2
10
60
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbd1028c3542ce17efc38ea5c407d994.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bmB54wlBdolWNSJb-SASRWeC0VYWkcG7AbBiR2rRxNa5EaVS2abOvwD0wKl9SOrqk26vqt1TNCD5JXzX8LQXzwvQL8F09vtxk9%7Eq36JKADKRfE59nzGiHyffuLj4WozwGKnVL7y-0bD9PCdT65UIicYfoJR4EEudgfXJRWx74TvoB8mbgXYW51AVYESTw0SVZR0f9TSkIbO0oCAQOo6YC9jFYpxjNRbX0CqZ2uT2sUWj81YITIDS-F-QV925p6vmlu-Zvr30MyF83VZPB8AS0o%7EemEANjj0GL8gWHPjPGq%7EvLY39tEt1EixUJz672MH0PbU%7EdYfHlxr3T8CAsYVxig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8e38ccf0df928107151efd575141c4
PDF Text
Text
.Bare to be Wise
55
1
w.'
<
■
A
-
■
AN ADDRESS
'jlivered before the “ Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
«■ ’
n
si?
■£
BY
HN McTAGGART ELLIS MeTAGGART
,etor in Letters, Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College in Cambridge,
Fellow of the British Academy.
■•',r
i
a.
I®
’. it
London:
WATTS & CO.,
JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Threepence
�Works by
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
STUDIES IN THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC.
Press. 8s.
Cambridge University
STUDIES IN HEGELIAN COSMOLOGY. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
A COMMENTARY ON HEGEL’S LOGIC. Cambridge University Press. 8s.
SOME DOGMAS OF RELIGION. Edward Arnold. 10s. 6d. net.
The Rationalist Press Association, Ltd.
Chairman :
EDWARD CLODD
Honorary Associates :
ALFRED WILLIAM BENN
F. J. GOULD
BJORNSTJERNE bjOrnson
Prof. ERNST HAECKEL
Sir EDWARD BRABROOK
LEONARD HUXLEY
GEORGE BRANDES
JOSEPH McCABE
CHARLES CALLAWAY, M.A.,D.Sc. EDEN PHILLPOTTS
Dr. PAUL CARUS
JOHN M. ROBERTSON
Prof. B. H. CHAMBERLAIN
Dr. WASHINGTON SULLIVAN
Dr. STANTON COIT
Prof. LESTER F. WARD
Dr. F. J. FURNIVALL
Prof. ED. A. WESTERMARCK
Secretary and Registered Offices:
Charles E. Hooper, Nos. 5 and 6, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
How to Join and Help the R. P. A.
The minimum subscription to constitute Membership is 5s., renewable in
January of each year.
A form of application for Membership, with full particulars, including latest
Annual .Report and specimen copy of Literary Guide, can be obtained gratis
on application to the Secretary.
Copies of new publications are forwarded regularly on account of Members’
subscriptions, or a Member can arrange to make his own selection from the
lists of new books which are issued from time to time.
To join the Association is to help on its work, but to subscribe liberally is
of course to help more effectually. As subscribers of from 5s. to 10s. and more
are entitled to receive back the whole value of their subscriptions in books, on
which there is little, if any, profit made, the Association is dependent, for the
capital required to carry out its objects, upon subscriptions of a larger amount
and upon donations and bequests.
�national secular society
“DARE TO BE WISE”
AN ADDRESS
Delivered before the “Heretics ” Society in Cambridge,
on the 8th December, 1909
BY
JOHN McTAGGART ELLIS McTAGGART
IR IN LETTERS, FELLOW AND LECTURER OF TRINITY COLLEGE IN CAMBRIDGE, FELLOW
OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
[issued for the rationalist press association, limited]
London:
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1910
�II
�“DARE TO BE WISE
''
M
At the other end of the world is a University1 which
has adopted for its own the motto which best expresses
the nature of a University: Sapere Aude.
It is of the
duty laid on our Society to follow this injunction that I
wish to speak.
Our object is to promote discussion upon religion,
philosophy, and art.
And in discussing religion and
philosophy there is a special
■command, Dare to be wise.
significance
in
the
In seeking truth of all
sorts many virtues are
needed, industry,
humility, magnanimity.
And courage also is often
patience,
needed in the search, since the observer of nature must
often risk his life in his observations.
But there is
another need for courage when we approach religion
and philosophy.
And this need comes from the tremendous effect on
•our own welfare, and the welfare of our fellow beings,
of those aspects of reality with which religion and
philosophy are concerned.
This effect is, in the first
1 The University of New Zealand.
3
�DARE TO BE WISE
4
place, a characteristic of that reality, the problems about
which would usually be called religious.
But it spreads
to all philosophy, for there is, I think, no question in
philosophy—not even among those which border closest
on logic or on science—of which we can be sure before
hand that its solution will have no effect on the problems
of religion.
The profound importance to our welfare of the truth
on these questions involves that our beliefs about those
truths will also have a great importance for our welfare.
If our lives would gain enormously in value if a certain
doctrine were true, and would lose enormously in value
if it were false, then a belief that it is true will naturally
make us happy, and a belief that it is false make us
And happiness and misery have much to
miserable.
do with welfare.
The practical importance to our lives of these matters
has not always been sufficiently recognised of late years.
This error is due, I think, to excessive reaction from two
errors on the other side.
The first of these errors is the assertion that, if certain
views on religious matters were true, all morality would
lose its validity.
that all
From this, of course, it would follow
persons who believed those views and yet
accepted morality would
foolishly.
quite clear.
be
acting illogically and
That this view is erroneous seems to me
Our view£ on religious questions may affect
�DARE TO BE WISE
5
some of the details of morality—the observance of a
particular day of rest, or the use of wine or of beef, for
example.
But they are quite powerless either to
obliterate the difference between right and wrong, or to
change our views on much of the content of morality.
At least, I do not know of any view maintained by any
one on any religious question which would, if I held it,
alter my present belief that it is right to give water to a
thirsty dog, and wrong to commit piracy or to cheat at
cards.
Another form of this same error is the assertion that
certain beliefs on religious matters, though they might
not render morality absurd, would in practice prevent
those who accepted them from pursuing virtue per
sistently and enthusiastically.
This view seems refuted
by experience, which, I think, tells us that the zeal for
virtue shown by various men, while it varies much, and
for many causes, does not vary according to their views
on religious matters.
The men who believe,
for
example, in God, or immortality, or optimism, seem to
be neither better nor worse morally than those who
disbelieve in them.
The second error is the view that certain beliefs on
religious matters would destroy the value, for those who
accepted the beliefs, of many of those parts of expe
rience which would otherwise have the highest value.
Tennyson, for example, maintained that disbelief in
�DARE TO BE WISE
6
immortality would destroy the value of love, even while
life lasted :—
And love would answer with a sigh,
The sound of that forgetful shore
Will change my sweetness more and more,
Half-dead to know that I shall die.1
Here, again, it seems to me, there is certainly error.
Our views as to the ultimate nature and destiny of the
universe may affect our judgments as to the generality
of certain forms of good, or as to their duration, or as to
the possibility of their increase in intensity hereafter.
But I do not see how they can affect our judgment of the
goodness of these good things, as we find them here and
now.
Indeed, if we do not start with the certainty that
love for an hour on earth is unconditionally good, I do
not see what ground we should have for believing that
it would be good for an eternity in heaven.
These views, then, I admit to be errors, and those do
well who reject them as errors.
But the reaction from
them, as I said, goes sometimes too far, and leads to a
denial of the practical importance of the problems of
religion.
And this is, again, a great mistake.
What
ever may be the true answer to the problems of religion,
good will be different from bad, and right from wrong,
and much of what we do and feel in this present life
will be good, and much will be bad.
But if we ask how
much good exists in the universe and how much bad ;
' In Memo riant.
�DARE TO BE WISE
if we ask if the main current of the universe is for right,
or for wrong, or indifferent to both ; if we ask what is
the eventual destiny of the universe or of ourselves—all
these questions must be answered one way or the other
according to the solution we adopt of religious problems,
and of those problems of philosophy which bear on
religion.
Are there any questions which affect our
welfare more than these?
It is true that what primarily
affects our welfare is the truth on these matters, and not
But a belief that things are
our knowledge of the truth.
well with the world brings happiness, a belief that
things are ill with the world brings misery.
And this
involves the intense practical importance of our beliefs
on the problems of religion.
Let us consider what some of these problems are
which we call religious.
In the first place, there is the
general question of optimism or pessimism.
universe as a whole more good than bad?
Is the
It is, of
course, possible to maintain that it is impossible for us
to answer this question.
But some systems maintain
that it can be answered, and some of them answer that
the good prevails, and some of them hold that it is
outbalanced by the evil.
The practical importance of
the truth on this question does not require to be enforced.
For the goodness or badness of the universe is the whole
of which every other matter of practical importance is a
part.
�“DARE TO BE WISE”
8
Our belief on the subject, therefore, must have great
influence on our happiness.
So far, indeed, as I am
only concerned with my welfare in this life, or with that
of my friends, the more general question will have little
influence, for in these limited fields we have empirical
means of judging the present or inferring the immediate
future, which are more certain than inferences from the
general nature of the universe.
But few people limit
their interests entirely to those whom they know person
ally.
And then there is always the question whether my
own life, and those of my friends, may not, perhaps,
extend indefinitely further than that short period in our
present bodies which is all that we can now know by
observation.
And there is another question, equally important.
Does the universe become better or worse as time goes
on, and, if it becomes either, which does it become ?
This is of equal importance, because it is a disposition
of our nature—apparently a fundamental and inevitable
disposition—to regard good and evil in the future with
very different feelings from those with which we regard
good and evil in the past.
If the world were known to
be more evil than good on the whole, we should still
regard it cheerfully, if we believed that most of the evil
lay in the past, and that the future was predominantly
good.
And, though the world as a whole were known
to be more good than evil, that would afford us but little
�DARE TO BE WISE
9
comfort if that part of its course which still lay in the
future were more evil than good.
Then, to come to less general questions, there is the
question of immortality.
Our beliefs on this subject,
also, will profoundly affect our happiness.
Some desire
annihilation, some shrink from it, but very few are
indifferent.
And even of these, I suppose, none would
be indifferent as to the further question of what kind the
future life would be, if there were a future life at all.
Then there is the existence of God.
The importance
■of this question for our welfare has, no doubt, been
exaggerated,
through a failure to comprehend the
alternatives.
It has been supposed that the only
alternative to a belief in God is a belief in some Scepti
cism or Materialism which would be incompatible with
any hope that the universe as a whole was coherent,
■orderly, or good.
But this is a mistake.
There are
systems which hold the universe to be all this, although
they deny the existence of God.
And, on the other
hand, the existence of God would certainly not be by
itself a guarantee that the universe was good.
That
there is some evil in the universe is beyond doubt.
If
it is there because God did not object to it, how do we
know how much evil he may tolerate, or even welcome?
If it is there—as most reasonable Theists would say now
—because God could not help it, how do we know how
much evil it may be beyond his power to prevent?
�IO
“ DARE TO BE WISE
Theism may possibly form a link in a chain of argu
ment leading to Optimism, but it is far indeed from
being a complete proof of Optimism.
But in spite of all this it cannot be denied that to many
people the belief that there is or is not a God is most
intimately connected with their happiness.
And even
those who are indifferent on this point would certainly
not be indifferent on the question whether, if there is a
God, he is such as he was supposed to be by the early
Jews, or, again, by the Jesuits or the Calvinists of the
sixteenth century.
Our beliefs on religious questions, then, do profoundly
affect our happiness.
We can conceive—indeed, we
know in history, and in the thought of the present day—
beliefs the acceptance of which would make life almost
intolerably miserable to anyone whose interests reached
beyond the immediate present
environment.
and
his immediate
And here we find the need of courage.
For, if we are to think on these matters at all, we must
accept the belief for which we have evidence, and we
must reject the belief for which we have no evidence,
however much the first may repel or the second allure us.
And, sometimes, this is not easy.
When we deal with the knowledge of science, or
every-day life, we have no similar struggle.
In the first
place, it is here often very indifferent to us what the true
solution of a problem niay be, provided that, whatever it
�DARE TO BE WISE
is, we can know it.
11
It may be of great importance to us
to know what sort of building will best stand the shock
of an earthquake, but comparatively unimportant what
sort it is, since, whichever it may be, we can build in
that manner in earthquake districts.
It may be very
important to know which of two medicines will cure a
disease, but quite unimportant which it is, so long as we
know it and can use it.
If, indeed, we have to put the question, Is there any
medicine which can cure this disease? then, indeed, it
may matter very much to us what the answer is.
And
in such a case we may be tempted, for a short time, to
believe that a cure has been found, when in point of fact
it has not.
But the temptation does not last for long.
When the medicine is tried, and fails to cure, then
conviction comes to all except the weakest.
But there
is no corresponding help in religion and philosophy.
For, if there is ever to be any experimental verification
of our beliefs on such subjects, at least it will not be on
this side of death.
If through cowardice we depart
from the right path, we must not hope for experience
to take us back.
The strain is so hard that often and often in the history
of thought men have tried to justify their weakness by
asserting that we were entitled to believe a proposition
if its truth would be very good, or at any rate if its
falsity would be very bad.
Over and over, in different
�I2
DARE TO BE WISE"
forms, this demand meets us—not infrequently in the
work of the men of whom we should least expect it.
Bui, whenever we find it, we must, I maintain, reject it.
It may well be that the universe, if this or that belief were
false, would be very bad.
But how do we know that the
universe is not very bad?
There is no intrinsic a priori
connection between existence and goodness.
If we can
show that the nature of existence is such that it A good,
so much the better.
But then the question of the nature
of existence is the one which we are setting out to
determine, and we have no right to begin by assuming
that that nature is good.
Nor can we fall back on the argument, which is often
used, that our desires for the good—those desires the
thwarting of which produce the misery we are avoiding
—are as real as anything else in the universe, and form
as sound a basis for an argument as anything else.
Unquestionably they are real, and form a basis for an
argument; but the question remains, What argument
can be based on them?
If they were to be any good
here, the argument would have to be that, because they
really exist as desires in us, therefore the universe must
be such as will gratify them.
And this is invalid.
The
existence of a desire does not involve the existence of its
gratification.
Each of us has had many desires which
were not satisfied, and which can now never be satisfied.
We cannot argue, then, from the pain that a belief
�“ DARE TO RE WISE"
gives us to the falsity of that belief.
15
And, if we decide
to think freely on these subjects, we run the risk of
arriving, as others have arrived before us, at conclusions
the pain of which may be very great.
It is true that, so
far as I know, no person who has thought freely on these
subjects has arrived at conclusions so maddening as
those of some traditional theologies now fading into the
past.
The ideas of an endless hell, of an unjust God,
are fruits of ancient tradition, or of interpretation of
alleged revelations—never, I believe, of independent
reasoning.
But to find no more hope, no more purpose,
no more value in the universe than was found by
Hobbes, by Hume, or by Schopenhauer—the pain of
this, especially to one who has hoped for better results,
or, perhaps, has once held them gained—the pain of this
is sometimes not trifling.
Why should we not endeavour to escape it?
Why
should we not accept, without inquiry, some traditional’
faith?
There may be arguments for it, there may be
arguments against it.
But others have accepted it
without inquiry into these arguments.
Why should not
we?
Such a suggestion has greater attractions than it
would have had two generations ago.
In Europe, in
the present age, a man is not likely to accept any
religion in this way, except some form of Christianity.
And the Christianity of sixty years ago, while no doubt
�“DARE TO BE WISE
such that many men could honestly believe it to be true,
was such that no man could wish it to be true, unless he
was devoid either of imagination or of humanity.
Christianity of the present day is still of this type.
Much
But
it would be most absurd and unjust to deny that the
type of Christianity which becomes every year relatively
more powerful is very different.
Its view of the universe
is one which might well entitle us to call the universe
good.
Why should we not accept it without the risks
of inquiry? .
Or, if we cannot do that, why trouble about these
problems at all ?
Is not the world we see big enough
to occupy lives so short as ours?
Shall we not enjoy
the good, strive to increase it and to share it, and ask no
questions about what is behind, beyond, and—perhaps—
above?
Yet some follow after truth.
reward?
And what shall be their
May we answer, in words which were written
about Spinoza, and which are worthy to have been
written by him: “Even that which true and fearless
men have preached through all the generations to
unheeding ears.
Seek the truth, fear not and spare
not: this first, this for its own sake, this only ; and the
truth itself is your reward—a reward not measured by
length of days nor by any reckoning of men ”?x
1 Sir Frederick Pollock, Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy, chap. ix.
�DARE TO BE WISE
15
It is most beautiful and most true, but it is not the
whole truth.
For knowledge of the truth, though a
great good, is not the only good, nor perhaps the
highest good.
If my friend is in pain or estranged from
me, if the universe is worthless or worse than worthless,
it is no adequate consolation to know that at least I
see the evil clearly.
And then, is truth always the reward for seeking the
truth?
Always it cannot be, for if some have attained,
the others must have failed who disagreed with them.
The reward of the search—are we sure that it will be
anything but the search?
Can we give any other bidding than that which was
once given to a search yet more sacred ?
Come—pain ye shall have, and be blind to the ending !
Come—fear ye shall have, mid the sky’s overcasting !
Come—change ye shall have, for far are ye wending !
Come—no crown ye shall have for your thirst and your fasting,
But-----1
And here we must stop, before the promise that follows.
The crown of our thirst and our fasting may be the
opened heavens and the Beatific Vision.
It may be
nothing but the thirst and the fasting itself.
No great inducement, perhaps, all this?
inducement is needed.
And no
There are those who long for
truth with a longing as simple, as ultimate, as powerful
1 William Morris, Love is Enough.
�i6
DARE TO BE WISE
as the drunkard’s longing for his wine and the lover’s
longing for his beloved.
must.
They will search, because they
Our search has begun.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JQHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
��as the drunkart
By G.
W.
FOOTE
(Editor of the Fre^inlcer—ImprisonedforBlas£
^^hn alarum-likTwarniDg to the people of the terra7’
which threatens their<eligious liberties. — Ulverston
This pamphlet deals w^th the whole question
Pphemy, legally, historically, theological! teal*,
and morally.
A
MONTHLY
ZMZ .A. G- .A. Z
Edited by G. W« FOOTE.
Kj
Radical in Politics, Darwinian in ^chance, H
Religion, Modern in Thought, JJonest in Crl
°
Popular in Style.
i
“This is an age of Freethought, and there is both j
vio-or in a cheap and well got-bp periodical which hai|
-started as an exponent of the principle under the title of
Bristol Mercury.
“ Mr. Foote’s new monthly, entitled Progress, bids fail
a standard magazine. It is characterised by pleasing
.commends itself to a very general class of readers.”—Xij
PRINTED BV WATTS AND
Progressive Publishing Company, 28 Stonecutfj
London, E.C.
�SIIJHISTORY OF THE SCIENCES.
t Will NEW AND IMPORTANT SERIES OF POPULAR BOOKS.
4view to supplying what is believed to be lacking in the literature of
U'inr>, THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SERIES has been projected,
twenty volumes have been proposed, while nine have been
msrtfc f y arranged for.
thWIIoT following points about the new Series are worthy of consideration :
vzfQpd|h book will be written by an expert in the given subject, by one who
‘baidied the history as well as the conclusions of his own branch of
bpjsli and who commands a popular style. (2) Each volume will be
■bnupipound in cloth, with gilt lettering, and will consist of about 160 pages.
Ill.ejre will be in every case from twelve to sixteen carefully prepared
ji-ij .elisions, including portraits of celebrated discoverers and explanatory
d-LmI and diagrams.
(4) A concise, up-to-date bibliography will add
srfi m to the value of each book. (5) Each will be sold at the phenoq wo|' low price (for a work of original research, produced in this style) of
NOW READY.
rtojBikistory of Astronomy.
AnijOaSProfessor GEORGE FORBES, M.A., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E.; author of
gVT'.'.'uhe Transit of Venus,” etc. 164 pp., with Illustrations; cloth, is. net, by
.by, .21 .t is. 3d.
^fsiilHistopy of Chemistry. Vol I.: 2000 b.c. to 1850 a.d. By
EDWARD; THORPE, C.E., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.; Professor-Elect
;ii£l’ Director of the Chemical Laboratories of the Imperial College of Science
"Technology, South Kensington; author of “A Dictionary of Applied
^/dsirMmistry,” “Essays in Historical Chemistry,” “Humphrey Davy: Poet
x>lxdj Philosopher,” etc. 156 pp., with Illustrations ; cloth, is. net, by post is. 3d.
READY IN MAY.
HcMiiUistory of Chemistry. Vol II. 1850:
a.d. to date.
EDWARD THORPE, C.B., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.
&&4apjiistory of Old Testament Criticism.
SBaxf Professor ARCHIBALD DUFF, Professor of Hebrew and Old TestagMv.iiTjit Theology in the United College, Bradford.
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION.
f<toie£History of Geography.
HT[ -4|Dr- JOHN SCOTT KELTIE, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., F.S.A., Hon. Mem.
UEHdq.H graphical Societies of Paris, Berlin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva,
editor of the Statesman's Year Book, etc.
vd'OJe’hlistory of Geology.
iOA>IQ|HORACE B. WOODWARD, F. R.S., F.G.S.; late Assistant-Director of
i&i^wlogical Survey of England and Wales.
^Q?S|Iistory of Biology.
:c;ciox.|Professor L. C. MIALL, F.R.S., Professor of Biology, Leeds Univer1876-1907 ; Fullerian Professor, Royal Institute, 1904-5.
blistory of Anthropology.
$£&S<?ttaPROFESS0R A. C. HADDON, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S., Lecturer in Ethnology,
bna ibridge and London ; author of “ Study of Man,” “ Magic and Fetishism,” etc.
vnoielUstory of New Testament Criticism.
I .□ .j.7. C. CONYBEARE, M.A., late Fellow and Praelector of Univ. Coll.,
. ’ford; Fellow of the British Academy; Doctor of Theology, honoris causa,
\
lessen ; Officier d’Academie ; author of “ Old Armenian Texts of Revela■ *J,”fetc.
�R.P.A. SIXPENNY REPRIfl
(Five or more post free at published price.)
1. Huxley’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Autobiography.
2. The Pioneers of Evolution. By
Edward Clodd.
3. Modern Science and Modern
Thought. By Samuel Laing, With
Illustrations.
By
4. ★Literature and Dogma.
Matthew Arnold.
5. The Riddle of the Universe.
By Ernst Haeckel.
6. ★Educations Intellectual, Moral,
and Physical. ByHERBERT Spencer.
7. The Evolution of the idea of
God. By Grant Allen.
8. Human Origins. By Samuel Laing.
9. The Service of Man. By J. Cotter
Morrison.
1O. Tyndall’s Lectures and Essays.
(A Selection.) With Biographical Sketch,
......
By C.
11. The Origin of Species.
Darwin.
Addresses
and
12. Emerson’s
Essays.
13. On Liberty. By John Stuart Mill.
By
14. ★The Story of Creation. . ___
Edward Clodd.
15. *An Agnostic’s Apology.
By
Sir Leslie Stephen.
16. The Life of Jesus. By Ernest
Renan.
17. A Modern Zoroastrlan. By S.
Laing.
18. An Introduction to the Philo
sophy of Herbert Spencer. By
Professor W. H. Hudson.
19. T/iree Essays on Religion. By
John Stuart Mill.
20. Creed of Christendom. By W. R.
Greg.
21. The Apostles. By Ernest Renan.
22. Problems of the Future. By S.
Laing.
23. Wonders of Life.
Haeckel.
24. Jesus of Nazareth. By
Clodd.
25. *God and the Bible. Byfl
Arnold.
26. \The Evolution of /W.
Ernst Haeckel. Vol. I.
27. iThe Evolution of Man. fl
28. Hume’s Essays 1 I.—Au ?
Concerning Human Understands
An Inquiry Concerning the Prir.'.’
Morals.
29. Herbert Spencer’s Essa
Selection.)
30. An Easy Outline of JEvoi
M.A.
By Dennis Hird, " ‘
"
By fl
31. Phases of Faith.
■
Newman.
By Sir
32. Asiatic Studies.
Lyall.
33. Man’s Place in Nature. P
Huxley.
34. The Origins of Religion^
Other Essays. By Andrew Lang.
35. Twelve Lectures and
By T. H. Huxley.
36. Haeckel: His Life anti V*.
By Wilhelm BOlsche. With ii
tions.
f
37. ★Life of Thomas Paine.
Part I.
Moncure D. Conway, I
38. ★Life of Thomas Paine. F
39. ★Life of Thomas Paine. Pa
I
40. The Hand of God, and C
By
Posthumous Essays. " Si
Allen.
41. The Nature and Origin of £/
Matter. By H. Charlton Basti
42. The Last Words on Evoiuti
By Ernst Haeckel.
I
R.P.A. EXTRA SERIES.
1. Jesus Christ s His Apostles and
Disciples in the Twentieth Century. By
Count de Renesse. ,
2. Haeckel's Critics Answered.
By Joseph McCabe.
3. Science and Speculation. By
G. H. Lewes.
4. New Light on Old Problems. By
John Wilson, M.A.
5. Ethics of the Great Religions.
By C. T. Gorham.
6. A New Catechism. By M. M.
Mangasarian.
7. The Religion of Woman. By
Joseph McCabe.
8. The Fundamental Principle!
the Positive Philosophy. 1
Auguste Comte.
Ethical Religion. By W. M. Sai
9.
1O. Religious persecution. ByE.l
Haynes.
11. The Oldest Laws In the Wo
By Chilperic Edwards.
12. The Science of Education f
Secret of Herbart). By F
Hayward.
13. Concerning Children. By fl
Gilman.
14. The Bible in School. Byfl
PlCTON.
* The whole of the above list, with the exception of those marked with an asteri
supplied in cloth at is.
t Published at 6d. net.
London: Watts & Co., 17 Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, E.C.
t
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
"Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis [1866-1925]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Issued for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited. R.P.A. sixpenny reprints and extra series listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1910
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N462
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 ("Dare to be wise" : an address delivered before the "Heretics" Society in Cambridge, on the 8th December, 1909), 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
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/14c20735dd9486705b8b7711dc8885bd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=badjC0SDuSGEadAMQvN7o4GpLhEMAuP2X5D-2RZHDx7UhIVS5VVjalilRMh31sxz%7EGgyL587H2ZxH7chSjaRYMZXcquMJS4ks-OIqkZKqjqTd-S24KLPlrJkKD3M0Z8Av1UW7lSv19lcd68OpVmisBki9PWRgK8iAgbDPbfPkXFFvQDDTSzk9-uL18pm5GvYbuJA2m0pabzLSb0ptx9OBcmu99uB4wAqwlDdnm%7Ex-xCVAC1jc4O1Veb-2jFOfVIsr6Bc9sg2mv2K-y-%7EKt6IGJKt6Q8D72jGMtqLbxH1ELaU-Qiy98t3nzXl9%7EBW-44nVhgST3c2FfS4nfkj6RBmWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
112960047acaa48fee1515dba0010ce6
PDF Text
Text
RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
TRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE TVLTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�RELIGIOUS
IGNORANCE.
Great deal is continually being said and written
about the duty of instructing the poor and
providing for the spiritual wants of the working
classes. Night schools, Sunday schools, Bible classes,
and periodicals of all kinds are set on foot for the
benefit of the ignorant poor, but nothing is ever said
or written about the expediency of instructing the
educated classes, who, upon the subject of religion,
are frequently as ill-informed, if not quite so ignorant,
as the “common people ” towhose religious improve
ment they sometimes devote themselves with edifying
zeal, recklessly guiding them to the brink of that
capacious ditch destined to receive the blind and
their leaders.
He would be a public benefactor who would under
take the delicate and difficult task of instructing
those who, for thirty years or more, have imagined
themselves well acquainted with the Bible, the church,
and religious truth generally, but who, when weighed
in the balance of first rudiments, are found wanting.
Those who have enjoyed the inestimable advantage
of not having been brought up under the auspices of
any particular sect, are quite amazed, not merely
at the ignorance which prevails among religious
people about the only book they seem to care for, but
at their unwillingness to admit their ignorance and
their disinclination to listen to their superiors in
learning and piety. Bor instance, people will talk
with glib assurance about “ the apocryphal books,”
just as if they knew what the word apocrypha means,
A
�6
Religious Ignorance.
and which the apocryphal books really are. Ask
what they mean, and you will be readily informed
that they (the apocryphal books) are the “ spurious
writings ” which were expunged from the Canon as
uninspired and therefore valueless. Ask if they are
acquainted with the apocryphal books of the New
Testament; you will find that they have never heard
of them, and that they do not wish to hear of them,
being abundantly satisfied with the four Gospels in
their Testament, and certain of their truth. Venture
still further, and tell them that an apocryphal book
does not mean one that is false, but merely one of
which the author is hidden or unknown, and that
therefore many of the books which have been retained
in the Canon are quite as apocryphal as those that
have been rejected, for that neither Jew nor Gentile
can tell who wrote them: you will not be encouraged
to proceed; your listeners do not want to hear any
more ; they see you want to “ shake their faith ” in—
no matter what, provided they believe it.
Great allowance must be made for them. A mind
nurtured in error, entangled with superstition and
clogged by conceit can no more accept a simple truth
than an enfeebled stomach can digest a heavy meal.
A long preparation is necessary before we can suffi
ciently divest' ourselves of our previous prejudices to
take in anything at variance with them. Few people
can, as Madame S wetchine pertinently observes, “bear
the weight of an entire truth,” and still fewer have
the humility to become “ little children,” even for
Christ’s sake. The excessive ignorance of the edu
cated classes in reference to religious matters must
be encountered to be realised. Ignorance, when
acknowledged, may be overcome; but ignorance
combined with conceit is likely to become invincible.
S. Paul accounts for the blindness of the Jews when
“Moses is read,” by saying that “the veil is upon
their heart,” but how thick a veil must be upon the
�Religious Ignorance.
7
heart of Christians when Jesus is read ; for what words
can be more intelligible than those attributed to the
simple and sensible teacher of Gallilee, “ Except ye
be converted and become as little children ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Where are
the Christians who think those words at all applicable
to themselves, who think they need conversion, or
who are humble enough to see that they are the very
people whom Christ would have placed with the
Pharisees among the “ little children ” in the infant
school ? It is only the “ common people ” round the
corner who want taking in hand, instructing and
converting ; they indeed should become “ little
children” and join a Bible class: but the gentle
folks at the manor, like the Pharisees at the Syna
gogue, are safe on the pinnacle of their self-suffi
ciency, giving thanks to God that they are “ not as
other men,” misinformed, unenlightened, credulous,
irrational; they have got hold of the real thing, and
can go on their way, rejoicing that “ wisdom is justi
fied of her children; ” not indeed that they know
what those words mean or that they might be more
accurately rendered. Not even an angel from heaven
could persuade such people that they have anything
to learn concerning what they call Bible truth.
It by no means detracts from the merit of the dis
courses attributed to Jesus, to be told that it was
generally the lower orders, “the common people” who
“heard him gladly,” and the Pharisees who despised
him. The Pharisees of old, like the orthodox of to
day, were full of their own notions, their own tradi
tions, their own doctrines, customs, ceremonies, and
self-complacency. The carpenter’s son should have
joined them, attended their Bible class, and accepted
their exposition of God’s word, instead of striking
out a path for himself.
It was precisely the educated Pharisee who had
not the wit to see that a man might deviate materially
�8
•
Religious Ignorance.
from, the path of orthodoxy and yet be a son of
■wisdom and a worthy inheritor of one of the “ many
mansions ” of the Father’s house. They were far
too narrow-minded and ceremonial to appreciate such
an unconventional character as Christ, who set times
and seasons, forms and ceremonies at naught, praying
and preaching when and where he chose, and eating
and drinking with those whom the Pharisees would
have scorned to salute in the market-place; but
wisdom was “justified of her children.”
To instruct the ignorant, unruly children of the
supine poor, is a most irksome and unthankful task,
but to enlighten the cultivated members of fashionable
congregations would be an incomparably more diffi
cult and disheartening undertaking, for their pastors
have laboured so sedulously to keep them in error
that they are almost incapable of giving truth a
hearing.
“ Wisdom,” says the worldly-wise writer of Eccle
siastes, “ is good with an inheritance,” but of course
if folly bring in a larger income wisdom may go to the
wall, and as “the inheritance” in traditional Chris
tianity is unfortunately contingent upon the due pro
mulgation of numerous time-honoured errors called
truths, the poor pastor must either uphold them or
forfeit his bread and butter.
A fair proportion of the clergy, including even
dissenters, are extremely well-informed upon many
religious and biblical matters ; they know for instance,
that the book of Ecclesiastes just quoted, is, in the
legitimate sense of the word, apocryphal; and that
Solomon, its reputed author, is the very last man
likely to have written it. Many of them believe in
Noah’s Ark just as little as Catholic priests do in
the liquifaction of the blood of S. Januarius. They
preach indeed to their hearers, but are careful not to
teach them anything which might open their eyes and
set them thinking; they know too well what the
�Religious Ignorance.
9
effect of thinking has been in their own case to run
any risk with their seat-holders !
Those who combine dense ignorance with extreme
conceit—a combination very often met with among
the “ Lord’s people ” in country towns—are beyond
the reach of sound instruction, and must be given
up as too “ wise in their own conceits ” to be taught
anything at variance with them ; but those who are
unaware of their own ignorance, who really do not
know how very little knowledge they possess, and
who are designedly kept in leading strings by those
who watch for their souls “ as they that must give
account,” and who guard them with tender solicitude
against the baneful influence of inquiry and common
sense; those are the people so sincerely to be pitied,
and how to get at them is the great difficulty.
Hemmed in by prejudice, early impressions, super
stitious fears, and vigilant relatives, their intellect
has never fair play, for they never venture to think
for themselves.
Some time ago a sermon was preached by a curate
one Sunday morning in a London church, the rector
being absent. The text selected was unfortunately
“ There are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water and the blood.” In the evening
of the same day the rector preached from the same
text.
Alluding to the new translation of the Bible then
contemplated, he said, “ the words I have taken for
my text must certainly go, as they are of no earlier
date than the sixteenth century.” How if all
religious guides would frankly impart the knowledge
they have obtained as did that rector, now a dis
tinguished but sorely censured Broad-churchman, we
should less frequently have to deplore the ignorance
of the people and the insincerity of the clergy. Of
course, many of the parsons know perfectly well
upon what a very uncertain foundation the whole
�io
Religious Ignorance,
fabric called Christianity really rests, and what
childish notions are afloat concerning the meaning
of the curious and interesting collection of oriental
books they get their living by “ expounding,” accord
ing to those childish notions. They must follow in
the footsteps of those who preceded them and keep
repeating the same platitudes, as feast after feast of
the ecclesiastical year comes round. Those clergy
men are not upon a bed of roses; their position, not
merely before God but even in their own eyes, makes
them wince. Time was when they firmly believed in
the inspiration of the Bible and could preach from a
spurious text with zeal and unction; that was the
time when they knew very little and thought still less.
Subsequent research and reflection have convinced
them of the purely human origin of the whole of it;
a discovery which enhances rather than diminishes
their appreciation of it, but which materially inter
feres with their theological views, and places them
in a most unenviable position in regard to their
flock. Too old to embrace any other profession and
with probably several children to educate, they must
stay where they are and console themselves with the
hope that they are more sinned against than sinning.
No help can come from the clergy taken as a body;
justifiable adherence to loaves and fishes silences the
few who could speak out if they dared, and unjusti
fiable ignorance and arrogance silences the many who
give themselves no trouble to ascertain truth, who
are too proud to profit by the literary labours of
others; or, if by some chance they hit upon such a
fact for example, as the culpable substitution of the
word “ scapegoat ” for the “ Azazel ” of the original,
Lev. xvi. 8, they are too weak to bear the weight of
it—for it is heavy! Well might the grave and
sensible Channing write, “ An Established Church is
the grave of intellect,” and well might Cobbett ask
“Is it worth one pound ? ” remarks wrung from
�Religious Ignorance.
11
those who “ meditate upon these things ” and would
gladly make their “profitingappear to all ” so that
“wisdom might be justified other children;” but
how is it to be done ?
The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, no
hope is to be expected from the clergy, the wise
among them are—and mean to continue—wise for
themselves as Solomon says, suffering fools “ gladly ”
as S. Paul did, and dispensing the weekly portion of
milk and water to deluded hearers who esteem them
selves highly privileged to be allowed to pay for it 1
When Jesus preached the famous sermon attributed
to him, not a single conversion is reported to have
taken place—it was so far a failure; but when the
contemptible coward Peter delivered his involved and
clumsy discourse, we are required to believe that
3,000 souls were added to the Church; and “ as it was
in the days of the Son of Man, so it is now.” Fools
have rushed in where angels fear to tread, contemptible
cowards are sitting in brave old Moses’ seat, and “ the
end,” alas, “ is not by-and-by.”
Humble students whose pecuniary position is fortu
nately uninfluenced by the free expression of their
opinions, dare to doubt whether Hebrew really was
the language in which the Old Testament was origi
nally written, whether it really is of such early date
as is commonly supposed, and whether we are justi
fied in assuming that ancient Jews were so much
more trustworthy than modern Jews ;—but religious
people, who never study at all, have no such doubts
—they know all about the authorship, language, date,
translation, and meaning of every word in the volume.
They have the light of faith, the wisdom which is
“ not of this world,” while the poor student is an
infidel, whose wisdom “ is folly before God.” Impos
sible to convince them that their appreciation of the
Bible would in no wise be diminished by a better
acquaintance with its history. Useless to tell them
�e
12
*
v*
"
.
'
Religious Ignorance.
that neither Moses nor Jesus ever said a word about
the duty of reading the Bible, and that, as it has not
pleased God to preserve one single letter of the origi
nals of either Old or New Testament, but has suffered
the entire collection of the so-called Holy Scriptures
to disappear from the face of the earth, it does not
seem probable that He thought them necessary to
salvation; they have made up their minds that they
are necessary to salvation, and most cheerfully do they
contribute towards the nine thousand pounds which
are annually spent in England for the furtherance of
the spread of the Word of God among nations who
have not yet had the privilege of possessing the
Blessed Book. Not until people are brought to under
stand that they could love and adore God as fervently
and serve their neighbour as zealously, without believ
ing in a collection of oriental fables, which have no
more claim to be called the Word of God than any
other allegorical or astronomical tales—not until they
can be persuaded that many who have long ago
abandoned all belief in the inspiration of the Bible
are nevertheless as devoted to the practice of prayer
as themselves—have quite as lively a hope in the
immortality of the soul, and whose conduct to their
neighbour is characterised by a far more comprehen
sive and exalted charity than their own—not until
then will their minds be able to bear the weight of
those truths which have been so long withheld from
them, and not until then shall we realise the full force
and practical application of those suggestive words,
“ Wisdom is justified of her children.”
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Religious ignorance
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT145
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Religious ignorance), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f7984a0cb7ef625cff977b54f8e5794f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TMf5Ex02lUVXs1zugDbxz2H2HPq5UITeX4AZg3oFuhSnSPycbSFjPYrQ36e2Cj6jQLwuZtaYxl5olVCKWR2lMoEbMGNZdTcYIGVoqW9vQKoaQFZIqzKtzH%7E08PhC6kpZTLkfmZ3IiI5TqU-9G5PNWNgUpV84-AUyZPj8NPcxfOw%7ElJcQO6EH0bxYbJsjaWHG0AB-lpoxH5%7EEPSqIXK0rdvZpamNNGbU6e3qqkOHyQdPipmqnU5xEKer-Do1IIVUktF36m8yqJLmGlQ9W6PvahCzD36ZWSGQ2gO6jWEU3OlNPsdmfIIBROitI%7E7G04eZLjqBT8kOQ095iWYvyJeTgvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9fdbe2b5ed4ff3ab640fb26bc62e53e4
PDF Text
Text
ft aJX-Rl
fJA'XO
IN SEARCH
' Ji
OF
A RELIGION,
AND NOTES BY THE AV AY.
BY
CHARLES C. CATTELL.
Author of “ The Martyrs of Progress,” Etc.
“ Fie that will know the truth of things must leave the common
ancl beaten track, which none but weak and servile minds are satis
fied to trudge along continually........... Truth, whether in or out of
fashion, is the measure of knowledge, and the business of the
understanding ; whatsoever is besides that, however authorised by
consent, or recommended by rarity, is nothing but ignorance, or
something worse.”—John Locke, sect, xxiv., Partiality.
LONDON :
CHARLES' WATTS, 84, FLEET STREET, E.C.
gQ,
Saul y-
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
SECTION I.
THE STUDENTS AND TEACHERS OF RELIGION.
It may be a weakness, but it is a confirmed habit .of
mine, to seek the aid of a superior understanding to my
own, with a view of raising my own to the same level.
The use of authorities and great names, when honestly
applied in an independent spirit, is to confirm the view
taken by the writer who applies them. The authority
that admits of no appeal is useless to an independent
thinker, and is by me dispensed with. I purposely
avoid all writers that presume to settle disputed points
for others, and intentionally ignore the Church that sets
itself up as the arbiter of the destinies of the whole
human race. However convenient such a Church may
be to weak or lazy people, it is so clearly an imposition
on the credulity of mankind, and so obvious an insult to
the reason of man, that its pretensions and claims must
be alike discarded in all inquiries entered upon by a
rational human being.
Religion, as a profession, is a paying concern, and
hence it is natural that professors should claim, even as
a matter of self-interest, the particular religion they ad
vocate as being the best. But it is well known that there
is great difference between buying anything and selling
it. • When men in general become sufficiently acquainted
with themjarious markets in the religious world, there will
be greater difficulty in obtaining customers. At the
present time the religions of various nations have not
appeared in Europe, except in the form of samples or
extracts; and the prevailing custom of the priests is to
persuade all would-be religionists that free trade in reli
gion is not necessary, that they have the best possible
article in the world, and that all others that might be
imported are impostures, or spurious editions oi the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
3
original genuine article. Although their assertions are
utterly unfounded, they gain currency and credence.
Of course, the preachers of the great religions of the
world are either believers in what they teach, or main
tain the doctrines because they are paid to do so. Be
sides these two—the real believers and the professors—
there is another class of men, who follow the custom of
their fathers and the habit of the nation in which they
live. It generally happens that in an age of ignorance
there is uniformity of belief, and in an age of inquiry a
diversity of opinion. The past two hundred years of
European history appear conclusive on these points.
Forbes, in his “ Oriental Memoirs,” states that at one
time probably the Hindoo religion spread over the
whole earth. He finds signs of it in every Northern
country, in systems of worship, in various sciences, in
the names of the stars, in the holidays and games, and
in the laws, coins, monuments, and languages. There
is certainly a similarity between all superstitions, and
the religions of the Greeks, Hindoos, Romans, and
Christians have a family likeness of a very striking cha
racter. It must be admitted, however, that, owing to
modifications by climate, race, laws, scientific discoveries,
and the development of poetry, art, and literature, the
various religions of the world would appear, to the un
practised observer, as having each, in their turn, some
claim to an independent origin and purpose. Some
minds have no idea of perspective ; it is always a full
moon they see. What appears before them has no his
tory ; to them it is now as it was in the beginning : as to
what it was in the beginning they are not concerned to
inquire. Our cousin, the Yankee, did inquire, and he
found that there was nothing new and nothing true, and
that it did not matter 1 When a genial soul gets tired of
the conflicting evidences and contradictory views, he
turns—good, easy man !—and consoles himself with
“ Ah well ! it will be all the same a hundred years
hence.”
There are, however, persons who cannot stifle their
desire to know ; they earnestly strive after the true and
the best; they search for treasures under the sincere
belief that there are some hidden. Very few are inclined
to investigate the claims of the religions of various na
tions ; they find sufficient variety in their own country.
�4
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
There are two paths in England both of which have
travellers; the one is occupied by inquirers after the
right road to heaven among the many announced ; the
other is occupied by inquirers as to whether there is any
road to heaven at all, or anybody who knows anything
of heaven itself. Philosophically considered, the latter
path is the best; the method implies that everything
must be proved, that nothing will be taken for granted,
and that demonstration alone will satisfy the inquirer.
This is the sure and certain hope that every inquirer
has a right to look for, and the demand is in conformity
with reason and common sense,
The most numerous class of inquirers, however, assume
that there is one true religion, if they could but find it;
and, owing to the vast .variety presented, the inquiry is
very perplexing, and sometimes consumes the best part
of a lifetime. The philosophical explanation is that the
difficulty arises from the fact that the inquiry is con
cerned with subjects about which nothing is known. The
restless nature of the inquiring mind needs long training
before it can take John Locke’s advice, and sit down in
quiet ignorance of all transcendent subjects. A remark
able book published some years ago by Mr. Herbert
Spencer puts this matter still stronger, for he declares
that the power which the universe manifests to us is
utterly inscrutable. He holds this to be the widest and
most certain of all truths, the result of the most careful
research, and a conclusion arrived at by the most rigor
ous logical process. Notwithstanding the conclusions
and declarations of philosophers, the inquirer finds in
every country distinct societies of men, ever ready to
set his mind at rest, and to present him with a true reli
gion, verified by scholarship, history, and personal expe
rience. Not only are they sure—each of them—that
theirs is the true religion, but they are equally certain
of the falsity and dangerous character of every other
religion in the world. The inquirer who accepts the
assertion of each, that theirs alone is true, and every
other false, is placed in a logical dilemma, for, if he
takes the word of each, the only possible deduction is
that the whole are false. The only way out of the diffi
culty is to reject the whole, or to select one, and read
only such books and arguments as are written in its
favour. So long as you read only one side of a contro-
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
5'
versy, the chances are in favour of your being free from
difficulty and doubt. There is this drawback : for all
you know to the contrary, the religion you select may
be the wrong one.
Lord Bacon would not describe you as “ a believer,”
but only as one of those persons who “believe that they
believe.” Leighton says that men who know nothing
have no doubts; but he maintains, as Coleridge does,
that the road to belief is through doubt; “ never be afraid
to doubt; he never truly believed who was not made
first sensible of unbelief.” Dr. Herbert Croft says that
it is not in any man’s power to make himself believe
anything further than his reason shows him, “ much less
Divine things.” But the clerical party maintain that
“ Divine things ” are not to be approached by the only
faculty man has for distinguishing truth from error:
these Divine things are said to be “above reason.” If
that be so, the uselessness of endowing man with reason
is obvious ; but how the clerical party became acquainted
with “ things above reason ” is not so obvious, unless we
concede, what they sometimes claim, that they are a
superior order of beings, endowed with supernatural
powers, by which they see invisible things, and perceive
things which do not exist. It is quite natural that those
whose profession it is to guide men should warn us that
reason is an unsafe pilot through the raging sea of con
flicting opinions; that through this dark and dreary vale
of tears reason is a blind, fallacious guide; but our ex
perience is that only those decry reason and despise
wit who find these agents powerful enemies of their
pretensions, and the purpose they wish to effect. They
may urge that the exercise of the rational faculties may
breed dissension in the Church, lead us away from the
beliefs of childhood, and possibly from the religion richly
endowed and protected by the State If so, the religion
of the babe and the State must get on as well as it can
without us.
The consequence of exercising reason in matters of
faith is that it leads to inquiry, and thus to knowledge,
which always proves destructive of superstition, which is
opposed to all criticism, and especially criticism of itself
It has always anathematised those who attempted to
examine it. The orthodox of every age fear free thinking
and free inquiry, and denounce them as the worst of
�6
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
crimes. The murderer can have the consolation of the
priest •, but the doubter in religion is cast into outer
darkness among those who weep and wailj and gnash
their teeth. Some men may reason wrongly, others not
at all •, but it has always been the practice of the friends
of superstition to persecute men who do reason. Lord
Bacon says : “ It was a notable observation of a wise
father that those who held and persuaded pressure of con
sciences were commonly interested for their own ends.”
Margaret of the Netherlands advised a much wiser and
more reasonable policy. She said: “Whois this Luther?
........ ..He is an illiterate monk............. Is he so? I am
glad to hear it, Then do you, gentlemen, who are not
illiterate, but are both learned and numerous—do you, I
charge you, write against this illiterate monk? That is
all you have to do. The business is easy, for the world
will surely pay more regard to a great many scholars and
great men, as you are, than to one poor illiterate monk.”
No better advice could have been given, for, as J. S.
Mill remarks in his work on “ Liberty,” “ there is always
hope when people are forced to listen to both sides.”
SECTION II.
RELIGION AND FREE INQUIRY.
It is in vain that Pope, Church, and King proscribe the
free exercise of thought in matters theological. Reason
will assert itself in spite of all attempts to curb it. There
is no power on earth which can prevent the encroach
ments of reason. It is the guide of man unfettered, as
well as the power to break the fetters imposed upon him
by priestcraft and despotism, which can no more stem
the tide of rational inquiry than the king and his cour
tiers could prevent the advance of the sea. They must
clear oqt of the way, or be trampled under foot by the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
7
onward march of freedom. The progress of Freethought,
speech, writing, and action is of more importance to
mankind than any Constitution, Chmch, or other insti
tution in the world.
In the seventeenth century a futile and foolish law was
passed in France condemning to death any person who
taught doctrines antagonistic to those of Aristotle. In the
thirteenth century, in the same country, a law ordered
all his works to be burnt. In various countries in
Furope, at one time, not only authors were excommu
nicated, but also even grasshoppers and other insects.
In fact, absurdities of this kind, showing the folly of our
ancestors, are innumerable. All these foolish enactments
were intended for the good of the persons punished, and
for the protection of truth. The heretic was looked upon
as an enemy in the field of faith, as the grasshopper
was in the field of grain ; hence both were excommuni
cated. To-day the men who attempted to surround the
free inquirer with pains and penalties appear on a level
with the men of Northamptonshire, who tried to keep
the cuckoo out of the orchard by a high hedge; but,
although equally foolish, the results of their folly have
been vastly different. Neither succeeded, but the attempts
to keep the cuckoo out of the fold of the- faithful were
attended by famine, privation, and murder. Yet the
persecutors seemed unconscious that they were commit
ting crimes of the deepest dye against truth and huma
nity. That these enemies to the progress of truth, and
the inflictors of torture and mental agony upon their
fellow creatures, were persons of irreproachable cha
racters, and of pure intentions, has been amply attested
by the historical evidence adduced by both Buckle and
Mill.
Intolerance seems natural to the theological mind; it
appears a duty to put down, by some means, all opposi
tion, especially that which tends to show the futility and
immorality of the principle upon which intolerance is
founded. Mr. Mill shows clearly that the interference
with, and coercion of, those who exercise their power to
think, is illegitimate; that the best government has no
more right to interfere than the worst. The following
appears to me self-evident; and Mr. Mill, in my opinion,
sums up and disposes of the whole case in this sentence :
“ If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and
�8
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
only one person of a contrary opinion, mankind would
be no more justified in silencing that one person than
he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind.”
Progress in science, and improvements of all kinds,
are only possible in the presence of intellectual freedom.
Freedom of opinion is a necessity of progress in human
affairs, and one of the conditions of personal happiness.
“’Tis liberty alone that gives the flower
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume ;
And we are weeds without it.”
Is it not clear, then, and as obvious as the sun at
noon, that any religion that proscribes inquiry (the desire
to know) as a crime, is antagonistic to the nature of
man; out of harmony with his highest faculties; an
obstacle to the progress of the human race?
That which is in unison with the intellectual require
ments of man, and tends to promote bis happiness, is
alone venerable, and all else will be swept away. In the
words of Sir J. Macintosh, “ it is time that men should
learn to tolerate nothing ancient that reason does not
respect, and to shrink from no novelty to which reason
may conduct.”
SECTION III.
RELIGION AND MORALITY.
I think it was Lord Chesterfield who remarked that,
after being informed as to the religion of a man, you
still inquired as to his morals, but, if you knew his morals
first, the question as to his religion would not arise. Sir
J. Macintosh refers to the common saying, that morality
depends on religion, and says that, t( in the sense in
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
9
which morality denotes sentiment, it is more exactly true
to say that religion depends on morality, and springs from
it.” Is it not obvious that any religion that is not based
on morality must be either a frivolous or a mischievous
system? Emerson, in his “ Conduct of Life,” says : “ I
look upon the simple and childish virtue of veracity and
honesty as the root of all that is sublime in character.
..... ....This reality is the foundation of friendship, reli
gion, poetry, and art?’ It was a common complaint at
one time that teachers of religion only enforced what
was termed “ mere morality.” This was urged against
the late Dr. Chalmers. In one of his references to this
question, Emerson makes the following quaint remark :
“ Mere morality ! as though one should say, Poor God,
with no one to help him !” In another place he remarks
that what is called religion is either childish and insig
nificant, or unmanly and effeminating. 11 The fatal trait
is the divorce between religion and morality.” The con
sequence of this centuries ago is pointed out by Milman,
in his “History of Christianity” (vol. iii., p. 528), in
these remarkable words ; “ No sooner had Christianity
divorced morality as its inseparable companion through
life, than it formed an unlawful connection with any
dominant passion. The union of Christian faith with
ambition, avarice, cruelty, fraud, and even license,
appeared in strong contrast with its primitive harmony
of doctrine and inward disposition.” Thus, he says,
Rome, Christian in faith and worship, became worse
than in the better times of heathenism with regard to
“ beneficence, gentleness, purity, social virtue, humanity,
and peace.” This was the reign of faith, when hell was
the most important institution, and the heretic the chief
criminal.
Lord Bacon places the simple virtues first as distin
guishing the ablest men that ever lived. “ Clear and
round dealing is the honour of man’s nature; truth is
the sovereign good of human nature.”
Sir W. Jones describes the greatest man as the best,
and the best as he that has deserved most of his fellow
creatures.
Tillotson taught that truth and sincerity, in words and
actions, would alone last and hold out to the end.
Laplace held truth and justice to be the immutable
laws of social order.
�TO
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
Lord Bacon (on “ Goodness ”) takes goodness “ in
the sense which the Grecians call philanthropia ; and thé
word humanity, as it is used, is a little too light to ex
press it. This of all virtues is the greatest.”
The absence of morality or truth in society is thus
painted by Dr. Chalmers: “ The world of trade'would
henceforth break up into a state of anarchy, or rather
be paralysed into stillness. The mutual confidences be
tween man and man alone render commerce practicable.
If truth were to disappear, it would vitiate incurably every
social and domestic relationship—all the charities and
comforts would take their departure from the world.
The observation of honesty and truth is of such vital
importance that without it society would cease to keep
together.” He concludes : “ On the single transition
from vice to virtue among men does there not hinge
the alternative between a pandemonium and a para
dise?”
David Urquhart, in his “ Familiar Words,” says that re
ligion, in its Latin sense, means the binding of a man by
his faith to perform what are now called political duties.
To the Roman religion did not mean worship, but
binding faith-—of a man to do justice to the State as a
member of the community. Politics in Greek, and reli
gion in Latin, he describes as equivalent to wisdom and
justice ; politics being a knowledge of right, and reli
gion the obligation toperform it. He says there was no
religion to be worn as a vesture, nor politics as a mask.
He repudiates any religion but justice, or that does not
teach man to do his duty to his fellow man. He says :
“ It is he only who does what is just who is a Christian,
whether in his individual capacity, or as a member of a
community.”
Dr. Thomas Brown (“ Philosophy of Mind ”) says :
“We must, if we value our happiness, be careful in
determining what it is that we denominate religion, that
we may not extend its supposed duties to usages incon
sistent with our tranquillity........... When religion is truly
free from all superstition, the delights it affords are the
noblest of which our nature is capable.” In his estima
tion the qualities indicated by it are what “ constitute
whatever we love and venerate in the noblest of our
race.” He says : “ It would not be easy to estimate the
amount of positive misery which must result from the
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
II
mere contemplation of a tyrant in the heavens, and of a
creation subject to his cruelty and caprice.”
G. H. Lewes objects to Comte because he makes re
ligion simply and purely what has hitherto been desig
nated morals. Being founded on knowledge, and limited
to the relation of men to one another as social beings,
there is no room for the play of agencies foreign to
nature and the nature of man.
Sir W. Drummond held that “ to give one hour of
comfort to the frail victim of adversity, and to cheer
with one transient gleam of joy the evening of life, ought
surely to be among the pleasures, as they are among the
duties, of humanity.”
The moralist says, in the words of the pious Words
worth, I am—
L“ Well pleased to recognise,
In nature and the language of the sense,
The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,
The guide, the guardian of my heart and soul,
Of all my moral being.”
The Edinburgh Review once wrote : 11 If there be a
religion of nature, and we believe there is, we conclude
there can be no religion but truth, and no heresy but
falsehood.”
It seems somewhat singular that Dr. Thomas Brown
should take exception to Paley, who defines virtue as
“ doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will of
God, and for the sake of everlasting happiness.” The
latter Dr. Brown maintains to be the most important of
the whole, it being all that constitutes moral obligation.
He regards it as the most degrading of all forms of
selfishness. It is rendered more offensive by the Deity
being presented to the mind “to be courted with a
mockery of affection,” He regards the sensualist as
more worthy than the selfish of another life. He says
the difference in Paley’s case is “ in the scale of selfish
gain ; it is a greater quantity of physical enjoyment which
k' has in view.” It is a singular fact that many great
writers, in attacking each other’s views, strike at the root
of the religion they profess, and seem to be unconscious
of it. Everybody might be supposed to know that the
hope of heaven and the fear of hell are the motive
powers of Christianity. Yet Dr. Brown lashes Paley in
�12
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
no unmeasured terms for maintaining the fundamental
principles of the Christian faith. His logical mind, not
being influenced at the time by the fear of God or the
Devil, could discern that the system is below the highest
form of Pagan morality—in fact, he prefers the- sensualist
in his brutal stupidity to the devout Christian who,
through fear of hell, and for the sake of everlasting
happiness, conducts himself according to the will of
God.
It is a notable fact that the words “ pure religion” occur
only once in the Christian records, and, strange to say,
it is defined without any reference to a belief in God or
a future state; but is strictly confined to moral action
between man and man. Why the word religion is in
troduced at all, and Under what circumstances, I am
unable to explain; but its meaning is expressed as
follows : “ To visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
This is described by James as “pure religion and un
defiled.” Would it be too severe on all existing religions
to say that they are not the genuine article, and that
mankind are the victims of adulterated religions ?
SECTION IV.
RELIGION AND THE ORDER OF NATURE.
The basis of popular religion is God, and its interpreters
to man are the Bible and the Church. The God has
been described by Dr. Southwood Smith as “stern and
sullen, retiring in awful gloom from his creatures ; not
to be approached but with groans, not to be appeased
but by blood.” There appears in the world an extra
ordinary agent, the Son of God, assisted by angels, to
carry out the decrees of God, and also a Devil to prevent
them being carried out. By those agents the course of
�IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
13
nature is altered and fashioned to obtain their particular
ends. Common sense is set at defiance, and the rational
faculties are bewildered by stories of marvels and miracles.
In the early days the Christian lived in a kind of super
natural world; his dreams came direct from heaven ;
every emotion of his heart was a Divine inspiration, and
every incident in his life was a miracle. God interfered
in season and out of season, and the operations of nature
were nothing but a succession of little miracles, inter
mixed with an occasional big one.
These absurd and contradictory fictions are now chiefly
found in Catholic countries j but in a modified form
they.appear among “ our dear Dissenting brethren,” the
Revivalists, and also among the followers of the late
Mr. Joseph Smith. Fashionable people in the Church
only read St. James’s Epistle; they do not believe in it.
The pious George Combe says : “ Science has banished
the belief in the exercise by the Deity, in our day, of
special acts of supernatural power as a means of in
fluencing human affairs.” Again, he says : “ Disguise
the fact as we will, the order of nature—in other words,
God’s secular providence—is a power which in this world
shapes our destinies for weal or woe.” He says that this
position cannot be met with cries of “ Infidelity,” and
appeals to bigotry and passion, as in days gone by ; for
even Calvinists themselves proceed now on the basis of
natural science when they are sick, when wet seasons
come, and when they send a ship to sea. The orthodox
may decry science, but they enjoy its benefits. They
may call the lightning-conductor “ the heretical stake,”
but they affix one even to the spire of “ the house of
God,” which they might be expected to believe would
be protected by him—
“ Whose power o’er moving worlds presides,
Whose voice created, and whose wisdom guides.”
George Combe says he knows of no sect or church, nor
any body of religious instructors, who have recognised
“ the order of nature ” as the basis for practical precepts,
or as the road to secular virtue and prosperity. Not
one Christian nation—not one example is known since
the promulgation of Christianity. Science attempts it,
but the preachers pronounce that “godless.”
Archbishop Whately was a man of considerable mental
�14
IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
power. He could see that the assertion, that God sent
pestilence and famine in consequence of Romanism in
Ireland, could be used by the Catholic as an argument
against the permission of Protestantism to pollute the
sacred soil of St. Patrick. He believed in all the cases
mentioned in the Bible; but the declarations of the
“ uninspired ” men in question he denounced as “ irra
tional, uncharitable, and un-Christian.” Whately wrote
a book on logic, and might be expected to understand
that by assuming the existence of one source of power
we are compelled to trace all causes of good and evil to
that one source, which he believed to exercise supreme
influence over both Catholics and Protestants. While
the assertion of one source of power destroys the possible
existence of one source absolutely good, the alternative
is the banishment, as Combe calls it, of all interference
by the only source of power either on the side of Ca
tholics or Protestants, or against either of them. Of
course, a rational conclusion of this kind, however
logical it may be, is not the conclusion that either sect
is capable of arriving at.
There is a general conception of the order of nature
in the theological mind that it is under special personal
guidance. If water assumes a globular shape in falling,
as in the case of rain, or a tear from the human eye, it
is because some unseen and omnipotent personal power
is behind, shaping the rain and the tears. In the ad
vanced school of theological thought the movements of
nature are conceived as under law. But what are termed
“ the laws of nature ” are assumed to be under the great
law-giver and law-maker. Hence there are three sepa
rate existences—the law-maker, the law, and nature, the
ruled. AU that is really known may be described as
nature and the modes or “ methods of nature
the
latter words convey all that is meant by “ the laws of
nature.” Nature and how she acts are too simple for
the theological mind. It must have nature governed by
laws—that is, when water runs down the hill, it does so
by order of a Divine Act of Parliament, enforced by the
King of Kings, instead of by his own hand, as formerly.
These ideas are what I call fictions of the imagination,
and the only purpose they can serve, that I see, is to mag
nify the importance of the office held by persons paid
to maintain them.
�■ IN SEARCH OF A RELIGION.
15
Those who admit the existence of an invariable law
of what they call “ physical nature ” still claim an excep
tion for what they call the human soul and her affections.
It is somewhat remarkable that Dr. Priestley and Dr.
Guthrie, both preachers of the Gospel, acknowledged
the existence of mental and moral laws as well as phy
sical laws. One objection to the admission of the intel
lect or the soul to the government of an invariable order
of nature is that the soul would become necessarily the
subject of change—that is, it would live and die. This
would prevent it becoming an inhabitant of a heaven
built on pride, or a hell built on spite. There is the
same objection to the idea that the brain thinks. The
brain, being the subject of life and death, would be
necessarily limited in its operations to this life and this
globe ; in other words, the man who thinks is one and
not two beings, and is thus mortal—that is, ceases to
exist as a thinking being at death’.
The theologians whose minds are overcome by the
facts of science take refuge in miracle. They say : “ We
quite admit that man, as at present constituted, must
fall in with the invariable order of things : he must die,
but he will rise again.” Of course, this is mere assertion,
without a single fact in nature to support it. The illus
trations given by theologians from nature, including the
one found in the New Testament itself, are too inappro
priate to deserve notice. They put a grain of wheat in
the ground, and from it get a number of grains in an ear
of wheat; but by putting a man in the ground do they
secure the production of a bunch of men, or even a
single one ? The expectancy is built on miracle, and
finds no support or illustration in nature, so lar as I
■know. Of course, those who believe in the miracle of
creation out of nothing may believe in the miracle of
re-creation out of the remains of man ; but such beliefs
have no claim on the scientific mind, or on the atten
tion of the rational inquirer. An assertion made for the
purpose of giving negative support to this theory is that
all the faculties of man are not in harmony with this
present existence ; while the fact is that the more we
know of man and nature, the more clearly we see the
adaptation of all his faculties to this globe and this life
that our orbit is all our task, and sufficient to interest
and occupy millions of generations of men. The writers
�■I
j
i6
in search of a religion.
who claim the authority of miracles as a proof of the
truth of any doctrine admit that the early Apostles would
not have been believed, or even listened to, if they had
not urged that miracles had been worked. Baden
Powell, M.A., F.R.S., says : “Thus, if miracles were, in
the estimation of a former age, among the chief slipports
of Christianity, they are at present among the main diffi
culties, and are hindrances to its acceptance.”.
The inductive philosopher accepts the invariable order
of phenomena, and can only believe that which can be
demonstrated to be in harmony therewith. Testimony
cannot square the circle, or discover perpetual motion ;
it avails nothing against reason. It is alleged that the
assertion of miracles was a necessity in the beginning
in order to obtain adherents to Christianity, because of
the incredulity of the age in which the system was first
introduced. My reading is that it was an age of cre
dulity, or the miracles would not have obtained credence.
The disposition to accept anything marvellous, at the
time referred to, appears to have been very general
among all classes of men. The sceptical disposition in
matters religious was not generally manifested for 1,600
years after the promulgation of Christianity. The few
who were bold enough to Question anything were met
with the orthodox demand to give up either their liberty
or their life. After generations of experience, the Chris
tians not only persecuted their avowed enemies, but
they also imprisoned and burnt one another.. The idea
of liberty of conscience never entered their heads; it
was no part of their faith. The absurdity of the argu
ment for miracles, or an interference with the order of
nature, based on their necessity for the. conversion of .
unbelievers, is obvious, since now unbelievers multiply
and miracles diminish, heresy increases and the miracu
lous decreases. That when miracles abound believers
abound is quite true; but by the introduction of Sceptics
the miracles get a poor time, of it—they lose their importance ; and, as believers in an invariable order of
nature continue to increase., the probabilties are strongly
in favour of the total extinction of miracles.
Printed and Published by Charles Watts, 84, Fleet Street, London.
�
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
In search of a religion, and notes by the way
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cattell, Charles Cockbill
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: The Freethought Radical Literature Depot,80, Piccadilly, Hanley. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles Watts
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N120
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 (In search of a religion, and notes by the way), 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
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0dffbdc0052f02b1a5220f3b6c06fdaa.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LpNU0aQA44rXbukwW51p2SsgO8dRea4wU8OfTNSWzLYMLLypeDUciSabGsTu-oG8LrW7i0Oz8Tn8NEhwIbmELRtIpsZOedaopMrKZr%7ECgDEgOeAF0TopTN18OoTLXQxbKbaPGT5qctRbG5JujxsRkXKtyqFc3OZ5fGdxGZ7YGAqAwkFs5WlVfyXOlHRJFGlI3tildrg9XqBUuQGfIv%7E207sxsc0xVlb6RyZ2iySIs%7EQPd6xPLp0H1Vs3m1OR2A7I3vFFDkybnkUkAAafYedIvkF2Tf596f9DjzOh1kBS0HGxNPLBOZnopPxfvr%7EZzBRXLucHgWyjKWUg8iF9D%7EpzWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfd4159f05740b3dbecc4a3a58e47f40
PDF Text
Text
CT W
THE
IDEAL OF RELIGION.
g, Jttfuu
BY
S. FARRINGTON,
Minister of the Free Church in Upper Broolc Street, Manchester.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. BEYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�THE IDEAL OF RELIGION.
—-
HE ideal of religion is the most permanent and,
at the same time, the most variable characteristic,
of religion. It is always present. It is never intellec
tually long the same. It is ever to be seen, as Israel
of old saw the sacred watch-fire upborne by its ad
vancing vanguard, a pillar of cloud by day, a beacon
of flame by night, guiding humanity upon its way;
ever moving forward, far in front of the mixed multi
tude ; ever exceeding the most favourable image of
man’s actual state: and yet, the observant eye is com
pelled to notice that this perfectly natural and con
stant phenomenon of our long human pilgrimage is
affected by the material with which the perpetual
altar-fire is fed ; by the state of the intellectual atmo
sphere through which it is borne; by the general
characteristics of the day or hour in which we regard
it. In still air the moving cloud may rise directly up
and away from earth into the rare ethereal blue of
heaven. But anon, when adverse winds prevail, and
the skies are dark and lowering, when our human
exigency is severe, it shall seem to be driven violently
this way and that, to be utterly dissipated in the
upper altitude, to come quite down from the high
aerial regions, and be only a true, flame-like bright
ness upon our immediate earthly duties.
Sufficient illustrations of this constancy and of
this variability of the religious ideal will suggest
themselves along that single line of religious develop
ment with which we are by our common education
the most familiar,—I mean that line with the Chaldean
patriarch, Abraham, at one end, and ourselves at the
other. Two or three instances of the changed aspect
T
�4
The Ideal of Religion.
which changing times and circumstances evolved are
all that need be cited. In Abraham, that powerfulminded chieftain himself, going forth in thought
beyond the known objects of worship to the great
Unknown Object, rising above the visible deities to
the vaster Invisible Deity, lifting his trust beyond
the constellations to One who made them so bright
and strong, we have an ideal at once simple and sub
lime. Just how it disciplined the life and modified
the habits of so successful a conqueror is to us ob
scure. It doubtless delivered him and his retinue
from many rites belonging to the Syrian idolatry in
that nomadic time. We only know that it impressed
itself profoundly on that Semitic race as it "became
more capable of supersensuous thought. But in the
Mosaic age, when the fierce tribes which were no
people were striving to become a people, this funda
mental conception of God, and of supreme reverence
for Him, has assumed additional features. A peculiar
notion of partnership is prominent. He is the He
brew’s God; the Hebrews are his people. The
Mightiest desires to make Himself a nation. The
tribes have entered into covenant with Him to
become that nation. The ideal is still that of the
great invisible Power, but toned by this conception
of His especial interest in a fierce struggle into
national existence, and disciplining this people to
social strength and coherency. Por nothing else
does He care, or they care. For the great and power
ful civilizations of the time, for the millions of other
better-cultured men, this Hebrew ideal assumes that
God has none other than intense and hostile feelings.
In Christ, however, all this is changed. The funda
mental thought remains, but instead of Jehovah, the
mighty man of war, the Supreme is now perfect in
the beauty of the best and tenderest character. Wrath
has given way to love. National limit has vanished.
He has only love toward them that hate Him. He
is merciful toward the unmerciful, just toward the
�The Ideal of Religion.
5
unjust. Yet you know, along these Christian centu
ries, how the ideal has wavered, as in Christ’s name
it has been upborne ; how it has risen into visions of
new Jerusalems, into hierarchies marching in Roman
order and Pagan pomp along the world to come, into
■orthodox assemblies which should never break up, and
Sabbaths which should never end; or how it has
come down again, in sober and staid Quaker or
Unitarian common sense, into the yea and nay of the
moralities of our earthly life. It has ever varied, ever
been present, from Abraham, and from before Abra
ham, through Moses, through Christ, even unto us..
Man projects it as he goes. To-day we see its guid
ance flaming still. What appearance has it now ?
What are the mental and moral aspects of the reli
gious ideal rising above the day and hour that now
is, and far surpassing the actual religious advance of
the present ? What are the main, the great, the influ
ential considerations which direct the march of
modern civilization religiously F With what is our
sacred watch-fire fed F Whither does it seem to lead F
How, through the intellectual atmosphere of the age,
moves the constant vanguard signal that leads the
mighty human host F
1. In regard to doctrine, which is a constituent in
-every ideal of religion, our time is by no means so
deficient as is commonly assumed. The religious
thought of the age is as clear and firm, I think, as
th at of any former age, only it is less hard in its out
lines, less harsh in its dogmatic annunciations of
itself, and must be sought rather as pervasive ideas
common to enlightened people than as an inflexibly
articled creed. Those who doubt this can easily
verify it, either by attempting to revive old-time
religious doctrines with anything like their former
effectiveness, or by striving to give currency to new
religious beliefs, which, however acceptable to the
feelings, yet do violence to certain intellectual con
clusions, wide-spread now among the people. The
�6
The Ideal of Religion.
thoroughness of the failure in either case will suffi
ciently attest the coherency of the intellectual or
doctrinal fabric of our age.
One of these wide-spread ideas is that which really
identifies God and Nature. The great object of
reverence is not outside nature, above nature, apart
from nature, but is nature, its very power, procedure,
life. Nothing is more noticeable in the writings of
our most advanced yet religious men than the utter
elimination of the supernatural element. To the
once powerful domain of supernaturalism they give
not the slighest consideration. For them it does not
exist. If they allude to it, it is as to an extinct hypo
thesis. Nature includes all. She is everywhere
sufficient unto herself, not because they have de
prived her of any of the attributes of God, but
because all that they know about any attribute of
God she has revealed. Her constant procedure has
forced upon human attention the all of revelation.
When they perceive what her invariable order
implies in regard to human conduct, a truth has
been revealed. And this, broadly diffused, has become
a characteristic of the religious thought of our age.
With us all, it is the supernatural claim which does
violence to our habits, and our best habits, of
thought. If one wishes to stir a sentiment of
incredulity, he has but to affirm of anything, no matter
what, that its origin, its procedure, or a single
phenomenon in that procedure, is supernatural. We
take his measure at once. Either his education has
been imperfect or he pretends. Nature alone stretches
beyond our conception of nature. We recognise no
upper story as the habitation of a super-nature.
There is indeed a super in the natural, though we
know of no super as above the natural. The natural
order is the eternal, universal, all-determining one.
In this intellectual aspect the ideal of the present
differs sharply from that of the religious past.
Then supernatural theology alone seemed solid,
�The Ideal of Religion.
7
beside which .natural theology walked like a thin
and impalpable shadow. Then the great object of
reverence was conceived as striving to effect one
thing, while all the forces of nature were doing their
utmost to effect another. Religion scorned a natural
origin, was sure she should be good for nothing if
she should yield her supernatural foundations. What
ever authority she had, whatever truth she pro
claimed, whatever right she enjoined, came from a
region outside the natural order of the universe, and
had been given by special stroke and intervention
of miracle. While now, the very possibility of main
taining any of these things has utterly passed from
the doctrinal possibilities of the time.
Another characteristic of this part of the doc
trinal fabric of the present is a diffidence in all
affirmations of deity. In this respect the age of
reason walks more humbly than the ages of faith.
Men shrink from sharply outlined definitions con
cerning what God is and what God is not. To men
of other days our thoughts of the object of worship
would seem exceedingly vague. Their minds were
full of definitely graven images of Him. They
dogmatised concerning His purposes. Theologically
speaking, they knew all about them. Our know
ledge is not less than theirs but vaster, and we cannot
know all about them. The world has grown diviner,
the Great Power is better understood from the things
that are made; and yet we are less able to utter the
unutterable greatness of its might, to fathom the
unfathomable depths of its mystery. 'The Life and
Law of all outward things, and of all human things
within, is more truly revealed to the thoughtful mind
of our day than ever before; and it is just this
which makes it so next to impossible to express the
revelation in definite forms of speech. Each earnest
thinker says to his brother thinker concerning God—
“ Draw if thou canst the mystic line
Severing rightly His from thine.”
�8
The Ideal of Religion.
So that this theological vagueness, sometimes the
reproach of the age, is the result of finding the
whole world so full of His eternalness, the facts of
the natural order so much diviner than the fables of
supernaturalism. Now that the spirit of the Ever
living Life rolls through all things, we dare not give
it the likeness of anything less than the incompre
hensible all of being, dare not belittle it to some
convenient figure, image, or limit. And this very
simple, flexible, and reverently diffident attitude of
our theology, before the supreme object of its
thought, this beholding of Him as
“ The Source divine and Life of all,
The Fount of Being’s wondrous sea,—
is a doctrinal characteristic of the religious ideal of
our age.
Another wide-spread tenet or doctrinal charac
teristic of religion in our time is that which arises
from the perception of the social solidarity of our
human life. Up to our century, as too largely in it,
the social affair has been regarded as anything else
than moral and religious. Politics have been the
arena for might, for clever craftiness in diplomacy,
for compacts and competitions which no religiously
or honestly educated conscience could sanction. It
was granted that Csesar had a right to his natural
way; just as God and the religious had their right
to a supernatural way. But now the social becomes
the religious affair. Politics are invaded by consci
ence and the right. Csesar’s way is not natural, and
nature disowns it, if it be only the march of selfish
and personal power. There is no supernatural way
any longer, either for God or for the religious among
the sons of men ; but the natural way for the conduct
of all human affairs is God’s, and is religion’s. The
natural order of things has brought it home to our
dull perceptions at length, that the function of
religion is not merely to save here and there an indi
vidual, to quiet his conscience, to give him inward
�The Ideal of Religion.
9
peace, and fit him to go out of this world; but
rather to save people from their sins and consequent
miseries, to bring the general conscience up to the
level of the best, and to fit men to live together more
as they should in this world. The natural laws of
our common life teach us that man the individual
“is at peace within only when he is in harmonious
union with his fellows.” The object of all reverence
is revealed in the solid human affairs of men as truly
as in the processes of nature external to man. The
Deity is incarnate in us, as well as embodied in the
universe around.
Thus the religious ideal of the present has for the
satisfaction of the intellect an eternal and real Power
embodied in the actual universe, to balance its loss
of a power shaped by the caprice or the exigency of
man’s once less disciplined imagination; and also a
solid . scientific reason why it should subordinate the
individual into a religious harmony with the social
instinct, to balance any appearance of loss of super
natural command to love our neighbour or keep the
golden rule.
2. . But another constituent of every ideal of
religion is that which satisfies the feelings. How
does this scientific basis of doctrine, which gives
intellectual consistency to the thought of our time,
meet our need of moral emotions ? How does it stir
the sentiment of love and worship ?
Now men can only love what they see to be lov
able, can only worship what they perceive has worthi
ness, can only give moral submission to what is
morally perfect. And I notice that the men of our
time who. are the best representatives of its intel
lectual drift, and are at the same time men of deeply
religious natures, are finding satisfaction for their
need of worship in two different ways. One class,
and the one with which at present I have the most
sympathy, feels that the Spirit which Nature reveals
to us is not only infinitely wiser than man is,
�IO
The Ideal of Religion.
but infinitely better than man’s thought of the best.
The natural order embodies Perfection, Righteous
ness, Goodness infinite. Not that there are not
plenty of particular facts which, if exclusively in
sisted on or held as finalities, do present a contrary
aspect; but these men believe that it is rather their
failure, their necessary failure, to see all the relations
of these adverse phenomena to the perfect order,
rather than an absolute moral blemish in that order
itself, which gives rise to the appearances which,
equally with other men, they see. To them there
are not only traces of moral goodness upon the face
of creation, but the creation to them is so good that,
even where they cannot explain or comprehend, they
trust its thorough goodness. They look out into
the great universe, or back along the march of human
history, and the general impression which comes
to them, despite any adverse sound, is that of per
fect wisdom, perfect love; a power which stirs the
heart’s emotions by its moral beauty, by the perfec
tion of its quality and attributes. They are satisfied
when looking up to the Power Supreme, and say
‘ ‘ Thy depth would every heart appal
That saw not love supreme in Thee.”
The other class equally religious, but more oppressed
by appearances of evil in outward things, and in im
perfect men, and inclining more to the idea of a
dualism in nature, satisfies its need of worship by
contemplating that new order of goodness, which it
thinks to be a purely human creation. The goodness
revealed by humanity is adorable and authoritative
to it. The tender sympathies that bind heart to
heart, the noble fellowship of generous souls, the
beautiful bonds of social life knitting each to all, and
enriching all by each; the highest excellence of cha
racter, which the experience of men, and their own
exercise in goodness has disclosed, as a human possi
bility, awaken the emotions of moral love, of heart
felt worship, of aspiration, in these. They are not sure
�The Ideal of Religion.
11
that the nature of material things, the nature of
brutes, the nature of wild and savage men, is either
admirable or divine; but they are sure that there is
a power in humanity whose quality is worthy of an
unfaltering and undivided heart.
So that both these classes of modern men, those
who adore the goodness revealed in the universe, and
those who love the goodness manifest in humanity,
lose not the moral benefit, the spiritual rapture of
worship. They have not lost, they cannot lose a
single moral distinction. They remain as noble as
the noblest, as true as the truest, as brave for righte
ousness as the bravest. Their spiritual hunger is fed
by what is divinest and best. They worship in spirit,
but not without reference to their discernments of
truth.
Worship based upon such conceptions of the natu
ral order of the universe, or of the natural order of
humanity, and of our religious relations to it, takes a
different method and language from that which arose
when religion had as the aim of its worship, to please
or to propitiate a supernatural and distant deity.
We find, accordingly, the worship of our time more
in the attitude of a contrast, than in that of confor
mity to that of the great religious ages gone. It is
more a matter of hearts, less a matter of garments.
It is better expressed in humane acts, than ecclesiasti
cal ceremonies. It is not a pomp but a prayer. It finds
no pride in gorgeous processions, but it feels religious
joy in doing whatever will truly benefit the least of
these our brethren. It leads us to be more studious to
do what is just and right, than to barter for exemption
from spiritual consequences. Thus the ideal of wor
ship in our time is less and less that of a traditional
church performance, and more and more a quicken
ing desire to put into the actions of our lives a true
spiritual influence.
3. Besides the element of doctrine and the element
of worship, the first a satisfaction to the thought of
�12
The Ideal of Religion.
man, and the second a satisfaction to his moral senti
ment, there enters into every ideal of religion another
constituent, that of discipline or government, the
appropriate method of securing for the doctrine and
the worship a practical efficiency in real life. How
does the.ideal of our time propose to realise itself,
and attain the control of human conduct P
You. are all familiar with the idea of government
under the reign of supernatural religion. Its method
was appropriately despotic. The religious discipline
for more than a millennium has been the military idea
of discipline, inherited from the Roman Empire.
Uniformity of thought, uniformity of worship
uniformity of conduct, all to be secured by the word
of external command. Universal obedience to out
ward authority. The whole discipline imposed from
without. God residing outside the natural universe,
and only thundering in at the door of miracle a com
mandment now and then • and the conscience of
humanity resident at Rome, or at some sectarian
head-quarters. This is the notion of religious government.in the vanishing ideal of the centuries gone.
Quite different is the way by which religion now
proposes to gain ascendancy over human conduct.
Our age.admits, as frankly as it is possible to admit,
that it is no matter what men believe as religious
doctrine, no matter what they worship as objective
goodness, if neither thought nor feeling, or both com
bined, are able to bring their lives into spiritual
obedience, their actions into moral order and subjec
tion. We snould have no religious ideal if we
had not our way of giving practical efficiency to
what we know to be true, what we feel to be
supremely beautiful and good. We have that way,
and it is this—the development of morality from
within, the enthronement of the divinest voice in the
individual conscience, the throwing moral responsi
bility upon.every man, the education of each person
in the conviction that he will reap as he sows, the
�The Ideal of Religion.
T3
education of each person in the perception that he can
neither sow nor reap for himself alone, that he is born
not only to keep and guard himself, but to keep and
guard a common trust. The seat of authority is the soul
commanding itself into harmony with its own nature,
and the nature of its relations to other souls. The
conscience of humanity is no longer resident at Rome,
or in any sect, or in any supernatural book, but in
human beings who are now appealing from all the
ends of the earth, to have it so educated and strength
ened, that they may rightly use it. For it has at
last been made plain to us, by many sad deeds and
bitter religious memories, that to be of real benefit
our deeds do not merely need the spur of conscience,
but of conscience trained into accord with scientific
realities. So that the religious government of the
world in our modern ideal is its government by a
morality lodged in each separate conscience, a mo
rality capable of being developed to a power, and edu
cated to a fineness and sureness, and directness of
action, of which the present is slow to dream. Reli
gion now proposes to gain the ascendancy by putting
each man in possession of himself, by teaching him
to see the conditions under which he must live if he
would live satisfactorily, by appealing to his reason,
by putting him under his own spiritual control, lead
ing him to' be himself a priest and king, that the
time may hasten when one man shall no longer say
to another, “Know the Eternal, for all shall know
Him from the least unto the greatest.” The religion
of our time has adopted the political doctrine of our
time—that they are best governed who are least
governed, or rather who have become capable of
governing themselves. It would no longer enslave
or repress men, but give them liberty, and put all
their faculties to some appropriate and useful service.
4. If now it be asked, what are the sanctions of
this ideal of religion ? we shall find they differ as
widely from the sanctions of the religious past as
�14
The Ideal of Religion.
does the ideal itself. We enforce our doctrine, not
by reading a few verses from a literature, but by
reading as largely and carefully as we can from the
immutable order of the actual creation. We appeal
from all books to the universe. We sustain ourselves
against the most powerful ecclesiasticisms by trusting
to the more disinterested disclosures of science. We
have discovered that “Nature is that word of God
which theology really means.” To us Nature is re
velation, and the truth-loving spirit its best interpre
ter. Does Nature sustain this belief? In our answer
to that question we find the sanction for our doctrine,
or fail to find it. We find our doctrinal sanction in
our knowledge, and not in our superstition. We en
force our truth by pointing to what is known, seen,
scientifically sure. We say to the man who asks
what he shall believe : believe whatever can be shown
to be true, and believe nothing else at your peril!
We commend our worship by the same natural
sanction. Is goodness of real worth ? Then desire
it. Is virtue truly excellent ? Then pursue it. Are
justness, and trustworthiness, and tenderness admira
ble in actual human character ? Then strive for
these qualities in secret, and the result shall bless you
and others openly. Is uprightness of affection
essential to integrity of conduct F Set then your
heart upon it. These are our incentives to worship.
Once men were incited by fear. They dreaded the
descent of supernatural and arbitrarily imposed con
sequences if they did not pay a certain homage to
spiritual excellence. If any dread enters into our
worship, it is the dread of not being spiritually ex
cellent, the fear of missing what we know to be
the highest good and beauty of living. We fear the
natural, the inevitable, consequence of not attaining
true worthiness ourselves. Yet we are scarcely
sensible of an enforced worship. We worship good
ness, because it wins our homage, because it is
supremely worthy. If a hateful God be preached,
�The Ideal of Religion.
T5
we cannot worship him, If He can torture us for
not admiring His vengeance, His vindictiveness, and
His injustice—for not bowing down and acknow
ledging these qualities to be just and right—then to
torture we must go. We could not bring ourselves
to worship such a God, though He existed. If there
are signs of evil, of wrong, of positive badness in
Nature, as some claim, it is not these we worship.
Only the Supremely Good—only the Pure and Holy
stir our moral emotions, and quicken the affections of
our hearts. The natural beauty of holiness, this enlists
our homage. Every vision of it is a beatitude.
We trust to the religious discipline which shall
come by the control of every man over his own spirit,
to the end of his own and the common good; for ex
perience teaches us that this alone can be religious
government.
The drill imposed by an external
organization may have its benefits. But it may also
bring the opposite of benefit. The authoritative com
mands may be fulfilled to the letter, while all the time
the spirit of religion, ' the worship of goodness, the
acknowledgment of truth may be dying out among
men. But when men are trained to see with their
own eyes, and feel with their own hearts, and fulfil
the law of love toward their neighbour, out of their
own spontaneous will, then humanity feels religious
vitality all through and through. Then, not till then,
will the reign of religion be established, and effect
as naturally as the bird sings, or the sun shines, its
perfect work amid the great communities of men.
Thus I have sketched, in imperfect outline, what
appear to me to be the aspects of the religious ideal
of our time. It is thus that reverent thought and
endeavour are shaping the religious direction of the
age. It is not the vision of any sect. It is the broad
and comprehensive conception which enters every
where. It struggles with, and bursts, the narrowness
of every sect. It springs from a deeper and broader
comprehension of the Eternal order, in which man
�16
The Ideal of Religion.
moves—and lives—and has his being. It developes
naturally with the natural development of humanity.
It far exceeds the actual religious attainments of the
present; yet more and more shall we behold it guid
ing the religious, whether individuals, or churches, or
nations, on their way.
“ One holy Church of God appears
Through every age and race,
Unwasted by the lapse of years,
Unchanged by changing place.
“ From oldest time, on farthest shores
Beneath the pine or palm,
One Unseen Presence she adores
With silence or with psalm.
“ Her priests are all God’s faithful sons
To serve the world raised up;
The pure in heart her baptized ones,
Love her communion cup.
“ The truth is her prophetic gift,
The soul her sacred page,
And feet on mercy’s errands swift
Do make her pilgrimage.
‘ ‘ 0 living Church ! Thine errand speed ;
Fulfil thy task sublime;
With bread of life earth’s hunger feed;
Redeem the evil time. ”
EBINTED BY C. W.REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The ideal of religion. A lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Farrington, Silas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT181
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 ideal of religion. A lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Religion
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ade536944d8a98cbebfc2899e3a32f44.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jGkV0tXrjPOZsveZ2wx2Fwc073JT22rnm-xFUCVIJLfYUJvsLBPEZ6xBP-c6KmPG9WQYlphADydBaXNcTjMtKc2%7EDQu-wpSGFz79lNAp5N3fz2cJOLdVOZrwEKC1AcWWa5icj7q7tFiYNejiUMU7p42BmBxtxlS0ZNFRHoPH9q6IXXD4gtRbGfJvwCcdnNizySYF8-egObPl3yNF2oO3LNdINu8m-gLHVWmh7qiGiQAqa6dgi4PlYQfjIvRes1P8GPNlrvp4Mm%7Ew9Mxi4sHxOA%7ELrd5BeVQ2BsCuDbuwPCqFCBMevl0i1tE7DdpNijhLjnHrQVb4UDo1RcojuVDoAg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e047870a582a18b3dff365f51a1d12ab
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������
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 history of nonconformity in Plymouth
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Worth, Richard Nicholls
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Plymouth]
Collation: 40 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. 'Read November 2nd, 1876. [title page]. Reprinted from the Transactions of the Plymouth Institution, v. 6, p. 44-83. Lists of ministers, Extracts from Corporation accounts, The Hebrew Committee.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1876]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT66
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Plymouth
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 history of nonconformity in Plymouth), 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
Nonconformism
Plymouth (Devon)
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/894a20e2232eb14b9b026da406ca585f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=f4xq-jpHXUhBBTIRc0M3YE0R5V0JZpP6oBtVj3%7EdO8oAgeJi31DkjKjJIesrDidK--kViMiqZAT4Wm2in78iWdVSdGAoZFsGxK4zZ9aTbc25gLyTsu2B7qr%7EnLoAE06nxTO6dQUpP0Qf1YG%7EdKy8Rog6c0D0qp38RJGuAaLwBC0Hgmir3qNYwxzCgaO%7EK70mzAbrNwX-bEIZnyZYHa0gGY5pyvfWd1Xas8gH%7EoRCASgqduGmlRdt2yHHARK9Yw6-F-yO6aC-ZikTYEzM3hrjAqQOmOuGZieXzhGzDi7lyxSH09xoBG64A7Wwvv4UokynUOy9LyEyr2STCdV1R4wBnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
13c48b81ec33d5f00aa08462316066da
PDF Text
Text
\
■'•’•■£"' f■ »^ ■ A*‘ '"*4/
* THE HERETICS.
•\ 1
K;Mr. •BERNARD SHAW.
'I
'. ■
■
• • '■
.yr
.- ■
£z. MAY 29, 1911.
I
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
From "Cambridge Daily News,” May 30, 1911.
"THE RELIGION OF THE FUTURE.”
Mr. Bernard Shaw on Heresy.
The Victoria Assembly Rooms, Cambridge,
were crowded on Monday evening, when Mr.
G. B. Shaw attended a meeting of the Heretics
Society and delivered an address on “ The
Religion of the Future.” In the audience were
to be seen a large number of the society’s dis
tinguished body of honorary members. Mr.
I'1. M. Cornford, the chairman, introduced Mr.
Bernard Shaw as a protagonist of the Heretical
movement, and one who never scrupled to tell
his audience exactly what his opinions might be
on religious questions.
The Heretic and His Business.
Mr. Shaw began by declaring that his sub
ject was really a serious one, and that Heretics
did not matter with regard to it—the people
who really mattered were orthodox people. He
likened a Heretic to a man with a mechanical
genius who began tinkering with a bicycle or a
motor car and made it something different from
what the manufacturer had made it. Such a
man was a Heretic in mechanics; he had a
mind and a genius which enabled him to
choose for himself. If he had a bad motor car
lie made a good one of it—he made it to suit
himself. The Heretic was a sort of person
who, no matter what religion was supplied at
the shop—by which he meant the nearest
church—he would tinker at it until lie made
it what he thought it should be. The Heretic
was really a man with a home-made religion,
and if a man could make a religion for himself
at home they need not bother about him—he
would make his religion to suit himself. What
they wanted to trouble about was the great
mass of people who took religion as they found
it—as they got it at the shop. What the Here
tics had to do was to prepare a ready-made
religion for the next generation for the peop’e
Who had to accept religion as it came. It was
of the most enormous importance for any com
munity what ready-made article they were sup
plying in their schools and churches, as a re
ligion. to the community. Therefore, when he
was dealing with the religion of the future,
�let them remember that he was not dealing
with what the Heretics of the next generation
would be talking about. They would be dis
cussing and criticising whatever the religion
was, and the great mass of the people would
be outside and would have a ready-made re
ligion and would obey laws founded on that
religion; many of them founded more or less
on the idea that certain courses of conduct
were more or less displeasing to whatever force
might be moving the world—the mainspring
which at present we call God, and might call
other names in future—at any rate the driving
force.
An Understandable God.
Mr. Shaw went on to argue that if they
wanted to get any system of this kind they
must really get some sort of God whom they
could understand. It was no use falling back
on the old evasion and saying that God is be
yond our comprehension. The man who said
he believed in God and did not understand
God had much better turn a good, practical
Atheist at once. Better Atheist than Agnostic,
said Mr. Shaw : an Agnostic is only an
Atheist without the courage of his opinions.
The
actual,
practical
use
they
could
make of their God was that they could
establish laws and morality which they sup
posed to be the will of God, and if they did not
understand God’s purpose they could not do
anything of the kind. Therefore they found
a large number of people in the country not
understanding God who were practically athe
ists. It was surprising how little they heard
of the name of God outside of their places of
worship. They hardly ever heard the name
of God mentioned in a court of justice, except,
perhaps, when a witness was going through the
preliminary form of committing perjury, or
when the judge had put on the black cap and
was sentencing some unhappy wretch to death.
In Parliament they never heard about it at
all. He did not know whether they ever heard
about it in Cambridge, but they would notice
that the mention of God had gone completely
out of fashion, and that if the name of God
was mentioned it was in a perfunctory sort of
way, and seemed to come as a sort of shock
if the person mentioning it did so in the way
of taking the current conception of God seri
ously. Here in England, Mr. Shaw went on,
we had no fundamental religion of our own.
Western Europe, of all places in the world,
they would say, was, prima facie, the
place for the birthplace of a modern re
�a
ligion, yet we lia<l never produced one. We
used a sort of oriental religion as the nucleus
of our religion—a lot of legends that we must
get rid of. The man who believed the story
of the Gadarene swine would believe anything,
and they must leave him out as a critical force.
Also the man who believed the story of Elisha
and the bears would worship anything.
But
they must not leave such people out of ac
count as a practical fact in the universe, be
cause there were the people for whom they
wanted to found a religion.
IXTi MIDATI.XG
B ELIGIOXS.
Religion, Mr Shaw continued, virtually went
out with the Middle Ages. If they read through
Shakespeare’s plays they found a man of very
great power and imagination, who evidently
had no well-considered views of any kind, who
produced a mass of plays in which he set forth
his own knowledge of humanity in a very
wonderful way, and practically left religion
out of account. Then they struck the begin
ning of a commercial age, an age of people who
went to church but who gradually began leaving
religion more and more out of their lives and
practical affairs.
There were, he went on,
many people who were made more religious if
they had a God who produced frightful calami
ties.
If they studied the proceedings of
African, and, he had no doubt, European Kings,
they would find the same thing. In order,
however, not to be personal, he would keep
to the African potentates as much as possible.
(Laughter.) In Africa thev had found it gen
erally necessary, when building their palaces,
to bury several people alive and to commit a
great number of cruel and horrible murders.
This was to create an impression on the tribe
and show their majesty and greatness. Mr.
Shaw went on to allude to the Mahometan re
ligion, and said that Mahomet had found it
necessary to describe the Judgment Day in mosc
revolting and disgusting terms—to introduce in
timidation into religion in order to impress
the wild and warlike Arabs.
The man of
genius, lie remarked, found it difficult to make
people understand him. "I know this,” said
Mr Shaw, with a smile, "for I am by pro
fession a man of genius.” (Laughter and ap
plause.)
The difference between a man of
genius and the ordinary man, lie continued
was that the man of genius perceived the im
portance of things. There were a great number
of people who did not understand the vital
�4
truths of religion, and so the man of genius
had to amuse and frighten them with more or
less dreadful things.
A System
of
Idolatry.
We had hitherto been governed by a system
of idolatry. We made idols of people and tesorted to some 6ort of stage management. Men
and women capable of giving orders
were
taken to the head of affairs—sometimes they
took themselves—(laughter)—and we gave
(hem crowns or gold lace on their collars,
or a certain kind of hat, and sat them
on a particular kind of chair. Those people
generally were a sort of second-hand idol—
they said. ” I am the agent of the will of an
other idol. I understand his will and hand it
on to you.” We generally had to give them
such a different income from our own that,
their way of life should be entirely removed
from that of the multitude. They had to wash
their faces oftener, live in a different kind
of house, and it was out of the question that
their sons and daughters should marry the
son or daughter of a common man. Tn demo
cracy they were trying to get human nature
up to a point at which idolatry no longer ap
pealed to them. They saw that in revolutions,
like the French Revolution, democracy went
first to the cathedrals and knocked the heads
off the idols of 6tone. Nothing happened. No
crash of thunder stunned the universe, the veil
of the temple remained intact.
Then they
w’ent to the palaces and cut off the heads of
the idols of flesh and blood.
Still nothing
happened. Cutting off King Charles’ head was
a sort of vivisection experiment—a much more
justifiable experiment than many that took
place to-day. because we learnt something from
it. But if Cromwell had not died when he did,
if he had lived five or even two years longer
he would have been compelled to put the
crown on his own head and make himself King
Oliver. It was an entire failure trying to make
people obey laws in England because they were
intelligent laws. The people said thev must
have a King. And so they took Charles II. and
made him King. But democracy was progres-ing. Take himself, for instance, as a demo
cratic prop. Tt was no use trying a King on
him. It did not impose upon him. Tie knew
that a King was a man ; but apparently very
few others in the country realised this. He liked
and respected kings and judges and bishops as
men; but they might ivst as well give up the
robes and aprons so far as he was concerned.
�He did not value their opinions on politics or
law or religion any more than if they were
plain Mr Smith.
Natural Selection.
We were, Mr. Shaw continued, gradually get
ting more and more rid of our idols, and in
the future they would have to put before the
people religions that were practical systems,
which on the whole they could perceive wcrked
out in practice, instead of resulting in flagrant
contradictions as they do at present. People,
however, went from one extreme to the other,
and when they did so they were apt to throw
out the good things with the bad ones, and so
they made little progress. The old-fashio: ed
atheist revolted against the idea of an Omnipo
tent Being being the god of cancer, epilepsy and
war, as well as of the good that happened. They
could not believe that a God of love could allow
such tilings. And so they seized with avidity
upon the idea of natural selection put forward
by Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the origi
nator of the idea of evolution—that was long
before his time—but he made us familiar with
that particular form of evolution known as
natural selection. That idea was seized upon
with a feeling of relief—relief that the o’d
idea of God was banished from the world.
This feeling of relief was so great that for
the time it was overlooked what a horrible
void had been created in the universe. Natural
selection left us in a world which was very
largely full of horrors, apparently accounted
for by the fact that it as a whole happened by
accident. But if there was no purpose or de
sign in the universe the sooner we all cut cur
throats the better, for it was not much of a
place to live in. After remarking that most
of the natural selection men of the 19th cen
tury were very brilliant, but were cowards, Mr.
Shaw said we wanted to get back to men with
some belief in the purpose of the universe,
with a determination to identify them elves,
with it and with the courage that came from
that. Coming to his own position, Mr. Shaw
said he was, and always had been a mystic.
He believed that the universe was being
driven by a force that they might call the
Life Force. He saw it was performing the
miracle of creation, that it had got into the
minds of men as what they called their will.
They saw people who clearlj’ were carrying out
a will not exclusively their own.
The Origin of Evil.
To attempt to represent this particular will
or power as God—in the former meaning of
�6
the word—was now entirely hopeless; nobody
could believe that. In the old davs the Chris
tian apologists got out of the difficulty of G. d
as the god of cancer and epilepsy, and all the
worst powers that were in one, by believing in
God and the devil. They said that when a man
did wrong he was possessed by the devil, and
when he did right that he was possessed by
the grace of God. It was, in fact, the concep
tion of “old Nick.” It was a conception of
enormous value, for the devil was always re
presented as a person who could do nothing by
himeelf, and that lie had to tempt people to
do wrong. He (Mr. Shaw) implored them to
believe that, because it helped them a great
deal. People always used to assume that the
only way in which the devil could carry out
his will was by inspiring or tempting pe pie
to do what he wanted them to do. Tempta
tion and inspiration meant the same thing
exactly as firmness and obstinacy meant the
same thing, only people used the one word
when they wanted to be complimentary and
the other when they wanted to be abusive. Mr.
Shaw went on to put forward a conception of
God of a somewhat similar nature, as some
thing not po-sessiiig hands and brains such as
ours, and having therefore to use ours; as hav
ing brought us into exi-ter.ce in order to use
us, and not being able to work in any other
way. If, he said, we conceived God as work
ing in that way and having a tremtnlous
struggle with a great, whirling mass of matter,
civilisation meant our moulding this mass to
our own purposes and will, and in doing that
really moulding to the will of God. If we
accepted that conception we could see the
limitations of our God, and could even pity
Him. He went on to propound the theory of
trial and error, and said that they could imag
ine that something—the Life-Force—be inning
in a very blind and feeble way at first, first
laboriously, achieving motion, making a little
bit of slime to move and then going on through
the whole story of evolution, building up and
up until at last, man was reached.
At this
point Mr. Shaw remarked that one of the most
terrible indictments that could be framed
against God was for them to look at themselves
in the glass, and, remembering what they did
last week, say that God made them. The only
■ -p-SP v, ;;s
un |0
|la()
to produce nothing better !
The Will to Good.
They must believe in the Will to Good—it was
impossible to regard man as willing his own
�7
destruction. But in that striving after good
they were liable to make mistakes, and to let
loose instead something that was destructive.
He spoke of the typhoid bacillus as one
of
the
failures
of
the
Life
Force
that we called God, and spoke of that force
■trying through our brains to discover some
method of destroying that malign influence.
If they got that conception, he said, they
would be able to give an answer to those
people who asked for an explanation of the
origin of evil. Evil things were things that
were made with the object of their doing good,
but turned out wrong, and therefore had to be
destroyed.
The conception lie had put for
ward, he continued, was the most important
conception for the religion of the future, be
came it gave us what we are at present, anil
gave us courage and self-respect. The world,
he said, must consist of people who were happy
and at the same time sober. At present the
happiness of the world was as the liappines
of drunken people.
lie did not mean that
everybody who was happy was like th? man
who was locked up for being drunk; but the
ordinary men or women, even in the politest
society, at present were not happy and d'd n t
respect themselves and did not exult in their
existence until they had had at least a cup of
tea. (Laughter.) We had all sorts of facti
tious aids to life. We were trying to fight
off the consciousness of ourselves because we
did not see the consciousness of a mission, and
finally the consciousness of a magnificent des
tiny.
The Ideal of God.
We were, he said, all experiments in the
direction of making God.
What God was
doing was making Himself, getting from being
a mere powerless will or force. This force had
implanted into our minds the ideal of God.
We were not very successful attempts at God
so far, but he believed that if they could drive
into the heads of men the full consciousness of
moral responsibility that came to men with
the knowledge that there would never be a God
unless we made one—that we are the instru
ments through which that ideal was trying to
make itself a reality—they could work towards
that ideal until they got to be supermen, and
then super-supermen, and then a world of
organisms who had achieved and realised God.
They could then dispense with idolatry, intimi
dation, stimulants, and the nonsense of civil
isation, and be a really happy body, with splen
�8
did liopes and a very general conception of the
world they lived in. In the meantime those who
had exceptional, expensive education should
make it their business to give such ideals to
the great mass of people. If they adopted a
religion of this kind, with some future in it,
he believed that they could at last get the
masses to listen, because experience would never
contradict it. They would not have people say
ing that Christianity would not work out in
business; they would get a religion that would
work out in business, and lie believed that in
stead of its being a lower religion than Chris
tianity, it would be a higher one. Also it would
fulfil the condition which he set out at starting
—it would be a Western religion, not an
Oriental one. Let them make the best religion
they could, and no longer go about in the rags
and tatters of the East, and then, when
the different races of the earth had worked out
their own conceptions of religion, those reli
gions might all meet and criticise each other,
and end, perhaps, in only one religion, and an
inconceivably better religion than they had any
conception of. (Applause.)
Mr. Shaw afterwards answered a number of
questions. Among them was one asking his
conception of Christ. To this he replied that
Christ was one of the attempts, one of the
failures. A man who said that Christ was the
highest was not worth working with. They
need not bother about the past. Let the dead
past bury the past. The concern of the
Heretic was with the future : with the Humanity
that is to come.
A hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Shaw termin
ated the meeting, after which it is pleasant to
record (hat the speaker accepted an invitation
to become an honorary member of the society.
�§
Irom “The Gownsman,” June 3rd.
MR. BERNARD SHAW AS HERETIC.
The enthusiastic audience which crowded to the
Victoria Assembly Rooms on Monday is a strik
ing example of the recent triumphs of Heresy
in Cambridge, and it may be questioned if there
is any living personality besides Mr. Bernard
Shaw who could have attracted so distinguished
a gathering through the heat of a Tripos after
noon to listen to an address of nearly an hour
and a half on “The Future of Religion.”
It
need only be said that nearly all the Honorary
Members of the Society were present with their
friends, and that some two hundred would-be
hearers made application, too late, for the
limited numkr of seats available.
Mr. F. M. Cornford was in the chair, and in
troduced Mr. Bernard Shaw as a protagonist
of Heresy, and one who had been described as
without ideals and without hopes.
Thus en
couraged, Mr. Shaw proceeded to outline the
functions of the Heretic, as a reformer of shopmade religion—the religion of the nearest
Church. The business of the Heretic is to pro
duce a God that humanity can understand; the
expurgated Jehovah of the present, or rather
the past generation is an unintelligible mon
ster, whose name could scarcely be mentioned
outside places of worship. In Parliament he
was not heard of at all, and whether spoken
of in Cambridge or not was noticeably out of
fashion to-day.
It is a disgraceful state of affairs, said Mr.
Shaw, that in England we have no religion of
our own, and are forced to form a nucleus for
our Faith out of the discarded legends of the
East.
This orientalism must be abandoned.
Not that all would abandon it; the man who
could believe in the story of the Gadarene swine
could believe anything; the man who refused
to smile at the episode of Elisha and his bears
could worship anything.
.Mr. Shaw, however, avowed a democratic be
lief in the intelligence of mankind, and pro
ceeded to study the pecularities of African
potentates. Indeed, in order not to be personal,
he would confine himself to Africa, as far as
possible.
The man of genius, he remarked,
found it difficult to make people understand
fiim. “I know this,” said Mr. Shaw, “for I am
�10
by profession a man of genius.” However, at
the risk of being misunderstood, he declared
that we had hitherto been governed by a sys
tem of idolatry, whethe? by King or God.
But worst of all were second-hand idols; idols
interpreting the will of other idols. That was
the great point about democracy—the educa
tion of the people till they should no longer be
imposed on by idolatry. Democracy goes first
to the Cathedrals, and removes the heads from
idols of wood and stone, and then to the
palaces to try a sort of vivisection experiment
with idols of flesh and blood. Such an experi
ment we are making in this hall to-day, said
Mr. Shaw, and lo! heaven is not falling, the
veil of the temple remains intact. Take him
self for example, a democrat to the teeth
(which, by the way, Mr. Shaw regretting his
infirmities for the fray, confessed later were
not all his own)—“It is no use trying these
kings and gods on me, I refuse to be imposed
on. And, indeed, with his utter lack of the
bump of veneration (a ph; enologist had told
him long ago that his bump was a ’ole), Mr..
Shaw appeared the very incarnation of the jib
bing Zeitgeist—the religion of the future, in
fact, must allow for democracy. And here Mr.
Shaw came to his own position. He was, and
always had been, a mystic. He believed that
the Universe was being driven by a force that
might be called the Life-Force, ever performing
miracles of creation, ever struggling with the
blind whirring mass of matter for the civilisa
tion that is Power, ever striving by the method
of trial and error, towards the Good—towards
the Superman—towards the Super-Superman,
Mr. Shaw contrasted this position with that
of the Christian apologists, and their God, who
had to be excused the responsibility of cancer
and epilepsy: excused, too, for Humanity and
the present audience, for which Mr. Shaw
thoughtfully apologised to the Universe. “You
require a Lot of apology,” he said, “as a visit
to the looking-glass, coupled with reflections on
your life during the past week, would speedily
show.”
The only consolation was that
in to date God had been able to produce no
thing better. And it is our:, said Mr. Shaw,
to work for something better, to talk less about
the religion of Love (Love is an improper
subject) and more about the Religion of Life,
and of Wiork; to create a world that shall know
a happiness that need not be the happiness of
drunkenness; a world of which we need not be
ashamed
�li
Tremendous applause greeted the sustained
eloquence of such incomparably irreverent
Blasphemy, and a number of questions followed,
to which Mr. Shaw replied. Amongst these was
one asking his conception of Christ, and it was
answered that Christ, who must of course be
regarded as largely mythical, was one of the
attempts of the method of trial and error—but,
moreover, one of the failures. Whoever held
that Christ was the highest was a hopeless
pessimist, and not worth working with. As re
gards death, Mr. Shaw disclaimed any desire
for immortality, either for himself or for Mrs.
Shaw, whose presence, however (he said) called
for restrained language on this topic.
For
its external expression the religion of the
future might have the Symphonies of Beethoven
and th© plays of G.B.S.
It was pertinently objected by one Heretic
that Mr. Shaw ought to endeavour to avoid the
unpleasant word God, with its unsatisfactory
associations, but Mr. Shaw replied that though
lie admitted the word was somewhat fatuous,
yet “Life-Force” did not please people, and he
could find nothing better. For the views of one
somewhat boresome speaker Mr. Shaw reques
ted twenty minutes’ silent prayer.
A hearty vote of thanks to the lecturer for his
unusually outspoken address concluded a very
remarkable meeting, after which it is gratify
ing to record that Mr. Shaw accepted an invita
tion to become an honorary member of the
Society.
C.K.O.
Extract from “The Christian Commonwealth,”
June 7th.
. ..... a crowded and enthusiastic
meeting. Like Rev. R. J. Campbell, Mr. Shaw
was invited by the Heretics.
Mr. F. M. Cornford, of Trinity College, who
presided over the distinguished gathering, re
marked that it was a refreshing experience for
Cambridge to hear one who never concealed
his real attitude towards religious questions;
and, thus encouraged, Mr. Shaw embarked
on an indictment of the current creeds of the
Churches, an avowal of faith in Democracy,
an exposition of the Dionysian philosophy of
the Superman, the Life-Force, and the Trans
valuation of Religious Values.
The business of the Heretic, said Mr. Shaw,
is to produce a God whom humanity can under
�12
stand; his mission is the reformation of shopmade religion—the religion of the nearest
church.
It is a disgraceful state of affairs
that in England we have no religion of our
own, but make a> shift with the discarded
legends of the East. This dressing-up of our
selves in the outworn rags of Orientalism must
cease. We must have a religion which we can
carry out into our lives, into the world of busi
ness, into the work of Democracy. Democracy
would not tolerate the insincere idolatry of
the present day.
Democracy removed the
heads from idols of wood and stonej it even
made vivisection experiments with idols of
flesh and blood. “It is no use trying these
Kings and Gods on me,” said Mr. Shaw. “I
refuse to be imposed on.” And he besought
the audience to note that though he stood
there uttering these blasphemies, yet the
heavens had not fallen, and the veil of the
temple remained intact! That was the extra
ordinary thing, and should give courage to
others. It is ours, he continued, to strive for
nobler ends, even as the Life-Force is striv
ing—to talk less about the Religion of Love
(“Love is an improper subject”) and more
about the Religion of Life and of Work—and
by striving to help to create a world of which
we need be less ashamed. Let the dead past
bury the past; we must look to the future, and
cease to assume that the Highest lies behind.
Whoever held that Christ was the highest
possible was a hopeless pessimist and not worth
working with.
But though Mr. Shaw con
sidered the figiire of Christ as largely mythical,
and Christianity to a great extent a failure,
yet he begged not to be misunderstood; he did
not depreciate the great work which Christ
helped on, the work of realising God. of press
ing on towards the Good, towards the Super
man—towards the Super-Superman.
It was pertinently objected by one Heretic
that Mr. Shaw should endeavour to avoid the
unpleasant word God, with its unsatisfactory
associations.
Mr. Shaw admitted the diffi
culty. but. complained that he could do no
better. For the views of one somewhat boresome critic Mr. Shaw requested twenty minutes’
silent prayer.
It was a magnificent meeting : Mr. Shaw ap
peared the very incarnation of G.B.S., glorious
ly irreverent, transparently sincere, divinelv
prophetic, and inspiring—the very thing for
our older Universities.
�13
Extract from the “Daily Express,” May 30th.
“CHRIST A FAILURE.”
Extraordinary speech by Mr. G. B. Shaw.
. . . . in the course of his remarks he
said “When Charles Darwin came Along with
his theory of Natural Selection the people
jumped at it and kicked God out of the win
dow.”
Extract from “The Academy,” June 3rd.
“A DETESTABLE OUTRAGE.”
“The question whether Mr. Shaw has beliefs
or none may interest an egregious egotist . . . .
our protest is against the dissemination of
poisonous theories amongst young persons
. . . . but we do not observe that the lec
turer was kicked out of the window, or that
he was thrown into the Cam .... unless
public attention is called to the vile and blas
phemous ravings .... it is unnecessary
to resort to coarse profanity to teach the doc
trines of
materialism .... Socialism
must now stand forth naked and unashamed as
resting for its sanction on flagrant infidelity.”
Extract from “Cambridge Review/’ June 1st.
Mr. Shaw said that the progress of demo
cracy means the destruction of idols, whether
idols of wood and stone, or of flesh and blood,
whether original or deputy idols. The ordi
nary man has no time to construct a home
made religion, and it is the business of the
leaders or thought to see that the ready-made
article thev supply him depends for its strength
not on idolatry, but on its own inherent reason
ableness. It is time that Western civilisation
produced a religion of its own. instead of dress
ing itself in the rags of an Oriental one. Mr.
Shaw described the first flush of triumph of
Scientific Materialism in the latter half of
the last century, and the gradual discovery
of the terrific gap which it made in life. We
have now discovered again that we cannot do
without the conception of Purpose in the Uni
verse; religion consists in idfentifying our
selves with this Purpose—God or the LifeForce or whatever we choose to call it—and
realising that it can only develop itself through
us. God, like Man, can only progress by the
method of trial and error, which is the ex
planation of the problem of evil. If we once
�14
realise that God is not omnipotent, but that
it is our duty to help him make himself, we
shall have a religion again, and that a nativeborn religion.
It need hardly be said that Mr .Shaw’s out
spoken lecture was of the deepest interest,
though numerous criticisms spring readily to
the mind. Perhaps some of the large audience
found it difficult to believe at first that this
mild-looking elderly prophet was really the
terrible G.B.S.; but liis vigorous outbursts of
irreverence and Hibernian wit soon reassured
them. We congratulate the Heretics on their
skill in capturing this most elusive and most
stimulating of modern thinkers.
Telegraphing to the “Daily Express,’’ in
answer to the inquiry whether he had list'd the
expression. “Christ was a failure.’’ Mr. Shaw
used these words: “Have not seen report, but
the fact you mention is sufficiently obvious in
the modern smart sense of the word.”
(“Ilie Academy,'’ June 10th., in answer to
reb uke.)
Replying to the question of a “Manchester
Dispatch” representative regarding the opinions
of one Dr. Adami on himself, Mr. Shaw said :
“T really don’t know that I ought to say any
thing at all upon such a brief message. Look
how I was treated over the question, “Is Christ
a failure?”
(The “ Birniinyham Daily Mail,” June 11th,
eommentiny on the “Owford incident” (sic).
�����
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 religion of the future
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Shaw, George Bernard [1856-1950]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Cambridge]
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 x 10 cm.
Notes: Address given to the Heretics Society at the Victoria Assembly Rooms, Cambridge, on May 29, 1911. Mr F.M. Cornford was in the chair. Includes subsequent press responses to Shaw's address (p. 9-14). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Cambridge Daily News
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1911
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N610
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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 religion of the future), 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
Heresy
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/89c84c846e4770a8a1dd0c28dda480dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hOkpKjZdsPIQ9O830-Sa%7EZ5y9amGTLiavLDKl8xbQxAHMxqnEkrSzdslDRePq-xMUX8l56e%7EmEm5oLfjv%7EuxsQxd0RDuVsAOuNXDM5caCn8FDW0%7El3Av9695dyqzMrHQloOhrsPk1dfpAirOZxKzHcuxbfg8MV9e3ebnIivzV5CTZV5MXmeb2MhAfswmsFbdIylt2yu02ieOWq3mDM1pztnECkmDh0ZtybIOZWwstvL0PQ4HJbeAFvtfgrBFQV1JUpEQUYGnp9aSYSNrfFcX%7EUEFmkAGfq24gS%7EkFeTpcA7M2w8IOQocL9pHyPpbUhHJjzjKhdROWXd-vAL5WGdJ-A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a41a5dc0993497f73392bdc400a6804b
PDF Text
Text
b'2.SA ó
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ON RELIGION.
BY
a ¡former elder in a scotch church.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�“If the religion of the present differs from that of
the past, it is because the theology of the present has
become more scientific than that of the past; because
it has not only renounced idols of wood and idols of
stone, but begins to see the necessity of breaking in
pieces the idols built up of books and traditions and
fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs; and of cherishing the
noblest and most human of man’s emotions, by wor
ship ‘for most part of the silent sort’ at the altar of
the Unknown and Unknowable.”—Huxley : Lay Ser
mons and Addresses.
�ON RELIGION.
��ON
RELIGION.
------ >-------
ORDS are things of extraordinary power. Al
though they possess only an arbitrary or conven
tional meaning, yet it is surprising to see the tyranny
which they exercise over men’s minds. This is especially
manifested during a time of rapid change in opinion. It
then becomes quite a study to watch how parties range
themselves under the cover of words, and how multi
tudes are more scared by having an ill-favoured word
applied to them, than by having done an evil action.
To a student of English history, for example, how
much is brought to mind by the mere words—Puritan
and courtier ; roundhead and cavalier ; covenanter and
dragoon; methodist, moderate, dissenter, churchman,
&c. Not only is he reminded that such parties once
existed in this country, and were in violent opposition
to one another ; but he is reminded, also, that the
name often gave a title to favour and reward if its
holders were great and in power, or was sufficient to
call down ignominy and hardship if its holders were
few and in subjection. The merit or demerit lay in
the name, not in ability or character. Nor are things
much- different even yet. A great conflict in opinion
is at present waging in this country, and, as in former
times, great importance attaches to certain words.
Thus when a man is said to be conservative or liberal
in politics, we know what statesmen think about him;
when he is said to be evangelical or infidel in opinion,
we know what religionists think about him; and this,
W
�4
On Religion.
although the person who may claim the favoured
name is a much less honourable and useful member of
society than the man who is spotted with its opposite.
In this conflict the word religion and its congeners not
only perform most important duty of the kind referred
to, but often blind even the rational inquirer himself
to the perception of what is true. Thus, when the
exposure of orthodox superstitions is sometimes being
pressed to the last defence, is not the cover thrown out
and too readily admitted : 1 Man cannot do without reli
gion : therefore, until you find something better than
the Gospel, leave him with his belief in God, in future
life and responsibility.’ The word religion has over
awed the disputant. Or again, when the ignorance
and badness of some religious professor has been made
manifest, is judgment never arrested by the remark, he
is a “good” man, a “religious” man; although he may
be mistaken, or for the moment left to himself? The
reason in both cases is alike. I hope to make plain to
the reader, before concluding, both what I consider the
nature of religion to be, and the meaning which is
likely in the future to attach to the word.
Nor is it only by half-educated people that Truth is
thus sought to be killed or protected by a word. The
following is copied from the newspapers of the month
of July 1870:—“A letter from the Bishop of Man
chester was read at the meeting of the Manchester
Secular Society last night, declining a challenge to
meet one of their practised speakers in debate on the
evidence and benefits of Christianity and the Church.
His lordship justified his description of the Society as
a manifestation of the powers of evil, by saying that
though he respected the honesty of his correspondent,
he was bound as a Christian to believe that a society
which opposed and denied the principles of Christianity
was a manifestation of a maleficent power. The religion
which had survived the assaults of Hume, Voltaire,
�On Religion.
5
and Tom Paine would survive the attacks of Holyoake
and Bradlaugh.”
I have no wish for the present either to defend secu
larists, or to say a word against their assailants, but
surely there is misunderstanding or misapplication of
words in the sentences quoted. There is no point at
all in the Bishop’s remarks unless the words “ principles
of Christianity” in the middle sentence are synonymous
with the word “religion” in the last. And yet few
facts will be more readily admitted than that the “ re
ligion” which the Bishop says has survived the assaults
of Hume and others is a very different thing from what
is commonly known by “ the principles of Christianity.”
Por are not these last always set forth as a series of
dogmatic propositions, based upon revelation■ and do
not these propositions change in their aspect and form
of expression with each generation of men, or at all
events with each educational epoch; and is it not a
recognized fact that such an epoch has been passed in
the history of this country since Hume’s days 1 If,
therefore, religion is identical with the principles of
Christianity, then, because it is matter of literary his
tory that great changes have taken place in these
principles during the last century, we shall most cer
tainly fail to find the religion of Hume’s time surviving
at the present. More than this, if the identity is to be
entertained, I wonder where we shall look for religion
in what are called Apostolic days-—for according to the
most recent and most scholarly investigation of the earliest
Christian literature no traces of what are now called
principles of Christianity are found to exist therein.
Evidently, the Bishop here uses the word “ religion”
as equivalent to the theological dogmas of his own
Sect; whereas correct thinkers now for the most part
abstain from employing it in that antiquated sense.
In very olden times, it is true, Religion was much less
dogmatic than it has ever since been, but this was be
cause everything was then placed under its control, and
�6
On Religion.
none dreamed of questioning its authority. Family re
lations, business connexions, war, peace, the arrange
ments of national and social life, amusements, food,
dress, &c., &c., were all regarded as part of religious
service. This is very well illustrated in the social and
national life of Hindostán at the present day ; not to
speak of other peoples, among whom the priestly
authority is superior to the military. A careful student
of English history and manners finds numerous illustra
tions of it also in his own country.—As men become
wiser, the sphere affected by religion gets narrower ;
delivered from its governance they get experience of
life under new conditions; and as members of a republic
are emboldened to inquire into and criticize what is
called the “ divine right of kings,” so when men are
thus emancipated, they often seem disposed to analyse
the “ religious sense,” and see what really originates
and constitutes the essence of religion.
All men are said to be religious : religion is considered
by most people the proper product of man’s highest
cultivation. Let us look at these two statements with
some attention. First : When we speak of national
religion, Christian religion, Hindoo religion, Pagan
religion, and such like, it is evident that we do not
refer to something which is common to man as man,
but to something special to him as inhabiting a district
of country or as dwelling in parts of the world which
differ in thoughts and manners. The fact, however,
that it is the same substantive which is qualified by
these different adjectives indicates that it is the same
phase of human life which is referred to, although the
attention is immediately directed to the formal ex
pression in ceremony or speech, rather than to the
spirit which underlies the word or act. Eeligion in
this sense is more properly a system of doctrine
which metaphysically explains and systematizes the
religious life of different peoples, than religion’s self ;
�On Religion.
7
yet hitherto this has all hut universally passed for re
ligion, and he has been counted by his own nation or
sect the most religious man who has been most skilled
in its particular theology.
If religion, in the usual sense of the word, he com
mon to mankind, is there not something unaccountable
in the fact that, in all countries and in all times, a
class of individuals has been singled out and called
“ Divines ” because they were learned in that which
separated them and their fellows from all others?
Had they been so called because they were skilled in
all the varied hypotheses and opinions which men
had entertained respecting the mystery of Being, one
could have understood the distinction. As a result
of their theological knowledge thus widened, they
would most certainly have exerted themselves to
allay animosity and promote brotherhood. But it
has been far otherwise. They have got the name,
and worn the distinction, because they were masters
of that dialectic skill which could prove to those
of their own way of thinking that their notions
were right. This might or might not be occasioned
by men pinning their faith to the words of a con
secrated book, or of a consecrated class of men; but
the fact remains that hitherto it has been too much
the rule to count other men’s habits and opinions ir
religious—our own only, religious. The Christian has
regarded Hindoo and Mahommedan as heathen ; the
Boman Catholic has regarded the Protestant as apostate.
Second ~ regarded in the light of these differences,
one certainly cannot look upon religion as having as
yet produced any very high style of humanity.
I am aware that another aspect of religious life is more
frequently presented than this one,—an aspect in which
we are shown the enlightened, the graceful, the brotherly,
the heroic adorning the religionist. I gladly admit it;
but invite attention to the fact, that in all such ex
amples, natural disposition or culture will be found to
�8
On Religion.
have predominated over religious feeling, so much that
their contemporaries for most part knew them less as
religious persons than as persons of extraordinary intel
ligence, force of character, patriotism, or humaneness.
Oftentimes, indeed, they were put to death as having
no religion. Succeeding generations, when educated
in manners and general intelligence to their emi
nence, may have recognised and even paid homage
to their religious spirit, but this only shows that
Culture is at all times a generation at least in advance
of Religion. In further proof of this, is it not an
undoubted fact, that, when any great advance in know
ledge, in social usage, in economic or industrial art
has hitherto been attempted, religious thought and
prejudice have had to be contended with, ministers
of religion and their influence have had to be over
thrown? And these contentions have been carried
on with a bitterness unknown in any other human
strivings. No matter to whom he was opposed,
to the king, the philosopher, the man of science, or
the philanthropist, as much as to the evil doer,
the religious man always placed himself on God’s
side, and his opponent on the side of the Adversary.
Hence the melancholy scroll of antipathies, feuds,
and cruelties which religionists have now to answer
for and explain. More than nationality, more than
education, wealth, station, or age has religion separated
between man and man. Fiercer than rage for political
power, stronger than love of country, have been the
passions which religion has awakened and fanned into
flame. Cruel in hate and stubborn in opposition,
even the ties of blood and the family relations are
weak in the presence of the spirit of religion when intent
upon the differences of its manifestation among men.
But while these facts prevent numbers now-a-days
from awarding a high place to the religious sentiment,
they nevertheless are conducting them to a truer
knowledge than they have yet attained of its nature
�On Religion.
9
sad value. They prove that religion originates in
feeling, and is sustained by feeling. Physiology makes
plain that feeling is occasioned by things outside
affecting some part or other of the nervous system.
Rational philosophy maintains that thought is the
expression given to our varied sensations ; and by con
sequence that religious thought is just the expression
given to one of these varieties. If this be so, then
religion may be common to all men, provided that out
ward objects have impressed them all in the way calcu
lated to produce the sensations and expressions we call
religious. But this proves nothing respecting the
superiority of these sensations, and rests the universality
upon an entirely new finding; for hitherto it has been
regarded as ascertained that religion was the product
of a special faculty given to man, in virtue of which
he was not merely religious, but also God-conscious.
This notion of a special religious faculty has evidently
emanated from the mind of priests.
Current with
it is the corollary, that no races of men have been
discovered, or are discoverable, who do not possess
a religion, and a notion, however rude, of God. Our
belief in the special faculty, however, is completely
upset by the investigations of modern science and the
logic of the phenomenal philosophy; and our belief
in its corollary is fast giving way before the facts
ascertained by modern travellers. According to some
of the most trustworthy of these, including among
their number Roman Catholic missionaries, many of
the tribes inhabiting South America have no religion
whatever, have no idea of a Supreme Being—conse
quently have no word to express it in their languages.
Others, long resident among the Indians of California,
affirm that idols, temples, religious worship or cere
monies were unknown to them, and that they neither
believed in the true and only God, nor adored false
deities. The five nations of Canada, and the North
�IO
On Religion.
American Indians, had no public worship nor any word
for God. According to others, in a great many islands
of the Pacific ocean, there are neither temples, nor
altars, nor offerings ; nor traces of any religious belief
or observance. Dr. Schort, Captain Grant, Burchell,
Baker, Palgrave, all speak of tribes in Asia and Africa
who have no form of worship or religion.
The authentication and verification of facts like
these, is of immense importance in an inquiry like the
present. Some of the names quoted from are beyond
suspicion, although the facts borne witness to are new
and very hard of belief. In addition, a great number of
similar witnesses are quoted, with considerable fulness
of detail, by Sir John Lubbock in his ‘ Pre-historic
Times,’ and also in his recent book on the 1 Origin of
Civilization;’ and the reports of several Boyal Com
missions for inquiring into the state of the working
classes in our own country, furnish numerous proofs
that human beings destitute of religion and of a notion
of God are found elsewhere than in foreign lands and
among ‘ savages.’
I am not concerned to account for the fact that some
races of men, in their most savage state known to us,
have no religious ideas, whilst other races, possibly in
a more savage state, have such ideas. This is no more
to be wondered at than the fact that some nations are
naturally of a warlike and others of a peaceful disposi
tion. But the facts, as certified by the best authorities,
are serious difficulties in the way of those who believe
in the Hebrew narrative, and in the theories which are
built thereon. And what is most worthy of remark is,
that in some cases travellers have been obliged to
admit these facts much against their inclination. Thus
Father Dobritzzhoffer says, “ Theologians agree in
denying that any man in possession of his reason can,
without a crime, remain ignorant of God for any length
of time. This opinion I warmly defended in the
University of Cardoba, where I finished the four years’
�On Religion.
11
course of theology begun at Gratz, in Styria. But
what was my astonishment, when, on removing from
thence to a colony of Abipones, I found that the whole
language of these savages does not contain a single
word which expresses God or a divinity. To instruct
them in religion, it was necessary to borrow the
Spanish word for God, and to insert it into the Cate
chism, with an explanation.”
The truth is, that men and nations must have
advanced considerably in civilization, before they could
take up the religious idea, and the entertaining of it
marks a period or era in the process of human develop
ment. For, as will appear presently, the rudest reli
gious belief implies not only acquaintance with natural
phenomena, but also reflection upon the way in which
they relate themselves to man. I know that it is diffi
cult, if not impossible, for the educated mind to under
stand the uneducated, and that when it speculates upon
the bygone history of mankind, to a certainty it looks
upon men and things in these former times through the
eyes of its own experience. But when we seek for the
dawn of “ religion,” we are not so much peering into
pre-historic times, as tracing to its origin a state of
idealism which could not belong to absolutely unedu
cated man; and which our knowledge of man’s intel
lectual nature assures us could be the result only of
a process of reasoning—however imperfectly or blunder
ingly that process had been followed through its
successive logical stages.
It is in keeping with this conclusion that the earliest
gods which savages worship appear to have been for
the most part of cruel nature. They are such them
selves ; and besides, dangers and fears had more to do
with their earliest reflections than pleasures and hopes.
The reason of this is obvious. They are dependent
upon soil and climate far beyond civilized men.
Not having learned economy or thrift, they live
�12
On Religion.
riotously while weather is good and food lasts, and
then imagine themselves the victims of vengeance
when their supplies fail. They battle fiercely with
one another for the last morsel of food and the
snuggest shelter. In consequence they think much
of the club or stone which does them good service
in the struggle, and are deeply impressed with any
happy chance which they think has helped them to
victory. Hence they get to worship sticks and stones,
a gust of wind, a glint of sunshine, a stream of water,
or any thing they have associated with their welfare or
success. Their religion originates out of the accumula
tion of these mental effects or deposits—which in
philosophic times are called ideas, knowledge, thought.
Now, observe the point where the religious sense
begins. It is not to the act of the savage shrinking from
the impact of the stone thrown at him, or exulting
at its deadly effect upon an opponent, that we attach
the term religious, but to his state of mind after he
has come to regard the stone as possessed of qualities
which will serve him advantageously if employed
against his enemy, or on the contrary, injure self
greatly, if used by the enemy against him. His fear
as manifested in the shrinking, or his hope as evidenced
in the exultation, may be the root of the whole matter;
and the ultimate findings of reason may by and by shut
us up to the conclusion that we have no nobler origin
for religion in man than this instinctive love of life
which he has in common with all animated nature.
Meanwhile, I content myself with the remark, that
in the mere perception that the stone possessed qualities
which admirably fitted it for purposes of offence and
defence, the untutored mind had not passed into the
idealistic stage. It is to this stage that rationalism
has as yet limited the application of the word religious.
When our savage ancestor first thought of the qualities
of stone being inherent in it as life is in man, and
invested the stone with a will which he conceived
�On Religion.
Blight be inclined to him or turned from him, and
which will, working in the stone like passion in him.«!£, rendered its hardness and power of motion more
«viceable ' or more hostile to him—then we consider
that he attained to the state of religions consciousness.
Immediately he would resort to expedients to avert the
stone’s enmity, and to propitiate its favour. This was
his religion, and these acts of propitiation, dèe., would
constitute his religious service.
•
A process of idealization originating in some such
fashion as this appears to have been the beginning of
all varieties of the religious idea. In some rude minds
it began by imaginings suggested by a serpent or wild
beast, in others by ponderings on the destructive forces
of Nature or musings on its productive power ; but in
all cases it is to the ideal entertained, and not to the
object that originates it, that worship is paid. I do not
wonder at believers in a book-revelation being opposed
to this theory, and disposed to question the facts upon
which it rests, for it tells against them in twTo ways.
It show's that the god and the religion of the “heathen”
m not the invention of a devil ; and that the god and
the religion of the Christian can be traced to the same
Oligin as those of the savage.
The origination of the religious idea in respect of the
heavenly bodies is another case in proof of the correct
ness of this theory, and I adduce it for the purpose of
directing attention to the additional fact, that religion
Séems to have originated through men, in their ignor
ance, investing the images in their minds with attri
butes which they did not attach to the objects as known
to their senses. Thus, it could not be the knowledge
that the sun was the centre of light and heat to the
earth which caused our forefathers to worship it ; but it
must have been a process of reasoning on the natural
phenomena connected with the sun’s rising and shining,
�14
On Religion.
ingenious enough to us who look hack and seek to
unravel it, doubtless profound and conclusive to those
early peoples who were impressed by it. When his
beams in mild and placid mood gladdened the earth,
primitive man saw that flowers blossomed and were
fragrant, that corn waved, and fruits ripened, and that
joy filled the breast of animated nature ; when at other
times the solar rays shot down upon the earth in
strength, he saw the ground parch, plants wither, and
man and beast smitten with heat run to shelter; and
when in winter the ruler of day shone only for a short
time, or hid his face altogether for a season, he found
that the earth became sterile and cheerless, and that
men and beasts shivered with the cold and often
perished. Reflecting on these changes in the light of
very imperfect knowledge, minds strongly imaginative,
and little educated conceived the force residing in
the sun to be like the life in their own bodies, that its
movements were directed by a will variable as their
own, and fitful and partial as their own tempers.
Hence they used sacrifices, libations, invocations, lauda
tions, to turn away its wrath, and secure its favourable
regard.
So was it, in short, with all the skiey influences and
other natural phenomena. Even in the later deification
of heroic men the same principles are found at work ;
and the best scholars now-a-days know of no other
origin of the voluminous and marvellous mythologies of
antiquity,—any of which, when read in the light of
this hypothesis is full of beauty and meaning, however
much it may have been a puzzle to our forefathers. In
such rude beginnings erudite ethnographers and archae
ologists see the starting point of the human intellect,
and trace onward its growth to its present development.
Working in the same fight, and with the same materials,
the greatest authorities in philology are studying the
various languages of antiquity, and are gathering the
fragments for the foundations of a science of religion,
�On Religion.
15
which promises not only perfectly to explain the past,
but also to make men feel truly akin to the present.
But the Evangelical school will not permit the name
11 religion” to be applied to any of these manifestations.
They say that they are the superstitions of mankind.
According to them, religion consists in those beliefs and
services which take their rise from the revealed word of
God. In their theory the religious is not only the highest
product of humanlife; but man was created perfect in re
spect to all the requirements of religion—with conscience
‘set’ like the mariner’s compass so that infallibly it
could decide between good and evil; and he was animated
with an entity, distinct from and superior to the life
of the body—called spirit—a morsel of the Divine.
These are held to distinguish him from all other
creatures; and because of his distinction and superiority,
God is represented as constantly dealing with man in
special to prepare him for inconceivable dignity in a
future world.
My present purpose does not require that I should
further describe this hypothesis. In every particular it
opposes the theory of religion and of the religious life
as I have endeavoured to set it forth. It says that
man in his earliest days was not uneducated, but per
fect in wisdom and holiness; that the object he
worships is not the product of his imagination, but a
far-distant and inapproachable Being who, from time to
time, acquaints a selected tribe of men with as much
of his nature and character as they are able to compre
hend, leaving it to the chapter of accidents to dis1
seminate such revelation among the vast family of
mankind. I have not the slightest wish for the present
to raise even one of the many questions which such a
theory suggests ; but I deem it important to observe,
that whether the religious sense is quickened in man s
•mind by natural phenomena, or by the words of a book,
the mode of operation and the effect produced is much the
�16
On Religion.
same, so that if the product of the Bible is religion as
distinguished from superstition, the product of natural
phenomena is no less so. There is indeed this difference
to begin with, that what is termed the fundamental pos
tulate of religion, the being of God, is taken for granted
in all. systems of revealed, more than it is taken for
granted in any system of natural religion. Over and
above this, we must remember that a book (even the
Bible) stands as much outside of man as the phenomena
of nature, and that its power to excite reflection, which
is the true originator of religious emotions, is limited
by the same conditions.
It is true that without
reflection its revelations can awaken emotions of
wonder and awe, or paralyse with fear, for what the
ear hears, as well as what the eye sees, acts upon the
nervous system. But then, as we have seen, ration
alists do not consider these things religion; and if
any revelationists are disposed to maintain that they
should be called the “beginning of wisdom,” I commend
to their consideration the following words of Sir John
Lubbock.—“ If the mere sensation of fear, and the
recognition that there are probably other beings, and
especially one, more powerful than man, are sufficient
alone to constitute a religion, then indeed we must
admit that religion is general to the human race ; but
if the definition be adopted, we cannot longer regard
religion as peculiar to man. We must admit that the
feeling of a dog or a horse towards its master is of the
same character; and the baying of a dog to the moon
is as much an act of worship as some ceremonies which
have been so described by travellers.”
Judging from the Bible narrative itself, however,
there is no sentiment which we can call religion till
the mind is not only impressed with what it sees, or
reads, or hears, but farther, till it believes that the
things or beings it has thus become acquainted with,
bear relation to itself, and have or can acquire influence
over it—and is excited in the contemplation of them
�On Religion.
*7
by hope as well as fear. If, therefore, we must with
hold the epithet, “ religious,” from the lowest manifes
tations of the feelings of awe, &c. (those feelings which
horses and dogs have in common with man), even be
lievers in Scripture must fall hack upon the very pro
cess which we saw carried on in the case of those who
had worshipped stones and the heavenly bodies.
As we have said, the attention must be fixed upon the
Being the Bible speaks of, just as the worshipper of
images fixes his attention upon figures, pictures, music,
legends and acts of devotion, until not only is there.an
ideal formed in the mind, but also until the imagination
has clothed this ideal with attributes such as it considers
noble, good, wonder-working, and awe-inspiring. Nor
must it be forgotten that this ideal is in every case
conditioned by the natural constitution and experience
of the person who beholds and reflects. Thus, 1 the
Bible being witness,’ a man of pastoral habits conceives
the Being whom he worships to be a wise and good
shepherd—untiring in care and watchfulness over his
flock; unerring and considerate in his choice of pasture, &c. A patriarch conceives the being whom he
worships to be the acknowledged and revered head of
tribes and families—supreme in authority, because his
worshippers are his children. Religious kings conceive
God to be as their own nature is inclined. One thinks
him Lord of lords, God of battles, leading to victory or
suffering defeat; another thinks him to be of milder
mood—“ruling in righteousness,” giving his people
peace in their day. The sage and the prophet conceive of
God after their fashion—rising early to instruct;
patiently teaching the ignorant, “ line upon line, pre
cept upon precept;” laying open the future, and show
ing the consequences of conduct so that hearers may
be restrained from wickedness, and encouraged in well
doing. So, also, in what is called the New Testament
part of the Bible, we find the Hebrew student of Greek
philosophy thinking of God as spirit unencumbered
�18
On Religion.
with body, removed from the transitoriness, and pas
sion, and corruption of earth, and having intercourse
with it only for the purpose of electing a chosen num
ber of its inhabitants to live with him for ever in the
same state of ethereal perfection. This same Greek
philosophy holds sway even to the present time over
the cultivated mind in Western Europe, and hence the
permanence of this last conception, aided by the circum
stance that the revelation of the Book which contains
and popularizes it, is believed to have been closed at
the time when the civilization which gave birth to the
philosophy was falling into decay.
Now in all these cases, which are merely suggestive
of what might be greatly detailed, the most ardent
Biblist must admit that the conception of God is con
ditioned by the habits and culture of the worshipper
quite as much under the revelational as under the
rational theory. This admission not only gives great
insight into the nature of religion, but weightily de
termines the question of the necessity for, and useful
ness of, a Book-revelation—which has hitherto rested
mainly on the assumption that without the Bible man
could not have discovered anything respecting the
character and purposes of God.
But besides this, other very important conclusions
also emerge, some of which relate themselves closely
to not a few of the discussions of the present day
—as for example to the Education question. For
the second time in the course of our brief inquiry it is
made evident that the religious state is a state of emo
tion, governed by ideals, and that these ideals are the
product of a man’s circumstances and training. In
this sense it is impossible to communicate religion
either by teacher or by book. By either or by both
means you can teach doctrines and opinions, but these
are not religion; religious service is the throbbing of
the pulse in the presence of what we consider surpas
�On Religion.
ï9
singly good and "beautiful and true, and you can no
more produce that by instruction than you can make a
man love by telling him to do so. To attempt to com
municate such emotions by direct teaching and injunc
tion will have a most injurious effect on the nature of
man or child. A stronger and more suggestive state
ment than this, is, I think, warrantable, viz., that when
you seek to teach men or children to be religious, the
product is not religion, but hypocrisy or superstition ;
but I am content for the present with the more
moderate and general way in which I have put it. _ It
is in fact just as useful and as efficacious to say,'be
poetical, as to say be religious or good. We can give
information one to another regarding phenomena, their
similarities, differences, relations ; we can draw out and
quicken one another’s powers of observation and com
parison; and thus we can affect the nervous system of
our friend or pupil. But whether his feelings shall
express themselves in the way we call religious is
beyond our control, and must be left to his own con
stitution and intention.
A further important remark occurs here, in close
connection, viz., that it is the ideal and imaginative
alone which man worships—-not the real and substan
tive. In other words, it is round a being and towards
attributes which have no existence save in the mind,
• that the ideas and services usually called religious
centre ; and religion thus becomes a varying and
diminishing thing as men get better informed. A
curious illustration of this is furnished by the negroes
on the west coast of Africa. They have deities—who
are charged with all the evils that befall them; so
much so, indeed, that the negroes represent them as
“ black and mischievous, delighting to torment them
various ways.” 11 They said that the European’s God
was very good, who gave them such blessings, and
treated them like his children. Others asked, mur
�20
On Religion.
muring, Why God was not as good to them ? Why
did not he supply them with woollen and linen cloth,
iron, brass, and such things, as well as the Dutch 1
The Dutch answered, that God had not neglected
them, since he had sent them gold, palm-wine, fruits,
corn, oxen, goats, hens, and many other things neces
sary to life, as tokens of his bounty. But there was
no persuading them these things came from God.
They said the earth, and not God, gave them gold,
which was dug out of its bowels ; that the earth yielded
them maize and rice, and that not without the help of
their own labour ; that for fruits they were obliged to
the Portuguese, who had planted the trees; that their
cattle brought them young ones, and the sea furnished
them with fish ; that, however, in all these their own
industry and labour was required, without which they
must starve; so that they could not see how they were
obliged to God for any of those benefits.” They knew
not whence their diseases and calamities came, therefore
they attributed them to gods, whose favour they sought
to propitiate, so that these things might be averted:
they knew whence gold, palm-wine, fruits, &c., came,
therefore “ they could not see how they were obliged
to God for any of those benefits.” If they had known
how cloth, iron, brass, &c., were produced would they
have had the thought of God and of His goodness
suggested by the sight of “ such blessings ? ”
So, I believe, it has been in all cases and in all times.
That which our ancestor knew about the stone—its
colour, its hardness, its sharpness, &c., he never thought
of worshipping; the qualities he supposed or believed it
to possess, viz., the ability to help him and the willing
ness, toward these he directed his religious acts. So
with the worshipper of the sun or any other heavenly
body j so with the Egyptian and his deified animal—
with the Greek and his apotheosized hero—with the
Hindoo and Brahm—with the Hebrew and God—with
the Christian and Emmanuel. Moreover, while man
�On Religion.
21
nsvsr worships an object or being for those qualities
which he knows it to possess, it appears an inevitable
result, that as soon as he becomes convinced an object
does not possess these qualities which in his fondness
he had attributed to it, he diminishes his reverence and
ceases to worship altogether. Thus, when his growing
intelligence assured him that the sun in the heavens
had no passions and no will, as he had in the days
of his ignorance supposed, but was only matter in a
certain mode of existence, he ceased to worship
it; when our not very remote Catholic forefathers
came to look upon departed saints as only dead men,
and Mary the mother of Jesus as only a beatified
woman, their religious services towards them were
brought to an end. In all these cases, in a wonderfully
true sense, Protestants are able to see the old saying
verified—“ Ignorance is the mother of devotion.” In
like manner, is it not equally true that when modern
Christians come to see that it is entirely ideal qualities
with which they have invested the historical Jesus,
(qualities become now as much inconsistent with our
conception of the divine as of the human) they cease
their Christian worship ? While men remain unaware
that it is their own conceptions and idealizations only
which they worship, they continue to address prayers
and praises Jo them; it remains to be seen whether,
after they lea,In that the only God man has hitherto
■ known, possibly can know, is an ideal one, they will
continue religious service—in the form of prayer and
praise.
All through our inquiry it has been evident that when
man reflects upon anything which affects and interests
him much, he is prone to form an ideal of it to worship.
We have moreover seen, that the religious idea took
its rise in man after he had risen so far in the scale of
civilization. The question which now occurs, presses
heavily upon some of the most thoughtful minds of
�22
On Religion.
our time, viz., whether, when in the progress of develop
ment, he has attained a certain point in civilization, he
may not leave the religious idea, in every sense in
which it has hitherto been understood, altogether be
hind as no longer compatible with his education and
knowledge. The evolution of events will supply the
only satisfactory answer; but a very common experience
in human life often forces itself on our attention when
revolving this speculation. The youth when courting
the mistress of his affections is very worshipful, in the
old sense of that word.
He is, moreover, full of
visions of excellence, which all crystallize round her.
By and by they get married, and they come to know
each other more truly. The worship becomes tamer, and
the visions more like the reality. But if they are honest
natures, properly mated, as the bright visions get dull,
purpose and action coalesce more promptly and fitly,
and grow into that noble, and beautiful and durable
thing known as wedded life. Shall it be with mankind
that, as they become better acquainted with the processes
and powers of Nature, they will be less influenced than
they have been by their speculations upon the Unknown,
less prone to resort to intreatings and commendations
addressed to it, and more intent promptly to conform
themselves to Nature’s regulations, wisely to avail them
selves of her helps, and composedly to submit them
selves to her decrees ? It may be; but analogies are
not arguments.
Two things, however, are already evident from the
thinkings and sayings of educated men ; (1.) As regards
the ideal, which we have seen holds such a prominent
place in religion: cultivated men seem unable to live
without an ideal; and admit it to be axiomatically
true, that no man can improve in intelligence and
manners without one. To quote the words of Principal
Shairp : “ You may dislike the word, and reject it, but
the thing you cannot get rid of, if you would live any
life above that of brutes. An aim, an ideal of some
�On Religion.
23
sort, be it material or spiritual, you must have, if you
have reason, and look before and after.” (2.) As regards
the question of religion: some of the most highly edu
cated of the present day, while renouncing religion in
every sense in which it has hitherto been understood,
nevertheless claim to be counted religious, because they
are silent and conscious of ignorance, when worshippers
after the old fashion are loud in prayer and praise; or be
cause they are devoted to the discharge of duty, a thing
which former religionists called mere morality. Thus,
to cite a recent extreme example, the philosopher Comte
idealized the human race, past, present and future, and
invested it with attributes fitted to call out and occupy
the best sympathies and services of which his nature
was capable. Our fathers, if not also most of our
contemporaries, would see in all this only the com
monest acts of morality; in virtue of these services,
however, Comte claimed to be called religious, because
he believed in “ the Infinite nature of Duty.” I need
make no reference to the spirit and manner in which he
might seek to discharge these duties ; for all hitherto
known as religionists would say, the distinction lies not
in the mode, but in the essential nature of the two
services.—So, to cite another example, furnished by a
different type of mind, and a different kind of train
ing, the late James Cranbrook, in his later days,
often said that, when thinking of God, the only ideal
present to his mind (if ideal it could be called)
was that of force—Force, not defaced by quality,
not limited by time, nor space, nor knowledge. In
the presence of such inconceivable mystery, he said
he was for the most part silent when worshipful,
and that his religious service consisted in humbly inquirin^into the modes by which this Mystery manifests
itself, through the co-ordinations and successions of
phenomena.—John Stuart Mill, also, in treating of this
subject, remarks :—“ It may not be consonant to usage
to call this a religionj but the term so applied has a
�24
On Religion.
meaning, and one which is not adequately expressed
by any other word. Candid persons of all creeds may
be willing to admit, that if a person has an ideal ob
ject, his attachment and sense of duty towards which
are able to control and discipline all his other senti
ments and propensities, and prescribe to him a rule of
life, that person has a religion.”*
One word in conclusion. I beg to remind my readers
that in the present paper I have carefully abstained
from introducing any questions relating to the exist
ence and nature of Deity. These I consider extraneous
to the subject which has been under review. In proof
that the nature of religion may be discussed without
dealing with these other topics of controversy, may I
not appeal to the personal experience of many “free
inquirers,” who must be conscious of the endurance of
those feelings they call religious, notwithstanding the
change which has taken place in their theological
opinions'? In this conviction, I leave it for earnest
consideration.
* Auguste Comte and Positivism, by J. S. Mill.
The Editor of this series, anxious for outspoken inquiry
on these great topics, from which true philosophy will
never shrink, counsels the reader to study, along with
these pages, the essay " On Matter, Force, and Atheism,”
by the Rev. T. P. Kirkman, M.A.
TUBNBULL AND SPD«RS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
On religion
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Published anonymously. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. 'By a former elder in a Scotch church'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N275
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work (On religion), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
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
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
NSS
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7e25ead73e9ba53be892fa5398f957f4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hvdd7J%7E9Ju2y3Qdsg8-wqGSS2NsIepbVhXVAAl3evIULNhog--vR62IoVk2zLcrD3T7XvEgXvEwqDRBUgJYyL2Z-pviRIiKULz5-9K8rxuP3-OHbCaj5bpk5lrQ235LquMz9VGHwmUPUfIQnB77cYz38r-qMD6Vemxk56-QgGNBKNiiN1JYF-CATQ8BbnxeWm8WofxjnRMC%7Eer1COJvsUIYxMayc0KL7BzzftjoVTZvNbjJLDAdvcayMhqXk0A9ecvplRJV5yefZc76BGyUQ9ph1vaxQavr4uJtFamA5RoOdwQVMkP7WhTlDbglwlQc9NEVO07BKDadfh0NJX9pCXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1b7cd5a4b6b865a1ccb1df3f0ac27eef
PDF Text
Text
THE BOOK
FOR THE NATION
AND
THE TIMES.
BY
A CITIZEN U.S.N.A.
PHILADELPHIA:
WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN,
No. 606 Chestnut Stheet.
1864.
�Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1864,
By WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN,
In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States, in
and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by a New Process, at Martien’s Foundry,
No. 21 South 7th street, Philadelphia.
�TO THE PEOPLE
the Bnited states;
FROM MAINE TO TEXAS,
AND FROM OREGON TO FLORIDA;
OUR
GREAT
ONE
AND
AND
FREE REPUBLIC
INDIVISIBLE:
HOPING THEY MAY TEND
TO ITS STRENGTH AND STABILITY,
THESE PAGES
.
ARE AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED,
BY THE AUTHOR,
��THE BOOK FOB THE NATION.
Stop! my fellow-citizens, stop! Why be carried head
long, we know not whither, by the rapid current of these
excited times? Stop! and let us reason together. You
love your country, and fondly desire for it, honor, great
ness, and prosperity. But is it not for us to make it
honorable, great and prosperous? How can we expect it
to be such, unless we make it such? What do we need,
then, in order to be great and happy as a nation? Only one
thing; and that one thing is Goodness. All know that
we can never be truly great, without being good. With
out goodness, there may seem to be greatness for a time;
but the evil day is sure to come. Goodness is the very
soul and vitality of greatness, and of happiness. God is
infinitely great and happy, because he is infinitely good.
Let us, as a nation, be like him in the one respect, and
we shall be like him in the other. He is the fountain,
and the model, of all that is truly great and good; and
let it be our aim and ambition, to bring up our national
character to the resemblance of that exalted model.
Are we not a Christian people? We surely believe in
God. We believe that he is, and that he is our Sove
(5)
�6
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
reign Ruler. We believe that he is good, and that we
ought to be like him, and to seek his favor. But if we
refuse to listen to his voice, how can we be or do either?
If we refuse to be guided by his counsel, how can we be
like him, or he be pleased with us? To have our nation
conformed to him, and pleasing in his sight, it must be
our effort to mould it by his will. And now, when our
nation is heaving and shaking, and passing through this
great revolution, let us stop and consider what is the
matter; and what it really needs, in order to make it, in
all time to come, both prosperous and secure. If we love
our country, and would have it redeemed from all its
evils, how can we refuse to do this ? And if we love our
country, and desire its redemption, and enduring exalta
tion, how can we refuse the application to it, of those
principles of divine, eternal truth, without which every
nation must eventually totter and fall. “ For the nation
and kingdom, that will not serve the cause of right
eousness, shall perish.”—The mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it.
It is not for an avowedly Christian people, to turn
away from the subject with the impression that it is
merely religious; nor is it by any means such. Allimportant state matters are involved; matters compre
hending the best and dearest interests of the nation.
True, indeed, the subject embraces our duty to God, as a
nation, and has, therefore, its religious aspect; but has
none the less its political aspect also. Nor should any
be alarmed about a blending together of religion and
politics; as any such alarm would be quite irrational.
Because, without a constant blending of politics and reli
gion, it is utterly impossible for national duties to be dis-
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
7
charged. All duties owing to civil society are twofold in
their nature. Divine claims are involved, as well as human;
and their discharge is, therefore, a religious duty. In its
nature, the oath administered in our courts of justice, is
a solemn act of religious worship. Rendering obedience
to civil authority has its religious aspect, because God
requires it. And so also has the administration of civil
government; for it is his ordinance, and its officers are
the “ministers of God.” The notion of keeping separate
politics and religion, is silly and absurd; it is worse, for
it is wicked. Religion ought to be blended with politics
always and everywhere. That is, all state matters ought
to be leavened with religion, but religion ought never to
be leavened with politics. Men ought to be influenced,
not by sectarianism, which is not religion, but by “pure
and undefiled religion,” in all their management of state
affairs. The spirit and principles of this religion ought
to be carried everywhere, and men be ruled by them,
whatever they do, in their politics, as in all things else.
It is not at all improbable, that the effort to separate
religion from politics, has been in no small measure the
bane of our nation. If men lay aside their religion, and
disregard its claims, when engaged in politics, how can
they prosper? To suppose they could, would be absurd.
And a nation or people who attempt to do it, will be sure
to find out that there is something seriously wrong; and
they may have to pass through many calamities, before
they attain to a knowledge of the truth.
Our nation is now suffering under very serious afflic
tions. And at such a time as this, it would certainly be
proper in the people to earnestly inquire, why it is that
we are in this sad condition. When a people, in the
�8
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
midst of their calamities, remain stolid and indifferent,
careless about their cause, it indicates a reckless and
abandoned condition of society; and that their calamities
are not likely soon to cease, nor they themselves to be
much improved by what is passing over them. It would,
indeed, be indicative of a people not worthy of continu
ance as a nation, but destined speedily to become extinct.
Better things we hope, however, are in store for our
nation. We may fondly hope, that our end is not
approaching; that we are not to perish quite so abruptly.
We do not suppose that the mission, for which the great
Ruler raised up the nation, has yet been accomplished.
He raised it up for some great and good purpose, and
that purpose has^not yet been fully attained. We doubt
not the design was, that this land should be a land of
liberty, an asylum for the oppressed, a home for the
downtrodden of other lands. And such in some respects
it has hitherto been; and such in every respect, it has
yet to become, by the purpose and providence of God.
We look forward to the time when, as a nation, we shall
be exalted by righteousness, and be that “ happy people,
whose God is the Lord.” For this end we hope he is
now dealing with us, to make us such as he will approve
and bless, and perpetuate for good.
That the Almighty Ruler of nations hath a contro
versy with us, there are but few, we presume, who will
venture to deny. These great and sore calamities, which
have befallen the nation, are not the result of chance:
they are brought upon the land by the overruling provi
dence of God. We are assured by unerring authority,
that even a “sparrow cannot fall to the ground without”
his direction; and much less can a nation be convulsed,
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
9
as is ours, without his immediate control. We are
inured, too, that there is no evil with which men are
visited, but is sent of God. Amos iii. 6: “Shall there
be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” What
ever evil befalls a city or nation, the Lord sends it upon
that city or nation. The import of the whole Word of
God plainly is, that the Lord is the disposer of all the
affairs of both individuals and nations; and that the
calamities which befall either, are his visitations on
account of their sins—either for their punishment merely,
or else for both punishment and reformation. The same
infallible authority teaches also, that the Lord never
sends calamities upon nations, when they are innocent.
To suppose him doing so, would be utterly derogatory to
his righteous character. “ Will not the Judge of all the
earth do right?” So saith the Bible. And for him to
punish a nation, not for its sins, but while it is innocent,
just for its improvement, would be far from right. There
must be guilt, either by transgression or imputation, else
the infliction of punishment would be utterly unjust—
incompatible with all sense of right.
The doctrine has been advanced that the Lord is chas
tising us, not for our iniquity, but merely for our improve
ment, so as to fit us for a more exalted and useful position
among the nations. Those who do not see our national
sins, and yet believe in the overruling providence of God,
are necessarily forced into some such unscriptural posi
tion. Admitting that afflictions from God are upon us,
and not being able to see our ill-desert, it must be
assumed that he afflicts us merely for our good, and not
at all in the way of punishment. And men, by refusing
to see our national sins, may at length become quite
�10
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
unable to see them. A man, who persists for a long time
in keeping his eyes closed and refuses to see, may at
length have his sight so impaired that he cannot see.
And a man, who habitually, for a long time, closes his
eyes to the sins of the nation, may become so blind to
them, that he cannot discern them at all. And then,
when national judgments come, he cannot, of course,
understand the cause, and is ready to invent some theory,
even though it should be inconsistent with the Word of
God. But taking that Word for our all-sufficient and
infallible guide, we cannot hesitate to believe, that the
Lord never sends calamities upon innocent nations—never
afflicts but when they are guilty; though he may design
not merely punishment, but improvement also. And in
our present national calamities, we apprehend that both
punishment and improvement are his design—to bring us
to a knowledge of our sins, so as to confess and forsake
them, and thus turn to him, that He may turn to us, with
deliverance and abiding favor.
To be made sensible of our sins is what we, as a nation,
especially require, in order to realize that the hand of the
Lord is stretched forth against us in these calamities.
Indeed, these themselves might be sufficient to force con
viction upon every mind, that we have sinned against
Heaven, and in an aggravated manner, else, in the provi
dence of God, we should not be visited with such terrible
judgments.
By the pen of inspiration we have upon record, “ for
our learning,” the Lord’s dealings with a single nation.
And the whole history of that Israelitish nation proves
most clearly, that national calamities are the punishment
of national sins; and, also, that national repentance and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
11
reformation are sure to be met by the returning favor of
the Lord, granting deliverance and peace. And from
Israel’s history, the great practical lesson to be impressed
upon all nations, in their calamities, is embodied in the
words—“ Come, and let us return unto the Lord ; for he
hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he
will bind us up.”—Hos. vi. 1. Whenever we, as a peo
ple, are brought to use this language in sincerity, it will
then be well with us; it expresses so fully that state of
feeling which is appropriate to a suffering nation. There
is the acknowledgment that the Lord has been forgotten,
and hence his claims and counsels disregarded; and that
their calamities are the inflictions of his hand: and also a
purpose to return to Him, with a recognition of his mer
ciful character—that he will pardon and bless all who
repent and obey. But evidently it is impossible for us to
be brought to a sincere use of this language, unless we
are led to understand our national sins. And our wish is
to aid in the acquisition of this indispensable knowledge.
While attempting to set forth the cause of the Lord’s
displeasure against us, it is the intention to speak of, not
individual, but national sins—the sins of the people, in
their national capacity. There are individual acts, and
there are national acts; there are individual sins, and
there are national sins. And both individual and national
sins may go to make up the guilt of a nation. Nor need
it be doubted that both have contributed to make up the
guilt of our own. National sins are those committed by
the people, in the transacting of national business; such
as adopting constitutions—voting for officers of govern
ment, whether high or low—enacting laws—interpreting
and executing laws. All such acts are national, because
�12
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
performed in the transaction of national affairs. And all
sins committed in these and such relations, are national
sins. Nor can we doubt that many and great sins have
been committed in all departments, in the management of
our national affairs; even from the laying the foundation
of our national system, and during the direction and
management of it ever since. We have sinned in the
adoption of our Constitution—we sin in appointing our
rulers—in the enactment of our laws—in our judicial
decisions—and also in the executing of our laws. But
the primary and radical sin is, no doubt, found in our
Constitution; and lays a foundation for the easy and
ready commission of all the others.
It will be the part of wisdom, then, honestly, consci
entiously, and in the light of divine truth, to examine
into the nature of this Constitutional and radical sin,
which doubtless entails upon us many others, and leaves
us so much exposed to the Divine displeasure. And if
we are willing to submit to a Scriptural examination, it
will probably appear that our great Constitutional and
radical sin consists in a kind of practical, national atheism.
Not avowed atheism, but latent, practical atheism—refus
ing to acknowledge G~od, and his sovereign authority over
us as a nation.
If we are a Christian people, how can we object to
being tried by the Word of God ? Our leading statesmen
and orators everywhere assume that the nation is Chris
tian ; and if such, how can we refuse to take Christ’s
law for our standard and test of character. A people
who believe in the Word of God, cannot consistently
refuse to be tried by that Word. And if we seek to
have the nation such as it ought to be, then must we
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
13
have it moulded by the Divine will, and if moulded by His
will it must be through the application of His Word. If
we, as a nation, despise the Word of the Lord, how can we
ever expect to be prosperous and secure ? “ The Lord
hath magnified his Word above all his name.” He has
honored it above all else, whereby he makes himself
known, and we ought to honor it too. As a nation,
we ought to honor the heaven-given Book of God, and
feel that we are honored by having the privilege. But
we have neglected it: we have slighted it: we have disre
garded its counsels, and set it at naught. This is one of
our national sins, and is recoiling upon our own heads.
See where we are now! What wasting floods of evil have
flown over our formerly God-favored land I and all
through the rejection of Iris Word, “ which is perfect, and
makes wise the simple.” This is our fatal Pandora’s box,
from which have issued the countless miseries now afflict
ing us as a nation. The leaven of divine truth would
have saved us. It will cause any nation to grow great,
stable, and enduring. It is the genuine balm to heal the
wounds of our torn and bleeding land. Why should we
hesitate to have recourse at once to its application. It is
the true and only remedy; and will save the nation from
the deadly maladies still wasting its vitality. Let us,
then, build upon this true foundation; having our Consti
tution and the Bible blended together, as the immovable
basis of our national fabric. The edifice will then be firm
and abiding—the Bible being imperishable, so also will be
our Constitution—assaults upon either will be assaults
upon both; and both will have the same Almighty defence
and shield.
But in order to the blending together of the Bible and
�14
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
our Constitution, the latter must be made to harmonize
with the former ; and this can be done only by the adop
tion of certain amendments, for which provision has been
made in the instrument itself. What they are, we learn
only from the Word of God, as this is the standard
by which the deficiencies of our Constitution are to be
ascertained. According to human authority, our Constitu
tion might be considered almost faultless, as it is doubtless
the best ever framed by merely human wisdom. But the
question is not what it ought to be in the estimation
of men, but what it ought to be in the sight of God. We
are not now treating of our responsibility, as a nation, to
men or other nations, but of our responsibility to God
himself; and hence, the standard by which we must
be tried is his Word, and not th'e views and expositions of
politicians and statesmen, however distinguished they may
be. The elaborate disquisitions, settled principles and
dogmas of learned and profound statesmen, are of no
weight, when brought into competition with the wisdom
and requirements of the Almighty. As we are not
discussing our duty to men or nations, but our duty to
God, so from God we must learn what that duty is—
measure ourselves by the standard of his Word. And it
is a standard of supreme and divine excellence. Had
our nation been framed and fabricated in all its parts, in
accordance with the pattern there exhibited, happy would
it be for us this day. Instead of being under the dark
cloud—under the anger and displeasure of a righteous
God, we should be sitting in the sunlight of his favor,
sweet peace and prosperity smiling around every habita
tion. For “ when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh
even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And so with
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
15
a nation. When its ways please the Lord, he makes it
to sit in peace and safety, “ under the shadow of the
Almighty,” free from alarms within, and the assaults of
enemies from without.—“Blessed is that people whose
God is the Lord.”
But, alas! we are not that people; and with shame we
ought to confess it, that in the framing of our Constitu
tion, we have refused to take the Lord to be our God;
and have framed it without any reference, either to his
existence, his authority over us, or to his law. It has
been framed, in short, just as though there were no God.
“The fool hath said in his heart, No God.” The import
of the workings of his heart is, “No God.” The lan
guage or voice, sent forth by these workings, says, “No
God.” And such is the import of our Constitution. “No
God,” is the meaning of its voice—the signification of it,
from the beginning to the end. There is no God recog
nised in it, for the nation to look to for help, to honor, to
trust, or to obey! And, my dear fellow-citizens, may I
not appeal to your sense of propriety—is it desirable for
us to have a nation, that has no God?
The great and radical defect in our Constitution is, that
the sovereignty of God over the nations of the earth is not
acknowledged. The government of God over our nation,
is not recognised nor admitted in any way. The entire
instrument is drawn up in such a manner as to imply,
that in conducting the affairs of the nation, the govern
ment of God is to be left entirely out of the account. And
God is thus dethroned, so far as this disowning of his
authority can do it. And all our State Constitutions are
defective in the same way : none of them acknowledges
the government of God, as it really exists, as he main
�16
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
tains it over the nations. This, then, is the great primary
and radical sin of the nation. God’s government, as it
actually exists by his own appointment, is disowned and
set at naught by our Constitution, by all our Constitu
tions, and generally in the management of our national
affairs. Some may imagine that this can scarcely be pos
sible ; but let us calmly examine and see.
The Bible teaches very fully, that God hath established
a government over the nations; not merely over the indi
viduals who compose the nations, but over the nations, as
such. And the Bible as clearly teaches the nature of that
government. It is a delegated government—the govern
ment of the Son of God, in his mediatorial capacity—the
man Christ Jesus ruling over the nations, for the good of
man, and the glory of God.
The divine arrangement for the government of the
nations is clearly, fully, and forcibly set forth in the
second Psalm. It commences with a description of the
organized opposition of the nations to the “Lord and his
anointed”—God and his Son, the Messiah, the conse
crated, Supreme Ruler over all: “Why do the heathen
rage?” Though the heathen are mentioned, yet the
reference is not merely to the opposition of heathen civil
rulers; for the rulers of the Jews themselves are also
comprehended, as we are told in Acts iv. 27. Nor is
the language to be restricted to the events connected
immediately with the condemnation and crucifixion of the
Redeemer. Those events were only a continuation of
what is implied in the language; and until this very day,
there is still a continuance of the same. The language
of the Psalm had a significance and application, before
Christ came, and when he came, and still has its applica
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
17
tion until this present time. It is descriptive of the oppo
sition made to the “Lord and his anointed,” as these
were represented and shadowed forth by the theocracy
established in the nation of Israel. And so the prophecy
still has its fulfilment, in the opposition of the nations,
refusing to acknowledge and submit to Christ’s claims and
authority; and in various ways preventing the establish
ment of his reign of righteousness in the earth.
“ The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
take counsel together against the Lord, and against his
anointed; saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and
cast away their cords from us.” The rulers of all nomi
nally Christian nations have been, and still are, pursuing
this guilty course. Because, in framing Constitutions,
enacting laws, in the execution of laws, and in the whole
management of governmental affairs, they refuse to be
controlled and regulated by the authority of God and his
Christ. They “cast away their cords, and break their
bands asunder,” by refusing to recognise and submit to
the requirements of the divine law, and the rightful
authority of King Jesus, “the Prince of the kings of the
earth.”
And having described the organized opposition of the
nations, to God and his Christ, the Psalm proceeds to set
forth the arrangement which the Lord hath made with
his Son, for their government. He says, “Yet,” or not
withstanding this opposition, “have I set my King upon
my holy hill of Zion.” And he gives to him “the heathen
for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for his possession;” and also to “rule them with a rod
of^iron,” and to “break them in pieces like a potter’s
vessel.”
2
�18
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
Thus there is set before us the divine appointment of
the Lord’s anointed, the Messiah, the Son of God, in his
mediatorial capacity, to be the sovereign Ruler of the
nations. And the various Scriptures which teach the
same doctrine, are numerous and explicit. Some of them
are the following, Ps. lxxxix. 27 : “I will make him first
born,” that is, preeminent, above all others in authority,
as explained in the next clause, “higher than the kings
of the earth,” being invested with power and authority to
reign over them. Ps. ex. 1: “The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine ene
mies thy footstool.” He sits at the right-hand of the
Father, the place of supreme honor and authority over
all—He alone being excepted, who hath placed him there.
And there, we are told, “he shall strike through kings in
the day of his wrath;” and “judge among the heathen;”
and “fill places with the dead bodies;”—see the fulfil
ment in our own bleeding land!—and “wound the heads”
or chief ones “over many countries.” And in Ps. lxxii.
it is foretold of him, that “ He shall have dominion also
from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the
earth.” The import of which is, that his authority is
universal, over the whole earth. It is there said also,
“Yea, all kings shall fall do'wn before him: all nations
shall serve him.” Not merely people, but “kings” and
“nations;” so that civil rulers and governments ought to
acknowledge his sovereignty over them.
And what is foretold in the Old Testament is declared
in the New to have passed into actual fulfilment. For
instance, in Eph., first chapter, it is said that God raised
Christ from the dead, and “ set him at his own right
hand in the heavenly places; far above all principality
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
19
and power, and might and dominion, and every name that
is named; not only in this world, but also in that which
is to come: And hath put all under his feet, and hath
given him to be head over all to his body the church.”
Here, then, it is explicitly declared, that the man Christ
Jesus, after his crucifixion and resurrection, was exalted
to the throne of supreme dominion, and sways a sceptre
of universal empire over the wide creation of God. He
sits upon the holy hill of Zion, in the heavenly Jerusa
lem, exercising his delegated authority over all rulers and
nations of the earth. And the same doctrine is clearly
taught in Phil, ii.: “Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the
earth: and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” “Jesus Christ
is Lord,” that is, supreme and universal governor; and
the exercise of this delegated authority is to the glory of
God the Father. This supreme^ authority of Christ is
set forth again in Col. ii. 10, where he is declared to
be “the head of all principality and power.” And in
1 Pet. iii. 22, the same is emphatically expressed ; for it
is said of Christ that “ H<?is gone into heaven, and is on
the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and pow
ers being made subject unto him.” And so also, in Rev.
i. 5, he is declared to be “ the Prince of the kings of the
earth.” So that all earthly rulers are the subjects of his
universal dominion.
Thus we see that the prophecy contained in the Psalm
has its fulfilment in the exaltation of the man Christ
Jesus to the right hand of God; where he sits as king
�20
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
upon the holy hill of Zion, in the heavenly Jerusalem.
There is reference, no doubt, to the earthly mount Zion,
the seat and centre of the theocracy established over
Israel, and administered by the house of David. His
descendants were to occupy that throne; but the succession
terminated in the Son of David, the Messiah, “ the
Lord’s anointed,” with preeminence. And when he
came to the throne the seat of dominion was transferred
from the earthly to the heavenly mount Zion. The
nationality of God’s people then ceased, and their govern
ment was no longer to be circumscribed by the bounda
ries of a single nation. Their Prince was to rule over all
nations; but with a “kingdom not of this world”—not
with an earthly, but a heavenly reign; and hence, the
seat of his empire must be, not the earthly, but the hea
venly mount Zion. It is the same throne as that occupied
by king David ; but when it comes to be occupied by
“ Messiah the Prince,” the “ Governor among the nations,”
the seat of empire must be transferred to heaven: the
only suitable place for the throne of Him, whose “king
dom ruleth over all.” It is there, upon the holy hill of
Zion, that the Lord hath set his King; where he is to sit
and reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, that
is, till the end of time; the iast enemy, which is death,
being destroyed, by the resurrection of all the dead.
When he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father, and cease to reign, laying aside the crown and
the sceptre, and becoming subject to the Father; “ that
God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. xv. 26, 28.
There is no room for doubt, then, as to the nature
of that government which God hath established over the
nations. It is a delegated, mediatorial government, com
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
21
mitted to the hands of the man Christ Jesus, the Divine
Son of God, exercising the regal functions which pertain
to him as the “Lord’s anointed.” And this Godappointed, mediatorial government, all nations ought to
acknowledge and obey. The nation that does not
acknowledge the mediatorial government of Christ, does
not acknowledge the government of God; because this is
God’s government over the nations; and when this is
ignored, God’s government is ignored. But the rightful
authority of Christ over the nations is not acknowledged
in our Constitution; nor in a single Constitution of any
of our States.
Perhaps it may be assumed, that it is not incumbent
upon nations, in their national capacity, to make any such
acknowledgment. But in relation to this the Word of
God is very explicit. After the divine arrangement for
the government of the nations is set forth in the Psalm,
then comes the injunction, for all civil rulers to recog
nize it; and to act in accordance therewith; that is, as
civil rulers to have regard to the Lord’s authority; and to
engage in the discharge of all their official duties, under
a sense of their responsibility to Him. Here is the
injunction—“ Be wise now, therefore, 0 ye kings; be
instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with
fear, and rejoice with trembling.” The appellations—
“kings,” “judges of the earth”—comprehend all classes
and grades of civil rulers, from the highest to the lowest,
and under every form of civil government. And not as
private persons, but as rulers, WMkin ruling, it is enjoined
upon them to serve the Lord—to serve him in the adminis
tration of civil government, which he has ordained for
the good of men. And “with fear,” it is enjoined upon
�22
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
them to serve the Lord; fearing lest they should displease
him, by administering his ordinance in an improper man
ner, while discharging the duties of their office. They
are to discharge these duties under a sense of responsibil
ity to the Lord; remembering that at last they shall
answer to him for the fidelity maintained, in filling the
position to which they have been called. It is enjoined
upon them, too, to “rejoice with trembling.” They will,
and may rejoice, in the honor and emoluments pertaining
to the positions of authority, which in the providence of
God they are called to fill; but while they do thus rejoice,
they should not forget the danger there is of incur
ring the Divine displeasure, by any abuse or misuse
of the important trust committed to their hands. They
should “tremble” in view of their final reckoning with
God. Hence, then, it is evident that, as rulers, they are
to acknowledge the Lord’s authority over them, and to
make it an object to please him in the performance of all
their duties.
And that there may be no possibility of overlooking
the claims of “Messiah the Prince,” as the rightful sove
reign of all rulers, they are enjoined to “ kiss the Son,
that is, to render to him homage and submission—to
acknowledge his authority over them—to do him rever
ence ; and in the discharge of all their duties, to have
respect to his claims and prerogatives, and the require
ments of his law. And when civil rulers are required to
do this, in their official capacity, it is evident that these
duties are incumbent upon nations. Rulers are the repre
sentatives of nations, and the duties of the former are
the duties of the latter. And it ought to be carefully
observed, that the obedience to be rendered to the “ Lord
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
23
and his anointed,” is not required of persons in their pri
vate capacity, but only of rulers: teaching in the most
unmistakable manner, that this obedience is demanded of
nations, in their national capacity.
But, my fellow-citizens, is it not undeniably true, that
our nation has utterly refused to acknowledge the obliga
tion, or to render any measure of this obedience? On
the contrary, by the course pursued, we have said, “Let
us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords
from us.” We have disowned the restraints of the divine
law, and ignored the claims and authority of God and his
Christ. And for this high-handed rebellion', hath not
“the Lord had us in derision?”—hath he not “spoken
unto us in his wrath ?”—and “ vexed us in his sore displea
sure?” We have been wonderfully vexed, indeed; baf
fled, foiled, and disappointed in our efforts to suppress the
rebellion, and restore peace to the nation.
If we are a Christian people, we ought surely to see the
need of reformation in this matter. As a nation, we owe
a duty to the Lord Jesus, which ought not to be neglected,
but promptly and faithfully discharged. It will be for
the nation’s lasting honor and advantage. By divine
appointment, Christ is the Ruler of our nation, and how
can we claim to be Christian, if we in no way acknow
ledge him ? Is it not remarkable, that his claims upon
the nation have been so entirely overlooked, by the people
of the land ? that there should be so few to “ stand up for
Jesus?” Where are all his commissioned ambassadors?
Have they not a word to say in behalf of his just claims
to the nation’s homage? How is it, that while they are
zealous in urging his claims upon individuals, as a
Saviour, they neglect to urge his no less just and
�24
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
undoubted claims upon nations, as a Sovereign ? Perhaps
it is that the salvation of the former is involved; but so
also is the salvation of the latter. For “the nation and
kingdom that will not serve him shall perish; yea, those
nations shall be utterly wasted.” It is true, indeed, that
the eternal salvation of individuals is vastly more impor
tant than the salvation of nations ; but this will not jus
tify silence on the part of Christ’s ambassadors as to his
claims over the latter. And if they are silent as to the
rights and prerogatives of their Divine King and Lord,
“ the Prince of the kings of the earth,” who else can be
expected to speak out? or how can the nation be supposed
to understand its duty in this vital matter ? It is a vital
matter. The Jews said, “We will not have this man to
reign over us;” and see the terrible desolation with
which He swept their nation into utter ruin I We ought
to take the alarm, lest such may be our doom.
Are we Christians ? And would not Christians desire
to see Christ, their Lord and Redeemer, honored and
exalted by the nation? Would they not wish, that “the
glory due unto his name,” his rights and prerogatives,
should be given unto him in the state, as well as in the
church? Would they not rejoice, if their beloved nation
were to “bring forth the royal diadem, and crown him
Lord of all?” Would it be repugnant to their Christian
feelings, or to our republicanism, for us all to say—We
have no king but Christ, “the King of righteousness;”
that we acknowledge the authority of no prince, but
“Messiah the Prince,” “the Prince of peace;” that our
sovereign is, “the Prince of the kings of the earth;” and
to say, “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law
giver, the Lord is our King; he will save us?” We are
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
25
Republicans, and we want no king, but “the King of kings
and Lord of lords” to reign over us. And as a nation
we ought to proclaim it, and exult in the fact, that we are
subject to Him, whose “kingdom ruleth over all.” When
we formally take the Lord to be our King, then will our
government be like to that given of God himself to his
people of old; when he was their Sovereign, and human
rulers only officers under him, governing in his name, for
his glory, and the true happiness of the nation. Then,
indeed, would our national glory be truly great—glorious
in the eyes of the nations; for the Lord would be our
glory and defence. Of us it would then be said, “ Happy
art thou, 0 nation! Who is like unto thee, 0 people I
saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and the sword
of thy excellency! And thine enemies shall be found
liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high
places.”
And as we have not admitted God nor his claims into
our Constitution, so we transgress in another respect;
that is, in ignoring his teachings as to the true nature of
civil government. We hold it to be nothing but a human
institution—the ordinance of man—while his Word de
clares it to be the ordinance of God, and worthy of reve
rence as such. Our current doctrine oh this point is
embodied in the common maxim, so frequently uttered,
and so generally received, that in civil government, “ the
people are the fountain of power;” that all authority is
from the people themselves; that there is no power but
of the people. And in accordance with this, in our
national halls of legislation, the idea has been sneered
and scoffed at, that there is any “ higher law” than the
enactments of Congress. For, as all authority to rule is
�26
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
from the people, then the enactments of the people’s
representatives must be paramount and final. But on this
subject we are quite aside from the true foundation. Our
prevailing doctrine, however, that “the people are the
fountain of power,” no doubt had its origin among us, in
opposition to “the divine right of kings,” the darling
dogma of the old world’s despots. But while we repudi
ate their dogma, in their sense of it, we should not fly to
the opposite extreme, and deny that God is the fountain
of all legitimate governing authority.
In Romans xiii. it is expressly declared, that “There
is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained
of God.” By “the powers that be,” existing, established
civil governments are meant. Neither the usurped power
of pretenders, nor the power of organized rebellion
against an established government, is implied in the
phrase, “powers that be.” It is not the power of any
man, or any number of men, who may rise up against a
government, and assume the right to oppose it, that is
“ordained of God.” Such a power as that is only the
power of sedition, rebellion, treason; and this is not an
ordinance of God, established for the good of men. God,
for good, wise, and righteous ends, may in his providence
permit a rebellion to succeed; so that the issue shall be
the establishment of a new and independent government.
And then this new government will be the ordinance of
God, and as such ought to be conscientiously obeyed. But
the power of the preceding rebellion is not his ordi
nance, and has no divine warrant to exact obedience—no
man is bound to obey it “for conscience’ sake.” It is
evident that, though “the powers that be, are ordained
of God,” yet every existing power cannot claim the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
27
sanction of his ordination. A people in rebellion may
adopt a government for themselves, and regulate their
affairs by it; but they have not yet an established govern
ment. All they do amounts to no more than an attempt
to establish one: hence, what they call their government,
has no place among “the powers that be,” and “are
ordained of God.” It is evident, then, that resistance to
their authority is not resistance to the ordinance of God;
nor can they claim obedience on the same ground, as that
of an established civil government. Rebels, in the exer
cise of their usurped authority, will claim obedience, and
those in their power “ must needs be subject” to them; yet
“only for wrath,” but not “for conscience’ sake,” as they
have no authority from God to make any such claim. A
rebellion or revolution is purely an ordinance of man;
but God in his providence may permit it, and overrule it
for good.
Civil government is the ordinance of God, because he
hath appointed it for the benefit of men. And civil rulers,
we are told, are “God’s ministers attending upon this
very thing;” that is, dispensing God’s ordinance among
the people. From the highest to the lowest, in all depart
ments, from the President to the constable, each one is
the “minister of God,” and accountable to him for the
manner in which his ordinance is administered; and each
one will have to answer to God, for the fidelity with which
the duties of his office have been discharged. Men in
power may be so ignorant of the true nature of civil
government, and of their own official character, as not to
know that they are the “ministers of God;” but they are
none the less so, on that account. Men may administer
the ordinance of God in a very unworthy manner; they
�28
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
may prostitute and abuse it, and in the office they fill,
commit all manner of wickedness; but they are still “the
ministers of God;” and it is still his ordinance, which
they are abusing and prostituting to their base and wicked
ends: and hence their danger of having a terrible reckon
ing to render at last, to God, for their unfaithfulness,
while filling an office under him.
A civil government may be very defective, far from
what it ought to be; but it is none the less the ordinance
of God on that account. The government of Israel was
the ordinance of God when administered by Ahab and
Jezebel, though it was idolatrous, tyrannical, and wicked.
And so the Roman government was the ordinance of
God, when administered by the cruel monster Nero. And
on the ground of its being such, did the Apostle enjoin
obedience to it, on the part of the Christians to whom he
wrote. The defects of a civil government, constitutional,
legislative, judicial or executive, do not deprive it of its
character, as God’s ordinance; this it is still, though it
may be marred by blemishes both numerous and great.
Were we to assume that the defects of a government would
deprive it of its character, as God’s ordinance, it would
be difficult to decide when any government is such.
Because the questions would arise, what are the defects
which deprive a government of its divinely appointed
character ? and what degree of perfection must it have in
order to be his ordinance? And these are questions
which never could be settled; inasmuch as there is no
basis anywhere upon which to settle them. The Word of
God affords no such basis; and it would be vain to look
for it anywhere else. It is the Bible which informs us
that civil government is the ordinance of God, and it
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
29
prescribes no measure of goodness or perfection as essen
tial to the sustaining of that character. In speaking of
civil government it says, “ The powers that be are ordained
of God,” and, therefore, they are to be obeyed, “not
only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.”
And as civil government is the ordinance of God, and
all officers of government are his ministers, and responsi
ble to him for the faithful discharge of their respective
duties; so all who enjoy the advantages of this ordinance,
ought to respect and honor it as such; giving to it that
support and encouragement which an ordinance of God
may claim as its due. None ought to disown or despise
it, because it does not please them, in the form in which
it has been established, or the manner in which it is con
ducted. The defects may be great and numerous, but it
is the ordinance of God, notwithstanding, and ought to be
honored and obeyed as such. And good men, by taking
active part in the administration of it, may do much to
have its defects removed—all that is wrong in it righted,
and all that is wanting supplied; so as to realize in its
administration what the ordinance implies—the best inter
ests of the nation, and the glory of God.
Yet though civil government is the ordinance of God,
it does not follow, that civil rulers are to be actively
obeyed in all that they enjoin; because they are fallible,
and may enjoin what is in conflict with the laws of God;
and then they are to be disobeyed, in order to render
obedience to Him. Though they are God’s ministers,
they have no authority from him to require the violation
of his law. When they do so, it is the authority of man
coming in conflict with the authority of God; and then,
it is evident that God ought to be obeyed rather than
�30
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
men.—Acts v. 29. But while on this ground civil rulers
may be disobeyed, it is not implied that they may be
resisted by force. Passive obedience ought to be ren
dered ; that is, suffer the penalty of disobedience to them,
rather than sin against God.
But though civil government is the ordinance of God,
it is in some respects the ordinance of man. And the
Scriptures recognize this. 1 Pet. ii. 13. “ Submit your
selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:
whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors,”
&c. It is especially an ordinance of man in this, that
the people are the sole fountain of power, as to what
form of government they shall establish. God is the
source of authority as to the existence of civil govern
ment, but man the source of authority as to its form;
because God has not ordained any form. Men may estab
lish a pure Democracy, or a Republic, or a Monarchy, or
any other form, as may seem to them best. The people
are the only legitimate fountain of power as to this: for
in this there is no authority higher than themselves. It
is an ordinance of man, too, because men administer it;
and for men it has been ordained.
Now in this matter, with respect to the fountain of
power in civil government, it is wrong for us as, a nation,
to take from God his right and prerogative, by assuming
to ourselves what he claims as his. Such conduct must
be highly criminal in any people; and will not remain
unpunished. It is robbing God of his glory, and giving
it to others. May he not say to us as he said to Israel—
“ Will a man rob God ? Yet ye have robbed me. Ye are
cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me; even this
whole nation.” But, my fellow-citizens, should we not
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
31
cease to rob God ? Should we not fear the Lord—hearken
to his voice—cease to do evil, learn to do well, and “give
to him the glory due unto his name?”
And by recognizing civil government in its divinely
appointed character, dignity and value, and acknowledg
ing our authority to maintain it as coming from God, we
shall gain other important advantages. The tendency
will be to have the minds of all impressed with the value
and importance of civil institutions ; as having a measure
of sacred and divine authority and responsibility connected
with them. And in this way will be cherished in both the
rulers and the ruled, a proper estimate of the relative duties
to be discharged—as even in the presence of God, and to
be accounted for to him in the end. Nor can there be
any reasonable doubt, that an abiding feeling of this
kind would contribute very much to the proper and faith
ful discharge of these relative duties. And thus our
duty to God, as a nation, would redound exceedingly to
our own good order, stability, and peace.
There is still another respect in which we are culpable
as a nation. For as God is not in our Constitution, and
as we disregard the teachings of his Word, as to the true
nature of civil government, so also we transgress his law
in the choosing of our rulers. His word is very explicit in
describing the character of those who are to be chosen for
rulers. For instance, in Exod. xviii. 21: “Moreover, thou
shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear
God, men of truth, hating covetousness ; and place such
over them to be rulers.” 0 how different it would be
with us this day, had we been careful to choose such men
for our rulers in times past. If they had been able men,
fearing God, men of truth, never, never would the nation
�32
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
have been visited with the desolations of this terrible civil
war. Bad men in power, men of falsehood and dishon
esty, godless, unprincipled, perjured men, dragged the
nation into the devouring whirlpool of civil discord, car
nage, and death. It is the fruits of our own doings, in dis
regarding the requirements of God’s law as to the moral
character of our rulers. See, again, what that law says,
in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by
me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel
said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over
men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” Here is
the voice of God’s law—-for all times—and all nations—
and all people. And how careful the inspired writer is,
to state the authority by which the law is promulgated.
He says the Spirit of the Lord spake by him : and if pos
sible, to make it more forcible, that the Grod of Israel
said it. And, hence, men can have no way of evading
the force of the injunction, or plea to offer in extenuation
of their guilt, if they disregard its demands. The only
plea for disobedience, that any people having the Bible
could offer, would be that they were willingly ignorant
of the law, or if not ignorant, that they did not like to
obey it. For the law is so plain and pointed, that there
can be no doubt about its meaning and application. It is
God’s authority, and binding upon every nation, to
whom the Word of God comes. It is His law, as laid
down in the Old Testament, with respect to what civil
rulers ought to be; and the law in the New is not at all
different. All that is said, concerning civil government
in Rom. xiii., implies that rulers ought to be good men—
“Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil”
—“ He is the minister of God to thee for good”—“ They
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
33
are God’s ministers attending upon this very thing.”
Reason and common-sense teach, that if they are God’s
ministers, they ought to be good men, “just, and ruling
in the fear of God.” And in 1 Pet. ii. 14, the doctrine
is the same, namely, that rulers “ are sent for the punish
ment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do
well.” And thus we have the will of God expressly
^revealed, in both the Old and New Testaments, as to what
the moral character of civil rulers ought to be. If we,
then, disregard the will of God, so fully and clearly made
known, how can we, as a nation, expect to prosper?
How can we expect to escape the anger and displeasure
of the righteous Ruler of all, whose law we so defiantly
trample under our feet ?
And what, in all candor, has been our course in rela
tion to this matter ? Has it not undeniably been, to
leave the law of God entirely out of the account, when
proceeding to choose and appoint our rulers ? When
have we, on any occasion, in primary meeting, or political
convention, referred to the requirements of the divine
law, as to the moral character of the men to be chosen
and appointed? Truth must answer, Never! All are
aware, that the whole course has been to proceed in this
matter just as though there had been no such law in
existence. It must be confessed that we have chosen
and set over us in authority, characters the very reverse
of what the law of God requires—godless men, profane
swearers, drunkards, debauchees, gamblers, Sabbath
breakers, haters of God, revilers of his law, and scoffers
at his claims and his authority. There may have been
happy exceptions, but the rule has been to select men,
who have “no fear of God before their eyes.”
3
�34
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
The very places and practices associated with politics,
are forcibly indicative of the men’s character who are
usually chosen to manage our state affairs. If bar-rooms
and groggeries, lager beer, whiskey, and tobacco, were
favorable to the production of good civil rulers, we might
certainly boast of having such; for all these have no little
to do with their choice and elevation. It is notorious,
that in our large cities, the centres of influence, very
little can be done in politics, outside the shadow of a
tavern. If a man wishes to attend the primary meeting,
where the nominations are made, he will probably have
to visit the tavern. If he has to seek the assessor, that
he may have his name placed on the tax-list, where can
he find him and his books, but in the tavern? lie must
enter the nasty place, and have his olfactories assailed
with the combined stench of rum and tobacco, and his
ears greeted with the sounds of vulgarity and profane
ness, while seeking to have his name enrolled. And if he
desires to discharge his duty as a citizen, by casting his
vote, he must go at least within smelling distance of the
tavern, in order to have the privilege. And thus, appa
rently, the tavern is the all controlling power in our
politics—as if the inmates and the frequenters of the
tavern had the whole matter committed to their control,
and it were the prerogative of the tavern-men to manage
the all-important affairs of the nation!
A sad condition of things, indeed, that this ordinance
of God—civil government—should be so prostituted, and
given over to the hands of the godless and profane, to be
polluted and deformed with all that is degrading and
vile, and by the associations of its management, dragged
down to the portals of perdition! Why is it, that the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
35
God-fearing people of the land have suffered this heaven
given ordinance to be dishonored and trampled under
foot, without an effort to rescue and save it? May they
not well apprehend severe chastisement, through the mis
management of this very institution, which ought to have
been jealously guarded by them, so as to be made fruitful
in blessings to the nation ? Why is it, that the patriotic,
the virtuous, and the good, have allowed an institution of
such magnitude and vital importance, for the nation’s
safety, to be so debased and perverted, by such corrupt
ing and ruinous influences ? But, then, is it not just what
might have been expected?—the natural result of the
whole course from the beginning—adopting a Constitu
tion in which there is no God; erecting a government,
assumed to be without any divine warrant or authority;
and choosing our rulers in utter defiance of the express
injunctions of the divine law ? It is not now to be thought
strange, if our politics have become a byeword and
reproach; or that in us should be verified the declaration
of Scripture: “When the wicked bear rule, the people
mourn”—“ They would none of my counsel; they despised
all my reproof. Therefore, shall they eat of the fruit of
their own way, and be filled with their own devices”—
“Thus saith the Lord.”
But, have the truly Christian people of the land, no
interest in this whole matter of civil government? In
some respects, they show that they have; for they usually
manifest a lively interest in party politics. But have they
no zeal for the honor and purity of God’s ordinance—
civil government? Is it not both their duty and their
interest, to have such zeal, and to show it? Their party
zeal and diligence, they say, are to promote the good of
�36
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the nation. But have they to be told, that it is not the
success of a party, which will bless a nation; unless it be
a righteous party? Do they not know, that it is “right
eousness which exalteth a nation;” and that nothing else
will? Do Christians believe that they can benefit their
country by voting for party men, while they and their
men are both disregarding the counsels and claims of the
Most High? Are they so much engaged in advancing
the welfare of their country, as to lose sight of the neces
sity of having in office, “just men, ruling in the fear of
God?” If so, their whole course is glaringly inconsistent,
ruinous, and absurd.
It ought to be manifest to all, that a thorough and
radical change is absolutely necessary in this whole
matter. It is surely time that an effort were made for
the purpose of securing upright and virtuous men, for
every position, to conduct our state affairs. We ought to
have the best of men for our rulers, because we have the
selecting of them ourselves. Not like the citizens of other
lands, who have their rulers not by choice, but by chance,
as to the people, and must put up with them, be they good
or bad. But if we have not good rulers, we have no such
reason to assign. We make our rulers, and we ought to
make them good. If we do not, we do not deserve to have
such. And if we do not make good rulers, we show that
we are neither fit, nor worthy, to have the privilege of
making them at all. The complaint is often heard, that
we have such bad men for rulers; and yet we ourselves
have chosen these men, and placed them in power! When
we put bad men in office, how can we expect to be ruled
by good men? And when have we ever made it a point,
to reject the bad, and choose the good? Never!
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
37
Now, my fellow-citizens, we ought to seek for reforma
tion. We need a change. Wicked and unprincipled rulers
are a great curse to any nation. And if we are careless
about the moral character of our rulers, we shall certainly
be cursed with that curse. Our only safety is, to obey
the voice of divine wisdom, and change our political base
to the heaven-given platform—“ He that ruleth over men,
must be just; ruling in the fear of God.” Then, as a
nation, we shall be secure; and undoubtedly so.
But, my fellow citizens, let me put the question, in all
kindness and candor, Are we a Christian nation, or are
we not? If we are, where is the evidence? Is it in any
of our national documents? Is it in our Constitution,
which lies at the foundation of the whole structure ? Cer
tainly not. The name of Christ, or any allusion to him,
or his institutions, is not found in it from the begin
ning to the end. And do our national Acts contain the
evidence that we are a Christian nation? Can any
man point out where, in these Acts, it is to be found?
We shall very much rejoice to know where. Was it
when, to secure a treaty with an anti-Christian power,
our government formally declared, that as a nation we
were not Christian, for we had no religion? Did the
course pursued toward the pagan ambassadors from
Japan, evince that we were a Christian nation, when the
tendency of the government’s whole procedure was, to
leave the impression on their minds, that we had no reli
gion, no Sabbath, no sacred books, nor institutions; and
were not a Christian nation at all?
Shall it be said, that we have Christians and Christian
institutions in the land, therefore we are a Christian
nation. And so we have Jews and Jewish institutions in
�38
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the land; and, therefore, we are a Jewish nation. And
we have Mormons and Mormon institutions in the land;
and, therefore, we are a Mormon nation. Shall it he
said, that we have Christians for government officers, and
hence we are a Christian nation. And so we have Jews,
and Mormons, and Infidels, for officers of government;
and, therefore, we are a Jewish, Mormon, and Infidel
nation. It is evident, that such circumstances as these
do not give us naiz’onaZiiy; and do not make us any one
of the above, as a nation. It is our Constitution and
governmental Acts, which give us nationality; and if
these have not the evidence of our being a Christian
nation, it is nowhere. And, my fellow-citizens, is it
not a reproach to us, that we can point to no decisive
evidence of ours being a Christian nation?
And if not a Christian, so neither are we a Jewish, a
Mormon, nor an Infidel nation. And what, then, are we?
Are we a Pagan nation? No, not quite; only half such.
Ours is only a semi-pagan nation. Paganism consists in
disowning the true God, and putting idol gods in his
place. We do only the first, not the second. Our dis
owning of God, and his Christ, and his Word and author
ity, in our Constitution and Government, is only the one
side of paganism; and, hence, ours is only a semi-pagan
government. It is of that reign of Gentilism, spoken of
in prophecy, as antagonistic to Christ and his cause—
holding on to the civil power throughout Christendom,
trampling under foot sacred things, and prostituting even
Christianity, to the basest of secular and selfish ends.
But in the other semi-Christian nations, this has been
much more the case than in ours.
This semi-paganism of the civil governments of Chris
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
89
tendom, was revealed to both Daniel and John, as contin
uing for a considerable period. They both saw it as in
conflict with Christ’s kingdom, and as long hindering the
reign of righteousness and peace in these nations.
Daniel beheld it in the conflict between “the stone cut
out without hands” and the golden-headed clay-iron-toed
image, which received the shock of the stone upon its
feet. The “stone” undoubtedly symbolized the kingdom
of Christ, and not any earthly kingdom, or civil govern
ment; because it was cut out without hands;” which
implies that it was not man-made, but made by Him whose
“kingdom is not of this world;” and, hence, not any
earthly civil government; but the cause of righteousness
and peace—Christ’s kingdom, which is eventually to des
troy all pagan and semi-pagan civil governments over the
whole earth. And the smitten image symbolized the pagan
power, as concentrated and embodied in the Roman
empire at the introduction of Christianity. The strength
and the evil of the preceding empires, Babylonian, MedoPersian, and Grecian, were absorbed by it; and all in one
were shivered by the shock, and tottered to their fall.
But a considerable time was to elapse, before the final
extinction of the pagan element of these kingdoms, with
which the stone came in conflict.
This was made known in Daniel’s vision of the four
beasts, which came up out of the sea. The fourth of
these symbolized the Roman empire, which came into
collision with the kingdom of the “ one like unto the Son
of man”—“Immanuel, God with us,” the Messiah. And
both kingdoms for a long time were to occupy the same
territory, though antagonistic. The beast, with its
instruments of power, the “ten horns” and the “little
�40
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
horn,” the ten kingdoms of Western Europe, and the
Papacy, was to hold the civil power, even after the rise
of the Papacy, for a period of 1260 years; for the saints
were to “ be given into his hand, until a time and times,
and the dividing of time.” And thus paganism in the
state was to have power over the saints during all this
time: and at the end of it “ the saints were to possess
the kingdomthat is, the power of civil government was
to pass into their hands. It does not mean that the
saints will anywhere set up a civil government, separate
and distinct from other governments; but merely that
they will, in every nation and kingdom, be the leading
men in civil affairs; conducting the government in the
fear of God, in accordance with his revealed will: ruling
in righteousness, peace and love, for the glory of God
and his Christ, and the true happiness of the nations.
The same reign of righteousness, in state affairs, is set
forth in Rev. xi. 15: “ There were great voices in heaven
saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king
doms of the Lord, and of his Christ”—“the Lord and
his anointed” of the second Psalm. “ Kings” and
“ rulers” now cease to plot against them; not wishing any
longer to “ cast away their cords,” nor to “ break their
bands asunder,” as formerly. Not the people merely,
but the kingdoms, as such, do this—“kissing the Son”—
“serving the Lord with fear,” and ruling in accordance
with the requirements of his Word. It is evident that
the great change in the kingdoms of Christendom, here
spoken of, is a change in the moral character of their
civil governments; for the “Lord and his Christ” reigned
over them previous to this change; but the kingdoms did
not recognize their claims, nor render obedience to them;
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
41
whereas now they do, and thus become the kingdoms of
the Lord, and of his Christ, by a voluntary, national
recognition of, and surrender to their authority.
The long continuance of semi-paganism, in the civil
governments of Christendom, is foretold in Rev. xi. 2.
The great Reformation in religion, which occurred in
Christendom early in the sixteenth century, when the
Bible became an open book for the use of the people, is
set forth in the tenth chapter. In the progress of that
vision the prophet himself is made a symbol—a represen
tative of the ministers of Christ: and in what he was
directed to do, is set forth the special work of the min
istry from the time to which the prophecy has reference.
He was to prophesy, or preach; to “ measure the altar
and the temple, and them that worship therein:” that is,
to define the true doctrine of the atonement, and to des
cribe the true people and church of God, in opposition to
the degenerate system which prevailed previous to the
Reformation. But the court without the temple he was
forbidden to measure, for it had been given to the Gen
tiles ; and the holy city they were to tread under foot
forty and two months, or 1260 years.
The things mentioned here, pertaining to the Jewish
dispensation, are all employed as symbols, having refer
ence to the Christian church. The temple in Jerusalem
was a type of Christ, or God incarnate. As the glory of
God filled the temple, and the Divine presence abode
there, so the fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in
Christ. And accordingly he calls himself the temple,
saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.” And hence, the temple and its worshippers
symbolize Christ and his people, who are in him by faith,
�42
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the true worshippers; “who worship the Father in spirit
and in truth.” The altar is the symbol of sacrifice, and
represents the doctrine of atonement. “ The court with
out the temple,” pertaining to the Gentiles, was the inter
mediate place, between the idolatrous world and the wor
shippers of the true God—the place where those who
were not his people, but professed a love for him and his
cause, might draw near, and enjoy an outward connection
with his people and his service; and, accordingly, it sym
bolizes the visible church under the gospel. Here, those
who merely profess to be his people, may enter in, and
take part in the services; and even direct, and rule, and
have the control. And hence this court was not to be
measured—the influence of Gentilism—until the end of
the time predicted, would prevent it from being what it
ought to be: pagan forms, irregularity, disorder, and
want of uniformity would prevail, and hinder its perfec
tion. The “holy city,” Jerusalem, was the city of the
Lord, and the capital of the nation of his people. There
were the symbols of the Divine presence; and thither the
tribes of the Lord went up to worship. And thus Jeru
salem represented the whole nation, and became the
^emblem of the heritage of the Lord; that is, his people,
as a whole. And, therefore, the “holy city” symbolizes
the people of God, together with their sacred institutions,
wherever they are found; and that is all over Christen
dom. Christendom, then, as the abode of God’s people,
and his sacred institutions, is the “holy city,” which the
Gentiles “tread under foot.” And as they were to tread
these under foot, it is evident they were to have the
dominion, wherever these are found. They could not
tread them under foot unless they had the power to do
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
43
it; and hence, in these lands, they must have the civil
government in their hands. Gentilism was to rule in the
Btate, throughout Christendom, forty and two months.
Paganism, in its nature, and semi-paganism, in its prac
tice, was, to fill the high places of civil authority; tram
pling under foot, destroying, and desecrating, holy people
and sacred things. And, accordingly, the former have
been persecuted, and the latter have been prostituted, to
strengthen the civil power, and advance the interests of
the state. Paganism in the state, desecrates and profanes
religion, for merely civil and secular ends. This has
always been the case, in the semi-pagan governments of
European Christendom. In their secularizing use and
abuse of religion and Christianity, they are far more
guilty than our government has ever been. Ours has
never persecuted the people of God; nor for the blood
of the saints, has it to be called to account. Sacred
things have not been prostituted to civil ends, as in the
other nominally Christian nations.
Though our government desecrates the Lord’s day in
its postal arrangements, and otherwise; yet we have not
employed religion for the aggrandizement of the state, as
has been the common practice with the semi-Christian
governments of Europe. They have all made use of reli
gion for merely selfish, worldly, state purposes; but we
have not. Paganism has always employed religion as a
mere state engine, to fortify and strengthen the civil gov
ernment; and the semi pagan governments of Europe have
always done the same. Wherever in Christendom there
has been a union of church and state, this has always
been the case. The civil has always used the sacred, for
the purpose of gaining strength, glory, and stability to
�44
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
itself; whether the church has been made preeminent,
and the state subordinate; or the state preeminent, and
the church subordinate—as exemplified in Italy and Eng
land. In the former, the recognized head of the church,
assumes to be the head of the state; and in the latter, the
recognized head of the state, assumes to be the head of
the church. But the design of the union, in each, is the
aggrandizement of the civil power, pertaining to them
respectively: the prostitution of sacred things for civil
purposes—the “holy city” trampled under foot by Gentilism; because it has the power in its hands, and uses all
for secular ends. But our government, notwithstanding
its defects, has never been guilty of prostituting the holy
religion of Jesus, as an instrument of state policy. This
results from the wise and scriptural arrangement of keep
ing the church and the state, as organizations, separate
and distinct from each other. And this is quite an ad
vance in the right direction. This not abusing of sacred
things for civil ends, is casting away a portion of the
semi-paganism, which is still retained by the governments
of Europe.
It is evident, then, that we are still partakers of this
semi-paganism, which maintains the ascendency in the
state, through all the nations of Christendom; and from
which it would assuredly be both for our honor and
advantage, to free ourselves entirely. As we have taken
the lead of the other nations in discarding one important
part of semi-paganism, let us go on unto perfection, and
cast away from us the remains of this plague and reproach
of the nation. All nations must be freed from it, either
by voluntary reform, or by the overturning judgments of
Ilim, “ who sits King upon the holy hill of Zion,” and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
45
will “break them with a rod of iron, like a potter’s
vessel.” Let us, as a nation, bend and not break—bend
to the Divine pleasure, and not be broken by his power.
Let us reform more and more, not only refraining from
the abuse of sacred things, but also by conceding to them
that relation to the state which is their due. Would it
not, my fellow-citizens, be both our glory and our gain,
to keep, as a nation, in the advance of all other nations,
God-ward and Christ-ward, and thus upward; rising in
excellence, glory, strength and beauty; till we shall be
the admiration of them all: and they, copying our exam
ple, and emulating our moral greatness and grandeur, set
to their seal, that our free Republican institutions are
right, and we worthy of our exalted place among the
nations of the earth? But we never can appear in our
full majesty and glory, until we acknowledge the
sovereignty of the “Lord and his anointed” over us, and
submit to their counsels and dictation, in the management
of our national affairs. For “Thus saith the Lord”—
“ Them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise
me shall be lightly esteemed.” Well now, Americans, let
us honor Him, and He will honor us; He will exalt us
among the nations; and cause us to ride upon the high
places of the earth. Our light shall be seen from afar,
and hither shall they flock from the nations, both near
and remote, to share in the blessings of that “happy
people, whose God is the Lord.”
But I am aware, my fellow-citizens, that you are afraid
of a union of church and state; and justly so: for from
it have issued many monstrous evils. But we may do
our duty to God and his Christ, his Word and authority,
without any union of church and state; and without a
�46
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
national establishment of religion, or any of the evils
which result therefrom. If we were to have our Consti
tution amended by a prefatory article, acknowledging the
sovereignty of the Lord and his anointed over the nation,
and the paramount authority of his law over all human
laws, and our duty to submit to its requirements in the
choice of our rulers, and in everything else, there would,
in this, be no union of church and state, nor any national
establishment of religion. Nor would there be any neces
sity for adopting religious tests, in order to the holding
of office under the government.
Suppose such as Jews and infidels would be unwilling to
subcribe to, and bind themselves by oath to support such
a Constitution, in order to the holding of office, would this
be any serious loss to a Christian people ? If we are a
Christian nation, is it indispensable to have such as Jews
and infidels for our civil rulers ? Is there any circumstance
that requires it? But would not the rights of such citi
zens be interfered with, and withheld from them ? Pray,
where did they get their rights, to rule over a Christian
nation, the proper Constitution of which they would be
unwilling to support? Are the rights of a Christian
nation not paramount to the rights of a few Jews and
infidels, who may be dwelling in it ? Is it not the right
of a Christian people to acknowledge their Lord and
Redeemer as their Sovereign Ruler? Is it not the absolute right of the “Lord and his anointed,” to require
this acknowledgment of all nations ? and are the rights
of Jews and infidels higher than the rights of God
Almighty ? No man, nor set of men, can possibly have
any rights contravening the rights of the Lord God of
Hosts. There can be no rights, which would require the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
47
ignoring of what he enjoins. And as He enjoins it upon
nations to acknowledge his sovereignty over them, none
can have any rights which would prevent this. Those
objecting to it, would be utterly unfit to rule over a Chris
tian nation.
But while attempting, for the sake of reformation,
to direct attention to some of our chief national sins, on
account of which the anger of the Lord burns hot against
us, it were great unfaithfulness to pass unnoticed, the sin
of negro slavery. As we have now, in the providence
of God, ample evidence, that this is especially the sin,
for which his judgments are at present so heavy upon
us. Rebellion is the rod with which the Lord is chastis
ing the nation, and negro slavery is the cause of that
rebellion. So that our sin is now punishing us. The
nation supported and fostered the vile system, until it
became a great monster, and rose up to devour the nation
itself. And thus the nation’s iniquity recoils upon itself.
The nation’s sin is the nation’s plague; its crime, its
canker; its destroyer of men, the destroyer of its men.
We maintained slavery for the sake of gain; and now
slavery is causing us to disgorge that ill-gotten gain, with
terrible vengeance, and noted rapidity. The Righteous
Disposer of all things is now, in his providence, scattering
to the winds the wealth, which we made out of the bodies
and the souls of men. And thus our punishment points
so unmistakably to our sin, that it is only the wilfully
blind who cannot see it. And the manner, too, in which
the punishment is apportioned to the two sections of the
land, points clearly to the sin for which it is sent. The
whole nation suffers, North as well as South; and
therefore, the whole nation must be guilty: but the South
�48
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
especially suffers, and hence, the South must be especially
guilty. Slavery is the sin of the nation, because the
national government upheld it; but the greater measure
of the iniquity lay in the South, and now in the Lord’s
national retribution, the larger cup of his vengeance is
placed in their hands. The calamities of the Southern
people are exceedingly great, and their guilt is doubtless
in proportion: but slavery, with its concomitant evils, is
assuredly the overwhelming sin of that people.
That slavery has been the cause of the civil war, and
the resulting national calamities, is just as evident as that
the earth is lighted by the sun. We might as well doubt
that we have a war, as to doubt that slavery has been its
cause. The rebels certainly know what it was, that led
them to commence the war against the United States, and
they affirm that it was slavery. Their Vice-President,
Stephens, publicly declared, that their object in making
war, to cast off the national government, was to establish
a new government founded upon slavery—of which slavery
was to be the “corner-stone.” And he only avowed the
designs of his coadjutors, who commenced the war, and
persist in continuing it ever since. Look at the following
extract from the Richmond Examiner of May 30th,
1863, and see the corroboration of what we affirm:
“ If the Confederacy is at a premium, she owes it to
herself. And so much the better. We shall be all the
more free to run the grand career which opens before us,
and grasp our own lofty destiny. Would that all of us
understood and laid to heart the true nature of that career,
and that destiny, and the responsibility it imposes! The
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reac
tion against the whole course of the mistaken civilization
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
49
of the age. And this is the true reason why we have
been left without the sympathy of the nations, until we
conquered that sympathy with the sharp edge of our
sword. For '•Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ we have
deliberately substituted Slavery, Subordination, and G-overnment. Those social and political problems, which
rack and torture modern society, we have undertaken
to solve for ourselves, in our own way, and upon our
own principles. That, ‘among equals equality is right;’
among those who are naturally unequal, equality is
chaos; that there are slave races born to serve, master
races born to govern. Such are the fundamental princi
ples which we inherit from the ancient world, which
we lifted up in the face of a perverse generation, that has
forgotten the wisdom of its fathers; by those principles
we live, and in their defence we have shown ourselves
ready to die. Reverently we feel, that our Confederacy
is a God-sent missionary to the nations, with great truths
to preach. We must speak them boldly, and whoso hath
ears to hear, let him hear.”
Such is the monstrous doctrine of the leading rebels
on this subject; and in view of it, who can doubt the
design of the slaveholders in making the war? It is as
clear as sunshine, that they declare they made it for the
sake of slavery: and if made for the sake of slavery,
then, this was its cause. Those who deny this, make
these men to be public liars. The rebels at the South
openly declare that they made the war in behalf of sla
very, and though their advocates at the North, deny
that they did any such thing, yet, it is not difficult
to decide where the truth lies. Those who made it, know
the reason why, and when they say it was for slavery,
4
�50
THE BOOK FOB THE NATION.
there is then no room to doubt. And thus our punish
ment points plainly to our sin; as our sin is made the
avenging rod to afflict us. A righteous Providence com
pels us to understand, what that great special sin is,
for which he has visited us with these heavy calamities.
The people of our land have had their eyes sadly
blinded to the sin of slavery, by the fallacious reasoning
of the Bible advocates of that system. They have reassoned thus: The Lord allowed the Israelites to purchase
and hold slaves; and slavery existed also in the Christian
church in the days of the Apostles, yet they did not con
demn it; therefore, our system of slavery is no sin in the
sight of God. The fallacy of their reasoning lies in this,
that the conclusion is not contained in the premises. It
would not follow, that our system of slavery is no sin,
even though the Lord allowed slavery in both the Jewish
and Christian churches. Nor even if he had, in a specific
manner, authorized us as a nation to hold slaves, would
it follow, that our system of slavery is no sin; because
our system might be entirely different from what he could
approve. And it is evident, too, that though the Lord
authorizes certain things to be done in certain circum
stances, it does not follow that these same things are
right in all other circumstances. The Lord authorized
the Israelites to make war upon the Canaanites, and on
several other occasions; but it does not follow, that every
war is therefore right. But such is the nature of their
fallacious reasoning—because the Lord tolerated a kind
of slavery in certain circumstances, they jump to the con
clusion, that, therefore, our slavery is no sin!
These Bible advocates of slavery have thus deceived
the people, by professing to examine our slavery in the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
51
light of God’s Word, while they have never done any
such thing. They have contended for a mere abstrac
tion—a thing called slavery—and have justified it; but
our slave system they have not brought into the light of
divine truth at all. And they have thus thrown dust in
the eyes of the people, and deceived them exceedingly;
leading them into a false position, respecting this matter,
which is of such vital importance to the best interests of
the nation.
It is evident that the question relating to slavery,
which concerns us is, whether our slavery is a sin in the
sight of God or not. As to whether the Lord has or has
not allowed of slavery, is to us comparatively of no impor
tance. He may have done so, and we may be spending
our time in proving it, and that slavery, “per se,” is not
wrong; while our own horrible system of slavery may be
eating out the very vitals of our nation—“treasuring up
for us wrath against the day of wrath”—the day of God’s
righteous visitation upon the land.
If the Bible advocates of slavery had done their duty,
they would have examined our system of slavery, in the
light of the Word of God: they would have compared our
slave laws, and our slave practices, with the requirements
of that Word; endeavoring to know the truth, and set the
people right in relation to the whole matter. But they
have always avoided this. They have never tried to
investigate and expose the great iniquities of our slave
system; but, on the contrary, they have always endeav
ored to conceal them: thus blinding the eyes of the
people, and deceiving them as to the true issue in the
case. If they had honestly taken up our slave laws,
explaining what they forbid and what they require, and
�52
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
exposed the practices of our slavery—comparing all with
the requirements of the pure Word of God—the inhu
manity, barbarous cruelty, and filthy pollution of the
system, would have been so glaring, that a universal out
burst of indignation would have gone forth from the
people, dooming the odious system to a sure and speedy
end: for when our people know the truth and the right,
they act accordingly. But, of course, the leaders will be
followed, in both church and state. And thus the masses
have been deluded, as to the true character of the mon
strous system of oppression maintained in the land. But
those who have deluded them have the greater sin, and
have enhanced not a little our national guilt.
There is no small measure of guilt incurred by justify
ing slavery from the Bible, and at the same time, refusing
to try our slavery by the Bible. The result of this
course has been, not only to blind the eyes of the nation,
as to the wickedness of the system, but also to justify
the slaveholders, and lead them to believe they were
right; and thus to encourage and embolden them, even to
rise up in rebellion, for the purpose of fortifying and per
petuating this great evil. So that the present horrors
and calamities abounding in the land, may be traced,
in no small measure, to the fallacious manner of dealing
with the subject, by the Bible advocates of our slavery.
Had it not been for their influence, the people of the
South, and partially of the North, never would have set
tled down in the belief, that our system of slavery
is a “divine institution,” to be indefinitely perpetuated;
nor by this belief would have brought down the wrath of
Heaven upon the whole land. As long as the system was
viewed as an evil, to be remedied, and a remedy sought
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
53
for, the Lord, in his forbearance, spared the nation; but
when the system came to be advocated as good and right,
and no change to be desired, then He interposed with his
own avenging hand, to break up, and root out this great
evil, in a most effectual manner. This He did by visiting
slaveholders with judicial blindness, through which they
might “stumble, and fall, and be snared, and be taken,”
by adopting a treasonable policy, which would bring
heavy calamities on the whole nation, as a punishment for
this sin, and also utterly consume, and bring to a total
end, the cruel system, in the behalf of which, the treason
was concocted. But if the people of the land had been
taught correctly, by the proper application of the Word
of God to the system, they would have seen the evil, and
discovered a remedy also, instead of being led to provoke
the Divine displeasure, to come with such vehemence
against the nation.
Our slave system would not bear the slightest measure
of investigation in the pure light of the Divine Word. A
system, which dooms and degrades millions of human
beings, to the condition of brutes, can have no counte
nance from the God of justice, love, and truth; nor any
sanction from His holy Word. And that such is the
nature of the system, both in its laws and in its practices,
is just as true as that it exists.
The limits of these pages will not allow the citation
of slave laws, nor the enumeration of slave practices, but
the testimony is abundant, and can be produced at any
time, to prove, that our slave system, dooms and degrades
millions of human beings, to the same level as the brutes.
For instance, the laws of the system forbid the slaves to
learn to read, and as brutes cannot read, it makes the
�54
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
slaves like them, in this respect, and puts them both in
the same condition. Men and women, and sheep and
hogs, must all be alike—incapable of reading the Word
of God, or anything else! Our slave system, also, annuls
the divine institution of marriage, among slaves. tThe
laws of the system, do not recognize the relation of hus
band and wife among slaves at all, nor anything like the
institution of marriage. And the system thus consigns
men and women, to the condition of brutes, and compels
them to herd together like the cattle of the field. But
this is only in accordance with the spirit and operations of
the whole system, which make them chattels and things,
and not human beings.
And the practice of the slaveholders has been in har
mony with their laws; because it is common, when their
interests demand it, to “ put asunder” men and women,
who were living together as husband and wife, and were
really such by the law of God; but their system justifies
it, and they practise accordingly. Indeed, the very core
and vitality of our slave system is, to view and treat the
slaves as cattle, that is, to make money out of them, (rat
tle are well kept, fed and cared for, that they may be
vigorous, multiply, and be profitable; and our slaves
have generally been treated in the same manner, and
from precisely the same motives.
And as cattle are made articles of trade and commerce,
so are the slaves. In slave raising States, for instance
Virginia, it has been common for men to go out over the
country, and buy up men, women and children, just as
sheep and hogs are bought up, and drive them in a drove
into Richmond, to be sold to the highest bidder. And in
these, and many other respects, does the system doom
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
55
and degrade millions of human beings to the very condi
tion of the brute creation. And for men to appeal to the
Bible, to justify such a system, is simply an outrage upon
common-sense and decency; and a gross insult to that
just and holy God, who is the author of the Bible. How
preposterous I to appeal to the Bible, in justification of a
system, the whole tendency of which is, to make brutes
of the slaves, and barbarians of the slaveholders, as the
history of events has now fully verified. And when the
leading men in the nation, and chief guides in morality,
filling the highest stations, have been pursuing this course,
is it any marvel that the Lord is much incensed against
us, and his visitations heavy upon the land?
Now, my fellow-citizens, is it not time to consider these
things, and avoid being any longer deluded by sophistical
reasonings? If we want to know the truth respecting
our slave system, let us honestly seek to find out what it
is, and measure it by the infallible standard of the Divine
Word; so as to learn its enormous wickedness, and con
sign it to perdition, where it properly belongs. Surely,
if we are a Christian people, we cannot bear to deal with
any class of human beings, as our slave system deals
with our slaves. Nor would it be amiss to inquire what
our duty was, as Christians, to the Africans found in our
midst, when we became a nation. By English cupidity
and rapacity, the poor Africans were dragged here, and
slavery planted in the land. But when we became an
independent nation, we ought not to have set the seal of
our approbation, to the evil course of England, by con
tinuing the unrighteous system which she had introduced.
And as we were proclaiming ourselves “ the land of the
free,” it was especially inconsistent in us, to establish sla
�56
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
very as one of our institutions. We found the Africans
among us, and they were pagans; what, then, was our
duty, as Christians, toward these pagans? Was it our
duty to make slaves of them ? to oppress them ? to whip,
and buy, and sell, and to make money out of them, as
though they had been so many brutes ? Was this our
duty, as a Christian people, to these pagans? Every
one with any conscience knows the answer. How ought
a Christian people to deal with a handful of pagans found
in their midst, and in their power? Certainly, not in
cruelty, but in kindness. And is it kindness to make
slaves of them ? to make brutes of them ? to use them
merely for the purpose of turning them into money?
Ought we not to have dealt with them for their good, not
for our own? Christian magnanimity, Christian mercy,
and Christian justice, all say we ought. And was it the
duty of a Christian people to add to the number of these
pagans, with the view of making money? As there
never was a single one of them, shipped from the shores
of Africa for any other purpose. In every instance the
motive was the greed of gain. Many of the poor Afri
cans have been benefitted by it; for the Lord can bring
good out of evil, and has done so in this case; but this
does not render the authors of the evil one whit the less
guilty.
These pagans, brought here, were “strangers” in a
strange land, and they ought to have received the sympa
thy, protection, and help of a Christian people, with the
view of making them Christians, not slaves. Is it the
way in which Christians ought to treat pagan strangers,
to make slaves of them ? Very numerous are the injunc
tions to the Jewish nation, to deal kindly with the “stran
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
57
gers” found among them. And these injunctions are
applicable to us. For though we, as a nation, are gath
ered out of all lands, yet, as a white race, we are the
people of the land; the Lord having given it to us as our
inheritance: and the African is emphatically the “stran
ger in our midst.” He ought, then, to be treated by us,
with no less kindness, than was required of the Jews to
»the “stranger within their gates.”
In the Bible, the “strangers,” the “fatherless,” and
the “widows,” are classed together as objects of the
Lord’s special regard; whose cause he will vindicate; and
who are to be treated with much tenderness and compas
sion. We have our “strangers,” and of them there are
great multitudes of “fatherless” and “widows;” for our
slave system has made them. Multitudes of wives have
been torn from their husbands, and sold into cruel and
helpless bondage. Multitudes of children have been torn
from their parents, and doomed to serve under the lash
of hard-hearted and pitiless taskmasters. But these
“widows” and “fatherless” of the African “stranger,”
have a double claim. Nor are they forgotten of the Lord.
He hears their cry. Exod. xxii. 21—24: “Thou shalt
neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: .... Ye shall
not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict
them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely
hear their cry. And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will
kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows,
and your children fatherless.” A great cry, prolonged
for many weary years, has gone up to heaven from
the South land. And though these “fatherless” and
“widows, are dark colored, debased by oppression, and
despised, yet the Lord has heard their cry. And all over
�53
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
the nation, we behold a terrible verification of this portion
of God’s holy Word. It is enough to make any thought
ful person tremble and be afraid ; and to teach all, that
it is a fearful thing for a nation to disregard the counsels
of the Most High.
How touchingly the Bible describes the sad condition
of these “strangers,” “fatherless,” and “widows!”—
“Behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they
had no comforter: and on the side of their oppressor
there was power; but they had no comforter.” Eccl. iv. 1.
And forcibly, too, it describes the cry which went up from
their broken and crushed hearts to heaven :—“ 0 Lord
God, to whom vengeance belongeth; 0 God, to whom
vengeance belongeth, show thyself. Lift up thyself, thou
Judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. Lord,
how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked
triumph? They slay the widow and the stranger, and
murder the fatherless.” And though the Lord waited
long, that the wicked might repent, and cease from
violence and oppression, yet the cry of the helpless is
answered at length. The “Judge of the earth hath lifted
up himself,” and is rendering “a reward to the proud.”
The pride, and haughty, overbearing insolence of the
oppressor, is being returned into his own bosom—as
saith the Lord: “The people of the land have used*
oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the
poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger
wrongfully. Therefore, have I poured out mine indig
nation upon them ; I have consumed them with the fire
of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon
their heads, saith the Lord God.” Ezek. xxii. 29, Si.
Now, my fellow-citizens, we have, as a nation, a duty
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
59
to discharge, in relation to this evil system. Nor is it
merely to remove it; for it is rapidly being removed,
whether we intend it or not. We never could discover a
method by which to bring our slavery to an end; and
simply because we never were willing that it should end.
If the people of the land had sincerely desired its end, it
would have ended long, long ago. Because there has
been nothing on the face of the earth, nor under it, to
prevent its removal, but the unwillingness of the people.
But “the Lord, in righteousness, is now making a short
work” of it; and by his all-controlling providence, will
bring it to an end, and that before long. But we, as a
nation, should gladly concur, and devote our energies to
the speedy consummation of the just and blessed work;
rejoicing to have wiped away this foul stain, which has
been to us, such a provocation for the Lord’s anger, and
standing reproach among the nations. And, besides, we
ought, as a nation, before all men, and in the sight of
Heaven, acknowledge our guilt, in so long upholding a
system, of such enormous wickedness and oppression.
And, as a nation, too, protect and make provision for
those we have so long oppressed—the “harmless, land
less, and homeless” multitudes now cast upon our care.
And thus “break off our sins by righteousness, and our
iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;” that the Lord
may return, and heal our land, and bless us again, with
peace and prosperity in all our borders.
The sins of the inhabitants of the land might be
dwelt upon; for they are numerous and great. Such as
Sabbath desecration, drunkenness and falsehood ; derelic
tion of duty in the family—a sad want of family govern
ment; and, hence, a lamentable disregard of parental
�GO
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
authority: a reckless spirit of insubordination generally;
with national pride and self-sufficiency; but there is
ground to believe that all these, in a measure, spring from
our national forgetfulness of Grod—that this is the foun
tain whence flow these evil streams. And in order to
have healthful streams, we must purify the fountain;
casting into it the salt of divine and unchangeable truth,
concerning God, his law, his claims and supremacy over
us as a nation. We commenced to build aside from the
true foundation, and numerous evils must be the conse
quence. Let us begin anew, where we ought to begin:
recognizing the rightful authority of God over us, and
acknowledging our national subordination to that author
ity. This will be to begin at the beginning, and will have
promise of a happy continuance: it will be laying a
foundation for law, order, and stability, in every depart
ment of the social fabric. When the fountain is purified,
by a recognition of our proper relations to God and his
government, it will have a healing and saving influence
on all the streams of our civil and social life.
Our sorrowful civil war has been protracted, much
beyond our expectation when it commenced. A vast and
inighty power has been brought to bear upon the rebel
lion, to crush it: the slaughter and destruction of the
lives of our people have been fearful and distressing: the
prayers of God’s people have been ascending on both
special and ordinary occasions; but the Lord’s hand
is stretched out against us still. And why so? The
Book, that never mistakes, informs us why—“Behold,
the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save;
neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your
iniquities have separated between you and your God, and
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
61
your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not
hear.”—Isa. xlix. 1, 2. This is it, our iniquities have
separated between us and our God. He says to a nation
praying and yet transgressing—“ When ye spread forth
your hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when
ye make mapy prayers, I will not hear.” In such cases
it is not merely prayer that is required; it is this—
“ Wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to
do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow.” This is the remedy
which a God of infinite wisdom and loving-kindness pre
scribes; and if we adopt it, soon we shall realize the
advantage of being guided by infinite wisdom. Peace
will flow to us like a river, and prosperity like the waves
of the sea.
“Whatsoever things were writen aforetime, were writ
ten for our learning;” and see the case of Israel, when
smitten before their enemies on account of Achan’s sin.
Joshua and the Elders had recourse to, and continued in
prayer: but prayer was not what was needed.—“The
Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou
thus upon thy face ? * * * * Israel hath sinned; thou
canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away
the accursed thing from among you.” This is what is
requisite in our case—to cease to do evil; and learn to do
well—to repent, confess our sins, and forsake them. A
great change is being wrought in our land; and let us all
see to it, that it be for the better; a thorough and radical
change, reaching to all our evils, and removing them; so
as to have ours that nation, which the Most High will
especially favor.
�62
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION,
The great struggle of the nations is coming on apace:
the judgments of the Almighty will soon descend; for the
“Lord is arising to shake terribly the earth”—to shake
the wicked, and wicked institutions out of it—“ to destroy
them that destroy the earth,” and in their stead establish
his own reign of righteousness and peace. And in the
great conflict the only place of safety for us, will be
“under the shadow of the Almighty.” In the conflict we
shall doubtless have to share; but let us see that we go
into it duly prepared. Not in the strength of national
pride, vainglorious boasting, and self-confidence; nor yet
relying upon armies and navies, though we may have
them. Of all this we have surely had enough; and
recently, not a few impressive lessons, teaching us the
folly and impiety of trusting in our own strength, and of
giving the praise to the mere agency, instead of to the
God of providence, who sent deliverance in the time of
need. Many instances might be noted, but let two suf
fice. The “Merrimac” came forth on her mission of
destruction to our navy, and ruin seemed inevitable, when
there was no help! But the God of providence brought
in the “Monitor,” just at the hour of extremity, and we
were saved ! Then the glory and the praise of the nation
were given to the Monitor; and so the Lord raised his
winds and waves, and sunk her deep in the quick-sands,
off the Albemarle coast! Afterwards the rebel ram
“Atlanta” came forth, purposing, and probably compe
tent, to destroy our fleets. But the unseen hand of a
friendly Providence fastened her aground; so that “gal
lant Rogers,” with the “Weehawken,” made a quick and
easy capture. Then the praise of Captain Rogers and
the Weehawken sounded out from the voice of the
�AND FOR THE TIMES.
63
nation; and the Lord, from whom it was withheld, soon
brought to an end the agency of both. The good cap
tain he removed from earth, and with his mighty waters,
carried the Weehawken down to the bottom of the deep;
just at the very side of the cradle of rebellion! IIow
striking these providences of God! to teach us the folly
and wickedness of forgetting Him: refusing to acknow
ledge his timely interposition for our help: leaning upon
human strength and wisdom—“Thus saith the Lord;
Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”
“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence
in man: it is better to trust in the Lord than to put con
fidence in princes.” If the Lord be on our side, we
need not be afraid. And to have him on our side, let us
own him as the God of our nation, acknowledge his
supremacy over us, and regulate our affairs in accordance
with his will. How could we go into a conflict with the
nations, acknowledging no Giod, and having no Grod?
The time has now almost come, for the breaking up
and overturning of the nations, both pagan and semi
pagan. Semi-paganism is to be cleaned out of Christen
dom ere long: the reign of Gentilism must soon come to
an end; and it will be effected, either by national dissolu
tion or reformation. Let us take care, then, to be a
reforming nation, and not a broken and shattered, help
less wreck. If we do as we might and ought, we may
escape this doom; and, on the contrary, be “strong in
the Lord, and the power of his might.” Our peace with
other nations may not continue long. We have seen the
disposition of some of them towards us; and with some
of the European powers, we may have to reckon, for
�64
THE BOOK FOR THE NATION.
their mean, cowardly, and unrighteous treatment of our
nation, in the time of its sore trial and conflict for
national existence.
But whatever our relations may be with other govern
ments, let us be careful to secure good relations with
Heaven’s government; and then, for certain, the “strong
est power” will be on our side, and we shall gloriously
triumph over every foe. For, “In the name of the Lord,
we shall lift up our banners;” and, “In the name of
the Lord, we shall destroy them.” “One shall chase a
thousand, and two shall put ten thousand to flight.”
Then shall we be a truly great and happy people—per
manent, peaceful, and prosperous. For, “The work of
righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteous
ness, quietness and assurance for ever. And the people
shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, in sure dwellings,
and in quiet resting-places”—Isa. xxxii. 17, 18—having
verified in us the truthful saying—“ Righteousness exalteth a nation”—and we the happy people, “whose God is
the Lord:” Love, peace, and prosperity going forth
together, and joyously smiling over the face of our entire
broad land—the teeming millions, glad and harmonious,
in the full realization of the countless advantages dis
pensed by our glorious Union—one vast Republic of
Freemen, liberty-loving and happy, in our own institu
tions, in the boundless munificence of earth, and the
sweet approbation of Heaven!
�
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 book for the nation and the times
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Morton, George [1832-1907.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Philadelphia
Collation: 64 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Published anonymously 'by a citizen U.S.N.A.'. Author believed to be the Rev. George Morton.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William S. & Alfred Martien
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5230
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Politics
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 book for the nation and the times), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Christianity-United States
Conway Tracts
politics
Religion
Slavery-United States
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e3367d6eb046ade5e933be9ab201abea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Nrm77SKE-W%7EXa5N-fod7%7EUmq6TySE3Wj%7Enw2jZ0yvWXtKKNK91ZBwX-mz7kTkfGmMiLeob2TE2YHgexCJyrGF6jRLZljeepZDfiJNcEb8D3usLQA--aRVVZZe3vG1McwEikinzqQJ2Sv8oCUsQTVgnqEkb3cAr7X6hoRX946USzG71ph8%7Ev6ebLSCqBdU597S41-n0BAvi1PIj6NplL2KX78rYFir2cq3e8nKKvMzjgDubDPyGf3j4SC8LlEn4CVHIfbvDvfhCXDSfiWdRtT9nUsr2OOtnb44KXHl%7E1NqWH14BLfMvi00Vjf9RCYlhsChuLNkrzwQYl%7EszbhY2Y7qw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0a01d1478ddec05dc64fadd59488d904
PDF Text
Text
“THE PEOPLE OF GOD.’’
A SERMON,
I
PREACHED AT THE REV. CHARLES VOYSEY’S SERVICES, ST.
GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, AUGUST 9th, 1874, BY
MR.
HOPE
MONCRIEFF.
[From the Eastern Post, August Ibth, 1874]
On Sunday (August 9), at the St. George’s Hall, Langham-place,
Mr. Hope Moncrieff officiated in the absence of Mr. Voysey, and
took his text from Exodus xxxii., 32., “ Yet now if thou wilt for
give their sin; and if nob, blot me, I pray Thee, out of the book
which thou hast written.” Also, Romans ix., 3, “I could wish
that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.”
He said—A frequent source of error and confusion in religious
truth, is looking on the prophets of God as inspired in all their
utterances by the same measure of His spirit. We should rather
remember that the imperfection of humanity clogs even the
strongest souls, and that the brightness of truth dazzles the clearest
eyes. There are times when such a one seems to be caught up
into the third heaven, and sees things unspeakable, which mortal
tongue can scarce utter. Again, the lower nature asserts its
claim, and the man for whom the veil of Paradise has been rent
is seen to be blinded by the prejudices of time or place. Some
times he comes among us as from the very presence of the Holiest,
with a veil over his face, and a power in his voice to make guilty
nations tremble; sometimes his words are but those of the learning
of the Egyptians.
On one occasion the great teacher sets forth
our duty to our neighbour under the wide hearted parable of the
good Samaritan; on another, we find him forbidding his messengers
to bear the good news of salvation into any cities but those of a
chosen race.
So the wise disciple must not allow himself to be
carried away by superstitious regard for his master’s every word,
but by the light of his own knowledge in spiritual things must take
care to separate the gold from the alloy, the temporal from the
eternal. Both are found in every gospel that has yet been given
�to man. The one may endure for a time, and serve to feed the rage
of that great army of bigots, controversialists, inquisitors, ecclesi
astics, and the like, who are in truth but the camp-followers of
religion, though so often they pass for its saints and heroes. The
other, falling into good ground will spring up and bear fruit a
hundredfold, and, so long as the world stands, will increase and
multiply as food for the noblest needs of mankind.
Two striking instances of this are to be found in. the passages to
which I have called your attenion. The man who prays:—“ Blot
me out of the book which thou hast written,” has his hands red
with the human blood which he imagines that God will accept as a
sacrifice for the sins of the people. The man who cries:—11 Let me
be accursed from Christ, for the sake of my brethren,” goes on to
show that he means only his brethren according to the flesh, those
who were Israelites, to whom, as he thought^ pertained the adoption
and the promises. Yet when we consider what those hopes were,
which the two great expounders of the old and the new dispensa
tions were willing to sacrifice in their burning love for others, we
must look upon these as among the grandest and most instructive
passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Moses rises fn
moral stature above the God who is represented as peevish,
capricious, and revengeful. Paul offering soul as well as body to
eternal death, seems to beggar that conception which we have
called divine, that a man should give his blood for the sins of the
world. Let us rejoice that their words remain to put to shame
that ignoble teaching which even among ourselves would make
religion only a more cautious and far seeing form of selfishness, and
teach us that our one work in the world is to save our own miser
able souls from whatever fate awaits our fellow-men.
A lofty summit which the great men of old only caught sight of
here and there through cloulds of superstition, is now coming full
in our view, though it may yet be long before we stand upon it and
command the glorious prospect beyond. The moral sense of our
age finds it impossible to rejoice in visions of a paradise, one of the
joys of which shall be to sing endless hallelujahs over the agonies
of lost souls. The great doctrine, that which may well be said to
mark the dawn of a new dispensation, has taken root, and is lifting
its head above the weeds that had almost choked it; and men are
�learning that they are Brothers indeed. Once let us feel this and
we can no longer believe that our common father has a special
regard for any chosen race or favoured individual.
Hitherto a narrower conception of God’s love has reigned in our
minds, and we see the results. When this life was all the clear
promise, the enemies of the Lord were no be smitten hip and thigh.
To obey was to hew Agag in pieces; it was a holy mission to make
Jezebel food for dogs. In time came dim glimpses of a life beyond
the grave: and here, too, the ignorant zeal of man was busy
to deny his inheritance to the stranger and the Gentile. The
Jewish vision of a place of future punishment, took form and
colour from the foul fires of the valley of Gehenna; and the fierce
temper of A ryan converts made these fires more hot and hideous.
Then all through the middle ages, the fear of hell sat like a night
mare upon the hearts of men, a fear so unbearable that it overleapt
itself. Such a horrible picture could not be realized ; if realized,
it was madness and despair. The Catholic Church of that day
but obeyed the voice of nature in putting its purgatory before the
eternal hell, and giving its votaries hope that such sufferings might
have an end, By and bye came the Reformation, and in this
reaction against Boman teachings, our orthodox theologians would
again have brought hell into the foreground of their religious
scenery. But as the light of truth dawns, these avenging flames
grow paler and paler, and now, to most intelligent men of all
sects, they are little more than an ugly dream.
That the notion of eternal punishment is falling into general
contempt, or at least neglect, is evident to any one who cares to
read the thoughts of his generation. In such matters we must not
be misled by creeds. If we were to look merely at the published
dogmas of the religious world, we should come to quite a different
opinion. But churches are like barometers which, show not only
the present state of the weather, but that at which they were last
set; it is a pity we do not set our barometers oftener. One hand
marks a time‘when we believed that Jews, Turks, infidels and
heretics were objects of the wrath and vengeance of God. The
other has evidently risen a long way, and still is rising, for churches,
no more than barometers, can resist the atmospheric pressure.
So we see a strange contradiction of belief and dogma. Most ortho
�dox people would perhaps tell you that they believed in hell, but
it is quite clear that they would rather not talk about it; many of
them frankly and vehemently deny it. The subject is studiously
avoided in the majority of pulpits, or, if not, is introduced with an
apologetic air, and touched upon in a vague, hasty maaner that
hows it advocates to be ashamed of it. The doctors and dignitaries
of the establishment have for some time been hard at work trying
to explain to themselves and to one another, how they may continue
to say that beyond doubt certain persons shall perish everlastingly,
without meaning anything in particular. The churchman has his
cut and dry theory; man is in a state of sin and reprobation, God
has constructed a machinery of grace ; through this only have we
any prospect of escape. But if you press him as to the future
state of those who do not or cannot avail themselves of this
machinery, he hesitates to answer, and his kindliness clearlyrefuses
to let him go with his creed to all its logical lengths ; so you leave
him with a suspicion that his God would be no more consistent
than himself. Liberal clergymen notoriously reject the notion of
eternal damnation, though the Athanasian curses are chanted very
prettily in some of their churches. The so-called Evangelical school,
to do it justice, tries harder' to keep by its traditions, but there
seems something remarkably suggestive, in the very vehemence
with which it endeavours to express its belief on this point. One
of the most popular organs of the dissenting world has for some
time been feeling its way out of the necessity of doubting God’s
justice, and has got to this point, that it is open to all orthodox
Christians to hold that the wicked and unbelieving are not
tortured, but annihilated after death. These are signs of the
times; and though the preachers are wholly dumb, there are a
thousand voices proclaiming that man’s spirit, entering into a
richer inheritance of blessing, has beheld wider realms of God’s
goodness. Our whole literature is saturated with a belief or an
unbelief, in which endless miseries for any part of our race, have
no more place than the existence of a devil with horns and tail.
This divine thought which now comes fuller in view, this reve
lation which the old prophets saw afar off, is the greatest glory of
our age. Beside such a discovery in moral science, how small
things are our steam engines and spectroscopes. To believe this
�tiuth is to be born again. Do not say it is mere cowardice and
dislike of the unpleasant conditions of existence—though there is
something that might be said on this point—which is working
this change, and making us willing to take an easy rose coloured
view of God’s dealings with man. Life has still sad and stern as
pects to try our faith and endurance ; it is only hopeless woe in
which we refuse to believe. The hell which we imagined was for
others, for the heathen, ior the impenitent; for ourselves we always
left some loophole of escape. But it is the men who are nearest
heaven, who now tell us that there are no flames which its streams
of mercy cannot quench. The new faith is the work of quickened
sympathy, wider knowledge, real humility. It is when we consider
our imperfection, shared by the rest of mankind, the varied sur
roundings which mould the opinions of ourselves and our neighbours,
the unequal measures of capability and opportunity which have
been bestowed upon us, it is only, I say, when we rise above ig
norance and pride and selfishness, that we feel it would be cruel
in an Omnipotent Creator to exact eternal vengeance on any soul
of man, and base in us to cringe for the favour of such a being,
great only in his resistless strength. We cease to look on it as
our du ty to put rhe idolatrous nations to the sword; we begin to
believe that the wicked shall not be cast into a hopeless hell; we
come to see that the people of God are no elect saints, no chosen
tribe, but all the nations of the earth. Then we know in truth that
to love God whom we have not seen, is to love our brothers who
sin and suffer side by side with ourselves.
When we wish to estimate the moral progress of man, we do
right to mark his highest point of thought, for a good thought can
never die, and its being put into deeds is only a matter of time.
But looking forward to our ideal, we must constantly remind our
selves how very far we ever lag behind it. And seeing the lessons
we have still to learn, w e may well say that we have not yet
mastered the alphabet of love. It is easy to abolish a conception
of hell, half terrible, half grotesque, and altogether out of keeping
with the taste of our age. It is a cheap thing to be generous with
spiritual blessings which we proclaim to be as free as the air. But
let us ask what we give our brothers from that which is our own,
and yet, if we Knew it, not our own.
�<5
The inquisitors of old were consistent in their belief, who burned
men’s bodies that souls might be saved from eternal fires. What
shall we say, if we leave bodies and minds in such a state that
Earth itself seems a hell for the soul ? Pain we have always
with us ; we may call it punishment, trusting our Father that in
love He chastens us. . It is useless to ask why we suffer;
enough, that we suffer by sin, and our hope is that these sufferings
are not endless, that we are being purified by these trials. God
has appointed means of help; do we labour night and day that
these means may be placed within the reach of those whose need
is sorest ? It is with loving pity or proud scorn that we regard
our brethren on whom the mysterious curse lies heavier than on
ourselves ? Is our own salvation our least care, and our greatest that
others may taste and see that the grace given us is good ? Alas !
we strive blindly and fiercely for the light itself, and care not that
the crowds below are sttll dwelling in a gloom where there is no
human help or hope—none but the spirit of God which can turn
the deepest darkness into day. Vain boasting over our attain
ments ! It is but a reflection of the truth that we see, if its rays
do not shine in our lives, only that soul which gives light to other
draws nearer to the glory of the sun.
Is it not sad to see the selfishness of men—a selfishness which
only changesits object when it seeks spiritual exclusiveness, and
its form, when it extends itself from individuals to communities !
Think of the narrow views of duty and interest in which we are
so often educated, taught to seek a certain standard of virtue, not
because it is the inheritance of the great human heart, but that we
may do honour to such a family, such a school, such a college
which thus instructs us to make pride rather than humility the
motive spring of our religion. See then, how we are divided into
classes and cliques, each priding itself on i ts moral and material
superiority to others. If the Beelzebub of old romance could
observe the ways of men, would he not laugh to see now these selfrighteous, self-deceiving herds flock to worship as God the godlike
man, who bade the simplest and the sinfullest seek him first,
whose heart was most open to the vilest outcast of earth. Need I
speak of our churches and chapels ? These, on ultimate analysis,
will be found to subsist in separation, chiefly through differences
of culture which we think it necessary to maintain as barriers for
�7
our sinful pride. Look abroad, and we find people set against
people, continent separated from continent by Atkntics of ignorance
and selfishness. Almost every nation in Europe names itself
Christian, and how complacently we boast of our Established
Churches, and call God to witness that His temples are reverenced
in every land. His blessing is involved on all our public acts ; his
law is proclaimed to be the guide of our policy. But brush away
these flimsy forms like a cobweb ; read the honest paragraphs of
your newspapers, and say if there is a single government in Europe
which does not habitually act on the assumption that the policy
of its most Christian neighbours is absolute selfishness, and that
every nation wants but the power and a mere figment of excuse, to
proceed to what in private life would be called murder and robbery.
We may see that little but the fear of punishment restrains us
from vulgar larceny, when it is with impious hymns to our common
Father, and accursed blessing of bloodstained banners in His name
that men set about stealing a province, or slaughtering half a
million of their fellow creatures. Good God! how far are thy
children yet from home 1
Our national life is not altogethe unchristain. We do something
to educate grovelling classes, and dependent peoples ; we send out
missionaries to those whom we call the heathen ; and from some
aspects such attempts are wholly creditable to us. But there are
features of our missions, which, as I should wish to explain more
fully, did time permit, distinguish them from the zeal of genuine
humanity. They are sectarian for the most part, and love of our
brother as man, trust in him as the child of God, find no place in
the creeds of our sects. The statesmen who believe blood and
iron to be the only strength of national prosperity, are but the
natural outcomes of religions which grant salvation to particular’
races, or creeds, or congregations. What we should most earnestly
support is a home mission to ourselves, to bring our sympathies
from the narrow courts and alleys in which they are confined.
The most enlightened of us know best how wide is this field of
exertion.
To love our neighbour as ourself, how easy it sounds to the
tender heart, but how hard it proves when we have not only to
make open war against selfishness, but to temper the very zeal
of our better nature! Love leads to “hate of sin that hinders
loving,” and in our hot haste we cannot pause to separate the sin
and the sinner, and would call down thunder from heaven upon
our brothers who make light of its law. It is hard, I grant, not
to believe sometimes in a hell for the enemies of the Lord and His
people. They are not only degraded savages and hardened outlaws
whom we are tempted to look upon as cut off from grace. When
we see the cruel selfishness with which respectable church-going
�8
-
)
people make their way in the world over the bodies and souls of
their poorer brethren, we can enter into the spirit which animates
the parable of Dives and Lazarus, and take a fierce joy in thinking
that a time of retribution shall come for those who so greedily
grasp the good things of this life. But deeper experience brings a
calmer mood. Vengeance is not ours, and if the Lord is long
suffering why should we be wroth ? Faith is ready to ascend into
heaven with the prayer : “Father forgive them, for they know not
what they do.” We learn of the Spirit, and see that as pity is
nobler than indignation, so is fear weaker than love.
And then it is only when we regard the sins of others that we
wish there may be a great gulf fixed beyond the grave. As has been
beautifully said, the highest mountains of earth are scarcely nearer'
to the stars than the lowest valleys, and paradoxical as it may
sound, true humility gives us wings on which we rise to see what
the eyes, of heaven see always, how far we all come short of the
glory of God. When we consider our own temptations, our
wasted opportunities, the vile thoughts and words and deeds that
ever rebel against the most kingly spirit, the best of us may well
abase himself in the dust, and thank heaven that his fate is ono
with that of the chief of sinners. Oh ! how our fears should
vanish if we could but believe that we are the most worthless of
God’s people. Why need we doubt as to our future state, when
we are sure that our destinies are bound up with the final welfare
of the whole human race; that what God has done for us, He can
do for others, and that what He is doing for others, He will do
even for us !
It may seem that I have mixed up too closely the ideas of
suffering here and suffering hereafter. But it will be seen on re
flection that the root and the remedy of all our misery is the
same. We must learn that we are members one of another' And
as our spiritual being becomes more refined, more sensitive, so we
come to feel that while the meanest member is in pain, the whole
body must suffer, and to understand that there can be no heaven
for us, while one soul is dwelling in hell. At the voice of love a
new light comes into the eyes of hope. Then faith takes courage
and prophesies that all flesh shall see the Salvation of our God.
If Paul and Moses were alive now, they would perhaps be more
distinguished for their works of practical benevolence, than for
tbeir utterances in the pulpit and through the religious literature
of the day. But this would be their secret prayer : “Blot me out
of the book of hope, so long as the gates of omnipotent mercy are
closed to the most hardened sinner. Let me be accursed for my
brother man, till the least as well as the greatest shall know Thee
and rejoice in Thy everlasting love.”
Eastern Post Steam Printing Works, 89, Worship-street, Finsbury, 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 people of God: a sermon, preached at the Rev. Charles Voysey's services, St George's Hall, Langham Place, August 9th, 1874
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hope Moncrieff, A. R.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 6.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Eastern Post]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4832
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
Religion
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 people of God: a sermon, preached at the Rev. Charles Voysey's services, St George's Hall, Langham Place, August 9th, 1874), 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
Morris Tracts
Religion
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0f9fe47d40888fe02e8b874ed9f29e73.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gR-XPup41aKgtyrvgDt1zg7Xe7s4UPVUE9K0C5j-ltYEW1mecNBY6B4y3n8BY92xVPc3MnosRQbPa6Y5TFtH2x603NiXEgjKZMbrwRw7jobQR7hW0HfG%7ELb6wTXqdNrsfM6jLDqRSVLUO9vM1l-e2oEYwDw7QZmNRMDtJc0zR9QYFxOb61sq0eyG2ufDBR13OiQK7W6ft3t06Ja2kcH9omjVJbopTxJYkcwVz2tftMuoTGh2doJ3EA4kLG%7E1XrHMEyIOVyeQpdgqpADJWpW5ZpIMuUmPoQ4BsA2ZnPXX3UOPvBZ7Kmw5ruyxBu0MWiFef%7EtjBmVBJje12MwC6hYUjg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a799d29086be6a1b6e4f3c0a895bc41a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
/O '
/ Z/0-&
FAITH AND FACT
A LETTER TO
THE BEV. HENBY M. FIELD, D.D.
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
------- «-------
REPRINTED PROM
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
(November 1887).
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1890.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�FAITH AND FACT,
My Dear Mr. Field,—T answer your letter because it is manly
candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the
gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in
terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often
malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your
brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief,
tends to show that those who love God are not always the
friends of their fellow men.
Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be
eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and
that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro
gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ” ? And
yet “some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous,
rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect
to receive as alms an eternity of joy.
The first question that arises between us, is as to the inno
cence of honest error—as to the right to express an honest
thought.
You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im
portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the
advocates of protection, there are honest Democrats and sincere
Republicans. How do you account for these differences ? Edu
cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions
capable of solution—'questions that the mind can grasp, concern
ing which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be
with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this ? If such
differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those
who differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining
different views on subjects about which nothing can be positively
known P
You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ”
do. How do you account for this difference ? Of course, your
brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian
God—are governed by charity and love. They do not regard
me as. a monster because I have committed an infamous crime,
but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest
thoughts.
What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great
care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only
�4
FAITH AND FACT.
that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty
to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? W^as it my duty to
remain, silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined
the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word
of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a
monster ? Has religion had control of the world so long that an
honest man seems monstrous?
According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same
being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain,
and sowed within those wondrous fields the seeds of every
thought and deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it
as a, guide to all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the
brain. And yet there are millions who do not believe in the
inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best
have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian
ever stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He
was familiar with nature from the sands to stars, and gave his
thoughts, his discoveries and conclusions, “ more precious than
the tested gold,” to all mankind. Yet he not only rejected the
religion of your brethren, but denied the existence of their God.
Certainly Charles Darwin was one of the greatest and purest of
men—as free from prejudice as the mariner’s compass—desiring
only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance the star of
truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the intel
lectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate con
clusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of mankind.
In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest and
The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion becomes a
gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest,
thoughtful, brave, and generous man.
Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, and
the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of
Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and
tell me, candidly, which in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even
your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished
for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy,
or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of
the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular
hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and
yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same free
dom of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason
is the supreme and final test.
If God has made a revelation to man it must have been
addressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could
even decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and
feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the star
less night—blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is
the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains.
�FAITH AND FACT.
5
You. draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call
“ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo
mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com
mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ?
What is your opinion of Jehovah himself? Is not the sacrifice
of a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ?
Why should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Why should
the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg
of the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the
envy of the source of light !
You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her
child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care
of the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through
a false belief on the part of the mother. She breaks her heart
for love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian
mother who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a con
vict in the eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from
which none escape ? What do you say of those Christians who
believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstacy that
all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred rela
tions of life and all the passions of the heart will fade and die, so
that they will look with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the
miseries of the lost ?
You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be dis
tinguished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime
which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.”
Let us test your religion by this rule.
Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is
it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and
is it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also
another question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of
ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise ?
According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved,
and those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you
condemn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say,
for acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—
do you not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when
you reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that
which happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not
make that a virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do
you not bring your own religion exactly within your own defini
tion of superstition ?
The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his
thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We
believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is
a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales
turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of
being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The
�6
FAITH AND FACT.
conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We must believe,
or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish.
That which must be, has the right to be.
We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart
beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old
accustomed ways.
The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that
being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest
thoughts ? You certainly have the right to express yours, and
you have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who
regard me as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question
now is,, have I the right to express mine ? In other words, have
I the right to answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me
which is a. virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition
of superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to
me is simply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right
to express your honest thoughts P When, and where, and how
did I lose mine ?
You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because
I differ with you on a subject about which neither of us knows
anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a
proof of the depravity of man. You are far better than your
creed. You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing
the frightful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw
are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon
whom they are used, that the religion of those who use them
was founded by a god of infinite compassion. You will admit
that he who now persecutes for opinion’s sake is in famous. And
yet, the God you worship will, according to your creed, torture
through all the endless years the man who entertains an honest
doubt. A belief in such a God is the foundation and cause of all
religious persecution. You may reply that only the belief in a
false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you must admit
that the Jews believed in a true God, and you are forced to say
that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they cruci
fied the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was com
mitted, not in spite of their religion, but in accordance with it.
They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the
followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have
denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on ac
count of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their
fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless
Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for
the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At
this point absurdity becomes infinite.
Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making
it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torque-
�FAITH AND FACT.
7
mada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of
death. And this you call a “ consolation.”
You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea
of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those
entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are
not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the
gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the
Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks
doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your
Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the
salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According
to your creed a man must believe in your god. All the nations
dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and
Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris and Brahma prayed and sacrificed
in vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were
not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe
in any one of the heathen gods.
What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and
to put forth arguments that even Christians have answered?
The Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty,
and at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian
replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the
Bible. This answer was complete.
I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have
been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the
supernatural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and
purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous
myths. Yet a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make
men charitable or just. For most people, Theism is the easiest
solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that
there must be a being who created and who governs the world.
But the universality of a belief does not tend to establish its
truth. The belief in the existence of a malignant devil has been
as universal as the belief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent
men will say that the universality of this belief in an in finite
demon even tends to prove his existence. In the world of thought
majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with
the few.
Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has
been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance
and hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man
has sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and
child; he has fasted and prayed; he has suffered beyond the
power of language to express, and yet he has received nothing
from the gods—they have heard no supplication, they have
answered no prayer.
You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and
�8
FAITH AND FACT.
on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to
all alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the
just and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his
cyclones rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest
and the criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is
cruel to all alike? In other words, do they not demonstrate the
absolute impartiality of the divine negligence?
Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelli
gence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better
than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts or
floods; the props would not be permitted to wither and die, while
rain was being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good
man with power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones?
Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the
lightning ?
Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the
good, and preserve the vile? Why should he treat all alike here,
and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should
your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by
his enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the
noble, to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ?
Does it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of
shame when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of
her babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with
sobs, commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ?
It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed,
you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci
tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence
of God. Now, if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of
the soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity?
Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You
seem to think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in
order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain
qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for
the Atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do
you quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose
being he so passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon
—one of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely
strung that he was sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you
driven to the necessity of proving the existence of one tyrant by
the words of another ? Personally, I have but little confidence in
a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his
ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans. In
regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast
amount of testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of
Charles Darwin, and then denied the correctness of these
theories—preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few days
to the lasting applause of the intellectual world.
�FAITH AND FACT.
9
I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but
that everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there
is no way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me,
the crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constella
tions. But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the
universe by the mystery of God, you do not even exchange
mysteries—you simply make one more.
Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation.
The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of
God.. That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so
that it cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is
beyond the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that
man can be convinced by any evidence of the existence of that
which he cannot in any measure comprehend. Such evidence
would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible
fact sought to be established by it, and the intellect of man can
grasp neither the one nor the other.
You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God,
is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship
the inflexible? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ?
You say that your God “ does not bend to human thought any
more than to human will,” and that “ the more we study him,
the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to be.”
So that after all, the only thing you are really certain of in
relation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is
it not almost absurd to insist that such a state of mind is
necessary to salvation, or that it is a moral restraint, or that it
is the foundation of a social order ?
The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the
cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the
Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian
nation more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ?
Certainly you must know that what you call religion has pro
duced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the sword all
the natural ties that produce “ the unity and married calm of
States.” Theology is the fruitful mother of discord; order is
the child of reason. If you will candidly consider this question,
if you .will for a few moments forget your preconceived opinions,
you will instantly see that the instinct of self-preservation holds
society together. People, being ignorant, believed that the gods
were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms
that demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony,
phantoms that , could be flattered by praise and changed by
prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve themselves,
they supposed that they could in this way avoid pestilence and
famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do you not see
that self-preservation lies atjthe foundation of worship ? Nations,
like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like
�10
FAITH AND FACT.
individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplish
ment of certain ends.. Men defend their property because it i s
of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire
to live, and for that reason murdei’ is a crime. Fraud is hateful
to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce the
necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to
retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the
instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of
value. This is the foundation of social order, and this holds
society together.
Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs
the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its
votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The
effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together.
Of what consequence is any thing in this world compared with
eternal joy P
You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and
that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in
other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by
your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes
and preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your
God is responsible for the government of this world. Does he
preserve order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did
he establish the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of
the Inquisition.
You answer all these questions by calling my attention to
“ the retributions of history.” What are 'the retributions of
history ? The honest were burned at the stake; the patriotic,
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons;
whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of
their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They
who committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified
these infamies were adorned with the tiara.
You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg
said : “ Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.”
Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he
says—speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—
“ If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the
lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must
be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.’ ” But admitting that you are correct in the asser
tion, let me ask you one question : Could one standing over the
body of Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman’s
wound, have truthfully said: “ Just and true are thy judg
ments, Lord God Almighty ” P
Do you really believe that this world is governed by an
infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even your
self of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ?
�FAITH AND FACT.
11
Why should the loving be tortured P Why should the noblest
be destroyed ? Why should the world be filled with misery,
with ignorance and with want ? What reason have you for
believing that your God will do better in another world than he
has done and is doing in this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he
have more power ? Will he be more merciful ?
When I say “ your God,” of course I mean the God described
in the Bible and Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I
say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of
the existence of an Infinite Being.
An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason
there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any
possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being
so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an
Infinite Being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do
nothing for a Being who wants nothing. A conditioned being
can be made happy or miserable by changing conditions, but the
conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and effect.
I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a
God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can
be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and
that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an
infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe
God as “ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind,
is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no
experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I
am acquainted, and I was surprised to find in your letter the
expression that “ perhaps others are better acquainted with that
of which I am so ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say
that you know anything of any other state of existence—that
you have inhabited some other planet—that you lived before
you were born, and that you recollect something of that other
world, or of that other state ?
Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unin
tentionally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have
never uttered “ a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a
thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality,
that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with
its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores
and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any
creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and
it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of
doubt and darkness as long as loves kisses the lips of death.
I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not
know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the
beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or
the folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an
endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one.
�12
FAITH AND FACT.
The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou
sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had
lived, and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been
laid in love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven
of the New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, after
they were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word
was said to have been uttered by Christ—nothing philosophic,
nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the
cloud of doubt.
According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was
dead for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection,
why did not some one of his disciples ask him where he had
been P Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ?
There was the opportunity to “ bring life and immortality to
light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had leftspeechless as the stone that angels had rolled away.
How do you account for this? Was it not infinitely cruel to
leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could
have filled time with hope and light ?
The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have
climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not
supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long
as men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the
human heart.
All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope
and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look
have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those
who hope to live again—for those who bend above their dream
of life to come. But I have denounced the selfishness and heart
lessness of those who expect for themselves an eternity of joy,
and for the rest of mankind predict, without a tear, a world of
endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible than such a
hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of
the human race.
When I say that I do not know—when I deny the existence
of perdition, you reply that “ there is something very cruel in
this treatment of the belief of my fellow-creatures.”
You have had the goodness to invite me to a grave over which
a mother bends and weeps for her only son. I accept your
invitation. We will go together. Do not, I pray you, deal in
splendid generalities. Be explicit. Remember that the son for
whom the loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer
in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus
Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for some star
of hope in the midnight of her grief. What must you say P Do
not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a
�FAITH AND FACT.
13
portion of the Presbyterian confession of faith ? Will you read
this?
“ Although, the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,
do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man
inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of
his will which is necessary to salvation.”
Or, will you read this ?
“ By the decree of God, for the manifestation 'of his glory, some men and
angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to ever
lasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and
definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say :
“ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life
for me. Is there no hope for him ?” WouldJyou then put this
serpent in her breast ?—
“ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other
way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives according
to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin.
There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation. Works done by un
regenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which
God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others, are sinful
and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God.”
And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What
has become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still
read from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism,
this P—
“ The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment
and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. At the last
day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the wicked shall be
cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable i torment, both of body and
soul, with the Devil and his angels for ever.”
If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted,
would you thrust this dagger in her heart ?
“ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds,
shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and
acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.”
If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would
you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul
of Christ ?—
“ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe
not shall be damned ; and these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil and his angels.”
Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell
this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and
among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of
paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “ Your son lived
in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach.
He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son
�14
FAITH AND FACT.
is for ever lost. You. can meet your son again only by dying in
your sins; but if you will give your heart to God you can never
clasp him to your breast again.”
What could I say ? Let me tell you.
“ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of
another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply
Btated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear.
If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you
are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him,
according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he
gave his life for him; and why should that love be changed to
hatred the moment your son was dead ?
“ My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no
rewards—there are consequences; and of one thing you may
rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere
it may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing
right.
“ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you
weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not
within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is
something. Your son does not suffer. Hext to a life of joy is
the dreamless sleep of death.”
Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox
Christianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in thiB world, where every
human being is enshrouded in cloud and mist —where all lives
are filled with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is
it “ a consolation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal
pain ” ? It is possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from
the doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If
that doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why
should he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer for
ever P Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Com
pared with this crime, any crime that any man can by any
possibility commit is a virtue.
Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite
penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal
turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this
infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a
scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth
part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world
remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was
made.
If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un
justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God
accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of
the guilty ?
According to your theory, this infinite being by his mere will,
makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong
�FAITH AND FACT.
15
exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man,
and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature
is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.”
I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural
effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment,
nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con
sequences; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness
of man; and the consequences must be borne.
A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be
pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own
well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power.
The laws of the State are made, and being made, can be changed;
but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation
of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all
power, and consequently there is no analogy between the laws of
the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not
change the relation between the diameter and circumference of
the circle.
A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny
the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of
the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be
to suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in
Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end
that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all:
Nature cannot pardon.
You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is
to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with
the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest
hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another
must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition
must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can
be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has
by his perfidy broken a loving and confiding heart. No power
can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no
atonement.
But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if
you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a
man may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven
to insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships
strain at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught
that this poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of
infinite compassion. This is not all that you have taught. You
have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would
not listen to her wailing cry—who would not even stretch
forth his hand to catch her fluttering garments—you have
said to him : “ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall
be happy forever; you shall live in the realms of infinite delight,
�16
FAITH AND FACT.
from which' you can, without a shadow falling upon your face,
observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the agonies of
hell.” You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how
an angel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed
on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any
decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand of God,
should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave heaven
itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of the
damned.
You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence
ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—
that he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You
seem to have forgotten the line which you emphasised with
italics : “ The, effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause
is eternal.” In the light of this sentence, where do you find a
place for your forgiveness—for your atonement ? Where is a
way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal ? Do you
not see that this sentence is a cord with which I easily tie your
hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theo
logical. You have put “ new wine into old bottles,” and the
predicted result has followed. Will the angels in heaven, the
redeemed of earth, lose their memory? Will not all the
redeemed rascals remember their rascality ? Will not all the
redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ? Will not
the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and
the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the
redeemed be. as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ?
If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if
the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain
and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly
happy; and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the
kind actions, the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the
memory of good deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost
can never be perfectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a
good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one ? _ So
that the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying
pain, and the undying memory of those in hell brings undying
pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done good and bad,
the future can have neither a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ?
I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must
bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly
saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness
of another.
If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice,
the effects following a noble and disinterested action; if you
mean that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect
upon the human race—which your letter seems to show—then
there is no question between us. If you have thrown away the
�FAITH AND FACT.
17
old and barbarous idea that a law had been broken, that God
demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered
up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our
place, then I congratulate you with all my heart.
It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly
joyous to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens,
and its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the
globe, so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men.. Accord
ing to your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here,
the vicious may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here,, a
few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in
your future state, for countless millions of the human race, there
will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible
gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see
that your future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem
to mistake the glare of hell for the light of morning.
Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us
“ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of
this life.”
You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject .for
caricature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration,
you mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in
the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility,
and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, and concludes to
act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regenera
tion, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regenera
tion in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There
is some mysterious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency,
called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the
heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under
the control, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and
whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regene
ration that I have attacked.
You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born
among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates
or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying,
“ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live
and die on the earth.”
I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that
Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter
of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said
nothing against the institution of slavery ; nothing against the
tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals;
nothing about education, about intellectual progress; nothing
of art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the
rightB and duties of nations.
You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as
you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this
�18
FAITH AND FACT.
is necessary to educate the human race. Is it not enough to say
to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question
still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in
the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny.
Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue
the right of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the
world.
Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of
camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of
hundreds of millions of human beings P How is it that he con
quered and overran more than half of the Christian world?
How is it that on a thousand fields the banner of the cross went
down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ?
How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor
floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ?
Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius,
whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired
-—this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has
been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of
millions of his fellow-men P How do you account for Buddha,
in many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has
ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he
who was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was
born, to declare the universal brotherhood of man, great enough
to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising
mankind ? How do you account for him, who has had more
followers than any other ? Are you willing to say that all success
is divine ? How do. you account for Shakespeare, born of
parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of
ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do
you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the
wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human
thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly acquainted with the
human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and
in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of all experience,
and a prophecy of all to be; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty
and depth of whose, words increase with the intelligence and
civilisation of mankind ? How do you account for this miracle P
Do. you believe that any founder of any religion could have
written Lear or Hamlet ? Did Greece produce a man who could
by any possibility have been the author of Troilus and Cressida ?
Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Borne
an intellect that could have written the tragedy of Julius Caesar ?
Is. not the play of Antony and Cleopatra as Egyptian as the
Nile ? How do you account for this man, within whose veins
there seemed to be the blood of every race, and in whose brain
there were the poetry and philosophy of a world p
You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here,
�FAITH AND FACT.
19
once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the
darkness, cried out, “ My God, why hast thou forsaken me P”—
for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me
say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is
holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I
gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was
a reformer in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theo
logical mask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New
Testament, I see a great and genuine man.
It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course
pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness
“ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there
was something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his
fellow-creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a
“ generation of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepul
chres.” How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ?
They go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others.
They tell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only
that their religion is a lie, not only that their Gods are myths,
but that the ancestors of these people, their fathers and mothers,
who never heard of God, of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in
perdition. Is not this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow
creature ?
A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack
with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain.
A religion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out:
“ Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my
feelings,” is fit only for asylums.
You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power.
While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the
dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these things
because he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to
establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was
actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ?
Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he
not, with a touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power
to give sight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not
exercise it, what would be thought of you ? What is the differ
ence between one who can and will not cure, and one who causes
diseases.
Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet
her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of
her body like morning on the desert. What would I think
of myself had I the power by a word to send the blood
through all her withered limbs freighted again with life, should
I refuse ?
Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have been
produced by and are really the children of religion.
�20
FAITH AND FACT.
Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties
and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct
by means of which happiness can be attained in another world.
The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular.
They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and
are of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest,
courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure
without being religious—that is to say, without any belief in the
supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the
same time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is
to say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the
scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes
in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a man
who is kind and loving to his family may or may not believe in
the Bible.
In order that you may see the effect of belief in the formation
of character, it is only necessary to call your attention to the
fact that your Bible shows that the Devil himself is a believer in
the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures
and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these
things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains
a devil still.
Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural
goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super
stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the
heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Chris
tianity—or at least crimes that involved the commission of all
others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made
blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in
the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship
was called “ The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds,
the fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ
to crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just
before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of
the Most High.
As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention
to an incident.
You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The
Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of
having all things in common. Their followers, who had some
thing, were to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds
over to these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and
Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking
the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals,
concluded to keep a little—just enough to keep them from star
vation if the good and pious bankers should abscond.
When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he
had kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not;
�FAITH AND FACT.
21
whereupon God, the compassionate, struck him dead.. As soon
as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They
did not tell hei- that her husband had been killed. They deli
berately set a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough
or noble enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to
believe that hei’ husband had told his story, and that she was
free to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that
they were giving more than they could afford, and, with the
instinct of a woman, wanted to keep a little. She denied that
any part of the price had been kept back. That moment the
arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart.
Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles
in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime
than mendacity.
\ ou have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give
me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and
that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you
really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you
really wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army
should send word to the general of the other that his men were
firing too high, do you think the general would be misled ? Can
you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the
message P
I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to
worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not
in the interest of freedom. It never entered their minds that
other men had the same right to worship God according to the
dictates of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment
they had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison
and burn. They did not believe in religious freedom. They had
no more idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah.
I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and
martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now
have was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of
these martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or
assassinated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in
fighting the hordes of religious superstition.
Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed
in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire.
He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There
was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white
ness of his soul.
For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church
was a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many
centuries with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been
ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the
earth.
Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold
�22
FAITH AND FACT.
sneer—half pity half sneer—with which I look down on house
hold worship.”
Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that
they are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of
sunshine in this life, and who thank God for the little they have
enjoyed, have my entire respect. Never have I said one word
against the spirit of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of
the man who gathers his family about him after the storm, or
after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours out his heart
in thankfulness to the supposed God who has protected his fire
side. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol
of stone, or his fetish of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one
nor of the other that I respect, it is the goodness and thankful
ness that prompt the prayer.
I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my
objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon
this subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that
the roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the
soft, cool clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads
its bosom to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its perfume to
the air. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily
with a heart of fire, the fairest flower in all this world.
What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home p
What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifi
cation of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that
Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happi
ness in another to those who would desert their wives and
children and follow him P What effect has that promise had
upon family life ?
As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Chris
tianity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ,
and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that.
Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife to
desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the
miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled
souls.
It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to love
God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ.
It is better io serve your neighbour than to serve your God—
even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing
for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can
add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the path
way of another.
It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is
true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to
the service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion
can be understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why
�FAITH AND FACT.
23
should he waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same
thoughts repeated again and again ?
Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The
mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust,
the laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul
in his body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich,
may go to the village church which you have described. They
answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this
village church ? Is it that God is the father of the human race;
is that all ? If that were all, you never would have heard an
objection from my lips. That is not all. If all ministers said:
Bear the evil of this life; your Bather in heaven counts your
tears; the time will come when pain and death and grief will
be forgotten words—I should have listened with the rest. What
else does the minister say to the poor people who have answered
the chimes of your bell ? He says “ The smallest sin deserves
eternal pain.” “ A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer
the wrath of God for ever.” He fills the present with fear and
the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the
many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to
heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,” and a great
highway worn with countless feet that leads to everlasting
death.
Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real
savages.. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would
I turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get
acquainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange
civilities with your neighbors; and gladly would I see the
church in which such sermons are preached changed to a place
of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox
sermons—the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in
crevices and corners—driven out by the glorious music of
Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the Sunday-school,
where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed to a happy
dance upon the village green.
Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades.
Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery.
You do not believe that general morality can be upheld with
out the sanctions of religions.
Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit.
It has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all.
Of course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not
murder;” but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of
escape; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,-and thou shalt be
saved.” I insist that such religion is no restraint. It is far
better to teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every
human being must bear the consequence of his acts.
The first great step toward national reformation is the uni-
�24
FAITH AND FACT.
versai acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the
consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their
country homes into a city filled with temptations, may be
restrained by the thought of father and mother. This is a
natural restraint. They may be restrained by their knowledge
of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its consequences,
and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot conceive of
such a man being more liable to temptation because he has
heard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only
good is happiness—that the only way to attain that good is by
doing what he believes to be right. I cannot imagine that his
moral character will be weakened by the statement that there is
no escape from the consequences of his acts. You seem to think
that he will be instantly led astray—that he will go off under
the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. Do you think the
Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent this would you
recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament?
Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ? Do you
think this would enable him to withstand temptation ? Would
it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts, so
that he may know exactly thé physical consequences of such
acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ?
Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ?
You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and
that the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves.
You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering
at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious
and profligate.
The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of
Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have
entertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say
to you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has
nothing to do with religion. Moralily does not depend upon
the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of
miracles. Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It
cares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality
depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something
known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no
priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom
of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded
upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has to do
with this world, and with this world alone.
My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the
gaoler of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is so say,
the supernatural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a
convict. Under the government of a personal deity, conse
quences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards.
�FAITH AND FACT.
25
Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments
and rewards are simply consequences. Nature does not punish.
Nature does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the
storm comes, I do not think : “ This is being done by a tyrant.”
When the sun Bhines, I do not say: “This is being done by a
friend.” Liberty means freedom from personal dictation. It does
not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in
Nature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Tem
perance walks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain
from the body puts an additional responsibility upon the soul.
Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit yourself; you
increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a question of
intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or to
infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those
you injure, and to none other.
I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power
above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do
that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any
extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or
that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature.
There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which
happens must happen. The present is the child of all the past,
the mother of all the future.
Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is
some God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence
have they on which to found this belief? When has any God
listened to the prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold
freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven
falls—when and where has the prayer of man been answered ?
Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of
prayer? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United
States. The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell
upon their knees and asked God to spare the life of one man.
You know the result. You know just as well as I that the
forces of Nature produce the good and bad alike. You know
that the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You
know that the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking
to death the honest man that it does or would in striking the
assassin with his knife lifted above the bosom of innocence.
Did God heai’ the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the
prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear
the prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling them
selves his followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of
glorious men ? Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of
those whose hearts were his ? Why should any man depend on
the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing
that they would suffer eternal grief?
The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate
�26
FAITH AND FACT.
or manly or womanly sentiment of love and7honor”—is the
faith that nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought
an honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith be
cause those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ?
You say to me: “There is a hell. A man advocating the
opinions you advocate will go there when he dies.” I answer :
“ There is no hell. The Bible that teaches that is not
true.” And you say: “ How can you hurt my feelings ?”
You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of Ids
parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother.
Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers
and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity
heartless sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the
Apostles ? Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of
their fathers and mothers ? Did they not join with him who
denounced their people as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they
not follow one who offered a reward to those who would desert
father and mother ? Of course you have only to go back a few
generations in your family to find a Field who was not a Pres
byterian. After that you find a Presbyterian. Was he base
enough and. infamous enough to heap contempt upon the
religion of his father and mother ? All the Protestants in the
time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion of their
fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is a
prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and
mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his
mother a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not see that your
doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ?
If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of for
giveness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and
the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree
with you when you say that “ Christ is Christianity and that it
stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the
foundation of your religion. If it should be established beyond
doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Chris
tianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that
we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as
mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who
painted or chiseled the greatest pictures and statues so long as
we have the pictures and statues. When he who has given the
world a truth passes from the earth the truth is left. A truth
dies only when forgotten by the human race. Justice, love,
mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in
the human heart, were known and practised for uncounted ages
before the birth of Christ.
You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abj’ect terror ’*
—does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.”
Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the
�FAITH AND FACT.
27
names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible
to tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive
a worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the
race ? Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ”
who believes your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere
women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have com
mitted “ the unpardonable sin ”—a sin to which your God has
attached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to
describe the offence ? Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the
penalty of eternal pain for the violation of a law not written,
not known, but kept in the secrecy of infinite darkness ? How
much happier it is to know nothing about it, and to believe
nothing about it! How much better to have no God.
You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so
that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer
elements of character, conduce to our future happiness.’’ This
is an old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is,
that this world is a school in which man becomes educated
through tribulation—the muscles of character being developed
by wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this
life in order to develop character, in order to become worthy of
a better world, how do you account for the fact that millions of
the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this
necessary education and development ? What would you think
of a schoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his
scholars during the first day, before they had even an oppornity to look at A ?
You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for
righteousness.”
If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of
nature ? If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ”
that man as he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not
only takes advantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit,
but perceives more and more clearly that if he be happy he must
live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony
with the fact by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the
relations he sustains to others and to things; if this is what
you mean, then there is “ a power making for righteousness.”
But if you mean that there is something supernatural at the
back of nature directing events, then I insist that there can by
no possibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power.
The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall.
There is a limit to the life of a race; so that it can be said of
every nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the
foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and
virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteous
ness, and that there came a time when this nation became a
spendthrift, when it ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the
�28
FAITH AND FACT.
labors of its youth, and passed from strength and glory to the
weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb.
The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only
power that makes for righteousness.
You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give
as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two
thousand years before I was born, and that it will live two
thousand years after I am dead.
Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself?
Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this
to Christ? Could he not have said: “The religion of Jehovah
began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it
will live two thousand years after you are dead ? ” Could not a
follower of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a mission
ary from Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say:
“ You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha
began to be twenty-five hundred years before you were born, and
hundreds of millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s
shrine ? ”
Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two
thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on
and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider
that the survival of the fittest ?
Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during
the Middle Ages ? Is it the same Christian religion that founded
the Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no
difference between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards
and the Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is
the same Christianity that has been living all these years ?
Have you noticed any change in the last generation ? Do you
remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a
passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in
the Bible are exceeding anxious to prove its truth by some fact
that science has demonstrated ? Do you know that the standard
has changed ? Other things are not measured by Bible, but the
Bible has to submit to another test. It no longer owns the
scales. It has to be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing
lighter and lighter every day. Do you know that only a few
years ago “ the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a
descriptions of hell ? Do you know that nearly every intelligent
minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about it,
or to talk about it ? Is there any change ? Do you know that
but few ministers now believe in “ the plenary inspiration ” of
the Bible, that from thousands of pulpits people are now told
that the creation according to Genesis is a mistake, that it never
was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of the Old Testa
ment are considered simply as myths or mistakes ?
How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes
�FAITH AND FACT.
29
as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ?
What will there be left of the supernatural ?
It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many
years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the
Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness
upheld polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people
to massacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands
and fathers to persecute wives and daughters unto death for
opinion’s sake.
It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah,
the cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the
creator and preserver of the universe.
Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a
world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours
and is devoured? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Inno
cence is not a certain shield ?
It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment.
If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane.
Day after day there are mournful processions of men and
women, patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the
word Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving
lips, driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian
snow. These men, these women, these daughters go to exile
and slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death.
Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” Bees all
this and sits as silent as a god of stone ?
And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to
your inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another
procession, in which are the noblest and the best, in which you
will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the
human race, the teachers of their fellow men, the greatest
soldiers that ever battled for the right; and this procession of
countless millions in which you will find the most generous and
the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on
the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony
becomes immortal.
How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe
this infinite lie P
Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After
all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been
necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all
mistakes and all crimes were simply necessities? Is it not
possible that out of this perception may come not only love and
pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual ?
May we not find that every soul has, like Mazeppa, been lashed
to the wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of
fate ?
You ask me to take the “ sober second thought.” I beg of you
�30
FAITH AND FACT.
to take the first, and if you do you will throw away the Presby
terian creed; you will instantly perceive that he who commits
the “ smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who
does the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss; you will
become convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of
men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years
is an infinite demon; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with
its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is
but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and
cannot exist.
Bor you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest
respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not
to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a creed that
should be shrieked in a mad-house. Do not make the cradle
as terrible as the coffin. Preach I pray you, the gospel of intel
lectual hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take
from loving hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow
men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose tears are
falling on the pallid faces of these who died in unbelief. Pity
the erring, wayward, suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim
as “tidings of great joy” that an Infinite Spider is weaving
webs to catch the souls of men.
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, EC.
��WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL
s. d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...10
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... 1f>
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
... 0 0
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE
...
...
... 0 4
With a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
... 0 0
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ................ 0 3
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
THE DYING CREED
...
...
... 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
DO I BLASPHEME?
0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
0 2
THE GREAT MISTAKE
0 1
LIVE TOPICS
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
0 1
SOCIAL SALVATION
0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE .
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
0 2
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part H
Progressive Publishing Co, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1890
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N345
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Faith
NSS
Reason
Religion