant States
had no perceptible superiority over the Catholic;
now, they have on the whole a superiority, but
it is' proportioned chiefly to the development
and application of science. Perhaps then in truth
it is more to the science of matter than to Pro
testant theology, that we ought to attribute whatever
advantages we can boast in material strength.
�of Protestantism.
15
Meanwhile, no one can overlook the portentous
fact, that this physical science—to which we owe so
much of what some would claim for the credit of
Protestantism—is intensely repugnant and destruc
tive to the theology of the Reformation, and con
stantly drives to results not only anti-Christian, but
even Atheistic. Dr Pusey and Mr Sewell are forward
to aver this. Mr Sewell declares his aversion to the
glaring light of science, and well understands its
antagonism to the belief in miracles. It is not that
many scientific men will go to the fall length of
asserting that no imaginable evidence could be strong
enough to prove a miracle; yet, certainly, that no
such evidence as is pretended by divines can ever
prove such miracles as they allege. Science teaches
us to study every question d priori, with a view to
judge how much d posteriori evidence will suffice for
its decision. If a statement is beforehand highly
probable, we need but moderate and ordinary testi
mony to create belief in it; if it be decidedly
improbable, we want first-rate and clear testimony;
if it be intensely improbable, we need testimony
direct, conclusive, and unimpeachable. Let us pass
from this principle to the two great miracles which
lie at the foundation of orthodox Christianity; we
mean, of course, the miraculous conception and the
resurrection of Jesus; and let us calmly consider how
they would be treated if they were now for the first
time heard of, and brought to the test of ordinary
scientific evidence.
It is not our fault, if the discussion of the former
�i6
The Religious Weakness
topic somewhat shock religious decorum. In heathen
ism indecent fables are not uncommon; to have to
refute such things is disagreeable. If the refutation
prove disagreeable to the votary also, all unprejudiced
bystanders will say that he must blame those who
invented the creed, not him who refutes it; and surely
the same topic applies here. We are ordered to
believe that a certain person was born without a
human father; and when we ask, on what proof, we
have handed to us, in the first instance, the book
called Matthew, in which it is alleged that Joseph, the
ostensible father of Jesus, discovered his betrothed
wife to have premature signs of maternity ; that he
was disposed to repudiate her privately, in order to
save her shame; when, lo! he had a dream; a dream !
informing him that there was no shame in the matter,
but great glory; it was a holy miracle ; the father of
her child was no human being, but was the Spirit of
God. Such is the account in Matthew.
We should fear to insult an English magistrate, by
expecting him to believe a similar story concerning
some English peasant girl, on the ground that her
betrothed lover had had a dream to that effect, which
tranquillized his mind after a painful struggle. Not
only no English magistrate, no judge, no jury, would
believe such a tale on such evidence; but no clergy
man would believe it, no bishop, no archbishop : this
we may assert with absolute freedom and certainty,
however large demands of easy faith they make on
others. The least that even an archbishop could re
quire would be, some security,—or say, some plausible
�of Protestantism.
pretence for believing—that it was not a common
dream, but a properly miraculous vision; and that
the man to whom it was vouchsafed should display
some superiority of mind, which might, if not justify
our trust in his power to discriminate between
dreams and visions, yet palliate our credulity in so
trusting him. Who then was Joseph ? Why should
we believe him so easily ?
Who indeed was Joseph ? We know nothing of
him except that this story was told of him at a later
time. Nay, we cannot even attain any moderately
good proof that he evei’ had such a dream, or pro
fessed to have had it: for it is on the face of the
narrative that he passed as father of Jesus, and that
there was no public suspicion that that was an error,
some thirty years later, at which time Joseph has
vanished out of the narrative and is supposed to
have been dead. We have then a second question:
Who is it that tells us that Joseph ever narrated such
a dream, ever professed painful suspicions, and re
ceived such a solution of them ? The reply is: We
know little or nothing about him. It is usual now to
call him Matthew; and if Matthew was really the
writer’s name, if he even wrote within fifty years after
the dream, it helps very little to prove that Joseph
was his informant, or had ever heard the tale.
It has been observed (and the remark seems
decisive) that no young woman of ordinary good
sense or right feeling could have failed to reveal
everything of this critical nature to her betrothed
from the first moment. That she should allow him
B
�i8
The Religious Weakness
to have unjust and dishonouring suspicions, and
remain silent, is quite unnatural: it is conduct of
which no plausible explanation can be given. And
now, we are expected to believe a mighty and car
dinal miracle on evidence which would not suffice
in the laxest court of law to establish an ordinary
fact.
If the possession of an estate depended on priority
of existence, and the evidence offered were, that aman called Matthew, who died last year, had left a
MS. which stated that a certain Joseph had a dream,
and that in this dream an angel of the Lord told him
that “ James was born before Joses ; ” we say, no
ecclesiastical tribunal in Europe would believe this
very credible statement on such evidence.
There are many persons so thoughtless, or se
unreasonable, as to assume that religious credulity
is safer and more pious than incredulity. As if for the
instruction of such, the Romanist steps in, to show
them by his example to what results their easy faith
leads. For centuries together Spain was eminent in
the Romish world for its devotion to the Virgin,,
to whom the Spaniards have ascribed a prerogative
which they entitle “ immaculate conception.”
Protestants in general, misled by the phrase,
suppose it to assert the same miracle concerning the
birth of Mary (whose mother is ecclesiastically known
as St Ann), as Matthew and Luke assert concerningthe birth of Jesus. The writer of these lines has
been rebuked by two Catholics for this very error;
and as they were very explicit, he supposes they were
�of Protestantism.
J9
correct. They explained, that the miracle in the case
of St Ann was, not that the Holy Spirit acted on her
womb to supersede a human father, but so combined
his influence on that organ with that of the real
father, as to hinder the introduction of “ original
sin ” by the father’s act! Within the last few years
we have seen this doctrine raised into a dogma of the
church by the Pope; and Protestants cry out, that
the dogma is very disgusting, and that it has no basis
of proof; for of St Ann nobody knows anything. We
cannot defend the doctrine from such attacks; but
we doubt whether the “ orthodox ” Protestant has
fairly earned a right to make them. His own dogma
is equally baseless, not less puerile or more edifying.
If he insists that it is pious to believe rumours or
speculations of this nature, in which the gossip of all
heathenism abounds, he does his best to throw open
the floodgates of measureless credulity and indecent
fable.
A curious story, not much known, is alluded to by
Dr Campbell, of Aberdeen, in the fourteenth of his
celebrated “ Lectures on Ecclesiastical History.” So
late as the pontificate of Clement XI., in the begin
ning of the last century, a preacher in Rome, intend
ing to honour St Ann, applied to her the title
“ Grandmother of Godwhich, being new, appeared
highly offensive, and was suppressed by the Pope;
who doubtless foresaw that, if it were permitted, we
should next hear of “ God’s grandfather, uncle, aunt,
and cousins.” “The second Council of Nice, in quoting
the Epistle of James, do not hesitate (says Dr C.) to
�20
The Religious Weakness
style the writer God’s brother (a5eX0o0eov).”
“ The sole spring of offence is in the first step,” viz.,
the calling the Virgin Mary “ Mother of God.”
For, he adds, to distinguish between “ the mother of
the mother,” and “ the grandmother,” is impossible.
As a protestant, he of course disapproves of the
received Romish phraseology; yet, clear as he
generally is, he leaves us in doubt whether he disap
proves of saying (p. 253) that the Virgin is “ the
mother of him who is God,” equally with the other
formula, that she is “the mother of God.” He has
just .informed us that under Pope Hormisdas and
some of his successors there was a fierce strife,
*
whether we ought to say, “ One of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh,” or “ One person of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh.” Unless such controversies
are to be regarded as rightful and necessary, what
are they but a red/uctio ad alsurdum of Anglican
orthodoxy ?
We pass to the second great miracle, the Resurrec
tion, to which the Ascension is a sort of complement.
Here it is possible that men of science will admit
(though we have no right to make concessions in
their name), that evidence is vmaginable adequate to
prove facts of such a nature—which are not negative
(as in the case of miraculous conception), but posi
tive. Suppose a man’s head were cut off, or his
* “There were four different opinions. One set approved of both
expressions; a second condemned both; a third maintained the former
expression to be orthodox, the latter heterodox; and a fourth affirmed
the reverse. In this squabble, emperors, popes, and patriarchs engaged
with great fury.”—Dr Campbell.
�of Protestantism.
21
body burned to ashes; after either of these events,
duly testified, no man of science could be incredulous
of the real death. Again, suppose that after such
death testimony were offered that the same person
was still alive. Inasmuch as only from information
and experience do we hitherto disbelieve that a man
once dead ever resumes animal life in the same form,
it would seem that an amount of first-rate testimony
is imaginable^ which might force us to modify the uni
versality of this doctrine: nevertheless, the evidence
needs to be very cogent. We must have decisive
proof of the death, and decisive proof of the renewed
animal life: a failure on either side would make the
whole vain. If, for instance, a person fainted and
seemed to die from exhaustion or loss of blood, and,
after this, came overwhelming evidence that he was
still alive ; it would not have the slightest tendency
to prove that he was risen from the dead, but only
that the death had not been real. Now the very
peculiar phenomenon in the Biblical narrative of the
Resurrection is, that of the two propositions, both of
which are equally essential, it is hard to say which of
the two is less satisfactorily sustained : so that those
who find it every way impossible to believe the
miracle, are at the same time left uncertain whether
or not the alleged death was reaL Crucifixion was
notoriously the most tedious of deaths, and was for
this very reason selected by the Carthaginians and
Romans as a mode of long torment and ignominy.
The loss of blood endured by it is so trifling, that the
�no
The Religious Weakness
victim dies only by exhaustion and thirst, or by the
sufferings of muscular spasm. From the article
“ Cross,” in the ‘ Penny Cyclopaedia,’ we extract the
following:—
“ As death (from crucifixion) in many cases did not ensue
for a length of time, guards were placed to prevent the relatives
or friends of the crucified from giving them any relief, or
taking them away whilst alive, or removing their bodies after they
were dead. .... Even when it (crucifixion) took place
by nailing, neither the wounds themselves nor the quantity of
blood lost would be sufficient in all cases to bring on speedy
death. During the reign of Louis XV. several women (relig
ious enthusiasts, called Convulsionaires) voluntarily underwent
crucifixion. Dr Merand .... relates that he was pre
sent at the crucifixion of two females, named Sister Rachel
and Sister Felicite. They were laid down, fixed by nails five
inches long driven firmly through both hands and feet into the
wood of which the crosses were made. The crosses were then
raised to a vertical position. In this manner they remained
nailed, while other ceremonies of these fanatics proceeded.
Sister Rachel, who had been first crucified, was then taken
down; she lost very little blood. Sister Felicite was after
wards taken from her cross. Three small basons, called
palettes, full of blood, flowed from her hands and feet. Their
wounds were then dressed, and the meeting was terminated.
Sister Felicite declared that it was the twenty-first time she had
undergone crucifixion."
The death being ordinarily so slow, it is of great
importance to know how long Jesus hung on the cross :
and here the narrators are at variance. Mark says
distinctly (xv. 25—34) that Jesus was crucified at the
third hour, and died at the ninth hour. John as
distinctly tells us that he was not yet crucified at the
�of Protestantism.
23
*
sixth hour (xix. 14). “ It was about the sixth hour,
and Pilate saith unto the Jews, Behold your King.
And they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. . . .
Then delivered he unto them to be crucified. And
they took Jesus, and led him away. And he bearing
his cross, went forth into a ptace called ” ...
<fec. &c.
Thus, after Pilate’s command, was the
farther process of carrying the cross out from Pilate’s
judgment-seat to Golgotha; which, for anything that
appears to the contrary, may have delayed the actual
crucifixion for another hour. In short, accepting the
narratives, there is nothing in them to show that
Jesus was longer than tu)o\ hours actually on the
cross. It is further manifest in them all, that Pilate
most unwillingly consented to his execution, and was
•driven to it only by fear. He distinctly declares him
to be innocent, and tries to save him. In Matthew
he takes water, and symbolically washes his hands in
* To save the Biblical infallibility, some divines hold that John
had a different way of counting the hours from the other Evangelists.
The learned Dr Bloomfield, in his ‘ Commentary to the Greek
Testament,’ thinks such a theory too rash. He says (on Mark xv. 25),
“Although such discrepancies [as this between Mark and John] are (as
Eritz observes) ‘rather to be patiently borne, than removed by rash
measures,’ yet here we are, I conceive, not reduced to any great necessity.
For although the mode of reconciling the two accounts by a sort of
management [Italics in Dr B.], however it may be approved by many
commentators, is not to be commended, yet . . .” in short, it is best
to believe the text in John corrupt, and to alter sixth to third. Of
course this is possible; but so is the opposite; and no one can rest a
miracle on a voluntary correction of a text.
t Strauss has discussed this whole subject carefully: ‘ Life of Jesus,’
Part in. ch. iv. § 134. [First Work, 1st edition.] He thinks the addi
tions in John to be mythical inventiohs; but we here decline to discuss
such possibilities, and (concessively) abide by the statements as
given us.
�24
The Religious Weakness
sight of the multitude, saying, “ I am innocent of the
blood of this just person : see ye to it.” A governor,
who, after so humiliating a struggle, yields an inno
cent man to public death, is not unlikely to compro
mise with his conscience by giving secret orders to
the executioners not to kill him, but to put him on to
the cross for a short time, and give up his body, as if
dead, to his friends, as soon as he appeared to faint.
What might thus seem beforehand probable, is unex
pectedly confirmed by John’s information (xx. 32,
33) that the soldiers, knowing that the time was in
sufficient to kill, broke the legs of the other two who
were crucified with Jesus (not a very effectual way of
hastening death, but at least a security against their
*
resuming the trade of robbers); while they did not
break the legs of Jesus. John adds, that they re
frained because they saw him to be dead; which
appears to be a mere surmise; the real reason may
have been that they had secret orders from Pilate to
spare Jesus.
Curiously enough, John proceeds
unawares to state what distinctly suggests, that Jesus
was not dead when they began to take him down
from the cross; for he adds, that a soldier “ pierced
his side with a spear, and forthwith came out blood
and water: and he that saw it (whoever this
was) bare record, and his record is true,”
&c.
Some of the Fathers, as Strauss observes,
strongly felt how opposed this is to common expe* Strauss observes that the breaking of legs nowhere else occurs in
connexion with crucifixion among the Romans. He thinks that the
fractures would be sure to mortify, and thus cause death.
�of Protestantism.
25
Hence of death. Says Origen : “ In all other dead
bodies the blood coagulates, and no pure water flows
from them; but the marvel of the dead body in the
case of Jesus is, blood and water poured from his side
even after death.” So Euthymius: “ For out of a
dead human being, though you should stab him ten
thousand times, no blood will come. This pheno
menon is supernatural, and clearly proves that he
who was stabbed is higher than man.” We are too
aware of the delicacy of such physiological questions,
to speak so confidently ourselves. It suffices to say,
that the flow of blood is most easily and naturally
accounted for by supposing the circulation still to
be active. Indeed, even swooning makes it hard to
get blood out of a man. If he falls in battle from a
sabre-cut and faints, the heart ceasing its normal
action, the blood flows too feebly in the arteries to
issue from the wound, which presently coagulates:
and when death is complete, the stagnation must
ordinarily be still greater. It is of course possible,
that though crucifixion had not caused death, this
spear-wound proved fatal; but the alternative is
equally possible—that as he was still alive, neither
did this new wound kill him. The narrative decides
nothing either way. We however do learn from it
that Pilate desired to save him, gave him up with a
bad conscience, and subjected him to the shortest time
of crucifixion which would obviate quarrel with the
Jewish rulers; that Pilate’s executioners favoured
Jesus in comparison with the two robbers by not
breaking his legs; allowed a humane person, when
�i6
^he Religious Weakness
Jesus complained of the thirst accompanying that
miserable torment, to moisten his lips with vinegar,
which, diluted with water, was a well-known beverage
of the Roman soldiers, and is a great relief to a
fevered mouth; farther, Pilate’s officers took him
down from the cross, and prepared to deliver him to
his friends, while there were symptoms which strongly
indicate life, and after an interval so short, that (as
Mark asserts) Pilate “ marvelled if he were already
dead.” With so very imperfect a proof of death, it
is manifest that all pains in the second part of the
story to prove a Resurrection are wasted; the more
so, since, according to the accounts, neither was he
buried in such a way as could have tended to suffoca
tion. His body was given over to the friendly hand
of Joseph of Arimathaea, who laid him “ in his own
new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock that
is to say, in a rocky vault, where a wounded man
might receive surgical treatment and cordials.
The evidence offered in proof that Jesus after his
buii al was seen alive, has been many times ably dis
cussed. English readers who desire to see what can
be said against it, may consult Charles Hennell’s
1 Inquiry on the Origin of Christianity,’ Strauss’s
‘ Life of Jesus,’ or W. R. Greg’s ‘ Creed of Christen
dom.’ From the last-named, we extract the followings
p. 216
“ A marked and most significant peculiarity in these ac
counts, which has not received the attention it deserves, is,
*
* Hennell touches the topic in a short but decisive paragraph, p. 239,
second' edition.
�of Protestantism.
that scarcely any of those who are said to have seen Jesus
after his resurrection recognised him, though long and intimately
acquainted with his person. . . . (Mark xvi. 12.) ‘After
that, he appeared in another form, to two of them.’ Now, if it
really were Jesus who appeared to these various parties, would
this want of recognition have been possible ? If it was Jesus,
he was so changed that his most intimate friends did not
know him. How then can we know that it was himself ? ”
The defence put in by our divines does nothing but
show the shifting and untangible nature of their argu
ment. They say, that the risen Jesus had a glorified
body which could pass through shut doors, and of
course was sufficiently different from his former body
to embarrass recognition. We began by avowing
that human testimony was imaginable that might
prove the restoration of a dead man to life. But we
must modify the avowal, by adding, that no common
testimony could ever prove the sort of resurrection
here tendered to us : for if the risen body is not a
body of flesh and blood, but “ glorified ” and ethereal,
and so unlike the former body of Jesus that his friends
identify him only by the symbolical action of breaking
bread, as the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke xxiv.),
their testimony is unavailing. To what do they
affect to bear witness ? They do not lay before us the
impressions on their sight or hearing, but merely the
inferences of their mind, that the person who broke
bread in a certain way must have been Jesus, though he
looked v&ry unlike him.' And this leads naturally to the
important point, which Mr Hennell has so well made
prominent:—
“ It seems probable (says he, p. 204, second edition) that the
�28
The Religious Weakness
original belief among the Apostles was merely that Christ had
been raised from the dead in an invisible or spiritual manner : for
where we can arrive at Peter’s own words, viz., in his ‘ Epistle,’
he speaks of Christ as being put to death in the flesh, but made
alive in the spirit (1 Pet. iii. 18)—OavarwGels p.tv traps! ^woiroi^dels
Se nveipari. That the last phrase signifies a mode of opera
tion invisible to human eyes, appears from the following
clause, which describes Jesus as preaching, also in the spirit
(eV <£), to the spirits in prison. But some of the disciples soon
added to this idea of an invisible or spiritual resurrection, that
Jesus had appeared to many in a bodily form................... ”
Men who have seen and heard another man, have
a certain power of identifying him when they see and
hear him again; and when by eye or ear they do
identify him, we call their declaration concerning it
testimony or witness, and assign a certain weight to it.
But if they declare that they do not identify him by
eye or ear, but only by the inferences of their mind,
it is an abuse of language to call this testimony. If
the glorified spirit of a deceased friend were to appear
to one of us—whether in ecstatic vision or in what
seemed to be our waking senses—we could not claim
that other men should accept as “ testimony ” our
statement that it was he : for though they have expe
rience of the trustworthiness of sense to recognize
and identify ordinary bodies in their ordinary states,
they know nothing of the trustworthiness of sense
when it pretends to identify a form now ethereal and
glorified with what was once a human body. And as
it is not only in Peter’s epistle and in Paul’s vision
(as, indeed, in Paul’s doctrine of the “ resurrection
body”), that this idea of a merely spiritual resur
rection of Jesus is suggested, but the same occurs in
�of Protestantism.
<19
all the Gospels—partly in the difficulty of recognizing
Jesus, partly in his vanishing out of their sight or
suddenly coming through walls and doors—the whole
is removed beyond the sphere of testimony, even if
the declarations were consistent and distinct, and were
laid before us on the authority of the original eye
witnesses.
Thus those two cardinal events which Protestantism
undertakes to prove and recognizes as its basis,—when
their alleged Scriptural evidence is examined fail of
satisfying the demands of ordinary scientific reason
ing ; after which we need not wonder that Protes
tantism cannot win intelligent converts. For it does
not, like Catholicism, tell people that they must not
reason at all concerning religion. On the contrary,
it excites their reasoning powers — bids them to
examine—professes to give proof—lays before them
the Scripture as decisive—talks high of private judg
ment—and yet gives no evidence which can bear the
tests of ordinary historical and scientific inquiry.
When hereto it adds unseemly threats, denouncing
Divine judgment on all whose intellect rises against
its imbecility, none can wonder that the freer-thinking
Catholics say they may as well remain under the old
Church as go into another which, while it affects to
appeal to reason, is as essentially unreasonable as the
old one. “ My child,” said a Catholic bishop to a
Protestant in his neighbourhood, “ did I rightly hear
that you called the sacred doctrine of Transubstantiation irrational ? Oh, folly! If, in order to receive
the doctrine of the Trinity, you have crucified vain
�30
The Religious Weakness
reason, what avails to build again, that which you
have destroyed, by setting reason to carp at another
doctrine which is too hard for it ?”
Besides the miracles which inhere in the person of
Jesus, there are two great classes of miracles wrought
by him, and by or in his disciples, which may deserve
a few words here. First we have the casting-out of
devils—a miracle very prevalent in the three first
Gospels, though unknown to the fourth. No educated
physician, Catholic or Protestant, can well listen with
gravity to a truly orthodox discourse on this subject.
Indeed, many well-informed divines are ashamed of it,
and declare that popular ignorance mistook epilepsy,
catalepsy, madness, and other diseases, for a possession
by evil spirits. They are aware that the superstition
was learned by the Jews in Babylon, and still exists
in very ignorant countries ; and they tell us that the
Evangelists accommodated their dialect to that of the
ignorant,but made no substantial error. Hence, accord
ing to them, as we accept the phrase, that “ the sun
rises,” even if astronomically questionable; so must
we tacitly interpret the “ possession by a devil ” into
epilepsy, or some other disease. But such divines are
rather well-informed than candid; for they cannot
but be aware that it is impossible to get rid of the
“ devils ” by interpretation. Divines more candid,
but sometimes worse-informed, have far more cogently
argued, that the discerning of Jesus, as Son of God,
which is attributed to demoniacs—and still more
decisively, the passing of a legion of devils from a
man into a herd of swine—demonstrate the narrators
�of Protestantism.
to have had a definite belief in the supernatural know
ledge, power, and personality of the “ devils ” who
dwelt in the demoniacs. Thus our Protestant theo
logians, episcopal critics and historians, reverend
mathematicians, astronomers, geologists—men cer
tainly who know what proof is—solemnly read out in
church, for public edification, stories about devils,
which it is hard to believe they do not know to be
Babylonish frippery; and while thus glorifying
fictitious follies, wonder that many who disdain
hypocrisy rush headlong into the belief that most
religious men are hypocrites.
The second class of miracles is the speaking with
tongues, which so abounds in the book of the “ Acts
of the Apostles,” and on which there is ample discus
sion in “ Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.”
We should in vain try here to abridge Mr Greg’s able
summary of the phenomenon, in pp. 169—178 of the
“ Creed of Christendom.” It is clear, both from the
details given by Paul, and from many other conside
rations, that these “ tongues ” were not real foreign
languages, but were gibberish, such as used to be
heard in the late Mi’ Edward Irving’s congregation
—a gibberish which Paul felt to be “ most probably
nonsensical, unworthy, and grotesque ” (Greg.)—
which he desired to repress, yet did not dare to
forbid.
“ We are driven to the painful but unavoidable conclusion,
that those mysterious and unintelligible utterances, which the
Apostles and the early Christians looked upon as the effects of
the Holy Spirit, the manifestation of its presence, the signs of
its operation, the especial indication and criterion of its having
�32
’The Religious Weakness
fallen upon any one, were in fact simply the physiologically
natural results of morbid and perilous cerebral exaltation,
induced by strong religious excitement acting on uncultivated
and susceptible minds ; results which in all ages and nations
have followed in similar circumstances and from similar
stimuli; and that these signs to which Peter appealed, and to
which the other brethren succumbed, as proving that God
intended the Gospel to be preached to Gentiles as well as to
Jews, showed only that Gentiles were susceptible to the same
excitements, and manifested that susceptibility in the same
manner as the Jews.”—Greg, p. 178.
There are other doctrines, common to the creed of
all the national Churches, which, though too cardinal
to omit, are too vast to discuss here in detail. We
allude especially to the Trinity, the Incarnation, and
the Atonement. These are rejected from Christianity
by the followers of Dr Priestley, who can fight
powerfully against the “ orthodox,” when they go
the full length of avowing that the Epistles of Paul
were of no authority in the Church at large for two
centuries, and that the fourth Gospel is full of pro
fanities, which would have shocked the earliest
Christians. But nothing can be so opposed to the
creed of European Christendom as this avowal; and
without disrespect to some great Unitarian writers,
when we speak of Christianity or Protestantism, we
do not and cannot mean their scheme of thought and
religion. The accomplished and variously-gifted
scholars who hold places as bishops or deans among
us, will justify us in treating these difficult doctrines,
with the resurrection and the miraculous conception,
as essential to Protestant Christianity. But since
they are aware that the laws of evidence are coeval
�of Protestantism,
33
with the human mind, and that the evidence strictly
and rightfully needed to establish a marvel now was
always strictly and rightfully needed, even before
men’s minds had ripened to discern it; we may fairly
propose to one of these learned persons, in the calm
retirement of his library, to put down on paper the
kind of evidence which, if tendered, would satisfy his
mind that the holiest and noblest man now living is
the Eternal (or an Eternal) Divine Being, Creator of
this world and of all worlds, future Judge of mankind,
who will give eternal life to some, and award con
demnation to others—a Being towards whom we may
exercise absolute trust and hope, and supreme adora
tion. If he seriously undertake the task we suggest,
we should not be greatly surprised if his meditation
threw unexpected light on Edward Irving’s apoph
thegm, “ Intellectual evidence is the egg of infidelity
or if it even reconciled him to the distinguished Mr
ICeble’s advice to his friend Arnold, as homely good
sense, to “ put down ” his doubts concerning the
Trinity “ by main force,” and take a curacy to get
rid of them.
At the same time, nearly the same problem as the
above rests on Unitarian Christians, whether their
philosophy grovel or aspire; who after giving active
aid to demolish the gorgeous fabric of magical ecclesiasm, now struggle to sustain its central shining
minaret—the unapproachable, absolute, moral per
fection of him, whom they elaborately maintain to be
merely human, and limited by human conditions.
But we will vary our demand. Suppose the East
�34
The Religious Weakness
and West so far to change places, that missionaries of
Buddhism come to England to convert us to their
religion. Let them proclaim, that Buddha—whom,
by reason of his virtue, his followers unwisely have
worshipped as God—was truly divine in goodness,
the incarnate image of absolute divine purity: that,
as such, his Person enters into the substance and obliga
tions of human religion; on which account they call
upon us to listen, while they preach his life, person,
and pre-eminence; and, moreover, thoughtfully to
study the ancient books which record his sanctity.
This hypothesis is, in fact, so closely akin to the real
Buddhism, that it might on any day become a case
of reality. Now, we ask of Unitarian Christians on
what primd facie evidence should we be bound to
explore the Oriental books, and listen with religious
hope to the argument, that Buddha is the Head of
mankind, and unique type of perfection ? To reply
that we have found such a Head already, and do not
want another, may be practically good, but is scien
tifically weak; for it avails equally to them, and
would justify them in exploding the perfect Christ,
because they already believe in a perfect Buddha.
Is the intrinsic unplausibility of a doctrine never a
reason for exploding it, without sacrifice of valuable
time and research ?—or can any folly concerning an
Apollo, who is physically a God and morally a liber
tine, be more unplausible than the Unitarian notion,
that Jesus was mentally a dwarf and morally a God ?
The present condition of theological “philosophy ”
among us (if the phrase be allowable) indicates that
�of Protestantism,
35
the old school is dying out. From fifty to thirty
years ago the doctrines of Paley (as regards Christian
“ Evidences ”) were dominant in both Universities,
and were acknowledged by High and Low Church
alike. At Oxford they were especially upheld by
such men as Copleston, afterwards Bishop of Llandaff;
•Shuttleworth, afterwards Bishop of Chichester;
"Whately, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin; Lloyd,
Regius Professor of Divinity, and a little while Bishop
<of Oxford; Vowler Short, now Bishop of St Asaph ;
Longley, now Archbishop of Canterbury; besides
•others who never emerged from the University.
They were able men, some remarkably able ; they
had the field to themselves, yet they could not keep
it. They sincerely believed that by invoking “ his
torical testimony ” they could recommend to the
assent of every unprejudiced and intelligent mind
such doctrines as we have denoted ; yet, against their
learning, experience, and high authority, two young
men in Oxford commenced an unexpected reaction—
Pusey, Professor of Hebrew, and J. H. Newman,
whose sole distinction then consisted in being a
Fellow of a most distinguished College; both of
whom had evidently become aware that Protestantism
•could not possibly stand on its old basis. To prove
by historical and learned evidence the postulate of
the Evangelicals, that the Bible from end to end is
infallible, they saw to be at once a hopeless and an
absurd undertaking. To lay logic as the foundation,
and make the doctrine of the Trinity the super
structure, they more than hinted, was very dangerous ;
�36
'The Religious Weakness
indeed, some of the “ Tracts for the Times ” almost
avow that no Protestant can prove the doctrine even
from the Scripture. Dr Newman (led on, we sup
pose, by polemical instincts) struck upon the method
of assailing with logic all who appeal to reason
(that is, common Protestants and liberals), while
assuming that the true faith (his own), being founded
on something higher than reason, is not bound to
justify itself to reason. This gave to his school a
delightful licence of attacking other people’s want of
logic, while reserving to itself the privilege of being
illogical at pleasure. Oxford still boasted of able
men, though some of those whom we have named
were withdrawn. The new “ Puseyism” soon reached
the ears of the outer world, and interested all England.
Baden Powell—and shall we say Hampden?—opposed
it from within; Whatelv, and Arnold, and Julius Hare,
and a host of Evangelicals, from without. At Cam
bridge, at least one man of vast and various powers,
keen ambition, deep and original thought—Whewell,
Master of Trinity College—would have started a
rival philosophy of the Christian religion, if he had
been able. In morals, Sedgwick and Whewell have
repudiated Paley; but we have never understood
that in regard to “ Christian Evidences ” they under
take to supersede him. Like the deep-souled Julius
Hare, and the sprightly, eager Arnold, they proved
unable to check the movement of Newman and
Pusey, whose attacks on the vulgar Protestantism
were very unshrinking. The Tractarians were,
no doubt, in a false position. They overthrew
�of Protestantism.
37
their allies from within, and were debarred from
attacking their great enemy without; for Romanism,
precisely on their ground, claims exemption from the
task of reconciling its dogmas with reason : moreover,
their doctrine of “ Apostolic succession ” presumes that
a Roman bishop, however wicked, has a power of
bestowing the Holy Spirit. In the result, Dr New
man discovered and repented of the sin of assailing
Rome. He has, nevertheless, done an effectual work
in England, practically showing in what those must
end who assume “ High Church ” axioms, and reason
from them with consistent logic. Simultaneously,
our knowledge of German theology has continually
been on the advance. Dr Pusey indeed himself, in
his ardent youth, was the first person to expound at
Oxford the deep Biblical learning and warm piety of
German theologians, who had in some points un
happily been carried too far, but who ought never
theless to be esteemed and honoured, and wisely
used. But he appears in a very few years to have
discerned that the free study of the Bible in the nine teenth century would never end in the theology of the
sixteenth, and by the discovery to have been forced
into a totally new career. Meanwhile, it has become
notorious that the arguments of Gardner and Paley
break down on the literary and historical side, in the
presence of the more accurate scholarship of the Ger
mans, to say nothing of a higher philosophy; so that
our academicians, if they endeavour to discuss “ evi
dences ” in Protestant fashion, dread to be precipi
tated into German neology; while, if they deprecate
�38
The Religious Weakness
private judgment and appeal to the Church, they are
fighting the battle of Rome. In such an entanglement
men of backward and stagnant minds may write and
speak as if nothing new had been added to our
knowledge of antiquity in the last fifty years; but
leading talents will no longer give their energies to
develop and maintain either theory of Anglicanism—
of the Low, or of the High Church.
The school of Paley has now, for perhaps the last
twenty years, its most prominent representative in
Mr Henry Rogers, whose grave Edinburgh articles
have been succeeded by elaborate effusions, called
coarseness and ribaldry by some critics, sacred mirth
by others. Most of our readers have probably read
his conception of an Irish Adam talking brogue to
the Creator against the Ten Commandments ; and
will add epithets at their own discretion to MrRogers’s name. We believe that he writes from the
outside of the Established Church. Within, Oxford
and Cambridge are waiting for a religious philosophy.
That of Professor Jowett may be very noble and very
true ; but it is so different from the hereditary Pro
testant doctrines, that the Oxonians cannot be blamed
for looking askance and timidly at it.
They are in general paralyzed, from an uneasy
foreboding of the dangers contingent on a close
reconsideration of first principles.
Precisely because theologians will not reconsider
first principles, but, with infinite disputes about their
superstructure, are careless about their foundation,
therefore it is that science tends to become Atheistic,
�of Protestantism.
39
alike in Protestant as in Catholic countries. The
blame of this may be justly laid upon the doctrine
which elaborately seeks for marks of God in every
thing unusual and exceptional, and denies His pre
sence in all that is ordinary and established. We are
aware that there are enlightened Protestant divines,
who disapprove this position; eminently the Rev.
Baden Powell, who, in the first of his “ Three Essays
on the Unity of Worlds,” speaks as follows:—
“ According to this mode of representation [by religious
writers] ‘ nature ’ was the rule, ‘ Deity ’ the exception. The
belief in nature was the doctrine of reason and knowledge;
the acknowledgment of a God was only the confession of
ignorance. So long as we could trace physical laws, nature
was our only and legitimate guide; when we could attain
nothing better, we were to rest satisfied with a God. Even learned
writers on natural theology have thought it pious to argue in
this way.”—p. 162, Second Edition. [Italics as in Mr Powell.]
Mr Powell’s protest is right and wise; but, with
deference to him, we add, it cannot be effectual unless
he pull down the whole Protestant theory, of which
the avowed foundation is the miraculous—the excep
tional. It commands us, not to look within our hearts,
or into human history, for the Divine, but into one
miraculous book and one miraculous history. It
virtually shuts God out" from inspiring us now,
by the stress which it lays on the special inspi
ration once granted by Him to a few. It lays
down that the Jewish history is sacred, and other
histories profane; and treats even the history of
the Christian Church as too secular for the pulpit,
from the day that the canon of Scripture was closed.
�40
The Religious Weakness
It represents that God is certainly present wherever
there is miracle, but that where miracle is not, no
one can be sure of the presence of God. Nothing
else is meant or can be meant by the infallible and
authoritative Bible, than to desecrate, in comparison
to it, all the ordinary modes of learning truth, and
duty, and right. In proportion to the power and
activity of this theory concerning miracles and the
Bible, will be the intensity with which a man
embraces the exceptionable and obscure phenomena
of the world as the great manifestation of Deiiy.
Undoubtedly Mr Powell rightly regards this to tend
to Atheism, for every step onward of knowledge is
then a lessening and weakening of the Theist’s
resources. But we submit to him that we are right
in insisting, that a theory which places the strength
of religion in the miraculous is naturally of Atheistic
tendency. It entraps into Atheism those students of
science, who, having no religious philosophy of their
own, borrow its fundamental principles from the
Church. In fact, those writers on “ Evidences,” who
now seem to have the field to themselves, make no
secret of their conviction that Atheism is the neces
sary logical result of an appeal to Science, the
Universe, and Man. On the one side, we see a great
ecclesiast, the Rev. Dr Irons, frankly declare that,
without the authoritative and supernatural revelation
by miracle, Nature preaches to us nothing concern
ing God. On the other, a would-be philosopher and
liberal Christian, Mr Rogers, in his “ Eclipse of
�of Protestantism.
4i
Faith,” announces that the Atheist has the argument
entirely in his own hands, as against the Deist, and
that without the Bible the only God preached by
Nature is an immoral or malignant Being. The
learned and highly popular author of a work called
“ The Restoration of Belief” goes so far as to insist,
that one who does not acknowledge the supernatural
authority of “ The Book,” not only ought to be an
Atheist, but has no right to talk of “ Conscience,
Truth, Righteousness, and Sin; ” and that sacrifices
for Truth are in such a one “not constancy, but
opinionativeness.” How can Christians avoid shud
dering at such avowals from their own advocates ?
which, if true, utterly destroy Christianity with
Theism, and prepare to plunge mankind into a state
of universal profligate recklessness.
That the Protestant theory has no future, is indi
cated by many marks. We have seen Arnold and
Julius Hare (good, noble, able men, of peculiar
acquirements) live and die without being able to
make themselves understood; a pretty clear proof that
the age has no susceptibility for their doctrine. The
same is true of the Rev. Frederick Maurice, and of the
Chevalier Bunsen. Mr Maurice is a man of acknow
ledged goodness and largeness of heart; as Professor
or Preacher, untiring in industry; devoted to raise
the working classes; so copious a writer on theology
that he will probably outdo Archbishop Whately in
amount; and he has evidently undertaken as the
work of his life to sublimate Church orthodoxy into
�42
’The Religious Weakness
a transcendental philosophy. Yet, in spite of the
high commendation bestowed upon his talents and
discrimination by a few, to the public at large he
seems to be only subtle, flimsy, and evasive. He may
be wise, but the age cannot understand him. “ What
does he mean ? ” is the cry which escapes from the
perplexed novices who would fain admire him. Not
dissimilar is the case with the accomplished Bunsen,
who invests in gorgeous colours and vast pomp of
intricate words a system of religious historicism, in
which the common intellect can discover no solidity,
no fixed shape, no firm and certain meaning. And as
the new quasi-Coleridgian school proves feeble to us
and dim, so neither does the old nursery rear any
thriving plants. No young Whatelys show them
selves. Nobody of high reputation now writes trea
tises on the Trinity. Whately did but bring on him
self a strong and dangerous imputation of “ Sabellianism,” by the remarks in his Logic on the word
“Person
Hampden half ruined himself by being
too learned on the same subject. Men of the Evan
gelical school, who have no philosophic reputation to
lose, may publish sermons on the Atonement; but a
systematic treatise on this involves much risk to a
man of note. Schleiermacher’s “ Discourse on St
Luke” was translated about twenty years ago (as
was believed) by Dr now Bishop Thirlwall: we have
never heard that it has been answered by any one.
Many have claimed, that the Bishop will answer it
himself, since he now disavows it. Nor does any
�of Protestantism.
43
leading divine undertake to refute the works of
Charles Hennell or W. R. Greg. When the wise
men hold their peace under such attacks, it must be
thought that they are but too conscious of the weak
ness of their own cause.
In consequence of the freedom which in Protestant
countries many sects attain, we see from time to time
the doctrine of personal inspiration (perhaps with
some fanaticism) assert itself strongly against the
ecclesiastical, which makes inspiration an exceptional
thing of the past. Thus Whitfield, and thus Hunt
ington the coalheaver, thus also Edward Irving, were
distinguished. Speculators have marked out as revi
vals such periodical recurrences of a simpler and
nobler theology, but have lamented that the fresh
ness of religious enthusiasm always decays in the
second generation. Some even have elicited from
this a “ law ” of nature: that the stage of languor
follows that of excitement; or that the era of com
mentators follows . that of men of genius. The
existence of this “ law ” may seem plausible from the
side of total unbelief; but it is difficult to understand
what intelligent theory of the phenomenon can
rightly recommend itself to a devout Evangelical or
to any earnest Protestant. The phenomenon is not
confined to our sects, nor to the ignorant and excite
able. Neither in Geneva, nor in Scotland, nor in
England, nor in Protestant Germany, could a second
and third generation sustain the religious warmth of
the first; nor indeed is it denied by Romanists that
�44
The Religious Weakness
learning is the fertile mother of heresy. Assuredly,
if religion be a deep and noble principle, rightful and
reasonable to man, then a particular form of religion
must be involved in some very essential falsehood, if
its vigour and vitality are uniformly undermined by
accessions to its knowledge, or by the tranquil
advance of experience. A true religion can but strike
its roots deeper with cultivation of mind and increase
of wisdom. That must be a fundamental fanaticism
which thrives only upon action and excitement, and
wastes by calm examination and learning. Alike in
Catholic and in Protestant countries, the world has
still to wait for a religion which shall grow stronger
and stronger with every development of sound scien
tific acquirement.
Nor perhaps is this the worst: for we must add
Europe has yet to wait for a religion which shall
exert any good influence over public measures. A
distinguished foreigner, in his own consciousness a
true Christian—whose name we could not properly
here bring forward—on a recent day said, in a select
circle : “ I begin to doubt whether Christianity has a
future in the world.” “ Why so ? ” asked one pre
sent, in surprise at such an augury from such a
quarter. “ Because,” he replied, ■ neither in India,
nor in America, nor anywhere at all in Europe, does
any of the governments called ‘ Christian ”—I do
not say, do what is right, but—even affect and pre
tend to take the Right as the law of action. What
ever it was once, Christianity is now in all the great
�of Protestantism.
45
concerns of nations a mere ecclesiasticism, powerful
for mischief, but helpless and useless for good.
Therefore I begin to doubt whether it has a future ;
for if it cannot become anything better than it is, it
has no right to a future in God’s world.”
C. IT. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENET 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
The religious weakness of Protestantism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 45, [1] p. ; 19 cm
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4851
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 />This work (The religious weakness of Protestantism), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Protestantism
Christianity
Protestantism