1
10
6
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/48a98118183c3732caaa4d85c6b9474a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YvnW2vidrqGmQXQEfo55kIb3DjaPN2CJlNOchJbSOCk2RNcj%7EPQUlyiuefcGVLHvkdbvig6FdjI2HvM-%7EgMD8d8wTi0xVYo1hDcGiJKD1yvYMC%7EjzAzyo8IS6hLNky7Fnw5d8LhgLZKrrBIjNigz2fV2WuoxsZXQCvdAJIDsMFd6FpQITy2XoQ4FVKC7zkhh15irSZC76XV4IPHCXY7xqHXRVnid1Hv2CmFnUU3VJ0MusQXgfduuB9EWkNXC--NAUUD1noOdoCRcJnn0Wv8iAAH-PFzEEXeCASeybXXnR08H9Tf3LnU7pqLegCK1ggJ2FzA5uaQuzpKqEig4QoJwSA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c9c23f58679b174acb5f8ea32a583d91
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������������
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
Debate on the Christian evidences : a verbatim report of the two nights' discussion between Mr Charles Watts & B.H. Cowper, Esq., held in the school-room of the Congregational Chapel, Stratford, on Thursdays, Feb. 16 & 23, 1871
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Cowper, B.H.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: vi, 58 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N664
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rationalism
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 (Debate on the Christian evidences : a verbatim report of the two nights' discussion between Mr Charles Watts & B.H. Cowper, Esq., held in the school-room of the Congregational Chapel, Stratford, on Thursdays, Feb. 16 & 23, 1871), 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
Apologetics
Christian Evidence Society
Christianity
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c7cc76be77985add8cdc445c6dfeb725.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BBhs%7EkLrPGKrAWSQXRpkK5k-EJViT9gaoybT0wGamRqCwlgV9v7ef4fW9kc1SkKzpnHSlj1BZEVVkiOIf76cCTm-KOHnq5gnncQ-po2g-H8roqsBnREVvH3lk65LGme2Q12vynd3bFbiho3rwcMemBkDv2u9IAxG%7Ev9zMppetZwxLTN3moh4yKu8gH842Zk8vz88%7EnKP66SUoCVR1HVAHw77TsHSj%7E%7EoOJP2yv3PFHrcdoSlaHa4tST4wrgeO5Lu628kihYfkC6TsRTwfSS%7EyR0h1BYNob22PVar8im8g8aIq2fv4WCl7JeuqPyb-wU9wDfXkHRhPl53rIVZj13GAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
412d7b4d26c6625e7cabe3bee68e2262
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
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
Syntagma of the evidences of the Christian religion, being a vindication of the manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society, against the assaults of the Christian Instruction Society, through their deputy, J.P.S. commonly reported to be Dr. John Pye Smith, of Homerton
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Taylor, Robert [1784-1844]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: iv, [5]-128 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Signature on title page: A. Bonner, Dec/81. Reprinted by William Dugdale, 16 Holywell Street, Strand. No. 252 in Stein's descriptive bibliography (1981), but with different imprint (R. Carlile, 1829). Taylor is described on the t.p. as "Orator of the Areopagus, prisoner in Oakham Gaol, for the conscientious maintenance of the truths contained in that manifesto."
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Printed for the Author
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1828
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N635
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Syntagma of the evidences of the Christian religion, being a vindication of the manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society, against the assaults of the Christian Instruction Society, through their deputy, J.P.S. commonly reported to be Dr. John Pye Smith, of Homerton), 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
Christian Evidence Society
Christian Instruction Society
Christianity-Controversial Literature
John Pye Smith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8fb84364c792117a7cbae289e8a1d7e5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CBdVLYerOxPiaydsvl%7EIKJz8AvxJsEUSfiZfhpMFQPJAxJ6UjV6pye%7EgchP1V6U9eF4AUG4bbVIKSP64w13vwpZbp8gkykum51khveIHfbnR3IlkvF0J9cF7tulDTMxmZfIc6CpL3PDfggsoYHFmyj29N2GVeVbMbPfeZ4%7E7Nmxa8qRiPiAM86JD-3nIrivcPttBx7fcKBK8iebA4MmroKd3bozUl9Xoy4chEr%7ECr68CrPP4FDIMC6uuFIsVtTy02uLMBAiew3onwMYp1ftLtNUd0iDYjNLsA%7E6hDeCtiYdvEqKJxBwlJ%7Ehe7djrT-7dF%7Ej7Jc2Fma9ysHV%7EhOdRfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23deaeaef7a79127eda4dff6ad165408
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY:
ITS
PROFESSED PRINCIPLES and ACTUAL POLICY.
NTEREST in the career of this promising though
hitherto disappointing institution prompted a
visit to Willis’s Rooms on Friday afternoon, June 5,
when the third anniversary was being celebrated.
Whether “ celebrated ” is the happiest term or not,
may be decided after acquaintance with what follows.
In the circular which accompanied the request for our
subscription, the Christian Evidence Society declares
(after enumerating the various aggressive efforts of
heterodox propagandists) that it is their object to
“stem the tide of scepticism.” They “hold that
difficulties must be met by fair argument, and doubts
removed by candid explanations. They desire, too, to
meet the bolder and more aggressive propagation of
infidelity, to confront its champions, and refute their
arguments; to rescue inquiring minds from being
misled by objections—essentially old, capable of refu
tation, and oft refuted, which nevertheless, if un
challenged in their new forms, may be thought un
answerable because unanswered.” A most laudable
object, would to Heaven they would carry it out!
and it was to hear the Society’s own report of its
warfare that our visit was paid.
I
�2
There were about 150 persons present, of whom
perhaps two-thirds were ladies, and a large proportion
of the remainder clergymen, as might perhaps be ex
pected, seeing that the speakers comprised the Arch
bishop of York, Bishop of London (in the chair),
Bishop of Gloucester, Bishop of Oxford, besides lesser
dignitaries of the Church. Prayers were read from
a small book, having no special reference to the work
of the Society. The report was lengthy; common
place at first, it grew chilly as it proceeded, until it
left us decidedly dull. Por, after reviewing the year’s
work, the opposition to which was characterised as
“ only feeble,” and planning out schemes to come,
the dismal truth had to be spoken, that Christians
had not rushed to the defence of the “ faith once
delivered” with the hoped-for energy: the sinews of
war were failing, the funds are dreadfully low. The
receipts had been 1,493Z.; expenditure, l,480Z.; leaving
a balance of 13Z. only “ to stem the tide of scepticism.”
Worse remained behind, the loss of large benefactors;
and there would not have been even a balance at all,
had not pressure of circumstances forced them to sell
out one-fourth of their reserve fund. We were much
relieved to hear, after this, that some of the members
have offered special prayers on the evening of the last
day in each month, in private, for the benefit of the
Society; and though at present the answer had not
been all that might be expected from a “ prayer
answering God,” we were all earnestly requested to
do likewise, since this mode of raising subscriptions
had been “ specially sanctioned by his Grace the
Archbishop of York,” who yawned heartily during
the whole of the report.
The Bishop of London struck the uppermost chord
in the hearts of all present by deploring, in his least
cheerful manner, “that society is saturated with
infidelity from the highest grade to the lowest,” that
men are satisfied to live according to the dictates “ of
�3
their own evil hearts.” The masses, he confessed,
do not attend church, and he believed that the extent
of passive unbelief is more harmful than active infi
delity. Still, he thought that this infidelity is not
deeper to-day than formerly, but more multiform, as
they are now attacked at once by the coarse objections
of Paine, and by the keen criticism of Strauss and
others. His lordship favoured us with a long cata
logue of various phases of modern unbelief, which he
summed up in one word, “ Egotism,” that is the root
of all heresy to-day. He considered that Christians
had been too full of apology and defence of late, and
advised the taking of higher ground in future, stating
boldly that they believe would perhaps have a better
effect with the people than mere argument. He did
not add that assertion was better than proof, when
proof is wanting. The Bishop effectually damped
our not over lively spirits, but there was possibly a
special providence in the fact that very few could
hear a word of his very badly read address. He
concluded with a feeble apology for the existence
of the Society, “ whose work is so valuable, but the
results of which,” said his lordship, “ will only be
known—hereafter. ’ ’
The Chairman stated that a “ good deal of the
infidelity of the day arose from ignorance, and hence
the necessity of a society like the Christian Evidence
Society, which met the Infidel on his own ground,
an.d showed by lectures, pamphlets, and tracts that
Christians were in the right.” Surely the Bishop of
London forgot the facts of the case. It is true that
ignorance breeds superstition, a state of mind largely
traded on by priests of all denominations ; but the
so-called infidelity of the present day, which the
Christian Evidence Society does not attempt to touch,
is the result of the increasing amount of intelligence
in all classes, leading to the examination of the
grounds on which certain facts are said to rest, and
�4
thereby the said facts are proved to have no
existence.
It is to be feared that the clergy comprising the
Christian Evidence Society are hardly so scrupulous
in their statements as their profession should make
them. Had the Bishop said that without the sup
port of the ignorant and superstitious such societies
as the Christian Evidence Society could not be kept
alive, he would indeed have uttered a great truth.
To ignore, as the Christian Evidence Society has
hitherto done, such challenges as that by Judge
Strange or Mr Thomas Scott, seems proof that they
fear to meet such writers. At any rate they ignore
them wholly ; as yet the Society has shrunk from
“ confronting the champions ” of free thought, and,
like Ealstaff, shows its bravery only by big words.
Or are, perhaps, these gentlemen so ignorant and
obscure as to be quite beneath their notice F
It is to be hoped that a steady persistence by these
gentlemen, and a host of others like them, in the
work of laying bare the immense assumptions and
assertions of the orthodox, may at last force this
Society to give some public reply to their various
pamphlets.
The Archbishop of York is abetter specimen of the
Church Militant than his brother of London, and as
he shook himself together it was evident there was
to be a serious deliverance. After paying the con
ventional compliment to “My Lord Bishop ” for the
magnificent oration from the chair, His Grace reluc
tantly declared he could not share the Bishop’s hope
that infidelity is decreasing. With great emphasis
he assured us it is increasing every day. We were
taken to Germany and France, and back to England,
in proof of the terrible encroachment of the great
army of sceptics, and were told how an astronomer had
given a detailed explanation of the movements of the
planetary bodies to one who, astounded, said to the
�5
man of Science, “ Why, you have never even men
tioned the name of God ! ” “ Sir,” said the philo
sopher, “ there is no need of such an hypothesis.”
His Grace also believes that the appearance of one
■who believes is quite as effectual as an argument,
which met with the approbation of many around him.
However potent for good the sight of a live Arch
bishop or Bishop may be, and we do not doubt it in
the least, it seems hardly probable that an exhibition
of lecturers or even the lectures themselves, will effect
much towards the Society’s object—“ the refutation
of arguments which may be thought unanswerable
because unanswered.” He deprecates evidential dis
courses and arguments in the pulpit, which might
cause many to doubt who did not doubt before, but
advises special lectures in suitable places, although he
rightly added that “ Christianity is just as true to-day
as ever it was.” Children ought not to be taught the
proofs of Christianity, nor to reason upon its facts, but
this sentiment was strongly opposed by several succeed
ing speakers. His Grace grew boisterously eloquent
with acknowledged borrowed illustrations and quota
tions upon “ the intellectual side of the Trinity,”
treating us to a little sermon suitable to the Calendar.
But sadness followed with the words “ there have been
works published this year which are as hard to answer
as any that have ever appeared.” He gave no signs of
any intention to reply to them himself, and deliberately
pooh-poohed a suggestion of the report, offered as an
incitement to further subscriptions, that the Society
should publish some works, after the pattern of
Butler’s ‘ Analogy,’ carefully reasoned out, which
shall claim the attention and dispose of the objections
of the cultured sceptic, who will not trouble himself
with their small publications. The Archbishop said
they must let this alone : “you cannot do it properly,
you must not become a publishing society, leave that
to the S.P.C.K. and continue as you are doing.” With
�6
an excuse for himself and Right Reverend Brethren,
that they could not be of much use to the cause,
having so little time at command, His Gtace con
cluded with an earnest appeal for—not arguments,
but funds, and. left the hall. The Rev. W. Arthur,
Wesleyan Minister, followed with an able speech of a
few minutes, in which he demolished Comte with
consummate ease in five sentences and a half. He
held that a child’s mind soon expands, delighting
in argument and reason [this unlucky oversight
of the Creator], could only be remedied by in
stilling into it early the glorious principles of the
Christian doctrine. Dr Jobson, Wesleyan, cheer
fully objected to be classed as a Nonconformist,
since he would willingly sign the Thirty-nine Articles.
He agreed with the last speaker that “ the children
should not be left to Satan,” and after saying nothing
for another five minutes, sat down. Dr J. H. Glad
stone announced himself as a man of Science. “ Some
of us,- or rather two or three of the few who are
known as men of Science, are supposed to be unbe
lievers ! ” A slander against which he vehemently
protested, for though one or two (e.y., Huxley, Tyndall,
Carpenter, and such like scientists) may not be “ with
us ” in all points, they are but units compared with the
great company “ of us,” who reconcile fact and faith.
This gentleman apparently forgot he was not lectur
ing to his class of youths, but at length, after sundry
“ scientific ” sneers at men who pretend to know more
than himself, the well-prepared performance closed.
Thus far we heard nothing about the victories won, or
schemes of future operations ; we were lost in contem
plation of the in-flowing “ tide of scepticism.” The
Bishop of Gloucester is given to plain speaking, espe
cially when advising how to dispose of an inconvenient
opponent, so we looked for light. His lordship had
charge of a resolution embodying a proposal to pub
lish the big books, previously discouraged by the
�7
Archbishop. With great ingenuity, more worthy of
the bar than the bench, his lordship found a way to
support the Society without coming into conflict with
His Grace, by dwelling upon the word “ further;” that
is, the Society will not publish, but only “further”
the publication of the two works, one of which is to
be upon the Gospels, and the other upon the Miracles.
An author of great eminence has undertaken one of
these already. The speaker dealt with many topics,
but managed to omit the interesting question, lost
sight of by all speakers, “ What has been done to
‘ refute the arguments ’ of the many scholars of
eminence who have pointedly challenged the Society ?
The Bishop read extracts from the most recently
published work of this kind, to show us how terribly
infidel in character our first writers are becoming.
But not one word of reply, not a sign of “ refutation ”
or “ stemming the tide.” He also lamented that his
time is so fully occupied, or he might—(no, he did
not say that.) He showed how Butler of the
‘ Analogy ’ is useless to-day, and so of the rest.
The brightest gem of his speech was when he
announced, in seductive tones, that the Christian
Evidence Society has plenty of room,—room for men
of genius to work for her, room for money to pay the
men of genius, and in sad need of the prayers of all
who, like their lordships, could not supply anything
else.
Others followed, but it was a weary wail through
out. The principles of the Society seem to flourish
in an inverse ratio to their efforts to propagate them.
Thev were a more powerful force in their first days
than now in their third year. Their confessions of
failure, whether in gaining respect, sympathy,
adherents, or money, are of more worth to the
opponents they ignore than to the cause they
profess to support. They challenge, but do not
fight; they argue, but do not reason; they see
�8
the gauntlet, but look another way; they profess
to be bold, but accept the taunt of cowardice.
It is their principle “to meet difficulties with fair
argument, and remove doubts by candid explana
tions;” it is their policy to meet the doubter with
exploded arguments, and that not sufficing, either
press him into their own army or dismiss him con
firmed in his doubt. Their apparent advance, when
closely observed and challenged, proves to be a stra
tegic movement culminating in retreat. Three years
of patient effort to arouse these apologists to their
duty of answering the persistent attacks of men
abler and more consistent than themselves, have
proved the impossibility of galvanising a moribund
body into active life. The deepest conviction of im
partial minds upon leaving the meeting was that the
Christian Evidence Society has, at great expense,
done little else than furnish evidence of the weakness
of the cause it defends, a conviction which, “how
ever capable of refutation,” if not removed by
“candid explanations,” will assuredly “ be thought
unanswerable because unanswered.”
C. W. REYNELL, printer, little pulteney street, kaymarket, w.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, 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
[187-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5543
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Evidences
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/720ed8134eec323539a15f0f5f4cf29e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MViw-1ttMmtbQ5XbydS176juzxQY2tT1Pyrmbi897Spm7yHznrM3Z%7EGn%7EcXfTYEn6KGpm8QIlzVvKqQ9XXfvv8SYr43c1W0%7Es7JqXRwr8KDkj7022M4gywsIzs4ti2KXf-V84u-ELpYFjAVAd5bXYt3uwxJcBZv9QmLfdtspEPGGfvKA554W3x4mGx%7EJhexb7YmarCWdZCNOeh3gyPHgnW5uvYvID9CaD0n1FZ50IlAq5GsmWv5P%7E3uZ1c9sGy%7EkkExEeaFspENZaCebg-DEmsTBnNW2VmRHoL5c4NrJHhJnKzIhxe79MQ%7EFMQSlf04GM2hGPUWqsuJE%7ES71InzMKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8fa08ea42bf9abdbce3359fc551eb9b2
PDF Text
Text
THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY
ON
.
SCIENCE AND REVELATION.
A LETTER
By M.P.
*
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price, Sixpence.
�F
�THE DEAN OE CANTERBURY
ON
SCIENCE AND REVELATION.
Dear Mr Scott,—
"V OU are perhaps aware that there has been a SoJL ciety in existence for some time (I do not know
for how long a time), called the “ Christian Evidence
Society/’ Its object is stated to be “ to meet current
forms of unbelief among the educated classes.” In
the number of its accredited lecturers are to be found
an Archbishop, two Bishops, a Dean, a Canon, and a
Professor of Divinity, and of the remaining lecturers,
five are men of eminence in the Church of England,
and the sixth is, I believe, a distinguished ortho
dox Nonconformist. These twelve gentlemen may,
I suppose, be fairly taken to be the men “ put up ”—
to use House of Commons phraseology, by the intel
lectual part of the so-called religious world, to reply
to infidelity in its various forms.
Nothing can be more proper, or indeed advisable,
than that such a course should be adopted by the or
thodox leaders. And these gentlemen may be sure
that their views will meet with every attention from
their opponents, even although they should fail to
carry conviction. A slight preliminary objection
may indeed be taken to the form of these lectures;
which, however, would apply, with equal force, to
“ Essays and Reviews.” They are twelve in num
ber, they are the productions of men writing inde
pendently of each other, and applying themselves to
difficulties in the way of beliefwhich are of a somewhat
�4
The Dean of Canterbury
unconnected character, and they appear to be written
with a view to each of them occupying an hour, or
not much more than an hour, in delivery. It is not
easy, within such limits, to do full justice to a subject
such as that chosen by Professor Lightfoot, “ Internal
evidence of the Authenticity of St John’s Gospel,”
or to “ The alleged difficulties of the Old and NewTestament.” A like observation may be applied to
“ Science and Revelation ”, by the Dean of Canterbury,
on which, as being the only one of these lectures
which has as yet fallen into my hands, I propose,
with your permission, to make a few remarks.
Dean Smith professedly founds his argument upon
that of Butler. But I do not intend to discuss Bishop
Butler, and shall confine myself to Dean Smith. The
Dean starts by telling us that the duty imposed upon
him, is to show that a Revelation is not only possible,
“ but a necessary part of the system of the world,”
the word revelation being, of course, here and through
out the lecture, used in the strictly orthodox sense of
a miraculous communication from the Deity to man
kind. And he goes on to say, that as his programme
further joins science and revelation, he feels himself
debarred from offering any but a “ strictly scientific
proof.” This, it must be admitted, is a somewhat
ambitious opening. The Dean is not merely going
to demonstrate to us the antecedent probability of a
miraculous intervention on the part of the Deity in
the affairs of mankind, but its absolute necessity. It
would seem, from this, to be quite inconceivable that
God should have framed intelligent creatures with
faculties such as to enable them to arrive at a con
viction of his existence, and a knowledge of their
duties to each other, except through the medium of
*
miracles.
At any rate, men are not, and cannot be
such creatures. And the total untenableness of any
such view of God’s creation and man’s position on
* The Dean admits afterwards that this is “ conceivable.”
�on Science and Revelation.
5
this planet is about to be demonstrated to us by a
strictly scientific proof.
It is true, that a little further on, the lecturer,_ as
if somewhat embarrassed by the task lying before him,
seems to modify his programme. “ My business is
to show that a revelation was to be expected ; that it
was probable, or at all events possible, and, therefore,
that the evidences of Christianity have a claim upon
the consideration of every right thinking man.
And again, “Now the argument which I shall use as
my proof of the probability of a revelation is simply
this.” However, let this pass with the remark, that
if the Dean is arguing that a revelation is possible, I,
at any rate, have no lance to break with him.
*
But
we must take him to mean something more than this,
as proposing to fulfil “ the duty which has been im
posed upon him,” and which duty, as we have seen,
is to show—and that too by strictly scientific proofs
—that a world of men and women, without miracles
to help them, can be after all only a “ pestilential
congregation of vapours,” or, as he himself puts it
further on, that man, without a revelation, is a bungle,
a failure, and a mistake.
How does he proceed to show this ? His argument
is, I think, capable of condensation, and it may be set
forth, with scarcely a deviation from his own words,
in the following terms :—•
“ In the present system of things, we find no being
endowed with any faculties, without there being also
provided a proper field for their exercise, and a ne
cessity imposed upon that being of using those facul
ties. We are in a world in which there is a very
exact correspondence between the endowments and
faculties of every existent being, and the state of
* I am, of course, aware that there are those, who, like
the late Baden Powell, hold that “ no evidence can reach to
the miraculous.” The remark above made would not be ap
plicable to this school of thinkers.
B
�6
The Dean of Canterbury
things in which it happens to be : a world of apparent
cause and effect, full of infinitely varied forms of life,
fitted in every portion of it to find its own subsistence
and to propagate its species. If a plant is not suited
to its habitat, nature imposes upon it the severe
penalties, first of degradation and then of death.
Upon the animal world she imposes just the same
penalties : whatever she gives must be used, and in
point of fact, animals do use all their powers, and
have to use them all. Every living organization
fully possesses all those faculties which it needs, and
must use all its faculties on the penalty, first of de
gradation, and finally of extinction.
But man is a living organization, and must there
fore come under this law. The fact confirms this
deduction. In all the long line from the Ascidian up
to man, Nature has supplied none but physical wants;
when we come to man, we find these physical neces
sities equally well provided for. Man is provided
with the means of obtaining food, of providing for
his safety, &c., but he attains to these ends by the
use of his reason, which at once makes a strong diffe
rence between him and the animals below him, just
as their instincts are an advance upon the processes
of plants; and with the possession of reason there
also goes the possession of what we call mental
faculties. Not only can man, by the use of his rea
son obtain food, provide for his safety, and continue
his race, but higher ends are made possible for him,
to be attained by the use of this higher endowment.
But man has higher powers than physical and mental
powers. There is another broad distinction between
man and all the other inhabitants of this earth ; he
alone distinguishes between right and wrong. And
as he possesses this faculty, if Nature’s laws are uni
versal, he is bound to use it, will suffer from not
using it, and will have a proper field provided for its
use.
�on Science and Revelation.
7
Confessedly there is ample field for using it;
morning, noon, and night the question of right and
wrong perpetually arises, we cannot take a step in
life without conscience intervening. Struggle as we
may, the conclusion cannot be evaded, that we can
distinguish between right and wrong, that we ought
to do so, and that we must do so.”
So far, I suppose that you and I should agree gene
rally * with the lecturer, but without perhaps antici
pating whither our assent to his propositions is about
to lead us. For the Dean continues, “If so, what
follows 1 I answer, the necessity of religion, and
therefore of revelation.”
The chain of reasoning which leads us inevitably to
the conclusion that a revelation is necessary, is virtu
ally as follows:—“ If man is compelled to distinguish
between right and wrong, he is a responsible agent,
subject to penalties for the misuse, &c., of his moral
powers. He must be responsible to some one. That
some one must be omniscient and omnipotent (or little
less) in order to act as Judge of Humanity and to
mete out adequate rewards and punishments. As
these adequate rewards and punishments do not fol
low in this life, there must be a future state. If not,
there would exist in man a whole class of moral facul
ties which seem to find in this present state of things
an appropriate field for their exercise, but which man
is under no necessity of using.”
* I say, “generally,” because there are really one or two
places in which he either begs most important questions, or
else does not exactly express what he means, ex. gr., in the
last paragraph but one, “There is another broad distinction”
(besides reason) “ between man and all the other inhabitants
of this earth; he alone distinguishes between right and
wrong.” A whole school in philosophy would say that it is
reason, and reason alone, which enables a man to distinguish
between what is right and wrong. If the Dean means that
man feels bound to act in accordance with his convictions of
what is right and what is wrong (the moral faculty), and I
think we shall see directly that that is his meaning—he has
not expressed himself quite clearly.
�8
The Dean of Canterbury
Subject to some reservations, I should personally
be still disposed, so far, to yield a general assent to
the lecturer. It is true that there are some who would
not; but I take it that the majority of “educated
unbelievers,” for whose behoof these lectures are
specially intended, are believers in God and in a
future state. Their difficulty is with regard to a
miraculously communicated revelation on these
points. They admit the possibility of such a revela
tion being made; but they think the evidence, upon
the whole, strong against one ever having been made.
They think, moreover, they can see that man has been
endowed with faculties sufficient to enable him to
arrive, by slow and painful steps, at a conviction of
God—a knowledge of his duty, a belief in a future
state, and a consequent incentive for doing his duty,
and that such a modus operandi on the part of the
Deity is, in reality, far more in accordance with the
“analogy of nature” than the orthodox view of a
violent interference by the Great Artificer in the
orderly evolution of His design. This, at any rate,
is the particular difficulty which the lecturer has got
before him, and he disposes of it in a single page, or
rather in four words.
“ Now it is conceivable that God might have given
us this knowledge by means of the light of nature, as
it is called. But He has not. Confessedly natural
religion is neither clear enough, nor certain enough,
to affect powerfully the masses. Man’s nature is
fraught with the most dangerous passions. Reason
cannot control these passions. To take the lowest
ground: as nature has given us moral qualities, moral
excellence is a thing as necessarily to be attained to,
as physical and mental excellence. But while nature
has provided ample means for attaining to the two
last, she will not, without a revelation, have provided
sufficient means for the attainment of the first. By
the aid of religion about as many men attain to moral
�on Science and Revelation.
9
excellence as by other natural means attain to physical
and mental excellence. Without religion [query, Revelation1?] nature will have broken down.”
The rest of the lecture does not add to the argu
ment, and need not be noticed here. The argument
is simply this : Every being on this planet is endowed
with certain faculties, a necessity is imposed upon it
of using those faculties, and it is provided with a
proper field for the exercise of those faculties, by
natural means. The one exception is man. Man is
endowed with certain faculties for the exercise of
which no proper field has been furnished him by
natural means. Therefore, it requires a supernatural
interposition to provide him with one.
Such a statement as this requires, I think, careful
consideration before we shall be disposed to yield our
unfeigned assent to it. The lecturer himself would
allow that supernatural aid is not to be called in, in
the present state of our knowledge, unless an absolute
necessity for it is shown. In this case he undertakes
to show the necessity. Man, he says, would be the
only thing existing on the face of the earth that would
have been a bungle, a failure, and a mistake, if the
Almighty had not stepped in with miracles, and por
tents, and marvels, and every kind of suspension of
the ordinary laws of nature on his behalf. One would
have thought that man would have been a bungle and
a failure, if his introduction into the planet had ren
dered such contrivances unavoidable, if no adequate
field could have been found for his moral faculties
except through the violation, or, if you please, modi
fication on his behalf of laws which we notice, in all
other cases coming under our observation, to be un
changing and universal. And this impression would
not be weakened when we came to remark that all
man’s other faculties, even those which separate him
from the brute (the mental as distinguished from the
moral faculties, in the Dean’s classification), do find
�io
The Dean of Canterbury
an adequate field for their exercise in this world, and
that by means which are quite natural. Dr Payne
Smith, of course, admits this; indeed, it is part of his
argument. Take the case, he says, of those whose
faculties are most highly cultivated. “ Has nature
supplied a proper field for the exercise of the mental
powers, not merely of Fuegians, but ' of the most
highly developed man? You know that she has.”
And he instances the arts and sciences, music, paint
ing, eloquence, &c. Well, take any example at
random—that of music. We know that man has
been supplied with an ear capable of enjoying sweet
sounds; and it may be said, without exaggeration,
that, with some persons, music is a want, an absolute
necessity. The poet tells us that he who is not
moved by music is fit for treasons, stratagems, and
plots—he is inhuman, in short. Now it may not be
inopportune to our subject to consider how this divine
gift, among a thousand others, has been communicated
to man. Of course, there was a time when it was
supposed to have formed the subject of a revelation
from on high. Mercury comes down with his lyre
and Minerva with her flute, just as Ceres teaches
agriculture and Bacchus shows people how to plant
vines; interpositions from Heaven covering very
much larger ground in those days than they do now,
and not having been driven to their last stronghold
of the moral faculties. But probably no one will now
contend that the science of harmony has been learnt
by man by any other than a natural and a very
gradual process. There must have been a long period
of time during which the human ear, so exquisitely
adapted to take in and to transmit to the brain the
sounds of music, could have heard no such sounds.
Even at this day there are populations in the world
which have nothing worthy of the name of music. We
can picture to ourselves what a succession of ages it
must have taken to wring anything like a common
�on Science and Revelation.
11
tune out of an instrument capable of producing it.
Imagination may dwell on the first rude essay, made,
it may be, on the outstretched tendon of some
slaughtered animal, which, being accidentally struck
upon, was found to emit a sound not unpleasant to
the ear; or we may figure to ourselves a savage, blow
ing into a hollow bone with a hole in it, and his glee
at discovering that he could make different sorts of
noises by covering the hole more or less with his
fingers. What a step from this to the performance of
the best military band in Berlin or Vienna ! The
musicians who take part in those bands are the heirs
to all the discoveries and experiments in the way of
harmony of the ages which have preceded them.
Destroy the human race to-morrow and people the
earth with fresh Adams and Eves, and everything
will have to be gone over again; ages will elapse
before such a combination and concord of sweet
sounds will again be heard in this planet.
Well, then, seeing as we do, that all the other
faculties of man (the mental ones included) are pro
vided with an adequate field for their exercise by
natural means; and observing what may be called
the system of development in the case of mental
faculties, such as that just mentioned, I do not think
we shall be altogether satisfied with the Dean’s four
words. We shall not be prepared to summon
miracles to our aid, until we are quite sure that our
moral wants are not to be appeased in the same way
without them. And if it should turn out, on exami
nation, that the manner in which our moral know
ledge has been gradually accumulating, and the
faculties of the race in that direction have been
gradually sharpened, bears an exact resemblance to
what has taken place with regard to the rest of our
knowledge and our remaining faculties, I should
suppose that our disinclination to admit any but
natural causes will increase. Now if it be conceivable
�12
The Dean of Canterbury
(and Dr Smith admits that it is) that a field for our
moral faculties might be provided naturally, I should
conclude, judging a priori and from the analogy of
nature, that it would be provided, subject to the fol
lowing conditions. These are simply the conditions
which attach to the acquisition and diffusion of all
other kinds of knowledge—the Exact Sciences ex
cepted—which exercise in any serious degree the
reasoning powers of man ■, as, of course, from their
nature, moral questions must do. I should expect—1. That the moral truths to be learned would be
such as could be deduced from observation of the
ordinary phenomena of nature (which is only another
way of expressing “ by natural means ”).
2. That the truths so to be conveyed would not
always be capable of a mathematical demonstration,
being in many cases simply the solution which the
human mind could arrive at as the best possible one
of the moral difficulties by which it was confronted,
and the only solution which partially or completely
accounted for them. That what might be looked for
in such cases was man’s ultimately attaining to such
a reasonable conviction of them, as, if held on other
points, would be likely to influence him in the ordi
nary transactions of life • and that such a conviction
would, in point of fact, have a practical effect in de
termining his actions nearly as strong as a mathe
matical demonstration.
3. That the communication of this knowledge
would be extremely gradual. In other words, that
man being endowed with a capacity for grasping
certain great truths, would, nevertheless, have to
pass through a very long, laborious, and arduous
education before arriving at them ; in the course of
which education, he would commit the most frightful
mistakes, and fall into the most lamentable errors.
4. That these truths, or approximate truths, would
be conveyed, in the course of their gradual develop-
�on Science and Revelation.
13
ment, first of all to the highest minds and the most
advanced races, and would thus make their way
through great difficulties and opposition to the lower
minds, where, when once deposited, they would
assume the form of axioms.
.
5. That there would be an immense lapse of time
before they would be accepted by the whole world,
or more than a small portion of the world.
This, I say, is the only way in which moral truths
could be conveyed, if the order of nature is to be
observed. Now, the question is, Have they been so
conveyed ? But, first of all, what are the moral
truths we have to consider ? The Dean has included
them in the following propositions :—
1. Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguish
ing between what is right and what is wrong.
2. Being endowed with this faculty, he is bound
to use it, and will suffer for not using it..
3. A proper field will- be furnished him for using
it, and in order that there should be such a field there
must also be (a) a God (&) a future state.
Now as to (1) man being endowed with the faculty
of distinguishing between right and wrong. No one
disputes this : but the real question is, how does he
distinguish? I answer, unhesitatingly, by experience,
painfully and laboriously acquired; and conscience
is the product of such experience. A savage has not
the-remotest idea that it is wrong to kill his fellow
savage. A child has not the slightest notion that it
is wrong to steal his playmate’s toy, till he has been
whipped for the act; the whipping being an , argumentum ad puerum springing from the parent’s ex
perience. Nothing can, I think, be more clear than
that the ideas of its being wicked to kill your neigh
bour, or to rob him of his property, or set fire to his
house, or make an attempt on his wife, or to lie, or
to cheat, or to get drunk, spring necessarily from the
formation of bodies of men into settled communities.
�14
The Dean of Canterbury
They express the conditions under which alone such
communities can continue to exist.
*
In short, a
right action is an action such as, if generally practised,
would conduce to the general happiness; a wrong
action, one that would have an opposite result; and
acts were roughly distinguished by this method
before the method was pointed out, just as music
was played before it was understood what chords and
scales were, and buildings were erected before there
was a science of mechanics.f The Utilitarians and
their opponents are agreed in the main on this defi
nition of right and wrong : their fight is on another
point. It is indeed true that there are settled, and
very civilised communities in which deeds, at which
we should shudder, are permitted by law. Thus, the
Chinese kill their children. This is because they do
not perceive that such a course of action is conducive
to the general ill-being. We may be pretty sure that
the time will come when they will see this. The
conviction will, first of all, dawn on the more en
lightened minds among them ; and prohibitive laws
will be passed which will be for a long time fought
against by the vulgar. But at last the vulgar will
give in, and that infanticide is a crime will become a
maxim generally admitted, and not to be openly
violated. It is not necessary to add anything more
on this oft-discussed point of the origin of our notions
of right and wrong; more especially as I am half
inclined to think that so far Dr Smith would go with
me. His real difficulty will be considered further on.
But I would prefer, at present, to take my own order,
and to ask—
(2.) If (man being enabled, as I think, to judge
* I don’t want to cumber this paper with quotations.
Every scholar will recollect the beautiful account given by
the heathen poet of the foundation of human societies.—
Juvenal, Sat. xv., ad. fin.
t “ They builded better than they knew.”—Emerson.
�on Science and Revelation.
*5
between what is right and what is wrong, by natural
means), there is any reason for supposing that .he
could not, by the same means, arrive at a conviction
of a God and a future state ? It is necessary here to
be careful in the use of terms. The Dean, in more
places than one, uses the words “knowledge of God.”
And if by this is meant such a knowledge of God as
is capable of mathematical proof, then certainly man
has not got it, nor do I see very clearly how he could
acquire it. But the question arises, is this kind of
mathematical assurance necessary, is it even such as
might be expected from the analogy of natureD And
this really is one of the chief points round which the
controversy between Orthodoxy and Scepticism rages.
Now it is important, in considering this question, to
observe that revelation itself is not capable of any
such proof, nor are any of the great truths or precepts
which are most essential for the use of mankind.
You cannot prove that it is wrong to kill in the same
way that you can show that two and two are four.
You can only point to the bearing of human experi
ence on the subject, or if you please to take it in
another way, to the moral sense of mankind. Well,
then, in respect to this question of a God, the uni
versal human experience is that every effect has a
cause. But you cannot prove that every effect has a
cause. If you and I and a savage were to find a
watch in the middle of a desert (to use an old illus
tration), two of us would be immediately convinced
that the watch was the work of a being resembling
ourselves. The savage would not. He would very
likely take it for an animal. Even when satisfied
that it was not, his ideas of cause and effect are too
* Bishop Butler admits that it is not, and he makes this an
argument in favour of the Christian revelation. It may also
be made an argument for a revelation by natural means. But
I must again repeat, that I am not discussing “Butler’s
Analogy,” but Dr. Smith’s “ Science and Revelation.”
�16
The Dean of Canterbury
vague and undeveloped to render it apparent to him,
as it is to us, that the watch had a maker, the design
a designer. The world has passed—is in places still
passing—through this mental condition of the savage.
Now, “ that every effect has a cause ” leads inevitably,
but only through a variety of stages, such as Fetishism
and Polytheism, to the belief in one great First Cause,
one great original designer.
*
And it is idle to assert
that such a conviction cannot be arrived at by natural
means, when we know that Xenophanes, Socrates,
Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and a number of other persons
have thus arrived at it. But it will be said, These
were only a few, and the rest of the world was
plunged in idolatry, as a large portion is now. That
is just what I should have expected from the analogy
of nature. The rays of the sun strike, first of all,
upon the mountain tops ; so must truths dawn upon
the most advanced men and the most advanced races.
Bishop Butler has, on this head, unfortunately for his
followers, cut the ground from under their feet. For
it is part of his argument that the circumstance of a
revelation being known only to a very small portion
of mankind is no argument against its having been
made. This, he says, is in accordance with the
“analogy of nature.” And surely the same remark
must apply to the belief in a God acquired by natural
means. We should expect, as I have already inti
mated, that its progress would be slow and uncertain,
that it would pass through numerous phases, and meet
with countless obstacles, before being universally or
even generally accepted.
The conviction which many ancient philosophers
* This, it is true, is open to dispute, and I am afraid that
to maintain the position in the text would require a separate
essay. At present, I must content myself with saying that,
in my opinion, an observation of cause and effect will practi
cally land all but a few minds in the conception of a mysteri
ous First Cause, as being, at any rate, a solution preferable to
any other.
�on Science and Revelation.
17
entertained of the existence of a God was based on
reason and observation. Such a being was to them
the only possible solution of the phenomena which
they noticed within and around them. There is no
<£ royal road” to a knowledge of God, any more than
to any other kind of knowledge. The intense crav
ing of certain minds for absolute certainty on this
point—a certainty which is not to be acquired in any
other department of human enquiry—has, from our
point of view, produced revelations. But this craving
is becoming less and less as civilisation advances, and
hence, and from other causes, revelations are becom
ing slowly but surely discredited. It is beginning to
be seen dimly by the masses, that they are not only
out of harmony with everything else that comes
within our range of observation, but unnecessary.
We know that many men have believed in a God
without them. The time when the belief could spread
was not then. The soil was not ripe for the sower.
Wickliffe with his protests against Rome, Montaigne
with his protests against torture, Adam Smith, with his
free trade doctrine, the advocates of universal disarma
ment and international arbitration in the eighteen
hundred and seventy-first year of the Christian era
were not more utterly out of place, as immediate and
successful propagators of their ideas, than Socrates at
Athens, with his one God, and in this I see the
“ analogy of nature ” perfectly carried out. But
whenever the idea has taken hold of any body of
men sufficiently numerous to give them a status in
the world and cohesion among themselves, it has
never been dropped. Their moral sense has been
satisfied by it—a sure proof of its divine origin.
There is no instance of a race which has once held
Monotheism lapsing into any other belief. The fact
that Mahometans, under corrupting and adverse cir
cumstances, have never turned to idolatry, while
Christians have constantly fallen away, is mentioned
�18
The Dean of Canterbury
by Mr Lecky as among the most startling facts in
history. The reason is that Mahometans are Mono
theists and Christians are not exactly Monotheists.
The same remark applies to the Jews, who, although
in the . early days of their history, and before their
belief in one God was clearly defined, they lapsed
temporarily into the worship of strange Deities, have
now for near two thousand years adhered to one
great universal Divinity. The religions which have
sought to attract them are more or less polytheistic :
Protestantism with its three Gods in one; Catholicism
with its three gods and a goddess for the educated,
and a more extended polytheism, in the form of saints,
for the masses. These latter systems of belief are
altogether too elaborate for rude tribes. When in
stilled, or rather when attempted to be instilled into
them, they soon become, if these tribes be left to
themselves, something hardly to be recognised as
Christianity, as in the case of the Abyssinians.
When the human mind has once conceived the idea
of a God, it is compelled, by its very constitution, to
personify him and to endow him with attributes. You
can as easily conceive matter without substance, or
space without extension, as a God without attributes.
And they must be such as we have experience of.
This is only another way of saying that phenomenally
(i.e., for man) the Deity possesses certain human qua
lities. . When many Deities are believed in, there will
be a kind of division of parts among them, though even
then the tendency of the human mind will be to set up
one supreme God—as, for instance, Zeus. When a
more advanced stage of thought has been reached, man
will invest the one God with all those qualities—infinite
ly multiplied—-which he observes to be the most excel
lent and admirable in humanity, according to the vary
ing estimates of successive periods. He will be, above
all things, a Judge, a rewarder of what is held to be
good and a punisher of evil; and as it is observed that
�on Science and Revelation.
19
good actions are not adequately rewarded and bad
actions not adequately punished in this world (or at
least that they do not seem , to be) his judicial func
tions will be conceived as chiefly exercised m another
and a future state of being. And such a God, who
has so revealed himself, will ultimately exercise an
influence on the actions of men quite as powerful as,
nay much more powerful than, the Deity of the
world’s nursery tales.
And this brings me to say a word about a future
state of rewards and punishments. It will scarcely
be contended that a belief in such a state could
not have arisen in the world without a revelation j
for such an assertion would be directly contrary
to history. We know that a large portion, probably
a majority of mankind, have had a strong conviction
on this subject, quite independent of any revelation,
and founded on a natural and well-observed craving
of the human mind. A belief in the immortality of
the soul, in a heaven and a hell, is to be found not
only among the philosophers of antiquity, but, in .a
crude state, among the vulgar. I believe there is
hardly a race on the earth, however low in type, that
has not got it at the present day. And it is certainly
worthy of very special notice that a strong conviction
of a future state had made its way. into the world. by
natural means before any revelation on the subject
can be said to have been made. Greek sages held
the doctrine at a time when the only people on the
face of the earth, who are alleged by Christians to
have received a series of special communications from
the Almighty, were profoundly ignorant on this,
which one would imagine likely to form one of the
most prominent subjects of such communications.
Nay, there is strong reason to suppose that the Jews
(God’s own people) derived it from the heathen.
Of course, as in the case of God, so also in this
one, it will be said that without a revelation there
�20
The Dean of Canterbury
would be no certainty. In other words, we can’t prove
the existence of a future state. The remarks I have
before made will apply here with increased force. It
has been said that a belief in a future state has hardly
an appreciable effect upon a man who is determined
to sin. Without going so far as that, I will make
bold to say that a reasonable conviction that a future
lies before us (or say, apprehension that it may lie
before us), in which our condition will in some way
depend on our conduct here, is likely to have quite as
great an effect upon an individual as a certainty on
the subject. That a conviction of this kind has been,
and is to be found extensively in the world, apart
from miracles, is a matter of notoriety: its genesis is
clear, it is conformable not only to a natural want,
but to all that we can gather of the moral govern
ment of the universe. Stronger assurance than this
is not to be expected. Surely a miraculous revela
tion has no place here, even in the “Analogy of
Miracles,” if there be such a thing. Miracles, I
should suppose, are not usually perpetrated, except
to bring some truth into the minds of men which
could not otherwise have found its way there.
(3.) And now, to turn briefly to the question
of man being bound to exercise his faculty of distin
guishing between right and wrong. The Dean tells
us that unless there be a God and a future state, there
is no field for the exercise of man’s moral faculties.
What he means is, unless there be a knowledge of
God, &c., for God and futurity might conceivably
exist, without our having a suspicion of their exist
ence, in which case there would not be any such
field, or at any rate we should not know of any such
field. Well, he says, it is the knowledge of a God, &c.
which enables us to answer the question, “ Why am
I bound to do that which is right * ” “ Conscience never
?
asks whether a thing is a sin against society; it never
troubles about consequences, knows nothing about
�on Science and Revelation.
21
political economy, or political morality either. It
judges by a higher and absolute rule. . . . When
conscience condemns, it is because the thing is a sin
against God.” This is really a statement of the old
difficulty urged against the Utilitarian school, and
which Mr Lecky in his “European Morals” has
recently gone into at some length. I cannot put it
better than in Mr Mozley’s words. “ Bat supposing
this criterion of rightness in actions themselves to be
adopted, viz., their producing happiness, the .question
still remains, ‘Why must I perform these actions?
What have I to do with the happiness of others?”’
(Bampton Lecture, p. 322.) Several answers might
be made to this question, but in order to adhere
strictly to the Dean’s lines, I will give this one.
“ Because these actions appear to me to be conform
able to the will of God, and also because if I neglect
to do them, I shall very likely be punished in a future
world. I can’t prove these things mathematically,
but I am so convinced of their truth that I feel myself
bound to act upon them.” In short, if you substitute
for the Dean’s word “knowledge” the word “belief”
(and we know that such a belief can be acquired by
perfectly natural means), the man who “ believes” is
' furnished with a “ sufficient field for the exercise of his
moral faculties,” and the whole argument in favour of a
miraculous revelation crumbles immediately to pieces.
*
* The Dean’s reasoning may be put in the form of two
syllogisms: 1. Every being in nature is provided with a field
for the exercise of his faculties. 2. Man is a being. 3. There
fore man is provided with a field, &c. Syllogism two is
this- 1. In order that man should be provided with such a
field, he must have a knowledge (i.e. certain knowledge, or at
any rate a greater knowledge than he can possess by the light
of reason) of God and a future state. 2. Such a knowledge can
only be acquired by a revelation. 3. Therefore there has been
a revelation, Q. E. D. The error is, I think, in the major
premiss of the second syllogism, which begs the whole ques
tion at issue, and in support of which the Dean has only ad
vanced four words of assertion.
�The Dean of Canterbury
I have troubled you at too great length already,
but I cant help adding, m conclusion, that what has
misled the Dean and other amiable and intelligent
reasoners on the orthodox side, is simply this : They
have observed, or think they have observed, that only
a tew men, comparatively speaking, have as yet
arrived, by the light of nature, at such a belief in a
God and m a future state as I have indicated—a
belief strong enough to take the place of a demon
stration, and to influence their actions and their
thoughts. It is shocking to them to see a whole
world left for so many ages in darkness, with light
streaming in" only on the mountain tops,—“ One
Plato, surrounded by the mass leading the most
grossly sensual life,” exclaims the Dean. They
therefore, hail an intervention of the Deity to make
all these things quite sure and certain, failing alto
gether to take, into account the stupendous scale, as
to time, of the workings of the Great First Cause,
the marvellously gradual way in which all truths
burst from their sources, the appalling mental and
physical suffering which has been inflicted broadcast
on myriads of human beings—for purposes which the
*
Dean and you and I believe to be ultimately wise
*
ones.
And yet, with singular inconsistency, they
invoke this identical gradual dissemination of truth
as an argument when defending their own side of the
question, where it figures as a very weak argument
indeed. I have mentioned Bishop Butler in passing:
there is another Bishop, a lecturer in this series, whose
. * To take a familiar example, how many thousands of
innocent human beings have been tortured and killed as
witches, before it came to be known, first to the highest
minds, then to the bulk of the educated, last of all to the
vulgar—if yet indeed to the vulgar, even in England—that
there is not such a thing in the world as witchcraft ? And
yet there have been no miracles to enlighten mankind on this
point. The only recorded miracles have, unfortunately,
tended to keep up the delusion.
�on Science and Revelation.
23
contribution has only this moment met my eye. His
lecture is called “ The gradual development of revela
tion.” At page 22 he writes, “ The conclusions of
science, and even the guesses of scientific men,.. . tend
to make untenable any objections to the revelation of
God contained in Scripture, on the ground of the
gradual manner in which that revelation is alleged to
have been made.” And again, page 18, “ When we
look to nature it is impossible not to be struck by
this fact, namely, that gradualness of development
appears to be a universal law,” &c., &c. This argu
ment has to be pressed, because the awkward fact
has to be met, that probably not one-thpusandth part
of the human beings who have existed on this planet
have ever heard of the Revelation which is supposed
to have been made for the general benefit:—that is
to say, only an infinitesimal portion of mankind have
ever had “ a field furnished for the exercise of their
moral qualities,” ! Hence, revelations are represented
as being likely to follow the analogy of nature, in
being gradual. The answer to this, and td a good deal
of the two Bishops’ reasoning, seems to me to lie on
the surface. Revelations are, from their very charac
ter, outside all ordinary laws, and cannot be expected
to conform to those laws, of which they are, in point of
fact, a seeming violation. If they be part of a “ higher
law,” we, who know nothing of that higher law, cannot
predicate of it that it is gradual in its operations.
On the other hand, this “gradualness,” as the
Bishop calls it, may be made a real weapon in the
hands of the upholders of a natural development of
moral truths and moral knowledge. You would
expect such a development to follow natural laws,
and to be very gradual indeed. Hence the fact, that
as yet very few persons in the world have arrived at
a conviction of a God and a future state by natural
means, if such a fact can be shown, would be no
argument against these truths being capable of being
�24
Science and Revelation.
imparted by such natural means. It could only show
that the rate of progress- has been slo^r which we
admit.
■' •„
In short, I fail to see that the Dean has shown the
'necessity of a revelation—much less that he has shown
it by a “ strictly scientific proof.” And, if he has not
done this, if he has failed in his object, then, although
he has delivered a very interesting lecture, he cannot
be said to have advanced the cause of the Christian
Evidence Society.
'
"■ , ■
I send you this hfirried letter, written under a
press of other engagements, as my protest-against the
Dean’s assumptions. You are quite welcome to make
what use of it you like, if you should think it calcu
lated, in its rough state, to be of any use at alL
Believe me,
s,.
Yours sincerely,
- - ? .
.
M. P.
rd'
House of Commons’ Library,
•-June,, 1871.
>
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Dean of Canterbury on science and revelation: a letter
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lewis, John Delaware [1828-1884]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "By M.P." [Title page]. Dated House of Commons Library, June 1871. Pamphlet also held in Conway Tracts 31. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Final page dirty.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5464
G5744
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The Dean of Canterbury on science and revelation: a letter), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christian Evidence Society
Revelation-Christianity
Robert Payne Smith
Science and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/31dc372aac8a7e084500b5342c8b430e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VgIAdFeocO002HGOYK%7EPQRV9qCvb0-5UQcfaf8USYn3LyjF961DlDmOvAqDPp2Trz4v1YrsLa1itdbag6FfBBfgrCEpzUAYMU5DQYZ0oJc9fiiiVt930kMw4G9FeMwjEI9qRCIIjUN37ILCYJesto6GFj6q8Yq%7ESuM3RQ1gF-Y2hIfqOYSAJhmNBLkC4KTYQ1EKh-301-belDW5OF2fdWGe54shOCX1KzhLbgr894N7vENPK8BoZtvpTQ3fR5jcv%7ERjJAx929pjWTmjn0pQdkkD1K8Y1nrffZoBO1vlgln-VtlgAcbJ6PdSzaxdjxps8D7xEgpokb7t0SI2dE3VKkg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67bf747a392163bf3b160de22a1c0744
PDF Text
Text
CT
THE
TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
BY
THOMAS SCOTT.
Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged always under
stand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me ; I also will show my
opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons,
whilst, ye searched out what to say. And lo! there was no reasoner for
Job, or an answerer of his sayings among you. I, therefore, will answer
also my part, I also will show my opinion.—Book of Job.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT.
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1871.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY 0. W, RETNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET.
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
INCE, my ‘Challenge to the Members of the
Christian Evidence Society ’ was published, the
series of lectures to which the address of Archbishop Thompson was to serve as an introduction
has been given to the world ; and we have now before
us at least an outline of the grounds on which that
which this Society calls the Christian religion is
supposed to stand. The expression may be pardoned
if I say that the attitude assumed by these self-styled
upholders of Christianity is one of the most astonish
ing phenomena in the history of man,—so astonishing
that many have thought, and some have asserted, that
the Christian Evidence Society has never meant any
thing serious by the flourishing of its trumpets, and
that, far from seeking to overthrow its adversaries,
it has sought by its martial music only to cheer and
•encourage its own adherents. This is, of course, an
imputation of conscious dishonesty ; but all that I need
say is that it is for the members of the Society to
repel it, not for me.
But if we look upon these lectures as bond fide
attempts to convince those who are supposed to be
liberals, or sceptics, or infidels (whatever be the name
assigned to them), then, I repeat, the position of these
self-styled Christian advocates is most astounding.
S
�6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
The issue to be met by the Christian Evidence
Society is this. Here is a religion which asserts
that man was created perfectly innocent and good;
that by transgression he fell, and that his fall made
it impossible for the Father to admit man again to
His mercy, except by a redemption of blood; that
all the children of Adam became, further, in conse
quence of their first parent’s sin, children of wrath
and inheritors of a fire in which they should be tor
mented for ever; that, in course of time, after a
revelation supernaturally imparted and supernaturally
attested, the second Person of the triune Godhead
became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary
without the intervention of any earthly father ; that
the child born of Mary was a perfect man, but was
also Almighty God; that the birth of this child was
announced by wise men from the East, and by the
songs of angels in the sky ; that, after escaping the
malice of his enemies, and having repelled the tempta
tions of the evil spirit or devil, he began the work of
his mission, and continued for two or three years
preaching and teaching and doing wonderful works ;
that he calmed the sea, healed the sick, and raised
the dead, announcing at the same time his own
resurrection, which took place about thirty-six hours
after he died on the Cross; that after another interval
of forty days he rose up into heaven from Mount
Olivet, and that a band of angels told his disciples,
as they looked up after his departing form, that as
he had gone, so he would come again, to judge the
quick and the dead.
This outline of the belief of the various bodies of
Christendom may be filled up in various ways, and
be modified by various colours ; but, on the whole, it
will probably be allowed by all to be a correct out
line, and the conclusion at once follows that, although
this belief may contain a philosophy, yet its basis is
asserted to be altogether historical, and to consist of
�Christian Evidence Society,
y
a series of facts or events in the history of the world
as real as the struggle between the Crown and the
Parliament in the reign of Charles the First. It is
obvious that to this scheme of belief the objections
taken may be or rather must be of two kinds. It
may be asserted (1) that the philosophy is false, or
(2) that the facts on which it is stated to rest never
took place. It may be held (1) that the views of the
Divine Nature set forth in this creed are horrifying
and immoral, that they impute the worst injustice to
God, and that the enunciation of them is one of the
greatest calamities that have befallen mankind; or
(2) it may be held that the narratives which are said
to furnish authority for this belief either do not
furnish it, or are untrustworthy as historical docu
ments.
Now, it is perfectly clear that the business of a '
society which professes to treat of Christian Evidences
is to address itself to the establishment of these alleged
historical facts or incidents. It is foolish to raise the
superstructure before the foundation has been safely
laid ; and although the building raised without foun
dations may impose on some, it is plain that the
labour will be thrown away if any reply that their
first concern is to know whether the foundation
exists at all, and that they have no intention of dis
cussing the merits of the philosophy or creed, until
the existence of that foundation has been placed beyond
all doubt. With this issue the introductory address
of Archbishop Thompson had, as I have shown in my
Challenge to the Society,* nothing whatever to do.
His words might have some relevance for those who
have been perplexed or convinced by Positivists, or
Darwinists, or Atheists, whatever these may be ; but
they were utterly wasted for all who say, “ This is
not our present concern: what we want to know is
this, was Jesus conceived without the intervention of
* Challenge, p. 6.
�8
The Tactics and Defeat of the
a human father, or was he not ? Did he actually raise
the widow’s son or Lazarus from the dead, or did he
not ? Had he anything to do with John the Baptist,
or had he not ? Did he keep his Messiahship a secret
from all but two or three, and at the same time did
he preach it publicly, and make it a subject of con
troversy everywhere ? Is the story of his own resur
rection generally credible, and are there good his
torical grounds for the alleged event that at last he
went up in visible tangible form with visible raiment
to a heaven which always stands over the Mount of
Olives ? If these and the thousand other questions of
fact, of mere fact, which we must go on to ask, are
not satisfactorily answered, then the foundation of
which you speak does not exist, and your Christianity
has no authority, and therefore no claim on my accep
tance.”
To speak of a man who puts the matter in this
way and insists that his demands shall be fairly met,
as being necessarily an infidel, is not only mere waste
of breath; it is disingenuous shuffling, and may per
haps deserve a shorter and a harsher name. He may
be an infidel: he may suppose that there is no God, or
that men are descended from monkeys, or that mind
is only a modification of matter, or that men should
worship their grandmothers; but he may also hold
no such views. He may turn round on the self-styled
Christian advocate and say, “ I am a truer Christian
than you are. I have really a Gospel to preach to you
and to all men, the very Gospel which Christ preached.
I believe that all things are the work of an Eternal
Mind or Spirit, to which my mind or spirit stands
in a definite relation. I believe that this Eternal
Mind or Spirit is absolutely just, true, and loving;
and I cling to all the consequences which are involved
in this conviction. I believe that as His Will is to
bring us to our highest good, in other words to bring
our mind into perfect conformity with his Divine
�Christian Evidence Society.
<y
Mind, so also He has the power to do this ; that
this Power and Will are bringing about the perfect
vindication of his justice, and that his justice and
mercy are synonymous terms. I hold that, whatever
be the origin or descent of man, God has never been
absent from any of His creatures; that from the first
dawnings of his sense He has been educating and
training men, by a long process indeed and a painful
one, through the indefinite series of ages until they
have reached their present state, and that He will
continue this work in the long series of ages yet to
come. I believe that because we live in Him now,
we shall continue so to live after we have undergone
the change which we call death ; that the denial of
this cuts at the root of all morality and law, because
it cuts at the root of all love ; for what is the meaning
of growth in the knowledge of God, what is the
meaning of patience, forbearance, truthfulness, un
selfishness, if the wheels of a steam-engine may end
all my concern with them at any moment, or if I may
escape from my duty by throwing myself into the
sea ? I need not go further. I have said enough to
show you that I am not an infidel, and, as I think, to
show you that my faith is vastly higher, and is far
more nearly and really the faith of Christ, than is
yours. If, then, you imply in any part of the dis
cussion which may follow that I am an infidel, or that
I reject your conclusions through moral obliquity,
I shall at once leave you as a person who has placed
himself beyond the courtesies of an impartial judi
cial inquiry. And yet I, who believe what I have
told you that I believe, I who cling far more than
you do to the real teaching of Jesus, have examined
the narratives which profess to relate his life ; and
after the scrutiny of years my deliberate conclusion
is, that, as historical documents, these narratives are
generally untrustworthy, not so much for those por
tions which relate events confessedly extraordinary
�IO
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or supernatural, as for those portions which relate
the most ordinary matters. I need not weary my
self by going afresh through a history which has
been carefully analysed already; I content myself
with saying that I have read all your lectures or
essays, and a hundred other books which say much
what you have said, and that I have found in them
nothing which answers the questions put in the
‘ English Life of Jesus,’ nothing which even tends to
prove that the contrary of the conclusions reached by
the writer or writers of that work are tenable, nothing
which meets the objections to which Dean Alford
was challenged to reply in the pamphlets entitled
‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ nothing which faces
the issue put forward later in the ‘ Challenge to the
Members of the Christian Evidence Society ; ’ and I
insist now that you shall meet these objections and
answer these questions, or confess your inability to
meet and answer them. If (to use words which you
may already have heard) you refuse to answer or
keep silence, I shall take your refusal or your silence
as an acknowledgment of defeat, and shall be justified
in publishing it as such to the world.”
If the members of the Christian Evidence Society
have any honesty or sense of fairness and truth, it
will be impossible for them to deny that their duty is
to address themselves to men who speak as I have
made my imaginary inquirer speak in the foregoing
sentences. What they have to show is, that the
narrative of the visit of the wise men, for instance,
is consistent with that of the purification of Mary
and the circumcision of Jesus in the temple ; that the
Gospels which say that during his whole ministry
only two or three were made aware of his Messiahship
may be reconciled with the other Gospel, in which his
character is known to the disciples before they receive
their call to be apostles, is declared everywhere, and
made the subject of repeated and vehement contro
�Christian Evidence Society.
11
versy in the most public places o£ Jerusalem; that
the narrative which relates the incidents following
the crucifixion is as free from difficulties, inconsisten
cies, and contradictions as a narrative of great events
must be before it can be accepted by an honest judge
and an impartial jury in a court of justice. In short,
to go through the whole subject, refuting at every
step the conclusions set forth, after examination of the
evidence in each case, in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’
without the least reference to the truth or the
falsehood of any form of philosophy or belief, includ
ing among these all the forms of Christian faith or
opinion—this, and nothing less than this, is the work
of the Christian Evidence Society, if they really
think that their belief has any historical foundation
at all—if they really allow, as Archbishop Thompson
has allowed, that these alleged facts, which constitute
the foundation of their belief, are not to be taken for
granted, but are to be proved by evidence such as
would satisfy honest men approaching the subject
without prejudice or prepossession, or any secondary
motives whatsoever.
The lectures which have followed Archbishop
Thompson’s introductory essay abundantly show
what, in point of fact, we have to expect from these
so-called defenders of the faith. The writers of these
papers have handled, after their sort, topics of various
kinds. We have essays on materialistic theories,
on science and revelation, on Positivism and Pan
theism ; but all these may at once be swept aside.
Eor the present we have nothing to do with Comte,
or Darwin, or Huxley, or any of their theories, argu
ments, or conclusions. The only question which we
have to ask relates to the facts on which the Chris
tianity of the Christian Evidence Society is supposed
to rest; and that question may be put in four words,
Are these things so ?
Among these lectures, three only seem by their
�12
The Tactics and Defeat of the
titles likely to treat this question. We might have
supposed that Dr Stoughton’s paper on Miracles
wcfuld have gone, seriatim, through all the miracles
related in the New Testament, showing that each
really is an historical incident, just as an English
historian would examine the question whether the
Cowrie conspiracy was really planned by the earl and
his brother, or whether it was or was not a vile plot
on the part of James VI. to kill and take possession,
and murder the memories as well as the bodies of his
victims. Instead of this, as we turn over Dr Stough
ton’s pages, we find ourselves rambling in the old
labyrinth of arguments which are to show that
miracles were to be expected, and that in the ministry
of Jesus they are not to be overvalued or under
valued. All this has been repeated again and again ;
but if we look for any evidence which is to justify
our acceptance of the narrative of the miracle at
Cana, we shall look for it in vain.
The case remains unaltered when we turn to Dr
Harold Browne’s paper on “ Christ’s Teaching and
Influence on the World.” We have here some refer
ences to supposed facts, but they are mere references,
and no more. Bishop Browne has painted what he
supposes to be an historical picture; but as he simply
assumes the general trustworthiness of the Gospel
narratives, his paper, also, must be set aside, as fail
ing to meet the real point at issue. It is obvious
that his remarks have no force for those who will
say that their estimate of the influence of Christ on
the world is not altogether that of Bishop Browne ;
and that, even if it were, this would not help us to
determine whether the Sanhedrim placed a guard of
Boman soldiers at the grave of Jesus, and after
wards bribed them to tell Pilate a lie, or whether
they did not.
There remains only Mr Cook’s paper on “ The Com
pleteness and Adequacy of the Evidences of Chris
�Christian Evidence Society.
13
tianity.” The title certainly seems to show that the
editor of the “ Speaker’s Commentary ” understands
the real work of the Society, and that he is prepared
honestly to do that work. Let us see how he sets
about it.
I am compelled to quote from my “ Challenge to
the Society,” and here as there, I insist that from the
only question to which I have to demand an answer,
“ that which is called external evidence to the truth
of the Gospels is altogether excluded. I have
nothing to do with the testimony of Clement, or
Justin, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Jerome, or Augus
tine, or any other patristic writer whatsoever—with
the truth of the teaching of Jesus, or the high charac
ter of his Apostles. No external evidence can impart
authority or weight to narratives which are, in them
selves, incredible, or self-contradictory, or mutually
destructive; and I have the right to insist that they
who consider themselves my opponents, will make no
attempt to divert the controversy to this utterly
irrelevant issue.” *
The whole series of tracts put forth by the Society
makes it abundantly clear that they mean steadily to
confine themselves to this issue, and to ignore every
other. At starling, Mr Cook takes refuge under
the wing of the great men whose writings are sup
posed to uphold Christianity, in his acceptation of the
word. He refers us to the long series of writers
stretching from the earliest centuries to Grotius and
Leibnitz, to Luthardt, Steinmeyer, and Delitsch;
but even this he cannot do without using expressions
which come with a bad grace from one who is sup
posed to be speaking as an impartial examiner of evi
dence. England, we are told, holds a place among
the foremost champions of the cross. He rejoices to
think that, “ at this present hour, men sound in the
faith, full of the love and light of Christ, are bringing
* Challenge, p. 12.
�14
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the resources of profound learning and vigorous
intellect to bear upon the chaotic turmoil of antiChristian influences. Within this present year several
works have reached me in which infidelity is con
fronted, both in the sphere of general cultivation, and
in the abstrusest fastnesses of philosophy.” * Is this
the language of a man who approaches his task with
out prejudices, prepossessions, or secondary motives ?
What does he mean by the word infidelity, and by
what right does he employ, without definition, an
ambiguous term ? Would not a really truthful and
honest man say, “ I have to show you that Chris
tianity rests on a basis of historical events; and,
until I have shown you that the miracle at Gadara,
or the confusion of the Roman soldiers at the moment
of the resurrection, took place as certainly as the
battle of Hastings, or the discomfiture of the Gun
powder Plotters in the vaults of Westminster, I have
no right to speak of myself as orthodox, or of others
as infidels ; I have no right even to imply that the
teaching of Christ was better than that of all other
men, or even that it is true. I have first to prove
that the Magi came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and
that, while Joseph and Mary were carrying the infant
Jesus straight from Bethlehem into Egypt, they also
spent a considerable time at Jerusalem; I have to
show that Peter first learnt the Messiahship of Jesus
by Divine revelation towards the close of his ministry,
and, also, that he was distinctly made aware of the
fact before he received his call to become one of the
Apostles ; I have to show that Judas really was dead,
or had fallen from his apostleship, when St Paul
declares that Jesus was seen of the twelve in the
interval between his resurrection and ascension.
When I have ’proved all this, I may then breathe
freely as having practically got through my task.
Until I have done this, I cannot apply to my own
* See Mr Cook's Essay, p. 3.
�Christian Evidence Society.
15
faith or religion a single epithet which is to imply its
superiority to any other religion whatsoever, unless I
openly abandon my historical position, and compare
these systems of belief on their own merits as such.”
Nevertheless, having spoken of men sound in the
faith as doing battle with infidels (that is, with those
who venture to think that Jesus cannot have been in
Jerusalem and in Egypt, in Cana and in the desert
with the devil, at one and the same time), Mr Cook
goes on to say that his purpose is “ to show that
those evidences of Christianity which are accessible
to every careful inquirer are complete and adequate.”*
We are naturally tempted to stop at these words, and
to say that this is the very thing we want, and that
now we may hope to learn how Jesus could have
been seen after the resurrection and before the
ascension by the twelve Apostles, when, at that
moment, there were only eleven Apostles living. We
are tempted, at least, to suppose that an effort will
be made to meet some one or more of such historical
difficulties. But, as we go on with the rest of the
sentence, we are made aware that Mr Cook’s evidence
is not at all of this sort, and therefore is not intended
to dispel any such perplexities. His evidences are
complete, inasmuch as they meet “ the fair require
ments of our moral and rational naturethey are
adequate “ with reference to their purpose, which is
not to teach the truth, but to bring us into contact
with the central and fundamental truths of our reli
gion, and with the Person of its Bounder.” It is
well to be candid: it is also a good thing to be clear.
If Mr Cook had said that his evidence was not to
teach us the truth of facts, he would have, at the
least, deserved the credit of perspicuity, although he
might by so speaking have put himself in a difficult
position in a discussion with a Mahometan or a
Brahman • for the Brahman might say, “ What force
* Essay, p. 4.
�16
The Tactics and Defeat of the
can your words have for me, when I can use pre
cisely the same words to those who doubt about the
truth of my creed ? If any one imparts to me his
doubts whether Agni has three tongues, or whether
Vishnu was really incarnate seven times, or whether
Indra really killed Ahi, I can tell him quite as easily
as you can, that the evidence which I have to lay
before him is not to teach him the truth, but to bring
him into contact with the central and fundamental
truths of our religion,—these truths being the good
ness, and justice, and long-suffering, and mercy, and
love of the One Being, whose perfections are variously
but feebly set forth under the names of Brahma, or
Vishnu, or Prajapati, or Krishna.”
Having thus declared the nature of Christian evi
dence, Mr Cook goes on to say that persons who meet
to consider the evidences of revealed religion may be
supposed to have “ previously satisfied themselves of
the existence and personality of God,” and that
“ materialism under any form, and Christianity in any
stage, are mutually exclusive.” But what is the use
of saying this when the question is confined simply
to the reality of certain alleged historical facts ?
What object can Mr Cook have in saying “ we can
only argue now with those who admit the possibility
of a revelation,” unless he defines first what he means
by revelation ? What will he say to a man who
replies, “ Certainly I believe not merely in the possi
bility of a revelation, but in the fact of one; but
perhaps I carryback this revelation somewhat further
than you do, for I am disposed to say, with Max
Muller, that ‘ it was an event in the history of man
when the ideas of father, mother, brother, sister, hus
band, wife, were first conceived and first uttered. . .
It was a revelation, the greatest of all revelations,
when the conception of a Creator, a Ruler, a Father
of man, when the name of God was for the first time
uttered in this world.’ ”
�17
Christian Evidence Society.
What will Mr Cook say if such a man should add,
“ The history of human speech, seems to show that
language for a long series of ages expressed nothing
but the merest sensuous conceptions ; but the idea of
a Creator, a Ruler, a Father of all men is not a sen
suous conception : hence a long series of ages had
passed before men came to form this idea and to
express it. If the history of language be read truly,
this is a plain historical fact; how am I to reconcile
this with what you tell me, that the very first man
spoke face to face with God, and hid himself from his
sight in the bushes of the garden of Eden ?”
The truth is that Mr Cook is not at ease unless he
is dealing with what he calls “ broad facts,” in other
words, with facts, or supposed facts, of which he can
speak in sufficiently vague terms.
“ Here is one fact,” he tells us, “ that at the central
point of the w'orld’s history, central both in time and
in historical import, equidistant from the end of what
men are agreed to call the pre-historic period, and our
own time, the man Jesus arose and claimed to be, in
a sense altogether apart from other men, the Teacher
and the' Saviour of the world. He claimed a direct
mission from God,—nay, more, to be, in a sense to be
hereafter ascertained, the Son of God. He assumed
that the truth which he had to teach was new, inas
much as it was one which man could not discover
for himself, but, at the same time, one to which man’s
conscience would bear testimony, which could not.
therefore, be rejected without sin. As credentials of
his mission, He appealed to works which those who
accepted him, and those who opposed him, admitted
could not be wrought without supernatural aid. To
one work, as the crowning work of all, he directed
his followers to appeal, as one capable of being at
tested and incapable of being explained away, even
His own resurrection from the dead.”*
* Essay, p. 6.
B
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Before telling us of this very broad fact, Mr Cook
bids us put ourselves, “ if possible, in the position of
an inquirer to whom the facts might be new, and who
had simply to satisfy himself as to their bearings upon
his own convictions and the state of man.”
I will say, in reply to these words, that this has
already been attempted by the writer of ‘ Commenta
tors and Hierophants,’ who cites a sufficiently dispassionate inquirer to judge of certain narratives
written by men whom Dean Alford styled inspired,—
that is, moved by a Divine influence “ specially raising
them to, and enabling them for, their work in a man
ner which distinguishes them from all other writers
in the world, and their work from all other works.”*
Wearisome though it may be to go over the same
ground again and again, the cognate assumptions of
Dean Alford and Canon Cook at once justify and
compel me to quote the words in which the writer of
‘ Commentators and Hierophants ’ represents Thucy
dides as replying to the demands of Dr Alford : “I
really do not know what to say to this. If you ask
me to accept this proposition as a preliminary to the
examination of these books, you ask me to abandon
my judgment as an historian, and, in fact, bind me
beforehand to a particular conclusion. If I accept
this hypothesis before examining these books, I pledge
myself to examine them with a particular view, and
with one special purpose; in other words, I agree to
do a dishonest thing.”
We are as little justified in assuming Mr Cook’s
“ broad fact,” as in assuming, with Dean Alford, the
inspiration of the Evangelists. But when we come
to look into the sentence last quoted from Mr Cook’s
essay, what do we find but a string of assertions,
almost every one of which are at least open to dis
pute on the mere score of facts ? If by pre-historic
period, Mr Cook means a period preceding the rise
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 9.
�Christian Evidence Society.
19
of contemporary chroniclers or historians, by what
right does Mr Cook extend the series of contemporary
annalists as far back as nearly nineteen hundred
years before the birth of Christ ? By what right
again does he insist that Jesus asserted the novelty
of the truth which he had to teach ? Granting for
a moment that the four Gospels are authentic and
trustworthy, I may ask, where does Jesus assume
this ? where does he say anything like it, except in
the passages of the fourth Gospel in which he speaks
of giving his disciples a commandment, which was both
new and old ? If we may take the hint given in these
passages, we may perhaps go far towards account
ing for the impression which his teaching produced
upon his hearers. It was the return to simple maxims
and truths (long ago known) from the stifling atmo
sphere of rabbinical tradition, which made the multi
tude rejoice that they had found a teacher who taught
them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
What again was the truth which man was not able to
discover for himself ? If Mr Cook is speaking of the
Sermon on the Mount, it would be hard to say what
portion of it was absolutely new. The whole passage
about the straight and rough way of life, and the
broad road to destruction, appears with scarcely
any change in the Works and Days assigned to
Hesiod. If Jesus speaks of the hairs of men’s heads
as being all numbered, there are Vedic hymns which
tell us that the winkings of men’s eyes are all
numbered by Varuna. If Mr Cook asserts that, as
credentials to his mission, Jesus appealed to his
miracles, the very point which we wish to ascertain is
whether he did so or not. If he did, it would be an
important fact by all means to be noted; but we can
not take the fact for granted on Mr Cook’s authority,
or forget the evidence which seems to point in
another direction.
“ It is noteworthy,” says the writer of the 1 English
�20
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Life of Jesus,’ “that after witnessing or hearing of
many of his miracles, the Pharisees still demand of
him a sign. How they could refuse this character to
the events just witnessed it is hard to imagine; hence
we seem almost justified in doubting whether they had
witnessed them, and if we say that they asked for a
sign only because they had not seen any of his mighty
works, then it is singular that they should have been
strangers to events which were happening constantly
in the eyes of all the people.” *
I am well aware that in saying even this much I
am giving Mr Cook an advantage which I ought not
to give him. The question turns not on the disposi
tion of the Pharisees, but on the authenticity and
credibility of the Gospel narratives, and with reference
to this point too much stress cannot be laid on the
argument urged in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ that
the contradictions in the narratives of the early years
of Jesus, and of his relations with the Baptist, belong
to the commonest matters of fact. “ Either the Bap
tist knew Jesus from his infancy, or he did not.
After the baptism, he either knew Jesus to be the
Eternal Logos, or he did not. Either Peter was
summoned by Andrew distinctly to find in Jesus the
Messiah, or he was not. Either Jesus drove out the
traffickers from the temple at the beginning of his
ministry, or he did not. Either a few days after his
baptism he was at a marriage feast in Galilee, or
he was not. On all these, as on many other points,
the Gospel narratives completely contradict each other
and themselves. The inevitable conclusion is that
the most ordinary matters of fact the Evangelists are not
trustworthy historians, and could not have been eye
witnesses of the events which they relate. But their
accounts are not confined to matters which fall
'within the ordinary range of human experience. They
abound in incidents which are astounding or incon* English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 41.
�Christian Evidence Society.
21
ceivable, and which run counter to all impressions
derived from an observation of natural phenomena.
At once, therefore, and before examining any of these
narratives, we are bound distinctly to affirm that, whether
•as witnesses or as historians of such alleged events, the
Evangelists are utterly unworthy of credit.
are
not called upon to show how these narratives came
into existence, although explanations apparently ade
quate may not be wanting ; we need not to concern
ourselves with theories of absolute or relative miracle.
. . . The fact that the Gospels are unhistorical in
common things, renders an examination of alleged
miraculous narratives a work of supererogation.'” *
Amongst these miraculous narratives so discredited
is that of the resurrection of Jesus; but by what
right does Mr Cook, if he cares to place himself in the
position of a dispassionate historical inquirer, speak
of this resurrection as the crowning work of all, or
assert that Jesus charged his disciples to appeal to
it ? Far from appealing to this as a crowning
miracle, Jesus, it seems more likely, never professed
to be a worker of miracle at all. The argument cuts
both ways. If the resurrection of Jesus was the
crowning miracle, then it would seem that there were
■other miracles of a like kind of which it was the crown.
In the narrative of the Acts, as the writer of the
‘ English Life of Jesus ’ remarks, no reference is made
to any miracles as wrought by Jesus except those of
healing, the arguments being based entirely on the
resurrection as an event beyond all conception un
expected and astonishing. But if they had been
accustomed to frequent raisings of the dead, if they
had sat at meat with one who had been dead in the
grave four days, how could the resurrection of Jesus
be in any way astonishing, even if it had been unex
pected ?
But, again, did Jesus speak to his disciples, before
* ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 40.
�11
The Tactics and Defeat of the
his suffering, either of the mode of his death or of
his resurrection ? The arguments against any such
supposition are given in detail in the fifth part of
the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ and I content myself with
saying that nothing said by Mr Cook even tends toshake any one of them.
The path of assumption once taken, it is as easy to
walk in it as on the smooth broad road which leads,
to ruin. As professing to work miracles (of which
we have no conclusive evidence), Jesus is represented
as differing from Mahomet, although the story of thenight journey to Jerusalem is found in the Koran ;
and great stress is laid on the supposed fact that he
was expected. We are here going off into the alleged
external evidence, which I have already said that we
are bound to cast aside altogether, if the narratives
said to be thus attested are in themselves inconsistent,
or irreconcilable. We have nothing to do with
drawing pictures like that which graces the opening
pages of ‘ Ecce Homo; ’ but the assumption is not
less enormous when we read that his person, his
offices, his work, were foretold, and that when he did
begin to teach and work, his countrymen were familiar with a long series of texts, beginning with the first,,
and continued to the end, of those sacred books in
which they recognised descriptions of such a teacher.
This is a mere assertion ; the evidence contradicting
it is given in the ‘English Life of Jesus;’ but apart
from this, no more cogent evidence for the non
existence of this description, or at least for their
failure to recognise it, can be found than in the fact
that all the rulers of the people know nothing of such
descriptions. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever
that any such Messiah as Jesus was expected at all.
Nor is it less an ignoratio elenchi, as logicians
say, when Mr Cook goes on to draw a contrast
between the teaching of Jesus and that of any other
man, on the ground that faith in him took root, whiles
�Christian Evidence Society.
23
(it would seem to be implied) faith in all others has
died away. In the first place, facts seem scarcely to
bear out the statement. It may be very well for
Englishmen to say that Christianity is co-extensive
with the civilisation of the world, or that “beyond
the pale of Christendom the great mass of humanity,
which in past ages have shown equal capacities for
the highest culture, have at this present time no single
representative nation, Turanian, Semitic, or Aryan, in
which liberty, philosophy, nay even physical science^
with its serene indifference to moral or spiritual truth,
have a settled home or practical development.”* If
we choose to assert this, or to say that through the vast
regions of Islamism, Buddhism, and Confucianism,
elements of civilisation, although present, “ are stunted,
distorted, and, to all human ken, in hopeless and
chaotic ruin,” that is our opinion, an opinion not
shared by the inhabitants of China or Japan. But
whether the opinion be right or not, it does not touch
the point at issue. Long before the Christian era, the
western portion of the Aryan race had begun to show
a capacity for development indefinitely beyond that
of the Eastern Aryans, or of any branch of the Semitic
or Turanian families. Nor can it be denied that in
their law, their institutions, their modes of thought
and habits of life, they exhibit to this day more than
mere traces of a condition far more ancient than the
rise of Christianity. But, in truth, this discussion is
utterly irrelevant. The teaching of Jesus may have
been indefinitely higher than that which it is repre
sented to have been in the Gospels : it might not
only have taken root, nay it might absolutely have
conquered the world: and yet this victory would
impart not a jot more of historical authority to the
Gospel narratives, unless these narratives were
possessed of historical authority already. If the whole
world were Christian, and if there were no divisions
* Essay, p. 10.
�24
The Tactics and Defeat of the
among Christians, no anathematisation of particular
forms of Christianity, how would this prove that
Jesus kept his Messiahship secret, as he is said to
have done in the Synoptic story, or that he made
it a subject of constant public controversy, as he is
said to have done according to the Johannine narra
tive ? The reference to the subsequent history of
Christianity is altogether out of place, and carries with
it no force whatever, and we are conceding too much
to Mr Cook by noticing the matter at all.
In truth, this indulgence in irrelevant remarks
would be either ludicrous or contemptible, were the
subject less serious and important. But the patience
of unprejudiced thinkers must reach a low ebb, as
they follow Mr Cook through some more of what
he is pleased to term his facts, “ such as the pre
eminence in Christendom, in every age, of nations
which profess at least to acknowledge Him as their
Lord, and as the rapid disintegration and decay of
communities which have corrupted or abjured his
faith.”* This is indeed a dainty dish to set before
honest and unprejudiced men. The first part of the
sentence resolves itself into the proposition that mere
profession of belief in Christ is sufficient to secure pre
eminence for a nation; but it was scarcely necessary
to add that the pre-eminence must be in Christendom,
for a nation professing not to believe in Him would
by its own act shut itself out from that society. On
the other hand, it is perfectly clear that a mere pro
fession of Christianity is equivalent to a corruption
or even an abjuration of it; hence, in the second part
of the sentence, the communities which have been
said by mere profession to have secured pre-eminence
are said to undergo rapid disintegration and decay.
This, of course, cannot be Mr Cook’s meaning ; what
he probably means is that the Church of Rome or the
Greek Church has corrupted Christianity, and that
* Essay, p. 11.
�Christian Evidence Society.
o.$
therefore nations professing the Orthodox or Latin
faith are less flourishing and powerful than nations
which profess Protestantism. Certainly here we
have a plain issue of fact, or rather perhaps a hun
dred issues ; and it may fairly be doubted whether
we shall have done ourselves any good, even if we
should succeed in completely unravelling the tangled
knot. Certainly our success will not have carried us
on much nearer towards determining whether the
stories told about the Sanhedrim after the crucifixion
of Jesus be or be not true. But a few words may not
be wasted in showing the kind of thing which Mr
Cook would pass off as factors in the great aggregate
of “ Christian Evidences.” Whether the nations still
belonging professedly to the Latin Communion are
weak, or weaker than Protestant nations, and whether
if they are weak, their weakness is really due to this
cause and to this cause only, are points on which dis
passionate critics would probably decline to pronounce
any definite opinion : the glibness with which Mr
Cook lays down his proposition is in singular con
trast with the cautious method in which Macaulay, in
his essay on ‘ Ranke’s History of the Popes,’ handles
sundry cognate problems. After all, what are we
that we should make ourselves judges ? If the
power of the Sultan is waning away because he
refuses to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, it is hard
to be rebuked for saying that the men on whom the
tower in Siloam fell were sinners above all others
that dwelt at Jerusalem.
To speak briefly, Mr Cook has manufactured his his
tory, and then proceeded complacently to assert that
“ the broadest and simplest facts thus stated are suffi
cient for the one purpose we have now in view, suffi
cient to induce every one who cares to know the truth,
to go at once to that Man, to ask what he has to
teach, what he has to bestow.” Why an inaccurate
�0.6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or garbled history should be a good or a sufficient
preparation for going to Him, it is not easy to see ;
but what will Mr Cook say if we reply, that this is
precisely what we wish to do, that we do wish to ask
what he has to teach and to bestow ? Did he then
affirm from the first to his Apostles, to the Samaritan
woman and her fellow-inhabitants of Sychar, and to
the assembled multitudes at the great feasts, that he
was the Messiah and the Logos, existing before all
worlds, or did he keep this a secret from all except
two or three during the whole of his ministry ? Did
he speak as he is said to have spoken in the Synoptics,
or as he is said to have spoken in the Johannine
Gospel ? Are these questions to be solved by a refer
ence to the condition of France at the present time
as contrasted with the condition of Germany or of
England ? The fact is that if we wish to know what
Jesus taught or bestowed, and if we are ever to learn
it, we must travel by the road of strict historical
inquiry, and take one by one the whole mass of
questions examined in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’—
questions which I challenge Mr Cook and all the
members of the Christian Evidence Society to answer.
But Mr Cook’s efforts to divert us from the real
points at issue are not yet ended. He next finds it
convenient to make a thorough confusion between
the genuineness and authenticity of any given docu
ment, and, under cover of this confusion, to insinuate
that it is useless to question the orthodox position
about the several books of the New Testament. We
had supposed that the authenticity of a history de
pended on the truth of the incidents related in the
narrative, and that any honest man would be able and
ought to judge for himself whether the book contains
palpable inconsistencies, contradictions, or falsehoods.
We had thought that, if a record were forthcoming of
the Peloponnesian war which asserted that Pericles
strenuously urged the Athenians to concentrate all
�Christian Evidence Society.
27
their efforts on the extension of their dominion,* any
honest man ought to see and to say that this record
was in utter contradiction with the history of Thucy
dides, and that therefore, while both narratives could
not possibly be true, it was yet possible that both
might be false. It is one of the ugliest tricks of
sacerdotalism to throttle the intellect by denying it
liberty of investigating simple matters of fact. Boys
are not told that it is such an awfully serious and difficult matter to decide whether the alleged history of
Romulus or Numa is to be accepted or rejected. But
Mr Cook wishes to frighten us from examining into
the authority of the Johannine Gospel, and. he sets
about it thus :
“ An investigation into the authenticity of any an
cient book demands anamountof knowledgeandcritical
ability, a soundness and keenness of judgment, which
are the very rarest of qualifications. Turn to secular
literature, and you will find critics arguing for ages,
without any approximation to a settlement, touching
the genuineness of works attributed to men whoso
peculiarities of genius and of style would seem to
defy imitation. Who would venture, on his own
judgment, to determine how much of the Homeric
poems really belongs to
“ ‘That lord of loftiest song,
Who above others like an eagle soars ? ’ ”
I deny Mr Cook’s statements, and I say that they
are denied by the vast majority of scholars and critics.
If these are not to accept or reject any given opinion
about the Homeric poems on their own judgment, on
whose judgment are they to do so ? To state the
matter thus is either childish or impertinent. Mr
Cook is perfectly well aware that a vast number of
scholars deny that there ever was one individual
Homer, the author of the ‘ Iliad ’ or the ‘ Odyssey ’ ;
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 11.
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
but even if we suppose that it were universally allowed
that one man dictated the ‘ Iliad,’ standing on one
leg, at the rate of two hundred lines per hour, how
wrould this help us to determine whether the history
of the Trojan war (if ever there was any Trojan war)
was after the fashion described in the ‘ Iliad,’ or as
it is represented by Thucydides in the introduction to
his history ? Having thus made the gateway terrible,
Mr Cook is good enough to say that they who will
not go in blindfold at his bidding, refuse because they
hate the idea of accepting documents “ which, if
genuine, supply substantial grounds for belief in super
natural works and a supernatural Person.”
Mr Cook’s facts are again wrong. The opponents
whom he is professing to throw down may believe
far more earnestly than himself in the righteousness
and love of the Being in whom all creatures live and
move; and it is impossible that they can have any
disinclination, a priori, to give credit to books which
tell the truth about Him, or about His works. But
Mr Cook has again dragged us away to wholly irre
levant matters. Let us grant to him the genuine
ness of all the books of the New Testament: let us
admit that the fourth Gospel was written by one who
was a personal friend of Jesus : let us allow it to be,
as Dr Tischendorf asserts, “ transparently clear that
our collective Gospels are to be referred back, at
least, to the beginning of the second century, or the
end of the first.” Let us concede that the small
interval still left of sixty or seventy years from the
time at which the events of the history are said to
have taken place, is of no real importance ; and what
follows? In the words of the writer of the ‘ Eng
lish Life of Jesus,’ simply this :
“ Not a single inconsistency is softened, not a single
contradiction is removed, not one impossible thing
rendered credible. What is done is to show that,
�Christian Evidence Society,
ig
within some twenty years after the death of Jesus,
men were to be found who had been his followers and
intimate friends, capable of writing down narratives
which profess to give the same history, but which
relate histories as different as the histories of Portugal
and England—men who could represent the teaching
of Jesus as being at the same time parabolic and not
parabolic, simple and confusing, soothing and exas
perating—men who could say that he kept his
Messiahship secret till down almost to the eve of the
crucifixion, and that he proclaimed it aloud from the
first to friends and enemies alike. . . . What it
does is to prove that the Evangelists were wilfully
and consciously dishonest; and that, as writers, they
are deserving of the severest censure for deliberately
deceiving their readers about events of which they
profess themselves eye-witnesses.” *
At this point we may very fairly stop. In the sub
sequent portion of his essay, Mr Cook occupies him
self chiefly with frank declarations of his own
opinions, and with efforts to convince his readers
that, if they will but think as he does about the
Person of Jesus and his character, they will feel
perfectly satisfied about the authority of the Gospels—
in other words, will be quite ready to believe that Jesus
was in Jerusalem and in Egypt at one and the same
time. By the same indirect (some might be tempted
to say almost sneaking) method, Mr Cook seeks to
convince his disciples that the Gospels contain the
whole scheme of the Athanasian doctrine of the rela
tion of Christ to God the Eather and God the Holy
Ghost. .All that I have to say here is that I am not
now concerned with this doctrine. It may be true or
it may be false ; but I must first have an answer to
all those questions which have been put to Dean Alford
in ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ and then I
* ‘English Life of Jesus,’ Part VI., p. 68.
�30
The Tactics and Defeat of the
must have a refutation of the whole ‘ English Life of
Jesus,’ before I can admit that we are justified in even
entering on any examination of Athanasian doctrine.
But, after all, after frightening his readers with the
awful difficulties of Biblical criticism and the fearful
responsibility involved in saying that the fourth
Gospel was not written by the son of Zebedee, Mr
Cook, when the convenient moment comes, turns round
and says to them, “ You have to judge for yourselves.
I do not profess to draw out the evidence, but simply
to show what is its nature and where it is to be
found.” * It is true that he is speaking here of the
evidence for the character of Christ; but this evidence
can exist only in the measure in which the books are
trustworthy, and thus we are brought again within
the circle of historical inquiry. But here, also, we
have the same confusions and contradictions. This
evidence, he says, will have weight with them in
proportion to their “ capacity to discern and appre
ciate moral goodness. If that character does not
attract, subdue, and win you, I freely admit all other
evidence will be useless so far as your innermost con
victions are concerned.” We might ask—useless or
useful for what ? The latent proposition would seem
to be that they who do not regard the Gospels as
trustworthy historical narratives, have no capacity to
discern and appreciate moral goodness. But Mr
Cook goes on immediately to say that, “ numerous as
are the cases of individuals who have remained in, or
relapsed into, a state of scepticism from various
causes, intellectual or moral, few, indeed, are the cases
of men who have not borne with them into that
dreary region an abiding sense of the personal and
supreme goodness of Jesus.” This is only saying, in
other words, that they retain their capacity for dis
cerning and appreciating moral goodness—in short,
* Essay, p. 20.
�Christian Evidence Society.
31
that they are none the worse in this respect for hold
ing that Jesus never uttered the discourses put into
his mouth in the fourth Gospel.
Then, having allowed that almost all sceptics retain
an abiding sense of the personal and supreme good
ness of Jesus, (if this were said of the orthodox, Mr
Cook would say that nothing more was needed,) he
goes onto say, “ You will soon find that you have no
alternative but either to give up all that has wrought
itself into your moral nature, and entwined itself
around the fibres of your affections, all your con
victions of the moral excellence of Jesus, or to accept
Him, even as He presents Himself, the God-Man.”*
I need only say that, by Mr Cook’s own admission,
most of those who refuse to do this, still retain an
abiding sense of the personal and supreme goodness
of Jesus, and what would he have more ? The
Christian is told that his duty is to rejoice with them
that are glad, and to weep with them that weep. Mr
Cook’s notion of the extent of Christian sympathy
is wider. He would have us see only what he sees
and when he sees it, and to shut our eyes when he
tells us that an object staring us in the face has no
existence.
It is not worth while to follow further the series of
evasive or inadequate arguments with which Mr Cook
seeks to hoodwink his hearers and himself. He chal
lenges any controversialist to deny that our Lord’s
teaching differed from that of all the Rabbis, not
merely in degree, but in kind, and he adds that “ it
differed in principle, in its processes, in its results, in
its tone, its spirit, in every essential characteristic.” f
Certainly I have no intention of denying this, but I
maintain fearlessly that these words apply with equal
force to the teaching of the two Isaiahs, of Ezekiel,
or of Jeremiah, to the teaching, in short, of all who
proclaimed a religion of the heart, and kicked against
* Essay, p. 22.
t Essay, p. 32.
�32
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the tyranny of sacerdotalism. The teaching of Jesus
did not differ in kind from the teaching of the Pro
phets, as is set forth, doubtless to Mr Cook’s perfect
satisfaction, more largely in the seventh of the Thirtynine Articles of the Church of England.
Nor is it much more worth while to note that Mr
Cook makes Christianity depend altogether on the
physical resurrection of the body of Jesus after his
death upon the cross. If this were all, I should pass
it by as an opinion or belief which he is perfectly free
to hold. But the case is altered when he asserts that
this event is attested under circumstances which make
it impossible to doubt the sincerity of those who are
said to have witnessed it. “ That the attestation was
given, that it was confirmed by outward effects other
wise psychologically impossible, by an immediate and
complete change in the character of the disciples, and
by the rapid triumph of the religion so attested, these
and kindred points you will find discussed in every
treatise on Christian evidence; they are, in fact, not
open to reasonable doubt.”*
If these words are designedly addressed to those
who have already made up their minds to believe
what Mr Cook believes, and who hate the very thought
of having to look at the other side, I should pass
them by without comment. If they are addressed to
honest and unprejudiced men, who wish only to ascer
tain the truth of facts, they are, (whatever may have
been the author’s intention in writing them,) a string
of lies. Let it be granted for a moment that the
physical resurrection did take place. It none the less
remains a fact that all the narratives of the resurrec
tion are inconsistent, contradictory, or mutually ex
clusive, and therefore that, in the words of the writer
of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ for the historic,al
resurrection we have no evidence whatever.!- Mr
Cook makes a simple assertion, apparently in the
* Essay, p. 39.
t Part VI., p. 39.
�Christian Evidence Society.
33
teeth of all the facts : the writer of the ‘ English Life
of Jesus’ goes patiently through all the narratives,
and the reader may satisfy himself at every step
whether the story is fairly or unfairly dealt with.
With greater truth it might be asserted that few
narratives could be found anywhere which convict
themselves more completely than the Gospel narra
tives of the resurrection.*
* Mr Cook deals in assertions and assumptions. I have asserted
that the writer of ‘The English Life of Jesus ’ has examined the whole
narrative in all its incidents. But it may be well that the reader should
again see with his own eyes what these inconsistencies are : “ The nar
ratives of the Resurrection exhibit, if possible, even greater inconsis
tencies and contradictions than those which have preceded them. In
Matthew (xxviii. 1, &c.) we read that Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary (i.e., two women) came to the sepulchre, as the day began to dawn;
that there was an earthquake, and that the angel (one angel) of the
Lord came down, and, rolling away the stone from the door of the
sepulchre, sat upon it, and, bidding the women not to be afraid, told
them that Jesus was risen, and that his disciples should see him in
Galilee, whither he had preceded them; that as they depart on this
errand, Jesus himself appears to them, and tells them just what the
angel had said to them a few minutes before, thus making the appari
tion and message of the angel quite superfluous. In Mark (xvi.) three
women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome,
come to the sepulchre, for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus,
after the sun had risen. As in Matthew, they are at a loss to know how
they shall remove the stone from the door ; but when they reach the
spot, instead of seeing an angel sitting on the stone, they simply see it
rolled on one side, and it is only when they enter the sepulchre (which
the women in Matthew do not enter) that they see a young man sitting
on the right side and clothed in a long white garment, who gives them
the same message which the angel gives to the two Marys in the first
Gospel. Then, at verse 9, the story seems to begin afresh by stating
that the risen Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, just as though a
narrative of the resurrection had not been given already. There is no
•mention of any earthquake in this account. In Luke (xxiv.) we are told
that the women (seemingly a great number') who came with Jesus from
Galilee visited the sepulchre very early in the morning, bringing spices
for the i urpose of embalming the body, they, like the women in the
other Gospels, having not the slighest expectation that he would rise
again. These also find the stone rolled away, and, entering the sepul
chre, they see two men in shining garments, who ask them why they
seek the living among the dead, and remind them (of what every one
of them had utterly forgotten) that Jesus had distinctly forewarned
them of his sufferings, death, and resurrection ; but no message is given
that the disciples are to seek Jesus in Galilee, nor does Jesus appear to
them himself as he does in the other Synoptics. The Evangelist then
adds that they went and told all these things to the eleven and all the
rest, and that the Apostles especially received their information from
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, the names
being for the third time different. Far from believing their report, the
Apostles deride them as babblers of nonsense (Liddell and Scott, s. v.
Kypos, Luke xxiv. 11). Still Peter, incredulous as he is, has curiosity
0
�34
The Tactics and Defeat of the
I have said enough to show that Mr Cook’s Essay
is worse than worthless for all except those who are
ready to think what he thinks, and to say what he
says ; nor are the other lectures included in this series
in any larger degree addressed to honest and unpreju
diced thinkers, who are determined that they will not
enough to go to the tomb, where, stooping down, he beholds the linen
clothes laid by themselves, and, fully convinced by this somewhat slight
evidence, departs, “wondering in himself at that which was come to
pass.” In John (xx. 1, &c.). Mary Magdalene comes alone “ early, when
it was yet dark” (in Mark the sun has risen), and sees the stone taken
away from the sepulchre (where then was the guard, who thus suffered
her to approach near enough to find out in the dark that the sepulchre
was open ?) Instead of entering the tomb, as the women do in the
second and third Gospels, or seeing any angel or man as they do in all
the Synoptics, Mary Magdalene at once hastens back to Peter, James,
and the beloved disciple, and informs them not that Jesus is risen,
but that “ they have taken away the Lord from the sepulchre, and we
know not where they have laid him,” thus implying that, she had not
gone thither alone, as stated apparently in verse 1. Ou hearing this
Peter and the other disciple hasten to the tomb, both running, but the
other disciple outruns him, and stooping down at the sepulchre door,
looks in, and sees the linen clothes lying, but does not go in. Peter
then comes up, and going in, sees further that the napkin which had
been about the head of Jesus was not lying with the linen clothes, but
was wrapped together in a place by itself. The other disciple then goes
in, sees and believes. (This visit is related in words which are almost
verbatim the same with those in which Luke records the visit of Peter,
tne only difference being that the credit of being the first believer in
the resurrection is here transferred to the beloved disciple.) Without
waiting for anything further, the two disciples go home again; but
Mary lingers, ■weeping, not having reached their assurance of convic
tion. (Why did not the twd Apostles, seeing her in this grief, stay to
comfort her, and make her share their belief that Jesus was risen ?)
Stooping as she wept, and, looking into the sepulchre, she sees two
angels in white (who, as they came since Mary and the two disciples
stood at the door, must have entered through the solid rock or earth).
These angels are seated, the one at the head and the other at the feet
where the body of Jesus had lain. (In Mark the “young man” is
seated on the right side.) When they ask Mary the cause of her sorrow,
she replies that it is because she knows not where the body of Jesus
has been taken. Without waiting for any further words from the
angels, of whose real nature she seems to have no notion, Mary turns
herself back and sees Jesus standing, but fails to recognise him. (In
the Synoptics the women know him at once, at the mere sound of his
voice, and as in Matthew xxviii. 9, hold him by the feet and worship
him.) The question of Jesus, “Why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou ? ” sounds to her as coming from no familiar voice, and as
she looks at him she sees apparently nothing especially spiritual
or remarkable about his person, for, supposing him to be the gar
dener, she beseeches him, if he has taken the body away, to tell her
where he has placed it. Jesus answers by simply calling her by her
name ; and the spell which had held her thus far is dissolved. Mary,
turning round, greets him as Rabboni, her Master, and seemingly seeks
to touch him. But whereas in the Synoptics Jesus on his first appear
ance allows the women to embrace his feet, here he says to Mary
�Christian Evidence Society.
35
accept any incidents as facts until they have adequate
historical evidence to justify them in so doing. In
short, the Christian Evidence Society is not working
for those who question or reject any portion of that
evidence. It would be more candid to say this at
starting. It would be more honourable to sail under
genuine colours, and to admit that they write only for
those who agree with what they say. As it is, the policy
by which Christian advocates ignore the real points at
issue, and take refuge in generalities, is becoming
notorious throughout the land, and is branded more
and more as utter cowardice, and as gross dishonesty
and falsehood. From the Archbishop of York, down
wards, the so-called orthodox clergy and laity may,
like the ostrich, hide their heads in a bush, and think
that no one sees them ; but all who are determined that
they will accept no statement except on the evidence
of facts, are tempted to hold up such conduct to the
contempt and derision of mankind. They assail no
office, they asperse no one’s character ; they do but
say that clergy and laity alike are bound to tell the
truth about the events of the New Testament his
tory, as about the events of all other history;
and they say further, that the evasion of this duty is
equivalent to deliberate and gross lying. For the
present I will only add that, as this self-styled Chris
tian Evidence Society has deliberately disregarded
my challenge,—a challenge which, as every honest
man will feel, touches the root of the matter : and,
Magdalene, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,”
and then he gives her a message for his “ brethren,” which, however, is
not a charge (as in the other Gospels) that they should go to Galilee in
order to meet him, but the announcement, “I ascend unto my Father
and your Father, and to my God and your God.” This story is in almost
every particular a totally different story, which excludes the. Synoptic
narratives; and the latter again differ from each other in most important
particulars. As these, the Synoptic accounts, cannot be dismissed as
less truthworthy than the fourth Gospel, the Johannine story is at once
to be cast aside without foundation, while the contradictions of the
Synoptic narratives are such as to deprive them of all credit. Hence of
the historical resurrection of Jesus we have no evidence whatever.”
�36 Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society.
further, as this challenge was given long ago to the
late Dean Alford, who treated it after a like sort, I
hereby take the refusal of the Society to answer
my questions as being, on their part, an acknowledg
ment of defeat, and I publish it as such to the
world.
Thomas Scott,
Mount Pleasant, .
Pamsgate.
�POSTSCRIPT.
Speaking on behalf of' the Christian Evidence
Society, Mr Cook has asserted, that the evidences of
that which he styles Christianity are complete and
adequate. I appeal fearlessly to the honesty and inde
pendence of my countrymen to determine whether
this be the case or not; I rely on their fairness to
weigh dispassionately all the evidence bearing on the
subject, as it has been preserved to us; and, in this
confidence, I purpose to lay before them all the facts
or alleged facts in the history which is supposed to
furnish a basis for the dogmatic system of traditional
Christianity. These facts, or alleged facts, will be
examined fully, and in complete detail, in a new
edition of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ a work which
will confine itself to the scrutiny of facts, without
propounding any theories (after the method whether
of Strauss or Renan or any other writer) as to the
mode in which the narratives of these alleged facts
came into existence.
The work, in short, will lay before the reader the
thoughts of a writer who wishes only to ascertain the
truth, and who addresses himself to those who,
without prejudice or prepossession, are prepared in
every instance to ask themselves seriously, Are these
THINGS SO ?
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of
Jesus. Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete
in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures.
By the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman.
Price 6d.
The “ Church and its Reform. ” A Reprint. Price Is.
“ The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint.
Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records; with special
reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synopticsand the Fourth
Gospel. By Thos. Scott. Price Is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Bbneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
The Meaning of the Age. By the Author of ‘ The Pilgrim and the Shrine.’ Price 6d.
“ James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy, By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. N ewman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c.,
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “ The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Anno
tations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators.
In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich. Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
By a Country Parson. Parts ]., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scott, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: [3], 6-36, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. The Christian Evidence Society is a UK Christian apologetics organisation founded in 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT152
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society), 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
Apologetics
Authority
Bible-Evidences
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dff402c1a0f958bf53446687b7cb2222.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=D45lfurVQ0vhLELqxTl16WJl-2YRQ7SAEn-DLiJ81wog0DJtXgk8qbhNLL8UX73hMNwABMn9DanwM8mflaJd%7Ep1jm7yd3k6lDdLPGzUPkfwP%7E2YFf59yIC0DeUQhcc3NXZ1bFGnPuF5YVY0uPyAlDATU1ICdGMzsjBtoTeiZNTRrC5zPA0AgmXmwMHSrN7sFVpQk8%7EB318gM7iTodVaTdC-dvvUiRcHvqiGdFa1s9ScE%7EMoiWbdtDyO769-O1a%7Ew9VCWjzzZd4l9zHw2jfbqZvTpCYbRvSIpRImvJMz%7EEjZqE4ZETaxAGEX7GHYFYa39QLdZm3aoWegV0pjnbI0Ahg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
eb860b1eedaddc34de43d425f3efa21a
PDF Text
Text
three letters
ON
THE VOISEY JUDGMENT
AND
THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY’S LECTURES.
REV. GEORGE WHEELWRIGHT,
MEET. COLL., OXON.,
VICAR OF CROWHURST.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�THREE LETTERS, &c.
-------- ♦---------
IR, —Many doubtless have read with pleasure the
article upon Mr Voysey’s trial, which appeared
in the Examiner of February 25th 1871. Many, too,
will echo the ominous words with which it closes :
“ Every such judgment tells more against the Church
than against the individual condemned: it puts
another nail into its coffin,”—and in truth the last
charge against Mr Voysey (derogation and depraving
of Holy Scripture) leaves the clergy in a most per
plexing situation. All knew them to be muzzled
slaves, and yet hardly thought that the muzzle fitted
as closely as the Lord Chancellor is determined to
make it. One result I venture to predict from the
Voysey judgment—the opening of people’s eyes to
the immense gulf that now separates the two
antagonists, Orthodoxy and Free-thought. Hitherto
it has been the object of many well-meaning persons
to make this appear less than it really is—as not so
very serious after all. However much many have
tried to patch up an unreal agreement between them,
it is from this moment impossible—henceforth it is
“ guerra a cuchillo,” and there is no discharge in that
war, one or other must yield. How many amiable
but weak attempts have been made to reconcile
Scripture with science, as the phrase is; to shew
that the two can go arm in arm without dispute or
jostling! Good-bye to all such pleasant dreams!
We are now told plainly that the Church’s living
S
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures.
5
to. Can anything be more characteristic of the per
versity of our ecclesiastical rulers than the way in
which the Ritual Commission has dealt with the
Athanasian Creed ? Has it granted any relief to the
laity who are still compelled to listen and be damned?
So far from it, that a dispute has actually been carried
on in the Times between certain members of the said
Commission as to what its real opinion upon the sub
ject was. The same mulish obstinacy meets us at
every turn. Not a jot nor a tittle will our rulers
surrender. We laugh at the Papal “ non possumus
it is just the same here. Relief and concession have
to be forced from them. Surely the events that have
lately passed before their eyes should act as a warning.
Let them think of the French statesman and his vain
boast, “ Pas unpouce de notre territoire, pas une pierre
de nos forteresses.”
It is of no use to be for ever beating about the
bush—lip salve never yet cured heart-disease; and
religious belief in England (as our forefathers under
stood the words) is paralyzed at the core. The
whole question of miracles will have to be faced
sooner or later, and the more our minds get accus
tomed to this fact the better. The present is an era
of rapid changes. Events that appeared at one time
impossible, now take place in the natural order of
things, and the only cause for wonder is that they have
been so long in coming. And thus it is that the
present is called an infidel age, wanting in reverence
and respect for religion. Is it so ? Let the great
debate upon education bear witness. Did the people
ask for education without religion—were they satis
fied with merely secular teaching ? The immense
majority for religious instruction proves to me that
we are just as our forefathers—a stubborn generation,
not a faithless one : our hold upon religion is as
firm as ever. We cling to it with the grasp of death.
We are quite as God-fearing as they; but, and here
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures,
y
minds are becoming awakened, their judgments un
fettered, their eyes opened, their ears unstopped, and
the first use they make of their liberty is to turn upon
their spiritual pastors and masters with the direct
question, “ Are these things so 1—we have heard these
words for many a long year—from our childhood the
same story has been in our ears. We enquire of our
fathers—of the years that are past, and all tell the
same tale—they have known none other. Is it then
all true, ‘ are these things so ? ’ ”
All over the land is this query pricking and
stirring men’s hearts—diverse in form and mode.
One puts it in this shape, another in that. One can
stomach this—his fellow stickles at that. The Bible
is torn piecemeal. Brave is the man who can
swallow the whole at a gulp, and feel none the worse
for it—but alas ! for this degenerate age—ofo/ vuv
(Bpotoi sl<ri—such hearty digestions are rare indeed.
I remember once sitting upon a fallen log in the
backwoods of America, and discussing Bible matters
with an old Buckeye (as the Ohio men were then
styled) and the only thing that troubled his primitive
imagination was the tale of Samson and the foxes—
“ the darn’d skunks ” as he called them—it was
impossible—he was sure he himself could never have
done it, and he had trapped and hunted ever since he
could draw a trigger.
Caricature you will say—no rude image neverthe
less of men’s thoughts in this present age. Each one
has his Samson and the Foxes—his own particular ob
jection, doubt and difficulty, and be sure the day is not
far distant when the long pent up murmurs will swell
into one loud chorus of dissent, which the clergy and
ministers of every denomination will find impossible
to stifle, and very hard to answer.
These thoughts passed across my mind upon
reading a paragraph in the Times of last April 26th,
headed “ Christianity versus Scepticism,” and giving
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures.
9
time for the authorized teachers and expounders of
Holy Writ to come down from their lofty pedestals
and stem the torrent which is bursting in upon us
from so many and such different quarters. Sooth to
say—it is none too soon. For the temper of the pre
sent age is not to be played with, pooh-poohed, or put
aside with the cold remark, “ we have heard this
before, the Church and the World never did agree,
nor ever will." So much the worse for the Church
then—if she cannot lead men, she must give up all
thoughts of driving them. If she can return a
satisfactory answer to all that is implied in those
words, “ are these things "so,” well and good, if not,
she must give place to those that can. Let her look
well to her armour and the joints of her harness, for
new times bring new weapons, and unless she can
forge something very different from aught that her
armoury has yet supplied, I fear that perilous days
are in store for her. Theologians can no longer
shelter themselves behind the ample shield of Bishop
Butler, or fly for refuge to Paley and Lardner. Arch
bishop Thomson himself confesses in the notes to his
“ Bampton Lectures on the Atonement," that “ the
Analogy of Bishop Butler by no means covers all the
ground contested at present,’’ and yet he finds a
sufficient defence in the works of the two writers
above mentioned. Truly this is going down to
Egypt for help, a staff no better than a broken reed.
I look upon this fact of Divines turning Lecturers as
the greatest compliment that could be paid to the
spirit of Free Enquiry which is now abroad. That
the missiles with which modern Criticism has for the
last thirty years been fighting the great battle of Free
Thought should have at last pierced the pachy
dermatous hide of slumbering orthodoxy; and so
stung Prelates and Preachers that for very shame
they can no longer keep silence, is indeed a thing to
make a note of. And moreover that they should
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures, n
Since last I wrote to you, Sir, the oracle has de
livered its response—Bos loculus est—eleven doughty
champions of orthodoxy have shown us with what
vigour they can repel the assaults and stem the tide
of infidelity, which, as they assert, is rushing in upon
this devoted land; and after a careful perusal of their
several lucubrations, I am bound to confess that the
great doings of Dame Partington and her mop have
received in them a fresh illustration. Every one
knows the story of the starving peasants in France
previous to the First Revolution, when their bitter
cry for bread reached at last the gilded halls of the
Tuileries, and the Queen, amazed at the importunity
of the “wordy peoples,” asked naively, why, if they
were without bread, did they not eat those dear little
buns which her Majesty, and the other grandes dames
du Palais found so palatable. Now it seems to me
that our hierarchy are pretty much of the Queen’s
way of thinking, as I shall show further on. For
years past a storm has been brewing in fitful, violent
gusts, striking upon the Church’s venerated fabric
from every quarter of the compass—doctrine after doc
trine challenged—time-honoured traditions assailed
and overthrown—old landmarks obliterated—the.
veil torn ruthlessly from so called mysteries—prac
tices hallowed by the superstitious reverence of past
ages stripped of their tinsel covering, brought forth
and exposed to the garish light of day—“ what was
once rejected as heresy now all but recognised as
Dogma,” and become the common talk of men, until
at last the culminating point is reached in the Voysey
case, and our spiritual guides and leaders are forced,
per fas aut nefas, to confess that silence on their part
is no longer becoming; in fact, impossible.
How many vexed questions, how many perplexed
and anxious thoughts have the last ten years awak
ened in the breasts of men—a restless uneasiness,
one knows not why or wherefore, has grown up in
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 13
the so-called facts which we have been taught to
believe in about the Christian religion, facts indeed,
or ecclesiastical fictions ? Are we to look upon what
we find recorded in the Bible as true in its history,
true in all its details as our teachers have always told
us ? Is the old saying, ‘ Gospel true,’ to pass any
longer current amongst men ?”
What is the reply ? The querists, serious and
earnest men (sceptics though they be), are seeking for
some solid, wholesome mental food to strengthen and
nourish both their hearts and intellects, and, as I said
at the beginning of this letter, the Archbishop and
his coadjutors when asked for bread, deal out buns
instead, and moreover stale buns, of a somewhat
puffy and indigestible kind. Let an unprejudiced
reader go through these eleven lectures (they should
have made up the baker’s dozen) and point, if he
can, to any doubts dispelled by them, to honest
difficulties openly and manfully faced.
A few words shall substantiate this. The lectures
are broken up into three groups, the first treats
of three subjects—Materialism, Pantheism, Positiv
ism ; the second of science and revelation, and the
nature and place of the miraculous testimony to
Christianity; group the third embraces the following
subjects—the gradual development of revelation, the
alleged historical difficulties of the Old and New
Testament, the mythical theories of Christianity, the
evidential value of St Paul’s Epistles, Christ’s teaching
and influence on the world, the completeness and
adequacy of the evidences of Christianity. Such is
the Bishops’ answer, such their mode of dealing with
the religious problems of the present day, and I
maintain that as controversial writings (it is in this
light only that I am viewing them) they are valueless,
and worse, they are damaging to the sacred cause
which they have been put forth to defend. With one
or two exceptions, hardly any of the real difficulties
�and Christian Evidence Society's Lectures. 15
fathers after the sober fashion of by-gone days,
but who can no longer believe all that their ancestors
did, or follow them in their blind unquestioning
faith, their docile submission to their spiritual pas
tors and masters. Sad will it be if ever the thought
and intelligence of this land revolt from the Church’s
teaching, as no longer answering to their spiritual needs
and aspirations, to that yearning for greater breadth
and freedom, that passionate desire for the Truth, the
whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, which
has seized upon so many hearts at the present day,
making itself heard in the oft-repeated question, “are
these things so 1 ”
Two much mooted points are especially prominent
in the controversy we are now engaged in, viz.,—■
The moral difficulties that are felt in reference to
some parts of the Old Testament, and. secondly,
the authenticity of St John’s Gospel, and it is truly
ominous to find them both omitted from these Lec
tures. W^e are told indeed in the Preface that a
Lecturer could not be got for the first, and with
regard to the latter, Professor Lightfoot,. who had
undertaken it, expressed a desire that his Lecture
should not be published. Bishop Ellicott speaks of
this as most unfortunate and regretable—hiatus
vcdde deflendus—and well he may, for after the great
question of miracles there is none of such grave
import as this of the Fourth Gospel. Considering
how much depends upon it, one is struck with
wonder at the cool audacity which professes to meet
its adversaries in fair and open combat, and then
shrinks from the very trial that would most have
put its manhood to the test. What must the outside
world think of such a proceeding 1 What is this,
but giving great occasion to the enemies of the
Truth to blaspheme ? Of the whole eleven Lec
tures, there are only three that can be said to deal
with the special difficulties of our day, viz
The
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures.
words •, but the Professor has no such fear, and he
certainly manages to make a very small argument
go a long way. How far this dialectical skill would
avail against an unbeliever in the fact of the
Resurrection appears somewhat doubtful. I would
ask any impartial reader of this Lecture whether he
has got out of it all that the writer thinks he has
put therein. The most that can be said is that
St Paul believed in the Resurrection, and fortifies
that belief by recounting the other traditionary
appearances of our Lord, which were current in
the church at his day. We now come to the Lecture
which has the most direct bearing upon the chief
stumbling block of our age, viz :—the question of
miracles. Years ago M. Guizot maintained it as
a special difficulty of Religion, to get people to
believe in the supernatural. And this spirit of
incredulity, like an avalanche set in motion, gathers
force and intensity with each succeeding year. A
singular instance of this has just presented itself
in the case of Dr Kalisch, the well known Biblical
expositor.
In his elaborate Commentary upon the Pentateuch
(of which the first volume, containing the Book of
Exodus, appeared in 1855) he describes the Plagues
of Egypt as based upon natural circumstances, adding
that “ their miraculous character is unmistakeably
observable in the following points,” which he then
proceeds to enumerate. Whereas, in the first part of
his Commentary on Leviticus (lately published) in
the chapter on “ The Theology of the Past and the
Future,” he says plainly, “ Miracles are both 'impossible and incredible—impossible because against the
established laws of the universe, and incredible be
cause those set forth by tradition, are palpable inven
tions of unhistoric times.” Which now is Philip
drunk, and which Philip sober here ? But to proceed
with Dr Stoughton’s Lecture on. the Nature, and
�and Christian Evidence Society’s Lectures. 19
Testament subserve a moral end or purpose; or he
knew how impossible it now is to get people to be
lieve in the ark’s capability for holding a pair of all
living creatures, the standing still of the sun, or its
going backward on the dial—in Balaam’s ass or
Jonah’s whale—in the death of twenty-seven thousand
people at once by the sudden fall of a wall—or in
that most stupendous miracle of the Old Testament,
the recovery to life of the dead Moabite when his
body touched the bones of Elisha.
Whatever be his reason, the love of simplicity or
what not, this shirking of the most difficult part of
his argument tells strongly against him; it is no
proof of faith in a cause, to keep half of it in the
dark, and every one feels that the whole Book must
stand or fall together. But as Dr Stoughton well
knows, one thing and one thing only, could make
men accept the whole of the Bible as strictly and per
fectly true, viz., the belief in its Infallible Inspiration.
So long were its pages beyond the breath of cavil,
none dared to raise his voice or stretch forth his
hand against the sacred ark of God’s truth. But this
incubus once removed, this bugbear of literal inter
pretation taken out of the way, and henceforth men
were free to make diligent and honest inquiry into
the truth of what they read in the Bible, and the
first fruits of this freedom we are now reaping in
England.
One thing we may thank the Bishops for, the
generous and kindly spirit in which they regard the
scepticism of the present day; neither is this as easy
a matter as one might think it. Call to mind the
flood of abuse which theologians have been too prone
to heap upon an opponent; their ferocious hatred of
everything that bore the name of Free-thought; the
determination to find therein* “ a set and system of
opinions, the most slavish, the most abject and base,
* Bentley’s Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, p. 4.
���
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
Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wheelwright, G.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. The letters, written to Thomas Scott, centre around Voysey's trial, reported in the 'Examiner' of February 25th, 1871. Voysey's major work The Sling and the Stone was condemned by the conservative wing of the Anglican Church and William Thomson, Archbishop of York, began proceedings against him in 1869. He was summoned before the Chancery Court of York for heterodox teaching, where he defended his case for two years. He appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which gave its judgement on 11 February 1871. The pamphlet contains three letters; the full lectures to the Christian Evidence Society are not printed. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5517
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Heresy
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 (Three letters on the Voysey judgment and the Christian Evidence Society's Lectures), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism
Charles Voysey
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
Trials