1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9c652cab5acc21020a00bf6e860f3da7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HNf32-W89Z7j3puUgl-mOAmDVKW83k4CDaXKt00CaIxFMnMKZ0Bhj3AezR71tG%7E4rVoP4gq8Go77twEYIxBaP10Pui5-9qmZSvOSG6uYBJ-wy2bbckwXN07Q2F8sTWEDmeNnbsUnGuh6Heesaqd2mV8Z6coXIqS24z63alcPiqt-WctX9h4oeSvV8bjBd56yvXWdnt6iff-pJC6HfjPGqA7IOXqXpUoDgl1UzbFwJ88wzaP1WFmOTAJVsA8BYoWHeyd1NyxDpjnSj1yppz1M4UrD7Y%7EC8CVg7wN24MHqT9WfibBBi0MwWJWZfrMZhJRKOQBK9mxSRLnIeP2bHdg%7EVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0ddfc71daf147998f6559f8b65f030bf
PDF Text
Text
A
REVIEW OF A PAPER
{Written by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1 Good Words,'1 May, 1875)
CALLED
“THE FALLACIES OF UNBELIEF.”
BY
WALTER LACY ROGERS.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
'Price Fmtrpence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNBLL, LITTLE PULTENEY-STBEET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�A REVIEW .OF A PAPER
CALLED
“THE FALLACIES OF UNBELIEF.”
,HE Archbishop of Canterbury is well-known as
§
a man of ability and attainments, and still
more so as one of a liberal understanding, which
early training and professional associations have failed
to obscure, though they may occasionally bias. Any
arguments, therefore, of his in defence of the Church
over which he so judiciously presides must be full, not
only of interest, but of influence. It is, indeed, only
to be wished that a few more of those whom the
Church has a right to look upon as her champions
would, in an equally courageous manner, enter the
lists of a public magazine in defence of doctrines
which they affect to consider of more than vital
importance, and not confine themselves to empty and
unanswerable denunciations in coterie or church.
The Archbishop begins by giving a list of fallacies
by which, as he affirms, sceptics have ended in unbe
lief. These he puts into the syllogistic form, and
attempts to show where each fails, either through
what is called “ begging the question,” or the use of
an equivocal term, e.g.,
“ Nothing is to be believed which is contrary to
experience.
Miracles are contrary to experience.
Therefore miracles are not to be believed.”
Of this the Archbishop says, “Whether or no they
be contrary to the large experience of the history of
all times is the very question at issue, and is denied
by all who believe in them.”
B
�6
A Review of a Paper called
Well, but it is not denied, except as to the miracles
of our own Church. On the contrary, the premiss is
admitted by the votaries of every religion, but in
each case with an exception. The Archbishop would
not condescend to discuss the subject of winking
Virgins or St. Januarius’s blood. He would say such
things are contrary to all experience. Our Church
discountenances relics of all kinds ; but why ? Might
not the bones of a mediaeval saint have as much power
as the bones of Elisha ? Our Church declares that
miracles ended with the Apostolic Eathers, and have
not occurred since; but why? Cardinal Manning
would say, “ that is the very question at issue, and is
denied by all true believers.”
Again. “ Miracles are so unlikely that it is far
more likely that those who report them have made
some mistake than that the evidence for them should
be sound. This is the very point in dispute. The
evidence may be so strong that we can have no ground
for denying its accuracy.”
Of course it may be so strong as to overbear the
conflicting argument of inherent improbability, but is
this the case as to the miracles related in the Old or
Hew Testament ? The Archbishop does not say it
is, and shows his wisdom by refraining from doing
so. Ko evidence has yet been considered sufficiently
strong to establish a miracle. The stories of the
blind man cured by Vespasian, of the hundreds of
our countrymen cured by the King’s touch, are far
better authenticated than any miracles said to have
been worked by Jesus; and yet in such stories we
believe the narrators to have been wholly mistaken.
“Nothing is to be believed which is incapable
of scientific proof.
Christianity is not capable of scientific proof.
Therefore Christianity is not to be believed.”
Here the Archbishop points out the equivocal term
is “ scientific proof,” and goes on to say that if by
�The Fallacies of Unbelief.”
7
scientific proof is meant mathematical proof, nothing
but pure mathematics is capable of it, and that, unless
we acted every hour of our life upon probabilities,
the whole business of the world must stand still. Of
course this is perfectly true, but then he adds that, as
compared with the certainty attained by experiments
relating to physical science,
“The proof offered for the truth of the Christian
religion, when examined in all its details, produces
in like manner the highest moral certainty which
the subject admits, and therefore there is no real
difference in kind between the arguments on which
the conclusions of physical science are based and that
result of all our examination of Christian evidence
which pronounces the religion to be divine.”
This is a bold, straightforward challenge. It will
be observed that it does not put the claims of Chris
tianity so high as some of its professors would like.
It does not rely on inspiration, it attributes no merit
to a childlike faith, it implies no denunciation of
the iniquity of doubt—but says fairly and openly,
“ Feel, touch, and examine for yourself without pre
judice, make fair allowances and look at the question
from a broad point of view, and then I believe you
will come to the conclusion that Christianity is a
religion that a man of intellect may be proud to
belong to.” To this we shall reply later on.
But before he enters upon the task of proving the
position he has taken up, the Archbishop, with less
than his accustomed honesty and candour, goes out of
his way to attack arguments, which lead to a total
disbelief in the existence of a God, or the human
soul. These may or may not be fallacies, but they
are not arguments against Christianity—any more
than they are against Mohammedanism—and we pre
sume the Archbishop is not prepared to defend all
religions against the “ fallacies of Unbelief.” It is,
therefore, unworthy of him to say that “ it is as easy
�8
A Review of a Paper called
to conceive that the words of the Homeric poems
jumped together accidentally and formed the tale of
Troy, as that the plan of all this spacious universe,
with its millions of adaptations for great and bene
ficent ends, has never had a planner.”
It is the appreciation of “the plan of all this
spacious universe ” which travelling, and history, and
science have given to this generation, that has made
it so incredulous as to the story of its Great Creator,
degrading Himself to play in an obscure corner
of His dominions, and for an insignificant portion
of His subjects, an unrecognised and unsuccessful
part.
Reverting to the subject of miracles and dealing
with the so-called fallacy that “God acts by-fixed
laws, and therefore miracles are out of the question,”
the Archbishop takes the opportunity of defining the
miracle of inspiration:—
“ When He wishes to produce some great results in
the education and history of the human race, He does
so by raising up from time to time great men of high
intellectual or moral power, of commanding will or
deep spiritual insight. Such men, of course, do not
grow at random ; neither are they the product of any
fixed physical laws which we can unfold. ... It
seems that to send forth His messengers at intervals
is an observed part of God’s regular working, and it
is maintained that there is the strictest analogy or
even resemblance between such common commissions
from God as bear about them the marks merely of a
superior secular intelligence, and those other com
missions of a spiritual nature, which characterise the
inspired preachers of Revelation. Inspiration then
may be a miracle, but it is such a miracle as is per
fectly consistent with the higher laws by which the
Great Moral Author of nature may be expected to
act, and by which all experience proves that He is
constantly acting.”
�“ The Fallacies of UnbeliefT
9
By thus propounding a theory of Inspiration which
will include Pythagoras and Plato, Faraday and
Darwin, the Archbishop endeavours to disarm
opposition. But if we admit the truth of all this,
we must not forget that it is totally irrelevant. The
fallacy lies in the meaning of the word “ Inspiration,”
—and what the Archbishop means by it, is quite
different from what the Church means by it. The
former means nothing more than “ genius,” which
certainly does “ not grow at random,” neither is it
“ the product of any fixed physical laws which we
can unfold.” The latter means that God for the pur
poses of His Gospel did not “ raise up men of high
intellectual or moral power, of commanding will or
deep spiritual insight,” but men especially wanting in
these characteristics, with which, however, they were
subsequently and miraculously inspired, in complete
antagonism to their natural character. Jesus espe
cially thanked his Father that he had not revealed
his great truths to the wise, but to the simple; and
surely no description could be more unsuitable to
those whom Jesus selected as his immediate followers,
than calling them “ great men of high intellectual or
moral power, of commanding will, or deep spiritual
insight.” They are acknowledged in all accounts to
have been simple peasants, not only unlearned, but
incapable of being taught by the ordinary operations
of the senses what they had to learn. They lived
on terms of the closest intimacy with the Incarnate
God, they witnessed the most prodigious miracles
occurring over and over again, they listened while
Jesus spake in public as never man spake, triumphed
over all opposition, and put his adversaries to silence,
—they had the “mysteries of the kingdom of
Heaven ” explained to them in private by God
Himself—and yet at the end of three years they
had no idea of the real character of their Master,
no confidence in the Power which they had seen
�io
A Review of a Paper called
so often and so easily exerted. No human im
postor, no unsuccessful pretender in history, was ever
so absolutely abandoned by his followers as Jesus was
by the cowardly dullards with whom he had associated
during his ministry. That these men should after
wards learn truths which the evidence of their senses
had failed to teach them—that they should become
martyrs for a Sentiment, long after they had des
paired of the Reality,—that some of them should be
able to relate with unerring precision occurrences
which years before had made little or no impression
upon them,—that is the miracle of inspiration, as
defined by every party of the Christian Church.
Believe it or not, but we defy any one to say that it is
overstated,—and we hardly think it is one “ perfectly
consistent with the higher laws by which the Great
Moral Author of nature may be expected to act, and
by which all experience proves that he is continually
acting.”
So far from being the theory of inspiration held
by the Church, that propounded by the Archbishop is
directly antagonistic to it. For, if the writer of the
book of Joshua was inspired (as the Church says he
was), so also was Galileo (according to the Arch
bishop), and then we have the absurd spectacle of
one inspired preacher flatly contradicting another
inspired preacher. It is necessary to reject the
Archbishop’s theory, for upon this comprehensive
and charitable basis he proceeds to rear a fallacy
grosser than any he has attempted to refute.
“ Further, if inspiration thus holds its ground,
being we grant a miracle in as far as though
analogous to God’s ordinary manner of working, it
pre-supposes His direct interference for the spiritual
edification of His people, what shall we say of
other miracles—are they, a priori, probable or im
probable ? ”
So that if we acknowledge the inventions of Watt
�“ The Fallacies of UnbeliefT
11
and Arkwright, we are bound to admit the miracles
of Cana and of Bethany! To do the Archbishop
justice his own reasoning does not impose upon him
self, for, directly he begins to apply it, the weakness
becomes too apparent and he changes his ground
with awkward rapidity :—
“ Or, again, we would take the one particular
miracle on which all Christianity rests—the resur
rection of Jesus Christ. On the hypothesis that
God, acting in his usual way, desired above and
beyond all former precedent to instruct and elevate
mankind by the mission of the Incarnate Son, thus
giving a revelation of Himself similar in kind but
far higher in degree than any He had hitherto com
municated through mere human agents—such a
messenger with a miraculous commission must have
been in His whole history unlike the common sons
of men; for the reason of the case, quite inde
pendently of experience, would, we maintain, have
led us to expect that death could not triumph over
Him, therefore the consequent resurrection of Christ
and the miracles of His life were to be expected.”
Yes,—but if all Christianity (as the Archbishop
says) rests upon this miracle, it will hardly do to
rest the miracle upon a hypothetical Christianity.
This is arguing in a circle with a vengeance! As
this concludes the defence of the miracles, let us see
again what it amounts to. The Archbishop first
dilutes the theory of Inspiration so as to make it
applicable to matters of common experience. He
then dilutes the theory of Miracles till he brings it
down to the level of Inspiration, and thereby proves
that there is a sort of miracle which is not contrary
to experience. This may do for a certain class of
marvels which are not only superfluous to Christianity
but even obstacles to belief; but obviously it will not
do for those great miracles “ upon which all Chris
tianity rests,” because, if the foundation be explained
�12
A Review of a Paper called
away, what becomes of the superstructure ? So the
Archbishop gives up his former method of explana
tion, which, if true, should be universally true (for
there can be no grade in miracles), and by pre
supposing Christianity, argues that such miracles are
its natural effect. And concludes :
££ Thus we approach the positive historical evidences
for the truth of the Christian revelation and other
miracles from a vantage ground, assured that whereas
the fallacy we have been treating of takes for granted
that they are impossible, all reason and all experience
of God’s mode of dealing with mankind leads us to
believe that they are on the hypothesis a priori
probable.”
Next the Archbishop deals with the direct internal
evidences of Christianity, and states fairly enough
the objections of his opponents.
“ Many human systems abound in maxims of
pure morality,
Christianity abounds in these maxims,
Therefore Christianity may be human.”
But, says the Archbishop, Christianity not only
abounds in these maxims, but Christianity acts up to
them, and other religions do not. The writings of
Seneca abound in such maxims. Buddhism and
other Oriental Creeds vaunt the purity of their pre
cepts. But compare the civilisation of the present
day with that of Rome in the days of Nero the
pupil of Seneca, Europe with Asia, Christianity with
Mohammedanism, and see the difference ! This is a
very specious argument, and up to a certain age in a
man a conclusive one. Its strength lies in its appeal
to our self-conceit. Our blood, our climate, our har
bours, our coal, or other circumstances to which
natural philosophers attribute the superiority of
Christendom are advantages which confer no merit
upon ourselves. But if we have achieved our pre
eminence by the deliberate adoption, and shall main
�li The Fallacies of UnbeliefF
T3
tain it by the preservation, of certain religious
opinions, we have every motive that self-complacency
and patriotism can supply for adhering to the faith of
our fathers. But the day comes when the argument
is seen to be an illusion. Immorality has flourished
in high places at Rome and elsewhere, as rampantly
in Christian as in Pagan times. Even of the third
century, Mosheim, on the authority of Cyprian, Origen,
and Eusebius, says of the Christian Ecclesiastics that
“ though several continued to exhibit to the world
illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian
virtue ” (as did several Roman Emperors), “ yet
many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed
up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition, possessed
with a spirit of contention and discord, and addicted
to many other vices that cast an undeserved reproach
upon the holy religion of which they were the
unworthy professors and ministers.” Eccl. Hist,
cent. iii. Part II., chap. ii.
Later on, we may add, the maxims of Christ had
as much effect upon his infallible Vicar, Alexander
VI., as those of Seneca had had upon Nero. And as
for the comparison between Europe and Asia, Chris
tianity and Mohammedanism, if it proves anything,
it proves too much. If the divine origin of the reli
gion has made Europe strong, why did it not make
Asia strong ? The religion is Asiatic by birth, it had
at one time far more votaries there than in Europe,
and yet it yielded to the human institutions of
Mahomet. And why ? Because to other causes,
“We may add the bitter dissensions and cruel
animosities that reigned among the Christian Sects,
particularly the Greeks, Nestorians, Eutychians, and
Monophysites, dissensions that filled a great part of
the East with carnage, assassinations, and such detest
able enormities as rendered the very name of Chris
tianity odious to many.” (Mosheim’s Eccl. His.
cent. vii. Part I., chap, ii.)
�14
A Review of a Paper called
So that if Mohammedanism makes Asiatics weak,
Christianity must have made them weaker still, or
they could not have been conquered by Mahomet.
If any result is to come from such comparisons, it
must be by comparing contemporaneous events and
persons. Compare Constantine the Convert with
Julian the Apostate, and see which was the finer and
purer and nobler character of two men, each of whom,
in the early days of Christianity, made religion a
motive cause of their acts and conduct ? The Chris
tians complained of being persecuted by the Pagans.
As soon as the Pagans ceased to be strong enough to
do so, did not the Christians persecute one another
with ten times the cruelty and virulence which Pagan
ism ever exerted against Christianity ? Has any
religion shed so much blood as Christianity? Was
there in any Mahommedan or Pagan country in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries so cruel and wicked
an institution as the Holy Inquisition ? And, lastly,
are the converts to Christianity (when the mission
aries make one) in India, or elsewhere, better or only
more hypocritical than the unconverted natives ?
But, not content with refuting the fallacies of his
opponents, the Archbishop goes on to establish the
positive evidences upon which Christianity rests, and
these he affects to divide into two parts:—
I. The History of the Religion.
II. The History of the Books of the Hew Tes
tament.
[There is no valid reason for this division, because
the history of the religion is written in the books of
the New Testament, and nowhere else.]
“All the fundamental facts and doctrines which
constitute Christianity are to be found embodied in
the Apostles’ Creed, and this was the religion whose
professors Nero tortured in the Amphitheatre, and
about whom Pliny consulted Trajan.”
Surely this is a most unwarrantable assumption.
�“ The Fallacies of UnbeliefF
15
The only real authority for the torturing of the Chris
tians at Rome by Nero is the disputed passage in
Tacitus—and if this be admitted as genuine it will be
clear that the Apostles’ Creed had nothing to do with
the persecution. Pliny’s letter is still more question
*
able ; and the passage in Josephus (which would really
be most valuable) is not even claimed as evidence by
the Archbishop. Where, then, do we get any trace
of the “facts and fundamental doctrines of the
Apostles’ Creed ” at this time ? And it must not be
forgotten that the Romans did not in the days of the
early Emperors (if ever) persecute for religious
opinions. On the contrary, every form of religion was
represented and practised without molestation at Rome.
By the time of Decius, Christianity had become the
badge of a political party.
“ No one nowadays, I suppose, will doubt that
Christ lived and died, and that his followers imme
diately afterwards spread throughout the Roman
Empire that Christianity of which the basis is the
doctrine, life, and influence of one Jesus who was
dead, but whom they affirmed to be alive. So that
in the lifetime of those who had been companions of
Christ you have Christianity fully equipped in all its
simplicity and its fullness just as we have it now, and
we defy all adverse critics to give any other satisfac
tory account of its origin than that which assumes
its truth. This is what we mean by the historical
evidence for the truth of Christianity independently
of any critical examination of its books.”
But with all deference to the Archbishop, this is
not “historical evidence for the truth of Christianity.”
It is simply the witness which Christianity bears of
itself, and that we know, on authority older than the
* It may be said that this passage in Tacitus is confirmed by one
in Suetonius (Nero 16.) But this latter is of still more doubtful
character, and only says of the doctrine of Christianity that it was a
“ mischievous superstition.” What is there to prove that this meant
the Apostles’ Creed ?
�16
A Review of a Paper called
Archbishop’s, is not to be trusted. So far we have
not advanced a step on this branch of the subject,
which, as we said before, cannot be divided. Nor
has it been really divided, for all now depends upon
the authenticity of the books of the New Testament;
if this can be proved by internal testimony, the battle
may still be won. How does the Archbishop do it ?
“ There are twenty-seven books in the New Testa
ment ; there is not one of them that does not teach
distinctly or by direct implication the Christianity of
the Apostles’ Creed. If any one of them, therefore,
can be proved to be genuine and authentic, we have
the historical basis which we desire. Christ rose
from the dead and is now living in heaven according
to every one of them.”
Perhaps so, but the Apostles’ Creed is a good deal
more than this; and as to the twenty-seven books, if
any one can be proved to be authentic, we shall have
the historical basis which we desire of the contents of
that book, but of no more. The meaning of the next
paragraph we are wholly at a loss to understand :—
“ God has indeed given us many books in the Sacred
Canon for our greater security and for the more com
plete enforcement of the truth ; but if He had given
us only one we should have been in much the same
condition as to our faith which we now occupy.”
This would seem to assert that, if all the Canon
of the New Testament had either not been written or
not come down to us, with the exception of (let us
say) the Epistle of Jude or of James, we should have
our Christian religion, including the Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds, as we have it now. Surely the
Archbishop cannot mean this; but we can suggest
no other explanation.
Finally, with a view to establish the historical
basis which we desire, he recommends any person to
study the subject for himself, and, “ taking Paley or
Gardner for his guide ” (that is with a foregone con-
�“ The Fallacies of Unbelief.”
17
elusion in view), commence with the Epistles to the
Corinthians and so go on from book to book until he
at last finds that the cable of proof consists of
twenty-seven separate cords, every one of which is
sufficient in itself, and all of which together produce
a chain which cannot be broken. If this would be
the result it would be entirely owing to the guidance
of Paley or Lardner. For if an impartial student
undertakes the investigation, beginning with the two
Epistles to the Corinthians and that to the Galatians
(which all allow to be equally genuine), he will find
no recognition of the Gospel histories as we have
them, no mention, indeed, of any incident in the life
of Jesus before the institution of the Supper. No
marvellous birth, no miracles, indeed, of any sort.
The Resurrection of the Epistles is quite a different
thing from the Return to Life of the Gospels. The
former is only the logical conclusion of the doctrine
of the immortality of the soul (such as most people
accept) and was proved by the visionary Appearances,
one of which was to Paul himself. Most people say
of a beloved friend who has died that “ he has gone
to Heaven,” and occasionally they fancy that he has
“ appeared ” again on earth. So Paul says (1 Cor.
xv. 16), “If the dead rise not again, neither has
Christ risen.” There is no carnal resurrection implied
in one case more than the other. It is impossible to
believe that Paul knew of the story as told in the
Gospels, the whole of which was material to the
doctrine he was preaching, when he never alludes to
it. And as of the life after the Crucifixion, so also
of the life before it: if Paul knew the Gospels, and
thought the story immaterial, why should it be
material now ? Christianity as written to the Corin
thians is a simple creed enough, and we defy the
most acute theologian to prove the Apostles’ Creed
from it.
We need not go over the oft-trodden ground of
�18
A Review of a Paper called
comparison between the Epistle to the Galatians and
the Acts of the Apostles. Not only are the statements
of the one as to the conversion of Paul contradictory
of those in the other (and Paul in his own account
takes a solemn oath of the truth of what he says),
but the state of the early Church is quite different in
the two accounts. In one, Paul is the humble
assistant, whereas, according to the Epistle, he boasts
of his own independence. Here, too, if Paul had
ever heard of the Gospels or the stories told in the
Gospels, how can we account for his impiety and
presumption in withstanding to the face the Rock
which Christ had selected to build His Church upon,
and sneering at the Beloved Disciple and the Lord’s
Brother (Gal. ii. 6). Surely he never could have
known these men’s histories, or the grandeur which
was in store for them—that they had lived in
intimate companionship for three years with the Incar
nate God, an experience which must have ever made
them infinitely his superiors in their common
Master’s business—and that in the day of judgment
they would sit on thrones judging Paul’s countrymen,
and perhaps Paul himself.
So far, then, from finding that the admission of the
truth of one or two books solves the whole difficulty,
we are obliged to confess that it is only then that
the difficulty becomes insuperable; and that if we
intend to believe the New Testament as a whole,
we must not acknowledge any book in particular to
be genuine or authentic. And this is the only way in
which the belief of thinking, reading people is main
tained. They find contradictory accounts in different
books of the Canon—if any one were proved to be
genuine and authentic, of course the others would be
pro tanto untrue, and the writers untrustworthy. But
until this proof has been effected, the readers are not
bound to disbelieve any, and can fancy they believe
them all.
�el The Fallacies of UnbeliefF
19 •
As a building cannotsafely be erected exceeding in its
upper stories the area of its foundation, so it is impos
sible to build the Gospels upon the narrower area of the
Epistles to the Corinthians. Suppose it be proved,
that Rome was at one time governed by kings, and
that Tarquinius Superbus is a historical character,
are we, therefore, to believe in Romulus and Remus ?
And here we may return to the argument that because
Christianity is incapable of scientific proof, therefore
it is not to be believed, and endeavour to show what
that argument (if such an argument ever was used)
means. We cannot suppose the Archbishop has
invented it, but he certainly has misstated it. We
believe the meaning to be this. Every theory which
claims our belief, must stand examination by the most
critical tests that the science of the day can apply to
the class of theories to which it belongs. Thus the
statement that the two sides of a triangle are greater
than the thirdis an abstract one, and capable of absolute
demonstration, andupon such alone it is to be accepted.
That the circumference of a circle bears a given pro
portion to the four sides of the greatest square that
can be inscribed in it, is highly probable, and is con
trary to no known conclusion, but until it can be
proved mathematically it must remain a theory.
Mechanical theories are capable of proof up to a
certain point, but due allowances must be made for
the imperfection of materials, atmospheric influence,
Ac. Lower down still, the guilt or innocence of a
prisoner always depends upon probability. It is not
possible to prove to demonstration that the witnesses
are not wholly mistaken or perjured. And, there
fore, in such cases our sense of justice is satisfied by
probability, when that probability amounts to a certain
standard, which is said to carry with it moral con
viction. In the history of events long past even this
moral conviction is always difficult and sometimes
impossible to establish, and to properly sift and
�20
A Review of a Paper called
arrange his materials so as to get nearest to it, is the
duty of an historian, and the value of every history
depends upon the way in which this duty is performed.
No one ever supposed the doctrines of Christianity
capable of mathematical demonstration; no one ever
supposed them capable of the amount of proof attained
by mechanical experiments. But the story of Chris
tianity professes to be an historical fact, and before it
be accepted it must stand the test of historical
criticism. Its inherent probability upon which the
Archbishop of Canterbury lays so much stress is the
inherent probability of an incarnation of Vishnu
and no more. The wonders might have been done in
India as well as in Palestine, as they might have
been done in Tyre and Sidon, instead of Bethsaida
and Chorazin. But the man Jesus, of wonderful
birth, of marvellous power, of astounding eloquence,
and of miraculous end, claims to be an historical
character, and we are not bound to accept about him.
stories upon less evidence than we should the same
stories about Julius Caesar. Our materials are ample
enough. We have four more or less complete
biographies, and these profess to be by contemporary
writers, who had the very best opportunities of seeing
and knowing all that they record.
Now there are certain rudimentary canons of
internal evidence by which the credibility of all history
is judged, and by which alone it can be fairly judged.
I. The historian should feel and show that he looks
upon in a different light:
(a) Events which he had witnessed himself.
(/3) Events of which he had heard immediately
after they had happened from those who
had seen them.
(y) Events which he had taken from some other
account, or derived from far-fetched tra
dition.
II. In every series of events there are certain
�“ The Fallacies of Unbelief”
21
features more material than the rest, and however
often the story be told these would never be omitted.
III. But in all histories of the same events each
historian would make a point of relating what passed
under his own eyes exclusively, and also what he
alone had some exceptional opportunities of knowing
from other sources.
Where either or both of the first two canons is or
are found to be violated, the critic concludes that the
history is not authentic; and, if the last be not
observed, that the history is not genuine.
Now to apply these tests to the Gospels:—
I. The stories of the Baptist’s nativity, the dream
which sent the Magi home, the Temptation in the
Wilderness, the speeches of members of the Sanhe
drim, the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, the
message from Pilate’s wife, are told in exactly the
same tone as the public discourses or open-air miracles.
II. By far the most striking miracle worked by
Jesus was that of raising Lazarus from the dead. It is
most material to the story because his career turns upon
it. From that time the ecclesiastical authorities made
up their minds that he should die. It was looked upon
by Jesus himself as the great miracle of his career.
Formerly, when-his mother had suggested a display
of his power, he had rebuked her; but now his hour
was come. On this occasion only he prepared the
spectators for the result. He began by offering a
prayer, simply to create an effect, and then worked
the miracle in a purposely theatrical manner. And
why not ? If his power and nature were to be proved
by works of this sort, one can understand their being
done in as public and effective a style as possible, so as to
reach and convince the greatest numbers. But so little
did three of the Evangelists think of the performance
or their Master’s motives that they never mentioned
the miracle ! The Incarnation and Godhead of Christ
depend upon the circumstances attending the Concep-
�22
A Review of a Paper called
tion. How can we account for two of the Evange
lists omitting them altogether ?
III. There were Apostles present on certain occa
sions when there were no other witnesses, for instance,
at the grand climax of the visible Ascension. The
event taking place either from Bethany or the Mount
of Olives, within three miles of the scene of Jesus’s
degradation and death, was the most complete evi
dence of his triumph, not only over the grave, but
over enmity and misrepresentation of all kinds. All
the Apostles were present, and the evidence of their
eyes was confirmed by the appearance and address of
two supernatural messengers who appeared for the
express purpose of assuring them not only of the
reality of their loss, but of the eventual triumph of
all true believers by the return of Jesus from Heaven.
Two of these eye-witnesses wrote Gospels, and
neither mentions the Ascension ! It is impossible to
suppose that Matthew considered the Resurrection
conclusive, because he expressly says it was not
(Matthew xxviii. 17). Again, there was an inner knot
of three select Apostles, who, on three celebrated
occasions, viz., the raising of Jairus’s daughter, the
Transfiguration, and the Agony in the Garden, were
allowed to be present to the exclusion of the larger
body. One of these select witnesses wrote a Gospel,
and in that Gospel alone is there no mention of any
one of those three scenes ! Lastly, there was one
Evangelist who had exceptional opportunities of
hearing all the history of the nativity and childhood,
from the only person competent to give it, and
that was the disciple, who, from the hour of the Cru
cifixion, took Jesus’s mother to his own home. How
can we account for his silence on these subjects ? Is
it conceivable, that after the death of him, whose
memory formed so close andbindingatie between these
two, his wonderful birth and boyhood should not
have been the topics of frequent conversation ? The
�“ The Fallacies of UnbeliefT
23
importance of the Mother of Jesus was a plant of
post-Evangelistic growth, but it is surprising to find
her adopted son knowing and saying nothing of her.
It is now universally believed that her name was
Mary. Surely John ought to have known what her
name was. But he never calls her by any, and
implies that her name was something else, for he
says that her sister was called Mary (John xix. 25),
We have thus endeavoured to show what is meant
by saying that Christianity is incapable of scientific
proof. It is apprehended that no evidence could
survive such a failure under tests which, in any
similar case, would be considered indispensable ; but
it may be added that, when more closely examined,
these four independent biographies turn out to be
merely disjointed statements (unsupported by exoteric
testimony or any sort of evidence beyond that con
tained in their own records) written we know not
when, by whom, or in what language. In some
places these histories agree so exactly that it is
impossible not to believe that they have been copied
from one another or from some common source. In
others they disagree so entirely that it is impossible
but that some of them must be false. They contain
statements of history that are not true, predictions
which have not been fulfilled. The writers of them
believed that the course of events was ordered by
Providence so that certain old prophecies (many of
which they misunderstood) might be fulfilled. They
never claim for themselves the credit of eye-witnesses,
*
and when they refer to any authority at all, it is
merely that of oral tradition. The belief in miracles
held by them is not merely in miracles worked
by an instrument of God for a limited period and a
special purpose, but in thaumaturgical exploits by
* It is hardly necessary to point out that in John xix. 35 andxxi. 24,
the claim is not made by the writer. Indeed the abrupt change of
persons proves the passage in each case to be a clumsy interpolation.
�24
il 'The Fallacies of Unbelief. ”
casual performers for purposes utterly out of propor
tion to the power exhibited. They lived and wrote
in an age which abounded, in what is now called
literary forgery; and works on the same subject as
their own, written in the same style, and containing
much of the same matter, have always been considered
spurious, and are not supposed to possess a word of
independent authenticity.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the representative
of a numerous class of persons who try sohard to believe,
because they are persuaded that with Christianity
(be it ever so little true) is involved all that is good
and noble in the world. They are men of little faith
who cannot understand that He who created the
Universe may very safely be left to take care of it,
and that His ends cannot be forwarded by our little
fables, however good may be their moral. The world
goes forward—slowly it may be, but surely—getting
wiser, and therefore better ; while Christianity clings
like a fly to its wheel, sometimes at the top, some
times at the bottom, but always believing itself to be
the propelling power of the whole machinery. The
reverse of this, however, is true. As the Man is, so
is his Religion. Where men are totally uneducated,
Christianity is a mere fetish worship of crosses and
relics, and, as the intellectual power of its votaries
rises, Christianity is found to discard one absurdity
after another, until it emerges at last a pure Theism,
the love of One Father by all the members of one
Family.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYXEI.I., LITTLE PULTENET STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A review of a paper (written by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 'Good Words', May, 1875) called "The Fallacies of Unbelief."
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rogers, Walter Lacy
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT137
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 (A review of a paper (written by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 'Good Words', May, 1875) called "The Fallacies of Unbelief."), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Archibald Campbell Tait
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts