1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/78e216ede6d7192dd5563c45bdda6983.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ggfTQSVtbMxebP2KGGgMr9mwigQON5-FjkbQF6tHENIpfPTe7CUF9Nq2-skcS5V82oSzM9sTxHK5kd0RRC5rkTNQrVbhLoKHc6Lv5i9nbPdc6018taY2eCEa7NXeZF0x2RJwHFBt53ay-SPhor3pgp8WDiterIrN6wxkJFLqXQnm6Np-IFhGp8r7AGMe8YqvkdEYntoysdJJaP6TtdkAfvsGMUS-4uYnmfebAo9iHUBShixJ6cFESNIWlwID-TFJAjt59Hcz7MryHWBDNNS03XaWAIWR%7EV7frkn28VVxpsqqTkb6tkE1AYMK7-wiUbQGN2MjlsIXWX14pY2A%7E-6j9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4277ea5072cbf76ecfbf5f63c3505d50
PDF Text
Text
THE
A REPLY TO THE REV. FRANK BALEARIC
t£ MIRACLES OF UNBELIEF ”
. BY
CHABLES WATTS
flSSlIED FOR THE RATIONALIST TRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED]
17. .JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
Price One Shilling
��N67'2-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
��y
ATl°NALS£CULARSOCiETy
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface
---------
5
CHAPTER I.
Introductory...................................................................... 9
What
are
Miracles ?
CHAPTER II.
------
15
CHAPTER III.
-
-
23
The Nature of Unbelief ------
36
CHAPTER V.
-----
44
The Natural and the Supernatural
-
CHAPTER IV.
■Christian Belief
a
Miracle
CHAPTER VI.
The Belief in Theism
a
Miracle
51
CHAPTER VII.
A Still Greater Miracle
-----
61
CHAPTER VIII.
Perplexities of Christian Belief
Belief in Christ
CHAPTER IX.
-------
70
81
CHAPTER X.
Belief in a Future Life......................................... 92
CHAPTER XI.
■Conclusion -
100
��PREFACE
During the past year a second edition of The
Miracles of Unbelief, by the Rev. F. Ballard, M.A.,
B.Sc., F.R.M., etc., was published. The work is
no doubt by far the best exposition and defence
of Christian claims that has been made in recent
times. Differing as I am bound to do from most
of the author’s conclusions, I the more readily admit
the ability and the apt method he has displayed in
dealing with his subject. It was not Mr. Ballard s
fault that he was unable to perform a “miracle,”
and to prove error to be truth. Whatever argu
mentative defects there are in his work may be
attributed rather to the subject than to the treatment
thereof.
The principal drawback of Mr. Ballard’s efforts
is that he assumes that the Christian claims are
proved to be true; whereas the truth is that most
of them are still disputed even by professed Christians
themselves. It is a serious objection to Christian
propagandists that, as a rule, they positively assume
they have upon their side “the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth.” Mr. Ballard is
5
�6
PREFACE
no exception, for he also commits this mistake.
Hence, on page 25, he writes :—
The first grave charge brought by Christian faith against all forms
of modern unbelief is, not that they are plain proofs of moral
depravity, but that they do unquestionably exhibit mental obliquity.
Here in the last affirmation is a manifestation of
dogmatism, which it is always wise to avoid, but
particularly when dealing with controversial subjects.
Could not the Unbeliever retort with equal force by
saying that the various and contradictory forms of
belief “unquestionably exhibit mental obliquity”?
The man whose mind is so warped by prejudice
that he thinks he is infallibly right in his speculative
views, and that those who differ from him must
necessarily be wrong, is incapable of fairly judging
the pros and cons, of disputed questions.
As to the value of Mr. Ballard’s numerous autho
rities, it should be borne in mind that in most cases
the passages quoted are but the opinions of the various
writers referred to, and the value of such opinions
depends chiefly upon the facts (if any) which support
them. At one period in our history plenty of autho
rities could be, and indeed were, cited in favour
of the fallacy of the earth being flat and of the
reality of witchcraft. Such authorities, however, did
not prove the truth of these delusions, although
they were endorsed by the Christian Church.
In submitting the following unpretentious pages
to the reader, I wish it to be understood that they
are penned in no spirit of bigotry or arrogance.
�PREFACE
7
They simply contain a record of my honest convic
tions, which are arrived at as the result of over
forty years’ careful study. Whether or not my
conclusions are legitimate must be left for those to
decide who do me the honour of reading what I
have written. Further, I desire it to be borne in
mind that no attempt is made to reply to the whole
of Mr. Ballard’s book, for to do that would require
more space than I have at my command. My
purpose has been to take a few of his leading
positions, and to endeavour to show from a
Rationalist standpoint that his arguments are defec
tive, and therefore inconclusive. I hope also to
demonstrate that the miracles (or difficulties) of
Christian belief are far greater than those which are
said to pertain to unbelief.
C. W.
February, 1902.
��THE
MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY
The two mental forces which now, more than ever,
occupy intelligent minds are known by the terms
Belief and Unbelief. Mr. Ballard, in his book, uses
these words, in a limited sense, as applying only to
the teachings of the New Testament. I shall do the
same in replying to what I regard as some of his
erroneous allegations and unreasonable conclusions.
That unbelief upon these subjects obtains is an un
disputed fact ; the question, however, arises, Have
Christian teachings a reasonable foundation ? In
other words, are they supported by truth or by error ?
My answer is that they are maintained by a combina
tion of both. Hence the Rationalist considers that a
dispassionate examination should be made of Christian
claims, and of the reasons why many reject them, both
by the believer and the unbeliever. No superstition is
entirely devoid of truth, and no unbelief is infallible.
Mr. Ballard observes (p. 25) : “ The affirmation of
belief is that unbelief is demonstrably unreasonable.”
In reply to this very positive statement, it may with
equal modesty be said that the affirmation of unbelief
9
�10
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
is that the belief in orthodox Christianity is demon
strably unreasonable. The defenders of the former
allegation shelter themselves behind the assumption
of supernatural agencies; while those who make the
latter statement proclaim that, so far as is known, all
that exists proceeds from natural causes. Against
this sceptical allegation Mr. Ballard urges (p. 151) :—
.By no “natural ” possibility whatever can hypocrisy flood the world
with sincerity. No brainless fanaticism can naturally enforce
universal sobriety. Fraud cannot, save by miracle, build up through
all the ages the pure and lofty temple of truth. Weak-minded and
heartless selfishness cannot naturally give birth to an unquenchable
world reform.
Jsow, if this is intended as a mere statement of a selfevident fact, well and good; but if it is meant as an
argument in favour of the claims of Christianity, it is
the most glaring sophism that ever emanated from a
partisan’s brain. Who claims that “ hypocrisy can
flood the world with sincerity ” ? When and where
has “ universal sobriety ” ever existed ? What is
“the pure and lofty temple of truth,” what is the “ un
quenchable world reform,” and where are they to be
found to-day ? Certainly not in the orthodox churches,
for there hypocrisy and fanaticism abound, while the
“ lofty temple of truth” and the “potentialities for
world reform ” are absent. Even the Christian
writer, Dr. Dick, states :—
There is nothing which so strikingly marks the character of the
Christian world in general as the want of candour [and the existence
of] the spirit of jealousy... .slander, dishonesty, falsehood, and
cheating are far from being uncommon among those who profess to
be united in the bonds of a common Christianity.1
And
Wesley, after stating that “ Bible-reading
1 Philosophy of Religion, pp. 366-7.
�INTRODUCTORY
11
England ” was guilty of every species of vice, even
those that nature itself abhors, adds :—
Such a complication of villainies of every kind, considered with all
their aggravations ; such a scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue;
such injustice, fraud, and falsehood; above all, such perjury and such
a method of law, we may defy the whole world to produce.1
This is not indicative of “the pure and lofty temple
of truth.”
As to “ brainless fanaticism,” what has fanned the
fanatical spirit more than Christian “ sincerity ” ?
During the times when fanaticism was at its height
Christianity was paramount, unrestrained, and un
trammelled. It was then that the blood, the genius,
and the chivalry of Europe were wasted in the seven
mad and useless Crusades. In one expedition alone,
instigated by fanatical priests, the lives of no less than
560,000 persons were sacrificed. For nearly two
hundred years one of the most romantic portions of the
known world was crushed and prostrate. The baneful
influence of fanaticism was further seen in the history
of the Christian emperor Constantine, who, with the
sword in one hand and the cross in the other, pursued
his relentless career; when, in the fifteenth century,
the blood of defenceless Protestants flowed in the
streets of Paris ; in the valleys of Piedmont, which
were the scene of a most inhuman butchery, when
women were suffocated by hundreds in confined caves
by professed Christians ; and, finally, in the history
of the Inquisition, to whose power three millions of
lives were sacrificed in one century.
Mr. Ballard is quite right in not condemning
unbelief in consequence of the “ rabid utterances ”
of some of its advocates. Unfortunately, no system
1 Sermons, vol. xii., p. 223.
�12
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
is free from enthusiastic “friends,” and Christianity
is no exception. It has been my misfortune to listen,
in Hyde Park and in other places, to Christian
speakers who have used the most “ rabid ” language
towards their opponents. No words of mine can be
sufficiently strong in denouncing such vulgar advocacy,
let it be indulged in on which side it may. Men who
cannot defend belief or unbelief without employing
scurrilous language should not attempt to espouse
any cause. They are an incubus to all movements,
a disgrace to themselves, and a hindrance to the
attainment of truth. Abuse is not argument, and
vituperation is not reason. In the following pages
the fact will not be overlooked that no one man, nor
any one system, monopolises all truth. It is equally
necessary to bear in mind that all persons are entitled
to their own views, however much they may differ
from traditional belief. It is this spirit of justice
and consideration due to those whose views do not
accord with my own that will influence me in the
following examination of some of the difficulties of
Christianity. Personally, I prefer the use of the term
“ difficulties ” rather than that of “ miracles,” because
much confusion andjnisapprehension, and many con
tradictory views, obtain as to what the latter word
signifies; but, as Mr. Ballard selected the word
“ miracles,” I have also used it for the purpose of
showing that, while it may be figuratively applied to
belief in Christian supernaturalism, it has no sort
of applicability to unbelief in Christianity.
It is not only admitted that unbelief extensively
exists, but Mr. Ballard confesses that the Christian
Church has failed to successfully grapple with it.
He boldly states that “ Christian preaching ” is not
�INTRODUCTORY
13
in touch with the requirements of the present time.
The principle that “ reason should precede belief,” he
says, is, in the Churches, “ more honoured in the
breach than in the observance”; and he asks: “As
a matter of fact, are not statements allowed to pass
unchallenged in the pulpit which would anywhere
else be subject to immediate and rigorous discus
sion?” He tells us that “the pulpit itself may
sometimes truly, even if unkindly, be called a
‘ coward’s castle,’ ” and that “ Christian teachers are
content to ensconce themselves behind legal protec
tion, and simply assume that all who differ from
them are either weak or wicked.” This, no doubt,
is quite true; and it is a marked evidence of Mr.
Ballard’s “unbelief” that he has the courage to
censure such a method. He states, as a result of
such Christian preaching, that there are
in London alone some four millions of human beings unassociated
with any Christian Church, and a like proportion of “ outsiders ” in
all the other great cities throughout the realm.... In England, con
fessedly the most Christian nation on earth, three-quarters of the
population are apparently unconvinced of the Deity of Christ, with
all that flows from it, especially the supreme present import of His
message to mankind.—(Pp. 17 and 19.)
It is no marvel that Mr. Ballard notes the “ revival of
Rationalism and the tendency of sceptical thought to
day.”
Upon these and similar facts Mr. Ballard bases the
three following significant truths :—
(1) That there are around the churches on every hand vast numbers
of men and women who are manifestly “ out of touch ” with Christian
sanctions and institutions. (2) These are, to a large extent, not kept
away from Christian associations through moral indifference, or prac
tical hindrances, or social engrossments, so much as for reasons
sufficiently intellectual to be truly described as “ difficulties ” in regard
�14
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN RETIEF
to “orthodox” Christian doctrine. (3) The neutral and hesitant
spirit thus manifest shows every sign of increasing rather than
diminishing with the advent of the twentieth century.—(Introductory,
p. 9.)
Such is the reverend gentleman’s statement of the
present position of Unbelief. It now becomes my
duty to examine some of the reasons he gives in
favour of what he terms “ The Miracles of Unbelief.”
�CHAPTER II.
WHAT ARE MIRACLES ?
The value of Mr. Ballard’s book depends chiefly upon
what is meant by the term “ miracles.” It is not
quite clear whether he regards them as purely natural
events, or as the productions of an alleged super
natural power. Like most questions upon which
nothing is really known, miracles have been the
subject of the most diversified speculations. Passing
over the earlier attempts to define their meaning, we
find such writers as M. Priaulx, Dr. Middleton, Dr.
Wardlaw, Dr. Pye Smith, Bishop Watson, Rev. Dr.
Gladstone, Professor Stewart, and others, giving their
explanations of the miraculous, but no definite and
uniform answer has been vouchsafed to the question:
What is a miracle ?
Dr. Johnson defined a miracle to be “ an act per
formed by a supernatural power which is above
natural power.” But here the difficulty arises, that if
we see an act performed, and we do not know the
cause or causes of that act, how can we tell that it is
not the result of natural power ?
Professor Pfleiderer, of Berlin, states: “It is the
axiom of physical science that every event in space
and time stands under the absolute sovereignty of the
law of causation. The chain of cause and effect,
therefore, can never be interrupted by supernatural
acts or ‘miracles.’”
15
�16
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELTER
Mr. Ballard says (p. 38): “ The very essence of the
thesis of the following pages is that miraculous
Christianity is demonstrably far more natural than non
natural.” After such a statement as this it was only
reasonable to expect that the writer would be explicit
in stating what he meant by the term “ miraculous.”
He has, however, been exceedingly reticent and non
committal upon this point, contenting himself princi
pally with stating what he considers a miracle is not,
rather them with what it is. His allegation “ that
miraculous Christianity is demonstrably far more
natural than non-natural” is somewhat obscure, and
savours more of the pulpit than of the study. Of
course, in the strictest sense of the word, all events
and systems are natural, but that does not prove that
“miraculous Christianity” comes in the same cate
gory. For instance, so far as I am aware, there are
no known natural processes by which a child could be
born without a father; a legion of devils extracted
from a physical body ; or a dead man restored to life
after decomposition had commenced. Yet this is a
part of “miraculous Christianity,” though it requires no
miracle to enable a person to disbelieve it, for, as Dr.
Middleton observes : “No force of testimony can alter
the nature of things.”
It is no definition to say, as Mr. Ballard does, that
“ a supernatural miracle ” is “a vivid manifestation
of Divine energy.” This is only adding to the
dilemma, unless the information is vouchsafed as to
what this energy is, and how it can be recognised.
Further, supposing it to exist, wherein does it differ
from human energy, and how can the one be differen
tiated from the other ? It is well known that a man
apparently drowned may be resuscitated, a man who
�WHAT ARE MIRACLES ?
17
is dumb may be enabled to articulate, and a man who
is blind may have his sight restored; but all this is
achieved by natural means. To urge that a miracle
is “ a manifestation of Divine energy ” is to impugn
the usual attributes ascribed by orthodox believers to
God, whose acts should always be all-good and all-wise.
If, therefore, it was good and wise for him to display
“Divine energy” two thousand years ago, it would
be equally so for him to do the same at the present
day. Thus, so long as he withholds his “ Divine
energy,” so long will he deprive his children of the
advantages of his practical solicitude. To urge that
an act of God may be good and necessary at one
time, and not at another, is to reduce his government
to the level of that of man, and to admit that the
“ Divine ” economy is neither perfect nor uniform.
Besides, granting the existence of God, all sequences
were arranged by him. If arranged by him, they
were so arranged from eternity ; anything, therefore,
acting contrary to that arrangement was either the
result of an after-plan on God’s part, in which case
he was not all-wise and immutable, or, on the other
hand, the arrangement took place in spite of God—in
that case he was not all-powerful. But is not Mr.
Ballard confounding superhuman with supernatural
power ? All forces in nature that are more potent
than those possessed by man are superhuman; but
that does not prove they are supernatural. That it
was thought possible to work miracles through an
agency antagonistic to “Divine energy” is evident
both from the Old and New Testaments (see Deute
ronomy xiii. 1-2 ; Matthew xii. 27, xxiv. 24; Mark
ix. 38; and Acts viii. 9-10). In these instances we have
a record of such great “ signs and wonders ” having
c
�18
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
taken place “ that, if it were possible, they should
deceive the very elect.” The power at work, how
ever, was not “ Divine energy,” but the very opposite
to what it is supposed to be ; and in one case it was
displayed through the medium of a “beast,” who
possessed such marvellous powers that he deceived
them that dwelt upon the earth by the means of
those miracles which he had power to do ” (Revela
tion xiii. 13-14). It is also alleged that sorcery and
witchcraft were so successful in producing “ signs and
wonders ” that “ all gave heed, from the least to the
greatest.” This is more than can be said of Christ,
of^ whom it is stated : “ Though he had done so many
miracles before them, yet they believed not on him ”
(John xii. 37).
.Mr. Ballard says (p. 106) : “ The reality of
miracles, then, so far as they are involved in Christian
faith, is purely a question of evidence.” This may
fairly be admitted, and it is the absence of this very
evidence that renders unbelief towards them inevit
able. If a man says he has seen a miracle, and
that, therefore, he knows from experience that the
supernatural does exist, and he brings a dozen persons
to verify his statement, what are we to do ? A
moment s reflection may show that the testimony
is unimpeachable, while the conclusion is perfectly
erroneous. The event which he describes may have
happened ; but how is it to be proved to be a miracle ?
The forces operating in its production may be to him
unknown ; he may never have seen them in operation
before indeed, they may be new to all mankind;
but, still, his evidence could simply vouch for the
fact, and the cause should be a matter for inquiry.
The thing no doubt happened in nature, for no expe-
�WHAT ARE MIRACLES ?
19
rience can extend beyond that; and the assertion
that the forces producing it were supernatural is a
gratuitous one, and not only not supported by the
laws of evidence, but utterly opposed to everything
that we know. Of course, there is a region in which
speculation may be tolerated ; but it must be tolerated
as speculation—nothing more. The misfortune is
that those, as a rule, who indulge in speculation
make their theories do duty as facts. They not only
invest their ideas with the importance of legitimate
deductions from facts, but they give to them the
value of the facts themselves.
Bishop Douglas says : “We may expect miracles
to be false, the account of which was not published
at the time and place of their alleged occur
rence.”1
Now, it is an undisputed fact that
the four Gospels were not written until long after
the supposed death of Christ. Brom them, there
fore, according to the above test, no evidence
is furnished in favour of miracles. Samuel Laing
says: “ When we come to consider the testimony
of the four Gospels, we are confronted by a
first difficulty: Who and what are the witnesses ?
What is really known of them is this : Until the
middle of the second century they are never quoted,
and were apparently unknown. Somewhere about
150 a.d., for the exact date is hotly disputed, we find
the first quotations from them.” No trustworthy tes
timony of any eye-witness who published an account
of the miracles “ at the time and place of their alleged
occurrence ” is known; consequently, according to
Bishop Douglas s test, there is no “miracle ” required
to disbelieve them.
1 Supernatural Religion, vol. i., p. 19.
�20
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Unbelief does not necessarily imply a denial of
many of the events termed “ miraculous but it says,
if they did take place, there is no reason for believing
that they were caused by other than natural means.
In referring to the miracles of the New Testament,
Mr. Laing writes:—
Of a large class of these miracles it may be said that there is no
reason to doubt them, but none to consider them as violations of law,
or anything but the expression, in the language of the time, of natural
effects and natural causes. When a large class of maladies were
universally attributed to the agency of evil spirits which had taken
possession of the patient’s body, it was inevitable that many cures
would be effected, and that these cures would be set down as the
casting out of devils. In many cases, also, a strong impulse com
municated to the brain may send a current along a nerve which may
temporarily, or even permanently, restore motion to a paralysed limb,
or give fresh vitality to a paralysed nerve. Thus, the lame may walk,
the dumb speak, and the blind see, with no more occasion to invoke
supernatural agency than if the same effects had been produced by a
current of electricity from a voltaic battery.
This able writer, however, very justly points out that
the case is different when we come to the class of
alleged supernatural miracles, which could not have
occurred as described unless some outward agency
had suspended or reversed the laws of nature. He
continues:—
As regards such miracles, a knowledge of these laws enormously
increases the difficulty in believing in them as actual facts. Take, for
instance, the conversion of water into wine. When nothing was
known of the constitution of water or of wine, except that they were
both fluids, it was comparatively easy to accept the statement that
such a conversion really took place. But now we know that water
consists of oxygen and hydrogen combined in a certain simple propor
tion, and of these and nothing else; while wine contains in addition
nitrogen, carbon, and other elements combined in very complicated
proportions.1
1 Modern Science and Modern Thought, pp. 246-7.
�WHAT ABE MIRACLES ?
21
Enough, perhaps, has been said to show that the
belief in the Christian theory of miracles has no
logical basis, and, therefore, disbelief in them is
rational, and needs no miracle. There is nothing un
reasonable in rejecting a belief in that which is not
demonstrated by fact; and this is the case with Christian
miracles. Experience furnishes no proof that the
miracles ascribed to Christ ever occurred, and what
is said to have happened in several instances is
opposed to all that science teaches. Therefore,
there is nothing miraculous or extraordinary in the
unbelief which confesses the inability to regard as
true that which no one can understand ; to accept as
verities mere speculations based upon doubtful records
and weak traditions; and to ignore the “ constancy of
succession ” which is observed in the forces of nature.
The miracle, if any, is how intelligent professors of
Christianity can believe in that which reason does not
sanction and experience does not justify. With all
due respect to Mr. Ballard, it may fairly be alleged
that before anyone can positively affirm the reality of
Christian miracles, it should be shown what the signs
of a miracle are, and then that the New Testament
furnishes a trustworthy account of how it was per
formed. Until this is done unbelief towards them is
no miracle, but the result of legitimate ratiocination.
In times past the most exhaustive attempts were
made to establish the truth of the miracles of witch
craft. Their claims were sanctioned by judicial
decisions of law courts, supported by undivided public
opinion, and by investigations of the ablest men of
the period; and yet, says Lecky, “there is now
scarcely an educated man who will defend these
miracles.”
�22
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
The same writer observes:—
The positions for which I have been contending are that a perpetual
interference of the Deity with the natural course of events is the
earliest and simplest notion of miracles, and that this notion, which
is implied in so many systems of belief, arose in part from an igno
rance of the laws of nature, and in part also from an incapacity for
inductive reasoning, which led men merely to collect the facts coin
ciding with their preconceived opinions, without attending to those
that were inconsistent with them. By this method there is no super
stition that could not be defended.1
My conclusion is that unbelief in miracles rests
upon the belief in the constant order of nature, which
means that certain phenomena invariably follow,
under the same circumstances or conditions, certain
other phenomena. That is, reliance upon the “ sta
bility of nature ” justifies the rejection of miracles as
being opposed to the laws—sequences—of cause and
effect. And, be it observed, we only know of exist
ence as we discover it to be. We judge of it from
that nature which experience and investigation teach
us it possesses. Heat at certain degrees will burn,
water will drown, poison in given quantities will
destroy life, and to believe otherwise is for man to
discard facts and reason, and to revel in fancy and
credulity.
1 History of European Morals, vol. i., p. 384.
�CHAPTER III.
THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
There is a marked difference in Mr. Ballard s rea
soning when dealing with questions that come within
the acknowledged domain of the natural and with
those that belong to the alleged supernatural. . In
the former case he indicates a discriminating mind,
but in the latter he appears to be tossed about upon
the waves of speculation, unable to find a safe landing
place. This is not surprising, because in the one
instance he directs his attention to the known, and in
the other to the unknown. In his preface (pp. xxiii.
and xxiv.) he writes :—
No conceivable amount of modern knowledge, no kind or degree of
mental effort, can compress into the term “natural” more than the
human mind is able to apprehend of this incomprehensible universe.
The “natural” rightly includes all nature—both “naturans” and
“naturata”—so far as we can know it. But in spite of all presentday scientific generalisations, and these based on the widest induc
tions possible to us, we have no warrant whatever for the assumption
that the possibilities of the universe end where our human apprehen
sion of nature has reached its ne plus ultra. The acceptance of the
supernatural, therefore, simply amounts to an acknowledgment of the
limitations of our faculties.
Here we have Mr. Ballard’s position as to the
natural and the supposed supernatural frankly
declared, but his statement of fact as to the apprehen
sive power of the human mind is accompanied by an
erroneous allegation and a false assumption. Un
belief does not pretend to have reached the highest
23
�24
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
“ possibilities of the universe.” It does allege, how
ever, that we have no knowledge of anything apart
from, or beyond, the natural. Moreover, if by “ the
limitations of our faculties ” is meant that something
supernatural ” exists which we are unable to appre
hend, then that is a mere assumption which has not
been proved. To dogmatise about the existence of
something more than nature is nothing but vain con
jecture, for that which is beyond “ the limitations of
our faculties cannot be based upon our knowledge,
and is, therefore, to us non-existent. Besides, how
can anyone reasonably affirm the reality of that which
is not known ? This would be a miracle which
belongs to Christianity—not to Rationalism. Granted,
as Mr. Ballard quotes, that there are “more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philo
sophy, it does not follow that the “ more things ”
are not natural. He admits it “may be” that
“everything in this universe within our ken is
according to law”; but such a statement, he says, does
not prove “ that the universe contains nothing beyond
our ken,” nor “that the only working laws within
our ken are those which human science at present
recognises.” My reply to this is that it is not simply
a question of “ may be,” but one of fact. Science has
proved that the universe is governed by natural law,
a phrase used to express the constant relations
between persons, things, and forces. Becky said :—
The whole history of physical science is one continued revelation of
the reign of law. The same law that governs the motions of a grain
of dust, or light of a glowworm’s lamp, is shown to preside over the
march of the most majestic planet, or the fire of the most distant
sun. Countless phenomena which were for centuries universally
believed to be the results of spiritual agency, portents of calamity, or
acts of Divine vengeance, have been one by one explained, have been
�THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
25
shown to rise from blind physical 'cause, to be capable of prediction,
or amenable to human remedies... .From this vast concurrence of
evidence, from this uniformity of experience in so many spheres, there
arises in the minds of scientific men a conviction, amounting to abso
lute moral certainty, that the whole course of physical nature is
governed by law, that the notion of the perpetual interference of the
Deity with some particular classes of its phenomena is false and un
scientific, and that the theological habit of interpreting, the catastrophes
of nature as Divine warnings, or punishments, or disciplines, is a
baseless and a pernicious superstition.1
Unbelievers do not allege that there is nothing in the
universe “ beyond our ken.” They admit that our
knowledge of nature is at present small, but it is large
compared with what it was, and no doubt it will be
larger still in the future if we only devote proper time
to the manifold lessons which she is always presenting
to earnest students. Instead of boasting of our super
abundance of knowledge, we rather lament our igno
rance ; but it is of that which can be known, not of
that which is, in all probability, altogether unknow
able, and about which it is useless to inquire and idle
to speculate. Neither does the unbeliever affirm that
the only “ working laws within our ken ” are those
recognised by science. What Mr. Ballard says is,
that the laws recognised by science are the only ones
known. To talk, therefore, regarding that which lies
beyond—if even it were possible to conceive of a
beyond—is to indulge in the language of credulous
theologians, and to ignore the lessons of modern
scientists.
The difficulty of Christianity in reference to the
natural and the alleged supernatural, and one Mr.
Ballard has not removed, is that its believers contend
for the existence of something above nature, and yet
1 History of European Morals, vol. i., pp. 375-6.
�26
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN RET JEF
they are unable to say what that something is. If the
term nature represents all we know, where is there
room for this much-talked of supernatural ? To
believe in anything more than everything may, per
haps, require a miracle, but to disbelieve in that
which none of our senses can cognise needs no such
aid. Nature, so far as the human mind can grasp, is
everything that exists, or that can possibly come into
existence in the hereafter—that is, all the possibilities
of existence, whether past, present, or future. If it
be asked upon what ground is included in this
definition that which to-day does not exist, but which
may come into existence hereafter, I reply: Because
that which will be must be, potentially at least, even
now. According to science, no new entity can come
into being; all that can occur is the commencement
of some new form of existence, which has ever had a
being, at least potentially. No new force can appear,
some new form of force may. But then, that, when
it comes, will be as much a part of nature as the rest
—is, indeed, even now a part of nature, since it is
latent somewhere in the universe. Nature, in a
word, is everything, besides which, to us, there is and
can be nothing.
Of course, one part of nature may be higher than
another, according to human conception, for all nature
is not the same in every particular. We have inor
ganic nature—that is, nature in which only certain
forms of force are seen in operation; then we have
vegetable, animal, and the last—the highest of all—
human nature, in which forces are displayed which
are not seen in any other part of nature. All these
phenomena, however, are natural. The profound
thought of Plato, Aristotle, and Bacon, or the mighty
�THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
y
27
flights of genius manifested in the productions of
Homer, Horace, Virgil, Dante, Milton, and Shake
speare, are as natural as the growth of a plant, the
falling of the dew, or the evolution of a world. The
potency of nature is everywhere shown, and its
beauties and wonders catch the eye on every side.
The poet who has revelled in these, painting them in
words which have stirred the emotions to their profoundest depths, making the objects themselves stand
out in clear outline to the reader, fascinating and
enrapturing his mental vision, is the poet of nature,
who finds in the external universe immense food for his
highest powers. Even that higher development of the
poetical genius which deals, as Shakespeare did, with
the thoughts, feelings, and passions of men, does but
depict another phase of nature, profounder and more
sublime, but nature still. Milton too, who was the
poet of the so-called supernatural, has but transferred
the passions and impulses of men into another sphere
—imaginary, it is true, but copied from the world of ,
fact; for imagination itself cannot escape beyond the X
bounds of the natural. It is said that the poet “ gives I
to airy nothings a local habitation and a name but
his “ airy nothings ” are simply copies of real things,
and the location he assigns to them is always a natural
one. Shakespeare’s supernatural characters are but
men—men, it may be, with more exalted powers and
higher attributes than are possessed in the world of
fact; but they are no less men for that, and the
exaltation of their powers is always in the direction
of nature. The philosopher whose profound thought t )
shall live while humanity remains upon the earth
never goes beyond nature in his deepest penetration
into the secret springs of the universe and of man.
�28
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
The highest attributes which we can imagine are
Nature’s, for from her we obtained our ideas of what
its possibilities are. Our thoughts are in nature and
of nature. Our ideas are pictures of her revelations
to the mind of man; our sublimest conceptions are
but reproductions in mental visions of her doings.
Such is the natural; now, what is the so-called
supernatural ? In alluding to the “ order of nature,”
Mr. Ballard says :—
It is based, and can only be based, upon that which causes it to be
order, and not chaos. If that cause be nothing, then nature is self
ordered, which puts an end to reasoning. If that cause be something,
it must at least be something independent of—that is, beyond—-the
nature which is ordered. That is, it must be supernatural. If, then,
there be a “nature” to be recognised, it is because of the order which
manifestly prevails. For the very conception of nature excludes
chaos.
Now, to use Mr. Ballard’s own words in reference to
an expressed opinion from which he differs, 11 more
and greater fallacies could hardly be packed into as
many words ” as those which compose the above
paragraph. It is assumption upon assumption, without
even an attempt to prove one of them. Surely, with
our knowledge of the animal and moral world, it is
absurd to allege that there is no chaos in nature.
Why should the “ cause be nothing ” if “ nature is
self-ordered ” ? The question is, If the “ cause ” is
not in nature, where is it ? Upon this Mr. Ballard is
silent. Further, where is the evidence that, if the
11 cause be something,” it must be “ independent of—
that is, beyond—nature. That is, it must be super
natural ” ? Truly such fallacies do put “ an end to
all reasoning.” To solve such theological puzzles
would need a miracle; but reason discards them as wild
speculations which have no basis in fact. It is quite
�THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
29
true that the “ order of nature ” is based upon that
which causes it, for in nature we see cause and effect
co-related everywhere. But we know nothing of a
supernatural cause, inasmuch as, if it exist, it tran
scends knowledge. Besides, how can a finite effect be
produced by an infinite cause, which the theory of the
supernatural implies ? Does the infinite in its effect
become finite ? Effect is probably nothing but trans
ferred force; and can an infinite force in its trans
ference become finite ? Before a writer dogmatises
about something “ independent of and above ” nature,
and positively alleges that something to be “ super
natural,” he should be able to differentiate between
nature and that which is said to be “ independent of
and above ” it. If there is a sphere higher than
nature, and yet often breaking through nature, nature
itself must be limited by something, and the question
that at once arises is: By what is such limitation fixed,
and what is the boundary line which marks it off and
separates it from the supernatural ? But, further,
supposing such a line to be discovered and to be well
known, so that no difficulty could arise in pointing it
out, a still more difficult problem presents itself for
solution—namely, how can man, who is a part of
nature, and able only to come into contact with nature,
push his knowledge into that other sphere, which,
being non-natural, cannot be at all accessible to a
natural being ? If the supernatural region be synony
mous with the unknowable, it clearly cannot concern
us, simply because we have no faculties with wrhich to
cognise it, and no powers capable of penetrating into
its profound depths. In this case, as far as we are
concerned, there is practically no supernatural, for
none can operate on that sphere in which man lives
�30
THE MIRACLES OE CHRISTIAN BELIEF
and moves and displays his varied, and in some
respects marvellous, powers. Professor Huxley thought
that every discovery in science pushed the super
natural farther from us, by extending the boundary
of human knowledge of nature.
Mr. Ballard endorses Dr. Wace’s opinion that the
history of Christianity cannot be explained upon
natural grounds. To some extent this is true, for
many events recorded in the Bible are incapable of
any satisfactory explanation. Take the account of
the creation of man, his fall, and the orthodox
notion of his redemption through the death of Christ.
Who can explain these figments upon the hypothesis
that they relate the actions of an omnipotent, all-wise,
and good God ? They are inexplicable from a natural
standpoint, since no human being would wish to be
responsible for any one of them ; for the good reason
that the first represents a palpable failure, the second
a glaring act of injustice, and the third a cruel and
unjust sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty. To
believe such occurrences to have been the work of a good
God who could have avoided them, but did not, may
require a miracle, while the disbelief of them is so evi
dently reasonable that in this the twentieth century the
more intelligent minds, both in and out of the Church,
manifest their utter unbelief in the literal accuracy of
the stories. The theory of evolution, the avowed
unbelief that death originated in the sin of Adam, and
that on the cross Christ satisfied the demands of his
Father, have replaced the belief in special creation,
the orthodox idea of the Fall of Man, and the vicarious
doctrine of the Atonement. Then no reasonable
explanation has been given of the alleged virgin birth;
of the temptation of Jesus by the devil; of Christ
�THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
31
riding into Jerusalem upon a colt and an ass; of
saints who slept in their graves, rising and entering
the holy city; of Jesus allowing a legion of devils to
enter “ about two thousand” swine, causing them to
run into the sea and be choked; and of Christ, after
partaking of broiled fish, ascending bodily “ up into
heaven,” although St. Paul says “ flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Who really
believes in these Christian stories to-day ? Very few,
except some illiterate, but no doubt sincere, professors
of Christianity. And yet Mr. Ballard says: “The
miracles of unbelief would be immeasurably more
‘ difficult ’ in all respects than those of belief.”1
Oh, Consistency, where is thy blush ?
Those who cannot accept the claims put forward on
behalf of Christianity have often pointed out as an
historical fact that the testimony of the early adherents
of the Christian faith is not to be too much relied
upon in consequence of their lack of knowledge, and
of the critical faculty of investigation, inasmuch as
sincerity is no guarantee of truth. Ability to correctly
understand what we see is required to make the belief
in it valuable. Mr. Ballard, however, in dealing with
the moral aspect of Christianity, appears to consider
that lack of mental ability does not deteriorate the
value of the supernatural claims. On the contrary,
he deems it a proof of the miraculous, for he says:—
If from out the uninspired bosoms of men most ignorant and super
stitious there should spring a system of morality so sublime as to
elicit in after ages the profoundest admiration of the greatest minds,
and wring out of noblest hearts the confession that it was above their
highest aspirations after goodness... .it becomes manifest that,
the facts being as they are, the withdrawal of the supernatural as an
i P. 211.
�32
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
explanation of the origin and development of Christian morality
serves only to intensify the miracle.1
Here is another instance of how easy it is to mislead
people who have theological proclivities. For a writer
of Mr. Ballard’s ability to urge what is alleged in the
above citation “ serves only to intensify the miracle ”
of Christian belief. Where is the system of sublime
morality to which he refers ? If in the New Testa
ment, then its ethics are attributed to Christ, not to
his uninformed and superstitious followers. But Mr.
Ballard should remember the morality, such as it was,
that Christ taught did not originate with him ; it
emanated from the human mind long before his time,
and he only adopted the ethical teachings which he
found already in existence. Moreover, judged by the
standard of modern requirements, many of the moral
inculcations of the New Testament are too vague and
impracticable to be of service to-day. Hence it would
be a miracle to find them now in force, except in a
few isolated instances where attempts are made to
partially adopt them.
So far as we can reasonably judge, morality was of
natural origin, and has been developed by natural
means. It came not from heaven, but from earth;
not from God, but from man. Its sanctions belong
to no supernatural religion, but arise from that
natural force which springs from cultivated human
nature. Becky tells us that in Greece and Rome
prior to the advent of Christianity a sense of duty,
a love of truth, an exaltation of virtue, and a
recognition of the brotherhood of man were as
greatly manifested as at any subsequent period
1 Pp. 239-40.
�33
THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
by the Christian Church.
writes:—
Speaking of Rome, he
The habits of men were unaffected, frugal, honourable, and
laborious. A stern discipline pervaded all ages and classes of society ;
the will was trained to an almost unexampled degree to repress the
passions, to endure suffering and opposition, to tend steadily and
fearlessly towards an unpopular end. A sense of duty was very
widely diffused, and a deep attachment to the interests of the city
became the parent of many virtues.... On the one hand, we find a
system of ethics, of which, when we consider the range and beauty
of its precepts, the sublimity of the motives to which it appealed,
and its perfect freedom from superstitious elements, it is not too
much to say that, though it may have been equalled, it has never
been surpassed.1
John Stuart Mill, in his work upon Liberty, points
out:—
What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains
ill modern morality is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not
from Christian.... other ethics than any which can be evolved from
exclusively Christian sources must exist side by side with Christian
ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind.2
Dr. Temple, the present Archbishop of Canterbury,
writes :—
It is in the history of Rome rather than in the Bible that we find
our models of precepts of political duty, and especially of the duty of
patriotism.... To the Greeks we owe the corrective which conscience
needs to borrow from nature.3
The highest and most practical ethics that ever
illuminated the world came from natural sources
unassociated with the much-boasted-of Christian
supernaturalism. Have we not the grandest and
most consistent examples of moral lives in such
characters as Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Euclid of
Megara, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and many others,
1 History of European Morals, vol. i., pp. 236-7 and 308-9.
s Pp. 29 and 30, People’s Edition.
3 Essay on the Education of the World.
D
�34
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
who will survive through all time as ethical exemplars ?
What better ethical gems can be selected from the
New Testament than the following, which are taken
from Rhys David’s Buddhism ?
“ Never in this world does hatred cease by hatred—hatred ceases by
love ; this is always its nature.” “ One may conquer a thousand men
in battle, but he who conquers himself is the greatest victor.” “As
the rain breaks in on an ill-thatched hut, so passion breaks in on the
untrained mind.” “ Let no man think lightly of sin, saying in his
heart, It cannot overtake me.” “ As long as sin bears no fruit, the
fool thinks it honey; but when the sin ripens, then indeed he goes
down in sorrow.” “ Let us live happily, not hating those who hate
us.” “Let a man overcome anger by kindness, evil by good;.. .the
stingy by a gift, the Rar by truth.” “Let a man speak the truth ; let
him not yield to anger.”1
With Buddha, be it remembered, ethical teachings
were not merely empty words; they enforced practical,
personal improvement. Even the Rev. Dr. Caird
admits this when he says:—
Now, it is the singular merit of Buddhism, whatever view we take
of the ultimate end to which it pointed as constituting the salvation
of man, that the way by which it taught men to reach that end was
simply that of inward purification and moral goodness.23
Also Max Muller, in his lecture on “ Buddhist
Nihilism,” writes:—
One hardly trusts one’s own eye on seeing Catholic and Protestant
missionaries vie with each other in their praises of the Buddha; and
even the attention of those who are indifferent to all that concerns
religion must be arrested for a moment when they learn from statis
tical accounts hat no religion, not even the Christian, has exercised
so powerful an influence on the diminution of crime as the old simple
doctrines of Rapilavastu.8
Such are a few samples of lofty and sublime moral
teachings taught and practised in non-Christian times
1 Pp. 128 and 131.
2 The Faiths of the World, p. 52.
3 P. 132.
�THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL
35
by those who made no profession of the Christian
religion.
Among the first indications we find in human
history of the supernatural feeling is fetishism—the
worship of trees, rocks, animals, etc. If, however,
fetichism were only such as is here described, it
would be naturalism, not supernaturalism, inasmuch
as a tree, a stone, an animal, a fish, or a bird is each
a something pertaining to nature. Such worship,
however, was given primarily, not to the tree, etc.,
but to an imaginary something supposed to be latent
or hidden in the perceptible object adored. In this
manner there gradually grew up among primeval
men the notion of a non-natural—that is, a super
natural—world, a world of spirits, of beings which
lay,[as it were, at the back of all phenomena. In
subsequent ages, as general education spread and
scientific knowledge increased, the desire grew to
substitute the belief in the natural for faith in the
old3doubtful speculations as to the imaginary super
natural.
�CHAPTER IV.
THE NATURE OF UNBELIEF
The idea sought to be conveyed by Mr. Ballard’s book
is that belief in Christianity is more reasonable than
unbelief. The author admits “ that the New Testa
ment sets before us great and, indeed, unfathomable
mysteries. These, in the light of our ordinary expe
rience, may well present ‘ difficulties ’ of acceptance.”1
His contention, however, is that to disbelieve the
teachings of the book involves still greater difficulties.
The fallacy of such a claim will be shown in a subse
quent chapter of this work. But before this is done
it may be necessary to indicate the nature of unbelief,
and to correct a few of Mr. Ballard’s misrepresenta
tions. It is not long since that it was usual for
professed Christians to brand unbelief as a crime, to
persistently look upon it as a sin against God, and to
condemn it as an enemy to society. It was the custom
of the clergy to declare from orthodox pulpits that
unbelief was the great bane of the age, and that what
mankind required was a stricter adherence to creeds
and dogmas, of which it has been said, “Reason
stands aghast, and Faith itself is half confounded.”
The unbeliever was regarded as a man who volun
tarily or wilfully rejected the light of truth; who
indulged in error, knowing it to be evil; and who,
1 P. 32.
36
�THE NATURE OF UNBELIEF
37
consequently, deserved no mercy of any God, and no
consideration upon the part of his fellow-man. And
even Mr. Ballard—who, as a rule, is fair towards his
opponents, and does not withhold all credit from them—
writes that unbelief “ unquestionably exhibits mental
obliquity,” and that the “ rejection of Christian truth ”
is “ irrational.”1 No proof is given of the necessary
connection between unbelief and a deviation from
ethical conduct, and the value of Mr. Ballard’s
opinion is considerably lessened by his assertion that
unbelief means the “ rejection of Christian truth.”
It is only the error in Christianity that unbelievers
reject, for they are ever ready to—
“ Seize on truth where’er ’tis found,
On heathen or on Christian ground.”
It is, however, encouraging to know that, although
these erroneous notions still obtain in a lessened
degree among the non-intellectual professors of
Christianity, the more highly-developed intellects of
all sections of the community are beginning to recog
nise the fact that unbelief has ever been the emanci
pator of the human mind, the liberator of human
thought, and the precursor of advanced civilisation.
It is also acknowledged that, allied with unbelief, there
have been a fidelity of conviction, a grandeur of
conduct, and a brilliancy of action that add a lasting
honour to the fame of unbelievers in all ages and in
every clime. Professor Tyndall remarks :—
If I wished to find men who are scrupulous in their adherence to
engagements, whose words are their bond, and to whom moral shifti
ness of any kind is subjectively unknown; if I wanted a loving
father, a faithful husband, an honourable neighbour, and a just
citizen, I should seek him and find him in the band of Atheists to
�38
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
which I refer. I have known some of the most pronounced among
them, not only in life but in death, seen them approaching with open
eyes the inexorable goal, with no dread of a hangman’s whip, with no
hope of a heavenly crown, and still as mindful of their duties, and as
faithful in the discharge of them, as if the eternal future depended
upon their later deeds.1
John Stuart Mill says :—
It is historically true that a large proportion of infidels, in all ages,
have been persons of distinguished integrity and honour.... Persons
in greatest repute with the world, both by virtues and attainments,
are well known, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers... .It can
do truth no good to blink the fact, known to all who have the most
ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of
the noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work, not
only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected,
the Christian faith.’2
Hector Graham writes :—
I have associated with a great number of Agnostics in my time, and
am constrained to admit that I have always found them happy,
honourable men.... I put the question seriously : How many Atheists
destroy themselves ? Hardly any. How many thorough unbelievers
are found in gaol ? How many promote bogus societies and victimise
the fatherless and widows ? Alas ! the press too often show us that
the promoters of such societies and companies have been looked upon
with respect and adoration, and have been Christians of an eighteencarat stamp.8
And it is significant to note that Mr. Ballard in his
book candidly says, notwithstanding his above reck
less statements:—
It were alike discourteous and vain to ignore, or treat as trifles, the
strongly-expressed convictions of unbelievers who have been some
times as distinguished for intellectual ability as for moral probity.4
So far from unbelief being a miracle, as Mr.
Ballard alleges, it is a necessary condition of the
human mind, inasmuch as it is purely natural. The
1 Science and Man, pp. 2'7, 28.
8 Weekly Sun of March 25th, 1894.
2 On Liberty.
4 P. 199.
�THE NATURE OF UNBELIEF
39
Christian is an unbeliever to the Mohammedan, the
Buddhist, the Parsee, and other religious devotees, as
they are all unbelievers to him and to each other.
The question here is not which of these systems, or
whether any one of them, is true; the point to be
observed is that the advocate of each disbelieves in
the dogma of the other, showing that unbelief is a
necessity, since the various faiths are all, in some
respects, antagonistic. The Agnostic is, of course,
an unbeliever, but so is the Christian. The fact is,
both the Agnostic and the Christian disbelieve in
what the other teaches. Why, then, does the Christian
consider himself justified in applying to the Agnostic
an epithet to which he objects when applied to him
self ? Probably the Christian will reply that his
opinions are true, and those of the Agnostic false.
But that is just the point in dispute, and which there
is no right to assume; and, besides, might not the
Agnostic justify the use of the word in the same
way ? To talk of unbelief being miraculous is absurd,
for it does not pretend to explain everything. Its
functions have reference to “ explanations” given by
theologians. If these are evidentially satisfactory,
belief follows ; if they are not, unbelief is the
result. Besides, while human nature is constituted
as it is, both belief and unbelief are the legitimate
consequence of the exercise of man’s intellectual
faculties. Belief should be the result of conviction,
conviction of evidence ; and no one can believe
either without or against evidence, or disbelieve
in the face of evidence sufficiently strong to carry
conviction. No man can avoid the possibility
of unbelief so long as he lacks three qualifications
which, at present, do not exist. In the first place, he
�40
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
must be infallible; secondly, be must be strictly
honest; and, thirdly, he must have a perfect system.
With regard to the first, no man can profess seriously
to claim infallibility but the Pope of Pome; and his
claim is not only never attempted to be made good,
but we are told that it must be accepted without any
proof whatever. In fact, infallibility could only exist
in connection with omniscience, because to be certain
that one could have made no mistake it would be
essential that he should have a perfect knowledge of
everything that is in any and every part of the uni
verse. If there be any one fact or circumstance with
which he is unacquainted, this very fact or circum
stance may contain an additional truth not present /\
to his mind, which, if known, would considerably
modify existing views. The second qualification is,
that men in promulgating their views should be
mentally honest. But it is only stating a well-known
truism to say that all men are not honest, particularly
in theological matters. Insincerity is the great curse
of the Church, too many of its members endeavouring /\
to make people think that they believe creeds and z '
doctrines in which, in reality, they have no practical
faith whatever. Unless, therefore, we could be quite
certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, as to the con
scientious honesty of the teacher, even his infallibility,
did he possess it, would prove of no avail. As regards
the third qualification—perfection, the evidence for
its non-existence is too palpable and the possibility of
its attainment too remote to be worth discussing.
There is but one state of the human mind in which
unbelief could have little or no place, and that is in k I
a condition of total ignorance. Perfect knowledge V
would, of course, remove all unbelief of truth; but A
�THE NATURE OF UNBELIEF
41
even with it there would be unbelief as regards error.
Total ignorance would not disbelieve, because in that
case there would be nothing present to the mind in
reference to which unbelief could be exercised. There
fore, in spite of all theological condemnation to the
contrary, unbelief is no mere miracle, but a legitimate
consequence of intellectual activity, and to banish it
from the world would require more of what is termed
miraculous pewer than all the supposed supernatural
faiths combined can command.
Mr. Ballard says that it is “ in constructiveness
that unbelief has ever failed, and fails still.”1 This
is an erroneous statement, based upon a misconcep
tion of the province of unbelief. Its failure is not
greater than that of belief, inasmuch as it is not the
functions of either per se to construct anything.
Belief may tend to the construction of a particular
theory or system, but the constructive work is done
by reasoning on the basis of belief. As regards
unbelief, its office is to rid the mind of error so
that it shall be free to receive new truths. It
leaves its possessor without bias and prejudice. It
allows the human mind full scope to grow and
advance in wisdom, because man does not for one
moment believe that he has reached a perfec
tion beyond which it is impossible to proceed. In
connection with unbelief, there is always a certain
amount of suspension of judgment—that is to say,
there is such an absence of dogmatism that any new
discovery of science, any fresh thought in philosophy,
or any better and clearer ideas in religion, are always
welcomed as an addition to the stores of knowledge
1 P. 381.
/■
x>
/
'
�42
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
already in possession. A calm repose rests on the
mental powers; there is, to use the words of Harriet
Martineau, a “clearness of moral’purpose,” which
“ naturally ensures ” a “ healthy activity of the moral
faculties.” The unbeliever, not being biassed by any
settled views which he thinks came from heaven, is
ever ready to learn and to be taught. There is about
him a lofty liberty which is essential to all true belief
or disbelief.
There is no lack of historical proof that unbelief
has never failed in the performance of its real
functions, which are the abandonment of error and
the preparation for the reception of truth. Buckle
rightly observes :—
It may be said that to scepticism we owe the spirit of inquiry
which, during the last two centuries, has gradually encroached on
every possible subject; has reformed every department of practical
and speculative knowledge ; has weakened the authority of the privi
leged classes, and thus placed liberty on a surer foundation; has
chastised the despotism of princes; has restrained the arrogance of
the nobles, and has even diminished the prejudices of the clergy. In
a word, it is this which has remedied the three fundamental errors of
the olden time—errors which made the people, in politics too con
fiding, in science too credulous, in religion too intolerant.1
Lecky also writes :—
Nearly all the greatest intellectual achievements of the last three
centuries have been preceded and prepared by the growth of scepti
cism .... The splendid discoveries of physical science would have been
impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of the school of Bacon....
Not till the education of Europe passed from the monasteries to the
universities, not till Mohammedan science and classical Freethought
and industrial independence broke the sceptre of the Church, did the
intellectual revival of Europe begin.2
Thus the lesson of history is that unbelief in the
old has ever preceded the introduction of the new.
1 History of Civilisation, p. 308.
2 History of European Morals, vol. ii., pp. 205, 219.
�THE NATURE OF UNBELIEF
43
Christianity itself came based upon the disbelief in
Paganism, and the Pagans, feeling outraged at the
proposed change, called the first Christians not only
unbelievers, but even Atheists. Martin Luther dis
believed in the mysteries and mummeries of Roman
Catholicism, and the result was what is called the
Protestant Reformation. Copernicus and Galileo dis
believed in the Bible cosmogony, with its theory of
the heavens; and their scepticism gave birth to
correct views upon the great science of astronomy.
Modern geologists reject the Bible story of creation,
and the consequence is more faith in Nature’s records
than in the absurdities of the Bible. Christianity
owes its very existence to unbelief. If Christ and St.
Paul had not rejected many of the teachings of
Paganism and Judaism, the religious change which it
is alleged occurred two thousand years ago would, in
all probability, never have taken place. In philo
sophy the same thing has happened over and over
again, as also in the political world. Thus unbelief
has ever been the herald of change and improvement,
whilp. belief has too often produced that superstitious
conservatism which eschews all advancement, frowns
down every new discovery, taboos all change, keeps
its anchor firmly fixed in the errors of the past, and
considers mildew more sacred than sunshine, and
decay preferable to the opening violet shedding its
fragrance in the morning air.
�CHAPTER V.
CHRISTIAN BELIEF A MIRACLE
The Rationalist regards the word “ miracle ” as synony
mous with the term “ mystery,” it being used in
reference to what the human mind cannot under
stand. Hence much in the Old and New Testaments
which is beyond man’s comprehension is designated
as “miracle.” In the Gospel of St. John we read
that certain persons “ could not believe,” because the
Lord had “ blinded their eyes and hardened their
hearts, that they should not see with their eyes nor
understand with their heart, and be converted, and I
should heal them” (xii. 40). It is also stated that
to some it was “ given to know the mystery of the
kingdom of God
but unto others “ all these things
are done in parables, that seeing they may see, and
not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not
understand, lest at any time they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them ” (Mark iv.
11, 12). Now, if the object of Christianity be the
forgiveness of sins and the diffusion of knowledge, to
believe the above to be true would no doubt require a
miracle. Mr. Ballard writes :—
If, therefore, it be reasonable because of “difficulties ” to incline to
reject Christian doctrine, it is equally reasonable to shrink yet more
emphatically from un-Christian or anti-Christian substitutes for that
doctrine. In a word, Christian facts being as they are, we are help
lessly shut up to the miraculous. The only rational choice is between
the miracles of the New Testament and the miracles of unbelief.1
1 Preface to first edition, p. xxiv.
44
�CHRISTIAN BELIEF A MIRACLE
45
Again, he asserts :—
If Christianity be rejected because its miracles seem incredible, the
miracles which unbelief is “ compelled to posit ” in their place are far
more incredible, both as to quantity and quality.1
Here we have the usual theological assertions in lieu
of facts. The truth is, unbelief in itself has no
miracles nor difficulties to “ posit,” inasmuch as it
does not attempt to account for anything which reason
cannot grasp. Samuel Laing says :—
Science traces everything back to primeval atoms and germs, and
there it leaves us. How came these atoms and energies there from
which this wonderful universe of worlds has been evolved by inevitable
laws? What are they in their essence, and what do they mean?
The only answer is, It is unknowable.2
So with unbelief. It recognises that there is much
the human mind cannot fathom; but it refuses to
pretend to believe in theological conjectures for which
there is no apparent evidence. It avoids difficulties
through shunning wild speculations. Unbelief has
no mysteries, for the good reason that it refers only
to what a person cannot believe in consequence of
lack of evidence ; while belief has to recognise, in
Mr. Ballard’s own words, that there are “ great, and
indeed unfathomable, mysteries.” How that which
is “unfathomable ” can prove of any evidential value
to Christianity is truly difficult to conceive. It is
purely an assumption to suppose that unbelief has
any “ substitutes ” for doctrine. It is natural law
that has provided the only “ substitutes ” required,
which are facts instead of mere imaginings. It is not
correct to say, so far as nationalists are concerned,
that we are “helplessly shut up to the miraculous.”
1 P. 32.
Modern Science and Modern Thought, p. 289.
�46
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Belief in Christianity may impose such boundaries ;
but unbelief leaves man free to roam where his reason
directs in the limitless universe, and to base his con
clusions upon the known facts of existence. Besides,
the absence of belief in Christianity is supposed to
incur certain penalties, which unbelief ignores,
believing that honest dissent from a particular
theory or doctrine should not involve any penalty
either in this or in any other world. The unbeliever
agrees with Dr. Mozley that “ the majority of man
kind owe their belief to the outward influence of
custom and education rather than to any strong prin
ciple of inw’ard faith,” and therefore he prefers the
state of intelligent unbelief to that of belief, whose
i
foundation is custom and traditional teachings.
By the phrase, “ The Miracles of Christian Belief,” it
is not contended that all uncritical belief is miraculous/ Much that goes under the guise of belief is merely
indifferent assent, to which reason and investigation
have never been applied. There is nothing extra; ordinary in genuine belief, provided the thing believed
in is reasonable. The wisdom and consistency of
either belief or unbelief must depend upon that to
which it has reference. And here it should be noted
that there is a marked distinction to be observed between
reasonable belief and personal knowledge. We may,
and do, have faith in that of which we have no real or
actual knowledge; for we are compelled to exercise
such faith in every-day life upon numerous topics. The
point to be remembered is that, if we are judicial or
rational, we shall be careful that our belief is not
opposed to knowledge. We may, and do, believe in
countries which we have never seen ; in the existence
)
of persons with whom we have never come into
/
/
|
'■ f
7
A
• \
�CHRISTIAN BELIEF A MIRACLE
47
contact; in countless things of which we have had no
actual experience ; but, if wre are wise, we shall always .
be on our guard against taking for granted that which '.
seems highly improbable, to say nothing of the impos- A
sible. There can be no objection to faith based upon
reason and experience; but without these faith is
simply credulity. Nothing is more easy to the uncul
tivated or infant mind than to believe. Savages and
children will believe the greatest absurdities. But,
for well-informed adults, it is very hard to disbelieve
what they believe, and believe what they disbelieve ; to
accept as true what their whole experience assures
them is not true. Hence, to the properly-trained,
educated, and impartial disbeliever in Christianity,
the belief in its impossibilities and perplexities would
be what orthodoxy terms a miracle. This being the
fact, the fundamental requirement of the Christian
faith—uniformity of belief—is unreasonable, because
to some it is not possible. Human beings are so
differently constituted, their environments are so
varied, and their education so dissimilar, that for
them all to believe the same thing would be contrary
to natural law and to general experience. Take the f
children of Roman Catholic parents, who are, in the
morning of their lives, trained under the influence of
Catholicism; so long as they are under that influence
they can never honestly believe in any other religion. j I
Neither could the offspring of Rationalists, who had
not received any theological instruction, accept as
true the orthodox faith. Yet, despite these wellknown truths, Christianity says all must believe one
thing, or be punished for their disbelief. Christ is
reported to have said: “He that believe th and is
baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not
�48
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
shall be damned ” (Mark xvi. 16) ; “ He that denieth
me before men shall be denied before the angels of
God” (Luke xii. 9). St. Paul also exclaims: “If
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that
ye have received, let him be accursed ” (Galatians i. 9).
Peter, when “ filled with the Holy Ghost,” announced
that Christ alone could rescue man from the conse
quences of wrong-doing. “ Neither is there salvation
in any other; for there is none other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved ”
(Acts iv. 12). Against such Christian teachings as
these it is useless to quote the sensible advice, “ Prove
all things ; hold fast that which is good ” (1 Thessa
lonians v. 21). If the belief in Christ is that “ which
is good,” and if “there is no other name whereby we
must be saved,” where is the utility of going through
the farce of attempting to “prove all things”? To
remove the difficulty here involved would, no doubt,
necessitate a miracle, or something else of which we
are equally uninformed. Even the mysterious doctrine
of free-will does not remove the difficulty, because we
are told : “ For it is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of his good pleasure ” (Philippians
ii. 18); “ Not that wre are sufficient of ourselves to
think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of
God ” (2 Corinthians iii. 5); “ For who maketh thee
to differ from another ? and what hast thou that thou
didst not receive ? Now, if thou didst receive it, why
dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it ?”
(1 Corinthians iv. 7) ; “ Nay, but, 0 man, who art
thou that replies! against God ? Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou
made me thus ? Hath not the potter power over the
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
�CHRISTIAN BELIEF A MIRACLE
49
honour, and another unto dishonour ?” According to
the teachings here set forth, the power to believe is
not in man, but in God. Therefore to condemn an
unbeliever for not doing that which is not in his
nature to do is both unjust and unreasonable.
To prove that the belief in Christianity is not in
accord with human reason and ratiocination, it is
necessary to ascertain what that belief demands.
Among other things that a consistent Christian has
to believe are the following:—(1) That the universe
was created and is governed by a personal Being
called God, who is infinite in power, wisdom, and
goodness ; (2) that the account as given in Genesis of
the origin of man and his fall, through the sin of
Adam, is true; (3) that the only means of securing
salvation is through the death of Christ; (4) that a
personal devil was created by God for the purpose of
tempting his children; (5) that the Bible is a faithful
record of the will and requirements of the Christian
Deity; (6) that those of the human family who do
not believe these teachings shall be punished in some
future state of existence. Such are a few out of many
instances that could be cited to show the improbable
nature of Christianity. These, however, should be
sufficient to indicate to the intelligent mind that the
Christian faith is beyond comprehension.
It is not overlooked that many professed Christians
practically disbelieve the whole of the above-mentioned
demands, although they are all based upon the
authority of the Bible. Their reason rebels against
the absurd and cruel description given of God in the
Old and New Testaments ; the fallacy and injustice
of the Mosaic account of man’s origin and fall; the
alleged vicarious sufferings of Christ; the glaring
E
�50
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELTER
fiction of a God-created devil; the notion that the
Bible is an unerring record, and that the unbeliever
will be punished in “the world to come.” The very
fact of the more intelligent professors of Christianity
giving up so many of the once-considered essentials
of the faith affords ample proof that the religion of
the Cross cannot be made to harmonise with modern
thought. The striking difference between what is
proclaimed from Christian pulpits and what is prac
tised by the preachers and their followers should be
patent to all impartial observers. This lack of sin
cerity, however, upon the part of so many professed
Christians clearly not only indicates the existence
of a widespread hypocrisy, but also shows how difficult it is for some persons to have an honest belief in
Christianity. It may be well, perhaps, to remind
those who say they believe, but do not act up to their
profession, of the fate of the “ evil servant ” men
tioned in the New Testament, of whom it is said he
“shall be beaten with many stripes,” and his lord
“ shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion
with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.” “ Therefore to him that knoweth
to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin ” (Luke
xii. 47 ; Matthew xxiv. 51; James iv. 17). “ Whoso
ever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” “ For if
we sin wilfully after that we have received the know
ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice
for sins ” (John viii. 34 ; Hebrews x. 26).
�CHAPTER VI.
BELIEF IN THEISM A MIRACLE
If there be such a thing as a miracle, that term can
be appropriately applied to Theism, for its perplexities
are like “ the peace of God which passeth all under
standing.” Mr. Ballard, in his chapter, “ The Realm
of Physical Science,” presents his first, and no doubt
his principal, “ miracle of unbelief.” He affirms as
a Christian doctrine,
that there is one God, personal and almighty, the Creator of all
things, the great Final Cause of the whole universe, no less than of
this tiny fraction of it which we call our Earth.1
He admits, in reference to the “ conception ” of such
a Being :—
It is only natural that we should be baffled in every attempt we
make to realise it. To that extent it may be acknowledged that
Christian faith is difficult.2
Still he holds that this faith furnishes “ a sufficient
hypothesis ” of the origin of all things; that the only
alternative theory is “ that all things must have caused
themselves to be as they are, for no cause outside
themselves is alleged or allowed
that “ ultimately
the material was nothing and the method was chance
that unbelievers are thus committed to the hypothesis
that “ chance, working upon nothing, has produced
this universe that “ the universe must either have
1 P. 49.
2 Pp. 49 and 50.
51
r
�52
THE MIRACLES OE CHRISTIAN BELIEF
involved mind in its origin or not,” and that, “if we
desire to be rational,” we must accept one of these
two hypotheses. Here Mr. Ballard grants that “it is
only natural that we should be baffled in every attempt
to realise ” the conception of God. This is quite
true ; but, then, where does the “ miracle of unbelief”
come in ? That which is natural needs no miracle.
Mr. Ballard acknowledges that upon this point
“ Christian faith is difficult,” which is the very thing
unbelievers allege. True, he says, unbelief involves
still greater difficulties, for the reason that it does not
allow for a “cause outside ” nature, but assumes that
ultimately the material was nothing, and the method
chance, which, “ working upon nothing, has pro
duced this universe.” While desiring, as unbelievers
do, “ to be rational,” it is not necessary for us to
accept either of the two hypotheses Mr. Ballard
suggests. Unbelievers do not attempt to explain the
manner of the alleged origin of the universe, because
experience proves that we have no datum for such a
task. Hence, when Christians theorise upon what
they cannot know, and dogmatically assert that their
theory is the only correct one, Rationalists find
unbelief the proper attitude to take towards such
speculations, which have no authority in demonstrated
fact. Mr. Ballard does not say whether he believes that
God created the world out of nothing or out of pre
existing materials. If the latter, these must have been
eternal, or there must have been a prior creation;
and is not the former an impossibility ? How could
an infinite make a finite—i.e., could an infinite cause
produce a finite result? Or, in truth, how could
there be space or time for the finite when the infinite
occupied the whole of both ? Further, before we can
�BELIEF IN THEISM A MIRACLE
53
reasonably accept the theory that God created the
universe we have to think of a time when there was
no time—of a place where there was no place. Was
this possible ? If it were, where was God at that
particular period, and how in “no time ” could he
have performed his creative act ? Besides, if a being
really existed who created all things, the obvious
question at once is : “ Where was this being before
anything else existed ?” “Was there a time when
God over all was God over nothing ? Can we believe
that a God over nothing began to be out of nothing,
and to create all things when there was nothing?”
Moreover, creation needs action; to act is to use
force ; to use force implies the existence of something
upon which that force can be used. But if that some
thing were there before creation, the act of creating
was simply the re-forming of pre-existing materials.
Here, it may be asked, is it logical to affirm the
existence of that of which nothing is known, either of
itself or by analogy ? Now it cannot be alleged that
anything is known of the supposed supernatural
power of creation. There is nothing miraculous in
disbelieving the above Theistic assumptions; while
to believe them certainly does not appear to the
present writer as being consonant with rational
thought. The point which it is desired to here
enforce is not whether Theism be true or false, but
rather to indicate the difficulties which the belief in its
teachings involves. Until these difficulties are removed
it is premature to talk of the “ miracles of unbelief.”
It is quite true that for every effect there must be
an adequate cause. This is self-evident, for if the
cause were inadequate the effect would not happen.
But it does not necessarily follow that we know the
�54
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
cause of all the effects we see. Besides, it is not
correct to say that unbelievers contend that “ every
thing that exists has a cause.” Even Christians do
not believe this, for if they did they must also believe
that their God must have been caused. Without
dogmatising upon the subject, Rationalists admit the
possibility of the universe having always existed in
some form or other. Surely, if a God of whom
nothing is known always existed, the same may be
said of the universe, of which much is known. The
belief in a self-existing universe is quite as logical
a conclusion from the indestructibility of matter as
the belief in an uncaused, self-existing God, external
thereto. “ Cause ” and “ effect ” are relative terms,
expressive of the interminable changes in phenomena;
and, in reference to the universe, no limit in time or
extent is fixed by the scientist who does not use the
term “ cause ” as signifying the ultimate source of all
existence. It is to me an insurmountable difficulty to
understand how an infinite being could possibly have
been the creator of all things, for the obvious reason
that, if he is infinite, he is everywhere; if every
where, he is in the universe ; if in the universe now,
he was always there. If he were always in the
universe, there never was a time when the universe
was not; therefore it could not have been created. If
it be said that God was not always in the universe,
then there must have been a period when he occupied
less space than he did subsequently. But “ lesser ”
and “greater” cannot be applied to that which is
eternally infinite. In the words of Professor Huxley:—
The whole analogy of natural operations furnishes so complete and
crushing an argument against the intervention of any but what are
called secondary causes in the production of all the phenomena of the
�BELIEF IN THEISM A MIRACLE
55
universe that, in view of the intimate relations between man and the
rest of the living world, and between the forces exerted by the latter
and all other forces, I can see no excuse for doubting that all are
co-ordinated terms of nature’s great progression, from the formless to
the formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to
conscious intellect and will.
We pass over Mr. Ballard’s absurd and erroneous
statements that unbelief implies that the “universe,
including ourselves,” was produced by “chance working
upon nothing,” and “that in the beginning matter
made itself.” Such reckless allegations might have
been expected from an illiterate street preacher ; but
it is surprising to find them penned by such an able
writer as Mr. Ballard undoubtedly is. What sceptic
has ever urged that anything was done by “ chance ”?
Nature, so far as we know, is governed by “ fixed and
unalterable laws.” As Professor Tyndall, in his lecture
on “ Sound,” remarks : “If there is one thing that
science has demonstrated more clearly than another,
it is the stability of the operations of the laws of
nature. We feel assured from experience that this is
so, and we act upon such assurance in our daily life.”
He also says, in his Belfast Address : “ Now, as science
demands the radical extirpation of caprice and the
absolute reliance upon law in nature, there grew with
the growth of scientific notions a desire and deter
mination to sweep from the field of theory this mob
of gods and demons, and to place natural phenomena
on a basis more congruent with themselves.” Inas
much as unbelievers do not posit any “ beginning ” of
the universe, it is simply folly to charge them with
saying “ matter made itself.” These are the wild,
unfounded utterances of the enthusiastic theologian,
not the calm and accurate averments of the thoughtful
student.
�56
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
If Mr. Ballard’s views of Theism are correctly
recorded in his book, we shall find, as we analyse
his assertions more closely, that his belief has reference
to something which is quite beyond human compre
hension. He speaks of an “ infinite, but personal,
God,” who “logically and completely accounts for
all.”1 It is then assumed that this infinite. God
is outside of nature, and that his existence is proved
. . by design. Sir William Hamilton, who was an
/ orthodox Christian, has shown that what is absurdly 7
called “ the infinite ” is simply the indefinite ; there
fore it has no meaning when applied to a personal
God. Is it seriously contended that the infinite “ is
essentially simple, unchangeable, impassable, and
on© ”—that is, that it cannot be divided? If so, Sir
William Hamilton has demonstrated the fallacy of
such a contention in regard to duration. His argu
ment in substance is : Eternity and infinity are one,
for eternity is infinity of duration. Now, there is an
eternity of the past and an eternity of the future—
that is, an infinite duration in the past and an infinite
duration in the future ; and these are divided by the
present—that is, the supposed infinity is cut into two
parts. And here is the reductio ad absurdum. Either
these two parts are infinite or they are finite. If
infinite, then there are two infinites, one succeeding the
other ; if finite, then two finites can make an infinite,
To affirm that there is an infinite Being apart fijom
the universe is to distinguish it/row the universe, and
to contend for two existences. Before, however, this
can be done successfully it has to be proved that
nature is limited. To assume a limit to the universe
1 P. 63.
�BELIEF IN THEISM A MIRACLE
57
is not evidence, because no proof has been given of its
limitations. To postulate an “ infinite Being” distinct
from the universe vitiates the law of thought, inasmuch
as the definition does not express likeness, and it
negates relation. Of course, it is not here asserted
that there is no such Being, but only that we lack
i evidence of his existence. The unbeliever’s position
is that nature is; that, so far as we can ascertain, it
is destructible only in its various forms. Is it not,
therefore, possible that this nature is the “ something ”
l of which endless existence may be affirmed ? Besides,
how can a Being who is distinct from the universe
manifest his power in the universe ? If he does
influence nature, it is only when he becomes a part
thereof, and then he is no longer distinct from it. If
God is infinite, in the sense of being everywhere, he
is, as already stated, in the universe. If he is not
in the universe, his sphere is non-existence. In
that case, where does his power commence, and in
what way is it superior to that possessed by Nature?
Where is it made visible to us ? How are we to dis
tinguish between natural power and God power ?
Further, if God be distinct from Nature, where is he ?
And what exists between his dwelling-place and
Nature—that is, are the two (Nature and God’s
abode) connected ? If yes, by what ? If by a void,
what is that ? Again, if it be contended that an
intelligent power can and does control matter and
force from outside the universe, it should be shown
how this outside power can be separated in thought
from matter and force, and yet at the same time be
a perceptible existence. At the most this can only
be inferred. Matter being infinite—that is, unlimited
—in extension and duration, the “non-matter”
�58
THE MIRACLES OE CHRISTIAN BELIEF
cannot exist apart from it. Neither can it be ascertained
how far (if there be any relation) the one is inde
pendent of the other, or how the presence ef “ non
matter ” can be even inferred, except by its influence
on matter. Is it possible to conceive of the univer
sality of both matter and “ non-matter ” ? To
logically affirm the existence of an “ infinite Being ”
apart from the universe, not only must the universe
be deprived of many of its properties, but it must be
assumed that this supposed “ infinite Being,” who is
said to be distinct from the universe, could operate
from without, and at the same time be within the
universe. Remembering the difficulties (or miracles)
that these questions suggest, it is not surprising that
Dr. Knight, in his work, Aspects of Theism, should
write thus: “ The God of the logical understanding,,
whose existence is supposed to be attested by the
necessary laws of mind, is the mere projected shadow
of self. It has, therefore, no more than an ideal
significance.”
The so-called argument from design has long been
given up by prominent Theists. William Gillespie
wrote :—
This argument can never make it appear that infinity belongs in
any way to God; for by no rule in philosophy can we deduce an
infinite existence from a finite effect.
Professor Newman says: “Design, represented as a
search after causes until we come to a first cause, and
there stop, is an argument, I confess, which in itself
brings me no satisfaction.” Theistic writings teem
with refutations of this stronghold of natural
theology. No conclusive answer has yet been given
to the fact that, if the universe bears marks of design
on account of its “ wondrous construction,” etc., the
�BELIEF IN THEISM A MIRACLE
59
same remark can be applied to an “ infinite personal
God ” who should be still more wonderful. If the
latter has always existed without a designer, why not
the former ? An American writer puts the following
very pertinent question :—
Did God design the universe ? If so, his plans must be eternal
without beginning, and therefore uncaused. If God’s plans are not
eternal—if from time to time new plans originate in his mind, there
must be an addition to his knowledge ; and, if his knowledge admits
of addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no beginning if,
like himself, they are eternal, they must, like him, be independent of
design. Now, the plan of a thing is as much evidence of design as
the object which embodies the plan. Since the plans of deity are no
proof of design that produced them (for they are supposed to be
eternal), the plan of this universe, of course, was no evidence of a
designing intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of the
universe is as much evidence of design as the universe itself, and
since the former is no evidence of design, it follows that design
cannot be inferred from the existence of the universe.
Mr. Ballard assumes that the universe and man are
incapable of producing that which we know to exist,
and that the present “ order of things ” could not be
the result of certain molecular movements of the
elements in nature. Therefore he argues that a belief
in “an infinite Being distinct from the material
universe ” is necessary to account for things as they
are. But supposing the belief was well founded, that
would by no means settle the question. Taking things
and events as they are, it may fairly be asked, are
they such as may be reasonably ascribed to a God
who is infinite in knowledge, power, and goodness?
If he control the universe, then he is responsible for
earthquakes that swallow up entire villages, destroying
thousands of helpless creatures ; for storms at sea
which cause good and bad to find a watery grave;
and for individual organisms that are imperfect and
�60
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
blighted. There are thousands of human beings born
into this world of whom only few survive, as they
appear under such conditions that they prematurely
perish; there are thousands also of organisms who
live in and upon each other. One half of animal life
consists of parasites—that is, animals that fasten
themselves to the bodies of other animals, and live by
sucking their blood. Those which prey upon men are
mentioned by Herbert Spencer in his great work, The
Principles of Biology. These parasites are adapted to
their peculiar mode of life, and are the cause of great
pain and suffering to the organisms upon which they
feed. Besides this, throughout all past time there
has been a constant preying of superior animals upon
inferior ones—a perpetual devouring of the weak
by the strong. Now, this supposed infinite Being
either did or did not arrange that these things
should take place as they have done. If he did so
arrange, where was his goodness? If, on the other
hand, he did not arrange these things, then, in that
case, there was a power in the universe that was not
his. Such are a few of the many difficulties and per
plexities attending the belief in the existence of a
Supreme Being, who is infinite in knowledge, power,
and goodness. While it is not contended that no
such Being exists, it is alleged that we are unable to
form any conception of him. Further, it is urged
that if, as Mr. Ballard states, a miracle is required to
disbelieve the claims put forward on his behalf, the
logical belief in them would also necessitate some
thing, as Shakespeare says, “ more than natural.”
�CHAPTER VII.
A STILL GREATER MIRACLE
Mr. Ballard, like many other professed Christians,
appears to be under the impression that Rationalists
should not object to the mysteries that are in Chris
tianity, for the reason that nature, including man, is
full of the mysterious. If, then, it be asked, since
we object to mystery in the one case, why do we not do
so in the other ? the answer is, that the Rationalist’s
objection is not merely to that which is mysterious,
but to the demand that we should believe that which
we do not understand. To attempt to enforce assent
to what is unknown is both foolish and unjust.
Granted there are mysteries in nature, and that there
is much connected with mankind which we cannot
comprehend, we are not punished because we do not
profess belief in the one or the other. Yet, as
regards the Christian mystery, unbelief is supposed
to entail the severest and most unjust penalties.
But would it not be a miracle indeed for a man
to believe that of which he has not the slightest idea ?
And is it not strange, if the belief in the Christian
faith is necessary for our welfare in this world and
for our happiness in some other, that its meaning and
injunctions should not be sufficiently clear for us to
know what they are ? It is not reasonable to infer
that an infinite God would arrange a system full of
mysteries which he must have known the human
61
�62
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
intellect could not grasp, and then punish that portion
of mankind who cannot believe what to them is
practically without meaning. Such an inference
would not be rational even in reference to fallible
man, much less as regards an infallible God.
What greater miracle could be imagined than to
believe in a Deity of whose nature no sensible con
ception can be formed, and whose character, as
depicted by his own “ inspired ” writers, is revolting
in the extreme ? The impossibility of genuine belief in
such a God is shown by the fact that Theists of average
intellectual ability persistently avoid any attempt
to defend him. It is worthy of note that, in all public
discussions upon the God question, the very Deity
whom Christians should defend if they were consistent
they deliberately ignore. Even Mr. Ballard, who has
much to say about “ One God personal and almighty,”
is silent as to what the Bible states about him. The
reason of this is, no doubt, because the nature and
character ascribed to God in the Scriptures are so
contradictory and repulsive that it is impossible
to harmonise them with reason, justice, and
human ideas of what is right. Pleas, even if defec
tive, are put forward on behalf of “ advanced ”
Theistic notions ; but to induce a prominent orthodox
clergyman to hold a brief for the Bible God would be
the greatest of all miracles. And yet this is the
Deity in whom Christians, to be logical, should believe.
If they cannot do this, they ought to be honest and
admit that their “Father in heaven ” is indefensible.
Be it observed, this is not a question of Atheism, but
whether or not the belief in Christian Theism is
reasonable. For aught we know to the contrary,
some supreme power or powers may exist, but what it
�A STILL GREATER MIRACLE
63
or they may be we know not. It is, however, certain
that the Bible description of God is too absurd for
thinking people to believe in without the intervention
of some miraculous force which is not in evidence.
Let us now briefly consider the nature and character
of the Christian’s God as portrayed in the Old and
New Testaments. According to St. John, God is a
spirit; and St. Luke informs us that a spirit has
neither flesh nor bones. Other parts of the Bible
allege that God has both flesh and blood. Thus he is
described as an immaterial Being who is composed of
material parts, a somebody, or rather a nobody;
having no legs, yet walking about in the Garden of
Eden; having no hands, yet fashioning man from dust;
having no lungs, yet breathing into Adam’s nostrils;
having no tongue, yet cursing the serpent. He is
represented as being invisible, yet Jacob saw him
“ face to face,” also “ the Lord spake unto Moses face
to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend ” (Gen.
xxxii. 30; Ex. xxxiii. 11). He is said to be every
where, although he had to go down to Sodom and
Gomorrah and to the Tower of Babel to ascertain
what was taking place (Gen. xi. 5, xviii. 21). We are
told he was unchangeable, yet he changed his mind,
and “ repented of the evil which he thought to do
unto his people ” (Ex. xxxii. 14). It is stated that he
was impartial, yet he made the Jews “ to be a special
people unto himself, above all people that are upon
the face of the earth” (Deut. vii. 6). It is evident,
too, that he was very fastidious, for he forbade those
who wer# lame, or had a flat nose or a blemish in the
eye, to “ approach to offer the bread of his God ”
(Lev. xxi. 17-21). Moreover, he appears to have
been possessed of an evil and mischievous spirit, which
�64
THE MIRACLES OE CHRISTIAN BELIEF
influenced others in a most dangerous manner, as the
history of Samson testifies (Judges xiv. 6, 19). The
Christian’s God is further represented as being three
fold in his nature. The Creed of St. Athanasius
states: “ The Father is God, the Son is God, the
Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three
Gods, but one God.” According to the Articles of the
Church of England, the Son was begotten from all
eternity, and therefore was as old as his Father. The
Holy Ghost, says the Nicene Creed, proceeded from
the Father and Son, and yet was the father of the son.
This last statement is confirmed in the New Testament
(see Matthew i. 18). Here it is alleged that there are
three Gods, yet only one; that the son existed from all
eternity, although he was begotten ; and that the Holy
Ghost, who was his father, proceeded from the son.
This is the very essence of absurdity, which no one
could really believe without the aid of a greater
miracle than any yet recorded.
So much for the nature of the Christian’s God; now
what is the Bible description of his character ? This
inquiry affects the very foundation of orthodox Chris
tianity ; for all adherents of the popular faith must, if
they really believe what they profess, endorse the
Biblical account of “Our Father who art in heaven.”
It is true that many professed Christians do not
believe that their Deity was guilty of the crimes, weak
nesses, and inconsistencies ascribed to him by the
Bible; while others seek to justify his reported
conduct upon the assumption that finite man cannot
judge of “ divine ” justice and goodness; it is urged,
therefore, that the objectionable doings recorded of
God in the Bible may be “divinely ” right, although
they are opposed to human ideas of morality. The
�A STILL GREATER MIRACLE
/
'
!
I
I
1
65
fallacy of this notion was shown by Professor Jowett,
who, in his sermon on 11 God is Love,” remarked:
“If it be said that God’s ways are not man’s, then the ;
fatal principle of a double morality is introduced, and
he who represents God’s character as above any
affinity with man’s launches into an uncertain sea of
speculation that may swallow him up—is as a person 1
sawing off the branch on which he sat, thereby sever
ing himself from all that upheld him.” Besides, is it
not folly to ask us to worship a being if we can have
no conception of his attributes ? If justice and truth
with us mean something else with God, what guarantee
have we in any instance that we are obeying his will ?
The character of the Bible Deity is set forth for our
emulation. “Be ye holy as I am holy,” “Be ye
perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect,” is
the language of Scripture; but how can we emulate f
him unless we are enabled to understand what his
character is? And to threaten punishment for not
believing in a being whose character we cannot understand is to encourage blind belief rather than the
honest convictions of judgment. Mr. Ballard con
demns Atheism in no measured terms, and yet the
attitude of most intelligent professors of Christianity
towards the Biblical delineation of Deity is purely
atheistic. Why is this ? The answer is obvious.
His nature and doings as specified by the “ inspired ”
writers are so perplexing and revolting that it is
impossible to reconcile either the one or the other
with reason and ethical philosophy.
The Bible depicts Jehovah as one who knows not
how to act with propriety towards those over whom
he rules; who busied himself by laying snares to
entrap them, sending trials to weary them and
F
�66
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
temptations to entice them, and then inflicting torture
upon them for doing that which it was impossible for
them to avoid doing. He is represented as unjust,
inasmuch as his general rule was to punish the
innocent for the crimes of the guilty, destroying
a whole nation for the alleged sins of a part,
slaying seventy thousand human beings for the
crime of one man, and, further, prompting that one
man to commit the crime which incurred such whole
sale slaughter. He is described as threatening death
to his first human child for one offence; as destroying
the whole human race, one family excepted, in the
most heartrending and reckless manner; as com
manding his servants to commit human slaughter
without the slightest reserve ; as killing both old and
young—mothers, tender infants, and maids—and
hardening the hearts of poor victims that they might
come out to battle to be utterly destroyed. His
conduct towards Adam and Eve, as reported in
Genesis, has not one redeeming feature. He placed
them in a paradise, where everything is described
as being calculated to please the eye, cheer the heart,
and enrich the mind ; which made the sufferings that
they had afterwards to endure the more painful and
severe. He implanted within them the instinct of
love, and the holy feelings of conjugal and parental
relationship, and then caused the birth of a child who
was doomed to be a fratricide, making the parents
the progenitors of myriads of human beings, each
one of whom would be the inheritor of their curse.
A cruelty that is more ingenious, if possible, than all
the rest—the very woman whom God sent as a
helpmeet and a solace to the man is made the cause
of all his woe, the curse of the world, the introducer
�A STILL GREATER MIRACLE
67
of evil, and the desecrator of the earth. “ Better,
far better,” Adam might have said to Deity, “ had
it been that you had made me spiritless and unintel
ligent as the lowest and most despised of the brute crea
tion than to have endowed me with rational curiosity
and an inquiring mind, which, in combination with
the allurements of the companion you gave me and
the temptations with which you surrounded me, have
been the cause of my moral degradation and physical
suffering.”
Even the manner in which the Christian Deity is
said to have acted towards his chosen people reflects
no credit upon him. It is necessary to bear in mind
that the acts performed by the Jews may fairly be
taken as God’s, for their government was a theocracy;
he was their ruler and guide. He made them a
nation, and gave them Moses as a leader. The Jews
were God’s peculiar people ; they were also, as their
history testifies, a terror to those with whom they
came in contact. From the day on which Miriam
celebrated their safe passage through the Red Sea, to
the time when the sun is said to have darkened at the
crucifixion, they were destroyers of human life, and
the instruments of God’s wrath on their neighbours.
They were sometimes even blamed by their God for
not slaying their fellow creatures. Saul, one of their
kings, had his kingdom taken from him because he
failed, after a war which had produced much carnage,
to tear in pieces before the God of mercy Agag, his
royal captive. Saul having declined to perform this
inhuman act, Samuel, God’s priest and prophet,
“ hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord,” and thereby
gave a “ divine ” sanction to as brutal an act of
human slaughter as was ever recorded. But now
�68
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
comes the crowning point of all. God, it would
appear, had not had enough of the cruelties performed
by his favourite race, so he gave them another victim
to torture and to kill. Hitherto they had practised
those cruelties on human creatures, but now God
gives them himself to crucify and to slay. The
absurdity of this deed was great, but the cruelty of it
was greater. It was certainly a fitting culmination to
the whole story—a story steeped in blood from begin
ning to end—the story of a body of divinely-inspired
and misguided marauders, who robbed and killed
from their foundation as a nation to the end of their
national existence, who, when they found themselves
coerced by the strength of the great Roman empire,
and could no longer make war on men, impiously, as
it were, scaled the very walls of heaven, dragged down
the Deity from his throne, and crucified their Creator
in the world he had created. Then the Deity, as
depicted in the Bible, “ appears on earth in the shape
of a man, born of a woman, the son of a carpenter,
found in a stable, nursed in a manger, driven about
by those very Jews from place to place, having
nowhere to lay his head, scourged, tried, and con
demned to death for disturbing the public tranquillity,
expiring on the cross, and being entombed in a
sepulchre.” Is it not mockery to ask us to believe
that such a being is “ our Father which art in
heaven ” ? Where, in the whole range of unbelief, is
there such a marvellous tax upon the human mind as
the belief in these Christian absurdities and horrors
imposes ? The atrocities committed and the reckless
bloodshed caused through obeying the injunction,
“ Thus saith the Lord,” which frequently occurs in
the Old Testament, are terrible to contemplate.
�A STILL GREATER MIRACLE
69
Mr. Ballard regards unbelief as miraculous. But
what of the belief in such a deity as this ? It is
incredible that any one whose susceptibilities have
not been blunted by a crude theology could accept
as true the Bible picture of its God. It would truly
be the greatest of all miracles for the intellects of the
twentieth century to endorse this combination of folly
and inconsistency with that which is utterly incom
prehensible. The conduct of the Christian Deity, as
recorded in the Bible, sets at defiance all just and
humane considerations. It may be well asked, in the
words of Colonel Ingersoll:—
Is it in accordance with reason that an infinitely good and loving
God would drown a world that he had taken no means to civilise—to whom he had given no Bible, no gospel, taught no scientific fact,
and in which the seeds of art had not been sown; that he would
create a world that ought to be drowned; that a being of infinite
wisdom would create a rival, knowing that the rival would fill perdi
tion with countless souls destined to suffer eternal pain? Is it
according to common sense that an infinitely good God would order
some of his children to kill others ; that he would command soldiers
to rip open with the sword of war the bodies of women—wreaking
vengeance on babes unborn ? Is it according to reason that a good,
loving, compassionate, and just God would establish slavery among
men, and that a pure God would uphold polygamy ?
The rational answer is most emphatically No. There
fore, instead of heeding such primitive and crude
conjectures as those formed of the God of Christianity,
the unbeliever prefers to adopt the advice of the
poet:—
“ Know then thyself ; presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.”
�CHAPTER VIII.
PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
The very foundation of orthodox Christianity is the
belief that, about six thousand years ago, Adam and
Eve fell from a state of purity through a transgres
sion upon their part. In consequence of this act, it
is alleged, mankind became depraved, and “ the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually ” (Genesis vi. 5). It was, there
fore, deemed necessary to devise some plan whereby
the human race could be redeemed from the result of
the conduct of our “first parents.” Hence the
Christian scheme of salvation was originated, although
the New Testament states that the plan of redemption
was arranged “before the foundation of the world”
(Ephes, i. 4, 7 ; 1 Peter i. 19, 30).
The perplexing nature of this groundwork of Chris
tianity may be seen by a careful study of the following
questions, with the comments thereon :—(1) Did God
intend the fruit in the Garden of Eden to be eaten ?
If yes, then in partaking of the said fruit Adam and
Eve were complying with God’s will; if no, they
acted in defiance of God’s intentions, and the evil
desires which he had given them predominated over
the better part of their natures. Besides, if God is
omnipotent, how could Adam and Eve have acted in
spite of his wishes ? To say that God permitted
70
�PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
71
them to do so is to implicate him in the cause of
man’s degradation. Moreover, a good God could not
sin himself, and therefore to give permission for man
to sin would be to allow him to do that which was
impossible with God. (2) Who created the serpent ?
If God, then was he not responsible for whatever
happened through the machinations of this “more
subtil than any beast of the field” (Genesis iii. 1) ?
If, on the other hand, the serpent was not created by
God, then God was not the creator of “ every living
creature that moveth.” It is no answer to say that
Adam and Eve were free agents, and were at liberty
to choose the good and refuse the bad, because, even
if it is admitted that they had a free will, it is said
that at that time they had no knowledge of the
difference between good and evil. In fact, they were
so innocent that they “knew not they were naked.”
Now, while their minds were in this ignorant condi
tion, where was the utility of threatening them with
death (Genesis ii. 17), a state of which they knew
nothing ? (3) How could Eve have known that the
“ tree ” was to be desired before she possessed the
knowledge which could cause the desire ? This
would have been putting the effect before the cause;
to believe that to be possible would certainly be a
most astounding miracle. Further, although God
told Adam “ In the day thou eatest ” of the tree of
knowledge “ thou shalt surely die,” he did not die.
The serpent was much nearer the truth in saying to
the woman : “Ye shall not surely die ” (Genesis iii. 4).
(4) Are we to accept the statement as correct that
“ God saw everything that he had made, and behold
it was very good ” (Genesis i. 31) ? If so, how, and
by what power, did the serpent become so depraved
�72
THE MIRACLES OE CHRISTIAN BELIEF
that he spoiled the “ good ” work of God and brought
ruin upon the whole human race? “Therefore, as
by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation ” (Romans v. 18). (5) If the Bible be
true, are we not indebted to the devil for giving to
our “first parents” knowledge, and inspiring them
with a sense of modesty ? According to the account
in Genesis, before the devil appeared they felt no
shame through being in a nude state. (6) Supposing
Adam and Eve did transgress, is it just that we should
be punished on that account ? By what moral
law can we be made responsible for actions over
which we had no control ? A more palpable fiction
was never recorded ; and if it appeared to-day for the
first time, the belief in it would be considered as much
a miracle as any marvel mentioned in the Bible or
accepted by the early Churches. And yet these
difficult and obscure teachings are the very foundations
upon which the '“ national religion ” of this country
rests.
Supposing the statement made about Adam to be
true, it is evident that his original purity and holiness
were of little service to him, inasmuch as he yielded
to the first temptation that came in his way. Men of the
present day, whose natures are said to be tainted with
their first parents’ crime, and whose inclinations are,
therefore, to do evil, are expected to withstand tempta
tion, however often it may present itself. Yet the
very man made by God himself, into whose mind no
taint of sin had entered, and whose heart was filled
with goodness, love, and truth, could not resist the
temptation to partake of a little fruit, although he
was supposed to know that by yielding to it he was
breaking God’s command. Holiness is, indeed, worth
�PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
73
but a trifle if it cannot stand a more severe test than
this. Purity that could be so easily lost would not
be considered in modern times as the genuine article.
But the theory is utterly absurd, for no one can pass
suddenly from innocence to crime; there must be
the inclination to sin before the actual commission.
Whence came this inclination in Adam? To say
that he experienced it is to admit that he was not
perfectly holy; to say that he did not is, as before
stated, to make the effect precede the cause. The
truth is that the description in the Bible of Adam’s
state before the Fall is clearly not one of a high
degree of intelligence and morality, but one approach
ing very closely to barbarism.
Rationalists require no miracle to enable them to
disbelieve in such an ancient fable. The story of
the Fall, with its ambiguous incidents, is simply a
reproduction of myths which were current among
the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians
thousands of years before the time when the writers
of the Bible wrote their account. The Hindoos had
their “ tree of life,” which, it was said, contained
“ juice ” that imparted immortality, and the tree was
guarded by spirits. Dr. Kalisch admits that the myth
was “ no exclusive feature of the Hebrews,” and
Professor Jowett regarded it as “a grand Hebrew
poem.” Philo, who is said to have been contemporary
with Jesus, accepted the story of the Fall in an alle
gorical sense. St. Augustine did the same, and Origen
wrote: “ What man is found such an idiot as to
suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like an
husbandman ? I believe that every man must hold
these things for images under which a hidden sense is
concealed.” We note that these writers did not state
�74
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
the nature of the “hidden sense” which they alleged'
was concealed. Most of the leading representatives
of the “Higher Criticism” to-day regard the Bible
story of the Fall as an allegorical narrative. Dean
Farrar writes:—
Christians are not called upon to believe that there was an actual
garden, an actual talking serpent, actual trees of which one bestowed
the knowledge of good and evil and the other an immortality of life.
Such an interpretation was rejected two thousand years ago by Philo,
and it has been rejected by many Christian interpreters since—and
even by English bishops like Warburton and Horsley. The Bible is a
book of Eastern origin, and can only be understood by the methods of
Eastern literature. Now, there is no other Eastern book in the world
which we should have dreamed of understanding literally if it intro
duced speaking serpents and magic trees. Even the Rabbis, stupidly
literal as were their frequent methods, were perfectly aware that the
story of the Fall was a philosopheme—a vivid pictorial representation
of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart.1
Now, without disputing that this is the more rational
view to take, the question arises, How does this alle
gorical theory affect the very foundations of Chris
tianity ? Dr. Ingleby, in his book, On Law and
Religion, says : “ The Christian religion without the
Fall of Man has no locus standi. It requires, as its
very foundation, that man should have been created
in the image of God, a perfect and even divine being,,
and that he should of his own free will have thrown
off his allegiance to his Creator by some act of dis
obedience.” This, we submit, is the only logical
position to take from a Christian standpoint. There
is no miracle that could be worked in modern times
that would induce scientists and Biblical critics to
believe that the Bible narrative is a record of fact.
Their unbelief upon this point is based upon reason,.
1 The Bible : its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 226.
�PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
75
and upon a knowledge of the slow but continual
advancement of the human race. The history of man
has been one of progression, not of retrogression. Sir
John Lubbock, in his famous speech at Dundee at the
annual meeting of the British Association, arrived at
the following conclusions after an elaborate review of
the whole argument: (1) That existing savages are
not the descendants of civilised ancestors ; (2) that the
primitive condition of man was one of utter barbarism ;
(3) that from this condition several races have inde
pendently raised themselves. He then adds :—
These views follow, I think, from strictly scientific considerations.
We shall not, however, be the less inclined to adopt them on account
of the cheering prospects which they hold out for the future. If the
past history of man has been one of deterioration, we have but a
groundless hope of future improvement; but, on the other hand, if
the past has been one of progress, we may fairly hope that the future
will be so too; that the blessings of civilisation will not only be
extended to other countries and other nations, but that even in our
own land they will be rendered more general and more equable, so
that we shall not see before us always, as now, multitudes of our own
fellow-countrymen living the life of savages in our very midst, neither
possessing the rough advantages, and real, though coarse, pleasures of
savage life, nor yet availing themselves of the far higher and more
noble opportunities which lie within the reach of civilised man.
If it be true that the “ Lord God formed man of the
dust of the ground,” as stated in the Bible, he was
but a poor, weak, helpless mortal, destitute of all the
elements of personal progress. His elevation, physi
cal, intellectual, and moral, so far as it has gone,
is the result of natural law, not of supernatural agen
cies. Is it not unreasonable to suppose that a good
and an omnipotent God should allow any other power
to thwart his plans, and to render his work of no
avail ?
The sequel to the comedy of the Garden of Eden
�76
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
was the tragedy of Calvary, which in theological
phraseology is called the Atonement. Here we have
to encounter perplexities which it is impossible for
the ordinary mind to understand. According to the
Biblical story, Adam’s nature, in consequence of his
having made one mistake, became depraved, and the
taint of original sin was communicated to all his
posterity, making it necessary for God to secure the
salvation of mankind by the sacrifice of his first-born
Son. Now, admitting for the moment that it was
impossible for God to avoid sacrificing his own child,
except at the cost of universal destruction, should not
the sacrifice have been made immediately after Adam’s
supposed transgression, so as to have prevented a
single generation going to the grave with the curse
of original sin unremoved ? But, according to the
story, thousands of years were allowed to elapse and
numbers of generations to live and die ere the repara
tion was made. The truth is, if an atonement were
necessary at all, Christ should have given his life
as a ransom for a “ fallen world ” as soon as it
became necessary. If none could be saved except those
who believed in Christ, the question arises : What
has become of the millions of human beings who
passed away prior to his birth, and what will be the
fate of those who are now alive who have never heard,
and who probably never will hear, of “Jesus of
Nazareth ”? If it be said that the former were saved
by anticipation, and that the latter will be pardoned
on account of their ignorance, where was the require
ment of the atonement at all ? Moreover, if the death
of Christ were necessary to redeem the world, it was
unjust upon the part of God to have delayed it as
long as he did. If, on the other hand, the crucifixion
�PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
77
of the Saviour were not imperative to restore a lost
race, then it was a cruel act for a father to give his
son to be tortured and executed amid the exultation
of a disappointed and fanatical people. Besides, if
it were desirable and praiseworthy upon the part of
God to send his son to save the world, how is it that
when he did arrive so many nations were kept in
ignorance of his mission and purpose? Even the
Jews, God’s peculiar people, had no knowledge what
ever that a part or “ Person” of the divinity was about
to expire on the cross. Does it accord with human
reason to believe that a just God would make the
innocent suffer for the guilty ? Justice has been
defined as consisting “ in rendering to everyone accord
ing to his moral deserts—good if he be good, and evil
if evil—for the purpose of promoting goodness and
discouraging guilt.” If Christ, therefore, was without
sin, as stated in the New Testament, was it not
unjust to make him suffer for the misdoings of
others ?
The inconsistency of this Christian teaching is as
perplexing as are its cruelty and injustice. We are
told that the death of Christ was ordained before the
foundation of the world, and we are likewise informed
that man was created perfect and immortal. The incon
sistency is here so glaring that it is really marvellous
how it can ever pass undetected. > If it were ordained
that the Son of God should die for the redemption of
the world, the transgressions of Adam and Eve were
only a part of God’s plan, and certainly did not merit
any curse. The free-will delusion does not remove
the difficulty, for, if man had any choice in the
matter, and had chosen differently, God’s plans
would have been thwarted. The scheme implies that
�78
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
man was so made that he could follow but one course
—the course which should ultimately lead to the
sacrifice of Christ. Thus the fourth Gospel tells us
that Christ knew from the beginning that Judas
would betray him. Further, if the mission on earth
of Christ would have been fruitless unless he was
crucified, then, instead of denouncing Judas, he
should be considered by Christians as a necessary
adjunct in the tragedy. If the death of Christ was
preordained, so also was the “ fall of man,” for one
depends upon the other. If this be true, it was
impossible for man to be created perfect. Again,
notwithstanding Christ is represented as having
made full and complete satisfaction for all sin, that
we might secure a share of what he died for, we are
to lead a life of sacrifice and penitence, whether it
agrees with our honest opinions or not. If Christ
did pay the debt for our sins, why should we be
called upon to make a second payment? Another
inconsistency is between the statement that God sent
his Son to save the whole world and the conduct
of Christ while upon earth. If universal salvation
were the object of Christ’s advent among men, his
mission has been a decided failure. Christ, however,
never attempted to achieve this result, for, while
thousands were dying without the knowledge of his
existence, he, instead of going among the heathen
nations imparting what information he had, remained
in his own insignificant country.
Christians profess to believe that the Godhead is
composed of three persons of one substance, power,
and duration. If this is the case, the first person
could have no virtue which the other two did not
possess. Thus, supposing that in this scheme of
�PERPLEXITIES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
79
salvation infinite justice demanded that an atonement
should be made to God the Father, a like plea could
be urged on behalf of God the Son and God the Holy
Ghost. For as the three persons are indivisible, the
“ transgression ” was against all equally. But, as we
are not aware of any atonement having been made
to the last two persons of the Trinity, the redemption
is incomplete. Besides, if the three persons were one
in substance, could a part be wrathful and a part
merciful ? If God and Christ are not distinct, the
one could not be vengeful and the other forgiving at
the same time. In fact, there is no forgiveness what
ever in the scheme, for the first person demands pay
ment before granting pardon, the second exacts belief
as the condition of securing salvation, and the third
refuses forgiveness for sin against himself under any
circumstances. The same difficulty is manifested in
the death of a part of the indivisible Godhead. If
Christ alone died and remained lifeless in the grave
for three days, he was not equal in eternity to his
father; if, on the other hand, the whole of the Deity
expired, then we have the idea of a dying and dead
God, and the world for a time subsisting without a
God to govern it. To say that it was only the man
hood of Christ which suffered is to advance another
difficulty by allying humanity with divinity, and
destroying the perfection of the whole. For where
the human element is there cannot be perfection.
Now, unless an extraordinary miracle can be per
formed whereby these perplexities can be removed, it
appears to us to be the height of folly and injustice
to demand belief in them, and to threaten “ endless
punishment ” to those who cannot accept such absurd
and contradictory teachings. It is, unfortunately, too
�80
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
true that, from a Christian standpoint, “ wide is the
gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat; because
strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it ” (Matthew vii.
13, 14).
�CHAPTER IX.
BELIEF IN CHRIST
Nothing in Mr. Ballard’s book is more fallacious,
and, to the superficial thinker, more misleading, than
his pleadings on behalf of Christ. Ignoring the weak
points in his character, and omitting to notice any of
his objectionable teachings, Mr. Ballard assumes that
the “ Bounder of Christianity ” was unique in all the
higher virtues, and that he gave to the world the
sublimest morality and the most practical rules for
human conduct that the world has ever known. This
is the very opposite to what appears to us as being
the fact. It has been repeatedly shown that there is
nothing original in Christ’s ethical teachings. As
R. W. Mackay writes :—
To the truths already uttered in the Athenian prison Christianityadded little or nothing, except a few symbols which, though well cal
culated for pupular acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to
instruct, and offer the best opportunity for priestly mystification.1
The Rev. Dr. George Matheson, in his lecture on
The Religions of China, states: “ The glory of
Christian morality is that it is not original.”2 That
the highest moral inculcations obtained prior to the
advent of Christ is evident from what Lecky says of
the ethical condition of the Romans. He writes :—
The habits of men were unaffected, frugal, honourable, and labori
ous. A stern discipline pervading all ages and classes of society, the
1 The Rise and Progress of Christianity, pp. 19, 20.
81
2 P. 84.
G
�82
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
will was trained, to an almost unexampled degree, to repress the pas
sions, to endure suffering and opposition, to tend steadily and fear
lessly towards an unpopular end. A sense of duty was very widely
diffused, and a deep attachment to the interests of the city became the
parent of many virtues.... On the one hand we find a system of
ethics, of which, when we consider the range and beauty of its pre
cepts, the sublimity of the motives to which it appealed, and its
perfect freedom from superstitious elements, it is not too much to say
that, though it may have been equalled, it has never been surpassed.1
[The italics are mine.]
Herbert Spencer, in his Synthetic Philosophy, also
gives ample evidence that truth, chastity, and honour
were active virtues among peoples who had no know
ledge of Christ or of his system.
Probably no Rationalist will deny that Jesus had
some excellent qualities; that he possessed traits of
character superior to those shown by many of his
day; and that some of the teachings ascribed to him
are commendable. The same, however, can be said
with equal truth of the founders of other religions,
and of their inculcations. Take, for instance, Buddha
and Mohammed. Nothing can be urged in favour of
Christ that cannot as legitimately be applied to them.
Even personal worth, so enthusiastically claimed for
Jesus by Mr. Ballard, is not confined to his hero, as
the following historical proofs will show. Buddha
exclaimed:—
I am going to give light to those enshrouded in darkness; to open
the gates of Immortality.2
Let all the sins that were committed in the world fall on me that
the world may be delivered.3
Buddha preached to all alike, high and low, rich and poor. He
taught the brotherhood of man.4
1
2
3
4
History of European Morals, vol. i., pp. 237, 308-9.
Beal’s History of Buddha, pp. 24-5.
Muller’s Hist. Sanscrit Literature, p. 80.
Bunsen’s Angel Messiah.
�BELIEF IN CHRIST
83
Max Muller said1 that “ love and charity were the
bases of Buddha’s faith,” and that “ no religion, not
even the Christian, has exercised so powerful an influ
ence on the diminution of crime as the old simple
doctrine of the Ascetic of Kapilavastu.”2 Another
noteworthy writer has remarked that “ the secret of
his (Buddha’s) success was the reverence he inspired
by his own personal character. Thousands gathered
around him, and he became the real centre of
Buddhism.”3
Speaking of Buddhism, Arthur Lillie says : “It was
the first time a universal religion had been thought
of.”4 The same writer says that the following are
some of the results due to the efforts of Buddha :—
1. The most formidable priestly tyranny that the world had ever
seen crumbled away before his attack, and the followers were para
mount in India for a thousand years. 2. The institution of caste
was assailed and overturned. 3. Polygamy was for the first time pro
nounced immoral and slavery condemned. 4. Woman, from being
considered a chattel and a beast of burden, was, for the first time,
considered man’s equal, and allowed to develop her spiritual life.
5. All bloodshed, whether with the knife of the priest or the sword of
the conqueror, was rigidly forbidden. 6. Also, for the first time in the
religious history of mankind, the awakening of the spiritual life or the
individual was substituted for religion by the body corporate. It is
certain that Buddha was the first to proclaim that duty was to be
sought in the eternal principles of morality and justice, and not in
animal sacrifices and local formalities, invented by the fancy of
priests. 7. The principle of religious propagandism was for the first
time introduced, with its two great instruments, the missionary and
the preacher.5
Mr. Ballard attaches great importance to the early
propagation of the Christian faith. But, according
1
2
3
4
5
The Academy, May 3rd, 1884.
Muller’s lecture on Buddhist Nihilism, p. 132.
William’s Hinduism, p. 102.
Buddha and Early Buddhism.
Buddha and Early Buddhism, pp. v., vi.
�84
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
to trustworthy writers, the Mohammedan faith
spread more rapidly than Christianity. Sir W. Muir
writes:—
Among the religions of the earth Islam must take the precedence
in the rapidity and force with which it spread. Within a very short
time of its planting in Arabia, the new faith had subdued great and
populous provinces. In half-a-dozen years, counting from the death
of the founder, the religion prevailed throughout Arabia, Syria, Persia,
and Egypt.... In comparison with this grand outburst, the first
efforts of Christianity were, to the outward eye, faint and feeble;
and its extension was so gradual that what the Mohammedan religion
achieved in ten or twenty years it took the faith of Jesus long
centuries to accomplish.
Referring to Mohammedanism, James Freeman Clarke
says:—
Dark superstitions prevailed, the mother of dark vices. And now,
in thirteen years of preaching, a body of men and women had arisen
who rejected idolatry; worshipped one great God, lived lives of
prayer; practised prayer, benevolence, and justice, and were to do and
to hear anything for the truth.1
Even J. W. H. Stobart, B.A., who wrote his Islam
and its Founder for the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, is candid enough to admit that—
Judged by the smallness of the means at his disposal, and the
tent and permanence of the work he accomplished, no name in
world’s story shines with a more specious lustre than that of
prophet of Mecca... .Judged by the standard of human renown,
glory of what mortal can compare with his.2
ex
the
the
the
Mr. Ballard cites several eminent writers who have
given favourable opinions of Christ, but he has not
furnished any evidence to show that those opinions
were based upon facts. It would not be difficult to
cite the views of prominent men in reference to Christ
the very opposite to those quoted by Mr. Ballard. For
instance, Professor Huxley asks :—
1 Ten Great Religions, p. 466.
2 P. 228.
�BELIEF IN CHRIST
85
■ Are we to accept the Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth
Gospel as the true Jesus ? What did he really say and do ? And
how much that is attributed to him in speech and action is the em
broidery of the various parties into which his followers tended to split
themselves within twenty years of his death, when even the three-fold
tradition was only nascent ?... .If a man can find a friend, the hypos
tasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in the Jesus of
any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. Who
shall, or can, forbid him ? But let him not delude himself that his
faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he trusts*
Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of
science as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts, at
present, to very little.1
F. W. Newman writes of Christ thus :—
Enigma and mist seem to be his element; and when I find his high
satisfaction at all personal recognition, and bowing before his indi
viduality, I almost doubt whether, if one wished to draw the character
of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would be possible to draw any
thing more to the purpose than this.2
The Rev. James Cranbrook observes :—
Our own idealisations have invested him (Jesus) with a halo of
spiritual glory that by the intensity of its brightness conceals from us
the real figure presented in the Gospels. We see him, not as he is
described, but as the ideally perfect man our own fancies have con
ceived. But let any one sit down and critically analyse the sayings
and doings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels—let him divest his mind
of the superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask himself whether
all those sayings and doings are in harmony with the highest wisdom
speaking for all ages and races of mankind, and with the conceptions
of an absolutely perfect human nature, and I am mistaken if he will
not find a very great deal he will be forced to condemn.3
The Rev. Charles Voysey wrote thus of Christ:—
He had faults which neither I nor my readers would venture to
imitate without loss of self-respect. His mind gave way, and he was
not responsible for what he said.4
1
2
3
4
Nineteenth Century, No. 144, p. 186.
Phases of Faith, p. 154.
Founders of Christianity, preface, p. 5.
Fortnightly Review, January, 1887.
�«6
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Renan says that Christ had
no knowledge of the general condition of the world; he was un
acquainted with science; he was harsh towards his family, and was
no philosopher; he went to excess; sometimes his intolerance of all
opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently absurd; and
bitterness and reproach became more and more manifest in his heart.1
John Stuart Mill, in referring to Christ’s morality,
states :—
I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many important points,
incomplete and one-sided, and that, unless ideas and feelings, not
sanctioned by it, had contributed to the formation of European life
and character, human affairs would have been in a worse condition
than they now are.2
Even the New Testament tells us that Christ’s own
friends thought he was “ beside himself
and the
Jews considered he had a devil, and was “mad”
(Mark iii. 21; John x. 20).
But the opinions of individuals either pro or con.
are, after all, of but little value. Of far more importance are the following questions: Cail it be shown
from the four Gospels that Jesus ever initiated any
gieat secular reform? What philosophic truth did
he propound ? What scientific fact did he explain ?
AV hat social problem did he solve ? What political
scheme did he unfold ? What system of education
did he advocate? Upon these points the New Testa
ment gives us no information. It is not an answer to
say that to deal with these subjects was not his
mission. It is of small concern what eminent men
thought of Christ and his 'teachings, unless it can be
proved that his conduct could be wisely emulated and
his injunctions usefully obeyed. But even the very
people who so extravagantly extol Jesus thoroughly
1 Life of Jesus, pp. 78, 81, 83, 174, 274, and 278.
2 Liberty, pp. 28, 29.
�BELIEF IN CHRIST
87
realise that to do this would be impossible. Would
anyone to-day, if it were possible, attempt to imitate
the conduct of Christ as portrayed in many parts of
the New Testament—such, for instance, as his treat
ment of his mother (Luke ii. 49 ; John ii. 4); his
driving the merchants from the temple (John ii. 14-16);
the manner of his riding into Jerusalem (Matthew
xxi. 1-9) ; his cursing the fig-tree (Mark xi. 13, 20, 21);
and his endeavour to extract devils from the human
body, and permitting them to enter into “ about two
thousand ” swine, which caused them to be “ choked
in the sea ” (Mark i. 34; v. 13) ? His yielding,
after refusing help to the woman of Canaan before
she confessed her faith in him—telling her: “It
is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to
cast it to dogs ”—was simply granting to the pro
fession of belief what he denied to the wants of
humanity ? Such narrow-minded conduct does not
harmonise with intellectual freedom, or with the
true principles of the brotherhood of man. Who
really believes in his teachings sufficiently to be
induced to practise self-mutilation (Matthew v. 29, 30;
xix. 12); to regard the duties of this life as of secondary
importance (Matthew vi. 25-34); to hate one’s rela
tives, and even one’s own life (Luke xiv. 26) ; to
accept a premium for deserting wife, children, etc.
(Mark x. 29, 30) ; to “ lend, hoping for nothing again ”
(Luke vi. 35); to “give to every man that asketh of
thee ” (Luke vi. 30) ; to “ forgive your brother until
seventy times seven ” (Matthew xviii. 21, 22) ; to
“resist not evil”; to “swear not at all”; to “love
your enemies,” and to “ labour not for the meat which
perisheth” (John vi. 27)? As Lecky points out in
his latest work, The Map of Life ■—
�88
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
We should hardly write over the Savings Bank, “ Take no thought
for the morrow, for the morrow will take thought for itself ” ; or over
the Bank of England, “ Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth,”
“ How hardly shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of God ” ; or
over the Foreign Office, or the Law Courts, or the prison, “Resist not
evil,” “ He that smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other
also,” “He that taketh away thy coat let him have thy cloak also.”1
Professed Christians have no real faith even in the
New Testament credentials^of belief, for they persis
tently ignore them. It is there stated that the signs
which were to follow genuine belief were: “In my
name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with
new tongues; they shall take up serpents; if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover ”
(Mark xvi. 15-18). Now, why are not these experi
ments tried at the present time ? Simply because
they are opposed to reason and to human experience,
and to accept them as facts would require greater
credulity than the intellect of the twentieth century
will sanction.
Mr. Ballard puts belief in Christ as absolutely
the “ one thing needful ” to promote the welfare
of the human race. But it is by no means clear
what constitutes such belief. Are we to believe in
Christ as a man or as a God; in his teachings, or
in the salvation of man through his death on the
cross? Besides, belief should be the result of evi
dence, and many honest inquirers are unable to dis
cover any evidence that would justify them in believing
that Christ was perfect. He was subject to human
weaknesses, such as hunger, passion, and lack of
wisdom. Dr. Barry, speaking on behalf of the
�BELIEF IN CHRIST
89
Christian Evidence Society, says: “A character is
perfect which meets all the conditions and fulfils all
the relations of humanity.” Tested by this standard,
Christ was in no sense perfect, for there were several
conditions of life he failed to meet, and many relations
of humanity that he never filled. The New Testa
ment does not inform us that he was a husband, a
father, or a statesman. A man who has not filled
these relations of life is not in a position to give
practical and satisfactory lessons thereon. It is, of
course, possible for an ordinary man to give advice
about duties he has not performed, but it is highly
probable that such advice would be untrustworthy,
because it would be devoid of that authority which
practical experience alone can give. It is the want of
this experimental authority which renders ChrffVs
precepts unreliable. The language he used to the
Scribes and Pharisees would not be considered refined
by cultivated minds at the present time. To address
those from whom you differ as “ fools, vipers, ser
pents, and blind guides ” would not be deemed the
most gentle manner of rebuking those whom you
think are in error. Lacking a true method of reason
ing, or a uniformity of character, Christ exhibited an
example injudicious to exalt and dangerous to emulate.
At times he was severe when he should have been
gentle. When he might have reasoned he frequently
rebuked. When he ought to have been firm and
resolute he was vacillating and cowardly. When he
should have been happy and joyful he was sorrowful
and despondent. Although preaching faith as the
“ one thing needful,” he lacked it himself when he
required it most. Hence, on the Cross, when a know
ledge of a life of integrity, a consciousness of the
�90
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
fulfilment of a good mission, a conviction that he was
dying for a good and righteous cause, and achieving
the object of his life—when all this should have given
him moral strength, we find him sorrowful, and giving
vent to utter despair. If Christ had taught men how
to avoid most of the miseries of life; if he had revealed
the mysteries of nature ; if he had shown how the
evils of poverty could be avoided, and how the claims
of capital and labour could be properly adjusted, he
would have proved himself a practical reformer. But
he did nothing of the kind. His usefulness was
impaired by his dominant idea that this world is but
a state of probation fitting mankind for another and a
better home.
Even as to the important question of man’s salva
tion the prospect, according to the New Testament, is
not very bright; for therein we are told that he cannot
be saved unless he come to God by Christ; but also that
he cannot come to Christ unless the Father draw him
(John xiv. 6; vi. 44). This means that if God draws us,
we must go to him through Christ and be saved; and
if he does not we are to be damned for not doing what
to us is impossible. Here is a theological puzzle that
reason cannot solve, whatever a miracle may be able
to accomplish. It is also difficult to believe that, if a
just God exist, he will inflict penalties upon anyone
for honest unbelief; yet in Matthew it is recorded
that at the last day he wrill separate the sheep from
the goats, and that to the latter he will say : “ Depart
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for
the devil and all his angels.” The locality to which
the goats are to be sent is described in Revelation as
a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ; where
the worm dieth not and the fire is never quenched.
�BELIEF IN CHRIST
91
Can anyone whose natural feelings have not been
hardened by familiarity with a cruel and absurd
theology really believe this to be true ? Is it pos
sible to conceive that the time will arrive when the
heavens shall frown on a ruined world ; when the sun
shall lose his effulgence and the moon refuse to give
her light; when, amid the “ wreck of matter and the
crash of worlds,” those who are bound to us by the
ties of nature shall be banished to a burning lake, for
no other reason than because they were unable to
believe in Christ ? This may be orthodox teaching,
but to Rationalists it appears to be opposed to reason
and justice, and to the dictates of our common
humanity.
t
�CHAPTER X.
BELIEF IN A FUTURE LIFE
In reference to a belief in a future life, Mr. Ballard
writes as if immortality were a demonstrated fact
instead of a mere speculative opinion. We here
detect a radical weakness, which is frequently appa
rent in Mr. Ballard’s book. He is constantly raising
false issues; thereby, no doubt, misleading the
uncritical reader. Eor instance, he pleads for the
existence of God, but he is silent concerning the
Christian Deity, the very one he should confine his
attention to. A hundred gods may or may not exist,
but as a Christian defender Mr. Ballard should deal
with that God whose nature and attributes are
delineated in the Bible. A similar error is apparent
in his confounding religion in general with Chris
tianity in particular. To demonstrate the truth of
religion in its etymological sense does not necessarily
prove the validity of the Christian faith; and yet
most of the orthodox exponents contend that the two
—religion and Christianity—mean the same. In like
manner Mr. Ballard deals with the question of a
future life. Assuming that there are “two great
facts—namely, humanity’s yearning for immortality
and the Christian’s answer to it ”—he states that
this alleged answer is the only true and satisfactory
one that has been given to the world. Notwith
standing this bold assertion, he makes no attempt to
92
�BELIEF IN A FUTURE LIFE
93
prove from the New Testament what the Christian
doctrine of a future life really is; and he appears to
overlook the fact that therein is taught the brutal
punishment by hell-fire torments (see Matt. v. 22, 29',
30 ; x. 28 ; xxiii. 15, 33; xxv. 41, 46; Mark iii. 29 ;
ix. 43, 44; Luke x. 15; Rev. xiv. 10; xix. 20;
and xxi. 8) ; that at the last judgment “ before
him [Christ] shall be gathered all nations; and he
shall separate them one from another as a shepherd
divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shall set
the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the
left.” Thus mankind are to be divided into two
classes only—the blessed and the cursed, the believers
and the unbelievers; and to the latter Christ is to say:
“ Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels.” Finally, the
Bible states that it is only the elect that are to be
saved, while the majority of the human race are to be
punished “for all eternity”; that the non-elect are
powerless to secure their own salvation ; that of our
selves we can do nothing; that it is God who worketh
within us ; and that many of the human family were
ordained to condemnation before they were born (see
Romans viii. 29, 30 ; ix. 21, 22 ; 2 Cor. iii. v.; Eph. ii.
8 ; Phil. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12; Jude 4).
No “miracle” is necessary to enable us to dis
believe such Christian teachings as the above. Apart
from the perplexing point as to the eternity of hell
torments, rational unbelief would say that any suffer
ing in such a place would be cruel and useless. The
true object of punishment should be to reform those
who are punished, and to deter others from wrong
doing. The punishment threatened by Christianity
achieves neither of these results, inasmuch as it
�94
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
affords no opportunity for repentance, and offers no
facility for improvement, for if a person should once
get to hell, there he must remain for ever. Neither
can it be truthfully said that the sufferings in the
“ bottomless pit ” would exercise a beneficial influence
upon those on earth. That the belief in hell torments
is not a deterrent from crime the history of criminality
clearly proves. Nearly all our worst criminals have
been taught this doctrine. The fear of the law has
evidently been more efficacious in the prevention of
crime than all the hell fire that could ever be
imagined. Besides, if it were possible for the
“ tortures of the damned ” to be witnessed, would
such a sight inspire the spectators with obedience to
a God who caused such barbarous cruelty? Here
the rejected of heaven are represented as enduring
tortures the extent of which no human mind can
fully conceive and no pen adequately portray. The
end of perhaps a happy life is to be the beginning of
everlasting misery. The joy and sunshine of a mun
dane existence are to be followed by clouds of wretched
ness and the endurance of perpetual agony.
Mr. Ballard says that God was the creator of all
things; he must, therefore, have created the devil.
God, we are told, is all-wise; he must, therefore,
have known the nature of the being he was creating,
and the havoc his handiwork would make among the
sons and daughters of men. God, it is said, is all
good ; then how could he have been the cause of so
much evil of which it is supposed that the devil is the
principal agent ? God is alleged to be all-powerful;
why, then, did he not destroy the devil when he was
defeated in heaven, instead of turning him upon the
earth to continue his evil doings ? God is described
�BELIEF IN A FUTURE LIFE
95
as a being of love; how is it, then, that he planned a
scheme by which most of the human race are doomed
to an eternity of heart-rending suffering, “where the
worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched ”? Does
it accord with reason to believe that our “heavenly
Father ” would do that which an earthly parent would
recoil from ? Is it moral to inflict infinite punish
ment for a finite act, even if that act is intentionally
performed ? Is it benevolent to burn men and
women “forever,” some of whom have been guilty
of no other crime than being unable to recognise the
orthodox notion of “ truth as it is in Jesus ”? This
may be the theological idea of what is right and
useful, but it is a conception of justice at which
unperverted humanity stands aghast. Here we have
difficulties (or “miracles”) attending belief which
far surpass those of unbelief.
Neither do we see how the alleged advantages of
the Christians’ heaven can compensate for the
cruelties of their hell. The question here is not
whether such a heaven exists, but rather whether, if it
does, it is an abode in which it would be pleasant
to spend “ endless time.” It may be urged that the
language of the Scriptures upon the subject of heaven
is figurative—which we do not deny. But what is it
figurative of? Language should make the subjects
to which it refers clear to the reader instead of
obscuring their meaning. Christ on several occa
sions refers to the kingdom of heaven in parables,
but from these we obtain very little information as
to its real nature. This is not at all surprising when
we are told that he spoke in parables so that those
who heard him should not understand (Mark iv.
11, 12). It is true that on another occasion Jesus
�96
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
located heaven by saying the kingdom of heaven was
“ within you” ; but this is as difficult to understand as
the parables are, since he also states: “In my
father’s house are many mansions...... I go to prepare
a place for you.” For persons to get these mansions
within them would be a stupendous performance.
There is, however, one parable about heaven (Luke xvi.
19, 31), which tells us of “a certain beggar” and of
“ a certain rich man
the one was in heaven, the
other in hell, and they were within hearing, seeing,
and speaking distance of each other. From heaven
the rich man is beheld being tormented in hell.
Now, to think that anyone could be happy while
contemplating such suffering would be an outrage
against our common humanity. One great source of
our happiness on earth is the ’liberty to select our
companions, and to be permitted to relieve the victims
of injustice and cruelty. To be shut up, therefore, in
heaven with those who can look upon others being
tortured in flames of fire, and who will not relieve
them, must be a source of indescribable misery. This
parable receives confirmation from St. John, who
states (Rev. xiv. 10) that a certain person “ shall
drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is
poured out without mixture into the cup of his indig
nation ; and he shall be tormented with fire and
brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in
the presence of the Lamb.” And this is the Chris
tian’s idea of ultimate happiness. When a wish is
expressed to be with Jesus and the angels, as it
frequently is by orthodox believers, they surely cannot
understand the sights and experiences that are in
store for them. Let us hope it is true that “ Eye
hath not seen nor ear heard...... the things which God
�BELIEF IN A FUTURE LIFE
97
hath prepared for them that love him.” Milton
says that it is “ better to reign in hell than serve in
heaven but, in our opinion, it would be decidedly
better to do neither. Both institutions deserve to
be lost in total oblivion, for the belief in their
existence is no factor in the progress and elevation of
mankind. Humanity would have two evils the less to
overcome if hell were to cease from troubling and if
those who preach about heaven were at rest.
Mr. Ballard very carefully avoids the scientific and
philosophical aspects of the question of a future life.
In fact, he says : “ It is manifestly impossible to
accredit the Christian hope of immortality to science
...... there was no science, in the modern sense, at the
time of the Christian era.”1 This fact, however,
affords no adequate reason why science has failed to
render any support to the Christian notion of immor
tality. Science is our great teacher, and yet it has
nothing to say in favour of a future life. If space
permitted, a formidable list of scientific testimony
could be given in corroboration of this statement.
Even the late Professor Fiske, who was a believer in
man’s immortality, in his lecture on “Life Ever
lasting,” frankly admits that, from the standpoint of
reason and experience, we are no more justified in
supposing that consciousness will exist after death
than we should be in believing that water would exist
apart from oxygen and hydrogen. Certainly it seems
paradoxical to speak, as some theologians do, of the
happiness of heaven, and at the same time to assert
that the senses through which all sensations enter are
not present. To experience any sort of happiness
�98
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
necessitates our possessing senses that enable us to
feel, see, and understand.
Mr. Ballard does not tell us what the soul is, and
what its relations are to the body. Buchner, in his
Last Words on Materialism, says : “ The soul is not
an independent entity, but an expression used in
a period of scientific ignorance and superstitious
ideas ” (p. 27). No doubt this is correct, for
it accords with the opinion of other scientists. Mr.
Ballard surely knows that organisation is necessary
to life, and that life is essential to consciousness.
How, then, can conscious existence remain when the
two—organisation and life—are gone? Besides, all
sensation depends upon the nerves, for, as George
Henry Lewes observes, “ Without a nervous system
there could be nothing like what we know as feeling.”
Boes not Mr. Ballard believe his Bible when it says,
“ The very day man goeth to the grave his thoughts
perish ”?
Mr. Ballard jumps to conclusions, instead of
seeking to arrive at them by a reasoning process.
His belief is influenced by the opinion of “ the
immense majority, not with the minority” (p. 280).
But some of the greatest delusions that ever misled
the human mind have been accepted as true by the
majority. And to-day it is only the minority of the
human race who profess a belief in the Christian
theory of immortality. Still, says Mr. Ballard, “ the
fact remains that the world of humanity is full of the
general hope and expectation of another life beyond
the present.” Supposing this is so, where is the
evidence that the hope and expectation will be
realised ? Many persons are always hoping for
greater happiness and a larger share of the comforts
�BELIEF IN A FUTURE LIFE
99
and necessities of life than they possess, yet thousands
live and die without their hopes having been gratified.
But is it feasible to long or desire for that of which
we know nothing ? I think not, for to do so would
be to avoid facts, and to rely upon groundless
imagination.
�CHAPTER XI.
CONCLUSION
*
I have now briefly replied to some of Mr. Ballard’s
principal arguments against unbelief. Of course, a
complete answer could not be made in the course of
a hundred pages. Nevertheless, my object has been
to show that, whatever difficulties may be apparent
to some people in reference to unbelief, it is far
more difficult to believe that the claims put forward
on behalf of orthodox Christianity are based upon fact
and upon the dictates of human reason. While it is
frankly admitted that many truths are associated with
the Christian faith, it is also true that the system
contains much that is erroneous and impracticable.
For instance, the boast that Christianity has trans
formed human thought and feeling to such an extent
that governments, laws, and social customs have
been revolutionised through its influence must be
regarded as opposed to the facts of history and
the lessons of personal experience. The New Testa
ment nowhere states that the object of Christianity
was to produce a political and social condition of
society such as secular reformers are striving to
secure to-day; and, further, we fail to discover in
the book any practical injunctions for the attainment
of a proper position by woman, or for anything com
parable to the moral and social progress which has
been made during the last fifty years. It does not
100
�CONCLUSION
101
follow, because advancement has gone on side by side
with the profession of Christianity, that the improve
ments acquired are the result of its teachings. Before
such a claim can be verified it must be shown that
modern improvements are in harmony with Christian
precepts. This is just what cannot be done, in spite
of the assertions of enthusiastic orthodox professors.
Upon scientific, educational, and social questions the
reforms effected or desired and sought for have no
relation to Bible teachings, unless it be a negative
one.
It may fairly be urged that, if the object of
Christianity were to secure modern reforms, it should
contain the elements of secular progress; this, how
ever, is not the case. Among the necessary require- »
ments of all individual and national advancement are !
primary consideration for the duties and essentials /
of this life, scientific studies, educational pursuits, /
freedom from the enforced adherence to traditional /
beliefs, and the lessening of poverty. The New;
Testament, however, has no provision for the attain
ment of any of these objects. On the contrary, many
of its teachings, if acted upon, would either retard
their development or prevent it altogether. Further,
if the object of Christianity were what its adherents
allege it to be, why was so little progress made prior
to the last century ? Until that period but little oppo
sition was offered to the prevailing faith, the Govern
ments bestowed upon it ample patronage, it was
backed by strong military power, and it had the
willing submission of the people; yet it failed to
give the nation justice and political rights, or to
allow it freedom upon religious questions. Besides,
how is it that for centuries Christianity did not
�102
,
THE MIRACLES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
improve upon the science, morals, and philosophy
that obtained before its existence? Moreover, how
is it that when Christians had supreme power they
used it in opposition to these very essential agencies
of all progress ? The answer is : The object of Chris
tianity was not so much to teach people how to live as
how to die.
The philosophy of Rationalism sanctions the study
of all religions and the acceptance of the good in each.
It emphasises the necessity of exposing and warring
with error, and of defending and practising truth. Its
motto is:—
“ Bound to no party, to no creeds confined,
The world’s our home, our brothers all mankind.
Do good, love truth, be just and fair withal;
Exalt the right, though every ism fall.”
�NEW OR RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
Huxley’s Essays and Lectures. Consisting of the author’s
brief autobiographical sketch, the three lectures on Evolution (with illus
trations), and the essays on “ The Physical Basis of Life,” “Natural
ism and Supernaturalism” (from “Prologue ” to “Essays on Contro
verted Questions”), “The Value of Witness to the Miraculous,”
“Agnosticism,” “The Christian Tradition in Relation to Judaic
Christianity” (from “Agnosticism : A Rejoinder”), and “Agnosticism
and Christianity.” With Portrait of the author. 128 large pages,
price 6d., by post 8d. 50 copies or more will be supplied at 4d. each,
carriage to be paid by purchaser.
A Short History of Christianity. By John M. Robertson.
Cr. 8vo, cloth, xii.-430 pp. ; 6s. net, by post 6s. 4d.
The Faith of an Agnostic; or, First Essays in Rational
ism. By George Forester. 278 pp.; 5s.
Last Words on Materialism and Kindred Subjects. By
Professor Ludwig Buchner. Translated by Joseph McCabe. With
portrait of the author, and a Biographical Sketch by his brother,
Professor Alex Buchner. 6s. net, by post 6s. 4d.
On the Progress of Liberty of Thought during Queen
Victoria’s Reign. By Constance E. Plumptre.
post 2s. 3d.; paper, Is., by post Is. 2d.
Cloth 2s., by
The Bible in School: A Question of Ethics.
Allanson Pioton.
by post Is. 2d.
By James
Cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.; paper covers, Is.,
The Religion of the First Christians.
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
By F. J. Gould.
The New Story Of the Bible. By William A. Leonard.
102 pp.; cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.; stiff paper covers, Is., by post
Is. 2d.
The Riddle Of the Universe. By Professor Ernst Haeckel.
Translated by Joseph McCabe. Revised edition. Cr. 8vo, cloth,
xvi.-404 pp.; 6s. net, by post 6s. 4d.
SOME OTHER PUBLICATIONS.
Christianity and Mythology.
(Part I. The Progress of
Mythology. Part II. Christ and Krishna. Part III. The Gospel
Myths.) By John M. Robertson. Demy 8vo, cloth, xviii.-484 pp.;
8s. 6d. net, by post 9s.
Studies in Religious Fallacy. By John M. Robertson.
227 pp.; cloth, 3s. 6d.
�LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Will Women Help?
By F. J. Gould.
100 pp.; Is., by post
Is. 2d.
The Agnostic Island. By F. J. Gould.
by post 2s. 3d.; boards, Is., by post Is. 2d.
124 pp.; cloth, 2s.,
A Concise History of Religion. By F. J. Gould. In three
volumes.
Vol. i., 154 pp., 2s. 6d.; vol. ii., 209 pp., 3s. 6d. ;
vol. iii., 292 pp., 5s.
Tales from the Bible. By F. J. Gould. 103 pp., cloth,
Is. 6d., by post Is. 8d.; boards, Is., by post Is. 2d.
Tales from the New Testament. By F. J. Gould. 176
pp.; cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.
The Children’s Book of Moral Lessons. By F. J. Gould.
205 pp.; cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.
Modern Rationalism. Being a Sketch of the Progress of the
nationalistic Spirit in the Nineteenth Century. By Joseph McCabe.
163 pp.; cloth, 2s. 6d. post free; paper covers, Is., by post Is. 3d.
The Religion of the Twentieth Century.
McCabe.
By Joseph
102 pp.; Is., by post Is. 2d.
Ethies of the Great Religions. By Charles T. Gorham.
108 pp.; Is., by post Is. 2d.
The Ethies of the Great French Rationalists. By
Charles T. Gorham. 101 pp.; cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.; stiff paper
covers, Is., by post Is. 2d.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Ques
tions of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Stand
point. By Richard Bithell, Ph.D. 152 pp.; cloth, 2s. 6d.; paper,
Is., by post Is. 3d.
A Handbook of Scientific Agnosticism. By R. Bithell,
Ph.D. 64 pp.; cloth, 2s., by post 2s. 3d.; paper Is., by post Is. 2d.
The Web Unwoven ; or, the Dolus Theory of the Book of Acts,
as presented in a Critique of Chapters X., XI., and XII. of same. By
W. Glanville, ex-Baptist Minister. 87 pp.; Is., by post Is. 2d.
Songs of Love and Duty for the Young. Compiled by
Gustav Spiller. 72 pp.; 6d., by post 7d.
England and Islam. By Henry Crossfield. 55 pp.; price 6d.,
by post 7d.
Orders should be addressed to the Publishing Agents
of the Association, Messrs. Watts do Co., 17, Johnson s
Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
�����
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The miracles of Christian belief: a reply to the Rev. Frank Ballard's "Miracles of unbelief"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 102, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in pencil. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N672
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The miracles of Christian belief: a reply to the Rev. Frank Ballard's "Miracles of unbelief"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Frank Ballard
Miracles
NSS