2
10
42
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/039f85d57739473055160d530101a9c2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d3sAeUpgbwz9dKQH4-zt95GtjqWgqZiQjaX3wlOgpZW65ZrI5AWMVNli1naITtU3PgLJZl8kvuriO%7E%7EYDPc5wFxNwZf3RpCMaxVpfAvxAQLWCD3P8Q-WvuVc9G-tmNgPBNhpHsctQOJdDX5sSmMWKyTV3Kv-l12tb9Y2u-9%7EFoUy8Wk04sZFK028c4C72s9PBnM5-pFq6OgMasg2lh1kuE0fsSB3QItqOMbuIpDRoqbvC1p2A26psfPefVhSmCQCJat3mfs2JbCOBgR30f3rybov%7EjgWmQFVmmvtLFk5VfdM2mIRVEM6B0pLQt1-1oDpkA0ESaV%7EZRMAG2hrhbgl3g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9246adee2c3aedf0d33f69a2e5c79445
PDF Text
Text
FROM
Christian Pulpit
Secular Platform
BY
JOHN
LLOYD
PRICE SIXPENCE
London:
THE PIONEER PRESS, 2 NEWCASTLE ST., E.C.
1903
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2 Newcastie-street, London, E.C.)
BACON, LORD
Pagan Mythology: or, the Wisdom of the
Ancients. 6d., postage l|d.
BENTHAM, JEREMY
Church
of
England Catechism Examined,
a
Wi”Ch narrowly escaped prosecu
tion. With Introduction by J. M. Wheeler. Is
postage 2d.
’
Utilitarianism. 3d, postage id.
COHEN, C.
Outline
of Evolutionary Ethics.
A plain
exposition of the nature of Morality from the stand
point of the doctrine of Evolution. 6d., postage Id.
Foreign Missions ; Their Dangers and Delusions.
A complete exposure of the Missionary movement,
rull of figures from the Societies’ own reports
showing how the money is spent, where it is spent,
and what are the results. 9d., postage, Id.
COLLINS, ANTHONY
Free Will
and Necessity.
Reprinted from
1715 edition, with Biography by J. M. Wheeler, and
Freiace and Annotations by G. W. Foote. Is.
p. 2d.; superior edition, on superfine paper, cloth
2s., postage 3d.
’
Huxley says that “ Collins writes with wonderful power
and closeness of reasoning.”
*
FEUERBACH, LUDWIG
The Essence of Religion. God the Image of
Ma.n. Man’s Dependence upon Nature the Last and
.< xrU y Source of Religion. Is., postage l|d.
No one has demonstrated and explained the purely
human origin of the idea of God better than Ludwig .
Feuerbach.”—Buchner.
8 1
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FROM
CHRISTIAN PULPIT
TO
SECULAR PLATFORM
BY
JOHN
LLOYD
London:
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle Street, E.C,
1903
�PRINTED BY THE PIONEER PRESS
AT
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C
�( Reprinted from
the
“ Freethinker.” )
I.—INTRODUCTORY.
It is a stupendous leap from the high and lonely
prison of the preacher to the low, wide, and free ros
trum of the Atheist, and such are the risks connected
with it that no one should ever take it except in
obedience to the stern voice of duty.
Recently, it
fell to my lot to be solemnly called upon to take such
a perilous jump, and to turn such a bewildering
somersault; and I am now obliged to testify that the
event formed the most serious and unforgettable
crisis of my life.
I can honestly state that it was
my supreme crisis, and that I feel it to be my duty,
as well as privilege, to furnish the reader with a minute
description of the various circumstances which com
bined to render it absolutely inevitable. I think I would
be justified in characterising it, further, as a typical
experience, through which hosts of others, ere long, will
be necessitated to pass. Be it known, therefore, that for
upwards of twenty years I occupied the Christian pulpit,
and won a moderate amount of notoriety in it. I was
what is called “a popular preacher,” a fact which was
both pleasing and inspiring to me.
I trust I shall not
lay myself open to the charge of egotism when I affirm
that, during the last fifteen years of my professional
career, the churches in which I officiated were too small
to accommodate the eager crowds. Of course, it often
happens^ that popularity is no proof of superior excel
lence. The most notorious person in Great Britain at
�4
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
the present moment is Samuel Herbert Dougal, the
brutal murderer and clever forger. Let a man leave
the ruts in which the wheels of society have been
accustomed to run, and become eccentric in his ways,
and he will soon become an object of public curiosity.
Everybody will be anxious to catch a glimpse of him,
and, if possible, to hear him speak. In my own case, I
am afraid that the chief element whieh contributed to
my popularity was a lurking suspicion, on the part of
the people, that I was not quite sound in the faith. To
myself, however, the most painfully conscious fact was
the knowledge that the faith was not sufficiently sound
in me. I was theologically eccentric.
I must emphasise this point. It has always been my
devoutest wish to hold the Christian faith unhesitatingly,
firmly, and in its orthodox completeness ; but, unfortu
nately for my peace of mind, the wish never blossomed
into serene fulfilment. It had been carefully handed
down to me, as a sacred legacy, through a long line of
ancestors, and I had been trained to believe that to
doubt it, or to cherish it languidly and falteringly,
would have been a heinous sin against God. During
childhood and youth, and for at least one year of my
ministerial career, I did hold it with tightest grip, and
was prepared to defend it against all opponents. I
must here explain that, in the school of theology in
which I was brought up, the Christian Faith was
synonymous with Calvinism, and that the only enemies
of it, with whom I was familiar, were Socinians or
Arminians. To me, Calvinism was the only true faith,
and all who denied it were outside the pale of the
Church of God, and would be damned for ever.
I
shuddered as I thought of the awful doom that awaited
benighted Wesleyans and Unitarians in the next world.
I placed John Calvin on the same level as the apostle
Paul, and pitied all who had the audacity to differ from
these two giants. Of atheistical teachers, who rejected
even Christianity and the Bible, I at first knew nothing.
Arminians were bad-enough, in all conscience, and their
chance of entering heaven at death was infinitesimally
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
5
small; but infidels and Atheists were too-deep sunk in
moral filth even to be mentioned in respectable society.
They were black emissaries from the Bottomless Pit,
whom the Devil had succeeded in making as desperately
wicked as himself.
With my up-bringing, I would
rather have faced a thousand deaths than ventured to
peruse the diabolical writings of such reprobates as
Voltaire and Tom Paine! But soon after my ordination,
my intellectual grasp of Calvinistic theology slackened,
and ere long gave way altogether. My precious inheri
tance crumbled into white dust about my feet, and was
blown to the four winds before my very eyes; and I
discovered, to my unutterable horror, that I was doomed
to be an unbeliever. In my awful misery I went into
retirement, there to examine the very roots of the old
beliefs. Had I been wise, or wisely advised, I would
have there and then abandoned the Christian ministry,
and qualified for some other profession. But I fought
my doubts, and in some measure overcame them.
Then, unfortunately, I resumed my former work, but
necessarily without the former intellectual assurance. I
persuaded myself to believe that there were still two
sovereign truths to which I could passionately cling—
namely, the Fatherhood of God at one extreme, and, at
the other, the Brotherhood of Man.
During the
remainder of my professional career, I proclaimed these
two doctrines with considerable fervor, and as vehemently
denounced Calvinism, my first love. Intellectually, I
could not demonstrate and fully justify the Divine
Fatherhood, but emotionally it was a source of incalculable
satisfaction to me. Whenever difficult questions arose
(such as, If God be a Father, all-wise and all-good, how
is it that the world is the habitation of so much cruelty,
injustice, and suffering ? If God is infinity or the Abso
lute, how can He be a person ? and, if He is not a
person, how can He be our Father <*), I intellectually
ignored, while emotionally triumphing over them. In
calm, meditative moments, I was often inexpressibly
distressed by the puzzling problems that crowded upon
me ; but my feelings always came to my rescue, enabling
�6
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
me to sail pleasantly on the ocean of maudlin sentiment.
This was a state of things that could not possibly con
tinue. No man can be, for any length of time, intel
lectually a thorough Agnostic, and emotionally an ardent
believer.
As I now look back upon it all, it is an
insoluble mystery to me how I managed to occupy so
anomalous a position for so long a time. In part, the
explanation is, that I honestly and strenuously en
deavored to believe that the spiritual faculty in man is
infinitely superior to the intellectual. But the attempt
turned out a miserable failure. At last, the intellect
won a glorious victory over mere emotionalism, and, in
consequence, my sentimental adherence to, and enjoy
ment of, Christianity and the Bible began gradually to
diminish. Then I was necessarily obliged to abandon
my profession, and to adopt Secularism, based on
Atheism, as my only possible creed.
Another explanation is to be found in a circumstance
which, to some extent at any rate, extenuates my mis
take. You are doubtless aware that noteven a conscious
hypocrite can be serenely and uniformly happy. He
lives a double'life, and is in constant dread lest people
should perceive that he is wearing a mask, and playing
a part. But, surely, inconceivably greater is the misery
of a simple, honest man who is striving to act honorably
in a totally impossible position.
He is perpetually
running up and bruising his knuckles against a dead
wall, in entire ignorance of the fact that there is a way
of preventing so useless and disastrous a performance.
I hat is an accurate description of my experience for
many years. I had been most assiduously trained, from
earliest childhood, in the narrowest of creeds, and
dogmatically taught to look upon it as the only true
creed ; my parents had been similarly trained and
taught in their childhood; for many generations before
my birth, my ancestors had successively occupied high
and prominent positions in the ecclesiastical life of their
country ; and, as an inevitable consequence, even the
idea of renouncing for ever, not merely the old orthodox
Calvinism, but also Christianity itself, was intolerably
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
7
repugnant to me. Indeed, during the earlier years, such
an idea never once suggested itself to my imagination.
I was, rather, dominated by the depressing conviction
that the intellectual collapse of my faith was the out
come of some unknown but serious spiritual defect or
fault, or, perhaps, the penalty of some hidden but most
real sin against God. Hence, I multiplied and itensified
my devotions, and knocked persistently at heaven’s door,
passionately pleading for pardon and the restoration of
my vanished treasure. The laws of heredity and environ
ment rendered it impossible for me to contemplate a life
of Atheism except with indescribable aversion and
horror.
The object of the following articles will be to explain,
on the one hand, how I was literally forced into the
Christian ministry, and, on the other, how I was, with
equal literalness, forcibly, though gradually, driven out
of it.
�FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
II.—CHILD-LIFE IN A PURITAN HOME.
Surely no man in his senses would ever dream of
pronouncing an unqualified and extravagant eulogium
on Puritanism. That it possessed several wholly admir
able and fascinating qualities cannot be denied ; but it
is equally clear that, as a scheme and philosophy of
human life, it was deplorably one-sided and utterly mis
leading. Thinking only of its courageous insistence on,
and inflexible adherence to, Righteousness, Carlyle and
Ruskin deeply loved and loudly praised it, declaring
with mournful pride that they were the last surviving
exponents of it in England; but, thinking chiefly of its
unlovely and repellent attributes, I am tempted to
denounce it in the bitterest and most vehement terms at
my command. My blood boils and rushes furiously
through my veins, as I look back upon my childhood
and youth, and realise how sadly and completely they
were darkened and blighted by the grim, black shadow
and; cruel; tyranny^ of Puritanism. I thankfully admit,
that in my parents^ were abundantly exemplified the
brighter and nobler features of the darksome system.
My father and mother were living incarnations of honor,
honesty, truth, and righteousness, and their love for their
children knew no bounds. In my references to them, I
hope I shall not employ a single disrespectful or disloyal
word. I am convinced that their affection for me never
wavered, and_that, to secure what they believed to be
my highest good, they would have cheerfully made all
necessary sacrifices. But, while fully admitting the
integrity and.sublimityofwtheir_character, as well as the
purity and nobleness of their motives, I cannot close my
eyes to the mournful .fact, that they were the means of
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
9
Utterly spoiling my child-life, and of wofully handicap
ping my whole future. Their conception of life and
character was fundamentally mistaken. They looked
upon the world through colored spectacles, and never
saw it in its true light and beauty.
The first formative heresy instilled into my impres
sionable mind was, that life on earth is a series of disci
plinary experiences, the sole object of which is to prepare
us for the perfect life in heaven. Heaven was an in
effably happy realm, in which the inhabitants incessantly
sang psalms and hymns, to the accompaniment of golden
harps, while earth was the abode of griefs and groans,
with interludes of heart-breaking and spirit-crushing
dirges and threnodies. All amusement was said to be
of the devil, and should be forcibly suppressed. All
music had to be severely in the minor key. Laughter
deserved hottest denunciation, while, on Sunday, not
even a smile could be tolerated. Pleasure of all kinds
was ruthlessly excluded. Once I laughed out over some
humorous passage in the Bible, for which I received
such an emphatic castigation from my father, that I
have not been able to forget it to this day. At this
moment, I can still see the old man’s grandly wrathful
face, and hear his stern rebuke: “Your stupid levity
over God’s own Book, my boy, is rank blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, for which the Great Judge may,
any minute, strike you down dead.” I trembled with
fear, and repressed my merriment, but failed to under
stand why it was wrong for a little boy to laugh at
ludicrous things. People of the world could eat and
drink and be merry, singing bright, joyous songs ; but
they were on the high road to hell, in which they would
have to weep and gnash their teeth to all eternity. And
yet, I remember that whenever I passed an inn or tavern,
and heard light-hearted, merry singing, I would stand
still, strangely thrilled and attracted : there was some
thing in me which, in spite of all my training and strong
convictions, irresistibly responded to the stirring strains.
But I was quickly brought to my senses byfcthe reflec
tion, that my enjoyment of such things was another
�IO
FROM CHRiSTIAN PULPIT
proof of the existence of original sin in my soul, and of
the fact that as yet I had not been born again.
Because of the same misconception of the nature and
meaning of human life, play, even in its mildest forms,
was regarded as being of the world worldly, in which
only the unregenerate indulged. Even little children
played marbles and span tops under severe parental
protest. Sometimes a lot of us would steal away into a
distant field, in order to have a clandestine turn at foot
ball ; but one of our number had to act as sentinel, that
no one might come upon us unawares. During my
childhood, I never saw an adult taking part in any sport
whatever. Even as recently as twenty years ago, the
Principal of a College, who was an ordained minister,
was solemnly reprimanded by his Presbytery for giving
encouragement to the sinful sporting spirit of the age, by
allowing himself to be elected President of the College
Cricket Club ; and had some of the pious brethren had
their way, he would have been deposed from the ministry.
I shall never forget the funereal tones in which children
were exhorted, at class-meetings, to abstain from all
irreverence and frivolity, and give themselves to prayer
and Bible-reading. Our parents, too, kept dinning the
same lesson in our ears: “ Remember, children,” they
used to say, “ that you are always in the presence of
holy God, and that in his sight seriousness is the most
becoming grace.”
And this brings me to the sole cause and root of the
whole matter, namely, the Puritanical conception of God,
which can only be characterised as pagan, cruel, monstrous.
The Puritan’s Deity was a heartless tyrant, who would
not permit little children to give free and full vent to the
very nature which he himself had bestowed upon them.
How persistently I was reminded that God was watching
me, and that every lie I told, and every wrong I did,
were recorded in his Books, and would be read out
against me at the Day of Judgment. To please him, it
was necessary to think about him all the time, read the
Bible with diligence, pray without ceasing, and go to
church three or four times on Sunday, and ever so
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
11
many times during the week. God’s eye was ever upon
me, so that there was no possibility of saying or doing
anything without his knowing about it.
On one occasion, I joined a number of boys in a
nutting expedition, thereby flatly disobeying my mother.
O how sweet was that stolen pleasure, while it lasted,
and how my whole being was thrilled, to its core, with
delight; but it was a short-lived bliss, for on my return
I had administered to me a never-to-be-forgotten punish
ment. Moreover, within a few hours after this motherly
chastisement, a fierce thunderstorm burst upon the com
munity, which was construed into a visible token of
heaven’s displeasure at my sinful behavior ; and after
almost every vivid flash, I was thus comforted : “ What
a mercy it did not strike you, my boy ; how good God
is thus to spare you.”
God’s tyranny cast its black and all-withering shadow
upon everything. I deliberately affirm that life was
not worth living; but, then, it was infinitely better to
live sadly and mournfully for a few years on earth, and
after death be endlessly happy in heaven, than to enjoy
a sinful life on earth, and afterwards grill and burn for
ever and forever in hell. Consequently, the better a
man became the more miserable he was. Lugubrious
ness was a sign of superior saintliness. It was openly
stated that a well-known and pre-eminent man of God,
who was a brilliant scholar, being able to speak with
fluency seven different languages, a profound theo
logian, and an authoritative interpreter of the eternal
decrees, had never been known to laugh. He was one
of the holiest men that ever lived, being so like him of
whom it is recorded that he wept bitteriy on several
occasions, but not that he laughed even once ; and chil
dren, especially, were advised to aim at a similarly
exalted type of piety.
This unrelieved lugubriousness of temper was always
in strong evidence at the public services of the church.
At such times everybody looked tremendously solemn, as
if thermal universal conflagration were about to begin,
and every two or three minutes all the best people
�i2
FROAf CHRlStlAff PUtPlT
vigorously sighed, moaned, grunted, groaned, or cried
“ Amen.” I can see them now, those elders and deacons
of enviable holiness, with their hair brushed down their
foreheads, arrayed in badly-fitted garments of home
made cloth, seated in the Big Pew immediately in front
of the Pulpit, and staring with fixed eyes upon the
preacher, who was vehemently shouting out God’s
gracious message in Christ. O what eloquent croakers
those superior men of God were, and how some of the
children wondered whether they would ever be old and
pious enough to be allowed a like high privilege!
In those days, to be a member of the Church was
identical with being saved. Every church member held
a certificate for heaven.
Hence, to be cut oft from
church membership was the most awful calamity that
could befall a person. Outside was the big world, lying
under the wrath of the Great Judge because of its sins,
and doomed to spend all eternity in the flames of hell;
and to be flung back into such a wretched world was the
greatest curse conceivable. Within my recollection, a
young woman was so thrust out for allowing a man of
the world to fall in love with, and be married to, her.
In excommunicating her, the officiating minister brutally
assured her that, were she to die before she repented and
was readmitted to membership, she would undoubtedly
be committed to the unquenchable flames of Gehenna.
Poor soul, she was frightened almost out of her wits ; and
yet her only crime consisted in marrying a thoroughly
honest, upright, and good man, who did not happen to
be within the pale of the Church.
Children’s meetings were frequently held, at which
the youngsters were drilled in Bible history and the
catechisms. • In all such gatherings, the dominant note
was that God sat on his throne, night and day, watching
the behavior of children on earth, and that, unless their
conduct was in harmony with the teaching of the Church
and their parents, he would most certainly cast them
into the outer darkness, where they would wail and
shudder in infinite torment for ever.
Such was the training of a child in a Puritan home
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
13
thirty or forty years ago, and naturally the consequences
were most disastrous. During all my childhood days I
never knew what it was to be spontaneously happy, or
genuinely and unreservedly young. I always had an
old head, filled with fears and forebodings, on my young
shoulders.
Of necessity, therefore, mv nature was
warped, and my character became wofully one-sided.
There was a whole realm of delightful and educative
experiences to which I was a total stranger, and to this
day I have suffered infinite loss in consequence. A
friend, similarly trained in childhood, told me the other
day that he never knew what it was to be young until
he was fifty years of age.
When will parents learn that childhood should be a
period of natural, spontaneous, and ebullient happiness,
and that any training that robs it of that desirable
quality, however well-intentioned, is in the highest
degree iniquitous ? At the bar of justice and common
sense Puritanism stands utterly, absolutely, and eternally
condemned.
�T4
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
III.—LOOKING TOWARDS THE PULPIT.
Nothing was more natural than that a boy, carefully
brought up in . a strictly Puritan home, should be
resolutely ambitious to enter the ministry of the
gospel.
Consider, for a moment, the theological
atmosphere in which the training would naturally be
conducted.
Many of my readers are fully aware
that the philosophy of the plan of salvation, as ex
pounded on the hearth-stone, from the pulpit, and
at most of the ordinary meetings of the church,
would be arrestingly realistic. By eating the for
bidden apple, Adam incurred the righteous wrath of
heaven, and in consequence of that one sinful act all
his descendants were involved in the same inexorable
doom. We have all inherited original sin; or, in
other words, we are all held and accounted guilty
of a sin we have never committed, or, more accurately,
of a sin we have committed in him as our divinely
appointed head. God hates the whole human race,
and has created a lake of fire and brimstone in which
to consume it for ever. Every one of us is justly
doomed to eternal shame and suffering. Such is the
immutable decree of heaven, and there is absolutely
no escape from it. Ours is a doomed world, and
there is not a single ray of hope for it. In this
stern, dark dogma I was most scrupulously indoctri
nated. But, fortunately, there are three persons in
the blessed Trinity, and we were assured that one
of them has always had a tender, compassionate
heart. Although the Father is, and always was, in
himself utterly implacable, and violently determined to
inflict an all-crushing punishment upon the objects of
his well-deserved indignation, the Son cherished feelings
�To SECULAR PLATFORM
i5
of yearning pity and forgiving sympathy towards them,
and passionately besought the P atherly heart to graci
ously spare them. The Supreme Ruler of the Universe,
however, showed himself relentlessly unpropitious, and
emphatically disinclined either to withdraw or to modify
the high claims of his justice. Said the Son: . “ My
heart bleeds with compassion for the condemned sinners
of the earth, and I am prepared to do all within my
power to deliver them from thy fierce wrath. Wilt thou
not punish me, and acquit them ? Wilt thou not empty
the vials of thine anger into my soul, and bestow upon
them thy free and full forgiveness ?” In response to so
moving an appeal, the Father entered into a solemn
covenant with his Son, known in theology as the
Covenant of Grace, according to which the Son was to be
accepted as a substitute for a chosen number of man
kind, and to endure, in his own innocent person, the
awful punishment due to them on account of their sins.
Hence, in order to secure the complete deliverance of
the Elect, the second person in the blessed Trinity came
down to earth, was born as a man, lived, toiled,
suffered, died on the Cross, rose from the dead, and
returned to heaven as the perfect Redeemer of his
people.
I know how utterly absurd all this will appear to all
who were not brought up to believe it, and even to me
now its most prominent feature is its absolute un
believability.
But the most extraordinary and in
credible teaching of theology is yet to be described.
We were told that the three persons in the glorious
Trinity had each his own peculiar share in the grand
work of redemption. The work of the Son consisted
in offering himself up as an infinite atonement for the
sins of the Elect, which he did on the Cross of Calvary,
and the Father’s work was, partly, to accept the offered
atonement as all-sufficient, and, partly, to arrange for
the actual administration of the Covenant of Grace.
Now, this administration of the Covenant was entrusted
to the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Trinity, as
his special share of the sublime work. He was there-
�l6
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
fore commissioned to descend into the world in order to
discharge his administrative duties.
But as the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate, he
was obliged to work through mediums and agents. As
a pure ghost he had to enter into chosen vessels, and fill
them to overflowing, before anything could be accom
plished. The chosen vessels were the apostles and their
duly ordained successors, who are usually known now
as clergymen, ministers of the gospel, or men in Holy
Orders, whom I was instructed to regard as the repre
sentatives of the Holy Ghost, commissioned by him to
explain the Covenant of Grace to their fellow-beings,
and to urge all to believe the gospel. Of course, the
non-elect had no chance whatever of being saved ; but,
as no one knew who the elect were, it was necessary
to preach the gospel to all without distinction. In every
congregation some of heaven’s chosen ones would surely
be found, and on hearing the word of life they would
savingly receive it, and be snatched as brands from the
•burning. Thus the extending of the offer of salvation
to all alike was only a trick to get at the elect, and
gather them into the gospel net.
Such was the creed on which I was nourished in my
childhood, and having inherited from my ancestors an
ardent temperament, and being from a child abnormally
sensitive and sympathetic, I was naturally most power
fully affected by it. My heart melted into tears of pity
for the miserable sinners round about me. I burned
with the desire to make known to them what God, for
Christ’s sake, had agreed to do for them. Of course,
there was the possibility that I did not happen to be one
of the elect myself, although I had fervently swallowed
the whole creed, and accepted Christ as my Redeemer.
Indeed, nobody could be absolutely sure of his election.
Even the brightest and most confident faith had a back
ground of fear and trembling. But I passionately
yearned to tell all within my reach that Christ had
offered himself up as an all-meritorious sacrifice for the
sins of his sheep, whom God, for his sake, was prepared
to forgive, justify, and sanctify, that at death they might
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
17
ascend and occupy splendid mansions in the sky. And
thus I resolved to become a minister.
My father was the senior deacon of the church, and
the most prominent member of society in the community,
in consequence of which fact I enjoyed several high
privileges that did not fall to the lot of ordinary children.
For example, most of the itinerant preachers who
visited our little Bethel were my father’s guests during
their stay. Ah, how well I remember those holy men of
God. What an infinite honor it was to entertain them,
and with what deep, rich joy my parents waited on them,
and offered them the choicest fare that love could
procure! With what tremulous reverence I used to
regard them, and with what grateful avidity I treasured
up all their precious sayings ! They were not made of
common clay. They were the mouthpieces of Jehovah,
and their sermons came down to them as sacred gifts
from heaven. As I thought of them my soul was on
fire with envy, and O how fervently I prayed God to
appoint me to the same exalted vocation. Sometimes
one of these semi-divine beings would condescend to
speak to me, and at once my whole being quivered with
proud delight. “ What would you like to be when you
grow up, my boy ?” he would ask, and tremblingly I
would answer, “ A preacher, sir.” “ That is a good boy,”
he would add, gently stroking my hair; “ I hope God
has called you, for without his special call no one has a
right to enter the pulpit.” I felt the truth of his words,
and gave myself more than ever to prayer, assuring the
Supreme Being that if he permitted me to become a
preacher, I would do my best to be an honor to him.
At times, I almost fancied I could hear his welcome
voice distinctly calling me to the sacred profession.
But when, at fifteen, failing to restrain myself any
longer, I appealed to the church for permission to
exercise my preaching gifts, my request was firmly
refused, the church being evidently sceptical as to my
possessing such gifts to exercise. Still, the fire burned
in my bones, and preach I must, at whatever cost,
used to go up to the mountain top, and deliver eloquent
�IS
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT*
and all-convincing discourses to a congregation of sheep,
lambs, and lapwings. The sheep were somewhat dense,
and responded but slowly to my passionate appeals, but
the lapwings rewarded me with inspiring applause. I
little thought, at the time, that the lovely birds were only
trying to decoy me away from the vicinity of their muchcherished.’ nests.
Eventually, however, the church
accepted me as an accredited candidate for the sacred
profession, and started me on the preparatory course. I
was then the proudest and happiest young man in all the
land. For weeks I walked on air and partook of angels’
food. To keep down my pride a messenger of Satan
occasionally came to buffet me with this hateful insinu
ation : “ What if thou art not one of God’s elect, after
all ? What if thou art thyself, by heaven’s decree, a
miserable castaway ?” But to prevent my sinking into
utter despair, a messenger of God would breathe into
me the consolation that arose from the fact that the
church had chosen me, and that it was through the
church God was accustomed to reveal his will.
O blind, misguided, and superstition-ridden fool that I
was, and knew it not.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
*9
IV.—AT THE DIVINITY HALL.
Soon after my enrolment as a ministerial candidate
I entered the University, at which I was privileged to
spend four laborious years. At the conclusion of this
purely academic course, I was admitted to the Divinity
Hall, wherein three interesting and revealing years were
passed. A Divinity Hall, or Theological Seminary, is
one of the most wonderful and unique institutions on
earth. The curriculum includes the Hebrew Language,
Biblical Exegesis, Homiletics, Ecclesiastical History,
and Systematic Theology. In my youthful estimation,
the Professors were demi-gods. How delightfully omni
scient and authoritative they were ! They knew every
thing, could answer every question, solve every problem,
penetrate every mystery, and annihilate every difficulty.
They talked about God with as much familiarity as if
they had stood behind his back and peeped over his
shoulders while he was framing his Eternal Decrees.
They could supply us with all sorts of exact information
about Election, the Incarnation, and the Unseen World.
They were all more or less rigid Calvinists, and each
lecture they delivered stated a doctrine, presented irre
futable proofs of its truth, and triumphantly demolished
all objections to it. All who held different views from
those expressed by them were denounced as dangerous
heresiarchs. Indeed, our Professors were to be regarded,
not as vendors of mere views or opinions, but as divinelyappointed proclaimers of sovereign truths revealed in the
Bible.
Arminians were hopelessly, if not judicially,,
blind, because they deliberately refused to use their
spiritual eyes. All “ isms,” other than Augustinism or
Calvinism, were of the Devil, and destined to pass
away. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, America, one of
the most illustrious champions of the Old School Calvin
ism, was said to have refused to shake hands with
�20
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
William Ellery Channing, the renowned Unitarian,
because he verily believed that Unitarianism had not a
single Scriptural leg on which to stand, and that Uni
tarians could not be recognised as genuine members of
the household of God.
At our Hall, a cold and narrow literalism reigned
with sublime dignity. The fable of the Fall in Genesis,
with its Adam and Eve, garden, apple, and serpent, was
treated as a unique historical fact. The doctrine of the
Trinity was explained in the most painfully mechanical
style. The Professor of Dogmatic Theology assured us,
with calm confidence, that it w7as the simplest, as -well as
the most important, doctrine contained in the Word of
God. He told us what distinctions and resemblances
there were between the three persons, in what exact
relations they stood to one another, and what distinctive
work each of them did. The fact of the incarnation of
God in Christ, according to him, involved the Immacu
late and Miraculous Conception. He explained to us
that it was just as easy for Omnipotence to create the
body and soul of Christ in Mary’s womb as it had been
to form the first man out of the dust of the ground, and
the first woman out of a male rib. Christ was Humiliated
Deity—Deity punishing himself for the sins of man.
The Incarnation was, therefore, the Supreme Miracle.
I smile as I think of it all now; but then I solemnly
believed it. To-day I regard it as a puerile superstition;
but then it impressed me as a truth revealed to us by the
Holy Spirit. All other dogmas were dealt with in pre
cisely the same way ; but space does not allow me to
give any further examples.
Occasionally the Professors were targets at which
thoughtful and sceptically-inclined young men fired
awkward and staggering questions; but not one of the
shots ever proved fatal. The theological skin was so
thick and hard that nothing could have penetrated it.
Here are a few samples of the type of question asked,
and answer given :—
Student : Professor, what real sin was there in
Adam’s act of eating the forbidden fruit ?
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
21
Professor : No sin at all, except in the sense that it
was a violation of a Divine commandment. The com
mandment was a positive, not a moral, one ; and surely
the Supreme Being has a perfect right to impose what
commandments he pleases on the creatures of his hand.
Student : AVas it right of God to elect some to
eternal life, and leave all others to their doom ?
Professor: Yes, certainly; because the exercise of
mercy is purely optional with the Deity. It was an act
of stupendous condescension, on his part, to choose a
certain number to be saved through the atoning death of
his only begotten Son. Justice demanded that the whole
human family should be consigned to endless torment in
hell-fire. The damned arc only inheriting what they
richly deserve, and cannot fairly blame the Judge. But
salvation is of grace alone.
Student : Is it right to punish a person for ever after
death for a limited number of sins committed during a
limited number of years on earth ?
Professor : Yes ; because every sin, however small it
may appear, is yet infinite, and deserves infinite and end
less punishment.
Student : How do we know that Christ rose from
the grave on the third day, and ultimately ascended to
heaven ?
Professor : Simply because the Bible says so. What
ever the Bible says is of necessity true, because it is the
utterance of God himself. One miracle demands another.
You must always bear in mind that the miraculous birth
necessitated the miraculous uprise from the tomb.
I cannot tell whether the young men who asked such
questions were satisfied with the dogmatic answers given
or not; but I can give my word of honor that I was more
than satisfied. To me the appeal to Holy Writ was
absolutely conclusive, and to question it would have
been a sign of incorrigible depravity.
Of course,
etiquette did not permit students to argue with their
Professors, who were more infallible than the Pope of
Rome. My conviction was that the Bible was the final
court of appeal, the verdict of whic^i should settle alj
�22
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
disputes.
Some people stumbled at miracles, for
example, and irreverently asked: “ In the name of
common sense, how can you believe that the whale
swallowed Jonah, and flung him out again unharmed ?”
Vehemently I answered: “Common sense has nothing
whatever to do with the matter. Had the Bible affirmed
that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would have believed
it quite as readily.” To me, then, the Bible was the
Word of the living God, and could not err. The
doctrines of the Christian Religion, as interpreted by
our Professors, was clearly revealed in the Scriptures,
and he was doubly blind and an unmitigated fool who
was impertinent enough, either to doubt them, or to
accept the Arminian interpretation of them.
That was the way in which I was trained and equipped
for my profession. My ancestors, my child-life at home,
the church in which I was brought up, and the Pro
fessors at the Seminary, all contributed to the develop
ment within me of an astonishingly firm adhesion to
what was called genuine orthodoxy. I left the hall a
gigantic believer. The supernatural was far more real
to me than the natural. Everything between the two
covers of the Old Book was God’s revealed truth. If
people told me that miracles were violations of natural
laws, I frankly admitted it, well knowing that in order
to facilitate the fulfilment of the noble purposes of
heaven, a higher law had a perfect right to make in
roads upon and subjugate a lower. If some weak-minded
friends experienced great difficulty, in believing in a
special Divine Revelation, I could astonish them with
the bold assertion that my only difficulty would have
been not to believe in it. My appetite for believing
knew no bounds, and was never entirely satisfied. And
this infinite appetite and capacity for blindly believing
constituted my stock-in-trade when I stood on the
threshold of the active ministry. Ah me, the pity and
the misery of it all! It lies on my memory like a horrid
nightmare.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
23
V.—THE FIRST YEAR OF PROFESSIONAL
LIFE.
The day of my ordination to the ministry of the glorious
Gospel of the blessed God was the greatest, grandest,
and gladdest in my whole history. At last, the harvest
of my ambition was fully ripe, and about to be gathered
into the barn of enjoyment. My wildest dreams and
brightest hopes were on the eve of veritable fulfilment.
Unanimously invited to the pastorate of a large city
church, possessing the entire confidence of a congrega
tion that had had experience of me as a preacher for
several months prior to the tendering of the invitation,
and having just listened to extravagant encomiums pro
nounced upon me by famous ministers who took part in
the ordination service, I was elated with joy unspeakable
and full of glory. I scarcely knew whether I was in
heaven or on earth. I felt as if I were automatically
floating on an ocean of holy peace. As I looked back
upon the past, I was confident that exceptionally high
and fruitful privileges had been lavishly showered upon
me in childhood and youth. While comparing notes
wTith my chums at the Divinity Hall I discovered that,
even at sixteen years of age, not one of them knew the
meaning of the word “ theology,” while I was a distin
guished champion of the faith at ten. I had drunk
theology with my mother’s milk, and had been, during
all my teens, systematically drilled in the art of contro
versy. Had I no excuse for cherishing a little pride and
self-complacency ? And as I looked forward to the
future, bright stars of hope shone upon and illuminated
the far-stretching pathway.
There never had been such a preacher as I was fully
determined to become. The Celtic fire, sanctified by
the grace of God, blazed away in all my veins. I was
deeply sensible of the reason why the majority of
churches were empty, and entertained no doubt that
�24
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
mine would soon be full. My sermons would aim at
converting two predominant classes of people, namely,
the open, reckless sinners who were rushing on to hell
at express speed, and those characterised by St. Paul as
natural or psychical men, who neither cared for nor
believed in the higher and nobler realities. In the faces
of shameless sinners I would vigorously shake hell,
painted in the most lurid colors, and I would drive the
natural man out of every stronghold in his possession,
and force him to surrender, openly confessing that his
case was utterly hopeless. Certainly, my part of the
city would be completely transformed within a few
months. I would frighten sinners and argue naturalists
right into the kingdom of God. Such was my program.
I little dreamed that the Fates were all the time laughing
in their sleeves at my ineffable stupidity.
For a time I did, undoubtedly, occasion not a little
sensation in my own immediate neighborhood. My out
spoken denunciation of everything I believed to be sin
soon attracted attention. Crowds flocked to hear me
preach. I had invincible energy and boundless enthu
siasm ; and I spared nobody. A text from which I
frequently discoursed was this : “ Ye serpents, ye offspring
of vipers, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell ?” The
sufferings of the damned were never more vividly and
realistically portrayed than in those crude addresses of
my early ministry. I could not have depicted them
better had I actually seen and experienced them for a
thousand years. I remember once taking a Sunday
afternoon service at a neighboring church, and speaking
on this my then favorite theme. At the close the
minister intervened, and said: “I thank God for this
afternoon’s message. It is so refreshing and reassuring
to hear God’s own truths so boldly and uncompromisingly
proclaimed. Alas, not all ministers in this city (with an
obvious reference to a popular preacher who did not
believe in endless punishment) preach the Gospel on this
awful subject. But woe be to us if we withhold this
revealed truth from our people.” In the extra-orthodox
churches I was immensely popular, People admired my
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
2^
courage in putting so much fire and brimstone into my
sermons. Not one of my discourses was a sugar-coated
pill. But I was not nearly so successful with St. Paul’s
natural man. I soon perceived that he had a mind of
his own, and was astonishingly difficult to move. I
brought out my heavy artillery, and vigorously bom
barded the castle of his naturalism, but failed to make
the least impression upon it. I had fondly hoped that
he would have quickly surrendered, readily acknow
ledging the superior cogency of my arguments; but
instead of that coveted result, I found my own armor
sadly riddled with his shot, while he remained untouched
in his strongly fortified position. My signal failure with
him gave me a painful sense of disappointment, but I
comforted myself with the soothing reflection that, had
it not been for his intellectual stupidity and spiritual
obstinacy, I would have gained a magnificent victory
over him.
On the whole, however, my first year of professional
life was fairly satisfactory. My faith in the Divine
Verities continued unfaltering and undimmed for many
months. My acceptance of the Bible was complete,
without even a shadow of reservation; and I was
joyously loyal to all the doctrinal standards. I was a
firm believer in the efficacy of prayer ; and, when the
late Professor Tyndall issued his famous Prayer-Test, I
was horrified at the blasphemous audacity of his pro
posal. I pitied the poor scientist as an unregenerate
natural man.
Bye-and-bye, however, dark, ominous
clouds began to gather in my hitherto clear ecclesiastical
sky.
In the middle of each week a well-attended
Prayer-meeting was held in a large hall adjoining the
church. It was my custom to deliver a short address
on some religious topic, and then to call upon several
people to engage in prayer. Among those who usually
responded were two of the office-bearers. They were
both exceedingly fluent, and people always liked to hear
them.
They were well-read, intelligent, and devout
men ; but, unfortunately, it was softly whispered that
their unctuous rectitude was only a thin coat of veneer,
�26
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
covering and hiding a character that was radically
putrid. The one was said to be living continually in
grossest immorality, and the other to be the biggest
scoundrel out of prison. By degrees, the half-smothered
whisper grew into a loud rumor, behind which it was
evident there was too much truth. It was an insoluble
mystery to me how these men could offer up such fervent,
heart-stirring prayers, while pursuing such iniquitous
and God-defying practices. Thus two of my right-hand
men were consummate hypocrites. Was it possible that
they really believed in a holy, truthful, and loving God,
or were they simply playing at religion ?
I was
staggered and bewildered, and knew not what to think.
In course of time, I came to the mournful conviction
that, in the world, Christians were generally looked upon
with suspicion, that in business circles they were not
always trusted, and that many of them were openly
denounced as cunning and heartless swindlers. I found
out that because of their commercial crookedness and
social insincerity the members of a particular sect were
universally loathed, and the more I mingled with men
the more deeply convinced I became that such aspersions
were only too well founded. People who professed to be
better were really worse than their neighbors, and shielded
themselves under the cloak of religion. To-day I am
bound sorrowfully to admit that the tendency of adhesion
to the popular type of religion is to make people hypo
critical and immoral. Their professed peace with God,
the fact of their regeneration, their dream of eternal
blessedness in heaven, and their comforting conviction
that they shall never see hell except at a safe distance,
are dependent, not in any sense or degree on their char
acter, but on their faith in Christ, for whose sake and in
whose merits alone they are accepted in the Divine
sight. Their faith is reckoned or imputed to them for
righteousness, and their religious exercises—their praying,
hymn-singing, church-going, Bible-reading, alms-giving
—are substituted for upright living. Christ fulfilled the
moral law in their stead, and the moment they believed
in him they were released from all moral obligation. I
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
27
remember a dear, deluded old saint saying, with
grateful tears in her eyes: “I deserve to go to hell,
and therein to burn for ever; but, blessed be his
name, my beloved Redeemer deserves that I should
go to heaven and sing his praises without end, and
I am sure God cannot say Nay to his only begotten
Son.” If there were a God of truth and love, such a
belief would be rank blasphemy; and in any case, he
who lives up to such a faith is guilty of high treason
against his own nature. I have no hesitation whatever,
therefore, in laying to the charge of all so-called Evan
gelical Churches the stupendous crime of being direct
and fruitful sources and encouragers of commercial dis
honesty, social hypocrisy, and moral stupor. In illustra
tion of the truth of this charge, John Ruskin tells us,
with burning indignation, of a wicked merchant in the
City of London who was a prominent and active member
in a suburban church. In the City he was a man that
required special watching, and one day he was guilty of
a specially tricky and fraudulent transaction. On the
following Sunday, one who knew of this dishonest
bargain, happened to attend that suburban church, and
therein saw the self-same merchant engaged in a most
solemn act of worship. At the close of the service, he
went up to him, and, with a significant look in his eye
and withering scorn in his voice, said : “You here ?”
The great man felt most uncomfortable, but after a
moment’s pause, answered: “ Here, you know, we all
assume the attitude of the poor publican, in the parable,
who smote upon his breast and tremblingly praye’d,
‘ Crod be merciful to me a sinner.' "
�28
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
VI.—THE INTELLECT IN REVOLT.
Why was I such an ardent and militant believer in the
Calvinistic Version of the Christian Religion ? Was it
because it commended itself to my reason as essentially
and eternally true ? Was it because I could prove its
divinity by a long and elaborate train of irrefragable
reasoning ? Or was it simply because I had been
diligently taught from the cradle to believe and cherish
it ? The fact is, that I was a Christian solely because I
accepted the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word
of God, and that I accepted the Bible as the only
authoritative revelation from above, because, primarily,
my parents, and all the other people I knew, so regarded,
and trained me so to regard, it, and, secondarily, because
such was the doctrine of the Church into which I had
been born. Had I beeen born and bred in a Moham
medan country, I would have been a Mohammedan on
precisely the same ground. My belief in the Bible and
Christianity came down to me as an inheritance from
my ancestors: it ran in the blood, and I was not con
sulted as to whether I would take it or not. It was a
purely mechanical, traditional, and superstitious belief,
endowed with no inherent vitality with which to fight
fop its own existence. But such is the force of the law
of heredity, and of the influence of early training, that
this dead faith remained with me to the close of the first
year of my clerical career. When anybody asked me
why I believed such-and-such a dogma, the only answer
I could make was, “ Because I find it in the Bible.”
When pressed further for the ground of my faith in the
Bible, I could only cite the teaching of the great doctors
of the Church. For the faith that was in me this was a
flimsy, fragile, and worthless reason ; but it was the only
one I had to offer.
Just at that time a most remarkable theological book
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
2<J
fell into my hands, entitled The. Limits of Religious
Thought, by the late Dean Mransel. That well-known
dignitary of the Anglican Church was an exceptionally
keen and subtle metaphysician of the school of Kant
and Sir William Hamilton.
One of the distinctive
tenets of this school crystalised into the apt phrase,
Relativity of Human Knowledge, which figured so
largely in the Lectures of Sir William Hamilton. This
is the tenet that underlies Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Syn
thetic Philosophy, and of which he makes such splendid
applications in his First Principles. M'ansel adopted this
doctrine in its entirety, and applied it to theology. His
main contention is that we cannot know the Infinite
and Eternal, all knowledge being confined to visible,
tangible, and finite objects. Hence, to our purely in
tellectual faculties, the Christian Creed is at once un
believable and unthinkable.
God is of necessity
unknown and unknowable, uncomprehended and incom
prehensible. Wre believe in him alone on the testimony
of Scripture. Our reason, acting within its own legiti
mate limits, pronounces all our theological dogmas
absurd and self-contradictory. As Christians, we are
not thinkers or reasoners, but blind believers. It was
under the influence of this monstrous teaching that
Tennyson sang, in his In Memoriam,
We have but faith : we cannot know ;
For knowledge is of things we see.
The Limits of Religious Thought is now a dead book ;
but it was marked by much logical -ingenuity and intel
lectual force, and a careful perusal of it compelled me
to pause and think. I had been instructed to regard
Calvinism as in the highest degree reasonable, although
in its nature and origin immeasurably above reason.
Times without number, as I imagined, I had success
fully championed it along purely intellectual lines. But
now I perceived, for the first time, that I had been
laboring under a fatal delusion. In reality my reason
had never had the opportunity of critically examining
the Christian Faith, and of ascertaining whether it was
in itself believable or not. I had begun life firmly
�30
Fkofvi CKRiSTiAN PULPIT
believing it, and I had taken for granted that hiy reason
gave it full support. But Dean Mansei’s book opened
my mind’s eyes, and for the first time in my life I began
to think for myself. But no sooner did I begin to think
for myself, than the foundations of my faith commenced
to tremble and crumble beneath my feet, and I realised
how completely I had been the slave of superstition and
traditionalism. The house of my faith tumbled into
awful rum, and I was flung headlong into an unfathom
able pit of pain and misery. I walked about in the
dark dungeon as one demented, weepingly bemoaning
my infinite loss. The discovery that the so-called truths
of the Bible were, not only above, but also in utter con
travention of reason brought with it a most disagreeable
sense of deprivation and impoverishment.
To be
actually. without God and without hope in the world was
a calamity too dreadful to contemplate. So deep and
poignant was my grief that I sank into utter despair.
I grew so tired of my life that I was strongly tempted
to put a violent end to it. At last a voice cried out of
the central deeps of my being, “ Thou coward ! ” and
thereupon I determined to fight my battle through to the
bitter end. But the end was not reached for several
years. Fierce in the extreme was the soul-wrestling
with Giant Doubt. What sunless days and starless
nights I wept my way through ! How incessantly and
confidently 1 prayed lor guidance to a deaf, unheeding
Deity! In my eagerness I consulted innumerable
standard books on the Evidences, wended my weary
way through ponderous Bodies of Divinity, and gave
whole nights as well as days to a prayerful study of the
Bible, yearning unspeakably all the while for the return
of my faith.
In this crisis books of science were conscientiously
eschewed as positively dangerous, because in the circles
in which I turned science was violently denounced as
irreligious and atheistical. Although I had lost my
faith in God, and Christ, and the spiritual world, I still
regarded Darwin and Tyndall as enemies of mankind.
I had not read a line of their works ; but it was my
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
31
strong conviction that Evolution was a hellish theory.
When Dr. Charles Hodge, the renowned orthodox
divine, published his little volume against it, I was
transported with delight, and contributed an impassioned
eulogy of the production to a religious magazine. It
never occurred to me to suggest that the learned divine
did not understand what the word “ Darwinism ” meant,
and was not competent to pronounce judgment against
it with such dogmatic assurance. But while thus rashly
taking sides with the theologian against the naturalist, I
was myself in an entirely atheistical frame of mind. I
was afraid of science, because I knew it could not help
me back to faith. Nor could I take any of my friends
into my confidence, for they were all such orthodox
believers that they had no patience with doubt and
doubters. Thus, in a loneliness that lacerated the very
soul, I had to wage ceaseless war, singlehanded, against
my cruel foe. How much I suffered neither tongue nor
pen can ever tell.
But the long night came to an end, the welcome light
began to dawn upon my desolate heart, and slowly two
great truths, like twin suns, appeared on the horizon,
and offered me their kindly service. As I have already
stated, these truths were the Fatherhood of God and the
Brotherhood of Man, and to them I tendered the full
homage of my being. Of course, my acceptance of the
Divine Fatherhood necessitated the reconstruction of
Christ. The deposition of the Despot and the enthrone
ment of the Father involved the overthrow of the
Calvinistic conception of the Savior. In my search for
a consistent interpretation of Jesus and his work I fell
on a most ingenious and suggestive book, entitled
Wcan'pws Sacrifice, by the late Horace Bushnell, a very
profound but shockingly heterodox theologian. In this
luminous volume, the great man maintained that we are
to regard Christ as the last and absolutely perfect reve
lation of God, and that his work consisted, not in
conciliating or propitiating a vindictive Tyrant, but in
making known the all-holy, all-merciful, and all-re
deeming Father. This was a new evangel towards
�32
PROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
which my hungry heart leaped with boundless gratitude.
Surely this was a genuine return to the simple teaching
of the Apostolic Church. And with this new-found
gospel, I returned to the pulpit, aglow with zeal, jubilantly
triumphant, and resolutely bent on scathingly denouncing
the. very theology on which I had been brought up, and
which I had previously preached with such confidence.
On the Calvinism that was once so dear and precious
in my sight I now poured scalding streams of scorn.
The exhibition of such iconoclastic vehemence filled
the church to overflowing with interested hearers, the
great majority of whom enthusiastically approved and
applauded my deliverances. A few of the older and
narrower thinkers frowned, and raved, and threatened,
and denounced, it is true; but the bulk of the people
rejoiced, and wished me God-speed in the fulfilment of
what they styled my beneficent mission.
This was my second theological house, and O with what
ardor I thanked God for having inspired me to erect it!
It was such a lovely structure, and in it I hoped to spend
the remainder of my life. Alas, little did I then think
that this house also was built upon the sand, and that, like
the foolish man of the parable, I should soon find it
tumbling disastrously about my ears.
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
33
VII.—THE INTELLECT IN BONDS.
Dogmatic theology no longer wielded its bewildering
fascination over me, but was scornfully trampled under
my feet. With those who regarded precision and defi
niteness of thought in religion as of supreme importance
I was completely out of touch. Like Dr. Bushnell, I
was firmly of the opinion that an adequate dogmatic
theology cannot exist, because spiritual facts can only
be expressed in approximative and poetical language.
This was also the contention so cleverly defended by
Matthew Arnold in his epoch-making book entitled
Literature and Dogma. His central proposition is that
Bible terms, like grace, new birth, justification, are not to
be “ taken in a fixed and rigid manner, as if they were
symbols with as definite and fully-grasped a meaning as
the names line or angle, but in a fluid and passing way,
as men use terms in common discourse, or in eloquence
and poetry, to describe approximately, but only approxi
mately, what they have present before their mind, but
do not profess that their mind does, or can, grasp exactly
or adequately.”
Such teaching suited my mood to
perfection, and with riotous joy I revelled in the two
sparkling gems, Literature and Dogma and St. Paul and
Protestantism. In these books Matthew Arnold goes so
far as to formally reject the Supernatural and the Mira
culous. “ God,” he says, “ is used in most cases as by
no means a term of science or exact knowledge, but a
term of poetry and eloquence—a term thrown out, so to
speak, at a not fully-grasped object of the speaker’s
consciousness; a literary term, in short; and mankind
mean different things by it as their consciousness differs.”
This idea was a key that opened most of the locks of the
�34
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
Bible, and I used it continually with great prolit. But
I had not the courage to mention Arnold’s name, or
even Bushnell’s, in any of my public pronouncements,
because in deeply-religious circles both were highly
suspected and execrated names.
In this way it became fashionable to decry the
intellect as an inferior faculty, a calculating machine, a
logic-grinder, which deals only with mundane and
temporal realities, but cannot even touch the higher
things of the spirit. It is doubtless extremely useful to
the scientist, or the low-grade philosopher ; but to the
preacher it has no real value. Of course, this position
was tenable only to those who believed in the existence
and possible activity, within the human soul, of a
superior faculty, “ a subjective faculty,” as Max Muller
calls it, “ for the apprehension of the infinite.” In his
Hibbert Lectures the same scholar describes it more fully
as “ a mental faculty which, independent of, nay in
spite of, sense and reason, enables man to appre
hend the infinite under different names and under vary
ing disguises.” This faculty is intuitive, inborn, and
belongs to all alike, at least potentially. It is the gift of
insight, vision, and realisation. Now, my contention
was that by the exercise of this spiritual organ we could
clearly see God and Christ, realise the spiritual world
and immortality, and become blessedly assured of our
salvation through the risen and ascended Lord. Vision,
it seemed to me, was infinitely nobler and more ennobling
than ordinary knowledge.
Many of my comrades in
the new school used to wax irresistibly eloquent in
praise and commendation of this inward eye. To the
intellect God was unknowable and inconceivable ; but
through the soul’s eye and to the heart’s need he was
most gloriously and savingly visible.
At this time I had the unspeakable privilege of an
introduction to six luminous and illuminating poets,
namely, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth,
Browning, and Tennyson, all of whom confirmed and
advanced my theological liberalism. It was to Browning,
perhaps, that I -was most deeply indebted, and I habi-
�1*0 sfecULAk PtAti'Okfvi
35
tually quoted him in my sermons. How shocked I was
when I discovered that Mrs. Sutherland Orr and others
were impertinent enough to claim him as an Agnostic.
Among prose-writers my chief instructors were Emerson,
Carlyle, and Ruskin. Of theologians, the most inspiring
by far was Dr. George Matheson, the poet-preacher of
Scotland, whose able book, Can the Old Faith live with
the New ? gave me a firmer grip of what people call the
fundamental verities of the Gospel than all other books
put together. He made a magnificent use of the intellect
in the vilification of itself. The maligned faculty glowed
and sparkled, in the most charming manner, as it sang
the praises of its rival and so-called supplanter.
What makes me dwell so long on this point is the
knowledge that there are thousands of clergymen among
us at present, who loudly glory in their alleged posses
sion and enjoyment of the spiritual faculty. They say :
“ We cannot prove the existence of God on merely intel
lectual lines ; but we know that he is because our inward
eye sees him.” “ We cannot prove the Divinity of Jesus
Christ in any outward, formal way ; but to us his
Divinity is an irresistible inference from what we have
seen and experienced of his saving grace.” Not long
ago, the Rev. R. J. Campbell, the oracle of the City
Temple, stated that he had no fear of the Higher Critics.
“ Even if they w’ere to succeed in destroying the authority
of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation,” he said, “ yet
my own experience of its gracious efficacy would enable
me to cling to Christianity as confidently and tenaciously
as ever.” On another occasion he said : “ Our faith in
Christianity is dependent, not on the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, but on our direct vision and
knowledge of Christ.” I am not at all surprised at his
making such an assertion, because I often made it
myself; but it is an impotent attitude, and dates no
further back than the date of the Higher Criticism.
Fifty years ago it was well-nigh the universal teaching
of the Pulpit that no one could be a Christian without
believing in the full inspiration of the Scriptures; and
even at present there are a few, such as Dr. Robertson
�36
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
Nicoll, who declare that if the Bible were discredited on
critical grounds, Christianity would have to be given up.
The truth, undoubtedly, is that the advanced theologians
of the present day are standing on the brink of the
chasm of scepticism, because, in the absence of an infal
lible Book, which claims to be a direct revelation from
God, Supernatural Religion must speedily collapse. In his
Literature and Dogma, Matthew Arnold’s mam object
was to make it possible for educated people who rejected
the miraculous still to believe in the Bible and Chris
tianity. What he said, in effect, was this : “ Miracles
do not happen, the belief in the personality of God is
groundless, and the hope of immortality is illusive; but,
on the whole, the Bible’s chief concern is with conduct,
which is three-fourths of human life, and, on this account,
the Bible should be retained, and we can still call our
selves Christians.” But, for once, one of the finest of
literary critics was utterly mistaken. Divest Chris
tianity of its miraculous element, and what will there be
left that is not common to all great religions ? Banish
the Supernatural from the Bible, and what will it contain
worth preserving ? Indeed, I am convinced that Arnold’s
argument inevitably leads to Atheism, not to the recovery
of faith. I am prepared to go one step further and
affirm that, at heart, the great apostle of culture was
himself a genuine Atheist.
The God in whom he
believed was only a projection or externalisation of him
self. In proof of this assertion I need give only the
following characteristic quotation : “ Bishop Wilson
says, ‘ Look up to God (by which he means just this,
consult your conscience) at all times, and you will, as in
a glass, discover what is fit to be done.’ ” To a cer
tainty we know that Bishop Wilson meant just exactly
what he said ; but to Matthew Arnold God and con
science, or God and himself, were convertible terms.
It took me many years, however, to perceive how
utterly unsound and illogical the position I occupied
really was, and how inevitable would be the alternative
between a return to the simple, blind, unreasoning, but
strong faith of my childhood, and an advance to open
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
37
and unadulterated Atheism. There is no safe and per
manent half-way house between emphatic, unequivocal,
and old-fashioned Supernaturalism and plain, unadorned
Secularism. Mr. Campbell, though by no means an
orator, is yet a most magnetic speaker, and will always
have a large following of non-thinkers ; but I am certain
that his theological attitude and style of reasoning, if
reasoning it can be called, are calculated, in the long
run, to make more infidels than believers. Without one
definite seat of authority, to which to refer all debateable
points, religion cannot survive.
During the Middle
Ages it was the Church that settled all disputes. All its
official findings were infallible and universally binding.
The Reformation shifted the seat of authority from the
Church to the Bible; and for many generations Pro
testants worshipped the Book with as complete a homage
as Catholics did the Pope. The Protestant Reformation
did nothing more than exchange one seat of authority
for another. But in our day the only authoritative voice,
acknowledged by the leaders of British Free Churchism,
is that of individual experience; and the people who
decline to listen to, and follow, it, are declared to be
destitute of the spiritual organ. Every preacher is now
an infallible pope in his own society. The result is that
we have a million popes instead of one ; and it is a very
significant fact that no two of them agree on a single
subject. Each has a different kind of spiritual faculty
from all the others ; and the consequence is that all of
them deliver different and conflicting spiritual judgments.
The intellect is in bonds, but this very multiplicity of
contradictory voices is a sure sign that the day of its
glorious emancipation is hastening on. The Church is
slowly committing suicide at the instigation of its own
rulers, and the time is not far off when its tomb will be
adorned with green grass and lovely flowers. This is a
prophecy which is already in the process of fulfilment, as
every careful student of the signs of the times is bound
to admit.
�3§
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
VIII.—THE REIGN OF EMOTIONALISM.
When a man of an ardent temperament discovers that
the position he occupies is intellectually weak and in
defensible, he is almost sure to fall back on emotional
ism. That was the temptation that came to me, and to
which I readily yielded. With what infinite relish I
kept repeating to myself Matthew Arnold’s famous
saying : “ The true meaning of religion is, not simply
morality, but morality touched by emotion.''' During this
second period of my religious history, my theology
assumed a purely sentimental form, and pretended to
deal with facts as distinguished from theories. Dogmas
no longer appealed to me as true, although I had not the
temerity to reject them as false; but the great facts
which the dogmas endeavored to imprison within the
stone walls of scientific definitions appeared more vital
and precious than ever to me, and I hugged them with
kindling affection. There were doctrines which it was
my delight to hold up to ridicule and scorn; but there
were others on which I was silent, because I did not
understand them. Among these was the doctrine of
the Trinity. It was wholly inexplicable to me that
three infinite persons constituted but one God. Indeed,
there was something positively repulsive in the idea,
calmly held and seriously championed by many learned
doctors, that the second infinite person was eternally
born of the first, and that the third eternally proceeded,
without either birth or creation, from the other two.
Face-to-face with such inscrutable mysteries, I emotion
ally clung to the sweet Bible-verse, “ God is love." 1
was equally incapable of comprehending the Immaculate
Conception and Virgin Birth of Christ, or the mystical
union of the Divine and Human Natures in the con
stitution of his theanthropic person, which was no
longer merely the second person in the Trinity, but a
kind of new person miraculously brought into existence
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
39
through the Incarnation. No theologian on earth ever
pretended to understand that strange doctrine; and yet
it found a place in every standard work on theology.
Not one of the twenty different theories of the Atone
ment commended itself to my reason, although some
of them were more acceptable than others ; and so I
contented myself with proclaiming the living fact that
lay behind them all. To me Christ was. the visible
image of the living God, and his only mission in the
world was to reveal the Divine love.
Towards miracles, as such, I maintained a sceptical
attitude. With Huxley, I fully admitted their possibility,
but was not clearly convinced that a single genuine
miracle had ever happened; nor could I appreciate the
ground on which Christian apologists rejected all miracles
except those recorded in the Bible. Consequently, I
never preached on the subject, nor did anxious inquirers
privately press me to give an opinion on it. I knew what
evidential value the majority of theologians attached to
the miraculous, and what emphasis was laid on the
assertion that the proof from miracles was the only
proof on which we could absolutely rely in the refutation
of the arguments of unbelief. Archbishop Whately was
confident that all Catholic miracles would turn out to be
impostures, or capable of a natural explanation, “ but
that Bible-miracles would stand sifting by a London
special jury, or by a committee of scientific men.”
Dean Mansel argued that “ if the reality of miracles as
facts is denied, the whole system of Christian belief with
its evidences, all Christianity, in short, so far as it has
any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation
to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown at
the same time.” Mozley, Westcott, and Farrar ex
pressed themselves to the same effect. But while fully
aware of the theological contention that “ miracles and
the supernatural contents of Christianity must stand or
fall together,” still I somehow felt that it was a fallacy
and could not stand. But what was I to do with the
Resurrection of Christ, which was universally regarded
as the corner stone of the Christian Religion ? If J
�40
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
denied the miraculous, how could I believe that Christ
rose from the dead ? Must I not exclaim, in the poet’s
mournful words,—.
Far hence he lies
In the lorn Syrian town,
And on his grave, with shining eyes,
The Syrian stars look down ?
But if I denied that Christ rose again, how could I, for
a moment longer, be a Christian minister ? Well, I
must confess that I took refuge in a mean and cowardly
subterfuge. I contended, with a few others, that Christ’s
Resurrection was to be understood poetically and
spiritually, not literally and mechanically. I deluded
myself into believing that the Apostle Paul, also,
accepted and interpreted the doctrine in precisely the
same way. I think it was Clough, in his exquisite
poem, in two parts, entitled Easter Day, who first sug
gested the subterfuge to me. What a spiritual resur
rection signified, it would have been most difficult to
explain ; but the belief in it was emotional, and conse
quently did not require to have its contents too minutely
described.
I was satisfied with merely feeling that
somehow and somewhere Christ still lived. It was a
degrading, soul-killing subterfuge, though I knew it not
at the time ; but it enabled me to imagine and feel that
I was a believer when in reality I was not.
To the more thoughtful and intelligent people such
preaching lacked precision, definiteness, and clearness,
and the preacher was severely censured by them. But
with the people as a whole I never lost touch. I was
capable of rising to such an exceptionally high pitch
of fervor that I never failed to secure the sympathy
and support of the crowd. Besides, the presence of a
crowd had such a magical and transforming effect upon
me that my natural enthusiasm more than doubled its
power. The dormant fire in my constitution was fanned
into white and furioufe heat ; and if ever I spoke with
convincing effect it was because I so deeply felt what I
said. Argumentatively I may have been deplorably
weak and vulnerable ; but emotionally I was gloriously
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
41
strong and unassailable. And it is incontrovertible that a
miscellaneous, popular assembly responds much more
quickly and heartily to sentiment or feeling than to logic.
Earnestness, accompanied by kindling eloquence, is
infinitely more convincing to a multitude than the most
perfect and lucid argument ever framed.
Towards the close of the period under consideration, I
was, to all intents and purposes, nothing but an emo
tional and superficial expounder of the Christian
Religion. To my intellect, Christianity was almost
painfully false, but to my heart, it was irresistibly true.
On week days I was frequently a rampant Agnostic or
Atheist, but on Sundays and in the pulpit always a redhot believer. It was a pitiable condition, in the extreme,
to be in; but there was then absolutely no help for it.
I did my utmost to keep under and silence the intellect,
in which endeavor I occasionly succeeded ; and I did it
in the name and for the sake of what I verily believed to
be a higher and nobler faculty. Words can never tell
what soul-agonies I endured, what cruel crises I passed
through, and to what self-loathing I more than once
subjected myself. What kept me going was the con
viction that somehow the highest and best in my nature
still witnessed to the blessed reality of Revealed Religion;
and on Sundays, as I stood face-to-face with crowded
congregations, this conviction completely swayed my
whole being.
But the worst has yet to come, and must have a whole
chapter to itself. Arnoldism will never work, except
disastrously. The public has never been able to appre
ciate the fine distinction between literature and dogma.
On the contrary, the public is perpetually reducing
poetry to prose, and treating literature itself as if it were
dogma. A follower of Arnold in the pulpit cannot fail
sooner or later to commit suicide. He puts one meaning
into a word, a literary and poetical one, and his hearers,
another ; and he cannot but be aware of the fact. The
consequence is that he degenerates into a miserable
play-actor, a process I shall describe in the next
chapter,
�7
42
FROM CHRISTIAN PURPIT
IX.—PLAY-ACTING IN THE PULPIT.
In theory, Arnoldism is exquisitely beautiful and
irresistibly fascinating; but, in practice, it proves
wofully complicating and confusing. It leads to all
sorts of insincerities and hypocrisies.
A long time
ago a famous actor, on being asked by a clergyman,
“ Why is play-acting so much more successful than
preaching ?” answered, “ Because we treat fiction as
if it were truth, and you present truth as if it were
fiction.” It was a witty, apt, and, if both preacher and
actor believed the Bible to be the Word of God, emi
nently true answer. In numerous instances, it must be
confessed, the pulpit is such a signal failure because the
fire of enthusiasm does not burn in it, or because so
many preachers are empty-headed and empty-hearted
triflers. They do not doubt, because they are too lazy
to think. To them, the ministry is solely a “ living,”
an easy and respectable “ billet,” and they would forsake
it to-morrow did it not allow them to spend their days
in luxurious indolence. But there are other ministers
to whom laziness is not a besetting sin, and who cannot
complain of non-success in their work. The chief source
of their weakness is that they proclaim fiction as if it
were truth, thoroughly believing it, for the time being,
to be truth. We are assured that, while on the stage,
first-rate actors verily feel as if they were the characters
they represent, which, for the time, they doubtless are.
Judging by my own experience, and by observation of
other cases, pulpit play-acting reveals itself in various
ways.
In the first place, no sooner had I adopted Arnoldism,
and commenced to treat the Bible as literature, than I
discovered that I dared not preach all I knew. In
course of time, I came into possession of a large body of
esoteric truths, which were of too dangerous a character
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
43
to be communicated to a mixed congregation. I was
positively certain that the Pentateuch was not written,
even the earlier and simpler portions of it, for many
centuries after Moses’ time. I knew well enough that
the Mosaic Economy was a late and gradual develop
ment, and that from the time it began to assume a
definite shape the prophets and the priests became
sworn enemies, proofs of which fact abound in the
prophetical writings themselves.
It was as clear . as
noonday to me that Genesis is a collection of interesting
legends, traditions, and myths; that Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are by no means historical,
but purely fabulous, symbolical, or eponymous char
acters, and that the stories of Creation, the Fall, and the
Flood are fables, borrowed from Babylonian and other
sources.
It was not hidden from my eyes that the
Historical Books were extremely crude and imperfect,
full of contradictions and discrepancies ; that the two
Chronicles, in particular, were written with the object
of representing the priesthood of the later Jewish
Church as an institution that had existed continuously,
and in its entirety, from the time of Moses, and that of
history in the modern sense they contained none.
Dr. Torrey boldly asserts that there are no mistakes
of any kind in the Bible—an assertion that makes
one wonder whether the popular evangelist can be
even an honest man.
From the time I began to
treat the Bible as literature, I have not been able to
shut my eyes to the fact that it contains innumerable
mistakes—historical, chronological, numerical, and
moral. But although I had full knowledge of all these
things, I had to be silent about them in the pulpit,
because of the danger that any public reference to
them might disturb the people’s simple faith in the
inspiration of the Book.
If I ever mentioned the
Higher Criticism at all, it was merely for the purpose
of emphasising the fact that if the Bible is inspired
no criticism, however hostile in spirit and aim, can
inflict any permanent injury upon it.
It was also
undeniable that as yet the Critics themselves were
�44
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
not quite sure of their ground, inasmuch as they hotly
disagreed with, and contradicted, one another.
Nor
could it be forgotten that some of the most advanced
and iconoclastic among them were yet firm advocates
of the moral and spiritual supremacy of the Volume,
and stood in the front rank of evangelical preachers.
On these grounds, as far as I possibly could, I kept my
congregation in the dark as to what was being done by
Biblical scholars, and continued to treat the Bible as
the supreme seat of authority in religion. Its history
might be glaringly inaccurate; its geology, hopelessly
chaotic, and its astronomy, ludicrously antiquated;
but then it was not written to teach these lower,
earthly sciences, but to be an infallible guide in all
matters affecting the destiny of the soul. Such was
the attitude taken up by theologians as soon as they
realised the impossibility of retaining the exploded
theory of verbal inspiration and inerrancy; and we
preachers feebly followed their example.
But, after
all, preachers have no moral right to withhold im
portant knowledge from their congregation, nor can
they do it without seriously weakening their position
and doing themselves irreparable harm.
In the second place, I found that, having adopted
the literary and poetical method of interpreting
Scripture, I attached other and, as I fondly fancied,
larger and worthier meanings to the great theological
terms than those which they popularly bore.
This
was an excessively risky game to play, but it was
played in the sincere hope that genuine good might
be the result.
For instance, the generality of the
people believed God to be an infinite and eternal
person, clothed with so many natural and moral
attributes of absolute perfection, with whom, through
the merits of Christ, they professed to be in intimate
and soul-making communion.
They told him all
their troubles, confessed to him all their sins, implored
him to pardon and release them, and besought him to
grant them sundry little favors. To me, on the other
hand, God was the name loosely given to the sum-total
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
45
of ideal virtues and. moral excellencies, communion with
whom signified active admiration for and an ardent
desire and effort to possess and exhibit, such noble
qualities. I spoke of him as if he were a person ; but I
did so in a loose, poetical, or literary sense. I addressed
him as Father, Friend, Savior, meaning just this : that
at the core or heart of things is constructive, healing,
saving Love.
In maintaining this attitude I was
enormously helped and comforted by Henry Drummond’s
exquisitely beautiful book, entitled The Ascent of Man.
Its teaching was nebulous, vague, poetical, almost
fantastical ; but to me, at that time, irresistible. The
law of the Universe was Love, and only that which
opposed the glorious purposes of love could be called
sinful.
There were numerous other terms, such as
atonement, regeneration, justification, immortality, which I
treated in the same ambiguous and passing way. The
object I had in view was the gradual conversion of the
people to my way of looking at things.
But my success in the realisation of that object was
most discouragingly small. It is cocksure dogmatism
that always moves the multitude ; and even I, in my
most Arnoldian mood, was supposed to be speaking
dogmatically. There were but few who took me in my
own sense, and those few soon lost all interest in the
popular religion and ceased to attend its various meet
ings. I was all the time on the high road to Secularism,
though at that time I had not the least suspicion of it.
Some of those who joined me in the strange pilgrimage
soon outstripped me in speed, and arrived at the inevitable
destination years before I did. One of these was a man
of exceptional intellectual brilliancy, dowered with a fine,
lively imagination, and privileged, above most, to live
close to Nature’s heart. What deep joy was mine when
I had succeeded in winning him to my side ; but his
stay with me was wonderfully brief. He perceived,
almost at once, that the position I occupied was illogical,
irrational, and impossible, and his sense of perspective
drove him at a furious pace straight on to Naturalism or
Monism, in which he found intellectual peace and heart-
�46
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
rest. We are both together again now, sharing each
other’s joy, as well as responsibility.
When will ministers learn that theological liberalism
is only a stage in the journey either to Rome or to
Atheism ? Many of us remember how Newman, in a
book of startling novelty, assigned that fact as the chief
reason why he was obliged to become a Catholic—to
bow in lowliest reverence to a corporate authority—in
order to preserve his faith in religion. At one time he
and his younger brother, Francis William, stood on
practically the same platform ; but one day they parted
company, John Henry going down to Rome and
becoming a Cardinal, while Francis William climbed
towards, and almost reached, the domain of pure
Naturalism.
Theology cannot be liberal, and live.
Based on an infallible revelation from heaven, it must
remain stationary for ever, or die. No progress is
possible, except the progress out of it. Newman was
philosopher enough to perceive this; and he made his
escape in time.
The next chapter will explain how my deliverance
came.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
47
X.—THE EMANCIPATION OF THE
INTELLECT.
Everybody knows that play-acting is a species of
hypocrisy, this Greek word being the term originally
employed to describe the theatrical profession ; and it
would be equally a truism to say that play-acting, how
ever acceptable and successful on the stage, always
destroys the legitimate power of the pulpit. Above
everything else the preacher needs sincerity. At all
costs he must say what he means, and, to the deepest
roots of his being, mean what he says. If he speaks
hesitatingly, falteringlv, apologetically, or with numerous
reservations, explanations, and comments, he thereby
robs himself of more than half his natural power, and
completely cripples the influence of his ministry. He
occupies a lower platform than Samson did when he
made sport for the people.
Besides, although the
intellect may not be the strongest and noblest of our
mental faculties, it is anything but safe and wise to per
manently ignore and snub it. Sooner or later the day
of its revenge will come, which to the play-acting
preacher will be a dreadful day of swift judgment. In
my case the terrible day arrived much later than it would
have done had I been of a cooler, calmer, and more
reflective temperament.
Let me, now set down in order some of the causes
that led up to my emancipation, or indicate a few of the
stages in my journey from Supernaturalism to Secu
larism. They are these :—
1. Loss of faith in the infallibility and Divine authority
of the Bible.
2. The consequent relegation of Religion to the sphere
of faith, feeling, and individual experience.
�48
FROM CHRISTIAN PULRlt
3. Realisation of the forced nature of all devotional
exercises, in the cultivation of which the Closet
and the Church are but forcing-pits.
1. In connection with the passing of the Bible it is a
highly significant fact that the most effective agents in
the process have been professional theologians, trained
exegetes, accredited representatives of the Church. The
Bible has been mortally wounded in the house of its
nominal friends. The Faith has been stabbed to the
heart by its own official champions. Prominent among
these, at the present time, are Canons Driver and Cheyne,
of the Etablished Church of England, and Professor
George Adam Smith, of the United Free Church of
Scotland. I utterly fail to see how any honest, unbiassed
person can carefully study and understand Canon Driver’s
famous Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
and his lucid Commentaries on several Old Testament
Books; Canon Cheyne’s Introduction to the Booh of Isaiah,
together with his numerous Commentaries, critical articles
in theological and expository magazines, and the great
and scholastic Encyclopedia Biblica, of which he is chief
editor; and, in particular, Professor George Adam
Smith’s startling book entitled Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the Old Testament, without being unavoidably
driven to the conclusion that the Bible is not, in any
superior or special sense, the word of God, and must be
subjected to the same canons of criticism as all other
books. At any rate, that was the inevitable effect the
study of such works had upon me.
2. But how can Supernaturalism stand without the
support of a specially inspired and infallible Book ?
There are still a few simple-minded and honest-hearted
people who, in spite of all the discoveries of modern
criticism, dogmatically maintain that, if the Bible is
fallible and bristles with blunders, there can be no escape
from the hateful inference that Christianity is overthrown.
Such people are the only consistent Christians extant.
But the bulk of present-day apologists refer for authority,
not to the Bible, but to the experience of living believers.
They eloquently exclaim : “ Religion does not live in a
�to SECULAR PLATFORM
49
book, but in the hearts and lives of its devotees. As
plants and flowers are grandly independent of the very
best Botanical text-books, so is Christianity of the Bible.”
The first great divine that formulated this argument in
England was the late Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, in a
book of immense interest, entitled The Living Christ and
the Four Gospels. He firmly believed in the authenticity
and inspiration of these documents ; but his argument
was that as Christianity came into healthy and vigorous
existence before a single line of the Four Gospels was
written, so it could likewise survive their utter destruc
tion. According to this argument, in its latest develop
ment, the Christian Religion, in its present sublimated
and etherealised form, is not vitally associated with the
miraculous birth, benevolent life, peerless teaching,
redemptive work, sacrificial death, and triumphant resur
rection of a historical Christ, but roots itself, rather, in
the personal experience of every genuine Christian, and
refers to the same source for its supreme and final
evidence. Consequently, Christ is not so much a his
torical person as a spiritual force in the souls of believers;
—that is to say, he is an unseen and omnipotent Being,
who in some mystic, inexplicable sense really dwells, as
a seed or germ, in every human soul ; in that of the
Mohammedan, the Confucian, or the Buddhist no less
than in that of the professing believer in Christendom.
Now, if this universally indwelling spiritual Christ gets
fair play, whether the gospel be heard and accepted or
not, he will certainly grow and develop into the ideal
stature. In those who make a spontaneous surrender to
him, he soon comes to conscious life ; and they worship
him with glowing devotion. They enjoy full communion
with him, as if he still actually existed somewhere, or as
if he were a person with a unique history lying behind
him. And yet, in spite of all this, they coolly assure us
that “ Christianity is not a system of intellectual truths,
but a practical and vital experience of the heart,” and
that “ Christ is not a fiction of the theologians, not a
prophet of Galilee, but an indwelling power whereby we
are evolved upward to the perfect spiritual stature of
�5°
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
man.” Quite recently, I heard the Rev. R. J. Campbell,
at the City Temple when'he affirmed, with his own pecu
liarly quiet and infectious’fervor, that this spiritual Christ
is now germinally present in the lowest and worst char
acter on earth. To those who venture to cast suspicion
on such an assertion, these modern apologists say : —■
“ You are blind, and there are whole regions of spiritual
apprehension of which you know nothing. Intellectually
you may, perhaps, be our equals or superiors; but
spiritually we are immeasurably above you, and possess a
faculty which enables and entitles us to judge you,
although you cannot judge us. We have allowed the
indwelling spiritual Christ to have his way with us to
such an extent that we already know all things.” They
affect a sublime indifference to all historical, critical, and
theological problems, saying : “ You may. smash up the
historical and intellectual setting to smithereens , but
when you have done that, you have not yet touched real
Christianity.” What, then, in the name of all the
wonders, is real Christianity ? Is it only the. creation of
the sanctified imagination of a few duly ordained clergy
men ? And is the same thing true of Christ himself ?
The late Professor Bruce, who wielded such an enormous
influence in his day, regarded the historicity of the Four
Gospels as absolutely essential. All the Epistles might
utterly disappear, without our suffering any radical loss,
for at best they were but human interpretations and
commentaries; but the moment we abandoned the
Gospels, Christianity would be entirely undermined.
And is it not true that Professor Bruce was literally and
profoundly right ? If it is or can be proved that Christ
never lived at all, or never lived as reported in the docu
ments, does not his spiritual existence in the souls of
believers become an empty dream? Surely a nonhistoric lesus cannot be in any sense a real person, nor
can a religion founded on an imaginary being possess
any objective reality, whatever the experience of its
devotees may say. The moment we give up our faith m
the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the moment
we admit that miracles do not happen, and have not
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
51
happened, that same moment we strip Christianity of all
its distinctive features as a Revealed Religion, and bring
it down to the level of all the great ethnic religions.
With this discovery came my emancipation (from all
superstitious slavery, and the full redemption of my soul.
A necessity was laid upon me to renounce, the Super
natural, and to find all I needed within the limits of the
natural. I substituted conscience for God, reason for
faith, common sense for prayer ; and for the first time in
my life I found mental rest and joy. •
3. But there was a third element that contributed to
my deliverance, namely, the conviction that all religious
exercises are artificially forced. Let us take prayer as an
example. As a child, I was systematically taught to
regard praying as an imperative duty, which everyone
should piously endeavor to discharge. I was also con
tinually reminded of the sorrowful fact that, ever since
the Fall in Eden, mankind had been sinfully disinclined
to bend their knees before the God of Heaven. Hence,
even to those who were born again through faith in
Christ, prayer did not come naturally. There was an
old man within them still who violently rebelled against
it; so that, in order to become proficient and find enjoy
ment in it, a necessity was laid upon them to crucify the
indwelling villain, and extend to his rightful successor,
created within them by the Holy Ghost, a firmer and
more welcome lodgment. But, in spite of all my des
perate efforts to bring about the death and ejectment of
the ancient Adam, in spite of all my passionate appeals
to God to come to my assistance in the matter, prayer
was never a joyous and strengthening exercise to me.
It continued to the end to be a hard, difficult, and un
illumined duty, which only my sense of loyalty to Christ
enabled me to perform at all. This constitutional dis
inclination to pray I then attributed to a fundamental
lack of spirituality, to some incompleteness of surrender
to God in Christ, or to some abnormal activity of the
persistent old scamp in my heart; and I tried to pray all
the more. After a while, I noticed that there was nothing
extraordinary or peculiar about my experience, but that
�52
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
the experience of all other children and adults was prac
tically the same. Of course, as long as I believed in
the Edenic Catastrophe, and the consequent imputation
of guilt and transmission of depravity to the whole race,
it was easy enough to account for the innate disinclina
tion to pray : it was a sign, proof, and direct consequence
of that hideous and hell-creating event. But as soon as
it became imperative to repudiate that damnable dogma,
because it flatly contradicted both reason and history,
there was no possibility of avoiding the atheistic con
clusion that religion, in the form of belief in and com
munion with an infinite and eternal Person, is un
natural, irrational, and injurious, and that for Christ,
with the whole paraphernalia of Atonement, Sacrifice,
and Salvation from hell, there is absolutely no need.
This is why adults are never religious unless they have
had religion forced down their throats in their youth.
This is why ministers and their assistants have to be so
busy attending to the religious education of the children ;
and it is to this incontrovertible fact that we owe SundaySchools, Bands of Hope, Societies of Christian Endeavor,
and even the regular services of the Churches. The
idea that underlies all ecclesiastical institutions, con
sciously or unconsciously, is that man is not by nature a
religious being, and that all religious convictions, beliefs,
and practices must be drilled into him by a long and
most laborious course of teaching. All religion originates
in superstition ; and it is a statement capable of amplest
verification that in proportion as superstition loses its
hold upon the common people, religion becomes a dead
letter. If the churches were to suspend operations from
next Sunday, in less than a hundred years Christianity
would be a thing of the past. We know that during the
last fifty or sixty years theology has been steadily aban
doning, one by one, positions that used to be regarded as
vitally essential. The renaissance of physical science in
the nineteenth century was accompanied by a corres
ponding decadence of religion. The acceptance of
Evolution meant the consequent rejection of the Bible
and Christianity.
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
53
XI.—THE INDESTRUCTIBLE REMAINDER.
Now that we have eliminated the Bible as a specially
inspired and authoritative book, and Christianity as a
miraculously revealed religion, both from our minds and
from our lives, is there anything that remains and cannot
be swept away? Yes, all that has ever had any
real and verifiable existence. We have merely rid
ourselves of unnatural and morbid developments, of
troublesome and hurtful incumbrances, or, in other
words, we have only lopped off a few injurious excres
cences. We ourselves, and Nature, of which we are an
important part, still endure. I can find no more in
external objects than is already, either active or dormant,
in myself. Man is an epitome of the Universe.
Nothing transcends the soul, because it is the sum-total
of all things in miniature. Hence, neither poet nor
philosopher ever uttered a thought that did not awaken
echoes in all minds. That which is in itself true appeals
more or less forcibly to all alike, because it is germinally
present and regnant in all natural souls. I know how
customary it is, in certain quarters, to accuse Atheists of
contradicting, in the most wilful manner, the testimony
of their own nature, and to call them liars and hypocrites.
“ At heart,” we are confidently assured, “ no man is or
can be an Atheist.” The obvious retort is that, at
heart, no man either is or can be anything else. Even
according to the teaching of orthodox theology, ever
since the Fall in Eden Atheism has been the natural
fruit of unregenerate hearts. Now that science has dis
proved the Story of the Fall it is undeniable that, by
nature, all men are Atheists. Everybody knows now
how the belief in Supernatural Beings first arose, and
how it was gradually evolved into its present forms. As
�54
l’kO'M CHRISTIAN PULPIT
I have already said, we are not naurally religious. Even
to-day children have to be diligently and painfully
trained and coaxed, often very much against their wills,
into religious beliefs and exercises, and many of them, as
soon as they arrive at years of discretion and indepen
dence, shake them off again. We do not take to religion
as naturally as we do to our food. Furthermore, un
believers are frequently taunted with their inability to
supply the world with a worthy substitute for the Christian
Religion. “ What have you to offer us in place of Chris
tianity ?” they are excitedly asked. “You must not rob
us of our religion until you can provide us with another
and better one.” We cheerfully accept the challenge ;
and our answer to it is, that the world would be im
mensely better off without its Supernatural Religions,
because they are more or less artificial and of a bedwarfing tendency.
As illustrations of the truth of this contention let us
consider a few of the great, central words of the Bible,
such as God, Christ, Sin, and Immortality. Is not the
merest tyro in theology fully aware that no two divines
are in entire agreement as to the meaning of a single
one of these terms ? It may be alleged that all theo
logians speak of God as an infinite, eternal, invisible,
and absolute Being ; and yet hosts of them admit, on
metaphysical grounds, that an infinite and absolute
Being is unthinkable. “ But,” some simple-minded
person will say, “ I must believe in God because he is
revealed in the Bible.” But several different and con
flicting gods are revealed in the Bible—in which of them
do you believe; the god who commanded human
sacrifice, or the one who forbade it : the god of war or
the god of peace: the god of vengeance or the god of
love ? These are all in the Book, and you must make
your choice between them.
“ My God,” another
exclaims, “ is the embodiment of all high and noble
qualities, and whenever I worship him it is really to
such attributes that I am paying homage.” Then your
God cannot be an infinite and self-conscious person, but
merely an idealisation, a poetic fancy, a product of your
�*ro SECULAR RLaTFoRM
55
own imagination. The only sound advice to such a
believer is this : By all means, retain and adore the
qualities, in so far as they are high and noble, rbut, or
all sakes, drop the fanciful person. The term C/mst,
also, is open to the same objection. As to who or
what Christ is there is an endless diversity of opinion.
To one disciple, he is the Son of the living God, the
only begotten; to another, the completest revelation o
the Highest ; to another, the all-sufficient expiatory
sacrifice for sin; to another, a teacher of remarkable
originality and power ; and to another still, man at his
highest and best, the supreme miracle of history. These
typical disciples represent different and contradictory
schools of Christology, which have always stood at
daggers drawn in relation to one another. In the
Middle Ages the Church sanctioned the Christology of
the Augustinian school, and tried to stamp out the other
schools by imprisoning, torturing, and burning their
representatives. But at no time was the. Church com
petent to exercise absolute authority in matters of
doctrine, because it has been repeatedly proved that she
put men to death for holding and teaching opinions
which riper knowledge has established as incontestably
true. Her character as an infallible teacher has been
completely and irretrievably shattered. Convicted, in
open court, as a false witness on many important points,
the validity of her evidence on all other subjects has
been hopelessly destroyed. If therefore we listen to our
own reason, unterrorised by any superstition, we shall
have to let the theological Christ go, with all the theories
concerning him, or put him in the same category as
Buddha, and Confucius, and Zoroaster.
The same remarks apply to the words Stn and Immor
tality. What is sin ? No two people agree. According
to some there are sins specially against God, trans
gressions against positive commands, similar to * the
Edenic one about the forbidden apple, aftd so far as one
can make out these are exclusively sins of omission.
We sin against God when we neglect to pray, to read
the Bible, to attend church, or to contribute towards the
�5^
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT’
clue maintenance of the priesthood. Then there are sins
against ourselves and sins against our neighbor, which
are variously defined according to the theological stand
point- Again, according to the ripest and most reliable
Biblical scholars, immortality is not taught in the Old
Testament at all, so that in reality the Jewish Church
concerned itself solely with the affairs of the life that
now is. Dr. George Adam Smith informs us, further,
that there are excellent Christians in present-day
Churches to whom the doctrine of a future life does not
appeal, and who have accepted Christianity merely on
the. ground of the unique exaltation and purity of its
ethical teaching. But is it not indisputable that if we
eliminate the Supernatural,^with its heaven and hell,
from the Christian Religion^nothing of distinctive value,
nothing that is not common to all great Religions,
remains ? All that is peculiar to it is purely mythical,
while all that is of real value in it is common property.
Now, face-to-face with such significant facts, my
argument is that we do not need a substitute for
Christianity, but would be much better off, in every
respect, with no Supernatural Religion whatever. But
what remains to us after we have discarded God, Christ,
and . Immortality, with all the absurd dogmas con
cerning them ?
Nature, in all the plenitude of her
glory and power. She is our kind, loving, all-sustaining
mother, in whom we live, and move, and have our
being.
She answers all our anxious questions and
solves all our vexing problems. We never appeal to
her in vain. How speedily she responds to our varying
moods, comforting us in sorrow, cheering us in des
pondency, inspiring us in weakness, weeping with us
when we are sad, and laughing with us when we are
merry. Our one business in life is to observe her laws,
and to be in perfect tune with her sweet harmonies ;
and the only sin possible to us is to be in a state of
rebellion against her wise orderings. There is only one
thing we should dread, not the wrath and punishment
of a Supernatural Being, supposed to be seated on a
glittering throne no one knows where, but the ominous
�TO SECULAR PLATFORM
57
frown of our mother when we have wilfully disregarded
her beneficent injunctions. No, my friends, we do not
need another Supernatural Religion, but we do need to
return to the worship of reason, the adoration of Nature,
and the practical fulfilment of the laws of truth, and
honor, and honesty, and pity, and service. This is the
the divinest religion on earth, and yet the one most
culpably neglected. Christians are too busy preparing
for heaven to pay the slightest attention to the socfal
duties of earth. “ But,” someone cries, “ I cannot give
up my hope of heaven, and you have no right to try
to rob me of it.” Well, cherish it to your heart’s
content, so far as I am concerned ; but will you be good
enough to consider, with due seriousness, the following
practical questfons ?—
“ Is it well that while we range with Science, glorying in the
Time,
City children soak and blacken soul and sense in city slime ?”
Is it well that—
“ There among the glooming alleys Progress halts on palsied
feet,
Crime and hunger cast our maidens by the thousand on the
street ?”
Is it well that—
“ There the smouldering fire of fever creeps across the rotted
floor,
And the crowded couch of incest in the warrens of the poor ?”
Is it well, is it right, is it just that these and a thousand
other anomalies, sufferings, and cruelties should be per
mitted to continue in countries which call themselves
Christian ?
Is it well, is it consistent that you, a
professed follower of Christ, should be rapidly amassing
a colossal fortune, and faring sumptuously every day, at
the expense of the poverty and misery of your work
people ? If that is what your hope of heaven enables or
allows or leads you to do, the sooner you part with it
the better it will be for all concerned. In your sane
moments, do you not agree ? It is most lamentable to
think how Christian churches seek to win and retain the
rich by wheedling flatteries and infamous cajoleries, and
�58
FROM CHRISTIAN PULPIT
then dole out a little charity to the poor, accom
panied by the assurance that though poor on earth
they shall be rich in heaven. In their hearts the
poor scorn charity, and cry bitterly for justice, fair
play, and the recognition of their humanity. If the
churches were true to Christ, whom they call their
Head, they would tell the rich that they cannot possibly
enter the Kingdom of Heaven until they learn, not to
bequeath their riches to good causes when they die, or
devote them to ecclesiastical purposes while they live,
and be made famous, but so to conduct their business
affairs from day to day as to preclude the possibility of
ever becoming rich. Instead of that, they are doing
their utmost to perpetuate and accentuate the terrible
injustices, inequalities, and artificial distinctions that
now obtain in Society. Our reason tells us how iniquitous
the present condition of things is, and our reason, guided
by our heart, dictates the only true remedy ; and if we
only had the courage to apply the remedy all would soon
be well. Christianity has been in the world for nineteen
hundred years, but has ignominiously failed to set it
right. Indeed, it has often succeeded in setting it quite
wrong. The reason is that it is pre-eminently the
religion of the world to come, and, consequently, concerns
itself but little with the affairs of this. When we have
detached ourselves from it we shall have time to fulfil
the common duties of the common day, and, as a result,
to restore our relations to ourselves and to one another
to their normal and healthy condition.
My story is told, and I am at rest, and can face the
future without dread. I know whence I came and
whither I am going, and I greet the unseen, whatever it
may be, with a cheer. I take my stand with Ernst
Haeckel in the tabernacle of wonder and admiration,
and I join the great Goethe in the sanctuary of sorrow
and sympathy, reconsecrating myself to the service of
the huge army of the wronged and sinned against, the
suffering and the sad. Great and honorable is the work
that lies before us, and I call upon the reader and myself
�TO SECULAR PLATfoRM
59
to awake from sloth and begin with glowing hearts to do
it. Let us unite in a grandly altruistic mission to rid
the world of debasing superstitions, to dethrone all
existing evils, to establish right relations between man
and man, to promote good will and genuine brotherhood
all round, and to fill the days and hours of this earthly
life, the only life of which we are sure, with merry
laughter- and songful joy. Such is the beneficent ministry
of the only true gospel.
�DON’T
MISS
IT
THE
FREETHINKER
One of the liveliest and most outspoken Journals in
the World.
ITS EDITOR, MR. G. W. FOOTE,
“DID” Twelve Months for “BLASPHEMY,” and has
conducted it on the same lines ever since.
Mr. C. COHEN and Mr. JOHN LLOYD
are among the regular weekly contributors.
The FREETHINKER is the only journal in England that
gives b reethought news, and attends to Freethought organi
zation, as well as advocating Freethought principles. The
FREETHINKER attacks superstition and priestcraft, which
underlie all political and social injustice, particularly as
embodied in established and privileged institutions. It
carries on, vigorously and uncompromisingly, the work of
Voltaire, of Thomas Paine, of Bradlaugh, and of Ingersoll;
and relies, as those giants did, on fearless truth expressed in
the plain languageof common sense. The FREETHINKER
is contributed to by a competent staff of skilled and earnest
writers, who aim at making all they write interesting, in the
belief that dulness is not profundity and solemnity is not
wisdom.
PUBLISHED
PRICE
EVERY
THURSDAY
TWOPENCE
ORDER FROM YOUR NEWSAGENT
2 Newcastle Street, Farringdon Street, London, E.C.
�READ, MARK, LEARN, AND INWARDLY DIGEST
The 20th Century Edition
OF THE
AGE OE REASON
BY
THOMAS
PAINE
With Biographical Introduction and Annotations by
G. W. FOOTE
And
a
Beautiful Portrait of Paine
PRICE
SIXPENCE
Postage of Single Copies, 2d.
Never before published
at the. price
Issued by The Secular Society, Limited
The Freethought Publishing Co., Ltd., 2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E.C.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL
Some Mistakes of Moses. Only Complete Edition
in England. 136 pp. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; paper, Is.
House of Death. Being Funeral Oration and Ad
dresses on various occasions. Is.
Christian Catechism, A. 6d.
Oration on the Gods. 6d.
Shakespeare. A Lecture. 6d.
Superstition. 6d.
The Holy Bible. A Lecture. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With Biography by J. M.
Wheeler. 4d.
Crimes Against Criminals. 3d.
Oration on Lincoln. 3d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d.
Rome or Reason ? A Reply to Cardinal Manning.
3d.
The Christian Religion. 3d.
The Coming Civilization. 3d.
The Foundations of Faith. 3d.
The Ghosts. 3d.
Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme ? 2d.
Ernest Renan. 2d.
Faith and Fact. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field. 2d.
God and Man. Second Reply to Dr. Field. 2d.
God and the State. 2d.
Is Suicide a Sin P 2d.
Suicide, Last Words on. 2d.
Love the Reedeemer. A Reply to Count Tolstoy’s
“ Kreutzer Sonata.”
2d.
Marriage and Divorce,
An Agnostic’s View. 2d,
�WORKS BY COL. R, G. INGERSOLL (continued)
Paine the Pioneer.
2d.
Skulls. 2d.
Social Salvation. 2d.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
The Household of Faith. 2d.
The Limits of Toleration. A Discussion with
the Hon. F. D. Courdert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
2d.
The Three Philanthropists. 2d.
What Is Religion P (Col. Ingersoll’s last Lecture) 2d.
Christ and Miracles.
Id.
Creeds and Spirituality.
Live Topics.
Id.
Id.
Myth and Miracle.
Id.
Real Blasphemy. Id.
Ditto. Abridged edition.
Wooden God, A.
16 pp. Id.
Id.
INGERSOLL
GEMS
ONLY A FEW LEFT.
LIFE.
A Beautiful Prose Poem, with a fine Portrait
of Ingersoll and his infant Granddaughter.
THE CREED OF SCIENCE.
A Summary of
Ingersoll’s Philosophy.
THE DECLARATION
OF THE FREE.
Inger
soll’s noble Freethought Poem.
All three exquisitely printed on Cardboard for Framing, with
beautiful lithographed border and mottoes, and a facsimile of
Ingersoll’s signature.
Price Sixpence Each.
Postage One Penny Each.
The Freethought Publishing Co., Ltd., 2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E,C.
�SOME WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. New edition, revised. Cloth, 2s. 6d. ; paper,
Is. 6d.
Bible Heroes. New edition. Cloth, 2s. 6d.; paper,
each part, Is.
Crimes of Christianity. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Flowers of Freethought. First series, cloth, 2s. 6d.;
Second series, cloth, 2s. 6d.
Bible Romances. New edition, revised. Cloth, 2s.;
paper, Is.
Book of God in the Light of the Higher Criticism.
Cloth, 2s.; paper, Is.
Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public
Debate with the Rev. Dr. James McCann. Cloth Is. 6d.;
paper, Is.
Grand Old Book, The. A Reply to the Grand Old
Man. Cloth, Is. 6d. ; paper, Is.
Infidel Death-Beds. Cloth, Is. 8d.; paper, 8d.
Letters to the Clergy. Is.
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias. Paper, 8d.
Darwin on God. 6d.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
Bible and Beer. Showing the absurdity of basing
Teetotalism on the Christian Scriptures. 4d.
Philosophy of Secularism. 3d.
Rome or Atheism ? The Great Alternative. 3d.
What is Agnosticism ? With a Defence of Atheism.
3d.
Dropping the Devil. 2d.
God Save The King. An English Republican’s
Coronation Notes. 2d.
Ingersollism Defended Against Archdeacon Farrar.
2d.
Salvation Syrup: or, Light on Darkest England. A
Reply to General Booth.
2d.
Christianity and Progress. A Reply to the Rt, Hon,
W. E. Gladstone.
Id,
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2 Newcastle-street, London, E.C.)
HONE, WILLIAM
Apocryphal New Testament. Being all the
Gospels, Epistles, and other pieces now extant, and
not included in the New Testament by its com
pilers. 3s., postage 3d.
Ancient Mysteries Described, especially the
English Miracle Plays formed on Apocryphal New
Testament Stories, from unpublished manuscripts
in the British Museum. 3s., postage 3d.
HUME, DAVID
©N MIRACLES. With Appendix, etc., by J. M.
Wheeler. 3d., postage Id.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Originally issued in two Is. parts; now complete in
one vol. Reduced to 6d., postage 2d.
On SUICIDE. With Historical and Critical Intro
duction by G. W. Foote. 2d., postage |d.
Mortality of the Soul. 4d., postage |d.
Liberty and Necessity. An Argument Against
Free Will. 4d., postage Id.
MITCHELL, LOGAN
Religion
in
Unveiled.
the
Heavens :
or,
Mythology
Cloth, 2s., postage 2d.
PAINE, THOMAS
The Rights of Man.
With a Political Biography
by J. M. Wheeler. Cloth, 2s.; paper, Is., postage 2d.
Miscellaneous Theological Works,
is.
postage 2d.
’’
Common Sense. 8d., postage id.
^S,^n ^is pamphlet that the expression “Free and
Independent States of America ” first appears, and it was
e arguments Paine here used that influenced the colonists
to rebel, and led to the establishment of the present govern
ment. This is a complete edition of Paine’s great work.
t
�Some Popular Books Issued by the Freethought
Publishing Company.
(2, Newcastle-street, London, E.C.)
VOLNEY’S “Ruins of Empires”
A Survey of the Revolutions of Empires.
reduced to Is. 6d., postage 3d.
VOLTAIRE’S
Cloth,
WORKS
Chinese Catechism. Dialogues between a Dis
ciple of Confucius and a Chinese Prince, before the
Christian era. Paper Is., postage 2d.
Ignorant Philosopher, The. Containing Por
traits of Rene Descartes, and Benedict Spinoza.—
As entertaining as a French Comedy. Paper, Is.,
postage 2d.
Letters on the Christian Religion. With
comments on the writings of the most eminent
authors who have been accused of attacking Chris
tianity. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
Man of Forty Crowns. Dialogues on National
Poverty; Adventures with a Carmelite, etc- Illus
trated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
MlCROMEGAS. A Voyage to Planet Saturn. By a
Native of Sirius; and Twelve others. Illustrated.
Paper, Is., postage 2d.
Philosophy of History. With Portraits of the
Empress Catherine and of Voltaire. Paper, Is.,
postage, 2d.
The Sage and The Atheist. The Princess of
Babylon. Adventures of a Young Englishman, etc.
Illustrated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
ZADIG : or, Fate. The White Bull; The Blind of
One Eye, etc. Illustrated. Paper, Is., postage 2d.
WHEELER, J. M.
Footsteps of thf. Past. Cloth, reduced to 2s. 6d.,
postage 3d.
VOLTAIRE: His Life and Writings. Paper, 6d.,
postage 2d.
Bible Studies and Phallic Worship, etc.
Cloth, 2s., postage 3d.
a Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers
of at.t. Ages and Nations. Handsomely bound in
cloth. Reduced to 3s., postage 4d.
�
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
From Christian pulpit to secular platform
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lloyd, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 59 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on 5 pages at end, also inside covers and on back cover. Reprinted from The Free Thinker. John Lloyd was the Rector of Llanvapley.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1903
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N439
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (From Christian pulpit to secular platform), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Free Thought
NSS
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bd6a95c253bcdcf880622919e1e09129.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YGpskMXgSyTN5KffOSoQNEawIpBBVYhe2wPrR7QWe87ljj2iAU4FUv4II0aj0oA9XmruwwJ9KhOd5UsyoMxg7Ve%7EZatlWGG-KG%7Eb3ZbbVPkL1CvwJEXUaFBY0mD%7Efrw37gLrVIniPbOdBjuxNKepH0WVDj8p4y0Yjf5m6yXLLdidOBE92bWBfeQjej%7EzSPVUv3nCA1dDiAkTNXXWfQRONhJBzU2gv2h2fWfHjtMuRGCVnfRblrhXpuRkfC%7EcZ0wJDo97ukNsibQ6pOiB%7Ebi0FVDvuvYe5BOIawLn7LffDBC44lIef5vyzJ-10rg4h6V2EpPj%7ECo3Odd6PdbVD5jmlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fcb5b0f15d03bda2c5b686c92c1fb1c8
PDF Text
Text
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
APRIL, 1875.
ILENCE is brooding over the world ecclesiasti._ cal, and there are no “signs” of any impor
tance to chronicle. The month has been singularly
deficient in stirring events, and there is a general
hush of expectancy among the people. The two
armies of Free Thought and of Superstition lie face
to face, but no general engagement is threatening
just at present. Here and there, there is a slight
skirmish ; now and then two champions, such as Dr.
Tyndall and the Archbishop of Canterbury, charge
out, strike a few sharp blows at each other, and
then disappear. But none the less are the two
parties hard at work, entrenching the positions they
hold, undermining the fortress of the opposing army,
burnishing up their shields, and sharpening anew the
keen edges of their swords. Professor Lightfoot and
the Author of 1 Supernatural Religion ’ keep up a
somewhat bitter duel in the Contemporary and the
Fortnightly. The attack of the orthodox Defender of
the Faith lacks interest because of its pettiness; it
does not even shake that heavy wall of evidence built
up by the rationalist. The whole affair reminds us
of the charge by cavalry against British infantry
squares: here and there a man may go down, here
and there a momentary flaw may be detected in the
defence ; but at once the stern line closes up again,
and the firm square is as strong and as unbroken as
ever. Professor Lightfoot is proving how impreg
nable are the positions taken up, and entrenched so
carefully, by the Author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’
S
�2
The Contemporary is, as usual, full of theological
articles. Mr. W. R. Greg contributes a short paper
on “ Can truths be apprehended which could not
have been discovered p” He appears to answer the
question in the negative; but the article is in his
worst style, and totally unworthy of his fame. Then
we have an interesting article on “ The Laws of
England as to the Expression of Religious Opinion,”
by Mr. Fitzjames Stephens, Q.C. This essay is very
good, barring the cynicism and patronising tone
which disfigures it here and there, and which is in
separable from all which this author writes; and it
closes with a short Act of Parliament, proposed by
Mr. Stephens as a remedy for the present state of
things, which strikes us as very suitable to its pur
pose, and one which a Liberal member of Parliament
would do well to take up, and bring to the notice of
the Legislature. The present state of the law as
regards blasphemy and cognate offences is simply
disgraceful. The law is a dead letter wherever
the “ blasphemer ” is a man of mark or of power;
while, on the other hand, it can be invoked to crush
such a helpless and foolish offender as Thomas
Pooley. A law, the general enforcement of which
would outrage public opinion, is a disgrace and a
serious injury to any country; for it discredits all
law by its own uselessness, and weakens that rever
ence for law which is the safeguard of a free com
munity. A law which is constantly and openly
broken ought to be abolished if public opinion will
not allow it to be enforced. A law against “ deprav
ing the Christian religion,” and against denying
“ the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures,” is an
absurd anachronism in a country where Colenso
undermines the Pentateuch, and Huxley and Tyndall
sap the foundations of popular belief, and crowds of
cultivated and refined men and women openly turn
their backs on the churches, and devote themselves
�to spreading and popularising rational and scientific
Free Thought.
The controversy on “Is man an automaton ? ” is
raging fiercely in the scientific world. Professors
Huxley and Clifford have contributed able papers on
the one side, while Dr. Carpenter fights boldly on
the other. The automatism of man is, of course, an
inference from that of animals, the arguments for
which were so powerfully stated by Professor Huxley
in his address at Belfast, before the British Associa
tion. All those who see no gaps in natural order,
who trace one unbroken line of gradually ascending
organisations from the lowest form of animal life to
the crowning-point of highly-developed human intel
ligence, will naturally accept, as regards man, the
automatism which is almost proved as regards the
lower phases of animal life. The clear proofs afforded
by repeated experiment, that actions which have been
considered as conscious and purposive, are simply
due to what is termed reflex action, in which con
sciousness has no share—these proofs are naturally
making people ask, “ How far, then, is man an auto
maton ?” Science here, as in so many other places,
is invading the dominion which theologians thought
their own; she is beginning to speak in that old con
troversy of Free Will and Determinism, which has been
so fruitful a field for argument; she is having her
say on human responsibility. Naturally, theologians
do not like it, and they are thundering out anathemas
against the bold pioneers of Science; but Huxley
pushes them out of his way with a scornful defiance,
and Clifford blandly declines to leave any portion of
ground uncultivated by the ploughshare of Science ;
and so the Truth-seekers go on, peering into nature’s
secrets, and telling out all their discoveries. We
cannot but hope that in time Science will prove that
all crime is only a disease, of which men may be
cured as of any other disease, so that we may at last
�4
have some hope of grappling with the terrible human
degradation which religion has failed to cure, and
that men may at last be able, generations hence, to
look back on the brutality and on the ruffianism
which now disfigure society, as we look back upon
the plagues and black death which once decimated
our ancestors. Truly, Science is becoming the hope
of men, the true revelation, the true saviour, the
future king of the world.
Mr. Gladstone has struck another blow at his
enemies, and, ingeniously picking up their own
stones flung at him, has armed his sling with these
same pebbles, and with their own missiles has he
slain them. His generous and noble courtesy to Dr.
Newman is a pleasant feature in the warfare, and the
chivalrous tone of the antagonism between the two
great men is an example to all controversialists. Mr.
Gladstone is perfectly successful in maintaining his
original position, and he has absolutely fortified it
with his enemies’missiles. The answers to his “Ex
postulation ” have proved the justice of the original
challenge, and the necessity for the appeal to the
loyalty of Englishmen. He has shaken the Roman
Church in England more than could have been
thought possible; and he has, however unwittingly,
encouraged that spirit of free inquiry which, when
once it truly inspires a man, leads him through the
wilderness of doubt, and across the river of despair
into the fair land of truth and rational freedom.
The Pope, on the other hand, true to his logical
position of Defender of the Faith, as against human
knowledge, champion of the supernatural, as against
the natural, leader of the forlorn hope of theology, as
against science, has spoken fiercely against the educa
tion of the young in schools which are not controlled
by the priesthood, and bitterly complains that the
lambs of the Church are being turned into devouring
wolves. Wise is the Pope in his generation, wiser,
�5
unfortunately, than many of the children of light; he
knows the vast importance of impressing dogmas on
the ductile childish mind, and appreciates the advan
tages gained by the Church, if the priest be allowed
to mould the minds of the children. The question of
education is a question of tremendous importance to
all those who are interested in the spread of Free
Thought; yet, over and over again, do we find freethinking parents sending their children to schools
where they become indoctrinated with orthodox
beliefs. The cowardly fear of inj ury to social position
drives parents to inflict this great mental and moral
inj ury on their children; but if only free-thinkers
would be a little braver, if only they would speak out
publicly that which they believe privately, they would
find themselves so strong, both in numbers and in
position, that they would not need to trouble them
selves about these petty social considerations.. Never
yet in history has a great religious movement triumphed
where its pioneers have always been asking them
selves, “ Will this line of thought or this action be
considered by the people about me as thoroughly
respectable ? ” All great reforms must be carried in
the teeth of the world; always, when carried, they
become popular, and then the cross, borne by the
reformer as the symbol of the lowest degradation is
transformed into the symbol of victory, shines on
the topmost spires of the temples, and adorns the
crowns which circle the brows of kings.
It would not be right to omit all mention of the
glory shed upon the Church, of which he is a
minister, by the Rev. Mr. Coley, the vicar of Cowley,
near Oxford. This truly pious man had had his
righteous soul vexed day by day, by the ungodly
deeds which one Moses Merritt had ungodly com
mitted. Moses appears to have been given to in
toxication ; Moses’ language was not always of the
most refined description ; and Moses had once, alas!
�6
for the depravity of human nature, “brawled” in
Church. When this ungodly Moses died, it became
necessary to bury him, even as though he had been
a saint of the Lord. But Mr. Coley refused. Day
after day went on, and still Moses remained unburied,
tying aU this time in his poor cottage, where, around
the coffin, the survivors must eat, and drink, and
sleep. When ten days had passed, authority stepped
in, and ordered burial within twenty hours. Mr.
Coley then had it borne in upon his mind, that Moses,
on his death-bed, had spoken words of repentance,
and he thought himself justified, therefore, in allow
ing the burial. Why Mr. Coley took ten days to
find this out, deponent sayeth not: perhaps Moses
had visited the parson spiritually, and rapped out on
the clerical table a message of regret for his past
offences. Even then, however, Mr. Coley could not
give way entirely, but locked the Church doors against
the eleven-days-dead sinner. So the disgraceful busi
ness ended with a final struggle • the people broke
open the Church doors, and carried the coffin in ;
after that all went quietly. We scarcely wonder at
reading that Merritt’s widow had to be supported
at the grave ; between being obliged to live for eleven
days in a small cottage with a corpse, and the pain
ful scene at the funeral, the poor woman must have
sustained serious injuries both to mind and body.
It will be wrong if such conduct as this of Mr. Coley’s
be allowed to go unpunished. Probably, however, it
will serve as a new argument to help on the Burials’
Bill, and so Mr. Coley may have done good service
despite himself. Such parsons work hard for dis
establishment, and they help forward disendowment
too, for Parliament will scarcely be foolish enough to
consider men like Mr. Coley fit custodians of national
property. Every parson who discredits the Church
does us more service than our most energetic propa
gandists. We ought to elect Mr. Coley, by acclama-
�7
Mon, one of the provincial agents of the Liberation
Society.
“ Wrath is gone out against the people ; the plague
is begun.” Messrs. Moody and Sankey are now in
London, and the Agricultural Hall at Islington
and her Majesty’s Opera House are already engaged
“ for the Lord’s work.” Moody has asked—modest
man!—for 15,000/., and already 8,000Z. has been col
lected. These Christians shame us by the liberality
with which they support an antiquated superstition.
London is being mapped out into districts, and to
each district a certain number of visitors are appointed,
who are to call at each house in their “ vineyard,”
and “ present a leaflet with a few loving words, so
that every one may know that Jesus of Nazareth
passeth by.” This is a trying prospect, and doubt
less these “messengers of the Lord ” will not always
find that their “ paths are paths of peace.” If the
excitement in London equal that which has swept—
in a hysterical wave—over provincial towns visited
by these two spiritual mountebanks, Moody and
Sankey will become a downright nuisance. People
rushing about the streets, accosting harmless passers
by with the question, “ Have you found him ? have
you got the blood ?” ought to be handed over to the
police. From Salford and from Prestwich we hear
of cases of religious mania “ due to attendance at the
recent meetings of Moody and Sankey,” and the un
fortunate sufferers have to be sent to the lunatic
asylums. It is pitiful that, in this nineteenth cen
tury, crowds of men and women should be carried
away by a spiritual epidemic that reminds one of the
excesses of the devotees of the Middle Ages, and
should bend their necks under a yoke of coarse and
blatant superstition. We have searched in vain
through Mr. Moody’s discourses for the secret of his
influence; he appears to string together silly little
stories, with here and there a touch of drollery that
�8
reminds one of his American extraction, but of true elo
quence, or even of passion, there seems no trace what
ever. Mr. Sankey’s power is more easily understood ;
he has, we believe, a really fine voice, and uses it well
and effectively, and as he starts off his choruses with
the true music-hall appeal to the audience to “join in,”
the hymns carry all before them. They are generally
plaintive melodies, of the Christy Minstrel type, such
as “Lay me in my little bed,” or “Just before the
battle, mother;” and we know, by long experience of
the “ Original Christy Minstrels,” how strangely
attractive these songs are to the crowd. It is popu
larly reported, that before Moody and Sankey sailed
for England, they tossed up to see if they should
come as Revivalists or as Christy Minstrels : si non
e vero, e ben trovato, but we fear the story is too good
to be true. It appears that these gentlemen once
before favoured us with a visit, in 1870, I believe, but
no one appears to have been aware of their presence;
this time they have “ come with power,” and by vast
outlay in advertising and puffing they have made
their visit a success. A few more years of this work
and they may retire with handsome fortunes, for
truly, in their case, it is proved that “ Godliness is
great gain.”
The Church Disestablishment movement is quietly
gathering strength, and it is rumoured that a party
is being formed in Parliament, under the leadership
of Mr. John Bright, whose “cry” is to be, “Dis
establishment and the Repeal of the 25th Clause.” If
this be true, stirring times are coming for all those
interested in theological matters, and soon we shall
hear the trumpet-call which sounds the summons to
the assault. “ God defend the right! ” used to be
the ancient device ; “ Man fight for the right 1 ” must
be the motto of the modern champions.
PRINTED BY 0. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. April, 1875
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Includes a humorous and satirical account of Moody and Sankey revival meetings. p.7-8.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Thomas Scott]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5500
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (Signs of the times. April, 1875), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Dwight Lyman Moody
Ira David Sankey
Revivalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bfc08d631e7c4b05831582a2b0f43a07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cGUq5Q4icv%7EuiTf6f8i04WuRCHbv9P4C1pROy53mVrCsuyWwx9hX1qrVN7UqxmVPE-PJqbgeBDrNuFAF-N24O4l%7Eq3Mf80o7KIlKNdazbYpMVMYZfG-%7EbEdinUHUVvDcBrFCNKO5avGMzdBnQEkgMKNxopFw76JmV5UwLrgWmUgyh4MKa4d8wiyeMxGoZtMO0O2xEKK2ET0jLPAN8-I2yOXpKOt%7Eew4rq1m9u6jOCuUlTmCSFB9WWRiE3Gz372ANnA1jziNOosanY9CgnNG0CBMGeU2f%7ElD2qkCpbiM%7EBB4cD5VZSD3P8X0k3PhLr9O3wl1s2mpBytsY8RNGHuR%7Etg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
725ff38f8d9e024268931f511276b596
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR
ROAD, UPPER
NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
SEPTEMBER, 1876.
E have often lately noted the signals of dis
tress which are being raised by the Church
to avert the “ progress of infidelity,” and have listened
with grim pleasure to the wails of the Bishops and
Archdeacons as, during their progress from town to
town, they have cried aloud to Baal, and have cut
themselves with metaphorical knives as they leaped
upon the altars, while there has been no voice from
heaven, neither any that regarded, and “ the sound of
the coming chariot-wheels of the Son of Man,” heard
three months ago in Leeds by the Bishop of Ripon,
W
�2
grows no nearer to lighten the hearts of his weary
and despondent worshippers. In vain have Bishops
appealed ; in vain have Archdeacons lamented ; in vain
does Parliament pass Bills to create new Sees, when
it cannot pass Bills to create congregations as well;
yea, and in vain has even the Christian Evidence
Society piped unto people who will not dance, and
mourned unto a nation that will not lament. All wea
pons have failed; all struggles are fore-doomed to
defeat. The tide of scepticism rises higher and higher
around the Establishment, and in vain do ecclesiastical
Canutes forbid the rolling waves to advance. At
last, even inter-Christian hatred has given way before
the common danger, and in the archiepiscopal palace
of Lambeth a conference has taken place, composed
of elements never before united. The Archbishop of
Canterbury convened the meeting, and in answer to
his summons came the following bishops : London,
Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, Bath and Wells,
Norwich, and Peterborough ; and with these princes
of the Church, these peers spiritual of the realm,
came the leaders of English Nonconformity: Dr.
Punshon, erst President of the Wesleyan Conference,
and Dr. Allon, a great Congregationalist; together
with men so well-known as Drs. Stoughton, Angus,
Donald Fraser, Raleigh, and Oswald Dyke ; the Revs.
Newman Hall and W. B. Boyce. How terrible must
be the pressure of unbelief when it forces together
individualities so antagonistic as these. Only Mr.
Spurgeon and Archbishop Manning were needed to
make the happy family complete. Surely the millen
nium days have arrived, and the leopard of the Estab
lishment lies down with the lamb of Nonconformity,
and the lion of Anglicanism eats straw like the ox of
Methodism. Yet of this genial gathering the Newcastle
Daily Chronicle is cruel enough to write : “ The prin
ciples which separate Conformists and Noncon
formists are nearly as vital as those which divide
�3
believers from infidels.” Perhaps another confer
ence, to consider the spread of Ritualism, might be
convened, and it might be well to invite to it some
of the leading Wesleyans and Baptists, the editor
of the Hock, a few Unitarians, M. D. Conway,
and two or three “ Agnostics.” It would not be
a more incongruous assemblage than that of Lambeth.
Surely in a holy war against the Ritualist the Hock
would join with the Signs of the Times. Listen how
it thunders : “The Ritualistic heresy—that withering
curse which is so rapidly and insidiously blighting all
that is good in our social and religious conditions. . .
God is not dead that He will thus allow His holy name
and attributes to be defiled.” The editor is thanked
for “the able and vigorous manner in which you
defend our Protestant landmarks, and levy war on the
foe,” i.e., on our fellow Christians. In an editorial
note we are told that St. Peter’s, a Ritualistic church
in the East-end, is likely to be closed for want of
funds, and “ after what we have seen and heard of
the ritual and teaching at St. Peter’s, we cannot think
that even if these came to a sudden end there would
be very much to regret.” The Christian editor thinks
that drunkenness and savagery are preferable to
Christianity of a complexion different from his own.
“ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples
if ye have love one to another.” On the other hand,
the Church Times sneers: “ Archbishop Tait, who
thinks it so shocking to ‘ encourage a spirit of insub
ordination on the part of the clergy,’ has been hold
ing a caucus of Dissenting ministers at Lambeth !
See how these Christians love one another. Not
only is the Church bewailing herself because of this
terrible spread of infidelity, but she is also sad because
of the lack of men to carry on her banners. In the
Report of the Lower House of Convocation it is said
(Easter, 1876) : “ 331 curacies are now vacant from
inability to find men to fill them.” What a confession
�4
from a highly-paid and dignified Establishment! Her
subordinate posts are a drug in the market. The
places are there, but not the men to fill them. Yet
there are prizes in the Church, fat livings, comfort
able deaneries, wealthy bishoprics. Erom what arises
the lack of candidates to share in this feast of good
things ? Partly from the spreading scepticism, and
the consequent dislike of men to wind fetters round
their brains in early youth, and to stereotype their
thoughts of twenty-three as the intellectual outcome
of . their life, any change made in a second edition
being accounted heresy and disloyalty to their “ vows.”
Partly, also, the small favour shown to brain-ability
and devotion, and the large favour shown to birth and
ministerial relationship. The good things of the
Church are not for the reward of merit, but for the
comfort of the brother’s son of the Prime Minister’s
wife, and the question asked about a candidate is
“ Who is he ? ” not “ What is he ? ” Men of talent
will not enter a church where thought is tied down to
sixteenth century posts, and where patronage goes by
interest in high places. Freedom of expression and
la carriere ouverte aux talents would give the Establish
ment a new lease of life, but then she would no longer
be the Church, and she will cling to her antique theo
logy until she falls buried under its ruins, and until
Freedom sits enthroned where once the Arch-tyrant
reigned.
The Jewish World has been publishing a series of
articles on two great English statesmen, Mr. Gladstone
and Mr. Disraeli, and in one of these are some acute
remarks on Mr. Gladstone’s theological position that
are worth reproduction. We read :—
“On the whole the religious utterances of Mr. Gladstoneeven the most recent of them, which intermingled with his
general remarks the other day at King’s College (London),—
irresistibly force upon us the impression that he is yet a good
way from settled theological convictions. He has read too much
�5
of that ‘ advanced ’ theological literature which is most promi
nently inscribed in the orthodox Index Expurgatorius, to be
satisfied with popularly-received conclusions ; and he has not
yet thought and read enough on the heretical side to feel im
pelled to renounce Christian orthodoxy en bloc, as an excrescence
on the higher sentiments of humanity, and feel complete eman
cipation, peace and harmony reigning throughout all his facul
ties, derived from the ample, perennial, and satisfying resources
of natural law in the universe. ”
It is well known that Mr. Gladstone is well-read in
modern unbelief, and is much interested in the phases
of advanced religious thought. His mind, ever rest
less and inquiring, forces him into the investigation
of questions from which habit, education, training,
all drag him back, and the consequence of the ever
renewing conflict is certain indeterminateness of
religious belief, now shaken to its foundations by the
brain, now passionately re-asserted by the emotions.
The writer in the Jewish World is probably correct
when he judges as follows :—
“ In his somewhat vague and impassioned cautions delivered
to the youth of King’s College, against the prevailing tendency
to exercise reason without duly recognising the claims of
authority, we read occult self-rebuke, freely administered by
the speaker ; we read also an ill-disguised inward struggle to
beat down, by lecturing himself, the strong proclivities to
rationalism which, of late years, we venture to believe—
despite his wish to the contrary—have ever and anon been
obtruding themselves upon his consciousness. ”
Writing on Disraeli, the outspoken Jewish organ is
caustic and disdainful, for he has “ forsaken the reli
gion of his ancestors,” and writes in favour of
Christianity. His remarks on the more modern creed
are keenly ridiculed. Disraeli has written that “ to
hold that the second person of the Trinity could teach
a different morality from that taught by the first
person of the Trinity, is a dogma so full of terror
that it may, perhaps, be looked upon as the ineffable sin
against the Holy Ghost.” “Like all great divines,”
sneers the Jewish World,
�6
“ He is evidently very intimate with the domestic relations
of the Three Persons of the Trinity. He had previously
spoken of the God of Sinai and the God of Calvary as the
same, but whether he considers that the former was the first
or second person of the Trinity is not clearly apparent. He
instructs us, however, that the person who ‘ blended in his in
explicable nature the divine essence with the human element ’
(here, by the way, he is falling into the heresy of ‘ confusing
the substance ’ and forgetting his Athanasian Creed in a way
Samuel would have trembled at) was ‘ a sacrificial mediator,’
‘appointed before all time,’and ‘purifying with his atoning
blood the myriads that preceded and the myriads that will
follow him.’”
Evidently Mr. Disraeli’s theology does not recom
mend itself to those of his nation who cling to the
elder creed. Nor is the Prime Minister more admired
when he pleads on behalf of the Jews that they could
not help crucifying Jesus, and ought not to be blamed
for it
“ He then, by way of showing that the Jews were meri
torious rather than otherwise in their part of the transaction,
asks : ‘If the Jews had not prevailed upon the Romans to
crucify our Lord, what would have become of the atonement ? ’
We cannot but exclaim, What, indeed ? ‘ But the human
mind,’ he continues, ‘ cannot contemplate the idea that the
most important deed of time could depend on human will.
The immolators were pre-ordained, like the victim. ’ ‘ Could that
be a crime,' he asks, ‘ which secured for all mankind eternal
joy, which vanquished Satan and opened the gates of Para
dise ? Such a tenet would sully and impugn the doctrine that
is the corner stone of our faith and hope. Men must not pre
sume to sit in judgment on such an act; they must bow their
heads in awe and astonishment and trembling gratitude 1 ’
Our readers probably will not care to study more of our
author’s doctrinal peculiarities.”
Surely Judas ought to share in this somewhat late
act of reparation ? True, he betrayed his friend like
a scoundrel, and sold him to his foes, but then “ what
would have become of the atonement” if he had
remained faithful ? Judas should be picked up,
mended, and restored to his niche among the twelve
apostles, and he should be delivered from Lucifer’s
�7
mouth, where Dante placed him, and no longer have
his head crunched for ever between the massive teeth
of the fiend. As for Disraeli’s suggestion that there
can be “ nothing revolting to a Jew to learn that a
Jewess is the Queen of Heaven,” the Jewish World
sharply retorts : “We can only say for ourselves that
the association awakened in our minds is that of a
certain Astarte, or Ashtaroth, denounced by our pro
phets.” The Jewish World might have added that the
Virgin Mary was a lineal descendant of Astarte, and
numbers Isis and Ceres among her ancestors, the
belief in a virgin mother being as ancient as that of
an incarnate God. It is said that an “anti-Jewish
League ” has been formed in New York State to
“ prevent the progress of Jews in social and political
circles,” and that “ several prominent clergymen
are connected with the movement.” It seems
scarcely possible that anything so disgraceful should
take place to-day in Republican America, eighteen
years after Monarchical England has abolished all dis
abilities affecting our Jewish fellow-citizens. If, how
ever, the report be true, the American Index should
investigate the matter, and should pillory the names
of the offenders : such a League would be a disgrace
to a civilised country.
Why does not Lord Derby study Daniel and the
Apocalypse, under the leadership of the Hoch, when
puzzled how to deal with the Eastern question ?
Then everything would be clear to him, and he
would have the lamp of prophecy, as a light shining
in a dark place, to show .him how to move through the
endless complications of the Turkish maze. “ Turkey
is no longer a ‘woe’ to Christendom,” says the Low
Church seer, “ for the time of her power is gone by
as a matter of fact she is a terrible “ woe,” but matters
of fact are outside questions of prophecy. The shoes of
reality must be taken off, for the place whereon we
�8
stand is holy ground. The exhaustion of the Turkish
Umpire is “symbolised by the mystic Euphrates,”
which is dried up when the sixth vial is poured out
upon it (Rev. xvi. 12); thus “the operation of the
sixth vial is manifest in Turkey’s rapid exhaustion;”
nay more: “the vials overlap [Who ever heard before
of overlapping vials, and how do they do it ?], and
we have already experienced some severe shocks of
the ‘great earthquake,’ and more will followthe
Christians must have had the earthquake all to'them
selves. Looking over the vials, we cannot find the
outpouring of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all of which ought
to precede No. 6; it seems that vial No. 1 brought
sores, and vial No. 2 made the sea blood, and vial
No. 3 made the rivers blood, and vial No. 4 made
the sun scorch men with fire so that they blasphemed
(that might have been in July, only then No. 6
would precede No. 4), and vial No. 5 makes dark
ness, and men gnaw their tongues for pain. It seems
curious that, out of all the vials, only one has had
any apparent effect on the world, and even then it
ought surely to be Turkey in Asia which would be
symbolised as Euphrates, and not Turkey in Europe ?
The outcome of the prophecy is, however, comfort
ing : “ The effusion of the seventh vial should occupy
a considerable space of time, for it extends over
several verses of the prophecy; we dare not, there
fore, with Dr. Cumming, affirm that the most solemn
of all events is close at hand ; but it can scarcely be
very far off.” . The “evening” comes and goes in
confusing fashion ; now, it is just upon ns; presently,
it is not far off; then, it has faded away again almost
out of sight. When the matter is definitely settled,
perhaps the Christians will kindly let us know.
The Burial Question still agitates Convocation; the
Lower House wanted a “silent service,” i.e., no ser
vice at all, but permission to outsiders to have a hole
�9
dug in the churchyard and to throw the coffin in and
shovel down the earth on it and go away; the Upper
House suggested that the mourners should be allowed
to sing hymns at the grave side, if they so pleased.
The two Houses could not agree, and they met
together in conference on the matter. The Bishop
of Oxford frankly said that he thought “ any service
might be safely used. There was no responsibility
on the clergyman, who might leave his Christian
brethren to do as they pleased.” Of course the
Bishop was only speaking of permission to be
accorded to orthodox Dissenters, but still so rare a
thing as a tolerably liberal and sensible thing from a
bishop—other than he of Manchester—deserves to be
recorded. Our old friend, Christopher of Lincoln,
objected to hymns, as was only to be expected; he
would permit no comfort to mourners, and if they
would not drink out of his pitcher they might go
thirsty. A Rev. Mr. Sadler was against hymns, for
“ In a parish with which he was until lately con
nected a woman died who had a secularist son, and
under the proposed change he might have come and
held a service. (Horrible to imagine!) ... He
knew it had been said that there should be some
security for decency in the performance of such a
service ; but what, he would ask, was the greatest in
decency that could be perpetrated in a churchyard ?
Was it not that a service might be held which denied
or ignored the great doctrine of the resurrection of
the dead or the life everlasting ? Under the very
shadow of the Church those great doctrines might be
repudiated—at all events in substance. Such things
might not happen frequently, but they might happen
many times during a year, and he could not imagine
a greater scandal.” The spectre of infidelity threatens
these unfortunate clergymen everywhere; infidels
have the impertinence actually to die as they have
lived, and to find their creed “ good to die by,” and
�10
at the very side of the open grave, where the Church
thought herself the strongest, the quiet steadfast
tones of the children of Nature are heard, and they
give back into the arms of the mighty mother the
life that issued from her womb. It was suggested
that there might be a special service for those outside
the Church, in which “ the difference could be made
very marked. The service would be less jubilant and
less hopeful.” Even this was too much for the fiery
Archdeacon Denison: “ It was for the first time in
the history of the Church Catholic that a priest of the
Church Catholic had been asked to perform the ser
vices of the Church over the body of an unbaptized
person. He thought it was monstrous that such an
issue should come out. . . . God helping them, let
them uphold their position, for which he was prepared
to die ! ” Heroic Archdeacon ; but, unfortunately,
no one wants to kill him, and the protest sounds, in
consequence, rather bombastic. The Archdeacon is
an invaluable man ; he makes his Church so supremely
ridiculous. He is almost as useful an ally of scep
ticism as is his worthy brother, Christopher Words
worth, Bishop of Lincoln. Long may the pair live to
undermine the Church!
The perversion of the second son of Earl Nelson to
the Roman Catholic Church has again aroused the
old cry of “ No Popery ”—a cry which has in it much
both of good and of bad. In the House of Lords the
subject was brought to the front, and Lord Oranmore
moved that a humble address be presented to Her
Majesty for a copy of the Report of the Committee of
the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of
Canterbury with regard to confession, agreed to in
the session of 1874. Lord Oranmore made a strong
and telling speech against confession, urging that the
bishops took no steps to put a stop to the practice;
that notices were openly posted on churches that the
�11
clergy attended at stated times to hear confessions
and to give absolution; that the habit of confession
was widely spread, and. was undermining parental
authority and home peace. The Bishops who spoke
in the ensuing discussion made, as usual, a melan
choly exhibition of themselves. They tried to neu
tralise the effect of some painful cases cited by Lord
Oranmore, and feebly acknowledged the insubordi
nation of their clergy. They thought that Roman
literature would not be sold so freely if the public
would not buy it (!), and hoped the public would
mend its ways. Magnificent episcopal recognition
of the law of supply and demand. It may fairly be
urged as to repression of the habit of receiving con
fessions in the State Church clergy, that Parliament
may forbid the practice; to forbid the practice in
general it has no right, since, if people will be mean
and unclean-thinking enough to receive and to make
confessions, they have a right to do so every day if
they so choose; if they think it pleases God, it gives
one more argument against the moral utility of
Theism; but no one has the right to interfere with
them in carrying out their beliefs. But if the State
pays for certain services, it lias the right to define
those services, and to forbid its paid servants from
doing that which it considers injurious to its citizens.
Confession saps a nation’s virility, and destroys its
purity : it makes coarse-minded women and effeminate
men; it creeps between husband and wife, mother
and child; it poisons home confidence, and makes
trust impossible between wedded man and woman ;
the priest overhears the whispers murmured in the
privacy of the chamber, and scans and criticises the
love which unites the husband to the wife. May the
day be far from England which domesticates this foul
offspring of priestcraft in our midst; and may English
homes be spared from the spreading of a moral pesti
lence which would destroy the nation’s strength !
�12
“ Not content with having once tasted the blood of
School Boards,” as the Examiner says, “ the Govern
ment thirsted for more, and, by accepting at the
eleventh hour a further amendment of Lord Robert
Montagu’s to modify the famous 25th Clause, a
complete victory was won over the godless principle
of School Boards, the clause has become a dead
letter, and Lord Sandon has relighted the flames of
sectarian strife, in full view of the consequences, to
please the reckless bigots of his own party.” Amongst
these bigots must be reckoned the Bishops, and
amongst those who openly rejoiced at this narrowing
of the basis of free education is the Bishop of Peter
borough, who congratulates Mr. Pell on the success
of his scheme, and, commenting on the spirit of bitter
ness and anger it evoked throughout the country, Dr.
Magee declared “ this was a very good ‘ sign of the
times,’ and it gave him the greatest satisfaction as
evidence of the zeal and love still felt for religion.”
We must believe that not only Dr. Magee, but all our
“ Fathers in God ” are driven to their wits’ end in
defence of their Church and order if in the uprising
of the whole Nonconformist body against “ priestly
tyranny and clerical assumption” they only see in it
“ a most encouraging sign for the future of the
Church.”
As encouraging and hopeful as the signs referred to
by the Bishop of Guildford in his late charge, who
found “ that, in spite of so much apparent difference
and contention amongst us, there is a greater degree
of accord and sympathy between clergy and laity
than there ever was before.” With Dominie Samp
son we exclaim, “ Prodigious ! ”
PRINTED BY C. W. RBYNELL, LITTLE FULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. September, 1876
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT175
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Signs of the times. September, 1876), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/acdc852e37b126ea619376e7f696530a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NfLfcBSTsV5iJTEUKKLbwTuwIt%7EsUDfVV09XVVxJdgNqeLJsvTmDFB-Yp2ktXeViGPF1FPaYRxvSx9-tmnqMe8nr4DTuLReHXtrtqOl7A9CYnCwEc9cAbKIoLv528PKSsPWPatGj0tqnyKKsBCoNFUwvHoN809PZDG0QDm7jVtB34zTwO8iN52-g1RtqBqaHSJ9C0yuhUWYVS1opUtj%7E89a2A81E58ucx2M8zDyTPg1Is1-isST240jxfjmTfaB227ooqjJW42pR0sXwNvyP8rxwQ-WKSYHmiR8NaRnbdlqwZdJDUKvT7AHgAj2WIQzS4oXcGZ9vVR-dvUfesXrNgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4020f0c0c0b34f379d0cef5609fb15bc
PDF Text
Text
CT 103
WHAT IS TRUTH?
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
.
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
A-
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE BDLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�WHAT IS TRUTH?
E are taught to look upon Pontius Pilate as a
poor, vacillating, faint-hearted Pagan, and so
he may have been ; but if we are required to believe
that the tragedy in which he was chosen to play so
unfortunate and odious a part was pre-arranged by a
superintending Providence, we ought to pity rather
than despise him.
W
The enlightened Jews are reported to have asked
Christ many questions, but none of them surpasses
in utility and interest the one put to him by the poor
Pagan Pontius Pilate, “ What is truth ?” #
Unfortunately the writer of the Gospel attributed
to S. John, omits to inform us whether Christ vouch
safed an answer to the pertinent question; but in
the rejected Gospel of Nieodemus we read the
following addition:—“ Jesus said, truth is from
heaven. Pilate said, therefore truth is not on earth.
Jesus saith to Pilate, believe that truth is on earth
among those who when they have the power of judg
ment are governed by truth and form right judg
ment.”
Whether these words record the answer
Pilate received or not—whether he received any
answer at all or not—matters but little in an age when
sincere seekers after truth have long ago abandoned
all hope of finding it in any of the sixty Gospels
canonical or apocryphal.
Even if the traditional
�4
What is Truth f
Christ had given the answer Nicodemus records, it
could not be considered satisfactory, for where are
those who “have the power of judgment,” and, being
“governed by truth, form right judgment?” As
suredly not the Christians of the day, the majority of
whom are not allowed to have any judgment—who
make it their special boast that they have annihi
lated it, and who are ridiculed by the enlightened
minority of Protestants who glory in the light of the
Blessed Book to which they have free access, and in
the inspired pages of which they discover that truth
which a brilliant intellect like that of the earnest,
humble Herbert Spencer fails to discern.
“The
timid sectarian ” writes he “ secretly fears that all
things may one day be explained; has a dread of
science, thus evincing the profoundest of all infidelitv
—the fear lest the truth be told.”
An ardent Roman Catholic once said to the writer,
who was commenting upon, the antiquity of the
world with an intelligent infidel, “I hate the very
name of*science.” A few moments later, when the
new translation of the Bible was mentioned, a Protes
tant relative indignantly exclaimed, “ Don’t talk to
me about new translations ; the old one did very well
for our grandfathers and grandmothers; they found
their way .to heaven through it, and why cannot we ?
People will go on explaining and explaining until
there will be nothing left.”
Here we have two illustrations of the sincere and
consistent d'read of inquiry experienced by religious
people; it must therefore be conceded that religious
truth is not likely to be either discovered or embraced
by religious people.
The religious element is hostile to* doubt, rational
inquiry is at variance with child-like faith, private
�What is Truth f
.5
judgment is incompatible with Christian humility,
and superstitious veneration for antiquity precludes
all generous appreciation of modern attempts to
arrive at truth. Religious people dare not enjoy the
irreligious works of Spencer, Lyell or' Lecky, lest
they should lose their “ peace of mind; ” they fre
quently have a secret misgiving, but are afraid to go
further lest it should ripen into open doubt. A lady
to whom the writer lent some of Channing’s works,
returned them immediately saying “ I feel very com
fortable now and should not like to be shaken.”
She, of course, did not agree with Carlyle that
happiness depends mainly upon the state of the
liver; she felt uncomfortable while reading Chan
ning, and therefore brought back the books as detri
mental to the interests of her soul. The stirring up
of a stagnant pool is so disagreeable an undertaking
that we can hardly censure those who shrink from it,
even if an wholesome truth should, owing to their
squeamishness, be for ever lost. There is an old
saying to the effect that “truth will prevail,” but
before that happy time arrive Pilate’s question must
be answered, “ What is truth ? ” The world is
growing very old and error seems triumphant. The
growth of excellence we know to be slow, the progress
of truth seems slower still. Truth in creeds, truth in
trade, truth in medicine, truth in society will perhaps
prevail, but “the night is far spent ” and the day so
longed for seems not “at hand.” Multitudes of
earnest, thoughtful men to whom it would be a
great solace to realise something definite before they
go hence and are no more seen, are passing away
with their cravings after truth baulked, baffled and
sometimes blunted altogether. Life and its adjuncts
present the same insoluble mystery as ever, and
whether we side with religion or with science, with
special creation or with evolution,awe find ourselves
as far from any satisfactory conclusion as before.
B
e ‘
�6
**
What is Truth f
The Rev. Professor Eadie tells us in his Biblical
Cyclopaedia that in.the first chapter of Genesis “a
child” may learn more in an hour than all the philoso
phers in the world learned without it in thousands of
years.”
Grown-up people are not so fortunate. Some of
them, indeed, would persuade us that they can settle
everything to their own satisfaction by an appeal to
the Pentateuch; but we have ample grounds for
doubting their sincerity.
People never speak so guardedly, never seenfso ill
at ease, and therefore never appear to such little
advantage, as when they are required to give a direct
answer to.any question concerning the Bible and the
interpretation thereof. They seem to mistrust the
motivexwhich prompted the question, and therefore a
candid answer is well-nigh unattainable. A reason
may be found. “In the devoutest faith,” writes
Spencer, “ there is an innermost core of scepticism,
, and it is this scepticism which causes that dread of
inquiry displayed by Religion when brought face to
face with Science.”
To be obliged to admit such an assertion is painful
and humiliating; but it is abundantly clear that those
most hostile to the injunction “ Prove all things ” are
the religious, and the, more religious they are the
more they shrink from scrutinising their creed, lest
their faith in it should falter. Timid, cramped,
ignoble minds are always to be despised; but those
who shrink from honest inquiry upon religious grounds
seem of.' all men most contemptible. Victims of a
dishonest system, they have been brought up to con
found faith with truth. Whatever their particular
sect believes, is the very truth—all other sects are in
error; their belief is faith, other’s belief is supersti-
\
�What is Truth ?
7
lion. All the members of the various sects agree
that by the special and exclusive, blessing of God they
have received the gift of faith, so that to theiSi the
ways of Providence are clear as crystal, and the pages
of the Blessed Book a safe and easy guide to glory.
They could answer Pilate’s question to their own if
not to his satisfaction. Their opinion is the truth.
They enjoy the comfortable conviction that they are
the children of the light, and the whole world outside
Bethel or Ebenezer “ lieth in darkness.” Basking
in the supposed rays of what they call God’s grace,
they occupy an impregnable position from which no
“ wordy science ” can move them—living witnesses
to the truth of Prior’s lines—
“ From ignorance our comfort flows,
The only wretched are the wise! ”
People who have arrived at the summit ■ of that
ignorance which conduces to bliss can well afford to
pity those who are patiently toiling along the lonely
paths of science in search of what the religious world
would far rather not know—Truth: Those whose
obvious duty it is to devote their whole energy to the
pursuit of truth, and who ought to set the first
example of obedience to the Apostle’s precept, “ Prove
all things,” are not* only the last to engage in so
magnanimous an undertaking, but the first to censure
and to shrink from those who do.
“ The priest’s lips should keep knowledge,” accord
ing to Malachi; but if the'priests are in possession of
any knowledge, we would rather hear them impart
ing it. Unfortunately for the dignity of* their call
ing, it not unfrequently happens that the -laity can
instruct the clergy, who, after haying been’ reluctantly
enlightened by some bold truth-seeker, determine
to “ keep ” the knowledge they have acquired, for
“if everything is to be explained *away "there will be
nothing left ”—they might add “ for us tdlive upon.”
�8
What is Truth ?
Truth may certainly be explained, but error only
may be explained away. At the present time truth
seems looked upon as a dangerous excrescence.
People do not like it. They are accustomed to error,
encouraged in error, well instructed in error, satisfied
with error, and, considering the extreme difficulty of
ascertaining the truth, and the laceration of mind
which severance from long-cherished tenets involves,
it may admit of a doubt whether after all it be not
folly to make “ the common people ” wise 1 Un
common people, who can bear the bracing breeze of
truth and who (unlike the majority) value it above
gold and precious stones, will go on to the end,
struggling manfully with difficulties external and
internal, mournfully but heroically giving up for
honesty’s sake what is no longer tenable, better
satisfied to have “nothing left ” than something that
will not bear scrutiny.
But as there are others whose peace of mind and
moral rectitude would be .seriously disturbed by the
withdrawal of the Pentateuch, and whose notions of
duty are inseparably connected with the frequent
perusal of four anonymous Gospels, it would be at
once cruel and injudicious to deprive them of what
contributes to their welfare, be it true or false,
Nothing, we are told, save the fear of Purgatory,
will deter the Irish navvy from the commission of
the most atrocious crimes; it is therefore expedient to
keep up in his mind what to another is a childish
delusion.
,
However, there are other errors besides religious
errors.
Were Pilate to appeal to the medical world for an
answer to his question, he would indeed obtain
�What is Truth f
9
replies numerous and contradictory enough to per
plex him, and to justify the Frenchman’s assertion,
“ There is nothing certain except doubt.”
A beautiful and edifying uniformity of opinion
concerning diseases of the soul and their remedies
prevails among the spiritual physicians of the Roman
Church.
Contrition, Confession and Satisfaction are the
specifics. Prayer, Fasting and Alms the sedatives.
Disciplines, Hair-shirts and Bracelets the stimulants.
These remedies, like the source from which they
spring, are infallible, and their effect certain though
occult. But let us turn to the poor body. Go to
fifty physicians, state your symptoms and ask what is
the matter with you. You will in all probability get
forty-five different opinions and fifty different pre
scriptions.
So recently as 1857, Dr. Watson wrote “Next to
blood-letting as a remedy, and of vastly superior
value, upon the whole, to purgation, is Mercury; this
mineral is really a very powerful agent in controlling
inflammation.” Fourteen years later the same Dr.
Watson writes “ This- estimate of the special pro
perties of Mercury can no longer be maintained—
they expressed, I believe, at the time when they were
used, the general opinion of the profession. They
were too absolute. The error arose from too hasty
generalisation. The hope so earnestly cherished
that Mercury might prove beneficial in common
inflammation has been disappointed.”
In an early edition of 1 Principles and Practice of
Physic ’ he writes : “ In order to check inflammation,
you must, above all, bleed early.” In the last edition
of the same work, we read : “ What of general bleed
�no
What is Truth f
ing as a remedy for inflammation ? It is in this
matter, I am bound to admit, that great mistakes
have formerly been made, that a potent agency has
been misdirected. Venesection may lessen the quan
tity dispensed to the area of inflammation, but the
amount thus extracted must be so large as to affect
injuriously for a time, or even permanently, the whole
of the frame.” How would the medical world answer
Pilate’s question! The ‘Principles and Practice’
appeared as recently as 1871, and it urges us to the
■uncomfortable conclusion that after centuries of study
and observation the medical men are still groping in
the dark, and that in their most interesting profession
there is as yet no standard of truth. Lamentable
instances are daily occurring of the extraordinary and
inconceivable mistakes made, not only by physicians,
but even by surgeons. Many of us-can point to mem
bers of our own family who have fallen victims to
medical errors—errors, too, which seem irreconcil
able with the practical nature of the profession—errors which have wofully shaken our *faith in the
faculty, and have brought us to the borders of that
dreary region of doubt from which we are not likely
to return until Pilate’s question have received a con
clusive answer.
“ Without faith it is impossible to please God,” and
“ he that doubteth is damned.” Sad and solemn
words, calculated to terrify sensitive souls into feign
ing a belief they inwardly reject, and causing them
to abstain, “ for the good of the cause,” from uttering
a word which might suggest the shadow of a doubt
to another. We would gladly hail any clear defini
tion of that faith without which it is impossible to
please God ! If it mean, as many would assure us,
unhesitating assent to a collection of books and entire
submission to a body of men, there are many who,
‘for truth’s sake, must give up faith, even should
eternal*damnation await them.
�ir
What is Truth?
Dr. Watson found out, and generously admitted,
that he had made mistakes, that what he thought
were wholesome truths were deadly errors. „ Let us
hope that the doctors of divinity may have “ grace ”
to'discover some of their mistakes, and honestly to
confess before men that they are as incompetent to
answer Pilate’s question as any intelligent Hindoo or
Mahommedan. In all probability pure truth and
undefiled bears as little resemblance to the current
creeds of theology as does “pure religion and unde
filed ” to the pious fraud and sectarian differences
which are at once the scorn and derision of “the
unconverted.”
Paul, fully persuaded of the speedy end of all
things, and addressing an enthusiastic, expectant,
and deluded assembly, might boldly say that faith,
hope, and charity were flourishing; but the hired
clergy of the Church by law established could tell
• him that now abideth doubt, disappointment, apathy,
these threap, but the greatest of these is apathy.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYKBLL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET*
■
■
•
�k
•»
Il -
�
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
What is truth?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 11 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT103
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (What is truth?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Truth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a8ff7308493089e53c2f3932eaf62708.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=K5OXBZsJI6t6EPKkpXSHpmbNFRJH-l6CJ2yW9oreQFiq3MYE%7E%7EhDO62VPkyGVJCKXXcHGxl%7ENezEvvW9HV-LLPzKokw18c63caYBwsvzbyV6Bk4tBsCl%7EoVJM4qewCxsK5KwZ-kQspDvaJh8d4g8AUScQ0j3eVNWpW6TUSN4%7EKdNh0VBn8LE9qvcMcshdS24HrDAn5Nz3lUKXH6jVjaur7WeAq0yD258pevRePeommumVynJ6-xQojAbPX3D95TT0HqkozcSTN0UDtueesGnMxMyjyBCLhlesq4jnRXHcs0mPzhg9YDeB5966CRp9%7EFIcRrM8uu9zeUpDikncCHing__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23af4dc57046c0b1ac1d192469c54f8b
PDF Text
Text
CT 4oq
CHRISTIANITY:
Viewed in the Light of our Present Knowledge
and Moral Sense.
Part
Part
I.—RELIGION : PRIMITIVE, AND AMONG
THE LOWEST RACES.
II.—THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
By CHARLES BRAY,
AUTHOR OF THE “PHILOSOPHY OF NECESSITY: ” “ A MANUAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY,
OR SCIENCE OF SIAN,” ETC.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E,
Price One Shilling.
��CHRISTIANITY.
PAET I.
RELIGION : PRIMITIVE AND AMONG THE LOWEST RACES.
“ Everything that exists depends upon the Past, prepares the
Future, and is related to the whole.”—Oersted.
“ I view all beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal de
scendants of some few beings which lived before the first bed of the
Silurian system was deposited.”—Origin of Species, C. Darwin,
first Edition, pp. 488-9.
“ Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the
necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gra
dation.”—Ibid., p. 488.
“ The variation of human thought proceeds in a continuous man
ner, new ideas springing out of old ones, either as corrections or
developments, but never spontaneously originating. With them
as with organic forms, each requires a germ or seed. The intel
lectual phase of humanity, observed at any moment, is therefore
an embodiment of many different things. It is connected with the
past, is in unison with the present, and contains the embryo of the
future.”—Intellectual Development of Europe. J. W. Draper,
vol. ii. p. 109.
HESE views embody the philosophy of the present
day,
a
less interesting than
Tstudy toand it is thenoevidence in the works profitable
follow
of Lubbock,
Tylor, Draper, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and others,
upon which these truths are founded. By slow and
gradual, and probably unbroken links, the whole physi
cal world has been evolved, and this is no less true of
the world of mind. There has been nothing spon
taneous, nothing supernatural, but everything that
exists in the growth of mind, as in the physical world,
�4
Primitive Religion.
depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is
related to the whole. We must go hack to pre-historie
times to explain the thoughts and feelings, the aptitudes
and prejudices, the customs and languages of the present.
Many things otherwise utterly incomprehensible are
“survivals” of primaeval barbaric life and thought.
Customs differ widely according to climate and the
world’s age. There is no telling in what form they
may come down to us, but they are evidence that one
human nature is common to all the races and tribes
scattered over the habitable globe. The world, at the
present time, furnishes illustrations of all the forces
that have been at work in its original formation both
physical and mental. Heat and water, certainly, are a
little moderated in their action, but as rude savages as the
world has ever known still continue to exist, and the ex
tremes of civilization are as great now as at any previous
era. In the north, where the cold imposes considerable
limitation to the pleasures of life, the Esquimau
enters his house by the chimney, the occupants passing
in and out “ by means of a strong pole notched deep
enough to afford a little holding for a toe” (“Pre-his
toric Man,” p. 393, by Sir John Lubbock). A more
civilized person would no doubt prefer a ladder, and
perhaps a different place of entrance, but this mode of
ingress and egress may have conveniences that are not
at once obvious to a European. In the midst of all
the ice and snow in these regions, the great want is
water. The houses being built of ice and snow, a tem
perature above 32 degrees would make them what
would be considered unpleasantly damp to a European.
But fortunately for this phase of domestic comfort they
have no wood, but use blubber and oil to keep up a
tolerable temperature. They use lamps outside and
consume an immense quantity of blubber inside. The
temperature of their bodies is about the same as our
own! they are heated from within by the slow com
bustion—the union of carbon and oxygen—of what
�Primitive Religion.
5
thus constitutes both food and fuel. The heat is sus
tained by thick skins. The inhabitant of Central
Africa, on the contrary, enters his house, very much of
the same shape, by a hole at the bottom, through which
he crawls on his hands and knees. The Fuegians of
the Antarctic region are a much lower race than their
Esquimaux brethren of the Arctic, and the Australians,
Papuans, and Fijians are lower still. The Fuegians,
when hard pressed for food in severe winters, kill an
old woman, and when asked why they did not kill
their dogs, they said “ Dog catch ioppo” (i.e.) otters.
We should justly consider this a rather narrow view
of utilitarianism, and the conscience does not appear to
speak very loud in this stage of civilization: all doubtless
have their ideas of right and wrong, slightly varying,
however, in their significance: thus a savage explained
that if anybody took away his wife that was bad, but if he
took another man’s that would be good (Tylor, vol. ii.,
p. 289). The marriage ceremony among the Bushmen
of Australia is very simple and inexpensive. The man
selects his lady-love, knocks her down with a club, and
drags her to his camp. In South Africa, in the British
settlement of Natal, the natives are beginning to show
marked evidence of civilization. Mr Froude tells us
that a young Zulu, by hiring himself out at six shil
lings a day, soon finds himself in a position to buy a
couple of wives; he makes them work for him as well
as for their own living, and he thus sets up as a
gentleman for life, and a very troublesome one we are
told.
An interesting question has, however, arisen in Dutch
Borneo as to the extent of the duty a wife owes to her
husband. The circumstances, as detailed in a letter
written from Bandjermassin, and published in a Java
paper, are as follows:—“ It seems that a fugitive rebel
chief, who is now well stricken in years, has lately
with commendable prudence been making arrangements
as to the disposition of his property after his departure
�6
Primitive Religion.
from this life. Among other directions he has given
orders that immediately on his decease his two youngest
wives shall he killed in order that they may accompany
him to the next world. The two ladies for whom this
honour is designed strangely enough fail to appreciate it,
and have fled to the Dutch fort on the Tewch, where they
have put themselves under the protection of the com
mandant. The venerable chief is naturally incensed at
their having taken this ill-advised step, and has expressed
his intention of compelling the fugitives to return to their
domestic duties without further nonsense. His indigna
tion is shared by his family, friends, and followers, who
have rallied round him in his trouble, and by the latest
accounts he was preparing to attack the fort where his
wives had taken refuge. In the meantime, the govern
ment steamer ‘ Baritoy’ had been despatched to the
assistance of the commandant, with a reinforcement of
twenty-five soldiers; and a howitzer, with artillerymen,
had also arrived at the fort. This painful family dif
ference has naturally created a profound sensation in
the colony, and it is to be hoped that it will be satis
factorily arranged without a recourse to arms.”-—Pall
Mall Gazette.
The conventional practices and views of etiquette of
what we call savages differ considerably from our own ;
thus, with us, to pull a man’s nose is not considered
polite, whereas the Esquimaux pull noses as a mark of
respect (“ Pre-historic Man,” p. 456). Among them
also the temporary loan of a wife is considered a mark
of peculiar friendship (“ Primitive Culture,” vol. ii.,
p. 136). Civilization borrows the wife without the
consent of the husband.
The inhabitants of the Eastern Archipelago are of
increasing interest as our intercourse with them
extends. Little, however, comparatively, is yet known
of the natives of New Guinea and the neighbour
ing islands, and that little certainly does not reveal
them to us as a very interesting people. The principal
�Primitive Religion.
7
supply of meat is from human flesh, and that not
always from the bodies of their enemies, for Mr Kiehl
tells us, in an article read before the London Anthropo
logical Society, that the people 11 of the Solomon Archi
pelago are obliged to build their houses in the most
inaccessible spots on the rocks, even to the very sum
mit of the peak on Eddystone Island, to prevent being
treacherously killed at night and eaten by the very
friends with whom they feasted the day before on a
roasted enemy’s body, or perhaps on a raw one ; those of
Vaati, who, as late as 1849, were yet all cannibals, pre
ferring children to adults, and girls to boys.” Mr
Kiehl thinks it by no means a sufficient excuse for
this that other animal food is scarce, for although there
are neither cattle nor sheep, still there are plenty of
dogs, fowls, pigeons, and fish. When we consider, he
says, how many Hindoos live altogether without animal
food, “ the Papuans must be a desperately wicked people.”
Their social customs are certainly unpleasant. “ What
good,” he says, “ can be said of such people as the
natives of Vaati, whose custom it is, when they wish
to make peace, to kill one or more of their own people,
and send the bodies to those with whom they have
been fighting, to eat 1 On the death of chiefs it is the
frequent custom among them to kill two, three, or
more men, to make a feast for the mourners. When
parents are unwilling to bear the fatigue of rearing their
children, or when they find them a hindrance to their
work, they often bury them alive.” As these interest
ing creatures are near relations to the Fijians, who are
about to become British subjects, it is as well to know
something about their habits, and it is pleasing to think
also, that they are “ beginning to find out that trading
with the white men is more advantageous than killing
and eating them.” Commerce is everywhere the great
civiliser. Mr Kiehl says, “ I regret not to know any
thing about the religion of the Papuans. The practice
of circumcision seems to point to at least some form of
�8
Primitive Religion.
religious observances.” Unless eating their fellows is
another form, we certainly cannot say much for their
devotional aspirations.
I mention those things to show that the savages now
in the world are as primitive and varied in their indi
vidual habits and customs as in pre-historic times, and
that we may probably learn as much, by the study of their
interesting ways, of the origin of many of our own
modes of thought and action as by going far back into
the past.
It is a question whether all our altered customs are
improvements. Thus at Tahiti and some other islands,
tattooing was almost universal, and a person not
properly tattooed would be as much reproached and
shunned, as if with us he should go about the streets
naked (“Primitive Culture,”p. 377), and the Pijian fully
believed that a woman who was not tattooed in an
orthodox manner during life, could not possibly hope
for happiness after death (Idem, p. 459). This mode of
painting our clothes upon our bodies would certainly
save much thought and time that might be devoted to
more useful purposes, and it would probably save many
of those colds that are caught by going about only
half-naked, when people are in what they call fulldress.
But it is the religions of the world that furnish the
largest amount and best illustration of “ survivals.”
The ideas upon which they are mainly founded have
been thousands of years forming, and the question
immediately presents itself how far opinion and con
duct based on such ideas are in conformity with modern
knowledge, or only with such knowledge as was available
in the earlier and ruder stages of culture ? Upon in
vestigation, it is evident that the religious opinions of
the present day are results adopted from previous
systems which have come down from the earliest age,
and that they could not otherwise have found accept
ance now. We should shrink with horror from our
�Primitive Religion.
9
present theological creeds, if they had not come down
to us from a thousand generations of the past.
The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may
be forced into compliance with the wishes of man;
they require bloody, and rejoice in human, sacrifices;
they are mortal, not immortal; a part, not the author
of, nature ; they are to be approached by dances rather
than by prayers ; and often approve what we call vice,
rather than what we esteem a virtue (“ The Origin
of Civilisation,” by Sir John Lubbock, p. 195). For
like ourselves, “ they think the blessings come of them
selves, and attribute all evil to the interference of
malignant beings” {Idem, p. 196).
“ They have much clearer notions of an evil than of a
good Deity, whom they fear, believing him to be the
occasion of sickness, death, thunder, and every calamity
that befalls them” {Idem, p. 212).
The Tartars of Katschiutze (like our Pessimists) con
sider the evil spirit to be more powerful than the good.
{Idem, p. 213).
All religion is originally based on fear—love does
not enter till long after—fear of the invisible and
unknown, and all cause at first is invisible and un
known. Darwin in “Expressions and Emotions in
Men and Animals,” p. 144, speaking of the effect of
fear among some of the larger baboons, says of one of
them (Cynopetheius Niger) that “ when a turtle was
placed in its compartment, this monkey moved its lips
in an odd, rapid, jabbering manner, which the keeper
declared was meant to conciliate and please the turtle.”
Here we have probably the origin of what is now called
Divine Service. “Id awe,”Tylor tells us, “the Philippine
Islanders, when they saw an alligator, prayed him with
great tenderness to do them no harm, and to this end
offered him whatever they had in their boats, casting it
into the water” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 209). “Primos
in orbe deos fecit timor.” “As an object of worship,
the serpent is pre-eminent among animals. Not only
�io
Primitive Religion.
is it malevolent and mysterious, but its bite—so trifling
in appearance, and yet so deadly, producing fatal
effects rapidly, and apparently by no adequate means—
suggests to the savage almost irresistibly the notion of
something divine, according to his notions of divinity ”
(Sir John Lubbock). “All things that are able to do
them hurt beyond their prevention/’ says Tylor, “ the
primitive man adores” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 340).
The first idea of God is almost always as an evil spirit,
and among the savages of the present day, religion is
anything but an ennobling sentiment.
Thus the
Caffres believe in the existence of a heaven for those
only who had killed and eaten many of their enemies,
while those who were effeminate would be compelled
to dwell with Aygnan, their devil (“ Pre-historic Man,”
p. 469).
The Maories were perpetually at war during life, and
hoped to continue so after death. They believed in a
spirit named Atona. When any one was ill, Atona
was supposed to be devouring his inside, and their
religious service was curses and threats, on some
occasions attended with human and other sacrifices in
the hope of appeasing his wrath. The New Zealanders
believed that the greater number of human bodies they
eat, the higher would be their position in the world to
come. Under such a creed, we are told there is a
certain diabolical nobility about the habit, which is,
at any rate, far removed from the grovelling sensuality
of a Fijian. . Certainly to qualify yourself to go to
heaven by eating your fellow-creatures, is much more
spiritual than to eat them from mere gluttony.
The Dayaks considered that the owner of every
human head they could procure would serve them in
the next world, where indeed a man’s rank would be
according to the number of heads in this ; a young man
might not marry till he had procured a head. Way
laying and murdering men for their heads was the
Dayak’s religion. To be an acknowledged murderer is
�Primitive Religion.
11
the object of the Fijian’s restless ambition. Even
among the women there were few, who, in some way,
had not been murderers. To this they were trained
from their infancy. One of the first lessons taught an
infant, is to strike its mother. Mr Ellis tells ns that
no portion of the human race was ever perhaps sunk
lower in brutal licentiousness, than this isolated people.
Certainly their customs and conscience differed a little
from our own, but notwithstanding, we are told that
Captain Cook and his officers lived with the natives
“in the most cordial friendship,” and took leave of
them with great regret, and Mr Ellis says, they showed
great anxiety to possess copies of the Bible, when it
was translated into their language. “ They were,” he
says, “ deemed by them more precious than gold—yea,
than much fine gold;” no doubt being very discriminat
ing as to the quality of gold, and able also to appreciate
the dealings of God’s chosen people with the Canaan
ites, in which the inhabitants of whole cities were
murdered in cold-blood—men, women, and children,
ruthlessly slaughtered-—more highly than we should.
Among most savages it was considered the right
thing, and there was no resisting public opinion, that
wives, friends and slaves, should accompany their chiefs
into the next world. By some they were strangled, by
others buried alive. “The Gauls in Caesar’s time,” Tylor
tells us, “burned at the dead man’s sumptuous funeral,
whatever was dear to him, animals also, and much-loved
slaves and clients (“Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 419).
The ancient Gauls had also a convenient custom of
transferring to the world below the repayment of loans.
Even in comparatively modern times, the Japanese
would borrow money in this life, to be repaid with
heavy interest in the next [Idem, p. 443). When a
New Zealand chief died, the mourning family gave his
chief widow a rope to hang herself with in the woods,
and so rejoin her husband. In Cochin China, the
common people object to celebrating their feast of the
�12
•
Primitive Religion.
dead on the same day with the upper classes, for this
excellent reason, that the aristocratic souls might Bake
the servants’ souls carry their presents for them—
which presents were given with the most lavish ex
travagance {Idem, p. 441). As to what became of
the objects sacrificed for the dead—strangled wives,
servants, golden vessels, gay clothes or jewels—although
they rot in the ground, or are consumed on the pile,
they nevertheless come into the possession of the dis
embodied souls they are intended for, not the material
things themselves, but phantasmal shapes corresponding
to them {Idem, p. 439).
The native Australian goes gladly to be hanged, in the
belief that he would ‘‘jump up whitefellow, and have
plenty of sixpences;” and the West African negroes
commit suicide when in distant slavery, that they may
revive in their own land {Idem, vol. ii. p. 5).
Souls are supposed to appear in the other world in
the same age and condition as they leave this, conse
quently true religion, and the liveliest filial piety
require that parents should be dispatched before they
get too old. They are generally, where this belief
obtains, buried alive, with their own joyous consent.
The Fijians consider the gods as beings of like
passions with themselves. They love and hate; they
are proud and revengeful, and make war, and kill and
eat each other; yet they look upon the Samoans with
horror, because they have no religion, and no belief in
any such deities. “It has been asserted,” says Sir John
Lubbock over and over again, “ that there is no race of
men so degraded as to be entirely without a religion—
without some idea of a Deity. So far,” he says, “from
this being true, the very reverse is the case ” {Idem, p.
467). Let us hope so!
Primitive men, as mankind do now, worshipped Un
known Cause—the powers of nature ; every tree, spring,
river, mountain, grotto, had its divinity; the sun, the
moon, the stars, had each their spirit. The names of
�Primitive Religion.
13
the Semitic deities, Max Muller tells us (Fraser,
June 1870), are mostly words expressive of moral
qualities, they mean the strong, the exalted, the Lord,
the King; and they grow but seldom into divine
personalities. The Aryan race are recognised every
where, in the valleys of India, in the forests of Germany,
by the common names of their deity, all originally ex
pressive of natural powers, thousands of years before
Homer or the Veda, worshipping an unseen being
Under the self-same name, the best, the most exalted
name they could find in their vocabulary. The popular
worship of ancient China was, Max Miiller says, a
worship of single spirits, of powers, we might almost
say of names ; the names of the most prominent powers
of nature which are supposed to exercise an influence
for good or evil on the life of man. If the presence of
the divine was perceived in the strong wind, the strong
wind became its name; if its presence was perceived
in the earthquake and the fire, they became its name ;
“wherever in other religions we should expect the
name of the Supreme Deity, whether Jupiter or Allah,
we find in Chinese the name of Tien or Sky.” “Do
we still wonder,” he says, “at polytheism or mythology ?”
No doubt the first religious worship was of the
powers of Nature or Spirits—a sort of deprecation of
their evil influence, and of their power to hurt. But
whence came man’s knowledge of spirits ? From his
own supposed double nature. When a man died, he
felt that with the life something had left the dead upon
which life and consciousness, i.e., all the difference
between life and death, depended. This he called his
soul or spirit. In sleep, he often dreamed of distant
places, and he thought his spirit went there ; in dreams
also his dead comrades often appeared to him, and he
thought therefore they continued to exist somewhere.
Out of this dream has grown the popular religion in
all times and in all countries; Man has an instinctive
love of life and dread of death, and he thinks he must
�14
Primitive Religion,
live again somewhere, because he wishes to do so,
accordingly the somewhere was soon found—a place
above for the good, and below for the bad, where
people would be rewarded or punished as they might
behave themselves here. No one liked to part for ever
with his parents, children, and friends, and if there
was not a place where the bereaved could meet them
again, why, there ought to be, and that soon settled it.
A place was wanted also for the naughty people, and
the people we did not like, to go to. The primitive
notions of this Future State differed considerably from
our own, only the worst part of it has come down to
us—an eternity of torture for the great majority?
Of the locality of this Future State, Herbert Spencer
says, 11 The general conclusion to which we are led is,
that the ideas of another world pass through stages of
development. The habitat of the dead, originally con
ceived as coinciding with that of the living, generally
diverges—here to the adjacent forest, and elsewhere to
distant hills and mountains. The belief that the dead
rejoin their ancestors, leads to further divergences which
vary according to the traditions. Stationary descend
ants of troglodytes think they return to a subterranean
other world, whence they emerged; while immigrant
races have for their other-worlds, the abodes of their
fathers, to which they journey after death, over land,
down a river, or across the sea, as the case may be.
Societies consisting of conquerors and conquered,
having separate traditions of origin, have separate other
worlds, which differentiate into superior and inferior
places, in correspondence with the respective positions
of the two races. Conquests of these mixed people
by more powerful immigrants, bring further complica
tions—additional other worlds, more or less unlike in
their characters. Finally, where the places for the
departed, or for superior classes of beings, are mountain
tops, there is a transition to an abode in the heavens ;
which, at first near and definite, passes into the remote
�Primitive Religion.
i5
and indefinite, so that the supposed residence of the
dead, coinciding at first with the residence of the
living, is little by little removed in thought: distance
and direction grow increasingly vague, and finally the
localization disappears in space.” (“ The Principles of
Sociology,” p. 232.)
This dream of a double self—of a living soul and
spirit, the cause of life and all mental action, if it has
done good, has also done infinite mischief in the world.
On the one side it is true that children in many cases
would scarcely have been induced to take care of their
parents in old age, if it had not been from fear of their
ghosts when they were dead, and on the other, in
China, ancestor worship is the dominant religion of
the land, and it has had more to do with checking
civilization there, than anything else. The Chinese
look backwards, not forwards, and “ for thousands of
years this great people have been seeking the living
among the dead.” It is the ghosts of their fathers
and mothers that they are always thinking of, and of
the harm that they may do them, every unknown
cause with them being a spirit. This is why mines
cannot be worked, or railways made, lest these inter
esting relics should be disturbed, and this insult to the
remains of the dead visited upon the living : and after
the birth of a Chinese baby, it is customary to hang
up its father’s trousers in the room, wrong way up,
that all such evil influences may enter into them,
instead of into the child. All diseases are supposed to
come from such source, or from some tormenting,
offended deity, the latter being most easily appeased
by the offer of a hog ; in the same way as the Negroes
of Sierra Leone sacrifice an ox when they want “ to
make God glad very much, and do Kroomen good.”
At the present day when an affectionate wife says
to a sneezing husband, “Bless you, my dear,” the ex
pression comes from the time when sneezing was
thought to indicate “ possession ” by an ancestral
�16
Primitive Religion.
spirit; and the Hindu when he gapes still snaps his
thumb and finger, and repeats the name of some god—
Rama, to prevent an evil spirit going down his throat.
It has been in this kind of chaotic superstitious
atmosphere, in which everything was supposed to be
brought about by spirits, that what are called our
religious instincts, were originally formed. This is
the soil in which even our present ideas of God, the
Soul, and Immortality first took root.
Mr Tylor says (vol. ii. p. 286) “ Conceptions originat
ing under rude and primitive conditions of human
thought, suffer in the course of ages the most various
fates. Yet the philosophy of modern ages still, to a
remarkable degree, follows the primitive courses of
savage thought.” This is true as regards our philo
sophy, but it is still more true with respect to our
religion, for ancestor-worship in the saints, and inter
cession to them and to the “ mother of God, the Queen of
heaven,” and anxiety for the future condition of this
dream-created soul, still rule the mind of Christendom.
Propitiation and sacrifice form the substance of all
religions in their earliest stages. Man first of all, and
above all, fears the spirits and gods that his imagination
has created, and he offers up to them what he most
values, and which he thinks, therefore, they will most
value—his finest fruit, the firstling of the flock, even
his own children. An only son was thought to be the
greatest and most acceptable sacrifice. When the Carthagenians got into trouble, three hundred children of the
first people of the city were offered up in the fire to their
God; so willing has man always been to cast upon
another the burden of his own misdeeds. The religion
of the present day is little more than a “survival” of the
past, and “throughout the rituals of Christendom stands
an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle
from savage times—that the weather may be adjusted
to our local needs, that we may have the victory over
all our enemies, and that life, and health, and wealth, and
�Primitive Religion.
17
happiness, may be ours.” (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii. p.
336).
We are told that man is especially distinguished by
the possession of a conscience which, like a heavenly
messenger, guides him in his choice in the immutable
and eternal distinctions between right and wrong. If
this be so, it is in a very incipient state in primitive
man, and this guide itself seems to require educating and
guiding quite as much as any other of his faculties.
Thus Dr Seeman tells us of the Fijians, that “ in any
transaction where the national honour had to be
avenged, it was incumbent on the king and principal
chiefs—in fact a duty they owed their exalted station,
to avenge the insult offered to the country, by eating
the perpetrators of it.” He adds, “ I am convinced,
however, that there was a religious, as well as a political
aspect of this custom.” No doubt conscience gave them
a high sense of their social, political, and religious
duties, only they differed slightly from us, as to the
mode in which they should be carried out. So also
of the practice, where from a religious sense of duty,
children eat their parents, when they got old and in
firm, waiting however, till the season when salt and
limes were at the cheapest.
The savage theory of the universe refers its pheno
mena to the action of pervading personal spirits, similar
to what in dreams they have made out their own spirits
to be; the powers of nature are everywhere spiritual
ized and personified. With increasing knowledge unity
is given to these powers, and we have a God One and
Indivisible : at least this becomes the creed of the
highest minds, the multitude still continue to find a
separate God in everything, and for everything. (An
excellent account of how these so-called religious ideas
of the existence of the “ double ” or soul, of a future
state, and another world, arise in the minds of savages,
from which they have come down to us, changed from
a very definite and material conception to a very indefi
�18
Primitive Religion.
nite and immaterial one, is to be found in Mr Herbert
Spencer’s “Principles of Sociology,” now publishing.)
From this point, says Dr J. W. Draper, that is, from
the very earliest ages when the comparative theology
of India was inaccessible, “ there are two well-marked
steps of advance. The first reaches the consideration
of material nature : the second, which is very grandly
and severely philosophical, contemplates the universe
under the conceptions of space and force alone. The
former is exemplified in the Vedas and Institutes of
Menu, the latter in Buddhism. In neither of these
stages do the ideas lie idle as mere abstractions ; they
introduce a moral plan, and display a constructive
power not equalled even by the Italian Papal system.
They take charge not only of the individual, but regu
late society, and show their influence in accomplishing
political organizations, commanding our attention from
their prodigious extent, and venerable for their anti
quity.
“ I shall, therefore, briefly refer, first, to the elder,
Vedaism, and then to its successor Buddhism. The
Vedas, which are the Hindu Scriptures, are asserted to
have been revealed by Brahma. They are based upon
an acknowledgment of a universal spirit pervading all
things: £ There is in truth but one Deity, the
Supreme Spirit, the Lord of the Universe, whose work
is the Universe.’ ‘ The God above all Gods, who
created the earth, the heavens, and the waters.’ The
world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is
therefore a part of him ; it is kept in a manifest state
by his energy, and would instantly disappear if that
energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even as it is, it
is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything be
ing in a transitory condition. The moment a given phase
is reached, it is departed from or ceases. In these per
petual movements, the present can scarcely be said to
have any existence, for as the past is ending, the future
has begun.
�Primitive Religion.
19
“ In such a never-ceasing career all material things are
urged, their forms continually changing, and returning,
as it were, through revolving cycles to similar states. . .
“ In this doctrine of universal transformation there is
something more than appears at first. The theology
of India is underlaid with Pantheism. “God is One
because he is All.’ The Vedas in speaking of the rela
tion of nature to God, make use of the expression that
he is the Material as well as the Cause of the Universe,
1 the Clay as well as the Potter.’ They convey the
idea that while there is a pervading spirit existing
everywhere of the same nature as the soul of man,
though differing from it infinitely in. degree, visible
nature is essentially and inseparably connected there
with : that as in man the body is perpetually undergo
ing change, perpetually decaying and being renewed,
or, as in the case of the whole human species, nations
come into existence and pass away, yet still there con
tinues to exist what may be termed the universal human
mind, so for ever associated and for ever connected are
the material and the spiritual. And under this aspect
we must contemplate the Supreme Being, not merely as
a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel
case of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens ex
cept through its connections with the body ; so matter,
or nature, or the visible universe, is to be looked upon
as the corporeal manifestation of God.
“We must continually bear in mind that matter ‘has
no essence, independent of mental perception ; that ex
istence and perceptibility are convertible terms; that
external appearances and sensations are illusory, and
would vanish into nothing if the divine energy which
alone sustains them were suspended but for a moment.”
— ( “ The Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. i.
pp. 54, 55, 56.) Truly, there is nothing new under the
sun. Here we have the most advanced Pantheistic
Theology of the present day, and being given some two
thousand years before the Christian era it would seem
B
�20
Primitive Religion.
almost as if the Vedas were inspired. Here also, we
have the Idealism that constitutes the creed of so many
of our most cultivated philosophers. However pure a
doctrine may be at its source, as it comes from the
highest minds, it is soon perverted to suit the lowest, and
high and simple and true as it seems to me this doctrine
is, it was soon twisted into every possible form of error
and superstition that was best calculated to give the
Brotherhood command over the ignorant multitude.
■ It soon needed Reforming, and Buddhism came before
the world as that Reformation.
Buddhism most probably dates from about 1000 years
before Christ, and Draper says it is now professed by a
greater numberof the human race than any other religion.
“ The fundamental principle of Buddhism is that there
is a supreme power, but no Supreme Being. . . It is a
rejection of the idea of Being, an acknowledgment of that
of Force. If it admits the existence of God, it declines
him as a Creator. It asserts an impelling power in the
universe, a self-existent and plastic principle, but not a
self-existent, an eternal, a personal God. It rejects
inquiry into first causes as being unphilosophical, and
considers that phenomena alone can be dealt with by
our finite minds. . . . Gotama contemplates the exis
tence of pure force without any association of Substance.
He necessarily denies the immediate interposition of any
such agency as Providence, maintaining that the system
of nature, once arising, must proceed irresistibly accord
ing to the laws which brought it into being, and that
from this point of view the universe is merely a gigantic
engine. Equally does Gotama deny the existence of
chance, saying that that which we call chance is nothing
but the effect of an unknown, unavoidable cause.’' (“ In
tellectual Development of Europe,” vol. i. p. 65.) I
scarcely need point out the similarity existing between
this creed and that of the leading physicists of the present
day.
■ “ As to the external world, we cannot tell how far it
�Primitive Religion.
21
is a phantasm, how far a reality, for our senses possess
no reliable criterion of truth. They convey to the mind
representations of what we consider to be external things
by which it is furnished with materials for its various
operations; but unless it acts in conjunction with the
senses, the operation is lost, as in that absence which
takes place in deep contemplation. It is owing to our
inability to determine what share these internal and ex
ternal conditions take in producing a result, that the
absolute or actual state of nature is incomprehensible to
us. Nevertheless, conceding to our mental infirmity the
idea of a real existence of visible nature, we may con
sider it as offering a succession of impermanent forms,
and as exhibiting an orderly series of transmutations, in
numerable universes in periods of inconceivable time
emerging one after another, and creations and extinc
tions of systems of worlds taking place according to a
primordial law.
“ Of the nature of man, Gotama tells us that there is
no such thing as individuality or personality—that the
Ego is altogether a nonentity. In these profound con
siderations he brings to bear his conception of force, in
the light thereof asserting that all sentient beings are
homogeneous. . . . Each one must however work out
his own salvation, when, after many transmigrations, life
may come to an end. That end he calls Nirwana-—•
Nirwana, the end of successive existences. It is the
supreme end, Nonentity. The attaining of this is the
object to which we ought to aspire. . . . The panthe
istic Brahman expects absorption in God; the Buddhist,
having no God, expects extinction.
“India has thus given to the world two distinct
philosophical systems —Vedaism, which makes its
resting-point the existence of matter, and Buddhism, of
which the resting-point is force. The philosophical
ability displayed in the latter is very great; indeed, it
may be doubted whether Europe has produced its meta
physical equivalent.” (Idem, 66, 67, 68.)
�22
Primitive Religion.
It need scarcely excite our surprise then if our
Christian missionaries make but little progress in India.
It is worthy of note with reference to those who assert
that the “ Immortality of the Soul ” is among the unextinguishable instincts of our nature, that in the two
religions of the world—if we must call them two—
which contain the greatest number of adherents, not
Immortality is sought, but absorption in God, or Nirwana, both of which include the extinction of the
individual. The Lazarist Hue testifies that they die
with incomparable tranquillity, and adds, they are what
many in Europe are wanting to be. It is worthy of
note also how much there is in each system in accord
ance with the most advanced modern thought: the one
as Idealism, the other as represented by the recent dis
covery of the Persistence and Correlation of Force. For
if Vedaism connects itself with Matter, it is Matter as
regarded only as “the corporeal manifestation of God,”
and I have endeavoured to show elsewhere how and
where, as so regarded, Materialism and Absolute Idealism
meet. (“ Illusion and Delusion,’’ published by T. Scott.)
In my work also “ On Force, and its Mental Correlates”
(Longmans & Co.), I have endeavoured to illustrate
and enforce the following propositions :—
There is but one Reality in the universe, which
Physical Philosophers call “ Force; ” and Metaphy
sicians “Noumenon.” It is the “Substance” of
Spinoza, and the “ Being ” of Hegel.
Everything around us results from the mode of
action or motion, or correlation of this one force, the
different Forms of which we call Phenomena.
The difference in the mode of action depends upon
the difference in the structure it passes through ; such
Structure consisting of concentrated Force, or centres
of Force, and has been called Matter. “ Every form is
force visible; a form of rest is a balance of forces; a
form undergoing change is the predominance of one
over others.”—Huxley.
�Primitive Religion.
23
Heat, Light, Magnetism, Electricity, Attraction, Re
pulsion, Chemical Affinity, Life, Mind, or Sentience,
are modes of action or manifestations of Force, and die
or cease to exist, when the Force passes on into other
forms.
Cause and Effect is this sequence or correlation; and
each cause and effect is a new Life and a new Death :
each new form being a new creation, which dies and
passes away, never to return, for “ nothing repeats
itself, because nothing can be placed again in the same
condition : the past being irrevocable.”—W. R. Grove.
“ There is no death in the concrete, what passes away
passes away into its own self—only the passing away
passes away.”-—-Hegel.
Force passing through a portion of the structure of
the brain creates the “ World” of our intellectual con
sciousness, with the “Ego ” or sense of personal identity;
passing through other portions the world of our likes
and antipathies—called the moral world: Good and
Evil being purely subjective.
The character and direction of Volition depend upon
the Persistent Force and the structure through which
it passes. Every existing state, both bodily and
mental, has grown out of the preceding, and all its
Forces have been used up in present phenomena. Thus,
“ everything that exists depends upon the past, pre
pares the future, and is related to the whole.”—
Oersted.
As no force acts singly, but is always combined with
other forces or modes of action to produce some given
purpose or particular result, we infer that Force is not
blind but intelligent. As Force is intelligent and One,
it would be more properly called Being—possessing
personality ; and that being we have called God. “ He
is the universal Being of which all things are the mani
festations.”-—-Spinoza.
All power is Will power,—the will of God. “ Caus
ation is the will, Creation the act of God.”—W. R.
�24
The Christian Religion.
Grove. The will which originally required a distinct
conscious volition for each act has passed, in the ages,
generally into the unconscious or automatic state, con
stituting the fixed laws and order of nature.
PAET II.
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
“ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is
to fill the world with fools.”—Herbert Spencer.
We in this Christian country are brought up in the
belief that the Jews were chosen by God to perpetuate
a worthy representation of Himself in a Pagan world
given up wholly to Idolatry : that the character and
attributes of the Creator, as given to man in the books
of the Old Testament, are a Revelation from God Him
self. On examination this turns out to be by no means
the case. The Hebrew god is made entirely after the
likeness of man ; wiser and more powerful, but with all
his vices as well as his virtues greatly exaggerated—a
conception fitted only for a barbarous age and a bar
barous people; and notwithstanding some sublime
poetical passages of the later prophets, altogether in
ferior to that formed by the wise men of other Eastern
nations. To Jewish conception, even to the last, the
Creator of the Universe was the family God of the
Patriarchs—the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, the. titular or national God of the Hebrews, and
it was not till after the Babyionic captivity that the
“ chosen people” abandoned altogether other supposed
protecting deities, and became confirmed monotheists.
Thus the religious history of the Jewish people in the
historical books of the Old Testament, presents a series
of vacillations between the worship of Jehovah and that
�The Christian Religion.
25
of the gods of the surrounding nations ; the people
serving that god who they think will afford them the
most powerful protection.
Hence the jealousy of
Jehovah, and the term the living God, and the First
Commandment, “ Thou shalt have no other gods but
me.’’ It will be necessary to show this, as Christianity
is based on Judaism, and the orthodox theology of the
present day is derived more from the Old Testament
than the New. I shall let the Bible speak for itself.
And God said, let us make man in our own image,
after our likeness.”-—Gen. i. 26.
“ And on the seventh day God ended His work
which He had made, and he rested on the seventh day
from all His work which He had made.”—Gen. ii. 2.
“ And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the
Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.”
-—Gen. iii. 8.
Cain and Abel from the very first make offering unto
the Lord of fruit and flesh, and “ of the fat thereof,”
and they are accepted by him.”—Gen. iv. 3, 4, 5.
And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the
plains of Mamre accompanied by two angels, and they
eat of a calf that was “ tender and good,” and the Lord
said unto Abraham Wherefore does Sarah laugh, &c.,
and the Lord went his way as soon as he had left com
muning with Abraham.”—Gen. xviii. 1, 7, 8, 13.
The Lord also afterwards appeared unto Moses, on
his desiring to see the glory of God. And he (Moses)
said, I beseech thee show me thy glory. And he (the
Lord) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee,
and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee ;
and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He
said Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man
see me and live. And the Lord said, Behold there is a
place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock. And
it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that
I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover
�26
The Christian Religion.
thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take
away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but
my face shall not be seen.”—Gen. xxxiii. 18-23.
And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all
thy house into the ark, and the Lord shut him in.”—
Gen. vii. 1, 16.
“ And when Noah came out of the ark he builded an
altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and
of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the
altar.
“ And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the
Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground
any more for man’s sake.”—Gen. viii. 20, 21.
“ And the Lord came down to see the city and the
tower which the children of men builded,” and the
Lord said, “ Go to, let us go down and there confound
their language, that they may not understand one
another’s speech.”—Gen. xiv. 5, 7.
“ It repenteth the Lord that he had made man upon
the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.”—Gen. vi. 6.
“ And God heard the voice of the lad : and the angel
of God called to Hagar out of heaven.”—Gen. xxi. 17.
“ And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should
obey his voice, and let Israel go ? I know not the
Lord (Jehovah) neither will I let Israel go. And they
said, The God of the Hebrews hath met us, let us go
three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto
the Lord our God : lest He fall upon us with pestilence
or with the sword.”—Exod. v. 2, 3.
“ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply
my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But
Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.”—Exod. vii. 3, 5.
“ And I (Jehovah) will give the people favour in the
sight of the Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that,
when ye go, ye shall not go empty. But every woman
shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth
in her house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and
raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and
�The Christian Religion.
27
Upon your daughters ; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.”
—Exod. iii. 21, 22.
“ And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight
of the Egyptians, so that they lent them such things as
they required, and they spoiled the Egyptians.”—Exod.
xii. 36.
When “ wrath is gone out from the Lord, and the
plague is begun, Aaron put on incense, and made an
atonement, and the plague- was stayed” (Num. xvi.
4648.)
God’s promise to Abram. “ Thou art the Lord
God, who didst choose Abram, and brought him
forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the
name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful
before Thee, and mad’st a covenant with him to give
the lands of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites,
and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites to give it, I say to his seed, and hast per
formed Thy words: for Thou art righteous” (Nell. ix. 7-8).
Of how this promise was kept we need give only one
illustration.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, avenge
the children of Israel of the Midianites. And they
warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded
Moses ; and slew all the males. And Moses was wroth,
and ordered every male among the little ones to be killed
in cold-blood, and every woman that had known man :
“ but all the women children that have not known a
man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
“And there were 32,000 persons in all, of women that
had not known man by lying with him ” (Num. xxxi.
1, 2, 7, 14,17, 18, 35.)
“ Eighteous ” is not perhaps exactly the word which
we should now apply to such dealings ! And the childten of Israel said to Samuel, “ Cease not to cry unto the
Lord our God for us, that He will save us out of the
hands of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a sucking
lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly unto the
�28
The Christian Religion.
Lord: and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel; and
the Lord heard him. And as Samuel was offering up
the burnt-offering, the Philistines drew near to battle
against Israel: but the Lord thundered with a great
thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discom
fited them ; and they were smitten before Israel (Sam
uel, 1 Book, vii. 8, 9, 10.)
The Lord fights for Israel, and casts down hailstones
from heaven ; “ they were more which died with hail
stones than they which the children of Israel slew with
the sword; ” and he makes the sun and moon to stand
still until the people are avenged. “ Then spake Joshua
to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in
the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ;
and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. So the sun
stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day. And there was no day like
that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto
the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
(Num. x. 8, 14.)
Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and
the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt
treacherously with Abimelech (Judges ix. 23.) Who
shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-Gilead 1 and one said in this manner, and
another said in that manner. And there came forth a
spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will per
suade him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith 1
And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said,
thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also ; go forth,
and do so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put
a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets
(1 Kings xxii. 20, 23.)
God’s throne is in heaven. “The Lord hath pre
�The Christian Religion.
29
pared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom
ruleth over all (Ps. ciii. 19.)
I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it
stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with
twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered
his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried
unto another, and said, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
hosts : the whole earth is full of His glory (Isaiah vi.
1, 3.)
For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord
is above all gods (Ps. cxxxv.)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh (Ps. ii. 4.)
Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to
another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a
book of remembrance was written before him for them
that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name.
(Mai. iii. 16.)
In every place incense shall be offered unto my
name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts (Mai. i. 11. )
I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the
host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand,
and on His left (Micaiah.)
Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon
a thousand hills (Ps. i. 7, 15.)
The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the
world and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded
it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.
(Ps. xxiv. 1-2.)
The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even
thousands of angels (Ps. lxxiii. 17.J
After the Chaldean captivity, when it was thought
to be beneath the dignity of God to appear personally,
these angels are very active and much more plentiful.
Then the Lord employs his destroying angel to slay
185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. David also sees
an angel.
�3°
The Christian Religion.
So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there
fell of Israel seventy thousand men. And God sent an
angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was
destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of
the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is
enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the
Lord stood by the threshingfloor of Oman the Jebusite.
And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the
Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having
a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem
(1 Chron. xxi. 14, 16.)
Here is Daniel’s description of the angel Gabriel:—
11 A man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with
fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl,
and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in
colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words
like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. x. 5-6.)
This God of the Hebrews is certainly not a very sub
lime conception, and it is difficult to say in what it differs
from that of other primitive savages. He shows bimself in bodily presence as a man to Adam and to Abram,
walks in the cool of the evening, shows his parts behind
to Moses, comes down to prevent a tower being built up
into heaven, spoils the Egyptians, utterly exterminating
the Canaanites, man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass, that he may give their
land to his chosen people, sending lying spirits into his
prophets, and in fact possessing all man’s greatest vices
greatly exaggerated.
He is angry, furious, cruel,
vindictive, jealous, treacherous, partial, and by the
smell of a sweet savour of poor innocent slaughtered
beasts and birds, and by incense and sackcloth and
ashes is turned from his purpose and repents. The
Hebrew God is everywhere represented as delighting in
blood, requiring the first-born of both man and beast
to be offered up to him, and a lamb to be supplied to
him both night and morning throughout the year. Is
�The Christian Religion.
31
it not strange that this barbarous conception of a blood
thirsty people should have been chosen by the modern
World as the foundation of its religion, and can we
wonder that the picture of such a Being, painted as we
are told by himself, should have had a most deleterious
effect on the moral sense of all who have been intro
duced to it, or that those who prefer to believe in no
God at all, rather than in such a God, should increase
daily ?
The Jews have continued to “ spoil the Egyptians,”
that is, all the nations among whom they are thrown,
until this day, and this spoiling the Egyptians is quoted
as a precedent for every kind of cheating and dis
honesty among all who are disposed to prey by false
pretence upon their fellow creatures. The religion of
the Hebrews was like that of every savage nation. It
consisted of Prayer and Supplication and Sacrifice. All
unusual and extraordinary phenomena, all good gifts
and evil fortune came direct from God, and they sought
by gifts to him of what they thought he would like
best, and by praise and adulation which they knew they
most liked, to propitiate him, and win his favour.
This was accomplished by a Priesthood who made it
difficult to approach him except through themselves,
and who claimed a reversionary interest in all gifts
offered to him.
It is true that more refined notions of deity prevailed
among “ God’s chosen people,” as civilization advanced,
and after they had spent seventy years in captivity in
Babylon, and had become acquainted with the much
higher “ revelation ” of Zoroaster.
Still their most
sublime and poetical conception never rose above that
of a mighty magician, speaking the word of power ; the
heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool; to
whom belonged,—not the countless worlds of which they
had no idea, but the cattle upon a thousand hills ; rid
ing upon the wings of the wind; governing the world
by his angels, and in whose name every possible atrocity
�32
The Christian Religion.
is committed : to whom such men as Jacob, David, and
that wisest of all men, Solomon, with his three hundred
wives, and nine hundred concubines, are represented as
especially acceptable and favoured, but who show an
utter indifference to any moral law whatever. Notwith
standing this, we have that good man, the late Dr Norman
Macleod, telling us almost with his last words, that “ The
Bible practically says to all seekers after God, ‘Whom
ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.’ It
professes to give a true history, in harmony with reason,
conscience and experience, of God’s revelation of Him
self during past ages, culminating in Jesus Christ, and
continued in the Church by His Holy Spirit.’—Good
Words, June 1875, p. 420.
Hear also His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the highest authority of all. He says, “ Good Words,”
May 1875, “As to morality, upholding as we do the
immutable and eternal distinction between right and
wrong, and thankful that in all but degraded specimens
of the human race there is a conscience capable of
learning these distinctions. ... We believe that the
Great Being who controls the universe is in Himself
the very good, and very right.” Now as His Grace
identifies the Great Being who controls the universe with
the Hebrew God of the Bible, and as we cannot certainly
classify His Grace among “ the degraded specimens of
the human race,” we are obliged to conclude that his
conscience has yet something to learn. An aged and
much respected dissenting Minister tells me that “ The
Bible will treat you as you treat it,” that is, you may
find whatever you are looking for, and only nineteenth
century ideas are looked for ; we look for a reformed
God, and a reformed religion, and this is the only way I
can account for the judgments of the good men I have
quoted above, and also for the fact that such chapters
as Gen. xix., xxxvii., Jud. xix., 2 Sam. ix., xiii., &c.,
are allowed to be retained, although they would not
obtain admission into any book in the present day in
any refined and civilized community.
�The Christian Religion.
33
But even among those who reject Revelation as a
revelation, the deistic conception of God as a governing
power outside the universe is probably as childish as
the original one conceived in the childhood of the
world, when all the earth was supposed to be filled
with his glory.
The cosmogony of the Hebrews, as might be expected,
is exactly upon a par with their Theology. The earth,
according to their revelation, was the centre of all
things ■, it was flat, founded upon the seas, and could
not be moved. The sun, and moon, and stars, are so
many lamps placed in the firmament to give light to
the earth. The firmament or sky is a solid structure,
and supports a great ocean like that upon which the
earth rests, in which are little windows through which
pour the waters of this upper ocean—under the earth
is the land of graves, called sheol, and is the hell, to
which it is said, Christ descended.* Above the waters
of the firmament is heaven, where Jehovah reigns,
surrounded by hosts of angels. It is to this heaven
that Christians say Christ ascended, his disciples and
a vast multitude having seen him go up, where he sitteth
on the right hand of God. There is some little
discrepancy as to whether Christ is sitting or standing,
as St Stephen saw him standing, and we might well
believe it was “ sometimes one and sometimes the
other,’’ if the Athanasian creed, supported by the
church, did not say that we shall be damned if we do
not believe he is sitting. Between the firmament and
the earth is the air, which is the habitation of evil
spirits, and properly belongs to Satan, the “ prince of
* Mr George Smith, informs the Daily Telegraph that some
of the Assyrian tablets discovered by Mr Smith and presented
by the proprietors of the Telegraph to the British Museum,
contain a much longer and fuller account of the creation and
fall of man than the Book of Genesis. In particular, the fall
of Satan, which in the Bible is only assumed, is in these
records reported at length, and the description of this being is
characterized by Mr Smith as “ really magnificent.”
�34
’Rhe Christian Religion.
the powers of the air.” As to the order of creation, the
sun is made on the fourth day, the changes of day and
night preceding it. The sun and moon are subordinate
to the earth. It took no less than five days to create
the earth, while for the sun, the whole starry host, and
the planets it took only one day, but then they were
made just to light up the earth. It was for professing
some little doubt as to the accuracy of this plan of the
universe that poor Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned,
and the special charge against Giordano Bruno was that
he had taught the plurality of worlds, a doctrine, it was
said, repugnant to the whole tenor of Scriptures, and
inimical to revealed religion, especially as regards the
plan of salvation. For this he was to be punished as
mercifully as possible, and “ without the shedding of
blood,” the horrible formula for burning people alive.
It was this adoption of the Jewish sacred writings as
the standard of all knowledge, this conflict between
religion and science, this attempt to put the Cosmos
into a quart pot, that has put a logger on science, even
up to the present day. The so-called revelation now
stands in the way of mental science as it formally did
in the way of physics ; but as our astronomy has come
from science and not from revelation, so also must our
mental and moral philosophy.
Mohammedanism
released the people of Asia, Africa, and the Continent of
Europe, from those narrow and erroneous scriptural
dogmas, and the thick darkness of papal Eome, and left
science free; and the lamp of discovery was kept burning
through Arabian learning, and the highest civilization
we have yet reached, that of the Moors in Spain. We
are evidently approaching another Reformation in which
Science not in one department only, but in all, shall be
left entirely free. The intellectual development of
Europe has reached that stage where Arabism left us in
the 10th and 11th centuries. Through the influence of
Eome the world then took the wrong way; had it
adopted Averhoism, which was rejected only by a
�The Christian Religion.
35
small majority, we should have been then where we
are now.
But if the Jewish conception of God was a most
unworthy one, what must we say of that of the orthodox
Christian? Why, that it is infinitely worse. With
both he is the Creator of all things, therefore, of
evil and good, but with the former evil is confined to
time and this world, while with the. latter it is absolute
and endless. Thus, according to the orthodox creed
the Almighty and All-wise, with a perfect knowledge
therefore of what he was doing, and full power to do
otherwise, made our first parents, Adam and Eve, and
put them into Paradise, with the full knowledge that
they would get themselves immediately turned out for
a single act of disobedience. They were not to eat of
a certain magic tree, for if they did so on that day they
should surely die. But our poor inexperienced mother
Eve, not knowing even what death was, was beguiled
by a talking serpent, into eating, and Adam, like a
gentleman, determined to share the consequences with
his wife : and if they had merely died on that day they
would only have been where they were before they
were made. But did God keep His word ? No, they
did not die that day, but aftdr cursing the earth for
their sake, they were kept alive to fill it with their
children, all of whom, with themselves, were condemned
to everlasting torture for this single act of disobedience.
But God had already arranged a scheme by which the
world might be saved; He would give His only be
gotten Son; Christ was to die for our salvation, an
innocent person for the guilty ; but the conditions
were such that God in His infinite fore-knowledge knew
perfectly well they would not be accepted, and that the
great majority would be damned, notwithstanding this
infinite loving kindness, and awful sacrifice. From the
“Westminster Confession of Faith,” we learn that by the
decree of God, for the manifestation of His ylory, some
c
�^6
The Christian Religion.
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life,
and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
“Those angels and men, thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ;
and their number is so certain and definite, that it
cannot be either increased or diminished.”
“ The rest of mankind, God was pleased, for the
glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to
pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” Glorious
justice indeed ! an infinite punishment for a finite sin,
or rather for no sin at all, for if the causes that pro
duced the act had not been adequate to the result, God
could not have foreseen it.
“ Our first parents, we are told, on the same authority,
being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan,
sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin
God was pleased, according to His wise and holy
council, to permit, having purposed to order it to His
own glory.” Thus He permitted a subtle and powerful
being to tempt our first parents, knowing full well the
result, and having already prepared a place of eternal
torment, that he might “ order it to His own glory.”
J. S. Mill says (“Autobiography,” p. 41.) “I have
a hundred times heard him (his father) say, that all
ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked,
in a constantly increasing progression; that mankind
have gone on adding trait after trait till they reached
the most perfect conception of wickedness which the
human mind can devise, and have called this God, and
prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of
wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is
commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Chris
tianity.”
The Rev. Dr Norman Macleod, however, says, “ God
has manifested in humanity the same kind of joy He
Himself had in beholding the works which He had made
very good, and in which. He rested and reposed”
�The Christian Religion.
37
(“Good Words,” June 1875, p. 421.) Fancy such a
work being “ very good / but we trust the Doctor did not
believe it, any more than we do ourselves. He may, how
ever, possibly have held with Luther, that it is by faith
we are saved and Luther says, “ it is the highest degree
of faith to believe Him merciful, who saves so few and
damns so many: to believe him just who of his own
will makes us necessarily damnable.” However laud
able such a degree of faith may be, we must confess
ourselves unequal to it, for it points to a devil, not a
god, and one wonders how such a horrid conception
could ever get into people’s heads, and ever form the
faith of a civilised people. It has taken ages of “ sur
vivals ” of hideous barbarism from the earliest ages to
put the idea together, and ages of transmission to
propagate the faith. No one coming fresh to it could
entertain it for a moment. It is absurd to say that
God’s original intentions were frustrated with respect
to man ; it is a contradiction to suppose that anything
can take place contrary to the will and wish of Almighty
power and wisdom. The “Spectator,” (Nov. 7, 1874),
however, regards it “ as a higher act of power to create
free beings, and therefore beings liable to sin on their
own responsibility, than to create only those whose
natures are for ever fixed in the grooves of good; ” that
is, it may be a much higher act of power to create
beings capable of damning themselves to all eternity,
than to create them so good that they could not do it;
granted, but then what shall we say of the wisdom j
We very much doubt, however, whether omnipotence
itself could create a free, that is self-originating, un
caused act of any kind ; it is very certain it never has.
It is wonderful that it never seems to occur to the ortho
dox school, that if God had kept His word, and Adam
had really died, and another pair had been created, less
“ free ” to damn themselves and all their posterity, how
much trouble might have been spared. There would
have been no necessity then to “ keep a devil,” or a
�38
The Christian Religion.
place of eternal torment, and the Son of God need not
have died, and this, as it appears to poor human reason,
might have been turned equally to God’s glory. “ If
Christ, as St John writes, appeared on earth to destroy
the works of the devil, He might have been dispensed
with if no devil had existed” (Strauss.)
This doctrine of the atonement, of sacrificing an
innocent 'person for a guilty one, and that in Christ’s
case only for an elect few: for although “many are called
few are chosen ”—must have come down from the very
earliest times. “ Without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sins” (Heb. ix. 22) must be a “sur
vival ” from pre-historic men and the most barbarous
races. The law of vengeance, life for life, blood for
blood, was the savage law; and what was thus acceptable
to man was thought to be the most acceptable to his
Deity that he wanted to propitiate. Hence human
sacrifices.- An only son being the dearest to man was
thought to be most acceptable to God. At length
animals were substituted for human beings, as in Abra
ham’s case, the ram for his only son Isaac, and the
first-born among the Hebrews ceased in time to be
sacrificed according to primitive barbaric custom, and
was redeemed by a ram or a lamb. In Exodus and
Leviticus we have a whole ceremonial worship based
upon sacrifices, as we are told, by divine command.
“ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering
for atonement” (Ex. xxix. 36, &c.) The Jewish ritual
is full of bloody sacrifices, and Paul, not Christ, has
made it the key-stone of the Christian system, in the
blood of God’s only begotten and beloved Son. This
doctrine of propitiation by blood—of being washed
clean in blood, could never have entered a civilised
man’s head or heart; we have gradually been ac
customed to it from the earliest times, until like the
sun’s rising, it excites no wonder.
That all should fall for the sin of one—of Adam, and
all be saved by the sacrifice of an innocent person, is so
�The Christian Religion.
39
great a breach of all moral law that we rather wonder
how the Archbishop of Canterbury reconciles it with
“ the immutable and eternal distinctions between right
and wrong.” There can be little doubt that the con
founding of all moral distinctions in the “ spoiling of
the Egyptians,” and the sacrifice of the innocent for the
guilty as a plan of salvation, must have had a most
deleterious influence upon the conscience of all who
have believed in them, as part of the direct ordinances
of God. “ The covenant of grace in which the guilty
are pardoned through the agony of the just—and a God
kept holy in His own eyes by the double violation of
His own standard of rectitude,” can in no way be re
conciled with the intellect or our moral sense.
But these dire chimeras, these awful and blasphem
ous slanders upon the character of God, are silently
dying out before the gradually increasing intelligence of
the age, as witchcraft has done before. We no longer
burn thousands of old women for having personal inter
course and dealing with the “ prince of the powers of the
air,” and theological dogma is giving place, even in the
church itself, to practical religion. There are still,
however, many good people who think it desirable to
retain these horrible lies and libels upon our Creator, in
order to frighten men into being good, and the hope of
an immortality attended, with such results is thought to
be a high and ennobling sentiment. At the present
time (June 1875) a case is going through the Court of
Arches, Jenkins v. Cook, in which the Rev. F. Cook
refuses to allow Mr Jenkins to partake of “ the body
and blood of Christ,” which, as the Church Catechism
tells us, ££ is verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful at the Lord’s Supper,” with his fellow
communicants, because he had expressed doubts about
the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the personality
of Satan; he had even gone the length of supposing
that there were parts of “ God’s Holy Word” that
were better left out, and he had prepared a selec-
�40
The Christian Religion.
tion for his young family. On the other hand, we
have an article in the “ Contemporary,” for May, by Prof.
J. B. Mayor, in which he says, 11 reason and conscience
inevitably revolt against such a gospel as this (that
hopeless misery is the destiny of the larger propor
tion of created souls), yet how are those who believe
in the inspiration of the Bible to avoid accepting it ?
Accept this or give up Christianity is the alternative
presented to many minds at the present day—an alter
native enforced with equal vehemence by the extremists
on either side. It is this which is the great stum
bling-block ;■ not, how can I believe in this miracle or
that miracle ? but how can I accept a revelation which
appears to me to contradict the first and deepest of all
revelations, God is just, and God is good? He who
would solve this problem and justify to man the
ways of God, as revealed in Scripture, would, indeed,
do a great and excellent work. Maurice did some
thing by calling attention to the distinction between
endless and eternal.”
A great many equally good and learned men, in the
interests, as they believe it to be, of religion, are making
similar useless distinctions, straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel, and by taking things in a non
natural sense, the spiritual instead of the literal mean
ing, by turning affirmed facts into allegory, &c., are
earnestly striving to make black appear white and save
their livings; the church, as they believe, being much
better reformed from within than from without. The
question which is really interesting and pressing,
according to Principal Tulloch, is not how to get out
side the church, but how to enlarge and make room in
side it for varieties of Christian intelligence and culture.
But we may read the signs of the times when the
“ Edinburgh Review,” not now the organ of advanced
but of conservative liberalism, is disposed to go much
further than “ the distinction between endless and
eternal,” and to throw over the Old Testament alto
�The Christian Religion.
41
gether and much even of the New (Oct. 1873, on Dr
Strauss). “We are not Jews/’ it says, “and there is
no reason in the world why we should be weighted
with the burden of understanding and defending at all
risks the Jewish Scriptures.” It also says, “ Is it
right, is it truthful, is it any longer possible, in the
face of all that is now known upon the subject, to pretend
that legendary matter has not intruded itself into the
Eew Testament as well as into the Old?” Still the
writer contends for the precious truths which notwith
standing this lie enshrined in “ Oriental metaphor”
and “ Mediaeval dogma,” and accuses Strauss of “ igno
rant blasphemy or hypocritical sarcasm,” for professing
to understand these things literally, and to believe that
they form any part of Christianity. This is the attitude
that is now assumed by those who do not wish to give
up the Bible altogether. They fall back upon what
they call Christianity, by which they mean the example
and moral teaching of Christ, as far as that can be
ascertained. It is very difficult to ascertain what
Christ did, and still more to say what he taught. We
have the fourth Gospel, and the Epistles of Paul, and
of Peter, James, and Jude, all of which have added to
and differ from what Christ himself taught. The
theologic system that has come down to us is in reality
not Christianity, but much has been added to it
which Christ himself, as a religious reformer, strongly
protested against. The bloody doctrine of sacrifice and
atonement, which had been derived from a primitive
savage state, was re-introduced and made the corner
stone of the new faith ; in fact, orthodox Christianity
is more indebted to Paul and the Alexandrine School,
as represented in St John’s Gospel, than to its putative
founder.
In the midst of the myths and legends that have
surrounded Christ, it is very difficult to say who and
what he was. Without believing at all in the super
natural, I yet believe that he wrought most of the
�42
The Christian Religion.
miracles that are ascribed to him, and that this appa
rently miraculous power deceived him and his disciples
and ourselves. This power was not peculiar to Christ,
for a power of curing many kind of diseases has attended,
and still attends, many individuals. One of the best
known cases on record is that of Valentine Greatrakes,
an Irish gentleman, but no saint, born in 1628. He
was invited by the King to London, whither he went,
curing very many by the way. There the Royal
Society, then young, investigated the matter, publish
ing some of his cures in their Transactions, and account
ing for them as produced by “ a sanative contagion in
Mr Greatrakes’ body, which had an antipathy to some
particular diseases and not to others.” We are told
by a contemporary writer, Henry More, what particular
diseases this sanative contagion had an antipathy to,
viz., “ cancers, scrofula, deafness, king’s evil, headache,
epilepsy, fevers (though quartian ones), leprosy, palsy,
tympany, lameness, numbness of limbs, stone, convul
sions, ptysick, sciatica, ulcers, pains of the body, nay,
blind and dumb in some measure, and I know not but
he cured the gout.” Now if we leave out the cures
that were said to be wrought by Christ that the pro
phecies might be fulfilled, we have here most of the
diseases that he was able to cure, for we must not forget
that people’s want of faith prevented his being success
ful in all times and all places. He knew also when
“ virtue,” this sanitary power, went out of him, as when
touched by the woman with the issue. We may doubt
as to the source of this power, but that it exists there
can be no doubt. I have seen six cases, including
toothache, lameness, and rheumatism cured or relieved
in less than a quarter of an hour by the simple contact
or laying on of hands, and I have carefully watched
many permanent cures by the same person, by what
appeared to me an excess of vital power or of the “ vis
medecatrix.” Now if Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter’s
son, found himself possessed of such a power, he would
�The Christian Religion.
43
of course ascribe it to Divine origin and believe that he
was intended by the Almighty for some special mission,
most probably the Messiah, which all the Jews were
expecting, to deliver them from the Roman yoke and
to place them in the exalted position which had been
promised to the seed of Abraham, and to which there
had been already several pretenders.
He himself
does not appear to be quite certain as to the character
of his mission, for when sent to by John, asking, “ Art
thou he that should come, or do we look for another ?”
he replied, “ Go and show John again those things
which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight
and the lame walk, the leapers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have
the gospel preached to them,” intimating that this was
all he knew. There is little doubt, I think, that on
his entry into Jerusalem he expected a rising of the
people in his favour, and probably divine assistance in
that direction, as he daily received it, as he thought,
in others. When that did not take place, and he saw
that a revolt against the Roman power was vain and
hopeless, he did not the less doubt his own Divine
mission, of which he received daily proofs in the
miracles which he wrought; but he began to see that
the promised kingdom was not to be of this world,
but upon a second coming, which was to take place
even in that generation, and when he should be accom
panied by such divine power as would establish this
Heavenly Kingdom for ever. In the meantime he
began to prepare for that martyrdom that had always
attended all the great prophets and all previous
claims to the Messiahship. He prayed that this might
pass from him; but was nobly prepared to meet it if
such was God’s will, and never once does he seem to
have doubted that he was under God’s special care for
a special purpose, except in his own most pathetic and
despairing cry upon the cross, “ My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me !” Christ died as a rebel to the
�44
The Christian Religion.
Roman Empire, and in the full persuasion that on his
second coming, then near at hand, all things would be
made subservient to himself and to his followers, and
that the Jewish nation especially should have the pre
eminence that had been promised to them. In this
belief, his disciples, who had daily witnessed his appa
rently miraculous power, joined him, and expected to
sit on twelve, thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
It is impossible not to feel love for Christ, especially
when we think of the horrid suffering to which he was
subjected by his fellow-creatures, and to feel respect
for him as the most amiable and greatest of our moral
and social reformers, but I cannot look upon him as a
perfect character, or his example as one that could be
followed in the entirely altered conditions we have now.
There is much in the spirit of Christ’s character that is
most loveable and estimable, but to attempt to follow
his example would as certainly bring us within the
power of the police, as it did him in his day. In all
the phases of social life, as a son, as a celebate, as a
producer or worker, his example is certainly one that
cannot be followed. As Strauss says, we must have
a definite conception of him whom we are to imitate as
an exemplar of moral excellence, and there are not such
essential facts in the life of Jesus firmly established;
neither are we clearly cognizant of his aims, nor the
mode and degree in which he hoped for their reali
zation. It is in the spirit of his doctrine only, that he
can be held up as an exemplar, and that certainly,
excellent as it is in many points, would not tend to the
full development of all our faculties.
But whence did Christ get his knowledge, which seems
greatly to have exceeded that of his time, and most cer
tainly that of his condition as a carpenter’s son ? What
sources were open to him ? Was he one of those seers
or clairvoyants which the world has occasionally known,
and in that sense inspired ? The power of healing and of
�The Christian Religion.
45
this kind of intuitional knowledge, are seldom found
together. It is very difficult to ascertain what Christ
really did teach. There were no short-hand writers in
those days, and the traditional reports we have, would
come to us strained through, and coloured hy, the much
lower minds of his followers. We must therefore take
the spirit of his teaching, and not take it literally ; and
we must recollect that much of what he taught was
under the firm conviction that the world was coming
to an end, probably in that generation. The morality
of the New Testament, to which the Broad Church is
now driven, giving up the conventional theological
creed, furnishes no system of morals, or one upon which
a science of mental and moral philosophy can be based.
The sun still goes round the earth in the mental science
of the New Testament, as much as it did in the physics
of the Old, for of course there can be no science of
mind, if the mind obeys no law, and it has power to
resist the strongest motives, as the advocates of Free
Will affirm. If, on the contrary, the mind necessarily
obeys its own laws, then we require a re-modelling of
the whole of Christ’s morality, as it must be based upon
a different idea of responsibility to that which he taught;
for the whole tendency of Christianity is to separate
conduct from its immediate and natural consequences,
and to place such consequences far away, or even in
some distant world; whereas the only divine judgment
or responsibility which science can admit, is that only
“ which fulfils itself hour by hour, and day by day.”
Thus Christ taught, as his especial doctrine, the
Fatherhood of God; now in the sense that God ever
interferes with natural law in our favour, this is not
true, and if not true, however comforting such a doctrine
of a Heaven-Father, or Father in Heaven, may be to
weak people, it had better be given up, as the truth
must always serve us best. God has put everything we
require within our reach, and has appointed a way by
which it may be attained, and has lent us his power to
�46
The Christian Religion.
act for ourselves, and after that we have no right to
expect he will interfere personally in our behalf, and if
he did, it could only be to our injury, by weakening
that self-reliance upon which certainly all progress, if
not our very existence, depends. If we do not take
this natural course towards the object of our desires,
we are punished in the consequences, and as such
punishment is for our good, God never injures us by
forgiving bur sins.
And this is what I have principally to say against
Christianity. It has attempted to come between man
and the natural consequences of his actions; it has
filled the world with eleemosynary charity, and has thus
weakened his most important springs of action.
Here we have the orthodox creed on this subject,
“ 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 follow in this life, there must
be a future state. If not, there would exist in man a
whole class of moral faculties which seem to find in the
present state of things an appropriate field for their
exercise, but which man is under no necessity of using.”
(The Dean of Canterbury on “ Science and Revelation ”).
Now it is the consequences of man’s actions that enable
him to distinguish between right and wrong, and at
the same time mete out an adequate reward and punish
ment. He is judged at once, and by an infallible judge,
and where the rewards and punishments, the pains
and pleasures attending his actions, may be of some use
to him and not carried on to some future state or other
world, where the conditions being different, they can be
of no use whatever. Man is responsible to himself, and
to the society of which he forms a member. This idea
�The Christian Religion.
47
of vengeance, this notion that has come down from
savage life of apportioning a certain amount of useless
suffering to a certain amount of sin, pervades the whole
of the Bible. We are told also that man is endowed
with certain faculties for the exercise of which no
proper field has been furnished him by natural means,
and that therefore it requires a supernatural interposi
tion to provide him with one. We know of no faculties
that man possesses, that are not brought into daily use,
that he could live without, or which are not active in
providing an improved state of things here in this
world, for himself and fellows.
The two great commandments of Christianity are
that we should “ Love God with all our hearts, and our
neighbour as ourselves.” Now is this possible 1 If not,
is it not time that we should give up pretending that
it is ? Can we love the God of the Hebrews who puts
whole towns to the sword, men, women, and little
children, and every living thing, and who throws great
stones out of heaven upon the retreating hosts, and who
kills more in that way, than are killed by the sword 1
Can we love the God of the Christians who' has ordained
an eternity of torture for the majority of his weak and
erring creatures, having full power to save them or not
to have created them ? It is true we can make an idol
of all the ’highest attributes with which we are
acquainted and give it a personality after our own image,
and love that, but that is not God. Can we love the
Great Unknown ? We may love goodness and beauty,
but they must take some form to enable us to do so,
we cannot love a mere abstraction. The Universal
Father works for the good of all, and does not recognise
individuals. Love is a human feeling applicable to our
fellow creatures, and is not applicable, as it appears to
me, to the All Supreme, which supports the Universe,
or rather which is the Universe. We cannot know
enough of this power to make it an object of love,
however much it may create a feeling of reverence and
�48
The Christian Religion.
awe, and this idea and feeling increase the higher our
conception rises of the Great Supreme. We may love
Christ as the highest manifestation of God we may
know, but this is a very different and inferior feeling to
that which we have for the Great All. As to “ loving
our neighbour as ourselves ” that is neither possible
nor desirable. Suppose my neighbour is a nasty sneak,
a mere animal, full of low and vicious propensities, why
should I love him ? I am not called upon to love vice
in any form, although it is my neighbour, and to do so,
as man’s conduct is governed by the consequences,
would be holding ‘out a premium for vice. Let my
neighbour make himself loveable, and I cannot help
loving him. On principle I may do him all the good I
can—getting him hanged perhaps being the greatest
good I can do him—but as to loving him, I must
decline. We can only love what is loveable, and believe
what is credible. It is true that orthodoxy professes
to love the Being who may send themselves or their
best and dearest friend to spend an eternity in “ ever
lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and
as to belief, it thinks that any fool can believe what
is credible, but that that only is a saving and justifying
faith which believes what is incredible. If all that it
is meant to inculcate is a settled principle of good-will
to all men, that certainly is a most desirable feeling to
encourage, even towards the unworthy. The same may
be said about loving our enemies. Why should we love
our enemies? The interests of the community, and
therefore of morality, do not require it. We cannot do
more for our friends. It is true we may bless them that
curse, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them
that despitefully use us and persecute us, and we can do
what pious people are very fond of doing, pray for
our enemies; but as to loving them! when by doing
them all the good we can, if they deserve it, we have
made them our friends, then we may love them.
Does God love his enemies when he exacts an infinite
�The Christian Religion.
49
penalty for a finite fault, or is it not true that he pre
pares an eternity of torment for them ? “ They shall
drink,” John says, “ the wine of the wrath of God
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
his indignation,, and they shall be tormented with fire
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” How the
holy angels must enjoy the sight ! we are told also on
the same ‘ loving ’ authority, 1 they have no rest day
nor night, they shall desire to die, and death shall flee
from them, they blaspheme God, they gnaw their tongues
for pain.’ ” Moses says, “ Slay every man his brother,”
rather than allow the existence of heretics, but Moses
did not believe in a future state, and therefore he could
not damn them as well. Christ says, “ He that believeth not in me the wrath of God abideth on him ”—■
“He that believeth not shall be damned,” and Paul says of
the unbelievers in his day, “ God shall send them strong
delusion (as he had previously done to Pharaoh and to
Ahab), that they should believe a lie, that they may all
be damned.”
All that can come of setting up a false standard, and
professing to love our enemies, is a pharisaical hypocrisy.
What we have to do is to love the true, the good, and
the beautiful; to stand up for the right regardless of
consequences, and to maintain an unending battle
against evil in all its forms. This may be done in all
kindness, and in the full conviction that “ Society
prepares crime, and the guilty are only the instruments
by which it is executed.”—Quetelet. It is justice that
ought to rule the world. We are governed by the con
sequences of our actions, and if we can get love without
being loveable, and good for evil, the chief motives to
be good and loveable are taken away. The same reason
ing applies to the whole doctrine of the non-resistance of
evil. Not to resist evil is to encourage it. If a man
smite us unjustly on one cheek, and turning the other
to be smitten would prevent its recurrence, let us do it.
�50
The Christian Religion.
With a good man it might do so, hut with the great
majority it would only encourage them to further
aggression. To give a man my cloak who had taken
my coat would he a premium for robbery; and to give
to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow
of me not to turn away, as a rule, would be equally a
premium for improvidence. So also to take no thought
for the morrow, to trust to God to clothe us as he does
the lilies of the field, would sap self-reliance and self
dependence, the foundation of all morality. No society
that ever existed in Christ’s time or since could hold
together on such principles, translate them into what
ever transcendental or aesthetic language we may.
As to the golden rule, which is not peculiar to
Christianity, viz., “ that we should do as we would be
done by,” it can only be received in spirit, in a very broad
and general application, for people differ so in bodily
and mental constitution that what suits one person by
no means suits another. It is not at all safe to judge
of other people by ourselves. Not to do to others what
we would not like to have done to ourselves is a much
safer way of putting it.
We must notice also, it is that we may be rewarded,
not that we may do right, is the inducement every
where held out.
With reference to prayer, Christ says, “ when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and
thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly.” We are expressly told that we are not to
pray standing in the synagogues, that we may be seen
of men; that we are not to use vain repetitions and
much speaking, for that our Father knoweth what
things we have need of, before we ask Him. The
whole of Christendom has systematically set these
injunctions at defiance, for there would be little use
for the priests were they carried out, and with one sex
at least, church-going would be less popular if they were
�The Christian Religion.
5i
hot to be “ seen of men.” The last new bonnet is a
great stimulant to devotion. The great majority of
Christians, who believe their saints to be ubiquitous, or
omniscient, and who pray to those who are always
listening, to intercede with the Mother of God, to
petition her Son, to ask his Father, can have little
faith that the “Father knows what things we have need
of, before we ask Him,” or that if he does, he is
very hard to persuade to let us have them. His Holi
ness, the Pope, in his Encyclical, recently issued, enjoins
incessant prayer, employing a Mediatrix with Him, the
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who sits, he says, as a
queen upon the right hand of her only begotten Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, in a golden vestment, clothed
around with various adornments. There is nothing she
cannot obtain from him.
Now is it likely that God will be constantly altering the
course he has appointed for our well-being at our ignor
ant intercession ? Surely he knows what is right, and
will do it, without our asking him or constantly re
minding him! No amount of toadying, which we call
worship, or serving him, will induce him to do other
wise than what is right, or prevent him from doing it,
whether “ we praise him,” or “ acknowledge him to
be the Lord,” or not. The savage with the noise of
pots and pans tries to prevent an eclipse, that is, to
prevent the sun eating up the moon, or vice versa, and
the noises we make in the churches to bring or prevent
rain, or in any way to alter the course of natural law,
may be expected to be equally efficacious. The whole
tendency of modern research goes to show that if law
is anywhere, it is everywhere.
The Kyoungtha of Chittagong are Buddhists. Their
village temples contain a small stand of bells and an
image of Buddha, which the villagers generally worship,
morning and evening, first ringing the bells to let him
know that they are there (Sir John Lubbock’s “Origin
of Civilisation,” p. 220). This is no more than polite or
D
�52
The Christian Religion.
politic; we ring our bells merely to call the people
together, thinking God is always ready to listen to
petitions, to do for us what he has given us full power
to do for ourselves, or simply perhaps, to reverse the
order of nature, upon the invariability of which the
good of all depends. Surely it is better that all people
should know that miracles will not be constantly worked
on their behalf. It is true that by the laws of the
mind, prayer often answers itself, and we get what we
ask for, but should we mock God that we may be so
benefited? No man prays for the success of his
chemical experiments, neither will he for moral results
when he knows as much of the likes and antipathies of
human beings, as he does of the attractions and repul
sions of atoms. Our present practice is a “ survival ”
of primitive barbarous times, when all evil was supposed
to come directly from spirits, or from the gods, and
prayer was the only means supposed capable of averting
such evils. We certainly have no right to reflect on
less civilised times and nations for their superstition, so
long as we expect the ordinary course of nature to be
altered in our behalf whenever we choose to ask it.
It never seems to occur to those who pray without
ceasing, to ask the question that if in answer to their
repeated importunity, God delivers them from evil,
why an infinitely powerful, good, and benevolent being
does not deliver all from evil, without asking. If it
were right in their case it would be right in all; but it
would be not right. Any interference with the estab
lished order of nature would render both reason and
instinct useless, and would weaken those springs of
action on which all progress depends.
The late Rev. Charles Kingsley, says, speaking of
Atheism ;—11 Has every suffering, searching soul, which
ever gazed up into the darkness of the unknown, in
hopes of catching even a glimpse of a divine eye,
beholding all, and ordering all, and pitying all, gazed
up in vain ?............. Oh! my friends, those who
�The Christian Religion.
53
believe or fancy that they believe such things, must be
able to do so only through some peculiar conformation,
either of brain or heart. Only want of imagination to
conceive the consequences of such doctrines can enable
them, if they have any love and pity for their fellow
men, to preach those doctrines without pity and horror.
They know not, they know not, of what they rob a
mankind already but too miserable by its own folly and
its own sin, a mankind which, if it have not hope in
God and in Christ, is truly—as Homer said of old—
more miserable than the beasts of the field. If their
unconscious conceit did not make them unintentionally
cruel, they would surely be more silent for pity’s sake ;
they would let men go on in the pleasant delusion that
there is a living God, and a Word of God who has
revealed him to men, and would hide from their fellow
creatures the dreadful secret which they think they
have discovered—that there is none that heareth prayer,
and therefore to him need no flesh come.”
No doubt this is very eloquent, but if such eloquence
were compatible with reason, I should ask, who is it
that professes to have discovered “the dreadful secret,”
that the majority after a moment spent here, are con
signed to endless torments, where there “ is none that
heareth prayer, and therefore to Him need no flesh
come.” Surely Atheism is better than this orthodox
belief, and if any have discovered that it is a blasphem
ous libel upon our Creator, the sooner they proclaim
it the better. The good, most loving, and gentle
Cowper, the Poet, not having felt, as he and his Par
son thought, sufficient evidence of conversion, lived
year after year in the full belief that God had utterly
rejected him, and on his death-bed exclaimed, “I feel
■unutterable despair.” The self-righteous people who
feel so certain of their own salvation, forget, or more
probably selfishly disregard, the numberless cases of
this kind, of sensitive people being driven, as poor
■Cowper was, to despair; they think it so hard that
�54
The Christian Religion.
any should be deprived of the comforting notion. It
is a great mystery, they say, but it is one of their own
making: they first make it dark, and then complain
that they cannot see.
I need not say any more, I think, to show that the
Christianity of Christ, however much of excellence there
is in it, is not up to the thought and moral sense of our
time. Great efforts are being made to adapt it to thealtered conditions by new and forced meanings, and by
dropping, what no forcing can adapt, as not abiding
principles intended for our times. So far as attempts
have been made to put Christianity systematically intopractice, they have been failures.
The early Christians were communists—they had all
things in common j and no doubt it is better adapted tosuch a social system than to any other. When all are
dependent upon each and each upon all; when all have
a direct and immediate interest in the well-being,
physical, moral, and intellectual of every member of
the community, when conscience or the sense of duty
is as strong a feeling as hunger and pride and vanity are
now, when the unselfish feelings shall decidedly pre
dominate, then some form of Christianity will be practi
cable. But society in no country has ever yet approached
such a state. Communism is still, and may continue
so for ages, the great Socialist Utopia.
Where Christianity has been attempted to be carried
out as a system of theological belief; where he “ whobelieveth shall be saved and he who believeth not shall
be damned,” the burnings of millions of people have not
brought us any nearer to it in practice. People will con
tinue to believe that what appears to them to be black and
not white, is black, whether they are to be burned here
and hereafter for it or not; and as to “ renouncing the
devil and all his works,” and burning some nine millions
of poor old women and others for supposed personal deal
ings with him, the devil, or at least the principle of evilr
is nearly as rampant as ever. It would have been much
�The Christian Religion.
55'
more convincing if those who burned others for want
of faith, had exhibited a proper evidence of their own,
which they never did. “ And these signs shall follow
them that believe
says Mark xvi. 17, 18, 19, “ In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” But
such is the perversity of human nature, that had such
powers attended their faith, they would probably havebeen burned for witchcraft. “ So then^ Mark goes on
to say, xvi. 20, “ after the Lord had spoken unto them
he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.”
The asceticism, which is a part of Christianity, has
done the world infinite mischief, if it were only in
depriving it of the offspring of so many of its highest
minds, who were either imprisoned, burnt, or voluntarily
retired from it. What wise man had time to marry
when he had an eternity to prepare for ? what good man
would run the risk of introducing beings to a life of
everlasting torment ? The stake was so great, that no
wonder that among those who were not good utter sel
fishness prevailed, and men thought only of then’ own
salvation. The soul was the only thing to be thought
of, the body was despised, mortified, degraded, and
neglected.
Monks, nuns, and hermits were the
only sensible people. Prayer was the only occupation
in which a man could profitably engage, and conse
quently no more attention was given to the body than
its natural wants absolutely required. This absurd de
preciation of the body, the sole instrument of thought,
has continued to the present time.
It is absurd to say that we owe modem civilization
to Christianity. Islamism was a real reform on the
state of society induced by the Christianity of that day,
and carried willingly all the East and the great cities of
its birth along with it; and when it had reduced Europe
�$6
The Christian Religion.
to the (lark ages, we were saved again by the Moors
and Saracens, and a return to Greece and Rome. The
Greek and Roman philosophers aim at the perfect de
velopment of the individual man—mind and body—
and of the individual state. “ Magnanimity, self-reli
ance, dignity, independence, and, in a word, elevation
of character, constituted the Roman idea of perfection;
while humility, obedience, gentleness, patience, resigna
tion are Christian virtues” (Lecky, vol. ii., pp. 72, 155),
and it is not, I think, saying too much to affirm, that
had the principles of Christianity been really practised,
modern civilization could never have existed. His
Excellency Iwakura Tomomi, chief of the supreme
Japanese Embassy, which visited England a few years
ago, has presented to the Library of the India Office a
set of the Chinese version of the Buddhist Scriptures.
The work weighs 3| tons. A selection is probably, in
their case, allowed to be made for the use of families.
If, as is reported, the Chinese and Hindus are about to
send missionaries to Europe, they certainly cannot come
Bible in hand.
The time was when people were really in earnest
about their religion, but now all living faith in the
dogmas of the past seems to have died out. Where
the idea of duty first makes its appearance is in the
sacrifices to the dead. The most costly gifts of men,
and women, and horses, and dogs, and arms, and money,
were presented to the dead, and buried or burned with
them. The Chinese, however, are a practical people,
and Tylor tells us that in China “ the fanciful art of
replacing these costly offerings by worthless imitations
is at this day worked out into the quaintest devices—
the men and horses dispatched by fire for the service
of the dead are but paper figures and the manufacture
mock-money, both in gold and silver, is the trade of
thousands of w’omen and children in a Chinese city”
(“ Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 445). Such a change
has come over our religion,—which has now become a
�The Christian Religion.
^7
mere conventional custom of what is called good society
—a great sham which thousands of men, women and
clergymen are engaged in manufacturing. There is no
doubt we are bordering on change.
Not that we expect this change to be rapid; all per
manent change is very slow. Besides the two extremes of
the positivists and scientific men at one end, and work
ing men at the other—who regard religion as allied
always with monarchy and aristocracy, and as offering
post-obit bills on heaven for what they think they are
unjustly deprived of here—the great body of society
looks upon Christianity as containing their highest
ideal of excellence. Its dogmas are a dead letter to all
but a very few, people have got used to them, or they
are interpreted so as not to shock their moral sense, or
they are regarded as awful mysteries to be cleared up in
another world, and without which their religion would
be mere morality and not half so acceptable. Add to
this that custom, conventional usage, fashion, and re
spectability, with the toll-gates of birth, marriage and
death, are all on the side of the national religion, and
we certainly need expect no sudden change. The
Christianity of the present day is not taken from the
Bible, but is Bible doctrine strained through the mind
of the nineteenth century, and many good people still pre
fer to call themselves Christians because there is nothing
really at present equally good and of equal authority
to take its place. There cannot be a doubt that church
membership, whether of churchmen or dissenters, helps
to keep people within the broader and most obvious
moral laws ; and it will be some time before the mass
of the people will set themselves to learn what is true
in order that they may do what is right, or that they
will do what is right because it is right, and not from
the hope of reward or from the fear of punishment. We
must wait; in the meantime let no one fear or hesitate
to proclaim what he believes to be the truth and of
highest excellence.
��
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
Christianity: viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bray, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 57 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Published in three parts. Contains Part 1: Religion: Primitive, and Among the Lowest Races. Part II: The Christian Religion.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT100
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 (Christianity: viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5765ae4a5134f785b1b899ee2424343a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uu7l1WNFq-ZeR5wTFbJ50U5z-DBs12NtZKKiNE%7E53XusxU0zu0nQrs0d-qWP2uMdPKZXnoBIT1o3UYLbRLGAKph8FxkvtaLwD8QDk%7E%7EDrt7mXAUPg5xVflgSFC1GyOKRJVvBBgppzy8JWiWJHE5zTJ48a-D6SKhRbyd0wZ3buh1t5lMYHkv1nSFKdnLQfAjnDnzwSmYJAyJH-Jrhnd8DCoF8Weec-4PvUO0H2v5HmfD1YQQ%7Enx7EfdcXIKT7xFv4Ou1KUV2sBqvBSMZXFlNxXnfXbuixBAL4UPG2FwLOZx-eyNxuUkrhmV1jHjQbiU6gu3GiN6JANQ33n2SAH9F6BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3620817dbe95f9c1a0edf8ebf0662787
PDF Text
Text
CT <02
CLERICAL
“POOH, POOH!” RHETORIC.
Ovk aiffxpbv Tjye'i bpra to ipeuBrj Keyeiv ;
Ouk, ei rb cra>£ijvat ye rb if/evbos cpepei.
Philoctetes, 108-9.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAR, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PVLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�CLERICAL “POOH POOH!” RHETORIC.
T is much easier to be religious than to be moral.
This is remarkably the case in countries where
the Roman Catholic religion is that of the State.
There every person is religious, but scarcely any one
is moral. There religion is a respectable suit of
clothes to be worn on great occasions and holy days ;
or, it is a passport which those who dislike being
“ spotted ” carry with them to produce in case any one
might question their orthodoxy.
Religion—not
morality—circulates through the blood of these
people, through their families, their households, and
the very atmosphere they breathe. Their religion
may be blind admiration, or submission, or faith, or
adoration, or even it may be persuasion; but it
scarcely ever is a binding rule for their moral con
duct. It has not the least necessary connection with
any one moral virtue. The most hardened murderer,
the most self-indulgent sensualist, the most atrocious
villain may be rigidly devout,—as in the case of the
notorious Francisco Pizarro. He may even avow
publicly that he is rigidly devout and intensely pious
without giving the least shock to public opinion. In
short, the Roman Catholic Religion is witchcraft
undisguised. The Protestant Religion is witchcraft
disguised to a certain extent.
Protestants do not allow themselves the same,
indulgence that Roman Catholics permit themselves.
Protestants have less faith than Roman Catholics in
I
B
�6
Clerical '''‘Pooh, Pooh I ” Rhetoric.
the efficacy of a death-bed repentance. Regarding
the efficacy of the Sacraments there is a difference
of opinion among Protestants. Moreover the oracle
of Protestants is a dumb book called the Bible, whose
want of speech causes almost endless diversities of
opinion among those who consult it. These differ
ences and difficulties necessarily promote the cause of
morality. The accusation, that a man holds strange
opinions in order to find arguments for whatever he
has an inclination to do, is a reproach which must
always sting a Protestant who leads an immoral life.
Hence if a Protestant hold any peculiar opinion it is
cf almost infinite satisfaction to himself and advan
tage to his cause if he be able to point to a private
life of dignified moral repute. Consequently the
peoples among whom the Protestant religion prevails
are much more moral than the peoples among whom
the Roman Catholic religion is established by law.
Nevertheless, the Protestants allow themselves a
certain amount of a certain kind of self-indulgence.
In the first place, they have their little allowance
of witchcraft, namely, the laying on of hands—
infant baptism—-justification by faith—remission of
sins—and the final perseverance of the saints.
Secondly, they have their little hard and fast lines
of exclusiveness, as arranged among their various
divisions of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, &c. &c.
Thirdly, Protestants permit and even applaud a
certain amount of spiritual hatred, spiritual ran
cour, and spiritual denunciation. The odium tlieologicum is particularly gratifying to the Protestant intel
lect. At Exeter Hall, Belfast, or Glasgow, there
could scarcely be any public matter that would be
more likely to draw together a numerous audience
than the announcement that an eloquent firebrand,
on a certain time, and at a certain place, would
denounce Mr. Gladstone and the Pope.
�Clerical “Pooh^ Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
7
Fourthly (and principally), persistent and vocifer
ous assertion, in opposition to facts, that the Bible
has been written by men who were guided by divine
grace, and that Protestantism is the only true reli
gion on earth, are points that are almost universally
acted on and applauded by Protestants. If such a
course were adopted by Infidels it would be called
“ a system of enormous lying.” But when that
course is adopted for the preservation of Christianity
it is considered not only justifiable but a bounden
duty by almost all Protestants.
In Sophocles’ “ Philoctetes,” 108-9, Neoptolemus
says to Ulysses, “ Dost thou, then, not think it base
to tell a lie ? ” To this Ulysses answers : “No ; at
least not if the lie bring preservation.” This doc
trine is avowed by the Jesuits and practised by Pro
testants—especially by the clergy of the Established
Church in England and of the disestablished church
in Ireland.
In the days of David Hume, who flourished about
A.n. 1750, the clergy of the day deemed it their duty
to refute the arguments against miracles, against a
particular Providence, and against a future life, con
tained in his “ Inquiry concerning Human Under
standing,” published a.d. 1748. Not being able to
refute him they wrote what they called Answers'to
him. He says “ Answers by Reverends and Right
Reverends came out two or three in a year, and I
found, by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that the books
were beginning to be esteemed in good company.”
On the part of the clergy this was decent. It showed
they thought they had something to defend besides
their salaries. But the clergy of the present day
have long ago lost the power of using their pens, or
indeed of using any weapons requiring the aid of
human intellect to wield them.
So, when the late Dr. Strauss published, a.d. 1837,
his “Life of Jesus,” the clergy were quite taken by
�8
Clerical11 Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
surprise. The idea that Jesus might not be a strictly
historical character, and that the narratives con
tained in our Gospels might be, for the most part
mythological, was quite new to our clergy. They
had not as much as one argument to bring forward.
They could use only exclamations, such as Oh !—Ah !
—Such a thing to say !—Downright blasphemy !—
Shocking!—Horrible !—&c. &c.
Not long after this, a.d. 1844, “ Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation ” appeared. It found
the clergy utterly unable to bring forward an argu
ment against its statements and reasonings. The
clergy had been better employed. They had been
looking after rectories., archdeaconries, canonries,
prebends’ stalls, and deaneries, and the Presbyterian
portion of them had been manufacturing bricks and
getting leases of building ground. Nevertheless the
clergy raised against the “ Vestiges ” an outcry that
resounded through her Majesty’s three kingdoms;
but it was vox et prceterea nihil.
Not long after this, A.D. 1860, “ Essays and Reviews ”
made their appearance. Again the clergy were “un
practised, unprepared, and still to seek.” Again the
clergy raised an outcry, but it was as powerless as the
“ unearthly squeak ” uttered by “ the feeble forms of
the deceased dead” fluttering around Ulysses in Hades.
Before the sensation caused by the publication of
“ Essays and Reviews ” had died away, Dr. Colenso,
a.d. 1862, published the first volume of “ The Penta
teuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.”
This was too much. All the interjections in the
English language could not successfully resist this
rush of learned and clever publications on behalf of
the good old cause, “ Truth v. Christianity.” It
was deemed necessary to do something. The stupid
good people began to expect that the clergy would
do something. The ignorant little curates began to
expect that some powerful church dignitary would
�Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
9
come forth and refute Dr. Colenso. If there was
any such churchman in existence he did not make
his appearance. Mr. Speaker Denison suggested that
all the eminent blockheads in the church of England
should put their heads together and refute Dr.
Colenso. This was received with applause by the
stupid good people. And accordingly the Fathers
of the Church were gathered together in West
minster Abbey amidst “ the pride, pomp and circum
stance of glorious ” witchcraft to refute Dr. Colenso.
They commenced by receiving the holy communion! And
if they ever shall arrive at a conclusion, it will be “ a
conclusion in which nothing is concluded.”
In the meantime the expectation of the. stupid
good people was stretched to the utmost. They first
uttered a cry for help, next a scream of anguish,
then a howl of despair, and finally a wail of lamen
tation. This was too much. The clergy were at
their wit s end—and they had not to go very far to
reach it! Resort was had to the maxim of Ulysses,
that “ It is not base to tell a lie if the lie bring
preservation.”
So the clergy went among their flocks exclaiming
“Pooh, Pooh!” and preserving an ostentatious
silence on all matters of controversy.
Like all great and important doctrines, the pro- .
found reason and important theory contained in the
exclamation “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” have been gradually
“ developed.”
When Dr. Colenso was in England during the
year 1863 he wrote to a bishop asking for an expla
nation of certain statements he had made against
Dr. Colenso. To this the bishop replied that he
would not enter into a controversy “with one who
has been so ably answered ”—the bishop did not say
by whom. This is the suppressio veri in the form of
“ Pooh ! Pooh ! ”
At that time, 1863, a bishop was performing cer-
�io
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh!” Rhetoric.
tain ceremonies of witchcraft, commonly called
“ confirmation,” “ ordination,” “ consecration,’ &c.
&c., and when Dr. Colenso called on him to explain
certain ungrounded assertions he had made relative
to the futility of Dr. Colenso’s arguments against
the pretensions claimed for some parts of Holy
Scripture to be regarded as written by aid of Divine
inspiration, the bishop’s reply was to the effect that
he was too much occupied by his witchcraft to be
able to waste time in defending Holy Scripture.
This is the trick of shirking under the form of “ Pooh,
Pooh ! ”
A layman sent a copy of a tract published in
Mr. Scott’s series to a dignitary of the church of
England, requesting him to refute it, “ at which
his nose was in great indignation.” The dignitary
returned the tract with a message, to the effect that
he considered the act of sending him such a tract
was “a personal insult.” This is the stately profes
sional dodge under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Another layman sent a copy of another tract which
appeared in Mr. Scott’s series to a poor curate,
requesting him to refute the arguments contained in
it. The curate wrote back in reply that all the state
ments and arguments contained in that tract had
been written and refuted many years ago. The lay
man wrote back to the curate requesting him to give
.the names of the books which the curate alleged had
anticipated, and refuted the statements and argu
ments contained in the tract. To this the curate did
not give any answer. This is deliberate lying for the
Gospel’s sake under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh !”
A lay inquirer asked a dignitary to explain why
there are so many contradictory statements in our
New Testament regarding “justification by works,”
and “justification by faith?” The dignitary asked
the layman had he read certain books. The layman
answered in the negative. Thereupon the dignitary
�Clerical "Pooh, Pooh 1 ” Rhetoric.
11
named a number of books so numerous that it would
require the time of five or six average human lives
to peruse them, and the dignitary told the layman
that the answer to the question would be found among
those books. This is running away and taking refuge
behind the petticoats of mother Church under the
form of “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
Dr. Farrar lately published a ‘ Life of Christ ’
grounded on the old maxim of obstinate stupidity:—
Over and over again I repeat it,
Time after time and day after day,
Nothing while I live shall ever defeat it
For over and over the same I will say.
A favourable notice of this performance is given
in the Quarterly Review for January, 1875. The
notice concludes thus :—“To fill the minds of those
who read his pages with solemn and not ignoble
thoughts, ‘ to add sunlight to daylight by making
the happy happier, to encourage the toiler, to con
sole the sorrowful, to point the weak to the one true
source of moral strength ’—these are the high ends
to which he [Dr. Farrar] desires that his work may
be blest, and we may safely promise him that he will
not be disappointed.” This is Peter driving a nail
through the Moon, and Paddy clinching the nail on
the other side, under the form of “ Pooh, Pooh I”
Many other instances of clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ”
rhetoric could be given. But it is needless. What,
has been said is amply sufficient to enable the intelli
gent reader to detect clerical “ Pooh, Pooh ! ” rhetoric
under whatever guise it may lurk.
In his essay on Miracles David Hume says, “ ’Tis
strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the
perusal of these wonderful histories, that such prodi
gious events never happen in our days. But ’tis
nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all
ages. You must surely have seen instances enow of
that frailty.*’
�12
Clerical “Pooh, Pooh ! ” Rhetoric.
Recommending the clerics to study the works of
David Hume, and learn honesty, we shall take leave
of those holy men, expressing for them in English a
wish which Demosthenes expressed in Greek for
certain persons who “ flourished ” by dishonest means
in his day:—
“If it be possible, inspire even in these men a better sense
and feeling! But if they be indeed incurable, destroy them by
themselves : exterminate them on land and sea.”
Kilferest,
Feast of the Annunciation, 1875.
Printed
by c. w. reynell, little pulteney-street, haymarket, 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
Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT128
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Christianity
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 (Clerical "Pooh, pooh!" rhetoric), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Clergy
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9d11d30072eae929ee5de14566f0ee96.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AKqM5gw8p--cUrKrezsJaOPwmyPfZYxaGfZf%7E7RgZfz8ci0iE58sa7jFKpWWVneI3QKxY0UVFz43rL8vm5UIezwjKLfHnorGinHOzeg76qxr5y9WZJQBK3qOwou3uQ2%7EUIkoS%7E6UWZ1bsjz2btJ70Sb333mehjMZAyNXuSDKBsOrXvOhoAAWG-H5qOBrrLlM0kj66Lrs5PFZwsOE1%7EewPqPFT2SE261w1Sqt0YanfegQFf5Vo-C%7EFXNSGP6vjW2FgOssQG9Wf51tNEjFor-E%7EQviAygNjoA59vLA3aiQLoiQeCt%7Ed%7ExOBjQIZt6BBy53Z8%7EJCGPbWJjMaoVjlFgxWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44e15080df459f0175226f2d4c4d7651
PDF Text
Text
RATIONAL CHRISTIANITY
ITS
NATURE,
ITS PRESENT RELATION
EXISTING CHURCHES,
AND A
FLEA
FOR ITS
SEPARATE ORGANISATION.
LONDON:
E. CALLOW, 7, SOUTHAMPTON STREET, STRAND, W.C.
Price Sixpence.
>
��Rfflfioii TiRJhkistiIJn itiW
ITS NATURE, ITS PRESENT RELATION TO EXISTING
CHURCHES, AND A PLEA FOR ITS SEPARATE
ORGANISATION.
Rational Christianity—considered as a science is
strictly governed by induction. It discards all claims
to the supernatural, as on the one hand wanting in
evidence, and as being on the other plainly con
tradicted by the ever enlarging knowledge of the
dominion of law, which presenting as it everywhere
does, in whatever direction scientific investigation is
extended, an absolutely unbroken continuity, and an
absolutely irresistible supremacy, abundantly warrants
the conclusion of its absolutely undeviating univer
sality. Whatever principles embodied in the teaching
of Christ, or in the current traditions of Christianity,
are, by experience, proved to be beneficial. in their
operation are accepted. Whatever is found to be of
a contrary tendency is rejected.
In this way amongst a heterogeneous admixture of
other and worthless or mischievous elements, there are
discovered in Christianity many, if not most, of the
elements of a perfect religion. Or in other words it
is found that Christianity contains, to a very large
extent, the actual laws of religious life as they exist in
nature; just as chemistry contains, to a large extent,
the actual laws of the elements of matter. Moreover,
in many points, in which Jleficiency exists, there is
found to be, at least, an aptness to coalesce with
what is wanting: even if it is not more correct to say,
there already exists the undeveloped germ of it. If,
for example, some of the sterner virtues are slighted
or discouraged in the teaching of Christ; yet, since
experience proves their value to the well-being of
society, the love of our neighbour prompts their
exercise. These laws of the religious life, thus
extracted from Christianity, supplemented and de
veloped where necessary, constitute the principles of
Rational Christianity.
�Nor is to be thought that in this way the name is
unwarrantably appropriated, or that any violence is
done to the nature of Christianity. Although, as was in
evitable to a'religion originating eighteen hundred years
ago, it has entangled itself with philosophies current
then, and at the different periods through which it has
passed; still the simple and elevated principles upon
which it is based, are, in reality, quite independent of
these, and more in harmony with the results of modern
science, or, at least, not less so than with them. So
that no essential or peculiar feature of Christianity is
.sacrificed by replacing exploded philosophies by those
•of the present day. For example, Christ taught that
the whole of religion was comprehended in love to
God and love to man. And he evidently regarded
the government of God, and his relation to man, as of
a personal character. But the replacing of this per
sonal element, by that of unchanging law, does not
make the character of God less entitled to be loved:
nor does it lessen the elevating influence of loving
God, the fountain of all goodness, with all the heart
and all the mind. It raises indeed our conception of
the infinite greatness and incomprehensibleness of
God, but does not diminish our estimate of his
goodness. And even if science should warrant the
conclusion that God has no personality at all, that
he is but the grand sum total of all goodness, the
first great Christian law would stand with un
diminished authority. The theory of the atheist is
certainly not inconsistent with the universal obligation
to love with all our heart and mind and strength, all
apprehended goodness of every kind. And it is selfevident that man rises in the scale of humanity, just
in proportion as his whole consciousness is alive with
the love of all that is pure, and noble, and true, and
beautiful, and good. But this rational self-commending
obedience to the first great Christian law fulfils all
that is essential and peculiar to Christianity therein.
So with respect to the second great command, “ Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Does modern
�philosophy lead us to the conclusion, that the mind
bears exactly the same relation to the brain that sight
bears to the eye; and that therefore our existence is
limited to the present life ? The value of true Christ
ian benevolence and beneficence is not lessened for
the life which we have; but its purity is rendered
more apparent when all hope of future recompense, for
the sacrifices it here makes is taken away. It is
placed beyond doubt then, that a man “ does good
hoping for nothing again or, in other words, that he
is in very deed, and in the best sense of the word, a
Christian.
When rational Christianity is thus separated from
other elements in the concrete mass, it will be found
that it retains all that is peculiar to Christianity.
While on the other hand there is nothing peculiar to
orthodoxy, as distinguished from rational Christianity,
which is not common jto Judaism, or other less perfect
system of religion, while there is scarcely anything
peculiar to it, as distinguished from rational Christianity,
which can plead the sanction of the master, and
positively nothing that is peculiar or essential to his
teaching. Rational Christianity, therefore, need not
fear any investigation of its, title deeds.
And it is noteworthy that while rational Chris
tianity is thus seen to embody all that is essentially
Christian, it is also true that Christianity did exist in
its infancy apart from a belief in a future state.
There were at Corinth some who said that “there is
no resurrection of the dead”—1 Cor. xv. 12; while
others taught that the resurrection was past already,
2 Tim. ii. 18; and even of the eleven disciples some
doubted the Master’s resurrection, Matt, xxviii. 17,
which would probably carry with it doubts of their
own. The tone of the narrative forbids the idea that
this scepticism, at that day, was regarded as invalida
ting their discipleship. St. Paul, indeed, as was
natural in one who had lived as a pharisee and was
the son of a pharisee, stoutly opposed this feature of
Sadducean philosophy; but even he never once treats
�6
it as a fatal error, nor hints at excommunicating those
who held it. How long this opinion survived, or how
far it may have prevailed in the early church, there
appears to be now no sufficient data to determine;
but clearly, neither in the estimation of its adherents
nor of its opponents, was a belief in a future state of
existence regarded as essential to Christianity.
But Christianity is much more than either a
science or an art. It is a moral and religious force
having a character peculiarly its own, distinguished
from all other religious influences by strongly marked
features, especially, by its intense benevolence and
beneficence.
Principles underlying it there necessarily must be;
but these were never very clearly defined by its founder,
and never attempted to be systematised by him. The
undiscerned law of its own life, in a good degree, gave
it form, and preserved to some extent its symmetry;
even in spite of the injurious effects of erroneous
modes of thought and systems of philosophy, which
too early, too frequently, and too extensively distorted
and disfigured it.
This grand living power of goodness, the purest,
noblest, and best, which has ever been known in the
world, is, by the systematic application of rational
principles, purged of polluting and diluting elements,
brought out into healthful and vigorous exercise,
developed in accordance with the law of its life,
supplemented where necessary, and applied to the
multifarious and complex circumstances of our in
dividual, social, and political relationships, and will
yet be made the salvation of the world. This is
Rational Christianity.
What now is its position in the Christian Church ?
Its avowed disciples are but few, although its
unavowed adherents are, it is believed, to be found in
very many churches, and constitute collectively a
body of no inconsiderable influence in numbers,
intelligence, and piety.
�Up to “he present time, however, so far as is
known to the writer, no single congregation exists
where they can find a congenial home. Everywhere
they are liable, either to be expelled, or treated with
so much disrespect, if they plainly avow their con
victions, that the course of wisdom generally appears
to be, to keep their peculiar opinions to themselves; or
to confide them only to a few bosom friends, and to
labour on so long as they can do so without violating
their consciences: doing what quiet Christian work
their hands find to do, and waiting for the time
when their distinguishing opinions may win for
themselves their rightful place in the church; content
in the meantime to submit to the discomforts of their
position, and often to undeserved suspicion and
ungenerous treatment, brought upon them simply by
their want of sympathy with the feelings, opinions,
and sentiments of the majority.
Should the reason be sought for this intolerant
antipathy to Christian rationalism, which has hitherto
so effectually restrained its open avowal; it is to be
found in the mistake, which has unhappily so uni
versally prevailed, of regarding the belief of the
supernatural as an essential element of Christianity.
The fact, however, remains, that this intense antipathy
is, at present, and is likely to remain, an insuperable
barrier to the healthful development of rational
Christianity, within any of the existing churches.
And, even if it were not vain to hope to overcome
it, there are other insurmountable obstacles to the two
systems working properly together. They are in fact
mutually incompatible. The one makes the well-being
of the future life the basis of its system, and the
other regards solely the interests of this present life.
The one therefore draws its motives mainly from the
future, the other exclusively from this. The one re
gards religion as a service to be rendered to Grod, for his
happiness and well-being. The other esteems it a
matter (so far as man is concerned in it at least) as
alone affecting his own happiness and well-being, and
�8
that of his fellow creatures. The one regards prayer
as intended to produce an effect upon God, and there
fore makes it to consist of actual requests for his
assistance. The other regards it simply as intending
to influence himself and those of his fellow men, who
are connected in some way or other with the act, and
therefore, confines it to aspirations after blessings for
himself and others, which do not involve any
interference with the laws of nature in their accom
plishment, and which in fact are not perhaps properly
addressed to God at all. They with the poet regard
prayer as:—
“ the soul’s sincere desire,
“ Uttered or unexpressed,
“ The motion of a hidden fire,
“ Which trembles in the breast.”
It follows, therefore, that rational Christianity must
look for a home of its own. Whether the time is ripe
for its disciples to make the attempt to provide one,
events must prove. One thing is clear, it cannot
expect to make a home in the churches in which it has
been born, and where it at present merely lives on
sufferance.
Many reasons may be urged why no unnecessary
delay should be incurred in doing so. In the first
place there is the individual comfort of having a home of
our own, where we shall no longer be treated as inferiors
to be tolerated; but where we shall be free citizens in
a free state, enjoying the consciousness of rightful
possession, position, and influence. This is by no
means to be despised. Indeed, this would be a suffi
cient reason in itself to warrant the attempt. Then,
there is the imperative law of our Christian life, which
demands that we should avow all our convictions, at
all events, when there is any reasonable prospect of
the avowal being beneficial to one another, or to others:
a law that we cannot disobey without lowering our
religious vitality. We must not at our peril hide our
light under a bushel. Then there is the advantage to
be gained from church life. It is equally a law of oijr
�religious life, that intercommunion of kindred hearts
and minds is necessary to its healthy development!
But this intercommunion can never exist in any
perfection, where there is such a great discrepancy, as
that which divides the rational Christian from others.
Then there is the sad fact, that thousands upon thou
sands, and among them some of the finest intellects
both of the rising generation, and those of mature
age, are being lost entirely to the Christian church,
and to the cause of Christianity, through failing
to discriminate between the absurdities of exploded
superstitions, which are almost everywhere set forth
as alone constituting the essence of Christianity, and
that which is in reality entitled to be so regarded.
Mere rationalists I do not expect to be greatly
influenced by such considerations. To them, however,
I do not appeal. But to rational Christians, to the
men who have put in practice the beneficent precepts
of Christianity, and who in doing so have felt a hearty
sympathy with Jesus in his blessed and noble work,
I know such appeals will not be in vain. With the
writer they will feel that we must set up a beacon light
(which a church founded on and animated by our
principles would be,) to warn these thousands of the
rocks upon which they make shipwreck.
Closely connected with the last is the value of our
stand-point, for giving prominence to the really
essential motives of the gospel, arising from their
own intrinsic excellence and loveliness. These are
practically greatly obscured, by their association in the
current systems, with the overshadowing supernatural.
Again, no thoughtful observer can fail to notice
that although the supernatural, thus so greatly over
shadows everything else, yet it is, owing to the
increasing light of science, losing its power with
astonishing rapidity, even among those who still
honestly believe it. The future world is fast becoming
everywhere an unrealisied thing. Nowhere are its out
lines drawn now with a clearness, boldness, and dis
tinctness, which formerly characterised them. Instead
�TO
of the vivid spirit-stirring thing it once was, it is
fast fading into nebulous generalities which can no*
longer awaken the powerful emotions which formerly
aroused men from their selfish sloth, or arrested them
in the midst of a reckless career of vice, and guilt,
and crime. Here then is a loud call for rational
Christianity to step in and supply, where motives
appealing to men’s selfishness are needed, those real
and tangible considerations, drawn from the con
sequences of wickedness in this present life, which its
stand-point naturally leads its disciples to give so much
greater attention to, and which its principles prompt
them to supplement and render more effective.
The principles of supernaturalism too often lead to
the conclusion that the evils caused by wicked men,
are a part of the providential dispensations of God
and therefore to be submitted to. And this feeling is
strengthened by the great error in Christ’s teaching,
that we should not resist evil; an error which, not
withstanding the neutralising influence of common
sense, which leads Christians to act more agreeably to
the evident law of right, still paralyses the Christian
Church in grappling with the rascality of the world; and
leaves iniquity, to a very large extent, unchecked. Let
rational Christianity come forth with the high praises
of God, or goodness, in her mouth, and a two-edged
sword in her hand, to execute upon the wicked the
judgment written ; that is to say the judgment which
is dictated by benevolence, not by hatred. Let her
do this, and she will soon find her efforts a potent
check upon the evil-doer. Let her unite her disciples
as a well disciplined force, everywhere making it one
of their leading objects to checkmate the workers of
iniquity: and although she must of course expect to be
hated by wrong-doers, with an intensity almost passing
belief, yet this very intensity of the hatred evoked is
an index to the fear she will inspire, and to the
effectiveness of the work she will be accomplishing.
Nor is it to be imagined that the checking and
arresting evil is the limit of the good she will ac-j
�complish.
This is but the preliminary work in
turning evil-doers to paths of righteousness. Wicked
men, finding themselves foiled in their wickedness, and
fools, just where they had prided themselves upon their
superior wisdom, will begin to suspect themselves to be
fools in preferring to listen to the cravings of mere
selfishness, which is the root of all sin, vice and crime,
and be willing to let the higher feelings of their nature
make their voice heard. In short they may thus be
made willing to listen to the gospel of Christ, and be
brought to learn of Him who was meek and lowly of
heart; and thus, not only find rest to their own souls;
but become blessings to the world, where they had been
curses. Indeed no one can estimate the immense
power which good men could bring to bear for the
regeneration of the world, if it could thus be directed
by the principles of rational Christianity.
Nor, must it be forgotten, that to give full effect to
these principles, church organisation is indispensable.
Their power may be immensely enhanced by virtue of
concerted action. We are all familiar with the fact, that
a bridge may be broken down simply by a regiment of
soldiers passing over it, if they keep step, while their
united weight will produce no injurious effect if they
pass over without this measured tread. So if all the
rational Christian members of any one trade, or any
similar walk in life, meet together in church-fellowship
and take counsel, to attack whatever form of evil is
most prominent in their particular sphere; pledging
themselves to guard against the evil in their own
conduct, and to take all proper means to expose and
punish it in others, and to afford each other mutual
sympathy and support in the work, it may safely
be said that no evil of any magnitude could long
survive.
Moreover it would soon be seen whose
sympathies were on the side of right, and whose on
the side of wrong. This alone would be an immense
advantage, in the holy war which Christianity is ever
waging, against the powers of evil.
The preservation of Christianity in full vigour and
�healthfulness, is another reason for the formation of a
separate church, on the basis of rational Christianity.
We have seen that existing churches cannot afford a
home for it; and yet we are sure that Christianity
must be injured by continuing in intimate association
with superstitious beliefs, for which there is no longer
any excuse, and which therefore cannot long be held
by anyone with perfect honesty. And while we gladly
recognise the abounding vitality of Christianity, which
manages to live even amidst such prostration of in
tellect as is produced in the Roman Church; yet we
cannot for a moment believe that it does not materially
suffer by this deterioration of the mind; and still more,
by the violence done to conscience, which must be
continually increasing, just in proportion to the in
crease of the available light of truth. The painfid
exhibitions of disingenuousness, which are constantly
being made to bolster up exploded beliefs, and to
harmonise the results of modern science with the
claims of Bibliolatry, only too plainly reveal the un
healthy condition of the religious li feA nd the want
of power in the evangelical churches, evinced in their
obviously futile attempts to stem the rising tide of
Romanism, either within or outside of their own pale,
is one of the saddest features of our times; for these
churches have been long the home of healthy, vigorous,
robust Christianity.
Nothing but the establishment of Christianity on
the same basis as that upon which modern sciences
rest, which is the basis of rational Christianity, can
reasonably hope to secure perfect accord between
Christianity and science, or to enlist the disciples of
the latter in the service of the church. And anvthingless than this, must necessarily involve either a cramp
ing and deadening of the intellect, or a tampering
with the conscience, which is fatal to healthful religious
life. And indeed, both these evils must as a rule thus
be involved. On the other, hand instead of decay and
decline of power, Christianity, once firmly established
on a rational basis will, doubtless, exhibit a beauty and
�sheR® never yet displayed? Her prin
ciples, released from the fetters of Bibliolatry, and from
all the restraints of obsolete philosophies, will become
better understood than ever; and being more clearly
defined will be more easily, and therefore, more exten
sively applied. Besides which, as they are better
understood, new applications of them will be made,
and opportunities of developing and supplementing
them will be discovered; and having now as a standard
their own unchanging nature, misconceptions can be,
and will be, corrected by repeated and multiplied observa
tions; and thus Christianity may reasonably be expected
to acquire a unity and consistency greatly supassing
anything she has ever manifested, or could possibly
possess, 'while her standard was an undefined and
incoherent assemblage of old world philosophies and
metaphysics. A theology in short, which having had
its birth with astrology and alchemy, ought to have
been allowed to die with them; possessing as it does
no better foundation, and no better claim to live.
A Christianity thus firmly rooted in the great facts
of religion, will have within it a vitality, that cannot
fail speedily to accomplish results of startling grandeur,
in the redemption of the world from sin and conse
quent suffering. Results which will surpass even what
the supernaturalist looks for by supernatural agency,
in a future world. Results which will realise the
prophetic longings, aspirations, and predictions of the
good in all ages and nations:—the millenial glory:—
the golden age:—the good time coming:—the new
heaven, and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteous
ness.
In order to test the practicabilty of proceeding at
once to (pmmence a church on this footing, the
writer will be pleased to be the medium of intercom
munication between those who share these views,
and who are desirious of doing something to give
practical effect to them. But while he will cordially
welcome the humblest worker, he wishes it to be
distinctly understood that he does not wish to have
�14
his time wasted by mere talkers, or theoretic disputers.
He wishes to co-operate with, and will gladly welcome
communications from, any who are prepared to render
any kind of practical aid.
Communications may be adressed to Eusebius, care
of Publishers.
James & Co., Printers, 12a, Well Street, Crieplegate.
�i
��
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
Rational Christianity: its nature, its present relation to existing churches and a plea for its separate organisation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Eusebius
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "Communications may be addressed to Eusebius, care of publishers." [p. 14]. Tentative date of publication from KVK. Printed by James & Co., Well Street, Cripplegate.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
E. Dallow
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
G5326
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Rational Christianity: its nature, its present relation to existing churches and a plea for its separate organisation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/43ab754e272b49392052cf2fc2bb8d33.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qRwK9Zs3dPATDauh8Z6GBLaszN1jovsuGw4RpmPDX4-xaiUy0bOfPzDP0SBO14XRJHEGRjv-YuBoT3-182ecN5XwdzIucPCkNaNAALejbw5SK6CmdfI3e4CeRzXgWxvMsrV6UyUCsTBFSBReX4ol0kSke%7EBZhUz2qiEPh7cz9ATxsnVp1FchrlhdfhEXmqPJGPPZ57CqxkGMOvlRFWdvTIutJcZxMl5NP2-vNNRgxqIHkO02L6Dk0RSGXXs7m0wTEgpvlph9d4AdygvbVlH6LFLm1BtKd3Fvf5i2MsBYV-Jyc14dxDtMXHkJjvrGsoieP73OqjAR8g5MqbaLZAnBOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d2cc53d03a99ae45c45b153d385c99d5
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE
TEEBACE, FABQVHAB BOAD,
VPPEB NOEWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
JANUARY, 1877.
ELDOM has a month passed away so utterly devoid
of
In
tical there is news enough and to spare; but in the
world religious a great calm prevails—a curious and
amusing change from the weeping, wailing, and
gnashing of teeth lately heard from the dignitaries
of the Church. Whether the triumphant shouts
that—from the sceptical camp—echoed back their
plaints, have scared them into silence, they only
know, what is certain, is that there is “ silence in
news as that
Sbeen all ecclesiasticalyesterdays.” which has justpoli
added to “ our
the world
�2
heaven,” after the trampet has sounded. As this
lull will probably last only for the space of “ halfan-hour,” we will take advantage of it to rest on our
oa¥s, and to look back over what 1876 has done in
the orthodox and the unorthodox worlds. Last year
opened with a “ Missionary Commissioner ” to
Central Africa, in the person of Mr. Stanley, a native
of Bristol, best known in his character of correspon
dent of the New York Herald and discoverer of Dr.
Livingstone. Earnest Christians congratulated them
selves on the “opened door,” and were full of plans
for the evangelisation of Central Africa. Last year
closed with a chorus of cries of disgust against the
Missionary Commissioner for his brutal conduct to
the natives. He may be carrying them Bibles ; but
he certainly smites with the sword of the Lord and
of Gideon. He is a missionary that would have glad
dened the heart of Moses with his zeal for Jehovah.
Unfortunately, he is giving to the natives so unplea
sant an idea of the Christian missionary that any
who go after him, less well armed, will certainly pay
for his brutality. Natives who should, without
cause, attack and kill European travellers, would
justly be stigmatised as murderous savages, who
should be punished for their crimes. What lan
guage, then, ought to be applied to a “ civilized
gentleman” who, without provocation, slaughters
harmless natives, and teaches them distrust and
hatred of every white man ? We all know that Mr.
Stanley is only following out the good old orthodox
plan of spreading Christianity; but the days of
Charlemagne do not need revival, and the nineteenth
century ought to be an improvement on the ninth.
Mr. Stanley is not the only missionary who has
done but little to advance the Christian cause; that
far more august messenger of the gospel, Albert
Edward, hight Prince of Wales, sorely disappointed
the hopes of those who regarded him as “an instru
�3
ment” for spreading the faith in India. His visit to
the East has Indianised England more than it has
Anglicised India. Instead of Indian ladies wearing
crosses (Christian ones, of course), English ladies
wearswamies, “ abominable little Hindu gods.” How
lamentable a result is here! In Church matters,
India has been most unfortunate. The two new
young Bishops of Bombay and of Columbo have set
their respective dioceses in flames. They are both
ritualists of an advanced type, and naturally clash
with the semi-dissenting missionaries of the Church
Missionary Society. The special war has taken place
in Ceylon, where the Bishop of Columbo suspended
nearly all the missionaries, and insisted on their sub
mission to his authority. The laity supported the
missionaries whom they knew against the Bishop
whom they did not know, and the strife became very
bitter. It was taken up in the English Church papers.
The Church Times talked much of episcopal authority—
which it reverences in Ceylon though not in England—
and of the duty of all the faithful (Ritualistic) to aid
and comfort the aggrieved bishop, and to strengthen
him against the rebels. The Rock issued fiery articles
against the ritualist wolf in episcopal sheep’s clothing,
and exhorted the missionaries to stand firm, and the
faithful (evangelical) to rally round them and help
them by prayer and purse. The Bishop wrote home
in July and August to the parent society, and in
November a committee, appointed to consider “the
matters in dispute between the Bishop of Columbo
and the missionaries in the island,” delivered their
decision. This judgment is somewhat elaborate, and
is wholly against the Bishop, and in favour of the
Society’s missionaries ; the Bishop wrote asking that
the Society should discontinue its connection with the
Tamil Coolie Mission Association, should recognise
the freedom of chaplains to open schools and hold
services for the Coolies, should recall the Rev. W.
�4
Clark—who kept io his work in defiance of the Bishop
—and should recognise the Bishop’s right to “ a veto
on the appointment of catechists, and to exercise
authority over all congregations as to place, time, and
manner of service.” The Church Missionary Society
replies, that the Tamil Coolie Association has raised
its own fund for supporting catechists, and has placed
them under the superintendence of the missionaries,
and has further, by careful rules, guarded against
“ any infraction of Church of England principles in
the management of the Mission ; ” that this arrange
ment has been carried on for twenty years without
any censure from the successive Bishops of Columbo,
and that “ therefore the committee cannot recognise
the right of the Bishop to demand its discontinuance,
or to take the work of the mission into his own
hands; ” the Society, as to the ministration of
chaplains, says that it has neither the power nor the
wish to prevent chaplains from doing as they like,
but it most emphatically declines to recognize their
right to interfere with Church Missionary work, or to
take “ any part in it except by permission.” The
Rev. W. Clark has appealed to the Metropolitan, and
the Society can do nothing until that appeal is decided ;
but Mr. Clark has been a “ faithful and laborious
missionary ” for the last twenty-eight years, and did
quite right in sticking to his post. As to the Bishop’s
wish for a veto, and for unlimited authority, the
Society cannot see its way “ to comply with the
Bishop’s request.” In addition to these quarrels,
which serve as amusement to the watching “ heathen,”
Free Thought is honeycombing India in every
direction; free thought pamphlets and articles are
translated and circulated widely among the Hindus,
and the keen and subtle Hindu intellect is busy in
analysing the creed of Christendom; the Bramo
Somaj progresses slowly, winning adherence among
the more devotional minds, while forms of free
�5
thought far more advanced are making their way
rapidly, and are being disseminated through the
three presidencies. On the whole, the prospects of
Rationalism in India are most hopeful, and the year’s
progress is marked.
If we look over to America, we find the army of
heresy steadily winning its way, though, as every
where, arrayed against a mass of superstition. The
year is there principally marked by the forma
tion of a National Liberal League, with Francis
E. Abbot, the well-known editor of the Index, as its
President, and among its Vice-Presidents such men
as A. B. Frothingham, Horace Seaver, D. M. Bennett,
and B. F. Underwood. The League is formed to
“accomplish the total separation of Church and State,”
so that no form of religion or of non-religion may be in
any way recognised by the Civil Authorities. It
aims at gaining equal rights for all citizens, without dis
tinction of creed, and at eliminating from civil matters
all recognition of religion. The League has already
received adhesions from every quarter, and bids fair
to become a power in America, and to have the most
salutary influence. Beyond the establishment of
this Union there is nothing during the past year
specially worthy of notice in the religious world of
the great Republic. There have been some sharp
struggles between the Rationalists and the Sabba
tarians, in which the Sabbatarians have, unluckily,
triumphed, and Messrs. Moody and Sankey have
gone on their injurious way, but are happily gradually
fading out of public notice. They have at least done
one useful thing among all the mischief: they have
disgusted a large number of sensible people writh
orthodox Christianity.
Travelling to Europe, what has 1876 done for us ?
In Spain, a retrograde policy is in the ascendant for
the moment, and the Church is triumphant. Article
XI. of the Constitution is so loosely worded as to be
�6
capable of any severity of construction against all
•who do not conform to the Established Church, and
it has been put in force against the Protestant con
gregations with great rigour. The English Protestants
have appealed to Lord Derby to interfere, but as yet
nothing has been done beyond “ representations.”
Meanwhile, Free Thought is growing stronger, and
Rationalistic works are sold with tolerable freedom;
yet, on the whole, Spain is a black blot in the sky.
France is more hopeful, although Clericalism is
struggling violently for supremacy, and it will be
long before it ceases to be a danger to the State. Its
latest effort, however, has been defeated. In the
report of the Budget Committee, the grant in sup
port of the Church was reduced, and the reduction
has been carried in spite of the bitter opposition of
the Government, and of fierce debate in the Chambre
des Deputes. A mot of Prince Napoleon’s, dropped
during his vigorous speech against Clericalism—which
he declared to have been the ruin of France in 1870
—seems likely to live: Quand vous semez du jesuite,
vous recoltez des revoltes.” Gambetta, in the course
of the same debate, openly declared himself a Free
Thinker, and the whole tendency of the feeling of
the majority in the House was distinctly anti-clerical.
Even yet more significant, perhaps, was the debate
which took place in consequence of the direction of
the representative of the Minister of War, that no
military honours should be accorded to those over
whose remains no religious service was performed.
The feeling of anger aroused by this communication
was embittered by the non-ratification by the Minis
try of an order sent to the Prefet du Rhone by M. de
Marcere, directing him to repeal some decrees of his
predecessor on the subject of civil funerals. It was
said that M. de Marcere was menaced with dismissal ,
on this account, small as was the step he had taken
towards liberality. By the late Prefet’s decree it
�7
was enacted that the declaration of a death to the
registrar should be accompanied by another declara
tion stating whether or no the burial would be per
formed by a minister of one of the worships recog
nised by the State. Except under the most excep
tional circumstances, civil funerals might only take
place at six o’clock in the morning during the sum
mer, and at seven o’clock during the winter. This
circular was issued in 1873, and though it was chal
lenged, the Parliament of the day refused to interfere.
The Funeral Honours Bill was rejected by the Com
mittee to which it was submitted, and the rejection
was accompanied by a resolution affirming “ that the
essential principles of modern society require funeral
honours to be rendered without any distinction of
religious opinions.” In both these questions, there
fore, the clerical party has got the worst of the
struggle. Thus the Burial Question is stirring in
France as well as in England, and in both countries
the final answer is certain, however it may be delayed.
Clericalism is strong, but Humanity is stronger, and
before many more years pass away the open grave
will be undesecrated by war of words, and the
mourners will be left to bury their dead in peace.
France is steadily growing more and more freethinking, but much, very much, remains to be done
in the rural districts before clericalism will be really
rooted up.
In Italy, Free Thought spreads fast, and the neri
are more and more disliked by the masses whom they
chained down for so many hundred years. The
triumph of the Left in the late elections shows how
fast their power is passing away, and that a people,
gradually freeing themselves from superstition, are
“growing towards the light,” both politically and
theologically.
And of England, watchman, what of the night ?
The year 1876 has been full of fierce conflict, and
�8
some venerable superstitions have received fatal
blows. It has been a year of litigation between the
sections of the Church, and the internecine conflict
is straining the cords of the Establishment almost to
breaking. The Public Worship Regulation Bill has
borne its expected fruit; the law has been put in
force by various triplets of “ aggrieved parishioners,”
and vigorously enforced ; Mr. Dale, of St. Vedast’s,
is suppressed, and his congregation is dispersed ; Mr.
Ridsdale, of Folkestone, is not yet done with, as
the appeal case is still unheard ; many other prose
cutions are threatened, and a cry of woe goeth up
from the menaced Ritualists. Some announce, paro
dying Jules Favre’s celebrated declaration, probably
with as little reality—“not one candle from our
altars, not one thread of our vestments’’—and swear
to fight rather than to submit. Some—very young
curates—exclaim that they must not marry “ in the
present distress,” lest they should be encumbered
with wife and family when they are “ called upon to
suffer for the Lord’s sake.” Some, and these the
majority, begin to talk very distinctly of disesta
blishment as preferable to prosecution, and many
glances are turned towards the Radicals, half doubt
fully, half wishfully, amid searchings of hearts over
the advisability of making common cause with them
to destroy the Establishment. It is even rumoured
that Mr. Gladstone will, in the session of 1877, lead
an assault on the Church of England’s connection
with the State ; but this is scarcely probable, as yet.
What is certain, is that Mr. Disraeli’s Bill for “ stamp
ing out the Ritualists ” has raised a storm which
threatens to wreck the Establishment, so that be
tween the quarrels of the rival sects honest men will
have some chance of coming by their own.
The great Nonconformist minister question has
been settled by the triumph of the Dissenters. They
spent, it was said, some thousands of pounds to
�9
establish their right to the coveted title of Reverend,
and when the decision was given in their favour an
outburst of petty spite occurred among the clergy of
the Establishment, and a long correspondence ap
peared in the church papers over the all-important
subject of discovering a title which the Dissenting
rival could not appropriate. When this matter was
done with, the Devil made his appearance in the law
courts, and he was condemned and disestablished, to
the pain and horror of all truly pious souls. The
Devil gone, what might not follow him ? even hell
itself might be put out. With the Devil disappeared
also the Christian Evidence Journal, its supporters
probably thought that with the Devil gone there was
no longer any need for Christian Evidences, as the
truth of Christianity is no longer a matter of primary
importance if there be no Devil to share his lake with
unbelievers.
As the months rolled on, the main topic of Church
dignitaries — apart from quarrels of “ High and
Low”—has been ‘'Unbelief.” The cry has steadily
strengthened, and has been swelled by one voice
after another until in the autumn it rose into a
wail that drowned all other sounds. While the
clergy are squabbling as to the length of a surplice
and the colour of a garment, the laity are quietly
taking doctrine after doctrine, analysing, testing,
rejecting. The clergy fight over crosses and candles,
and the laity ask, “ What is Professor Tyndall’s
latest utterance ?” or, “ Where is Huxley’s last
lecture to be found ?” The people are becoming
leavened with scepticism—a scepticism deduced from
science, and composed of facts. Vainly, in a few
years’ time will the clergy sink into peace from utter
exhaustion. They will cease from their quarrels only
to find their churches emptied of the strong manhood
and womanhood of the nation, and their sermons on
popular Christianity regarded as full of old Eastern
�10
fables that no instructed person can be expected to
believe. 1876 shows us signs of progress at every
step, and is full of bright encouragement ; more
Free Thought in every direction; bolder heresy at
every turn; a despondent Church, divided against
itself, attacked by a triumphant foe, who only gains
strength from diversity of vigorous thought, and
who, having carried the outworks, presses on the
citadel itself. Lack of candidates for ordinations;
growing alienation of the youth and the intellect of the
day; every sign shows the same glad fact—the fact
of a dying superstition and a living, rising, Humanity.
The Rock ascribes the changes around us as the work
of the Devil himself:—
“Satan doubtless reads as we do the signs of the times, and
knowing that the period of his ‘ deceiving the nations’ has nearlyexpired, he is ‘filled with great wrath,’ and, for the purpose
of turning men’s minds away from the truth, he puts forth
his most consummate powers of falsehood and malingering.
What less could be expected from ‘ the father of lies ? ’ And
his artifices are adroitly varied according to circumstances of
time and place. In Madagascar, or the South Seas, true to
his character of ‘ a murderer from the beginning, ’ he attempts
to drown the voice of Gospel-preaching in a pool of blood. In
Ceylon and Bombay he strives to trample it down beneath the
iron hoof of Sacerdotal tyranny, or to render it repulsive or
ridiculous through the instrumentality of monks and friars.
On the Continent, where the life-giving stream has not already
been fouled with superstition, he makes it muddy with Ration
alism. Here, in England, where every one of these evil agencies
is actively at work, the great enemy seeks to blend them into
a common movement.”
The Rock is right as to the great changes now
going on; but, instead of seeing in them the work of
the evil one, shall we not recognize in the spreading
Rationalism the work of the mighty spirit of man
struggling to reach after and to grasp a purer and a
grander life ?
Some curious subjects for prayer have lately ap
peared in the public prints. A Society has been
�11
formed to pray for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, but Fun remarks that a police-officer with a
warrant would be a far more effectual preventive of
cruelty than prayer. Mr. Spurgeon, disapproving of
Lord Beaconsfield’s Government, prayed in his Taber
nacle on Sunday, “ 0 God, give our senators wisdom,
especially at this critical time. Let not the extra
ordinary folly of our rulers lead our country into war ;
and change our rulers, 0 God, as soon as possible.”
The Tory papers are naturally very indignant at the
Liberal party, as represented by Mr. Spurgeon, form
ing an alliance with so powerful a foreign potentate
against the Government; the act is regarded as most
unpatriotic. The first Bishop of Truro ought to be
a most admirable man, as his future people are busily
praying for him; God is requested to grant to the
diocese a “ Bishop and pastor who shall diligently
preach Thy word, and duly administer the godly dis
cipline thereof.” After this, who can doubt that a
most shining example of prelacy will enlighten the
dark places of dissenting Cornwall ? If we go to
war we shall have a vigorous outburst of praying,
and among all the contradictory petitions it will be
very difficult for Him who hears prayer, to whom all
flesh will be coming, to fulfil his promise of granting
their wishes to the opposing parties.
Behold I how these Christians love one another.
Mr. J. A. Rouse writes to the Rock, against the union
of Ritualists and Evangelicals, even for the purpose
of preaching the so-called common faith. 11 Evan
gelical truth and Ritualistic heresy are and must ever
be antagonistic—one Christ, the other Belial—the
one trusting only in Jesus, the other essentially
superstitious, blasphemous, and infidel. How, then,
dare a Christian hold out the right hand of fellow
ship to idolators and heretics ? ” “ Christians ” are
exhorted not even to receive the ritualistic clergy
into their houses. Such gentleness and charity are
�12
the fruits of Christian love. The most amusing con
troversy carried on in the Hock, however, has been
one on the meaning of the Cross. A simple-hearted
clergyman wrote inquiring as to its origin, and a wellknown Free Thinker, seeing his letter, forwarded the
real answer to the Editor of the Hock, but that, of
course, was not considered fit for those very pious
columns ; since then various letters have appeared
from week to week, and the final conclusion arrived
at is that the Cross is “ the mark of the Beast ”
spoken of in Revelation—surely a most curious finale
of such a discussion concerning an emblem wherein
Paul gloried, and by which Christians are to be
saved. Of all the bitter, unscrupulous, sharp-tongued
papers, surely the Church journals bear away the
palm.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. January, 1877
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 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
1877
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5521
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Signs of the times. January, 1877), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Free Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4a00c39760e32ae6a304128b480713ff.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Emd6C9L4BbfRNpzB4y0BlUPM7IEdubx%7ED1PZDsnd7lnPrKm63f5IRgbkQd6k2VxK7GbJZku7eb-8QkbAwiQEe1yMVX2Lqx2Gj4S7Y%7EBPbC7rOpvO6hRKYgwsBfvMp2urW5FevtJgow%7Eytnz3A2Uws0-rzb7g1el5Xv76sPyy5cU2LBxyrKrffznBCVBSsISUXZmmae-P8aPZzPBUwo4f-E64exTp6PAMFnviVGPLbT%7Eyp3UkTgOnFD%7EAB4IDcIjqI9JpOA7oyf8k0Zh65OhTQ3LdDAPxzew-G8TZn1Uqe4Kbi2FNnzI4p-YxLOdqTifn6MYFHEyJ9a6Fabu3Xm2Upw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b1b645d6e0a1a4f455abf545932a6719
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11
THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
OCTOBER, 1876.
BEAT is the trouble in India ; loud are the
VT moans of the Missionaries; shrill the com
plaints of the aggrieved. It appears that, vacancies
occurring in the dioceses of Bombay and of Ceylon, two
very young clerics, of exceedingly Bitualistic tenden
cies, were selected to preside over them, and were
duly consecrated, and sent out to India to take pos
session of their Sees. Dr. Mylne was a gentleman
unknown to fame; according to the Bev. Mr. Beuther
incumbent of St. Saviour’s, Bombay, he was “un
known to the outside world, either as a man of letters,
�2
or a preacher of the Word ;’7 it is not usual to choos®’
such obscure men to rule and guide large dioceses, and
to control, or seek to control, men, many of whom have
made their mark in the world. It is, however, con
soling under these circumstances to be informed, on
the authority of the same candid incumbent, that Dr.
Mylne “ was chosen by the hand of God to succeed
Dr. Douglas, the late Bishop of Bombay.” A man thus
chosen must clearly be an example for all other bishops,
as well as for the flock; it is therefore our duty to
study reverently the proceedings of this Father in
God. One of his early ministrations was the conse
cration of a cemetery, and his proceedings thereat do
not seem to have commended themselves to his faith
ful children. The Madras Mail writes :—
“ It must have been rather a shock- to the clergy of Bombay
last Saturday week to see their Diocesan, arrayed in purple
and scarlet robes, a white and gold mitre upon his head, with
a black stole with the sacred monogram in gold about his neck,
on the occasion of his consecrating a new cemetery ; and to
observe that after the celebration of the Holy Communion he
washed the vessels which had been used, and then draDk the
water in which he had cleansed them.' Whether his Lord
ship ate the napkin with which he wiped the vessels, and
finished off with the basin, is not recorded.”
This curious system of washing and drinking is
now very fashionable in English Churches, and seems
to have nothing to commend it except its nastiness.
If any one at table washed out their glass, and then
drank the water, the proceeding would be looked upon
as an extremely dirty one ; and the matter is none the
more cleanly when a chalice takes the place of a
glass, and consecrated wine is used instead of uncon
secrated ; in fact, it is the more objectionable, as a
matter of good taste, when the cup has been passed
round some hundred people, and they have all been
drinking out of it one after another. The Madras
Mail looks upon the affair in a somewhat grave
light:—
�8
‘■‘When an Anglican prelate, garbed as Anglican bishop
never was before these Church millinery days, signalises one
of his earliest appearances in a foreign land by drinking dirty
water in public, on the assumption, we presume, that it has
been sanctified by contact with a certain cup and plate, people
who have some regard for the Established Church may well
be alarmed for its future.”
Thus, even episcopal follies will have their use, if
from the seed they sow springs the harvest of disgust
at the superstitions of the Church whose chief officers
they are. The installation of this same bishop—who,
by the way, is little past thirty years of age, strangely
young for the bishop of so important a diocese—has
also given rise to some sneering comments: he
marched up the nave of the Cathedral in procession
with his clergy, and was led to his throne by the
archdeacon, and there “ the keys ” were presented
solemnly to him. Whether “ the keys ” were simply
the keys of the Cathedral, or whether any mystic
signification was attached to them, it is impossible to
say. After all this, the Bishop, “as celebrant, took
the Communion service, his singing of it being
justly considered beautiful. When giving the bless
ing, the Bishop held in his left hand the lovely pastoral
staff presented to him by Keble College, and which
was borne in procession by his chaplain.” Imagine
any sensible person writing about a bishop holding a
** lovely pastoral staff! ” We shall next hear of a
recherche surplice, and “a sweet thing” in stoles.
Bishop Coplestone is a young man of the same stamp,
but he has been getting into more serious scrapes than
posturing and cup-washing. On his arrival in Ceylon,
where the agents of the Church Missionary Society
have been labouring for upwards of half a century,
the Bishop claimed to exercise supreme authority over
these men, and desired that he should be informed of
every appointment made in the Church. The request
does not seem to be an unreasonable one, as a bishop
is dearly the source of authority in an episcopal
�4
church, and should have, one would fancy, full know
ledge of all subordinate appointments. The mistake
in Ceylon is rather in putting a young man of about
thirty over a number of his seniors in age and expe
rience, and in expecting these men to regard him as
their head and governor. The Missionaries1, refused
to submit to what they regarded as an unfair stretch
of episcopal authority, and when the Missionaries
further refused to allow their children to attend
Churches where crosses and other Ritualistic orna
ments were used, the Bishop’s wrath broke out, and
he promptly withdrew the licences of twelve out'of
the thirteen of the Missionaries labouring in Ceylon.
The licences have since been restored, at the advice
of the Metropolitan; but the Bishop’s demand that he
should “ have a right of veto over every appointment
which the Society made, if it were only a native
catechist ” {Rock) remains unrepealed, and is causing
great agitation. The Church Missionary Society hotly
takes up the cause of its agents, and writes indig
nantly of the Bishop’s proceedings. A Missionary,
writing to the Daily Nezvs, says that the Society
“ will soon squash the youthful Ritualistic Bishop and
his beardless satellites, who, going out with him, wish
to be princes over missionaries.” Meanwhile indig
nant meetings are being held in Ceylon, to protest
against “ episcopal arrogance
and one planter has
announced that he will no longer contribute to the
support of Christian teachers, for although he liked
his coolies to be Christians, he did not want them to
be Ritualists. Thus a very pretty quarrel is being
waged, for the edification of the natives, between the
Christians representing the Church Missionary
Society and the Christians representing the Church
of England. As a practical illustration of the “ peace
on earth, goodwill to men,” brought by Christianity,
it will doubtless be considered instructive by the
(l heathen.”
�5
Protestantism has one bad side from which the
Roman form of Christianity is free, namely, its bitter
hatred of art. “ The last few years have shown,”
writes a correspondent, “a great revival of a taste for
art, and art in its most debased form. But, sir, is
not all this mania for sculptured reredoses or painted
windows the work of ‘the unclean spirit that cometh
out of the mouth of the dragon ?’ We may well
consider it so when we remember the aesthetical cha
racter of ancient Paganism, as exhibited in its fond
ness for sculpture.” The Editor does not think that
it comes from the unclean spirit that cometh out of
the mouth of the dragon, for “ we should rather
ascribe it to the unclean spirit out of the mouth of
the false prophet.” How pleasant it must be to be so
thoroughly well up in unclean spirits, and to be able
to distinguish one that comes out of the mouth of the
dragon from that which comes out of the mouth of
the false prophet.
The Ritualists seem to have hit upon a very funny
method of propagandism; sugar plums are largely
sold which contain crosses, medals of the Virgin, and
so on, much to the indignation of the truly Pro
testant, and we are told: “ At this rate, we shall
soon have to make out lists of honest confectioners
who may be trusted to sell us nothing but Protestant
comfits and uncontaminated toffy ! ”
How strangely it reads if we turn to some Roman
Catholic publication, after studying this sort of litera
ture, and find the same certainty of truth, the same
exhortations against perversion, on the opposite side.
Dr. Newman lately preached at the Oratory, Birming
ham, on the work of the Paraclete in establishing the
Holy Catholic Church. “The race of man,” he
said, “ when left to itself, was one against the other,
and before Holy Church was established it was a
time of rapine and confusion.” And since Holy
Church was established, very Reverend Doctor ?
�6
Surely Dr. Newman’s hearers are not expected to be
students of history, for he tells them, speaking of
the horrible Bulgarian outrages, that such “ was the
state of the whole world, except for the work of the
Holy Church. ’ The Church did its work in a curious
fashion. Father Maimbourg says of the first Crusade,
“that the first division of this prodigious army com
mitted the most abominable enormities in the coun
tries through which they passed, and that there was
no kind of insolence, injustice, impurity, barbarity,
and violence of which they were not guilty. No
thing, perhaps, in the annals of history can equal the
flagitious deeds of this infernal rabble.” One might
fancy one was reading about the Turks of to-day. And
this was part of the work of Holy Church. “ The
only bond of peace between nation and nation is the
Holy Church,” says Dr. Newman, and this of a Church
that, sent Alva to desolate the Netherlands, that
gloried in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, that, in
Spain alone, in one single year, in one single town,
burnt 950 persons, and altogether, in that unfortu
nate country, burnt alive 31,912, besides heavily
punishing 291,450. Why, the mark of the Church
through history is a trail of blood and fire ; the most
heart-breaking pages in the story of humanity are
signed with the sign of the Cross.
It is not only the Church of England which is
lamenting over the dearth of labourers in the Lord’s
vineyard. On the last Sunday in October the
Wesleyans “ purpose to have a special sermon and
prayer that the thinned ranks of their ministry may
be filled up. The President (at the Wesleyan Con
ference) says he has not a single name on his reserve
list wherewith to fill up a vacancy, or supply a sudden
call for help.” Yet the Wesleyan is, most certainly,
the leading Dissenting communion ; and if they
cannot find men to do their work, it is certain that
�7
the same want will be keenly felt in other bodies.
There is only one remedy open both to Church and
Chapel; they can no longer hope to fill their pulpits
with educated men. These are slipping away from
■orthodox Christianity as thought and culture perform
their inevitable work, and undermine the foundations
of the popular faith. They must be content to lower
their ministerial standard; and, as they eannot get
what they want, they must take what they can get.
They must accept less cultivated men as preachers of
their antique dogmas. The intellect of the age has
grown beyond them; they must fall back on its
ignorance. Long ago Paul told them that not many
wise men were called. They must go back to apos
tolic times, and find their spiritual teachers among
w unlearned and ignorant men./’ like Peter and
John.
Who pretends that the age of miracles has passed
away ? It is only the unbelief of this generation
that prevents mighty works from being done in their
midst as of yore. Where faith is, there also are the
gifts of healing, even as in the days of old, in the
years that are past. The Blessed Virgin was lately
crowned, the Lady of Lourdes, by the Cardinal
Archbishop of Paris, in the presence of thirty-five
prelates of the Holy Roman Church, and of one
hundred thousand of the faithful. Was it not to be
expected that, in answer to such homage, a miracle
should be performed ? Who deserved a sign of
celestial favour more than these Abdiels, faithful
amid a faithless generation, believing among a crowd
of scoffers? As their faith, so was it unto them.
Madeleine Lancereau, aged sixty-one, of the city of
Poictiers, had for nineteen years been unable to walk
without the friendly aid afforded by crutches. Her
state was well known unto numbers of the pilgrims;
even as the lame man by the Beautiful Gate of the
Temple was known unto the dwellers in Jerusalem,
�8
so was this lame woman at the holy Grotto of
Lourdes known unto the inhabitants of Poictiers.
And behold, the Nuncio celebrated mass in the Grotto,
and the kneeling crowds adored the Son of the
Immaculate One, and the Lord unbared his arm, and
his power was revealed from on high, and Madeleine
Lancereau arose up radically cured; and it is known
unto all the dwellers in Poictiers, and the name of
the Queen of Heaven is magnified. Melancholy to
relate, the Protestants don’t believe in the miracle of
the nineteenth century, any more than the Free
thinkers believe in those of the first.
It will be remembered that the visit of the Prince
of Wales to India was to spread Christianity amid
the masses of that mighty Empire, and that the
Bishop of Lincoln offered up, therefore, many prayers.
Is it credible that the result of that visit has been
directly the reverse, and is spreading among the
Christian English population a terribly insidious
form of Pagan idolatry, hid beneath the glittering
exterior of what is known as “ swami jewellery,”
some specimens of which were presented to the
Prince for his wife, the Princess of Wales. This
swami jewellery has consequently become fashionable
in Madras, and it is to be seen adorning the Christian
ladies of the city. The “ swamies,” be it known,
are Hindoo Gods, and they are being fashioned in
gold, in high relief:—
“It seems sad that one result of the Prince’s visit to India
should be to put Pagan idolatry before the rising generation
in a very insidious form. No doubt the ‘novelty of the
season ’ will be patronised by those ladies who are slaves to
the latest fashion, and after a while we may expect to see
‘ swamies ’ as generally worn as ‘ crosses. ’ Are we to set repre
sentations of heathen gods as an ornament or plaything before
the eyes of the most impressible portion of society ? Surely
the elements of infidelity which are at present working in
England are more than sufficient without going to India for
this crowning iniquity. ”
Alas for the women, “ the most impressionable
�9
portion of society,” thus subtly tempted to infidelity.
The heads of all houses, both Prostestant and
Catholic, will, it may be taken for granted, lend a
willing hand in assisting to strangle these abomin
able little Hindoo Gods. It must be curious to see
the ancient deities thus avenging themselves upon
their successors, and the more antique “cross” re
placing the favourite decoration of Ritualistic ladies.
The Church Times assures its readers that “ for the
present things ecclesiastical are as dull as ditchwater.” How such a paper came to couple “ things
ecclesiastical ” with a compound so unclean we can
not tell, unless weariness of spirit, “that man’s wild
soul clutches no more at the white feet of Christ,” has
reduced this Anglican organ to the dead level of fens
and ditches ! However, the party it lives to uphold
as “God’s Church” has been making itself very
prominent in the North of England, and as a com
panion picture to “Beauties of the Prayer Book,” we
offer to our readers, in the absence of more remark
able “ Signs of the Times,” the “ Beauties of the
Church,” or “ the Church in its Beauty,” as sketched
for us by a contemporary.
In the “Beauties of the Prayer Book” the entire
service from baptism to death has been mercilessly
held up to criticism through the magnifying-glass of
common sense and reason, qualities which must have
been superseded by the supernatural senses granted
to the Fathers of the Church (the mouthpiece of
God) when they accepted as its best exponent the
‘ Book of Common Prayer.’
That the Church still accepts it fully and entirely
as its exponent was lately affirmed by the Dean of
Chichester, who, at the fashionable afternoon lec
tures at St. James’s, preached on “ the excellence of
the Book of Common Prayer, as containing a valu
able body of divinity, and as a guide to all who are
anxious to ascertain what is the teaching of the Church
�10
on all important doctrine.” In the course of his
sermon the Dean said:—“ It would be well if the
Prayer Book were more frequently drawn out and
set before the people as representing the voice of the
Church.” Dr. Burgon, perhaps, hardly knows how
perfectly this has been done in the “ Beautiesthe
best thing would be to ask him to widely circulate
this “ manual of devotion” “as a guide to all who are
anxious to know what is the teaching of the
Church; ” a Church on which the people of England
have lately been told as a matter of glorification and
good works, that they spend one million a-year!
The latest account of “the Church in its Beauty ”
comes to us from Whitehaven, where the “ Prophets
of latter days ” have won the ground from the Evan
gelicals who once reigned supreme in the stronghold
of the Earls of Lonsdale. Where “ Boanerges ” and
“ Praise God Barebones ” once thundered, now stands
the Ritualist, or, as he calls himself, “ a Catholic
priest,” the Rev. Salkeld Cooke. This gentleman has
been lecturing to the people of Whitehaven on Dis
establishment from the Ritualist point of view, and so
very much astonished the members of the “ Libera
tion Society,” who had invited him to lecture, that
they hissed him off the platform, and, as Mr. Cooke
says, “ by requesting him to leave the Society,
virtually expelled him.” Mr. Cooke welcomes Dis
establishment but not Disendowment,—“By all
means free us from the impertinent supervision of
the State,” but let go none of the loaves and fishes.
He says, “ Like the Israelites of old we demand to
go forth with all our religious property, not one hoof
should be left behind” (the cloven hoof would cer
tainly not be left behind !) We were not aware the
Israelites regarded their cattle as religious property.
“ Repeal the various Acts of Parliament by which
we have been fettered, fall back on the charter of
King John ‘ that the Church of England shall be
�11
free,’ and it is done. Let the State take back any
property that can clearly be proved to have been
conferred by it at any time upon the Church, but as
a matter of course, the Church shall keep all her
buildings of a religious or educational character.”
“Disestablished thus,” says Mr. Cooke, “whose is
the power? Your Bishops canthen no longer encourage
excommunicated heretics. Your Deans will then be
unable to invite such to preach in your abbeys. An
avowed infidel will no longer be heard in the nave
of Westminster Abbey, nor an excommunicated
Bishop be possible in an Oxford chapel. Never
again will the shrine of the sainted Confessor be
polluted, and the time-honoured abbey desecrated, as
when a Dean of the Establishment (a personal friend
of the so-called Head of the Ghurch') gave the Body
and Blood of our Lord to the blaspheming mouth of
a blaspheming infidel.”
This is pretty strong language even for a clergy
man, one who (as we learn from ‘ The Beauties,’ “is
supposed to be apt and meet for godly conversation
before he can be ordained.” As Mr. Cooke’s views
are held by all his party, they serve to show what an
enlarged area of “ charity and good-will to men ”
will be opened up unless Disestablishment goes handin-hand with Disendowment. Disendowment will
evidently be the great blow to priestcraft, whether
high or low; a power that has altered in nothing
since the folly of man has permitted it; “ the same
to-day, yesterday, and for ever,” and which wrung
from Shelley, in the bitterness of its persecution, these
lines:—
“ Oh. that the wise from their bright minds would kindle
Such lamps within the dome of this dim world,
That the pale name of Priest might shrink and dwindle
Into the Hell, from which it first was hurled. ”
But this “ Prophet in Israel ” was outdone in ran
cour and charity by another of the Whitehaven
“ messengers of peace and good-will,” the Rev. Mr.
�12
Wallace, rector of Moresby. One of this gentleman’s
parishioners patronised a bazaar in aid of a congre
gational school; a school described by the churchman
as “ a place where the benighted children will be
brought up in gross heresy and antipathy to the Holy
Catholic Church of Christ.” Dr. Dick, the sinner in
question who creates this schism, is likened to
“ Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,” and like measure is
meted out to all schismatics. Upon this, Dr. Dick de
termines to support the bazaar and take his chance
with the Congregationalists of “ being swallowed up
alive;” telling Mr. Wallace “that it is fortunate for
himself and those he is accustomed to regard as fellowChristians, that Mr. Wallace has not the power, as he
evidently has the will, to put an end to them and their
practices in an equally effectual manner.” To this
Mr. Wallace replies, that Dr. Dick may be a very good
physician of bodies, but of souls he can know nothing,
and entreats him to remember “ that multitudes may
call themselves Christians, but not one be so” (accord
ing to Wallace) ; and he adds, “ It is a great pity that,
owing to the religious indifference of the State,
the Church is unable, at present, to close Dissenting
Conventicles, and thus check the spread of disobedi
ence and the growth of impurity, lawlessness, and
other evils, not to say infidelity, the natural outcome of
dissent. ”
Further, in proof of his divine mission,” Mr. Wal
lace reminds this ignorant Christian that “ I could
not under any circumstances enter into an argument
with you [that is just what they dare not doj on
religious matters, as it is my province as a priest of
God not to argue with but to instruct laics.”
“ School-boys (says the Examiner'), big babies in bib
and tucker, fed at Oxford on pap,” whose province it
is as “ priests of God ” not to argue but to instruct
men twice their age, and twice ten times their
superiors in all that constitutes manhood.
�13
After consigning Dr. Dick and all Nonconformists
who, like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, “worship
God, but not,” says Mr. Wallace, “ as God willed,
to the pit of destruction,” this Moresby Rector
winds up with the remark: “ Though the earth
opened wide her mouth to receive them, we do not
read that it was so much the worse for God’s Israel.”
So, according to the loving mercies of the Ritualists’
creed, Dissenters may in a body be swallowed up
alive, and “it will be none the worse for God’s
Church.” The Church of “ that God whose name
has fenced all crimes about with holiness, Himself
the creature of his worshippers.”
We cannot be surprised if an interchange of cour
tesies takes place between these opposing Christian
bodies; that if the Church vilifies Dissent to the
extent of cursing it, Dissent returns the compli
ment, and we find the English Independent speaking
of “ the endowed menagerie of Anglican sects,” the
Christian World commenting on “ the virulent super
ciliousness of established Anglicanism,” while The
Baptist classes the “ Regius Professor of a Uni
versity” with the “lowest scullion of the Puseyite
heresy.”
And these people, spitting venom on each other,
are all “servants of the Most High,” professed
ministers of a “ God of Love,” messengers of the
Gospel of Peace! All we outsiders can think is, that
if such are the bonds of amity that bind together
“ believers in the Lord,” a thousand times better is
unbelief; nor are we surprised at the non success of
the famous Lincoln scheme of fusion between Church
and Chapel. Both that and the new hobby of the
Bishop of Winchester, “ The Home Reunion Society,”
would certainly, if carried out, result in a case of
Kilkenny cats—nothing but tails left I This “ Home
Reunion Society” is another “ Sign of the Times,” a
despairing sign of the efforts Mother Church is
�14
making to gather from the highways and bye-ways
the lame, the halt, and the blind, to fill the seats
left vacant by the unwilling guests in “ purple and
fine linen.” The Bishop of Winchester and EarlNelson, joint promoters of the scheme, “ propose to
present the Church of England in a conciliatory
attitude towards those who regard themselves outside
her pale (fine irony this, we think, after the exhibition
at Whitehaven), so as to lead to the corporate reunion
of all Christians.” The Messrs. Cooke and Wallace
of the establishment must first be eliminated there
from, or how about the “ Korahs, Dathans, and
Abirams,” that class “ given up to lawlessness,
impurity, and all uncleanness,” yclept Congregationalists ?” The Bishop of Winchester invites to
join this society “ all who hold the doctrines of the
ever blessed Trinity,” which certainly these “ dis
senting blasphemers” do! The Nonconformists in
their turn “ claim only to protect the nation against
the encroachments of a grasping and tyrannical sec
tarianism, and to crush the manufactory of hypocrites
and the school of popery.”
Surely the stream that flows between, these
“Brethren in Christ” is far too wide and troublous
to be bridged by such frail planks as the ‘ Irenicum’
of the Bishop of Lincoln, or the “Home Reunion
Scheme” of the Bishop of Winchester.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENET STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Signs of the times. October, 1876
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT186
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
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 (Signs of the times. October, 1876), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ca411458dbfc4b3d0a7243a60f8abbb5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=QuRu5H7QSlOtPmy3ufw2TZhZRJWCxJwOlDKiqA26kWp3tiAiq-whp64v7JwmduhUltc8SNKws%7EBSV4L9F0DmfH4T1Hp%7EoDnwGxFvrrFnUTb9J9LoCb-CdDJmr9VjGisDf8Kk7z1A5ac0ntPCf6hxv2PUN6izEFyT52btSiwMT7epfii-CgTEHFlNO8eq62Jmm9TugmkIQjPbphizow63B8Zls2hUeid2ORBGN%7EG4QaWj%7ECZMa7-BCpyeqOzGycmnF1go4VKU5wFa54dAmVSRUxoraJpOdx0ugaLOE7ykAszOIw7RT4dszv4JMpo8RWpJRjHbORQt12pkizLq6W7OCg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5603a6bb0b1f98b0fbaf8ecd18d49fb8
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SUCiETY
f
THE
CLERGY & COMMON SENSE
Bs COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
■
PROGRESSIVE
'^anbnn :
PUBLISHING
COMPANY
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�J.ON DON :
printed and published by g. w. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE.
—+—
Union has interviewed Robert G.
Ino-ersoll, who criticises the Union’s recent interviews
with clergymen. He is at Long Beach, and having
been shown back numbers of the Union containing
articles by clergymen, who have almost unanimously
declared that the Church is suffering very little from
the scepticism of the day, and that the influence of the
scientific writers, whose opinions, are regarded as
Atheistic or infidel, is not great, and that the books of
such writers are not read as much as some people think
they are, was asked, “What is your opinion with
regard to the subject ? ” Colonel Ingersoll said :
It is natural for a man to defend his business, to
stand by his class, his caste, his creed. And I suppose
this accounts for the ministers all saying that infidelity
is not on the increase. Only a few years ago science
was superstition’s hired man. The scientific men
apologised for every fact they happened to find. With
hat in hand they begged pardon of the parson for find
ing a fossil, and asked the forgiveness of God for
making any. discovery in nature. Now religion is
taking off its hat to science. Humboldt stands higher
than all the apostles. Darwin has done more to
change human thought than all the priests who have
existed. Where there was one infidel twenty-five
years ago there are one hundred now.
“ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldli
ness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that
it is on the increase.”
What is worldliness ? I suppose worldliness con
sists in paying attention to the affairs of this world :
The Brooklyn
�4:
The Clergy and Common Sense.
getting enjoyment out of this life ; gratifying the
senses, giving the ears music, the eyes painting and
sculpture, the palate good food ; cultivating the ima
gination ; playing games of skill and chance ; adorning
the person ; developing the body, enriching the mind ;
investigating the facts by which we are surrounded ;
building homes, rocking cradles ; thinking, working,
inventing, buying, selling, hoping. All this, I sup
pose, is worldliness. These worldly people have
cleared the forests, ploughed the land, built the cities,
the steamships, the telegraphs, and have produced all
there is of worth and wonder in the world. Yet the
preachers denounce them. Were it not for worldly
people, how would the preachers get along ? Who
would build the churches ? Who would fill the con
tribution boxes and plates, and who (most serious
of all questions) would pay the salaries ? I be
lieve in the new firm of Health and Heresy
rather than the old partnership of Disease and
Divinity, doing business at the old sign of the
Skull and Crossbones. Some of the ministers
that you have interviewed, or at least one
of them, tells us the cure for worldliness. He says
that God is sending fires, and cyclones, and things of
that character, for the purpose of making people
spiritual ; of calling their attention to the fact that
everything in this world is of a transitory nature. The
clergy have always had great faith in famine, in
affliction, in pestilence. They know that a man is a
thousand times more apt to thank God for a crust or a
crumb tflan for a banquet. They know that prosperity
has the same effect on the average Christian that thick
soup has, according to Bumble., on the English pauper—
“ it makes ’em impudent.” The devil made a mistake
in not doubling Job’s property, instead of leaving him
a pauper. In prosperity the ministers think we forget
death and are too happy. In the arms of those we
love, the dogma of eternal fire is for the moment for
gotten. According to the ministers, God kdis our
children in order that we may not forget him. They
imagine that the man who goes into Dakota, cultivates
the soil, and rears for himself a little home, is getting
�The Clergy ancl Common Sense.
5
too “ worldly ” ; and so God starts a cyclone to scatter
his home and the limbs of his wife and children upon
the desolate plains, and the ministers of Brooklyn say
this is done because we are getting too “worldly.’
They think we should be more “spiritual”; that is to
say, willing to live upon the labor of others,
willing to ask alms, saying in the meantime,. “ It
is more blessed to give than to receive.” If this is so,
why not give the money back ? “ Spiritual ” people
are those who eat oatmeal and prunes, have great con
fidence in dried apples, read Cowper s Task, and
Pollock’s Course of Time, laugh at the jokes in Harper's
Monthly, wear clothes shiny at the knees and elbows,
and call all that has elevated the world “beggarly
elements.”
“ You have stated your objections to the churches—
what would you have to take their place?”
There was a time when men had to meet together
for the purpose of being told the law. This was before
printing, and for hundreds and hundreds of years
most people depended for their information on what
they heard. The ear was the avenue to the brain.
There was a time, of course, when Freemasonry was
necessary, so that a man could carry, not only all over
his own country, but to another, a certificate that he
was a gentleman ; that he was an honest man. There
was a time, and it was necessary, for the people to
assemble. They had no books, no papers, no way of
reaching each other. But now all that is changed.
The daily press gives you the happenings of the world.
The libraries give you the thoughts of the greatest and
best. Every family of moderate means can command
the principal sources of information. There is no
necessity for going to the Church and hearing the same
story for ever. Let the minister write what he wishes
to say. Let him publish it. If it is worth buying,
people will read it. It is hardly fair to get them in a
Church in the name of duty, and then inflict upon
them a sermonthatunder.no circumstances they would
I do not think the ministers of to-day more intel
�6
The Clergy and Common Sense.
lectual than they were a hundred years ago ; that is,
1 do not think they have greater brain capacity, but
I think, on the average, the congregations have a
higher amount. The amelioration of orthodox Christi
anity is not by the intelligence in the pulpit, but by
the brain in the pews. Another thing : One hundred
years ago the Church had intellectual honors to bestow.
The pulpit opened a career. Not so now. There are
too many avenues to distinction and wealth — too
much ££ worldliness.” The best minds do not go into
the pulpit.
Martyrs would rather be burnt than
laughed at. Most ministers of to-day are not naturally
adapted to other professions promising eminence.
There are some great exceptions, but these exceptions
are the ministers nearest infidels. Theodore Parker
was a great man. Henry Ward Beecher is a great
man—not the most consistent man in the world—but
he is certainly a man of mark—a remarkable genius.
*
“How would you convey moral instruction from
youth up, and what kind of instruction would you
give ? ”
I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what
is Christianity ?
I do not include in the word
“ Christianity ” the average morality of the world, or
the morality taught in all systems of religion—that is,
as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A
belief in the inspiration of the scriptures, the atone
ment, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, an
eternal reward for the believers in Christ and eternal
punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from
Christianity its miracles, its absurdities of the atone
ment and fall of man, and the inspiration of the
scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I under
stand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity
which I suppose Christ taught—that is, in kindness,
gentleness, forgiveness. I do not believe in loving
enemies ; I have pretty hard work to love my friends.
Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford
to keep the viper of revenge in his heart. But I
* This was said in 1883, before Beecher’s death.
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
7
believe in justice, in self-defence. Christianity—that
is, the miraculous part—must be abandoned. As
morality—morality is born of the instinct of se
preservation.
If man could not suffer, the word
”conscience” never would have passed his lip . Self
preservation makes larceny a crime. Mui der will be
regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to
being murdered. Morality does not come from the
clouds ; it is born of human want and human ex
perience.
“ The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember,
savs that ‘man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy
him for ever.’ What is your idea of the chief end of
~r
man O’?
It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy
should be held in such contempt ^ere, and y
nromised hereafter as an eternal reward ? Why not. be
happy here, as well as in heaven ? Why not have joy
here ? Why not go to heaven now—that is t(J-day •
Why not enjoy the sunshine of this world, and all there
is of good in it? It is bad enough ; so bad that I do
not believe that it was ever created by a benencen
Deity; but what little good there is in it, whj> not
have it? Neither do I believe that it is the end of
man to glorify God. How can the infinite be glorified?
Does he wish for reputation ? He has no equals, no
superiors. How. can he have what we call^ta^^
How can he achieve what we call glory .
y .
he wish the flattery of the average Presbyterian ?
What good will it do him to know that his course has
been approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church .
What does he care, even, for the religious weeklies, or
the presidents of religious colleges ? I do not s^ w
o
*
we can help God or hurt him. If there 06 a
.
being certainly nothing we can do can in any way
affect him. We can affect each other, and therefore
man should be careful not to sin against mam hoi
that reason I have said, a hundred times, mjustwe is
the only blasphemy. If there be a beaven^ Iwant to
associate there with the ones wno had loJ|d
me
I might not like the angels, and the angels might not
�8
The Clergy and Common Sense.
like me. I want to find old firieads. I do not care to
associate with the infinite ; there could be no freedom
in such society. I suppose I am not ‘ • spiritual ”
enough, and am somewhat touched with “ worldli
ness.” It seems to me that everybody ought to be
honest enough to say about the infinite, “I know
nothing”; of eternal joy, “ I have no conception”;
about another world, “I have no information.” At
the same time I am not attacking anybody for believing
in immortality. The more a man can hope, and the
less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could
to drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal
pain. I want to put out the fires of an ignorant and
revengeful hell.
In response to the reporter’s query as to the progress
made in theology, Colonel Ingersoll said:—
By comparing long periods of time, it is very easy
to see the progress that has been made. Only a few
years ago men who are now considered quite orthodox
would have been imprisoned, or at least mobbed, for
heresy.
Only a few years ago men like Huxley and
Tyndall and Spencer and Darwin and Humboldt would
have been considered as the most infamous of monsters.
At that time every scientific discovery was something
to be pardoned. Moses was authority in geology, and
Joshua was considered the first astronomer in the
world. Now, everything has changed, and everybody
knows it except the clergy. Religion is finding out
new meanings for old texts. We are told that God
spoke in the language of the common people ; that he
was not teaching any science ; that he allowed his chil
dren not only to remain in error, but kept them there. It
is now admitted that the Bible is no authority on any
question of natural fact; it is inspired only in morality,
in a spiritual way. All, except the Brooklyn ministers,
see that the Bible has ceased to be regarded as
authority. Nobody appeals to a passage to settle a
dispute of fact. The most intellectual men of the
world laugh at the idea of inspiration. Men of the
greatest reputations hold all supernaturalism in con
tempt. Millions of people are reading the opinions of
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
9
men who combat and deny the foundation of orthodox
Christianity. I can remember when I would be the
only infidel in the town. Now I meet them thick as
autumn leaves ; they are everywhere. In all the pro
fessions, trades, and employments the orthodox creeds
are despised. They are not simply disbelieved ; they
are execrated. They are regarded, not with indifference,
but with passionate hatred. Thousands and hundreds
of thousands of mechanics ■ in this couutry abhor
orthodox Christianity. Millions of educated men hold
in immeasurable contempt the doctrine of eternal
punishment. The doctrine of atonement is regarded as
absurd by millions. So with the dogma of imputed
guilt, vicarious virtue, and vicarious vice. I see that
the Rev. Dr. Eddy advises ministers not to answer the
arguments of infidels in the pulpit, and gives this won
derful reason : That the hearers will get more doubts
from the answer than from reading the original argu
ments. So the Rev. Dr. Hawkins admits that he can
not defend Christianity from infidelity without creating
more infidelity. So the Rev. Dr. Haynes admits that
he cannot answer the theories of Robertson Smith in
popular addresses. The only minister who feels abso
lutely safe on the subject, as far as his congregation is
concerned, seems to be the Rev. Joseph Pullman. He
declares that the young people in his church don’t
know enough to have intelligent doubts, and that the
old people are substantially in the same condition.
Mr. Pullman feels that he is behind a breastwork so
strong that other defence is unnecessary. So the Rev.
Mr. Foote thinks that infidelity should never be refuted
in the pulpit. I admit that it has never been success
fully done, but I did not suppose so many ministers
anmitted the impossibility. Mr. Foote is opposed, to
all public discussion. Dr. Wells tells us that scientific
Atheism should be ignored ; that it should not be
spoken of in the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Van Dyke has
the same feeling of security enjoyed by Dr. Pullman,
and he declares that the great majority of Christian
people of to-day know nothing about current infidel
theories. His idea is to let them remain in ignorance ;
hat it would be dangerous for the Christian minister
�10
The Clergy and Common Sense.
even to state the position of the infidel; that after
stating it, he might not, even with the help of God,
successfully combat the theory.
These ministers
do not agree. Dr. Carpenter accounts for infidelity by
nicotine in the blood. It is all smoke. He thinks the
blood of the human family has deteriorated. He thinks
the Church is safe because the Christians read. He
differs with his brothers Pullman and Van Dyke. So
the Rev. George E. Reed believes that infidelity should
be discussed in the pulpit. He has more confidence in
his general and in the weapons of his warfare than
some of his brethren. His confidence may arise from
the fact that he never had a discussion. The Rev.
Dr. McLelland thinks the remedy is to stick by the
Catechism ; that there is not now enough' of authority ;
not enough of brute force ; thinks that the family, the
Church, and the State, ought to use the rod ; that the
rod is the salvation of the world ; that the rod is a
divine institution ; that fathers ought to have it for
their children ; that mothers ought to use it. This is
part of the religion of universal love. The man who
cannot raise children without whipping them ought
not to have them. The man who would mar the flesh
of a boy or girl is unfit to have the control of a human
being. The father who keeps a rod in his house keeps
a relic of barbarism in his heart. There is nothing
reformatory in punishment; nothing reformatory in
fear. Kindness, guided by intelligence, is the only
reforming force. An appeal to brute force is an aban
donment of love and reason, and puts father and child
upon a savage equality. The savageness in the heart
of the father prompting the use of the rod or club pro
duces a like savageness in the victim. The old idea
that a child’s spirit must be broken is infamous. All
this is passing away, however, with orthodox Chris
tianity. That children are treated better than formerly
shows conclusively the increase of what is called infi
delity. Infidelity has always been a protest against
tyranny in the State, against intolerance in the Church,
against barbarism in the family. It has always been
an appeal for light, for justice, for universal kindness
and tenderness.
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
11
“ The ministers say, I believe, Colonel, that worldliness is the greatest foe to the Church, and admit that
it is on the increase ? ”
It is the habit of ministers to belittle the men who
support them—to slander the spirit by which they live.
“ It is as though the mouth should tear the hand that
feeds it.” The nobility of the Old World hold the
honest working man in contempt, and yet are so con
temptible themselves that they are willing to live upon
his labor. And so the minister.. pretending o e
spiritual—pretending to be a spiritual guide-looks
with contempt upon men who make it possible for him
to live. It may be said by “ worldliness ” they only
mean enjoyment—that is, hearing music, going to the
theatre and the opera, taking a Sunday excursion to
the silvery margin of the sea. Of course, ministers
look upon theatres as rival attractions, and most of
their hatred is born of business views
They think
people ought to be driven to church by having all
other places closed. In my judgment, the theatre has
done good, while the Church has done harm, lhe
drama never has insisted upon burning anybody.
Persecution is not born of the stage. On the contrary,
upon the stage has for ever been found impersonations
of patriotism, heroism, courage, fortitude, and Justice,
and these impersonations have always been applauded,
and have been represented that they might be
applauded. In the pulpit hypocrites have been wor
shipped ; upon the stage they have been held up to
derision and execration. Shakespeare has done tar
more for the world than the Bible. The ministers
keep talking about spirituality as opposed to worldli
ness. Nothing can be more absurd than this talk about
spirituality. As though readers of the Bible, repeaters
of texts, and sayers of prayers were engaged in a
higher work than honest industry. Is there anything
higher than human love ? A man is in love with a
girl and he has determined to work for her and to
give his life that she may have a life of joy. Is there
anything more spiritual than that anything higher .
They marry. He clears some land. He fences a field.
�12
The Clergy and Common Sense.
He builds a cabin ; and she, of this hovel, makes a
happy home, She plants flowers, puts a few simple
things of beauty upon the walls
This is what the
preachers call “ worldliness.” Is there anything more
spiritual ? In a little while, in this cabin, in this
home, is heard the drowsy rhythm of the cradle’s rock,
while softly floats the lullaby upon the twilight air.
Is there anything more spiritual, is there anything
more infinitely tender, than to see husband and wife
bending with clasped hands over a cradle, gazing
upon the dimpled miracle of love ? I say that it is
spiritual to work for those you love. Spiritual to
improve the physical condition of mankind—for he
who improves the physical condition improves the
mental. I believe in the ploughers instead of the
prayers.
“ Some of the clergymen who have been interviewed
admit that the rich and the poor no longer meet
together, and deprecate the establishment of mission
chapels in connection with the large and fashionable
churches.”
The early Christians supposed that the end of the
world was at hand. They were all sitting on the dock
waiting for the ship. In the presence of such a belief^
what are known as class distinctions could not easily
exist. Most of them were exceedingly poor, and
poverty is a bond of union. As a rule, people are
hospitable in the proportion that they lack wealth. In
old times, in the West, a stranger was always welcome.
He took, in part, the place of the newspaper. He was
a messenger from the older parts of the country. Life
was monotonous. The appearance of the traveller gave
variety. As people grow wealthy they grow exclusive.
As they become educated there is a tendency to pick
their society. It is the same in the Church. The
Church no longer believes the creed, no longer acts as
though the creed were true. If the rich man regarded
the sermon as a means of grace, as a kind of rope
thrown by the minister to a man just above the falls ;
if he regarded it as a lifeboat, or as a lighthouse, he
would not allow his coachman to remain outside. If
�The Clergy ancl Common Sense.
:i3
he really believed that the coachman, had an immortal
soul, capable of eternal joy, liable to everlasting pain,
he would do his utmost to make the calling and election
of the said coachman sure. As a matter of fact, the
rich man now cares but little for servants. They are
not included in the scheme of salvation, except as a
kind of job lot. The Church has become a club. It is
a social affair, and the rich don’t care to associate in
the week days with the poor they may happen to meet
at Church. As they expect to be in heaven together for
ever, they can afford to be separated here. There will
certainly be time enough there to get acquainted.
Another thing is the magnificence of the churches.
The Church depends absolutely upon the rich. Poor
people feel out of place in such magnificent buildings.
They drop into the nearest seat ; like poor relations,
they sit on the extreme edge of the chair. At the table
of Christ they are below the salt. They are constantly
humiliated. When subscriptions are asked for they
feel ashamed to have their mite compared with the
thousands given by the millionaire. Their pennies feel
ashamed to mingle with the silver in the contribution
plate.
The result is that most of them avoid the
Church. It costs too much to worship God in public.
Good clothes are necessary, fashionably cut. The poor
come in contact with too much silk, too many jewels,
too many evidences of what is generally assumed to be
superiority.
“ Would this state of affairs be remedied if, instead
of Churches, we had societies of ethical culture ?
Would not the rich there predominate and the poor be
just as much out of place ? ”
,
I think the effect would be precisely the same, n<?
matter what the society is, what object it has, if com
posed of rich and poor. Class distinctions, to a greatei
or less extent, will creep in—in fact they do not have
to creep in. They are there at the commencement,
and they are born of the different conditions of the
members.
These class distinctions are not always made by
men of wealth. For instance, some men obtain money,
�14
The Clergy and Common Sense,
and are what we call snobs. Others obtain it and retain
their democratic principles, and meet men according to
the law of affinity, or general intelligence, on- intel
lectual grounds, for instance.
There is not only the distinction which is produced
by wealth and power, but there are also the distinctions
which are born of intelligence, of culture, of character,
of end, object, aim in life. No one can blame an honest
mechanic for holding a wealthy snob in utter contempt.
Neither can any one blame respectable poverty for
declining to associate with arrogant wealth. The right
to make the distinction is with all classes, and with
the individuals of all classes. It is impossible to have
any society for any purpose—that is, where they meet
together—without certain embarrassments being pro
duced by these distinctions. Now, for instance, suppose
•there should be a society simply of intelligent and
cultured people. There wealth, to a great degree, would
be disregarded. But, after all, the distinction that,
intelligence draws between talent and genius is as
marked and cruel as was ever drawn between poverty
and wealth. Wherever the accomplishment of some
object is deemed of such vast importance that, for the
moment, all minor distinctions are forgotten, then it is
possible for the rich and poor, the ignorant and intel
ligent, to act in concert. This happens in political
parties, in time of war, and it has also happened
whenever a new religion has been founded. Whenevei’
the rich wish the assistance of the poor, distinctions
are forgotten. It is upon the same principle that we
gave liberty to the slave during the civil war, and clad
him in the uniform of the nation ; we wanted him, we
needed him; and, for the time, we were perfectly
willing to forget the distinction of color. Common
peril produces pure democracy. It is with societies as
with individuals. A poor young man coming to New
York, bent upon making his fortune, begins to talk
about the old fogies ; holds in contempt many of the
rules and regulations of the trade ; is loud in his
denunciation of monopoly ; wants competition ; shouts
for fair play, and is a real democrat. But let him
succeed ; let him have a palace upon Fifth Avenue,
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
15
with, his monogram on spoons and coaches ; then,
instead of shouting for liberty, he will call for-more
police. He will then say, “We want protection , the
rabble must be put down.” We have an aristocracy o
wealth • in some parts of our country an aristocracy of
literature—men and women who imagine J^emselv^s
writers and who hold m contempt all people who
cannot express commonplaces m the most ele§a^
diction ; people who look upon a mistake m grammar
as far worse than a crime. So, m some communities,
we have an aristocracy of muscle. The only true
aristocracy, probably, is that of kindness. Intellect
without heart is infinitely cruel ; as cruel as wealth
without a sense of justice; as cruel as muscle witho
mercy. So that, after all, the real aristocracy must be
that of goodness where the intellect is directed by th
heart.
“ You say that the aristocracy of intellect is quite as
cruel as the aristocracy of wealth—what do you mean
by that ? ”
Bv intellect, I mean simply intellect ; that is to say,
the aristocracy of education—of simple brain—expressed
in innumerable ways—in invention, painting, sculpture,
literature. And I meant to say that that aristocracy
was as cruel as that of simple arrogant wealth. Atter
all, why should a man be proud of something given him
by nature ; something that he did not earn, did not
produce ; something that he could not help, is it not
more reasonable to be proud of wealth, which you have
accumulated, than of brain which nature gave you
And, to carry this idea clear out, why should we be
proud of anything ? Is there any proper occasion on
which to crow ? If you succeed, your success crows
for you; if you fail, certainly crowing is not m the
best of taste.
And why should man be proud o
brain ? Why should he be proud of disposition or of
good acts ?
“ You speak of the cruelty of the intellect, and yet,
of course, you must recognise the right of everyone o
select his own companions. Would it be arrogant for
�16
The Clergy and Common Sense.
the intellectual man to prefer the companionship of
people of his own class in preference to commonplace
and unintelligent persons ? ”
All men should have the same rights, and one right
that every man should have is to associate with con
genial people. There are thousands of good men whose
society I do rot covet. They may be stupid, or they
ma5T be stupid only in the direction in which I am
interested, and may be exceedingly intelligent as to
matters about which I care nothing. In either case
they are not congenial. They have the right to select
congenial company ; so have I. And while distinctions
are thus made, they are not cruel ; they are not heart
less. They are for the good of all concerned, spring
naturally from the circumstances, and are consistent
with the highest philanthropy. Why we notice these
distinctions in the Church more than we do in the club
is that the Church talks one way and acrs another ;
because the Church insists that a certain line of con
duct is essential to salvation, and that every human
being is in danger of eternal pain. If the creed were
true, then, in the presence of such an infinite variety,
all earthly distinctions should instantly vanish. Every'
Christian should exert himself for the salvation of the
soul of a beggar with the same degree of earnestness
that he -would show to save a king. The accidents of
wealth, education, social position, should be esteemed
as naught, and the richest should gladly work side by
side with the poorest. The churches will never reach
the poor as long’ as they sell pews ; so long as the rich
members wear their best clothes on Sunday. A s lone
as the fashions of the drawing-room are taken to the
table of the Last Supper, the poor will remain in the
highways and„ hedges. Present ' fashion is. more
powerful than faith, So long as the ministers shut up
their churches and allow the poor to go to hell in
summer; as long as they lea re the Devil without a
competitor for three months in the year, the churches
will not materially impede the march of human pro
gress. People, often unconsciously and without malice,
say something or do something that throws an unex
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
17
pected light upon a question. The other day, in one
of the New York comic papers, there was a picture
representing the foremost preachers of the country at
the seaside together. It was regarded as a joke that
they could enjoy each other’s society. These ministers
are suppised to be the apostles of the religion of kind
ness. They tell us to love even our enemies, and yet
the idea that they could associate happily together is
regarded as a joke! After all, churches are like other
institutions—they have to be managed, and they now
rely upon music and open elocution rather than upon
the Gospel. They are becoming social affairs. They
are giving up the doctrine of eternal punishment, and
have consequently lost their hold. The orthodox
Churches used to tell us there was going to be a fire,
and they offered to insure ; and as long as the fire was
expected the premiums were paid and the policies were
issued. Then came the Universalist Church, saying
that there would be no fire, and yet asking the people
to insure. For such a church there is no basis. It
undoubtedly did good by its influence upon other
churches. So with the Unitarian. That Church has
no basis for organisation ; no reason, because no hell is
threatened, and heaven is but faintly promised. Just
as the Churches have lost their belief in eternal fire,
they have lost their influence, and the reason they have
lost their belief is on account of the diffusion of know
ledge. That doctrine is becoming absurd and infamous.
Intelligent people are ashamed to broach it. Intelli
gent people can no longer believe it. It is regarded
with horror, and the Churches must finally abandon it,
and when they do that is the end of the church
militant.
“ What do you say to the progress of the Roman
Catholic Church, in view of the fact that they have not
changed their belief, in any particular, in regard to
future punishment ?”
Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism will ever win
another battle. The last victory of Protestantism was
won in Holland. Nations have not been converted
�18
The Clergy and Common Sense.
since then. The time has passed to preach with sword
and gun, and for that reason Catholicism can win no
more victories. That Church increases in this country
mostly from immigration.
Catholicism does not
belong to the New World. It is at war with the idea
our government, antagonistic to true republicanism,
and in every sense anti-American. The Catholic
Church does not control, its members. That Church
prevents no crime. It is not in favor of education. It
is not the friend of liberty. In Europe it is now used
as a political power, but here it dare not assert itself.
There are thousands of good Catholics. As a rule, they
probably believe the creed of the Church. That
Church has lost the power to anathematise. It can no
longer burn. It must now depend upon other forces—
upon persuasion, sophistry, ignorance, fear, and
heredity.
« You have stated your objections to the,Churches—
what would you have to take their place ?
Of course there will always be meetings, occasions
when people come together to exchange ideas, to hear
what a man has to say upon some question, but the
idea of going fifty-two days in a year to hear anybody
upon the same subject is absurd.
« Would you include a man like Henry Ward Beecher
in that statement ?”
Beecher is interesting just in proportion that he is
not orthodox, and he is altogether more interesting
when talking against his creed. He delivered a ser
mon the other day in Chicago, in which he takes the
ground that Christianity is kindness, and that, conse
quently, no one could be an infidel. Everyone believes
in kindness, at least theoretically. In that sermon he
throws away all creed and comes to the conclusion
that Christianity is a life, not an aggregation of intel
lectual convictions upon certain subjects, 1 he more
sermons like that are preached probably the better.
What I intended was the eternal repetition of the old
story—that God made the world and a man, and then
allowed the Devil to tempt him, and then thought of a
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
19
•scheme of salvation, of vicarious atonement; fifteen
hundred years afterwards drowned everybody except
Noah and his family, and, afterwards, when he failed
to civilise the Jewish people, came in person and suf
fered death, and announced the doctrine that all who
believed on him would be saved, and those who did
not, eternally lost. Now this story, with occasional
references to the patriarchs and the New Jerusalem,
and the exceeding heat of perdition, and the wonderful
joys of paradise, is the average sermon, and this story
is told again, again, and again by the same man, listened
to by the same people, without any effect except to tire
the speaker and the hearer. If all the ministers would
take their texts from Shakespeare, if they would read
every Sunday a selection from some of the great plays,
the result would be infinitely better. They would all
learn something ; the mind would be enlarged, and
the sermon would appear short. Nothing has shown
more clearly the intellectual barrenness of the pulpit
than the baccalaureate sermons lately delivered. The
dignified dulness, the solemn stupidity of these
addresses has never been excelled. No question was
met. The poor candidates for the ministry were giyen
no new weapons. Armed with the theological flint
lock of a century ago, they were ordered to do battle
for doctrines older than their weapons. They were
told to rely on prayer, to answer all arguments by
keeping out of discussions, and to overwhelm the
sceptic by ignoring the facts. There was a time when
the Protestant clergy were in favor of education ; that
is to say, education enough to make a Catholic a Pro
testant, but not enough to make a Protestant a philo
sopher. The Catholics are also in favor of education
enough to make a savage a Catholic, and there
they stop. The Christian should never unsettle his
belief. If he studies, if he reads, he is in danger.
A new idea is a doubt; a doubt is the thres
hold of infidelity. The young ministers are warned
against inquiry. They are educated like robins ; they
swallow whatever is thrown in the mouth—worms or
shingle-nails, it makes no difference—and they are
expected to get their revenge by treating their flock
�20
The Clergy and Common Sense.
precisely as the professors treated them. The creeds
of the Churches are being laughed at. Thousands of
young men say nothing, because they do not wish to
hurt the feelings of mothers and maiden aunts. Thou
sands of business men say nothing, for fear it may
interfere with trade. Politicians keep silent for fear
of losing influence. But when you get at the real
opinions of the people, a vast majority have outgrown
the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Some people
think these things good for women and children, and
use the Lord as an immense policeman to keep order.
Every day ministers are uttering a declaration of inde
pendence. They are being examined by synods and
committees of ministers, and they are beginning every
where to say that they do not regard tnis life as a
probationary stage; that the doctrine of eternal punish
ment is too bad ; that the Bible is, in many things,
foolish, absurd, and infamous ; that it must have been
written by men. And the people at large are begin
ning to find that the ministers have kept back the
facts ; have not told the history of the Bible ; have
not given to their congregations the latest advices, and
so the feeling is becoming almost general that orthodox
Christianity has almost outlived its usefulness. The
Church has a great deal to contend with. The scien
tific men are not religious. Geology laughs at Genesis,
and astronomy has concluded that Joshua knew but
very little of the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Statesmen do not approve of the laws of Moses ; the
intellect of the world has got on the other side. There
is something besides preaching on Sunday. The news
paper is the rival of the pulpit. Nearly all the cars
are running on that blessed day. Steamers take hun
dreds of thousands of excursionists. The man who
has been at work all the week seeks the sight of the
sea, and this has become so universal that the preacher
is following his example. The flock has ceased to be
afraid of the wolf, and the shepherd deserts the sheep.
In a little while all the libraries will be open all the
museums. There will be music in the public parks ;
the opera, the theatre. And what will the churches do
then ? The cardinal points will be demonstrated to
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
21
empty pews, unless the Church is wise enough to meet
the intellectual demands of the present.
“You speak as if the influences working against
Christianity to-day will tend to crush it out of exist
ence. Do you think that Christianity is any worse off
now than it was during the French Revolution, when
the priests were banished from the country and Reason
was worshipped ; or, in England, a hundred years ago,
when Hume, Bolingbroke, and others made their
attacks upon it ? ”
You must remember that the French Revolution
was produced by Catholicism; that it was a reaction ;
that it went to infinite extremes ; that it was a revolu
tion seeking revenge. It is not hard to understand
those times provided you know the history of the
Catholic Church. The seeds of the French Revolution
•were sown by priests and kings. The people had
Suffered the miseries of slavery for a thousand years,
and the French Revolution came because human nature
could bear the wrongs no longer. It was something
not reasoned—it was felt. Only a few acted from
intellectual convictions.
The most were stung to
madness, and were carried away with the desire to
destroy. They wanted to shed blood, to tear down
palaces^ to cut throats, and in some way avenge the
wrongs of all the centuries. Catholicism has never
recovered—it never will. The dagger of Voltaire
struck the heart; the wound was mortal. Catholicism
has staggered from that day to this. It has been losing
power every moment. At the death of Voltatre there
were twenty million less Catholics than when he was
born. In the French Revolution muscle outran mind,
revenge anticipated reason. There was destruction,
without the genius of construction. They had to use
materials that had been rendered worthless by ages of
Catholicism. The French Revolution was a failure,
because the French people were a failure, and the
French people were a failure because Catholicism had
made them so. The ministers attack Voltaire without
reading him. Probably there are not a dozen orthodox
ministers in the world who have read the works of
�22
The Clergy and Common Sense.
Voltaire. I know of no one who has. Only a little
while ago a minister told me he had read Voltaire. I
offered him one hundred dellars to repeat a paragraph,
or to give the title even, of one of Voltaire’s volumes.
Most ministers think he was an Atheist. The trouble
with the infidels of England a hundred years ago was
that they did not go far enough. It may be that they
could not have gone further and been allowed to live.
Most of them took the ground that there was an infi
nite, all-wise, bemficent God, creator of the universe,
and that this all-wise, beneficent God certainly was too
good to be the author of the Bible. They, however,
insisted that this good God was the author of nature,
and the theologians completely turned the tables by
showing that this God of nature was as bad as the God
of the Bible ; that this God of nature was in the pesti-,
lence and plague business, manufactured earthquakes,
overwhelmed towns and cities, and was, of necessity,
the author of all pain and agony. In my judgment,
the Deists were all successfully answered. The God of
nature is certainly as bad as the God of the Old Testa
ment. It is only when we discard the idea of a deity,
the idea of cruelty or goodness in nature, that we are
able even to bear with patience the ills of life. I feel
that I am neither a favorite nor a victim. Nature
neither loves nor hates me. I do not believe in the
existence of any personal God. I regard the universe
as the one fact, as the one existence—that is, as the
absolute thing. I am part of this. I do not say that
there is no God ; I simply say I do not believe there
is. There may be millions of them. Neither do I say
that man is not immortal. Upon that point I admit
that I do not know, and the declarations of all the
priests in the world upon that subject give me no light,
and do not even tend to add to my information on the
subject, because I know that they don’t know. The
infidelity of a hundred years ago knew nothing, com
paratively speaking, of geology, nothing of astronomy,
nothing of the ideas of Lamarck and Darwin,. nothing
of evolution, nothing, comparatively speaking, of other
religions, nothing of India, that womb of metaphysics;
in other words, the infidels of a hundred years ago
�The Clergy and Common Cense.
23
knew the creed of orthodox Christianity to be false,
but had not the facts to demonstrate it. The infidels
of to-day have the facts. That is the difference. A
hundred years ago it was a guessing prophecy—to-day
it is the fact and fulfilment. Everything in nature is
working against superstition to-day. Superstition is
like a thorn in the flesh, and everything, from dust to
stars, is working together to destroy the false. The
smallest pebble answers the greatest parson. One blade
of . grass, rightly understood, destroys the orthodox
creed.
“You say the pews will be empty in the future until
the Church meets the intellectual demands of the
present. Are not the ministers of to-day, generally
speaking, much more intellectual than those of a hun
dred years ago, and are not the ‘ Liberal ’ views in
regard to the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement,
future punishment, the fall of man, and the personal
divinity of Christ which openly prevail in many
churches, an indication that the Church is meeting the
demands of many people who do not care to be classed
as out-and-out disbelievers in Christianity, but who
have advanced views on those and other questions ? ”
The views of the Church are changing, the clergy of
Brooklyn to the contrary" notwithstanding. Orthodox
religion is a kind of boa-constrictor; anything it
can’t dodge it will swallow.
The Church is
bound to have something for sale that some
body wants to buy. According to the pew demand
will be the pulpit supply. In old times the pulpit
dictated to the pews. Things have changed. Theology
is now run on business principles. The gentleman
who pays for the theories insists on having them suit
him. Ministers are intellectual gardeners, and they
must supply the market with such religious vegetables
as the congregation desire. Thousands have given up
belief in the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of
Christ, the atonement idea, and original sin. Millions
believe now that this is not a state of probation ; that
a man, provided he is well off, and has given liberally
to the church, or whose wife has been a regular
%
�24
The Clergy and Common Sense.
attendant, will, in the next world, have another chance;
that he will be permitted to file a motion for a new
trial. Others think that hell is not so warm as it used
to be supposed ; that, while it is very hot in the middle
of the day, the nights are cool ; and that, after all,
there isn’t so much to fear from the future. They
regard the old religion as very good for the poor, and
they give them the old ideas on the same principle
that they give them their old clothes. These ideas,
out at the elbows, out at the knees, buttons off, some
what ravelled, will, after all, do very well for paupers.
There. is a great trade of this kind going on now—
selling old theological clothes to the colored people in
the South. All I have said applies to all Churches.
The Catholic Church changes every day. It does not
change its ceremonies; but the spirit that begot the
ceremonies, the spirit that clothed the skeleton of
ceremony with the white flesh and blood and throb of
life and love, is gone. The spirit that built the cathe
drals, the spirit that emptied the wealth of the world
into the lap of Rome, has turned in another direction,
Of course the Churches are all going to endeavor to
meet the demands of the hour. They will find new
readings for old texts. They will re-punctuate and
re-parse the Old Testament. They will find that “ flat ”
meant “a little rounding”; that “six days” meant
“ six long times that the word “ flood ” should have
been translated “ dampness,” “ dew,” or “ threatened
rain”; that Daniel in the lion’s den was an historical
myth ; that Samson and his foxes had nothing to do
with this world. All these things will be gradually
explained and made to harmonise with the facts of
modern science. They will not change the words of
the creed; they will simply give new meanings; and
the highest criticism to-day is that which confuses and
avoids. In other words, the Churches will change as
the people change. They will keep for sale that which
can be sold. Already the old goods are being “ marked
down.” If, however, the Church should fall, why
then it must go. I see no reason, myself, for its
existence. It apparently does no good ; it devours
without producing; it eats without planting, and is a
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
25
perpetual burden. It teaches nothing of value. It
misleads, mystifies, and misrepresents. It threatens
without knowledge and promises without power. In
my judgment, the quicker it goes the better for all
mankind. But if it does not go in name, it must go in
fact, because it must change ; and therefore it is only
a question of time when it ceases to divert from useful
channels the blood and muscle of the world.
* You say that in the baccalaureate sermons de
livered lately the theological students were told to
answer arguments by keeping out of discussion. Is it
not the fact that ministers have, of late years, preached
very largely on scientific disbelief, Agnosticism, and
infidelity, so much as to lead to their being repri
manded by some of their more conservative brethren ? ”
Of course, there are hundreds and thousands of
ministers perpetually endeavoring to answer infidelity.
Their answers have done so much harm that the more
conservative among the clergy have advised them to
stop. Thousands have answered me, and their answers,
for the most part, are like this : Paine was a black
guard, therefore' the geology of Genesis is on a scientific
basis. We know the doctrine of the atonement is true,
because in the French Revolution they worshipped
Reason. And we know, too, all about the fall of man
and the Garden of Eden, because Voltaire was nearly
frightened to death when he came to die. These are
the usual arguments, supplemented by a few words
concerning myself. And, in my view, they are the
best that can be made. Failing to answer a man’s
argument, the next thing is to attack his character.
You have no case,” said an attorney to the plaintiff.
“No matter,” said the plaintiff, “ I want you to give
the defendant the devil.”
“ What have you to say to the Rev. Dr. Baker’s
statement that he generally buys five or six tickets for
your lectures and gives them to young men, who are
shocked at the flippant way in which you are said to
speak of the Bible ? ”
�26
The Clergy and Common Sense.
Well, as to that, I have always wondered why I had
such immense audiences in Brooklyn and New York.
This tends to clear away the mystery. If all the clergy
follow the example of Dr. Baker, that accounts for the
number seeking admission. Of course, Dr. Baker
would not misrepresent a thing like that, and I shall
always feel greatly indebted to him, shall hereafter
regard him as one of my agents, and take this occasion
to return my thanks. He is certainly welcome to all
the converts to Christianity made by hearing me.
Still, I hardly think it honest in the young men to
play a game like that on the doctor.
“You speak of the eternal repetition of the old story
of Christianity, and say that the more sermons like the
one Mr. Beecher preached lately the better. Is it not
the fact that ministers, at the present time, do preach
very largely on questions of purely moral, social, and
humanitarian interest, so much so, indeed, as to provoke
criticisms on the part of the secular newspaper press ? ”
I admit that there is a general tendency in the pulpit
to preach about things happening in this world ; in
other words, that the preachers themselves are be
ginning to be touched by “ worldliness.” They find
that the New Jerusalem has no particular interest for
persons dealing in real estate in this world. And
thousands of people are losing interest in Abraham,
David, Haggai, and take more interest in gentlemen
who have the cheerful habit of living. They also find
that their readers do not wish to be reminded perpetu
ally of death and coffins, and worms, and dust, and
grave-stones, and shrouds, and epitaphs, and hearses,
biers, and cheerful subjects of that character. That
they prefer to hear the minister speak about a topic in
which they have a present interest, and about which
something cheerful can be said. In fact, it is a relief
to hear about politics, a little about art, something
about stocks or the crops, and most ministers find it
necessary to advertise that they are going to speak
on something that has happened within the last
eighteen hundred years, and that for the time being,
Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego will be left in the
�The Clergy and Common Sense.
21
furnace. Of course I think that most ministers are
reasonably honest. Maybe they don’t tell all their
doubts, but undoubtedly they are endeavoring to make
the world better, and most of the church-members
think that they are doing the best that can be done. I
am not criticising their motives, but their methods.
I am not attacking the character or reputation of
ministers, but simply giving my ideas, avoiding any
thing personal. I do not pretend to be very good, nor
very bad—just fair to middling.
“You say that Christians will not read for fear that
they will unsettle their beliefs. Father Fransiola
(Roman Catholic) said in the interview I had with him:
‘ If you do not allow man to reason you crush his
manhood. Therefore, he has to reason upon the credi
bility of his faith, and through reason, guided by faith,
he discovers the truth, and so satisfies his wants ? ’ ”
“ Without calling in question the perfect sincerity of
Father Fransiola, I think his statement is exactly the
wrong end to. I do not think that reason should be
guided by faith ; I think that faith should be guided
by reason. After all, the highest possible conception
of faith would be the science of probabilities, and the
probable must not be based on what has not happened,
but upon what has ; not upon something we know
nothing about, but the nature of the things with which
we are acquainted. The foundation we must know
something about, and whenever we reason we must
have something as a basis, something secular, some
thing that we think we know. About these facts we
reason, sometimes by analogy, and we say so and so
has happened, therefore so and so may happen. We
don’t say so and so may happen, therefore something
else has happened. We must reason from the known
to the unknown, not from the unknown to the known.
This father admits that if you don’t allow a man to
reason you crush his manhood. At the same time he
says faith must govern reason. Who makes the
faith ? The Church. And the Church tells the man
that he must take the faith, reason or no reason, and
that he may afterwards reason, taking the faith as a
�28
The Clergy and Common Sense.
fact. This makes him an intellectual slave, and the
poor devil mistakes for liberty the right to examine
his own chains. These gentlemen endeavor to satisfy
their prisoners by insisting that there is nothing
beyond the walls.
— “ You criticise the Church for not encouraging the
poor to mingle with the rich, and yet you defend the
right of a man to choose his own company. Are not
these same distinctions made by non-professing
Christians in real life, and will there always be some
greater, richer, wiser than the rest ? ”
I do not blame the Church because there are these
distinctions based on wealth, intelligence, and culture.
What I blame the Church for is pretending to do away
with these distinctions. These distinctions in men
are inherent; differences in brain, in race, in blood,
in education, and they are differences that will exter
nally exist—that is, as long as the human race exists.
Some will be fortunate, some unfortunate, some
generous, some stingy, some rich, some poor. What
I wish to do away with is the contempt, and scorn,
and hatred existing between rich and poor. I want
the democracy of kindness—what you might call the
republicanism of justice. I do not have to associate
with a man to keep from robbing him. I can give
him his rights without enjoying his company, and he
can give me my rights without inviting me to dinner.
Why should not poverty have rights? And has not
honest poverty the right to hold dishonest wealth in
contempt, and will it not do it, whether it belongs to
the same Church or not ? We cannot judge men by
their wealth, nor by the position they hold in society.
I like every kind man ; I hate every cruel one. I
like the generous, whether they are poor or rich,
ignorant or cultivated. I like men that love their
families, that are kind to their wives, gentle with their
children, no matter whether they are millionaires or
mendicants. And to me the bloss om of benevolence,
of charity, is the fairest flower, no matter whether it
blooms by the side of a hovel or bursts from a vine
climbing the marble pillar of a palace. I respect no
�Th& Clergy and Common Sense.
29
man because he is rich ; I hold in contempt no man
because he is poor.
“ Some of the clergymen say that the spread of infi
delity is greatly exaggerated ; that it makes more noise
and creates more notice than conservative Christianity
simply on account of its being outside of the accepted
line of thonght.”
There was a time when an unbeliever, open and
pronounced, was a wonder. At that time the Church
had great power ; it could retaliate, it could destroy.
The Church abandoned the stake only when too many
men objected to being burnt. At that time infidelity
was clad not simply in novelty, but often in fire. Of
late years the thoughts of men have been turned, by
virtue of modern discoveries, as the result of countless
influences, to an investigation of the foundation of
orthodox religion. Other religions were put in the
crucible of criticism, and nothing was found but dross.
At last it occurred to the intelligent to examine our
own religion, and this examination has excited great
interest and great comment. People want to hear, and
they want to hear because they have already about
concluded themselves that the creeds are founded in
error. Thousands come to hear me because they are
interested in the question, because they want to hear
a man say what they think. They want to hear their
own ideas from the lips of another. The tide has
turned, and the spirit of investigation, the intelligence,
the intellectual courage of the world, is on the other
side. A real good old-fashioned orthodox minister
who believes in the Thirty-nine Articles with all his
might is regarded to-day as a theological mummy, a
kind of corpse acted upon by the galvanic battery of
faith, making strange motions, almost like those of life
—not quite,
<,We need no inspiration, no inspired work. The
industrious man knows that the idle has no right to
rob him of the product of his labor, and the idle man
knows that he has no right to it. It is not wrong
because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was
put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then you find
�30
The Clergy and Common ¡sense.
in the Bible other things upheld that are infamous.
And why ? Because the writers of the Bible were
barbarians in many things, and because that book is a
mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teach
ing morality without miracle. I see no use of miracle.
What can men do with it ? Credulity is not a virtue.
The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder
is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children
should be taught to investigate and to reason for them
selves, and that there are facts enough to furnish a
foundation for all human virtue. We will take two
families ; in the one, the father and mother are both
Christians, and they teach their children the creed ;
teach them that they are naturally totally depraved ;
that they can only hope for happiness in a future life
by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain
belief is necessary to salvation ; that God punishes his
children for ever. Such a home has a certain atmo
sphere. Take another family : the father and mother
teach their children that they should be kind to each
other because kindness produces happiness ; that they
should be gentle ; that they should be just, because
justice is the mother of joy. And suppose this father
and mother say to their children—If you are happy,
it must be as a result of your own actions ; if you do
wrong, you must suffer the consequences. No Christ
can redeem you ; no Savior can suffer for you. You
must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds.
If you plant, you must reap; and you must reap what
you plant. And suppose these parents also to say—•
“You must find out the conditions of happiness. You
must investigate the circumstances by which you are
surrounded. You must ascertain the nature and rela
tion of things so that you can act in accordance with
known facts, to the end that you may have health and
peace.” In such a family there would be a certain
atmosphere, in my judgment, a thousand times better,
and purer, and sweeter than in the other. The
Church generally teaches that rascality pays in this
world, but not in the next ; that here virtue is a losing
game, but the dividends will be large in another
world. They tell the people that they must serve God
�The Clergy and Common Sense-.
31
on credit, but the Devil pays cash here. That is not
my doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right
because it pays, in the highest sense. That is the
reason it is right. The reason a thing is wrong is
because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its
reward here and now. It means health ; it means in
telligence, contentment, success. Vice means exactly
the opposite. Most of us have more passion than
judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the
tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are
wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved by faith, nor
by belief. It is a slower process ; we must be saved by
knowledge, by intelligence,—the only lever capable of
raising mankind.
�Colonel Ingersoll's Works.
-------- 0-------MISTAKES OF MOSES
-10
Ditto.
In cloth 1 6
The only complete edition published in England.
Accurate as Colenso and fascinating as a novel.
DEFENCE OP FREETHOUGHT
0 6
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
0 4
The raciest polemic of the age. With a bio
graphy of Ingersoll.
ROME OR REASON ? 0 4
A Reply to Cardinal Manning
FAITH AND FACT. A Reply to Dr. Field
0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
0 2
ART AND MORALITY
0 2
LIVE TOPICS -01
MYTH AND MIRACLE
-01
REAL BLASPHEMY -01
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
01
SOCIAL SALVATION -01
THE GREAT MISTAKE
-01
Orders over Sixpence sent Post Free.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PEAD
“THE FREETHINKER,”
Edited by G. W. Foote.
Only Penny Freethought Paper in England.
Published Every Thursday.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The clergy & common sense
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Colonel Ingersoll's works" listed on back cover. No. 7a in Stein checklist, but pagination differs. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company; (G. W. Foote)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[c1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N326
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
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 clergy & common sense), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Christianity-Controversial works
Clergy
NSS