1
10
94
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7f850492be8b8b438faf7c89c21007cc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Wovf5c2mLunaWmknnVnluCSfju06p%7EHLzYHvYRmbkwzOGKNN8eguQwmseF3krz79E35jukheL12Rj172S3%7EqhyGKptSJsCy8Dwy6fCEB4WUx8y4E1d4qWWx0BPsy9LoEl3cjnTay5FaUn2mrIuLmh8f-SApf7XmpxwPLPN40JBRQ%7ELUiVyfUzcQiNZ8evX6em8ilG5vG9f-eZ8CyLyNN2-%7EXx5u5UPSn662QXISgLQgMsTfoc1pCMqNFQcRoFLCyzTQkeVBT9DPfRsJx2hC5tpGzSMb2TyyoFhYlbuR7L4eeTArgggyAttjIuIje0BHKu8OO7hpIbck%7E51w7-kPttQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e894ff7088f8a3c43a434f5684885cc6
PDF Text
Text
"AUGUSTE COMTE'S
RELIGION OF HUMANITY."
A DISCOURSE
DELIVERED AT
SOUTH PLACE CHAPEL,
SUNDAY, 31 OCTOBER, 1880,
BY
ALEXANDER J. ELLIS,
B.A., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.C.P.S., F.C.P.,
President {for the second time) of the Philological Society.
WITH AN APPENDIX OF NOTES,
Containingjustificatory citations from Comte's works, andfrom two
unpublished private letters of Comte to the Author,
with other matter.
LONDON :
SOUTH PLACE CHAPEL (LIBRARY),
AND
TRUBNER & CO., Ludgate Hill.
1880.
PRICE 4d.
�AUGUSTE COMTE’S RELIGION
OF HUMANITY.
Last May Mr. Conway delivered a discourse in
this chapel on the question “What is the Religion of
Humanity ? ” This discourse has been printed, and
is doubtless well known to all whom I address. He
commenced by saying that this phrase “has been
much and vaguely used,” and added that it came, he
believed, “from the mint of positivism.” (Note 27,
p. 66). But there is not one word in the whole of his
discourse which indicates either the sense in which
Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism, understood
the term Humanity, or in what manner he founded a
religion upon that conception. It occurred to me
therefore, when I was asked to supply the service on
one of the Sundays during Mr. Conway’s absence, that
I should be meeting the wishes of many members of
the congregation by giving an account of Comte’s
views, with which I have been acquainted almost ever
since they were first published.
The only short systematic account which Comte
�5
in French or English, may be procured of or through
Messrs. Reeves & Turner, 196, Strand.
Isidore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte, who
subsequently retained only the name of Auguste
Comte,was born on 19 January, 1798? at Montpellier, in
the department of Herault, France. He was the son of
Auguste Louis Comte, cashier of the general receiver
ship of Herault, and Felicite-Rosalie Boyer, his wife.
He was at the College of Montpellier till he went to
the Ecole Polytechnique in 1814, but the whole of
that school was dismissed for what was considered an
act of insubordination (a protest against a repetiteur,
or assistant lecturer, signed first by Comte), and he
became a teacher of mathematics for bread. From
1818 to 1820, he was in friendly relations with the
celebrated Claude Henri, Comte de Saint Simon (born
1760, died 1825), whose pupil Comte styled himself
at the time, though he did not learn positivism from
him, and subsequently considered these relations most
unfavourable for the development of his conceptions.
It was in May, 1822, that, attached to a little privately
distributed pamphlet by Saint Simon, called du Contra!
Social, of which 100 copies were printed, Comte added
what he termed “ a plan of the scientific works required
for the reorganisation of society,” reprinted in an
edition of 1,000 copies in 1824, and then entitled
“ System of Positive Polity.” This wonderful work
of a young man of twenty-four, well justified its
�English translation much condensed, but approved by
Comte, was made by Miss Harriett Martineau.
During the execution of this great work, he had to
maintain himself by continuous labour as a teacher of
mathematics, in which capacity I first heard of him as
private tutor to a former Eton boy of my acquaintance
at Paris in 1834, and I then became possessed of the
first volumes of his Positive Philosophy. It was with
the greatest difficulty that Comte managed to scrape
together during this period some 10,000 francs or
^400 a year. He used to compose the whole of one
of his volumes on Positive Philosophy, in all its details,
in his head without even making a note, and then,
when he had leisure to write, he sat down and wrote
it off, never correcting, and keeping only a few sheets
in advance of the press. In 1842 Comte was separated
from his wife, with whom, however, he long maintained
an intimate correspondence. In 1844, Comte, who
had long held two subordinate offices in the Ecole
Polytechnique, lost them both through a series of mis
fortunes which I cannot even advert to. Three Eng
lishmen, Grote, Molesworth and Raikes Currie
gave him temporary assistance. In 1849 his friends
raised an annual subscription for him, the collection of
which he took into his own hands when the rupture
occurred between him and M. Littre, who had ori
ginated it, a rupture due to the different views which they
took of Napoleon III.’s coup d'etat. This subscription
�complete his Positive Polity in 1854, and then began
what he intended to be the complement of his
labours, the Positive Synthesis, of which only the first
volume appeared in 1856, containing Positive Logic,
which is in fact a history and criticism of the whole of
Mathematics as then known—much has been added
since that time. Two of the remaining volumes of
the Synthesis were destined to give an exposition of
Positive Morality, of which one was to be on theo
retical, and the other on practical morals. Of these,
nothing but the titles of the chapters is preserved.
■(Note 2, p. 47.) Of the fourth volume all we know is,
.that it was to be a system of Positive Industry. After
a painful illness, on the nature of which a difference
of opinion prevails, Comte died on Saturday, 5 Sep
tember, 1857. Since then his rooms at No. 10, Rue
Monsieur-le-Prince, Paris, have been kept exactly as
he left them, and the Positivist Society of Paris, under
the direction of M. Laffitte, appointed principal
-executor under Comte’s will, there holds its meetings,
and performs the rites of the Religion of Humanity.
The subsequent career of Positivism is detailed in a
periodical appearing every two months, called La
Revue Occidentale. For an English appreciation of
Comte’s two works, I must refer you to two articles
by John Stuart Mill, reprinted from the “Westminster
Review,” entitled Auguste Comte and Positivism
JTriibner, 1865). For French appreciations, reference
�II
materially alter their views most probably, if admitted,
but they are as much without it, as Christianity dispenses with the Olympic mythology of the Greeks.
No Christian would now attempt to give an elaborate
is proof of the non-existence of the Greek and Roman
Gods. He does not want them or care for them.
(Note 4, p. 49.) And so the positivist does not want or
care for the God of any description of Theists. But he
is not like the old Christians, iconoclastic.. He recog
u nises all religions, past and present, with sedulous
catholicity, and considers them all as transitional
forms heralding in his own, or rather his Master’s
The God of the Theist may or
U universal conception.
may not be demonstrable, but at any rate has not
The Supreme Being of the
3,t ' been demonstrated.
& . positivists, which is as far as possible from being a
rg God, is not only demonstrable, but demonstrated ; is
not only possible, but actual ■ is not a mere subjective
conception, but a real objective existence, and would
O so remain and be equally well fitted to command the
•a reverence and govern the actions of men, even if there
were a theistic God behind it. Such is the positivist
view.
This Supreme Being is called Humanity, by which
■s is not meant the bare abstraction of human nature, or
It is an
ifi organic as opposed to inorganic nature.
3| actual objective being, neither personal nor impersonal,
but rather com-personal; of a duration, relatively to a
•r
n
Sr]
$
�13
of actual co-operation in maintaining the common
existence. ^1 am using Comte’s own words as far as
possible.) Although every man is by birth a child of
Humanity, every man is not fit to be one of her
servants (for Comte speaks of Humanity in the femi
nine, not merely from the accidental gender of the
French noun, but for other reasons which I shall not
have time to adduce). Many remain in a parasitic
condition, tolerable only during education. Anarchi
cal times, Comte adds, have made such sad burdens
on Humanity to abound, and too often to flourish.
And he quotes of them Dante’s lines referring to—
Those that have lived without or praise or blame—,
Speak not of them, but look and go thy way.
(Che visser senza infamia e senza lode—
Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa.)
But while these vegetables must be rejected from
Humanity, Comte would include among her parts
those worthy animals which contribute voluntarily to
her existence. £c Many horses, dogs and cattle are
worthier than some men,” says he. (Note 5, p. 50.)
Now in regarding this compound being, we naturally
look first rather to the inter-connection of existing
men, than to the past and future. But the present
forms in fact a very small part of this being. Con
tinuity is very much more important; society at any
time depends very much more on the knowledge,
feelings and arrangements which have been handed
i
I
�i5
“ God doth not need
Either man’s work, or his own gifts.”
But Humanity is powerless without the action of living
men. Hence it becomes the business of each living cell of
the great organism of Humanity to act consciously as its
servant and coadjutor, using the liberal gifts which it has
received from the past and passing them on increased,
less and less as the receipts are more and more, but
never diminished, to the future. By this means each in
dividual has it within his power to become incorporated
in the great compersonal Being whom he worthily serves.
This conception, which I have imperfectly sketched,
has to become familiar before it becomes efficacious.
We must continually feel that we are an existing part
of Humanity, actuated by our dead predecessors and
working for our unborn followers. We must feel that
those whotrust totheirown action without the assistance
of the.dead are at best self-deceived, for every thought,
every action, every premiss is in the first place in
herited. If a great flood were to pass over the world,
as was once imagined, and destroy all man’s work,
but to leave man, and the mental inheritance of the
race were thus to remain, the result of the teachings
so preserved, would be that the work of restoration
would proceed infinitely more rapidly than the original
work of constitution. Again, the man who imagines
that he works for himself alone, because he looks to
his own gratification only as an end, is as much self-
�.
r-.
,4
17
of vessels at sea, and so forth. Granted, they assert,
that at some future time it may be possible to render
probable or certain that there is an intelligent power
beyond Humanity, yet even then our first duties, our
only really sensible and executable duties, will be
towards this especial tellurian providence, Humanity.
This, as I gather, is the real position of Comte’s fol
lowers towards modern theists. But of course there is a
difference between the reign of law and the reign of
special arbitrary supramundane providence, between
the acknowledgment of Humanity as the highest con
ceivable being, and the acceptance of a mystic un
defined personality, quite independent of Humanity,
in direct communion with each individual man. The
positivists say in the old words “ the non-apparent
must be regarded as non-existent ” (de non apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est lex). The
theists rejoin that to them this higher being is ap
parent and hence existent, and that this even inter
feres with the possible acceptance of Humanity as
a secondary providence. This conclusion is, however,
shown by acts performed to be rather theoretical
than practical. As long as people revert to the
records of the wisdom of their ancestors (and all
bodies of laws and codes of religion belong to this
category, as well as all records of science), instead of
relying upon individual inspiration, whether as the
result of prayer or merely spontaneous, and as long
2
$
d
1
�a are continually obscured by the variety of the con
is crete, can be satisfactorily traced or indeed traced at
El all. He established, then, as the foundation of his
research, a progressive scale of the sciences, or
ni hierarchy, as he terms it, beginning with the most
ril simple and hence most generally applicable, and ending
hi with the most complex and hence most limited in its
■J area. Comte was professionally a mathematician, as
II have already mentioned, and he begins his scale of
ill the sciences with mathematics or the science of numijj ber and space, as the very simplest and most universal
ai
x
is
u
9<
d
CU
d
of conceptions. How he finds in their treatment the
bases of all methods of reasoning, inductive as well
as deductive, I must refer you to his books to learn,
and especially to his treatise on algebraical geometry
(“ Traite elementaire de Geometrie analytique a deux
et a trois dimensions, contenant toutes les theories
generates de Geometrie accessibles a l’analyse ordin
aire,” 1843), which is indeed quite unfitted for an
examination cram book, but is full of contrivances for
leading to the discovery of general principles of
reasoning. To these he joined abstract mechanics,
or the science of motion and rest. In these three
branches, number, space, and motion, which have
been entirely neglected in most philosophies, he finds
the foundation of his own. He finds first the absolute
unconditionality and invariability of primary relations,
that uniformity of nature on which all our knowledge
�the real basis of induction, which is not sufficiently
brought out in its comparatively embryonic condition
in pure mathematics. How carefully he considered
the astronomy of observatories in this light must be
studied in his popular astronomy (“ Traite philosophique d’Astronomie populaire ou Exposition systematique de toutes les notions de philosophie astronomique, soit scientifiques, soit logiques, qui doivent
devenir universellement familieres,” 1844), containing
the systematic exposition of many courses of lectures
delivered by him, for which he had a great predilec
tion. As a step in religion, in all schemes of religion,
astronomic observation, aided by mathematics, has
played a very great part. The modern names of
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo are sufficient to shew
this. But for philosophy the great merit of observa
tional astronomy was the discovery of uniformity in
the midst of variety; the reduction, for example, of
the strangely meandering, advancing and retrograding,
apparent paths of the planets among the fixed stars,
which earned them the Greek name of planets, that
is, wanderers, into the single system of revolution
about a central sun, one of the greatest intellectual
' efforts of Humanity, by which all its subsequent pro
gress has been in great measure conditioned. Comte,
however, also proceeds to mechanical astronomy, in
which for the first time a universal law, gravitation,
applying to every particle of matter tellurian or extra
�works. They investigate what are often called the
general properties of matter, because they belong to
all classes or numerous classes of matter, and not
only to particular bodies. Comte died before the
great theory of the conservation of energy had been
worked out, shewing, in fact, that all these general
laws were transmutable, and hence could only be
considered as parts of one great whole.
The next science, chemistry, deals (not with general
properties of all bodies, but) with particular properties
of individual bodies, and was, in Comte’s time, and
hence in his philosophy, divided into two great
branches, inorganic and organic, which recent re
search has tended to fuse, although the distinction is in
so far real, that inorganic chemistry treats of the
properties of many substances which are not known
to form part of living beings, and organic chemistry
of some of those only which are known to do so, and
principally of carbon and its compounds. The whole
conception of the science of chemistry has been so
entirely remodelled of very late years indeed, that it
is needless to give Comte’s conclusions, more especially
as he was not a chemist, but only a philosophical
student. The great point of chemistry, however, was,
that itself embracing all the other sciences named, it
bridged the gulf between inanimate and animate
nature, and by its numerous facts, and few general
laws (as that of definite proportions, now much more
�25
■drew his celebrated distinction between the statical
nature of society forming its order, and its dynamical
nature forming its progress. The latter he developes by
means of the historical method of logic, which, if he
■ did not invent, he at least carried out for the first time
on the widest scale. The following are the three laws
which he here endeavours to establish, by an historical
•survey of the world and especially of what he terms
the Western Republic, or the five principal European
powers, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and England,
with their Colonies, which he considers to have had
common interests and responsibilities since the days
of Charlemagne, (Note io, p. 52.)
“Each intellect passes through three states, fictitious,
abstract and positive (or theological, metaphysical and
positive, as he elsewhere calls them) as respects all
conceptions whatever, with a velocity depending on
.-the generality of the corresponding phenomena.
“ There is a similar progression for action, which is at
.first conquering, then defensive, and finally industrial.
“ Society follows a similar course, and is at first
•domestic, then civic, and finally universal.” (Note 11,
P- 52).
It need not be said that these laws have been widely
disputed and constantly limited, and that perhaps the
greatest follower in the path traced out by Comte, but
by no means a follower of his theories, Mr, Herbert
.Spencer, views the matter in a materially different
�■
I
27
,
recur at the proper seasons, the calendar was altered
by Julius Caesar, b.c. 45, and subsequently by Augustus,
a.d. 1. This alteration not proving ecclesiastically
sufficient for Christians, the calendar was again altered
by Pope Gregory XIII., in a.d. 1582, and this alter
:i ,
.
I
ation was adopted in England in 1752.
The French revolutionary calendar designedly
broke with every ecclesiastical association, beginning
the year with midnight of the day preceding the true
autumnal equinox, arranging the months in thirty days,
adding five or six supplementary days every year and
doing away with the week altogether. The Romans
reckoned from the building of Rome, a mythical era
the Christians from the supposed birth of Christ, an
equally mythical date ; the French revolutionists from,
in our reckoning, 22 September 1792, the day on
which Louis XVI. was deposed and the Republic
proclaimed, which was certainly a real era.
Comte in altering the calendar determined to make
it a record of the history of Humanity up to his time,
intending that it should be further changed after his
• form of religion had been established.
This he
;
sanguinely estimated would happen within fifty years,
j r He reckoned years from 1 January 1789, on the 14
i
July of which year the Bastille was destroyed (recently
proclaimed as the national fete day of France). The
present year 1880 is therefore 92 of Comte s era. But
this is a temporary era. The final and conclusive era is
�29
and the dogma thoroughly accepted and acted up
to. It was certainly a magnificent conception in the
true spirit of priesthood, and it has been wonderfully
well carried out in the spirit of a French philosopher
anxious to do justice to all whom he calls the types
and servants of Humanity, but at the same time as a
positivist inexorably blind to the merits of those whose
work he considered as purely negative, such as the
promoters of protestantism. I will rapidly explain the
basis of this great elaboration, recommending every
one who has an interest in the history of his race to
study the translation in Dr. Congreve’s Catechism.
' The first five months are dedicated to pre-Christian
times, the next two to the middle ages, and the last
six to the modern preparation. I give the names of
the persons from whom the months were named, with
Comte’s own reference to their representative charac
ter, forming the thirteen principal types of Humanity,
and after each name, I give those of the four worthies
to whom the seventh days in each week were respec
tively dedicated, forming the 52 secondary types.
The week days, containing nearly 500 names, I pass
over, from the mere pressure of time. You will
recognise many of the names recently inscribed on
the walls of this chapel.
Antiquity.
Five Months.
1. Moses (d. 1461 ?), or initial theocracy, with
�7. Charlemagne (d. 814), or feudal civilisation,
with Alfred the Great (d. 900), Godfrey of
Bouillon (d. 1100), Pope Innocent III. (d.
1216), and St. Louis (or Louis IX. of France,
d. 1270).
The Modern Preparation.
Six Months.
8. Dante (d. 1321), or modern epics, with
Ariosto (d. 1533), Raphael (Sanzio, d. 1520),
Tasso (Torquato, d. 1595), and Milton (d.
1674).
9. Gutenberg (d. about 1468), or modern
industry, with Columbus (d. 1506), Vaucanson
(d. 1782), Watt (James, d. 1781), and Mont
golfier (d. 1810). I may mention that the day
of Comte’s death, now observed by Positivists
in Paris with great solemnity, including a
meeting in Comte’s apartments and a pilgrim
age to Pere la Chaise, where he is buried, was
the Positivist Wednesday 24, Gutenberg 69,
on the day Comte had dedicated to Duhamel
du Monceau, a French botanist, agriculturist,
and physicist (who died in 1782), and in theweek
he had placed under the protection of Mont
golfier, the French papermaker, who made the
first balloon ascent in 1783, and died in 18io.
The other days in this week are dedicated—
�.■
r.i. -.-
•» »-* .
33
13. Bichat (d. 1802), or modern science, with
Galileo (d. 1642), Newton (d. 1727), Lavoisier
(d. 1794), and Gall (d. 1828).
Such was Comte’s “Humanity of the Western
Republic,” the captains of the mighty roll of the
dead, by whose help the living live. But the rank
and file of this great and increasing army are not only
partly celebrated by their sub-officers on the week
days, but the supplementary day is given up as the
universal festival of the dead, and the additional leapyear day (at first intended as a day of solemn repro
bation of the two principal retrogressionists, in Comte’s
1 opinion, the Emperor Julian, called the apostate, and
the French Emperor Napoleon I., with whom was at
one time associated Phillip II. of Spain, see Note
14, p. 53.) was finally dedicated (in the concrete as
in the abstract cult) to the festival of the Holy Women,
the two thus fitly leading on to the principal positivist
celebration, the Festival of Humanity on New Year’s
Day. (Note 15, p. 53.)
There can be no question, but that if such a cult as
is implied by this calendar, could be actually carried
out in practice, positivism would soon become a great
religion. And in view of the yearly increase in the
number of the great dead, who would be entitled to
celebration, Comte proposed hereafter to replace this
“ concrete cult ” as he termed it, by an “ abstract cult”
calling to mind all the principal social relations, both
�35
is used by French writers, and especially by
Comte, as synonymous with the so-called
labouring or working classes, or receivers of
wages.)
13. Industry, or practical power.
These four last relations are the basis of Comte’s
scheme of the society of the future. Taking as his
ground work that there are three classes of mental
action, emotional, contemplative and practical, he
divided the human family into three parts, women,
priests, and practicians, the last part being again di
vided into the proletary or governed and the patriciate
or governors. He laid down the rule that no priest
.should govern, and he has to my mind, illustrated the
wisdom of that maxim, by his own attempts as a
priest to govern the whole future of society. (See
Note 20, p. 5 7.) The women were not to engage in any
pursuit that was paid, they were to be home angels,
and to be supported by the males of their family, and
in default of the same by the state. Nothing could
■exceed Comte’s devotion to women in this respect,
nothing could have more exasperated him than the
present attempt to give women an independant social
position, and to make them competitors with men in
practical, and even contemplative life, instead of sub
siding into being man’s “guardian angels.” This was
his own term for them, and he gave it a very peculiar
significance. The cult of Humanity was to be public
�37
tj
[a
g
Q
if
S
<7
W
v7
la
$
V7
!
vr '
;
91 .
iii 1
16
Fij
id
is
P®
ml
jl®
her husband nursed him in his last illness. She now
sleeps with him and Madame de Vaux, in Pbre la
Chaise. In the dedication and final invocation to his
positive polity, Comte has left a record of the nature
of his prayers to Mdme. de Vaux, and M. Lonchampt
in an essay on prayer, has given specimens of prayer
for each day of the week. (Note 18, p. 56.) But it
would be too long to quote from them, as there is still
much to say.
Women were thus sentimentally at the head of the
world, the substratum consisted of the practical
workers and governors of the future republics, into
which the great western republic was to be hereafter
sub-divided. But these republics were to be absolutely
despotic oligarchies, or rather triumvirates, each go
verning body being appointed by its predecessor, and
none, under any circumstances, by the ignorant masses
who had to be governed.
Anything approaching to
-constitutionalism or parliamentary government was
rejected as simply nonsensical, as almost a contradiction in terms. The governors at any time must be men
-of experience, chosen by their predecessors, the
triumvirate being bankers especially, though how they
could both bank and govern, even when France was
divided into seventeen states, might be difficult to determine. (Note 1:9,p.57.) But between these emotional
and practical classes, was inserted the contemplative
class of priests. These had to think for the whole
�39
tination; 5. Marriage; 6. Maturity; 7. Retirement;
8. Transformation; and 9. Incorporation. They deal
with each individual man and woman, and every period
of life and death, and even after death, and all in
reference to the great doctrine of Humanity. 1. Pre
sentation, replaces baptism, and has its two sponsors,
and is accompanied by giving the child two names,
one theoretical and the other practical, which he com
pletes, after emancipation from wardship, by adding a
third of his own selection. 2. Initiation, replacing
confirmation, takes place at fourteen, when the child
passes from the education of the mother to that of the
priest, who directs all schools.
It is during this
period that he undergoes his special apprenticeship. At
twenty-one he is, 3. “admitted ” as a servant of Human
ity, decides on his profession, and receives the
sacrament of, 4. Destination, analogous to the present
ordination of priests. This sacrament is made renew
able, allowing of a change of profession. Then fol
lows 5. Marriage, at twenty-eight years of age and not
before, for a man. In the case of women, 3. Admission
and 4. Destination coincide, because the destination
of a woman is to marry, and her marriage takes place at
twenty-one. This .marriage is indissoluble even by
death, unless one of the contracting parties has com
mitted a crime involving deprivation of civil rights, as
was the case with the husband of Mdme. de Vaux.
Either surviving contracting party is in any other case
�unworthiness, “ the fatal burden is transported to the
desert of the reprobates, to lie with the executed, the
suicide and the duellist.”
The women, who seem to
be excluded from incorporation, are to be individually
included in that of the man with whom they are con
nected.
“ Around and sometimes,” says Comte,
“within each sacred tomb, the priest will have to unite
in the name of the Supreme Being, all the personali
ties which worthily contributed to the services which
Humanity rewards.”
I am obliged to pass over much which is beautiful
to believers in any creed, in the conceptions of the
moral action of man towards his fellows as a servant
of Humanity. But I must find time even now for
some of Comte’s great mottos, in which he endeavours
to condense his whole system of thought and life—a
system which certainly does not need all the wonder
ful amount of regulation that Comte, as high priest of
Humanity, thought out and formulated in his latter days,
of which what I have told you is but a meagre and
most incomplete outline. I must give them first in
French, for they cannot be properly Englished. The
first is intellectual and defines the object of knowledge :
Savoir ‘ ouf pr'euoir afin de pourvoir, “ know to fore
p
know, to be forearmed.” That is, make your know
ledge a means of foreseeing what will happen in order
that you may be prepared against contingencies, so
that /revision may lead to /revision.
Any know-
�must remain, and the world will be different from'
what it was by the mere fact of their enunciation.
Comte was a very great thinker, and he has set his
mark on mankind. His followers in England are all
men of intellect, mostly men who have earned a right to
think for themselves by thought in other fields. They
are, however, very few in number. I doubt whether
the positivists of all nations assembled together would
more than fill the room in which we are gathered.
The doctrine is so immense, so varied, so incapable
of being condensed into a few sentences which speak
home to a man at once (for even its mottos require
Considerable explanation), and so opposed to all
religious thought now existing, that its acceptance
must be very slow. And its acceptance must also be
very diverse.
The books written by Comte alone
far exceed the bible in extent, even the bible with a
long commentary. They are extremely difficult books,
to read and grasp. Probably ho two positivists really
agree in detail, any more than any two Christians. As
amatter of fact the small number of English positivists
is already divided into two camps, one of which is
affiliated to the French headship, and the other not.
Comte himself was of opinion that the conception of
Humanity must be put in the foreground and every
thing subordinated to that. But a complete grasp of
that conception is by no means easy. Nor is it
possible to make it popular, so far as I can see. In
�45
purposely said nothing (Note 24, p. 62). Comte boasts
that his system should be always discussible. His
regulations would make such discussions illusory.
His Philosophy seemed to open up the universe to
science. ITis Polity would confine the limits of in
quiry to only part of the facts known even when he
was alive. None of his followers, perhaps, since his
“ transformation,” to use their technical term, recog
nise in any follower, even the excellent M. Laffitte,
whom Comte himself designated, any power so to
limit the acquisition of knowledge. We all know
hour much Humanity suffered from the long mastery
of Aristotle, the greatest thinker that perhaps the
world has known. Let us avoid such a mistake for
the future, and treating Comte’s works and thoughts
as we should treat those of other men for whom we
feel a profound respect, while retaining the liberty of
differing from them in opinion, let us accept what is
accurate, what is orderly, and what is progressive in
Comte’s religion of Humanity (Note 25, p. 65).
Dismissal.
Let us take with us an echo of the hymn just
sung [see next page], the old knightly motto,
“ Do thy duty, tide what may I ”
�47
APPENDIX OF NOTES.
Note i, p.
Influence of Mme de Vaux.—Ks, the works of
Comte are not in every one’s hands, or even in many English
libraries, I think it will be agreeable to the readers of my discourse,
which has been printed at the request of the Committee of South
Place Chapel, if I cite the words of the original on some points of
importance. In this “ Invocation,” addressing Mme. Clotilde
de Vaux, on the24thJuly, 1854, as “Noble et tendre patronne,”
he says: “Mon ouvrage fondamental avait irrevocablement
devoile l’existence composee et continue qui domine de plus en
plus l’ensemble des affaires terrestres. Il avait meme proclame
graduellement la preponderance du coeur sur l’esprit, comme
unique source, spontanee ou systematique, de 1 harmonie humaine.
La nature et la destinee du Grand-Etre se trouvant ainsi revelees,
il suffisait, pour instituer la religion universelle, qu’une sainte
tendresse me rendit assez familier le principe fondamental ou
venait d’aboutir ma premiere vie. Voila comment le dogme de
l’Humanite surgit, a l’anniversaire initial de notre catastrophe,
dans le cours decisif d’ou derive tout ce traite,”—Politique
positive, iv. 546. See the end of note 24.
Note 2, p. 9.—Chapter Headings of Comte's Positive Morality.
These are printed at length in Dr. Robinet’s life of Comte, pp.
295-6, and are briefly as follows : Vol. I, Theoretical Morals or
Knowledge of Human Nature. Introduction on Primary and
Secondary Philosophy and Theoretical Morals. Chapters on the
Theories of: 1, the brain ; 2, the Great Being; 3, Unity; 4, Life ;
5, the Sentiments ; 6, the Intellect; 7, Activity ; Conclusion on
Synthesis, Sympathy and Religion. Vol. 2 : Practical Morals or
�faire directement remonter notre gratitude. Car, une telle discontinuite morale, outre son injustice evidente, deviendrait
aussitot contraire a la principale destination de notre culte, en
nous detournant de l’adoration immediate, seule pleinement
conforme a notre nature affective. Le regime provisoire qui
Unit de nos jours n’a que trop manifeste ce grave danger, puisque
la plupart des remerciments adresses a l’etre fictif y constituaient
autant d’actes d’ ingratitude envers l’Humanite,seul auteur reel des
bienfaits correspondants. En un mot, notre reconnaissance doit
considerer les produits, sans remonter aux materiaux, qui n’offrent
presque jamais un merite suffisant. Meme dans l’ordre reel,
il importe encore davantage aux coeur qu’a l’esprit de ne franchir
aucun intermediaire essentiel. A plus forte raison, nos affections
doivent-elles etre encore mieux preservees que nos pensees de
toute destination chimerique, quand leur veritable cours est devenu
possible. Si l’adoration des puissances Actives fut moralemen1
indispensable tant que le vrai Grand-Etrene pouvaitassez surgii,
elle ne tendrait desormais qu’a nous detoumer du seul cube qui
puisse nous ameliorer. Ceux done qui s’efforcent de la prolonger
aujourd’hui la toument, a leur insu, contre sa juste destination,
consistant a diriger l’essor provisoire de nos meilleurs sentiments,
sous la regence de Dieu, pendant la longue minorite de
l’Humanite.” Politique Positive'A, 57-8.
Note 4, p. 11. — The Religion of Humanity has no need to
disprove Theism.— “Les hypotheses indiscutables ne comportent
pas plus de negation que d'affirmation. On les admet et les ecarte,
suivant les besoins qu’elles permettent ou cessent de satisfaire,
sans les affirmer ni les nier. Voila tout ce que le positivisme peut
maintenant accorder a la croyance des purs deistes. Mais cette
apparente concession se trouve essentiellement anullee par son ex
tension necessaire, et mieux meritee, aux thelogismes vraiment organiques, quelqu’ils soient, monotheiques, chretiens, musulmans,
ou juifs, et polytheiques, greco-romains, indous, &c. Partout
�avec un degre d’importance proportionne a la dignite del’espece
et a l’efficacite de l’individu, Pour apprecier cet indispensable
complement, nous n’avons qu’a supposer qu’il nous manque.
On n’hesite point alors a regarder tels chevaux, chiens, boeufs,
•&c., commeplus estimables que certains hommes.” Catechisme
Positiviste, pp. 30-1.
Note 6, p. 14.—Rule of the Dead.—“ Ainsi, la vrai sociabilite
consiste davantage dans la continuity successive que dans la
solidarity actuelle. Les vivants sont toujours, et de plus en plus,
gouvernes necessairement par les morts : telle est la loi fondamentale de l’ordre humain.” Catechisme Positiviste, p. 32.
Note 7, p. 14. — Unconscious Subjective Existence.—This dis
tinction of the “ conscious ’ ’ and “ unconscious ” subj ective existences
is, so far as I can remember, not indicated by Comte, who confines
his definition to the “ conscious” part. I considered it, however,
important to note that every man is actually immortal in his
effects on the world, by the mere fact of his having once lived
•Objectively, and hence by communication or heredity having
swayed the future. Otherwise I follow the Catechisme Positiviste,
pp. 32-3, very closely.
Note 8, p. 14.-—God's independence of Man.—See Imitation,iv., 12, 3, “ Tu mei indiges, non ego tui indigeo,” which Comte
'quotes as the second line of Corneille’s paraphrase, in the
following stanza, referring to importunate prayer,
“Cette importunite n’est jamais incivile ;
Je te suis necessaire et tum’es inutile ;
Tu ne viens pas a moi pour me sanctifier,
Mais je m’abaisse a toi pour te justifier.”
Comte, of course, does not quote the line from Milton on his
own blindness, sonnet xix.
Note 9, p. 24.—Comte's indebtedness to de Plainville.—'11 Je
dois ici specifier directement que j’ai principalement choisi le
�mode plus complexe de l’esprit scientifique. Mais, sans attacher
a. cette observation personnelle une importance exageree, il
demeure incontestable que le sentiment du progres des sciences
a pu seul inspirer a Pascal [b. 1623, d. 1662] cet admirable
aphorisme, a jamais fondamental; ‘Toute la succession des
homines, pendant la longue suite des siecles, doit etre consideree
■comme un seul homme, qui subsiste toujours et qui apprend
continuellement. ’ ” Philosophic Positive, iv. 234.
Note 13.P.28.— TheCalendarvs described in the special work,
-quoted in note 10, 4th ed., 1852, and in the Pol. Pos., iv.
398-404, ed. 1854.
Positivist years are found by subtracting
1788 from the Christian date.
Note 14. p. 33.—-The Reprobates.—By a curious error when
this discourse was delivered, I substituted the name of Voltaire
for Napoleon. Comte has given up a day to Voltaire, (II
Shakspere) but only as a tragic poet. Thus he says {Cal. Pos.
4th ed. p. 17). “ Dans 1’elaboration d’un systeme destine surtout a faire irrevocablement prevaloir l’esprit organique sur
l’esprit critique, j’ai rigoureusement exclu tous ceux qui n’ont
reellement que detruit, sans rien construire. On n’y trouvera
done ni Luther, ni Calvin, ni Rousseau ; Voltaire n’y figure
qu’au titre de poete traigique. Malgre leur utilite passagere
■ces services negatifs exigent trop peu de valeur intellectuelle,
ct supposent trop de vicieuses dispositions morales pour admettre
une telle consecration personnelle.”
Philip II. disappeared
from the Reprobates in the third ed. of the Calendar, and in
Politique Positive iv. 404, the festival of Reprobation was al
together abolished with the words: “Apres une modification
decisive, suggeree par une reclamation feminine, (Miss Harriett
Martineau, I believe.) “ les dignes remonstrances d’un positiviste
britannique m’ont suscite des reflexions qui me determinent a
supprimer entierement l’institution projetee.
Note 15, p. 33.—Letter of Comte on the Lives of the Worthies
�55
daily supplied by M. Pierre Laffitte’s “Les Grands types de
1’Humanite, appreciation systematique des principaux agents
de revolution humaine,” 2 vol. 8vo., price io francs, and
in die Revue Occidentale, for 1st of May and 1st of September,
1880, M. Paul Foucart has given an appreciation of Sophie
Germain, who is made an adjunct of Hegel for 27 Descartes.
But both of these are too long for manuals. What is much
wanted for positivism is a little book of 150 pages, closely
printed, 20 being devoted to an introduction, and 10 to each
month, namely 2 to each monthly and 1 to each weekly type,
with 1 to the daily types of each whole week. Such a work
would have an interest far beyond positivism, and would tend to
give a concrete meaning to the term Religion of Humanity,
which is much wanted. It is only the other day that Dr. Fraser,
the bishop of Manchester, (roused to a knowledge of the exis
tence of Positivism, most probably by the fact that Positivist
services have recently been held at 175, Islington, Liverpool,) in
a sermon on Atheism, spoke of “ a certain new theory called the
Positivist School of Philosophy.” Such a method of speaking
Should not be possible. Besides such a manual, I had expressed
a wish for a more popular and less systematic treatise than the
Catechism. To this Comte replied in the letter just quoted :
“ Je pense comme vous sur l’utilite d’un manuel positiviste
plus populaire et moins systematique que notre catechisme,
mais il ne pent emaner que d’une femme.
Nous 1 aurions
cleja si je n’etais pas, depuis dix ans, objectivement piive de
l'angelique collegue qui regenera mon ceeur, et par suite com-
pleta Pessor.de mon esprit.”
Note 16. p. 36.—ComtdsDefinition of Prayer.— “ Prier, c’est
tout ensemble aimer et penser, si la priere reste purement mentale ; tantot aimer en pensant, et tantot penser en aimant,
suivant la disposition dominante. Mais si la priere devient
aussi orale, selon sa vraie nature, alors prier constitue a la fois
�3 Mercury, 4 Jupiter, 5 Venus, 6 Saturn, and 7 the Sun.
But after the advent of the abstract cult, apparently, he wished
to change the dedication, without changing their names, to 1
Homer, 2 Aristotle, 3 Caesar, 4 St. Paul, 5 Charlemagne,
6 Dante, and 7 Descartes, as being the principal organs which
effected the transition from theocracy to sociocracy. {Politique
Pos. iv. 135-6.)
Note 19, p. 37—Mill on Comte's Governors.— “ In each
state thus constituted, the powers of government are to be
vested in a triumvirate of the three principal bankers, who are
to take the foreign, home, and financial departments respectively.
How they are to conduct the government and remain bankers,
does not clearly appear; but it must be intended that they should
combine both offices, for they are to receive no pecuniary remu
neration for the political one.”—J. N. Mill, “ Auguste Comte
and Positivism,” 1865, p. 168.
Note 20, p. 38.—Attitude of Modern Positivists towards
Comte's Regulations for Social and Religious Organisation, and
Comte's letter on the Introduction of Shelley's name in the
Calendar.—A well known Positivist, who was present when
this discourse was delivered, thought I had much overstated the
peremptory nature of Comte's suggestions for social organisation.
He felt sure that Comte did not remotely claim to govern, and
I quite agree that Comte did not in so many words lay claim to
governing, or rather that as a priest he disclaimed so doing.
But it seems to me from my long acquaintance with Comte’s
' writings, that he considered it part of his office as High Priest,
to lay down the principles of practical government, and prescribe
the form that it should take, while in religious and educational
matters especially, he meant what he said, and that with life and
opportunity he would have had his injunctions strictly carried
■out. I think, moreover, that this view is borne out by certain
incidents in Comte’s relations to other thinkers, which I need
�the second canto of the Revolt of Islam, containing a kincl
of anticipation of subjective immortality in the words of Cythna
to Laon :
“ We part to meet again—but yon blue waste,
Yon desert wide and deep, holds no recess
Within whose happy silence, thus embraced
We might survive all ills in one caress :
Nor doth the grave—I fear ’tis passionless—
Nor yon cold vacant Heaven : we meet again
Within the minds of men, whose lips shall bless
Our memory, and whose hopes its light retain
When these dissevered bones are trodden in plain.”
On this Comte observed “Il faut maintenant vous temoigner
ma reconnaissance speciale pour votre communication des
deux extraits du malheureux Shelley, dont j’ai deja porte le
meme jugement que vous, quoique ses poesies me fussent
entierement inconnues jusqu’ici.
Cette precieuse lecture
m’a fait spontanement projeter d’accorder a cet infortunc
genie une commemoration secondaire quancl je reimprimerai le
Qalendrier positiviste. Quoique Byron y soit deja pourvu
d’un digne adjoint, il peut encore admettre celui-la, d apres
une exception motivee, dont la meme semaine [the week of
Milton in the month of Dante] fournit un premier exemple en
faveur de Bunyan, en adoptant une reclamation britannique.
Le couple exceptionnel serait spontanement harmonique, vu
l’analogie de malheur et de precocite, comme de genie, qui
rapproche Shelley de notre eminente Elisa Mercoeur, morte a
26 ans en 1835 [Shelley was drowned at 30 in 1822.] Ses
poesies ne me sont pareillement connues que d’apres les
extraits que j’en ai lus publiquement graves sur sa tombe,
toujours entouree encore cl’admirateurs des deux sexes. Je
n’ai pas eu besom, pour oser l’inscrire a notre calendrier, de
�each side is terraced with a gallery below the terrace 4 m. wide
and 6 m. high. The remaining 40 metres of length are cut off
forming an oblong at the end 160 m. long and 40 wide. In
thb are two squares of 40 m. at each end for the vicarage and
its garden, at the left side and the library and its garden at theyight side. Then two oblongs 40
hy 20 m. contain, next the
vicarage, the Philosophical Presbytery, and next the library the
Positivist School. The middle 40 m. contains the semicircular
apse of the temple and two courts. From the diameter
of the apse of the temple projects its great nave 80 m.
long and 40 m. wide, with a total height of 50 m. Theapse is divided from the nave by two walls which project
12 m. on each side. At the extreme end of the apse stands
the Statue of Humanity. This presumably would resemble theSymbol of Humanity on the Religious Standard—personified
by a woman of thirty, holding her child in her arms (“personnifiee par une femme de trente ans, tenant son fils entre sesbras,” Politique Positive ; i. 387), and hence greatly resembling
the usual figures of the Virgin Mary, but probably with a very
different expression in her face. In front of this, but within the
apse, there would be space for 1,000 women, in the midst of whom
the priest would officiate. On each side the nave a space of 5 m.
wide would be separated off, and divided into 7 chapels on either
side, in groups of 4 nearest the entrance, and 3 nearest the apse,
separated by an empty space of 5 m. These chapels are numbered from the entrance to the apse, Nos. 1 to 7 on the right
on entering, and 8 to 14 on the left. Each of the first thirteen
are dedicated to the patron of the corresponding month, and will
each contain his statue, with busts of his weekly adjuncts,
see above pp. 29-33. The 14th would be dedicated to the thirteen
female saints (names not given), or to Heloise (of Abelard memory)
to whom with Dante’s Beatrice is dedicated 19 St. Paul. The
central part Of the nave is to accommodate 5,000 men. An
�63
s’applique ensuite au Monde, et doit se completer en embrassant
le destin,” {Syn. Sub.?. 18.) The earth is therefore erected
into a Great Fetish, having energy and will, but not intelligence,
which is reserved for Humanity, and Fate is symbolised by space,
called the Great Medium, having sympathy only. “Une
inalterable trinite dirige nos conceptions et nos adorations,
.toujours relatives, d’abord au Grand-Etre, puis au Grand-Fetiche,
enfin au Grand-Milieu. Fondee sur la theorie de la nature
humaine, et sur la loi du classement universel, cette hierarchie
offre un decroissement continu du caractere propre a la synthese
subjective. On y venere au premier rang l’entiere plenitude du
type humain, ou l'intelligence assiste le sentiment pour dirigei
l’activite. Nos hommages y glorifient ensuite le siege actif et
bienveillant dont le concours, volontaiie quoique aveugle, eSL
toujours indispensable a la supreme existence. Il ne se borne
pas a la Terre, avee sa double enveloppe fluide, et comprend aussi
les astres vraiment lies a la planete humaine comme annexes
■objectives ou subjectives ; surtout leSoleil et la Lune que nous
devons specialement honorer (note 18, p. 5d)second culte
succede celui du theatre [that is, abstract space,] passif autant
qu’aveugle, mais toujours bienveillant oil nous rapportons tous
les attributs mate riels, dont sa souplesse sympathique facilite
l’appreciation abstraite a nos cceurs comme a nos esprits.
{Synthase Sub. p. 24.) All this was to have been developed in
the two next volumes. The only existing first volume of the
Synthase, giving a criticism of mathematics without a single
mathematical diagram or symbol, and full of historical references
without the mention of a single name of author or book, so that
it is extremely difficult to follow even for professed mathemati
cians, and written in a very peculiar style, the trick of which,when
explained {Synthese pp. 755'9), I find very disturbing to my own
study, as it was evidently straining to the author himself, is
probably seldom referred to by any Positivist, and its contents
�65
Note 25, p. 45.—Suggestions for the Popularisation of the
Religion of Humanity—Comte’s works already want re-editing
and condensing. A reconstruction of his Philosophy in a much
smaller compass even than Miss Martineau’s abridged trans
lation, and adapted to the advances that human knowledge
has since made, and hence not a mere abstract, is very desirable.*
And a complete re-writing of his Polity, with the excision of
. those parts which are now practically ignored (see notes 20 and
24), that is, of much of the preliminary discourse, and most of
the fourth volume, and a reduction of the remainder to one
volume, would be very desirable. The synthesis might be
entirely neglected. Such is what appears advisable ter me for
those to undertake, who have the interests of the Religion of
Humanity at heart. Christianity would never have existed if it
had had in the first place to be drawn from the Bible and
(Testament. The sects of Protestantism show us clearly the
effects of such study by those unqualified to pass a judgment,
including, perhaps, even the greater number of Christian priests.
Not one in a hundred thousand of those who might be led to
exercise the Religion of Humanity could possibly peruse Comte s
original works, either in French or any other language. Such
a book, therefore, should be written by qualified existing Posi
tivists as could “be understanded of the people.
Systematic
language, which when not thoroughly familiar, veils thought,
and which abounds in all Comte’s later writings, should be
avoided. Much must be laid down dogmatically as conclusions
arrived at by Positivists, and especial care should be taken to
avoid attributing them to the convenient abstraction, “ Posi
tivism.” In short, something clear and hearty should be laid
*’
* In the Revue Occidentale for the day after this discourse was delivered I
MW advertised “ La Philosophie Positive, par Auguste Comte, resumee par
M. Jules Rig, 2 vol., in 8vo.,” so that the same idea seems to have occurred in
part to positivists in Paris.
��j
��
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
"Auguste Comte's religion of humanity". A discourse delivered at South Place Chapel, Sunday 31 October, 1880 ... with an appendix of notes.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ellis, Alexander John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 66 p. ; 15 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 2. Contains Appendix of notes "containing justificatory citations from Comte's works - and from two unpublished private letters from Comte to the Author, with other matter". Contains Order of the Service of which the Discourse formed a part. Incomplete copy. Author cited as Alexander J. Ellis on title page. Printed by Frederick G. Hickson & Co. , High Holborn, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
South Place Chapel (Library); Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1880
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3361
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 ("Auguste Comte's religion of humanity". A discourse delivered at South Place Chapel, Sunday 31 October, 1880 ... with an appendix of notes.), 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
Auguste Comte
Humanity
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbd1028c3542ce17efc38ea5c407d994.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bmB54wlBdolWNSJb-SASRWeC0VYWkcG7AbBiR2rRxNa5EaVS2abOvwD0wKl9SOrqk26vqt1TNCD5JXzX8LQXzwvQL8F09vtxk9%7Eq36JKADKRfE59nzGiHyffuLj4WozwGKnVL7y-0bD9PCdT65UIicYfoJR4EEudgfXJRWx74TvoB8mbgXYW51AVYESTw0SVZR0f9TSkIbO0oCAQOo6YC9jFYpxjNRbX0CqZ2uT2sUWj81YITIDS-F-QV925p6vmlu-Zvr30MyF83VZPB8AS0o%7EemEANjj0GL8gWHPjPGq%7EvLY39tEt1EixUJz672MH0PbU%7EdYfHlxr3T8CAsYVxig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8e38ccf0df928107151efd575141c4
PDF Text
Text
.Bare to be Wise
55
1
w.'
<
■
A
-
■
AN ADDRESS
'jlivered before the “ Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
«■ ’
n
si?
■£
BY
HN McTAGGART ELLIS MeTAGGART
,etor in Letters, Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College in Cambridge,
Fellow of the British Academy.
■•',r
i
a.
I®
’. it
London:
WATTS & CO.,
JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence
�Works by
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
STUDIES IN THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC.
Press. 8s.
Cambridge University
STUDIES IN HEGELIAN COSMOLOGY. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
A COMMENTARY ON HEGEL’S LOGIC. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
SOME DOGMAS OF RELIGION. Edward Arnold. 10s. 6d. net.
The Rationalist Press Association, Ltd.
Chairman :
EDWARD CLODD
Honorary Associates :
ALFRED WILLIAM BENN
F. J. GOULD
BJORNSTJERNE bjOrnson
Prof. ERNST HAECKEL
Sir EDWARD BRABROOK
LEONARD HUXLEY
GEORGE BRANDES
JOSEPH McCABE
CHARLES CALLAWAY, M.A.,D.Sc. EDEN PHILLPOTTS
Dr. PAUL CARUS
JOHN M. ROBERTSON
Prof. B. H. CHAMBERLAIN
Dr. WASHINGTON SULLIVAN
Dr. STANTON COIT
Prof. LESTER F. WARD
Dr. F. J. FURNIVALL
Prof. ED. A. WESTERMARCK
Secretary and Registered Offices:
Charles E. Hooper, Nos. 5 and 6, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
How to Join and Help the R. P. A.
The minimum subscription to constitute Membership is 5s., renewable in
January of each year.
A form of application for Membership, with full particulars, including latest
Annual .Report and specimen copy of Literary Guide, can be obtained gratis
on application to the Secretary.
Copies of new publications are forwarded regularly on account of Members’
subscriptions, or a Member can arrange to make his own selection from the
lists of new books which are issued from time to time.
To join the Association is to help on its work, but to subscribe liberally is
of course to help more effectually. As subscribers of from 5s. to 10s. and more
are entitled to receive back the whole value of their subscriptions in books, on
which there is little, if any, profit made, the Association is dependent, for the
capital required to carry out its objects, upon subscriptions of a larger amount
and upon donations and bequests.
�national secular society
“DARE TO BE WISE”
AN ADDRESS
Delivered before the “Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
BY
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
IR IN LETTERS, FELLOW AND LECTURER OF TRINITY COLLEGE IN CAMBRIDGE, FELLOW
OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
[issued for the rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1910
�II
�“DARE TO BE WISE
''
M
At the other end of the world is a University1 which
has adopted for its own the motto which best expresses
the nature of a University: Sapere Aude.
It is of the
duty laid on our Society to follow this injunction that I
wish to speak.
Our object is to promote discussion upon religion,
philosophy, and art.
And in discussing religion and
philosophy there is a special
■command, Dare to be wise.
significance
in
the
In seeking truth of all
sorts many virtues are
needed, industry,
humility, magnanimity.
And courage also is often
patience,
needed in the search, since the observer of nature must
often risk his life in his observations.
But there is
another need for courage when we approach religion
and philosophy.
And this need comes from the tremendous effect on
•our own welfare, and the welfare of our fellow beings,
of those aspects of reality with which religion and
philosophy are concerned.
This effect is, in the first
1 The University of New Zealand.
3
�DARE TO BE WISE
4
place, a characteristic of that reality, the problems about
which would usually be called religious.
But it spreads
to all philosophy, for there is, I think, no question in
philosophy—not even among those which border closest
on logic or on science—of which we can be sure before
hand that its solution will have no effect on the problems
of religion.
The profound importance to our welfare of the truth
on these questions involves that our beliefs about those
truths will also have a great importance for our welfare.
If our lives would gain enormously in value if a certain
doctrine were true, and would lose enormously in value
if it were false, then a belief that it is true will naturally
make us happy, and a belief that it is false make us
And happiness and misery have much to
miserable.
do with welfare.
The practical importance to our lives of these matters
has not always been sufficiently recognised of late years.
This error is due, I think, to excessive reaction from two
errors on the other side.
The first of these errors is the assertion that, if certain
views on religious matters were true, all morality would
lose its validity.
that all
From this, of course, it would follow
persons who believed those views and yet
accepted morality would
foolishly.
quite clear.
be
acting illogically and
That this view is erroneous seems to me
Our view£ on religious questions may affect
�DARE TO BE WISE
5
some of the details of morality—the observance of a
particular day of rest, or the use of wine or of beef, for
example.
But they are quite powerless either to
obliterate the difference between right and wrong, or to
change our views on much of the content of morality.
At least, I do not know of any view maintained by any
one on any religious question which would, if I held it,
alter my present belief that it is right to give water to a
thirsty dog, and wrong to commit piracy or to cheat at
cards.
Another form of this same error is the assertion that
certain beliefs on religious matters, though they might
not render morality absurd, would in practice prevent
those who accepted them from pursuing virtue per
sistently and enthusiastically.
This view seems refuted
by experience, which, I think, tells us that the zeal for
virtue shown by various men, while it varies much, and
for many causes, does not vary according to their views
on religious matters.
The men who believe,
for
example, in God, or immortality, or optimism, seem to
be neither better nor worse morally than those who
disbelieve in them.
The second error is the view that certain beliefs on
religious matters would destroy the value, for those who
accepted the beliefs, of many of those parts of expe
rience which would otherwise have the highest value.
Tennyson, for example, maintained that disbelief in
�DARE TO BE WISE
6
immortality would destroy the value of love, even while
life lasted :—
And love would answer with a sigh,
The sound of that forgetful shore
Will change my sweetness more and more,
Half-dead to know that I shall die.1
Here, again, it seems to me, there is certainly error.
Our views as to the ultimate nature and destiny of the
universe may affect our judgments as to the generality
of certain forms of good, or as to their duration, or as to
the possibility of their increase in intensity hereafter.
But I do not see how they can affect our judgment of the
goodness of these good things, as we find them here and
now.
Indeed, if we do not start with the certainty that
love for an hour on earth is unconditionally good, I do
not see what ground we should have for believing that
it would be good for an eternity in heaven.
These views, then, I admit to be errors, and those do
well who reject them as errors.
But the reaction from
them, as I said, goes sometimes too far, and leads to a
denial of the practical importance of the problems of
religion.
And this is, again, a great mistake.
What
ever may be the true answer to the problems of religion,
good will be different from bad, and right from wrong,
and much of what we do and feel in this present life
will be good, and much will be bad.
But if we ask how
much good exists in the universe and how much bad ;
' In Memo riant.
�DARE TO BE WISE
if we ask if the main current of the universe is for right,
or for wrong, or indifferent to both ; if we ask what is
the eventual destiny of the universe or of ourselves—all
these questions must be answered one way or the other
according to the solution we adopt of religious problems,
and of those problems of philosophy which bear on
religion.
Are there any questions which affect our
welfare more than these?
It is true that what primarily
affects our welfare is the truth on these matters, and not
But a belief that things are
our knowledge of the truth.
well with the world brings happiness, a belief that
things are ill with the world brings misery.
And this
involves the intense practical importance of our beliefs
on the problems of religion.
Let us consider what some of these problems are
which we call religious.
In the first place, there is the
general question of optimism or pessimism.
universe as a whole more good than bad?
Is the
It is, of
course, possible to maintain that it is impossible for us
to answer this question.
But some systems maintain
that it can be answered, and some of them answer that
the good prevails, and some of them hold that it is
outbalanced by the evil.
The practical importance of
the truth on this question does not require to be enforced.
For the goodness or badness of the universe is the whole
of which every other matter of practical importance is a
part.
�“DARE TO BE WISE”
8
Our belief on the subject, therefore, must have great
influence on our happiness.
So far, indeed, as I am
only concerned with my welfare in this life, or with that
of my friends, the more general question will have little
influence, for in these limited fields we have empirical
means of judging the present or inferring the immediate
future, which are more certain than inferences from the
general nature of the universe.
But few people limit
their interests entirely to those whom they know person
ally.
And then there is always the question whether my
own life, and those of my friends, may not, perhaps,
extend indefinitely further than that short period in our
present bodies which is all that we can now know by
observation.
And there is another question, equally important.
Does the universe become better or worse as time goes
on, and, if it becomes either, which does it become ?
This is of equal importance, because it is a disposition
of our nature—apparently a fundamental and inevitable
disposition—to regard good and evil in the future with
very different feelings from those with which we regard
good and evil in the past.
If the world were known to
be more evil than good on the whole, we should still
regard it cheerfully, if we believed that most of the evil
lay in the past, and that the future was predominantly
good.
And, though the world as a whole were known
to be more good than evil, that would afford us but little
�DARE TO BE WISE
9
comfort if that part of its course which still lay in the
future were more evil than good.
Then, to come to less general questions, there is the
question of immortality.
Our beliefs on this subject,
also, will profoundly affect our happiness.
Some desire
annihilation, some shrink from it, but very few are
indifferent.
And even of these, I suppose, none would
be indifferent as to the further question of what kind the
future life would be, if there were a future life at all.
Then there is the existence of God.
The importance
■of this question for our welfare has, no doubt, been
exaggerated,
through a failure to comprehend the
alternatives.
It has been supposed that the only
alternative to a belief in God is a belief in some Scepti
cism or Materialism which would be incompatible with
any hope that the universe as a whole was coherent,
■orderly, or good.
But this is a mistake.
There are
systems which hold the universe to be all this, although
they deny the existence of God.
And, on the other
hand, the existence of God would certainly not be by
itself a guarantee that the universe was good.
That
there is some evil in the universe is beyond doubt.
If
it is there because God did not object to it, how do we
know how much evil he may tolerate, or even welcome?
If it is there—as most reasonable Theists would say now
—because God could not help it, how do we know how
much evil it may be beyond his power to prevent?
�IO
“ DARE TO BE WISE
Theism may possibly form a link in a chain of argu
ment leading to Optimism, but it is far indeed from
being a complete proof of Optimism.
But in spite of all this it cannot be denied that to many
people the belief that there is or is not a God is most
intimately connected with their happiness.
And even
those who are indifferent on this point would certainly
not be indifferent on the question whether, if there is a
God, he is such as he was supposed to be by the early
Jews, or, again, by the Jesuits or the Calvinists of the
sixteenth century.
Our beliefs on religious questions, then, do profoundly
affect our happiness.
We can conceive—indeed, we
know in history, and in the thought of the present day—
beliefs the acceptance of which would make life almost
intolerably miserable to anyone whose interests reached
beyond the immediate present
environment.
and
his immediate
And here we find the need of courage.
For, if we are to think on these matters at all, we must
accept the belief for which we have evidence, and we
must reject the belief for which we have no evidence,
however much the first may repel or the second allure us.
And, sometimes, this is not easy.
When we deal with the knowledge of science, or
every-day life, we have no similar struggle.
In the first
place, it is here often very indifferent to us what the true
solution of a problem niay be, provided that, whatever it
�DARE TO BE WISE
is, we can know it.
11
It may be of great importance to us
to know what sort of building will best stand the shock
of an earthquake, but comparatively unimportant what
sort it is, since, whichever it may be, we can build in
that manner in earthquake districts.
It may be very
important to know which of two medicines will cure a
disease, but quite unimportant which it is, so long as we
know it and can use it.
If, indeed, we have to put the question, Is there any
medicine which can cure this disease? then, indeed, it
may matter very much to us what the answer is.
And
in such a case we may be tempted, for a short time, to
believe that a cure has been found, when in point of fact
it has not.
But the temptation does not last for long.
When the medicine is tried, and fails to cure, then
conviction comes to all except the weakest.
But there
is no corresponding help in religion and philosophy.
For, if there is ever to be any experimental verification
of our beliefs on such subjects, at least it will not be on
this side of death.
If through cowardice we depart
from the right path, we must not hope for experience
to take us back.
The strain is so hard that often and often in the history
of thought men have tried to justify their weakness by
asserting that we were entitled to believe a proposition
if its truth would be very good, or at any rate if its
falsity would be very bad.
Over and over, in different
�I2
DARE TO BE WISE"
forms, this demand meets us—not infrequently in the
work of the men of whom we should least expect it.
Bui, whenever we find it, we must, I maintain, reject it.
It may well be that the universe, if this or that belief were
false, would be very bad.
But how do we know that the
universe is not very bad?
There is no intrinsic a priori
connection between existence and goodness.
If we can
show that the nature of existence is such that it A good,
so much the better.
But then the question of the nature
of existence is the one which we are setting out to
determine, and we have no right to begin by assuming
that that nature is good.
Nor can we fall back on the argument, which is often
used, that our desires for the good—those desires the
thwarting of which produce the misery we are avoiding
—are as real as anything else in the universe, and form
as sound a basis for an argument as anything else.
Unquestionably they are real, and form a basis for an
argument; but the question remains, What argument
can be based on them?
If they were to be any good
here, the argument would have to be that, because they
really exist as desires in us, therefore the universe must
be such as will gratify them.
And this is invalid.
The
existence of a desire does not involve the existence of its
gratification.
Each of us has had many desires which
were not satisfied, and which can now never be satisfied.
We cannot argue, then, from the pain that a belief
�“ DARE TO RE WISE"
gives us to the falsity of that belief.
15
And, if we decide
to think freely on these subjects, we run the risk of
arriving, as others have arrived before us, at conclusions
the pain of which may be very great.
It is true that, so
far as I know, no person who has thought freely on these
subjects has arrived at conclusions so maddening as
those of some traditional theologies now fading into the
past.
The ideas of an endless hell, of an unjust God,
are fruits of ancient tradition, or of interpretation of
alleged revelations—never, I believe, of independent
reasoning.
But to find no more hope, no more purpose,
no more value in the universe than was found by
Hobbes, by Hume, or by Schopenhauer—the pain of
this, especially to one who has hoped for better results,
or, perhaps, has once held them gained—the pain of this
is sometimes not trifling.
Why should we not endeavour to escape it?
Why
should we not accept, without inquiry, some traditional’
faith?
There may be arguments for it, there may be
arguments against it.
But others have accepted it
without inquiry into these arguments.
Why should not
we?
Such a suggestion has greater attractions than it
would have had two generations ago.
In Europe, in
the present age, a man is not likely to accept any
religion in this way, except some form of Christianity.
And the Christianity of sixty years ago, while no doubt
�“DARE TO BE WISE
such that many men could honestly believe it to be true,
was such that no man could wish it to be true, unless he
was devoid either of imagination or of humanity.
Christianity of the present day is still of this type.
Much
But
it would be most absurd and unjust to deny that the
type of Christianity which becomes every year relatively
more powerful is very different.
Its view of the universe
is one which might well entitle us to call the universe
good.
Why should we not accept it without the risks
of inquiry? .
Or, if we cannot do that, why trouble about these
problems at all ?
Is not the world we see big enough
to occupy lives so short as ours?
Shall we not enjoy
the good, strive to increase it and to share it, and ask no
questions about what is behind, beyond, and—perhaps—
above?
Yet some follow after truth.
reward?
And what shall be their
May we answer, in words which were written
about Spinoza, and which are worthy to have been
written by him: “Even that which true and fearless
men have preached through all the generations to
unheeding ears.
Seek the truth, fear not and spare
not: this first, this for its own sake, this only ; and the
truth itself is your reward—a reward not measured by
length of days nor by any reckoning of men ”?x
1 Sir Frederick Pollock, Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy, chap. ix.
�DARE TO BE WISE
15
It is most beautiful and most true, but it is not the
whole truth.
For knowledge of the truth, though a
great good, is not the only good, nor perhaps the
highest good.
If my friend is in pain or estranged from
me, if the universe is worthless or worse than worthless,
it is no adequate consolation to know that at least I
see the evil clearly.
And then, is truth always the reward for seeking the
truth?
Always it cannot be, for if some have attained,
the others must have failed who disagreed with them.
The reward of the search—are we sure that it will be
anything but the search?
Can we give any other bidding than that which was
once given to a search yet more sacred ?
Come—pain ye shall have, and be blind to the ending !
Come—fear ye shall have, mid the sky’s overcasting !
Come—change ye shall have, for far are ye wending !
Come—no crown ye shall have for your thirst and your fasting,
But-----1
And here we must stop, before the promise that follows.
The crown of our thirst and our fasting may be the
opened heavens and the Beatific Vision.
It may be
nothing but the thirst and the fasting itself.
No great inducement, perhaps, all this?
inducement is needed.
And no
There are those who long for
truth with a longing as simple, as ultimate, as powerful
1 William Morris, Love is Enough.
�i6
DARE TO BE WISE
as the drunkard’s longing for his wine and the lover’s
longing for his beloved.
must.
They will search, because they
Our search has begun.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JQHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
��as the drunkart
By G.
W.
FOOTE
(Editor of the Fre^inlcer—ImprisonedforBlas£
^^hn alarum-likTwarniDg to the people of the terra7’
which threatens their<eligious liberties. — Ulverston
This pamphlet deals w^th the whole question
Pphemy, legally, historically, theological! teal*,
and morally.
A
MONTHLY
ZMZ .A. G- .A. Z
Edited by G. W« FOOTE.
Kj
Radical in Politics, Darwinian in ^chance, H
Religion, Modern in Thought, JJonest in Crl
°
Popular in Style.
i
“This is an age of Freethought, and there is both j
vio-or in a cheap and well got-bp periodical which hai|
-started as an exponent of the principle under the title of
Bristol Mercury.
“ Mr. Foote’s new monthly, entitled Progress, bids fail
a standard magazine. It is characterised by pleasing
.commends itself to a very general class of readers.”—Xij
PRINTED BV WATTS AND
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutfj
London, E.C.
�SIIJHISTORY OF THE SCIENCES.
t Will NEW AND IMPORTANT SERIES OF POPULAR BOOKS.
4view to supplying what is believed to be lacking in the literature of
U'inr>, THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SERIES has been projected,
twenty volumes have been proposed, while nine have been
msrtfc f y arranged for.
thWIIoT following points about the new Series are worthy of consideration :
vzfQpd|h book will be written by an expert in the given subject, by one who
‘baidied the history as well as the conclusions of his own branch of
bpjsli and who commands a popular style. (2) Each volume will be
■bnupipound in cloth, with gilt lettering, and will consist of about 160 pages.
Ill.ejre will be in every case from twelve to sixteen carefully prepared
ji-ij .elisions, including portraits of celebrated discoverers and explanatory
d-LmI and diagrams.
(4) A concise, up-to-date bibliography will add
srfi m to the value of each book. (5) Each will be sold at the phenoq wo|' low price (for a work of original research, produced in this style) of
NOW READY.
rtojBikistory of Astronomy.
AnijOaSProfessor GEORGE FORBES, M.A., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E.; author of
gVT'.'.'uhe Transit of Venus,” etc. 164 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by
.by, .21 .t is. 3d.
^fsiilHistopy of Chemistry. Vol I.: 2000 b.c. to 1850 a.d. By
EDWARD; THORPE, C.E., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.; Professor-Elect
;ii£l’ Director of the Chemical Laboratories of the Imperial College of Science
"Technology, South Kensington; author of “A Dictionary of Applied
^/dsirMmistry,” “Essays in Historical Chemistry,” “Humphrey Davy: Poet
x>lxdj Philosopher,” etc. 156 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d.
READY IN MAY.
HcMiiUistory of Chemistry. Vol II. 1850:
a.d. to date.
EDWARD THORPE, C.B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.
&&4apjiistory of Old Testament Criticism.
SBaxf Professor ARCHIBALD DUFF, Professor of Hebrew and Old TestagMv.iiTjit Theology in the United College, Bradford.
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION.
f<toie£History of Geography.
HT[ -4|Dr- JOHN SCOTT KELTIE, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., F.S.A., Hon. Mem.
UEHdq.H graphical Societies of Paris, Berlin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva,
editor of the Statesman's Year Book, etc.
vd'OJe’hlistory of Geology.
iOA>IQ|HORACE B. WOODWARD, F. R.S., F.G.S.; late Assistant-Director of
i&i^wlogical Survey of England and Wales.
^Q?S|Iistory of Biology.
:c;ciox.|Professor L. C. MIALL, F.R.S., Professor of Biology, Leeds Univer1876-1907 ; Fullerian Professor, Royal Institute, 1904-5.
blistory of Anthropology.
$£&S<?ttaPROFESS0R A. C. HADDON, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S., Lecturer in Ethnology,
bna ibridge and London ; author of “ Study of Man,” “ Magic and Fetishism,” etc.
vnoielUstory of New Testament Criticism.
I .□ .j.7. C. CONYBEARE, M.A., late Fellow and Praelector of Univ. Coll.,
. ’ford; Fellow of the British Academy; Doctor of Theology, honoris causa,
\
lessen ; Officier d’Academie ; author of “ Old Armenian Texts of Revela■ *J,”fetc.
�R.P.A. SIXPENNY REPRIfl
(Five or more post free at published price.)
1. Huxley’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Autobiography.
2. The Pioneers of Evolution. By
Edward Clodd.
3. Modern Science and Modern
Thought. By Samuel Laing, With
Illustrations.
By
4. ★Literature and Dogma.
Matthew Arnold.
5. The Riddle of the Universe.
By Ernst Haeckel.
6. ★Educations Intellectual, Moral,
and Physical. ByHERBERT Spencer.
7. The Evolution of the idea of
God. By Grant Allen.
8. Human Origins. By Samuel Laing.
9. The Service of Man. By J. Cotter
Morrison.
1O. Tyndall’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Biographical Sketch,
......
By C.
11. The Origin of Species.
Darwin.
Addresses
and
12. Emerson’s
Essays.
13. On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill.
By
14. ★The Story of Creation. . ___
Edward Clodd.
15. *An Agnostic’s Apology.
By
Sir Leslie Stephen.
16. The Life of Jesus. By Ernest
Renan.
17. A Modern Zoroastrlan. By S.
Laing.
18. An Introduction to the Philo
sophy of Herbert Spencer. By
Professor W. H. Hudson.
19. T/iree Essays on Religion. By
John Stuart Mill.
20. Creed of Christendom. By W. R.
Greg.
21. The Apostles. By Ernest Renan.
22. Problems of the Future. By S.
Laing.
23. Wonders of Life.
Haeckel.
24. Jesus of Nazareth. By
Clodd.
25. *God and the Bible. Byfl
Arnold.
26. \The Evolution of /W.
Ernst Haeckel. Vol. I.
27. iThe Evolution of Man. fl
28. Hume’s Essays 1 I.—Au ?
Concerning Human Understands
An Inquiry Concerning the Prir.'.’
Morals.
29. Herbert Spencer’s Essa
Selection.)
30. An Easy Outline of JEvoi
M.A.
By Dennis Hird, " ‘
"
By fl
31. Phases of Faith.
■
Newman.
By Sir
32. Asiatic Studies.
Lyall.
33. Man’s Place in Nature. P
Huxley.
34. The Origins of Religion^
Other Essays. By Andrew Lang.
35. Twelve Lectures and
By T. H. Huxley.
36. Haeckel: His Life anti V*.
By Wilhelm BOlsche. With ii
tions.
f
37. ★Life of Thomas Paine.
Part I.
Moncure D. Conway, I
38. ★Life of Thomas Paine. F
39. ★Life of Thomas Paine. Pa
I
40. The Hand of God, and C
By
Posthumous Essays. " Si
Allen.
41. The Nature and Origin of £/
Matter. By H. Charlton Basti
42. The Last Words on Evoiuti
By Ernst Haeckel.
I
R.P.A. EXTRA SERIES.
1. Jesus Christ s His Apostles and
Disciples in the Twentieth Century. By
Count de Renesse. ,
2. Haeckel's Critics Answered.
By Joseph McCabe.
3. Science and Speculation. By
G. H. Lewes.
4. New Light on Old Problems. By
John Wilson, M.A.
5. Ethics of the Great Religions.
By C. T. Gorham.
6. A New Catechism. By M. M.
Mangasarian.
7. The Religion of Woman. By
Joseph McCabe.
8. The Fundamental Principle!
the Positive Philosophy. 1
Auguste Comte.
Ethical Religion. By W. M. Sai
9.
1O. Religious persecution. ByE.l
Haynes.
11. The Oldest Laws In the Wo
By Chilperic Edwards.
12. The Science of Education f
Secret of Herbart). By F
Hayward.
13. Concerning Children. By fl
Gilman.
14. The Bible in School. Byfl
PlCTON.
* The whole of the above list, with the exception of those marked with an asteri
supplied in cloth at is.
t Published at 6d. net.
London: Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
t
�
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
"Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis [1866-1925]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. R.P.A. sixpenny reprints and extra series listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1910
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N462
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 ("Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909), 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
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9beadcc33cd3fd6332744f49d2b737a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ttqJgUyNXiAb8ZfWgJQt-cYLyy3QttBavnNH25NBCAxvHrepY7-JAgukmJP4E6WXhioJka7Fy9lIps1ySATCEpg0sdxBRwjClwCb3nACGk7FS7DFRUw3otBJwrk6QACF4XX8kUKuuffkmC8pbhfJvFQadi9VT1GZ-wbY%7Eyv8itOpJ8K883%7EctJ26q8qVuOD8RJAYrFaIM-pEVjOw3i9awuqDX2FM2zdFMXL%7EROq3hnpjg7gNoCK4cJPMtcsL%7E4jMKa5bLSMOiWl2msaPt2XB3yJH9R0z9QOd8W3FGv0K8mdLNYyhWqZnnLBR48zG1ZU4dt%7ETNV-S82zJiC578wl%7EyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a388ebcfa1759ff18418fc00a92b2b33
PDF Text
Text
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART I.
BY
London :
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
��6 JO 7/
KT555
“Religious Education.”
May it Please Your Eminence,—I have read in the
Newcastle Daily Chronicle the report of your sermon,
delivered at St. Mary’s Cathedral, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
on Saturday, September 26th, 1885. From your interest
ing biography, venerable age, and exalted position in the
Romish Church, your utterances challenge criticism.
Whether they challenge criticism from any intrinsic con
siderations I leave your readers and mine to decide.
Recognising that you and I respectively stand at the
very antagonising poles of modern tendency and thought,
I will make an effort to come within touch of you, in order
to, as far as possible, realise your position before I assail it.
Your attitude I recognise to be a complete anachronism:
it belongs to the time when Rufus founded a castle on
the banks of the Tyne, not to the generation in which
Stephenson spanned that river with an iron bridge.
Your Eminence lays stress upon the special solicitud(e
heaven took in children, although only the children of
Jews, before the Christian dispensation, and then you
exclaim:—
How much more, then, are yours—your children that are born
again by water and the Holy Ghost, and are made children of God
in a higher sense than the children of Israel—members of Christ,
heirs of the eternal heirship of the Son of God, of the kingdom of
heaven ?
Am I to infer from the hackneyed and half-meaningless
pulpit jargon of this passage that God likes Jew children
well, but Christian children better ? I have been told
by God, on the authority of his own book, that he is
“ no respecter of personsbut you apparently know
better. Has the unchangeable God changed his mind
and given your Eminence the advantage of a private
revelation, prefaced by : “ Don’t mind my old book : I
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. ’
am a much older and wiser God than I was when I wrote
that”? My children, your Eminence, are neither Jewish
nor Christian : perhaps you would be courteous enough
to say how he regards them. If there be a God who,
on account of the faith of its parents, would even com
paratively disfavour (as you allege he does) an innocent
child, I am glad I am only an Agnostic, and cannot,
by searching, find out such a God ; for, were I a Theist,
and could find him out, I should denounce him as a
malignant fiend and curse him to his face. Thrust aside
your theological tantrums for a moment, Cardinal Man
ning, and tell me if you are not ashamed of this mean
little godling you worship, who, before'he determines to
what degree he will love an innocent baby, takes into
consideration whether its parents are Jewish or Christian.
One of the reasons you allege why God loves the
Christian baby more than the Jewish one is, that the
former is “ born again by water and the Holy Ghost.”
Pray be good enough to step down for a moment from
your ranting theological perch to the firm ground of
common sense, and tell me, in the name of all that is
explicable, what this means. “ Born again by water and
the Holy Ghost” ! You know as well as I do that this
expression is as utterly nonsensical as if your Eminence
had said : “ Born again of a paving-stone and of the
fire-shovel.” Your dupes ask you for bread, and you
give them a stone; they ask for an idea, and you give
them words. Your Church conducts much of its service
in Latin, to impose upon the ignorant and keep them
ignorant; and your priesthood take care that their English
is as unintelligible as their Latin, the threadbare and labo
riously nonsensical platitudes of pontifical jargon. The
“fools and blind ” are awed by the presentiment that some
fearfully significant and mysterious meaning underlies
your priestly babblement. “Born again by water”!
Such jargon, instead of exciting reverent piety with those
with whom you have to cope now-a-days, evokes only
the irreverent contempt which asks : Do you refer to
parturition in a punt on the river, or to an accouchement
down in a diving-bell ? And as for your exceedingly
phantasmal Holy Ghost, will you tell me anything he
ever did, except his being mixed up with an affiliation
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
5
case under remarkably shady circumstances, appearing
once in the guise of a dove or fantail pigeon, and once
again in the shape of “ cloven tongues as of firewhile
appearing as Paysandu tongues, at 9d. a lb., would have
been more to the purpose ? Is this scurrilous blasphemy?
So be it. It is our contemptuous reply to divine thimble
rigging. Give us arguments to deal with, and wre will
deal with them ; but insult our reason with the hackneyed
and vapid platitudes of professional priestcraft, and our
sneer and our sarcasm will give you to understand what
we think of them and you.
Your Eminence assures us that, as regards children—
They have an invisible guardian—an angel ever watching over
them.
Here, your Eminence, you have effectively curbed my
irreverent levity. To talk, as you do, of an “invisible
guardian ” watching over every child is too sinister and
solemn a mockery for flippant refutation. You are
double my age, Lord Cardinal. Have you not seen
children as I have seen them ? Do you speak in igno
rance, or do you speak in truculent and terrible jest ?
Have you seen the child, partially born, have its skull
crushed in in splinters upon its brain by iron forceps,
as the solution of the desperate alternative whether the
life of the mother or that of the child should be saved?
Where was the “invisible guardian’? Have you seen
the child born mutilated and covered with ulcers, fearful
heirloom from the sins and sorrows of its progenitors ?
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen
the babe, with sunken eyes and ravenous lip, and the
haggard look that babyhood should never know, tug at
the milkless nipples of a-starving mother ? Where is the
“invisible guardian?” Have you seen that haggard
baby dead and shrouded in a newspaper, as I have seen
it, and smuggled surreptitiously into the coffin of an
adult pauper, and buried with him to save expense ?
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? That baby was
so buried in its newspaper cerements because its mother,
who followed it to the grave, through want, would not
stoop to prostitution, even to save its life and her own.
Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen,
�6
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
as I have seen, the child born in “ holy wedlock,” but with
the prostitution of its mother resorted to in order to save
its life and hers ; and have you seen that babe, as I have
seen it, drain from its mother’s breast the syphilitic virus
till the cartilege of the baby nose and the scalp on the
baby skull rotted away, and the innocent infant was
putrescent before it reached the tomb ? Where was the
“ invisible guardian ” ? Have you seen the prepossessing
female child fed and nurtured by its own parents, to be
sold to the lecher—incipient human flesh exposed on the
shambles of lust, and knocked down to the highest
bidder? Where was the “ invisible guardian ” ?
I could go on with interrogations like these, your
Eminence, mounting step after step in the terrible climax;
for I, who write to you, am a man who have turned from
the study of Greek to study the fearful moods and tenses
of the streets ; and I have left Hebrew that I might
study the square characters of the alleys and the Massorah of the slums. The hand that holds the pen that
now writes to you has lain upon the pulse of the world,
and felt all the irregular throbbings of the heart of
Humanity.
The eye that glances upon the paper
upon which this missive is written has, for God, gazed
through the clouds of the esoteric till it has been com
pelled to look down in Agnosticism, dimmed and blinded,
outside the unopening gates of Mystery. I have seen
falsehood on the throne, and truth on the scaffold; but
I have never traced, and neither have you, the action of
the “invisible guardian.”
In pleading for the support of schools in which the
Romish faith may continue to be inculcated, your
Eminence remarks:—
And, lastly, some of you, perhaps, may remember the schools of
this parish when you make your last will and testament, and your
Lord’s name will be found among the names of your heirs.
Did your Eminence so far master your risible tendencies
as to look sufficiently solemn for your sacred calling when
you uttered these words ? Cicero opines that two augurs
could not meet without laughing in each other’s faces,
in tacit recognition of how they managed to gull the
populace. When you spoke of Catholics executing their
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. »
7
wills, and making Jesus Christ one of their heirs, did
you, internally, put your divine thumb to your sacred
nose and extend your holy fingers? You well know
that Jesus Christ—whether that half-mythical character
ever really existed or not—wants none of your filthy lucre.
You use his name as the shears with which to shear the
sheep, that the fleece may come to the priests. This
lending money to the Lord in celestial debentures is a
very old confidence trick and financial swindle, Cardinal
Manning. The swindle has never been a farthing in the
pocket of “ the Lord,” whatever and whoever he may
be ; but it has, for centuries, swelled the coffers of a fat,
lazy, and licentious priesthood. For how many dreary
and black ages the priest of your baleful creed has
attended at the bedside of the dying man and indemni
fied the expiring wretch against the red fire of hell in
consideration of the Church receiving the red sheen of
his gold ! Is the palpable imposition not yet played
out ? How long, O Lord, how long, will the mothers of
our race only bear and suckle fools ?
Your Eminence goes on to say :—
I would fain much rather speak upon the Sermon on the Mount,
or upon the useful history of the gospel we have read to-day, than
upon the matter on which I may say necessity compels us at this
time to think with all the energy of our hearts—I mean the state
and condition of the education of this country, the peril that is
before us, the unconsciousness of that peril; and that peril multi
plied by the fact that men are not roused up or awakened to see
what is certain and inevitable in the future. Let us, then, con
sider this. From the seventh century down to the present the
education of the people of this land was a Christian education.
The Christianity of England was perpetuated by that which made
England in the beginning. At this moment we have come to what
I may call a deviation from that sacred tradition, which, until now,
has sustained the Christianity of the people of this land. Some
men will call it a new departure. It is the language of the day ;
and it is a useful phrase for us for it is a departure—a striking off
from the tradition, the broad highway of the people, of Christian
England. And we are threatened at this time with a system of
education neither Christian nor English, but borrowed from the
vain and shallow theories of the first French Revolution—that is to
say, a State education without definite teaching, and, therefore—I
will say it boldly—Christianity. Down to fifteen years ago the
education of this land was in the hands of the parents of children
and those whom they spontaneously and voluntarily chose. For
the last fifteen years the State has claimed the children as its own,
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
and the State has claimed to be the educator of the children born
within its boundaries. These two principles are the principles of
the old Greek philosophy of the Platonic Republic, revived at the
end of the last century, as I have said, by the vainglorious and
superficial minds who wrecked the noble and Christian people of
France. And these two principles are establishing themselves in
the minds of the people of this country.
I quite credit your Eminence when you allege that you
would much rather dilate upon the “ Sermon on the
Mount ” than comment upon the, to you, extremely
painful fact of the education of the children of this
generation passing out of the hands of your Church, and,
indeed, out of the hands of Christianity. The “ Sermon
on the Mount,” with its cruel mockery and fiendish
sarcasm of '‘'■Blessed be ye poor,” is, possibly, the source
from which you have drawn your terrible trope anent the
“ invisible guardian ” which stands in watch and ward
over every child. But be assured, my Lord Cardinal,
that men are “ roused up or awakened to see what is
certain and inevitable in the future.” They see as clearly
as you do that the “ inevitable ” is that your Church is
doomed ; but they anticipate its dissolution and ruin with
equanimity, where they do not contemplate it with satis
faction. You, most reverend father, and your caste, have
lived upon the base craft of the priest and ascended on
the wings of sacerdotalism to the high places of the
earth; but those who do not belong to your craft have
had to maintain you, and they begin to find out that they
have been gulled too long by your wheedling them to
endure a hell upon earth on the promise that they will
have wings and glory in the skies. They are beginning
to discover that they know as much about the wings and
glory as you do, and find that they are so extremely
problematical that they have resolved to make the best
and the happiest of Here and Now, leaving the wings and
the glory to take care of themselves. They have resolved
that their children shall be taught Reading and Writing
and Arithmetic, and, where practicable, the “ Extra
Subjects and they have freely permitted themselves to
be rated for this purpose, and have practically told you
and yours to stand aside with your Gospels and your
“ Sermon on the Mount,” and let them have a little more
bread and intelligence here, and not stultify them any
�“religious education.”
9
longer with your child-bearing Virgin, your crucified
joiner, and your other monstrous, but to you profitable,
“ teachings ” upon which your poor dupes are to depend
for their wings and their glory.
The very France upon which your Eminence lays
such great stress is drifting away with England from
the rusty and obsolete moorings of your Church.
In France the item for education has just been con
sidered in the Budget; and, when Bishop Freppel
objected to secular schools, M. Debost replied that
they were gaining in popularity, having had since
last year 65,000 more attendants, while the scholars in
the Catholic schools have in the same time decreased
by 13,000. The establishment of professorship of the
History of Religions, to be filled with men who count
the Christian religion as but one among many, was also
very naturally objected to by the Bishop, as virtually
teaching a State irreligion. But to all this it was con
sidered sufficient to reply that these posts would be
filled by men like Ernest Havet and Renan, who would
discuss texts, and not dogmas.
What does your Eminence think of men of the type
of Ernest Renan and Ernest Havet? They are not
exactly the kind of persons upon whom your Church has
pronounced panegyrics. Your Almighty God and your
infallible Church are behind you. Strike and spare not.
Scatter the charred dust of the heretics on the wings of
the wind, as you were wont. You w’ould do so without
invocation from me; but your God has become decrepit
and your Church has become imbecile. There are, alas
for you, no lightning at Sinai to vindicate, no Holy
Inquisition at Rome to avenge. We “Infidels” have
emerged from the Stygian gloom. Our eyes have caught
from the far horizon the sunrise of the world’s morning;
and, long before the sun has climbed to the zenith, we
will stand with our heel upon the neck of your God and
your Church, proclaiming that heaven is annihilated and
hell extinguished, that the Demon of the Seven Hills is
dead, and that man, at last, is free.
Renan and Havet! Alas ! poor Cardinal. Your lines
have not fallen in pleasant places. Simeon Styletes,
standing uselessly on the top of his pillar praying, while
�IO
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
worms and vermin were eating holes through his shrunken
flesh into his sapless bones, was the type of manhood
your papist cultus produced. Marie Angelique, praying
forever, except when she stood on her head before the
Lord, and pointed up to his throne with her unwashed
heels ; or when she sucked, in his holy name, rags that
had bandaged and were saturated with the pus from sores,
was the model type of womanhood your Church pro
duced when she alone was the educator, and none
durst say unto her, What doest thou ?
Your Church, when all the power was hers, my Lord
Cardinal, inculcated a coarse, but devout, blasphemy far
beneath the mental and moral status of the School
Board system which you abhor. For instance, in
several churches of France, remarks Russell, in his
“ Modern Europe,” a festival was celebrated in com
memoration of the Virgin Mary’s flight into Egypt. It
was called the “ Feast of the Ass.” A young girl, richly
dressed, with a child in her arms, was placed upon an
ass superbly caparisoned. The ass was led to the altar
in solemn procession. High mass was said with great
pomp. The ass was taught to kneel at proper places ;
a hymn, no less childish than impious, was sung in his
praise; and, when the ceremony was ended, the priest,
instead of the usual words with which he dismissed the
people, brayed three times like an ass ! and the people,
instead of the usual response, brayed three times in
return!
Your Eminence objects to the School Board and to
secular education generally : no wonder, it is so exceed
ingly different from the “ religious education ” which
held sway when all the power was yours, and when Pro
testants and “ Infidels ” were unknown. A “ religious
education ” embraced profound speculations as to
whether Adam, not having a mother, was “created”
with a navel, and as to whether Christ could have taken
any other form but that of man—as, for instance, that of
a woman, of the devil, of an ass, of a cucumber, or of
a flint stone. Then, supposing he had taken the form
of a cucumber, how could he have preached, worked
miracles, or been crucified ? Whether Christ could be
called a man while he was hanging on the cross;
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
I1
whether the Pope shared both natures with Christ;
whether God the Father could in any case hate the Son ;
whether the Pope was greater than Peter, and a thousand
other niceties far more subtle than those about
“notions,” “formalities,” “quiddities,” “ ecceities,” “in
stants,” and “essences.” This “religious education,”
whose demise you lament, disposed the mind all through
Christendom to give a ready credence to miracles worked
by bottles of Christ’s blood and bottles of Mary’s milk,
“ God’s coat,” “ our lady’s smock,” part of the last supper,
a piece of the halter with which Judas hanged himself,
a bone of Mary Magdalene, at least two different heads
of Thomas-^.-Becket, Christ’s picture on a handkerchief
which he had sent to Abgarus, Christ’s foreskin, and a
finger of the Holy Ghost. In the genuineness of these and
thousands of other sacred and miracle-working relics all
Europe believed, Cardinal Manning, when your Church
had undisputed power in education; and, in the few re
maining dark dens of ignorance where your power remains
unbroken, your dupes believe in these relics still; but,
except in her dens of ignorance, Europe will tolerate your
“ religious education ” no more forever.
Ichabod ! the glory of your house has departed ;
and it would not be without sympathy that I should
listen to your wail of desolation, your voice as of one
crying in the wilderness ; but I hear in your wail the
clarion-blast which heralds that the New World is
drawn up in battle-line against the Old. I hear in
your voice in the wilderness the clash of steel in the
Armageddon in which Truth shall conquer Error, and
from which the world shall emerge, not looking for its
salvation to your poor Jew upon Calvary, but looking to
the might that slumbers in its own heart and brain for the
working out of its own sanctification and redemption.
Your Eminence states that, “from the seventeenth
century down to the present,” the education of this
country has been a “Christian education.” Yes; but it
is just because Christianity was established in England
so early as the seventh century (it was established much
earlier than that, as your Eminence will see when you
begin to read history) that it should be continued no
longer. What suited the seventh century will not suit
�12
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
the nineteenth. Human progress is as slow as the
proverbial “ mills of Godstill, it is progress ; and
what suited lethargic Saxons or steel-shirted Danes under
Offa or Hardraga will not suit the awakening intelligence
of England in the reign of Victoria.
Could I sympathise with a terrible calamity falling
upon the defenceless head of Abaddon, I should sym
pathise with your Eminence in your cry of tribulation
thatvthe education of the children of our time is passing
—has almost passed—out of the control of the Church.
This, to your Christian Abracadabra, simply means
perdition. It was only because the Christian priesthood
got hold of plastic childhood, and maimed the intellect
and mutilated the understanding, that you got Christianity
to be accepted by any except lunatics. Try it with adults
who never heard of it till they were adults, and from
the experiment you will be able to determine whether
or not what I say is true. I make bold to allege that
there never was a really sane human being in the world
who had reached manhood before he had heard of Chris
tianity, and then adopted it from the appeal it made to
his mental and moral acceptance. You have tried the
adult Jew and the adult Hindoo for ages, and what have
you to show for your missionary zeal and vast monetary
sacrifice? Your labourers have got no souls for their
hire. The field consecrated by their devotion, and not
infrequently watered with their blood, is sterile. The
effort is stupendous, and the result is mV.
No wonder that you cry with a bitter and despairing
cry that the children are taken from you. For centuries
you have crippled and debased them to bring them down
to the low standard of your creed and render them
the half-hewn caryatides to support the superstructure of
your wealth and power and splendour. It is in youth
the Chinese must distort the feet of their ladies into the
pedal abortions upon which Chinese ladies walk. If
they tried to do so in later life, the more consolidated
tarsal and metatarsal bones would resist, and the woman
would perish before the deformity was effected. It is
only in early youth you can bend the credence into accept
ing as fact that Jonah was three days “ in the whale’s
belly,” and that the Son of Man was three days “in
�“religious
education.”
13.
the heart of the earth;” and that, at the end of three days,
Jonah got vomited out on dryland ; and that, at the end
of three days, the Son of Man got up out of his grave
and flew to heaven. Tell this to any man out of Colney
Hatch, and see whether he will believe you. Then, is
it moral to impose to such an extent upon the innocent
credulity of a child as to impress fables upon him as
facts, and burn them so deeply into his soul with the
accursed branding-irons of your priestcraft that the
intellect of his manhood is unable to deface the scars ?
You can rely upon the judgment finding for Christianity
only when that judgment is strongly warped by early
prejudice. Without the instilling of that early prejudice
you cannot make Christians, and you never will. You
use with skill all the most powerful influences of mental
distortion : you use shuddering fear ; you use the most
exalted love. You terrify the child with the fire and
brimstone of your hell, and you decoy him with the
tenderest emotions to which the human heart ever
throbbed; for the child first lisps his prayer at his
mother’s knee, and, in after years, the words have still
memories of a mother’s kiss and the halo of a vanished
face and the echo of a voice that is no more. The first
dread of hell, the first memories of a mother’s love, are
skilfully linked on to a debased and degrading supersti
tion, and they are, alas! too often strong enough to
support that superstition through a whole life. And this
deep engraining of prejudice, in favour of monstrosities
which, but for this prejudice, wrould never, on their own
merits, have had a moment’s serious consideration, is
what you and your clerical fraternity of all denomina
tions call Education ! Education, forsooth—it is the
very antithesis of it. You know that the intellect, if left
unmutilated till it matured, -would attach at most as
much credence to the Arthurian as to the Gospel legends.
Accordingly, to make sure that the intellect shall never
see above and beyond the “ truths ” which must be
believed in the interests of priestcraft, you take the
intellect in its infancy and burn out its eyes, or at least
afflict them with myopia and a malignant squint.
And this is Education ! For shame, my Lord Cardinal 1
If your Christianity be so true and reasonable, wait till
�14
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
the reason is developed before you attempt to teach.
I will then make you welcome to the half-dozen idiots in
all England who will believe your fable. But, in the
name of all that is sacred in the soul of the race, desist
from mutilating the intellect and debasing the morals
of little children in the interests of your irrational and
execrable creed. They are guilty who mutilate the feet
of Chinese girls, that when they become women they
may not wantonly walk into their neighbour’s houses;
but thrice damned is the guilt of those who mutilate the
intellects of European boys and girls, that when they
become men and women they may “ walk in the way of
the Lord.”
The section of the Christian Church of which your
Eminence is an ornament has always presumed upon the
crass ignorance of its votaries, and done its best to keep
that ignorance devotedly dense. But surely you presume
too much upon the ignorance of even the dupes of the
Church of Rome when you slanderously refer to “ the
vainglorious and superficial minds who wrecked the
noble and Christian people of France.” Surely some,
even in your ignorant auditory, must have had a surmise
that the “vainglorious and superficial minds” you referred
to were the Economists and the Encyclopaedists. Your
disparaging sneer was flung at Voltaire, D’Alembert,
Diderot, Duclos, Mably Condillac, Rousseau, Turgot,
Marmontel, Helvetius, and Raynal. Was there not,
even in the dull brains of the bigots who listened to you
at Newcastle as you sneered at “ superficial minds,” some
unbidden vision of a living pigmy kicking at a phalanx
of dead colossus ?
And, as for “the noble and Christian people of France,”
where did they exist outside of the prejudiced imagina
tion of your Eminence ? As for the people of France
before the Revolution you deplore, “ Christian ” they
may have been ; but “ noble ” they were not. The world
has never seen—and may the world never see again—a
people so utterly trampled down into the abyss of want
and misery and general degradation. Every schoolboy
knows this ; but your Eminence, apparently, does not
know it—or, rather, does not want to know it. “ Every
thing was fastened on by a few hands; everywhere the
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION/’
J5
smaller number was in set opposition to the plundered
many. The nobility and clergy possessed nearly twothirds of the landed property ; the other third, possessed
by the people, paid taxes to the crown, a multitude of
feudal dues to the nobility, tithes to the clergy, and was,
moreover, subjected to the devastations of noble sports
men and the depredations of their game. The taxes
upon commodities weighed upon the great mass, and,
consequently, heaviest upon the people. The mode of
levying them was vexatious; the gentry might be in
letters with impunity; the people, on the contrary, were
ill-treated and imprisoned in default of payment. It
maintained by the sweat of its brow and defended with
its blood the higher classes, while scarcely able to subsist
itself. The inhabitants of towns, industrious, enlightened
—less miserable, certainly, than the peasantry, but en
riching the country by their industry and reflecting credit
upon it by their talents—enjoyed none of the advantages
io which they were entitled. Justice, administered in
some provinces by the gentry, in the royal jurisdictions
by magistrates who had bought their offices, was slow,
often partial, always ruinous, and especially atrocious in
criminal cases. Personal liberty was violated by lettres
de cachet, the liberty of the Press by royal censors.
Lastly, the State, ill-defended abroad, betrayed by the
mistresses of Louis XV., compromised by the ministers
of Louis XVI., had just been dishonoured in the eyes
of Europe by the shameful sacrifice of Holland and
Poland.”* So much for “the noble and Christian people
of France,” and the glorious state of affairs that the
“ superficial minds ” overthrew !
It is with diffidence I remind your Eminence of what
a “ noble and Christian people” the French were before
the “superficial minds” wrecked their nobility and
Christianity. To pay the infamous gabelle, a tax on
salt of about sevenpence in the pound, and other grievous
taxes, “ I have known poor people,” says Michelet, “sell
their beds and lie upon straw ; sell their pots, kettles,
and all their necessary household goods, to content the
unmerciful collectors of the king’s taxes.” There is a
* Thiers’ “ History of the French Revolution,” vol i., p. 9.
�“religious
16
education.”
well-known official document extant which proves that
the people were oppressed to such a degree that they,
“ could not buy wheat or barley ; they had to live on
oats, to nourish themselves on grass, and even to die of
hunger.” “ The people have not money to buy bread ;”
and Foulon, the model tax-collector, retorted : '"'■Then kt
them eat grass ”—this “ noble and Christian people of
France,” whose exalted position the “ superficial minds ”
so wickedly overthrew! No doubt your Eminence
admires the corvee with the admiration you lavish upon
the vingtieme and the gabelle. By virtue of this corvee,
on certain days in each year, the officers of the Court
went through the country, seized the peasants at will,
and marched them off in droves to make or repair the
public roads. For this the peasants received no pay;
and, if they could not, during their short respites from
labour, beg enough to keep themselves alive, they might
perish of hunger. Your Comte de Charolois amused
himself by going about with his musket in his hand,
looking out for peasants thatching their cottages, that
he might fire at and shoot them for the sport of seeing
them roll off the roof to the ground. How deplorable
it is to be sure that the “ superficial minds ” should
object to such a happy condition of affairs among “ the
noble and Christian people of France !”
Every Thzirsday.
THE
Price Twopence.
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.
�
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/793055de08fd6487e4f9fe5ecdc6b172.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dOiGjgGzmBHO6M-rl60W3M3GPK%7EjJ1Yv8qBguFbwTYzs0yPabcd-yRKpWnL0GaGwjdM3S2-ie8vDiUUQdnu6zK9LqEy374ygToSm73iCUHEIEfQGwIBJnsCE1PlkIqjs4FGLwm6rrcRb3Vvw%7EDAT%7EKl3FLxoCe99Z9NwnigKYYvFWjqmHDF0695NkJ3TvBRLMCML-J2UzrhUPZsfnruBp6nXtcXTXOh70xJZqtgaAAc3tfWjJ7RCreH1UUWGlM919cV-v%7EZTMeuxuoIPSZjuN44UZ9zTnZDgjbcDl8twtFLzPCD9WoV7ne9RyfnBhzEd04Gwg2FGyDb51beNA0xhHg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8b6827c7ae3a4c1f4d8f4689dd88f18d
PDF Text
Text
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
PART II.
BY
London :
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
�.......
¿ 1i
�B3 0 7y
“Religious Education.”
And, Cardinal Manning, you will be gratified to hear
that your Church played an exceedingly prominent part
in the state of affairs the abolition of which you lament»
Great numbers of “ the noble and Christian people of
France ” were Huguenots. We will say nothing of how
your Church waded through the blood of 70,000 of these
Huguenots on a certain eve of St. Bartholomew. But
here is a record in regard to how your Christian Catholics
loved the Christian Huguenots : “ Some they stripped
naked, and, after they had offered them a thousand
indignities, they stuck them with pins from head to foot;
they cut them with pen-knives, tore them by the noses
with red-hot pincers, and dragged them about the rooms.
........... They tied fathers and husbands to the bed-posts,
and ravished their wives and daughters before their
eyes.”* No doubt, since your Eminence considers these
the amenities of a “ noble and Christian people,” you are
justified in your opposition to the un-Christian character
of School Board education. It will certainly not pro
duce the state of things you seem to admire. No set of
men brought up at a Board school will ever see any
motive to use red-hot pincers upon the flesh of those
trained at any other Board school. The teaching of
secular subjects produces no such result. To produce
adult actors in the red-hot pincers tragedy, you must train
children m the horrid dogmas and ruthless intolerance of
your Church. All the murder and martyrdom has been
over your Catechisms. I have never heard that an inch
of human flesh has been scorched, or that a drop of
human blood has been shed, over the Rule-of-Three.
Quicks “Synodicon,” vol. i., pp. 130-131.
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
If you want all the old stabbing and scorching and
persecution and hatred to go on as they were wont, you
will, in early childhood, have to lay the substratum on
which they are based. The School Board will engender
only Philadelphia and cosmopolitanism; therefore, you
do well to attempt to arrest its hand, if you desire a con
tinuance of theological sectarianism and rancour. Get
hold of the children, if you can, my Lord Cardinal;
for it will take very early and unfair initiation to induce
them to tolerate, much less adore, your creed and
you. I repeat, Get hold of them early, if you can ; for
remember the truism Dryden renders so epigrammatically
in his “ The Hind and the Panther —
‘ ‘ By education most have been misled ;
So they believe because they so were bred.
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the child imposes on the man.”
The Due de Chartres built himself a magnificent
brothel, to which from 150 to 200 fallen women were
led each night blindfolded. A gorgeous supper, com
prising the most generous and heating wines, was what
met the eyes of the wantons when the bandages were
removed therefrom. The 150 or 200 women sat down
to the feast in a state of perfect nudity, and had. the
fiery vintages poured out to them by the assembled
*
libertines.
Modesty cries to Mercy to let the curtain
drop upon this carnival of lust participated in by “ the
noble and Christian people of France,” before the
“ superficial minds ” incited the populace to wash away
the stains of Christian lechery in the blood of a godless
revolution. Madame de Pompadour founded that “ noble
and Christian ” institution, the Parc aux Cerfs, and to
this institution were decoyed pretty maidens, no matter
how young, to minister to the pampered sensualities of
the king when Pompadour herself, in the course of years,
had lost her fascinations as a courtesan. A secret police
was instituted to entice, or kidnap, these young girls for
sensual orgies in the Parc aux Cerfs. The pious
Christian king insisted that these girl-children should tell
their beads and say their prayers, anxious that he should
* Vide “ Regede Louis XVI.;” “ Soulaire,” vol. ii., pp. 103, 104,
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
5
have their bodies and that Christ should have their souls.
Christ generously responded to this solicitude. One of
the little kidnapped ministers of the king’s licentiousness,
a girl of fourteen, had contracted small-pox. From the
girl, in whom it was as yet undeveloped, the king caught
the disease. The malady was fire to tinder in the
corrupt and poisonous blood of the royal débauchée.
His body was one mass of nauseating putrescence. The
stench from the dying lecher was so intense that no one
could go near the bed upon which he festered and died.
Before the writings of the “ superficial minds ” had had
time to take effect, your God, Cardinal Manning, took
this “ noble and Christian ” king unto himself, because
that, when debauching the bodies of little girls, he was
so solicitous that Christ should have their souls !
In 1777 the surface of their “noble and Christian”
France was crawled over by 1,200,000 diseased beggars,
all hungry, all in rags, all criminal and murderous, all
suffering from hideous diseases which want and filth had
brought on, but all “ noble and Christian.” For mercy’s
sake, your Eminence, do, when you are moved by the
Lord Jesus Christ to speak, insist that he move you to
speak a little nearer the truth ! Remember you are not
speaking amid the darkness of the seventh century, to
which you refer so fondly. Remember that I, an ir
reconcilable layman, conduct a journal which shrinks
not from the duty of speaking plainly to you, Cardinal
though you be. The only arguments you ever had to
meet such objections as I raise, such criticisms as I offer,
were of the dungeon-and-fire order ; and neither of these
you can now employ against me. The storm of public
opinion has' blown the roof off your dungeon, and Freethought stands defying you with her foot placed upon
the torch that lit your martyr-fires. Do, then, keep a
little nearer the truth ; for, if you do not, I promise you
I will strike and spare not ; and although the clientele I
appeal to may not, in your opinion, be “ noble,” and is
certainly not “ Christian,” it is neither small nor power
less ; and it prefers my history to your faith, my blasphemy
to your mass, and my sarcasm to your prayers. This
clientele can, if you persist in putting forward devout
fallacies, afford to dispise your Eminence ; but your
�6
“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.’
Eminence cannot afford to despise it; for, unlike you,
it raises no wail that its house is falling into decay : it
faces you, young indeed, but strong and resolute ; and,
panoplied in the armour of truth and righteousness, it
means to go forward conquering and to conquer, till
“ noble” does mean noble, and till the term “ Christian”
is first execrated and then abandoned.
Let the tree of Roman Catholic education be judged
by its fruits. Those ignorant and down-trodden thralls
of “ noble and Christian France ” are a specimen of
the fruits. Do you object: “ These are the fruits of
the laic branches of the tree”? Very well, your
*
Eminence, I am willing to stand by testing the fruit on
the cleric branches of the tree—by the very Pope
on the chair of St. Peter. Pope Sergius III., the vice
gerent of God upon earth, lived in concubinage with a
woman named Marocia. Pope John X. lived in con
cubinage with Theodora, a younger sister of Marocia.
Pope John XII. converted the papal palace into a perfect
seraglio, and lost his life by the hand of a husband whose
wife he had dishonoured. Pope John XVII. pursued
the same licentious course, and also perished under the
hand of an avenging husband. Benedict IX. led such
a scandalous life that he outraged even the too tolerant
laxity of the Roman citizens, and was expelled the city.
Clement V. lived in concubinage with his own relative,
the Countess of Perigord. Paul III. was a Sodomite.
Pope Sixtus IV., the founder of the Inquisition, and who
is reported to have died of venereal disease, opened
brothels in Rome, which produced an annual income of
20,000 ducats, which went to help to support the luxurious
lechery of your most holy Christian Church. It was the
same Pope who, in reply to the petition of Cardinals
Robere, Riario, and San Lucas, requesting that Sodomy
might be permitted in Rome during the warm months of
June, July, and August, wrote on the margin of the
petition, “ Let it be so.” And as to Alexander VI., the
Borgia, what thinks your Eminence of him as a specimen
of the fruit of your Christian teaching? He lived in
concubinage with a young girl called Catalina Vanoci: by
her he had several sons and one daughter, the infamous
Lucretia. Lucretia became the concubine of her own
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
7
father, the Pope of Rome and vicegerent of God, and
cohabited with her own brothers, Luigi and Caesar.
This holy father-in-God—and father and more of
Lucretia—died of poison which he had himself prepared
for three Cardinals, and which he took in mistake. We
learn from Burnet’s exposition that indulgence in un
natural lusts was so prevalent among ecclesiastics that
St. Bernard, in a sermon preached to the clergy of
“ noble and Christian France,” affirmed Sodomy to be so
common in his time that bishops Sodomised with other
bishops! What think ye of this, your Eminence? Have
I shown you sufficient specimens of the fruit of your
Roman Catholic education? If I have not, say so, and
I will show you more. Give us, who believe in secular
education, a fair chance; give our system some fifteen
centuries, as yours has had, and see whether we will not
produce better fruit. One thing is certain : we can
hardly produce worse.
Your “religious education,” my Lord Cardinal, but
for influences which were non-Christian—nay, antiChristian—would have blotted out forever all the
learning that the past centuries of the world had accu
mulated. While your Church was piously and labo
riously discussing such problems as Was Adam’s faeces
before the Fall malodorous? How many angels at a
time can stand on the point of a needle ? the learning
which dead Greece had left, the learning which mighty
Rome had bequeathed to the world as she herself
crashed and crumbled into ruin, was trodden under the
brute hoofs of your Christian Church, but taken up and
cherished as a priceless boon by the followers of the
Prophet of Islam, whom your Church despised and
hated. “ All the knowledge of mathematics, astronomy,
medicine, and philosophy, propagated in Europe from
the tenth century onward, was derived principally from
the schools and books of the Arabians in Italy and
Spain.”* “ Mere human learning,” as your Christianity
contemptuously called it, owed its salvation from extinc
tion to the persecuted and detested Saracen.
No, your Eminence; learning never did flourish
Mosheim, vol. ii., p. 194.
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION/
under Christian auspices ; and she only dares to par
tially assert herself now because Christianity is rent and
shattered and half-dead, and where she could once bury
the Albigensian heresy under a million of bloody corpses
she is now impotent to break and silence a bitter pen
like mine. Learning was never at all in the line of the
followers of your uneducated carpenter and his illiterate
fishermen. Your creed, my Lord Cardinal, was hatched
in the nest of Ignorance, and only on the dunghill of
Ignorance can it thrive. Learning, I repeat, was never
in the Christian line; but, to cheer and encourage your
Eminence, I will tell you what was in the Christian line.
From accounts of the Council of Pavia we find that
horses and hawks and gambling and harlots and drunken
ness were very much in the Christian line, and very con
spicuously distinguished the Christian priesthood. And
as for the sanctity of woman, your Church conserved it
as such a sacred trust that the same Council remarks
of your religious houses : “ They seem to be rather
brothels than monasteries.” From accounts of the
Council of Mayence—and, remember, the accounts
of these Councils were not written by wicked Infidels,
but by devout Catholics—it is candidly remarked
that “some priests, cohabiting with their own sisters,
have had children by them.” How to make convents
into brothels, and how to have children by their own
sisters, was the kind of learning your priesthood culti
vated when they were not deep in absorbing studies as to
the exact odour of prelapsarian excrementum, whether
Adam, having had no mother, had a navel, and the
precise number of angels that could stand on the point
of a needle.
One other branch of “ religious education ” was parti
cularly in the Christian line; and, in this branch, the
Christians left the Saracens and all other pagans far
behind. This branch of a “ religious education ” in
which your Church so greatly excelled was Hatred. The
Christians could hate each other more bitterly, and per
secute each other more cruelly, than any other religionists '
on the face of the earth, and their ancient excellence in
this department of polite learning is not yet entirely lost.
It was, as you are no doubt aware, the common proverb
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.”
9
of the pagans, “ No wild beasts are so hostile to men as
are Christian sects to one another.” No one save rival
Christians ever drenched the fields of the earth with
blood over a diphthong, or ever flew at each other’s
*
throats over such hair-breadth twaddle as the difference
between Filioque and no Filioqne, till the Christian
Church was permanently rent into two sections, the
Latin and the Greek. We have seen the results of
“ religious education ” when your Church had the power.
These things were done in the green tree ; we shall take
care they are not done in the dry.
Is your Eminence aware that in 1861 (before the
institution of the School Board which you deplore), of
persons sent to prison, 8^ per cent, were under 16
years of age. In 1870 7 per cent, were under 16. In
1884 only 3 per cent., and this 3 per cent, has been found
to consist almost entirely of children who have managed
to elude attendance at school. So much for the abhorred
School Board and the diminution of criminality; but,
then, criminality and devotion to your Church go
together; and thus it is that you practically lament that
crime is on the decline. Statistics show with inexorable
clearness that, out of all proportion to their numerical
efficiency outside, the inmates of our prisons are Roman
Catholics. With Superstition and Ignorance you always
must have Crime; but, then, without Superstition and
Ignorance you cannot have Christianity, and, of course,
from a priest’s point of view, better have Crime with
Catholicism than throw over Catholicism to get rid of
Crime.
Before the Education Act of 1870, which is so detest
able to your Eminence, the so-called National Schools
were, as a judicious writer remarks, only sq in name, and
they were administered by one religious denomination,
being therefore under the control of its sectarian influence,
while also supplying instruction to a comparatively small
number of children. The remainder were to be found
in the Dame Schools, British and Ragged Schools, and
the Voluntary Schools of various denominations. But
* I refer to the dispute between the Homoousians and Homoibusians.
�TO
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
what of the larger residue ? They were running about
the streets; they were ignorant and uncared for, except
at the hands of noble philanthropists, like the late Lord
Shaftesbury and his colleagues. Imbibing the instincts
of idleness and crime, without a counteracting check,
they sapped the healthy life of the growing generation.
Crime among the juvenile classes had grown to such an
extent that in 1870 no less than 9,998 children were
committed to prison for a variety of offences. Over all
educational facilities for their improvement the State
possessed no control, excepting where schools were
subject to Government inspection as the condition of
receiving grants of public money.
And, in the incontrovertible words of another writer,
“ the Board Schools have through good and evil report
sown the seeds of a new era. The children who go back
to the slums from the Board Schools are themselves
quietly accomplishing more than Acts of Parliament,
missions, and philanthropic crusades can ever hope to
do. Already the young race of mothers, the girls who
had the benefit for a year or two of the Education Act,
are tidy in their persons, clean in their homes, and decent
in their language. Let the reader who wishes to judge
for himself of the physical and moral results which educa
tion has already accomplished go to any Board School
recruited from the ‘ slum ’ districts, and note the differ
ence in the older and younger children ; or attend a
Board meeting, where the mothers come to plead
excuses for their little ones’ non-attendance, and mark
the difference between the old and young mothers,
between those who, before they took ‘mates’ or husbands,
had a year or two of school training, and those who had
given birth to children in the old days of widespread
ignorance.” But all this indisputable improvement of
the social, moral, and intellectual condition of the masses
is, of course, to your Eminence, only a cold and comfort
less fact, seeing that your theological absurdities are being
neglected, and stubborn knees are being trained that will
not genuflect to crosses and relics ; manly voices being
trained, but not to whine your litanies; and above all,
breeches pockets being plenished which will not disgorge
their contents for penance and purgatorial fees for vest-
�“ RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.”
11
merits and images and candle-sticks .and altars and
painted glAss and mummery.
My Lord Cardinal, it is a simulation and a mockery
for you to speak about education at all. As a Cardinal
of the Romish Church, your comments upon education
are about as valuable as would be those of Satan upon
holy water. It has ever been your aim and policy to
murder education; he who murders any person is the
last one in the world whose sincerity we should trust in,
should he evince a specially anxious affection for the
person he had murdered.
I am sorry that the limits of this letter preclude
my giving more than the very vaguest outline of the
learning (?) of your Christian priesthood and the attitude
they have from first to last taken up as regards education.
However the exigencies of the time may urge upon you
to enunciate your theory to-day, we well know what your
attitude has been through all the centuries of your domi
nation. You have ever maintained that the wisdom of
man (and, in the name of casuistry, what other wisdom is
there ?) is foolishness in the sight of God. The unalter
able attitude of your faith towards education, about
which you now orate, may be summed up in the wellknown retort of the infallible Pope, Felix V. A cardinal
one day ventured to reproach him for his ignorance,
whereupon, with pious bigotry, the pontiff replied : “ The
Holy Ghost is not an ass, is it? Well, it will inspire me.
That is its business.” You educated, and (because you
change not unless when you cannot possibly help it) you
would still educate Christendom on the old-fashioned
lines of the Holy Ghost. Now, this Holy Ghost may be
very well as “ the comforter ” to devout imbeciles who
feel the peristaltic movements of the abdominal viscera,
and mistake them for the action of the Holy Spirit. Rut
this Holy Ghost, “the comforter,” is no schoolmaster,
and this I say to his face ; and if he, she, or it have no
face, then I say it to its os coccyx, or whatever part of
it it is decorous to address.
Your infallible Felix V. sounded the keynote of the
devilward march of your hierarchy when, instead of to
study, he gave himself up to gluttony and volup
tuousness, and where anything like education was
�12
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
wanted left the matter in the hands, or feet, or
tentacula, or some such organs, of the Holy Ghost.
And this said Holy Ghost has shirked its business
deplorably. It has been as successful in standing to man
in the place of education as the other third part of a
juggle of a deity has been in redeeming the world. The
party that permits me to speak in its name, your
Eminence, has had enough of the Holy Ghost as a
schoolmaster. We mean to dismiss this ghost, and try
some mortal with a degree from an university, or a certi
ficate from a training college. Besides being a school
master, this ghost of yours has figured as a dove, or
pigeon. The world will figure better when it sees this
pigeon finally baked into a pie and its feet sticking up
through the crust. Is this offensive ? It is not our time
to apologise; it is yours. You first insult our sense and
outrage our reason with your divine twaddle and pious
balderdash, and then expect us to be deferential and
apologetic. Your absurdity and cant is as revolting to
the Agnostic as the Agnostic’s anti-Christian blasphemy
can be to you. Cease to print your inane and insane
lunacies, and, of course, we will cease to attack them.
But, in the interests of the sanity of our race, in the
interests of man’s practicable hopes and rational aspira
tions, insult us no more with the pious legerdemain and
divine conjuring tricks of your pulpits; or, with the
most savage cat-o’-nine tails that sarcasm can wield, we
will lash your rhinoceros hide, O Church, till you will be
glad to find even in the depths of hell a refuge from our
scourge.
You have heard of the lex talionis, your Eminence.
Feel it. We are not your friends. We are your enemies
to the death. We refuse in the interests of conventional
amity to forget your faith’s diabolical record of over a
thousand years. Rivers of the best blood of Europehave, O Church, been let loose by your sword. They
have flowed into a sea of vengeance over which now
gather the thunder-clouds that will burst and shatter
you. These rivers of human blood flow between us and
you ; and over them we refuse to reach you any olive
branch. The charred bones of Giordano Bruno lie
between us and you. The flame that shrivelled up his
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
z3
majestic brain and heroic heart yet throws its heat upon
our “ Infidel ” cheek, and over these bones—holier than
tons of your priestly relics—we swear, by our deathless
and relentless hatred of wrong and tyranny, that with
you we will hold neither truce nor parley, that our helmet
shall never leave our head, that day or night our swordbelt shall never be ungirded till your utter destruction is
accomplished and guarantee thereby given that you, O
Rome, will curse the world no more.
“ Christian education ” indeed, your Eminence !
Unless you presumed upon the impenetrable ignorance
of your dupes, you would never dare to refer to such a
sinister sham and flagitious hypocrisy. I say it delibe
rately, judicially, and ' perfectly prepared to take up the
gauntlet of any historical student who may challenge
me : Christian education has been the curse of Europe.
From the very first, Christianity “ despised all knowledge
that was not useful to salvation.”* A great majority
of Christians were anxious “ to banish all reason and
philosophy out of the confines of the Church.”f Up to
the time when Constantine, the libertine and murderer,
took Christianity by the hand, and she found she was in
a position to argue with the sword and debate with the
heading-axe, she took no further pains to discipline
herself in what she contemptuously called mere human
learning. Formerly a section of the Christian priesthood
had taken some interest in such learning, in order to be
able to argue with the Pagan; but the Christian was able
now to argue with the Pagan in a far different fashion—
with the dungeon and the stake, and accordingly “ the
liberal arts and sciences and polite literature fell into a
declining condition.’’^ This Christian bigotry and
murderous persecution asserted itself till, in the words
of Moshiem,§ “ learning was almost extinct; only a
faint shadow of it remained.” Philosophy was persistently neglected, for, writes Moshiem, “ nearly all
supposed that religious persons could do very well without
it, or, rather, ought never to meddle with it.”
I could go on interminably, your Eminence, in demon
* “ Decline and Fall,” chap. xv.
J “Jorian,” vol. ii., p. 212.
+ “ Mosheim,” vol. i., p. 148.
§ Vol. i., p. 359.
�14
“religious education.”
strating that your Church not only utterly neglected
“worldly learning,” but that it assumed to it an attitude
of actual hostility; but I presume that even you, with
your faculty for pious romancing will not pretend there is
any way of rebutting the charge in this respect; so, turn
ing from your neglect of and hostility to “ mere human
learning,” I shall briefly revert to the “ religious educa
tion ” which you have inculcated for fifteen centuries,
and which you teach to-day. You want the education of
the children of this our England to be in your hands.
You teach that these children must be baptised, or that
they will be damned. So urgently do you contend for
this barbarous hocus-pocus of baptism that, if the mother
be likely to die while she is in a state of pregnancy, she
must be cut up alive so that the foetus may be extracted
alive and baptised to obviate its spending an eternity in
fire and brimstone. The sweetness and delicacy of this
doctrine is as conspicuous as its loving kindness of
the fiery sort that demonstrates itself in never-dying
worms and inextinguishable flames. This, your Eminence,
teaches us the incalculable importance of a few drops of
water at the right time, and the ineffective impotence of
the whole Pacific at, say, five seconds subsequent to the
right time. It also teaches us how profound are the
divine mysteries of a “ religious education.”
One beauty of belonging to your Church, your
Eminence, is exceedingly solacing and comforting, and
that is, that you and your fellow Catholics will be saved,
and that all the rest of the world will be damned; for I
find, from your “ Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti,” that
outside “ the true Catholic Faith ” “ no one can be
saved.” Of course, this is quite certain. It is also very
modest; there is not a vestige of blasphemous cheek
about it. The whole world has been “ created ” for the
purpose of being roasted for ever and ever, to afford
amusement to the handful of Catholics who will sit up
aloft in heaven looking down upon the agony wriggle of
the infernal pit. The inhabitants of the globe have
been estimated at 1,000,000,000, and the Catholics amount
to only 160,000,000. Heaven will be the dress-circle,
and Hell will be the stage ; and those on the stage,
amusing those in the dress-circle, dancing an agony break-
�‘religious education.’
15
down, and footing the fiery jig of the damned, will be out
of all proportion to the mere handful of privileged Papists,
wearing crowns, waving wings, thumbing harps, and
looking on. This doctrine is as humble as it is humane,
and gives us a divine insight into the glories of a “ re
ligious education.” It must be so gratifying to a true
Catholic to see his Protestant wife in endless torment.
She was loving and true and noble. She bore him sons
and daughters. In poverty, distress, and sickness she
stood by him with that self-denying and heroic tender
ness with which woman alone is gifted. She was the wife
of his bosom; but now, in hell, she leaps into the em
brace of devils. All this because she could accept the
Tweedledum of Consubstantiation, but not the Tweedledee of Transubstantiation. For this “ thou art com
forted” and she is “tormented.” So much for the
unspeakable happiness of “religious education.” I am
only an “ Infidel,” and only imperfectly appreciate it.
In fact, honesty impels me to make the impious admis
sion that I desire to be with my wife and children
wherever they are. I wish to be with them, whether
they be in Heaven, Hell, or Annihilation.
The “religious education” of your Eminence implies
subscription to the creed that, “ in the most holy Sacra
ments of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and sub
stantially the body and blood, together with the soul and
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made
a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into
the body and of the whole substance of the wine into
the blood.”* After you have eaten a slice of this God
who made the earth and then came down to it as a
joiner and made wheelbarrows, your “religious educa
tion ” advises those who have eaten hocus-pocussed Godand-joiner to pray as follows : “ May thy body, O Lord,
which I have received, and thy blood which I have
drank, cleave to my bowels, and grant that no stain of sin
may remain in me who have been fed with this pure and
holy sacrament.”! If I could humbly 'presume to
comment on a mystery so sacred, I should reverently
* “ Ordo Ministrandi Sacramenti.”
+ “ Missal for the Use of the Laity,” p. 30.
�16
“religious education.”
observe that, after you have eaten a world-maker and
wielder of a jack-plane, there is little wonder if he should
“ cleave ” to your “ bowels,” that you should be afflicted
with divine constipation ; but I should, with therapeutic
piety, suggest that you work off the god with Glauber salts
and the joiner with jalap. Is this blasphemous, your Emi
nence ? It is infinitely less blasphemous than your missal.
Mine is a drastic attempt to make men sane; yours is an
insidious attempt, in the interests of priestcraft, to keep
men cross-signing and genuflecting idiots.
Price Twopence.
Every Thursday.
THE
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London( E.C.
HISTORICAL PAMPHLETS.
A Reply to Cardinal Manning, by Saladin ...
The Crusades, by Saladin
The Covenanters, by Saladin
Christian Persecution, by Saladin ...
The Flagellants, by Saladin
The Iconoclasts, by Saladin
The Inquisition, Part I., by Saladin
...
The Inquisition, Part II., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part I., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part II., by Saladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part I., by Saladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part II., by Saladin
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
O
I
O
I
London : W. Stewart & Co,, 41, Farringdon Street, E.C.
�
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ac42b05fa6e08f7d070c327f7e01c591.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I71urxm7JSi0Omu7rdE7oY7cruzGRrk1gwrRSszjB1Ux3Ipu1XYDN7wOeA8FyzzrRjB0fGX6Y6D-DShumBtPFVxkKCYBsMV-g45ks4lnhkiAfRLIc5KdCw0apFW1x3Ijn8Gw7IfG3vwBqw00biKw15Z5Jm-YkB3qDXTPn3jfPVgp1JIBwd5u78gKG2GXXg1H3M38CR1IWTl6I68dXC4l3b-i2ESp91qSo405XwRVgKH8rIxXxG4hY3kj5zhSd4QIqzRFoBvfZP1q1E%7EzZ64xKGlbK9-WZLumbDm45I1mgpNCXMygC3Q2HsjXJS6Cvb%7EPgTTGfSX0YcKFGuRKyVIGoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6b2539ecd4afe671d4fc2d17c4606c73
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCT^ty
“Religious Education.”
A LETTER. TO
CARDINAL MANNING.
FART III.
WITH
ADDENDA.
London:
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
��B 30?9
M5 <>7
“Religious Education.”
Have I recommended purgatives to work deity and
mechanic out of the enterics of saints? May I point
out, your Church, in its “ religious education,” proceeds
on somewhat similar lines ? I find, from a rubric in the
“ Roman Missal,”* what is to be done with Christ, pro
viding that the saint vomit him ! The blasphemy implied
in a “ poor worm of the dust ” retching away and
vomiting God is a hyperbole of sacrilege to which I
cannot aspire to reach, and I leave all the honour and
glory of it to the Roman Catholic Church. I find that,
according to the rubric (how unspeakable the advantages
of a “ religious education ” !), the vomit is to be kept in
“some sacred place” till it is “corrupted”—in other
words, till God is rotten. It is so considerate of your
Church to thus write down to the level of a sow—perhaps
the only creature besides a priest who could contemplate
without nausea first swallowing the Lord and then
vomiting him, and then looking for him in the vomit.
And your Eminence would like this emeticating of God,
prodding about for him in the vomit, finding him and
swallowing him over again, or not finding and, therefore
burning him and the vomit, and casting the ashes into
the sacristan to be taught at the expense of the rate
payers ! The ratepayers are mostly fools, and pay rates
and taxes with too little investigation into the why and
wherefore; and many of them are addicted to finding
Jesus. But they draw the line somewhere. They
have begun to draw the line at the priest who, in
order to “find Jesus,” prods about in a vomit with a
breakfast fork! Ugh! But no. This is nastiness to
be sure; but it is divine nastiness, and part and parcel of
* Published in Mechlin, 1840.
�4
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.'
a “ religious education.” Would it be etiquette, your
Eminence, for the person prodding about with the fork,
when he has discovered the half-digested wafer in the
vomit, to exclaim, “I have found Jesus!”
Then, your Eminence, the fine, cheerful doctrine of
Purgatory enters into the curriculum of a “ religious edu
cation.” In purgatory there is a nice, clear fire (ignis
)
*
for cooking souls. This nice, clear fire is exceedingly
useful; it enables you to rifle the pockets of a man’s
relations after he himself has been laid in his grave.
The fires in purgatory are just the sufficient heat for the
dead to enable you to extract half-crowns from the
pockets of the living.
Old Brown dies, his body is
buried, and you get certain fees over that; and his soul
canters off to purgatory. Young Brown would not mind
a cent about his dad being in purgatory, if you would
make the place at all comfortable for him ; but you
manage to make old Brown hot enough to make young
Brown pay to get him out. All this is very clever, and
very religious. St. Christina, who had been in purgatory,
and managed to come back to the earth again (possibly
for her umbrella), told your great and learned Cardinal
Bellarmine that “ the torments that I there witnessed
are so dreadful that to attempt to describe them would
be utterly in vain.” The place was found to be filled
with “ those who had repented indeed of their sins,
but had not paid the punishment due for them.’T After
this, from St. Christina to Bellarmine, who would be so
unfilial as to leave his father, or even his mother-in-law,
in purgatory ? Out they must come. The devout one
must “raise the wind ” to put out the fire. What man
who has the soul of a man would not pawn his braces;
what woman who has the heart of a woman would not
sell her garters, to get her dear dead out of such a hot
and damnable hole as the purgatory of Bellarmine? It
is set apart, it seems, for those who have repented of
their sins, but have not paid for them. Those who
have neither repented of their sins nor paid for them go
straight to hell; but that matters little : the temperature
* See Catechism on the fifth article of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,
t “ De Genitu Columbse,” bk. ii., ch. ix.
�RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
5
is only a trifle higher, and a good, round, sound specimen
of a sinner can soon get accustomed to that. The great
thing is the pay. Pay, and it hardly matters a cinder
whether you repent or not. Yours is a grand and noble
Church, Cardinal Manning. It has the knack of getting
all possible moneys out of a man when he is alive, and,
through its purgatory, it can pursue the dead through
the very bottom of the grave, as it were, and shake him,
red-hot, flaming, and shrieking, in the eyes of the friends
he has left, that they may sell their very shirts to relieve
him of his agony. The one paid for leaps out from the
flames into the midst of heaven’s wings and harps, and
the gold and silver ring and rattle into the coffers of the
priest.
The Agnostic, alas, has no such facilities for turning
an honest penny. He does not know God sufficiently
to be able to induce him to enter into the swim with
him to help him to swindle and juggle. It is no use
any one trying to swindle on any exalted and profitable
scale, unless he has got God on his side, and does his
juggling in God’s name. All history and all experience
teach us that lesson with pious emphasis. I have not
God on my side, so all that I get is a little pittance for
my honest toil. I have no way of extracting cash for
the love of harps that have never been strung, and for
the fear of fires that have never been kindled. I am at
this disadvantage for not having acted up to the precepts
of a “religious education.”
Still, O Cardinal, if God be God—if he be noble and
generous and humane—you may stride up to him with
all the wealth and grandeur your Church has acquired,
and I will walk up into his presence with only this year’s
volume of the Secular Review under my arm. And, if
he say, “ Depart from me, ye cursed 1” it will be to you,
O Cardinal, and not to me. He will say, “ Give me a
shake of your hand, Saladin. You searched earnestly
and honestly for me, and could not find me ; but you
see I am here. You often studied and read all day, and
then burned the oil till long after midnight. Without
fee or reward, amid contumely and in obscurity, you
worked out your very life to teach others what you con
ceived to be right and true. To be mistaken, Saladin, is
�6
“religious
education.”
a small thing in the eyes of a God ; but to be honest is a
great thing. Read me some passages from ‘At Random
they are flashes from the immortal soul of a man
struggling in the dark ;• and passages written in the red
blood of an earnest human life are worthy the attention of
a God.”
I am, My Lord Cardinal,
Your Eminence’s
Obedient Servant,
Saladin.
�ADDENDA.
THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
Bishop Croke of Cashell recently mounted the highest
stilts of sacred oratory, and dashed along thus, with his
head in New Jerusalem and his feet in Kildare :—
When we read in the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel according
to St. Luke that “there is more joy in heaven upon one sinner
that doeth penance than upon ninety-nine just who need not
penance,” we may very naturally be expected to say each one
within himself—Sin, then, must sadden God exceedingly, and cast
a gloom, so to speak, over the face of His angels ; because penance
that wipes sin away gives great gladness to God, fills with joy the
whole court of heaven, makes the loveliest seraph there smile yet
more sweetly, and Heaven itself become more heavenly still. Only
just think of it, brethren. There is the great God of the universe
sitting serenely, as we are used to picture him, on his throne of
state on high. Millions and hundreds of millions of angels
brighter far than the sun and infinitely more beautiful than the
moon stand ever-joyous sentinels around him. The ample domain
of,heaven itself, extending far and wide—yea, full many a mile
further than created eye can carry—encompasses him on every side.
It is lit up with lamps that know no dimness, and peopled with
happy spirits that are not destined to die. This earth is but an
atom in their sight. Wars, conflagrations, earthquakes, plague and
famine, and pestilence sweep over and decimate its inhabitants, and
Heaven heeds not the ruin that is tints made. Yet, strange to say,
one man, a poor weak worm of the earth, living on it, born of it,
and destined to return to it again in death, trangresses a law that
had been given to him by God for his guidance—thereby commit
ting sin—and behold the heart of the Most High is saddened, a
cloud comes across the countenance of his angels, and heaven itself
seems to be heaven no more. But, see, that same man repents;
that sinner is converted ; that rebel hand raised in pride against
the Almighty is uplifted no more, and, as the herald of God’s mercies
to man proclaims the glad tidings aloud, the music of heaven’s
choir becomes sweeter still; the light of heaven’s lamps becomes
brighter still ; the face of heaven’s angels becomes more smiling
still, for there is more joy in heaven upon one sinner that does
penance than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.
�8
ADDENDA,
You see into that passage in Luke the Archbishop
has got his papist “penance” inserted where the
Protestant version has “repentance.” With the Pro
testant, “penance” is an heretical abomination. But
you observe the “word of God” is so explicit and simple
that it means either, or both, or neither. This vague
ambiguity is a distinguishing feature of divine writing.
If a man were to lose his reason, he could write tolerably
like God; and a man who has lost his reason, or who,
as is usually the case, had never any to lose, understands
best what God has been graciously pleased to write.
“ Sin,” according to Croke, and of course he knows
all about it, must “sadden God exceedingly.” A “sad”
deity, God-in-the-dumps, sitting on the white throne,
with all the beasts roaring “ Holy, holy, holy 1” and
glaring at him with the eyes they have in their tails and
their elbows, convinces me that Augustus Harris will
never produce a really effective pantomime at Drury
Lane till he has had the advantage of spending a week
in heaven. Would the great Croke, who seems to know
heaven and its denizens so intimately, inform me whether
the hebdomadal issue of this journal can “sadden God
exceedingly ” ? I know of no god, and I prefer to know
of none till I find one magnanimous and mighty enough
not to get “sad” at the writings of a weak mortal like
Saladin, or be pleased with the ranting but pious blarney
of a little sermon-spinner like Croke.
God used to be unchangeable. But that was in the
good old days, before Ireland and Croke were invented.
Now he gets “sad” whenever anybody sins; but grins
from ear to ear, and kicks up his holy heels with delight,
whenever anybody does penance. Pretty sudden and
fiequent transitions these for an unchangeable God.
But the authority is very high—the authority of his
friend, Croke of Cashel.
u
am „really sorry f°r
P00r dear angels with the
gloom on their faces. I once had a notion of becom
ing an angel myself by imitating, say, David, the man
“according to God’s own heart.” But now I give up
the project. There would always be somebody sinning,
and so my face would always be clouded with “gloom,”
except when somebody did penance—the only thing, by
�THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
9
the-bye, that seems to throw a gleam of light into heaven.
This “ gloom ” would never do for me; I like a good
laugh now and again; and I can laugh, too, a loud hurri
cane of a laugh that shakes the rafters. So I will relin
quish my design of becoming an angel by imitating
David, and thereby some Uriah and some Joab will
escape murder and some Bathsheba dishonour.
Lord, how Croke does hit off heaven with only a few
spasms of his voice—the best voice going at wild rant
and mad tapsalteerie. Perhaps “ the loveliest seraphs
there would smile yet more sweetly” if I could get
beside them to tell them tales of heroic W allace instead
of stories about timid Jesus. By my halidome, I should
like to strut up the golden street—although I should
much rather stand up to the hurdies in Scottish heather
—and fling the strains of my mountain harp into the
ears of the belles of heaven. If they have blood in their
veins, I should send it tingling to the tips of their toes
and their wings. I should make the lyre of Caledonia
weep and moan and thunder and dirl till the harps that
hung on the willows by the streams of Babel would be
broken up and cast away.
Dr. Croke’s heaven, which is intended to be so attrac
tive to good Catholics and Land-Leaguers, does not
tempt me. I do not feel at all attracted to a great
ogre of a God, sitting on “ his throne of state on high,”
while “ millions and hundreds of millions of angels,
brighter far than the sun, and infinitely more beautiful
than the moon,” stand around him as “ sentinels.”
“ Sentinels,” indeed ! Surely these millions of angels
might be better employed. Millions of these celestial
monsters with wings, but whose tails are never men
tioned, stand “sentinel,” like the big horsemen at White
hall. Before I can be got to be really enamoured of
heaven, I should like to know how its flying monsters
get along without tails. A tail is to a bird what a rudder
is to a ship. I should like to be assured, before I consent
to go to heaven, that an angel can steer its course
accurately without a tail. I do not wish to go there and
incur the risk of some great, flying idiot coming dashing
up against me and knocking the teeth out of my head,
with a “Beg your pardon, Sir—pure accident; had
�IO
ADDENDA.
intended to fly to that there rafter 1” Besides, if these
angels are “ brighter far than the sun/’ I could not look
upon their splendour; so I should shortly be blind as
well as toothless.
In spite of the tremendous effulgence of Dr. Croke’s
angels, I observe that heaven is “lit up with lamps.”
Seeing that, in brilliance, every angel must be equal to
at least fifty sperm candles, I fail to see the use of the
lamps ; and I fear, as a canny Scot, I should demur
at the holy extravagance and the divine waste of paraffin.
At all events, fitting heaven up with lamps does not, as
far as I am concerned, add to its charms. There you
sit, pen in hand, all silent as death ■ and you in obstetric
t roes with one of your biggest thoughts, when crack
goes the glass chimney of the said lamp, and, in your
state of concentrated intensity, nearly startles your life
out. Besides, lamps are constantly getting upset, and,
if I were to upset one upon Sarah’s skirts or Rahab’s
polonaise, the effects might disconcert all heaven.
Besides, in trimming the wick, I usually burn my fingers,
and when I burn my fingers I usually swear ; and a good,
rattling malediction might tempt some outraged seraph
to throw me over heaven’s battlements into' the other
place, hurling the lamp after me.
But, O Bishop of Cashel, can all these millions
of angels find nothing better to do than to “stand
sentinel ” ? It may be all glory and brilliance with
;
but there are lanes and alleys with us where it is all
misery and gloom. The sties of Seven Dials are filled
with guilt and misery; over the fever slums of White
chapel falls the Shadow of Death.
Where are the
hundreds of millions of angels? From the dens of
Want and Stench and Disease rises the cry of Humanity;
but that cry reaches not the ears of the angels. Un
moved, they stand sentinel round their ogre God. Not
one angel breaks away from the phalanx to help the
gallant soul beaten down in life’s struggle, to drive away
want and shame from the home of the widow, to give
shelter to the destitute and bread to the fatherless.
The father which art in heaven ” cannot spare one
angel out of his hundreds of millions to visit his children
in mercy, and allay the gnawings of hunger and the pain
�THE CHRISTIAN HEAVEN.
11
of the heart that aches in misery. The music of every
harp, the sheen of every wing, is wanted “ for his own
glory.” No angel can be spared to stand between the
maiden and the deceiver. No angel can be sent for a
moment to kiss the desperately-parted lips and smooth
down the wildly-dishevelled hair of her, the lost and
ruined, as she mounts the parapet of the bridge to leap
from the street and Shame into the river and Death.
No angel comes down with the lightning in his hand to
strike the rich man dead as, by dint of his gold, from
the pale arms of Famine he forces the embraces of
Love.
A hundred thousand men, in uniform, are struggling
in yonder valley. A chorus goes to hell of the yells
of madness, the groans of anguish, and the screams of
agony. The gulf of smoke is torn by torrents and bursts
of fire, and shaken by louder than the thunders of
God. Weary with slaughter, his feet entangled in his
brother’s entrails, the powder-blackened madman falls.
He clutches at the red grass and the heaps of reeking
butchery, and gurgles and gasps and drowns in his
brother’s blood. And the horror and the agony are not
all here. Circling away into the busy towns, the quiet
villages, the corn fields, and the apple orchards of other
lands, extends the tide of misery and woe. Far away
from the field of carnage, hunger overtakes the orphan
child. The aged mother has lost her son, and the
young girl her lover. Over hundreds of leagues of the
world rises the voice of mourning and lamentation and
woe. Damn the heartless god that required all his idle
angels when his children down here went mad 1 Out of
the vast multitude, could he spare not a single one to
stand between these two hosts, and stay that hurricane
of lead; not one to stop these levelled bayonets and
that crunch of steel—that grinding of the bloody wheels
of the mills of Death ?
Is this God—this omnipotent fiend who could make
us, his poor children on earth here, holy and happy, and
will not ? Then let me, his son, flee from such a father
to the uttermost rim of the universe. Is this heaven,
where immortals stand as a retinue of sentinels, unmoved
by the tears of man’s misery and the cries of human
�12
ADDENDA.
pain ? Is this heaven—the happiest sphere we are to
enter when the gate of the grave closes behind us ? Then
proclaim it from the housetops that there is no heaven,
that all that is is a universal hell, and that man is the
plaything of an inscrutable fiend.
When will gushing gospel-mongers learn that, in spite
of its “loveliest seraphs” smiling as sweetly as they can
be made to do in Bishop Croke’s pious rhetoric, heaven
is not good enough for nineteenth-century men and
women. It did ■well enough as a more or less delirious
day-dream for centuries that are no more, for those who
have Jain in the grave so long that it would require
chemical analysis to distinguish the marrow of thefemorbone from the rust of the coffin-nail.
Shades of the dead, whose essence, in a sublime
panontism, has gone to feed the tissues of the universe,
we mean no disrespect to you when we reject your heaven.
It is upon the mountain,formed by the bonesofa departed
world, we stand, in order to see further than that departed
world ever saw. It is not the cerebration inside our indivi
dual skull, but the fact of our standing upon a more than
Tamerlane pyramid of skulls, that throws our vision
further down the vista of Mystery. The former coral
zoophytes laid their deposits on the sea-bed and under the
wave; on their deposits we place ours, thanks to them,
not in the dark like theirs, but up in the light, where the
sun shines, where the clouds roll and unroll, where the
wind blows and the billows thunder and s ing. We are
no longer away down among heavens and hells, the rocks
and algae of the ocean’s floor, but up in the light, where
the sea-birds scream, where the blue smoke from our
hearth melts away calmly over the deep green of the
trees, where the waters are wooed by olive boughs and
kissed by riparian myrtles, and flowers fling the glory of
their fragrance over the lake of the atoll.
Away with your heaven and other submarine night
mares of the world before sunrise. All hail a new
heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness !
Emerged at length from the deep, we are religious, but
our religion has burst asunder the fetters of your
theology; we are pious, but we visit your temples with
fire and desolation ; we are worshipful, but we urge on the
car of Progress over the shattered fragments of your gods.
�CHIVALRY.
13
CHIVALRY.
They knelt ’fore the altar’s gilded rail,
The beautiful and the brave,
In the dim old abbey down in the vale,
O’er high-born dust in the grave.
And martyr holy and tortured saint
Were limned on the glorious pane,
And the sunbeams threw on the carvings quaint
A golden and crimson stain.
And the organ peal shook the dead in their grave,
And the incense smoke died away
Down the dim-lit chancel and solemn nave
Where the dead in their marble lay.
The orange wreath in the morning’s breath,
And the warrior’s nodding plume,
In the hoary cloister smiled at Death
And the warp and the weft of Doom.
And the noblest blood in the land was there—
The chivalrous sword and mail;
And the naked breasts of the Norman fair
Throbbed around that altar’s rail.
And the father leant on his battle brand,
And the mother dropped a tear,
And De Wilton’s Edith laid her hand
In the gauntlet of De Vere.
And the bridal ring and the muttered words,
And the gems and the plumes of pride,
And the whispers low, and the clank of swords,
And De Wilton’s girl was a bride.
*
*
*
*
Heir to wide lands, she bore him a son
On a sweet and a silent day :
Where the breach was won, and lost, and won,
De Wilton was far away.
�14
addenda.
And he wore her glove by his mangled plume
And her kiss on his lip still lay,
1
nd his blade flashed dread as the bolt of Doom
From the morn till the noon of day.
Wherever raved wildest the storm of blades,
And the red rain bloodiest fell
Wherever thickest the troops of shades
Were hurled to the realms of Hell
°e Vere’s blue flag with his Edith’s hair
Waved in the reeling van,
And rose and fell, ’mid groan and yell,
In the chaos of horse and man.
It sank at last in the hurricane
That raged round the knights of De Vere
And the world span round his reeling brain ’
Laid bare by a foeman’s spear.
Hearts rained out blood, helms glinted fire
Mid the death groan and hurraa •
An^ kn,ghthood’s pride toiled, tugged, and died
Wheie the spangled banner lay.
For Edith s hair on that broidered soy
Lay trampled in dust and gore;
And Rudolph had sworn to bear it with joy
bo her bower or return no more.
He sprang with a shout from the reeling sod
A gash on his helmless brow,
Raised his red hand aloft to God,
And hissed his dauntless vow :
“Ye saints,” quoth he, “this soy’s my shroud,
Or I bear it to Edith again !”■_
_
BUA.^ld
tbe burst of the thunder-cloud,
Or the dash of the roaring main,
The foe swept on ten thousand strong
O’er Rudolph’s wounded ten;
&
quakes, the mountain shakes
Neath the tramp of armed men.
And vassal thralls with husky cheer
Rush o’er the banner fair,
�CHIVALRY.
15
The blazoned scutcheon of De Vere
And Edith’s golden hair.
Firm faced the host the glorious ten
For Edith, God, and Home—
Swung the angry sea of ten thousand men—
Dashed the battle’s bloody foam.
*
*
*
*
His horse lay on the carnage ground,
Upon that flag of woe ;
His mangled vassals lay around,
And Rudolph lay below,
’Mid battered helm and shivered lance,
And corslet, helm, and glave;
And all the wrecks of War’s wild dance
When waltzing to the grave.
*
*
*
*
Sighed o’er the field the young morn’s breath :
The foemen found him there,
His pale lips pressed in ghastly death
To Edith’s crimsoned hair.
They laid him down by the side of her bed,
The monks who his body bore;
His eyes had the glare of the eyes of the dead,
His armour was dyed in gore.
A friar essayed the ladye to cheer
Jn the mournful tidings of ill;
But the faithful heart of the bride of De Vere
Ever, forever was still.
Though the babe still lay on the high, white breast
That milk to its dear lips gave,—Years laid him again on that bosom to rest,
When he fell in the ranks of the brave. ’
*
*
*
*
She followed her lord to the halls of God
Ere that sorrowful day was done;
For her lord had died on the trampled sod :
To a corpse she had borne her son.
�i6
ADDENDA.
Now the sire and the dame and their gallant boy
All rest ’neath the marble there,
And over them waves the banner of soy,
With Edith’s blood-stained hair.
And swords have clashed to the valiant tale,
And the voice of the minstrel sung,
How fair were the maids, how deadly the blades,
When the heart of the world was young !
price Twopence.
Every Thursday.
THE
SECULAR
REVIEW:
A JOURNAL OF AGNOSTICISM.
EDITED BY SALADIN.
Order of your Newsagent, or send direct to the Publishers—W.
Stewart & Co., 41, Farringdon Street, London. E.C.
HISTORICAL PAMPHLETS.
A Reply to Cardinal Manning, by Saladin ...
...
The Crusades, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Covenanters, by Saladin
...
...
...
Christian Persecution, by Saladin ...
...
...
The Flagellants, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Iconoclasts, by Saladin
...
...
...
The Inquisition, Part I., by Saladin
...
...
The Inquisition, Part II., by Saladin
...
...
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part I., by Saladin
The Dancers, Shakers, and Jumpers, Part II., bySaladin
The Persecution of the Jews, Part I., by Saladin
...
The Persecution of the Jews, Part II., by Saladin
...
01
o 1
o x
o x
o x
o x
0 I
o 1
o 1
o 1
01
01
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
"Religious education" : a letter to Cardinal Manning
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: 3 v. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Ross's reply to a sermon preached by Cardinal Manning on 26 September, 1885. Includes bibliographical references. "by Saladin" [title page]. Saladin is the pseudonym of William Stewart Ross. 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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N595
N596
N597
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Religion
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 ("Religious education" : a letter to Cardinal Manning), 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
Henry Edward Manning
NSS
Religious Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf981093f0ff863d371ada2ec5acb527.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vTE8k-IvAcBgFsg9%7EdvPw0CWMVEiG0M%7EaTbLvWBZ-WhVa0egz%7Eozi%7EfBdS6OohUwp5gZMdRSFMQxABK8NnOueeNVLjiu1HJwE4daeyRYRyuBPwTr-fsUzbJGayrGrVS03NSiauwQoo--OHjmYnWdWlYNaQ8XrRBWH-A1RP0ME16a%7E5B6yY9kSTROBFw8WC6oOkg8n5iVPLM5puXNAh-W%7E-rroSGVNIyAJKZr0zK1WgCIL-uLZWklzeag6J6r9OcpihRjYX5p-0rDNjLNedJTNfMBKr2R3aRgrFnrBJAd8zJYevhypSQ3ol5YY70kc6x-na79ZbEMKWb4vNizOswogA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
27483b8a5b27ea5989f15a0903fe2396
PDF Text
Text
3
- A UHKMFIONjOF ORTHODOXY THUS REPLIES
RELIGION.
Sir,
A Correspondent on the above subject in your paper of last
week, styling himself “ Layman,” should have been
and styled
himself a “ Socinian” (a nickname foi’ an Atheist).
He has acted like all cowards act,—first misrepresent the opinions of
their opponents and then abuse them. Being a Layman (so called), I
venture to answer your Correspondent “ according to his folly,” and
challenge him to a public discussion, at any time and place, and defy him
to disprove the following propositions :—
That the Bible, fairly interpreted, teaches the following to be the
revealed will of God, and experience proves its truth :
1. That there are three persons, yet but one God.
2. That there is a future state of happiness, and misery, eternal in its
nature, and increasing as to its effects, let that happiness or misery arise
from what cause it may.
3. That Satan (or the Devil) first deceived our first parents, and from
that time to the present reigns in the hearts of all who have not repented
and believed on Christ.
4. That all mankind are born in sin, possessed of a fallen nature,
which leads them to love sin and hate God. This hatred is manifested
by all without distinction, high and low—your Correspondent not excepted.
5. That infants are not admitted into Paradise because of their
innocence by nature but by grace—“Christ died for them,” therefore,
baptized or unbaptized, if they die in infancy, in whatever clime, “ they
sleep in Jesus.”
6. That an atonement for sin was necessary. That Christ was, by
his Divine nature joined to the human, a fit sacrifice ; and His death and
resurrection confirms His power—and having atoned for the sins of the
whole world, He ascended upon high, and ever liveth to intercede for us.
The instruments God used to accomplish His purposes have nothing to do
with the atonement made. The Jews were as much the murderers of our
Saviour as though God’s design had been overturned, “ but our God turned
it into a blessing’' Christ could have died for us in some other way had
the Jews received Him, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.”
7. That repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,
from Adam to now, have ever been followed with a consciousness of sins
forgiven, a heart renewed in righteousness and true holiness, and a hope
of eternal rest and power, through the in-dwelling Spirit of God, to live
unspotted from the world, doing good in their day and generation—proving
by their life and conversation that they “ seek a city which hath
foundations whose builder and maker is Godand when death comes
triumph over it, and die in hopes of a blissful immortality.
That there are many who teach otherwise we admit, but who are
they ? Papists, who deny the Scriptures to be the rule of our lives;
Puseyites, who are “ bastards of the Pope of Romeand Protestants
�4
(shame on the laws which compel us) are compelled to keep them—they
are spiritual thieves and murderers of the souls of men—common; high-'
waymen and murderers are angels when compared to them; Unitarians or
Socinians, who misquote and mistranslate Scripture, devil like, in order to
establish their unholy creed, viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint;” Anti,
nomians, who hope to be saved through a process they call “ election,” a
scheme concocted in the infernal regions, and sent into the world to
deceive mankind.
But all true Protestants of whatever name, and their name is Legion
—Methodists over 2,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 12,000,000;
Independents, 1,000,000, with chapel accommodation for 4,000,000; not to
mention Baptists, Evangelical Churchmen, and others, who, with the
immortal Chillingworth, cry out, “ The Bible and the Bible alone is the
religion of Protestants.”
Yours, &c.,
Oct. 9, 1865.
B. STICKLAND.
C.’s
REJOINDER.
Sir,
Your Correspondent, Mr. B. Stickland, fearfully denounces
all those who do not happen to entertain the same religious opinions as
himself.
My letter which you were kind enough to insert in your
impression of the 7th, has sorely grieved him. It is well he has not the
power of the inquisitors of old, or I might have suffered for my “heresy”
some fine morning at Smithfield or on Tower Hill. He evidently questions
my sincerity, for, says he, had I “ been honest ” I should have styled my
self a “ Socinian, a nickname for Atheist,” but I am “ like all cowards,”
I “ misrepresent and then abuse;” yet he “ will answer me according to
my folly,” and “ challenge me to public discussion,” when he will “ defy
me to disprove” his views. Bravo, Mr. Stickland! He evidently does
not want your readers to think him “ a coward,” yet how mightily
Pharasaical. He produces some half dozen of what he calls “propositions,’’
and adds, that those who “ teach otherwise ” are “ Papists who deny the
Scriptures, Puseyites who are bastards of the Pope, spiritual thieves, and
murderers of the souls of men !” “ Common highwaymen and murderers
are angels compared to them ; Unitarians and Sociniaus, who misquote
and mistranslate Scripture, devil-like, in order to establish their unholy
creed,” viz., “ to live a devil and die a saint.” “ Antinomians, who hope
to be saved by election, a scheme concocted in the infernal regions,” &c..
&c., &c. I
One would certainly conclude by this that Mr. S. is on terms of great
intimacy with his satanic majesty, as he appears to be quite au fait with
him, and his “ infernal regions.” I decidedly admit his superior knowledge
in this respect.
“But,” adds Mr. S. “all true Protestants,” such as he is, of course,
“ think otherwise,” &c., &c.
Now, in the name of common sense, what reason is there in all his
denunciations. Has our great teacher, Christ, who Mr. S. professes to
serve, ever given him the shadow of such a creed as is contained in his
seven propositions? Compare Mr. Stickland’s letter and creed with
Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and mark the contrast ! Oh, Mr. S.,
“ first cast the beam out of thine own eye,” &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
A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. Religion.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stickland, B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.n.]
Collation: 3-4 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: A letter to the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette in response to a letter by W.E. Conner. Conner's rejoinder is also printed. Reprinted from the Hackney and Kingsland Gazette, October 9 or 10, 1865. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1865]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5258
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Religion
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 (A champion of orthodoxy thus replies. Religion.), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Orthodoxy
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/612a86d21a17fc3e11eb6f6cd2cb4630.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MqmbZa-sBKGuQqIkFdiXhyxPJ6Lq-Ni-iLWaquDFXWM-E4zeM2qqQblRxF5eI-RpoYMTvAwZvBJ7so9zWa2j3tkH1xbTgN0WEynmBbjdQBIyxtP5URUHKF0GliUnNlScubCEOKOrcW5Kb8KpbK%7EwzSGgggdP6r82w3oyJJg3DzVS3p7BePpNh5H3l0Jv2o0mrpmDxHQjutwb7QOm%7EABK9s1CSA4j0By75pj6S2RwfsoHgLwuivErxPLE9qCpDrOsR2KJCdiSD53s%7EOgg8wEOMC9L5syIngGirbkbu2k3ycmNv1T-Zttzj2aa36bEOAsS9rawRNDe3KCUDYGIvZeeKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bea4926af6caea4682ebe176f37ca957
PDF Text
Text
A DISCOURSE
AGAINST HERO-MAKING
>
$n
*
^tligxan,
DELIVERED IN SODTH PLACE CHAPEL, FINSBURY,
April 24th, 1864.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
Printed by request, with, Enlargements.
LONDON:
TEUBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1864.
�“ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom
ye believed ?
“ Paul planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Wherefore let no man glory in men.”
�-e
DISCOURSE
AGAINST
HERO-MAKING IN RELIGION,
OR more than twenty years we have been made familiar
F
with the phrase Hero-Worship.
It has been applied
not only in the regions of politics and literature, but in
religion, as the phrase itself strictly claims.
We have been
told, from very opposite quarters, that the' excellence, as well
as the characteristic, of the Christian religion turns on its
venerating a personal hero in Jesus of Nazareth.
Many who
regard Jesus as a mere man, yet insist upon inscribing them
selves his servants and followers, and on so wedding their
honour for him with their adoration to God most high, as
systematically to incorporate the two.
Nay, some who utterly
disown allegiance to Jesus—who think him to have taught
• many things erroneously, and to have had nothing super
natural in his character, in his powers, in his knowledge, in
his virtue, in his birth, or in his communications with God—
still maintain that he is fitly called the Regenerator of man
kind, and ought to receive—I know not what acknowledg
ment—as our Saviour.
It appears then not superfluous to
bestow a little space on the treatment of this question.
�4
I need hardly observe that personal qualities alone in no
case constitute a hero.
Action and success must be added;
and action cannot succeed until the times are ripe.
knows this better than the true hero.
No one
True genius is modest
in self-appreciation, and is fully aware how many other men
could have achieved the same results if the same rare con
juncture of circumstances had presented itself to them.
Men
of genius are fewer than common men, but they are no
accident.
God has provided for their regular and continuous
recurrence; theii birth is ordinary and certain in every nation
*
which is counted by millions.
The same is true in every
form of mental pre-eminence, whether capacity for leadership,
or genius for science, or religious and moral susceptibility.
Religion, separate from morals, is, of course, only fanaticism.
We venerate religion only when built upon pure morals.
Moral religion is notoriously a historic growth, and has de
pended on traditional culture at least as much as what is
especially called science; and its progress is not more way
ward and arbitrary than that of science, if the whole of
human history be surveyed.
The present is ever growing
out of the past, with a vigour and a certainty which never
allow the fortunes of the race to be seriously dependent on
any individual.
Each of us is, morally as well as physically,
a birth out of antecedents.
From childhood we are tutored
in right and wrong, not only by professed teachers, but by
all elder persons who are around us.
Improper deeds or
words of a child are reproved by a servant, or by an elder
brother, or even by a stranger, as well as by a parent or a
priest.
We imbibe moral sentiment, as it were, at every
pore of our moral nature; nor do we often know from whom
�5
we learned to abhor this course of conduct and to love that.
Hence no wise man will claim originality for his moral
judgments or religious sentiments.
A foolish dogma, a
fanciful tenet, may easily be original; but a pure sound
truth is more likely to have been old.
To prove its novelty
is impossible, and certainly could not recommend it: on the
contrary, the older we can prove it to have been, the greater
its ostensible authority.
For these reasons, in the theory of
morals and religion, a claim of originality can seldom or
never be sustained: in this whole field the question is less
■what a man has taught, than what he has persuaded others.
Hundreds of us may have said, truly and wisely: “ It is a
great pity that Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians of every
sect will not unlearn their dissensions, and blend into one
religious community.”
The sentiment must once have been
even new; yet its utterance coidd never have earned praise
and distinction.
But if any one devoted his life to bring
about such union, and succeeded in it, we should undoubtedly
regard him as a moral hero; though (as just said) no one
could succeed, until the fulness of time arrived and the crisis
was seized judiciously.
Thus, in discussing the claims put forth for special and
indeed exclusive honour to the name of Jesus, we have to
consider, not so much what he said, or is said to have said, as
what he effected; what impression he actually produced by
his life and teaching; what great, noble, abiding results his
energies originated and bequeathed.
The moment we ask,
What are the facts ? we seem to be plunged into waves of
most uncertain controversy; into discussions of literature
unsuitable for short oral treatment.
Yet, before the present
�6
audience, I may with full propriety claim as admitted that
which greatly clears our way.
I presume you to know
familiarly, that the picture of Jesus in the fourth gospel is
essentially irreconcilable with that in the three which
precede, and is neither trustworthy nor credible.
The
three first gospels, taken by themselves, do present a
character, a moral picture, sufficiently self-consistent and
intelligible to reason about.
But our present question (allow
me carefully to insist) is
Do we see in Jesus a remarkable
not,
man, a gifted peasant, a dogmatist by "whom we may profit,
whose noble sentiments we may admire or applaud? but
rather, Do we find one who dwarfs all others before and after
him? one to whose high superiority sages and prophets
must bow; before whom it is reasonable and healthful for
those who have a hundredfold of his knowledge and breadth
of thought to take the place of little children ?
Or, at least,
Has Europe and the world (as a fact) learned from him what
it was not likely to learn without him ?
Is that
trve
which
1s dinned into our ears, that Christendom has imbibed from
him a pure, spiritual, large-hearted, universal religion,
adapted to man as man, cementing mankind as a family, and
ennobling the individual by a new and living Spirit, unknown
to the philosophies, unknown to the priesthoods, untaught by
the prophets, before him ?
Even if we had no insight as to the comparative value of
the several gospels, one broad certainty affords solid ground
to plant the foot upon.
The positive institutions and active
spirit of the first Christian church are notorious and indubit
able;
On learning what the Apostles established in their
Master’s name within a few weeks of his death, We know
�7
with full certainty what they had understood him to leach}
what impression he actually produced, what was the real net
result of his life and preaching: and this, in fact, is our
main question.
Now, it is true beyond dispute—it is con
ceded by every sect of Christians—that in the first Christian
church the Levitical ceremonies were maintained with zealous
rigour, and that its only visible religious peculiarity consisted
in community of goods.
The candidate for baptism professed
no other creed but that Jesus was Messiah; and the obedience
of the disciple to the Master was practically manifested in the
sudden renunciation of private property.
This ordinance
was not, in theory, compulsory; but, while the fervour of
faith was new, it was enforced by the public opinion of the
church so sharply, as to tempt the richer disciples to
hypocrisy.
The story of Ananias and Sappliira is full of
instruction-.
They did not wish to alienate all their goods,
though they were "willing to be very liberal.
In deference
to the prevailing sentiment, they sold property and gave
largely to the church; yet were guilty of keeping back a part
for themselves secretly.
For this fraud (according to the
legend) they were both struck dead at the voice of Peter!
Such a legend could not have arisen, except in a church
which regarded absolute Communism as the characteristic
Christian virtues
Higher proof is not needed that Jesus
established this duty as the touchstone of discipleship: butj
in fact; the account in the three gospels tallies herewith
perfectly.
Jesus there mourns over a rich young man, as
refusing the law of PeHi’ection, because he hesitates to sell
all his goods; give them to the poor, and become a mendicant
friar,
When his disciples, commenting on the young man’s
�8
failure to fulfil tlio test, say: “ Lo! we have left all and
followed thee: what shall we have therefore?”
Jesus in
reply’ promises, that, in reward for having sacrificed to him
the gains of their industry and abandoning their relatives,
they shall sit upon thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of
Israel.
(In passing I remark, that the idea of such a reward
for such a deed is shocking to a Pauline Christian.)
The Jerusalem church was, alone of all churches, founded
by the' chosen representatives of Jesus on the doctrine of
Jesus himself, while the remembrance of that doctrine was
fresh.
It was a special community, not unlike a “ religious
order ” of modern Europe; and could not be discriminated,
by Jews any more than by Homans, from a Jewish sect.
In
the next century, those who seem to have been its direct
successors were called Ebionite heretics by the Gentile
Christians.
When Paul, who ostentatiously refused to learn
anything from the actual hearers of Jesus, had put forth
what he calls “ his own ” gospel—namely,“ the mystery that
Gentiles "were to be fellow-heirs ” without Levitical purity—
he brought on himself animosity and violent opposition from
the Christians of Jerusalem, who were the historical fruit of
Jesus’ own planting.
When Paul was in Jerusalem, one of
the leaders called his attention to the fact that, while many
thousands of Jews were believers, they were “ all zealous of
the law; ” he therefore advised him to pacify their mis
givings and suspicions of him, by performing publicly certain
Judaical ceremonies.
Paul obeyed him: nevertheless, no
such conformities could atone for his offence in teaching that
Gentiles, while free from the law, were equal to the Jews
before God; and Paul to his last day experienced enmity
�9
from the zealous members of that church.
His relations to
the other Apostles we know by his own account to have been
certainly cold.
He seems to be personally pointed at in the
Epistle of James, as “a vain man,” who preaches faith
without works; while he himself (as he tells us) publicly
attacked Petei’ at Antioch as a dissembler and weak truckler
to Jerusalem bigotry.
When, from first to last, the doctrine
of the church at Jerusalem was sternly Levitical, it is quite
incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious
nullity of Levitical ceremonies and the equality of Gentiles
with Jews before God.
But why need I argue about this,
when it is distinctly clear on the face of the narrative ?
In
the book of Acts the idea that “ God is no respecter of
persons ”—or of nations—breaks upon the mind of Peter as
a new revelation, and is said to have been imparted by a
special vision.
It is not pretended that Jesus had taught it;
nor does Paid, in any of his controversies against Judaism,
dare to appeal to the authority and doctrine of the earthly
Jesus as on his side.
In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount,
as also in a passage of Luke (xvi. 17), Jesus declares that he
is not come to destroy the law; and that “Bather shall
heaven and earth pass away, than shall one tittle of the law
fail.”
I am, of course, aware that Christian theologians
would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that
the words in Matthew, “ Until all be fulfilled,” mean “ Until
my death shall fulfil all the types.”
But this would make
Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle.
This is
indeed worse than trifling, and a gratuitous imputation on
the teacher’s truthfulness.
was understood.
He must have known how he
They supposed him to mean that Levitisnx
�10
was eternal; and lie did not correct the impression.
It was
then the very impression which he designed to make, simply
and truthfully; and the disciples, one and all, rightly under
stood him, and knew it well.
The verse which follows in Matthew clenches the argu
ment ; although (I see I must in candour add) I do not
believe that Jesus spoke it in exactly this form.
Never
theless, it emphatically shows how the writer interpreted the
verse preceding.
For he makes Jesus to add: “ Wherefore,
whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I find
myself unable to doubt that these words were written to
mean: “ Wherefore, one like Paul, who breaks the Levitical
ceremonies, and teaches the Gentiles to break them, is least
in my kingdom; but James, and the Apostles in Jerusalem,
who do and teach them, are great in my kingdom.”
The
intensity of feeling on this subject was such, that the Jewish
Christians easily believed Jesus to have prophetically warned
them against Paul’s error.
Be this as it may, the formula,
° break one of these least commandments, and teach men to
break it,” is in contrast to “ fulfilling the law,” and distinctly
shows that “ fulfilling the law ” refers to doing and enforcing
even the least commandments;
The Jerusalem church was the product (and, as far as wd
know, the only direct product) of the teachings of Jesus. Of
its sentiment we have an interesting Exhibition in the epistle
of James; in whom We see a high and severe moralist, pure
and exacting, full of righteous indignation against the
�11
oppression of the poor by the rich, and against all haughtiness
of wealth. He does not treat all private property as unchris
tian ; but only large property.
Evidently no rich man could
have seemed venerable to the chief saints in that church.
He assumes the guilt of all rich men, and announces misery
about to come on them, as does Jesus in the parable of Lazarus:
nevertheless, in him all the harshest parts of Jesus’ precepts
have been softened by the trial of practical life.
In fact, this
epistle is much in the tone of the very noblest of the Hebrew
prophets.
As with them, so in him, the moral element is
wholly predominant, and nothing ceremonial obtrudes itself.
Nay, what is really remarkable, he calls his doctrine the
K perfect law of libertyso little did those ceremonies oppress
him, to which from childhood he had been accustomed.
Let
due honour be given to this specimen of the first and only
genuine Christianity; yet it is difficult to find anything that
morally distinguishes it from the teachings of an Isaiah or a
Joel.
There is certainly a diversity: for the political ele
ments of thought have disappeared, which under the Hebrew
monarchy were prominent.
The great day of the Lord was
no longer expected to glorify the royalty of Jerusalem and
its national laws : and in this diversity lay the germ of great
changes.
It would be absurd to censure an epistle because it is not a
ritual, or to demand in it the fervours of spirituality found in
this or that psalm. Nevertheless, in the present Connection, I
must claim attention to the fact that neither the three Gospels,
nor the epistle pf James have ever been in high favour with
that Caivinistic or Augustinian school which most nearly
Represents Paul to the moderns;
To bring out the argument
�12
in hand more clearly, allow me to make a short digression.
Morality requires both action and sentiment.
No reasonable
teacher can undervalue either : yet some moral teachers press
more on action, and are said to preach duty and work; and
even make a duty of sentiment, laying down as a command
that we shall love God, love our neighbours, love not ease,
love not self.
Other teachers endeavour to excite, foster, and
develop just sentiment, and trust that it will generate just
action: possibly they even run into the error of shunning
definite instruction as to what action is good.
Finite and
one-sided as we are, two schools naturally grow up among
teachers, who may be classed as the preachers of duty and
the preachers of sentiment: but perhaps, if the question be
distinctly proposed to the ablest men of either school, “ Do
we learn action from sentiment, or sentiment from action ?”
they would alike reply (as in substance does Aristotle) that
both processes necessarily co-exist.
From childhood upward,
right action promotes right feeling, and right feeling generates
or heightens right action.
of the two schools.
There is no real or just collision
Nevertheless, as a fact of human history
easily explained, the preaching of duty and of outward action
gains everywhere an early and undue ascendency, perhaps
especially where morals and religion are taught by law, which
deals in command and threat.
The rude man and the child
are subjected to rule more or less arbitrary; and it is only
when intellect rises in a nation or in an individual that the
spiritual side of morals receives its proportionate attention.
In Greek history, we know the fact in the philosophy of
Socrates and Plato.
Among the Hebrews, a secular increase
of spirituality in the highest teachers will probably be con
�13
ceded by critics of every school to have gone on from the
time of the judge Samuel to the writer from whom came the
last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.
The characteristic
difference of the Greek and the Hebrew is this: that, however
spiritual the Greek morality might be, it seldom blended with
religion; and (with exceptions perhaps only to be found under
Hebrew influences, as at Alexandria) the moral affections
found no place in religion at all.
Now it has been recently
asserted by a Theist, that it is to Jesus that we owe that
regeneration of religion, which makes it begin and grow from
within. He is not (it is said) “ a mere teachei’ of pure ethics;”
but “his work has been in the heart.
He has transformed
the Law into the Gospel. He has changed the bondage of the
alien for the liberty of the sons of God.
He has glorified
virtue into holiness, religion into piety, and duty into love.”
Hence it is inferred that “his coming was to the life of
humanity what regeneration is to the life of the individual.”*
Deep as is my sympathy with the writer from whom I
quote, I am constrained to say that every part of the state
ment appears to me historically incorrect. It does, in the first
place, violent injustice to the Hebrews who preceded Jesus.
Did he first “ glorify virtue into holiness” ?
Nay, from the
very beginning of Hebraism this was done—at least as early
as Samuel.
Did he first “ glorify religion into piety” ?
Is
there then no piety in the 42nd Psalm ? in the 63rd ? in the
* I quote from the striking treatise of my friend Miss Cobbe,
called “ Broken Lights.” The whole protest against M. Renan, of
which the words above are the summary, should be read to under
stand their relation. I am authorized to say that she has not even
the remotest wish to make honour to Jesus a part of religion: she
intended to write as a historian only:
�14
27th ? in the 23rd ? Nay, I might ask; from what utterances
of Jesus can piety be learned by the man who cannot learn
it from the Psalms ?
Holiness and piety appear to me to
have been taught and exemplified quite as effectively before
Jesus as since.
Surely in the religion of the psalmists piety
dominated, as much as in Fenelon or in the poet Cowper. But
finally I have to ask, “ Did Jesus glorify duty into love?”
And, in order to reply, I turn to the three gospels, as con
taining our best account of what he taught.
A phenomenon there very remarkable is the severity with
which Jesus enforces as duty the most painful renunciations ;
and the contempt with which he rejects anything short of
immediate obedience to his arbitrary demands.
I know not
whether the narrators have overcoloured him ; but they give
us, on the one side, examples of prompt obedience to the com
mand, “ Follow me:” first, in Andrew and Peter; next, in
James and John ; who <l immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him.”
highly meritorious.
This is afterwards praised as
On the other side, when Jesus says to a
man, "Follow me,” and receives the reply, “Lord, suffer me
first to go and bury my father,” Jesus retorts: “Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee, but let me first go
and bid them fareioell which are at home in my house.
And
Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the
plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
The peremptory command to abandon their parents, not bury
a dead father, and not even say a word of farewell to the
living, is perhaps a credulous exaggeration of the writer; yet
it is in close harmony with the whole account, and with the
�15
declaration, “ He that hateth not liis father and mother, and
wife and children, cannot be my disciple
for evidently the
following of Jesus, as interpreted and enforced by himself,
involved an abandonment (perhaps to starvation) of these
near relatives.
It is not my purpose to dwell now on the
right or wrong of such precepts, but on the imperious tone in
which they are imposed fromzoithout, not the slightest attempt
being made to recommend them to the heart or understanding.
Again, in perfect harmony with the same is the reply, already
adduced, of Jesus to the rich young1 man, who comes to ask,
“What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
The
opportunity was excellent to set forth that no outward actions
could bring eternal life, but that such life was an interior and
divine state, to be sought by love and faithfulness.
Instead
of spiritual instruction, Jesus gives a crushing arbitrary com
mand : “ If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come and follow me.” Does such a teacher build from within
by implanting Love ? Does he act upon Love at all, or rather
on selfish Ambition?
He deals in hard duty and fierce
threat; commands too high, and motives too low; thoughts
of reward; promises of power; salvation by works; invest
ment of money for returns beyond the grave; prudential
adoption of virtue, which may soften judgment, win pro
motion, deliver from prospective prison and hell fire: topics
which at best are elements of Law, as opposed to Gospel.
In
the opinion of an increasing fraction of the most enlightened
Christians, the most noxious element in the popular creed is
the eternal Hell: the stronghold of this doctrine is in the
discourses of Jesus.
But what of Faith?
If Faith be a
�16
purely spiritual movement, which cleaves to Goodness and
Truth for its own sake, and without regard to selfish interests,
it is hard to say in what part of the three gospels it is found.
In the mind of Jesus all actions seem to stand in the closest
relation to the thoughts of punishment or reward on a great
future day.
To lose one’s soul means, to be sentenced when
that day shall come : cutting off a sin means, escaping muti
lated from a future hell.
In a religion practically moulded
on these discourses, calculation of what we shall hereafter
get by present obedience inheres as a primary essence.
The
only faith which Jesus extols, is, faith to work miracles, and
faith that he is Messiah and can work them.
frowned down and sighed over as unbelief.
Inquiry is
Power to forgive
sin is claimed by him; and, when this is reproved as impious
in a human teacher, the claim is marvellously justified by
identifying forgiveness with cure of bodily disease.
Add to
this the grant of miraculous powers to the Seventy, and a
delegation of power to forgive is made out at which Pro
testants may well shudder.
In another place (Luke vii. 4, 5)
Jesus declares forgiveness of sin to be earned by personal
affection to himself; but I am bound to add that, on special
*
grounds, I do not believe the account.
* The narrative in Luke vii. 37—50 seems to be an inaccurate
duplicate of that in Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3, John xii. 3; which
nearly agree as to time and place—viz., it was in Bethany, a little
before the last Passover. Matthew and Mark say, it was in the house
of Simon the leper : Luke says, of Simon the Pharisee. John calls
the woman Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and of Martha:
Luke says, a woman notorious for sin. I will here remark, that
discussion on the behaviour of Jesus to women of ill fame, which is
called “ delicate,” “ beautiful,” “ characteristic,” &c., appeal’s to me
wholly without basis of fact. Those who allow no historical cha
�17
Luke has in some parts added softer touches to Jesus, and
gives us two fine parables which it is astonishing that Matthew
and Mark omit, while they retail so many that are monoto
nous : yet even in Luke I seek in vain for anything calculated
to implant in the heart a sense of freedom ; to excite willing
service; or to cherish spiritual desire, gratitude and tranquil
In fact, Luke
love, careless of other reward than love itself.
is sometimes harsher than Matthew. Thus, in vi. 20, “ Blessed
be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye
that hunger now, for ye shall be filled.
But woe unto
.
.
you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation.
unto you that are full; for ye shall hunger.
Woe
Woe unto you
that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep.”
So indiscri
minate and thoughtless-are devotees, that such doctrine meets
with the same theoretic glorification as the essentially different
version of Matthew: “ Blessed are the poor in spirit.
.
.
Blessed are ye who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
If Matthew be correct and Luke’ wrong, Luke has foisted
upon Jesus curses against rich and mirthful men, in contrast
racter to the discourses in John will not quote John iv. 16—19, nor
John viii. 1—11, against this remark: and nothing remains but Luke
vii. 37—50. The fair fame of Mary Magdalene has been blasted by
believing this story in Luke, and then identifying her with the
woman.
I will add that many who must know seem to forget, that no
Greek philosopher—neither an Anaxagoras nor a Zeno, to say
nothing of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca—would ever
have felt crude or unjust severity towards a woman’s faults. If
English sentiment sometimes appear harsh against women who have
made a trade of themselves, is it not because sins which are gainful
to the sinner are more inveterate and more contagious than sins
which imf'Oterish him ?
B
�18
to the blessings on poverty and weeping: but if the curses
came from the lips of Jesus, Luke gives the opposite clauses
justly; in which case Matthew has improved monkish into
spiritual sentiment.
It would be a hard task to prove Luke’s
version out of harmony with the constant doctrines of Jesus.
To borrow Calvinistic phraseology, and (if my memory serves
me) the very words of a Pauline spiritualist: “ The three
gospels may be read in the churches till doomsday, without
converting a single soul.”
The spiritual side of Christianity,
inherited from the Hebrew psalmists, not from Jesus, was
diffused beyond Judaea, first by the Jewish synagogues, next
by the school of Paul, to whom the school of Jesus was in
fixed opposition, preaching works and the law, while Paul
preached the Spirit and faith. “ Though I give all my goods
to feed the poor,” says Paul, “ and give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, I am nothing.”
How vast the contrast
here to the doctrine of Jesus: “ Every one that hath forsaken
houses, oi’ brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,
or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hun
dredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.”
To make ascetic
sacrifices for the honour of Jesus was indeed a surpassing
merit in his eyes, unless the most important discourses, even
in these three gospels, extravagantly belie him.
I am unable
to discover on what just ground the opinion stands that the
character of Jesus is less harsh, and his precepts less sourly
austere than those of John the Baptist.
Little as we are told
of the latter (all of which is honourable), the two must have
had close similarities.
Let it be remembered that Apollos is
spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as “ instructed in the
�19
way of the Lord, and fervent in spirit, and teaching diligently
the things of the Lord,” while he “ knew only the baptism of
John.”
So also Paul falls in with “certain disciples” at
Ephesus, who pass as Christians ; yet he presently discovers
that they also know only John’s baptism.
It seems there
fore evident, that the two schools had nothing essential to
divide them, and were intimately alike.
When, on the other
hand, the sharp opposition of the Pauline doctrine to that of
James and the church of Jesus at Jerusalem is duly estimated,
some may think that certain words put into the mouth of
John the Baptist will become less untrue if changed as
follows: “ I indeed and Jesus baptize you with water unto
repentance and poverty ; but Paul shall baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Be that as it may—give as little
weight as you please to Paul’s strong points—press as heavily
as you will on his weak side, out of which came the worst
part of Calvinism—the fact remains, that Jesus did not teach
Christianity to the Gentiles, or declare them admissible to
his church without observing Mosaism; and that to the Jews
themselves he preached merely severe precepts, ethical or
monkish, with a minimum of what can be called Gospel;—
precepts, on which a religious order might be founded, but
totally unsuitable for a world-wide religion.
When people calmly tell me that Jesus first established
the brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the nullity of
ceremonies; that he overthrew the narrowness of Judaism;
that he found a national, but left a universal religion; found
a narrow-minded ceremonial, and originated a spiritual prin
ciple, I can do nothing but reply that every one of these
b
2
�2Q
statements is groundless and contrary to fact,
What his
disciples never understood him to teach, he certainly did not
teach effectually.
It is childish to reply that the fault lay in
the stupidity of the twelve Apostles.
speak as plainly as Paul did ?
What! could not Jesus
Surely, the more stupid the
hearer, the more plainly the teacher is bound to speak.
If
Jesus had so spoken, never could want of spirituality in the
hearer have made the words unintelligible.
Did only the
spiritual understand Paul when he proclaimed the overthrow
of ceremonies ?
Could the most stupid of mortals have failed
to understand Jesus also, if he had avowed that the Levitical
ordinances were a nullity and Gentiles the religious equals of
Jews ?
I may seem to insult men’s intellect by pressing these
questions; but do not they rather insult our intellect ?
For
they would have us believe Jesus to have originated doctrines
which are the very opposite of all that his actual hearers and
authorized expounders established as his, before there was
time for his teaching to fade from their memory, and to be
modified by novelties supervening.
I have called the primitive church of Jerusalem the only
direct product of Jesus.
Do I deny that Jesus bore any part
at all in setting up the creed known in Europe as Christian -
ism ?
I wish I could wholly deny it.
Gladly would I relieve
his memory of all responsibility for dogmas, whence proceed
far more darkness and weakness of mind, confusion, bitterness,
and untractable •enmities, than his moral teaching can ever
dispel; dogmas which as effectually break up good men into
hostile sects, with fixed walls of partition between them, as
ever did the ceremonialism which he is falsely imagined to
�21
have destroyed.
But, hard as it is to know how much of the
gospels is historical, I suppose that no one for three centuries
at least has doubted that Jesus avowed himself to be Messiah,
at first privately, at last ostentatiously; and was put to death
for the avowal.
ground.
If so much be historical, we are on firm
There is then no room for transcendental philoso
phies and imaginative theories, as to what authority and
honour Jesus was claiming.
The Jews of that day familiarly
understood that Messiah was to be a Prince from Heaven, who
should rule and judge on earth.
As to the great outlines of
his character and power, manifestly there was no dispute.
If
the popular notions on this subject were wrong, the first busi
ness with Jesus must have been to set them right.
But he
never discourses against them, nor shows alarm lest he be
thought to claim supernatural dignity and lordship: nor
could his riding triumphantly on the ass, amid shouts of
“ Hosanna to the Son of David! ” have been intended to dis
courage the belief that he was to exercise temporal as well as
spiritual royalty.
The learned and the vulgar were in full
agreement that Messiah was to be a supreme Prince and
Teacher to Israel, Judge and Lord of all nations: but the
rulers regarded it as impious, criminal, and treasonable to
aspire to this dignity w’hile unable to exhibit some miraculous
credentials. The fixed belief concerning Messiah was gathered,
not only from our canonical prophets, but also from the book
called “ The Wisdom of Solomon ” (whichwvas in the Greek
Bible of Paul and other Hellenist Jews), and still more vividly
from the book of Enoch, which Jude and Peter quote rever
entially, and Jude ascribes to the prophet Enoch, the seventh
�22
from Adam.
With the discovery of that book early in this
century a new era for the criticism of Christianity ought to
have begun; for it is evidently the most direct fountain of
the Messianic creed.
The book of Mormon does not stand
alone as a manifest fiction which had power to generate a
new religion; the book of Enoch is a like marvellous exhibi
tion of human credulity.
A recent German critic has given
the following summary of its principal contents
It not
only comprizes the scattered allusions of the Old Testament
in one grand picture of unspeakable bliss, unalloyed virtue,
and unlimited knowledge: it represents the Messiah as both
King and Judge of the world, who has the decision over
everything on earth and in heaven.
He is the Son of Man
who possesses righteousness; since the God of all spirits
has elected him, and since he has conquered all by righteous
ness in eternity.
He is also the Son of God, the Elected one,
the Prince of Righteousness.
which knows all secret things.
is poured out upon him.
He is gifted with that wisdom
The Spirit in all its fulness
His glory lasts to all eternity.
He
shares the throne of God’s majesty: kings and princes will
worship him, and will invoke his mercy.”*
So much from
the book of Enoch ; which undoubtedly was widely believed
among the contemporaries of Jesus.
How much of the self
glorifying language put into the mouth of Jesus was actually
uttered by him it is impossible to know. There is always
room for the opinion that only later credulity ascribed this
* I quote from a summary of the book of Enoch by the German
theologian Kalisch, given in Bishop Colenso’s Appendix to his 4th
volume on the Pentateuch.
�23
and that to him—that (for instance) he did not really speak
the parable about the sheep and goats, representing himself
as the Supreme Judge who awards heaven or hell to every
human soul.
But it remains, that this parable distinctly
shows the nature of the dignity which Jesus was supposed to '
claim in calling himself Son of Man ; and, even if we arbi- trarily pare away from his discourses this and other details
in defereflce to Unitarian surmise, we still cannot get rid of
what pervades the whole narrative, that Jesus from the
beginning adopted a tone of superhuman authority and
obtrusion of his own personal greatness, with the title “ Son
of Man,” allusive both to Daniel and to the book of Enoch.
According to Daniel, one like unto a Son of Man will come in
the clouds of heaven to receive eternal dominion over all
nations.
It is impossible to doubt, that, in the mind of those
to whom Jesus spoke, the character of Messiah implied an
overshadowing supremacy, a high leadership over Israel, and
hereby over the Gentiles, who were to come and sit at Israel’s
feet: a religious and, as it were, princely pre-eminence, which
only one mortal could receive, who by it was raised im
measurably above all others.
If he did not intend to claim
this, it was obviously his first duty to disclaim it, and to warn
all against false, dangerous, or foolish conceptions of Messiah ;
to protest that Messiah was only a teacher, not a prince, not
a divine lawgiver, not a supreme judge sitting on the throne
of God and disposing of men’s eternal destinies.
Nay, why
claim the title Messiah at all, if it could only suggest false
hood ?
Since he sedulously fostered the belief that he was
Messiah j without attempting to define the term) or guide the
�2<
public mind, he could only be understood, and must have
wished to be understood, to present himself as Messiah in the
popular, notorious sense. If he was really this, honour him as
such.
If his claim was delusive, he cannot be held guiltless.
Every high post has its own besetting sin, which must be
conquered by him who is to earn any admiration.
A finance
minister, who pilfers the treasury, can never be honoured as
a hero, whatever the merits of his public measures. 'A states
man or prince, entrusted with the supreme executive power,
ruins his claims to veneration if he use that power violently
to overthrow the laws.
Such as is the crime of a statesman
who usurps a despotism, sttch is the guilt of a religious
teacher who usurps lordship over the taught and aggrandizes
himself.
It is a bottomless gulf of demerit, swallowing up all
possible merit, and making silence concerning him our kindest
course, if only his panegyrists allow us to be silent.
A
teacher who exalts himself into our Lord and Saviour and
Judge, leaves to his hearers no reasonable choice between
two extremes of conduct.
him.
Whoso is not with him is against
For we must either submit frankly to his claims, and
acknowledge ourselves little children—abhor the idea of
criticizing him or his precepts, and in short become morally
annihilated in his presence—or, on the opposite, we cannot
help seeing him to have fallen into something worse than
ignominy.
I digress to remark, that a teacher supposed by us to be
the infallible arbiter of our eternity would detain our minds
for ever in a puerile state if lie taught dogmatically, not to
say imperiously.
If he aimed to elicit our own powers of
�25
judgment, and not to crush, us into submissive imbecility, the
method which Socrates carried to an extreme appears alone
suited to the object; namely, to refrain from expressing his
own decisions, but lay before the hearers the material of
thought half-prepared, and claim of them to combine it into
some conclusion themselves.
In fact, this is fundamentally
the mode in which the Supremely Wise, who inhabits this
infinite world, trains our minds and souls.
His greatness does
not oppress our faculties, because it is ever silent from with
out.
Displaying before us abundantly the materials of judg
ment, he elicits our powers ; never commanding us to become
little children, but always inviting our minds to grow up into,
manhood.
But, if there were also an opposite side of teaching-
healthful to us—if it were well to start from dogmas guaran
teed to us from heaven, which it is impiety to canvas—then
the matter of first necessity would be, that the uttered decrees
to which we are to submit should be free from all enigma, all
extravagance of hyperbole, all parable, dark allusion, and hard
metaphor, all apparent self-contrariety ; and, moreover, that,
we should have no uncertainty what were the teacher’s precise
words, no mere mutilated reports and inconsistent duplicates,
but a reliable genuine copy of every utterance on which there
is to be no criticism.
To sum up, I will say: Nothing can be
less suited to minister the Spirit and train the powers of the
human soul, than to be subject to a superhuman dictation of
truth; and nothing could be more unlike a divine law of the
letter, than the incoherent, hyperbolic, enigmatic, inconsistent
fragments of discourses given to us unauthoritatively as teach
ings of Jesus.
�26
But I return to my main subject.
I have shown what
conclusions seem inevitable, so soon as we cease to believe
that Jesus is the celestial Prince Messiah of the book of
Enoch, popularly expected in his day.
To lay stress on
his possession of this or that gentle and beautiful virtue
is quite away from the purpose.
Let it be allowed that
Luke has rightly added this and that soft touch to the
Let it be granted that the
picture in Matthew and Mark.
nobler as well as the baser side of the Jerusalem church
came direct from Jesus himself.
Whether any of the actual
virtues of European Christians have been kindled from fires
which really burnt in Jesus, it appears to me impossible to
know.
The heart of Paul gushed with the tenderest and
warmest love, and he believed Christ to be its source.
But
the Christ whom he loved to glorify was not the Christ of our
books, which did not yet exist; nor a Christ reported to him
by the Apostles, to whom he studiously refused to listen ; but
the Christ whom he made out in the Messianic Psalms, in
parts of Isaiah, in the apocryphal book called Wisdom, and
perhaps also in the book of Enoch.
With such sources of
meditation and information open, the personal and bodily
existence of Jesus was thought superfluous by a numbei' of
Christians considerable enough to earn denunciations in the
epistles of John.
A great and good man, Theodore Parker,
tells me that'it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. I reply,
that, though to invent a Jesus was undoubtedly difficult, to
colour a Jesus was very easy.
The colouring drawn from a
Buffering Messiah was superimposed on Jesus by the perpetual
meditations of the churches, which, after he had disappeared,
�27
sought the Scriptures diligently,
not
to discover whether
Jesus was Messiah, which was already an axiom, but to dis
cover what, and what sort of a person, Messiah was.
Ac
cording as the inquirers studied more in one or in another
book, the conception of Messiah came out different; and here
we have an obvious explanation of the varieties of portrait in
different gospels. The first disciples, who thus by prophetical
*
studies supplemented the dry outlines which alone could be
communicated by the actual hearers of Jesus, would naturally
affix to him many traits not strictly human, nor laudable
except on the theory of his superhuman character.
Never
theless, in a church exalted by moral enthusiasm and self
sacrifice, in which the highest spirits were truly devoted to
practical holiness, it is to be expected that whatever is most
beautiful and tender, pure and good, in the traits of character
which in Isaiah or elsewhere were believed to belong to
Messiah, would be eagerly appropriated to Jesus, as they
evidently were by Paul.
Some of these would be likely to
tinge often-repeated narratives; so that, although none could
invent the outline portrait of Jesus, no difficulty appears in
the way of a theory, that the moral sentiment of the church
has cast a soft halo over a character perhaps rather stem and
ambitious, than discriminating, wise, or tender.
* To my personal knowledge, this is the systematic practice of
Pauline Christians in the present day. They read of Jesus in the
Psalms, ih the Prophets, in the “ types” of Leviticus, in the Song of
Solomon, in the ProVerbs,—anywhere, in short,—with iiiore zeal and
pleasure than in the three gospels. A free instinct guides them to
feed on less stubborn material.
�28
We cannot recover lost history. Into the narratives and dis
courses of Jesus so much of legendary error has crept that we
may write or wrangle about him for ever : Paul is a palpable
and positive certainty.
In what single moral or religious
quality Jesus was superior to Paul, I find myself unable to say.
Is it really a duty incumbent on each of us to decide such
questions ? . Why must the task of awarding the palm of
spiritual greatness among men be foisted into religion ?
It is a fact on the surface of history, that Paul, more than
any one else, overthrew ceremonialism.
Hereby he founded
a religion more expansive than that of Isaiah, and, in his
fond belief, expansive as the human race, as the children of
God.
He was not the first Jew ta propound the nullity of
ceremonies.
If time allowed, that topic might admit in
structive amplification.
The controversy against ceremonies
was inevitable, and, with or without him, must have been
fought out.
What he effected, let us thankfully record; but
.God does not allow us to owe our souls to any one man, as
though he were a fountain of life.
It is an evil thing to call
ourselves a man’s followers, to express devotion to him, and
blazon forth his name.
Every teacher is largely the product
of his age: whatever light and truth he imparts, the glory
of it is due to the Father of Light alone, from whom cometh
down every good and perfect gift.
Any glory for it would
be inexpressibly painful to a true-hearted prophet; I mean,
for instance, to one true-hearted as Paul.
He had no wish
to be called Master, Master.
He could not bear to hear any
one say, “ I am of Paul.”
“ Who then is Paul, and who
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye have believed ?”
What!
�29
when a man believes himself to be the channel by which it has
pleased the Unseen Lord to pour out some portion of hidden
truth for the feeding of hungry souls, can such a one bear to
be praised and thanked for his ministrations ?
Nay, in pro
portion as he knows himself to speak God’s truth by the
impulse of God’s spirit, in the same proportion he feels his
own personality to be annihilated, and he breathes out an
intense desire that God in him may be glorified, but the man
be forgotten.
I say then, let not us thwart and counteract
such yearnings of the simple-hearted instructor.
himself further on this matter.
Hear Paul
“ Let no man glory in men;
for all things are yours : whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,
or the world or life or death, or things present or things to
come—all are yours.”
He means that the collective children
of God are the end, for whom God has provided teachers as
tools and instruments.
But this is not all.
In proportion as
the teachers are elevated, the taught become unable to judge
of their relative rank in honour. Pauf therefore forbad the.
attempt, and deprecated praise.
“ With me,” he continues,
“ it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or
of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not my own self, but he
that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before
the time, until the Lord come ; who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of hearts; and then shall every man have (his own)
praise of God.”
What else did he mean to say but: Think
not to distribute awards among those to whom you look up.
To graduate the claims of equals and inferiors is generally
more than a sufficient task.
Leave God to pass his awards
�80
on. those who are spiritually above you; who possibly, like
Paul, may receive your praise as painful, and be wholly
unconcerned at your blame.
The glorifying of religious
teachers has hitherto never borne any fruit but canonizations
and deifications, “voluntary humility and worshipping of
messengers,” vain competitions and rival sects ; stagnation in
the letter, quenching of the Spirit.
�
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
A discourse against hero-making in religion, delivered in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, April 24th, 1864
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Printed by request, with Enlargements. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: To M.D. Conway with the writer's kind regards.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5196
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), 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
Hero-Worship
Jesus Christ
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d9f0b3eb1475134183109c7b8cb67f68.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mSEQqNBHbepAC8JZB2G5nh-AWlL3JcOzg4b1hFHrYJ0-L04-Pv-ulRrHzh%7EbVnh2MbfVJoMIONItiXa0bxwhzwZqPoo6fwMN9po8WeqrUR4jO0UkDWXlcgqDMS7jKhhnRAEvDTgHF7C%7EKIBC%7Et4cC5TgRDrelKUT20Z0QbPKuXvTDI0a6CzAaAXv7jWfMSqmz03KTFznp6irjqYC9wL4k8pK9-DfjROvto-wlkSanWYG1Mh9fKKpNARU2prEdnhvIQFHI%7E8DXzdTgGI6V2p8iGZqmOtDTt2ljdQpoZgdOcgrOOQV0p7ANLzxm0F26NGHMduCVs9VlEd39%7EZ%7EDAYfNw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ba0542bbc7e267e04661ff39962f5693
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A Hundred Years
of Education
Controversy
JOSEPH
McCABE
AUTHOR OF “THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAR EDUCATION,*’
ETC., ETC.
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1907
�ZTbe Secular Education ^League,
19, BUCKINGHAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.
Hon. Treasurer: H. S. Leon, Esq., J.P.. Bletchley Park, Bucks.
Secretary: H. Snell.
Bankers: London Joint Stock Bank, Limited.
The Secular Education League has been formed in order to bring
before the country and His Majesty’s Government what is regarded
by a rapidly-increasing number of people as the only permanent,
just, and satisfactory solution of the religious difficulty in national
education—viz., that all State-paid education should be confined to
secular subjects. It aims at binding together in one effective
organisation all who favour the “Secular Solution” of the Educa
tion problem, without reference to any other convictions—political,
social, or religious—that they may entertain.
In view of the Education Bill which is announced for next year,
the Executive Committee and General Council of the League
earnestly invite all who are persuaded of the justice and advisability
of Secular Education to enrol themselves upon its list of members.
The minimum subscription is One Shilling per annum, and it is
important that the League should have the support of all who
adhere to its principles.
The League has already nearly 1,000 members, including, in
addition to many Members of Parliament and well-known public
men, about 250 clergy and ministers of all denominations ; and it
appeals for help to enable it to carry on its work.
PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH SECULAR EDUCATION.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SECULAR EDUCATION : its History
and Results. By Joseph McCabe. 6d., by post yd.
«
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOL: A Question of Ethics. With special
reference to the coming Education Bill. By J. Allanson Picton,
M.A. 6d., by post 8d.
NATIONAL EDUCATION AND THE SECULAR SOLUTION.
By A. M. Scott, id., by post i|d.
SECULAR SCHOOLS.
post 2^d.
By the Rev. S. D. Headlam.
THE CASE FOR SECULAR EDUCATION.
id., by post i|d.
THE INEVITABLE IN EDUCATION.
by post i|d.
2d., by
By H. Snell.
By R. Roberts,
Any of the above publications will be supplied by
Messrs. Watts & Co.
id.,
�2.
KI
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION
CONTROVERSY
The lamentable conflict in regard to religious teaching in
our elementary schools is conceived by many to be an acute
crisis that wise and just statesmanship may presently
remove. Painful as it is to all citizens that the important
work of our schools should, even for a decade, be hampered
so grievously, there is a wide hope that some Minister of
Education will yet adjust the balance between the claims of
the religious bodies, or that their leaders will come to a
prudent compromise. Hence, though there is a growing
inclination to favour the secular solution, large numbers of
people still refuse to look on it as inevitable. Their memory
ranges back, at the most, as far as 1870, and they feel that the
time has not yet come to despair of finding a satisfactory
adjustment of religious claims.
History is the memory of nations. Citizens and states
men are as strictly bound to scan its records in the ordering
of great national issues as they are to consult their personal
experience in the conduct of private affairs. And the
moment one turns to the history of this education controversy
one feels that the hope of finding any stable compromise
sinks perilously close to zero. For one hundred years
the same controversy has raged in England. For one
hundred years the representatives of Anglicanism and
Nonconformity have sought in vain for a satisfactory
adjustment of their claims. For one hundred years educa
tionists and statesmen have been harassed and impeded in
their work by this interminable dispute about religious
education in the schools ; and we are to-day not one inch
nearer to a settlement of it than our grandfathers were in 1807.
This, surely, is a circumstance to be taken into serious
account in the actual controversy about the schools.
3
�4
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Just one hundred years ago, in the year 1807, Mr.
Whitbread, member for Bedford, introduced an educational
measure into the House of Commons. Social writers like
Adam Smith (1776) had long urged that it was the
Government’s duty, and would be to the nation’s advantage,
to set up a national school-system. A prominent clergyman
(Malthus, in 1798) described the condition of things in this
country as “a national disgrace.” Another, Sydney Smithy
at the beginning of the century, declared that “ there was no
Protestant country in the world where the education of the
poor was so grossly and so infamously neglected as in
England.” Three centuries after the Reformation and the
invention of printing only one in twenty of the population
could read and write. There were, of course, schools in the
country. Thousands of grammar schools, poor schools,
dames’ schools, and Sunday schools were in existence; but
their work was ridiculously meagre and ineffective. Mr.
Whitbread’s Bill proposed, therefore, that local authorities
should have power to set up and maintain schools wherever
they were needed.
Into the details of the Bill we need not inquire, as it never
became law. It passed the Commons, but was rejected
contemptuously by the Lords. The Lord Chancellor (Eldon)
and the Archbishop of Canterbury denounced it as a peril to
their respective orders. It was, in fact, openly acknowledged
that the Bill was allowed to pass the Commons only on the
understanding that it would be demolished in the Lords.
It is important to realise that, though there were at that
time other formidable impediments to the education of the
people, the chances of the Bill were imperilled by just the
same controversy that we wage to-day. There was an
aristocratic objection to the education of the workers-—Sir S.
Romilly wrote in his diary that most of the Commoners even
“ thought it expedient that the people should be kept in
ignorance ”—but the chief difficulty was religious. It was
regarded as the thin end of the wedge of secular action, and
was mainly opposed on that account. The Archbishop of
Canterbury denounced it roundly as derogatory to the
authority of the Church.
The truth was that—many will learn with astonishment—
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 5
the same three parties held the educational field in 1807 that
we find waging their endless war in it to-day. The most
powerful party, the Churchmen, claimed full denominational
teaching in the schools; the Nonconformists and many
neutral politicians thought—precisely as their grandchildren
think—that simple Bible lessons were the ideal ; and the
followers of Adam Smith (men like Robert Owen, a great
educationist) pleaded for purely secular instruction. It was
a golden age of educational reformers, though England was
in so backward a condition. Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi,
and Herbart had stirred Europe with their ideas. In
Manchester a little group of social students, including
Coleridge and the great chemist Dalton, discussed them.
One of the group was the Quaker Joseph Lancaster, a man of
deep religious and philanthropic feeling. He founded a
system of elementary schools for the poor (known after 1814
as “The British and Foreign School Society”), and when,
says Mr. Holman, the wealthy found that “ children could be
taught next to nothing for next to nothing,” he secured
considerable support. Another of the Manchester group,
Robert Owen, set up in Scotland a large school on purely
secular principles, and it soon became one of the wonders of
Europe. Foreign Governments sent officials to study it.
The father of Queen Victoria was one of its greatest admirers.
Thus undenominationalists and secular educationists were
both in the field by 1804 ; and the third party quickly made
its appearance. A Mrs. Trimmer discovered—as so many
Mrs. Trimmers do in our day—that the Lancastrian schools
were heretical, and she induced an Anglican clergyman,
Dr. Bell, to take the field with a scheme of denominational
schools in 1805. Churchmen gathered at once under the
new banner, while the Nonconformists rallied round
Lancaster ; and the country, just one hundred years ago, was
ringing with what flippant writers called “ the conflict of Bel(l)
and the Dragon,” or what the historian must call the first
act in the drama (or tragedy) of our educational controversy.
Two generations have passed away, but the same battle rages
round our schools, the same war-cries resound, the same
plausible suggestions are thrust on us, and there is the same
utter lack of any means of compromise ; except that now we
�6
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
have the plain experience of a hundred years to teach us how
impossible all idea of compromise is.
The succeeding acts in the drama are in substance but a
repetition of the first. The scene changes marvellously as
the last traces of feudalism are swept away : the actors pass
behind the wings, and new ones come on. But the issue
remains the same, and the obstacles remain. The limits of
this essay would not suffice to set out the whole story in
detail, and I must be content to dwell on a few of the chief
stages of it. The struggle between the Denominationalists
and Undenominationalists was carried on vigorously and
unceasingly.
In 1811 Dr. Bell’s supporters founded the
“ National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor
in the Doctrines of the Established Church,” in opposition to
the “ Royal Lancastrian Institution ” (which became the
“British and Foreign Schools Society ” in 1814). In both
cases the instruction given was of the poorest conceivable
type. Dr. Bell recommended a barn as a good structure for a
school, and insisted that the children of the workers should
not be taught “ beyond their station.” In both sets of schools
the monitorial system (the teaching of children by children), a
pernicious system, was adopted. They fell incalculably short
of Owen’s splendid school at New Lanark, where one found
the finest methods then known and a curriculum of equal
breadth to that of the modern Council school. By the year
1818 there was still only one in seventeen of the population
of England in school, and the coarseness and viciousness of
the peasantry and factory-workers were terrible.
At this point Lord Brougham (then Mr. Brougham) and
other politicians took up the cause of national education once
more. There had been a State system of schools in Prussia
since 1794, in Holland since 1814, and in France since the
rule of Napoleon. In the American States education was far
advanced, and we had ourselves set up an excellent system
in Scotland in 1803, and voted £23,000 for the Protestant
schools in Ireland in the very year that Whitbread’s Bill was
rejected. The condition of the country was scandalous, and
men like Brougham pleaded that it was time wealthy
England did something to remove the gross illiteracy of its
people. In 1816 Brougham secured an inquiry into the
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 7
educational state of London. In the comparatively small
London of that time it was found that 120,000 children had no
schooling- whatever. They played in the streets—streets and
courts of a foulness inconceivable to us to-day, for London
and Paris were, until fifty years ago, inferior to ancient Rome
or Babylon in sanitation—until their ninth year, and then
they entered the army of illiterate workers, with stunted
minds. Brougham then, in 1818, had a Select Committee
appointed to deal with educational charities. He had a
shrewd idea that, if these endowments were equitably and
economically managed, we could set up a system of schools
without calling on the national Exchequer.
How that scheme was defeated, and educational endow
ments are to this day diverted from that instruction of the
poor for which they were intended, it is not within the limits
of this essay to consider. But in 1820 Brougham introduced
a general educational measure into Parliament, and this was
wrecked on the rock of the religious difficulty. In view of
the imperfect municipal life of the time the proposals of the
Bill were not without merit. The magistrates and the local
clergy were to act in conjunction in building schools
wherever they were needed, and the funds were to come partly
from local, partly from national resources. It was a fair begin
ning of a national scheme. But Brougham soon found that one
yawning gulf lay across the line of progress, after all scruples
about national economy and the danger of educating the
workers had been removed. This was the now familiar
pitfail of compromise as to religious instruction. Brougham
met the Churchmen by giving the Anglican minister almost
absolute control over the schoolmaster. He could fix his
salary, arrange or modify his secular curriculum, and
examine the poor teacher when he willed. But Brougham
sought then to conciliate the Nonconformists by excluding all
denominational teaching from the curriculum. Simple Bible
lessons, the ever-ancient and ever-new device, were expected
to satisfy all the sects, and the Lord’s Prayer was the only
element of ritual to be admitted. For the sequel we have
only to recall our recent experience, and remember that
history repeats itself. Neither religious party was satisfied ;
neither would abate its claims to any practicable extent. The
�8
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Bill had to be withdrawn, and for another thirteen years we
continued to bear what Malthus had called our “ national
disgrace ” because our clergy could not find a compromise in
regard to their conflicting claims.
I do not mean that the disgrace was removed in 1833, but
that year witnessed the first modest beginning of national
action in regard to the schools. It will be remembered that
1832 had seen the passing of the great Reform Bill. Enor
mous expectations had been aroused in the workers of the
country, and it was under pressure of a more or less serious
danger of civil war that Parliament was at length reformed
and the franchise extended. The whole hope of social
reform in the country now centred on the reformed House of
Commons, but the hope was quickly converted into disap
pointment as far as education was concerned. Under pressure
of Mr. Roebuck and others, Lord John Russell was induced
in 1833 to Pass an annual grant for educational purposes of
,£20,000. In that same year the small State of Prussia granted
.£600,000 for its schools. But the niggardliness of the grant
was not the worst feature. Dreading the religious feeling in
the country, the Government decided to hand over the money
each year to the two rival societies of voluntary schools. Not
only did the Journal of Education warmly protest at the time,
but experts are now agreed that this distribution utterly
prevented any increase of educational work and augmented
religious rivalry. As the grant was given on a basis of
funds already provided by the societies, the more wealthy
Church-society got the lion’s share. Of £600,000 granted in
the next seventeen years, the Church schools got £475,000.
A body of educational reformers had by this time formed
themselves into a Central Society of Education, and pressed
unceasingly for national action. But the Bishop of London
and other prelates denounced the Society, and for six years
more thwarted its action. By the year 1839 more than half
the children of the country were still utterly illiterate, and the
majority of the remainder received only a pretence of educa
tion. Dean Alford was moved to write in that year : “ There
is no record of any people on earth so highly civilised, so
abounding in arts and comforts, and so grossly and generally
ignorant, as the English.” There was, indeed, a minority of
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 9
liberal and distinguished Anglican clergy who deplored the
situation—men like Whately, Hook, Stanley, and Kingsley;
but the overwhelming majority of the clergy of all sects
were obstinate in their respective claims. A few words on
the situation at this date (1839) from the two leading
historians of the subject will make it clear that I do not
exaggerate the injury done to education by the religious
controversy. Mr. Holman says, in his English National
Education (in the “Victorian Era Series”) : “This continued
impotence of Parliament to provide a national remedy for
what every single member of both Houses admitted to be a
national disgrace and danger is probably one of the most
striking features in the whole of its history. The only thing
that kept the Government from making the mass of the
people human was the determination of some to keep them
from being made anything less than divine.” And the only
other English writer of distinction on English education in
the nineteenth century, Mr. Adams, says: “The interdict
against a united and national system came from the moral
teachers of the people, and was pronounced necessary in
the interests of religion.” Even liberal Churchmen like
F. D. Maurice would admit no compromise. Any children,
he said, ought to be admitted to the Church schools (now
receiving ,£20,000 a year from national funds), but they must
submit to Church teaching.
Two observations on the situation at this period are not
without interest in view of our actual controversy. In the
first place, we must note that it is the very sincerity and
devotedness to their doctrines of the clergy that raised the
most formidable obstacle to the progress of education. How
ever much one may dissent from their doctrines and differ
from their estimate of the value to mankind of those doctrines,
one may respect their zeal in the interest of what they deem
to be of great importance. In the earlier years of the educa
tion controversy one can understand how they could lose
sight of the general civic interest under the stress of their
religious zeal. But it is surely time that their modern
successors realised the error of thus mixing up civic and
ecclesiastical ideals. We look back on a stretch of history in
which that mixture has wrought terrible mischief to the civic
�IO
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
ideal. The interminable wrangle has shown us that no
satisfactory adjustment of their conflicting claims is possible ;
and that the civic interest must be studied on a purely civic
basis, and the religious interest confined to religious teachers
in the religious atmosphere of the church or chapel.
The second observation I would make is that there has
been a remarkable change since those days in the character of
the instruction given in elementary schools. Some politi
cians still speak of the “ religious atmosphere ” in the
denominational school, and maintain that it is not a mere
question whether we shall transfer a few religious lessons
from the school to the church. The use of this phrase is very
largely an empty tradition of the earlier school. Up to the
middle of the century the whole curriculum was pervaded
with religious ideas. When we listen to-day to the claim
that the Anglican or Roman Catholic school has a general
permeation of religious feeling, we wonder how it is possible
to find this religious atmosphere in the long hours that are
filled with lessons on arithmetic, geography, grammar, and
such subjects. There is, of course, no religious element
whatever in these lessons to-day (and they form four-fifths of
the whole curriculum of the denominational school),1 but
there was fifty and more years ago. Manuals of arithmetic
and geography are still to be found that show a real
“ religious atmosphere,” and Mr. Holman gives many details
in his interesting history. Arithmetical problems were
founded largely on the Old Testament, and geography
centred on Palestine much as a medieval map would have
done. Now that these lessons have become purely secular,
and religious instruction is confined to a few prayers and
hymns and half-hour lessons, no very great change will be
involved in transferring them to the proper home of religious
cultivation.
However, let us return to the historical study. Statistics
showed that whereas in Prussia one in six of the population
attended school, in Switzerland one in seven, and in Holland
one in nine, in wealthy England the proportion was one in
1 The present writer was educated in a denominational school, was after
wards co-manager of a denominational school, and later rector of a denomina
tional college.
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY n
fourteen. Clearly the voluntary societies were not dis
charging-the function of educating the nation. Educationists
redoubled their pressure. They obtained an increase of the
annual grant from ,£20,000 to £"30,000—not a formidable
matter, Brougham pleasantly observed to the Lords, seeing
that they were that year voting £70,000 for the building of
royal stables—and they at last secured a beginning of
governmental action in the work of education. One of the
most pressing needs in the country was for the efficient
training of the teachers. Even in the Lancastrian body six
months’ training was thought amply sufficient for an
elementary-school teacher. Indeed, what was given in the
great bulk of the schools of the country would not be admitted
by any modern expert to be “ education ” at all in any real
sense. The teachers were miserably inefficient; and when
we learn that their average income was only about £22 a
year we can imagine what type of people they were. The
Government therefore proposed to set up a Normal School
(training college) at Kneller Hall.
They were at once
confronted by the religious difficulty, and their scheme
foundered once more on it. They proposed to pay only the
teachers of secular subjects in the training college, and leave
the students of each denomination free to bring in ministers
of their respective bodies for religious lessons. Once more
the conflicting interests of the Churches wrecked the scheme,
and it was years before there was any effective training of
teachers in the country.
But Lord John Russell triumphed over clerical opposition
in one important respect, and made a beginning of national
action. He formed a Committee of the Privy Council on
Education, and this slender institution was destined to grow
in time into our modern Education Department. But what
storms of religious opposition it had to face in its early
months I The Bishops of London and Chichester led the
vast majority of the clergy in a violent assault upon this
intrusion, as they called it, of the State on the Church’s
domain. There were Churchmen, like the Bishop of Durham,
who saw how gravely national interests were being thwarted,
and were willing to compromise. But the vast majority of
the clergy were vehemently opposed to State action.
�12 A HUNDRED
YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Nonconformists proclaimed the new Committee to be “a
secular tyranny, ” while Churchmen denounced it as a menace
to the Establishment. The religious war of 1906 was tame
ness itself compared to the war on the new education
authority, slight as it was, in 1839. The bishops and the
lords temporal actually walked in procession from the House
to Buckingham Palace—a unique incident, I think, in the
annals of that dignified body—and begged Queen Victoria to
abolish the Committee. The young Queen answered them
with a truer dignity than their own. She told them that she
had sanctioned the Government’s proposals from a deep and
well-considered sense of duty to her people, and the Lords
went away disappointed.
The controversy went on for some time with great vigour,
and in fact it was only moderated by another of those fatal
concessions to the clergy that hindered the real progress of
education. By a more or less secret arrangement the
Anglican clergy were granted control over the inspectors of
schools who were appointed under the new authority. It was
an abdication of its functions that would be listened to with
amazement if it were proposed in our time, and it was an
unjust arrangement. The religious lessons given in the
(undenominational) schools of the British and Foreign
Society were controlled by Church inspectors, and the
irritation and rivalry were greatly increased. The new
Committee fell so far under the dictation of the archbishops
that in 1840 it passed a minute directing that “ their lordships
were of opinion that no plan of education ought to be
encouraged in which intellectual instruction was not subor
dinated to the regulation of the thoughts and habits of the
children by the doctrines and precepts of revealed religion.”
This unjust preponderance stirred the Nonconformists to
continuous action, while expert educationists tell us that
elementary education steadily deteriorated. The passing of
the Factory Acts was supposed to have secured some measure
of instruction for the children of the factory-workers. In
point of fact the Act was flagrantly scouted. Children of
tender years were still worked for twelve hours a day, and
the education provided for them was farcical. The lodge
keeper, or the stoker’s wife, would gather them in some dark
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 13
shed—often in the coal-house—and laboriously teach them to
identify the letters of the alphabet. The country was over
run with poor widows, crippled workers, and all kinds of
impoverished people who earned a few shillings a week
by “teaching.” The Central Education Society fought
desperately for some improvement, and in 1843 two important
efforts were made. Both were wrecked on the perennial
religious difficulty. The first was a Bill for the effective
instruction of factory children. They were very largely of
Nonconformist parentage, yet the Bill unluckily gave higher
control to the Anglicans—who had wrecked every measure
that did not do so—and the Dissenters naturally resented it.
They had now become sufficiently powerful to oppose such
measures with effect, and they forced the withdrawal of the
Bill. This triumph brought home to them the fact that the
extension of the franchise had enormously increased their
political power, and this deepened the long political struggle
over the schools, and added the further complication of our civic
and political life with the conflicting and irreconcilable claims
of the clergy. The situation became worse than ever. Let
me express it impersonally in the estimate given by Mr.
Holman, the impartial historian of the subject.
The
Dissenters, he says, “ now fought for their own hand in the
same way as the Church party did, and combined with the
latter and others to resist the exercise of control by the State
authorities ; and thus they became real obstructionists to
national progress in education.” The Congregationalists
alone deserve a partial exemption from this heavy censure.
They at least refused to accept State aid, and enjoined their
members to support their own denominational schools. The
Roman Catholics were in the same logical position until a
few years ago.
The second effort of the reformers in 1843 was to introduce
a Bill, in the name of Mr. Joseph Hume, for purely secular
and moral education, but it was counted out. The reformers,
however, manfully continued their work, and gradually won
some of the great Dissenters to their view. In 1847 they
founded in Lancashire—always honourably placed in the
history of education—a league for the furtherance of their
aims. The famous Corn-law orators, Cobden and John
�i4
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
Bright, lent their support to it. The radicals of the south
joined forces with it, and it gradually attained considerable
power. From a “Lancashire Association” it became a
National Public Schools Association.” There seemed a
prospect at last of convincing the country of the impractica
bility of balancing religious claims in regard to the
elementary schools, and rescuing the instruction of the
people from this harassing association with theology.
In 1850 the League decided to test their strength. The
minister of South Place (London) Chapel, Mr. W. J. Fox, a
brilliant speaker on social reforms and member of Parliament
for Oldham, introduced a comprehensive measure into the
House. The inspectors were to report on the deficiency of
schools in particular districts, and an efficient provision for
universal education was to be made out of the local rates.
Denominational schools were not to be superseded, but would
in future only be paid for the secular instruction they
imparted. On the other hand, the new Government schools,
which were to give free education, should be controlled in
the matter of giving or omitting undenominational instruction
by a kind of local option. The Bill projected a vast advance
in the field of elementary education, but it was resented by
both religious parties, and was heavily defeated on the
second reading. The National Association—supported as it
was by Dissenters like Cobden, Fox, Milner Gibson, and
W. E. Forster—was fiercely attacked, and denounced as
irreligious. They had put before the country, members said
in the House, a choice between Heaven or Hell, God or the
Devil. So for the sixth time a fair and promising scheme of
national improvement was shattered on the rock of the
religious difficulty.
The various acts in the drama of our educational history
are, in fact, so similar in essence, so closely parallel to the
act we are taking part in to-day, that one moves rapidly on to
the end of the century. Education remained in a state of
partial paralysis. Mr. Fox had read to the House a manifesto
issued by a large body of London working men, in which
they complained pathetically of this paralysis. It concluded :
“ The controversy has waxed hotter and more furious; our little
ones have been forgotten in the fray, and their golden moments
�A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY 15
have been allowed to run irrevocably to waste.” It needs
little reflection to convince one that this was no exaggeration.
The member of schools in England at the time is no test
whatever of the educational work done. The vast majority
were ridiculously inefficient. Teachers were given an absurd
modicum of training, and inspectors were given no training
whatever until 1857. The greater part of the machinery was
rusty and antiquated, and the salaries were too slender to
attract competent men. Anyone who reads Mr. Kay’s
comparison of England with the continental countries in
1850 will be amazed at the appalling statements of this great
expert. As late as i860 it was stated in a Government
report that out of the two and a-half million children in the
country only one and a-half million were at school ; and of
these 800,000 were found in flagrantly inefficient schools,
under teachers who themselves reached no decent standard of
education. London was far below the level of any large
Roman town of fifteen centuries earlier. In fact, few children
of the Roman towns had been without elementary education.
Yet every measure for the betterment of the situation was
met with the same resistance. Mr. Forster’s Bill for the
education of the poor was rejected in 1867, and the storm
that raged about his great Bill of 1870, when the Board
schools were founded, is too well known to enlarge upon.
Forster found that two-fifths of our children between the
ages of six and ten, and one-third between the ages of ten
and twelve, had no education whatever ; that, in other words,
one and a-half million of our children were still untouched
by the influence of the teacher, such as it was. No wonder
that he wrote bitterly to Kingsley : “ I wish parsons, Church
and other, would all remember as much as you do that
children are growing into savages while they are trying to
prevent one another from helping.”
The rest of the story needs no telling. The familiar
device of giving “ simple Bible lessons ” was again dignified
with the position of a great political expedient, and thirty
seven years of hard experience have again proved its futility.
Surely it is time that we all, clergy and laity, recognised this
plain fact of its uselessness ? Mr. Birrell rightly disavowed
any claim to originality in bringing it forward in 1906. It
�16
A HUNDRED YEARS OF EDUCATION CONTROVERSY
goes back to the time of his grandfather. It was CowperTempleism in 1870. It was Russellism in 1850, and
Durhamism in 1840, and Broughamism in 1820, and
Lancasterism in 1807. If is discredited by as prolonged and
explicit a political experience as was ever given to a
suggested compromise. It is as bitterly and powerfully
assailed to-day as it was in 1807. As long as it is retained,
it holds out a prospect of fresh wrangling with every swing of
the political pendulum.
The object of this essay is to inform those who fancy
that the giving of “simple Bible lessons” is a new
and imperfectly-tried device how completely it has
proved its impotence. And no other compromise is even
proposed to us. Happily the lesson is being read more
candidly to-day. The modern Secular Education League
has the support of distinguished Roman Catholics and many
clergy of the Anglican and Dissenting Churches. They
believe that they can sufficiently tend their religious interests
in their chapels, and they plead that we no longer hamper
our highest civic ideals and embarrass our political issues with
religious differences. We cannot call back on to our planet
the millions who have passed through England in the
nineteenth century without ever having their finer powers
developed ; the millions who have gone down into the
darkness with stunted souls, after a life of heavy drudgery
and the coarsest surroundings. But we can unite in the
framing of a unified and thoroughly effective system for
training the body, mind, and character of the child, and
we may leave the clergy to give the training in their own
doctrines in their own institutions.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, 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
A hundred years of education controversy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McCabe, Joseph [1867-1955]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Advertisement for the Secular Education League and its publications (published by Watts), inside front cover, i.e. p.[2].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1906
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N447
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
Religion
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 (A hundred years of education controversy), 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
Education
NSS
Religious Education-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c993c8bbbbcfbc4d90e57fae6a67589b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SBV%7E1J%7EwYhN2oKe5ZDmc8jylrAy%7EollOqN-0ghPw6n2%7E9RHFQKYmldzHzc0-XcX00%7EeBN2AImdeGPY4pJx2p%7EAL-GLFvJQtcwnIGjxPURlBLWfx98V79HS4dnk2qqFt1nJ5LwD-27JdKzyvSB-Fopx0U9wGQotmd%7EH7%7E3cq2SZ4f1bKrmXQVneSSgpjbkzuXvpE4y8CnK%7EffBUri3kRcol5LqcVtFgajR8M564LyinG3zuynR7cSDc7iTOvyTrx0ng7w0n07Ku%7EMDfLYjzA3GloTnkvoNo9iIsJW3pp6CrpZl25bxETsZaZUAFx3kWBHRklMfT0kx4liiXMzbhRl2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e1cb573d846e9a7d1978fa21c1d70aa5
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
�This Cheap Edition of “A Modern Zoroas-
trian ” is also published in cloth, price One
Shilling.
Copies of the original larger type edition,
in cloth,
Shillings net.
bound
can be supplied at Two
�A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
BY
S. LAING,
AUTHOR OF “MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN THOUGHT,” “PROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE/’
“human
origins’*
Revised and brought up to date by JOSEPH MeCABE
[issued for
the rationalist press association, limited]
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
1904
�I
�PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
From some of the criticisms on the first edition of this work I fear
that the distinction I endeavoured to draw between the use of the term
“ polarity ” in the inorganic and in the spiritual worlds has not been
made sufficiently clear. I stated in the Introduction “ That, while the
principle of polarity pervades both worlds, I am far from assuming that
the laws under which it acts are identical; and that virtue and vice,
pain and pleasure, are products of the same mathematical laws as
regulate the attractions and repulsions of molecules and atoms.” But
this warning has apparently been overlooked by some readers, who have
assumed that, instead of analogy, I meant identity, and that it was a
mistake to use the same word “ polarity ” for phenomena so essentially
distinct as those of the material and the spiritual worlds.
Thus my “guide, philosopher, and friend,” Professor Huxley, for
whose authority I have the highest respect, observed in a recent article
that he had long ago acquired a habit, if he came across the word
“ polarity ” applied to anything but magnetism and electricity, of throwing
down the book and reading no farther. I must confess that I felt a
little disconcerted when I read this passage; but I was soon consoled,
for, a month or two afterwards, I came across another passage in the
same Review, which said : “ However revolting may be the accumulation
of misery at the negative pole of Society, in contrast with that of
monstrous wealth at the positive pole, this state of things must abide
and grow continuously worse, as long as Istar (the dual Goddess of the
Babylonians) holds her way unchecked.”
Surely, I thought, here is a case in which the Professor must have
thrown down the Review when he came to these words : but when I
reached the end I found that it was not the Review, but the pen, which
must have been thrown down, for the article is signed “ T. Huxley.”
Can there be a more conclusive proof that there are a vast variety of
facts outside of magnetism and electricity, connected by an underlying
idea, which inevitably suggests analogy to them, and which can be most
conveniently expressed by the word “ polarity ” ?
Words, after all, are
�6
PREFACE
only coins to facilitate the interchange of ideas, and the best word is
that which serves the purpose most clearly and concisely, Thus, instead
of using a waggon load of copper, or the verbiage of a conveyancer’s
deed, to express the ideas comprised in such words as “theism,”
“ pantheism,” or “ agnosticism,” we coin them for general use, as Huxley
did the word “agnosticism,” in order to convey our meaning.
Polarity is such a word. It sums up what Emerson says in his
Essay on Compensation: “ Polarity, or action and reaction, we meet
in every part of Nature—in darkness and light; in the ebb and flow
of waters; in male and female; in the inspiration and expiration of
plants and animals; in the undulations of fluids and of sounds ; in the
centripetal and centrifugal gravity; in electricity, galvanism, and
chemical affinity. Superinduce Magnetism at one end of a needle,
the opposite Magnetism takes place at the other end. If the South
attracts, the North repels. An inevitable dualism besets nature, so that
each thing is a half, and suggests another to make it whole—as spirit,
matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective, objective; in, out,
upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.”
These, by whatever name we like to call them, are facts and not
fancies, and facts which enter largely into all questions, whether of
science, philosophy, religion, or practical policy. Every one who wishes
to keep at all abreast with modern culture ought to have some general
knowledge of the ideas and principles which underlie them, and which
are embraced in the comprehensive word “polarity.” My object in
this book has been to assist the reader who is not a specialist in arriving
at some general understanding of the subjects treated of, and, I may
hope, in awakening such an interest in them as may induce him to
prosecute further researches. If I succeed in this, my object will have
been attained.
S. Laing.
�PREFACE
The reception given to my former work, on Modern Science and
Modern Thought, has induced me to write this further one. I refer
not so much to the reviews of professional critics, though as a rule
nothing could be more courteous and candid, but rather to the letters I
have received from readers of various age, sex, and condition, saying
that I had assisted them in understanding much interesting matter
which had previously been a sealed book to them.
If I am good for anything, it is for a certain faculty of lucid con
densation, and I have thought that I might apply this to some of the
less-known branches of modern science, such as the new chemistry
and physiology, as well as, in my first work, to the more familiar subjects
of astronomy and geology; while at the same time I might extend it to
some of the more obvious problems of religion, morals, metaphysics,
and practical life, which force themselves, more and more every day, on
the attention of intelligent thinkers.
As in the former work the scientific speculations were linked
together by the leading idea of the universality of law, so, in this,
unity is given to them by the all-pervading principle of polarity, which
manifests itself everywhere as the fundamental condition of the
material and spiritual universe.
For the scientific portion of the work I am indebted to the most
approved authorities, such as Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Professor
Cooke’s volume on the New Chemistry in the International Scientific
Series. For the religious and philosophical speculations I am myself
responsible; for, although I have derived the greatest possible pleasure
and profit from Herbert Spencer’s writings, I had arrived at my
principal conclusions independently before I had read any of his works.
I can only hope that I may have succeeded in presenting a good many
abstruse questions in a popular form, intelligible to the average mind of
ordinary readers, and calculated, if it teaches nothing else, to teach
them a practical philosophy which inculcates tolerance and charity,
and assists them in finding
Sermons in stones and good in everything.
S. Laing.
�CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
Introductory
PAGE
Experiment with magnet—Principle of polarity—Applies universally—Analogies
in spiritual world—Zoroastrian religion—Changes in modern environment—
Require corresponding changes in religions and philosophies .
.
.
11
CHAPTER II.
Polarity in Matter—Molecules and Atoms
Matter consists of molecules—Nature of molecules—Laws of their action in gases
—Law of Avogadro—Molecules composed of atoms—Atoms and electrons—
Proved by composition of water—Combinations of atoms—Elementary sub
stances—Qualities of matter depend on atoms—Dimensions and velocities of
molecules and atoms—These are ascertained facts, not theories
.
. 14
CHAPTER III.
Ether
Ether proved by light—Light-waves—Elasticity of ether—Its universal diffusion
—Influences molecules and atoms—Is influenced by them—Successive orders
of the infinitely small—Illustrated by the differential and integral calculus—
Explanation of this calculus—Theory of vortex rings—Theory of electrons . 20
CHAPTER IV.
Energy
Energy of motion and of position—Energy can be transformed, not created or
destroyed—Notcreated by free will—Conservation of mechanical power—Con
vertibility of heat and work—Nature of heat—The steam-engine—Different
forms of energy—Gravity—Molecular energy—Chemical energy—DynamiteChemical affinities—Electricity—Produced by friction—By the voltaic battery—
Electric currents—Arc light—Induction—Magnetism—The magnetic needle—
The electric telegraph—The telephone—Dynamo-electric engine—Accumulator 26
CHAPTER V.
Polarity in Matter
Ultimate elements of universe—Built up by polarity—Experiment with magnet—
Chemical affinity—Atomic poles—Alkalies and acids—Quantivalence—Atom
icity _ Isomerism—Chemical stability — Thermo-chemistry — Definition of
atoms—All matte: built up by polar forces
.
.
■
.
-39
CHAPTER VI.
Polarity
in
Life
Contrast of living and dead—Eating and being eaten—Trace matter upwards and
life downwards—Colloids—Cells—Protoplasm—Monera—Composition of pro
toplasm—Essential qualities of life—Nutrition and sensation—MotionReproduction—Spontaneous generation—Organic compounds—Polar condi
.
•
•
.
.
•
•
•
-44
tions of life
�CONTENTS
9
CHAPTER VII.
Primitive Polarities—Plant and Animal
PAGE
Contrast in developed life-Plants producers, animals consumers-Differences
disappear insimple forms-Zoophytes-Protista-Nummulites-Corals-Fungi
—Lichens_ Insectivorous plants—’Geological succession Primary period,
Aims and Ferns—Secondary period, Gymnosperms—Tertiary and recent.
Angiosperms — Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons—Parallel evolution of
animal life—Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish—Secondary, reptiles Ter
tiary and recent, mammals
.
•
*
•
•
• 51
CHAPTER VIII.
Primitive Polarities—Polarity of Sex
Sexual generation—Base of ancient cosmogonies—Propagation non-sexual m
simpler forms—Amoeba and cells—Germs and buds Anemones Worms
Spores—Origin of sex—Ovary and male organ—Hermaphrodites—Partheno
genesis—Bees and insects—-Man and woman—Characters of each sex—Woman s
position—Improved by civilisation-Christianity the feminine pole—Mono
gamy the law of nature—Tone respecting women test of character—Women in
literature—In society—Attraction and repulsion of sexes Like attracts unlike
_ Ideal marriage—Woman’s rights and modern legislation .
.
• .55
CHAPTER IX.
Primitive Polarities—Heredity and Variation
Heredity in simple forms of life—In more complex organisms—Pangenesis—-Varie' ties how produced—Fixed by law of survival of the fittest—Dr. Temple s view
_ Examples : triton, axolotl—Variations in individuals and species Lizards
into birds—Ringed snakes—Echidna .
61
CHAPTER X.
The Knowable
and
Unknowable—Brain and Thought
Basis of knowledge—Perception—Constitution of brain—White and grey matter
_ Average size and weight of brains—European, negro, and ape—Mechanism
of perception—Sensory and motor nerves—Separate areas of brain—Sensory
and motor centres—Abnormal states of brain—Hypnotism—Somnambulism—
'Prance_ Thought-reading—Spiritualism—Reflex action—Ideas, how formed
_ Number and space—Creation unknowable—Conceptions based on percep
tions—Metaphysics—-Descartes, Kant, Berkeley—-Anthropomorphism—Laws
65
of nature
CHAPTER XI.
Religions
and
Philosophies
Religions “ working hypotheses ”—Newman’s illative sense—Origin of religions—
Ghosts and spirits—Fetishes—Nature-worship—Solar myths—Planets—Evo
lution of nature-worship—Polytheism, pantheism, and theism—Evolution of
monotheism in the Old Testament—Evolution of morality—Natural law and
miracle—Evidence for miracles—Insufficiency of evidence—Absence ot intelli
gent design—-Agnosticism—Origin of evil—Can only be explained by polarity
_ Optimism and pessimism—Jesus, the Christian Ormuzd Christianity
without miracles
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
^4
CHAPTER XII.
Christianity and Morals
Christianity based on morals—Origin of morality Traced in Judaism—Origi
nates in evolution—Instance of murder—Freedom of will—Will suspended in
certain states of brain—Hypnotism—-Mechanical. theory Pre-established
harmony—Human and animal conscience—Analysis of will—Explained by
polarity—Practical conclusion ..•••••
90
�IO
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XIII.
Zoroastrianism
Zoroaster an historical person—The Parsees—Iranian branch of Aryan family PAGE
—Zoroaster a religious reformer—Scene at Balkh—Conversion of Vishtasp—
Doctrines of the “ excellent religion”—Monotheism—Polarity—Dr. Haug’s
description Ormuzd and Ahriman—Anquetil du Perron—Approximation
to modern thought—Absence of miracles—Code of morals—Its comprehen
siveness—And liberality—Special rites—Fire-worship—Disposal of dead—
Practical results—The Parsees of Bombay—Their probity, enterprise, respect
for women—Zeal for education—Philanthropy and public spirit—Statistics—
Death and birth rates .
.
.
.
.
,
t
.96
CHAPTER XIV.
Forms of Worship
Byron’s lines—-Carnegie’s description—Parsee nature-worship—English Sunday
—The sermon—Appeals to reason misplaced—Music better than words—The •
Mass—Zoroastrianism brings religion into daily life—Sanitation—Zoroastrian
prayer—Religion of the Future—Sermons in stones and good in everything . 106
CHAPTER XV.
Practical Polarities
Fable of the shield—Progress and conservatism—English and French colonisa
tion—Law-abidingness—Irish land question—True conservative legislation—
Ultra-conservatism—Law and education—Patriotism—Jingoism and paro
chialism—True statesmanship—Free trade and protection—Capital and labour
—Egoism and altruism—Socialism and laissez faire—Contracts—Rights and
duties of landlords—George’s theory—State interference—Railways—Post
Office—Telegraphs—National defence—Concluding remarks •
.
. 109
�A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN
Chapter I.
INTRODUCTORY
Experiment with magnet—Principle of polarity
—Applies universally—Analogies in spiritual
world — Zoroastrian religion — Changes in
modern environment—Require corresponding
changes in religions and philosophies.
Scatter a heap of iron filings on a plate
of glass; bring near it a magnet, and tap
the glass gently, and you will see the
filings arrange themselves in regular
forms.
If one pole only of the magnet is
brought near the glass, the filings arrange
themselves in lines radiating from that
pole.
Next, lay the bar-magnet on the glass
so that the filings are influenced by both
poles; they will arrange themselves into
a series of regular curves.
In other words, the Chaos of a con
fused heap of inert matter has become
a Cosmos of harmonious arrangement
assuming definite form in obedience to
manifestation of the more general prin
ciple of polarity, by which energy, when
it passes from the passive or neutralised
into the active state, does so under the
condition of developing opposite and
conflicting energies: no action without
reaction, no positive without a negative,
and, as we see it in the simplest form in
law.
As the old saying has it, that “every
road leads to Rome,” so this simple
experiment leads up to a principle which
underlies all existence knowable to
human faculty—that of Polarity. Why
do the iron filings arrange themselves
in regular curves? Because they are our magnets, no North Pole without a
magnetised by the influence of the larger South Pole—like ever repelling like and
The magnet, again,
magnet, and each little particle of iron attracting unlike.
is converted into a little magnet with may be considered as a special form of
two opposite poles attracting and re electricity, for, if we send an electric
current through a coil of copper wire
pelling.
What is a magnet? It is a special encircling a bar of soft iron, the bar is at
�12
INTRODUCTORY
once converted into a magnet; so that
a magnet may be considered as the
summing up, at two opposite extremities
or poles, of the attractive and repulsive
effects of electric currents circulating
round it. But this electricity is itself
subject to the law of polarity, whether
developed by chemical action in the
form of a current or electricity in motion,
or by friction in the form of statical
electricity of small quantity but high
tension. In all cases a positive implies
a negative; in all, like repels like and
attracts unlike. Conversely, as polarity
produces definite structure, so definite
structure everywhere implies polarity.
The same principle prevails not only
throughout the inorganic or world of
matter, but throughout the organic or
world of life, and specially throughout its
highest manifestations in human life and
character, and in the highest products of
its evolution, in societies, religions, and
philosophies. To show this by some
familiar and striking examples is the
main object of this book.
But here let me interpose a word of
caution. I must avoid the error which
vitiates Professor Drummond’s interesting
work on Natural Law in the Spiritual
World, of confounding analogy and
identity.
Because the principle of
polarity pervades alike the natural and
spiritual worlds, I am far from assuming
that the laws under which it acts are
identical; and that virtue and vice, pain
and pleasure, ugliness and beauty, are
products of the same mathematical
changes of sign and inverse squares or
cubes of distances as regulate the attrac
tions and repulsions of molecules and
atoms. All I say is that the same per
vading principle may be traced wherever
human thought and human knowledge
extend; that it is apparently, for some
reason unknown to us, the essential
condition of all existence within the
sphere of that thought and that know
ledge ; and that what lies beyond it is
the great unknown, behind the impene
trable veil which it is not given to
mortals to uplift. In like manner, if I
call myself “a modern Zoroastrian,” it is
not that I wish or expect to teach a new
religion or revive an old one, to see
Christian churches dedicated to Ormuzd,
or right reverend bishops exchanging
the apron and shovel-hat for the mitre
and flowing robes of the ancient Magi.
It is simply this. All religions I take to
be “ working hypotheses,” by which
successive ages and races of men try to
satisfy the aspirations and harmonise the
knowledge which in the course of evolu
tion have come to be, for the time, their
spiritual equipment. The best proof of
any religion is that it exists—i.e., that it
is part of the same evolution, and that on
the whole it works well, or is in tolerable
harmony with its environment. When
that environment changes, when loftier
views of morality prevail, when know
ledge is increased and the domain of
science everywhere extends its frontier,
religions must change with it if they
are to remain good working, and not
become unworkable and unbelievable,
hypotheses.
Now, of all the religious hypotheses
which remain workable in the present
state of human knowledge, that seems to
me the best which frankly recognises the
existence of this dual law, or law of
polarity, as the fundamental condition of
the universe, and, personifying the good
principle under the name of Ormuzd,
and the evil one under that of Ahriman,
looks with earnest but silent and un
spoken reverence on the great unknown
beyond, which may, in some way incom
prehensible to mortals, reconcile the two
opposites, and give the final victory to
the good.
“ Oh ! yet we hope that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill.”
So sings the poet of the nineteenth
century: so, if we understand his
doctrine rightly, taught the Bactnan
sage, Zoroaster, some thirty centuries
earlier.
This, and this alone, seems to me to
afford a working hypothesis which is
based on fact, can be brought into
�INTRODUCTORY
13
indestructibility of matter, the correlation
harmony with the existing environment,
and embraces, in a wider synthesis, all of forces, and the conservation of energy,
that is good in other philosophies and were unknown, or only just beginning to
be foreshadowed. As regards life,, proto
religions.
plasm was a word unheard of; scientific
When I talk of our new environment,
biology, zoology, and botany were in their
it requires one who, like the author, has
infancy; and the gradual building up of
lived more than the Scriptural three-score
and ten years, and has, so to speak, one all living matter from a speck of proto
foot on the past and one on the present, plasm, through a primitive cell, was not
to realise how enormous is the change even suspected. Above all, the works
which a single generation has made in of Darwin had not been published, and
the whole spiritual surroundings of a evolution had not become the general
law of modern thought; nor had the
civilised man of the nineteenth century.
When I was a student at Cambridge, discovery of the antiquity of man, and
of his slow development upwards from
little more than fifty years ago, astronomy
was the only branch of natural science the rudest origins, shattered into frag
which could be said to be definitely ments established beliefs as to his recent
brought within the domain of natural miraculous creation.
Science and miracle have been fighting
law; and that only as regards the law
out their battle during the last fifty years
of gravity, and the motions of the
heavenly bodies, for little or nothing along the whole line, and science has
was known as to their constitution. been at every point victorious. Miracle,
Geology was just beginning the series of in the sense in which our fathers believed
conquest? by which time and the order in it, has been not only repulsed, but
and succession of life on the earth have annihilated so completely that really little
been annexed by science as completely remains but to bury the dead.
The result of these discoveries has
as space by astronomy; and theories of
cataclysms, universal deluges, and special been to make a greater change in the
recent creations of animals and man, spiritual environment of a single genera
still held their ground, and were quoted tion than would be made in their
as proofs of a universe maintained by physical environment if the glacial
period suddenly returned and buried
constant supernatural interference.
And when I say that space had. been Northern Europe under polar ice. The
annexed to science by astronomy, it was change is certainly greater in the last
really only that half of space which fifty years than it had been in the pre
extends from the standpoint of the vious five hundred, and in many respects
human senses in the direction of the greater than m the previous five thousand.
It may be sufficient to glance shortly
infinitely great. The other equally im
portant half which extends downwards at the equally great corresponding
to the infinitely small was unknown, or changes which this period has witnessed
the subject only of the vaguest conjec in the practical conditions of life and of
society.
If astronomy and geology
tures.
Chemistry was, to a great extent, an have extended the dominion of the
empirical science, and molecules and mind over space and time, steamers,
atoms were at best guesses at truth, or railways, and the electric telegraph have
rather convenient mathematical abstrac gained the mastery over them for
Commerce . and
tions with no more actual reality than practical purposes.
the symbols of the differential calculus. emigration have assumed international
The real causes and laws of heat, light, proportions, and India, Australia, and
and electricity were as little known as America are nearer to us, and connected
those of molecular action and of chemi with us by closer ties, than Scotland was
I to England in my schoolboy days.
cal affinity.
The great laws of the
�14
POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
Education and a cheap press have even
in a greater degree revolutionised society;
and knowledge, reaching the masses, has
carried with it power, so that democracy
and freethought are, whether for good or
evil, everywhere in the ascendant, and
old privileges and traditions are every
where decaying.
With such a great change of environ
ment it is evident that many of the old
creeds, institutions, and other organisms,
adapted to old conditions, must have
become as obsolete as a schoolboy’s
jacket would be if taken to be the
habiliment of a grown-up man. But as
a lobster which has cast its shell does
not feel at ease until it has grown a new
one, so thinking men of the present day
are driven to devise, to a great extent
each for themselves, some larger theory
which may serve them as a “working
hypothesis” with which to go through
life, and bring the ineradicable aspira
tions and emotions of their nature into
some tolerable harmony with existing facts.
To me, as one of those thinking units,
this theory, of what for want of a
better name I call “Zoroastrianism,”
has approved itself as a good working
theory, which reconciles more intellectual
and moral difficulties, and affords a
better guide in conduct and practical
life than any other; and, in a word,
enables me to reduce my own individual
Chaos into some sort of an intelligible
and ordered Cosmos. I feel moved,
therefore, to preach through the press
my little sermon upon it, for the benefit
of those whom it may concern, feeling
assured that the process of evolution, by
which
“The old order changes, giving place to new,”
can best be assisted by the honest and
unbiassed expression of the results of
individual thought and experience on
the part of any one of those units
whose aggregates form the complicated
organisms of religions and philosophies,
of societies and of humanity.
Chapter II.
POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
Matter consists of molecules—Nature of mole
cules—Laws of their action in gases—Law of
Avogadro—Molecules composed of atoms—
Atoms and electrons—Proved by composi
tion of water—Combinations of atoms—Ele
mentary substances — Qualities of matter
depend on atoms—Dimensions and velocities
of molecules and atoms—These are ascertained
facts, not theories.
If, in building a house that is to stand
when the rains fall and the winds blow,
it is requisite to go down to the solid
rock for a foundation, so much the
more is it necessary in building up a
theory to begin at the beginning and
give it a solid groundwork. Nine-tenths
of the fallacies current in the world arise
from the haste with which people rush
to conclusions on insufficient premises.
Take, for instance, any of the political
questions of the day, such as the Irish
question: how many of those who
express confident opinions, and get
angry and excited on one side or the
other, could answer any of the pre
liminary questions which are the indis
pensable conditions of any rational
judgment? How many marks would
they get for an- examination paper
which asked what was the population of
Ireland ; what proportion of that popula
' tion was agricultural; what proportion
�POLARITY IN MA TTER—MOLECULES AND A TOMS
of that agricultural population consisted
Of holders of small tenements; what was
the scale of rents compared with that
for small holdings in other countries;
how much of that rent was levied on
them for their own improvements; and
other similar questions which lie at the
root of the matter ? In how many
cases would it be found that the whole
Superstructure of their confident and
passionate theories about the Irish dificulty was based on no more solid
foundation than their like or dislike of a
particular statesman or of a particular
15
ing the same qualities and behaviour
under chemical tests as the original bar
of iron from which the filings were
taken. This carries us a long way down
towards the infinitely small, for mechani
cal division and microscopic visibility
can be carried down to magnitudes
which are of the order of nm™ <jth part of
an inch.
But this is only the first step; to
understand our molecules we must
ascertain whether they are infinitely
divisible, and whether they are con
tinuous, expanding by being spread out
thinner and thinner like gold-beaters
party?
, .
.
skin : or are they separate bodies with
I propose, therefore, to begin at the
intervals between them, like little planets
beginning, and, taking the simplest case, forming one solar system and revolving
that of dead or inorganic matter, show
in space by fixed laws ? Ancient science
bow the material universe is built up by
guessed at the former solution and
the operation of the all-pervading Jaw of
embodied it in the maxim “ that nature
polarity. What does matter consist of.
abhors a vacuum
modern science
Of molecules, and molecules are made
proves the latter.
.
up of atoms, and these (while themselves
In the first place,, bodies combine
made up of electrons) are held together
only in fixed proportions, which is a
©r parted, and built up into the various necessary consequence if they consist of
forms of the material universe, primarily
definite indivisible particles, but incon
by polar forces.
. .
ceivable if the substance of each is
Let me endeavour to make this mtelindefinitely divisible.
Thus water is
• ligible to the intelligent but. unscientific
formed in one way and one only by
reader. Suppose the Pyramid of Cheops uniting one volume or molecule of
were shown for the first time to a giant
oxygen with two of hydrogen ; and any
whose eye was on such a scale that he
excess of one or the other is.left out and
could just discern it as a separate object.
remains uncombined. But if the mole
. He might make all sorts of ingenious
cules could be divided into halves,
conjectures as to its nature, but.if micro
quarters, and so on indefinitely, there
scopes had been invented in Giant-land,
can be no reason why their union should
and he looked through one, he would
take place always in this one proportion,
find that it was built up, layer by layer,
.
.
on a regular plan and in determinate and this only.
A still more conclusive proof 1$
lines and angles, by molecules, or what
furnished by the behaviour of substances
seemed to him almost infinitely small which exist in the form of gases. If a
masses of squared stone. For pyramid
jar is filled with one gas, a second and
write crystal, and we may see by the
third gas can be poured into it as
human sense, aided by human instru
readily as into a vacuum, the. result
ments and human reason, a similar
being that the pressure on the sides of
Structure built up in the same. way by
the jar is exactly equal to the sum of
minute particles. Or, again, divide and
the separate pressures of each separate
subdivide our iron filings until we. reach
gas. This evidently means that the first
the limit .of possible mechanical division
gas does not occupy the whole space, but
discernible by the microscope, each one
that its particles are like a battalion of
remains essentially a bar of iron, as
soldiers in loose skirmishing order, with
capable of being magnetised and show
�16
POLARITY IN matter—molecules and atoms
such intervals between each unit that ai substances arises, not from one having
second and third battalion can be: more molecules in the same volume than
inarched in and placed on the same: another, but from the molecules them
ground, without disturbing the formation, selves being heavier.
If we weigh a
and with the result only of increasing the: gallon or litre of hydrogen gas, which is
intensity of the fire.
the lightest known substance, and then,
Now, gas is matter as much as solids weighing an equal volume of oxygen gas,
or liquids, and in the familiar instance of find that it is sixteen times heavier, we
water we see that it is merely a question know for certain that the molecule or
of more or less heat whether the same ultimate particle of oxygen is sixteen
matter exists as ice, water, or steam. time heavier than that of hydrogen.
The number and nature of the molecules
It is evident that in this way the mole
is not changed, only in the one case cules of all simple substances which can
they are close to one another and exist in the form of pure gas can be
solidly linked together; in the other, weighed, and their weight expressed in
further removed and free to move about terms of the unit which is generally
one another, though still held together adopted, that of the molecule of the
as a mass by their mutual attractions ; lightest known substance, hydrogen. But
and in the third, still further apart, so science, not content with this achieve
that their mutual attraction is lost, and ment, wants to know not the relative
they dart about, each with its own weight only, but the absolute dimensions,
proper motion, bombarding the surface qualities, and motions of these little
which contains them, and by the resul bodies; and whether, although they
tant of their impacts producing pressure. cannot be divided further by mechanical
In this latter and simpler form of gas means, and while retaining the qualities
the following laws are found to prevail of the substances they build up, they are
universally for all substances. Under really ultimate and indivisible particles
like conditions volumes vary directly as or themselves composites.
,the temperature and inversely as the
Chemistry and electricity give a ready •
pressure. That is to say, the pressure answer to this latter question. Molecules
which contains them remaining the are composites of still smaller bodies,
same, equal volumes of air, steam, or and to get near to the ultimate particle,
any other substance in the state of gas, we must go on to atoms. All chemical
expand into twice the volume if the changes resolve themselves into the
temperature is doubled, three times if it breaking up of molecules and re-arrange
is tripled, and so on; contracting in the ment of their constituent atoms. If the
same way if the temperature is lowered. opposite poles of a voltaic battery are
If, on the other hand, the temperature inserted in a vessel containing water,
remains constant, the volume is reduced molecules of water are broken up,
to one-half or one-third, if the pressure is bubbles of gas rise at each pole, and, if
doubled or tripled. From these laws the these are collected, the gas at the posi
further grand generalisation has been tive pole is found to be oxygen, and that
arrived at, that all substances existing at the negative pole hydrogen. Nothing
in the form of gas contain the same has been added or taken away, for the
number of molecules in the same volume. weight of the two gases evolved exactly
This, which is known as the Law of equals that of the water which has dis
Avogadro, from the Italian chemist by ;appeared. But the molecules of the
whom it was first discovered, is one 'water have been broken up, and their
of the fundamental laws of modern <constituents reappear in totally different
chemistry.
1forms, for nothing can well be more
This conclusion obviously follows from 1unlike water than each of the two gases
That it is
it, that difference of weight in different (of which it is composed.
�POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
17
composed of them can be verified by the sixteen, but eight to one. . If, therefore,
reverse experiment of mixing the two the molecule were identical with the
gases together in the same proportion of atom of oxygen, we must admit that the
two volumes of hydrogen to one of atom could be halved, which is contrary
oxygen as was produced by the decom to its definition as the ultimate indi
position of water, passing an electric visible particle of the substance oxygen.
spark through the. vessel containing the But if the oxygen molecule consists of
mixture, when, with a loud explosion, two linked atoms, O—O, and the hydro
the gases reunite, and water, is formed gen molecule equally of two, H—H, as
in precisely the same quantity as pro can be proved by other considerations,
duced the volumes of gas by its decom everything is explained by assuming that
position. Can the ultimate particles of the molecule of water consists of two
these gases be further subdivided j can atoms of hydrogen linked to one of
they, like those of water, be broken up oxygen, or H„O, and that, when this
molecule is broken up by electricity, its
and reappear in new forms ?
It has long been suspected by physi constituents resolve themselves into
cists that the atom itself is compound, atoms, which recombine so as to form
and that one simple and identical form twice as many molecules of hydrogen,
of matter is made up into the atoms of H—H, as of oxygen, O,—i.e. into two
the various elements.
Recent. expeii- volumes of hydrogen gas to one of
ments have thrown so much light on oxygen.
Taking the single hydrogen atom as
this that it is now all but demonstrated.
The new element, radium, is seen to the unit of weight as being the lightest
throw off actual particles of its sub known ponderable body, and calling this
stance. We see, as Sir O. Lodge says, weight a microcrith, or standard of the
bits chipped off the atom. A further smallest of this order of excessively small
inquiry showed that this decomposition weights, this is equivalent to saying that
of the atom is observable, in a great the weight of an oxygen atom is equal to
many other cases, as, for instance, in 16 microcriths, and, as water is composed
newly-fallen rain. Working on these of one such atom plus two of hydrogen,
data, physicists have very generally the weight of its molecule ought to be
accepted the theory that the atom is x6 + 2 = i8, which is, in fact, the exact
itself composed of a great number of still ratio in which the weight of a volume
smaller particles—how small we shall of steam, or water in the form of gas, is
see presently. The atom of hydrogen, heavier than an equal volume of
for example, is made up of a thousand hydrogen.
This key unlocks the whole secret of
of these tiny particles (called “ electrons,”
the chemical changes and combinations
because they are the particles we find in
the electric charge), while the atom of by which matter assumes all the various
mercury contains 100,000 electrons. The forms known to us in the universe.
Thus oxygen enters into a great variety
term atom must, therefore, no longer
be taken to mean something absolutely of combinations forming different sub
stances, but always in the proportion
indivisible.
It is further known that the molecule which is either 16, or some multiple of
of oxygen consists of two atoms of 16, such as 32, 48, 64. That is, either
oxygen linked together. This appears 1, 2, 3, or 4 atoms of oxygen unite with
from the fact that while the weight of other atoms to form the molecules from
oxygen, and therefore that of its mole which these other substances are made.
One atom of oxygen weighing 16
cules, is sixteen times greater than that
of an equal volume of hydrogen, and microcriths combines, as we have, seen,
therefore of hydrogen molecules, it com with two atoms of hydrogen weighing. 2,
bines with it in the proportion not of to form a molecule of water weighing
c
�i8
POLARITY IN MATTER-MOLECULES AND ATOMS
18 me.
In like manner i atom of that atoms “ are not merely helps to
oxygen, 16 me., combines with one of puzzled mathematicians, but physical
carbon, which weighs 12 me., to form a realities.”
molecule of carbonic oxide weighing 28
The researches of chemists have suc
me.; and 2 of oxygen, 32 me., with one ceeded in discovering some seventy-eight
of carbon, 12 me., to form a molecule substances which are still spoken of°as
of carbonic dioxide weighing 44 me.
elementary,” though their decomposiThe same applies to all elementary bihty is now within sight. Their atoms
substances. Thus hydrogen, two atoms differ widely in size and weight: that of
of which combine with one of oxygen mercury, for instance, being 200 times
to form water, combines one atom to heavier than that of hydrogen, and the
one with chlorine to form the molecule weights varying from 1 me. for the
of hydrochloric acid, which weighs 36.5 hydrogen atom, up to 240 for that of
me., being the united weights of one uranium. When we call them elemen
atom of chlorine, 35.5 me., and one of tary substances, we merely mean that we
hydrogen, 1 me. These, with hundreds know no means of decomposing them.
of similar instances, are the results not It is now believed that all of them are
of theories as to molecules and atoms,
compounds, which we cannot take to
but of actual facts, ascertained by in pieces, of some substratum of uniform
numerable experiments made indepen matter, and it is remarkable that the
dently by careful observers over long weight of nearly all of these elementary
periods of years, many of them dating atoms is some simple multiple of that of
back to the labours of the alchemists of hydrogen, pointing to their being all
the middle ages in pursuit of gold. The combinations of one common substratum
atomic theory is the child and not the of matter. The recent discovery of the
parent of the facts, and is indeed nothing decomposition of the atom of radium
but the summary of the vast variety of leads chemists to hope they may yet
experiments which led up to it, as reduce all to a primitive form, and that
Newton’s law of gravitation is of the facts all the atoms are so many multiples, or
known to us with regard to the attractions clusters, of electrons. They are not all
and motions of matter in the mass. But equally important to us. Of the seventy
as Newton’s law enables us to predict eight elementary substances enumerated
new facts, to calculate eclipses and the in chemical treatises, thirty to thirty-five
return of comets beforehand, and to are either known only to chemists in
compile nautical almanacks, so the new minute quantities, or exist in nature in
chemistry, based on the atomic theory, small quantities, having no very material
affords the same conclusive proof of its bearing upon man’s relation to matter.
truth by enabling us in many cases to The most important are oxygen, hydro
predict phenomena which are subse gen, nitrogen, and carbon.
Oxygen
quently verified by experiment, and to diluted by nitrogen gives us the air we
infer beforehand what combinations are breathe, combined with hydrogen the
possible, and what will be their nature.
water we drink, and with metals and
The actual existence, therefore, of other primitive bases the solid earth on
molecules and atoms is as well-ascer which we tread. Carbon again is the
tained a fact as that of cwts. and lbs., great basis of organised matter and life,
or of planets and stars, of solar systems to which it leads up by a variety of com
and nebulae. Several attempts have been plex combinations with oxygen, hydrogen,
made of late years, especially by meta and nitrogen.
physicians, to show that the atom is only
The qualities and relations of elemen
a hypothesis or convenient fiction. But tary atoms afford a subject of great
Sir A. Rucker, in his presidential address interest, but of such vast extent that
to the British Association in 1901, proved those who wish to understand it must be
�POLARITY IN MATTER—MOLECULES AND ATOMS
referred to professed works on modern
chemistry. For the present purpose it
is sufficient to say that the following
conclusions are firmly established.
All the various forms of matter are
composed of combinations of atoms which
form molecules, the molecules being
neither more nor less than very small
pieces of ordinary matter.
The qualities of this matter, or, what
is the same thing, of its molecules,
depend partly on the qualities of the
atoms, which are something quite distinct
from those of the molecules, and partly
on their mode of aggregation into mole. cules, affecting the form, size, stability,
and other attributes of the molecule.
All matter, down to the smallest atom,
has definite weight and is indestructible.
No man by taking thought can add the
millionth of a milligramme to the weight
of any substance, or make it either more
or less than the sum of the weights of its
component factors, any more than he
can add a cubit to his stature. When
Shelley sang of the cloud,
“ I change, but I cannot die,”
he enunciated a scientific axiom of the
first importance. Creation, in the sense
of making something out of nothing, is
a thing absolutely unknown and unknow
able to us. If we say we waA?.a ship or
a steam-engine, we simply mean that we
transform existing matter and existing
energies into new combinations, which
give results convenient for our purpose.
So, if we talk of making a world, our idea
really is that, if our powers and know
ledge were indefinitely increased, we
might be able, given the atoms and
energies with their laws of existence, to
put them together so as to produce the
desired results. But how the atoms and
their inherent laws got there is a question
as to which knowledge, or even con
ceivability, is impossible, for it altogether
transcends human experience.
19
Before finally taking leave of atoms it
may be well to state shortly that science,
not content with having proved their
existence and weighed them in terms of
the lightest element, the hydrogen atom,
has attempted, not without success, to
solve the more difficult problem of their
real dimensions, intervals, and velocities.
This problem has been attacked by
Clausius, Lord Kelvin, Clerk Maxwell,
and others, from various sides : from a
comparison with the wave-lengths of
light ; with the tenuity of the thinnest
films of soap-bubbles just before they
burst, and when they are presumably
reduced to a single layer of molecules;
and from the kinetic theory of gases, in
volving the dimensions, paths, and velo
cities of elastic bodies, constantly collid
ing, and by their impacts producing the
resulting pressure on the confining sur
face. All these methods involve such
refined mathematical calculations that it
is impossible to explain them popularly,
but they all lead to nearly identical
results, which involve figures so marvel
lous as to be almost incomprehensible.
For instance, a cubic centimetre of air is
calculated to contain 21 trillions of
molecules—i.e., 21 times the cube of a
million, or 21 followed by 18 ciphers;
the average distance between each mole
cule equals 95 millionths of a millimetre,
which is about 25 times smaller than the
smallest magnitude visible under a micro
scope ; the average velocity of each
molecule is 447 metres per second; and
the average number of impacts received
by each molecule in a second is 4,700
millions. When we further descend
from atoms to electrons, we deal with a
far lower order of magnitude still.
Taking an atom of hydrogen, the
smallest known, we find that the elec
trons, or small particles which com
pose it, are 100,000 times smaller still
in diameter.
�20
ETHER
Chapter III,
ETHER
Ether proved by light—Light-waves—Elasticity
of ether—Its universal diffusion—Influences
molecules and atoms—Is influenced by them
Successive orders of the infinitely small—
Illustrated by the differential and integral
calculus—Explanation of this calculus—
Theory of vortex rings—Theory of electrons.
Perhaps the best way to convey some
idea of this order of magnitudes to the
ordinary reader is to quote Lord Kelvin’s
illustration, that if we could suppose a
cubic inch of water magnified to the
size of the earth—zW, to a sphere of
24,000 miles in circumference—the
dimensions of its atoms, magnified on
the same scale, or, as he expresses it, its
degree of coarse-grainedness, would be
something between the size of rifle
bullets and cricket-balls. If we then
suppose the atom to be in its turn
magnified to the size of a building 160
feet long, 80 feet wide, and 40 feet
high, we must conceive its component
electrons to be of the size of a full-stop
as printed on this page.
Extraordinary as these dimensions are,
they are not more so than those at the
opposite extremity of the scale, where
the distance of stars and nebulae has to be
measured by the number of thousand
years their light, travelling at the rate of
186,000 miles per second, takes to reach
us. Infinitely small, however, as those
dimensions appear to our original con
ceptions derived from our natural senses,
they are certain and ascertained facts, if
not as to the precise figures, yet beyond
all doubt as to the orders of magnitude.
In dealing with them, also, we are, to a
great extent, on familiar ground. Mole
cules are nothing more nor less than
small pieces of ordinary matter; and
atoms are also matter, for they obey the
law of gravity, have definite weights,
and build up molecules as surely as
molecules build up ordinary matter, and
as squared stones build up pyramids.
But to understand the constitution of
the material universe we must go a step
further, apart from the familiar world of
sense, and deal with an all-pervading
medium, which is at the same time matter
and not matter, which lies outside the
law of gravity, and yet obeys other laws
intelligible and calculable by us; of
which it may be said we know it and we
know it not. We call it ether.
Ether is a medium assumed as a
necessary consequence from the pheno
mena of light, heat, and electricity—
primarily from those of light. Respect
ing light, two facts are known to us with
absolute certainty.
1 st. It traverses space at the rate of
186,000 miles per second.
2nd. It is propagated not by particles
actually travelling at this rate, but, like
sound through air, by the transmission of
waves.
The first fact is known from the dif
ference of time at which eclipses of
Jupiter’s satellites are seen, according as
the earth is at the point of its orbit
nearest to or farthest from Jupiter—/.<?.,
from the time light takes to traverse the
diameter of the earth’s orbit, which is
about 180 millions of miles; and this
velocity of light is confirmed by direct
experiments, as by noting the difference
of time between seeing the flash and
hearing the sound of a gun, which gives
the velocity of light compared with the
known velocity of sound.
The second fact is equally certain from
the phenomena of what are called inter
ferences, when the crest of one wave just
overtakes the hollow of a preceding one,
so that, if the two waves are of equal
�ETHER
magnitude, the oscillations exactly neu
ttftlise one another, and two lights pro
duce darkness. This is shown in a
thousand different ways, and for all the
different colours depending on different
waves into which white light is analysed
when passed through a prism. It is a
certain result of wave-motion, and of
wave-motion only, and therefore we know
without a doubt that light is propagated
by waves.
But waves imply a medium, through
which wave-forms are transmitted, for
waves are nothing but the rhythmic
motion of something which rises and
falls, or oscillates symmetrically about a
mean position of rest, slowly or quickly
according to the less or greater elasticity
of the medium. The waves which run
along a large and slack wire are. large
and slow, those along a small and tightlystretched wire are small and quick ; and
from the data we possess as to light, its
velocity of transmission, its refraction
when its waves pass from one medium
into another of different density, and
from the distance between the waves as
shown by interference, it is easy to. calcu
late the lengths and vibratory, periods of
the waves, and the elasticity of the
medium through which such waves are
transmitted.
The figures at which we arrive . are
truly extraordinary.
The dimensions
and rates of oscillations of the waves
which produce the different colours of
visible light have been measured and
calculated with the greatest accuracy,
and they are as follows :—
Dimensions of Light Waves.
Colours.
Red..........
Orange ...
Yellow ...
Green
Blue
Indigo
Violet
No. of
waves in
one inch.
No. of oscillations
in one second.
39,000
460,000,000,000,000
42,000
495,OOO,OOO, OOO,OOO
44,000
518, OOO,000,000, OOO
47,000
554,000,000,000,000
51,000
601,000,000,000,000
54,000
636,000,000,000, OOO
57,000
672,000,000,000,000
21
The elasticity of this wonderful
medium is even more extraordinary.
The rapidity with which wave-motion
is transmitted depends, other things
being equal, on the elasticity of the
medium, which is proportional to the
square of the velocity with which a. wave
travels through it. As the velocity of
the sound-wave in air is about 1,100 feet
in a second, and that of the light-wave
about 186,000 miles in the same time, it
follows that the velocity of the latter is
about a million times greater than that
of the former, and, if the density of ether
were the same as that of air, its elasticity
must be about a million million times
greater. But the elasticity is the same
thing as the power of resisting compres
sion, which, in the case of air, we know
to be about 15 pounds to the square
inch ; so that the ether, if equally dense,
would balance a pressure of .15 million
million pounds to the square inch —that
is, it would require a pressure of about
750 millions of tons to the square inch
to condense ether to the density of air.
On the other hand, its density, if any,
must be so infinitesimally small that the
earth, moving through it in its orbit, with
a velocity of 1,100 miles a minute, suffers
no perceptible retardation.
Consider what this means. Air blowing
at the rate of 100 miles an hour is a
hurricane uprooting trees and levelling
houses. If ether were as dense as air,
the resistance to the earth in passing
through it would be 600 times that, of
going dead to windward in a tropical
hurricane. But, in point of fact, there is
no sensible resistance, for the earth and
heavenly bodies move in their calculated
paths according to the law of gravity
exactly as they would do if they were
moving in a vacuum. Even the comets,
which consist of such excessively rare
matter that, when one of them got en
tangled among the satellites of Jupiter, it
did not affect their movements, are not
retarded by the ether, or so slightly that
any retardation in the case of one or two
of them is suspected rather than proved.
But, if the ether has no weight, how can
�22
ETHER
we call it material, weight being, as we the boundaries of the infinitely great we
have seen, the invariable test and know from the fact that light reaches us
measure of all matter down to the from.the remotest stars and nebulas, and
minutest atom ? And yet how can we that in this light the spectroscope enables
deny its existence when it is demon
us to detect waves propagated and
strably necessary to account for un absorbed by the very same vibrations of
doubted facts revealed to us every day the same familiar atoms at these enor
by the prism, the spectroscope, elec mous distances as at the earth’s surface.
tricity, and chemical action, and deduc Glowing hydrogen, for instance, is a
tions from these facts based on the strict principal ingredient of the sun’s atmo
laws of mathematical calculation? For sphere and of those distant suns we call
the existence of the ether is not based stars, and it affects the ether and is
only on the phenomena of light: it is an affected by it exactly in the same manner
equally necessary postulate to explain as the hydrogen burning in an ordinary
those of heat, electricity, and chemical gas-lamp.
action. We must conceive of our atoms
In the direction also of the infinitely
and molecules as forming systems and small, ether permeates the apparently
performing . their movements, not in solid structure of crystals, whose mole
vacuo, but in an all-pervading medium cules perform their limited and rigidly
of this ether, to which they impart, and definite movements in an atmosphere of
from which they receive, impulses.
it, as is shown by the fact that in sg
These impulses are excessively minute, many cases light and heat penetrate
and when they occur in irregular order through them. A whole series of re
they produce no appreciable effect; but markable phenomena arise from the
when the vibrations of the ether keep manner in which the vibrations of ether
time with those of the atoms, the multi which cause light are affected by the
tude of small effects becomes summed structure of the molecules of crystals
up into one considerable enough to pro through which they pass. In certain
duce great changes. Just so a rhythmic cases they are what is called polarised,
succession of tiny ripples may set a heavy or so affected that, while they pass freely
buoy oscillating, and the footfalls of a if the crystal is held in one direction,
regiment of soldiers marching over a they are stopped if it is turned round
suspension-bridge may make it swing through an angle of co° to its former
until it breaks down, while a confused position, so that one and the same crystal
mob could traverse it in safety. The may be alternately transparent and non
latter affords a good illustration of the transparent. It would seem as if its
way in which molecular structures may structure were like that of wood,
be broken down, and their atoms set free grained, and more easy to penetrate if
to enter into other combinations, by the cut with the grain than against it, so that,
action of heat, light, or chemical rays when a ray of light attempted to pene
beyond the visible end of the spectrum.
trate, its vibrations were resolved into
Conversely, the phenomena of the two, one with the grain which got
spectroscope all depend on the fact that through, the other against it which was
the vibrations of atoms and molecules suppressed ; and thus the emerging ray,
can propagate waves through the ether, which entered with a circular vibration,
as well as absorb ether-waves into their got out with only one rectilinear vibra
own motions, and thus give spectra dis tion parallel to the diameter which
tinguished by bright or dark lines coincided with the grain.
peculiar to each substance, by which it
Other crystals of more complicated
can be identified. Whatever ether may structure affect transmitted light in a
be, this much is certain about it: it more complex way, developing a double
pervades all space. That it extends to polarity very similar to that induced in
�ETHER
the iron filings when brought under the
influence of the two poles of the magnet.
With this polarised light the most beau
tiful coloured rings can be produced
from the waves of the different colours
into which the white light has been
analysed in passing through the crystal,
which alternately flash out and disappear
as the crystal is turned round its axis,
and which present a remarkable analogy
to the curves into which the iron filings
form themselves under the single or
double poles of the magnet. _ The importance of this will _ appear
afterwards. For the present it is suffi
cient to show that the waves of ether
which cause light really penetrate through
the molecules of crystals, but in doing so
may be affected by them.
RINGS OF POLARISED LIGHT,
UNIAXIAL CRYSTALS.
RINGS OF POLARISED LIGHT,
BIAXIAL CRYSTALS.
In dealing with these excessively small
magnitudes it may assist the reader who
has a slight acquaintance with mathe
matics, in forming some conception of
them, to refer to that refinement of calcula
tion, the differential and integral calculus.
'And even the non-mathematical reader
may find it worth while to give a little
attention in order to gain some idea of
this celebrated calculus which was the
23
key by which Newton and his successors
unlocked the mysteries of the heavens.
The first rough idea of it is gained by
considering what would happen if, in a
calculation involving hundreds of miles,
we neglected inches. Suppose we had
a block of land to measure, 300 miles
long and 200 wide 5 as there are, say,
5,000 feet in a mile, and the error from
omitting inches could not exceed a foot,
the utmost error in the measurement of
length could not exceed Tiroioo oth, and
in width 100000 0th part of the conect
amount.
In the area of 300 x 200
= 60,000 square miles, the limit of error
would, by adding or . omitting the
rectangle formed by multiplying together
these two small errors, not exceed
i7B0 0 0'<nr X ndmr = Tsooooiooinmrth
part. It is evident that the first error is
an excessively small part of the true
figure, and the second error a still more
excessively small part of the first error.
But, as we are dealing with abstract
numbers, we can just as readily conceive
our initial error to be the iHth or
10 th of an meh as one inch, and, m
fact, diminish it until it becomes an in
finitesimally small or evanescent quantity.
In doing so, however, it is evident that
we shall make the second error such a
still more infinitesimally small fraction of
the first that it may be considered as
altogether disappearing.
The first error is called a differential of
the first order and denoted by d, the
second a differential of the second order
denoted by ^2. Thus, if we call the base
of our rectangle x and its height
the
area will be xy. Let us suppose x to
receive the addition of a very small incre
ment dx, and y the corresponding incre
ment dy, what will be the corresponding
increment of the area, or d.xyl Clearly
the difference between the old area xy
and the new area (xydx) multiplied by
(y + dy). This multiplication gives:—
•x + af#
y + dy
xy +y d x
x dy -\-d x . dy
xy + xdy +y d x'+ dx .dy
�24
ETHER
The difference between this and xy is
xdyyy dx + dx . dy. But d x . dy is,
as we have seen, a differential of the
second order and may be neglected.
Therefore dxy^x dy=y dx. In like
manner dx2 = b: + dx'd-T = 2 xdx +
da.2, which last term may be neglected,
’
and d x2 — 2 x d x. In this way the
differentials of all manner of functions
and equations of symbols representing
dimensions and motions may be found.
Conversely, the wholes may be considered
as made up of an infinite number of
these infinitely small parts, and found
from them by summing up or integrating
the differentials. Thus if we had the
equation,
d xy +y d x — 2 z d z,
we know that the left-hand side is the
differential of xy, and therefore that by
integrating it we shall get xy; while the
right side is the differential of z2, which
we shall get by integrating it. The
relation expressed therefore is that
xy = z2, or, in other words, that a rec
tangle whose sides are x and y exactly
equals a square whose side is z.
The use of this device in assisting cal
culation will be apparent if we take the
case of an area bounded by a curved
line. We cannot directly calculate this
area, but we can easily tell that of a
rectangle. Now, it is evident that, if we
inscribe rectangles in this area a b c, the
more rectangles we inscribe the less will
be the error in taking their sum as equal
to the curved area. This is apparent if
we compare fig. 2 with fig. 3. Suppose
we take a point p on the curve, call
B N = and P n =y, and suppose n n to
be dx, the differentially small increment
of x, and p q = dy the corresponding
small increment of y. The area of the
rectangle p q n n = p n x n n —y d x, and
differs from the true curvilinear area
P/ n N by less than the little rectangle of
p Q x/ Q or of dx. dy. But, as we have
seen, if we push our division to the first
infinitesimal order, or make N/z and pq
differentials of x and y, dx.dy may
be neglected—/.<?., multiply the number
of rectangles indefinitely, and the sum of
their areas will differ from the true area
enclosed by the curve by an error which
is evanescent.
If, then, x and y are connected by
some fixed law, as must be the case if
the extremity of y traces out some
regular curve, the relation between them
may be expressed by an equation, which
will remain one however often it may be
differentiated or again integrated, and
whatever modifications or transfor
mations it may receive by mathematical
processes which do not alter the essential
equality of the two sides connected by
the symbol of equality =. Thus, by
differentiating and casting off as evanes
cent all differentials of a lower order
than that which we are working with, we
may arrive at forms of which we know
the integrals, and by integrating get
back to the results in ordinary numbers,
which we were in search of, but could
not attain directly.
The same thing will apply if our
symbols are more numerous, and .if they
express relations of motion as well as of
space, or, in fact, any relations which
are governed by fixed laws expressible by
equations. If I have succeeded in con
veying to the readers any idea of this
celebrated calculus, they will perceive
what an analogy it presents to the idea
of modern physical and chemical science,
that of molecules, atoms, and ether,
�ETHER
25
molecules and atoms; and the collision
forming differentials of successive orders
of billiard balls, knocked about at
of the infinitely small. It is certainly
random, to the movement of those
most remarkable that, while the former
minute bodies and the kinetic theory of
was a purely intellectual idea based on
gases. In the case of the vortex theory
mathematical abstractions, and which
the idea is given by the rings of smoke
was invented and worked as an instru which certain adroit smokers amuse
ment for solving the most intricate astro
themselves by puffing into the air. These
nomical problems for nearly two centuries,
rings float for a considerable time,
without a suspicion that it represented
retaining their circular form, and showing
any objective reality, the latter idea,
their elasticity by oscillating about it and
based on actual experiment, seems to returning to it if their form is altered,
show that differentials and integrals have
and by rebounding and vibrating ener
their real counterpart in nature, and
getically, just as two solid elastic bodies
represent fundamental facts in the con
would do if two rings come into collision.
stitution of the universe.
If we try to cut them in two, they recede
Those who are of a mystic or meta
before the knife, or bend round it, return
physical turn of mind may try to prove ing, when the external force is removed,
from this that matter and laws of matter
to their original form without the loss of
are, after all, only manifestations of one
a single particle, and preserving their
universal, all-pervading . mind ; but in
own individuality through every change
following such speculations we should
of form and of velocity.
This persis
be deserting the solid earth for cloudland,
tence of form they owe to the fact that
and passing the limit of positive know
their particles are revolving in small
ledge into the region where reflections
circles at right angles to the axis . or
of our own hopes, fears, religious feelings,
circumference of the larger circle which
and poetical sentiments form and dissolve
forms the ring; motion thus giving them
themselves against the background of the
stability, very much as in the familiar
great unknown. For the present, there
instance of the bicycle. They burst at
fore, I confine myself to pointing out
how these undoubted truths of mathe last because they are formed and rotate
in the air, which is a resisting medium ;
matical science, which have verified
but mathematical calculation shows that
themselves in the practical form of
in a perfect fluid free from all friction
enabling us to predict eclipses and con
these vortex rings would be indivisible
struct nautical almanacks, correspond with
and throw light upon the equally certain and indestructible—in other words, they
facts of this succession of infinitely small would be atoms.
The vortex theory assumes, therefore,
quantities of successive orders in the
that the universe consists of one uniform
constitution of matter.
primary substance, a fluid which fills all
An attempt has been made, based on
abstruse mathematical calculations, to space, and that what we call matter
consists of portions of this fluid which
carry our knowledge of the constitution
of matter one step further back, and have become animated with vortex
identify atoms with ether. This is motion. The innumerable atoms which
attempted by the vortex theory of Helm- form molecules, and through molecules
holz, Lord Kelvin, and Professor Tait. all the diversified forms of matter of the
material universe, are therefore simply so
It is singular how some of the ultimate
many vortex rings, each perfectly limited,
facts discovered by the refinements of
science correspond with some of the distinct, and indestructible, both as to
its form, mass, and mode of motion.
most trivial amusements.
Thus the
blowing of soap-bubbles gives the best They cannot change or disappear, nor
clue to the movement of waves of light, can they be formed spontaneously.
and through them to the dimensions of I Those of the same kind are constituted
�26
ENERGY
after the same fashion, and therefore are
endowed with the same properties.
Dr. Larmor has urged a further modi
fication of this theory. But of late years
the discovery of radio-action, or the dis
integration of the atom, has led most
physicists to conceive it as a little world
of electrons which, infinitesimal in bulk
(the electron is as much smaller than
the atom as a small speck is from a
house), make up the atom by the action
of their forces. It is believed to be
these electrons that cause the wave
movements in ether that we perceive as
heat and light, and cause the electrical
condition of the atom. The inquiry is
being pursued very assiduously just now
among physicists, and will probably
lead to a much higher comprehension of
the nature of matter.
Chapter IV.
ENERGY
Energy of motion and of position—Energy can
be transformed, not created or destroyed—•
Not created by free will—Conservation of
mechanical power—Convertibility of heat and
work—Nature of heat—The steam-engine—
Different forms of energy—Gravity—Mole
cular energy—Chemical energy—Dynamite—
Chemical affinities—Electricity—Produced by
friction—By the voltaic battery—Electric
currents—Arc light—Induction—Magnetism
—The magnetic needle—The electric tele
graph — The telephone — Dynamo-electric
engine—Accumulator.
called energy of motion, in the latter
energy of position. _ It is important to
realise this distinction clearly, for many
of the ordered and harmonious arrange
ments of the universe depend on the
polarity, or conflict with alternate vic
tories and defeats, between those two
forms of energy.
Thus, if a b is a pendulum suspended
at the point a, if we move it from its
position of rest a c to a b and hold it
there, its whole energy is that of position.
If we let it go, it swings backwards and
forwards between the positions a b and
a d, and but for the resistance of the air
and the friction at the point of suspen
sion, it would so swing for ever. But in
Those ultimate elements, however,
atoms, electrons, and ether, only give us
what may be called the dead half of the
universe, which could not exist without
the constant presence of the animating
principle of force or energy. Energy is
the term generally adopted in the lan
guage of science, for force is apt to be
associated with human effort and with
actual motion produced, while energy is
a comprehensive term, embracing what
ever produces or is capable of producing
motion. Thus, if we bend a cross-bow
the force with which it is bent may
either reappear at once in the flight of
the arrow, if we' let go the spring; or it
may remain stored up, if we fix the string thus swinging what happens ? From A b
in the notch, ready to reappear when we to a c energy of motion keeps gaining
pull the trigger. In the former case it is on energy of position, until when the
�ENERGY
pendulum reaches c it has annihilated
it Energy of position has entiiely dis
appeared, and the whole original force
expended in raising the pendulum to
AB exactly reappears in the force or
momentum of the pendulum at its
lowest point. But is this victory final ?
By no means ; energy of position, having
touched bottom, gathers, like Antaeus,
fresh vigour for the contest, and from the
position a c upwards it gains ground on
its adversary, until, when the pendulum
reaches a d, it is in its turn completely
victorious.
The same alternation between energy
of motion and of position takes place in
all rhythmical movements, such as waves,
which, whether in water, air, or ether, are
propagated, as in the case of the pen
dulum, by particles forced out of their
position of rest and oscillating between
the two energies.
Thus, if waves run along an elastic
wire A B, the particle p, which has. been
forced into the position p, oscillates
backwards and forwards between^ and
q, beginning with nothing but energy of
position at p, losing it all for energy of
motion at p, and regaining it at q. All
wave-motions, therefore—that is to say,
all sound, light, and heat—depend on
this primitive polarity.
If we have got this definition of the
two forms of energy clearly into our
heads, we shall be the better prepared
for this further generalisation— the
grandest, perhaps, in the whole range
of modern science : that energy, like
matter, is indestructible, and can only
be transformed, but never created or
annihilated.
This is at first sight a more difficult
proposition to establish in the case of
energy than in that of matter. In the
latter case we have nothing in our expe
rience that can lead us to suppose that
wc have ever created something out of
27
nothing; but in the former our first
impression undoubtedly is that we do
create force. If I throw a stone at a
bird, I have an instinctive impression
that the force which projects the stone
is the creation of my own conscious will;
that I had the choice either to throw or
not to throw ; and that, if I had decided
not to throw, the impelling force would
never have existed. But, if we. look
more closely at the matter, it. is not
really so. The chain of events is this :
the first impulse proceeds from the
visual rays, which, concentrated by the
lens of the eye on the retina, give an
image of the bird ; this sends vibrations
along the optic nerve to the brain,
setting in motion certain molecules of
that organ ; these, again, send vibrations
along other nerves to certain muscles of
the arm and hand, which contract, and
by doing so give out the energy of move
ment which throws the stone. All this
process is strictly mechanical; the eye
acts precisely like a camera obscura in
forming the image; the nerve-vibrations,
though not identical with those of the
wires of an electric telegraph, are of the
same nature, their velocity can be
measured, and their presence detected
by the galvanometer ; the energy of the
muscle is stored there by the slow com
bustion of the food we have eaten and
the oxygen of the air we have breathed.
Take any of these conditions away, and
no effort of the will can produce the
result. If the nerve is paralysed, or the
muscle, from prolonged starvation, has
no energy left, the stone will not be
thrown, however much we may desire to
kill the bird.
Again, precisely the same circle of
events takes place in numerous instances
without any intervention of this addi
tional factor of conscious will. We
breathe mechanically, the muscles of the
chest causing it to rise and fall like the
waves of the ocean, without any deli
berate intention of taking air into the
lungs and exhaling it. Nay, more: there
are instances of what was at first accom
panied by the sensation of conscious
�ENERGY
28
will, ceasing to be so when the molecular
movements had made channels for them
selves, as when a piano player, who had
learned his notes with difficulty, ends by
playing a complicated piece automati
cally. The case of animals also raises
another difficulty. Suppose a retriever
dog sees his master shoot at and miss a
hare: shall he obey the promptings of
his animal instinct and give chase, or
those of his higher moral nature which
tell him that it is wrong to do so without
the word of command? It is hard to
see how this differs from the case of a
man resisting or yielding to temptation ;
and how, if we assign conscious will to
the man, we can deny it to the dog.
Reasoning from these premises, some
philosophers have come to the conclu
sion that man and all animals are but
mechanical automata, cleverly con
structed to work in a certain way fitting
in with the equally pre-ordained course
of outward phenomena; and that the
sensation of will is merely an illusion
arising as a last refinement in the adjust
ment of the machinery. But here comes
in that principle of duality or polarity
by which a proposition may be at once
true and untrue and two contradictory
opposites exist together. No amount
of philosophical reasoning can make us
believe that we are altogether machines
and not free agents; it runs off us like
water from a duck’s back, and leaves us in
presence of the intuitive conviction that
to a great extent
Man is man and master of his fate.
If this be an illusion, why not everything
—evidence of the senses, experiment,
natural law, science, as well as morality
and religion ?
To pursue this farther would lead us
far astray into the misty realm of meta
physics, and I refer to it only as showing
that the principle of the conservation of
energy, standing as it does in apparent
contradiction to our natural impressions,
requires a fuller demonstration than the
kindred principle of the indestructibility
of matter.
In the case of ordinary mechanical
power it had been long known that the
intervention of machinery did not create
force, but only transformed it. If a
weight of i lb., a, just balances a
weight of 2 lb., b, by aid of a pulley, and
by the addition of a minute
fraction, such as a grain,
raises it i foot, it will be
invariably found that A has
descended 2 feet. In other
words, 1 lb. working through
2 feet does exactly the same
work as 2 lbs. working
through 1 foot.
And, whatever may
be the intervening machinery, the same
thing holds good, and the work put in
at one end comes out, neither more nor
less, at the other, except for a minute
loss due to friction and resistance of
air. If a force equal to 1 lb. is made,
by multiplying the intermediate machi
nery, to raise a ton a foot from the
ground, exactly as much force must have
been exerted as if the ton had been
divided into 2,240 parts of 1 lb. each,
and each part separately lifted.
But, although energy cannot be created,
at first sight it seems as if it might be
destroyed, as when the ton falls to the
ground and seems to have lost all its
energy, whether of motion or of position.
But here science steps in and shows us
that it is not destroyed, but simply trans
formed into another sort of motion, which
we call heat.
Some connection between mechanical
work and heat had long been known, as
in the familiar experiment of rubbing our
hands together to warm them; and the
practice known to most primitive races
of obtaining fire by twirling a stick
rapidly in a hole drilled in a block of
wood—a practice described by the old
Sanskrit word “ pramantha,” which
means an instrument for obtaining fire
by pressure or friction, and which, trans
lated into Greek, has been immortalised
by the legend of Prometheus. But it
was reserved for recent years, and for an
English philosopher, Dr. Joule, to give
scientific precision and generality to this
�ENERGY
29
factors which have united to form it.
idea, by actually measuring the amount
Thus, if iron is burnt in oxygen gas, the
of heat produced by a given amount of
product, oxide of iron or rust, weighs
work, and showing that they were in all
cases convertible terms—so much heat more than the original iron by just as
much as the weight of the oxygen which
for so much work, and so much work
for so much heat. He did this by has been consumed. But heat, light,
and electricity add nothing to the weight
measuring accurately by a thermometer
of a body when they are added to it, and
the heat added to a given amount of
water by the work done by a set of take nothing away when they are sub
tracted. The inference is unavoidable
paddles revolving in it, set in rapid
that heat, like light, is not ponderable
motion by a known weight descending
matter, but an energy transmitted by
through a known space. The unit of
waves of the imponderable medium know n
work being taken as that sufficient to
as ether. This is confirmed by finding
raise 1 kilogramme through 1 metre,
that, when a ray from the sun is analysed
and that of heat as that required to
by passing through a refracting. prism,
raise the temperature of 1 kilogramme
one part of the spectrum show’s light of
of water by i° Centigrade, the relation
various colours, while another gives heat.
between them, as found by a vast
number of careful experiments, is that of The hottest part of the spectrum lies in
424 to 1. That is, one unit of heat is the red and beyond it, showing that the
heat-waves are longer, and their oscilla
equal to 424 units of work.
In this, and all cases requiring scientific tions slower, than those of light. Heatprecision, it is better to use the units of waves also may be made to interfere,
the metrical system than our clumsy and to become polarised, in a manner
English standards ; but it may be suffi analogous to the phenomena exhibited
cient for the ordinary reader to take the by those of light.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that
metre, which is about 39.37 inches, as
practically a yard, and the kilogramme, heat, like light, is an energy or mode of
which is 15,432 English grains, as prac motion, transmitted by waves of an
tically equal to 2 lbs. This is sufficient imponderable ether, and that it acts on
to show the much greater energy of the the molecules and atoms of matter by
invisible forces which act at minute dis the accumulated successive impulses of
tances than that of gravity and other those waves on the molecules and atoms
forces which do appreciable mechanical which are floating in it, or rather which
work, the energy of a weight falling from are revolving in it, in definite groups and
a height of more than 1,300 feet being fixed orbits, like miniature solar systems
only sufficient to heat its own weight or starry universes. We can now see
how heat performs work, and why work
by i°.
This proof of the convertibility of can be transformed into it.
Heat performs work in two ways.
work into heat gives much greater preci
sion to our ideas respecting the real First, it expands bodies—that is, it draws
nature of heat and its kindred molecular their molecules farther apart against the
and atomic energies. Heat is clearly force of cohesion which binds them
not a material substance, for a body together or keeps them moving in definite
does not gain weight by becoming orbits at definite distances. It is as if
hotter. In the case of all ponderable it increased the velocity, and therefore
matter down to the atoms, which are the centrifugal force, of a system of
only of the size of cricket-balls compared planets, and so caused them to revolve in
to that of the earth, any combination wider orbits. The expansion of mercury
which adds matter adds weight, and the in a thermometer affords a familiar in
weight of the product exactly equals the stance of this effect of heat and the
sum of the weights of the separate; readiest measure of its amount. Secondly,
�30
ENERGY
it increases the energy of the molecular
lghting the coal, or, in other words,
motions, so that they dart about, collide,
separating its molecules more widely by
and vibrate with greater force. Thus, as heat, we enable them to exert once more
heat increases, evaporation increases
their natural affinity for oxygen, and
for molecules on the surface are pro
burn, that is re-combine into carbonic
jected with so much force as to
dioxide. The heat thus produced turns
get beyond the sphere of the cohesive
water into steam, which passes through
attraction which binds them to the
a cylinder, either into a condenser if the
system, and they dart off like comets steam js . at low pressure, or into the
into space. Finally, as heat increases,
outer air if it has been superheated and
and more and more work is done, against brought to a higher pressure than that of
the centripetal force of cohesion, most the atmosphere. The difference of the
substances, and doubtless all if we could
pressure or elasticity of the steam in the
get heat enough, are converted from boiler, and of the same steam when it is
solids into fluids, and ultimately into
condensed or liberated, is available for
gases, in which latter state the molecules doing work, and, being admitted and
have got altogether beyond the sphere of
released alternately at the two ends of
their mutual attraction, and tend to dart
the cylinder, drives a piston up and
off indefinitely in the direction of their
down, which, by means of cranks and
own proper centrifugal motions, unless shafts,. turns a wheel or does whatever
confined, in which case they dart about, work is required of it.
In doing this
collide, rebound, and exercise pressure heat disappears, being converted into
on the containing surface.
work, and the amount of heat would
Conversely, if heat expands bodies, it
exactly equal that into which the work
is given out when they contract. Thus
would be converted according to Joule’s
the enormous quantity of heat poured law, if it could all be utilised without the
out for millions of years by the sun is loss necessarily incurred by friction,
probably owing mainly to the mechanical radiation, and the still more important
force of contraction of the original cosmic absorption of latent heat required to
matter condensing about the solar convert water at boiling-point into vapour
nucleus.
of the same temperature. This latter is
Again, when gases suddenly expand not really an annihilation of the heat,
their temperature falls, which is the but its conversion into work done in
principle by which artificial ice is pro separating the molecules against the
cured, and frozen beef and mutton are force of cohesion. The whole heat,
brought from America and Australia, therefore, is transformed into work,
producing, such are the complicated rela mainly molecular work in tearing mole
tions of modern society, agricultural cules asunder, and the residue into
depression, fall of rents, and a serious mechanical work turning spindles and
aggravation of the Irish question.
driving locomotives and steamboats.
As an example of the converse pro
The intermediate machinery here,
position of the transformation of heat including the water in the boiler, is
into mechanical work, the steam-engine merely the means of applying the original
affords the aptest illustration. The energy in the particular way we desire,
original power came from the sun l he essential thing is the transformation
millions of years ago, and did work by or a certain amount of heat into work
enabling the leaves of plants to overcome by passing, in accordance with the laws
the strong mutual affinity of carbon and of heat, from a hotter to a colder body,
oxygen in the carbonic dioxide in the lhe last condition is indispensable, for
air, and store up the carbon in the plant, the nature of heat is to seek an equili
where it remained since the coal era in brium by passing from hot to cold, and
the form of energy of position. By no work can be got out of it in the
�ENERGY
reverse way.
On the contrary, work
must be expended and turned into heat
to restore the temperature which has run
down. The case is analogous to that of
water, which, if raised by evaporation or
stored up in reservoirs at a level above
the sea, can be made to turn a wheel
while it is running down; but, when it
has all run down to the sea level, can do
no more work, and can only be pumped
up again to a higher level by the expen
diture of fresh work. Owing to this
tendency of heat, we can see that,
although matter and energy are to all
appearance indestructible, the present
constitution of the universe is not
eternal. The animating energy of heat
is always tending to obliterate differences
of temperature, and bring all energy
down to one uniform dead level of a
common average, in which no further
life, work, or motion is possible. For
tunately this consummation is far off, and
for many tens or hundreds of millions of
years the inhabitants of this tiny planet
may feel fairly secure, and need not, like
the late Dr. Cumming, of millenarian
celebrity, introduce breaks in the leases
of their houses to provide against the
contingency of the world coming to an
end at an early date. Moreover, recent
physicists point out that there may be
compensating processes in nature, so that
the idea of all energy being finally trans
formed into heat must not be taken too
seriously.
Dismissing, then, to the remote future
any speculations as to the failure of this
essential element of active energy, let us
rather consider the various protean forms
in which it shows itself.
1. The energy of visible motion,
which, as we have seen, may be trans
formed into an equivalent amount of
energy of position.
2. Molecular energy, which causes the
cohesive attraction, repulsion, and other
proper motions of these minute and
invisible particles of matter.
3. Energy of heat and light, which
are transmitted by waves of the assumed
imponderable medium called ether.
3i
4. Energy of chemical action, by
which the small particles of ponderable
matter, called atoms, separate and com
bine into the various combinations of
molecules constituting visible matter, in
obedience to certain affinities, or inherent
attractions and repulsions.
5. Electrical energy, which includes
magnetism as a special instance.
All these forms of energy may exist,
as in the case of visible energy,. either as
energies of motion or of position; and
the actual constitution of the universe is
due in a great measure to the alternation
of these two energies. Thus all wave
motion, whether it be of the waves of the
sea grinding down a rocky coast, of the
air transmitting sound, or of ether trans
mitting light and heat, are instances of
energies of motion and of position, con
flicting with one another and alternately
gaining the victory. So also a pound of
gunpowder or dynamite has an immense
energy of position, which, when its atoms
are let loose from their mutual unstable
connection by heat or percussion, mani
fests itself in an enormous energy of
motion, which is more or less destructive
according to the rapidity with which the
atoms rush into new combinations.
Let us consider these different energies
a little more in detail. The energy of
visible motion is manifested principally
by the law of gravitation, under which
all matter attracts other matter directly
as the mass and inversely as the square
of the distance. The word “attract”
must not be taken literally, as the real
nature of the force is not yet clear;
many physicists think the atoms are
pushed towards each other rather than
pulled by each other. It is a universal
and uniform law of matter, and can be
traced without change or variation from
the minutest atom up to the remotest
double star. The energy of living force
might, at first sight, be considered as
another of the commonest causes of
visible motion ; but, when closely
analysed, it will be found that what
appears as such is only the result of
molecular energy of position stored up
�32
ENERGY
in the living body by chemical changes equal to a ton for each square inch of
f
during the slow combustion of food, and section, as exemplified in the tubular
s
that nothing has been added by any bridge across the Menai Straits, where
1
hypothetical vital force. The conscious space has to be allowed for the free con
s
will seems to act in those cases simply as traction and expansion of the irotl under
1
the signalman who shows a white flag changes of temperature.
'
Chemical energy, or the mutual attrac
may act on a train which has been stand
ing on the line waiting for. it.. The tions and repulsions of atoms, is even
energy which moves the train is due more powerful than that of molecules
entirely to the difference of heat, which It displays itself in their elective affinities,
has been developed by the combustion or what may be called the likes and dis
of coal, between the steam in the boiler likes, or loves and hatreds, of these
and the steam when allowed to escape ultimate particles. Perhaps the best
into the air; and this energy came illustration will be afforded by that “latest
originally from the sun, whose rays resource of civilisation,” dynamite. This
enabled the leaves.of growing plants to substance, or, to give it its scientific name,
decompose carbonic dioxide and store nitro-glycerine, is composed of molecules
up the carbon in the coal. Of this force each of which is a complex combination
of gravitation causing visible motion we of nine atoms of oxygen, five of hydrogen,
may say that it is comparatively a very three of nitrogen, and three of carbon.
weak force, which acts uniformly over all Of these, oxygen and hydrogen have a
strong affinity for one another, as is seen
distances, great or small.
Molecular energies, on the other hand, by their rushing together whenever they
act with vastly greater force, but at very get the chance and by their union form
small distances, and appear sometimes, as ing the very stable compound, water.
attractive and sometimes as repulsive Oxygen and carbon have also a very
forces. Thus solid bodies are . held strong affinity, and readily form the stable
together by a force of cohesion which is product, carbonic dioxide gas. Nitrogen,
very powerful, but acts only at . very on the other hand, is a very inert sub
small distances, as we may see if we stance; its molecule consists of two
break a piece of glass and try to mend it atoms of itself which are bound together
by pressing the broken edges together. by a strong affinity, and can only, be
We cannot draw them near enough to coaxed with difficulty into combinations
bring the molecular attraction again into with other elements, forming compounds
play and make the broken glass solid. which are, as it were, artificial structures,
But the same glass acts with repellent and very unstable. We see this in the
energy if another solid tries to penetrate air, which consists mainly of oxygen and
it, so that we can walk on a glass floor nitrogen, but not in chemical combina
without sinking into it. Heat, also, by tion, the oxygen being simply diluted by
increasing the distance between the the nitrogen, as whisky is with water,
molecules, first weakens the cohesive with the same object of diluting the too
force so that the solid becomes fluid, and powerful oxygen or too potent alcohol,
finally overcomes it altogether, so that it and enabling the air-breather or whisky
passes into the state of gas in which the drinker to take them into the system
centripetal attraction of the molecules is without burning up the tissues too rapidly.
extinguished, and they tend to recede: If nitrogen had more affinity for oxygen,
further and further from each. other■ it would combine chemically with it, and
under the centrifugal force of their ownl we should live in an atmosphere of
proper velocities. The great energy off nitrous oxide, or laughing gas.
The molecule, therefore, of mtromolecular forces will be apparent fromL
the fact that a bar of iron, in coolingr glycerine resembles a house of cards, so
io° Centigrade, contracts with a force» | nicely balanced that it will just stand,
�ENERGY
but will fall to pieces at the slightest
•oj| touch. When this is supplied by a slight
"q I percussion, the molecule falls to pieces
and is resolved into its constituent atoms,
which rush together in accordance with
their natural affinities, forming an
mi immense volume of gas, partly of water
rri in the form of steam where oxygen has
CClj combined with hydrogen, and partly of
ffiS carbonic dioxide where it has combined
with carbon, leaving the nitrogen atoms
•ol to pair off, and revert to their original
■ol form of two-atom molecules of nitrogen
<£4 gas. It is as if ill-assorted couples, who
t£$ had been united by matrimonial bonds
>St3 tied by the manoeuvres of Belgravian
:un mothers, found themselves suddenly freed
yd by a decree of divorce a vinculo matri
:'WS monii, and rushed impetuously into each
I JO other’s arms, according to the laws of
!3dJ their respective affinities.
So striking is
3fij xthe similitude that one of Goethe’s bestyui known novels, the Wahlverwandschaften,
takes its title from the human play of
sdJ these chemical reactions. The enormous
| energy developed when these atomic
>10)1 forces are let loose, and a vast volume of
asgi gas almost instantaneously created, is
aijjs J attested by the destructive force by which
the hardest rocks are shattered to pieces
and the strongest buildings overthrown.
These loves and hatreds, or, as they are
termed, chemical affinities and repulsions
of the atoms, are the principal means by
Iqsi which the material structure of the universe
gi is built up from the original elements.
,xlTj The earth, or solid crust of the planet
we inhabit, consists mainly of oxidised
jcLftdl bases, and is due to the affinity of oxygen
. ipi for silicon, calcium, aluminium, iron, and
xffd other primary elements of what are called
.
metals. This affinity enables them to
£$ui make stable compounds, which, under
-.hi the existing conditions of temperature
Umj and otherwise, hold together and are not
fe|'s| readily decomposed.
Water in like
tell manner, in all its forms of waves, seas,
lakes, rivers, clouds, and invisible vapour,
a is due to the affinity between oxygen
poiand hydrogen forming a stable comwound. Salt, again, is owing to the
huHiaffinity of chlorine for sodium, and so
flw1
33
for nearly all the various products with
which we are familiar, oxygen and nitro
gen in the air we breathe being almost
the only elements which exist in their
primary and uncombined state in any
considerable quantities, and form an
essential part of the conditions which
render our planet a habitable abode for
man and other forms of life.
We shall see presently something more
of the nature of these affinities, and the
laws by which they act; but before
entering on this branch of the subject
we must consider the remaining form in
which the one indestructible energy of
the universe manifests itself—viz., that of
electricity.
Electricity is the most subtle and the
least understood of these forms. In its
simplest form it appears as the result of
friction between dissimilar substances.
Thus, if we rub a glass rod with a piece
of silk, taking care that both are warm
and dry, we find that the glass has
acquired the property of attracting light
bodies, such as little bits of paper, or
balls of elder-pith. Other substances,
such as sealing-wax and amber, have the
same property. Pursuing our research
further, we find that this influence is
not, like that of gravity, uniform and
always acting in the same direction, but
of two kinds, equal and opposite. If
we touch the pith-ball by the excited
glass rod, it will after contact be repelled;
but if we bring the ball which has been
excited by contact with the glass within
the influence of a stick of sealing-wax
which has been excited by rubbing it
with warm dry flannel, the ball, instead
of being repelled, is attracted.
Conversely, if the pith-ball has been
first touched by excited ceiling-wax, it
will afterwards be repelled by excited
ceiling-wax and attracted by excited glass.
It is clear, therefore, that there are two
opposite electricities, and that bodies
charged with similar electricities repel,
and with unlike electricities attract, one
another. For convenience, one of these
electricities, that developed in glass, is
called positive, and the other negative;
D
�34
ENERGY
and it has been clearly proved that one
cannot exist without the other, and that,
whenever one electricity is produced,
just as much is produced of an opposite
description.
If positive electricity is
produced in glass by rubbing it with
silk, just as much negative electricity is
produced upon the silk.
Another.primary fact is that some sub
stances are able to carry away and diffuse
or neutralise this peculiar influence called
electricity, while others are unable to do
so and retain it. The former are called
conductors, the latter non-conductors.
Thus, glass is an insulator or non-con
ductor, while metal is a conductor of
electricity ; and the reason why the sub
stances rubbed together, as glass and silk,
must be dry is that water, in all its forms,
is a conductor which carries away the
electricity as fast as it is produced.
These facts led to the formation of a
theory of the existence of two opposite
electric fluids, which, in the ordinary or
unexcited body, are combined and neu
tralise one another, but are separated by
friction, and flow in opposite directions,
accumulating at opposite poles, or, it
may be, one being accumulated at one
pole, while the other is diffused through
some conducting medium and lost sight
of.
The latest discoveries in physics have,
however, disposed us to conceive the
process differently.
Electricity is the
substratum of matter. Lord Kelvin says
that “ the atomic theory of electricity is
now universally accepted.” We have
seen that it is the tiny particles of the
electric charge, the electrons, that make
up the atom; and the positive or nega
tive state of the atom (and therefore of
the mass composed of atoms) is thought
to depend on the number of its com
ponent particles.
However, there is a great analogy
between electrical energy and those of
heat and of chemical affinity. The same
mechanical work—viz., friction—which
generates heat, generates electricity. The
chief difference seems to be that friction
may be transformed into heat when the
same substances are rubbed together, as
in the case of obtaining fire by the fric
tion of wood ; but electricity can only be
obtained by friction between dissimilar
substances. Thus no electricity is ob
tained by rubbing glass upon glass, or
silk upon silk, or upon glass covered with
silk, though a slight difference of texture
is sometimes sufficient to separate the
electric fluids. Thus, if two pieces of
the same silk ribbon are rubbed together,
lengthways, no electricity is produced, but
if crossways, one is positively, and the
other negatively, electrified.
In this
respect, the analogy is evident to chemi
cal affinity, which, in like manner, only
acts between dissimilar bodies.
The analogy is even more striking
when we follow up electricity far beyond
the simple manifestations of the glass rod
and sealing wax, and pursue it to its
origin, in the transformations of chemical
action and mechanical work, in the
voltaic battery, the electric telegraph, the
telephone, and the dynamo.
The voltaic battery, in its simplest
form, is a trough containing an acid
liquid in which pairs of plates of different
metals are immersed. It is evident that,
if the action of the acid on each metal
were precisely the same, equal quantities
of each would be dissolved in the acid,
and the equilibrium of chemical energies
would not be affected. But, the action
being different, this equilibrium is dis
turbed, and if the sum of these distur
bances for a number of separate pairs
of plates can be accumulated, it will
become considerable. This is done by
connecting the plates of the same metal
in each cell by a metallic wire, covered
by some non-conducting substance.
There are, therefore, two wires, one to
the right hand, the other to the left, the
loose extremities of which are called the
poles of the battery. If we test these
poles as we did the glass rod and stick
of sealing-wax, we find that one pole is
charged with positive and the other with
negative electricity. In other words, the
chemical energy, whose equilibrium was
disturbed by the unequal action of the
�ENERGY
acid on the plates of different metals, has
been transformed into electrical energy,
manifesting itself, as it always does, under
the condition of two equal and opposite
polarities. If we connect these two poles
with one another, the two electricities
rush together and unite, and there is
established what is called an electrical
current circulating round the battery.
As the chemical action of the acid on the
metals is not momentary, but continuous,
the acid taking up molecule after mole
cule of the metal, so also the current is
continuous. When we call it a current,
the term is used for the sake of con
venience ; for as the current, as we shall
presently see, will flow along the wire or
other conducting substance for immense
distances, as across the Atlantic, with a
velocity of many thousands of miles per
second, we can no more than in the case
of light figure it to ourselves as an actual
transfer of material particles swept along
as by a river running with this enormous
velocity. In a free current of electricity
the particles are literally shot forth, but
along a solid they are only transmitted
from atom to atom, as in the wave
motion of heat. Be this as it may, the
effect of these electric currents is very
varied and very energetic. It can pro
duce intense heat, for if, instead of uniting
the two poles, we connect them by a
thin platinum wire, it will, in a few
seconds, become heated to redness. If
the connecting wire is thicker, heat will
equally be generated, but less intense,
thus maintaining the analogy to the
current which rushes with more im
petuosity through a narrow than through
a wide channel. If the poles are tipped
with a solid substance like carbon, whose
particles remain solid under great heat,
when they are brought nearly together
intense light is produced, and the carbon
slowly burns away. This produces what
is called the arc light, which gives such
a strong illuminating power, and is
coming into general use for lighting up
large spaces.
Another transformation is back again
into chemical energy, which is shown by
35
the power of the electric current to
decompose compound substances. If,
for instance, the poles of a battery are
plunged into a vessel containing water,
the molecules of the water will be
decomposed and bubbles of oxygen gas
will rise from the positive, and of
hydrogen from the negative, pole.
Another effect of electrical currents is
that of attraction and repulsion on one
another. If two parallel wires, free to
move, carry currents flowing in the same
direction as from positive to negative, or
vice versa, they will attract one another ;
if in opposite directions, they will repel.
Electrical currents also work by way of
induction—that is, they disturb the elec
trical equilibrium of bodies brought
within their influence and induce cur
rents in them. Thus, if we have two
circular coils of insulated wire placed
near each other, one on the right hand,
the other on the left, and connect the
extremities of the right-hand coil with
the poles of a battery, when the connec
tion is first made and the current begins
to flow, a momentary current in the
opposite direction will pass through the
left-hand coil. This will cease, and as
long as the current continues to flow
through the right-hand coil there will be
no current through the other; but if we
break the contact between the right-hand
coil and the battery, there will be again
a momentary current through the left
hand coil, but this time in the same
direction as the other. The same effect
will be produced if, instead of making
and breaking contact in the right-hand
coil, we keep the current constantly flow
ing through it,’and make the right-hand
coil alternately approach and recede from
the other coil. In this case, when the
right-hand coil approaches, it induces an
opposite current in the left-hand one ;
and when it recedes, one in the same
direction as that of the primary.
These phenomena of induction prepare
us to understand the nature of magnets,
and the magnetic effects produced by
electrical currents. If an insulated wire
is wrapped round a cylinder of soft or
�36
ENERGY
unmagnetic iron, and a current passed
through the wire, the cylinder is con
verted into a magnet and becomes able
to sustain weights.
If the current
ceases, the cylinder is no longer a
magnet, and drops the weight.
A
magnet is therefore evidently a substance
in which electric currents are circulating
at right angles to its axis, and a per
manent magnet is one in which such
currents permanently circulate from the
constitution of the body without being
supplied from without. The earth is
such a magnet, and also iron and other
substances, under certain conditions.
This being established, it is easy to
see why an electrical current deflects the
magnetic needle. If such a needle is
suspended freely near a wire parallel
with it, on a current being passed through
the wire it must attract if similar, or
repel if dissimilar, the currents which are
circulating at right angles to the axis of
the needle, and thus tend to make the
needle swing into a position at right
angles with the wire, so that its currents
may be parallel to that of the needle.
This is the reason why the needle in its
ordinary condition points to the north
and south, or rather to the magnetic
poles of the earth, because its currents
are influenced by the earth currents
which circulate parallel to the magnetic
equator. The deviation of the needle
from this direction, caused by any other
current, like that passed along the wire,
will depend on the strength of the
current, which may be measured by the
amount of deflection of the needle. The
direction in which the needle deflects—viz., whether the north pole swings to
the right or to the left, will depend on
the direction of the current through the
wire. The direction of the circular
currents which form a magnet is such
that if you look towards the north pole
of a freely suspended cylindrical magnet
—i.e., if you stand on the north of it and
look southwards—the positive current
will ascend on your right hand, or on the
west side, and descend on the east. It
follows that unlike poles must neces
sarily attract and like poles repel one
another, for in the former case the
circular currents which face each other
are going in the same and in the latter
in opposite directions.
The reader is now in a position to
understand the principle of the electric
telegraph, that wonderful invention which
has revolutionised human intercourse
and, to a great extent, annihilated space
and time. It originated in the discovery
made by Oersted, a Danish savant, that
the effect of an electric current was to
make a magnet swing round, in the
endeavour to place itself at right angles
to it. The conducting power of insulated
copper wire is such that it practically
makes no difference whether one of the
wires connected with the pole of a
battery is two feet or 2,000 miles in
length, and the earth, being a conducting
medium, supplies an equal extension
from the other pole, so that a closed
electric circuit may be established across
the Atlantic as easily as within the walls
of a laboratory.
If, therefore, a magnetic needle is sus
pended at the American end, it will
respond to every electrical current, and
to any interruption, renewal, or reversal
of that current established in England.
The needle may thus be made to swing
to the right or left, by forming or revers
ing a current through the wire; and it
will return to its position whenever the
current is interrupted, and repeat its
movement whenever the current is
renewed. In fact, it may be made to
move like the arm of the old-fashioned
telegraph, or of a railway signal. It only
remains to have a machine by which the
operator can form and interrupt currents
rapidly, and a code by which certain
movements of the needle stand for cer
tain letters of the alphabet, and you have
the electric telegraph.
There are many ingenious applications
of the machinery, but in principle they
all resolve themselves into transformations
of energy. Chemical energy is trans
formed into electric energy, . and that
again into mechanical work in moving
�ENERGY
the needle or other apparatus used. It
has now been found possible to dispense
with the wires altogether, as. in the
Marconi system, and the transmitter and
receiver of the electric current are very
elaborate.
The telephone is another instance of
similar transformations. Here, spoken
words create vibrations of the air, which
cause corresponding vibrations in a thin
plate or disc of metal at one end, which
are conveyed by intermediate machinery
to a similar disc at the other end, whose
vibrations cause similar vibrations in the
air, reproducing the spoken words at a
distance which may be a great many
miles from the speaker.
The great inventions of modern science
which have so revolutionised society are
all instances of the law of the conserva
tion of energy. Man makes the powers
of nature available for his purposes by
transforming them backwards and for
wards, now into one, now into another
form of energy, as required for the result
he wishes to attain. He wants mechanical
power to pump water or drive a locomo
tive or steamboat: he gets it from the
steam-engine, by transforming the energy
of heat in coal, which came ages ago
from the energy of chemical action pro
duced by the sun’s rays in the green
leaves of growing plants. He wants to
send messages in a few seconds across
the Atlantic : he does it by transforming
chemical energy into electricity in a
voltaic battery, sending its vibrations
along a conducting wire, and converting
it at the far end into mechanical power,
making a magnetic needle turn on its
axis and give signals. If, instead of
sending a message, he wants to hold a
conversation at a distance, he invents
the telephone, by which sound-vibrations
of air are transformed into vibrations of
a disc, then into electric currents, then
into vibrations of a distant disc, and
finally back again to spoken words. Or,
if he wants light, he turns electricity into
it by tipping the poles of his battery
with carbon and bringing them close
together.
'37
The latest inventions of electrical
science—the dynamo and the accumu
lator—afford remarkable instances of this
convertibility of one primitive energy
into different forms. In the instance
just quoted, of obtaining light from
electricity by the voltaic battery, the
cost has hitherto proved an obstacle to
its adoption. The electrical energy is
all obtained from-the transformation of
the heat produced in the cells by the
chemical action on the metal used, which
is commonly zinc. Now, the heat of
combination of zinc with oxygen is only
about one-sixth of that of coal, while the
cost of zinc is about twenty times as
great. Theoretically, therefore,, energy
got by burning zinc costs 120 times as
much as that got by burning coal.
Practically the difference is not nearly
so great, for there is very little loss of
energy in the battery by the process, of
conversion, while the best steam-engine
cannot convert into work as much astwenty per cent, of the heat energy in
the coal consumed. Still, after making
every allowance, the cost of energy from
zinc remains some twenty times as great
as from coal, so that, unless some process,
is found for obtaining back the zinc as a
residual product, there is no prospect of
this form of electricity being generally
available for light or for mechanical
power.
The dynamo is an instrument invented
for the mechanical generation of elec
tricity by taking advantage of the prin
ciple that electrical energy is produced
by moving magnets near coils of wire, or
coils of wire near magnets. A current
is thus started by induction, and, once
started, the mechanical power exerted in
making the magnet or coils revolve is
continually converted into electricity
until the accumulated electrical energy
becomes very powerful. The original
energy comes, of course, from the coal
burned in the steam-engine which makes
the magnet or coils revolve.
The principle of the conservation of
energy is well illustrated by the fact that,
as the dynamo generates an electric
�38
ENERGY
current if made to revolve, conversely it
may be made to revolve itself if an
electric current is sent through it from
an exterior source. It is, therefore,
available not only as a source of light
in the former case, but as a direct
source of mechanical power in the latter.
It is on this principle that electric
engines are constructed and electric
railways are worked. Here also it is a
question of cost and convenience, for
you can only get electricity enough, either
to light a street or to drive an engine, by
an original steam-engine or other motive
power to work the dynamo; and a system
of conducting wires to convey the elec
tricity to the place where the light or
power is wanted. Where the motive
power is supplied by nature, as in the
case of tidal or river currents or water
falls, it is quite possible that power may
be obtained in this way to compete with
that obtained directly from the steamengine ; but there are as yet considerable
practical difficulties to be overcome in
the transmission of any large amount of
-energy for long distances.
To overcome some of these difficulties
the accumulator has been invented,
which affords yet another remarkable
instance of the transformation of energy.
It consists of two lead plates immersed
in acidulated water. When a strong
electrical current is sent through the
water it decomposes it, the oxygen going
to one lead plate and the hydrogen to
the other. The oxygen attacks the lead
plate to which it goes, forming peroxide
of lead; while the hydrogen reduces
any oxide in the other plate, producing
pure lead, and leaving a film of surplus
hydrogen on the surface. The charging
current is then reversed, so that the
latter plate is now attacked and the
former one reduced, when the current is
again reversed. By continuing this pro
cess the surfaces of both lead plates
become porous, so that they present a
large surface, and can therefore hold a
great deal of peroxide of lead. The
charging current being now broken, the
oxygen which has been forcibly separated
from the liquid seeks to recombine with
hydrogen ; and if the two lead plates are
joined by a wire, this effect of the oxygen
generates an electrical current in the
opposite direction to the original one,
which is the current utilised. Electricity
is thus stored up in a portable box,
where it can be kept till wanted, when it
is drawn out by connecting the plates,
and, as a large amount of energy has
been accumulated, the current which is
produced lasts for a considerable time.
Unfortunately, accumulators are bulky,
heavy, and expensive, and nearly half
the energy of the original charging
current is lost in obtaining the reversed
or working current. They are therefore
not as yet adapted for general use,
though perfectly capable of supplying
either light or motive power, for both
which purposes they have been success
fully applied in special cases. The
future both of electric power and electric
lighting is now reduced entirely to a
question of cost; and though it is hard
to beat gas and the steam engine, with
cheap coal, and air and water for
nothing, it is possible that by using
natural sources of power to move
dynamos, and by obtaining zinc back as
a residual product in batteries, electricity
may in certain cases carry the day. A
visit to any modern electrical exhibition
will show that it is rapidly displacing the
older motive forces at every turn.
�POLARITY IN MATTER
39
Chapter V.
POLARITY IN MATTER
Ultimate elements of universe—Built up by
polarity—Experiment with magnet—Chemical
affinity—Atomic poles—Alkalies and acids—
Quantivalence — Atomicity — Isomerism —
Chemical stability — Thermo-chemistry —Definition of atoms—All matter built up by
polar forces.
I almost fear that by this time some of
my readers may think that I have
seduced them under false pretences to
read long chapters of dry science, when
they had been led from the introduction
to anticipate discussions on the more
immediately interesting topics of morals,
religions, and philosophies. My excuse
must be that these scientific subjects are
really of extreme interest in themselves
and indispensable as a solid basis for the
superstructure to be raised on them.
How can I attempt to show that the law
of polarity extends to the more complex
problems of human thought and life if I
fail in establishing its application to the
simpler case of inorganic force and
matter? It must be recollected also
that among the primitive polarities is
that of author and reader. It is my
part to endeavour to present the leading
facts and laws of the material universe in
such plain and popular language that the
ordinary reader who has neither time nor
faculty for special studies may apprehend
them clearly without excessive effort or
extraordinary intelligence. But it is the
reader’s part to supply a fair average
amount of attention, and above all to feel
an interest in interesting matters. Clever
ness and curiosity are very much con
vertible terms, and the clearest exposition
is thrown away on the torpid mind which
views the marvellous universe in which he
has the privilege to live with the stupid
apathy of the savage, taking things as
they come without caring to know any
thing about them.
'
For the reader’s part of the work I am
not responsible; but for my own I am,
and I proceed therefore to give in my
own way, and with the best faculty that
is in me, a clear summary of such of the
fundamental facts and laws of nature as
seem necessary for the work I have
undertaken.
From the preceding chapters we are
now able to realise what are the ultimate
elements of the material universe, and it
remains to show how they are put together.
The elements are ether, energy, and
matter.
First, ether: a universal, all-pervading,
medium, imponderable or infinitely light,
and almost infinitely elastic, in which all
matter, from suns and planets down to
molecules and atoms, float as in a bound
less ocean, and whose tremors or vibra
tions, propagated as waves, transport the
different forms of energy, light, heat, and
electricity, across space.
Secondly, energy : a primitive, indes
tructible something, which causes motion
and manifests itself under its many diver
sified forms, such as gravitation, mecha
nical work, molecular and atomic forces,,
light and heat, all of which are merely
Protean transformations of the one funda
mental energy, and convertible into each
other.
Thirdly, matter: the ultimate elements
of this are the electrons, or electric
particles, which combine to form atoms
these in turn build up molecules, or little
pieces of ordinary matter with all its
qualities, which are the bricks used in
building all the varied structures of the
organic and inorganic worlds. Of these
atoms some seventy-eight have been dis
tinguished, and, although we suspect that
they are merely combinations or trans
formations of one original matter, it is
still convenient to consider them as
�4°
POLARITY IN MATTER
elementary. In like manner we may
suspect that matter is in reality only
another form of energy, and that the im
pression of solidity is given by the action
of a repellent force which is very energetic
at short distances. If this were estab
lished, we might look forward to the
generalisation that energy was the one
reality of nature ; but for the present it
is a mere speculation, and we must be
content to pursue our inquiry into the
nature and unions of the electrons. In
any case this much is certain, that
matter, like energy, is indestructible.
We have absolutely no experience of
either of them being created or annihi
lated. Nay, more, we have no faculties
to enable us even to conceive how some
thing can be made out of nothing; and
all we know, or can ever know, about these
primitive constituents of the universe
concerns their laws of existence, their
evolutions and their transformations.
Minute as the electrons and atoms and
molecules are, we must conceive of them
: not as stationary and indissolubly con
nected, but rather as little solar systems
■in which revolving electrons form the
atom, revolving atoms form the molecule,
and revolving molecules form the matter,
held together as separate systems by
their proper energies and motions, until
some superior force intruding breaks up
the system and sets its components free
lo form new combinations.
What is the principle which thus forms,
•un-forms, and re-forms the various com
binations of atomic and molecular
systems by which the world is built up
from its constituent elements ? It is
polarity.
As I began with the illustration of the
magnet introducing order and harmony
into the confused mass of iron filings, let me
take this other illustration from the same
source. If we place an iron bar in con
tact with the pole of a magnet, the bar
becomes itself a magnet with opposite
poles to the original one, so that, as
opposite poles attract, the iron bar
adheres to it. Bring a lump of nickel in
contact with the further end or free pole
of the iron bar, and the nickel also will
be magnetised and adhere. Let the
lump of nickel be as large as the pole of
the iron bar is able to support, and now
bring a lump of soft iron near this pole.
It will drop the nickel and take the iron.
This is exactly similar to those cases of
chemical affinity in which a molecule
drops one of its factors and takes on
another to which its attraction is stronger.
If iron rusts in water, it is because the
oxygen atom drops hydrogen to take iron,
just as the magnet dropped nickel.
The polarity of chemical elements is
attested by the fact that, when compounds
are decomposed by the electric current,
the different elementary substances
appear at different poles of the battery.
Thus oxygen, chlorine, and non-metallic
substances appear at the positive pole;
while hydrogen, potassium, and metals
generally, appear at the negative one.
The inference is irresistible that the
atoms had in each case an opposite
polarity to that of the poles to which
they were attracted. This is confirmed
by the fact that the radicals—i.e., the
elementary atoms or groups of atoms
which have opposite polarities—combine
readily; while those which have the
same polarity, as two metals, have but
slight affinity for each other. Like there
fore attracts unlike, as in all cases of
polarity, and the greater- the degree of
unlikeness the stronger is the attraction.
Thus, the radicals of all alkalies are
electro-positive, and appear at the nega
tive pole of a battery; while those of
acids are all electro-negative, and the
higher each stands in its respective scale
of polarity the more strongly does it
show the peculiar qualities of acid or
alkali and the more eagerly does it com
bine with its opposite.
Acids and alkalies are, in fact, all
members of the same class of compounds
called Hydrates, because a single atom
of hydrogen is a common feature in
their composition. This atom is coupled
with a single atom of oxygen, which may
be conceived of as the central magnet
holding the hydrogen atom at one pole,
�POLARITY IN MATTER
4i
while at the other it holds either a single hydrogen, just as the magnet dropped
atom of some metallic element, such as nickel and took iron.
This polarity of chemical elements
potassium or sodium, or a group consist
ing, of such an element together with manifests itself in different ways. In
atoms of oxygen, so constituted as to some cases it appears like that of. a
present a single pole to the attraction of magnet, in which there are two opposite
the central oxygen atom. Thus, if K poles, and two only, one at each end.
stands for kali or potassium, N for Thus oxygen (O) is bipolar, and its atom
nitrogen, O for oxygen, and H for holds together two atoms of hydrogen
hydrogen, we may have the compounds (H) in forming the molecule of water,
which may be represented as H + H - O - K
O + - H, which is equivalent to
iron
The former is the molecule of potassic
hydrate, which is the most caustic or
strongest of alkalies; the latter, that of
nitric acid, the most corrosive or power
ful of acids. These are the extremes of
the series, of which there are many
intermediate members, all being more or
less alkaline, that is caustic and turning
litmus-paper blue, when the third element
is a simple metallic atom; and acid,
corrosive, and turning litmus-paper red,
when it is a compound radical of a group
of metallic and oxygen atoms. This
shows to what an extent whole classes of
substances may have a general resem
blance in their constitution, and yet differ
most widely in their qualities by the sub
stitution of one element for another.
These special qualities may be made
to diminish and finally disappear by
mixing the two opposite substances, or,
as it is called, neutralising an acid by an
alkali or an alkali by an acid. Thus, if
hydrochloric acid, H Cl, be poured into
a solution of sodic-hydrate, Na - O - H,
the alkaline qualities of the latter diminish
and finally disappear, the result of the
neutral solution being water, H - O - H,
and sodic-chloride, or common salt,
Na-Cl. It is evident that this result
has been produced by the hydrogen
atom in H - Cl and the sodium atom in
Na - O - H changing places, the former
preferring to unite with oxygen to form
water, while the displaced sodium atom
finds a refuge with chlorine. The oxygen
atom has dropped sodium and taken
__________
| n| s |magnet[ N |s_|. Others, again,
like hydrogen and chlorine, seem to
have only a single pole, as in the case of
electricity in an excited glass rod, and „
have to create for themselves the opposite
pole, which is the indispensable con
dition of all polarity, by. induction in
another body. Thus, muriatic or hydro
chloric acid is formed by the union of a
single atom of chlorine, which is strongly
negative, with a single atom of hydrogen,
in which it appears to have induced a
positive pole; though the combination is
not a very stable one, for, if an element
with a stronger positive pole of its own is
presented to the chlorine, it drops the
hydrogen, just as the magnet drops the
nickel. Other atoms are multipolar, and
seem as if made up of more than one
magnet, or rather as if the atom had
regular shape like a triangle, square, or
pentagon, and each angle was a pole,
thus enabling it to unite with three, four,
five, or more atoms of other substances.
Thus, one atom of nitrogen unites with
three of hydrogen, one of carbon with
four of hydrogen, and so on. . Every
substance has, therefore, what is called
its “ quantivalence,” or power of uniting
with it a greater or less quantity of other
atoms, and conversely that of replacing
in combinations other atoms, or groups
of atoms, the sum of whose quantivalence
equals its own.
Thus, one atom of
carbon, which has four poles, combines
with four atoms of hydrogen or chlorine,
which is unipolar, but with only two of
oxygen, which is bipolar; while the
oxygen atom combines with two of
�42
POLARITY IN MA TTER
hydrogen, and that of chlorine with one
atom only of hydrogen. The analogy
between the single atomic and electrical
poles on the one hand, and the dual and
magnetic poles on the other, will be
evident if we consider what occurs if a
pith-ball, electrified positively, is brought
near a similar ball electrified negatively.
They attract each other, and the one
becomes the pole of the other; but if
separated, each carries with it its own
electrical charge. But the separate balls
or poles, though no longer influencing
each other, are not isolated, for each
draws by induction an electrical charge
opposite to its own to the extremity of
the nearest conductor, and thus creates
for itself a new or second pole. Polarity,
in fact, involves opposition of relations,
or two poles, and electrical only differs
from magnetic polarity in the fact that
in the latter the two poles are in the
same body, while in the former they are
in separate bodies.
For pith-balls read atoms, and we
have an explanation of the univalent
atoms like those of chlorine and sodium
which act as single poles : and this is
confirmed by the fact that such atoms
are never found isolated, but are always
associated in a molecule with at least one
other atom which forms the opposite
pole of the molecular system. Bivalent
or magnetic atoms, on the other hand,
which have two poles, like those of
mercury and zinc, may constitute a
complete polar system, and be found
isolated, and form the class of molecules
which consist of single atoms.
This conception of the polarity of
atoms enables us to understand the way
in which the almost infinite variety of
substances existing in the world is built
up from a comparatively few simple
elements.
Atoms and radicals, which
are multipolar, can attract and form
molecules with as many other atoms or
radicals as they have poles. This is
called their degree of atomicity, which is
the same as their quantivalence; and
each of these atoms or radicals may be
replaced by some other atom or radical,
which presents to any pole a more
powerful polarity.
Thus, compounds
may be built up of great and varied
complexity, for the quality of any com-,
pound may be greatly altered by any one
of the substitutions at any one of the
poles.
And the molecules, or small
specimens of matter, may be thus built
up into very complex aggregations of
atoms, some single molecules containing
more than a hundred atoms. Thus,
carbon has four poles, or is quadrivalent,
and its atoms possess the power of com
bining among themselves to an almost
indefinite extent and forming groups of
great stability. Thus, carbon radicals
may be formed in very great number,
each affording a nucleus upon which
compound radicals may be built up, so
that carbon has been aptly called the
skeleton of almost all the varied com
pounds of the more complex forms of
inorganic matter as well as the principal
foundation of organic life.
Nor is this all, for the qualities of
substances depend not only on the quali
ties of their constituent elements, but also
on the manner in which these elements
are grouped. Two substances may have
exactly the same chemical composition
and yet be very different. We may
suppose that the same elements affect
us differently according as they are
grouped. Thus, the same bricks may
be built up either into a cube or pyramid,
which forms are extremely stable and
can only be taken to pieces brick by
brick; or into a Gothic arch, which all
tumbles to pieces if a single brick form
ing the keystone is displaced. As an
instance of this, butyric acid, which gives
the offensive odour to rancid butter, has
exactly the same composition as acetic
ether, which gives the flavour to a ripe
apple. They consist of the same number
of atoms of the same elements— carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen—united in the
same proportions. This applies to a
number of substances, and is called
Isomerism, or formation of different
wholes from the same parts.
The principle of polarity, therefore,
�POLARITY IN MA TTER
aided by the subsidiary conditions of
quantivalence, atomicity, and isomerism,
gives the clue to the construction of the
inorganic world out of some seventy
eight elementary substances. Of the sub
stances thus formed, whether of mole
cules or of combinations of molecules,
some are stable and some unstable. As
a rule, the simpler combinations are the
most stable, and instability increases with
complexity. Thus the diamond, which
is merely a crystal of pure carbon, is very
hard and indestructible; while dynamite,
or nitro-glycerine, which is a very com
plex compound, explodes at a touch.
The stability of a substance depends
partly on the stable structure of its com
ponent elements, and partly on their
mutual affinity being strong enough to
keep them together in .presence of the
attractions of other outside elements,
which, in the case of most natural sub
stances at the surface of the earth, con
sist principally of air and water. Thus,
the rocks, earths, metallic oxides, water,
carbonic dioxide, and nitrogen are ex
tremely stable, and resist decomposition,
or chemical union with other substances,
with great energy. With regard to all
substances this law holds good, that the
tendency is to fall back from a less stable
to a more stable condition, and that such
a falling back is always attended with an
evolution of heat; while, on the other
hand, heat is always absorbed and dis-’
appears whenever the elements of a more
stable substance are made to enter into
a less stable condition. Thus, when
wood bums, there is a falling back from
a substance unstable, on account of its
affinity for the oxygen in the air, into the
stable products, carbonic dioxide and
water, and the heat evolved is the effect
of this fall.
43
As the tendency of all changes is
towards stability, we arrive at the follow
ing law, which is one of the most recent
generalisations of modern chemistry : In
all cases of chemical change the tendency
is to those products whose formation^
will determine the greatest evolution.,
of heat.
This, however, does not imply that
the tendency may not be overcome and
unstable products formed, for just as a
weight may be lifted against the force of
gravity, so may the chemical tendency
be overcome by a sufficient energy acting
against it. Heat is the principal means
of supplying this energy, and by increas
ing it sufficiently not only are molecules
drawn apart and most solids converted
into fluids and finally into gases, but
there is reason to believe that at extremely
high temperatures, such as may prevail
in the sun, all matter would be resolved
into isolated or dissociated atoms. As
tronomers, indeed, think they have
detected matter with even its atoms
disintegrated in some of the stars.
Thus, water at a temperature of i,2ooa
is resolved into a mixture of oxygen and
hydrogen atoms no longer chemically
united into water-molecules; and iodinevapour, which below 700° degrees con
sists of molecules of two atoms, above
that temperature consists of single atoms
only.
The subject might be pursued further,
but enough has been said for the present
purpose to show that the universe con
sists of atoms which are endowed with
polarity, and that as diminished tempera
ture allows these atoms to come closer
together and form compounds, matter in
all its forms is built up by the action of
polar forces.
�44
POLARITY IN LIFE
Chapter VI.
POLARITY IN LIFE
Contrast of living and dead—Eating and being
eaten—Trace matter upwards and life down
wards — Colloids — Cells — Protoplasm —
Monera— Composition of protoplasm — Es
sential qualities of life—-Nutrition and sensa
tion — Motion — Reproduction—Spontaneous
generation—Organic compounds—Polar con
ditions of life.
Polarity having been established as
the universal law of the inorganic world,
we have now to pass to the organic, or
world of life. At first sight there seems
to be a great gulf fixed between the
living and the dead which no bridge
can span. But first impressions are
very apt to deceive us, and when things
are traced up to their origins we often
find them getting nearer and nearer,
until it is difficult to say where one
begins and the other ends. Take, for
instance, such an antithesis as “ eating
or being eaten.” If a hunter meets a
grizzly bear in the Rocky Mountains,
one would say that no distinction can
be sharper than whether the bear eats
■the man or the man the bear. In the
•one case there is a man, and in the other
•a bear, less in the world. But look
through a microscope at a glass of water,
and you may see two specks of jelly-like
substance swimming in it. They are
living creatures, for they eat and grow,
and thrust out and retract processes of
their formless mass, which serve as
temporary legs and arms for seizing food
and for voluntary motion. In short,
they are each what may be called
strictly individual amcebae, forming
separate units of the animated creation as
much as the man and the bear. But if
the two happen to come in contact, what
happens ? The two slimy masses involve
one another and coalesce, and the
resulting amoeba swims -away merrily as
two gentlemen rolled into one.
Now, in this case what became of their
individualities ? Did amoeba A eat
amoeba B, or vice versa, and is the
resulting amoeba a survival of A or of B,
or of both or neither of them? And
what becomes of the antithesis of “eating
or being eaten ” which was so clear and
distinct in the highly specialised forms of
life, and is so evanescent in the simpler
forms ? This illustration may serve to
teach us how necessary it is to trace
things up to their origins, before express
ing too trenchant and confident opinions
as to their nature and relations.
In the case of the organic and inor
ganic worlds the proper course obviously
is, not to draw conclusions from extreme
and highly specialised instances, but to
follow life downwards to its simplest and
most primitive form, and matter upwards
to the form which approaches most
nearly to this form of life. Following
matter upwards, we find a regular pro
gression from the simple to the complex.
Take the diamond, which is one of the
simplest of substances, being merely the
crystallised form of a single ultimate
element, carbon. It is extremely hard
and extremely stable.
Ascending to
compounds of two, three, or more ele
ments, we get substances which are more
complex and less stable ; and at last we
arrive at combinations which involve
many elements and are extremely com
plex. Among these latter substances are
some, called colloids, which are neither
solid, like crystals, nor fluid, like liquids,
but in an intermediate state, like jelly or
the white of an egg, in which the mole
cules have great mobility and are at a
considerable distance apart, so that water
can penetrate their mass. These colloids
are for the most part very complicated
compounds of various elements based on
a nucleus of carbon, which, from its atom
�L
r
POLARITY IN LIFE
45
Protoplasm is, therefore, evidently the
having four poles with strong mutual
nearest approach of life to matter; and
attractions, is eminently qualified for
if life ever originated from atomic and
forming what may be called the inner molecular combinations, it was in this
skeleton of these complex combinations.
form. To suppose that any more com
Colloids of this description form the last plex form of life, however humble, could
stage of the ascending line from inorganic
originate from chemical combinations,
matter to organic life.
.
would be a violation of the law of evolu
Next, let us trace life downwards
tion, which shows a uniform develop
towards matter. There is a constant ment from the simple to the complex,
succession from the more to the less
and never a sudden jump passing at a
complex and differentiated : from man bound over intermediate grades.
To
through mammals, reptiles, fishes, and
understand life, therefore, we must under
a long chain of more simple forms,
stand protoplasm; for protoplasm, closely
until at its end we come to the two last
as it approximates to lifeless colloid
links, which are the same for all animals,
matter, is thoroughly alive. . A whole
all plants, and all forms of animated
family, the Monera, consist, simply of a
existence. The last link but one is the
living globule of jelly, which has not
cell; the last of all is protoplasm.
even begun to be differentiated. Every
Protoplasm, or, as Huxley calls it,
molecule, as in a crystal, is of homoge
“the physical basis of life,’ is a colour
neous chemical composition and an
less jelly-like substance, absolutely homo
geneous, without parts or structure in epitome of the whole mass. There are
no special parts, no organs told off for
fact, a mere microscopic speck of jelly.
The cell is the first step in the particular functions; and yet all life
functions—nutrition, reproduction, sensa
specialisation of protoplasm, the outer
tion, and movement—are performed, but
layer of which, in contact with the
each by the whole body. The jelly
surrounding
environment,
becomes
hardened so as to form an enclosing speck becomes a mouth to swallow,.and,
turning inside out, a stomach to digest.
cell-wall, while a portion of the enclosed
protoplasm condenses into a nucleus, in It shoots out tongues of jelly to move
and feel with, and presently withdraws
which a further condensation makes
. . .
what is called the nucleolus or second them.
With these characteristics it is impos
smaller nucleus. This constitutes the
sible to deny to protoplasm the full attri
nucleated cell, whose repeated sub
butes of life, or to doubt that, like the
division into other similar cells in geo
atom in the material world, it is. the
metrical progression furnishes the raw
primary element of organic or living
material out of which all . the varied
structures of the world of life are built existence. Given the atom, we can
trace up, step by step, the evolution of
up. Plants and animals, bones, muscles,
and organs of sense, are all composed of matter; so given the protoplasm, we
modified cells, hardened, flattened, , or can trace up the evolution of life by
otherwise altered, as the case may require. progressive stages to the highest, develop
If we trace life up to its origin in the ment—man. To understand life, there
individual instead of in the species, we fore, we must begin by trying to under
arrive at the same result. All plants and stand protoplasm.
What is protoplasm ? In its substance
animals, whether of the lowest or highest
it is a nitrogenous carbon compound,
forms—fish, reptile, bird, mammal, man
—begin their individual existence as a differing only from other similar , com
speck of protoplasm, passing, into a pounds of the albuminous family of
nucleated cell, which contains in it the colloids by the extremely complex com
whole principle of its subsequent evolu position of its atoms. It consists of five
tion into the mature and completed form. elements, and its average composition is
�46
POLARITY IN LIFE
said by chemists to be 52.55 per cent, waste preponderates, remaining always
carbon, 21.23 oxygen, I5-I7 nitrogen, itself. The distinction will be clear if
6.7 hydrogen, 1.2 sulphur. Its peculiar we consider what happens when water
qualities, therefore, including life, are rusts iron. In a certain sense the iron
not the result of any new and strange may be said to eat the oxygen, reject the
atom added to the known chemical hydrogen, and grow, or increase in weight
compounds of the same family, but of by what it feeds on; but the result is not
the manner of grouping and motions of a bigger piece of iron, but a new sub
these well-known material elements. It stance, rust, or oxide of iron. That
has in a remarkable degree the faculty living matter should feed internally
of absorbing water, so that its molecules is not so wonderful, for its semi-fluid
seem to float in it in a condition of semi condition may well enable foreign mole
fluid aggregation, which seems to be cules to penetrate its mass and come in
necessary for the complex molecular contact with its own interior molecules ;
movements which are the cause or but it is an experience different from
accompaniment of life. Living proto anything known in the inorganic world
plasm, in fact, contains from eighty to that it should be able to manufacture
eighty-five per cent, of water. Thus, molecules of protoplasm like its own out
many seeds and animalculse, if perfectly of these foreign molecules, and thus
dry, may remain apparently as dead and grow by assimilation. For instance,
as unchanging as crystals, for years, or when amoebae, bacteria, and other low
even, as in the case of the mummy organisms live and multiply in chemical
wheat, for centuries, to revive into life solutions which contain no protoplasm,
when moistened.
but only inorganic compounds con
But in addition to those material taining the requisite atoms for making
qualities in which protoplasm seems to protoplasm, or when a plant not only
differ only from a whole group of similar chemically decomposes carbonic dioxide,
compounds of the type of glycerine, by exhaling the oxygen and depositing the
the greater complexity and mobility of carbon in its stem and leaves, but also
its molecules, it has developed the new from this and other elements drawn
and peculiar element which is called life. from the soil or air manufactures the
Life in its essence is manifested by the living protoplasm which courses through
faculties of nutrition, sensation, move its channels, the result is that life has
ment, and reproduction.
manufactured life out of non-living mate
As regards nutrition, there is this rials.
essential difference beween living and
If we take sensation, this, in its last
non-living matter. The latter, if it feeds analysis, is change, or molecular motion,
and grows at all, does so only by taking induced in a body by the action of its
on fresh molecules of its own substance environment.
Here there is a certain
on its outer surface, as in the case of analogy between living and non-living
a small nucleus-crystal of ice in freezing matter, for the latter does respond to
water. If it feeds on foreign matter and changes in the surrounding environment,
throughout its mass, it does so only as in the case of heat, electricity, and
in the way of chemical combination, other forces; but living matter is far
forming a new product. Living matter, more sensitive, the changes are far more
on the other hand, feeds internally, and frequent and complex, and in certain
works up foreign substances, by the pro cases they are accompanied by a sensa
cess we call digestion, into molecules tion of what is called consciousness,
like its own, which it assimilates, reject which in the higher organisms rises into
ing as waste any surplus or foreign a perception of voluntary effort or free
matter which it cannot incorporate. It will as a factor in the transformation of
thus grows and decays as assimilation or energies. Thus it happens that in the
�’ IN LIFE
________________ 47
are built up, which, in their turn, repeat
case of dead matter the changes pro the process and reproduce themselves in
duced by a change of conditions follow
offspring. This is the real mystery of
fixed laws, and can be predicted and
life; we can partly see or suspect how
calculated, while those of living matter
its other faculties might arise from an
are apparently uncertain and capricious
extension of the known qualities and
We can tell how much an iron bar will
laws of matter and of energy; but we
expand with heat; but we cannot say
whether, if a particle of food is. brought can discern no .analogy between the nonreproductive nitrogenous carbon com
within reach of an amceba, it will or will
not shoot out a finger to seize it. If the pound, which makes so near an approach
to protoplasm in its chemical composi
amoeba is hungry, it probably will; if it
tion, and the reproductive protoplasm,
is enjoying a siesta after a full meal, it
which is fertile, increases and multiplies,
probably will not.
.
The case of sensation includes that ot and replenishes the earth. Can the gap
motion, which is, after all, only sensation be bridged over: can protoplasm be
applied in the liberation of energy of manufactured out of chemical elements ?
position, which has, by some chemical It is done every day by plants which
process, become stored up, either in the make protoplasm out of inorganic ele
living mass, or in some special organ of ments, and by the lowest forms of life
which live and multiply in chemical
it, such as muscle. Iron, for instance,
moves when it expands by heat or is solutions. It is done also in the life*
history of all individuals whose primitive
attracted by a magnet; but it moves,
like the planets, by fixed and calculable cell or ovum makes thousands or millions
of other cells, each containing within its
laws ; while living matter moves., as
might be expected from the variable enclosing membrane as much protoplasm
as there was in the unit from which they
character of its sensation, in a manner
which often cannot be calculated. There started. But in all these instances there
are cases, however, of reflex or involun was the living principle to start with,
tary motion where, even in the highest existing in the primitive speck of proto
living organisms, sensation and motion plasm, from which the rest were de
seem to follow change of environment, veloped. Can this primitive speck be
in a fixed and invariable sequence, as in created; or, in other words, can proto
shrinking from pain, touching or gal plasm be artificially manufactured by
vanising a nerve ; and it may be that the chemical processes ?
The answer must be, No ; not by any
apparent spontaneousness and varia
bility of living motion is only the result process now known. The similarity, of
of the almost infinitely greater com chemical composition, and the increasing
plexity and mobility of the elements of conviction of the universality of natural
law and of- evolution, have led to a very
living matter.
Reproduction remains, which, is the general . belief that such a spontaneous
faculty most characteristic of life, and generation of life must be possible, and
which distinguishes most, sharply the numerous experiments have been made
organic from the inorganic world. In to produce it. For a time the balance
the inorganic there is no known process seemed to be very evenly held between
by w7hich dead matter reproduces itself, the supporters and opponents of spon
In fact, starting
as the cell does when it contracts in the taneous generation.
from the assumption, which at first was
middle and splits up into two cells,
which, in their turn, propagate an endless common to both sides, that heat equal
number of similar cells, increasing in to the boiling point of water destroyed
geometrical progression, until they supply all living organisms, spontaneous genera
the raw material from which all. the tion had the best of it; for it was clearly
countless varieties of living organisms proved that living organisms did appear
�48
POLARITY IN LIFE
in infusions contained in vessels which form of gout", indigotine, the principle of
had been hermetically sealed, after being the blue colouring matter of the indigo
subjected to this or even a higher degree plant ; and alizarine, that of madder—
of heat. But subsequent and more care all are now produced artificially, and
ful experiments have shown that the have even become important articles of
germs or spores of bacteria and other commerce. If. chemists can make the
animalcule, which are generally floating indigotine, which the growing plant
in the air, can, when dry, withstand a elaborates at the same time as it
greater degree of heat, and that when the elaborates protoplasm, may we not hope
experiments are made in optically pure some day to make the latter as well as
air no life ever appears and the infusions the former product? Now, organic com
never putrefy.
On questions of this pounds of this class are being formed
sort all who are not themselves prac artificially every day, and it is said that
tised experimentalists must be guided chemists have already succeeded in pro
by authority, and we may be content to ducing several hundreds. Of late years,
accept the dictum of Huxley that bio in fact, chemists have advanced as far
genesis, or all life from previous life, as the artificial manufacture of albuminoid
was “ victorious along the whole line.” substances, some of the most character
But in doing so we must accept Huxley’s istic of organic compounds. But even
caution, “that with organic chemistry, if this expectation is never fulfilled, we
molecular physics, and physiology yet in may fall back on Huxley’s second reser
their infancy, and every day making pro vation of the enormous difference of
digious strides, it would be the height of chemical and physical conditions in the
presumption for any man to say that the early stages of the earth’s life from any
conditions under which matter assumes thing now known. It has been calcu
the qualities called vital may not some lated that the earth’s temperature, when
day be artificially brought together.”
it first started on its career as an inde
And, further, “ that as a matter not of pendent planet, was something like
proof, but of probability, if it were given 3,ooo,ooo0 Fahrenheit. At this heat
to me to look beyond the abyss of geo probably all atoms would be dissociated;
logically recorded time, to the still more but as the temperature diminished they
remote period when the earth was passing would come closer together, though still
through chemical and physical conditions with a great deal of motion, and making
which it can never see again, I should wide excursions, which might bring many
expect to be a witness of the evolution different atoms together in complex
of living protoplasms from non-living though unstable combinations. More
matter.” Such is the cautious candour over, carbon, which is the basis of all
with which scientific men approach such combinations of the class of proto
problems upon which theologians dogma plasm, was far more abundant in those
tise with the unerring intrepidity of early days in the form of carbonic
ignorance.
dioxide gas, before the enormous amount
In the meantime, what may be said of vegetable matter in the form of coal
as to Huxley’s reservation is this: A and otherwise, had been subtracted
considerable step has been made in the from it. In any case, the first protoplasm
direction indicated, by the success of must be extremely ancient, for the
recent chemistry in forming artificially remains of sea-weeds are found in the
what are called organic compounds— oldest strata, and vegetation of any sort
that is, substances which were previously implies the manufacture of protoplasm
known only as products of animal or from inorganic matter.
vegetable secretions. Urea, for instance,
The passage from the organic into the
the base of uric acid, with which so inorganic world is best traced by follow
many are unfortunately familiar in the ing the line of Pasteur’s researches on
�49
POLARITY IN LIFE
ferments. How does the world escape
being choked up by the accumulation of
dead organic matter throughout innumer
able ages ? By what are called ferments,
inducing processes of fermentation, and
putrefaction, by which the course of life
is reversed, and the organic elements are
taken to pieces and restored to the
inorganic world. Pasteur proved, in
opposition to the theories of Liebig and
other older chemists, that this was not
done directly by the oxygen of the air,
but through the intermediate agency of
living microbes, whose spores, floating
in the air, took up their abode and
multiplied wherever they found an
appropriate habitation. Given an air
purified from germs, or a temperature
low enough to prevent them from
germinating, and putrescible substances
would keep sweet for ever. The prac
tical realisation of this is seen in the
enormous commerce in canned meats
and fruits, and in the imports of frozen
beef and mutton, causing a fall of rents
and much lamentation among British
landlords and farmers.
But then the question was asked, How
are your microscopic organisms disposed
of? What are the ferments of your
ferments ? For even microscopic bacteria
and vibrios would, in time, choke up the
world by their residue if not got rid of.
Pasteur answered that the ferments are
destroyed by a new series of organisms
■—aerobes—living in the air, and these
by other aerobes in succession, until the
ultimate products are oxidised. “ Thus,
in the destruction of what has lived, all
is reduced to the simultaneous action of
the three great natural phenomena—
fermentation, putrefaction, and slow
combustion. A living being, animal, or
vegetable, or the debris of either, having
just died, is exposed to the air. The
life that has abandoned it is succeeded
by life under other forms. In the super
ficial parts, accessible to the air, the
germs of the infinitely little aerobes
flourish and multiply. The carbon,
hydrogen, and nitrogen of the organic
matter are transformed by the oxygen of
the air, and under the vital activity of
the aerobes, into carbonic acid, the
vapour of water, and ammonia. The
combustion continues as long as organic
matter and air are present together.
At the same time the superficial com
bustion is going on, fermentation and
putrefaction are performing their work
in the midst of the mass by means of
the developed germs of the original
microbes, which, note, do not need
oxygen to live, but which oxygen causes
to perish. Gradually the phenomena of
destruction are at last accomplished
through the work of latent fermentation
and slow combustion.”
This seems a complete demonstration
of the passage of the organic into the
inorganic world in the way of analysis,
or taking the puzzle to pieces. In the
opposite way of synthesis, or putting it
together, the nearest approach yet made
has been in the manufacture of those
organic compounds already referred. to,
such as urea, alizarine, indigotine,
albuminoids, and other substances which
had hitherto only been known as pro
ducts of animal or vegetable life. Of
these a vast number have been already
formed from inorganic elements by
chemical processes, and almost every
day announces some fresh discovery.
Under these circumstances, it is unsafe
to affirm either, on the one hand, that
the problem has been solved and that
life has ever been made in a laboratory;
or, on the other hand, that there is any
such great gulf fixed between the organic
and the inorganic, that we can assume a
break requiring secondary supernatural
interference to surmount it, and ignore
the good old maxim that “Natura nihil
facit per salturn! Positive proof is
wanting, but the probabilities point here,
as they do everywhere else throughout
the universe, to the truth of the theory
of “ original impress ” as opposed to that
of “secondary interference.”
It remains to show how the funda
mental law of polarity affects the more
complex relations of life and of its
various combinations. And here it. is
-E
�5o
POLARITY IN LIFE
important to bear in mind that, as the
factors of the problem become more
intricate and complex, so also do the
laws which regulate their existence and
action. Polarity is no longer a simple
question of attraction and repulsion at
the two ends of a magnet or at the
opposite poles of an atom. It appears
rather as a general law under which, as
the simple and absolute becomes dif
ferentiated by evolution into the complex
and manifold, it does so under the con
dition of developing contrasts.
For
every plus there is a minus, for every like
an unlike; one cannot exist without
the other; and, although apparently
antagonistic, harmonious order is only
possible by their co-existence and mutual
balance.
This is so important that it may be
well to make the idea clearer by an illustra
tion. The earth revolves round the sun
in its annual orbit under the influence
of two forces: the centripetal, or force
of gravity tending to draw it towards the
sun; and the centrifugal, tending to
make it dart away into infinite space.
During half the orbit the centripetal
seems to be gaining ground on the
centrifugal, and the earth is approaching
nearer to the sun. If this continued, it
would revolve ever nearer and soon fall
into it; but the centrifugal force is
gradually recruiting its strength from the
increased velocity of the earth, until it
first equals the centripetal, and finally
outstrips it, and for the remaining half
of the orbit it is constantly gaining
ground. If this went on, the earth
would fly off into the chilly regions of
outer space; but the centripetal force in
its turn regains the ascendency; and'
thus by the balance of the two forces
our planet describes the beautiful ellipse,
its harmonious orbit as a habitable globe;
while comets in which one or the other
force unduly preponderates for long
periods are alternately drawn into fiery
proximity to the sun, and sent careering
through regions void of heat.
Compare this passage from Herbert
Spencer: “As from antagonist physical
forces, as from antagonist emotions in
each man, so from the antagonist social
tendencies man’s emotions create, there
always results not a medium state, but
a rhythm between opposite states. The
one force or tendency is not continuously
counterbalanced by the other force or
tendency; but now the one greatly
preponderates, and presently by reaction1
there comes a preponderance of the
other.”
And again: “ There is nowhere a
balanced judgment and a balanced
action, but always .a cancelling of one
another by opposite errors. Men pair
off in insane parties, as Emerson puts
it.”
The reader will now begin to under
stand the sense in which polarity applies
to these complex conditions of an
advanced evolution.
To return, however, from this digres
sion to the point at which it began—viz.,
the origin of life—we have to show how
the law of polarity prevails in the organic
as well as in the inorganic world. In the
first place, the material to which all life is
attached, from the speck of protoplasm
to the brain of man, is strictly a chemical
product of atoms and molecules bound
together by the same polar laws of those
of inorganic matter.
In like manner, all the essential pro
cesses by which life lives, moves, and
has its being are equally mechanical
and chemical. If the brain, receiving a
telegram from without through the optic
nerve, sends a reply along another nerve
which liberates energy stored up in.
a muscle and produces motion, the
messages are received and transmitted
like those sent by a voltaic battery along
the wires of a telegraph, and the energy
is stored up by the slow combustion
of food in oxygen, just as that of the
steam-engine is produced by the com
bustion of coal. All this is mechanical,
inorganic, and therefore polar.
But when we come to the conditions
of life proper, we find the influence of
polarity mainly in this: that as it
develops from simpler into more complex
�\
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
forms, it does so under the law of de
veloping contrasts or opposite polarities,
which are necessary complements of
each other’s existence. Thus, as we
51
ascend in the scale oi lite, we nna two
primitive polarities developed : that of
plant and animal, and that of male and
female.
Chapter VII.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—plant and animal
Contrast in developed life—Plants producers, framework of its structure from the air,
animals consumers—Differences disappear in by breathing in through its leaves the
simple forms — Zoophytes —- Protista—Num- carbonic dioxide present. in the atmo
mulites— Corals—Fungi —Lichens Insecti
sphere, decomposing it, fixing the carbon
vorous plants — Geological succession
Primary period, Algse and Ferns—Secondary in its roots, stem, and branches, and
period, Gymnosperms—Tertiary and recent, exhaling the oxygen. The animal exactly
Angiosperms—Monocotyledons and Dicotyle reverses the process, inhaling the oxygen
dons—Parallel evolution of animal life —
Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish Secon of the air, combining it with the carbon
dary, reptiles—Tertiary and recent, mammals. of its food, and exhaling carbonic dioxide.
Animals or plants? Judging by first
impressions, nothing can be more dis
tinct. No one, whether scientific or
unscientific, could mistake an oak
tree for an ox. To the unscientific
observer the tree differs in having
no power of free movement, and. ap
parently no sensation or conscious
ness—in fact, hardly any of the attributes
of life. The scientific observer, sees
still more fundamental differences in the
fact that the plant feeds on inorganic
ingredients, out of which it manufactures
living matter, or protoplasm; while the
animal can only provide itself with pro
toplasm from that already manufactured
by the-plant. The ox, who lives on
grass, could not live on what the grass
thrives on—viz., carbon, oxygen, hydro
gen, and nitrogen. The contrast is so
striking that the vegetable world . has
been called the producer, and the animal
world the consumer, of nature. In the
language of recent science, plants are
plasmodomus and animals plasmophagous.
Again, the plant derives the material
Thus, a complete polarity is established,
as we see in the aquarium, where plant
and animal life balance each other, and
the opposites live and thrive, where the
existence of either would be impossible
without the other.
Sharp, however, as the contrast appears
to be in the more specialised and de
veloped specimens of the two worlds, we
have here another instance of the diffi
culty of trusting to first impressions, and
have to modify our conceptions greatly,
if we trace animal and vegetable life up
to their simplest forms and earliest
origins. In the first place, each indi
vidual vegetable or animal begins its exist
ence from a simple piece of pure proto
plasm. This develops in the same way
into a nucleated cell, by whose repeated
subdivision the raw material is provided
for both structures alike. The chief
difference at this early stage is that the
animal cells remain soft and naked,
while those of vegetables secrete a com
paratively solid cell-wall, which makes
them less mobile and plastic. This gives
greater rigidity to the frame and tissues of
the plant, and prevents the development
�52
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
of the finer organs of sensation and
other vital processes which charac
terise the animal. But this is a differ
ence of development only, and the
origination of the future life from the
speck of protoplasm is the same in both
worlds.
If, instead of looking at the origin of
individuals, we trace back the various
forms of animal and vegetable life from
the more complex to the simpler forms,
we find the distinctions between the two
disappearing, until at last we arrive at a
vanishing point where it is impossible to
say whether the organism is an animal
pr a plant.
A whole family, comprising sponges,
corals, and jelly-fish, were once called
Zoophytes, or plant-animals, from the
difficulty of assigning them to one
kingdom or the other. They are now a
chief division of the Coelenterata. But
when we descend a £tep lower in the
scale of existence, we come to a large
family—the Protista—of which it is im
possible to say that they are either plants
or animals. In fact, scientific observers
have classed them sometimes as belong
ing to one and sometimes to the other
kingdom; and it was an organism of
this class, looking at which through a
microscope Huxley pronounced it to be
probably a plant, while Tyndall exclaimed
that he would as soon call a sheep a
vegetable. They are mostly microscopic,
and are the first step in organised
development from the Monera, which are
mere specks of homogeneous protoplasm.
Small as they are, they have played an
important part in the formation of the
earth’s crust, for the little slimy mass of
aggregated cells has in many instances
the power of secreting a solid skeleton,
or a minute and delicate envelope or
shell, the petrified remains of which form
entire mountains. Thus the nummulitic
limestone, which forms high ranges on
the Alps and Himalayas, and of which
the Pyramids are built, consists of the
petrified skeletons of a species of Radiolaria, or many-chambered shells, forming
the complicated and elegant mansion
with many rooms and passages, of the
formless, slimy mass which constitutes
the living organism. Chalk also, and
the chalk-like formation which is accumu
lating at the bottom of deep oceans, are
the results of the long-continued fall of
the microscopic snowdrift of shells of the
Globigerina and other protistic forms
swimming in the sea; and in a higher
stage of development the skeletons of
corals, one of the family of Zoophytes or
plant-animals, form the coral reefs and
islands so numerous in the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, and are the basis of
the vast masses of coralline limestone
deposited in the coal era and other past
geological periods.
As development proceeds the distinc
tion between plants and animals becomes
more apparent, though even here the
simplest and earliest forms often show
signs of a common origin by interchang
ing some of ihe fundamental attributes
of the two kingdoms. Thus, the essential
condition of plant existence is to live on
inorganic food, which they manufacture
into protoplasm, by working up simple
combinations into others more compli
cated. Their diet consists of water,
carbonic dioxide, and ammonia; they
take in carbonic dioxide and give out
oxygen, while animals do exactly the
reverse. But the fungi live, like animals,
upon organic food consisting of compli
cated combinations of carbon, which
they assimilate; and, like animals, they
inhale oxygen and give out carbonic
dioxide.
Lichens afford a very curious instance
of the association of vegetable and
animal functions in the same plant.
They are really formed of two distinct
organisms—a body which is a low form
of Alga or sea-weed, and a parasitic form
of fungus, which lives upon it. The
former has a plant life, living on in
organic matter and forming the green
cells, or chlorophyll, which are the
essential property of plants, enabling
them under the action of the sun’s rays
to decompose carbonic dioxide; while
the parasite lives like an animal on the
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
formed protoplasm of the parent stem,
forming threads of colourless cells which
envelop and interlace with the original
lichen, of which they constitute the prin
cipal mass, as in a tree overgrown with ivy.
Even in existing and highly developed
plants we find some curious instances of
reversion towards animal life. . Certain
plants, for instance, like the pionsea or
Venus’ fly-trap, finding it difficult, to
obtain the requisite supply of nitro
genous food in a fluid state from the
arid or marshy soil in which they grow,
have acquired a habit of supplying the
deficiency by taking to an animal diet
and eating flies. Conjoined with this is
a more highly developed sensitiveness, a
power of what appears to be voluntary
motion, and a faculty of secreting a sort
of gastric juice, in which the flies are
digested. The fundamental, property
also of decomposing carbonic dioxide
and exhaling oxygen depends on. light
stimulating a peculiar chemical action of
the chlorophyll; and at night leaves
breathe like lungs, exhaling not oxygen,
but the carbonic dioxide.
The records of geology, imperfect, as
they are, show a continued progression
from these simple and neutral organisms
to higher and more differentiated forms,
both in the animal and vegetable worlds.
These records are imperfect because the
soft bodies of the simpler and for the
most part microscopic forms of proto
plasm and cell life are not capable of
being preserved in petrifactions, and it
is only when they happen to have
secreted shells or skeletons that we have
a chance of identifying them. Still we
have a sufficient number of remains in
the different geological strata to enable
us to trace development. Thus, in the
vegetable world, in the earliest strata,
the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian,
forming the primordial period, which
has a thickness of some 70,000 feet
of the earth’s crust—or more than that
of the whole of the subsequent strata
taken together—we find few other vege
table remains besides those of the lowest
group of plants, that of the Tangles or
53
Algse, which live in water. Forests of
these sea-weeds, like .those of the
Aleutian Islands, in some of which
single tangles stream to the length of
sixty feet, and floating masses like those
of the Sargasso Sea, appear to have con
stituted almost the sole vegetation of
these primaeval periods. Recently a few
specimens of a land-flora are thought to
have been found.
The rest of the Primary epoch, com
prising the Devonian or Old Red Sand
stone, the Carboniferous or Coal system,
and the Permian, follow, the average
thickness of the three together amounting
to about 42,000 feet. In. these the
family of Ferns predominates, the
remains of which constitute the bulk of
the large strata of coal, forming in
modern times our great resource for
obtaining the energy which, in a trans
formed shape, does so much of our
work. Pines begin to appear, though
sparingly, in this epoch.
The Secondary epoch comprises the
Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous
or Chalk formation, the average thickness
of the three amounting to about 15,000
feet. In this era a higher species of
vegetation predominates, that of the
Gymnosperms, or plants having naked
seeds, of which the pines, or Coniferse,
and the palm-ferns, or Cycadese, are the
two principal classes. As in the case of
the former epoch, traces of the approach
ing higher organisation in the form of
leaf-bearing trees begin to appear towards
its close.
The Tertiary period extends from the
end of the Chalk to the commencement
of the Quaternary or modern period.
It is divided into the Eocene or older,
Oligocene or less old, the Miocene or
middle, and the Pliocene or newest
Tertiary system; though the division is
somewhat arbitrary, depending on the
number of existing species, mostly of
shell-fish, which have been found in
each. The average thickness of the three
together is about 3,000 feet. In this
formation a still higher class of vegetation
of the same order as that now existing,
�54
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—PLANT AND ANIMAL
which made its first appearance in
In the Primary era the Devonian and
the Chalk period, has become predomi Permian formations are characterised by
nant. It is that of Angiosperms, or a great abundance of fishes, of the
plants with covered seeds, forming leafy antique type, which has no true bony
. forests of true trees. This group is skeleton, but is clothed in an army of
divided into the two classes of mono enamelled scales, and whose tail, instead
cotyledons or single-seed-lobed plants, of being bi-lobed or forked, has one lobe
and dicotyledons or plants with double only—a type of which the sturgeon and
seed-lobes. The monocotyledons spring garpike are the nearest surviving repre
from a single germ leaf, and are of sentatives. In the Coal formation are
simpler organisation than the other class. found the first remains of land animals
They comprise the grasses, rushes, lilies, in the form of insects and a scorpion,
irids, orchids, sea-grasses, and a number and a few traces of vertebrate amphibious
of aquatic plants, and in their highest animals and reptiles j while higher up in
form develop into the tree-like families the Permian are found a few more
of the palms and bananas.
highly developed reptiles, some of which
The dicotyledons include all forms of approximate to the existing crocodile.
leaf-bearing forest trees, almost all fruits Still, fishes greatly predominate, so that
and flowers, in fact by far the greater the whole Primary period may be called
part of the vegetable world familiar to the age of fishes, as truly as, looking at
man, as coming into immediate relation its flora, it may be called the age of
with it, except in the case of the culti ferns.
vated plants, which are developments of
In the Secondary period reptiles pre
the monocotyledon grasses.
dominate, and are developed into a
We see, therefore, in the geological great variety of strange and colossal
record a confirmation of the evolution forms. The first birds appear, being
over immense periods of time of the obviously developed from some of the
more complex and perfect from the forms of flying lizards, and having many
simple and primitive.
reptilian characters. Mammals also put
If we turn to the same geological in a first feeble appearance, in the form
record to trace the development of of small, marsupial, insectivorous crea
animal life, we find it running a parallel tures.
course with that of plants. It was
In the Tertiary period the class of
believed for a long time that the earliest mammals greatly predominates over all
known fossil was the Eozoon Canadense, other vertebrate animals, and we can
from the Lower Laurentian, which was see the principal types slowly developing
held to be the chambered shell of a and differentiating into those at present
protista of the class of Rhizopods, whose existing. The human type appears
soft body consisted of mere protoplasm plainly in the Miocene, in the form of
not yet differentiated into cells. But large anthropoid apes, the Dryopithecus,
this formation is now generally regarded the Pliopithecus, etc. In the Pliocene
by geologists as not organic. Still, a we have the remains of the Pithecan
certain number of remains of lowly thropus (or “ missing link ”) ; and
Crustacea, sponges, etc., have been found undoubted human remains are found in
in Pre-Cambrian strata. As we ascend the beginning of the Quaternary, if not,
the scale of the primordial era, traces as many distinguished geologists believe,
of marine life of the lower organisms in the Pliocene and even in the Miocene
begin to appear, until in the Silurian .ages.
they become very abundant, consisting,
So far, therefore, there seems to be a
however, mainly of mollusca and complete parallelism between the evolu
Crustacea, and in the Upper Silurian we tion of animal and vegetable life from
find the first traces of fishes.
the earliest to the latest, and from the
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
simplest to the most complex forms.
The facts now plainly establish a pro
cess of evolution by which the animal
and vegetable worlds, starting from a
common origin in protoplasm, the lowest
and simplest form of living matter, have
gradually advanced step by step, along
diverging lines, until we have at last
arrived at the sharp antithesis of the ox
and the oak tree. It is clear, however,
that this evolution has gone on under
what I have called the generalised law
of polarity, by which contrasts are pro
duced of apparently opposite and anta
gonistic qualities, which, however, are
indispensable for each other’s existence.
Thus animals could not exist without
plants to work up the crude inorganic
55
materials into the complex and mobile
molecules of protoplasm, which are alone
suited for assimilation by the more
delicate and complex organisation of
animal life. Plants, on the other hand,
could not exist without a supply of the
carbonic dioxide, which is their principal
food, and which animals are continually
pouring into the air from the combustion
of their carbonised food in oxygen,
which supplies them with heat and
energy. Thus nature is one huge
aquarium, in which animal and vegetable
life balance each other by their con
trasted and supplemental action, and,
as in the inorganic world, harmonious
existence becomes possible by this due
balance of opposing factors.
Chapter VIII.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
Sexual generation—Base of ancient cosmogonies
—Propagation non-sexual in simpler forms—
Amceba and cells—Germs and buds—Ane
mones—Worms—Spores—Origin of sex—
Ovary and male organ—Hermaphrodites—
Parthenogenesis—Bees and insects—Man and
woman—Characters of each sex—Woman’s
position—Improved by civilisation—Chris
tianity the feminine pole—Monogamy the law
<5f nature—Tone respecting women test of
character—Women in literature—In society—
Attraction and repulsion of sexes—Like
attracts unlike—Ideal marriage—Woman’s
rights and modern legislation.
“ Male and female created he them.”
At first sight this distinction of sex
appears as fundamental as that of plant
and animal. Mankind, and all the
higher forms of life with which mankind
has relations, can only propagate their
species in one way : by the co-operation
of two individuals of the species, who
are essentially like and yet unlike, pos
sessing attributes which are comple
mentary of one another, and whose
union is requisite to originate a new
living unit—in other words, by sexual
propagation.
So certain does this
appear that all ancient religions and
philosophies begin by assuming a male
and female principle for their gods, or
first guesses at the unknown first causes
of the phenomena of nature. Thus
Ouranos and Gaia, Heaven and Earth;
Phoebus and Artemis, the Sun and
Moon ; are all figured ' by the primitive
imagination as male and female; and
the Spirit of God, brooding over Chaos
and producing the world, is only a later
edition, revised according to mono
theistic ideas, of the far older Chaldean
legend which describes the creation of
Cosmos out of Chaos by the co-opera
tion of great gods, male and female.
Even in later and more advanced reli
gions, traces of this ineradicable tendency
to assume difference of sex as the indis
pensable condition of the creation of new
�56
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
existence are found to linger and crop
up in cases where they are altogether
inapplicable. Thus, in the orthodox
Christian creed we are taught to repeat
“ begotten, not made,” a phrase which is
absolute nonsense, or non-sense—that is,
an instance of using words like counter
feit notes, which have no solid value of
an idea behind them. For “ begotten ”
is a very definite term, which implies the
conjunction of two opposite sexes to
produce a new individual. Unless two
deities are assumed of different sexes, the
statement has no possible meaning. It
is a curious instance of atavism, or the
way in which the qualities and ideas of
remote ancestors sometimes crop up in
their posterity.
Science, however, makes sad havoc
with this impression of sexual generation
being the original and only mode of
reproduction, and the microscope and
dissecting knife of the naturalist intro
duce us to new and altogether unsus
pected worlds of life. By far the larger
proportion of living forms, in number at
any rate, if not in size, have come into
existence without the aid of sexual pro
pagation. When we begin at the begin
ning, or with those Monera which are
simple specks of homogeneous proto
plasm, we find them multiplying by self
division. Amoeba A, when it outgrows
its natural size, contracts in the middle
and splits into two Amoebse, B and C,
which are exactly like one another and
like the original A. In fact, B contains
one half of its parent A, and C the other
half. They each grow to the size of the
original A, and then repeat the pro
cess of splitting and duplicating them
selves.
The next earliest stage in the evolu
tion of living matter, the nucleated cell,
does exactly the same thing.
The
nucleus splits into two, each of which
becomes a new nucleus for the proto
plasmic matter of the original cell, and
either multiply within it, or burst the old
cell-wall, and become two new cells
resembling the first.
The next stage in advance is that of
propagation by germs-or buds, in which
the organism does not divide into two
equal parts, but a small portion of it
swells out at its surface, and finally parts
company and starts on a separate exist
ence, which grows to the size of the
parent by its inherent faculty of manu
facturing fresh protoplasm from surround
ing inorganic materials. This process
may be witnessed any day in an aquarium
containing specimens of the sea-anemone,
where the minute new anemones may
be seen in every form, both before and
after they have parted from the parent
body. It remains one of the principal
modes of propagation of the vegetable
world, where plants are multiplied from
buds even after they have developed the
higher mode of sexual propagation by
seeds. In some of the lowest animals,
such as worms, the buds are reduced to
a small aggregation of cells, which form
themselves into distinct individuals inside
the body of the parent, and separate from
it when they have attained a certain
stage of development.
Advancing still further on the road
towards sexual reproduction, we find
these germ-buds reduced to spores, or
single cells, which are emitted from the
parent, and afterwards multiply by divi
sion, until they form a many-celled
organism, which has the hereditary
qualities of the original one. This is
the general form of propagation of the
lower plants, such as algae, mosses, and
ferns, and also of a number of the lower
forms of animal-like microscopic organ
isms, such as bacteria, whose spores,
floating in the air in enormous quanti
ties, and multiplying when they find a
fit soil with astonishing rapidity, in a few
days devastate the potato crop of a whole
district or bring about an epidemic of
scarlet-fever or cholera.
They have
their use, however, in creation, and their
action is beneficent as well as the reverse,
for they are the principal cause of putre
faction, the process whereby the dead
organic matter, which, if not removed,
would choke up the world, is resolved
into the inorganic elements from which
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
it sprang, and rendered available for
fresh combinations.
We are now at the threshold of that
system of sexual progagation which has
become the rule in all the higher families
of animals and in many plants. It may
be conceived as originating in the amal
gamation of some germ-cell or spore with
the original cell which was about to
develop into a germ-bud within the body
of some individual, and, by the union of
the two, producing a new and more
vigorous originating cell, which modified
the course of development of the germ
bud and of its resulting organism.. This
organism, having advantages in the
struggle for life, established itself per
manently with ever new developments in
the same direction, which would be fixed
and extended in its descendants by here
dity, and special organs developed to
meet the altered conditions. Thus at
length the distinction would be firmly
established of a female organ or ovary
containing the egg or primitive cell from
which the new being was to be
developed, and a male organ supplying
the fertilising spore or cell, which was
necessary to start the egg in the evolu
tionary process by which it developed
into the germ of an offspring combining
qualities of the two parents. This is
confirmed by a study of embryology,
which shows that in the human and
higher animal species the distinction of
sex is not developed until a considerable
progress has been made in the growth of
the embryo. It is only, however, in the
higher and more specialised families
that we find this mode of propagation by
two distinct individuals of different sexes
firmly established. In the great majority
of plants, and in some of the lower
families of animals—for instance, snails
and earth-worms—the male and female
organs are developed within the same
being, and they are what are called
hermaphrodites. Thus, in most of the
flowering plants the same blossom con
tains both the stamens and anther,
which are the male organ, and the style
and germ, which are the female.
57
Another transition form is Partheno
genesis, or virginal reproduction, in
which germ-cells, apparently similar in
all respects to egg-cells, develop them
selves into new individuals without any
fructifying element. This is found to be
the case with many species of insects,
and with this curious result, that those
same germ-cells are often capable of
being fructified, and in that case produce
very different individuals. Thus, among
the common bees, male bees or drones
arise from the non-fructified eggs of the
queen bee, while females are produced
if the egg has been fructified.
In the higher families, however, of
animal life the distinction of sex in
different individuals has become the
universal rule, and it produces a polarity
or contrast which becomes ever more
conspicuous as we rise in the scale of
creation, until it attains its highest
development in the highest stage hitherto
reached, that of civilised man and woman.
Both physical and mental characteristics
depend mainly on the fact that the ovary
or egg-producing organ is developed in
the female, and thus the whole work of
reproduction is thrown on her. To per
form this a large portion of the vital
energy is required, which in the male is
available for larger and more prolonged
growth of organs, such as the brain,
stature, and limbs, by which a more
powerful grasp is attained of the outward
environment.
In other words, the
female comes sooner to maturity and is
weaker than the male. She is also
animated by a much stronger love for
the offspring, which is part of her own
body, during the period of infancy; and
thus, in addition to the physical attri
butes, such as lacteal glands and larger
breasts, she inherits qualities of softness,
amiability, and devotion which fit her
for the office of nurse. Her physical
weakness, again, has made her, for un
told ages, and even now in all the less
advanced communities, and too often
even in the most advanced, the slave of
the stronger male.
She has thus in
herited many of the mental qualities
�58
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF
which are essential to such a state : the
desire to propitiate by pleasing and
making herself attractive j the gentleness
and submissiveness which shrink from a
contest of brute force in which she is
sure to be defeated j the clinging to a
stronger nature for support, which in
extreme cases leads to blind admiration
of power and the spaniel-like attachment
to a master, whether deserving of it or
not. As civilisation, however, advances,
and as intellectual and moral qualities
gain ascendency over brute strength and
animal instincts, the condition of woman
improves, and it comes more and more
to be recognised that she is not made to
be man’s slave or plaything,, but has her
own personality and character, which, if
in some respects inferior, are in others
better than those of the male half of
creation. Tennyson, the great poet of
modern thought, who sums up so many
of the ideas and tendencies of the age in
concise and vigorous verse, writes :—
For woman is not undeveloped map,
Nor yet man’s opposite.
Not opposite, yet different, so that the
one supplements what is wanting to the
other, and the harmonious union of the
two makes ideal perfection. It is the
glory of European civilisation to have
done so much to develop this idea of the
equality of the sexes, and to have gone
so far towards emancipating the weaker
half of the human species from the
tyranny of the stronger half.
It would be unfair to omit mention of
the great part which Christianity has had
in this good work; not only by direct
precept and recognition of religious
equality, but even more by the embodi
ment, as its ideal, of the feminine virtues
of gentleness, humility, resignation, selfdevotion, and charity.
Ideal Chris
tianity is, in fact, what may be called the
feminine pole of conduct and morality,
as opposed to the masculine one of
courage, hardihood, energy, and selfreliance.
Many of the precepts of
Christianity are unworkable, and have to
be silently dropped in practice. It would
SEX
not. answer either for individuals or
nations “ when smitten on one cheek to
turn the other.” When an appeal is made
to fact to decide whether it is a right
rule to live as the sparrows do, taking no
thought for the morrow, the verdict of
^/is in favour of foresight and frugality.
erbert Spencer has stated this polarity
very strongly as that of the religion of
amity and the religion of enmity; but I
think he states the case too adversely for
the latter, for the qualities which make
men and nations good fighters and vic
torious in the struggle for existence are
in their way just as essential as the
gentler virtues, and both alike become
defects when pushed to the “ falsehood
o extremes.
Christianity, therefore,
whatever may become of its dogmas,
ought always to be regarded with affec
tion and respect for the humanising effect
it has produced, especially in improving
the condition of the female half of
creation.
This improvement in the condition of
women has brought about a correspond
ing improvement in the male sex, for the
polarity between the two has come to be
the most intimate and far-reaching in
fluence of modern life. Take the litera
ture of the novel and play, which aim at
holding up the mirror to human nature
and contemporary manners, and you will
find that they nearly all turn upon love.
The word “immorality” has come to
signify the one particular breach of the
laws of morality which arises from the
relations of the sexes.
In providing for the birth of nearly
equal numbers of each sex, nature clearly
establishes monogamy, or union of single
pairs, as the condition of things most in
accordance with natural laws.
The
family, also, the first germ of civilisation,
is impossible, or can only exist in a very
imperfect and half-developed state, without
this permanent union of a single husband
and wife. Violations of this law lead to
such disastrous consequences to indi
viduals, and are so deteriorating to
nations, that they are properly considered
as the “ immorality ” far excellence^ and
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
condemned by all right-minded opinion.
And yet to observe this law is a constant
lesson in self-control for a great part of
the life—a lesson of the utmost value,
for it is a virtue which is at the root of
all other virtues. And it is formed and
becomes habitual and easy by practice,
for just as the muscles of the balletdancer’s leg or blacksmith’s arm acquire
strength and elasticity by use, so do the
finer fibres of the brain improve by exer
cise and become soft and flabby by
disuse, so that effort in the former case
is a pleasure and in the latter a pain.
For this reason chaste nations are gene
rally strong and conquering nations;
dissolute Imperial Rome went down
before the Goths and Germans, and
polygamous Turkey perishes of dry rot
in the midst of the progress of the twen
tieth century. Indeed, there is no better
test of the position which either an indi
vidual, a class, or a nation holds in the
scale of civilisation than the tone which
prevails among the men with regard to
women. Wherever Turkish ideas pre
vail, we may be sure that, whatever may
be the outward varnish of manner, there
is essential snobbishness.
“Up and down
Along the scales of life, through all,
To him who wears the golden ball,
By birth a king, at heart a clown.”
On the other hand, wherever women are
regarded with a chivalrous respect and
reverence, the heart of a true gentleman
beats, though it be under the rough
exterior of one of Bret Harte’s cow-boys
or Californian miners.
Nothing, in fact, gives one more hope
in the progress of human society than to
find that in the freest countries, and
those farthest advanced towards modern
ideas and democratic institutions, the
tone with regard to women shows the
greatest improvement. There is a regu
lar crescendo scale of progress from Turkey
to America. I do not refer so much to
the fact that in the newer colonies and
countries women can travel unprotected
without fear of insult or injury, as to the
almost instinctive recognition of their
59
equal rights as intelligent and moral
beings, who have a personality and charac
ter of their own, which places them on
the same platform as men, though on
opposite sides of it.
To understand rightly the real spirit
of an age or country, it is not enough to
study dry statistics or history in the form
of records of wars and political changes.
We must study the works of the best
poets, novelists, and dramatists, who
seek to embody types and to hold up
the mirror to contemporary ideas and
manners. A careful perusal of such works
as those of Dickens, Thackeray, Trol
lope, and George Eliot at home, and of
Bret Harte, Howells, James, and Mrs.
Burnett in the United States, will give a
truer insight into the inner life of the
country and period than any number of
blue-books or consular returns. They
show what the writers of the greatest
genius—that is, of the greatest insight—
see as types of the actual ideas and
characters surrounding them; and the
fact of their works being popular shows
that the types are recognised as true.
Now, it is certain that the English litera
ture of fiction and its latest development,
that of the American novelists, show an
ever-increasing recognition of the female
individual as an equal unit with the male
in the constitution of modern society.
Those dear “ school marms ” of Bret
Harte’s and Wendell Holmes’s, who
career so joyously through mining camps,
receiving courtesy and radiating civilis
ing influences among the rough inhabi
tants, or touch the hearts and throw a
mellow light over the autumn days of
middle-aged professors and philosophers,
are far removed from the slaves of pre
historic savages or the inmates of a
Turkish harem. So also in the more
complex relations of a more crowded
civilisation, in the circles of Washington,
New York, and Boston, the ideal Ame
rican woman is always depicted as bright,
intelligent, and independent, with a
character and personality of her own;
and the suspicion never seems to enter
the author’s head that she is in any
�6o
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—POLARITY OF SEX
respect inferior to the male characters
with whom she is associated.
The same may be said to a great
extent of English literature from the
time of Shakespeare downwards.
No
better portrait than Portia was ever
drawn of the
“ Perfect woman, nobly planned
To soothe, to comfort, and command ;
And yet a spirit still, and bright
With something of an angel light.”
And in the long gallery of good and
loveable women, from Rosalind and
Irtlogene down to Lucy Roberts and
Laura Pendennis, we have not one who
is a mere nonentity or child of passionate
impulse.
Nor is the recognition of
woman’s equality less marked in the
bad characters.
Lady Macbeth is of
a stronger nature than Macbeth ; Becky
Sharp more clever and full of resources
than the men with whom she plays like
puppets; Maggie Tulliver, with all her
wild struggles with herself and her sur
roundings, has far more in her than her
brother Tom. Compare these characters
with those of the school of modern
French novels, which turn mainly on
adultery and seduction, committed for
the most part not in any whirlwind of
irresistible passion, but to gratify some
passing caprice or vanity, and it is easy
to see how wide is the gulf which
separates the ideals and moral atmo
sphere of the two countries.
It is not, therefore, from any wish to
indulge in what Herbert Spencer calls
the “unpatriotic bias,” and depreciate
my own country, that I am disposed to
think that the younger English-speaking
communities are somewhat in advance
of ourselves in this matter of the rela
tions of the sexes, but simply because
I think that the feeling is there more
widespread and universal. We have in
English society two strata in which
women are still considered as inferior
beings to men : a lower one, where better
ideas have not yet permeated the dense
mass of ignorance and brutality; and a
higher one, where among a certain por
tion, let us hope a small one, of the
gilded youth and upper ten, luxury and
idleness have blunted the finer suscepti
bilities, and created what may be most
aptly called a Turkish tone about women.
There are many of this class, and unfor
tunately often in high places, where their
example does widespread mischief, whose
ideal might be summed up in the words
of the Irish ballad :—
“ I am one of the ould sort of Bradies,
My turn does not lie to hard work ;
But I’m fond of my pipe and the ladies,
And I’d make a most illigant Turk.”
And most “illigant Turks’’they make,
though far worse than real Turks, who
are born and brought up in the ideas
and surroundings of a lower civilisation ;
while the tone of our English Turks is
far more nauseous and disgusting, as
denoting innate selfishness, sensuality,
and vulgarity. Of these two classes
there seem to be fewer in the newer
English communities ; and if they exist,
they are in such a small minority that
they conceal their existence, and pay the
homage of vice to virtue which is called
hypocrisy.
To return, however, to the more
scientific aspects of the question, the
polarity of sex displays itself as con
spicuously as that of the magnet in the
fundamental law of repulsion of like for
like, and attraction of like for unlike.
In each case there must be an identity of
essence developing itself in opposite
directions. Thus, atoms attract or repel
atoms, but not molecules ; for if they
seem to do so, it is only in cases in
which the molecule contains some atom
whose atomicity or polar power has not
been fully satisfied. So currents of air
or water do not affect electric currents.
But given the identity of substance, its
differentiation takes place under an everincreasing progression of polarity of
affinities and repulsions.
A German naturalist, Brahm, discussing
the question why birds sing, says : “ The
male finds in the female those desirable
and attractive qualities which are want
ing in himself. He seeks the opposite
to himself with the force of a chemical
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
element.” This is equally true of the |
male and female of the human species.
A masculine woman and effeminate man
are equally unattractive, and, if the quali
ties are pushed to an extreme extent, the
individuals become monstrosities, and,
instead of attracting, excite vehement
disgust and repulsion. This, which is
true physically, is equally true of moral
and intellectual characteristics. Each
seeks, in the happy marriage or perfect
ideal union, the qualities which are most
deficient in themselves: the woman,
strength, active courage, and the harder
qualities; the man, gentleness, amiability,
and the softer virtues. In each indi
vidual, as in each union of individuals,
harmony and perfection depend on the
due balance of the opposite qualities,
and the “ falsehood of extremes ” leads
up to chaos and insanity. The man in
whom strength and hardihood are not
tempered by gentleness and affection
becomes brutal and tyrannical; while
the woman who has no strength of char
acter becomes silly and frivolous. Mar
riage, however, involves the highest ideal,
for the well-assorted union of the two in
one gives a more complete harmony and
reconciliation of opposites than can be
attained by the single individual, who
must always remain more or less within
the sphere of the polarity of his or her
respective sex. But here also the same
law of polarity operates, for as happy
marriage affords the highest ideal, so do
61
unhappy and ill-assorted unions involve
the greatest misery and most complete
shipwreck of life. Especially to the
woman, for the man has other pursuits
and occupations, and can to a great
extent withdraw himself from domestic
troubles; while the woman has no
defence against the coarseness, selfish
ness, and the vulgarity of the partner to
whom she is tied, and who may make
her life a perpetual purgatory, and drag
all her finer intellectual and moral nature
down to a lower level.
Fortunately,
extreme cases are rare, and, though the
ideal of a perfect union may seldom be
attained to, the great majority of married
couples manage to jog on together, and
bring up families in comparative comfort
and respectability. Evidently, however,
in many cases the weaker party does not
get fair play, and the laws which are the
result of centuries of male legislation
are often too oblivious of the maxim that
what is “sauce for goose is sauce for
gander.” Improvement, however, is
coming from the growth of the more
healthy public opinion, which stigmatises
any invasion of woman’s real rights, and
any attempt on the part of her natural
protector to bully and tyrannise, as
utterly disgraceful; and the waves of
this public opinion are slowly but surely
sapping the cliffs of legal conservatism,
and forcing the intrenchments of stolid
injustice behind ermine robes, horsehair
wigs, and obsolete Acts of Parliament.
Chapter
IX.
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND
VARIATION
Heredity in simple forms of life—In more com
plex organisms—Pangenesis—Varieties, how
produced — Fixed by law of survival of
the fittest—Dr. Temple’s view—Examples :
triton, axolotl—Variations in individuals and
species—Lizards into birds—Ringed snakes—
Echidna.
As the earth is kept in an orbit, which
makes life possible by the balance of the
antagonistic centripetal and centrifugal
forces, so is that life evolved and main
tained by the balance of the two con
flicting forces of heredity and variation.
�62
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
Heredity, or the principle which makes
offsprings resemble the parental organ
isms, may be considered as the centri
petal force which gives stability to
species; while variation is like the
centrifugal force which tends to make
them develop into new forms, and pre
vents organic matter from remaining ever
consolidated into one uniform mass.
As regards heredity, the considerations
which have been advanced in the last
chapter, on the origin of sex, will enable
the reader to understand the principles
on which it is based. When a moneron,
or living piece of pure protoplasm, or its
successor the nucleated cell, propagates
itself by simple division into two equal
parts, it is obvious that each half must,
in its atomic constitution and motions,
exactly resemble the original. If amceba
A divides into amcebse B and C, both B
and C are exact facsimiles of A and of
one another, and so are the progeny of
B and C through any number of genera
tions. They must remain identical repe
titions of the parent form, unless some
of them should happen to be modified
by different actions of their surrounding
environment, powerful enough to affect
the original organisation.
In propagation by germs or buds, the
same thing must hold true, only, as the
offspring carries with it not the half,, but
only a small portion of the parental
organism, its impress will be less
powerful, and the new organism will
more readily be affected by external
influences. When we come to propaga
tion by spores or single cells, and still
more to sexual propagation by the union
of single cells of two progenitors, it
becomes more difficult to see how the
type of the two parents, and of a long
line of preceding ancestors, can be main
tained so perfectly.
Of the fact that it is maintained there
can be no doubt. Not only do species
breed true and remain substantially the
same for immense periods, but the
characters of individual parents and
their ancestors repeat themselves, to a
great extent, in their offspring. Thus
the cross between the white and black
varieties of the human species per
petuates itself to such an extent that a
single cross of black blood leaves traces
for a number of generations. In the
Spanish American States and the West
Indies, where the distinction is closely
observed, the term “ octoroon ” is well
known, as applied to creoles who have
seven-eighths of white to one-eighth of
black blood in their composition. In
the case of what is called “atavism,” this
recurrence to the characters of ancestors
is carried to a much further extent. In
breeding animals, it is not uncommon to
find the peculiar features of generations
of ancestors long since extinct cropping
up occasionally in individuals. Thus,
stripes like those of the ass along the
back and down the shoulders occa
sionally appear on horses whose imme
diate ancestors for many generations
back showed nothing of the sort; and
even stripes across the legs like those of
the zebra occur quite unexpectedly, and
testify to the common descent of the
various species of the horse tribe from a
striped ancestor. How these ancestral
peculiarities can be transmitted through
many generations, each individual of
which originated from a single micro
scopic cell which had been fructified by
another cell, is one of the greatest
mysteries of nature. It may assist us in
forming some idea of the possibility of a
solution to remember what has been
proved as to the dimensions of atoms.
Their order of magnitude is that of a
cricket-ball to the earth. In a single
microscopic cell, therefore, there may be
myriads of such atoms circling round
one another and forming infinitesimal
solar systems, of infinite complexity and
variety. Darwin’s theory of “ Pange
nesis ” supposes that some of the actual
identical atoms which formed part of
ancestral bodies are thus transmitted
through their descendants for generation
after generation, so that we are literally
“flesh of the flesh” of the primseval
creature who was developed into man in
the later tertiary or early glacial period.
�PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
Haeckel, more plausibly, suggests that
not the identical atoms, but their pecu
liar motions and mode of aggregation,
have been thus transmitted—-a mode of
transmission which, with his prevailing
tendency to invent long and learned
names for everything, he calls the
“Perigenesis of plastids.” Weismann
has more recently, while denying, that
acquired characteristics are transmitted,
formed a theory known as that of the
“continuity of the germ-plasm.” This
implies that a part of a definite substance
from the germ-cells (or “ germ-plasm ”)
of the parent is not used up in construct
ing the body of the new organism, but
“ reserved unchanged for the formation
of the germ-cells of the following genera
tions.” In any case, however, these must
be taken not as solutions of the problem,
but as guesses at the truth which show
that its solution is not impossible.
The opposite principle to heredity,
that of variation, is equally important
and universal. It is apparent in the
fact that, although every individual of
every species reproduces qualities of
parents and ancestors, no two individuals
do so in precisely the same manner; no
two are exactly alike. This difference,
or individuality, becomes more marked
as the organism is higher. Thus, sheep
and hounds differ from one another by
slight differences, which require the
practised eye of the shepherd or hunts
man to detect; while human beings are so
unlike that of the many millions existing
in each generation no two exactly
resemble one another. The reason of
this is apparent if we consider that the
higher the organism the more complex
does it become, and the less the chance
of the whole complicated relations of
parent and ancestral organisms being
transmitted by single cells so solidly and
completely as to overpower and remain
uninfluenced by external influences.
Variation evidently depends mainly on
the varying influences of environment.
If the exterior layer of molecules of a
lump of protoplasm become differentiated
from the interior ones and form a cell
63
wall, it is because they are in more
immediate contact with the air or other
surrounding medium. Internal changes
depend on conditions such as tempera
ture and nutrition. In the case of culti
vated plants and domestic animals we
can see most clearly how varieties are
produced by adaptation to changes of
environment. These variations, how
ever, would not proceed very far were
it not for the interaction of the opposing
forces of variation and heredity, by which
latter the variations appearing in indivi
duals are fixed’ and accumulated in
descendants, until they become wide and
permanent divergencies. This is done
in the case of cultivated plants and
domestic animals by man’s artificial
selection in pairing individuals who show
the same variations; and in nature by
the struggle for existence, giving victory
and survival to those forms, and in the
long run to those forms only, whose
variations, slight as they may be in each
generation, tend to bring individuals into
better adaptation to their environment.
It is the great glory of Darwin to have
established this firmly by an immense
number of interesting and exhaustive
instances, and thus placed evolution, or
a scientific explanation of the develop
ment and laws of life, on a solid basis.
Every day fresh discoveries and experi
ments confirm this great principle, and it
has almost passed into the same phase as
Newton’s law of gravity, as a fundamental
law accepted as axiomatic by all men of
science, and as the basis of modern
thought, to which all religions and philo
sophies have to conform, accepted by
nearly all modern thinkers. I may here
quote a passage from an eminent Angli
can divine, Dr. Temple, for the double
purpose of showing how universal has
become the acceptance of this Darwinian
view of evolution among intelligent men,
and how little terrible are its conse
quences, even to those who look at the
facts of the universe through a theo
logical medium and retain their belief in
accepted creeds :—
“ It seems in itself something more
�64
PRIMITIVE POLARITIES—HEREDITY AND VARIATION
majestic, more befitting of him to whom
a thousand years are as one day, and one
day as a thousand years, thus to impress
his will once for all on this creation, and
provide for all its countless varieties by
this one original impress, than by special
acts of creation to be perpetually modi
fying what he had previously made.”1
Scientific men would be content to
accept this statement of Dr. Temple’s
almost in his own words, except that
they might consider his definition of the
Great First Cause as somewhat too
absolute and confident. Having had to
deal so much with actual facts and
accurate knowledge, they are apt to be
more modest in assertion than even the
most enlightened theologian, whose
studies have lain rather in the direction
of phrases and ideas, which, from their
very nature, are more vague and in
definite, and perhaps rather guesses and
aspirations after truth than proofs of it.
In any case, there is the authority of a
learned and liberal-minded bishop for
the position that the scientific way of
looking at the universe is not necessarily
profane or irreligious.
To return to variation: the instances
of the operation of this principle, alone
or in conjunction with that of heredity,
in working out the evolution of species,
are exceedingly numerous and interesting.
Those who wish to understand the
subject thoroughly must study the works
of Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, and other
modern writers; but for my present
purpose it will be sufficient to refer to a
few of the most marked instances which
may assist the reader in comprehending
how the gradual evolution of life and
creation of new species may have been
brought about.
There is an amphibious animal, called
the triton or water-salamander, akin to
the frog, whose normal course is to begin
life living in the water and breathing by
gills, and end it on land with gills meta
morphosed into lungs. If they are shut
up in water and kept in a tank, they
1 Dr. Temple, Religion and Science.
never lose their gills, but continue through
life in the lower stage of development,
and reproduce themselves in other tritons
with gills. Conversely, the axolotl, a
peculiar gilded salamander from the Lake
of Mexico, has its normal course to live,
die, and propagate its species in water,
breathing by gills; but if an axolotl
happens to stray from the water and
take to living on dry land, the gills are
modified into lungs and the animal gains
a place in the class in the school of
development. This fits in remarkably
with the fact that the embryo of all
vertebrate mammals, including man,
passes through the gilled stage before
arriving at the development of lungs,
which assists us in understanding two
facts of primary importance in the history
of evolution.
First, how terrestrial life may have
arisen from aquatic life by adaptation to
altered conditions.
Secondly, how the evolution of the
embryo sums up in the individual, in
the period of a few days or months, the
various stages of evolutions which it has
taken millions of years to accomplish in
the species.
As a parallel to the transformation of
gills into lungs, and an aquatic into a
land animal, if we turn to the geological
records of the Secondary period, we may
trace the transformation of a water into
an air population, of sea-lizards into
flying-lizards, and of flying-lizards into
birds. The “ Hesperornis ” is an actual
specimen of the transition, being a
feathered lizard, or rather winged and
feathered creature which is half lizard
and half bird.
A remarkable instance of the great
change of functions which may be pro
duced by a change of outward conditions
is afforded by the common ringed snake,
which in its natural state lays eggs that
take three weeks to hatch; but if con
fined in a cage in which no sand is
strewed, it hatches the eggs within its
own body, and from oviparous becomes
viviparous. This may help us to under
stand how the lowest order of mammals,
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 65
which, -like the Australian echidna or
duck-billed mole, lay eggs, may have de
veloped, first into marsupial, and finally
into placental mammals.
These examples may assist the reader
in understanding how the infinite diver
sities of living species may have been
developed in the course of evolution
from simple origins, just as the inorganic
world was from atoms, by the action and
reaction of primitive polar forces be
tween the organism and its environment,
and between heredity and variation.
Chapter
X.
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN
AND THOUGHT
how these impressions are made. In
all ordinary cases they are made through
the channels of the senses ; but it is
possible that in certain exceptional cases
vibration in the brain, causing percep
tions, may be conveyed to it through
the nerves in other ways. In somnam
bulism, for instance, it seems to be an
ascertained fact that a somnambulist with
closed eyes securely bandaged can walk
in the dark and avoid obstacles as well
as if guided by the sight in full daylight.
Before entering on the higher subjects There is a great deal of evidence also
of religions and philosophies, it is well that in artificial somnambulism, other
to arrive at some precise idea of the wise called mesmerism or hypnotism,
limits of human knowledge, and of the and also in what is called thought-reading,
boundary line which separates the know perception may be conveyed from one
able from the unknowable. The ultimate brain to another otherwise than by the
basis of all knowledge is perception. usual methods of speech or writing.
Without an environment to create But these phenomena, however far they
impressions, and an organ to receive may be extended, do not affect the
them, we should know absolutely nothing. position that impressions on the brain
What is the environment and what the are the essential condition of thought.
organ of human knowledge ? The If the grey matter of the brain is deficient
environment is the whole surrounding or diseased, the mind is affected, and
universe, or, in the last analysis, the beyond a certain point becomes extinct.
motions, or changes of motion, by which
The second and more important reser
the objects in that universe make impres vation is that, although mind and all its
sions on the recipient organ. The organ qualities are thus indissolubly connected
is the grey matter of that large nervous with matter, it by no means follows that
agglomeration, the brain. But here I they are matter or mere qualities of it.
must at the outset make two reserva In the case of the atoms and energ-ies,
tions. In the first place, I do not define we know absolutely nothing of their real
Basis of knowledge—Perception—Constitution
of brain—White and grey matter;—Average
size and weight of brains—European, negro,
and ape—Mechanism of perception—Sensory
and motor nerves—Separate areas of brain—Sensory and motor centres—Abnormal states
of brain — Hypnotism — Somnambulism —
Trance — Thought-reading —• Spiritualism —•
Reflex action—Ideas how formed—Number
and space—Creation unknowable—Concep
tions based on perceptions—Metaphysics—
Descartes, Kant, Berkeley—Anthropomor
phism—Laws of nature.
�66
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE-BRAIN AND THOUGHt
essence, and cannot form even a con
ception of what they are, how they came
there, or what will become of them. It
is the same with mind, soul, or self: we
feel an instinctive certainty of their exist
ence, as we do of that of matter; and
we can trace their laws and manifesta
tions under the conditions in which they
are known to us—viz., those of associa
tion with matter and motion in the brain.
But of their real essence or existence we
know nothing, and it is as unscientific
to affirm as to deny. Directly we pass
beyond the boundary of such knowledge
as really can be known by human
faculty, and stand face to face with the
mystery of the Great Unknown, we can
only bow our heads with reverence and
say with the poet,
“Behold, I know not anything.”
I hope thus to steer safely between
Scylla and Charybdis—between the arid
rocks of materialism and the whirling
eddies of spiritualism. Materialist and
spiritualist seem to me very like two
men disputing as to the existence of life
in the sun. “No,” argues the former;
“for the known conditions there are
totally inconsistent with any life we can
conceive.” “Yes,” says the other; “for
the belief fits in with many things which
I earnestly wish to believe respecting a
Supreme Being and a future existence.”
To the first I say, ignorance is not evi
dence; to the second, wishes are not
proofs. For myself, while not quarrelling
with those more favoured mortals who
have, or fancy they have, superior know
ledge, I can only say that I really know
nothing; and this being the case, I see
no use in saying that I know, and think
it both more truthful and more modest
to confess the limitation of my faculties.
With this caution, I return to the
field of positive knowledge. The brain,
spinal marrow, and nerves consist of two
substances: one white, which constitutes
the great mass consisting of tubes or
fibres; the other grey, which is an aggre
gation of minute cells, so minute that
it has been computed that there are
several millions of them in a space no
larger than a sixpence. The bulk of
this grey nerve-tissue is found in the
higher animals, and especially in man,
in the outside rind which covers the
brain; and its amount is greatly increased
by the convolutions of that organ giving
a greater extent of covering surface.
In fact, the convolutions of the average
human brain give as much grey matter
in a head of average size as would be
given by a head of four times the size if
the brain were a plane surface. The
extent of the convolutions is, therefore,
a sure sign of the extent of intellect.
They are more numerous and deeper in
the European than in the negro; in the
negro than in the chimpanzee; in the
anthropoid ape than in the monkey or
lemur. This grey nerve-tissue is the
organ by which impressions from without
are turned into perceptions, volitions,
and evolutions of nerve force. The
white matter is simply the medium of
transmission, or we may say the tele
graph wires by which the impressions
are conveyed to the head office and the
answers sent. The cell-tissue of the
grey matter is thus emphatically the
organ of the mind. In fact, if it did not
sound too materialistic, we- might call
thought a secretion of the grey matter,
only in saying so we must bear in mind
that it is only a mode of expressing the
fact that the two invariably go together;
and that if we say with the German
philosopher, Ohne Phosphor kein Gedank,
it does not mean that thought and
phosphorus are identical, but simply
that the condition on which thought
depends is that of the existence of a
material organ of which phosphorus is
an ingredient.
That this grey nerve-tissue is really
the organ of thought has been firmly
established by numerous experiments
both in man and the lower animals.
Injuries to it, or diseases in it, invariably
affect what is called the mind; while
considerable portions of the white matter
may be removed without affecting the
thinking and perceptive powers. A
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 67
certain amount of it is indispensable for
the existence of intellect; the more there
is of it as the brain increases in size and
the convolutions become deeper, the
greater is the intellect; when these fall
below certain dimensions, intellect is ex
tinguished, and we have idiocy. The
average brain of the male white European
weighs 49% ounces, of the negro a little
under 47. The maximum brains which
have been accurately weighed and
measured are those of Cuvier and Daniel
Webster, the weight of the former being
64^ ounces, and the capacity of the
latter being 122 cubic inches ; while the
average capacity of the Teutonic race, in
cluding English, Germans, and Ameri
cans, is 92 inches, of the negro 83, and
of the Australian and Hottentot 75. The
brain of the idiot seldom weighs over
23 ounces, and the minimum weight
consistent with a fair degree of intelli
gence is about 34 ounces.
The mechanism by which correspon
dence is kept up between the living indi
vidual and the surrounding universe is
very simple—in reality, as simple as that
of any ordinary electric circuit. In the
most complex case, that of man, there
are a number or nerve-endings, or small
lumps of protoplasm, embedded in the
tissues all over the body, or highly
specialised and grouped together in
separate organs, such as the eye and ear,
from which a nerve fibre leads direct to
the brain, or to the spinal cord, and so
up to the brain. These nerve-endings
receive the different vibrations by which
outward energy presents itself, which
propagate a current or succession of
vibrations of nerve-energy along the
nerve-fibre. This nerve-fibre is a round
thread of protoplasm covered by a white
sheath of fatty matter, which insulates it
like the wire of a submarine telegraph
coated with gutta-percha. This nerve
wire leads up to a nerve-centre, consist
ing of two corpuscles of protoplasm : the
first, or sensory, a smaller one, which is
connected by branches with the second,
a much larger one, called the motor,
from which a much larger nerve-fibre or
wire proceeds, which terminates in a
mass of protoplasm firmly attached to a
muscle. Thus, a sensation is propagated
along the sensory nerve to the sensory
nerve-centre, whence it is transmitted to
the motor-centre, which acts as an accu
mulator of stored-up energy, a large flow
of which is sent through the large con
ductor of the motor-nerve to the muscle,
which it causes to contract and thus pro
duces motion. It is thus that the
simpler involuntary actions are pro
duced by a process which is purely
mechanical. In the more complex cases,
in which consciousness and will are
involved, the process is essentially the
same, though more complicated. The
message is transmitted to the brain,
where it is received by a cluster of small
sensory cells or nerve-centres, which are
connected with another cluster of fewer
and larger motor-centres, often at some
distance from them, by a network of
interlacing fibres. But it is always a
case of a single circuit of wires, batteries,
and accumulators, adapted for receiving,
recording, and transmitting one sort of
vibrations caused by and producing one
sort of energy, and one only. The brain
does not act as a whole, receiving indis
criminately impressions of light, sound,
and heat, but by separate organs for
each, located in separate parts of it. It
is like a great central office, in one room
of which you have a printing instrument
reading off and recording messages sent
through an electric telegraph; in another
a telephone ; in a third a self-registering
thermometer, and so on. And the same
for the motor centres and nerves. One
set is told off to move the muscles of the
face, another those of the arms, others
for the legs and body, and so forth.
This is further complicated by the fact
that the brain, like the rest of the body,
has two sides—a right and left, and that
in some cases the motor-apparatus is
doubled, each working only on one side,
while in others the same battery and
wires serve for both. As a rule, the right
hemisphere of the brain works the
muscles of the left side of the body, and
�68
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
vice versa, so that an injury to one side
of the brain may paralyse the voluntary
motion of the limbs on the opposite side,
leaving in a perfect condition those on
its own side.
In the case of the higher functions
involving thought, the upper part of the
brain, which performs these functions,
seems to be a sort of duplex machine, so
that we have two brains capable of think
ing, just as we have two eyes capable of
seeing. It is a remarkable fact that the
areas of the brain which are appropriated
to the lowest and most instinctive func
tions, which appear first, lie lowest, and
as the functions rise the position of their
nerve-centres rises with them. Thus, at
the very base of the frontal convolutions
at the lowest end of the fissure of
Rolando we find the motor areas for
the lower part of the face, by which the
lowest animals and the new-born infant
perform their solitary function of sucking
and swallowing.
Higher up are the
centres in the right and left brains for
moving the upper limbs—that is, for seiz
ing food and conveying it to the mouth,
which is the next function in the ascend
ing scale.
Next above these are the
centres for moving the lower limbs and
for co-ordinating the motions of the arms
and legs, marking the progression of an
organism which can pursue and catch as
well as eat its food. And still higher
are the centres which regulate the
motions of the trunk and body in corre
spondence with those of the limbs.
It is easy to see that this corresponds
with the progression of the individual,
for the infant sucks and cries for food
from the first day, soon learns to extend
its hand and grasp objects, but takes
some time to learn to walk, and still
longer to perform exercises like dancing
or riding, in which the motions of the
whole body have to be co-ordinated with
those of the limbs. And as the develop
ment of the individual is an epitome of
the evolution of life from protoplasm, we
may well suppose that the brain was de
veloped in this order from its first origin
in a swelling at the end of the spinal
cord as we find it in the lowest verte
brates.
It is a singular fact that the particular
motor area which gives the faculty of
articulate speech lies in a small patch of
about one and a half square inches on
the left side of the lower portion of the
first brain. If this is injured, the disease
called aphasia is produced, in which the
patient loses the power of expressing
ideas by connected words. The corre
sponding area on the right side cannot
talk; but in left-handed persons this
state of things is reversed, and the right
side, which is generally aphasial, can be
taught to speak in young people, though
not in the aged.
Higher up in the cortex, or convoluted
envelope of the brain, come the areas for
hearing and seeing, the latter being the
more extensive. The visual centre lies
at the hindmost and lowest part of the
cortex (the occipital lobe), and the area
of hearing is found over the temples.
The centre for smell is believed to lie
in the frontal lobe. These areas are filled
mainly by a great number of sensory
nerve-centres or cells, connected with one
another in a very complicated network.
These seem to be concerned with the
multitude of ideas which are excited in
the brain by perceptions derived from
the higher senses, especially that of sight.
The simple movements are produced by
a few large motor-centres, which have
only one idea and do only one thing,
whether it be to move the leg or the
arm. But a sensation from sight often
calls up a multitude of ideas. Suppose
you see the face of one with whom some
fifty years ago you may have had some
youthful love passages, but your lives
drifted apart, and you now meet for the
first time after these long years, how
many ideas will crowd on the mind, how
many nerve-cells will be set vibrating,
and how many nerve-currents set cours
ing along intricate paths ! No wonder
that the nerve-corpuscles are numerous
and minute, and the nerve-channels
many and complicated.
When we come to the seats of the
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 69
intellectual faculties, the question becomes
still more obscure. The recent investi
gations of Flechsig, which are generally
accepted in substance, locate these
faculties between the great sense-centres
in the cortex : the sensory-areas occupy
ing the lower edge, and the thought-areas
the upper and central mass of the four
great cerebral lobes. They depend in
their action on the grey matter consist
ing of an immense number of minute
sensory cells. It has been computed
that there are millions in the area of a
square inch, and they are all in a state of
the most delicate equilibrium, vibrating
with the slightest breath of nervous
impression. They depend for their
activity entirely on the sensory percep
tive centres, for there is no consciousness
in the absence of sensory stimulation, as
in dreamless sleep. Perception, how
ever caused, whether by outward stimu
lation of real objects or by former per
ceptions revived by memory, sends a
stream of energy through the sense-area,
which expands, like a river divided into
numerous channels fertilising the intel
lectual area, where it is stored up by
memory, giving us the idea of continual
individual existence, and by some myste
rious and unknown process becoming
transformed into consciousness and
deliberate thought. And, conversely, the
process is reversed when what we call
will is excited, and the small currents of
the intellectual are concentrated by an
effort of attention and sent along the
proper nerve-channels to the motor
centres, whose function it is to produce
the desired movement. This mechani
cal explanation, it will be observed,
leaves entirely untouched the question of
the real essence and origin of these in
tellectual faculties, as to which we know
nothing more than we do of the real
essence and origin of life, of matter, and
of energy.
A very curious light, however, is thrown
on them by phenomena which occur in
abnormal states of the brain, as in a
trance, somnambulism, and hypnotism.
In the latter, by straining the attention
on a given object or idea, such as a coin
held in the hand or a black wafer on a
white wall, or by manual passes on the
part of the operator, or, in rare cases,
even by a distant projection of will
power, the normal action of the brain is,
in the case of many persons—perhaps
one out of every three or four—thrown
out of gear, and a state induced in which
the will seems to be annihilated, and the
thoughts and actions brought into sub
jection to the will of another person. In
this state also a cataleptic condition of
the muscles is often induced, in which
they acquire enormous strength and
rigidity.
In somnambulism outward
consciousness is in a great measure sus
pended, and the somnambulist lives forthe time in a walking dream, which he
acts and mistakes for reality. In this
state old perceptions, scarcely felt at the
time, seem to revive, as in dreams, with
such wonderful vividness and accuracy
that the somnambulist, in acting the
dream, does things altogether impossible
in the waking state. Thus an ignorant
servant-maid is said to have recited half
a chapter of the Hebrew version of the
Old Testament: the explanation being,
that she had been in the service of a
minister who was studying Hebrew, and
who used to walk about his room recit
ing this identical passage. It would
seem as if the brain were like a very
delicate photographic plate, which takesaccurate impressions of all perceptions,
whether we notice them or not, and.
stores them up ready to be reproduced
whenever stronger impressions are
dormant, and memory, by some strange
caprice, breathes on the plate.
Most wonderful, however, are some of
the phenomena of trance. In this case
it really seems as if two distinct indivi
duals might inhabit the same body.
Jones falls into a trance and dreams
that he is Smith. While the trance
lasts he acts and talks as Smith;
he really is Smith, and even ad
dresses his former self Jones as a
stranger. When he wakes from the
trance he has no recollection of it, and
�70
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
takes up the thread of his own life, just
as if he had dozed for a minute instead
of being in a trance for hours. But if
he falls into a second trance, days or
weeks afterwards, he takes up his trance
life exactly where he dropped it, abso
lutely forgetting his intermediate real
life. And so he may go on alternating
between two lives, with two separate
personalities and consciousnesses, being
to all intents and purposes now Jones
•and now Smith. If he died during a
trance, which would he be, Jones or
Smith ? The question is ’ more easily
asked than answered; but it certainly
appears as if with one mode of motion in
the same brain you might have one mind
and personal identity associated with it,
and with another mode of motion dif
ferent ones.
It would take me too far, and the facts
are too doubtful, to investigate the large
class of cases included under the terras
thought-reading, telepathy, psychism,
and spiritualism. It may suffice to say
that there is a good deal of evidence for
the reality of very curious phenomena,
but none of any real weight for their
being caused by any spiritualistic or
- supernatural agency. The same conclu
sion is given by Mr. Podmore, for many
years secretary of the Psychical Research
Society, in his well-known works. They
all seem to resolve themselves into the
assertion that under special conditions
the perceptions of one brain can be re
produced in another otherwise than by
the ordinary medium of the senses, and
that in such conditions a special sort of
cataleptic energy or psychic force may
be developed. The amount of negative
evidence is of course enormous, for it is
certain that in millions upon millions of
cases thought cannot be read, things are
not seen beyond the range of vision, and
coincidences do not occur between
deaths and dreams or visions. Neither
can tables be turned, nor heavy bodies
lifted, without some known form of
energy and a fulcrum at which to apply it.
This borderland of knowledge is, there
fore, best left to time, which is the safest
test of truth. That which is real will
survive, and be gradually brought within
the domain of science and made to fit
in with other facts and laws of nature.
That which is unreal will pass away, as
ghosts and goblins have done, and be
forgotten as the fickle fashion changes of
superstitious fancy. In the meantime
we shall do better to confine ourselves to
ascertained facts and normal conditions.
It is pretty certain that, although the
brain greatly preponderates as an organ
of mind in man and the higher animals,
the grey tissue in the spinal marrow and
nervous ganglia exercises a limited
amount of the same functions propor
tionate to its smaller quantity. The
reflex or automatic actions, such as
breathing, are carried on without refer
ence to the brain, and the messages are
received and transmitted through the
local offices without going to the head
office. This is the case with many com
plicated motions which originated in the
brain, but have become habitual and
automatic, as in walking, where thought
and conscious effort only intervene when
something unusual occurs which requires
a reference to the head office; and in
the still more complex case of the pianoplayer, who fingers difficult passages
correctly while thinking of something else,
or even talking to a bystander.
Indeed, in extreme cases, where experi
ments on the brain have been tried on
lower animals, it is found that it can be
entirely removed without destroying life,
or affecting many of the actions which
require perception and volition. Thus,
when the brain has been entirely removed
from a pigeon, it smoothes its feathers
with its bill when they have been ruffled,
and places its head under its wing when
it sleeps; and a frog under the same
conditions, if held by one foot, endeavours
to draw it away, and, if unsuccessful,
places the other foot against an obstacle
in order to get more purchase in the effort
to liberate itself.
So much for the organ of mind; the
other factor, that of outward stimulus, is
still more obvious. If thought cannot
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 71
exist without grey nerve-tissue, neither
can it without impressions to stimulate
that tissue. A perfect brain, if cut off
from all communication with the external
universe, could no more think and have
perceptions than impressions from with
out could generate them without the
appropriate nerve-tissue. Once gene
rated, the mind can store them up by
memory, control them by reason, and
gradually evolve fro_m them ever higher
and higher ideas and trains of reasoning,
both in the individual and the species : in
the individual, passing from infancy to
manhood, partly by heredity from ances
tors, and partly by education—using the
word in the large sense of influences of
all sorts from the surrounding environ
ment ; in the species, by a similar but
much slower development from savagery
to civilisation.
Thus the whole fabric of arithmetic,
algebra, and the higher calculi is built
up from the primitive perception of
number. The earliest palaeolithic savage
must have been conscious of a difference
between encountering one or two cave
bears or mammoths ; and some existing
races of savages have hardly got beyond
this primitive perception. Some Austra
lian tribes, it is said, have not got beyond
three numerals—one, two, and a great
number. But by degrees the perceptions
of number have become more extensive
and accurate, and the number of fingers
on each hand has been used as a standard
of comparison. Thus ten, or two-hand,
the number of fingers on the two hands,
has gradually become the basis of arith
metical numeration, and from this up to
Sir W. Hamilton’s “ Quaternions ” the
progression is regular and intelligible.
But Newton could never have invented
the differential calculus and solved the
problem of the heavens if thousands of
centuries before some primitive human
mind had not perceived that two apples
or two bears were different from one.
In like manner geometry, as its name
indicates, arises from primitive percep
tions of space, applied to the practical
necessity of land-measuring in alluvial |
valleys like those of the Nile and
Euphrates, where annual inundations
obliterated to a great extent the dividing
lines between adjoining properties. The
first perceptions of space would take the
form of the rectangle, or so many feet or
paces, or cubits or arm-lengths, forwards,,
and so many sideways, to give the proper
area; but, as areas were irregular, it wouldbe discovered that the triangle was-,
necessary for more accurate measurement...
Hence the science of the triangle, circle,,
and other regular forms, as we see it
developed in Euclid and later treatises,
on geometry, until we come to its latest
development in speculations as to space
of four dimensions.
But in all these cases we see the
same fundamental principle as prevails
throughout the universe under the name
of the “ conservation of energy”—always
something out of something, never some
thing out of nothing.
This, therefore, defines the limit of
human knowledge, or boundary line
between the knowable and the unknow
able.
Whatever is transformationaccording to existing laws is, whether
known or unknown, at any rate know
able—whatever is creation is unknow
able. We have absolutely no faculties
to enable us to form the remotest con
ception of what the essence of these
primary atoms and energies really is,
how they came there, and how the laws,
or invariable sequences, under which
they act came to be impressed on them..
We have no faculties, because we have
never had any perceptions upon which
the mind can work. Reason and imagi
nation can no more work without ante
cedent perceptions than a bird can fly
in a vacuum.
Thus, for instance, the imagination
can invent dragons, centaurs, and any
number of fabulous monsters, by piecing
together fragments of perceptions in new
combinations; but ask it to invent a
monster whose head shall be that of an
inhabitant of Saturn and its body that
of a denizen of Jupiter, and where is it?
Of necessity, all attempts to define or
�72
THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT
describe things of which we have never
had perceptions must be made in terms
of things of which we have had percep
tions, or, in other words, must be anthro
pomorphic.
So far as science gives any positive
knowledge as to the relations of mind
to matter, it amounts to this: That all
we call mind is indissolubly connected
with matter through the grey cells of the
brain and other nervous ganglia. This
is positive. If the skull could be
removed without injury to the living
organism, a skilful physiologist could
play with his finger on the human
brain, as on that of a dog, pigeon, or
other animal, and by pressure on dif
ferent notes, as on the keys of a piano,
annihilate successively voluntary motion,
speech, hearing, sight, and finally will,
consciousness, reasoning power, and
memory. But beyond this physical
science cannot go. It cannot explain
how molecular motions of cells of nervecentres can be transformed into, or can
create, the phenomena of mind, any
more than it can explain how the atoms
and energies to which it has traced
up the material universe were themselves
created or what they really are.
All attempts to further fathom the
depths of the unknown follow a different
line, that of metaphysics, or, in other
words, introspection of mind by mind,
and endeavour to explain thought by
thinking. On entering into this region,
we at once find that the solid earth is
giving way under our feet, and that we
are attempting to fly in an extremely
rare atmosphere, if, indeed, we are not
idly flapping our wings in an absolute
vacuum. Instead of ascertained facts
which all recognise, and experiments
which, conducted under the same con
ditions, always give the same results, we
have a dissolving view of theories and
intuitions, accepted by some, denied by
others, and changing with the changing
conditions of the age, and with individual
varieties of character, emotions, and
wishes. Thus, mind and soul are with
some philosophers identical, with others
mind is a product of soul; with some
soul is a subtle essence, with others
absolutely immaterial; with some it has
an individual, with others a universal,
existence; by some it is limited to man,
by others conceded to the lower animals;
by some located in the brain, by others
in the heart, blood, pineal gland, or
dura mater; with some it is pre-exist
ent and immortal, with others created
specially for its own individual organism;
and so on ad infinitum. The greatest
philosophers come mostly to the conclu
sion that we really know nothing about
it. Thus Descartes, after having built
up an elaborate metaphysical theory as
to a spiritual, indivisible substance inde
pendent of the brain and cognisable by
self-consciousness alone, ends by honestly
confessing “ that by natural reason we
can make many conjectures about the
soul, and have flattering hopes, but no
assurance.” Kant also, greatest of meta
physicians, when he has demolished the
fallacies of former theories, and comes to
define his “ noumenon,” has to use the
vaguest of phrases, such as “an inde
scribable something, safely located out
of space and time, as such not subject
to the mutabilities of those phenomenal
spheres,....... and of whose ontological
existence we are made aware by its
phenomenal projections, or effects in
consciousness.” The sentence takes our
breath away, and makes us sympathise
with Bishop Berkeley when he says, “ We
metaphysicians have first raised a dust,
and then complain we cannot see.” It
prepares us also for Kant’s final admission
that nothing can really be proved by
metaphysics concerning the attributes,
or even the existence, of the soul;
though, on the other hand, as it cannot
be disproved, its reality may for moral
purposes be assumed.
It appears, therefore, that the efforts
of the sublimest transcendentalists do
not carry us one step farther than the
conclusions of the commonest common
sense—viz., that there are certain funda
mental conditions of thought, such as
space, time, consciousness, personal
�THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE—BRAIN AND THOUGHT 73
identity, and freedom of will, which we
cannot explain, but cannot get rid of.
The sublimest speculations of a Plato
and a Kant bring us back to the homely
conclusions of the old woman in the
nursery ballad, in whose mind grave
questions as to her personal identity
were raised by the felonious abstraction
of the lower portion of her petticoat.
“ If I be I, as I think I be,
I’ve a little dog at home, and he’ll know me.”
It is a safe “ working hypothesis ” that,
when I go home in the afternoon, my
wife, children, and little dog will recog
nise me as being “ I myself I ”; but why
or how I am I, whether I was I before I
was born, or shall be so after I am dead,
I really know no more than the little dog
who wags his tail and yelps for joy when
he recognises my personal identity as
something distinct from his own, when
he sees me coming up the walk.
Our conceptions, therefore, are neces
sarily based on our perceptions, and are
what is called anthropomorphic. The
term has almost come to be one of
reproach, because it has so often been
applied to religious conceptions of a
Deity with human, though often not very
humane, attributes; but, if considered
rightly, it - is an inevitable necessity of
any attempt to define such a being or
beings. We can only conceive of such
as a magnified man, indefinitely magnified
no doubt, but still with a will, intelli
gence, and faculties corresponding to our
own. The whole supernatural or miracu
lous theory of the universe rests on the
supposition that its phenomena are, in a
great many cases, brought about, not by
uniform law, but by the intervention of
some Power, which, by the exercise of
will guided by intelligent design, alters
the course of events and brings about
special effects. As long as the theory is
confined to knowable transformations of
existing things, like those which are seen
to be affected by human will, it is not
necessarily inconceivable or irrational.
Inferring like effects from like causes, the
hypothesis was by no means unreason
able that thunder and lightning, for in
stance, were caused by some angry
invisible power in the clouds. On the
contrary, the first savage who drew the
deduction was a natural philosopher, who
reasoned quite justly from his assumed
premises.
Whether the premises were
true or not was a question which could
only be determined centuries later by the
advance of accurate knowledge.
When do we say we know a thing?
Not when we know its essence and
primary origin, for of these the wisest
philosopher is as ignorant as the rudest
savage; but when we know its place in
the universe, its relation to other things,
and can fit it in to that harmonious
sequence of events which is summed up
in what are called Laws of Nature. Thehighest knowledge is when we can trace
it up to its earliest origin from, existing
matter and energy, and follow it down
wards so as to be able to predict its
results. The force of gravity affords a
good illustration of this knowledge, both
where it comes up to and where it falls
short of perfection.
Newton’s law leaves nothing to. be
desired as regards its universal applica
tion and power of prediction ; but we
do not yet fully understand its mode of
action or its relation to other forms of
energy. It is probable that some day we
may be able to understand how the force
of gravity appears to act instantaneously
at a distance, and how all the transform
able forces—gravity, light, heat, electricity,
and molecular or atomic forces—are but
different manifestations of one common
energy. But in the meantime we know
this for certain, that the law of gravity
is not a local or special phenomenon,
but prevails universally from the fixed
stars to the atoms, from the infinitely
great to the infinitely small. This is a
fact to which all other phenomena which
are really facts and not illusions must
conform.
In like manner, when we find in caves
or river-gravels, under circumstances im
plying enormous antiquity, and associated
with remains of extinct animals, rude
�74
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
implements so exactly resembling those
in use among existing savages that, if the
collection in the Colonial Exhibition of
stone celts and arrow-heads used by the
Bushmen of South Africa were placed
side by side with one from the British
Museum of similar objects from Kent’s
Cavern or the caves of the Dordogne,
no one but an expert could distinguish
between them, the conclusion is inevit
able that Devonshire and Southern
France were inhabited at some remote
period by a race of men not more
advanced than the Bushmen. Any theory
of man’s origin and evolution which is to
hold water must take account of this
fact and square with it. And so of a
vast variety of facts which have been
reduced to law and become certainly
known during the last half-century. A
great deal of ground remains unexplored
or only partially explored ; but sufficient
has been discovered to enable us to say
that what we know we know thoroughly,
and that certain leading facts and princi
ples undoubtedly prevail throughout the
knowable universe, including not only
that which is known, but that which is
as yet partially or wholly unknown; for
instance, the law of gravity, the conserva
tion of energy, the indestructibility of
matter, and the law of evolution, or
development from the simple to the
complex.
Chapter
XI.
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
Religions “ working hypotheses ”—Newman’s harmonious concordance. I said so for
illative sense—Origins of religions—Ghosts the following reasons. In a discussion
and spirits—Fetishes—Nature-worship—Solar
myths—Planets—Evolution of nature-worship at the Metaphysical Society, recorded in
—Polytheism, pantheism, and theism—Evolu the • Nineteenth Century, on the uni
tion of monotheism in the Old Testament—■ formity of the laws of nature, Huxley is
Evolution of morality—Natural law and represented as saying that he considered
miracle—Evidence for miracles—Insufficiency
of evidence—Absence of intelligent design— this uniformity, not as an axiomatic
Agnosticism—Origin of evil—Can only be truth like the first postulates of geometry,
explained by polarity—Optimism and pes but as a “ working hypothesis
adding,
simism—Jesus, the Christian Ormuzd—Chris however, that it was an hypothesis which
tianity without miracles.
Having thus, I may hope, given the
reader some precise ideas of what are
the boundaries and conditions of human
knowledge, we may proceed to consider
their application to the highest subjects,
religions and philosophies.
In the introductory chapter of this
work I have said that all religions are in
effect “ working hypotheses,” by which
men seek to reconcile the highest aspira
tions of their nature with the facts of the
universe, and bring the whole into some
had never been known to fail. To this
some distinguished advocates of Catholic
theology replied, that their conviction
was of a higher nature, for their belief in
God was a final truth, which was the
basis of their whole intellectual and
moral nature, and which it was irrational
to question. This is, in effect, Cardinal
Newman’s celebrated argument of an
“illative sense,” based on a complete
assent of all the faculties, and which was
therefore a higher authority than any
conclusions of science. The answer is
obvious, that complete assent, so far from
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
being a test of truth, is, on the contrary,
almost always a proof that truth has not
been attained, owing either , to erroneous
assumptions as to the premises or to the
omission of important factors in the solu
tion of the problem. To give an instance,
I suppose there could not be a stronger
case of complete assent than that of the
Inquisitors who condemned the theories
of Galileo. They had in support of the
proposition that the sun revolved round
the earth the testimony of the senses, the
universal belief of mankind in all ages,
the direct statement of inspired Scripture,
the authority of the infallible Church.
Was all this to be set aside because some
“ sophist vainly mad with dubious lore ”
told them, on grounds of some new
fangled so-called science, that the earth
revolved round its axis and round the
sun? “No; let us stamp out a heresy
so contrary to our ‘ illative sense,’ and so
fatal to all the most certain and cherished
beliefs of the Christian world, to the
inspiration of the Word of God, and to
the authority of his Church.” “Epur si
muoveP and yet the earth really did
move ; and the verdict of pact was that
Galileo and science were right, and the
Church and the illative sense wrong.
In truth, the distinction between the
conclusions of science and those of
religious creeds might be more properly
expressed by saying that the former are
“ working hypotheses ” which never fail,
while the latter are “ working hypothe
ses” which frequently fail. ‘Thus, the
fundamental hypothesis of Cardinal New
man and his school of a one infinite and
eternal personal Deity, who regulates the
course of events' by frequent miraculous
interpositions, so far from being a neces
sary and axiomatic truth, has never
appeared so to the immense majority of
the human race ; and even at the present
day, in civilised and so-called Christian
countries, its principal advocates com
plain that ninety-nine out of every hun
dred practically ignore it. It is not so
with the uniformity of the laws of nature.
No palaeolithic savage ever hesitated
about putting one foot after another in
75
chase of a mammoth from a fear that
his working hypothesis of uniform law
might fail, the support of the solid earth
give way, and with his next step he
might find himself toppling over into the
abyss of an infinite vacuum. In like
manner Greeks and Romans, Indians,
and Chinese, monotheists, polytheists^
pantheists, Jews and Buddhists, Chris
tians and Mohammedans, all use standard,
weights in their daily transactions with
out any misgivings that the law of gravity
may turn out not to be uniform. But
religious theories vary from time to time
and from place to place, and we can in
a great many cases trace their origins and
developments like those of other political
and social organisms.
To trace their origins we must, as in
the case of social institutions, look first
at the ideas prevailing among those
savage and barbarous races who are the
best representatives of our early pro
genitors ; and secondly at historical
records. In the first case we find the
earliest rudiments of religious ideas in
the universal belief in ghosts and spirits.
Every man is conceived of as being a
double of himself, and as having a sort
of shadowy self, which comes and goesin sleep or trance, and finally takes leave
of the body, at death, to continue its
existence as a ghost. The air is thus
peopled with an immense number of
ghosts, who continue very much their
ordinary existence, haunt their accus
tomed abodes, and. retain their living
powers and attributes, which are exerted
generally with a malevolent desire to
injure and annoy. Hence among savage
races, and by survival even among primi
tive nations of the present day, we find
the most curious devices to cheat or
frighten away the ghost, so that he may
not return to the house in which he died.
Thus, the corpse is carried out, not by
the door, but by a hole made for the
purpose in the wall, which is afterwards
built up—a custom which prevails with
a number of widely separated races—
Greenlanders, Hottentots, Algonquins,
and Fijians; and the practice even
�76
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
survives among more civilised nations,
such as the Chinese, Siamese, and
Thibetans; nor is it wholly extinct in
some of the primitive parts of Europe.
This idea obviously led to the practice
of constructing tents or houses for the
ghosts to live in, and of depositing with
them articles of food and weapons to be
used in their ghostly existence. In the
case of great chiefs, not only their arms
and ornaments were deposited, but their
horses, slaves, and wives were sacrificed
and buried with them, so that they might
enter spirit-land with an appropriate
retinue.
The early Egyptian tombs
were as nearly as possible facsimiles of
the house in which the deceased had
lived, with pictures of his geese, oxen,
-and other possessions painted on the
walls, evidently under the idea that the
ghosts of these objects would minister
to the wants and please the fancy of the
human ghost whose eternal dwelling was
in the tomb where his mummy was de
posited.
Another development of the belief in
spirits is that of fetish-worship, in which
superstitious reverenc.e is paid to some
stock or stone, tree or animal, in which
a mysterious influence is supposed to
reside, probably owing to its being the
chosen abode of some powerful spirit.
This is common among the negro races,
and it takes a curious development
among many races of American Indians,
where the tribe is distinguished by the
totem, or badge of some particular animal,
such as the bear, the tortoise, or the
hare, which is in some way supposed to
be the patron spirit of the clan, and often
the progenitor from whom they are
descended. This idea is so rooted that
intermarriage between men and women
who have the same totem is prohibited
as a sort of incest, and the daughter of
a bear-mother must seek for a husband
among the sons of the deer or fox.
Possibly a vestige of the survival of this
idea may be traced in the coat-of-arms
of the Sutherland family, and the wild
cat may have been the totem of the
Clan Chattan, while the oak tree was
that of the Clan Quoich, with whom
they fought on the Inch of Perth. Be
this as it may, it is clearly a most ancient
and widespread idea, and prevails from
Greenland to Australia; while it evidently
formed the oldest element of the pre
historic religion of Egypt, where each
separate province had its peculiar sacred
animal, worshipped by the populace in
one nome and detested in the neigh
bouring one.
By far the earliest traces of anything
resembling religious ideas are those
found in burying-places of the neolithic
period. It is evident that at this remote
period ideas prevailed respecting ghost
or spirit life and a future existence very
similar to those of modern savages.
They placed weapons and implements
in the graves of the dead, and not
infrequently sacrificed human victims
and held cannibal feasts. Whether this
was done in the far more remote palaeo
lithic era' is uncertain, for very few
undoubted burials of this period have
been discovered, and those few have
frequently been used again for later
interments. We can only draw a nega
tive inference from the absence of idols,
which are so abundant in the prehistoric
abodes explored by Professor Schlie
mann, among the very numerous
carvings and drawings found in the
caves of the reindeer period in France
and Germany—namely, that the religion
of the palaeolithic men, if they had any,
had not reached the stage when spirits
or deities were represented by images.
For the first traces, therefore, of any
thing like what is now understood by
the term religion, we must look beyond
the vague superstitions of savages, at the
historical records of civilised nations.
As civilisation advanced population
multiplied, and the rude tribes of hunters
were amalgamated into agricultural com
munities and powerful empires, in which
a leisured and cultured class arose, to
whom the old superstitions were no
longer sufficient. They had to enlarge
their “working hypothesis” from the
worship of stocks and stones and fear of
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
ghosts, to take in a multitude of new
facts and ideas, and specially those
relating to natural phenomena which had
roused their curiosity, or become impor
tant to them as matters of practical
utility. The establishment of an here
ditary caste of priests accelerated this
evolution of religious ideas, and from
time to time recorded its progress. The
oldest of such records are those of Egypt
and Chaldsea, where the fertility of
alluvial valleys watered by great rivers
had led to the earliest development of a
high civilisation. The records also of
the Chinese, Hindoos, Persians, and
other nations take us a long way back
towards the origins of religions.
In all cases we find them identical
with the first origins of science, and
taking the form of attempted explanations
of natural phenomena, by the theory of
deified objects and powers of nature.
In the Vedas we see this in the simplest
form, where the gods are simply personi
fications of the heavens, earth, sun,
moon, dawn, and so forth; where we
should say the red glow of morning
announces the rising of the sun, they
express it that Aurora blushes at the
approach of her lover, the mighty Sun
god. It is very interesting to observe
how the old Chaldsean legend of the
creation of the world has been modified
in the far later Jewish edition of it in
Genesis, to adapt it to monotheistic
ideas. The Chaldaean legend begins,
like that of Genesis, with an “earth
without form and void,” and darkness on
the chaotic deep. In each legend the
Spirit of God, called Absu in the
Chaldaean, moves on the face of the
waters, and they are gathered together
and separated from the land. But here
a difference begins: in the original
Chaldsean legend “ the great gods were
then made; the gods Lakman and
Lakmana caused themselves to come
forth; the gods Assur and Kesar were
made; the gods Anu, Bel, and Idea
were born.”
The appearance of the gods Lakman
and Lakmana was the primitive mode of
77
expressing the same idea as that which
is expressed in Genesis by saying that
God created the firmament separating
the heaven above from the earth beneath;
Assur and Kesar mean the same thing as
the hosts of heaven and the earth; the
god Bel is the sun, and so forth. It is
evident that the first attempts to explain
the phenomena of nature originated, in
the idea that motion and power implied
life, personality, and conscious will; and
therefore that the earth, sky, sun, moon,
and other grand and striking phenomena,
must be regarded as separate gods.
As culture advanced astronomy be
came more and more prominent in these
early religions, and solar myths became
a principal part of their mythologies,
while astrology, or the influence of
planets or stars on human affairs, became
an important part of practical life. .The
Chaldsean legend referred to contains a
mass of astronomical knowledge, which
in the Genesis edition is reduced to
“ He made the stars also.” It describes
how the constellations were assigned
their forms and names, the twelve signs
of the Zodiac established, the year
divided into twelve months, the equi
noxes determined, and the seasons set
their bounds. Also how the moon was
made to regulate the months by its disc,
“ horns shining forth to lighten the
heavens, which, on the seventh day,
approaches a circle.”
In the still older Egyptian pyramids
- we find proof of the long previous exist
ence of great astronomical knowledge
and refined methods of observation; for
these buildings, which are at once the
largest and the oldest in the world, are
laid down so exactly in a meridian line,
and with such a close approximation to
the true latitude, as would have other
wise been impossible. In fact, there is
every reason to believe that, while they
were constructed as tombs for kings,
they were at the same time intended for
national observatories ; for the arrange
ment of the internal passages is such as
to make the Great Pyramid serve, the
purpose of a telescope, equatorially
�78
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
mounted, and showing the transit of stars to the Gallery of Dresden, he would see in
and planets over the meridian, by refer Raffaelle s Madonna di San Sisto what he
ence to a reflected image of what was would consider to bean admirable repre
then the polar star, a knowledge of which sentation of Horus in the arms of Isis.
was essential for accurate calculation of . The planets also, still more mysterious
the calendar and seasons, for fixing the m their movements than the sun, and
proper date of religious ceremonies, and therefore still more endowed with human
very probably for astrological purposes.
like faculties of life, power, and purpose,
The prevalence of these solar and were from an early period believed to
astronomical myths among a number of exercise an influence on human affairs.
different nations separated by wide inter Of the universality of this belief we find
vals of space and time is very remarkable. traces in . the names of the days of the
Egyptians, Indians, Babylonians, Chinese, week, which are so generally taken from
Mexicans, and Peruvians had myths the sun, moon, and five visible planets—
which were strangely similar, indeed Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, and
almost identical, based on the sun’s Saturn—to whom special days were dedi
annual passage through the constella cated. If every seventh day is a day of
tions of the zodiac. His apparent decline rest, it was originally so because it was
and death as he approached the winter thought unlucky to undertake any work
solstice, and his return to life when he on the Sabbath, Saturday, or day of the
had passed it, gave rise to myths of the gloomy and malignant Saturn.
murder of the Sun-god by some fierce
As time rolled on and civilisation ad
wild boar, or treacherous enemy, and of vanced, this simple nature-worship and
his triumphant resurrection in renewed deification of astronomical phenomena
glory. Hence, also, the passage of the developed into larger and more complex
winter solstice was a season of general conceptions. Following different lines
rejoicing and festivity, traces of which of evolution, polytheism, pantheism, and
survive when the sirloin and turkey smoke monotheism began to emerge as religious
upon the hospitable tables of modern systems with definite creeds, rituals, and
Christmas. One remarkable myth had a sacred books. These lines seem to have
very universal acceptance, that of the been determined a good deal by the
birth of the infant Sun-god from a virgin genius of the race in which the religious
mother. It appears to have originated development took place. The impres
from the period, some 6,450 years ago, sions made on the human mind by the
when the sun, which now rises at the surrounding universe are very various.
winter solstice in the constellation of Suppose ourselves looking up at the
Sagittarius, rose in that of Pisces, with heavens on a clear starry night, what
the constellation of the Virgin, with will be the impression ? To one, that of
upraised arms marked by five stars, awe and reverence; he will feel crushed,
setting in the north-west. Anyhow, this as it were, into nothingness in the pre
myth of an infant god born of a virgin sence of such a sublime manifestation of
mother holds a prominent place in the majesty and glory. Another, of a more
religions of Egypt, India, China, aesthetic nature, will be charmed by the
Chaldaea, Greece, Rome, Siam, Mexico, beauty of the spectacle, and tempted to
Peru, and other nations. The resem assign life to it, and to personify and
blances are often so close that the first dramatise its incidents. A third, of a
Jesuit missionaries to China found that scientific turn, will above all things wish
their account of the miraculous concep to understand it.
tion of Christ had been anticipated by
Thus, we find the impression of awe
that of Fuh-ke, born 3468 b.c. ; and if preponderating among the Semitic races
an ancient priest of Thebes or Helio generally; and as in their political rela
polis could be restored to life and taken tions, so in their, religious conceptions,
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
we find them prone to prostrate them
selves before despotic power.. With the
Greeks, again, the aesthetic idea almost
swallowed up the others, and the old
astronomical myths blossomed into a
perfect flower-bed of poetical and fanciful
legends. The Chinese never got beyond
a simple pantheism, which looked upon
the universe as being alive, and saw
nothing behind it ; while the more meta
physical and physically feebler races of
Hindoos and Buddhists refined their
pantheism into a system of illusion, in
which their own existence and the sur
rounding universe were literally
“ such stuff
As dreams are made on,”
and to be “ rounded with a sleep ” was
the final consummation devoutly to be
desired.
Monotheism developed itself later,
partly from the feeling of the unity of
nature forcing itself on the more philoso
phical minds ; partly from that feeling of
reverence and awe in presence of the
Unknown which swallowed up other
conceptions; and partly, in the earlier
stages, from the feeling which exalted the
local god of the tribe or nation, first into
a supremacy over other gods, and finally
into sole supremacy, degrading all other
gods into the category of dumb idols
made by human hands. In the Old
Testament we can trace the development
of this latter idea in its successive stages.
Until the later days of the Jewish
monarchy it is evident that the Jews
never doubted the existence of other
gods; their allegiance oscillated between
Jehovah and the heathen deities sym
bolised by the golden calf, worshipped in
high places, and contending for the
mastership in the rival sacrifices of Elijah
and the priests of Baal. But the pro
phetic element gradually introduced
higher ideas, and in the reigns of Heze
kiah and Josiah the worship of Jehovah
as the sole God became the religion of
the State; and old legends and docu
ments were re-edited in this sense in the
sacred book, which was discovered and
79
published for the first time in the reign
of the latter king. The subsequent mis
fortunes of the nation, their captivity and
contact with other religions in Babylonia
(from which the old legends had them
selves been largely though indirectly
borrowed), strengthened this mono
theism into an ardent, passionate, na
tional faith, as it has continued to be
with this remarkable people up to the
present day. Christianity and Mohamme
danism, children of Judaism, have spread
this form of faith over a great part of the
civilised world; and of the three theories
—polytheism, pantheism, and mono
theism—it may be said that only the
two latter survive.
Polytheism was bound to perish first,
for, slow as the advance of science was,
the uniformity of most of the pheno
mena, which had been attributed to so
many separate gods, could not fail to
make an impression; and as. ideas of
morality came slowly and tardily to. be
appropriated as an element of religion,
the cruel rites and scandalous fables
which so generally accompanied poly
theistic religions became shocking to an
awakening conscience.
It is worthy of remark that this ele
ment of morality, which has now gone
so far towards swallowing up the others,
was the latest to appear. Even in the
Jewish conception Jehovah was for a long
time just as often cruel, jealous, and
capricious as just and merciful; and St.
Paul’s doctrine that, because God had the
power to do as he liked, he was warranted
in creating a large portion of the human
race as “ vessels of wrath,” predestined
to eternal punishment, is as revolting to
the modern conscience as any sacrifice to
Beelzebub or Moloch. If we wish to
see how little necessary connection there
is between morality and monotheism, we
have only to look at Mohammedanism,
which, in its extremer forms, may be
called monotheism run mad.
The Wahabite reformer, we are told
by Palgrave, preached that there were
only two deadly sins: paying divine
honours to any creature of Allah’s, and
�8o
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
smoking tobacco; and that murder,
adultery, and such-like trivial matters,
were minor offences which a merciful
Allah would condone. He held, also,
that of the whole inhabitants of the
world all would surely be damned, except
one out of the seventy-two sects of
Mohammedans, who held the true faith
and dwelt in the district of Riad. This
illustrates the insane extremes into which
all human speculations run, if a single
idea—in this case that of awe, reverence,
and abject submission in presence of an
almighty power—is allowed to run its
course without check and obtain undue
preponderance.
Apart from these extreme instances,
we may say that the two religious theories
which have survived to the present day
in the struggle for existence are mono
theism and pantheism. Pantheism is,
in the main, the creed of half the human
race—of the teeming millions of India,
China, Japan, Ceylon, Thibet, Siam,
and Burmah. How deeply it is rooted
in their conceptions was very forcibly
impressed on me in a conversation I
had on board one of the P. and O.
steamers with an English missionary
returning from China. He told me how
he had dined one evening with an intelli
gent Chinese merchant, and after dinner
they walked in the garden discussing
religious subjects, and he tried to impress
on his host the first principles of the
Christian religion. It was a starlight
night, and for sole reply the Chinese
gentleman stretched his hand to the
heavens and said: “ Do you mean to tell
me all that is dead—do you take me for
a fool?” The Chinese “illative sense”
was as absolute in its conclusions for
pantheism as that of Cardinal Newman
for theism. In fact, pantheism, though
not the whole truth, and almost as incon
sistent as polytheism with the real facts
of the universe as disclosed by science,
has a certain poetical truth in it, to
which chords of human emotion vibrate
responsively, and is perhaps not so widely
in error as some of the extreme theories
which treat matter as something base
and brutal. Wordsworth’s noble lines—
“ A sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man ;
A motion, and a spirit that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thoughts,
And rolls through all things ”—
are pure pantheism, and yet we cannot
but feel ourselves to a great extent in
sympathy with them.
So also the well-known lines of a
greater than Wordsworth, Shakespeare,
are pure Buddhism :—
“ The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on ; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.”
No one can read these lines without
feeling that the Buddhist conception is
as far as possible from being a trivial or
vulgar one, and that the triviality and
vulgarity are rather with those who
cannot, up to a certain point, under
stand and sympathise with it.
The religions of the East are very
philosophical, and have kept very clearly
in view this fundamental distinction
between the knowable and the unknow
able. In the Century Magazine of July,
1886, there is an interesting account of
a conversation between an American
missionary and the Bozu or chief priest
of the great temple of the Shin Sect of
Buddhists at Kioto in Japan. The priest
was an intelligent and highly educated
gentleman, who spoke English, and was
well versed in the speculations of modern
philosophy. The conversation turned
on theological questions, and when
pressed by the argument for a Divine
Creator, from design shown in the uni
verse implying intelligence, he replied :—
“ No; God cannot make matter. Only
artificial things show design, only things
which can be made. What do you mean
by saying a thing shows design? You
only mean that by trying a man could
make it.”
�81
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
And he proceeded to illustrate it
thus
“You show me a gold ring ; the ring
shows design, but not the gold; gold is
an ultimate element, which can neither
be made nor destroyed. When men can
make a world, then they can prove that
this one shows design, for the only way
they know of design is by what they
make.”
He went on to argue for the immor
tality of the soul, and as a consequence
for its pre-existence and the transmigra
tion of souls, from the conservation of
energy; and concluded his argument
against the creation and government of
the world by a comprehensible, anthro
pomorphic Creator, by adducing the
existence of evil.
“ There is a sickness,” he said, “ called
fever and ague; what do you call the
medicine to cure that ?”
“ Quinine.”
“Yes; now we have not found that
long ; a good God would not have let so
many people suffer if he could have
given them that. A man found it by
chance. The sickness and suffering in
this life are for wrong done in another life.”
We may not accept this unproved
theory of the cause of sickness and
suffering, but it is very interesting to
find that candid and intelligent minds,
brought up in a society and religious
beliefs so widely different from our own,
have arrived practically at the same con
clusions as John Stuart Mill, Herbert
Spencer, and other leaders of advanced
thought in modern Europe, and drawn
almost identically the same line between
that which is knowable and that which
is unknowable by the human mind.
But, however large-minded we may
become in seeing the good in other
forms of creed, we English of the twen
tieth century are not going to turn
either Pantheists or Buddhists, and prac
tically the contest of the present day is
between the supernatural or miraculous,
and the natural or scientific, hypotheses.
According to the former, the opera
tions of the universe are carried on to
a considerable extent by what may be
called secondary inferences of a super
natural being, who with will, intelligence,
and design, like human though vastly
superior, frequently interposes to alter
the course of events and bring about
something which natural law would not
have brought about. The other hypo
thesis cannot be stated better than in
Bishop Temple’s words, that the Great
First Cause created things so perfect
from the first that no such secondary
interferences have ever been necessary;
and everything has been and is evolved
from the primary atoms and energies in
a necessary and invariable succession.
The supernatural and the natural theories
of the universe are thus brought into
direct antagonism.
For the supernatural theory it must be
conceded that it is quite conceivable, as
is proved by the fact that it has been the
almost universal conception of mankind
for ages, and remains so still for the
greater number. It is, as I have said,
the inevitable first conception when men
began to reflect on the phenomena of
the universe, and to reason from effects
to causes. I have always thought that
Hume went too far in condemning
miracles as absolutely incredible a priori.
It it is a question of evidence. A priori,
I can conceive that the true explanation
of the universe might have been natural
law, as the general rule, supplemented
by miracles; just as readily as that it is
law always, and miracle never. The
verdict must be decided by the weight
of evidence. The two theories must be
called, face to face, before the tribunal
of fact, and its decision must be respected.
This is exactly what has been going on
for the last two centuries, and specially
for the last half century ; and the record
of decisions is now a very ample one.
In every single instance law has carried
the day against miracle.
Instance after instance has occurred
in which phenomena which in former
ages were attributed without hesitation
to supernatural agencies have been con
clusively proved to be due to natural
G
�82
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
laws. Take the obvious instance of tered incantations, the new ones quinine 3
thunder. When Horace wrote—which cure the most patients ?
In like manner, demonology and witch
“ Jam satis terris nivis, atque dirre
Grandinis misit Pater, et rubente
craft, with all their train of cruelties and
Dextera sacras jaculatus arces
horrors, once universally believed even
Terruit orbem,”
by men like Justice Hale, have passed
he wrote to a public to whom it was an into oblivion as completely as the Lamiee,
undoubted article of faith that thunder Phorkyads, and other fantastic figures
and lightning, hail and snowstorms, came of the classical Walpurgis-night. Is the
direct from .the Father of the gods in world* the better or the worse for this
the sky. Even to a late period this was triumph of natural law over super
the general faith, and the prayers in our naturalism ?
rubric for rain or fine weather remain as
The triumph has been so complete in
a survival of the belief that these things, innumerable instances, without a single
when unusual or in excess, are super one to the contrary, that belief in the
natural manifestations. But Benjamin permanence and universality of natural
Franklin said : “ No, there is nothing law has become almost an instinct in all
supernatural about lightning. I will educated minds, and even those who
bring it down from the clouds and cling to old beliefs must admit that the
manufacture it by turning a wheel.” most cogent and irresistible evidence is
Appeal being made to fact, the verdict requisite to establish the fact of a real
is that Franklin was right, and that supernatural inference. It may be taken
lightning-conductors protect ships and as an axiom that, wherever a natural
houses better than prayers or incanta explanation is possible, a miraculous one
tions. Again, when Galileo and the is impossible.
Church joined issue as to whether the
Now, this is just the point on which,
earth was round or flat, inspiration and as knowledge has increased, the evidence
authority were cited in vain for the for miracles has become weaker, almost
received theoryj fact said it was round, in the exact ratio in which the necessity
and it was proved to be so by men for evidence has become stronger.
sailing round it. The law of gravity was • Take, for instance, the following case
considered a very dangerous heresy, and recorded by Dr. Braid, of Glasgow. Miss
for a long time pious divines held out R. had suffered from ophthalmia and
against its conclusions, and contended was totally blind. She could not discern
that it was no better than atheism to a single letter of the title-page of a book
doubt that comets were signs of God’s placed close to her, though some of the
anger sent to warn a sinful world. But letters were a quarter of an inch long.
Halley calculated the time of his comet’s Dr. Braid placed the patient in a condi
return according to the laws of gravity, tion of hypnotism, and directed the
and, appeal being made to fact, the comet nervous force, or sustained attention of
returned true to time.
the mind, to the eyes by wafting over
This has occurred so often that few them. After a first sitting of about ten
are left who doubt the universal preva minutes she was able to read a great
lence of law in the material universe, part of the title-page, and after four more
where former generations saw miracles at sittings she was able to read the smallestevery turn. Nor is the defeat of miracle sized print in a newspaper, and was quite
less conspicuous in the spiritual world. cured for the rest of her life. In another
Where former ages and rude races saw, case, that of Mrs. S., blindness of the
and still see, possession by evil spirits, left eye had occurred owing to an attack
modern doctors see fevers, epilepsies, or of rheumatic fever, the structure of the
insanity. Once more appeal being made eye, both external and internal, being
to fact, the old medicine-men adminis considerably injured, and more than
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
half the cornea covered by an opaque
film. After a few sittings the cornea
became transparent, and the patient was
cured.
In both these cases the blind were
made to see by processes which were
purely mechanical, for hypnotism was
induced by the simple means of making
the patient strain her attention on some
fixed idea or object, commonly on a
black wafer stuck on a white wall, and
the stimulation of the optic nerve to
greater activity did the rest. And if the
blind could be made to see, a fortiori
the deaf were made to hear, and the
lame and halt to walk, by the same
mechanical process. Here there is an
explanation of nine-tenths of all recorded
miracles by purely natural causes.
Again, take the well-known case of the
Berlin bookseller, Nicolai, who, having
fallen into ill-health, for a whole year
saw, when awake, visions so real and
palpable that he may be said to have
lived in the company of disembodied
spirits, undistinguishable from actual men
and women. This is a common pheno
menon in vivid dreams, but the Berlin
case takes us a step farther, and shows
us howsubjective impressions mayassume
the form of objective realities, even in the
case of a man wide awake, of a sceptical
turn of mind, and in full possession of
his reasoning faculties. Why, then, should
we be driven to the alternative of miracle
or imposture to account for similar
dreams or visions being taken for objec
tive realities by enthusiastic minds, living
in an atmosphere of religious excitement,
in an uncritical age, when supernatural
occurrences were considered to be
matters of course? And history is full
of instances which show how any super
natural germ, planted in such a medium,
propagates itself and extends to millions,
almost as rapidly as the bacillus germ
does in an epidemic of small-pox. St.
Vitus’s dance, or the dancing mania, ran
the round of Europe like the potato
disease, and even yet survives in the
hysterical affections of the sect of Shakers.
The gift of tongues spread like wildfire
83
through Irving’s congregation, and only
died out because it had fallen on the
uncongenial soil of the nineteenth cen
tury ; even the story of the tail of the
lion over the gateway of the old Northum
berland House being seen by many
passers-by to wag because one had
asserted it, illustrates the contagiousness
of nervous sympathy, and the tricks which
“ strong imagination ” can play with the
senses.
Another great blow has been dealt
against the miraculous theory by what
can only be called the singular want of
intelligence displayed in the exercise of
miraculous power as commonly recorded.
The raison d'etre, or effect desired to be
produced by miracles, is to convert man
kind from sin, or to attest a divine
mission by convincing proofs. Even
ordinary human intelligence—and how
much more so that of a superior Being—
must see that to attain this end the means
must be to make the proof convincing.
There is no reason in itself why it should
not be so. The fact that a man who
was alive and signed a will is now dead
is attested, as regards the latter proposi
tion, by a proper medical certificate, and
as regards the former by two credible
witnesses, who are prepared to come into
court, give their names and addresses,
depose on oath to the signature, and
stand cross-examination. If this testi
mony is required to establish a fact so
antecedently probable as that one parti
cular man has undergone the common
fate of millions of millions of other men
—that is to say, that he has died after
being alive—how much more must it be
requisite to establish the fact so antece
dently improbable as that one man
among those many millions, after having
died, came back to life. And yet, where
is the recorded miracle for which' even
this minimum, amount of testimony is
forthcoming?
Why are miracles so
constantly performed in holes and
corners, in obscure localities, among
little knots of ignorant and enthusiastic
adherents, attested by the vaguest hear| say evidence of unknown or incompetent
�84
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
witnesses, and apparently under circum so by working a miracle, he had refused,
stances inevitably calculated to defeat he would from his point of view have
their object and engender doubts in the been guilty of a great sin—that of pre
minds of reasonable and conscientious
venting the coming of the kingdom of
men. Take, for instance, the miracles heaven.
now said to be wrought at Lourdes. The
Again, who were the Pharisees ? No
object must be taken to be to convert doubt there were formalists and hypo
infidel France to the Catholic faith. But crites among them, but the position of
obviously this object would be far better the sect in the Jewish nation was almost
attained by a single undoubted miracle exactly similar to that of the English
wrought at Paris before a commission Puritans in the reign of Charles. They
headed by a man like Pasteur, than by were the embodiment of the patriotic
any number of miracles scarcely, if at all, and religious spirit of the race, the sons
distinguishable from those of Dr. Braid, of the heroic fathers who fought under
alleged to occur at an obscure village in Judas Maccabeus against Antiochus, the
the presence.of peasants and pilgrims. fathers of the equally heroic sons who
Or, take a higher instance, that of the made the last desperate stand against the
demand made by the Pharisees to Jesus legions of Titus. . It was their duty, when
for a sign to attest his Messiahship. Con a claim to Messiahship was advanced,
sider the. circumstances of the case, and before departing from the traditions of
see if it is at all possible that, if he had their ancestors, to require evidence. The
possessed the power of working miracles, universally expected evidence of a tem
he should have replied, “ Why doth this poral. deliverer being wanting, there
generation seek after a sign? verily I say remained only the evidence of miracles,
unto you, there shall no sign be given which, moreover, were assigned as the
unto this generation” (St. Mark ix. 12). test of a Messiah by all their prophets.
In the first place, the statement throws To refuse them a sign, if a sign were
discredit upon all the miracles said to possible, was to do injustice to many
have been wrought, by the positive and sincere and conscientious men. Nay,
explicit declaration that none should be more, it was an act of cruelty if leaving
wrought. But beyond this, the very them in their old faith entailed eternal
essence of the mission of Jesus was con punishment. The same thing applies to
tained in the words, “ Repent ye, for the all records of miracles. They are never
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He had wrought under circumstances where they
a firm conviction that the kingdom of would be the most effective means for
heaven, or a millennium of peace and attaining proposed ends. They are never
goodwill, was close at hand, and its wrought under circumstances which leave
advent only retarded by the sinfulness them clear of the suspicion of being sub
and want of faith of his chosen people. jective illusions of misinterpretations of
He thought it his bounden duty to do effects due to natural causes. They
all he could to remove the obstacle and never convince any but those who are
expedite the coming of the kingdom. more than half convinced already.
With this conviction, though fully seeing
It would be easy to multiply instances
the risk and counting the cost, when he showing the inadequacy of the evidence
found- that he was making no decided adduced to establish such an exceptional
headway by preaching in a remote pro and extraordinary fact as the occurrence
vince, he determined to go to Jerusalem of a real miracle. But it is unnecessary
and make there one great effort to to do so, as all thinking minds have
accomplish his object. Can it be doubted come, or are fast coming, to the conclu
that he would use every means in his sion of Dr. Temple, that “all the count
power to carry his mission to a successful less varieties of the universe were pro
conclusion ? If, having the power to do | vided for by one original impress, and
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
not by special acts of creation modifying
what had previously been made.”
It is only when we look behind the
phenomena of the universe at this Great
First Cause that I see anything to object
to in the definition of Dr. Temple, and
of Christian philosophers generally. They
assume it to be a personal Deity, who is
to a great extent known or knowable, and
therefore must have attributes conform
able to human perceptions which are the
basis of all human knowledge. In other
words, however much we may purify and
enlarge these attributes, He must be
essentially an anthropomorphic God or
magnified man. To this theory there
seems to me to be this fatal objection,
that it gives no account of the origin of
evil, or rather that it makes the Divine
Creator directly responsible for it. . The
existence of evil in the world is as
palpable a fact as the existence of good.
There are many things which to our
human perceptions appear to be base,
cruel, foul, and ugly, just as clearly as
other things appear to be noble, merciful,
pure, and beautiful. Whence come they ?
If the existence of good proves a good
Creator, how can we escape the inference
that the existence of evil proves an evil
one ? This is never so forcibly impressed
on me as when I read the arguments of
those who insist most strongly on the
conception of a one, anthropomorphic
God. When Carlyle says, “All that is
good, generous, wise, right—whatever I
deliberately and for ever love in others
and myself—who or what could by any
possibility have given it to me but One
who first had it to give? This is not
logic, but axiom.” I cannot but picture
to myself the sledge-hammer force with
which, if he had approached the question
without prepossessions, he would have
come down on the cant, the insincerity,
the treason to the eternal veracities,
which refused to look facts in the face,
and apply the same reasoning to the evil.
Or if Arnold defines the Deity as the
“ Something not ourselves which makes
for righteousness,” how of the Some
thing not ourselves which makes for
85
unrighteousness?
The only escape I
can find from this dilemma is to accept
existing facts and not evade them. It' is
a fact that polarity is the law of existence.
Why we know not, any more than we
know the real essence and origin of the
atoms and energies which are our other
ultimate facts. But we accept atoms and
energies, and accept the law of gravity and
other laws; why not accept also the law of
polarity, and admit that it is part of the
“original impress”: one of the funda
mental conditions under which, the
evolution of Creation from its ultimate
elements is necessitated to proceed.
This the human mind can understand;
beyond it is the great unknown or un
knowable, in presence of which we can
only feel emotions of reverence and of
awe, and “ faintly trust the larger hope ”
that duality may somehow ultimately be
merged in unity, evil in good, and “ every
winter turn to spring.”
As nations advanced in civilisation,
there has always been a tendency among
the higher and purer minds to relegate
the Great First Cause further and further
back into the unknown, and to divest it
of anthropomorphic attributes. When
Socrates said, “that divinely revealed
wisdom of what you speak, I deny not,
inasmuch as I do not know it; I can
only understand human reason,” he spoke
the identical language of Darwin, Spencer,
Huxley, and those leaders of modern
thought whom theologians call agnostics.
Even in religions based on the idea of a
single anthropomorphic Deity the same
tendency often appears among the highest
thinkers. Thus Emmanuel Deutsch, in
his learned work on the Talmud, tells us :
“ Its first chapter treats of the Deity as
conceived by Jewish philosophy. The
existence of God is, of course, pre
supposed. But what of his attributes ?
Has he any ? Scripture literally taken
seems to affirm this. Yet taken in a
higher sense, as understood by the Alex
andrines, the Talmud, and the Targum,
it denies it.”
The great Jewish doctors, Ibn Ezra,
Jehuda Hilmi, and Maimonides, take
�86
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
this view of a divine origin shrouded in
ineffable mystery. Maimonides says: “If
you give attributes to a thing, you define
this thing, and defining a thing means to
bring it under some head, to compare it
with something like it. God is sole of
his kind. Determine him, circumscribe
him, and you bring him down to the
modes and categories of created things.”
Even St. Paul says : “ O the depths of
God. How unsearchable are his judg
ments, and how inscrutable his ways”;
and the Creed of our own Church, in
the midst of a string of definitions all
implying that God is comprehensible, has
the words, “the Father incomprehen
sible.”
It is evident that the reasons why
these anticipations of the prevailing ten
dency of modern thought only appeared
by glimpses, and among a very limited
number of philosophic minds, arose from
the fact that the miraculous theory of the
universe everywhere prevailed. Every
unusual occurrence was supposed to be
owing to the direct supernatural interfer
ence of a Being acting in the main with
human attributes, and therefore to be a
direct refutation of the theory which
denied the possibility of defining His
attributes, and relegated Him to the dim
distance of an incomprehensible Creator.
With the utter breakdown of the miracu
lous theory, and the certainty that all the
countless varieties of the universe arise,
not from special interferences, but from
one original impress, this theory of a
reverent and devout agnosticism becomes
impregnable and holds the field against
all rivals. It, and it alone, is consistent
with the facts of science, the deductions
of reason, the axioms of morality, while
at the same time it denies nothing, and
leaves an ample background on which to
paint the visions of faith, and to reflect
back to us spectral images of our hopes
and fears, our longings and aspirations.
Some seek for a solution of the mysteiy, and try to reconcile the existence of
evil with that of an almighty and benefi
cent Creator, by assuming that in the
long run everything will come right.
Evolution, they say, has led constantly
to higher and better things, and when
carried far enough will lead to a state of
society in which wars will cease, evil
passions die out, and universal love and
charity _ prevail—in other words, to a
millennium.
Even if this were true, what of the un
told millions of the human race who have
perished in their sins while evolution was
slowly working out this tardy millennium?
Are they the chair a canons, whom a
Napoleon-like Deity sacrifices with
cynical indifference, in the calculated
moves of the game of Creation ? Is this
their idea of an all-wise and all-merciful
Father who is in heaven ?
And, again, is it true that evolution
works constantly for good and promises
to bring about such a millennium ? It
is doubtless true that evolution means
progress, and the ever-increasing develop
ment of the more and more complex and
differentiated from the simple and uni
form. But is this all for good, or all for
happiness; and is not evolution, like
everything else, subject to the primary
and all-pervading law of polarity ? We
have only to ask the question to answer
it. In the case of the individual, which
is the epitome of the history of the
species, is development from the engag
ing innocence of childhood always in the
direction of goodness and happiness ?
So far is this from being the case that,
as individuals and societies advance, and
become higher and more complex in the
scale of organisation, the law of polarity
asserts itself with ever-increasing force,
and contrasts become sharper. The
good become better, the bad worse ; and
as we become less
“Like the beasts with lower pleasures,
Like the beasts with lower pains,”
if our happiness becomes more intense,
so does our misery become more intoler
able. I refer not merely to physical
conditions, though here the contrast is
most apparent. An intelligent traveller
who recently circled the world, survey
ing mankind with a keen and impartial
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
eye “ from China to Peru,” says, as the
result of his experience : “ The traveller
will not see, in all his wanderings, so
much abject repulsive misery among
human beings in the most heathen lands
as that which startles him in his civilised
Christian home, for nowhere are the
extremes of wealth and poverty so pain
fully presented.” This is perfectly true;
but it would be a rash conclusion to
infer that civilised and Christian coun
tries are worse than heathen lands, or
that those who march in the van of pro
gress, and who succeed in the struggle
for life, have a larger dose of original sin
than the laggards and those who fail.
Accumulations of population and
accumulations of capital are alike causes
and effects of progress in an industrial
age. But you can no more have a north
without a south pole than you can have
this progress without its counterpart of
suffering. When an educated gentleman
was, like the good vicar,
“ Passing rich with forty pounds a year,”
how many struggles and how many
heart-aches were avoided. When “ merry
England” dwelt in rural hamlets and
villages, the “bitter cry” of East Lon
don could scarcely have been written.
Turn it as you like, increase of popula
tion means increase of poverty. Say
that only five per cent, fail in the battle
of life, from their own or inherited
faults—from bad luck, ill-health, weak
ness of mind, adverse surroundings—five
per cent, on thirty millions is a larger
figure than five per cent, on ten millions.
And the lot of those who fail is aggra
vated by the success of those who
succeed. The scale of living rises, and
the cost of living increases, while compe
tition becomes keener. Increase of
population in a limited area means in
creased difficulty of finding employment j
and the complex relations of interna
tional commerce send panics and crises
vibrating throughout the world, which
throw millions out of work, or reduce
them to starvation wages. In simple
forms of society everyone accepts the
87
condition in which he finds himself as a
matter of course, while in a more com
plex civilisation the fiend Envy steps in,
and teaches the baser natures who are
failures to regard every success as an
insult and every successful man as an
enemy. Hence Labour rises in mad
revolt against Capital; Socialists attack
society with dynamite; and Utopian
theorists preach a millennium to be
attained by abolishing private property
and individual liberty.
If we turn to the moral aspects of the
question, it is still more clear that evolu
tion does not tend solely to the side of
virtue. There is doubtless less ferocious
savagery, less rude and unconscious, or
half-conscious crime, in civilised societies,
but there is far more deliberate and
diabolical wickedness. The very tempta
tions and opportunities which, if resisted,
lead to higher virtues, if succumbed to,
lead to greater vice. Even the intellec
tual advance, if perverted, becomes the
instrument of greater crimes. A chemist
discovers nitro-glycerine, and dynamite
becomes a resource of civilisation. There
is a saying that there is “no blackguard
so bad as a Scotch blackguard,” which,
as a patriotic Scotchman, I take to be a
tribute to the generally high intellectual
and moral character of my countrymen.
A powerful polarity is powerful, as the
case may be, either for good or evil.
Why, then, should we believe that evo
lution, which, carried thus far, has de
veloped more strongly the contrast
between good and evil, will, if carried a
little farther, extinguish it by annihilating
the evil ?
In fact, the good and evil resulting
from the higher evolution of society are
so evenly balanced that it depends very
much on place, time, and temperament
whether we are optimists or pessimists.
If my liver acts properly, I am an opti
mist ; if it is out of order, a pessimist.
Personally, I incline to optimism—that
is, I think that this world, if not exactly
“ the best of all possible worlds,” is yet
on the whole a very tolerable world, and
that life to the majority, and on the
�88
RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
average, is worth living. I think also
that progress is certainly towards higher,
and very probably towards happier, con
ditions. It seems to me that in the most
advanced English-speaking communities
the condition of at least one half—viz.,
the female half—of the population is
distinctly better, and that the working
class, who form the majority of the male
half, though many are worse off than
formerly, are, on the whole, better fed,
better clothed, better educated, and
better behaved.
This, however, is perhaps very much a
matter of temperament. Greater minds
than mine have seen things differently
and inclined to pessimism. Buddhism,
and almost all Oriental religions and
philosophies, are based upon it, and look
to Nirvana or annihilation of personal
identity as the supreme bliss. Pauline
Christianity assumes that all mankind,
except a few chosen vessels, are so hope
lessly bad as to be predestined to eternal
damnation. And even more remarkable,
Shakespeare, the universal genius, who,
one would say, had as happy a tempera
ment and led as successful a life as any
man, had his moods of despondency in
which he could say :—
“When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone bemoan my outcast state ;
Wearying deaf heaven with my fruitless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate.”
Or declare with Hamlet that no one
would bear the ills of life if
“ He himself could his quietus make
With a bare bodkin.”
With instances like these, and the dis
gust of life manifested in so many
modern societies by the increase of
suicides, and the spread of pessimistic
theories like those of Schopenhauer and
Hartmann, who can deny that the great
magnet of modern civilisation has a
south as well as a north pole, and that
progress is not all towards perfection ?
The attempts of theologians to recon
cile the existence of evil with the good
ness of an almighty Creator, by relegating
the adjustment to a future life, only
make the fact of this fundamental polarity
more apparent, for their conceptions of
a heaven and hell obviously do not
reconcile, but only intensify, the opposite
polarities. The good are better, the
bad worse, the happy happier, and the
wretched more miserable, in all these
attempts to define the undefinable and
to reconcile divine justice with divine
mercy. All that remains really clear to
each individual is that by his efforts in
this life he can do something to keep the
balance of polarities somewhat more on
the side of good, both in his own indi
vidual existence and in that of the aggre
gate of units, of which he is one, which
is called society or humanity.
The great advantage of this form of
religious hypothesis, which for want of a
better name I call Zoroastrianism, is
that, in the first place, it gets rid of the
antagonism between religion and science,
for there is no possible discovery of
science which is irreconcilable with the
fact that there is a necessary and inevit
able polarity of good and evil, and in
the background a great unknown, which
may be regarded with those feelings and
aspirations which are inseparable from
human nature. And, secondly, there is
the still greater advantage that we can
devote ourselves with a whole heart and
sincere mind to the worship of the good
principle, without paltering with our
moral nature by professing to love and
adore a Being who is the author of all
the evil and misery in the world as well
as of the good. If it were really true
that there were such a Being as theolo
gians describe, who created the immense
majority of the human race vessels of
wrath doomed to eternal punishment,
either from pure caprice or to avenge
the slight offered to him by the disobe
dience of a remote ancestor, what would
be the attitude of every healthy human
soul towards such a Being? Rather
that of Prometheus or Satan than of
Gabriel or Michael; of heroic defiance
than of abject submission. We may
gloss this over in words, but the fact
remains, and it is difficult to over-
�RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES
estimate the amount of evil which has
resulted in the world from this confusion
of moral sentiments, which has made
good men do devil’s work in the belief
that it had Divine sanction.
The horrors of demonology and witch
craft had their origin in texts of the Old
Testament; religious wars and persecu
tions arose out of the fundamental error
that intellectual acceptance of' doubtful
dogmas was the one thing necessary for
salvation ; and ruthless cruelty was justi
fied by an appeal to God’s anger with
Saul for refusing to hew in pieces the
captive Amal ekites.
A follower of
Zoroaster would see at once that these
were works of Ahriman and not of
Ormuzd, and that in taking part in them
he was deserting the standard under
which he had enlisted, and doing deeds
of darkness while pretending to serve the
Prince of Light. This idea of being a
soldier enlisted in the army of light
seems to me to afford one of the strongest
practical inducements to hate what is
evil and cleave to what is good. A bad
deed or foul thought is felt to be not
only wrong, but dishonourable : a disloyal
going over to the enemy and abandon
ment of the chief under whom we had
enlisted, and of the comrades with whom
we had served. This is a very strong
motive, and even in the humble ranks
of the Salvation Army we can see how
powerfully it operates to make men true
to their banner.
Indeed, a great deal of what is best in
genuine Christianity seems to me to
resolve itself very much into the worship
of Jesus as the Ormuzd or personifica
tion of the good principle, and determina
tion to try to follow his example and do
his work. It happens to me to receive
a good many circulars from the devoted
men and women who are doing so much
charitable work to assist the poor and
fallen, and I observe that the appeals are
almost constantly made in the name of
Jesus. When the Salvation Army makes
an appeal once a year to its members
for funds to prosecute their campaign,
it is touching to read the replies and
____________ 89
see men parting with an overcoat . or
giving up their beer, and women going
without a new bonnet or cup of tea, to
contribute their mite. But always for
the “ love of Jesus,” for the “ Saviour’s
sake,” as an offering to the “dear
Redeemer.”
Theological Christianity
says that the one thing needful is to
believe in the Catholic Faith as defined
by the Athanasian Creed, without which
we shall “without doubt perish ever
lastingly.”
Practical Christianity has
completely dropped the Holy Ghost as
a sort of fifth wheel to the coach, and
relegated the Father into ever vaguer and
greater distance; while it has fastened
more and more on the figure of Jesus of
Nazareth as the practical living embodi
ment of the good principle of the uni
verse. In a word, Christianity, as it has
become more reasonable, more charitable,
more pure, and more elevated, has ap
proximated more and more to Zoroas
trianism ; and for practical purposes
modern Christians are, to a great extent,
without knowing it, worshippers of
Ormuzd, with Christ for their Ormuzd.
To this I see no sort of objection.
The tendency to personify abstract
principles in something which is warmer,
dearer, nearer to ourselves, is ineradic
able in human nature; and especially
among the great masses of mankind who
cannot rise to the height of philosophical
speculations. It is impossible in . the
present age to invent new personifications,
or to revive old ones. Jesus has the
immense advantage of being in posses
sion of the field, with all the accumulated
love and reverence of nineteen centuries
of followers. 'It would be difficult to
invent a better ideal or a more perfect
example. No doubt the ideal, like all
human conceptions, is not absolutely
perfect; it is subject to the law of
polarity, and its excellences, if pushed to
the “falsehood of extremes,” in many
cases become faults. It would not do
in practice if smitten on one cheek to
turn the other, or to take no thought for
the morrow and live like the sparrows.
The opposition between the flesh and
�90
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
the spirit is also stated so absolutely
that it is apt to lead to a barren and
ignoble asceticism. But those are ele
ments which, practically, are not likely
to be pushed to excess, and which serve
rather to mitigate the tendencies of
modern civilisation to an undue pre
ponderance of the opposite polarities of
selfishness, worldliness, and sensuality.
Courage, hardihood, self-reliance, fore
sight, a love of progress, and a desire to
attain independence, will always remain
prominent virtues, especially of the
stronger races, and the gentler teachings
of Christianity will long be wanted as an
influence to soften, to elevate, and to
purify. By all means, therefore, let
Christians remain Christians, and see in
Christ their Ormuzd, or personification
of the good principle. Only let them
remember that that there are two sides
to every question, and cease to entertain
hard and bitter thoughts towards those
who follow the truth after a different
fashion. Let them delight rather to dis
cover unity in the spirit than differences
in the letter, and, instead of anathematis
ing with Athanasius those who dissent
by one hair’s breadth from the Catholic
faith, strive with St. Paul after that
charity which “ suffereth long and is
kind : beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.”
This will be easier if they recollect
that love and reverence for Jesus, as the
personification of the good principle, is
in no way connected with the super
natural dogmas and legends which have
come down from superstitious ages, and
which are seen every day, more and more
clearly, to stand in direct contradiction
to the real facts and real laws of the
universe. He is the bright example of
the highest ideal of human virtue, not on
account of miracles, but in spite of them ;
not because he was a transcendental
abstraction with attributes altogether
outside of human experience or concep
tion, but because he was a man whom
other men can love and other men can
strive to imitate. The dogmas and
miracles may quietly fade out of sight, as
so many articles of the Athanasian Creed
have already done, like mists before the
rising rays of larger knowledge and purer
morality, and yet the essence of Chris
tianity will remain, as a worship of the
good and beautiful, personified in the
brightest examplewhich has beenafforded
—that of Jesus, the son of the carpenter
of Nazareth.
Chapter XII.
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
Christianity based on morals—Origin of morality
—Traced in Judaism—Originates in evolution
—Instance of murder—Freedom of will—Will
suspended in certain states of brain—Hyp
notism—Mechanical theory—Pre-established
harmony—Human and animal conscience—
Analysis of will—Explained by polarity—
Practical conclusion.
religions ” of the world. The creeds of
ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia, as
well as Buddhism and Confucianism,
contain many excellent moral precepts;
and the injunction to “do unto others
as you would be done by,” and to “ love
your neighbour as yourself,” are to be
found long before the Sermon on the
Christianity occupies a prominent Mount. Recent research into the literary
place among what are called the “ ethical remains of Egypt and Babylon give us
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
9i
an increasingly high estimate of their parallels of latitude or degrees of longi
moral teaching. In the same way Chris tude ; and they invent tribal gods, who
tianity became to the majority of its are simply great chiefs, bound by no
adherents a rule of conduct. and an laws, but granting favours when appeased
incentive, strengthened by divine sanc and inflicting injuries when angry. By
tion, to lead pure and upright lives. slow degrees, as civilisation advances,
This is the sense in which it has always moral ideas are evolved, and the more
been understood by the majority of enlightened minds begin to attribute
Christians, and its corruptions have come moral attributes to the deities. Earnest
much more from above than from below men, prophets, and reformers take up
—from theologians, priests, and politi these ideas and preach them to the world,
cians, rather than from the instincts of and, if circumstances are favourable and
the millions; and this it is which enables the soil prepared, they take root . and
it to retain such a wonderful vitality even become popular convictions, surviving
in modern times, when faith in dogmas in the struggle for life, and becoming
and miracles has been so greatly stronger from generation to generation.
This evolution of moral ideas is most
weakened. In order to appreciate the
clearly traced in the religious history of
solidity of this basis, it is necessary to
understand the origin of morals, and to the Jews, because in their case a more
see that the fundamental precepts of complete religious literature has reached
moral law are not mere chance inven us. In their earlier conceptions, when
tions of a few exceptional minds, or the they had passed the stage of polytheism
teachings of doubtful revelations, but are and human sacrifices, Jehovah is repre
the necessary growth and products of sented with all the traits of a jealous and
human nature, in the course of the capricious Oriental sultan. The one
evolution of society from rude beginnings virtue in his eyes is implicit obedience;
to a high civilisation. This gives them the one unpardonable crime, anything
a certainty and sanction which could be that looks like disrespect. David is the
derived from no other source, and makes man after God’s own heart, though he
them what in fact they have become— commits crimes of the foulest descrip
almost primary instincts of the natural tion, and treats as nullities the moral
and normal mind in civilised communi commandments against adultery and
ties. I proceed, therefore, to endeavour murder. But when he takes a census of
to trace shortly the process by which his people, Jehovah is offended, and,
moral laws have originated and grown up with a total disregard of justice, visits
to their present certainty and cogency in his anger, not on the offender, but on
the innocent people whom he decimates
the course of evolution.
As I have already said, the element by a pestilence. In like manner, Abra
of morality is one of the latest to be ham is favoured because he is ready to
developed in religious conceptions. The obey the inhuman command to sacrifice
first impressions of savage races reflect his son ; while Saul loses Jehovah’s
the feelings of vague superstitious terror favour because he hesitates to massacre
with which they regard unknown pheno his captives in. cold blood. The first
mena and powers. They are afraid of ideas of a higher moral sense appear
ghosts and afraid of thunder long before with the prophets in the troubled times
they rise to a belief in a future state of the later kings—-when poor little
of rewards and punishments, or to the Palestine was being ground between the
notion of an almighty Being acting upper millstone of Assyria and the nether
by natural laws. In a higher state of one of Egypt. Sufferings and persecu
development they personify natural tions, anxieties and tribulations, wrought
powers in gods, who have no more idea a ferment in the Jewish mind from which
of morality than if they were so many new ideas were generated. Sacrifices
�92
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
had been duly offered, and yet the thee. This is the whole Law, the rest is
enemies of Jehovah waxed and his chosen mere commentary.” And again : “ Do
people waned. It must be that he was , not judge thy neighbour until thou hast
offended with them because he required stood in his place.”
something better than the blood of bulls
The Talmud anticipates in a wonder
—justice and mercy. So taught the ful degree, not only the moral precepts of
popular preachers of the day—men like the Gospel, but to a great extent its
Isaiah and Amos—and by degrees their phraseology and technical terms. “Re
words found acceptance. It was not, demption,” “grace,” “faith,” “salvation,”
however, until the Captivity that these “ Son of man,” “ Son of God,” “ king
ideas of morality were wrought into the dom of heaven,” were all, as Deutsch
Jewish nation so as to become, so to shows, not invented by Christianity, but
speak, flesh of their flesh and blood of were household words of contemporary
their blood, as they have remained ever Judaism. In one respect only Chris
since. Whether it was contact with the tianity shows a higher evolution of
more advanced moral ideas of religions morality than Judaism—viz., its univer
like those of ancient Babylon, or of sality. Pure Judaism hardly rises above
Buddha and Zoroaster, or through their the idea of “neighbour,” or those who
sufferings from the cruelty and injustice were of the same race or common faith ;
of their conquerors, the Captivity cer while Christianity, as enlarged by St.
tainly made them a new nation, attached, Paul, embraces all mankind, and may
ardently to morality and monotheism— truly say : “Humani nihil a me alienum
thus affecting in a few years, and by puto.”
purely human agencies, what, according
The idea that morality and religion are
to received beliefs, centuries of miracu products of a slowly developing evolution
lous dispensation had failed to accom is denounced by many as degrading and
plish. How speedily and how effectually materialistic. In many the instinct of
the work was done appears from that the “ good ” is so strong that it seems to
most interesting description of the them sacrilege to attempt to explain it.
domestic life of a middle-class Jew of They insist that it is either a universal
Nineveh, the Book of Tobit—though the instinct implanted from the first in all
book may belong to a much later date. mankind, or else that it has been so im
The simple piety and homely household planted by a divine revelation. They
virtues are almost identically the same forget that, to use the vigorous phrase
as those of many a Jewish family living ology of Carlyle, “It matters not whether
to-day in London or Frankfort. From you call a thing pan-theism or pot-theism;
that time forward Jewish morality main what really concerns us is to know
tains a high level, and in the age imme whether it is true." Now, it admits of
diately preceding Christianity it had no question that, whether we like it or
attained great purity and spirituality in not, the evolutionist theory of morality
the school of the early doctors of the is the true one. Take an extreme in
Talmud, and of the Jewish colony of stance, that of murder. We feel an
Alexandria. The Sermon on the Mount, instinctive horror at the idea, and even a
beautiful as it is, is but an admirable brutal ruffian like Bill Sikes becomes an
resume of maxims which are to be found accursed thing to himself and his com
in the works of Philo and other Jewish panions when he has transgressed the
teachers, and which were current in the commandment, “ Thou shalt do no
synagogues of the day. Hillel, who was murder.” But is it so everywhere, and
president of the Sanhedrin when Christ was it so always? By no means; the
was born, on being asked what was the Fiji islander kills and eats a stranger or
law, replied : “Do not unto another what enemy without scruple; the Red Indian
thou wouldst not have another do unto and Dyak are not accounted men until
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
they have murdered some one and
brought home his scalp or his head as a
trophy. Even at a late period among
ourselves murder was considered to be
rather a civil injury, to be met by com
pensation, than a crime; and a regular
tariff was established of the amount to
be paid according as the victim was a
slave or a freeman.
The origin and progress of the idea
that murder is a crime can almost be
traced step by step. The wife of a rude
savage does something which offends
him; a violent perception of anger
flashes from the visual organ to the per
ceptive area of the brain, and a reflex
action flashes from it along the motor
nerve to the muscles of the arm. He
strikes and kills her, almost as uncon
sciously and instinctively as he walks or
breathes. But other perceptions follow
on the act. He finds next day that he
has no one to cook his food; the image
of her dying face photographed on his
brain is an unpleasant one ; and thus by
degrees a series of secondary perceptions
get attached to the primary one of
striking when he feels angry. If he gets
another wife who again provokes him,
the primary perception calls up the
secondary ones, and the nerve-centres of
his brain, instead of being solicited only
in one direction, are acted on in opposite
ways by conflicting impressions. He
hesitates, and, as the primary impulse of
passion is probably the more evanescent,
the restraining impulses prevail, and
every time they prevail they acquire
more strength. Gradually they extend
to a conviction that it is both inconve
nient and disagreeable to kill any one
with whom he is closely related either by
family or tribal ties, and that, in a word,
murder does not pay, and is wrong,
unless practised on an enemy. This
idea accumulates by heredity, and evi
dently those tribes or races in whom it
is strongest will have an advantage in the
struggle for life and be most likely to
survive.
From this point the idea may be
traced historically, deepening and widen
93
ing from generation to generation as
civilisation advances, until in the higher
races it assumes the form of an instinc
tive abhorrence of murder in the abstract,
as we find it at the present day.
It is a mistake to suppose that the
foundations of morality are in any way
weakened by thus tracing them up to
their first origins. On the contrary, if
we consider the matter rightly, they are
placed on a much more solid and un
assailable basis. If we say that moral
laws depend on a universal instinct im
planted in all mankind, faith in them is
shaken whenever we read in history, or
hear from the report of travellers, of
whole nations, constituting from first to
last the immense majority of the human
race, who had none of those ideas which
we now consider fundamental. If, again,
we base them on divine precepts miracu
lously conveyed, every discovery of
science and development of thought
which weakens faith in miracles impairs
the basis of morals. And on this theory
hopeless contradictions arise within the
sphere of those very moral laws which we
seek to establish, as in reconciling the
justice and mercy of the Creator in
revealing this inspired code only to
limited portions of the human race, and
under conditions which leave large scope
for legitimate doubt, and which, in point
of fact, failed to ensure recognition for its
moral precepts among his chosen people
for a long period after its promulgation.
But on the scientific theory of the
evolution of morality by natural laws it
stands on an impregnable footing. No
one can deny that, as a matter of fact,
such instincts do prevail, and have
become part of the nature of all the
best men and best races, and that each
successive generation tends to fix them
more firmly. Mathematical laws are not
the less certain because they can be
traced back to counting on the fingers,
and moral laws will continue to have a
certainty and cogency scarcely inferior
to the axioms of mathematics, although
we can trace them back to origins as
rude as the attempts of the Australian
�94
CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
savage to extend his perceptions of
number beyond “ one, two, and a great
many.”
The real difficulty is not in tracing the
origin of these instincts of morality, but
in that fundamental difficulty which
underlies all theories of reconciling the
consciousness of free-will with the material
attributes with which it is indissolubly
associated. Without freedom of will
there can be no conscience, no right or
wrong in acting in accordance or other
wise with the instincts of moral law,
however those instincts may have been
derived. Now, it is certain that the will,
like life, memory, consciousness, and
other mental functions, is, so far as
human knowledge extends, indissolubly
connected with matter and natural laws,
in the form of certain motions of the
cells which form the grey substance of
the nerves and of the nervous ganglia of
which the cortex of the brain is the
most considerable. This is conclusively
proved by experiment. We know that,
by removing certain portions of the brain
of a dog or of a pigeon, we can destroy
the power of motion while preserving
the will, and by removing certain other
portions we can destroy the will while
preserving the powers of motion. Take
away a certain portion of the brain of a
pigeon, and, although it retains the power
of taking food, it has so totally lost the
will to exercise this power that it will
starve in the midst of abundance, though
it can be kept alive by placing the food
in its mouth. In like manner, in the
human brain there are certain portions
which, if destroyed by injury or disease,
will paralyse the power of giving effect
to the will by muscular movements, while
the destruction of other portions will
paralyse the will which originates such
movements.
Numerous
cases
are
recorded in medical treatises in which
the will is completely paralysed for the
performance of certain functions, and in
such cases the anatomist can lay his
finger on the spot where the brain is
affected, and, when the brain is dissected
after the death of the patient, it will be
found that his prediction is verified, and
that this region of the brain really was
diseased. In sleep also, and in abnormal
states of the brain such as somnambulism,
and mesmerism or hypnotism, the action
of the will is suspended. Hypnotism
affords the most remarkable instances,
for here the will seems to be transferred
from the ego or individuality of the
patient to that of the operator, and the
currents of nervous energy which induce
motion in A are set going by impulses
in the mind of A, not caused by his own
will, but by that of B, conveyed by
words, gestures, or other subtle indica
tions. A ludicrous instance of this is
recorded by Dr. Braid, in which an old
lady, who had a true puritanical abhor
rence of dancing as sinful, being hypno
tised, began capering about the room
when a waltz tune was struck up, on
being told to do so by the operators.
There are some other curious effects
produced by hypnotism, in the way of
inducing a sort of double consciousness
and memory, which makes people in this
condition totally forget things which
they remember when awake, and remem
ber things which were totally forgotten
in the waking state.
These and a variety of other instances
point to the conclusion that man is only
a conscious machine. In other words,
that the original impress, to use Dr.
Temple’s words, was so perfect that it
provided a pre-established harmony not
only for the innumerable phenomena of
the material universe as unfolded by
evolution, but for the still more innume
rable phenomena of life in all its manifes
tations and all its complex relations to
outward environment. I say of life, for we
•clearly cannot confine the theory to human
life. A dog, who with the two courses
before him of doing wrong and chasing
a rabbit, or doing right and remaining at
his master’s heel, chooses one of them,
is in exactly the same position as
Hercules between the rival attractions of
virtue and pleasure. If Hercules acted
as a machine, yielding to the pre-estab
lished preponderance of the stronger
�CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS
attraction, so did the dog; but if Hercules
exerted free-will and felt the approval or
blame of conscience, so did the retriever.
There is no fundamental distinction, but
merely a question of degree, between
human conscience and the shame which
a dog feels when it knows that it has
done wrong, and the pleasure which it
manifests when conscious that it has
behaved properly.
Shall we thus conclude, as Leibnitz
and other great philosophers have done,
in favour of the mechanical theory ?
But if we do, how are we to account for
the instinctive ineradicable feeling, which
comes home to every one with a convic
tion even stronger than the evidence, of
the senses, that wre really have a choice
between opposite courses, and can decide
on our own actions—a conviction which
is obviously the foundation of all con
science and of all morality ?
Let us try to analyse more closely
what Will really means, and under what
conditions it is manifested. The circuit
which connects any one single percep
tion with action, through sensory nerve,
sensory centre, motor centre, motor
nerve and muscle, is as purely mechanical
as that of an electric circuit. Reflex
motions such as breathing, and even
more complex motions which by repeti
tion have become reflex or instinctive,
are also mechanical and involve, no
exercise of will. But when perceptions
become complex, and one primary
evokes a number of secondary percep
tions—in other words, when the cells
of the corresponding portions of grey
matter in the cortex of the brain are set
vibrating by a variety of complex and con
flicting molecular motions—the feeling
of free-will inevitably arises-. We feel
the conviction that there is a.something
which we call soul, mind, or, in the last
analysis, “I myself I,” which sits, as Von
Moltke might do, in a cabinet receiving
conflicting telegraphic messages from
different generals, and deciding then and
there what order to flash out in reply.
What can we say to this ? That it is
like space and time, one of the cate
95
gories of thought, or primary moulds in
which thought is cast. We do not know
what space and time really are in their
essence, or why they are the necessary
conditions of thought, any more than we
do in the case of will. They may be
illusions, but we accept them, and of
necessity accept them, as facts. For all
practical purposes it is the same to us
as if we understood their essence and
knew them to be realities. A man. can
no more doubt that he is an individual
being, with a will which, in a great many
cases, enables him to decide which of a
variety of impulses shall prevail, than he
can hesitate, if he is furnishing a room,
to regulate his purchase of carpeting and
paper by space of three dimensions,
without regard to possible speculations
as to quarternions.
Perhaps the principle of polarity may
assist us in understanding that both
theories may be true; or rather that
matter and spirit, necessity and free-will,
may be opposite poles of one funda
mental truth which is beyond our com
prehension. We cannot shake off this
principle of polarity, and arrive at any
knowledge, or even conception, of the
absolute truth in regard to the atoms,
energies, and natural laws, which make
up the universe of matter and of all the
ordinary and material functions of life,
why should we expect to do so in the
higher manifestations of the same life,
which have been arrived at in the later
stages of one unbroken course of evolu
tion from monad to man ?T
This, at any rate, is the theory which
best satisfies my own mind and enables
me to reduce my own individual chaos
into some sort of a cosmos. I draw
from it the following conclusions :—
For all practical purposes assume that
u right is right,” and that the moral
1 Recent psychologists tend to distinguish
between free-will, in the old sense of purely
spontaneous initiative, and self-determination ;
thus Dr. Stout in his latest manual. The latter
would seem to meet the theoretic requirements
of morality, while they reject , the former as
inconsistent with the facts of their science.
�96
ZOROASTRIANISM
instincts, however they have been formed,
are imperative laws. Assume also that
“ Man is man and master of his fate,”
and that we have, to a great extent, the
power of deciding what to do and what
not to do. But, in doing so, keep the
mind open to all conclusions of science,
and admit freely that these assumptions
are indissolubly connected with natural
laws and with material organs, and that
man is to a very great extent dependent
on his environment and his place in
Chapter
evolution, both for his moral code and
for the force of will and conscience which
enables him to conform to it. Learn,
therefore, the lesson of a large toleration
and of charity in thought and deed,
towards those who, from inherited con
stitution or unfortunate conditions of
education and outward circumstances,
fall under the sway of the principle of
evil, and lead bad, useless, and unlovely
lives. Had you and I, reader, been in
their place, should we have done better ?
XIII.
ZOROASTRIANISM
Zoroaster an historical person—-The Parsees—
Iranian branch of Aryan family—Zoroaster a
religious reformer—Scene at Balkh—Conver
sion of Vishtasp—Doctrines of the “ excellent
religion ” — Monotheism — Polarity — Dr.
Haug’s description—Ormuzd and Ahriman—
Anquetil du Perron — Approximation to
modern thought—Absence of miracles—Code
of morals —■ Its comprehensiveness — And
liberality—Special rites—Fire-worship—Dis' posal of dead—Practical results—The Parsees
of Bombay—Their probity, enterprise, respect
for women—Zeal for education—Philanthropy
and public spirit—Statistics—Death and birth
rates.
Zoroastrianism is commonly supposed
to derive its name from its founder,
Zoroaster, a Bactrian sage or prophet,
who lived in the reign of King Vishtasp
the First. Zoroaster’s name has come
down to us from antiquity in much the
same relation to this form of religion as
that of Moses to Judaism, or of SakyaMouni to Buddhism. As in those cases,
certain learned commentators have en
deavoured to show that the alleged
founder was purely mythical and had no
real historical existence, basing their argu
ment mainly on a fact that a number of
supernatural attributes, and embodiments
of metaphysical and theological ideas,
became attached to the name, just as a
whole cycle of solar myths became
associated with the name of Hercules.
But this seems to be carrying scepticism
too far. Experience shows that religions
have generally originated in the crystal
lisation of ideas floating in solution at
certain periods of the evolution of
societies, about the nucleus of some
powerful personality. Nearly all the
great religions of the world, such as
Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity,
and Mohammedanism, clearly had his
torical founders, and it would be hyper
critical to deny that such a man as Jesus
of Nazareth really lived because many
of his sayings and doings may be traced
to applications, more or less erroneous,
of ancient prophecies, or because his
human nature became transfigured into
the Logos and other mataphysical con
ceptions of the Alexandrian philosophy.
In the case of Zoroaster, the argument
for his historical existence seems even
stronger, for his name is connected with
historical reigns and places, and his
genuine early history contains nothing
�ZOROASTRIA NISM
supernatural or improbable.1 He is
represented as simply a deep thinker
and powerful preacher, like Luther, who
gave new form and expression to the
vague religious and philosophical ideas
of his age and nation, reformed its super
stitions and abuses, and converted the
leading minds of his day, including the
monarch, by the earnestness and elo
quence of his discourses. At any rate,
for my purpose I shall assume his
personality, for my object is not to write
a critical essay on the origin and develop
ment of the Zoroastrian religion, but to
show that in its fundamental ideas and
essential spirit it approximates wonder
fully to those of the most advanced
modern thought, and gives the outline
of a creed which goes further than any
other to meet the practical wants of the
present day, and to reconcile the conflict
between faith and science. This will
be most clearly and vividly shown by
assuming the commonly accepted his
torical existence of Zoroaster to be true,
and by confining myself to the broad,
leading principles of his religion, without
dwelling on its varying phases, or on the
mythical legends and ritualistic obser
vances which, as in the case of all other
old religions, have crystallised about the
primitive idea and the primitive founder.
Zara-thustra, or, as he is commonly
called, Zoroaster, and the religion which
goes by his name, are known to us
mainly from the sacred books which
have been preserved by the modern
Parsees. The Parsees, a small remnant
of the Persians who under Cyrus founded
one of the mightiest empires of the
ancient world, flying from their native
country to escape from persecution after
the Mohammedan conquest, formed a
colony in India, and are now settled at
Bombay. They form a small but highly
intelligent community, who have pre
served their ancient religipn, and, fortu1 Professor Jackson, in his recent Zoroaster,
declares that scholars are now “generally agreed ”
as to the historical character of Zoroaster, and
that the doubts raised by Kern and Darmesteter
have been “ dispelled. ”
97
nately, some considerable fragments of
their sacred scriptures. The oldest of
these are written in the Gatha dialect of
the Avesta or Zend language, which is
contemporary with Sanskrit, and bears
much the same relation to it as Latin
does to Greek. The primitive Aryan
family at some very remote period
became divided into two branches, and
radiated from their Central Asian home
in two directions. The Hindoo branch
migrated to the south into the Punjaub
and Hindostan; the Iranian westwards,
into Bactria and Persia; while other
successive w7aves of Aryan migration in
prehistoric times rolled still further west
wards over Europe, obliterating all but a
few traces of the aboriginal population.
The period of this separation of the
Iranian and Hindoo races must be very
remote, for the Rig-Veda is probably at
least 4,000 years old, and the divergence
between its form of Sanskrit and the
Gatha dialect of the Zend is already as
great as that between two kindred
European languages, such as Greek and
Latin. The divergence of religious ideas
is also evidently of very early date. In
the Hindoo, and all other races of the
primitive Aryan stock, the word used for
gods and good spirits is taken from the
root “ div,” to shine. Thus, Daeva in
Sanskrit, Zeus and Theos in Greek, Deus
in Latin, Tius in German, Diewrs in
Lutheranism, Dia in Irish, Dew in
Kymric, all mean the bright or shining
one represented by the vault of heaven.
But in Iranian the word has an opposite
sense, and the “deevs” correspond to
our “devils.”
The primitive Aryan religions were
evidently all derived from a contempla
tion of the powers and phenomena of
nature. The sky, with its flood of light
and vault of ethereal blue, was considered
to be the highest manifestation of a
Supreme Power; while the sun and
moon', the stars and planets, the winds
and clouds, the earth and waters, were
personified, either as symbols of the
Deity or as subordinate gods. The
original simple faith was thus apt to
H
�98
ZOROASTRIANISM
degenerate into a system of polytheism,
and, as the gods came to be represented
by visible forms, into idolatry.
Zoroasterappears to us, like Mohammed
at a later age and among a ruder people,
as a prophet or reformer who abolished
these abuses and restored the ancient
faith in a loftier and more intellectual
form, adapted to the use of an advanced
and civilised society. The records of
his life and teaching have fortunately
been preserved in so authentic a form
that, distant as he is from us, we can
form a singularly accurate idea of who
he was and what he taught. Our know
ledge is chiefly drawn from the Gathas,
the oldest section of the Avesta, or
Persian Bible.
Some 2,500 years ago a sight might
have been seen in the ancient city of
Balkh—the famous capital of Bactria,
the “ Mother of Cities ”—very like that
witnessed some eleven centuries later at
our own Canterbury. The king and his
chief nobles and courtiers were assem
bled to hear the discourse of a preacher
who proposed to teach them a better
religion. Vishtasp listened to Zoroaster,
as Ethelbert listened to Augustine, and
in each case reason and eloquence
carried conviction, and the nation be
came converts to the new doctrine.
This conversion was effected without
miracles, for it is expressly stated in the
celebrated speech of the prophet, pre
served in the 30th chapter of the Yasna,
that he relied solely on persuasion and
argument. Ferdousi, the Persian Homer,
thus describes the first interview between
Zoroaster and Vishtasp: “ Learn,” he
said, “ the rites and doctrines of the
religion of excellence. For without re
ligion there cannot be any worth in a
king. When the mighty monarch heard
him speak of the excellent religion, he
accepted from him the excellent rites
and doctrines,”
The doctrines of this “ excellent reli
gion” are extremely simple. The leading
idea is that of monotheism, but the one
God has far fewer anthropomorphic attri
butes, and is relegated much farther back
into the vague and infinite than the god of
any other monotheistic religion. Geiger
describes it as “one of the purest and
most sublime religions that have ever
existed.” Ahura-Mazda, of which the
more favourite appellation Ormuzd is an
abbreviation, means the “All-knowing
Lord ”; he is said sometimes to dwell
in the infinite luminous space, and some
times to be identical with it. He is, in
fact, not unlike the inscrutable First
Cause, whom we may regard with awe
and reverence, with love and hope, but
whom we cannot pretend to define or to
understand. But the radical difference
between Zoroastrianism and other reli
gions is that it does not conceive of this
one God as an omnipotent Creator, who
might make the universe as he chose,
and therefore was directly responsible for
all the evil in it; but as a Being acting
by certain fixed laws, one of which was,
for reasons totally inscrutable to us, that
existence implied polarity, and therefore
that there could be no good without
corresponding evil.
Dr. Haug, who is a high authority on
all questions connected with the Zend
scriptures, says : “ Having arrived at the
grand idea of the unity and indivisibility
of the Supreme Being, Zoroaster under
took to solve the great problem which
has engaged the attention of so many
wise men of antiquity and even in
modern times—viz., how are the imper
fections discernible in the world, the
various kinds of evil, wickedness, and
baseness, compatible with the goodness,
holiness, and justness of God? This
great thinker of remote antiquity solved
this difficult question philosophically, by
the supposition of two primaeval causes,
which, though different, were united, and
produced the world of material things as
well as that of spirit. These two primae
val principles are the two moving causes
in the universe, united from the begin
ning, and therefore called twins. They
are present everywhere—in the Ahura
Mazda, or Supreme Deity, as well as in
man.”
They are called in the Vendidad
�ZOROASTRIANISM
Spento Mainyush, or the “beneficent
spirit,” and Angro Mainyush, or the
“hurtful spirit.” The latter is generally
known as Ahriman, the Prince of Dark
ness ; and the former, as Ormuzd, is
identified with Ahura Mazda, the good
God, though, strictly speaking, Ahura
Mazda is the great unknown _ First
Cause, who comprehends within himself
both principles as a necessary law of
existence, and in whom believers may
hope that evil and good will ultimately
be reconciled.
Anquetil du Perron, the first translator
of the Zendavesta, in his Critical View
of the Theological and Ceremonial System
of Zar-thurst, thus sums up the Parsee
creed: “ The first point in the theo
logical system of Zoroaster is to recognise
and adore the Master of all that is good,
the Principle of all righteousness, Ormuzd,
according to the form of worship pre
scribed by him, and with purity of
thought, of word, and of action—a purity
which is marked and preserved by purity
of body. Next, to have a respect,
accompanied by gratitude, for the intel
ligence to which Ormuzd has committed
the care of nature (z>., to the laws of
nature), to take in our actions their
attributes for models, to copy in our
conduct the harmony which reigns in
the different parts of the universe, and
generally to honour Ormuzd in all that
he has produced. The second part of
their religion consists in detesting the
author of all evil, moral and physical,
Ahriman—his productions, and his
works; and to contribute, as far as in us
lies, to exalt the glory of Ormuzd by
enfeebling the tyranny which the Evil
Principle exercises over the world.”
It is evident that this simple and
sublime religion is one to which, by
whatever name we may call it, the best
modern thought is fast approximating.
Men of science like Huxley, philosophers
like Herbert Spencer, poets like Tenny
son, might all subscribe to it; and even
enlightened Christian divines, like Dr.
Temple, are not very far from it when
they admit the idea of a Creator behind
99
the atoms and energies, whose original
impress, given in the form of laws of
nature, was so perfect as to require no
secondary interference. Admit that
Christ is the best personification of the
Spenta Mainyush, or good principle in
the inscrutable Divine polarity of exist
ence, and a man may be at the same
time a Christian and a Zoroastrian.
The religion of Zoroaster has, how
ever, this great advantage in the existing
conditions of modern thought, that it is
not dragged down by such a dead weight
of traditional dogmas and miracles as
still hangs upon the skirts of Christianity.
Its dogmas are comprised in the state
ment that there is one supreme, un
known, First Cause, who manifests him
self in the universe under fixed laws
which involve the principle of polarity.
This is hardly so much a dogma as a
statement of fact, or of the ultimate and
absolute truth at which it is possible for
human faculty to arrive. No progress
of-science or philosophy conflicts with it,
but rather they confirm it, by showingmore and more clearly with every dis
covery that this is in very fact and deed
the literal truth. Religion, or the feeling
of reverence and love for the Great Un
known which lies beyond the sphere of
human sense and reason, shines more
brightly through this pure medium than
through the fogs of misty metaphysics ;
and we can worship God in spirit and in
truth without puzzling our brains as to
the precise nature of the Logos, or
exercising them on the insoluble problem
how one can be equal to three, and at
the same time three equal to one.
As regards miracles, which are another
millstone about the neck of Catholic
Christianity, the religion of Zoroaster is •
entirely free from them. There are, it
is true, a few miraculous myths about
him in some of the later writings in the
Pehlvi language, as of his conception by
his mother drinking a cup of the sacred
Homa; but these are of no authority, and
form no part of the religion. On the
contrary, the original scriptures, which
profess to record his exact words and
�V
ioo
ZOROASTRIANISM
precepts, disclaim all pretension to divine
nature or miraculous power, and base
the claims of the “excellent religion”
purely on reason. This is an immense
advantage in the “ struggle for life,” when
every day is making it more impossible
for educated men to believe that real
miracles ever actually occurred, and when
the evidence on which they were accepted
is crumbling to pieces under the light of
critical inquiry. The Parsee has no
reason to tremble for his faith if a Galileo
invents the telescope or a Newton dis
covers the law of gravity. He has no
occasion to argue for Noah’s deluge, or
for the order of Creation described in
Genesis. Nay, even, he may remain
undisturbed by that latest and most fatal
discovery that man has existed on the
earth for untold ages, and, instead of
falling from a high estate, has risen con
tinuously by slow and painful progress
from the rudest origins. How many
orthodox Christians can say the same, or
deny that their faith in their sacred books
and venerable traditions has been rudely
shaken ?
The code of morality enjoined by the
Zoroastrian religion is as pure as its
theory is perfect. Dr. Haug enumerates
the following sins denounced by its code,
and considered as such by the present
Parsees : Murder, infanticide, poisoning,
adultery on the part of men as well as
women, sorcery, sodomy, cheating in
weight and measure, breach of promise
whether made to a Zoroastrian or nonZoroastrian, telling lies and deceiving,
false covenants, slander and calumny,
perjury, dishonest appropriation of wealth,
taking bribes, keeping back the wages of
labourers, misappropriation of religious
property, removal of a boundary stone,
turning people out of their property,
maladministration and defrauding, apos
tasy, heresy, rebellion. These are positive
injunctions. The following are con
demnable from a religious point of view :
Abandoning the husband; not acknow
ledging one’s children on the part of the
father; cruelty towards subjects on the
part of a ruler; avarice, laziness, illiber-
ality and egotism, envy. In addition,
there are a number of special precepts
adapted to the peculiar rites of the
Zoroastrian religion which aim princi
pally at the enforcement of sanitary rules,
kindness to animals, hospitality to
strangers and travellers, respect to
superiors, and help to the poor and
needy.
It is evident that this is the most
complete and comprehensive code of
morals to be found in any system of
religion. It comprises all that is best
in the codes of Buddhism, Judaism, and
Christianity, with a much more ample
definition of many vices and virtues
which, even in the Christian religion, are
left to be drawn as inferences rather than
inculcated as precepts. Thus, laziness,
cheating, selfishness, and envy are dis
tinctly defined as crimes and their
opposites as virtues, and not merely left
to be inferred from the general maxims
of “ loving your neighbour as yourself,”
and “ doing unto others as you would be
done by.” The comprehensiveness and
liberal spirit of the code is also remark
able, for we are repeatedly told that these
rules of moralityapply to non-Zoroastrians
as well as to Zoroastrians. The applica
tion of religious precepts to practical
life is another distinguishing feature.
Thus kindness to animals is specially
enjoined, and it is considered a sin
to ill-treat animals of the good crea
tion, such as cattle, sheep, horses, or
dogs, by starving, beating, or unneces
sarily killing them. With true practical
wisdom, however, the “falsehood of
extremes ” is avoided, and this precept
is not, as in the case of Brahminism and
Buddhism, carried so far as to prohibit
altogether the taking of animal life, which
is expressly sanctioned when necessary.
This sober practical wisdom, or what
Matthew Arnold calls “ sweet reasonable
ness,” is a very characteristic feature of
Zoroaster’s religion, and very remarkable
as having been taught at so early a period
in the history of civilisation.
Another precept, which might well
have been made by an English Board of
�ZOROASTRIANISM
Health in the nineteenth century, is not I
to pollute water by throwing impure
matter into it.
The only special Parsee rites which
would be unsuited for modern European
society are the worship of the sacred fire
and the disposal of the dead. It is true
that the former is distinctly understood
to be merely a symbol of the Deity, and
used exactly as water is in baptism, or as
the ascending flame of candles and
smoke from swinging incense are, in the
Catholic ritual, to bring more vividly
before the minds of the worshippers the
idea of the spirit soaring upwards to
wards heaven. Still, in modern society
fire is too well understood as merely a
particular form of chemical combination,
and is too familiar as the strong slave
and household drudge of man, to ac
quire a leading place in a religious ritual
where it has not been hallowed by the
usage of a long line of ancestors and the
traditions of a venerable antiquity. All
that can be said is that, if religious rites
and ceremonies are to be maintained in
an age when science has become the
prevailing mode of thought, appropriate
symbolism, especially that of music, must
more and more take the place of appeals
to the intellect on metaphysical ques
tions, and of repetitions of traditional
formulse which have lost all living signifi
cance.
Another Parsee rite, which is even
less adapted for general usage, is that of
disposing of the dead on towers of
silence, where the body moulders away
or is devoured by birds of prey. It
originates in a poetical motive of not
defiling the pure elements, fire, earth, or
water, by corruption ; but it is obviously
unsuited for the conditions of civilisation
and climate which prevail in crowded
cities under a humid sky.
There is little prospect, therefore, of
any general conversion to the sect of
Zoroastrians; but what seems probable
is the gradual transformation of existing
modes both of religious and secular
thought into something which is, in
principle, very closely akin to the “ ex
IOI
cellent religion ” taught by the Bactrian
prophet.
The miraculous theory of the universe
being virtually dead, the only theory that
can reconcile facts with feelings, and the
ineradicable emotions and aspirations of
the human mind with the incontro
vertible conclusions of science, is that of
a remote and more or less unknown and
incomprehensible First Cause, which has
given the original atoms and energies so
perfect an impress from the first that
all phenomena are evolved from them by
fixed laws, one of the principal of such
laws being that of polarity, which de
velops the ever-increasing complexities
and contrasts of the inorganic and
organic worlds, of moralities, philoso
phies, religions, and human societies.
True religion consists in a recognition of
this truth, a feeling of reverence in pre
sence of the unknown, and, above all,
a feeling of love and admiration for the
good principle in whatever form it is
manifested, in the beauties of nature and
of art, in moral and physical purity and
perfection, and all else that falls within
the domain of the Prince of Light, in
whose service, whether we conceive of
him as an abstract principle or accept
some personification of him as a living
figure, we enlist as loyal soldiers, doing
our best to fight in his ranks against the
powers of evil.
The application of the all-pervading
principle of polarity is exemplified in the
realm of art. The glorious Greek drama
turned mainly on the conflict between
resistless fate and heroic free-will, and is
typified in its highest form by ZEschylus,
when he depicts Prometheus chained to
the rock hurling defiance at the tyrant
of heaven. Our own Milton, in like
manner, gives us the spectacle of the
fallen archangel opposing his indomitable
will and fertile resources to the extremity
of adverse circumstance and to Almighty
power.
The greatest of modern dramas,
Goethe’s “ Faust,” turns so entirely on
the opposition between the human soul
striving after the infinite and the spirit
�102
ZOROA STRIANISM
der verneint, who combats ideal aspira
tions with a cynical sneer, that it might
well be called a Zoroastrian drama. It
is a picture of the conflict between the
two opposite principles of good and evil,
of affirmation and negation, of the beau
tiful and the ugly, personified in Faust
and Mephistopheles, and it is painted
on a background of the great mysterious
unknown. “ Wer darf ihn nennen ?”
“ Who dares to name him,
Who to-say of him, ‘ I believe,’
Who is there ever with a heart to dare
To utter, ‘ I believe him not ’?”
So in poetry, Tennyson, the poet of
modern thought, touches the deepest
chords when he asks :
“ Are God and Nature, then, at strife ? ”
and paints in the sharpest contrast on
the background of the unknown the
conflict between the faith that
“ God is love, indeed,
And love creation’s final law,”
'and the harsh realities of nature, which
“ Red in tooth and claw
With ravine shrieks against the creed”;
or again in his later work, The Ancient
Sage, he says :
“ Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son !
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven.”
In like manner in the works of art
which embrace a wider range, and hold
up the mirror to human nature, as in
Shakespeare’s plays, and the novels of
Walter Scott, and other great authors,
the interest arises mainly from the
polarity of the various characters. We
care little for the goody-goody heroes or
vulgar villains, but we recognise a touch
of that nature which makes all the world
akin in a Macbeth drawn by metaphysi
cal suggestion to wade through a sea of
blood ; in Othello’s noble nature caught
like a lion in the toils by the net of
circumstances woven by a wily hunter;
in Falstaff, a rogue, a liar, and a glutton,
yet made almost likeable by his ready
wit, imperturbable good humour, and
fertile resources. Shakespeare is, in fact,
the greatest of artists, because he is
the most multipolar. He has poles of
sympathy in him which, as the poles of
carbon attract so many elements and
form so many combinations, enable him
to take into his own nature, assimilate,
and reproduce every varied shade of
character from a Miranda to a Caliban,
from an Imogen to a Lady Macbeth,
from a Falstaff to an Othello. Sir Walter
Scott and all our great novelists have the
same faculty, though in a less degree,
and are great in exact proportion as they
have many poles in their nature, and as
those are poles of powerful polarity. The
characters and incidents which affect us
strongly and dwell in the memory are
those in which the clash and conflict of
opposites are most vividly represented.
We feel infinite pity for a Maggie
Tulliver dashing her young life, like a
prisoned wild bird, against the bars of
trivial and prosaic environment which
hem her in; or for a Colonel Newcome
opposing the patience of a gentle nature
to the buffets of such a fate as meets us
in the everyday world of modern life, the
failure of his bank and the naggings of
the Old Campaigner. On a higher level
of art we sympathise with a Lancelot and
a Guinevere, because they are types of
what we may meet in many a London
drawing-room, noble natures drawn by
some fatal fairy fascination into ignoble
acts, but still retaining something of
their original nobility, and, while
“ Their honour rooted in dishonour stands,”
appearing to ordinary mortals little less
than “archangels ruined.” Or even if
we descend to the lowest level of the
penny dreadful or suburban drama, we
find that the polarity between vice and
virtue, however coarsely delineated, is
that which mostly fascinates the uncul
tured mind.
The affinity between Zoroastrianism
and art is easily explained when we con
sider that in one respect it has a mani
fest advantage over most Christian forms
of religion. Christianity in its early
�Z OROAS TRIA NISM
103
origins received a taint of Oriental the main causes of the indifference or
asceticism which it never shook off, and hostility to religion which is so widely
which, in the declining centuries of the spreading among the mass of the popula
Roman empire, and in the barbarism tion. Children are brought up to con
and superstition of the Middle Ages, de sider Sunday as a day of penance, and
veloped into what may be almost called church-going as a disagreeable necessity;
a devil-worship of the ugly and repulsive. while grown-up men, especially those of
The antithesis between the flesh and the the working classes, resent being, told
spirit was carried to such an extreme and that a walk in the country, a cricket
false extent that everything that was match, or a visit to a library or museum
pleasant and beautiful came to be re on their only holiday, is sinful.
In view of the approximation between
garded as sinful, and the odour of
the Zoroastrian religion and the forms of
sanctity was an odour which the passer
by would do well to keep on the wind modern thought, it is interesting to note
ward side of. This leaven of asceticism how the former works among its adherentsis the rock upon which Puritanism, in actual practice. For, after all, the
monasticism, and many of the highest practical side of a religion is more impor
forms of Christian life have invariably tant than its speculative or philosophical
split. It is contrary to human nature, theories. Thus, for instance, the Quakers
and directly opposed to the spirit of the have a. faith which is about the most
life and doctrines of the Founder of the reasonable of any of the numerous sects
religion. Jesus, who was ££ a Jew living of Christianity and nearest to the spirit
among Jews and speaking to Jews, of its Founder, and yet Quakerism
adopted the true Jewish point of view of remains a narrow sect, which is far from
making religion amiable and attractive, being victorious in the “ struggle for
and denouncing, as all the best Jewish life.” Mohammedanism, again, while
doctors of the Talmud did, the Pharisai dying out among civilised nations, shows
cal strictness which insisted on ritualistic itself superior to Christianity in the work
observances and arbitrary restrictions. of raising the barbarous, fetish-worship
In no passages of his life does the ping negroes of Africa to a higher level.
“ sweet reasonableness” of his character And Mormonism, based on the . most
appear more conspicuous than where we obvious imposture and absurdity, is the
find him strolling through the fields with only new religion which, in recent times,
his disciples and plucking ears of corn has taken root and to a certain extent
on the Sabbath, and replying to the for flourished.
Tried by this test, Zoroastrianism has
malists who were scandalised, “ The
made good its claim to be called the
Sabbath was made for man, not man for
the Sabbath.” The ascetic bias subse ££ excellent religion.” Its followers, the
quently introduced may have been a limited community of Parsees in India,
necessary element in counteracting the are honourably distinguished for probity,
corruption of Rome; but the pendulum intelligence, enterprise, public spirit,
in its reaction swung much too far, and benevolence, tolerance, and other good
when organised in its celibacy of the qualities. By virtue of these qualities
clergy and monastic institutions asceti they have raised themselves to a pro
cism became the source of great, evils. minent position in our Indian empire,
Even at a late period we can see in the and take a leading part in its commerce
reaction of the reign of Charles II. how and industrial enterprise. The chief
antagonistic the puritanical creed, even shipbuilder at Bombay, the first great
of men like Cromwell and Milton, native railway contractor, the founder of
proved to the healthy natural instinct of cotton factories, are all Parsees, and they
the great mass of the English nation. are found as merchants, traders, and
And at the present day it remains one of shopkeepers in all the chief towns of
�io4
ZOROASTRIANISM
British India and distant places, such as
t Aden and Zanzibar. Their commercial
probity is proverbial, and, as in England,
they have few written agreements, the
word of a Parsee, like that of an English
man, being considered as good as his
bond. Their high character and practi
cal aptitude for business are attested by
the fact that the first mayor, or chairman
of the Corporation of Bombay, was a
Parsee, who was elected by the unanimous
vote both of Europeans and natives.
The position of women affords perhaps
the best test of the real civilisation and
intrinsic worth of any community. Where
men considerwomen as inferior creatures,
it is a sure proof that they themselves
are so. They are totally wanting in that
■delicacy and refinement of nature which
distinguishes the true gentleman from
. the snob or the savage, and are coarse,
- vulgar brutes, however disguised under a
veneer of outward polish. On the other
hand, respect for women implies selfrespect, nobility of nature, capability of
rising to high ideals above the sordid
level of animal appetite and the selfish
supremacy of brute force.
The Parsees in this respect stand high,
far higher, than any other Oriental people,
and on a level with the best European
civilisation. The equality of the sexes
is distinctly laid down in the Zoroastrian
scriptures. Women are always mentioned
as a necessary part of the religious com
munity. They have the same religious
.-rites as the men. The spirits of deceased
-women are invoked as well as those of
men. Long contact with the other races
of India, and the necessity for some
outward conformity to the practices of
Hindoo and Mohammedan rulers, did
something to impair the position of
females as regards public appearances,
though the Parsee wife and mother always
remained a principal figure in the Parsee
household ; and latterly, under the
security of English rule, Parsee ladies
may be seen everywhere in public,
enjoying just as much liberty as the
ladies of Europe or America. Nor are
they at all behind their Western sisters |
in education, accomplishments, and, it
may be added, in daintiness of fashion
able attire. In fact, an eager desire for
education has become a prominent feature
among all classes of the Parsee com
munity, and they are quite on a par with
Scotch, German, and other European
races in their efforts to establish schools,
and in the numbers who attend, and
especially of those who obtain dis
tinguished places in the higher schools
and colleges, such as the Elphinstone
Institute and the Bombay University.
Female education is also actively pro
moted, and no prejudices stand in the
way of attendance at the numerous
girls’ schools which have been estab
lished, or even of studying in medical
colleges, where Parsee women attend
lectures on all branches of medical
science along with male students. Those
who know the position of inferiority and
seclusion in which women are kept
among all other Oriental nations can best
appreciate the largeness and liberality
of spirit of a religion which, in spite of
all surrounding influences, has rendered
such a thing possible in such a country
as India.
Another prominent trait of the Parsee
character is that of philanthropy and
public spirit. In proportion to their
numbers and means, they raise more
money for charitable objects than any
other religious sect. And they raise it
in a way which does the greatest credit
to their tolerance and liberality. For
instance, the Parsees were the principal
subscribers to a fund raised in Bombay
in aid of the “ Scottish Corporation
and quite recently a Parsee gentleman
gave 16,000 towards the establishment
of a female hospital under the care of
lady doctors, although the benefit of
such an institution would be confined
principally to Mohammedan and Hindoo
women, Parsee women having no pre
judice against employing male doctors.
The public spirit shown by acts like
this is the trait by which the Parsee
community is most honourably dis
tinguished, and in respect of which it
�ZOROASTRIANISM
must be candidly confessed it far sur
passes, not only other Oriental races, but
most European nations, including our
own. Whatever the reason may be, the
fact is certain that in England, while a
great deal of money is spent 111 charity,
lamentably little is spent from the
enormous surplus wealth of the country
on what may be called public objects.
There is neither religious influence nor
social opinion brought to bear on the
numerous class who have incomes far
beyond any possible want, to teach them
that it should be both a pleasure and
a pride to associate their names with
some act of noble liberality.. A better
spirit we may hope is springing up, and
there have been occasional instances of
large sums applied to public purposes,
such as parks and colleges, by private
individuals, principally of the trading and
manufacturing classes, such as the Salts,
Crossleys, Baxters, and Holloways ; but,
on the whole, the amount contributed is
miserably small. It is probably part of
the price we pay for aristocratic institu
tions that those who inherit or accumu
late great fortunes consider it their
primary object to perpetuate or to found
great families. Be this as it may, a
totally different spirit prevails among the
Parsees of Bombay, where it has been
truly stated that hardly a year passes
without some wealthy Parsee coming
forward to perform a work of public
generosity. The instance of Sir Jamsedjee Jijibhoy, who attained a European
reputation for his noble benevolence, is
only one conspicuous instance out of a
thousand of this “ public spirit ” which
has become almost an instinctive ele
ment in Parsee society.
How far the large and liberal religion
may be the cause of the large and liberal
practice it is impossible to say. Other
influences have doubtless been at work.
105
The Parsees are a commercial people,
and commerce is always more libera
with its money than land. They are the
descendants of a persecuted race, and, as
a rule, it is better to be persecuted than
to persecute.
Still, after making all
allowances, it remains that the tree can
not be bad which bears such fruits ; the
religion must be a good one which pro
duces good men and women and good
deeds.
Statistical facts testify quite as strongly
to the high standard of the Parsee race,
and the practical results which follow
from the observance of the Zoroastrian
ritual. A small death-rate and a large
proportion of children prove the vigorous
vitality of a race. The Parsees have the
lowest death-rate of any of the many
races who inhabit Bombay. The aver
age for the two years 1881 and 1882 per
thousand was—for Hindoos, 26.11 ; for
Mussulmans, 30.46
f°r Europeans,
20.18; for Parsees, 19.26.
The per
centage of children under two years old
to women between fifteen and forty-five
was 30.27 for Parsees, as against
Hindoos 22.24, and Mussulmans. 24.9>
showing incontestably greater vitality
and greater care for human life.
Of 6,618 male and 2,966 female
mendicants in the city of Bombay, only
five male and one female were Parsees.
These figures speak for themselves.
It is evident that a religion in which
such results are possible cannot be
unfavourable to the development of
the mens sana in corpore sano, and
that, although we may not turn Zoroastrians, we may envy some of the good
results of a creed which inculcates wor
ship of the good, the pure, and the
beautiful in the concerns of daily life, as
well as in the abstract regions of theo
logical and philosophical speculation.
�106
FORMS OF WORSHIP
Chapter
XIV.
FORMS OF WORSHIP
Byron’s lines—Carnegie’s description—Parsee
nature-worship—English Sunday—The ser
mon—Appeals to reason misplaced—Music
better than words—The Mass—Zoroastrian
ism brings religion into daily life—Sanitation
—Zoroastrian prayer—Religion of the future
—Sermons in stones and good in everything.
4‘Not vainly did the early Persian make
His altar the high places and the peak
Of earth-o’ergazing mountains, and thus take
A fit and unwall’d temple, where to seek
The spirit, in whose honour shrines are weak,
Uprear’d of human hands. Come, and com
pare
Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,
With nature’s realms of worship, earth and
air,
Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy
prayer !”
—Childe Harold, iii. 91,
.A shrewd Scotch-American ironmaster
—Andrew Carnegie—in an interesting
and instructive record of experiences
during a voyage round the world, gives
the following description of the worship
of the modern Parsees, as actually wit
nessed by him at Bombay :—
“ This evening we were surprised to
see, as we strolled along the beach,
more Parsees than ever before, and more
Parsee ladies richly dressed, all wending
their way towards the sea. It was the
first of the new moon, a period sacred
to these worshippers of the elements;
and here on the shore of the ocean, as
the sun was sinking in the sea, and the
slender silver thread of the crescent
moon was faintly shining on the horizon,
they congregated to perform their re
ligious rites.
“ Fire was there in its grandest form,
the setting sun, and water in the vast
expanse of the Indian Ocean outstretched
before them. The earth was under their
feet, and, wafted across the sea, the air
came laden with the perfumes of ‘ Araby
the blest.’ Surely no time or place could
be more fitly chosen than this for lifting
up the soul to the realms beyond sense.
I could not but participate with these
worshippers in what was so grandly
beautiful. There was no music save the
solemn moan of the waves as they broke
into foam on the beach. But where
shall we find so mighty an organ, or so
grand an anthem ?
“How inexpressibly sublime the scene
appeared to me, and how insignificant
and unworthy of the unknown seemed
even our cathedrals ‘ made with human
hands,’ when compared with this looking
up through nature unto nature’s God !
I stood and drank in the serene happi
ness which seemed to fill the air. I
have seen many modes and forms of
worship—some disgusting, others sadden
ing, a few elevating when the organ
pealed forth its tones, but all poor in
comparison with this. Nor do I ever
expect in all my life to witness a religious
ceremony which will so powerfully affect
me as that of the Parsees on the beach
at Bombay.”
I say Amen with all my heart to Mr.
Carnegie. Here is an ideal religious
ceremony combining all that is most
true, most touching, and most sublime,
in the attitude of man towards the Great
Unknown. Compare it with the routine
of an ordinary English Sunday, and how
poor and prosaic does the latter appear !
There is nothing which seems to me to
have fallen more completely out of har
mony with its existing environment than
our traditional form of church service.
The sermon has been killed by the Press,
and has become an anachronism. There
was a time when sermons like those, of
Latimer and John Knox were living
realities ; they dealt with all the burning
political and personal questions of the
day, and to a great extent did the work
now done by platform speeches and
�FORMS OF WORSHIP
leading articles. If there are national
dangers to be denounced, national short
comings to be pointed out, iniquity in
high places to be rebuked, we look to
our daily newspaper, and not to our
weekly sermon. The sermon has, in a
great majority of cases, become a sort of
schoolboy theme, in which traditional
assumptions and conventional phrases
are ground out, with as little soul or idea
behind them as in the Thibetan praying
mill. In the course of a long life I have
gained innumerable ideas and experi
enced innumerable influences, from con
tact with the world, with fellow-men, and
with books; but, although I have heard
a good many sermons, I cannot honestly
say that I ever got an idea or an influence
from one of them which made me wiser
or better, or different in any respect from
what I should have been if I had slept
through them. And this from no fault
of the preachers. I have heard many
who gave me the impression that they
were good men, and a few who impressed
me as being able and liberal-minded men
—nor do I know that, under the condi
tions in which they are placed, I could
have done any better myself. But they
were dancing in fetters, and so tied down
by conventionalities that it was simply
impossible for them to depart from the
paths of a decorous routine.
The fact is that the whole point of
view of our religious services, especially
in Protestant countries, has become a
mistaken one. It is far too much an
appeal to the intellect and to abstract
dogmas, and too little one to the realities
of actual life and to the vague emotions
and aspirations which constitute the
proper field of religion. In the great
reaction of the Reformation it was per
haps inevitable that an appeal should be
made to reason against the abuses of an
infallible Church; and as long as the
literal inspiration of the Bible and other
theological premises were held to be un
doubted axioms by the whole Christian
world, there might be a certain interest
in hearing them repeated over and over
again in becoming language, and in
107
listening to sermons which explained
shortly conclusions which might be
drawn from these admitted axioms. But
this is no longer the case. It is impos
sible to touch the merest fringe of the
questions now raised by the intellectual
side of religion in discourses of half an.
hour’s length; even if the preacher were
perfectly free, and not hampered by thefear of scandalising simple, pious souls
by plain language. Spoken words have
to a great extent ceased to be the appro
priate vehicle for appealing either to reli
gious reason or to religious emotion—books for the former, music for the latter,
are infinitely more effective.
Music
especially seems made to be the language
of religion. Not only its beauty and
harmony, but its vagueness and its
power of exciting the imagination and
stirring the feelings, without anything
definite which has to be proved and can
be contradicted, fit it to be the inter
preter of those emotions and aspirations
which fill the human soul in presence of
the universe and of the Great Unknown.
Demonstrate, with St. Thomas Aquinas
or Duns Scotus, how many angels can
stand on the point of a needle, and I
remain unaffected; but let me' hear
Rossini’s Cujus Animam, or Mozart’s
Agnus Dei, and I say, “ Thus the angels
sing.”
In this respect the Roman Catholic
Church has retained a great advantage
over reformed Churches. Whatever we
may think of its tenets and principles,
its forms of worship are more impressive
and more attractive. The Mass, apart
from all dogma and miracle, is a
mysterious and beautiful religious drama,
in which appropriate symbolism, vocal
and instrumental music, all the highest
efforts of human art, are united to pro
duce feelings of joy and of devoutness.
The vestment of the priest, his gestures
and genuflexions, the Latin words chanted
in stately recitative, the flame of the
candles pointingheaven wards, theburning
incense slowly soaring upwards, the music
of great masters, not like our dreary and
monotonous psalmody, but in fullest
�108
FORMS OF WORSHIP
harmony and richest melody—all com
bine to attune the mind to that state of
feeling which is the soul of religion.
In this respect, however, what I have
called the Zoroastrian theory of religion
affords great advantages. It connects
religion directly with all that is good and
beautiful, not only in the higher realms
of speculation and of emotion, but in
the ordinary affairs of daily life. To
feel the truth of what is true, the beauty
of what is beautiful, is of itself a silent
prayer or act of worship to the Spirit of
Light; to make an honest, earnest effort
to attain this feeling is an offering or
act of homage. Cleanliness of mind
and body, order and propriety in con
duct, civility in intercourse, and all the
homely virtues of everyday life, thus
acquire a higher significance, and any
wilful and persistent disregard of them
becomes an act of mutiny against the
Power whom we have elected to serve.
Such moral perversion becomes impos
sible as that which in the Middle Ages
..associated filth with holiness, and adduced
-as a title to canonisation that the saint
had worn the same woollen shirt until it
fell to pieces under the attacks of vermin.
We . laugh at this in more enlightened
days, but we often imitate it by setting
up false religious standards, and thinking
we can make men better by penning
them up on Sundays in the foul air and
corrupting influences of densely-peopled
cities.
The identification of moral and
physical evil, which is one of the most
essential and peculiar tenets of the
Zoroastrian creed, is fast becoming a
leading idea in modern civilisation. Our
most earnest philanthropists and zealous
workers in the fields of sin and misery
in crowded cities are coming, more and
more every day, to the conviction that
an improvement in the physical con
ditions of life is the first indispensable
condition of moral and religious pro
gress. More air, more light, better
lodging, better food, more innocent and
healthy recreation, are what are wanted
to make any real impression on the
masses who have either been born and
bred in an evil environment, or have
fallen out of the ranks and are the waifs
and stragglers left behind in the rapid
progress and intense competition of
modern society. Hence we see that
the devoted individuals and charitable
institutions who take the lead in works
of practical benevolence direct their
attention more and more to the rescue
of children from bad surroundings; to
sending them to new and happier homes
in the colonies, to country retreats for
the sickly, and excursions for the healthy;
and to providing clubs and reading
rooms as substitutes for the gin-palace
and public-house. A recent develop
ment of this idea, the “People’s Palace”
in the East End of London, is a noble
offering to the “ Spirit of Light,” by
whatever name we choose to call him,
in opposition to the “Spirit of Dark
ness.”
To the Zoroastrian prayer assumes
the form of a recognition of all that is
pure, sublime, and beautiful in the sur
rounding universe. He can never want
opportunities of paying homage to the
Good Spirit and of looking into the
abysses of the unknown with reverence
and wonder. The light of setting suns,
the dome of loving blue, the clouds in
the might of the tempest or resting still
as brooding doves, the mountains, the
“ Waste
And solitary places where we taste
The pleasures of believing what we see,
Is boundless, as we wish our souls to be”;
the ocean lashed by storm, or where it
“ All down the sand
Lies breathing in its sleep,
Heard by the land ”—
these are a Zoroastrian’s prayers.
And even if, “ in populous cities
pent,” he is cut off from close com
munion with nature, opportunities are
not wanting to him of letting his soul
soar aloft with purifying aspirations. A
glimpse of the starry sky, even if seen
from a London street, may bear in on
him the awful yet lovely mystery of the
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
io9
literature, science, and art, he can hear
Infinite. Good books, good music, true
works of art, may all strengthen his love best
“ The still sad music of humanity,
of the good and beautiful. A dense fog
Not harsh nor grating, but of ample power
or drizzling rain may obscure the out
To chasen and subdue,”
ward view, but with the inner eye he may
and associate himself with movements in
stand listening to the lark or under the
which his little individual effort is exerted
vernal sky, and while his
towards making the world a little better
rather than a little worse than he found
“ Heart looks down and up,
Serene, secure ;
Warm as the crocus-cup,
As snowdrops pure,”
thank the Good Spirit that it has. been
given to man to write, and to him. to
read, verses of such exquisite perfection
as Shelley’s “ Ode to a Skylark ” and
Tennyson’s “ Early Spring.” Above all,
where men congregate in masses, in the
great centres of politics, of commerce, of
This, rather than wrangling with his
fellow-mortals about creeds and attempts
to name the unnameable, believe the un
believable, and define the undefinable,
seems to me to be the religion of the future.
Call it by what name you like, I quarrel
with no one as long as he can find
“ Sermons in stones and good in everything.”
Chapter XV.
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
Everything was fresh and cheerful as
Fable of the shield—Progress and conservatism
—English and French colonisation—Law- of a new-born earth, and so were the
abidingness—Irish land question True con spirits of the two youthful knights who
servative legislation — Ultra-conservatism
were pricking forth in search of adven
Law and education—Patriotism—Jingoism
and parochialism—True statesmanship—Free tures. He whose face was turned towards
trade and protection—Capital and labour— the West, where the rising sun. had. last
Egoism and altruism—Socialism and laissez set, wore a primrose scarf over his cuirass,
faire—Contracts—Rights and duties of land and had on his shield a quaint device,
lords—George’s theory—State interference—
Railways—Post Office—Telegraphs—National which, on closer inspection, might be seen
to be a tombstone with the inscription,
defence—Concluding remarks.
“ I was well, would be better, and here I, am.”
A well-known fable tells how, in the
olden time, two knights were riding in
opposite directions along a green road
overarched by the trees of an ancient
forest. It was a bright morning in early
summer, with the green leaves freshly
bursting in contrasted foliage; the sun
had just risen over the tops of the trees
in clouds of golden and crimson glory;
dewdrops were glittering like diamonds
on every twig and blade of grass ; and
the joyous birds carolling their loudest
song to greet the opening day.
He rode along musing on the heroic
legends of the past, and wishing that he
had been a knight of Arthur’s round
table to ride out with the blameless king
against invading heathen.
The second knight, whose face was
turned towards the rising sun, bore an
azure shield with a different device. On
it was depicted the good Sir James
Douglass charging the serried Paynim
army, and, as he charged, flinging before
) him into the hostile ranks the casket
�I IO
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
containing the heart of Robert Bruce,
and shouting for battle-cry :
“ Go thou aye forward, as was thy wont.”
As he rode his fancy wrought the fairy
web of a day-dream, in which he saw
himself delivering the fair princess
Liberty from the fiery dragon Prejudice
and the stolid giant Obstruction.
The knights met just where an ancient
oak of mighty bulk stretched overhead
a huge branch across the path, as some
aged athlete might stretch out an arm
rigid with gnarled and knotted muscles,
to show younger generations how
Olympian laurels were won when Pollux
or Hercules plied the cestus. From this
branch a shield hung suspended.
“ Good morrow, fair knight,” said he
of the primrose scarf; “ prithee tell me
if thou knowest what means this golden
shield suspended here.”
“ I marvel at it myself, good Sir
Knight,” responded the other; “ but
you mistake in calling the shield golden :
it is of silver.”
“Your eyes must be of the dullest,”
said the first knight, “if you mistake
gold for silver.”
“Not so dull as yours,” retorted the
other, “ if you mistake silver for gold.”
The argument waxed hot, and, as
usual in such cases, as tempers grew
weak adjectives grew strong. Soon, like
the old Homeric heroes when Greek
met Trojan
“ Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy,”
winged words of fire and fury darted
from each mouth, and epithets were ex
changed, of which “ stupid old Tory ”
and “ low, vulgar Radical ” were among
the least unparliamentary. At length
the fatal words, “ You lie,” escaped
simultaneously from both, and on the
instant spears were couched, steeds
spurred, and, red with rage, they encoun
tered each other in full career. Such
was the momentum that both men and
horses rolled over, even as the Templar
went down before the spear of Ivanhoe
within the lists of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
But, like the redoubted knight Brian de
Bois-Guilbert, each sprang to his feet
and drew his sword, eager to redeem the
fortune of war in deadly combat. Like
two surly boars with bristling backs and
foaming tusks quarrelling for the right of
way in Indian jungle, or tawny lions in
Numidian desert tearing one another topieces for the smiles of a leonine Helen,
the heroes clashed together, cutting,
slashing, parrying, foyning, and traversing,
until at length, bleeding and breathless,
they paused for a moment, leaning on
their swords to recover second wind.
Just then an aged hermit appeared on
the scene, drawn thither by the sound of
the combat.
“Pause, my sons,” he said, “and tell
me what is the cause of this furious
encounter.”
“ Yonder false villain protests,” said
the one, “that the shield which hangs
there is of gold.”
“ And that lying varlet persists that it
is of silver,” said the other.
The hermit smiled, and said : “ Hold
your hands, good sirs, for a single
moment, and use your remaining strength
to exchange places and look at the
opposite side of the shield.”
They obeyed his words, and found to
their confusion that they had been fight
ing in a quarrel in which each was right
and each wrong.
“ Father,” they said, “ we are fools.
Grant us thy pardon for our folly and
absolution for our sin.”
“ Absolution,” said the hermit, “ is
soon granted for faults which arise from
the innate tendency of poor human
nature. Wiser and older men than you
are prone to see only their own side of
a question. Come, then, with me to my
humble hermitage; there will I dress
your wounds and offer you my frugal
fare; happy if from this lesson you may
learn for the rest of your lives, before
indulging in vehement assertions and
proceeding to violent extremities, to
‘ look at the other side of the shield.’ ”
The application of this fable to the
polarity of politics will be obvious to
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
hi
every intelligent reader. As the earth is when they are placed in favourable con
ditions as in new countries, or in old
kept in its orbit by the due balance of
centripetal and centrifugal forces, so is countries where for ages
every civilised society held together by
“Freedom has widened slowly down,
the opposite influences of conservative
From precedent to precedent,
and progressive tendencies. .The con
that this happy ideal is most nearly
servative tendency may be likened to
the centripetal force which binds the realised. Hence it is that these races
mass together, while the progressive one are more and more coming to the front
resembles that centrifugal force which and surviving in the struggle for existence.
The contrast of English and French
prevents it from being concentrated in a
colonisation affords a striking instance of
rigid and inert central body without life
this difference of races. A century and
or motion. As Herbert Spencer truly
says, “ from antagonistic social tendencies a half ago France stood as well as
there always results not a medium state, England in the race for colonial supre
but a rhythm between opposite states. macy. She had the start of us in Canada,
Now the one greatly preponderates, and and her pioneers had explored the Great
presently, by reaction, their comes a Lakes, the Mississippi, and a large part
preponderance of the other.” So it is of the continent of North America west
with the antagonism of conservative and of the Rocky. Mountains. To-day there
liberal tendencies. In the societies of are sixty millions of an English-speaking
the ancient world, and to the present population in that continent, while French
day in the East, the conservative tendency is scarcely spoken beyond the single
unduly preponderates, and they crystal province of Quebec. Political events
lise into inert masses in the form of had doubtless something to. do with
despotisms, and of sacerdotal or ad this result; but it has been mainly owing
ministrative hierarchies. At times the to the innate qualities of the two races,
pent-up forces which make for change for even the genius of Chatham might
accumulate, and, as in the French have failed to establish our supremacy
Revolution, explode with destructive if it had not been backed by the superior
violence, shattering the old and bringing intelligence, energy, and staying power
in new eras. But unless the balance of the English colonists. The ultimate
between liberty and order is tolerably cause of the triumph of the English over
preserved in the individual citizens whose the French element in America, and
aggregate forms the society, after a period India is doubtless to be found in the
more or less prolonged of violent oscilla stronger individualism of the former.
tions, they crystallise anew into fresh The character of the French is eminently
forms, in which another military dynasty, social: they like to live in societies, and
or, it may be, administrative centralisa shrink from encountering the hardships,
tion under the name of a republic, again and still more the isolation, of the life of
asserts the preponderance of the centri early settlers. They like to be adminis
tered, and shrink from the responsibility
petal force.
The happiest nations are those in of hewing out, each for themselves, their
which the individual character of in own path in the relations of civil life or
dividual citizens supplies the requisite in the depths of primaeval forests.
It is so to the present day, and they
balance. An ideal society is one in
which every citizen is at the same time fail conspicuously in creating a large
liberal and conservative; law-abiding, French population even at their own
and yet with a strong instinct for liberty doors in Algeria; while in their more
of thought and action, for progress and distant colonies they conquer and annex,
for individual independence.
It is but to see their commerce fall into the
among the Teutonic races, especially hands of English, Germans, and Chinese,
�112
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
as in Cochin China, or to stagnate as in
New Caledonia. As a witty French
writer puts it, the trade of a remote
French colony may be summed up as—
imports, absinthe and cigars; exports,
stamped paper and red-tape. Individual
ism in this case has been fairly pitted
against Socialism, and has beaten it out
of the field by the verdict of Fact, which
is more conclusive than any amount of
abstract argument.
To return, however, to the field of
politics. Where the essential quality of
being law-abiding is wanting in individuals,
it is hopeless to look for real liberty.
The centripetal force in societies, as in
planets, must be supplied somehow, or
they would fly into dissolution; and if
not by the integration of the tendencies
of the individual units, then by external
restrictions. Socialists may be allowed
to make inflammatory harangues in a
non-explosive atmosphere, but hardly
to let off their fireworks in a powdermagazine. In order, however, that a
nation shall be law-abiding, it is essential
that the great majority should feel that,
on the whole, the law is their friend.
It is not in human nature to love that
which injures, or to respect that which
is felt to be unjust. The volcanic ex
plosion of the French Revolution was
due to the feeling of the French nation,
with the exception of a few courtiers,
nobles, and priests, that the existing
order of things was their enemy, and
law a tool in the hands of their oppressors.
Even among English-speaking races we
find, in the unfortunate instance of
Ireland, that under specially unfavourable
circumstances the same effects may be
produced by the same causes. What
has English law practically meant for
centuries to an average peasant of Kerry
or Connemara? It has meant an irre
sistible malevolent power, which comes
down on him with writs of eviction to
compel him to pay a high rent on his
own improvements. More that half the
population of Ireland consists of tenants
and their families occupying small hold
ings, paying less than ^io a year of rent.
Of an immense majority of these sm.dl
holdings two things' may be safely
asserted : first, that the total gross value
of the produce is insufficient, after paying
the rent, to leave a decent subsistence
for the cultivator. Secondly, that this
rent is levied to a great extent on the
improvements of the tenant or his prede
cessors. Throughout the poorer parts of
Ireland the greater part of the soil, in its
natural state of bog or mountain, is not
worth a rent of a shilling an acre; but
some poor peasant, urged by the earth
hunger which results from the absence
of other sources of employment, squats
upon it, builds a wretched cottage, delves,
drains, fences, and reclaims a few acres
of land, so as to bear a scanty crop of
oats and potatoes. When he has done
so the landlord or landlord’s agent comes
to him and says : “ This land is worth
ten or fifteen shillings an acre, according
to the standard of rents in the district,
and you must pay it or turn out and
the law backs him in saying so by writs
of eviction and police. Put yourself in
poor Pat’s place, and say if you would
love the law and be law-abiding.
It would take me too far from the
scope of this volume into the field of
contemporary politics if I attempted to
point out who is to blame for this state
of things, or what are the remedies. It
is enough to say that this is the real Irish
problem, and to point to it as an instance
of the calamitous effects which inevitably
follow when the instincts of a whole
population are brought by an unfavour
able combination of circumstances into
necessary and natural antagonism with
the laws which they are bound to obey.
Conservative legislation, by whatever
party it is introduced, really means making
the law correspond with the common
sense and common morality of all except
the criminal and crotchety classes, so
that the majority may feel it to be their
friend. For instance, the most truly
conservative measure of recent times was
probably that which legalised trades’
unions and gave working-men full liberty
to combine for an increase of wages.
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
The old legal maxim, that such combina
tions were illegal as being in restraint of
trade, was so obviously an invention of
the members of the upper caste who
wore horsehair wigs, to give their fellows
of the same caste who employed labour
an unfair advantage, that it could not
fail to cause feelings of discontent and
exasperation among the masses of working
men. By its repeal the sting has been
taken out of Socialism, and the British
working-man has come to be, in the main,
a reasonable citizen, on whom incitements
to violence in order to inaugurate Utopias
fall as lightly as the howlings of the
barren east wind on the chimney-tops.
It has led also to reasonable and peaceful
adjustment of disputes between employers
and labourers by arbitration and slidingscales instead of by strikes and lock-outs.
In the United States of America the lawabiding instinct is even stronger. We
find that strikes attended with violence
are almost always confined mainly to the
foreign element of recently-imported
immigrants, and that the native-born
American citizen considers the laws as
his own laws, and is determined to have
them respected.
The balance between the conservative
and progressive tendencies is, however,
at the best, always imperfect, and inclines
too much sometimes in one and some
times in the other direction. In England
the conservative tendency has had, on
the whole, too much preponderance. I
do not speak of political institutions, for
in these of late years the balance has
been pretty equally preserved ; but in
practical matters there is still a good
deal of old-fashioned stolid obstruction.
This is most apparent in law and in
education. The common or judge-made
law, though on the whole well-intentioned
and upright, is fettered by so many
technicalities and musty precedents that
it fails in a great many instances to be
what civil law ought to be—a cheap,
speedy, and intelligible instrument for
enforcing honest dealings as between
man and man. One of our greatest
railway contractors once said to me : “ If
113
I want to make an agreement which shall
be absolutely binding, I make it myself
on a sheet of notepaper; if I want to
have a loophole, I send it to my lawyer
to have it drawn up in legal language
and engrossed on sheets of parchment.”
Another man of large experience in com
mercial and financial matters laid down
this axiom : “ If you want to know what
is the law in a doubtful case, reason out
what is the common-sense view of it,
and assume that the direct opposite is
probably the law.”
These may be
extreme instances, as all such epigram
matic sentences generally are, but it is
undeniable that they have a considerable
basis of substantial truth; and that law,
with its dilatory processes, its enormous
expense, and its uncertain conclusions,
may be, and often is, not an instrument
of justice, but a weapon in the hands of
an unscrupulous adventurer or of a dis
honest rich man to extort blackmail or
to defeat just claims.
Again, what nation but England would
tolerate so long a system of land law,
so bristling with antiquated technicali
ties, so tedious, and so expensive, as
almost to amount to a prohibition of the
transfer of land in small quantities; or
would let the private interests of a mere
handful of professional lawyers stand in
the way of a codification of laws and a
registration of titles ?
Education is another subject which
shows how difficult it is to move the
sluggish ultra-conservative instincts of
the English mind in the direction, of
progress, when not stimulated by political
conflict.
What is education ?
The
word tells its own story; it is to draw
out, not to cram in; to unfold the capa
cities of the growing mind, strengthen
the reasoning faculty, create an interest
in the surrounding universe—in a word,
to excite a love of knowledge and impart
the means of acquiring it. For the mass
of the population education is neces
sarily confined in a great measure to the
latter object. The three R’s—-reading,
writing, and arithmetic—are indispens
able requisites, and the acquirement of
�H4
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
these, with perhaps a few elements of
history and geography, absorbs nearly
all the time and opportunity that can be
afforded for attendance at school. For
any culture beyond this the great
majority must depend on themselves in
after life. But there are a large number
of parents of the upper and middle
classes who can and do keep their
children at school for eight or ten years,
and spend a large sum of money in
giving them what is called a higher
education. What is there to show for
this time and money, even in the case
of the highest schools, which ought to
give the highest education? On the
credit side, a little Latin and less Greek,
plenty of cricket and athletics, good phy
sical training, and, best of all on the whole,
a manly, honourable, and gentlemanlike
spirit.
But on the debit side, abso
lute ignorance, except in the case of a
few unusually clever and ambitious boys,
of all that a cultivated man of the twen
tieth century ought to know. No French,
no German, and, what is worse, no
English. The average boy can neither
write his own language legibly nor gram
matically, and, if he goes straight from a
public school into a competitive examina
tion, stands an excellent chance of being
plucked for spelling. And, what is worst
of all, he not only knows nothing, but
cares to know nothing; his reasoning
faculty has never been cultivated, and
his interest in interesting things has
never been awakened. What is the first
lesson he has had to learn ? “Propria
qucn maribus dicantur mascula dicas ”—
that is, words appropriated to males are
called masculine—a lesson which elicits
as much reasoning faculty and creates as
much interest as if he had been made to
commit to memory that things made of
gold are called golden. Suppose instead
of this that the lesson had been that two
volumes of hydrogen combine with one
volume of oxygen to form water. The
exercise to the memory is the same; but
how different is the amount of thought
and interest evoked, especially if the
experiment is made before the class and
each boy has to repeat it for himself!
How many new subjects of interest woud
this open up in the mind of any lad of
average intelligence ! How strange that
there should be airs other than the
air we breathe, which can be weighed
and measured, and that two of them
by combining shall produce their exact
weight of a substance so unlike them
as water!
Or if the exercise of a
class were to look through a microscope
at the leaf of a plant or wing of an insect,
and try who could best draw what they
had seen and write a description of it in
a legible hand and in good English, how
many faculties would this call into play
compared with the dull routine of parsing
a Latin sentence or writing a halting
copy of Greek iambics 1 Even grammar,
the one thing which is supposed to be
taught thoroughly, is taught so unintelligently that it awakens no interest beyond
that of a parrot learning by rote. From
“propria qua maribus” the scholar passes
to “ as tn prasenti perfectum format in
avif without an attempt to explain what
language really means, how it originates
from root-words, and how these inflec
tions of “as” and “avi” are part of the
devices which certain families of man
kind, including our own, have invented
as a mechanism for attaching shades of
meaning, such as present and past, to
the primitive root. Even the alphabet,
intelligently taught, opens up wide fields
of interesting matter as to the history of
ancient nations, and their successive
attempts to analyse the component
sounds of their spoken words, and to
pass from primitive picture-writing to
phonetic symbols. But the instructors
of the budding manhood of the elite of
the nation, like Gallio, “ care for none
of these things,” and the organisation of
our higher schools seems to be stereo
typed on the principle that they are
made for teachers rather than for scholars,
and that the chief raison d'etre is to
enable a limited number of highly re
spectable gentlemen from the Universities
to realise comfortable incomes with a
maximum of holidays and a minimum of
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
115
gance and insolent ignorance I Reflected
trouble. And the parents support the
in the latter form from Paris, in hysterical
system because so many of them really
reverence rank more than knowledge, shouts now of “ A Berlin, a Berlin!
and are willing to compound for their and now “ A bas perfide Albion !. we
call it “ Chauvinism,” and recognise it
sons growing up ignorant, idle, and extra
as an unlovely exhibition. But call it
vagant, if by any chance they can count
“Jingoism,” and let it take the form of
a lord or two among their acquaintance.
Mr. Francis Galton, in the course of the bellowings of some stupid bull, as
the red rag, now of a French and now of
his interesting inquiries as to the effect
a Russian scare, crosses his line of vision,
of heredity and education on character
and attainments, took the very practical and we are blind to its deformity. Still
course of addressing a set of questions to there is another side to the shield, for even
“ Jingoism,” which is only another word
some hundred and eighty of our most
for patriotism run mad, is more respect
distinguished men as to the hereditary
able than the opposite extreme, of a
qualities of their ancestors, and the
sordid and narrow-minded parochialism,
various influences which they considered
had done most to promote or to retard which shrinks behind the “ silver streak,
measures everything by the standard of
their success in life. Of course, he re
pounds, shillings, and pence, and, with
ceived a variety of answers, “ quot. homines
tot sententice” but upon one point there what Tenhyson calls
“The craven fear of being great,”
was a striking unanimity. “ They almost
all expressed a hatred of grammar and groans over the responsibilities of ex
the classics, and an utter distaste for the tended empire. The growth.of such a
old-fashioned system of education. There spirit among prominent politicians of the
were none who had passed through this advanced Liberal school seems to me
old high and dry education who were one of the most alarming symptoms of
satisfied with it. Those who came from the day; but I take comfort when I
the greater schools usually did nothing reflect that the most democratic com
there, and have abused the system munity in the world—that of the United
heartily.”
States—is precisely the one which has
And yet the system goes on, and the shown most determination to maintain
Eton Latin grammar will probably be its national greatness, if necessary by the
taught, and hexameters written, for sword, and has made the greatest sacri
another generation. Surely the needle fices for that object. If the. “copper
swings here too strongly towards the heads ” were a miserable minority in
negative or obstructive pole.
America, why should we be afraid of
The instances are so numerous in our “ English copperheads ” ever be
social and practical life in which it is coming a majority in Old England? .
necessary to look at both sides of the
In this, as in all similar cases, it is
shield that the difficulty is in selection. evident that true statesmanship consists
Take the case of patriotism. Patriotism in hitting the happy mean, and doing
is beyond all doubt a great virtue—in the right thing at the right time; and
fact, the fertile mother of many of the that true strength stands firm in the
higher and heroic virtues. Who does middle between the two opposite poles,
not sympathise with the legends of while weakness is drawn, by one or other
Wallace and William Tell, and scorn of the conflicting attractions into
with Walter Scott
“ The falsehood of extremes.”
“the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself has said,
1 This is my own, my native land ’ ” ?
And yet how thin a line of partition
separates it from narrow-minded arro-
When Sir Robert Peel, some forty
years ago, announced his conversion by
the unadorned eloquence of Richard
Cobden, and free trade was inaugurated,
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
with results which were attended with foreign trade for the supplies to keep the
the most brilliant success, everyone ex other half alive. It is the best policy
pected that the conversion of the rest of also for a country which, owing to its
the civilised world was only a question mineral resources, its accessibility by sea
of time, and that a short time. Few to markets, its accumulated capital, and
would have been found bold enough to the inherited qualities, physical and
predict that forty years later England moral, of its working population, has
would stand almost alone in the world unrivalled advantages for cheap pro
in adherence to free trade principles, duction. Nor can any dispassionate
and that the protectionist heresy would observer dispute that in England, which
not only be strengthened and confirmed is such a country, free trade has worked
among Continental nations, such as well. It has not worked miracles, it has
France and Germany, but actually not introduced an industrial millennium,
adopted by large and increasing majorities the poor are still with us, and it has not
in the United States, Canada, Australia, saved us from our share of commercial
and other English-speaking communities. depressions. But, on the whole, national
Yet such is the actual fact at the present wealth has greatly increased, and, what
day. In spite of the Cobden Club and is more important, national well-being
of arguments which to the average has increased with it, the mass of the
English mind appear irresistible, free population, and especially of the working
trade has been steadily losing ground classes, get better wages, work shorter
for the last twenty years, and nation after hours, and are better fed, better clothed,
nation, colony after colony, sees its pro and better educated than they were forty
tectionist majority increasing and its free years ago.
trade minority dwindling.
This is one side of the shield, and it
It is evident there must be some real is really a golden and not an illusory
cause for such a universal phenomenon. one. But look at the other side. Take
In countries like France and Russia we the case of a country where totally oppo
may attribute it to economical ignorance site conditions prevail—where there is
and the influence of cliques of manu no surplus population, unlimited land,
facturers and selfish interests; but the limited capital, labour scarce and dear,
people of Germany, and still more of the and no possibility of competing in the
United States, Canada, and Australia, foreign, or even in the home, market
are as intelligent as ourselves, and quite with the manufactures which, with free
as shrewd in seeing where those interests trade, would be poured in by countries
really lie. They are fettered by no tradi like England, in prior possession of all
tional prejudices, and their political in the elements of cheap production. It
stincts rather lie towards freedom and is by no means so clear that protection,
against the creation of anything like an to enable native industries to take root
aristocracy of wealthy manufacturers. and grow, may not in such cases be the
And yet, after years of free discussion, wisest policy.
they have become more and more
Take as a simple illustration the case of
hardened in their protectionist heresies. an Australian colony imposing an import
What does this prove? That there duty on foreign boots and shoes. There
are two sides to the shield, and not, as is not a doubt that this is practically
we fancied in our English insularity, only taxing the immense majority of colonists
one.
who wear and do not make these articles.
Free trade is undoubtedly the best, or But, on the other hand, it makes the
rather the only possible, policy for a colony a possible field for emigration for
country like England, with forty millions all the shoemakers of Europe, and shoe
of inhabitants, producing food for less making a trade to which any Australian
than half the number, and depending on with a large family can bring up one of
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
J17
a larger life possible, it may be sound
his sons. Looking at it from the strict
point of view of the most rigid political policy to pay it, and the result seems to
economist, the maximum production of show that neither it nor free trade is
inconsistent with rapid progress j while,
wealth, which is the better policy ? The
production of wealth, we must recollect, on the other hand, neither of them
affords an absolute immunity from the
depends on labour, and productive labour
depends on the labourer finding his tools evils that dog the footsteps of progress,
and from the periods of reaction and
—that is, employment at which he can
work. A labourer who cannot find work depression which accompany vicissitudes
at living wages is worse than a zero j he is of trade.
Here, as in other cases, there are two
a negative quantity, as far as the accu
mulation of wealth is concerned. On sides of the shield, and true statesman
the other hand, every workman who ship consists in seeing, both, and doing
finds work, even if it may not be of the the right thing, at the right place, and at
ideally best description, is a wealth-pro the right time. If free trade .is, as we
believe, ultimately to prevail, it will be
ducing machine. What he spends on
himself and his family gives employment an affair of time. The real trial of pro
to other workmen, and the work must be tection comes when it has stimulated pro
poor indeed if the produce of a year s duction to a point which gluts the home
labour is not more than the cost of a market and leaves a surplus which must
Exports of articles the
year’s subsistence. The surplus adds to be exported.
the national capital, and thus capital and cost of which has been artificially, raised
population go on increasing in geo by protection cannot compete in the
metrical progression. The first problem, world’s market with the cheaper products
Vicissitudes,
therefore, for a new or a backward of free-trade countries.
country is to find “a fair day’s wages therefore, of prosperity and depression
for a fair day’s work ” for as many hands must tend to become more frequent and
as possible. The problem of making more severe, and, if production goes on,
that employment the most productive a point must be reached where, at what
possible is a secondary one, which will ever cost, it must either be ai rested or
solve itself in each case rather by actual made capable of competing in the wider
market. The United States are probably
practice than by abstract theory.
not far from such a point, and it would
This much, however, is pretty clear—
that, in order to secure the maximum of have been already reached but for the
employment, it must be varied. All are immense and unexhausted resources of
not fit for agricultural work, and, even if that vast continent. In France the point
they were, if the conditions of soil and has apparently been reached, and we
climate favour large estates and sheep find that, with a lower scale of wages
or cattle runs rather than small farms, a than in England, it is becoming more
large amount of capital may provide and more difficult every day to maintain
work for only a small number of that lower scale and the export trade
labourers. On social and moral grounds, of its manufactured goods to foreign
also, apart from dry considerations of markets.
Protection, leading to higher wages
political economy, progress, intelligence,
and a higher standard of life are more and profits than can be permanently
likely to be found with large cities, manu maintained, and artificially enhancing
factures, and a variety of industrial occu the cost of living to the working classes,
pations than with a dead level of a few threatens more and more every day to
millionaires and a few shepherds, or of introduce strained relations between
a few landlords and a dense population capital and labour in most countries of
of poor peasants. If protection is the Europe.
The relation between capital and
price which must be paid to render such
�118
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
labour affords a good instance of the: manufacturer or mine-owner’s profit may
inevitable error of applying hard-and- rise from five to twenty per cent, without
fast logical conclusions to the complex quadrupling the rate of wages; but, on
and ever-varying problems of actual life. the other hand, it may fall from twenty
- Ricardo and other distinguished writers per cent, to five, or even for a time below
on political economy have assumed that zero, without a proportionate diminution
the two constitute a fundamental antago in the price paid for labour. Capital is,
nistic polarity. Wealth, they say, is the in fact, the great insurer of labour, the
joint product of capital and labour, and, fly-wheel which regulates the motion of
as in the case of a cake which has to be the industrial machine. This will be
divided between C and L, the more C best illustrated by a practical instance.
gets the less is left for L, and vice versit,. The Brighton Railway Company for
The theory sounds plausible; but what several consecutive years paid no divi
says fact ? In the most unmistakeable dend, or only a trifling amount, on the
manner it pronounces, as the outcome of shareholders’ capital; but during the
practical experience, that the profits of whole of this time it gave steady employ
capital and the wages of labour rise and ment at good wages to upwards of ten
fall together. High profits mean high thousand workmen. The Blaenavon
wages, rising profits rising wages, falling Coal and Iron Company in South Wales
profits falling wages. It has been proved was for many years a losing concern, and
so in a thousand instances, and not one successive capitalists lost the best part of
can be quoted where the one factor has a million pounds in it, until at length it
varied in an inverse, and not in a direct, was reorganised with a small capital, and
ratio with the other. It is obvious that became a fairly prosperous concern.
there must be some fallacy in Ricardo’s During the whole of this time it gave
argument.
The fallacy is this : he employment at fair wages to several
assumes the cake to be of fixed dimen thousand workmen. Which had the
sions, whereas, in point of fact, it varies, better of it in these two cases, capital or
sometimes diminishing to zero, or even labour; and where would the workmen
to a negative quantity, at others expand have been on any communistic or co
ing to many times its original size. A operative system ? In fact, it will be
new goldfield is discovered in a remote apparent to anyone who will' study dis
country, and forthwith profits rise to passionately the statistics of any line of
cent, per cent., and wages to a pound a inquiry, such as the scale of wages, the
day; a bad season and depression of price of provisions, and the accumula
trade overtake an old country, and the tions of savings banks and provident
gross value of the produce of many a societies, etc., for the last twenty years,
farm is insufficient to cover expenses that the working classes have had the
and depreciation, even if the labourers lion’s share of the vast increase which has
worked for nothing. The polarity is taken place in the wealth and income of
therefore confined to the limited and the nation. I am glad that it is so, for
temporary case of the division of the it is better, both morally and politically,
profit, where there is a profit, in particular that the condition of the masses should
trades and in individual instances. And be improved and their standard of living
this is regulated mainly by the accus raised than that capital should accumu
tomed scale of wages and standard of late too exclusively in large masses.
living of the workmen, and their oppor
Still, there is a good deal to be said
tunities of finding employment elsewhere for such large accumulations. Let us
if dissatisfied with the terms offered to go to the United States of America for
them. On the whole, it may be said an illustration, where everything is on a
that capital has the best of it on a rising, large scale, and colossal fortunes have
and wages on a falling, market. A | been made in a few years. The modus
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
119
the continent—the Northern Pacificoperand! by which most of these fortunes j
ruined two successive sets of promoters,
have been made may be described ac
and is only now beginning to be mode
cording to the way we look at it, either
as a railway jobbing or as pioneering the rately successful.
But the final result has been that,
way in useful enterprise. The construc
while British India, which went on what
tion of the first railway across the conti
may be called the respectable system of
nent to California is a typical instance.
getting a pound’s worth of work for every
A clique or syndicate of wealthy specula
pound raised, has only 12,000 miles of
tors make surveys and estimates of a
railway, the United States, under the
line across deserts and over mountain
ranges, and ascertain pretty accurately speculative system, has got 120,000
miles. I cannot doubt that the national
what it will cost. They form a company
with a capital double that cost, and, by wealth of America is greater at the
present day than if there had been no
subventions from the Government, grants
of land, and sale of mortgage bonds, raise Jay Goulds or Vanderbilts, and the con
the half really required and hold the struction of her railways had been de
layed on the average for twenty years.
other half in shares as profit m paper.
The contrast between labour and
The line is made, and if the traffic turns
capital or free trade and protection is
out well, and there is a period of specula
tion in the money market, the paper is only a particular case of the larger
turned into dollars, and, if the line really polarity between what is called in scien
costs, say, ^10,000,000 or ^20,000,000, tific language egoism and altruism, or,
in more popular phraseology, individual
the promoters realise an equal amount
ism and socialism. According to one
as profit.
. .
theory, the best result is obtained by
This has two sides to it—it is doubt
leaving individuals as free as possible to
less bad for the public to have to pay
rates which give a return on twice the act on their own suggestions of their
actual cost, and the possession of a close duties and interests, and confining the
monopoly in the hands of a few mil intervention of the State to enforcing
lionaires may be abused to the detriment laws for the protection of life and pro
of individual traders. But, on the other perty, and such measures as are obviously
hand, the railway could not have been necessary for the safety of society.
made in any other way. If it had been According to the other theory, the State
necessary to wait until the slow growth ought to interfere wherever the results of
of population insured such a traffic as individual liberty lead to abuses, and
would induce the ordinary public, to should endeavour to create a society as
subscribe for shares at par, you might near to ideal perfection as possible, by
have waited for twenty years before administering and regulating the public
a single mile of railway was made west and private affairs of its citizens. It is
of the Mississippi. Nor is this all. The obvious that the question has two sides
enormous profit realised in the first, of —that extreme conclusions in either
these enterprises led to a rush of rich direction are, as is always the case, in
speculators into the lottery of. pushing variably false. Individualism carried too
railways ahead of traffic, in which there far would disintegrate society. It would
were such magnificent prizes. The con be impossible to leave it to the short
tinent was covered by new railways, built sighted selfishness of every citizen to say
to create new traffic rather than to pro whether an army and navy should be
vide for that which already existed. And maintained for national defence, and
the traffic was created—though, as. the taxes should be levied for their support.
Individualism also easily passes oyer
lottery contained blanks as well as prizes,
into a hard and cruel selfishness, which
many of the original promoters were
ruined. The second great line spanning recognises no obligation beyond the letter
�120
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
of the law, and acts practically on the
success
that
principle of “Every one for himself, there is to two conditions—first, mar
no marrying or giving in
and the devil take the hindmost.” It is riage; secondly, that a member invented
this phase of individualism which makes
a patent, rat-trap—conditions which are
enthusiasts and men of strong moral hardly likely to survive in the struggle
and religious sympathies declaim so for life and become a type for general
vehemently against laissez faire, and cry adoption.
aloud, like Carlyle, for a hero or bene . The nearest approach to Communism
volent despot who is to scourge humanity in practical operation on a large scale is
into the practice of all the virtues.
that of the village communities of Russia
On the other hand, Socialism, if not and parts of India, which certainly show
confined within rigid limits of experience no signs of being progressive types
and common sense, is even more des destined to gain ground. On the con
tructive. in its consequences. Civilised trary,. they fail to fulfil what is the first
society is based on the security of private condition of an agricultural community
property and the observance of contracts.
that of obtaining a fair average pro
If these are liable, not merely to be duce from the soil; and the more enter
regulated in extreme and exceptional prising and intelligent moujiks or ryots
cases,, but to be absolutely condemned invariably seek to obtain something
in principle, as by Socialists of the which they can call their own and are
Proudhon school, who declare, “ La not obliged to share with the idle and
propnete c'est le vol”-, or overruled and improvident. A conclusive objection to
set aside whenever they are thought to all schemes of socialism or communism
conflict with humanitarian scruples or is that they not only crush out all indivi
sentimental aspirations, society would be dual initiative and enterprise in material
dissolved into its elements, to crystallise life, but that they also destroy all incen
anew about some military dictator or tives to individual charity and bene
other strong form of repressive govern volence. Why make sacrifices to help
ment, who.could restore it to a state of others if they are already helped at your
stable equilibrium in accordance with expense by the State ? This is no theo
these fundamental laws.
retical objection, but has been proved
No society based on the community practically by the history, of the poor
of goods has ever existed, except on a laws. What scope for individual charity
very limited scale and for a very short was there, in a parish like that in Buck
time, under some strong temporary in inghamshire, where under the old poor
fluence, such as religious excitement. law the rate has risen to twenty shillings
In. the early Christian Church it only in.the pound, and the cultivation of the
existed as long as its members were a soil was abandoned ? Or even in less
handful of humble individuals who were extreme cases, any one who is acquainted
impressed with the idea that the end of with remote rural parishes inhabited by
the world was close at hand, and that cotters and small farmers must be aware
sacrifices made on earth would be repaid that the poor law operates strongly to
at an early day, with compound interest, destroy the feeling of manly indepen
in heaven. They acted on what was dence and family affection which induced
almost as much a principle of enlightened the poor to support their own aged and
selfishness as if they had placed their infirm relatives.
money on the best possible security at
In many parts of Scotland with which
the highest possible interest.
I am personally acquainted men who a
The only existing society, as far as I generation ago would have thought it a
am aware, which has everything in disgrace to ask for help to support an
common is a small sect of Shakers, in aged father or mother now think it only
the United States, which owes its limited fair play, after having contributed for
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
121
years to the poor rate, to try and get | dren, it is absurd to say that they are free
agents in contracting for the disposal of
something out of it in return.
Altruism, as Herbert Spencer_ well their labour, and the State properly
puts it, if carried to excess, defeats itself, interferes by Factory Acts to limit the
for in annihilating egoistic vices it anni number of hours for which they are to
hilates egoistic virtues, and the result is work. So in the relations between land-*
zero_a result which, as “nature abhors lord and tenant, whenever they meet on
a vacuum,” can happily never be at equal terms, and the tenant has an
tained, and the precepts of the Sermon option of either taking or refusing to
on the Mount must always remain take a farm at the rent asked, both sides
maxims of private morality rather than must be held to their bargain, however
disadvantageous it may turn out for
of State regulation.
It is of little use, however, to deal with either of them. But if the landlord is
such generalities; as long as we confine practically omnipotent, and the tenant
ourselves to extreme instances on either has no alternative but to promise to pay
side it is as easy as it is idle to refute an impossible rent or to be turned out
them. Profitable discussion only begins on the roadside and die of starvation, it
when we enter on the wide intermediate is by no means so clear that the State
space which lies between the extreme should enforce the bargain unless the
frontier provinces, and, instead of argu landlord submits to equitable terms. Or
ing for absolute conclusions, endeavour again, if the rent is not due to the in
to discover the happy mean in doubtful trinsic value of the land, but is a con
cases, where there really are limitations fiscation of the tenant’s improvements,
of time and circumstance and a. good it is far from being self-evident that the
deal which may be reasonably said on law should look only at landlords’ rights
and forget all about landlords’ duties.
each side of the question.
It is a question rather of fact than of
Take, for instance, the case of contract,
which has been so much discussed with argument or assertion whether such a
reference to the Irish question. Nothing state of things does or does not prevail
can be clearer than that the enforcement at any particular time in any particular
of contracts is one of the principal duties country. If the contracts were fair
of a Government. The principle caveat bargains entered into by free agepts,
emptor may occasionally lead to results they ought to be enforced whether prices
not altogether consistent with strict have risen or fallen, leaving it to the
morality; but there will always be fools humanity and self-interest of landlords
in the world, and it is better that they to make reasonable reductions. . But if
should pay for their folly than that the they were no more equal bargains than
State should be perpetually interfering in those of slaves or factory children, the
the vain attempt to protect them. The State might fairly interfere to attach
bargain may be a bad one, but it is far equitable conditions to the enforcement
better that men should be held to their of inequitable contracts.
The antithesis between the rights and
bargains than that every loser should
have a loophole provided to escape by duties of property, especially in the case
appealing to some legal quibble or State- of land, is one which raises many nice
and difficult questions. Some theorists,
provided tribunal of arbitration.
But there are limits to this salutary like Henry George, are for solving it by
principle. The contract must be a free ignoring the rights altogether. According
one, freely entered into by parties who to them, private property in land is the
meet on equal terms. If it is a com source of all the evils that afflict modern
pulsory one, which the weaker party has society; poverty, depressions of trade,
practically no option of refusing, the situa low profits, and low wages are caused by
tion is altered. Thus, in the case of chil the constant drift towards high rents,
�122
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
due to the possession by a small section
of the community of a monopoly in that
which is as much a necessity of existence
as air or water. Abolish private property
in land, and straightway you will have
the millennium.
In this extreme form the fallacy of the
argument is obvious. You cannot stop
at land, but must have the courage of
your opinion, and go the full length, like
Proudhon, of denouncing all property as
robbery. For if the right of individual
property is the first condition of civilised
society, you can hardly exclude that
form of it which, in all ages and all
countries, has been practically the most
powerful incentive to progress and civili
sation.
Compare the United States of America,
under their homestead laws, with Russia,
under a system of village communes; or
the California of to-day with that of fifty
years ago under the Jesuit padres; and
you will see that the desire to acquire
property in land has been what may be
called the high-pressure steam supplying
the motive power to reclaim continents
and multiply populations.
Nor in principle is there any argu
ment for the confiscation of land which
would not equally apply to the con
fiscation of any other sort of property,
when theorists, philanthropic at other
people’s expense, thought that the owner
had more than was good for him, or had
acquired it as an unearned increment,
without working for it. Suppose two
men, A and B, employed as engine
drivers on an American railway, have
each saved a hundred dollars. The rail
way has been a failure : intended to reach
a distant terminus, it has stopped half
way in a desert, for want of funds, and
for years has paid no dividend. The
hundred-dollar shares are only worth ten,
and the land at the distant terminus is
only worth ten dollars an acre. But A
and B are sharp fellows, and see that, if
speculation ever revives, the line will
probably be completed, and both shares
and land will become valuable. A buys
ten shares with his hundred dollars, and |
B ten acres of land. The boom comes,
the capital is found, the line completed,
and the shares rise to par, and the land
to a hundred dollars an acre. A and B
have each realised nine hundred dollars
by what may be described, as you like to
put it, either as an unearned increment
or as providence and foresight. On what
principle can you confiscate B’s nine
hundred dollars because it is in land, and
leave A’s untouched because it is in
shares ?
On the other hand, there is no doubt
that when we come to more complex
cases, in which land is held in large
masses, fenced in, not by the natural
right of a man to the produce of his own
exertions, but by artificial legal systems
of inheritance and settlement, we are on
neutral ground, where fair discussion is
possible as to the limitations and condi
tions under which the State may afford
its protection. Landed property is more
the creature of law, and runs greater
risks in case of revolution or communistic
legislation than personal property, which
is more easily concealed or transferred.
It is not unreasonable, therefore, that it
should pay a higher insurance in the
form of taxation, and especially when it
passes by inheritance or settlement, when
the new owner’s title is to a great extent
artificial and the creation of the law. No
one can dispute the abstract justice of a
succession duty on all property, landed
or personal, in proportion to its amount,
passing by operation of law : the only
question can be as to the amount, and
the expediency of confining it within
limits that shall not trench on confisca
tion or impair the desire to accumulate
capital. And in the case of land, there
is no doubt that there are a good many
instances in which the question of the
“ unearned increment ” is raised more
forcibly than in the case of ordinary pro
perty. Take a practical instance within
my own knowledge, for an illustration is
often better than an argument. There
was a mountain property in Wales which,
as a sheep or cattle farm, might be worth
at the outside ^800 a year. Coal and
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
123
iron were discovered under it, capitalists on the evils which arise from State inter
sank pits and erected works, two or three ference. There can be no doubt that it
sets losing their money; but the works is very undesirable that the State should
were carried on, a large amount of labour become a sort of Jack-of-all-trades, and
was employed, and in course of time a undertake branches of business which
town of some eight or nine thousand can be conducted by private enterprise.
inhabitants sprang up. The proprietor’s It is undesirable for two reasons : first,
^800 a year grew into ^8,000 from because the work is certain to cost more
fixed rents and royalties, which he has and be worse done; secondly, for the
enjoyed for the last thirty years, through still more important reason that it tends
good times and bad, without being called to extinguish individual enterprise,
on to contribute a penny towards schools, strangle progress with red-tape, and teach
churches, roads, sewers, water, or any of a nation to look, like children, to outside
the local objects necessary for the civilised guidance, rather than, like men, to their
existence of the population of eight own. Still, the question has two sides.
thousand, whose labour has added to his Whatever individual enterprise can do
wealth. I do not blame him *. the law should be left to it; but there are, in the
told him to do what he liked with his complex conditions of modem society,
own, and it probably never occurred to a number of things which cannot be
him that he was under any moral done by individuals, and which must
obligation to go beyond the law. But I either be left undone or done by the
do think that the law would have been State, or by some local authority, jointmore just, and better for the interests stock company, or other quasi-monopoly
of the community, if it had made some sanctioned by the State. Thus, if it
portion of this unearned increment, of were a question of bringing coals from
^■7,000 a year liable for a contribution Newcastle by sea, no one would suggest
towards the sanitary and other objects that the State should interfere with the
essential for the decent existence of the private enterprise of individual ship
town which had grown up on this property owners. But to bring them by land
and given it this increased value. I requires railways, and railways can only
cannot help thinking that centuries of be built by capital beyond the reach of
landlord legislation, and of a public private individuals. If the State had
opinion based mainly on that of the not delegated a portion of its powers to
wealthy and specially of the landed joint-stock companies, not a ton of coal
classes, have made our laws in many would ever have been brought by land
respects too favourable to the pre to London.
And if the State may thus occasionally
dominant interests, and that the swing
of the pendulum now is, and properly delegate its powers with advantage to the
is, in the direction of recognising the community, there are cases in which it
may, with equal advantage, undertake
duties as well as the rights of property.
We must take care, however, not to itself branches of the nation’s business.
let it swing too far in this direction, for For instance, the Postal Service. .The
of the two evils it is better to put up advantages of a cheap and uniform
with occasional cases of hardship and system for the collection and delivery of
oppression on the part of bad landlords letters throughout the whole kingdom
than to endanger the security of property are so great that they far outweigh, any
by reforms pushed to extremes at the theoretical objections to State inter
dictation of impulsive masses, design ference. Possibly some of the larger
ing demagogues, or sentimental philan towns might have been as well or better
served by private enterprise, but no non
thropists.
Herbert Spencer, in his works on paying district would have had a postSociology, often dwells with great force office, and the enormous commercial
�124
PRACTICAL POLARITIES
and educational benefits of the penny dozen telegrams asking him to quote
post would have been in a great measure special rates, one perhaps for beef from
lost to the community.
Chicago to London, another for emi
The case of telegraphs is not so clear. grants from Hamburg to New York via
Probably, on the whole, the advantages Liverpool, and all requiring telegraphic
of a uniform State management pre answers then and there, if the business is
ponderate, but there are drawbacks to be done at all.
which make it doubtful. Even at a six
Again, if railways had been in the
penny rate a great deal of the telegraphic hands of the State, I do not suppose
communication of the large towns and that we should have had half our present
active centres of business is taxed to mileage; for the Treasury would never
make up for the deficiency of the rest of have sanctioned the outlay of public
the kingdom. And invention and im money on lines which could not show
provement in telegraphy are no doubt the prospect of a fair return on the
checked to a considerable extent by capital, and it would have vetoed any
creating a State monopoly, whose first multiplication of trains or reduction of
duty it is to try to satisfy its masters at rates which threatened loss to the ex
the Treasury by making the system pay. chequer. I can speak with some autho
When we come to railways, we are on rity on this point, for I have been both
debateable ground, and it is fairly chairman of a railway company and
arguable that they should be worked by Secretary of the Treasury, and I am
the State for the public good. But the certain that, in the former capacity, I
objections here outweigh the advantages. have introduced important innovations,
Everyone who has any practical experi such as excursion trains and cheap
ence of the working of railways must be periodical tickets, by which the public
aware that the simplicity and uniformity have greatly benefited, which I should
of the penny postal system are totally have vetoed in the latter capacity.
inapplicable, and that the traffic of the
Still, there may be exceptional cases,
country requires, above all things, great as that of Ireland, where an unreason
freedom and elasticity in meeting, day able number of poor companies, in a
by day, the varying contingencies which poor country, wrangling among them
arise. Here is an illustration: In a selves, and giving a bad service at an
certain town in France, on a railway excessive cost, intensify social and
worked by the State, it was determined political evils, where the arguments in
to have a fete, in order to raise funds for favour of a State purchase may outweigh
a hospital, and, as an attraction, to bring the objections; and the extent and
down from Paris a small troop of actors nature of State control over British rail
and have a play in the evening. The ways is always a question fairly open to
question turned on the railway consent discussion.
ing to give them a reduced fare for the
In other departments the supply of
return journey. The manager of the articles such as water and gas, and the
railway was quite willing, but said that enforcement of sanitary conditions, are
he had no power to alter the tariff with probably best left to local authorities : in
out permission from the Minister of the latter case, under some central super
Public Works. The permission was vision, to see that the duty is not evaded.
applied for, and the result was that it Wherever neglect involves danger to
arrived exactly on the day twelve months others, as in the case of small-pox and
after the fete had been held.
other contagious epidemics, it is clear
Contrast this with the case of the that the decision cannot be left to indi
general manager of the London and viduals, and the State is bound to inter
North-Western Railway sitting in his fere to enforce rational precautions.
office at Euston and receiving half a
So also the State is bound to undertake
�PRACTICAL POLARITIES
trades which are essential for the pro
tection of the nation against foreign
enemies. Our dockyards and arsenals
may, and doubtless do, often make mis
takes and turn out expensive work ; but
we could not safely leave the building of
ironclads and supply of cannon solely to
private enterprise, for there is no such
large and steady demand for these articles
as would induce a number of private
firms to erect works and keep up estab
lishments adequate to supply the wants
which might arise in an emergency.. In
all such matters, therefore., of national
defence we must put up with a certain
amount of drawbacks incidental to State
management, and confine ourselves to
endeavouring to reduce them to a
minimum. And this is, to a great ex
tent, within the power of the nation and
its Parliament, by applying common
sense principles of business to national
expenditure, and seeing that, while on the
one hand we get as nearly as possible a
pound’s worth of work for every pound
spent, on the other hand we do not
spend nineteen shillings
uselessly,
because some Chancellor of the Ex
chequer wants to gain momentary popu
larity by the “ penny wise and pound
foolish ” economy of docking the extra
shilling off the necessary estimates. In
private life a man gets on by knowing
when to spend as well as when not to
spend, and true economy has no greater
foe than spasmodic parsimony alternating
almost certainly with spasmodic extrava
gance. It would be easy to multiply
instances, for there are few phases of
political and practical life to which the
principle of polarity does not apply,
where extremes are not false, and where
there is not a good deal to be said on
both sides of the question. But the very
obviousness of the principle makes it
difficult to deal with it generally without
degenerating into commonplace, while to
trace its application exhaustively in any
one instance would require a volume.
Those who wish to pursue the subject
125
further will do well to study the works of
Herbert Spencer, where they will find
the application of general principles to
all the problems of sociology treated
with a depth of philosophic insight and
an abundance and aptness of illustration
which I cannot pretend to equal. My
ambition is of a humbler nature. I do
not expect to set the Thames on fire, or
to produce a revolution in modern
thought; but I do hope that the views
which I have endeavoured to express
may do somewhat to make some readers
more tolerant and charitable in their
judgments, less bitter and one-sided in
controversy; and that whatever truth
there may be in my ideas will contribute
to form a small part, neither more nor
less than it deserves, of the great body
of truth which is handed down from the
present to succeeding generations, and
which becomes, long after I am there to
witness it, the inheritance of the human
race in the course of its evolution.
And now, before I take my final leave
of the reader, let me for a few moments
throw the reins on the neck of fancy, and
suppose myself standing with that group
of Parsees by the shore of the Indian
Ocean, listening to its murmured rhythm,
inhaling the balmy air, watching the
silver crescent of the new moon, and
musing on the wise sayings of the
ancient sage ; the sum of the reflections
which I have tried to embody in the
preceding pages would take form and
crystallise in the following sonnet:—
Hail 1 gracious Ormuzd, author of all good,
Spirit of beauty, purity, and light ;
Teach me like thee to hate dark deeds of night,
And battle ever with the hellish brood
Of Ahriman, dread prince of evil mood—
Father of lies, uncleanness, envious spite,
Thefts, murders, sensual sins that shun the light,
Unreason, ugliness, and fancies lewd—
Grant me, bright Ormuzd, in thy ranks to stand,
A valiant soldier faithful to the end ;
So when I leave this life’s familiar strand,
Bound for the great Unknown, shall I commend
My soul, if soul survive, into thy hand—
Fearless of fate if thou thine aid will lend.
�INDEX
Abraham, 91
Accumulator, the, 37, 38
Acids and alkalies, 40, 41
Aerobes, 49
/Eschylus, 101
Ahriman, 89, 98, 99
Ahura Mazda, 98
Albuminoid substances pro
duced, 48
Algae, 52, 53
Altruism, 121
Amoebae, 44, 46, 47, 56, 62
Amos, 92
Analogy and identity, 12
Angiosperms, 54
Animals and plants, distinction
between, 51, 52
Anquetil du Perron on Parsee
creed, 99
Anthropoid apes, when appear,
54
Anthropomorphism, true and
false, 73, 85
Arithmetic, origin of, 71
Arnold’s definition of First
Cause, 85
Aryans, division of the, 97
Asceticism in Christianity, 103
Asiatic religious ideas, 80
Astronomy, 13, 77
Atavism, 62
Atomic theory, the, 18
Atoms, 15, 16-20, 22,25, 33,39
----- size of, 19, 20
-—— structure of, 39
Automata, animals as, 28
Avesta, the, 97
Avogadro, the law of, 16
Axolotl, the development of, 64
Brain, size of the, 67
Descartes on the soul, 72
----- structure of the, 66
Design, argument from, 80, 81
----- weight of the, 67
Deutsch, Emmanuel, 85, 92
Buddhism in Shakespeare, 80, Devonian strata, the, 53
88
Diamond, the, 43, 44
Burial customs, 76
Dicotyledons, 54
Dionsea, the, 53
Calculus, the differential and Divisibility of matter, 15, 17
integral, 23-5
Drummond, Professor, on ana
Cambrian strata, the, 53
logy, 12
Captivity, the, 92
Dynamite, 31, 32
Carbon, 18, 41
Dynamo, the, 37
Carboniferous strata, the, 53
Carlyle on deity, 85
Earth, motions of the, 50
----- on truth, 92
Education, defects of, 113
Carnegie on Parsee worship, 106 Egyptian tombs, 76, 77
Cell, the, 45
Elasticity, 21
Centripetal
and centrifugal Electric currents, 35
forces, 50
----- engines, 37
Chaldaic legends, 77
----- - light, 35
Chalk, formation of, 52
----- railways, 37
Chastity, reasons for, 59
Electricity, n, 16, 33-8
Chemical affinity, 32-3, 40-3
----- forms of, 33
------ change, nature of, 16
—— induction of, 35
Chemistry, 13, 16
----- nature of, 34
Chinese religion, 78, 79, 80
----- production of, 33, 34
Chlorophyll, 52, 53
----- storage of, 37
Christian ethic separable from ----- velocity of, 35
dogma, 90
Electrons, 16, 17, 19,20,26,34,
----- virtues, 90
39
Christianity as an ethical reli Elementary substances, number
gion, 91, 92
of, 18
----- and poverty, 87
Embryo, the, 57, 64
----- practical, 89
Energy, 26-7, 39
Coelenterata, 52
----- - forms of, 31
Cohesion, force of, 32
----- indestructibility of, 27, 28
Colloids, 44
----- of motion and position, 26,
Colonisation,
English
and
31
French, hi
----- supposed dissipation of, 31
Communism, 120
----- - transformation of, 28
Babylon, influence of, on Conceptions and perceptions, 73 Eozoon Canadense, 54
Jews, 92
Conductors of electricity, 34
Ether, 20, 21, 22, 39
Bacteria, 46, 48, 49, 56
Conservatism, value of, in, 112 ----- density of, 21
Balkh, 98
Creation, impossibility of, 19, 71 ----- elasticity of, 21
Bivalent atoms, 42
Credulity in former ages, 82, 86 ----- - pervades all space, 22
Bombay, Parsees at, 97, 103
Cretaceous strata, the, 53
Evil, origin of, 85, 86, 88
Braid, Dr., and hypnotic cures, Crystals, 22
Evolution, alleged good tendency
82, 84
Cumming, Dr., 31
of, 86
Brain, the, 66
----- - of species, 54, 55, 63-4
----- - action of the, 68
Darwin, 62, 63
Expansion of bodies by heat, 29
------ convolutions of the, 66
Days of the week, whence
----- parts of the, 68
named, 78
Faust, the, 101
�INDEX
127
Monotheism, origin of, 78, 79,
80
Moral instinct, the, 93
Morality, evolution of, 91, 92,
Jackson, Professor, on Zoro
aster, 97
93
Japanese Bozu on design, 80-1 ----- origin of, 91-3
Murder, development of moral
Jehovah, moral evolution of, 91
censure of, 92
Jesus as Ormuzd, 89
Music in worship, 107
----- not an ascetic, 103
Jewish morality, development
Nationalisation of railways,
of, 91, 92
123, 124
Jingoism, 115
Nerves, functions of the, 67
Joule, Dr., 28
----- structure of the, 67
Jurassi strata, the, 53
----- varieties of, 67
Newman’s “ illative sense,” 74
Kant on the soul, 72
Newton, 71
Kelvin, Lord, 19, 20, 25, 34
Knowledge, limits of, 65, 66, Nirvana, 87
Nitrogen, 32, 41
7D 73
Nummulitic limestone, 52
----- nature of, 66-9, 70-1
Nutrition, 46
----- - of crystals, the, 46
Galileo, the condemnation of, Labour and capital, 118
Land nationalisation, 122
75> 82
Oersted, 36
Larmor, Dr., 25
Gal ton, Mr. F., 115
Old Testament, errors due to, 89
Laurentian strata, the, 53
Galvanometer, the, 27
----- evolution of ideas in the,
Law, conservatism of the, 113
Gas, nature of, 16, 30
Lichens, 52
79
Gathas, the, 98
Oligocene strata, the, 53
Liebig, 49
Genesis, 77
Optimism and pessimism, 87
Light, nature of, 20, 21
Geometry, or;gin of, 71
Organic and inorganic, how
George, Henry, criticised, 121 ----- polarisation of, 22
differ, 44-5
----- velocity of, 20
Germ-plasm, 63
Ghosts, belief in, a root of Light-waves, dimensions of, 21 Organic compounds, artificial
production of, 48
Locomotion, animal, 47
religion, 75
Lungs and gills, changes of, 64 Ormuzd, 89, 98, 99
----- savage beliefs about, 75
Ovary, the, 57
Gift of tongues, the, 83
Oxygen, 16, 17, 18, 41
Magnet, the, 11, 12, 35, 36
Globigerina, 52
Magnetic needle, the, 36
God, origin of the word, 97
Pangenesis, 62
Maimonides on God, 86
Gravitation, law of, 31
Pantheism, 78, 79> 80
Mammals, when appear, 54
Greek religion, 79
Parsee burial rites, 101
Marconi system, the, 37
Gymnosperms, 53
----- worship, 101
Marriage, 61
Parsees, the, 97
Materialism, 66
Haeckel, 63, 64
Matter, composition of, 17, 19, ----- and education, 104
Haug, Dr., 98, 100
—— and scientific advance, 100
25-6> 39
Heat, 28-31
----- indestructibility of, 19, 25 ----- morality of, 100, 103
----- conversion of, 29
—— philanthropy of, 104
Memory, 71
----- nature of, 29
Parthenogenesis, 57 ■
Menai Bridge, the, 32
Helmholtz, Professor, 25
Pasteur, 48, 49
Mercury, 17, 18, 29
Heredity, 61-3
Patriotism, 115
Metrical system, the, 29
----- nature of, 62
Pendulum, the, 26
Microbes, 48, 49
------- reality of, 62
Perception, 65, 66, 69
Milton, 101
Hermaphrodites, 57
----- brain-centres of, 69
Mind, nature of the, 65, 72
Hesperornis, 64
----- relation to brain, 65, 66, 72 ----- mechanism of, 69, 7°) 71
Hillel, 92
Perigenesis of plastids, the, 63
Miocene strata, the, 53
Hindoo religion, 79, 88
Permian strata, the, 53
Miracles, evidence for, 81-4
Hume on Miracles, 81
Personality of God, 85, 89
----- inutility of, 83, 86
Hydrates, 40
Pharisees, the, 84
----- of Jesus, 84
Hydrogen, 16, 17, 18, 41
Philanthropy in England, 105.
Missing link, the, 54
Hydrochloric acid, 18, 41
108
Mohammedanism, 79, 80
Hypnotism, 65, 69, 94
Molecules, 15, 16-20, 22, 25, Pithecanthropus, the, 54
----- cures by, 82-5
Pliocene strata, the, 53
33
Podmore, Mr., 70
----- weight of, 16, 17
Illusions, 83
Polarised light, 22
Monera, 45, 52, 56, 62
Indigotine, 48
Polarity, II, 15, 39, 40, 44, 49
Monocotyledons, 54
Individualism, 119
Ireland, land question in, 112,121 Monogamy, 58, 61
5°> 55
'Female characteristics, 57,58,61
Ferdousi. 98
Fermentation, 49
Fetish worship, 76
Fire, Parsee cult ot, 101
Fishes, fossilised, 54
Flechsig, discoveries of, 69
Fluidity, nature of, 32
Food of animals and plants, 5L
52
Force, 26
Freedom of the will, the, 28, 46
Free-will and morality, 94
■----- and the brain, 94
1—- and automatism, 94
----- in the animal, 95
Freezing, artificial, 30
Free trade, 116, 117
Friction, 33, 34
Fungi, 52
Isaiah, 92
Isomerism, 42
�128
INDEX
Semitic religion, 78
Sensation, how produced, 67
—— nature of, 46
Senses, brain-centres for the, 68
Sermon on the Mount, 92
Sermons, uselessness of, 107
Sex-distinction, the, 55
----- in mythology, 55
----- origin of, 57
Sexes, equality of the, 58, 61
Shakespeare, many-sidedness of,
102
Shield, story of the, 109
Silurian strata, the, 53
Singing of birds, 60
Snake, eggs of the, 64
Space and time unknowable, 95
Speech, brain-centre for, 68
Socrates on reason, 85
Solar myths, 77, 78
Socialism, 112, 120
Society, ideal form of, ill
Somnambulism, 65, 69, 94
Soul, opinions on the, 72
Sound, velocity of, 21
Spectrum, the, 22, 29
Spencer, Mr. H., 50, 58, 60, 81,
hi, 123
Quakers, fewness of, 103
Quantivalence of atoms, the, 41, Spiritism, examination of, 7°
Spiritualism, 66, 7°
42
Spontaneous generation, 47, 48,
Quaternary period, the, 53
49
Spores, 56, 57
Radiolaria, 52
St. Paul, crude theology of, 79
Radium, 17, 18, 26
----- ethic of, 90, 92
Railway enterprise, 119
St. Vitus’s dance, 83
Reflex action, Jo, 95
Stability of substances, 43
----- - motion, 47
Religion a working hypothesis, Stars, distance of, 20
Steam-engine, the, 30
12, 14
Strikes, 113
----- evolution of, 92
------ contrasted with science, 75 Sun, heat of the, 30
Supernaturalism, 81
----- development of, 75-80
Syndicates, 119
----- the nature of, 74
Synthesis, chemical, 49
----- origin of, 75, 76
----- varieties of, 77-80
Tait, Professor, 25
Reproduction, 47, 51, 56
Talmud, the, 92
Reptiles, extinct, 54
Telegraph, the, 36
>
Rhizopods, 54
Telepathy, 70
Rig-Veda, the, 97
Roman Catholic Church, its Telephone, the, 37
Temperature of earth at be
advantages, 107
ginning, 48
Rucker, Sir A., on atoms, 18
Temple, Dr., on evolution, 63,
84
Salt, composition of, 33
Tennyson on evil, 102
Salvation Army, the, 89
----- on woman, 58
Secondary period, the, 53
Polarity in art, ioi
----- in politics, hi
----- in the will, 95
----- of good and evil, 85, 87, 8g
Polygamy, 59
Polytheism, 78, 79
Postal service, the, 124
Poverty and population, 87
Pramantha, 28
Prayer, 108
Primary epoch, the, 53
Prometheus, legend of, 28
Propagation by budding, 56, 62
----- by sex, 57, 62
----- by splitting, 56, 62
----- by spores, 56, 62
Protection, 116,117
Protista, 52
Protoplasm, 45-7
----- composition of, 46
Protoplasm, properties of, 46,
47
----- production of, 47
Putrefaction, 49
Pyramids, the, 15
----- use of the, 77
Tertiary period, the, 53
Tobit, 92
Totems, 76
Trade unions, 112
Trance, phenomena of, 69
Triassic strata, the, 53
Triton, the, metamorphosis of,
64
Univalent atoms, 42
Urea, 48
Variation, 63
----- a factor in evolution, 63
----- causes of, 63, 64
Vendidad, the, 98
Vibratory movements in ether,
22, 27
Virgin-birth, the legend of the,
78
Vishtasp, King, 96
------------ , conversion of, 98
Voltaic battery, the, 34, 37
Vortex-theory, the, 25
Water, forms of, 33
----- how formed, 15, 17
Waves, nature of, 21, 27
Weismann, 63
Will, conscious and unconscious,
28, 32
Woman and Christianity, 58
---- - position of, 58, 59, 60
----- position of, among Parsees,
104
Wordsworth’s pantheism, 80
Worship, forms of, 106
Zend language, the, 97
Zodiac, the, 77
Zoroaster, 12, 96
----- birth of, 98
----- historical reality of, 96-7
----- teaching of, 98-9
----- work of, 98
Zoophytes, 52
Zoroastrianism, 14, 96-108
----- and art, 102
----- and miracles, 99
----- as a practical religion, 108
----- as a reconciling system, 88
----- ethical teaching of, 100
----- not weighted with dogmas,
99
----- teaching of, 99, 100
Zoroastrians, probity of the, 103
�
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
A modern Zoroastrian
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 128 p. : ill. ; 22 cm.
Series title: R.P.A. Cheap Reprints
Series number: No. 17
Notes: Includes index. First published, London: Chapman and Hall, 1891. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements inside and on back cover. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laing, Samuel [1812-1897]
McCabe, Joseph [1867-1955]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1904
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA730
N431
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Zoroastrianism
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 (A modern Zoroastrian), 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
NSS
Religion
Zoroastrianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e1c4f06470974c62d46a144b32a6a464.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tuis5xrHPmIy0m-b2yx3hFUI22py3lMdJplj-9kFA2bOKHyxnvsIxSm8A4HRkNpdSIiME1Fj2f2QZMkQQCNSh95tGrPdo2Z9uWoMDORdoU8nIjgzOwHqb9P17z33MDsfem2PrpdkVEUMHKb1E0HEA-1Jgm9vP-ZLjuNpcn69YJMXHcwlF-rPP4DvXSCId2mnTUmYHog6dVBDBGOw3Podk6FJA%7EslqmkYel2RZ%7EiExwZihK4WUAyEeDgPFji2RgnaS2GtjrWCxhrH16GoChW1xy7V5E5EEaV9Te4lUR%7EyKGEpO15GWliGLmWLIV-5Kg%7Ealmoo9AgOqG5ah4Cfqk6nYA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
237256156a8490970c09e64f53e7e78c
PDF Text
Text
” A.< EXTRA SERIES.
“Bold and Bright
NEW
CATECHISM
M. M. MANGASARIAN
Lecturer of Independent Religious Society of Chicago
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
[issued for the
rationalist press association, limited]
No. 5 of this Series is CHARLES T. GORHAM’S “ETHICS OF THE
GREAT RELIGIONS”
�THE
RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION
(Limited).
[Founded 1899.]
Chairman—GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.
Honorary Associates:
Leonard Huxley
Prof. W. C. van Manen
Eden Phillpotts
J. M. Robertson
W. R. Washington Sullivan
Prof. Ed. A. Westermarck
Thomas Whittaker
M. Berthelot
Paul Carus, Ph.D.
Edward Clodd
Stanton Coit, Ph.D.
W. C. Coupland, D.Sc., M.A.
F. J. Furnivall, M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt.
F. J. Gould
Prof. Ernst Haeckel
't
Bankers :
The London City and Midland Bank, Ltd., Blackfriars Branch, London, S.E.
Auditors:
Messrs. Woodburn Kirby, Page, & Co., Chartered Accountants, I, Laurence Pountney Hill,
London, E.C.
•
Secretary and Registered Offices:
Charles E. Hooper, 5 and 6, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
A
All who approve of the publication, in a cheap and popular form, of works
such as the present Reprint can help to produce them, and can join in a systematic
propaganda for encouraging free inquiry and sober reflection, and repudiating
irrational authority.
These are the objects of the R. P. A. (The Rationalist Press
Association, Ltd.).
The Members of this Association have banded themselves
together, not with any view to commercial gain, but solely to promote sound
reasoning and the growth of reasoned truth, as essential to the welfare and
progress of humanity.
Should these aims commend themselves to your judgment
you should apply at once for full particulars to
,
The Secretary,
R. P. A., Ltd.,
5 and 6, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street,
London, E.C.
�N46 6
1 NEW tAWCHISM
�1
We baptise the twentieth century in the name of Peace, Liberty, and Progress!
We christen her—the People’s Century. We ask of the new century a Religion
without superstition; Politics without war; Science and the arts without
materialism; and wealth without misery or wrong 1
j
]
�A NEW CATECHISM
M. M. MANGASARIAN,
Lecturer of Independent Religious Society of Chicago
“ Our growing thought makes growing revelation.”—Geobqe Eliot.
“ Believe it, my good friends, to love truth for truth’s sake is the principal part
of human perfection in this world and the seed-plot of all other virtues.”—Tighk-r-
[iSSUED FOB THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED]
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
1904
��Ml' '
INTRODUCTION
BY GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE
The author of this book, M. M. Mangasarian—an Armenian
by descent—has the distinction of being the Lecturer of the
Independent Religious Society of Chicago. He is said to
enchant by his addresses a weekly concourse of some two
thousand persons—the largest congregation, having regard to
quality, known in any country. We have larger religious
congregations in England, but they are swelled by the children
of Dogma. Mr. Mangasarian’s audiences are composed of the
children of Reason, of spiritual and ethical inquirers—a much
rarer race. The Open Court Publishing Company, of the lively
and tumultuous city of Chicago, has issued several editions
of this book for the convenience of American readers. The
Rationalist Press Association has, I think, usefully resolved to
give to the readers of Great Britain an equal opportunity of
possessing this new and original Catechism.
The most difficult form of literary composition, which has the
quality of interesting the reader, is undoubtedly a Catechism.
The author must be an expert diver in the deep sea of polemical
thought to recover essential facts, hidden in those depths. A
Catechism is a short and easy method of obtaining definite know
ledge. There are only two persons on the stage—the Questioner
and the Answerer. A good Questioner is a distinct creation.
He must know what information to ask for. If he be irrelevant,
he is useless; if he be vague, he is impracticable. The Answerer
must be master of the subject investigated, and definite in ex
pression. “ The New Catechism ” has these qualities. It is the
boldest, the brightest, the most varied and informing of any
' M
�6
INTRODUCTION
work of the kind extant. The principal fields of human
knowledge, which the Churches have fenced round with super
natural terrors, the Catechism breaks into, cherishing what is
fair and showing what has been deformed. The notes, of
which there are many, referring both to ancient and contem
porary sources, are as striking as the text. The book is a
cyclopaedia of theology and reason in a nutshell.
The Questioning Spirit, whose curiosity has for its wholesome
object the verification of truth, is the most effectual instrument
of knowledge available to mankind. A well-directed question is
like a pickaxe—it liberates the gold from the superincumbent
quartz. Whole systems of error sometimes fall to the ground
from the force of unanswerable questions. All error has contra
diction in it, which is revealed by a relevant inquiry, when an
artillery of counter assertions might not disclose it. Arguments
may be evaded, but a fair and pertinent question creates no
animosity, and must be answered, since silence is a confession
of error or. of ignorance.
The author of this Catechism shows good judgment in devising
questions. Answers without parade or pretension come quickly
and decisively, often including unforeseen information, which has
the attraction of surprise. The answers do not drag along like
a heavily-laden team, but flash like a message of wireless
telegraphy, unhampered, unhindered, over the ocean of new
thought. As suits the celerity of the age, these answers are
expressed with brevity. Prodigality in words impoverishes the
giver and depraves the taste of the receiver. Mr. Mangasarian,
like Phocion, conquers with few men and convinces with few
words. There is no better definition, says Landor, of a great
captain or a great teacher.
Eastern Lodge, Brighton.
October 20th, 1902.
�AUTHOR’S PREFACE
The old Catechisms which were imposed upon us in our youth
—when our intelligence could not defend itself against them—
no longer command our respect.
They have become mildewed with neglect. The times in
which they were conceived and composed are dead—quite dead I
A New Catechism to express the thoughts of men and
women and children living in these new times is needed.
This is a modest effort in that direction.
�CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
I. Reason
Revelation
and
».
<.
II. The Christian Revelation
III. The Canon
IV. God
of the
•
Bible
25
V. The Earth
31
VI. Man
35
.
40
VIII. The Teachings
IX. The Church
of
Jesus
44
.
50
X. The Liberal Church .
55
XI. The Creeds
59
XII. The Clergy
XIII. Prayer
15
19
.
VII. Jesus
9
and
1
>
«
1
«
1
Salvation
XIV. Death .
XV. Immortality
XVI. The Chief End of Man
64
67
•
71
73
77
�A NEW CATECHISM
CHAPTER I.
REASON AND REVELATION
What is religion ?
Faith in the truth.1
Define truth.
It is the most perfect knowledge attainable concerning
any given question.2
Q. What is meant by “ faith in the truth ”?
A. Confidence that such knowledge may be depended upon
for the highest ends of life.
Q. How can one demonstrate his faith in the truth ?
A. By lifting his conduct to the height of his clearest vision
or knowledge.
Q. How may truth, or the “ most perfect knowledge,” be
acquired ?
A. Through experience and study.
Q. Is there no other way ?
A. There is not.
Q. Have , you given me the generally accepted definition
of religion ?
A. No. According to popular opinion religion is what a
man believes concerning supernatural beings and what
he does to obtain their favour.
Q. What is the supernatural ?
A. Whatever is at present inexplicable by the known laws of
nature.
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1 Truth is defined by Thomas Aquinas as “adaequatio intellectus et rei."
Kirchhoff defines knowledge as a “ description of facts. ” (See Carus’s Primer of
Philosophy, pp. 37 and 46.)
2 Knowledge reveals things as they are; hence, truth, which is the highest
knowledge, is the reflection of reality. “ Wisdom,” says Schopenhauer, “ is not
merely theoretical, but also practical perfection; it is the ultimate true cognition
of all things in mass and in detail, which has so penetrated man’s being that it
appears as the guide of all his actions” (Zimmern’s Life of Schopenhauer).
9
�io
A NEW CATECHISM
9. Q. What is the proper attitude of mind towards all such
questions ?
A. We should not quarrel about them, but permit them to
be discussed freely.
10. Q. Does not “ revelation ” or the “ word of God ” teach us
many things which we could not otherwise know ?
A. As there are many “ revelations,” we should first decide
which one we have reference to.
11. Q. Name some of them.
A. The Zoroastrian; Brahman ; Buddhist; Jewish; Chris
tian ; Mohammedan ; Mormon-------12. Q. Do all these “ revelations ” or bibles claim a divine origin?
A. They do.
13. Q. Do they respect one another ?
A. On the contrary, each condemns the other as unreliable
or incomplete.
14. Q. How ?
A. Buddha is reported to have said : “ There is no one else
like unto me on earth or in heaven. I alone am the
perfect Buddha.”1
15. Q. Give another example.
A. Jesus has been quoted as saying : “I am the door of the
sheep—all that came before me are thieves and robbers.
.......... No one cometh unto the father but by me.”2
16. Q. What would be considered a stronger proof than these ?
A. The fact that the disciples of each are trying to convert
those of the others.3
17. Q. What does it mean to “ convert ”?
A. To make others think and believe precisely as we do.
18. Q. What is the motive ?
A. Among others, this, that unless people believe as we do
they shall be damned forever.
19. Q. Which of these different Revelations is the true one ?
A. Not one of them is either wholly true or wholly false.
1 Oldenberg, Buddha.
2 Gospel of John. It is possible that neither Jesus nor Buddha ever expressed
these narrow sentiments.
8 “This true Catholic faith out of which no one can be saved” (from the
creed of Pope Pius IV.). “ I detest every.......sect opposed to the holy Catholic and
Apostolic Roman Church ” (words used for the reception of Protestants into the
Catholic Church—Catholic Belief, p. 254). This same spirit prevails in the standard
Protestant creeds. (See chapter on Prayer and Salvation.)
�REASON AND REVELATION
11
20. Q. How are we to know what is true and what is false in
them ?
A. By using our best judgment.
21. Q. Would not that imply that reason was a higher
authority than Revelation ?
A. Unquestionably.
22. Q. If we possess the highest authority within ourselves, do
we still need a Revelation ?
A. We do not; for a Revelation must approve itself to our
reason before it can be accepted.
23. Q. If you believed a certain book to contain the “ word of
God,” would you not obey it implicitly whether your
reason approved of it or not ?
A. No.
24. Q. And why ?
A. If I obeyed it blindly, my obedience would have no
merit; if under compulsion, it would not be voluntary
obedience. But if I obey it intelligently and with the
approval of my reason, then it would be my reason and
not the book that I would be obeying.
25. Q. Give an illustration.
A. If any of the “ bibles ” of the world were to teach, for
instance, that the earth was flat, we could not believe
them, because our own experience and study teach us
the very opposite.
26. Q. If, however, “ revelation ” should command you to do
what your reason condemned as wrong, would you not
obey the “ word of God ” rather than your reason ?
A. If I do what my best judgment forbids, I cannot be a
moral being.
27. Q. Is it not possible to regard as true what reason recognises
to be wrong ?
A. It is impossible. Reason is absolute sovereign. No
power can compel her to assume as true what she has
declared to be untrue.
28. Q. But do any of these “ bibles ” really teach things con
trary to reason ?
A. They certainly do.
29. Q. What, for instance ?
A. The creation story.
30. Q. Give another example.
A. The deluge.
�12
\
A NEW CATECHISM
Give one more example.
The fall of man.
What do we know to-day as to these questions ?
We know for sure that there never was any “ fall of
man,” or “ universal deluge,” or “ creation,” such as
these ancient bibles announce.
Q. What other mistakes do these bibles make ?
A. They make many other mistakes in history and science ;
they contradict themselves in many places, and in more
than one instance they teach what we know to be
wicked.1
Q. How do you account for these mistakes in the bibles ?
A. It is human to err.
Q. Are they all the work of man ?
A. They are nothing more than the record of the wisdom
and folly, the virtues and vices, of man.
Q. What are we to do under these circumstances ?
A. Follow the best light we have.
Q. What is that ?
A. Our reason.
Q. But may not our reason lead us into error ?
A. Yes.
Q. Why follow it then ?
A. Because we have nothing better, and it is our duty to
follow the best light we possess.2
Q. Why do people attach so great an importance to Revela
tion ?
A. For fear that without a Revelation there would be no
morality.
Q. Is there any reason for such a fear ?
A. No. In the name of Revelation, or the “ Word of God,”
many of the worst crimes have been perpetrated,3 while
31. Q.
A.
32. Q.
A.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
1 “ They contradict each other’s chronology, genealogy, geography; and whole
substance of both natural and supernatural events; they stand at variance with
authentic secular history ” (James Martineau, Essays, Reviews, etc.).
2 “ Lost at nightfall in a forest, I have but a feeble light to guide me. A stranger
happens along: ‘ Blow out your candle,’ he says, ‘ and you will see your way the
better.’ That stranger is a theologian ” (Diderot). “All religions have demanded
the sacrifice of reason. The religion of the future will make that terrible sacrifice
unnecessary” (consult the author’s pamphlet on Religion of the Future, p. 6).
3 Theodore de Beza, the successor of John Calvin, as leader of the Reformed
Church, of Geneva, publicly praised Poltrote, the assassin of Francis, a Catholic
Prince, and promised him a luminous crown in heaven. John Calvin himself, in
the name of the “ Word of God,” condemned Servetug to the flames. The assassin
�REASON AND REVELATION
42.
43.
44
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
13
on the other hand not a few of the world’s noblest men
knew nothing of a Revelation.1
Q. Has there always been a Revelation in the world ?
A. No; it is believed that it was only given some five
thousand years ago.
Q. Was there no morality in the world before that date ?
A. There was, undoubtedly; for men, societies, and nations
existed long before then.
Q. Was a Revelation given to each and every nation on
earth ?
A. No; the general belief is that the Jews were the only
people who were favoured with a Revelation.
Q. Were the Jews then the only moral people of the world ?
A. By no means ; the Greeks, who had no Revelation, were
the most advanced people of antiquity.
Q. What does that signify ?
A. That morality is independent of a Revelation.
Q. Is it well to teach that morality is impossible without a
Revelation ?
A. It is not; because, in the first place, it would not be
true; . and because, in the second place, people, in losing
faith in Revelation, would also lose faith in the right.
Q. How may faith in the right become permanent ?
A. By loving and doing the right for its own sake.
Q. What are the other motives to right conduct ?
A. The strongest are those which arise from a craving for
self-esteem, the altruistic impulse,2 and the sense of
duty.
of Henry the Third, of France, received almost divine honours at the hands of the
Catholics. His name was introduced into the litanies of the Church, his portrait
exhibited on the holy altar, and his dastardly deed likened to the holy mysteries of
religion. The mother of Clement, the assassin, came to Paris to demand a reward
for the crime of her son, and the priests took up a collection for her and carried her
in a procession as the blessed woman who had given birth to the murderer of a king
who favoured the heretics (comp. Esprit de la Ligue, Estoile, vol. iii., p. 94; also
Jules Simon, La Liberte de Conscience, pp. 86, 87). Many similar examples could1
easily be given to show that a revelation has, instead of curbing the passions,
frequently made them more violent. All the bloodshed recorded in the Old Testa
ment was committed with a “ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, etc.”
1 Socrates, Phocion, Epaminondas, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and many others
of pagan times. Of Chilon, one of the seven sages of Greece, it is recorded that at
his deathbed he summoned his friends, to whom he declared that in a long life he
could recall but a single act that saddened his dying hour. It was that, in an
unguarded hour, he had permitted friendship to obscure his sense of justice.
2 To respect ourselves we must respect humanity, of which we are a part, and
when we confer'feilue upon ourselves we confer value also upon our race.
�14
A NEW CATECHISM
50. Q. What is meant by “ the sense of duty ”?
A. The feeling that we ought to do those things which
increase life and make it beautiful, and to refrain from
those things which bring shame and misery and wrong
in their train.
51. Q. Is it always pleasant to do our duty?
A. The old religions teach that duty is “ a cross,” and that
to be good is to sacrifice ourselves.
52. Q. What is the consequence of such teaching ?
A. It makes people afraid of the good life, and associates it
in their mind with gloom and depression.
53. Q. What else?
A. It makes people suppose that only the wicked can be
happy in this world.
54. Q. What is the right conception of duty ?
A. That it is not “ a cross,” or a self-sacrifice, but harmony,
beauty, and joy. We sacrifice ourselves, and make life
“ a cross,” when we disobey the laws1 of the body and
the mind.
J
1 For a definition of law consult concluding chapter.
�CHAPTER II.
THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION
1. Q. Which of the “ Revelations ” you have mentioned has
exerted the greatest influence in the world?
A. Without doubt, the Christian.
2. Q. How?
A. It has helped to shape the history of the first-class
nations of the world.
3. Q. Has this influence been good or bad?
A. It has been both good and bad.
4. Q. Where is the Christian Revelation to be found?
A. In a book called the “ Holy Bible,” and consisting of
the Old and New Testaments.
5. Q. Give me the most accurate information concerning the
“ Holy Bible.”
A. It is a collection of sixty-six books, written by different
authors at different periods in different languages and in
different countries of the world.
6. Q. How is it, then, that we have them all in one volume?
A. They were collected gradually into one volume by
religious synods and councils.
7. Q. Which are the oldest books in the Bible?
A. Those contained in the Old Testament—about thirtynine in number.
8. Q. What do these books write about?
A. The rise and progress of the Jews, their laws and
manners, their wars and persecutions.
9. Q. Is it any different from the history of any other primitive
people ?
A. Not materially.
10. Q. Does it give us any intellectual or moral truths at first
hand ?
A. No. Truth or knowledge is a conquest, not a Revela
tion.
15
�18
A NEW CATECHISM
33. Q. If the original manuscripts are lost, how do you account
for the words, “ Translated out of the original Greek,”
on the title-page of the New Testament?
A. The revisers have finally dropped the word original from
the title-page, not thinking it honest to keep it there
any longer.
�CHAPTER III.
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
1. Q. What is meant by the “ canon ” of the Bible?
A. “ Canon ” is a Greek word meaning “ rule,” and is used
to qualify the collection or catalogue of books which
ecclesiastical councils have declared to be of divine'
authority in matters of faith and practice.
2. Q. Has the “ canon ” of the Bible remained the same fromthe beginning ?
A. No. The early Christians, being mostly Jews, regarded
only the Old Testament as the authoritative word of
God.1
8. Q. What do the apostolic fathers2 say on this subject?
A. We infer from their writings that they did not regard'
the New Testament as of equal authority with the Old.
4. Q. When did the New Testament come to be placed on a
level with the Old Testament ?
A. The schism between the Jewish and Gentile Christians
gave rise to the idea of a Catholic Church3 possessing
authority to decide all matters pertaining to doctrine and
practice. To realise this idea it was necessary to have a
generally accepted “word of God.” The demand in
time created the supply, and a “ canon ” of the New
Testament was the result.
5. Q. How early is the first reference to such a “ canon ” ?
A. The latter half of the second century.4
1 After the Old Testament, tradition was the chief source of knowledge in the
early Church.
2 Hermas, Barnabas, Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, and Clement have
scarcely any express citation from the New Testament. They apply the word
“Scriptures” only to the Old Testament (see Davidson, Introduction, etc.).
Hegesippus, writing in the year 180 a.d., appeals only to the “ Old Testament and
the Lord ” as the source of all authority.
8 “ The formation of a Catholic Church and of a canon was simultaneous ”
(Davidson).
4 Fisher, Christian Doctrine, p. 72.
19
�20
A NEW CATECHISM
6. Q. What were the books contained in the earliest “ canons ”?
A. The Christian fathers Justin, Tertullian, Irenseus,
Origen,1 and many others, give each a different list.
7. Q. What was the canon of Muratori ?
A. It appeared about the year 170 a.d., and did not contain
Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, nor those of Peter,
1 John, and James.
8. Q. What was the canon of the Emperor Constantine ?
A. It was produced in the year 352 a.d., and contained the
present number of books except the Book of Revelation.
9. Q. What was the Syrian “ canon ” ?
A. It lacked the Second Epistle of Peter, Third of John,
the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation.
10. Q. What other books in the Bible have been questioned ?
A. The Epistles of Paul, the Epistle of James, the Book
of the Acts of the Apostles ; and Job,2 Esther, and others,
in the Old Testament.
11. Q. What was Luther’s Bible ?
A. Luther did not regard the Book of Revelation and the
Epistle of James as a part of God’s word.
12. Q. What is the position of the modern creeds on the question
of the “ canon ” ?
A. Article VI. of the 39 Articles of the Church of England
reads : “In the name of Holy Scriptures we do under
stand those canonical books of the Old and New Testa
ments of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church.”3 But this is both obscure and misleading, as
there is scarcely a book in the New Testament the
authenticity of which has not been questioned in the
Church.
13. Q. Does the Catholic Bible agree in all respects with the
Protestant ?
A. No, the Catholic Bible contains seventy-two “ inspired ”
books.
14. Q. How is that ?
A. The Catholics accept as inspired many of those which
the Protestants reject as apocryphal.
1 Origen speaks of three classes of Scriptures : the authentic, the unauthentic,
and middle class. In the middle class he included James, Jude, 2nd Peter, and
3rd John, which are in our Bible.
2 Luther rejected the Book of Job as being no more than “ a sheer argumentum
fab'tila.”
8 The position of the other Christian denominations is very much the same.
�THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
21
15. Q. How does the Catholic Church treat those who deny
inspiration to these apocryphal books ?
A. The Council of Trent1 decreed a curse against them.
16. Q. When was the Catholic Bible translated?
A. It is claimed to have been translated by St. Jerome in
the fourth century.
17. Q. What was this translation called ?
A. The Latin Vulgate.2
18. Q. Has the Catholic Bible been revised at all ?
A. Yes, by the Popes Sixtus V. and Clement VIII.
19. Q. When was the present Protestant translation of the Bible
made ?
A. In 1611, under King James of England.
20. Q. Has it been revised since ?
A. Yes, in 1884 a new translation was produced.
21. Q. Does it differ at all from the King James version ?
A. It certainly does.
22. Q. Are the variations important ?
A. Some are very important.
23. Q. What are they ?
A. The verse in 1 John v. 7 : “For there are three that
bear record in heaven—the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost; and these three are one.” This verse,
which has been quoted in defence of the doctrine of the
Trinity, does not appear in the new version.
24. Q. What else ?
A. The notes which have been inserted in the margin of the
new version throw doubt upon many passages hitherto
accepted as of unquestionable authority.
25. Q. Give an example.
A. In the last chapter of the Gospel according to Mark a
note in the margin reads: “The two oldest Greek
manuscripts and some other authorities omit from
verse 9 to the end.”3 Another note reads: “ Some
other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”
26. Q. Are these missing verses important ?
A. Yes. They relate to the resurrection and ascension of
Jesus, and, above all, to the doctrine of eternal damnation.
1 One of the infallible councils (see Introduction to Catholic Bible, Douay
vers ion).
3 An English version of this was made in 1609.
8 Missing eleven verses.
�22
A NEW CATECHISM
27. Q. What may also be inferred from the marginal words,
“ some other authorities have a different ending to the
Gospel ” ?
A. That the translators had many manuscripts from which
to select “ the word of God.”1
28. Q. Are these the only translations that have been made ?
A. No. Many scholars have made independent transla
tions, believing the authorised versions to be inaccurate.
29. Q. Do Catholics and Protestants regard the Bible in the
same light ?
A. They do not.
30. Q. Explain the difference.
A. The Catholics bold that it is the Church that gives to the
“ word of God ” its authority.2
31. Q. What is their argument ?
A. They quote St. Augustine, who confessed that “ there
were more things in the Bible he did not understand
than things he did understand.” If so great a doctor of
the Church could not understand the “ word of God ”
without an infallible interpreter, say the Catholics, much
less can ordinary mortals.3
■ 32. Q. Do Catholics permit private interpretation of the Bible?
A. They do not.
“33. Q. Do they permit the people to read the Bible ?
A. Only with approval of their Bishop.4
34. Q. What is the Protestant doctrine of the Bible?
A. That it is the infallible “ word of God,” which each must
read and interpret for himself.
35. Q. How can fallible man interpret the Bible infallibly ?
A. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit reveals the true meaning of the Scriptures to all.
1 The American committee, failing to have their recommendations accepted by
the English, had the same published as an Appendix to the Revision........Speaking
of the authorship of one of the books, Justin Martyr loosely remarks, “A man
among us named John wrote it.” And Luke prefaces his Gospel with the significant
words : “ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth, etc., it seemed good
to me to write also ” (Luke i. 1-3). Is this the infallible language of inspiration ?
2 “ We Catholics... .not only would not, but simply could not, believe the Bible
to be the inspired word of God unless we had the authority of the Church for it ”
(Rev. John Scully).
3 Catholic Belief, by the Rev. Louis S. Lambert, chap. viii.
4 “ To guard against error, it was judged necessary to forbid the reading of
Scriptures in the vulgar languages without the permission of spiritual guides”
(Catholic Bible, Pref.).
�THE CANON OF THE BIBLE
23
36. Q. Does the Holy Spirit reveal the same meaning to all
readers?
A. Evidently not, for there are many contrary interpreta
tions.
37. Q. Are all the Protestants agreed on the question of
baptism ?x
A. They are not.
38. Q. Or on the question of Predestination ?
A. They are not.
39. Q. Or on eternal punishment ?
A. They are not.
40. Q. On the doctrine of Atonement ?
A. They are not.
41. Q. On the Divinity of Jesus ?
A. They are not; though they claim to have infallible Reve
lation on all these disputed matters.
42. Q. Had there been no infallible Revelation on these questions,
would the Churches have been more at variance concerning
them?
A. It is not likely.
43. Q. What would help to reconcile the disagreeing sects?
A. A new Revelation to make plain the meaning of the old.
44. Q. What is the principal objection against an inspired
book ?
A. It limits the possession of truth to one people or race, and
makes it a thing of the long past.
45. Q. What else?
A. It makes all further research and investigation unneces
sary ; it gives to a sect or a Church power to suppress
new truth, and to persecute all who help to broaden the
horizon of the mind.
46. Q. What is the testimony of history in this respect ?
A. (1) It is said that Omar ordered the Alexandrian Library
to be reduced to ashes, because the Koran contained all
that was worth knowing. (2) In the same spirit, the
Catholic Church, believing the Bible sufficient for all
human needs, made war upon Greek and Roman culture
until not a trace of it was left in Europe for nearly one
thousand years. (3) In modern times all scientists and
1 “In what way the washing of new-born babies” ensures their salvation is still
a subject of discussion in the Churches (see James Martineau’s works).
�24
47.
48.
49.
50.
A NEW CATECHISM
discoverers have been branded as infidels, if not perse
cuted to death, for announcing conclusions different from
those of the “ word of God.”
Q. What is the inference from these examples ?
A. That an infallible book stands in the way of the progress
of mankind.
Q. How is the Bible regarded to-day in Europe and
America ?
A. Largely as the literature of primitive and uninformed
peoples.
Q. Is it still worshipped anywhere as an infallible
authority ?
A. Only among the least educated people.1
2
Q. What is the right use of the Bible ?
A. To accept whatever is helpful in it, and to reject the rest.3
1 Martin Luther denounced the astronomers in these words: “ People gave ear to
an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens
or the firmament.... The fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.
But sacred history tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the
earth.”
When printing was invented it was hated by the Church as the black art,
and a Governor of Virginia said: “ I thank God that in those days there was not a
printing press nor a school in all Virginia to breed heresy.”
2 “ It may be said in benevolent apology for the teaching of Spurgeon [Moody,
Dowie, and Talmage] that it has its taint of vulgarity; but vulgar people exist
and must have their religion ” (James Martineau). But let it not be forgotten that
men and women of culture, science, and refinement exist too, who have an equal
right to a religion of their own (see James Martineau’s Speeches, etc., p. 433).
3 When the Church was all-powerful no one was permitted to reject any portion
of the Bible. The eighteenth and nineteenth verses of the last chapter of ‘ ‘ Revela
tion,” threatening with awful plagues all who shall add or take away from the
written Word, were quoted as sanctioning the persecution against scientists and
philosophers. The writer of a heretical book had to sign the following document
to escape burning at the stake: “The author has laudably made his submission
and reprobated his book ” (Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit et opus reprovavit).
�CHAPTER IV.
GOD
1. Q. Tell me something of the popular ideas about God ?
A. The majority of people think of God as the Person who
has created the heavens and the earth and all that they
contain.
2. Q. What else ?
A. That he knows everything, sees everything, possesses
everything, and is everywhere.
3. Q. What do they believe about his character ?
A. That he is just and holy.
4. Q. What else ?
A. That he is a God of love.
5. Q. Have they always thought of him as a God of love?
A. No. God grows better as man improves in intelligence
and character.
6. Q. Explain your meaning.
A. The god of the savage was a savage and a bandit; the
god of Job, the Arab chief, was an Oriental despot; the
god of the Jews was a man of war and revenge; and
the god of many Christians is a being who punishes
the errors of this brief life with unending torments.1
7. Q. What other ideas are there of God ?
A. That he is deeply interested in what we think, say,
and do.
8. Q. And why?
A. To reward us for the things that give him pleasure,
and to punish us for the things which offend him.
9. Q. What name is God known by ?
A. By different names in different countries. The Greeks
1 Though belief in eternal torments is still professed by church-goers, it is difficult
to find any one in our day who acts as if he really believed in so horrible a doctrine.
Abraham Lincoln said that, if this doctrine were true, no one.should take the time
to attend to anything else in life, but remain praying on his knees from the cradle to
the tomb.
25
�26
A NEW CATECHISM
call him Zeus; the Romans, Jove; the Persians, Ormuzd;
the Hindoos, Brahm ; the Jews and Christians, Jehovah
or Elohim ; the Mohammedans, Allah.
10. Q. What other names have men given to God ?
A. “ The Supreme Being,” “ The Infinite,” “ The First
Cause,” “The Over Soul,” “TheEternal Energy,” “The
Universe,” “ Nature,” “ Mind,” “ Order,” etc.
11. Q. But when people say “ God ” do they not all mean the
same thing ?
A. Not exactly, for some mean a person ; others, an idea, a
law ; or the unknown or unknowable power which finds
expression in the phenomenal world; to others, again,
God is “ The Whole,” or the Point of Confluence of the
forces of matter and mind.1
12. Q. Have people always believed in a god ?
A. In some form or other the majority of people have always
believed in a god or gods.
13. Q. Have there been more than one god ?
A. According to popular belief, yes.
14. Q. What are people believing in more than one god called ?
A. Polytheists; while those believing in one god are called
Monotheists.
15. Q. Name a few of the polytheist people in the world.
A. The Egyptians, Hindoos, Greeks, and Romans.
16. Q. Who were the Monotheists ?
A. The Jews, Christians,2 and Mohammedans.
17. Q. Have these latter always believed in one god ?
A. No. Polytheism was the earliest belief of all nations.3
18. Q. What were the gods of the polytheists ?
A. The sun, moon, invisible spirits, shadows, giants, fairy
men and women, animals, trees, mountains, rocks, rivers
—almost everything.
19. Q. How do you know that these objects were regarded as
gods?
A. Because they prayed to them, built churches or temples
for them, made images and idols to represent them, and
sacrificed to them.
1 See chapter on Prayer for discussion on the personality of God.
2 Would the belief of the Christians in the Trinity exclude them from this list ?
8 The claim that to the Jews the Unity of God was divinely revealed is not
supported by the facts. It is clearly shown by the Old Testament accounts that the
Jews believed in other gods, and that their god was jealous of them.
�GOD
27
20. Q. Did they consider all these gods of equal importance ?
A. No, the intelligent few looked upon the many gods as
the servants or symbols of the one god who was above all.
21. Q. And the ignorant ?
A. They believed some to be stronger, more friendly, more
beautiful, and wiser than others.
22. Q. How did the belief in gods originate?
A. That question has given rise to many theories.
23. Q. Mention a few of them.
A. There is first the theory that ignorance led the earliest
people, who were much like children, to fear what they
did not understand, and to ascribe what they feared to
the agency of invisible beings, patterned after themselves
only on a very much larger scale. Second: The theory
that the feeling of human helplessness or dependence
is responsible for the belief in beings more powerful
than ourselves. Third : According to another theory,
man, who is a sociable being by nature, feels the
necessity of entering into fellowship with the invisible
forces about him, for which purpose he personifies them.
Fourth: The theory that death is the chief cause of
the belief in gods.
24. Q. In what way ?
A. It is said that, if we could live on this earth for ever, we
would get along without imagining the existence of
supernatural beings. It is the knowledge that we will
die which makes us think of another life, and of beings
who control life and death. The animals have no
gods, because they have no knowledge of their
mortality.
25. Q. Is the number of gods increasing ?
A. It is decreasing.
26. Q. Why?
A. As people advance in knowledge and power, they feel more
and more able to take care of themselves.
27. Q. Have the educated people fewer gods than the ignorant?
A. Yes. The belief in many gods prevails only in the least
civilised countries.
28. Q. How about the belief in one god ?
A. It is still very largely held.
29. Q. Are there any people who do not believe in a god?
A. There are.
�28
A NEW CATECHISM
30. Q. Why do they not ?
A. Because they say a being such as he is conceived to
be by the popular mind is beyond the sphere of our
knowledge.
31. Q. Cannot the existence of a god be demonstrated?
A. Some think it can, and others, again, that it cannot.1
32. Q. State a few of the principal arguments for the existence
of a god.
A. The first is the argument based on the law of causality.
33. Q. What is that ?
A. Every effect or existence must have a cause. The
universe is an existence, therefore the universe has a
cause, which is—God.
34. Q. Is not that a strong argument ?
A. It is very strong, but not conclusive.
35. Q. Why not ?
A. If every existence must have a cause, God, who is an
existence, must have a cause too.
36. Q. But could not God have his existence from all eternity ?
A. If he could exist at all without a cause, then the argu
ment that there is no existence without a cause falls to
the ground.
37. Q. What else ?
A. If God could exist from the beginning without a cause, so
could the universe.
38. Q. What would follow if we admitted that God, too, had a
cause ?
A. Then we would wish to know what was the cause of that
cause, and so on, building an eternal chain without
beginning or end.2
39. Q. What is the next argument ?
A. The argument from perfection.
40. Q. Explain that.
A. It is said that, though we ourselves are imperfect beings,
we still carry in our minds, as in a mirror, the idea or
reflection of a perfect being.
41. Q. What is the inference ?
A. That this reflection in the mirror of the mind of a perfect
1 Consult Kant’s Critique, Caro’s L'Idee de Dieu dans la Critique Contemporaine,
Guyau’s L’lrreligion de L’Avenir (translated).
2 Read chapter on Kant in History of Philosophy, by George Henry Lewes.
�GOD
42. Q.
A.
43. Q.
A.
44. Q.
A.
45. Q.
A.
46. Q.
A.
47. Q.
A.
48. Q.
A.
49. Q.
A.
50. Q.
A.
29
being proves the existence of such a being, which is—
God.1
Explain further.
If we have in our minds the image of a perfect being,
this being must also possess existence, for if he lacked
that he would not be perfect.
What would follow ?
It would follow that our idea of God proves that God
exists, for, if such a being did not exist, we could not
have thought of him as existing.
What is the value of this argument ?
It is not considered so strong as the first.
Why?
Perfection is a quality, existence is a condition, and the
argument confounds the one with the other. We may
have in our minds, for instance, the image or dream of
a perfect city hidden away in the bosom of the ocean or
floating on the clouds, without there being any such
city in existence to correspond to the picture in our
mind.
Give me another illustration.
For many centuries people entertained the idea that the
world was flat, yet that idea in their mind could not have
been the reflection of the earth, for such an earth never
existed.
Do these perfectly good or perfectly bad beings exist only
in our minds ?
Yes.
What is the next argument ?
It is called the argument from design.2
What is that ?
Just as a watch, the works of which are so constructed
as to strike the hour, proves beyond a doubt a watch
maker, the world, by its more wonderful mechanism,
proves a world-maker.
What is the value of this argument ?
There is no similarity between a watch and a world. It
is not so easy to agree on what the world was made for
as it is to tell what a watch was made for.
1 This was Descartes’s celebrated argument, which, with slight modification, was
presented also by Malebranche, Leibnitz, Reid, and many others.
2 Paley and Bishop Butler were the great advocates of this argument.
�A NEW CATECHISM
51. Q. Are not the marks of design in nature as unmistakable
as those in the watch ?
A. If they were, there would be no mysteries. We would
then know everything.
52. Q. Do you mean to say we do not understand the world as
fully as we do a watch ?
A. Yes, and that we cannot, therefore, explain it as satis
factorily as we can a watch.
53. Q. What else may be said against this argument?
A. A watch could prove only a watch-maker, not also one
who created the materials out of which the watch was
made.
54. Q. What then ?
A. Even admitting a world-maker, we would still have to
prove a world-creator.
55. Q. In view of these difficulties, what is the right attitude of
mind towards this question?
A. One of earnest investigation. We should neither be
dogmatic nor flippant, but continue to seek for light.
56. Q. In what sense may the word “ god ” be properly used ?
A. As representing the highest ideals of the race. What
ever we believe in with all our heart, and seek to possess
with all our might, is our God.
57. Q. Would it not follow from that that some people’s gods
are better and nobler than others ?
A. Undoubtedly ; each man is the measure of his own Ideal
or God.
58. Q. Explain further.
A. As we see only as much and as far as the structure of
our eyes will permit, so we can only think and desire
according to the compass of our mind.
59. Q. Who, then, made God ?
A. Each man makes his own God.1
1 It is proper also to speak of God as representing the constitution of the
universe ; yet even then he, or she, or it, would be to us no more, and no less, than
a picture in our mind. A subjective God is all we can have any relations with.
�CHAPTER V.
THE EARTH
1. Q. How old is the earth ?
A. The years of the earth run into the millions.
2. Q. Has it always been inhabited ?
A. For a long time the earth was too hot to permit of life.1
8. Q. What is the origin of the world ?
A. Scientists tell us the world was once a sailing cloud of
fire, the molecules or particles of which were prevented
from coming together by the excessive heat.
4. Q. What happened then ?
A. In the course of long ages the heat declined, giving the
atoms a chance to come together.
5. Q. What was the result of this concentration of atoms ?
A. The sun was formed—a vast ball of fire, which, as it
rotated and revolved, cast off pieces which became
worlds. The earth is one of them.
6. Q. How did life begin on the earth ?2
A. As the earth, which is like a bubble in a Niagara of
worlds, became cooler, it shrank and contracted and
divided into land and water.
7. Q. And then ?
A. With this process of cooling, the thick, smoky atmo
sphere which had enveloped it before disappeared,
letting the sun’s rays penetrate to the earth.
8. Q. What happened then ?
A. “ The earth became with young.”3
9. Q. In what form did life first appear ?
A. In the form of specks, which floated on the surface of
waters and repeated themselves.
1 Virchow on the Teachings of Science (Clifford); Martyrdom of Man (Win
wood Reade).
2 Tyndall's Belfast Lectures, 1874; Revue d'Anthropologie: Philosophie
Zoologique (Lamarck); The Origin of Species (Charles Darwin, 1859); The Physical
Basis of Life (Huxley).
8 Winwood Reade.
�32
A NEW CATECHISM
What are these specks called ?
In scientific language they are called embryonic plants.
What was the next form of life ?
Then appeared other specks which lived on the first.
These were more complex in organism, and are called
embryonic animals.
Q. Were these animated specks the ancestors of man ?
A. The history of our race begins with them.
Q. Are you sure you have given me the true story of the
earth ?
A. No. This is only an hypothesis or a guess.
Q. Has it any value whatever ?
A. It has great value, because it is not a random guess, but
the result of the patient labours of the greatest scientists
of the world.
Q. What is this hypothesis called ?
A. The theory of evolution.
Q. Are there any other theories on the subject ?
A. There is also the theory of creation.
Q. Which is the oldest ?
A. The creation story.
Q. What is that ?
A. According to this theory, the heavens and the earth and
all that they contain were created in the space of six
days by the “ word of God.”
Q. Was anybody present when God created the heavens and
the earth ?
A. There could not have been.
Q. On whose authority, then, is the statement based?
A. On the authority of men who were not eye-witnesses.
Q. Why is their word accepted ?
A. It is claimed that God told them how he made the
world.
Q. How do we know that ?
A. The men themselves say so.
Q. Are we expected to accept their word fipon their own
authority ?
A. It is the only proof they offer.
Q. The theory of creation, then, is a guess too ?
A. It is.
10. Q.
A.
11. Q.
A.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
�THE EABTH
83
25. Q. Of the two which should we prefer ?
A. The one which commends itself to the most enlightened
minds and best explains the known facts.
26. Q. In accepting either theory do we thereby bind ourselves
to it for ever ?
A. No ! We reserve to ourselves the liberty of exchanging
it for a better one whenever we can do so.
27. Q. Who is the author of the theory of Evolution ?
A. Charles Darwin is the man with whose name, more than
with that of any other, the doctrine of Evolution is
associated.
28. Q. Who is the author of the story of creation ?
A. Moses is perhaps the most frequently quoted authority
on the subject.
29. Q. Compare the two men.
A. Darwin was a student and a scientist who spent all his
life interrogating nature; Moses was not a scientist, he
made no independent investigations, but accepted the
views about the origin of the earth which were current
in that remote age.
80. Q. How do people distinguish between the ideas of Darwin
and those of Moses ?
A. The ideas of Darwin are called Science; those of Moses
Theology.1
81. Q. What is the standing of Moses with modern scientists?
A. As a scientist he has no standing at all.
32. Q. Is it proper to point out the mistakes of a man considered
infallible?
A. If he makes mistakes, yes.
33. Q. Has any violence ever been used to advance Darwin’s
views ?
A. No.
34. Q. To advance those of Moses?
A^gYes—men have been put to death by fire and the
sword.
35. Q. Whose views prevail to-day ?
A. Darwin’s^
1 Even Moses, in trying to explain the world, was obeying a scientific impulse—
the story of the creation was the best solution he could invent. But the science of
Moses has become the theology of the Churches.
D
�34
A NEW CATECHISM
86. Q. What does that signify ?
A. That error cannot be maintained by force, and that no
miracle in the calendars or bibles of the world can
compare with the triumph of truth.1
1 Mohammedanism is to-day the religion of nearly two hundred millions of people ;
but let us think of the bloodshed and of the long ages of persecution and the large
sums of money which were required to perpetuate Islam. The same may be said of
Christianity; it has cost two thousand years of war, persecution, inquisition, and
oceans of human lives and of money. But let us turn our eyes upon this other
picture: A short time ago some scientists, foremost among whom was Charles
Darwin, announced a new doctrine—the doctrine of Evolution, which was as new, as
radical, as revolutionary, as either Mohammedanism or Christianity, and yet it has
overcome the most determined and fanatical opposition, and is, at the present day,
accepted and taught in all the world. Yet to achieve this stupendous triumph it
has required only about a half-century of time, and absolutely without the remotest
suggestion of persecution—without so much as singeing the hair of a single human
being. Could anything be a greater compliment to the puissance of truth ? In the
course of a few years science has established a grander empire than the Bibles of the
world, in spite of the bloody seas they have sailed through for the past thousands of
years.
�CHAPTER VI.
MAN
What is man 21
A rational animal.
How old is man ?
Hundreds of thousands of years old.
Who are his ancestors ?
The mammalia.2
How do you know ?
In the composition, structure, and function of his organsman is exactly like an animal.
Q. Specify a few of the points of resemblance between man
and the animals.
A. Man has not a muscle or a bone or an organ which is
not paralleled in the animals.
Q. What else ?
A. They are both composed of the same materials, possess
the same physical parts, and are subject to the same
laws of life and death.
Q. Does man differ at all from the animals ?
A. Intellectually and morally, man is superior to all the
animal^F
Q. In what other way do they differ ?
A. The animal seeks only the gratification of his appetites;
man, the realisation of his ideals.
Q. What else ?
A* Man lives and labours for the future, for posterity—for
his fellows not yet born ; the animals exhibit no sense of
the beyond.
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3. Q.
A.
4. Q.
A.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1 Consult IVatwaZ History of Man (Pichard), Man’s Place in Nature (Professor
Huxley), Descent of Man (Charles Darwin), Unite de L’Espece Humaine (de
Quatrefages, Paris, 1861), Early History of Man (Tylor), Antiquity of Man
(Lubbock).
a The highest class of vertebrata—all the animals which nurse their own young
only.
35
�86
A NEW CATECHISM
10. Q. In what relation does man stand to the animal ?
A. He is descended or ascended from the animal.1
11. Q. What is the strongest proof that man has ascended from
the animal ?
A. The fact that the human embryo before birth passes
through stages of development, when he has gills like a
fish, a tail, great toes, a body covered with hair, and a
brain like that of a monkey.
12. Q. What is the meaning of this ?
A. That man in his long existence has climbed through all
these forms of life to his present state.
13. Q. Do you mean to say that there was a time when man was
an animal like some of those known to us to-day ?
A. For many, many years he was like the monkey, the
gorilla, the chimpanzee, or the orang-outang.
14. Q. How long ago was that ?
A. It is difficult to say, but probably hundreds of thousands
of years ago.
15. Q. Man was not specially created, then ?
A. No. He grew slowly upwards—from lower forms of life.
16. Q. Have there ever been any eye-witnesses of an animal
evolving into a man ?
A. No. Nature works in secret. The lower animals have
passed into man by soft, slow, imperceptible gradations
—as one view dissolves into another.
17. Q. Is this growth or development confined to his body ?
A. His mind or reason is just as much an evolution as his
body.
18. Q. Why do not all animals develop into men ?
A. For the same reason that all savages have not developed
into civilised peoples.
19. Q. What is that ?
Unfavourable conditions.
20. Q. Explain this.
A. Progress results from necessity. Both animals and
savages remain stationary as long as they can preserve
themselves in comfort. They invent and develop new
resources only when compelled or threatened by danger
and death.
1 “The abyss which, through the ignorance of man, was placed between him and
the brute world does not exist ” (Dr. G. L. Duprat, Professor in University, Lyons,
France).
�MAN
37
21. Q. Explain further.
A. Men and animals are the expression of the conditions
under which they live. When these change, men and
animals change with them.
22. Q. What one thing ha,s contributed to the development of
man more than anything else ?
A. The struggle for existence.
23. Q. Are there any other opinions on the genesis of man ?
A. Yes. A great many people still believe that he was
created by God, all at once and perfect, some six thousand
years ago/
24. Q. What is meant by “ created perfect ” ?
A. Made in the likeness of God.
25. Q. Is it claimed that man was once as perfect as God ?
A. I do not think so.
26. Q. Then he was imperfect, compared with God ?
A. Yes.
27. Q. Why do they say, then, that man was created perfect?
A. I believe they mean he was as perfect as a man could ever
hope to be.
28. Q. Why is he not perfect now ?
A. It is said that he fell from perfection by an act of dis
obedience against his creator.
29. Q. How could a perfect man commit a crime ?
A. It is said that the creator for his own glory permitted the
crime.
30. Q. Then he obeyed God instead of disobeying him ?
A. Yes, if he was helping to carry out the eternal purpose
of God.
31. Q. What were the consequences of man’s fall ?
A. Sin, suffering, and death, for all mankind.
32. Q. Was there no evil in the world before the fall of man ?
A. There was, according to science; and also according to
the Bible, for it says Satan tempted Adam.1
2
1 The American Association for the Advancement of Science, by almost unani
mous vote, “ declared Adam and Eve to be myths” (comp. Report of Asso., 1901,
Aug. 29th). Notwithstanding the unanimity of men of science on this point, the world
over, the clergy still continue the tra-la-la of empty phrases about the first man, etc.
But can the clergy afford to ignore the doings and sayings of the men of science ?
2 As both Satan and hell existed before Adam, man cannot be held responsible
for the introduction of evil into the universe.
�38
33. Q.
A.
34. Q.
A.
35. Q.
A.
36. Q.
A.
37. Q.
A.
38. Q.
A.
39. Q.
A.
40. Q.
A.
41. Q.
A.
42. Q.
A.
■43. Q.
A.
44. Q.
A.
45. Q.
A.
46. Q.
A.
47. Q.
A.
A NEW CATECHISM
What is the popular belief about Satan ?
That he is the great enemy of God and man.
What else ?
That he is as powerful for evil as God is for good.
How old is the devil ?
Almost as old as God—in the popular mind.
How may the belief in a devil be explained ?
Mankind, in its childhood, in attempting to account for
the existence of light and darkness, life and death, love
and hate, accepted the simplest solution—that of sup
posing two different beings, the one good and the other
bad—ruling the world.
Is he also as wise as God ?
No, but he is believed to be very cunning.
What is said to be the object of his existence?
To tempt and ruin men, and to spoil the work of God.
Who is responsible for his existence ?
The common belief is that he was, like the first man, a
perfect being—an archangel, who, desiring to be a god
himself, was put out of heaven.
Why does not god destroy the devil ?
For the same reason that is said to have influenced him
in permitting the fall of man.
What is that ?
His own glory.
Will there always be a devil and a hell ?
According to many people, yes.
Why do people believe in such stories about the
devil, etc. ?
Because their fathers and mothers believed in them.
What do you think of such beliefs ?
The opinions and beliefs of people concerning sub
jects they have not diligently studied are of little
value.
What are the effects of a belief in the devil ?
It makes men superstitious, melancholy, cowardly, and
cruel.
How may the belief in a devil be outgrown ?
Through enlightenment.
What is the most fearful thing in the world?
Fear.
�MAN
89
48. Q. Why?
A. Because, by paralysing both mind and body, fear deprives
us of the ability to defend ourselves; and when we cannot
defend ourselves we become the sport of political and
religious scarecrows.
�CHAPTER VII.
JESUS
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3. Q.
A.
4. Q.
A.
5. Q.
A.
6. Q.
A.
7. Q.
A.
8. Q.
A.
9. Q.
A.
10. Q.
A.
11. Q.
A.
What is the prevailing belief about Jesus?
That he was a god and the son of a god.
What else ?
That he was also a man like ourselves.
Was he both god and man ?
•
That is the popular belief.
What are the evidences of his divinity ?
It is said that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost; that
he was without sin; that he worked miracles, and that he
proclaimed himself the equal of God.
What is the value of these cl aim r ?
They cannot be accepted as evidence.
Why not ?
In regard to the Immaculate Conception we may say that
of Jesus, as a “miracle,” we can have no opinion what
ever.
But could people be prevented from believing in bip
miraculous birth ?
No ; because people generally believe without any regard
to the evidence.
What is such belief called ?
Credulity.
How do the educated people differ from the vulgar in thia
respect ?
The educated proportion their beliefs to the evidence.
What about the miracles of Jesus ?
As we have not ourselves seen any of his miracles, they
cannot have the same weight with us as with those who
were supposedly eye-witnesses.
Continue the argument.
And as but few of those who saw the miracles considered
them conclusive—for many hesitated and asked for more
40
�JESUS
41
signs—we, who. have not seen them at all, would be
justified in treating the miraculous element in the life of
Jesus as we treat the same in those of Buddha, Moses,
and Mohammed.
12. Q. Explain further.
A. Without entering into the discussion of ini rn,el eg in
general, it could be said that, inasmuch as they are
an appeal to the senses of those who may have been
present, it has to be shown, in the first place, that their
senses did not deceive them, and, in the second place,
that their testimony is infallible, before we can accept
them as evidence.
13. Q. We have, then, only the word of man that Jesus worked
miracles ?
A. That is all.
14. Q. If a man, claiming to be a god, should raise the dead in
our presence, would not that prove his claim ?
A. It certainly would not.
15. Q. Why?
A. Because, even if he should create also a new world in our
presence, he would only be doing a few things which we
could not do ourselves. Because a man can raise the
dead, etc., it does not follow that he can do everything.1
16. Q. What would he have to do to prove he was a god ?
A. Everything !. But in the nature of things no man can
give proof that he can do everything.
17. Q. And therefore ?
A. No man can prove himself a god.
18. Q. What is the strongest argument against miracles as an
evidence of divinity?
A. The fact that miracles were also performed by the devil
and hi§ agents.2
19. Q. Did Jesus admit the power of others besides himself to
work miracles ?
A.Yes, when he said : “If I cast out devils by Beelzebub,
by whom do your sons cast them out ?”
1 See Chap. I., “Reason and Revelation.” A safe rule in these matters is always to
prefer the least wonderful to the most wonderful: it is more probable that the men
who reported the miracles of Jesus were mistaken, as those who reported the miracles
of Mohammed are supposed to be, than that the dead, for instance, rose from the
grave.
8 Supernatural powers are attributed to the devil and his angels in all the religious
scriptures of the world ; the magicians of Egypt competed with Moses, and Simon
Magus with the Apostles in performing miracles.
�42
A NEW CATECHISM
20. Q. Hag there ever been a religion that has not claimed
power to work miracles ?
A. We do not know of any.
21. Q. What about the claim that Jesus was without sin ?
A. “ And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit,” says
the evangelist. If Jesus grew better as he grew older,
he could not have been perfect from his birth.1
22. Q. Tell me now about the man Jesus—when was he born,
and where ?
A. He was born in Palestine about two thousand years ago.
23. Q. Do the writers of the time speak about Jesus and his
works ?
A. There is positively no important mention of Jesus in any
writing outside of the New Testament.2
24. Q. What is the meaning of that ?
A. That either he was not considered a sufficiently important
personage to write about, or that he was not known to
these writers at all.
25. Q. What is the story about him in the New Testament?
A. That he did many good and wonderful deeds; that he
was arrested and tried for calling himself “ King of the
Jews ” and “ Son of God
that he was condemned and
crucified, and that he rose again from the dead.
26. Q. What else ?
A. That he showed himself after his Resurrection to his
disciples, and ascended on the clouds to heaven.
27. Q. How long did Jesus live on earth ?
A. From thirty-three to fifty years, according to tradition
and the gospels.3
28. Q. Was his public career long ?
A. No. His public life covered probably a little over a
year, though the Apostle John seems to make it three
and a half.
29. Q. Did Jesus have a family?
A. He was not married.
30. Q. Did he have brothers and sisters ?
A. Yes, he was one of a large family of children.
1 See Chap. VIII., “Teachings of Jesus.”
2 Seneca, Ovid, Epictetus, Josephus, Philo, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Quintilian
lived about the time of Jesus and his Apostles.
8 There was a tradition in the early Church that Jesus lived to be nearly fifty
years old.
�JESUS
43
31. Q. Did all the members of his family believe in him ?
A. Not all of them.
32. Q. Have there been others before or since Jesus who claimed
to be divine, and to have worked miracles ?
A. There have been many.1
33. Q. Have these, too, their followers ?
A. Yes, and their temples and altars, to this day.
34. Q. Were they all impostors ?
A. Not at all. Most of them believed they were divinely
chosen to teach or to rule the people.
35. Q. Does their sincerity make true all they taught ?
A. No. Sincerity cannot change the chaff into wheat.
36. Q. What is the proper attitude towards these ancient
teachers ?
A. One of gratitude for their services, and of honest
criticism of their errors.
Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, Gautama, the Rdteha. was
worshipped as the Sinless One. He was supposed to be born without a father,
and to have worked miracles. The same was said of Serafis, Appollonias, and
many others. The Chinese believe that Laotze, the founder of one of the religions
of that empire, was born at the age of eighty-four, with grey hair; his gestation was
prolonged that he might have wisdom from his birth.
�CHAPTER VIII.
THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
What were the ideas of Jesus ?
Mostly those of the people of his time and country.
Of what nationality was Jesus ?
He was a Jew.
What was the political condition of the Jews at that
time ?
A. They were a subject race, having been conquered by the
Romans.
Q. Was that the first time the Jews had lost their freedom ?
A. No. It may be said that they had spent the greater part
of their existence in slavery and oppression, first - in
Egypt, then in Assyria, and finally under the Persians
and Romans.
Q. What was their intellectual standing ?
A. Owing to the long period of political oppression under
which the Jews lived, the arts, industries, sciences,
literature, and philosophy were necessarily neglected.
Q. What were the Jews distinguished for ?
A. For their religion.
Q. What was the great hope held out by this religion ?
A. The hope of a Messiah—a Christ1 who would deliver the
Jews from foreign bondage.
Q. What did Jesus teach in regard to this national hope ?
A$J He offered himself as the Messiah of the Jews.
Q. Did he deliver the Jews from their foreign yoke ?
A. No. The Jews are still without a state or kingdom of
their own, and continue to be oppressed in many lands.
Q. Do they still look forward to “ a Christ” ?
A. Most of them do, but the educated among them have
abandoned the hope of a Messiah, and have wisely
adopted the countries in which they live as their own.
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3. Q.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The word Christ is derived from “ Kristus,” a Greek word, meaning anointed.
44
�THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
45
11. Q. What other political ideas did Jesus have ?
A. He believed that all the kingdoms of the earth belonged
to the devil, but that some day he would himself be
recognised as the king of kings.1
12. Q. What was his attitude towards Caesar ?
A. He recognised his authority, and commanded others to do
the same.
13. Q. Did Jesus denounce war ?
A. No; at least not directly.
14. Q. Or slavery ?
A. He kept silent on that question.
15. Q. Did slavery exist in his day?
A. Slavery of the worst kind existed almost everywhere at
the time.
16. Q. What did he say in regard to peace and goodwill ?
A. That he did not come “ to bring peace, but a sword.”
17. Q. What else ?
A. To his disciples he said: “ My peace I give unto you.”
. 18. Q. Have all who called themselves Christians lived in peace
with one another ?
A. No. They have repeatedly waged war against one
another, and have persecuted one another.
19. Q. Which have been the worst persecutors in the world ?
A. Without doubt, those who have called themselves
Christians.
20. Q. Could the teachings of Jesus be held responsible for it ?
A. Only a part of it.
21. Q. For example ?
A. When he said that they who did not believe on him were
the children of the devil and would be damned.2
22. Q. Did Jesus wish to compel people to believe on him ?
A. No; but if they did not, they would be punished severely.
1 See Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness.
2 The following are a few of the sayings of Jesus on this subject:—“But those,
mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay
them before me” (Luke xix. 27). “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear
your words.... it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in
the day of judgment than for them ” (Matt. x. 14). “And he that believeth not
shall be damned ” (Mark xvi. 10). “ Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire ”
(Matt. xxv. 41). “ He that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen ”
(Matt, xviii. 17). Read also what Jesus is reported to have said about throwing into
the fire the “ branch” that abideth not in him ; about those who refuse to confess
him before men; also, his words, “ Many are called, but few are chosen,” etc.
�46
A NEW CATECHISM
23. Q. What did his followers do ?
A. To save people from this awful punishment, they perse
cuted or compelled them to become Christians.
24. Q. Define persecution.
A. It is an attempt to maintain an opinion by violence.
25. Q. Explain further.
A. It is a conspiracy to conquer the reason without en
lightening it.1
26. Q. Has persecution ever helped the truth ?
A. Never. It has only caused much suffering, and tempted
people to commit perjury from fear.
27. Q. What is the lesson we should learn of this ?
A. That freedom and fraternity are better than hate and
persecution.2
28. Q. Did Jesus believe in liberty of conscience ?
A. No religious teacher claiming divine authority ever has.
29. Q. What other subjects did Jesus talk about ?
A. About love, faith, charity, brotherhood, goodness, justice,
and forgiveness.
80. Q. How are his teachings on these subjects regarded ?
A. Very highly.
31. Q. What were some of the most beautiful sayings of Jesus?
A. His parable of the Good Samaritan; the Prodigal Child ;
the shepherd’s care for the lost sheep; the wise and
foolish virgins ; the sower who went out to sow his seed;
the widow and her mite; and his gracious invitation to
the weary and heavy laden to come unto him for rest.
32. Qu What is the value of these sayings of Jesus?
A. They are as sweet as any human words can be.
33. Q. Did Jesus ever say or do anything which it would be
wrong for us to imitate ?
A. Yes. In moments of anger and impatience he “ cursed ”
and called his enemies evil names.3 He used physical
force4 against the money changers; disregarded the
« «The mouth from which such heresies proceed should be stopped with blows from
a Bludgeon, and not with arguments.”—From a letter to Pope Innocent II. by St.
Bernard (comp. Abelard, by de Reimusat and Jules Simon). See also chapter on
“ Creeds.”
2 See conclusion of chapter on “ The Earth.”
8 Luther defended his vehemence often by quoting the example of Jesus: “ What
think ye of Christ.... when he calls the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation,
a progeny of vipers, hypocrites, and the children of the devil ? What think ye of
Paul, who calls his enemies of the gospel dogs and seducers ?” (Luther’s Table Talk).
* See the story of his using a whip against the money changers.
�THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
84. Q.
A.
35. Q.
A.
86. Q.
A.
87. Q.
A.
38. Q.
A.
39. Q.
A.
40. Q.
A.
47
laws of health and cleanliness; destroyed the property
of his neighbours—
Give me particulars.
In those days, in the Orient, people ate with their hands,
as no knives or forks were used, and when Jesus was
asked why his disciples did not wash their hands before
eating he defended the unclean habit by saying that
nothing which went in from the outside could hurt
anybody.1 This is also the doctrine of the Dervishes,
who never wash.
Is it true that nothing going in from the outside can
hurt us ?
No. Disease germs, foul gases, poisonous foods or drugs,
intoxicating liquors, etc., frequently hurt both mind and
body.
When did Jesus destroy property belonging to his
neighbours ?
When he caused to be drowned a herd of two thousand
swine, without first securing from their owner the right
to do so.23
Would anyone be permitted to do to-day what Jesus did
on that occasion ?
Our laws punish such acts.
But if Jesus was God, could he not do as he pleased ?
If that be the defence, then it were foolish for us to have
any opinion whatever of him. If Jesus could do as he
pleased without regard to right or wrong, as we under
stand them, then we would have no standard by which
to judge, even that he was good. We cannot respect or
love anybody who is merely an enigma.
Would it be fair to infer from the above instances that
Jesus was severe and unjust ?
No. There are many passages which describe him as
the gentlest, kindest, and friendliest of men—one who
“ went about doing good.”
Is not that a contradiction ?
Not unless we regard him as a God, for there is in all
men a better and a lower nature. The best of men are
not always at their best; neither was Jesus.
1 No doubt the monks and anchorites of the Middle Ages who cultivated “ dirt ”
as a virtue remembered this reputed saying of Jesus.
3 Matt. viii. 28-34.
�18
A NEW CATECHISM
41. Q. Is it well to disclose both sides of a man’s character ?
A. It is necessary to do so. We cannot understand human
nature unless we understand also the contradictions of
human nature.
42. Q. What did Jesus teach about marriage?
A. He preferred celibacy,1 and commended the example of
those who became eunuchs23 the kingdom of heaven’s
for
sake.3
43. Q. What did Jesus teach about the future, or the “kingdom
of heaven ”?
A. He taught that the other world was more important
than this, and, instead of endeavouring to right wrong
conditions here and now, he counselled non-resistance
to evil.4
44. Q. What did he say to those who wept and suffered, and
were persecuted and robbed of their liberties and
rights ?
A. To rejoice and be exceeding glad, for they would have
their reward in the other world.5
45. Q. What effect would such teaching have ?
A. While it might help some people to bear the ills of life,
it would unnerve the many for all efforts to right their
present wrongs.
46. Q. What other effect would it have ?
A. It would encourage the rich and the powerful to answer
the cry for justice of the oppressed by suggesting to
them that they ought to be satisfied with the reward
promised them in the next world.
1 How the Church has interpreted Jesus’s teaching on this subject may be seen
from the following: “ If any one shall say that the married state is to be preferred to
the state of virginity or celibacy, let him be accursed........” (Canon of the Council
of Trent).
2 In one of the Apocryphal Gospels a woman asks Jesus how long this sinful
world will last. To which Jesus answers : as long as you women marry and bear
children.
3 It is curious how the Catholics, who believe in celibacy of the priesthood,
make St. Peter—a married man—their favourite Apostle, while the Protestants,
who believe in marriage, show a decided preference for St. Paul, the celibate.
4 “Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to
every man that asketh of thee, and from him that taketh away thy goods, ask them
not again ” (Luke vi. 29, 30). “ Resist not evil; unto him that smiteth thee on the
one cheek offer also the other ” (Luke vi. 29).
5 Matt. v. 12 ; also: “Blessed be ye poor, and ye that weep now, and mourn, for
great is your reward in heaven ” (Matt. v. 3, 4, and Luke vi. 20-23). “ But woe
unto you that are rich, for ye have received your reward ” (Luke vi. 24, 25).
�THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
49
47. Q. Would the poor have any right to complain of their con
dition now if they are to be rewarded for it in the
future ?
A. No; for they could be assured that justice would be done
to them in the next world, and that, since their op
pressors would be punished there, they should be left
unmolested here.1
48. Q. Is it right to be contented with poverty and oppression ?
A. It would be treason against our fellows to encourage
these evils by submitting to them.
49. Q. Is it blessed to be poor, weak, and wretched ?
A. It is miserable.
50. Q. What should we do, then ?
A. Do everything to better our condition, now and here.
51. Q. Sum up the views of Jesus on the question of justice.
A. Those who have their reward now, like Dives, for
instance, will open their eyes in hell; while those who,
like Lazarus, suffer here, will go to Abraham’s bosom.2
52. Q. Did not Jesus denounce the evil doers ?
A. Yes, he spoke in tones of righteous indignation against
all who, knowing the good, preferred the evil.
53. Q. On the whole, then, has the influence of Jesus been good
or bad ?
A. His words of love and goodness have made the centuries
fragrant, but his theological doctrines have caused much
hatred and bloodshed.
1 Comp, parable of the wheat and the tares growing together until the day of the
harvest.
2 Luke xvi. 19.
E
�CHAPTER IX.
THE CHURCH
1. Q. Define the word “ Church.”
A. It is derived from the Greek “ kuriakon,” which means
[the house] of the Lord.
2. Q. Define the idea.
A. At first the Church was a republic of fellow-believers—
an organisation in the Spirit; then arose gradually a
distinction between clergymen and laymen. Teaching
in the Church was monopolised by the priest and the
bishop, who also claimed the power to save and to damn
the soul for ever. From a republic the Church became
a corporation.
8. Q. Which are the oldest Churches ?
A. The Catholic, Greek, Armenian, and Nestorian ; and the
modern Churches are the Lutheran, Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc.
4. Q. What other Churches are there ?
A. The Liberal—namely, Unitarian, Universalist, and Un
sectarian.
5. Q. Do they fellowship with one another ?
A. More now than formerly. The progress of the sciences
has stopped all sectarian persecutions which once dis
honoured humanity.
6. Q. Do they ever co-operate in the field of charity and
reform ?
A. More in this country than in any other, which is a very
hopeful sign, for it shows that the spirit of toleration is
spreading.
7. Q. What has contributed to this broadening process ?
A. Education and commerce ; also the labours and examples
of brave men and women.
8. Q. Which is the most formidable Christian Church to-day ?
A. The Catholic.
fiO
�THE CHURCH
61
9. Q. How did the Catholic Church arise?
A. It was organised about the time the Roman Empire
became converted to Christianity. The Emperor Con
stantine1 was the first imperial head and protector of the
Catholic Church.
10. Q. What kind of a man was he ?
A. He was both cruel and weak. Among many other crimes
he murdered his wife and son; notwithstanding, he pre
sided in his imperial robes at the important councils of
the Church.23
11. Q. What effect did his imperial patronage have upon the
early Church ?
A. It made the Church covetous of wealth and influence, and
the clergy ambitious, intriguing, partisan, and intolerant.
12. Q. What else ?
A. It makes the prelates, pontiffs, and popes claim authority
over all things, both temporal and spiritual.
13. Q. Did the Catholic Church prosper ?
A. It became in time more powerful than the Roman Empire.
14. Q. What use did the Church make of this vast power ?
A. It added to its pecuniary and political resources, domi
nated the consciences of people, put to death all the
heretics, and announced that no one could have God for
a father unless he accepted also the Church for a mother.9
15. Q. What is the verdict of history on the persecutions of the
Catholic Church ?
A. That it has caused more unnecessary suffering in the
world than any other institution.4*
16. Q. Is the Catholic Church sorry to-day for her past ?
A. The Catholic Church believes it can never do wrong,
therefore it has no regrets.^
1 Comp. Jules Simon’s La Liberte de Conscience, pp. 32-35.
2 Constantine, in his silken robe embroidered with threads of gold, presided at
the Council of Nice, called to take action against the Aryan heresy. At the Council
of Chalcedon the priests presented the following address to the emperor : “ You have
established the Faith, exterminated the heretics. That the king of heaven may
preserve the king of the earth is the prayer of the Church and the clergy,” etc.
3 Consult Winwood Reade’s Martyrdom of Man.
4 See Lecky’s History of European Morals.
6 Consult Jules Simon on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, Liberte de Conscience,
pp. 43-84. In his Histoire de France Henry Martin quotes those terrible
words of the Catholic priest in reply to the complaint of the soldiers that they could
not tell the Catholics from the heretics : “ Kill, kill all,” answered the priest, “ God
will know his own ” (Tuez, tuez, Dieu reconnaitra les siens). The joy of Catholic
�52
17. Q.
A.
18. Q.
A.
19. Q.
A.
20. Q.
A.
21. Qr
A.
22. Q.
A.
23. Q.
A.
A NEW CATECHISM
Why does she not persecute to-day?
The State will not permit it.
Has the influence of the Catholic Church been only bad?
No, she has also served humanity in many ways—by
protecting the poor, by encouraging art, and by bringing
about a European coalition against Asiatic invaders.
How did the Catholic Church lose its prestige ?
In the sixteenth century a German monk rebelled and
succeeded in splitting up the Church. This was Martin
Luther,1 the author of the religious movement known as
the Reformation.
Do all the Protestant Churches date from the Reforma
tion ?
Except the Church of England.
Who was the founder of that ?
Henry VIII., of England, who quarrelled with the Pope.
What was the occasion of the quarrel ?
The king wished to put away his wife for another woman,
but the Pope would not give his consent.2
What did the king do then ?
He founded a new Church, of which he became the abso
lute master, and which let him do as he pleased.3
Europe over the massacre of St. Bartholomew was so great that the French Parlia
ment ordered an annual procession in Paris to commemorate the event. Fortu
nately, the decree was never carried out. In Rome, however, Gregory XTTT.
organised a procession which went about the streets chanting and praising God for
the massacre of the heretics. This same Pope also ordered a fresco representing the
scenes of murder on the night of St. Bartholomew, which may be seen to this day in
the Sistine Ch? pel. In a sermon preached before this Pope only a few days after
the massacre, Muret, the priest, said: “ 0 memorable night! Most glorious of all
the festivals of the Church. In that night even the stars shone more brilliantly,”
etc. The address concludes by calling Charles IX., Catherine his queen, and
the Pope the most blessed in all the world, for being instrumental in bringing about
the massacre of the Huguenots (Les Predicateurs de la Ligue Labitte !).
1 On his death-bed Martin Luther was able to say that he had conquered three
Popes, one king, and one emperor.
2 There were other points of dispute, but the desire of the king to put away
Queen Katherine for a younger woman precipitated the breach between England and
Rome. For a long time after, the Church of England remained, except in name,
Roman Catholic in belief and practice. Consult Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History. It
is said that Charles V., being related to the English Queen, used his influence to
prevent the Pope from granting a divorce. Henry married six times, sent three of
his wives to the block, and also beheaded Sir Thomas Moore for refusing to acknow
ledge him as the supreme head of the Church. Leo X. had called Henry VIH. “The
Defender of the Faith,” for having written against Luther.
3 Henry VIII. altered the coronation oath to read: ‘ ‘ The King shall then swear
that he shall maintain and keep the lawful rights and liberties of old time granted
by the righteous Christian Kings of England to the Holy Church of England, not
�TEE CHURCH
24. Q.
A.
25. Q.
A.
26. Q.
A.
27. Q.
A.
28. Q.
A.
29. Q.
A.
30. Q.
A.
S3
What is the name of the Church of America ?
America has no State or National Church.
Are all Churches tolerated here ?
Yes, and all religions ; but while the State in America
makes no appropriation for the Church, in exempting
Church property from taxation it indirectly compels the
people to support the Churches.
Is the Church to-day on an equal footing with the State
in any country ?
No. The Church, which once ruled both kings and
peoples, is now the servant of the State everywhere.
What does that imply ?
That a Church which obeys the secular power, instead of
commanding it, cannot be a divine institution.1
Is there any recognition of Christianity in the American
Constitution ?
No. The word “ God ” or “ Christian ” is not men
tioned in the American Constitution.2
Have the Protestants ever persecuted in the name of
religion ?
Almost as much as the Catholics, but the Protestants are
ashamed of their past persecutions.3
Were the persecutors, whether Catholic or Protestant,
always bad men ?
No. It was frequently their sincerity which led them to
persecute. Believing sincerely that heresy would cause
damnation of souls, they used both fire and sword to
exterminate it.4
prejudicial to his jurisdiction and dignity royal." Here we have the first clear pronunciamento of the supremacy of the Secular over the Spiritual state. The West
minster divines, who formulated one of the most autocratic creeds, presented the
same to Parliament as “ their humble advice.”
1 Formerly the Church met this objection with the plea that the King was the
“anointed terrestrial Governor under Christ, and that obedience to him was
obedience to God.” But the force of this argument has passed away with the
“divine right ” of kings. The modern State exercises its authority as coming from
Man—not as coming from God.
2 George Washington, in his message to the Senate, in 1776, stated that the
American Government was “in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
8 Schaff, Greeds of Christendom.
4 It has also been suggested that the heretic was burned at the stake because it
was easier to silence him by fire than by arguments. The Church in those days
claimed the right to kill all whom it could not convert. Consult Story of the
Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.
•
�54
A NEW CATECHISM
31. Q. Why is not heresy denounced to-day as vehemently as
before ?
A. Because we have learned that honest doubt is more
religious than blind belief.1
82. Q. Can a man who does not know how to doubt know how to
believe ?
A. Not intelligently.
33. Q. What do we call the faith that is unintelligent?
A. Superstition.
84. Q. Analyse and define superstition.
A. To attribute to an object virtues or powers which it does
not possess is a superstition.
35. Q. Give an example.
A. To carry on one’s person a chain, an image, or a crucifix,
believing it to possess beneficent powers or virtues,
would be a superstition.
.'.36. Q. What is an object called when invested with imaginary
virtues ?
A. A fetish.
1 “There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds ”
(Tennyson, In Memoriam, xcvi.).
�CHAPTER X.
THE LIBERAL CHURCH
t>«p
t>
<p
P
>
<
O
>0
t>«p
1. Q. How do the Liberal Churches differ from the orthodox ?
A. The Unitarian and other Liberal Churches submit, in a
measure, the doctrines of religion to the test of reason.
2. Q. Do not the orthodox do the same ?
A. Not to the same extent, for they believe that revelation is
a higher authority than reason.
3. Q. What are the beliefs of the Liberal Churches ?
A. It is very difficult to tell, for the Liberal Churches follow
neither revelation nor reason exclusively, but try to do a
little of both.
Cannot revelation be reconciled with reason ?
When revelation agrees with reason, there is only reason.
It is when it disagrees with reason that there is, or is
thought to be, also a revelation.
Illustrate your meaning.
When revelation teaches that man is mortal, it is only
repeating what we know ; but when it teaches that man
was created perfect, it teaches what is contrary to our
reason or experience, and so becomes or assumes the
character of a revelation.
What are some of the orthodox doctrines which Liberal
Churches reject?
The atonement; eternal punishment; plenary inspira
tion of the Bible ; a personal devil; total depravity, etc.
Mention a few of the orthodox doctrines which the
Liberal Churches accept ?
A personal God; the sinlessness of Jesus; immortality
of the soul; the duty of prayer; the superiority of the
Bible to any other literature, and the rites of baptism and
communion. Some Liberal Churches are more rational
istic than others.
How do the Liberal Churches prove their position ?
Generally from the Bible.
55
�56
A NEW CATECHISM
9. Q. How do the orthodox prove theirs ?
A. Exclusively from the Bible.
10. Q. What is the main emphasis of the Liberal Churches ?
A. They make little of theology, and a great deal of
character.
11. Q. Are the Liberal Churches growing ?
A. Not numerically, but their influence has been large in the
religious world. They have compelled the orthodox to
abandon many crude and foolish beliefs and practices,
and have helped to withdraw the attention of people
from theology to science, philosophy, and ethics. The
Liberal Churches have rendered Religion the inestimable
service of recalling her from barren dialectics to concrete
realities.
12. Q. What other religious movements are there in this
country ?
A. Spiritualism, Theosophy, Christian Science, etc.
13. Q. What do Spiritualists teach ?
A. That we can communicate with the spirits of the dead.
14. Q. How do they attempt to prove the claim ?
A. By quotations from the Bible, and the testimony of men
and women now living.
15. Q. Who are these ?
A. Generally mediums, who make their living by giving
seances or sittings.
16. Q. What is the reputation of these mediums ?
A. It is not of the very best.
17. Q. What is Theosophy ?
A. The doctrine that there are “wise men,” or “adepts,” or
“ masters,*’ who have become divinities, and who direct
human affairs and reveal the future to the living.
18. Q. What are the other doctrines of Theosophy ?
A. The doctrine of Karma or Justice, and of Reincarnation.1
19. Q. What is the value of Theosophy as a religion ?
A. It is a mere speculation.
20. Q. What is Christian Science?
A. The belief that a certain New England woman has recently
received a special revelation from God.
1 “We reap in this life as we have sown in some previous existence ” is the funda
mental idea in Buddhism, and in all the religious philosophies of the Orient.
�THE LIBERAL CHURCH
57
21. Q. State the nature of the revelation.
A. Nothing exists but God; God is health and purity;
therefore disease and sin are illusions.
22. Q. Is that logical ?
A. No ; because, if God is all, whose illusions then are sick
ness and sin ?
23. Q. Is disease an illusion of the “ mortal mind ”?1
A. Disease is the effect of a cause or causes, such as
drunkenness, debauchery, dirt, etc. If these causes are
illusions, then are their effects illusions too.
24. Q. Can the evil effect of drunkenness, or dirt, be treated
away without first removing their causes ?
A. It is not possible.
25. Q. What else do Christian Scientists claim ?
A. They claim to treat successfully, for a sum of money,
all manner of diseases except those pertaining to
surgery.2
26. Q. What do Christian Scientists do with money ?
A. They use it for the necessary wants of the body.
27. Q. Do the Christian Scientists believe in the body ?
A. No.
28. Q. What would be an impartial judgment of Christian
Science ?
A. Like all human systems, it contains both truth and error.
29. Q. Have we any religious movements in this country from
which the supernatural element is altogether absent ?
A. There are the Ethical, Positivist, and other rationalistic
organisations, which make science the highest authority
in matters of faith and conducts
80. Q. What is the nature of their teaching ?
A. It is purely practical. To make the highest use of this
life without any reference to a life before, or a life after;
without any reference, either, to gods, demons, heaven,
or hell.
31. Q. Do they deny God and the future ?
A. No; because they know that they do not know enough,
as yet, on these questions to speak definitely and
positively about them.
1 The Christian Scientists, by calling evil “mortal mind,” have only changed
the name without doing away with the thing.
2 See Mrs. Eddy’s defence for going to a dentist (“ Miscellaneous
�58
A NEW CATECHISM
82. Q. Is that a proper attitude of the mind ?
A. Yes, and it is also the most hopeful, for until we
know our ignorance we will not seek for knowledge.1
83. Q. Is knowledge of your ignorance the beginning of wisdom ?
A. Yes, and the promise of coming enlightenment.2
1 “ Nothing keeps a man from knowledge and wisdom like thinking he has both ”
(Sir Wm. Temple).
2 As this Catechis m is written from the standpoint of the non-supernatural, it
will be unnecessary to give in this place a fuller exposition of the philosophy of these
Independent Societies.
�CHAPTER XI.
THE CREEDS
1. Q. What is a creed ?
A. A rule of faith, or an authoritative expression of the
doctrines of a Church.1
2. Q. What is the origin of the word ?
A. It is taken from the first word in the Apostles’ Creed
(credo—I believe).
3. Q. What is the origin of the idea ?
A. The differences and disagreements among believers are
responsible for the creeds of Christendom.2
4. Q. How early did dissensions arise in the Church ?
A. The first dissension was between the Apostles Peter and
Paul; the former representing the Jewish, and the latter
the Gentile, party in the Church.
5. Q. Was the dissension serious ?
A. The Apostle Paul considered it so; for he charged
Peter with dissimulation, hypocrisy, and unrighteous
conduct.34
6. Q. What was the primary object of a creed ?
A. To enforce uniformity of belief, and to excommunicate
the heretics?
v. Q. What, then, did these creeds really try to do ?
A. To prevent anybody from thinking independently.
8. Q. Which is considered the oldest Christian creed ?
A. The Apostles’ Creed, which we know for certain was not
written by the Apostles.
1 Called also a “ symbol,” or “ confession ’’ of faith—Symbolicum Apostolicum.
2 It is claimed that Jesus called for a creed when he said : “ Every one who will
confess me before men, him will I also confess before my father who is in heaven ”
(Matt. x. 32, 33; Rom. x. 9, 10).
3 Read the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians; and also the first chapters of
Revelation and the Acts of the Apostles.
4 Heresy is from a Greek word, and means "toexamine,” ar " to select.”
�60
A NEW CATECHISM
9. Q. Why, then, is it so called?
A. For the same reason that the Gospels have been ascribed
to the Apostles—to give them a greater authority.
10. Q. Who, then, is the author of the Apostles’ Creed ?
A. The question of its authorship is involved in as great an
obscurity as that of the Gospels.’
11. Q. What are the fundamentals in this creed ?
A. Belief in the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception of
Jesus, and the resurrection of the flesh.
12. Q. What proofs are given to establish these claims ?
A. None whatever. They are assumed to be true.
18. Q. Do the Mohammedans and Buddhists offer proofs for the
doctrines of their creeds ?
A. No, they assume theirs too.
14. Q. How are we to know which assumption is the truth ?
A. The general custom has been to assume that the creed of
the country one is born in is the true one.
15. Q. Is this a good custom ?
A. It is a very bad custom, for it deprives us of the greatest
privilege of life—the pursuit of truth; it makes truth a
denominational or sectarian possession, the creature of
climate and geographical boundaries; and it makes us
believe that, while we ourselves are inspired and chosen
of God, all others are heathens.
16. Q. Tell me now of the Nicene Creed.
A. This was formulated by an assembly of 318 bishops in
the city of Nicsea, near Constantinople, in the year 325.
It excommunicated the Arians1 and fulminated a curse
against them for questioning the doctrine of the Trinity.
17. Q. What is the next important creed ?
A. The Athanasian, which is the most unpleasantly dogmatic
and intolerant of all ancient creeds, and which is unique
in its damnatory clauses. Yet it was held in high
esteem,2 and was sung as a hymn in all the Churches,
and is still in force in official Christendom.
18. Q. What is the creed of the Greek Church ?
A. The Greek or the Eastern Church holds that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not also from
1 The followers of Arius, who had heretical views about the divinity of Christ.
2 See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. i., p, 41.
�THE CREEDS
61
the Son. For this heresy it was excommunicated by the
(jatholic Church, but the Greek Church in return ex
communicated the Catholic Church.
19. Q. What is the creed of the Church of England ?
A. It consists of Thirty-nine Articles adopted at various
times, and finally authoritatively promulgated in 1628 by
Charles I. as “ His Majesty’s Declaration.”
20. Q. What was its object?
A. “ For the abolishing of diversity of opinions,” and to
drive out of the country popish and Calvinistic doctrines.
21. Q. Was subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles compulsory
in England ?
A. Yes. Even the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
required of every graduate to subscribe to the Thirtynine Articles before he could receive his diploma; a Bill
of Parliament compelled all teachers and preachers to
subscribe to them.
22. Q. Did this Bill accomplish its object ?
A. No.
23. Q. Can compulsion prevent people from thinking ?
A. It can only prevent them from teaching as they think.
24. Q. What are people who think one thing and teach another
called ?
A. Hypocrites.
25. Q. What follows ?
A. That compulsion only makes hypocrites.
26. Q. Which is the most important of modern creeds ?
A. The Westminster Creed, formulated by an assembly con
sisting of one hundred and fifty members elected and
convened by an Act of Parliament in 1643 during the
brief reign of Presbyterianism in England.
27. Q. What are the leading ideas of this creed ?
A. Predestination, salvation of elect infants1 only, the
damnation of all peoples and nations not Christian, and
the use of physical force against all heretics.
28. Q. How does it define the Doctrine of Damnation ?
• A. As a ‘‘judicial decree of God ” by which, “on account of
Adam’s fall”...... “God was pleased to ordain” others
“ to dishonour and wrath ”—to “ everlasting death ”......
1 “ Modern Calvinists admit the probability of salvation of all infants ” (Schafi,
vol. i., p. 795).
�62
A NEW CATECHISM
29. Q.
A.
30. Q.
A.
31. Q.
A.
82. Q.
A.
33. Q.
A.
“ and their number is so certain and definite that it
cannot be either increased or diminished.”1
How does it recommend physical force against heresy ?
It says : “ The civil magistrate hath authority, and it is
his duty to take order that the unity and peace be pre
served in the Church, that all heresies be suppressed, all
abuses in worship prevented ”;2 and Article IV., in Chapter
XX., reads : “ They (the heretics) may lawfully be called
to account, and proceeded against by the power of the
Civil Magistrate.” And verse 109 of the Catechism
states that the “ Ten Commandments forbid tolerating a
false religion.”3
Is an absolutely creedless Church possible ?
No. An organisation, whatever its end, must have a
platform, a declaration of principles, to serve as a bond
of union, which, in the larger sense, is a creed.
Why, then, are creeds denounced?
Not because they contain a statement of belief, but
because the statement is narrow, intolerant, and unpro
gressive.
Which is the best creed ?
The creed which is most in accord with the facts of
science, and which keeps abreast of the increasing
knowledge of man.
State the difference between a creed founded on authority
and one founded on science.
The one is finished, the other is still growing; the one is
an echo of the past, the other is an accent and a voice
of the present; the one is a statement, the other is a
movement; the one can be accepted only on conditions
impossible to the reason, the other welcomes all the
strain which the progress of knowledge can bring to bear
upon it.4
1 Original sin was considered so wicked that one of the clergymen declared : “ If
a man had never been born, he would yet have been damned for it.”
2 The American Churches have modified this clause.
8 “ It is not only lawful to punish to the death such as labour to subvert the true
religion, but the magistrates and people are bound to do so unless they will provoke
the wrath of God against themselves ” (John Knox, History of Mary I., Queen of
England; E. P. Dutton & Co.).
4 “ There is a fire-fly in the southern clime,
Which shineth only when upon the wing.
So is it with the mind: when once we rest,
We darken.”
—Bailey, in Festus.
�THE CREEDS
63
84. Q. Should we ever subscribe to a creed which forbids freedom
of thought and speech ?
A. No. The dignity of man is in his reason, the dignity of
reason is in freedom; to destroy freedom is to destroy
reason, and without reason we would cease to be
human.1
35. Q. Why is freedom of speech indispensable ?
A. Because without freedom we can never know whether the
priest or the teacher says what he wishes to say, or only
what he must say.
1 “Yet one thing there is that ye shall not slay,
Even thought.”
—Swinbubne.
�CHAPTER Xn.
THE CLERGY
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3. Q.
A.
4. Q.
A.
5. Q.
A.
6. Q.
A.
7. Q.
A.
What is a clergyman ?
A man who has received “ holy orders.”
From whom has he received them ?
From the Church, and by the laying-on of hands.1
Why is he called a clergyman ?
The word is derived from “clerus” or “clericus,” which
in Greek, signifies a “ lot,” or anything by which a vote
is cast.
What does this signify ?
That the clergymen were elected by the casting of lots.2
What other explanation is there ?
It has also been supposed that the Greek word clericus
means “rank,” which term was applied to the Apostles
and the early teachers to indicate their authority.3
By what other names is a clergyman known ?
Priest, prelate, pontiff, bishop, pope, etc.
What do the clergy claim ?
That Jesus, the King, has committed “the keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven to officers of the Church,” by virtue
whereof “ they have power respectively to retain and
remit sins ”...... “to shut that kingdom,” and “ to open
it.”4
1 “ Receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of our hands ” is the formula oi
ordination.
2 This was the opinion of St. Augustine and also of Jerome. St. Mattias was
elected by the Apostles to take the place of Judas by casting lots. The usual custom
was to write the names of the different candidates and put them in a box ; then,
having offered prayers, the box was shaken, and the first name that fell out was
considered “ chosen of the Lord. ”
3 Bauer, the German scholar, is the advocate of this theory.
4 See Westminster Creed. The following words of Jesus are quoted both by
Catholics and Protestants to establish this claim : “And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven ” (Matt. xvi. 19). Compare this with what is said in chapter on “ Prayer ”
about controlling God.
64
�THE CLERGY
8. Q.
A.
9. Q.
A.
10. Q.
A.
11. Q.
A.
12. Q.
A.
13. Q.
A.
14. Q.
A.
15. Q.
A.
16. Q.
65
Have the priests exercised great power in the world ?
Yes, and have enjoyed also exceptional privileges.
What were these privileges ?
Exemption from civil duties, taxes or contributions to
public works. In many countries a clergyman, what
ever his crime, could not be made to appear before a civil
magistrate.1
What use have the clergy made of these privileges ?
On the whole, they have abused them, for which cause
they have been deprived of nearly all of their old
privileges.
How can a man become a clergyman to-day?
By submitting to an examination to prove his adherence
to the creed of the Church to which he applies for
admission.
Are these examinations as strict as formerly ?
No, the candidates for holy orders may now exercise what
is called “ mental reservation.”
What is that ?
It is the liberty, while subscribing to the creed just as it
is, to read one’s own meaning into it—to accept it as true
theologically only, and not also philosophically. The
candidate may answer the question, “ Bo you believe ?”
by “I do,” while in his own mind he may add:
“ Not as it is commonly interpreted, but as I interpret
it. ”
Illustrate this by an example.
He may say, “ I believe in the ‘ word of God,’ ” but
mean by it not only the Christian Scriptures to which the
creeds limit inspiration, but all that he considers true
and pure wherever found. In the same way he may
believe in the divinity of Christ, meaning by it that all
good and noble men are divine.
Do the people always understand his meaning ?
If he wished to be understood, he would not resort to
“ mental reservation.”
Should a clergyman not in full accord with his Church
continue to remain in its fellowship ?
1 Comp. Benefit of Clergy in England. In Catholic countries, if anyone struck a
priest he was excommunicated for life, absolution being withheld from him until
the hour of death.
F
�66
A NEW CATECHISM
A. To a conscientious and fine-fibred soul, such a relation
would be intolerable.1
17. Q. But should not a clergyman wait until his people are
ready for the new ideas ?
A. Yes, if he means to follow his people, but not if he wishes
to be a teacher and a guide.
1 James Martineau quotes the praise of a Frenchman lavished on this class of
clergymen : “ Our clergy, to be sure, are all perjured ; but, then, how charmingly
liberal ” (Essays and Reviews, vol. ii., p. 187).
�CHAPTER XIII.
PRAYER AND SALVATION
1. Q. What is prayer ?
A. It is a supplication addressed to God, or a desire for com
munion with him.
2. Q. Do people ever pray also to the laws of nature ?
A. No.
3. Q. Or to great ideals or visions ?
A. No; prayer is always addressed to a person, because a
person alone can hear and answer prayer.
4. Q. Do all who pray believe in a personal God ?
A. They should; for if God be not a person, he would not
be different from the laws of nature or the ideals of the
mind.
5. Q. What is a person ?
A. One who knows that he is himself and no other.
6. Q. Can God be a person?
A. He cannot be a God and a person at the same time.
7. Q. Why?
A. To be a god is to be infinite; to be a person is to be
finite. The infinite cannot be conscious of itself, for
such consciousness would imply that it distinguished
itself from something else, and was not, therefore, the
“ All!” To be able to say, “ This is I,” the infinite
must also be able to say, “ That is not I,” which would
mean that the infinite was not infinite.
8. Q. Can there not be an infinite person ?
A. No, as there cannot be an infinite finite.
9. Q. How did the habit of prayer originate ?
A. It originated in the desire of people to appease the anger
and secure the favour of invisible beings.
10. Q. Give an example.
A. At the close of a long drought the Pope, Archbishop, or
minister composes a prayer for rain, which is addressed
to God, believing that he permitted the drought and can
be entreated to discontinue it.
67
�68
A NEW CATECHISM
11. Q. Are such prayers ever answered ?
A. Yes, because a drought cannot last for ever.
12. Q. Does it not happen frequently that while some are pray
ing for one thing others are as earnestly praying for just
the opposite ?
A. Yes, people are asking God to do in one place what others
somewhere else are just as earnestly entreating or advis
ing him not to do.
13. Q. What do such prayers imply ?
A. That God is an individual ready to adapt himself to the
convenience of everybody.
14. Q. Has God any control over the weather ?
A. No more than over the law of gravity.
15. Q. Do people ever pray to have the law of gravity suspended
for their sake ?
A. Not any more.
16. Q. Why?
A. They have learned that the law of gravitation is invio
lable.
17. Q. When will they stop praying about the weather?
A. When they learn that the laws governing it are equally
inviolable.
18. Q. Is it as useless to pray for wisdom, knowledge, and
goodness ?
A. Yes; for these virtues cannot be given to us—they are
acquired through long effort.
19. Q. But does not prayer help some people to acquire these
gifts ?
A. They think it does, just as an Asiatic thinks he owes all
his good fortune to the amulet on his person or the tattoo
on his arm; or the zealot that he owes his to the
Virgin Mary, or to the candles he burns on some saints
altar.
20. Q. What is meant by prayer as praise ?
A. God, it is said, demands that his creatures should address
him continually in terms of glorification and endear
ment; and, therefore, one object of prayer is to satisfy
this desire of God.
21. Q. Does such an idea do honour to any person ?
A. No. A really great and good being would grow weary
of the genuflections and laudations of interested
votaries.
�PRAYER AND SALVATION
69
22. Q. Where did such an idea come from ?
A. Brom the Orient, where the sultans can only be approached
with prostrations, presents, and salaams.
23. Q. What is the moral argument against prayer ?
A. It makes men look for help from without and by miracle,
and thus cripples and maims their manhood.
24. Q. What else ?
A. It is an attempt to corrupt God by offering him bribes.
When we ask God to do better for us than we deserve,
we ask him to do us a favour for which we offer sweet
words of praise, build churches, give money, go on a
pilgrimage, etc.
25. Q. Is prayer, then, a petition for a favour ?
A. Yes, because it is said that we have no rights, and that
God can, if he so wishes, refuse us everything.
26. Q. Is salvation a favour too ?
A. Yes,, as shown by the malefactor on the cross, who
received the gift of salvation a few moments before he
expired.
27. Q. What are the views of Paul on this question?
A. He says: “ That a man is justified by faith without the
works of the law, for to him that worketh not, but
believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness
the
inference being that we cannot, by anything we do,
merit salvation. And the Westminster Creed says:
“Much less can men not professing the Christian religion
be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives
according to the light of nature; and to assert and
maintain that they can is very pernicious, and is to be
detested.”1
1 Luther said: “Every doer of the law and every moral worker is accursed,
for he walketh in the presumption of his own righteousness. He that says the
gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, he is a liar ” (Table Talk).
And. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, was as positive in his
opinion that salvation is not something which we may conquer for ourselves, for he
says: “We are well pleased that our parishioners grow more diligent and honest,
that they practise both justice and mercy; in a word, that they are moral men ; but
the truth is, the Methodists know and teach that all this is nothing before God ”
(John Wesley's Works, vol. iii., p. 99). “ Salvation is an act of mercy, and may be
granted even to one who has no merit ” (Catholic Belief, p. 363 ; Father Lambert).
The doctrine of salvation by grace alone is unmistakably taught in the following
texts from the New Testament : John vi. 44 ; Ephs. ii. 8. This is also the position
of St. Augustine in his work on “ Grace.” It is this doctrine which has placed so
high a value on the sacraments and offices of the Church, as well as the mediation
of the priest as a means of salvation.
�70
A NEW CATECHISM
28. Q. What is the effect of such teachings ?
A. They make morality, character, and justice secondary to
Church rites, prayers, and dogmas,1 and they imply also
that we may impose our will upon God.
29. Q. Explain that point.
A. The Atheist says he is without God; the Deist says,
There is a God, but he has no relations whatever with
us; the Theist says, God exists and rules over men, but
by prayers, and praise, penance and sacrifices, we can
influence his will. Consequently, all these views amount
to a practical denial of God.
30. Q. How ?
A. There is little difference between a God who does not
exist and one who exists only outside of human affairs,
or one who can be influenced by us.
81. Ql What is the least desirable form of prayer ?
A. Public prayer, because it is not silent, but loud; not
spontaneous, but formal; not personal, but professional;
not short,, but long; not free, but compulsory; and
because it is oftener addressed to the congregation than
to God. Jesus said distinctly that we should not pray in
public.
32. Q. What is true prayer ?
A. To learn diligently the laws of life, and to obey them.
33. Q. What should we teach people to do instead of praying ?
A. To think.2
1 The Catholic religion is an order to obtain heaven by begging, because it would
be too troublesome to earn it. The priests are the brokers for this transaction ”
(Zimmern’s Life of Schopenhauer, p. 124). This criticism applies with equal force to
the Protestant denominations.
2 The late Master of Balliol said that the longer he lived the less he prayed, but
the more he thought. Read also Emerson’s essay on “ Self-Reliance.” The lost*
according to Dante, are those who can no longer think. Kant says that “ He who
has made great moral progress ceases to pray, for honesty is one of his principal
maxims..’ . He said also that to pray before the people is “to appeal to their sensu
ality ”—it is to “ stoop down to them.”
�CHAPTER XIV.
DEATH
How long has there been death in the world ?
As long as there has been life.1
What is the relation of life to death ?
They are different manifestations of the same powerJ
What is that ?
Movement.
What happens to the body at death ?
It begins to return to life again. The particles of which
the body is composed dissolve, separate, and pass into
their original elements—water, lime, iron, phosphorus,
etc. Thus disengaged, they mix with the sun and the
air, and, having renewed their youth, return to combine
again in new bodies.
5. Q. Do they always meet in the same body ?
A. No. If they did, the dead would rise again.
6. Q. Is death a punishment ?
A. Not any more than life.
7. Q. Why do people fear death ?
A. They have been taught to look upon it as the curse of
God for the sins of man, and that it marks the beginning
of an irrevocable doom; but people are rapidly out
growing these fears.
8? Q- Is death desirable ?
A. Not until we know more about it.
9. Q. But is it always a misfortune ?
A. When it ends a useful career, separates lovers, and makes
orphans of children, it seems a calamity. But when it
brings deliverance to the weary, the aged, and the suffer
ing, it is a blessing.2
1. Q.
A.
2. Q.
A.
3. Q.
A.
4. Q.
A.
1 This is true in a general sense, and as applied to recognised forms erf life.
To speak exactly, something must have lived before anything could die; while some
of the very simplest organisms do not die, but multiply by dividing into halves, each
of which becomes a whole organism.
2 “ Among the many half-pagan legends that were connected with Ireland during
71
�72
A NEW CATECHISM
10. Q. Could there be any progress in the world without death ?
A. As the old leaves must fall from the branches wto make
room for the new and greener ones, so must we die to
make place for the better men and women of the future.
11. Q. How may we learn to overcome the fear of death ?
A. 1. By trying to accommodate ourselves to those laws of
nature which will not accommodate themselves to us.
2. By cultivating in us the same mind that was also in
the bravest and noblest of our race. 3. By remember
ing that we are here to learn how to live, and not
how to die.
12. Q. What is the philosophical conception of death ?
A. That it either secures happiness or ends suffering.
13. Q. How did Socrates view death?
A. That if it ended life, it was not a misfortune; but that if
it freed the soul from the body, it certainly was “ the
greatest of boons.”1
14. Q. Is it wrong to mourn for the dead ?
A. It is natural; for, while we must face our fate like men,
we must also feel it like men.
15. Q. How may we triumph over death ?
A. By loving and serving some noble cause, in which we may
continue to live long after we have passed away.
16. Q. Who have been the greatest benefactors of man ?
*
A. Those who have relieved his mind of one more fear, and
helped him a step further on the road to mental
emancipation.
the Middle Ages, one of the most beautiful is that of the islands of life and death.
In a certain lake in Munster, it is said, there were two islands; into the first death
could never enter, but age and sickness, and the weariness of life, were all known
there, and they did their work until the inhabitants, tired of their immortality,
learned to look upon the opposite island as upon a haven of repose ; they launched
their barks upon its gloomy waters ; they touched its shore, and they were at rest ”
(Lecky’s History of European Morals, vol. i., p. 214).
1 “ There is no subject on which the sage will think less than death ” (Spinoza,
Ethics, iv., 67). “Death does not concern us, for when we are, death is not, and
when death is, we are not” (Epicurus, Diog. Laert., x. 27). Noble minds are free
from “the superstitious fears that are the nightmare of the weak” (Lecky, History
of European Morals, vol. i., p. 213). To lose what we cannot miss is not an evil.
�CHAPTER XV.
IMMORTALITY
1. Q. What does immortality mean ?
A. Deathlessness, or life without end.
2. Q. Does it mean that men will never die ?
A. No ; but that they will live for ever after death.
8. Q. In the same form as now ?
A. That is a disputed question.
4. Q. Will the body, too, live again and for ever ?
A. It is generally claimed that the soul alone is immortal.
5. Q. What is the soul ?
A. According to popular views it is a spark, a flame, or an
essence temporarily lodged in the body, but which, at
death, returns to its author—God.
6. Q. Have all men a soul ?
A. It is so believed.
7. Q. Have the animals a soul too ?
A. Few people believe they have.
8. Q. Can the body live without the soul ?
A. No.
9. Q. Can the soul without the body ?
A. People think it can.
10. Q. Have they any knowledge of it ?
A. Not exactly.
11. Q- Has anything been ever seen without a body of some
kind ?
A. No; though some claim to have seen spirits.
12. Q. Can we see anything that has neither form, colour, nor
extension ?
A. It is not possible.
13. Q. Can we even think of a spirit without giving it form and
body in our mind ?
A. We cannot.
73
�74
A NEW CATECHISM
14. Q. What follows ?
A. That soul and body are, so far as we have a right to
speak or think, inseparable, and that, if one is immortal
the other must be so too.
15. Q. Is the desire for immortality general ?
A. Yes, but not universal. The ancient Jews evidently had
no . clear concept of another life; neither have the
Chinese of to-day.
16. Q. State the accepted doctrine of immortality.
A. The soul, at death, leaves the body and goes to another
world, to live there evermore.
17. Q. What is this other world also called?
A. Heaven, Paradise, the Isles of the Blest, and so on.
18. Q. What kind of a place is it ?
A. There are as many different views of heaven as there are
religions.
19. Q. What are some of them ?
A. To the Buddhist, heaven means the cessation of all
desire, or Nirvana ; to the Mohammedan, it is a place of
pleasure and dance; to the Christian, an eternal
Sabbath.
20. Q. Is everybody expected to go to heaven ?
A. No ; only those, it is claimed, who have the true faith ;
all others, according to the creeds, will go to hell.
21. Q. Where is that ?
A. That, too, is in the other world.
22. Q. Will good and great men and women who have not the
“ true faith ” be excluded from heaven ?
A. The creeds say they will.1 And hence the hope of
immortality for the majority of people is not a hope at all.
23. Q. Are heaven and hell both eternal ?
A. That is the ordinary belief.2
24. Q. What further view is there of the other world ?
A. That there is neither a heaven nor a hell, but that the
other world or life is the continuation of this.
25. Q. Will it be a better world than this ?
A. It will if we make it so.
1 “ Peoples earth with demons, hell with men.
And heaven with slaves.”
—Shelley.
® Henry Ward Beecher was the first among modern orthodox preachers to protest
against this doctrine (comp, the Author’s The Passing of Orthodox Religion).
�IMMORTALITY
75
26. Q. Does this view deny the possibility of a conscious here
after ?
A. No, but it leaves the question open.
27. Q. What are the arguments in favour of a conscious im
mortality ?
A. One of the strongest is that the belief in it is universal.1
28. Q. Does that prove it ?
A. No, many universal beliefs have turned out to be illusions
—e.g., the belief that man and the world were specially
created by divine fiat; that the sun, the moon, and the
stars were made to give light to our planet, and to revolve
about it; and the belief in witchcraft, magic, alchemy,
etc.2
29. Q. What is the next argument ?
A. It is said that man, as a soul or a thinking mind, is too
precious not to be preserved for ever.
80. Q. Does that prove his immortality ?
A. Not any more than Caesar’s opinion of himself proved his
divinity.
31. Q. What is the next argument ?
A. The moral argument, which is the strongest.
32. Q. State that.
A. As there is much undeserved suffering in this world, we
instinctively look forward to another where all accounts
shall be squared; where the tears shall be wiped from
the eyes of the sorrowing, and lovers shall meet again.
33. Q. Is this argument conclusive ?
A. It is very strong, but not conclusive. If God is as good
and as powerful now as he will ever be, and yet permits
crime and sorrow, there is no reason to expect a radical
change in his management of the universe at some future
time.
84 Q. What is the proper conception of an after life ?
A. That all we now think, say, and do will go to build the
world of the future, in which we shall all live again and
for ever as influences, tendencies, examples, and moral
1 Since all religions maintain immortality, then, if there is really no such thing,
the whole world is deluded. This is the argument which Pomponatius of Padua
answered by saying: “As there are three religions—those of Moses, Jesus, and
Mohammed—they are all three false, and then the whole world is deluded ; or two,
at least, are false, and then the majority are deluded.”
2 Even Lord Bacon, the founder of the Inductive Method, and Sir Thomas
Browne and Sir Matthew Hade shared the popular faith in witches.
�76
A NEW CATECHISM
and intellectual forces. We are the continuation of the
life that has preceded us, and the source of the life that
shall follow us. The soul of man is the sum of all his
faculties and powers, his thoughts and acts and affections.
These, no more than the particles which compose his
body, perish at death, but become incorporated into new
forms of life, and so on for ever.1
85. Q. What effect would such a belief have upon us ?
A. It would encourage us to cultivate and treasure up only
what is true and noble—to become the brain and soul of
the future.2
1 “ Death appears under this aspect no longer as an annihilation ; for our soul
is as little wiped out as the law of causation can be suspended” (Paul Caras, Whence
and Whither, p. 135).
2 When we have outgrown the illusion that existence is limited to our individual
person, when we expand our being into that of humanity, which is immortal, and
through which we continue to live for ever—death will, indeed, be no more than
“ the blinking of an eyelid, which does not interrupt sight.”
�CHAPTER XVI.
THE CHIEF END OF MAN
1. Q. What is the greatest thing in the world ?
A. Life with honour; for without life we cannot have any
thing else that is good.
2. Q. What, then, is the duty of man ?
A. To seek those things which increase and elevate life.
3. Q. What do we call those acts which make life larger and
better ?
A. Virtues; and those which diminish and degrade life,
vices.
4. Q. By what other names are they called ?
A. Right and wrong; moral and immoral; good and bad.
5. Q. How do we learn what is vice and what is virtue ?
A. Through experience; the accumulated experience of
humanity, as well as our own.
6. Q. Do we learn all we know about right and wrong from
experience ?
A. Positively all.
7. Q. Do we not need a revelation to tell us infallibly about
right and wrong ?
A. No. If we ourselves cannot discern the right from the
wrong, a revelation will be of no more help to us
than to the animals.
8. Q. What other proofs could you offer that a revelation is not
necessary for the purposes of the moral life ?
A. A revelation is only an accident,1 while the moral life is
a law of human nature.
9. Q. What is a law ?
A. An obligation imposed upon us by a higher authority.23
10. Q. What constitutes authority ?
A. Superior knowledge, goodness, and power.
1 An event which happens only once and under irregular or miraculous condi
tions may be termed an accident.
3 “ Law ” is used also in the sense of a formula, or an observed mode of action.
77
�78
A NEW CATECHISM
11. Q. Give me some examples.
A. The authority of the parent over the child; of the teacher
over the pupil; of the State over the individual; of
mankind over the State, and of Nature over all.
12. Q. What is Nature ?
A. The sum of all the forces which keep the world in move
ment.
13. Q. Why is the authority of Nature the highest ?
A. She is the first and oldest parent and teacher of man.
14. Q. Why obey Nature ?
A. Because we have learned through the experience of ages
that we must.1
15. Q. What if we do not ?
A. She will replace us quickly by those who will.
16. Q. There is no alternative, then ?
A. None whatever.
17. Q. What provision has Nature made to induce obedience to
her laws ?
A. She has joined together action and reaction, cause and
consequence.
18. Q. Explain this.
A. To each thought, word, and act Nature has given the
same power she has to the seed—to grow and bear fruit
after their kind.
19. Q. What other means does Nature employ to compel
obedience ?
A. She has lodged in us a representative of her authority,
which we may call “ conscience.”
20. Q. Analyse and define it.
A. Conscience is the mingled voices of the Past and the
Future in each individual. Man is the vibrating focus
of the collective experience and tendencies of the Past,
and the hopes, visions, and ideals of the Future—the
pressure of the one and the attraction of the other find a
voice in him ; this voice is conscience.2
1 “ But I follow cheerfully,
And did I not—
Weak and wretched, I must follow still” (Epictetus).
a Our habits ally us with the past, our freedom with the future; the conflict
between habit or instinct and freedom or will is the struggle between the Past and
the Future for supremacy. Man is the battleground of the struggle. Professor
Clifford defines conscience as “ the accumulated instincts of the race pouring into
each one of us, and overflowing as if the ocean were poured into a cup ” (p. 134).
�THE CHIEF END OF MAN
79
21'. Q. Is that the commonly accepted definition?
A. No. Many people believe conscience is “ the voice of
God in the soul but, as this voice is not infallible,
nothing is gained by calling it the “ voice of God.”
22. Q. What other theories are there ?
A. ^>me philosophers teach that conscience is a separate,
spiritual faculty or organ, whose function it is intuitively
to tell the right from the wrong. It is also held that
there is such a thing as the Moral Law, which is eternal
and absolute, and whose commandments are imperative.1
But these are metaphysical speculations.
23. Q. What is the teaching of Evolution on this subject ?
A. That just as light fashioned the eye, and sound the ear,
with all their wonderful mechanism, human relations
formed, through the education and experience of ages,
the moral sense; and that morality is acquired just as
language, music, love, or humanity.
24. Q. Why should we do the right according to thift theory ?
A. For its utility, beauty, and joy.
25. Q. Is it obligatory to do the right ?
A. Yes, if we wish the well-being of everybody as well as of
ourselves.
26. Q. What is the reward of goodness and justice ?
A. To be just and good.2
27. Q. But will we be just and good without future rewards and
punishments ?
A. If we will not, others will, and by the law of the Survival
of the Fittest theirs will be the kingdom and the power
and the future.
28. Q. Is the right increasing in the world ?
A. Through many oscillations backward and forward, man
kind is gaining steadily, though very slowly.
29. Q. Why are there still wrong and suffering in the world ?
A. Because we do not obey all the laws of Nature.
30. Q. Why do we not obey them ?
A. Largely from ignorance.
31. Q. Is it right that we should be punished for our ignorance?
A. Yee, if it is the only way we can be made to learn and
observe these laws.
1 The Categorical Imperative of Kant has been likened to a God made to order,
a “ deus ex machina.”
a “Do you seek any greater reward ?” (Epictetus).
�■
A NEW CATECHISM
Q. What is the thing we need most to make the world ana
ourselves better ?
A. KNOWLEDGE ; for we cannot do anything unless we
know how to do it; and, in order to act in the best way,
we must know what is for our highest good.1
Q. What else will knowledge do ?
A. It will employ the immense forces now stagnating in
ignorance, replace prejudice by sympathy, oppression
and greed by justice and humanity, war and bloodshed
by peace and brotherhood.
Q. What is the saviour of the world—the true Christ of
humanity ?
A. Truth! which is the most perfect knowledge we can
possess; and confidence that such knowledge may be
depended upon for the highest aims of life.
Q. What, then, is the chief end of man ?
A. To seek the supreme wisdom by the reason, and practise
the sovereign good by the will,2 and for the good of
humanity.
The aim of science is knowledge, the aim of art is action ; but we can neither
produce nor create without knowledge. It is equally irrelevant to insist that a
correct philosophy of life is unnecessary for the ends of Virtue. Thought or
Knowledge is the seed of which Conduct is the flower and fruit. It is true, how
ever, that our knowledge improves and increases as often as we “do” what we
“ know.” Charlemagne, in a letter to Sturm, the Abbot of Fulda, wrote : “ Although
action is better than knowledge, still it is impossible to act without1
’ ”
knowledge.”
a Giordano Bruno and De Tocqueville.
THE END.
■■ fe'VK
�
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
A new catechism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mangasarian, Mangasar Mugwiditch
Holyoake, George Jacob
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 80 p. : ill. (port.) ; 23 cm.
Series title: R.P.A. Extra Series
Series number: No. 6
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. First published in 1902. Publisher's advertisements inside and on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1904
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
E052
N466
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (A new catechism), 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
Catechisms
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/157740095afc258c0a555ee32ef4085f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fuSaQ5MPHRs5PvGLbAgSoXt1PqAB1z8vLU2yj0MXe4pAnI6Yhk-unrtfrd4kJPgKwt6a9MoakyUyTgv%7ESWHw7peetNg%7ErMrRXPvKuVzTXtrtZ%7ED3caMGOWtdc3C%7EkZpI20Fc7927LoGi3ArHWNvnL-h58Nfzbf3cj3IKnN1M7mqE8VKzm1YsAA0eKrpOObN4XFc-l5adw2wIKoPqDhWB3XKuE5-NlXKPrtZgwbrMZYbbGpHEVG013U4mwlTkKkj5pKqnZAIccZbomQr41EMJGBvyNsLynjv3ol4n-YkoNlwjtnZvcXURgBKXDvzgNNrmWsvxgVh9OLBAZwnMGPvYUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
680877d78e76053136385bdb7e402938
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL STCLTAR SOCIETY
[SECOND
EDITION
“ BREAKING
THE FETTERS.
A POWERFUL DISCOURSE ON RELIGION
PAST AND PRESENT, BY
(From a Photograph hy SARONY of New York).
COL’ONEL
INGERSOLL.
The great American Orator, Freethinker and Wit.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
W. H. MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, Stonecutter-St, London:
TRUELOVE, 256. High Holborn, London;
CATTELL & Co., 84, Fleet Street, London;
HEYWOOD & SON, Manchester and London ;
The BOOKSTALL, 73. Humberstone Gate, Leicester;
BOOKSTALL, Freetheught Institute, Southampton ;
WHEELER, KING & CO., Edinburgh, &c.
�PUBLISHER'S NOTE.
This Lecture is not a reprint. The major portion has been
■specially reported, and is now published for the first time. It has been
Huly entered at Stationers Hall, and all rights are reserved.
IlSHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
REFERENCE LIBRARY
No.
2 1 NOV 1991
Classification
�B 2- b 4
BREAKING THE FETTERS,
A LECTURE BY
COLONEL INGERSOLL,
Precisely to the minute the Colonel walked on the stage, and experienced
his usual cordial reception from the densely packed audience. He
gracefully acknowleged the warmth of the greeting, and after a slight
pause proceeded as follows :—
Ladies and Gentlemen,
AM well aware that whoever attacks the prevailing religious
opinions of his time must, in his turn expect to be attacked.
We haven’t yet outgrown the barbarism that argument can be answered
by personal abuse. The religious world of to-day has not yet outgrown
the belief that you have to answer every argument not by showing that
it is bad, but by showing that the man who makes it is bad.
°
It makes no difference whether the maker of an arithmetic turned out
to be a rascal or not, we should still have to believe that ten times ten
is a hundred. (Applause).
I expected to be attacked and I have not been disappointed. I had
always supposed religion taught men to love their enemies, or, at least,
treat their friends decently; but I never knew of a minister who ever
loved me, or who could forgive me. In return I only want them to act
so that I won’t have to forgive them. I don’t pretend to love my
enemies for I find it hard work to love my friends, and if I have the
same feelings towards my enemies as towards my friends, I have no
humanity in me.
I deny that any man is under obligation to love his enemies. I believe
in returning good for good, and for evil the doctrine of Confucius_ exact
justice, without any admixture of revenge.
I have made up my mind to say my say, I £all do it kindly, distinctly,
but I am going to do it. I know there are thousands of men who sub
stantially agree with me, but who are not in a condition to express their
thoughts. I hey are poor ; they are in business; and they know that
I
�4
should they tell their honest thought, persons will refuse to patronise
them—to trade with them ; they wish to get bread for their little
children ; they wish to take care of their wives ; they wish to have
homes and the comforts of life. Every such person is a certificate of
the meanness of the community in which he resides. And yet I do not
blame these people for not expressing their thought. I say to them ;
“ keep your ideas to yourselves; feed and clothe the ones you love; I will
do your talking for you. The church cannot touch; cannot crush ; can
not starve; cannot stop or stay me; I will express your thoughts.”
(Loud cheers).
All I ask of the Christian world is simply to tell the truth, but that is
a good deal more than they will ever do. There was a time when
falsehood from the pulpit smote like a sword, but now it has become
almost an innocent amusement. Lying is now the last weapon left in
the arsenal of Theology. They say I am in favour of too much liberty,
but I am only in favour of justice, liberty, society.
You can’t make men good by slavery; there is no regeneration in
the chain. You can’t make a man honest by tying his hands behind
him. Good laws don’t make good people, but good people make good
laws. There is no reformation in force or in fear. You might scare a
man so that he would not do a thing, but you could not scare him so
that he would not want to do it. (Laughter.)
A few years ago the people were afraid to question the king, afraid
to question the priest, afraid to investigate a creed, afraid to denounce
a dogma, afraid to reason, afraid to think. Before wealth they bowed
to the very earth, and in the presence of titles they became abject,
All this is slowly but surely changing. We no longer bow to men
simply because they are rich. Our fathers worshipped the golden calf.
The worst you can say of an American now is, he worships the gold
of the calf. Even the calf is beginning to see this distinction.
It no longer satisfies the ambition of a great man to be king or
emperor. The last Napoleon was not satisfied with being the emperor
of the French. He was not satisfied with having a circlet of gold about
his head. He wanted some evidence that he had something of value
within his head. So he wrote the life of Julius Cmsar, that he might
become a member of the French Academy. The emperors, the kings,
the popes, no longer tower above their fellows. Compare King William
with the philosopher Haeckel. The king is one of the anointed by the
most high, as they claim—one upon whose head has been poured the
divine petroleum of authority. Compare this king with. Haeckel, who
towers an intellectual colossus above the crowned mediocrity. Compare
George Eliot with Queen Victoria. The queen is clothed in garments
given her by blind fortune and unreasoning chance, while George Eliot
wears robes of glory woven in the loom of her own genius. (Continued
applause.)
The world is beginning to pay homage to intellect, to genius.
There is no slavery but ignorance. Liberty is the child of intelligence.
The history of man is simply the history of slavery, of injustice and
brutality, together with the means by which he has, through the dead
and desolate years, slowly and painfully advanced, He has been the
�5
Sport and prey of priest and king, the food of superstition and cruel
might. Crowned force has governed ignorance through fear. Hypo
crisy and tyranny—two vultures—have fed upon the liberties of man;
Prom all these there has been, and is, but one means of escape—intellec
tual development. Upon the back of industry has been the whip. Upon
the brain have been the fetters of superstition. Nothing has been left
undone by the enemies of freedom. Every art and artifice, every cruelty
and outrage has been practised and perpetrated to destroy the rights of
man. In this great struggle every crime has been rewarded and every
virtue has been punished. Reading, writing, thinking and investigating
have all been crimes.
Every science has been an outcast.
All the altars and all the thrones united to arrest the forward march
of the human race. The king said that mankind must not work for
themselves. The priest said that mankind must not think for them
selves. One forged chains for the hands, the other for the soul. Under
this infamous regime the eagle of the human intellect was for ages
a slimy serpent of hypocrisy.
The human race was imprisoned. Through some of the prison bars
came a few struggling rays of light. Against these bars science pressed
its pale and thoughtful face, wooed by the holy dawn of human advance
ment. Bar after bar was broken away. A few grand men escaped and
devoted their lives to the liberation of their fellows.
Standing in the presence of the Unknown, all have the same right to
think, and all are equally interested in the great question of origin
and destiny. All I claim, all I plead for, is liberty of thought and ex
pression. That is all. I do not pretend to tell what is absolutely true,
but what I think is true. I do not pretend to tell all the truth.
I do not claim that I have floated level with the heights of thought,
or that I have descended to the very depths of things. I simply claim
that what ideas I have, I have a right to express ; and that any man
who denies that right to me is an intellectual thief and robber. That
is all. (Cheers).
Take those chains from the human soul. Break those fetters. If
I have no right to think, why have I a brain ? If I have no such right,
have three or four men, or any number, who may get together, and sign
a creed, and build a house, and put a steeple upon it, and a bell in it—
have they the right to think ? The good men, the good women, are
tired of the whip and lash in the realm of thought. They remember
the chain and faggot with a shudder. They are free, and they give
liberty to others. Whoever claims any right that he is unwilling to
accord to his fellow men is dishonest and infamous. (Great applause).
In the good old times, our fathers had the idea that they could make
people believe to suit them. Our ancestors, in the ages that are gone,
really believed that by force you could convince a man. You cannot
change the conclusions of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism.
But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done.
You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say
he has changed his mind: but he remains of the same opinion still.
Rut fetter? all oyer him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the
�6
last gasp upon the body rack ; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will
be of the same opinion still.
I oppose the Church because she is the enemy of liberty ; because her
dogmas are infamous and cruel; because she humiliates and degrades
women ; because she teaches the doctrine of eternal torment and the
natural depravity of man ; because she insists upon the absurd the im
possible and senseless ; because she is arrogant and revengeful; because
she resorts to falsehood and slander; because she allows men to sin
on credit; because she discourages self-reliance, and laughs at good
works ; because she believes in vicarious virtue and vicarious vice—
vicarious punishment and vicarious reward ; because she regards repen
tance of more importance than restitution, and because she sacrifices
the world we have to one we know not of.
The free and generous, the tender and affectionate, will understand
me. Those who have escaped from the grated cells of a creed will appre
ciate my motives.
Most of the clergy are, or seem to be, utterly incapable of discussing
anything in a fair and catholic spirit. .They appeal, not to reason, but
to prejudice ; not to facts but to passages of scripture. They can con
ceive of no goodness, of no spiritual exaltation beyond the horizon of
their creed. Whoever differs from them upon what they are pleased to
call “ fundamental truths,” is, in their opinion, a base and infamous
man. To re-enact the tragedies of the sixteenth century, they lack only
the power. Bigotry in all ages has been the same. Christianity simply
transferred the brutality of the Colosseum to the Inquisition. Foi the
murderous combat of the gladiators, the saints substituted the auto defe.
What has been called religion, is, after all, but the organization of the
wild beast in man. The perfumed blossom of arrogance is Heaven.
Hell is the consummation of revenge. The chief business of the clergy
has always been to destroy the joy of life, and multiply and magnify
the terrors and tortures of death and perdition. They have polluted
the heart and paralyzed the brain; and upon the ignorant altars of the
Past and the Dead, they have endeavoured to sacrifice the Present and
the Living.
. .
Nothing can exceed the mendacity of the religious press.. With one
or two exceptions I never knew an honest editor of a religious paper;
if truth was red-hot it would never scorch th&m. (Laughter).
I have had some little experience with political editors, and am forced
to say, that until I read the religious papers, I did not know what ma
licious and slimy falsehoods could be constructed from ordinary words.
The ingenuity with which the real and apparent meaning can be tortur
ed out of language, is simply amazing. The average religious editor
is intolerant and insolent; he knows nothing of affairs ; he has the
envy of failure, the malice of impotence, and always accounts for the
brave and generous actions of unbelievers, by low, base, and unworthy
motives.
• x n x r 4.1,
By this time, even the clergy should know that the intellect ot the
Nineteenth Century needs no guardian. They should cease to regard
themselves as shepherds defending flocks of weak, silly and timid sheep
from the claws and teeth of ravening wolves. By this time they should
�1
know that the religion of the ignorant and brutal Past no longer satisfies
the heart and brain ; that the miracles have become contemptible ; that
the “ evidences ” have ceased to convince; that the spirit of investiga
tion cannot be stopped or stayed ; that the church is losing her power ;
that the young are holding in a kind of tender contempt the sacred
follies of the old ; that the pulpit and pews no longer represent the cul
ture and morality of the world, and that the brand of intellectual
inferiority is upon the orthodox brain.
Men should be liberated from the aristocracy of the air. Every
chain of superstition should be broken. The rights of men and women
should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership
children should be governed by kindness,—every family should be a
republic—every fireside a democracy. (Loud applause).
The doctrine of eternal punishment has been taught in the name of
religion, in the name of universal forgiveness, in the name of love and
charity. Do not, I pray you, soil the minds of your children with this
dogma. Let them read for themselves ; let them think for themselves.
Jonathan Edwards the dear old soul, who, if his doctrine is true,, is
now in heaven rubbing his holy hands with glee as he hears the cries
of the damned, preached this doctrine ; and he said : “Can the believing
husband in heaven be happy, with his unbelieving wife in hell ? Can
the believing father in heaven be happy with the unbelieving children
in hell ? Can the loving wife in heaven be happy with her unbelieving
husband in hell?” And he replies: “I tell you, yea, such will be
their sense of justice, that it will increase rather than diminish their
bliss.” There is no wild beast in the jungles of Africa whose reputation
would not be tarnished by the expression of such a doctrine.
Where did that doctrine of eternal punishment for men and women and
children come from ? It came from the low and beastly skull of the
naked savage in the dug-out. Where did he get it ? It was a
souvenir from the animals. The doctrine of eternal punishment was
born in the glittering eyes of snakes—snakes that hung in fearful coils
watching for theii’ prey. It was born of the howl and bark and growl
of wild beasts. It was born of the grin of hyenas and of the depraved
chatter of unclean baboons. I despise it with every drop of my blood.
Tell me there is a God in the serene heavens that will damn his child
ren for ever for the expression of an honest belief! More men have
died in their sins, judged by your orthodox creeds, then there are leaves
on all the forests in the wide world ten thousand times over. Tell me
these men are in hell; that these men are in torment; that these chil
dren are in eternal pain, and that they are to be punished for ever and
ever and ever! I denounce this doctrine to night as the most infamous
of lies. (Great applause).
The human race has been guilty of almost countless crimes, but I
have some excuse for mankind. This world after all, is not very well
adapted to raising good people. In the first place nearly all of it is
water. It is much better adapted to fish culture than to the production
of folks. Of that portion which is land, not one eighth has suitable
soil and climate to produce great men and women. You cannot raise
men and women of genius without the proper soil and climate, any more
�8
than yoii can raise corn and wheat upon the icefields of the Arctic sea.
You must have the necessary conditions and surroundings. Man is a
product; you must have the soil and food. The obstacles presented by
nature must not be so great that man cannot by reasonable industry
and courage, overcome them. There is upon this world only a narrow
belt of land, circling zigzag the globe, upon which you can produce men
and women of talent. In the Southern Hemisphere the real climate
that man needs falls mostly upon the sea, and the result is that the sou
thern half of our world has never produced a man or woman of great
genius. In the far north there is no genius—it is too cold. In the far
south there is no genius—it is too warm. There must be winter and
there must be summer. In a country where man needs no coverlet
but a cloud, revolution is his normal condition. Winter is the mother of
industry and prudence. Above all, it is the mother of the family rela
tion. Winter holds in its icy arms the husband and wife and the sweet
children. If upon this earth we ever have a glimpse of heaven, it is
when we pass a home in winter, at night, and through the windows, the
curtains drawn aside, we see the family about the pleasant hearth ;
the old lady knitting ; the cat playing with the yarn ; the children wish
ing they had as many dolls as dollars or knives or somethings, as there
are sparks going out to join the roaring blast; the father reading and
smoking and the clouds rising like incense from the altar of domestic
joy. I never passed such a house without feeling 1 had received a bene
diction.
Civilization, liberty, justice, charity, intellectual advancement, are
all flowers that blossom in the drifted snow.
I do not know that I can better illustrate the great truth that only
part of the world is adapted to the production of great men and women
than by calling your attention to the difference between vegetation in
the valleys and upon the mountains In the valley you find the oak
and elm tossing their branches defiantly to the storm, and as you ad
vance up the mountain side the hemlock, the pine, the birch, the spruce,
the fir, and finally you come to little dwarfed trees, that look like other
trees seen through a telescope reversed—every limb twisted as though
in pain—getting a scanty subsistence from the miserly crevices of the
rocks. You go on and on, until at last the highest crag is freckled with
a kind of moss, and vegetation ends. Yrou might as well try to raise
oaks and elms where the mosses grow, as to raise great men and great
women where their surroundings are unfavorable. You must have the
proper climate and soil.
A few years ago we were talking about the annexation of Santo
Domingo to this country. I was in Washington at the time. I was
opposed to it. I was told that it was a most delicious climate ; that
the soil produced everything. But I said “ We don’t want it; it is
not the right kind of country to raise American citizens. Such a
climate would debauch us. You plight go there with five thousand
Congregational preachers; five thousand ruling elders ; five thousand
professors of Colleges; five thousand of the solid men of Boston and
their wives ; settle them all in Santo Domingo, and you will see the
second generation riding upon a mule, bareback no shoes, a grape vine
�9
bridle, hair sticking out of the tops of their hats, with a rooster under
each arm, going to a cock fight on Sunday. Such is the influence of
climate. (Laughter).
Science, however, is gradually widening the area within which men
of genius can be produced. We are conquering the north with houses,
clothing, food and fuel. We are in many ways overcoming the
south. If we attend to this world instead of another, we may in time
cover the land with men and women of genius.
I have still another excuse. I believe that man came from the
lower animals. I do not say this as a fact. I simply say I believe
it to be a fact. Upon that question I stand about eight to seven,
which for all practical purposes is very near a certainty.
When I first heard of that doctrine I did not like it. My heart
was filled with sympathy for those people who have nothing to be
proud of except their ancestors. I thought how terrible this will be
upon the nobility of the old world. Think of their being forced to
trace their ancestry back to the duke Orang-Outang, or to the princess
Chimpanzee ! (Roars of laughter).
After thinking it all over, I came to the conclusion that I liked that
doctrine. I became convinced in spite of myself. I read about the
rudimentary bones and muscles. I was told that everybody bad ru
dimentary muscles extending from the ear into the cheek. I asked
“ What are they ? ” I was told : “ They are the remains of muscles ;
that they became rudimentary from lack of use ; they went into bank
ruptcy. They are the muscles with which your ancestors used to flap
their ears.” (Laughter). I do not so much wonder that we once
had them as that we have outgrown them.
After all I had rather belong to a race that started from the skulless vertebrates in the dim Laurentian seas, vertebrates wiggling
without knowing why they wiggled, swimming without knowing
where they were going, but that in some way begun to develop, and
began to get a little higher and a little higher in the scale of existence;
that came up by degrees through millions of ages, through all the
animal world, through all that crawls and swims and floats and climbs
and walks, and finally produced the gentleman in the dug-out; and
then from this man, getting a little grander, and each one below call
ing every one who had made a little advance, an infidel or an atheist
—for in the history of this world, the man who is a-head has always
been called a heretic.
I would rather come up from a race that started from that skulless
vertebrate, and came up and up and up and finally produced Shakes
peare, the man who found the human intellect dwelling in a hut,
touched it with the wand of his genius, and it became a palace
domed and pinnacled. Shakespeare, who harvested all the fields of
dramatic thought, and from whose day to this, there have been only
gleaners of straw and chaff. I would rather belong to that race that
commenced a skulless vertebrate and produced Shakespeare, a race
that has before it an infinite future, with angels of progress leaning
from the far horizon, beckoning men forward, upward, and onward
for ever. I had rather belong to such a race, commencing there, pro-
�io
ducing this, and with that hope, than to have sprung from a perfect
pair upon which the Lord has lost every moment from that day to
this. (Applause).
Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the human
mind. Men began to enquire by what right a crowned robber made
them work for him ? The man who asked this question was called
a traitor. Others asked by what right does a robed hypocrite rule
my thought? subh men were called infidels. The priest said,
and the king said, where is this spirit of investigation to stop ? They
said then, and they say now, that it is dangerous for man to be free.
I deny it. Out on the intellectual sea there is room for every sail.
In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing.
The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a
traitor to himself and to his fellow man.
What would have become of the people five hundred years ago if
they had followed strictly the advice of the doctors ? They would all
have been dead. What would the people have been, if at any age of
the world they had followed implicitly the direction of the church ?
They would have all been idiots. It is a splendid thing that there is
always some grand man who will not mind, and who will think for
himself. (Cheers).
Every man should stand under the blue and stars, under the infinite
flag of nature, the peer of every other man.
I will tell you another thing—It is not necessary to be rich, or to be
great, or to be powerful, to be happy. The happy man is the success
ful man. Joy is wealth.
A little while ago, I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon—a magnificient tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a dead deity—and gazed
upon the sarcophagus of rare and nameless marble, where rest at last
the ashes of that restless man. I leaned over the balustrade and thought
about the career of the greatest soldier of the modern world.
I saw him walking upon the banks of the Seine, contemplating suicide.
I saw him at Toulon—I saw him putting down the mob in the streets of
Paris—I saw him at the head of the army of Italy—I saw him crossing
the bridge of Lodi with the tri-color in his hand—I saw him in Egypt
in the shadows of the pyramids—I saw Inm conquer the Alps and
mingle the eagles of France with the eagles of the crags. I saw him
at Marengo—at Ulm and Austerlitz. I saw him in Russia, where the
infantry of the snow and the cavalry of the wild blast scattered his
legions like winter’s withered leaves. I saw him at Leipsic in defeat
and disaster driven by a million bayonets back upon Paris—clutched
like a wild beast—banished to Elba. I saw him escape and retake an
empire by the force of his genius. I saw him on the frightful field of
Waterloo, where chance and fate combined to wreck the fortunes of
their former King. And I saw him a't St. Helena, gazing out upon the
sad and solemn sea.
I thought of the orphans and widows he had made—of the tears that,
had been shed for his glory, and of the only woman who ever loved
him, pushed from his breast by the cold hand of ambition. And I said
I would rather have been a French peasant and worn wooden shoes.
�1 would rather have lived in a hut with a vine growing over the door,
and the grapes growing purple in the kisses of the autumn sun. I would
rather have been that poor peasant with my loving wife by my side, knitt
ing as the day died out of the sky—with my children upon my kneesand
their arms about me—I would rather have been that man, and gone
down to the tongueless silence of the dreamless dust, than to have been
that imperial impersonation of force and murder. (Great applause).
It is not necessary to be great to be happy ; it is not necessary to be
rich to be just and generous. Free labor will give us wealth. Free
thought will give us truth.
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than
the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when
you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge !
As long as man believes the Bible to be infallible, that book is his
master. The civilization of this century is not the child of faith, but
of unbelief—the result of free thought. (Cheers).
As long as woman regards the bible as the charter of her rights, she
will be the slave of man. The bible was not written by a woman.
Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She
is regarded as the property of man. She is as much below her husband
as her husband is below Christ. She is not allowed to speak. The
gospel is too pure to be spoken by her polluted lips. Women must learn
in silence.
In the bible will be found no description of a civilized home. The
free mother, surrounded by free and loving children, adored by a free
man, her husband, was unknown to the inspired writers of the bible
They did not believe in the democracy of home—in the republicanism of
the fireside.
If any orthodox clergyman will read to his congregation certain pas
sages in the bible that I will select, I will pay him one hundred dollars
in gold. There would’nt be a lady left in the church, and if a man
stayed, it would be to chastise the man for insulting the women.
Let us go back to the time when society was first formed a long
time ago. Blackstone and Locke have always taken the giound that
society was first formed by contract; that animals formed themselves
into flocks and herds by agreement. IIow did men originally come to
act together ? By contract ? No. By necessity ? Yes. When men
first formed themselves into society they were not equal to the beasts.
No man ever worshiped anything he did not believe to be his superior.
Let us get to the foundation of this idea of worship. When man
first looked upon a lion he saw an animal that had greater strength
than himself. When he saw the serpent climb without hands, run with
out feet, and live apparently without food, it struck him with awe, and
he felt the serpent was superior to him. When he saw the powerful
eagle flying against the storms, and gazing at the blazing sun, he saw
something that was superior to him. He didn’t know how they got
their living. He was filled with wonder and admiration, and the result
was he began to worship beasts, and made gods out of lions, snakes, and
eagles.
The story of the serpent in the garden, of Eden, and of the brazen
�12
shi’pent in the wilderness, are but reminisences of an old serpent wor
ship. Almost all kinds of animals were deified. The old Jews themselves
—including Moses—worshipped Jehovah in the form of a bull. That
accounts for “ the horns on the altar.”
They not only worshipped that God but many others. Even in the
time of Solomon and Jeroboam there were thirty temples in which
other gods were worshipped besides Jehovah. After men fouud out that
one animal by itself was not their superior, they began to make gods
composed of several animals. They took the lion for strength, the eagle
for swiftness, and the serpent for cunning or long life, making together
an animal that could not be killed.
Take the Mexican Indians. What is their name for God? Stone
Spirit. One who wore an armour of stone. Where did they get that
idea from? The Armadillo, that could not be pierced with their arrows;
something they could not kill. I want to convince you all, as we go
along, that we manufacture these gods ourselves, and every one of them
is a poor job. (Laughter).
After men got through worshipping beasts, simple and compound, they
begun worshipping man, the beastial qualities in man as well as the good
ones. The gods were first beasts, then men Right here let me tell
you that there is not a person in this house who can think of God only
in the form of a man. Why ? Because that is the highest intellectual
form you are acquainted with. (Applause).
You can’t think of God on four legs, or as a woman. Why ? Because
man made all the religions. We havn’t yet become civilized enough to
worship a principle. If we worshipped God as a woman, I should be apt
to join some church myself.
Now having traced the origin of god, the next question is, Does this
God interfere in the affairs of this world ? For upon this depends the
great question of human rights. The savage has always believed it.
When his poor hut was blown down he thought God was mad with him
or one of his neighbours. Just think of the infinite maker of every
shining world getting mad at this poor savage and pulling up his home!
I tell you this world has been mightily abused, and it almost makes
one die of pity to read its religious history.
When that train of railway cars went down recently in Scotland the
pulpit resounded with talk about divine judgments for violating the sab
bath. One of the passengers was a sailor coming home to see his
widowed mother, to take care of her in her declining years. Just think
of God killing that man for crossing a bridge on a Sunday. (Cheers).
Imagine some rosy-cheeked little boys in a boat on a Sunday fishing. At
the end of their lines are fastened pin hooks, and an infinite being de
scends and keels over their boat because it is a Sunday! Our fathers
had no idea of religious liberty in their time, and their descendants to
day have not. (Applause).
I can’t believe in a personal God in any land where there is injustice;
where innocence is not safe, where honest men toil and rogues ride in
carriages, 'where hypocricy is crowned and sincerity degraded. I can’t
conceive of this world being governed by an infinite being. If any
good has to be done man has got to do it. We must depend on our
�13
selves. We musn’t consider the lilies of the field—we must sow the
field and reap and harvest the crop ourselves.
I want to show you the extent to which the Church has gone. Reli
gion has never relied upon argument. Protestantism never gained an
inch of soil except at the mouth of the cannon or the point of the bay
onet. Religion of love has always been shot into nations. (Applause).
Who are the most warlike nations in the world to day ? Christian
nations. Does any one of you wish to be a millionaire and famous for
the rest of his life ? Then invent a cannon that will blow more Christtian brains into froth than the best cannon will, and your fortune is
made, and your name will become famous. In the last eight years the
national debts of Christendom have increased over six thousand million
dollars.
What Catholic nation is the most orthodox to day ? Spain. And is
there any meaner nation. What next ? Italy, the land covered with
brigands, every one of which carries an image of the A irgin Mary or
some favorite saint, and who crosses himself with holy water in the
cathedral before he starts on his brigand work. What next? Ireland,
poor Ireland, crushed beneath the heel of oppression for hundreds of
years. Why ? Simply because her oppressor was of a different re
ligion. It is religion which has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a
hand organ, and Ireland to exile. (Immense applause).
Which is the most orthodox Protestant nation to day ? Scotland; and
in 1879 there were twelve thousand women arrested for drunkenness.
What nation is the most infidel to day ? France. And which is the
most prosperous country in Europe to day ? France.
There is another Christian nation, Russia. Go with me to Siberia.
Who are these poor creatures drawing wagons, on their hands and
knees Girls of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen or twenty; what are
they there for ? For having said a word in favour of human liberty.
That is all. Do you blame the lovers or the parents of these girls if
they endeavour to send a bullet to the heart of the Czar who allows
such brutality ? In such a case my sympathies are closest around the
point of the dagger. (Cheers.)
I tell you that when I think of how much this world has suffered ;
when I think of how long our fathers were slaves, of how they cringed
and crawled at the foot of the throne, and in the dust of the altar, of
how they abased themselves, of how abjectly they stood in the presence
of superstition robed and crowned, I am amazed.
This world has not been fit to live in fifty years. It was not until the
year 1808 that Great Britain abolished the slave trade. Up to that
time her judges, sitting upon the bench in the name of justice, her
priests occupying her pulpits in the name of universal love, owned stock
in the slave ships, and luxuriated upon the profits of piracy and murder.
It was not until the same year that the United States of America abolished the slave trade between this and other countries, but carefully
preserved it as between the States. It was not until the 27th day of
August, 1833 that Great Britain abolished slavery in her colonies ; and
it was not until the 1st day of January, 1863, that Abraham Lincoln,
sustained by the sublime and heroic North, rendered our flag pure as
�14
the sky in which it floats. (Immense applause).
Abraham Lincoln, was, in my judgment, in many respects, the grandest
man ever President of the United States. Upon his monument should
be written: li Here sleeps the only man in the history of the world,
who, having been clothed with almost absolute power, never abused
it, except upon the side of mercy.” (Loud cheers).
Think how long we clung to the institution of human slavery, how
long lashes upon the naked back were a legal tender for labor performed.
Think of it! The pulpit of this country deliberately and willingly, for a
hundred years, turned the cross of Christ into a whipping post.
The Americans founded the first secular government that was ever
founded in this world, recollect that. The first secular government!
the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights
and no more ; every religion has the same rights and no more. In
other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, had the
genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword ;
that it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.
No government should be united with religion. You might as well
have a government united by force with Art, or with Poetry, or with
Oratory, as with Religion. Religion should have the influence upon
mankind that its goodness, that its morality, its justice, its charity, its
reason, and its argument give it, and no more. (Cheers). The religion
that has to be supported by law is without value, not only, but a fraud
and a curse. rIhe religious argument that has to be supported by a
musket is hardly worth making. A prayer that has a cannon behind it
better never be uttered. Forgiveness ought not to go in partnership
with shot and shell. Love need not carry knives and revolvers.
So our fathers’ said: ‘We will form a secular government, and under
the flag with which we are going to enrich the air, we will allow every
man to worship God as he thinks best.” They said, “ Religion is an
individual thing between each man and his Creator, and he can wor
ship as he pleases and as he desires.”
And why did they do this ? The history of the world warned them
that the liberty of man was not safe in the clutch or grasp of any church.
They had read of and seen the thumb screws, the racks, and the dun
geons of the inquisition. They knew all about the hypocrisy of the olden
time. They knew that the church had stood side by side with the throne ;
that the high priests were hypocrites, and that the kings were robbers.
They also knew that if they gave to any church power, it would corrupt
the best church in the world. And so they said that power must not
reside in a church, nor in a sect, but power must be wherever humanity
is,—in the great body of the people. And the officers and servants of
the people must be responsible to them as they derived all their authority
from the people.
Thus they did away for ever with the theological idea of government.
I thank every one of them from the bottom of my heart for their
courage—for their patriotism—for their wisdom—for the splendid con
fidence in themselves and in the human race. I thank them for what
they did and for what we have received—for what they suffered, and
for what we enjoy. (Cheers/
�15
What would we have been if we had remained colonists and subjects.
What would we have been to-day? Nobodies,—ready to get down on
our hands and knees and crawl in the very dust at the sight of some
body that was supposed to have in him some drop of blood that flowed
in the veins of that mailed marauder, that royal robber, William the
Conqueror. (Loud applause).
.
They signed the declaration of independance although they knew it
would produce a long, terrible, and bloody war. They looked forwaid
and saw poverty, deprivation, gloom and death. But they also saw, on
the wrecked clouds of war, the beautiful bow of freedom.
These grand men were enthusiasts; and the world has only been
raised by enthusiasts. In every country there have been a few who
have given a national aspiration to the people. The enthusiasts of
1776 were the builders and framers of this great and splendid govern
ment ; and they were the men who saw, although others did not, the
golden fringe of the mantle of glory that will finally cover this world.
They knew, they felt, they believed that they would give a new con
stellation to the political heavens—that they would make the Americans
a grand people—grand as the continent upon which they lived. (Great
Applause).
,
. . . . ,
Seven long years of war—fighting for what? For the principle that
all men are created equal—a truth that nobody ever disputed except a
scoundrel ; nobody, nobody in the entire history of the world.. No man
ever denied that truth who was not a rascal, and at heart a thief ; never,
never, and never will. What else were they fighting for ? Simply that
in America every man should have a right to life, liberty,, and the pur
suit of happiness. Nobody ever denied that except a villain; never,
never. It has been denied by kings—they were theives. It has been
denied by statesmen—they were liars. It has been denied by priests., by
clergymen, by cardinals, by bishops, and by popes—they were hypocrites.
We must progress. We are just at the commencement of invention.
The steam engine—the telegraph— these are but the toys with which
science has been amused. Wait; there will be grander things ; there
will be wider and higher culture—a grander standard of character, of
literature, and art.
The history of civilization is the history of the slow and painful enfranchisement of the human race. In the olden times the family was a
monarchy, the father being the monarch, the mother and children were
the veriest slaves. The will of the father was the supreme law.. .He
had the power of life and death. It took thousands of years to civilize
the father, thousands of years to make the condition of wife and mother
and child even tolerable. A few families constituted a tribe ; the tribe
had a chief; the chief was a tyrant ; a few tribes formed a nation ; the
nation was governed by a king, who was also a tyrant. A strong nation
robbed, plundered, and took captive the weaker ones. This "was the
commencement of human slavery.
I say it took millions of years to come from the condition of abject
slavery up to the condition of marriage. Ladies, the ornaments you
wear upon your persons to-night are but the souvenirs of your mothers
bondage. The chains around your necks, and the bracelets clasped upon
�16
your white arms by the thrilled hand of love, have been changed by
the wand of civilization from iron to shining glittering gold.
°
J
I believe in marriage, and I hold in utter contempt the opinion of
those long haiied men and short haired women who denounce the insti
tution of marriage.
There is no success in life without love and marriage. You had better
be the emperor of one loving and tender heart, and she the empress of
yours than to be the king of the world. The man who has really won
the love of one good woman in the world, I do not care if he dies in
the ditch a beggar, his life has been a success.
It is not possible for the human imagination to conceive of the horlors of slavery. It has left no possible crime uncommitted, no pos
sible cruelty unperpetrated. It has been practised and defended by all
nations. It has been defended by nearly every pulpit. From the
profits derived from the slave trade churches have been built, cathedrals
real ed, and piiestspaid. Slavery has been blessed by bishop, by cardinal,
and by pope. It has received the sanction of statesmen, of kings, and
of queens. It has been defended by the throne, the pulpit, and the
bench. Monarchs have shared in the profits. Clergymen have taken
their part of the spoil, reciting passages of scripture in its defence at
the same time.
Only a few years ago our ancestors were slaves. They belonged to
the soil like coal under it and rocks on it. Only a few years agcTthey
were treated like beasts of burden, far worse than we treat our ani
mals at the present day. Only a few years ago it was a crime in Eng
land for a man to have a bible in his house, a crime for which men were
hanged, and their bodies afterwards burned. Only a few years ami
fathers could and did sell their children. Only a few years a°-o our
ancestors were not allowed to speak or write their thoughts—tha? bein°a ciime. To be honest, at least in the expression of your ideas, was a
felony. To do right was a capital offence; and in those days chains
and whips were the incentives to labor, and the preventative to thought.
Honesty was a vagrant, justice a fugitive, and liberty in chains. Only
a few years ago men were denounced because they doubted the inspira
tion of the bible—because they denied miracles and laughed at the
wonders recounted by the ancient Jews
Only a few years ago a man had to believe in the total depravity of
the human heart in order to be respectable. Only a few years ago peo
ple who thought God too good to punish in eternal flames an unbaptised
child were considered infamous.
As soon as our ancestors began to get free they began to enslave
others. With an inconsistency that defies explanation, they practiced
upon others the same outrages that had been perpetrated upon them.
As soon as white slavery began to be abolished, black slavery commenc
ed. In this infamous traffic nearly every nation in Europe embarked.
Fortunes were quickly realized; the avarice and cupidity of Europe
were excited; all ideas of justice were discarded ; pity fled from the hu
man breast; a few good, brave men recited the horrors of the trade,
but avarice was deaf ; religion refused to hear ; the trade went on ; the
governments of Europe upheld it in the name of commerce—in the
�17
name of civilization and religion.
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of
Slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. (Cheers).
What do I mean by liberty ? By physical liberty I mean the right
to do anything which does not interfere with the happiness of another.
By intellectual liberty I mean the right to think right and the right to
think wrong. Thought is the means by which we endeavour to arrive
at truth. If we know the truth already we need not think. All that
can be required is honesty of purpose. You ask my opinion about any
thing ; I examine it honestly, and when my mind is made up, what
should I tell you? Should I tell you my real thought ? What should
I do ? Here is a book put into my hands. I am told it is the Koran ;
that it was written by inspiration. I read it, and when I get through,
suppose that I think in my heart and in my brain, that it is utterly un
true, and you then ask me, ‘What do you think ?” Now supposing that I
live in Turkey, and have no chance to get any office unless I am on the
side of the Koran, what should I say ? Should I make a clean breast
and say that upon my honor I do not believe it ? What would you
think then of my fellow citizens if they said : “ That man is dangerous,
he is dishonest.”
Suppose I read the book called the Bible, and when I get through I
make up my mind that it was written by men, a minister asks me “ Did
you read the Bible ?” I answer that I did. “ Do you think it divinely
inspired?” What should I reply ? Should I say to myself, “If I deny
the inspiration of the scriptures, the people will never clothe me with
power.” What ought I to answer ? Ought I not to say like a man :
“ I have read it; I do not believe it.” Should I not give the real trans
cript of my mind ? Or should I turn hypocrite and pretend what I do
not feel, and hate myself for ever after for being a cringing coward.
For my part I would rather a man would tell me what he honestly
thinks. I would rather he would preserve his manhood. I had a thou
sand times rather be a manly unbeliever than an unmanly believer. And
if there is a judgment day, a time when all will stand before some su
preme being, I believe I will stand higher, and have a better chance of
getting my case decided in my favor, than any man sneaking through
life pretending to believe what he does not. (Loud cheers).
As an excuse for tyranny, as a justification of slavery the church has ■
taught that man is totally depraved. Of the truth of that doctrine the
church has furnished the only evidence there is. (Laughter). The
truth is, we are both good and bad. The worst are capable of some
good deeds, and the best are capable of bad. The lowest can rise, and
the highest may fall. That mankind may be divided into two great
classes, sinners and saints, is an utter falsehood.
In times of great disaster, called it may be, by the despairing voices of
Women, men, denounced by the church as totally depraved, rush to death
as to a festival By such men deeds are done so filled with self sacrifice
and generous daring, that millions pay them the tribute, not only of
admiration but of tears. Above all creeds, above all religions, after all
is that divine thing,—Humanity; and now and then in shipwreck on
the wide, wild sea, or ’mid the rocks and breakers of some cruel shore,
�18
oi where the serpents of flame writhe and hiss, some glorious heart,
some chivalric soul does a deed that glitters like a star, and gives the
lie to all the dogmas of superstition. All these frightful doctrines have
been used to degrade and to enslave mankind.
Away, for ever away with the creeds and books and laws and relio-ions
that take from the soul liberty and reason. Down with the idea°that
thought is dangerous! Perish the infamous doctrine that man can
have property in man, Let us resent with indignation every effort to
put a chain upon our minds. If there is no God, certainly we should
not bow and cringe and crawl. If there is a God, there should be no
slaves !
. [As the Colonel left the stage, the audience rose en masse, and
waving their hats and handkerchiefs “ applauded to the echo that app
lauds again,” and as he returned and bowed his acknowledgments, he
was greeted with renewed enthusiasm.]
A Collection of Colonel Ingersoll’s Orations, including the
“ Oration on the Gods,” “ Thomas Paine,” “ Heretics and Heresies,”
“Humboldt,” and “Arraignment of the Church,” in neatly bound
limp cloth volume, price 1/6, or mailed to any address for 1/7, can be
had of W. H. Mobrish, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol.
BWmpsgate Institut»
�REFOBMER'S LIBRARY
Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, reprinted from the edition in Six
volumes with Memoir and Two Portraits. Two Vols., nearly 1300
Pages, post free,
VoltaIM’s Philosophical Tales and Romances, complete with Portrait
VolneT’s Ruins of Empires : and Law of Nature. Handsome Binding
Paine’s Complete Political and Miscellaneous Works, with Full Report of
his Trial for writing the “Rights of Man.” with Portrait
Paine’s Theological Works, including “Age of Reason,” Portrait
Rights of Man, with Trial, complete ...
Age of Reason, Portrait ..
...
...
..............
The Prophet of Nazareth, by E. P. Meredith, published at 12s 6d
The StBMENTS of Social Science : an Exposition of the Cause and Cure of
th© three primary Social Evils—Poverty—Prostitution—and Celibacy
2s 6d., or in Cloth
Mazzini. Life by Madam Venturi. The Duties of Man. Democracy.
Two Autotype Portraits and Apendix—published at 5s...
The Aristocracy of England, the Anatomy of Rank by William Howitt
published at 5s.
Analysis of the influence of natural religion on the happiness of man
kind, by Geo. Grote ...
Rabelais. The Works of. With a Life of the Author by W. Maccall,
Two Volumes...
...
...
...
•••
•••
•••
••• • •••
.New Religious Thoughts by D. Campbell, published at 5s.
Robert Owen’s Lectures on Marriage ...
•••
..
...
..............
Robert Owen’s Lectures on Socialism
Half-Hours with the Freethinkers, containing the Lives of 48 Freethink
ers, by Chas« Bradlaugh and John Watts ..
...
...
...
...
s.
8
2
2
d.
O
6
6
5
3
1
1
7
O
0
0
0
6
3 0
3 0
2 6
1 0
4
2
0
2
0
6
8
0
3 0
Published by E. TRUELOVE,
256, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON.
READ THE NEW SATIRE
“A
SUPERHUMAN VIEW
OF MANKIND.”
Price 2d.,post free from the Secular Bookstore.
75, HUMBERSTONE GATE, LEICESTER.
�COLONEL INGERSOLL’S WORKS..
“The Religion of the Future,” 2d.
Post Free, 2^d., or Six Copies for 1/(An immense Success). Eighth Edition Now Ready.
A brilliant example of the Colonel’s marvellous powers of word painting;,
combining passages of great beauty, mingled with scathing satire, and frequent
flashes of humor.
“Breaking the Fetters,” 2d.
Post Free, 2±d., or Six Copies for Is.
“Full of gems.” “ Equal to anything he has said or written.” etc.
(vide Press).
“ Farm Life in America-” Id.
Posi free l^d., or Six Copies for 7d.
“Delightfully fresh and vigorous.” “Interesting as a novel.”—Secular Review.
“ What shall I do to be saved.?” 3d..
Single Copy by post 3^d.
“ The Ghosts.’’
4d.
Post Free, f(d.
“ The Christian Religion.”
3d.
Post Free, 3fl.
“ Mistakes of Moses.”
3d.
Post Free, 3\d.
Col. Ingersoll’s Photograph. 6d.
Post Free, 7d.
Any of the above securely packed and posted to any address ©n
receipt of stamps, by
W. H. MORRISH, Bookseller, 18, Narrow Wine Street, Bristol.
THE FEEETHINKEB,
An Infidel Weekly.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Trenchant Articles, Racy Paragraphs, Good Jokes, Interesting Matter all round. Price One Penny. Order with your Reformer,—
Freethought Publishing Co., 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Breaking the fetters : a powerful discourse on religion past and present
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: Bristol
Collation: 18 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Notes: (Sold by:) Freethought Publishing Company (London); Truelove (London); Cattell & Co. (London); Heywood & Son (Manchester); The Bookstall (73 Humberstone Gate, Leicester); Bookstall, Freethought Institute (Southampton); Wheeler, King & Co, (Edinburgh &c.). "This lecture is not a reprint. The major portion has been specially reported, and is now published for the first time."--Publisher's note, p.[2]. Publisher's list "Reformer's library" (E. Truelove, 256 High Holborn) inside back cover. "Colonel Ingersoll's works" available from W.H. Morrish (Bristol) listed on back cover. Stamp on p.[2]: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library, 21 Nov 1991. No. A1 in Stein checklist (not identified or located by him). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W.H. Morrish
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N335
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Free thought
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Breaking the fetters : a powerful discourse on religion past and present), 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
Free Thought
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b67fdf5e58f35d35e2887cb1a6457d80.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VhbKdFZvBe8PxpZTjeSWfS6QujHF56gHfXPadqivelGMN6EI7ur49oYVZNLGU4psfLYZIhQcxRjKMJXRBo0BEYL1xpFkGc5sqaaTcwOsWeSHYjBgWjMjo4QTby2ZNa-s1N5F0OolM31Cw3CvQT4F%7E0-9Q6ZYgk35JhvxsbtmRKUqKIIXIn4bfZYxfH9vmIP8ahRuf6fGr11GfLyyEh4LbFaMf-dhtMxKMQ3lq4cbQs0W4ZxjS2I0q2XsSeKy-TgCRrCm37fz9Pvw-kPFoh1QNN6618456Iu1e-Z657qqSD0p8AWU5ReCKL%7EeyQLWCSIH6XloKZxcwIQkWOkI46IHgA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
18c0d24579a5e277d9a5c6b1b1fe128b
PDF Text
Text
CATHOLICS AND THE COMPARATIVE
. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS1
By the Rev. C. C. MARTINDALE, S.J., M.A,
In this paper we want to describe something which is
generally used as a weapon against Christianity. We
want to suggest how we may take this weapon into our
own hands, and use it in our own defence, and even for
aggression.
In our effort to be short and very clear, the omissions
of this paper must be so many that it cannot but be
superficial; its contents must be so elementary that it
may seem to many of this audience almost impertinent.
From this latter charge, at least, we hope we may stand
absolved.
The comparative history of religions aims, first, at
collecting evidence concerning the various religions,
ancient and modern, of the world, and at so arranging
the facts that a continuous account of each be formed,
showing its various phases from the day of its birth, if
we can discover that, to the day of its death, if that has
been reached. Exactly in the same way we might trace
the constitutional history of, say, Rome; watching the
scattered villages near the Tiber coalesce and submit
1 A paper read at the Catholic Conference at Manchester,
Sept. 22, 1909.
�2
Catholics and the Comparative
themselves to monarchy; watching the republic succeed
to the monarchy and the empire absorb the republic,
and the collapse of the empire in its turn, and its new
birth, in a new form, beneath the Popes.
When several religions have thus historically been traced,
they will be compared; they will be grouped on grounds
of likeness and of contrast; principles of evolution will be
sought, and laws of growth and of decay. They will be
shown, perhaps, to have followed a necessary line, curving
to an inevitable end. Thus, in the case of Greece, his
torians have a fairly easy task before them to show why
one tiny State developed towards democracy, another
towards feudalism, another into a military despotism.
Or the republic of Rome may be compared with that
of Athens, or of medieval Florence, or of modern
France, always in quest of the political law, the vital
principles at work in and responsible for events.
A philosopher will take the last step: just as he will
inquire into what the political instinct is in itself; why
men form States at all; whether one form of government
is better than another, or than all others; so will it be
asked zcAy men are religious at all; whether they can, at
will, do without religion, or even some particular form of
it; whether religions be connatural to man, or a gift
bestowed unmerited from outside, or an inevitable disease
of the soul.
Elsewhere, in philology, in anatomy, this method has
borne admirable fruit. To it, in philology, we owe our
knowledge of the genealogies of words, and, in conse
quence, of the relationships of races; in anatomy, it
imparts the consoling knowledge that a whale is not a
fish, nor a bat a bird, and much that is a good deal more
important. No wonder it has been eagerly applied by
students to that phenomenon, religion, which from the
beginning has so uniquely troubled or consoled mankind
�Religions
and agitated life. From, it are asked answers to the
questions: What is religion ? Has it always existed ?
and everywhere ? and inevitably ? How did it arise ?
Does it change? Can it die? What is the use of
it ? Has any form of it a special value ?' a unique,
eternal, universal value?
For some time it was the fashion to avoid drawing
comparisons between the Hebrew and the Christian
religions on the one hand and the various pagan
worships on the other ; though we confess that students
—far more often than they owned to it—had one or the
other of those religions in their minds as a tacit term to
which facts might be compared, or an assumed standard
by which they might be judged. However, while many
non-Catholic Christians have refrained, through a rather
timid reverence, from bringing the principles and results
of their research into connection with Christian tradi
tions, we believe that Catholics have been particularly
candid in doing this very thing. We shall have more to
say upon this later; meanwhile suffice it to recall that
the earliest research into the cult of the Persian god
Mithra, so popular to-day among unbelievers, was due
to a Catholic bishop; while in 1880 the Abbe de Broglie’s
lectures on the non-Christian cults at the Institut Catholique of Paris actually anticipated by one month the
first official and frankly sectarian lectures on the same
topic given by Albert Reville from the newly founded
chair of History of Religions at the College de France.
Cardinal Wiseman, in his Essays on Various Subjects
(ed. 1853, vol. i. p. 262 seqj, welcomes the principles
and aims of these investigations. While, therefore, our
absolute conviction in the truth of our own faith has
made us fearless in comparing it with others, the enor
mous change which has come over all, though especially
ancient, history in the last century makes it impossible,
�4
Catholics and the Comparative
even if we wish it, to keep our faith apart. To start with,
research in Babylonia and in Palestine, the translation
of Egypt’s hieroglyphs and Assyrian cuneiform, the
critical study of the Old Testament, have all combined
to set the religion of the Hebrews in perspective, to
leave it no longer hanging luminous in the darkness
a unique vision of worship and morality with an isolated
literature : for good or evil, the religion of the Hebrews
must perforce be cofiipared with the contemporary and
neighbouring Semite cults. So, too, archeology has
been transformed and made scientific, papyri have been
excavated, manuscripts discovered and criticized, in
scriptions catalogued, whole new chapters of religious
history round about the first few Christian centuries
rewritten, or for the first time written ; and all this has
placed the history of Christianity itself in a new light,
has given new angles of vision, new criteria, which
peremptorily refuse to that faith a privileged demesne
which comparative history may not approach.
We have already hinted that Catholics, in spite of the
overwhelming difficulties which have all over Europe,
and especially in this country, hampered their higher
education, never shirked the task these facts created for
them. We shall have to refer to this below, and in
particular to the most encouraging activity of the last
twenty years. This must not be forgotten when we
insist, as we cannot but insist, on the need of ever
greater activity if we are to make ourselves heard above
the Babel of non-Catholic voices which sound in the
ears of modern Europe, so eager to be educated.
They assure it, that though all else may be uncertain,
this at least is clear—that in view of the astonishing
similarities existing between the religions called revealed
and those not so described, there can be no essential
difference between Judaism or Christianity and their
�^History of Religions
5
predecessors or contemporaries ; that if those two cults
did not actually borrow idea and formula, symbol and
ceremony, date and purpose of feast-day and of fast,
plagiarize the pagan, imitate their enemies, at least
Christianity and Judaism, Roman, Greek, Egyptian,
Assyrian, Asiatic cults, in fine, all religions everywhere
and always are natural and homogeneous, are created by
the same human needs, witness to an identical craving
of man’s heart, are but the more or less successful
expression of a certain phase of feeling or level of
society, vary directly with these, and die with their
death. To quote a catalogue of names would be easy,
tedious, and useless. Nearly forty years ago M. Havet
preached this in Le Christianisme et ses Origines (Paris,
1871. Ed. 2, 1873-1884), and could say, “The thesis
which is contained in the present volume is so
thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of our time that
I should find it hard work to mention all the authorities
who support it. . . . All modern works touching on the
history of religions are driven to reach the same con
clusion.” In the Nineteenth Century and After of
October, 1905, Mr. Mallock preached the same doc
trine in his graceful and vivid way, giving to the Persian
god Mithra the exaggerated influence on the formation
of Christianity which M. Havet gave to Platonism, but
witnessing always to the same tendency to read out of
Christianity all that is supernatural, and to explain the
remainder as the product of purely natural forces. And
we may add that even those authors—Robertson Smith,
Max Muller himself, and many another—who are whole
worlds away from the violent hatred of our religion
which animates, say, M. Salomon Reinach, or even from
the active antipathies of men like Dr. Frazer and Pro
fessor Rendel Harris, and are willing indeed to see in
Christianity and Judaism something indefinitely better
�6
Catholics and the Comparative
than everything else, yet eliminate from them all those
peculiar elements of super-nature, grace, and special
revelation which, for us, cleave the essential gulf between
ourselves and the whole of the world’s religious history.
And I am anxious to insist that this is not a danger
for the expert only, the property of the pedant, a poison
brewed in secret and doled out to individuals. The
commonplaces of Comparative Religion have already
reached the man in the street; France and Germany
have long had their popular series of disastrous publica
tions ; Constable’s series of Religions is new but
welcomed amongst ourselves; it was in the Clarion
that I saw advertised, last December, popular Lectures
on the “True History of Christmas Day.” It was a
letter in the Hibbert Journal, signed by a self-taught
“ City Clerk,” who owing to. his studies had abandoned
his faith, which first threw for me a new and alarming
light on a subject that had already fascinated me. The
Rationalist Press Association is rich in destructive publi
cations of this sort. There are the heavier volumes of
Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P.—Christianity and Mythology,
A Short History of Christianity, Pagan Christs—heavier,
yet well-thumbed where we have met them in Free
Libraries—there are the Concise History of Religion and
Religion of the First Christians by Gould, and the cheap
reprints of Grant Allen’s Evolution of the Idea of God,
and Laing’s Human Origins which Mr. Clodd has re
vised. Idle is it to urge that this detestable literature has
been again and again refuted; who knows where to find,
who is willing to weigh, the magazine articles or learned
monographs which discuss details, or reaffirm lost
principles ? True science, sober, careful, and restrictive,
is always at a discount when compared with the breezy
and reckless iconoclasm of these writers; and alas ! it
is through spectacles supplied by them that their more
�History of Religions
7
serious readers will study the original texts they refer to,
of which translations are now so easily available. Not
alone, however, do the workers, for whom we think so
much nowadays, find their attention called to these topics.
Europe, and England far from least, is to-day tormented
by religion. Our railway bookstalls prove it. The
almost feverish interest in religious subjects at our
Universities proves it too. The themes we have heard
discussed at Oxford debating clubs, in daily conversa
tions, the two or three questions on religions set now
in all Ancient History or Philosophy papers, argue a
religious awareness that may, or may not, be consoling.
“There is hardly a man in this college,” a friend once
assured us—and he was an unbeliever, and a member of
a college which had a reputation, well, not primarily for
being religious—-“there’s hardly a man here who wouldn’t
be ready to talk religion if you cared to.” America, too,
seems likely to pass that way; and from Japan we have
heard quite recently of the crying need for lectures on
the history of religions to counteract, if it be not already
•too late, the chaotic influences of Spencer, Tylor, Frazer,
and many another, who are for explaining the origin and
appraising the value of religion as such, and agree in
little save in unsupernaturalizing Christianity.
The apostles of the new science take their vocation
seriously. In the preface to his Orpheus? the dainty
pocket and popular resume of his famous Cultes, Mythes
et Religions, M. S. Reinach, who was a President in the
Third International Congress for the Comparative Study
of Religions, held at Oxford last year, declares: “I
recognize most profoundly the moral responsibility I am
assuming in presenting for the first time a synoptic view
1 Published in 1909, already in its fifth edition, a manual in
French lycees, enthusiastically reviewed in this country, and
about to be translated into English.
�8
Catholics and the Comparative
of religions, considered purely and simply as natural
phenomena. I do so because I believe that the time for
this has come round, and that in this field, as in all
others, lay-reason must claim its rights.” Hence he ex
plains that he has made certain omissions, for, “ I hope,
nay, flatter myself, that I shall find as many readers among
the ladies as among men. ... I promise mammas (les
mamans) that they can give this book to their daughters,
provided always the light of history does not scare them.
. . . Some day I shall produce a more complete edition
for mammas (pour les mamans).” Yet what sanction
has this writer for his apostolate of dechristianization ?
He owns that the /o/^-theory on which his big volumes
and Orpheus both are based “ is but an edifice con
structed out of materials not substantial, not solid,
tested, verifiable, but out of possible or probable hypo
theses which reciprocally support and buttress one
another; a style of architecture familiar enough, for in it
card-castles are built” (C.M.R., iii. 88, 1908); while
at the Oxford Congress he confessed that totemism was
“ a hobby, and an overridden hobby too.” The weapon
may then be worthless, its use most clearly illegitimate ;
it matters little, if, in an evil crusade, it may work havoc
against Christ. “ I address myself,” he cries (C.M.R.,
1906, ii. p. xviii), “to Jews as to Christians, to
ignorant atheists, as to learned believers, to announce to
them the Good News of religions unveiled \Veniet
Felicior Aetas—A Happier Age is Coming is the motto
of Orpheus). That is why I publish these volumes ;
that is why I preach them in lectures before popular
audiences; that is why I flatter myself with the hope
that many years of my life will have been devoted not in
vain to this work.”
I should like to have been able to indicate the sort of
evidence which is exploited by those who wish to argue
�| History of Religions
9
the purely natural evolution of Christianity and Judaism,
or at least their organic connection with cults once
thought alien. From Babylonia and Assyria came, we
are assured, the Genesis-tales of Creation, Fall, and
Flood; the style of Israel’s prophecies and psalms;
the germ of its monotheism ; the very name of Yahweh;
from Egypt were copied its ark, many of its ceremonies
and vestments ; immemorial Semitic—nay, world-tradi
tion gave it its blood-ritual, its scape-goat; from
Hammurabi, says Reinach, “ God plagiarized ” the
Decalogue and the Mosaic law; from Persia are said
to have come its doctrines of angels and of personal
resurrection; from a slow elaboration of Greek philo
sophies, of later Persian worship, and of Syrian cults,
came Christianity, in itself a mainly social ebullition
into which elements of religion were from all sides
tossed. To Egypt we are to look for the origin of
our Trinity; almost anywhere for the Incarnation and
miraculous birth; to Asia for the yearly Passion-plays of
death and resurrection of youthful gods; to Mithraism
(lately grown fashionable far beyond its merits) for our
sacraments and hierarchy; to Isis-worship for our ideal
of Virgin-Motherhood; to the medley of cults run riot
- in the early Roman Empire for the ideas of sin, forgive
ness, penance, ecstasy, union with God, heaven, hell,
and purgatory which we believed peculiarly our own.
Even humility, even chastity, even charity and renuncia
tion are jewels peculiar no more, we learn, to the crown
of Christianity.
Since it would be quite impossible, within our limits,
even to indicate the principles whereby we should sift
true from false, or draw legitimate comparisons or em
phasize contrasts, we had better not elaborate this point.
Yet we may very briefly indicate the encouraging side of
all this movement. First, it really is not so modern as
�io
Catholics and the Comparative
it claims to be. In the very earliest centuries of the
Church it was insisted on. Celsus, Faustus, and many
another anti-Christian controversialist were quite aware
of the similarities and pushed them quite as far as our
modern theorists. Justin, Tatian, Clement, Minutius
Felix, Gregory of Nazianzos and Gregory the Great, and
other Christian Fathers were equally aware of them
and by no means frightened by them; indeed, they
built up whole new chapters of apologetic on them—
very entertaining chapters, too, at times. Chrysostom
and Jerome are astonishingly severe on the Jews for the
amount of paganism God was forced to allow them to
retain. Very gradual, indeed, Gregory of Nazianzos
owns, was the world’s conversion to Christianity; the
preparation for the Gospel was begun far back in
history; the substance of the Christian religion,
Augustine dared to say, was never lacking from the
very beginning of the world. Clement of Alexandria
taught that heathen systems got what good they had
from a plundering of the Mosaic books. Bishop Huet,
in the seventeenth century, thought that all pagan gods
were really Moses in disguise. But most of all, the
earlier Fathers liked to see, when pagan seemed too like
Christian, the mischief-making of devils, who, by an
ticipating or imitating Christian dogma or ritual in
pagan spheres, bewildered the faithful and prevented
conversions.
Still, in our own century historical and archeological
appliances are, as we said at the beginning, so much
more perfect than they were, that we have a far better
chance than the Christian Fathers themselves of getting
facts in perspective; and we may confidently expect
that honest research, even under rationalist auspices,
will shape the Comparative History of Religions into a
very valuable weapon in defence of Revelation. For it is
�History of Religions
11
now obvious that, to the study of Comparative Religion as
such, we have not, nor could have, any reasonable objec
tion. Those who imagine that we resent the inclusion
of the religions of Israel and of Christ among those to
which the comparative method is to be applied, are
entirely mistaken. It is true that we believe those
two religions—or rather, that one religion of which they
are the stages—to be unique because divine. Yet this is
no reason for deprecating comparison, but rather for
inviting it; and invite it we do, convinced that once the
facts are known, they will be found, as Aristotle pro
mised, to make one music with the truth. Not with the
premisses, not with the principles of this science, as we
have described them, may we quarrel, but only with the
hurried conclusions, or the hypotheses treated as verified
certainties which mar too often the work of non-Catholic
students.
That the result will be all in our favour is not only
assured by faith, but is warranted by even these few
years of experience. Thus, the new science, in its early
days, detected such seeming similarities between Bud
dhism and Christianity, that Cardinal Newman himself
was scared. The self-same science, progressing a little
further, ascertained not only that these similarities were
enormously exaggerated, but that they were often the
result of borrowings not by Christianity from Buddhism,
but by Buddhism from Christianity. Where Persia was
said to have influenced Judaism, it is becoming at least
probable that Judaism may have influenced Persian
literature. And speaking more generally, just as M.
Reinach confesses that his totemist theory was but a
card-castle, and is himself abandoning it more and more,
so we have seen all sorts of theories put forward in the
name of Comparative History of Religion as naturalistic,
but adequate explanations of the religious phenomenon
�12
Catholics and the Compardilute
collapse beneath the weight of new facts, added by the
very science which had accumulated the data out of
which those theories at first were built. Such is the fate
of Animism, Totemism, Magic, Social Instinct, Ancestor
Worship, Solar Myth, Astral Myth, which one after the
other professed to explain religion and rob Christianity
and Judaism of their claim to divine origin.
On all this we must renounce to dwell; we have but
space, here, to ask for four definite things. They are :
that Catholics should write more simple yet scientific
literature on this subject; that they should produce
works recognized as standard on it; that in the training
of professors or of men destined to be spiritual guides,
the thing should not be overlooked; and finally, that
there should be an apostolate of more than mere
literature.
First, the crying need of a popular literature has been
so often emphasized in Conferences like this, that we
need do no more than indicate Comparative Religion as a
topic ■ that needs not least to be so treated. Germany
started its simple series at Munster nearly twenty years
ago. Bloud, in Paris, publishes excellent simple lectures
in his Science et Religion series; Beauchesne, also of
Paris, has brought out three numbers of a series con
siderably more ambitious, on Buddhism, by Professor de
la Vallee Poussin; Islam, by Baron Carra de Vaux; on
the Religion of non-Civilized Folks, by Mgr. Leroy. The
Catholic Truth Society of England has, for a year now,
been publishing a modest series, which, composed of thirtytwo lectures, will form four volumes of a shilling each;
the first contains an introductory lecture, by the dis
tinguished editor of the Etudes, and others on the
greater religions of antiquity, that on the uniquely im
portant religion of Assyria and Babylon being by the
Rev. A. Condamin, an Orientalist of the very first rank
�History of Religions
13
in scholarship; that on Buddhism, an almost equally
important religion in view of the .constant attack made,
on its occasion, upon Catholicism, is by Professor de la
Vallee Poussin, a scholar of European reputation ; that
on China, by a missionary of twenty-two years’ experi
ence in that country; that on Hinduism will by be the
editor of the Bombay Examiner. The second volume,
which deals with the great ancient religions which
- bordered especially closely on nascent Christianity or its
more immediate ancestry, will have the exceptional
good fortune to contain two lectures from the pen of
His Lordship the Bishop of Salford, whose unimpeach
able authority is recognized far beyond this country.
The third volume deals with great phases or crises in the
history of our own religion; the fourth with the sects
that have broken from it, and their fate, and the two
great systems of Mohammedanism and Modern Judaism.
The paper on Eastern Churches, as well as that on
Gregory VII, is from the erudite and entertaining pen
of Dr. Adrian Fortescue. Aquinas has the advantage
of being written by the Very Reverend Father McNabb,
of St. Thomas’s own Order. Anglicanism and Wesleyanism are treated by ex-ministers of those bodies;
Presbyterianism is by Fr. Power of Edinburgh. But this
is not the place to insist in any detail on the qualifica
tions of the various authors ; we will only add that if this
series succeeds well, the Catholic Truth Society hopes to
be able to accede to the numerous wishes expressed that
a fifth volume be published dealing with those low
forms—Magic, Fetichism, and the like—held, by some, to
have preceded all religion, and with those “after-faiths,”
Spiritualism, Christian Science, &c., superstitions which
invade the human soul, once it has deserted genuine
religion, but remains restless after God.
Unitarianism, the nadir to which, in this country,
�14
Catholics and the Comparative
organized religion has descended, is by the Rev. G. S.
Hitchcock, long a minister of that body, to whose
initiative this series owes much.1
As for the big works, surely it stands to reason that
writers of short pamphlets should scarcely dare to claim
a hearing if they cannot back what they say by work
recognized as original and unimpeachable, by garnered
erudition which guarantees the unproved generalizations
of their popular productions.
It is M. Reinach’s
Cultes, Mythes et Religions which gives such
startling notoriety to his Orpheus; it is Harnack’s famous
Lehrbuch which guarantees, in popular estimation,
his What is Christianity I We will not labour this,
but merely indicate how disastrous it must be if, when
we are asked advice upon these subjects, we cannot—I
will not say, speak authoritatively ourselves (no one need
be scandalized if we disclaim the right to do that'}—but
if we cannot point to Catholic works as reliable
sources of information ; if we must send inquirers to
works of well-meaning non-Catholics at best. How
consoling is it, therefore, to see that in the Encyclopedias
—Dr. Hastings’s new Dictionary of Religion and
Ethics, for instance—Catholics are beginnning to find a
place as of right; the admirable work of Fr. Lagrange
and the whole Dominican School at Jerusalem, and of
Fr. Delehaye of the Bollandists, is winning an inter
national recognition; to the articles in the Catholic
Encyclopedia none need fear to refer the inquirer.
Third—and we speak here with extremest diffi
dence—a short experience has already made it clear
to us how suddenly the boys who leave our schools are
1 We would plead that the inevitable limitation of choice and
treatment of subject-matter implied by this arrangement, did
not seem to the Editor to justify the postponement of an effort,
inadequate indeed, yet, it is trusted, of immediate utility.
�History of Religions
T5
brought face to face with problems such as we have
dwelt upon, and how they are for the most part thrown
back upon sheer loyalty to a faith that cannot lie. They
cannot even remember that So-and-so at their school
had foreseen for them those problems, forgotten though
the solution then might be. We believe that here—and
in how many fields—the era of protection should yield
to that of preparation, and that this topic which is so
obviously most important can without difficulty be made
most interesting; and we would dare to hint that at least
some of its leading principles might find a place in those
higher courses of religious instruction which we long
to see.
Finally—and would we could dwell on this !—should
not a loyal exposition of this History of Religions be
equivalent to a splendid Apologetic
Max Muller (
himself declared that in proportion as the treasures J
hidden in the despised religions of the world were |
appreciated, true Christianity stood out only the more
unique and supreme. To know ourselves, we should
know them; when we see their best, our best appears J
better than we had dreamed. The presence and work
of the Holy Spirit, the mystery of sin, of grace, the 1
relation of the Natural and the Supernatural, the
transcendency of the Person of Jesus Christ, the
divinity and immortality of His Church, stand out
the better when we watch well the process of man’s
pilgrimage in universal history./’ May I refer with
gratitude and admiration to the lectures given in the
University of Manchester by the Right Reverend the
Bishop of Salford ? Such a work—the active supple
menting of the written by the spoken word, by an
expert, before a mixed audience—answers all our
prayers. And is it not noticeable, in view of the
close connection which the History of Religions has
�16
Comparative History of Religions? '
with Sociology, and the patronage accorded to its
worst extravagances by the Socialist organs of this
country, that these University Lectures should be
given in the same city which has established that
Catholic School of Social Science, from which we can
scarcely hope too much, so noble are the fruits it has
already borne ? We would conclude by recalling that
the Holy Father’s munificent gift of one hundred
thousand francs to Mgr. Baudrillart—a gift offered in
the hour of his poverty to the French Church in her
great need—was, with his full consent and approbation,
given to the foundation of a new chair of Comparative
History of Religions in the Institut Catholique of Paris,
while the foundation of a chair of Assyriology at the
Apollinare in Rome, and the place given to analogous
studies in the Pope’s Syllabus for the Italian seminaries,
proves the personal interest the Holy Father finds in the
cause we have been pleading.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Catholics and the comparative history of religions
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Martindale, C. C. (Cyril Charlie) [1879-1963]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "A paper read at the Catholic Conference at Manchester, Sept. 22, 1909."
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1909]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1546
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Catholics and the comparative history of religions), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Comparative Religions
Theology-Comparative and Non-Christian