1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/00ddcd23035782d878f2724f09700873.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Iq8tr9Dez6jXf6JxsGrz8Qmn0TZuBRSxRO-vH3%7EngMRv%7EPAzWC260IuBFAAFdFoqEwkFU7jy9aWKinfVcNqVbIl70XWSr3RozZQ80cTVMGdHAjLPx8P9m7STgiU6h5le8CQ2ysocJAp4gDSkX3hCt1pZAb3tYjP5ScUFAfJXykActNr0sRN-HNRj8Xrsv0gnon5zNCV%7E1cYwqgVtmTclmZ4nVFVs86C1NmdEY1%7ECtjIcqRZnZ3aecVulHq4Fu9bH2N6s%7EAS7%7EE4RmbTln0ShsT0iPopwXHOkgEL9iRMhmhW9vbI2m1lDgVSrMdUe6wBtapp%7EBqh-zr4lR75qMltsIg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
034637d3ffc6286c1a56ff516d3640db
PDF Text
Text
CT
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence,
THE
GOOD AND EVIL
IN
ORTHODOXY.
By CHARLES K. WHIPPLE.
From ‘THE INDEX.’
HE form of religion commonly called 11 Orthodox ”
has one very great merit; namely, its energetic
hostility to “sin;” its persistency in maintaining the
doctrine set forth by a Scripture writer, that sin is
“exceeding sinful.” Orthodoxy often misjudges in its
estimate of what is sin; often departs, both by allow
ance and prohibition, from the Scriptural view of what
acts are sinful; sometimes stigmatises, as wicked things
perfectly authorised by its “infallible and sufficient
�2
rule,” the Bible; and sometimes enjoins as indispensable'
duties, acts in nowise enjoined by that rule. But, never
theless, it does this great service to its generation, of
holding up sin as always dangerous, always unjustifiable,
always to be resisted and avoided.
The danger and evil of Orthodoxy lie chiefly on the
other side. Its specially dangerous and evil influence
comes from its doctrine concerning “righteousness.”
With the best intentions towards God and man, it
utterly misrepresents both in the attempt to describe
the relation of each to this quality, “ righteousness.”
For themselves, the professors of Orthodoxy, utterly
disclaim righteousness. Though many of them areplainly seen to be honest and worthy people, doing the'
very things that men ought to do, and seeming to be
actuated by good motives, playing well their parts as
husbands, fathers, friends, tradesmen, citizens, philan
thropists, they persistently call their best actions filthy
rags, and declare their hearts to be corrupt and depraved.
I barely mention this in passing, having intended to
speak mainly of their misrepresentation of the righte
ousness of God.
Claiming for God in the gross, as everybody else does,,
absolute perfection of character, and also specifically
claiming for Him justice, mercy, wisdom, goodness,
love, pity, true friendliness, and fatherly feeling towards
all his human creatures, and unchangeableness in the
exercise of all these perfections, the professors of Ortho
doxy make in detail such representations of every one
of these as to neutralise or even to reverse them..
Although they never intend to speak of the Deity but
in terms of praise and honour, the details of their ac
count of his relation to the human race in its origin
and destiny are so framed as to attribute to justice,
things plainly unjust, to mercy a course decidedly un
merciful, to wisdom obvious defects of plan and failuresin execution, to goodness deliberate allowance of an
ultimate triumph of evil, to love characteristics not only
�3
unlovely but repulsive, to pity the extreme of relent
lessness, to fatherhood, as shown in the Divine Being, a
serene and unmoved contemplation of the permanent
misery and ruin of vast numbers of his children.
No doubt, many orthodox people are utterly uncon
scious that their system makes such representations a$
these. I will therefore note down some instances, begins
ning with the attribute called justice.
Orthodoxy adopts Paul’s representation (Bom. ix. 21)that from a mass of unconscious clay God does makeand may rightfully make “ vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction,” knowing that a destiny of conscious suffer
ing throughout eternity awaits them. And it also adoptsPaul’s horrible conclusion (v. 20) that the human suf
ferers thus doomed before their birth have no right of
remonstrance. Its professors thus (let us hope, uncon
sciously) attribute to God something positively unjust?,
an act and a purpose essentially evil.
Orthodoxy also attributes to God another act of enor
mous injustice; namely, making the salvation of men
depend upon their “ belief ” in a certain doctrine, quite
irrespective of the evidence for or against that doctrine;
or, to come nearer to the case in hand, quite irrespective
of the absence of evidence for it, and an accumulation
of the strongest reasons against it.
We must believe, on peril of damnation, Orthodoxy
tells us, that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ, the Messiah of
Old Testament prophecy and Jewish expectation.
Our
welfare throughout eternity must depend on our accept
ance of this theory, although whoever reads the two
Testaments may see that, in fact, Jesus fulfilled neither
the prophecy nor the expectation. The prophecy an
nounced a Messiah, descended from David, who should
be “the Lord’s anointed” as David was, who should
rule as king in the land of Palestine with full acceptance
of the Hebrew people, as David did, and who should
continue to rule in that land for ever, making that nation
supreme, overthrowing its oppressors, and bringing all
�4
other nations into permanent subjection to it. The Jews
expected precisely the thing thus predicted, and rejected
Jesus because he did not fulfil it. He never either ruled
the Jews, nor was accepted by them in any manner,
either literally or spiritually. He was not even a son of
David unless he was the son of Joseph; a supposition
which, however probable, Orthodoxy vehemently rejects.
He was the teacher of a doctrine far better than Judaism;
but he was not, in any sense, the predicted and expected
“King of the Jews.”
Yet, assuming him to be “Christ,” Orthodoxy fur
ther requires that he be acknowedged as “Lord” by all
who live, have lived, or are to live in this world.
It might suffice to say, in reply to this demand, that
we need and desire only one Lord, our Creator and Pre
server, the Father of all mankind; and that, belonging
-already to God, we cannot honestly “ give ourselves to
Jesus,” as the propagandists of Orthodoxy require that
we should do. But there is also another reason. Sundry
errors of doctrine and judgment into which Jesus fell,
if we may trust the evangelists, his biographers, make
it plain that his statements should not be taken as autho
ritative. His predictions, no doubt, expressed his genuine
■opinion of what was to take place, but events have shown
the erroneous character of sundry of them. He assumed,
if the evangelists have given us his words, that the end
of the world, and a final judgment for ever separating
the righteous from the wicked, would occur within the
lifetime of the generation to whom he preached. Some
of his precepts can be accounted for and justified only
on the supposition of such speedy ending of this world,
and its business and pleasure. But these predicted
wonders did not occur, and nearly nineteen hundred
years have passed since their failure was made manifest.
And, though many nations during that period have called
themselves Christian, assuming to adopt the religion
taught by Jesus, not one of them has pretended to prac
tice his precepts of non-resistance, of unlimited and
�5
indiscriminate giving and lending, of refusal to lay up
treasures on earth, of neglect of provision for food and
clothing, and of abstinence from oaths and from public
prayer, &c., &c. The people who most loudly claim to
be followers of Jesus do not follow him in all respects,
nor is it well that they should do so. His doctrine of
everlasting misery for a considerable proportion of man
kind (if the biographers represent him rightly upon
that point) has unfortunately met with very wide accept
ance. That dogma alone, if he taught it, should suffice
to prevent our taking his teaching as authoritative.
Since then, the particular beliefs demanded by Ortho
doxy not only fail of evidence, but are counterpoised
and overbalanced by opposing reasons, we may conclude
them to be not only unessential to our future welfare,
but destitute of all basis of truth or justice. Belief
must follow evidence, and to require it without or against
evidence is unjust. Let us pass to the next item.
Orthodoxy attributes to God a character and an atti
tude of loving kindness to men in this world, quite irre
spective of their state of penitence or impenitence for
the sinfulness common to all. He loves all men, even
the worst in act and the worst in purpose (the uphold
ers of Orthodoxy say), until their bodies die. After
that time (they say) he will not only cease to love and
begin to hate a certain portion of them, but he has
arranged that from that time onward for ever, neither
repentance nor reformation shall be of the least avail to
improve their condition.
Orthodoxy, theoretically claiming God as the perfec
tion of goodness and excellence, demands equally belief
in Satan, the enemy of man and the embodiment of all
evil. Yet, after the death of the body, it represents
God as holding, to that large proportion of mankind
which it calls “ the impenitent,” not only the same rela
tion of implacable spite and vengefulness which Satan
holds, but union with Satan in the work of tormenting
them for ever. Orthodoxy frowns upon those people
�6
who, in careless talk, say that this or that was done
“ like the devilbut its own deliberate representation
of God’s future relation to millions of men and women
•paints him as precisely “ like the devil ” in spirit and
in action ; it affirms that he will laugh at the calamity
of a portion of his human creatures, and mock when
their fear cometh.
Orthodoxy claims God to be the perfection of wisdom,
and joins Isaiah in saying:—
“ Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being
his counsellor hath taught him ? With whom took he
counsel ? and who instructed him, and taught him in
the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and
showed to him the way of understanding ?”
But, unfortunately for the consistency of Orthodoxy,
two other passages of the book which it calls “ The
Word of God,” give “Moses” as their infallibly in
spired answer to all the specifications of the above
inquiry. If that collection of early Hebrew and Chris
tian literature be really “ God’s Word,” observe what
was divinely dictated to the writers of Exodus and Num
bers, as follows:—
“ And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this
people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people ; now,
therefore, let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot
against them, and that I may consume them; and I
will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought
the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath
wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought
forth out of the land of Egypt, with great power, and
with a mighty hand ? Wherefore should the Egyp
tians speak and say, For mischief did he bring them
out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume
them from the face of the earth. Turn from thy fierce
wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Re
member Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants, to
whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto
them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven,
�7
and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto
your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
“ And the Lord repented of the evil which he
thought to do unto his people.”—Ex, xxxii,, 9-14.
“ And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this
people provoke me ? And how long will it be ere they
"believe me, for all the signs which I have showed
among them ? I will smite them with the pestilence,
and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater
nation and mightier than they. And Moses said unto
the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it (for thou
broughtest up this people in thy might from among
them), and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this
land ; for they have heard that thou, Lord, art among
this people, that thou, Lord, art seen face to face, and
that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thougoest
before them by daytime in a pillar of cloud, and in a
■pillar of fire by night. Now, if thou shalt kill all this
people as one man, then the nations which have heard
the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord
was not able to bring this people into the land which
he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in
the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power
■of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken,
saying, The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy,
forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means
-clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, unto the third and fourth genera
tion. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people,
according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou
hast forgiven this people from Egypt even until now.
“ And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to
thy word.”—Numb. xiv. 11-20.
According to these passages, Moses was the counsellor
of the Lord, teaching him in the path of judgment,
showing to him the way of understanding, and even
availing, by prudent counsel, to change the determina
tion which he had formed and expressed.
�8
Orthodoxy requires that these two narratives shall bereceived as “the Word of God,” equally with those
opposite declarations in the same volume which impute
to God perfect wisdom.
Orthodoxy attributes to God pity, mercy, goodness,
and love, each perfect in quality, and each unchange
able. Yet, regardless of the absolute self-contradiction
therein expressed, it specifies a time (the death-hour of
the “ impenitent sinner ”) when, to him or her, God
will at once and for ever cease from the exercise of these
kind affections, and take on, in their stead, the extreme
of implacable vengefulness throughout eternity. To
wards these condemned ones God, according to the
Orthodox creed, will then feel and act, and will for ever
continue to feel and act, just as that same creed repre
sents Satan as feeling and wishing to act now.
It must be remembered, moreover, that the expres
sion “ impenitent sinner,” in the dialect of Orthodoxy,
means not only specially corrupt men and women, prac
tised and hardened evil-doers, but all who have not
“ believed ” and accepted the chief theological dogmas
of that system. With its advocates, “ mere morality ”
is a term of reprobation, differing in degree only, not
in kind, from theft and drunkenness. With that system,
exemplary life in man or woman, loveliness of character,
the exercise of the sweetest human affections, a life
devoted to perfect fulfilment of the duties of spouse,
parent, friend, citizen, philanthropist, as far as human
eye can distinguish, avail nothing to secure acceptance
with God. Without the special “ belief,” these go for
nothing, in his view, as Orthodoxy interprets him; with
the special belief, Divine acceptance is sure, even to a
life utterly destitute of these best traits of humanity.
Belief, in the very act of death, saves the ruffian who
suffers strangulation once, after meriting it a hundred
times ; “mere morality,” or what Jesus and James spe
cified as the main requisition which God makes of men,
will neither save nor help. On the contrary, he or she
�9
who has only led a noble life, pure within, and helpful
to the family, the neighbour and the community, if
without this special belief, must not only be rejected and
condemned by the judge, but must be classed thenceforth
for ever to associate with the vilest and most corrupt of
human beings!
Let us look at a few of the details of this classifica
tion.
Forty-seven years ago, a young man of Massachusetts,
with only the average of worldly advantages, awoke to
recognition of the fact that a poor and despised minority
of his nation were suffering the most cruel oppression at
the hands of the majority, and that this oppression had
become so fortified and systematised by accompliceship
of the functionaries of law and religion with its perpe
trators, that both State and Church combined actively
to uphold it. This system of oppression was so domi
nant and triumphant that even to speak against it was
to incur odium from the officers of government, the
bench of judges, the reverend clergy and the members
of their various churches, the mercantile and manufac
turing interests, and the periodical press, not only the
secular, but that which called itself 11 religious.” To
oppose the tyranny in question was not only to excite
the rage of its perpetrators and their partisans in these
various classes, but to risk the failure of one’s own
means of living. Nevertheless, the young man of whom
I speak trusted so thoroughly in God, and saw so clearly
that duty led in the path of justice and righteousness,
that he espoused the cause of the black sufferers, the
least, the lowest, and the weakest of his human bre
thren, and never ceased speaking and striving in their
behalf until their yoke was broken. From the begin
ning of this struggle the clergy set themselves against
him, and threw every discouragement in the way of the
accomplishment of his object; and the majority of
them stigmatised him also as an infidel, holding his
practical maintenance of righteousness as nothing while
�IO
lie withheld his assent from their theological dogmas.
The most amazing feature of their position, however,
was this: that, claiming Jesus, the great teacher of
righteousness and exemplar of self-sacrifice, as the final
judge.of men, they assumed that he would class Garri
son with tyrants and oppressors for condemnation. This
judgment was not merely the spite of such partisans of
slavery as Blagden and South-side Adams, President
Lord, and Bishops Soule and Hedding, but the delibe
rate verdict of the theological system they taught.
Orthodoxy spoke through their mouths in that decision.
Let us look at another instance. A man of good
character, pure morals, and keen sensibilities, seeing
the ruin wrought among his fellow-men by intemperance,
devotes his life to the work of rescuing from it as many
as possible, and of warning those yet uncontaminated
against the beginnings which tend towards such an end.
He spends years of assiduous labour and self-sacrifice in
these efforts, and dies as he lived. But, as he had
merely loved and helped his brethren without acknow
ledging Jesus as either Christ, or Lord, or vicarious
sacrifice, Orthodoxy classes him with drunkards and
arunkard-makers, and condemns him to partnership
with them in sin and suffering throughout eternity.
Take one case more. A good and pure woman ap
plies herself to seek and to save those of her sisters who
are emphatically called ‘'lost.” She follows them in
their wanderings, and counsels, helps, and saves such of
them as do not refuse her good offices. Her life is
crowned with the blessings of those who were ready to
perish. Reclaimed wanderers, reunited families, follow
her memory with honour, gratitude, and love. But as
she had never believed in purification by “blood,” as
she had never applied for God’s favour through an
“ atoning sacrifice,” Orthodoxy assumes that God will
class her with prostitutes and seducers, removing from
her, at the same time, all possibility of benefiting or
reforming them!
�11
Such are some of the absurdities resulting from the
Orthodox dogma that men, on the death of the body,
are permanently to take place in one of only two classes,
and that the dividing line will be, not character, but
redemption by blood.
Orthodoxy, claiming that “ God hath made of one
blood all nations of men,” necessarily claims Father
hood for God, and brotherhood for the human race,
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to those
relations. A father is bound in duty to love and benefit
his children; brethren are bound in duty to love and
help one onother.
By men these duties, however obvious, are often
violated. Many cases have been known in which a
brother has first hated and then killed his brother. If,
however, on examination of such a case, the murderer
should be found to have acted by instigation and direc
tion of the father himself, this would intensify the
iorror and the crime. Yet precisely this, the direction
of brothers in very many cases to kill brothers, and in
one case the command to a human father to kill his
son, is what Orthodoxy attributes to the Universal
Father.Orthodoxy, through its dogma of the infallible inspi
ration of the Old Testament, teaches that God, by the
mouth of Moses, commanded the sons of Levi to kill
great numbers of their brethren the children of Israel.
Here is the record .-—
1‘ Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and
said, Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come unto
me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves
together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith
the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his sword by
his side, and go in and out from gate to gate through
out the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi
did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of
the people that day about three thousand men. For
�12
Moses had said Consecrate yourselves to-day to the
Lord, even every man upon his son and upon his
brother ; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this
day.”—Ex. xxxii., 26—29.
Again, Orthodoxy teaches that God, by the mouth of
Moses, gave to the Hebrew nation the command here
following“ Of the cities of these people which the Lord thy
God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save
alive nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly
destroy them; namely, the Hittites and the Amorites,
the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the
Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.”
—Deut. xx., 16, 17.
And one small portion of the execution of this
command, after the taking of the city of Jericho, is
thus recorded:—
“ And they utterly destroyed all that was in the
city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox
and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”—
Josh, vi., 21.
Thus, according to portions of the Old Testament
history, God himself has abused and violated the rela
tion of fatherhood equally with the very worst of those
inhuman fathers whom men imprison and hang for
violence done to their own children. According to that
history, he has many times enjoined his human children
to kill their brothers and sisters, expressly forbidding
the exercise of pity or compassion, even to women and
babes. That a semi-barbarous people should have
imagined a deity capable of giving such orders, is con
ceivable. The wonder is that Christians, sharing the
civilisation, the intellectual culture, and the enlarged
humanity of the nineteenth century, should take these
notions for reality, and take the belief of the semi
barbarians for proof of such reality.
Then there is the story of Abraham and Isaac, too
well known to need rehearsal. That the grand old
�13
Arab sheik should not have philosophised enough to
distinguish that the God who had put paternal love into
his heart could not undo and reverse his own work by
the command here in question, is conceivable. It is
even conceivable that Paul, educated a Jew and a
Pharisee, and living only in the dawn of Christianity
and civilisation, should have spoke of Abraham’s pur
pose to cut his son’s throat as a specimen of meritorious
faith. The wonder is that sharers in the present grade
of English and American intelligence should continue
to think thus unworthily of the Universal Father,
and content themselves with Abraham’s poor idea of
him.
But Orthodoxy calumniates God, and misleads its
hearers in regard to him, by a doctrine even worse than
the above. That system teaches :—
1. That God will .for ever inflict unspeakable tor
ments upon millions of the men and women he has
created here.
2. That this doom will be inflicted upon these per
sons as a punishment for living in accordance with the
inclinations and propensities with which they were
born.
3. That, throughout the eternity which is to follow
this short mortal life, God has provided that these suf
ferers shall receive no benefit from repentance and refor
mation, and shall have no encouragement from him in
the attempt to do right rather than wrong.
We hold the deliberate killing of a child by its father
to be one of the greatest of crimes. To kill him by slow
torture would excite our highest indignation. To wish
to keep him alive to suffer unending torture would be
the extreme of fiendishness. Yet precisely this is what
Orthodoxy represents its God as not only wishing, but
as actually doing, after elaborate preparation before the
human race was created !
Such is the Orthodox view of the attitude of God’s
Fatherhood to sinners; but one feature of its action
�i4
upon saints is equally noteworthy and hardly less
repulsive.
It is regarded as the crowning excellence of Jesus
that he came to seek and to save the lost, and that his
life was actually spent in such seeking and saving. Men
have ranked also as worthy of the highest honour and
applause his followers in later times, men and women
who, out of affectionate solicitude for their kind, devoted
their lives to the help of the suffering and needy.
Howard and Florence Nightingale, Clarkson and Garri
son, applied themselves to the relief of material suffer
ing ; Mrs. Fry, Henry Martyn, and Harriet Newell went
out as preachers of repentance and reformation. These
felt impelled by the mental and spiritual nature which
God had given them to choose and pursue this work. In
it they found their highest satisfaction. If, in the next
world, they retain the characteristic excellences which
distinguished them here, their predominant desire will be
still to seek and save the lost; and, according to Ortho
doxy, “the lost,” by thousands of millions, will be there,
suffering far more than they ever did on earth. Ortho
doxy assures us, however, that the souls of missionaries
and other philanthropists will not be allowed to enter
upon this ministry of love in the future world. Will
God make them miserable by forcibly preventing the
exercise of this strongest impulse of the nature he gave
them? Or will he obliterate this divinest of their facul
ties, crush out from their souls all desire to relieve the
suffering, and reform the sinful, and make them
morally inferior in heaven to what they were on
earth? Let Orthodoxy choose between the horns of
this dilemma.
The system of Orthodoxy, including, as it does, tenets
unjust and dishonouring both to God and man, does not
furnish a solid basis, either of direction for the present
life or hope for the future. Its Gospel, providing for
damnation not less thoroughly than for salvation, is not
“glad tidings; ” its Bible, a vain attempt to unite Juda-
�i5
ism and Christianity into a single rule of life obligatory
upon all men, contains such inconsistencies, self-contra
dictions, imperfections, and errors mingled promiscu
ously with its truth and wisdom, as to prove it neither
an “infallible” nor a “sufficient” rule; its heaven is a
fabrication childish in its irrationality and absurdity ;
and its hell is a libel upon God not surpassed by the
worst imaginations of heathen mythologists.
This
system, I say, does not furnish a solid basis for our
trust.
Where shall those look for a guide who have hereto
fore thoughtlessly accepted this system ?
First of all we must content ourselves with such
guides and such lights as God has provided. He has
given us reason and conscience, but has not chosen to
make either of them infallible. He has put into our
hearts expectation of, and aspiration towards, a future
life, but has told us nothing of its place, manner or
form, of its occupations or its capabilities. He has
bestowed various powers, physical, mental, and spiritual,
for the ordering of our earthly life, with the means of
knowing that these are of different grades, and that the
lower should be subject to the higher. He has provided
that conscious wrong-doing shall be followed by selfreproach, and by the impulse to turn away from the
evil and turn to the good ; and he has given us hope
and perseverance, the impulse to seek further light,
and the stimulus to rise and press forward after every
fall.
Such are the materials and the instruments of wel
fare which God has placed in our hands. Nevertheless,
as the ignorant and uncultivated, that is to say, the
majority of mankind, prefer happiness to welfare, and
desire a short and easy road to it, there have always
been persons or parties offering to furnish the commo
dity thus sought for. Just as there have always been
empirical practitioners, offering “ infallible ” remedies
for the ills that flesh is heir to, just so the Catholic and
�Protestant churches undertake to insure future happi
ness for you, if you will trustingly submit yourself to
their manipulation. The Jew, the Mohammedan, and
the Brahmin offer a similar prize as the result of fol
lowing their infallible systems. These all undertake
to give what God, in his wisdom, has chosen to with
hold. Infallibility is not to be found among men, and
those who trust to men’s assumption of it will be dis
appointed.
For best use of this world, and best preparation for
the next, a faithful employment of God’s methods,
above indicated, seems most reverent, most rational, and
most promising.
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The good and evil in orthodoxy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Whipple, Charles K. (Charles King) [1808-1900]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From 'The Index'. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT178
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The good and evil in orthodoxy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
God (Christianity)-Attributes
God-Attributes