1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d6dc3935a28147ca7f0eaa728f5fd4ad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UXVP%7EtI1thTJ4Plfn19BJfjE%7EP6rz4UM-RLczBep6DU1XoMWW%7ETjKW0u49OOPhk277bGyvbedeqYYPnJvzZJLu8iJlcDM9O7gYE-L2tRk-vz3AQHgMBQXmUNxuTPJUZWc0xlyZEGW2sT%7Epn9ifg18CbkNF3cX3NvEDc-uSvRZZhf2qxc69nGO4TAeOW2jrEGP6mKkWTey90ihbvSZn0%7Ek2EhXQJrPRwYKOhjN6SY0PlCZ%7EIqTPZ0fVCase-2i1027Rpk6BfRoKHdLYXGWnis3BNKoGltdqmFZVwH69rQbBXRmJK6R7kkOv500uRlRl3z604jGkM3Yzg22vSROwTN-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c031b343beb68360832a78228d41823
PDF Text
Text
CRITICAL CATECHISM.
BY
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE,
DATE A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
�Note.—The materials used in the following pages have
been taken from “The Eible; is it the Word of God?”
(N. Trubner & Co.), by the same author.
�A CRITICAL CATECHISM,
RESPECTFULLLY OFFERED TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE ORTHODOX.
Catechist.—Taking John to be the precursor of
Jesus the Messiah, did he fulfil his mission in “ turn
ing the hearts of the fathers to the children/’ and
“the disobedient to the wisdom of the just,”
“ making ready a people prepared for the Lord ” ?
(Luke i. 17.)
Disciple.—He effected nothing of the kind.
Though “the world ” was “made” by Jesus, “the
world knew him not.” “He came unto his own, and
his own received him not.” (John i. 10-11.) Jesus
was in effect rejected and put to an ignominious death.
C. —Was John “filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother’s womb” 1 (Luke i. 15.)
D. —I should scarcely think so.
C. —Why ?
D. —Because his disciples “ had not so much as
heard whether there was any Holy Ghost,” (Acts
xix. 2.)
G.—Was Jesus of the lineage of David? (Luke i. 32.)
D.—No. His mother “was found with child of
the Holy Ghost ” (Matt. i. 18.)
C. —What certainty is there of the fact ?
D. —His mother Mary was told thereof by an angel.
C.—Did she communicate the information to her
affianced husband Joseph 1
�4
A Critical Catechism.
D.—No • as when he found out her condition, and
“thought on these things,” he was “minded to put
her away” (Matt. i. 19, 20.)
C. —Whom did she teach Jesus to look upon as his
father ?
D. —Joseph, to whom she adverted as such when
speaking to Jesus of him. “ Behold, thy father and
I have sought thee sorrowing ” (Luke ii. 48.)
C. —Does it appear, nevertheless, that Mary herself
apprehended that Jesus was of divine origin ?
D. —It would seem not. When she heard Simeon
in the temple proclaim the greatness of his mission,
she “marvelled at those things which were spoken
of him” (Luke ii. 33.) When at the age of twelve
she found him in discussion with the doctors in the
temple, she, with “ all that heard him,” was
“ astonished at his understanding and answers ” (Luke
ii. 47.) And when he said that he was then engaged
in his heavenly “ Father’s business,” she, and the
others, “ understood not the sayings which he spake
unto them ” (Luke ii. 49, 50).
C. —Supposing Joseph to have been the father of
Jesus, would that make him out to have been of the
lineage of David ?
D. —Matthew and Luke give genealogies to that
effect.
C. —Do these genealogies agree?
D. —They do not. Matthew (i. 6-16) traces Joseph
from the regal line of Solomon, through twenty-three
descents, to one Jacob, whose name is given as that
of his father, while Luke (ii. 23-31) derives him from
the unregal line of Nathan, Solomon’s brother,
through thirty-eight descents, to one Heli, who is
said to have been his father.
C. —For what purpose can these genealogies have
been introduced unless Joseph is to be looked upon
. as really the father of Jesus ?
D. —I am at a loss to understand.
�A Critical Catechism.
5
C. —Was not Joseph a carpenter 1
D. —He was (Matt. xiii. 55.)
C. —And yet lie came from a whole race of kings ?
D. —He did. Pursuant to Matthew all the reign
ing sovereigns of Judah were his direct ancestors,
numbering, according to the Old Testament, eighteen
rulers from David to Jehoiakim.
C. —Strange, is it not! To what calling did Joseph
bring up Jesus 1
D. —To his own. He made him a carpenter (Mark
vi. 3). The tradition, according to Justin Martyr
(a.d. 140), was that Jesus worked at the construction
of ploughs and other agricultural implements.
C. —And yet we are to believe that both Joseph
and Mary were well assured of his divine birth 1
D. —We are.
C. —Was Jesus, when an infant, in peril from
Herod, as stated by Matthew ? (ii. 13, 16).
D. —No ; for, according to Luke, he was taken
openly to the temple, and there proclaimed as the
expected redeemer or Messiah by Simeon and the
prophetess Anna (ii. 22, 27-38).
C. —Did not his parents, under divine instructions,
flee with him to Egypt, and thence return and take
up their abode in Nazareth ? (Matt. ii. 13-23).
D. —Not according to Luke. He shows that they
went direct from Jerusalem to Nazareth without going
near Egypt (ii. 39).
C. —Was Jesus, “immediately” after his baptism,
“driven into the wilderness” of Judea, where he
remained “forty days tempted of Satan ?” (Mark i.
12, 13).
D. —John has it that on “ the third day ” after
meeting with the Baptist, he was at Cana in Galilee,
some sixty miles off, where he turned water into
wine (ii. 1).
C.—So that if Jesus underwent his temptation, he
did not perform the miracle at Cana; and if he per
�6
A Critical Catechism.
formed the miracle at Cana, he did not undergo the
temptation ?
D.—Just so.
C. -—When did Jesus purify the temple ?
D. —Matthew says four days before his death (xxi.
1, 12, 18 ; xxvi. 2).
C. —Is that sustainable 1
D. —No. John says it happened at the beginning
of his ministry, at the first of three passovers with
which he associates him, or two years before his
death (ii. 13-16).
C. —Is John (ii. 13 ; vi. 4 ; xix. 14) supported in
his statement that the ministry of Jesus lasted over
three passovers ?
D. —No. The other evangelists limit it to a portion
of a year, embracing but one passover, namely that
occurring at the time of his death.
C. —Where was the ministry of Jesus carried on
during the last six months of his life according to
Matthew, Mark, and Luke ?
D. —Always in Galilee, till within three or four
days of his death, when he came to Judea.
C. —What does John say as to this 1
D. —He makes it appear that Jesus was all this time
in Judea. He shows him to have been at Jerusalem
at the feast of tabernacles (vii. 2, 10), which was held
in Tisri, or October; and at the feast of dedication
(x. 22), which was in Chisleu, or December; the
passover, when he suffered, occurring in Nisan, or
April.
C. —When Jesus left Galilee, pursuant to the
earlier evangelists, by what route did he go to
Judea1
D. —According to Matthew (xix. 1) and Mark
(x. 1), he crossed over the Jordan, and kept along its
eastern side, thus avoiding Samaria.
C. —What does Luke say 1
D. —According to him he did not cross over the
�A Critical Catechism.
1
Jordan, but “ passed through the midst of Samaria”
(ix. 51, 52 ; xvii. 11).
C.-—What support is there for John’s account of
the raising up of Lazarus from the dead 1
J),—None. The other evangelists show no knowledge
of such a person as Lazarus, and make it appear that
the event could not have occurred. John has it that
when Jesus was summoned to attend on Lazarus at
his illness, he was at Bethabara on the Jordan (x. 40);
that he remained there two days ; and that on going
to Bethany he found that Lazarus had been dead and
buried four days (xi. 6, 17); and at some interval
after the resurrection of Lazarus, he goes on to say
that it wanted six days to the passover (xii. 1).
Here we have Jesus occupied about Lazarus, at least
say a fortnight before his own death. But pursuant
to Matthew and Mark he was then in Galilee, not
arriving at Bethany until three, or at most four,
days before his death; and when he did arrive,
they describe his doings till his death without saying
a word about any such miraculous action.
C. —Is John upheld in his statement (xii. 1-3) that
Jesus was anointed at Bethany in the house of Lazarus 1
D. —No. Matthew (xxvi. 6) and Mark (xiv. 3) say
it occurred at the house of Simon the leper of Bethany.
C. —What does Luke say on the matter 1
D. —That it was at the house of Simon the phari
see, who was not of Bethany, which is in Judea, but
of Galilee (vii. 37, 40).
C. —Is John borne out in saying that it was Mary,
the pious sister of Lazarus, who anointed him ?
D. —No. Matthew and Mark describe her as an
unknown female who entered the house for the pur
pose ; while Luke says she was a well-known sinner.
G-—Did the woman, whoever she was, apply the
ointment to the head of Jesus, as related by Matthew
and Mark 1
D.—That is altogether uncertain. Luke and John
�8
A Critical Catechism.
declare she anointed his feet, and wiped them with
her hair.
C. —Did Judas Iscariot object to the act as waste
ful, as John states ?
D. —That cannot be relied on, for Luke says the
objector was Simon the host, and that the objection
taken was the contamination of the woman’s touch.
C. —Can it be said that Luke was describing a
different occasion from the others ?
D. -—It cannot. The four all agree that it occurred
while Jesus sat at meat, and was objected to; Luke
has it, in correspondence with Matthew and John,
that the host’s name was Simon, and that the oint
ment was in an alabaster box; the incident was of
an unusual character, having a special import, and
Matthew and Mark, who place the event at the latest
period, distinctly make it appear that such a thing
had not occurred before, saying that the act should
be cited, in memorial of the devotion to their lord
thus manifested, “ wheresoever this Gospel shall be
preached in the whole world.”
C. —Did Judas betray Jesus with a kiss as related
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke?
D. —John represents the matter otherwise, and
says that Jesus proclaimed himself; and with such
boldness and miraculous power, that the armed party,
who came to take him, retreated “backward and fell to
the ground” (xviii. 5, 6.)
C. —What did Judas do with the wages of his
treachery ?
D. —Matthew (xxvii. 3-8) says that he cast the
money down in the temple, whereupon the chief
priests and elders bought a field with it.
C. —May that be accepted?
D. —No ; in the Acts (i. 18) it is stated that Judas
himself bought the field.
C. —What became of Judas afterwards ?
D. —He went out of the temple, according to
Matthew, and hanged himself.
�A Critical Catechism.
9
C. —What is the statement in the Acts?
D. —That, after purchasing the field, he “ fell
headlong, and burst asunder in the midst,” apparently
coming to his end by some accident.
C. —Why was the field in question called “ The
field of blood ” ?
D. —The accounts differ. Matthew says it was
in commemoration of the blood of Jesus, with the
price of which it had been bought; while in the
Acts it is stated that it acquired its name “ inas
much ” as the blood of Judas, when he met with his
■accident, was shed there.
C. —How is John borne out in his statement that
Jesus suffered death on the day of the paschal
offering (xviii. 28 ; xix. 14) ?
D. —Not at all. The other evangelists declare
that he “ ate the passover ” with his disciples on
the evening before his death (Matt. xxvi. 17-19 ;
Mark xiv. 12-16 ; Luke xxii. 7-15), differing thus
with John’s allegation that this “ last supper” was
held the day “before the feast of the passover ” (xiii.
1, 2, 29).
G.—John (xix. 25-27) represents that when he
and Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Mary Magda
lene and another female, were standing by the cross,
Jesus committed him and Mary to each other. Is
this borne out by the other accounts ?
D.—It is not. None of the other evangelists
speak of the presence of the mother of Jesus on the
occasion of the crucifixion, and Matthew (xxvii.
55, 56) and Mark (xv. 40, 41) state that Mary
Magdalene and the other women, who were there,
were not near the cross, but were “looking on afar off.”
C.—John (xix. 31-34) says that Pilate, in order
that the bodies of Jesus and of the thieves who were
crucified with him might be taken down from the
crosses before the approaching sabbath-day, directed
the soldiers to put an end to them by breaking their
�IO
A Critical Catechism.
legs, but that Jesus being found already dead, one
of the soldiers contented himself with thrusting a
spear into his side. Do the other evangelists sup
port this representation ?
1).—They do not. They say nothing of such a
circumstance, which was of a character not possibly to
be overlooked. Luke (xxiv. 39, 40) has it that Jesus,
after his resurrection, pointed to the wounds on his
hands and feet, not indicating any on his side.
Mark (xv. 42-45) observes that when permission was
asked of Pilate, in the evening, to bury Jesus, he
was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
Pilate, consequently, could not have issued the order to
put the criminals to death by the violent means at
tributed to him by John, and on which he builds
his statement as to the wound on the side.
C. —Was it the case that three females visited the
tomb of Jesus, as stated by Mark (xvi. 1,2)*?
D. —No. Matthew (xxviii. 1) says there were but
two.
G.-—Can two then have been the number ?
D.—No. John (xx. 1) says there was but one.
C. —May we hold to this, that there was but one ?
D. —No; for Luke (xxiii. 55 ; xxiv. 10) declares
there were a considerable number.
C. —May it be believed that Jesus first showed him
self in resurrection life to two females, as represented
by Matthew (xxviii. 1,9)?
D. —No. Mark (xvi. 9) says that he showed him
self but to one.
C. —Is that believable ?
D. —No. Luke (xxiv. 23, 24) shows that the wo
men had merely had “ a vision of angels,” from whom
they heard that Jesus “ was alive.” On this some
men went to the tomb, “ but him they saw not.”
Up to this time, therefore, which was late in the day
(ver. 29), Jesus had been seen by no one.
�A Critical Catechism.
11
C. —If Jesus was not first seen by women, one or
more, to whom did he first reveal himself?
D. —Luke (xxiv. 13-15, 31) has it that his first ap
pearance was to two disciples at Emmaus.
C.—Is that clear ?
£).—-No. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5) says he was first seen
by Cephas (Peter).
C. —Where is the account of that apparition ?
D. —Nowhere.
C. —-Is the apparition to the disciples at Emmaus,
described by Luke, supported by the other evange
lists 1
D. —It is not. Matthew (xxviii. 7, 10, 16, 17)
says that after the alleged apparition to the females,
the next manifestation was to be in Galilee, and there
took place. He says nothing of the occurrence at
Emmaus, for which, in fact, he gives no room.
Neither does Mark say anything of it. John speaks
of an apparition in Galilee, of which he says, “ this
is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to
his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead ”
(xxi. 14), the first to ten persons, and the second to
eleven, having occurred in Jerusalem (xx. 19, 24, 26).
This, therefore, excludes the alleged apparition to the
two at Emmaus.
C. —Is Matthew supported in his statement (xxviii.
7, 10) that the manifestation of Jesus to his disciples
was appointed to be in Galilee ?
D. Luke declares otherwise, saying that Jesus en
joined it on them to “ tarry in the city of Jerusalem,
until endued with power from on high ” (xxiv. 49).
The Acts supports this, saying that he “ com
manded them that they should not depart from Jeru
salem, but wait for the promise of the Father,” which
promise was fulfilled fifty days afterwards at Pente
cost (i. 4 ; ii. 1-4).
C.—Is it clear that the apostles were kept thus,
for such a period, without the gift of the Holy Ghost ?
�12
A Critical Catechism.
D.-—No. John assures us that it was imparted to
them on the evening of the day of the resurrection
(xx. 22).
C. —Allowing that it is uncertain which was the
first manifestation that Jesus made of himself after
death, is it apparent which was the last occasion on
which he so showed himself ?
D. —According to the Acts (i. 3) “ he showed him
self alive after his passion by many infallible proofs,
being seen of them (the apostles) forty days.”
C. —Is that supported elsewhere ?
D. —It is not. John implies that Jesus exhibited
himself to the apostles but three times, namely, on
the day of his resurrection, eight days later, and then
at some subsequent time in Galilee (xx. 19, 26;
xxi. 14).
C. —Is that representation corroborated 1
D. —It is not. Matthew declares that Jesus ap
peared to the apostles but once in Galilee, at a
spot “ where he had appointed them,” and there
parted with them after giving them his final instruc
tions (xxviii. 16-20). Matthew thus negatives the
appearances described in Mark, Luke, and John to
have taken place in Jerusalem, and where he speaks
of one in Galilee it is in a different locality to that
described by John. John says the occurrence was
“ at the sea of Tiberias,” and Matthew on a certain
“ mountain.”
C. —How does Matthew’s statement stand the test
of examination by those of Mark and Luke.
D. —Not at all. If Jesus enjoined it on the
apostles to remain in Jerusalem for a particular pur
pose, which was fulfilled only fifty days afterwards
at Pentecost, as stated by Luke and in the Acts,
then there could have been no such appointment to
meet in Galilee as Matthew describes. Moreover,
Mark and Luke declare that on the evening of the
day of his resurrection Jesus was “received up into
�A Critical Catechism.
13
heaven,” and there assumed his appointed seat “ on
the right hand of God” (Mark xvi. 19 ; Luke xxiv.
51); so that as Galilee is at least fifty miles from
Jerusalem, or at a distance of two or three day s
journey, there was no time for the apostles to have
gone there to meet with Jesus. This statement of
the ascension by Mark and Luke also negatives
John’s accounts of a second and third manifestation,
as also all those, enduring for forty days, spoken
of in the Acts.
C. —So that Matthew disallows the apparition at
Emmaus, described by Luke, the several appearances
in Jerusalem recounted by Mark, Luke, and John,
and the meeting in Galilee declared by John; while
Mark and Luke disallow the appearance in Galilee of
which Matthew speaks, and the second and third
appearances in Jerusalem and in Galilee which we
hear of from John !
D. —It is so. Each several representation is dis
tinctly negatived by some other representation.
C. —Is Paul’s statement that Jesus “was seen of
above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Cor. xv. 6)
in any way corroborated elsewhere 1
D. —On the contrary, it is shown that no such
manifestation occurred. Peter declares that Jesus
showed himself, “ not to all the people, but unto wit
nesses chosen before of God” (Acts x. 41); that is,
not to a large promiscuous multitude, but to a select
few, namely, the apostles. Nor were there so many
as five hundred brethren to whom he could have
shown himself, for when all were gathered together
in these early days, their number was but “ about an
hundred and twenty” (Acts i. 15).
C. —According to Mark and Luke the ascension
occurred at the close of the day of the resurrection.
How does the matter appear by the accounts else
where 1
D. —According to Matthew it could not have taken
�J4
A Critical Catechism.
place until several days later, so as to give time for
the appearance in Galilee he describes. According
to John it could not have happened until ten or
twelve days later, as he mentions a second appear
ance in Jerusalem eight days after the first, and then
one in Galilee. And according to the Acts it did not
occur for forty days.
C. —Where did this great event take place ?
D. —Pursuant to Matthew from a mountain in
Galilee (xxviii. 16-20); to Mark from a house in
Jerusalem, where Jesus met with the apostles at
meat (xvi. 14-19); to Luke at Bethany (xxiv. 50);
and to the Acts from the mount of Olives (i. 9-12).
John says nothing on the subject.
C. —And yet the fact of the resurrection is an
essential point of doctrine, is it not ?
D. —So essential, that it is absolutely fatal to ques
tion it. “ He that believeth not,” said Jesus at one
of these apparitions, “ shall be damned” (Mark xvi.
16). “ If Christ be not risen,” declares Paul, “ then
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; be
cause we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which
are fallen asleep in Christ are perished” (1 Cor.
xv. 14-18).
C. —What an advantage, is it not, that these histories
have been transmitted through inspired channels, and
may therefore be accepted, without hesitation, as re
liable, notwithstanding all these irreconcileable con
tradictions 1
D. —It is so. In that faith all Christendom have
stood for now above eighteen hundred years.
Any one is at liberty to reprint or translate this Catechism.
TUKNBULL AND SPEAKS, PKINTEKS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A critical catechism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Strange, Thomas Lumisden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. "The materials used in the following pages have been taken from 'The Bible; is it the Word of God?' (N. Trubner & Co.)" [Title page verso].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5540
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A critical catechism), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Catechisms
Conway Tracts
Doctrinal
Theology
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ae7e522409f4cdce3048660eeeae7fa4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=t1MFW5ACUINeq3GVkbRqL%7EvsW6alYFduyhNKFjjP0N8WQRAf4--IjL9d7UOJoeQEELup8XDUxtkQWvEvHUtgalDMrmRnkpy7XtBVZjAVGrCz-R9qSYFRSgwBTd69jg03Nwt5YKw4zAMJpF1%7EkE3uAXj%7EBx7hwPkKbWiuYRKG2bzC2DnjE9kjVs25LwSXakVFXwDsbqH4vNG8DR1ueNANm7WFg1YCa-FDS64VfIcues8Ul3L705SAP2051WDojqiJ%7EcmXX0OUaL48pmTBfaTClYPUw1s1GSSH5%7E51DT1GXwSGdsgvOSRfu4phn8OCyr-3jNue%7EbODHQ7ug9uZSYhX6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5bd9e03a55f1c808a4f0139339787c5b
PDF Text
Text
EFFICACY OF OPINION
IN
MATTERS OF RELIGION
BY THE
REV. W. R. WORTHINGTON, M.A.
,
“ Est genus hominum, qui esse primos se omnium rerum volunt
Nee sunt.”
Terence.
---------
•
r
•>_
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS. SCOT£,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1870.
Price Sixpence.
«'
a
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W, REYN ELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�ON
THE EFFICACY OF OPINION
IN
MATTERS OF RELIGION.
NCE upon a time there was a great controversy
as to the comparative merits of knowledge and
opinion. That controversy has been stirred again in
onr own day ; or rather it has not been stirred at all,
but judgment has been given upon it with but scanty
regard to the arguments. The “ religious world ”
has declared in favour of opinion. Theory rides in
its coach, and Fact trudges on foot. This venerable
error which so long discredited philosophy, and which
it is the crowning glory of philosophy to have got rid
of, is the besetting sin of the science (falsely so called)
of theology, and is doubtless the chief reason why,
with modern thinkers, the profession of theology has
fallen somewhat into disrepute.
Generally speaking, we profess to esteem truth above
everything. If a man is on his trial for murder, the
witnesses are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, to the best of their know
ledge. But if the question is as to the sanity of the
murderer, skilled witnesses are summoned to give
their opinions upon the state of his mind. The value
of their opinions is measured by their capacity to. form
O
�4
On the Efficacy of Opinion
an. opinion, and their capacity is measured by their
knowledge of cases in point. But often their opinions
are opinions only ; they cannot be implicitly relied on;
they are mere makeshifts which the court is compelled
to put up with, so long as perfect knowledge is not to
be had. This is an unsatisfactory state of things • and
in this and similar instances (which are plentiful),
opinion, compared with knowledge, appears to disad
vantage.
Its inferiority may be inferred in other ways. In
some things, e.g., political questions, truth is evolved
from the conflict of opinions ; and, beyond all contra
diction, the end is more precious than the means.
Further, when truth is known and established, all
controversy upon it is at an end; there is no room for
disputing ; men are of one mind about it who were at
odds so long as it was a matter of opinion. The har
monising power of knowledge is a circumstance
greatly in its favour.
Passing into the region of theology, we are sur
prised to find a totally different set of principles at
work. We find opinion to be the ‘ be-all and the end‘ all ’ there,—dissent from the reigning opinion counted
for a crime—knowledge studiedly depreciated or valued
only as it is subservient to opinion—reason, as it is
absurdly cried down on the side where it is strongest,
as absurdly cried up on the side where it is weakest—
the oracle of society not the well-informed scholar,
the shrewd observer, the original thinker, the candid
reasoner (a kind of men who have a strong aversion
to hazarding opinions), but the voluble man of ortho
doxy, who for anything anybody knows belongs to no
school,
But that where blind and naked Ignorance
Delivers brawling judgments, unashamed,
On all things all day long :
and we naturally ask, “ How can such things be, and
�in Matters of Religion.
$
« what can orthodoxy have to say for itself? ” Its de
fence will take some such line as this : That Revela
tion is not like other things, and not to be judged ot
by ordinary rules. That religious opinions, not being
capable of demonstration, belong to the province not
of knowledge, but of faith. That right faith and con
sequently right opinions, are essential to holiness ot
living. We will take these propositions in order.
I From the position that Revelation, being a thing
sui generis, is not subject to ordinary laws to the posi
tion that it is subject towhatever laws orthodoxy may
please to impose upon it, is but a step. Fruits of this
doctrine we see every day. Who has ever attended to
a controversial sermon or perused a controversial trea
tise, and not been completely bewildered with the
amazing arbitrariness that characterises them. t e
violent associations of ideas, the axioms that are axio
matic in nothing but their insusceptibility of proof,
the foregone conclusions wrung from worse than
doubtful premisses, the fallacious demonstrations of
the truth of “the Gospel,” the imaginary exposures
of the folly or the knavery of the captious objector r'
Leaving such absurdities, let us ask these questions :
Given that Revelation is a thing sui generisin what
does its distinctive character consist, and how does
that distinctive character affect the value of opinion
as such ?
.
T
The knowledge of divine things differs, I presume,
from the knowledge of all other things either (a) in
the method of acquiring it, or (/3) in the nature of the
knowledge acquired—or both.
.
.
(a). The way in which a thing is communicated to
our knowledge has nothing whatever to do with the
character, utility or importance of the thing itself.
Knowledge is knowledge, however we come by it.
Had the law of gravitation been revealed to Moses
�6
On the Efficacy of Opinion
instead of being reserved for the observation of
Newton, it would have played the same part in the
universe, and have afforded the same exercise for men’s
faculties that it does now. Had gunpowder been a
supernatural and not a natural invention, it would
still have been subject to the same conditions, and
have answered the same purposes for good and evil
as^ at this very moment. Opinion gains nothing on
this ground.
.
(/3). What is really distinctive in the knowledge of
divine things is the transcendent importance of divine
t mgs. Their interest is universal and everlasting.
Moses was inspired and Newton was inspired; but
whereas Newton was inspired to teach science, Moses
was inspired to teach religion. The source of their
teaching* was the same ; the channel by which it came
to them may or may not have been the same too ; it is
in the subject-matter of their teaching that we are
conscious of so momentous a difference. Now, in
every concern of life we observe that the value’ of
knowledge rises, the value of opinion sinks, in direct
proportion to the importance of the subject-matter.
In proportion, therefore, as God is supremely great, so
the knowledge of God, which in the intellectual signi
fication of the words is theology, in their moral signi
fication, religion, is not only of infinitely more impor
tance than knowledge of any other subject, but of
infinitely more importance than any opinion on the
same subject. We find then, that, far from annihi
lating the rule I contend for, the peculiar character of
Revelation only intensifies its force. The New Testa
ment speaks clearly enough to the same effect. As re
gards opinion : “ Whosoever killeth you will 77m7>; he
“ doeth God service.” “ I verily thought with myself
that I ought to do many things contrary to the name
of Jesus of Nazareth ”—things for which we read
that the Apostle obtained mercy only because they
�in Matters of Religion.
7
were done “ ignorantly in unbelief.” As regards
knowledge : “ This is life eternal, that they know (1)
“ thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent.” 44 Grod will have all men to be saved, and.
“ come to the knowledge of the truth.” The reason why
the unlearned and ignorant men who had been with
Jesus were enabled to smite so effectively the philoso
phies of heathendom was that their conflict was not
between so many sets of opinions, in which they
would possibly have been worsted, but between sets
of opinions on the one hand and a set of facts on the
other. The superior weapon won.
II. The incurable uncertainty of so many religious
opinions, which in the eyes of the philosopher is their
weak point, constitutes, in the eyes of those who are
not philosophers, their principal attraction. . The phi
losopher would argue that an opinion being, as it
were, a temporary implement, an endeavouring after
truth, is good for nothing when it ends in itself, serves
no ulterior purpose, does not further the discovery of
the truth which it relates to, inasmuch as that truth
is beyond the grasp of the human intellect. To the
authority of the Church, in such a case, he would pay
little regard, knowing that all the heads in the
world put together are as incapable as one head of
solving a problem which has been proved to be inso
luble. No amount of gazing will avail to bring the
invisible into sight, and why strain our eyes in vain,
or, what were worse, shut them and pretend to see ?
The religious world will reply, as one man, that these
uncertainties and difficulties and impossibilities were
intended to try our faith; that there is no room for
faith where there is no room for doubt. Which, in the
first place, is a begging of the question; for while
(1) ^lyvdxTKovfft is the preferable reading in John xvii. 3.
�8
On the Efficacy of Opinion
allowing that there is something to be said in my
favour, it supposes the question already decided in
yours: in the second place, the founder of a religion
who designedly leaves difficulties in the way of its
being received must in all reason share the blame of
its being rejected; as the master who leaves money
about to try his servants’ honesty may thank himself
to . some extent if they steal it: and, lastly, about the
things which are really necessary to salvation, there is
no doubt whatever. For religion in general is based
upon certain fundamental principles which are beyond
the reach of dispute; to which the Christian religion
in particular adds certain historical events, the proof
of which is to be looked for not in faith, but in
history.
HI. It will be alleged that much of what we have
called the knowledge of God really is resolvable into
opinion; and that so far we must admit opinion to be
conducive to righteousness of life.
Thus we have
said that religion is based upon certain indisputable
principles; e.g., that God is true. Supposing, then,
a man to be of opinion that God is not true, he will,
in all probability, either be a liar or be in a fairway of
becoming one. But that God is true, I contend, is no
more a matter of opinion than that things which are
equal to the same thing are equal to one another is a
matter of opinion. Truth is an attribute of God, which
may have been for any number of ages unknown, butwhich being declared is instantly accepted ; it is seen
at once to be an essential part of his being, an insepa
rable concomitant of his name. To deny it, as to
deny the axiom about equal things above mentioned,
is not heresy but insanity, not to be argued either with
or about. The same may be said in regard of any
other of the divine attributes, justice, mercy, omnipo
tence, omniscience.
The same cannot be said in
�in Matters of Religion.
9
regard of speculative opinions, Arian, Afhanasian,
Sabellian, or what not, about the composition of the
godhead. That which commends itself to the con
science of mankind stands on a distinctly higher level
than that which commends itself only to the intellects
of particular men. In the first chapter of the epistle
to the Romans the apostle denounces those heathen
whose immoral practices had so blunted their moral
sense as to render them indifferent to what by nature
they knew of God. But of their theological opinions,
if any they had, he takes no notice whatever. For
opinions are not faith; “ Believe on the Lord Jesus
“ Christ and thou shalt be saved,” does not and cannot
mean, “ Hold my doctrine of the atonement, or you shall
“ not be saved.” Not in this sense is practice founded
upon doctrine: is it not nearer the truth to say that all
human righteousness is founded upon, in other words,
is a following of, the divine righteousness, by his con
formity or non-conformity to which every child of
man shall be judged ?
Hitherto we have considered what may be called
respectable arguments in favour of opinion. There
are one or two more of a different character behind,
unavowed indeed, but which, in practice, I believe
carry considerable weight.
It is curious to observe how the man who has made
up his mind on a point invariably deems himself
entitled to set at naught the man who keeps his judg
ment in suspense. It is true the hesitation of the
latter may be due to his knowing both sides of the
question, the positiveness of the former to his knowing
only one; but your thorough-going dogmatist does
not care for that. He has his opinion, and with him
opinion is a royal road to moral and intellectual
superiority. All he wants to make him perfectly
happy is to get a number of people about him to
share his ideas, confirm one another’s convictions,
�io
On the Efficacy of Opinion
and enhance one another’s conceit. The conceit of
such cliques—the portrait of them in 1 Corinthians
iv. 6-10 is unmistakable—is as unlimited as it is
ridiculous. Now, the “ religious world ” is simply a
big clique. How it hugs itself in its self-complacency !
how coolly, almost innocently, it passes its censures
on those who are not of it I with what a thrill of
pleasure it welcomes a stranger who unexpectedly
speaks its language ! with what terror and disgust it
listens to arguments tending to a conclusion it has
rejected ! All the while “ understanding what it says
“ and whereof it affirms ” as much as animalcules in a
drop of water understand about the gulf-stream. A'
little sound knowledge would abate its infatuation;
what reason, then, it has to be in love with opinion,
when opinion responds so heartily to its self-love !
There is yet another reason. Dethrone opinion, and
what becomes of the privilege of persecuting ? The
exercise of this blessed privilege is two-fold : as it
pertains to persons in authority and to persons not in
authority. Whenever the State has persecuted, it has
done so for reasons of State. It is an error to suppose
that in the good old times the State kept a conscience,
and in that conscience believed it to be its duty to
punish all who dissented from its religion. Thus in
England, Romanists and Dissenters were persecuted
simply because the State thought it impossible for
Romanists and Dissenters to be loyal and peaceable
citizens. As soon as it began to perceive that they
both might be and were as good citizens as any
English churchmen the persecuting laws were doomed,
notwithstanding the efforts, the too-successful efforts,
of ignorance and bigotry to prolong their sinful and
despicable existence. Now in mental as in bodily
concerns, individuals, like States, obey the same in
stinct of self-preservation. Opinions, existing upon
sufferance, are endangered by the presence of opposite
�in Matters of Religion.
11
opinions. Hence the impulse to persecute opposite
opinions.
Persecution and dogma have ever been
brethren in arms. For three centuries, during which
the Church itself was the victim of persecution, the
Christian conscience was satisfied with the apostolic
regvda fidei, which, avoiding abstract dogmas, recited
just such facts connected with the past, and such con
victions respecting the present and the future, as
were profitable for personal holiness. Heretics con
travening the rule were fought with their own
weapons. But in after-days, when the Church had
won its way to empire, and was in a position not
only to teach, but to enforce its teaching by the arm
of the law, then heterodoxy was dealt with in another
spirit, and orthodoxy regulated by other standards.
Inevitable controversy conceived and brought forth
councils, and councils being finished brought forth
definitions of doctrine.
These definitions were
nothing else than encroachments upon common land,
which, once enclosed, could never again be thrown
open. And so, by degrees, the vast system of dog
matic theology grew up, not so much by develop
ment as by accretion, out of which it was as hard for
the inquirer to disentangle the simple truths of the
Gospel of Jesus, as it would be for a Yorkshire
villager of the last century, if suddenly resuscitated in
this, to identify the site of his cottage home in the
stupendous manufacturing borough that has swallowed
up the neighbourhood.
Failing to find what he
wanted, he must go where the authorities sent him.
Failing to obey his orders he was speedily taught what
prayers for magistrates, that they might have “ grace
“ to execute justice and maintain truth,” meant. The
Reformation, while it purged our Church of much
that was Popish in detail, did not purge away what
was worst in Popery, viz., that Popish spirit which
speaks thus: “ Believe as I do, or take the conse-
�12
On the Efficacy of Opinion
“ queuecs.” In the place of one Pope it only set up a
multitude. The result is, that while the State has
abandoned the practice of persecuting, individuals,
with rare exceptions, have not. True they have not
such scope for their energies as they could wish, but
they go manfully to work, considering “ the diversity
“ of times and men’s manners.” If they cannot kill
their brethren by way of doing God service, they can
pick their pockets for the same pious object. If they
cannot hang, they can give bad names. If they can
not visit you with a sentence of the “ greater excom“ munication,” they can send you to Coventry, which
does nearly as well. Now, that a clique, which would
be nothing if not numerous and noisy, should have the
power of subjecting its victims to so much unmerited
annoyance, sometimes to the extent of ruining them
in purse and prospects, is intolerable enough; but
infinitely more intolerable, because so deadly in its
effects, is the tyranny thus exercised over men’s minds.
Right dear in the sight of the clique is the stifling of
inquiry. The intellectual light of the world is put
out in the blaze of its brightness. The intellectual
salt of the earth, in all the freshness of its savour, is
trodden under foot of the vulgar. The branch of
original and independent and healthy and vigorous
thought is by rude hands cut down and cast into the
fire. Everywhere we are confronted with the miser
able spectable of—
art made tongue-tied by authority,
And folly, doctor-like, controlling skill,
which made the soul of Shakespeare weary of his life.
Why ? as Caesar says of the “ great observer ” who
“ thinks too much,”
such men are dangerous.
Danger I danger I is the monotonous cry of the
bigot who, in the same breath in which he professes
�in Matters of Religion.
13
an unbounded confidence in his convictions, unwit
tingly gives his profession the lie.
To conclude. The pre-eminence popularly assigned
to opinion, as it is false in principle, is detrimental in
practice : detrimental to knowledge—for, to take but
one instance, there is no more stubborn impediment
to a right understanding of the Scriptures than a
pre-conceived theory of inspiration; detrimental to
charity—for while opinions are cherished for their
own sake, opinions destined never to become certain
ties, so long on their account will people bite and
devour one another, until they are at length con
sumed one of another. Thus do religious opinions
defeat the purpose of religion 5 which is to lead us to
the “ knowledge of the truth,” and to promote “peace
“ on earth, good-will towards men.”
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on ad*
dressing a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps
to Mr Thomas Scott, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
A Lay Sermon, for the Benefit of Clergy. Price 6d.
Eternal Punishment.' An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy
of the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price fid.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price fid.
Science and Theology'. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of
South Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and
Incarnation of Jesus. Price Cd.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin.
Coll., Dublin. Price 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jf.sus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels;
complete in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Professor Francis W. Newman.
Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Professor Francis W.
Newman. Price 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the
Scriptures. By the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop
of Chichester. Price fid.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation.
By a
Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. Id.,
post free.
On the Defective Morality of the Neyv Testament. By Professor
Francis W. Newman. Price 6d.
The “Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is.
“The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham,
Esq. A Reprint. Price Is.
Original Sin. Price fid.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and
Grace. Price fid.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price fid.
Babylon. By the Rev. P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price fid.
The “Sling and the Stone.” Four Series of Sermons preached by the Rev.
Charles Voysey, Incumbent of Healaugh, Tadcaster. Price 6s. each
Series of Twenty-four Sermons.
The Nicbne and Athanasian Creeds: a Portion of a Speech by Bishop
Clayton. Price fid.
Thoughts on a Free and Comprehensive Christianity. By Professor I. VV.
Newman. Price fid.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price fid.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records;
with special reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the
Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Price Is.
• TnE Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price fid.
.
“The Meaning of the Age.” By the Author of “The Pilgrim and the
Shrine.” Price 6d.
.
“ James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price fid.
Layv and the Creeds. Price fid.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; ivith Introduc
tory Remarks. By Edward Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman M.A.,
F.R.S., &c., Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price ?s.
�
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
On the efficacy of opinion in matters of religion
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Worthington, William Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 13, [1] p. 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5496
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
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 (On the efficacy of opinion in matters of religion), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Doctrinal
Theology