1
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/94ab6b5eac86d089d398cd60122b0628.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BCgKw%7EOLl8%7EZrexg3o5-vWYVGdzYKGLOk8senPz3wXm41E%7Exu-XIoXkCuHmX%7EPbdpwSEryPthc7GtjsdyLZZdg3vl-orBFOBqxxKwxkOWQCHOfaMQ%7EVnwb67nAom9i18oFyh6%7ElMc0FxQ%7E%7EnW3Nt5z-QlVfvwn2Wt0YDBeAQW9QQHpg5zJDjjj5AzEuC2Ls0izibZJioL0Mg1jGlbbROyA%7E-7oErRsyLXXIl7VzMSjFrPcXVZWkj1DI7LxW5wx0kKZSDD-N4EfgtTTzXCEV9%7EZ8XAnUq9fO3YmnsONYmJWDzuml306-%7EgjO1nv4%7E8fZ%7ErrkE8J-cQnfL3L-SMSCNzw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d7e23cac0ca3418dc20f7f497a24a531
PDF Text
Text
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”*
BY REV. E. S. ATWOOD, SALEM, MASS.
A leaf is one of tlie most beautiful and
wonderful objects in nature. It fulfils the
double mission of grace and use. Just what
the lungs are to man and animals, that the
leaves are to the trees and shrubs. Vegeta
ble equally with animal life depends upon and
progresses by processes of respiration. We
loosen and fertilize the soil about the roots of
the tree, in order to push on its growth; yet,
with all our pains, we do but a small part of
the work. The silent leaves above us, open
ing a thousand mouths on every branch, are
the great feeders of fertility. All the day
long, under the quickening chemistry of light
and heat, they eliminate and breathe in the
e Preached on board the steamship “William Penn;”
copied by Stephen Massett; publicly read by him on
board the steamship “ China ” on her first voyage from
San Francisco to Yokohama, Japan ; and then printed at
the office of the “China Mail,” Hong-Kong
�2
“NOTHING BUT ’LEAVES.”
healthy oxygen from the air, that vitalizes
the sap, and spreads beauty and strength to
every fibre and cell—and all the night they
breathe out the waste and refuse carbon.
Tender and fragile as they are, veined more
delicately than an infant’s hand, seeming to
cling so timidly to bough and twig; yet with
out them trunk and branch would wither and
stand the dreary skeletons of the life that
had perished. But over and above their pur
poses of use, what grace and goodliness they
give to nature, what marvellous varieties of
form and size and shade they exliibit! Look
at them in spring time, when they are coming
out timidly one by one; in that fresh exquis
ite green attire, quickening the throbbings
of every heart with their hints of life. Look
at them in the thick-leaved splendor of June,
when, massed and matted, they darken the
ground with their cool and grateful shadow;
or watch them hi autumn, when frost and
ripeness fire the trees, and they flame gor/ geous illuminations to swell the splendor of
/ the triumphant march of harvest; and in all
/
their shifting phases alike they rejoice the
/
eyes, and give warmth and color to the most
!
■ unimpressive nature.
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
3
Yet the leaves of a tree once called forth
the condemnation and the. curse of Christ.
Matt. 21:19. Walking with his disciples, he
saw at a distance a fig-tree. In tropical
countries, the broad and luxuriant foliage of
this tree makes it a notable object in the
landscape. Weary and faint, they hastened
towards it, and stood under its shade; be
neath its spreading branches they found shel
ter from the burning heat. Had it been dry
and leafless, he would have passed it by; but
standing there full clothed in the splendor of
Syrian summer, every bough quick with life,
the processes of growth pushing on—because
of its very appearance and seeming perfect
ness he cursed it, so that presently it withered
away.
Because he found thereonnothing but
leaves!” Men plant fr.uit trees, not for /bh'age, but for fruit. A leaf is not the last and
highest result of growth, but only an interme
diate product of the process, meant to be a
help to the perfect consummation. It was
food that Christ was seeking, and not shade.
It was high time that it should be found. The
fig appears before the leaf. That such a tree
should be barren at such a season was sure
�4
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
proof that it was a failure, so far as the high
est end of its existence was concerned; and
so, though it stood out & thing of beauty,
broad branched, thick leaved, still because it
bore “nothing but leaves,” Christ condemned
it, that it might be a type and warning to
generations to come, that lack of fruit-bear
ing is a sin against God, however attractive
or promising a profession and life may be.
And yet how many systems of faith and
practice, accepted by multitudes and com
mended with unmeasured praise, after all
bear “nothing but leaves.” Every thought
ful man admits the legitimacy of this test of
fruitfulness. He has no hope that a barren
theory will win its way in the world. He
hastens to show, when he urges liis scheme
upon you, wliat it has done and what it can
do. We judge of systems as we do of seeds,
which will give us the fullest ears and the
most abundant harvests. But men often fail
to discriminate clearly between leaf and fruit.
It is contended sometimes by the advocates
of an amended gospel and a liberal creed,
that the forth-puttings of that system are its
all-sufficient verification. We are pointed to
the eloquent orators, the elegant scholars, the
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.’
5
graceful poets it produces. But. eloquence
and scholarship and poetry are “nothing but
leaves.” Holiness of heart is the true fruit
of a real gospel; the clusters ripened by the
grace of God hang higher than the growths
of intellect.
We are pointed to the earnest sympathy
with man fostered by this genial faith, to its
varied philanthropic schemes for the better
ment of the laboring classes, for the reclama
tion of the vicious, for the rescue of the down
trodden and oppressed; but all these things,
worthy as they are, are in comparison “noth
ing but leaves.” The ripe fruit of genuine
spiritual faith is salvation—a power that not
merely ministers to bodily necessities or con
strains to outw ard proprieties of conduct, but
a power that goes deeper and does more
thorough work—that purifies and renovates
and sanctifies the soul. All else but this is
as nothing. To mature this royal harvest the
councils of eternity were set. For this, proph
et and apostle were anointed with Chrism di
vine. For this, Jesus wept and suffered and
died. For this, the Holy Ghost, the Com
forter, came, and conies and strives. For this,
all powers of holy growth for ever struggle;
�G
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
and any system, however great its triumphs
in other directions, that cannot show regen
erate souls as its fruits, let it boast as it may,
its best results are “nothing but leaves.”
It is with the single soul, however, that this
truth has the most to do; it has an eminently
practical bearing on the individual well-being.
Let every man take such care of himself that
he shall be genuinely fruitful, and it matters
little about systems. And this is the great
end of our creation. God has put you and me
into this world, not to amass fortunes, not to
win great names, not to live easily and pleas
antly, with as little trouble as possible, but
to glorify him; and “herein is my Father
glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” And yet
most men drive on, as if the great object in
life was to bear “nothing but leaves”—to en
large one’s social influence, to reach a higher
social position, to multiply possessions. For
things like these nine-tenths of human energy
is expended. We are more anxious about the
quantity than the quality of our growth; we
forget the one set purpose of our life. There
are but few v*ho so seclude themselves from
the thrill and stir of the great multitude, that
they hear with distinctness God’s message to
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
7
their souls. We live in a thronged and
busy world. We breathe its feverish air;
we catch the contagion of its enthusiasms
and hopes. We look at its prizes through
the bewildering glare of sense. We wish not
strangely, to be and do as other men, and so
we forget that, in spite of the clamor and roar
that fill the spiritual ear, a voice is sounding
all the day, “ Son—daughter, go work in my
vineyard.” The great end of life is mistaken,
the povrers and possibilities given for holy and
lasting use are employed in unworthy ways
and for inferior ends, and we come to the end
of our years, be they many or few, to find
at the last, and too late, that all our toilsome
probation has borne for us “nothing but
leaves.”
It is of the first importance, therefore, for
the wise conduct of life, that a man should
recognize his true mission as a fruit-bearer.
It is essential to economical and successful
labor that the task should be accurately de
fined. Half the -work in the world is wasted,
because men strike at hap-hazard. They
have no specific aim, only a vague and gen
eral desire to “get on.” The great apostle
gave the rule of success in any direction when
�8
NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
lie said, “I so ran, not as uncertainly; so figlit
I, not as one who beateth the air.” Thrust a
magnet into a heap of metallic particles, and
at once they assume set and crystalline forms.
And distinctness of purpose has a magnetic
power. It brings into proper position and
play every force that can bear upon the end.
to be obtained. It utilizes latent energies,
and originates combinations of powers, and
works every thing at full pressure, and with
all the might of an unconquerable will presses
on to triumph.
Witness in proof of this the methods in
which men of the world win their victories.
Let a man make up his mind, like Girard, to
be rich, and see how that determination works
for him. Every thing else is held subordinate
to that end. Body and soul become mere
slaves to that over-mastering purpose. Hun
ger presses him, but he will not yield to appe
tite any further than is needful to get strength
to make money. Pleasure woos him, but he
turns away from all its enchantments; there
is no “money” to be made by self-gratifica
tion. Taste urges its claim, but it cannot be
heeded, for it takes instead of makes money
to satisfy it. He walks abroad, but it is not
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.
9
to breathe the sweet air, nor gladden the eyes
with the wonders of a world of beauty, but
only to see where some new “dollar” may be
found. Every thing he is, or has, or does
strains towards the same end; and that pas
sionate enthusiasm, laughing at obstacles,
presses on till it grasps the prize for which it
has dared and done all. There is no power
like the might of a great determination.
Nothing less than Divine can match it. When
a thousand wires are welded into one, they
forge The Damascus steel, that can divide the
gossamer or cut the iron bar asunder; and
when all the energies of a man are molten
into one force by the potent heat of purpose,
they shape a blade invincible by aught but
the flashing sword of Almightiness.
Let a man then live, first and most of all,
from the thought that his work in the world
is to bring forth fruit to the honor and glory
of God: that whatever else is left undone,
Z/u's must l)c done; that however promising a
project, it is to be rejected if it interferes with
the sovereign purpose. Let a man live so,
and spiritual success is sure. For whatever
power determination has in other departments,
it is intensified in this. By special aids God
�10
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
speeds tlie purpose of righteousness to fulfil
ment. The best laid human schemes some
times miscarry by reason of perils and hinderances that no man could foresee. But along
the track we travel to do thy will, O God, there
are no hidden reefs to wreck our ships, no bil
lows to engulf them, no tempests to beat them
back. The earnest soul journeys along a safe
and sure highway, over which “ the ransomed
of the Lord come to Mount Zion with songs,
and everlasting joy upon their heads.”
If you and I, then, are so conscious of our
high vocation, and so faithful, that we make
this determination the supreme law of life,
we may reasonably expect that our labor will
ripen abundant fruit. Not necessarily marvels
of growth. It is a vice of human nature that
it cannot be satisfied unless it can do some
tconderftil thing. Every man sets out to be a
great man, but very few get much farther
than the start.
This spirit besets us from the earliest years.
The child poring over the wonderful romances
that form the mental food of his first days,
longs for the time when he shall go out to
slay giants and capture castles. The youth
looks contemptuously upon the routine of
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.
11
daily life as too commonplace for his abilities;
and as men get on to maturer years, do they
quite forget to build castles in the clouds,
whose splendor puts to shame the common
walls in which they live and work ? The de
sire is all well in its way, but the trouble is,
it keeps us dreaming when wTe should be
working, and too often makes us discontented
and disheartened, forgetting that God gives
to the seeds of faithful endeavor we sow such
a body as pleases him, and to every seed his
own body. So long as a man is tnie to the
task which God sets him, let him learn, in
whatsoever state he is, therewith to be con
tent. I cannot be the apostle Paul, but I
will not worry about that; my sole concern is
to ripen the best fruit I may where I am
planted. And, moreover, marvels do not
make up the bulk of life. The few prodigies
of growth which the farmer brings to the
agricultural fair, are exceptions not specimens
of his harvest. His bams and cellars are
filled with something quite different from
what is contained in the single basket. The
most of both nature and life is made up of
what we call commonalties. God never meant
that men should be all the time doing wonder
�12
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
ful tilings; if they did, they would cease to Ire
wonderful. We esteem them marvellous sim
ply because they are infrequent; and if you
come to the real truth of the matter, those
relative epithets, great and small, as we use
them, amount to almost nothing. If an apple
grows till it measures a foot, we call it a prod
igy ; but it is not near so much of a prodigy
as that the smallest apple should grow at all.
The process itself, and not its extent, is the
real wonder. The evening prayer lisped by
the child is just as really, just as worthily,
just as acceptably praise as the triumphant
strain from the harp-strings of the seraphim.
Your victory over some common temptation
is just as wonderful as the rout of the rebel
lious hosts of heaven. The Christian graces
that ripen in your humble life are as great a
marvel, and glow as brightly in the sight of
God, as the twelve manner of fruits that lian"
on the tree planted by the crystal river of
Paradise. And just this kind of fruit men in
every station may bring forth every day.
But my lot in life, you say, is so humble
and my experience has so little that is note
worthy, what can I do ? Whether ye eat or
drink, says the apostle, or whatsoever ye do,
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.
13
do all to the glory of God. Let a man thank
God that he can glorify him in common things.
Nor let him forget that, in modest walks and
unobtrusive ways, he may chance to make
the most acceptable offering. When God
paints a flaunting lily, he dashes on the raw
est of colors; but the little violet is tinted
with heaven’s own hue. The Alpine straw
berry, no larger than a pea, is sweetest of all
thq fruits of the field. Nature compacts her
choicest flavors and colors, and seals them up
in the smallest of flasks, and the man who
pierces down to the lowest stratum of life, and
sanctifies the common word and act, evidences
thereby a richer and fuller grace than he who
stands up in the pulpit to preach, or sets him
self sword in hand at the head of the hosts
of some great reform.
As a general rule, rich and rare fruits are
ripened slowly. Some of the most eminent
forth-puttings of pious growth have been long
in maturing. Men have spent years in push
ing on silent but patient processes; and be
cause there was no speedy result adequate to
the labor, the world said, “Lo, these are bar
ren trees; they bear nothing but leaves.” Yet
just as the unsightly cactus, bequeathed from
�14
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
father to son, wearing away the lifetime of*
three generations, without hint of beauty or
use, at last, when the full century is rounded,
flowers out into one full consummate blossom,
filled with the juices of a hundred years, so
at length the fruit of these earnest workers
appears. For thirty years Jesus was as a root
out of a dry ground, without form or comeli
ness, till the royal hour of his ripeness struck;
and then what age was ever so magnificently
blossomed as the brief years of his ministry?
What other era of time has borne such fruits
as Gethsemane and Calvary? It matters not
though men call our lives barren, if with faith
ful and unwearying culture we are carrying
out the plans of the groat Husbandman..
When God pleases, the harvest long ripening
will appear all the more impressive from the
unsuspected quiet out of which it has grown.
Almost every life has its crises and turningpoints of greater or less magnitude. There
are single hours and acts that, like rudders,
steer us into wide seas of triumph or misfor
tune. In their significance and influence they
stand solemn and apart from the rest of life.
But there is no other so wonderful epoch
in a man’s'history as the time when, after
�“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
15
years of barrenness, or at best “ nothing but
leaves,” he becomes at last genuinely fruitful.
You have read that thrilling story of the bro
ken cable stretched along the ocean’s bed for
more than a thousand miles; how “night and
day for a whole year the electrician had been
watching its tiny signal ray; how sometimes
wild, incoherent messages came from the
deep, spelt out by magnetic storms and earth
currents, till of a sudden, on a morning, the
unsteady flickering changed to coherency;
and after the long interval that had brought
nothing but the moody and delirious mutter
ings of the sea, stammering over its alphabet
in vain, the cable began to speak, and to
transmit the appointed signals, which indica
ted human purpose and method at the other
end, instead of the hurried signs, broken
speech, and inarticulate cries of the illiterate
Atlantic.”
But that is a more wonderful
hour, when over the living wires of the soul,
long speaking in stammering and incoherent
phrase, as the earth currents and the storms
of sense and sin have uttered themselves,
there comes at length the unmistakable pulse
of thought and feeling from the Infinite wis
dom, and 6rod begins to speak through that
�1G
“NOTHING BUT LEAVES.”
soul to men by tlie signals of holy words and
works. The thrill and ecstacy of that hour
Will never be lost. It will be the bright con
summate centre of life, for not two continents
but two worlds are then wedded into one.
How is it with you, my brother? Does
Christ, when he comes to you, as he comes
daily, find a fruitful life, or “nothing but
leaves ?” Give heed to the lessons of every
autumn hour, that leaves, however fair, soon
fall and perish, while the fruit is gathered into
garners. What provision are you making for
the coming time, when the summer shall be
passed and the frosts of winter fall? Let
you and me strive for lives rich in lasting
results, and whatever of help and success we
may seek for the furtherance of our cherished
plans, still let our supreme prayer be—
Something, my God, for thee,
Something for thee!
That each day’s setting sun may bring
Some penitential offering;
In thy dear name some kindness done;
To thy dear love some wanderer won—
Some trial meekly borne,
Dear Lord, for thee!
t
|
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
"Nothing but leaves"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Atwood, Edward Stanley [1842-1926]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Hong Kong]
Collation: 16 p. ; 15 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "Preached on board the steamship 'William Penn' copied by Stephen Massett; publicly read by him on board the steamship 'China' on her first voyage from San Francisco to Yokohama, Japan; and then printed at the office of 'China Mail', Hong Kong. [From title page]. Annotations in ink.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[China Mail]
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
G5325
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
Nature
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 ("Nothing but leaves"), 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
Conduct of life
Conway Tracts
Faith
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/24d908bb8cf9a68a84ce39533152964a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=S7QJVaHItSnsyyTCr12U0pAAVZT8srCWnHyb37iA6i6mpk9P1gCwyqacX020MhQUCuS%7EitzlhfBclFK9SdXFAajRp%7EGopjOF9KJVhf8DNw4ryoNy0xYYA3lw4D-tneLUkIvzzv5lPoktw8%7Ev6H%7EBEzJkb9A726Z9JkOWb4%7EfBHepOQvNl7m87aGEnYwo1aEtO84gleX1o%7E9Wzi477V61tD730ZKACuhI3lYMJ0J8MCrfXGDAsTwToLcXzlJphaj4GKBHgq-qnzPGKJXu-vtyYm5ytW82x7HqBPQxIgHyGdyphGhJCVhRKsSPqr55ldMqvta3ba7fJ3cy5jMKSKCASg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c6b3f84986f11ad78d2b29b49163a0f
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON :
FEINTED RY C. W. EEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�INTRODUCTION.
Those who, having given a cursory glance at
this “ Interior,” put it down and never resume it,
have the cordial sympathy of the writer, who "is
well aware that portions of it strongly resemble
passages from the ‘ Lives of the Saints,’ a work
said to have been “ written by knaves and read
by fools.” These pages can interest those only
who have had some experience of earnest, per
severing, fruitless prayer. They can be useful
to those only who may still be running after
phantoms, building beautiful castles upon fallacious texts, and striving to grasp the unattain
9
able.
Those who are satisfied with themselves and
their prayers are advised not to give their atten
tion to this “Interior,” which is calculated to
wound their feelings and to suggest doubts which
may disturb their peace of mind.
�w’-.■j/
�AN INTERIOR.
AM a straightforward1 practical woman. I have
never been into hysterics, and was never fond
of allegories, fairy tales, or ghost stories. I was not
particularly piously brought up. Religion in our
family was viewed mainly from a controversial point
of view. My mother was a consistent churchwoman,
and went to church once a week. My father cared
only for good sermons and good organs ; he generally
waited till all the prayers were over before he entered
any place of worship. There was nothing at home
to draw my attention to the subject of prayer. I
may have been about eighteen when an aunt came to
see us, and hearing that I had not been confirmed,
said it would be “as well” to send in my name,
because, if in after years, I should wish to be con
firmed, I might “feel awkward among the young
people.” This view of the subject was entertained,
and, to’ avoid the contemplated contingency, it was
voted that I might “ as well ” be confirmed. The
Rev. Llewelyn Davies prepared me for the rite. He
did not inquire into the state of my religious belief,
which, considering the praiseworthy motive which
brought me to him, was fortunate. He gave me
many questions, which I answered to his satisfaction,
and obtained my ticket for Confirmation.
I suppose the rite had already been delayed too
I
•
B
�6
An Interior.
long, for I felt exceedingly awkward on the Confir
mation day; others, especially the boys, looked as if
they felt uncommonly awkward too. However, they
might have felt still more ill at ease in after life, and
it was perhaps “ as well ” to confirm them then.
That day was an eventful one, for my aunt had her
pocket picked in the church, and an impression was
made upon me which may be called the beginning of
my spiritual career. Upon returning to the pew
after kneeling at the altar, I took my seat; therewere no hassocks. Presently the young lady next
me placed herself upon her knees upon the dirty
floor, and began praying with evident fervour. Her
hands covered her face, and I could see the tears
streaming between her fingers. I felt inclined to
laugh, but was ashamed of myself. I ended by
admiring her moral courage, and by envying her her
apparent faith and sincerity.
Converting in the received sense of the word I did
not require. I was a thoughtful, studious girl. I
hated dancing and all other amusements which
involved late hours. I never omitted morning and
evening prayers, and was rather fond of going to
church. I had long been a communicant, so that
Confirmation was not in my case a stepping-stone to
the Lord’s Supper. I had looked upon it as an
optional affair, and went through it without faith or
fervour. By prayer, I understood nothing beyond
reading over or repeating by heart other people’s
compositions. That young girl did not appear to me
to be doing either, and her conduct struck me, though
the impression faded away.
Some months later we passed a few weeks with a
friend who had an Irish cook. One winter’s morning
I rose for some forgotten reason earlier than usual,
and went into the kitchen at a quarter to seven. At
the same moment in walked the Irish cook out of the
foggy street. An unworthy suspicion crossed my
�An Interior.
7
mind, and I wished myself back in my room ; it wasdark enough for me to retreat unobserved, but Nancy
had the gas alight in a trice, and we stood face to
face. In her chapped hand was a well-worn prayer
book, and round her huge wrist was a rosary. She
had been to Mass, and it was not Sunday. “ That,”
said my friend, “ is the best of Nancy, she gets my
husband’s breakfast ready every morning at half-past
seven.” Nancy’s conduct made a deep and lasting
impression upon me. There was something earnest
and practical about it that edified me, and I began to
“meditate upon these things.” I determined to
devote more time and attention to prayer, and, as
there was morning service twice a week at our own
church, I began to attend it with great regularity. I
made quite a study of the Liturgy, and at length
came with reluctance to the conclusion that it was
an inappropriate manual for constant use. I was
not always in the same mood, but the prayers were
always equally melancholy, depressing, and mono
tonous. My spirits were frequently at high water
mark, and on those occasions I felt like a dissembler
while saying my prayers—or rather somebody else’s
prayers—for it never entered my head to use words
of my own when speaking to God, or even to ask
Him for anything that was not named in the Prayer
Book. However, it very often struck me that we
were saying an immense deal to God, and not giving
Him the opportunity of saying anything to us. I
felt attracted towards God, dissatisfied with the
means I was using to get at Him, and very anxious
to feel upon a surer footing with Him. I suppose I
was what is called “ awakened ”—I was in earnest.
I repeated my prayers with unflagging reverence, and
while wishing they were more in harmony with my
grateful happy frame of mind, continued to use them,
until one morning, while the curate was reading a
chapter in the Old Testament consisting principally
�8
An Interior.
of names, if struck me that I was making no spiritual
progress; that those prayers would remain the same;
that, having admitted for the millionth time that I
was a miserable sinner, I was absolutely unable to
keep my soul in such a penitential attitude any
longer. I required a more varied diet; and though
nobody I knew found any fault with the Liturgy,. I
was painfully conscious that it no longer suited me,, so
I began to. confine my devotions to Sunday. It seems
very strange that it never occurred to me to address
God in words of my own choosing. Though most
anxious to become better acquainted with God, and
to realise something like fervour, I saw no further
than that melancholy Prayer Book, and of mental
prayer I had, no idea whatever. The people I knew
never appeared to care at all about these things, so- I
kept my aspirations to myself. Now and then I
went to dissenting chapels, but the vulgarity of the
extempore prayers I heard there soon thoroughly dis
gusted me, and for a while I took more kindly to my
own sad Liturgy as- the lesser of two evils. I
wonder it never once occurred to me to pray extem
pore myself, for I was deeply interested in my soul’s
welfare, but it did not. I was very well acquainted
with the tenets, of the Church of Rome, but took no
interest in Catholics^ and never went to their chapels.
However, I always defended them whenever I heard
them ridiculed for the absurdity of their doctrines. I
used to say, with pertinent flippancy,, “thosewho live
in glass houses should not throw stones; and you
must give u.p nearly all you hold before you are in a
position, to twit them with the absurdity of what they
hold.” My friends were shocked. We had but one
Roman Catholic acquaintance, and he was far above
the average: at that time he was our most intellectual
visitor.
One morning,, long after my interest in the Church
prayers had considerably diminished, I was walking
�An Interior.
9
in the region of the wretched little French Catholic
Chapel and it began to rain heavily. The door was
open ; I went in, and there I saw one solitary man
kneeling near the altar. I had never noticed a man
on his knees before. He was in a very cramped
position and must have been extremely uncom
fortable ; but there he remained for a long time, and
I sat watching him. He had no book. I could see
his profile. His lips were closed, his eyes were fixed
upon the altar. Not until he turned his full face
towards me as he came down the aisle did I recognise
our highly-cultivated Roman Catholic friend. I
wished myself out in the rain, and fancied he would
feel ashamed of being caught upon his knees in such
a miserable little place as that chapel was then. I
felt myself turn scarlet, but he came forward with
his usual simple, manly manner, and said, “ Say a
little prayer for my intention, I am rather in a fix; ”
then composedly beating the dust off his knees with
his gloves he went away, leaving me with abundant
matter for meditation.
I had never seen any one praying in a church when
no service was going on. I had never seen any one
praying mentally. The people I knew viewed prayer
solely as a duty and were glad if anything prevented
its accomplishment. They never seemed to me to
expect any results to ensue from their prayers, and
they laughed at those who went to church on week
days. Here was a man of more than ordinary acute
ness who came on a week-day to pray upon his knees
for half-an-hour without a book, in an empty church,
to be helped out of “ a fix.” The simplicity of the
scene puzzled me beyond measure. Of course I was
well aware that Adam’s conduct had placed us all in
“ a fix,” and that we must be continually beseeching
God to ‘‘have mercy upon us miserable sinners;” but
here was a man asking his Father to help him out of
a private, personal dilemma, and I envied him his
�IO
An Interior.
filial confidence towards that Being with whom I so
earnestly longed to become better acquainted.
Four years’ practical experience of the lachrymose
Liturgy of the Church of England had wofully
disappointed me. For some months I had been
merely putting up with it, but the idea of leaving
the Anglican communion never occurred to me,
not even on that memorable morning in the little
chapel.
It was not as a Homan Catholic that my friend
came before me, but simply as one who seemed on a
very enviable footing with God. He appeared to
have attained what I was aiming at. Had I seen a
Quaker or a Mahommedan thus earnestly engaged in
prayer, I should have been equally sure that he was
nearer God than I was, and should have envied him
as I envied my friend; moreover he had asked me
to pray for his intention, which nobody had ever
done before. I knew people who were in “a fix,”
but they never said “Let us prayperhaps they
had found out the futility of prayer, as I did later on.
I was just thinking about leaving the chapel when
the door was pushed, and in came a man. He did not
take the trouble to go into a seat, he knelt in the aisle
close to the door, slightly in advance of me. After
several failures he at length succeeded in poising his
dripping hat upon the knob of his umbrella, and
producing a very thick book, began to pray. I
looked over his shoulder and read “ Litany of the
Holy Ghost.” Here was a discovery! there were
other Litanies.
I might have asked for the title of the book, but
in leaning forward, shook the woodwork, and down
went the hat and umbrella; so I merely apologised
and took my leave.
As far as I was concerned there might as well
have been no Holy Ghost, though I was supposed to
have received Him in Confirmation.
�An Interior.
11
I walked home full of good resolutions, which for
fifteen years were, in spite, of many obstacles,
religiously kept.
Before going further it seems necessary to state
what my idea of religion was. I lived in an atmo
sphere of religious discussion, and had come to the
conclusion that doctrinal difficulties had nothing to
do with personal piety. I had seen my father con
found men of different persuasions with the simplest
questions, and was of opinion that the doctrines
about which they grew so vehement could never be
satisfactorily proved, and that therefore salvation
could not depend upon them. I was tired of these
continual discussions, which rarely ended amicably,
and which were so hostile to my notion of piety.
So little interest did I take in the subjects generally
brought forward that I could defend either side
without scruples of conscience. The truth of Chris
tianity and the inspiration of the Bible were never
attacked in our house. I firmly believed both ; but
so contrary to common sense did I consider the
doctrine of the Trinity, that I wondered how
believers in that could cavil at Transubstantiation,
Baptismal Regeneration, &c.
To know and to love God under the name of
Christ, and to get into communication with Him by
His own appointed means—Prayer—was my ambition.
Quite tired of the Church Prayers, and thoroughly
disgusted with the lamentable want of unity among
Christians generally, I found no help from without.
I was in the Anglican Church, but not of it. Still
I had no intention of joining any other sect. Por
forms, ceremonies, choral services, and sermons, I
cared not one whit. Sermons I always thought a
vexatious excrescence thrust in when the attention
was wearied with so many prayers ; my mother and
I often sneaked off before the sermon began. I only
cared for Prayer. Those who are neither tired of
�I2
An Interior.
the Liturgy nor much interested in these matters will
fail to appreciate the intense delight and sense of
relief I experienced while turning over the leaves of
the Catholic prayer-books I bought.
After having addressed God in a minor key until
I no longer felt sorry at all, it was indescribably
refreshing to get into a major key, and find prayers
suggested by a spirit of love from which all fear was
banished—prayers emanating from a feeling of grati
tude, not merely for abstract and contingent blessings,
but for tangible, every-day advantages—prayers, in
short, of which the spirit was in harmony with my
own, and which gave a fillip to my devotion, then on
the wane. It was not that I admired those prayers
—far from it: as compositions they were inferior to
those in our Liturgy, and the translations were less
dignified; but as a bird would rather fly around a
large barn than hop about a golden cage, so I, after
my long confinement to the Liturgy, enjoyed the
wider range afforded by a book in which there were
more varied devotions, and where the Holy Ghost was
prominently brought forward as the great illuminator
and consoler of the faithful.
*
Conscious how utterly I had neglected Him, and
most anxious to be enlightened, I commenced in
voking Him with a fervour and a perseverance which
in the retrospect amazes me.
Casting aside the feeble translations, I committed
the noble Latin hymns to memory, and in the simple
words of the fine old “Veni Sancte Spiritus,” I
invoked the Holy Ghost w’ith all my heart. Not by
fits and starts, but many times a day for many
months did I implore Him to give me light to know
and strength to execute God’s will. I addressed Him
in a spirit of reparation for past neglect, and long
after I had entered the more lofty region of mental
prayer the “ Veni Sancte Spiritus ” was one of my
daily companions. It became painful to me to listen
�An Interior.
13
to the frequent discussions concerning His personality,
mission, procession, etc., which went on in our
family; I ceased to take any share in them, and used
to pray that they might be discontinued. The Ghost,
however, was not invoked to the exclusion of the
Father and the Son. I invoked them all with all the
faith, hope, charity, reverence, and humility I could
command. I did my very best. I used to visit
Catholic chapels merely because they were open, and
as others were praying too, I was not an object of
attention. I always chose times when no service was
going on, and was aiming at feeling alone with God.
Occasionally I prayed mentally, but it was not until
Christ became the main object of my love and
devotion that I dived deeply into the depths of that
unfathomable ocean called mental prayer. I had
been quite ashamed of having for years all but
ignored the existence of the Holy Ghost, and had
been zealously making up for past negligence; but
now it occurred to me that Protestants, at any rate
Anglicans, were extremely remiss in reference to Christ
too ; for they pray to the Father almost exclusively.
There is but one Collect in their Prayer-book to
God the Son, while in my Catholic manual He took
precedence, and the petitions to the Father were few
and far between. I preferred the Son to the Father,
and could no longer blind myself to the fact that I
was of the Roman Catholic Church, but not in it.
Led, as I firmly believed, by the Holy Ghost, whom
I was continually petitioning for light, I abandoned
the Anglicans entirely. Ever since I had found out
that even on Sunday during High Mass Catholics
were quite at liberty to use what prayers they pleased,
and were by no means compelled to follow the priest,
I had given up going to my own Church. I dearly
loved the liberty I enjoyed, and ardently did I thank
God for leading me, through the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost, along the flowery path of prayer. I had
�14
An Interior.
not a misgiving. I looked upon the tendency of my
mind as an answer to prayer, and was content to
follow the guidance of that Ghost whithersoever it
might lead me ; it led me into the Church of Rome.
Of course my relatives had no faith in the holiness
of any ghost who led the way to Rome, and she
who had formerly promoted my Confirmation now
refused to kiss me !
I had not one Romish acquaintance; he of the
“ fix ” had gone to the colonies. Reared for none of
the Romish ceremonies. I cared solely for what I
believed to be the Holy Ghost and His inspiration ;
if I was mistaken it was not my fault. The ill-will
of my relations did not disturb my peace of mind ; I
went on my way rejoicing, doing all I could to be
good, and trying to imitate the Christ of the Gospels
to the best of my poor ability.
Had it occurred to me (and I wonder it did not) to go
up with the others to Communion as if I were a Catholic
I believe I should never have joined Rome outwardly.
But I longed to get nearer to Jesus'. All the best
prayers were addressed to Him “ in the Blessed Sacra
ment,” and I was most anxious to become one with
Him in that mysterious rite. Knowing that Confes
sion and Absolution preceded Communion in the
Roman Church, I again and with renewed fervour
besought the Holy Ghost to “ show me the way
wherein I should walk,” and he (or, as some Pro
testants would say, a “ lying spirit ”) led me into the
Church of Rome. I went to a Jesuit, told him how
hard I had been praying, explained to him the bent
of my inclination, but assured him that I could not
care at all about Indulgences, Purgatory, Angels,
Saints, Sacred Hearts, Scapulars, &c.
He said that faith in all these things would come
by-and-by, that if I was willing to receive the teaching
of the Church, God would supply what was wanting.
After three interviews he baptised me, and three
�An Interior.
*5
weeks later I made my first Communion. I made it
with boundless faith. I really believed most fervently
that Jesus would help me to overcome some of my
faults. For many years I communicated four times
weekly, and no inducement would have been strong
enough to divert me from my purpose. Through all
weathers, at all seasons, I took a walk of twenty
minutes, before seven, for I was always in church
long before Mass began, and with never-failing fervour
I engaged in earnest mental prayer.
I am sure that no worldly advantages would have
induced me to forego my Communions. I delibe
rately gave up a trip to Paris because I feared that
my devotion might cool amid the festivities of that
gay capital; so I stayed at home by myself.
“ Ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye
shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” I
was ready to lay down my life for the truth of those
assertions, and though I was painfully conscious that
hitherto I had not realised any of the help I sought,
either for myself or others, I thought it must be my
fault, and turned with importunity to the Holy
Ghost to teach me how to pray.
Prayer now engrossed nearly all my attention and
a great portion of my time.
Of distractions in prayer I knew nothing. Entirely
engrossed with my subject, I could remain for an
hour sunk in a species of mute adoration, called con
templation, so profound that not until it was over was
I aware how stiff and tender my knees had become.
No slamming of doors, tuning of the organ, or any
other disturbance could rouse me. I was intensely
happy. Occasionally all sense of weight seemed to
leave my limbs, and sometimes while walking down
the aisle I was not conscious of the boards. Torrents
of delicious tears gushed from my eyes, and thus
cradled, as I fancied myself, in 11 the everlasting
arms,” I enjoyed every day what S. Climachus calls
�An Interior.
.
a “ spiritual feast; ” for the “ gift of tears” is, accord
ing to him and all the Saints, a very great favour. I
had no difficulty in realising what is called “ The Pre
sence of God,” and whether in the street, a railway
station, or even in a place of amusement, my heart
was always kneeling before the altar. I lost all
interest in the studies which had formerly been my
delight. I gave up the several languages of which
I had previously been so fond, and for ten years or
more I rarely looked into a secular book. God, I
knew, was a jealous God. I was aiming at becoming
a faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost, who demanded
all my heart, all my soul, and all my strength. He
wanted all, and I gave him all, not grudgingly, but
cheerfully, lovingly, and devotedly. I occupied my
time with visiting the sick poor and with other
charitable undertakings. Unaware that mine was an
exceptional class of prayer, and that even to be able to
pray without distractions was extremely rare; unaware,
moreover, that Catholics were encouraged to add
experiences such as mine when they went to Confes
sion, and that these experiences were called a 11 mani
festation of conscience,” I should in all probability
have kept all these things and “ pondered them in my
heart,” without having recourse to priests, had I not
become acquainted with some very fervent and intel
ligent Roman Catholic ladies.
Not a syllable did I utter respecting the state of my
“ interior,” but soon collected that I was the recipient
of unusual “ graces ”—graces which were ordinarily
the portion of great saints; they talked about
“ spiritual direction,” and mentioned St. Teresa and
Penelon. Through them I made the unwelcome dis
covery that it Was very rare indeed to receive an
answer to prayer, so rare that I ought not to expect
any. Prayer, said they, is a duty; if God gave us
what we want we might become proud ; He withholds
His gifts to try us and to keep us humble. It struck
�An Interior.
me that if by prayer they meant the irreverent
gabble which so lamentably disfigures the public
services of the Church of Rome, it was not surprising
that no results ensued.
I did not like what the ladies said. I would not
believe that Christ could deceive. “ Everyone that
asketh receiveth,” were words attributed to Him, and
I clung to them. From £ime to time,, however, an
ominous cloud had crossed, my horizon, many miser
able misgivings had assailed me. Over and. over
again had I struggled with irrepressible doubts as to
the veracity of such assertions as “ all things whatso
ever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive,”
and I could not conceal from myself the budding con
viction that the whole affair was a delusion. Such
notions I did my best to eject as suggestions from
the Evil One; I accused myself in Confession of
“ doubting about God’s mercy,” got absolution, and
recommenced praying with renewed fervour. I never
undertook anything without earnestly imploring God
to enlighten me as to whether it was His will that I
should engage in it. No light came. My prayers
were mainly for others—for the sick, the suffering,
for people in “ fixes,” and, above all, for the conver
sion of sinners. To prayer I added penance, care
fully abstaining from everything that gratified my
senses. Every Friday, by the advice of my Confessor,
I took the discipline for seven minutes, and wore a
hair shirt d discretion; in short, I endeavoured by
every means in. my power to propitiate God in the
various ways approved by the Church of Rome. The
non-success of my prayers I attributed to my own
remissness, want of faith, hope, charity, &c., though
I knew I was doing my best. I was very glad that
my earthly parents were not so inexorable as my
heavenly one, but thought it wicked to draw com
parisons. I did not neglect Mary. For years I said
the rosary daily with a definite object, but nothing
�i8
An Interior.
ever came of it. I thought over what the ladies had
said, and procured Fenelon’s works and Teresa’s
autobiography. The plot thickened. A new era
began in my spiritual life.
To my exceeding amazement, that remarkable
woman’s experience of prayer, &c., seemed marvel
lously like my own. I could have written many of
the pages I was reading w-jth such interest. Here I
found the same love of solitude, devotion to mental
prayer, indifference to transitory things, zeal for the
conversion of sinners, and, above all, the same, though
in her case intensified, mysterious physical sensations,
such as lightness of body, bright light, interior words,
&c. However, though she was in ecstasies with
God, she seemed to have found Joseph more propi
tious, for she very distinctly tells us that she never
appealed to him in vain, and the Church, in a prayer
to St. Joseph called the “ Memorare,” reminds him
that St. Teresa had never had recourse to him
in vain.
I was both amazed and amused. Here was a great
saint, a woman of experience who, after soaring into
celestial regions and communing for hours with the
Blessed Trinity, came down to Joseph io get what she
wanted 1 Hitherto I had been disposed to ridicule
Catholics for having so many strings to their bow. I
thought it so Uncomplimentary to Christ and his pro
mises ; now my eyes were opened. Even the sublime
Teresa sighed for reciprocity—had she found it in God
would it have occurred to her to turn to Joseph ?
After basking in the ineffable rays of God’s myste
rious presence, she went round like any other beggar
to the back door for some broken victuals. Joseph
received her well, gave her what she wanted, and,
like a sensible woman, she made frequent appeals to
his generosity, and was never refused. In simple,
forcible language, she urges everybody to apply to
Joseph; she gives her “experience,” and a verystrik-
�An Interior.
*9
ing one it is. 1 had no faith in Joseph. She and
Fenelon strongly advise “ direction.” I was bewildered
about many things, and determined I would have a
director—but I took my time. It consoled me to find
that St. Teresa had heartily hated manifesting her
interior to her director ; for so thoroughly did I abhor
even the mere thought of it, that I hesitated some
time before I could entertain it at all. My own old
Confessor had gone abroad, and the new one did not
know me so well, which enhanced the difficulty.
Before exposing myself to an ordeal so objection
able, and which was not of obligation, I determined
to take the opinion of an eminent Jesuit. Praying
earnestly to know the will of God from the mouth of
His minister, I entered his confessional and said
“ Father, I have come merely to ask your advice as
to whether it is expedient to expose other things in
dependent of sins to one’s Confessor—to have, in
short, a “ director.”
“Far better,” said he, “for every one to be his or
her own director.” An anwer so opposed to my ex
pectation and so entirely at variance with the opinions
of so many distinguished writers, perplexed and dis
appointed me. I determined to try another priest.
Prefacing my visit with a prayer to the Ghost as
before, I applied to an oblate of St. Charles, a man of
vast psychological experience and well-known piety.
“Hot only,” said he, “ do I earnestly recommend
you to have a director, but I tell you it is your bounden
duty to have one.” There is but one Holy Ghost,
thought I. Two entirely different counsels can never
come from the same ghost. I had better have no
director; he might be under the influence of the
wrong ghost and mislead me. St. Teresa had
suffered grievously for years, owing to an inexpert
director; so might I. However, one morning I
was in Church absorbed as usual with my devo
tions, when, just as the Sanctus bell rang, a bright
�20
An Interior.
light shone round me. I lost all consciousness of the
church, the priest, etc. I saw happy faces, felt in
tensely happy, and,, upon regaining my normal condi
tion at the“Domine non sum dignus,” thought the
altar, the vestments, the flowers^ etc., all looked
wofully faded, and paltry by, comparison with the
scene I had just left. This species . of vision deter
mined me to have a “ spiritual conference ” with my
Confessor.. Fully but briefly I stated all I considered
necessary to enable him to judge of my “ interior.”
With some hesitation he assured me that it was
extremely difficult to distinguish the operations of
God from those of the devil; that Satan could trans
form himself into an angel of light, that even St.
Teresa had pronounced it well nigh impossible to feel
certain on these matters—that he felt unequal to the
responsibility of “directing” me, and advised me to
seek counsel elsewhere.- I did nothing of the sort.
I bought a bottle of medicine to cure the ulcers
which fasting had induced in my throat, and bade a
long farewell to “ directors ” and to ghosts generally !
In my quiet corner of the church I loved so well,
and where I had passed so many hours, not merely
in petitioning but in devoutly worshipping God, I
reviewed my fifteen years’ experience of that eleva
tion of the soul to God commonly called mental
prayer.
. Not once nor twice, but frequently, did I meditate
upon the practice of prayer, and finally determined
to give it up entirely as useless, presumptuous, and
absurd. Not in a moment of fretful impatience, of
unwonted dejection, or of sudden indignation, but
after considerable reflection, with reverence and hu
mility, with confidence and gratitude, did I abandon
a practice from which I had learnt many a solemn
lesson. As we smile at a child who fills his pockets
with salt in the hope of catching birds, so I smiled at
my former self for believing that the Changeless One
�An Interior,
21
would alter His course to suit me, for wishing Him to
do so, and for supposing that He wanted any prompt
ing from me as to the time when He should set about
His own business.
In me the religious faculty was largely developed ;
but in my loftiest flights I had felt the futility, the
want of reciprocity, the chilling discouragement of
the whole affair, and prayer in the sense of mere
petition I had given up long before I had ceased
communing with God in the various methods which,
under the names of meditation, contemplation, prayer
of silence, ecstacy, &c., have engrossed religious
minds of all denominations. I never pray now.
I have left off running after ghosts. I have
given up building castles upon fallacious texts. I
no longer try to grasp the unattainable. I am
happy and contented. Formerly I fancied every
thing would go wrong if I neglected my prayers;
now I am convinced that the power we call God is
and ought to be uninfluenced by our petitions. Now
I am satisfied with God; I am certain He will do the
right thing at the right time, and that fortunately His
creatures can neither say nor do anything which can
interfere with the perfect harmony of His mighty'
operations. “I was blind, now I see.” Upon those
fifteen years I look back with more amazement than
regret. I was in good faith doing my best, and quite
unconscious what a poor, mean, childish idea I bad
formed of our great Creator. I have broader notions
now and live in a healthier atmosphere. It took me
many years to learn my lesson, but at length I mas
tered it, and am daily profiting by it.
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
An interior
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 21 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A personal account, by an anonymous woman, of religious life and disillusion. 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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT188
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 (An interior), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Prayer
Conway Tracts
Faith
Prayer
Roman Catholic Church
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/76008200552ac23068353fbfb2ad74c2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pRoiouV7YGA%7E%7EBEt0ayOAgr9Gh2U23vHDIeBsOg1VcQcXcAxTQ5W-JFrWgGHrROnEX7ADg8NY-HGjqX5J-K-Ubmn2fKDP-wUkmiqIR0WIqOyemG%7Ey4rWbjzfS-GMbyVwqVLWgaRndFQOgE7uoCHr9UvyYTeTxD4uR2otrGM8tgrqup0Et-GF837g-XDWb0%7EZhUn7SlANlfQV4Ud04tuJLDTq9798pbFWbFfSriwiIUN8tZ1XloCNHyUXwGErAp1Udnq%7E72vXGnf%7EBNAQfJ8kZvmgO5CVGr5mbUWbxnANaOUomg76ErafQXFF-EWyS2j89xTtonP9ZNQXaO9Jb9FP1A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5e10d2029c3891fab7ea4838b210c045
PDF Text
Text
DISCOURSE
Believe olgrnE
and thou shat.t
be saved.—JLcis xvi, 31.
Such was the burden of the first teaching of the Re
ligion upon wh^M^^^^^fe/bjMMisten d om is based.
Its first mi|^H^ appeared, declaring to all men, both
small
thajMMjtedoe^^S. in one Jesus of
Nazareth they would be saved.
What precisely was in
when they thus
talked of being saved, I do not undertake to say. But the
fact that, believing in Jesus, a man was delivered from evil
inclin%tiffl|n^Bb'e|^faB^^^Eel|i|hioned after a new
and high
jSp^ind humane, became conscious!
not only of a sense of safety, but of an ineffable peace of
mind, such as he had never known before,—this fact, I
do venture to say, was a salvation in the fullest meaning
of the word. If
teachySwhad any other mean
ing than thislfflcmM not possibly have been anything
better, nor so good. E®was a salvation worth giving
one’s life for.
It was strikingly illustrated in those first teachers them
selves. From being private, obscure persons, they became
�4
FAITH IN CHRIST
through their faith in Christ men of extraordinary mark,
of indomitable energy, stirring the world with their speech,
Fforming everywhere associations of men that gradually
■’evolutionized empires, and, notwithstanding manifold
(sufferings, conscious all the while of a joy that made the
prisons into which they were thrown ring with their glad
hymns.
The same thing wag shown also in great numbers of
their followers, both men and women, in old men and
tender girls, who, for their faith in Christ, with perfect
composure, nay, with an air of triumph, confronted the
horrors of the Roman theatrAl where they were flung to
be consumed in flames or torn in pieces by wild beasts.
Is it not, then, a matter of great interest to ascertain
how and why it was thatlwith faith in Christ, there came
so vital a change, so great a gaBation ?
And it is the more, interesting because there is still in
these days what bears the same name, Faith in Christ.
Whole nations are professing it. But it is not attended
by anything like the same Effects. Thousands signify
their profession of it bwolemn forms, but, between them
and others, what difference is there to see to, unless it be
that of the two, the latter are oftentimes the more agree
able in their manners^ and the more trustworthy in affairs,
while the former are noted chieflv for a punctilious oblervance of certain forms and a Scrupulous abstinence from
certain social amusements^ Beyond this, what now passes
for Christian Faith shows no remarkable force. It does
not keep the heart pure, nor save it from being eaten out
by pride, and intolerance, and a greed for money, that
�FAITH IN CHRIST
5
leads men to do the meanest things and the hardest. It
is no salvation from an abject deference to the way of the
world, or from the fanatical ambition which is driving so
many to sacrifices self-resp@cteihonor, and conscience to a
brilliant appearance and to social position. Does our
modern faith in Christ inspire any special enthusiasm for
Humanity, or what efforts in that behalf does it prompt,
save in fashionable ways, and- by popular methods, sub
scribing money and the liH3| It neither renders people
more amiable, nor gives them the cheerful air of a great
peace and joy in their believing.
Surely if our faith Md that ancient faith are one and
the same thing, it has undergone in this respect a mighty
change. It no longer saves men in the old-fashioned way.
It is claimed for it that it saves them from future and
eternal torments. I do not know about that. It certainly
does not, what it once did, save them now. Whence this
great difference ? What made the old faith such a power ?
The first thingEl J)
as Helping us to an
answer to thiMueswonT is this : in those early times faith
in Christ was n(ai)O|uSE safe, but very unpopular
and very unsafe. Indeed it was as much as a man’s life!
was worth, so much as to whisper the name of Christ with
respect in the car of his b(j§rm friend. It instantly ex
posed him to be shunned, pointed at, informed against
by his nearest of kin, put in peril of being hooted atJ
mobbed, stoned to death in the street.
What then is the conclusive presumption ? Why that
no one in his senses could then have been found believing
in Christ, unless he had been so mightily moved thereto
�6
FAITH IN CHRIST
that he could not for his life help it, unless there had
entered into him a power sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing to the marrow. Understanding, heart,
conscience, all that was within him, must have wrought
to create in him faith in Christ. What else was there to
induce a man to believe in Christ? Everything else,
every interest in life, wen directly and most powerfully
*
the other way, to drive men off, as they valued their lives,
from so much as looking at his alleged claims. His
bare name was odious in the extreme, a great deal worse
than the name of Abolitionists some few years ago, and
that was bad enough, as you all know. It stood for
everything hateful, for the rankest Atheism, for the turn
ing of the world upside down, for deadly hatred of gods
and men.
The Christian Faith of those days, therefore, must have
been a most intimate personal conviction. It could have
been nothing else. It was not a hearsay, a tradition, nor
a phrase. It was no fancy. There was nothing to catch
the fancy about a man who had suffered the vilest of
deaths, but everything to shock and repel the fancy. It
was not a mere opinion. . Neither was it a faith which a
man might assert that he had, but did not know for cer
tain. It was the genuine thing, Faith, nothing less or
other.
Now we all know that Faith, properly so called, is one
of the greatest forces, if not the very greatest force, in all
known nature. It is the support which upholds the com
merce and prosperity of nations. Steam, electricity, mag
netism, powerful as they are, are its household servants,
�FAITH IN CHRIST
Mountains sink and valleys rise at its bidding.
7
It is
annihilating time and space. It is the men who believe
in the things which they aim at, who turn stumbling
blocks into stepping stones. They are the born rulers
upon whom all things and all men wait. They discover
and conquer new worlds. |gH|was the quality of Faith
in Christ at the first. It was faith ad no mistake.
Being thus a true, ISSg conviction, it could not be
concealed. It could no more be kept to itself, as you
now keeg your sceptical doubts to yourselves, than fire
can be kept to itself in the midst of dry straw. I have
no doubt that most, if not all, of those who, in those
early daysyvi|re ^‘Oju>g^^^^elieve InyTesus were brought
to it, at th e first, with great reluctance. The instant
there flashed upon them
of a favorable
leaning towards him, ^haW gKdEr must have gone
through them! It madp their hearts beat quick, you may
depend, and their cheeks flush and turn white, and the
sweat to stand in great beads upon their foreheads, as
there glared upon them the awful doom to be met, if they
dared to yield to this new and dangerous influence. Thus
they must have shrunk from it with affright, even while,
and even because, they felt themselves drawn towards it.
The inevitable effect oOtheESggfe to keep it off was
to make them think, no| tlfegM but the more, of the
perilous subject that was draSg them to itself with a
force not their own, as .with the clutch of Fate. Was
there anything that could drive it deeper and deeper into
their hearts, like trying to keep it out, trying to forget it ?
The arrow that had pierced them was barbed. The effort
�8
FAITH IN CHRIST
to get away from the object of their faith, forced them
into closer acquaintance with it. And the nearer they ap
proached it, the more powerful grew its attraction, and
the more their interest in it increased, until they were
so helpless to resist it that they had to speak out or die.
They might keep it secret for awhile, so long as their
dread of turning friends into'ifoes and of suffering perse
cution was stronger than their new conviction. But this
conviction, being alive, was sure to grow, as we have just
seen, and to keep growing. The spring of a new life,
opened within them steadily rising, would, sooner or
*
later, float them over all their fears, and bear them right
onward into the very thick of th dangers that menaced
*
them. In fine, the cl^mge%taking place in them, would
be sure to betray itself, if not in one way then in another;
most probably in the first place, by their lukewarmness
in the observance of their old religious customs and by
their neglect of the altars of the gods. A word spoken,
nay, a word unspoked silence, might blab it. Accord
ingly they would be forced,^sooner or later, to confess the
faith that they had embraced, or, rather, that had em
braced them.
Here we see another reason why the primitive faith
had such extraordinary power. The open profession of
it instantly summoned into active service one’s whole man
hood. The best that was in a man had to come right to
the front. There was an immediate necessity for all his
courage and fortitude. Hesitation, fear, had to be trampled
under foot. Do you wonder,—does it seem hard to under
stand,—how a simple faith in Christ, now so easy, should
�FAITH IN CHRIST
3
have had such power, power to work the most difficult km
changes, rarely witnessed,., the change of the persoiSd
character, the salvation of the soul ? The wonder ceases,
the fact is in great part explained, when we consider the
circumstances in which this^aith wiiconceived and con
fessed. It was in the immediate presence of danger, and
of death in the frightfullest shapes, and at the cost of the
tendere&i ties.
So that, wf|»ut>Twference to the person of him in whom
this faith was reposed, or to the power there was in him,
we may readily perceive that the circumstances attending
the public confession of it must have rendered it very
powerful. An occasion, in fact a most urgent necessity,
*
was created for the instant exertion of the utmost reso
lution. Those^mfhj, aunties were put in immediate re
quisition, the possession of which is equivalent to a regen
eration of Ee whole wan.
with salvation.
A man was at once made brave and true; and this he
could ngMfe and be the same man that he was before,
with his low worldly habits and his sins cleaving to him
still. He was shaken all out of them, an'd translated into
a higher co *fSl, wfeer<gieEtfeME^S-e had the ascen
d
dency over the lower, the s#^iltfhver the flesh. Thus he
had at once, on the spot, searching experience of salvation
in the profoundest sense of the word.
Now, in thesf times, it is entirely different. There is
nothing of this kind connected with IS profession of faith
in Christ. It long ago ceased to be dangerous and un
popular. So far from its demanding any strength of
mind now, the weakest man may proclaim it aloud at the
�10
FAITH IN CHRIST
' Street corners, without exerting anymore force than is re
quired to open his lips. Instead of calling for courage, it
appeals to cowardice, to the most worldly motives. To
profess it, we are under the necessity, not of reforming,
but of conforming, a necessity very easily complied with.
Thousands there are who, by upholding certain institu
tions, virtually profess to be Christian believers, when
they have no intelligent personal faith whatever. And
so it has come about that there has been generated the
monstrous delusion that the most superficial, unthinking
formalism of thought and observance is a religion, a
Religion unto salvation!
There are no two things in naturegmore opposite, the
one to the other, than the faith of these our days and the
faith of the first Christians, the modern Profession and the
ancient Confession. The formers is a garment woven by
the world, having no more vital Hinection with the man
himself than his clothes have, nor .so much, for his clothes
keep him warm, while his faith Fworn, not for comfort,
*
but for fashion’s sake, that he may do as everybody else
is doing. But the ancient! Faith !—it was mingled with
the heart’s blood. Every nerve was thrilled by it. It
was a flaming fire, blazing at the very centre of life.
And it was thus vital, because it was no faith of man’s
making. It was kindled by Nature, by God himself.
Faith came to men in those days, attended, not by the
acclamations of their fellow-men, but by their curses, loud
and deep. It came, through fire and blood, girt with
lightnings and thunders, breaking in upon them, not by
their will, but in the first instance, without their will,
�* FAITH IN CHRIST
11
and against their will. They did not choose it. It chose
them, and made them all its own through struggles am
agonies almost breaking their hearts.
Consequently, as they could no more shake their faith
off than they could ‘unesseaace’ themselves, it was imposJ
sible for them to hold it ligh||ys, as a superficial appendag J
worn JnlvJ^rlsnow. Why, it was nothing less than their
very liffl What else had they on earth or in heaven to
sustain them ami^w ho^ror^bhal surrounded them |
What deeper interei^gadHIBy thanjffknow what it was
that they were putting their faith in at the cost of all that
they h elewdear
They could not impose upon
themselves, as we do now-a-days, with mere forms and
phrases. They could not feed upon articulate wind.
With the fierce flaml^ of persecution darting right at
them, they had to plunge in to the very heart of their
faith and wring all the life out of it they could. Once
committed|^thei^iSSBW' aQ face to face with a ter
rible opposition!thSthalO ma!fefy>od to themselves the
fearful position which they had taken. They had to for
tify themseivclj the uttermost. As they could look for
no reinforcement to eom^^ their aid from without, as
the world around them was all iigrms against them, they
were forced back, driven in, into the very citadel, where
sat enthroned the Obj e^| d^heir faith, there to obtain the
strength which wja||needed^ make their resistance effec
tual and to secure the victory. Accordingly they knew
the person in whom they believed.
And here, friends, we come to the last and main source
whence the early Christian Faith derived its power. But
�IS
FAITH IN CHRIST
let me repeat briefly what I have said. It is worth while.
Our subject is of great moment.
The first reason that I have given why Faith in Christ
was so strong at the outset is, that it really was faith, a
genuine conviction of the mind. Such it was of necessity.
There was no earthly inducement to move any sane man
to believe in Jesus, unless his understanding, his consci
ence, his whole soul compelled I aim to believe in him.
There was nothing to lead him to imagine that he believed
when he did not believe. Gfeete was not a loophole for
any self-deception. There was e wry thing to frighten
people away from the thought of Christ, to deter them
jfijpm so much as glancing i# that direction, save with
speechless dread. The faith ithfn of those days was a
real conviction. And a true, conviction is never without
Bower. Indeed, we see e<ery^here that personal faith is
the power of the world.
I In the next place, that earljy faith, being of the true
■quality, could not be hidden, kept to itself, although,
doubtless, they who had it were prompted by the fear of
the alienation of friends and the violence of foes to keep
it as long as they could to themselves. You may rely
Ripon it, they were in no hurry to publish what was sure
to bring swift dishonor and death. The Christian faith
could not, therefore, be confessed without the exertion of
the utmost moral force. Thus the salvation of the be
liever took place, incidentally, undesignedly on his part,
without his being aware of the great change begun in
him. Forced to depend upon himself, he had to dispense
with what is as the breath of our nostrils: human coun-
�FAITH IN CHRIST
13
tenance and sympathy. When that can be done, ther^Q
a new birth. Self-trust is the indispensable condition
of spiritual growth. In relying upon ourselves, we emerge
from our minority. We cease to be children. We standi
upon our feet. We go alone, leaning upon no crutches
of authority, listening to no hutward voice for our law,
but becoming every one a law to himself, or, which is the
same min^ffle sacred Jaw-. |Bfe&>ed to in the heart, ass^^
its supremacy over
power comes to us
from ®iS,in, from the immaterial, (ftifathomable, im
mortal soul within. Thence it w,a| thatWFaith at the firsl
drew its extraordinary strength. There, within, the great
Idea of Christ met tth^aiwi believers and communicate<l
to them such power that one of them exclaimed: “ I can
do allTthings through Christ strengthening me.”
I haveBras indicated two things which made Faith in
Christ, a faith unt^' salvation. The third and the foun
tainhead of its p)w6- wwhida EMey who believed drank
deep, and from which they drew a life, exuberant and
immortal, was, the object of their faith, in one word,
Christ.
Now in order to see #na^SweMthere was in him to
move men so mightily, we must endeavor to conceit
what a wonder, what apurpassin^mirade that phenom-1
enon was Tthe appearancirli^flthe world of such a man as
Jesus of Nazareth, considered simply as a man. I have
no idea that he himself e’verdrearned of claiming to be
anything more.
His name now is representative only of creeds, of
churches, of doctrines, which so far from commanding
; ‘•.'Gr' jA-K
.v. £. 1 • X <.J ’’
�14
FAITH IN CHRIST
the respect of the understanding, fetter and gag the under
standing, and shock the heart and pervert the conscience;
Or, if the name of Christ still represents a person, it is
a person of the Godhead, a vague fiction of the theological
imagination;
Or, if a human person, still only a person of so shadowy
an existence that he is hardly to be descried through the
legends and fables, of which the accounts that we have of
him are supposed to be made up.
It requires no slight effort, therefore, to put out of mind
these present modes of thought and to consider what a
new, strange, wonderful thing the Story of Jesus,—told
so humanly as it is told in swstaifce when the record is
head aright,—must have been in that distant age, long
before our creeds and churches and doctrines of Trinities
and Double Natures, and our critical and sceptical notions
were dreamed of, and when men were everywhere wor
shipping military power, and when^too, with huge tem
ples of stone and thousands of idols, and altars smoking
with the blood of slaughtered animals, and long glittering
processions of priests and countless imposing ceremonies,
—when with such things all that is sacred was identified,
and men hardly knew that there was anything holier or
more venerable.
Just think, friends, what a new thing under the sun
was the story that was told, told in the all-subduing
accents of the sincerest conviction, in the voluptuous cities
of Greece, and in the old warlike Roman empire, of a
lyoung man, of stainless purity, in the bloom of life, only
thirty years of age, of humble origin, put to a most shame-
�FAITH IN CHRIST
15
ful and cruel death for his simple truth’s sake, who, while
living, had gone about doing good, knowing not in t.lW
morning where he should rest his head at night, speaking
such words of wisdom that people came to him in crowds
from far and near, and followed him till they were ready
to drop from hunger and fatigue. He told them stor™
(so went the fervid 'report)-, breathing fraternal love and
the deepest human tenderness. He gave his blessing to
the poor, the sorrowing, the-gentle^tEe merciful, the pure
in heart, the lovers of peace; and so fearless was he withal,
as free as a child, as simple as the light and the air, amidst
savage passions ragfegO^gst- him, going his perilotB
way straight to a foreseen, violent death just as he walked,
just as he breathed, doing and saying the greatest thin J
as the merest m^grlTof course, fef-ppssessed, self-forget-J
ting, with heart open^^^thje while as the day to the
neglected and the outcast, transferring his own claims,
whatever they - werok thef Bwest of his brother-men. JI
malice of foes, no treachery of friends, so it appeared,
could exhaust or embitter the sweetness of his spirit. He
took little
hi^arms^«figessed them. The
wretched flocked »to him ias to a wide open temple of
Mercy. The poor woman, sin-defiled, from whose ton J
the pioujshranj as from ir a, leper, he addressed in words
of brothers kindness. rWhath a^ftene was that! The
poor heart-broken creature bowing fown and kissing his
very feet over and over again, and, as her hot tears fell
upon them like rain, wiping them away with her hair!
Such are only some of the many things which were told
of him, and which gave the world assurance of this new
�16
FAITH IN CHRIST
and most original Man. Could we only read the narra
tive of his last few hours, as we should, if we read it now
[for the first time, Roman Triumphs, Royal Progresses,
Coronation pomps, the Te Deums and Misereres of cathefdrals would all vanish away before the mingled pathos
and majesty of those scenes.
What a story, I reiteratflwas that to be told to a world,
‘[shining all o’er with naked Swords!’ What a sensa
tion must it have made!
What attention, what interest
must it have arrested! What Sympathy ! What adoring
admiration!
Furthermore, and borers the fact of supreme interest,
me Story of the Life and Death of Jesus was a wonder,
the like of which had never before been witnessed on
Earth, why? For what -rcasorif Even because it was
[perfectly simple, thoroughly natural, essentially human.
Being thus natural and human, it went straight into every
open heart as its native homfft, and Jesus was welcomed
there as the nearest of kin, the most intimate relative of
mankind. In fact, that Story, although its apparently
preternatural incidents affecte'd the imagination greatly
and made the world ring again, still was the most deeply
touching in this: that it silently breathed a thoroughly
human spirit, a spirit which was in far closer kinship
to the deepest and best in human nature than any mere
bniracles or any affinity of blood could possibly claim.
On this account it was that men took it in as naturally as
their eyes received the light or their lungs the air.
And all the more deeply did it interest them because
there was scarcely anything then to interest the popular
�FAITH IN CHRIST
mind, that went beyond the eye and the passion of fear and
the love of the marvellous. It was these only that were ad
dressed and excited, nothing deeper. Consequently, when
there went ahroaMan® from lips touched by the fire of
personal faith in its truth, the Story of one, whose whole!
being throbbed with ® »irit^St struck to the very heart,
quickening into full activity its noblest sentiments, people
leaped to embrace him, the most formidable obstructions
notwithslandinglby a sympathy as instinctive as that
which makes the ®hild cling to its mWier’s bosom.
By the way, we^^^-|jQM'St»ied! to speak of Jesus as the
Founded of ferisip^fefc/ Butf as I conceive of him, he
had no Sought of ®O»ly
a religion. He
was and is the foundation of Christianity, but not the
founder. . It had no founder. It founded itself. And it
was for this ver^^eason,he had no scheme of his
own, because, in th^e_ freedom and simplicity of Nature,
there went forth from him an effluence which was one
with the deepest and best in the soul of man,—for this
reason it gagthat a religion sprang from him which has
lasted now »r cBituMeSand fcwillBlfi^ for centuries
come.
But to return. When once we fully apprehend this
fact th® H was a simple human life, as natural as it was
original, the fbaa^ where^il^^O aSo^ on the wings of
faith, we begin to un(figtandFvhv,it was that, notwith
standing the fearful circumstance attending the confes
sion of belief in it, it at once took captive such a host of
men and women. The increase of the first believers was
amazingly rapid. Immediately after the death of Christ
�18
FAITH IN CHRIST
they were numbered, according to the Book of Acts, by
thousands. Thirty years afterwards, in the capital of the
Roman Empire, and Rome was then a great way off from
Judea, there was, as Tacitus informs us, a mighty multi
tude of them, ‘multitude ingens' The Catacombs of
*
Rome are filled with the ashes of the early Christians, and
their number is well nigh incredible.
The fact was, as I have said, the would was occupied
with superficial formalities, altars, and statues, splendid
rituals, sacrificial offerings, and holidays; things that
engrossed attention, and so Sased the conscience with
petty scruples, that, as Plutarch states, on one occasion, a
religious procession to propitiate some god, owing to some
trifling deviation from the prescribed forms, started from
the temple thirty-six times. Hardly,.anything deeper was
appealed to than the love of sight-seeing, and the super
stitious passion for thei marvellous.
And yet, consider, friend^ -those ancient generations
of Jews and Greeks and.4 Romans,—they were human
beings like ourselves, far more like than different. They
had this same human heart bleating all the while in their
bosoms. They were brothers, sisters, sons, daughters,
fathers, mothers, and on daily occasions were perforce
following the kindly dictates of our common humanity.
In the midst of all that externality and child’s play,
there came, in a man, in a young man, the living, breath
ing power of sacred human affection, showing the true
life to be, not a gilded ritual, but one ceaseless office of
self-forgetting human love. Of course it came like the
rain, like the former and the latter rain to the thirsty
�FAITH IN CHRIST
19
earth. It went down, swift and straight, down to the
central core of our human nature, whence it came, melt
ing the hardness which had grown over it, setting its
deepest springs flowing, and causing it to flower out
noble and saintly deeds.
Thus it is apparentnthe one wbduing charm was not
any new truth or doctrine, addressed only to the specula
tive faculty. Far enough Was it from being any system
of theology. Neither was it any miracle, which, at the
utmost, could excite only surprise and wonder. It is no
image of Jesus as a wonder-worker; it is Jesus in the
weakest condition of human nature, as a little child in his
mother’^ arms, or as hagBg dead on the Cross, that has
for ages since takBplgpM^ajl commanded the homage
of Christendom. It is no bewildering Tri-une God, but a
mother, exalted above God, a human mother, to whom the
tenderest worship has been
and widely rendered.
The Madonna andgn^^Kfl^—to what myriads of suf
fering andTlying men have these most human of symbols
spoken of the InfingjBove fl This iff was, the purely
human and humane spirit of Jesus, which through those
who at the first believed in him, ran like quicksilveS
from heart to heart by the irresistible power of the inde
structible syiflpathies of human nature.
So was it at the first. How is it now ? Now that Faith
in Christ is no longer persecuted, no longer unpopular,—
now that all is so changed in this respect, has the object
of Faith lost its vitality ? Can we no longer be saved by
Christ as the men and women of old were saved by him ?
2
�20
FAITH IN CHRIST
Was the saving power of this Man of men exhausted in
those early days ?
It would argue but very feeble sensibility to the great
ness of Jesus, it would indeed be doing him great dishonor,
to forget that it is not possible in such a world as this of
ours that so bright a light should arise and shine without
gradually spreading itself far and wide, and, notwithstand
ing whatever clouds of ignorance and superstition may
arise, should be reflected from unnumbered points, and, in
the course of time, render the whole atmosphere of Life
luminous and impregnate that with its saving efficacy, thus
consecrating all Life to the ministry of human Salvation.
This it is that has taken place in the case of Christ.
His spirit was caught by thos^ in attendance upon him,
and through them by a great host of confessors and mar
tyrs,—a cloud of witnesses; and so there started into ac
tivity countless saving agencies, Christ-like lives and
deaths, inspiring memories, humane institutions, revolu
tions, reformations, emancipations of multitudinous races;
and through these, and through all the freedom and
civilization which have followed' upon his appearance in
the world, Jesus is still carrying on the work of Salva
tion, of the blessings whereof all are, consciously or un
consciously, more or less partakers, even those who deny
his influence, and question his very existence. The his
tory of Europe, for now nearly two thousand years, is the
history of Christ, still far from being finished. At this
hour, as a philosophical writer has remarked, Europe is
struggling onward to realize the Christian ideal.
Is it only, however, in this indirect way, by the spirit
�FAITH IN CHRIST
21
which these reflections of his personal influence propagate,
that he is still the Saviour of men ? Has the full, rich
spring of his personal power, which at the first so flooded
human hearts, run dry, so that he is no longer able to
comman^j faith in himself that shall be unto salvation ?
Ah! dear friends, could he only be seen as he was, in
his natiyg greatness, jhtW earts would .burn with something
of the fire o^sa^tguaMi which
kindled in theirs of
old. But he is
longer visible. His person has been
for longlages hidden in th ^Storting mists generated by
the imaginatio®, wHRJth^unprecedented novelty of such
a life most jywrMBQt^^d. The extravagant and ir
rational representations thal hf^gbeen made of him could |
not reach in to the cenwal springs of our nature. They
can only play u
surface, and noisily agitate that.
To the still de^^^S csgnotfj^getrate.
And now, whf^t^^^tagjysicaljsions that have so
long veiled the human person of Jesus are fading away,
the case is Tiardly
to the blinding mists
of SuperstWon ^a^^iUd^ed^i^h di mists as blinding of
Scepticism • and to nuOW^s p^Bflonly a myth. He is
not known.
I should not presume to mah^ this assertion, were not
the reason plain wny he is not known. The ignorance,
the superstition, the monstrous dogmas, for which his
name has been cWmed, gjaavfl driven even intelligent,
learned, and conscientious men to the extreme of regard
ing with distrust,, one might almost say with contempt,
those artless accounts of Jesus, which have come down to
us, and from which alone we obtain any knowledge of him
�B2
FAITH IN CHRIST
personally. Accordingly, while, on the one hand, these
accounts are studied to find authority for some established
creed, on the other, they are read only to feed the scepti
cism with which they are looked upon. Jesus must needs,
therefore, be unknown when we seek, not for him, but for
the confirmation of some system of faith, or of no faith.
Murmur not, complain not, that you cannot see him.
4 No man,’ he himself is recorded to have said, ‘no man
can come to me unless He who sent me draw him’
Where is the single, earnest eye, to which alone, bent full
and searchingly on the record, its meaning will open, and,
emerging from the dimness of centuries, Jesus will stand
in sunlight clearness befor.e us with arms outstretched to
save us ?
Of all the great personages of History, there is no one
of whom so individual and living an idea may be had as
of Jesus. Such is my conviction. And for this reason,
not only because the accounts of him, as I have found, are
impressed all over and all through .with inimitable marks
of truth, but because, brief and imperfect as they are, they
are, to a singular degree, made.ujTof just such particulars
as always afford the most satisfactory insight into the stuff
and quality of the persons of whom they are related.
Thus persuaded, I believe the time will come when it
will be understood what manner of man Jesus was. As
we learn to know him, and to appreciate his exalted char
acter ; as we thus draw near to him, his spirit will breathe
upon us, and we shall receive the Holy Ghost. We shall
be learning Veneration and Love. Thus will he quicken
into a. new life those best sentiments of our nature by which
�FAITH IN CHRIST
23
it will be delivered from whatever now hardens or depraves
it. In this way, Faith in Christ personally will again
put forth its saving power. ‘The idolatry of dogma!’
says Mr Lecky, ‘will pass away. Christianity, being
rescued from the gitarianism and intolerance that have
defaced it, will shine Mg own Iplgpdor, and, sublimate®
above all the sphere of controversy, will assume its right
ful position as an ideat and not a system, as a person cmd
not a creed.’*
There is, in these times, in one great respect, a special
need of such a Saviour. The grasp of human authorities
and hereditary faiths upon the minds of men is loosened I
they cannot hold the world forever. In the free and pro
gressive M^Mytejd^^o;uishes Christendom, Science
is advancing as never before. Theories of Life, of its
origin and development, are becoming popular, which put
to naught our E&^Hfiogms, anlBtoevolutionizing our
modes ofjFhSght.
there who
earnest men of Science are
me mni^me. and can find no
God. Startled
listen and hear
everything attempted to be accounted for by blind law
and brute Enatter, f we ^ni to be in a boundless desert,
where is no SaOed Presence, where consummate order
reigns, but~nd Infinite Love Ipreathe
.
*
In this state of things, what tongue can tell the worth
of such a Person as Jesus ? When the things told of him
are established as historically true,—when he ceases to be
* History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism
Europe, p. 191. American edition, 1866.
in
�24
FAITH IN CHRIST
a myth, and becomes a Reality, and we accept him as a
Fact in Nature as truly as any fact that Science has dis
covered, or may discover, and in as perfect accord with
Nature, then, as plants spring up under the air and the
light, there will be created in us spontaneously an im
pregnable Trust, and an inextinguishable Hope, which,
to all purposes of guidance and consolation, will be equiva
lent to Faith in God. The Idea of Jesus, enshrined within
us, by the aspirations it will kindle for the Highest, will
be a witness in our inmost consciousness of the Invisible
and Everlasting. Beholding Jesus, we shall behold God
and Immortality. And, moreover, what a testimony shall
we have to the truth of our great Christian Ideas in the
fact, that it was in them that he, in whom the highest
condition of humanity lias Peen shown, lived, and moved,
and had his being! These1 rit was thaQreated him after
so Godlike a fashion.
The great and the good of every age and country have
ministered, and are forever ministering, by the inspiration
which they breathe, to IK salvation of mankind, as well
from the gloom of unbelief, as from the darkness of super
stition. But Jesus stands high, high above them all; not,
it may be granted, in the abstract wisdom of his teachings,
although it may be questioned whether, even in this re
spect alone, any other of the great leaders of the world
have approached him,—have uttered so much of the high
est truth as he; but in the overflowing fulness of his spir
itual being, in the fact that he impresses us with the con
viction that there was a great deal more in him than his
words or even his acts expressed, an unfathomed reserve
�FAITH IN CHRIST
25
of personal power. Who has ever moved the world
like him ? Who is there that, like him, has challenged
centuries to define his position,—to take his measure?
He so stirred the imagination alone, that for ages, poor
peasant as he was, he has heen held to be nothing less
than the Infinite God himself; and this, too, not in
the absence of information concerning him, inviting the
imagination to so extravagant a flight, but in the face
of explicit facts showing him to have been a man, a
tempted,4suffering, dying, all-conquering man. ‘Two
things,’ said the philosopher Kant, 1 fill me with awe I
the starry heavens and the sense of moral responsibility
in man.’ To these two I add a third, filling the soul
with faith and love and hope, as well as awe, the Per
son of
To the Spirit, in him made Flesh of our
flesh, be this fair Church, risen from its ruins, every stone
of it, and th4 living Church within, its pastor, my friend,]
brother,..son, and his flock, dedicated now and forever!
�DEDICATORY HYMN
BY ROBERT COLLYER
0 Lord our God, when storm and flame
Hurled homes and temples into dust,
We gathered here to bless thy name
And on our ruin wrote our trust.
Thy tender pity met ourapain,
Swift through the world the angel ran
And then thy Christ appeared again
Incarnate, in the heart of man.
Thy lightning lent its fuming wing j
To bear his tear-blent sympathy,
And fiery chariots rusIHfflto bring
The offerings of humaniw.
Thy tender pity met our pain,
Thy love has raised us from the dust.
We meet to bless thee, Lord, again,
And in our temple sing our trust.
�
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
Discourse: faith in Christ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 25, [1] p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Text of discourse from Acts xvi, 31 - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". Final unnumbered page is a dedicatory hymn by Robert Collyer. Includes bibliographical reference.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[187-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5368
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 (Discourse: faith in Christ), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
Conway Tracts
Faith
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8f753951dfd4b6904a0ed1734381cd2b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=csAn800SP8tUTcnoY47wsBBMgAvav9aclVbXFru4Wl2SM8WSTniDeb%7EMCuP%7EpNk4SRoU0jhG-%7EEJ7%7EP55Mt%7ErKSWopc-uoQK%7Edrg4hEGcSqAsB7bJOuKZR23Qa2QCf-OU18wmcFkXVPuIQY2z-uXR5SXvypLPrGDlPuNit6GL9z2vu3NFMcJCjrltwY5dvSKcHrMtCN9Qo22PGTkOvaf6oUKThVlPJ6xM65891xVoy0G7HX0wZeg9N1ms1YOYupNH8VGWuKIS9aerFTAs1-gECc-dpnvpkIfEKa6FjOKlgEJB%7EZ4LcnOCe2H4JamZwUTcAn7bR8pwaqO8bpxiBsQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d85639b812b8c68209956ddaad9250b4
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULnk SOCIETY
THE
FABLES OF FAITH:
Immmrdxfg anb ^tarbifjL
BY
AN EASTERN TRAVELLER.
“Il est affreux sans doute que l’Eglise chretienne ait toujours ete
dechiree par ses qtterelles et que le sang ait could pendant tant de
siecles par des mains qui portaient le Dieu de la paix.”—“ Le Siecle de
Louis XIV.,” par Voltaire.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1882.
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�6 2-40'2-
CU-CA"
TO
HIS EMINENCE
CARDINAL MANNING.
ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER,
THIS ESSAY IS DEDICATED,
AS A TOKEN OF RESPECT
FOR
HIS CHARACTER AND LIFE,
SO HIGH ABOVE THE LEVEL OF HIS
ADOPTED FAITH.
�PREFACE.
The writer of this little essay was born and educated in the
Church of England. The prejudices of his education were
strong enough (as is usually the case) to bind him to the
belief in a church, and, on arriving at years of discretion,
his reason convinced him that if there be a church it must
be an infallible one, and thus he “ submitted ” to the Church
of Rome as the only church claiming infallibility. A study
“ on the spot ” of Mahometanism and other Eastern faiths
led him to a comparison of all faiths, and ultimately to the
reluctant conclusion that they are all founded on assump
tions more or less inconsistent with truth, and that their
doctrines and practices are prejudicial to morals and human
happiness. His reasons for coming to this conclusion are
sketched in the following pages—pages which must inevi
tably be painful to the “ faithful,” and not only to them,
but also to him who has felt forced to retire from their
ranks, and thus abandon many cherished theories, many
beloved friends. The sacrifice he has thus made is a great
one, but truth is a sufficient consolation.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
------- ♦-------
CHAPTER I.
Fnth: its Definition, its Origin, its Evidences and their
Value.
(1) It is not to the faithful only, but also to the sceptical,
that faith is a matter of profound interest, for it is closely
woven into the history of every country, in every age, and
remains an important factor in many vital questions of the
present and of the future. Who, for example, would
venture to govern India without taking into account her
religions and sects ? We may disbelieve and despise these
religions, but the “lively faith” reposed in them by 250
millions of our fellow subjects is a fact which, however much
we may deplclre it, we cannot ignore.
(2) What is, then, this “ faith,” so dear to its votaries,
so praised by poets and painters, so pregnant with influence
on the destinies of nations and of individuals ? St. Paul
defines it as the “ substance of things hoped for, the evi
dence of things not seen.” But this definition, however satis
factory to a Christian believer, falls short of presenting any
accurate idea to a mind of another “ persuasion,” or to that
of a mere philosopher. If faith be the “ substance of things
hoped for ” it must be undiluted happiness; and yet those
who possess it do not appear any happier than those who
possess it not. And if it be the “ evidence of things not
seen,” how is it that, as regards such things, the faithful
know just as much and just as little as the unbelievers?
The revolution of the earth round the sun is, in a sense, a
thing not seen ; yet the faithful Joshua was ignorant of the
fact, and when it was discovered, the Prince of the faithful
hurled his anathemas against the unhappy astronomer who
had dared to find better evidence of “ things not seen ” than
the combined faith of the college of cardinals was able to
accumulate.
�6
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(3) Faith would be better defined as the belief in things
unproved by evidence; and if faith be in itself evidence, as
St. Paul advances, it is merely evidence of credulity in its
votary. In the ordinary affairs of life we believe little that
we hear, and not all we see, and the laws of every country
discourage the admission of hearsay evidence. But in the
concerns of our salvation we are less exacting: an envoy
from heaven is never asked for his credentials, and we
believe greedily and gratuitously all he alleges with regard
to his instructions from his august master. If a trades
man’s assistant call to collect his master’s account, we take
care to have evidence of his authority ; but if an ignorant
shoemaker or a reformed thief ties a bit of white cambric
round his neck and announces his arrival on a mission from
the king of kings, we rush in our thousands to heai' the
glad tidings, without even thinking of demanding a sight of
his “ full powers.”
(4) Man has an innate love of the marvellous, and from
his cradle yearns for something higher than his own
standard. His imagination is equally great and permeates his
thoughts and even his language, which is more or less impreg
nated with hopes and figures in proportion to the accuracy, or
rather the inaccuracy, of his mode of thought. And so
possessing both the will and the way, he easily conjures up
for himself “ troops of spirits,” “ black spirits and white, red
spirits and grey,” witches, fairies, hobgoblins, demons, gods,
and hosts of other “things not seen.” And with the lapse of
time these “ vain imaginings ” crystalise into faith—faith by
which the cunning often live, and for which the credulous
often die. The awe of ignorance, and the zeal of fanaticism
have covered the earth’s crust with altars of all shapes and
sizes, to the “ great unknown
and no mystery, however
improbable, or even impossible, can exceed the bounds of
the faith of the faithful. Indeed, the very merit of faith is
credulity; and so we are told that St. Thomas was rebuked
for requiring evidence of what he had heard, haphazard as
it were, and which appeared to him too improbable to
deserve credence.
(5) But the difficulty of believing things without evidence
presented itself very early to those who undertook to syste
matise faith ; but they scrambled over it, sans cere'monie, by
declaring faith to be a gift. But if it be a gift, who has
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
7
selected the donees, and how has it come to pass that each of
them has a gift of a different sort ? For every religion
differs from every other religion, and there are no two
members of the same religion whose gifts of faith are
exactly alike. Indeed one may go farther and say, that
if all the dogmas of all the religions were tabulated, and so
arranged as to give a bird’s-eye view of their various
similarities and differences, we should see at a glance
that one half of the faithful anathematises what the other
half looks on as essential portions of the “ deposit
of faith.”
And as all these faiths are different
they cannot all be true, and so in spite of the old pro
verb about looking a gift horse in the mouth, the re
cipients, as well as the non-recipients, of the gift of faith,
are at last reduced to the necessity of going more or less
into the question of evidence. The faithful enter on the
inquiry with excusable reluctance, for they have the case of
St. Thomas before their eyes; and in the end they argue the
case in a circle and produce as evidence a book 1 bound and
lettered, which they claim should be received without evidence
as the Word of God ; or they call into court a witness who
proposes to be Vicarius Dei Generates in terris,1 though he
possesses no power of attorney duly “ signed, sealed, and de
livered ” by his supposed august principal. If one accept
the book or the “ Vicar ” as being what they profess to be,
we must believe a host of improbabilities, and not a
few contradictions and impossibilities—all, it must be
admitted, for we wish to be candid, attested by the blood of
martyrs, the best possible evidence of sincerity, and which
would settle the question at once and for ever if it were
only one of sincerity. But it is not: it is a question of
truth, and on such a question sincerity, if mistaken, has no
bearing. If a honest but stupid ignoramus tells me in all
sincerity that three times one make one or five, his mere
sincerity does not convince me ; I prefer demonstration to
his stupid but sincere miscalculation. And if he assure me
that three Almighty persons make one Almighty God, I
1 As we are writing in the English language we have here, for the
sake of brevity, selected the two “ rules of faith ” best known to the
English-speaking faithful, and which are in fact more than “ equal to
average” when compared with the rest. Faith has, therefore, the
advantage of being judged “ in bulk” by flattering “ samples.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
stop his arithmetic at once by pointing out the impossibility of more than one Almighty person existing at the
same time. His sincere belief in this impossibility does not
prove it to my mind, even if he die for it.
(6) The value of evidence does not, therefore, depend
entirely on the witness’s sincerity, but also on his means of
knowledge, and on his capacity for availing himself of these
means. A hundred persons may see a man die, but if the
question be one of poisoning it might well be that not one
of them would be competent to give material evidence ; one
would require a post-mortem examination by surgeons and
physicians, assisted by analysts learned in poisons—in fact,
the evidence of persons with good means of knowledge, and
competent to avail themselves of those means. And yet,
after all this would only be a question of the shortening by
a few years of the life of one single individual. How much
more careful ought we not to be in receiving evidence on
which depends (according to theologians) the length of life
of millions upon millions of human beings, and that not for
a question of a few short years, but of the countless ages of
eternity, when clocks and watches and calendars shall have
perished in an universal fire and “ time shall be no
more.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
9
CHAPTER II.
The Miracles and Prophecies of the gods of faith.
(7) “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; ”
but then he was but a fool, though not, it would seem, the
greatest of fools, for he does not appear to have been guilty
of the supreme folly of attempting to prove openly the
negative proposition which formed the subject of his secret
sayings, “ in his heart.” We are not such fools as to say,
even in our own heart, there is no God. We cannot help
admitting, indeed, we gladly avow that the universality of
nature’s laws, and the absolute impossibility of disobeying
them, are quite consistent with the existence of a Supreme
Being of absolute power to do all that is possible, and of
unchanging will. We say advisedly, all that is possible, for
there are things absolutely impossible, such as making twice
two into five, or making that not to have existed which, in
point of fact, has existed. If God were to persuade all his
creatures of any such nonsensical impossibility, he might be
said to have wrought a “ miraclebut it would be a mere
triumph of falsehood over truth, and the fact would remain
the same.
(8) But the gods created by “faith” are neither
Almighty nor of immutable will; they are supposed to
have made a huge universe for the benefit of a few preda
tory tribes, whose common ancestor, although a miserable
savage, was powerful enough to frustrate the will of his
maker and make that maker repent of having carried
out his original design! It is not against the Supreme
Being that we write (God forbid!), but against tribal gods,
the creation of their own votaries, the offspring of man’s
imagination and woman’s credulity, “crossed” with igno
rance and superstition.
(9) The faithful may demand : “ If we are wrong, how is
it that the great bulk of the human race are with us ? ”
�10
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
Because man is a gregarious and imitative animal—indepen
dent minds with original thoughts are rarities, the great
mass of mankind are followers, they are like sheep at a gap,
or the “field” at a fox-hunt, they must be “shown the
way ”—and the leaders ? Are as a rule themselves mere
followers though of a higher class ; their imitation is not so
immediate, they follow, at a more respectful distance, some
model, forgotten of the multitude, making the path a little
broader here, a little narrower there, but still following it.
The fashion of faith changes like the fashion in costume,
and the leaders of both fashions are equally arbitrary; to
be out of fashion is to be out of favor, and so the faithful
and the fashionable are always numerous, though always
divided into contradictory sections and sub-sections. All
they have in common is the belief in things unproved by
evidence; that is their fundamental principle, the founda
tion on which each separate section of the faithful builds its
house, in its own style, and repairs in the same style, or
in another, in accordance with the prevailing fashion. If
all these houses formed a beautiful and united city it
would be strong and possibly impregnable. But the city
of faith is always divided against itself, always in a state
of civil war, and its gutters often flow with the blood of
its citizens. Faith has, it is true, a great following, but
no one of her followers can say he has the rest with him ;
he should rather say against him. Ishmael is the patron
saint of every faith, if not of every “ faithful.”
(10) “But we have our prophets and our miracles, which,
attest the truth of our faith.” Every faith has its prophets,
“true” and “false,” and its miracles and counter-miracles;
but is salvation a mere prize for the guessers of conundrums
and the connoisseurs in jugglery ? The Egyptian wizards
were, perhaps, cleverer than Messrs. Maskelyne and Cooke;
they turned sticks into snakes, but Aaron, the idolator, was,
according to his brother Moses, a better juggler still ; he
turned his stick into a snake that eat up the Egyptian
snakes. But does this prove that Aaron’s god was a better
god than those of the Egyptians ? and if so, in what propor
tion, calculated in decimals ? (for w’e should be accurate
in theological matters, and decimals sound more respectful
to the gods than mere vulgar fractions.) Let us state the
case thus: God A can turn sticks into snakes, God B can
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
11
turn sticks into snakes that will eat up other sticks turned
into snakes—assuming the value of God A to be unity, or 1,
what is the value of God B ? On the answer to this
absurd sum depends the future of millions! not of sticks or
of snakes, as one might think, but of intelligent human
beings!
(11) Raising the dead is a favorite miracle with some faiths,
but it is an unsavory one, and no one seems to have gone
close enough to it to have the testimony of his senses on its
genuineness. When the experiment is tried under the noses
of experts it invariably fails; there is not one solitary
instance of success. And it is an unnecessary miracle which
would be much better replaced by the miracle of keeping a
good and true witness of the faith alive for ever. A respect
able venerable-looking old man of two or three thousand
years of age, living a regular life without eating or drinking,
and enjoying good health and the “ possession of all his
faculties,” and the memory of all the remarkable events of
his lifetime, would be a standing witness of the faith, and, at
the same time, a useful historian. No one would doubt Azs
word, and the faith would be “ kept,” not only by enthusiasts
but by philosophers and men of business; and thus a multi
tude of silly miracles, such as the liquefaction of some old
bloodstains, the periodical appearance of saints to patients
suffering from those effects of indigestion which are known
as nightmare, would be as unnecessary as they are to most
minds ridiculous.
(12) But to come to the prophets: they are divided into
two classes, “true” and “false;” but both classes are so
much alike that each has nearly the same chance of deceiving
the very “ elect ”—i.e., the persons who have been privately
supplied with the only “ correct card of the race ” for heaven,
including the winners’ names, or at all events their own. A
prophecy, according to the faithful, is not the accurate and
definite anticipation of a future event incapable of calcula
tion ; on the contrary, it is the use of indefinite language
capable of various interpretations, and is generally of the
nature of a conundrum or riddle. All definite, or compara
tively definite, promises have failed. The greatest of all
prophets is reported to have said that the generation in which
he lived should not pass away till all should be accom
plished. Yet his generation has passed away many centuries
�12
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
ago, and no part of his prophesy has been accomplished, and
his followers have nothing left but a miserable play on the
word “ generation.”
(13) But the most celebrated of all prophecies, the one
on which millions of the most educated of the faithful rely
for the origin of a third of their deity was not so definite,
and was therefore not open to immediate refutation.
‘ Behold,” said the prophet, “ a virgin shall conceive.” No
particular virgin is indicated and no particular time is
fixed for her conception, so that no precautions are possible
for providing evidence of the conception not being the
result of human agency. We wish to speak with all respect
for the faith of our fellow-men, but it is necessary to
examine this matter somewhat closely, and if it be indeli
cate, the prophet is to blame and not we. If a married
woman conceive a child the world and the law assume, as
a matter of prima facie evidence, that her husband is the
father of it: and that evidence is not likely to be rebutted.
But when an unmarried woman conceives a child, who
does not recognise the difficulty of proving its paternity?
Yet every modest matron and every innocent virgin of the
Christian faith is bound to examine or rather to believe
this matter of a virgin having conceived! Can it be
possible that the true God, who alone can be called the
god of purity, ever intended to exact from his creatures—
men, matrons, or maids—a belief on a question of pater
nity under penalty of death ? And without any evidence ?
For under what circumstances did the virgin in question
—(i.e., begging the question for the sake of argument)—
under what circumstance did she conceive ? She was living
in daily intercourse with her intended husband, in an age
when the forms of marriage were not respected so much as
they are now; both were young, both were poor, and both
probably had the average of human instincts and passions
—there is absolutely no evidence that they did not anticipate
the formal ceremony of their marriage. Yet in her case
we are called upon to assume that she was the virgin
alluded to by the prophet, and that his most indefinite
prophecy was fulfilled in her person 1 The prophesy and
its fulfilment are equally unsatisfactory, and neither can be
accepted by any but the faithful—i.e., by those who can
believe without evidence. And even they would find a diffi
�the fables of faith.
13
culty if, as magistrates, or judges or jurymen, they had to
deal with a similar case of our own times, even if it only
involved the legitimacy of an insignificant “ bit of
humanity,” the inheritance to a few “ dirty ” acres, or
a miserable pittance of a few shillings per week. Yet in
the affairs of “ salvation ” they greedily swallow an
“opening statement” unsupported by a tittle of satis
factory evidence and improbable in the highest degree.
Why ? It is the foundation of their faith, the rock on
which they have built their house, and they do not dare to
blast it “ in the mere interest of scientific investigation.”
In time, when the flood of knowledge shall have under
mined their little bit of sandstone, or when it shall itself
have crumbled gradually away, the house will fall, and
the dwellers therein will then be able to see the scientific
difference between the sandstone of Faith and the eternal
rock of Truth. Meanwhile, they will live in their house
and occupy their time in mending their own windows
and breaking those of their neighbors.
(14) If a prophet wish to prophesy a birth and be
believed, let him select the mother by name, and let him
indicate the day and hour of the birth, the sex of
the child, the color of its hair and eyes, and any other
“ distinguishing marks;” it is idle to say a virgin shall
conceive without naming the person, place, or time, and it
does not help the matter to say that the child shall bear a
certain name, because names are generally given by parents,
and parents naturally select a good one, especially if any
thing is to be got by it. Or if the prophet know that the
“ sun is going to stand still” let him name the day and hour,
so as to give us an opportunity of consulting our clocks and
almanacks, and of thus testing his prophecy. It is playing
with us to give the prophecy and its fulfilment as pages from
his own history, when he was engaged in carrying fire and
sword into the country of his “ unbelieving ” neighbors.
And the matter is not mended when we consider that the
movement (if any) of the sun had absolutely nothing to do
with the matter, and that it was the earth, and not the sun,
that he wanted to “stand still,” to give him time to
slaughter his fellow-men and their women and children.
The unblushing ignorance of this prophet and the re
volting circumstances of his alleged prophecy (or “ com
�14
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
mand ” as he calls it) are sufficient to stamp him as an im
poster ; but his prophesy is so old that it has “ crystalised ”
on the deposit of faith and the faithful believe it implicitly.
Would the faithful believe a modern “ prophet ” who should
incidentally mention that the world is flat, and that we have
only to walk to the end of it and look over the wall to see
the Ksole inhabitant of the moon chopping up the old moons
into stars ? Yet that would scarcely be more absurd than
Joshua’s ignorance of the motion of the earth round the
sun, for he professed to be on intimate terms with the
Supreme, and to be authorised to speak in His name. It is
childish to say that when Joshua said the sun he meant the
earth, and that he only used the language of ignorance to
ignorant people that they might the better understand him.
If he had had miraculous powers he could have used the
language of truth and have given his hearers the capacity
of understanding it. Or are miracles inconsistent with
truth ? Let the faithful ponder a little over that question.
(15) But, say the faithful: “ We do do not pin our faith
on Joshua; we'have the whole of the Old Testament, we
have the New, we have the Koran, and many other good
books, and all containing intrinsic evidence of divine inspir
ation, and all attested by the blood of martyrs.” The blood
of martyrs is, as we have seen, a mere evidence of perfect
sincerity. There is, or was, a patient in a lunatic asylum
in Staffordshire whose only trouble was that they would
not recognise him as Jesus Christ come a second time. He
was not Jesus Christ, but he merely believed he was, and
was willing to be crucified “ again,” as he put it, to prove
the authenticity of his mission. If he had lived when the
inquisition flourished, his blood would have possibly testified
to his belief in his identity with the founder of the greatest
religion on earth; but it would not have proved that
identity. Let us therefore leave for the moment the poor
martyrs on their crosses, their gridirons, their slow fires, and
cast a glance at the intrinsic evidence of the divine inspira
tion of what are called the “ sacred scriptures.”
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
15
CHAPTER III.
Science
The Inspiration of the Scriptures and their Internal
Evidences.
(16) No one who is sincerely convinced of the inspiration
of the scriptures can possibly doubt anything they contain,
and where they clash with the so-called discoveries of
modern science, he is bound to accept the higher evidence
of God in preference to the lower evidence of science, how
ever perfect it may seem to be—he must believe with
Joshua that the sun goes round the earth, and reject as an
optical illusion the “appearances” which have led men of
science into the “ erroneous ” belief that the earth goes
round the sun. It is uncandid and illogical to “ cut and
snip at inspiration and science in order to make them
dove-tail into each other. Let us therefore be candid and
just, though the heavens fall, or our cherished notions on
astronomy, geology and the other sciences have to be re
jected as pretty but fatal fancies into which our weak
judgments have seduced us. What, then, are the scrip
tures ? Let us first consider the collection of books known
as the Old Testament. They are said to express the will
of the creator to his creatures. But we find a difficulty at
the outset; they are not signed either in person or by proxy,
or duly attested. When a human legislator makes laws
he signs them, and publishes them over the whole area of
territory to which they are to apply, and it very seldom
happens that a question arises as to the making of these
laws or their publication. The scriptures of the Old Testa
ment, on the other hand, are unsigned, and were never
published to the world until most of them had lost all
interest except that of history. This difficulty is, however,
surmounted by the assumption that the scriptures in ques
tion contain intrinsic evidence of divine inspiration. Let
us, then, “ search the scriptures” for this evidence, and let
�16
THE EABLES OF FAITH.
us not forget what we are looking for—viz., an expression
of the will of the Supreme to his creatures. What ought
we to expect to find? Omnipotence, Justice, Purity,
Knowledge. What do we find ? God ingloriously defeated
in his grand design by an anti-god! God inciting to murder
and pillage! God relating indecent stories! God ignorant
of his own works ! God speaking in a language almost un
known I God scolding his people and repenting his crea
tion of them! In one word, we find a tribal god, “ the god
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
(17) “But all these charges are false.” Let us see, and
first as to the defeat of this tribal deity. According to the
scriptures, he made man in his own image, intending that
man should always be his faithful and obedient servant—
that was his will. But a strange personage, who seems to
have created himself, and who, besides working that miracle,
had the habit of miraculously assuming various forms and
shapes, turned himself into a serpent, and in that form
seduced the brand new man from the service of his maker !
Both wanted the servant; the serpent got him, and was
not that a defeat for the God ? Where was his omnipotence
when this miserable, miraculous, self-created serpent took
to talking, and talking with success, on the “ other side ? ”
And, moreover, the serpent’s advice was in favor of know
ledge, whilst the “ god ” inculcated ignorance as a virtue.
And, indeed, well he might, for he was himself ignorant of
the works he claimed as his own. He made the sun to rule
the day (in going round the earth!) and the moon to rule
the night (though, as a matter of fact, she often dances
attendance on mid-day), and we are told parenthetically by
the scriptures “he made the stars also,” as though that
brilliant assemblage of bigger worlds than ours were thrown
in as kinds of understrappers to the moon! Then as to the
creation itself, the account of it is grotesquely inaccurate,
and Noah’s ark is only fit to be a plaything for children’
What naturalist could believe the absurd story of a perfect
menagerie being established in one ship long before Great
Easterns were thought of. And where was the food for the
carnivora kept ?—not to mention the hay, straw and chaff
for the other animals. The writer of this story must have
been a thorough ignoramus, who wrote for a “ public ” even
more ignorant than himself, and the notion of his having
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
17
obtained his ideas from God is as absurd as the belief of his
story by sane people is strange and wonderful.
(18) All this is only grotesque. The incitement to
murder and rapine is more serious, and places at once the
“ god of Abraham ” on the same level with the “ one god”
who has Mahomet for “ his prophet.” Both gods are
equally bloodthirsty, equally narrow-minded, equally partial
to their robber bands; in a word, both are tribal gods in
the strictest sense of the term, and neither evinces the
slightest trace of the character of the God of the Universe,
who made heaven and earth.
(19) As to the indecent stories, it is a difficult matter
even to allude to them without shocking that sense of
decency which God has implanted in the nature of man, and
which even the most abandoned (with the exception of tribal
gods) cannot thoroughly eradicate. We will only mention
the stories told of Lot, referring our readers to the
Bible for the details, which are too foul for our pages.
An edifying composition of drink, debauchery, and incest
for the delectation of the children of faith! And the
story is told without a single word of condemnation of its
disgusting depravity! This gutter literature never flowed
from the pen of the God of purity, and it is mere blasphemy
to impute it to Him. Yet this is part of the intrinsic
evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures 1
(20) As to the language in which each book of the
Scriptures is written, the fact that it is not a universal
language proves that the writings themselves were not in
tended for universal circulation. God is almighty, and if
he wants to speak to his creatures, he does not require inter
preters ; and the story of his having confounded the tongues
of men when they were building the Tower of Babel, lest
they should “ climb up to heaven,” is no apology for the
non-universality of the language ; it is merely a proof that
the writer of that story was utterly ignorant of the necessity
of oxygen for the existence of animal life, and knew nothing
of the law of gravity or of the distance of “ heaven ” from
earth. This story of the confusion of tongues may be in
teresting to the admirers of the “ Thousand and One Nights,”
but the crass ignorance of its writer proves conclusively that
the Supreme took no part in concocting it. The simple
circumstance that the god spoken of was jealous of men
�18
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
and afraid they would “ climb up to heaven ” is sufficient to
stamp that god as a mere tribal god, the creation of ignorant
superstition.
(21) “ But the New Testament is of a higher standard of
morality, and evinces nobler ideas of God. Surely the New
Testament is true? ” The New Testament is but a supplement
to the Old, as is proved by the first chapter of its first book,
where we find the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham
to Joseph, and the statement that Joseph was not his father,
but that the Holy Ghost was, and that his birth was a mira
culous fulfilment of the prophecy we have considered (§ 13),
“ Behold, a virgin shall conceive.” The New Testament is,
therefore, founded entirely on the Old; and if the founda
tion be rotten, the superstructure must perish with it. The
Old Testament was the “rule of faith” of the Jews:
Jesus Christ was a Jew and a great Jewish reformer, but
he founded all his reforms on the prophets of the Old
Testament. It is true that Jesus Christ’s morality is of a
much higher standard than that of the Old Testament; but
what does that prove ? That the god of his father Abraham
was a changeable god, willing one thing at one time and
something very different at another—was, in fact, a mere
tribal god.
(22) “Then, was Jesus Christ an impostor?” We do
not say so : he gave the best proof of his sincerity, his life;
but the enthusiasts of other religions have done the same, and,
as we have seen, martyrdom proves nothing beyond the mar
tyr’s individual sincerity. “ But his miracles ? ” Were not
recorded by himself, but by his followers, chiefly ignorant
and all superstitious, and ready to believe anything and every
thing wonderful with regard to their great and good leader.
They idolised him during his life, and in their writings after
his death they deified him, and magnified his “ miracles,”
which are unproved by any tittle of independent and im
partial evidence. If Jesus Christ had had a mission from
the Supreme to his creatures, he would have been provided
with credentials sufficient to satisfy those creatures of the
reality of his mission ; but, as a matter of fact, Jesus
Christ spent the best part of his life working at a humble,
though honorable, trade, and the rest of it in vainly
attempting to persuade his people, in a remote corner of the
world, that he had received a divine mission. The great
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
19
mass of mankind was absolutely ignorant of his existence,
and the few who were not, only knew him as an itinerant
street preacher, who was endeavoring to form a schism in
the religion in which he had been born. And his judicial
murder was only regarded by those who knew of it as an
execution for heresy, or as a result of that religious intole
rance which has in all ages spilt the blood of religious
enthusiasts. And if the “King of Kings” really sent Jesus
Christ on a mission, why did he not protect his ambassador,
or demand immediate satisfaction for his murder ?
(23) One final word as to the New Testament. Although
it is the second dispensation of the “ God of Abraham,” it
is by no means the last. That wonderful dreamer, St.
John the Divine, in his “revelations,” tells us, amongst
other things, that Satan was, or is to be (when, as is usual
in such matters, left doubtful), bound for a thousand years,
during which his privilege to “ deceive the nations ” is to
be suspended, though it is afterwards to be revived for “ a
little season! ” Now this Satan has played a grand part
under the two dispensations of the two testaments, and, as
we have seen, succeeded in defeating the original design
of the God of Abraham, and, moreover, was powerful
enough to seize that God’s son and place him on a pinnacle
of the temple ; in fact, Satan has played the important
role of god’s rival, and successful rival. But St. John tells us
that he is to be shut up for a thousand years: and it is
reasonable to suppose that during that period God will have
it all his own way. This will, indeed, be a new dispensa
tion—an Almighty without a rival has the appearance of
a real Almighty. But, unfortunately, it is only another
temporary arrangement, and after a thousand years the
rival is to play his part again for a “ little season,” as St.
John, the stage manager, indefinitely phrases it.
(24) It is difficult to write seriously of the “ prophecy ”
of St. John, especially as he told us nearly two thousand
years ago that the time of its fulfilment was “ at hand,”
and it remains unfulfiled to the present day. It is a
mixture of grotesque romance and unintelligible conundrum,
all very well for a midsummer night’s dream or nightmare,
but totally unworthy of a Supreme Being of infinite power
and unchangeable will. And yet it is the foundation of a
new dispensation of the will of the God of Abraham !
�20
THE
fables of faith.
(25) The Koran and other sacred scriptures of “ faith,”
although containing here and there moral precepts of uni
versal application are, like the Bible, all strongly impreg
nated with the principles of tribal theology: they all picture
a god of limited power and wisdom, of vacillating will, of
strong passions, of absurd partiality for his own particular
tribe—on which he lavishes all his gifts and all his little
power, to the neglect of the greater part of this tiny
world, and in complete oblivion of those bigger and brighter
worlds, whose light reaches us through millions of miles of
space.
The scriptures tell us nothing that is new and much that
is not true ; and it is only by an “ act ” of blind “ faith ”
that we can find in them any internal evidence of having
been written under the inspiration of the God and Maker of
the universe.
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
21
CHAPTER IV.
The Substitute for Faith—Truth—Future Rewards and Punish
ments—A Glance at “ Heaven” and “ Hell.”
(26) “ But if we abandon the ‘ faith of our fathers’ what
can you give us in its stead?” Truth! demonstrated truth,
who claims no sacrifice of her votaries’ reason. Truth, who,
conscious of her own power and ultimate victory, has no per
secution for her ignorant enemies. If faithful enthusiasts
believe that the Alps were once in the ocean, and were
removed to their present site by an “ act of faith ” on the
part of some pious prince in want of a “scientific frontier,”
truth does not burn them alive to extinguish their foolish
faith; she pities them and patiently watches for an oppor
tunity to convince them of the folly and absurdity of their
unfounded faith. Truth does not preach ignorance as a
virtue, she does not coquet with drunkenness and impurity;
she is the foundation of all morality, and the great
antagonist of all crime. A thief is a liar (“ Show me a liar,
I will show you a thief ”). A seducer is a liar, for truth
cannot seduce. An adulturer is a liar, for he breaks his
marriage vow. A murderer is a liar, for he always denies
his crime (those who plead guilty to murder are invariably
insane or consider their homicide justifiable). In short,
there is no offence against morality that is not at the same
time an offence against truth. Do the “faiths” inculcate
a higher morality than Truth ? The Bible sanctions
murder and rapine of neighbors, including women and
children. The Bible and the Koran sanction plurality of
wives, which is an untruth to the first. Then holy books
wink at slavery, which is opposed to the now recognised
truth of the freedom of man. The Bible visits the sins of
the fathers on the children. The Bible winks at lying, for
Abraham, who “walked with his god,” said his wife was
his sister. The Bible inculcates religious persecution, the
“ casting out of the heathen.”
�22
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
(27) “ But the Christian religion is more moral.” Possibly ;
but what explanation is there of the murders and tortures
of the Inquisition, of the autos da fe, of the fires of Smithfield, of the dragonnades, and of the horrors that followed the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes ? The blood shed by
Faith in all ages has stained almost every page of the history
of every country; “religious” war is par excellence the
war of inhumanity and of extermination ; and it borders on
a miracle that Faith has not depopulated the world. If the
wretched gipsies under Moses had fully carried out their
god’s commands where should we Gentiles be now ? And a
similar question may be asked with regard to almost every
“ faith.”
(28) “ Good, but the truth you speak of has no system of
future rewards and punishments, such as faith has, and with
out these inducements and deterrents it is impossible to rule
mankind.” No one has, as yet, made any serious attempt
to rule without them, and all the attempts to rule with them
have failed, and failed miserably. The heaven and the hell
invented by faith are too clumsily made for the purposes for
which they were intended, and the conditions of admission
are simply absurd. Heaven, according to the Christian, is
a huge concert-room, in which 144,000 Jews and a “ multi
tude which no man could number ” of other persuasions sing
without ceasing a monotonous bit of flattery to their tribal
god: terms of admission, simple credulity 1 The Mohametan is not so musical; he furnishes his heaven with beauti
ful women; it is a sort of “ gay ” house without the drunken
ness: price of admission, simple credulity. Then look at hell
—its temperature is kept up at a ridiculously high degree,
and the fuel, though always burning, is never burnt ; its
aboriginal inhabitants enjoy an immortality which they
appear to have created for themselves, and their chief takes
a change of air as often as he pleases, and plays an occa
sional game at cards with the chief of the “ other place,” in
which he sometimes loses, but more frequently wins ; for,
according to theologians, hell is more frequented than
heaven : terms of admission quite as easy, incredulity. “ He
that believeth not shall be damned.”
(29) There are “ faiths,” rewards, and punishments : how
do they work in practice ? Do they lead men to lead good
lives? Not at all: they lead men to slaughter the “ un
�THE FABLES OF FAITH.
23
believers,” and steal their goods or burn them—to commit,
in a word, all the atrocities of a “ holy war.” Good lives ?
It is good deaths that the faithful prize. A life spent in
bloodshed and plunder is atoned for by a death-bed re
pentance—the giving of a share of the plunder to “ holy
church,” and falling asleep in her bosom. The brigand,
whose profession is a combination of habitual robbery with
occasional murder, goes regularly to his “ Easter duties he
fulfils the condition of admission to heaven; he believes, and
he is safe. But let us take another and a better-known son
of the Faith—Louis XIV. of France—the sovereign of his
century. Louis was a “ patriot,” a “ pattern king,” and a
powerful “ defender of the faith/’ and lived his life under the
eyes of his resident confessor. What kind of life ? He
carried fire and sword amongst his weaker neighbors, he
revoked the edict of Nantes, he broke “ unbelievers ” on the
wheel, and, whilst his dragoons were protecting the faith
against thousands of harmless unarmed citizens, he was lying
in the lap of debauched luxury, surrounded by his mistresses
and his illegitimate children, and attended by his faithful
confessor, ever ready to give him absolution when he felt in the
humor to receive it. Did the hope of heaven, or the fear of
hell, influence his life for good ? Or take another king of
the same kidney—David. He was also a defender of the
faith. Did he scruple to seduce Uriah’s wife and murder her
husband out of fear of future punishment? (And, by the
way, this guilty pair are said by St. Matthew to be direct
ancestors of Jesus Christ!) Or, to come to our own times.
Some of the Glasgow Bank directors were shining lights of
faith: they even built churches. Did the fear of hell induce
them to look on other people’s money as sacred ?
(30) As a matter of fact the heaven of faith is too in
definite, her hell is too absurd and too easily evaded, to form
any real inducement to a good life or deterrent from a bad
one. They are mere “ bogies,” whose real influence has
never done the world any good, though the faith they are
supposed to enforce has done the world incalculable mischief.
(31) Having supped full of the horrors of Faith, having
seen “ in a vision,” the nightmare of the ghosts of her
millions of victims, let us awake to the beauty of Truth.
Her hands are not stained with innocent blood, she is not
guilty of any amorous embrace of Ignorance, she puts no
�24
THE FABLES OF FAITH.
prohibition on the tree of knowledge, she has no slaves, she
is not capricious, she is the same to all men, in all ages, she
has no worthless favorites. She is eternal and, conscious
of her own strength, and of her ultimate triumph, she has
no hatred to cherish, no enemies to punish ; she would con
vert them all into friends, her triumphs are the triumphs of
peace. The pursuit of truth and of peace are the only
noble pursuits, and they alone contribute to the happiness
of the human race. War and Faith,1 despite their sham
glory, bring but misery and ruin alike to their devotees and
their victims.
(32) We do not know all the laws of the Supreme, but
such as we do know are certain and unchangeable : let us
search diligently after the others, reserving our judgment
on them until they be demonstrated, and respecting, at the
same time, the judgments of others. Let us be charitable,
and endeavor to shame Faith out of her intolerance, her
ignorance, her superstition, her immorality; and we shall
certainly ultimately be successful, if we only live that good
moral life which Truth, and the experience of enlightened
minds, demonstrate to be most consistent with the real
happiness of the human race.
Truth is the blessing, par excellence ; and it is this blessing
which the author of this humble vindication of her wishes
his readers, both friends and foes.
1 The faithful have always admitted the likeness Faith bears to War:
we recognise the likeness as perfect.
�
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
Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Essay, dedicated to Cardinal Manning "as a token of respect for his character and life, so high above the level of his adopted faith." Published anonymously. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N204
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
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 (Fables of faith : their immorality and absurdity, by an Eastern Traveller), 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
Fables-History and Criticism
Faith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f9fe47d40888fe02e8b874ed9f29e73.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gR-XPup41aKgtyrvgDt1zg7Xe7s4UPVUE9K0C5j-ltYEW1mecNBY6B4y3n8BY92xVPc3MnosRQbPa6Y5TFtH2x603NiXEgjKZMbrwRw7jobQR7hW0HfG%7ELb6wTXqdNrsfM6jLDqRSVLUO9vM1l-e2oEYwDw7QZmNRMDtJc0zR9QYFxOb61sq0eyG2ufDBR13OiQK7W6ft3t06Ja2kcH9omjVJbopTxJYkcwVz2tftMuoTGh2doJ3EA4kLG%7E1XrHMEyIOVyeQpdgqpADJWpW5ZpIMuUmPoQ4BsA2ZnPXX3UOPvBZ7Kmw5ruyxBu0MWiFef%7EtjBmVBJje12MwC6hYUjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a799d29086be6a1b6e4f3c0a895bc41a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
/O '
/ Z/0-&
FAITH AND FACT
A LETTER TO
THE BEV. HENBY M. FIELD, D.D.
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
------- «-------
REPRINTED PROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�FAITH AND FACT,
My Dear Mr. Field,—T answer your letter because it is manly
candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the
gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in
terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often
malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your
brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief,
tends to show that those who love God are not always the
friends of their fellow men.
Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be
eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and
that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro
gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ” ? And
yet “some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous,
rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect
to receive as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the inno
cence of honest error—as to the right to express an honest
thought.
You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im
portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the
advocates of protection, there are honest Democrats and sincere
Republicans. How do you account for these differences ? Edu
cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions
capable of solution—'questions that the mind can grasp, concern
ing which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be
with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this ? If such
differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those
who differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining
different views on subjects about which nothing can be positively
known P
You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ”
do. How do you account for this difference ? Of course, your
brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian
God—are governed by charity and love. They do not regard
me as. a monster because I have committed an infamous crime,
but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest
thoughts.
What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great
care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only
�4
FAITH AND FACT.
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty
to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? W^as it my duty to
remain, silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined
the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word
of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a
monster ? Has religion had control of the world so long that an
honest man seems monstrous?
According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same
being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain,
and sowed within those wondrous fields the seeds of every
thought and deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it
as a, guide to all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the
brain. And yet there are millions who do not believe in the
inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best
have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian
ever stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He
was familiar with nature from the sands to stars, and gave his
thoughts, his discoveries and conclusions, “ more precious than
the tested gold,” to all mankind. Yet he not only rejected the
religion of your brethren, but denied the existence of their God.
Certainly Charles Darwin was one of the greatest and purest of
men—as free from prejudice as the mariner’s compass—desiring
only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance the star of
truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the intel
lectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate con
clusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of mankind.
In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest and
The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion becomes a
gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest,
thoughtful, brave, and generous man.
Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, and
the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of
Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and
tell me, candidly, which in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even
your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished
for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy,
or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of
the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular
hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and
yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same free
dom of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason
is the supreme and final test.
If God has made a revelation to man it must have been
addressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could
even decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and
feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the star
less night—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is
the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains.
�FAITH AND FACT.
5
You. draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call
“ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo
mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com
mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ?
What is your opinion of Jehovah himself? Is not the sacrifice
of a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ?
Why should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Why should
the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg
of the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the
envy of the source of light !
You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her
child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care
of the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through
a false belief on the part of the mother. She breaks her heart
for love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian
mother who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a con
vict in the eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from
which none escape ? What do you say of those Christians who
believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstacy that
all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred rela
tions of life and all the passions of the heart will fade and die, so
that they will look with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the
miseries of the lost ?
You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be dis
tinguished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime
which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.”
Let us test your religion by this rule.
Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is
it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and
is it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also
another question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of
ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise ?
According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved,
and those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you
condemn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say,
for acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—
do you not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when
you reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that
which happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not
make that a virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do
you not bring your own religion exactly within your own defini
tion of superstition ?
The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his
thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We
believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is
a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales
turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of
being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The
�6
FAITH AND FACT.
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must believe,
or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.
That which must be, has the right to be.
We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart
beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old
accustomed ways.
The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that
being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest
thoughts ? You certainly have the right to express yours, and
you have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who
regard me as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question
now is,, have I the right to express mine ? In other words, have
I the right to answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me
which is a. virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition
of superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to
me is simply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right
to express your honest thoughts P When, and where, and how
did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you on a subject about which neither of us knows
anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a
proof of the depravity of man. You are far better than your
creed. You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing
the frightful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw
are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon
whom they are used, that the religion of those who use them
was founded by a god of infinite compassion. You will admit
that he who now persecutes for opinion’s sake is in famous. And
yet, the God you worship will, according to your creed, torture
through all the endless years the man who entertains an honest
doubt. A belief in such a God is the foundation and cause of all
religious persecution. You may reply that only the belief in a
false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you must admit
that the Jews believed in a true God, and you are forced to say
that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they cruci
fied the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was com
mitted, not in spite of their religion, but in accordance with it.
They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the
followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have
denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on ac
count of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their
fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless
Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for
the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At
this point absurdity becomes infinite.
Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making
it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torque-
�FAITH AND FACT.
7
mada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of
death. And this you call a “ consolation.”
You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea
of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those
entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are
not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the
gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the
Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks
doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your
Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the
salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According
to your creed a man must believe in your god. All the nations
dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and
Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris and Brahma prayed and sacrificed
in vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were
not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe
in any one of the heathen gods.
What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and
to put forth arguments that even Christians have answered?
The Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty,
and at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian
replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the
Bible. This answer was complete.
I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have
been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the
supernatural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and
purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous
myths. Yet a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make
men charitable or just. For most people, Theism is the easiest
solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that
there must be a being who created and who governs the world.
But the universality of a belief does not tend to establish its
truth. The belief in the existence of a malignant devil has been
as universal as the belief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent
men will say that the universality of this belief in an in finite
demon even tends to prove his existence. In the world of thought
majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with
the few.
Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has
been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance
and hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man
has sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and
child; he has fasted and prayed; he has suffered beyond the
power of language to express, and yet he has received nothing
from the gods—they have heard no supplication, they have
answered no prayer.
You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and
�8
FAITH AND FACT.
on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to
all alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the
just and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his
cyclones rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest
and the criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is
cruel to all alike? In other words, do they not demonstrate the
absolute impartiality of the divine negligence?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelli
gence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better
than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts or
floods; the props would not be permitted to wither and die, while
rain was being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good
man with power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones?
Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the
lightning ?
Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the
good, and preserve the vile? Why should he treat all alike here,
and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should
your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by
his enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the
noble, to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ?
Does it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of
shame when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of
her babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with
sobs, commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ?
It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed,
you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci
tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence
of God. Now, if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of
the soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity?
Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You
seem to think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in
order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain
qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for
the Atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do
you quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose
being he so passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon
—one of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely
strung that he was sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you
driven to the necessity of proving the existence of one tyrant by
the words of another ? Personally, I have but little confidence in
a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his
ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans. In
regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast
amount of testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of
Charles Darwin, and then denied the correctness of these
theories—preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few days
to the lasting applause of the intellectual world.
�FAITH AND FACT.
9
I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but
that everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there
is no way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me,
the crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constella
tions. But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the
universe by the mystery of God, you do not even exchange
mysteries—you simply make one more.
Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.
The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of
God.. That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so
that it cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is
beyond the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that
man can be convinced by any evidence of the existence of that
which he cannot in any measure comprehend. Such evidence
would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible
fact sought to be established by it, and the intellect of man can
grasp neither the one nor the other.
You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God,
is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship
the inflexible? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ?
You say that your God “ does not bend to human thought any
more than to human will,” and that “ the more we study him,
the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to be.”
So that after all, the only thing you are really certain of in
relation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is
it not almost absurd to insist that such a state of mind is
necessary to salvation, or that it is a moral restraint, or that it
is the foundation of a social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the
Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian
nation more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ?
Certainly you must know that what you call religion has pro
duced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the sword all
the natural ties that produce “ the unity and married calm of
States.” Theology is the fruitful mother of discord; order is
the child of reason. If you will candidly consider this question,
if you .will for a few moments forget your preconceived opinions,
you will instantly see that the instinct of self-preservation holds
society together. People, being ignorant, believed that the gods
were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms
that demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony,
phantoms that , could be flattered by praise and changed by
prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve themselves,
they supposed that they could in this way avoid pestilence and
famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do you not see
that self-preservation lies atjthe foundation of worship ? Nations,
like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like
�10
FAITH AND FACT.
individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplish
ment of certain ends.. Men defend their property because it i s
of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire
to live, and for that reason murdei’ is a crime. Fraud is hateful
to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce the
necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to
retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the
instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of
value. This is the foundation of social order, and this holds
society together.
Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs
the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its
votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The
effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together.
Of what consequence is any thing in this world compared with
eternal joy P
You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and
that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in
other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by
your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes
and preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your
God is responsible for the government of this world. Does he
preserve order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did
he establish the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of
the Inquisition.
You answer all these questions by calling my attention to
“ the retributions of history.” What are 'the retributions of
history ? The honest were burned at the stake; the patriotic,
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons;
whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of
their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They
who committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified
these infamies were adorned with the tiara.
You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg
said : “ Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.”
Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he
says—speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—
“ If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the
lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must
be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.’ ” But admitting that you are correct in the asser
tion, let me ask you one question : Could one standing over the
body of Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman’s
wound, have truthfully said: “ Just and true are thy judg
ments, Lord God Almighty ” P
Do you really believe that this world is governed by an
infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even your
self of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ?
�FAITH AND FACT.
11
Why should the loving be tortured P Why should the noblest
be destroyed ? Why should the world be filled with misery,
with ignorance and with want ? What reason have you for
believing that your God will do better in another world than he
has done and is doing in this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he
have more power ? Will he be more merciful ?
When I say “ your God,” of course I mean the God described
in the Bible and Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I
say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of
the existence of an Infinite Being.
An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason
there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any
possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being
so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an
Infinite Being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do
nothing for a Being who wants nothing. A conditioned being
can be made happy or miserable by changing conditions, but the
conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and effect.
I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a
God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can
be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and
that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an
infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe
God as “ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind,
is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no
experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I
am acquainted, and I was surprised to find in your letter the
expression that “ perhaps others are better acquainted with that
of which I am so ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say
that you know anything of any other state of existence—that
you have inhabited some other planet—that you lived before
you were born, and that you recollect something of that other
world, or of that other state ?
Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unin
tentionally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have
never uttered “ a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a
thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality,
that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with
its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores
and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any
creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and
it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of
doubt and darkness as long as loves kisses the lips of death.
I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not
know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the
beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or
the folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an
endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one.
�12
FAITH AND FACT.
The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had
lived, and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been
laid in love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven
of the New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, after
they were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word
was said to have been uttered by Christ—nothing philosophic,
nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the
cloud of doubt.
According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was
dead for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection,
why did not some one of his disciples ask him where he had
been P Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ?
There was the opportunity to “ bring life and immortality to
light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had leftspeechless as the stone that angels had rolled away.
How do you account for this? Was it not infinitely cruel to
leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could
have filled time with hope and light ?
The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have
climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not
supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long
as men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the
human heart.
All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope
and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look
have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those
who hope to live again—for those who bend above their dream
of life to come. But I have denounced the selfishness and heart
lessness of those who expect for themselves an eternity of joy,
and for the rest of mankind predict, without a tear, a world of
endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible than such a
hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of
the human race.
When I say that I do not know—when I deny the existence
of perdition, you reply that “ there is something very cruel in
this treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures.”
You have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which
a mother bends and weeps for her only son. I accept your
invitation. We will go together. Do not, I pray you, deal in
splendid generalities. Be explicit. Remember that the son for
whom the loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer
in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus
Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for some star
of hope in the midnight of her grief. What must you say P Do
not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a
�FAITH AND FACT.
13
portion of the Presbyterian confession of faith ? Will you read
this?
“ Although, the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man
inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of
his will which is necessary to salvation.”
Or, will you read this ?
“ By the decree of God, for the manifestation 'of his glory, some men and
angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to ever
lasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and
definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say :
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” WouldJyou then put this
serpent in her breast ?—
“ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other
way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives according
to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin.
There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation. Works done by un
regenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which
God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others, are sinful
and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God.”
And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What
has become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still
read from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism,
this P—
“ The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment
and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. At the last
day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the wicked shall be
cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable i torment, both of body and
soul, with the Devil and his angels for ever.”
If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted,
would you thrust this dagger in her heart ?
“ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds,
shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and
acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.”
If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would
you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul
of Christ ?—
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe
not shall be damned ; and these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil and his angels.”
Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell
this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and
among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of
paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “ Your son lived
in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach.
He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son
�14
FAITH AND FACT.
is for ever lost. You. can meet your son again only by dying in
your sins; but if you will give your heart to God you can never
clasp him to your breast again.”
What could I say ? Let me tell you.
“ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of
another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply
Btated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear.
If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you
are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him,
according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he
gave his life for him; and why should that love be changed to
hatred the moment your son was dead ?
“ My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no
rewards—there are consequences; and of one thing you may
rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere
it may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing
right.
“ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you
weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not
within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is
something. Your son does not suffer. Hext to a life of joy is
the dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox
Christianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in thiB world, where every
human being is enshrouded in cloud and mist —where all lives
are filled with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is
it “ a consolation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal
pain ” ? It is possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from
the doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If
that doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why
should he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer for
ever P Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Com
pared with this crime, any crime that any man can by any
possibility commit is a virtue.
Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite
penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal
turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this
infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a
scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth
part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world
remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was
made.
If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un
justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God
accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of
the guilty ?
According to your theory, this infinite being by his mere will,
makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong
�FAITH AND FACT.
15
exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man,
and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature
is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.”
I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural
effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment,
nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con
sequences; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness
of man; and the consequences must be borne.
A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be
pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own
well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power.
The laws of the State are made, and being made, can be changed;
but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation
of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all
power, and consequently there is no analogy between the laws of
the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not
change the relation between the diameter and circumference of
the circle.
A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny
the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of
the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be
to suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in
Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end
that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all:
Nature cannot pardon.
You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is
to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with
the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest
hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another
must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition
must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can
be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has
by his perfidy broken a loving and confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no
atonement.
But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if
you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a
man may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven
to insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships
strain at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught
that this poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of
infinite compassion. This is not all that you have taught. You
have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would
not listen to her wailing cry—who would not even stretch
forth his hand to catch her fluttering garments—you have
said to him : “ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall
be happy forever; you shall live in the realms of infinite delight,
�16
FAITH AND FACT.
from which' you can, without a shadow falling upon your face,
observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the agonies of
hell.” You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how
an angel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed
on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any
decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand of God,
should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave heaven
itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of the
damned.
You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence
ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—
that he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You
seem to have forgotten the line which you emphasised with
italics : “ The, effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause
is eternal.” In the light of this sentence, where do you find a
place for your forgiveness—for your atonement ? Where is a
way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal ? Do you
not see that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your
hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theo
logical. You have put “ new wine into old bottles,” and the
predicted result has followed. Will the angels in heaven, the
redeemed of earth, lose their memory? Will not all the
redeemed rascals remember their rascality ? Will not all the
redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ? Will not
the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and
the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the
redeemed be. as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ?
If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if
the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain
and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly
happy; and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the
kind actions, the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the
memory of good deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost
can never be perfectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a
good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one ? _ So
that the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying
pain, and the undying memory of those in hell brings undying
pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done good and bad,
the future can have neither a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ?
I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must
bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly
saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness
of another.
If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice,
the effects following a noble and disinterested action; if you
mean that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect
upon the human race—which your letter seems to show—then
there is no question between us. If you have thrown away the
�FAITH AND FACT.
17
old and barbarous idea that a law had been broken, that God
demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered
up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our
place, then I congratulate you with all my heart.
It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly
joyous to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens,
and its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the
globe, so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men.. Accord
ing to your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here,
the vicious may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here,, a
few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in
your future state, for countless millions of the human race, there
will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible
gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see
that your future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem
to mistake the glare of hell for the light of morning.
Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us
“ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of
this life.”
You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject .for
caricature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration,
you mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in
the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility,
and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, and concludes to
act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regenera
tion, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regenera
tion in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There
is some mysterious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency,
called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the
heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under
the control, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and
whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regene
ration that I have attacked.
You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born
among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates
or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying,
“ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live
and die on the earth.”
I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that
Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter
of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said
nothing against the institution of slavery ; nothing against the
tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals;
nothing about education, about intellectual progress; nothing
of art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the
rightB and duties of nations.
You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as
you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this
�18
FAITH AND FACT.
is necessary to educate the human race. Is it not enough to say
to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question
still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in
the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny.
Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue
the right of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the
world.
Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of
camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of
hundreds of millions of human beings P How is it that he con
quered and overran more than half of the Christian world?
How is it that on a thousand fields the banner of the cross went
down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ?
How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor
floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ?
Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius,
whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired
-—this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has
been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of
millions of his fellow-men P How do you account for Buddha,
in many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has
ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he
who was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was
born, to declare the universal brotherhood of man, great enough
to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising
mankind ? How do you account for him, who has had more
followers than any other ? Are you willing to say that all success
is divine ? How do. you account for Shakespeare, born of
parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of
ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do
you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the
wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human
thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly acquainted with the
human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and
in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of all experience,
and a prophecy of all to be; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty
and depth of whose, words increase with the intelligence and
civilisation of mankind ? How do you account for this miracle P
Do. you believe that any founder of any religion could have
written Lear or Hamlet ? Did Greece produce a man who could
by any possibility have been the author of Troilus and Cressida ?
Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Borne
an intellect that could have written the tragedy of Julius Caesar ?
Is. not the play of Antony and Cleopatra as Egyptian as the
Nile ? How do you account for this man, within whose veins
there seemed to be the blood of every race, and in whose brain
there were the poetry and philosophy of a world p
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
�FAITH AND FACT.
19
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “ My God, why hast thou forsaken me P”—
for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me
say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is
holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I
gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was
a reformer in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theo
logical mask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New
Testament, I see a great and genuine man.
It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course
pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness
“ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there
was something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his
fellow-creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a
“ generation of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepul
chres.” How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ?
They go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others.
They tell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only
that their religion is a lie, not only that their Gods are myths,
but that the ancestors of these people, their fathers and mothers,
who never heard of God, of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in
perdition. Is not this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow
creature ?
A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack
with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain.
A religion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out:
“ Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my
feelings,” is fit only for asylums.
You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power.
While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these things
because he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to
establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was
actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ?
Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he
not, with a touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power
to give sight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not
exercise it, what would be thought of you ? What is the differ
ence between one who can and will not cure, and one who causes
diseases.
Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet
her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of
her body like morning on the desert. What would I think
of myself had I the power by a word to send the blood
through all her withered limbs freighted again with life, should
I refuse ?
Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been
produced by and are really the children of religion.
�20
FAITH AND FACT.
Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties
and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct
by means of which happiness can be attained in another world.
The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular.
They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and
are of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest,
courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure
without being religious—that is to say, without any belief in the
supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the
same time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is
to say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the
scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes
in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a man
who is kind and loving to his family may or may not believe in
the Bible.
In order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessary to call your attention to the
fact that your Bible shows that the Devil himself is a believer in
the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures
and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these
things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains
a devil still.
Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural
goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super
stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the
heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Chris
tianity—or at least crimes that involved the commission of all
others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made
blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in
the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship
was called “ The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds,
the fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ
to crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just
before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of
the Most High.
As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention
to an incident.
You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The
Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of
having all things in common. Their followers, who had some
thing, were to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds
over to these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and
Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking
the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals,
concluded to keep a little—just enough to keep them from star
vation if the good and pious bankers should abscond.
When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he
had kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not;
�FAITH AND FACT.
21
whereupon God, the compassionate, struck him dead.. As soon
as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They
did not tell hei- that her husband had been killed. They deli
berately set a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough
or noble enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to
believe that hei’ husband had told his story, and that she was
free to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that
they were giving more than they could afford, and, with the
instinct of a woman, wanted to keep a little. She denied that
any part of the price had been kept back. That moment the
arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart.
Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles
in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime
than mendacity.
\ ou have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give
me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and
that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you
really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you
really wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army
should send word to the general of the other that his men were
firing too high, do you think the general would be misled ? Can
you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the
message P
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not
in the interest of freedom. It never entered their minds that
other men had the same right to worship God according to the
dictates of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment
they had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison
and burn. They did not believe in religious freedom. They had
no more idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah.
I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and
martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now
have was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of
these martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or
assassinated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in
fighting the hordes of religious superstition.
Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed
in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire.
He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There
was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white
ness of his soul.
For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church
was a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many
centuries with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been
ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the
earth.
Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold
�22
FAITH AND FACT.
sneer—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on house
hold worship.”
Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that
they are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of
sunshine in this life, and who thank God for the little they have
enjoyed, have my entire respect. Never have I said one word
against the spirit of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of
the man who gathers his family about him after the storm, or
after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours out his heart
in thankfulness to the supposed God who has protected his fire
side. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol
of stone, or his fetish of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one
nor of the other that I respect, it is the goodness and thankful
ness that prompt the prayer.
I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my
objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon
this subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that
the roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the
soft, cool clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads
its bosom to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its perfume to
the air. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily
with a heart of fire, the fairest flower in all this world.
What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home p
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifi
cation of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that
Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happi
ness in another to those who would desert their wives and
children and follow him P What effect has that promise had
upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Chris
tianity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ,
and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that.
Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife to
desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the
miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled
souls.
It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to love
God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ.
It is better io serve your neighbour than to serve your God—
even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing
for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can
add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the path
way of another.
It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is
true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to
the service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion
can be understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why
�FAITH AND FACT.
23
should he waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same
thoughts repeated again and again ?
Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The
mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust,
the laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul
in his body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich,
may go to the village church which you have described. They
answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this
village church ? Is it that God is the father of the human race;
is that all ? If that were all, you never would have heard an
objection from my lips. That is not all. If all ministers said:
Bear the evil of this life; your Bather in heaven counts your
tears; the time will come when pain and death and grief will
be forgotten words—I should have listened with the rest. What
else does the minister say to the poor people who have answered
the chimes of your bell ? He says “ The smallest sin deserves
eternal pain.” “ A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer
the wrath of God for ever.” He fills the present with fear and
the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the
many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to
heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,” and a great
highway worn with countless feet that leads to everlasting
death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real
savages.. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would
I turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get
acquainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange
civilities with your neighbors; and gladly would I see the
church in which such sermons are preached changed to a place
of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox
sermons—the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in
crevices and corners—driven out by the glorious music of
Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the Sunday-school,
where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed to a happy
dance upon the village green.
Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades.
Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.
You do not believe that general morality can be upheld with
out the sanctions of religions.
Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit.
It has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all.
Of course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not
murder;” but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of
escape; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,-and thou shalt be
saved.” I insist that such religion is no restraint. It is far
better to teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every
human being must bear the consequence of his acts.
The first great step toward national reformation is the uni-
�24
FAITH AND FACT.
versai acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the
consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their
country homes into a city filled with temptations, may be
restrained by the thought of father and mother. This is a
natural restraint. They may be restrained by their knowledge
of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its consequences,
and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot conceive of
such a man being more liable to temptation because he has
heard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only
good is happiness—that the only way to attain that good is by
doing what he believes to be right. I cannot imagine that his
moral character will be weakened by the statement that there is
no escape from the consequences of his acts. You seem to think
that he will be instantly led astray—that he will go off under
the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. Do you think the
Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent this would you
recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament?
Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ? Do you
think this would enable him to withstand temptation ? Would
it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts, so
that he may know exactly thé physical consequences of such
acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ?
Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ?
You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and
that the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves.
You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering
at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious
and profligate.
The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of
Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have
entertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say
to you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has
nothing to do with religion. Moralily does not depend upon
the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of
miracles. Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It
cares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality
depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something
known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no
priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom
of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded
upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has to do
with this world, and with this world alone.
My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the
gaoler of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is so say,
the supernatural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a
convict. Under the government of a personal deity, conse
quences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards.
�FAITH AND FACT.
25
Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments
and rewards are simply consequences. Nature does not punish.
Nature does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the
storm comes, I do not think : “ This is being done by a tyrant.”
When the sun Bhines, I do not say: “This is being done by a
friend.” Liberty means freedom from personal dictation. It does
not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in
Nature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Tem
perance walks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain
from the body puts an additional responsibility upon the soul.
Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit yourself; you
increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a question of
intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or to
infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those
you injure, and to none other.
I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power
above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do
that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any
extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or
that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature.
There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which
happens must happen. The present is the child of all the past,
the mother of all the future.
Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is
some God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence
have they on which to found this belief? When has any God
listened to the prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold
freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven
falls—when and where has the prayer of man been answered ?
Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of
prayer? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United
States. The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell
upon their knees and asked God to spare the life of one man.
You know the result. You know just as well as I that the
forces of Nature produce the good and bad alike. You know
that the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You
know that the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking
to death the honest man that it does or would in striking the
assassin with his knife lifted above the bosom of innocence.
Did God heai’ the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the
prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear
the prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling them
selves his followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of
glorious men ? Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of
those whose hearts were his ? Why should any man depend on
the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing
that they would suffer eternal grief?
The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate
�26
FAITH AND FACT.
or manly or womanly sentiment of love and7honor”—is the
faith that nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought
an honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith be
cause those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ?
You say to me: “There is a hell. A man advocating the
opinions you advocate will go there when he dies.” I answer :
“ There is no hell. The Bible that teaches that is not
true.” And you say: “ How can you hurt my feelings ?”
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of Ids
parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother.
Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers
and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity
heartless sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the
Apostles ? Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of
their fathers and mothers ? Did they not join with him who
denounced their people as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they
not follow one who offered a reward to those who would desert
father and mother ? Of course you have only to go back a few
generations in your family to find a Field who was not a Pres
byterian. After that you find a Presbyterian. Was he base
enough and. infamous enough to heap contempt upon the
religion of his father and mother ? All the Protestants in the
time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion of their
fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is a
prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and
mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his
mother a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not see that your
doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of for
giveness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and
the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree
with you when you say that “ Christ is Christianity and that it
stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the
foundation of your religion. If it should be established beyond
doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Chris
tianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that
we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as
mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who
painted or chiseled the greatest pictures and statues so long as
we have the pictures and statues. When he who has given the
world a truth passes from the earth the truth is left. A truth
dies only when forgotten by the human race. Justice, love,
mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in
the human heart, were known and practised for uncounted ages
before the birth of Christ.
You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abj’ect terror ’*
—does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.”
Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the
�FAITH AND FACT.
27
names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible
to tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive
a worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the
race ? Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ”
who believes your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere
women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have com
mitted “ the unpardonable sin ”—a sin to which your God has
attached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to
describe the offence ? Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the
penalty of eternal pain for the violation of a law not written,
not known, but kept in the secrecy of infinite darkness ? How
much happier it is to know nothing about it, and to believe
nothing about it! How much better to have no God.
You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so
that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer
elements of character, conduce to our future happiness.’’ This
is an old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is,
that this world is a school in which man becomes educated
through tribulation—the muscles of character being developed
by wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this
life in order to develop character, in order to become worthy of
a better world, how do you account for the fact that millions of
the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this
necessary education and development ? What would you think
of a schoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his
scholars during the first day, before they had even an oppornity to look at A ?
You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for
righteousness.”
If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of
nature ? If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ”
that man as he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not
only takes advantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit,
but perceives more and more clearly that if he be happy he must
live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony
with the fact by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the
relations he sustains to others and to things; if this is what
you mean, then there is “ a power making for righteousness.”
But if you mean that there is something supernatural at the
back of nature directing events, then I insist that there can by
no possibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power.
The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall.
There is a limit to the life of a race; so that it can be said of
every nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the
foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and
virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteous
ness, and that there came a time when this nation became a
spendthrift, when it ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the
�28
FAITH AND FACT.
labors of its youth, and passed from strength and glory to the
weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb.
The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only
power that makes for righteousness.
You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give
as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two
thousand years before I was born, and that it will live two
thousand years after I am dead.
Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself?
Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this
to Christ? Could he not have said: “The religion of Jehovah
began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it
will live two thousand years after you are dead ? ” Could not a
follower of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a mission
ary from Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say:
“ You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha
began to be twenty-five hundred years before you were born, and
hundreds of millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s
shrine ? ”
Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two
thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on
and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider
that the survival of the fittest ?
Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during
the Middle Ages ? Is it the same Christian religion that founded
the Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no
difference between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards
and the Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is
the same Christianity that has been living all these years ?
Have you noticed any change in the last generation ? Do you
remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a
passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in
the Bible are exceeding anxious to prove its truth by some fact
that science has demonstrated ? Do you know that the standard
has changed ? Other things are not measured by Bible, but the
Bible has to submit to another test. It no longer owns the
scales. It has to be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing
lighter and lighter every day. Do you know that only a few
years ago “ the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a
descriptions of hell ? Do you know that nearly every intelligent
minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about it,
or to talk about it ? Is there any change ? Do you know that
but few ministers now believe in “ the plenary inspiration ” of
the Bible, that from thousands of pulpits people are now told
that the creation according to Genesis is a mistake, that it never
was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of the Old Testa
ment are considered simply as myths or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
�FAITH AND FACT.
29
as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ?
What will there be left of the supernatural ?
It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many
years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the
Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness
upheld polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people
to massacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands
and fathers to persecute wives and daughters unto death for
opinion’s sake.
It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah,
the cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the
creator and preserver of the universe.
Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a
world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours
and is devoured? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Inno
cence is not a certain shield ?
It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment.
If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.
Day after day there are mournful processions of men and
women, patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the
word Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving
lips, driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian
snow. These men, these women, these daughters go to exile
and slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death.
Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” Bees all
this and sits as silent as a god of stone ?
And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to
your inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another
procession, in which are the noblest and the best, in which you
will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the
human race, the teachers of their fellow men, the greatest
soldiers that ever battled for the right; and this procession of
countless millions in which you will find the most generous and
the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on
the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony
becomes immortal.
How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe
this infinite lie P
Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After
all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all
mistakes and all crimes were simply necessities? Is it not
possible that out of this perception may come not only love and
pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual ?
May we not find that every soul has, like Mazeppa, been lashed
to the wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of
fate ?
You ask me to take the “ sober second thought.” I beg of you
�30
FAITH AND FACT.
to take the first, and if you do you will throw away the Presby
terian creed; you will instantly perceive that he who commits
the “ smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who
does the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss; you will
become convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of
men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years
is an infinite demon; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with
its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is
but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and
cannot exist.
Bor you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest
respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not
to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a creed that
should be shrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle
as terrible as the coffin. Preach I pray you, the gospel of intel
lectual hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take
from loving hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow
men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose tears are
falling on the pallid faces of these who died in unbelief. Pity
the erring, wayward, suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim
as “tidings of great joy” that an Infinite Spider is weaving
webs to catch the souls of men.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC.
��WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... 1f>
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
... 0 0
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
...
...
... 0 4
With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 0
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ................ 0 3
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
THE DYING CREED
...
...
... 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
DO I BLASPHEME?
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
0 2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
0 1
LIVE TOPICS
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
0 1
SOCIAL SALVATION
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE .
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
0 2
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part H
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
Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
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: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N345
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Faith
NSS
Reason
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3bb80287f453f24d18e9d8937329c197.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kUoWWnB%7ETLiUsjTtFuICijKxeph42j6EVC8yt0%7Ezc9OvSctHdA1tY3Bsm-cMO9w7UmalkSPys09D74H3NIdq7Hxnk2tpYVFazWt4PI1xnsM6rOL8yyM2YTabTpOBgcx2bQYmZiPaPSv0y3-dYPKw%7E-CPXAyozAr1hCwoyzlRqKu3ZTvpE7UCaJuC6E%7EfpVOINHsibmuqGQpIjw4%7EkbauAn2-CY751yOkR9IhI4f7fCMY7ZwuXHjgWt-HpvhcTidVil--f9E5MqWykCZK8ADHn8CoGQK%7EJIocgCOkh5I%7EfMmfDQK1iY3UDu1TrAOog02-4bKUn5q0mlvGnQegcmaVuA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
47745c3c7f88bed3de08b6bb88f02028
PDF Text
Text
CT 136
THE ADVANTAGES,
MENTAL AND MORAL,
A FAITH UNCHANGEABLE, CERTAIN, AND COMPLETE,
IN A.D. 1876.
By AV. H. K.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Sixpence.
�“ 1 had imagined that in submitting to the Catholic Church
I had exchanged the uncertainty of private opinion for the
certainty of a faith complete and unchangeable ; and now I
am compelled to choose again.”—A Roman Catholic Layman.
Ex uno disce omnes.
�To all who imagine, or who are in danger of imagin
ing, that the uncertainty of individual opinion in
matters supernatural, is an evil in itself, or that, being
an evil, it can, with mental and moral impunity be
exchanged, by one supreme act of volition, for the
self-constituted certainty of collective opinion—com
plete and unchangeable—the following pages are
offered, as being worthy of mature consideration.
��PREFACE.
UNIVERSAL—APOSTOLIC—ROMAN.
“ What stronger testimony can we have for a bare
fact than that it has been ever so believed, so declared,
so recorded, so acted upon from the first down to this
day, that there is no assignable point of time when it
was not believed; no assignable point at which the
belief was introduced; that the records of past ages
vanish in the belief; that in proportion as past ages
speak at all, they speak in one way, and only fail to
bear witness when they fail to have a voice.
“ Now, evidence such as this we have for Catholic
doctrines. They have never and nowhere not been
maintained! This is the great canon of the quod
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, which saves us
from the misery of having to find out the truth for our
selves from Scripture on our independent and private
judgment.
“ Wherefore the Roman Pontiff is possessed of that
infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed that his
Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regard
ing faith and morals, and therefore his definitions are
of themselves irreformable, and are not dependent upon
the consent of the Church.
“ Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce,
that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is, for every
human creature, necessary to salvation.
“ In the case of educated minds, investigation into
the argumentative, proof of the things to which they
have given their assent, is an obligation, or rather a neces
sity. Such processes of investigation certainly—whether
�4
The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable.
in religious subjects or secular, often issue in the re
versal of the assents which they were originally in
tended to confirm; but to incur risk is not to expect
reverse.
“ If any one, however, shall say that Catholics may
possibly have just cause of suspending their assent to,
and questioning the faith which they have already re
ceived, under the supreme authority of the Church,
until they shall have accomplished a scientific demon
stration of the credibility and truth of their faith, let
him be accursed.
11 It is hardly necessary to say that the state of mind
which we variously denominate faith or belief does not
depend for its origin upon a mere act or volition, but
upon appropriate sources or grounds of belief. The
structure of the mind is such that it does not allow a
person to believe merely as he chooses or wills to believe,
but, on the contrary, requires the belief to be conformed
to the evidence appropriate to it.”
“ Truth must be investigated without any side glanee
to the consequences which that investigation may have
upon our hopes. No consequence can destroy any
truth; the sole matter for consideration is, ‘ Are our
arguments correct ? ’—not, ‘ Do they lead to a result
which is embarrassing and unwelcome ? ’ Our faith is
sure to fail us in the hour of trial if we have based it
upon fallacious grounds, and maintained it by wilfully
closing our eyes to the flaws in its foundations.”
“The Pope, owing to his infallibility, is undoubtedly
the organ on earth of the Divine thought, not only in
matters of faith, but in all other matters, civil and
political as well.
“The bishops and the clergy, depositaries of the
divine word, participate in the Papal infallibility ; and
the faithful who do not yield to them the most com
plete obedience in all things, commit a grave sin, and
cease to belong to the Catholic community.”
“ It is not the place or authority of Church or Bible
�Preface.
5
to strangle reason, defy criticism, and fetter inquiry;
for reason is a faculty given to man by God for the pur
pose of criticising and thereby distinguishing error, so
that he may reject it; and of inquiring, so that he
may find truth under the veil which ignorance and
error has cast on it.
“No error has been more fatal to the simplicity and
spirituality of religion than the inveterate confusion of
thought ■which has to so large an extent identified
1 faith ’ with ‘ opinion.’
“ It was this confusion which generated the fierce,
intolerant spirit too often exhibited in the controversial
writings of even the noblest among the fathers of the
Church. It is this which has retarded the progress of
inquiry, which has set a ban on science, and for long
centuries has committed the keys of knowledge to a
stolidly self-sufficient priesthood.
“ Contrary to the Scriptures, the doctrines of the
Church, and of the holy fathers, men do not hesitate
to declare that the best government is that in which
the State does not recognise the duty of punishing the
violators of the Catholic religion except when the public
peace demands it. In consequence of this absolutely
false idea, they do not scruple to support that erroneous
principle, so fatal to the Catholic Church and the safety
of souls, which Gregory the Sixteenth called an insanity
—viz., that liberty of conscience and of worship is the
right of every man !
“ Man being man on the banks of the Tweed, the
Tiber, and the Ganges, we naturally find the Brahman
priest, the Boman Catholic priest, and the Scotch
minister of the seventeenth century, doing precisely the
same things.
“ We find them claiming to be sole interpreters of the
sacred books and the sole ministers of God upon earth;
and we find them establishing and regulating schools
and colleges, and training up men in the groove they
think it best for him to work in.”
�6
The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable.
“ The Catholic Church is the true exponent of revela
tion, science, history, politics, and morals.
“ Ignorance and want of thought are so nearly
allied, that the one is often mistaken for the other, and
in law, carry much the same force.”
“ As there is a faculty of speech independent of all
the historical forms of language, so there is a faculty of
faith in man independent of all historical religions.”
“ No simply historical fact can ever fall under the
cognizance of Faith.”
“ There is but one Catholic Apostolic Church, out
side of which there is no salvation and no remission of
sins.”
“ As long as the doctrine of exclusive salvation was
believed and realised, it was necessary for the peace of
mankind that they should be absolutely certain of the
truth of what they believed; in order to be certain it
was necessary to suppress adverse arguments; and, in
order to effect this object, it was necessary that there
should be no critical or sceptical spirit in existence. A
habit of boundless credulity was therefore a natural
consequence of the doctrine of exclusive salvation;
and not only did this habit necessarily produce a
luxuriant crop of falsehood, but it was itself the negation
of the spirit of truth. For the man who really loves
truth cannot possibly subside into a condition of con
tented credulity.”
“Belief in eternal retribution has been indeed a
powerful engine in shaping the life of nations as of
individuals. It has been made the servant of all work
of many faiths.
“ Priesthoods have used it unscrupulously for their
professional ends; to gain wealth and power for their
caste; to stop intellectual and social progress beyond
the barrier of their own consecrated systems. On the
banks of the river of death, a band of priests has stood
for ages to bar the passage against all poor souls who
cannot satisfy their demand for ceremonies, and
formulas, and fees.
�Preface.
7
“ Through the most widely differing religions, the
doctrine of eternal torment has been made to further
goodness and check wickedness, according to the shifting
rules by which men have divided right from wrong.”
“We live in the midst of religious machinery;
many mechanics of piety, often only apprentices, and
slow to learn, are turning the various ecclesiastical
mills, and the croak of the motion is thought to be the
voice of God.”
“That which we know is little; that which we
know not is immense.”
�THE
ADVANTAGES OF FAITH UNCHANGEABLE.
DETAILED statement of the reasons why a Roman
Catholic layman cannot, in his own opinion,
accept the decisions of a general council of the church
to which he has voluntarily belonged, must be, for
many reasons, a document of very general interest.
It is not often that such a statement is allowed to
see the light. We have lately seen, among other start
ling consequences of political expostulation against
ecclesiastical claims to authority and supremacy, one of
an “Apostate Triumvirate”* of Old English Roman
Catholics—by reputation,—when daring to exercise his
private opinion publicly, on the decisions of a council
of his church, abruptly silenced and effectually restored
to orthodoxy, by the simple threat of excommunication
by his bishop.
The subject is the more interesting, because the
council in question is one which was assembled—not
in the dim obscurity of the mediaeval past, but in the
comparative daylight of the living present; and
because—if we may accept the recently published state
ments of an eminent Father of the Church f—crowds
of educated English men and women are accepting the
decisions of this general council, and adding their
numbers to the already claimed two hundred millions of
the Roman Catholic Church, here in England every day.
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine
A
* Lords Camoys and Acton, and Mr Petre,—The Times, Nov. 24,
1874.
+ M. le Pore Hnguet.
�The Advantages of Faith Unchangeable.
9
a more useful and instructive document than that which
has recently been given to the world in the form of a
pamphlet, entitled, “ Reasons why a Roman Catholic
cannot accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as
defined by the Vatican Council,” by a Roman Catholic
Layman.*
As might be anticipated, the author’s arguments
lead him inevitably to issues of much deeper importance
than that immediately suggested by the title of his
work. Of far nearer interest to all English men and
women than the reasons why a Roman Catholic cannot
submit himself to any particular manifestation of
authority inside his church, must be the reasons which
can be discovered or adduced from his own confessions,
to account for the fact of his complete submission to
the infallible authority of that particular church in the
first instance. It is, in point of fact, as a rare and
valuable contribution to our knowledge of Catholic
mental physiology in this particular direction, and as a
remarkable illustration of the peculiar effects upon the
mind which the Roman Catholic system produces on
those who submit their reason to her teaching and
authority, and not merely as a fresh addition to the
curiosities of theological literature already existing,
that the pamphlet in question possesses for us so great
an interest.
The author begins by stating that he is a convert to
the Roman Catholic Church of more than twenty years’
standing. After that period of apparently undisturbed
belief in the infallibility of a not inconveniently defin
able body called the “ Church ” of Rome, he finds him
self suddenly “ commanded, under ‘ penalty of
anathema,’ to believe in the infallibility of an all too
clearly defined unit of that body called the ‘ Pope of
Rome,’ as set forth by the Vatican Council.”
This he affirms positively that he cannot do, “ for,”
as he asserts, “ the very reasons which induced him to
join the Roman Catholic Church.”
* Messrs Rivington & Co.
�IO
The Advantages
What he himself believes to have been these “reasons,”
he proceeds to describe as follows :—“ I had imagined,”
he says, “ that in submitting to the Catholic Church
I HAD EXCHANGED THE UNCERTAINTY OF PRIVATE OPINION
FOR THE CERTAINTY
CHANGEABLE.”
OF
A
FAITH
COMPLETE AND UN
We have here, undoubtedly, the point in which the
whole interest of the writer’s subsequent reasons and
arguments is centred. There are no grounds for sup
posing that this “ reason,” such as it is, differs mate
rially from that which would be put forward by the
great majority of those who voluntarily submit their
reason to the infallible authority of the self-styled
“ mother and mistress of all churches.” The remark
able fact about the statement is, that while the Roman
Catholic Layman proceeds to supplement this simple
explanation by ninety-five pages of further “ reasons ”
for not submitting to the infallibility of the Pope, as
defined by a council of the church, he says not one
word throughout the pamphlet in moral support of that
arbitrary exercise of the imagination by virtue of which
he discerned the inherent infallibility of the Church of
Rome in the first instance.
That this original act of voluntary submission to
authority in search of “ the complete,” “ the certain,”
and “ the unchangeable,” twenty years ago, must of
necessity have been the result either of a reasoning
process of the mind, capable, of full explanation, or else of
an arbitrary assumption and exercise of personal infalli
bility on his own part, never seems to strike the Roman
Catholic Layman’s mind for an instant. This is the
most noteworthy and curious feature in the pamphlet.
Although driven to the most extraordinary and
palpable contradictions in his efforts to justify himself
in his absolute rejection of the infallibility of the Pope,
he avoids the examination, even for an instant, of the
process by which he first came to accept the infallibility
of the Church.
That “ reason ” must inevitably precede “ faith,” as
�of Faith Unchangeable.
11
an inconvenient necessity of human nature,—is a simple
fact of which he takes no notice whatever.
This awkward omission of the topmost link, in his
chain of reasoning, frustrates naturally all his efforts to
prevent his conclusion from falling to the ground, and
is, at the same time, the cause of infinite confusion of
idea, and bewilderment to the ordinary reader. It is
somewhat difficult at the outset, for instance, to apply
the “ reasons” furnished by the Boman Catholic Lay
man for his original submission to the Church of Rome,
to his present act of non-submission to the authority of
the head of that church. The “reasons” seem to
adapt themselves most indifferently to their new situa
tion. Applying, however, his own words exactly in
accordance with his own statement, it may be assumed
that the Roman Catholic layman now imagines that, in
not submitting to the infallibility of the Pope, as de
fined by the council of an infallible church, he is still
further relinquishing or “ exchanging the uncertainty
of private opinion for the certainty of faith, complete
and unchangeable.”
To understand his position here more clearly, it is
necessary, before following him further, to recall to
mind certain solemn obligations which devolved upon
him by virtue of his original submission to the Church.
In accordance with the Creed of Pius the Fourth, he
voluntarily declared, on becoming a Roman Catholic
twenty years ago, as follows:—“ I acknowledge the
Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the Mother
and Mistress of all churches, and I promise true obe
dience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St Peter,
Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
Also, “ I do at this present freely profess and sincerely
hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one can
be saved ; and I promise most constantly to retain and
confess the same entire and inviolate, with God’s assist
ance, to the end of my life.”
Considering the gravity and solemnity of this state
�12
The Advantages
ment, it will seem strange to the ordinary, non-Catholic
mind to find the Roman Catholic Layman, when now
commanded by the Bishop of Rome, successor to St
Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ, to
believe, under penalty of anathema, a doctrine set forth
by a general council of the church, declaring point blank
that he can do nothing of the kind, and that, on the
contrary, for reasons good and sufficient to himself,
“ he utterly rejects it ! ” It is evident, however, that
he has not been reduced to this curiously illogical exer
cise of that “ private opinion ” which he imagined that
he had finally relinquished twenty years ago, without
being sorely pressed.
“ My feeling,” he previously declares, “ has been that
of utter dismay at finding that which I have supposed
for so many years to be solid rock, melting away under my
feet like ice exposed to the burning rays of a July sun.”
Utter dismay has no doubt driven many to strange
action before now, and certainly nothing can well be
stranger than the action which the Roman Catholic
Layman proceeds to adopt. Having, it appears, “ stated
his dilemma privately, and having met with nothing
but evasions, or refusals to discuss a matter already
settled” he has recourse to the Apologia pro Vita Sud
of Father Newman.
In the appendix to that work he finds laid down,
among other important truths, “that the truest expe
dience is to answer right out when you are asked; that
the wisest economy is to have no management; that
the best prudence is not to be a coward ; that the most
damaging folly is to be found out shuffling; and that
the first of virtues is ‘ to tell truth and shame the
devil.’ ”
Adopting these Catholic principles as his own, and
“ determining,” as he says, “ to act as Dr Newman pre
scribes,” he proceeds forthwith to demonstrate to the
world “ that the Vatican doctrine of infallibility con
tradicts the antecedent teaching of the Church; that it
�of Faith Unchangeable.
13
has changed the basis of faith ; that it is, in the fullest
sense of the word, a new doctrine ; ” and that, conse
quently, “ he is fully justified in utterly rejecting it.”
Before considering the evidence upon which he essays
to establish these several points, and which he himself
pronounces to be “ overwhelming,” it is impossible to
avoid recalling to mind certain “ antecedent teaching ”
of the Church of Rome, about two centuries and a half
ago, which bears directly on his position.
It was then formally decreed, “ By the grace of God,”
on the authority of certain “ cardinals of the Church,
inquisitors-general throughout the whole Christian re
public, special deputies of the Holy Apostolic Chair
against heretical depravity, that the then new doctrine,
that the earth is not the centre of the universe, nor im
moveable, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theolo
gically considered, erroneous in faith.”
Here again, the ordinary and non-Catholic mind
would naturally enquire, before going further, whether
■the Roman Catholic Layman, who so clings to the old
and rejects the new, was aware of this “doctrine”
and “antecedent teaching” of the “mother and
mistress of all churches,’’ when he sought “ the com
plete and the unchangeable in her bosom ; and further
whether he now believes that the earth is indeed the
centre of the universe and immoveable 1 ”
Of all this however he tells us nothing. ' Certain
indirect testimony nevertheless, bearing pertinently on
this important question is to be found in a subsequent
page of his pamphlet, where, being for the moment
concerned in protesting against addition of doctrine,
and not its subtraction, he produces the testimony of a
Bishop of the Church to prove that :—
“ The doctrines of faith which have been declared,
defined, and delivered by the Catholic Church, cannot
be added to—nor subtracted from* and can never be
changed nor superseded without heresy or schism.
* The italics are not as in the original.
�14
The Advantages
In default of any explanation of the Roman Catholic
Layman’s own views as to his acceptance of the
“ Immoveable ” as well as the “ unchangeable,” on the
infallible authority of the church, it will be here not
out of place to supplement the Bishop’s evidence just
given, by that of a Cardinal Archbishop, which
furnishes him with a curious and characteristic loophole
of escape from obligatory belief in Ptolemaic Astronomy
in a.d. 1876. “Enlightened by the teachings of the
Church, the Catholic may view in peace, and even
with delight the progress of science. If he hears
of a contradiction between science and religion it
will soon be found only an appearance of contradic
tion ; or if a contradiction really exists, it will be
found that the boasted discovery which creates it is
but an ephemeral theory and not the truth; or if its
truth be beyond gainsay, and the contradiction plain,
then the doctrine with which it is in conflict will
be found to be but a ^theological opinion and not
a dogma ; or if it be a dogma, it has been misunder
stood or not explained according to the mind of the
Church.’’*
These two remarkable pieces of Catholic evidence
bring us now face to face with the time-honoured and
inevitable difficulty which confronts the Roman
Catholic Layman from the first, and entangles him—
and his readers also—in its folds to the very last, viz.,
the true definition of “ the Church,” and the infallible
recognition and determination of the organ by means of
which she reveals her “ mind,” and gives utterance to
those unchangeable “declarations,” “ definitions,” and
“ deliverances ” which cannot, without heresy, be added
to or subtracted from.
Having, in short, twenty years ago voluntarily
joined an infallible body, the main power and influence
of which lay probably in its mysterious indefinability ;
and having, as he has told us, “utterly rejected” the
* Pastoral of P. Cullen.
�of Faith Unchangeable.
15
Infallibility of the head of that body, as inconveniently
defined by one of its own councils, he has now to
determine the locality of such an Infallible mouth
piece of the Church of his adoption as shall protect
him from the disagreeable, yet most legitimate results
of his own arbitrary action.
The manner in which, according to his own imagina
tion, he succeeds in grasping this veritable Ignis Fatuus
of the Pontine Marshes is curious and instructive.
Having, as we have seen, undertaken according to Dr
Newman’s prescription, the duty, among others, of
“ shaming the devil,” it is not surprising that we
should find the Roman Catholic Layman depicting
himself in a notably embarrassing dilemma at the very
outset of the operation—not only as regards the ques
tion of the actual individuality of the spirit of darkness,
but also as regards his own immediate position with
reference to the “gates of Hell.”
“ Commanded,” as he says, “ by the Bishop of Rome
and Vicar of Christ on earth, to believe the doctrines
set forth by the Vatican Council, under penalty of
Anathema; ” he has, he affirms, “ been also taught
that he is obliged by Jesus Christ himself to believe
what the pastors of the Church teach him under pain
of damnation.”
“ The pastors of the Church,” in their turn teach him,
he declares, that “ that only is Catholic doctrine which
has been believed everywhere and by all,” and that
inasmuch as the infallibility of the Pope has not been
believed as a doctrine of the church, anywhere by any
body, he is “bound under pain of damnation—not
only to refuse his assent to it, as defined by the
Vatican Council, but “ to believe that it cannot be
turned into a doctrine of the Church even by the Pope
and Council united together.”
. It is not at all surprising that in this appalling
dilemma—surrounded as it were with a circle of ever
lasting fire, the Roman Catholic Layman should find
■»
�16
The Advantages
himself eventually driven to the most painful
extremities.
The process hy which he effects his own moral selfimmolation, as a last refuge from the inevitable of his
own imagination, is bold and conclusive.
Finding Pope and Pastors in such stupendous anta
gonism on the vital point at issue, he proceeds to ignore
or repudiate both Popes and Councils together, wher
ever their dogmatic utterances are objectionable or
inconvenient at the moment; and to accredit an unde
fined body under the title of “ the Pastors of the
Church,” alone with infallibility of teaching whenever
he is in want of immediate assistance or support.
The method has at least the virtue of simplicity.
Before adopting it, however, he goes through the
process of forcing himself up to the resource by suggest
ing certain arguments against himself which threaten
vitally his existence as a Roman Catholic, and which—•
presenting themselves quite naturally to the ordinary,
non-Catholic mind—might also fairly be expected to
force themselves upon the Catholic intelligence when
stimulated by such maxims as those we have seen
adopted from the “Apologia ” of Father Newman.
“ You have submitted to the teaching of the Catholic
Church, and are consequently bound to believe what
she has taught, do&s teach, or shall teach.”
To this most pertinent application to his position of
the creed of Pius the Fourth, which he has so solemnly
adopted and subscribed to as necessary to salvation,
the Roman Catholic layman piteously replies : “But,
I say, what is to be done if the Church teaches me
to-day something which is in contradiction to that
which she taught me yesterday, and this I contend, in
this matter, she has done.”
This “ contradiction ” of infallible teaching, it is the
main purpose of his subsequent argument to establish.
Without reference to its establishment however, he
tells us that to this expostulation, it will be replied :
�of Faith Unchangeable.
17
“ You are no longer a Catholic since you deny, or at
least douht, the infallibility of the Catholic Church.”
In this strait, the Roman Catholic Layman is
evidently forced to save his Catholicity at all hazards.
Snatching at a straw, he clings to the circular reasoning
that “ lie has been taught that, as a Catholic, he is
obliged, by Jesus Christ himself, to believe what the
Pastors of the Church teach, under pain of damna
tion.” Then calling in the assistance of the particular
pastor of the Church of his adoption, whose testimony
suits him at the moment, he replies : “ This by no
means follows, as the following quotation from the
Summse Doctrinse of an illustrious saint, the Archbishop
Antoninus of Florence, will show. He says : ‘ Even
the Council can err. For though an (Ecumenical
Council belongs to the whole church, it is not the
whole church, it only represents it.’ ”
Catholicity is thus saved for the moment, no doubt,
but at a heavy sacrifice—moral and mental. It would
seem as if the Roman Catholic layman had, in fact,
forgotten, for the moment, the maxims of his mentor,
and in particular, that which warns him which way
“ damaging folly ” is most surely to be found. For
almost the entire evidence subsequently produced in
the pamphlet goes to contradict directly the testimony
of Saint Antoninus of Florence; and being intent,
above all, upon disproving the infallibility of the head
pastor of the Church, his arguments are elsewhere
brought to prove that certainly on no one pastor was
the gift of infallible teaching originally bestowed, but
on the body of the pastors of the Church.
Thus it is that, having proved that an (Ecumenical
Council can er)- to suit the exigencies of the moment,
he elsewhere calls upon Bellarmin to declare that, “ All
Catholic divines constantly teach that general councils,
confirmed by the Pope, cannot err, either in explaining
matters of faith or precepts of morality, wherein the
whole Church is concerned.”
�The Advantages
Bellarmin he supports by Suarez : “A general council,
at which the Pope is present, after it is confirmed by
the Pope, is an infallible rule of faith. This is an
article of faith, wherein all Catholics agree.”
Having by this and similar evidence thus invalidated
the testimony of Saint Antoninus of Florence, and
impeached his credibility as a witness, the Roman
Catholic Layman further proceeds to prove that the
Saint has neither right nor title to the very gift of
teaching—“ under pain of damnation,”—with which he
himself accredited him, and upon which alone the
value of his support depends.
This he effects by an appeal to Bishop Hay, who sets it
forth as “ a Catholic rule of faith that Jesus Christ was
pleased to authorise the pastors (not one pastor),” as he
remarks himself, “ of his Church to be the depositaries
of the sacred truths he had revealed to the world, and
the interpreters of his word.” Further, he maintains,
on his own conviction, that “it is a contradiction to
affirm that the infallibilty of the Church resides in one
person only when the Church has distinctly taught that
it resides in the body of the pastors.” “Why?” he
asks,—anticipating no doubt, future possible decrees
of individual infallibilities,—“ should not three persons
be declared to be only one person, if the body of the
pastors can be declared to be only one pastor ? ”
Levelled at the Pope, this argument strikes Saint
Antoninus of Florence a crushing blow, and then
recoils upon the Roman Catholic Layman in a fashion
which none can probably be blind to but himself.
The position is simply this: Having, by the exer
cise of his own private judgment, in years gone by,
accredited the pastors of the Church of Rome with
divine authority for infallible teaching, under pain of
damnation, he now maintains, as an argument, that he
is manifestly obliged to believe, without a doubt, that
these same pastors were so divinely authorised and com
missioned, because they command him, under such
�of Faith Unchangeable.
l9
tremendous pains and penalties, to do so. Having, after
this fashion, established the moral obligation of believ
ing “ the pastors ” of the Church of his adoption, he
passes rapidly, to suit the exigencies of the moment, to
assume the consequent obligation of listening to the
teaching of one pastor in particular. Producing, then,
this chosen pastor as a witness in his defence, he pro
ceeds, when his services are no longer required, not
only to impeach his credibility, but to prove that he
never was a competent witness in the case at issue. In
preserving his Catholicity, in short, at all hazards, he has
not chosen to notice the one weak point in his line of
defence, which the ordinary and non-Catholic mind
will at once remark and seize upon, viz., that before he
could “have been taught” the necessity of belief
in the teachings of the pastors of the Church of
Rome, under so severe a penalty as damnation,
he must himself have been able, by some inherent
infallibility of his own, to pronounce and determine
where these particular pastors were to be discovered.
The missing link is none the less important,—being top
most,—for being a small one; and that its absence has
not been noted in the pamphlet is all-important to its
comprehension.
A subsequent argument of his own might, neverthe
less, have fairly been expected to lead the Roman
Catholic Layman directly to the omission. Intent
here again upon discrediting the Pope's Infallibility only,
he quotes words of Bishop Milner’s as follows :__“ If
Christ had intended that all mankind should learn His
religion from a book, namely, the New Testament, He
Himself would have written that book, and would have
laid down as the first and fundamental principle of His
religion, the obligation of learning to read it.” On this
he comments with undoubted justice. ((It must be
equally true that if Christ had intended that all man
kind should learn His religion from the Pope, He Him
self would have said so, and would have laid down as
B
�20’
The Advantages
the first and fundamental principle of his religion, the
obligation of hearing the Pope.” There can be little
doubt that if the Roman Catholic Layman had not been
here exclusively intent upon undermining the particular
phase of Infallibility which happens to run counter to
his judgment, he would have driven these arguments
home to their legitimate and just conclusion.
Assuming that both the arguments are true, it must
of course be similarly true that, “ If Christ had in
tended that all mankind should learn His religion
from the pastors of the Roman Catholic Church, He
Himself would have distinctly said so, and would have
laid down as the first and fundamental principle of His
religion the obligation of hearing the pastors of the
Church of Rome.”
And this brings us, before examining the Roman
Catholic Layman’s further accusations against himself,
to the enquiry, what after all constitutes this Church
of Rome, in his own opinion and discernment ?
This question, so absolutely essential to the ap
proximate comprehension of a*ll Catholic reasoning, he
anticipates himself, and answers in a fashion which, to
himself no doubt, is perfectly satisfactory and conclusive.
“ It is necessary,” he remarks, “ to have a clear idea
of what ‘ the Church ’ is.”
“ The Ultramontane idea of the Church seems inex
tricably confused.” The true and clear idea he then
conveys by the following quotations :—“ The Church is the congregation of all the faithful
under Jesus Christ, their invisible head, and his Vicar
on earth, the Pope.
“ The Church on earth is the visible community of
believers founded by Christ.
“ The Church of Christ consists of the body of the
faithful united with its pastors.
“ The Church militant is the society of all the faith
ful still dwelling on earth.
“ The Church is the congregation or society of all
�of Faith Unchangeable.
21
true followers of Jesus Christ throughout the whole
world, united together in one body under one head.
“ In a word, the Church consists of the faithful dis
persed throughout the world.”
To this summary he adds, u I could easily furnish a
hundred more definitions, but as they are all substanti
ally the same it is not necessary.”
That these definitions should be considered by the
Roman Catholic Layman to unfold a “ clear idea ” of
the Church of Rome, as directly opposed to “an
inextricably confusing one,” is fully accounted for by the
fact that he is at the moment intent, solely and entirely
upon proving, as he asserts in the paragraph immediately
following, that “ it is clear that the Pope does not con
stitute the Church.”
For this purpose the definitions are no doubt fully
sufficient, as they are also to furnish him with a way of
escape from the self-directed home thrust which, as we
have seen, Saint Antoninus of Florence has failed to
parry, viz., that “ since he denies or doubts the In
fallibility of the Catholic Church he is no longer a
Catholic.”
It is only necessary to substitute for “ the Church,”
the meaning to be discovered from the sum total of its de
finitions, in order to comprehend the nature of the position.
It is easily conceivable, of course, that the Roman
Catholic Layman may neither' doubt nor deny the In
fallibility of ‘£ the congregation of all the faithful
throughout the whole world, united together in one
body, under one head—the Pope.”
Between “not denying,” however, and “believing,”
there is a great moral and mental gulf, irrevocably
fixed, which he cannot, if he would, ignore.
The Catholic Church—this church of the “ clear
definition’’—has laid down, he tells us, as its very
principle and ground of faith, that “ all mankind must
believe whatever she decides and sanctions with the
assistance of the Holy Ghost.”
�22
The Advantages
Manifestly, however, before believing “ whatever the
congregation of all the faithful under one head,”
“ decides and sanctions,” “ under penalty of anathema,”
all mankind must be in a position to discern beyond
all possibility of doubt or error the mechanism by which
this corporate body can come to the knowledge of its
own mind the manner in which it has already clearly
revealed its “principles and ground of faith
and the
mouth-piece by which it will give future utterance to
the teachings of its Infallible, authority • those moment
ous “declarations, definitions, and deliverances, with the
non-acceptance of which the eternal punishment of “all
mankind ’ is so inevitably linked, and “ which cannot
be added to or subtracted from, without heresy or
schism.”
Now, that all mankind are in this position, the
Roman Catholic Layman’s reasoning does not in any
way help to establish. On the contrary, that, both
outside and inside of the congregation of all the faithful
under one head, “ mankind ” are in a state of absolute
uncertainty or declared contradiction as to the means
and method of determining and revealing these infal
lible decisions, is an awkward and obstinate fact, which
every line of his pamphlet but helps to make the more
effectually clear and apparent.
It is thus that we come to the second of those suppo
sititious accusations which he propounds so aptly and
straightforwardly against himself.
There would seem to be here lurking in his own mind
a certain uneasiness as to the satisfactory nature of his
escape from the charge of doubting the infallibility of
the Church, and consequently being no longer a Catho
lic, by appeal to one of its pastors, under such heavy
penalties for disbelief.
He consequently again brings the same objection
forward, disguised, however, in somewhat different form
of words :—“It will be said to such as myself,” he now
suggests, “ you acknowledge the infallibility of a Gene
�of Faith Unchangeable.
23
ral Council. Such a Council was that of the Vatican,
and it defined the Pope’s infallibility ; therefore, if you
deny its decisions, you deny infallibility to a General
Council.”
Tn making this point blank objection against himself,
the Roman Catholic Layman has undoubtedly adhered
manfully to the maxims of his special adoption. It
cannot be said, however, that in maintaining his de
fence, their application seems equally clear.
He has, as we have already seen, escaped from a very
similar dilemma by establishing, on the authority of a
saint and pastor of the Church, that Councils, even
though oecumenical, “ can err.”
Shifting his ground, he now for the moment dis
regards all pastors altogether, and answers on what ap
pears to be the authority of his own private judgment
only :—11 To this I reply, that the decision of a Council,
to be of force, must be unanimous. Such was not the
case with the Vatican Council, as I shall show here
after.”
This bold argument, if it stood alone, might have
some possible force in it, and would, at any rate, open
up an inconvenient field for almost unlimited discussion.
Unfortunately, however, for its proposer, who has
renounced “ the uncertainty of private opinion,” and
fortunately for his ordinary readers, who are content to
exercise that human attribute with all its drawbacks of
non-Catholic uncertainty, this plea is immediately put
out of court and disposed of by his own subsequent
assertion, and also by the further direct testimony of
those fathers and “ pastors of the Church ” whom he is
bound to believe under penalty of damnation. Cardinal
Manning, for instance, has declared that “ it may truly
be affirmed that ’never was there a greater unanimity
than in the Vatican Council.”
Appealing also himself to Saint Vincent of Lerins,
he quotes conclusively from his authoritative teaching
as follows :—££ Where the majority of the bishops
�24
The Advantages
visibly appears, there, according to both parties, is in
fallibility to be found,—according to us, who attribute
it to this majority, and according to them who teach
that the Pope can never be separated from it in solemn
decisions. We have no difficulty in acknowledging the
Pope to be infallible when united to the majority of the
bishops ! ”
Not content with this authoritative annihilation of
his own line of defence, the Roman Catholic Layman
proceeds to show clearly that this “ want of unanimity/’
even when established as a feature of the Vatican Coun
cil, is not in any way required, in his own opinion, as
a reason for rejecting the decisions of that Council
utterly.
This “utter rejection” has, as we have seen, been
already arrived at, upon anterior considerations alto
gether. These he now strengthens, finally and con
clusively, as follows
“ To accept the conclusion that
the Pope is infallible “ because a Council has defined it,
is absurd, because the fact of his infallibility proves
that the Council has no authority in the matter. If he
is infallible, there can be no infallible authority for be
lieving it but his own word.” This absolute disregard
of the authority of General Councils—not when there
is “want of unanimity” among their members, but
when the doctrines they inculcate seem absurd, or
happen to be repugnant altogether to private Catholic
opinion-—he fully confirms and justifies by reference to
another “ pastor of the Church.” Calling upon Arch
bishop Kenrick, he establishes clearly the necessity of
believing, under penalty of anathema, that “the dogma
of Papal infallibility is not of faith, and cannot become
so by any definition of a Council! ” It is quite evident
that the Roman Catholic Layman here fully and com
pletely cuts away the ground from under his own feet,
and, that the objection which he has just advanced
against the Vatican Council, on the score of “ want of
unanimity,” is in reality irrelevant to his argument
�1
of Faith Unchangeable.
25
altogether. He now, however, finds himself confronted
by the notorious fact—of which the very existence of
his pamphlet is merely an additional standing record—
that the doctrine of Papal infallibility lias been pro
nounced to be of faith by the definition of a Council;
and that, further, the main body of the pastors of the
Church have, either by the most unmistakable out
spokenness, or by the here not less conclusive silence
of consent, accepted this most momentous “ definition,
declaration, and deliverance,” as an infallible utterance
and dogma of “ the Church.”
He has consequently now to face about, in order to
meet yet one more accusation against himself, which
threatens the existence of his Catholicity more gravely
and conclusively than those even which he has hitherto
imagined.
He has already proved, by an appeal to the authori
tative teaching of Saint Vincent of Lerins—one of the
pastors of the Church endowed, according to his own
showing, with direct divine authority of teaching—that
“ it is granted on all sides that infallibility is insepar
able from the great number of the pastors.” It is by
no means unnatural, therefore, that “ it should be,”
as he tells us, “ often remarked to him,”—“ Why do
you set yourself up against the great body of the
bishops, priests, and laity who accept the doctrine of
Papal infallibility, as though you knew better than
them all 1”
Before noting the manner in which the Roman
Catholic Layman meets this simple question, it is neces
sary to remember that he has virtually already ex
plained, that the reason which obliges him to set himself
up against the great body of the bishops, priests, and
laity, is precisely that which induced him, in the first
instance, to join the Roman Catholic Church—viz.,
the desire of “ exchanging the uncertainty of private
opinion for the certainty of a faith complete and
unchangeable.”
�26
The Advantages
As mere volition, however, is manifestly a “ reason”
altogether insufficient to meet the logical necessities
of the case, he now further attempts to answer the
seemingly unanswerable, by saying, “ To this I can
only reply, that the Bible, which the Catholic Church
teaches me is the Word of God, tells me, “ But though
we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you be
sides that which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema.”
In order to estimate and fully appreciate the value
of this answer, it must not be forgotten that in ex
changing his own uncertainty for the certainty of
Roman Catholic faith, unchangeable and complete,
the Roman Catholic Layman has most solemnly
registered a vow that “ he will admit the Holy Scrip
ture according to that sense only which the Church
has held, and does hold ; to which it belongs to judge
of the true sense and interpretation of the Scrip
tures.”
He has, in point of fact, believed that the Bible is
the word of God in the first instance, because the
pastors of the Church of Rome have taught him that it
is so ; and he has then believed that the pastors of the
Church of Rome are gifted and endowed with divine
authority for such supernatural teaching, because the
Bible—when duly interpreted by themselves—clearly so
reveals its sense and meaning to him!
Under these circumstances of circular reasoning, the
ordinary mind will doubtless remark at once that the
entire weight and value of the reply just given, lies in
the peculiar phraseology and resulting obscurity of the
text, and that the actual connection of the two nomina
tive pronouns of eighteen hundred years ago, with “ the
pastors ” of the mother and mistress of all churches of
to-day, is one which, according to his own assertion,
that Church alone has either right or power to
determine.
Transposed to meet the inexorable necessities of the
�of Faith Unchangeable.
0.7
case, the words, from a Roman Catholic layman point
of view, can only read, in a.d. 1876, as follows :
“But though the pastors of the Church of Rome, or
an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you, besides
that which these same pastors teach as that which we
have preached to you—let him be anathema.”
That this transposition of the text is a just and
absolutely necessary one, and that its sense and inter
pretation is not left to the private judgment of the
Catholic layman, is made fully evident by testimony
which he has himself elsewhere evoked and recorded,
though in a connection altogether different.
Giving “ the true sense and interpretation of Scrip
ture ” with that supreme and binding authority, with
which the Roman Catholic Layman has himself
accredited him, Archbishop Hughes declares as follows :
“ The pastors of the Church are the witnesses of truth,
and they are warranted, by a sacred authority, to reject
even an angel from heaven, if that angel attempt to
preach another doctrine besides that they have received.
They all preach the same doctrine!”
With the astounding doctrinal contradictions before
us, which are published and verified in this pamphlet,
the bold effrontery and assurance of this latter teach
ing—which is printed in italics in the original, and
which the Catholic mind evidently accepts gratefully,
under penalty of damnation—would seem almost
sufficient to incapacitate the ordinary and non-Catholic
mind from further Catholic investigation altogether.
It is necessary to remember, however, that with the
Roman Catholic Layman, “ the wisest economy is to
have no management,” and that <l that other doctrine,”
which Archbishop Hughes is brought into court to
reject and curse as one he had not then received, is the
very doctrine and new gospel of Papal infallibility,
the reasons for the “ utter rejection,” of which we are
now beholding in progress of justification and establish
ment by “ overwhelming evidence.”
�28
The Advantages
As one of the main supports of this establishment,
Archbishop Hughes has, in fact, just previously been
brought to declare, that although “ every definition of
doctrine and morals by a general council is infallible, a
man may be a very good Catholic without enquiring
whether the Pope is officially infallible or not, and may
even hold it as an opinion that he is not infallible, and
neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor Pope, will frown upon
him for his opinion.” This testimony being exactly in
accordance with the Roman Catholic Layman’s argumen
tative necessities of the moment, he naturally accepts
it gladly, under penalty of damnation for rejection.
The danger, however, of reasoning according to will,
instead of willing according to reason, is great; and the
ulterior consequences of this acceptance of the illogical
and the convenient, closely combined together, is as
usual fraught with consequences, both lamentable and
embarrassing.
Passing—by grotesque transition—from the divinely
authorised teaching of Archbishop Hughes to the decree
of a council of the Church, confirmed by the vicar of
Christ himself in presence of five hundred bishops, we
find the doctrine, which the Roman Catholic Layman
“ cannot accept,” simply and unmistakably summed up
and defined as follows :
“Therefore we, faithfully adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian faith to the
glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Chris
tian religion, and the salvation of Christian people—
the sacred council approving—teach and define that it
is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff,
when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when discharging
the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a
doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the
universal church, by the divine assistance promised
to him in blessed Peter—is possessed of that
infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed
�of Faith Unchangeable.
29
that his Church should be endowed for defining
doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, there
fore, the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are, of them
selves, irreformable, and not dependent upon the con
sent of the Church. But if anyone presume to contra
dict this, our definition-—which, may God avert—let
him be accursed.”
To realise fully the position of the Roman Catholic
Layman under the shadow of this clearly marked Papal
and Episcopal “ frown”—from which Archbishop
Hughes has just guaranteed him entire immunity—it
must be remembered that he has solemnly vowed
“ most steadfastly to admit and embrace ecclesiastical
traditions, and all other observances and constitutions
of the Church, and to undoubtedly receive and profess
all things delivered, defined, and declared by her
general councils, as well as to condemn, reject, and
anathematise all heresies which the Church has con
demned, rejected, and anathematised.”
It is in the teeth of this, his own free confession of
Catholic faith, “ without which no one can be saved,”
that he claims to justify his “ utter rejection ” of the
inconvenient teachings of “ecclesiastical tradition,”
which have been so recently defined, delivered, and
declared by the General Council of the Vatican.
To establish this justification, he appeals to the
“ Pastors of the Church ; ” and on their own published
testimony, he shows that they have taught him the
following points.
1. lhat he is bound to believe their teaching under
penalty -of Anathema.
2. That Catholic doctrine is that only which has
been believed everywhere at all times and by
all—and ;
3. That the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has not
�3°
The Advantages
been thus believed; is consequently not a
doctrine of the Church ; and can never be
made so by any definition of a council what
ever.
Now, that the Pastors of the Church have so taught
him is a fact altogether incontrovertible. Their evi
dence, duly verified and recorded, has set the matter at
rest beyond all possibility of doubt. Between proving,
however, that he has been taught these propositions,
and proving that the propositions themselves are true,
there is a world-wide difference ; and it is just here that
a consideration of the testimony rendered by Arch
bishop Hughes is so important. This Pastor of the
Church has declared, as we have seen, 11 that General
Councils are Infallible; that men may hold as an
opinion that the Pope is not infallible -without thus
calling down upon themselves ecclesiastical censure ;
and that all the Pastors of the Church teach the same
doctrine.” Nothing assuredly can, to the ordinary and
non-Catholic mind at least, be clearer than that the
Archbishop is here, not only in entire contradiction
with himself, but in complete antagonism with existing
facts.
For, if General Councils are Infallible, it is an
inevitable consequence that the Infallibility of the
Pope must be believed as a doctrine of the Church. It
cannot therefore be disbelieved as an opinion. Further,
the ecclesiastical frown is clearly threatened, in the
form of anathema against all who shall maintain an
opinion on papal infallibility contrary to the decree of
the Vatican Council—and lastly, instead of all the
pastors of the Church teaching the same doctrine, very
many of them—as the Roman Catholic Layman himself
clearly demonstrates-—teach doctrines, not only alto
gether different, but clearly contradictory. Upon the
credibility of his witnesses, the stability of his position
manifestly depends, and to re-establish that of the
most important witness he has yet produced, there
�of Faith Unchangeable.
31
would appear to be but one way open to him. This
method, however, although it has been urged upon him
by those who would apparently have him save his
Catholicity at any price, he indignantly rejects.
“ But, say my infallibilist friends,” he remarks,
“ when the authors you have quoted wrote, the doctrine
was not defined to be a dogma, and consequently there
was no heresy even if it were approximate heresy to
deny it.” To this specious explanation which would
shield both Archbishop Hughes and himself from the
unpleasant consequences embodied in the anathema
of a General Council—as well as rehabilitate his most
important witnesses, the Boman Catholic Layman
replies, in the fullest spirit of all the maxims of his
adoption: “ Of all the novel and strange doctrines I
have heard of, this is the strangest, and it is as false
in fact as the doctrine it is intended to support. To
suppose that the doctrines of Christianity were not of
equal force before as well as after a Council, is a most
unheard of novelty. They were defined to be dogmas
because they were of obligation; they did not become
of obligation because they were defined.
“ This would be putting the cart before the horse. It
would be as correct to say that a man was guilty of
murder because he was hung, instead of saying that he
was hung because he was guilty of murder.
“ It would be as correct to say that a law became of
force only when a conviction was obtained under its
clauses. It would be as correct to say that a spoon
became silver when it received the goldsmith’s hall
mark. In each of these cases the authentication does
not make it what it isj it is authenticated because it
is what it is. Those who maintain the contrary are
alike ignorant of the nature of theology, Church history,
law, and silver spoons.”
Having thus, with “ the wise economy of no
management,” clearly succeeded in stultifying be
yond all possibility of recovery his own main witness
�32
The Advantages
to the all important point at issue, he proceeds, in
similar trenchant fashion, to impeach the credibility
of the “ main body ” of those very “ pastors of the
Church ” whose teaching he is bound to receive, accord
ing to their own interpretation of the scriptures, under
penalty of damnation.
“ Infallibilists show a double front,” he immediately
adds, “for they tell us with one breath that the
Vatican Council has made a dogma of what was before
only a doctrine, in order to avoid charging with heresy
so many distinguished Archbishops and Bishops now
dead, but whose works contain the most unmistakable
denials of the doctrine. In the next breath they tell
us that no change has been made, but that the doctrine
has always been believed and taught. I can only say
that this latter statement presents itself to my mind as
the most astounding violation of veracity that this earth
has been witness of since the serpent said to Eve, ‘ No,
thou slialt not die the death.' ”
That the “ Infallibilists ” who make this mendacious
statement are identical with those whose teaching the
Roman Catholic Layman is bound to receive under pain
of damnation, viz., the pastors of the Church,—is
evident from abundant testimony throughout his
pamphlet.
This fact may also be clearly and satisfactorily
determined by reference to recent words of Cardinal
Manning, whereby he has publicly testified : 1st. “ That
the Infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of divine
faith before the Vatican Council was held. 2nd. That
the Vatican Council simply declared an old truth, and
made no new dogma.” It is manifest therefore that
the Roman Catholic Layman has now convicted the
very identical teaching body, to whom he has himself
specially appealed from the decree of a General Council
of the Church—of a “ violation of veracity ” unequalled
in the history of the world since the fall.
All things considered, the impeachment is suffi
�of Faith Unchangeable.
33
ciently grave. Not content, however, with the extent
of it, he proceeds to attaint in fashion no less grave the
morality of the entire body, hy whom, according to his
own statement, he has been somehow “ taught,” that
as a Catholic he is obliged by Jesus Christ himself to
believe what “ the pastors of the Church of Rome ”
teach, under penalty of damnation. This he accom
plishes in the following fashion :—
In the course of his arguments directly against the
decree of infallibility, he quotes from a Catechism of
the Church — permissu superiorum — question and
answer, as follows—
Question—“ Must not Catholics believe the Pope
himself to be infallible ? ”
Answer-—“ This is a Protestant invention. It is no
article of the Catholic faith ; no decision of his can
oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and
enforced by the teaching body—that is, by the bishops
of the Church.” On this he immediately remarks :
“This last question and answer have been surrepti
tiously removed in the last edition without a word of
explanation. Charges of corrupting the writings of the
dead have often been made against the Church of Rome.
We have now an instance before our very eyes !”
Having then, already charged the main body of the
pastors, under the title of infallibilists, with “ an as
tounding violation of veracity,” he has now clearly
accomplished nothing less than the moral impeachment
of “ the congregation of all the faithful throughout the
whole world under one head,” and that on a point of
the very deepest and gravest importance which it is
possible to imagine.
The object at issue not being to determine and
pronounce merely whether it is Saint Antoninus of
Florence, Saint Vincent of Lerins, Bellarmin, Arch
�34
The Advantages
bishop Hughes, Mastai Perretti, or a Roman Catholic
Layman who is gifted with powers of infallible discern
ment and power of definition, but to sum up and esti
mate the advantages, moral and mental, of belonging to
the Church of Rome, in search of the complete and the
unchangeable, it is unnecessary to follow the pamphlet
throughout.
When a man is busily intent upon cutting through
the very branch of a tree upon which he is himself
astride, the ordinary mind scarcely requires to witness
the entire operation in order to realise the consequences
which must finally result.
The latter portion of the Roman Catholic Layman’s
argument is sufficiently interesting, however, to make
it worth while following him somewhat further.
Having given the “ clear definition ” of the Church
according to his own conviction, it will be well to record
also his opinion as to who really constitute the pastors of
the Church, whom he is bound to believe under pain of
damnation. Quoting, then, St Ignatius to Poly carp, he
identifies, first of all, as “the pastors of the Church,” the
bishops, priests, and deacons : he who obeys them obeys
Christ, by whom they were established.” Appealing,
on the other hand, to a Catechism of the Church, it is
stated, in answer to the question, Who are the lawful
judges of Christian doctrine 1 “ Only the bishops of
the true Church who have been appointed by Christ for
that purpose. The bishops are under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit to rule and govern the Church ; this
they could not do unless they were qualified with the
utmost certainty to distinguish good from bad doctrine.”
Again, referring to the catechism of the Council of
Trent, he proves that it is “ the ministers of the church
whom the Saviour has authorised to be invested with
such authority that he says to them, ‘He that hears
you hears me.’ ” Against this general application of
these important words, however, it has to be borne in
mind that Archbishop Hughes has already laid down
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
35
that, according to Catholic interpretation, “it was of
the definitions of a general council that Christ said,
‘ He that hears you hears me.’ ” Finally, appealing
again to this latter authority, the following remarkable
teaching is recorded :—“ The church is spread through
the world, and you have but to apply to the nearest of her
priests or bishops to learn from him what is her doctrine.
He will not, in his reply, give you his opinion, but he
will give you the attestation of his belief as received
from Christ and His apostles, and as held during
eighteen hundred years. You may consult other
priests and other bishops, and on these points you will
find, no doubt, no discrepancy, but all will speak as with
the same voice and give you the same reply ; so that in
the attestations of the individual Catholic pastor you
have the universal attestation of the whole Catholic
Church, the same as if its two hundred millions of
witnesses stood by saying, ‘Yes; that is the faith
which we have all received, which we believe and
teach !’ ”
Whatever may be the clear definition of Priests and
Bishops, “ Pastors of the Church,” in his own imagina
tion, which enables the Roman Catholic Layman to
turn this startling statement to account as he subse
quently does, it is evident from his pamphlet in general,
and from one page in particular, that he divides that
body into two distinct portions, viz., those from whom
he individually has received the faith, and those from
whom he has not. It is a very remarkable and sug
gestive fact that he quotes with special approbation
from the teaching of the former, the curious argument
in support of the church of his selection and adoption,
that “ nothing but an over-ruling providence could keep
such multitudes united in religion who so widely differ
in everything else / ”
c
�36
The Advantages
Yet more remarkable and suggestive, however, is the
single application which he proceeds triumphantly to
claim for the testimony just quoted, of the very pastor
of the church who already so erringly promised him
immunity from the ecclesiastical frown for holding an
opinion in antagonism with Vatican decrees.
“ From the above,” he remarks, “ I naturally infer
that when a Catholic Pastor teaches me that Papal In
fallibility is not an article of our faith; is ‘ no part of
our creed;’ is a ‘Protestant invention,’ and a ‘Protest
ant forgery;’ I have the universal attestation of the
whole Catholic Church the same as if its two hundred
millions of witnesses stood by saying, ‘ Yes, Papal In
fallibility is not the faith which we have all received,
which we believe and teach 1” ’
Intent as the Roman Catholic Layman is here—as
upon a similar occasion—upon attack only, and not
upon defence, it still seems impossible to account for
his astounding blindness as to the inevitable conse
quences of this one-sided inference and its recoil upon
himself, except indeed upon the not un-natural sup
position that twenty years of disuse of private opinion
and of utter dependence upon “ a Church,” has so
atrophied and weakened the faculty, as to render it,
when called upon, incapable of healthy or vigorous
action altogether. That pastors of the church have
taught him that Papal Infallibility is not an article of
the Catholic Faith and is no part of the Catholic creed,
is unquestionably true beyond all possibility of honest
doubt. His own substantiated references and quotations
prove the fact to demonstration.
The application, however, which he has made, while
thinking solely of his own defence, cannot manifestly
be confined within the narrow limits of his own discern
ment. It is, unfortunately for himself, in no degree
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
$7
less true that it is a “Catholic Pastor,”* who also
teaches him as follows :—“ Events which have un
happily become notorious induce us to make known
to the faithful, that whosoever does not in his heart
receive and believe the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, and the doctrine of the Infallibility of the
Vicar of Jesus Christ “ as they have been defined by the
supreme authority of the Church, does by that very fact
cease to be a Catholic.”
It is only necessary now to push the Roman Catholic
Layman’s argument one step further than he has
brought it himself, in order to discern that he must, in
his own words, here also “ naturally infer ” that when
a Catholic Pastor teaches him thus—“ He has the uni
versal attestation of the whole Catholic Church the
same as if its two hundred million of witnesses stood
by saying : ‘ Yes, Papal Infallibility is the faith which
we have all received, which we believe and teach,
and whosoever does not in his heart accept it, is no
Catholic.’ ”
Prom this it follows clearly enough that he is, by
his own showing, now absolutely obliged to “reject
utterly ” not only the Infallibility of the Pope as defined
by himself, but also the Infallibility of the Pastors of the
Church, as defined by ^Aemselves—each under penalty
of damnation.
Having in short, twenty years ago, in his dalliance
with “ the certain, the complete, and the unchangeable,”
allowed himself to be shorn of the faculty of private
judgment with which nature had endowed him, he
appears before us now, making use of such new growth
of it as time has furnished him with, in dragging down
upon himself and all about him, the two main pillars
of the universal structure in which his captivity has
been paraded.
In seeking an appropriate simile for the “astounding
violation of veracity,” which he has now in point of
* Cardinal Manning.
�38
The Advantages
fact made the two hundred million of witnesses consti
tuting “the congregation of all the faithful” responsible
for—the Roman Catholic Layman went back as we
have seen, in his earlier efforts to “ shame the devil,”
to the narrative of Eve and the Serpent. It may well
be called to mind that ancient history furnishes no less
suitable comparison for other astounding manifestations
also; and that the modern historian of the strange events
which are supposed to have “ brought death into the
world and all our woe,” has also depicted for us the
scene of “ universal ” ruin which is most aptly illus
trative of the Roman Catholic Layman’s own present
position :
“ He tugg’d, he shook, till down they came, and drew
The whole roof after them, with burst of thunder
Upon the heads of all who sat beneath ;
Lords, ladies, captains, counsellors, and priests,
- Their choice nobility and flower.
With these immix’t inevitably,
The edifice where all were met to see him,
Upon their heads, and on his own he pull’d.
The vulgar only ’scap'd who stood without.”
Clearly as the moral points, it is doubtful whether
those whom it most concerns will discover in it any
application to themselves.
The tree of supernatural knowledge is still “pleasant
to the eyes, and much to be desired to make one
wise,” but it now grows within the precincts of “ the
Church ; ” and those who have set their affections upon
its “ certain and unchangeable ” fruit, are just as likely
to be persuaded in the direction they want to follow,
in the present age, as Eve was when the serpent said,
“ Thou shalt not die the death.”
The wisdom of not listening to serpents no doubt is
now fully established, but it is unfortunately no longer
“ the subtlest beast of the field ” which captivates
humanity with “ astounding violations of veracity.”
For all practical purposes of instruction and edifica
tion the main purport of the Roman Catholic Layman’s
reasonings may be gathered and. determined here.
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
39
The mass of duly authenticated testimony which he
has put forward, in all the “ wise economy of no-manage
ment,” is by no means easy to follow.
The non-Catholic mind finds itself bewildered by the
semi-transparency of the cloud of mystification which is
spread around it; while the Catholic mind, intent upon
the shifting light which lures it on for the moment,
and accustomed to obscurity, vanishes complacently in
the dim confusion of ideas which it has itself created.
If the main body of the Roman Catholic Layman’s
arguments have not been touched upon here, it is not
that they are unworthy of full study and attention.
They throw, however, no new light upon what has been
already referred to.
One point most worthy of remark is, that whatever
may be the relative value of the teaching of the Pope,
and of the Pastors of the Church, and however flagrantly
they contradict each other—as incontestably demon
strated in the pamphlet itself—the writer is under the
full impression to the last, that he is himself at least—
in truth and honesty—a Roman Catholic Layman.
That he even imagines the possibility of his sitting
alone, a Catholic, among the ruins of Catholicism he has
made, appears from his own confessions.
Appealing once again to Saint Antoninus of Florence
he establishes approvingly that “ it is quite possible
the entire faith should be preserved in one single 'indi
vidual—in which case it might be truly affirmed that
the Faith has not failed the Church ! ”
That the Roman Catholic Layman, however, really
differs essentially from the main lay-element of the
nominal two hundred millions, who speak with so
strangely identical a voice,—few who have studied
Catholicity in lands called Catholic, and have duly
noted the revelations evoked by recent V Protestant
expostulation ”—are likely to imagine.
Ou this point his own original testimony, if not con
clusive, is at least both interesting and useful.
�40
The Advantages
11 As far as my experience goes,” he tells us, “ I find
that while a few accept the new doctrine without any
hesitation, a large number doubt or altogether refuse to
accept it; the great majority, however, neither know
nor care much about it, believing, as they say, that it
is not their business to inquire into the doctrines of
the Church, but simply to believe and do as they are
told?
As regards this ‘‘great majority,” it may no doubt
he said, that if they could only supply that topmost
link, which the Roman Catholic Layman has so com
pletely ignored, and could account for the supreme
exercise of that initial “private opinion” by which they
became aware in the first instance of the divine obliga
tion of believing the teaching of the pastors of the
Church of Rome under penalty of damnation—their
assertion would be worthy of all attention and respect.
In the absence of this momentous explanation, however,
our interest lies entirely with the first two classes he
has described. And here, the existence of his pamphlet
makes one thing at least clear and certain which is in
no way affected by the doubtful question of his own
claim to Catholicity, viz., that whether men “ accept
the new doctrine without hesitation,’’ or whether, on the
other hand, they “ altogether refuse to accept it,” both
have alike to face the inexorable logic of existing facts
therein recorded, which not only bars their passage
every way across the threshold of the Church of Rome,
but proves beyond a doubt that the dearly purchased
consolation of “ the complete, the certain, and the
unchangeable ” which she seems to offer, is but a false
security after all, and one which in time of trial “melts
away under the feet like ice exposed to the burning
rays of a July sun.”
To those, therefore, who, loving peace of mind and
certainty, love truth and reason also, the matter of
paramount interest, into which the Roman Catholic
Layman’s reasonings resolve themselves, must evidently
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
41
be the consideration of—how he came to cross this
threshold in the first instance, and on what possibly
sufficient mental and moral grounds he joined “ the
Church of Rome.'”
It is just here, however, that he gives us no direct
information whatever.
He has put it on record nevertheless, in his own
words, as follows: “By the creed of Pius the Fourth I
am bound to declare, and have actually declared, that
I also admit the Scriptures, neither will I ever take
and interpret them otherwise than according to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers.” (Sic.)
Of the obligations consequent on his own arbitrary
act, he has here at least conveniently made full con
fession; but, at the same time, of the grounds on which
he came to make this most momentous declaration
twenty years ago, he tells us further, not one syllable.
And yet nothing can be more remarkable than the
results of his own researches into the “ unanimous con
sent ” of these same so-called “ Fathers.”
It is in repudiating the particular Catholic doctrine
which happens to be utterly repugnant to his tastes,
that he has found himself driven, in self-defence,
to the assistance of this time-honoured and adopted
testimony.
In the process, however, he discovers, he tells us,
among other startling facts, that as to the very nature
and consequent stability of the vaunted rock upon
which the Mother and Mistress of all Churches claims
to have laid her unassailable foundations, the Fathers
themselves are by no means agreed !
Asking himself, apparently by a sudden and tardy
inspiration : “ What then is the unanimous consent of
the Fathers in the passage, ‘Thou art Peter, and on
this rock will I build my Church ? ’ ” he finds, he de
clares, on authority duly verified, that: “ Forty-four
Fathers understand the passage as a declaration that
Christ has founded this Church (f.e., the Church of
�42
The Advantages
Rome) on the fundamental doctrine of His divinity,
which St Peter so gloriously professed,—while seven
teen fathers only, understood Christ’s words to the
effect that he had founded the Church on St
Peter.”
The point of interest is here quite apart from the
delicate question of original translation and Roman
interpretation, upon which the very existence of the
Church has been so long supposed to depend.
Whatever may be the value of the distinction be
tween the two interpretations quoted, it is quite evident
that to the Roman Catholic Layman at least, this
divergence of opinion, in a fundamental matter, and in
a quarter where he has solemnly bound himself to judge
alone by “ unanimity,” is of the very deepest moment
and importance.
What “ the vulgar who yet stand without,” then,
will naturally at once demand to know is :—“ How
does it happen that this enquiry into the nature of
‘ unanimity ’ among the fathers of the Church was
not made before instead of after its existence was as
sumed,—before instead of after the abjuration of ‘ the
Uncertain,’ and tlie adoption of the ‘ Certain and Un
changeable,’ by virtue of which, full responsibility was
undertaken for the doctrines of the creed of Pius the
Fourth, with all their necessary and legitimate results and
consequences 1 ” This question is all the more natural,
and at the same time more pressing, because the Roman
Catholic Layman declares it to have been “ well said ”
by an Italian priest “ that the main body of the Church
have now reduced the Bible to one text : ‘ Thou art
Peter,’ and the creed to one article : ‘I believe in the
Pope.’ ”
Also, because we have before us the testimony of
many existing pastors of the Church of to-day, who
differ probably from the Fathers of the Church of
bygone ages, only in not yet being regarded through
the enchantment of distance, and whom he has directly
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
43
accused of inconsistencies and contradictions of un
doubted gravity and importance.
Notable among these “fathers” of our Catholics-to-be,
are the names of “ Cardinal Manning,” “ Doctor New
man,” and “Monsignor Capel.”
Of the former, having proved against him, by refer
ence to his own writings, a “ most disingenuous
suppression ” of important facts as to the Vatican
Council, he adds : “ He has a genuine horror of
scientific history, and he undoubtedly practises what
he preaches.”
Against the mentor of his special adoption, who has
assured him that “ Catholic doctrines are those only
which have never and nowhere not been maintained,”
and that “ the most damaging folly is to be found out
shuffling,” his accusation is no less grave.
Quoting a letter from Doctor Newman to Doctor
Pusey, he shows clearly enough that in the opinion
and teaching of the former, the doctrine of the Vatican
Council, then at least was not maintained ; for the
writer says : “ You consider my principle may be the
means of introducing into our creed as portions of the
necessary Catholic faith—the infallibility of the Pope.
I hope to remove your anxiety as to these consequences
before I bring my observations to a close.”
Subsequently, Doctor Newman’s recorded declaration
appears as follows : “ Nothing shall make me say that
a mere majority in a council, as opposed to a moral
unanimity, in itself creates an obligation to receive its
dogmatic decrees.”
The existence of this “ mere majority,” which
Cardinal Manning has been already convicted of
ignoring, by a “most disingenuous suppression of
facts,” Doctor Newman has duly attested by admitting,
that when the decree was actually passed, “ more than
eighty ‘fathers ’ absented themselves from the Council,
and would have nothing to do with its acts.” Having
considerably strengthened this latter assertion, by
�/
44
Advantages
quoting from the existing protest signed by nearly “ one
hundred fathers who refused to be present at the final
session,” their solemn declaration that “nothing but
filial reverence forbade their saying non placet in the
Pope’s presence, and in a matter directly concerning his
person,” the Roman Catholic Layman proceeds to
show that by some strange mental process, to the
ordinary and non-Catholic mind probably suggestive
of “ damaging folly,” the author of the “ Apologia ”
subsequently acknowledges, that the obnoxious doctrine
has been “ introduced as a portion of the necessary
Catholic faith,” and not only so, but that he himself
“ adheres to the introduction.”
Viewed in connection with his own maxims and
principles of action, this most contradictory outspoken
ness of a father of the Church is sufficiently remarkable.
It certainly seems strangely indicative of that universal
immutability and unanimity which were among the
desirable things upon which the Roman Catholic Lay
man set his heart when he abandoned uncertainty for
the Church of Rome.
Equally grave, and more important to the matter in
hand, for reasons subsequently noted, is the suspicion
which is cast upon the principles and mode of action of
“ Monsignor Capel.”
This suspicion is effectually imparted to the ordinary
mind by simple reference to two existing letters, some
time back made public property.
In the first of these, alluding to one of the “ Apostate
Triumvirate ” of quondam Catholics of old prestige
already referred to, who dared not only to hold but to
publish reasons for not being able to accept Vatican
decrees, “Monsignor Capel” writes as follows: “If
Lord Camoys seriously and obstinately refuses to accept
‘ the doctrine of the personal infallibility of the Pope,’
then does he make shipwreck of the faith.”
Being subsequently brought to task in a matter of
phraseology, for which nevertheless he had the full
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
45
authority and countenance of Cardinal Manning,* he
at once seeks to escape the responsibility of his adopted
words—the significance and bearing of which can be in
no way affected by any defect of originality—by writing:
“ I shall feel much obliged if you will allow me to say
that the words, ‘ the doctrine of the personal infalli
bility of the Pope,’ are not mine. They were cited
from the last sentence of Lord Camoys’ own letter, and
were duly printed in inverted commas.”
In this attempted refuge, under the shelter of “ in
verted commas,” from the consequences of a public
declaration made by one gifted with divine authority
to teach, under penalty of damnation, the ordinary
mind will now again hardly fail to discover palpable
traces not only of “ damaging folly,” but also of that
failure in “prudence,” and “lack of true expediency,”
which the maxims of the . Roman Catholic Layman’s
adoption have so clearly defined, and at the same time
so unmistakeably connected with certain other aberra
tions, mental or moral.
It is these curious illustrations of “unanimity” in a
triumvirate of English “fathers” of the Church of Rome,
to whose utterances distance may some day lend an
enchantment they seem to lack at present, which render
the following teaching of yet another well-known
“ Father of the Church,” so apropos and interesting.
Writing in a language which must suffer somewhat
by translation, “ Monsieur le Pere Huguet ” has
recently published the following information to the
world. + “The progress of Protestant abjuration is
increasing and becoming more marked every day.
Whenever Monsignor Capel, the apostle of the Anglicans,
appears in the pulpit, the largest church becomes at
once too small to contain an audience which is com
posed almost entirely of Protestant ritualists. The
* “The privilege of Infallibility is personal.’’—Pastoral of
Cardinal Manning.
+ “ Almanach des fideles amis de Pie IX.” 1876.
�46
The Advantages
illustrious preacher would seem to have a special
vocation for this kind of conversion, for he receives
numbers of abjurations himself; and these are for the
most part among the upper and well-educated classes.
“ Ladies of rank, men of fashion, the bar, and the
bench, have alike contributed and contribute every day
a crowd of converts to the faith; but as it has been
thought advisable not to publish names in the Catholic
journals, except in striking instances, the world at large
little dreams of the increase of Catholicism which is
taking place in England, and especially in London, at
the present time?’
As if in order that nothing should here fall short of
the description of those upon whose heads destruction
came—“Lords, ladies, captains, counsellors, and
priests”—this father of the Church goes on to note
that “ in spite of Mr Gladstone’s campaign,” the
Church makes “ glorious conquests,” not alone among
the laity, but also among the pastors of the Church of
England, and in proof of this he adduces what he terms
“ an eloquent list ” of twenty-five.
It is in the face of revelations such as this that the
“ reasons ” why a Roman Catholic Layman cannot accept
the doctrines defined by a general council of his church,
becomes a document of unusual interest, and one too
valuable in the present day to be allowed to pass away
without an effort being made to increase its influence
and circulation.
In publishing his pamphlet, the Roman Catholic
Layman has simply enough explained its raison d'etre.
“ My object is,” he states, “ that if the difficulties I
and many others feel, in reference to the teaching of
the Vatican council, be mere illusions or misconceptions,
some one will be induced by solid arguments and
sound reasons, to dispel or remove them.”
If the object went no further than this, then much
time and evident labour would indeed have been thrown
away.
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
To prevent a moth from burning his wings, when
obstinately and unaccountably bent upon exchanging
obscurity for the celestial radiance of a flaring gas-light,
is not easy.
To remove the difficulties of a man laboriously
“straining at gnats,” who has already without difficulty
“ swallowed a camel,” is almost an impossibility.
What “ solid arguments ” and “ sound reasons ” can
by any possibility affect the man who has exchanged
his birthright of uncertain reason for such a certain
catholic compound of unreason, as he has here himself
served up for public note and edification ?
Never, surely,—since the days when Esau asked
himself, “ what profit shall this birthright do me? ” and
exchanged it for a certain, fleeting, satisfaction—have
the inevitable consequences of false, faint-hearted, and
unnatural action been more surely incurred, and more
graphically described.
It is in enabling us to observe and estimate these
consequences, that the Roman Catholic Layman has
attained an object far beyond his own original intent
and purpose.
Confused as may be the argument—to the ordinary
mind—by which he claims to have propped up and
justified his present position in the Church of Rome, he
has at least fully enabled us to discover what it is he
has actually gained by laying violent hands upon “ the
Certain and Unchangeable” within her bosom. The
result of that very definition of a Council of the Church
of his adoption, which he has been forbidden to contra
dict under penalty of anathema, “ will be,” he tells us,
“that in the course of a few years we may be required to
believe as many doctrines under pain of damnation,
as there are stars in the firmament or grains of sand on
the sea-shore ; and, as a consequence, myriads will be
driven into infidelity from the sheer impossibility of
ever knowing what they are required to believe.”
“ In a word, I feel no certainty that any or every
�48
The Advantages
doctrine of the Church may not he radically changed
by future definitions ; and I therefore feel justified in
declaring that the effect of the Vatican decree is to raise
a doubt whether there is any infallible authority in this
world except the Word of God.
“ I had imagined that in submitting to the Catholic
Church I had exchanged the uncertainty of private
opinion for the certainty of a faith complete and
unchangeable, and now I am compelled to choose
again ! ”
Such is the gain, after twenty years of mental and
moral “ submission ” to the Church of Rome 1
In the plaintive acknowledgement of human falli
bility and weakness which has here been made, there is
surely a world of teaching—not only for the “ vulgar
who still stand without ”—but also for the crowds who
have already crossed the forbidden threshold of the socalled “universal” edifice, in search of peace and
certainty within.
Who can doubt that if the Roman Catholic Layman
had vigorously used the talent which has lain decaying
in church keeping during twenty years, he would have
secured ere now a brighter outlook, and a far different
and more firmly founded standpoint, than he evidently
holds at present. For, in recording the doubt whether
there is any infallible authority on earth save one, he
has forgotten that in the process of justifying his
absolute rejection of the Infallibility of the Vicar of
Christ, he has himself confessed, not only that it is the
Church itself which teaches him where- alone the Word
of God is infallibly to be discovered— but also that “ the
dead letter of the printed word can never answer as a
rule by which men can come to a knowledge of the
truth, if it is left to every private reason to interpret
in accordance with its fancy.”
He has forgotten, too, that this same churchdetermined “Word of God’' has been for centuries of
darkness in the hands of those whom he has himself
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
49
convicted of “ corrupting the writings of the dead; ”
and further, that one of his own strongest arguments is
founded on the accepted reasoning that : “ If Christ
had intended that all mankind should learn their
religion from a book, He Himself would have written
that book, and would have laid down as the first and
fundamental principle of His religion the obligation
of learning to read it.”
If therefore the testimony of recorded facts here
proves it to be unquestionably true, that “ the effect of
the Vatican Council is to raise a doubt in the Catholic
mind whether there is any infallible authority in the
world except the “ Word of God,” it would seem
assuredly not one particle less true, that the effect of
the “ overwhelming argument ” by which this natural
conclusion has been established, must be—in the
Catholic mind no less than in the non-Catholic—to
raise a similar doubt whether there does indeed exist
any infallible authority on earth, whatever.
In overcoming the slavish fear, which high sounding
and authoritative denunciations of supernatural and
eternal punishments, for lack of faith in history or
tradition, causes,—it has in truth been made apparent
that, as in other less important matters, it is the first
step alone which costs.
The Roman Catholic Layman has found “himself
commanded under penalty of anathema to believe the
doctrine set forth by the Vatican Council.” He “utterly
rejects it! ”
He has been told by the main body of the pastors of
the Church whose teaching he is, according to their
own account, obliged by Christ himself to accept under
penalty of damnation, that if he does not in his heart
receive and believe this same doctrine of the Vatican,
he ceases to belong to the Church outside of which
there is no salvation.
This double condemnation he rejects as utterly as
the other.
�50
The Advantages
It is not, however, in the Roman branch of Christi
anity that the thunderings of anathema against unbelief
alone are to be heard.
It is on a Protestant tombstone and not in Roman
Catholic definitions only, that the "warning may be read :
“Oh that men would know the multitude of those that
will be damned ! ”
It is in the printed record of that one Infallible
authority to which the Roman Catholic Layman now
turns in order to exchange afresh, uncertainty for cer
tainty complete and changeless—that he reads the
sweeping condemnation: “Whosoever believeth not, he
shall be damned.” Having then, as we have seen,
already braved, and left behind him, the tremendous
ecclesiastical denunciations which this more ancient ana
thema resembles so strikingly in style, it is difficult to
see how he fails to realize the fact that he is forced by
all his arguments to push aside, and search for truth
behind, this scaring terror also. For if there be one
thing which he has himself made clearer than another,
it is the simple truth that the entire comfort and advan
tage of possessing an infallible authority on earth, must
depend completely upon the absolute and unerring
certainty of the private discernment by which this out
ward manifestation of “the Certain and Unchangeable”
can be seized upon and apprehended in the first
instance.
It is, however, unfortunately, just this initial cer
tainty which was manifestly absent when he made his
first exchange, in search of peace and safety; and now,
when he turns in similar fashion “ to choose again else
where,” it is this same initial certainty which is most
clearly absent still. For now, in addition to the insuper
able obstacles which render impossible all human recog
nition of Infallible authority in the record of historical
facts which Anathema brings under cognizance of
saving “ Faith,” the awkward difficulty remains to be
confronted, that the writings which comprise this record
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
51
were originally chosen and determined, and for centuries
of darkness, guarded, by the very body corporate against
which the damning accusation has been proved—by
Catholic arguments—not only of “Corrupting the writ
ings of the dead before our very eyes,” but also of
“Astounding violation of veracity, almost unequalled
in the history of the World.”
That many among the crowds who seek for consolation
and security under the spacious shelter offered especially
by the self-styled Mother and Mistress of all Churches,
are impelled to cross the threshold by terror lest the
doubt which the Roman Catholic Layman has expressed
should be but one step upon a path they have neither
wish nor courage to pursue, seems more than probable.
To those who cannot face “Uncertainty” there may no
doubt be present peace of mind and consolation in the
self-deceptions of imagined “ Certainty.” For these
the simple course consists in reasoning according to
their will, instead of willing in accordance with their
reason. By simply ignoring or avoiding all lines of
thought which seem to lead them towards conclusions
inconvenient or unpalatable, they reach at last the cer
tain and unchangeable mental resting-place of all their
wishes. To such as these, however, the Roman Catho
lic Layman’s “Apologia pro Vita Sua” is full of warning
and suggestion.
It seems to be the honestly recorded testimony of
one who by this very process of will-reasoning, has for
twenty years imagined himself to be firmly standing
upon solid rock.
Oblivious of the fact that he selected it in the first
instance for himself upon his’ private judgment, and
took no adequate pains to examine its composition and
foundations—he is astonished and alarmed to-day to
find the solid mass of his fond imagination shifting
from its place, and melting at the same time beneath
�52
* The Ad-vantages
his feet, “like ice in. the burning rays of a July
sun.”
Assuredly to all those who love “ to make a silence
and call it ‘ Peace] ” this Catholic Confession is full of
teaching and significance; and, being Catholic, it may
be truly said of it: Ex uno disce omnes.
If there are many, however, who find temporary
peace and comfort in the self-deception of imaginary
certainty, there are also many who can search out the
truth without any fearful side-glance as to the conse
quences which such investigation may have upon their
blindly cherished hopes and wishes. Should these—
taking their departure from the point at which the
Roman Catholic Layman has only now arrived after
twenty years of disuse of private reason,—come to the
firm conclusion that it is at least quite as uncertain
that there really exists any one infallible authority upon
earth, among many claiming to be such, as that there
can exist no other—then, to these also, a careful study
of this history of utter rejection of ecclesiastical Ana
thema may bring much comfort and assurance.
For, however painful it must be to question the
character of the household idols of our own first and
fondest veneration and respect, the Roman Catholic
Layman’s pages go to furnish the very strongest addi
tional proof that it cannot be at least “ a sin to doubt
opinions that were instilled in childhood, before they
have been examined; nor yet a virtue to hold them
with unreasoning and unwavering credulity.”
Whatever may be the loss of fancied certainty hereby
resulting as to revelations of eternal recompense, it must
not be forgotten that hand in hand with these go reve
lations of eternal torture also. If, therefore, the con
viction should gradually dawn upon the world, that
Uncertainty and Ignorance in matters supernatural are
fixed by nature as the Universal layman’s lot,—it will
�Of Faith Unchangeable.
53
at least be found by careful study of these copious
“ Reasons ” why a Roman Catholic Christian cannot
accept the natural consequences of his own free act,
that after all, such simple knowledge is not without its
great and lasting gains and compensations.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The advantages, mental and moral of a faith unchangeable, certain, and complete, in A.D. 1876
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 53 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. 'by W.H.K.'. [Title page].
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT196
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
W.H.K.
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The advantages, mental and moral of a faith unchangeable, certain, and complete, in A.D. 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Faith
Catholic Church-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Faith
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d913cd9ebff095abb94061b3f5fc899.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BiHVOSL9OIOHGEwpl243qfDxx4sApnuPBiYpx41eu4XHUQ0yoflvj4N4wjJW8WEm1jqhV%7Ej09I%7EeXYqDEmR6YQ-F0MusaJiF8BMOgzfJ7nL5HU3PiFUDWVhaByna2mJhd83l2%7EIwaHTJac-RgugSSsBqts9sD%7E6ZHEycYgpluS8n4H4rVDVStKYEtL6wzU9Ymv7u9GkWYPZzv-JNz7AZaQGe4wsltkRvv4b9w-RVxi2oOba9RQsKd7YfgONYXWxqUZFwnYoW5ihSma5ktHxyBVGzow2q2SskJwn3MFoZ-cNAliAbOj-GeErXH0zBMyBQLmyIn8uQJ3UaN9-0L0J%7Egw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a9670b765126071aea0152887033a5a6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
K
K1
L
THE
| HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH {
8
4
<
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL
Reprinted Verbatim from the “ North American Review,”
August, 1888.
Price Twopence,
LONDON
/ PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
<■
1888.
i
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C..
�B2-6J5
35?
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH.
There is a continual effort in the mind of man to find the harmony
that he knows must exist between all known facts. It is hard for the
scientist to implicitly believe anything that he suspects to be inconsis
tent with a known fact. He feels that every fact is a key "to many
mysteries—that every fact is a detective, not only, but a perpetual
witness. He knows that a fact has a countless number of sides, and
that all these sides will match all other facts; and he also suspects
that to understand one fact perfectly—like the fact of the attraction
of gravitation—would involve a knowledge of the universe.
It requires not only candor but courage to accept a fact. When a
new fact is found it is generally denied, resisted, and calumniated by
the conservatives until denial becomes absurd, and then they accept
it with the statement that they always supposed it was true.
The old is the ignorant enemy of the new. The old has pedigree
and respectability ; it is filled with the spirit of caste ; it is associated
with great events and with great names; it is intrenched, it has an
income—it represents property. Besides, it has parasites, and the
parasites always defend themselves.
Long ago frightened wretches, who had by tyranny or piracy amassed
great fortunes, were induced in the moment of death to compromise
with God, and to let their inoney fall from their stiffening hands into
the greedy palms of priests. In this way many theological seminaries
were endowed, and in this way prejudices, mistakes, absurdities, known
as religious truths, have been perpetuated. In this way the dead
hypocrites have propagated and supported their kind.
Most religions—no matter how honestly they originated—have
been established by brute force. Kings and nobles have used them
as a means to enslave, to degrade, and rob. The priest, consciously
and unconsciously, has been the betrayer of his followers.
Near Chicago there is an ox that betrays his fellows. Cattle—twenty
or thirty at a time—are driven to the place of slaughter. This ox
�4
The Household of Faith.
leads the way—the others follow. When the place is reached, this
Bishop Dupanloup turns and goes back for other victims.
This is the worst side : There is a better.
Honest men, believing that they have found the whole truth—the
real and only faith—filled with enthusiasm, give all for the purpose of
propagating the “ divine creed.” They found colleges and universities,
and in perfect pious, ignorant, sincerity provide that the creed,
and nothing but the creed, must be taught, and that if any pro
fessor teaches anything contrary to that, he must be instantly dis
missed—that is to say, the children must be beaten with the bones of
the dead.
These good religious souls erect guide-boards with a provision
to the effect that the guide-boards must remain, whether the roads
are changed or not, and with the further provision that the professors
who keep and repair the guide-boards must always insist that the roads
have not been changed.
There is still another side.
Professors do not wish to lose their salaries. ■ They love their
families and have some regard for themselves. There is a compromise
between their bread and their brain. On pay-day they believe—at
other times they have their doubts. They settle with their own con
sciences by giving old words new meanings. They take refuge in
allegory, hide behind parables, and barricade themselves with oriental
imagery. They give to the most frightful passages a spiritual meaning
—and while they teach the old creed to their followers, they speak a
uew philosophy to their equals.
There is still another side.
A vast number of clergymen and laymen are perfectly satisfied.
They have no doubts. They believe as their fathers and mothers did.
The “ scheme of salvation ” suits them because they are satisfied that
they are embraced within its terms. They give themselves no troubleThey believe because they do not understand. They have no doubts
b ecause they do not think. They regard doubt as a thorn in the pillow
of orthodox slumber. Their souls are asleep, and they hate only those
who disturb their dreams. These people keep their creeds for future
use. They intend to have them ready at the moment of dissolution.
They sustain about the same relation to daily life that the small boats
earned by steamers do to ordinary navigation—they are for the
moment of shipwreck. Creeds, like life-preservers, are to be used
’n disaster.
�The Household of Faith.
5
We must remember that everything in nature—bad as well as good—
has the instinct of self-preservation. All lies go armed, and all mis
takes carry concealed weapons.. Driven to the last corner, even nonresistance appeals to the dagger.
Vast interests—political, social, artistic, and individual—are inter
woven with all craeds. Thousands of millions of dollars have been
invested; many millions of people obtain their bread by the pro
pagation and support of certain religious doctrines, and many milions
have been educated for that purpose and for that alone. Nothing is
more natural than that they should defend themselves—that they should
cling to a creed that gives them roof and raiment.
Only a few years ago Christianity was a complete system. It
included and accounted for all phenomena; it was a philosophy
satisfactory to the ignorant world; it had an astronomy and geology of
jts own; it answered all questions with the same readiness and the
same inaccuracy; it had within its sacred volumes the history of the
past, and the prophecies of all the future ; it pretended to know all that
was, is, or ever will be necessary for the well-being of the human race,
here and hereafter.
When a religion has been founded, the founder admitted the truth of
everything that was generally believed that did not interfere with his
system. Imposture always has a definite end in view, and for the sake
of the accomplishment of that end, it will admit the truth of anything
and everything that does not endanger its success.
The writers of all sacred books—the inspired prophets—had no
reason for disagreeing with the common people about the origin of
things, the creation of the world, the rising and setting of the sun, and
the uses of the stars, and consequently the sacred books of all ages
have endorsed the belief general at the time. You will find in our sacred
books the astronomy, the geology, the philosophy and the morality of
the ancient barbarians. The religionist takes these general ideas as his
foundation, and upon them builds the supernatural structure. For
many centuries the astronomy, geology, philosophy and morality of our
bible were accepted. They were not questioned, for the reason that
the world was too ignorant to question.
A few centuries ago the art of printing was invented. A new world
was discovered. There was a complete revolution in commerce. The
arts were born again. The world was filled with adventure ; millions
became self-reliant; old ideas were abandoned—old theories were put
aside—and suddenly the old leaders of thought were found to be
�6
The Household of Faith.
ignorant, shallow and dishonest. The literature of the classic world
was discovered and translated into modern languages. The world was
circumnatigated; Copernicus discovered the true relation sustained
by our earth to the solar system, and about the beginning of the seven
teenth century many other wonderful discoveries were made. In 1609,
a Hollander found that two lenses placed in a certain relation to each
other magnified objects seen through them. This discovery was the
foundation of astronomy. In a little while it came to the knowledge
of Galileo; the result was a telescope, with which man has read the
volume of the sides.
On the 8th day of May, 1618, Kepler discovered the greatest of his
three laws. These were the first great blows struck for the enfranchise
ment of the human mind. A few began to suspect that the ancient
Hebrews were not astronomers. From that moment the Church became
the enemy of Science. In every possible way the inspired ignorance
was defended—the lash, the sword, the chain, the fagot and the dun
geon were the arguments used by the infuriated Church.
To such an extent was the Church prejudiced against the new
philosophy, against the new facts, that priests refused to look through
the telescope of Galileo.
At last it became evident to the intelligent world that the inspired
writings, literally translated, did not contain the truth—the Bible was
in danger of being driven from the heavens.
The Church also had its geology. The time when the earth was
created had been definitely fixed and was certainly known. This fact
had not only been stated by inspired writers, but their statement had
been endorsed by priests, but bishops, cardinals, popes and ecumenical
councils ; that was settled.
But a few men had learned the art of seeing. There were some eyes
not always closed in prayer. They looked at the things about them ;
they observed channels that had been worn in solid rock by streams ;
they saw the vast territories that had been deposited by rivers ; their
attention was called to the slow inroads upon continents by seas—to the
deposits by volcanoes—to the sedimentary rocks—to the vast reefs that
had been built by the coral, and to the countless evidences of age, of
the lapse of time—and finally it was demonstrated that this earth had
been pursuing.its course about the sun for millions and millions of
ages.
The Church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every
device that cunning could suggest or ingenuityjexecute, but the conflict
�The Household oj Faith.
7
could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology was concerend,
was in danger of being driven from the earth.
Beaten in the open field, the Church began to equivocate, to evade,
and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having
failed to harmonise the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of
genius, the leading churchmen suggested that the Bible was not written
to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and that it was
not a scientific book, but that it was written in the language of the
people, and that as to unimportant things it contained the general
beliefs of its time.
The ground was then taken that, while it was not inspired in its
science, it was inspired in its morality, in its prophecy, in its account of
the miraculous, in the scheme of salvation, and in all that it had to say
on the subject of religion.
The moment it was suggested that the Bible was not inspired in
everything within it lids, the seeds of suspicion were sown. The priest
became less arrogant. The Church was forced to explain. The pulpit
had one language for the faithful and another for the philosophical
i.e., it became dishonest -with both.
The next question that arose was as to the origin of man.
The Bible was being driven from the skies. The testimony of the
stars was against the sacred volume. The Church had also been
forced to admit that the world was not created at the time mentioned
in the Bible—so that the very stones of the earth rose and united with
the stars in giving testimony against the sacred volume.
As to the creation of the world, the Church resorted to the artifice
of saying that “ days ” in reality meant long periods of time ; so that
no matter how old the earth was, the time could be spanned by six
periods—in other words, that the years could not be too numerous to
be divided by six.
But when it came to the creation of man, this evasion or artifice was .
impossible. The Bible gives the date of the creation of man, because
jt gives the age at which the first man died, and then it gives the gene
rations from Adam to the Flood, and from the Flood to the birth of
Christ, and in many instances the actual age of the principal ancestor
is given. So that, according to this account—according to the inspired
figures—man has existed upon the earth only about six thousand years.
There is no room left for any people beyond Adam.
If the Bible is true, certainly Adam was the first man ; consequently,
�8
The Household oj Faith.
we know, if the sacred volume be true, just how long man has lived
and labored and suffered on this earth.
The Church cannot and dare not give up the account of the creation
of Adam from the dust of the earth, and of Eve from the rib of the
man. The Church cannot give up the story of the Garden of Eden—
the Serpent, the Fall, and the Expulsion: these must be defended
because they are vital. Without these absurdities the system known
as Christianity cannot exist. Without the Fall, the Atonement is a
non sequitur. Facts bearing upon these questions were discovered and
discussed by the greatest and most thoughtful of men. Lamarck,
Humboldt, Haeckel, and above all, Darwin, not only asserted, but
demonstrated, that man is not a special creation. If anything can be
established by observation, by reason, then the fact has been estab
lished that man is related to all life below him —that he has been slowly
produced through countless years ; that the story of Eden is a childish
myth ; that the Fall of Man is an infinite absurdity.
If anything can be established by analogy and reason, man has
existed upon the earth for many millions of ages. We know now, if
we know anything, that people not only existed before Adam, but that
they existed in a highly civilised state ; that thousands of years before
the Garden of Eden was planted men communicated to each other
their ideas by language, and that artists clothed the marble with
thoughts and passions.
This is a demonstration that the origin of man given in the Old
Testament is untrue ; that the account was written by the ignoranc e,
the prejudice, and the egotism of the olden time.
So, if anything outside of the senses can be known, we do know that
civilisation is a growth ; that man did not commence a perfect being,
and then degenerate, but that from small beginnings he has slowly risen
to the intellectual height he now occupies.
The Church, however, has not been willing to accept these truths,
because they contradict the Sacred Word. Some of the most ig-<
genious of the clergy have been endeavoring for years to show that
there is no conflict—that the account in Genesis is in perfect harmony
with the theories of Charles Darwin ; and these clergymen in some way
manage to retain their creed and to accept a philosophy that utterly
destroys it.
But in a few years the Christian world will be forced to admit that
the Bible is not inspired in its astronomy, in its geology, or in its
anthropology—that is to say, that the inspired writers knew nothing of
�The Household oj Faith.
9
the sciences, knew nothing of the origin of the earth, nothing of the
origin of man—in other words, nothing of any particular value to the
human race.
It is, however, still insisted that the Bible is inspired in its morality.
Let us examine this question.
We must admit, if we know anything, if we feel anything, if con
science is more than a word, if there is such a thing as right and such
a thing as wrong beneath the dome of heaven—we must admit that
slavery is immoral. If we are honest, we must also admit that the Old
Testament upholds slavery. It will be cheerfully admitted that
Jehovah was opposed to the enslavement of one Hebrew by another.
Christians may quote the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” as
being opposed to human slavery, but after that commandment was given
Jehovah himself told his chosen people that they might “ buy their
bondmen and bondwomen of the heathen round about, and that they
should be their bondmen and their bondwomen for ever.” So all that
Jehovah meant by the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” was that
one Hebrew should not steal from another Hebrew, but that all
Hebrews might steal from the people of any other race or creed.
It is perfectly apparent that the Ten Commandments were made
only for the Jews, not for the world, because the author of these com
mandments commanded the people to whom they were given to violate
them nearly all as against the surrounding people.
A few years ago it did not occur to the Christian world that slavery
was wrong. It was upheld by the Church. Ministers bought and sold
the very people for whom they declared that Christ had died. Clergy
man of the English Church owned stock in slave ships, and the man
whp denounced slavery was regarded as the enemy of morality, and
thereupon was duly mobbed by the followers of Jesus Christ.
Churches were built with the results of labor stolen from colored
Christians. Babes were sold from mothers and a part of the money
given to send missionaries from America to heathen lands with the
tidings of great joy. Now, every intelligent man on the earth, every
decent man, holds in abhorrence the institution of human slavery.
■ So with the institution of polygamy. If anything on the earth is im
moral, that is. If there is anything calculated to destroy home, to do
away with human love, to blot out the idea of family life, to'oover the
hearthstone with serpents, it is the institution of polygamy. The
Jehovah of the Old Testament was a believer in that institution.
Can we now say that the Bible is inspired in its morality ? Consider
�10
The Household of Faith.
for a moment the manner in which, under the direction of Jehovah,
wars were waged. Remember the atrocities that were committed.
Think of a war where everything was the food of the sword. Think
for a moment of a deity capable of committing the crimes that are
described and gloated over in the Old Testament. The civilised man
has outgrown the sacred cruelties and absurdities.
There is still another side to this question.
A few centuries ago nothing was more natural than the unnatural.
Miracles were as plentiful as actual events. In those blessed days,
that which actually occurred was not regarded as of sufficient importance
to be recorded. A religion without miracles would have excited
derision. A creed that did not fill the horizon—that did not account
for everything—that could not answer every question, would have
been regarded as worthless.
After the birth of Protestantism, it could not be admitted by the
leaders of the Reformation that the Catholic Church still had the
power of working miracles. If the Catholic Church was still in
partnership with God, what excuse could have been made for the Re
formation ? The Protestants took the ground that the age of miracles
had passed. This was to justify the new faith. But Protestants could
not say that miracles had never been performed, because that would
take the foundation not only from the Catholics but from themselves;
consequently, they were compelled to admit that miracles were per
formed in the Apostolic days, but to insist that, in their time, man
must rely upon the facts in nature. Protestants were compelled to
carry on two kinds of war: they had to contend -with those who
insisted that miracles had never been performed; and in that argu
ment they were forced to insist upon the necessity for miracles, on the
probability that they were performed, and upon the truthfulness of the
Apostles. A moment afterward, they had to answer those who con
tended that miracles were performed at that time; then they brought
forward against the Catholics the same arguments that their first
opponents had brought against them.
This has made every Protestant brain “a house divided against
itself.” This planted in the Reformation the “ irrepressible conflict.”
But we have learned more and more about what we call Nature—
about what we call facts. Slowly it dawned upon the mind that force
is indestructible—that we cannot imagine force as existing apart from
matter—that we cannot even think of matter existing apart from force
—that we cannot by any possibility conceive of a cause without an
�The, Household of Faith.
11
effect, of an effect without a cause, of an effect that is not also a cause.
We find no room between the links of cause and effect for a miracle.
We now perceive that a miracle must be outside of Nature—that it
can have no father, no mother—that is to say, that it is an impossibility
The intellectual world has abandoned the miraculous. Most ministers
are now ashamed to defend a miracle. Some try to explain miracles,
and yet, if a miracle is explained, it ceases to exist. Few congrega
tions could keep from smiling were the minister to seriously assert the
truth of the Old Testament miracles.
Miracles must be given up. That field must be abandoned by the
religious world. The evidence accumulates every day, in every pos
sible direction in which the human mind can investigate, that the
miraculous is simply the impossible.
Confidence in the eternal constancy ol Nature increases day by day
The scientist has perfect confidence in the attraction of gravitation—
in chemical affinities—rin the great fact of evolution, and feels abso
lutely certain that the nature of things ■will remain for ever the same.
We have at last ascertained that miracles can be perfectly under
stood ; that there is nothing mysterious about them; that they are
simply transparent falsehoods.
The real miracles are the facts in nature. No one can explain the
attraction of gravitation. No one knows why soil and rain and light
become the womb of life. No one knows why grass grows, why water
runs, or why the magnetic needle points to the north. The facts in
nature are the eternal and the only mysteries. There is nothing strange
about the miracles of superstition. They are nothing but the mistakes
of ignorance and fear, or falsehoods framed by those who wished to
live on the labor of others.
In our time the champions of Christianity, for the most part, take
the exact ground occupied by the deists. They dare not defend in the
open field the mistakes, the cruelties, the immoralities and the absurdi
ties of the Bible. They shun the Garden of Eden as though the serpent
was still there. They have nothing to say about the Fall of Man.
They are silent as to the laws upholding slavery and polygamy. They
are ashamed to defend the miraculous. They talk about these things
to Sunday-schools and to the elderly members of their congregations ;
but when doing battle for the faith, they mis-state the position of their
opponents and then insist that there must be a God, and that the soul
is immortal.
We may admit the existence of an infinite being; we may admit the
�12
The Household of Faith.
immortality of the soul, and yet deny the inspiration of the Scriptures
and the divine origin of the Christian religion. These doctrines, or
these dogmas, have nothing in common. The pagan world believed in
God and taught the dogma of immortality. These ideas are far older
than Christianity, and they have been almost universal.
Christianity asserts more than this. It is based upon the inspiration
of the Bible, on the Fall of Man, on the Atonement, on the dogma of
the Trinity, on the divinity of Jesus Christ, on his resurrection from
the dead, on his ascension into heaven.
Christianity teaches not simply the immortality of the soul—not
simply the immortality of joy—but it teaches the immortality of pain,
the eternity of sorrow. It insists that evil, that wickedness, that im
morality and that every form of vice are and must be perpetuated
forever. It believes in immortal convicts, in eternal imprisonment and
in a world of unending pain. It has a serpent for every breast and a
curse for nearly every soul. This doctrine is called the dearest hope
of the human heart, and he who attacks it is denounced as the most
infamous of men.
Let us see what the Church, within a few years, has been compelled
substantially to abandon—that is to say, what it is now almost ashamed
to defend.
First, the astronomy of the sacred Scriptures ; second, the geology ;
third, the account given of the origin of man; fourth, the doctrine of
original sin, the fall of the human race ; fifth, the mathematical con
tradiction known as the Trinity ; sixth, the atonement—because it was
only on the ground that man is accountable for the sin of another, that
he could be justified by reason of the righteousness of another; seventh,
that the miraculous is either the misunderstood or the impossible;
eighth, that the Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that
slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermina
tion are not merciful, 'and that nothing can be more immoral than to
punish the innocent on account of the sins of the guilty ; and, ninth,
the divinity of Christ.
All this must be given up by the really intelligent, by those not
afraid to think, by those who have the courage of their convictions and
the candor to express their thoughts. What then is left ?
Let me tell you. Everything in the Bible that is true is left; it still
remains and is still of value. It cannot be said too often that the truth *
needs no inspiration ; neither can it be said too often that inspiration
cannot help falsehood. Every good and noble sentiment uttered in the
�The Household oj Faith.
13
Bible is still good and noble. Every fact remains. All that is good in
the Sermon on the Mount is retained. The Lord’s Prayer is not
affected. The grandeur of self-denial, the nobility of forgiveness, and
the ineffable splendor of mercy are with us still. And besides, there
remains the great hope for all the human race.
What is lost ? All the mistakes, all the falsehoods, all the absurdi
ties, all the cruelties and all the curses contained in the Scriptures.
We have almost lost the “ hope ” of eternal pain—the “ consolation,”
of perdition; and in time we shall lose the frightful shadow that has
fallen upon so many hearts, that has darkened so many lives.
The great trouble for many years has been, and still is, that the
clergy are not quite candid. They are disposed to defend the old
creed. They have been educated in the Universities of the Sacred
Mistake—Universities that Bruno would call “ the widows of true
learning.” They have been taught to measure with a false standard
they have weighed with inaccurate scales. In youth, they became
convinced of the truth of the creed. This was impressed upon them
by the solemnity of professors who spoke in tones of awe.
The
enthusiasm of life’s morning was misdirected. They went out into the
world knowing nothing of value. They preached a creed outgrown.
Having been for so many years entirely certain of their position, they
met doubt with a spirit of irritation—afterwards with hatred. They
are hardly courageous enough to admit that they are wrong.
Once the pulpit was the leader—it spoke with authority. By its side
was the sword of the State, with the hilt toward its hand. Now, it is
apologised for—it carries a weight. It is now like a living man to
whom has been chained a corpse. It cannot defend the old, and it has
not accepted the new. In some strange way it imagines that morality
cannot live except in partnership with the sanctified follies and false
hoods of the past.
The old creeds cannot be defended by argument. They are not
-within the circumference of reason—they are not embraced in any of
the facts within the experience of man. All the subterfuges have been
exposed; all the excuses have been shown to be shallow, and at
last the Church must meet, and fairly meet, the objections of ou
time.
Solemnity is no longer an argument. Falsehood is no longer sacred.
People are not willing to admit that mistakes are divine. Truth is
- more important than belief—far better than creeds, vastly more useful
than superstitions. The Church must accept the truths of the present.
�14
The Household of Faith.
must admit the demonstrations of science, or take its place in the
mental museums with the fossils and monstrosities of the past.
The time for personalities has passed; these questions cannot be
determined by ascertaining the character of the disputants ; epithets
are no longer regarded as arguments; the curse of the Church pro
duces laughter; theological slander is no longer a weapon ; argument
must be answered with argument, and the Church must appeal to
reason, and by that standard it must stand or fall. The theories and
discoveries of Darwin cannot be answered by the resolutions of synods,
or by quotations from the Old Testament.
The world has advanced. The Bible has remained the same. We
must go back to the book—it cannot come to us—or we must leave it
forever. In order to remain orthodox we must forget the discoveries,
the inventions, the intellectual efforts of many centuries ; we must go
back until our knowledge—or rather our ignorance—will harmonise
with the barbaric creeds.
It is not pretended that all the creeds have not been naturally pro
duced. It is admitted that under the same circumstances the same
religions would again ensnare the human rac£. It is also admitted that
under the same circumstances the same efforts would be made by the
great and intellectual of every age to break the chains of superstition.
There is no necessity of attacking people—we should combat error.
We should hate hypocrisy, but not the hypocrite—larceny, but not the
thief—superstition, but not its victim. We should do all within our
power to inform, to educate, and to benefit our fellow men.
There is no elevating power in hatred. There is no reformation in
punishment. The soul grows greater and grander in the air of kind
ness, in the sunlight of intelligence.
We must rely upon the evidence of our senses, upon the conclusions
of our reason.
For many centuries the Church has insisted that man is totally
depraved, that he is naturally wicked, that all of his natural desires are
contrary to the will of God. Only a few years ago it was solemnly
asserted that our senses were originally honest, true and faithful, but
having been debauched by original sin, were now cheats and liars;
that they constantly deceived and misled the soul; that they were
traps and snares; that no man could be safe who relied upon his senses,
or upon his reason ;—he must simply rely upon faith; in other words
that the only way for man to really see was to put out his eyes.
There has been a rapid improvement in the intellectual world. The
�The Household of Faith.
15
improvement has been slow in the realm of religion, for the reason that
religion was hedged about, defended and barricaded by fear, by preju
dice and by law. It was considered sacred. It was illegal to call its
truth in question. Whoever disputed the priest became a criminal;
whoever demanded a reason, or an explanation, became a blasphemer,
a scoffer, a moral leper.
The Church defended its mistakes by every means within its power.
But in spite of all this there has been advancement, and there are
enough of the orthodox clergy left to make it possible for us to measure
the distance that has been travelled by sensible people.
The world is beginning to see that a minister should be a teacher,
and that “ he should not endeavor to inculcate a particular system of
dogmas, but to prepare his hearers for exercising their own judgments.’’
As a last resource, the orthodox tell the thoughtful that they are not
“ spiritual ”; that they are “ of the earth, earthy ” ; that they cannot
perceive that which is spiritual. They insist that “ God is a spirit,
and must be worshipped in spirit.”
But let me ask, What is it to be spiritual ? In order to be really
spiritual, must a man sacrifice this world for the sake of another?
Were the selfish hermits, who deserted their wives and children for the
miserable purpose of saving their own little souls, spiritual ? Were
those who put their fellow-men in dungeons, or burned them at the
stake on account of a difference of opinion, all spiritual people? Did
John Calvin give evidence of his spirituality by burning Servetus ?
Were they spiritual people who invented and used instruments of tor
ture, who denied the liberty of thought and expression, who waged
wars for the propagation of the faith? Were they spiritual people who
insisted that Infinite Love could punish his poor, ignorant children for
ever? Is it necessary to believe in eternal torment to understand the
meaning of the word spiritual ? Is it necessary to hate those who
disagree with you, and to calumniate those whose argument you cannot
answer, in order to be spiritual ? Must you hold a demonstrated fact
in contempt; must you deny or avoid what you know to be true, in
order to substantiate the fact that you are spiritual ?
What is it to be spiritual ? Is the man spiritual who searches for
the truth ; who lives in accordance with his highest ideal; who loves
his wife and children ; who discharges his obligations; who makes a
happy fireside for the ones he loves; who succors the oppressed : who
gives his honest opinions; who is guided by principle ; who is merciful
and just ?
�16
The Household of Faith.
. Is the man spiritual who loves the beautiful; who is thrilled by
music, and touched to tears in the presence of the sublime, the heroic,
and the self-denying ? Is the man spiritual who endeavors by thought
and deed to ennoble the hunian race ?
The defenders of the orthodox faith, by this time, should know that
the foundations are insecure*
They should hav£the courage to defend, or the candor to abandon*
If the Bible is an inspired book, it ought to be true. Its defenders
must admit that Jehovah knew the facts not only about the earth, but
about the stars, and that the Creator of the universe knew all about
geology and astronomy even four thousand years ago'
The champions'of Christianity must show that the Bible tells the
truth about the Creation of Man, the Garden of Eden, the Tempta
tion, the Fall, and the Flood. They must take the ground that the
sacred book is historically correct; that the events related really hap
pened ; that the miracles were actually performed,; that the laws pro
mulgated from Sinai were and are wise and just, and that nothing ig
upheld, commanded, endorsed, or in any way approved or sustained
that is not absolutely right. In other words, if they insist that a being
of infinite goodness and intelligence is the author,of the Bible, they
must be ready to show that it is absolutely perfect. They must defend
its astronomy, geology, history, miracle, and morality.
If the Bible is true, man is a special creation, and if man is a special
creation, millions of facts must have conspired, millions of ages ago, to
deceive the scientific world of to-day.
If the Bible is true, slavery is right, and the world should go back
to the barbarism of the lash and chain. If the Bible is true, polygamy
is the highest form of virtue. If the Bible is true, Nature has a master,,
and the miraculous is independent of and superior to cause and effect.
If the Bible is true, most of the children of men are destined to suffer
eternal pain. If the Bible is true, the science known as astronomy is a
collection of mistakes—the telescope is a false witness, and light is a
luminous liar. If the Bible is true, the science known as geology is»
false and every fossil is a petrified perjurer.
The defenders of orthodox creeds should have the courage to
candidly answer at least two questions: First, Is the Bible inspired?»
Second, Is the Bible true? And when they answer these questions,
they should remember that if the Bible is true, it meeds no inspiration,,
and that if not true; inspiration can do it no good.
4
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The household of faith
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: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted verbatim from the North American Review, August, 1888." No. 35a in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N359
G5775
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
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 (The household of faith), 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
Faith
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e70bbc5ec4a43f0cf70fe87e6dfa576d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VoW8Ei1HCX56-QcKllTd0CVfdKZzKqnR1K3cEL--63aBgPdvryfHXUgW77a1AxmnyyAKvB2q%7EiatjpEHekPVEtaULXOiO4rNObo4uqg%7EHwBEQ3oeWW3MLIdOXZgsP7DhmEDSCgWuYt78hBOggHVwdiLRvV44mHbwNP52ebKMFv4q5dh74TidI3GKgIq%7EiLpsLzSfSeC0sHMVVZBdTJ5HDCV0FMlB6OZ7T%7E84dh2xTDBPLGd9f1ubKOjuxwbSL6GnxbV6FycVwyURmidLN6GwB102qxUXTB75vS%7E3LJwXM7HxfYret0t0Swx9ew0-h0aV5IO0rUAmqi53JI3f3vGh4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6b9c17e63891c9d5ffb0cfeb23464e3d
PDF Text
Text
THE LEGEND OF THE FROZEN LAKE.
(Translated from a Collection of Norwegian Folk-Lore and
Village Legends, L~c., published at Christiania.)
Once upon a time, in the early part of the winter, a traveller
had to cross over a frozen lake where the ice was of varied and
unknown thickness. Before venturing out on the ice he lighted his
pipe, and, sitting down on a stone by the side of a road (which
ran close to the lake shore, nearly at right angles with his own
course), he thus communed with himself: “ I am bound to cross
this lake ; but in so doing I run a considerable risk of losing my
health, or even life, by falling through the ice. If I can manage to
keep on the thick ice, and avoid the thin, of course I shall be all
right as far as safety is concerned ; but the road over the ice is not
staked out yet, and there is not so much as a footprint on it. Perhaps
some of these good people passing to and fro on the road may be
able to give me some useful directions. At any rate, I will just ask
them.” And so he did, there being no lack of people to ask ; they
all spoke kindly to him at first ; and though they did not answer his
questions satisfactorily as to the thickness of the ice, they seemed as
willing and as anxious to direct his course as if their own safety had
depended on it. What surprised the traveller immensely, however,
and perplexed him not a little, was that, whereas all advised him
earnestly, and some vehemently, no two of them gave him the same
counsel, and no one seemed to speak from experience or trustworthy
information. In a very few minutes the conversation became somewhat
general, the counsellors became more and more excited; some
warned him in rather discourteous terms against following the advice
of others ; and at last they began to quarrel amongst themselves.
The poor man returned slightly disgusted to his stone, his pipe, and
his meditations. “Now,” thought he, “if I had only met one of
these good people, I should as likely as not have followed his advice ;
but in the multitude of such counsellors there seems to be anything
but wisdom.” Just then two persons, evidently of superior rank,
appeared upon the scene; and these were a Bishop and an Arch
bishop. The Bishop, taking on himself the office of chief speaker,
did not wait to be asked, but at once thus addressed the traveller:
“ My son, I see thou art about to cross the frozen lake ; and I come
to tell thee that the ice is such and such a thickness, here and there
respectively, and it is thy duty to believe me.” “ Well ! ” said the
traveller, “ it is scarcely fair or reasonable to talk about duty in such
a matter; but if you really do know more about the ice than those
good people yonder, and if you will give me any accurate information
about it, I shall be most truly grateful to you.” “ My son,” said the
Bishop, “ I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond
�[2]
of iniquity. Here is no question of accurate information, but of
saving faith. As for knowing more about the ice than those good
people, the fact is that I know considerably less. All my knowledge
of ice is derived from ancient history. I have not made myself in
any way acquainted with this year’s ice; nor do I consider that I am
at liberty to do so with any view of forming, or helping others to
form, an independent opinion. From my early youth 1 have been
trained, and from early manhood hired and pledged, to declare to
such as you that the ice is just so thick and j ust so thin, respectively
here and there (no more and no less), as it was voted to me, or as it
was supposed to have been voted to me, many hundred years ago by
an assembly of good men, not one of whom ever saw ice in his life.
The actual thickness or thinness is of no real importance. To adopt
what we call the orthodox dimensions, is the one thing needful, and
there is a special over-natural efficacy in adopting these, by which
you will be enabled to skim over the thinnest ice in perfect safety,
while the thickest ice will melt away under the feet of him who
doubts, or is so unfortunate as to be influenced by measurement,
testimony, calculation, or otherwise to consider it as thicker or thinner
than he has been taught to believe it. Of course, when I say you
must believe, I mean you must profess to believe, and act as if you
did. Go now, my son, and be of good cheer.” The traveller, if the
truth must be told, did not think much of the Bishop’s reasoning ;
but he was much taken with the good prelate’s reverend appearance,
peculiar dress, and phraseology ; and still more by his authoritative
and yet benign and fatherly manner. So, after remaining a few
seconds, “perplexed with doubt and afraid of condemnation,” he
declared that he believed every word that the good Bishop had said
to him, went boldly forth on the ice, was soon out of sight, and has
never been heard of since. The Bishop tells everyone that the
traveller got safely over the lake, and the Archbishop adds that it is
“ a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.”
[From Teubner’s American and Oriental Record.
�
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 legend of the frozen lake
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 2 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "From Trubner's American and Oriental Record". Translated from a collection of Norwegian folklore and village legends etc. published at Christiana. Tentative date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5531
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Faith
Folklore
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 legend of the frozen lake), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Faith
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/45e6fcb73119ff3850a478e277196801.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PT4gPz0ttVq9gjxjaGx7ntOCLIEN2EnDePn3qv1Gp57yDsetYz733V3Ow32fXmQbcm-3Yoe7vJ-Dx6zD-u%7EKepTjaS%7ECWutKjXESj6s3bqS4qAhj2Bt6cjQGWNm6VUm%7EwSpeFjj3fTm4gyOZcD-mpdDHNyjCN%7EMpT12jZt3ac8PDWNVll02PWl535fHc-BD0EPZg4FUTRRcWmOVQNAB9mDKVqsdIM1Ue62Qk%7EBIioD-ZOzb6PPJNwZOpvhHhB4EvlmXTdDiwFE2IzSS71npkiFsFCgo9Rv9RlmIH%7E8dPcd79gZn31d-Xoecm8drz1m%7E8FiH0LqOkMDrvb01W-v5Igg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5c05f625b9623d04611b78446890e10b
PDF Text
Text
;
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, . S.E.
1876.
\
Price Threepence.
THE
NEW FAITH.
From ‘ THE INDEX.’
F you and I, good reader, had been born in Rome,
during the latter part of the third century, when
Christianity, although not yet the established religion,
had gained a multitude of adherents, and was destined
to replace the rapidly-declining religion of Greece
and Rome ; if our parents and friends had chanced
to be devo.fed worshippers of Jupiter and Apollo,
Minerva and Ceres, and had therefore entertained an
I
�2
intense antipathy to the new faith which threatened
to destroy the old cultus which was so dear to them •
and if (to add one more, to these suppositions) you
and I had become persuaded of the mythical charac
ter of all the old legends of our pagan religion, and
had embraced the purer faith of Jesus as modified by
the liberal Paul and the philosophy of Greece, I fancy
we should have been subjected to very much the same
sort of remark, expostulation, and entreaty with
which we are so well acquainted to-day. There
would have been the same outcry made against de
stroying a long-established faith which had been
handed down the ages from revered ancestors; dis
tinguished, grey-headed believers in. the old religion
would have been pointed out, and we should have
been asked if we dared to set up our inexperienced
minds in opposition to their wisdom ; the same argu
ments would have been adduced in favour of the
genuineness of the old myths; the same expostula
tions would have been addressed to us to»“spare the
peace of mind of all who were reposing in the old
faith.
* , ,
Finally, when all this had failed to convince us that
we were in error, some deepeY thinker would have
taken us aside, and said significantly: “ You are right.
These priests are half of. them feigning to believe
what they do not, and the rest are- bigoted and de
ceived. You are right. The old legendary stories of
the gods are untenable. I agree with you. The new
faith is more rational, is purer, and may, at some
future time, prevail. But be sensible. Here is our
old faith still held by millions who love it devotedly
and who believe in it fully. All over the civilized
world are the beautiful temples reared for the worship
of our gods. The whole wealth of our unrivalled art
is dedicated to the production in life-like marble -of
the ideal forms of the deities of our fathers. Now,
if you Christians succeed, you will overthrow a vast
�3
system of worship; you will make our gorgeous
temples with their splendid rituals worthless ; you
will take the significance out of our beautiful sculp
tures and paintings ; you. will rob the groves, the
rivers, and the fields of their presiding divinities ;
and you will thus distress the minds of thousands
.. who cling tenderly to the old faith.” And then some
shrewd business man would have taken us aside, and
said with a cunning smile : “ Will it pay, now, for
you to speak out boldly against the errors of our old
religion ? Will it prove any advantage to you to
urge the adoption of this new faith ? Look at your
business, which will be wholly ruined if you come out
openly as a Christian ! Your old friends will desert
you. Just be content to. hold your peace. Entertain
what views you will in secret, but for policy’s sake
keep silent I ”
Now these words, which might have been with
perfect propriety addressed to the convert to Christi
anity in the third century, are precisely similar to
those which the majority of radicals, in the nineteenth
century, hear daily from their friends in the old faith.
At the present day, Christianity, as a religious system,
■ is on the wane just as surely as the pagan religion } •
was sixteen hundred y^ars ago, Its many positive
excellences, its moraEpurity, its teachings of brother
hood, charity, and forgiveness,* remain, and will' ever
Iremain, as permanent blessings to mankind. But its
deification of Jesus, its claim to be the prophesied
faith of faiths, its supernatural stories, its more
recently manufactured creeds with their revolting
dogmas and inconsistencies, and its worship of an
infallible Church by the Catholic wing, and its wor
ship of an infallible Bible by the Protestant wing,—
all these are surely and steadily crumbling away. The
two great weapons, Scientific Discovery and Historical
Criticism, are rapidly dispersing the clouds of error
. and superstition, as certainly as the sun scatters the
�4
mists of the morning. In fact, the amount which
has already been accomplished in this respect, during
the last fifty years, is simply amazing. The real
change which, unperceived by the Orthodox, has
actually taken place in their own ranks, is also most
surprising. We stand, then, in very much the same
attitude as the world did during the gradual breaking
up of the errors of the old pagan religion.
Now, as then, the question comes home to every
man who sees that he cannot honestly hold the old
faith : “ What shall be my course of action ? Shall
it be open, or shall I hold my opinions in silence ? ”
The temptation is great to adopt the latter course.
The “New Faith ” is not yet sufficiently pronounced,
nor so generally received, as to make the open adop
tion of it and the rejection of the old an easy matter
to most Liberals. It is.true they are not exposed to
the terrible persecutions to which early Christians
were subjected, and which the Christians themselves
repaid with interest on coming into power; the age
has gone by for that. Still, in England and in this
country, the radical labours under great disadvantages.
There are being enacted every day scenes of heroic
adherence to truth, which are none the less noble
for being little known. Let me cite two examples out
of many for whose authenticity I can vouch :—
A young man, who had lately worked his way pain
fully through college and seminary, with the hope of
preaching the gospel, who had made repeated and
severe sacrifices for this purpose, and who had actu
ally entered successfully upon his work in an Ortho
dox church, saw, after some years of closest study and
agonizing doubt, that he could not conscientiously
continue in the old faith, preaching the Orthodox
dogmas. It was a terrible trial for him. Relatives
were dependent upon him for support. He had just
reached that for which he had given the best years
and all the enthusiasm of his life. But he saw that,
�5
if he would be honest, he must relinquish it. What
could he do to earn his livelihood ? He had now no
knowledge of commercial pursuits. He had admi
rably and laboriously fitted himself for a profession
which he found he could not conscientiously occupy.
Some pursuit was found by him in which he -could,
with strict economy, maintain himself. Accordingly
he resigned his pastorate, gave up his handsome
salary, and went quietly to the humble place which
he had chosen, a true disciple of honesty and truth.
Another example : A young man recently occupied
a very prominent and responsible position in a busi
ness house. He had long cherished the desire to be
a preacher, and to address to men from the pulpit
words which should incite them to a purer life. So
soon as he had gained a sufficient sum of money
to support for some time those dependent upon him,
he left the flattering prospects which a continuance
in business offered him, and began his theological
studies. It is the old story. He found it impossible
for him, as he ascertained the truth, to subscribe to
orthodox tenets, and with noble honesty, despite the
agony which came from the rude awakening from
life-long, cherished dreams, he gave up the profession
for which he had sacrificed so much'.
A score of similar cases might be cited, and such
acts are doubtless repeated in one way or another
constantly. There are heroes and heroines in every
walk of life, who are making sacrifices daily, because
they are faithful to the truth which is in them. They
are unwilling to adopt the too prevalent custom of
repeating words in which they have no belief, and,
moreover, they are earnestly desirous of helping on
ward the day of freedom from the narrow, bigoted
dogmas which enslave so many minds. The ques
tion with them is not, Will it pay me in dollars and
cents., or in social position and popularity, to be thus
true to my convictions ? That question must, for the
�6
present, certainly be. answered in the negative. But
there is a higher motive, that of devotion and loyalty
to the truth, and hatred of error and superstition,
which impels them not only to reject dogmas no
longer tenable, but to aid in ascertaining and dis
seminating truth and light.
There is, however, one very weighty reason which
deters many Radicals from proclaiming openly their
views. It is that these views are so largely negative.
It is that they dislike to pull down, without putting
anything in the place of, the destroyed faith. It is
their want of a positive system of truth to promulgate.
But, in considering this objection to outspoken Radi
calism, let us remember that the farther we go in
philosophy or religion, the less dogmatic and positive
we can be. If we see but one point, one side of
truth, we are apt to assert most vehemently that we
are right and we alone. But if our vision is extended,
if we see more than one side, we grow less positive.
Our belief is less narrow and intolerant. In one sense
it is undoubtedly true that the more light we have the
more we doubt. We see this exemplified every where.
The quack, acquainted with but one set of symptoms
and with no knowledge of all the complicated influ
ences which may affect the disease of his patient, is
the most positive of men. The broad, cultured physi
cian is much less certain. Now the “New Faith,”
being the result of the deepest thinking and the most
critical study of the past half-century, and arising
from a necessary elimination of old dogmas and effete
superstitions incorporated in the Old Faith, must
naturally seem, when compared with Christianity, to
be negative rather than positive. So great always is
the mental distress consequent upon the loss of intense
and positive beliefs, however narrow they may be,
that the mind thus bereft of them is at first much
' more keenly alive to its loss than to its gain. To the
believer in the highly poetical polytheism of the
�7
Greeks, the rude dispelling of his illusions must have
been attended with great mental pain. So, also, to
one who held the crude conceptions of the universe
which prevailed before Copernicus, the great change
effected by telescopic discovery must have brought
with it a kind of terror. The sudden expansion of
his notions of the distance and nature of the celestial
bodies, and the consequent insignificance of this earth,
thus shown to be one of the smallest objects in the
stellar universe, must have at first produced de
spondency and sorrow. Lecky cites a touching story
of an old monk who considered God as altogether
human, and whom he was wont to address in most
familiar language. When he was convinced by a
brother monk that he was wrong in holding such
anthropomorphic views of the Deity, he clasped his
hands in agony, and said, while the tears streamed
down his cheeks, “ You have taken away my God !
You have taken away my God ! ”
It is true that the “New Faith” seems largely
negative, as compared with Christianity, for the very
reason that, while taking much from that religious
system which is good, it also rejects much with which
it can have nothing in common,'and this is so distress
ing to the holder of the Old Faith that at first it
seems to him as if everything good in his religion
were denied by us. Let us look first at the most
prominent features of the old system which have been
discarded by the “New Faith.”
With the discovery of the immense age of our earth,
and the enormous length of time (compared with our
historical accounts) during which man has been an
inhabitant of the globe, and with the knowledge that
man’s origin is almost without doubt to be derived
from a lower order of the animal kingdom, and cer
tainly from very primitive and savage ancestors,—the
old account of the first pair, the fall, the curse of the
race, the “ scheme of salvation ” as indicated in the
�8
prophesied a seed of the woman” that should “bruise
the serpent’s head,”—all this, upon which is built up
the lofty structure of “justification by faith” and
“ redemption through the blood of the Lamb,”
crumbles away, and the vast system falls to the
ground. By careful investigation into the origin
of the biblical canon, and by the results of historical
criticism, the Bible is shown to be a book of human
composition, and, with all its many excellences, not a
divinely-inspired and infallible authority. By a careful
comparison of religions—by the clear light of science,
and by the Zeit Geist, which does not favour anything
miraculous,—we are led to disbelieve the legendary
stories in the Old Testament, and the miracles and
myths of the New. By similar studies the deified
Jesus becomes a pure teacher, of exalted moral cha
racter, born of Joseph and Mary, around whom, when
dead, the magnified stories inseparable from such an
age and people gradually clustered, gathered credence
by repetition, and strength by transmission from
one generation to another. By the study of the rise
and development of many Church doctrines, as
affected by the influence of the pagan religion and
the prevailing philosophy, we are convinced of their
decidedly human origin, as well as of their unsound
ness. We are compelled, likewise, to modify greatly
the anthropomorphic conceptions of the Deity which
are inherent in Christianity, since Jesus, being in
reality the God of the Christians, gives to them as an
object of worship little more than a magnified man,
to whom they address petitions for rain, success in
business, victory in war, and the like.
Finally, in view of the origin and present low con
dition of the majority of the human family, and the
insignificant part which an individual life plays in
this boundless universe, the “New Faith” cannot
pronounce certainly and dogmatically upon a future
existence, but leaves it in solemn hope.
�9
Thus far is the “ New Faith ” surely negative ; but
it does not stop there. Although it cannot affirm on
the ground of ignorant traditions and ill-supported
authority many things which the Christian creed so
unhesitatingly proclaims as truth, yet it is not want
ing in positive faith.
The spirit of love to our fellow-men and kindness
even to our enemies, which it has been the peculiar
glory of the religion of Jesus to inculcate (however
imperfectly its adherents may have carried it out), is
the key-note of the anthem of the “ New Faith.”
Emphatically it calls itself the “ Religion of
Humanity.” The place which the spirit of asceti
cism occupied in the early centuries, and which the
enthusiasm of the Crusades claimed in the Middle
Ages, is in our day held by the wide-spread spirit of
philanthropy and universal benevolence, of which we
may say :—
»
“ Nor bounds, nor clime, nor creed thou knowest;
Wide as our need thy favours fall 1 ”
The “New Faith” holds that man is progressing
steadily and surely towards that .perfection of society
unto which it is our aim to attain. From low begin
ning the race has thus painfully worked itself upward
on its way ; not grovelling downwards from a primi
tive state of purity and excellence, to be rescued only
by a partial system of salvation, but steadily advanc
ing, learning by bitter experience, throwing up about
its way safeguards of law and morality, and ever
progressing in civilization, enlightenment, and gene
ral culture. No good word was ever uttered by
ancient bard or prophet, no noble maxim was ever
enunciated by sage or priest, no moral precept was
ever spoken by the lips of Jesus, that is not cherished
as part of the inheritance of the “ New Faith,” which
thus draws to itself the treasures of the ages. The
“ New Faith ” entertains, it is true, no limited and
anthropomorphic ideas of the Deity, but for that very
�IO
,
reason it inculcates greater awe and reverence for that
unknown and unknowable Power in whose all-quick
ening presence wekave our being.
Above all, it upholds and teaches the necessity of
right living! To the soul weakly resting in effemi
nate security on the merits of a victim who once paid
the penalty of his sins, .and who will forgive him as
often as he does wrong and cries, “ I repent,” the
“New Faith” saiy’s: “Live- a true, pure, noble life!
Lurk behind no covering of other men’s virtues.
Show yourself what you are;! Be pure, be unselfish,
be upright! *Do not be content to be reckoned so on
the heavenly register by virtue of the blood of a man
crucified nineteen hundred years ago” ! To the man
basely acting from expectation of reward in a future
life, the “New Faith” exclaims : “ Scorn to act from
such low motives! Cease meanly to balance your
visionary heavenly gains by your earthly losses, and
to chuckle over a credit-mark on the recording angel’s
book, when you have performed a good action here !
Act rightly, because it is noble to act so; because it
benefits your fellow-men and purifies and strengthens
your own soul! The “New Faith” pleads also for
the prompt and efficient administration of justice here
on this earth,—knowing nothing of a “judgment to
come.” By this means and not by threatenings of
unknown tortures would it restrain those men from
crime, who are insensible to higher appeals to right
action. This, then, is the aim of the “New Faith to
promote the welfare and to aid the progress of the
race ; to inculcate purity and honesty of life; to diffuse
everywhere the spirit of charity and love; to stimu
late in every way, by music, sculpture, painting, lite
rature, and poetry, the growing culture of the race ;
to place before men constantly higher models of excel
lence ; and to cheer and comfort drooping, saddened
hearts. For the time when these blessings shall be
widely diffused must all disciples of the “New Faith”
�11
toil. The time has come to emerge from politic con
cealment and to declare our views. 4 Already the air
is full of the tremor of a hastening change. The
mists are lifting. The ugly forms of once potent
superstitions are growing fainter-and fainter, and are
fading steadily from view. The promise of a brighter
day is dawning on the race.* Wte may not see its
glory. But we can help its advance. In the noble
words of the poet—
“ Hail to the coming singers!
Hail to the brave.light-bringers !
Forward I reach, and share
All that they’do and dare!
“ What matter, I or they,
Mine or another’s-day,
So the right’ word be said
And life the sweeter made ?
“ I feel the light move sunward,
I join the great march onward,
And take by faith, while living,
My freehold of thanksgiving! ”
Boston.
J. L. S.
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
The new faith
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stoddard, John Lawson [1850-1931]
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, Little Pulteney Street, London. From 'The Index'. Signed J.L.S. John Lawson Stoddard was an American writer, hymn writer and lecturer.
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT173
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The new faith), 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
Conway Tracts
Faith
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/55a04752fca75eaf53ee69f105f2eb0a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c2IgW-SQ9iDQb6EQkkx1YpKxTbICyxml9M5WtJ4J2cdP7T6PdlKoRmAvTbJorbWR0TWBzG0BZ67gE-cpDipZbM3QWZBdmlyKiLTf8TUJw13NpoDwpKwXrTlsxIucsmruVn-BBvABEJ%7EZi48mRmUoCCHKuh2OUG4ofFSw6Q9BuN2akoSjWvRFGEDKS-Sb-S%7Eqg56IxeNfqivjYRuWlUdUproby-mkUveJNwXySZonXzmh444O9sx1SDvD5duDUV1Kf4gi8qyFvTHzxcgdjqxo3jI-PR0Rqa5RcyyNZdcAvAIkMwUsM5sXjt1C-bxU4R%7EfBOvK9ohPHzY%7EZUxunGYN0w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5284bfdf5d05e56b4515b23bb1964d08
PDF Text
Text
CT 433
THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY
IN
MATTERS OF FAITH.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD.
LONDON S E,
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET.
BAYMARKET.
�THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY
IN
MATTERS OF FAITH.
-------- ♦---------
HERE are few of us, who have ventured to think
on matters of faith, that have not had to de
plore the religious trammels and prejudices of our
early religious education; if, indeed, that can be
called education which most industriously stores the
mind with unintelligible dogma, and the imagination
with unnatural mystery; whilst it suppresses with
utmost care the soul’s longings for light, and forbids
inquiry upon topics that most seriously affect our
common humanity.
There ought to be no subject more enticing to
pleasant and instructive colloquial intercourse than
that which is most intimately interwoven with human
duty and human happiness. Religion is the very
core of life ; and, however closely related may be the
numberless subjects that awaken human interest, at
best they are but collateral to this. Yet, whilst all
other topics may be freely discussed without exciting
angry passions, or personal hate, it is just here where
discussion becomes painfully exciting, and difference
of opinion intolerable. Perhaps there can be no
severer condemnation of existing religious organisa
tions than this common intolerance of all inquiry
beyond a certain prescribed limit. Within a certain
charmed circle you may walk freely ; but any wander
ings without this circle meet with religious, and
social, and material penalties, designed to bring the
offender back, and often effectual to this issue.
One would think that they who can so readily
T
�4
^he Ultimate Authority in
unite to blacken an offending brother, would show
the most loving unity among themselves—that all
who call themselves after Christ would exhibit towards
each other the gentleness and the love of their
Divine Master! Yet “ no combatants are stiffer.” The
Unitarians say, “ So unanswerably evident is the
Unitarian scheme, that he who will not believe it does
not believe the scriptures, and is a real infidel.” (Bible
Christ.) “The Trinity (says Lindsey), is expressly
contrary to above 2,000 texts in the Old, and above
I, 000 in the New Testament.” Whilst Jortin says,
“ The Trinity is one of the clearest, as well as one of
the most decisively scripture doctrines in the world;
and that the famous Postel has shown that there are
II, 000 proofs of the Trinity in the Old Testament.”
Dr. South says, “ The Unitarians are impious blas
phemers, whose infamous pedigree runs back from
wretch to wretch, in a direct line to the devil him
self.” Lindsey says, “It is just as reasonable, and
not so mischievous, to believe in Transubstantiation as
to believe in the Trinity.”
Eusebius says, “ The idea of a God-man is mon
strous,”—and Belsham says, “ The miraculous con
ception is a fiction as absurd as that of Jupiter and
Danae.” Yet the Protestant sects accept the former
doctrine, and no one can be a Romanist unless he
believe the latter.
Horne says “ that the whole scheme of Redemp
tion by Christ is founded upon the doctrine of the
fall of man, and must stand or fall with it.” Fellowes
and Wright call this doctrine “an impious, absurd,
and unscriptural fiction ; which impugns the perfec
tion of the deity in the creation of man.”
Most sects declare the necessity of some sacraments;
all denounce those which they reject. The Quakers
accept none. To the Protestant, Romish worship is
idolatry; and the Roman consigns the Protestant to
hell. The excellent Gilbert Wakefield vindicated the
�Matters of Faith.
$
entire abandonment of public worship on scriptural
principles. Sir Thomas More says, “the time will
come when men will account no more of prayer than
they do of their old shoes.”
Archdeacon Jortin says of the Calvinists, “ It is a
system consisting of human creatures without liberty,
doctrine without sense, faith without reason, and a
God without mercy.” Dean Close responds, “that
Arminianism is delusive, dangerous, and ruinous to
immortal souls.” And a Unitarian discourse on
Priestley declares both Calvinism and Arminianism
“ to be mischievous compounds of impiety and
idolatry.” Whilst Archbishop Magee denounces the
Unitarian system as “ embracing the most daring
impieties that ever disgraced the name of Christi
anity,” and declares that “if Unitarianism be true,
Christianity is an imposture.”
A little book, ‘ Divine Truth,’ says the Methodists
“ are misled fanatics, alienated from all knowledge of
the true God.” A late Bishop of London (‘Letters
on Dissent ’) says, “ Dissenters are actuated by the
devil, and have the curse of God resting heavily on
them all.” Canons V. and VII. of the Church of
England denounce all Dissenters “ as accursed, de
voted to the devil, and separated from Christ.” And
the dissenting ‘ Christian Observer ’ declares the
Church of England to be “ an obstacle to the progress
of truth and holiness in the land; that it destroys
more souls than it saves ; and that its end is most de
voutly to be wished for by every lover of God and
man.”
Bishop Magee—not to be outdone by his ancestors
—says, “ I say there are men now serving their term
of penal servitude for fraud and conspiracy, who were
guilty of less deliberate fraud, and less odious con
spiracy, than the fraud and conspiracy of those men
who make a merchandise of the cure of souls. This,
I say, is a practice which makes the church stink in
�6
The Ultimate Authority in
the nostrils of many who might otherwise be her
supporters.’’
Our church friends have now a newspaper to sup
port each party in the church, and a weekly budget
of very delectable extracts may be made from these
papers, showing how, even in the same church,
Christians love one anotherThere is only one
point about which they can all agree, and that is to
denounce and blacken, with every damning epithet
they can devise, that advancing fraction, lying within
and without our church organizations, who have
thought themselves out of all dogmatic chains, and
who can see in a righteous life the fulfilment of all
claims, human and divine.
History has given us the successive appearance of
religious reformers; and he who looks carefully at
the teaching of these reformers will see a striking
likeness pervades them all. The assumption of a
special divine authority has necessarily given force
to these teachings, and a foundation to the religious
systems built upon them. And in the study of each
it is interesting to note how gradually and apparently
easily the various priesthoods, whose authority these
teachings were designed to upset, have appro
priated them to their own purposes, and overlaid
them with a mass of their own dogmas, superstitions,
and corruptions, until their original simplicity and
truth have been all but lost. The fundamental ten
dency of nearly all religious reforms has been to coun
teract sacerdotal power, and whatever good they have
done in the world has been by virtue of the simple
truths they have taught, and in spite of the priestly
influences that have beset them. And there are few
thoughts sadder than the reflection, how much of the
good, which these special revivals of divine light were
designed to effect, has been checked and counteracted
by priestly ambition, sacerdotal power, and dogmatic
corruption.
�Matters of Faith.
1
The Zend Avesta of the Persians; the Vedic Deva
of the Hindu; the Confucius of China; the Jesus of
the Jews; the Mohammed of the Turks; and, after
the suppression of light by Rome, our own Wycliffe,
Huss and Jerome of central Europe, and Savonarola
of Italy, the Reformers; and yet more recently,
Spinoza, Swedenborg, and Wesley; have all claimed
a divine commission or a divine sanction. And to
each and all of them we may make like concessions
—that all of Truth embodied in their teaching came
from God. The mistake, partly theirs and partly
ours, has been, to suppose that all they taught was
true, and to corrupt and crystallize their teaching into
a hard and fast code, to which, with more or less of
subsequent distortion, or overlying dogma, we ask all
mankind to bowdown in humble submission. Nowhere
else has the instinctive conservatism and ignorance
of our nature—the co-agent of priestly and baronial
ambition—been so mischievous as here.
The existing authorities for nearly all religious
organisations are Sacred Books, either as interpreted
by the church, or with more or less of private inter
pretation ; and the direct authority of the church
itself. But when we come to inquire as to what
sacred books are canonical, we find these have all
been fixed by the church; so that these become, after
all, only another form of church authority. It is
amusing to notice how different books of the Old and
New Testaments have been proscribed by one council
or decree, and restored by another; how obscure the
origin of many books, and how slight the evidence on
which their authority is based; how the council of
Laodicea (3,40-50) differs from the councils of Car
thage (397) and Florence (1439); how the canon of
the Donatists (329) declares sundry Gospels and the
Acts of the Apostles to be canonical, whilst Eusebius
(340) pronounces them spurious; how many of the
dogmas of the church have finally been declared true
�8
The Ultimate Authority in
and authoritative by the narrowest majorities. It is
painful to read of the differences of religious opinion
held by the different organisations of the Christian
Church from the earliest days; of the pride, rivalry,
hypocrisy, and schism, which largely incited the per
secution of Dioclesian (284); led Constantine (324),
after passing the Milan Edict, to strive by imperial
patronage for something like uniformity; and drove
the philosophic and excellent Julian (351) back into
idolatry. And it is yet more painful to reflect that
the religious writings of an obscure and barbarous
age—writings which, however valuable, and they are
so valuable that I would be the last to lose them:
however beautiful; and they are some of them so
beautiful that they claim our highest admiration, and
excite our best emotions: which yet are so crowded
with errors of fact and moral distortions, and so evi
dently belong almost wholly to legendary literature :—
I say it is excessively painful and humiliating to feel
that these have been vested with an authority which,
although wholly human, and constituted by an in
tensely corrupt church, are made to thrust aside all
future emanations of divine light; and are, by almost
every church organisation in this enlightened age (!)
declared canonical, and professedly made the chief basis
of church union. One who thinks at all upon the
foundations of his faith, is apt to think with contempt
of the spiritual slavery and moral thoughtlessness
which submits so willingly to these priestly assump
tions; and to scorn the trammels of oligarchic assump
tion and insolence on the one hand, and the puerile
servility of our churches and peoples on the other.
Grasping the fact that truth must be as invariable,
as immutable, as the source whence alone it comes,
and constituting themselves the judges of what is truth,
dogmatic churches must needs be persecuting ; and it
could be easily shown that they have been persecuting,
just as they have been dogmatic, and have obtained
�Matters of Faith.
9
civil power to enforce their dogmas. Without the
aid of governments this persecution must needs
have been limited to social and moral pressure; but
with this aid it has been extended to property,
liberty, and life, and the history of our Christian
Church even—the church of Him who never taught a
dogma, and whose fiercest denunciations were burled
against those who did—the church of Him whose
religion was most emphatically a religion of peace, of
love, of good works—the church which shamelessly
takes His name even, has its history written in blood.
It is absolutely shocking to feel that the most horrible
crimes which stain the history of the Christian era
have been perpetrated in the name of, and for the
honour of, Christ. Thank God I the day is coming—
perhaps quickly—when civil powers will no longer
lend their aid to this persecnting tendency. And
thank God also! the progress of science and the
spread of knowledge promise sooner or later to eman
cipate society from the oppressive influences of dog
matic religious authority.
Is it possible to get rid of the difficulties and dangers
that beset dogmatic religion ? I think it is. The
field of human knowledge is widening rapidly. We
cannot prosecute inquiry into any part of this field
without at once finding ourselves vis-a-vis with Law.
Turn where we may, law reigns supreme, and demands
from us unqualified obedience. Do we forget her
claims, or attempt to thwart her? She smiles be^
nignantly, and simply says—suffer. There is no
escape here. All created matter, organic or inor
ganic, has sprung into existence by her mandate, and
is ordered by her direction. Forces are in constant
action, producing, modifying, decomposing, recom
posing, in infinite variety ; and yet all in exact legal
order. So certain does the investigator in science
feel of this, that should he discover any deviation
�io
'The Ultimate Authority in
from expected results, he at once looks for the action
of some unobserved force to account for it. Whether
we lose ourselves in speculating on the infinitudes of
space and time—marvel at the revelations of the tele
scope in astronomy—or gaze with intensest curiosity
through the microscope at the perfection and beauty of
the foraminifera, or diatomacm, we everywhere note the
impress of Law, and the absolute subjection of matter"
to her rule. Throughout the lower organised forms
obedience is the sequence of an invariable instinct;
and it would not be easy to show that any creature
has been invested with the power to disobey, and
with its consequent responsibility till we get to man.
It matters little how man came into existence, whether
by evolution or by a “jump.” But it does matter
where he is, what he is, and why he is here. Placed in
a world crowded with phenomena, which he alone of
all organised beings has power to observe, to examine,
to understand, and to enjoy; possessed of a mind
capable of illimitable development, and of illimitable
knowledge; inspired with an emotional nature, sus
ceptible of the tenderest sympathy, unbounded bene
volence, the strictest justice, and profoundest rever
ence; it is the most rational of thoughts that his
mental and emotional being should find its highest
exercise, its most refined enjoyment, in asking Nature
to reveal her secrets ; and in seeking to know what
is his relation to them; and that he should look for
that perennial happiness for which he is so admirably
constituted, and for which he is so evidently designed,
in yielding a loving, reverential obedience to those
laws which affect his being.
Summarily, then, I lay down the following propo
sitions as the basis of a scientific religion, i.e.,—a
religion based on the knowable instead of the un
knowable—a religion, therefore, that can no more
admit of doubt than the science of astronomy, or of
physiology—a religion of fact, the details of which
�Matters of Faith.
11
may be discussed with no more animosity than are
those of geology, or philology—a religion that teaches
the one grand lesson which Solomon taught of old,
“that righteousness exalteth a nation.”
Before I state these propositions, it may help to d
better apprehension of what is meant by the term
Law, if I give the following definition from Mr. John •
Stuart Mill:—“All phenomena, without exception, are
governed by invariable laws, with which no volition,
either natural or supernatural, interferes.”
First Proposition.—There is no authority but Law.
Law may be classified as follows :—
(a.) Law is physical, affecting man in relation to
external nature.
(&.) Law is social, affecting man in relation to
his fellow.
(c.) Law is moral, affecting man in relation to
the motives which govern his actions.
Whether or no there should be a fourth head—
spiritual—I am unable to determine ; but it seems to
me that the third head (o'), may be made to embrace all
those phenomena of our being which are the noblest
stamp of our humanity, and the source of our highest
happiness ;—which affect our inmost consciousness of
a divine origin, and provoke the most ecstatic joy ;—
which arouse our warmest sympathies, and sanction
our holiest affections. If these may not be included
in the term moral, then I would range them under a
fourth head—spiritual.
Second Proposition.—There is no religion but obe
dience. Obedience may be ranged under the same
three heads, thus :—
(a.) Obedience to all the laws that affect our
physical life.
(&.) Obedience to all the laws that affect our
social life.
(c.) Obedience to all the laws that affect our
moral or spiritual life.
�12
The Ultimate Authority, &c.
Third Proposition.—There is no reward but the
natural sequence to obedience. Rewards may be classi
fied under the same three heads as above.
Fourth Proposition.—There is no punishment but
the natural sequence to disobedience. Punishments
may be classified under the same three heads as above.
The readers of this paper must pardon the crude
form in which these propositions are put before them.
For many years I have held to the design of placing
them more elaborately before the public, but the daily
and imperious tasks of a laborious life have kept this
purpose in abeyance. Nor would they now see the
light in this form, but that they were thus hastily
thrown together for discussion in a small social club,
one of the members of which suggested that the paper
should be placed in the hands of Mr. Scott. Should any
of Mr. Scott’s readers deem them worthy of criticism,
I shall be pleased to receive such criticism, even if
adverse ; as I hold that the rectification of erroneous
thought is best effected by knowing how our thoughts
look to other minds.
T. W., F.G.S.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNBLL, 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
The ultimate authority in matters of faith
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wiltshire, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Signed. T.W. and F.G.S. (likely to be Fellow of the Royal Geological Society). Attribution of Wiltshire from WorldCat.
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT194
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The ultimate authority in matters of faith), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Faith