1
10
60
-
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/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/2b42f56333c4e7d735a8d036aad339a3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VyFnIWW00AJWMDjuN3xFZXF8Rda7jlQ6pVM1JXNuIbvaWNmT0X%7EYrBy2-TY1bHQf3QIbbM%7EwWADOBztS99rTrywkh2FczP4Rb9fOEgatz9hFsPDqC44WTOwMJJp6BkO4oKB5-fiA171iIRopYJsjZceu-32Eo0394u0BhcVnSsqTjc4so69TA7M67c6I4YKRGdscSBpXuL6qNIkORC4cbwCRuPOSP5Z-JaxpnDJYZmDe8HnO-oWzAEnbTcmC0cNJcI6AxGrDCYWtNNM8fA0cP%7EYaToduHhValXFDTl%7E9iio41CjDDXddXt5LKd675PXemCFKG-z2W5boAd06dk5iEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2eedebd4b55ef471925d202983cedc17
PDF Text
Text
■ THE EXAMINER:
A Monthly Review of Religious and Humane Questions,
and of Literature.
Vol. I. —FEBRUARY, 1871. —No. 3.
Article I.— Unitarian Leaders.
[These sketches were written while watching the pro
ceedings of the recent meeting of the Unitarian National
Conference. Though slight, and hastily set down, they
aim to be just. They refer in part to persons who were not
present in the meeting alluded to.]
REV. DR. BELLOWS
Is well known to the general public. In the Conference
he appeared as the President of the Council of Ten, which
is the executive committee of the organization! His report
in this capacity opened the work of the conference! In
several respects Dr. Bellows stands in a position almost
pontifical. His abundant energy, his large and broad
intelligence in ethical and religious matters, his usual cath
olicity of spirit, the exceptional warmth and vigor of his
fraternal sympathies, and his great gifts as a writer and
preacher, have justly entitled him to a position not accorded
to any other among the leaders of Unitarianism. It is at
the same time to be said, that a somewhat pontifical temper
is thought by many of Dr. Bellows’s brethren to detract
unhappily from his usefulness as unofficial primate of the
denomination, while his long-time habit of giving way to
LIBRARY
South Place Ethical Society
Kgsjx indiyidu^i.......
xosKac.articles______
uot...indexe.d.......
Class .....................................
Congress, in the year 1871, by Edward C. Towne, in the OfT.ce of the
Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
I
�202
Unitarian Leaders.
extreme inspirations, now in the direction of unrestricted
liberty, and now as entirely in the opposite direction, gives
great uneasiness to the less eminent but more consistent
managers of denominational affairs. The more radical
repress with difficulty their dissatisfaction with the conces
sions which Dr. Bellows has made to extreme conservatism.
On the other hand, the more conservative entertain un
feigned disgust at the equal concessions which their primate
has made to radicalism. It cannot be denied by any, how
ever, that in the report made by Dr. Bellows he stood
between the two extreme which divide his brethren, and
*
even stood above them, both in the gentleness and firmness
of his entirely Christian spirit, and in his sincere effort to
state the common ground occupied by the widely separated
elements pf the caflamunion, that of faith in God, whether
through the Christ off God or the Spirit of God, Christian
union justly frecogjiized between all who believe in “the
God behind both Christ and Spirit.”
REV. E. E. HALE,
, The popular preacher and magazinist of Boston, represents
the onljheecognized denominational publication, “ Old and
New,” of which Mr. Hale is the editor. Five thousand
dollars was given by the American Unitarian Association
towards establishing “ Old and New,” and some benevolent
individuals gave the venerable “ Christian Examiner ”
thirty-five hundred dollars to “ go up higher,” and it went,
leaving the field.to Mr. Hale’s enterprise. In the opinion
of some of the more thoughtful and scholarly of the Unita
rian divines, Mr. Hale has not met just expectations.
Not a few—Rev, Dr. Hedge for example—deem “ Old and
New” of little off no account to any serious religious work,
its notes of really religious utterance are so few and feeble.
Some go so far as to energetically stigmatize the publica
tion as unpardonably superficial, a sugared mush of pleasant
words which can be liked once, can be endured a few times,
but cannot be accepted for a moment as the latest literary
�Unitarian Leaders.
203
legacy of Unitarianism to the American people. These
would gladly give a handsome sum to induce “ Old and
New ” to follow the “ Christian Examiner ” “ up higher.”
Even Dr. Bellows, in his calm, judicious report to the Con
ference, did not hesitate to mingle with kindly praise of his
beloved friend’s labors, an earnest intimation that Mr. Hale
had not yet done what he was supposed to be under a pledge
to do, and decided warning that further disappointment on
the part of the denomination would hardly be borne with
patience. It is but just to say for Mr. Hale, that he has
both consulted the market, which makes but a limited
demand for any other than cheap work in popular maga
zines, and his own genius, which is essentially genial rather
than thoughtfull and interested more in strewing pleasure
in the everyday path of common people, than in leading
the march of the saints and thinkers, or heading the fray
of zealous faith.
REV. CHARLES LOWE,
The popular secretary of the American Unitarian Associa
tion, is a remarkable illustration of modest powers used
with a wisdom hardly ever associated with a more striking
and more daring order of genius. Of delicate physical
constitution, of a peculiar sweetness of spirit and gentle
ness of manner, cautious in thought and unambitious in
action, he yet goes so directly to the point of every matter
with which he has to deal, and takes his stand so conscien
tiously and firmly, with such breadth of spirit and such
profound sympathy with all things lovely and of good
report, as to find himself recognized as one at least of the
pillars of the Gate Beautiful of the Urratarian communion,
if not in fact, in himself alone, the most exact contempo
rary expression of the Christian Liberty through which
Channing taught his disciples to seek entrance to the king
dom of God.
JWES FREEMAN CLARKE,
As he likes to be called, without his titles, was the Secretary
�204
Unitarian Leaders.
of the Association, now represented by Mr. Lowe, during
a p^iod ten years ago, when the seeds of present agitation
were being sown; and at that time no one could have more
nobly held up the Unitarian standard of spiritual freedom.
As an earnest friend of Theodore Parker, and a sufferer
from insisting upon Christian recognition of that great
heresiarch, before Unitarianism had begun to build his
monument,—when in fact it was still stoning him,—Mr.
Clarke earned a most honorable fame among the earliest
friends of the progress which has now become intensely
radical, and this he did not in any respect forfeit during
the period of his secretaryship in the American Unitarian
Association. It was, however, always the case that Mr.
Clarke belonged by his most cherished beliefs to orthodox
Unitarianism. Few of Theodore Parker’s critics have
appreciated his theology less than Mr. Clarke, or have
more positively questioned that radical reformer’s success
as a seeker for Christian truth. The recent eminence of
Mr. Clarke,—now Dr. Clarke,—as a preacher and denomi
national writer, has brought his theological conservatism
into particular prominence, and has given the impression
that age is cooling the more liberal sympathies of his
earlier career. It can be pretty confidently said, neverthe
less, that any wanderer from the stricter churches, or any
fugitive from the darker faiths of the modern world, who
may come to the Gate Beautiful alluded to above, will find
himself passing very close to the ever-warm heart of one
of the purest and noblest men now living, James Freeman
Clarke.
REV. F. H. HEDGE, D.D.,
Rarely presses to the front in any assemblage of liberal
Christians, though he should be recognized as the finest
thinker and ablest writer the denomination has had since
Mr. Emerson withdrew to an exclusively literary position.
Like Dr. Clarke, Dr. Hedge is in one direction conserva
tive—that of a strenuous demand for close connection with
the Christianity of the past; yet he is essentially a trans-
�Unitarian Leaders.
20.5
cendentalist by the greatness of his intellect, a calm seer
who looks out with clear eyes over the highest summits of
human thought, and views both discussions and conclusions
in the purest light of unclouded heavenly reason. Not
even Mr. Emerson has more deeply penetrated the mystic
secrets of divine reason, nor more happily separated in the
spectrum of his thought the elements of the uncreated light
which is to all religious minds the essence of revelation.
If any man now living is competent to report to the ear of
this generation the best echoes of eighteen Christian centu
ries, and in fact the utterances of the “still small voice” in
all ages and places of human faith, Dr. Hedge is entitled to
such rank.
REV. C. A. BARTOL, D.D.,
The successor of Dr. Lowell, in that watch-tower of spirit
ual edification, the pulpit of the West Church, Boston, is
one of the beloved and distinguished leaders of Unitarianism, in spite of his life-long determination to abstain from
all sectarian connection. He is a rare example of the spir
itual insight which makes a. successful preacher, the power
to look through forms to sympathies, and touch the deeper
chords of feeling, in the vibration of which the Christian
heart most readily recognizes the visitation of the divine
compassion. Had he so chosen, Dr. Bartol might have cul
tivated, with eminent success, the difficult field of theologi
cal speculation, and he does not, with all his simplicity and
gentleness, lack the robust qualities necessary to the high
controversy of religious opinion. It was his deliberate
choice to entirely devote himself to edification through
pulpit ministry and pastoral labor, and here he stands
second to none among his brethren.
REV. WM. H. FURNESS, D.D.,
Of Philadelphia, is in the same category as Dr. Bartol: he
1 is a Unitarian leader, without ever meddling with the con
duct of denominational affairs. The most genial of natures
is in him matured by thorough and varied culture in litera-
�206
Unitarian Leaders.
ture, art, and social graces, until he justly ranks among the
most charming masters of the interpretation and illustra
tion of Christian grace and truth. It has been the single
study of Dr. Furness, through all his active life, and by
many successive efforts, to reproduce the true likeness of
ideal humanity, as he reads it in the person of Christ. The
consummate art of the painter appears in every stroke of
his work, but, with most readers, it is less easy to be sure
of the historical fidelity of the picture. The latest, and
probably the final attempt of Dr. Furness to interpret the
person and career of Christ to the modern world, will be
found in a new book from his pen, bearing the simple title
“ Jesus,” which has just issued from the press of J. B.
Lippincott & Co.
REV. W. P. TILDEN,
Who conducted the opening service of the Conference, and
gave to that service a tone of profound faith in the broadest
communion,—through the presence of the indwelling
Father, in the children now, as in the Master eighteen cen
turies ago, “ God in us as in him,”—deservedly ranks with
the leaders of the denomination, for his single-hearted fer
vor of faith, and hope, and charity, and his zealous labors
for the promotion of practical Christianity. Originally a
New England ship-carpenter, his largeness of spiritual
nature and irrepressible enthusiasm for humanitarian and
religious work, pointed him out to Rev. Caleb Stetson, one
of the eminent Unitarian leaders of the last generation, as
peculiarly qualified for effective service in the liberal pulpit;
and this anticipation has been fully justified by all the
events of Mr. Tilden’s career. Without attempting to share
the special labors of Unitarian learning and thought, Mr.
Tilden, who is now among the elder men of the body, has
established a just claim to be considered one of the practi
cal apostles of the work and fellowship of Unitarianism.
And in the same category should be set that worthiest of
good men, and most excellent and earnest of fathers in the
church,
�Definitions from Carlyle.
207
REV. SAMUEL J. MAY,
"Whose long life has beautifully exemplified the power of
zealous goodness, and the charm which always attaches to
a character of which simplicity, sincerity, and the fervor of
unmixed kindness are the chief elements. Mr. May was
magna pars of the great anti-slavery conflict, and has lately
embodied in an interesting and valuable volume, his “ Rec
ollections” of that holy war. In ripe old age, he is as
fresh in fervor as if youth still kept the fountain of his life,
and almost promises to stay here indefinitely, unless the
powers up higher repeat in full, as they have in great part,
the experiment of the patriarch who walked with God, and
was not, for God took him.
Article II.—Definitions, from Carlyle, of Religion, of Pa
ganism, and of Christianity.
“ Religion. . m The thing a man does practically believe
(and this is often without asserting it even to himself, much
less to others); the thing a man does practically lay tc
heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations
to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny
there.”
“ Recognition of the divineness of nature 1 sincere com
munion of man with the mysterious invisible Powers visi
bly seen at work in the world around him, . . is the essence
of all Pagan mythology, H. . sincerity the great character
istic of it, . . . looking into nature with open eye and soul:
most earnest, honest!childlike, and yet manlike; with a
great-hearted simplicity and depth and freshness, in a true,
loving, admiring, unfearing way. . . . Such recognition of
Nature one finds to be the chief element of Paganism : rec
ognition of man, and his moral Duty, comes to be the chief
element only in purer forms of religion ; . . here indeed is
a great distinction and epoch in Human Beliefs; a great
landmark in the religious development of Mankind. Man
�208
“ Jesus Christ an Inferior Man.”
first puts himself in relation with Nature and her Powers;
not till a later epoch does he discern that all Power is Moral,
that the grand point is the distinction for him of Good and
Evil, of Thou shalt and Thou shalt not.”
“ Pagan Religion is indeed an Allegory, a symbol of
what men felt and knew about the Universe; and all relig
ions are symbols of that, altering always as that alters.”
“ Christianism; faith in an Invisible, not as real only,
but as the only reality; Time, through every moment of it,
resting on Eternity; Pagan empire of Force displayed by a
nobler supremacy, that of Holiness.”
“ The germ of Christianity, . . is hero-worship, heartfelt
prostrate admiration, submission, burning, boundless, for a
noblest, godlike Form of Man, . . for the great man, with
his free force direct out of God’s own hand, as the indis
pensable saviour of his epoch . . Christianity is the highest
instance of Hero-Worship.”
Article III. — “Jesus Christ an Inferior Man.” — Inde
pendent.
The Independent of November 24 devoted its leading
editorial to the topic, Jesus Christ an Inferior Man. It
placarded this sentiment where it met the eyes of we know
not how many scores of thousands of persons. It rung
the changes upon it until it had repeated the epithet of
contempt twenty-one times, through a column and a half
of feeble rhetoric or feebler snuffle. Appealing to pi pus
fiction, to sacred myth, to goody incident, and goodish
anecdote, and to various historical characters, reputable
and disreputable, it frantically cried shame on the shame
less Examiner for calling Jesus “an inferior man.” The
old pagan, Constantine, and “another emperor, immortal
for infamy,” with that modern master of selfishness, whose
imperial line reached the finale of its infamy at Sedan the
other day, it grouped effectively round Dr. Kane, while the
latter planted a toy cross on “ the northernmost iceberg of
�‘‘ Jesus Christ gin Inferior Man.”
209
the frozen sea,” a “ beautiful, dreary, and perilous cere
mony,” which we, forsooth, could not look on with even
“ a faint pulse of sympathy,” because of our “little criti
cism ” about the “ inferior man 1 ”
This representation of what we were said to have said
about the popular man-image of God has gone the rounds
of the religious press, in editorials and paragraphs, and
probably reached an audience a hundred times as large as
we could reach, or even a thousand times as large, and with
an effect towards breaking down faith in the Christian idol
very much greater than The Examiner, by any circulation
whatever, could have produced. The Independent conspicu
ously posted the intelligence that Jesus Christ had been
thrust ignominiously out of Christianity, had been tumbled
like a heathen idol out of the temple of religion, by a man
who professes Christian faith ! It was very stupid if it
supposed that such an announcement could fail to have a
most disastrous effect upon common faith in Jesus as a
supposed express image of God. For it is not calm argu
ment, nor labored appeal, which have most effect on the
average mind, but sharp, strong assertion, pithy catchwords,
keen epithets,—-just like this which the Independent has
placarded, Jesus Christ an inferior man. Bold to rudeness
or profanity though it be, it is all the more a blow the force
of which cannot be parried. In passing it round, the reli
gious weeklies offer themselves to their enemy as the ass’s
colt offered his back to the Lord Christ.
It is particularly interesting to an iconoclast to see his
work done for him, when the echo of his own word is the
only clear, strong point of the utterance. What do we
care for Kane on an iceberg, or Napoleon arrogantly pre
tending that he knew men, or Constantine guessing or
feigning he saw a cross in the sky, or t’other heathen, con
fessedly “ immortal for infamy,” who, perhaps, did finally
tremble before the “ Galilean,” as many a. wretch certainly
has? Theology is not the science of accidental confessions
of great scamps. Napoleon “knew men,” did he? Knew
�210
“Jesus Christ an Inferior Man.”
the divine side of man, did he? Was just the man to say,
“ I know men, and Jesus Christ was not a man?” Why
not consult the present Napoleon, and get his certificate
that Jesus was not a man ? These “ immortal-for-infamy ”
fellows have such an eye for deity, and can give such sure,
testimony to the godhead of a young Jew of eighteen
centuries since 1 It is really touching, isn’t it, to find how
handsomely they make out their useful certificates that
Jesus was not a man at alf and of course was not“ an inferior
man.”
But here we must say that the words placarded by the
Independent, in the article to which we have alluded, were
never used by The Examiner, nor any words like them.
The expression was copied by the Independent from a con
temptuous sentence of D. A. Wasson, whom we had asked
tor evidence of the “ imperial” greatness of Jesus, and who
eked out the meagreness and feebleness of his reply by sar
casm and sneers, intended to confute us by bringing us into
contempt. He professed to find in what we had said, the
theory that ‘‘Jesus was an inferior man, whom Providence
selected for the express purpose of showing what might be
made of an inferior man,” although in fact we said that
u the child of Joseph and Mary fairly obtained, and must
always hold among men on earth, one of the greatest prov
idential places of human history.” If we also said that his
life was “ simple and humble,” and that he was “ without
any particular greatness of intellect or character,” we said
this in the course of a protest against Mr. Abbot’s attempt
to stand outside a definite relation to him ” as “ the stand
ard bearer of a great movement of mankind.” The words
which Mr. Wasson used were worse than contemptuous,
therefore; they told one of those half truths which are
worse than downright falsehoods. We had not intended to
say this, and should not have done so had not the Indepen
dent given so wide a circulation to Mr. Wasson’s gibe. To
the Independent we beg to say, Beware of second-hand learn
ing, for, from the day that there began to be stories afloat
�Mr. Wasson’s “Medicines.”
211
about the young rabbi of Nazareth, to this present time,
second-hand knowledge has made the current Christianity
a fabric more of fiction than of fact. For instance, Jesus
was not the original author of anything contained in the
Sermon on the Mount. As a distinguished Hebraist of our
time has said, that discourse was perfectly familiar in the
streets of Jerusalem before it was delivered by Jesus; and
both the truths of it and its spirit may be referred to the
truly great Hillel much more justly than to the young
master who was but a pupil and a child, when a rash ambi
tion cost him his life.
Article IV.—Mr. Wasson’s “ Medicines” or IIow to “ See
Jesus.”
In one of the shorter articles of our first issue, we said
that “ it would give us great pleasure to seethe evidence on
which Mr. Wasson pronounces Jesus ‘ an imperial soul,’
and the historical ground for his assumption that the young
Nazarene enthusiast expected ‘ a reign of morals pure and
simple,’ not the reign of an individual, nor of a nation. ”
Mr. Wasson has made a reply to this demand, in the
Liberal Christian. In this reply he first alleges, That we
are in the condition of De Quincey, when he pronounced
Socrates and Plato a pair of charlatans, “ betraying the
extent to which his judgments might be dictated by his
humors,” and presenting a case of “ disease, to be contro
verted with medicines; not with logic and testimony. ”
But what medicines will suffice to prove that Jesus is “ an
imperial soul ?” Is it by calomel or ipecac, by vomit or by
purge, that we may arrive at Mr. Wasson’s view? It is
truly very unkind in our friend to refer us to promiscuous
drugs. We might retire on a dose of blue pill for example,
and wake up Calvinist, as fierce as Fulton, who glories in
having “preached hell in Boston ” to so much purpose ; or’
having distressed our stomach with an emetic, we might
bring ourselves to a condition requiring the small beer and
�212
Mr. Wasson’s “ Medicines ’’
water-gruel Christology of brother Tilton. To proof num
ber one, therefore, alleged by Mr. Wasson, we beg to ask
the particular medicines he would recommend.
In the second place, Mr. Wasson, in reply to our demand
for proof of the “ imperial ” greatness of Jesus, alleges
this: “I see in Jesus an amazing elevation of soul; Mr.
Towne looks on the same picture, and beholds only a daub,
or, at best, a work of little merit. The question, accord
ingly, what Jesus was in character and quality of spirit, is
one which I cannot discuss with him.” Which is, in other
words, “I am right, evidence or no evidence.” Mr. Was
son says, we “ do not entertain the question, which of us
two sees more truly.” But that is exactly the question we
do entertain, and the settlement of which we hoped to
reach, by hearing Mr. Wasson’s evidence, and by contro
verting it with other and weightier proof. We asserted our
belief that Mr. Wasson depended more on imagination than
on historical proof, and here we convict him of it. lie
avows that Jesus is an amazing picture to him, and that we
do not see it as he does, simply because we have not the
eye for it. Very well, but Mr. Wasson’s eye is not histori
cal evidence. He glorified the first disciples, as “ large
popular imaginations,” expressly ascribing their recognition
of Jesus to the largeness and the popular quality of their
imagination. And now he confesses that it is all in his
eye. Medicines and imagination, then, are, so far, what
Mr. Wasson recommends to us, if we would “ see Jesus.”
But Mr. Wasson goes a step further. He names Nicolas
and Colani. He avows that he makes certain “ discrimina
tions,” and we look with care to see what they are. He
rejects the Fourth Gospel. So far, good. The Fourth
Gospel is a theological story, and a poor one at that, though
some of the finest things are preserved in it. Again, he
rejects “ the most extended and explicit of the Messianic
passages in the Synoptical Gospels,” “ upon the showing of
M. Colani.” If he means that he clears Jesus of the charge
of Messianic pretension in a Jewish sense, merely on the
�Or “ How io See Jesus.”
'
213
showing of Colani, he rests, as we feared he did, on the very
narrow basis of insufficient investigation. Not a tithe of
the weight of modern scholarship is on that side. The one
fact most surely proven in regard to Jesus is, that he under
took to be the king of the Jews, and lost his life in conse
quence. To cite. Colani as evidence of the contrary, is to
cite the opinion of a worthy preacher—not the indorsement
of a real scholar; much like quoting Dr. J. F. Clarke.
Mr. Wasson disposes of this point in five lines. He merely
states that Colani has satisfied him. But this is the key of
the controversy, the question whether Jesus entertained a
false Messianic ambition. If Colani has satisfied Mr. Was
son that he did not, either potent drugs or a “ large popular
imagination’'’ must have assisted the effect of Colani’s
superficial and unsatisfactory handling of the subject.
In/the third place, Mr. Wasson feels sure that oral tradi
tion, assuming that the Christ must have put forth claims,
ascribed to him pretension of which he was not guilty.
In fact, however, the evidence still existing, that Jesus put
forth these claims, cannot be set aside by this or any other
imagination of what may or must have been ; while, if Jesus
did undertake and failed, every motive to drop out of sight
the evidence of the abortive undertaking, must have worked
during the years through which the tradition was oral, thus
making it almost certain, that whatever evidence of this
has survived, is to be regarded as peculiarly significant and
weighty. So far, therefore, from throwing out the evidence
that Jesus was a pretender to Messiahship, we ought to
regard it as more strictly historical than anything else in
the record. It is by imagination here, also, not by sound
scholarship, that Mr. Wasson reaches his conclusion.
And, finally, Mr. Wasson thinks it certain, that Jesus
was greater than his immediate followers knew him to be,
and that we must assume, on the one hand, that the best
things reported were not lent him by the disciples, who had
nothing to give, and that other things not so good, were
due to their failure to comprehend. But the fact is, that
�214
Mr. Wasson's “ Medicines.”
the story of Jesus was worked over by oral report, after a
supposed resurrection was thought to have proved him to
have been the Messiah. “Large popular imaginations”
had charge of it, and made what they chose of it. And
the good things of the story (the ethical and spiritual
truths') were current, just as much before. Jesus and apart
from him, as they could be after him. Or if he brought
them together, he did not originate them. Hillel was as
much greater than Jesus as Channing than Chadwick, or
Theodore Parker than Mr. Morse. We intend to speak
exactly. And Hillel’s spirit was, as that of Jesus was not,
fully and invariably that of the best things in the Sermon
on the Mount. He gave to Christianity the Golden RuleHis school of teaching and influence was as much more
important than that of Jesus, as his years, and learning,
and character surpassed those of the young enthusiast
whose dreams interrupted the course of human progress,
from Judaism onward, with eighteen centuries of worship
of a man, and untold inhumanities wrought in the propaga
tion of his pretension. On the one hand then, the belief
that Jesus had been proved the Messiah, moved his disciples
to make the best story they could, and, on the other hand,
they could copy fine truths from current teaching, just as
easily as to repeat them from Jesus, who had but copied
them at the best, so that we are bound to assume, not that
Jesus lost in the story of him, but that he gained in it
immensely, so much so as to be more the creature of it)
than a fact of history. Thus, briefly, do we dispose of Mr.
Wasson’s “ discriminations,” on the basis of which he says
he has made up a critical judgment. We find every one of
these, except the first, unscholarly to a lamentable degree.
But if we had not done this, it would be easy to show
the vice of Mr. Wasson’s conclusion. Por he says that he
proceeds “ to make up a critical judgment,” by “ endeavor
ing first to catch the tune of his mind, his action and char
acter, by meditating upon those sayings of his, and those
incidents of his life which are of such a quality as to carry
�John Brown on the Scaffold.
215
their own credentials.” Imagination, again ! Sayings and
incidents which carry their own credentials ! The Qolden
Rule, for example, or other fine truths, proof of the charac
ter of Jesus, because they are so fine, when, to a certainty
Jesus did not originate either the terms or the tone of the
purest Christian teaching, and did originate the baleful
pretension of his own claim to divine position ! Mr. Was
son must try again. He has not given us a scrap of evi
dence that Jesus was eminently great, either in thought or
in principle. We do not wonder that he began with recom
mending drugs, and then offered the use of his eye, for cer
tainly his “ discriminations” are of no weight whatever, nor
is his “ critical judgment ” entitled to any authority. It
is very well to have read Nicolas, and what there is of
Colani may be looked at with profit, especially if one looks
and passes on, but neither Mr. Wasson nor any other advo
cate of an exploded superstition can afford to be contemptu
ous in a matter of scholarship, on so meagre a support.
We ask Mr. Wasson again for evidence, and hope he will
give us more on the main point than he does when he says,
“I am satisfied on the showing of M. Colani.”
Article V.—John Brown on the Scaffold and Jesus on the
Cross.
Before secession, civil war, and emancipation, had shown
the leader of the Harper’s Ferry enterprise to have been the
providential herald of the greatest overturning of modern
times, there were few persons who would not have been
shocked at the mere suggestion of comparing John Brown
with the most remarkable prophet-judges and prophet
chieftains of familiar Hebrew story. The most plausible
view at first was that he was a crack-brained fanatic, who
might even escape the penalty of his mad crime under the
plea of insanity. It soon became evident, however, that
this madness had more method and character than the
sanity of ordinary men] Two bitterly prejudiced witnesses
said of the hero of Harper’s Ferry :
�216
;
;
,
I
I
I
,
John Brown on the Scaffold
“It is vain to underrate either the man or the conspiracy.
Captain John Brown is as brave and resolute a man as ever
headed an insurrection, and, in a good cause, and with a
sufficient force, would have been a consummate partisan
commander. He has coolness, daring, persistency, the stoic
faith and patience, and a firmness of will and purpose unconquerable. He is the farthest possible remove from the
ordinary ruffian, fanatic, or madman. Certainly it was one
of the best planned and best executed conspiracies that ever
*
failed.
“ They are themselves mistaken who take him to be a
madman. He is a bundle of the best nerves I ever saw,
cut, and thrust, and bleeding, and in bonds. He is a man
of clear head, of courage, fortitude, and simple ingenuousness. He is cool, collected, and indomitable. . . . lie
inspired me with great trust in his integrity, as a man of
truth. . . . Colonel Washington says that he was the cool
est and firmest man he ever saw in defying danger and
death. With one son dead by his side, and another shot
through, he felt the pulse of his dying son with one hand
and held his rifle with the other, and commanded his men
with the utmost composure, encouraging them to be firm,
and to sell their lives as dearly as they could.”f
The opinion of the martyr himself upon the proposal to
put in the plea of insanity on his behalf was unequivocal
and indignant. In addressing the court before his trial he
said : “I look upon it (the plea in question) as a miserable
artifice and pretext of those who ought to take a different
course in regard to me, if they took any at all, and I view
it with contempt more than otherwise. ... I am perfectly
unconscious of insanity, and I reject, as far as I am capable,
any attempts to interfere on my behalf on that score.” To
this we may add the convincing allusion of one of his latest
letters : “I may be very insane, and I am so if insane at all.
But, if that be so, insanity is like a pleasant dream to me.
* C. L. Vallandigliam.
f Henry A. Wise.
�And Jesus on the Cross.
217
I am not in the least degree conscious of my ravings, of my
fears, or of any terrible visions whatever; but fancy my
self entirely composed ; and that my sleep, in particular, is as
sweet as that of a healthy, joyous little infant. I pray G od that
he will grant me a continuance of the same calm but de
lightful dream, until I come to know of those realities which
eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard.” Mary
Brown, who had always been the sharer of her husband’s
plans, said emphatically : “I couldn’t say, if I were called
upon, that my husband was insane—even to save his life;
because he wasn’t.] She declared that if her husband were
. insane he had been consistent in his insanity from the first
moment she knew him.
But more than all else the perfectly grand manifestation
of character, made to the whole world during John Brown’s
forty-two days before the gallows, settled the question of
his mental condition. The conversations, speeches in court
and letters from prison, of John Brown, convict him of any
thing but mental weakness. Beginning with the precious
• fragment of autobiography written for the young son of Mr.
George L. Stearns, the recorded utterances of this uncul
tured man of the people have a fine literary quality which
indicates remarkable purity of intellectual tone. Their
style alone speaks a man of clear head and pure taste. And
x their moral elevation is so complete, the sentiments which
they report are so good and so great, that we are forced to
confess ourselves in presence of a miracle of character.
There seems to us no doubt that John Brown, shepherd,
tanner, wool merchant,farmer, Kansas chieftain, provisional
constitution maker, and Harper’s Ferry commander, must
be classed with the greatest characters of history, because
of his remarkable union of clear vision, pure conscience,
and perfect courage,—the insight of a prophet, the most un
compromising love of right, and absolute intrepidity in
action. In amount of quality he stands with the very few
supreme men of the race, the founders for mankind of civil
ity and religion. And for combination of the grand types
VOL. I.—NO. 3.
2
�218
John Brown on the Scaffold
of character, is it too much to say that, as we see him in
his transfiguration before the scaffold, his figure is nobler
than that of any earlier hero of our race — the wisest,
purest, bravest of mankind ? Standing on this latest stage
of time, instructed, chastened and inspired by a situation
quite beyond any hitherto arranged in history, it was in the
order of Providence that the mount of this martyr should
plant the standard of our march above Calvary, as Calvary
planted it above Sinai. Not that we compare, in respect to
nature, the now deified Christ of Galilee and the’ just now
despised fanatic of Harper’s Ferry. They were equally
common men. We compare only the Jewish figure with
the American figure, the man on the cross with the man
on the scaffold, and say confidently that in John Brown on
his scaffold, Eternal God has lifted the standard of human
advancement higher than it was lifted in the Christ of Cal
vary. Or to put it in other words, and words justified by
that which Jesus himself said, the true Christ-Son of God,
Heaven-anointed soul, which was manifested in Jesus, and
was to be manifested in his humblest disciple, the least of
these his brethren, is manifested to-day in the American
martyr as it was not, and could not be manifested in the
Messiah.
The eindmce is close at hand. At this moment let it suf
fice to present one point of this, the point which is most
important and most conclusive. The world knows the
story of the trial of Jesus—not the trial before Pilate, but
the trial in his own soul. Theological ingenuity has been
exhausted in the attempt to explain this without damage to
the orthodox theory that Jesus was a person of the deity;
but in vain. Give Jesus no more benefit of ingenious
hypothesis and pious prepossession than we give Socrates,
Paul, Giordano Bruno, and John Brown, and we are com
pelled to say that either one had a courage which Jesus did
not possess. Estimate fairly the mental anguish of Savon
arola and of Edward Irving, who died unvisited by the super
natural intervention they had with absolute faith looked
�And Jesus on the Cross.
219
for, the one hung up in chains in the flames after forty-two
days of torture, the other wasted by distressing disease
through days and months of unanswered agonizing prayer,
and it cannot be denied that their trial was far heavier than
that of Jesus. It is idle to ascribe to the Jewish martyr a
superhuman sensibility to evil; for if superhuman at all, he
was superhuman in courage and endurance not less than in
sensibility. If he were not equal to perfect endurance, as
he plainly was not, we but make his weakness the greater
the more we lift him above humanity. The anguish of his
prayer and the wail of the cross, on the lips of a mere child
of Galilee, wrung from the heart of a peasant-Messiah, when
he had really looked for intervention by miracle which did
not come, can be readily explained, without denying the
spiritual elevation of Jesus. We say, then, that in forecast
ing events, and in meeting the turns of fate, he fell short of
the perfection possible to human nature. We recognize
that it was not his mission to do all the things which man
in his most heroic mood can perform, that he represents a
stage in the elevation of our race, by no means our final
attainment. And we confidently compare facts to show
that the American martyr was, in respect to courage under
the heavy blows of fate, superior to the man of Nazareth.
In the garden of Gethsemane we see Jesus “ in distress and
anguish,”—as Mark puts it, “ in great consternation and
anguish,”—and hear him say to his disciples, “ I am in ex
ceeding distress, ready to die.” The bare existence of this
fact is significant; the communication of it, especially to
disciples who could not help himkif they would, marks a
mind utterly shaken out of self-possession. And how con
clusive to the same effect is the prayer, thrice repeated, of
Jesus: He fell upon his face and prayed, saying, “My
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. But net
as I will, but as thou wilt.” A second time he prayed, sav
ing, “My Father, if this cup cannot pass from me, but I
must drink it, thy will be done.” Still again he prayed
a third time, saying the same words.
r
�220
John Brown on the Scaffold, Etc.
Setting aside the theory that Jesus was not what he
seemed to be, we have here a man engaged in an almost
desperate effort to meet his fate. The effort of submission
is sincere and grand; it lifts Jesus into the position of a
leader of mankind; considering especially his Jewish limi
tations, how naturally he had looked for supernatural inter
vention, how purely and nobly too he had desired this as
the true coming of God to man, and how really to his eyes
the power of healing the body, with inspiration which
enabled him to instruct and control the mind, had seemed to
him the beginning of miracle, we may'justly see in this
effort, so distinctly conceived and so resolutely attempted, a
manifestation of the very divinity of human nature; but it
is vain to deny that effort is a stage behind attainment. Not
only does the consternation of an experience like that of
Jesus argue a failure to foresee possible duty, but still more
the agonizing effort to accept the situation shows a decided
deficiency of heroic equipment. This deficiency, we repeat,
admits of an explanation, in the case of Jesus, whose em
inence was of purity more than of force, which does not
pluck him from his lofty position of anointed master of the
Christian ages. By the usage of his people Jesus had barely
come of age; he was contemplative rather than executive
in his temperament, more spiritual than practical, and al
most without other education than that of meditation and
prayer. He was in fact an inspired child of Nazareth; more
than that, he had the heart of a pure girl in the breast of a
Galilean peasant. Thus he naturally enough failed to meet
his fate with the serenity of prepared courage, but the ex
planation of the failure does not explain it away. He failed
conspicuously, and as conspicuously John Brown, bringing
back the great example of Socrates, did not fail.
�Theodore Parker’s Antagonism, Etc.
221
Article VI. — Theodore Parker’s Character and Ideas.
■ Chap. III.—His Antagonism with the Religious World.
We come now to the question of Theodore Parker’s
“ antagonism with the religious world.” The reviewer,
whose judgment our discussion starts from, regrets that Mr.
Parker was not “ thrown into intimate relations with Evan
gelical scholars,” and says “ it is singular how rarely he met
such, and how kindly he spoke of them, as of Professors
Stuart, Porter and Woolsey.”
That Theodore Parker found but three or four evangeli
cal scholars who gave him occasion to speak kindly of them,
is doubtless a singular fact, considering the fundamental
principles of Christian religion. Perhaps it is not so sin
gular a fact that Theodore Parker spoke kindly, very kindly,
of these exceptions to the rule. I wish the reviewer had
given a list of the evangelical scholars with whom Mr.
Parker might have had relations of intimate Christian broth
erhood. He mentions Stuart, Woolsey, and Porter, neither
of whom ever pretended to consider Parker a Christian
man and brother. The little intercourse which took place
between Theodore Parker and Stuart, Woolsey, Porter,and
the chief of the New Haven school of theology, Dr. Taylor,
was marked by a manly effort of good will on their part,
and by generous appreciation on his part; but it would be
a great mistake to suppose that these men, the best of their
class, ever felt at liberty to do justice to Theodore Parker.
Their honest principles forbade it. They could suppress, in
his presence, the unbrotherly severity of their judgment
upon him, but they could not offer him Christian brother
hood. And it was not merely that they assumed that he
did not want fellowship. If he had wanted it ever so much,—
and no man has borne the cross of lonely service with a
deeper sense of the value of brotherly fellowship,—they
must in conscience have dropped the mask of generous
courtesy, and shown him all the resolute hardness of their
hearts. Prof. Porter discussed Mr. Parker’s opinions with
�222
Theodore Parker’s Antagonism
charity, and reviewed him with kindness. But even he, so
exceptionally gentle and just, must have resisted, to the last
degree of bitterness even, any attempt to remove the limits
of communion, and make Christian fellowship broad enough
to include the great heretic. President Woolsey could not
fail to act the Christian gentleman in any intercourse with
such a man as Theodore Parker, for by nature and by cul
ture, he is very noble, but even he can feel and show con
tempt for unorthodox struggles in a sincere soul. As to
Dr. N. W. Taylor, who was at once the ablest divine and
the noblest gentleman of all that New Haven circle, I have
heard him tell of his interview with Parker, and how they
crossed broad-swords, and whose head came off. It was in
the spirit of Prof. Park, in the great Boston Council, wnen
he said, “ A man who has studied theology three years, and
has read the Bible in the original languages, and is not a
Calvinist, is not a respectable man.”
I know-what the orthodox spirit in the best men is capa
ble of attempting. I know how the conscience of a solitary
thinker, without help in men or books, may be set upon
and tormented by evangelical surroundings. I have had
said to me, “as a heathen man and a publican”—a hard word
for which there is supposed to be pretty good evangelical
authority. No doubt the souls in whom there is great out
break of new faith and radical thought do sometimes sin
grievously against the pure fitness of things in their demon
strations, but that is not all of their hard case; they not
only become obnoxious in that way, by their own fault, but
they almost invariably become criminals and outlaws, in
the view of the evangelical world, from the hardness and
bitterness of the evangelical spirit. Not only are they dealt
with very harshly for errors which are treated tenderly
where no heresy exists, but they are terribly punished for
that innocent and pure faith which is in them the profound
necessity of a sincere conscience.
It is plain to me that Theodore Parker’s critic does not
consider how infinite is the bitterness of the cup which
�With the Religious World.
K
223
evangelicalism, in all its common forms^ presses to the lips
of one who has stripped himself of precious dogmatic beliefs
to undertake a more daring, more heroic exercise of faith
in God and labor of love than the current Christianity per
mits. Therefore I beg to assure him, upon abundant expe
rience, that a man confessing heresy heartily, must have a
face of brass to presume on “ intimate relations with evan
gelical scholars,” except as a relic of very close youthful
friendship. And if he had the shining qualities of an arch
angel on earth, and withal bore his cross honestly in the
world, doing with his might the work given him to do, he
could not but seem, to evangelical scholars of strict convic
tion, of “ no form nor comeliness—no beauty that they
should desire him.” No worse men than President Wool
sey have thought the dungeon and the fagot needful in the
discipline of demonstrative departure from orthodoxy. The
spirit of the age has, indeed, reduced marvelously the tem
per of orthodox defence of the faith, but the time has hardly
come, certainly had not come in the day of Mr. Parker’s
encounter with the religious world, when liberality could
be consistently practiced by evangelical scholars.
It is, I trust, one result of the appearance of Mr. Parker,
to disclose to some of the wiser defenders of correct tradi
tional faith, the necessity of adjusting their position once
more, to conform more closely to the demand of the Chris
tian spirit. Possibly the day is not far off when the scholars
our critic wishes Mr. Parker might have met, will be
able to accept, within evangelical limits, absolute liberality.
That is to say, holding firmly to the evangelical doctrine of
redemption, its necessity, plan, and operation, they will
relax the severity of their dogmatic convictions upon minor
points, so far as to make character the ground of human
fellowship, and to leave to God alone, the searcher of hearts,
all judgment as to the amount and style of creed necessary
to start either a soul on the road to heaven, or a teacher of
Truth on the way of the knowledge of God. It is easy for
me to think of liberality thus carried to perfection, within
�224
Theodore Parker's Antagonism
evangelical limits. Let our vain decisions as to the times
and seasons of God’s grace and power, be wholly set aside.
Say, if we must, that God hath appointed this way and no
other, the literal gospel of Christ, but leave the administra
tion of this way to Him with whom a thousand years are as
one day.
There is no Biblical evidence to compel acceptance of the
dogma of limited probation. Insist on the possibility of
the worst with the evil and the disobedient, but with the
honest, earnest and faithful seeker for Truth and lover of
God, insist as strongly on the certainty of the best. Go
down to deep below deep, in the experience of true men,
until you find for them a saving tie to God’s administration
of true redemption, rather than suffer our human judgment
to pronounce that there is little or no hope for an honest
soul misguided by an erring intellect. The possibility of
final loss may be, indeed, urged, and the whole terror of
absolute peril brought to bear, to persuade to deeper hon
esty, more serious inquiry, and more humble crying unto
the spirit of Truth, b,ut let it be in love, in hope, in firm
faith, so that the Christian spirit may bind all in one, and
the Holy Spirit, if it may possibly be, bind all to that mercy
seat before which we are all one in absolute need.
It is possible for this to be. It only requires to believe,
as humanity and divinity, even within the strictest evangeli
cal limits, require, that for those who seek there is no closing
of the chances, no limit of opportunity, no inadequacy of
eternal divine providence. Grant that the path is beset
with perils; grant that the abyss of final loss may receive
us at the next step; but say this of all, because of sins
and unworthiness of a moral sort; never say it with a lim
itation to the case of “ that publican,” who is such only by
reason of intellectual error. I heard the New Haven Dr.
Taylor say, very near the close of his life, that he knew he
might fail of heaven. Let this be the form in wlfich we
doubt as to human chances of acceptance with God. Let
this humility penetrate and bind in one all who feel the
�'With the Religious World.
225
burden of moral evil. Then it will be easy to feel that the
grace which is extended to sinners, will not need to be fur
ther extended to embrace all who try to come unto the God
and Saviour of squIs, whatever may be the fault, or, as our
critic says, the “vice” of their conception and confession
of the things of God.
It would be a noble enterprise if eminent evangelical
scholars would unite in, we will say, an Academy of Chris
tian Studies, the aim and use of which should be to vindi
cate the principle of liberality, to throw the shield of Chris
tian charity and Christian encouragement over all honest
and capable pursuits of divine Truth. In two ways espe
cially would this improve exceedingly the position of the
evangelical school. It would provide Christian discipline
for radicalism; and it would show to the world that evan
gelical faith is not afraid of inquiry. Radicalism is forced
to exaggerate the individualism of its method, because the
hand of every man is against it. Give it a place, its due
place, in the school of Christian studies, and at once its
temper must become more moderate, and its demonstra
tions less dangerous to the order of the religious world.
Had Mr. Parker been treated in this way from the begin
ning, there is every reason to believe that his mind would
have acted, upon questions of dogma, with none of that vol
canic energy which made him seem to the evangelical world
a tremendous engine of destruction! And instead of
becoming the leader and hero, not only of elect believers in
whom the spirit and the life had wrought profound convic
tion, but of the throng of deniers in whom serious convic
tion was less developed, he would have stood forth the
exponent of the modern tendency of the Christian faith.
I anticipate the reply to this, that at his best Mr. Parker
would have been an enemy. But I think the assumption of
this reply a mistake. Grant that the best of Mr? Parker’s
belief was erroneous. I go back of his dogmatic convic
tions, then, to his moral and spiritual tendencies, and un
hesitatingly affirm the necessity of accepting these as suffi
�226
Theodore Parker’s Antagonism, Etc.
cient, under the ample providence of the power and grace
of God, for cordial Christian fellowship. Let Professor
Park and President Woolsey have said to Mr. Parker,
“ Brother, we differ with you entirely in doctrinal method
and convictions, but in allegiance to the law of love and to
the spirit of Truth and of Holiness we agree; the soul, and
the soul’s union with God in moral loyalty and spiritual
yearning and devotion, are the foundation,—the Christian
foundation ; in that we meet, alike putting on the new man;
now let us reason together, and labor in one spirit of love
to God and love to man, with good hope in the eternal
providence of God with us, until we all come in the unity
of the faith unto a perfect man,”—let this have been said,
and realized in the attitude of the evangelical school, and
the modern world would have lost its great heresiarch, the
Christian world, so-called, would have gained a great apos
tle of natural religion.
Mr. Parker’s great work in Boston, and in America, had
never been undertaken if even his own sect, the Unitarian,
had had the liberality it ought to have had. In his letter to
his first parish, upon leaving them for Boston, to which he
was called solely to vindicate freedom of religious teaching,
Mr. Parker said:
“ If my brethren of the Christian ministry had stood by
me, nay, if they had not themselves refused the usual min
isterial fellowship with me, then I should have been spared
this painful separation, and my life might have flowed on
in the channel we have both wished for it.”—Life, vol. I,
p. 26L
In a letter to Rev. Mr. Niles, written the year before his
removal to Boston, Mr. Parker states what no one can rea
sonably doubt, that he had no choice but to accept individ
ualism or abdicate his own manhood. He says:
“I must of course have committed errors in reasoning
and in conclusion. I hoped once that philosophical men
would point out both; then I would confess my mistake
and start anew. But they have only raised a storm about
my head; and in a general way a man wraps his cloak
�A Letter of Theodore Parker.
227
about him in a storm and holds on the tighter.”—Life, vol.
Z, p. JfhO.
Now I ask, is it not evident that a divine design, work
ing through the robust nature of this Socratic Samson of
truth and righteousness, wrought deliberately and wisely
the rough antagonism of Theodore Parker to the popular
churches, in order to convict them, one and all, of want of
the Christian spirit, and to utter, in tones that should ring
round the world, the demand of that spirit, in this new
time, for a liberality in religion adequate to sustain, with
all honest believers and teachers, a true Christian fellow
ship ? Theodore Parker, nailing the new theses of human
ity on the doors of recognized Christian communion,
though he made the very walls of the temple tremble to their
foundation, was no lawless destructive, no mad troubler
of communion, but the providential sign of a new reforma
tion in Christendom, the Luther of emancipated faith, the
angel of a new resurrection of that holy spirit which was
the truth in .Tesus, and has been the truth in the Christian
ages, and shall be, in redeemed humanity, sole author and
authority of pure and undefiled religion.
Article VII.—A Letter of Theodore Parker.
Rev. John T. Sargent, who was intimately associated
with Theodore Parker, writes to us as follows :
I welcome your articles just opening in The Examiner
on Theodore Parker. It may interest you to know that I
have large files of letters from him, which have a value so
far as they might illustrate your main topics, bis “ charac
ter and ideas.” Most of them, it is true, are of that pri
vate and social character not intended for the public, 'and
were occasioned by that peculiar relation into which I was
thrown in consequence of my exchange of pulpits with him,
when such an expression of fellowship was looked upon
with distrust, even by the so called “ Liberal” Unitarians.
But there are others so expressive of his well known sympa-
�228
A Leiter of Theodore Parker.
thics for all the great interests of humanity, that portions of
them at least ought to be seen. Take, for instance, the
following extracts which I copy from one under date of
September 18th, 1859, when he was abroad in Montreux,
Canton de Vaud, Switzerland :
“It is Sunday, to-day, and my thoughts turn homeward
with even a stronger flight than on any other days of the
week, so I shall write a little to one of my dear old friends
— ‘ a friend indeed,’ also a brother in the same ministry.
It is the day when the services at the Music Hall are to
begin again I believe, but where I shall no more stand; for
I sent in my letter of resignation some days ago, as duty
and necessity compelled. But my affection will always go
with the dear old friends who gather there, and on Sundays,
when the Music Hall is open, I always come as a silent
minister to look at the congregation, and have ‘ sweet com
munion together,’ though we no longer ‘walk to the house
of God in company.’ It is a tender bond which gets thus
knit by years of spiritual communion :—I think not to be
broken in this life. But here, as you know, Sunday is quite
different from what it is in New England; devoted more
to gaiety and to social festivity of a harmless character.
But to-day is the Annual Fast all over Switzerland, and the
land is as still as with us in the most quiet town in New
England. I like these Swiss people. They are industrious,
thrifty and economical to an extraordinary degree,—intelli
gent, and happy. I sometimes think them the happiest
people in Europe, perhaps happier than even we in Massa
chusetts, for they are not so devoured by either pecuniary
or political ambition. * * * What a condition the
Unitarians are in just now I They put Huntington in the
place of Dr. Henry Ware, and he turns out to be orthodox,—
and, as I understand, won’t go into the Unitarian pulpit of
Brooklyn, N. Y., but officiates in the great orthodox
Plymouth church hard by. Then brother Bellows comes
out with his ‘ Broad (T) church,’ and, while talking of the
‘ Suspense of Faith,’ represents the little sect in no very
�A Letter of Theodore Parker.
229
pleasant light. Meantime, The Examiner—(certainly the
ablest journal in America,) reports to the denomination
the most revolutionary theologic opinions, and this, too,
with manifest approbation thereof. Witness the half-dozen
articles within so many years, by Frothingham, Jr., some
of Alger’s, that of Scherb’s on the Devil, and the three on
India, China, and Asiatic Religions, by an orthodox mis
sionary, now living in Middletown, Conn.; a noble fellow
too. What is to become of us ? To me it is pretty clear
the Progressive party will continue to go ahead in a circu
itous course, for Progress is never in a straight line. No
progressive party will go back describing a line with analo
gous curves.
“ It is beautiful to see the gradual development of religion
in the world, especially among su h a people as our own,
where the government puts no yoke on men’s shoulders.
Little by little they shake off the old traditionary fetters,
get rid of their false ideas of man and God, and come to
clear, beautiful views and forms of religion. No where in
the world is this progress so rapid as in America, because,
in our Northern States, the whole mass of the people is
educated and capable of appreciating the best thoughts of
the highest minds. Of course, foolish things will be done,
and foolish words spoken, but on the whole the good work
goes on, not slowly and yet surely. I am glad the Catho
lics have the same rights as the Protestants;—if they had
not I should contend for the Catholics as I now do for the
negroes. But I think that, after Slavery, Catholicism is
the worst and most dangerous institution in America; and
I deplore the growth of its churches. I know the power of
an embodied class of men with unity of sentiment, unity of
idea, and unity of aim, and when the aim, the idea, and
the sentiment are what we see and know, and the men are
governed by such rules, I think there is danger. Still, it is
to be met, not by Bigotry and Persecution, but by Wisdom
and Philanthropy. I don’t believe Catholicism thrives very
well even in a Republic, but it loves the soil a despot sticks
�230 '
A Letter of Theodore Parlier.
his bayonet into. Since Louis Napoleon has been on the
throne of France, the worst class of Catholic priests have
come more and more into power ; that miserable order, the
Capauchins, has been revived and spreads rapidly. More
than 300 new Convents have been established since the
‘ Coup d’ Etat,’ and are filled with more than 30,000 devo
tees already. But in liberally governed Switzerland, Cathol
icism does not increase, but falls back little by little. No
Jesuits are allowed to actin the land. In a few generations
we shall overcome the ignorance, stupidity, and superstition
of the Irish Catholics in America, at least in the North, but
before that is done, we shall have a deal of trouble. Soon
Boston will be a Catholic city if the custom continues of
business men living in the country; and we know what use
a few demagogues can make of the Catholic voters. It
only requires that another capitalist offer the Bishop $1,500
or so if he will tell his subjects to vote against a special
person or a special measure. All the Catholics may be
expected to be on the side of Slavery, Fillibustering, and
Intemperance. I mean, all in a body; this Romanism will
lead them to support Slavery;—the Irishmen to encourage
Fillibustering and Drunkenness. But good comes out of
evil. I think the Irish Catholics with their descendants,
could not so soon be emancipated in any country as in our
own dear blessed land. So, we need not complain, but only
fall to and do our duty,—clean, educate and emancipate the
‘gintieman from Corrk.’
“ How goes it with the ‘ Poor ?’ and with the ‘ Boston
Provident Association,’ with which you are officially con
nected ? All well, I hope. I am not quite sorry the ‘ Reform
School’ at Westboro is burnt down. The immediate loss
to the State is, to be sure, a great one, but the ultimate loss
would have been far more, for it was a school for crime,
and must graduate villains. I wonder men don’t see that
they can never safely depart from the natural order which
God has appointed. Boys are born in families ; they grow
up in families, a few in each household, mixed with girls
�The Index on Christianity Again.
231
and with their elders. How unnatural to put 500 or 600
boys into a great barn and keep them there till they are one
and twenty years of age, and then expect them to turn out
well and become natural men, after such unnatural treat
ment ! At the beginning, Dr. Howe, really one of the
most enlightened philanthropists I ever met in America or
Europe, proposed a ‘ Central Bureau,’ with a house of tem
porary deposit for boys, and that an agent should place them
in families throughout the country. A quarter of the
money thus spent, would have done a deal of good. I
wonder if you have ever been up to the ‘ Industrial School
for Girls,’ at Lancaster. To me this is one of the most
interesting institutions in the good old State. If I were
Governor of Massachusetts, I think I shouldn’t often dine
with the 1 Lancers,’ or the 1 Tigers,’ or even the ‘Ancients
and Honorables,’ but I should know exactly the condition
of every jail, and ‘ House of Correction,’ in the State, and
of all the institutions for preventing crime and ignorance.
If Horace Mann had been Governor, I think he would have
done so. Here in Europe my life is dull, and would be
intolerable were it not introductory to renewed work on
earth or another existence in Heaven. I am necessarily
idle here, or busy only with trifles which seem only a stren
uous idleness. Such is the state of my voice that I aril
constrained to silence, and so fail to profit by the admirable
opportunity of intercourse with French, German, and Rus
sian people who now fill up the house. I do not complain
of this, but think myself fortunate to be free from pain.”
Article VIII.—'The Index on Christianity Again.
In the Index of January 7th, Mr. Abbot prints a “ synop
sis of Free Religion,” which commences with a criticism of
“ Christianity as a System,” some of the points of which
surprise us more than anything Mr. Abbot has previously
said. What, for example, is he thinking about when he
says, “ Regarded as to its universal element, Christianity is
�232
The Index on Christianity Again.
a beautiful but imperfect presentation of natural morality ?”
His own opinion may separate morality from faith in God,
and make the former only the universal element of religion,
• but no Christianity that ever was, has separated these two
universal elements, or thought of presenting religion, in its
general aspect, as other than the two-fold passion of the soul
of man, towards man and duty on the one hand, and
towards God and heaven on the other.
But this is not the worst of what we deem our friend’s
misrepresentation of “ Christianity as a System.” Having,
as we have seen, made Christianity to consist, as to its uni
versal element, in a “ presentation of natural morality,” he
then states that, “ Regarded as to its special element, Chris
tianity is a great completed system of faith and life,” and
that “ the chief features of this system are the doctrines of
the Fall of Adam, the Total Depravity of the human race,
the Everlasting Punishment of the wicked, and Salvation
by Christ alone,” and that “ it is the worst enemy of liberty,
science, and civilization, because it is organized Despair of
Man.” He then goes on to define “Free Religion as a
System,” and finds it to be “ organized Faith in Man.”
Between the two there exists, he asserts, “ an absolute con
flict of principles, aims, and methods.” He declares that
“ the one ruled the world in the Dark Ages of the past,”
and that “ the other will rule the world in the Light Ages
of the future,” while “ their battle-ground is the Twilight
Age of the present.”
To us this is scandalously unfair. It is no more true that
Christianity is despair of man than it is that free religion is
faith in man. But granting Mr. Abbot his definition of
free religion,—which to us, and to the majority at least of
free religionists, leaves out the religion of Free Religion,—
it is an amazing disregard of the simplest and plainest facts
which permits the statement just quoted, of the sum and
substance of Christianity. Christianity is not organized
despair, but the contrary. One of the means generally
adopted by Christian propagandists to rouse men to “ come
�The Index on Christianity Again.
233
to Christ,” is the preaching of despair, but our friend
knows perfectly well that this is a means only, employed by
teachers of a religion whose chief word is hope, and that
this means is not employed except to induce mankind to
accept the “ hope” which Christianity teaches as her great
lesson. Christianity has never been preached as simple
despair of man, and Mr. Abbot owes it to his honorable
devotion to truth to withdraw the conspicuous assertion that
it consists in so dark and dreadful a thing. “ The worst
enemy of liberty, science, and civilization !” It connot be
said with a particle of justice. Of 79sei«7o-Christianity, the
darker human side of historical Christianity, Mr. Abbot can
speak as harshly as he chooses, without provoking our chal
lenge, but of “ the great completed system of faith and life,”
which, in his own words, Christianity is, he ought never, it
seems to us, to speak as he now speaks in his “Synopsis of
Free Religion.”
We beg him to tell us why he omits from his view of
Christianity as a “ great completed system of faith and life”
everything which constitutes it, in the general opinion of
mankind, except the four dogmas named by him as its
“ chief features.” And in particular, why does he remove
from their universally admitted place, as features of Chris
tianity chief above all others, the two supreme Christian
tenets that God is and that he is Our Father, and that
man is the offspring of God and all men members one of
another in human brotherhood? Even the false side of
historical Christianity contains other chief features than the
four doctrines named by Mr. Abbot, such, for example, as
the doctrines of a special revelation of redemption made
through the Bible, and of the Godhead of Jesus as the agent
of this redemption, and of the administration of this re
demption' by special divine influences, and these doctrines,
however false they may be, cannot be summed up in despair
of man, but intend rather great hope for man; and in all
fair judgment they stand above the darker dogmas of Fall,
Depravity, Punishment, and Limitation of redemption, and
vol.
i.—no. 3.
3
�234
The Index on Christianity Again.
are more entitled than these to give distinctive character to
Christianity, as Mr. Emerson recognizes when he sums up
Christianity in “ faith in the infinitude of man.”
The deplorable fact is that Mr. Abbot, in this instance,
defines Christianity by the darker half of its darker side,
not only leaving out of sight its great and glorious prin
ciples of God’s Fatherhood and man’s brotherhood, its two
supreme rules of love to God and love to man, which make
its bright side, but also leaving out entirely .the more
humane and hopeful of its false dogmas. There would be
nothing at all of Free Religion if it were defined thus by
the worst aspects of its worse side. Nothing that ever was
on earth can bear judgment so grossly unjust. The con
trasts drawn by Mr. Abbot are not legitimate. The past
has not been given up to “ the worst enemy of liberty,
science, and civilization,” nor will the future be ruled by
“the best friend of progress of every kind.” There has
been a vast deal of human freedom in religion before now,
and there will be a vast deal of bondage to authority in the
religion of the future. Not all men have been deceived in
the past, and not all escape delusion now. We heartily
approve vigorous, positive assertion of convictions, but we
must regard some of our friend Abbot’s dogmatizing as not
one whit more respectful towards human freedom than the
least warranted assertions of the popular creeds, inasmuch
as it is not based in evident truth, but in very serious neglect
and disregard of true facts, and does not stop a moment to
consider that its assumptions are generally denied, but lays
down the law of individual opinion precisely as if it were
the law of divine authority. We trust we speak with mod
eration, and with due respect for our friend’s eminence as a
religious teacher, but really we know of nothing in the
movements of religion at the present time more to be
regretted, than Mr. Abbot’s attempt to prove that Christi
anity is all blank despair, and Free Religion all pure faith.
Neither one nor the other is true.
�Why does Mr. Abbot Object, Etc.
235
Article X.— Why Does Mr. Abbot Object to Mr. Sen’s Faith
in God?
We could hardly name two more genuine religious believ
ers and teachers than Keshub Chunder Sen, the Indian
reformer and prophet, and our friend Abbot, at Toledo, the
editor of The Index. The latter has as deep, as pure, as
earnest faith in God as can be anywhere found. Such
sentences as the following are gems of spiritual truth:
“ My whole religion centres in the fact of this perennial,
this unutterable revelation of Eternal Being in the soul of
man;”—“Life is lifted into heaven, in proportion as we
repose in this embrace of the All-Encompassing Soul;”—
“ It is the conception of Nature as the living self-manifes
tation of God, that keeps trie fires of faith still burning in
the inward temple of the soul;” “Pure Religion is itself
the presence of the Infinite Spirit, making itself felt in the
soul of man;”—“The great task of Free Religion is to
prove the ability of each soul to draw its nutriment from its
native soil, dispensing with mediation, and coming into
primary relations with the All-Permeating Deity;’-—“ That
which calls out all high and pure affection is the divine
element, the God in man ;”—“ The lofty and tender senti
ment, the divine sympathy in eternal things, which marks
the completest unity of allied natures, is rooted in the con
sciousness of God;”—“That consciousness of the One
Divine which makes possible to us our loftiest intercourse
with congenial minds, lies also at the root of the sentiment
of the universal brotherhood of man ;”—“ The same repose
in the universal life of God which enables two friends to
enjoy the pure delight of spiritual fellowship, enables, nay,
compels them, to recognize the fundamental unity of their
race, and to cherish that inner consciousness of it which is
the true love of man ;”—“ In the love of God we become
friends to each other, and, in a large sense, friends of man
kind as well; and in this broadening out of the private into
the public, of the individual into the universal, friendship
�236
Why does Mr. Abbot Object to
achieves its highest perfection, and crowns, itself with wor
ship of the Divine.”
To every word of this Mr. Sen would say a hearty amen,
and it would seem as if the two men, being so agreed,
i could walk together in the closest brotherhood. The dis
position of the pious and eloquent leader of the Brahmo
Somaj, of India, was expressed quite recently in a letter to
the Free Religious Association, printed in The Index of
November 24. In that letter Mr. Sen said, “I am sure
that in the fulness of time all the great nations in the East
and in the West will unite and form a vast Theistic Brother
hood, and I am sure that America will occupy a prominent
place in that grand confederation. Let us then no longer
keep aloof from each other, but co-work with unity of heart,
that we may supply each other’s deficiencies, strengthen
each other’s hands, and with mutual aid build up the house
of God. Please take this subject into consideration, and
let me know if you have any suggestions to make whereby
a closer union may be brought about between the Brahmo
Somaj and the Free Religious Association,—between India
and America,—and a definite system of mutual intercourse
and co-operation may be established between our brethren
here and those in the New World. Such union is desirable,
and daily we feel the need of it more and more. Let us
sincerely pray and earnestly labor in order that it may be
realized under God’s blessing in due time.”
To this brotherly word of one who “ crowns friendship
with worship of the Divine,” Mr. Abbot called attention in
the following editorial, printed in the same number of The
Index, under the head, “ A Vital Difference.”
“ An interresting letter, addressed to Mr. Potter by
Keshub Chunder Sen, of India, will be found in the
‘ Department of the Free Religious Association ? This
native reformer, whose late visit to England attracted so
much attention, is desirous of ‘mutual intercourse and
co-operation ’ between the Association and the Brahmo
Somaj. While most cordially reciprocating his brotherly
�Mr. Sen's Faith in G-od?
237
sentiments, we feel constrained to point out an important
difference in their bases of organization. The Brahmo
Somaj, as its name implies, has a Theistic creed as its bond
of union ; the F. R. A. has its bond of union in the simple
principle of Freedom, in Fellowship. Theism, as a creed, is,
in our judgment, little, better than Tritheism. . . . The
friendliest and most brotherly relations should subsist
between the F. R. A. and the Brahmo Somaj; but we must
keep clearly before the public the all-important distinction
between creeded and creedless organization, and forbear, out
of sentiment or sentimentality, to swamp Free Religion in
a ‘ mush of concessions.’ ”
Imagine Mr. Sen receiving the Index, with his letter
printed in the department officially occupied by the Free
Religious Association, and finding that the same number
contained an editorial, warning the public against equal
recognition of him, as a swamping of Free Religion in a
mush of concessions I And that simply because he and
his companions have earnest faith in God!
It is mere words when Mr. Abbot objects to a creed.
No man living has more distinctly laid down, insisted on,
and fought for a creed, than Mr. Abbot. He made a creed
in fifty articles a year ago, and he has just made another
in thirty-two articles, which he calls a “ Synopsis of Free
Religion.” As long as he believes anything, which he
can state in articles, he will have a creed. As long as
*
he devises systems of assertions, and lays them down
nakedly and without qualification, he will have a creed of
the most positive character. We do not object to our
friend’s annual experiment of a downright creed, a set of
positive articles, bold and bald assertions, putting forward
* Creed.—“A definite summary of what is believed; a brief exposition of
important points, as in religion, science, politics, etc.; especially a summary
of Christian belief; a religious symbol.”
“ Symbol.—(Theol.) An abstract or compendium of faith or doctrine; the
creed, or a summary of the articles of religion.”—Webster.
Where does Mr. Abbot get the word “creeded?”
�238
Why does Mr. Abbot Object to
his individual opinion as absolute truth. It is one very
proper way of working on the human mind. But for a
man, who has made two creeds within thirteen months, to
object to Mr. Sen’s equal standing, because the former
believes in God, will not answer.
It happens that Mr. Abbot thinks religion possible with
out faith in God, while Mr. Sen finds the deepest truth of
religion in filial trust in God, and that the latter thinks
quite well of Christianity while the former does not think
well of it at all. But Mr. Abbot’s opinions here are just as
much part of a creed as Mr. Sen’s. Indeed the former
holds his notions on the subject far more rigidly, and asserts
them far more dogmatically than the latter holds and asserts
his views. We do not blame or bewail our friend’s dogma
tism ; let him drive ahead with all his might; but it is
absurd for him to accuse Mr. Sen of having a creed in regard
to God. We could not name a position recently taken in
the religious world which more emphatically merits what
ever stigma should attach to the most positive of creeds,
than our good friend’s position about God and Christianity
as neither of them essential to religion.
And this position not merely has the form and tone of a
creed, or articles of a creed, but it has the tenor, to us, of a
very bad creed. It is a sad enough thing to “ stand squarely
outside of Christianity,” because it involves so general a
refusal of good fellowship, but of thinking of religion with
express exclusion of faith in God, and trying to organize
the law and gospel, the rule and consolation of faith, with
out including the sentiment of the “ Our Father,” is to us
the most terrible of mistakes, not because we have any
aversion to honest atheism, or any wish to put a brand upon
candid infidelity (so called), but for the simple reason that,
in general, faith in God Our Father is the central and fruit
ful principle of blessed religion, and he who dissuades men,
or deters them, or debars them, as Mr. Abbot is doing, from
the exercise of unquestioning filial trust in the Divine Pater
�Mr. Sen’s Faith in God ?
239
nity, is doing the average soul more harm than all other
religious teaching can do him good.
We have given our friend’s new creed, in the Index of
January 7, a respectful study, and see how he arrives at
“ E PLURIBUS UNUM ”
as “ the great watchword of the ages/’ but to us, and we
think to mankind generally, “E PluHus Unum” will not
displace “ Our Father,fl nor any sense of what we are, in
onrselves, and to one another, take the place of the Con
sciousness of God, and the consolation derived from remem
bering HIM in whom we live, Mdflmove, and have our
being. To keep a lively sense of the being, and goodness,
and perfect power of the alone supreme and blessed God,
is not to swamp religion in a mush of concessions. Mr.
Sen’s wish for a Theistic Brottflrhood of all the great
nations, merited sympathy and respect from Mr. Abbot,
and these only. It was no more legitimate to object to it
than it would be to require the mass of childifln to limit
their interest in home pleasuBs to such as orphan asylums
can offer. And in the name of all that is sacred and consol
ing to the heart of man, we beg MiflAbbot to abate the
rigor with which he insists upomkccommodatwg religion to
atheism and to materialism. We will deal respectfully and
fraternally with these honest restrictions of human hope
and faith, but we cannot see wl®any man who has faith in
God and the blessed world of spirit should think it neces
sary to hide that faith, and to base a creed upon suspense of
natural happy trust. In general the atheists, materialists,
and professed “infidels,” are exceedingly positive in their
views, as well as frank and outspokenly Let them be so.
But on the other hand, let those who have firm faith in a
Living Soul of all things, and in Eternal blessed Life, stand
as frankly and firmly for their trust and their thought. If
Mr. Abbot does not care toflhus stand for his best thought
and faith, let him at least cease to insist upon suspense of
faith in our brotherly Bllowship, since the demand is wholly
�240
The Old and the New Christianity.
unreasonable and extremely hurtful. A “ Theistic Brother
hood” does not imply the exclusion of anybody, and not to
show what faith we have in God is to do great hurt to our fel
lows, as well as to be unfaithful to our own vision.
Article XI.— The Old and the New Christianity (Concluded).
Translated from the French of N. Vacherot.
*
After the first ecumenical councils, dogma having
received its constitution almost complete, it would seem
that its history must be finished, and it only remained to
pursue that of organization and church discipline. How
ever, the history of dogma still continues, if not for estab
lishing, at least for the teaching of doctrines. The great
theologians whose discussions prepared the way for the
council of Nicoea, had, with all their subtle distinctions,
preserved, with their Platonic learning, the consciousness
of the highest religious verities. It was rather the teaching
of John which inspired them than that of Paul: but it was
still the vivifying breath of Christian thought. When that
thought fell upon the barbarism of the middle ages, it
found no method of exposition or instruction other than
the philosophy of Aristotle. We know what this became
in the hands of his interpreters of the Sorbonne and of the
universities of the middle ages. The name Schoolman
tells the whole story of distinctions, divisions and ver
bal discussions. If doctors, such as St. Anselm and St.
Thomas, were able to maintain Christian thought in its high
import, it was because both had a spirit sufficiently high
and sufficiently deep to comprehend whatever in the genius
of Plato and Aristotle is most like that thought. Yet we
may question if the extremely Aristotelian philosophy of
St. Thomas would have been to the liking of Paul, of John,
and of the fathers of the church. We will not speak of
* In the last line of Art. VI. (p. 181), of last number, strike out the word
“not,” and read “ could easily accommodate itself.”
�The Old and the New Christianity.
241
Christ himself, who never let slip an occasion to show his
antipathy to every kind of scholasticism. If he would not
have driven from his church the respectable doctors of the
Sorbonne, as he did the traffickers of the temple, we may
believe that the author of the Sermon on the Mount would
not have set foot in schools of this sort, where the spirit of
his teaching was scarcely better kept than the letter.
There is surely a great difference between the teaching
of the gospels and epistles and scholastic theology ; but per
haps a still greater between the primitive church and the
Catholic church governed by the court of Rome. While
reading the historians of Christianity, and particularly M.
Renan, we naturally picture to ourselves those happy and
charming little Christian societies, with such free manners,
such active faith, such simple practice, in comparisonOth
the strong and minute discipline, the mute and passive obe
dience, which characterize the government of our great
Catholic societies of the middle ages. The truth is that the
rising Christianity had no more an organized church than it
had a fixed set of doctrines. It is subject to the same law
as all things which are of this world, or exist in it: it was
obliged to be formed before developing, and to be developed
before organizing. The blessed anarchy of the first Chris
tian societies may be envied by liberal believers as the ideal
of religious societies in the largest acceptation of the word;
but at that time this religious condition was rather the
effect of a provisional historic necessity, than of a welldetermined theory upon the free action of the religious
conscience. As soon as Christian society had attained some
little degree of development and multiplied the number of
its churches, it experienced the need of a more exact disci
pline and of some kind of central government. When
Christianity became under Constantine the religion of the
empire, the bishops were already exercising an actual
authority over the consciences of the faithful. It is to be
observed that the councils, save that at Jerusalem, which
was little more than a name, began to assemble from this
�242
The Old and the New Christianity.
time, under the more or less imperious patronage of the
Ceesars of Byzantium—a circumstance very perilous to thb
independence of the church. Religious monarchy was a
necessity of the times. If it had not had as a head a pope
at Rome, it would have had one in the emperors at Con
stantinople. We see this clearly later in the examples of
the Eastern and of the Russian church, the one being sub
ject to the Caesars of the Lower Empire, the other to the
czars of Moscow and St. Petersburg. All the emperors of
Constantinople, from Constantine down, set about dogma
tising. He allows himself to condemn Arius, although
later he embraced his doctrines ; and in what terms does he
condemn him? “ Constantine, the conqueror, the great,
the august, to the bishops and people of Judea: Arius
must be branded with infamy.” There is nothing more
curious than his letter to the two great opponents in the
Council of Nicoea. “ I know what your dispute is. You,
patriarch, question your priests in regard to what each
thinks about some test of the law or other trifling question.
You, priest, proclaim what you never ought to have
thoughtjor rather what you should have been silent
upon. The inquiry and response are equally useless:
All that is well enough to pass the time or exercise
the ingenuity, but should never reach the ears of the
common people. Pardon each other then the impru
dence of the question and the unsuitableness of the
reply.” Does not this suggest a Romish priest shutting the
mouth of two complaining parties ? His son, Constantins,
speaks even more freely : “ What part of the universe
are you,” writes he to Liberius,. bishop of Rome, “ you
who alone take the part of an unprincipled wretch (Atha
nasius), and break the peace of the world and of the
empire ?”
The establishment of the discipline and organization of
the church were the work of the councils presided over by
the popes, while the government of Christendom was the
peculiar function of papacy. The adversaries of that insti
�The Old and the New Christianity.
243
tution have seen in it only the advent of a monarchial gov
ernment succeeding a sort of democratic and republican
organization of the primitive church. They have not suffi
ciently comprehended that it was also a necessary and
urgent guarantee of the independence of the Christian
church, which, to triumph more easily and quickly over
paganism, had placed itself under the hand of imperial
despotism. If religious liberty of conscience was to suffer
later from the autocracy of the court of Rome, inspired
more by traditional policy and diplomacy than by the
thoughts and feelings of the true religion of Christ, the lib
erty of the church was then and always that of an establish
ment which, in raising the bishop of Rome above all the
others and giving to him for a see the ancient capital of the
known world, freed the management of spiritual affairs from
the yoke of political powers, whatever they might be, mon
archical, aristocratic or democratic. However, the trans
formation of the Christian church was complete. If any
one wishes to judge what ground has been gone over from
primitive Christianity down to present Catholicism, let him
compare the council of Jerusalem with the council of 1869,
where, they say, is at length to be proclaimed the dogma of
the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the per
son of Pius IX, and consequently the principle of absolute
monarchy applied to the government of a spiritual society
is to be fully realized: an admirable completion to the edi
fice, of which the founder could hardly have dreamed, nor
indeed his first apostles !
Such, in substance, is the history of Christianity from its
advent down to the middle ages. It is very difficult to see
only the word, the hand and the spirit of God in the devel
opment of an institution where error, darkness, superstition,
and persecution have too large a part to prevent traces of
human infirmity being manifest even in dogma. But, in
whatever manner one explains this history, whether he
only considers human causes according to the philosophic
method, or brings in supernatural causes according to the
�244
The, Old and the New Christianity.
theological method, it is a constant fact that Christianity
has obeyed, in its development on the theatre of time and
space, the law of all human institutions, that it has passed,
in doctrine and government, through all the phases of
things which spring up, grow, become organized and defi
nitely established. After having followed it in the move
ment of expansion which takes it continually farther from
its origin, it remains for us to follow it in the movement of
return, which is constantly bringing it back under the
influence of modern times.
HI.
We are about the middle of the fifteenth century, after
the taking of Constantinople. The Roman church no longer
finds in its peculiar world either heresy or resistance. Doc
trine has been for a long time fixed. The teaching of
doctrine is regulated in its least details in accordance with
the scholastic method. Discipline itself is organized and
regulated in its most minute prescriptions. The Catholic
communion resembles an immense army .which moves or
stops, fights or rests, on the orders of its commanders.
Woe to him who speaks, thinks or prays other than as the
formulary directs. Silence even is suspected among those
of whom the church expects a complete confession or a pro
fession of faith. Nothing is more imposing than this silent,
absolute, infallible, government of consciences, where the
word of command as soon as uttered by the mouth of one
man is reechoed in the most remote parts of the Christian
world, without a single voice being able to protest. And
as if that discipline were not sufficient, the court of Rome
has its indefatigable police of the inquisition, to seek out
and denounce the crimes of heresy and sorcery to pitiless
judges, who condemned to the stake thousands of victims.
Suddenly the star of the renaissance rises upon this world,
and driving away the last traces of the darkness of the mid
dle ages, floods with light the dawn of modern societies.
Before the arts and sciences of antiquity, Gothic art and
�The Old and the New Christianity.
245
scholastic science fall into disrepute. And it 19 not the
learned and lettered world alone which receives, admires,
yea, gazes with unbounded delight upon these marvelous
works of classic accuracy, of material grace, of strong
thought, of exquisite taste, of incomparable language,
whose secret the human mind seemed to have lost; it is
also the religious world, it is especially the court of Rome
and its foremost Italian dignitaries.
We cannot positively say that the renaissance caused the
reform. Protestantism, we must not forgetlwas born of a
simple administrative question, the granting of indulgences :
confining itself to a change of discipline, it kept the doc
trines almost without alteration. The great reform which
it accomplished was, to free the religious conscience from
the tutelage which weighed so heavily upon it, and which
left it no initiative, either of thought or of sentiment,
before the word of God interpreted and formally uttered by
the authority of the church. Now every thing was there,
at least in principle. What matter that the new religion
did not touch the credo, if all doctrine was henceforth
wholly subject to a free interpretation of the Scriptures by
the reason and conscience of believers ? Doubtless, as there
is no church without authority, the reformed church had,
also on its part, a council and creed in the Augsburg con
fession; but the principle of individual initiative had been
so affirmed before the contrary principle of official author
ity, that no effort of Protestant orthodoxy, if this expression
may be applied to the reformation, could arrest its course,
even in the lifetime of the great reformers. The door was
open to liberty in matters of faith. The future was to show
that no necessity of discipline could close it: but for the
moment, if we only consider its doctrinal bearing, the
reform was confined to a very slight simplification of
dogma. The worship of saints, worship of the Virgin,
adoration of relics, in fine, the most serious of all, the
eucharist, were the principal objects of reform in what con
cerned dogma, purely so called. Luther was not only a fer
�246
I
The Old and the New Christianity.
vent Christian, he was a consummate theologian, who
would not hear to any one’s touching the holy ark of doc
trine. He was more convinced than Leo X. and the gay
wits of his court of the justice of eternal punishment, of
the efficacy of grace, of the predestination of the elect and
the damned, of the existence and puissance of the devil, of
the wily power of sorcerers, of the real presence of Jesus
Christ in the host. The boldest thing the reform did in
the way of doctrine, was the substitution of consubstantiation
for transubstantiation in the sacrament of the eucharist,
attempting thus to reconcile the preservation of the mate
rial substance with the presence of the divine person. The
court of Rome did not take fire, as Calvin did, on the ques
tion of heresies, and if it still allowed heretics, like Bruno
and Vanini, to be burned by the tribunals of the inexora
ble inquisition, we cannot think it was done with as much
zeal as Calvin manifested in the trial of Michse’. Servetus. In
religious matters, it no longer showed much wrath or en
thusiasm; its passion was elsewhere.
The leading thought of the reform was quite other than
that ofencroaching upon dogma. The spirit which gave
rise to it was too Christian to touch any thing but the
organization of the church. The religious faith of the
people whom the voice of Luther had won over, demanded
nothing more. The natural sciences were not yet born,
and philosophy was still given over to scholastic disputes,
or engaged in the subtle commentaries of the: learned upon
the books of antiquity. Christian dogma, such as the Old
and New Testament had made it,—Alexandrian theology
and scholastic theology,—had not yet been positively contra
dicted, either by the revelations of the natural and the his
toric sciences, or by the interior revelations of the modern
conscience. Beside, in emancipating the conscience, the
reformation reanimated and strengthened Christian thought,
stifled by scholasticism or enervated by the renaissance.
The faith of the new believers went back to the doctrines of
Paul, which the wholly practical sense of the Roman church
�The Old and the New Christianity.
247
had modified, and even to the Old Testament theology.
Luther and Calvin took up again with a vigor and a harsh
ness which the Catholic church seemed to have forgotten,
the doctrines of necessity, of omnipotent grace, of the stern
justice of a powerful God, mild toward the just, terrible to
his enemies.
But when light had begun to be thrown upon philosophy
by the progress of the material sciences, upon conscience
by the progress of moral science, the spirit of reform in the
Christian world was obliged to attack dogma itself, and it
cut off from it as useless every thing which hindered it
from accommodating itself to modern science and con
science. How could they indeed preserve that barbarous
theology of the Old Testament, which confounds in its''
cruel justice, the Bible says in its vengeance, children with
fathers, the innocent with the guilty ? How keep that psy
chology and those moral principles of Paul which make of
sin a question of species and not of individuals, and which
take away from man all the merit of his works by attribut
ing it to God ? How take literally the miracles and other
facts of Biblical history before the scientific revelation of
the immutable laws of nature? And was it not becoming
very difficult to preserve that mysterious theology of the
Nicsean creed when already all high metaphysical specula
tion was falling into discredit ? Was it possible to this
heavy ship of scholastic Christianity to sail in the new
waters of a sea as strong as the modern world, if a way
was not found of lightening its weight and simplifying its
means of locomotion ? The new Christianity was then
obliged to abandon all the cosmogony and a considerable
part of the theology of the old Bible, the fundamental dog
mas of Paul s teaching, and, at last, the great mysteries of
the divine nature, which it found, if not in opposition, at
least useless to a healthy religious life. Let us render jus
tice to the clear and resolute spirit of the eighteenth cen
tury. It attempted little subtilizing or equivocating with
texts : it loyally made the sacrifice of every part of Chris-
�248
The Old and the New Christianity.
tian dogma which was found in contradiction with experi
ence, history, reason, conscience, preserving scarcely any
thing of it except that which constitutes its truth and
worth. When Kant, Lessing, and later, Schleiermacher,
and all that great school of German theology speak
of Christianity, it is almost always in that sense. Their
Christianity is that which sustains, fortifies, purifies and
consoles the soul, much rather than that which engages the
intellect in the mysterious depths of its metaphysics, or
fetters the will in the bonds of its discipline. In that, this
school has largely opened the way to the Christianity which
later was to push forward the reform movement to the
entire suppression of dogma, by preserving only morality,
and morality, too, reduced to the ideal of the life and the
teaching of Christ. Such seems also to have been the
spirit, if not the explicit teaching of the generous part of
the French clergy who embraced the principles and hopes
of the revolution. It was by attaching themselves to the
moral and purely evangelical side of doctrine, that priests
like Faucher and Gregory wished to reconcile Christianity
with the principle^ of reason, of liberty, of justice, of fra
ternity, which that revolution had inscribed upon its pro
gramme. In this sense, it is just to say that the eighteenth
century remained Christian while ceasing to be Catholic,
and that over that part of society which was won by philoso
phy, religion still preserved a certain sway.
This work of simplification which was already bringing
back dogma to its source, was arrested, at the opening of
the nineteenth century, by a wholly opposite movement,
whose aim, on the contrary, was the complete reinstatement
of Christian thought in modern science and philosophy.
The eclecticism of that epoch exerted itself everywhere, in
England, and in France, as well as in Germany, to show,
by an ingenious method of interpretations and explanations,
that all science and all philosophy were at least in germ in
Christianity; all was, to rightly interpret the texts. So
Genesis was harmonized with the geology of certain Eng-
�The Old and the New Christianity.
249
lish savang, the Kicene creed had a place in the metaphysics
of Schelling and Hegel, and the hard doctrines of Saint
Paul themselves, found their explanation and fortification
in the mystic philosophy of certain contemporary schools.
The learned world was quite astonished to learn that there
was a Christian astronomy, geology and history, just as
there was a theology and a morality with this name. Indeed
all the sciences took a peculiar aspect from the new point of
view in which the eclectics of those times placed themselves.
This method had at first great success, thanks to the genius
of the men and the disposition of the times; but this suc
cess could be only ephemeral, because such a manner of
procedure was contrary to the true spirit of the nineteenth
century, a critical spirit, if any ever were so. Besides, the
method was not new: it has a well known name in the
philosophic and religious history of the human mind. Neoplatism had attempted it for paganism with an ardor, a per
severance, a brilliancy, a positive failure, which we need not
recall. For a century like ours, so severe in its methods, so
well informed in natural and historical facts, this kind of
speculation was not science, it was something which savored
now of mystic dreaming, now of political compromise, or
again of Alexandrian exegesis.
This eclecticism was a pure accident, in spite of all the
appearances of reality ! The law which governs the mod
ern history of Christianity, soon resumed its sway I the
progress of purification and simplification grew more and
more pronounced; criticism breathed upon these scaffoldings
so laboriously and sometimes so artistically constructed.
Sober science would no longer lendlitself to that which it
must regard as a play of wits, if not the illusion of a liberal
faith desiring to be of its century at the same time as of its
church. The spirit of reform which fashions the ChrisWn
societies of to-day no longer loses its time and its genius in
reconciling contradictions or confounding differences. With
a firm and bold hand, the doctors which itlnspires separate,
in Christianity, morality from dogma; that is, in their
VOL. I.—NO. 3.
4
�250
'
The Old and the New Christianity.
understanding, the true from the actual, the essential from
the accidental, the eternal and immutable from the tempo
rary and variable. To the history of the past, they refer
all the details of dogma properly so called, from Paulinian
and Alexandrian theology to scholastic theology, keeping
only what in their eyes constitutes the basis, the essence,
the very spirit of Christianity, the mild and lofty teaching
of Jesus. And yet, as it is difficult not to find in that teach
ing, so pure and perfect, some indications which recall the
narrow genius of the people to whom the Christ belongs,
the doctors of liberal Christianity refer their religion to the
ideal rather than to the evangelical reality, and, without
denying the latter, preserve of the legend only the figure of
a Christ truly divine, in that he has no longer anything in
common with the sufferings of humanity. Suppose that
Christ really was the man of whom the gospels tell us, the
school, or, if you please, the church of which we speak,
does not make of this an essential point of its religion. The
ideal suffices for it, and, not finding a richer and higher one
in the modern conscience, it proposes it to the faith of the
present, to the faith of the future, as the ideal itself of the
human conscience.
Jfo one has better defined this Christianity than Mr. F.
Pecaut, one of its most noble and most serious doctors.
“ It is not,” he says, “ that we attach to this name of Chris
tians a superstitious value or a sort of magic virtue ; but,
whether we will it or not, our moral and religious ideal is
in its essential features the same as the ideal of Jesus, and
we are his posterity. . . . The ineffaceable glory of the
gospel, its immortal attraction, is always its being the good
news, the news of grace, of the spirit of life which assures
us of the love of God, and frees us from the servitude of
remorse and evil. That is a revelation appealed to by the
human soul, and consequently written on its inmost tablets:
the seers attempt to read it in themselves, and from age to
age they are learning among various peoples to decipher the
name of the Father, until Jesus, by pronouncing it loudly,
�The Old and the New Christianity.
251
makes the old earth, weary of long efforts, leap with exceed,
ing j°y« Hence, as from a generous spring, escape in rivu
lets of living water the best sentiments which are henceforth
to render fruitful Christian civilization, humility, confi
dence, unwavering hope, innate dignity, devotion towards
even the wicked. Does any one to-day conceive of a relig
ious idea superior to that ? Who would wish to repudiate
it? who would dare to deprive his brothers of it, and to
deprive himself of it ? It is the very depth of ourselves
so humane, so natural, but so deep and so uncomfortable
for the profane eye to read, that men in their exuberant
delight have believed it supernatural and superhuman.”
This is why the liberal Christian takes his place in the
school of Jesus: not of Jesus the Messiah, the eternal
Word, the second person of the Trinity, but of Jesus, the
Son of man, the gentle and humble-hearted master who
gives repose to the soul, the master whom love of the
Father and tenderness for the least of his brothers raised to
such a moral height that he felt himself the beloved son of
whom the heavenly Father had no secrets in pure, good
and holy things. Such is the true, the eternal Jesus, he
who founded religion upon conscience and opened to
humanity the gates of the celestial city. Is it the spirit of
God which speaks by that mouth, or the spirit of Satan, as
the Roman Church has it? If Christian sentiment is not
there, where then is it ? If this is not the language of the
true children of God, where shall we find it ? As to us,
whom people accuse, it is true, of having a somewhat large
measure in this sort of things, we believe that there are
many ways of being Christian. One may be so according
to the spirit or according to the letter. He may be so with
Jesus, with Paul, with John, with the Alexandrian theo
logians, with the doctors in the Sorbonne, with all tradition,
as the Catholic Ghurch directs. Does it not seem that to
be Christian with Christ alone, receiving inspiration only
from his spirit and his example, is to be it in the best, the most
Christian manner? If any one says that it is only chosen
�252
The Old and the New Christianity.
souls essentially religious for whom such an inspiration can
suffice for living in Christianity, and that, as 1o the rest, all
the formality of dogma and traditional discipline is neces
sary, we do not deny it. Upon this ground, many ways of
looking at the matter may be reconciled. What appears to
us harsh and almost odious, is the intolerance of the friends
of the letter towards the friends of the spirit, so that it is pos
sible to say that in drawing near the hearth of every relig
ious faith, the soul of Christ, in order to receive more and
more warmth, life and purification, we get farther away
from the religion of Christ.
Like doctrine, like church: absolute liberty under the
law, or rather under the spirit of Christ. Where there is
no longer dogma, to speak strictly, there can no longer be
discipline and government. Every believer is his own
priest, as his true Bible is his own conscience enlightened
by the light of the gospel ideal. In fact, it is not a church,
but a society of the believers who instruct, guide and help
each other; it is indeed the communion of brothers of the
free spirit in the most modern acceptation of the phrase.
From whatever source the spirit breathes, it is always wel
come; they receive it and become penetrated with it with
out demanding of those inspired any other title to the confi
dence of all than the excellence of their nature or the supe
riority of their wisdom. As to the Scriptures, for this new
church, every grand or fine book is a bible; it is sufficient
if it answers to what is most pure and holy in the conscience
of each one. It is indeed always the soul of Christ which
makes the religious life of the new Christians; but between
it and them there is no intermediate agent, no traditional
teaching, no authority which imposes its decisions. It is
not enough to say, no more pope; no more councils, they
say, no more synods, no more creeds, even if agreed upon
by all. It is the reign of that divine anarchy of which the
primitive church had been only a very feeble image, and
wThich is the ideal itse f of every truly spiritual communion.
�The Old and the New Christianity.
253
IV.
We see what Christianity becomes by simplification after
simplification, from the reformation down to our time, just
as we saw what it become by complication after complica
tion, from its advent to the reformation. This double spec
tacle gives rise to quite difibrent reflexions, according as one
contemplates it as an orthodox Christian, a liberal Chris
tian, or a historian. Where the orthodox Christian finds
only subject for admiration in the ancient period of the his
tory of that religion, and for regret in the second period,
where the liberal Christian, on the contrary, has only regrets
for the one and hopes for the other, the philosophical histo
rian undertakes to comprehend and explain whatever is
necessary in the double movement, in a sense contrary to
religious thought. With the orthodox Christian, he accepts
the entire dogma, no longer as one single and same revela
tion of which all the parts are equally in conformity to the
ideal itself of Christianity, but as a succession of doctrines
corresponding each to a historical fatality of its existence.
Leaving to the liberal believer the ideal point of view, and
himself, in his quality of historian, holding to the point of
view of actual fact, he finds that Christianity, in respect to
the condition of the society it was to conquer, could do it
only by accommodating itself to the instincts, needs, habits
and necessities of human nature, at any particular moment
of its history. Thus he comprehends how, to become a relig
ion in the positive sense of the word, it was necessary that
Christianity pass from the morality of Jesus to the theology
of Paul; how, to become the religion of the most metaphys
ical and most mystical part of ancient society, it was neces
sary for it to pass from the teaching of Paul to the high the
ology of the gospel of John and of the Nicene Creed. So,
at length, he comprehends that, to become the religion of
the middle ages, it has been obliged to descend from these
speculative heights to the practical necessities of a disci
pline as minute as rigorous. Like all the institutions whose
development history shows, Christianity did not have the
�254
The Old and the New Christianity.
choice of means in extending, establishing and preserving
itself. Whatever were its origin and its peculiar genius, it
had no more freedom of conduct than any other human
institution. It could not escape the law which regulates the
development of everything in time and space; the ideal is
realized only on conditions which do not always permit it
to maintain the purity of its principle or of its origin. Thus
the philosophic historian finds himself in harmony with the
orthodox Christian upon the legitimacy of the dogmas and
institutions with which primitive Christianity enriched
itself or complicated itself, as one may choose to call it.
But he is in harmony with the liberal Christian in quite a
different way. Here it is no more historical necessity that
he has in view, it is the light itself of the idea which makes
him know where he is in the quite opposite religious move
ment which has been in progress since the end of the
middle ages down to our time. The necessity, if this word
may be employed, of the progress which is elevating the
religion of Christ, fallen in the darkness and barbarity of
the middle ages, is no longer an exterior and material law
of reality ; it is an interior and wholly spiritual law of the
idea, which, finding a nature better and better prepared,
whether in individuals or in societies of modern times,
develops itself more and more freely, realizes itself more
and more completely, in proportion as-it feels itself better
sustained by the state of civilization which corresponds to
its expansion. Consequently, without sharing the regrets
of the liberal Christian in all that concerns the past, the
philosophic historian comprehends and judges as a continual
progress, in the literal sense of the word, the work of puri
fication and simplification which is going on in Christian
souls and churches since the renaissance, which restores
liberty to religious faith by the reformation of Luther, and
which is freeing the teaching of Christ from either the subtilties of the Alexandrian creed, or the severity of Paulinian
dogma, to show it to the modern world in all the purity of
its light and in all the power of its worth. If he cannot be
�The Old and the New Christianity.
255
hostile or even indifferent to the history of dogmas and
institutions which have served in the establishment of
Christianity, how much more will he be in sympathy with
the history of the struggles maintained aud efforts attempted
in order to free it from the fett'ers that weigh upon it to-day,
and to bring it back to this high ideal of every truly Chris
tian conscience, which, in certain quarters, is confounded
with the ideal itself of the modern conscience !
What will be the future of liberal Christianity in the pres
ent societies ? If the question were only concerning some
particular reform, attempted by certain men, at some given
time, in view of creating a certain church, all foresight
would be rash. What have become of all the reforms so
ardently preached by the reverend Catholics of our country
who wished to shake off the yoke of Roman discipline or of
scholastic theology ? We know the fruitless efforts
attempted with this intent by Lamennais, Buchez, BordasDumoulin, and Huet. What will become of the movement
of which the apostles of liberal Protestantism have consti
tuted themselves the promoters ? It seems as if everything
concurs for the success of such an enterprise, the devotion
of the men, the favor of circumstances, the essentially popu
lar simplicity of the teaching. Is not this the religion of
those simple in heart and spirit, as Jesus taught it to the
people of Galilee ? In it, appeal is not made to theology,
to metaphysics, to erudition, or to criticism ; it is made only
to conscience, which alone must respond. In perceiving
and loving, all the new Christianity lies; feeling the inner
truths, the heart truths, that is, the beautiful, the just and
the good, and loving them in the person of Christ.
We are not of those whom the passion for pure philos
ophy would render indifferent to such a progress of the
religious life. It is a beautiful idea to make the name of
Christ-the symbol of human conscience, and to surround
the popular teaching of morality with the aureole of such a
tradition. We shall not make so soon a philosophic human
ity. If we could produce such a religious humanity, does
�TC-
256
The Old and the New Christianity.
it not seem as if philosophy might patiently await the day
of its complete triumph, if it is ever to come? What a
dream is that of the liberal Christians ! Christianity appears
to them like the tree which was to cover the world and can
yet do so. This tree, planted at Golgotha for the punish
ment of Jesus, watered with his blood, enveloped with the
divine benediction as with a vivifying atmosphere, left to
natural growth and grace from above, would have first
touched the heavens, and soon embraced the .world in the
universal expansion of its branches. The strong and
learned culture of a Paul, a John, of the Alexandrian fathers
and the scholastic doctors, makes of it the sturdy tree which
history gives us for contemplation, with roots taking deep
hold of the soil, a short and massive trunk, boughs clasped
and interlacing, a rough bark, an-d foliage so thick as to
intercept the rays of light. And as, with such a constitu
tion, the sap could not rise, it was obliged to betake itself
to the ends'of the branches, instead of concentrating itself at
the heart of the tree, to force it to its highest development.
And then, after the brilliant Alexandrian vegetation, after
the solid scholastic organization, either from lack of cir
culation or from a wrong direction of the sap, the tree
grows weak and bends under the weight of the branches
which pull it earthward; it covers the world of the middle
ages with a thick shadow under which everything grows
benumbed or sleeps. What did the reformation have to do
towards righting the tree and making it resume its growth
towards heaven ? To recall the sap to the trunk by lop
ping the dead branches and those too low. It is this work
begun by the first reformers, which liberal Christianity con
tinues, by disengaging the tree more and more from every
thing which prevents it from shooting heavenward. Thus
will it become the tree of life under which the religious
faith of humanity will find again the air, light and fragrance
which strengthen without intoxicating, which calm without
stupifying.
Will the dream become a reality? Only God and his
�The Old and the New Christianity.
257
prophets know; but there is one thing which three centu
ries of progress teach us with certainty; it is that the relig
ious world is on the way to the ideal dreamed of by its
freest children. Because some see it still in large majority
attached to dogma and its most minute details, they con
clude that it has not changed and will'not change, that the
orthodoxy of Rome, of Augsburg or of Geneva, holds it con
strained by its narrow formulas. It is an error. To any
one who looks into the matter closelySt is manifest that the
spirit is gaining light more and more in the Christian con
sciences of our times through the letter which so long
pressed it down. If any one wishes to judge of the im
portance of the religious movement which is going on in
the midst of modern societies, he must not form his opinion
from the bold enterprises which suddeily burst forth and
come to nothing; he must follow the slow and sure evolu
tion taking place in the souls in appearance the most in
bondage to the letter. Everything has kept its position,
everything appears equally firm in Christian dogma as
authority imposes it on its believers; but there is only one
place, even in the Catholiq world, where one does not see
that it has its dead and its living partsk that these latter
alone constitute its worth and can assure its future. Alas
for him, especially in these times, who forgets that the let
ter kills and the spirit gives life! It seems that the true
genius of the new times equally escapes the conservatives
who cling to the past and the men who would revolution
ize the future, to see the illusion of the former and the dis
couragements in store for the latter. Our age has, at the
same time, a liking for tradition and for progress. It
remains faithful to the one by'keeping the letter; it serves
the other by being inspired with the spirit. It is plain that
it is more and more out of conceit with and mistrusts theat
rical strokes and the sudden changes of scene called revolu
tions in the history of human societies. Evolution is what
it would appear is to be the preferred form of modern pro
gress. We do not know what the future reserves for the
�258
The Old and the New Christianity.
religious world. We see indeed liberal Christianity
redouble its efforts and extend its conquests ; we see it in
America, with Channing, Parker and their disciples, draw
crowds and found new churches; we see it in Europe radi
ate in all the great centres of religious life, at Paris, at
Strasburg, at Geneva, the city of Calvin, at London, at
Berlin, at Florence. We should not be surprised, neverthe
less, if this movement did not descend from the high and
free society of the sons of the spirit into the depths of the
religious world, and if the immense majority of Catholic
or Protestant Christians kept the formulas of orthodoxy,
while gaining light from science and becoming penetrated
by the sentiments of modern conscience.
It would be rash in us to pry into the Catholic and
Christian consciences of our times, and pretend to see into
them more clearly than the believers themselves; but it
seems to us that their faith is no longer all of one kind as
in the past. The faith of our fathers in the middle ages,
and even in the first centuries of modern times, embraced
all its articles of dogma in one single affirmation, invincible
and absolute; nothing in it then either wounded the con
science or revolted against reason. To-day there is taking
place, asfit were without its knowledge, a distinction, if not
a separation, in the depth of the religious conscience.
Everything is accepted which the authority of the church
imposes; but people make really two parts of the subject
matter of tradition, one comprehending everything which
no longer answers to the reason, science, or conscience of
ourBime; the other, one whose eternal and universal truth
will never be behind the progress of modern civilization.
Surely no one can call himself Catholic if he does not sin
cerely profess a belief in eternal punishment, in the resur
rection of the body, in original sin, in the mystery of a God
three in one, and even in many other dogmas of less
importance; but how many believers attach to these things
true faith, the faith of the feeling? They believe in them
because it is the law of the church; but the heart of the
�The Old aud the New Christianity.
259
Christian is elsewhere, it is in those ideas of purity, of
justice, of fraternity, of love, which the evangelical teaching
breathes, and which the believer finds in the newest inspi
rations of the modern conscience. This is, if not the only
faith., at least the living one of the religious souls of our
time; the other is only a traditional faith which people
affirm, and will perhaps always affirm, but which they do
not feel alive in their hearts.
Such are those revolutions, which are no more understood
at Rome to-diy than they were in the time of Luther, which
indeed cannot be understood there, because Rome is the
seat of Romanism, rather than of Christianity. The saying
is from the duke of Orleans, and has a yet wider applica
tion than he who let it escape in a moment of discourage
ment intended.
“ Ta regere imperio populos, Romane, memento.” The
verse of the poet is still true. Christian Rome has always
left theology to the doctors of the universities and of the
religious orders, keeping for herself the science of canonical
law and the art of governing. Unfortunately for her,
neither that deep science nor that consummate art are suffi
cient to direct the Christian world in present circumstances.
It is with the religious democracy as with political democ
racy; in order to live they both want more and more
freedom and light, less and less discipline and government.
At the very moment when civilized society aspires to
govern itself, the Romish church reaches the most absolute
formula of personal government. One need not be a pro
phet to predict that such a regime will no more be the law
of the religious than of the political societies of the future.
The spiri-t of liberal Christianity will prevail over the
wholly political genius of Roman Catholicism, not by a
schism, which is not created in a time of so little zeal for
questions of dogma, but by a slow and continued trans
formation of the religious conscience, tending more and
more to conformity with the moral conscience of modern
society. When Protestants like M. de Pressense, when
�I
i
■I
J
I
260
I
The Old and the New Christianity.
Catholics like MM. Dupanloup and Gratry, come to take
for their own church the name even of liberal Chris
tianity, which -is the symbol of the boldest reforms of the
day, we feel that the court of Rome cannot stop the course
of religious thought. In freedom and by freedom was the
great battle of Christianity fought and won in its heroic
age, even in spite of oppression and persecution from with
out. I know no other means of reconquering the world
to-day.” (De Pressense, Hist, des Trois Siecles de l’Eg. Ch.)
Rome is not of this opinion. There are indeed many
degrees in liberal Christianity; the liberty of the Catholics
cannot have such a career as that of Protestants; but Rome,
which understands discipline, comprehends them all in that
universal malady called the spirit of the age, not perceiving
that the true danger which threatens its church to-day, is
the lethargic sleep of a passive and servile faith. It is said
that it is not the freethinkers that cause it the most discom
fort at this time; we readily believe it, and so much the
more as it has never had a taste either for the mystic the
ology or for the scholastic science of these barbarians of the
AVest, for the Germans or the Gauls of any times, which
seem to it to continually wish to go up to the assault of the
Capitol. When Italian finesse does not smile at it, it is
uneasy about it, knowing by a long experience how much
the erudition of the former and the eloqence of the latter
interfere with or trouble her in the manceuvers of her skill
ful diplomacy. They are as children to that great mistress
in the art of governing, but terrible children whose too
violent love for the church of Christ has more than once
agitated and shaken the church of Rome. Such is its mistrust
ot discussion, that, from the advent of modern times, it has
not felt the need of rallying around it the highest lights and
the best forces it found in its own bosom, and that, for its
great combat against the modern spirit, it has counted on
the Inquisition, on the Jesuits, on the favor of princes, on
the adroitness and patience of its diplomacy, on everything,
in short, except the councils. Trusting only to her own
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
261
wisdom, for more than three centuries Rome has governed
and administered her empire without their co-operation,
and now that she has just assembled one, it is to have a
dogma proclaimed which henceforth strikes the institution
with impotence. Then, hearing no longer those disagree
able contradictions which are to have their last echo in the
present assembly, she will be able to live or to sleep in
peace, like the bird which hides its head under its wing at
the approach of the enemy. The fact is, Rome does not
like noisy outbursts, even from the writers and orators
which defend its cause. What it likes, is neither the great
heart of a Lamennais, nor the generous soul of a Lacordaire,
nor the noble and liberal spirit of a Montalembert, nor the
broad and high preaching of a Father Hyacinthe, nor the
fiery polemics of a Gratry, nor the calm dialectics of a
Maret, nor the beautiful and strong eloquence of a Dupanloup, nor, above all, the somewhat worldly wisdom of a
Darboy, nor even the acrimonious temper and satirical spirit
of a Veuillot; it is mute obedience among all its subjects,
without any distinction of character or talent. But, if the
great satisfaction of being mistress of her own house costs
her the dominion of the Catholic world, Rome will have
met the fate of all powers which do not comprehend that
henceforth in liberty alone is the security of all authority.
E. Vacherot.
Article XI.—The Story of'a Damned Soul.
The Examiner and Chronicle, the leading Baptist journal
of the country, calls us to account for the interpretation
put by us upon a passage of Bickersteth’s “Yesterday,
To-day, and Forever,” which we took to refer to Theodore
Parker. Our critic is quite right. The “ Theodore ” of
Mr. Bickersteth’s epic is a Roman youth, the son of a
Christian mother, who, for the love of a pagan girl, goes
over to his father’s paganism, and is soon after killed in
battle, and as particularly and painfully damned, as if the
�262
The Story of a Damned Soul.
existence of God Almighty depended on it. We confess
to having misinterpreted Mr. Bickersteth, and now propose
to make amends by giving him, and our critic above named,
the benefit, first, of our explanation and apology, and second,
of a reproduction of the story of Theodore’s eternal dam
nation.
The intense anxiety of orthodoxy to get Theodore Parker
fast and sure in hell, was so great, even before Mr. Parker’s
death, as to break out in a prayer-meeting devoted to the
purpose of stirring up Jehovah to give instant attention to
the business. The recollection of this, suggested to us that
Mr. Bickersteth, whose whole work shows him entirely
capable of such a thing, had taken occasion to give assurance
that orthodox desires had been attended to. We had read
his horrible poem all the way from the account of creation
to the end, and could neither recall, nor discover upon
examination, any clue to the meaning of the “ Theodore ”
passage. We had missed the story of Theodore by not
reading one of the preliminary books, in which it comes in
as an episode, where Oriel tells how his first experience of
escorting a soul to hell was in the case of a youth by the
name of “ Theodore,” a youth of “ noble birth,” and “ high
and generous bearing,” whom he had “ fondly loved,” and
whom, nevertheless, he “ bore to his own place in yonder
realms of wrath.” We retract, therefore, the charge that
Mr. Bickersteth particularly and personally damned a
mighty enemy of orthodoxy. It was a generous youth, son
of a pagan father, and drawn, by fond human love of a
pagan girl, to depart from the faith his mother had educated
him in, whom the magnanimous singer of hell and damna
tion singled out for particular horrible mention. We
guessed wrong. Mr. Bickersteth did not strike at a great
heresiarch, to warn daring heretics; he struck at the
unconverted son of a pious mother, to warn a Mrs. Stowe,
and whoever thinks God may be pitiful to Christian mothers,
that inexorable hell cannot be so escaped, in any instance
whatever. We particularly beg pardon of the Examiner
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
263
and Chronicle for robbing its client of a portion of his elab
orately fiendish devotion to orthodoxy. It occurred to us,
when we found the poet saying, “Thus passed the centu
ries,” and then mentioning a name as having startled him,
because it was “ so familiar,” that he must refer to one of
his contemporaries, and we had no doubt that the intense
anxiety of the orthodox world to make sure of Theodore
Parker’s defeat on earth and damnation in hell, had found
convenient, disguised expression in Mr. Bickersteth’s vision.
Our secondary inference, that the mother was damned
with the son, is fully justified by the context of the passage.
“ Theodore is represented as stealing a hurried glance
“ upon a form
us,” with the thought, “ could it be his
mother ?” The Examiner and Chronicle says of our mistake
about the passage, “ All this comes of mistaking below us
(below Oriel and the poet-seer) for below him.” But in fact
the poem had described the damnation of the rebel angels
e
o
as going on below Oriel and the seer, so that
“ As their cry of piercing misery
“ From out that yawning gulf went up to heaven,
Standing upon its rugged edge, we gazed,
Intently and long, down after them;”
and immediately upon this, the lost of earth had been sum
moned to take their turn, whereupon Oriel, says the poet,
“ Spake,
“ With tears, of that which passed beneath, our feet”
The very next local allusion is the “ below us,” which tells
where Theodore saw his mother; and if “below us” is not
equivalent to “ beneath our feet,” which referred, two pages
before, to the damned, we do not understand plain language.
However, going back some seven thousand lines, to the
actual story of Theodore, it becomes plain that the poet
intended to show us how the son was damned to everlasting
hell, but the mother to everlasting heaven, and “ no breath
of useless prayer escaped his lips,” or her’s either. Will
�264
The Story of a Damned, Sold.
the Examiner and Chronicle face the honest fact here, and
permit its readers to see that its poet’s lesson, in the dam
nation of Theodore, is blacker, a thousand fold, than the
one we mistakenly pointed out? Meanwhile we invite our
readers, who can stomach as blasphemous heathenism as
superstition ever fathered, to trace with us, in Mr. Bicker
steth’s sulphurous pages, the story of a pious mother’s
son particularly damned, for a sign to maternal love that
for the impenitent dead there is possible no other doom
than “ Gehenna’s burning, sulphurous waves.”
The angel attendant of the seer who tells the vast story
of Mr. Bickersteth’s poem, is called Oriel. He points out
to the seer the road to hell, and is asked whether he has
ever been there.
“ Oriel replied, with calm, unfaltering lip,
And with his words his countenance benign
Grew more and more severely beautiful;
The. beauty of triumphant holiness,
The calm, severity of burning love.”
Is not this exquisitely satanic in conception ? Oriel had
been to hell “ thrice,” and the recollection brings to his
countenance the calm severity of love, “burning to. the
lowest hell,” as the full phrase is. The occasion which
particularly comes to his mind was this :
“ The first
Of disembodied human souls I bore
To his own place in yonder realms of wrath,
Was one I fondly loved, of noble birth,
Of high and generous bearing.”
He was “ born of Christian mother,” the wife of a Roman
consul, who himself kept the old faith of his pagan fathers.
5
“ An aged priest baptized him Theodore,
God's <71/% his mother whispered. And thenceforth
She poured upon him, him her only child,
The priceless treasures of a mother’s heart.”
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
1
265
Oriel was his guardian angel, and relates that the boy’s
home,
9
“ Unlike
The moated fortress of a faithful house,
Was ever open to the spirits malign.”
That is to say, the father not being a saint, devils had con
stant access to the young Theodore! Nevertheless, if the
“ severely beautiful ” Oriel tells the truth, “ not an arrow
reached him.” Innate depravity alone was his ruin, says
the explicitely theological angel. And yet he seems to
ascribe to the father a malign influence;—
11 The mother teaching prayers the father mocked!
And yet her spell was earliest on her child,
And strongest. And the fearless Theodore
Was called by other men, and called himself,
A Christian. Love, emotion, gratitude,
All that was tenderest in a tender heart,
All most heroic in a hero’s soul,
Pleaded on Christ’s behalf.”
Theodore was trained to arms, and joined the army of
Constantine, in the struggle against Maxentius,
“ When it chanced,
In sack of a beleagured city, he saved
A Grecian maiden and her sire from death;
Her name Irene, his Iconocles;
Among the princes he a prince, of all
Fair women she the fairest of her race,
Not only for her symmetry of form,
But for the music and the love which breathed
In every motion and in every word.”
Theodore loved her, but his suit was met with the answer,
from Irene’s father,
“ Never shall my child be his
Who kneels before a malefactor’s cross,”
vol. i.—no. 3.
5
�266
The Story of a Damned Soul.
A determination approved by Irene, who was pagan enough
to abhor the idea of worshipping an undoubted man. The
odore struggled hard,“ now cleaving to his mother’s faith,’’
and “now driven from his anchorage.” “God’s Spirit
strove with him,” and unsuccessfully, says the accurately
Calvanistic Oriel, although he—Oriel —was good enough
to “ ward the powers of darkness off,” while “ the awful
fight was foughten, ’ and give God a fair chance with the
young man. The poet is determined to clearly reveal the
inability of the Heavenly Father (and the human mother)
to save this fine youth, even when Oriel vigilantly and
successfully warded off hellish fraud and violence.” The
bad heart of the youth brought him to this decision:
“ 11 cannot leave that spirit
Angelic in a human form enshrined.
She must be mine forever. Life were death
Without her.’ And straight entering, where she leaned
Upon her father, as white jasmine leans
On a dark pine, slowly, resolutely,
As measuring every word with fate, he said,
‘ Irene, if the choice be endless woe,
For thy sake I renounce my mother’s faith:
I cannot, will not leave thee. I am thine.’ ”
That night the three escaped to the army of Maxentius;
a “soldier’s spousal” was celebrated; and the morning
brought the fatal battle. Mr. Oriel relates, with calm
severity of damning love, that Theodore rose, a desperate,
maddened, hell-inspired blasphemer, “in his eye a wild,
disastrous fire,” and “ the tempest raging in his heart, and
went
Impetuously into the thickest fight,
And prodigies of valor wrought that day,
Felling beneath his fratricidal blade
Whole ranks, his comrades and his brethren, late
Brethren in faith and arms.”
We suspect Mr. Oriel here of being an arrant liar, and
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
267
wonder that the poet-seer did not bid him go “ squat like a
toad ” at the ear of Rev. J. D. Fulton, with this part of his
tale. But we will hear from him Theodore’s end:
£< An unknown arrow, not unfledged with prayer,
Transpierced his eye and brain. Sudden he fell;
One short, sharp cry; one strong, convulsive throe,
And in a moment his unhappy spirit
Was from its quivering tabernacle loosed.”
The first cry of the disembodied soul, says Oriel, was,—
“ Mother, where art thou, mother ? where am I ?”
a cry which Oriel answered by seizing his “ fondly loved ”
charge, with a stern announcement of orders from Almighty
Power to convey him to hell. Theodore was “ submissive,”
without “ lamentations,” and without “ proud reluctances
and vain despite,” as Oriel led him hellward. But as they
advanced on the dreadfully darkening way, and “the hope
less captive gazed a long, last gaze” upon sun and stars,
“ A groan brake from him, and he sobbed aloud—
4 My mother, oh 1 my mother, from thy love
I learned to love those silent orbs of light,
God’s watchers thou didst call them, as they peered,
Evening by evening, on my infant sleep,
And mingled with my every boyish dream:
Are they now shining on thy misery ?
Who, now that I am gone, will wipe thine eyes ?
Who, mother, bind thy bruised and broken heart ?’ ”
Oriel now states to Theodors that his mother, will think
he was slain a Christian and has gone to heaven, whereat
the doomed young man expresses feelings of which Oriel
says,
44 Never will this heart forget
The impress of the look he cast on me.
He had not wept before; but now a tear
Hung on his trembling lids, through which he looked
�268
The Story of a Damned Soul.
Such gratitude as utter hopelessness
May render, .... a look which said
‘ I thank thee as the damned alone can thank;
Lost as I am, hell will not be such hell,
The while my mother thinks of me in heaven.’ ”
At last “ the iron gates of hell ” are reached, after a march
of interminable horror, through a desolate ravine, in the
palpable darkness of which the radiance of Oriel’s form, as
we can readily believe, was but “ a faint and feeble torch.”
The “ adamantine doors ” receive their victim and his
escort; Oriel conducts Theodore to a barren mountain, and
“ God looked upon him,” with his “ dreadful eye,”— not
with its full hell power, but “ half eclipsed,” yet with such
severely loving effect that to the doomed man,
“ The very air he breathed
Seemed to his sense one universal flame
Of wrath, . . . H . . and a low wail
Ere long brake from those miserable lips—
‘ 0 God, and is this hell ? and must this last
Forever ? would I never had been born I
Why was I born ! I did not choose my birth.
0 Thou, who did’st create me, uncreate,
I pray Thee. By Thine own omnipotence
Quench Thou this feeble spark of life in me.
0 God destroy me. Grant this latest boon
Thy wretched, ruined child will ever ask,
And suffer me to be no more at all.’ ”
To this “ aimless, bootless prayer,” the quite contented
Oriel replies,
“ Thou cravest what Omnipotence can do,”
but wont do, because “ Omniscient Love decrees ” damna
tion,
“ And therefore vainly dost thou now invoke
Almighty Power to thwart All-Seeing Love.”
�✓
The Story of a Damned Soul.
269
Even the “free service” of God, “justice interdicts,”
that being “heaven’s perennial joy.” “ Hades knows no
other law ” than “ passive submission ” to damnation,
“And here there is no sentinel but Glod;
His Eye alone is jailer; and His Hand
The only executioner of wrath.”
With this pungent doctrine of Moloch, Oriel proposes to
leave Theodore, while he catches a glimpse, “permitted
him by God,” of Paradise, and is moved thereby to indulge
“ idle phantasies of hope,” which Oriel, mindful of Calvinistic problems, turns back to extinguish, “ in mere pity.”
Convinced thus that there is no hope for himself, Theodore
cries out,
,
'
“ But is there not a hope
For one I briefly, passionately loved ?
*******
Tell her, in mercy tell her where I am,
What suffering—what must suffer evermore :
It may be she will turn and live. And if,
Whene’er my mother’s pilgrimage is passed,
And she, entering the gates of bliss, shall search
Through every field of yonder Paradise,
To find her only son, and search in vain,
If then thou wilt but try and comfort her—■
What way I know not, but thou know’st—and should
Her restless eye intuitively glance
Towards this valley, instantly divert
Its gaze else wither, thou wilt have done all
I ask for, and far more than I deserve.”
To which the insensate, pitiless, damnation-contriving
Oriel replies,
“Thy prayers to thine own bosom must return.”
*******
“ I leave thee in thy just Creator’s hands.”
Fifteen centuries now passed, and Oriel received orders
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
270
from the Almighty to join an embassy sent forth to
“ traverse hell in all its length and breadth,” and announce
the near approach of the judgment day. Of this Oriel
says,
“First to that mountain valley, where I left
Lost Theodore, I bent my course. 0 God !
The solemn change which fifteen centuries
In hell had written on his fearful brow.”
The further description, and the elaborate speeches ex
changed, represent Theodore as entirely converted to high
Calvinism, and quite convinced that hell-fire,—the “ veilless
blaze” of the “Dreadful Eye,” which is to come after
the judgment, will be after all the greatest possible boon,
“repressing with flame the fertility ” of “ the ineradicable
germs of sin,” though never able to extinguish them. And
to this extraordinary exposition of the divine imbecility, or
indisposition, to eradicate sin, the judicious angel gave
Theodore no opportunity to reply, but sped on his way to
advise the hellions of the speedy Second Advent of the
Messiah, making expository remarks, as he went, vindicative
of hell in general, and of particular hell for the generous
youth to whom he had been guardian angel.
To follow the story we must turn now to the ninth book
of the poem, which is called “ The Bridal of the Lamb.”
Here we hear Messiah say,
“ Now is the day of vengeance in my heart,
And now the year of my redeemed is come; ”
and we behold
“ Messiah seated on a snow-white horse
Of fiery brightness, as the Lord of hosts,
Apparelled in a vesture dipped in blood.”
In due time the Last Judgment is at. hand, and the hosts
of darkness gather in one final conspiracy,
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
271
“ When from the frowning heavens again that sound,
Which shook the first fell council of the damned,
More terrible than thunder, vibrated
Through every heart Jehovaffls awful laugh / ”
And now
“ Messiah spake again, His voice
Resounding from the jasper walls of heaven
To hell’s profoundest caves.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
and' Death and Hell,
With dreadful throes and agonizing groans,
Disgorged their dead, the lost of every age,
In myriads, small and great confusedly.”
These are all brought back to earth to resume their
bodies, which were to be “ made fit to endure the terrors
of the wrath to come.” Then the book of life is read, and
the redeemed deceived to the right hand of the Judge.
The rebel angels are damned in order, ending with the
Arch-fiend, whose head Messiah crushes with “ his burning
heel.”
“ And for a space no sound was heard. But then
It seemed the crystal anpyr^m clave
Beneath them, and the horrid vacuum sucked
The devil and his armies down . . .
To bottomless perdition.”
After this the lost of mankind are summoned, and among
them is specially observed Theodore. Then
“ The Judge arising from his throne,
Bent on the countless multitudes convict
His vision of eternaBwrath, and spake
In tones which more than thousand thunders shook
The crumbling citadel of every heart,—
‘ Depart from Me, ye cursed, into fire,
For the devil and his hosts prepared,
Fire everlasting, fire unquenchable;
Myself have said it: let it be : Amen.’
*
*
*
*
Again the floor
�272
The Story of a Damned Soul.
Of solid crystal where the damned stood
Opened its mouth, immeasurable leagues;
And with a cry whose piercing echoes yet
Beat through the void of shoreless space, the lost
Helplessly, hopelessly, resistlessly,
Adown the inevitable fissure sank,
As sank before the ruined hosts of hell,
Still down, still ever down, from deep to deep,
Into the outer darkness, till at last
The fiery gulf received them, and they plunged
Beneath Gehenna’s burning sulphurous waves
In the abyss of ever-during woe.
"
“ All shook except the Throne of Judgment. * *
The Hand that held the scales of destiny
Swerved not a hair’s breadth: and the Voice which spake
Those utterances quailed not, faltered not.
But when the fiery gulf was shut, and all
Looked with one instinct on the judgment-seat,
To read his countenance who sate thereon,
He was in tears—the Judge was weeping—tears
Of grief and pity inexpressible.
And in full sympathy of grief the springs
Gushed forth within us; and the angels wept:
Till stooping from the throne with His own hand
He wiped the tears from every eye, and said,
1 My Father’s will be done: His will is mine;
And mine is yours: but mercy is his delight,
And judgment is his strange and dreadful work.
Now it is done forever. Come with me
Ye blessed children of my Father, come;
And in the many mansions of His love
Enjoy the beams of His unclouded smil<£f
So saying, as once from Olivet, he rose
Majestically toward the heaven of heavens
In the serenity of perfect peace:
And we arose^with him.
But what of those
Who from the place of final judgment hurled,
Had each his portion in the lake of fire ?
�The Story of a Damned Soul.
273
No Lethe rolled its dark oblivious waves,
As some have feigned, betwixt that world of woe
And ours of bliss. But rather, as of old
Foreshadowed in the prescient oracles,
The smoke of their great torment rose to heaven
In presence of the holy seraphim,
And in the presence of the Lamb of God,
For ever and for ever. At the first
Nothing was heard ascending from the deep
Save wailings and unutterable groans,
Wrung from them by o’ermastering agony;
But as His Eye, who is consuming fire,
Unintermittingly abode on them,—
Silence assumed her adamantine throne.”
The One-Eyed Dread having thus attended to his ene
mies, snivelled a pretence of grief to accommodate a passage
in the New Testament, and got his red-hot look so fixed on
the damned that they burned horribly without useless wail
or groan, there roll away “ages of a measureless eternity,”
and at last the voice of “ hell’s dethroned monarch ” breaks
the silence with an elaborate confession of the dogmas and
arguments of Calvinism, ending with
“ Lost, lost: our doom is irreversible:
Power, justice, mercy, love have sealed us here;
Glory to God who sitteth on the throne,
And to the Lamb for ever and for ever.”
<
The voice was hushed a moment; then a deep
Low murmur, like a hoarse resounding surge,
Rose from the universal lake of fire:
No tongue was mute, no damned spirit but swelled
That multitudinous tide of awful praise,
‘ Glory to God who sitteth on the throne,
And to the Lamb, for ever and for ever.’ ”
H
The reader who has not made himself familiar with the
severities of damning love may imagine that the One-Eyed
�274
z
The Story of a Damned Soul.
Horror called a Lamb took off now his eye of consuming
fire, and'permitted the hellions to cool a trifle. Not he, if
he knew the catechism. On the contrary, he held on the
hotter, as the only sure thing for his glory, and the devil is
made to say pensively and submissively, at the Lamb’s hellhot look,
“ I see far off the glory of thy kingdom
Basking in peace, uninterrupted peace:
But were I free, and were my comrades free,
Sin mightier than myself and them would drag
Our armies to perplex those fields with war.
Only thus fettered can we safely gaze;
Thus only to the prisoners of despair
Can Mercy, which is infinite, vouchsafe
Far glimpses of the beauty of holiness.
Woe, woe, immedicable woe for those
Whose hopeless ruin is their only hope,
And hell their solitary resting-place,”—
/
which makes it plain that if the Fount of Hell, the Lamb’s
Dreadful Eye, should cool ever so little, to all eternity, it
would be very bad for the damned, whose only hope is in
sizzling patierroly under the merciful vengeance of the
Moloch Eye.
There is bug one more point to be made, that of the
advantage to the saints of having the damned always in
view, the happiness a redeemed mother, for example, will
feel from gazing occasionally on her Theodore—her God’s
gift—smoking in the frying-pan of the Lamb’s “ infinite
mercy,” and kept from unconverted pranks of human love
by the “ immedicable woe ” of “ hopeless ruin.” In his
closing pages Mr. Bickersteth labors to make this evident.
He seems to be of opinion that the saints would be too
happy in heaven, or on the redeemed and restored earth,
but for interesting reminiscences of damnation and occa
sional contemplation of the woes of the lost.
�275
The Story of a Damned Soul.
“ Haply such perfectness of earthly bliss,
And such far vistas of celestial light,
Had overcharged their hearts. But not in vain
The awful chronicles of time. And oft
When dazzled with the glory and the glow
That streamed from Zion’s everlasting hills,
Messiah or his ministers would tell
Rapt auditors how Satan fell from bliss,
The story of a ruined Paradise,
The foughten fight, the victory achieved,
But only with the endless banishment
Of damned spirits innumerable and men
From heaven and heavenly favor, which is life.
Nor seldom he, who strengthened human sight,
As with angelic telescope, to read
The wonders of the highest firmament,
Would bid them gaze into the awful Deep
Couching beneath; and there they saw the lost
- ...
For ever bound under his dreadful Eye,
Who is eternal and consuming fire,
There in the outer darkness.
*
*
*
That which men witnessed of the damned in hell,
By unction of the Spirit at God’s command,
Was in our gaze at will, whene’er the smoke
In mighty volumes rising from the Deep,
Blown devious by God’s breath athwart the void,
Dispersed. Nor turned we always from the sight; (
Should not the children share their Father’s thoughts ?
Should not the Wife her husband’s counsels learn?
*
*
*
*
*
*
And in the cloudless joys of heaven and earth
Haply this sight and knowledge were, to us
The needful undertones of sympathy
With Him.”
So ends the tale. The mother of our Roman youth is
with the redeemed; her husband and only child in hell. To
keep her from a surfeit of happiness the Lamb gossips with
her about the fall and damnation of spirits and men;
�276
Prospects and Purposes.
strengthens her vision so that she can distinctly see what
is going on in hell; and so brings her into sympathy with
the effects of his red-hot Dreadful Eye. Who says Amen
to this heathenism ?
The Examiner and Chronicle.
Mr. Beecher's Christian Union.
The Chicago Advance.
The Independent.
The Congregationalist and Recorder.
The Watchman and deflector, etc., etc.
Article XI.—Prospects and Purposes.
We believe we may now say, with confidence, that the
permanence of The Examiner is fully assured. We have
had to make a month’s delay, to consider difficulties and
provide resources, and for this reason, date our third issue
February, instead of January. Our enterprise is a difficult
one, but we lack neither faith nor courage, and we find
willing and strong friends. The Examiner will not die.
It is gaining noble support, and much ampler than we
expected.
Our position in a field already occupied by The Rad
ical and The Index, has a two-fold explanation. We
undertook to interpret religion and kindred themes, under
the Christian name, which The Index rejects, and with the
purpose of earnestly and definitely controverting the pseudo
Christianity of existing sects, much more than The Radical
has chosen to do this. Our views of the error and mischief
of Jesuism, either as orthodox theology or as liberal heroworship, are much more distinct and decisive than those of
contemporary liberalism. Neither The Radical nor The
Index seem to us to have illustrated full emancipation from
the current sentimentalism and unscholarly prepossession,
which have made Jesus more than a common man, and
better, for help and comfort, than the natural dependence of
�Prospects and Purposes.
277
man, the God and Father of all souls. We propose to
have the exact truth of history told about this young Jew
ish aspirant to earthly Messiahship, and the plain truth of
theology taught in regard to the absolute insignificance of
him, or any other man, where the question is of the eternal
life, the destiny and the blessedness, of the creatures of
GOD. It is time to cry Great Pan is dead, and perempto
rily to remand Jesus, the God-man, Lord and Saviour, mas
ter and hero, to his proper humble place, as in himself a
quite common and erring man, and in his providential posi
tion a standard-bearer for similar quite common and erring
men, of faith in God’s presence, without mediator or mes
senger, with every soul of man.
On the other hand we desire to resist, with all the force
of what we deem just thought and sound learning, the
theory of The Index that Christianity is to be separated from,
and that the new movement of faith is to disavow the pre
vious steps of our common humanity. Not only is there
vast power to be kept in the just weight of what has been
best in Christianity, but the connection is one absolutely
essential to the consolation, by religious teaching, of the
suffering millions. We had rather a thousand fold silence
our private opinions, and study and practice the simpler,
more universal, and always most heavenly truths of practi
cal Christianity, as a lay member, a novice or penitent, in
the Catholic church, than to join our friend Abbot in his
stupendous misrepresentation of Christianity. Not that we
shrink from any surgery of truth, lor would hesitate a
moment to give Mr. Abbot a place with us in The Exam
iner, for fair consideration of his views, and full defence of
them, but simply because, when all has been said, his con
clusion is, to us, the most unwarranted and lamentable
which an honest thinker and earnest scholar ever arrived
at. We profoundly honor our friend, whose position we thus
criticise; he has on every ground as much right to his opin
ion as we to ours; we cherish no aversion towards him as
a religious teacher, and will gladly stand anywhere with
�278
Prospects and Purposes.
him, but of what 13 to us the utterly unfit expedient of
seething the kid in his mother’s blood we will unmistaka
bly speak our mind to the end of the chapter. And we
have abundant evidence that in so doing we can render
important service to the emancipation of the public miud
from superstition, and the healthy development of free reli
gion. In general, with many exceptions of course, the
purification of faith results in a free and large comprehen
sion of Christianity, not in rejection of the connection or
the name. With Mr. Abbot’s organ (much more than with
Mr. Abbot himself), it results in a singular stringency ot
speculative doubt and reserve, which flatly forbids us to be
Christian, and hardly permits us to cherish a comfortable
thought of God. Our special hope and desire, on the contrary, is to cultivate a very great, and fervent, and fruitful
thought of God, and to make clear that this, as it is emphasized in “Our Father,” is the ever-enduring truth of Christiani ty.
The lament, or the complaint, of some of our critics, that
The Examiner is the organ of one man, bespeaks a mi-understanding of our editorial plans. To such as take a
friendly interest in our effort to conduct a monthly review
such as The Examiner is, we need say but a word in explanation of our purpose, which is to editorially bring together
the ample testimonies of literature, and make the greatest
and best minds of this and other times help to fill our pages.
To us literature is the true scripture, and it is a neglected
scripture. Lessons far richer and greater than the current
divinity knows, are scattered through the better writings
of mankind, from the time of Socrates to the present day.
To edit and publish these lessons of neglected inspiration,
to gather and set forth to the public of common readers
these contributions of unrecognized prophets, marking
their force and fairly interpreting their significance, is a
legitimate work.
And in this work we can also have the aid of many of
the best living writers, the leaders of thought and faith and
I
I
f
1
I
;
I :
I l
I
I 1
|
|
I
{
I
|
|
I
|
I
I
|
|
�Prospects and Purposes.
279
science in all parts of the world, whose best selected words
we can properly and acceptably reproduce in our pages.
Two distinguished French writers have already instructed
our readers, and Emerson, Parker, Max Miiller, Mr. Abbot,
and others have been heard in the numbers already issued.
We shall make this feature of our plan more distinct as we
go on, and have no doubt that our readers will be satisfied
of the wisdom of our aim. And in addition to this, we
*
shall secure, as our plans develop, the very best aid which
contemporary thought and learning, at home or abroad, can
furnish, in the form of original contributions prepared
expressly for The Examiner, English, French, German,
and other voices, as well as American, speaking through a
publication in the heart of our new world, to the audience
of earnest inquirers which we are gathering.
It is not too much, we trust, to ask our friends to work
earnestly for us now, with the full expectation of permanent
and complete success. To give more time for this, and to
enable us to put our regular publication-day back to the
middle of the month, we shall bring out our next number
for April, and have it ready March 15. This will make ©ur
first year of the publication (12 numbers) end with the
current year.
* There is variety enough, and richness enough, in the current expres
sion of the human race to give us more than we can possibly use. Our
work will be, as near as possible, to gather out of this unrolling scrip
ture of mankind the fact, thought, principle, life, which are the voice
of man and the voice of God in the world to-day; sometimes citing
exact words of contemporary utterances, as in our translated article,
and the numerous extracts scattered through other articles; sometimes
reporting the substance of a new or fresh page of revelation; and
sometimes entering upon a critical examination of the book, the man,
the life which merits attention.
�280
Wanted, a Moralist for Dr. Clarke’s Statesman.
Article XIII.— Wanted, a Moralist for Dr. J. F. Clarke’s
Statesman.
The title under which Dr. J. F. Clarke discoursed of
political matters, in a recent number of Old and New—
“Wanted, a Statesman,”—assumed enough in itself to
warrant us in looking for superior wisdom in the essay,
whether it dealt only with the failure of our politics, or also
went on to lay down a policy of its own. To our great
surprisel we found, under this title, some remarks as
ill-considered as'the worst parts of Dr. Clarke’s theological
treatises, not the sound wisdom of a cautious thinker, nor
even the correct views of a careful observer; but crude
observations of a deplorably careless sentimentalist, such as
we so commonly find in second-rate sermons. Take, for
example, Dr. Clarke’s solution of the Alabama question,
gravely proposed by him in an exposition of what he con
siders the statesmanship wanted by us :—
“ Great Britain either did right or did wrong. Leave it
to herself to decide which. Let Gen. Grant request our
minister to request the British Government to decide that
question, and inform it beforehand that we are ready to
accept its conclusion. If Great Britain, through her govern
ment, says that she did right, we will accept that solution,
and drop the subject; only in that case, we shall, of course,
have the right to do the same. Whenever she has a rebel
lion in her empire, or is engaged in a foreign war, we shall
have a right to do to Great Britain exactly what she did to
us. We shall take just as much pains as she did, and no
more, to keep pirates from going out of our ports, to prey
upon her commerce. If she likes this programme, let her
say so.”
This may be astute statesmanship, to leave to Great
Britain to say whether those who lost by the rebel cruisers
fitted out in British ports have any just claim upon her, and
also to leave to her prejudiced decision to settle the future
law of the matter, but at least we may deny the morality,
in case Great Britain refuses what we are sure is justice, of
�'Wanted, a Moralist for Dr. Clarke’s Statesman.
281
determining to imitate such refusal of justice the first
chance we have. As a sentimentalist, Dr. Clarke might
have said, “ If Great Britain thinks she did right, let us sayno more about it, and when our chance comes, we will
shame her neglect and treachery by scrupulous justice and
fidelity.” He would then lie open only to the charge of
unjustly sacrificing the claims of our citizens, and of yield
ing needlessly a grave point of law, merely for a burst of
sentiment. But when he advises that we yield now, and
make it up in hard hits by and by, he proposes the policy of
the cowardly savage, a statesmanship which would soon
carry the world back to the settlement of all questions by
stealthy blows of the strong hand and the wily craft of
aboriginal passion.
We introduced in our last issue, on p. 184, a barbarism,
anti Christum, etc^intending to indicate by a note that we
used it as a barbarism. Our meaning was, that if the Uni
tarians were to forget their culture and take a position in
the spirit of the expression in question, it would be better
than to dawdle disreputably about Zion waiting for the
Lord to come and claim the contents of the Unitarian
napkin.
VOL. I.—NO. 3.
6
�BOOKS'.
Plutarch's Morals—A Bible of Greek “ Grace and Truth.’'*
—What mean these five goodly octavos, with their more
than twenty-five hundred pages of the writings of a pagan
of the last half of the first Christian century? They are
published under auspices the very best which America
could afford. No house in the country, or indeed anywhere,
would be less likely than Little, Brown & Co., Boston,
whose imprint these volumes bear, to make either a com
mercial or a literary mistake, in a matter so serious as this
evidently is. So, also, the name of Prof. Goodwin argues
not less certainly that so large and difficult a task was not
attempted except for most weighty reasons. And when we
learn that the revision carried through by him has been
beset at every step with unusual perplexities, yet has been
accomplished with the utmost pains, and is evidently a
signal success, we conclude, unhesitatingly, that Plutarch’s
Morals must have merits rarely found in the productions of
any age. To confirm this conclusion, if confirmation were
needed, what witness more competent than Mr. Emerson ?
lie is the acknowledged master of the best school of
American literature, and the man of all men now living
to pass judgment on, and to authenticate to the thoughtful
and working world of to-day, any studies, ancient or
modern, in the important field of ethical science and prac
tical wisdom. If, therefore, he gives unstinted praise, we
need not wait to turn over these twenty-five hundred pages
to be convinced that something rich and rare is set before us.
* Translated from the Greek, by several hands. Corrected and revised by
William W. Goodwin, Ph.D., Professor of Greek Literature in Harvard
University. With an Introduction by Ralph Waldo Emerson. 5 vols., 8vo.,
$15. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.
�Plutarch’s Morals.
2E3
As a matter of fact, however, we had known for some
years that a certain old translation of Plutarch’s Morals,—
an extensive collection of essays by the author of the famous
“Lives,”—was esteemed by Mr. Emerson, both from the
Greek wit and wisdom garnered in it, and for the singular
vigor, freshness, and breadth of its English style, one of
the most precious bibles of mankind. We had had the use
of a copy of this translation — it is a very rare book — and
had made a selection of its richest texts; and from Mr.
Emerson himself we had learned, some time since, of the
plan for its revision and reproducEon, and of the hope
which he cherished that it would introduce to the studious
and earnest believers and workers of our day “some good
paganism.”
The labors of some forty or fifty English university men
produced the version now re-presentedftnd made it, in Mr.
Emerson’s judgment, “a monument of the English language
at a period of singular vigor and freedom of style.” Still, the
old book was “ careless and vicious in parts,” as a transla
tion, and sadly needed the improvement which ProflGoodwin’s accomplished hand has given it. And happily,Ehe
thorough revision which has made the translation faithful
to the Greek original, has proved throughout a vindication
of Plutarch, a restoratibn of clear and accurate statements
where the old version gave something absurd and unintel
ligible.
Plutarch belonged to the generation second after that of
Jesus. He was just coming to manhood when Paul ceased
from apostolic labors. The essays which are called his
“ Morals,” were written at the moment when Christian
teaching was fairly in the world, but before it had made
any appreciable impression upon paganism. If they contain
lessons of rare and gracious wTisdom, these lessons show
what paganism was capable of at the very hour when
Christianity, as popularly interpreted, claims to have found
the light of ethical and religious teaching Blean gone out.
�284
Plutarch's Morals.
The “ Lives” and the “ Morals” of Plutarch, taken together,
form a large body of history and instruction, of chronicle,
character and catechism, retold and retaught, newly narrated
and freshly expounded and enforced, at just the moment
when our popular Christianity pretends that the world of
ancient life and faith was without form and void, and dark
ness brooded over a chaos which waited the creating breath
of Divine interference through Christ. As Mr. Emerson
says, “ Plutarch occupies a unique place in literature, as an
encyclopaedia of Greek and Roman antiquity.” He is a
kind of bible of ancient faith and practice, an evangelist of
the best, in ideas and in examples, which the old pagan
world had to offer. It is worth while, therefore, to know
what his gospel is, and to compareBits truths and errors
with the truths and errors of the system which has so long
put all other systems aside, with the claim that they all
failed of grace and truth, and that it alone had the word of
lifeH
Mr. Emerson says of the “ Morals,” the sermons of
Plutarch, “ I know not where to find a book — to borrow a
phrase of Ben Jonson’s—1 so rammed with life.’ ” Plutarch
in general he pronounces “ a chief example of the illumina
tion of the intellect by the force of morals.” Other
points of the explanation and vindication of the Greek
essayist by the American, appear in the following sentences,
which we cull from the Introduction to the edition of the
“ Morals ” now before us :
“ Whatever is eminent in fact, or in fiction, in opinion,
in character, in institutions, in science — natural, moral, or
metaphysical, or in memorable sayings, drew his attention
and came to his pen with more or less fullness of record.”
—(The reason of Plutarch’s vast popularity is his humanity.
Nothing touches man but he feels it to be his. He has
preserved for us a multitude of precious sentences, in prose
or verse, of authors whose books are lost; and these
embalmed fragments, through his loving selection alone,
have come to be proverbs of later mankind.”—“Now and
then there are hints of superior science. You may cull
�Plutarch’s Morals.
285
from his record of barbarous guesses of shepherds and
travelers statements that are predictions of facts established
in modern science.”—“ His extreme interest in every trait
of character, and his broad humanity, lead him constantly to
Morals, to the study of the Beautiful and Good. Hence
his love of heroes, his rule of life, and his clear convictions
of the high destiny of the soul. La Harpe said ‘ that Plutarch
is the genius the most naturally moral that ever exist
ed.’ ”—“Plutarch is genial, with an endless interest in all
human and divine things.” — “ Plutarch thought ‘ truth
to be the greatest good that man can receive, and the good
liest blessing that God can give.’ ”—“ His faith in the
immortality of the soul is another measure of his deep
humanity. He believes that the doctrine of the divine
Providence, and that of the immortality of the soul, rest on
one and the same basis.”—“lean easily believe that an
anxious soul may find in Plutarch’s chapter called ‘Pleasure
not attainable by Epicurus,’ and his ‘Letter to his Wife
Tiihoxena,’ a more sweet and reassuring argument on the
immortality than in the Phaedo of Plato; for Plutarch
always addresses the question on the human side, and not
on the metaphysical; as Walter Scott took hold of boys
and young men, in England and America, and through
them of their fathers. His grand perceptions of duty lead
him to his stern delight in heroism; a stoic resistance to
low indulgence; to a fight with fortune; a regard for truth ;
his love of Sparta and of heroes like Aristides, Phocion,
and Cato.”—“But this stoic, in his fight with fortune,with
vices, effeminacy and indolence, is gentle as a woman when
other strings are touched. He is the most amiable of men.
He has a tenderness almost to tears, when he writes on
‘Friendship,’ on ‘Benefitsflon ‘The Training of Children,’
and on ‘The Love of Brothers.’ All his judgments are
noble. He thought, with Epicurus, that it is more delight
ful to do than to receive a kindness. . . . His excessive and
fanciful humanity reminds one of Charles Lamb, whiist it
much exceeds him. . . . His delight in magnanimity and
self-sacrifice has made his books, like Homer’s Iliad, a bible
for heroes.”
We cannot here go at length into proof from Plutarch’s
own pages, of the existence in him of a veritable revelation,
worthy to be compared, in many great and noble respects,
with anything ever indited for the instruction of mankind.
�286
Plutarch’s Morals.
In brief, we declare our unhesitating judgment that
Plutarch, pagan chronicler and moralist though he be, is as
well worth earnest and reverent study as that Bible which
has been so long thrust upon us as the only and the infallible
rule of divine truth. In our opinion, the revelation which
is contained in Socrates, Plato, Philo Judaeus, Plutarch, and
the other representatives or inheritors of Greek wisdom, is
much richer than that which we have accepted from the
Hebrews and Hebrew-Christian mind. As the words Christ
and Christianity are Greek, so the best part of our truest
Christianity is from Greek teaching rather than Hebrew,
and far the largest, and deepest, and purest fountain of
divine truth, is in the scriptures which commence with
Socrates and Plato, and which have their fourth gospel in
the “Morals” of Plutarch, as they have their Acts of the
Apostles in his “ Lives.”
’ It may seem a rude judgment in the face of current
Christian opinion, but we cannot help it. We feel no call
to respect the crass ignorance and gross superstition which
still make accredited Christian judgment, in the matter of
divine revelation, a baseless prepossession, no more just
than Hindoo, Chinese, or Mohammedan prepossession. If
the world of Christendom had spent as much pains in the
free study of Greek chronicle and exposition as have been
given to the law and gospel derived from Jewish sources,
we have no doubt that the average enlightenment and ele
vation of mankind would be very much greater than at
present. The simpler and more superstitious books have
commanded attention, and the world meanwhile has lost
fifteen hundred years, and only now begins to walk with
the best masters of paganism. It did not surprise us when
Mr. Emerson said to us, speaking of Plutarch, “ We want
some good paganism.” The study of divinity will take a step
as important as any ‘ revival of learning ’ that ever was,
when Greek Socrates shall displace Hebrew Samuel, Plato
Paul, and Plutarch John and Matthew’, aud study shall seek
�Plutarch's Morals.
287
for great thoughts, humane principles,, and manly examples
rather than waste itself on the®uperstition that one young
Jew and certain Jewish books shut up both God and God’s
truth in themselves, and that the first and last labor of
investigation is to vindicate this pretension. We will un
hesitatingly compare Plutarch alone with the whole Bible,
not to show that he avoids error, but to prove that he more
fully and more profoundly grasps essential truth, and that
on the grand points of ethical and theological teaching he
is infinitely wiser than the popular Christian interpretation
of so-called holy writ. We shall make it our duty to bring
forward proof of this from time to time, as our space and
plans will permit. In conclusion now we merely cite a few
specimens taken from the first pages of Vol. I. of the
“ Morals.”
0S'<3hr,a'tes, ^t^as be’perceived "anyfierceness of spifiT
h
*s
to rise within him towards any of his friends, setting him
self like a promontory to break the waves, would speak with
A lower voice, bear a smiling PowntenancS,, and look with a more
*
yentie'eye $ andtehusl by bending thexother way and moving
contrary to the passion, he kept himself from falling or
being worst®d^S|
“Observing that many have begun their change to virtue
more from being pardoned than being punished, I became per
suaded of this: that reason was fitter to govern with than
anger,” JI
“Good temper doth remedy some things, put an orna
ment upon others, ^udgweete^^thermiU
“ If every one would al way s rep eat th e question of Plato
to himself, But am not I perhaps sum aone
and
turn his reason from abroad to loofei into himself, and put
restraint upon his reprehension of others, he would not make
so much use of his hatred of evil in reproving other men, seeing
himsaH:
in need fgrgat. indulgonc^^jg
“ J^rnTve affl vnlwest, 1
Jimpedoelelp.as a
divine thing, ‘ To fast from evil.’ ” — From Concerning the
Cure of
�288
The Invitation Heeded.
“Atheism, which is a false persuasion that there are no
blessed and incorruptible beings, . . is very lamentable and
sad. For to be blind or to see amiss in matters of this con
sequence cannot but be a fatal unhappiness to the mind, it
being then deplved of the fairest and brightest of its many
eyes, the knowledge of God.”
“ Atheism hath no hand at all in causing superstition ;
bull superstition not only gave atheism its first birth, but
serves it ever since by giving it its best apology for existing,
whgh, although it be neither a good nor a fair one, is yet
the most specious and colorable.”
“There is certainly no infirmiB belonging to us that
contains such a multipllity of errors and fond"passions, or
that consists of such incongruous and incoherent opinions,
as this of superstition dotl3f It behooves us, therefore
to
*
do our utmost to escape it; but withal, we must see we do it
safely and prudmtly, and not rashly and inconsiderately, as
people run from the incursions of robbers or from fire, and
fall into bewildered and untrodden paths, full of pits and
precipices. For so some, while they would avoid supersti
tion,Rea® over the golden mean of true piety into the harsh
and coarse extreme of atheism.”—From Of Superstition or
Indiscreet Devotion.
The Invitation Heeded—Reasons for a Return to Catholic
Unity.—By James Kent Stone.
*
The activity of the Catholic Publication Society has been
for some time one of the signs of theKimes. It represents
an earnest school of American Catholics, whose gifts and
graceJcannot be denied. We have a shelf of the books
which have come from this school within a few years, which
we highly prize as one of the genuine fruits of contempo
rary religious activity, although much which these volumes
contain must be winowed out as mere chaff of tradition. In
our judgment the new school of Catholicism is much more
humane, sensible and religious in its literature, both books
and tracts, than the Protestant orthodoxy ^represented by
* The Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1870.
�The Invitation Heeded.
289
the Tract Societies and Publication Houses which flood the
country with cheap superstition; superstition, too, which is
absurd and cruel.
This school finds a new recruit, and a valuable one, in
the author of The Invitation Heeded. Dr. Stone appears to
great advantage in his deeply sincere, earnest and able argu
ment and appeal, which he does not confidently urge with
out having profoundly felt. We can lend a hearty sympa
thy to the deep, spiritual tones of such a man’s plea, and
challenge for him the respectful attention of his religious
contemporaries, although the opinion within the limits of
which he now attempts religion has no more practical value,
weight, or interest to us than any other hallucination of
misguided sentiment] Dr. Stone treats first of the Church
considered in certain historical aspects, such as the attitude
of the world towards it, its perpetuity, its guardianship of
morals, the failure of its great foe Protestanism, its relation
to civilization, and its asserted complicity with persecution.
In the second part of his work he deals with the Church as
a Divine Creation, under the heads of incarnation and in
spiration, infallibility, scripture, antiquity, and the signs of
the true church. The third, and concluding part, considers
the Church as an organization, or the relations of the Pri
macy to Christianity; to prophecy, to antiquity, to unity, to
authority, and to infallibility. Into the merits of the argu
ment we cannot here enter, but we can assure our readers
that they can see in these pages just how pious and earnest
men are obeying certain sentiments taught them by Chris
tianity, by going over to Romanism. And we think no
man engaged with religion can sympathetically follow Dr.
Stone’s plea through to the end without being wiser and
better for noting the aspects of experience which it discloses.
Pew readers accustomed to the assumptions of faith which
are dictated by sound reason will have ary difficulty in see
ing where Dr. Stone’s illusion is, or how it is that his logic
has constrained him to join himself to the largest historical
�290
Mommsen’s Rome.
result of the primitive Christian movement. If we did not
believe in the universality of inspiration and incarnation,
and had to assume that the creature can return to the Crea
tor only through creature mediation by Christ and the
church, we should make haste to follow Dr. Stone. As it is,
we bid him good speed into the Roman fold, but propose,
ourselves, to stay outside and take the chance of their being
God enough for all creation. We have a shrewdy guess that
the supply of Divine grace is not materially lessened, much
less exhausted, by what the Primacy has shut up in Roman
limits.
Mommsen’s History of Rome, the American edition of
which, published by Charles Scribner & Co., New York, is
now completed by the appearance of the fourth volume,
merits recognition by both critics and readers, as without
exception the finest existing account of the course of events
from the origin of Rome, and the earliest political life of
Italy, to the time when Caesar put an end to the Roman
Republic!in the year 46 B. C. The scholar finds in the fruits
of Mommsen’s labors much more than learned study in this
field has ever before achieved; fuller discovery of facts,
more just appreciation of causes, more faithful and more
complete reproduction of real features of Roman life, and
a method and style of the highest and noblest art. But
none the less does the mere reader, who wishes to be carried
along by a trustworthy and attractive recital, find in Momm
sen a guide whom it is a profound pleasure to follow. The
secret of this two-fold success of the work is in the author’s
union of learning and masterly intelligence with simplicity,
earnestness and vigor.
It is one of the most satisfactory peculiarities of study, as
the best scholars undertake it, that it demands real facts and
actual truths, and counts no cost great which adds to veri- .
tableBcnMledge. We are able now to come at a great deal
of historical truth, where heretofore we have had to put up
with traditions W’hich were in large part misrepresentations
�Froude’s England.
291
of fact, even when they were not pure inventions of igno
rance, or fictions of imagination. We rejoice in this new
fidelity of study to truth, both for its results in such resto
ration of the picture of humanity as we have an illustration
of in Mommsen’s Rome, and for what must come from the
inevitable application of it to the history of religion, which
has been with Christians a mass of misrepresentation in the
case of all other religions than their ownland for their own
a tissue of fiction and false tradition, persisted in with a
bravery of unveracity fcr which the whole history of man
kind besides affords no parallel. Dr.Mommsen tells the
story of conquering Rome down to a period very near the
era of Christianity. He is expected to go on with the nar
rative through the period of the empire, and mil thus give
us important aid in comprehending the world into which
Christian teaching penetrated. At present, however, the
work is complete. The English translation was made from
the fourth German edition, and the reprint is in Scribner’s
excellent library style, four handsome volumesBwith com
plete index, and sold at the very low price of $2 a volume.
Scribner’s edition is decidedly preferable to the English.
Froude’s History of England has extended to twelve vol
umes, covering the events from the Fall of Wolsey to the
Defeat of the Spanish Armada, and is now brought to a
close, because the author deems that he has already tres
passed too much upon the patience of his readers, and
because, although he has not reached the end of the reign
of Elizabeth, where he at first proposed to stop, he has gone
far enough to accomplish his main purpose, which was “to
describe the transition from the Catholic England with
which the century opened, the England of a dominant
Church and monasteries and pilgrimages, into the England
of progressive intelligence.”
It is not our purpose to attempt even a brief criticism of
the work which Mr. Froude thus brings to a close. Its
�292
Eroude’s England.
fascination as one of the grand stories of the world, told
with singular eloquence, need not be celebrated here. But
one remark in particular we wish to make, in justification
of the unstinted praise which we deem it but right to
bestow upon Mr. Froude’s work. It is not yet time to write
the final history of an epoch so closely connected with our
own as that in which “ the England of progressive intelli
gence” had its birth. Dr. Mommsen can write of Rome,
and Mr. Lea can write of early and mediaeval Christian
pretension, with the confidence of judicial decision, because
the one and the other have been sufficiently investigated to
be thoroughly known, and readily comprehended and
judged. The turns and problems of Roman historv are
simple, as soon as they are seen in the light of actual facts,
and even Christianity, as it took outward form in an organ
ized church, only needed to be fairly seen as it was to be
conclusively judged as the most woful defeat of the Chris
tian spirit, and most heinous outrage upon human rights.
If Christians generally do not admit this, it is only because
their prejudice loves ignorance rather than knowledge,
and deliberately excludes the light, that in complete dark
ness it may continue a pretension which every candid
scholar in Christendom knows to have no warrant whatever,
nor even the shadow of an honest excuse. But no such
judicial certainty is possible in the case which comes before
us in Mr. Froude’s volumes. We are hearing the pleas of
great advocates, and must continue so to do for a long time
to come. Mr. Froude is an advocate worthy of the field
into which he has entered, in thoroughness of learned
study, in penetration and vigor of thought, in profound and
glowing sympathies, and in earnest eloquence. The course
of his great story commands our deepest interest at every
step, and if we cannot feel on all points that historv utters
through him her conclusive word, we nevertheless are con
scious that no such plea in her court has been made before,
touching this matter of the transition from Catholic England
to the England of progressive intelligence, and that very
�The Library of Wonders.
293
much which Mr. Froude so eloquently urges will appear in
the final verdict of the tribunal of coming time. The story
is a long one, but we can hardly wish that there were less.
In fact we hope that Mr. Froude may yet carry out his
original purpose, and go on to the end of Elizabeth’s reign.
The twelve volumes which now complete the work are
brought out in three styles by its American publishers,
Charles Scribner & Co.; a large paper edition at $5 a
volume, a library edition at $3 a volume, and a capital
popular edition at $1.25 a volume.
The Illustrated Library of Wonders, a translation of which
is in course of publication by Charles Scribner & Co., was
immediately successful on its first appearance in Paris, and
seems hardly less popular in America. Eighteen volumes
of Scribner’s edition are already out, and eleven more are
to appear shortly. One of the last published volumes,
however, Lighthouses and Lightships, is chiefly an English
work, and the entire series has been edited by English
hands. These volumes, in their proper place, as stories of
science told for the entertainment and instruction of un
learned and uncritical readers, fully deserve the welcome
they have received, and one much wider still which we
cannot doubt they will‘obtain. They are just the sort of
books which are needed in the popular library and on the
household book-shelf, attractive with their numerous illus
trations, entertaining and readable in matter and style, and
full of information, suggestion, and intellectual stimulus.
The titles of the volumes already published are, Thunder
and Lightning; Wonders of Optics; Wonders of Heat;
Intelligence of Animals; Great Hunts; Egypt 3,300 Years
Ago; Wonders of Pompeii; The Sun; The Sublime in
Nature; Wonders of Glassmaking; Wonders of Italian
Art; Wonders of the Human Body; Wonders of Architec
ture; The Bottom of the Ocean; Winders of Acoustics;
Lighthouses and Lightships; Wonderful Balloon Ascents;
and Wonders of Bodily Strength and Skill. Price per
vol., in scarlet cloth, gilt backs, and printed on very nice
paper, $1.50.
�264
The Geology and Physical Geography of Brazil.
The Geology and Physical Geography of Brazil, by Ch.
Fred. Hartt, which Fields, Osgood & Co. have just published,
forms an elegant octavo of above 600 pages, enriched with
73 illustrations and a large and valuable map, and completed
by an excellent index (price $5). In form, therefore, it is
worthy of the place which its author and publishers propose
for it, as one volume of the “ Scientific Results of a Journey
in Brazil, by Louis Agassiz and his travelling companions.”
It seems to us still more worthy of its ,place among the
fruits of the “Thayer Expedition” to Brazil, in the scien
tific excellence, and in the great interest, of its matter. It
was at first the intention of Prof. Hartt to make the work
embr|pe merely the results of his explorations as geologist
of the expedition under Prof. Agassiz, together with those
of a second journey made by himself, independently; but,
happily for the public, the studies incidental to the prepa
ration of the matter for the press, led to a considerable
expansion of this plan, and we now have a general work
which incorporates with the results of recent investigation
all that is most valuable in previous works on the geology
and Physi°al geography of Brazil. We note with special
satisfactions also, the strong terms in which Prof. Hartt
announces his indebtedness to the people of Brazil, and his
“ sincerest wish in acknowledgment of so much kindness
to be to some humble degree instrumental in removing
false Jmpressions so current about Brazil, and to make the
tesourcegof the empire better known in America.”
It would be of no avail to attempt, in a brief notice, to
give a just idea of the store of facts about Brazil which
this rich volume contains. Prof. Hartt takes us from prov
ince to province, over the great field of his explorations,
along the extensive coasts, up rivers and through forests,
over plains and mountains, until he has shown us the whole
face of the land, has pointed out to us its striking features
and its most remarkable objects of interest, when we feel
almost as if we had ourselves probed the soils, hammered
the rocks, inspected the corals, brought to light the treasures
■
�Margaret, a Tale of the Real, Etc.
295
of caves, threaded the forests, and otherwise gathered the
elements of a complete sketch of that great region which
Brazil is. Not only will students of science receive this
volume with particular satisfaction, but whoever is practi
cally interested in the resources of South America, and its
opportunities for enterprise, will find in it a trustworthy
guide to an extensive knowledge of important facts, while
to all who acknc wledge the duty of acquainting themselves
with the great regions of. the earth as. the seats of human
life, it will render a great and grateful service.
Margaret, A Tale of the Real and the Ideal, Blight and Bloom, by
Sylvester Judd, is a New England classic, a true picture out of the
quaint, sweet, homely life which a gentle parson such as Sylvester
Judd was loved to move in and portray. Time but adds to its value.
If it were not a picture which the press can multiply, it would speedily
become a work of price, as one of the choicest remaining illustrations
of manners and men of the genuine New England which is passing
rapidly away. Happily a new edition can reproduce for a new gene
(
*
ration of readers every line of Judd’s masterpiece, as undoubtedly
future editions will transmit the wise and beautiful tale to future gen
erations interested to study, and able to take delight in, the by-gone
New England. Mr. Judd was one of the earlier apostles of sweetness
and light, a very true and pure soul emancipated by graces of charac
ter and clearness of intelligence from the old dark creed of the Puri
tans. He became-a saintly teacher of charity, justice, and faith, as he
found these impersonated in him to whom he looked, without worship,
but with reverence, as his guide, friend, and Master, and the helpful
and friendly Master of all the sons® of men. One aim of hi® tale was
to bring back to his readers the simple, natural humanity of the ideal
Christ, which was to him the actual leader of life, and so to give to
whoever could accept it a gentle,Hiving guide and Reacher in place of
the half awful, half absurd Jesus of Puritan theology. In this aspect
the book is twenty-fold more available now than it was when Mr. Judd
first gave it to the world, twenty years ago, because the popular con^i
ception of the Christ has come round very largely to the view which is
so admirably illustrated in Margaret# But Mr. Judd was more an
artist than a theologian, and made a capital tale of real life rathe© <
*
than a religions treatise. He will be increasingly honored and loved
�296
Immortality.
by all readers who know how precious a thing is a true, simple'
impressive picture of wholesome realities, as they were seen by him,
and were portrayed with photographic accuracy. The present edition
is in a very neat volume from the pre'-s of Roberts Brothers, Boston.
Price $1.50. We shall take a future occasion for criticising Mr.
Judd’s view of the ideal, “ self-wrought,” perfection of Jesus, which
we deem as far from radical truth lying before it as it is in advance of
the Puritan idea which it had displaced. Meanwhile we can promise
our readers a rich repast in Mr. Judd’s beautiful pages, and trust
many of them will place Margaret among their choicest books.
Immortality. Four Sermons preached before the University of Cam
bridge. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1868. By J. J. Perowne, B. D.
Published by A. D. F. Randolph, New York. These lectures, which
only profess to be “ a fragmentary contribution to the literature of
a great subject,” may be profitably consulted as an able recent
evangelical attempt to prove that life and immortality are revealed
through the Christ of orthodoxy alone. The first discusses the theories
of materialism, of pantheism, and of spiritism. The second treats of
Egyptian, Greek, and Oriental faith, and failure of faith, in immor
tality. In the third we are shown the hope of the Jew, which is
found on a cursory examination to be “ no advance whatever upon the
pagan system,” yet is finally thought to have been “ brighter and
truer than that of the wisest of the heathen,” because so clearly
implied in the doctrine of a near relation of the soul to God. In the
concluding chapter, the hope of the Christian is set forth as resting
on two facts, the resurrection of Christ, and the inner life of the Spirit.
The general fairness, sincerity and thoughtfulness of the work are
worthy of praise. It opens a great subject, the critical examination
of which, as handled by Mr. Perowne, we shall return to at a suitable
future time.
If our readers are acquainted with the little books entitled Arne,
and The Happy Boy, they will eagerly accept a third from the same
source, a little volume of stories of Norwegian and Danish origin, with
the title The Flying Mail, Old Olaf, and Railroad and Churchyard,
published in very tasteful style by Sever and Francis, Boston. Arne,
and The Happy Boy, which the same publishers introduced to us in
an English translation, were delightful specimens of the current
fiction of Norway, stories by Bjornstjerne Bjornson, a simple, pure,
and touching painter of human life and passion in the land of the
northmen. They were a real addition to our treasures, at once works
of real art, and transcripts of pure nature, from a field in which nature,
human and other, possesses an unique interest. In the little volume
before us the third of the stories is by Bjornsen. The first is by
Goldschmidt, a Danish writer famous in his own country, and the
second by Mrs. Thoresen, a countrywoman of Bjornson. They all
have the same fine flavor of simple nature, and make together a
charming little book.
�
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 Examiner: a monthly review of religious and humane questions, and of literature. Vol. 1, February,1871, no. 3
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Winnetka, IL.]
Collation: [201]-296 p. ; 25 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Contents include: Unitarian leaders -- Theodore Parker's character and ideas.
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
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5449
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Periodicals
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 Examiner: a monthly review of religious and humane questions, and of literature. Vol. 1, February,1871, no. 3</span><span>), 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
Religion
Unitarianism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/18608eafe43e04ad1bb0caba1ac3b215.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OWDmAnFbraeaKV2wh301rbnIFfc718w9drqck3SOMUUraqL3AA0eXvMUYQ9VcwAuOr0GARpyc9fOowt8vA0pXMkjoU3egshFsyC3eB273l6TgUvBKyjRFDPTbdoUsUpQjZ8zr7f%7EBFUTgmP6eJg8ByyHrHjm6d8i5KhGkDUP5XAo2YcsOlEUcNW7iRlMA9a1xGpxjxrSZ3Ld0nh2gUVZFE0yCmhdjNDdzTi7ErwPVL3DOD-QXpPh6646TwYh78dMtqku999nMcGX05yD5g40YpqOUC-K55LXG-hdUYUlWQmuSU52vzzPHZAHbzNUGUuVzVLaRXjKQqLUOywlVO4qvg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7b1a78f96ea66e4545ab289886b38574
PDF Text
Text
Cl if#
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.
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 : lMan 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.
$
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.”
For 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? 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 Gentury, 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 Hindostan 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 heen 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, be 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 them 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 w’ere 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 irreligious—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 Eeligion. 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
and 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 ‘ Origin of
Civilization;’ and the reports of several Royal 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 1 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 Dobritzzh offer 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.
13
might he inclined to him or turned from him, and
which will, working in the stone like passion in him
self, rendered its hardness and power of motion more
serviceable or more hostile to him—then we consider
that he attained to the state of religious 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, &c., 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 two ways.
It shows that the god and the religion of the “heathen”
are not the invention of a devil; and that the god and
the religion of the Christian can be traced to the same
origin 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
seems 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 back 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 j
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 light, 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.
x5
which, promises not only perfectly to explain the past,
bnt also to make men feel truly akin to the present.
But the Evangelical school will not permit the name
“ 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 human life; 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 obj ect 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 dis
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
�i6
On Religion.
same, so that if the product of the Bihle 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.
17
by hope as well as fear. If, therefore, we must with
hold the epithet, 11 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 back 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, ‘ 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 pas
ture, &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 mild at
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.
*9
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
il black and mischievous, delighting to torment them
various ways.” “ 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 ?
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 ; 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.
2I
never 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 to them; it remains to be seen whether,
after they learn 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
Bare reason, and look before and after.” (2.) As regards
the question of religion: some of the most highly edu-,
eated 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 j 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 in
quiring 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
object, remarks
“ It may not be consonant to usage
to call this a religion; 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 SPEAKS, 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: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "by a former elder in a Scotch church". Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT203
G6274
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (On religion), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/da5b3b0b8cbb172c9ae36cb11d6c2f6a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cv3Y4yNB0FesLCM4CvbtplMmahM%7E6FhdLxwV3nXw%7EhHRes1K6YVhN2wOaLHEwf5urE8lTlYUQubuPGCmBfbp%7EXnkNTYR0AY7myA34NZlHdcwK%7EEcHVpKvJJ4k9sRLPJAUnDZ0RAM-mcyrtAERjrB7DvPQNuc9wZWkT-vR9wbZ1VNWp7zaIM0fw9yjhR4M8ll6GXQM%7ERq3nj6Slq0DFXLaHHAogUwYGqvi%7EN7vYF%7EfEOozHlujR-fGhomI22tkvYHvTnoxoEIEUwg5A1zFrLKtQgP4%7EosKfPEnV7e9Mc1p4nQHYj%7EdrcI4OgqC4Mufi57ZOXOs1kgxiSQdFbD5-Dbcg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7dcc723cbb6ace27db34a4cda7599935
PDF Text
Text
The sketch, of the character and temperament of St. Paul in his
relation to the doctrine of the resurrection is as important as it is
interesting. The spirit of the volumes is 'summed up in the follow
ing words, with the quotation of which we for the present earnestly
commend the book to the attention of our readers—
“Although we lose a faith which has long been our guide in the past,
we need not now fear to walk boldly with Truth in the future, and turning
away from fancied benefits to be derived from the virtue of His death, we
may find real help and guidance from more earnest contemplation of the
life and teaching of Jesus.”
N
We presume that the chapters in Mr. Conway’s work10 have been de
livered as lectures in South Place. No one could listen to them, few could
read them, without stimulus to thought, without being obliged to say, Do
I or do I not believe in the things which are- here so fiercely assailed as
merely old wives’ fables ? It is well to break idols—it is well often
to be full of scornful irony in the breaking—it is well to show, as Mr.
Conway is never tired of doing, the comparative mythology of religions ;
but the idol-breaker and the comparative mythologist perhaps lose
necessarily a something of reverential spirit that we should like to
find in all teachers, and a power of sympathy with what is true among
the felicities of the past.
One of the most striking lectures in the book is concerned with the
Ammergau miracle-play, in which he draws a very skilful contrast)
between the ideal Christ of the Church and the Christ as represented
in the Gospels ; but we cannot help thinking that his picture is ex
tremely overcharged from a desire of being original, and of differing,
not only from most Christians, but from most free-thinkers.
We are sure that few will agree with Mr. Conway’s estimate of the
manner in which Christ shrank from death, as put out by him in the
following passage—
“ Again and again had Christ tried to escape this danger (death), even
with dexterity, and on his trial he fenced with every art of speech and
silence. When he saw the coils of priestly hatred closing around him,
his soul was exceeding sorrowful. Death haunted him. When a woman
anointed him tenderly, the odour reminded him of death. i She embalms
me for burial,’ he cries, and his very words shudder. He meets his
disciples at supper ; but when he sees and tastes the red wine, that too
suggests death ; he recoils and cries, ‘ It’s my blood ! Drink it yourselves
—I’ll never taste it again ! ’ ”
In a hasty survey of the good and evils of Christianity, the same or
greater want of real sympathy and interest is shown. “ Idols and
Ideals” is a striking but extremely irritating book, attracting by its
brilliancy, repelling by its cold, metallic hardness.
The Hon. Albert Canning has written an essay 11 which, as its seems
to us, would be far more in place in the pages of a magazine than pub10 “ Idols and Ideals.” By Moncure D. Conway, M.A. London: Trubner&
Co. 1877.
11 “ The Political Progress of Christianity.” By the Honourable Albert S. G.
Canning. London: Smith, Elder, & Co. 1877.
�220
®
Bish pH as a substantial book. For it is too hasty, and is too m"ch
occupied with temporary judgments and modern newspaper litera
ture, to have any real and permanent value. It is an examination into
the comparative civilisation attained by Christian nations and those
under the sway of Islam ; and he considers it evident that, in modern
times, at least, no country except under Christian political rule has
attained to real civilisation. Mr. Canning has drawn carefully on all
authorities which tend to prove his point, but it is a one-sided and
argumentative rather than an exhaustive examination into the ques
tion. It is, however, worth reading as a statement of one side of the
v question.
“No task,” says Miss Whately,12 “ can well be undertaken by a
Christian writer more painful than that of controversy with fellowt Christians.” If such be the case, we can only say that almost every
V theological work ever written must have brought to its author many
terrible pangs ; for, with the rarest possible exceptions, every statement
of faith and doctrine in every language consists in large measure in
running down the faith and doctrines of somebody else. Miss Whately
gives herself the terrible pain of assailing, on evangelical grounds, the
doctrine and practices of the sect known as the Plymouth Brethren.
The whole controversy seems to us so very puerile, that we need only
draw attention to it as another indication of the intestine convulsions
that are shaking religious Protestantism to its foundations.
“ Scepticism and Social Justice ” 13 is an enlarged reprint of a little
work formerly published in Mr. Scott’s well-known series of tracts. It
contains a sketch of the aspect in which the controversy about the authen
ticity and the credibility of the Bible presents itself to an intelligent
layman who has no time to study the subject profoundly at first hand.
He challenges the clergy either to refute the attacks which have been
brought on the received theology and Scripture history, or else to allow
the sceptic to hold his own without placing him under a social stigma.
It is not enough, Mr. Bastard thinks, to say that in the large centres
of civilisation no social stigma attaches to the upholders of sceptical
opinions. He is writing in behalf of those who live in country neigh
bourhoods, where thinkers are few, and where orthodoxy and ecclesiasticism are still rampant. It is a temperate, well-written, though not
profound pamphlet, kindly and considerate to those from whom it asks,
but perhaps asks in vain, equal kindness and consideration.
Mr. Bacon 14 is an American living in Switzerland, who has contri
buted papers to various American periodicals for some time past. His
collected volume, dealing on questions connected with the Church on
the Continent, the Catholic reformation in Switzerland, the Old Catholic
Congress, on the temperance reformation, &c., are better worth reading
than are most volumes of connected essays.
12 “ Plymouth Brethrenism.” By E. J. Whately. London : Hatchards. 1877,.s
13 “ Scepticism and Social Justice.” By Thomas Horlock Bastard. , London :
Williams & Norgate. 1877.
„ n
14 “ Church Papers.” By Leonard Woolsey Bacon. London : Trubner & Lo.
1877.
\
‘‘ ’
•
'_i -
-
■ ,
J
7?^' *
�
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
[Idols and Ideals]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: p. 219 ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A review, by an unknown reviewer, of Moncure Conway's work 'Idols and Ideals' from 'Theology'. Date and issue number unknown.
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
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5611
Subject
The topic of the resource
Book reviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work ([Idols and Ideals]), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Conway Tracts
Moncure Conway
Religion
Superstition
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2a91820324ed4505cc3dd2fef6b691b4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=L8WTabEw6OkTpFtvcKnQR-SiD19Qo77FlUoJbTF8RjaJNWm2PSBaTn-2l%7EaJWhgElbuJJgwpEoeGdQXBCHpucFMl6th9KyJy7yBzse2UIKNkt2tHPlJuMy7ng%7EZtDidFlKquTVrUWzUqsjwmc9NkB3cMkWNVoTx-j4Qv4p%7En6XWAYUVwNzy5xtPQ72g8UiXtn0st37EyVuUoPcUp4fSpNLuzTARCFzRc7ALCwmFpwIuOPNaq6lOWien7-elQO2V%7EJzd7RnZqr4ymy2TaBcOfZavHG87oKcMDXawo-bfs2a7qCFs2jUcr2bPcln4-gkvFcyttfGDg5MYxI-FT7wgQOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1adde2d2285d142723f4e47448b51cda
PDF Text
Text
Srutfts
FOR
OUR DAYS.
��<rutt)S for our Baps.
(Introductory Number.)
THE
SECOND COMING OF THE LOED.
Owing to the smallness of our space, the momentous
Subject now treated of can be considered only from one point
of view.
• When our Lord was holding His last conference with His
Apostles oh the evening of His betrayal, and their hearts were
filled with sorrow, He consoled them with the oft repeated
promise, that He would assuredly return to them again. “I go
to prepare a place for you ; I will come again and receive you
to myself.” “I will come to you.” “I go away and come
again to you.” “ A little while and ye shall not see me, and
again a little while and ye shall see me.” {John,chs. xiv &xvi.)
■ Jesus had often spoken to the multitude in parables, but
His custom was to speak clearly and confidentially to His
■Apostles. His words—they might be considered His dying
words—were, therefore, as distinct and unequivocal as words
could be ; and so the Apostles understood them ; for they
said {John xm, 29.) “Lo, now speakest Thou plainly, and
speakest no proverb.” Their Lord and master had sojourned
among them, not as a spirit or phantom, but as a true and
■.very man. He was leaving them for a while : but, even as He
left them, so would He return to them again,—man, glorified,
yet true and very man.
Thus comforted, the Apostles could let their Lord depart
from them for a season ; and in the hope of soon seeing Him
. again, they went about the work which He had left them to
do. They all looked for His coming, bore testimony to it,
and, to the last moment of their lives, prayed for it.
The one end of their ministry, indeed, was neither more
. iior less than a preparation for this event, its crowning comple
ment and glory. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” “Every man
�2
that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even an He is
pure.” (i John, Hi, 3.)
The earliest writings of St. Paul are his two Epistl es to the ’
Thessalonians. The “waiting for the Lord from heaven” is
distinctly referred to in each of the eight chapters which these
Epistles contain ; and the Canon of Holy Scripture itself
closes with the earnest breathing of the same long-treasured
hope, through St.John: “Even so, come quickly, Lord
Jesus ! ”
Yet the Lord has not come,—the expectation of the
Apostles has not hitherto been fulfilled, and the Christian
Church has lost, not only the hope, but even, to a great extent,
the desire of meeting her Head. “Where is the promise of
His coming ? ” is the demand of many in these last days, as’
was foretold by St. Peter. Why did not the Lord come to His'
Apostles, as He promised-them ?” God Himself gives the
answer, and a mournful one it is. The Church has not been
ready to meet her Lord. “The Lord is not slack concerning
His promise, but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ’
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”’
(2 Peter, in, 9, 10.) Yes, it will come, and that speedily. :
It is the object of Satan to blind men’s hearts; that so that
day may come upon them unawares, Let us briefly consider
one or two of the most prominent fallacies, which he has
conjured up for this purpose.
First; that the coming of the Lord means death.
Now, not only has the Lord nowhere said that death was
synonymous with His coming, but, on the contrary, while He
constantly warns us to be prepared for His coming, He has
never once specified death as the object of watchfulness! Nay
on one occasion he drew a marked distinction between the
two events; for, while foretelling to St. Peter the death thatawaited him, He remarked of the disciple whom He loved
“If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”
As if he had said to Peter “You are to glorify me in dying; another lot may be his, namely, to live to meet me.” Christ
is the Lord of life ; death is the enemy of Christ, whom He
will eventually destroy. We are to pray for the coming of
the Lord, but surely not for death, which, along with hell,
is to be cast into the lake of fire ! (Pev. xx, 13.) The ’
believer, at his decease, departs to be with Christ; but in no •
sense does Christ come to him.
”
�3
Second ; that the coming of the Lord is surely spiritual,
and takes place to men when they are converted to Him.
The earlier part of this paper should suffice to dispose of
such an idea ; for it shows that Christ will assuredly come
personally. But we are not left to reason merely from analogy
on so important a matter. In the last words of our Lord,
already referred to, He spoke not only of His own Coming,
but also of another coming, entirely distinct therefrom. He
spoke of the coming of the Holy Ghost, whose operations
within the spirits of men, bring about what is meant by
conversion and sanctification, in their highest sense : “I will
pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that He. may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth.’’
“The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, {not Jesus himself)
whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you
all things.” John xiv, 16 and 26.)
Within twelve days of our Lord’s ascension, this promise
was fulfilled. The Holy Ghost came down on the day of
Pentecost; and, though often resisted, He abides in the
Church for ever. But, far from the Apostles considering this
to be the fulfilment of the Lord’s declaration, that He would
Himself come again, it was only when they were thus endowed
with the Holy Ghost, that they could fully enter into the
sorrow of Christ’s absence, and the urgent need of His return
The Comforter is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
He speaks not of Himself, but testifies to the Son. By His
testimony He leads Christ’s Disciples to appreciate the
desolate state of the Church, and the want of all true blessed
ness in the world, while the Lord is absent; and He gives
them, by His own indwelling, some foretaste of the glory and
immortality, which Christ shall bring with Him. Thus it is
that the Comforter fills the hearts of the Disciples with the
desire for the Lord’s return, and inspires them continually
to utter the cry : “Come quickly, Lord Jesus 1 ”
There is a blessed sense, indeed, in which the Lord has
come again. By the Holy Ghost, He is even now present
with His people; but in that sense he was equally present,
during all the time when the Apostles were praying, and
teaching the Church to pray, for His personal Advent.
We may rest assured, then, that the Lord is coming, and
coming personally, even as He went. Of another fact we
may be equally assured, namely, that His Advent will be
�4
sudden and unexpected. Men will be eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, buying and selling, when
lo, the great event, the event of all events, will take place 1
And will the world be converted and holy at that time ?
The world will be in its very worst and wickedest state ; evil
will be rampant; God’s cause at the lowest ebb ; just as is
how rapidly becoming the case. {See Tract VII.')
There remains one more question, and it is indeed
momentous. Is the Lord’s coming really at hand ? Is it
likely to take place in our day ?
, We believe that the Lord's coming is at hand, and that it is
likely to take place in our day, and may take place at any
moment. We shall not notice the objection, that He will not
come personally, till the end of the millennium, farther than,
by asking: “Whence the need of present watchfulness, if a
thousand years must first elapse ? Surely the millennium,
the blessed period when Christ shall reign, has not yet come?”
■Whoever consults writers on Prophecy will find that while
they may differ on many points, they agree on this, that we
are arriving at the very end of the present Dispensation.
It is difficult, indeed, to study the Sacred Writings without
coming to that conclusion ; for every sign connected therein
with the event is now visible in the Church and in the World.
And there is a sign, a notable one, which few recognize or
observe, but to which the writer of this paper, and those who
believe with him, give solemn testimony.
Previously to the coming of the Lord in humiliation, John
the Baptist was sent in the spirit and power of Elias, to
prepare His way before Him. Now that He is coming a
• second time, another messenger, in the spirit and power of
Elias, is sent before His face. God has restored Apostles to
His Church, to bring back to the ways of holiness, and to the
realities of holy worship, all who will hear His voice through
them, and to anoint them with the Holy Ghost {Tracts VII
and PZZZ), that so they may escape the judgments that are
impending over apostate Christendom, and may stand before
the Son of Man. He inspires Prophets, also ; who, speaking
in His name, proclaim the speedy coming of the Lord.
r
Let all be warned, therefore, “The Lord is nigh, even at
the door, “Behold the Bridegroom cometh 1 go ye out
to meet Him.”
___ ________ ____ __________________ ___________ —--------
> .
j PRINTED FOR W. ANDERSON, BY JOHN FLINTOFF, NOTTINGHAM.
c
J;
�Crutijs for our Daps.
i.
• REDEMPTION.
The purpose of God in creating Man was, to reveal
Himself by him, and so to bring His own love and power
into manifestation. Man’s calling, therefore, is to be God’s
vicegerent on earth, the means whereby the mind and will
of God should be declared and conveyed to all creation.
No other creature can fulfil that office ; for man alone was
made for it. He was created in God’s image.
But, alas ! man yielded to the suggestions of the Evil One ;
he failed in God’s hand ; he marred His scheme ; and Satan
prevailed for a season. Yet must God’s eternal will be done,
and the wisdom of His vast design be vindicated; and for
the honour of His own name, and for the infinite love that
that He bore to His creature, man must be redeemed and
delivered from the effects of His fall.
To this great work God addressed Himself. Fallen man
could not help in any way ; he has no more part in his own
redemption, than he had in his own creation ; salvation, from
beginning to end, is of God. A remedy had been foreseen
in the councils of omniscience, and now it was to be applied,
man was to be redeemed by the Son of Man. Since by man
came death, by man, also, was to come the resurrection from
the dead. "God had said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall
�2
die ; ” and atonement must be made with blood. And, as he?
that makes atonement for others must himself be sinless, it
Wasnecessary that the victim should be pure, in order that
the sacrifice might be accepted.
Two things, consequently, were required : a spotless victim,
and that victim a Man. But every child, naturally begotten,
is born unclean, because of Adam’s guilt; his life is forfeited,
and he must necessarily die, as the scion of a condemned
race. How, then, can the seed be found who can die for his
brethren ? How can the unclean thing produce the clean ?
God alone could solve the problem. He gave His own
Son to become Incarnate—the Holy One of God, in whom
could be no sin. And He in taking our nature, was still the
Holy One of God : for, although He received His substance
of His mother, and was made very man, yet having been
conceived by the Holy Ghost, and not by ordinary generation,
His life was not derived immediately from Adam, but from
God.
He was, therefore distinct from that line which
inherited death as its birthright; and the taint of original
sin did not, and could not, affect Him.
Having thus been bom “ the Holy Thing” Jesus kept
Himself, so that the Wicked One touched Him not. In
the very nature which we so sadly defile, He lived holy,
• harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, though
tempted in all points like as we are. God incarnate He
came to seek and to save that which was lost; and when, for
our sakes, He had patiently endured, in life the effects of the
curse, He offered Himself up to God, without spot, a full
and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
By this great work of Atonement the way is open for man
to return to God : God can be just, and yet the justifier of
of him that believeth in Jesus.
But something more was necessary for man’s redemption.
God had created him for Himself, to show forth His glory
�3
in him; and Satan had obtained possession of God’©
creature. From this state of bondage man must be rescued,
and brought back to his true allegiance : and this also did
Jesus, in His own person. He cleansed the human heart
from defilement, and fixed it upon God; He sanctified the
thoughts and affections at their source ; He regulated the
will, and subjected it to holy obedience ; and, holding every
energy of His being under control, He presented Himself,
body, soul, and spirit, to the service of man’s rightful Lord.
And thus, in His person, was the handiwork of God in
our creation approved, the wisdom of His plan justified, and
man himself rescued from the grasp of the oppressor, and
restored to the service of God. And all this was done by
Him as Man, and within the limits of our nature. Man was
again God’s servant, the minister of His blessing, the revealer
of His mind, the executor of His purpose.
Nor did the work even end here. The promise of restor
ation was made to man, not to a spirit.
Upon man,
composed of body, soul, and spirit, came the curse, and
from the curse must man be delivered. Redemption, therefore,
is perfected only in Resurrection. The Holy One died, and
was buried. He rose again, the third day, and Redemption
wras completed in the person of Jesus, the God-Man.
And for whom was this mighty work accomplished ?
For man ; for Adam’s fallen race.
To every being,
therefore, who partakes of that nature which Jesus has
redeemed, is the word of this salvation sent; that “God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them ; ” that, “when we were enemies
we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son ; ” that,
“when we were without strength, in due time Christ died
for .the ungodly ; ” that, as we had sold ourselves for nought,
God had redeemed us without price ; having “so loved the
world, that He spared not His own son, but delivered Him
up for us all.’’
�4
The Atonement has been made, the Sacrifice has been
accepted, and the forgiveness of sin is proclaimed, through
Jesus Christ. He that believes receives the blessing ; he
that believes not makes God a liar, and is condemned because
he rejects the grace, and refuses the mercy so freely offered
to him. A perfect salvation is wrought out for us all, in
Christ ; but though wrought out for us, it does not find
application to us, except we repent of our sins, and believe
in the Son of God.
*
Turn, therefore, from every evil way ; and with the eye of
faith behold Him who was dead and is alive again, seated
at the right hand of God, the token of our acceptance with
Him. And be sure that the newly-awakened sinner and the
veteran soldier of Christ have the same steadfast ground of
hope and consolation, while they ‘‘behold the Lamb of God
that taketh away the sins of the world.”
PRINTED FOR W. ANDERSON, BY JOHN FLINTOFF, NOTTINGHAM.
�Crutfjs for our
ii.
REGENERATION.
We are all, by nature, born in sin, and children of wrath ;
we enter upon our earthly course prone to evil, and averse
from good; “ from the womb we go astray, speaking lies.”
We are not masters of ourselves; we are not freemen, but
slaves of the evil one.
Into such a condition are we introduced by natural de
scent from the first Adam. And such must have continued
to be our lot, had not another Adam been found, a second
Head of the human race, whose origin is pure, whose life
springs are unpoisoned, whose energies are free, and who,
being personally uncontaminated by the corruption of the
first Adam, can, therefore, communicate the purity, the
freshness, the vigour of His own life to those who spring
from Him.
The Lord Jesus Christ, having taken our nature under
the circumstances of the Fall, having been “ made a curse
for us,” paid the penalty due to Adam’s transgression, and
died: but God raised Him from the dead, and gave Him a
new and heavenly life, by which the nature of man had
never before been energised, and in which He lives for
evermore.
The earthly Adam came into being by creation. He was
made “ a living Soul.” The heavenly Adam was begotten
from the dead by the power of the Holy Ghost, and en
tered upon life by resurrection, and became “ a quickening
Spirit.” And as Adam is the natural head and represen
tative of man in his creation standing, brought under the
curse by the fall; so the Lord Jesus becomes the spiritual
head and representative of man delivered from that curse,
and made partaker of His eternal life by regeneration.
�2
y
But what is Regeneration ?
Regeneration is nothing less than new birth, a being be
gotten again, and made alive with a new life. It is a de
liverance from, and passing out of, a condition of existence
in which man is subject to Satan, and obnoxious to God’s
curse, by entrance upon one in which he is justified, ac
cepted, and made partaker of eternal life. As truly as, by
generation, we enter upon the standing of Adam, live his
life, are weak because he came into a state of weakness, and
die because he sinned; so truly, by regeneration, we are
brought into such oneness with Christ, that we live because
He lives, are accepted in Him, are strong in His strength,
and become joint heirs with Him of His everlasting in
heritance.
Regeneration is not the restoration of Adam’s nature to
its original innocence, nor the bringing again the natural
life into subjection to God. Nor is it merely the influence
of the Holy Ghost on the natural heart, inclining it to be
lieve in God, and to fear and love Him.
Many of the Patriarchs had faith and love towards God,
yet were they not regenerate. They could not have been
partakers of the life of the Man Christ Jesus, until He
Himself had received it on the day of His resurrection ; nor
have sprung from Him who was “ the beginning, the first
born from the dead,” until He Himself had risen. They
could not have died with Him before He had died; nor
been buried with Him before He had passed into the grave.
Even of John the Baptist, the last and greatest Prophet
under the Law, the Lord said, that the least in the king
dom of heaven was greater than he. But “ when the ful
ness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a
woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were
under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
(Gal. iv. 4, 5.) “Wherefore thou art no more a servant,
but a son.” (Gal. iv. 7.) The regenerate babe occupies a
place and rank to which none but the new creature in Christ
can attain.
Let us now consider by what means regeneration is ef
fected. When Nicodemus came to our Lord by night, the
first point Jesus laid before him was this :—“ Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.” (John iii. 5.) And St. Paul, writing to
Titus, says :—“ By His mercy hath He saved us, by the
�washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
(Titus iii. 5.) From these passages, we learn that rege
neration, or new birth, is effected by means of water and of
the Spirit; and the mind is naturally led to the Sacrament
of Baptism, wherein the use of water is prescribed, not only
aS the emblem of the Spirit, but as the means by which the
Spirit acts. “ For ye all are the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as have been baptized
into Christ, have put on Christ.” (Gal. iii. 26, 27.) “Re
pent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” (Acts ii. 38.)
“ The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth now save
us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrec
tion of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter iii. 21.)
But, indeed, we may safely affirm that, in our Lord’s
words and those of St. Paul, we find regeneration inse
parably joined with water and the Spirit; and, as there is
no other ordinance than Baptism wherein the use of water
is enjoined, by no other means can new birth, by water and
the Spirit, be communicated.
To whose hand, then, has the administration of this Sa
crament been entrusted F To the Church, headed up in the
Apostleship, whom the Lord not only authorized, but em
powered by the gift of the Holy Ghost, to obey His com
mand. The Holy Spirit does not range through empty
space, but dwells in the Church as in a temple ; and by her
puts forth the power, and performs the desires of her Head.
The appointed channels through which the Holy Ghost
flow» are ministries and sacraments. To constitute a sa
crament, two things are requisite—the outward and visible
sign, and the inward and spiritual grace. God’s ministers
supply the former, in accordance with His command. Shall
we doubt that He performs His part ? Shall the latter be
wanting ? The ordinary means of regeneration, then, is
the Sacrament of Baptism; and, except God fails Himself,
the act of the Holy Ghost is thereby accomplished, and new
birth takes place.
But such being the channel, what is the grace bestowed ?
First, it embraces the remission of sins; as Peter says:—•
“ Repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins.” Or,
as Ananias said to Paul, “Arise and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins.” (Acts xxii. 16.) It is not, indeed, water,
�4
nor repentance, nor faith, but the blood of Christ, that
makes atonement for sin; yet the means of entering upon
the state in which man receives the full benefit of forgive
ness, is the ordinance of Baptism. The newly baptized
babe, and the newly baptized man, should alike come forth
from the waters of Baptism pure and undefiled. The past
is blotted out, old things have passed away; and, behold,
all things have become new, to the new creature in Christ
Jesus.
Secondly, a death unto sin. Not merely pardon of guilt,
and escape from its penalty, but a putting to death of the
flesh, with its affections and lusts, is imparted in Baptism.
“ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Christ were baptized into His death ? Therefore we are
buried with Him by baptism into death .... Our old man
is crucified with Him, that the body of sin may be de
stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin: for he
that is dead is freed from sin.” (Rom. vi. 3—7.) Nor is
this done in a figure only, but in reality, inasmuch as we
are, truly and spiritually, united to Him that was dead and
is alive again ; and whose condition of death to the flesh,
and life in the Spirit, is by that union really imparted to us.
It is one thing, however, to give, and another to receive.
Simon the Sorcerer was as truly baptized as the Jailor at
Philippi; but, in his case, the new life was, as it were,
strangled at its birth, because his heart was not right with
God.
Remember, then, all ye who have been baptized, whether
as infants or adults, the responsibility which the Lord lays
upon you. Hold fast that which you have.
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgson and Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.C.
�III.
THE LORD’S SUPPER.
By Redemption, the fallen creature, who had come
under the curse of the Law, is delivered from the curse,
through the all-sufficient sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ.
By Regeneration, through Baptism and the Holy Spirit,,
he is born again, and endowed with a life distinct from
that which he derived from the first Adam.
As surely as, by natural birth, he derives life from his. earthly parent; so surely, by regeneration, in the Sacra
ment of Baptism, does he become quickened with new
and heavenly life, by the reception of which he becomes
a child of God.
God hath highly exalted His Son, Jesus Christ, raisingHim from the dead, and setting Him “ at His right hand,
in the heavenly places, far above all principality, 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 things under His feet; and
gave Him to be head over all things to the Church, which
is His Body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.”
(Ephes, i. 20—23.)
The latter part of this Scripture reveals to us such a
marvel of grace and love as man’s heart could never have
imagined. For it shows us that it is to Himself, in His
condition of honour and immortality, that the Lord unites
�2
those who believe and are baptised.
It is no fiction, but
a mighty reality, that they become one with Him to whom
all power is given in heaven and on earth; and who is,
even now, awaiting the time when, having sanctified their
souls and spirits by the indwelling of His own Spirit, Hen
shall prevail to change their bodies into the likeness of
His glorious Body •, and then shall the Sons of God, now
hidden in the obscurity of this present world, but known
unto the Father, be manifested to every eye in heaven,
and on earth, and under the earth.
But this can only be brought about in the Lord’s way,
and by the use of means which He has appointed; and,
among these means, the Lord’s Supper holds an important
place.
The life which we derive from our earthly parents re
quires food; and the child, as he grows up, receives it at
his father’s table; and if he fails to eat of it, the natural
life will soon wither and fade away.
In like manner, the Regenerate Life needs food, and
that food is received at the table of our Heavenly Father;
and if a man do not eat thereof, the Regenerate Life will
wither and fade away.
The heavenly food needful to sustain the heavenly life
is The Lord’s Supper, wherein the Body and Blood of
Christ are spiritually received by the regenerate faithful.
Jesus Himself said of the Bread, “Take, eat, this is my
Bodyand of the Cup, “ Drink ye all of it; for this is
the Blood of the New Testament.” (Matthew xxvi. 26—
28.) And St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, told them
that “ Whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this
Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body
and Blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. xi. 27.)
The Lord also made use of the following remarkable
words:—
�3
“ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink
His Blood, ye have no life in you.
“ Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath
eternal life, and I 'will raise him up at the Last Day.
“ For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink
indeed.
“ He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood
dwelleth in Me, and I in him.
“ As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the
Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.”
(John vi. 53—57.)
Looking at these solemn and gracious declarations, and
considering how sadly the holy Sacrament, to which they
refer, is neglected, if not despised, can we wonder at the
weak and divided condition into which the Christian
Church has fallen ?
Our Blessed Lord, when on earth, lived by the Father;
so He was ever strong to do the Father’s work. He has
much that He still desires to do on earth, for the Father’s
glory; and He will do it by means of His Body, the
Church, which is appointed to make known to the princi
palities and powers in heavenly places the manifold wisdom
of God. But Christian men can only further the purposes
of Jesus in so far as they live by Him, even as He lived by.
the Father; and they cannot live by Him without eating
at His Table, according to His special invitation and com
mand. He, therefore, who wilfully and persistently absents
himself from this Sacrament, lives, more or less, the life of
the flesh, and is incapable of serving or pleasing God. As
regards spiritual things, he is like a man in a swoon, so
weak is the life of Christ in him. God may stretch forth
His hand and do a work before the eyes of such an one,
and he shall not see it; He may speak in his ears, but
His words will be unheard.
�4
We have seen that the Lord’s Supper is a principal
means of maintaining the union which God has established
between Himself and us, in making us to be His children :
it is also a principal means of maintaining brotherly union
among the children themselves. In both cases the life is.
the union ;—let that fail, and Christian men will forget (as
they have already, to a large extent, forgotten) that God is
their Father, and that they are all Brethren, fellow mem
bers of His Regenerate Family-—the One Church of Christ:
and so scepticism and sectarianism will prevail where there
ought to be the obedience of faith, piety, and holy love.
God is very merciful, and He seeks to quicken and re
vive His people, to heal their backslidings and divisions,,
an cl to teach them the ways of His House and Kingdom.
His Son is just about to visit His inheritance, and take to'
Himself those whom He shall find to be ready. And God
calls upon His people, first of all, to sit down at His table
as children ; to eat the heavenly food there presented to
them, and to hear Him speak to them as their Father.
His voice, as we have said, cannot be heard, nor His
hand be seen by the indifferent, who turn their backs upon
His Table, nor by the sectarian and contentious, who
treat it as if it was their own table. There must be peace
and quietness, the recognition of the One Father of the
One Family, and the reception in faith of the one Bread
and the one Cup so freely given for all.
Before our Lord would feed the hungry multitude, He
said, “ Make the men sit down,” and then, by the hands
of His Apostles, He fed them.
If w’e are faithful and obedient in our days, according
to our faith shall it be unto us.
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgson & Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.C.
�<rutfls for our Daps.
IV.
THE CHURCH.
PART I.
------ o----- “
The Church is the Body of Christ. It includes all
faithful baptized persons, living or deceased, who have ex
isted since the day of Pentecost, or who shall exist till
the end of the present Dispensation. Christian men may call
themselves members of the Greek, Roman, Anglican, or
any other Communion ; but God regards them all as mem
bers of the One Church and Body of His Son. Of this
One Body, the Church, there is One Head, Jesus Christ,who is the Beginning, the First Born from the dead. And
there is One Life, of which those who sleep, and those who
wake, are alike partakers.
Christ Himself, risen from
the dead, is the Life, as He is the Head, of the Body
(Ephes, iv. 4—6).
When the day of Pentecost had come, “ the Word made
flesh”, was already seated on the throne of the majesty on
high. “The Seed of the woman,” the Man Christ Jesus,
had been exalted into glory, and constituted by the Father
“ Head over all things unto the Church” ; and the work
which He began on that day, by sending the Holy Ghost,
the promised Comforter, was to make His Disciples one
with Him in all the fruits of His resurrection and entrance
into heaven. We repeat it, manhood, in Christ, had attained
to a new and and most glorious condition ; and the peculiar
office of the Holy Ghost was then, and has ever since been,
to effect and to perpetuate the union between Christ and
Flis Disciples, that the like transformation should take place
in them also ; not in its completeness (for that cannot be till
the resurrection,) but in its essence and true beginnings.
“He hath quickened us, together with Christ, and hath raised
us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places
in Christ Jesus.” (Ephes, ii. 5, 6.) “ The glory which
�2
Thou gavest me, I have given them ; that they may be one,
ev en as we are one—I in them, and Thou in me ; that they
may be made perfect in one.” (John xvii. 22, 23.)
The Church, the Body of Christ, is a new creation, as
truly as the life of the resurrection is a new life. It could
not exist till Jesus was constituted its Head; and that was
when God brought Him forth out of death, the New Man,
and gave Him glory. The sonship of which we are made
partakers dates from the morning when the Lord could first
say, “lam He that liveth and was dead ; and behold I
live for evermore.”
It is only by bearing in mind this oneness of the Church
with its Head, in His new form of existence, in redeemed
and glorified manhood, that we can understand its position
and office on earth.
And now let us consider the aspect which the Church
presented, when it came forth from the hands of God, the
new-born instrument with which His Son was to serve Him.
The life of God in the spirit of man, perfectly received,
and constantly yielded to, found its manifestation in the holy
thoughts, words, and deeds, in the entire existence, of Him
who, being both God and man, yet “ increased in wisdom
and stature, and in favour with God and man.” It was
impossible for our' Lord to be different from what He was,
simply because He never resisted the laws of that divine life
which thus moulded His whole being. So ought it ever to
have been with the Church.
God’s purpose in the Church is, that, as a man’s spirit
dwells in his natural body, so should the spirit of the
Father and the Son abide, by the Holy Ghost, in the Church,
the Body of Christ; developing it according to the law of
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus; enabling those that are in
Christ to mind the things of the Spirit, in all holy obedience,
service, and worship, and, finally, quickening their mor
tal bodies, and raising them up to meet their Lord.—
(Rom. viii. 1—-8.)
Under the creative and energising power of the Holy
Ghost, the outward form of the Church, its organisation,
government, ministries, doctrines, sacraments, spiritual gifts,
worship of God, and action towards the world, ought to be
the natural expression and manifestation of the life within it.
And, as all the loveliness, symmetry and fitness that any
�3
created thing in heaven or on earth ever presented to created
■eye, is but a shadow of the beauty and glory belonging to
the Body which God prepared, from all eternity, for His
Son, how united, how mighty, how resplendent with heavenly
grace should that Body have ever been 1 There should
have been no room for divisions, contentions, heresies, or
uncertainties ; but, as Christ could perfectly serve His Father
by means of His natural Body, so should He have found
His mystical Body, the Church, equally subservient to the
will of God ; and, using every member thereof according
to His holy desires, He should have prevailed, by means
of the Church, to do the will of His Father on earth,
even as it is done in heaven. This is the true and only
Scriptural idea of the Church ; and this, sooner or later, shall
be accomplished.
The Church, constituted in Christ, is, in her nature, '
essentially spiritual, holy, and united. Her destiny is to
reign for ever over all the creation of God, in the noble
character of the Bride of the Lamb. The world, therefore,
is not her home ; but she ought to aspire continually towards
the time when she shall meet her Lord. It is then that her
regal glory will begin. In the meantime, her office is to do
all the good she can while on her earthly pilgrimage, even
as He did while on His : but her acts are to be the acts of
the pilgrim and wayfarer, not those of the citizen of this
world. Christ endowed her with heavenly ministries and
heavenly powers, and appointed that every one of her mem
bers should co-operate with all the others in doing that which
it is in His heart to do. And these ministries and powers
He gave her to hold and retain for ever ; for she is an eternal
creation, her work is an eternal work, and “the gifts and
callings of God are without repentance”-—that is, without
withdrawing on His part. Progression, indeed, belongs to
the Church,—a change like that which takes place in the
child, as he approaches manhood ; but organic changes,
divisions, incongruities, the loss of her original ministries
and spiritual gifts, and especially of the hope of her Lord’s
coming, and of her being taken to meet Him-—these are the
results of the Church having forgotten her first love, and
become entangled in the world, and overcome of evil.
The day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Ghost first
�4
descended on the Disciples, was the anniversary of the giving
of the Law from Mount Sinai, by which Israel was organised
as a national polity, and became a kingdom of Priests. The
Comforter came to do a corresponding work for the New
Dispensation, by bringing in “the ministration of the Spirit,”
the living Law, and framing the Church, the true Spiritual
Israel, the Royal Priesthood, whose calling is “to offer
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ.”
It is most important to remark that the Church came forth,
an organised Body in the very instant of her birth, and was
not a promiscuous collection of members, without arrange
ment and subordination. (Ephes, iv. 8—16.)
All that God gave her at the first, He gave her, as we
have said, to be held by her for ever ; for all is in Christ, and
Christ is her’s. If she is worldly, weak, divided ; if she has
lost alike her original ministries, the gifts of the Spirit, and
the lively hope of the Lord’s coming,—whose is the fault ?
Shall she accuse herself, or God ?
In future Papers we shall go more into detail on this
momentous subject.
PRINTED FOR W. ANDERSON, BY. J. FLINTOIT. NOMINGHAJU
�Crutljs for our Sags.
v.
THE CHURCH.
PART II.
The Church, constituted, in Christ, is one with Him, as
He is one with the Father. As His Body she has no life,—
and as His fulness she has no Ministries, Sacraments, nor
Worship,—but what she derives from Him. Whatever she
adds to herself that He has not given her, she must, sooner
or later, part with, as extraneous to her being; whatever
she loses that He intends her to hold, she must recover, as
needful to her perfection.
The Church is not an institution created for the reforma
tion of the world, although she is the salt of the earth. She
is the Bride of the Lamb, whom He seeks to take to Him
self ; and it is evident from Holy Scripture, that, until the
marriage of the King’s Son shall have taken place, God’s
work of mercy to Israel and to the nations is kept back;
nor can the marriage be effected until the Bride shall have
made herself ready. The Bridegroom has been waiting
these eighteen hundred years, and the whole creation waits
also, and “ groaneth and travaileth until now.” (Rom.
viii. 22.)
The Bride, then, must be prepared for her husband; and
her preparation can be accomplished only by the Lord Himself, through the means of His appointing. It is necessary
that this principle be kept clearly in mind. “No man hath
ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven.” He alone knows
how to qualify the Bride to bear the weight of glory that
He seeks to bestow on her. Let us consider what was the
method adopted'by Him to this end.
�2
On the day of Pentecost the Church received not only life,
organisation, and heavenly powers, bnt also a special Four
fold Ministry, which the Lord gave her from Himself, as
needful to her growth to perfection, in other words, to her
being made ready to meet him.
David had prophesied of this Ministry a thousand years
before. In Psalm lxviii. 18, foretelling the ascension of
our Lord, he says: “ Thou hast ascended on high ; Thou
hast led captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for
men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might
dwell among them.”
But it may be asked: “How do you identify the ‘gifts’
spoken of by David with a Ministry in the Christian
Church ?”
St. Paul answers the question. In Ephes, iv. 8, he quotes
David’s words, and explains them, thus :—“ When He
ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men........ And He gave some Apostles ; and some
Prophets ; and some Evangelists ; and some Pastors and
Teachers ; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of
the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ: till we
all come .... unto the measure of the stature of the fulness
of Christ.” (See the passage in full.)
We find, then, that on our Lord’s ascension He gave
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors and Teachers ;
the two last filling one office. This Fourfold Ministry was
no new thing ; but, like everything else that can properly
belong to the Church, it had existed in Himself; and in
His own good time it was developed by Him in His mys
tical Body. It was inherent in Him, or it could never
legitimately have been manifested in His Body. Nay, He
himself, in the perfection of His being and ministry, exer
cised on earth the functions of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist,
and Pastor; His Church is one with Him, and therefore
these Ministries belong to her. Let us test this assertion
by reference to the Sacred Writings.
St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews (iii. 1), “ Wherefore, holy
brethren, .... consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus.” Here, then, we find our Lord
distinctly characterised as Apostle.
Again; Stephen spoke as follows (Acts. vii. 37) : “A
Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your
brethren.” And Christ was that Prophet.
�3
The Lord applied to Himself the words of Isaiah (Luke
iv. 18) : “ He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel”—
shewing that He was the Evangelist.
And (John x. 11) He said, also : “ I am the good Shep
herd that is, the Pastor.
“ But,” it may be asked, “ for how long a time did the
Lord intend that the Four Ministries should remain in the
Church ?”
Surely such a question springs, not from faith, but from
unbelief. If we receive a gift from any one, for how long
is it to be ours ? Can it be called a gift at all, if the bestower of it is some day to resume it ? Or, does our part
ing with it prove that we had only received it in loan ?
Alas, had we not, by our own sin, lost the Ministries of
Apostles and Prophets, (for it is to them that such objec
tions generally apply,) we should never have thought of
asking how long they were to remain among us.
David tells us that the gifts were received by Christ for
men, in order “that the Lord God might dwell among
them.” St. Paul declares that the Ministries were given
“ till we all come unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ.”
Can words be more distinct or unequivocal ? The Mi
nistries are essential functions of the Church, or rather of
the Lord, which he fulfils in and by the Church,—means
by which she is to receive grace from Him, and to convey
that grace to His people. Continuance is implied in all
that God says of them ; it is only man who supposes their
extinction. When the Church ceases to be the Body of
Christ, then the supposition may be permissible that she
shall cease to perform the ministerial functions and offices
of her Head. But in Him and in His ordinances there is
no change. St. John beheld, in vision, the Church in her
heavenly and eternal condition; and there were the Twentyfour Elders, the symbol of the Jewish and Gentile Apostle
ship, and the Four Living Creatures, the symbol of the
Four Ministries. For “ God hath set some in the Church ;
first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets.” (1 Cor. xii. 28.)
He hath set them there ; they, with their brother-ministries,
are elements in the organisation of the Church, and need
ful to the fulfilment of her heavenly calling. The Invisible
God, in the heavens, is the Doer of all things, by Jesus
Christ, who, in our nature, is His visible symbol. Christ
�4
executes all things in the Church through men, energized
by the Holy Ghost with life, efficiency, and power to act
as His representatives and instruments, in His various
offices and ministries. If, therefore, a particular ministry
be wanting, how can the Church expect to be able either to
receive or to communicate the grace which it was appointed
to convey?
We cannot here describe in detail the nature and action
of the Four Ministries, although it were easy to point out
their adaptation to the spiritual and intellectual being of
man—his will, imagination, understanding, and affections,
—with all of which Christ seeks, through them, to deal;
sanctifying the whole creature, and making him fit for His
Father’s service.
But have not the ministries of Apostles and Prophets
failed these many centuries ? Apparently they have, through
our unfaithfulness. Nevertheless, they have been preserved
in Christ; and, because He is coming again, and very
speedily, therefore is He anew, in our days, sending forth
His Apostles, and speaking by His Prophets ; and they,
with Evangelists and Pastors, His Fourfold Ministry, are
labouring “ for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of
the ministry, and for the edifying of the Body of Christ.”
God is restoring to the Church her Judges as at the first,
and her counsellors as at the beginning, as He himself pro
mised : “ Though the Lord give you the bread of adversity
and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be re
moved into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy
teachers. And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee
saying, This is the way, walk ye in it.” (Isaiah xxx. 20,
21.) The Master is putting His house in order (His own
original order) ere He himself arrives.
Printed for W. Anderson,by Ct F. Hodgson and Son, Gough Square,Fleet Street.
�truths for ottr Bags.
VI.
THE APOSTLESHIP.
When our Lord was upon earth, He chose twelve men, that
they should be with Him; and to them He communicated the
purport of His mission, and the principles of the Dispensation
-which He was about to introduce. He explained to them in
private what He spoke to the multitudes in parables; and, by
-watchful guidance, careful instruction, and personal example,
He prepared them for their future work. During the forty days
-between His resurrection and ascension, He spoke specially to
them of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. These
-men He called Apostles, or “ Messengers.” When Judas by
transgression fell, the number was made up in Matthias; and
after tarrying in Jerusalem, by the Lord’s command, until on
.the Day of Pentecost they were endowed with power from on
high, the Apostles entered upon their mission.
Their office was, in many’respects, different from every other.
Not only was the Apostleship the earliest ministry in the Church,
but the Apostles themselves were the earliest members of the
Church. They formed that part of the Mystical Body which
was immediately connected with the Head; and, by Christ’s own
■appointment, they received evermore from Him, by revelation or
direct communication, the wisdom and knowledge necessary to
enable them to govern His people. The Church is not sepa
rated from, but constituted in, Christ Himself. The Apostles
were the proper organ for preserving its union with Him, a,nd
for carrying on the work begun on the Day of Pentecost.
Christ delivered His commandments to them; they to the
�Church. They were first, in word and doctrine, the authori
tative exponents of Christian truth. Nay more, they received,
the Holy Ghost from Him, as being the special channel whereby
He would convey the Spirit to the whole Church, as One. It
is clear, therefore, that, in so far as the Ministry of Apostles to
the Church should be interrupted, in so far must the Church
drift from Christ.
Again, Apostles, by the very nature of their office, were not
set over any single portion of the Church, however extensive
that portion might be, but over the whole Church, the whole
body of Christian men ; and were responsible to the Lord, and
to Him alone. Theirs was the special Ministry by which all
the various congregations of the faithful were to be bound and
held together, and to be built up in sound doctrine, as the One
Catholic Church of Christ.
Lastly, they were neither chosen nor ordained of man, but
were chosen and ordained directly by the Lord. They were
“ not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Lather.” (Gal. i. 1.) And therefore they had no authority to
constitute other men Apostles, or equal to Apostles. The power
vested in them was not the power of doing their own will, but
only that of conveying, undefiled, to believers, the will and
commands of Christ, and of demanding in His name obedience
thereto.
As the government of Apostles was universal, so also was the
character of their work; for the scope of their commission
embraced every priestly and ministerial function. To them
Christ gave authority to preach (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; to baptize
(ibid.) ; to administer the Lord’s Supper (Luke xxii. 19) ; to
be Pastors to the Sheep (John xxi. 15—17) ; to remit and to
retain sins (John xx. 23); to confer the Holy Ghost (Acts viii.
17 and xix. 6) ; and, finally, to espouse and present the Bride
(Col. i. 28, and 2 Cor. xi. 2).
In fact, the first picture of the Church drawn in the holy
Scriptures (as we find it at the end of the 2nd Chapter of the
Acts) presents to us only two parties, the Apostles and the
Believers; the Apostles who had received commission to
administer grace from the Lord, and the body of the faithful,
to whom the Lord, through them, would convey it. And mark
how completely Christ had constituted them to be His repre
sentatives to His Church; for it is not said that the Disciples
continued stedfastly in the doctrine and fellowship of the Lord,
but in the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles.
�s
. The Church, however, is a living body, the living body of
the living Christ; and therefore growth and development
belong essentially to its being. The number of the faithful
increased daily ; and although the Twelve had no power to con
stitute men to be Apostles with themselves, yet the Lord, to
meet the wants of the Church, suffered them to devolve upon
Others certain of the priestly and ministerial functions with
which He had originally invested them. Hence the offices of
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon.
First, we find Deacons set by the Apostles over the tempo
ralities of the Church ; nest, the Apostles appointed Elders
(Presbyters or Priests) in every city; and, later still, Bishops,
or Angels, were set by them over particular Churches, each
of which, besides ordinary communicants, included without
doubt several Elders and Deacons. The Deacons were chosen
by the people ; but the Elders and Bishops were called by the
■ word of prophecy; and they, as well as the Deacons, were
ordained by the Apostles, and received the gift for the ful
filment of their ministry by the laying on of the Apostles’
hands.
Every particular Church was formed on the model of the
Universal Church, of which Christ is the invisible Head, and
the Apostles are the Elders. In the particular Churches, the
Bishop represented the Lord; and, under him, by means of
Priests standing in the offices of Elder, Prophet, Evangelist,
and Pastor, the blessing of the Fourfold Ministry (see Tract V.)
was conveyed to every member of the flock.
Such was the original order in which Christ, by the Holy
Ghost, set His Church ; and for a while His people abode in it,
acknowledging One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. They
Were enriched with miraculous gifts of the Spirit; they offered
due worship and service to Almighty God, and supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks for all men ; they
preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, and they waited for the
Coming of the Lord.
And here let us remark, that Bishops were not substituted
for Apostles, but were their contemporaries, and were ordained
to act under them. The Bishop’s authority extended only to
his own Church (except when an Apostle saw fit, temporarily,
to extend it) ; but the Apostle’s authority extended to the
Church Universal. The Bishop received the Spirit through
his fellow-man ; and ministered it, in Ordination or Confirma
tion, to the individual Priests, Deacons, and People committed
�4
to his care. The Apostle received the Spirit directly from the
Lord; and ministered it to the whole Body of Christ. As well
might Priests be substitutes for Bishops, or Deacons for
Priests, as Bishops for Apostles.
But Apostles have long been lost to the Church. Shall they
be restored ? Yes; for they are absolutely needful to the pre
paration of Christ’s people to meet Him. (See Tract VII.)
Paul felt that he was “ born out of due time,” before the time ;
but the Lord’s day of deliverance hath come ; and men, sent
as Paul was, are taking up the work where he laid it down.
And “ a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.”
For four hundred years after Malachi, the Prophetic Ministry, the highest under the Mosaic Dispensation, had been in
abeyance; yet God restored it in the person of John the
Baptist, to bear witness to our Lord’s coming in humiliation.
Is it a strange thing, that, now that Christ is coming in glory,
God should send forth Apostles, Christ’s special messengers,
.and the leading Ministry under the Hew Dispensation, to
prepare the way before Him ?
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F< Hodgson & Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.C.
�<rutl)s for out Saps.
VII.
THE SEALING.
“ God hath made man upright, but they have sought out
many inventions.” (Eccles, vii. 29.) History, from its be
ginning, is one continuous illustration of this truth and its
consequences. The earliest inhabitants of the earth sinned,
and perished in the Deluge. The children of Israel sinned, and
are outcasts and wanderers. The Christian Church, in her
final apostasy, will sin worse than all that have preceded her;
and her punishment will fearfully transcend theirs. Let those
who expect to see the world converted before the Lord comes,
read such words as the following:
“Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, de
ceiving and being deceived.” (2 Tim. iii. 13.) “ There shall-,
come, in the last days, scoffers, walking after their own lusts.”
(2 Peter iii. 3.) “ The Spirit speaketh expressly, that, in the
latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” (1 Tim. iv. 1.)
“ There shall come a falling away...... then shall that Wicked
be revealed.” (2 Thes. ii.)
The mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, has to
be consummated in the Church ; and the mystery of iniquity,
' Satan working in the flesh, has also to be consummated. And
these things are hurrying to their fulfilment; for we are in the
evening of the Dispensation, and evening work is short and
rapid. Every spiritual man is aware that the enemy is coming
in like a flood—some can see that the Spirit of the Lord is
lifting up a standard against him.
God’s way has ever been to provide a refuge for His faithful
people, before the day of vengeance. He did so by means of
�2
the ark, in the First Dispensation. He did so before the
destruction of Jerusalem, by setting up the Christian Church,
an anti-type of the ark. He is doing so now, by rebuilding
the Church, which had fallen into ruins, and by restoring the
Ministries, Sacraments, and Heavenly Gifts, with which He
had originally endowed it. For the Church, as God would
have it, is the true “place of refuge and covert” from the last
Tribulation.
“ To escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to
stand before the Son of Man,” is held out to us by the Lord,
as that for which we should “ watch and pray always.” He
refers to the great and terrible judgments and troubles which
will fall upon the earth during the reign of Antichrist; when
this Dispensation shall be in the last throes of its existence,
and when Babylon (the apostate portion of the whole Church,
and not the Papacy only) shall be reaping that which she has
sowed. Through these unutterable woes must pass all Chris
tian men who shall be then living—all except a certain definite
number, who before the tribulation commences, shall find a
place of safety and honour in the Pavilion of God. (Compare
Ps. xxxi. 19, 20, with Isaiah iv. and Rev. xiv. 1.) Those who
shall thus escape are typically denoted, in the Law given by
Moses, by the First-fruits, which were gathered, ear by ear,
into the Temple of God, while the Harvest itself was left in
the field, subject to all fluctuations of weather, until it was
matured and could be carried in.
The deliverance of the First-fruits of the Christian Church
is shown in the vision of The Sealing, in the 7th chapter of
Revelation. While four Angels hold back the four winds, and
keep them from desolating the earth, another Angel, having
the Seal of the living God in his hand, seals with it the
servants of God in their forehead. The sealed ones are after
wards seen (ch. xiv.) with the Lamb upon Mount Zion, fol-,
lowing Him withersoever He goeth, and singing a new song,
which none but they can learn. They are called the First-'
fruits to God and to the Lamb. Meanwhile Antichrist rages
upon the earth. Many yield to his violence or to his seduc
tions, deny the faith, receive the mark of the Beast, and are
lost for ever; and “ the multitude whom no man can number,”:
the Harvest, are saved from the fiery trial, only by not loving
their lives unto the death, and, as it would seem, by passing
(many of them, at least) through the pains of martyrdom, >
Such is the simple Scripture narrative ; and the hour is at
�3
hand when, according to his spiritual condition, every man
must find his place among the awful realities which it describes.
One point it is important to remark, namely, that the Firstfruits had the Father’s name written on their foreheads; in
other words, they were sealed.
But what is the Sealing ? If it is an ordinance of Christ,
we must look for it in the Church, ere she had let go the Gifts
which He at the first bestowed upon her.
In 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, St. Paul says:—“He which.......hath
anointed us is God, who hath also sealed us, and given us
the earnest of His Spirit.” In Ephes, i. 13, he writes thus :—
“ In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that
Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of the inheritance.”
And in Ephes, iv. he exhorts the faithful: “ Grieve not the
Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of
redemption.”
These passages, then, supply an answer to our question.
The Sealing was, evidently and certainly, a work of the Holy
Ghost. Not His work in Conversion, for (see Ephes, i. 13) it
took place after men had believed; nor His work in Baptism,
for (see Acts viii. and xix.) it took place after men had been
baptised. It was a spiritual operation, distinct from these
operations.
Our Lord is our Head, as well as our exemplar. He died"
and rose again,; we also die through the power of His cross,
and live through the energy of His resurrection. This is Re
generation, the gift of God bestowed in Baptism. But Our
Lord ascended into Heaven, and was crowned with glory and
honour; and it is participation in this glory and honour that is
given us in the Sealing. In it we are anointed with the same
spirit of power wherewith He was anointed, when He was
made Lord and Christ, and when the oil of joy was poured
upon His head, as our High Priest in the heavens, to flow
down to the skirts of His garment. As St. Peter says : “ The
Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you;” although we
have it only in an earnest, or First-fruits, until the resurrection.
We next inquire how the sealing was given. On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost was sent down from heaven without
human instrumentality, upon those who waited for “ the pro
mise of the Father.” In like manner, without the intervention
of men, He came upon Cornelius and his household, when
the door of the Church was first opened to the Gentiles. In
all other instances recorded in Scripture, the Lord’s way of
�anointing was by the laying on of Apostles’-hands. Peter and'
John laid hands on the Samaritan converts (Acts viii. 17.) ;
and Panl laid hands on the converts at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6.)
The first of these cases especially, proves, in a very striking
manner, that the Lord employed Apostles, and no other
Ministers, for this specific purpose. Philip was a godly
, Preacher, a mighty worker of miracles, one who had turnedmultitudes in Samaria to the Lord, one to whom the Holy
Ghost Himself had deigned to speak. But the Lord has His
own way of working ; and, before those who had been baptised
by Philip could receive the Holy Ghost, it was necessary that
the Apostles should send two of their number, Peter and John, to
Samaria. To Apostles the Lord hath said : “ As My Father
sent Me, even so send I you.” Through Apostles does He
bestow the Holy Ghost, for the purpose of Sealing His Elect.
And we speak of this as a present action; for, amid the ■
surging pressure of evil principles in these days, preparing the
way for the manifestation of Anti-Christ, there is a little period
of respite. By holy intercession, offered through a restored.
Fourfold Ministry, the winds of judgment are, for the moment,
held back ; and Apostles, sent forth by the Lord, are Sealing
in their foreheads those of His people who can see and rejoice
in the working of His hand, and whom He may by them present,
as First-fruits before the Throne of God. (Rev. xiv.)
“ If ye will enquire, enquire ye.”
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgson & Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.C,
�®rutl)si for our ®ajs.
VIII.
A NARRATIVE.
The French Revolution of 1789 presented a new and start
ling form of wickedness to the world. A whole nation seemed
to rise up against the Lord, in order to blot ont His name from
the earth. For a while every symbol of His rule and presence,
so far as France was concerned, was swept away; and a Pro
paganda was established for the dissemination of principles of
anarchy and infidelity throughout Europe.
The Church, which in her various sects had long lain in a
lethargic slumber, was suddenly aroused; and, in Protestant
lands, the foundations were laid of many of those Religious
Societies, by means of which, in the absence of the Lord’s ap
pointed ordinances, she has since sought to fulfil her work.
The Bible was circulated with great zeal, and foreign missions
were eagerly undertaken. Among other tokens of reviving
life was the study of the Prophetic Scriptures by pious men
of all denominations; and these researches led to the startling
conviction, that the Church had entered upon the closing scene
of the Dispensation; and that the apostasy had commenced
which is to culminate in Antichrist, the man of sin, “ whom
the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and
destroy with the brightness of His coming.”
Standing in presence of so solemn a fact, it was natural that
men should ask themselves whether the Church was ready to
meet her Lord. To this question none could give other than
a negative answer; and so, filled with a deep conviction of ap
proaching danger, many devout persons united in prayer to
God, that He would pour out the Holy .Ghost, “the latter
rain,” upon His people. Nor was this united prayer unavail
ing ; for the time came when it was to be granted.
About the year 1828, there appeared, in the death-bed ex
perience of certain individuals in the West of Scotland, won8
�derful instances of the power of the Spirit of God. They
spoke mnch of a bright dawn that was to arise on the Church,,
and of a great work that was shortly to be wrought in hexmidst. This was the first faint sound of the “ plentiful rain ”
wherewith God was about to refresh His weary heritage.
Other events rapidly followed.
Early in 1830, a young person in the same neighbourhood,
a devoted member of the Church of Scotland, was made to
speak in a supernatural power, in tongues and prophesying.
Hot long after, the same power came upon two brothers and
their sister, living a few miles off, and belonging to another
family. Each of the ladies had been given over by her medical
attendant, as being hopelessly ill; each was instantaneously
raised up, and restored to comparative health. All the persons
were of undoubted godliness and sobriety of character.
These supernatural manifestations attracted much attention.
Many pious intelligent men went to the spot from all parts,
including London, and made a careful examination into the
facts. They returned, convinced that what they had seen was
really a work of the Spirit of God. The mass of the religious
people, however, would not receive it as such; and the Clergy
as a body, in England as well as Scotland, utterly rejected it.
At this we need not feel surprised. Men had formed their
own opinions as to the manner in which their prayer for “ the
latter rain” would be answered; and what God now sent them
was not what they expected. The truth is, that the character
and standing of the Church, as the Bride of the Lamb, the
Body of Christ, indwelt of His life and anointed with the
Spirit, had long been lost sight of by too many of those who
make profession of religion. Mere individual salvation was
all they could understand ; and, consequently, in their prayer
for the Holy Ghost, they meant little more than that the god
less might be converted, and the godly become more zealous
and faithful.
But God’s eye saw more than the eye of man could take in.
He knew how He had constituted the Church at the first; how
far she had wandered from His ways, and the condition to
which she must return, ere she could be fit to meet her Lord;
and He sought to'revive and restore her, according to the
greatness of His own original plan, and not according to the
littleness of men’s ideas. Yes; God meant to bestow again
on His Church, not only the Pentecostal gifts and powers, but
also every other blessing which she had let slip in the ages of
�3
i her backsliding-—holiness of life, purify and oneness of doctrine, right order of worship, completeness and efficiency of
Iministry, the lively hope of the coming of the Lord, and the
I means of preparing for it. And all this He would do, under
' the hands of His Master-Builders, Apostles to be sent forth by
Himself, the one and only ministry which He ever appointed,,
and set over His whole Church.
The persons who had gone from London to investigate the
facts above narrated, found, on their return, others who re
ceived their testimony; and these met together in prayer for
the increased manifestation of the Gift of the Spirit. Thus
the work proceeded; and presently some of the believers,
members of the English Church and also of other denomina
tions, received the Gift of Prophecy. By and by, prophetic ut
terance, was heard in public congregations ; but, except in one
or two instances, it was silenced by the presiding ministers. A.
brave and holy servant of Christ, however, the Rev. Edward
Irving, Minister of the Scotch Church in Regent Square, de
clared his decided conviction that this was really a work of
God’s Spirit. He maintained that the laws of the Church of
Scotland did not prohibit it, and that, moreover, he had full
authority within his own congregation ; and therefore he de
termined that, in the midst thereof, the Gifts should have free
exercise. To him naturally resorted such individuals as, being
themselves used in prophecy, or receiving the work as of God,
could not obtain counsel or comfort from their own spiritual
guides; and in this involuntary manner most of them were
brought under his pastoral care. Mr. Irving was, in conse
quence, shortly thereafter ejected from his church.
And here let us say a few words as to the nature of the
Spiritual utterances. They differ from mere preaching or ex
hortation, by being the immediate illumination and sensible
impulse of the Holy Ghost, apart from, and evidently, in many
cases, beyond, the natural powers of the speakers. Their
burden was, at that time, principally that the Lord was at hand,
and that He longed that His Bride should awake, and prepare
to meet Him. The Church was shown her standing and or
ganisation as the .Body of Christ; and, in the course of time,
the symbols used in the Old Testament Dispensation, especially
those of the Tabernacle, were explained in the light of the pro
phetic word, as shadowing forth the true and spiritual worship
to be offered by her, evermore. Christ come in the flesh, was
constantly testified to; holiness on the part of all was de
�4
manded ■ most searching' words were spoken to individuals^
whereby the thoughts of the heart were revealed, the consciencewas first aroused and then cleansed, and the spirit was filled
with life and joy. There was an unbounded flow of the pro
phetic word; and the Lord stretched forth His hand, in nu
merous cases of healing the sick. Satan sought to hinder the
work by means of enemies who assailed it publicly and pri
vately ; and it also suffered from the rashness and want of
wisdom of some who believed in it: but God prospered it not
withstanding, and it has gone on increasing to this day.
One peculiarity of the utterances, at the first, was the constant
repetition of the cry for “a Body”—showing that the Church
should be seen as the true Body of Christ, in which He might
dwell by the Holy Ghost, and by which He might speak and
act. It was shown, also, that God’s ways are unchangeable;
and that the Ministries of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and
Pastors, given to the Church at the beginning, for her perfect
ing, must be restored ere that perfecting can be completed.
Finally, the Lord designated by the word of prophecy certain
men, whom, in His purpose, He had set apart, and would send,
as Apostles, to the Church.
It is impossible here to trace further the progress of this
most solemn work. This much may be said. The Lord has
been pleased to restore His Apostleship, as well as the threeother original Ministries; and He has done so, not that they
may stand at the head of a sect, but that they may be the
channels of blessing to His whole Church. Many Clergymen,
Ministers, and faithful people of all ranks, in our own land and
in different parts of Europe and America, have received and
rejoice in this grace of God. The Churches which the Apostles
have been compelled to organize, for supplying the spiritual
wants of those who have been brought into a new condition of
spiritual life, are increasing in number. The members thereof
abide in the same faith and hope, worship God in the form
appointed by Himself, pay Him tithe of their increase, and
receive His truth, the one doctrine communicated by Christ to
His Apostles, and by them to His people. Standing in the
strength of the anointing given them in the laying on of the
Apostle’s hands, they wait for the coming of the Lord, to which
the Holy Ghost daily bears witness in their congregations, that
it is just at hand.
Shall not Christian men give heed to these things ?
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgsc® & Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, 13.C.
�Wrutljs for our 3aps.
IX.
CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD.
Under the Law “the priests went always into the first
tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God; but into the
■second went the High Priest alone, once every year, not with
out blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of
•the people.” (Heb. ix. 6.) This great annual solemnity took
place on “The Day of Atonement.”
When the High Priest came out from the Most Holy Place,
he blessed the people, and declared to them God’s forgiveness.
God was then at peace with the children of Israel, and would
accept their services. True the people had"no access, in their
own persons, to the sanctuary; but God was pleased to look
upon them as having entered therein, in the persons of their
representatives, the High Priest and the priests under him.
All this was done by Jehovah’s special appointment. Ex
cept by sacrifice He could not be approached; and, without a
priesthood, there could be no acceptable sacrifice. The priest
hood was, therefore, an important link between God and His
people.
How, the Law was typical and transitory; indicating, by
shadows, heavenly, eternal realities, afterwards to be mani
fested in the Christian Church (Heb. x. 1, Col. ii. 17). The
Jewish High Priest was the type of our great High Priest in
the heavens; the blood of the victim, on the Day of Atone
ment, told of His own blood, wherewith “ He entered in, once,
into the (Most) Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemp
tion for us” (Heb. ix. 12); the sprinkling of the blood, the
■daily meat and drink offerings, the incense, the trimming and
lighting of the lamps, and the continual service of the Taber
nacle, all showed forth the spiritual and orderly worship and
service which the Church should offer, in the Holy Ghost, day
■by day, before the Lord.
9
�Iii like maimer the Jewish priesthood, of the order of Aaron
—an order that has faded away—testified to the Christian
priesthood, which has its origin in, and is co-existent with, the
Great High Priest of the order of Melchisedek, who “ abideth
a priest for ever.” There is a High Priest; and there must,
of necessity, be subordinate priests. The very title of High
Priest implies it. To ignore Christian"priesthood is to ignore
the essential duties and privileges of the Church. The pri
mary blessing which we receive through the sacrifice of our
Lord is the forgiveness of sins. But to what end is this for
giveness declared to us ? Is it not that we may be able, with
grateful hearts, to come before God, and to worship Him in
the beauty of holiness ; according to St. Peter’s words : “ Ye
also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God,
by Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter ii. 5.)
Christ stands at the golden altar in the heavenlies; and,
while He presents His own intercession, He offers also the
prayers of the Saints—their “ supplications, prayers, inter
cessions, and giving of thanks.” (Rev. viii. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 1.)
Thus, in unity with Him, does the Church appear in her true
character as the great Worshipper of God; and not only so,
but she is to lead the praise of all living things ; for the time
will come when “ every creature which is in heaven, and on
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea,” shall
catch up and prolong her hymn of joyful triumph. (Rev. v.
13.) All shall learn from her who is one with the Son how
the Father is to be adored. This arrangement (as we have
said of the Tabernacle services) is of God, and not of man.
Existing in His counsels before the creation of the world,
shown forth in the Mosaic law, it came into active operation
when the Church was constituted in Christ, and endowed with
the powers of the Holy Spirit; and it shall abide, in ever in
creasing glory and perfectness, throughout all eternity.
“ But,” it may be objected, “we are a nation of priests : and
therefore we have no need of a distinct priestly order.” We
answer that it was first said of the children of Israel that they
were a nation of priests ; and yet from among them God se
lected a priestly tribe, and from that tribe a priestly family,
whose functions none might arrogate to themselves. So, also,
in the Church, although there is no priestly tribe nor priestly
family, yet there is and must be a priesthood; and as “ Christ
glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest,” no man
�«Ought to take part in the special duties of the Christian priestfkood, unless the Lord shall call him and set him therein.
(See Tract VI.)
Again, it is sometimes asked: “ Why should sacrifices con
tinue to be presented ; seeing that Christ has shed His blood
on Calvary ?” But the Ghur ch offers no sacrifice for the tahing
atvay of sin. She does on earth what Christ is doing in heaven.
There He presents Himself to the Father as the Lamb that
had been slain; here, in the Holy Eucharist she also brings
before the Father the memorial of that body and blood “ once
offered upon the cross, once for all, a full, perfect, and sufficient
sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole
world.” Then should she plead and intercede for all men;
and, in the faith of her acceptance, and walking in the order
of the Lord, her whole being should flow out in a stream of
sacrifices of joy and thankfulness. This is the true spring and
origin of the various services of the Church, which ought to
show forth, in life and reality, what was indicated by the Law,
in the weakness of the letter.
If, then, we believe that both priesthood and sacrifices be
long to the Christian Church, we shall neither be surprised at
St. Paul’s words : “We have an altar ” (Heb. xiii. 10), norat
those of Malachi: “ My name (i. e. God’s) shall be great
among the Gentiles; and, in every place, incense shall be
offered to My name, and a pure offering” (Mai. i. 11); and we
•shall understand how reasonable it is that our worship should
be presented in solemn liturgical form, and with all suitable
accompaniments.
Two distinct duties have ever been united in the priesthood.
The priests minister to God from the people, and they minister
also to the people from God. We have spoken of the first of
these duties ; we can but briefly allude to the second.
The supreme blessing which God seeks to bestow on His
spiritual Israel is thus described by St. Paul, when summing
up the ministry of our great High Priest: “ This is the cove
nant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those
days, saith the Lord ; I will put My laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to Me a people.” (Heb. viii. 10.) Such is the
very work which God fulfils under the New Covenant, through
the ministry of the Holy Ghost. It is a priestly work, carried
on in the Church ; and they ought to be priests who accom
plish it.
�4
But the fact of our being called to offer acceptable service
to God shows that we must be constantly receiving from Him ;
for all that we offer we must first have received. Surely few
are so dead, spiritually, as not to have some apprehension of
the things that are freely given us of Him—the word of the
gospel—regeneration in baptism—the grace of absolution—the
support of the new life, in the Lord’s Supper—the many other
blessings that we know of—the many, alas, that we have for
gotten or let slip, or do not bear in mind so frequently or so
fervently as we ought—all tending to the putting of God’s
laws in oui- mind, and writing them in our hearts; all pre
paring us for the Lord’s coming ; all bestowed on us, in their
perfection, by Christ as our High Priest, through the ministry
of His priesthood.
In proportion as men remember or forget the true nature
and calling of the Church, in proportion as they expect much
or little from God, and seek to render much or little to Him,
in that proportion will they honour or despise the priestly
office. Let the desire of our hearts be that He would fulfil
His promise to His spiritual Zion:
“ I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her
poor with bread; I will also clothe her priests with salvation,
and her saints shall shout aloud for joy.” (Ps. 132.)
And as for the priest himself, what manner of man should
he be ?
“ The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should
seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the
Lord of hosts.” (Mai. ii. 7.)
- This was said of the Aaronic priesthood ; how much higher
is the priesthood “ after the order of Melchisedek ?”
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgson & Son, Gough Square, Flee Street, E.C.
�Wrutfjs for our Saps.
x.
THE LORD’S TITHE.
'Previously to the First Advent of Christ, God warned His
[people Israel, by the Prophet Malachi (ch. iii.), that they were
not prepared to meet Him; saying to them, among other things ;
Will a man rob God ? Yet ye have robbed Me . . . in tithes
and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse.” The whole
tenour, however, of the prophecy of Malachi shows that his
words are not meant to be restricted to the Lord’s First Ad
vent. . Christ is to come a second time ; and if the obligation
of paying tithe lies on Christian men, as well as on Israel,
• those who wilfully fail therein cannot be fit to “ stand when
He appeareth for they also are guilty of robbing God, and
consequently are liable to His condemnation.
The object of these pages is to show that tithe is due to God
from all the dwellers upon earth, whether they be Christians,
•Jews, or Heathens.
’
. Everywhere in Holy Scripture, Tithe, or the tenth part of our
-income, from whatever source derived, is said to be “ the Lord’s.”
It is recognized as that portion which He, the possessor of
heaven and earth, reserves to Himself, in giving us the remain
ing nine parts for our own use. He reserves it, in token of
-His ownership of all things, and as a constant expression by
His creatures, of their faith and gratitude toward Him. The
tithe, then, does not belong to man. Belonging already to
God, it cannot be presented to Him as a free-will offering.
Such offerings are oblations, which man should make, out of
his own nine parts. He who fails in them is deficient in charity;
•but he who withholds the tithe is guilty of robbery, not of any
individual, or class of individuals, clergy or others, but of God
Himself.
In searching for the origin of tithe, we are led back to the
very early days of the human race. St. Paul says, in Heb.
10
�xi. 4—we quote literally from the original—“By faith Abel
offered to God a fuller sacrifice than Cain, by which he was
testified to, that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.”
Abel’s righteousness, not his piety or zeal, is here referred to ;
as if he had brought to God a certain portion of his increase
already belonging to God, which Cain had failed, on his part,
to do.
Again, Abraham, called by God His friend, (and God’s
friends are those who do whatsoever He commands them,)
paid tithe. Returning from war, laden with spoil, he meets
Melchizedek, Priest of the Most High God. The priest blesses
him in these significant words :—“ Blessed be Abram, of the
most high God, possessor of heaven and earth
and Abraham
at once separates God’s portion; and, in the language of Holy
Scripture, “he gave Melchizedek tithes of all.” (Gen. ch. xiv.)
Two generations later, the Lord renewed to Jacob the cove
nant which He had made with Abraham, that the land in which
he was a sojourner, should yet be his ; and that in his seed all
the families of the earth should be blessed. Jacob heartily
acknowledged the tenure by which he held the promised in
heritance ; and this is his vow in answer
“ Of all that Thou
shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth to Thee.” As if he
had said—“ Surely, as a matter of course will I do this ; for
the tenth is Thine.” (Gen. ch. xxviii.)
Now, without unduly pressing the instance of Abel, how
came the priest of God and the friend of God mutually to
agree, the one to receive and the other to offer, a tenth, and
no other proportion? And how came Jacob, 150 years after
wards, to promise also a tenth ? This uniform practice can
only be referred to a common principle, that the tenth was
God’s portion ; a principle forming an element in the earliest
religion of man, and handed down, by tradition, from father
io son.
The idea of the tithe being a purely legal institution is
entirely swept away by the fact that one of the Patriarchs just
referred to, Abraham, paid tithe 430 years, and the other,
Jacob, promised it 280 years before the Law was given. The
Law confirmed the practice that had been observed by good
men from the earliest days : this-supposition can alone account
for the traces of the observance of tithe among the heathen,
though perverted from its due appropriation, some rendering
it to their gods, and others to their kings.
The tithe, we repeat, is the Lord’s portion of the earth.
�3
The earth hath He given, not merely to the children of Israel,
hut “to the children of men;” therefore all men, in deriving*
their nourishment from the earth, lie under the one com mon
■obligation. That we may have no doubt, however, as to the
application of this rule to Christian people, let us follow the
argument of the Apostle Paul, in Heb. ch. vii.; which may be
briefly stated as follows : Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek,
I priest of the Most High God. What it was right for Abraham
F to give, it is right for his children to give. What it was right
’ for Melchizedek to receive, it is right for a priest after the
order of Melchizedek to receive. We, by faith, are children of
Abraham; Christ is “ a Priest for ever, after the order of Mel
chizedek;” therefore we are bound to pay tithe to Christ.
Referring to the scrupulous payment of tithe by the Scribes
and Pharisees, who yet neglected judgment, mercy, and faith,
our Lord says :■—“ These ought ye to have done, and not to
. leave the other undone.” (Matt, xxiii. 23.) And also : “ Ex
cept your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the king
dom of heaven.” Now, besides the first tithe, the Scribes and
Pharisees, in common with all the children of Israel, paid,
every third year, a second tenth, as a Peace Offering, as well
as many other oblations. How shall our righteousness excel
theirs, if we withhold even the first tithe ?
In the early days of the Church, it was not a tithe of their
increase only that men considered themselves bound to offer to
the Lord. They gladly devoted, when necessary, their whole
substance. And, after what is called “ the Apostolic period,”
■Origen, Jerome, and Augustine specially testified to the fact
'that the tithe is the Lord’s ; and Augustine, who wrote in the
end of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth century, blamed his
Contemporaries for failing in a duty which had been faithfully
fulfilled by those who had gone before them. (Hom. 48.)
Tithes, enjoined by law, in our own country, are partial
taxes, laid upon the land only ; they are no tithe paid to the
Lord; nor can any appropriation of our means, separated at
<our own choice to religious or charitable purposes, be con
sidered as other than voluntary offerings.
Such being the obligation of Tithe, to whom ought it to be
«.paid ?
pur Great High Priest, to whom tithe is due, exercises His
priestly functions on earth, by men whom He sends forth and
•ordains for that purpose. Those who believe in the restoration
�4
of Apostles to the Church, will understand that to them, and
to them alone, as Christ’s chief representatives and stewards
in His absence, and as the true and proper heads of Christian
ministry, should the tithe be rendered. The tithe thus paid
is devoted by the Apostles, through those whom they employ
for such purposes, to the service of Christ, and to the advance
ment of His kingdom. It belongs neither to the Apostles nor
to any ministering under them, but to the Lord. The clergy,
in common with the laity, pay tithe on their private incomes.
The payment, and also the disposal of tithe, in the Apostles’
fellowship, are pure acts of faith, the fulfilment of which must
rest between God and the consciences of those concerned. A
man cannot be received, indeed, into that fellowship, who does
not acknowledge the obligation of tithe; but when once re
ceived, he is not called upon to give any account as to what
he pays. If he withholds his tithe, he can expect no blessing
through the Apostles ; for he incurs the double guilt of rob
bery of God, and of hypocrisy toward Him. Having paid the
Lord’s tenth, it is not his business to enquire into, or to seek
to control, its subsequent disposal. It is the place of the
Apostles to see that the tithe is properly and faithfully used
according to the mind of Christ, to Whom alone they are re
sponsible, in that as in every other part of their work.
Cases will frequently occur, such as poverty, or entanglement
of circumstances, or subjection to the will of others (as of
wives to their husbands), which may render it difficult, or even
impossible, for individuals to fulfil this obligation, or in which
the Lord may not demand its fulfilment. Let no one, however,
judge for himself. It belongs to the Deacons of the Church
to give counsel, in such cases, to any who seek it of them;
and it is the duty of those who are in uncertainty to ask for
counsel, and to act upon it, when obtained.
One word in conclusion. Say not: “I cannot afford to pay
tithe.” God specially pledges Himself to prosper him who is
faithful in this matter. “Bring ye all the tithes into the
storehouse, that there may be meat in Mine house, and prove
Me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open
the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there
shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Mai. iii. 10.)
Prove Him, therefore, herewith; remembering that He
cometh quickly.
Printed for W. Anderson, by C. F. Hodgson & Son, Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.O,
�<rutf)S for our Daps.
XI.
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
—<>---It is shewn, in Tract ix. of this Series, that the Law, as
given to Moses, was typical and transitory, indicating by
shadows heavenly realities of worship and service, eternally
ordained by God Himself to be afterwards manifested in the
Christian Church. In these last days, God, by Apostles and
Prophets, is teaching His Church, in so far as she will yield to
His guidance, to worship and serve Him in the holy fashion
prefigured by the Hebrew ritual.
The service of the Great Day of Atonement was that on
which ultimately rested all the daily sacrifices of the Taber
nacle. The Holy Eucharist, including Communion, is the
foundation on which the worship and offices of the Christian
Church are based, or rather the root from which they spring.
It commemorates the death and resurrection of our Lord, and
the gift of eternal life, which we receive through Him ; and
it is also the perpetual means of applying to us these ines
timable benefits.
No one type under the Law fully shews out this great
memorial sacrifice, although each type presents it in a certain
aspect.
The Sin-offering (Lev. 16.) points to our Lord becoming
sin for us, the antitype of “the accursed thing” that was
consumed without the camp.
The Burnt-offering (Lev. 6.) indicates His whole life, pure
and holy, accepted of God, as a sweet smelling savour.
The Peace-offering (Lev. 3.) tells of His making peace by
His own blood, and of His joy in doing so.
In the Eucharist is found a summary of all the types which
exhibit the atonement and sacrifice of Christ; but the order
and detail of the legal rites have their counterpart, rather in
�2
the offices derived from the Eucharist than in that Service
itself. Any Priest may offer the Eucharist; but the Angel
alone (when present) in the particular church, does so on the
Lord’s Bay. On this occasion he stands peculiarly as the
representative of the Lord, the Angel of the Covenant; and
the acts which he carries out, form, as we have said, tha
foundation of the Church’s worship during the week.
The principal parts of the Eucharistic Service are trans
acted within the Sanctuary, a part of the Church answering
to “the Holiest of all” in the Tabernacle, and also to that
Holiest of all into which our Great High Priest, Jesus Himself,
has entered, where he makes continual intercession for His
faithful people, and into which also He admits them, through
the veil, that is to say, His flesh. Before entering it, the
Celebrant, after invoking the thrice holy name of God, kneels
at its threshold and offers the solemn Confession; he next
pronounces the Absolution, and, kneeling again, repeats the
Bedicatory prayer and Versicles. He then, whilst the 1 1Gloria
in excelsis ” is being sung, advances within the sanctuary.
Here let us note that Confession and Absolution form,
necessarily, the groundwork of all acceptable approach to
God in worship. And as, in this service, Our Lord is seen as
the great Sacrifice for sin, so the Confession is antitypical of
the Sin-offering sacrificed once a year by the High Priest on
the Bay of Atonement; and in it we behold the Lord dying,
the just for the unjust. The Absolution is antitypical of the
sprinkling of the blood of the Sin-offering on the people; and
shews the application of the power and efficacy of Christ’s
blood to the hearts and consciences of all present, priests as
well as congregation.
St. Paul speaks of a special order of access to God; saying
that we should “ draw near to Him (I.) with hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and (II.) with bodies washed with
pure water; ” and he concludes thus: (III.) “Let us hold
fast the profession (or confession) of our faith, without
wavering.”
The first act here spoken of is seen in the Absolution. The
second indicates the cleansing and sanctifying of the wor
shippers by the Word of God, viz. :—the written Word in
the Epistle and Gospel, and the word of the living man, based
on the written Word, and delivered in the Homily. The
third injunction of St. Paul concerns the confession of our
�3
finth; and this we do by word and by deed ; by word in
the Creed, the great summary of Christian doctrine ; by deed
in the presentation of the first fruits of our substance in the
Offertory.
Under the Law, a Meat-offering and a Drink-offering accom
panied every Sacrifice. The one signified the presenting
before the Lord of some portion of His holy Word, as is done
in the Epistle and Gospel ; the other signified the expression,
in song, of our praise and thanksgiving, in the Anthems
Connected with the Epistle and Offertory.
The Introductory part of the Service being now concluded,
we enter upon the Eucharist proper, comprising the great
acts which peculiarly shew forth the Lord’s death till He
come. These follow exactly the order which He Himself
inaugurated on the night before the day on which He suffered;
when He “took ” bread, (i.e. set it apart for the purpose to
which He had destined it,) gave thanks, and blessed the
bread, and also the cup.
In “The Prayer of Oblation before Consecration” the
Celebrant separates to holy uses the creatures of bread and
wine. In “The Preface,” there is a Eucharistic thanksgiving, concluding with “The Sanctus.” In “The Conse
cration” the Elements are made, after a spiritual manner,
and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, to be the Body and
Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
It must here be noticed, that, on the Lord’s Day, the Angel
consecrates, not merely for oblation, intercession and commu
nion on that particular occasion, but also for the following
purposes during the week, viz. :—reservation for the use of
the sick; proposition at Morning and Evening Worship, as
a memorial before God ; and communion, at times when,
although the Holy Eucharist is not celebrated, it is yet
desirable that the Body and Blood of the Lord should be par
taken of. In all this we see the dependence of the other
offices of worship on the Eucharist of the Lord’s Day.
The proposition at the time of Intercession during the week
is shewn out under the Law, by the twelve loaves of Shewbread, (the type of Christ the Bread of Life, ) which remained
on the Table of Proposition, in the Holy Place, for seven
days, and were consumed on the eighth. By the same analogy
the sacrament that is reserved on one Lord’s Day is consumed
on the next.
�4
In the Prayer of Oblation after Consecration, the Celebrant
presents before God the symbols of the Body and Blood of
Christ, broken and shed for ns, that, through the merits of His
sacrifice, the subsequent act of Intercession may be accepted
of Him. The Intercession, being antitypical of the offering
of Incense by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, is
fitly preceded by the symbolic rite of Incense in the Christian
Church.
In the Intercession the Celebrant remembers before God
“ all those for whom He would be besought, the living and
the departed, as being one in the unity of the Body of Christ,
and in the Communion of Saints.” This portion of the Ser
vice ends with prayer for the speedy Advent of the Lord.
Next comes the Administration of the Holy Communion, in
which the elements that have already been consecrated and
offered, are received by the faithful, in the Lord’s Supper, in
obedience to His own word:—‘‘Except ye eat the flesh of.
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.”
Under the Law all Sacrifices were consumed, although in
different ways; and so this “holy and unbloody sacrifice,”
destined for the support of the divine life in the members of
the Body of Christ, is entirely consumed; the portion that is
to be reserved, as before referred to, being retained until the
following Lord’s Day.
The solemn and beautiful Eucharistic Offering concludes
with an Anthem, aPost Communion Prayer, the “Te Deum,”
and the Benediction by the Angel. And so, filled with the
Lord’s goodness, and with His blessing resting upon them,
the people depart thankfully to their homes.
PRINTED FOR W. ANDERSON, BY J. DERRY, NOTTINGHAM.
�<rutf)S for our Saps.
XII.
MORNING & EVENING WORSHIP.
As in the office of the Holy Eucharist, we see the One
Lord revealed in His unity as our great High Priest, plead
ing the merits of His Sacrifice and appearing before God,
“ the Lamb as it had been slain,” so in Morning and Evening
"Worship we see this unity manifested in diversity; we be
hold Him in His character of Ruler, Head of His body the
Church, in whom are contained, and from whom proceed, the
Fourfold Ministry—Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and
Pastors.
The part of the Church in which the several acts of wor
ship are fulfilled has three divisions; the Sanctuary, or part
nearest the Altar, answering to the Holiest of all in the
Tabernacle; the Priests’ Chancel, answering to the Holy
Place without the Veil; and the Lower or Deacon’s Chancel,
answering to the Outer Court.
We have seen (Tract XI.) that the most solemn acts in
the Eucharistic Service are transacted within the Sanctuary.
In the Morning and Evening Worship, the Services are
carried on, either in the Lower Chancel or in the Priests’
Chancel, in analogy with the Jewish Daily Worship.
Under the Law, the children of Israel were commanded to
offer a lamb, morning and evening, “for a whole burnt
sacrifice?’ . The Priest was first to lay his hand on the head
of the victim, then to slay it, and sprinkle the blood on the
Brazen Altar, and then to offer the lamb thereon; and its
subsequent consumption by fire (which in the first instance
was.sent down from heaven,) shewed God’s acceptance of the
sacrifice.
In the Order of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Exhor
tation by the Evangelist and the Confession by the Pastor
correspond to the whole action of slaying the lamb, and
placing it upon the altar. In the Exhortation we declare
�2
that we have failed and come short of the purpose of God,
and resisted and grieved His holy Spirit. The Confession is
the acknowledgment of the forfeiture of the natural life, and
of our being “ dead with Christ.” The Absolution, by the
Angel, was typified by the sprinkling of the blood on the
altar, and derives its efficacy from the fact of the Absolution
in the Eucharist, shadowed by the Sin offering on the Great
day of Atonement. In the Prayer of Dedication we see the
lamb offered on the Altar, and consumed by fire, showing
the dedication of the worshippers as living sacrifices, and the
consuming of the flesh by the fire of God’s holy Spirit. This
prayer, offered by the Elder, closes “with an ascription of
glory, and with versicles expressive of praise and adoration.”
Under the Law, Israel offered, with the Burnt offering, the
Meat offering and the Drink offering. The Meat offering is
seen in the reading of a portion of God’s Holy Word by the
Prophet. The Scripture is not read with the primary object
of instructing the people ; and, accordingly, the Prophet does
not turn towards them. Yet he does not turn from them, as
if excluding them; he stands sideways, offering the Word to
God, and yet in the hearing of the people. The Creed, com
prised under the type of the Meat offering, is recited by the
Elder, and is the response of the Church to, and the ex
pression of her faith in, the truths contained in the written
Word. The Elder is at liberty to preface the Creed with a few
remarks on the matter contained in the Scripture just read.
The act corresponding to the Drink offering is the Anthem,
the expression “ of our joy in the forgiveness which has been
proclaimed to us, and in the grace which has enabled us to
surrender ourselves wholly to God, body, soul, and spirit.”
After the Anthem we enter the Holy Place with a psalm,
the Pour Ministers ascending to the Upper Chancel. Thus
we conclude the first or preliminary part of the Service.
As, up to this point, the worship has been antitypical to
the acts performed in the Outer Court, so, from thenee it -is
antitypical to the acts of Aaron in the Holy Place. During
the psalm the Angel takes from the tabernacle the symbols
of the Body and Blood of Christ, and “proposes” or places
them on the altar, in the sight of all; signifying that it is
only as pleading the sacrifice of Christ that we can present
acceptably to God any act of worship.
Aaron was commanded to offer, every day, morning and
�3
evening, incense on the Golden Altar, and also to trim and
light the lamps of the Golden Candlestick. The incense was
principally formed of four ingredients, symbolizing the four
fold form of the worship about to be entered on, which is
described by St. Paul under the heads of “ Supplications,
Prayers, Intercessions, and Giving of Thanks.” These are
appropriately offered by the Four Ministers; and we see m
this portion of the Service the same fourfold form that we
have already remarked in the Introductory part.
The “Supplications ” are offered by the Pastor, as bearing
the burdens and infirmities of the people; then follow the
“ Prayers ” by the Evangelist, for all orders and degrees of
men; the Elder next presents the “Intercessions” or prayers
of a fuller and more intercessory character than those already
offered; and the Prophet concludes with the “Thanksgiving
to God for His mercies both in providence and grace.” We
arrive now at the Intercession proper, that great culminating
point of the Service towards which all the previous worship
has been tending, and in which the Angel (as the representa
tive of the Lord, who contains in Himself all the four minis
tries,) gathers into one the fourfold stream, and presents the
whole in its unity, one spiritual offering of intercession ; even
as Jesus Himself ever stands before the Golden Altar in the
heavens, offering intercession for us, and with it the “ sweet
incense, which is the prayers of Saints.” This act is also
seen symbolized by the burning of the incense, composed, as
we have remarked, of four ingredients, but offered as one holy
compound to the Lord, at the time of Intercession, when
diversity is merged into unity.
The Service concludes with the Morning or Evening Minis
try, an Anthem, and the Benediction by the Angel.
The Ministry in the morning consists of a meditation or
address by the Angel to the six Elders, and through them to
the Church, antitypical to the act of Aaron in trimming the
lamps of the golden candlestick in the Holy Place. In the
■evening the Ministry is given by the Angel and the Elders,
and consists of short meditations on the subject supplied by
the Angel in the morning; this act is antitypical to that of
Aaron in lighting the lamps, and is symbolized in the church
by the seven-fold lamp, burning before the altar, which is
lighted by the Deacons, as soon as the introductory part of
the Service is over.
�4
As unity is the leading feature of the office of the Holy
Eucharist, and diversity in unity, of the Morning and Even
ing Worship, so this is shown out in the Vestments employed.
At the Holy Eucharist, one colour alone is ordinarily per
mitted to be prominent; white, the emblem of the purity of
“the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ; ”
but in the Morning and Evening Worship, when we see our
Lord as the Ruler, the Head of His Fourfold Ministry, we see,
also, the four colours emblematic of those ministries; gold,
the emblem of truth, or purple, of rule, for the Angel, and
also for the Elders; blue for the Prophet, shewing the heaven
liness of the mysteries which God unfolds by him ; red for the
Evangelist, proclaiming forgiveness through the blood of
Christ; white for the Pastor, indicating the simplicity and
sincerity which should characterise his ministry.
Finally, we must see Jesus, present by the Holy Ghost in
all His ministers and ordinances, and not merely the men and
outward things, if we would worship God aright—Jesus ab
solving, Jesus interceding, Jesus consecrating, Jesus giving
us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, Jesus performing
every act, from the moment when He regenerates us in the
waters of baptism, until the time, (so near to come, as we
humbly hope,) when He will receive us from the hands of
His servants the Apostles, and present us before the throne of
His Father.
PRINTED FOR W. ANDERSON, BY J. DERRY, NOTTINGHAM.
�«Ml
��
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
Truths for our days
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Anderson, William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 13 parts, 4 pages each [52] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription in ink on cover: "H. M. Prior, Sander's Terrace, Chobham Road, Stratford E". Attributed to William Anderson, angel-evangelist of the Catholic Apostolic Church. A collection of 12 articles, possibly issued separately, on various points of doctrine. The articles have different printers and geographical locations. Contents: I. Redemption -- II. Regeneration -- III. The Lord's Supper -- IV. The Church, pt. 1 -- V. The Church, pt. 2 -- VI. The Apostleship -- VII. The sealing --VIII. A narrative -- IX. Christian priesthood -- X. The Lord's tithe -- XI. The Holy Eucharist -- XII. Morning and evening worship.
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
[n. d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT17
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
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 (Truths for our days), 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
Catholic Apostolistic Church
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b06b3fe4b522e522091fb3f6274d3b45.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=IYeVSyAsj8KmhgkABZu2C1GMu2EZNOPekuFtXqnpe%7EtBV1HxgQiiG3t0q2c5-ZJ9IDleFLCl7gOxievgxx7Jqv4nh8VSyYtMnzQQAsqhInn0Q2ULBykSs59d6v1grCMsnfIIgG5Gju0lozWvFgudwuYS%7EVtWFnnx16wZm%7ES%7EgXg0k6sz2CE2%7EKDO7-nQOZW%7E8FdzotkVMEzSyn3Ay9ZEkLlUh8plJAo4nYCxVTr-x7-UdjurK4qxZj3giPxP4Qf71v3TdQKdNHeZJhA9YcWlo%7EeP8BkMXdFlE7f5lHeLpiQA6pVItIy4dvi5S24qbmkr0zF75wbnjr1SmePAxGqjeg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0e814f88e67d6d19ba4ac584888b6492
PDF Text
Text
GRACE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON
THINTED BY C. TV. REYNELL, LITTLE TULTENET STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�GRACE.
------ *-----VICTIM to the received system of religious
education, I have suffered considerably for socalled conscience’ sake. Finding nay questions as
irritating to my instructors as their answers were
unsatisfactory to me, I early sank down into the
mould prepared for me, and at nine years old was at
the top of the religious class in a school I attended.
An excellent memory, a distinct utterance, and a
sort of knack of finding out texts with great rapidity,
were points in my favour, and as I soon left
off asking what were called impertinent questions,
it was assumed that the process of thinking had,
by the merciful interference of a superintending
Providence, been checked ere it had developed into
an insurmountable hindrance to salvation. At first
I did not think very much, but I thought a little, and
to some purpose. I learnt a hymn which contained
these lines : “ I thank the goodness and the grace
which on my birth have smiled, and made me in
these Christian days a happy English child. I was
not born, as thousands are, where God was never
known,” etc. I did not sufficiently value my privi
lege of sitting in a close room learning abstruse texts,
and when I looked at the pictures of little negroes in
sugar-plantations I did not pity them at all, but
thought that they had the best of it.
A
�6
Grace.
To check the free expression of thought is an
admirable means towards the desired end—the an
nihilation of thought itself—and had not a counter
influence been at work out of school I should, doubt
less, have become a “ chosen vessel.” As it was, I
went about, as numbers do, under false colours, sup
posed to be very pious, because I had a good verbal
memory, a quiet, old-fashioned manner, and great
digital dexterity in finding out passages in the Bible.
I seemed, of course, like a piece of wax, as all good
children should be, ready to receive any religious
impressions stamped upon me by my teachers. I
was being educated in hypocrisy under the name
of religion. The system was calculated to foster
conceit, and, until a few years ago, I thought I under
stood all that is included in the comprehensive word
grace. I was called a child of grace, I coveted grace,
prayed daily for an increase of it, explained its sup
posed effects to others, pleaded with those who seemed
indifferent to it, and mourned over those who had
fallen from it. My teachers used grace as synonymous
with self-denial, self-control, patience, fortitude, re
signation, etc., and I was accustomed to attribute all
that is elevating to its influence, and all that is
degrading to its absence. But? when a mere child, I
had silently observed the supposed effects of grace in
those who never resorted to the “means ” of it, and
before I had attained maturity, I had, when away
from the restraints of school, indulged in many a
flippant remark as to the inefficacy of grace in those
who seemed indefatigable in their strivings after it.
I was puzzled and disappointed, but not until many
years had elapsed did it occur to me that I had been
deceived, deceived by well-meaning individuals who
were themselves deceived, and who, I have every
reason to suspect, preferred to be deceived, and
would have gone on deceiving others, even if
they had permitted themselves to be undeceived.
�Grace*
7
My spiritual masters and mistresses told me that
grace was “ a supernatural gift freely bestowed upon
me for my sanctification and salvation.” I was early
taught to seem grateful that, while thousands of chil
dren were suffered to live and die in heathen lands,
where grace was unknown, I had been elected by
special favour to be “a member of Christ, a child of
God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.”
I knew that the unbaptized were the devil’s children,
that God hated them, that they could get no grace
because they were not in a “ state of grace,” and that
actions, to all appearance meritorious, were of no avail
at all towards salvation unless they were performed
in “ a state of grace.” I was exhorted to thank God
repeatedly for the grace of baptism and to look upon
the unbaptized with a mixture of pity and horror.
But for “ prevenient grace,” I should, they told me,
yield to the suggestions of my corrupt nature and
tell lies, give blow for blow, steal, cheat, and become
a hardened sinner.
At school I committed to memory a surprising
number of hymns. I knew that grace was “ a charm
ing sound,” that there was “a fountain filled with
blood,’’ and that I deserved “ his holy frown.” But
at an early age grace began to lose ground in my
estimation. At home hymns were not esteemed;
my parents never asked me to repeat them, and
of “ grace ” I never heard, save at school. I
had a playfellow, about my own age, named Bobby.
Bobby’s real father was the devil, but his reputed
father was a respectable and respected Quaker who
lived close to us, a widower, with two attractive
children, whose education was his sole occupation.
Bobby was a gentle, manly, intelligent child, the
peace-maker in all squabbles, and a great favourite
in the play-ground. In the person of this little
Quaker, Satan had succeeded admirably in transform
ing himself into an angel of light, for a superficial
�Grace.
observer might easily have mistaken. Bobby for “ a
member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor
of the kingdom of heaven.” I knew better—I knew
that he was a child of wrath—that God’s holy frown
rested upon him, and that unless God in his infinite
mercy should call him to the font, his portion would
be “everlasting pains, where sinners must with
devils dwell, in darkness, fire, and chains.” Bobby
never was taken to a place of worship; he was
taught no prayers, and knew no hymns. He squinted
abominably, and it was in consequence of that sad
blemish that my childish thoughts were drawn to a
common-sense view of grace. He was taken to an
oculist, and returned with a most disfiguring glass
over one eye, in comparison with which the squint
seemed almost an embellishment. Poor Bobby ! we
laughed at him, pointed at him, danced round him,
squinted at him, and called him “ old goggle-eye !” I
had frequently wondered at the engaging manners and
generous conduct of the devil’s little boy, but on this
occasion he surpassed himself. He turned red, his
lips quivered, the well-known “ ball ” rose in his
throat, but with steady voice he said, “ You have
nearly made me cry ; you do not know how painful
my eye is; the doctor said crying would make it
worse; I promised him I would not cry. See, I
have got a shilling, let us go and spend it and play
at something else.” “I’ll tell father, see if I don’t! ”
said Bobby’s brother, with fraternal indignation, “ and
he shall know how that shilling went.” “Ho, you
will not,” said Bobby, laughing, “ for a tell-tale is
even worse than a teaze ! ” Of course we all de
clared we were only in fun, etc., but I felt keenly
that the children of God had not set the devil’s little
boy a very good example, and I valued my religious
privileges less from that hour. I continued commit
ting many hymns and texts to memory, but I suppose
I had already “fallen from grace,” for though I
�Grace.
9
recited them with my usual accuracy, they interested
me less. I left off begging to be allowed to learn
some particular hymns, and many of my former
favourites faded unregretted from my memory. My
schoolmistress was an Evangelical gentlewoman, and
I was one of her most attentive pupils. Hearing me
say that Bobby could be good without grace, she
looked very grave, and, turning to an assistant
teacher, remarked, “ How amazing it is that parents
suffer their children to associate with the uncon
verted ! ” I repeated her words to my father. Un
like most parents, he spoke very openly, and explained
to me in very simple language that he had never
observed any moral superiority in the baptized, and
that in his own circle of acquaintances he had found
more genial characters among the unbaptized. He
drew my attention to a gentleman who was a con
stant visitor at our house, one who was in great
favour with all the children who knew him, in conse
quence of his imperturbable good humour and amiable
devotion to their little interests. “That man,” said
my father, “was brought up among the Quakers, and
though he is not a Quaker now, has never been bap
tized, and I cannot see in what respect he would
be a better member of society if he had.
The
gentleman in question was a great ally of mine, and
his children were my playmates. It would have
been difficult to find better people than were these
who had taken no pains to cleanse themselves from
their inherited filth, and it is not surprising that,
with such amiable associates, a child under twelve
should lose sight of the inestimable privilege of
“ grace ” and cease to attribute virtuous conduct to
its influence. I gave up caring about grace. I let
it go without a regret, little knowing that a few
years later I should give myself wholly to its sup
posed influence, and suffer exceedingly in mind and
body ere I succeeded in wrenching myself from a
�iO
Grace.
grasp which was crushing my individuality out of
me.
Before my childhood was quite over an incident
occurred which I shall relate, for it made an im
pression, and preserved me from rushing in after life
into certain extremes, towards which my devotional
acquaintances tended.
There was a lumber-room in Bobby’s house ; books,
pictures, ornaments and furniture, which had been
undisturbed since his mother’s death, were heaped
together in dusty confusion. The humour seized
Bobby to sort out the objects and put the room to
rights. He asked me to help him and we set to work.
I caught hold of a mutilated copy of a book called
‘ The Soul on Calvary,’ and my eyes fell upon the
following incredible and revolting passage:—
“ We will here relate the example of a most
heroic patience in sickness and of a most perfect love
of God in the heart. Perhaps it may wound the
delicacy of some ; but many others will have sufficient
greatness of soul to be edified and touched by it. A
person had fallen into a malady equally painful and
humiliating : a great sore was formed, which, in the
course of time, had engendered a quantity of worms.
This person was eaten up alive by them, and suffered
excessive pains ; yet her lively love of God surmounted
the violence of her sufferings to such a degree that
if any of her worms happened to fall, she picked them
up and replaced them in the sore, saying that she was
unwilling to lose any part of the merit of her suffer
ings, and that she considered those worms as so
many precious pearls which might one day adorn her
crown.” From the disgust excited in me by this
horrible statement, I never rallied, though I was sub
sequently thrown into daily contact with people whose
religious fervour would have inclined them to go and
do likewise.
‘ The Soul on Calvary ’ is a cheap book widely
�Grace.
ii
circulated among Roman Catholics, many of whom
would not shrink from putting into practice the wild
and filthy experiments suggested by the perusal of
that and similar fanatical works.
At a boarding-school, to which I was sent "for six
months for change of air, considerable attention was
paid to the religious instruction of the children. I was
slowly regaining my strength, after a long illness, and
was probably more susceptible to what are called spiri
tual influences than I should otherwise have been; more
over, I was at the impressionable age of fourteen, and
of a grave turn of mind. I was soon “full of grace;” that
is to say, I thought and heard of little else; answering
Scripture questions occupied a great portion of my
time, for, being very weak, I was not required to study
much, and it cost me but little trouble to get up all
the hymns, catechisms, texts, collects, etc., with which
I had formerly been somewhat overburdened. I was
soon a great favourite with my teacher, and to “ grow
in grace” once more became the great object of
my life. For a few years I had been neglecting
grace, but had not retrograded morally, and was
not a whit more unruly than my more persevering
companions.
Schooled in grace for the second time, and
thoroughly engrossed with self, I should, I ima
gine, have become very much like the ideal my
teacher had in view. . She tried hard to work upon
the feelings of her pupils, and I have seen a child of
seven years leave the class in tears, and retire sobbing,
at the thought of her ingratitude to her Saviour; and
we were taught to admire the “ workings of grace ”
in her heart, and to deplore our own indifference. Of
practical piety I do not remember hearing. Faith, grace,
hymns, Bible questions and the Church prayers seemed
all in all. We were not encouraged to make clothes for
the poor, or to deny ourselves anything for the sake
of others; for the souls of others we were earnestly
�12
Grace.
enjoined to pray, but of their bodily wants I neverheard. Once, in consequence of illness, I and another'
girl of sixteen were the sole occupants of a room.
I remarked with horror that she did not kneel downbefore getting into bed. “ Why, Emily,” said I,
f‘you have forgotten your prayers.” “You meanthat I have forgotten to kneel down. I never say
prayers, but I kneel down in the big room because of
the others; I do not mind you.” “ But do you not
mind God,” asked I, with sincere surprise. “ No,”
said she, “ God minds me ! ” I was too much grieved^
to notice the drollery of the remark. Presently she*
resumed, “ What do you. suppose becomes of the
sponge-cakes ? ” I knew dozens of them were con
veyed to the boarders through one of the ser
vants, and now I was informed that they were always
devoured during the extempore prayer made every
evening by a teacher; it lasted, with other devotions,
twenty minutes, and as the girls turned to the wall
during prayers the opportunity was favourable to the
enjoyment of soft cakes. Emily’s revelations sad
dened me indescribably. Had she been an unprin
cipled, unruly, low-minded girl, I should have been
relieved, but, like the graceless Bobby of my child
hood, Emily was superior to the other girls in moral
worth; she never copied sums, verbs, &c., from her
neighbour’s slate, and had often surprised me by her
readiness to admit ignorance, to offer an apology, and,
in short, to act as if this so-called grace had taken
firm hold of her ; but she did not care about grace,
she even called it “ a hoax,” and said that all the
religious people she knew were very disagreeable.
Her father had yielded to the wishes of his wife in
sending her to this school, and as she was soon about
to leave it, she spoke, as all girls do under such cir
cumstances, with reckless candour.
Hypocrisy must infect those who are taught so
many solemn and startling confessions, creeds, hymns.
�Grace.
and texts long before they can understand them..
Emily had discontinued her prayers because she did
not assent to the assertions in them. lc As God made
me,” said she, “ he must know me far better than I
know myself, and therefore it seems very silly to pre
tend to inform him. I am not going to say ‘ I have
followed too much the devices and desires of my own
heart,’ because it is not true; if I were to follow
those desires I should be off in the morning, in spite
of my influenza.”
All she said made me feel extremely uncomfortable,
—she had given up grace, and yet seemed thoroughly
good. However, my six months of school life were
fortunately over, and I returned to a home where all
that is estimable was inculcated without any allusion
to hymns, grace, or any other supernatural means of
arriving at the ordinary virtues which should dis
tinguish the members of a civilized community. I
do not think my father had a Bible ; I never saw him
use one, save to look out some disputed text.
Having been forced in his boyhood to read the Bible
exclusively, he made up for it in his manhood by
reading any book except the Bible. Away from the
gracious influences which for a brief season had
surrounded me, shaken somewhat by Emily’s ex
perience, and highly dissatisfied with my own
immature conclusions, I soon grew very lukewarm as
to prayer and other religious practices, and was
actually learning “ to be good and to do good ” with
out having recourse to the supernatural. I was,
however, ill at ease within, for I had been so
thoroughly impressed with the necessity of grace,
that I was quite alarmed to find how easily I had let
it go and how very well I could do without it. I was
afraid of myself knowing, or rather having been
taught, that in me “ dwelt no good thing,” and I was
greatly perplexed to find no unholy tendencies arise
now that grace had Jost its hold on me. I should
�>4
Grace.
have been quite delighted to have been able to detect
some moral retrogression, which I should have been
justified in attributing to a withdrawal of grace.
I ardently wished to believe in the efficacy of prayer
and indeed in all the doctrines I had been
taught in my childhood, but I was losing both
faith and confidence. I pretended I had not lost
either.
I was afraid to think anything out.
About that time I was invited to pass a few
weeks with a lady and gentleman at Sydenham.
Owing to curious circumstances the lady, though a
Protestant, had been educated in a convent, and was
quite familiar with all the tenets of the various
religious sects. She talked, and apparently thought
frequently about piety, grace, resignation, etc., and
said she intended to leave a large portion of her
wealth to those who had grounded her in religion.
She was, as far as I could judge, an essentially worldly
woman, and, owing probably to her wretched health,
of a singularly trying disposition. In her husband
all those virtues, specially intended, where Christian
virtues are named, shone conspicuously, and I shall
never forget my amazement when with the utmost
composure he informed me that he was hostile to
every form of religion, and that, though it grieved
him sorely to thwart his wife, he had absolutely for
bidden her to teach his little nephew, who lived with
them, any creed, catechism or hymn; she gained her
point as to the Lord’s prayer, which the boy repeated
every night in the drawing-room, beginning thus,—
“ Our Father charty neaven.”
Full twenty years have passed since the day when
I discovered that the man whose character I so much
admired, whose forbearance so much amazed me, and
whose abstemiousness bordered upon the marvellous,
was what is called an infidel! Would that I could
meet him now! How readily would I confess to
him that ‘'whereas I was blind, now I see,”—see that
�Grace.
J5
I was the real infidel, faithless to my own secret con
victions, and faithless to the tenets I was supposed
to have embraced. Fettered by formulas, vague
fears, and by a feeling of restraint which for years
prevented me from daring to be myself, I was unable
to assimilate the wholesome ingredients in the sensible
conversation of my infidel friend, who sought to wean
me from useless theological speculations, and en
deavoured to direct my attention to things practical.
I was then and for years afterwards in the position
which Fichte has so clearly described : “ Instructions
were bestowed upon me before I sought them; an
swers were given me before I had put questions;
without examination and without interest I had
allowed everything to take place in my mind. How
then could I persuade myself I possessed any real
knowledge in these matters ? I only knew what
others assert they know, and all I was sure of was
that I had heard this or that upon the subject. What
ever truth they possessed could have been obtained
only by their own reflection, and why should not I by
means of the same reflection discover the like truth
for myself, since I too have a being as well as they ?
How much I have hitherto undervalued and slighted
myself ! ”
My infidel friend was aware that I was by no means
blind to his many good qualities, for I was frequently
present, to my great discomfort, when he was severely
tried, and was forced to acknowledge that he behaved
like a saint.
“ Well, little lady,” said he one day when we were
speaking of grace, “ I hate the very word grace, I
don’t fully understand its meaning, and as lean do very
well without it, I should consider it a superfluity;
but tell me to what you attribute all that strikes you
as good in me, for as I am the only graceless dog you
know, myself must be my subject ? ”
I had repeatedly asked myself that question, and
�i6
Grace.
invariably winced at my own answer. According to
my religious notions he ought to have been conspicu
ous for moral depravity, but according to my common
sense it seemed to me that no amount of grace could
make him a more genial specimen of a moral man
than he was. However, I said that as he had been
baptized and had been taught to pray in his childhood,
he must have received many graces, and that his
avoidance of great sins was due to God’s grace, which
had preserved him from great temptations. He smiled
as he replied : “ I am afraid your surmise will fall to
the ground when you hear that I early gave up my
prayers. I had a great misfortune when quite a little
fellow. I smashed a most expensive and much-valued
old china jar to atoms. My thoughts instantly flew
to the omnipotent and benevolent Being whose eyes
were in every place, and I ran upstairs to my little
cot, by the side of which I knelt, and most earnestly
entreated God to mend the jar and replace it upon the
bracket before my father returned. Down I rushed, fully
expecting to find all as I wished, the fragments gone,
and the jar in its place. At the bottom of the stairs
stood my poor nurse, too agitated to scold me, feeling
that she would get most of the blame, and dreading
the return of ‘ Master.’ Ko words can convey my
bitter disappointment at seeing the fragments where I
had left them. I had prayed with faith and hope;
but there was no new jar upon the bracket, and never
again did I turn with confidence to that omnipotent
and benevolent Being who had not helped me out of
my terrible scrape.”
What good end Providence had in view by throw
ing me into contact with Bobby, Emily, and this
honourable infidel, pious people have never explained
to me. “ To try your faith,” they told me ; but seemed
at fault when I asked if Providence foresaw that I
should lose my faith.
My visit ended, I returned home ill at ease, honestly
�Grace.
!7
doubting, but dishonestly concealing my doubts for
so-called conscience’ sake. It would, I thought, be
awful to become an infidel, and thus expose myself to
the just indignation of my maker; but it did not occur
to me for some years that my insincerity must long
have rendered me odious in the eyes of the searcher of
hearts, the God of truth, and that I had been in jeo
pardy ever since I had dared to use my own judgment
concerning grace and its effects.
In looking over the past I can say, with the utmost
deliberation, that in my case religion was a hindrance
instead of a help, as it is intended to be. While re
calling my past experience I feel sincerely sorry for
myself and for those who, owing to my devout adhe
rence to sundry New Testament injunctions which I
had “ grace” enough to carry out, suffered acutely.
The certainty that but few have sufficient “grace” to
“ go and do likewise,” is a source of satisfaction to
me. Were I not convinced by hardly-earned experi
ence of the futility of prayer, I would pray with great
fervour that the meaning I discerned in Gospel teach
ing might be for ever hidden from their eyes lest they
should become “ converted” and show forth their
faith as I did. By nature frank and fearless, I early
profited by the lessons taught me by my ghostly coun
sellors, and learnt, like multitudes of other young
people, to conceal what passed within, and to be afraid
of my corrupt nature, and of all that emanated there
from. I was afraid of thinking, of using my own
mind, of following my own impulses, in short, of being
myself.
Conscious of insincerity, alarmed at the probable
consequences of sincerity, siding secretly with what
are called dangerous opinions, frightened at my ten
dencies, confessing with my lips what my understand
ing refused to digest, clinging to planks which I felt
could ill bear my weight, I went on praying that
infidels might be brought to the knowledge of the
�Grace.
truth, but never realising the melancholy fact that
I myself was an arch infidel, for I was a dissembler
before God and man ; reciting incredible creeds in the
house of the former, and carefully concealing my real
sentiments from the latter.
After a while, by dint of pious reading, pious
friends, and lonely visits to sundry churches, I shook
off for a season some of my most disturbing doubts,
and, during four or five years “grace” assuredly
triumphed over nature, and, but for the timely inter
ference of common sense, I too might have been dis
covered magnanimously replacing fallen creepers in
their home on my epidermis !
“ Grace” prompted me to despise “the world,” to
keep aloof from my fellow-creatures, to become
odiously unsociable, and, in adhering to what I con
ceived to be the strict line of duty to God, to disregard,
all the little courtesies and concessions to others as
“ Satanic varnish,” deviations from truth, worldly
wisdom, &c. Reproaches or remonstrances had the
effect of making me persevere still more obstinately
in the course I had chosen. I felt like a martyr
“ persecuted for righteousness ” sake, and was su
premely happy in the conviction that an unusual
amount of grace was bestowed upon me. My spiritual
advisers encouraged me in despising all human con
siderations, and in devoting myself exclusively to my
religious duties, assuring me that the world would
certainly hate me as it had hated Christ, but that I
must “ overcome the world.” In short, I acted upon
the conviction that “ the friendship of the world is
enmity with God,” and that unless I came “ out from
among them ” I was no worthy member of a Head
crowned with thorns. I had the sweet approval of
my own conscience, and felt sure that God was on my
side, so did not fear what man might do unto me.
The requirements of the Gospel seemed to me
peremptory and unmistakable, and as long as I re-
�Grace.
*9
mained under the absorbing influence of what is
called “ grace” I did my best to carry them out; but
a change came over me; old doubts assailed me with
fresh vigour; they took firm hold of me, and I could
not shake them off. During those years of religious
zeal I had been undisturbed by misgivings, and had
acted with sincerity. I look back upon them with
mingled amusement and regret, and rejoicing that I
was at length enabled to be as true to my doubts as
I bad been to my folly and fanaticism. Of course it
will be said by many that I had been guilty of absurd
exaggeration, and that true religion does not demand
that we should fly in the face of the world, that it is
possible to continue in “ grace” without sternly
abjuring “ the world,” &c. ; but such a compromise
seemed to me then impossible, and, to be perfectly
candid, I am still of opinion that to yield to the dic
tates of “ grace ” is to become what I was once, but
with my enlarged experience can never be again.
“ Grace,” as understood by the orthodox, had taken
great effect upon me; it had done its work right well,
and rendered me quite unfit for this world, and, there
fore, as I was persuaded, a worthier candidate for the
other. In my exuberant self-satisfaction, I failed to
see that by steady adherence to my favourite Gospel
texts I was daily sinking deeper into that slough of
selfishness, bigotry, and intolerance, in which the
“Lord’s people” are wont to wallow. I knowmany who
are “ full of grace ;” I avoid them, for a “ burnt child
dreads the fire.” Withdrawn from the pernicious
influence of “ grace,” I can now look dispassionately
on my former God-fearing self, and see myself in the
light in which I must have appeared to those who
deplored my “ supernatural ” tendencies, and des
paired of my return to common sense. Released
from the fetters which so tightly bound me, and
which in my blindness I hugged so fondly, I have
now the “ grace ” to see, and the candour to confess,
�20
Grace.
that I was the victim of a degrading delusion. I have
returned to the miserable “ worldlings,” who are onlydoing their duty, and striving to make the best of the
only world of which we have any knowledge, and in
which I hope I may have “ grace ” to lead a rational
life and set a natural example !
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
Grace
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Published anonymously. Author believed to be Annie Besant. "A victim to the received system of religious education, I have suffered considerably of so-called conscience' sake". [Opening sentence]. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
Free thought
Education
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 />This work (Grace), identified by <span><a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1609
CT183
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
Free Thought
Religion
Religious Education
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/00921a226c52f44cb558de27a679103d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=W131uwKd3hMfN4iqDmjkMYS-8mVlV%7EABwRCLVQZxEBjtSf4AihQc82MHQQ07i0m5mBQG4tddfXxhRknrc1AEPV70iebV4eWtutQSGUPeIUPEjfr34K9kr0q7amqWvf1%7EmhWFN9RD%7EeZWN12fIPhNlQnjBS633ta-IU06dPLREYsqOFebYsDadGJSOpYu8ajp6ZnzO%7EGUFY2Wc6MFGg4kIfZkfWrczzRm5SrfGS8eQVcvoihLxm42z5PNCrHAQe%7EQ-uyqG%7Ea5y7RqhcF-2BeEM7iPwGTHJMrVIERK9whedTEW8Rm1KIcHeum-Mr5-YuEoRspu1jup-72ynC9L8hOOZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0fc84ca232a9106a8e5229be9d8f6573
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
Supernatural and rational morality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,63, Fleet St., E. C. - 1886 (p. 8).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G903
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Supernatural and rational morality), 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
Free Thought
Morality
Rationalism
Religion
Supernatural
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a8ff7308493089e53c2f3932eaf62708.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=K5OXBZsJI6t6EPKkpXSHpmbNFRJH-l6CJ2yW9oreQFiq3MYE%7E%7EhDO62VPkyGVJCKXXcHGxl%7ENezEvvW9HV-LLPzKokw18c63caYBwsvzbyV6Bk4tBsCl%7EoVJM4qewCxsK5KwZ-kQspDvaJh8d4g8AUScQ0j3eVNWpW6TUSN4%7EKdNh0VBn8LE9qvcMcshdS24HrDAn5Nz3lUKXH6jVjaur7WeAq0yD258pevRePeommumVynJ6-xQojAbPX3D95TT0HqkozcSTN0UDtueesGnMxMyjyBCLhlesq4jnRXHcs0mPzhg9YDeB5966CRp9%7EFIcRrM8uu9zeUpDikncCHing__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23af4dc57046c0b1ac1d192469c54f8b
PDF Text
Text
CT 4oq
CHRISTIANITY:
Viewed in the Light of our Present Knowledge
and Moral Sense.
Part
Part
I.—RELIGION : PRIMITIVE, AND AMONG
THE LOWEST RACES.
II.—THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
By CHARLES BRAY,
AUTHOR OF THE “PHILOSOPHY OF NECESSITY: ” “ A MANUAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY,
OR SCIENCE OF SIAN,” ETC.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E,
Price One Shilling.
��CHRISTIANITY.
PAET I.
RELIGION : PRIMITIVE AND AMONG THE LOWEST RACES.
“ Everything that exists depends upon the Past, prepares the
Future, and is related to the whole.”—Oersted.
“ I view all beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal de
scendants of some few beings which lived before the first bed of the
Silurian system was deposited.”—Origin of Species, C. Darwin,
first Edition, pp. 488-9.
“ Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the
necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gra
dation.”—Ibid., p. 488.
“ The variation of human thought proceeds in a continuous man
ner, new ideas springing out of old ones, either as corrections or
developments, but never spontaneously originating. With them
as with organic forms, each requires a germ or seed. The intel
lectual phase of humanity, observed at any moment, is therefore
an embodiment of many different things. It is connected with the
past, is in unison with the present, and contains the embryo of the
future.”—Intellectual Development of Europe. J. W. Draper,
vol. ii. p. 109.
HESE views embody the philosophy of the present
day,
a
less interesting than
Tstudy toand it is thenoevidence in the works profitable
follow
of Lubbock,
Tylor, Draper, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and others,
upon which these truths are founded. By slow and
gradual, and probably unbroken links, the whole physi
cal world has been evolved, and this is no less true of
the world of mind. There has been nothing spon
taneous, nothing supernatural, but everything that
exists in the growth of mind, as in the physical world,
�4
Primitive Religion.
depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is
related to the whole. We must go hack to pre-historie
times to explain the thoughts and feelings, the aptitudes
and prejudices, the customs and languages of the present.
Many things otherwise utterly incomprehensible are
“survivals” of primaeval barbaric life and thought.
Customs differ widely according to climate and the
world’s age. There is no telling in what form they
may come down to us, but they are evidence that one
human nature is common to all the races and tribes
scattered over the habitable globe. The world, at the
present time, furnishes illustrations of all the forces
that have been at work in its original formation both
physical and mental. Heat and water, certainly, are a
little moderated in their action, but as rude savages as the
world has ever known still continue to exist, and the ex
tremes of civilization are as great now as at any previous
era. In the north, where the cold imposes considerable
limitation to the pleasures of life, the Esquimau
enters his house by the chimney, the occupants passing
in and out “ by means of a strong pole notched deep
enough to afford a little holding for a toe” (“Pre-his
toric Man,” p. 393, by Sir John Lubbock). A more
civilized person would no doubt prefer a ladder, and
perhaps a different place of entrance, but this mode of
ingress and egress may have conveniences that are not
at once obvious to a European. In the midst of all
the ice and snow in these regions, the great want is
water. The houses being built of ice and snow, a tem
perature above 32 degrees would make them what
would be considered unpleasantly damp to a European.
But fortunately for this phase of domestic comfort they
have no wood, but use blubber and oil to keep up a
tolerable temperature. They use lamps outside and
consume an immense quantity of blubber inside. The
temperature of their bodies is about the same as our
own! they are heated from within by the slow com
bustion—the union of carbon and oxygen—of what
�Primitive Religion.
5
thus constitutes both food and fuel. The heat is sus
tained by thick skins. The inhabitant of Central
Africa, on the contrary, enters his house, very much of
the same shape, by a hole at the bottom, through which
he crawls on his hands and knees. The Fuegians of
the Antarctic region are a much lower race than their
Esquimaux brethren of the Arctic, and the Australians,
Papuans, and Fijians are lower still. The Fuegians,
when hard pressed for food in severe winters, kill an
old woman, and when asked why they did not kill
their dogs, they said “ Dog catch ioppo” (i.e.) otters.
We should justly consider this a rather narrow view
of utilitarianism, and the conscience does not appear to
speak very loud in this stage of civilization: all doubtless
have their ideas of right and wrong, slightly varying,
however, in their significance: thus a savage explained
that if anybody took away his wife that was bad, but if he
took another man’s that would be good (Tylor, vol. ii.,
p. 289). The marriage ceremony among the Bushmen
of Australia is very simple and inexpensive. The man
selects his lady-love, knocks her down with a club, and
drags her to his camp. In South Africa, in the British
settlement of Natal, the natives are beginning to show
marked evidence of civilization. Mr Froude tells us
that a young Zulu, by hiring himself out at six shil
lings a day, soon finds himself in a position to buy a
couple of wives; he makes them work for him as well
as for their own living, and he thus sets up as a
gentleman for life, and a very troublesome one we are
told.
An interesting question has, however, arisen in Dutch
Borneo as to the extent of the duty a wife owes to her
husband. The circumstances, as detailed in a letter
written from Bandjermassin, and published in a Java
paper, are as follows:—“ It seems that a fugitive rebel
chief, who is now well stricken in years, has lately
with commendable prudence been making arrangements
as to the disposition of his property after his departure
�6
Primitive Religion.
from this life. Among other directions he has given
orders that immediately on his decease his two youngest
wives shall he killed in order that they may accompany
him to the next world. The two ladies for whom this
honour is designed strangely enough fail to appreciate it,
and have fled to the Dutch fort on the Tewch, where they
have put themselves under the protection of the com
mandant. The venerable chief is naturally incensed at
their having taken this ill-advised step, and has expressed
his intention of compelling the fugitives to return to their
domestic duties without further nonsense. His indigna
tion is shared by his family, friends, and followers, who
have rallied round him in his trouble, and by the latest
accounts he was preparing to attack the fort where his
wives had taken refuge. In the meantime, the govern
ment steamer ‘ Baritoy’ had been despatched to the
assistance of the commandant, with a reinforcement of
twenty-five soldiers; and a howitzer, with artillerymen,
had also arrived at the fort. This painful family dif
ference has naturally created a profound sensation in
the colony, and it is to be hoped that it will be satis
factorily arranged without a recourse to arms.”-—Pall
Mall Gazette.
The conventional practices and views of etiquette of
what we call savages differ considerably from our own ;
thus, with us, to pull a man’s nose is not considered
polite, whereas the Esquimaux pull noses as a mark of
respect (“ Pre-historic Man,” p. 456). Among them
also the temporary loan of a wife is considered a mark
of peculiar friendship (“ Primitive Culture,” vol. ii.,
p. 136). Civilization borrows the wife without the
consent of the husband.
The inhabitants of the Eastern Archipelago are of
increasing interest as our intercourse with them
extends. Little, however, comparatively, is yet known
of the natives of New Guinea and the neighbour
ing islands, and that little certainly does not reveal
them to us as a very interesting people. The principal
�Primitive Religion.
7
supply of meat is from human flesh, and that not
always from the bodies of their enemies, for Mr Kiehl
tells us, in an article read before the London Anthropo
logical Society, that the people 11 of the Solomon Archi
pelago are obliged to build their houses in the most
inaccessible spots on the rocks, even to the very sum
mit of the peak on Eddystone Island, to prevent being
treacherously killed at night and eaten by the very
friends with whom they feasted the day before on a
roasted enemy’s body, or perhaps on a raw one ; those of
Vaati, who, as late as 1849, were yet all cannibals, pre
ferring children to adults, and girls to boys.” Mr
Kiehl thinks it by no means a sufficient excuse for
this that other animal food is scarce, for although there
are neither cattle nor sheep, still there are plenty of
dogs, fowls, pigeons, and fish. When we consider, he
says, how many Hindoos live altogether without animal
food, “ the Papuans must be a desperately wicked people.”
Their social customs are certainly unpleasant. “ What
good,” he says, “ can be said of such people as the
natives of Vaati, whose custom it is, when they wish
to make peace, to kill one or more of their own people,
and send the bodies to those with whom they have
been fighting, to eat 1 On the death of chiefs it is the
frequent custom among them to kill two, three, or
more men, to make a feast for the mourners. When
parents are unwilling to bear the fatigue of rearing their
children, or when they find them a hindrance to their
work, they often bury them alive.” As these interest
ing creatures are near relations to the Fijians, who are
about to become British subjects, it is as well to know
something about their habits, and it is pleasing to think
also, that they are “ beginning to find out that trading
with the white men is more advantageous than killing
and eating them.” Commerce is everywhere the great
civiliser. Mr Kiehl says, “ I regret not to know any
thing about the religion of the Papuans. The practice
of circumcision seems to point to at least some form of
�8
Primitive Religion.
religious observances.” Unless eating their fellows is
another form, we certainly cannot say much for their
devotional aspirations.
I mention those things to show that the savages now
in the world are as primitive and varied in their indi
vidual habits and customs as in pre-historic times, and
that we may probably learn as much, by the study of their
interesting ways, of the origin of many of our own
modes of thought and action as by going far back into
the past.
It is a question whether all our altered customs are
improvements. Thus at Tahiti and some other islands,
tattooing was almost universal, and a person not
properly tattooed would be as much reproached and
shunned, as if with us he should go about the streets
naked (“Primitive Culture,”p. 377), and the Pijian fully
believed that a woman who was not tattooed in an
orthodox manner during life, could not possibly hope
for happiness after death (Idem, p. 459). This mode of
painting our clothes upon our bodies would certainly
save much thought and time that might be devoted to
more useful purposes, and it would probably save many
of those colds that are caught by going about only
half-naked, when people are in what they call fulldress.
But it is the religions of the world that furnish the
largest amount and best illustration of “ survivals.”
The ideas upon which they are mainly founded have
been thousands of years forming, and the question
immediately presents itself how far opinion and con
duct based on such ideas are in conformity with modern
knowledge, or only with such knowledge as was available
in the earlier and ruder stages of culture ? Upon in
vestigation, it is evident that the religious opinions of
the present day are results adopted from previous
systems which have come down from the earliest age,
and that they could not otherwise have found accept
ance now. We should shrink with horror from our
�Primitive Religion.
9
present theological creeds, if they had not come down
to us from a thousand generations of the past.
The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may
be forced into compliance with the wishes of man;
they require bloody, and rejoice in human, sacrifices;
they are mortal, not immortal; a part, not the author
of, nature ; they are to be approached by dances rather
than by prayers ; and often approve what we call vice,
rather than what we esteem a virtue (“ The Origin
of Civilisation,” by Sir John Lubbock, p. 195). For
like ourselves, “ they think the blessings come of them
selves, and attribute all evil to the interference of
malignant beings” {Idem, p. 196).
“ They have much clearer notions of an evil than of a
good Deity, whom they fear, believing him to be the
occasion of sickness, death, thunder, and every calamity
that befalls them” {Idem, p. 212).
The Tartars of Katschiutze (like our Pessimists) con
sider the evil spirit to be more powerful than the good.
{Idem, p. 213).
All religion is originally based on fear—love does
not enter till long after—fear of the invisible and
unknown, and all cause at first is invisible and un
known. Darwin in “Expressions and Emotions in
Men and Animals,” p. 144, speaking of the effect of
fear among some of the larger baboons, says of one of
them (Cynopetheius Niger) that “ when a turtle was
placed in its compartment, this monkey moved its lips
in an odd, rapid, jabbering manner, which the keeper
declared was meant to conciliate and please the turtle.”
Here we have probably the origin of what is now called
Divine Service. “Id awe,”Tylor tells us, “the Philippine
Islanders, when they saw an alligator, prayed him with
great tenderness to do them no harm, and to this end
offered him whatever they had in their boats, casting it
into the water” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 209). “Primos
in orbe deos fecit timor.” “As an object of worship,
the serpent is pre-eminent among animals. Not only
�io
Primitive Religion.
is it malevolent and mysterious, but its bite—so trifling
in appearance, and yet so deadly, producing fatal
effects rapidly, and apparently by no adequate means—
suggests to the savage almost irresistibly the notion of
something divine, according to his notions of divinity ”
(Sir John Lubbock). “All things that are able to do
them hurt beyond their prevention/’ says Tylor, “ the
primitive man adores” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 340).
The first idea of God is almost always as an evil spirit,
and among the savages of the present day, religion is
anything but an ennobling sentiment.
Thus the
Caffres believe in the existence of a heaven for those
only who had killed and eaten many of their enemies,
while those who were effeminate would be compelled
to dwell with Aygnan, their devil (“ Pre-historic Man,”
p. 469).
The Maories were perpetually at war during life, and
hoped to continue so after death. They believed in a
spirit named Atona. When any one was ill, Atona
was supposed to be devouring his inside, and their
religious service was curses and threats, on some
occasions attended with human and other sacrifices in
the hope of appeasing his wrath. The New Zealanders
believed that the greater number of human bodies they
eat, the higher would be their position in the world to
come. Under such a creed, we are told there is a
certain diabolical nobility about the habit, which is,
at any rate, far removed from the grovelling sensuality
of a Fijian. . Certainly to qualify yourself to go to
heaven by eating your fellow-creatures, is much more
spiritual than to eat them from mere gluttony.
The Dayaks considered that the owner of every
human head they could procure would serve them in
the next world, where indeed a man’s rank would be
according to the number of heads in this ; a young man
might not marry till he had procured a head. Way
laying and murdering men for their heads was the
Dayak’s religion. To be an acknowledged murderer is
�Primitive Religion.
11
the object of the Fijian’s restless ambition. Even
among the women there were few, who, in some way,
had not been murderers. To this they were trained
from their infancy. One of the first lessons taught an
infant, is to strike its mother. Mr Ellis tells ns that
no portion of the human race was ever perhaps sunk
lower in brutal licentiousness, than this isolated people.
Certainly their customs and conscience differed a little
from our own, but notwithstanding, we are told that
Captain Cook and his officers lived with the natives
“in the most cordial friendship,” and took leave of
them with great regret, and Mr Ellis says, they showed
great anxiety to possess copies of the Bible, when it
was translated into their language. “ They were,” he
says, “ deemed by them more precious than gold—yea,
than much fine gold;” no doubt being very discriminat
ing as to the quality of gold, and able also to appreciate
the dealings of God’s chosen people with the Canaan
ites, in which the inhabitants of whole cities were
murdered in cold-blood—men, women, and children,
ruthlessly slaughtered-—more highly than we should.
Among most savages it was considered the right
thing, and there was no resisting public opinion, that
wives, friends and slaves, should accompany their chiefs
into the next world. By some they were strangled, by
others buried alive. “The Gauls in Caesar’s time,” Tylor
tells us, “burned at the dead man’s sumptuous funeral,
whatever was dear to him, animals also, and much-loved
slaves and clients (“Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 419).
The ancient Gauls had also a convenient custom of
transferring to the world below the repayment of loans.
Even in comparatively modern times, the Japanese
would borrow money in this life, to be repaid with
heavy interest in the next [Idem, p. 443). When a
New Zealand chief died, the mourning family gave his
chief widow a rope to hang herself with in the woods,
and so rejoin her husband. In Cochin China, the
common people object to celebrating their feast of the
�12
•
Primitive Religion.
dead on the same day with the upper classes, for this
excellent reason, that the aristocratic souls might Bake
the servants’ souls carry their presents for them—
which presents were given with the most lavish ex
travagance {Idem, p. 441). As to what became of
the objects sacrificed for the dead—strangled wives,
servants, golden vessels, gay clothes or jewels—although
they rot in the ground, or are consumed on the pile,
they nevertheless come into the possession of the dis
embodied souls they are intended for, not the material
things themselves, but phantasmal shapes corresponding
to them {Idem, p. 439).
The native Australian goes gladly to be hanged, in the
belief that he would ‘‘jump up whitefellow, and have
plenty of sixpences;” and the West African negroes
commit suicide when in distant slavery, that they may
revive in their own land {Idem, vol. ii. p. 5).
Souls are supposed to appear in the other world in
the same age and condition as they leave this, conse
quently true religion, and the liveliest filial piety
require that parents should be dispatched before they
get too old. They are generally, where this belief
obtains, buried alive, with their own joyous consent.
The Fijians consider the gods as beings of like
passions with themselves. They love and hate; they
are proud and revengeful, and make war, and kill and
eat each other; yet they look upon the Samoans with
horror, because they have no religion, and no belief in
any such deities. “It has been asserted,” says Sir John
Lubbock over and over again, “ that there is no race of
men so degraded as to be entirely without a religion—
without some idea of a Deity. So far,” he says, “from
this being true, the very reverse is the case ” {Idem, p.
467). Let us hope so!
Primitive men, as mankind do now, worshipped Un
known Cause—the powers of nature ; every tree, spring,
river, mountain, grotto, had its divinity; the sun, the
moon, the stars, had each their spirit. The names of
�Primitive Religion.
13
the Semitic deities, Max Muller tells us (Fraser,
June 1870), are mostly words expressive of moral
qualities, they mean the strong, the exalted, the Lord,
the King; and they grow but seldom into divine
personalities. The Aryan race are recognised every
where, in the valleys of India, in the forests of Germany,
by the common names of their deity, all originally ex
pressive of natural powers, thousands of years before
Homer or the Veda, worshipping an unseen being
Under the self-same name, the best, the most exalted
name they could find in their vocabulary. The popular
worship of ancient China was, Max Miiller says, a
worship of single spirits, of powers, we might almost
say of names ; the names of the most prominent powers
of nature which are supposed to exercise an influence
for good or evil on the life of man. If the presence of
the divine was perceived in the strong wind, the strong
wind became its name; if its presence was perceived
in the earthquake and the fire, they became its name ;
“wherever in other religions we should expect the
name of the Supreme Deity, whether Jupiter or Allah,
we find in Chinese the name of Tien or Sky.” “Do
we still wonder,” he says, “at polytheism or mythology ?”
No doubt the first religious worship was of the
powers of Nature or Spirits—a sort of deprecation of
their evil influence, and of their power to hurt. But
whence came man’s knowledge of spirits ? From his
own supposed double nature. When a man died, he
felt that with the life something had left the dead upon
which life and consciousness, i.e., all the difference
between life and death, depended. This he called his
soul or spirit. In sleep, he often dreamed of distant
places, and he thought his spirit went there ; in dreams
also his dead comrades often appeared to him, and he
thought therefore they continued to exist somewhere.
Out of this dream has grown the popular religion in
all times and in all countries; Man has an instinctive
love of life and dread of death, and he thinks he must
�14
Primitive Religion,
live again somewhere, because he wishes to do so,
accordingly the somewhere was soon found—a place
above for the good, and below for the bad, where
people would be rewarded or punished as they might
behave themselves here. No one liked to part for ever
with his parents, children, and friends, and if there
was not a place where the bereaved could meet them
again, why, there ought to be, and that soon settled it.
A place was wanted also for the naughty people, and
the people we did not like, to go to. The primitive
notions of this Future State differed considerably from
our own, only the worst part of it has come down to
us—an eternity of torture for the great majority?
Of the locality of this Future State, Herbert Spencer
says, 11 The general conclusion to which we are led is,
that the ideas of another world pass through stages of
development. The habitat of the dead, originally con
ceived as coinciding with that of the living, generally
diverges—here to the adjacent forest, and elsewhere to
distant hills and mountains. The belief that the dead
rejoin their ancestors, leads to further divergences which
vary according to the traditions. Stationary descend
ants of troglodytes think they return to a subterranean
other world, whence they emerged; while immigrant
races have for their other-worlds, the abodes of their
fathers, to which they journey after death, over land,
down a river, or across the sea, as the case may be.
Societies consisting of conquerors and conquered,
having separate traditions of origin, have separate other
worlds, which differentiate into superior and inferior
places, in correspondence with the respective positions
of the two races. Conquests of these mixed people
by more powerful immigrants, bring further complica
tions—additional other worlds, more or less unlike in
their characters. Finally, where the places for the
departed, or for superior classes of beings, are mountain
tops, there is a transition to an abode in the heavens ;
which, at first near and definite, passes into the remote
�Primitive Religion.
i5
and indefinite, so that the supposed residence of the
dead, coinciding at first with the residence of the
living, is little by little removed in thought: distance
and direction grow increasingly vague, and finally the
localization disappears in space.” (“ The Principles of
Sociology,” p. 232.)
This dream of a double self—of a living soul and
spirit, the cause of life and all mental action, if it has
done good, has also done infinite mischief in the world.
On the one side it is true that children in many cases
would scarcely have been induced to take care of their
parents in old age, if it had not been from fear of their
ghosts when they were dead, and on the other, in
China, ancestor worship is the dominant religion of
the land, and it has had more to do with checking
civilization there, than anything else. The Chinese
look backwards, not forwards, and “ for thousands of
years this great people have been seeking the living
among the dead.” It is the ghosts of their fathers
and mothers that they are always thinking of, and of
the harm that they may do them, every unknown
cause with them being a spirit. This is why mines
cannot be worked, or railways made, lest these inter
esting relics should be disturbed, and this insult to the
remains of the dead visited upon the living : and after
the birth of a Chinese baby, it is customary to hang
up its father’s trousers in the room, wrong way up,
that all such evil influences may enter into them,
instead of into the child. All diseases are supposed to
come from such source, or from some tormenting,
offended deity, the latter being most easily appeased
by the offer of a hog ; in the same way as the Negroes
of Sierra Leone sacrifice an ox when they want “ to
make God glad very much, and do Kroomen good.”
At the present day when an affectionate wife says
to a sneezing husband, “Bless you, my dear,” the ex
pression comes from the time when sneezing was
thought to indicate “ possession ” by an ancestral
�16
Primitive Religion.
spirit; and the Hindu when he gapes still snaps his
thumb and finger, and repeats the name of some god—
Rama, to prevent an evil spirit going down his throat.
It has been in this kind of chaotic superstitious
atmosphere, in which everything was supposed to be
brought about by spirits, that what are called our
religious instincts, were originally formed. This is
the soil in which even our present ideas of God, the
Soul, and Immortality first took root.
Mr Tylor says (vol. ii. p. 286) “ Conceptions originat
ing under rude and primitive conditions of human
thought, suffer in the course of ages the most various
fates. Yet the philosophy of modern ages still, to a
remarkable degree, follows the primitive courses of
savage thought.” This is true as regards our philo
sophy, but it is still more true with respect to our
religion, for ancestor-worship in the saints, and inter
cession to them and to the “ mother of God, the Queen of
heaven,” and anxiety for the future condition of this
dream-created soul, still rule the mind of Christendom.
Propitiation and sacrifice form the substance of all
religions in their earliest stages. Man first of all, and
above all, fears the spirits and gods that his imagination
has created, and he offers up to them what he most
values, and which he thinks, therefore, they will most
value—his finest fruit, the firstling of the flock, even
his own children. An only son was thought to be the
greatest and most acceptable sacrifice. When the Carthagenians got into trouble, three hundred children of the
first people of the city were offered up in the fire to their
God; so willing has man always been to cast upon
another the burden of his own misdeeds. The religion
of the present day is little more than a “survival” of the
past, and “throughout the rituals of Christendom stands
an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle
from savage times—that the weather may be adjusted
to our local needs, that we may have the victory over
all our enemies, and that life, and health, and wealth, and
�Primitive Religion.
17
happiness, may be ours.” (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii. p.
336).
We are told that man is especially distinguished by
the possession of a conscience which, like a heavenly
messenger, guides him in his choice in the immutable
and eternal distinctions between right and wrong. If
this be so, it is in a very incipient state in primitive
man, and this guide itself seems to require educating and
guiding quite as much as any other of his faculties.
Thus Dr Seeman tells us of the Fijians, that “ in any
transaction where the national honour had to be
avenged, it was incumbent on the king and principal
chiefs—in fact a duty they owed their exalted station,
to avenge the insult offered to the country, by eating
the perpetrators of it.” He adds, “ I am convinced,
however, that there was a religious, as well as a political
aspect of this custom.” No doubt conscience gave them
a high sense of their social, political, and religious
duties, only they differed slightly from us, as to the
mode in which they should be carried out. So also
of the practice, where from a religious sense of duty,
children eat their parents, when they got old and in
firm, waiting however, till the season when salt and
limes were at the cheapest.
The savage theory of the universe refers its pheno
mena to the action of pervading personal spirits, similar
to what in dreams they have made out their own spirits
to be; the powers of nature are everywhere spiritual
ized and personified. With increasing knowledge unity
is given to these powers, and we have a God One and
Indivisible : at least this becomes the creed of the
highest minds, the multitude still continue to find a
separate God in everything, and for everything. (An
excellent account of how these so-called religious ideas
of the existence of the “ double ” or soul, of a future
state, and another world, arise in the minds of savages,
from which they have come down to us, changed from
a very definite and material conception to a very indefi
�18
Primitive Religion.
nite and immaterial one, is to be found in Mr Herbert
Spencer’s “Principles of Sociology,” now publishing.)
From this point, says Dr J. W. Draper, that is, from
the very earliest ages when the comparative theology
of India was inaccessible, “ there are two well-marked
steps of advance. The first reaches the consideration
of material nature : the second, which is very grandly
and severely philosophical, contemplates the universe
under the conceptions of space and force alone. The
former is exemplified in the Vedas and Institutes of
Menu, the latter in Buddhism. In neither of these
stages do the ideas lie idle as mere abstractions ; they
introduce a moral plan, and display a constructive
power not equalled even by the Italian Papal system.
They take charge not only of the individual, but regu
late society, and show their influence in accomplishing
political organizations, commanding our attention from
their prodigious extent, and venerable for their anti
quity.
“ I shall, therefore, briefly refer, first, to the elder,
Vedaism, and then to its successor Buddhism. The
Vedas, which are the Hindu Scriptures, are asserted to
have been revealed by Brahma. They are based upon
an acknowledgment of a universal spirit pervading all
things: £ There is in truth but one Deity, the
Supreme Spirit, the Lord of the Universe, whose work
is the Universe.’ ‘ The God above all Gods, who
created the earth, the heavens, and the waters.’ The
world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is
therefore a part of him ; it is kept in a manifest state
by his energy, and would instantly disappear if that
energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even as it is, it
is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything be
ing in a transitory condition. The moment a given phase
is reached, it is departed from or ceases. In these per
petual movements, the present can scarcely be said to
have any existence, for as the past is ending, the future
has begun.
�Primitive Religion.
19
“ In such a never-ceasing career all material things are
urged, their forms continually changing, and returning,
as it were, through revolving cycles to similar states. . .
“ In this doctrine of universal transformation there is
something more than appears at first. The theology
of India is underlaid with Pantheism. “God is One
because he is All.’ The Vedas in speaking of the rela
tion of nature to God, make use of the expression that
he is the Material as well as the Cause of the Universe,
1 the Clay as well as the Potter.’ They convey the
idea that while there is a pervading spirit existing
everywhere of the same nature as the soul of man,
though differing from it infinitely in. degree, visible
nature is essentially and inseparably connected there
with : that as in man the body is perpetually undergo
ing change, perpetually decaying and being renewed,
or, as in the case of the whole human species, nations
come into existence and pass away, yet still there con
tinues to exist what may be termed the universal human
mind, so for ever associated and for ever connected are
the material and the spiritual. And under this aspect
we must contemplate the Supreme Being, not merely as
a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel
case of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens ex
cept through its connections with the body ; so matter,
or nature, or the visible universe, is to be looked upon
as the corporeal manifestation of God.
“We must continually bear in mind that matter ‘has
no essence, independent of mental perception ; that ex
istence and perceptibility are convertible terms; that
external appearances and sensations are illusory, and
would vanish into nothing if the divine energy which
alone sustains them were suspended but for a moment.”
— ( “ The Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. i.
pp. 54, 55, 56.) Truly, there is nothing new under the
sun. Here we have the most advanced Pantheistic
Theology of the present day, and being given some two
thousand years before the Christian era it would seem
B
�20
Primitive Religion.
almost as if the Vedas were inspired. Here also, we
have the Idealism that constitutes the creed of so many
of our most cultivated philosophers. However pure a
doctrine may be at its source, as it comes from the
highest minds, it is soon perverted to suit the lowest, and
high and simple and true as it seems to me this doctrine
is, it was soon twisted into every possible form of error
and superstition that was best calculated to give the
Brotherhood command over the ignorant multitude.
■ It soon needed Reforming, and Buddhism came before
the world as that Reformation.
Buddhism most probably dates from about 1000 years
before Christ, and Draper says it is now professed by a
greater numberof the human race than any other religion.
“ The fundamental principle of Buddhism is that there
is a supreme power, but no Supreme Being. . . It is a
rejection of the idea of Being, an acknowledgment of that
of Force. If it admits the existence of God, it declines
him as a Creator. It asserts an impelling power in the
universe, a self-existent and plastic principle, but not a
self-existent, an eternal, a personal God. It rejects
inquiry into first causes as being unphilosophical, and
considers that phenomena alone can be dealt with by
our finite minds. . . . Gotama contemplates the exis
tence of pure force without any association of Substance.
He necessarily denies the immediate interposition of any
such agency as Providence, maintaining that the system
of nature, once arising, must proceed irresistibly accord
ing to the laws which brought it into being, and that
from this point of view the universe is merely a gigantic
engine. Equally does Gotama deny the existence of
chance, saying that that which we call chance is nothing
but the effect of an unknown, unavoidable cause.’' (“ In
tellectual Development of Europe,” vol. i. p. 65.) I
scarcely need point out the similarity existing between
this creed and that of the leading physicists of the present
day.
■ “ As to the external world, we cannot tell how far it
�Primitive Religion.
21
is a phantasm, how far a reality, for our senses possess
no reliable criterion of truth. They convey to the mind
representations of what we consider to be external things
by which it is furnished with materials for its various
operations; but unless it acts in conjunction with the
senses, the operation is lost, as in that absence which
takes place in deep contemplation. It is owing to our
inability to determine what share these internal and ex
ternal conditions take in producing a result, that the
absolute or actual state of nature is incomprehensible to
us. Nevertheless, conceding to our mental infirmity the
idea of a real existence of visible nature, we may con
sider it as offering a succession of impermanent forms,
and as exhibiting an orderly series of transmutations, in
numerable universes in periods of inconceivable time
emerging one after another, and creations and extinc
tions of systems of worlds taking place according to a
primordial law.
“ Of the nature of man, Gotama tells us that there is
no such thing as individuality or personality—that the
Ego is altogether a nonentity. In these profound con
siderations he brings to bear his conception of force, in
the light thereof asserting that all sentient beings are
homogeneous. . . . Each one must however work out
his own salvation, when, after many transmigrations, life
may come to an end. That end he calls Nirwana-—•
Nirwana, the end of successive existences. It is the
supreme end, Nonentity. The attaining of this is the
object to which we ought to aspire. . . . The panthe
istic Brahman expects absorption in God; the Buddhist,
having no God, expects extinction.
“India has thus given to the world two distinct
philosophical systems —Vedaism, which makes its
resting-point the existence of matter, and Buddhism, of
which the resting-point is force. The philosophical
ability displayed in the latter is very great; indeed, it
may be doubted whether Europe has produced its meta
physical equivalent.” (Idem, 66, 67, 68.)
�22
Primitive Religion.
It need scarcely excite our surprise then if our
Christian missionaries make but little progress in India.
It is worthy of note with reference to those who assert
that the “ Immortality of the Soul ” is among the unextinguishable instincts of our nature, that in the two
religions of the world—if we must call them two—
which contain the greatest number of adherents, not
Immortality is sought, but absorption in God, or Nirwana, both of which include the extinction of the
individual. The Lazarist Hue testifies that they die
with incomparable tranquillity, and adds, they are what
many in Europe are wanting to be. It is worthy of
note also how much there is in each system in accord
ance with the most advanced modern thought: the one
as Idealism, the other as represented by the recent dis
covery of the Persistence and Correlation of Force. For
if Vedaism connects itself with Matter, it is Matter as
regarded only as “the corporeal manifestation of God,”
and I have endeavoured to show elsewhere how and
where, as so regarded, Materialism and Absolute Idealism
meet. (“ Illusion and Delusion,’’ published by T. Scott.)
In my work also “ On Force, and its Mental Correlates”
(Longmans & Co.), I have endeavoured to illustrate
and enforce the following propositions :—
There is but one Reality in the universe, which
Physical Philosophers call “ Force; ” and Metaphy
sicians “Noumenon.” It is the “Substance” of
Spinoza, and the “ Being ” of Hegel.
Everything around us results from the mode of
action or motion, or correlation of this one force, the
different Forms of which we call Phenomena.
The difference in the mode of action depends upon
the difference in the structure it passes through ; such
Structure consisting of concentrated Force, or centres
of Force, and has been called Matter. “ Every form is
force visible; a form of rest is a balance of forces; a
form undergoing change is the predominance of one
over others.”—Huxley.
�Primitive Religion.
23
Heat, Light, Magnetism, Electricity, Attraction, Re
pulsion, Chemical Affinity, Life, Mind, or Sentience,
are modes of action or manifestations of Force, and die
or cease to exist, when the Force passes on into other
forms.
Cause and Effect is this sequence or correlation; and
each cause and effect is a new Life and a new Death :
each new form being a new creation, which dies and
passes away, never to return, for “ nothing repeats
itself, because nothing can be placed again in the same
condition : the past being irrevocable.”—W. R. Grove.
“ There is no death in the concrete, what passes away
passes away into its own self—only the passing away
passes away.”-—-Hegel.
Force passing through a portion of the structure of
the brain creates the “ World” of our intellectual con
sciousness, with the “Ego ” or sense of personal identity;
passing through other portions the world of our likes
and antipathies—called the moral world: Good and
Evil being purely subjective.
The character and direction of Volition depend upon
the Persistent Force and the structure through which
it passes. Every existing state, both bodily and
mental, has grown out of the preceding, and all its
Forces have been used up in present phenomena. Thus,
“ everything that exists depends upon the past, pre
pares the future, and is related to the whole.”—
Oersted.
As no force acts singly, but is always combined with
other forces or modes of action to produce some given
purpose or particular result, we infer that Force is not
blind but intelligent. As Force is intelligent and One,
it would be more properly called Being—possessing
personality ; and that being we have called God. “ He
is the universal Being of which all things are the mani
festations.”-—-Spinoza.
All power is Will power,—the will of God. “ Caus
ation is the will, Creation the act of God.”—W. R.
�24
The Christian Religion.
Grove. The will which originally required a distinct
conscious volition for each act has passed, in the ages,
generally into the unconscious or automatic state, con
stituting the fixed laws and order of nature.
PAET II.
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
“ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is
to fill the world with fools.”—Herbert Spencer.
We in this Christian country are brought up in the
belief that the Jews were chosen by God to perpetuate
a worthy representation of Himself in a Pagan world
given up wholly to Idolatry : that the character and
attributes of the Creator, as given to man in the books
of the Old Testament, are a Revelation from God Him
self. On examination this turns out to be by no means
the case. The Hebrew god is made entirely after the
likeness of man ; wiser and more powerful, but with all
his vices as well as his virtues greatly exaggerated—a
conception fitted only for a barbarous age and a bar
barous people; and notwithstanding some sublime
poetical passages of the later prophets, altogether in
ferior to that formed by the wise men of other Eastern
nations. To Jewish conception, even to the last, the
Creator of the Universe was the family God of the
Patriarchs—the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, the. titular or national God of the Hebrews, and
it was not till after the Babyionic captivity that the
“ chosen people” abandoned altogether other supposed
protecting deities, and became confirmed monotheists.
Thus the religious history of the Jewish people in the
historical books of the Old Testament, presents a series
of vacillations between the worship of Jehovah and that
�The Christian Religion.
25
of the gods of the surrounding nations ; the people
serving that god who they think will afford them the
most powerful protection.
Hence the jealousy of
Jehovah, and the term the living God, and the First
Commandment, “ Thou shalt have no other gods but
me.’’ It will be necessary to show this, as Christianity
is based on Judaism, and the orthodox theology of the
present day is derived more from the Old Testament
than the New. I shall let the Bible speak for itself.
And God said, let us make man in our own image,
after our likeness.”-—Gen. i. 26.
“ And on the seventh day God ended His work
which He had made, and he rested on the seventh day
from all His work which He had made.”—Gen. ii. 2.
“ And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the
Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.”
-—Gen. iii. 8.
Cain and Abel from the very first make offering unto
the Lord of fruit and flesh, and “ of the fat thereof,”
and they are accepted by him.”—Gen. iv. 3, 4, 5.
And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the
plains of Mamre accompanied by two angels, and they
eat of a calf that was “ tender and good,” and the Lord
said unto Abraham Wherefore does Sarah laugh, &c.,
and the Lord went his way as soon as he had left com
muning with Abraham.”—Gen. xviii. 1, 7, 8, 13.
The Lord also afterwards appeared unto Moses, on
his desiring to see the glory of God. And he (Moses)
said, I beseech thee show me thy glory. And he (the
Lord) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee,
and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee ;
and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He
said Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man
see me and live. And the Lord said, Behold there is a
place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock. And
it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that
I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover
�26
The Christian Religion.
thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take
away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but
my face shall not be seen.”—Gen. xxxiii. 18-23.
And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all
thy house into the ark, and the Lord shut him in.”—
Gen. vii. 1, 16.
“ And when Noah came out of the ark he builded an
altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and
of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the
altar.
“ And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the
Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground
any more for man’s sake.”—Gen. viii. 20, 21.
“ And the Lord came down to see the city and the
tower which the children of men builded,” and the
Lord said, “ Go to, let us go down and there confound
their language, that they may not understand one
another’s speech.”—Gen. xiv. 5, 7.
“ It repenteth the Lord that he had made man upon
the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.”—Gen. vi. 6.
“ And God heard the voice of the lad : and the angel
of God called to Hagar out of heaven.”—Gen. xxi. 17.
“ And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should
obey his voice, and let Israel go ? I know not the
Lord (Jehovah) neither will I let Israel go. And they
said, The God of the Hebrews hath met us, let us go
three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto
the Lord our God : lest He fall upon us with pestilence
or with the sword.”—Exod. v. 2, 3.
“ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply
my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But
Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.”—Exod. vii. 3, 5.
“ And I (Jehovah) will give the people favour in the
sight of the Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that,
when ye go, ye shall not go empty. But every woman
shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth
in her house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and
raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and
�The Christian Religion.
27
Upon your daughters ; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.”
—Exod. iii. 21, 22.
“ And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight
of the Egyptians, so that they lent them such things as
they required, and they spoiled the Egyptians.”—Exod.
xii. 36.
When “ wrath is gone out from the Lord, and the
plague is begun, Aaron put on incense, and made an
atonement, and the plague- was stayed” (Num. xvi.
4648.)
God’s promise to Abram. “ Thou art the Lord
God, who didst choose Abram, and brought him
forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the
name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful
before Thee, and mad’st a covenant with him to give
the lands of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites,
and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites to give it, I say to his seed, and hast per
formed Thy words: for Thou art righteous” (Nell. ix. 7-8).
Of how this promise was kept we need give only one
illustration.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, avenge
the children of Israel of the Midianites. And they
warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded
Moses ; and slew all the males. And Moses was wroth,
and ordered every male among the little ones to be killed
in cold-blood, and every woman that had known man :
“ but all the women children that have not known a
man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
“And there were 32,000 persons in all, of women that
had not known man by lying with him ” (Num. xxxi.
1, 2, 7, 14,17, 18, 35.)
“ Eighteous ” is not perhaps exactly the word which
we should now apply to such dealings ! And the childten of Israel said to Samuel, “ Cease not to cry unto the
Lord our God for us, that He will save us out of the
hands of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a sucking
lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly unto the
�28
The Christian Religion.
Lord: and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel; and
the Lord heard him. And as Samuel was offering up
the burnt-offering, the Philistines drew near to battle
against Israel: but the Lord thundered with a great
thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discom
fited them ; and they were smitten before Israel (Sam
uel, 1 Book, vii. 8, 9, 10.)
The Lord fights for Israel, and casts down hailstones
from heaven ; “ they were more which died with hail
stones than they which the children of Israel slew with
the sword; ” and he makes the sun and moon to stand
still until the people are avenged. “ Then spake Joshua
to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in
the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ;
and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. So the sun
stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day. And there was no day like
that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto
the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
(Num. x. 8, 14.)
Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and
the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt
treacherously with Abimelech (Judges ix. 23.) Who
shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-Gilead 1 and one said in this manner, and
another said in that manner. And there came forth a
spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will per
suade him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith 1
And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said,
thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also ; go forth,
and do so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put
a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets
(1 Kings xxii. 20, 23.)
God’s throne is in heaven. “The Lord hath pre
�The Christian Religion.
29
pared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom
ruleth over all (Ps. ciii. 19.)
I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it
stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with
twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered
his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried
unto another, and said, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
hosts : the whole earth is full of His glory (Isaiah vi.
1, 3.)
For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord
is above all gods (Ps. cxxxv.)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh (Ps. ii. 4.)
Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to
another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a
book of remembrance was written before him for them
that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name.
(Mai. iii. 16.)
In every place incense shall be offered unto my
name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts (Mai. i. 11. )
I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the
host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand,
and on His left (Micaiah.)
Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon
a thousand hills (Ps. i. 7, 15.)
The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the
world and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded
it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.
(Ps. xxiv. 1-2.)
The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even
thousands of angels (Ps. lxxiii. 17.J
After the Chaldean captivity, when it was thought
to be beneath the dignity of God to appear personally,
these angels are very active and much more plentiful.
Then the Lord employs his destroying angel to slay
185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. David also sees
an angel.
�3°
The Christian Religion.
So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there
fell of Israel seventy thousand men. And God sent an
angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was
destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of
the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is
enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the
Lord stood by the threshingfloor of Oman the Jebusite.
And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the
Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having
a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem
(1 Chron. xxi. 14, 16.)
Here is Daniel’s description of the angel Gabriel:—
11 A man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with
fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl,
and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in
colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words
like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. x. 5-6.)
This God of the Hebrews is certainly not a very sub
lime conception, and it is difficult to say in what it differs
from that of other primitive savages. He shows bimself in bodily presence as a man to Adam and to Abram,
walks in the cool of the evening, shows his parts behind
to Moses, comes down to prevent a tower being built up
into heaven, spoils the Egyptians, utterly exterminating
the Canaanites, man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass, that he may give their
land to his chosen people, sending lying spirits into his
prophets, and in fact possessing all man’s greatest vices
greatly exaggerated.
He is angry, furious, cruel,
vindictive, jealous, treacherous, partial, and by the
smell of a sweet savour of poor innocent slaughtered
beasts and birds, and by incense and sackcloth and
ashes is turned from his purpose and repents. The
Hebrew God is everywhere represented as delighting in
blood, requiring the first-born of both man and beast
to be offered up to him, and a lamb to be supplied to
him both night and morning throughout the year. Is
�The Christian Religion.
31
it not strange that this barbarous conception of a blood
thirsty people should have been chosen by the modern
World as the foundation of its religion, and can we
wonder that the picture of such a Being, painted as we
are told by himself, should have had a most deleterious
effect on the moral sense of all who have been intro
duced to it, or that those who prefer to believe in no
God at all, rather than in such a God, should increase
daily ?
The Jews have continued to “ spoil the Egyptians,”
that is, all the nations among whom they are thrown,
until this day, and this spoiling the Egyptians is quoted
as a precedent for every kind of cheating and dis
honesty among all who are disposed to prey by false
pretence upon their fellow creatures. The religion of
the Hebrews was like that of every savage nation. It
consisted of Prayer and Supplication and Sacrifice. All
unusual and extraordinary phenomena, all good gifts
and evil fortune came direct from God, and they sought
by gifts to him of what they thought he would like
best, and by praise and adulation which they knew they
most liked, to propitiate him, and win his favour.
This was accomplished by a Priesthood who made it
difficult to approach him except through themselves,
and who claimed a reversionary interest in all gifts
offered to him.
It is true that more refined notions of deity prevailed
among “ God’s chosen people,” as civilization advanced,
and after they had spent seventy years in captivity in
Babylon, and had become acquainted with the much
higher “ revelation ” of Zoroaster.
Still their most
sublime and poetical conception never rose above that
of a mighty magician, speaking the word of power ; the
heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool; to
whom belonged,—not the countless worlds of which they
had no idea, but the cattle upon a thousand hills ; rid
ing upon the wings of the wind; governing the world
by his angels, and in whose name every possible atrocity
�32
The Christian Religion.
is committed : to whom such men as Jacob, David, and
that wisest of all men, Solomon, with his three hundred
wives, and nine hundred concubines, are represented as
especially acceptable and favoured, but who show an
utter indifference to any moral law whatever. Notwith
standing this, we have that good man, the late Dr Norman
Macleod, telling us almost with his last words, that “ The
Bible practically says to all seekers after God, ‘Whom
ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.’ It
professes to give a true history, in harmony with reason,
conscience and experience, of God’s revelation of Him
self during past ages, culminating in Jesus Christ, and
continued in the Church by His Holy Spirit.’—Good
Words, June 1875, p. 420.
Hear also His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the highest authority of all. He says, “ Good Words,”
May 1875, “As to morality, upholding as we do the
immutable and eternal distinction between right and
wrong, and thankful that in all but degraded specimens
of the human race there is a conscience capable of
learning these distinctions. ... We believe that the
Great Being who controls the universe is in Himself
the very good, and very right.” Now as His Grace
identifies the Great Being who controls the universe with
the Hebrew God of the Bible, and as we cannot certainly
classify His Grace among “ the degraded specimens of
the human race,” we are obliged to conclude that his
conscience has yet something to learn. An aged and
much respected dissenting Minister tells me that “ The
Bible will treat you as you treat it,” that is, you may
find whatever you are looking for, and only nineteenth
century ideas are looked for ; we look for a reformed
God, and a reformed religion, and this is the only way I
can account for the judgments of the good men I have
quoted above, and also for the fact that such chapters
as Gen. xix., xxxvii., Jud. xix., 2 Sam. ix., xiii., &c.,
are allowed to be retained, although they would not
obtain admission into any book in the present day in
any refined and civilized community.
�The Christian Religion.
33
But even among those who reject Revelation as a
revelation, the deistic conception of God as a governing
power outside the universe is probably as childish as
the original one conceived in the childhood of the
world, when all the earth was supposed to be filled
with his glory.
The cosmogony of the Hebrews, as might be expected,
is exactly upon a par with their Theology. The earth,
according to their revelation, was the centre of all
things ■, it was flat, founded upon the seas, and could
not be moved. The sun, and moon, and stars, are so
many lamps placed in the firmament to give light to
the earth. The firmament or sky is a solid structure,
and supports a great ocean like that upon which the
earth rests, in which are little windows through which
pour the waters of this upper ocean—under the earth
is the land of graves, called sheol, and is the hell, to
which it is said, Christ descended.* Above the waters
of the firmament is heaven, where Jehovah reigns,
surrounded by hosts of angels. It is to this heaven
that Christians say Christ ascended, his disciples and
a vast multitude having seen him go up, where he sitteth
on the right hand of God. There is some little
discrepancy as to whether Christ is sitting or standing,
as St Stephen saw him standing, and we might well
believe it was “ sometimes one and sometimes the
other,’’ if the Athanasian creed, supported by the
church, did not say that we shall be damned if we do
not believe he is sitting. Between the firmament and
the earth is the air, which is the habitation of evil
spirits, and properly belongs to Satan, the “ prince of
* Mr George Smith, informs the Daily Telegraph that some
of the Assyrian tablets discovered by Mr Smith and presented
by the proprietors of the Telegraph to the British Museum,
contain a much longer and fuller account of the creation and
fall of man than the Book of Genesis. In particular, the fall
of Satan, which in the Bible is only assumed, is in these
records reported at length, and the description of this being is
characterized by Mr Smith as “ really magnificent.”
�34
’Rhe Christian Religion.
the powers of the air.” As to the order of creation, the
sun is made on the fourth day, the changes of day and
night preceding it. The sun and moon are subordinate
to the earth. It took no less than five days to create
the earth, while for the sun, the whole starry host, and
the planets it took only one day, but then they were
made just to light up the earth. It was for professing
some little doubt as to the accuracy of this plan of the
universe that poor Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned,
and the special charge against Giordano Bruno was that
he had taught the plurality of worlds, a doctrine, it was
said, repugnant to the whole tenor of Scriptures, and
inimical to revealed religion, especially as regards the
plan of salvation. For this he was to be punished as
mercifully as possible, and “ without the shedding of
blood,” the horrible formula for burning people alive.
It was this adoption of the Jewish sacred writings as
the standard of all knowledge, this conflict between
religion and science, this attempt to put the Cosmos
into a quart pot, that has put a logger on science, even
up to the present day. The so-called revelation now
stands in the way of mental science as it formally did
in the way of physics ; but as our astronomy has come
from science and not from revelation, so also must our
mental and moral philosophy.
Mohammedanism
released the people of Asia, Africa, and the Continent of
Europe, from those narrow and erroneous scriptural
dogmas, and the thick darkness of papal Eome, and left
science free; and the lamp of discovery was kept burning
through Arabian learning, and the highest civilization
we have yet reached, that of the Moors in Spain. We
are evidently approaching another Reformation in which
Science not in one department only, but in all, shall be
left entirely free. The intellectual development of
Europe has reached that stage where Arabism left us in
the 10th and 11th centuries. Through the influence of
Eome the world then took the wrong way; had it
adopted Averhoism, which was rejected only by a
�The Christian Religion.
35
small majority, we should have been then where we
are now.
But if the Jewish conception of God was a most
unworthy one, what must we say of that of the orthodox
Christian? Why, that it is infinitely worse. With
both he is the Creator of all things, therefore, of
evil and good, but with the former evil is confined to
time and this world, while with the. latter it is absolute
and endless. Thus, according to the orthodox creed
the Almighty and All-wise, with a perfect knowledge
therefore of what he was doing, and full power to do
otherwise, made our first parents, Adam and Eve, and
put them into Paradise, with the full knowledge that
they would get themselves immediately turned out for
a single act of disobedience. They were not to eat of
a certain magic tree, for if they did so on that day they
should surely die. But our poor inexperienced mother
Eve, not knowing even what death was, was beguiled
by a talking serpent, into eating, and Adam, like a
gentleman, determined to share the consequences with
his wife : and if they had merely died on that day they
would only have been where they were before they
were made. But did God keep His word ? No, they
did not die that day, but aftdr cursing the earth for
their sake, they were kept alive to fill it with their
children, all of whom, with themselves, were condemned
to everlasting torture for this single act of disobedience.
But God had already arranged a scheme by which the
world might be saved; He would give His only be
gotten Son; Christ was to die for our salvation, an
innocent person for the guilty ; but the conditions
were such that God in His infinite fore-knowledge knew
perfectly well they would not be accepted, and that the
great majority would be damned, notwithstanding this
infinite loving kindness, and awful sacrifice. From the
“Westminster Confession of Faith,” we learn that by the
decree of God, for the manifestation of His ylory, some
c
�^6
The Christian Religion.
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life,
and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
“Those angels and men, thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ;
and their number is so certain and definite, that it
cannot be either increased or diminished.”
“ The rest of mankind, God was pleased, for the
glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to
pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” Glorious
justice indeed ! an infinite punishment for a finite sin,
or rather for no sin at all, for if the causes that pro
duced the act had not been adequate to the result, God
could not have foreseen it.
“ Our first parents, we are told, on the same authority,
being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan,
sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin
God was pleased, according to His wise and holy
council, to permit, having purposed to order it to His
own glory.” Thus He permitted a subtle and powerful
being to tempt our first parents, knowing full well the
result, and having already prepared a place of eternal
torment, that he might “ order it to His own glory.”
J. S. Mill says (“Autobiography,” p. 41.) “I have
a hundred times heard him (his father) say, that all
ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked,
in a constantly increasing progression; that mankind
have gone on adding trait after trait till they reached
the most perfect conception of wickedness which the
human mind can devise, and have called this God, and
prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of
wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is
commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Chris
tianity.”
The Rev. Dr Norman Macleod, however, says, “ God
has manifested in humanity the same kind of joy He
Himself had in beholding the works which He had made
very good, and in which. He rested and reposed”
�The Christian Religion.
37
(“Good Words,” June 1875, p. 421.) Fancy such a
work being “ very good / but we trust the Doctor did not
believe it, any more than we do ourselves. He may, how
ever, possibly have held with Luther, that it is by faith
we are saved and Luther says, “ it is the highest degree
of faith to believe Him merciful, who saves so few and
damns so many: to believe him just who of his own
will makes us necessarily damnable.” However laud
able such a degree of faith may be, we must confess
ourselves unequal to it, for it points to a devil, not a
god, and one wonders how such a horrid conception
could ever get into people’s heads, and ever form the
faith of a civilised people. It has taken ages of “ sur
vivals ” of hideous barbarism from the earliest ages to
put the idea together, and ages of transmission to
propagate the faith. No one coming fresh to it could
entertain it for a moment. It is absurd to say that
God’s original intentions were frustrated with respect
to man ; it is a contradiction to suppose that anything
can take place contrary to the will and wish of Almighty
power and wisdom. The “Spectator,” (Nov. 7, 1874),
however, regards it “ as a higher act of power to create
free beings, and therefore beings liable to sin on their
own responsibility, than to create only those whose
natures are for ever fixed in the grooves of good; ” that
is, it may be a much higher act of power to create
beings capable of damning themselves to all eternity,
than to create them so good that they could not do it;
granted, but then what shall we say of the wisdom j
We very much doubt, however, whether omnipotence
itself could create a free, that is self-originating, un
caused act of any kind ; it is very certain it never has.
It is wonderful that it never seems to occur to the ortho
dox school, that if God had kept His word, and Adam
had really died, and another pair had been created, less
“ free ” to damn themselves and all their posterity, how
much trouble might have been spared. There would
have been no necessity then to “ keep a devil,” or a
�38
The Christian Religion.
place of eternal torment, and the Son of God need not
have died, and this, as it appears to poor human reason,
might have been turned equally to God’s glory. “ If
Christ, as St John writes, appeared on earth to destroy
the works of the devil, He might have been dispensed
with if no devil had existed” (Strauss.)
This doctrine of the atonement, of sacrificing an
innocent 'person for a guilty one, and that in Christ’s
case only for an elect few: for although “many are called
few are chosen ”—must have come down from the very
earliest times. “ Without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sins” (Heb. ix. 22) must be a “sur
vival ” from pre-historic men and the most barbarous
races. The law of vengeance, life for life, blood for
blood, was the savage law; and what was thus acceptable
to man was thought to be the most acceptable to his
Deity that he wanted to propitiate. Hence human
sacrifices.- An only son being the dearest to man was
thought to be most acceptable to God. At length
animals were substituted for human beings, as in Abra
ham’s case, the ram for his only son Isaac, and the
first-born among the Hebrews ceased in time to be
sacrificed according to primitive barbaric custom, and
was redeemed by a ram or a lamb. In Exodus and
Leviticus we have a whole ceremonial worship based
upon sacrifices, as we are told, by divine command.
“ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering
for atonement” (Ex. xxix. 36, &c.) The Jewish ritual
is full of bloody sacrifices, and Paul, not Christ, has
made it the key-stone of the Christian system, in the
blood of God’s only begotten and beloved Son. This
doctrine of propitiation by blood—of being washed
clean in blood, could never have entered a civilised
man’s head or heart; we have gradually been ac
customed to it from the earliest times, until like the
sun’s rising, it excites no wonder.
That all should fall for the sin of one—of Adam, and
all be saved by the sacrifice of an innocent person, is so
�The Christian Religion.
39
great a breach of all moral law that we rather wonder
how the Archbishop of Canterbury reconciles it with
“ the immutable and eternal distinctions between right
and wrong.” There can be little doubt that the con
founding of all moral distinctions in the “ spoiling of
the Egyptians,” and the sacrifice of the innocent for the
guilty as a plan of salvation, must have had a most
deleterious influence upon the conscience of all who
have believed in them, as part of the direct ordinances
of God. “ The covenant of grace in which the guilty
are pardoned through the agony of the just—and a God
kept holy in His own eyes by the double violation of
His own standard of rectitude,” can in no way be re
conciled with the intellect or our moral sense.
But these dire chimeras, these awful and blasphem
ous slanders upon the character of God, are silently
dying out before the gradually increasing intelligence of
the age, as witchcraft has done before. We no longer
burn thousands of old women for having personal inter
course and dealing with the “ prince of the powers of the
air,” and theological dogma is giving place, even in the
church itself, to practical religion. There are still,
however, many good people who think it desirable to
retain these horrible lies and libels upon our Creator, in
order to frighten men into being good, and the hope of
an immortality attended, with such results is thought to
be a high and ennobling sentiment. At the present
time (June 1875) a case is going through the Court of
Arches, Jenkins v. Cook, in which the Rev. F. Cook
refuses to allow Mr Jenkins to partake of “ the body
and blood of Christ,” which, as the Church Catechism
tells us, ££ is verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful at the Lord’s Supper,” with his fellow
communicants, because he had expressed doubts about
the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the personality
of Satan; he had even gone the length of supposing
that there were parts of “ God’s Holy Word” that
were better left out, and he had prepared a selec-
�40
The Christian Religion.
tion for his young family. On the other hand, we
have an article in the “ Contemporary,” for May, by Prof.
J. B. Mayor, in which he says, 11 reason and conscience
inevitably revolt against such a gospel as this (that
hopeless misery is the destiny of the larger propor
tion of created souls), yet how are those who believe
in the inspiration of the Bible to avoid accepting it ?
Accept this or give up Christianity is the alternative
presented to many minds at the present day—an alter
native enforced with equal vehemence by the extremists
on either side. It is this which is the great stum
bling-block ;■ not, how can I believe in this miracle or
that miracle ? but how can I accept a revelation which
appears to me to contradict the first and deepest of all
revelations, God is just, and God is good? He who
would solve this problem and justify to man the
ways of God, as revealed in Scripture, would, indeed,
do a great and excellent work. Maurice did some
thing by calling attention to the distinction between
endless and eternal.”
A great many equally good and learned men, in the
interests, as they believe it to be, of religion, are making
similar useless distinctions, straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel, and by taking things in a non
natural sense, the spiritual instead of the literal mean
ing, by turning affirmed facts into allegory, &c., are
earnestly striving to make black appear white and save
their livings; the church, as they believe, being much
better reformed from within than from without. The
question which is really interesting and pressing,
according to Principal Tulloch, is not how to get out
side the church, but how to enlarge and make room in
side it for varieties of Christian intelligence and culture.
But we may read the signs of the times when the
“ Edinburgh Review,” not now the organ of advanced
but of conservative liberalism, is disposed to go much
further than “ the distinction between endless and
eternal,” and to throw over the Old Testament alto
�The Christian Religion.
41
gether and much even of the New (Oct. 1873, on Dr
Strauss). “We are not Jews/’ it says, “and there is
no reason in the world why we should be weighted
with the burden of understanding and defending at all
risks the Jewish Scriptures.” It also says, “ Is it
right, is it truthful, is it any longer possible, in the
face of all that is now known upon the subject, to pretend
that legendary matter has not intruded itself into the
Eew Testament as well as into the Old?” Still the
writer contends for the precious truths which notwith
standing this lie enshrined in “ Oriental metaphor”
and “ Mediaeval dogma,” and accuses Strauss of “ igno
rant blasphemy or hypocritical sarcasm,” for professing
to understand these things literally, and to believe that
they form any part of Christianity. This is the attitude
that is now assumed by those who do not wish to give
up the Bible altogether. They fall back upon what
they call Christianity, by which they mean the example
and moral teaching of Christ, as far as that can be
ascertained. It is very difficult to ascertain what
Christ did, and still more to say what he taught. We
have the fourth Gospel, and the Epistles of Paul, and
of Peter, James, and Jude, all of which have added to
and differ from what Christ himself taught. The
theologic system that has come down to us is in reality
not Christianity, but much has been added to it
which Christ himself, as a religious reformer, strongly
protested against. The bloody doctrine of sacrifice and
atonement, which had been derived from a primitive
savage state, was re-introduced and made the corner
stone of the new faith ; in fact, orthodox Christianity
is more indebted to Paul and the Alexandrine School,
as represented in St John’s Gospel, than to its putative
founder.
In the midst of the myths and legends that have
surrounded Christ, it is very difficult to say who and
what he was. Without believing at all in the super
natural, I yet believe that he wrought most of the
�42
The Christian Religion.
miracles that are ascribed to him, and that this appa
rently miraculous power deceived him and his disciples
and ourselves. This power was not peculiar to Christ,
for a power of curing many kind of diseases has attended,
and still attends, many individuals. One of the best
known cases on record is that of Valentine Greatrakes,
an Irish gentleman, but no saint, born in 1628. He
was invited by the King to London, whither he went,
curing very many by the way. There the Royal
Society, then young, investigated the matter, publish
ing some of his cures in their Transactions, and account
ing for them as produced by “ a sanative contagion in
Mr Greatrakes’ body, which had an antipathy to some
particular diseases and not to others.” We are told
by a contemporary writer, Henry More, what particular
diseases this sanative contagion had an antipathy to,
viz., “ cancers, scrofula, deafness, king’s evil, headache,
epilepsy, fevers (though quartian ones), leprosy, palsy,
tympany, lameness, numbness of limbs, stone, convul
sions, ptysick, sciatica, ulcers, pains of the body, nay,
blind and dumb in some measure, and I know not but
he cured the gout.” Now if we leave out the cures
that were said to be wrought by Christ that the pro
phecies might be fulfilled, we have here most of the
diseases that he was able to cure, for we must not forget
that people’s want of faith prevented his being success
ful in all times and all places. He knew also when
“ virtue,” this sanitary power, went out of him, as when
touched by the woman with the issue. We may doubt
as to the source of this power, but that it exists there
can be no doubt. I have seen six cases, including
toothache, lameness, and rheumatism cured or relieved
in less than a quarter of an hour by the simple contact
or laying on of hands, and I have carefully watched
many permanent cures by the same person, by what
appeared to me an excess of vital power or of the “ vis
medecatrix.” Now if Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter’s
son, found himself possessed of such a power, he would
�The Christian Religion.
43
of course ascribe it to Divine origin and believe that he
was intended by the Almighty for some special mission,
most probably the Messiah, which all the Jews were
expecting, to deliver them from the Roman yoke and
to place them in the exalted position which had been
promised to the seed of Abraham, and to which there
had been already several pretenders.
He himself
does not appear to be quite certain as to the character
of his mission, for when sent to by John, asking, “ Art
thou he that should come, or do we look for another ?”
he replied, “ Go and show John again those things
which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight
and the lame walk, the leapers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have
the gospel preached to them,” intimating that this was
all he knew. There is little doubt, I think, that on
his entry into Jerusalem he expected a rising of the
people in his favour, and probably divine assistance in
that direction, as he daily received it, as he thought,
in others. When that did not take place, and he saw
that a revolt against the Roman power was vain and
hopeless, he did not the less doubt his own Divine
mission, of which he received daily proofs in the
miracles which he wrought; but he began to see that
the promised kingdom was not to be of this world,
but upon a second coming, which was to take place
even in that generation, and when he should be accom
panied by such divine power as would establish this
Heavenly Kingdom for ever. In the meantime he
began to prepare for that martyrdom that had always
attended all the great prophets and all previous
claims to the Messiahship. He prayed that this might
pass from him; but was nobly prepared to meet it if
such was God’s will, and never once does he seem to
have doubted that he was under God’s special care for
a special purpose, except in his own most pathetic and
despairing cry upon the cross, “ My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me !” Christ died as a rebel to the
�44
The Christian Religion.
Roman Empire, and in the full persuasion that on his
second coming, then near at hand, all things would be
made subservient to himself and to his followers, and
that the Jewish nation especially should have the pre
eminence that had been promised to them. In this
belief, his disciples, who had daily witnessed his appa
rently miraculous power, joined him, and expected to
sit on twelve, thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
It is impossible not to feel love for Christ, especially
when we think of the horrid suffering to which he was
subjected by his fellow-creatures, and to feel respect
for him as the most amiable and greatest of our moral
and social reformers, but I cannot look upon him as a
perfect character, or his example as one that could be
followed in the entirely altered conditions we have now.
There is much in the spirit of Christ’s character that is
most loveable and estimable, but to attempt to follow
his example would as certainly bring us within the
power of the police, as it did him in his day. In all
the phases of social life, as a son, as a celebate, as a
producer or worker, his example is certainly one that
cannot be followed. As Strauss says, we must have
a definite conception of him whom we are to imitate as
an exemplar of moral excellence, and there are not such
essential facts in the life of Jesus firmly established;
neither are we clearly cognizant of his aims, nor the
mode and degree in which he hoped for their reali
zation. It is in the spirit of his doctrine only, that he
can be held up as an exemplar, and that certainly,
excellent as it is in many points, would not tend to the
full development of all our faculties.
But whence did Christ get his knowledge, which seems
greatly to have exceeded that of his time, and most cer
tainly that of his condition as a carpenter’s son ? What
sources were open to him ? Was he one of those seers
or clairvoyants which the world has occasionally known,
and in that sense inspired ? The power of healing and of
�The Christian Religion.
45
this kind of intuitional knowledge, are seldom found
together. It is very difficult to ascertain what Christ
really did teach. There were no short-hand writers in
those days, and the traditional reports we have, would
come to us strained through, and coloured hy, the much
lower minds of his followers. We must therefore take
the spirit of his teaching, and not take it literally ; and
we must recollect that much of what he taught was
under the firm conviction that the world was coming
to an end, probably in that generation. The morality
of the New Testament, to which the Broad Church is
now driven, giving up the conventional theological
creed, furnishes no system of morals, or one upon which
a science of mental and moral philosophy can be based.
The sun still goes round the earth in the mental science
of the New Testament, as much as it did in the physics
of the Old, for of course there can be no science of
mind, if the mind obeys no law, and it has power to
resist the strongest motives, as the advocates of Free
Will affirm. If, on the contrary, the mind necessarily
obeys its own laws, then we require a re-modelling of
the whole of Christ’s morality, as it must be based upon
a different idea of responsibility to that which he taught;
for the whole tendency of Christianity is to separate
conduct from its immediate and natural consequences,
and to place such consequences far away, or even in
some distant world; whereas the only divine judgment
or responsibility which science can admit, is that only
“ which fulfils itself hour by hour, and day by day.”
Thus Christ taught, as his especial doctrine, the
Fatherhood of God; now in the sense that God ever
interferes with natural law in our favour, this is not
true, and if not true, however comforting such a doctrine
of a Heaven-Father, or Father in Heaven, may be to
weak people, it had better be given up, as the truth
must always serve us best. God has put everything we
require within our reach, and has appointed a way by
which it may be attained, and has lent us his power to
�46
The Christian Religion.
act for ourselves, and after that we have no right to
expect he will interfere personally in our behalf, and if
he did, it could only be to our injury, by weakening
that self-reliance upon which certainly all progress, if
not our very existence, depends. If we do not take
this natural course towards the object of our desires,
we are punished in the consequences, and as such
punishment is for our good, God never injures us by
forgiving bur sins.
And this is what I have principally to say against
Christianity. It has attempted to come between man
and the natural consequences of his actions; it has
filled the world with eleemosynary charity, and has thus
weakened his most important springs of action.
Here we have the orthodox creed on this subject,
“ If man is compelled to distinguish between right and
wrong, he is a responsible agent, subject to penalties
for the misuse, &c., of his moral powers. He must be
responsible to some one. That some one must be
omniscient and omnipotent (or little less) in order to
act as Judge of humanity, and to mete out adequate
rewards and punishments. As these adequate rewards
and punishments do not follow in this life, there must
be a future state. If not, there would exist in man a
whole class of moral faculties which seem to find in the
present state of things an appropriate field for their
exercise, but which man is under no necessity of using.”
(The Dean of Canterbury on “ Science and Revelation ”).
Now it is the consequences of man’s actions that enable
him to distinguish between right and wrong, and at
the same time mete out an adequate reward and punish
ment. He is judged at once, and by an infallible judge,
and where the rewards and punishments, the pains
and pleasures attending his actions, may be of some use
to him and not carried on to some future state or other
world, where the conditions being different, they can be
of no use whatever. Man is responsible to himself, and
to the society of which he forms a member. This idea
�The Christian Religion.
47
of vengeance, this notion that has come down from
savage life of apportioning a certain amount of useless
suffering to a certain amount of sin, pervades the whole
of the Bible. We are told also that man is endowed
with certain faculties for the exercise of which no
proper field has been furnished him by natural means,
and that therefore it requires a supernatural interposi
tion to provide him with one. We know of no faculties
that man possesses, that are not brought into daily use,
that he could live without, or which are not active in
providing an improved state of things here in this
world, for himself and fellows.
The two great commandments of Christianity are
that we should “ Love God with all our hearts, and our
neighbour as ourselves.” Now is this possible 1 If not,
is it not time that we should give up pretending that
it is ? Can we love the God of the Hebrews who puts
whole towns to the sword, men, women, and little
children, and every living thing, and who throws great
stones out of heaven upon the retreating hosts, and who
kills more in that way, than are killed by the sword 1
Can we love the God of the Christians who' has ordained
an eternity of torture for the majority of his weak and
erring creatures, having full power to save them or not
to have created them ? It is true we can make an idol
of all the ’highest attributes with which we are
acquainted and give it a personality after our own image,
and love that, but that is not God. Can we love the
Great Unknown ? We may love goodness and beauty,
but they must take some form to enable us to do so,
we cannot love a mere abstraction. The Universal
Father works for the good of all, and does not recognise
individuals. Love is a human feeling applicable to our
fellow creatures, and is not applicable, as it appears to
me, to the All Supreme, which supports the Universe,
or rather which is the Universe. We cannot know
enough of this power to make it an object of love,
however much it may create a feeling of reverence and
�48
The Christian Religion.
awe, and this idea and feeling increase the higher our
conception rises of the Great Supreme. We may love
Christ as the highest manifestation of God we may
know, but this is a very different and inferior feeling to
that which we have for the Great All. As to “ loving
our neighbour as ourselves ” that is neither possible
nor desirable. Suppose my neighbour is a nasty sneak,
a mere animal, full of low and vicious propensities, why
should I love him ? I am not called upon to love vice
in any form, although it is my neighbour, and to do so,
as man’s conduct is governed by the consequences,
would be holding ‘out a premium for vice. Let my
neighbour make himself loveable, and I cannot help
loving him. On principle I may do him all the good I
can—getting him hanged perhaps being the greatest
good I can do him—but as to loving him, I must
decline. We can only love what is loveable, and believe
what is credible. It is true that orthodoxy professes
to love the Being who may send themselves or their
best and dearest friend to spend an eternity in “ ever
lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and
as to belief, it thinks that any fool can believe what
is credible, but that that only is a saving and justifying
faith which believes what is incredible. If all that it
is meant to inculcate is a settled principle of good-will
to all men, that certainly is a most desirable feeling to
encourage, even towards the unworthy. The same may
be said about loving our enemies. Why should we love
our enemies? The interests of the community, and
therefore of morality, do not require it. We cannot do
more for our friends. It is true we may bless them that
curse, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them
that despitefully use us and persecute us, and we can do
what pious people are very fond of doing, pray for
our enemies; but as to loving them! when by doing
them all the good we can, if they deserve it, we have
made them our friends, then we may love them.
Does God love his enemies when he exacts an infinite
�The Christian Religion.
49
penalty for a finite fault, or is it not true that he pre
pares an eternity of torment for them ? “ They shall
drink,” John says, “ the wine of the wrath of God
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
his indignation,, and they shall be tormented with fire
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” How the
holy angels must enjoy the sight ! we are told also on
the same ‘ loving ’ authority, 1 they have no rest day
nor night, they shall desire to die, and death shall flee
from them, they blaspheme God, they gnaw their tongues
for pain.’ ” Moses says, “ Slay every man his brother,”
rather than allow the existence of heretics, but Moses
did not believe in a future state, and therefore he could
not damn them as well. Christ says, “ He that believeth not in me the wrath of God abideth on him ”—■
“He that believeth not shall be damned,” and Paul says of
the unbelievers in his day, “ God shall send them strong
delusion (as he had previously done to Pharaoh and to
Ahab), that they should believe a lie, that they may all
be damned.”
All that can come of setting up a false standard, and
professing to love our enemies, is a pharisaical hypocrisy.
What we have to do is to love the true, the good, and
the beautiful; to stand up for the right regardless of
consequences, and to maintain an unending battle
against evil in all its forms. This may be done in all
kindness, and in the full conviction that “ Society
prepares crime, and the guilty are only the instruments
by which it is executed.”—Quetelet. It is justice that
ought to rule the world. We are governed by the con
sequences of our actions, and if we can get love without
being loveable, and good for evil, the chief motives to
be good and loveable are taken away. The same reason
ing applies to the whole doctrine of the non-resistance of
evil. Not to resist evil is to encourage it. If a man
smite us unjustly on one cheek, and turning the other
to be smitten would prevent its recurrence, let us do it.
�50
The Christian Religion.
With a good man it might do so, hut with the great
majority it would only encourage them to further
aggression. To give a man my cloak who had taken
my coat would he a premium for robbery; and to give
to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow
of me not to turn away, as a rule, would be equally a
premium for improvidence. So also to take no thought
for the morrow, to trust to God to clothe us as he does
the lilies of the field, would sap self-reliance and self
dependence, the foundation of all morality. No society
that ever existed in Christ’s time or since could hold
together on such principles, translate them into what
ever transcendental or aesthetic language we may.
As to the golden rule, which is not peculiar to
Christianity, viz., “ that we should do as we would be
done by,” it can only be received in spirit, in a very broad
and general application, for people differ so in bodily
and mental constitution that what suits one person by
no means suits another. It is not at all safe to judge
of other people by ourselves. Not to do to others what
we would not like to have done to ourselves is a much
safer way of putting it.
We must notice also, it is that we may be rewarded,
not that we may do right, is the inducement every
where held out.
With reference to prayer, Christ says, “ when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and
thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly.” We are expressly told that we are not to
pray standing in the synagogues, that we may be seen
of men; that we are not to use vain repetitions and
much speaking, for that our Father knoweth what
things we have need of, before we ask Him. The
whole of Christendom has systematically set these
injunctions at defiance, for there would be little use
for the priests were they carried out, and with one sex
at least, church-going would be less popular if they were
�The Christian Religion.
5i
hot to be “ seen of men.” The last new bonnet is a
great stimulant to devotion. The great majority of
Christians, who believe their saints to be ubiquitous, or
omniscient, and who pray to those who are always
listening, to intercede with the Mother of God, to
petition her Son, to ask his Father, can have little
faith that the “Father knows what things we have need
of, before we ask Him,” or that if he does, he is
very hard to persuade to let us have them. His Holi
ness, the Pope, in his Encyclical, recently issued, enjoins
incessant prayer, employing a Mediatrix with Him, the
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who sits, he says, as a
queen upon the right hand of her only begotten Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, in a golden vestment, clothed
around with various adornments. There is nothing she
cannot obtain from him.
Now is it likely that God will be constantly altering the
course he has appointed for our well-being at our ignor
ant intercession ? Surely he knows what is right, and
will do it, without our asking him or constantly re
minding him! No amount of toadying, which we call
worship, or serving him, will induce him to do other
wise than what is right, or prevent him from doing it,
whether “ we praise him,” or “ acknowledge him to
be the Lord,” or not. The savage with the noise of
pots and pans tries to prevent an eclipse, that is, to
prevent the sun eating up the moon, or vice versa, and
the noises we make in the churches to bring or prevent
rain, or in any way to alter the course of natural law,
may be expected to be equally efficacious. The whole
tendency of modern research goes to show that if law
is anywhere, it is everywhere.
The Kyoungtha of Chittagong are Buddhists. Their
village temples contain a small stand of bells and an
image of Buddha, which the villagers generally worship,
morning and evening, first ringing the bells to let him
know that they are there (Sir John Lubbock’s “Origin
of Civilisation,” p. 220). This is no more than polite or
D
�52
The Christian Religion.
politic; we ring our bells merely to call the people
together, thinking God is always ready to listen to
petitions, to do for us what he has given us full power
to do for ourselves, or simply perhaps, to reverse the
order of nature, upon the invariability of which the
good of all depends. Surely it is better that all people
should know that miracles will not be constantly worked
on their behalf. It is true that by the laws of the
mind, prayer often answers itself, and we get what we
ask for, but should we mock God that we may be so
benefited? No man prays for the success of his
chemical experiments, neither will he for moral results
when he knows as much of the likes and antipathies of
human beings, as he does of the attractions and repul
sions of atoms. Our present practice is a “ survival ”
of primitive barbarous times, when all evil was supposed
to come directly from spirits, or from the gods, and
prayer was the only means supposed capable of averting
such evils. We certainly have no right to reflect on
less civilised times and nations for their superstition, so
long as we expect the ordinary course of nature to be
altered in our behalf whenever we choose to ask it.
It never seems to occur to those who pray without
ceasing, to ask the question that if in answer to their
repeated importunity, God delivers them from evil,
why an infinitely powerful, good, and benevolent being
does not deliver all from evil, without asking. If it
were right in their case it would be right in all; but it
would be not right. Any interference with the estab
lished order of nature would render both reason and
instinct useless, and would weaken those springs of
action on which all progress depends.
The late Rev. Charles Kingsley, says, speaking of
Atheism ;—11 Has every suffering, searching soul, which
ever gazed up into the darkness of the unknown, in
hopes of catching even a glimpse of a divine eye,
beholding all, and ordering all, and pitying all, gazed
up in vain ?............. Oh! my friends, those who
�The Christian Religion.
53
believe or fancy that they believe such things, must be
able to do so only through some peculiar conformation,
either of brain or heart. Only want of imagination to
conceive the consequences of such doctrines can enable
them, if they have any love and pity for their fellow
men, to preach those doctrines without pity and horror.
They know not, they know not, of what they rob a
mankind already but too miserable by its own folly and
its own sin, a mankind which, if it have not hope in
God and in Christ, is truly—as Homer said of old—
more miserable than the beasts of the field. If their
unconscious conceit did not make them unintentionally
cruel, they would surely be more silent for pity’s sake ;
they would let men go on in the pleasant delusion that
there is a living God, and a Word of God who has
revealed him to men, and would hide from their fellow
creatures the dreadful secret which they think they
have discovered—that there is none that heareth prayer,
and therefore to him need no flesh come.”
No doubt this is very eloquent, but if such eloquence
were compatible with reason, I should ask, who is it
that professes to have discovered “the dreadful secret,”
that the majority after a moment spent here, are con
signed to endless torments, where there “ is none that
heareth prayer, and therefore to Him need no flesh
come.” Surely Atheism is better than this orthodox
belief, and if any have discovered that it is a blasphem
ous libel upon our Creator, the sooner they proclaim
it the better. The good, most loving, and gentle
Cowper, the Poet, not having felt, as he and his Par
son thought, sufficient evidence of conversion, lived
year after year in the full belief that God had utterly
rejected him, and on his death-bed exclaimed, “I feel
■unutterable despair.” The self-righteous people who
feel so certain of their own salvation, forget, or more
probably selfishly disregard, the numberless cases of
this kind, of sensitive people being driven, as poor
■Cowper was, to despair; they think it so hard that
�54
The Christian Religion.
any should be deprived of the comforting notion. It
is a great mystery, they say, but it is one of their own
making: they first make it dark, and then complain
that they cannot see.
I need not say any more, I think, to show that the
Christianity of Christ, however much of excellence there
is in it, is not up to the thought and moral sense of our
time. Great efforts are being made to adapt it to thealtered conditions by new and forced meanings, and by
dropping, what no forcing can adapt, as not abiding
principles intended for our times. So far as attempts
have been made to put Christianity systematically intopractice, they have been failures.
The early Christians were communists—they had all
things in common j and no doubt it is better adapted tosuch a social system than to any other. When all are
dependent upon each and each upon all; when all have
a direct and immediate interest in the well-being,
physical, moral, and intellectual of every member of
the community, when conscience or the sense of duty
is as strong a feeling as hunger and pride and vanity are
now, when the unselfish feelings shall decidedly pre
dominate, then some form of Christianity will be practi
cable. But society in no country has ever yet approached
such a state. Communism is still, and may continue
so for ages, the great Socialist Utopia.
Where Christianity has been attempted to be carried
out as a system of theological belief; where he “ whobelieveth shall be saved and he who believeth not shall
be damned,” the burnings of millions of people have not
brought us any nearer to it in practice. People will con
tinue to believe that what appears to them to be black and
not white, is black, whether they are to be burned here
and hereafter for it or not; and as to “ renouncing the
devil and all his works,” and burning some nine millions
of poor old women and others for supposed personal deal
ings with him, the devil, or at least the principle of evilr
is nearly as rampant as ever. It would have been much
�The Christian Religion.
55'
more convincing if those who burned others for want
of faith, had exhibited a proper evidence of their own,
which they never did. “ And these signs shall follow
them that believe
says Mark xvi. 17, 18, 19, “ In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” But
such is the perversity of human nature, that had such
powers attended their faith, they would probably havebeen burned for witchcraft. “ So then^ Mark goes on
to say, xvi. 20, “ after the Lord had spoken unto them
he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.”
The asceticism, which is a part of Christianity, has
done the world infinite mischief, if it were only in
depriving it of the offspring of so many of its highest
minds, who were either imprisoned, burnt, or voluntarily
retired from it. What wise man had time to marry
when he had an eternity to prepare for ? what good man
would run the risk of introducing beings to a life of
everlasting torment ? The stake was so great, that no
wonder that among those who were not good utter sel
fishness prevailed, and men thought only of then’ own
salvation. The soul was the only thing to be thought
of, the body was despised, mortified, degraded, and
neglected.
Monks, nuns, and hermits were the
only sensible people. Prayer was the only occupation
in which a man could profitably engage, and conse
quently no more attention was given to the body than
its natural wants absolutely required. This absurd de
preciation of the body, the sole instrument of thought,
has continued to the present time.
It is absurd to say that we owe modem civilization
to Christianity. Islamism was a real reform on the
state of society induced by the Christianity of that day,
and carried willingly all the East and the great cities of
its birth along with it; and when it had reduced Europe
�$6
The Christian Religion.
to the (lark ages, we were saved again by the Moors
and Saracens, and a return to Greece and Rome. The
Greek and Roman philosophers aim at the perfect de
velopment of the individual man—mind and body—
and of the individual state. “ Magnanimity, self-reli
ance, dignity, independence, and, in a word, elevation
of character, constituted the Roman idea of perfection;
while humility, obedience, gentleness, patience, resigna
tion are Christian virtues” (Lecky, vol. ii., pp. 72, 155),
and it is not, I think, saying too much to affirm, that
had the principles of Christianity been really practised,
modern civilization could never have existed. His
Excellency Iwakura Tomomi, chief of the supreme
Japanese Embassy, which visited England a few years
ago, has presented to the Library of the India Office a
set of the Chinese version of the Buddhist Scriptures.
The work weighs 3| tons. A selection is probably, in
their case, allowed to be made for the use of families.
If, as is reported, the Chinese and Hindus are about to
send missionaries to Europe, they certainly cannot come
Bible in hand.
The time was when people were really in earnest
about their religion, but now all living faith in the
dogmas of the past seems to have died out. Where
the idea of duty first makes its appearance is in the
sacrifices to the dead. The most costly gifts of men,
and women, and horses, and dogs, and arms, and money,
were presented to the dead, and buried or burned with
them. The Chinese, however, are a practical people,
and Tylor tells us that in China “ the fanciful art of
replacing these costly offerings by worthless imitations
is at this day worked out into the quaintest devices—
the men and horses dispatched by fire for the service
of the dead are but paper figures and the manufacture
mock-money, both in gold and silver, is the trade of
thousands of w’omen and children in a Chinese city”
(“ Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 445). Such a change
has come over our religion,—which has now become a
�The Christian Religion.
^7
mere conventional custom of what is called good society
—a great sham which thousands of men, women and
clergymen are engaged in manufacturing. There is no
doubt we are bordering on change.
Not that we expect this change to be rapid; all per
manent change is very slow. Besides the two extremes of
the positivists and scientific men at one end, and work
ing men at the other—who regard religion as allied
always with monarchy and aristocracy, and as offering
post-obit bills on heaven for what they think they are
unjustly deprived of here—the great body of society
looks upon Christianity as containing their highest
ideal of excellence. Its dogmas are a dead letter to all
but a very few, people have got used to them, or they
are interpreted so as not to shock their moral sense, or
they are regarded as awful mysteries to be cleared up in
another world, and without which their religion would
be mere morality and not half so acceptable. Add to
this that custom, conventional usage, fashion, and re
spectability, with the toll-gates of birth, marriage and
death, are all on the side of the national religion, and
we certainly need expect no sudden change. The
Christianity of the present day is not taken from the
Bible, but is Bible doctrine strained through the mind
of the nineteenth century, and many good people still pre
fer to call themselves Christians because there is nothing
really at present equally good and of equal authority
to take its place. There cannot be a doubt that church
membership, whether of churchmen or dissenters, helps
to keep people within the broader and most obvious
moral laws ; and it will be some time before the mass
of the people will set themselves to learn what is true
in order that they may do what is right, or that they
will do what is right because it is right, and not from
the hope of reward or from the fear of punishment. We
must wait; in the meantime let no one fear or hesitate
to proclaim what he believes to be the truth and of
highest excellence.
��
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
Christianity: viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bray, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 57 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Published in three parts. Contains Part 1: Religion: Primitive, and Among the Lowest Races. Part II: The Christian Religion.
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
CT100
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christianity: viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3349e10708f87756eebed5a5ad1a33be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hNmi6rNaFUnFd5nTyBRFPfWkjAkBxv9A7A%7ED3k%7EoQMrtcYaB%7EmLXHMQhR8U6hszWvbFqN1HrjJLj8oOpOS7mxRyEijmGqktHvvsUg8q2jEj8qfM9LcAZeLxDQV0LoAhRPwfTfVdiV8LVBEdeJmj%7ELHhwWQdkxsrt0P2YB5FcSKS-D2%7Emx2HmvPwdLgVJNGbbCHasbE-jmhSjiufEYuyRotLX9ZXaw7pDNxxMf9IKYiMbtttetbmThJRHU36SUyP0In9sf5trF0vggZxUyJ271cPMTPyyYk2VXfSGreLYZpSzk9D0sB-9xABGOnAxIxoz29%7EzupCseq6uVc8k00Nq5A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c72de2c244a70176ca9520c41a47d1d0
PDF Text
Text
“For no more can he who understands hut one religion under
stand even that religion,than the man who knows only one language
can understand that language.”—Primitive Culture, E. B. Tylor.
“ Woe to the Philosopher who will not condescend to flatter in
his picture of man 1 ... he sets the reading public against him ;
he is refuted beforehand or -worse than refuted, for he is laid
aside unread.”—Minor JKorZs, Geo. Grote.
�CHRISTIANITY:
Viewed in the Light of our Present Knowledge
and Moral Sense.
L—RELIGION : PRIMITIVE, AND AMONG
THE LOWEST RACES.
Part II.—THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Part
By CHARLES BRAY,
AUTHOR OF THE “PHILOSOPHY OF NECESSITY: ” “ A MANUAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY,
OR SCIENCE OF MAN,” ETC.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS. SCOTT,
NO. Il, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price One. Shilling.
�T
�CHRISTIANITY.
PART I.
RELIGION ! PRIMITIVE AND AMONG THE LOWEST RACES.
“Everything that exists depends upon the Past, prepares the
Future, and is related to the whole.”—Oersted.
“ I view all beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal de
scendants of some few beings which lived before the first bed of the
Silurian system was deposited.”—Origin of Species, C. Darwin,
first Edition, pp. 488-9.
“ Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the
necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gra
dation.”—Ibid., p. 488.
“ The variation of human thought proceeds in a continuous man
ner, new ideas springing out of old ones, either as corrections or
developments, but never spontaneously originating. With them
as with organic forms, each requires a germ or seed. The intel
lectual phase of humanity, observed at any moment, is therefore
an embodiment of many different things. It is connected with the
past, is in unison with the present, and contains the embryo of the
future.”—The Intellectual Development of Europe. J. W. Draper,
vol. ii. p. 109.
HESE views embody the philosophy of the present
day, and it is a no less interesting than profitable
study to follow the evidence in the works of Lubbock,
Tylor, Draper, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, and others,
upon which these truths are founded. By slow and
gradual, and probably unbroken links, the whole physi
cal world has been evolved, and this is no less true of
the world of mind. There has been nothing spon
taneous, nothing supernatural, but everything that
exists in the growth of mind, as in the physical world,
T
CA.
�4
Primitive Religion.
depends upon the past, prepares the future, and is
related to the whole. We must go hack to pre-historic
times to explain the thoughts and feelings, the aptitudes
and prejudices, the customs and languages of the present.
Many things otherwise utterly incomprehensible are
“ survivals” of primaeval barbaric life and thought.
Customs differ widely according to climate and the
world’s age. There is no telling in what form they
may come down to us, but they are evidence that one
human nature is common to all the races and tribes
scattered over the habitable globe. The world, at the
present time, furnishes illustrations of all the forces
that have been at work in its original formation both
physical and mental. Heat and water, certainly, are a
little moderated in their action, but as rude savages as the
world has ever known still continue to exist, and the ex
tremes of civilization are as great now as at any previous
era. In the north, where the cold imposes considerable
limitation to the pleasures of life, the Esquimau
enters his house by the chimney, the occupants passing
in and out “ by means of a strong pole notched deep
enough to afford a little holding for a toe” (“Pre-his
toric Man,” p. 393, by Sir John Lubbock). A more
civilized person would no doubt prefer a ladder, and
perhaps a different place of entrance, but this mode of
ingress and egress may have conveniences that are not
at once obvious to a European. In the midst of all
the ice and snow in these regions, the great want is
water. The houses being built of ice and snow, a tem
perature above 32 degrees would make them what
would be considered unpleasantly damp to a European.
But fortunately for this phase of domestic comfort they
have no wood, but use blubber and oil to keep up a
tolerable temperature. They use lamps outside and
consume an immense quantity of blubber inside. The
temperature of their bodies is about the same as our
own ! they are heated from within by the slow e.ombustion—the union of carbon and oxygen—of what
�Primitive Religion.
5
thus constitutes both food and fuel. The heat is sus
tained by thick skins. The inhabitant of Central
Africa, on the contrary, enters his house, very much of
the same shape, by a hole at the bottom, through which
he crawls on his hands and knees. The Fuegians of
the Antarctic region are a much lower race than their
Esquimaux brethren of the Arctic, and the Australians,
Papuans, and Fijians are lower still. The Fuegians,
when hard pressed for food in severe winters, kill an
old woman, and when asked why they did not kill
their dogs, they said ££ Dog catch ioppo” (■£.<?.) otters.
We should justly consider this a rather narrow view
of utilitarianism, and the conscience does not appear to
speak very loud in this stage of civilization: all doubtless
have their ideas of right and wrong, slightly varying,
however, in their significance : thus a savage explained
that if anybody took away his wife that was bad, but if he
took another man’s that would be good (Tylor, vol. ii.,
p. 289). The marriage ceremony among the Bushmen
of Australia is very simple and inexpensive. The man
selects his lady-love, knocks her down with a club, and
drags her to his camp. In South Africa, in the British
settlement of Natal, the natives are beginning to show
marked evidence of civilization. Mr Froude tells us
that a young Zulu, by hiring himself out at six shil
lings a day, soon finds himself in a position to buy a
couple of wives; he makes them work for him as well
as for their own living, and he thus sets up as a
gentleman for life, and a very troublesome one we are
told.
An interesting question has, however, arisen in Dutch
Borneo as to the extent of the duty a wife owes to her
husband. The circumstances, as detailed in a letter
written from Bandj ermassin, and published in a Java
paper, are as follows:—“ It seems that a fugitive rebel
chief, who is now well stricken in years, has lately
with commendable prudence been making arrangements
as to the disposition of his property after his departure
�6
Primitive Religion.
from this life. Among other directions he has given
orders that immediately on his decease his two youngest
wives shall he killed in order that they may accompany
him to the next world. The two ladies for whom this
honour is designed strangely enough fail to appreciate it,
and have fled to the Dutch fort on the Tewch, where they
have put themselves under the protection of the com
mandant. The venerable chief is naturally incensed at
their having taken this ill-advised step, and has expressed
his intention of compelling the fugitives to return to their
domestic duties without further nonsense. His indigna
tion is shared by his family, friends, and followers, who
have rallied round him in his trouble, and by the latest
accounts he was preparing to attack the fort where his
wives had taken refuge. In the meantime, the govern
ment steamer ‘Baritoy’ had been despatched to the
assistance of the commandant, with a reinforcement of
twenty-five soldiers; and a howitzer, with artillerymen,
had also arrived at the fort. This painful family dif
ference has naturally created a profound sensation in
the colony, and it is to be hoped that it will be satis-,
factprily arranged without a recourse to arms.”—Pall
Mall Gazette.
The conventional practices and views of etiquette of
what we call savages differ considerably from our own ;
thus, with us, to pull a man’s nose is not considered
polite, whereas the Esquimaux pull noses as a mark of
respect (“Pre-historic Man,” p. 456). Among them
also the temporary loan of a wife is considered a mark
of peculiar friendship (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii.,
p. 136). Civilization borrows the wife without the
consent of the husband.
The inhabitants of the Eastern Archipelago are of
increasing interest as our intercourse with them
extends. Little, however, comparatively, is yet known
of the natives of Hew Guinea and the neighbour
ing islands, and that little certainly does not reveal
them to us as a very interesting people. The principal
�Primitive Religion.
7
supply of meat is from human flesh, and that not
always from the bodies of their enemies, for Mr Kiehl
tells us, in an article read before the London Anthropo
logical Society, that the people “ of the Solomon Archi
pelago are obliged to build their houses in the most
inaccessible spots on the rocks, even to the very sum
mit of the peak on Eddystone Island, to prevent being
treacherously killed at night and eaten by the very
friends with whom they feasted the day before on a
roasted enemy’s body, or perhaps on a raw one j those of
Vaati, who, as late as 1849, were yet all cannibals, pre
ferring children to adults, and girls to boys.” Mr
Kiehl thinks it by no means a sufficient excuse for
this that other animal food is scarce, for although there
are neither cattle nor sheep, still there are plenty of
dogs, fowls, pigeons, and fish. When we consider, he
says, how many Hindoos live altogether without animal
food, “ the Papuans must be a desperately wicked people.”
Their social customs are certainly unpleasant. “ What
good,” he says, “ can be said of such people as the
natives of Vaati, whose custom it is, when they wish
to make peace, to kill one or more of their own people,
and send the bodies to those with whom they have
been fighting, to eat ? On the death of chiefs it is the
frequent custom among them to kill two, three, or
more men, to make a feast for the mourners. When
parents are unwilling to bear the fatigue of rearing their
children, or when they find them a hindrance to their
work, they often bury them alive.” As these interest
ing creatures are near relations to the Fijians, who are
about to become British subjects, it is as well to know
something about their habits, and it is pleasing to think
also, that they are “ beginning to find out that trading
with the white men is more advantageous than killing
and eating them.” Commerce is everywhere the great
civiliser. Mr Kiehl says, “ I regret not to know any
thing about the religion of the Papuans. The practice
of circumcision seems to point to at least some form of
�8
Primitive Religion.
religious observances.” Unless eating their fellows is
another form, we certainly cannot say much for their
devotional aspirations.
I mention those things to show that the savages now
in the world are as primitive and varied in their indi
vidual habits and customs as in pre-historic times, and
that we may probably learn as much, by the study of their
interesting ways, of the origin of many of our own
modes of thought and action as by going far back into
the past.
It is a question whether all our altered customs are
improvements. Thus at Tahiti and some other islands,
tattooing was almost universal, and a person not
properly tattooed would be as much reproached and
shunned, as if with us he should go about the streets
naked (“Primitive Culture,”p. 377), and the Pijian fully
believed that a woman who was not tattooed in an
orthodox manner during life, could not possibly hope
for happiness after death (Idem, p. 459). This mode of
painting our clothes upon our bodies would certainly
save much thought and time that might be devoted to
more useful purposes, and it would probably save many
of those colds that are caught by going about only
half-naked, when people are in what they call fulldress.
But it is the religions of the world that furnish the
largest amount and best illustration of “survivals.”
The ideas upon which they are mainly founded have
been thousands of years forming, and the question
immediately presents itself how far opinion and con
duct based on such ideas are in conformity with modern
knowledge, or only with such knowledge as was available
in the earlier and ruder stages of culture ? Upon in
vestigation, it is evident that the religious opinions of
the present day are results adopted from previous
systems which have come down from the earliest age,
and that they could not otherwise have found accept
ance now. We should shrink with horror from our
�Primitive Religion.
9
present theological creeds, if they had not come down
to us from a thousand generations of the past.
The deities of savages are evil, not good; they may
be forced into compliance with the wishes of man;
they require bloody, and rejoice in human, sacrifices;
they are mortal, not immortal; a part, not the author
of, nature ; they are to be approached by dances rather
than by prayers ; and often approve what we call vice,
rather than what we esteem a virtue (“ The Origin
of Civilisation,” by Sir John Lubbock, p. 195). For
like ourselves, “ they think the blessings come of them
selves, and attribute all evil to the interference of
malignant beings” (Idem, p. 196).
“ They have much clearer notions of an evil than of a
good Deity, whom they fear, believing him to be* the
occasion of sickness, death, thunder, and every calamity
that befalls them” (Idem, p. 212).
The Tartars of Katschiutze (like our Pessimists) con
sider the evil spirit to be more powerful than the good.
(Idem, p. 213).
All religion is originally based on fear—love does
not enter till long after—fear of the invisible and
unknown, and all cause at first is invisible and un
known. Darwin in “ Expressions and Emotions in
Men and Animals,” p. 144, speaking of the effect of
fear among some of the larger baboons, says of one of
d;hem (Cynopetheius Niger) that “ when a turtle was
placed in its compartment, this monkey moved its lips
in an odd, rapid, jabbering manner, which the keeper
declared was meant to conciliate and please the turtle.”
Here we have probably the origin of what is now called
Divine Service. “ Id awe,”Tylor tells us, “the Philippine
Islanders, when they saw an alligator, prayed him with
great tenderness to do them no harm, and to this end
offered him whatever they had in their boats, casting it
into the water” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 209). “Primos
in orbe deos fecit timor.” “As an object of worship,
the serpent is pre-eminent among animals. Not only
�io
Primitive Religion.
is it malevolent and mysterious, but its bite—so trifling
in appearance, and yet so deadly, producing fatal
effects rapidly, and apparently by no adequate means—
suggests to the savage almost irresistibly the notion of
something divine, according to his notions of divinity ”
(Sir John Lubbock). “All things that are able to do
them hurt beyond their prevention/’ says Tylor, “the
primitive man adores” (“Primitive Culture,” p. 340).
The first idea of God is almost always as an evil spirit,
and among the savages of the present day, religion is
anything but an ennobling sentiment.
Thus the
Caffres believe in the existence of a heaven for those
only who had killed and eaten many of their enemies,
while those who were effeminate would be compelled
to dwell with Aygnan, their devil (“ Pre-historic Man,”
p. 469).
The Maories were perpetually at war during life, and
hoped to continue so after death. They believed in a
spirit named Atona. When any one was ill, Atona
was supposed to be devouring his inside, and their
religious service was curses and threats, on some
occasions attended with human and other sacrifices in
the hope of appeasing his wrath. The New Zealanders
believed that the greater number of human bodies they
eat, the higher would be their position in the world to
come. Under such a creed, we are told there is a
certain diabolical nobility about the habit, which is,
at any rate, far removed from the grovelling sensuality
of a Fijian. Certainly to qualify yourself to go to
heaven by eating your fellow-creatures, is much more
spiritual than to eat them from mere gluttony.
The Dayaks considered that the owner of every
human head they could procure would serve them in
the next world, where indeed a man’s rank would be
according to the number of heads in this a young man
might not marry till he had procured a head. Waylaying and_ murdering men for their heads was the
Layak s religion. To be an acknowledged murderer is
�Primitive Religion.
11
the object of the Fijian’s restless ambition. Even
among the women there were few, who, in some way,
had not been murderers. To this they were trained
from their infancy. One of the first lessons taught an
infant, is to strike its mother. Mr Ellis tells us that
no portion of the human race was ever perhaps sunk
lower in brutal licentiousness, than this isolated people.
Certainly their customs and conscience differed a little
from our own, but notwithstanding, we are told that
Captain Cook and his officers lived with the natives
“in the most cordial friendship,” and took leave of
them with great regret, and Mr Ellis says, they showed
great anxiety to possess copies of the Bible, when it
was translated into their language. “ They were,” he
says, “ deemed by them more precious than gold—yea,
than much fine gold;” no doubt being very discriminat
ing as to the quality of gold, and able also to appreciate
the dealings of God’s chosen people with the Canaan
ites, in which the inhabitants of whole cities were
murdered in cold-blood—men, women, and children,
ruthlessly slaughtered—more highly than we should.
Among most savages it was considered the right
thing, and there was no resisting public opinion, that
wives, friends and slaves, should accompany their chiefs
into the next world. By some they were strangled, by
others buried alive. “The Gauls in Caesar’s time,” Tylor
tells us, “burned at the dead man’s sumptuous funeral,
whatever was dear to him, animals also, and much-loved
slaves and clients (“Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 419).
The ancient Gauls had also a convenient custom of
transferring to the world below the repayment of loans.
Even in comparatively modern times, the Japanese
would borrow money in this life, to be repaid with
heavy interest in the next {Idem, p. 443). When a
New Zealand chief died, the mourning family gave his
chief widow a rope to hang herself with in the woods,
and so rejoin her husband. In Cochin China, the
common people object to celebrating their feast of the
�12
Primitive Religion.
dead on the same day with the upper classes, for this
excellent reason, that the aristocratic souls might make
the servants’ souls carry their presents for them—
which presents were given with the most lavish ex
travagance (Idem, p. 441). As to what became of
the objects sacrificed for the dead—strangled wives,
servants, golden vessels, gay clothes or jewels—although
they rot in the ground, or are consumed on the pile,
they nevertheless come into the possession of the dis
embodied souls they are intended for, not the material
things themselves, but phantasmal shapes corresponding
to them (Idem, p. 439).
The native Australian goes gladly to be hanged, in the
belief that he would “jump up whitefellow, and have
plenty of sixpences;” and the West African negroes
commit suicide when in distant slavery, that they may
revive in their own land (Idem, vol. ii. p. 5).
Souls are supposed to appear in the other world in
the same age and condition as they leave this, conse
quently true religion, and the liveliest filial piety
require that parents should be dispatched before they
get too old. They are generally, where this belief
obtains, buried alive, with their own joyous consent.
The Fijians consider the gods as beings of like
passions with themselves. They love and hate; they
are proud and revengeful, and make war, and kill and
eat each other; yet they look upon the Samoans with
horror, because they have no religion, and no belief in
any such deities. “It has been asserted,” says Sir John
Lubbock over and over again, “ that there is no race of
men so degraded as to be entirely without a religion—
without some idea of a Deity. So far,” he says, “ from
beuUr true’ the verJ reverse is the case ” (Idem, p.
467). Let us hope so!
Primitive men, as mankind do now, worshipped Un
known Cause—the powers of nature ; every tree, spring,
river, mountain, grotto, had its divinity: the sun, the
moon, the stars, had each their spirit. The names of
�Primitive Religion.
13
the Semitic deities, Max Muller tells us (Fraser,.
June 1870), are mostly words expressive of moral
qualities, they mean the strong, the exalted, the Lord,
the King j and they grow hut seldom into divine
personalities. The Aryan race are recognised every
where, in the valleys of India, in the forests of Germany,
by the common names of their deity, all originally ex
pressive of natural powers, thousands of years before
Homer or the Veda, worshipping an unseen being
under the self-same name, the best, the most exalted
name they could find in their vocabulary. The popular
worship of ancient China was, Max Muller says, a
worship of single spirits, of powers, we might almost
say of names ; the names of the most prominent powers
of nature which are supposed to exercise an influence
for good or evil on the life of man. If the presence of
the divine was perceived in the strong wind, the strong
wind became its name; if its presence was perceived
in the earthquake and the fire, they became its name;
“wherever in other religions we should expect the
name of the Supreme Deity, whether Jupiter or Allah,
we find in Chinese the name of Tien or Sky.” “Do
we still wonder/ he says, “at polytheism or mythology 1”
No doubt the first religious worship was of the
powers of Nature or Spirits—a sort of deprecation of
their evil influence, and of their power to hurt. But
whence came man’s knowledge of spirits ? Brom his
own supposed double nature. When a man died, he
felt that with the life something had left the dead upon
which life and consciousness, i.e., all the difference
between life and death, depended. This he called his
soul or spirit. In sleep, he often dreamed of distant
places, and he thought his spirit went there ; in dreams
also his dead comrades often appeared to him, and he
thought therefore they continued to exist somewhere.
Out of this dream has grown the popular religion in
all times and in all countries; Man has an instinctive
love of life and dread of death, and he thinks he must
�14
Primitive Religion.
live again, somewhere, because he wishes to do so,
accordingly the somewhere was soon found—a place
above for the good, and below for the bad, where
people would be rewarded or punished as they might
behave themselves here. No one liked to part for ever
with his parents, children, and friends, and if there
was not a place where the bereaved could meet them
again, why, there ought to be, and that soon settled it.
A place was wanted also for the naughty people, and
the people we did not like, to go to. The primitive
notions of this Future State differed considerably from
our own, only the worst part of it has come down to
us—an eternity of torture for the great majority?
Of the locality of this Future State, Herbert Spencer
says, “ The general conclusion to which we are led is,
that the ideas of another world pass through stages of
development. The habitat of the dead, originally con
ceived as coinciding with that of the living, generally
diverges—here to the adjacent forest, and elsewhere to
distant hills and mountains. The belief that the dead
rejoin their ancestors, leads to further divergences which
vary according to the traditions. Stationary descend
ants of troglodytes think they return to a subterranean
other world, whence they emerged; while immigrant
races have for their other-worlds, the abodes of their
fathers, to which they journey after death, over land,
down a river, or across the sea, as the case may be.
Societies consisting of conquerors and conquered,
having separate traditions of origin, have separate other
worlds, which differentiate into superior and inferior
places, in correspondence with the respective positions
of the two races. Conquests of these mixed people
by more powerful immigrants, bring further complica
tions- additional other worlds, more or less unlike in
their characters, finally, where the places for the
departed, or for superior classes of beings, are mountain
tops, there is a transition to an abode in the heavens ;
which, at first near and definite, passes into the remote
�Primitive Religion.
15
and indefinite, so that the supposed residence of the
dead, coinciding at first with the residence of the
living, is little by little removed in thought: distance
and direction grow increasingly vague, and finally the
localization disappears in spaced’ (“ The Principles of
Sociology,” p. 232.)
This dream of a double self—of a living soul and
spirit, the cause of life and all mental action, if it has
done good, has also done infinite mischief in the world.
On the one side it is true that children in many cases
would scarcely have been induced to take care of their
parents in old age, if it had not been from fear of their
ghosts when they were dead, and on the other, in
China, ancestor worship is the dominant religion of
the land, and it has had more to do with checking
civilization there, than anything else. The Chinese
look backwards, not forwards, and “ for thousands of
years this great people have been seeking the living
among the dead.” It is the ghosts of their fathers
and mothers that they are always thinking of, and of
the harm that they may do them, every unknown
cause with them being a spirit. This is why mines
cannot be worked, or railways made, lest these inter
esting relics should be disturbed, and this insult to the
remains of the dead visited upon the living : and after
the birth of a Chinese baby, it is customary to hang
up its father’s trousers in the room, wrong way up,
that all such evil influences may enter into them,
instead of into the child. All diseases are supposed to
come from such source, or from some tormenting,
offended deity, the latter being most easily appeased
by the offer of a hog ; in the same way as the Negroes
of Sierra Leone sacrifice an ox when they want “ to
make God glad very much, and do Kroomen good.”
At the present day when an affectionate wife says
to a sneezing husband, “Bless you, my dear,” the ex
pression comes from the time when sneezing was
thought to indicate “possession” by an ancestral
�i6
Primitive Religion.
spirit; and the Hindu when he gapes still snaps his
thumb and finger, and repeats the name of some god—
Rama, to prevent an evil spirit going down his throat.
It has been in this kind of chaotic superstitious
atmosphere, in which everything was supposed to be
brought about by spirits, that what are called our
religious instincts, were originally formed. This is
the soil in which even our present ideas of God, the
Soul, and Immortality first took root.
Mr Tylor says (vol. ii. p. 286) “ Conceptions originat
ing under rude and primitive conditions of human
thought, suffer in the course of ages the most various
fates. Yet the philosophy of modern ages still, to a
remarkable degree, follows the primitive courses of
savage thought.” This is true as regards our philo
sophy, but it is still more true with respect to our
religion, for ancestor-worship in the saints, and inter
cession to them and to the “ mother of God, the Queen of
heaven,” and anxiety for the future condition of this
dream-created soul, still rule the mind of Christendom.
Propitiation and sacrifice form the substance of all
religions in their earliest stages. Man first of all, and
above all, fears the spirits and gods that his imagination
has created, and he offers up to them what he most
values, and which he thinks, therefore, they will most
value—his finest fruit, the firstling of the flock, even
his own children. An only son was thought to be the
greatest and most acceptable sacrifice. When the Carthagenians got into trouble, three hundred children of the
first people of the city were offered up in the fire to their
God; so willing has man always been to cast upon
another the burden of his own misdeeds. The religion
of the present day is little more than a “survival” of the
past, and “ throughout the rituals of Christendom stands
an endless array of supplications unaltered in principle
from savage times—that the weather may be adjusted
to our local needs, that we may have the victory over
all our enemies, and that life, and health, and wealth, and
�Primitive Religion.
17
happiness, may beours.” (“Primitive Culture,” vol. ii. p.
336).
We are told that man. is especially distinguished by
the possession of a conscience which, like a heavenly
messenger, guides him in his choice in the immutable
and eternal distinctions between right and wrong. If
this be so, it is in a very incipient state in primitive
man, and this guide itself seems to require educating and
guiding quite as much as any other of his faculties.
Thus Dr Seeman tells us of the Fijians, that “in any
transaction where the national honour had to be
avenged, it was incumbent on the king and principal
chiefs—in fact a duty they owed their exalted station,
to avenge the insult offered to the country, by eating
the perpetrators of it.” He adds, “ I am convinced,
however, that there was a religious, as well as a political
aspect of this custom.” No doubt conscience gave them
a high sense of their social, political, and religious
duties, only they differed slightly from us, as to the
mode in which they should be carried out. So also
of the practice, where from a religious sense of duty,
children eat their parents, when they got old and in
firm, waiting however, till the season when salt and
limes were at the cheapest.
The savage theory of the universe refers its pheno
mena to the action of pervading personal spirits, similar
to what in dreams they have made out their own spirits
to be; the powers of nature are everywhere spiritual
ized and personified. With increasing knowledge unity
is given to these powers, and we have a God One and
Indivisible : at least this becomes the creed of the
highest minds, the multitude still continue to find a
separate God in everything, and for everything. (An
excellent account of how these so-called religious ideas
of the existence of the “ double ” or soul, of a future
state, and another world, arise in the minds of savages,
from which they have come down to us, changed from
a very definite and material conception to a very indefi
�18
Primitive Religion.
nite and immaterial one, is to be found in Mr Herbert
Spencer’s “Principles of Sociology,” now publishing.)
From this point, says Dr J. W. Draper, that is, from
the very earliest ages when the comparative theology
of India was inaccessible, “ there are two well-marked
steps of advance. The first reaches the consideration
of material nature : the second, which is very grandly
and severely philosophical, contemplates the universe
under the conceptions of space and force alone. The
former is exemplified in the Vedas and Institutes of
Menu, the latter in Buddhism. In neither of these
stages do the ideas lie idle as mere abstractions ; they
introduce a moral plan, and display a constructive
power not equalled even by the Italian Papal system.
They take charge not only of the individual, but regu
late society, and show their influence in accomplishing
political organizations, commanding our attention from
their prodigious extent, and venerable for their anti
quity.
“ I shall, therefore, briefly refer, first, to the elder,
Vedaism, and then to its successor Buddhism. The
Vedas, which are the Hindu Scriptures, are asserted to
have been revealed by Brahma. They are based upon
an acknowledgment of a universal spirit pervading all
things: ‘ There is in truth but one Deity, the
Supreme Spirit, the Lord of the Universe, whose work
is the Universe.’ ‘ The God above all Gods, who
created the earth, the heavens, and the waters.’ The
world, thus considered as an emanation of God, is
therefore a part of him ; it is kept in a manifest state
by his energy, and would instantly disappear if that
energy were for a moment withdrawn. Even as it is, it
is undergoing unceasing transformations, everything be
ing in a transitory condition. The moment a given phase
is reached, it is departed from or ceases. In these per
petual movements, the present can scarcely be said to
have any existence, for as the past is ending, the future
has begun.
�Primitive Religion.
ig
“ In such a never-ceasing career all material things are
urged, their forms continually changing, and returning,
as it were, through revolving cycles to similar states. . .
“ In this doctrine of universal transformation there is
something more than appears at first. The theology
of India is underlaid with Pantheism. “ God is One
because he is All.’ The Vedas in speaking of the rela
tion of nature to God, make use of the expression that
he is the Material as well as the Cause of the Universe,
‘ the Clay as well as the Potter.’ They convey the
idea that while there is a pervading spirit existing
everywhere of the same nature as the soul of man,
though differing from it infinitely in degree, visible
nature is essentially and inseparably connected there
with : that as in man the body is perpetually undergo
ing change, perpetually decaying and being renewed,
or, as in the case of the whole human species, nations
come into existence and pass away, yet still there con
tinues to exist what may be termed the universal human
mind, so for ever associated and for ever connected are
the material and the spiritual. And under this aspect
we must contemplate the Supreme Being, not merely as
a presiding intellect, but as illustrated by the parallel
case of man, whose mental principle shows no tokens ex
cept through its connections with the body j so matter,
or nature, or the visible universe, is to be looked upon
as the corporeal manifestation of God.
“We must continually bear in mind that matter ‘ has
no essence, independent of mental perception ; that ex
istence and perceptibility are convertible terms; that
external appearances and sensations are illusory, and
would vanish into nothing if the divine energy which
alone sustains them were suspended but for a moment.”
— (“ The Intellectual Development of Europe,” Vol. i.
pp. 54, 55, 56.) Truly, there is nothing new under the
sun. Here we have the most advanced Pantheistic
Theology of the present day, and being given some two
thousand years before the Christian era it would seem
B
�20
Primitive Religion.
almost as if the Vedas were inspired. Here also, we
have the Idealism that constitutes the creed of so many
of our most cultivated philosophers. However pure a
doctrine may be at its source, as it comes from the
highest minds, it is soon perverted to suit the lowest, and
high and simple and true as it seems to me this doctrine
is, it was soon twisted into every possible form of error
and superstition that was best calculated to give the
Brotherhood command over the ignorant multitude.
It soon needed Reforming, and Buddhism came before
the world as that Reformation.
Buddhism most probably dates from about 1000 years
before Christ, and Draper says it is now professed by a
greater number of the human race than any other religion.
“ The fundamental principle of Buddhism is that there
is a supreme power, but no Supreme Being. . . It is a
rejection of the idea of Being, an acknowledgment of that
of Force. If it admits the existence of God, it declines
him as a Creator. It asserts an impelling power in the
.universe, a self-existent and plastic principle, but not a
self-existent, an eternal, a personal God. It rejects
inquiry into first causes as being unphilosophical, and
considers that phenomena alone can be dealt with by
our finite minds. . . . Gotama contemplates the existence of pure force without any association of Substance.
He necessarily denies the immediate interposition of any
such agency as Providence, maintaining that the system
of nature, once arising, must proceed irresistibly accord
ing to the laws which brought it into being, and that
from this point of view the universe is merely a gigantic
engine. Equally does Gotama deny the existence of
chance, saying that that which we call chance is nothing
but the effect of an unknown, unavoidable cause.” (“ In
tellectual Development of Europe,” vol. i. p. 65.) I
scarcely need point out the similarity existing between
this creed and that of the leading physicists of the present
day.
“ As to the external world, we cannot tell how far it
�Primitive Religion.
21
is a phantasm, how far a reality, for our senses possess
no reliable criterion of truth. They convey to the mind
representations of what we consider to be external things
by which it is furnished with materials for its various
operations; but unless it acts in conjunction with the
senses, the operation is lost, as in that absence which
takes place in deep contemplation. It is owing to our
inability to determine what share these internal and ex
ternal conditions take in producing a result, that the
absolute or actual state of nature is incomprehensible to
us. Nevertheless, conceding to our mental infirmity the
idea of a real existence of visible nature, we may con
sider it as offering a succession of impermanent forms,
and as exhibiting an orderly series of transmutations, in
numerable universes in periods of inconceivable time
emerging one after another, and creations and extinc
tions of systems of worlds taking place according to a
primordial law.
“ Of the nature of man, Gotama tells us that there is
no such thing as individuality or personality—that the
Ego is altogether a nonentity. In these profound con
siderations he brings to bear his conception of force, in
the light thereof asserting that all sentient beings are
homogeneous. . . . Each one must however work out
his own salvation, when, after many transmigrations, life
may come to an end. That end he calls Nirwana—
Nirwana, the end of successive existences. It is the
supreme end, Nonentity. The attaining of this is the
object to which we ought to aspire. . . . The panthe
istic Brahman expects absorption in God; the Buddhist,
having no God, expects extinction.
“ India has thus given to the world two distinct
philosophical systems —Vedaism, which makes its
resting-point the existence of matter, and Buddhism, of
which the resting-point is force. The philosophical
ability displayed in the latter is very great; indeed, it
may be doubted whether Europe has produced its meta
physical equivalent.” (Idem, 66, 67, 68.)
�22
Primitive Religion.
It need scarcely excite our surprise then if our
Christian missionaries make but little progress in India.
It is worthy of note with reference to those who assert
that the “ Immortality of the Soul ” is among the unextinguishable instincts of our nature, that in the two
religions of the world—if we must call them two—which contain the greatest number of adherents, not
Immortality is sought, but absorption in God, or Nir
wana, both of which include the extinction of the
individual. The Lazarist Hue testifies that they die
with incomparable tranquillity, and adds, they are what
many in Europe are wanting to be. It is worthy of
note also how much there is in each system in accord
ance with the most advanced modern thought: the one
as Idealism, the other as represented by the recent dis
covery of the Persistence and Correlation of Force. For
if Vedaism connects itself with Matter, it is Matter as
regarded only as “ the corporeal manifestation of God,”
and I have endeavoured to show elsewhere how and
where, as so regarded, Materialism and Absolute Idealism
meet. (“ Illusion and Delusion,” published by T. Scott.)
In my work also “ On Force, and its Mental Correlates”
(Longmans & Co.), I have endeavoured to illustrate
and enforce the following propositions :—
There is but one Beality in the universe, which
Physical Philosophers call “Force;” and Metaphy
sicians “Noumenon.” It is the “Substance” of
Spinoza, and the “ Being ” of Hegel.
Everything. around us results from the mode of
action or motion, or correlation of this one force, the
different Forms of which we call Phenomena.
The difference in the mode of action depends upon
the difference in the structure it passes through; such
Structure consisting of concentrated Force, or centres
of Force, and has been called Matter. “ Every form is
force visible; a form of rest is a balance of forces • a
form undergoing change is the predominance of one
over others.”—Huxley.
�Primitive Religion.
23
Heat, Light, Magnetism, Electricity, Attraction, Re
pulsion, Chemical Affinity, Life, Mind, or Sentience,
are modes of action or manifestations of Force, and die
or cease to exist, when, the Force passes on into other
forms.
Cause and Effect is this sequence or correlation; and
each cause and effect is a new Life and a new Death :
each new form being a new creation, which dies and
passes away, never to return, for “ nothing repeats
itself, because nothing can be placed again in the same
condition : the past being irrevocable.”—-W. R. drove.
11 There is no death in the concrete, what passes away
passes away into its own self—only the passing away
passes away.”-—Hegel.
Force passing through a portion of the structure of
the brain creates the “ World” of our intellectual con
sciousness, with the “Ego ” or sense of personal identity;
passing through other portions the world of our likes
and antipathies—called the moral world: Good and
Evil being purely subjective.
The character and direction of Volition depend upon
the Persistent Force and the structure through which
it passes. Every existing state, both bodily and
mental, has grown out of the preceding, and all its
Forces have been used up in present phenomena. Thus,
“ everything that exists depends upon the past, pre
pares the future, and is related to the whole.”—
Oersted.
As no force acts singly, but is always combined with
other forces or modes of action to produce some given
purpose or particular result, we infer that Force is not
blind but intelligent. As Force is intelligent and One,
it would be more properly called Being—possessing
personality ; and that being we have called God. “ He
is the universal Being of which all things are the mani
festations.”-—-Spinoza.
All power is Will power,—the will of God. “ Caus
ation is the will, Creation the act of God.”—W. R.
�24
The Christian Religion.
Grove. The will which originally required a distinct
conscious volition for each act has passed, in the ages,
generally into the unconscious or automatic state, con
stituting the fixed laws and order of nature.
PART II.
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
“ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is
to fill the world with fools.”—Herbert Spencer.
We in this Christian country are brought up in the
belief that the Jews were chosen by God to perpetuate
a worthy representation of Himself in a Pagan world
given up wholly to Idolatry : that the character and
attributes of the Creator, as given to man in the books
of the Old Testament, are a Revelation from God Himself. On examination this turns out to be by no means
the case. The Hebrew god is made entirely after the
likeness of man ; wiser and more powerful, but with all
his vices as well as his virtues greatly exaggerated—a
conception fitted only for a barbarous age and a bar
barous people; and notwithstanding some sublime
poetical passages of the later prophets, altogether in
ferior to that formed by the wise men of other Eastern
nations. To Jewish conception, even to the last, the
Creator of the Universe was the family God of the
Patriarchs—the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
Jacob, the titular or national God of the Hebrews, and
it was not till after the Babyionic captivity that the
<£ chosen people” abandoned altogether other supposed
protecting deities, and became confirmed monotheists.
Thus the religious history of the Jewish people in the
historical books of the Old Testament, presents a series
of vacillations between the worship of Jehovah and that
�The Christian Religion.
25
of the gods of the surrounding nations ; the people
serving that god who they think will afford them the
most powerful protection. Hence the jealousy of
Jehovah, and the term the living God, and the First
Commandment, “ Thou shalt have no other gods l?ut
me.” It will be necessary to show this, as Christianity
is based on Judaism, and the orthodox theology of the
present day is derived more from the Old Testament
than the New. I shall let the Bible speak for itself.
“ And God said, let us make man in our own image,
after our likeness.”-—Gen. i. 26.
“ And on the seventh day God ended His work
which He had made, and he rested on the seventh day
from all His work which He had made.”—Gen. ii. 2.
“ And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the
Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.”
—Gen. iii. 8.
Cain and Abel from the very first make offering unto
the Lord of fruit and flesh, and “of the fat thereof,”
and they are accepted by him.”—Gen. iv. 3, 4, 5.
And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the
plains of Mamre accompanied by two angels, and they
eat of a calf that was “ tender and good,” and the Lord
said unto Abraham Wherefore does Sarah laugh, &c.,
and the Lord went his way as soon as he had left com
muning with Abraham.”—Gen. xviii. 1, 7, 8, 13.
The Lord also afterwards appeared unto Moses, on
his desiring to see the glory of God. And he (Moses)
said, I beseech thee show me thy glory. And he (the
Lord) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee,
and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee ;
and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And He
said Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man
see me and live. And the Lord said, Behold there is a
place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock. And
it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that
I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover
�26
I
X
The Christian Religion.
thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take
away my hand, and thon shalt see my back parts : but
my face shall not be seen.”—Gen. xxxiii. 18-23.
And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all
thy house into the ark, and the Lord shut him in.”—Gen. vii. 1, 16.
“And when Noah came out of the ark he builded an
altar unto the Lord ; and took of every clean beast, and
of every elean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the
altar.
“And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the
Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground
any more for man's sake.”—Gen. viii. 20, 21.
“ And the Lord came down to see the city and the
tower which the children of men builded,” and the
Lord said, “ Go to, let us go down and there confound
their language, that tKey may not understand one
another’s speech.”-—Gen. xiv. 5, 7.
“ It repenteth the Lord that he had made man upon
the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.”—Gen. vi. 6.
“And God heard the voice of the lad : and the angel
of God called to Hagar out of heaven?’—Gen. xxi. 17.
“ And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should
obey his voice, and let Israel go 1 I know not the
Lord (Jehovah) neither will I let Israel go. And they
said, The God of the Hebrews hath met us, let us go
three days’ journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto
the Lord our God : lest He fall upon us with pestilence
or with the sword.”—Exod. v. 2, 3.
“ And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply
my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But
Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you.”—Exod. vii. 3, 5.
And I (Jehovah) will give the people favour in the
sight of the Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that,
when ye go, ye shall not go empty. But every woman
shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth
m her house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and
raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and
�The Christian Religion.
IS]
upon your daughters ; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.
—Exod. iii. 21, 22.
“ And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight
of the Egyptians, so that they lent them such things as
they required, and they spoiled the Egyptians.’ Exod.
xii. 36.
When “wrath is gone out from the Lord, and the
plague is begun, Aaron put on incense, and made an
atonement, and the plague was stayed” (Num. xvi.
46-48.)
God’s promise to Abram. “Thou art the Lord
God, who didst choose Abram, and brought him
forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the
name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful
before Thee, and mad’st a covenant with him to give
the lands of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites,
and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites to give it, I say to his seed, and hast per
formed Thy words: for Thou art righteous” (Neh. ix. 7-8).
Of how this promise was kept we need give only one
illustration.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, avenge
the children of Israel of the Midianites. And they
warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded
Moses ; and slew all the males. And Moses was wroth,
and ordered every male among the little ones to be killed
in cold-blood, and every woman that had known man :
“ but all the women children that have not known a
man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
“And there were 32,000 persons in all, of women that
bad not known man by lying with him ” (Num. xxxi.
1,2,7,14,17,18,35.)
“Righteous” is not perhaps exactly the word which
we should now apply to such dealings ! And the child
ren of Israel said to Samuel, “ Cease not to cry unto the
Lord our God for us, that He will save us out of the
hands of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a sucking
lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly unto the
�28
The Christian Religion.
Lord : and Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel; and
the Lord heard him. And as Samuel was offering up
the burnt-offering, the Philistines drew near to battle
against Israel: but the Lord thundered zoith a great
thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discom
fited them ; and they were smitten before Israel (Sam
uel, 1 Book, vii. 8, 9, 10.)
The Lord fights for Israel, and casts down hailstones
from heaven ; “ they were more which died -with hail
stones than they which the children of Israel slew with
the sword; ” and he makes the sun and moon to stand
still until the people are avenged. “ Then spake Joshua
to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in
the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ;
and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. So the sun
stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day. And there was no day like
that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto
the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
(Num. x. 8, 14.)
Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and
the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt
treacherously with Abimelech (Judges ix. 23.) Who
shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-Gilead ? and one said in this manner, and
another said in that manner. And there came forth a
spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will per
suade him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith ?
And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said,
thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth,
and do so. Now therefore, behold the Lord hath put
a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets
(1 Kings xxii. 20, 23.)
God’s throne is in heaven. “ The Lord hath pre-
�The Christian Religion.
29
pared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom
ruleth over all (Ps. ciii. 19.)
I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it
stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with
twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered
his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried
unto another, and said, holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory (Isaiah vi.
1, 3.)
Por I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord
is above all gods (Ps. cxxxv.)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh (Ps. ii. 4.)
Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to
another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a
book of remembrance was written before him for them
that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name.
(Mai. iii. 16.)
In every place incense shall be offered unto my
name, and a pure offering : for my name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts (Mai. i. 11.)
I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the
host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand,
and on His left (Micaiah.)
Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon
a thousand hills (Ps. i. 7, 15.)
The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the
world and they that dwell therein. Eor He hath founded
it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.
(Ps. xxiv. 1-2.)
The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even
thousands of angels (Ps. lxxiii. 17j
After the Chaldean captivity, when it was thought
to be beneath the dignity of God to appear personally,
these angels are very active and much more plentiful.
Then the Lord employs his destroying angel to slay
185,000 men in the Assyrian camp. David also sees
an angel.
�jo
c
The Christian Religion.
So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there
fell of Israel seventy thousand men. And God sent an
angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was
destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of
the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, it is
enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the
Lord stood by the threshingfloor of Oman the Jebusite.
And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the
Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having
a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem
(1 Chron. xxi. 14, 16.)
Here is Daniel’s description of the angel Gabriel:—
“ A man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with
fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl,
and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his
eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in
colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words
like the voice of a multitude. (Dan. x. 5-6.)
This God of the Hebrews is certainly not a very sub
lime conception, and it is difficult to say in what it differs
from that of other primitive savages. He shows him
self in bodily presence as a man to Adam and to Abram,
walks in the cool of the evening, shows his parts behind
to Moses, comes down to prevent a tower being built up
into heaven, spoils the Egyptians, utterly exterminating
the Canaanites, man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass, that he may give their
land to his chosen people, sending lying spirits into his
prophets, and in fact possessing all man’s greatest vices
greatly exaggerated.
He is angry, furious, cruel,
vindictive, jealous, treacherous, partial, and by the
smell of a sweet savour of poor innocent slaughtered
beasts and birds, and by incense and sackcloth and
ashes is turned from his purpose and repents. The
Hebrew God is everywhere represented as delighting in
blood, requiring the first-born of both man and beast
to be offered up to him, and a lamb to be supplied to
him both night and morning throughout the year. Is
�The Christian Religion.
31
it not strange that this barbarons conception of a blood
thirsty people should have been chosen by the modern
world as the foundation of its religion, and can we
wonder that the picture of such a Being, painted as we
are told by himself, should have had a most deleterious
effect on the moral sense of all who have been intro
duced to it, or that those who prefer to believe in no
God at all, rather than in such a God, should increase
daily 1
The Jews have continued to “ spoil the Egyptians,”
that is, all the nations among whom they are thrown,
until this day, and this spoiling the Egyptians is quoted
as a precedent for every kind of cheating and dis
honesty among all who are disposed to prey by false
pretence upon their fellow creatures. The religion of
the Hebrews was like that of every savage nation. It
consisted of Prayer and Supplication and Sacrifice. All
unusual and extraordinary phenomena, all good gifts
and evil fortune came direct from God, and they sought
by gifts to him of what they thought he would like
best, and by praise and adulation which they knew they
most liked, to propitiate him, and win his favour.
This was accomplished by a Priesthood who made it
difficult to approach him except through themselves,
and who claimed a reversionary interest in all gifts
offered to him.
It is true that more refined notions of deity prevailed
among “ God’s chosen people,” as civilization advanced,
and after they had spent seventy years in captivity in
Babylon, and had become acquainted with the much
higher “ revelation ” of Zoroaster. Still their most
sublime and poetical conception never rose above that
of a mighty magician, speaking the word of power ; the
heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool; to
whom belonged,—not the countless worlds of which they
had no idea, but the cattle upon a thousand hills ; rid
ing upon the wings of the wind ; governing the world
by his angels, and in whose name every possible atrocity
�^2
The Christian Religion.
is committed : to whom such men as Jacob, David, and
that wisest of all men, Solomon, with his three hundred
wives, and nine hundred concubines, are represented as
especially acceptable and favoured, but who show an
utter indifference to any moral law whatever. Notwith
standing this, we have that good man, the late Dr Norman
Macleod, telling us almost with his last words, that “ The
Bible practically says to all seekers after God, ‘Whom
ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.’ It
professes to give a true history, in harmony with reason,
conscience and experience, of God’s revelation of Him
self during past ages, culminating in Jesus Christ, and
continued in the Church by His Holy Spirit.’—Good
Words, June 1875, p. 420.
Hear also His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,
the highest authority of all. He says, “ Good Words,”
May 1875, “As to morality, upholding as we do the
immutable and eternal distinction between right and
wrong, and thankful that in all but degraded specimens
of the human race there is a conscience capable of
learning these distinctions. ... We believe that the
Great Being who controls the universe is in Himself
the very good, and very right.” Now as His Grace
identifies the Great Being who controls the universe with
the Hebrew God of the Bible, and as we cannot certainly
classify His Grace among “ the degraded specimens of
the human race,” we are obliged to conclude that his
conscience has yet something to learn. An aged and'
much respected dissenting Minister tells me that “ The
Bible will treat you as you treat it,” that is, you may
find whatever you are looking for, and only nineteenth
century ideas are looked for ; we look for a reformed
God, and a reformed religion, and this is the only way I
can account for the judgments of the good men I have -,
quoted above, and also for the fact that such chapters
as Gen. xix., xxxvii., Jud. xix., 2 Sam. ix., xiii., &c., i
are allowed to be retained, although they would not '
obtain admission into any book in the present day in
any refined and civilized community.
�The Christian Religion.
33
But even among those who reject Revelation as a
revelation, the deistic conception of God as a governing
power outside the universe is probably as childish as
the original one conceived in the childhood of the
world, when all the earth was supposed to be filled
with his glory.
The cosmogony of the Hebrews, as might be expected,
is exactly upon a par with their Theology. The earth,
according to their revelation, was the centre of all
things j it was flat, founded upon the seas, and could
not be moved. The sun, and moon, and stars, are so
many lamps placed in the firmament to give light to
the earth. The firmament or sky is a solid structure,
and supports a great ocean like that upon which the
earth rests, in which are little windows through which
pour the waters of this upper ocean—under the earth
is the land of graves, called sheol, and is the hell, to
which it is said, Christ descended.* Above the waters
of the firmament is heaven, where Jehovah reigns,
surrounded by hosts of angels. It is to this heaven
that Christians say Christ ascended, his disciples and
a vast multitude having seen him go up, where he sitteth
on the right hand of God. There is some little
discrepancy as to whether Christ is sitting or standing,
as St Stephen saw him standing, and we might well
believe it was “sometimes one and sometimes the
other,” if the Athanasian creed, supported by the
church, did not say that we shall be damned if we do
not believe he is sitting. Between the firmament and
the earth is the air, which is the habitation of evil
spirits, and properly belongs to Satan, the “ prince of
* Mr George Smith informs the Daily Telegraph that some
of the Assyrian tablets discovered by Mr Smith and presented
by the proprietors of the Telegraph to the British Museum,
contain a much longer and fuller account of the creation and
fall of man than the Book of Genesis. In particular, the fall
of Satan, which in the Bible is only assumed, is in these
records reported at length, and the description of this being is
characterized by Mr Smith as “ really magnificent.
�j4
The Christian Religion.
the powers of the air.” As to the order of creation, the
sun is made on the fourth day, the changes of day and
night preceding it. The sun and moon are subordinate
to the earth. It took no less than five days to create
the earth, while for the sun, the whole starry host, and
the planets it took only one day, but then they were
made just to light up the earth. It was for professing
some little doubt as to the accuracy of this plan of the
universe that poor Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned,
and the special charge against Giordano Bruno was that
he had taught the plurality of worlds, a doctrine, it was
said, repugnant to the whole tenor of Scriptures, and
inimical to revealed religion, especially as regards the
plan of salvation. For this he was to be punished as
mercifully as possible, and “ without the shedding of
blood,” the horrible formula for burning people alive.
It was this adoption of the Jewish sacred writings as
the standard of all knowledge, this conflict between
religion and science, this attempt to put the Cosmos
into a quart pot, that has put a logger on science, even
up to the present day. The so-called revelation now
stands in the way of mental science as it formally did
in the way of physics ; but as our astronomy has come
from science and not from revelation, so also, must our
mental and moral philosophy.
Mohammedanism
released the people of Asia, Africa, and the Continent of
Europe, from those narrow and erroneous scriptural
dogmas, and the thick darkness of papal Borne, and left
science free; and the lamp of discovery was kept burning
through Arabian learning, and the highest civilization
we have yet reached, that of the Moors in Spain. We
are evidently approaching another Reformation in which
Science not in one department only, but in all, shall be
left entirely free. The intellectual development of
Europe has reached that stage where Arabism left us in
the 1 Oth and 11 th centuries. Through the influence of
Rome the world then took the wrong way ; had it
adopted Averhoism, which was rejected only by a
�The Christian Religion.
35
small majority, we should have been then where we
are now.
But if the Jewish conception of God was a most
unworthy one, what must we say of that of the orthodox
Christian 1 Why, that it is infinitely worse. With
both he is the Creator of all things, therefore, of
evil and good, but with the former evil is confined to
time and this world, while with the latter it is absolute
and endless. Thus, according to the orthodox creed
the Almighty and All-wise, with a perfect knowledge
therefore of what he was doing, and full power to do
otherwise, made our first parents, Adam and Eve, and
put them into Paradise, with the full knowledge that
they would get themselves immediately turned out for
a single act of disobedience. They were not to eat of
a certain magic tree, for if they did so on that day they
should surely die. But our poor inexperienced mother
Eve, not knowing even what death was, was beguiled
by a talking serpent, into eating, and Adam, like a
gentleman, determined to share the consequences with
his wife : and if they had merely died on that day they
would only have been where they were before they
were made. But did God keep His word? No, they
did not die that day, but after cursing the earth for
their sake, they were kept alive to fill it with their
children, all of whom, with themselves, were condemned
to everlasting torture for this single act of disobedience.
But God had already arranged a scheme by which the
world might be saved; He would give His only be
gotten Son; Christ was to die for our salvation, an
innocent person for the guilty; but the conditions
were such that God in His infinite fore-knowledge knew
perfectly well they would not be accepted, and that the
great majority would be damned, notwithstanding this
infinite loving kindness, and awful sacrifice. From the
“Westminster Confession of Faith,” we learn that by the
decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some
c
�j6
The Christian Religion.
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life,
and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
“ Those angels and men, thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ;
and their number is so certain and definite, that it
cannot be either increased or diminished.”
“ The rest of mankind, God was pleased, for the
glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to
pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” Glorious
justice indeed 1 an infinite punishment for a finite sin,
or rather for no sin at all, for if the causes that pro
duced the act had not been adequate to the result, God
could not have foreseen it.
“ Our first parents, we are told, on the same authority,
being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan,
sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin
God was pleased, according to His wise and holy
council, to permit, having purposed to order it to His
own glory.” Thus He permitted a subtle and powerful
being to tempt our first parents, knowing full well the
result, and having already prepared a place of eternal
torment, that he might “ order it to His own glory.”
J. S. Mill says (“Autobiography,” p. 41.) “I have
a hundred times heard him (his father) say, that all
ages and nations have represented their gods as wicked,
in a constantly increasing progression; that mankind
have gone on adding trait after trait till they reached
the most perfect conception of wickedness which the
human mind can devise, and have called this God, and
prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of
wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is
commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Chris
tianity.”
The Rev. Dr Norman Macleod, however, says, 11 God
has manifested in humanity the same kind of joy He
Himself had in beholding the works which He had made
very good, and in which He rested and reposed ’’
�The Christian Religion.
37
(“Good Words,” June 1875, p. 421.) Fancy such a
work being “ very good f ’ but we trust the Doctor did not
believe it, any more than we do ourselves. He may, how
ever, possibly have held with Luther, that it is by faith
we are saved and Luther says, “ it is the highest degree
of faith to believe Him merciful, who saves so few and
damns so many: to believe him just who of his own
will makes us necessarily damnable.” However laud
able such a degree of faith may be, we must confess
ourselves unequal to it, for it points to a devil, not a
god, and one wonders how such a horrid conception
could ever get into people’s heads, and ever form the
faith of a civilised people. It has taken ages of “ sur
vivals ” of hideous barbarism from the earliest ages to
put the idea together, and ages of transmission to
propagate the faith. No one coming fresh to it could
entertain it for a moment. It is absurd to say that
God’s original intentions were frustrated with respect
to man ; it is a contradiction to suppose that anything
can take place contrary to the will and wish of Almighty
power and wisdom. The “Spectator,” (Nov. 7, 1874),
however, regards it “ as a higher act of power to create
free beings, and therefore beings liable to sin on their
own responsibility, than to create only those whose
natures are for ever fixed in the grooves of good; ” that
is, it may be a much higher act of power to create
beings capable of damning themselves to all eternity,
than to create them so good that they could not do it;
granted, but then what shall we say of the wisdom ?
We very much doubt, however, whether omnipotence
itself could create a free, that is self-originating, uncaused act of any kind ; it is very certain it never has.
It is wonderful that it never seems to occur to the ortho
dox school, that if God had kept His word, and Adam
had really died, and another pair had been created, less
“ free ” to damn themselves and all their posterity, how
much trouble might have been spared. There would
have been no necessity then to “ keep a devil,” or a
(
�38
The Christian Religion.
place of eternal torment, and the Son of God need not
have died, and this, as it appears to poor human reason,
might have been turned equally to God’s glory. “ If
Christ, as St John writes, appeared on earth to destroy
the works of the devil, He might have been dispensed
with if no devil had existed” (Strauss.)
This doctrine of the atonement, of sacrificing an
innocent person for a guilty one, and that in Christ’s
case only for an elect few: for although “many are called
few are chosen”—must have come down from the very
earliest times. “ Without shedding of blood there is
no remission of sins” (Heb. ix. 22) must be a “sur
vival ” from pre-historic men and the most barbarous
races. The law of vengeance, life for life, blood for
blood, was the savage law; and what was thus acceptable
to man was thought to be the most acceptable to his
Deity that he wanted to propitiate. Hence human
sacrifices. An only son being the dearest to man was
t thought to be most acceptable to God. At length
animals were substituted for human beings, as in Abra
ham’s case, the ram for his only son Isaac, and the
first-born among the Hebrews ceased in time to be
sacrificed according to primitive barbaric custom, and
was redeemed by a ram or a lamb. In Exodus and
Leviticus we have a whole ceremonial worship based
upon sacrifices, as we are told, by divine command.
“ Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering
for atonement ” (Ex. xxix. 36, &c.) The Jewish ritual
is full of bloody sacrifices, and Paul, not Christ, has
made it the key-stone of the Christian system, in the
blood of God’s only begotten and beloved Son. This
doctrine of propitiation by blood—of being washed
clean in blood, could never have entered a civilised
man’s head or heart; we have gradually been ac
customed to it from the earliest times, until like the
sun’s rising, it excites no wonder.
That all should fall for the sin of one*—of Adam, and
all be saved by the sacrifice of an innocent person, is so
�The Christian Religion.
39
great a breach of all moral law that we rather wonder
how the Archbishop of Canterbury reconciles it with
“ the immutable and eternal distinctions between right
and wrong.” There can be little doubt that the con
founding of all moral distinctions in the “ spoiling of
the Egyptians,” and the sacrifice of the innocent for the
guilty as a plan of salvation, must have had a most
deleterious influence upon the conscience of all who
have believed in them, as part of the direct ordinances
of God. “ The covenant of grace in which the guilty
are pardoned through the agony of the just—and a God
kept holy in His own eyes by the double violation of
His own standard of rectitude,” can in no way be re
conciled with the intellect or our moral sense.
But these dire chimeras, these awful and blasphem
ous slanders upon the character of God, are silently
dying out before the gradually increasing intelligence of
the age, as witchcraft has done before. We no longer
burn thousands of old women for having personal inter
course and dealing with the “ prince of the powers of the
air,” and theological dogma is giving place, even in the
church itself, to practical religion. There are still,
however, many good people who think it desirable to
retain these horrible lies and libels upon our Creator, in
order to frighten men into being good, and the hope of
an immortality attended with such results is thought to
be a high and ennobling sentiment. At the present
time (June 1875) a case is going through the Court of
Arches, Jenkins v. Cook, in which the Rev. F. Cook
refuses to allow Mr Jenkins to partake of “ the body
and blood of Christ,” which, as the Church Catechism
tells us, “ is verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful at the Lord’s Supper,” with his fellow
communicants, because he had expressed doubts about
the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the personality
of Satan; he had even gone the length of supposing
that there were parts of “ God’s Holy Word” that
were better left out, and he had prepared a selec
�40
The Christian Religion.
tion for his young family. On the other hand, we
have an article in the “Contemporary,” for May, by Prof.
J. B. Mayor, in which he says, 11 reason and conscience
inevitably revolt against such a gospel as this (that
hopeless misery is the destiny of the larger propor
tion of created souls), yet how are those who believe
in the inspiration of the Bible to avoid accepting it 1
Accept this or give up Christianity is the alternative
presented to many minds at the present day—an alter
native enforced with equal vehemence by the extremists
on either side. It is this which is the great stum
bling-block not, how can I believe in this miracle or
that miracle ? but how can I accept a revelation which
appears to me to contradict the first and deepest of all
revelations, God is just, and God is good? He who
would solve this problem and justify to man the
ways of God, as revealed in Scripture, would, indeed,
do a great and excellent work. Maurice did some
thing by calling attention to the distinction between
endless and eternal.’'
A great many equally good and learned men, in the
interests, as they believe it to be, of religion, are making
similar useless distinctions, straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel, and by taking things in a non
natural sense, the spiritual instead of the literal meanby turning affirmed facts into allegory, &c., are
earnestly striving to make black appear white and save
their livings; the church, as they believe, being much
better reformed from within than from without. The
question which is really interesting and pressing,
according to Principal Tulloch, is not how to get out
side the church, but how to enlarge and make room in
side it for varieties of Christian intelligence and culture.
But we may read the signs of the times when the
“ Edinburgh Review,” not now the organ of advanced
but of conservative liberalism, is disposed to go much
further „ than “ the distinction between endless and
eternal,” and to throw over the Old Testament alto
�The Christian Religion.
41
gether and much even of the New (Oct. 1873, on Dr
Strauss). “ We are not Jews/’ it says, “ and there is
no reason in the world why we should be weighted
with the burden of understanding and defending at all
risks the Jewish Scriptures.” It also says, “Is it
right, is it truthful, is it any longer possible, in the
face of all that is now known upon the subject, to pretend
that legendary matter has not intruded itself into the
•hew Testament as well as into the Old?” Still the
writer contends for the precious truths which notwith
standing this lie enshrined in “ Oriental metaphor”
and “ Mediaeval dogma,” and accuses Strauss of “ igno
rant blasphemy or hypocritical sarcasm,” for professing
to understand these things literally, and to believe that
they form any part of Christianity. This is the attitude
that is now assumed by those who do not wish to give
up the Bible altogether. They fall back upon what
they call Christianity, by which they mean the example
and moral teaching of Christ, as far as that can be
ascertained. It is very difficult to ascertain what
Christ did, and still more to say what he taught. We
have the fourth Gospel, and the Epistles of Paul, and
of Peter, James, and Jude, all of which have added to
and differ from what Christ himself taught. The
theologic system that has come down to us is in reality
not Christianity, but much has been added to it
which Christ himself, as a religious reformer, strongly
protested against. The bloody doctrine of sacrifice and
atonement, which had been derived from a primitive
savage state, was re-introduced and made the corner
stone of the new faith j in fact, orthodox Christianity
is more indebted to Paul and the Alexandrine School,
as represented in St John’s Gospel, than to its putative
founder.
In the midst of the myths and legends that have
surrounded Christ, it is very difficult to say who and
what he was. Without believing at all in the super
natural, I yet believe that he wrought most of the
�42
7
The Christian Religion.
miracles that are ascribed to him, and that this appa
rently miraculous power deceived him and his disciples
and ourselves. This power was not peculiar to Christ,
for a power of curing many kind of diseases has attended,
and still attends, 'many individuals. One of the best
known cases on record is that of Valentine Greatrakes,
an Irish gentleman, but no saint, born in 1628. He
was invited by the King to London, whither he went,
curing very many by the way. There the Royal
Society, then young, investigated the matter, publish
ing some of his cures in their Transactions, and account
ing for them as produced by “ a sanative contagion in
Mr Greatrakes’ body, which had an antipathy to some
particular diseases and not to others.” We are told
by a contemporary writer, Henry More, what particular
diseases this sanative contagion had an antipathy to,
viz., “ cancers, scrofula, deafness, king’s evil, headache,
epilepsy, fevers (though quartian ones), leprosy, palsy,
tympany, lameness, numbness of limbs, stone, convul
sions, ptysick, sciatica, ulcers, pains of the body, nay,
blind and dumb in some measure, and I know not but
he cured the gout.” Now if we leave out the cures
that were said to be wrought by Christ that the pro
phecies might be fulfilled, we have here most of the
diseases that he was able to cure, for we must not forget
that people’s want of faith prevented his being success
ful in all times and all places. He knew also when
“ virtue,” this sanitary power, went out of him, as when
touched by the woman with the issue. We may doubt
as to the source of this power, but that it exists there
can be no doubt. I have seen six cases, including
toothache, lameness, and rheumatism cured or relieved
in less than a quarter of an hour by the simple contact
or laying on of hands, and I have carefully watched
many permanent cures by the same person, by what
appeared to me an excess of vital power or of the “ vis
medecatrix.” Now if Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter’s
son, found himself possessed of such a power, he would
�The Christian Religion.
43
of course ascribe it to Divine origin and believe that he
■was intended by the Almighty for some special mission,
most probably the Messiah, which all the Jews were
expecting, to deliver them from the Roman yoke and
to place them in the exalted position which had been
promised to the seed of Abraham, and to which there
had been already several pretenders. He himself
does not appear to be quite certain as to the character
of his mission, for when sent to by John, asking, “ Art
thou he that should come, or do we look for another 1 ”
he replied, “ Go and show John again those things
which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight
and the lame ■walk, the leapers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have
the gospel preached to them,” intimating that this was
all he knew. There is little doubt, I think, that on
his entry into Jerusalem he expected a rising of the
people in his favour, and probably divine assistance in
that direction, as he daily received it, as he thought,
in others. When that did not take place, and he saw
that a revolt against the Roman power was vain and
hopeless, he did not the less doubt his own Divine
mission, of which he received daily proofs in the
miracles which he wrought; but he began to see that
the promised kingdom was not to be of this world,
but upon a second coming, which was to take place
even in that generation, and when he should be accom
panied by such divine power as would establish this
Heavenly Kingdom for ever. In the meantime he
began to prepare for that martyrdom that had always
attended all the great prophets and all previous
claims to the Messiahship. He prayed that this might
pass from him; but was nobly prepared to meet it if
such was God’s will, and never once does he seem to
have doubted that he was under God’s special care for
a special purpose, except in his own most pathetic and
despairing cry upon the cross, “ Mv God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me !” Christ died as a rebel to the
�44
The Christian Religion.
Roman. Empire, and in the full persuasion that on his
second coming, then near at hand, all things would be
made subservient to himself and to his followers, and
that the Jewish nation especially should have the pre
eminence that had been promised to them. In this
belief, his disciples, who had daily witnessed his appa
rently miraculous power, joined him, and expected to
sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
It is impossible not to feel love for Christ, especially
when we think of the horrid suffering to which he w’as
subjected by his fellow-creatures, and to feel respect
for him as the most amiable and greatest of our moral
and social reformers, but I cannot look upon him as a
perfect character, or his example as one that could be
followed in the entirely altered conditions we have now.
There is much in the spirit of Christ’s character that is
most loveable and estimable, but to attempt to follow
his example would as certainly bring us wuthin the
power of the police, as it did him in his day. In all
the phases of social life, as a son, as a celebate, as a
producer or worker, his example is certainly one that
cannot be followed. As Strauss says, we must have
a definite conception of him whom we are to imitate as
an exemplar of moral excellence, and there are not such
essential facts in the life of Jesus firmly established j
neither are we clearly cognizant of his aims, nor the
mode and degree in which he hoped for their reali
zation. It is in the spirit of his doctrine only, that he
can be held up as an exemplar, and that certainly,
excellent as it is in many points, would not tend to the
full development of all our faculties.
But whence did Christ get his knowledge, which seems
greatly to have exceeded that of his time, and most cer
tainly that of his condition as a carpenter’s son ? What
sources were open to him 1 Was he one of those seers
or clairvoyants which the world has occasionally known,
and in that sense inspired ? The power of healing and of
�The Christian Religion.
45
this kind of intuitional knowledge, are seldom found
together. It is very difficult to ascertain what Christ
really did teach. There were no short-hand writers in
those days, and the traditional reports we have, would
come to us strained through, and coloured by, the much
lower minds of his followers. We must therefore take
the spirit of his teaching, and not take it literally; and
we must recollect that much of what he taught was
under the firm conviction that the world was coming
to an end, probably in that generation. The morality
of the New Testament, to which the Broad Church is
now driven, giving up the conventional theological
creed, furnishes no system of morals, or one upon which
a science of mental and moral philosophy can be based.
The sun still goes round the earth in the mental science
of the New Testament, as much as it did in the physics
of the Old, for of course there can be no science of
mind, if the mind obeys no law, and it has power to
resist the strongest motives, as the advocates of Free
Will affirm. If, on the contrary, the mind necessarily
obeys its own laws, then we require a re-modelling of
the whole of Christ’s morality, as it must be based upon
a different idea of responsibility to that which he taught;
for the whole tendency of Christianity is to separate
conduct from its immediate and natural consequences,
and to place such consequences far away, or even in
some distant world; whereas the only divine judgment
or responsibility which science can admit, is that only
“ which fulfils itself hour by hour, and day by day.”
Thus Christ taught, as his especial doctrine, the
Fatherhood of God; now in the sense that God ever
interferes with natural law in our favour, this is not
true, and if not true, however comforting such a doctrine
of a Heaven-Father, or Father in Heaven, may be to
weak people, it had better be given up, as the truth
must always serve us best. God has put everything we
require within our reach, and has appointed a way by
which it may be attained, and has lent us his power to
�46
The Christian Religion.
act for ourselves, and after that we have no right to
expect he will interfere personally in our behalf, and if
he did, it could only be to our injury, by weakening
that self-reliance upon which certainly all progress, if
not our very existence, depends. If we do not take
this natural course towards the object of our desires,
we are punished in the consequences, and as such
punishment is for our good, God never injures us by
forgiving our sins.
' And this is what I have principally to say against
Christianity. It has attempted to come between man
and the natural consequences of his actions; it has
filled the world with eleemosynary charity, and has thus
weakened his most important springs of action.
. Here we have the orthodox creed on this subject,
“ If man is compelled to distinguish between right and
wrong, he is a responsible agent, subject to penalties
for the misuse, &c., of his moral powers. He must be
responsible to some one. That some one must be
omniscient and omnipotent (or little less) in order to
act as Judge of humanity, and to mete out adequate
rewards and punishments. As these adequate rewards
and punishments do not follow in this life, there must
be a future state. If not, there would exist in man a
whole class of moral faculties which seem to find in the
present state of things an appropriate field for their
exercise, but which man is under no necessity of using.”
(The Dean of Canterbury on “ Science and Revelation ”).
Now it is the consequences of man’s actions that enable
him to distinguish between right and wrong, and at
the same time mete out an adequate reward and punish
ment. He is judged at once, and by an infallible judge,
and where the rewards and punishments, the pains
and pleasures attending his actions, may be of some use
to him and not carried on to some future state or other
world, where the conditions being different, they can be
of no use whatever. Man is responsible to himself, and
to the society of which he forms a member. This idea
�The Christian Religion.
47
of vengeance, this notion that has come down from
savage life of apportioning a certain amount of useless
suffering to a certain amount of sin, pervades the whole
of the Bible. We are told also that man is endowed
with certain faculties for the exercise of which no
proper field has been furnished him by natural means,
and that therefore it requires a supernatural interposi
tion to provide him with one. We know of no faculties
that man possesses, that are not brought into daily use,
that he could live without, or which are not active in.
providing an improved state of things here in this
world, for himself and fellows.
The two great commandments of Christianity are
that we should “ Love God with all our hearts, and our
neighbour as ourselves.” Now is this possible ? If not,
is it not time that we should give up pretending that
it is ? Can we love the God of the Hebrews who puts
whole towns to the sword, men, women, and little
children, and every living thing, and who throws great
stones out of heaven upon the retreating hosts, and who
kills more in that way, than are killed by the sword 1
Can we love the God of the Christians who has ordained
an eternity of torture for the majority of his weak and
erring creatures, having full power to save them or not
to have created them 1 It is true we can make an idol
of all the ' highest attributes with which we are
acquainted and give it a personality after our own image,
and love that, but that is not God. Can we love the
Great Unknown ? We may love goodness and beauty,
but they must take some form to enable us to do so,
we cannot love a mere abstraction. The Universal
Bather works for the good of all, and does not recognise
individuals. Love is a human feeling applicable to our
fellow creatures, and is not applicable, as it appears to
me, to the All Supreme, which supports the Universe,
or rather which is the Universe. We cannot know
enough of this power to make it an object of love,
however much it may create a feeling of reverence and
�48
The Christian Religion.
awe, and this idea and feeling increase the higher our
conception rises of the Great Supreme. We may love
Christ as the highest manifestation of God we may
know, but this is a very different and inferior feeling to
that which we have for the Great All. As to “ loving
our neighbour as ourselves ” that is neither possible
nor desirable. Suppose my neighbour is a nasty sneak,
a mere animal, full of low and vicious propensities, why
should I love him ? I am not called upon to love vice
in any form, although it is my neighbour, and to do so,
as man’s conduct is governed by the consequences,
would be holding out a premium for vice. Let my
neighbour make himself loveable, and I cannot help
loving him. On principle I may do him all the good I
can—getting him hanged perhaps being the greatest
good I can do him—but as to loving him, I must
decline. We can only love what is loveable, and believe
what is credible. It is true that orthodoxy professes
to love the Being who may send themselves or their
best and dearest friend to spend an eternity in “ ever
lasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” and
as to belief, it thinks that any fool can believe what
is credible, but that that only is a saving and justifying
faith which believes what is incredible. If all that it
is meant to inculcate is a settled principle of good-will
to all men, that certainly is a most desirable feeling to
encourage, even towards the unworthy. The same may
be said about loving our enemies. Why should we love
our enemies? The interests of the community, and
therefore of morality, do not require it. We cannot do
more for our friends. It is true we may bless them that
curse, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them
that despitefully use us and persecute us, and we can do
what pious people are very fond of doing, pray for
our enemies; but as to loving them! when by doing
them all the good we can, if they deserve it, we have
made them our friends, then we may love them.
Does God love his enemies when he exacts an infinite
�The Christian Religion.
49
penalty for a finite fault, or is it not true that he pre
pares an eternity of torment for them ? “ They shall
drink,” John says, “the wine of the wrath of God
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
his indignation, and they shall be tormented with fire
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.” How the
holy angels must enjoy the sight ! we are told also on
the same ‘ loving ’ authority, ‘ they have no rest day
nor night, they shall desire to die, and death shall flee
from them, they blaspheme God, they gnaw their tongues
for pain.’ ” Moses says, “ Slay every man his brother,”
rather than allow the existence of heretics, but Moses
did not believe in a future state, and therefore he could
not damn them as well. Christ says, “ He that believeth not in me the wrath of God abideth on him ”—■
“He that believeth not shall be damned,” and Paul says of
the unbelievers in his day, “ God shall send them strong
delusion (as he had previously done to Pharaoh and to
Ahab), that they should believe a lie, that they may all
be damned.”
All that can come of setting up a false standard, and
professing to love our enemies, is a pharisaical hypocrisy.
What we have to do is to love the true, the good, and
the beautiful; to stand up for the right regardless of
consequences, and to maintain an unending battle
against evil in all its forms. This may be done in all
kindness, and in the full conviction that “ Society
prepares crime, and the guilty are only the instruments
by which it is executed.”—Quetelet. It is justice that
ought to rule the world. We are governed by the con
sequences of our actions, and if we can get love without
being loveable, and good for evil, the chief motives to
be good and loveable are taken away. The same reason
ing applies to the whole doctrine of the non-resistance of
evil. Not to resist evil is to encourage it. If a man
smite us unjustly on one cheek, and turning the other
Jo be smitten would prevent its recurrence, let us do it.
�50
The Christian Religion.
With a good man it might do so, but with the great
majority it would only encourage them to further
aggression. To give a man my cloak who had taken
my coat would be a premium for robbery; and to give
to him that asketh, and from him that would borrow
of me not to turn away, as a rule, would be equally a
premium for improvidence. So also to take no thought
for the morrow, to trust to God to clothe us as he does
the lilies of the field, would sap self-reliance and self
dependence, the foundation of all morality. No society
that ever existed in Christ’s time or since could hold
together on such principles, translate them into what
ever transcendental or sesthetic language we may.
As to the golden rule, which is not peculiar to
Christianity, viz., “ that we should do as we would be
done by,” it can only be received in spirit, in a very broad
and general application, for people differ so in bodily
and mental constitution that what suits one person by
no means suits another. It is not at all safe to judge
of other people by ourselves. Not to do to others what
we would not like to have done to ourselves is a much
safer way of putting it.
We must notice also, it is that W’e may be rewarded,
not that we may do right, is the inducement every
where held out.
With reference to prayer, Christ says, “when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and
thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly.” We are expressly told that we are not to
pray standing in the synagogues, that we may be seen
of men; that we are not to use vain repetitions and
much speaking, for that our Father knoweth what
things we have need of, before we ask Him. The
whole of Christendom has systematically set these
injunctions at defiance, for there would be little use
for the priests were they carried out, and with one sex
at least, church-going would be less popular if they were
�The Christian Religion.
51
not to be “ seen of men.” The last new bonnet is a
great stimulant to devotion. The great majority of
Christians, who believe their saints to be ubiquitous, or
omniscient, and who pray to those who are always
listening, to intercede with the Mother of God, to
petition her Son, to ask his Father, can have little
faith that the “Father knows what things we have need
■of, before we ask Him,” or that if he does, he is
very hard to persuade to let us have them. His Holi
ness, the Pope, in his Encyclical, recently issued, enjoins
incessant prayer, employing a Mediatrix with Him, the
Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who sits, he says, as a
queen upon the right hand of her only begotten Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, in a golden vestment, clothed
around with various adornments. There is nothing she
cannot obtain from him.
Now is it likely that God will be constantly altering the
•course he has appointed for our well-being at our ignor
ant intercession ? Surely he knows what is right, and
will do it, without our asking him or constantly re
minding him! No amount of toadying, which we call
worship, or serving him, will induce him to do other
wise than what is right, or prevent him from doing it,
whether “ we praise him,” or “ acknowledge him to
be the Lord,” or not. The savage with the noise of
pots and pans tries to prevent an eclipse, that is, to
prevent the sun eating up the moon, or vice versa, and
the noises we make in the churches to bring or prevent
rain, or in any way to alter the course of natural law,
may be expected to be equally efficacious. The whole
tendency of modern research goes to show that if law
is anywhere, it is everywhere.
The Kyoungtha of Chittagong are Buddhists. Their
village temples contain a small stand of bells and an
image of Buddha, which the villagers generally worship,
morning and evening, first ringing the bells to let him
know that they are there (Sir John Lubbock’s “Origin
of Civilisation,” p. 220). This is no more than polite or
D
< » •
�52
The Christian Religion.
politic; we ring our bells merely to call the people
together, thinking God is always ready to listen to
petitions, to do for us what he has given us full power
to do for ourselves, or simply perhaps, to reverse the
order of nature, upon the invariability of which the
good of all depends. Surely it is better that all people
should know that miracles will not be constantly worked
on their behalf. It is true that by the laws of the
mind, prayer often answers itself, and we get what we
ask for, but should we mock God that we may be so
benefited? No man prays for the success of his
chemical experiments, neither will he for moral results
when he knows as much of the likes and antipathies of
human beings, as he does of the attractions and repul
sions of atoms. Our present practice is a “ survival ”
of primitive barbarous times, when all evil was supposed
to come directly from spirits, or from the gods, and
prayer was the only means supposed capable of averting
such evils. We certainly have no right to reflect on
less civilised times and nations for their superstition, so
long as we expect the ordinary course of nature to be
altered in our behalf whenever we choose to ask it.
It never seems to occur to those who pray without
ceasing, to ask the question that if in answer to their
repeated importunity, God delivers them from evil,
why an infinitely powerful, good, and benevolent being
does not deliver all from evil, without asking. If it
were right in their case it would be right in all; but it
would be not right. Any interference with the estab
lished order of nature would render both reason and
instinct useless, and would weaken those springs of
action on which all progress depends.
The late Bev. Charles Kingsley, says, speaking of
Atheism •—££ Has every suffering, searching soul, which
ever gazed up into the darkness of the unknown, in
hopes of catching even a glimpse of a divine eye,
beholding. all, and ordering all, and pitying all, gazed
up in vain ?.............Oh! my friends, those who
�The Christian Religion.
53
believe or fancy that they believe such things, must be
able to do so only through some peculiar conformation,
either of brain or heart. Only want of imagination to
conceive the consequences of such doctrines can enable
them, if they have any love and pity for their fellow
men, to preach those doctrines without pity and horror.
They know not, they know not, of what they rob a
mankind already but too miserable by its own folly and
its own sin, a mankind which, if it have not hope in
God and in Christ, is truly—as Homer said of old—
more miserable than the beasts of the field. If their
unconscious conceit did not make them unintentionally
cruel, they would surely be more silent for pity’s sake ;
they would let men go on in the pleasant delusion that
there is a living God, and a Word of God who has
revealed him to men, and would hide from their fellow
creatures the dreadful secret which they think they
have discovered—that there is none that heareth prayer,
and therefore to him need no flesh come.”
No doubt this is very eloquent, but if such eloquence
were compatible with reason, I should ask, who is it
that professes to have discovered “the dreadful secret,”
that the majority after a moment spent here, are con
signed to endless torments, where there “ is none that
heareth prayer, and therefore to Him need no flesh
come.” Surely Atheism is better than this orthodox
belief, and if any have discovered that it is a blasphem
ous libel upon our Creator, the sooner they proclaim
it the better. The good, most loving, and gentle
Cowper, the Poet, not having felt, as he and his Par
son thought, sufficient evidence of conversion, lived
year after year in the full belief that God had utterly
rejected him, and on his death-bed exclaimed, “ I feel
unutterable despair.” The self-righteous people who
feel so certain of their own salvation, forget, or more
probably selfishly disregard, the numberless cases of
this kind, of sensitive people being driven, as poor
Cowper was, to despair; they think it so hard that
�any should be deprived of the comforting notion. It
is a great mystery, they say, but it is one of their own
making: they first make it dark, and then complain
that they cannot see.
I need not say any more, I think, to show that the
Christianity of Christ, however much of excellence there
is in it, is not up to the thought and moral sense of our
time. Great efforts are being made to adapt it to the
altered conditions by new and forced meanings, and by
dropping, what no forcing can adapt, as not abidingprinciples intended for our times. So far as attempts
have been made to put Christianity systematically into
practice, they have been failures.
The early Christians were communists—they had all
things in common ; and no doubt it is better adapted tosuch a social system than to any other. When all are
dependent upon each and each upon all; when all have
a direct and immediate interest in the well-being,
physical, moral, and intellectual of every member of
the community, when conscience or the sense of duty
is as strong a feeling as hunger and pride and vanity are
now, when the unselfish feelings shall decidedly pre
dominate, then some form of Christianity will be practi
cable. But society in no country has ever yet approached
such a state. Communism is still, and may continue
so for ages, the great Socialist Utopia.
Where Christianity has been attempted to be carried
out as a system of theological belief; where he “ who
believeth shall be saved and he who believeth not shall
be damned,” the burnings of millions of people have not
brought us any nearer to it in practice. People will con
tinue to believe that what appears to them to be black and
not white, is black, whether they are to be burned here
and hereafter for it or not; and as to “ renouncing the
devil and all his works,” and burning some nine millions
of poor old women and others for supposed personal deal
ings with him, the devil, or at least the principle of evil,
is nearly as rampant as ever. It -would have been much
�The Christian Religion.
55
more convincing if those who burned others for want
of faith, had exhibited a proper evidence of their own,
which they never did. “ And these signs shall follow
them that believe says Mark xvi. 17, 18, 19, “ In my
name shall they cast out devils j they shall speak with new
tongues ; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” But
such is the perversity of human nature, that had such
powers attended their faith, they would probably have
been burned for witchcraft. “ So then,” Mark goes on
to say, xvi. 20, “ after the Lord had spoken unto them
he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.”
The asceticism, which is a part of Christianity, has
done the world infinite mischief, if it were only in
depriving it of the offspring of so many of its highest
minds, who were either imprisoned, burnt, or voluntarily
retired from it. What wise man had time to marry
when he had an eternity to prepare for ? what good man
would run the risk of introducing beings to a life of
everlasting torment ? The stake was so great, that no
wonder that among those who were not good utter sel
fishness prevailed, and men thought only of their own
salvation. The soul was the only thing to be thought
of, the body was despised, mortified, degraded, and
neglected.
Monks, nuns, and hermits were the
only sensible people. Prayer was the only occupation
in which a man could profitably engage, and conse
quently no more attention was given to the body than
its natural wants absolutely required. This absurd de
preciation of the body, the sole instrument of thought,
has continued to the present time.
It is absurd to say that we owe modern civilization
to Christianity. Islamism \yas a real reform on the
state of society induced by the Christianity of that day,
and carried willingly all the East and the great cities of
its birth along with it; and when it had reduced Europe
�56
The Christian Religion.
to the dark ages, we were saved again by the Moors
and Saracens, and a return to Greece and Rome. The
Greek and Roman philosophers aim at the perfect de
velopment of the individual man—mind and body—
and of the individual state. “ Magnanimity, self-reli
ance, dignity, independence, and, in a word, elevation
of character, constituted the Roman idea of perfection ;
while humility, obedience, gentleness, patience, resigna
tion are Christian virtues” (Lecky, vol. ii., pp. 72, 155),
and it is not, I think, saying too much to affirm, that
had the principles of Christianity been really practised,
modern civilization could never have existed. His
Excellency Iwakura Tomomi, chief of the supreme
Japanese Embassy, which visited England a few years
ago, has presented to the Library of the India Office a
set of the Chinese version of the Buddhist Scriptures.
The work weighs 3| tons. A selection is probably, in
their case, allowed to be made for the use of families.
If, as is reported, the Chinese and Hindus are about to
send missionaries to Europe, they certainly cannot come
Bible in hand.
The time was when people were really in earnest
about their religion, but now all living faith in the
dogmas of the past seems to have died out. Where
the idea of duty first makes its appearance is in the
sacrifices to the dead. The most costly gifts of men,
and women, and horses, and dogs, and arms, and money,
were presented to the dead, and buried or burned with
them. The Chinese, however, are a practical people,
and Tylor tells us that in China “ the fanciful art of
replacing these costly offerings by worthless imitations
is at this day worked out into the quaintest devices—
the men and horses dispatched by fire for the service
of the dead are but paper figures and the manufacture
of mock-money, both in gold and silver, is the trade of
thousands of women and children in a Chinese city”
(“ Primitive Culture,” vol. i. p. 445). Such a change
has come over our religion,—which has now become a
�The Christian Religion.
57
mere conventional custom of what is called good society
—a great sham which thousands of men, women and
clergymen are engaged in manufacturing. There is no
doubt we are bordering on change.
Not that we expect this change to be rapid; all per
manent change is very slow. Besides the two extremes of
the positivists and scientific men at one end, and work
ing men at the other—who regard religion as allied
always with monarchy and aristocracy, and as offering
post-obit bills on heaven for what they think they are
unjustly deprived of here—the great body of society
looks upon Christianity as containing their highest
ideal of excellence. Its dogmas are a dead letter to all
but a very few, people have got used to them, or they
are interpreted so as not to shock their moral sense, or
they are regarded as awful mysteries to be cleared up in
another world, and without which their religion would
be mere morality and Dot half so acceptable. Add to
this that custom, conventional usage, fashion, and re
spectability, with the toll-gates of birth, marriage and
death, are all on the side of the national religion, and
we certainly need expect no sudden change. The
Christianity of the present day is not taken from the
Bible, but is Bible doctrine strained through the mind
of the nineteenth century, and many good people still pre
fer to call themselves Christians because there is nothing
really at present equally good and of equal authority
to take its place. There cannot be a doubt that church
membership, whether of churchmen or dissenters, helps
to keep people within the broader and most obvious
moral laws ; and it will be some time before the mass
of the people will set themselves to learn what is true
in order that they may do what is right, or that they
will do what is right because it is right, and not from
the hope of reward or from the fear of punishment. We
must wait; in the meantime let no one fear or hesitate
to proclaim what he believes to be the truth and of
highest excellence.
�
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
Christianity : viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bray, Charles [1811-1884]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Upper Norwood, London, S.E.
Collation: 57 p, ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil and ink. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
N106
RA1829
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christianity : viewed in the light of our present knowledge and moral sense), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Primitive
Religion